Using Online Asynchronous Discussions for Peer-Feedback

916 views

Published on

Slides presented at the international conference Langages – Cultures – Sociétés : interrogations didactiques 20, 21 & 22 June 2012
Université Paris 3 – Sorbonne Nouvelle-­‐ DILTEC (EA 2288)

Some rights reserved - Benoît Guilbaud 2012

Published in: Education, Business, Technology
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
916
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
67
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Using Online Asynchronous Discussions for Peer-Feedback

  1. 1. Benoît Guilbaud, Manchester Metropolitan University (UK), 2012 UsingOnline Asynchronous Discussions for Peer-Feedback a Case-Study Benoît Guilbaud b.guilbaud@mmu.ac.uk @benguilbaud 1
  2. 2. Benoît Guilbaud, Manchester Metropolitan University (UK), 2012This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. To view acopy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons 444 CastroStreet, Suite 900, Mountain View, California, 94041, USA. Benoît Guilbaud, 2012 2
  3. 3. #diltec12 Benoît Guilbaud, Manchester Metropolitan University (UK), 20123
  4. 4. “More group work” “I don’t know thepeople on my course” “I feel isolated when I work” Picture by pennstatelive via flickr.com 4
  5. 5. Making things better Benoît Guilbaud, Manchester Metropolitan University (UK), 20125
  6. 6. Benoît Guilbaud, Manchester Metropolitan University (UK), 2012 Public learning DistanceFace-to-face Peer-feedback OpennessSharing Error correction Transparency Social 6
  7. 7. Benoît Guilbaud, Manchester Metropolitan University (UK), 2012 Context English ⇢ French 25 final year September 2011 -translation (L1 ⇢ L2) undergraduates (C1) March 2012 1 hour / week 18 texts Weekly contributions contact time 18 weeks to discussion forums 7
  8. 8. Benoît Guilbaud, Manchester Metropolitan University (UK), 2012 Weekly task Sharing part of the Commenting on onehomework on the forums another’s contributions 8
  9. 9. Benoît Guilbaud, Manchester Metropolitan University (UK), 2012 The studyCollect student feedback on use of OADs for peer-feedbackMeasure student engagement with OADsEvaluate impact on performance (contributions / marks)Gauge if interactions lead to deep, collaborative learning (Wheeler, 2012) 9
  10. 10. Benoît Guilbaud, Manchester Metropolitan University (UK), 2012 Methodology Using$social$media$in$an$undergraduate$translation$class$–$a$case$study Preliminary$questionnaire$X$Benoît$Guilbaud$X$2011Section(2(–(Social(networking(sites(7(for!all!purposes!other!than!translation 3 feedback questionnaires assessing2a.$Are$you$a$member$of$one$or$more$social$networking$sites$(Facebook,$Twitter,$Google+,$etc.)?$Which$one(s)?____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________2b.$If$you$answered$‘yes’$in$2a,$please$place$one$tick$per$line$in$the$following$table: When using social networking sites (not for translation purposes) Never Rarely Sometimes Often Very often Always Not applicable / don’t know expectations & satisfaction I log in to my existing member account. I read other members’ contributions and pre / mid / post-study existing discussions. I post contributions in response to other members’ activity. I engage in longer discussions (more than 2 posts) with other members. quantitative + open questions When another member has a question, I try and answer it. Page 4 of 5 10
  11. 11. Benoît Guilbaud, Manchester Metropolitan University (UK), 2012Methodology Collection and analysis of contributions to OADs using Murphy’s collaboration model (2004) 11
  12. 12. Platform Benoît Guilbaud, Manchester Metropolitan University (UK), 201212
  13. 13. CMS The problem with Moodle Benoît Guilbaud, Manchester Metropolitan University (UK), 201213
  14. 14. Benoît Guilbaud, Manchester Metropolitan University (UK), 2012CMS No possible communication between units, programmes, cohorts Discussion forum Discussion forum Unit A Unit B 14
  15. 15. CMS year after year not carried over User-generated content Benoît Guilbaud, Manchester Metropolitan University (UK), 201215
  16. 16. www.jonmott.com/blog/ @jonmott 16
  17. 17. learner Personal Learning Network (PLN) Benoît Guilbaud, Manchester Metropolitan University (UK), 201217
  18. 18. learner Personal Learning Network (PLN) Benoît Guilbaud, Manchester Metropolitan University (UK), 201218
  19. 19. Social media Benoît Guilbaud, Manchester Metropolitan University (UK), 201219
  20. 20. Benoît Guilbaud, Manchester Metropolitan University (UK), 2012 Why social media?Encourage networked, open learning (Couros, 2011)Introduce students to the concept of PLNDevelop learners’ digital literacies (Belshaw, 2011) 20
  21. 21. Platform Benoît Guilbaud, Manchester Metropolitan University (UK), 201221
  22. 22. P RI VA TE Benoît Guilbaud, Manchester Metropolitan University (UK), 201222
  23. 23. Benoît Guilbaud, Manchester Metropolitan University (UK), 2012 Dedicated space Content preserved year after year Web 2.0 AffordableNon-instrusive Student-curated Customisable Open or closed 23
  24. 24. Benoît Guilbaud, Manchester Metropolitan University (UK), 201224
  25. 25. Benoît Guilbaud, Manchester Metropolitan University (UK), 201225
  26. 26. Findings Benoît Guilbaud, Manchester Metropolitan University (UK), 201226
  27. 27. Feedback Benoît Guilbaud, Manchester Metropolitan University (UK), 201227
  28. 28. 84% Feedback September 2011: “The platform could be useful” Benoît Guilbaud, Manchester Metropolitan University (UK), 201228
  29. 29. March 2012: “The platform was useful” 92% Feedback Benoît Guilbaud, Manchester Metropolitan University (UK), 201229
  30. 30. Benoît Guilbaud, Manchester Metropolitan University (UK), 2012 Feedback“I think it works really well and is easy to access.” “Working really well - maybe we could have a similar thing on other modules.”“It would be useful to have it for other courses.” “Very useful.” 30
  31. 31. Benoît Guilbaud, Manchester Metropolitan University (UK), 2012 Feedback “Not enough students use it for it to be wholly effective. I think most students just rely on the contributions of others.”“It is just down to ourselves to make more ofan effort this term, which I will attempt to do.” “Very useful. No improvements needed.” 31
  32. 32. Benoît Guilbaud, Manchester Metropolitan University (UK), 2012 Feedback from students who did not find the platform useful“Make it more easily accessible - link on Moodle?” “I have tried to log in a few times but it won’t work so I gave up out of frustration!” “No one really uses it so it’s not very useful. Maybe if you integrate it into the lesson.” 32
  33. 33. Engagement Benoît Guilbaud, Manchester Metropolitan University (UK), 201233
  34. 34. Number of contributions to forums 0 13 25 38 50 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Week number 11 12 13 14 Contributions per week 15 16 17 Ideal 18 Actual Benoît Guilbaud, Manchester Metropolitan University (UK), 201234
  35. 35. Impact of (non)assessment Benoît Guilbaud, Manchester Metropolitan University (UK), 201235
  36. 36. Benoît Guilbaud, Manchester Metropolitan University (UK), 2012 Impact of assessment on number of contributions Guilbaud, 2012 McNeilly & Zhok, 2012 Level: BA Level: MA Blended learning Distance learning Not assessed Assessed (10% of unit)Feedback mostly positive (92%) Feedback “overwhelmingly positive” Average no. of contributions Average no. of contributionsper student per week = 0,27 per student per week ≃1 36
  37. 37. Impact on student marks Benoît Guilbaud, Manchester Metropolitan University (UK), 201237
  38. 38. Benoît Guilbaud, Manchester Metropolitan University (UK), 2012 Number of contributions to OADs vs average mark 80 70Average mark (in %) 60 50 40 30 0 15 30 45 60 Total number of contributions to forums 38
  39. 39. Analysis of contributions Benoît Guilbaud, Manchester Metropolitan University (UK), 201239
  40. 40. Murphy’s collaboration model(2004) 40
  41. 41. Benoît Guilbaud, Manchester Metropolitan University (UK), 2012 Distribution of contributions per category (% of total) A Producing shared artefacts 0% B Building shared goals and purposes 0%Collaboration C Co-constructing shared perspectives and meanings 33% P Accommodating or reflecting the perspectives of others 2% I Articulating individual perspectives 23% S Social presence 41% 41
  42. 42. Benoît Guilbaud, Manchester Metropolitan University (UK), 2012 Articulating individual perspectives (I)A Summarising or reporting on content without reference toB 5% the perspectives of others (S)CP Statement of personal opinion or beliefs making no referenceI 18% to perspectives of others (O)S 42
  43. 43. Benoît Guilbaud, Manchester Metropolitan University (UK), 2012Accommodating or reflecting the perspectives of others (P)A Coordinating perspectives (C) 1%B Introducing new perspectives (N) 0%CP Indirectly disagreeing with challenging statements made by 1% another participant (I)I Directly disagreeing with challenging statements made by 1%S another participant (D) 43
  44. 44. Benoît Guilbaud, Manchester Metropolitan University (UK), 2012 Co-constructing shared perspectives and meanings (C)A Sharing advice (S) 0%B Responding to questions (R) 11%C Provoking thought and discussion (P) 0%P Soliciting feedback (F) 9% Posing rhetorical questions (Q) 0%I Asking for clarification/ elaboration (A) 10%S Sharing information and resources (I) 4% 44
  45. 45. Conclusions Benoît Guilbaud, Manchester Metropolitan University (UK), 201245
  46. 46. Benoît Guilbaud, Manchester Metropolitan University (UK), 2012 SharingFoster a culture of participation within the group Promote sharing resources & crediting sources Picture by ryancr via flickr.com 46
  47. 47. Motivation State goals to be attained as a group rather than individuallyEncourage challenging perspectives & reward initiative © Rovio 2012 47
  48. 48. Limitations Impact of non-assessment on student engagement Correlation between contribution and performance difficult to establish Students’ technical ability not to be overestimated Picture by marc falardeau via flickr.com 48
  49. 49. Benoît Guilbaud, Manchester Metropolitan University (UK), 2012and beyond... Extend use of OADs to promote open learning Train critically-competent and digitally-literate learners Promote participation 49
  50. 50. Benoît Guilbaud, Manchester Metropolitan University (UK), 2012Belshaw, D., 2011. What is digital literacy? A Pragmatic investigation. Doctoral thesis, Durham University. Available at http://neverendingthesis.com and http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/cgi/latest [accessed 28th March 2012].Couros, A., 2011. Why networked learning matters. Education in a Changing Environment (ECE) 6th InternationalConference, Creativity and Engagement in Higher Education, 6-8 July 2011, University of Salford, Greater Manchester, UK.McNeilly, E. & Zhok, A., 2012. The Online Discussion Board for Translation - An Undergraduate MFL Perspective for theStudy of Italian and Russian. In: LLAS: 7th e-learning symposium. University of Southampton, 26-27 January 2012.Mott, John., 2011. The End In Mind. www.jonmott.com [blog].Murphy, E., 2004. Recognising and promoting collaboration in an online asynchronous discussion. In: British Journal ofEducational Technology, 35(4) pp.421–431.O’Reilly, T., 2005. Web 2.0. Exteme Interfaces, TTI Vanguard. Geneva, Switzerland 16 September 2005.Vygotsky, L.S., 1978. Mind in society: The development of higher mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Wheeler, S., Yeomans, P. and Wheeler, D., 2008. The Good, the Bad and the Wiki: Evaluating Student Generated Content asa Collaborative Learning Tool. In: British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(6), pp.987-995.Wheeler, S., 2012. Digital Pedagogy: Content is a Tyrant, Context is King. In: NAACE 2012 Annual Conference, 9 March2012, Leicester, United Kingdom. 50

×