why do students not engage in collaborative learning outside of class? steve rutherford, galina...
DESCRIPTION
Collaborative Learning ‘Intermental Development Zone’ (Mercer, 1996) Collaborative learning in the classroom Students as partners in learning Learning Communities Collaborative learning OUT OF the classroom??TRANSCRIPT
Why do students not engage in Collaborative Learning outside of
class?
Steve Rutherford,Galina Limorenko and Andrew Shore
School of BiosciencesCardiff University
Wales, UK
[email protected]+44 2920 870251
Cardiff University - 22,000 studentsSchool of Biosciences
c.1,800 UG students over 12 degrees + Pre-clinical Medicine & Dentistry
Collaborative Learning‘Intermental Development Zone’
(Mercer, 1996)
Collaborative learning in the classroom
Students as partners in learningLearning Communities
Collaborative learning OUT OF
the classroom??
ShadowModules
Student-ledStudent-focused
Students as partners in module delivery
Shadow Modules
Student-ledStudent-focused
Use Web 2.0 collaborative tools to share outputs
Shadow Modules have an impact on outcomes
n = 17 and n = 278. P = 0.05
Student marks for FY Module
Normalised vs overall mark for
degree
Usage of resources is high
Continued after exam
Student views of Shadow Modules
PARTICIPANTSMakes studying more efficient
Development of learning resources helpfulGood to discuss things in groups – work out solution
Explaining to others helps learning
NON-PARTICIPANTS‘More important’ things to do
Don’t see the pointWhy produce things for other people?
Don’t trust other students to get it right
Use of resources is highEngagement in CL sessions is low
AIMS1) Investigate student PREFERENCES and PERCEPTIONS of VALUE of CL to their own study activity.
2) Investigate potential correlation between attitudes towards CL and Learning Style (Deep, Surface or Strategic)
3) Investigate prevalent student approaches to self-mediated study
How frequently do you study….?
Very Often
Never
Term time Revision
time
Year 1 (n = 482), Year 2 (n = 112), Final Year (n = 134); Total (n = 728)
MIXED-METHOD approachQuantitative: Online survey using Entwhistle and McCune’s Approaches and Study Skills Inventory for Students (ASSIST) questionnaire to categorise learning style, combined with Likert-scale and rank-order questions identifying attitudes towards CL.
Qualitative: Structured interviews with Year 1 undergraduate students.
Use of resources is highEngagement in CL sessions is low
Entwhistle, NJ, Peterson, ER (2004). International Journal of Educational Research 41: 407–428.
Sample Details
Qualitative Analysis – 33 students from 5 academic Schools. All in 1st year of study.
Business Studies
Quantitative Analysis
ASSIST QUESTIONNAIRE
Identifies characteristics of DEEP, SURFACE and STRATEGIC learning strategies.
Students rate agreement with 60 questions on a 5-point Likert scale.Additional questions were added regarding CL.Students asked to rank preference for learning environments1-7
Factor analysis confirms that our ASSIST questionnaire responses match findings of Entwhistle and McCune’s original analysis.
Distribution of Learning Styles
Many students displayed DEEP/STRATEGIC learning strategiesHigh proportion displayed SURFACE strategies
No gender, subject-specialism or age trends
Students appear to prefer working alone
Data from Ranked Order preference for study environments (maximum = 7)
Converted into values for analysis (Abeyaskera et al., 2001)
Abeyasekera S, Lawson-McDowall J, Wilson I, (2001). Converting ranks to scores for an ad-hoc assessment of methods of communication available to farmers. Theme paper, Statistical Services Centre, The University of Reading. Accessed
online 25/09/2015 at [http://www.reading.ac.uk/ssc/resources/Docs/QQA/tp4_conv.pdf]
Each group significantly different (P=0.05)
Students view all environments/ approaches as equally-valid
Likeart Scale 1(low) – 5 (high)
No significant difference
Impact of Learning Styles on Preferences
Linear Regression - P=0.04 P=0.001 - - P=0.05P=0.07 P=0.001 P=0.002
Impact of Learning Styles on Perceptions
Linear Regression - - P=0.04P=0.03 P=0.01 - - P=0.013 - - P<0.0001 -
Qualitative Analysis33 Structured Interviews of First Year Undergraduates
Interviews carried out by UG students
Grounded Theory analysis
Codes could be grouped into 4 Themes
Positive Response to Solitary StudyNegative Response to Group Study
Value of Collaborative LearningSurface approach towards learning
Qualitative Analysis
Students preferred to study on their own• All but one student preferred solitary activity. • Language used when describing the methodologies used was
highly egocentric. • Collaboration with others was primarily focused around
verifying understanding from solitary study.• Might use Social Media to ask Qs of peers.
Qualitative AnalysisStudents responded negatively towards large group study activities• All but one interviewee cited learning in larger groups as their
least favourite approach. • Highly predominant concern of large groups as ‘distracting’ and
potential conflict of study goals. • Concern over wasting time.• Concern over ‘freeloaders’ – strong sense of ownership
Qualitative AnalysisStudents recognised the value of collaborative learning activities• Even though they did not, of their own accord, undertake CL. • Perceived benefit of working with others focused on validation
and peer-review, rather than on mutual problem-solving. • Few had perception of CL as a learning activity in its own right.• Ability to develop shared understanding was seen by some, but
not all.• CL useful, but better for someone else.
Qualitative AnalysisStudents primarily adopt surface learning strategies in self-directed study• Interviewees’ approaches towards self-directed study tended
to be surface/strategic in nature. • Activities primarily focused around reinforcing recall of
content.• Few had concept of Deep approaches – lack of metacognition
Qualitative Analysis - SUMMARY• Broadly support quantitative findings.• Fear of distraction or lesser efficiency of ‘learning’. • All focus is on Singular study.• Impact of • Use Surface language, but follow Deep pattern of
preferences
Student preference for study environments is strongly biased towards solitary environments when the whole cohort is studied, but individual learning styles can have an impact on study environment preferences.
Preference for CL is strongest in Surface learners Predominant antipathy towards CL or group-based study comes
from a concern of being ‘distracted’. Students do recognise the value of CL activities, but do not
typically practice them for self-mediated study activities. Further qualitative work is needed to investigate the perceptions
of learning environments, and what influences inform the development of learning approaches
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Factor Loading confirms Linear
Regression analyses
Limitations and Future WorkRussell Group University – Students all high-achieving
Interviewees from only Year 1 groupNo idea if Interviewees were Deep/Surface etc
Limited scope, imbalance of recruitmentStudents directing interviews → structured questions
Questionnaire can be repeated at end of students’ courseGrounded Theory approach was Positivist
Further work needs to look at student perceptions without positivist preconceptions.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Sumit MistryJonathan Scott
Sheila Amici-Dargan
Funded byHigher Education Academy
HEA Wales Teaching Enhancement GrantTeaching Development Grant GEN1030
