Choosing Collaborative Systems Ingram Parker

Loading...

Flash Player 9 (or above) is needed to view presentations.
We have detected that you do not have it on your computer. To install it, go here.

0 comments

Post a comment

    Post a comment
    Embed Video
    Edit your comment Cancel

    Notes on slide 1

    e.g. face to face communication is richest because of verbal and non-verbal cues plus immediacy of feedback

    1 Favorite & 1 Event

    Choosing Collaborative Systems Ingram Parker - Presentation Transcript

    1. Choosing Online Collaborative Systems Albert Ingram, Kent State University Robyn Parker, Kent State University
    2. Key Questions
      • What is collaboration?
      • Why is it important in online learning?
      • How can technology facilitate or hinder good online collaboration in courses?
    3. The Collaborative Technologies Learning Community at KSU
      • Exploring collaboration, functions, and technologies
    4. Functions, Uses, and Effects E Functions Uses E Effects
    5. 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
    6. Theoretical Base
      • Social Presence Theory
        • Originally -- psychological closeness of media
        • Now -- behaviors that reduce psychological distance
    7. Two Technologies for Research
      • WebCT
      • and
      • Groove
      Obviously there are many others available and they are all changing rapidly
    8. Functions
    9. Uses
      • What did people actually use?
        • Usage logs (survey presented immediately after classes)
          • 97 students
          • 349 responses; 265 for WebCT and Groove
    10. 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
    11. Other Findings
      • See what’s new:
        • 84% Groove
        • 89% WebCT
      • Connect with classmates
        • 40% Groove
        • 23% WebCT
    12. Other Findings
      • Get information
        • 79% Groove,
        • 91% WebCT
      • Work on tasks
        • 61% Groove
        • 47% WebCT
      • Organize group activity
        • 23% Groove,
        • 1% WebCT
    13. 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
    14. 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)
    15. Other possible effects
      • Interaction patterns
        • Less equal participation?
        • Less equal influence?
      • Learning outcomes
        • Quality of group performance
        • Application of learning to new situations
    16. 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
    17. 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
    18. 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.
    SlideShare Zeitgeist 2009

    + aingramaingram Nominate

    custom

    108 views, 1 favs, 0 embeds more stats

    Report of research on how people use collaborative more

    More info about this document

    © All Rights Reserved

    Go to text version

    • Total Views 108
      • 108 on SlideShare
      • 0 from embeds
    • Comments 0
    • Favorites 1
    • Downloads 6
    Most viewed embeds

    more

    All embeds

    less

    Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
    Flag as inappropriate

    Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate. If needed, use the feedback form to let us know more details.

    Cancel
    File a copyright complaint
    Having problems? Go to our helpdesk?

    Categories

    Groups / Events