1. ELDT lunchtime webinar series
Making collaborative online activities work
Dr Richard Walker
E-Learning Development Team, University of York
Wednesday 11th January 2017

2. Session Outline 1. Drivers for collaboration online
- Use cases highlighting approaches & tools
2. Common challenges in engaging learners
- Discussion of barriers to participation
3. Designing in student engagement
- Activity design tips
4. Facilitating collaborative learning
- Instructional responsibilities for delivery of collaborative tasks

3. To begin with – some questions to ponder
Why do you want your students to engage in collaborative online activities?
What learning outcomes are you targeting?
How will the performance of the online activities contribute to students’ overall learning for your course? (e.g. for blended modules, how will the online activities complement class-based learning?)

4. Defining collaborative learning
Focusing on situations ‘in which 2 or more subjects build synchronously and interactively a joint solution to some problem’ (Dillenbourg & Schneider, 1995)
emphasis on extent and quality of exchanges during task engagement
shared approach to tasks and student interdependence
positive social interdependence:
- giving & receiving help / feedback,
- exchanging information & resources;
- challenging others’ contributions
- jointly reflecting on progress and process (Johnson & Johnson, 1996)

5. Modes of collaborative engagement supported through the use of technology
Enhancing learning: articulation of learning; reflection on key concepts
Peer-based learning
Reciprocal teaching
discussion forums / role play;
presentations
Enhancing learning: structured interaction
Group research and report writing tasks
wiki /blog spaces
online peer, assessment and review
Transforming learning: student-led teaching and discovery
Student-led content creation
Problem-based learning
online resource hub
wiki / blog problem solving space
The slide presents a selection of the modes of collaborative engagement that may be supported through the use of technology. These modes vary in terms of the levels of responsibility and task ownership that are required of the student to engage with the proposed online activities – but reflect different components of active learning which we may wish to see included in programme design. – i.e. from application/transfer of learned material to new contexts, through to activities which encourage students to author and develop their own learning and teaching resources.
Structured interaction could be based around a collaborative research and writing task, with groups assigned wiki and blog tools to help present their findings.
Learning technologies can also support student-led teaching and content creation tasks – as well as guided / unguided problem solving tasks through the use of a prescribed set of resources.

6. Collaboration use cases at York
Activity mode
Targeted learning
Case example
Collaborative editing of course resources
(Enhancing learning)
Critical reflection on course resources: commenting & feedback
Biomolecular Archaeology (Archaeology)
Workshop presentations & discussion (Enhancing learning)
Group-led presentations & peer review of research findings
New Media & Society (Sociology)
Academic writing and peer review
Peer review of individual opinion pieces on target literature
History & Theory of Criticism (English)
Student-led teaching and discovery (Transforming learning)
Group summaries of research literature: online textbook
Evolutionary Ecology (Biology)
Problem-based learning (Transforming learning)
Unguided group research & drafting of case solution
LLM International Corporate & Commercial Law (York Law School)

7. Evolutionary Ecology

8. Output and work patterns : Evolutionary Ecology
Module
Output & participation
Comments
Evolutionary Ecology
8 x 8 reports
> 50% of modifications by 1 student in 3 groups
Allocation of report writing to individuals
Collaborative research
Mix of communication methods (Facebook/f2f/blog)

9. Categories of cognitive skills
and examples from the LLM blogs
Characteristic of cognitive skill
Example from blog posts
Offering resources
This case relates to cases of master and servant, these principles apply equally to directors serving the company under express or implied contracts of service, and who are therefore also employees (Dranez Anstalt v. Zamir Hayek,)
Making declarative statements
I cannot understand the reason, you mentioned, that the UCTA may not apply to this case. LC is not of course a consumer, but M is a relevant consumer.
Supporting positions on issues
Once Ackerman heard from the inside information from his father in law, he would be as insider under s. 118B (e) of FSMA because he has information “which he has obtained by other means which he could be reasonable expected to know is inside information”. Therefore his action to sell his share of SAH would be dealt with as insider dealing.
Adding examples
The offence of insider dealing can be committed in 3 ways. If an insider:
deals in price-affected securities, when in possession of inside information, s.52(1) CJA 1993
encourages another to deal in price-affected securities, when in possession of inside information, s.52(2)(a) CJA 1993, or
discloses inside information other than in the proper performance of his employment or profession, s.52(2)(b) CJA 1993.
Framework based on Fox and MacKeogh’s 16 categories of cognitive thinking:
Fox, S. and MacKeogh, K. (2003) 'Can eLearning Promote Higher-order Learning Without Tutor
Overload?', Open Learning: The Journal of Open and Distance Learning, 18: 2, 121 — 134
and examples from the weekly blogs
Framework based on Fox and MacKeogh’s 16 categories of cognitive thinking:
Fox, S. and MacKeogh, K. (2003) 'Can eLearning Promote Higher-order Learning Without Tutor
Overload?', Open Learning: The Journal of Open and Distance Learning, 18: 2, 121 — 134

10. Challenges to student engagement online
Why do you think students don’t always participate effectively in collaborative tasks?
What are the key barriers to student engagement in online collaborative activities?

11. Some reasons why students don’t participate online
They are not motivated
They can’t access the discussion
They are shy or do not want to share their views
They do not know what to do
They do not know why they should
They prefer to lurk
They are too busy
It is not assessed
Highton, M. (2009) Encouraging participation in online groups.

12. Observations on student engagement
Set-up of collaborative tasks does not automatically lead to engagement
Cultural challenges in adoption of collaborative online tools for formal learning
Students as “beneficiaries of teaching” rather than “participants in learning”
Online environments can be viewed as spaces for presentation of work – not drafting & negotiation
Text negotiation “uncomfortable” in public domain
Technical skills can be underestimated
e.g. wiki page design & structure; embedding of images
Learning competencies often overlooked
Skills to synthesise & condense, rather than add information
Ownership of contributions & willingness to edit the work of others
Peer review & feedback: critiquing & reflection (Britcliffe & Walker, 2007)
Set-up does not equal engagement
Knowing precisely how the tool works and deploying it is not enough; just as providing a discussion board is not enough to generate a “community”.
The module leader must be comfortable and clear on how to use the tool
If the person leading the course is not comfortable using the tools then this may have a knock-on effect for students in terms of their willingness to adopt the new learning methods
The relationship between the purpose of the collaborative tool (e.g. wiki), the overall purpose of the module and the incentive to contribute needs to be clearly communicated to the students
Lack of communication as to the simple “Why” is a killer. If the students don’t understand what they are learning by engaging (at all levels) then you will struggle to engage them.
Collaborative activities often run into problems when tools are introduced to complement and support class-based discussion and seminar sessions, without a clear rationale in place – or clear expectations on how students should engage and for what purpose. This has provoked comments in the end of module feedback on the use of collaborative tools as: “Forced into the learning experience” / “in the way of the work”.
Wiki usage most effective, (as reflected by student participation levels and output of work), in contexts where group work contributed directly to development of shared knowledge base. Students engaged in group task – difficult to opt out – accountability and shared benefits to all.
The relationship between the purpose of a wiki, the overall purpose of the module and the incentive to contribute needs to be clearly communicated to the students
Be aware that the student perception of the VLE is that it is formal and not for draft quality work
This has come out repeatedly in focus groups and feedback; because a wiki is transparent to everyone the general feeling is that any material put up for general consumption is near to completion.

13. Designing in student engagement: activity design tips
Clear objectives and link to class-based learning – not ‘bolted on’ activity
Alignment between learning objectives, task design and tool selection
Consider profile of cohort: technical & learning competencies; accessibility issues; parallel course activities / competing workload
Articulate rationale for online activity and participation drivers (e.g. assessment & accountability)
Establish expectations on participation – individual & group roles (initiator, summariser, chair); targeted learning behaviour - how tool will be used
Instructional guidance: rules of engagement (‘netiquette’): how to contribute / frequency of contributions / group roles / self-regulation & ownership issues.

14. Facilitating collaborative learning http://bit
Facilitating collaborative learning (Walker & Baets, 2008)
Phase 1: Preparation
(design phase)
Phase 3: Supporting student participation online
(early stages)
Phase 5: Summing up the learning outcomes for the module
(end of module)
Phase 2: Socialising learners
(start of the module)
Phase 4: Sustaining student participation online
(later stages)

15. Instructional responsibilities: delivery tips
Socialising: induction – modelling of course tasks and targeted learning behaviour; building confidence & addressing technical and learning competencies
Supporting: just in time instructions; model learning; provide feedback / technical support (tips)
Sustaining: monitoring of work; on-going evaluation & accountability – ‘little and often’
Interlinking and Summing Up: acknowledge and summarise on-line contributions in class; invite class presentations on collaborative work (peer accountability); make explicit learning outcomes from class-based and online activities

16. Want to know more?
Please refer to sections 4 and 5 of the York TEL Handbook:
Addressing: design of online activities and their relationship to learning objectives; instructional guidance and support to students during the performance of online activities

17. References and recommended reading
Britcliffe, W. & Walker, R. (2007). Making wikis work: How do we create the conditions for effective collaborative learning? ALT-C
Dillenbourg, P. & Schneider, D. (1995). Collaborative learning and the internet.
Highton, M. (2009). Encouraging participation in online groups. Oxford University.
Johnson, D. & Johnson, R. (1996). Cooperation and the use of technology. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp ). New York: Simon and Schuster Macmillan.
Walker, R. & Baets, W. (2008). Instructional design for class-based and computer-mediated learning: Creating the right blend for student-centred learning. In R. Donnelly & F. McSweeney (Eds.), Applied E-Learning and E-Teaching in Higher Education (pp ). New York: Information Science Reference.

18. Discussion & Questions