Promoting cooperation and collaboration in a web-based learning environment

1. Promoting cooperationand collaborationin a web-basedlearning environment Fay Sudweeks School of Information Technology Murdoch University, Perth, Australia sudweeks@murdoch.edu.au

2. Questions • Can we do more to encourage cooperative and collaborative learning among students studying online? • How can we connect students who are studying in different modes and in different locations?

3. E-Learning • Why e-learning? • Rising costs of education • Reduced funding for universities (particularly in Australia) • Demand from students wanting to study off-campus (whether “internal” or “external” students) • Benefits of elearning • Attracting new “offshore” markets • Ability to develop “packaged” programs • Reducing inequalities, e.g. access for the disabled, the elderly

4. E-Learning • Problems in e-learning: • Learning environment, itself, regarded as “glue” connecting separate educational elements. • Little thought given to specific pedagogical strategies • Lack of appropriate social and collaborative activities • Little support for students to build interdependent relationships • (Unintended) consequences of e-learning: • Feelings of social isolation in students • Paradox: communication technologies can separate rather than connect students with one another.

5. Cooperation vs Collaboration • Cooperative learning: • “a protocol in which the task is, in advance, split into subtasks that the partners solve independently” (Dillenbourg and Schneider, 1995) • Collaborative learning: • “where two or more subjects build synchronously and interactively a joint solution to some problem” (Dillenbourg and Schneider, 1995)

6. Effective cooperation/collaboration • Critical elements • learning tasks • learning resources • learning supports • Attributes • communication • interdependence • leadership • accountability

7. Content, information and resources with which learners interact Activities, problems, interactions used to engage the learners Learning tasks Learning resources Learning supports Scaffolds, structures, encouragement, motivation, assistance, connections E-learning framework After Oliver, 2001, p. 407

8. Case Study • Organisational Informatics • Part II undergraduate unit • Enrolment • 156 students • Multimodal and multi-located students • Modes: part-time, full-time, external • Locations: Murdoch, Rockingham, International • Topics • computer-mediated communication, group process, computer-supported collaborative work, virtual communities, etc. • WebCT learning management system

9. Case Study • Organisational Informatics • Assessment: • online tutorial presentation • online tutorial participation • weekly reflective journals • research essay • examination

10. Content, information and resources with which learners interact Activities, problems, interactions used to engage the learners Learning tasks Learning resources Learning supports Scaffolds, structures, encouragement, motivation, assistance, connections E-learning framework

11. Activities, problems, interactions Content, information, resources Scaffolds, structure, motivation Learning tasks Learning Resources Learning Supports Group Bulletin Boards Private Email Tutorial Transcripts Lecture Notes Tutors Email And Photo Presenter Guidelines Whiteboard Reflective Journals Research Essay Readings Web Portal Team Work Guidelines Calendar Team Project Web-based Learning Environment Web-Based Learning Environment

12. Team Project • Students assigned randomly to project teams • 156 students in 10 tutorial groups • 4 teams in each tutorial group = 39 project teams • Development of a proposal for a major event • e.g. weddings, funerals, safaris, conferences, product launches, 21st birthday parties, concerts, movie premiers, store opening • Aim • Effective team work, i.e. communication, interdependence, leadership and accountability

13. Project Objectives • Practical skills • stimulate creativity and skills in project development • develop knowledge of distributed collaboration (practising what we are preaching) • experience different modes of communication among virtual team members • evaluate effectiveness of different modes of mediated communication • develop skills in presenting information to distant clients • Requirements for effective team work • communication, interdependence, leadership, accountability • Learning can be fun! • different (fun) style of assessment

14. Communication • Team members (4) restricted to text-based mediated communication • E.g. email, private forums (bulletin boards), chat rooms, IRC, ICQ, instant messaging, SMS • Advantages • “level playing field” for multi-mode/multi-located students • practical application of unit’s theoretical focus • Communication diary • recorded frequency, length, topic and reflection of each communication event.

15. Communication Diary A worksheet for each communication type and each group records frequency, time, topic and reflection .

16. Communication Diary The overview worksheet automatically updates frequency and time length of each communication event.

17. Interdependence • Interdependent roles: • Client • Consultant • Researcher • Presenter • Advantages of roles: • Facilitated structure of interdependent subtasks (cooperation) and interactivity in problem solving (collaboration)

18. Interdependence • Client • Proposes initial ideas for the event, which need to be creative and innovative. • Provides requirements of what components are to be included. • Provides a budget. • Evaluates consultant's two alternative plans for the event, chooses one, and provides a rationale for the selection. • Evaluates and approves detailed budget.

19. Interdependence • Consultant • Develops two alternative plans for the event. • Advises the client to choose the better plan, giving clear reasons why it is superior. Both plans, though, are within the guidelines provided by the client. • Provides a detailed costing for the selected plan. • Provides steps for implementation.

20. Interdependence • Researcher • Keeps a diary of the communication among team members including: • Time spent on different communication channels • Frequency of messages on each channel • Main topic of communication • Reflection on the effectiveness of each communication channel • Prepares a graphical representation of this information to be included in the presentation.

21. Interdependence • Presenter • Organises material into a PowerPoint presentation. • Includes information from the researcher for the firm’s billing purposes and for improving the quality of the firm's service for future clients. • Demonstrates creative and innovative ideas appropriately to “sell” the plan to the client. • Presents the project online to the tutorial group in the last week of semester.

22. Leadership • Team member • Suggested that the team member who was the Researcher be responsible for keeping the project moving forward • Practical since researcher was monitoring all communication • Tutor and unit coordinator • More of a monitoring role • Access to most communication and able to resolve any potential conflicts

23. Accountability • Communication archives • Available to all team members (bulletin boards, private forums, chat rooms) • Peer-assessment of individual team member contribution • Default assessment was equal distribution of marks among team members • Option for the team to request unequal distribution (communication archives provided partial evidence of unequal participation)

24. Communication • Frequency of communication media • Asynchronous media used most frequently • Email (41%), private forums (bulletin board) (20%) • Some notable exceptions: • One team used instant messaging almost exclusively (95% of all communication compared with average of 5% across all teams) • One team used SMS extensively (64% of all communication compared with average of 5% across all teams)

25. Communication Average across 39 teams

26. Communication • Duration of communication media • Average time: 460 minutes (~7½ hours) • Shortest time: 41 minutes • Longest time: 1,978 minutes (~33 hours)

27. Communication Summary Average across 39 teams

28. Survey • Students surveyed at end of semester. • Asked for a rating on 20 questions related to: • Team communication • Team dynamics • Perceptions of the team project • Perceptions of e-learning • Plus comments

29. Team communication The degree of interaction was very high (49%) Getting in touch with team members was easy (35%) I learned more about other team members than I would have in a ftf team (47%)

30. Team dynamics Reaching consensus was easy (56%) I enjoyed working with this team (61%) I appreciated the cultural diversity of the student population more (47%) (12 different cultures reported by teams)

31. Project Project guidelines were clear (76%) Able to work independently on own tasks (70%) Project was a positive experience (61%)

32. E-Learning Effective learning experience (78%) Comfortable with communication being monitored (51%) WebCT encourages active learning (74%)

33. Comments • Positive • “I think that the online team is a great idea for university courses. Why: Its so easy to see who is at meetings, record minutes, have tasks pinpointed. You have time to think before answering via email and the ability to get good written feedback. Maybe I was lucky in that the team I was part of was excellent. So far it has been one of the best group experiences.” • “No fights only good discussions, everyone has done their bit excellently, it has been a pleasure to work in this team.”

34. Comments • Negative • “Communication was difficult because not all group members could access all channels.” • “One of the team members was a bit difficult to get in touch with – took several days before he answered email and he did not show up in the chat room.”

35. Evaluation • Student self-reports • Overall satisfaction with the project • Project grades • More than two-thirds (69%) of the teams attained a higher grade (D or HD) • Conflicts • 7 of the 39 teams requested variation in grading • 2 teams requested 1 member receive a grade less • 2 teams requested 1 member receive a pass grade • 3 teams requested 1 member receive a fail

36. Example Project EventHomer’s FuneralMarilyn Ranford, Timothy Geldard, Kelwin Chan, Veronica Malmoe

37. Conclusions • Cooperation • Students felt a sense of autonomy in working on subtasks as well as working interdependently with team members. Most students found the teamwork a positive experience despite some members not working as well as the rest of the team. • Collaboration • The majority of teams were congenial. More than half of the teams found it easy to reach consensus in problem solving, enjoyed working together and expressed interest in meeting face-to-face.

38. Conclusions • Design of web-based learning environment • Include elements of tasks, resources and supports. • Teamwork attributes • Integrate key attributes of communication, interdependence, leadership and accountability

39. Further considerations • So … perfect? No, not quite … • Team composition • Consider incorporating an initial skills matrix to match students of similar work habits (e.g. JIT), preferences (different streams) and grade expectations. • Comparison • Compare results with different student cohort (in 2003).