1. Instructional Design & Technology Cooperative Learning Effects in Online Instruction Beth Allred Oyarzun

2. Instructional Design & Technology Increase of Online Courses Economics Classroom space More students Class scale (more sections, more students) Obstacles Work Family Other

3. Instructional Design & Technology Introduction Face-to-face/online comparison (Bernard, et.al., 2009) Transactional distance (Moore, 1989) Three Types Interaction (Moore, 1989) Communities of Inquiry (Garrison et.al., 2000) Purpose – Does cooperative Learning increase achievement and/or assist in creating a community of inquiry in online courses?

4. Instructional Design & Technology Cooperative Learning Students work together to accomplish a shared learning goal. (Johnson & Johnson, 1999) Cooperative Learning Methods Method Developer Learning Together & AloneJohnson and Johnson Teams-Games-Tournaments (TGT)Devries and Edwards Group InvestigationSharan and Sharan Constructive ControversyJohnson and Johnson JigsawAronson and Associates Student Teams Achievement Division (STAD)Slavin and Associates Complex InstructionCohen Cooperative Integrated Reading & Composition (CIRC) Stevens, Slavin, and Associates

5. Instructional Design & Technology Cooperative Learning A meta-analysis of 158 cooperative learning studies found that 8 methods of cooperative learning increased achievement and improved cognitive and social development in face-to-face classes. (Johnson, Johnson, & Stanne, 2000) Another meta-analysis of 168 studies in higher education found that cooperative learning strategies promoted higher achievement than competitive or individualistic learning strategies in face-to-face classes. (Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 1998)

6. Instructional Design & Technology Cooperative Learning There are relatively few studies of cooperative learning in distance education. One study found no significant differences on declarative knowledge, but a significant difference on procedural knowledge in the cooperative group. (Riley & Anderson, 2006) A meta analysis of student-student interaction studies found that stronger student to student interactions increased achievement. (Borokhovski et. al, 2012)

7. Instructional Design & Technology Community of Inquiry

8. Instructional Design & Technology Community of Inquiry The causal relationship between the three constructs was examined and found that social presence is the mediating variable between teaching and cognitive presence. (Shea & Bidjerano, 2009) A literature review of all COI studies found that only 5 studies measured student learning. (Rouke & Kanuka, 2009)

9. Instructional Design & Technology COI – Social Presence The ability of participants to project their personal characteristics into the community. Effective communication Open communication Group cohesion

10. Instructional Design & Technology COI - Cognitive Presence The extent to which community participants are able to construct meaning through sustained communication Triggering and event Exploration Integration Resolution

11. Instructional Design & Technology COI -Teaching Presence The design, facilitation, and direction of cognitive and social processes for the purpose of obtaining meaningful and worthwhile learning outcomes Design and organization Facilitation Direct Instruction

12. Instructional Design & Technology Methodology Participants 34 undergraduate college students enrolled in an online instructional technology course. The population varied from traditional campus students taking some online courses to non- traditional students taking all online courses

13. Instructional Design & Technology Methodology Design The duration of the study was 6 weeks and covered two instructional units. There were two sections of the class that were treated as intact groups. During the first unit of instruction, one section received the individual treatment and the other received the cooperative treatment. During the second unit the treatments switched.

14. Instructional Design & Technology Methodology Treatment The cooperative treatment used was the group investigation method. This treatment requires that students work on an individual assignment and a group presentation in self selected small groups The participants received a group grade for the presentation and an individual grade for the assignment.

15. Instructional Design & Technology Methodology Materials Each unit of instruction required in depth instructional development projects. Unit 1 – develop an lesson for online learning Unit 2 – develop a portfolio of your teaching philosophy, instructional resources, and a lesson plan. Detailed instructions and rubrics were provided for each assignment Specific instructions regarding group roles, communication tools, and grading were also provided for the cooperative groups.

16. Instructional Design & Technology Methodology Instrumentation The Community of Inquiry Survey was administered at the end of each unit A Satisfaction survey was administered at the end of each unit Final grades for each unit were collected Demographic data was also collected

17. Instructional Design & Technology Results Demographics 29 female – 5 male participants 9 sophomores, 19 juniors, 4 seniors, 2 non- traditional participants 4 had some computer knowledge, 27 were comfortable with computers, 3 were advanced.

18. Instructional Design & Technology Results Achievement The results indicate that there were no significant differences in achievement in either unit possibly due to a ceiling effect CooperativeIndividualANOVA MSDM Fp Unit 127.133.7124.837.991.241.274 Unit 227.23.7328.182.25.909.347

19. Instructional Design & Technology Results Community of Inquiry CooperativeIndividualANOVA MSDM Fp Unit 1 CoI163.1633.50178.4019.992.42.130 TP50.3711.7158.936.156.57.015* SP38.958.3439.476.59.039.845 CP42.958.6948.605.254.910.34 Unit 2 CoI189.5320.83167.8928.416.10.019* TP59.608.3554.748.392.83.102 SP43.477.0737.798.474.34.045* CP50.535.3645.847.354.30.046*

20. Instructional Design & Technology Results Satisfaction The results show no significant differences in satisfaction. However, there was a trend indicating the extension students were more satisfied with the cooperative treatment while the campus students were more satisfied with the individual treatment. CooperativeIndividualANOVA MSDM Fp Unit 126.746.1829.074.461.506.229 Unit 231.274.4327.746.173.48.071

21. Instructional Design & Technology Discussion The results of this study suggest that the cooperative group investigation method may help build a community of inquiry for certain student populations, particularly, the population of students that do not have a connection to the campus.

22. Instructional Design & Technology Questions Beth Oyarzun oyarzunb@uncw.edu