1. 1 Computer supported collaborative learning in higher education: an overview of evidence based approaches Prof. dr. Martin Valcke http://allserv.ugent.be/~mvalcke/CV/CVMVA.htm Ghent University eLi, Riyadh, March 16-18, 2009

2. Ghent features

3. Background Ghent University: Ranked nr. 127 worldwide - ranked 1 as best research setting (November 2007) Flanders: Dutch speaking area Research university!!

4. Background Head Department of Educational Studies 11 years Dutch Open University International collaboration (Cambodia, China, Ecuador, Mozambique, Tanzania, Uganda, Vietnam, Zimbabwe, …)

5. 5 Background Research university! Topics (among others): higher education, ICT, innovation management, evidence based approach Our own instructional aproach is object of study: elearning, peer tutoring, coaching, collaborative learning …

6. Department of Education: research Strong Research focus -Culture and literacies -Quality assurance in education (performance indicator studies ~ PISA – TIMSS) -ICT in higher education -Innovation in formal education -Professional development of Teachers -Management of Education -Management of Higher Education -Scientific Literacy -Adult education -Output orientation: ISI

7. ISI indexed journal articles Evidence-based orientation Ouput orientation http://allserv.ugent.be/~mvalcke/CV/CVMVA.htm

8. 8 E-Learning and Higher education The integrated use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) in Higher Education –Logistics –Administration –Educational impact (Laurrilard (2005, p.72)

9. E-learning and Higher Education internet access to digital versions of materials unavailable locally internet access to search, and transactional services interactive diagnostic or adaptive tutorials interactive educational games remote control access to local physical devices personalized information and guidance for learning support simulations or models of scientific systems communications tools for collaboration tools for creativity and design virtual reality environments for development and manipulation data analysis, modeling or organization tools and applications electronic devices to assist disabled learners 9 Information technologies Communication technologies

10. E-learning and Higher Education Research literature not univocal: “Whilst the benefits of eLearning are highly prophesized, the many implications of implementing an eLearning program require careful consideration” O’Neill, Singh and O’Donoghue (2004) 10

11. E-learning and Higher Education “the creation of sound pedagogic practice is often flawed or missing completely and activities constructed service the technology rather than student or learner progression or association.” O’Neill, Singh and O’Donoghue (2004) 11

12. E-learning and Higher Education Present contribution E-learning: –Focus on collaborative learning –Focus on “pedagogies” –Focus on evidence-based practices –Focus on cognitive benefits 12

13. E-learning in Higher Education Cognitive benefits: –Performance (tests, exams) –Levels of cognitive processing 13

14. E-learning: CSCL On-line collaboration What is the theoretical base to ground assumptions about impact on cognitive processing? 14

15. 15

16. 16 « Collaborative learning is in the air » « Everyone wants it. It is the instructional strategy, perhaps the strategy of the decade »

17. Collaborative learning without ICT 17 Slavin (1996) Johnson & Johnson (1996)

18. Collaborative learning with ICT: CSCL Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) does not systematically produce positive learning outcomes (Dillenbourg 2002) 18 Interactive Flat

19. 19 But does this invoke relevant learning? Collaboration does not lead automatically to high quality learning. There is a need guidance and online support in CSCL settings that is comparable to the need of classroom support in face-to-face settings (Lazonder, Wilhelm, & Ootes, 2003).

20. 20

21. 21

22. Collaborative learning with ICT: CSCL Critical variables and processes in CSCL setting: –Learner characteristics –Group characteristics –Task characteristics 22

23. 23

24. 24 Design guidelines ~ 3 sets of variables Task characteristics Learner characteristics & support Group Characteristics

25. CSCL: group characteristics 25

26. CSCL: group characteristics 26 small group (8 to 10 participants)

27. 27 CSCL: group characteristics

28. CSCL: task characteristics 28

29. CSCL: task characteristics Scripting ~ adding structure to the task: –adding specific goals for the learners, classifying task types, adding task prescriptions, or pre-structuring the task. Scripting effective to improve collaboration (Pfister & Mühlpfordt, 2002). 29

30. 30 CSCL Scripting: roles Pharmacy education 5th year students 5 months internship Lack of integrated pharmaceutical knowledge (see Timmers, Valcke, De Mil & Baeyens, 2008)

31. 31

32. 32 CSCL scripting: roles Content roles: –Pharmacyst –Pharmacyst assistant –Theorist –Researcher –Intern Communication roles: –Moderator –Question-asker –Summarizer –Source researcher

33. 33

34. 34 Exchange

35. 35 ICS Integrated Curriculum Score

36. 36 LKC Level knowledge Construction

37. CSCL: differential impact roles 37 see De Wever, Schellens, Van Keer & Valcke (2008)

38. 38 CSCL scripting: tagging

39. 39 CSCL scripting: tagging Aims of tagging: –obliges students to reflect on nature of contribution –taggs improve outline of discussion and indicate predominance or absence thinking type Example: De Bono’s (1991) thinking hats to develop critical thinking

40. 40 CSCL scripting: tagging Garrison (1992) identifies five stages of critical thinking: –Problem identification –Problem definition –Problem exploration –Problem evaluation/applicability –Problem integration

41. 41 De Bono’s (1991) thinking hats Critical ThinkingThinking hats Problem identificationWhite hat Problem definitionBlue hat Problem explorationGreen hat Problem applicabilityBlack hat Problem integrationYellow hat Red hat

42. 42 CSCL scripting: tagging 3th-year university students ‘Instructional Strategies’ (N=35) 6 groups of 6 team members Experimental condition Control condition 4 groups 23 students 2 groups 12 students Tag posts by a thinking hat No tags to posts required

43. 43 CSCL scripting: tagging Evidence for critical thinking in both conditions Significant deeper critical thinking in experimental condition (F(1, 416)=364.544; p<.001)

44. 44 Tagging Experimental condition –more focused discussions (F(1, 415)=1550.510; p<.001) –more new info and ideas (F(1, 352)=21.955; p<.001) –more linking facts ideas (F(1, 31)=3.024; p<.092)

45. 45 Impact of tagging Multinomial logistic regression: –experimental condition increases probability of engaging in discussions –experimental students post 2.73 as many new problem-related information to the discussion –experimental students 2.95 times more likely to add new ideas –linking ideas and critical assessment occur rarely. Only in experimental condition.

46. 46 Impact of tagging over time Experimental students constant level of critical thinking Control students decrease during problem identification and exploration

47. CSCL: learner characteristics 47

48. CSCL: learner characteristics Attitudes towards CSCL Study approach in CSCL setting Cultural variables Support needs (tutoring) 48

49. CSCL: learner characteristics Positive attitude towards CSCL: –higher levels of cognitive processing –higher final exam scores Deep level study approach –significantly higher exam scores 49

50. CSCL: learner characteristics Cultural variables See studies E-learning and CSCL in Chinese setting Zhu, Valcke & Schellens, in press 50

51. CSCL: learner characteristics 51 E-Learning Environment -CSCL Online performance Academic achievement Learning process Innovation adoption Teaching process Cultural context China Flanders Teacher Teacher’s roles Views on teaching & learning principles Perspectives on instructional innovation Teacher-student relationship Motivation Learning Strategies Study approaches Learning conceptions Perceptions of learning environment Computer competence Epistemological beliefs Student

52. CSCL: learner characteristics Chinese students –do not perceive CSCL more positively. –report lower level of computer competence and internet use. Chinese students not used to social- constructivist learning approach. Strong emphasis on examination scores and competition 52

53. 53

54. Also cultural differences in staff! 54

55. Also cultural differences in staff! 55

56. 56 E-moderating model (Salmon, 2000) CSCL: support needs

57. Vygotsky ‘zone of proximal development ’ (Vygotsky,1978). Peer tutoring in CSCL –as ‘people from similar social groupings who are not professional teachers, helping each other to learn, and learning themselves by teaching’ (Topping, 1996, p. 322). 57

58. CSCL: support needs Tutors behave differently ! 58

59. CSCL: support needs 59

60. Conclusions E-learning: potential of CSCL Evidence-based CSCL practices Validate of design CSCL-principles –group (size and level of interactivity) –task (scripting) –characteristics of the individual learner (motivation, attitudes, culture, support needs) 60

61. 61 Publications De Smet, M., Van Keer, H., & Valcke, M. (in press). Blending asynchronous discussion groups and peer tutoring in higher education: An exploratory study of online peer tutoring behaviour. Accepted for publication in Computers and Education. De Smet, M., Van Keer, H., & Valcke, M. (in press). Cross-age peer tutors in asynchronous discussion groups: A study of the evolution in tutor support. Accepted for publication in Instructional Science. De Wever, B., Schellens, T.,Valcke, M & Van Keer, H. (2006). Content analysis schemes to analyze transcripts of online asynchronous discussion groups: a review. Computers & Education, 46(1), 6-28. De Wever, B., Van Keer, H., Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (in press). Applying multilevel modelling on content analysis data: Methodological issues in the study of the impact of role assignment in asynchronous discussion groups. Accepted for publication in Learning and Instruction. De Wever, B., Van Winckel, M. & Valcke, M. (in press). Discussing patient management online: The impact of roles on knowledge construction for students interning at the paediatric ward. Accepted for publication in Advances in Health Sciences Education. Schellens, T. & Valcke, M. (2005). Collaborative learning in asynchronous discussion groups: What about the impact on cognitive processing? Computers in Human Behavior, 21(6), 957-975.

62. 62 Publications Schellens, T. & Valcke, M. (2006). Fostering knowledge construction in university students through asynchronous discussion groups. Computers & Education. 46(4), 349- 370. Schellens, T., Van Keer, H. & Valcke, M. (2005). The impact of role assignment on knowledge construction in asynchronous discussion groups: a multilevel analysis. Small Group Research, 36, 704-745. Schellens, T., Van Keer, H., & Valcke, M. (2007). Learning in asynchronous discussion groups: A multilevel approach to study the influence of student, group and task characteristics. Accepted for publication in Journal of Behavior and Information Technology. 26(1), 55-71. Schellens, T., Van Keer, H., De Wever, B., Valcke, M. (in press). Tagging Thinking Types in Asynchronous Discussion Groups: Effects on Critical Thinking. Accepted for publication in International Journal of Interactive Learning Environments. Timmers, S., Valcke, M., De Mil, K. & Baeyens, W.R.G. (in press). CSCLE and internships of pharmacy students - The Impact of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning on Internship Outcomes of Pharmacy Students. Accepted for publication in International Journal of Interactive Learning Environments. Valcke, M. & De Wever, B. (2006). Information and communication technologies in higher education: Evidence-based practices in medical education. Medical Teacher, 28, 40-48.

63. 63 Computer supported collaborative learning in higher education: an overview of evidence based approaches Prof. dr. Martin Valcke http://allserv.ugent.be/~mvalcke/CV/CVMVA.htm Ghent University eLi, Riyadh, March 16-18, 2009