Work-integrated Learning (WIL) On-line Community

1. Work-integrated Learning (WIL)On-line Community Anita M. Todd Associate Professor Division of Professional Practice University of Cincinnati

2. Agenda • Introduction • The Spark • Purpose • Research Project • Methodology • Research Questions • Theoretical Framework • Research Design • Cycle 1 and 2 • Sample • Data Sources • Analysis • Findings • Discussion • Community Design • Theory Modifications • Limitations • Future Research • Thank You

3. Anita M. Todd • 02–Pres.: Asst./Assoc. Professor, Professional Practice, UC • EE, EE ACCEND • IT Responsibility • SWE Faculty Advisor • 95-02: Director, Engineering Cooperative Education, PSU • 89-95: Product Development Engineer, Cummins Engine Company • BS ME (89) Penn State, M Ed. (05), D. Ed. (Exp. 11) UC • Four co-op experiences • Cummins Engine Company, NY / Walt Disney World, FL • Actively involved in regional, national, international co-op/intern organizations

4. University of Cincinnati • Urban research university • Public, 37,000+ students • Founded cooperative education in 1906 • More than 5000 placements per year • 1600+ companies • US and abroad • Mandatory programs • Engineering and Applied Science • Design, Architecture, Art, Planning • Optional Programs • Business • Arts and Sciences

5. Program Specifics • Start co-op in sophomore year • Four to six quarters of co-op • Five-year program • Introduction to Cooperative Education • Individually meet with each student • Students complete learning objectives, student project, student report, post co-op meeting • Employers complete employer assessment • Students registered with university – 0 credit • EE Program • 40-50 per class year • 200 student load

6. The Spark • Concerned about student engagement with the university while at work • Students not talking about their co-op experiences amongst themselves • Technology today allows us to engage students • Social networking extremely popular • Believe there is a missed opportunity for learning at work

7. Literature Review Benefits of student engagement • Linking colleagues and friends, and creating networks (Maidment, 2006; Mayer, 2002; Roberts-DeGennaro, Brown, Min, & Siegel, 2005) • Linking university and curriculum lecturers to students (Mayer, 2002; Roberts-DeGennaro et al., 2005) • Creating a venue for seeking advice/strategies/resources/cognitive support/psychological and emotional support (Hatton & Smith, 1995; Maidment, 2006; Mayer, 2002; Paulus & Scherff, 2008; Roberts-DeGennaro et al., 2005) • Receiving timely information related to their field practicum (Roberts-DeGennaro et al., 2005) • Creating a communal knowledge database (Roberts-DeGennaro et al., 2005) • Providing a venue for students to compare and contrast experiences (Keegan, 2007; Mayer 2002) • Providing an additional method of reflection (Hayward, DiMarco, Kranz, & Evans, 2001) • Supporting a collective process of learning (Keegan, 2007) • Learning to use computer mediated communication / virtual communities (Canale & Duwart, 1999; Witmer, 1998)

8. Literature Review • Few studies attempted to link engagement to leaning • Students learned practical knowledge • Students learned through interaction, collaboration, and reflection

9. Literature Review • Technical engagement • Wide variety of technologies • Primarily non-technical majors • Primarily female

10. Research Project • Phase 1 • Design-based research study to develop a WIL online community for students at work • Phase 2 • Assess effect on student learning • Social interaction • Collaboration • Reflection

11. Methodology Design-based research stems from the works of Brown (1992) and Collins (1992). • The simultaneous development of a learning environment while refining learning theories. • This process takes place over continuous cycles of design, release, evaluation, and redesign (Cobb, 2001; Collins, 1992). • The research must lead to sharable theories. • The research must account for how the design functions in an authentic educational setting. • The research should be documented such that it shows how the environment development process connects to the outcomes of the design and learning theory. Design-based Research Collaborative 2003

12. Research Questions • How can students’, employers’, faculty, and field experts’ prior knowledge and experience be considered in the online community design? • How can students’, employers’, faculty, and field experts’ design ideas and experiences using the online community influence the design of the community? • How do students’, employers’, faculty, and field experts’ design ideas and experiences using the online community influence the underlying community design theories?

13. Theoretical Framework Community-Based Online Learning Model (Palloff & Pratt, 2003) • People • Purpose • Process • Social Interaction and collaboration • Reflection

14. Research Design • Cycle 1 • Faculty, field experts • Focus groups/survey • Students, employers • Survey • Develop Prototype Community • Cycle 2 • Faculty/Field Experts/Students/Employers • Review Community/Complete Survey • Finalize Community Design

15. Cycle 1 – Initial Community Development

16. Sample

17. Analysis • Transcribed focus groups • Downloaded survey responses • Coded comments by gender and status • Categorized by theoretical framework • People, Purpose, Process • Organized into themes

18. Findings

19. Findings • Process • Ideas to support interaction and collaboration (professional and social) • Synchronous/asynchronous discussions, event posting, internal e-mailing, e-mentoring, wiki, file share, networking, group projects, etc. • Purpose • Need for a purpose/goal • Need to be professional • Practical Considerations • Privacy/security, unwanted spam, time commitment

20. Findings • People • Being connected/making connections • Being “in the know” • Concerns about over-sharing • Other • Concerns about two many networks • Concerns about student communication skills

21. Cycle 2 – Initial Community Design

22. Prototype Community

23. Sample 57% retention rate

24. Analysis • Downloaded survey responses • Coded comments by gender and status • Categorized by theoretical framework • People, Purpose, Process • Organized into themes

25. Findings

26. Findings • Purpose • Value/purpose and netiquette • Need emphasis • Too text heavy • Professional • Practical Considerations • Font, format page to page, graphics • Menu, security notices • Moderation and oversight

27. Findings • People • Strength of resource section and calendar • Add RSS Feed • Home page with latest updates • Process • Value of collaborative elements • Concern about depth of reflection • Other • Too many social networks

28. Discussion • Community design • Let’s take a look • Enhancements to the Model for Community Based Online Learning • More emphasis on over sharing • Moderation can help • Too many social networks • Consider other platforms • Concern about student communication

29. Limitations • Engineering based • Full-time alternating co-op program based

30. Future Research Does the community meet the goal of increasing: • Social Interaction • Collaboration • Reflection Does this affect learning? Comparing software platforms Effect on communication skills

31. Thank You • OCEA • Provided a research grant • University of Cincinnati • Provided a co-op student • Supporting faculty research • Provided a faculty development grant for next phase

32. Anita M. ToddAssociate ProfessorDivision of Professional PracticeUniversity of Cincinnati anita.todd@uc.edu Sign in with e-mail to get copy of paper Please complete evaluations www.uc.edu/propractice/pal Student link Login: Visitor PW: visitor