Linda Harasim on Online Collaborative Learning


Published on

Slides presented at ABED Congress in Porto Alegre, Brazil

Published in: Education, Technology
No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Linda Harasim on Online Collaborative Learning

  1. 1. ONLINE COLLABORATIVE LEARNING (OCL): The NEXT Generation for Elearning Public Presentation: March 13, 2006 Sao Paulo, Brasil Linda Harasim, PhD Simon Fraser University Vancouver, BC, Canada
  2. 2. Focus of this Presentation… • Introduction – Historical Case for OCL – Definition of OCL – Theoretical Case for OCL • The Practice of OCL: Success Stories • Institutional Aspects • Pedagogic Aspects
  3. 3. Focus of this Presentation… • Moving from ODE to OCL – Why? – How? – Results? • How to Design & Implement OCL? • What are Some Effective Designs? • Show & Tell…
  4. 4. Introduction
  5. 5. INTRODUCTION: The Context • What is Important? – Why? – How? – Results? • What Makes Excellent Elearning? • What is the Best Practice? • What are Key Success Stories?
  6. 6. Why are Elearning and OCL Important? • Paradigmatic Shift in Education from the Dominant Model of past 400+ Years • Transformation from – Knowledge Transmission to Knowledge Building – -from Teacher Centered to Learning Centered – From Passive to Active Learning • Socio-Economic Shift • Virtual Learning is Dominating Growth Rates (4x annual growth of traditional colleges) • 25% rate of increase/year
  7. 7. What does it mean to be literate in the 21st century? What does it mean to be a knowledge worker? The ability to work in groups is a 21st Century Skill! The ability to create knowledge and innovate in groups is a 21st Century Requirement! How do we as educators facilitate the transition from * *the Book era to the Web Era? *the Teching era to the Learning era?
  8. 8. Communication and Community • The word ‘communication’ and the word ‘community’ derive from a common Latin root: communicare, which means to share. • Sharing, discourse, communication, and community are the basis of all civilizational advances, scientific disciplines, schools of art, schools of thought, and all aspects of life, society, and work.
  9. 9. Historical Case for OCL
  10. 10. Communication Revolution 1861 Telegraph 1875 Telephone 1919 Radio 1926 Overseas Long Distance 1948 Broadcast Television/ Cable 1961 Communication Satellite 1969 ARPANET Begins • 1971: Email • 1972: Computer conferencing • 1978: Bulletin boards • 1989: Internet • 1992: Web
  11. 11. Education Revolution Mid University Courses Supplemented by Email 1970s and Computer Conferencing 1981 First Online Course (Adult Education) • The Source • Participate CC System 1982 First Online Program (Executive Education) • WBSI Executive Education • EIES CC System 1983 Networked Classroom Model Emerges (Primary and Secondary Education) • ICLN: Research Project in 4 Countries • RAPPI: Canada - X-Cultural Project in 5 Countries • 1985 : National Geographic Society Kids Network • 1987 : AT&T Learning Network • 1988 : WIER: Writers In Electronic Residence • 1989 : SITP in British Columbia, Canada
  12. 12. Education Revolution 1984 First Online Undergraduate Courses • Virtual Classroom (NJIT) 1985 First Online Graduate Courses • Connect-Ed (New School of Social Research) • OISE (University of Toronto) 1986 Professional Development Communities Emerge • OISE Ontario Educators Online Course • 1990 Global Lab, Lab Net And Star Schools, TERC • 1992 Educators Network of Ontario 1985 First Labour Education Network • Solinet 1989 First Large Scale Online Course • Open University (U.K.)
  13. 13. Education Revolution 1989 First Online Degree Program • UofPhoenix Online • 1986 Connect-Ed 1993 First National Educational Network • SchoolNet (Canada) • 1995 TeleLearning•NCE (Canada) • 1998 CL-Net (Europe) 1996 First Large-Scale TeleLearning Field Trials • Virtual-U
  14. 14. • Online education has impacted all sectors and disciplines including: – Formal Education – Nonformal Education – Informal Education • New Modes that Emerged: – Totally Online Mode – Mixed or Blended Mode – Enhanced Mode
  15. 15. Definitions of OCL
  16. 16. • The term “online education” has been applied to almost any educational activity that uses email or web access, regardless of the educational design or learning processes that characterize that course or activity. • Different Models lead to Different Results! • 1972: Computer conferencing---> OCL • 1989: Public Internet---->ODE • 1993: WEB---->OCBT
  17. 17. Online Collaborative Learning Online Distance Online Computer Based Training Education Three Types of Online Education can be identified.
  18. 18. Instructors, Learners, Researchers, Policy Makers & the Public are confused s Are these approaches the same? s Does computer-based training that is accessed over the web equal online education? s Are individualized or mass approaches the same quality as collaborative learning? s Are synchronous and asynchronous models the same in terms of educational effectiveness? Finer definition is required to understand the processes, their outcomes and implications. s What kind of educational model leads to what results, exactly?
  19. 19. Characteristics of Online Approaches Online Collaborative Online Distance Learning Education Online Computer • Many to Many Based Training •1-Many •Group Learning •Mass Learning •1 to Computer •Instructor Led •Tutor Support Courseware •Asynchronous •Asynchronous •Individualized •Place Independent •Computer •Place Independent Assessment •Text Based •Text Based •Asynchronous •Computer Mediated •Computer Mediated •Multimedia •Computer Mediated
  20. 20. Theoretical Case for OCL
  21. 21. Role of Knowledge and Collaboration Role of the Knowledge Social construct, consensus among members of community of knowledgeable peers Role of the University Institutions of reacculturation Role of the Professor Agents of cultural change who foster reacculturation
  22. 22. Role of Collaboration in Post-Secondary Collaborative learning models the conversation by which communities of knowledgeable peers construct knowledge. With collaborative learning, students learn to construct knowledge as it is constructed in the knowledge communities they hope to join up graduation. This is a process of reacculturation
  23. 23. Harasim’s model of cognitive processes in online collaborative learning.
  24. 24. Towards a Theoretical & Methodological Framework 1. Democratic Participation Leads to IDEA GENERATING • Quantitative Indicators: Usage Reports • Qualitative Indicators: Discourse Analysis • Use of the term “I think…” 2. Intellectual Progress Through IDEA LINKING Quantitative Indicators: Level of Interactivity • Qualitative/Quantitative Indicators: Name Mentioning and • Transcript Analysis, REFERENCES TO OTHER INPUT 3. Convergent Thinking Quantitative Indicators: Density of #1 and #2 • Qualitative Indicators: Conclusive Supported Position • Statements: THUS, THEREFORE, IN CONCLUSION. (Based on Roschelle 1996 and Harasim 1990)
  25. 25. New Learning Processes and Outcomes 1. Group Work Toward Local Consensus; 2. Reports and Plenary Discussion toward PLENARY CONSENSUS; 3. Comparison of the Class’s Plenary Consensus with the Consensus of a Larger Relevant Knowledge Community.
  26. 26. Knowledge Community Role of Faculty Small Group Class Approximation to Discussions Discussion Knowledge Community Knowledge (science, learning, invention) is viewed as a construct of the community’s form of discourse, negotiated and maintained by local consensus and subject to endless conversation (Bruffee, 1999; Kuhn, 1970)
  27. 27. Practical Case for OCL (Online Collaborative Learning)
  28. 28. Elearning equals Higher Quality Data indicates the potential of elearning to be more than “as good as” traditional classroom learning but provide far superior quality of learning. Well designed and implemented collaborative e-learning represents powerful gains key indicators such as: • Learning Effectiveness • Access: Geographical and Temporal • Satisfaction Rates: Faculty and Learners • Completion Rates • Pedagogical, Institutional, Workplace Innovation
  29. 29. Practical Case (a)Learning Effectiveness
  30. 30. Indicators: At the same level of quality or better than • Completion rates non-eLearning. • Grades • Faculty reports • Learner reports • University Presidents
  31. 31. By 2004 students & administrators believed that elearning equals or surpasses F2F • ¾ of Academic leaders in US universities & colleges believe that elearning matches or is better than f2f • The larger the school, the more positive the belief in online vs f2f instruction.
  32. 32. New Learning Processes Virtual Classrooms Usage Patterns • Participation is 7 days/week, 24 hours/day • Students are active in posting, reading and responding to messages • Peer interaction is high • In F2F classes, instructor uses approx. 80%+ of air time; online, students send about 85% of messages • Distribution of Communications • Far more equitable spread [with fewer outliers] than F2F Copyright 2000: Linda M. Harasim, Ph.D.
  33. 33. Better than non-eLearning. Collaborative Knowledge Work Indicators: •Is increasingly the global standard for eLearning programs • Transcript Analysis • Three phases of •Emphasizes conceptual change Contributes to 21st century skills Conceptual building such as: Development: •Team work – Idea Generating •Problem solving – Idea Organizing •Innovation – Idea Convergence
  34. 34. Practical Case (b) Access: Geographical and Temporal
  35. 35. • Geographical: Students can collaborate with peers or experts anywhere in the world to gain multiple perspectives • Temporal or asynchronous access: Asynchronous (24/7) access enables active, collaborative and mindful engagement:
  36. 36. Virtual Classrooms Active Learning / Participation (based on 32 courses) Active : 77% • 77% of the classes have active students, who log in at least 10 times per week on average. Login Regularly : 85% • 85% of the students in all classes login regularly, logging in at least 5 times per week. Post Regularly : 81% • 81% of the students in all classes post regularly, writing at least 3 messages per week.
  37. 37. Student Participation Data College Level: Psychiatric Nursing 98-01 Messages by Hour of Day Messages by Day of Week 100 50 80 40 60 30 40 20 20 0 10 0 Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 Day of Week Hour of Day Logins by Hour of Day Logins by Day of Week 100 60 80 40 60 40 20 20 0 0 Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Day of Week Hour of Day
  38. 38. Practical Case (c)Satisfaction Rates: Faculty and Learners
  39. 39. New Educational Roles Faculty Satisfaction A recent Study of 255 faculty using CLO in 31 colleges in State University of New York found: • 96% of faculty expressed general satisfaction • 74% believed that Online Learning is equivalent or better than in other modes • 89% believe that interaction was equivalent or higher online • 88% believe that interaction among students was equivalent or higher online • 62% believe that they know their students as well or better online
  40. 40. The Virtual Professor • New Roles • Instructor becomes less a provider & entertainer and more a facilitator as students take more responsibility for generating input, references, and analysis • New Experiences • Revitalization for teaching - providing students with better learning experience through collaborative learning & knowledge building Copyright 2000: Linda M. Harasim, Ph.D.
  41. 41. New Educational Roles The Virtual Learner Gender Difference? Women NOT disenfranchised! • 77% of males report a positive experience with VU • 81% of females report a positive experience with VU Satisfaction • 85% of students reported that they would take another online course • Students note that advantages outweigh disadvantages • No reports of extra or excessive workload Dissatisfaction • Technical Problems and Slow Access Times • Communication Anxiety
  42. 42. The Virtual Learner Virtual online learning environments dramatically change the patterns of student interaction and support an unprecedented level of learner input, interaction, and exchange. Overall Students Report ”Very Positivequot; Experience (SUNY) • 90% of students report high levels of satisfaction w/ OCL • 86% of students report spending more time studying in OCL courses • 91% of students felt that they learn more online • 47% reported they participated more online than in classroom (19.2%) 4 Better understanding of curriculum through collaboration 4Greater control and management of time Copyright 2000: Linda M. Harasim, Ph.D.
  43. 43. Practical Case (d) Completion Rates
  44. 44. Completion rates for Universities and workplaces using Online Collaborative Learning: COMPLETION RATES Education Workplace/ Public/Private Modality Corporate Universities 92% (Virtual-U) Online 96% [Harasim, 2000] Collaborative (NACTEL) 90% (Pace)[Sachs 2003] Learning [Sachs 2003] 91% (SloanC Consortium) OCBT 20%
  46. 46. SUCCESS STORIES 1. University of Phoenix Online • Created Separate Virtual University • Major Financial and Strategic Investment • Focus on “How People Learn: OCL” vs Technology • 200,000 students; 7,000 faculty 2. State University of New York Virtualized a Traditional University • Major Financial & Strategic Investment • Create Special SLN Unit • Focus on Faculty training, OCL Pedagogy • 3. Open U Online MBA Government & University Mission • Small Class Size •
  47. 47. Institutional Issues: •New Institutional Mission & Vision •Supported by Major Financial Investment •Major Investment in Ongoing Faculty Training •Major Investment in Student Support & Services •Recognition that Elearning is NOT a Cost- Saving Strategy: EL is costly but CRUCIAL •Maintaining Quality Control While Accommodating Massive Increases in Student Enrolment •Appropriate Use of Technology •Service is King! •Reinvest Profits to Academic Mission
  48. 48. PEDAGOGIC ISSUES: •Pedagogy is King! •OCL has highest Satisfaction Rate] •OCL has lowest Drop Out rate •OCL Provides BEST learning environment in both Blended and Totally Online courses •Major Investment in Ongoing Faculty Training •Major Investment in Student Support & Services •Technology is important but in service to Good Pedagogy! •Small Class Size (UoPX=11/course; SUNY=17/course;OU MBA=25 max/course) •Maintain Quality Control
  49. 49. How to Design and Implement OCL?
  50. 50. Data on Learning Strategies (100 Courses) 100% use Collaborative Learning 50 40 Discussions & Individual Work 33% 30 30% Discussions Only 26% Discussions & Group 20 Work Discussions, Group & Individual Work 10 11% 0
  51. 51. OCL Pedagogies: How To? 1. Getting Started with OCL work 2. Student-Led Online Seminars 3. Student-Led Debates 4. Student-Led Book/Article Reviews
  52. 52. Getting Started with OCL ICE Breaking: Getting Comfortable Online -move from what I know to what I need to know. Start easy! Three online conferences whereby each student can introduce him/herself!! • Self Introductions: Who Am I? What am I studying? Why is this important to me? Who is my family? What do I care about/participate in culturally? In sports? In my spare time?? • What are my Learning Objectives? What do I expect from this course? What do I expect from learning online? • Great Debate: What are my initial concepts on the subject? And how do I defend them?
  53. 53. STUDENT MODERATING Students are expected to Moderate an Online Seminar for 1 week. They work in groups of 3-4 students. This assignment is worth 30% of total grade 1. Introduction to Topic (10%) • Overview of topic • Design of Seminar: (Discussion? Debate? Role Play?) • Discussion Questions (3) • Readings 2. Facilitating Week-long Discussion (10%) 3. Summary (10%)
  54. 54. Student Discussant A student will be a Discussant in the remaining 5 weeks of online Seminars Discussant of Online Seminar: • Log on at least 2 times per week to respond to the 3 DQs and to respond to others • Input at least 4 messages per week • Ensure Quality of Content move to IG->IO->IC • Reference the Literature • Contribute new Ideas
  55. 55. SHOW AND TELL!
  56. 56. The END THANK YOU! From Linda Harasim
  57. 57. Rubrics & Grade Sheets for Student Discussants The unit of analysis for assessment purposes is the quality and quantity of messages by each student discussant in each seminar. My approach has always been to give more weight to the quality of the discussant input than to the quantity. Nonetheless, active participation by each student should also be recognized since this contributes to the overall quality of a seminar and student engagement in the online community.
  58. 58. Rubrics & Grade Sheets for Student Discussants Week One Week Two Week Three Week Four TOTAL Total Qual Quan Quan Quan CIPATION Qual Tot Qual Tota Qual Tota /X of X% Quan Total Total al l l Student 1 Student 2 Student 3 Student 4 Student 5
  59. 59. Rubrics & Grade Sheets for Student Discussants TOTAL per week: ? Quantity of the Message Input: Some considerations: 1.1. ACTIVE WRITING: Posted at least 4 messages with substantive input 2.2. REPLYING: Logged on at least 2x/week, to respond to DQ and to respond to other Discussants 3.3.CTIVE READING: Read all messages Quality of the Message Input: 1.Addressed 3 DQ Thoughtfully Referenced Readings Added new Insights Posed new Ideas, Questions 2.Built Knowledge (Moved from IG, to IO, to IC).
  60. 60. Rubrics & Grade Sheets for Student Discussants QUANTITATIVE QUALITATIVE A QUALITATIVE B TOTAL WEEK 1 WRE RPLY READ DQ1 DQ2 DQ3 Qual Quan Total IG- IO- IO IC Student 1 Student 2 Student 3 Student 4
  61. 61. OCL Pedagogies: How To Assess? Rubrics for Group Work Enhancing Group Experience 2003/learnteach/enhance/ groupwork/index.html Teaching Strategies: Group Work Cooperative Learning utenn.htm Grading Group Projects ding.html Sample Grading Form
  62. 62. OCL Pedagogies: How To Assess? Rubric for Individual Contributions to Group 20MembContribRubric.htm Group Development Guidelines /students/groupskills.htm Evaluation Group Projects enter/FacultyDevelopment/Ev alGroups/index.html
  63. 63. Practical Case (e) Pedagogical, Institutional, and Workplace Innovation
  64. 64. • Encourage pedagogical renewal • Enable institutional • Provide students and renewal to faculty with maintain reputation opportunities for Workplace and knowledge work, institutional collaborative innovation is key learning to society and to survival in a very competitive marketplace.
  65. 65. Conclusions • It’s the Pedagogy, • Better than - as not the Technology: good as! – Choosing the • If More is Better, Pedagogy then More and – Choosing the Better is BEST! Technology Challenges Ahead!