1. Factors promoting and hindering collaborative learning Students experiences from a virtual course Essi Vuopala Learning and Educational Technology Research Unit (LET) Department of Educational Sciences and Teacher Education University of Oulu, Finland

2. Overview

• Background and aim of the study

• Reseasrch questions

• Method

• Research design

• Data analysis

• Results

• Conclusions

3. Background of the study

• Several studies have shown the benefits of collaborative learning

• • Research on collaborative learning and computer supported collaborative learning (CSCL) (e.g. Dillenbourg, 1999; Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2006; Stahl, 2006) ,

• • Small-group research (e.g. Van den Bossche, Segers, & Kirschner, 2006)

• • Earlier studies concerning requirements for successful collaborative learning (e.g. Biasutti, 2011; Chan & Yuen-Yan, 2011, So & Brush, 2008) .

• Still, students experiences about collaboration and collaborative learning is less understood (e.g. Seddon & Biasutti, 2009; Webb, 2009).

4. Aim of the study Based on earlier studies : The aim of this study is to improve understanding of students experiences of collaborative learning in the context of CSCL. There is a need for qualitative research focusing on student perspectives on the processes, challenges and success factors of collaborative learning especially in CSCL environments (e.g. Song et al., 2004; Vonderwell, 2003). Understanding students perspective is essential because this helps designers and teachers to provide specific instructions and support for enhancing the quality of collaborative learning.

5. Research questions These questions are answered through a case study of high-school students participating in a virtual course. 1. Which factors promoted and hindered collaborative learning in a virtual course? 2. How did factors promoting and hindering collaborative learning varied during the course?

6. Method

• Context: International CSCL course (Optima environment)

• Participants: Students (N=86) from five Finnish, one Norwegian and one German universities

• • 8 small groups (mixed groups)

• • Background information:

• • • Educational background: Educational sciences (66%), computer sciences (10%), other (23%).

• • • Majority of respondents had earlier experiences on collaborative learning (62%) and studying in virtual course (61%).

• • • Preliminary understanding about collaborative learning (definitions in the beginning of the course)

7. Method

• Context: International CSCL course (Optima environment)

• Participants: Students (N=86) from five Finnish, one Norwegian and one German universities

• • 8 small groups (mixed groups)

• • Background information:

• • • Educational background: Educational sciences (66%), computer sciences (10%), other (23%).

• • • Majority of respondents had earlier experiences on collaborative learning (62%) and studying in virtual course (61%).

• • • Preliminary understanding about collaborative learning (definitions in the beginning of the course)

8. Research design Qualitative content-driven data analysis

• Background information

• Defining collaborative learning

- Which factors promoted and hindered collaborative learning during 1) the whole course and 2) each studying phase?

• Re-defining collaborative learning

• Evaluation of group work

9. Data analysis

• Each merkityksen sisltv yksikk was coded into following categories:

10. Results: Which factors promoted collaborative learning during the course Figure I: Factors promoting collaborative learning (n= 256)

11. Results: Which factors promoted collaborative learning during the course Figure I: Factors promoting collaborative learning (n= 256) Figure II: Factors promoting collaborative learning: Group factors (%, n=129)

12. Results: Which factors promoted collaborative learning during the course Figure I: Factors promoting collaborative learning (n= 256) Figure II: Factors promoting collaborative learning: Group factors (%, n=129)

13. Results: Which factors promoted collaborative learning during the course Figure I: Factors promoting collaborative learning (n= 256)

14. Results: Which factors promoted collaborative learning during the course Figure I: Factors promoting collaborative learning (n= 256) Figure III: Factors promoting collaborative learning: Environment factors (%, n=114)

15. Results: Which factors promoted collaborative learning during the course Figure I: Factors promoting collaborative learning (n= 256) Figure III: Factors promoting collaborative learning: Environment factors (%, n=114)

16. Results: Which factors promoted collaborative learning during the course Figure I: Factors promoting collaborative learning (n= 256)

17. Results: Which factors promoted collaborative learning during the course Students commitment to course activities Figure I: Factors promoting collaborative learning (n= 256)

18. Results: Which factors promoted collaborative learning during the course Students commitment to course activities Figure I: Factors promoting collaborative learning (n= 256)

19. Results: Which factors promoted collaborative learning during the course Figure I: Factors promoting collaborative learning (n= 256)

20. Results: Which factors hindered collaborative learning during the course Figure IV: Factors hindering collaborative learning (n= 255)

21. Results: Which factors hindered collaborative learning during the course Figure V: Factors hindering collaborative learning: group factors (%, n=126) Figure IV: Factors hindering collaborative learning (n= 255)

22. Results: Which factors hindered collaborative learning during the course Figure V: Factors hindering collaborative learning: group factors (%, n=126) Figure IV: Factors hindering collaborative learning (n= 255)

23. Results: Which factors hindered collaborative learning during the course Figure IV: Factors hindering collaborative learning (n= 255)

24. Results: Which factors hindered collaborative learning during the course Figure IV: Factors hindering collaborative learning (n= 255) Figure VI: Factors hindering collaborative learning: environment factors (%, n=86 )

25. Results: Which factors hindered collaborative learning during the course Figure IV: Factors hindering collaborative learning (n= 255) Figure VI: Factors hindering collaborative learning: environment factors (%, n=86 )

26. Results: Which factors hindered collaborative learning during the course Figure IV: Factors hindering collaborative learning (n= 255)

27. Results: Which factors hindered collaborative learning during the course

• Lack of time

• Lack of motivation

Figure IV: Factors hindering collaborative learning (n= 255)

28. How did factors promoting and hindering collaborative learning varied during the course?

• Promoting factors (%, n=256)

• Hindering factors (%, n=255)

Significance of factors related to interaction and group structure decreased. Factors related to participants activity incresed.

29. How did factors promoting and hindering collaborative learning varied during the course?

• Promoting factors (%, n=256)

• Hindering factors (%, n=255)

Factors related to assignment increased. Factors related to tutoring decreased.

30. How did factors promoting and hindering collaborative learning varied during the course?

• Promoting factors (%, n=256)

• Hindering factors (%, n=255)

31. How did factors promoting and hindering collaborative learning varied during the course?

• Promoting factors (%, n=256)

• Hindering factors (%, n=255)

Factors related to hetegenous group and course atmosphere hindered collaborative learning especially in the beginnig of the course. In the end of the course the most significant factor was passive group members.

32. How did factors promoting and hindering collaborative learning varied during the course?

• Promoting factors (%, n=256)

• Hindering factors (%, n=255)

During phases II and III especially formulation of assignment hindered collaborative learning .

33. How did factors promoting and hindering collaborative learning varied during the course?

• Promoting factors (%, n=256)

• Hindering factors (%, n=255)

34. Main findings

• Main factors both promoting and hindering collaborative learning were related to group processes and group structure.

• Factors related to environment were almost as significant as group factors.

• Individual factors were experienced more hindering than promoting collaborative learning.

35. Conclusions The aim of this study is to improve understanding of students experiences of collaborative learning in the context of CSCL.

36. Conclusions

• Positive group processes are essential requirement for successful collaborative learning positive group processes has to be supported (e.g. Biasutti, 2011; Loh & Smyth, 2010; Merlot, 2010)

• Insignificant role of tutoring (e.g. Kim, Kwon, & Cho, 2011)

• Insignificance of individual factors Making students more aware of self regulation processes. (e.g. Jones & Issroff, 2005)

• Future questions: What are the reasons for variation of promoting and hindering factors during the course?

• Next step student interviews and learning diaries

The aim of this study is to improve understanding of students experiences of collaborative learning in the context of CSCL.

37. Thank you!

• Contact information: [email_address]

• Learning and Educational Technology Research Unit (LET), www.let.oulu.fi

• • Supervisor, Prof. Sanna Jrvel: [email_address]