Students prefer groups composed of 3-4 members with distributed roles and prefer to form ..... Recuperado de: www.uoc.edu/in3/dt/20299/20299.pdf. [4] Stahl, G. ... International Journal ... educativa y construcción del conocimiento en el aula.
COMPUTER SUPPORTED COLLABORATIVE LEARNING (CSCL): THE GROUP FORMATION PROCESS AS A KEY TO STRUCTURE INTERACTION Nuria Hernández Sellés1, Pablo-César Muñoz-Carril2, Mercedes GonzálezSanmamed3 1
Centro Superior de Estudios Universitarios La Salle (SPAIN) 2 University of Santiago de Compostela (SPAIN) 3 University of A Coruña (SPAIN)
Abstract Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) is a strong presence in online learning. Grounded on its social dimension, CSCL promotes different kinds of learning, related to cognitive development and to the acquisition of transversal competences. It is important to note that this kind of learning can only occur when group interaction is structured considering the learning dimension, the organizational elements which root an internal cohesion and the personal elements intervening in any group exchange. The group and its performance, particularly its interaction in the process, seem one of the keys to a successful experience. That’s why group formation in collaboration keeps continuous attention from scholars. It seems essential to determine group characteristics and define the groupbuilding process. Part of this process has to incorporate the drafting of group agreements. The purpose of this study is to analyze the group formation process in collaboration, as part of the organization prior to task development. The research was carried out based on a non-experimental quantitative methodology consisting of a questionnaire answered by 106 undergraduate students from 5 different CSCL-based subjects. Results show the need to provide enough time for group creation as well as clear instructions. Students prefer groups composed of 3-4 members with distributed roles and prefer to form the groups by themselves. They also demand collaborative drafting of group agreements.
1 1.1
INTRODUCTION Interaction in collaborative learning
Literature on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL here on) supports a vision of collaboration which, grounded on its social dimension, promotes different kinds of learning, related to cognitive development and to the acquisition of transversal competences. It is important to note that this kind of learning can only occur when group interaction is structured considering the learning dimension, the organizational elements which root an internal cohesion and the personal elements intervening in any group exchange [1], [2], [3], [4]. In order to promote these kinds of learning it seems necessary to carefully design and plan collaboration and the way groups will interact in the learning process. Design needs to garantee structure interaction in three levels: the cognitive, the organizationaland and the social. This will cover the learning dimension, the organizational elements which ground an internal cohesion and the interpersonal factors intervening in any group exchange process.
Proceedings of INTED2016 Conference 7th-9th March 2016, Valencia, Spain
6001
ISBN: 978-84-608-5617-7
Fig. 1. Interaction levels in CSCL. Regarding the cognitive level, modeling interaction can improve meaningful exchanges leading to learning which need to root on the quality of reasoning and on the regulation of the cognitive process among group members [5], [6]. In the organizational level, it seems necessary to guide students towards self-planning which sustains further interaction [4]. In the social level, it seems necessary to care for socio-emotional factors related to group formation, as well as to those dynamics established in the interaction process leading to a group commitment to social relations, to a sense of trust and to generate a feeling of belonging [7].
1.2
Modeling interaction in collaboration
Authors such as [4] and [8] suggest that the real challenge in CSCL is to structure and guide the group interaction in processes leading to deep learning. Authors such as [8] reviewed the literature in order to identify the elements of design and planning in CSCL, with the following results: a) The starting point is the reflection around competences and learning goals to cope with methodological decisions. b) Then it is necessary to establish coherence between methodology and task type (in the literature collaborative learning is linked to procedural analysis, problem resolution and in general to complex tasks which require different actions and decisions). c) It is necessary to generate resources to communicate students the collaboration model, its work phases and pedagogical goals. Collaboration Scripts seem to be one of the most effective tools to do so. d) Defining group characteristics and the group formation process, contemplating the writing of group agreements. [10] refers to the agreements as necessary for grounding an efficient exchange system, as well as to set a frequency of contact between group members, in order to guarantee intragroup contrast.
1.3
The group formation process in collaboration
As far as the group formation process in collaboration, as part of the organization prior to task development, there is common agreement that it is a decisive step and needs careful planning since, when this process fails, it might lead to a resistance to work in group, in unbalanced collaboration or in different work rhythms between group members [2], [3], [10], [11]. The following are some of the factors to bear in mind in the group formation process as identified in the literature. It is necessary to bear in mind the estimated duration of group formation: group stability favors a maturation process and the development of team work competences accompanied by effective teacher guidance [12], [13].
6002
As far as group size, research recommends a number around 5 members; a larger number might limit participation of some members and a more reduced number diminishes the variety of input [5]. Regarding criteria to create groups, literature review reveals that heterogeneous groups lead to learning improvement due to the opportunities for cognitive conflict derived from diversity [12], [13], [3]. It seems both students with high and low performance will benefit from collaboration. The perspective of building up heterogeneous groups implies teachers in the group formation process, analyzing participant’s characteristics. Indeed some authors propose to analyze students as a premise for the design of the learning action, therefore previous to the design itself. Authors like [18] propose to group students on the basis of ontologies; identifying student’s individual needs and objectives and then designing tasks to fit the group’s interest. Other authors, like [2] identify both internal and external criteria to form groups. Internal criteria distribute groups around characteristics which are identified previous to collaborative work, such as previous experience, common characteristics or prior acquaintance. External criteria are based on student’s behavior or prior results observed by teachers. [2] argue that collaborative work should benefit from the opportunities to use technologies to collect and analyze data on the performance and results of a large number of students in order to later apply these criteria analysis for group formation purposes and effective collaboration. In spite of these, in the context of higher education research reveals that spontaneous group formation leads to greater commitment of group participants to solve the tasks and to a more efficient work process, students prefer to form the groups by themselves, according to their learning styles and to their commitment [3], [15]. It seems necessary to promote a previous contact that allows students to get to know each other [3], [16] and to bear in mind that in virtual environments, grouping by students characteristics is amplified due to ubiquity [17]. Another key aspect to bear in mind during group formation is role distribution. Research proves that spontaneously, students tend to adopt roles when collaborating in small groups, but this often leads to poor definition of roles, to initial confusion and to the fact that more responsible students would adopt roles such as the coordinator, when no other offers to, in spite of reluctance to do so [19]. Studies reinforce the idea that the initial planning should contemplate role distribution, either teacher centered or student centered, agreed internally by the group [3], [10].
2
METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS
The purpose of this study is to identify and evaluate the opportunities and challenges of collaborative work in higher educational institutions. The focus has been on the specific learning outcomes which should be promoted in the context of the courses as well as on the acquisition of transversal competences of collaboration, which are necessary for student’s further careers. In this paper we introduce partial research results; while the research employed a mixed type methodology, qualitative and quantitative, in this paper we refer to the ex post facto non-experimental quantitative method, in the form of a survey, as described by [20]. The study, which took place in the Centro Superior de Estudios Universitarios La Salle, in Madrid, Spain, involved a total of 106 students from the degree in Teaching in Infant Education and the degree in Teaching in Primary Education. Students belonged to five blended subjects where teachers implemented a common and homogenized methodological process, based on a coordinated design proposal from the e-learning department at the institution. Design was grounded on collaborative work in virtual environments and on project based learning. Prior to implementing the questionnaire there was a validation process by two procedures: peer review and the development of a pilot study in order to identify potential improvements of the instrument. In addition, the basic psychometric characteristics were confirmed for validity and reliability. In terms of its structure, the questionnaire was made up of a total of 139 items organized into 6 content sections, which followed a 5-point Likert scale. However, this paper will analyze those items specifically related to section 2: “Management and organization of collaborative work prior to task development”. Specifically, we address the question of students’ perception of work experience in the subject in relation to team configuration. Tables 1 and 2 incorporate items in this section with frequencies and percentages as well as means and standard deviation.
6003
Table 1. Frequencies and percentages of students’ perception on work experience in the subject in relation to the group formation process. NA
Very Low
Low
Medium
High
Very High
n
%
n
%
n
%
n
%
n
%
n
%
The process of group formation has been clearly explained.
0,0
0,0
1,0
0,9
4,0
3,8
14,0
13,2
42,0
39,6
45,0
42,5
The time established to form groups has been enough.
1,0
0,9
1,0
0,9
5,0
4,7
17,0
16,0
37,0
34,9
45,0
42,5
Group size is adequate .
0,0
0,0
1,0
0,9
2,0
1,9
9,0
8,5
36,0
34,0
58,0
54,7
The way to organize roles is adequate.
2,0
1,9
0,0
0,0
3,0
2,8
27,0
25,5
40,0
37,7
34,0
32,1
Task type is adequate to be carried out in group.
3,0
2,8
2,0
1,9
3,0
2,8
16,0
15,1
52,0
49,1
30,0
28,3
It would be more adequate if the teacher would form groups.
0,0
0,0
54,0
50,9
25,0
23,6
12,0
11,3
8,0
7,5
7,0
6,6
We have drafted complete group agreements.
2,0
1,9
0,0
0,0
5,0
4,7
20,0
18,9
40,0
37,7
39,0
36,8
All the team has participated in the group agreements drafting.
3,0
2,8
1,0
0,9
8,0
7,5
6,0
5,7
35,0
33,0
53,0
50,0
Table 2. Mean scores and standard deviations of the students’ perception on work experience in the subject in relation to the group formation process. Average
Standard Deviation
The process of group formation has been clearly explained.
4,19
,874
The time established to form groups has been enough.
4,14
,924
Group size is adequate.
4,40
,801
The way to organize roles is adequate.
4,01
,842
Task type is adequate to be carried out in group.
4,02
,863
It would be more adequate if the teacher would form groups.
1,95
1,237
We have drafted complete group agreements.
4,09
,871
All the team has participated in the group agreements drafting.
4,27
,952
6004
3
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
Considering the means obtained, we can state that students have appreciated the process of group creation, both in relation to the instructions facilitated and in relation to the time established to form the groups. Students consider the size of the team, between 3 to 4 members, to be adequate (4.40 mean). Instructions were facilitated by means of a Collaboration Script, where students were informed about the process and spaces available to form the groups. Grouping was spontaneous and students had previous opportunities to get to know each other in previous tasks within the same subject. Some students knew each other from previous years. Students were provided with spaces to form each group just by either writing their names or inviting others to join or by joining to groups that had already been formed. The time established to form groups was one week. The proposal to organize roles obtains a 4.01 mean; however the answers appear distributed among the Medium (25.5 %), High (37.7 %) and Very High (32.1 %) values. Students were asked to distribute roles between members, deciding on at least one coordinator, even though they were encouraged to assign one role to each group member. The type of task gets a 4.02 mean. Every subject implemented an unstructured multi-response project as the task implying collaboration. On the other hand students prefer spontaneous group formation, since the item "It would be more appropriate that the teacher would form groups." obtains a 1.95 mean score. Student’s answers lead to understand that they have drafted complete group agreements (4.09 mean) and they value the fact that the whole team has participated in the drafting of the group agreements (4.27 mean). In order to establish a basis for interaction from the organizational perspective, groups were proposed the writing down of a set of agreements that led to a role distribution, to the definition of an exchange system, to a certain contact frequency and to adjusted planning. Another aspect that was of interest in the study was to explore the existence or absence of significant differences according to the students’ following personal variables and academic history: gender, age, qualifications, previously experience working collaboratively in face-to-face or virtual courses and years of experience conducting studies in virtual environments. We found significant differences between the variable "We have drafted complete group agreements” and the age of the students. Specifically, students between 20 and 24 years seem to perceive they have drafted less complete group agreements, when compared to students between 25 and 29 and over 29 years old. On the other hand, we found significant differences according to experience in virtual environments. Kruskal-Wallis shows that students with further experience working in virtual environments are those who claimed to have written more complete group agreements.
4
CONCLUSIONS
Online collaboration, whether academically structured or in informal contexts, is one of the increasing presences in online learning. Even though there is extensive research on the field, there are still variables worth analyzing, such as those related to group formation, which still are controversial. In this paper we’ve pointed out how the literature supports proposals grounded on group heterogeneity, and thus on teacher intervention, as well as others where teachers allow students to form the group themselves. The former relate to opportunities for cognitive conflict and the latter to greater commitment of individuals to reach learning outcomes. In this sense, results in this research suggest that students prefer spontaneous group formation in groups of 3-4 members. Therefore, even though students make it clear that they prefer to from the group themselves, there remains the controversy around group formation, since, as stated in the literature, this might lead to fewer opportunities to develop team work skills or for cognitive conflict. Results support previous research suggesting that role distribution in groups should be part of the initial planning [19] and tasks oriented to problem resolution and project development mediated through interactions [21]. CLCL planning and design should contemplate the selection of tasks that articulate socio-cognitive divergence during interaction Higher education institutions that wish to adopt CSCL need to be aware of the relevance of interaction structuring through planning and instructional design in order to develop the complexity of competences involved in collaboration processes. At the macro level, it is out of doubt that institutions
6005
have to define an educational model grounded on planning and design; This should also happen at the classroom level, where teachers, with or without institutional conditions, wish to adopt collaborative learning, structuring interaction through instructional design.
REFERENCES [1]
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Aprender Juntos y Solos. Aprendizaje cooperativo, competitivo e individualista. Brasil: Aique Grupo Editor S. A.
[2]
Dillenbourg, P. (2002). Over-scripting CSCL: The risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design. En P. A. Kirschner (Ed.), Three worlds of CSCL. Can we support CSCL, 61–91. Heerlen: Open Universiteit Nederlands.
[3]
Guitert, M., Giménez, F., Lloret, T., Marquès, J. M., Daradoumis, A., Cabañero, C. F., Prieto, J., Segret, R., & Cunillera, G. (2003). El procés de treball i d’aprenentatge en equip en un entorn virtual a partir de l’anàlisi d’experiències de la UOC. (Document de projecte en línia. IN3,UOC. Treballs de doctorat, DP03-001). Recuperado de: www.uoc.edu/in3/dt/20299/20299.pdf
[4]
Stahl, G., Koschmann, T. & Suthers, D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative learning: An historical perspective. Sawyer, R. K. (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences, 409426. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
[5]
Strijbos, J., Martens, R. & Jochems, W. (2004). Designing for interaction: Six steps to designing computer-supported group-based learning. Computers & Education, 42, 403-424.
[6]
Dillenbourg, P. & Hong, F. (2008). The mechanics of CSCL macro scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(1), 5-23. doi: 10.1007/s11412-007-9033-1
[7]
Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A., & Jochems, W. (2003). Identifying the pitfalls for social interaction in computer-supported collaborative learning environments: a review of the research. Computers in Human Behavior 19, 335–353.
[8]
King, A. (2007). Scripting collaborative learning processes: a cognitive perspective. En F. Fischer, I. Kollar, H. Mandl, & J. M. Haake (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning: Cognitive, computational and educational perspectives, 13-37. New York: Springer.
[9]
Hernández, N., González, M. & Muñoz, P.C. (2014). La planificación del aprendizaje colaborativo en entornos virtuales. Comunicar, 42, 25-33. (DOI: 10.3916/C42-2014-02).
[10]
Guitert, M. (2011). Time Management in Virtual Collaborative Learning: The Case of the Universitat Oberta de Catalunya (UOC). eLC Research Paper Series, 2, 5-16.
[11]
Isotani, S., Inaba, A., Ikeda, M. & Mizoguchi, R. (2009). An Ontology Engineering Approach to the Realization of Theory-Driven Group Formation. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(4).
[12]
Barberà, E. & Badia, A. (2004). Educar con aulas virtuales. Madrid: Antonio Machado Libros.
[13]
Hernández, N. y Muñoz, P.C. (2012) Trabajo colaborativo en entornos e-learning y desarrollo de competencias transversales de trabajo en equipo: Análisis del caso del Máster en gestión de Proyectos en Cooperación Internacional, CSEU La Salle. REDU, Revista de docencia universitaria. Vol.10. Monográfico: "Competencias docentes en la Educación Superior". http://www.red-u.net/redu/index.php/REDU/article/view/422
[14]
Colomina, R., Onrubia, J. & Rochera, M. J. (2001). Interactividad, mecanismos de influencia educativa y construcción del conocimiento en el aula. En C. Coll, J. Palacios y A. Marchesi (Comps.), Desarrollo psicológico y educación, 2. Psicología de la educación escolar, 437-458. Madrid: Alianza Editorial.
[15]
Oakley, B., Hanna, D. Kuzmyn, & Felder, R. (2007). Best Practices Involving Teamwork in the Classroom: Results from a Survey of 6435 Engineering Student Respondents. IEEE Transactions on Education, 50(3), 266–272.
6006
[16]
Schmeil, A. Eppler, M. y Gubler, M. (2009). An experimental comparison of 3D virtual environments and text chat as collaboration tools. Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 7(5), 637–646.
[17]
Muehlenbrock, M. (2006). Learning Group Formation Based on Learner Profile and Context. International Journal on E-Learning, 5(1), 19-24.
[18]
Williams, K., Morgan K. & Cameron, B. (2011). How do students define their roles and responsibilities in online learning group projects? Distance Education, 32 (1), 49-62.
[19]
Cohen, L. & Manion, L. (1990). Métodos de investigación educativa. Madrid: La Muralla.
[20]
Gros, B. & Adrián, M. (2004). Estudio sobre el uso de los foros virtuales para favorecer las actividades colaborativas en la enseñanza superior. Teoría De La Educación, 5.
6007
