You are on page 1of 10

Running head: COOPERATIVE LEARNING AND COMPUTER-MEDIATED COMMUNICATION 1

Cooperative Learning and Computer-Mediated Communication in a Technical Communications Course Rebecca Jacobson Selkirk College ETEC 530: Constructivism Strategies for E-Learning March 6, 2011

COOPERATIVE LEARNING AND COMPUTER-MEDIATED COMMUNICATION 2 I am an English teacher at a two-year college; three years ago I inherited a Technical Writing and Communications (TWC) course from a retiring colleague, who gave me the lecture notes, assignments and course outlines he had accumulated over 30 years. The course had been taught through twice-weekly lectures and assessed through short, weekly writing assignments and three longer writing assignments, all of which were written individually. While this course is geared specifically toward students in the field of renewable resources (forestry, fish and wildlife, and integrated environmental planning), our school also teaches this course to students pursuing a diploma in business administration; I subsequently inherited that course as well and discovered that it was similarly taught and assessed: weekly lectures and quizzes and three longer writing assignments. While business administration and renewable resources may seem like quite disparate disciplines, the fundamental concepts learned by the students are the same: clear, concise, written and oral communication. The difference lies in the subject of these communications, not the format. I was dissatisfied with the way in which these courses had been taught and eager to find a better way to hold the students interest and make the course as relevant to their future workplaces as possible. This paper outlines the approaches I have taken so far and seeks to address ways in which constructivism and technology can and should be incorporated into these technical writing courses in the future. Specifically I propose that cooperative learning (CL) combined with computer-mediated communication (CMC) can be used to create knowledge and engage the students more fully in these technical communications courses. The Process to Date In the first year that I taught these courses, I followed the traditional path, solely due to a lack of time to reconstruct the courses. However, in the second year, I incorporated a supplemental

COOPERATIVE LEARNING AND COMPUTER-MEDIATED COMMUNICATION 3 course site using Moodle (Selkirk Colleges learning management system). I discovered that the literature on online peer assessment and review indicates that it can be a value-laden approach to learning and teaching which seeks to involve students in decision making about the assessment process and how to make judgments on their own and each others learning (McConnell, 2002, p. 89). Therefore, instead of having students submit weekly writing assignments to me for assessment, I opened a discussion forum and asked them to submit their work to the class and offer each other feedback in preparation for submitting a final copy to me. The goal of this exercise was twofold: 1) to see each others work and benefit from this exposure and 2) to give and receive useful feedback geared toward improving their writing. While I had limited formal training in constructing such a forum, I did have several years experience designing and delivering online course, both my own and those belonging to other instructors in other disciplines. Therefore, I knew from experience that no matter what the purpose of a discussion forum, it will not achieve its goals without very specific guidelines and goals and teacher participation. I used in-class time to illustrate the technical workings of a Moodle discussion forum and also explained what was expected of the students; in addition, I offered step-by-step written instructions in the forum itself. Specifically, the students were asked to post their writing by a specific date and then respond to at least three classmates with constructive feedback. I offered examples of what I considered constructive (as opposed to a simple nice work or I agree type posting). I included a specific end-date for the forum and attached a grade to both quantity and quality of work. While the students did participate, an analysis of the kind of actual feedback students gave to their classmates and its level of usefulness to the original writer was not very satisfactory. Remarks were perfunctory, vague and general; I needed a new approach.

COOPERATIVE LEARNING AND COMPUTER-MEDIATED COMMUNICATION 4 This year, with the same goals in mind, I made use of SWoRD (scaffolded writing and reviewing in the disciplines), an online application created and maintained by the University of Pittsburg (http://www.lrdc.pitt.edu/schunn/SWoRD/team.html). This application allows for anonymous, random peer assessment of written work as well as back evaluation (a comment and rating from the writer on how helpful the students comments were). I attached a grade (20%) to this exercise and used it four times from September to December 2010. While I suspect that this type of application is valuable, this particular application (the only one of its kind that I have been able to find) does not have sufficient technical support for students or teacher; the students reported spending more time trying to make the process work than they did giving careful thought to their classmates writing. The rest of this paper proposes a way to proceed in these courses next year. Cooperative Learning, Computer-Mediated Communication and Constructivism Xin and Feenberg (2002) point out that one major goal of online dialogue is to promote critical inquiry (also known as critical thinking) and deep learning in a group context (p. 7). While Garrison, Anderson and Archer (2000) advocate a cooperative constructivist perspective [which] views an educational experience, in its best manifestation, as a collaborative communication process for the purpose of constructing meaningful and worthwhile knowledge (p. 92). The latter also outline a model of the educational experience called a community of inquiry which consists of social, cognitive and teacher presence. I propose, therefore, a combination of cooperative learning supplemented with computer-mediated communication. I believe a series of scaffolded written and oral assignments, developed cooperatively and using an online asynchronous discussion forum, would create a well-rounded, constructivist learning experience.

COOPERATIVE LEARNING AND COMPUTER-MEDIATED COMMUNICATION 5

Cooperative Learning: In-Class Exercises The goal of TWC is clear written and oral communication; during the first term it is necessary that students learn the basic ways in which different documents (memos, emails, letters, reports and so on) are formatted while also learning how to use clear, concise prose; how to use tact and diplomacy in difficult situations; and how to structure technical documents from the top-down. Felder and Brent (1994) recommend breaking lectures up into small portions with brief periods of cooperative work to help students learn the material, maintain focus and construct concrete meaning. These types of skills lend themselves to in-class cooperative learning techniques. For example, a lesson on conciseness can be accompanied by a brief period during which teams must revise wordy statements. A lesson on diplomacy can similarly be accompanied by a team effort to restructure a delicate message that lacks tact. In fact, the possibilities of these types of brief cooperative efforts in class are quite varied; virtually any skill under consideration can be supplemented this way. Cooperative Learning: Out-of-Class Exercises and CMC The possibilities are even more exciting when we consider computer-mediated communication in general and the asynchronous discussion forum in particular. Instead of peer assessment, I propose cooperative writing and presentation projects on which the students can work using Moodles discussion forum, which allows the formation of separate groups, so it is possible for several discussions to co-exist separately and without interference from other groups. Several sources cite Johnson, Johnson and Smith (for example, Felder and Brent, 1994; INTIME, n.d.; Houghton-Mifflin, n.d.; Best Practices, n.d.), who outline five elements that define

COOPERATIVE LEARNING AND COMPUTER-MEDIATED COMMUNICATION 6 cooperative learning (as opposed to common group work) and explain that cooperative learning only takes place when these elements are present; the following will illustrate how these proposed cooperative writing and presentation projects meet these criteria. 1. Positive Interdependence This means that the team cannot achieve its goal unless each team member contributes to the effort; a failure on the part of one team member will mean negative consequences for the team as a whole (Felder & Brent, 1994). To achieve this goal, the teams will produce a written product that is assessed; this will ensure that each student must do his or her part in order to the assignment to be a success. To avoid stronger students doing the bulk of the work, appropriate cooperative skills will be employed (see #4 below). 2. Individual Accountability This refers to the necessity of each student not only to do his or her share of the work but to understand the concepts under consideration. Felder and Brent suggest randomly calling on one team member to present the groups work to the class. While they also suggest individual tests to accomplish accountability, I believe the former would work better in this case. It is clear that such a strategy would encourage stronger team members to ensure that weaker members understand the content. 3. Face-to-Face Promotive Interaction Felder and Brent explain that Although some of the group work may be parceled out and done individually, some must be done interactively, with group members providing one another with feedback, challenging one another's conclusions and reasoning, and perhaps most importantly, teaching and encouraging one another (Introduction section, para. 1). In this case, I plan to use

COOPERATIVE LEARNING AND COMPUTER-MEDIATED COMMUNICATION 7 CMC along with in-class time for groups to work on their projects. While the former is not face-to-face, I believe it can achieve the same goals. The online group discussions forum will be a required part of the assignments; it is a space for individuals to submit their share of the work to the group, read each others contributions and discuss the next steps needed to complete the task. 4. Appropriate use of cooperative skills This is defined as encouraging and helping students to develop and practice trust-building, leadership, decision-making, communication, and conflict management skills (Felder & Brent, Introduction section, para. 1). Because I will be working with these classes over two semesters, and because each is a cohort working toward a common credential, the teams will have the opportunity to grow and learn how to function together. One way to encourage this is with a checklist that includes elements such as showing up on time, active listening, offering feedback and contributing to the discussion. The students will have the opportunity to learn and practice these skills early in the first term and revisit them throughout the year. In addition, I believe that a sound way to encourage collaboration, as opposed to individually assigning each other tasks that will later be put together to form a whole, is through scoffolded assignments. For example, each team member could individually write the same section of a report, bring their version to the group, and work together to create a final product using the best from each submission. 5. Group processing This element is defined as periodic checks on the groups dynamics and assessing what it is doing well and how it can function more effectively in the future. I propose period oral reports (given by students who are not appointed in advance to help ensure individual accountability) on the groups progress. It seems apparent to me that careful planning is needed here; the group will

COOPERATIVE LEARNING AND COMPUTER-MEDIATED COMMUNICATION 8 need set criteria by which it can evaluate its progress and will be expected to use the online forum to discuss its progress. Conclusions Mathews (1994) cites Driver and Oldham when he outlines five steps to successful constructivist teaching and learning. The first is orientation, during which the students are motivated and led to understand the purpose of an undertaking. This stage will be crucial to the success of my proposed approach; indeed, the first weeks of classes will be dedicated to orienting the students to the LMS, teaching them the skills they will need to function as team members, forming heterogonous teams, and explaining the benefits of both CMC and CL. The second step is elicitation, during which the student are given the opportunity to share their current knowledge on the subject. This step will help a great deal in the formation of teams; students with past technical communications experience, for example, will have to be carefully placed with those who are less experienced. The third step, elicitation, is essentially the process the students will go through throughout the academic year; it is, as Matthews puts it, the heart of the constructivist lesson sequence (1994, p. 143). The fourth step involves application of ideas and will be realize through the production of actual presentations and documents. Finally, a review period at the end of the year will allow for reflection and gathering of student responses to the CL and CMC experience.

COOPERATIVE LEARNING AND COMPUTER-MEDIATED COMMUNICATION 9 References Best Practices: Instructional strategies and techniques. Retrieved from http://www.centralischool.ca/~bestpractice/coop/assessment.html Felder, R. M. & Brent, R. (1994). Cooperative learning in technical courses: procedures, pitfalls, and payoffs. ERIC Document Reproduction Service Report ED 377038. http://www.ncsu.edu/felder-public/Papers/Coopreport.html Felder, R. M. & Brent, R. (2001). Effective strategies for cooperative learning. Cooperation & Collaboration in College Teaching, 10(2), 69-75. Retrieved from http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/Papers/CLStrategies%28JCCCT %29.pdf Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education 2(2-3), 87-105. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W4X-414W1102&_user=1022551&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050 484&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=1022551&md5=d52305627c46e23f7f02f4fe1 25af726 Houghton-Mifflins project-based learning space. Retrieved from http://college.cengage.com/education/pbl/tc/coop.html INTIME: Integrating new technologies into the methods of education. Retrieved from http://www.intime.uni.edu/coop_learning/ch1/what.htm

COOPERATIVE LEARNING AND COMPUTER-MEDIATED COMMUNICATION 10 Matthews, M. R. (1994). Science teaching: The role of history and philosophy of science. New York: Routledge. McConnell, David. (2002). The experience of cooperative assessment in e-learning. Studies in Continuing Education, 24.1, 73-92. doi: 10.1080/01580370220130459 Xin, C., & Feenberg, A. (2002). Pedogogy in cyberspace: The dynamics of online discussion. Retrieved from https://www.vista.ubc.ca/webct/ContentPageServerServlet/unit4/unit0403-station02.htm

You might also like