Choosing Collaborative Systems Ingram Parker
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Choosing Collaborative Systems Ingram Parker

on

  • 606 views

Report of research on how people use collaborative systems for education.

Report of research on how people use collaborative systems for education.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
606
Views on SlideShare
604
Embed Views
2

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
8
Comments
0

1 Embed 2

http://www.slideshare.net 2

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • e.g. face to face communication is richest because of verbal and non-verbal cues plus immediacy of feedback

Choosing Collaborative Systems Ingram Parker Choosing Collaborative Systems Ingram Parker Presentation Transcript

  • Choosing Online Collaborative Systems Albert Ingram, Kent State University Robyn Parker, Kent State University
  • Key Questions
    • What is collaboration?
    • Why is it important in online learning?
    • How can technology facilitate or hinder good online collaboration in courses?
  • The Collaborative Technologies Learning Community at KSU
    • Exploring collaboration, functions, and technologies
  • Functions, Uses, and Effects E Functions Uses E Effects
  • Theoretical Base
    • Media Richness Theory
      • Richness = information carrying capacity of a medium
      • Higher uncertainty in an interaction requires greater media richness
        • e.g. problem solving tasks
  • Theoretical Base
    • Social Presence Theory
      • Originally -- psychological closeness of media
      • Now -- behaviors that reduce psychological distance
  • Two Technologies for Research
    • WebCT
    • and
    • Groove
    Obviously there are many others available and they are all changing rapidly
  • Functions
  • Uses
    • What did people actually use?
      • Usage logs (survey presented immediately after classes)
        • 97 students
        • 349 responses; 265 for WebCT and Groove
  • Findings
    • Read Discussion Board
      • Over 75% of Groove users entered to read discussion board
      • Less than 47% of WebCT users
    • Post on Discussion Board
      • 51% of Groove users went there to post to discussion boards
      • 26% of WebCT users
    • Share Documents
      • 35% Groove
      • 8% WebCT
    • Differences could be due either to technology or to how it was used in individual classes
  • Other Findings
    • See what’s new:
      • 84% Groove
      • 89% WebCT
    • Connect with classmates
      • 40% Groove
      • 23% WebCT
  • Other Findings
    • Get information
      • 79% Groove,
      • 91% WebCT
    • Work on tasks
      • 61% Groove
      • 47% WebCT
    • Organize group activity
      • 23% Groove,
      • 1% WebCT
  • Chatting
    • Enter to chat with professors:
      • 8% Groove
      • 8% WebCT
    • Enter to chat with other students:
      • 18% Groove
      • 13% WebCT
    • Actual chatting
      • 46% Groove
      • 30% WebCT
  • Effects
    • Similar levels of satisfaction with the tool
    • Groove
      • Satisfied with: reliability and ease of use, presence awareness (who is there and what are they doing?), control over space
      • Problems: bandwidth, access, frequently no one else there
    • WebCT
      • Easy, reliable, good place to get information
      • Problems: less immediate interaction (but expectations lower, too)
  • Other possible effects
    • Interaction patterns
      • Less equal participation?
      • Less equal influence?
    • Learning outcomes
      • Quality of group performance
      • Application of learning to new situations
  • What’s next?
    • What effects will “Web 2.0” have on collaboration?
    • Wikis, blogs, social networking sites, new versions of CMSs
    • VR:
      • Second life
      • Croquet
  • Choosing Collaborative Systems
    • During Instructional design
    • Based on goals and objectives, audience, etc.
    • Matching features to needs. Tracking use, measuring effects
    • Goal, provide natural space where groups can interact and work with few barriers and many supports
  • A Few References
    • Daft, R. L. & Lengel, R. H. (1984). Information richness: A new approach to managerial behavior and organization design. Organizational Behavior, 6, 191-233.
    • Hathorn, L. G. and Ingram, A. L. (2002). Cooperation and collaboration using computer-mediated communication. Journal of Educational Computing Research. 26(3), 325-247.
    • Ingram, A. L. and Hathorn, L. G. (2005). Analysis of collaboration in online communications. In C. Howard, J. Boettcher, L. Justice, and K. D. Schenk (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Online Learning and Technology. Hershey, PA: Idea Group, Inc.
    • Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R., & Smith, K. (1998). Cooperative learning returns to college. Change, 30(4), 26-35.
    • Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Stanne, M. B. (2000). Cooperative learning methods: A meta analysis. Retrieved 1/11/07 from http://www.co-operation.org/pages/cl-methods.html.
    • Parker, R. E. Bianchi, A. & Cheah, T. Y. (2008). Exploring student and faculty perceptions of technology in education. Education, Technology & Society, 11(2).
    • Parker, R. E., Ingram, A. & Cheah, T. (2005, March). Collaborative technology use in higher education settings. Paper presented at the international meeting of Computer Supported Interaction (CSI). Oxford, OH.
    • Rourke, L., Anderson, T. Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing social presence in asynchronous text-based computer conferencing. Journal of Distance Education, 14(2). Retrieved 2/29//08 from http://cade.athabascau.ca/vol14.2/ rourke_et_al.html.
    • Shaw, B. Scheufele, D. A., & Catalana, S. (2007). The role of presence awareness in organizational communication: An exploratory field experiment. Behavior & Technology, 26(5), 377-384.
    • Swan, K. (2003). Learning effectiveness: What the research is telling us. In J. Bourne & J. C. Moore (Eds.), Elements of Quality Online Education, Practice and Direction, vol. 4. (pp. 13-45). Needham, MA: Sloan Center for Online Education.