Person-Centeredness in cooperative, blended learning and challenges for

organizational development

Renate Motschnig

University of Vienna

Learning at three levels

intellect

(social) skills

personality, attitudes;feelings, intuitions

I

II

III

optimal learningrespects all three levels!

Overview

• Hypotheses regarding blended learning• Cooperative learning as a central activity • Blended learning (PCeL) at three levels• Cooperative PC learning• PCeL scenarios & their discussion: is there an added

value and where does it come from?• Contribution of technology• The role of the 3 Rogers variables – extended meaning• Reactions, action research, PCA in HE network• If o.k., how to continue? How to have impact?

3 Hypotheses

1. If the computer takes over significant parts of the knowledge transfer, more face-to-face time can be spent for real communication.

2. The more better and well-organized (e)-content becomes easily available (on the Internet), and the more administrative tasks are supported by the computer, the less extra effort will have to be spent on PC teaching/learning.

3. The better the staff is “trained“ in facilitating courses, the more added value and meaning will accrue.

• Required: trust in students and in technology!!!

ResearchResearch

Applications,industryApplications,industry

Knowledge managementKnowledge

management

DevelopmentDevelopment

Cooperativelearning

Cooperativelearning

technology soft-sciences

Cooperative learning as a central process:

Conventional versus Blended Learning

intellect

social skills

personality,

attitudes, intuition

Conventional learning Person-Centered eLearning

Characteristcs of PC, Blended Learning (1)

• Real, authentic problems; project-based approach;– E.g. Develop web-site for x (teams of 3 persons)– Develop a system that best supports students in

informatics in their studies (28 student in teams)

• Active participation– Choice of (up to x %) topics and course material– Elaboration of goals of teams and the group– Elaboration of selected topics by teams– Contribution of eContent– Contribution of project experiences/milestones

Characteristcs of PC, Blended, Learning (2)

• Controlled freedom, loose guidance, companionship– Choices with suggested items and „any other to be

discussed“

– Evaluation as mix of self- peer- and instructor evaluation

– Guidance is provided but need not necessarily be followed

• choice of techiques,

• suggestions for evaluation sheets – respect for different kinds of learners

• Self-initiated contributions are encouraged

Characteristcs of PC, Blended Learning: Reflection & Summary

• Active contributions on the platform have value as – Preparation– Consolidation, afterwork– Persistance, reuse, repository for solutions

• Central processes and motivation/meaning emanate in face-to-face encounters!

• The platform supports the effectiveness of learning/problem solving encounters by enriching the process in the “here and now“ by extending it by past experience and planing for the future.

Cooperative Aspects in PC, Blended Learning

• Goals: – learning from and with peers, – more activity, – more communication– multiple perspectives more inner flexibility?

• Tasks/experiences in small teams (3 persons) and group (15 – 30 persons) – differences

• Presentation of results/material in front of group – group feedback

• Review of milestones/results of partner team• Written team reflections on milestones + discussion

Contribution of Technology

• Provision of material; vast resources as a basis for selection; choices;every participant is expected to contribute

• Learning from more than one example– All peer projects are online, open for inspection

• Transparency– Reaction sheets online;

can be referred to during the next meeting;– Students agree to, wish, non-anonymous reaction

sheets– Discussion forum

Contribution of Technology

• Contact to resources outside the course setting– Persons, experts, community, … – material

• Oral and written forms of expression encouraged – multiple ways to contribute,

• Peer evaluation more feasible• Research is easier due to online questionnaires• Reactions/reflections can be made available to

other students• but... still a lot more of time consuming

for the instructor!

Conventional versus Blended Learning - Evolution

intellect

social skills

personality,

attitudes, intuition

Conventional learning Person-Centered eLearning

3 Rogers Variables – Extended View for Learning

• Realness, openness, transparency:– Rogers: congruence, authenticity of the facilitator;

+ – Real problems, situated setting– Open feedback, – transparent reactions, multiple perspectives– Realness of facilitator is contagious increased

realness of participants

3 Rogers Variables – Extended View for Learning

• Acceptance, respect– Rogers: acceptance of the whole person, his/her the

feelings, meanings, goals, potentials;+

– Participation:• in elaborating goals, choosing topics, suggesting

projects

– Trust in constructive team work, where individuals complement one another

– Self-evaluation and peer comments– Feeling respected nourishes respect for others

3 Rogers Variables – Extended View for Learning

• Understanding, empathy– Rogers: trying to understand meanings, intentions, targets,

constraints, strengths of others

+

– Reacting to/exploiting particualar situations for learning

– Exploiting given situation for optimal, situated course design

– Ballance between individuality and conformity, between choices and requirements dictated by the curriculum

– Since it feels good to be understood, why not try to understand others?

Learning at three levels, experiential learning

I

II

III

Students‘ Feedback (4 groups with 14-18 students, reaction sheet for 3 blocks of 3h

scales: 1.. I liked it; 2..neutral; 3.. I did not like it)

Table 1: Most frequent statements and their evaluation

1.13

1.05

1.16

1.63

1.06

1.23

1.26

1.44

1.17

1.23

2.38

1.14

1.68

1.70

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00

practical exercises (n = 75)

manner of workshop (n = 48)

atmosphere (n = 39)

information about proceeding (n = 34)

active inclusion/ co-operation (n = 30)

discussions (n = 28)

feedback phases (n = 28)

initial presentation (n = 28)

themes (n = 23)

group processes (n = 23)

cassette recorder (n = 23)

I liked the workshop (n = 22)

relation "theory/ exercises" (n = 20)

timetable (n = 18)

stud

ents

' sta

tem

ents

to th

e w

orks

hop

assessment of the statements

Questionnaire on Person-Centered Attitudes

Response quality and 3 Rogers Variables

mean F p

general response quality 4.29 F(3,55) = 2.60 .06 realness 4.68 F(3,55) = .25 .86 acceptance 4.79 F(3,55) = .20 .90 understanding 4.41 F(3,55) = .20 .90

Table 1: Means and significances for instructor’s response behavior in four groups of the same course. 5 means best, 1 means worst. N = 56. A result is significant if p .05.

A One-Way-Anova showed that there were no statistical significant differences between the students’ opinions in the four work groups of the instructor’s replies. BUT !!! The differences in the “general response quality” were much larger between the groups that the differences in each of the 3 RV. Further research!

Students‘ Reactions• Students feel they have learned much, surely more than in

conventional courses.• Students know what they would improve on what aspect of their

work if it were to continue.• Students find they enjoyed the course and even had some

satisfaction and fun in doing their projects. • Students know to which areas they are going to apply the

knowledge and skills they have learned.• Students unanimously are in favor of using the Internet in several

ways: As a resource, as an active means of archiving and maintaining documents, and for communication purposes.

• Some students are interested in the psychological and didactic foundations of the Student-Centered Approach.

• Students in general wish to attend and enquire about further courses by the same facilitator. Some wish the course to continue.

My Reactions…

• …wishing to share them here person-to person…

Questions

• Is this generalization of the 3RV‘s and their transference into actions/situations justified?

• Can this kind of learning be called Person-Centered, even if it just seems to scratch on the surface of personal development?

• How could the added value be assessed? Is growth in social skills and personlity features probable?

• How could learning processes be deepened?

Challenges for organizational development

• Strategies on how to assess added value and how to convince others

• How to capture PCeL wisdom?• International project; who could join it?• Staff development strategies• First step towards international cooperation;

virtual community: PCA/HE: http://elearn.pri.univie.ac.at/pca

Workshop - Session

• Thank you for your attention!

• Every viewpoint or contribution is welcome!

Appendix

A General attitude: The facilitator responds: 1 in a destructive, de-motivating way 2 ineffectively, presumptuously 3 minimally effectively 4 in a way that notably supports making progress 5 in an encouraging , supportive way that significantly contributes to making progress B Realness The facilitator 1 avoids questions, in not accessible and refuses open conversation 2 hides between his/her position and it is difficult to transparently communicate with him/her 3 gives clear answers to some minor degree 4 tends to communicate openly and transparently 5 communicates totally transparently, gives frank responses and is perceived as genuine and real C Acceptance The facilitator 1 meets students without any respect, does not consider their requests 2 hardly respects the students' requests and demands 3 respects the students' needs and requests to some minor degree 4 is generally respectful towards students and encourages them 5 is friendly, full of trust in students, encourages them, and lets them perceive his/her respect D Understanding The facilitator 1 completely ignores the students' needs 2 hardly responds to the students' needs and interests 3 to a minor degree reacts to what the students communicate 4 often reacts to what the students say such that they feel understood 5 completely understands the students' needs and interests, reacts to students in a

supportive way.

QUESTIONAIRE

Cooperative Systems

• Definition (Motschnig, 2003):

A flexible constellationflexible constellation of technology, resourcesresources, people, and organisations that facilitates the communication, coordination, and learningand learning necessary for a group to work together effectively in the pursuit of mutual mutual developmentdevelopment and gainand gain.