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.

Socializing

Yesterday we noted that the types of social interaction required in CSCL allow most everyone to function at their own comfort level, whatever that may be. Today we emphasize the essential nature of this socializing in the collaborative learning process.

In recent years, researchers, teachers, and systems designers have at last begun to concentrate on the social factors that impact the learning process in CSCL. Research by Dewiyanti et al has found that participation levels are positively impacted by smaller group size, by high levels of group support, and by requirements for the creation of a tangible, group-generated product. A high level of group cohesiveness encourages individual participation, which in turn reinforces the cohesion of the group.

Kreijns, Kirschner, Jochems, and van Buuren also stress the social aspects of learning, stating “…sociable CSCL environments not only fulfill the learning needs of the students, but also fulfill their social (psychological) needs, thereby making a complete learning experience.” (2007, p. 178).

Unfortunately, researchers, teachers, and instructional designers of CSCL, to the detriment of students, have in the past neglected the importance of social factors in collaborative learning environments. Now that technology has advanced to the point that most any conceivable environment in the online realm is readily achievable, the focus can shift to the more elusive social factors that are so critical to outcome.

More on social factors tomorrow....


REFERENCES

Dewiyanti, S. Brand-Gruwel, S., Jochems, W., & Broers, N. (2007). Students’ experiences with collaborative learning in asynchronous computer-supported collaborative learning environments.  Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 496-514.

Jones, A. & Issroff, K. (2005). Learning technologies:  Affective and social issues in computer-supported collaborative learning.  Computers & Education, 44, 395-408.

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.

But What If I Don't Like Computers/Collaboration/Fill-in-the-Blank? Does Learning Style Matter?

David Kolb developed a theory of learning styles and a Learning Styles Inventory (LSI) in 1976, which classified learners according to their abilities and preferences.  As Sami Sahin explains it: 

Learning occurs when students participate in some activity, reflect upon the observations, use their conceptualization skills form their understandings from the experience, and then use their understandings to create new activities or incorporate them into new situations. Knowledge results from the combination of grasping and transforming experience. The theory draws two dialectically related modes of grasping experience—'Concrete Experience (CE)' and 'Abstract Conceptualization (AC)'—and two dialectically related modes of transforming experience: 'Reflective Observation (RO)' and 'Active Experimentation (AE)'.

Of course there are any number of other learning style classification schemes, but Kolb's LSI has withstood the test of time and proves useful (with modifications) even today.

The question arises, "How does my learning style affect my experience with CSCL?"  In 2001, Wang, Hinn, and Kanfer found no differences in learning outcomes or learner satisfaction among different types of learners.  They theorized that CSCL has something for everyone, so to speak.  Sahin echoed this possibility, by noting that more collaboration and interaction in any given computer-supported course will accomadate the "CE" and "AE" learners.  The "AC" and "RO" learners tend to be satisfied in any case, simply because of the nature of computer-supported work.

To put it more simply, a properly designed CSCL scenario will be able to provide a positive learning experience for all involved.  CSCL has the capacity to offer "Concrete Experience" and the opportunity for "Active Experimentation" (through online simulations, for example) as well as "Abstract Conceptualization" and the opportunity for "Reflective Observation" (through text or conceptual diagrams).  The student who prefers interaction has the collaborative network and the support (not intervention) of an instructor. The student who prefers a less social setting has the buffer of the computer-mediation (you don't actually have to talk to anyone in person, in other words).

Add to these advantages the cost-effectiveness and time-saving aspects of CSCL, and it's easy to see why it may be the future of education.

REFERENCES

Lu, H., Jia, L., Gong, S.H., & Clark, B. (2007). The relationship of Kolb learning styles, online learning behaviors, and learning outcomes.  Educational Technology and Society,10(4), 187-196

Sahin, S. (2008). The relationship between student characteristics, including learning styles, and their perceptions and satisfaction in web-based courses in higher education. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education-TOJDE, 9(1), 123-138.

Wang, X.C., Hinn, M., Kanfer, A. (2001). Potential computer-supported collaborative learning for learners with different learning styles. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(1), 75-85.

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

Cooperation, Compromise, or Collaboration? Making the Distinctions

I watched two students doing their algebra homework together:

"You do the odd-numbered problems and I'll do the evens. Then we'll combine them."

This is NOT collaboration. This is cooperation (and cheating!)  Sometimes, of course, cooperation is perfectly legitimate in an academic (homework) setting. Many group projects are divided into bits by the participants, and then reassembled after everyone has done their part. As a participant in such projects, though, I can confidently say that I learned a lot about my little part, and very little about the other bits.

I watched co-workers at a library debate about the best way to introduce patrons (library "customers") to the new self-check-out system. One librarian wanted to approach people as they noticed the self-check station, and explain it to them. The other librarian wanted to hand out flyers to everyone who came in the front door. The decision: We'll make the flyers available at the front desk, and we'll include the statement, "Please feel free to ask a librarian for help."

This is NOT collaboration. This is compromise. Nothing wrong with compromise, but perhaps it's not always the ideal.

In a collaborative, constructivist learning environment, the collaboration is a means of problem-solving, answer-finding, or knowledge-building. The solving/finding/building is (are) done BY THE GROUP.  Everyone solves, everyone finds, everyone builds, together.

This IS collaboration.

Beyond these aspects of collaboration, however, we may consider collaboration as conflict resolution.  Sandy Styer points out:

"Collaboration gets its power because it uses the energy of Assertiveness--ideas and real points of view, championed by people who care--and the energy of Cooperation--a willingness to make things work for all involved. From collaboration comes the best result, the idea or solution which is fashioned from everyone's input and is better than what any one person could have come up with on her or his own."

In a collaborative learning situation, we may consider the "conflict" to be the problem that needs solving, or the answer that needs finding. We may also consider the conflict between the different learning styles represented within the group. Styer says,

"...it starts with conflict, but it doesn't end there. It takes the energy of the conflict--opposing or differing views, needs and goals--and the attitude of collaboration--the willingness to reach the best solution for all concerned--to get somewhere we've never been before, and somewhere we couldn't go alone."

REFERENCE

Styer, S. (2010, April 8). At the Corner of Assertiveness & Cooperation: Collaboration [Web log post #680]. Retrieved from http://trustedadvisor.com/trustmatters/780/At-the-Corner-of-Assertiveness-and-Cooperation-Collaboration

The Beginnings of CSCL

In the 1980s, Gallaudet University – a school whose students are deaf or hearing-impaired – developed a rudimentary CSCL program that involved a group of networked computers which students used for conversation among themselves and with the instructor in order to develop their writing skills. The program, called Electronic Networks for Interaction (ENFI) allowed the students to work collaboratively to construct appropriate English-language skills. The resulting scripts were the result of an interactive “chat,” and were not retained or archived once their purpose had been served.

In the CSILE (Computer Supported Intentional Learning Environment) Project, Bereiter and Scardamalia attempted to emulate the collaborative, constructivist learning environments found in communities of researchers. The traditional classroom was transformed by the CSILE technology and pedagogy into a knowledge-building environment in which students’ writing skills were developed and an archival text was produced.

The 5th Dimension (5th D) project was organized in the 1980s, originally at Rockefeller University as an after-school program. 5th D later moved to the University of California San Diego, where it grew into a program to enhance students’ reading and problem-solving abilities as they worked in collaboration with older and more skilled students.

Each of these early projects laid the groundwork for truly collaborative constructivist learning, creatively and innovatively supported by technology, and providing the foundations of modern CSCL as it continues to evolve.

REFERENCE

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.

What exactly is Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL)?

Computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) is an emerging field within the education and learning sciences. For our purposes here, CSCL will be defined as "an environment or context in which the computer facilitates interactions among a defined group of learners engaged in the process of mutually constructing and/or acquiring knowledge and problem-solving skills, without direct or immediate input from an instructor." (This definition combines concepts from numerous authors and researchers in the field: Dewiyanti, Brand-Gruwel, Jochems, & Broers, 2007; Stahl, Koschmann, & Suthers, 2006; Weinberger, Ertl, Fischer, & Mandl, 2005).


We will make a distinction between collaborative learning and cooperative learning: collaborative learning implies that the learners function as a unified and cohesive group to jointly produce the desired outcome of knowledge or skills acquisition by the group.


While CSCL is not necessarily an online experience, this blog will focus primarily on the online, often web-based, aspects of CSCL.


As a fairly new discipline, CSCL is still subject to the controversies of competing theories and methods and a lack of consensus about the efficacy of various practices. CSCL cannot rightly be called “computer-supported” if the technology used is cumbersome and therefore more of a hindrance than an aid. It is not collaborative if the individual learners are working as individuals, dividing tasks into discrete pieces and distributing the pieces, rather than actually working as a collaborative team. Finally, if it does not result in learning, then it certainly has failed. The current research into CSCL investigates all of these issues with a view toward generating standards and theories for best practices in the field. 

What are your personal experiences with CSCL?


REFERENCES

Dewiyanti, S. Brand-Gruwel, S., Jochems, W., & Broers, N. (2007). Students’ experiences with collaborative learning in asynchronous computer-supported collaborative learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 496-514.

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.