 | Journal of Instructional Science and Technology ISSN: 1324-0781 Editors-in-Chief: Olugbemiro JEGEDE (jegede@ouhk.edu.hk) and Som NAIDU(s.naidu@meu.unimelb.edu.au) |
Volume 1 No 2, March 1996
- - - Article 1 - - -
by
W. R. Klemm and J. R. Snell
Department of Veterinary Anatomy & Public Health
Texas A & M University
College Station, TX 77843
Return to Contents Page[ Abstract |
Group learning can be a powerful educational experience, whether in distance or on-siteeducation. However, group learning is often trivialised by the threaded-topic discussionformat that is typically used in computer conference systems. Teachers can lead a group toraise the intellectual level of group discourse by requiring student groups to producetangible work products (not just opinion comments) and by creating a logical structure toachieve this end. Secondly, the teacher's efforts can be leveraged by promotinginterdependent student teams in which students help each other to produce the academicdeliverables.
Electronic mail and computer conference software provide a way for groups of studentsto learn. As usually practiced, learning takes the form of "discussions" amongseveral or more participants. Commonly, many students "lurk" in the backgroundwithout making contributions. Our experience in teaching four college courses andmonitoring three others in a computer conference environment convinces us that suchdiscussions are not very rigorous and that the quality of instruction suffers unless theteacher takes special care to create a more challenging learning environment. We havelearned that instruction can become much more effective if students are required to DOsomething instead of just talk about it and to work together as a team to produce academicdeliverables. In short, we advocate coupling constructivism with collaborative learning incomputer conference environments.
Constructivism is promoted by defining what deliverables are expected and structuringthe conference discourse with a logic structure that guides and focuses the group toproduce academic deliverables. Collaborative learning is promoted by conferencingincentive systems that make the group members interdependent and by having specific rolesin the conference for each student.
Electronic mail and computer conference software provide a way to generate dynamicallyevolving information bases for shared learning. The information base develops as anoutgrowth of "discussions" among several or more participants. But the qualityof those information bases suffers without careful consideration of how the bases areorganized and the processes by which they are created.
We have experience, both as contributors and "lurkers," with severalListservs that are dedicated primarily to education (AEDNET, AACU96-L, DEOS-L, IATFORUM,ICTE-L, IPCT-L, STLHE-L, TCC-L, and WWWDEV). Each Listserv is a "threaded-topic"discussion environment, which is the model for using asynchronous computer conferencing inteaching. Typical asynchronous computer conferencing products (Caucus, Collabra Share,First Class, Lotus Notes, Meeting Room, Meeting Works, Open Mind, Team Talk, VAX Notes,Web Caucus, and others) use the threaded-topic discussion format, but extend it beyondordinary e-mail by keeping a variety of topics active at the same time, with all pastcomments always accessible. There may also be ancillary features such as access controlsand search capabilities.
What these systems lack, in our experience, is good support for implementing twofundamental pedagogical concepts: constructivism and collaborative learning.Constructivism (Duffy and Jonasson, 1992; Brooks, 1993; Tobin, 1993) is the idea that astudent is an active learner who constructs a personal base of knowledge andunderstanding. In other words, the student does more than just "discuss" atopic. The student actually DOES something: that is, creates a product for delivery to theteacher, classmates, or others. Requiring students to do something not only provides theopportunity to create something that might be useful to others, but also presumablyincreases the depth of learning by the student who produces the deliverable. We learn bestby doing.
Collaborative learning (Damon, 1984; Gabbert et al. 1986; Johnson and Johnson, 1989;Johnson et al. 1991; Kadell and Keehner, 1994; Kaye, 1991; Klemm, 1994; Webb, 1982) is theidea that small, interdependent groups of students work together as a team to help eachother learn. As such, they leverage the efforts of the teacher. However, collaborativelearning is seldom applied in a computer conferencing software environment, because thethreaded-discussion systems do not expedite team building and effective group processes.
We think that educators who use computers in education are missing an importantopportunity by their slavish acceptance of the threaded-discussion paradigm. We hope toshow how a different kind of conferencing can mediate higher-level thinking and learning.Good teachers never underestimate the difficulty that students have in learning how tocomprehend, evaluate, question, debate, integrate and synthesise information. Mastery ofinformation, whether it comes in the form of reading, or hearing a speech or dialogue, orviewing television, requires people to think critically, creatively, and integratively. Itis not enough to memorise lecture notes. Students must understand, critically evaluate,and apply instructional materials. One of the best ways for students to develop theseskills is to perform tasks that can only be accomplished by these higher-level learningprocesses. These processes are leveraged if a group works collaboratively to help eachother.
We have arrived at our present understanding of how to make computer-mediated grouplearning more effective from our teaching of four college-level courses on the followingtopics: introductory neuroscience, neuroanatomical principles, and computer literacy(taught twice). In addition, we have eavesdropped on three courses taught by otherprofessors: two educational technology courses and one wildlife biology course. Theseexperiences convince us that specific practices can enrich the learning experience incomputer-conference environments.
The threaded-topic discussion form that is so prevalent tends to produce superficialparticipation. We have often seen such trivial comments as "Yes, I agree with whatJane said," "You clearly have given this a lot of thought," and"Thanks for the information, I didn't know that." Additionally, many studentstend to be "lurkers," not contributing much to the conference unless required todo so.
We believe that the teacher should structure learning objectives and the conferenceenvironment so that all students must become engaged. Specifically, this means thatstudents should DO something; i.e., produce an academic deliverable. Such deliverables caninclude making (and defending) a decision, creating (and defending) a prioritized list,formulating a question/thesis/problem, answering a question or solving a problem,preparing a report/proposal/plan, designing a prototype, or conducting a project.
To create a conferencing environment that promotes constructivist activity, the teachershould create a logical structure for student participation that directs them to providethe desired kind of input in the appropriate places in the computer conference. To alimited extent, this can be achieved in the hierarchical organization of bulletin boardsystems (BBS).
A teacher can specify in advance the topic headings for the BBS, and users canassociate their input with the appropriate topic heading (Fig. 1, top). Thus, theinformation base can be organized around the nature of the expected learning deliverable.
Figure 1. Basic organization of bulletin board knowledge bases. Information is classified in outline form by topic and subtopics.
Basic organization of knowledge bases in a hypertext computer conferencing system.Information is not only classified as in bulletin boards, but a variety of nonlinearcontextual relationships can be produced by hypertext links. Unlike electronic bulletinboards, the user is not constrained to the outline hierarchy of topics.
A bulletin board could become quite limiting if the logic structure were more complex.Note also that in this simple logic structure, there is no way to create other contextualrelationships that extend beyond the outline of topics and subtopics.
But the biggest problem with this conferencing format is that the typical form in whichit is implemented is the threaded-topic discussion in which notes are attached to othernotes. The popular conferencing systems do not allow attaching notes to specific,in-context, places within a document. Those who have used the World Wide Web know howvaluable it is to have hypertext-linked documents that can be launched from specific keywords or character strings at various places within a document. Unfortunately, mostconferencing systems do not support have this feature. One exception is the software thatwe have developed, called FORUM (see http://www.ForumInc.com).
FORUM allows information items to be related to each other with hypertext links thatbreak free from the rigid hierarchy of the BBS (Fig. 1 bottom, Fig. 2). In addition tolinking documents to documents, FORUM users can link documents to any character string ina document. FORUM also allows the teacher to specify in advance the linking relationships,thus creating a logic structure that mediates the group's efforts to produce the requireddeliverables. In Fig. 2 and elsewhere, the block diagrams show the categories of linksavailable in a given conference, and the arrows show the linking relationships. Items withdouble borders are "community" documents that can accept input from everyone inthe group.
Figure 2. Illustration of in-context hypertext links in the FORUM conferencing system,wherein documents can be linked to other documents or even to specified character strings.FORUM also provides a feature for specifying what can be linked to what, creating a logicstructure that guides and directs the evolution of a knowledge base. A given knowledgebase may employ multiple logic structures for different purposes. Note that"Position" links from the Issue" article, and the "Pro" argumentslink from Positions. Linked "Comments" are launched from an icon anchor and acharacter string.
Since our experience has been with education and training, we will illustrate our themeby showing how learner groups can benefit from computer conferences that are organizedaround logic structures. But it is useful to bear in mind that the same principles applyto corporate and institutional activities where information bases are created and used bysuch work teams as task forces, planning groups, proposal preparation teams, productdevelopment teams, sales staff, and quality circles.
We present two example scenarios:
Debate on Applications or Take-home Lesson (Fig. 3). This exercise has twodeliverables. One of these is an Application or Take-Home Lessons list, where each personin a group posts into a community document (shown in double border) those items of fact orconcept that seem to be valid applications or take-home lessons of the presentedinformation. Group members debate each item of the list in terms of whether it isoptimally worded and whether in fact it is a valid application or "take-homelesson." To the various statements of support and opposition, participants postcomments, questions, answers, and raise any issues that emerge from the analysis. Notethat participants can attach Issues, Comments, or Questions to both Agree and Disagreearguments. Comments can also be attached to Issues and Questions. Questions can be raisedabout Comments and Issues. If the software supports it, these relationships can be createdby hypertext links. Students find it quite easy to create appropriately linked input inFORUM, because they simply pull down a Link menu that shows them the available choices forthe given document that they are reading. A mouse click on the link choice opens a newdocument for input. When the new document is closed, the link is automatically created. Nocomputer coding is performed by the student.
Figure 3. Example of a hypertext logic structure for getting a user group to create an analyses of an information set in terms of the "take-home lessons" or specific applications of interest to the group.
The diagram also shows a Memory Aids community document, in which each participantindividually contributes ideas to help everyone remember the applications or take-homelessons. These aids can include things like mental images, drawings, rhymes, riddles,jingles, alliterations, metaphors, analogies, or other mnemonic devices. Our experiencethus far indicates that students are not very adept at this sort of thing. We now realisethat the teacher needs to provide example mnemonics.
Stimulating Insight (Fig. 4). This approach requires groups to produce a set of threedeliverable products. One product is a "Basic Concept List." The intent here isto get students to focus on the principles (not facts!). To do this, they must integratethe facts and think actively and creatively to synthesise these facts into theirunderlying principles. Students contribute individual suggestions to a group document, andthen submit issues, comments, or questions about each of the suggestions. A Group Editorthen consolidates the discussion into a final list of concepts.
Figure 4. Example of a hypertext logic structure for getting a user group to discern the central concepts and provide insights from an information set.
Perhaps the most important part of this logic structure is the requirement tosynthesise and think creatively, to produce insights. Students frequently ask "What'san insight?" We have found it helpful to define insight for the students as anythought involving:
Illustration/example
Clarification
Implication/issue
Ramification
Application
Not surprisingly, students (and even teachers) have difficulty in generating insights.We have noticed, however, that students gradually learn from each other what constitutesgood insight, and they get progressively better at it as the course progresses.
The second product is a "Concept Map," which shows how the principlesinter-relate. The map is constructed from the Concept List by a "Map Editor,"who is subject to suggested revisions from the rest of the group to produce a finalConcept Map.
The third deliverable is an "Insight Paper," which is a collection ofinsights provided by each member of the group The collection of insights is analysed viaissues, comments, questions, and answers on particular points generated. An "InsightEditor" consolidates the discussion into the final Insight Paper. Any new issues thatarise can be separately debated, by having students stake out a position on the issue,present arguments, pro and con, and critique the arguments.
As in the first scenario, the logic diagram shows a Memory Aids document.
An alternative modification of this insight exercise is to require each group member tosubmit, independently from others in the group, a list of 2-4 provocative questions thatarises from a critical analysis of the reading material. Each student would also beobliged to submit what he/she thinks is the best answer to each question. Then, each groupmember critiques both the questions and the answers of each of the other students. The"Insight Editor" member of the group then incorporates the most meaningfulcritique comments into a consolidated, edited list of questions and answers about thereading assignment. One of us (WRK) found that his most intellectually stimulating coursein graduate school was conducted that way. But the course was taught in the old dayswithout computer conferencing, and the logistics of handing out Xeroxed copies of allquestions, answers, and critiques was onerously cumbersome. To help students appreciatehow computer conferencing makes this process so seamless and easy, we suggest thatteachers try the first week of such a class using hard-copy distribution.
As with memory aids and insights, many students at first have difficulty in constructing provocative questions. But they improve rapidly from observing how others go about this task.
Collaboration requires an active sharing of information and intellectual resourcesamong the students in a group. To be effective, student groups must be inter-dependent.That is, grade incentives are needed that make it clear that some significant portion ofthe work will receive a group grade. Of course group grades can be a disincentive, ifstudents do not participate equally. In traditional classroom settings, time and distanceobstacles commonly prevent true collaboration outside of class. Computer conferencingsolves those problems, because all students have equal access to the group's work and arenot hindered by schedule constraints.
Team building is central to effective group work. Not only is a cooperative attituderequired, but group members must be aware of their group processes and make necessaryadjustments (Constantine, 1993; Phillips and Elledge, 1989). A huge literature exists oneffective operation of quality circles in corporate environments, and the idea ofcollaborative learning teams in computer conferencing environments is certainly not new(Kaye, 1991). To build an effective team, each member of the group should have a specifiedrole in achieving the group mission. In a training or education environment based oncollaborative learning theory, one of the central tenets is for group members to havespecified roles (Johnson et al. 1991). Moreover, it is considered wise to change rolesperiodically, so that learners gain experience in the various team roles and so thatweaknesses and strengths in a given role are averaged out over the course term.
Learners need to have well-defined roles in order to know exactly what is expected ofthem. One set of roles, for example, that could be used for the Insight Exercise given inFig. 4 is:
The teacher will want to set deadlines for certain activities. Our experiences showthat the whole process breaks down without tightly enforced deadlines. As the attacheddiagrams indicate, there is a prescribed logical flow pattern for the various documents,commentary, etc. Teachers can use the logic diagram to set deadlines for specificresponses to a reading assignment, for example. For the Insight Exercise of Fig. 4, forexample, at 8 AM on Monday, the teacher might announce the assignment and any instructionsor related information. By Tuesday (perhaps noon or 5 PM), every learner is expected tohave read the assignment and to have posted what he/she thinks are the essential conceptsillustrated in the assignment. By Wednesday (noon or 5 PM), the Map Editor must post adraft concept map. By Thursday (8 AM), each learner must have posted a specified number(2-4) of insights. Between Tuesday and Saturday, each group member is required to postconstructive comments, questions, and answers, and to raise issues that will enhance thequality and rigour of the Concept List, Concept Map, and Insight Paper, so that therespective editors of those documents can produce a final product by Monday morning of thenext week.
A central tenet of Collaborative Learning is that each learner is responsible not onlyfor his/her own learning but also for the learning of everyone in the group. Thus, asignificant part of the group activity must be given a group grade. We suggest a groupgrade for each deliverable from the group. In the introductory neuroscience course, wealso found it very useful for everybody take the exams with a random drawing to determinewhose paper was to serve as the group grade. The quizzer's job is to make certain thatevery member of the group can perform well on the examination.
Exceptional students should not feel penalised by performance of lesser talented and/ormotivated members of the group. Moreover, poor and/or lazy students should not be rewardedfor work done by others. Thus, we suggest that an additional grade factor be incorporatedto reflect the relative contributions of each group member. This can include the teacher'sestimation of each member's contribution to a given assignment. In a computer conference,the teacher can - and should - monitor what each student is contributing to the groupprocess. More important perhaps is the need to let the students themselves judge eachother in terms of how effective each was in the group process. An effective way to do thisis to require each student at the end of an assignment to rank each of the other students,on a scale of 0 to 10, in terms of how effective the other students were in contributingto the group's deliverable products. No ties should be allowed. Perhaps other constraintscan increase the meaningfulness of this ranking. For example, the teacher might specifythat the spread of scores must extend as low as 3 or 4. This approach sensitises eachgroup member to the obligation to shoulder individual responsibility and to self-evaluatein terms of the contributions to others. Ranking is also specifically designed to rewardstellar performance.
Group learning can be a powerful educational experience, whether in distance or on-siteeducation. However, group learning is often trivialised by the threaded-topic discussionformat that is typically used in computer conference systems. Teachers can lead a group toraise the intellectual level of group discourse by requiring student groups to producetangible work products (not just opinion comments) and by creating a logical structure toachieve this end. Secondly, the teacher's efforts can be leveraged by promotinginterdependent student teams in which students help each other to produce the academicdeliverables.
Brooks, J. G. (1993). In search of understanding: the case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Constantine, Larry. (1993). People - ware. Having it all. Software Development. September, p. 94-96.
Damon, W. (1984). Peer education: the untapped potential. Appl. Develop. Psychol. 5, 331-343.
Duffy, T. M., and Jonasson, D. H. (1992). Constructivism and the technology of instruction: a conversation. Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gabbert, B., Johnson, D. W., and Johnson, R. (1986). Cooperative learning, group-to-individual transfer, process gain, and the acquisition of cognitive reasoning strategies. J. Psychol. 120, 265-278.
Johnson, D. W., and Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Co.
Johnson, D. W., Johns, R. T., and Smith, K. A. (1991). Cooperative learning. Increasing college faculty instructional productivity. Washington, D. C.: ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports. Report #4. The George Washington University.
Kadel, S., and Keehner, J. A. (1994). Collaborative learning. A sourcebook for higher education, Vol. II. University Park, Pa.: National Center of Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, and Assessment.
Kaye, A. R. (1991). Collaborative learning through computer conferencing. The Najaden Papers. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Klemm, W. R. (1994). Using a formal collaborative learning paradigm for veterinary medical education. J. Vet. Med. Ed. 21, 2-6.
Phillips, S. L., and Elledge, R. L. (1989). The team-building source book. San Diego: University Associates.
Tobin, K. G. (1993). The practice of constructivism in science education. Washington, D. C.: American Associate for the Advancement of Science.
Webb, N. M. (1982). Student interaction and learning in small groups. Rev. of Educ. Research. 52, 421-445.
Return to Contents Page