This document summarizes a presentation given by Chrissi Nerantzi exploring collaborative learning in an open professional development course for teachers in higher education called FDOL. The presentation discussed insights from learners in the FDOL course, benefits and challenges of collaborative learning. It provided an overview of the FDOL course structure and findings from initial surveys of participants that highlighted values of collaboration, flexibility and peer learning. Preliminary thematic analysis of interview data with FDOL participants revealed themes of commitment, cultural diversity, challenges of time management and technology, and value of small group work and facilitator support.

1. “It is really COOL to
learn together." Is
it?
Exploring collaborative learning
in an open professional
development course for
teachers in HE
Chrissi Nerantzi
Academic Developer
Manchester
Metropolitan
University, UK
@chrissinerantzi
Annual HEA Conference: Preparing for learning futures: the next ten years, Aston University,
2-3 July 2014

2. Abstract
This session will provide insights into the experience of
open learners of the Flexible, Distance, Online Learning
(FDOL) course. Benefits and challenges will be explored
with delegates. FDOL is a case study, part of a PhD project
in open cross-institutional academic practice for
professional development of teachers in Higher Education
(HE).

3. Voices
• ecological university (Barnett, 2011)
• personalisation, collaboration, informalisation (Redecker
et al, 2011)
• blending of formal & informal learning (Conole, 2013)
• call to open-up, join-up (European Commission, 2013)
• the danger of monocultures (Weller, 2014)
• lifewide curriculum (Jackson, 2014)
• recognising the positive impact of human interaction for
learning

4. my personal digital open timeline
(1/2)

5. my personal digital open timeline (2/2)
Live link: http://www.dipity.com/chrissinerantzi/my-story-
of-open/

6. (about) collaborative learning in
Openland
http://www.dipity.com/chrissinerantzi/collaborative-learning-in-openland/

7. aim of my PhD research
to develop a flexible collaborative
learning framework for open
cross-institutional Academic
Development courses at
postgraduate level

8. http://globaldimensionsinhe.wordpress.com/
http://fdol.wordpress.com/
2+ cases
Phenomenography
(Marton, 1981)
Main data
collection
individual
interviews
Complementary
data via survey
instruments
(initial and final)
Collective case study
approach (Stake,
1995)
Case study 1:
FDOL132
PhD research:
to develop a flexible collaborative learning
framework for open cross-institutional
Academic Development courses

9. FDOL132 and organisation
Nerantzi, Uhlin & Kvarnström (2013)
• Open cross-disciplinary professional development course for teachers in HE
• Developed and organised by Academic Developers in the UK and Sweden
• Developed using freely available social media
• Offered from September – December 2013
• Pedagogical design: simplified Problem-Based Learning
Numbers
• Registered: 107
• FDOL132 community in G+ until now: 72
• Signed up for PBL groups: 31
• PBL groups: initially 8-9 in each x 4 > then 3 (group 2: 6, / group 3: 5 / group
4: 6)
• PBL facilitators: 4
• Participants in webinars: 10-25
• Participants who completed in groups : 31 (42% of participants learning in
groups)
•Countries
• UK - 66
• Sweden – 17
• Canada – 4
• Ireland – 2
• also participants from: Hongkong, Argentina, Greenland, Switzerland,
New Zeeland, Slovenia, Belgium, New Zealand, Norway
Nerantzi & Uhlin (2012)

10. Findings: initial survey
19 participants in study
17 completed
Countries: UK 37%, Sweden 37%, other 26%
Age range: 35-54 82%
Gender: 35% male, 65% female
Qualifications: 53% Doctoral
qualification, 35% Postgraduate
qualification, 12% undergraduate
qualification
•All employed ( 88% HE and 12%Public Sector)
•Participated in online courses before 88 %
•Participated in an open online course before
47%
Learning values
to be an open learner
To connect with others
To collaborate
To be supported by a facilitator
Application to practice
Prior experience
Working in groups 77%
Problem-Based Learning 30%
Online collaboration 38%
Social media in a professional capacity
50%

11. Findings: final survey
Final survey: 11 completed
Mode of participation
Group member 91%
Autonomous learner 9%
Study hours per week
55% 3 h, 27% 5h, 18% over 5
Main reason for not participating in a
specific aspect of the course: TIME
Learning values
•Structured course
•Variety of synchronous & asynchronous
engagement opportunities
•Flexibility
•Resources
•Communication
•Feedback from facilitators, peer and
others
•Recognition for study
•Group work > participation was often a
struggle
Personal Learning goals achieved 100%
Learning goals
•Technologies for learning
•Problem-based Learning
•Learning in groups
•Open learning
•Open course design
Facilitation (satisfaction)
Support 100%
Participation in online discussions 100%
Provision of regular feedback 64%

12. Key observations
importance for learning
initial survey final survey
group work 100% 74%
feedback 61% 97%
recognition for study 47% 94%
independent study 100% 100%
facilitator support 100% 100%

13. 45 h
transcribing
292:57 mins
audio
37,274
words
7
interviews
Case 1: FDOL132

14. “Why should cooperative or
collaborative learning be effective
for learners, who are, after all,
exchanging only imperfect
understandings of the content, if the
teacher is not present to advise or
correct them?” (Slavin, 2004, 287)

15. cooperative vs collaborative
cooperative learning collaborative learning
shared product/outcome shared product/outcome
focus on individual goals within group goals focus on group goals
the individual constructs learning learning is co-constructed, challenged, modified,
agreed, shared understanding
product consists of individual contributions product is co-constructed
roles/responsibilities pre-defined/imposed (not
always)
roles/responsibilities negotiated/agreed
process is clean and defined (not always) process is fluid, responsive and adaptive
focus more on individual achievement focus more on collective achievement

16. Learning to use NVivo
FDOL132: A closer look at learning in groups
Warning! Preliminary findings
Struggling at the moment and lost in nodes… will I ever
manage to untangle this mess?

17. • Commitment
– Motivation increased because of working with others
– Motivation of others increased own motivation
– Learners working towards credit had a positive impact on others
• People
– Multi-cultural and multi-disciplinary groups enriched experience
– Cultural and language challenges
– (In)tolerance, empathy and care
– Strong sense of group belonging
• Use of PBL for group work
– Seen as opportunity for authentic learning linked to own practice
– Kept learners engaged
– Constraining as structure and as the exclusive design for learning
Group related data
Preliminary thematic analysis

18. • Collaboration in groups
– Synchronous communication made it real for some (others find it a challenge)
– Learners felt part of a community
– Organisational, technology challenges at the start
– Time challenges throughout (synchronous meetings helped some, others not)
– Valued learning with and from peers
– Contributing to group and peer feedback seen as valuable
– Intellectual challenge
– Assessment obstructed from group work, too much focus on output/reflection
– Quality of output considered good, acceptable, poor
– Group size, small worked best (3-4, pairing suggested)
– Experiencing group work as a student valuable
– Facilitator support was valued
– Extending learning opportunities offline in local communities
Group related data
Preliminary thematic analysis

19. FDOL132 participant’s experience
Source: http://www.freemovement.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/skype-m.jpg
Dr Isobel Gower, Writtle College
Dr Sue Moron-Garcia, University of Birmingham
Dr Stephan Haas, Karolinska Institutet

20. Opportunities Challenges
Cross-disciplinary learning Managing time constraints
Cross-cultural learning Dealing with differences
Sharing experiences Grouping, is pairing an answer?
Flexible modes of engagement Learning approach(es) and choice
Personalised learning Nature of group work
Motivating each other when learning in
small groups
Assessment (process vs product)
Develop practices that will be useful in
other contexts
Supporting (collaborative) peer learning
Authentic and contextualised learning Collaborative learning requires higher
levels of collective commitment
Learning in small groups/pairs enables
more active participation (less
threatening)
Scaffolding learning and flexible structure

21. FDOL131 > FDOL132> FDOL141
Course FDOL131 FDOL132 FDOL141
Course duration 11Feb – 7 May 13
12 weeks
12 Sep – 5 Dec 13
12 weeks
10 Feb - 23 March 14
6 weeks
Thematic units 6 7 6
Learners 80 107 86
Learners from the UK 42 65 38
Learners from Sweden 21 20 27
Learners from other countries 17 22 21
Groups 8>4 4>3 6>4
Learners in groups/% 64/80% 31/29% 27/32%
Facilitators 4>3 4 14>11 (in pairs/threes)
Learners per facilitator 27 36 7 or 14 (in pairs)
Learners that completed in groups 16 13 17
Completion rate based on the whole
cohort
insufficient information insufficient information insufficient information
Completion rate based on group
participation
25% 43% 63%
(Nerantzi, 2014, 55)

22. Opportunities institutions to collaborate
and create open joined-up CPD?
1. Could open cross-institutional collaborations
and courses such as FDOL be adapted more
widely and become part of the standard CPD
offer for academics and other professionals
who teach in HE?
2. What about other postgraduate provision.
Are there now opportunities for co-creation
of curricula among institutions? How can we
make it happen and what are the benefits?

23. Hard fun?
“I think, […] I enjoyed the process of collaborative
working, work that was struggle, it was fun, it was
interesting to communicate with others, especially
due to the […] multi-national structure. So I can
encounter the […] different, other […] backgrounds.
It's […] inspiring, it's, interesting for me, in contrast
to me communicating with our other, colleagues
[…] So this was inspiring […] that I thought, it's, it's a
valuable way to do a project work.” Participant F4

24. “You do not learn to play the piano by reflecting on the piano, you have to play the piano,
yes? And you don't learn e-learning technologies by reflecting about learning technologies,
you have to use e-learning technologies.” Participant F5
Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f2/Piano-keyboard.jpg

25. • Continue data analysis of case FDOL132 using
Nvivo, define categories of description
• Continue literature review (cooperative,
collaborative learning)
• Write up paper about FDOL132 learning in PBL
groups
• …
Next steps

26. Astin, S. (1993) What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Barnett, R (2011) The coming of the ecological university, in: Oxford Review of Education, Vol. 37, Issue 4, 2011, Taylor & Francis, pp. 439-455.
Barrows, H S (2000) Problem-based learning applied to medical education, Southern Illinois School of Medicine: Illinois
Browne Report (2010) Securing a sustainable future for higher education, Department for Employment and Learning, available at http://www.delni.gov.uk/index/publications/pubs-higher-
education/browne-report-student-fees.htm [accessed 1 November 2013]
Dillenbourg, P., & Schneider, D. (1995). Collaborative learning and the internet, available: http://tecfa.unige.ch/tecfa/research/CMC/colla/iccai95_1.html [accessed 12 May 2014].
European Commission (2013) High Level Group on the Modernisation of Higher Education. Report to the European Commission on Improving the quality of teaching and learning in Europe’s higher
education institutions, European Union, available at http://ec.europa.eu/education/higher-education/doc/modernisation_en.pdf [accessed 20 February 2014]
Gibbs, G. (2013) Reflections on the changing nature of educational development. International Journal for Academic Development, V. 18, Number 1, March 2013, pp. 4-14.
Gibbs, G. (2012) Implications of ‘Dimensions of quality’ in a market environment, York: The Higher Education Academy, available at
http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/documents/evidence_informed_practice/HEA_Dimensions_of_Quality_2.pdf
Gibbs, G. (2010) Dimensions of quality, York: The Higher Education Academy, available at http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/documents/evidence_informed_practice/Dimensions_of_Quality.pdf
[accessed 8 November 2013]
Galley, R., Conole, G, Dalziel, J and Ghiglione, E. (2010). Cloudworks as a ‘pedagogical wrapper’ for LAMS sequences: supporting the sharing of ideas across professional boundaries and facilitating
collaborative design, evaluation and critical reflection. LAMS and Learning Design. A. Alexander, J. Dalziel, J. Krajka and R. Kiely. Nicosia, University of Nicosia Press. 2: 37-50.
Jackson, N. J. (2014) Lifewide Learning and Education in Universities & Colleges: Concepts and Conceptual Aids, in N.J. Jackson and J. Willis (Eds) Lifewide Learning and Education in Universities and
Colleges. Chapter A1 Available at: http://www.learninglives.co.uk/e-book.html
Johnson, D, W & Johnson, R (1999) Learning together and alone. Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning (5th edition) Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. & Smith, K. (2007) The State of Cooperative Learning in Postsecondary and Professional Settings, in. Educational Psychology Review, 19: 15-29.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. & Stanne, M. B. (2000) Cooperative Learning Methods: A Meta-Analysis, Minneapolis, Minnesota: University of Minnesota, available at
http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=Cooperative+learning+methods:+a+meta-analysis&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=uoKJU7TXMMb6PNLIgZAL&ved=0CCsQgQMwAA
[accessed 31 May 2014]
Marton, F. (1994) Phenomenography as a Research Approach, Husen, T. and Postlethwaite, N. (2nd ed) The International Encyclopedia of Education, Vol. 8, Pergamon, pp. 4424-4429, available
athttp://www.ped.gu.se/biorn/phgraph/civil/main/1res.appr.html [accessed 3 Jan 2014].
McKeachie, W., Pintrich, P., Yo-Guang, L. & Smith, D. (1986) Teaching and learning in the college classroom: A review of the research literature. Ann Arbor, MI: The Regents of the University of Michigan.
Nerantzi, C. (2014) A personal journey of discoveries through a DIY open course development for professional development of teachers in Higher Education (invited paper),Journal of Pedagogic
Development, University of Bedfordshire, Volume 4, Issue 2, pp. 42-58 http://www.beds.ac.uk/jpd
Redecker, C., Leis, M., Leendertse, M., Punie, Y., Gijsbers, G., Kirschner, P. Stoyanov, S. and Hoogveld, B. (2011) The Future of Learning: Preparing for Change. European Commission Joint Research Centre
Institute for Prospective Technological Studies EUR 24960 EN Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
http://ipts.jrc.ec.europa.eu/publications/pub.cfm?id=4719 [accessed 21 February 2014]
Ryan, A. & Tilbury, D. (2013) Flexible Pedagogies, new pedagogical ideas, York: HEA, available at ttp://www.heacademy.ac.uk/news/detail/2013/new_pedagogical_ideas [accessed 21 November 2013]
Sallivan, W. (2005) Work and integrity: The crisis and promise of professionalism in America (2nd edition), Stanford, CN: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Schwartz, D. (1999) The productive agency that drives collaborative learning. In: Dillenourg, P. (ed.) Collaborative learning: Cognitive and computational approaches, New York: Elsevier Science/Permagon.
Stake, R. E. (1995) The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
The UK Quality Code for Higher Eduction (2012) Glouchester: Quality Assurance Agency, available at http://www.qaa.ac.uk/Publications/InformationAndGuidance/Pages/quality-code-brief-guide.aspx
[accessed 5 December 2013]
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978) Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Weller, M. (2014) The Battle for Open Webinar, The Ed Techie, 21 March 2014, available at http://nogoodreason.typepad.co.uk/ [accessed 22 July 2014]
Wiley (2006) a shift towards ‘openness’ in academic practice as not only a positive trend, but a necessary one in order to ensure transparency, collaboration and continued innovation
Wiley, D. (2006) Open Source, Openness, and Higher Education, innovate, Oct/Nov, Volumne 3, issue 1, available at
http://www.innovateonline.info/pdf/vol3_issue1/Open_Source,_Openness,_and_Higher_Education.pdf [accessed 20 February 2014]
Wiley, D. and Hilton, J. (2009) Openness, Dynamic Specialization, and the Disaggregated Future of Higher Education, in: International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, Volume 10,
Number 5, 2009, pp. 1-16., available at http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/768 [accessed 20 February 2014]
References

27. cross-institutional
#BYOD4L
14 – 18 July
Is your institution
joining us?
Manchester Metropolitan University
Sheffield Hallam University
University of Sussex
University of Ulster
London Metropolitan University

28. “It is really cool to
learn together." Is
it?
Exploring collaborative learning
in an open professional
development course for
teachers in HE
Chrissi Nerantzi
Academic Developer
Manchester
Metropolitan
University, UK
@chrissinerantzi
Annual HEA Conference: Preparing for learning futures: the next ten years, Aston University,
2-3 July 2014