Structured Student Interactions
•
2 likes•2,394 views
This mixed methods study explored the characteristics of a cooperative learning activity, the “Study Buddy”, implemented in a graduate-level online course in instructional design. The study explored whether students (n=25) who participated in the Study Buddy activity took deeper approaches to their learning than those who did not participate (n=6), what value students received from participating in the activity, and whether the structure of the activity was appropriate to support deeper approaches to learning. Quantitative and qualitative results were merged to form conclusions that suggest that participants could be encouraged to take deeper approaches by faculty providing sample questions for students to use to evaluate their partners’ work. Results suggest that the study buddy activity can be used to encourage social connections and to provide participants with opportunities to consider alternate opinions. Findings related to the ideal structure of the activity were inconclusive.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (10)
Similar to Structured Student Interactions
Similar to Structured Student Interactions (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Structured Student Interactions
- 1. STRUCTURED STUDENT INTERACTIONS IN ONLINE DISTANCE LEARNING: EXPLORINGTHE STUDY BUDDY ACTIVITY Colin M. Madland ! 1
- 3. STRUCTURED STUDENT INTERACTIONS ! Content Student/ Self Teacher/ Self Student/ Student Structured Learning Activity StudyBuddyActivity StructuredLearningActivity 3
- 4. RESEARCH QUESTIONS 1. Do online graduate students who participate in a structured study buddy activity tend to use deep approaches to their learning? 2. As a cooperative learning activity, does the study buddy activity provide sufficient scaffolding to promote deep approaches to learning? 3. In what ways do students find value in the study buddy activity? 4
- 6. COOPERATIVE LEARNING Slavin, R. E. (2011). Instruction based on cooperative learning. In R. E. Mayer & P.A.Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning and instruction (pp. 344–360). NewYork: Routledge. Group Goals based on learning of all group members Social cohesion Enhanced learning Motivation to learn! ! ! Motivation to encourage groupmates to learn! ! ! Motivation to help groupmates learn Elaborated explanations (peer tutoring)! ! Peer modeling! ! Cognitive elaboration! ! Peer practice! ! Peer assessment and correction 6
- 7. APPROACHESTO LEARNING Deep Approach Surface Approach 7
- 8. APPROACHESTO LEARNING Deep Approach Deep approaches to learning are characterized by the appropriate use of high- level cognitive skills for tasks which require them. Surface Approach 7
- 9. APPROACHESTO LEARNING Deep Approach Deep approaches to learning are characterized by the appropriate use of high- level cognitive skills for tasks which require them. Surface Approach A surface approach is characterized by students relying on low- level cognitive skills when high-level cognitive skills are required. 7
- 11. RESEARCH DESIGN • Exploratory • Mixed Methods • Revised 2-Factor Study Process Questionnaire • Qualitative items included throughout 9
- 12. RESEARCH DESIGN Survey students in MDDE 604 from Fall 2012 and Winter 2013 Quantitative Qualitative Explanations of quantitative survey responses Data Collection 10
- 13. RESEARCH DESIGN Independent samples t-test! Descriptive statistics Phase 1 Phase 2 Code responses! Eliminate redundancies! Identify themes Data Analysis 11
- 15. APPROACHTO LEARNING Participants Non-Participants p Deep Approach 37.8 36.3 0.492 Surface Approach 18.6 20 0.569 13
- 16. STRUCTURE Mean % who Agree or Strongly Agree The instructor’s description of bunnies and bears was useful in choosing a study buddy. 2.72 12* I would participate in the study buddy again. 4.28 88 The instructions for the study buddy were easy to follow. 3.8 76 *28% disagree or strongly disagree.14
- 17. STRUCTURE n % ofTotal I had a good study buddy experience. 21 84 The study buddy should be a formal part of the course. 19 76 15
- 18. VALUE Mean Social cohesion 4.12 Developmentally appropriate challenge 3.7 Motivation 3.62 Cognitive restructuring 2.92 16
- 20. APPROACHTO LEARNING I also buy books or download research articles that enrich or contradict the course readings. [I] look up alternate sources to the material in books/articles from previous courses and in the AU library. I approached each topic with these questions: ‘What here applies to me and to my work?’ ‘How might this help me with my work?’ 18
- 21. VALUE At the same time I found that at the beginning just by trying to help improve assignments of my study buddy and talking about them helped me to improve my thinking and logic. I got to see another’s work that caused me to consider an alternative point view and to contribute my perspective of their work. My study buddy became my audience as I was writing—I was writing to explain the material to her. In turn, she was able to point out gaps in my reasoning, to question what I meant and to help me sharpen my ideas and arguments. I trust that I was able to do the same for her. 19
- 22. VALUE ‘I have gained way more from this activity than I expected. I have also had more fun than expected since I've got a partner who shares my sense of humour. This kind of activity is unique in just how intimately people work together and get to see others' flaws and strengths. This experience has been extremely enriching.’ I think that the study buddy option was of value because I like and respect the opinions of my Buddy. If I was working with someone who I did not feel that way about - it would not be a valuable exercise. I knew there was someone out there who depended on us to have work completed on time. My study buddy helped me to work a little harder! :) 20
- 23. STRUCTURE Formalizing it in the course gives an impetus to try it out. Some may choose to continue it themselves in the future, I certainly would like to. Peer review is important, especially for instructional design. No one person has all the experience so multiple points of view are valuable. People will organize based on their own needs. It doesn't always work out so it should be left to us without a grade It doesn't always work out so... it should have more structure to start us off. 21
- 24. STRUCTURE We worked together to negotiate timelines that worked for each of us, and we kept to those timelines to within a few hours. We developed a timeline and agreed to an exchange date for our assignments. We agreed to allow each other to put a hand up and say that we needed more time, without question. It was a very collaborative relationship. 22
- 25. DIFFICULTIES AND NON-PARTICIPANTS • Incongruent motivations • Workload • Inadequate or superficial feedback • Reticence to participate based on past negative experiences 23
- 27. APPROACHTO LEARNING Quantitative Results Qualitative Results Results did not indicate deep approaches. Deep approach more apparent. No significant difference between groups. Responses to research question #3 indicate deeper approaches. 25
- 28. VALUE Quantitative Results Qualitative Results Social cohesion = 4.12 All quantitative results were supported except for cognitive restructuring which showed strong evidence that deep strategies were used but not detected by the instrument. Developmentally appropriate challenge = 3.7 Motivation = 3.62 Cognitive restructuring = 2.92 26
- 29. STRUCTURE Quantitative Results Qualitative Results Utility of bunny/bear characterization was inconclusive. Majority had a positive experience and would participate again. Importance of negotiation. Most think the activity should be mandatory. Inconclusive; conflicting results. 27
- 31. RECOMMENDATIONS • Faculty and instructional designers should consider adding this and other structured cooperative learning strategies to their courses. • Keep the activity voluntary with a small incentive for providing evidence of participation. • Faculty should promote the social and cognitive benefits of the study buddy activity. 29
- 32. RECOMMENDATIONS • Promote the study buddy as a ‘Structured Peer Review’ to encourage higher quality feedback. • Provide more structure in the form of suggested questions for critical thinking. 30
- 33. TRU OLFM Workshop at kumu.tru.ca31