Chapter 12Chapter 12

Learning Together VirtuallyLearning Together Virtually

Chapter 12Chapter 12

Keep in mind that “there is not a great Keep in mind that “there is not a great deal written about computer-supported deal written about computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL), we still do collaborative learning (CSCL), we still do not have sufficient evidence to offer not have sufficient evidence to offer guidelines for it’s best use” (page 257) guidelines for it’s best use” (page 257)

There are many different factors such as There are many different factors such as individual vs. group, team composition, individual vs. group, team composition, technology features, task assignments, technology features, task assignments, participant roles, time to collaborate and participant roles, time to collaborate and teamwork skills that effect CSCLteamwork skills that effect CSCL

What is Computer-SupportedWhat is Computer-SupportedCollaborative Learning (CSCL)?Collaborative Learning (CSCL)?

Definition: Any instructional program Definition: Any instructional program in which 2-5 individuals work in which 2-5 individuals work together on an instructional activity together on an instructional activity or assignment using digital or assignment using digital technology to communicatetechnology to communicate

Examples of CSCLExamples of CSCL Blogs- Websites where Blogs- Websites where

people can write people can write commentaries on an commentaries on an ongoing basisongoing basis

Breakout rooms- A Breakout rooms- A conferencing facility that conferencing facility that supports audio, supports audio, whiteboard, polling, etcwhiteboard, polling, etc

Chats- 2 or more people Chats- 2 or more people communicating by text at communicating by text at the same timethe same time

Email-Email- 2 or more people 2 or more people communicating at different communicating at different timestimes

Message Boards-a number Message Boards-a number of people communicating of people communicating at different times by at different times by adding comments that adding comments that remain on the boardremain on the board

Online Conferencing- A Online Conferencing- A number of people online at number of people online at once with access to audio, once with access to audio, whiteboard, polling, media whiteboard, polling, media displays and chatdisplays and chat

Wikis- A website that Wikis- A website that allows visitors to edit allows visitors to edit content (Can be controlled content (Can be controlled for access to a small for access to a small group)group)

Individual vs. Group OutcomesIndividual vs. Group Outcomes

The outcomes that are measured are The outcomes that are measured are different between the two different between the two • Individual-Satisfaction rating, Individual-Satisfaction rating,

technology usage logs, participants technology usage logs, participants statements and assessment (tests, statements and assessment (tests, essay or product)essay or product)

• Group- group perceptions of learning, Group- group perceptions of learning, products or decisions made by products or decisions made by collaboration and team dialog collaboration and team dialog

Individual vs. Group OutcomesIndividual vs. Group Outcomes

Keep in mind that a good team Keep in mind that a good team outcome doesn’t mean everyone on outcome doesn’t mean everyone on the team learned at equal levelsthe team learned at equal levels

Lou, Abrami and d’Apollonia (2001) Lou, Abrami and d’Apollonia (2001) found that group performance is not found that group performance is not necessarily predictive of individual necessarily predictive of individual performance (page 263)performance (page 263)

Design goals based on group or Design goals based on group or individual performanceindividual performance

Individual vs. Group OutcomesIndividual vs. Group Outcomes

Factors in CSCL OutcomesFactors in CSCL Outcomes Technology FeaturesTechnology Features Team SizesTeam Sizes Performance Evaluation PlansPerformance Evaluation Plans Team AssignmentsTeam Assignments

Optimizing Individual OutcomesOptimizing Individual Outcomes

Lou, Abrami & d’Apollonia (2001) Lou, Abrami & d’Apollonia (2001) found that under optimal conditions found that under optimal conditions that individual learning is better in that individual learning is better in collaborative setting than individual collaborative setting than individual setting by a factor of .66setting by a factor of .66

They also found that there are 4 keys They also found that there are 4 keys to this effect:to this effect:

Optimizing Individual OutcomesOptimizing Individual Outcomes

Provide team skills for students who lack Provide team skills for students who lack experience in teamworkexperience in teamwork

Use specific collaborative learning Use specific collaborative learning structures that insure interdependence structures that insure interdependence among team membersamong team members

Create teams in heterogeneous pairs to Create teams in heterogeneous pairs to promote involvementpromote involvement

Use collaborative tams when tasks are Use collaborative tams when tasks are relatively near transferrelatively near transfer

Other FactorsOther Factors

Lou, Abrami & d’Apollonia (2001) Lou, Abrami & d’Apollonia (2001) found that group products are better found that group products are better than individual products essentially than individual products essentially saying that the sum is greater that saying that the sum is greater that the whole of the parts. the whole of the parts.

Jonassen, Lee, Yang & Laffey (2005) Jonassen, Lee, Yang & Laffey (2005) recommend that CSCL is best suited recommend that CSCL is best suited for ill-defined tasks where there is for ill-defined tasks where there is more than one write answer. more than one write answer.

Virtual vs. Face-to-Face Group Virtual vs. Face-to-Face Group DecisionsDecisions

Campbell & Stasser (2006) compared Campbell & Stasser (2006) compared the accuracy of decisions from a 3-the accuracy of decisions from a 3-person groups in a face to face person groups in a face to face setting with 3 person groups setting with 3 person groups collaborating synchronous chat.collaborating synchronous chat.

They found that the chat group was They found that the chat group was correct 63% of the time compared to correct 63% of the time compared to less than 20% in face to face.less than 20% in face to face.

Virtual vs. Face-to-Face Group Virtual vs. Face-to-Face Group DecisionsDecisions

They found there were 2 major They found there were 2 major factors in the resultsfactors in the results

The “chat group” required more time The “chat group” required more time which allowed for greater accuracywhich allowed for greater accuracy

The “chat group” could reference The “chat group” could reference back to comments made in the chat back to comments made in the chat room for reviewroom for review

Group Roles and AssignmentsGroup Roles and Assignments

DeWeaver, Van Winckle and Valcke (2006) and DeWeaver, Van Winckle and Valcke (2006) and Nussbaum (2005) compared roles and outcomes Nussbaum (2005) compared roles and outcomes in a collaborative group and found that:in a collaborative group and found that:

Outcomes were influenced by the instructions Outcomes were influenced by the instructions given to the team and the individual roles given to the team and the individual roles assignedassigned

Both studies measured the quality of the Both studies measured the quality of the discussions in the group so learning was not the discussions in the group so learning was not the outcome measuredoutcome measured

Team-Building Skills Team-Building Skills And CSCL OutcomesAnd CSCL Outcomes

In the Lou, Abrami & d’Apollonia In the Lou, Abrami & d’Apollonia (2001) research, they found that (2001) research, they found that better individual achievement better individual achievement outcome are associated with better outcome are associated with better teamwork skills.teamwork skills.

This is also supported by Pritchard, This is also supported by Pritchard, Bizo & Stratford (2006) research. Bizo & Stratford (2006) research.

Team-Building Skills Team-Building Skills And CSCL OutcomesAnd CSCL Outcomes

They found that team-skills training They found that team-skills training benefits lasted as long as the team benefits lasted as long as the team was together and had to be re-built was together and had to be re-built when individuals were assigned new when individuals were assigned new teamsteams

They also found that skills developed They also found that skills developed on a team don’t transfer well to other on a team don’t transfer well to other indicating that the chemistry on a indicating that the chemistry on a team is importantteam is important

Collaborative Structures & Collaborative Structures & CSCL OutcomesCSCL Outcomes

Research from Slavin (1983); Slavin, Hurley and Research from Slavin (1983); Slavin, Hurley and Chamberlain (2003) and Lou, Abrami and Chamberlain (2003) and Lou, Abrami and d’Apollonia (2001) all support the idea that under d’Apollonia (2001) all support the idea that under the right conditions, students can learn more the right conditions, students can learn more together than individually and need 2 critical together than individually and need 2 critical elementselements

Structured Collaborative AssignmentStructured Collaborative Assignment

Accountability for learning of each member of the Accountability for learning of each member of the groupgroup

Problem Based Learning (PBL)Problem Based Learning (PBL)

Starting to become used in Starting to become used in Universities and is a specialized form Universities and is a specialized form of collaborative learningof collaborative learning

A PBL team follows a structured A PBL team follows a structured process where the team reviews a process where the team reviews a case, each member works on it and case, each member works on it and then the team reconvenes to apply then the team reconvenes to apply the lessons of the casethe lessons of the case

Problem Based Learning:Problem Based Learning:The StructureThe Structure

Clarify the unknown termsClarify the unknown terms Define the Problem in the caseDefine the Problem in the case Brainstorm to analyze the problem & identify Brainstorm to analyze the problem & identify

possible explanationspossible explanations Critique the different explanations and work to Critique the different explanations and work to

draft description of problemdraft description of problem Define the learning issuesDefine the learning issues Engage in self directed study to fill in gaps Engage in self directed study to fill in gaps

specified by the learning issuesspecified by the learning issues Meet with the team to share and develop final Meet with the team to share and develop final

problem solutionproblem solution

Chapter 12 reviewChapter 12 review

Jonassen, Lee, Yang & Laffey (2005) Jonassen, Lee, Yang & Laffey (2005) concluded, “More is unknown about concluded, “More is unknown about the practice than is known. CSCL will the practice than is known. CSCL will constitute one of the pivotal research constitute one of the pivotal research issues of the next decade (page issues of the next decade (page 283)”283)”

Chapter 12 reviewChapter 12 review

There are enablers that may promote better There are enablers that may promote better outcomes:outcomes:• Group process structures that foster accountability and Group process structures that foster accountability and

participation of each member of a teamparticipation of each member of a team• Assignment of far transfer problems to small Assignment of far transfer problems to small

heterogeneous groups of 3-5 memberheterogeneous groups of 3-5 member• Use of asynchronous facilities for outcomes that benefit Use of asynchronous facilities for outcomes that benefit

from reflection and independent researchfrom reflection and independent research• Team-skill training who need teamwork experienceTeam-skill training who need teamwork experience• Group assignments and roles that promote deeper Group assignments and roles that promote deeper

processingprocessing• Clear guidance and objectives for team processingClear guidance and objectives for team processing

Chapter 13Chapter 13

Who’s in ControlWho’s in Control

What is Learner ControlWhat is Learner Control

Learner Control is a condition in Learner Control is a condition in which the learner can select or which the learner can select or manage elements of the lesson, such manage elements of the lesson, such as the pacing, topics, sequencing as the pacing, topics, sequencing and instructional methods. and instructional methods. Asynchronous e-learning can provide Asynchronous e-learning can provide various types learner control.various types learner control.

Remember (Chap 9) to always allow Remember (Chap 9) to always allow your learner control in pacing!!your learner control in pacing!!

Learner Control vs. Program Learner Control vs. Program ControlControl

Unlike the classroom & synchronous Unlike the classroom & synchronous learning- asynchronous learning can be learning- asynchronous learning can be designed to allow more learner control of:designed to allow more learner control of:• TopicsTopics• PacePace• Bypass lesson elementsBypass lesson elements• Practice sessionsPractice sessions

Three Types of Learner ControlThree Types of Learner Control

Content Sequencing-Content Sequencing- Learner can control Learner can control the order of lessons, topics and screens the order of lessons, topics and screens within a lessonwithin a lesson

PacingPacing- Learner can control the amount of - Learner can control the amount of time spent on each lesson pagetime spent on each lesson page

Access to Learning Support-Access to Learning Support- Learner can Learner can control instructionalcontrol instructional components of components of lessons such as examples or practice lessons such as examples or practice exercisesexercises

Common Navigational TechniquesCommon Navigational Techniques

Course & Lesson Menus-Course & Lesson Menus-allows learner to select allows learner to select specific lessons and topics specific lessons and topics within a lesson or coursewithin a lesson or course

Links- Allows learner to Links- Allows learner to access content from other access content from other sites on the internet or sites on the internet or other sections of the other sections of the coursecourse

Pop-ups or Mouse-overs – Pop-ups or Mouse-overs – Provide additional Provide additional information without having information without having to leave screento leave screen

Button to Activate Forward, Button to Activate Forward, Backward and Quit- Permit Backward and Quit- Permit control of pacing within a control of pacing within a lesson and are standard lesson and are standard features in e-learningfeatures in e-learning

Guided Tour- Overviews of Guided Tour- Overviews of course resources course resources accessible from the main accessible from the main menu screenmenu screen

Do Learners Make GoodDo Learners Make GoodInstructional DecisionsInstructional Decisions

How accurately a learner determines his existing How accurately a learner determines his existing knowledge influences the kinds of decisions they knowledge influences the kinds of decisions they make in a learner controlled environment make in a learner controlled environment

How accurately a learner determines his existing How accurately a learner determines his existing knowledge is called Calibration Accuracy knowledge is called Calibration Accuracy

Glenberg et al. (1987) found that calibration Glenberg et al. (1987) found that calibration correlation is close to zero, concluding “contrary correlation is close to zero, concluding “contrary to intuition, poor calibration of comprehension is to intuition, poor calibration of comprehension is the rule rather than the exception” (page 297)the rule rather than the exception” (page 297)

Practice & Examples significantly improves Practice & Examples significantly improves calibrationcalibration

Four Principles for Learner ControlFour Principles for Learner Control

1.1. Use learner control for learners with high prior Use learner control for learners with high prior knowledge and good metacognitive skills as knowledge and good metacognitive skills as well as in advanced lessons or courseswell as in advanced lessons or courses

2.2. When learner control is used, design the default When learner control is used, design the default navigation options to lead to important course navigation options to lead to important course elementselements

3.3. Design some form of adaptive control that Design some form of adaptive control that tailors learning to individual needstailors learning to individual needs

4.4. Apply the Segmentation Principle (chap 9) by Apply the Segmentation Principle (chap 9) by allowing control of pacingallowing control of pacing

Give Experienced Learners ControlGive Experienced Learners Control

Who benefits most from Lerner Control?Who benefits most from Lerner Control?• Learners with prior knowledge of the Learners with prior knowledge of the

content and skills involved in the lessoncontent and skills involved in the lesson• The training is a more advanced lesson The training is a more advanced lesson

in a coursein a course• Learners that have good metacognitive Learners that have good metacognitive

skillsskills• The course is low in complexityThe course is low in complexity

Evidence to SupportEvidence to Support

Young (1996) compared outcomes of Young (1996) compared outcomes of learners with high and low learners with high and low metacognitive skills and found that metacognitive skills and found that learners with low metacognitive skills learners with low metacognitive skills scored much lower and too much scored much lower and too much control can be detrimental to to control can be detrimental to to learninglearning

Make Important Instructional Make Important Instructional Events the DefaultEvents the Default

IF you opt for more learner control it is important IF you opt for more learner control it is important to set important instructional elements as the to set important instructional elements as the default.default.

This requires the learner to make choices to This requires the learner to make choices to bypass practicesbypass practices

Schnackenberg & Sullivan (2000) shows that Schnackenberg & Sullivan (2000) shows that when key elements are included in the default, when key elements are included in the default, learners achieve higher scores than those who learners achieve higher scores than those who perform the practice less perform the practice less

Consider Adaptive ControlConsider Adaptive Control

Aka: Personalized InstructionAka: Personalized Instruction There are four different types of There are four different types of

Adaptive ControlAdaptive Control• Static BranchingStatic Branching• Dynamic BranchingDynamic Branching• AdvisementAdvisement• Shared ControlShared Control

Static BranchingStatic Branching

Is an early type of adaptive control Is an early type of adaptive control still used todaystill used today

Based on a pre-assessment or pre-Based on a pre-assessment or pre-testtest

Branches learner to different lessons Branches learner to different lessons based on results of pre-assessmentbased on results of pre-assessment

Dynamic BranchingDynamic Branching

Similar to Static ControlSimilar to Static Control Does a practice first then a pretest Does a practice first then a pretest Branches learner to a new practice based on Branches learner to a new practice based on

result of pretestresult of pretest Harder practice if first test result is positiveHarder practice if first test result is positive Easier practice if first test result is negativeEasier practice if first test result is negative Salden, Paas, Broers and Van Merrienboer (2004) Salden, Paas, Broers and Van Merrienboer (2004)

confirm the advantages of using Dynamic confirm the advantages of using Dynamic Branching in e-learningBranching in e-learning

Adaptive AdvisementAdaptive Advisement

Still provides the learner with controlStill provides the learner with control Gives generic advise to the learner based on Gives generic advise to the learner based on

results of a practiceresults of a practice Ex. “We recommend you take these topics in the Ex. “We recommend you take these topics in the

order listed”order listed” Bell & Kozlowski (2002) showed the advantages Bell & Kozlowski (2002) showed the advantages

of this technique of this technique • They show that when a learner is guided this way they They show that when a learner is guided this way they

spend 25% more time studying and practices twice as spend 25% more time studying and practices twice as much compared to learner controlled programmuch compared to learner controlled program

Give Pacing ControlGive Pacing Control

As in Chapter 9-give lessons in As in Chapter 9-give lessons in segments that allow a learner to go segments that allow a learner to go at their own pace (Mayer & Chandler at their own pace (Mayer & Chandler 2001)2001)

Manage the cognitive load for Manage the cognitive load for learners so that they are not over-learners so that they are not over-loadedloaded

What We Don’t KnowWhat We Don’t Know

Even with the evidence we have, Even with the evidence we have, there is still much to learn about the there is still much to learn about the relationship between:relationship between:• Prior KnowledgePrior Knowledge• Metacognitive skillsMetacognitive skills• Navigational controlNavigational control