The Ze Frank Phenomenon

Yesterday, we noted one example of the success of the non-academic, informal CSCL environment created by Internet personality Ze Frank. Today, this blog proposes that research be conducted to investigate the factors involved in this success, with the hope of translating such factors into the traditional online collaborative learning setting.

Hypotheses of Critical Factors

Six different factors are suggested as possible “critical” factors in considering the essential differences between traditional online collaborative learning environments and knowledge construction in an online social environment. These factors are:
1. Pre-existing online social context.
2. Number of participants in the online environment.
3. Nature of the tasks proposed.
4. Project initiator (or instructor).
5. Interest level of participants.
6. Reward offered for successful completion of project.

It would likely be worthwhile to examine the influence of each of the possibly-critical factors. Research proposals, anyone?

The Earth Sandwich: Success in an Informal CSCL Scenario

In 2006, the first recorded “earth sandwich” was created. An earth sandwich, according to Ze Frank (2006), “is created when two slices of bread are simultaneously placed on opposite sides of the earth.” A baguette was placed on the ground in Spain, another on the exact opposite side of the globe, in New Zealand, at precisely the same time. The latitude and longitude of each piece of bread were verified, and the creation of the first earth sandwich was pronounced.

The individuals who accomplished this task had never met each other, nor had they met Ze Frank, the originator of the concept. This is online collaborative learning and knowledge construction at its best.

Ze Frank is a YouTube™ star, maintainer of www.zefrank.com, blogger, vlogger (video blogger), speaker, singer/songwriter, dancer, Internet theorist, and creative project organizer. His web presence has become the focal point of an online social community, in which many collaborative projects have occurred. In comparison to more traditional online learning environments, Ze Frank’s online social environment seems wildly more successful in knowledge construction. Why?

Why does this sort of CSCL environment succeed so dramatically when more formally constructed ones merely limp along or fail completely? I think future research in this area is warranted. More tomorrow...

REFERENCE

Frank, Ze. (2006). If the earth were a sandwich. Ze Frank. Retrieved from http://www.zefrank.com/sandwich/

Scripts Good and Bad

Weinberger discussed two types of scripts in CSCL: epistemic and social scripts. An epistemic script specifies how learners approach the learning task at hand. In order to guide the learning process, epistemic scripts "specify and sequence knowledge construction activities." Thus, the learners are directed sequentially through the knowledge building process as they work collaboratively. Somewhat unexpectedly, epistemic scripts have been found to impede the learning process in some cases and to, at the very least, fail to facilitate it in other cases.

Social scripts, on the other hand, have been found to aid in the collaborative learning process. A social script specifies how learners interact with one another rather than what is actually discussed. A social script in CSCL specifies and sequences the interactions between students. A well constructed social script in CSCL will encourage "equal and alternating participation" by learners during the knowledge building process. This means that all students will both ask and answer questions, and all will participate in negotiation of the knowledge construction process and in the building of the final product.

REFERENCE

Weinberger, A., Ertl, B., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2005). Epistemic and social scripts in computer-supported collaborative learning. Instructional Sciences, 33(1), 1-30.

More on Technical Difficulties

This author is experiencing technical difficulties, including illness in self and family, malfunctioning furnace, 24 hours without Internet, and unexplained muscle spasms in my back. AARRGGGHH! Stay tuned... We'll be back on track soon.

Technical Difficulties and Awkward Interfaces

Among the problems most frequently encountered in CSCL, hardware and software issues rank high. The "Computer-Supported" aspects of CSCL are all-too-frequently lacking (i.e. NOT supportive at all). The ideal is described by Stahl et al: "...the role of the computer shifts from providing instruction - either in the form of facts in computer-aided instruction or in the form of feedback from intelligent tutoring systems - to supporting collaboration by providing media of communication and scaffolding for productive student interaction." In other words, the perfect CSCL software package will be almost invisible; it facilitates the collaboration and the learning rather than pushing it. Such software would allow learners to interact freely in the knowledge building process without the constant strain of having to "work around" communication issues or hardware glitches.

The student who must struggle with hardware or connectivity issues is obviously fighting an uphill battle in the CSCL environment. Surprisingly, one-third of all Americans lack broadband access from their homes. Those who do have broadband may find it unreliable, or may have other hardware problems to contend with.

As for the CSCL interface, if the learner finds it awkward, difficult to use or understand, or cumbersome in any way, then learning and collaboration are hindered rather than facilitated. Many researchers have found that scripting the social interaction in the CSCL environment is helpful in the collaborative process, but I say the designer must be careful not to script the learning process in an overly restrictive, cumbersome, or formulaic way. There's a fine line between helpful scripting and restrictive interference in the natural evolution and development of the collaborative learning process and product.

REFERENCES

eSchoolnews. (2010, November 11). New report highlights barriers to online learning. eSchool News. Retrieved from http://www.eschoolnews.com/2010/11/11/new-report-highlights-barriers-to-online-learning/

Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative learning: An historical perspective. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp. 409-426). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Weinberger, A., Ertl, B., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2005). Epistemic and social scripts in computer-supported collaborative learning. Instructional Sciences, 33(1), 1-30.

The Results of an Informal Survey

This author recently conducted an informal survey which looked at attitudes and experiences regarding online learning, collaborative learning, and collaborative online learning. Of the one hundred subjects whose results were tabulated, 81 (or 81%) have participated in an online class, most of them at the college level. Of these, sixteen reported that half of the class work, or more, was done collaboratively in their most recent online class, while 18 reported that there was no collaboration at all. 

As for the type of learning scenario preferred by students, 42 respondents favored the traditional classroom setting, working alone (non-collaboratively). Absolutely no respondents listed online group class work as their preference, while 30 listed it as their least favorite scenario. 

Interestingly, of the 90 people who reported working collaboratively on a class assignment, seventy considered the end result to be at least “pretty good.” 

The results of this survey could lead to further research regarding why students’ attitudes toward online collaborative learning tend to be negative and to investigate what changes could be made to typical online collaborative learning scenarios to improve student attitudes. The open-ended comment boxes allowed survey respondents to provide some excellent feedback, particularly on aspects of group work. Some examples follow:  

"Working in groups sucks. I want to be graded on my own work - not someone elses. ….The professor's salary is not an average of everyone in their department - why should the student's grade be based on group work?" 

"Groups that know each other very well tend to either divide up work evenly and everyone does their 'fair share' or everyone knows that one (or two) people will end up doing all the work anyway, so no one else truly participates. Groups made up of strangers tend to share work more evenly, in my experience, in order to make a good impression."

"When working in groups, I've found it's best to just do as much of the work as possible in the beginning alone, present it to the group, and then see who is reliable to fill in the gaps. Working in groups is a real pain in the neck."


It is worth noting that these last two comments refer to cooperative work, rather than to true collaboration. In any case, it is clear that collaborative learning experiences (computer-supported or otherwise) leave a lot to be desired in many cases. Much work and research remain to be done.

Measuring Sociability

"Sociability" or group cohesiveness is recognized as an essential component of effective CSCL environments, but the trick now is how to measure this factor.

Kreijns et al defined sociability as “the extent to which a CSCL environment is perceived to be able to facilitate the emergence of a sound social space with attributes as trust and belonging, a strong sense of community, and good working relationships” This group developed and then preliminarily tested a “Sociability Scale” to aid in experimental measurement of perceived sociability, with the intention of facilitating research into the factors that affect students’ perceptions of sociability.

De Laat, Lally, Lipponen, & Simons proposed the use of Social Network Analysis (SNA) to analyze interactions among participants in CSCL contexts. SNA is a tool used in organizational studies that allows “mapping” of group interactions for a visual representation of the social patterns within a group. In investigating group dynamics, SNA focuses on “density,” which indicates the overall number of connections within the group, and “centrality,” which measures behaviors of the individuals in the group.  This technique is extremely time-intensive, but the results of such analysis may serve to clarify the importance of group cohesiveness in CSCL, and to aid investigation of effective methods for facilitating group cohesion.

Neither the best means of facilitating sociability, nor the best means of measuring it, have been agreed upon in the educational and research community.




REFERENCES

de Laat, M., Lally, V., Lipponen, L., & Simons, R. (2007).  Investigating patterns of interaction in networked learning and computer-supported collaborative learning:  A role for social network analysis.  International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(1), 87-103.

Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A., Jochems, W., & van Buuren, H. (2007).  Measuring perceived sociability of computer-supported collaborative learning environments.  Computers & Education, 49, 176-192.