1 / 7

Collaboration Issues

Collaboration Issues. SchmittSELT7008-4. Collaboration based on Activity Theory.

shilah
Download Presentation

Collaboration Issues

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Collaboration Issues SchmittSELT7008-4

  2. Collaboration based on Activity Theory • Regardless of online or traditional classroom, Activity Theory provides the basis for looking at the effectiveness of how concepts are delivered by an instructor as well as used by a learner (object and Subject). The tools and community will differ from traditional learning when considering online instruction (Zurita & Nussbaum 2007).

  3. How can online Collaboration Improve? • Interactively • Social Contexts • Technologies Theory: In order to improve online collaboration, the aforementioned areas must be considered. If improvements and collaboration efforts were to be assigned to each of those areas, the effectiveness, success, and engagement of the online learner would in fact improve proportionately. By examining studies based in this theory, research indicates that these three areas are the keys to addressing and solving the main collaboration issues facing online learners (Chih-Hsiung & Corry (2003).

  4. Interactively • Self Interactive One area that seems to consistently receive favorable support from online learners is the idea of self interactivity rather than student-to-student. IN an 2007 study, students overwhelmingly reported that the self-paced interactive practice section of the course was very helpful (Hopgood& Hirst 2007). • Student-to-Student Although seemingly sound pedagogy, a 2009 study showed that graduate students did not report favorable support for student-to student collaborative activities. In fact, 64.5% of responses labeled these activities as not helpful. (Kellogg & Smith 2009)

  5. Social Contexts • Peer-to-Peer Many online courses (most actually) require students to interact via discussion boards. This type of social interaction provides opportunity for students to broaden the depth of their studies by informally talking to each other about those concepts. Studies have shown that although most students are able to interact in this type of social context, they do not value the experience as much as their instructors do. Instructors report using social contexts as an effective assessment tool; however, learners report not finding those context particularly useful (Pineau, 2008).

  6. Technologies • Multi-faceted Within any given online course, the learner has access to and must utilize myriad personal. The collaborative aspect of those interactions may be problematic unless technological competencies are established. Emerging online personal are information technologists, instructional technologists, computarians, and/ or cybrarians. Learners may need to interact with any or all of these folks. Their relationship is brief and they may only ever interact once in an entire college experience (Cook-Sather, 2001). • Web 2.0 tools Recent studies have shown that the web itself is growing exponentially and likewise the opportunities learners have to explore and use new technologies. Learners cite media (e.g., photos, music, videos), exchanging messages, forming groups, requesting information, articulating or developing their personal connections, posting or remixing digital content, and creating or commenting in blogs as useful educational applications of Web 2.0 technologies (Greenhow, Robelia & Hughes, 2009).

  7. References • Cook-Sather, A. (2001). Unrolling roles in techno-pedagogy: toward new forms of collaboration in traditional college settings. Innovative Higher Education, 26(2), 121-39. Retrieved from OmniFile Full Text Select database • Chih-Hsiung, T., & Corry, M. (2003). Building Active Online Interaction via a Collaborative Learning Community. Computers in the Schools, 20(3), 51-59. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. • Greenhow, C., Robelia, B., & Hughes, J. E. (2009). Learning, teaching, and scholarship in a digital age. Educational Researcher, 38(4), 246-259. doi:10.3102/0013189X09336671 • Hopgood, A. A., & Hirst, A. J. (2007). Keeping a Distance-Education Course Current Through eLearning and Contextual Assessment. IEEE Transactions on Education, 50(1), 85-96. doi:10.1109/TE.2006.888905 • Kellogg, D. L., & Smith, M. A. (2009). Student-to-Student Interaction Revisited: A Case Study of Working Adult Business Students in Online Courses. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 7(2), 433-456. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4609.2009.00224.x • Pineau, H. J. (2008). A study of motivating factors leading to student retention in web-based learning for higher education. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A, 68, Retrieved from EBSCOhost. • Zurita, G., & Nussbaum, M. (2007). A conceptual framework based on Activity Theory for mobile CSCL. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(2), 211-235. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2006.00580.x

More Related