hands-on learning of cooperation technology: combining knowledge construction and reflection
DESCRIPTION
Mikhail Fominykh, Ekaterina Prasolova-Førland, Monica Divitini, and Sobah Abbas Petersen: "Hands-on Learning of Cooperation Technology: Combining Knowledge Construction and Reflection," in the International Conference on Teaching, Assessment and Learning for Engineering (TALE), Bali, Indonesia, August 26–29, 2013, IEEE, pp. 213–218.TRANSCRIPT
1
Hands-on Learning of Cooperation Technology
Combining Knowledge Construction and Reflection
International Conference on Teaching, Assessment and Learning for Engineering (TALE)
August 26–29, 2013 Bali, Indonesia
Mikhail Fominykh, Monica Divitini, Ekaterina Prasolova-Førland, and Sobah Abbas Petersen
Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway
2
Trondheim, Norway
3
4
Norwegian University of Science and Technology NTNU
5
Motivation and challenges: Learning Cooperation
o Project group work – significant part in university education – often required in a workplace
o Cooperation Technology – Tools dedicated to cooperation • social media – Large organization tools • flexible lightweight tools
o Users – Small groups • large communities – Collocated • distributed – Homogeneous • diverse
6
Background: Social Constructivism
Social constructivist approach proposes that learners co-construct their environment and understanding together with their peers [1]. [1] L. S. Vygotsky, Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA, USA: Harvard University Press, 1978.
7
Background: Reflective learning
Reflective learning approach implies that students learn by reflecting on relevant experiences [2].
[2] D. Boud, R. Keogh, and D. Walker, "Reflection: Turning Experience into Learning," London: Kogan Page, 1985.
8
Study: Cooperation Technology course
o Elective course o Credits: ETCS 7.5 o Grade: 70% groups project + 30%
essay o Duration: 13 weeks o Participants: 31 fourth year master
students (seven groups 3–5)
9
Task 1 Task 2 Task 3
Course activities
Collaborative writing + presentation in 3D virtual world
Creating a language dictionary + a glossary
Collaborative writing + f2f presentation / web-conferencing
Types of collaboration
Local group Local group + local community
Local group + international
Assigned technologies
vAcademia LingoBee Adobe Connect, Purot Wiki, Prezi
Main outcomes
Handbook of cooperation tools + 3D recordings
Language dictionary + glossary of terms
Online media handbook on ed. tech.
Study: Course Activities
10
Task 1 Task 2 Task 3
Course activities
Collaborative writing + presentation in 3D virtual world
Creating a language dictionary + a glossary
Collaborative writing + f2f presentation / web-conferencing
Types of collaboration
Local group Local group + local community
Local group + international
Assigned technologies
vAcademia LingoBee Adobe Connect, Purot Wiki, Prezi
Main outcomes
Handbook of cooperation tools + 3D recordings
Language dictionary + glossary of terms
Online media handbook on ed. tech.
Study: Types of Collaboration
11
Task 1 Task 2 Task 3
Course activities
Collaborative writing + presentation in 3D virtual world
Creating a language dictionary + a glossary
Collaborative writing + f2f presentation / web-conferencing
Types of collaboration
Local group Local group + local community
Local group + international
Assigned technologies
vAcademia LingoBee Adobe Connect, Purot Wiki, Prezi
Main outcomes
Handbook of cooperation tools + 3D recordings
Language dictionary + glossary of terms
Online media handbook on ed. tech.
Study: Assigned Technologies
12
Task 1 Task 2 Task 3
Course activities
Collaborative writing + presentation in 3D virtual world
Creating a language dictionary + a glossary
Collaborative writing + f2f presentation / web-conferencing
Types of collaboration
Local group Local group + local community
Local group + international
Assigned technologies
vAcademia LingoBee Adobe Connect, Purot Wiki, Prezi
Main outcomes
Handbook of cooperation tools + 3D recordings
Language dictionary + glossary of terms
Online media handbook on ed. tech.
Study: Main outcomes
13
Study: Data Sources and Analysis
Data sources – direct observation of students’ activities online and
their recordings – the virtual artifacts the students created – user feedback: questionnaires, group reflection
notes, semi-structured interviews, and individual essays
Data analysis – Constant comparative method: coding with nVivo
14
Study: Target Group
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
I am good atcooperation
I use manycooperation tools
strongly agreeagreeneutraldisagreestrongly disagree
15
Examples of student projects
Task 1 Task 2 Task 3
Main outcomes
Handbook of cooperation tools + 3D recordings
Language dictionary + glossary of terms
Online media handbook on ed. tech.
16
17
e.g., http://www.vacademia.com/record/detailed/2100
18
http://simola.org/lingobee/index.php?gid=28 http://simola.org/lingobee/index.php?gid=29
19 http://cocreat.purot.net/
20
Study Results: Collaboration
Group level collaboration flow – Satisfied because of planning (3 groups) – Satisfied because of good atmosphere (3 groups)
Group level collaboration challenges – Coordination – different schedules (4 groups) – Different motivation levels (2 groups)
21
Study Results: Collaboration
Community level collaboration flow – Background diversity is beneficial (4 groups) – Creativity and level of achievement
Community level collaboration challenges – International coordination Task 3 (6 groups: challenges
mentioned 135% more often than benefits) – Inter-group coordination Task 2 (3 groups: challenges
mentioned 14% more often than benefits)
22
Study Results: Technology
Task 1: vAcademia Attitude towards the tool
– New tool (7 groups) – Easy to learn how to use it (1 group)
Addressing challenges – Complexity of the tool is perceived (2 groups) – Technical challenges remain (4 groups)
23
Study Results: Technology
Task 2: LingoBee Attitude towards the tool
– New tool (7 groups) – Difficult to learn how to use it (4 groups) – Tool not fully suited for the task (7 groups)
Addressing challenges – Creative solutions (2 groups) – Replacing missing functionality (3 groups) – Simplifying the task to suit the tool (2 groups)
24
Study Results: Technology
Task 3: Purot Wiki, Adobe Connect, Prezi Attitude towards the tool
– Purot wiki active use (3 groups) – Adobe Connect active use (5 groups) – Prezi was found useful and worth learning (5 groups)
Addressing challenges – Incorporating additional tools (7 groups)
25
Study Results: Technology
Additional tools
0
5
10
15
20
Task3Task2Task1
26
Challenges
o Breakdowns limit knowledge construction process – Too easy breakdowns only disrupt the process
without leading to reflection
o Less motivated students tended to use Breakdowns as a barrier – Too difficult breakdowns stop the process and lead to
complains
27
Addressing Challenges
o Scaffolding mechanism used – Structured reflection notes
o Result – Successful for the most motivated groups
o Proposal for improvement – Scaffold both reflection and collaborative process
28
Implications
o Initial proposal – Combining social constructivist and reflective
learning approaches improves the overall outcome
o Social constructivism – Providing best suited tools => focus on assignment =>
learning from construction
o Reflective learning – Designed breakdowns (new or not most suited tools)
=> critical thinking, creative solutions, reflection => learning from experience
29
Future Work
o Game Design-based learning – Collaborative process – Course topics into game design – Sharing experience: evaluating and playing
o Multiple supportive technologies o Reflection
30
Thank you!
Mikhail Fominykh [email protected]
Monica Divitini [email protected]
Ekaterina Prasolova-Førland [email protected]
Sobah Abbas Petersen [email protected]
http://www.idi.ntnu.no/~fominykh/
http://www.linkedin.com/in/fominykh
http://slideshare.net/mfominykh/