is an “effective” online group really effective? daradoumis thanasis, xhafa fatos, marquès j....

Is an “Effective” Online Group Really Effective?


Daradoumis Thanasis, Xhafa Fatos, Marquès J. M.,

Universitat Oberta de Catalunya (UOC)

www.uoc.edu

Workshop: Trabajo en Grupo y Aprendizaje Colaborativo: experiencias y perspectivas

11/11/2003 Donostia - San Sebastián Workshop: Trabajo en Grupo y Aprendizaje Colaborativo: experiencias y perspectivas

11/11/2003 Donostia - San Sebastián


Outline1. Introduction and motivation2. Our approach

Based on existing CL theories and models Focuses on analysing the participatory attitudes

(group functioning) and task performance Defines principled evaluation criteria

3. Analysing and assessing group effectiveness4. Reflections of the analysis performed5. Conclusions and ongoing work


Introduction and motivation

• Explore and assess the real effectiveness and success of online collaborative learning teams

• Real, long-term, complex, on-line collaborative problem-solving situations

• Several research approaches have focused on: observing, analysing and assessing collaborative learning

interactions developing methods / tools that provide guidance and support to on-

line learning teams• Better understanding of group interaction • Means to improve the effectiveness of online learning groups • Enhance individual member learning and success

1.1.


Our approach

An integrated approach based on existing collaborative theories and models

• Basic principles of distributed Problem Based Learning and Learning-by-Design

• Time, Interaction and Performance (TIP) theory [McGrath, 1991]

• Five criteria that ensure that group members provide effective help and support to the others [Webb, 1992]

• Two main metaphors of learning: acquisition and participation [Sfard, 1998]

• Potential indicators (or characteristics) of effective collaborative learning teams [Soller, 2001]

2.2.


Theoretical basis

Main points that influenced our approach

• Successful groups always undertake three functions at the same time: Production (acquisition metaphor):

work on a common task together Group well-being (participation metaphor):

quality interaction and communication among group members

Member support: provide effective help to the other members when needed

2.2.


Definition of principled evaluation criteria at two levelsProblem Solving (PS) and Group Functioning (GF)

2.2.

PS1 The students’ contributing behaviour during task realisation (production function and use of active learning skills)

GF1 Active participation behaviour

GF2 Social grounding skills (well-balanced contributions and role playing)

GF3 Active learning interaction or processing skills that monitor and facilitate group’s well-being function (task, workspace, and knowledge processing)


Data analysis and collaborative platform2.2.

Data analysis comes from two undergraduate distance course involved 134 students and 3 tutors, forming 26 groups of 4

to 6 members groups collaborated on-line to carry out a real case study or a

software project

All practices were carried out mostly asynchronously on the Basic Support for Cooperative Work (BSCW) system.To measure group effectiveness, we chose the six more successful groups from each courseHere, we discuss one of them (a quite representative case)


Analysing and assessing group effectiveness3.3.

Setting the bases for the analysis • Analysis is performed by quantifying action types (Change,

Create, Move, Read) carried out by a student and their corresponding objects (doc, note, folder,etc.)

• Satisfaction of each criterion is measured by examining:

PS1 actions create doc/notes; change doc; read doc/notes

GF1 actions create, change and read

GF2 all four actions

GF3 create folder/other (task processing)move all objects (workspace processing)change document (active learning contribution)

change note/folder/other (knowledge processing)


Outcomes of the analysis3.3.

Examine whether the group meets criterion GF1 (active participation behaviour)

Group A

User-name san jur fgu fer car crl

% of

acti

on t

ypes

80

60

40

20

0

action type

Read

Create

Change

Figure 1. Active participation behaviour of group members



Criterion GF2 (well-balanced contributions)

Group A

user-name

san jur fgu fer car crl

% of

acti

on t

ypes

75

60

45

30

15

0

action type

Change

Create

Move

Read

Figure 2. Contributions performed by group members



Criterion GF3 (skills that monitor and facilitate the group’s well-being function )

Group members did not contribute equally to task,workspace and knowledge processing; neither showed an even involvement to knowledge elaboration/refinement/revision (active learning skills)

Criterion PS1 (use of active learning skills that contribute to task realisation and indicate the production function of the group)

There are important differences regarding the contribution behaviour of each member


Reflections of the analysis performed4.4.

The group failed to meet the evaluation criteria set both at group functioning and task performance levels The analysis showed a specific pattern of interaction attitude: nuclear collaborative behaviour (a small nuclear set of members held the reins of the group)This pattern of collaboration does not favour equal participation, efficient collaboration, and learning benefits by all group members The evaluation of the group effectiveness is a complex process (has to take into account a variety of factors)


Conclusions and ongoing work5.5.

The analysis performed, though limited at this stage, allowed us to draw interesting results as regards the effectiveness of a collaborative learning team.

Can serve as a starting point to identify the weaknesses (types of problems and needs that may arise in a collaborative learning situation), and the strengths (the specific characteristics or patterns of effective collaboration) exhibited in a collaborative learning team.

Further quantitative and qualitative analysis may be promising in this regard to better explore group behaviour and individual attitudes and identify specific features that characterise an effective group.

is an “effective” online group really effective? daradoumis thanasis, xhafa fatos, marquès j....

Documents