Students' Perception of Collaborative Small Group Projects Using Synchronous and Asynchronous Tools

David WicksAndrew Lumpe

Arthur EllisSeattle Pacific University

2

Abstract

This session will report on findings from a three-year study that explored how different communication tools may impact small group collaborative learning projects in an online course. The primary goal of this session is to share successful techniques for organizing and facilitating small group collaborative projects in online and blended courses.

3

Central purpose: Compare graduate students' perceptions and practices of collaborative small group work in three different sections of the same online course.

Section A Super Wiki

n=27

Section BWiki

n=24

Section CDiscussion Board-Only

n=21Asynchronous DiscussionBlackboard Discussion Board

✔ ✔ ✔

Asynchronous WikiLearning Objects Wiki

✔ ✔

Synchronous Word Processing/ChatTypeWith.Me

✔

Same Professor ✔ ✔ ✔Same Course ✔ ✔ ✔

4

Goal of Education: Develop Expertise

Develop expertise (Bransford,1999).

Experts have more access to content

Easily retrieve content

Can adapt and change, and recognize when to

apply knowledge

Collaborative learning environments are

designed to develop expertise by:

Helping users discern patterns

Create meaning in non-static,

collaborative settings

Within such environments:

Deep factual knowledge bases can

be developed

Knowledge easily retrieved and shared

Conceptual frameworks built

5

Project-based approach

Challenging question/task

Shared goal/purpose Long term

Group members negotiating

shared meaningStudent voice Deliverables

produced

http://bie.org

6

Instrument - Community of InquiryElements Categories Indicators (examples only)

Cognitive Presence Triggering Event Sense of puzzlement

Exploration Information exchange

Integration Connecting ideas

Resolution Apply new ideas

Social Presence Affective Expression Expression of emotion

Open Communication Risk-free expression

Group Cohesion Encouraging collaboration

Teaching Presence Instructional Management Defining & initiating discussion topics

Building Understanding Sharing personal meaning

Direct Instruction Focusing discussion

Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2000, p. 4Swan, K., Shea, P., Richardson, J., Ice, P., Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Arbaugh, J. B., 2008

7

Teaching Presence

• The design, facilitation, and direction of cognitive and social processes for the purpose of realizing personally meaningful and educational worthwhile learning outcomes.

• Course Examples– Collaborative Script– Project Phases

http://communitiesofinquiry.com/teachingpresence

8

Collaborative Scripthttp://tinyurl.com/collab-script

9

Phases

Phase 5: Final

Product and team reflection

Phase 4: Essay- Meaningful student learning?

Classroom as a place of reflective

practice?

Phase 3: Essay-

Student needs?

What does a good

classroom look like?

Phase 2: Essay- Why

teach? Qualities of a good teacher?

Phase 1: Team charter

10

11

12

Social Presence

• Ability of participants to identify with the group or course of study, communicate purposefully in a trusting environment, and develop personal and affective relationships progressively by way of projecting their individual personalities (Garrison, 2011, p.34)

• Course Examples– Team Charter– Private Journal

13

Team Charter

Palloff and Pratt, 2010

14

Private Journal

15

Cognitive Presence

Collaborate on Deliverable

(Charter, Essay, or Presentation)

Complete Deliverable, Reflect on process

Review Collaborative

Script Questions

Post to Personal Area, Outline Collaborative

Response

Practical Inquiry Model

Garrison, Anderson, and Archer (2000)

16

Sections were compared on their perception of teaching, cognitive, and social presence in the course using the Community of Inquiry Survey

• There is a significant difference between the Wiki and Discussion Board-Only sections on the Open Communication subscale of Social Presence. The specific subscale questions are:– I felt comfortable conversing through the online

medium. – I felt comfortable participating in the course

discussions. – I felt comfortable interacting with other course

participants.

17

18

Super Wiki Section Reflection

“In our opinion our products all turned out very well! The process for all of them went well too. We did a good job getting organized and all putting our fair share of work and effort into each product. The process of this project was dependent on both our individual thoughts and our ability to collaborate to create a product. The essays contained individual thoughts from each of us. They and the final presentation would not have been as thorough if only one of us had contributed to the project. In addition, the group had exceptional ideas and were able to articulate them. There was also mutual respect for each others’ opinions which resulted in a comprehensive product.”

19

Wiki Section Reflection

“I was very pleased with how our team worked together. We were all supportive of each other. When others needed assistance another team member always stepped up to help. We listened to everyone's ideas and everyone contributed to the project equally.”

20

Discussion Board-Only Reflection

“Our team was not completely balanced. One person was dealing with family, job and health issues and was only there for part of the time. The other member was very much an achiever. Part of me felt that even though I was contributing I just didn't have ownership in the project.”

21

Charter & Phases

“I just want to reiterate how much of a difference the team charter made in this group. I am used to getting saddled with lazy groups and negatively expected the same of this group at the start. Because I quickly saw that I was in an effective, skilled group, the team charter with the roles that we defined for each phase at the start, kept me from taking over the group like the control freak that I am--I knew that I had to stay within the boundaries of my role. Again, this group project proved far my valuable than my initial, pessimistic expectations.”

From Wiki Section

22

Nine Collaboration Tips

Collaborative Script Authentic Project Collaboration vs. Cooperation

Team size

Phases• Multiple Points of

Assessment• Individual and

Collaborative Assessment

Team Charter• Communication• Goals• Deadlines• Deliverables

Individual and Group Areas for Content and

Reflection

Use of Tools• Discussion Board• LMS Wiki vs. Public Wiki• Collaborative Word

Processor (Super Wiki)

Length of Project

Comments or Questions?

David WicksAssistant Prof

Director ofInstructional Technology

Seattle Pacific Udwicks@spu.edu

Blog: http://dwicksspu.wordpress.comTwitter: dwicksspu

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 171 Second Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, California, 94105, USA.

Andrew LumpeAssociate Dean

School of EdSeattle Pacific U

lumpea@spu.eduBlog: http://lumpe.wordpress.com

Twitter: lumpea