• Save
Computer Supported Collaborative Learning and its impact on the Quality of Studying Economics
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Computer Supported Collaborative Learning and its impact on the Quality of Studying Economics

on

  • 1,375 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,375
Views on SlideShare
1,370
Embed Views
5

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
0
Comments
0

4 Embeds 5

http://martinrehm.wordpress.com 2
http://www.slideshare.net 1
http://www.linkedin.com 1
https://www.linkedin.com 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

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

Computer Supported Collaborative Learning and its impact on the Quality of Studying Economics Presentation Transcript

  • 1. Computer Supported Collaborative Learning and its impact on the Quality of Studying Economics 13th Edineb Congress Friday 16th of June 2005, Lisbon, 9.00-10.30 http://www.web-spijkeren.nl Bart Rienties (University Maastricht) b.rienties@algec.unimaas.nl Martin Rehm m.rehm@algec.unimaas.nl Wim Gijselaers Mien Segers 22/05/2008
  • 2. 22/05/2008
  • 3. 22/05/2008
  • 4. Agenda 1. Introduction 2. Theoretical considerations 3. Methodology 4. Results 5. Discussion 22/05/2008
  • 5. Introduction Why Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) ? 1. Communication within the network explicit and coded 2. Asynchronous, more time to think and to reflect 3. Each student can study at his/her own time of preference 4. Large part of the online environment is actually CSCL 5. Interaction and collaboration is essential for learning 22/05/2008
  • 6. What is new? 1. Pilot where CSCL was intensively used in a virtual learning environment (VLE). 2. Most studies master-students or educational-science students, focus the experiences with a novice group of students. 3. If higher cognitive processes towards the end of the course have occurred, then this might provide proof for positive learning effects of CSCL. Central Question: What is the impact of asynchronous electronic discussion groups in a virtual learning environment on the quality of the learning process of novice students? 22/05/2008
  • 7. 2. Theoretical considerations 2.1 Unit of analysis 1. single unit (each individual sentence) 2. unit of meaning (one or more theme(s) 3. complete message 2.2 Segmentation and Reliability analysis 22/05/2008
  • 8. 2.3 Model of Veerman and Veldhuis-Diermanse (2001) Table 1 Catalysing of Threads Message Example in Economics Not Task-Related - Planning quot;Shall we first complete Task 1, before we go on with the next one?quot; - Technical quot;Does anybody know how to add a graph to my thread?quot; - Social quot;Good summary!quot; - Nonsense quot;Who wants to join us for a drink in the pub?quot; Task-Related - New Idea - Facts quot;The average rate of inflation in the U.S. for 2004 is 2.7 %.quot; - Experience / Opinion quot;I think that VAT-taxes should be reduced to increase demand.quot; - Theoretical Ideas quot;According to Perloff (2003), consumers maximize utility subject to a budget constraint.quot; - Explicitation quot;Moreover, this process necessitates that MR = MC.quot; - Evaluation quot;Overall, combining the concept of utility and welfare, social welfare is maximized when every individual can sets MR = MC, without distortions.quot; Note: Table 1 is based on Veerman and Veldhuis-Diermanse (2001), p.626. The examples in Economics are extracts from the discussion boards. 22/05/2008
  • 9. 2.4 Online Remedial Teaching Model 1. Online Availability 24/7 (Vrasides & Zembylas, 2003) 2. Adaptive (Falmange et al., 2004) 3. Rapid feedback (Draaijer, 2004, Vrasides & Zembylas, 2003) 4. Interactive (Bryant et al. 2005, Ronteltap & Van der Veen, 2002) 5. Flexible Learning Methods & Assessment (Marshall, 2003, Segers, 2004) 22/05/2008
  • 10. Online Remedial Teaching Model 22/05/2008
  • 11. 3. Methodology 50 international fresh-men for bachelor programme Economics. Main advantages 1. Students not trained in “ academic behaviour” 2. Lack academic (higher-cognitive) thinking skills 3. Population has collaborated only virtually with each other. 22/05/2008
  • 12. 3.1 Hypotheses (Schellens & Valcke (2005)) 1. The proportion of task-oriented communication is larger than the proportion of non-task-oriented communication. 2. Communication in the discussion groups will become more task-oriented instead of non-task oriented. 3. In the context of non-task-oriented communication, more ‘social’ and ‘planning’ communication will be observed, at the expense of interaction in relation to ‘ technical issues’ and ‘nonsense’ interaction. 4. The CSCL-environment fosters higher phases of knowledge construction. 5. At the end of the research period, more communication reflecting higher phases of knowledge construction will be observed. 6. The more discussion activity in groups, the more phases of higher knowledge construction will appear. 22/05/2008
  • 13. 3.1 Hypotheses Furthermore, based on section 2.4, this research is also interested in these two hypotheses: 7.The proportion of non-task-related messages has a positive impact on the activity of the group as well as the knowledge construction. 8.The overall activity of a discussion and the quality of the knowledge construction increases with the proportion of “ nonsense” contributions. 22/05/2008
  • 14. 3.2 Research design 1. 50 Students were selected based on prior-knowledge test 2. e-PBL 3. 3 independent coders instead of 2 4. 1187 units analysed 5. 1206 units selected 6. Cronbach alpha > 0.75 7. Cohen’ kappa > 0.72 s 22/05/2008
  • 15. 4. Results Table 2 Task- and non-task oriented communication (in percentage) Café a Theme Theme Theme All Schellens f Intro b Micro c Macro d themes e et al. Non-task oriented 99.3 15.8 16.0 18.7 61. 3 5.8 Task oriented 0.7 84.2 84.0 81.3 38.7 94.2 a n = 443 b n = 139 c n = 108 d n =134 e n = 822 f n = 1428 (All themes data from Schellens and Valcke, 2005) H0 Task > non task: Rejected H1 Communication becomes more task-oriented: Rejected Table 3 Distribution of non-task oriented communication in four categories (in percentage, based on Veerman et al., 2001) Café a Theme Theme Theme All Schellens f Intro b Micro c Macro d themes e et al. Planning 7.7 50.0 11.8 8.0 9.7 20.6 Technical 8.6 18.2 29.4 16.0 10.1 9.2 Social 3.2 13.6 47.1 36.0 6.7 52.1 Nonsense 80.5 18.2 11.8 40.0 73.4 18.1 a n = 440 b n = 22 c n = 17 H3 Social + Planning > Tech. + Nonsense : Rejected d n = 25 e n = 504 f n = 305 (All themes data from Schellens and Valcke, 2005) 22/05/2008
  • 16. Higher cognitive learning? Table 4. Types of task-oriented communication (in percentage, based on Veerman et al., 2001) Caféa Theme 1 b Theme 2 c Theme 3 d All themes e Schellens et Intro Micro Macro al.f Phase 1: New Info: Facts 66.7 43.6 44.9 60.6 50.0 0.1 Phase 2: New Info: Experience / Opinions 0.0 8.5 1.1 4.6 5.0 14.3 Phase 3: New Info: Theory 33.3 12.0 20.2 13.8 15.1 29.6 Phase 4: Explicitation 0.0 34.2 25.8 19.3 26.4 15 Phase 5: Evaluation 0.0 1.7 7.9 1.8 3.5 41 a n=3 b n = 117 c n = 89 d n =109 e n = 318 f n = 1345 (All themes data from Schellens and Valcke, 2005) H4 Task related: Phase 4-5 > Phase 1 - 3 : Rejected H5 More Phase 3-5 at end of course: Rejected 22/05/2008
  • 17. Table 5 Distribution of communication of groups with different levels of discussion activities Low discussion activity Median Discussion High Discussion N <150 activity N = 234 activity N > 440 Total N % Total N % Total N % Non-task-oriented 86 58.9 96 41.0 322 72.9 Task oriented 60 41.1 138 59.0 120 27.1 Non-task oriented communication a Planning 16 18.6 5 5.2 28 8.7 Technical 5 5.8 13 13.5 33 10.2 Social 2 2.3 20 20.8 12 3.7 Nonsense 63 73.3 58 60.4 249 77.3 Task-oriented communication b Phase 1: New Info: Facts 24 40.0 67 48.6 68 56.7 Phase 2: New Info: 3 5.0 9 6.5 4 3.3 Experience / Opinions Phase 3: New Info: Theory 6 10.0 18 13.0 24 20.0 Phase 4: Explicitation 23 38.3 40 29.0 21 17.5 Phase 5: Evaluation 4 6.7 4 2.9 3 2.5 a n = 504 b n = 318 H6 More activity, more phase 3-5: Rejected H7 More non-task, more activity & phase 3-5: Rejected H8 More nonsense, more activity & phase 3-5: Rejected 22/05/2008
  • 18. 6. Discussion 1. The proportion of task-oriented communication is larger than the proportion of non-task-oriented communication. 1. Exact opposite result than Schellens & Valcke (2005) 2. Distance learning course non-relevant issues occur more often 3. Many new issues about (non-)academic life were discussed and new friendships were build. 4. Intensively used as a means to get acquainted with each other 2. Communication in the discussion groups will become more task-oriented instead of non-task oriented. 1. Intensively used as a means to get acquainted with each other 2. The results are in line with the findings of Schellens and Valcke (2005) 3. Hypothesis difficult to test as Café forum at the same time as working on the respective tasks. 3. In the context of non-task-oriented communication, more ‘social’and ‘planning’communication will be observed, at the expense of interaction in relation to ‘ technical issues’and ‘nonsense’interaction. 1. “Agree-button”in Polaris acts as a simple-to-use tool that takes over the part of ‘ social’talk. 2. Prevalence of ‘Nonsense’ communication adds to the skewed outcome of the result. 22/05/2008
  • 19. 6. Discussion 4. The CSCL-environment fosters higher phases of knowledge construction. 1. No experience in economics as well as academic thinking. 2. Goal of the online summer course to introduce basic principles of Economics. 3. 26.4 % value for Explicitation, in comparison to the 15 % found by Schellens and Valcke (2005) promising outcome 5. At the end of the research period, more communication reflecting higher phases of knowledge construction will be observed. 1. Results support this notion until midterm of the course 2. Tasks of Themes 1 and 3 solved by basic skills 3. Tasks of Theme 2 required a more technical analysis. 4. The decrease towards the end could be explained by the approaching start of the actual study, 6. The more discussion activity in groups, the more phases of higher knowledge construction will appear 1. Most differences in overall discussion activities on contributions Café forum. 2. If person is feeling comfortable in the group, CSCL- environment can increase the involvement of students 22/05/2008
  • 20. 6. Discussion 7. The proportion of non-task-related messages has a positive impact on the activity of the group as well as the knowledge construction. 1. Minimum level of messages is necessary to establish a critical mass of discussions, 2. Low discussion activity group relative low amount but on higher cognitive level 8. The overall activity of a discussion and the quality of the knowledge construction increases with the proportion of “nonsense”contributions. 1. Non-task-related messages positive impact on the overall activity of the group. 2. ‘ Nonsense’ link and overall formation of knowledge. 3. No clear picture with regard to the quality of the knowledge construction 22/05/2008
  • 21. Future research 1. Whether the online summer course in general and the CSCL in particular has a temporary or structural effect on the (prior) knowledge level and competencies of students. 2. Whether the choice of participants influenced the results. 3. Similar course set-up will be provided on a group of master students, who have the expertise. 4. Research is needed on the motivation of participants. 5. Subgroups participants enlarged 6. Didactical scenarios implemented at other institutes. 7. More specified and detailed information about the subgroups 22/05/2008
  • 22. Computer Supported Collaborative Learning and its impact on the Quality of Studying Economics 13th Edineb Congress Friday 16th of June 2005, Lisbon, 9.00-10.30 http://www.web-spijkeren.nl Bart Rienties (University Maastricht) b.rienties@algec.unimaas.nl Martin Rehm m.rehm@algec.unimaas.nl Wim Gijselaers Mien Segers 22/05/2008