The document discusses a study on a course that combined knowledge construction and reflection through hands-on learning of cooperation technology. The course involved students collaborating in groups on three tasks using different technologies. The tasks involved different types and scales of collaboration. Data analysis found collaboration was facilitated by planning and atmosphere but challenged by coordination issues. Technology use saw new tools learned but also technical challenges. Scaffolding reflection improved outcomes for motivated groups. The study concluded that combining social constructivism and reflective learning through designed breakdowns and technology use improved learning from both construction and experience. Future work could explore game-based learning and multiple supportive technologies.

1. 1
Hands-on Learning
of Cooperation Technology
Combining Knowledge Construction and Reflection
International Conference on Teaching, Assessment
and Learning for Engineering (TALE)
August 26–29, 2013
Bali, Indonesia
Mikhail Fominykh, Monica Divitini, Ekaterina Prasolova-Førland, and Sobah Abbas Petersen
Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway

2. 2
Trondheim, Norway

3. 3

4. 4
Norwegian University of Science
and Technology NTNU

5. 5
Motivation and challenges:
Learning Cooperation
o Project group work
– significant part in university education
– often required in a workplace
o Cooperation Technology
– Tools dedicated to cooperation • social media
– Large organization tools • flexible lightweight tools
o Users
– Small groups • large communities
– Collocated • distributed
– Homogeneous • diverse

6. 6
Background: Social Constructivism
Social constructivist approach proposes
that learners co-construct their
environment and understanding
together with their peers [1].
[1] L. S. Vygotsky, Mind in society: the development of higher
psychological processes. Cambridge, MA, USA: Harvard University
Press, 1978.

7. 7
Background: Reflective learning
Reflective learning approach implies
that students learn by reflecting on
relevant experiences [2].
[2] D. Boud, R. Keogh, and D. Walker, "Reflection: Turning Experience
into Learning," London: Kogan Page, 1985.

8. 8
Study: Cooperation Technology
course
o Elective course
o Credits: ETCS 7.5
o Grade: 70% groups project + 30%
essay
o Duration: 13 weeks
o Participants: 31 fourth year master
students (seven groups 3–5)

9. 9
Task 1 Task 2 Task 3
Course
activities
Collaborative writing +
presentation in 3D
virtual world
Creating a language
dictionary + a glossary
Collaborative writing +
f2f presentation /
web-conferencing
Types of
collaboration
Local group Local group + local
community
Local group +
international
Assigned
technologies
vAcademia LingoBee Adobe Connect, Purot
Wiki, Prezi
Main
outcomes
Handbook of
cooperation tools +
3D recordings
Language dictionary +
glossary of terms
Online media
handbook on ed. tech.
Study: Course Activities

10. 10
Task 1 Task 2 Task 3
Course
activities
Collaborative writing +
presentation in 3D
virtual world
Creating a language
dictionary + a glossary
Collaborative writing +
f2f presentation /
web-conferencing
Types of
collaboration
Local group Local group + local
community
Local group +
international
Assigned
technologies
vAcademia LingoBee Adobe Connect, Purot
Wiki, Prezi
Main
outcomes
Handbook of
cooperation tools +
3D recordings
Language dictionary +
glossary of terms
Online media
handbook on ed. tech.
Study: Types of Collaboration

11. 11
Task 1 Task 2 Task 3
Course
activities
Collaborative writing +
presentation in 3D
virtual world
Creating a language
dictionary + a glossary
Collaborative writing +
f2f presentation /
web-conferencing
Types of
collaboration
Local group Local group + local
community
Local group +
international
Assigned
technologies
vAcademia LingoBee Adobe Connect, Purot
Wiki, Prezi
Main
outcomes
Handbook of
cooperation tools +
3D recordings
Language dictionary +
glossary of terms
Online media
handbook on ed. tech.
Study: Assigned Technologies

12. 12
Task 1 Task 2 Task 3
Course
activities
Collaborative writing +
presentation in 3D
virtual world
Creating a language
dictionary + a glossary
Collaborative writing +
f2f presentation /
web-conferencing
Types of
collaboration
Local group Local group + local
community
Local group +
international
Assigned
technologies
vAcademia LingoBee Adobe Connect, Purot
Wiki, Prezi
Main
outcomes
Handbook of
cooperation tools +
3D recordings
Language dictionary +
glossary of terms
Online media
handbook on ed. tech.
Study: Main outcomes

13. 13
Study: Data Sources and Analysis
Data sources
– direct observation of students’ activities online and
their recordings
– the virtual artifacts the students created
– user feedback: questionnaires, group reflection
notes, semi-structured interviews, and individual
essays
Data analysis
– Constant comparative method: coding with nVivo

14. 14
Study: Target Group
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
I am good at
cooperation
I use many
cooperation tools
strongly agree
agree
neutral
disagree
strongly disagree

15. 15
Examples of student projects
Task 1 Task 2 Task 3
Main
outcomes
Handbook of
cooperation tools +
3D recordings
Language dictionary +
glossary of terms
Online media
handbook on ed. tech.

16. 16

17. 17
e.g., http://www.vacademia.com/record/detailed/2100

18. 18
http://simola.org/lingobee/index.php?gid=28
http://simola.org/lingobee/index.php?gid=29

19. 19 http://cocreat.purot.net/

20. 20
Study Results: Collaboration
Group level collaboration flow
– Satisfied because of planning (3 groups)
– Satisfied because of good atmosphere (3 groups)
Group level collaboration challenges
– Coordination – different schedules (4 groups)
– Different motivation levels (2 groups)

21. 21
Study Results: Collaboration
Community level collaboration flow
– Background diversity is beneficial (4 groups)
– Creativity and level of achievement
Community level collaboration challenges
– International coordination Task 3 (6 groups: challenges
mentioned 135% more often than benefits)
– Inter-group coordination Task 2 (3 groups: challenges
mentioned 14% more often than benefits)

22. 22
Study Results: Technology
Task 1: vAcademia
Attitude towards the tool
– New tool (7 groups)
– Easy to learn how to use it (1 group)
Addressing challenges
– Complexity of the tool is perceived (2 groups)
– Technical challenges remain (4 groups)

23. 23
Study Results: Technology
Task 2: LingoBee
Attitude towards the tool
– New tool (7 groups)
– Difficult to learn how to use it (4 groups)
– Tool not fully suited for the task (7 groups)
Addressing challenges
– Creative solutions (2 groups)
– Replacing missing functionality (3 groups)
– Simplifying the task to suit the tool (2 groups)

24. 24
Study Results: Technology
Task 3: Purot Wiki, Adobe Connect, Prezi
Attitude towards the tool
– Purot wiki active use (3 groups)
– Adobe Connect active use (5 groups)
– Prezi was found useful and worth learning (5 groups)
Addressing challenges
– Incorporating additional tools (7 groups)

25. 25
Study Results: Technology
Additional tools
0
5
10
15
20
Task3
Task2
Task1

26. 26
Challenges
o Breakdowns limit knowledge
construction process
– Too easy breakdowns only disrupt the process
without leading to reflection
o Less motivated students tended to
use Breakdowns as a barrier
– Too difficult breakdowns stop the process and lead to
complains

27. 27
Addressing Challenges
o Scaffolding mechanism used
– Structured reflection notes
o Result
– Successful for the most motivated groups
o Proposal for improvement
– Scaffold both reflection and collaborative process

28. 28
Implications
o Initial proposal
– Combining social constructivist and reflective
learning approaches improves the overall outcome
o Social constructivism
– Providing best suited tools => focus on assignment =>
learning from construction
o Reflective learning
– Designed breakdowns (new or not most suited tools)
=> critical thinking, creative solutions, reflection =>
learning from experience

29. 29
Future Work
o Game Design-based learning
– Collaborative process
– Course topics into game design
– Sharing experience: evaluating and playing
o Multiple supportive technologies
o Reflection

30. 30
Thank you!
Mikhail Fominykh
mikhail.fominykh@ntnu.no
Monica Divitini
divitini@idi.ntnu.no
Ekaterina Prasolova-Førland
ekaterip@ntnu.no
Sobah Abbas Petersen
sap@idi.ntnu.no
http://www.idi.ntnu.no/~fominykh/
http://www.linkedin.com/in/fominykh
http://slideshare.net/mfominykh/