This study examines student perceptions of the social tasks involved in online group projects and characteristics they thought were important (285). Data was gathered through a survey of 125 undergraduate students in six online classes. Questions were focused on behavior identification, such as what the students did to develop an identity, how they got to know other group members, what kind of characteristics they desired in group members, and how they contributed to developing supportive relationships, trust and etiquette (287-88). I thought the questions were worded in somewhat leading way, assuming positive motives and behaviors. In addition, some of the questions contained terms that were open to interpretation. For example, what exactly is meant by “etiquette” or “develop a specific identity”? The response rate was only 47%, and the students were enrolled through one department. The questions were based on the students’ own perspectives of themselves and, while this can be informative, we all have an inherent bias in how we view our own actions. Nevertheless, I’m looking for ideas to explore in developing a learning community as well as facilitating face-to-face group projects, and this article sheds light on a potential disconnect between student perspectives of effective groups and the characteristics that are actually needed to perform successfully.
The themes derived from the survey responses were showing respect, being nice, adhering to rules/direction, the importance of effective communication, defining roles and expectations, and determining desired characteristics of group members (288). The authors acknowledge that when students used terms such as “respect” quite liberally, they did not describe what they meant. Behaviors considered “nice” were detailed, however, these boiled down to the students’ efforts to be polite in order to avoid conflict; they weren’t willing to challenge group behaviors (288). If no one challenges group behaviors, ideas are held back, groupthink can occur, and more dominating group members can pull the group in directions that do not have consensus or support. A similar finding has to do with adhering to rules and following leader directions. The students did not feel it was important for students themselves to set their rules about such things as when and how to communicate (289). This is important to explore further to validate, as it can lead to misaligned expectations, role confusion and frustration if the teacher gives autonomy to the groups to establish their norms, and the students believe that is the teacher’s role. The students also preferred that roles emerge naturally in the course of interacting as opposed to assigning roles. This, too, could lead to uncertainty and dysfunction of the team. I agree with the authors’ conclusion that these results may indicate that students need more assistance to create effective groups (290). Perhaps this is a case for the use of process scripts. So although the study itself may be flimsy, it does highlight areas that may need more research and attention.
Morgan, Kari, Bruce A. Cameron, and Karen C. Williams. “Student perceptions of social task development in online group project work. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education 10.3 (2009): 285-294. Web. EBSCO. 23 May 2010.
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Interaction in Online Learning
Swan, Karen. “Building Learning Communities in Online
Courses: the importance of interaction.” Education, Communication & Information 2.1 (2002): 23-49. Web. EBSCO. 23 May 2010.
Swan discusses three factors that are related to student perception of learning, factors that we have discussed in ENG 7/895: Student interaction with the content, with the instructor, and with each other. The article provides detail around two studies performed to analyze these factors as they related to asynchronous online courses provided by State University of New York (SUNY). The findings support the importance of interaction in online learning environments (23).
Interaction with content. Consistency in course structure was found to be relevant. In addition, fewer modules within a course resulted in higher satisfaction/learning. These allow for more clarity in the distance setting (30).
Interaction with instructor. Higher levels of learning and satisfaction were reported for online courses with the higher levels of interaction with the instructor. Interestingly, results did not suggest that class size or student achievement levels had a bearing on this factor (32).
Interaction with other students. The study found that discourse among students was an influential factor. It is notable, however, that there was a negative perception of grading based on group work. Swan indicates this may be due to difficulty in collaborating asynchronously or teacher expertise in structuring collaborative projects (33). I’ve had some challenging experiences in school and in the workplace with both situations, so while these may not be the only explanations, they are important issues in the planning process.
The second study in the article investigates the effect of “immediacy” behaviors in online learning based on the examination of one online asynchronous graduate course. Three kinds of social presence were evaluated: Affective (e.g. emotion, values, humor), interactive (e.g. acknowledgement, approval, invitation), and cohesive (e.g. greetings, group or course reference) (38).
The most prevalent affective indicator was paralanguage, the use of special text to indicate emotions or to emphasize something (i.e. emoticons, punctuation, bolding, etc.) Swan assumes logically these are needed to take the place of non-verbal and auditory cues. The next indicator used most often was self-disclosure. This generated the highest quantity and most in-depth student responses. Surprisingly, humor was used very little. I would have thought some humor would help with bonding and comfort-levels, but after reflecting on this, all my experiences have been with students who I’ve had some direct contact or experience with prior to the online relationship (39).
Cohesive indicators were the least used of verbal immediacy behaviors in the study; these behaviors were used more often in the beginning of the course and declined as time went on, likely as the group bonded (40).
The most frequently used interactive indicator was acknowledgement, meaning to respond to a student by quoting or paraphrasing their own message and indicating agreement, agreement, or approval.
Swan gives a realistic assessment that more research is needed, and acknowledges these studies are hard to generalize. Her research methods, criteria and data are explained comprehensively. She notes that the interaction factors overlap with and support each other, but that it can still be useful to examine them independently to shed light on interaction in online learning (23).
Courses: the importance of interaction.” Education, Communication & Information 2.1 (2002): 23-49. Web. EBSCO. 23 May 2010.
Swan discusses three factors that are related to student perception of learning, factors that we have discussed in ENG 7/895: Student interaction with the content, with the instructor, and with each other. The article provides detail around two studies performed to analyze these factors as they related to asynchronous online courses provided by State University of New York (SUNY). The findings support the importance of interaction in online learning environments (23).
Interaction with content. Consistency in course structure was found to be relevant. In addition, fewer modules within a course resulted in higher satisfaction/learning. These allow for more clarity in the distance setting (30).
Interaction with instructor. Higher levels of learning and satisfaction were reported for online courses with the higher levels of interaction with the instructor. Interestingly, results did not suggest that class size or student achievement levels had a bearing on this factor (32).
Interaction with other students. The study found that discourse among students was an influential factor. It is notable, however, that there was a negative perception of grading based on group work. Swan indicates this may be due to difficulty in collaborating asynchronously or teacher expertise in structuring collaborative projects (33). I’ve had some challenging experiences in school and in the workplace with both situations, so while these may not be the only explanations, they are important issues in the planning process.
The second study in the article investigates the effect of “immediacy” behaviors in online learning based on the examination of one online asynchronous graduate course. Three kinds of social presence were evaluated: Affective (e.g. emotion, values, humor), interactive (e.g. acknowledgement, approval, invitation), and cohesive (e.g. greetings, group or course reference) (38).
The most prevalent affective indicator was paralanguage, the use of special text to indicate emotions or to emphasize something (i.e. emoticons, punctuation, bolding, etc.) Swan assumes logically these are needed to take the place of non-verbal and auditory cues. The next indicator used most often was self-disclosure. This generated the highest quantity and most in-depth student responses. Surprisingly, humor was used very little. I would have thought some humor would help with bonding and comfort-levels, but after reflecting on this, all my experiences have been with students who I’ve had some direct contact or experience with prior to the online relationship (39).
Cohesive indicators were the least used of verbal immediacy behaviors in the study; these behaviors were used more often in the beginning of the course and declined as time went on, likely as the group bonded (40).
The most frequently used interactive indicator was acknowledgement, meaning to respond to a student by quoting or paraphrasing their own message and indicating agreement, agreement, or approval.
Swan gives a realistic assessment that more research is needed, and acknowledges these studies are hard to generalize. Her research methods, criteria and data are explained comprehensively. She notes that the interaction factors overlap with and support each other, but that it can still be useful to examine them independently to shed light on interaction in online learning (23).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)