Reflective Summary 2

Chapter 3: Computer-supported collaborative learning in university and vocational education.

Learning Goals/Objectives:
Use of a collaborative Learning Network (CLN) to promote “learner as thinker”.
Role of the technology:
Software tool to support interaction and sharing of expertise.
Use of technology: instructional strategies /scaffolds:
• To focus on students instead of the teacher (student centered focus).
• To start from students prior knowledge.
• To focus on learning as a result of students’ mental knowledge (re)
construction.
• To focus on learning as a collaborative act of coming to understanding
and reaching learning goals.
• To focus on learning as a social interaction among multiple perspectives.
• To view the learner as being self-responsible for his or her learning and
the learning of his or her colleagues.
Role of the teacher:
Teacher as goal setter and initiator in students’ interaction continuance.
Provide depth and breadth of domain knowledge via coaching.
Serve as cohesive element in connecting students’ values and ideas.
Instructional strategies /scaffolds used by teacher:
• Provide a clear delineation of the group’s function
• Promote discursive participation.
• Identify the groups shared values.
• Consolidate members’ identities as part of the group.

The study by De Jong, Veldhuis, and Lutgens (2002) using Knowledge Forum was based on the premise that the process of collaborative learning should stimulate students to explain, interpret, and formulate their thoughts more clearly as well as leading students to reflect on their own learning and thinking. The study involved University Education Science undergraduates and Agricultural Vocational Education students. The authors concluded that the act of creating the open-ended learning environment to facilitate discussions does not insure that collaborative knowledge construction is really taking place (Woodruff, 2002, p. 158). A second conclusion is the involvement of the teacher is greatest during the knowledge “deepening” phase and should include working with the students’ prior knowledge and “involving student’s personal wonderments within authentic learning experiences” (p. 158). And finally they underscore the need to employ cooperative learning techniques such as jigsaw as well as weekly face-to-face meetings to generate collaborative solutions. For me the idea of the need for weekly face-to-face meetings defeats the use of online collaborations at all. What does appear crucial for knowledge construction in online collaborations is the role of instructor in the design of the learning experience and in the teaching of the course. In this study it was the instructor’s role of facilitating and provoking engagement which proved tantamount to level of and frequency of participation by learners. Also as indicated above, it was the type of and provision of scaffolding by the instructor which stimulated awareness of participants learning processes as well as providing dialogue support.

In a commentary on the study, Woodruff (2002) points out the need on the part of the instructor to “attend specifically to the cohesive community-forming factors and pay particular attention to the nature of the discursive participation” (p. 161). Community building is extremely building in VLC’s. In fact, we might even label the need to unify the members of a VLC as a crucial need. As was demonstrated by Bruckman and Jensen (2002), improper mediation or lack of leadership in community building is a big factor in failed networked learning environments (p. 31). While the instructor in De Jong, Veldhuis, and Lutgens (2002) study was there in the study’s beginning in the role of leader and mentor, it was the variation in scaffolding that was needed to assist the students in greater collaborative knowledge construction. The need for the instructors implementation of the instructional strategies or scaffolds listed above (Provide a clear delineation of the group’s function; Promote discursive participation; Identify the groups shared values; and Consolidate members’ identities as part of the group) was more evident in the study involving Vocational Agriculture students. Cuthbert, Clark, and Linn (2002) present basically the same ideas in their four design considerations for the creation of successful learning communities, but also add representation of the community members. Their study was on the VLC, WISE, which has a much narrower focus of science education. WISE uses the scaffolded knowledge integration framework which is based on the four components of: Identifying New Goals for Science Learning, Making Thinking Visible, Encouraging Autonomous Learning, and Providing Social Supports.

Smith and Ragan’s (2005) define “Instructional strategies” as patterns teachers usually follow because they have discovered that students who experience the prescribed instructional events tend to learn better than students who do not. In following this idea, making sure members feel part of the group and providing both social and technological assistance are areas that an instructor must address. So for students who are not as technologically adept as well as those who are not familiar or comfortable with online asynchronous communications, the role of the instructor must include facilitation as well as cultivation of these skills before any higher order collaborative communications can begin to take place. As the authors pointed out, Knowledge Forum can serve as a tool to promote (re)construction of knowledge, but it just a tool in the hands of the unskilled user. It is the as educators that provide the instructional strategies that tie the technology to thinking.

Question 2
A). How your chosen technology is designed to scaffold peer interactions, collaborative learning, and community building activities in a VLC.

My virtual learning community is an online Spanish course for educators. The main technology used will be the course management platform, D2L. Along with the components specific to D2L (discussion boards, quizzing function with instant feedback, audio and video imbedded within the course) I will be using several other programs such as Audacity and Marratech or Skype. While many of the course components will be asynchronous such as discussion and audio posts, synchronous chats via Skype or Marratech will allow students to engage in actual conversations with classmates as well as with native speakers such as students in Mexico. The activity would require the students to combine the grammar and vocabulary they are learning and apply it to a situation that mirrors one they might encounter using the target language. These types interactive chat activities encourage transfer, or the ability to apply the procedures or productions from one situation to a second one. Ormrod (2008) identifies several factors that affect transfer or increase the likelihood that it will occur such as meaningful learning, learning something thoroughly, principles vs. discrete facts, as well as numerous and varied examples and opportunities for practice of skills (pp.399-401). By adding in the multimedia component the student can engage in an authentic conversation with a native speaker which will allow the students to practice fluency in language usage, speaking and listening skills.

B). Discuss specifically each of these components in the context of your chosen community-building project: (a) design (or attributes) of technology, (b) instructional strategies / scaffolds, and (c) teacher’s guidance and facilitation.

a) The use of chat functions in a VLC between foreign language learners and native speakers has many benefits: (Silke von der Emde, Schneider & Kotter, 2001)
Authentic communication and content; Autonomous learning and peer teaching in a students centered classroom; Individualized learning; Importance of experimentation and play; Students as researchers- the intellectual dimension (see b)

b). One instructional strategy used would be to present the student with scenarios resembling real world learning situations requiring them to combine vocabulary, grammatical and situational language content knowledge and apply them through a variety of level appropriate activities/experiences to solve a problem. An example of this would be to present the student with a scenario of an excursion with an international friend to a local art museum. The student would create the dialogue between the two friends. The dialogue would cover an introduction, description, and explanation of the museums content to your visiting international friend. The students would need to consider language barriers such as vocabulary differences and or limitations as well as any cultural aspects that might affect communication or understanding. Using online chat the student would act out the scenario with a native speaker.

c). Throughout the initial learning of the language and vocabulary the instructor would serve in role of facilitator, model and coach by setting clear and obtainable objectives based on students level of learning, serve as resource for domain knowledge, initiate/ facilitate interactions, design interactive experiences that are interesting and relevant to students’ goals and ideas.

C.) Explain which theories motivate or underline the use of technology for your proposed project.

Communicative Language Instruction (CLI) is the most common accepted Foreign language approach used by cognitivists today as it emphasizes “authentic language use and classroom exchanges where students [are] engaged in real communication with one another” (Cal Digest, 1993). Communicative language teaching incorporates authentic or real-life situations which require communication. Students are motivated to learn due to their desire to express themselves in a manner that is both meaningful and useful. Along the same premise Kearsley and Shneiderman’s (1998) engagement theory as a model for learning in a technology-based environment: “The major premise is that students must be engaged in their course work in order for effective learning to occur” (p. 24). Engaged learning requires student activities which “involve active cognitive processes such as creating, problem-solving, reasoning, decision-making and evaluation” (p. 20). Finally, David Ausubel’s expository teaching/reception learning: that for new knowledge to become meaningful to students, it must be connected to existing knowledge (Woolfolk, 1998, p. 341). In order to build upon prior knowledge, the teacher must anchor instruction in activities that the students find not only meaningful but also authentic in the context of their own experiences. The American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) acknowledged the one way to achieve this is through integrating technology into the foreign language learning (also see Smith, 2003).


References:
Bruckman, A. & Jensen, C. (2002) The mystery death of MediaMOO: Seven years of
evolution of an online community. In K. A. Renninger & W. Shumar (Eds.),
Building virtual communities: Learning and change in cyberspace (pp.
21-33). Cambridge University Press.

Communicative Language Teaching: An Introduction and Sample Activities. (1993).
Cal Digest. Retrieved on November 20, 2005 from http://www.cal.org/
resources/digest/gallow01.html.

Cuthbert, A. J., Clark, D. B., & Linn, M. C. (2002). WISE learning communities:Design
considerations. In K. A. Renninger & W. Shumar (Eds.), Building virtual
communities: Learning and change in cyberspace (pp. 215-246). Cambridge
University Press.

De Jong, F. P. C. M., Veldhuis, E. & Lutgens, G. (2002). Computer-supported
collaborative learning in university and vocational education. In T.
Koschmann, R. Hall & N. Miyake (Eds.), CSCL 2: Carrying forward the
conversation. (pp. 111-128). Lawrence Erlbaum Press.

Nunan, D. (1991). Communicative tasks and the language curriculum. TESOL
Quarterly,25(2), 279-295.

Ormrod, J. E. (2008). Human learning, (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson-Prentice Hall.

von der Emde, S., Schneider, J., & Kotter, M. (2001). Technically speaking:
Transforming language learning through virtual learning envirionments. The
Modern Language Journal, 85(2). pp. 210-225.

Smith, B. (2003) Computer-mediated negotiated interaction: An expanded model. The
Modern Language Journal. 87(1), 38-57.

Smith, P. L. & Ragan, T. J. (2005). Instructional Design. John Wiley & Sons.

Woolfolk, Anita E. (1998). Ausubel: Expository teaching/reception learning”
Educational Psychology. (341-347). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Woodruff, E. (2002). Commentary on Computer-supported collaborative learning in
university and vocational education. In T. Koschmann, R. Hall & N. Miyake
(Eds.), CSCL 2: Carrying forward the conversation. (pp. 157-168).
Lawrence Erlbaum Press.