Collaborative Learning in an Online Environment: Voices from Students
The student voices that I’m going to share with you today come from student experiences in one particular type of an online learning environment, a structured collaborative learning environment. As most of you know, collaborative learning approaches are not unique to online formats. In fact, the pedagogy that informs collaborative learning pre-‐dates the advent of the electronic classroom. Thus, it’s important to begin with a brief discussion of collaborative learning models and provide some of the background information about the online course in which these students were engaged.
Conversations about online education have moved beyond comparisons between online vs. face to face teaching to more multifaceted discussions geared toward understanding the
similarities between online and face to face environments and the differences among many
online formats. Consequently, the context and curricular design of a particular course needs to be at the forefront of any discussion about the course outcomes or student responses, be it online or face-‐to-‐face or hybrid.
BACKGROUND
Constructivist Pedagogy and Collaborative Learning: Most collaborative learning models are rooted in constructivist pedagogy that can be traced to the works of educational philosopher John Dewey and psychologist Jean Piaget. In brief, constructivist pedagogy tells us that:
• Learning is achieved within a social context
• Learning results from conceptual change in the mind of the learner • New knowledge is based on preceding knowledge
• Student is at the center of the learning experience
• Learning occurs within authentic, real-‐world learning tasks(2004, Educational Broadcasting Corporation)
Collaborative learning models provide the ideal social context prescribed by constructivist pedagogy. In collaborative learning groups, not only do students benefit by actively
contributing to their own learning and assuming responsibility for achieving learning outcomes, but also by sharing knowledge and experiences related to course content with classmates (Dahl, 2004, p. 5). Furthermore, the potential of collaborative learning to help students master course material and develop critical thinking skills has been well documented, particularly for adult learners (Dahl, 2004; Lally & Barrett, 1999; Meyer, 2002). Collaborative learning
experiences are especially important in distance learning courses. “Research supports the conclusion that learning at a distance is more successful when peers actively collaborate and interact socially on specific instructional tasks during their learning” (Secret & Pitt-‐Catsophes , 2008 p. 152; Koszalka & Ganesan, 2004, p. 244).
Collaborative Learning Applied to This Course: In the graduate theory course that I designed and teach to first year MSW students, students work together to gather resources, problem solve questions, develop and implement group projects, complete course assignments.
Students are assigned to collaborative learning groups (CLG) of 4 to 5 students and are required to respond to a weekly multi-‐faceted discussion question that I post on their group forum. The discussion question is based on that week’s readings, videos, or other assigned materials as
noted on the syllabus. The discussion board forum for each question is open for one week. The expectation is that students do a minimum of two postings per week -‐-‐ a direct reply to the discussion board question of the week, and, a ‘threaded’ response/reaction/feedback to at least one other group member’s posting. Each weekly question is multifaceted and designed to address the key stages of learning articulated by Bloom’s taxonomy of learning. One part of the question requires students to demonstrate understanding of the basic concepts; a second part focuses on application of the concepts to a case study; and the third part asks that students assess the value of the course material in relation to their specific practice area. Students stay with an assigned group through a ‘module’ of about 6 weeks and then are assigned to another group for the next module.
The student interaction is asynchronous, meaning that students can post at any point in time during the week. Students receive individual grades and written comments on their postings from the instructor each week. The discussion board grading is based on a grading rubric that is shared with students at the beginning of the class and accompanied by detailed exemplars of ‘good discussion posts’. At the end of each discussion board module, students are required to do an individual graded reflection paper highlighting the pros and cons of the group experience and mastery of course content for that module.
There are three required face to face meetings – at the beginning of the semester, at the middle of the semester, and at end of the semester. Thus, some would refer to this course as a ‘hybrid’ or a blended course. I don’t. Because the face to face meetings are designed to orient students to and support them in the online aspects of the course, and not to deliver course content, I see this course as primarily an online course. However, as you will see from a couple of the comments below, some students do refer to this as a hybrid course.
In addition to the weekly discussion board forums, there is a group WIKI assignment, an individual ungraded online class test, two individual course content papers, and individual reflection paper about the group process and course material. Similar to the discussion board gradings, exemplars are posted for all assignments.
Thus, the course I teach cannot be described as ‘just’ an online course. As with any course, the goals of the course and the particulars of the design, i.e. collaborative learning, are perhaps more important to acknowledge than an ‘online’ designation.
Student Profile: A preliminary exploration of differences between students taking this particular social work course online vs those taking it face to face in Spring 2010 revealed that the
students in the online class were similar to their face to face counterparts in most demographics.
One major difference between the two groups of students concerned student status.
More part-‐time students (56%) self-‐selected into the online class than did full-‐time students (26%). Informal information collected via the collaborative learning group discussions revealed that several of the students in this online class were commuters from areas as near as Chester and as far away Roanoke. This is consistent with the literature which reports that convenience is a driving force behind distance education (Coe &Elliot, 1999). Students are generally willing to endure a distance medium to benefit from the convenience. However, because these
students did not have the option of taking all their courses online, they take many required face to face courses. I estimate that about half the students in my classes know each other from face to face classes in the program.
Data Collection: Student comments were generated from 8 classes taught since Fall 2008. Class sizes ranged from a low of 13 students to a high of 25 students. The comments were provided by feedback from approximately 135 students via two sources. One source was the end of the semester course evaluations in which students were asked to comment on the strengths of the course, improvements needed, and knowledge obtained. These are anonymous evaluations; students are encouraged but not required to respond. The course evaluation response rate for averaged 81%. The other source was from a required CLG Reflection and Assessment
assignment described above, in which students were asked, among other things, to comment on what they contributed to and what they learned from the CLG experience. This was an individual graded assignment where students identified themselves by name. Not surprisingly, the comments from each source were similar -‐-‐ the students who completed the course
evaluations came from the same ‘pool’ as those who completed the graded CLG assessment. Although the comments from the course evaluations were briefer than those provided from the CLG assessment, the majority of comments from both the self-‐assessments and from course evaluations were quite positive (overall rating on the course evaluation was 3.7 on a 4-‐point scale).
The comments shared in this presentation are a sample taken from those provided by students for the 8 classes noted above. The positive and the negative comments (in dark blue text) are proportionate to the comments that were received. I was somewhat surprised by the relative lack of negative comments from the anonymous course evaluations where I would expect to see more of the negative responses. Actually, the most negative comments about the course came from one student in the self-‐identified CLG assessment.
THE VOICES OF STUDENTS
I considered several organizing frameworks for this presentation and decided on a mixture of themes that I found to be most compelling from my experiences with the classes combined with themes that reflect many of the published guiding principles for online education. The CLG comments are asterisked to differentiate them from the anonymous course evaluation comments.
Diversity Through Learning, Learning Through Diversity: This was one of the most prominent
themes and, for me, the most compelling of the findings. Student voices were strong and fairly unanimous that much learning occurred via sharing different perspectives.
*My peers were excellent teachers and their willingness to share their experiences enriched my own learning experience. I think there is a tendency to have the closest relationships with those that are most like us. The discussion boards enabled us to have meaningful dialog with those with who we may not normally befriend. Through this process, I found that I learned the most from those with extremely different backgrounds than my own. I am especially thankful for that aspect of the class.
*I learned that I do not know as much as I thought I did and I was challenged by my classmates to reexamine some of my thoughts and beliefs about certain theories and issues
*Without the input of my colleagues there are so many things that I would have viewed narrow-‐mindedly
I learned how to be respectful in my comments and maintain my responsibility to the group in which I was placed. The value of working in a group and being respectful of others and their beliefs and positions especially if it differs from my own.
One thing that was helpful in learning this way was learning about the concept through the lens in which individual group members see the world. I understand things through my own perspective. It was helpful to hear the ideas of other group members because their perspective is different from mine. This is important to understand because the clients I will work with may have different perspectives as well.
*The most advantageous quality, in both of my groups, was coming into each discussion board with my opinion and my way of thinking, and by the time it ended, I had been introduced to at least three new thoughts and perspectives by people that I trusted, not only as other social workers/professionals, but also as friends
Mastery of Course Material: Student voices concurred that “forced” reading of the material
and what others said about the material was one of the most important factors in their learning. A few students thought that the absence of lectures from the instructor might have limited their learning of the material.
This is the only course that I can say I read (and actually learned) everything that was required.
The strength was that the course was mostly online and each class member had to read and comment on each chapter. This made us all read the book. Reading other comments helped me to have a better understanding of the subject matter
*I was apprehensive of the online learning course at the beginning of the semester, but I am very glad I have had this new opportunity to learn. It has stretched my abilities to write, to think, and to work with others as this has truly been a group effort
*I often felt that I had a lot to say and writing my posts helped to enhance my experience as a learner, so a lot of my posts were somewhat a reflection of my “writing as I’m thinking” process.
I have gained are self-‐awareness, cultural sensitivity, better communication skills (written mainly).
Because it was online, I feel like instructor contact was minimal because there were no lectures and most of the learning was independent
I like the discussion boards. They allow for self-‐education as well as learning from the experiences of others. The Wiki page was also fun. I think that it is important to add in fun learning activities that help others engage with each other, learn to communicate and work in teams, but still do things that are fun and creative
*By having the freedom to read a classmates post and come back at a later time to respond gave me the opportunity to reflect, ponder, and I think that because of this format, discussion boards and learning separately then coming together to discuss it, I was able to process the information and develop my own approach, which led to me contributing more (sometimes lots more) than I would in a normal classroom setting
Interactions and Interpersonal Relationships with Peers: Although most students mentioned
something about interaction throughout most of their feedback, the voices about the
interpersonal communication and relationships seemed to warrant its own thematic category. Student voices were more mixed on this thematic category than on any of the others. While many students attested to the richness of online communication, some were troubled by the lack of face to face communication.
*I really enjoyed working with this group. Even though we didn’t meet in person; I still feel like I got to know the people in my group. This may seem strange; but seeing a person’s thoughts and analysis written out seems almost more personal than speaking in class;
I liked that I could question and challenge my classmates in the online forum because I would be less apt to do so in a classroom setting. I believe that the online method encouraged me to be more interactive and allowed me to see my fellow classmates in a much deeper, meaningful way
* I felt that we formed somewhat of a bond and supported each other. I felt like we shared, we laughed, and we cried together through these postings.
* I held back because I questioned my judgment and performance. I think it is easier for me to have live discussions in the classroom because people can see how I am feeling and comprehend my body language and facial expressions.
The hybrid course style was a perfect fit for my life! I loved meeting with people in person to know who I was talking to online, but I also liked not having to come to campus every week (given that I live an hour away).
The more face to face interaction I have with an individual that more comfortable I become with the person. I feel like communicating through blackboard has taken away from the personal relationship I have with my group members
Social Presence -‐ Connection with instructor: Student voices expressed much gratitude for the
quality of the feedback on the CLGs; however this feedback was most useful when provided in a timely way.
I believe the instructor provided wonderful feedback on assignments. She was always available and made it a point to enhance online learning.
This was the first online social work course I have taken, and the professor made it easy to understand the workings of the class online, and was understanding when things didn't go right in the online world!
Individual assignments were given good feedback, but there was no real presentation of material from the professor
During grading, the instructor fell behind. Because of this, I felt that the advice that was given was not very helpful as
we got some of the feedback after the discussion boards were done.
I loved the format and spacing out of the course content and assignments. All assignments were given with clear instructions and emails were answered promptly.
* I have NEVER gotten as much (or as beneficial) feedback as I did from the instructor. It helped me realize where my weak points were and how to work at strengthening those aspects. Not to mention, it makes me feel like the instructor is invested in the quality of education that we receive.
Differences between Online and Face-‐to-‐Face Classroom: I was surprised to learn how many
students considered themselves to be passive or quiet learners and were more likely to ‘speak out’ in an online course than in face-‐to-‐face discussions.
While initially wary of the online format of this class, I thoroughly enjoyed working in the collaborative learning groups … and was able to express myself in the discussion board groups more openly and freely than I would in a normal classroom setting.
*My view of the positive aspects of the online interaction is that it affords individuals a greater period of time to give thoughtful responses. Often in class discussions the people who speak are those who have the quickest response to a topic which does not provide varied perspectives. The discussion group allows people of all opinions and experiences to share their perspective or viewpoint. The aspect which is lacking in the on line discussion is the personal element. I enjoy face to face interactions due to level of information that can be gathered about a person. However, I also realize that on line discussion allows for less judgments based on appearance or demeanor to be made and therefore can be helpful in analyzing the content of someone’s response rather than the presentation of the individual.
The online discussion board allowed me to voice my opinions in a way that I have never done before. I am normally very quiet in class. Although I actively study and read the material, I do not normally feel comfortable speaking in large groups so I almost always keep my comments to myself. The blackboard discussions have given me the opportunity to add to the learning experience of others while strengthening my own views and interpretations of the material. I feel that I have learned much more because this is an online course than if I would have been in an actually classroom environment.
Demands Of This Course: There seemed to be general consensus that this online course was
exceptionally demanding.
I work harder for this class than any other, because the discussion board basically involves me writing a short paper every week and I can't skip a week of reading
This course seemed to require too much preparation time.
Taking an online class is no piece of cake. I felt that I was writing papers the whole semester. I think maybe the online class is too intense for me and my schedule, however I do think it requires the student to learn more.
I feel like there was much more course work in this course compared to online courses
I think the questions were too broad and required considerably more writing than should be necessary for discussion and learning on posts.
Many of these themes have been documented in the literature as contributing to effective online teaching and learning. For example, the small group interaction that is at the heart of the course I teach is facilitated thorough the use of threaded discussions which have been demonstrated to generate good student participation and feedback (Hodge, 2004 ). The interaction takes place through written communication. Greenlaw and DeLoach (2003, p. 36)
argue that “electronic discussion provides a natural framework for teaching critical thinking
because it captures the best of both traditional writing assignments as well as in-‐class discussions.” The process of writing helps students clarify and demonstrate the flow of ideas necessary to develop persuasive arguments supported by logic and evidence (Secret & Pitt-‐ Catsophes , 2008 p. 154. Greenlaw & DeLoach, 2003). Another aspect, the one-‐week length of time per discussion board question, is supported by Hawkes (2006) who found that
asynchronous online environment provided significantly more reflective learning than in face-‐ to-‐face environment. He found that while there is much more interaction in face-‐to-‐face dialogue, “computer-‐mediated reflection is generated by the inclusion of ideas and theories outside” the participants experience (p. 241).
Furthermore, the student voices seem to acknowledge, either implicitly or explicitly, some of the aspects of effective online teaching identified by VCU Center for Teaching Excellence. In particular, students seem pleased with “frequent formative assessment and timely
acknowledgement and feedback of performance across multiple levels of Bloom's Taxonomy which contributes to higher order thinking skills; the use of multiple timely and appropriate activities; the organization and navigability of the course; the purposeful development of a learning community through group interactions, student engagement, personalized
communication, and relevant learning; and ample opportunities for interaction and communication student to student, student to instructor and student to content” (CTE).
In sum, the positive experiences for most of the students in this collaborative learning online environment were shaped by a curricular design that structured opportunities to learn from classmates with different perspectives, challenged students to read the course material, encouraged students to share personal insights and interact freely with each other, provided instructor feedback and guidance, and demanded more time and attention from students than in a traditional classroom setting.
REFERENCES
Coe, J., & Elliott, D. (1999). An evaluation of teaching direct practice courses in a distance education program for rural settings. Journal of Social Work Education, 35(3), 353-‐365. Dahl, J. (2004). Focus on collaboration and technology will follow. Distance Education
Report. August 1, 5-‐6.
Educational Broadcasting Corporation. 2004. What is the history of constructivism, and how has it changed over time?
http://www.thirteen.org/edonline/concept2class/constructivism/index_sub4.html
Greenlaw, S.A.& DeLoach, S. B. (2003). Teaching critical thinking with electronic discussion. Journal of Economic Education, 34(1), 36-‐52.
Hawkes, M. (2006). Linguistic Discourse Variables As Indicators Of Reflective
Online Interaction. The American Journal Of Distance Education, 20(4), 231–244
Hodge, D. (2004). Creating a Virtual Community of Learners Using WebCT: Lessons Learned.
Journal of Technology in Human Services, Vol. 22(3).
Koszalka, T. A.&Ganesan, R. (2004). Designing online courses: A taxonomy to guide
strategic use of features available in course management systems (CMS) in distance education. Distance Education, 25(2), 243-‐256.
Lally, V. & Barrett, E. (1999). Building a learning community online: Towards socioacademic interaction. Research Papers in Education, 14(2), 147-‐163.
Meyer, K.A. (2002). Quality in distance education: Focus on online learning. ASHE – ERIC Higher Education Report Vol. 29( Issue No.4) California: Wiley Periodicals, Inc. ( ED-‐99-‐00-‐0036).
Secret, M. & Pitt-‐Catsophes, M. (2008). Introducing Work-‐Family Scholarship to Social Work Students: The development and assessment of an online reading seminar. Journal of Teaching in Social Work(28), 145-‐164.
Thyer, B., Artlet, T., Markward, M., & Dozier, C. (1998). Evaluating distance learning in social work education: A replication study. Journal of Social Work Education, 34(2), 291-‐296.
