A case study of online collaborative learning

A Case Study of Online Collaborative Learning in a Web- Delivered Graduate Level Class Ling Thompson Regis University Denver, CO

Research Questions

How was the online collaborative learning environment created and implemented in the web-delivered graduate level course?

How did teams with shared goals work collaboratively online?

What was the relationship of the amount of collaboration to the quality of the team product?

What were graduate students’ attitudes toward online collaborative learning in the web-delivered graduate level course?

Research Phases Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Design Implementation Assessment

Participants Students enrolled in online EDSE651 Collaboration: Deaf and Hard of Hearing from UNC in the Spring of 2008. EDSE651 teaches the knowledge and skills to work with the students who are deaf or hard of hearing and to effectively collaborate with families, service providers and educational personnel.

Participants Team 1 Team 2 Team 3 Team 4 Amy Sally Mary Eva Carla Fiona Gina Helen Nicole Jane John Kelly Lisa Diana Team 1 Team 2 Team 3 Team 4 Amy Sally Mary Eva N/A Helen Nicole Jane Carla Kelly Lisa Diana Fiona

Data Sources

Qualitative Data:

Team agreement

Group discussion archives

Reflections

Interview

Quantitative Data:

Attitude survey

Peer and self evaluation

Projects

Research Findings

RQ1: How was the online collaborative learning environment created and implemented?

Group project design: Young and Henquinet’s four critical factors (fit, breadth, instructional issues, and efficacy)

Forming teams

Explaining the importance of team work

Providing guidelines of online collaboration

Establishing team agreement

Rotating leadership

Self and peer evaluation

Research Findings

RQ2: How did teams with shared goals work collaboratively online?

Little collaboration

Cooperation

Entry level collaboration

Advanced collaboration

Research Findings RQ3: What was the relationship of the amount of collaboration to the quality of team product? Team Parti. Inter. Synthesis Indep. Collab. Overall Ranking 1 1(238.0) 2(15.0) 2(88.0) 3(0.5) 8 2 2 3(115.3) 4(0.0) 4(23.0) 4(3.0) 15 4 3 2(228.7) 1(18.0) 1(97.7) 2(0.3) 6 1 4 4(113.0) 3(9.0) 3(73.7) 1(0.0) 11 3

Research Findings RQ3: What was the relationship of the amount of collaboration to the quality of team product? Team Parti. Inter. Synthesis Indep. Collab. Overall Ranking 1 2(168.8) 2(7) 1(73.5) 1(0.0) 6 1 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 3 1(165.8) 1(10) 2(73) 2(0.5) 6 1 4 3(54.8) 3(4) 3(15.5) 3(0.7) 12 3

Research Findings RQ3: What was the relationship of the amount of collaboration to the quality of team product? First two projects: Team Degree of Collaboration Project Quality 1 2 1 2 4 4 3 1 2 4 3 3

Research Findings RQ3: What was the relationship of the amount of collaboration to the quality of team product? Last two projects: Team Degree of Collaboration Project Quality 1 1 2 2 N/A N/A 3 1 1 4 3 3

Research Findings