Computer Supported Collaborative
Learning in Higher Education:
Looking for the Evidence
Prof. dr. Martin Valcke - Ghent University
http://allserv.ugent.be/~mvalcke/CV/CVMVA.htm
IAMSE
13th Annual Meeting - Leiden, the Netherlands
June 29-July 3, 2009
1
Ghent features
Background
• Head Department of Educational Studies
• 11 years Dutch Open University
• International collaboration (Cambodia, China,
Ecuador, Mozambique, Tanzania, Uganda,
Vietnam, Zimbabwe, …)
Background
• 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 …
4
E-Learning
• The integrated use of Information and
Communication Technologies (ICT) in Higher
Education
– Logistics
– Administration
– Educational impact
(Laurrilard (2005, p.72)
5
E-learning
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
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
6
E-learning
• Research literature not univocal:
“Whilst the benefits of eLearning are
highly prophesized, the many
implications of implementing an
eLearning program require careful
consideration”
O’Neill, Singh and O’Donoghue (2004)
7
E-learning
• “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)
8
E-learning ~collaborative learning
• Present contribution
• E-learning:
–
–
–
–
Focus on collaborative learning
Focus on “pedagogies”
Focus on evidence-based practices
Focus on cognitive benefits
9
Collaborative learning
• Cognitive benefits:
– Performance (tests, exams)
– Levels of cognitive processing
10
Collaborative learning: CSCL
• On-line collaboration
• What is the theoretical base to ground
assumptions about impact on cognitive
processing?
11
12
« Collaborative learning is in the
air »
« Everyone wants it. It is the
instructional strategy, perhaps the
strategy of the decade »
13
Collaborative learning without ICT
Slavin (1996)
Johnson & Johnson (1996)
14
Collaborative learning with ICT: CSCL
• Computer Supported Collaborative
Learning (CSCL) does not
systematically produce positive
learning outcomes (Dillenbourg 2002)
Interactive
Flat
15
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).
16
17
18
Collaborative learning with ICT: CSCL
• Critical variables and processes in
CSCL setting:
– Learner characteristics
– Group characteristics
– Task characteristics
19
20
Design guidelines ~ 3 sets of variables
Learner characteristics
& support
Task
characteristics
Group
Characteristics
21
CSCL: group characteristics
22
CSCL: group characteristics
small group (8 to 10 participants)
23
CSCL: group characteristics
24
CSCL: task characteristics
25
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).
26
CSCL Scripting: roles
•
•
•
•
Pharmacy education
5th year students
5 months internship
Lack of integrated pharmaceutical
knowledge
(see Timmers, Valcke, De Mil & Baeyens, 2008)
27
28
CSCL scripting: roles
• Content roles:
–
–
–
–
–
Pharmacyst
Pharmacyst assistant
Theorist
Researcher
Intern
• Communication roles:
–
–
–
–
Moderator
Question-asker
Summarizer
Source researcher
29
30
Exchange
31
ICS
Integrated Curriculum Score
32
LKC
Level knowledge Construction
33
CSCL: differential impact roles
see De Wever, Schellens, Van Keer & Valcke (2008)
34
CSCL scripting: tagging
35
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
36
CSCL scripting: tagging
• Garrison (1992) identifies five stages
of critical thinking:
– Problem identification
– Problem definition
– Problem exploration
– Problem evaluation/applicability
– Problem integration
37
De Bono’s (1991) thinking hats
Critical Thinking
Thinking hats
Problem identification
White hat
Problem definition
Blue hat
Problem exploration
Green hat
Problem applicability
Black hat
Problem integration
Yellow hat
Red hat
38
CSCL scripting: tagging
• 3th-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
39
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)
1
0.88
0.8
0.54
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Experimental condition
40
Control condition
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)
41
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.
42
Impact of tagging over time
• Experimental students
constant level of
critical thinking
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
• Control students
decrease during
problem identification
and exploration
0.00
-0.20
Stage 1
Stage 2
Stage 3
Stage 4
-0.40
-0.60
-0.80
Experimental condition
43
Control condition
Stage 5
CSCL: learner characteristics
44
CSCL: learner characteristics
•
•
•
•
Attitudes towards CSCL
Study approach in CSCL setting
Cultural variables
Support needs (tutoring)
45
CSCL: learner characteristics
• Positive attitude towards CSCL:
– higher levels of cognitive processing
– higher final exam scores
• Deep level study approach
– significantly higher exam scores
46
CSCL: learner characteristics
• Cultural variables
• See studies E-learning and CSCL in
Chinese setting
Zhu, Valcke & Schellens, in press
47
CSCL: learner characteristics
Cultural
context
Student
Epistemological
beliefs
Learning
Strategies
Learning
conceptions
Study
approaches
Academic
achievement
Computer
competence
Motivation
China
Perceptions of learning environment
Flanders
Learning process
Online
performance
E-Learning
Environment
-CSCL
Teacher-student relationship
Teacher
Teacher’s roles
Teaching process
Views on teaching & learning
principles
Perspectives on instructional
innovation
48
Innovation
adoption
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
49
50
Also cultural differences in staff!
51
Also cultural differences in staff!
52
CSCL: support needs
E-moderating model
(Salmon, 2000)
53
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).
54
CSCL: support needs
• Tutors behave differently !
55
CSCL: support needs
56
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)
57
Publications
•
•
•
•
•
•
De Smet, M., Van Keer, H., & Valcke, M. (2008). Blending asynchronous discussion
groups and peer tutoring in higher education: An exploratory study of online peer
tutoring behaviour. Computers and Education, 50(1), 207-223.
De Smet, M., Van Keer, H., & Valcke, M. (2009). Cross-age peer tutors in
asynchronous discussion groups: A study of the evolution in tutor support.
Instructional Science. 37(1) 1573-1952.
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.
58
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. (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.
Zhu, C., Valcke, M. & Schellens, T. (in press). A cross-cultural study of teacher
perspectives on teacher roles and adoption of online collaborative learning in higher
education. Accepted for publication in European Journal of Teacher Education.
59
Computer Supported Collaborative
Learning in Higher Education:
Looking for the Evidence
Prof. dr. Martin Valcke - Ghent University
http://allserv.ugent.be/~mvalcke/CV/CVMVA.htm
IAMSE
13th Annual Meeting - Leiden, the Netherlands
June 29-July 3, 2009
60