Slides from WTCS TechExpo Presentation by Martha Schwer

1. IMPROVING COLLABORATION
SKILLS IN ONLINE COURSES:
VIRTUAL GROUP
COMMUNICATION USING
WIGGIO
Martha Schwer, Instructor of English
Online Teaching & Learning Mentor
Madison Area Technical College
May 2013

2. Why Use Groups with Online
Students?
 This half:
◦ With a partner,
generate a list of
objections that
(online) students
typically present
about doing group
work…
 This half:
◦ With a
partner, generate a
list of all the
reasons why doing
group work is good
for online students
(and for faculty!)…

3. What Goals Did I Have For My
Online Student Groups?
 Build effective skills for working with
teams at a distance
 Provide framework for learning from
one another
 Build stronger interpersonal
relationships with peers
 Allow learners to experience real-
world applications of knowledge
 Meet the WTCS course
competencies

4. 4
What is Collaboration?
Coercion:
No
choice, no
commitment.
Participation
: I’m along
for the ride;
lead me.
Cooperation:
I’ll work on
your goal.
Collaboratio
n: We’re
committed to
our goal.
Connectivist learning depends upon diversity of opinions within a group.
Downes states: "to teach is to model and demonstrate, to learn is to practice
and reflect.” there is no real concept of transferring knowledge, making
knowledge, or building knowledge. “…the activities we undertake when …
we learn are more like growing or developing ourselves and our society in
(connected) ways” (Downes, 2007).

5. What Was I Using Groups For?
(Formal or Informal?)
Group
Presentation
Peer
Teaching
Research
Oral
Interper
s.
Comm
Instructions
Progress &
Periodic
Reports
Academic
Integrity
Technical
Reporting

6. How Was Group Work
Structured?
 Groups formed based on
availability
 Group size 5.
 Instructor-Set Deadlines
and Topics
 Instructor, self, and peer
assessment
 Grades divided between
final process and individual
interpersonal comm.
 Duration 7 weeks
 Middle of semester
 Groups formed based on
professional program &
availability.
 Group size 3-4
 More open topic selection.
 2 instructor-set deadlines;
students set task list.
 Instructor, self, and peer
assessment
 Grades divided between
final process and individual
interpersonal comm.
 Duration 8 weeks
 Mid-to-late in semester

7. How Was Group Work
Organized?
 Members select instructor-
defined roles.
 Team develops behavior
guidelines and agreements
(team charter).
 Instructor-Set Schedule (1-
deadline per week)
 Required weekly check-in
or kick-off
session, generally blog
posting or chat.
 One member turned in files
for team; each member
recorded video on at least
one slide.
 6-weeks of direct
 Pre-Quiz on Instructions
 Memo with
roles, communication
agreements, at least 15
tasks, topic brainstorming.
 Group-created schedule
 Required weekly check-in or
kick-off session, generally
blog posting or chat.
 One member turns in project
plan, progress report, final
instructions with process
explanation.
 2-weeks of direct instruction
about team interaction.

8. What Was the Instructor
Role?
(Palloff & Pratt, 2005)
8
Setting the
Stage
• Guidelines
• Rationale
• Purpose
Creating the
Environment
• Tools: VoiceThread
• Bb Groups vs. WIGGIO
Modeling
the Process
• Examples
• Video Tutorial
• Case Study
Guiding the
Process
• Motivate
participation
• Plan feedback
• Formative Feedback
Evaluating
the Process

9. Online group work checklist
“Too often we give students an activity and call it group work when in reality it’s something they
could do on their own,” says Jean Mandernach, PhD, associate professor of psychology at Grand
Canyon University. “Then we get frustrated when they don’t work together and just do the work on
their own.”
Preparation
 Students understand the value of both the process and product of the collaboration.
 Students have guidance concerning how to work in an asynchronous team.
 Group size is small enough to allow for full participation of all members.
 Course provides numerous opportunities for community building prior to group projects.
Assignment
 Assignment is an authentic measure of student learning.
 Assignment will benefit from collaborative work.
 Students have clear guidelines of the expected outcome of the collaborative assignment.
 Assignment creates a structure of positive interdependence in which individuals perceive that
they will succeed when the group succeeds.
 Assignment is scheduled to allow adequate time for preparation and communication.
 Assignment is designed in a manner to allow students a level of personal control.
Technology
 Students are provided with tools and instructions to facilitate online communication.
 Each group has a collaborative workspace within the online course.
 Students have technology skills relevant for asynchronous communication.
 Back-up procedures are in place to deal with technology failure.
Evaluation
 Grading and/or evaluation strategies differentiate between the process and the product.
 Strategies are in place to monitor interaction processes.
 Clear grading rubrics are provided at the start of the assignment to guide student work.
 Self and peer evaluations are included in the process to monitor individual involvement and
accountability.
From FACULTY FOCUS:: How to Design Effective Online Group Work Activities (Bart 2010).

10. What Do Online Students Want
Changed in Group Work? (2011-
12)
 Show up at Face to
Face Meetings!
 REQUIRED
synchronous sessions.
 Better connection with
team; email and DB
does not work.
 Better tools
 Ways to avoid
procrastination.
 True Collaboration, not
divide up work.
 Avoid group projects
with slacker group
members.
 More time / less
outside distractions
 Better options for
students who
drop, don’t participate.
 Option to complete
projects alone:
Grouphate
Themes: Based on Interviews (35) & Surveys (95)
students (OIC & TR)

11. What is Persuasive
Technology?
BJ Fogg, Play to 6:29

12. Does Online Group
Technology Actually Help
Online Learners?
1. Trigger Event
2. Ability to Respond
3. Motivation to Respond
BJ Fogg: ALL THREE must happen or
the behavior will stop—actually be
prevented.

13. Can Technology Be More
Persuasive to Help Online
Groups?
How Can I Make My Online Student End-Products Match What the
Research Says Should Be Happening (rather than what is)?
Can true collaboration, not just divide up approach, happen online in
heterogeneous, gen ed, required courses?
Can Low-Interest students be motivated by group interaction online?
Will More Robust Tools Help Online Students Learn More In Groups?
What challenges will online students have using external tools?

14. What Tech Options Do I
Have?
Bb Native Group
Tools
MS Project
Software
(download)
Combination of
Social Web-Based
Tools
Teambox, Google
Drive
(complicated)
Freedcamp, Trello
(no meeting)
Wiggio

15. What Did I Find In OIC
Groups? 7 Groups had a total of 36
students.
 Students chose to use the feed,
availability requests,
conference calls, calendaring
tool, document/wiki.
 A minority of groups (3) chose to
use “to-do” lists.
 2 groups used links from web and
textual chat.
 1 group tried in-person event with
one member “conferenced in.”
 Students chose not to use polls,
voice or video notes. Some
students reported difficulty with
video conferencing; others
preferred not to have video.
 2 groups called tech support
and spoke with a person (!);
situation explained successfully.
 Text messages were used. 15/51
MEDIAN
Value
2012 Spring
2013
Most common
number of
synchronous
meetings per
project
1 5
Most common
number of
interactions per
week, per
group.
9 51
Number of
edits to rough
draft of project
2 6
Late 2 0

16. What Did I Find in TR
Groups? 4 Groups had a total of 16
students; 2 dropped the course
after week 1 of the group project.
 2 groups did not attempt to have
any synchronous
sessions, despite the requirement.
 Students chose to use
availability
requests, feed, document/wiki.
 1 group used conference calls and
chat. One used chat only.
 No groups tried to use video
conferencing, calendaring, to-
do lists, polls, voice or video
notes
 Text messages were used by only
one student.
 One team did not view tutorials or
video about features and tried to
use OneNote and then
SkyDrive, both of which caused
barriers to other students.
 2 teams had drafts written mainly
by one person, as in 2012
MEDIAN
Value
2012 Spring
2013
Most common
number of
synchronous
meetings per
project
1 1
Most common
number of
interactions per
week, per
group.
8 18
Number of
edits to rough
draft of project
2 5
Late
submissions
0 1

17. What Did I Find?
1. 34/36 OIC students said they were “satisfied” or
“very satisfied” with the group work process.
2. 28/36 OIC students cited Wiggio or Wiggio tools by
name as reasons for successful collaboration.
3. Groups in TR that had the lowest number of
interactions reported lowest satisfaction with the
project; grades were lower than prior semesters, too.
6/14 students said they were “satisfied” or “very
satisfied.”
4. Increased interactions seem to be associated with
increased satisfaction in group work.
5. Effort in procrastinating students went up as a result
of the project; exam scores and papers after the
group work project had higher scores.
6. Conference calls using phones have ease of use and
good adoption; video and chat have significant
drawbacks for students.

18. What Tips Do I Have?
 Triggering responses develops responsibility
and connections between individuals; choose
“push” technology.
 Encourage students to set up connections to
accounts they have loaded on their mobile
devices, rather than student email (ability).
 Synchronous sessions seem worth the
effort to students if efficient scheduling is
possible (motivation).
 Greater scaffolding may be needed for students
with low motivation; final product type may need
review.
 Tutorials or additional examples of project
management and its relevance may be helpful

19. Works Cited
Bank, M. (2010). How to Design Effective Online Group Work Activities. Retrieved from
http://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/online-education/how-to-design-effective-online-group-
work-activities/ on May 20, 2013.
Johnson, D.W. & Johnson, R.T. (1999). Learning together and alone:
Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning. 5th ed. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn
and Bacon.
Learn Higher (2012). Group Work. Association for Learning Development in Higher Ed.
Retrieved from http://learnhigher.ac.uk/Students/Group-work.html on May 20 2013.
Myers, S. N. (2009). Dealing with Slackers in College Work Groups. College Student
Journal, 43(2), 592.
Myers, S. A., & Goodboy, A. K. (2005). A study of grouphate in a course on small group
communication. Psychological Reports, 97, 381-386.
Neville, C. (2009) Making Group-work work. Retrieved from
http://learnhigher.ac.uk/resources/files/Group%20work/groupwork_booklet_200109.pdf on
May 20, on May 20 2013.
Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2005). Collaborating online: Learning together in community. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.