SYNOPSIS OF KEY FINDINGS ON
ONLINE COLLABORATIVE LEARNING
By:Jessa Clark
May 14, 2012
Introduction
Collaborative learning refers to “a method of teaching and learning in which students are grouped together to explore a significant question or create a meaningful project” (Austin, Smyth, Rickard, Quirk-Bolt & Metcalfe, 2010) that can “take the form of discussion among the whole class or within smaller groups”( Brindley & Walti, 2009). Online collaborative learning (OCL) typically uses threaded discussions, (Ioannou, 2011) discussion boards, chat rooms or email (Fung,2004) but more recently wikis are being researched as a way to increase collaboration (Ioannou, 2011). This learning trend is important because as Tsai (2010) found, it is believed that collaborative learning could contribute to the development of students’ computing skills and competence. As global learning continues to grow and people rely increasingly on technology in schools and workplaces (Tsai, 2010), the convenience of being able to work collaboratively with anyone, anywhere is very appealing. Online collaborative learning is a way to bring students across the globe together and as Austin et al. (2010) stated, when teachers are knowledgeable about technology and comfortable with its use in the classroom, excellent work can be produced.
This synopsis on the trend of collaborative learning (CL) presents an analysis of the findings of ten studies from peer-reviewed educational technology journals. It relied solely on studies with primary data sources and excluded book reviews, editorials, colloquia, or reviews of the literature. It included no more than three studies from any one journal.
Findings
One trend that was looked at in many of the studies was the level of communication that appeared in OCL. Wang (2010) found that varying levels of communication appeared in the discussions and that the participants who were engaging in collaborative thought (the highest level) were the ones that were posting and communicating the most. Ioannou (2011) found that participants who used wikis engaged in collaboration more than those using threaded discussion, as well she proposed that threaded discussion lead to more co-operative groups where “students [contributed] their ideas directly into the group essay; these ideas [were] not necessarily discussed or questioned by other group-members”(p.220). These different levels of communication must be supported by course design which is what O’Neil, Scott & Conboy (2011) found when they identified “Instructional design of the activity, activity structure and assessment needs to promote CL” (p.943) as the most important factor influencing the effective use of OCL.
Online collaborative learning has been shown to work for children as young as eight (Austin et al., 2010) and O’Neil, Scott & Conboy (2011) have identified teaching style as the second most important factor that will determine success of collaborative learning. As well, proper training was identified as the eighth most important factor. Tsai (2004) confirms that “teacher’s initiation could build students essential skills and knowledge, and help students overcome bottlenecks when climbing the learning curve. (p.1141)” As Brindley and Walti (2009) found facilitators must be able to scaffold their students into collaborative learning and allow them to have small successes throughout the course. However a study by Capdeferro and Romero (2012) showed that lack of instructor support/orientation only contributed to 5% of the frustrations identified in OCL and a study by Fung (2004) established that students are more affected by whether or not their peers are participating.
Though teacher training and style are a factor in collaborative learning, the amount of time given to complete the collaborative task has appeared in almost all of the studies. In Koo’s (2008) study “Factors affecting teachers’ perceived readiness for online collaborative learning”, he found that 58% of teachers were unsure if they had time to implement OCL in their schools and a further 33% were sure they had no time for it. Capdeferro and Romero (2012) identified that 15% of their participants were frustrated with the excess of time spent and Fung (2004) recognized that a small percentage of students did not have time to log-in and participate. These problems could be rectified by following the strategy for OCL participation set forth in Brindleys’ and Waltis’ (2009) study that proposes sufficient time must be provided to allow for “discussion and exchange of ideas that are crucial to deeper thinking”(p.13).
Many different media exist for OCL and have been used and explored throughout the studies. The majority of them can be categorized as either a wiki or a threaded discussion. Wikis allow for editing with a history of changes being recorded. Threaded discussions follow the format of traditional e-mail where the original message is displayed and replies are shown below. Ioannou (2011) found that group members using a wiki to collaborate contributed almost twice as much as members using a threaded discussion. As well, 59% of the wiki communication was of a collaborative manner opposed to only 28% in the threaded discussions. Wang (2009) reported that many students complained about the lack of asynchronous and synchronous communication options and that the threaded comments led to some information being missed.
The different media allow for different ways of communication but teacher feedback was identified by Brindley and Walti (2009) as a strategy to increase motivation. Wang (2009) also reported that through OCL students became more open to receiving positive and negative feedback from their peers and learned how to respect others’ ideas. Austin et al. (2010) also found that students built trust amongst their groups and they “were able to criticize each other’s work constructively [and] engage in difficult issues related to identity”(p.337). In “Using Online Shared Workspaces to Support Group Collaborative Learning” Wang also elaborated on the finding that students who had meaningful comments and feedback through chat or e-mails from their teacher displayed more effort than groups who did not have interactions with their teacher.
Though timely feedback was shown to be an important factor in OCL, surprisingly Brindley and Walti (2009) found that marking projects was not something that improved participation. Students’ participation in the assignments did not statistically vary if the assignments were for marks or not. Capdeferro and Romero (2012) furthermore identified “imbalance in the level of commitment, responsibility, and effort”(p.31) and “imbalance between individual expected mark and group mark”(p.32) as sources of frustration in 57.5% and 10% of students , respectively. Though marking the assignment did not appear to increase the participation, Wang (2009) found that requiring progress reports throughout the project helped to organize the discussion and gave some students a sense of achievement at the end of the project. In addition, Tsai (2010) found that overall participants in OCL demonstrated better computer skills than the control group and Austin et al. (2010) observed an “improved level of focus and concentration” (p.338).
References
Austin, R., Smyth, J., Rickard, A., Quirk‐Bolt, N., & Metcalfe, N. (2010). Collaborative digital learning in schools: Teacher perceptions of purpose and effectiveness. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 19(3), 327-343. doi:10.1080/1475939X.2010.513765
Brindley, J & Walti, E. (2009). Creating effective collaborative learning groups in an online environment. The International Review of Research in Open & Distance Learning, 10(3), 1-18. Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/675/1271
Capdeferro, N., & Romero, M. (2012). Are online learners frustrated with collaborative learning experiences? The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 13(2), 26-44. Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1127
Fung, Y. Y. H. (2004). Collaborative online learning: Interaction patterns and limiting factors. Open Learning, 19(2), 135-149. doi:10.1080/0268051042000224743
Ioannou, A. (2011). Online collaborative learning: The promise of wikis. International Journal of Instructional Media, 38(3), 213-223. doi:10.1080/0268051042000224743
Koo, A.C. (2008). Factors affecting teachers’ perceived readiness for online collaborative learning: A case study in Malaysia. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 11(1), 266-278. Retrieved from http://www.ifets.info/journals/11_1/19.pdf
O’Neill, S., Scott, M., & Conboy, K. (2011). A Delphi study on collaborative learning in distance education: The faculty perspective. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(6), 939-949. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01132.x
Tsai, C.W. (2010). Do students need teacher’s initiation in online collaborative learning? Computers & Education, 54(4), 1137-1144. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.10.021
Wang, Q. (2009). Design and evaluation of a collaborative learning environment. Computers & Education, 53(4), 1138-1146. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.05.023
Wang, Q. (2010). Using online shared workspaces to support group collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1270-1276. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.05.023