Computer supported collaborative learning in higher education an

Computer supported collaborative learning in higher education: an overview of evidence based approaches Prof. dr. Martin Valcke http: //allserv. ugent. be/~mvalcke/CV/CVMVA. htm Ghent University e. Li, Riyadh, March 16 -18, 2009 1

Ghent features

Background • Ghent University: Ranked nr. 127 worldwide - ranked 1 as best research setting (November 2007) • Flanders: Dutch speaking area • Research university!!

Background • Head Department of Educational Studies • 11 years Dutch Open University • International collaboration (Cambodia, China, Ecuador, Mozambique, Tanzania, Uganda, Vietnam, Zimbabwe, …)

Background • Research university! • Topics (among others): higher education, ICT, innovation management, evidence based approach • Our own instructional aproach is object of study: elearning, peer tutoring, coaching, collaborative learning … 5

Department of Education: research • Strong Research focus - Culture and literacies - Quality assurance in education (performance indicator studies ~ PISA – TIMSS) - ICT in higher education - Innovation in formal education - Professional development of Teachers - Management of Education - Management of Higher Education - Scientific Literacy - Adult education - Output orientation: ISI

Ouput orientation • ISI indexed journal articles • Evidence-based orientation http: //allserv. ugent. be/~mvalcke/CV/CVMVA. htm

E-Learning and Higher education • The integrated use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) in Higher Education – Logistics – Administration – Educational impact (Laurrilard (2005, p. 72) 8

E-learning and Higher Education • • • internet access to digital versions of materials unavailable locally internet access to search, and transactional services interactive diagnostic or adaptive tutorials Information interactive educational games technologies remote control access to local physical devices personalized information and guidance for learning support simulations or models of scientific systems communications tools for collaboration Communication tools for creativity and design technologies virtual reality environments for development and manipulation data analysis, modeling or organization tools and applications electronic devices to assist disabled learners 9

E-learning and Higher Education • Research literature not univocal: “Whilst the benefits of e. Learning are highly prophesized, the many implications of implementing an e. Learning program require careful consideration” O’Neill, Singh and O’Donoghue (2004) 10

E-learning and Higher Education • “the creation of sound pedagogic practice is often flawed or missing completely and activities constructed service the technology rather than student or learner progression or association. ” O’Neill, Singh and O’Donoghue (2004) 11

E-learning and Higher Education • Present contribution • E-learning: – Focus on collaborative learning – Focus on “pedagogies” – Focus on evidence-based practices – Focus on cognitive benefits 12

E-learning in Higher Education • Cognitive benefits: – Performance (tests, exams) – Levels of cognitive processing 13

E-learning: CSCL • On-line collaboration • What is theoretical base to ground assumptions about impact on cognitive processing? 14

15

« Collaborative learning is in the air » « Everyone wants it. It is the instructional strategy, perhaps the strategy of the decade » 16

Collaborative learning without ICT Slavin (1996) Johnson & Johnson (1996) 17

Collaborative learning with ICT: CSCL • Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) does not systematically produce positive learning outcomes (Dillenbourg 2002) Interactive Flat 18

But does this invoke relevant learning? • Collaboration does not lead automatically to high quality learning. • There is a need guidance and online support in CSCL settings that is comparable to the need of classroom support in face-to-face settings (Lazonder, Wilhelm, & Ootes, 2003). 19

20

21

Collaborative learning with ICT: CSCL • Critical variables and processes in CSCL setting: – Learner characteristics – Group characteristics – Task characteristics 22

23

Design guidelines ~ 3 sets of variables Learner characteristics & support Task characteristics Group Characteristics 24

CSCL: group characteristics 25

CSCL: group characteristics small group (8 to 10 participants) 26

CSCL: group characteristics 27

CSCL: task characteristics 28

CSCL: task characteristics • Scripting ~ adding structure to the task: – adding specific goals for the learners, classifying task types, adding task prescriptions, or pre-structuring the task. • Scripting effective to improve collaboration (Pfister & Mühlpfordt, 2002). 29

CSCL Scripting: roles • • Pharmacy education 5 th year students 5 months internship Lack of integrated pharmaceutical knowledge (see Timmers, Valcke, De Mil & Baeyens, 2008) 30

31

CSCL scripting: roles • Content roles: – – – Pharmacyst assistant Theorist Researcher Intern • Communication roles: – – Moderator Question-asker Summarizer Source researcher 32

33

Exchange 34

ICS Integrated Curriculum Score 35

LKC Level knowledge Construction 36

CSCL: differential impact roles see De Wever, Schellens, Van Keer & Valcke (2008) 37

CSCL scripting: tagging 38

CSCL scripting: tagging • Aims of tagging: –obliges students to reflect on nature of contribution –taggs improve outline of discussion and indicate predominance or absence thinking type • Example: De Bono’s (1991) thinking hats to develop critical thinking 39

CSCL scripting: tagging • Garrison (1992) identifies five stages of critical thinking: – Problem identification – Problem definition – Problem exploration – Problem evaluation/applicability – Problem integration 40

De Bono’s (1991) thinking hats Critical Thinking hats Problem identification White hat Problem definition Blue hat Problem exploration Green hat Problem applicability Black hat Problem integration Yellow hat Red hat 41

CSCL scripting: tagging • 3 th-year university students • ‘Instructional Strategies’ (N=35) • 6 groups of 6 team members Experimental condition Control condition 4 groups 23 students 2 groups 12 students Tag posts by a thinking hat 42 No tags to posts required

CSCL scripting: tagging • Evidence for critical thinking in both conditions • Significant deeper critical thinking in experimental condition (F(1, 416)=364. 544; p<. 001) 43

Tagging • Experimental condition – more focused discussions (F(1, 415)=1550. 510; p<. 001) – more new info and ideas (F(1, 352)=21. 955; p<. 001) – more linking facts ideas (F(1, 31)=3. 024; p<. 092) 44

Impact of tagging • Multinomial logistic regression: – experimental condition increases probability of engaging in discussions – experimental students post 2. 73 as many new problem-related information to the discussion – experimental students 2. 95 times more likely to add new ideas – linking ideas and critical assessment occur rarely. Only in experimental condition. 45

Impact of tagging over time • Experimental students constant level of critical thinking • Control students decrease during problem identification and exploration 46

CSCL: learner characteristics 47

CSCL: learner characteristics • • Attitudes towards CSCL Study approach in CSCL setting Cultural variables Support needs (tutoring) 48

CSCL: learner characteristics • Positive attitude towards CSCL: – higher levels of cognitive processing – higher final exam scores • Deep level study approach – significantly higher exam scores 49

CSCL: learner characteristics • Cultural variables • See studies E-learning and CSCL in Chinese setting Zhu, Valcke & Schellens, in press 50

CSCL: learner characteristics Cultural context China Student Epistemological beliefs Learning Strategies Learning conceptions Study approaches Academic achievement Computer competence Motivation Perceptions of learning environment Flanders Learning process Online performance E-Learning Environment -CSCL Teacher-student relationship Teacher’s roles Innovation adoption Teaching process Views on teaching & learning principles Perspectives on instructional innovation 51

CSCL: learner characteristics • Chinese students – do not perceive CSCL more positively. – report lower level of computer competence and internet use. • Chinese students not used to socialconstructivist learning approach. • Strong emphasis on examination scores and competition 52

53

Also cultural differences in staff! 54

Also cultural differences in staff! 55

CSCL: support needs E-moderating model (Salmon, 2000) 56

CSCL: support needs • Vygotsky ‘zone of proximal development’ (Vygotsky, 1978). • Peer tutoring in CSCL – as ‘people from similar social groupings who are not professional teachers, helping each other to learn, and learning themselves by teaching’ (Topping, 1996, p. 322). 57

CSCL: support needs • Tutors behave differently ! 58

CSCL: support needs 59

Conclusions • E-learning: potential of CSCL • Evidence-based CSCL practices • Validate of design CSCL-principles – group (size and level of interactivity) – task (scripting) – characteristics of the individual learner (motivation, attitudes, culture, support needs) 60

Publications • • • De Smet, M. , Van Keer, H. , & Valcke, M. (in press). Blending asynchronous discussion groups and peer tutoring in higher education: An exploratory study of online peer tutoring behaviour. Accepted for publication in Computers and Education. De Smet, M. , Van Keer, H. , & Valcke, M. (in press). Cross-age peer tutors in asynchronous discussion groups: A study of the evolution in tutor support. Accepted for publication in Instructional Science. De Wever, B. , Schellens, T. , Valcke, M & Van Keer, H. (2006). Content analysis schemes to analyze transcripts of online asynchronous discussion groups: a review. Computers & Education, 46(1), 6 -28. De Wever, B. , Van Keer, H. , Schellens, T. , & Valcke, M. (in press). Applying multilevel modelling on content analysis data: Methodological issues in the study of the impact of role assignment in asynchronous discussion groups. Accepted for publication in Learning and Instruction. De Wever, B. , Van Winckel, M. & Valcke, M. (in press). Discussing patient management online: The impact of roles on knowledge construction for students interning at the paediatric ward. Accepted for publication in Advances in Health Sciences Education. Schellens, T. & Valcke, M. (2005). Collaborative learning in asynchronous discussion groups: What about the impact on cognitive processing? Computers in Human Behavior, 21(6), 957 -975. 61

Publications • • • Schellens, T. & Valcke, M. (2006). Fostering knowledge construction in university students through asynchronous discussion groups. Computers & Education. 46(4), 349370. Schellens, T. , Van Keer, H. & Valcke, M. (2005). The impact of role assignment on knowledge construction in asynchronous discussion groups: a multilevel analysis. Small Group Research, 36, 704 -745. Schellens, T. , Van Keer, H. , & Valcke, M. (2007). Learning in asynchronous discussion groups: A multilevel approach to study the influence of student, group and task characteristics. Accepted for publication in Journal of Behavior and Information Technology. 26(1), 55 -71. Schellens, T. , Van Keer, H. , De Wever, B. , Valcke, M. (in press). Tagging Thinking Types in Asynchronous Discussion Groups: Effects on Critical Thinking. Accepted for publication in International Journal of Interactive Learning Environments. Timmers, S. , Valcke, M. , De Mil, K. & Baeyens, W. R. G. (in press). CSCLE and internships of pharmacy students - The Impact of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning on Internship Outcomes of Pharmacy Students. Accepted for publication in International Journal of Interactive Learning Environments. Valcke, M. & De Wever, B. (2006). Information and communication technologies in higher education: Evidence-based practices in medical education. Medical Teacher, 28, 40 -48. 62

Computer supported collaborative learning in higher education: an overview of evidence based approaches Prof. dr. Martin Valcke http: //allserv. ugent. be/~mvalcke/CV/CVMVA. htm Ghent University e. Li, Riyadh, March 16 -18, 2009 63