m zain effariza hanafi yahya don school of education and ... · | prosiding seminar kebangsaan...

| Prosiding Seminar Kebangsaan Majlis Dekan Pendidikan Universiti Awam, 7-8 November 2018 |

815 | MEDC 2018

EDMODO SOCIAL LEARNING PLATFORM:

THE EFFECT OF FREQUENCY AND HIGH LEVEL COLLABORATION ON

STUDENTS’ KNOWLEDGE CONSTRUCTION

*1FARAH MOHAMAD ZAIN, 2EFFARIZA HANAFI &

3YAHYA DON

1, 3School of Education and Modern Languages, Universiti Utara Malaysia 2Department of Electrical Engineering Faculty of Engineering Universiti Malaya

*[email protected]

Abstract: This study focused on the effect of the frequency and high level collaboration in the forum

board of Edmodo social learning platform towards the students’ construction of knowledge. A total of 42

undergraduate students of the School of Industrial Technology, Universiti Sains Malaysia enrolled for the

IMK 209- Food Physical Properties course are involved in this study. Findings of the study using

continuous monitoring, descriptive analysis and multiple regression showed that active and high level

collaboration occurred between students-lecturer and students-students that lead to meaningful knowledge

construction. The high level collaboration are the expository, explanatory and cognitive involving high

order thinking skills are found to take place in the collaboration. Further analysis utilising linear

regression analysis revealed that all high level collaborations have significant correlations with the

students’ construction of knowledge. Findings also showed that the majority of interactions were student-

centred where students play important roles in their construction of knowledge via their active

participation thus encouraging higher levels of learning.

Keywords: Edmodo social learning platform, collaboration, interaction pattern.

INTRODUCTION

Edmodo is known as a social learning platform designed by Jeff O’ Hara and Nick Borg in

2008. It is a free and private learning platform for teachers, students and parents to connect and

collaborate (Chada Kongcham, 2013; Halm et al., 2012). It is easy to apply to classroom

because the design is similar to Facebook but unlike Facebook, Edmodo social learning

platform (ESLP) offering many other learning features including creating new interaction styles

between instructors and students, promoting students interaction, boosting collaboration,

enhancing students’ experience from active environments, responding students immediacy,

sharing just-in-time contents to peers and linking lecture information and assignments to various

digital resources (Thongmak, 2013). In other words, ESLP is a social online learning platform

suitable for various educational purposes.

ESLP provides forum board for collaboration and interaction processes between

students-lecturer and student-students and are important in supporting construction of student’s

knowledge. According to Gushiken (2013) this learning tool is capable of generating

communication in a community whether small or large.

Forum board are used both for student and lecturer to collaborate and interact asynchronously.

According to Hiltz (1998), asynchronous collaboration is able to train students to commit to

learning according to the appropriate time. In general, the discussions in the forum boards

function as a space for knowledge sharing where the online dialogue within a community of

learners are transacted (Vosloo, 2012). These knowledge sharing will indirectly enhances the

degree of collaboration (Jones, 2010), develops self-reflection (Johnson, 2007), builds

Prosiding Seminar Kebangsaan Majlis Dekan Pendidikan Universiti Awam 2018

Penyunting: Rahimah Embong, Hanif Md Lateh @ Junid, Mustafa Che Omar, Mohamad Zaidin Mohamad & Abdul Hakim Abdullah

eISBN 978-967-2231-03-5 (2018), http: //www.unisza.edu.my/medc2018

mailto:[email protected]


816 | MEDC 2018

knowledge (Meyer, 2003) and enhance the student-centered learning environment (Omar et.al,

2007).

According to Robertson (2008), online interactions change teaching practices while

enhancing student learning experiences. It also manages to forming knowledge when a group of

students collaborate with each other (Chatti, Hamdan & Schaper, 2012), serves as a knowledge

base (Fitcher, 2005), promotes collaborative learning environment (Hughes & Narayan, 2009)

and keep all the discussion records and thread which enable students to revise the previous

version of the discussion when required (Watson, 2008).

There is also provision for ESLP to split the class into small dedicated group of

learners. According to Wei et al., (2005), the use of small group forums as a medium of ideas

and information sharing has the potential to produce more productive students as student can

explore more critically and greater depth on each of the given task (Slotter, 2010). This small

online group forum also allows students to access and share their work more effectively online

together (Arroyo, 2011) and at the same time improve the facilitation by the lecturer and

encouraging more active participation by the students from time to time (Robertson, 2008).

In this study, the forum board serves as a space for students to acquire knowledge either

from a lecturer or between students. Additionally, students may share additional notes, links or

learning materials related to the courses in this discussion room. Lecturer also use this space to

inform important course information such as those related to test dates or deadlines to complete

the assignments. Students also have the opportunity to give their opinions, criticize the opinions

of other students or give explanations in the process of building new knowledge.

RESEARCH MODEL AND HYPOTHESES

Collaborative learning is one of the important aspects of student-centered learning environment.

According to Liu & Milrad (2010), this learning focuses on a collaborative, social-oriented

process and prioritizes group dynamics. Therefore, collaborative learning is self-directed

learning within community of learners with each member in the group play important roles in

working together to achieve the objectives of the organization formed. Learning takes place in

this community and is facilitated by lecturer, so students are guided to achieve the specified

learning outcomes. The learning outcomes are designed and developed by the lecturer in such a

way that they are aligned with the learning objectives of the lesson.

Students are free to determine appropriate techniques and methods when discussing but the

discussion must be within the learning issues being established earlier by the group in order to

achieve the learning outcomes. Each student first undertake research independently to solve the

problem and bring their solutions back to the group. They subsequently discuss all the possible

solutions to the problems and after ensuing deliberation, they agreed on the group solution

pertain to the learning issues.

As such, collaborative learning not only involves collaboration activities but also

involves sharing of findings and results derived from student’s own independent learning

(Chatti, Hamdan & Schaper, 2012). This opinion is supported by Jonassen (1996) that

collaborative learning and working together on a learning issue can help students build more

meaningful knowledge than individual learning. Through collaborative learning, it is indirectly

able to build more effective communication skills and interaction, while also accepting other

people's opinions as well as criticism from other students.

Collaborating in small groups cater to the needs of every student where weak students

can benefit from a strong and good student from the contributions they have made. While active

students can challenge themselves by explaining what they think to all students, the weaker

students benefitted from such explanation. In this active collaborative learning environment, all

the students get the advantage and benefits. Students who collaborate in small groups generally

create a user-friendly environment where students feel safe to share knowledge and build new

knowledge they acquired and achieving the stipulated learning objectives.


817 | MEDC 2018

In this study, ESLP provides students with the opportunity to work individually and

then share with other members of the group. The research model showing how the high level

dimensions of collaboration influence the construction of knowledge by the students is depicted

in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Research Model

The focus of this research is to look at the effect of the frequency and high level dimensions of

collaboration toward the knowledge construction by the students. As such, the focus of the

learning process as depicted in Fig. 1 is on collaboration with frequency of collaboration and

dimensions of high level collaboration (expository, explanatory and cognitive) are the enablers

to such knowledge construction. There are other learning activities undertaken by the students

utilizing various features of ESLP such as reading, personal reflection, assessment but these are

not part of this research.

Frequency of Collaboration

The frequency of collaboration refers to student posting during the discussion process (Curtis &

Lawson, 2001; Chapman, Ramondt & Smiley, 2005; Swan, Shen & Hiltz, 2006). The frequency

of collaboration in this study refers to the number of posting contributed by student during the

learning process. One posting can be defined as a contribution or student engagement regardless

of the quantity of words contained in the posting. Frequency of posting is obtained via database,

ESLP.

Most of the previous results shows that the effect of frequency of collaboration

influences the construction of knowledge and understanding of students (Curtis & Lawson,

2001; Chapman, Ramondt & Smiley, 2005). However, the findings were focused on the

frequency of collaboration in the student community (Chapman, Ramondt & Smiley, 2005) and

factors influencing the frequency of learning (Swan, 2002). There is also a study that looked on

the learning medium in influencing the frequency of online collaboration (Curtis & Lawson,

2001).

Continuing from previous studies, the researcher in this study examines the frequency

of collaboration among students in the teaching and learning process. This study focuses on

student engagement through forum board and the relationship between frequency of

collaboration and the construction of knowledge through the collaboration process. Therefore,

hypothesis 1 is proposed as followed:

H1 - The frequency of student posting in the ESLP affects the construction of knowledge

significantly.


818 | MEDC 2018

High Level Dimensions of Collaboration

In this study, we utilised the dimensions of collaboration model proposed by Oliver &

McLoughlin (1997a) which classifies the collaboration into five main dimensions namely

social, procedural, expository, explanatory and cognitive. Social and procedural are the low

level collaboration which do not contribute much to the knowledge construction whereas the

expository, explanatory and cognitive are high level collaboration which contribute significantly

to the construction of knowledge. In this study, our focus is on the high level collaboration,

namely the expository, explanatory and cognitive but the low level collaboration social and

procedural are also taken into analysis.

Table 1 shows the descriptions of such dimensions and examples of each dialogues and

exchanges within such dimension as follows:

Table 1: Description and examples of dimensions of collaboration

Oliver, Omari & Herrington (1997) explored the student’s collaboration in a web-based learning

environment using four dimensions namely social, procedural, expository and cognitive. Oliver

& McLoughlin (1997a, 1997b) examines social, procedural, expository, explanatory and on the

dialogue exchanges category between lecturer and students. High quality engagement promotes

collaboration in support groups that subsequently produce quality online learning (Garrison,

1997; Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997). Othman, Atan & Guan (2005) found that frequent

collaboration with the purpose of teaching in asynchronous forum board has created a positive

learning environment. However, the results of their studies found that lack of active

collaboration in cognitive dimension.

In this study, all the collaborative dimension are derived from monitoring of each

student posting and classified them according to the rubric that have been pilot tested for

Dimensions of

collaboration

Description Examples

Social Establishing and developing

rapport

Teacher: Hello Sally, how are you?

Student: Very well thank you.

Teacher: Great to hear from you. What are you

going to do for us?

Procedural Explanation on course

requirements and procedures

Student: Mr. Gray, can you tell me how many

pages you want us to write?

Teacher: I'm looking for about 2 pages in total.

Student: Can we use a topic of our own choice?

Expository Demonstration of knowledge

or skills in response to a direct

request from one another

Teacher: Can anyone tell me how we say,

"Today it is warm"?

Student: Samui desu?

Teacher: Not quite, it is . . .

Explanatory Lecturer using students’

responses to explain

knowledge and develop

content

Teacher: This is how we ask that question in

Japanese.... Sally, can you now ask your

question?

Student: Sally asks her question . . .

Teacher: Great Sally, but did you

remember to . . . John, will you please ask your

question?

Cognitive Lecturer providing

constructive feedback to a

student to reflect and to

reconsider an alternative

perspective/reality

Teacher: Can you tell me what you think was

the main reason

for his actions?

Student: He was angry and wanted to get even.

Teacher: But was that all? What

about his wish to improve his position and

standing?

Student: I suppose he did but I thought that he

would have done it differently.


819 | MEDC 2018

scoring consistency by researchers. In the pilot testing, the dimension of the collaboration are

assessed through a self-developed rubric and verified by two experts in this field. Two

independent appraisers who were not involved in this study also tested the rubric by

categorizing the collaboration provided by the researchers. The results obtained by both

appraisers are consistent.

In addition at looking at the effect of the frequency towards students’ knowledge

construction, this study also looks at the extent to which the high level dimensions of

collaboration significantly affecting the knowledge construction of the students over the period

of this course being offered. Therefore, hypothesis 2 until hypothesis 4 are proposed.

H2 - The posting of the expository dimension in the ESLP affects the construction of

knowledge significantly.

H3 - The posting of the explanatory dimension in the ESLP affects the construction of


H4 - The posting of the cognitive dimension in the ESLP affects the construction of


METHODOLOGY

This study involved 42 students of the School of Industrial Technology, Universiti Sains

Malaysia who enrolled for IMK 209-Food Physical Properties. Students were first briefed in the

introductory lecture of the course during their first week. They were instructed and guided step

by step on how to participate in the ESLP and all tasks are given and explained.

As a learning designer, the lecturer has designed challenging and appropriate tasks

earlier in such a way that the tasks are aligned with the course learning objectives. Students

were also told that they themselves should be constructing their own knowledge and new idea in

the forum board by actively participating in the collaboration within their designated small

group. Lecturer will be a facilitator to the discussion and will provide probing questions and

provide the necessary online resources in assisting the group to find the solution to learning

issues and completing the tasks successfully.

Researchers used monitoring methods to obtain information about frequency of student

posting and high level dimension of collaboration between students. Frequency of student

posting is the number of students posting in the ESLP during the entire 14 weeks IMK 209

course being offered. It can be calculated automatically through the ESLP database. Figure 2

shows how the researchers gained the frequency of student posting in the ESLP. For example, a

student Tan L. has done 89 posting throughout the course. Lecturer always encourage every

student to be active and their posting and the frequencies are constantly monitored from time to

time.

Figure 2: Frequency of student posting

Student collaboration is monitored in the ESLP and is classified into three high level

dimensions of collaboration based on the above research model.


820 | MEDC 2018

RESULTS

Descriptive analysis

Descriptive analysis involves the extraction of the frequency of student and lecturer posting

along with the categorizing the number of posting within the specific and designated high level

dimensions of collaboration.

Frequency Posting

i. Students

Frequency of student posting refers to the number of student posting in the ESLP during

collaboration between student-student and student-lecturer as well as learning materials. In this

study, one posting is counted as a contribution or student engagement regardless of whether the

posting pertains to academic or social communication. Table 2 shows the frequency of student

posting in the ESLP. The findings show the minimum number of student posting is 1 time while

the maximum number of student posting is 118 times. Mean for student posting is = 28.60, SD

= 28.85.

Table 2: Student posting in the

ESLP

Student Posting (n=42)

Minimum 1

Maxsimum 118

Mean, 28.60

Standard

Deviation

28.85

Total of

Posting

1,201

posting

Posting/student 2.04/week

Figure 3: The frequency of student posting

Figure 3 shows the frequency of student posting in the ESLP. The findings demonstrated the

existence of active collaboration between student-student and student-lecturer which assisted the

construction of students’ knowledge in the ESLP. During the 14 weeks of the course, the entire

student's recorded posting was 1,201 and on average, a student contributed 2.04 posting a week.

This first finding outlines the significant of the quantity of collaboration in the ESLP which

enhances students’ construction of knowledge during such activities. According to Shin (1998);

Leem (1999); Lim (1999), among the factors that influence the active involvement of students

are the students' knowledge of the course, the personality characteristics of the students, the role

of lecturer and the feedback received. The results of this study prove that the role of lecturer in

providing feedback and instruction has encouraged the active participation of students.

Noorizdayantie et al (2009) argue that the frequency of collaboration reflects the effort

contributed by the group members to complete the given assignment. The results show that

there is a relationship between frequency of collaboration and learning quantities acquired by

the students.

Results of the second finding recorded a satisfactory of frequency of posting. Among

the factors contributing to the high frequency of student posting are likely due to the role of

course lecturer encouraging their students to continue to collaborate. Hara, Bonk & Angeli

(2000) found that on average, students only contributed one posting within a week. This finding

is consistent with the study of Schellens & Valcke (2005) which also found that on average,

students contributed 1.48 posting within a week. Lee (2012) reported on average, his students


821 | MEDC 2018

contributed 3.36 posting within a week. In contrast to Pham et al. (2014) found that their

students only contributed 0.1 posting within a week. According to him, students are only

involved in group assignments and completing assignments if encouraged and made compulsory

by course lecturers. They will not learn voluntarily online.

ii. Lecturer

Table 3 shows the frequency of lecturer posting for Week 1 until Week 14 with the total number

of lecturer posting of 165 times.

Table 3: Posting lecturer in

the ESNP

Week Number of

Posting

Week 1 11

Week 2 32

Week 3 51

Week 4 6

Week 5 21

Week 6 18

Week 7 10

Week 8 8

Week 9 0

Week 10 3

Week 11 2

Week 12 1

Week 13 0

Week 14 2

Total 165

Figure 4: The frequency of lecturer posting

Figure 4 shows the frequency of lecturer posting is significantly more in the first week. It shows

lecturer collaborating actively to help students learn in the initial part of the learning process.

However, on week 9 onwards, the number of post lecturer decreased and tapered drastically. It

is likely that the students have natured and cultivated the collaboratively activity and the lecturer

only act within a passive facilitator role.

Dimensions of Collaboration

i. Students

There are five dimensions for collaboration namely social, procedural, expository, explanatory

and cognitive dimensions (Oliver & McLoughlin (1997a)) being investigated and we examined

the dominant dimensions of collaboration during the teaching and learning process as well as

their relationship with the mean score of the construction of knowledge.

The findings were obtained through the monitoring of the collaboration that have taken

place in the ESLP. Table 4 and Figure 5 show the percentages of each collaboration dimensions.

It is found that the highest percentage value is expository dimension which recorded a

percentage of 27.1% with 325 postings followed by social dimension with 243 posting (20.2%).

The collaboration dimension with the lowest mean value is cognitive dimension of 16.6% with a

total number of postings of 199. This finding demonstrates that the collaborative dimensions

transpired in student-student and student-lecturer interaction are those involving high-level

dimensions (expository, explanatory and cognitive) with total percentage of 52.6% and these

dimensions related to construction of knowledge.


822 | MEDC 2018

Table 4: Percentages of each collaboration dimensions by student Collaboration

Dimension

Collaboration

Level

Number of

Posting

Percentage

(%)

Total Percentage

(%)

Social Low 243 20.2 37.4

Procedural 207 17.2

Expository High 325 27.1 62.6

Explanatory 227 18.9

Cognitive 199 16.6

Total 1201 100

Figure 5: Percentages of each collaboration dimensions by student

Predictably, expository recorded the highest posting possibly because as a group assignment

given by a lecturer which requires each group member to give opinions and views in solving the

problem. Most of them are looking for self-contained learning materials and sharing them with

other friends. At the same time, lecturer also play an important role to encourage students to

share ideas and knowledge through the discussion forums. This finding is supported by Omar et

al., (2007) in his study using an open learning management system for the delivery of distance

education courses. They reported that expository (44.8%) was also the dominant dimension of

collaboration followed by procedural (25.7%), social (21.1%) and explanatory (7.4%). While

cognitive (1.0%) is the lowest dimension of collaboration.

Liew & Teoh (2011) in his study to ensure that the quality of online teaching and

learning also found that expository was the most dominant (32%) followed by explanatory

(27%), procedural (23%), social (10%) and cognitive (8%). They argue that expository only

involves demonstrations of knowledge or facts without the need for detailed descriptions.

However, cognitive involving constructive feedback and detailed review of content through

critical thinking leading to student construction of knowledge still need to be improved.

In contrast to this findings, Teoh et. al., (2010) in his study on student interaction

between degree students and postgraduate students, the dominant dimension of collaboration for

undergraduate students was procedural (29%), while for postgraduate students exhibited the

explanatory dimension with the percentage of 33%.

One interesting observation is that social dimension recorded the second highest

percentage. It is likely that each student needs to introduce themselves before starting group

tasks in order to establish a good relationship between them. It also illustrates that every

member of the group strives to identify other members of his group while the appointed leader

of the group plays a role to create an effective group to complete the assignment together. It is

clear that existing social collaboration not only meets the learning needs, but also fulfils social

needs for bonding and friendship. Social dimension also occurs when students get social

feedback from their course lecturer or colleagues through personal encouragement and

motivational help (Gunawardena and Zittle, 1997; McDonald & Gibson, 1998). This is in line


823 | MEDC 2018

with Vygotsky (1978) who argues that social interaction in cooperative learning is capable for

build cognitive and emotional imagery of reality.

Overall, it was found that the expository, explanatory and cognitive achieved a high

level of collaboration with recorded percentage of 62.6%. This suggests that lecturer has

successfully engaged students in the process of teaching and learning and illustrate that lecturers

have has successfully stimulated students' level of understanding towards content.

ii. Lecturer

This analysis relates to the classification of social, procedural, expository, explanatory and

cognitive dimensions of collaboration for lecturer posting. Each dimension of lecturer posting is

monitored throughout a semester.

Table 5: Percentages of each collaboration dimensions by lecturer Collaboration

Dimension

Collaboration

Level

Number of

Posting

Percentage

(%)

Total Percentage (%)

Social Low 66 40.0 79.4

Procedure 65 39.4

Expository High 32 19.4 20.6

Explanatory 2 1.2

Cognitive 0 0.0

Total 165 100

Figure 6: Percentages of each collaboration dimensions by lecturer

Table 5 and Figure 6 show the number of lecturer posting in the ESLP for each dimension of

collaboration. Analysis of the data obtained shows the highest number of posting is social

dimension with the number of posting 66 times. This was followed by procedural dimension

with a total number of posting 65 times. Next is expository dimension with the number of

posting 32 times while the number of explanatory dimension posting is 2 times. The lecturer's

posting distribution shows that lecturer are practicing student-centered learning where lecturer

act to facilitate learning.


824 | MEDC 2018

iii. Comparison of Student-Lecturer Collaboration Dimensions

Table 6 and Figure 7 show the differences in the five dimensions namely social, procedural,

expository, explanatory and cognitive dimensions on students and lecturer.

Table 6: Comparison of student-lecturer collaboration dimensions Collaboration

Level

Low Level High Level

Social Procedure Expository Explanatory Cognitive Total

Student 243

(20.2%)

207

(17.2%)

325

(27.1%)

227

(18.9%)

199

(16.6%)

1201

Lecturer 66 (40%) 65

(39.4%)

32

(19.4%)

2

(1.2%)

0

(0%)

165

Total 309 272 357 229 199 1366

It was found that the highest dimension of collaboration for students was expository (27.1%)

while the highest dimension of collaboration for lecturer was social (40%). Table 6 also shows

that student collaboration dimension involving high-level dimensions for the highest percentage

of 62.6% while lecturer's collaborative domain involves low-level dimensions which record the

highest percentage of 79.4%. This proves that lecturers encouraged student-centered learning

practices in teaching and learning that require students to collaborate and generate their own

knowledge while lecturer only play a role in facilitating.

Figure 7: Comparison of student-lecturer collaboration dimensions’ percentage

Figure 7 shows that student collaboration is higher in the high-level collaboration dimension

(expository, explanatory and cognitive) and this indicates that students are active in

collaboration and played their required roles successfully in generating their own knowledge

while lecturer acts as facilitators.

Linear Regression

The researcher uses linear regression analysis to see the extent of the relationship between

frequency of posting and construction of knowledge score.

Frequency of Posting and Construction of Knowledge

Table 7a shows range of frequency of posting with the number of students involved in the

postings within such a range. The results show that the majority of students are involved in the

range of posting between 1 to 40 posting (80.95%) with 34 students are involved out of 42

students. There 10 students who are extremely active with the range of posting between 41-120

postings.


825 | MEDC 2018

Table 7a: Mean of Frequency Posting Range of

Frequency of

Posting

Number of

Student

Frequency of Posting Mean of

Frequency of

Posting

1-20 22 1,2,3,4,5,9,9,10,10,11,11,11,11,12,13,13,14,15,15,17,

17,18

10.50

21-40 12 21,22,23,23,24,24,26,28,29,29,37,39 27.08

41-60 2 45,56 50.50

61-80 2 66,72 69.00

81-100 2 89,96 92.50

101-120 2 103,118 110.50

Total 42

Table 7b shows the mean score of construction of knowledge. These include the posting for

discussion and completing assignments and other teaching and learning activities. The scores of

construction of knowledge are calculated from these three tasks during this course. Tasks are

group assignment (40%), reading assignment (40%) and short activity (20%). Scores of

construction of knowledge are sorted by the range of frequency posting. Mean score of the

construction of knowledge is calculated to identify their performance.

Figure 8: Mean score of construction of knowledge with mean

of frequency of posting

Figure 8 shows the mean score of construction of knowledge against the mean of frequency of

posting. The straight line indicates that more frequent students posting, which correlated with

the higher constructed knowledge score. Table 7c shows linear regression analysis and shows

that there is a significant relationship between these two parameters (p <0.05) with 80.3%

variance. This proves that there is a significant and positive relationship between the two

variables with the correlation coefficient of 0.896.

Table 7c: Linear regression for the mean score of construction of knowledge with mean of

frequency of posting Dependent

Variable

R2 Independent

Variable

Beta (β) Ralat

Piawai (β)

t-statistic Significant

Mean score of

construction of

knowledge

0.803 Mean of

frequency of

posting

0.896 0.022 4.036 P<0.05

The findings are likely due to the active participation of students to ask questions and to seek

clarification of the learning issues as well as providing ideas and suggestions. Such interactions

encourage students to ask questions, clarify and justify each opinion, voice the idea, give a

review, reflect on their knowledge and motivate students and improve their learning

performance. Young (2008) stated asynchronous collaboration can improve student

achievement where students can exchange opinions, share perspectives and apply knowledge in


826 | MEDC 2018

order to find the best solution to complete the assignment and subsquently enhance

achievement.

Noorizdayantie (2012) suggested that high frequency of collaboration among the

students are imprerative in developing a high level of understanding. Khor (2014) found that

there was a positive relationship between student involvement in collaboration with learning

performance and this meant that more students collaborated, the better are their learning

performances. The interactions that occur during the learning process enable students to solve

their doubts by accepting feedback and ideas from their lecturer as well as their peers in

enhancing their understanding of the topics learned.

Atan, Samsudin & M Idrus (2003), on the other hand suggested that collaboration

involving lecturer and student is a feature that exists in the constructivist learning environment

and plays an important role in the construction of knowledge. Students comprehension and

understanding are articulated through statements, consultation and reflection of ideas or

opinions. This indirectly encourages students to think, build knowledge, explore the skills of

other students and social support through the observation of each member's contribution

(Jonassen et al., 1995). Harasim (1997) also argues that collaborative learners can reduce fears

and uncertainties rather than learning alone without any collaboration. This situation is able to

increase the motivation and satisfaction of the students towards the learning process.

Effect of Dimensions of collaboration towards the students’ construction of knowledge

The effects of the dimension of collaboration namely expository, explanatory and cognitive

towards the student construction of knowledge are analysed and presented below.

i. Expository Dimension towards Construction of Knowledge

Expository dimension in this study refer to student posting that provides exposure on learning

materials such as sharing learning materials between student-student and student-lecturer during

collaboration. It is a high-level collaborative dimension that contributes to construction of

knowledge. Table 8a shows the percentage distribution of the number of students with each

range of posting. The majority of students collaborated with expository dimension are within 0-

9 postings range (81%).

Table 8a: Mean of expository dimension Range of

Posting

Number of

Student

Percentage Expository Dimension Posting Mean of

posting

0-9 34 81% 0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,2,2,2,2,3,3,3,3,4,4,

4,4,5,5,5,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9

3.65

10-19 2 4.8% 17,17 17.00

20-29 3 7.1% 20,23,24 22.33

30-39 3 7.1% 31,33,36 33.33

Total 42

Table 8b shows the range of expository dimension posting with mean score of student

construction of knowledge. Mean score of construction of knowledge, = 84.67 with the range

of posting between 30-39 postings recorded the highest mean value while mean score of

construction of knowledge, , = 76.59 with range of posting between 0-9 posting recorded the

lowest mean value. The findings show that the mean score of student construction of knowledge

is increasing as the range of posting increases (Figure 9).


827 | MEDC 2018

Figure 9: Mean of expository dimension posting with

mean score of construction of knowledge

Table 8c shows the mean of expository dimension posting affect the mean score of construction

of knowledge significantly (p <0.05) with variance 93.2%. This proves that there is a positive

correlation between two variables with correlation coefficient (β) 0.966.

Table 8c: Linear regression for expository dimension posting Dependent

Variable

R2 Independent

Variable

Beta (β) Ralat

Piawai (β)

t-Statistic Significant

Mean Score of

Construction of

Knowledge

0.932 Mean of

Expository

Dimension

Posting

0.966 0.054 5.252 P<0.05

Therefore, H2 is supported. According to Omar et al., (2007), expository may be dominated by

opinion-based posting to fulfill the tasks assigned by the lecturer or student. In this study,

students are responsible for sharing learning materials with other colleagues. These shared

learning materials are used for group assignment completion. Sharing this learning material

indirectly helps to improve student knowledge.

In this study, the H2 was probably supported because of self-learning methods

emphasized in the teaching and learning process. Therefore, students need to be independent

and seek to identify and examine the information or learning materials that are appropriate to

the topics to be discussed before sharing them. This process indirectly requires students to think

and work independently and this self learning help in the construction student individual

knowledge.

ii. Explanatory Dimension towards Construction of Knowledge

Explanatory dimension in this study refers to a student posting that provides an explanation for

solving problem-related courses and assignments between student-student and student-lecturer

during collaboration in the ESNP. It is a high-level collaborative dimension that contributes to

construction of knowledge. Table 9a shows the percentage distribution of the number of

students with each range of posting. The majority of students collaborated with explanatory

dimension are within the 0-8 postings range (81%).


828 | MEDC 2018

Table 9a: Mean of explanatory dimension Range of

Posting

Number of

Student

Percentage Explanatory Dimension Posting Mean of Posting

0-8 34

81% 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,2,2,2,2,2,

2,2,3,3,3,4,4,4,5,6,6,8,8,8

2.44

9-17 4 9.5% 9,10,10,12 10.25

18-26 2 4.8% 23,26 24.50

27-35 2 4.8% 27,27 27.00

Total 42

Table 9b shows the range of explanatory dimension posting with mean score of student

construction of knowledge. Mean score of construction of knowledge, =84.50 with range of

explanatory dimension are in between 18-26 postings recording the highest mean value while

mean score of construction of knowledge =77.03 with range of explanatory dimension post

between 0-8 posting recorded the lowest mean value. The findings show that the mean score of

student construction of knowledge is increasing as the explanatory dimension posting increases

(Figure 10).

Figure 10: Mean of explanatory dimension posting

with mean score of construction of knowledge

Table 9c shows that mean of explanatory dimension posting significantly affected mean score of

construction of knowledge (p <0.05) with variance 93.0%. This proves that there is a positive

relationship between two variables with correlation coefficient (β) 0.964.

Table 9c: Linear regression for explanatory dimension posting Dependent

Variable

R2 Independent

Variable

Beta (β) Ralat

Piawai (β)


Mean Score of

Construction of

Knowledge

0.930 Mean of

Explanatory

Dimension

Posting

0.964 0.055 5.252 P<0.05

Hence, H3 is supported. According to Othman, Atan & Guan (2005), explanatory refers to

discussions between lecturer and student who are known to be able to lead understanding and

build knowledge to a higher level. Mohaidin (1999), suggest that expalanatory also involve the

active involvement of students to find the information needed, analyze, evaluate and explain to

lecturer or other students and these are imprerative to the new construction of knowledge.

In this study, the H3 is supported because of the role of students who initiated the

communication that leads to cooperative and collaborative activities among students as well as

enhancing the level of reflection and cognition as well as promoting high-level thinking. This

process successfully helped to improve student construction of knowledge. In addition, the

lecturer also succeeded in promoting and build a condusive learning environment with high


829 | MEDC 2018

level of communication, collaborative and student-centered activities that are seen to enhance

the construction of students’ knowledge.

iii. Cognitive Dimension towards Construction of Knowledge

Cognitive dimension in this study refers to a student posting that provides positive feedback and

reflection between student-student and student-lecturer during collaboration. It is a high-level

collaborative dimension that contributes to construction of knowledge. Table 10a shows the

percentage distribution of the number of students with each range of posting. The majority of

students collaborated with cognitive dimension are within the 0-7 postings range (78.6%).

Table 10a: Mean of cognitive dimension Range of

Posting

Number of

Student

Percentage Cognitive Dimension Posting Mean of

Posting

0-7 33 78.6% 0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,3,3,3,4,4,

4,5,6,6,6,6,6,7

2.64

8-15 6 14.3% 8,9,9,9,11,13 9.83

16-23 3 7.1% 16,17,20 17.67

Total 42

Table 10b also shows the range of cognitive dimension posting with mean score of student

construction of knowledge. Mean score of construction of knowledge, = 82.33 with range of

cognitive dimension posting between 16-23 postings recorded the highest mean value while

mean score of construction of knowledge, = 77.18 with range of posting between 0-7 postings

recorded the lowest mean value. The findings show that the mean score of student construction

of knowledge is increasing as the frequency of cognitive dimension posting (Figure 11).

Figure 11: Mean of cognitive dimension posting with mean

score of construction of knowledge

Table 10c shows that the mean of cognitive dimension posting influences mean score of

construction of knowledge significantly (p <0.05) with variance 93.0%. This proves that there is

a positive relationship between the two variables with the coefficient of correlation (β) 0.998.

Table 10c: Linear regression for cognitive dimension posting Dependent

Variable

R2 Independent

Variable

Beta (β) Ralat

Piawai (β)


Mean Score of

Construction of

Knowledge

0.930 Mean of

Cognitive

Dimension

Posting

0.998 0.024 14.254 P<0.05

Therefore, H4 is supported. This finding supports previous studies (McLoughlin & Luca, 2000;

Brown, Collins & Duguid, 1989). According to Oliver & Reeves (1996), cognitive dimension

involves statements and actions that are used to promote learning processes and are usually


830 | MEDC 2018

associated with high level cognitive processing by students. The high level of interaction and

collaboration among students is a good indicator of the learning environment in which both

processes support high level of cognitive activity.

This dimension promotes high-level thinking and improves memory retention as well as

provides a better understanding of content. This is because they need to restructure the opinions

and ideas they get and these situations require them to think constructively. This indirectly

affects the construction of student knowledge.

Mason (1991) in his study found that lecturer played an important role in enhancing the

effectiveness of collaboration. However, only highly skilled lecturer is able to promote the

cognitive dimension discussion process by solving problems in a new perspective, addressing

real problems to enable students to find and share learning resources while directing meaningful

collaborative patterns and active participation among students.

In this study, the H4 is supported because this dimension encourages students to

elaborate new knowledge deeply and students need to identify problems and analyse them

together. This process enables high level of knowledge and understanding to be formed among

the students and at the same time influence the construction of their knowledge. In addition,

lecturer also play an important role in ensuring generate cognitive dimension while they

collaborate.

Relationship between dimensions of collaboration with construction of knowledge are

summarized as Table 11.

Table 11: Relationship between dimensions of collaboration with construction of knowledge Dimensions of

Collaboration

Level Relationship Coefficient of

Correlation, β

Expository High Positive 0.966

Explanatory Positive 0.964

Cognitive Positive 0.930

Overall, the findings support all the hypotheses proposed by researchers, H1, H2, H3 and H4.

Therefore, the researchers conclude that the frequency of student posting influences the

construction of knowledge. The higher the number of posting frequencies, the higher the

construction of knowledge. In addition, researchers also conclude that high level collaboration

that is expository, explanatory and cognitive should be given significant attention and emphasis

in an effort to improve the construction of students’ knowledge in any social based-online

learning.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, this study reveals that the rate of collaboration is significantly related to the

construction of knowledge in an online learning environment with our data very much

supporting such a conclusion. Overall, this study shows some useful findings for educators to

understand students’ online interaction patterns. It provides a new way to code the threaded

discussion posted by student and several innovative analysis approaches and techniques to

encourage students to post the discussions with higher order thinking skills which encourage to

high level of knowledge construction. We believe future studies are warranted to assess

students’ online postings, online learning success in discussion-oriented online courses, and to

understand the relationship between students’ postings and their learning outcomes.


831 | MEDC 2018

REFERENCES

Anderson, S.E & Harris, J.B (1997). Factors associated with amount of use and benefits

obtained by users of a statewide Educational Telecomputing Network, Educational

Technology Research and Development, 45(1), 19-50.

Arroyo, C.G. (2011) On-Line Social Networks: Innovative Ways towards the Boost of

Collaborative Language Learning: http://www.pixel-

online.net/ICT4LL2011/common/download/paper_pdf/CLL16-428-FP-Gonzalez-

ICT4LL2011.pdf

Atan, H., Samsudin, D. S., & M Idrus, R. (2003). The Effects Of Collaboration In The

Constructivist Web-Based Learning Environment Of An Undergraduate Physics Course.

Malaysian Journal of Educational Technology, 3(1), 45–52.

Bruce K. Gushiken. (2013)Integrating Edmodo into a High school service club: To promote

Interactive online communication, 18th Annual TCC online conference 2013, Hawai,

USA.

Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.

Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.

Chada Kongchan. (2013) How Edmodo and Google Docs can change traditional classrooms,

The European Conference on Language Learning 2013, Brighton, United Kingdom,

paper#0442.

Chapman, C., Ramondt, L., & Smiley, G. (2005). Strong community, deep learning: Exploring

the link. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 42(3), 217-230.

Chatti, M. A., Hamdan, N. A., & Schaper, H. (2012). Collaboration in mobile learning

seminar.Proceedings of the Mobile Learning Computer-Supported Learning Research

Group Conference (CALRG 2011). The Open University, United Kingdom.

Curtis, D. D., & Lawson, M. J. (2001). Exploring collaborative online learning. Journalof

Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(1), 21-34.

Fitchter, D. (2005). The many forms of e-collaboration: Blogs, wikis, portals, groupware,

discussion boards, and instant messaging. Online 29(4), 48-50.

Garrison, D. R. (1997). Computer conferencing and distance education: Cognitive and social

presence issues. The new learning environment: a global perspective. ICDE World

Conference, Pennsylvania State University.

Gunawardena, C. N. & Zittle, F. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a

computer mediated conferencing environment. American Journal of Distance Education,

11(3), 8-26.

Halm,J., Tullier, C., D’Mello, A., Bartels, R., Wittman, A., Lamboley, D., Smith, T., Hartless,

R. N., Lay, M., Gockenbach, J., Bucholtz, B., and Nichols, L. (2012). Use of Social

Networking Tools in Unit 5. SNT White Paper. Unit 5 Citizens Advisory Counsel.

Hara, N., Bonk, C. J., & Angeli, C. (2000). Content analysis of online discussion in an applied

educational psychology course. Instructional Science, 28(2), 115-152.

Harasim, L. (1997). Interacting in hyperspace, in University of Maryland System Institute for

Distance Education and International University Consortium Conference on Learning,

Teaching Interacting in Hyperspace: The potential of the

Web.http://umuc.edu/ide/potentialweb97/harasim.html

Hiltz, S. R. (1998). Collaborative Learning in Asynchronous Learning Networks: Building

Learning Communities. Paper presented at the 3rd WebNet 98 World Conference of the

WWW, Internet, and Intranet. 7-12 November 1998. Orlando.

Hughes, J. E., & Narayan, R. (2009). Collaboration and learning with wikis in postsecondary

classrooms. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 8 (1), 63-82.

Johnson, H. (2007). Dialogue and the construction of knowledge in e-Learning: Exploring

students’ perceptions of their learning while using Blackboard’s asynchronous discussion

board. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning. Available:

http://www.eurodl.org/materials/contrib/2007/Henry_Johnson.htm.

Jonassen, D. H. (1996). Computer in the classroom: Mindtools for critical thinking, Columbus,

OH: Merrill/Prentice-Hall.

http://umuc.edu/ide/potentialweb97/harasim.html

http://www.eurodl.org/materials/contrib/2007/Henry_Johnson.htm


832 | MEDC 2018

Jonassen D., Davidson, A., Collins, M., Campbell, J., & Haag, B.B. (1995). Constructivism and

computer-mediated communication in distance education. The American Journal of

Distance Education, 9(2), 7-26.

Jones, P. (2010). Collaboration at a distance: Using a wiki to create a collaborative learning

environment for distance education and on-campus students in a sosial work course.

Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 30(2), 225-236.

Jung, I., Choi, S., Lim, C., & Leem, J. (2002). Effects of Different Types of Interaction on

Learning Achievement, Satisfaction and Participation in Web-Based Instruction.

Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 39(2), 153–162.

http://doi.org/10.1080/1355800021012139

Khor, E. T. (2014). Collaborative content organiser (CCO) learning system: an empirical study

using the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). (PhD Thesis, Universiti Sains

Malaysia. Unpublished).

Lee, J. (2012). Patterns of interaction and participation in a large online course: strategies for

fostering sustainable discussion. Educational Technology & Society, 15(1), 260-272.

Leem, J. H (1999). Effects of small group learning strategies in web-based problem solving

environment on discussion participation and problem-solving. Unpublished doctoral

dissertation, Seoul National University.

Liew, T. K. & Teoh, A. P. (2011). Assuring the quality of online teaching and learning: The

case of Wawasan Open University. Proceedings of the 25th Annual Conference of Asian

Association of Open Universities, Malaysia.

Lim, C.I (1999). Integrated approach in designing interactive WBI. Korea Journal of

Educational Research, 15(1), 3-24.

Liu, C. C. & Milrad, M. (2010). Guest editorial – one-to-one learning in the mobile and

ubiquitous computing age. Educational Technology & Society, 13(4), 1-3.

Mason, R. (1991). Moderating educational computer conferencing. DEOSNEWS1(19).

http://www.emoderators.com/papers/mason/html

McDonald, J and Gibson, C.C (1998). Interpersonal dynamics and group development in

computer conferencing. American Journal of Distance Education, 12(1), 7-25.

McLoughlin, C. and Luca, J. (2000). Cognitive engagement and higher order thinking through

computer conferencing: We know why but do we know how? In A. Herrmann and M.M.

Kulski (Eds), Flexible Futures in Tertiary Teaching. Proceedings of the 9th Annual

Teaching Learning Forum, 2-4 February 2000. Perth: Curtin University of Technology.

[Available] http://lsn.curtin.edu.au/tlf/tlf2000/mcloughlin.html

Meyer, D. K. A. (2003). Face-to-face versus threaded discussions: The role of time and higher-

order thinking. Journal Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(3), 55-65.

Mohaidin, J. (1999). Konstruktivisme: Aplikasinya dalam rekabentuk pembelajaran berasaskan

web. Teknologi Instruksi dan Pendidikan Bestari: Persediaan dan Cabaran dalam Alaf

Baru: 1-14, Persatuan Teknologi Pendidikan Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur.

Murphy, K.L & Collins, M.P (1997). Development of communication conventions in

instructional electronic chats. Journal of Distance Education, 12, 177-200.

Noorizdayantie, S. (2012). Pembelajaran berasaskan masalah (PBM) atas talian : kajian

kolaborasi asinkronous forum board dan penjanaan pengetahuan dalam ruang kerja wiki

(Master tesis, Universiti Sains Malaysia).

Noorizdayantie, S., Zain, F. M., Kamar, N. A. N., & Sahimi, S. M. (2009). the Online Problem

Based Learning : the Effect of Collaboration Towards the Construction of Knowledge.

Computers in Education, 371–375.

Salmon, G (1999). Computer mediated conferencing in large scale management education,

Open Learning, 14(2), 34-43.

Thongmak, M. (2013a). Adopting Edmodo© to Enhance Classroom Collaboration: Thailand

Case. 21st International Business Information Management Association Conference, 17–

29.

Ohlund, B., Yu, C. H., Jannasch-Pennell, A., & Digangi, S. A. (2000). Impact of asynchronous

and synchronous Internet-based communication on collaboration and performance among

K-12 teachers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 23(4) 405-420.

http://doi.org/10.1080/1355800021012139

http://www.emoderators.com/papers/mason/html


833 | MEDC 2018

Oliver, R. & McLoughlin, C. (1997a). Interaction in audiographics teaching and learning

environments. The American Journal of Distance Education, 11(1), 34-54.

Oliver, R., Omari, A. & Herrington, J. (1997). Exploring student interaction in collaborative

World Wide Web learning environments. ED-MEDIA/EDTELECOM 1997. Calgary,

Canada, II, 812-817. http://ecu.edu.au/oliver/docs/97/EM1doc.pdf

Oliver, R., Omari, A. & Herrington, J. (1997). Exploring student interaction in collaborative

World Wide Web learning environments. ED-MEDIA/EDTELECOM 1997. Calgary,

Canada, II, 812-817. http://ecu.edu.au/oliver/docs/97/EM1doc.pdf

Oliver, R., & T. Reeves. (1996). Dimensions of effective interactive learning with telematics.

Educational Technology Research and Development, 44(4), 45-56.

Omar, M., Rohana, M. Y., Zuraidah, A. R., Ahmad, H. M., Noraida, A. G., & Hanafi, A.

(2007). Problem-based learning and the open source learning management system delivery of

the distance education program. Paper presented at the 21st Asian Association Open

Learning Conference. 14 March 2007. Open University Malaysia.

Othman, S.A.S., Atan, H. & Guan, C. K. (2005). The Open University learning management

system: A study of interaction in the asynchronous Forum Board. International Journal

of Instructional Technology & Distance Learning, 2(11), 3-10.

Pham, T., Thalathoti, V., & Dakich, E. (2014). Frequency and pattern of learner-instructor

interaction in an online English language learning environment in Vietnam. Australasian

Journal of Educational Technology, 30(6), 686–698.

Robertson, I. (2008). Learners’ attitudes to wiki technology in problem based, blended learning

for vocational teacher. Australia Journal of Education Technology, 24(4), 425-441.

Schellens, T. & Valcke, M. (2005). Collaborative learning in asynchronous discussion group:

What about the impact on cognitive processing? Computers in Human Behavior, 21(6),

957-975.

Schrage, M. (1990). Shared minds: the technologies of collaborations. New York: Random

House.

Shin, M.H (1998). Effects of self-directed learning environment on achievement and

motivation, Korea Journal of Educational Technology, 14(3), 177-204.

Slotter, E. B. (2010). Using wiki contribution to induce collaborative learning in a psychology

course. International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning, 6(1), 33-42.

Swan, K. (2002). Building learning communities in online courses: The importance of

interaction. Education. Communication & Information, 2(2), 23-49.

Swan, K., Shen, J., & Hiltz, S. R. (2006). Assessment and collaboration in online learning.

Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 10(1), 45-62.

Teoh, B., Ping, A., Cheng, A. Y., & Manoharan, K. (2010). Students Interaction in the Online

Learning Management Systems : A Comparative Study of Undergraduate and

Postgraduate Courses. The 24th AAOU Annual Conference, (54), 1–14.

Thanaporn, S. (2013). Synchronous and asynchronous collaboration technology use in

teamwork. Proceedings of the Nineteenth Americas Conference on Information Systems,

Chicago, Illinois, August 15-17.

Vosloo, S. (Ed.). (2012). Mobile learning. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and

Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wagner, C. (2004). Wiki: A technology for conversational knowledge management and group

collaboration. Communication of the Association for Information System, 13, 265-289.

Watson, K. (2008). Supporting knowledge creation: Using wikis for group collaboration.

Education Center for Applied Research, (3), 1-13.

Wei, C., Maust, B., Barrick, J., Cuddihy, E., & Spyridakis, J. H. (2005). Wikis for supporting

distributed collaborative writing. Paper presented at the Society for Technical

Communication 52nd Annual Conference, 8-11 May 2005. Seattle.

Young, A. (2008). Structuring asynchronous discussion to incorporate learning principles in an

online class: One professor’s course analysis. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and

Teaching, 4(2), 218-224.

http://ecu.edu.au/oliver/docs/97/EM1doc.pdf

http://ecu.edu.au/oliver/docs/97/EM1doc.pdf


834 | MEDC 2018

m zain effariza hanafi yahya don school of education and ... · | prosiding seminar kebangsaan...

Documents