choosing collaborative systems ingram parker
DESCRIPTION
Report of research on how people use collaborative systems for education.TRANSCRIPT
Choosing Online Collaborative
SystemsAlbert Ingram, Kent State UniversityRobyn Parker, Kent State University
Key QuestionsWhat is collaboration?
Why is it important in online learning?
How can technology facilitate or hinder good online collaboration in courses?
The Collaborative Technologies Learning
Community at KSUExploring collaboration, functions, and
technologies
Functions, Uses, and Effects
EE
Functions
Uses
EE
Effects
Theoretical BaseMedia Richness Theory
Richness = information carrying capacity of a medium
Higher uncertainty in an interaction requires greater media richnesse.g. problem solving tasks
Theoretical BaseSocial Presence Theory
Originally -- psychological closeness of media
Now -- behaviors that reduce psychological distance
Two Technologies for Research
WebCT
and
Groove
Obviously there are many others available and they are all changing rapidly
Functions
UsesWhat did people actually use?
Usage logs (survey presented immediately after classes)97 students349 responses; 265 for WebCT and Groove
Findings Read Discussion Board
Over 75% of Groove users entered to read discussion board Less than 47% of WebCT users
Post on Discussion Board 51% of Groove users went there to post to discussion
boards 26% of WebCT users
Share Documents 35% Groove 8% WebCT
Differences could be due either to technology or to how it was used in individual classes
Other FindingsSee what’s new:
84% Groove89% WebCT
Connect with classmates 40% Groove23% WebCT
Other FindingsGet information
79% Groove,91% WebCT
Work on tasks61% Groove47% WebCT
Organize group activity23% Groove, 1% WebCT
ChattingEnter to chat with professors:
8% Groove8% WebCT
Enter to chat with other students: 18% Groove13% WebCT
Actual chatting46% Groove30% WebCT
EffectsSimilar levels of satisfaction with the tool
GrooveSatisfied with: reliability and ease of use, presence
awareness (who is there and what are they doing?), control over space
Problems: bandwidth, access, frequently no one else there
WebCTEasy, reliable, good place to get informationProblems: less immediate interaction (but
expectations lower, too)
Other possible effectsInteraction patterns
Less equal participation?Less equal influence?
Learning outcomesQuality of group performanceApplication of learning to new
situations
What’s next?What effects will “Web 2.0” have on
collaboration?
Wikis, blogs, social networking sites, new versions of CMSs
VR:Second lifeCroquet
Choosing Collaborative Systems
During Instructional design
Based on goals and objectives, audience, etc.
Matching features to needs. Tracking use, measuring effects
Goal, provide natural space where groups can interact and work with few barriers and many supports
A Few ReferencesDaft, R. L. & Lengel, R. H. (1984). Information
richness: A new approach to managerial behavior and organization design. Organizational Behavior, 6, 191-233.
Hathorn, L. G. and Ingram, A. L. (2002). Cooperation and collaboration using computer-mediated communication. Journal of Educational Computing Research. 26(3), 325-247.
Ingram, A. L. and Hathorn, L. G. (2005). Analysis of collaboration in online communications. In C. Howard, J. Boettcher, L. Justice, and K. D. Schenk (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Online Learning and Technology. Hershey, PA: Idea Group, Inc.
Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R., & Smith, K. (1998). Cooperative learning returns to college. Change, 30(4), 26-35.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Stanne, M. B. (2000). Cooperative learning methods: A meta analysis. Retrieved 1/11/07 from http://www.co-operation.org/pages/cl-methods.html.
Parker, R. E. Bianchi, A. & Cheah, T. Y. (2008). Exploring student and faculty perceptions of technology in education. Education, Technology & Society, 11(2).
Parker, R. E., Ingram, A. & Cheah, T. (2005, March). Collaborative technology use in higher education settings. Paper presented at the international meeting of Computer Supported Interaction (CSI). Oxford, OH.
Rourke, L., Anderson, T. Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing social presence in asynchronous text-based computer conferencing. Journal of Distance Education, 14(2). Retrieved 2/29//08 from http://cade.athabascau.ca/vol14.2/ rourke_et_al.html.
Shaw, B. Scheufele, D. A., & Catalana, S. (2007). The role of presence awareness in organizational communication: An exploratory field experiment. Behavior & Technology, 26(5), 377-384.
Swan, K. (2003). Learning effectiveness: What the research is telling us. In J. Bourne & J. C. Moore (Eds.), Elements of Quality Online Education, Practice and Direction, vol. 4. (pp. 13-45). Needham, MA: Sloan Center for Online Education.