Susan English and Masoud Yazdani
Department of Computer Science
University of Exeter
Exeter, UK
Abstract
There is, now, computer supported learning and there is cooperative learning at universities. There are also a few Virtual Universities. This paper links these three features in a way that reflects our vision of a future scenario for adult learners.We base our conclusions on the observation of the cooperative learning already taking place at Exeter University's Computer Science Department.
Computer Assisted Learning (CAL) has a long tradition going back to 1950s with "linear programs" and 1960s with "branching programs". The popularity of Internet and World Wide Web has injected a new lease of life into their potential although their limitations are well documented (O'Shea and Self, 1983).
Many universities are recycling existing teaching materials by putting them on the Web and claiming to be delivering learning through a Virtual University.The educational material offered on the Web mostly follows a branching structure made out of multimedia elements.There is a good chance that we may be relearning the lessons of the last two decades with CAL through new experiments with Virtual Universities.
The purpose of this paper is to provide a new perspective based around Cooperative Learning which incorporates peer tutoring and peer assessment.We propose to use standard communication technologies of Internet and the Web and benefit from the developments in CAL and Artificial Intelligence. However, our aim is to re-engineer Education by identifying teaching or learning problems and looking at the technology for a possible solution.
We are riding on a massive and rising tidal wave of progress in the field of media, communications and information technology. This is changing the landscape and cannot be ignored. This is not to say that changes need to occur because the technology is there, but because our culture and lifestyles are changing for a myriad of reasons. The demand for Distance Learning is on the increase as the Open University in the UK has demonstrated. People are now aware that they are no longer excluded from studying, either for pleasure or furthering their career, because of the need to earn a living or bring up a family - this is a valuable achievement.
The nature of employment and leisure has changed - there is wide evidence to show that, generally, there is less of the former and more of the latter. Virtual Universities will help to fill that gap and new communities of students will benefit from fruitful and fulfilling communication and learning without the need for mobility and loans. There are also perceived benefits to existing Higher Education establishments, the depleting resources can be channelled into the most popular courses, with the more specialised subjects, which have limited demand, being taught virtually. Finally, the links that are being made with others across the globe is exciting and extremely positive for everyone involved in education at any level.
The implementation of this strategy in teaching became popular when respect increased for the work of Vygotsky (1987). His explanations endorsed the experience of many that 'Meaning mediates thought in its path to verbal expression'. It is now widely accepted that talking about something can consolidate individual knowledge and even lead to discovery of a solution. A cooperative learning environment enables this process to take place and can also increase self-confidence which not only increases active participation (Bennet, N. and Dunne,E. 1992), but also leads to a greater potential for independent learning.
Vygotsky also explained that through communication other specific things are learnt besides the subject of the communication - these are about the nature and context of the interaction - including human, social and cultural aspects. This point is re-iterated by David Jacques (1984): 'The title 'Learning in Groups' is meant to suggest that groups are not merely a valuable vehicle for learning about the skills and concepts of a subject discipline, but are also a way of learning about groups, both as a means of enhancing academic learning and in the development of abilities in cooperative work for later life'. We would also agree with Jacques from our own experience and research that 'Cooperation doesn't just happen. We learn to cooperate through practice and this requires a clear and coordinated strategy for learning about working together and improving skills in cooperation.'
Interestingly, it is industry that is already convinced of the benefits and effective outcome of teamwork. Exeter University has been selected, as one of several by British Petroleum (BP), to receive funding and help with training tutors and students in the development of team skills. New graduates are expected to have acquired these transferable skills which are essential in the modern working place. Courses have been undertaken in the past year and a report describing unanimous endorsement by the students has been submitted to the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education. This report (Prince and Dunne, 1997) concentrated on a short programme introduced into the first year of a Law degree and stated how 'The learning experience itself seemed to have a more powerful impact than anything we had previously included in the first year induction programme, and the comments of the students reflect this, as well as demonstrating how effectively they saw the links between the Programme and their own future learning and education'.
Cooperative Learning neatly engulfs peer tutoring and peer assessment, if this is designed in the course. Although sharing information and skills with others in a team could happen naturally, as well as review, feedback and evaluation - this cannot be assumed and it needs to be included in the overall course design. The structure of the course, however, is secondary to the social climate of the group in which learning is intended as an outcome. One of the greatest blocks within a learning group is the absence of mutual trust and respect. Meyer M.Cahn notes 'Missing in such learning groups is the capacity of students to posit their position, to announce to the others, 'You owe me a part of your energy and attention! Missing is the ground work that provides the group with the capacity to appreciate the wisdom of the remark, and the capacity to respond to it' (Cahn, 1986). This is an area in which the students need guidance and encouragement - reviewing and giving feedback during and following tasks.
During the 1997 Computer Assisted Learning Conference at Exeter (CAL 1997), papers presented could be sorted into three different ways of looking at how computers can assist in learning:
The third approach to computer assisted learning, that of identifying a teaching or learning problem and looking at the technology for a possible solution was, by far, the most popular way of looking at things. Steve Draper of Glasgow University (CAL, 1997) presented a paper - 'Niche -Based Success in CAL', using this approach as his main thrust or more precisely - his conclusion. He argued that what distinguished successful CAL applications was not replacing teachers and was not the neat use of technology. Examples given of successful applications included: a simulation showing size, shape, motion and interaction of molecules which addressed a conceptual gap in the formal domains of Chemistry; an interactive Portuguese language programme which enabled a huge increase in conversation practice leading to a rise in fluency and on the subject of music - email mediated seminars encouraging discussion between students from various years and faculties. The success of this last project was dependent on the presence of a skilled facilitator who awarded marks in strict proportion to contributions made.
Addressing the problem of engaging students in reflection and critical thinking was a project at Glasgow Caledonian University presented in a paper called 'The Vicarious Learner' by Jean McKendree(CAL, 1997). The project involved an IT design which gave students the opportunity to observe work produced by peers (posted on the web anonymously) and contribute to dialogue about this work.
This conference offered an overview of the range of work currently being done in this field. In the U.S, however, research has been on-going during the past 20 years. Harasim et al (1995) are among those researchers: 'The traditional face to face classroom learning situation is generally assumed to be the best to support learning, with other learning modes perhaps perceived as less effective. There is no evidence to support this assumption. In fact, quite the opposite is true: Online environments facilitate learning outcomes that are equal or superior to those generated in the face to face situation.'
In research on online graduate courses in education, students identified the following benefits in learning :
Clearly there are many benefits in Computer Supported Learning, though context and purpose are key issues relating to successful outcomes.
During the period between January '94 and March '95, Elizabeth Dunne included the Computer Science Dept. in a research project which surveyed, analysed and reported on current practice at Exeter University with regard to project work, self-directed study and the development of Personal Transferable Skills (PTS). It addressed the changing conceptions of the role of higher education emanating from a recent government White Paper, the Careers Advisory Service and the increasing voiced expectations of employers who required graduates with good 'personal skills'. Using observation and interview methods, students from this department were seen to have personal skills, but were often unable to articulate on this subject when asked. It has been recommended that the University generates an ethos whereby innovation in teaching and learning environments is valued as highly as originality in research and that degree courses should make explicit reference to the development of PTS and assessment of these skills. The Computer Science Department is ahead of its time in this respect. It is on this basis that our research work is building.
The aim of the research reported here was to observe the cooperative learning already taking place at Exeter University. The Computer Science degree course had been using project-based team-work for several years in order to develop personal transferable skills and increase employability of the students. Project 1 takes place in the first year, consisting of a short 4 week group project. In the second year Project 2 is a more serious affair and includes the design and implementation of a moderate-size software system.
Project 2, undertaken by 2nd year students in teams of four, stretches over a period of 22 weeks and was, therefore, an ideal starting place for our observation. The purpose of observing team meetings was to identify the nature and type of communication skills in use and, in particular, to try and define consultative and advisory techniques employed by students. The overall plan is that the resulting information will contribute to the design and development of the new Media Computing degree programme which includes cooperative learning, peer mentoring and peer assessment in its conception. It is hoped that this research will continue for a further two years to explore in greater depth the effects on student learning of this approach and to develop computer mediated systems to enhance team and mentoring skills with the support of a facilitator. In this respect, it will be useful in the context of a Virtual University.
The paradigm adopted has elements of both the 'Interpretive' and 'Action Research', as the aim is to change and improve on existing practices.The data collection methods have produced data that are largely of a qualitative nature, though measurements of quantity and frequency regarding student perceptions and observed group interactions are available. In chronological order, the following methods have been employed:
1. Questionnaires.
The first questionnaire (English, 1996) requested personal and background details of the students as well as attitudes to teamwork, reflections on Project I, their own problem solving techniques and feelings about the use of email. The follow-up questions at the end of Project 2 requested thoughts and feelings about their own role and specific skills experienced in the team as well as the use of computer mediated communication.
2. A web-based bulletin board.
Set up at the start of the project to provide teams with their own shared electronic message space and a means by which they can 'opt out' of the research observation process. This system was further enhanced 6 weeks later by the additional facility of emailing from and to the Board.
3. Observed and tape-recorded team meetings.
By relying on meeting dates and times posted on the bulletin board, during the period from October '96 to March '97 a total of 9 team meetings were recorded with the cooperation of 2 teams.
4. Informal group interview.
5. Group email aliases.
These were offered to the teams to encourage communication and widen the choice of medium still further. It was clear that this would be observable.
6. Individual email questions.
7. Personalised email question.
At 14 weeks into the project, 7 students (one from each remaining team) were targeted with a question inviting their views on important skills required in teams. Their previous thoughts on the subject were quoted from the questionnaire.
8. Individual 'face to face' interviews.
At the end of week 18, 7 students were interviewed - representing the two regularly observed teams.
9. Interview with course tutor.
1. Initial Questionnaire data was collected from 47 of the 51 Project 2 students.
The most notable points arising were:
The final questionnaire was completed by 11 of the 51 students.
The most notable points arising were:
2. The Bulletin Board browsing log shows that:
3. Observed and recorded meetings.
There have been 9 recorded meetings, 5 with 1 team and 4 with another.
With the exception of a small amount of reviewing, most of the discussion involved decision making for one of three broadly defined purposes:
It is relevant that only 2 teams were able to be observed in meetings due to a lack of communication between other teams who had not opted out of the research and the researcher who was not informed of dates and times.
Also, several meetings which were arranged often did not take place due to lack of attendance.
4. The informal group interview consisted of 5 students representing 5 different teams (9 teams had been asked to participate) and took place during Week 8 of the project. The following views were expressed:
5. Group email aliases were used infrequently and by just 3 teams. Messages observed were brief, formal and organisational (with the exception of one which was also slightly scolding).
6. The email question inviting comments on team organisation and communication was posted to 30 students one week before the end of term (half-way point). They were asked to reply within a week. There were 3 replies (from 3 different teams).
Two students felt that the organisation and communication had been quite 'successful' in their teams, one cited email as quite useful in this respect - though I had no evidence of this!
One student felt that communication had been 'quite poor'. Some lengthy reasons were given including personalities and an inability to appreciate the need for everyone to have responsibility and be involved with the work. It was also suggested that the task size was relatively small - making it possible for one person to do all the work.
At the beginning of the new year an attempt was made to encourage more responses to the question in the form of a humorous poem. There was no response.
7. Personalised email questions.
Four students out of the seven targeted replied to the question regarding team skills. Replies gave scanty information, but it was generally stated that this team project experience was quite different from that of Project 1 and therefore priorities for what skills were necessary did not rate as high. One student requested a face to face meeting in which to elaborate. This was achieved six weeks later.
8. Individual 'face to face' interviews.
There was a distinct contrast between the two teams. Generally, all members from 1 team gave positive comments about the team and their work, whereas members from the other team expressed mainly negative feelings. However, 5 students from both teams said that they thought the task was confusing and unclear and 4 felt disappointed with their marks so far, but were happy with their own contribution to the task.
In one team there was a strong conflict between two members that steadily deteriorated throughout the project. Interestingly, they independently mentioned feeling the same way about several matters:
Three out of the 4 members in this team said 'it was a difficult team'. Also, one member of this team said he thought that 'communication was good' which was surprising as this person communicated very little in the observed meetings. One member from this team suggested that there was 'not enough listening' and 'no feedback'.
9. Interview with course tutor (not recorded).
It was felt that, on the whole, Project 2 went well. The overall level of success achieved by the students was quite good. However, most students found the project difficult and time-consuming. The amount of contact and guidance needed was of an expected level. Two teams had misconstrued the method and needed more help of a conceptual nature. The outcome was that one team recovered well, whereas the other was less successful.
The tutor felt that linking how well the team worked together with their overall achievement was difficult to assess. The most important aspect of the project and the criteria used in assessment - as emphasised to the students, was the process involved in reaching the final result and not the quality or accuracy of the final product. This included both the technical methodology utilised in the task solution as well as the organisation and contribution of the team members. Both individual and team marks were awarded with some consideration given to the student's own evaluation of themselves and their team members.
It is anticipated that next year, the structure of the task will be re-designed and attention will be given to give students specific guidance ensuring that the two 'reflection' weeks are properly used - which was not the case this year.
The observations reported here were made within a wider context (English, 1997) within the Department and outside the University.
3rd year 3D Virtual Reality Project
An invitation was received from course tutors to monitor how the group of 8 students on their individual projects worked in respect of sharing information with each other and use of the post. grad student mentor assigned to them.
It was felt that it would be advantageous to set up a bulletin board to encourage contact and information sharing between the students. However, the board was never used and communication between students was very minimal in any observable way. Towards the end of the project, conversation with technical support staff revealed that in one instance a useful web-site was found by a student who rejected the idea of sharing the information with the others due to a feeling of competition with regards to assessment.
This anxiety of grades and competition was also expressed by several students in the Project 2 research. This may need addressing as how can a cooperative learning environment ('the community of scholars') be fostered unless the assessment procedure clearly reflects that approach and the students have discarded the ingrained perceptions of a 'relative' grading system.
Team Skills
A Team Skills Development course was designed following a training course for tutors held in February by BP. The course received funding by the Staff Development Unit and was run with 1st year students during their 4 week team based Project I. In general, the students responded favourably and felt that the course had been effective and worthwhile.
The virtual classroom (VC)
Running alongside this project as from this year, another case-study has become the subject of M.Phil. research in the area of cooperative learning and computer mediated communication. By the kind permission of Johannes Cronje, observation were made at a virtual classroom run by the University of Pretoria (1997) for the study of an M Ed. module in computer-assisted education.
The research so far with Project 2 has thrown up several unexpected outcomes. Firstly, it has been an uphill struggle to make contact and establish communication with the students. Despite assurances given at the start, that all information collected would be in complete confidence and would not affect grades, there has been quite a strong reluctance to cooperate as shown by 6 teams opting out and 5 out of the remaining 7 not sharing information of meeting times on any regular basis.
Secondly, the Bulletin Board was unpopular. Several possible reasons have already been listed, but there seemed to be a snowballing effect - there were some keen students introducing themselves in the first week, but when little response was made, interest was lost. It was also frequently expressed that students had daily contact with each other and there was no perceived need to use it.
Email was also an unsatisfactory way of communicating with the students. This was highlighted by so many ignored emails sent by the researcher and very little response to research questions. Several modes of interaction were explored and the most success was achieved when a question referred to something the student had expressed in the questionnaire (4 out of 7 replies!). Only a few students used the email aliases that were set up for them 6 weeks into the Project. It was surprising that even simple organisational use of email, such as arranging a meeting, was still difficult due to a slow response or none at all.
The nature of the observed team meetings showed that this was not a favourable context to achieve the original purpose of the observations - to define consultative and advisory techniques used by the students. It was evident that students possessed a variety of skills and expertise which were known and accepted by the other team members, but little information was either sought or shared between them. This was particularly noticeable in respect of those students who were confident and skilled programmers and were therefore allocated the role of 'chief programmer' for a specific part of the task. Students' comments showed that some were frustrated due to an unreasonably heavy workload, while others were frustrated because they wished they knew more about what was going on. These were comments made in conversation with the researcher, rather than within the team meetings.
It would seem that, in this context, student learning was implicit during the decision-making discussions. One student would make a suggestion for the way forward, supported by an explanation of a known process or an anticipated future scenario or problem. Occasionally, explanations were requested and given, but this was not common.
Team skills were shown, particularly in the areas of management of information and management of task. The areas where less skill was observed (and commented on by the students) were regarding group and personal needs. Very little time was spent on reviewing work done or giving feedback whether it was constructive comment or praise and value for individual team members. In one team there was a strong personality conflict which affected the whole team and was never resolved. This demonstrates the need for some training and experience in the development of cooperative learning skills.
A complete contrast to the experience with Project 2 research was clearly apparent from the early days of observing the Virtual Classroom.
In Project 2 computer-mediated communication (CMC) - be it bulletin board`or email was not utilised by the majority of students. The key issues of context and purpose were illustrated by :
In the Virtual Classroom the email listserver and web site were very thoroughly and successfully utilised by the majority of students. The key issues of context and purpose were illustrated by:
In respect of cooperative learning in Project 2, the previous experience of the students differed greatly from those in the VC in the following key areas:
Asynchronous, electronic communication may naturally suit some people and not others. For many having time to reflect in a conversation has many benefits including sharper clarification and intentions, whereas for others writing things down may be more of a struggle. The last year's research and experience provides more than a hunch that the quality and nature of input from a course leader or tutor is of key significance in making the learning experience valuable for all the students by achieving a balanced atmosphere of support and respect. In addition, the common view held, that trust, respect and warmth can only be achieved in face to face interactions has not been substantiated.
It is apparently quite rare that a group working in cooperation achieve the euphoric success of all being on the same wavelength, with the energy, commitment and mutual vision that is required. The ground work for such a team involves structure, design, effort and awareness of the skills needed. If this is the case then electronic cooperative learning has equally as much chance of success as the physical equivalent. What is more exciting, is that because this is an innovative time in the history of education - it actually has more chance of being effective - a new situation, a new environment, needing a new way of thinking unshackled by the entrenched tradition of our higher education system.
We base our conclusions on the observation of the cooperative learning already taking place at Exeter University's Computer Science Department. We have learnt that:
Bennet, N. and Dunne,E. (1992)
Managing Classroom Groups.
Simon& Schuster
Cahn, M.M (1986)
Teach Thinking by Discussion. ed. Donald Bligh.
Ch. 5 - The Development of Trust in Learning Groups.
SRHE & NFER-Nelson
CAL (1997)
http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~masoud/Cal-97/Cal-97.htm
English, S (1996)
Computer Supported Cooperative Learning: Summary of First
Questionnaire
http://www.dcs.exeter.ac.uk/~masoud/yazdani/projects/learning/q-1.htm
English, S (1997)
Computer Supported Cooperative Learning: Useful Sources of
Information
http://www.dcs.exeter.ac.uk/~masoud/yazdani/projects/learning/links.htm
Harasim, Linda, Starr Roxanne Hiltz, Lucio Teles, Murray Turoff
(1995)
Learning Networks - A field guide to Teaching and Learning
Online.
MA: MIT Press
Harasim, L. (1987).
Computer-mediated co-operation in Education: Group
learning
networks, In - Proceedings of the Second Guelph Symposium
on
Computer Conferencing, June 1 - 4. p 171 - 186. Geulph, Ontario,
Canada: University of Guelph)
Jaques, D. (1984)
Learning in Groups.
Croom Helm.
Prince,S. and Dunne, E. (1997)
Group Development: The Integration of Skills
School of Education
Exeter University
O'Shea T. and Self J. (1983)
Learning and Teaching with Computers,
The Harvester Press
University of Pretoria (1997)
http://hagar.up.ac.za:80/rbo/classrm.html
Vygotsky, L.S (1987)
The Collected Works of L.S.Vygotsky, Vol. 1
NY: Plenum Press