• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Student perception of collaborative small group projects using synchronous and asynchronous tools

Student perception of collaborative small group projects using synchronous and asynchronous tools



This session will report on findings from a three-year study that explored how different communication tools may impact small group collaborative learning projects in an online course. The primary ...

This session will report on findings from a three-year study that explored how different communication tools may impact small group collaborative learning projects in an online course. The primary goal of this session is to share successful techniques for organizing and facilitating small group collaborative projects in online and blended courses.



Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



2 Embeds 1,488

http://davidwicks.org 1054
http://dwicksspu.wordpress.com 434


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.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • Discuss why each section might be valuable: Super Wiki – consensus on some decisions can be reached more
  • Coding template
  • The content for this online course was located in Blackboard, a learning management system (LMS). All teams had access to a collaborative script which explained what needed to be done on each phase of the project, including how to organize a team using a team charter.The course site contained a video or screencast explaining how to use the wiki to collaborate on the group project.This scaffolding strategy, (Larusson & Altermann, 2009) was used to help students feel comfortable with the project’s technology and procedures so they could give their attention to the contents and deliverables of the project.
  • At the completion of each phase, students in both groups were asked to write a private journal entry using the LMS’s blogging tool, where they described what was working well, what the challenges were, etc. This information was used to help detect social loafers or other issues that may be impacting the success of the project.
  • “The practical inquiry model reflects the critical thinking process and the means to create cognitive presence. The genesis and context of cognitive presence is more fully explained in Garrison, Anderson, and Archer (2000) but, suffice it to say here, it is operationalized through the practical inquiry process. Cognitive presence is defined as the extent to which learners are able to construct and confirm meaning through sustained reflection and discourse in a critical community of inquiry (Garrison, Anderson, and Archer 2000). In other words, cognitive presence reflects higher-order knowledge acquisition and application and is most associated with the literature and research related to critical thinking.” Recursive and iterative
  • Trust element, share ideas freely, see my ideas and willing to let others modify, wenger and lange – shared meaning making.
  • Less about the specific technology used and more about the design and facilitation of the project.

Student perception of collaborative small group projects using synchronous and asynchronous tools Student perception of collaborative small group projects using synchronous and asynchronous tools Presentation Transcript

  • Students Perception ofCollaborative Small Group Projects Using Synchronous and Asynchronous Tools David Wicks Andrew Lumpe Arthur Ellis Seattle Pacific University
  • AbstractThis session will report on findings from a three-year study that explored how differentcommunication tools may impact small groupcollaborative learning projects in an onlinecourse. The primary goal of this session is toshare successful techniques for organizing andfacilitating small group collaborative projects inonline and blended courses. 2
  • Central purpose: Compare graduate students perceptions andpractices of collaborative small group work in three differentsections of the same online course. Section A Section B Section C Super Wiki Wiki Discussion Board-Only n=27 n=24 n=21Asynchronous ✔ ✔ ✔DiscussionBlackboard Discussion BoardAsynchronous ✔ ✔WikiLearning Objects WikiSynchronous ✔Word Processing/ChatTypeWith.MeSame Professor ✔ ✔ ✔Same Course ✔ ✔ ✔ 3
  • Goal of Education: Develop Expertise Collaborative learningDevelop expertise environments are Within such(Bransford,1999). designed to develop environments: expertise by: Deep factual Experts have more knowledge bases can access to content Helping users discern be developed patterns Knowledge easilyEasily retrieve content retrieved and shared Create meaning inCan adapt and change, non-static, collaborative settings Conceptualand recognize when to frameworks built apply knowledge 4
  • Project-based approach Challenging Shared Long term question/task goal/purposeGroup members Deliverables negotiating Student voice producedshared meaning http://bie.org 5
  • Instrument - Community of Inquiry Elements Categories Indicators (examples only) Cognitive Presence Triggering Event Sense of puzzlement Exploration Information exchange Integration Connecting ideas Resolution Apply new ideas Social Presence Affective Expression Expression of emotion Open Communication Risk-free expression Group Cohesion Encouraging collaboration Teaching Presence Instructional Management Defining & initiating discussion topics Building Understanding Sharing personal meaning Direct Instruction Focusing discussionSwan, K., Shea, P., Richardson, J., Ice, P., Garrison, D. R., Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2000, p. 4 6Cleveland-Innes, M., & Arbaugh, J. B., 2008
  • Teaching Presence• The design, facilitation, and direction of cognitive and social processes for the purpose of realizing personally meaningful and educational worthwhile learning outcomes.• Course Examples – Collaborative Script – Project Phases http://communitiesofinquiry.com/teachingpresence 7
  • Collaborative Scripthttp://tinyurl.com/collab-script 8
  • Phases Phase Phase 2: Phase 3: Phase 4: Phase 5:1: Team Essay- Essay- Essay- Meaningful Finalcharter Why Student student learning? Product teach? needs? Classroom as a and team Qualities What does a place of reflective reflection of a good good practice? teacher? classroom look like? 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • Social Presence• Ability of participants to identify with the group or course of study, communicate purposefully in a trusting environment, and develop personal and affective relationships progressively by way of projecting their individual personalities (Garrison, 2011, p.34)• Course Examples – Team Charter – Private Journal 12
  • Team Charter Palloff and Pratt, 2010 13
  • Private Journal 14
  • Cognitive PresencePost to Personal Collaborate on Area, Outline Deliverable Collaborative (Charter, Essay, or Response Presentation) Review Complete Collaborative Deliverable,Script Questions Reflect on process Practical Inquiry Model 15 Garrison, Anderson, and Archer (2000)
  • Sections were compared on their perception of teaching, cognitive, and social presence in the course using the Community of Inquiry Survey• There is a significant difference between the Wiki and Discussion Board-Only sections on the Open Communication subscale of Social Presence. The specific subscale questions are: – I felt comfortable conversing through the online medium. – I felt comfortable participating in the course discussions. – I felt comfortable interacting with other course participants. 16
  • 17
  • Super Wiki Section Reflection“In our opinion our products all turned out very well! The processfor all of them went well too. We did a good job getting organizedand all putting our fair share of work and effort into eachproduct. The process of this project was dependent on both ourindividual thoughts and our ability to collaborate to create aproduct. The essays contained individual thoughts from each ofus. They and the final presentation would not have been asthorough if only one of us had contributed to the project. Inaddition, the group had exceptional ideas and were able toarticulate them. There was also mutual respect for each others’opinions which resulted in a comprehensive product.” 18
  • Wiki Section Reflection“I was very pleased with how our team workedtogether. We were all supportive of each other.When others needed assistance another teammember always stepped up to help. We listenedto everyones ideas and everyone contributed tothe project equally.” 19
  • Discussion Board-Only Reflection“Our team was not completely balanced. Oneperson was dealing with family, job and healthissues and was only there for part of the time.The other member was very much an achiever.Part of me felt that even though I wascontributing I just didnt have ownership in theproject.” 20
  • Charter & Phases“I just want to reiterate how much of a differencethe team charter made in this group. I am used togetting saddled with lazy groups and negativelyexpected the same of this group at the start.Because I quickly saw that I was in an effective,skilled group, the team charter with the roles thatwe defined for each phase at the start, kept mefrom taking over the group like the control freakthat I am--I knew that I had to stay within theboundaries of my role. Again, this group projectproved far my valuable than my initial, pessimisticexpectations.” From Wiki Section 21
  • Nine Collaboration Tips Collaboration vs. Collaborative Script Authentic Project Cooperation Phases Team Charter • Multiple Points of • Communication Team size Assessment • Goals • Individual and Collaborative • Deadlines Assessment • Deliverables Use of ToolsIndividual and Group • Discussion BoardAreas for Content and • LMS Wiki vs. Public Wiki Length of Project Reflection • Collaborative Word Processor (Super Wiki) 22
  • Comments or Questions? David Wicks Andrew Lumpe Assistant Prof Associate Dean Director of School of Ed Instructional Technology Seattle Pacific U Seattle Pacific U lumpea@spu.edu dwicks@spu.edu Blog: http://lumpe.wordpress.com Blog: http://dwicksspu.wordpress.com Twitter: lumpea Twitter: dwicksspuThis work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License. To view a copy ofthis license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 171Second Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, California, 94105, USA.