Slides presented at ABED Congress in Porto Alegre, Brazil

1. ONLINE COLLABORATIVE
LEARNING
(OCL):
The NEXT Generation for
Elearning
Public Presentation: March 13, 2006
Sao Paulo, Brasil
Linda Harasim, PhD
Simon Fraser University
Vancouver, BC, Canada

2. Focus of this Presentation…
• Introduction
– Historical Case for OCL
– Definition of OCL
– Theoretical Case for OCL
• The Practice of OCL: Success Stories
• Institutional Aspects
• Pedagogic Aspects

3. Focus of this Presentation…
• Moving from ODE to OCL
– Why?
– How?
– Results?
• How to Design & Implement OCL?
• What are Some Effective Designs?
• Show & Tell…

4. Introduction

5. INTRODUCTION: The Context
• What is Important?
– Why?
– How?
– Results?
• What Makes Excellent Elearning?
• What is the Best Practice?
• What are Key Success Stories?

6. Why are Elearning and OCL Important?
• Paradigmatic Shift in Education from the
Dominant Model of past 400+ Years
• Transformation from
– Knowledge Transmission to Knowledge Building
– -from Teacher Centered to Learning Centered
– From Passive to Active Learning
• Socio-Economic Shift
• Virtual Learning is Dominating Growth Rates
(4x annual growth of traditional colleges)
• 25% rate of increase/year

7. What does it mean to be literate in the 21st century?
What does it mean to be a knowledge worker?
The ability to work in groups is a 21st Century Skill!
The ability to create knowledge and innovate in
groups is a 21st Century Requirement!
How do we as educators facilitate the transition from *
*the Book era to the Web Era?
*the Teching era to the Learning era?

8. Communication and Community
• The word ‘communication’ and the word
‘community’ derive from a common Latin root:
communicare, which means to share.
• Sharing, discourse, communication, and
community are the basis of all civilizational
advances, scientific disciplines, schools of art,
schools of thought, and all aspects of life, society,
and work.

9. Historical Case for OCL

10. Communication Revolution
1861 Telegraph
1875 Telephone
1919 Radio
1926 Overseas Long Distance
1948 Broadcast Television/ Cable
1961 Communication Satellite
1969 ARPANET Begins
• 1971: Email
• 1972: Computer conferencing
• 1978: Bulletin boards
• 1989: Internet
• 1992: Web

11. Education Revolution
Mid University Courses Supplemented by Email
1970s and Computer Conferencing
1981 First Online Course (Adult Education)
• The Source • Participate CC System
1982 First Online Program (Executive Education)
• WBSI Executive Education • EIES CC System
1983 Networked Classroom Model Emerges
(Primary and Secondary Education)
• ICLN: Research Project in 4 Countries
• RAPPI: Canada - X-Cultural Project in 5 Countries
• 1985 : National Geographic Society Kids Network
• 1987 : AT&T Learning Network
• 1988 : WIER: Writers In Electronic Residence
• 1989 : SITP in British Columbia, Canada

12. Education Revolution
1984 First Online Undergraduate Courses
• Virtual Classroom (NJIT)
1985 First Online Graduate Courses
• Connect-Ed (New School of Social Research)
• OISE (University of Toronto)
1986 Professional Development Communities Emerge
• OISE Ontario Educators Online Course
• 1990 Global Lab, Lab Net And Star Schools, TERC
• 1992 Educators Network of Ontario
1985 First Labour Education Network
• Solinet
1989 First Large Scale Online Course
• Open University (U.K.)

13. Education Revolution
1989 First Online Degree Program
• UofPhoenix Online
• 1986 Connect-Ed
1993 First National Educational Network
• SchoolNet (Canada)
• 1995 TeleLearning•NCE (Canada)
• 1998 CL-Net (Europe)
1996 First Large-Scale TeleLearning Field Trials
• Virtual-U

14. • Online education has impacted all sectors
and disciplines including:
– Formal Education
– Nonformal Education
– Informal Education
• New Modes that Emerged:
– Totally Online Mode
– Mixed or Blended Mode
– Enhanced Mode

15. Definitions of OCL

16. • The term “online education” has been applied to
almost any educational activity that uses email or
web access, regardless of the educational design or
learning processes that characterize that course or
activity.
• Different Models lead to Different Results!
• 1972: Computer conferencing---> OCL
• 1989: Public Internet---->ODE
• 1993: WEB---->OCBT

17. Online
Collaborative
Learning
Online Distance Online Computer
Based Training
Education
Three Types of Online Education can
be identified.

18. Instructors, Learners, Researchers, Policy Makers &
the Public are confused
s Are these approaches the same?
s Does computer-based training that is accessed over the web
equal online education?
s Are individualized or mass approaches the same quality as
collaborative learning?
s Are synchronous and asynchronous models the same in terms of
educational effectiveness? Finer definition is required to
understand the processes, their outcomes and implications.
s What kind of educational model leads to what results, exactly?

19. Characteristics of Online
Approaches
Online
Collaborative
Online Distance
Learning
Education Online Computer
• Many to Many
Based Training
•1-Many
•Group Learning
•Mass Learning •1 to Computer
•Instructor Led
•Tutor Support Courseware
•Asynchronous
•Asynchronous •Individualized
•Place Independent •Computer
•Place Independent
Assessment
•Text Based
•Text Based
•Asynchronous
•Computer Mediated
•Computer Mediated
•Multimedia
•Computer Mediated

20. Theoretical Case for OCL

21. Role of Knowledge and Collaboration
Role of the Knowledge
Social construct, consensus among members of community
of knowledgeable peers
Role of the University
Institutions of reacculturation
Role of the Professor
Agents of cultural change who foster reacculturation

22. Role of Collaboration in Post-Secondary
Collaborative learning models the conversation
by which communities of knowledgeable peers
construct knowledge.
With collaborative learning, students learn to
construct knowledge as it is constructed
in the knowledge communities
they hope to join up graduation.
This is a process of reacculturation

23. Harasim’s model of cognitive
processes in online collaborative learning.

24. Towards a Theoretical & Methodological Framework
1. Democratic Participation Leads to IDEA GENERATING
• Quantitative Indicators: Usage Reports
• Qualitative Indicators: Discourse Analysis
• Use of the term “I think…”
2. Intellectual Progress Through IDEA LINKING
Quantitative Indicators: Level of Interactivity
•
Qualitative/Quantitative Indicators: Name Mentioning and
•
Transcript Analysis, REFERENCES TO OTHER INPUT
3. Convergent Thinking
Quantitative Indicators: Density of #1 and #2
•
Qualitative Indicators: Conclusive Supported Position
•
Statements: THUS, THEREFORE, IN CONCLUSION.
(Based on Roschelle 1996 and Harasim 1990)

25. New Learning Processes and Outcomes
1. Group Work Toward Local Consensus;
2. Reports and Plenary Discussion toward
PLENARY CONSENSUS;
3. Comparison of the Class’s Plenary
Consensus with the Consensus of a
Larger Relevant Knowledge Community.

26. Knowledge Community
Role of Faculty
Small Group Class Approximation to
Discussions Discussion Knowledge Community
Knowledge (science, learning, invention) is viewed as a construct of the
community’s form of discourse, negotiated and maintained by local
consensus and subject to endless conversation (Bruffee, 1999; Kuhn,
1970)

27. Practical Case for OCL (Online Collaborative
Learning)

28. Elearning equals Higher Quality
Data indicates the potential of elearning to be more than
“as good as” traditional classroom learning but
provide far superior quality of learning. Well
designed and implemented collaborative e-learning
represents powerful gains key indicators such as:
• Learning Effectiveness
• Access: Geographical and Temporal
• Satisfaction Rates: Faculty and Learners
• Completion Rates
• Pedagogical, Institutional, Workplace
Innovation

29. Practical Case
(a)Learning Effectiveness

30. Indicators:
At the same level of
quality or better than • Completion rates
non-eLearning. • Grades
• Faculty reports
• Learner reports
• University Presidents

31. By 2004 students & administrators believed
that elearning equals or surpasses F2F
• ¾ of Academic leaders in US universities
& colleges believe that elearning matches
or is better than f2f
• The larger the school, the more positive
the belief in online vs f2f instruction.

32. New Learning Processes
Virtual Classrooms
Usage Patterns
• Participation is 7 days/week, 24 hours/day
• Students are active in posting, reading and responding
to messages
• Peer interaction is high
• In F2F classes, instructor uses approx. 80%+ of air time;
online, students send about 85% of messages
• Distribution of Communications
• Far more equitable spread [with fewer outliers] than F2F
Copyright 2000: Linda M. Harasim, Ph.D.

33. Better than non-eLearning.
Collaborative Knowledge Work
Indicators:
•Is increasingly the global standard
for eLearning programs • Transcript Analysis
• Three phases of
•Emphasizes conceptual change
Contributes to 21st century skills Conceptual
building such as: Development:
•Team work
– Idea Generating
•Problem solving
– Idea Organizing
•Innovation
– Idea Convergence

34. Practical Case
(b) Access:
Geographical and Temporal

35. • Geographical: Students can collaborate
with peers or experts anywhere in the world
to gain multiple perspectives
• Temporal or asynchronous access:
Asynchronous (24/7) access enables active,
collaborative and mindful engagement:

36. Virtual Classrooms
Active Learning / Participation (based on 32 courses)
Active : 77%
• 77% of the classes have active students, who
log in at least 10 times per week on average.
Login Regularly : 85%
• 85% of the students in all classes login
regularly, logging in at least 5 times per week.
Post Regularly : 81%
• 81% of the students in all classes post
regularly, writing at least 3 messages per week.

37. Student Participation Data
College Level: Psychiatric Nursing 98-01
Messages by Hour of Day Messages by Day of Week
100
50
80
40
60
30
40
20 20
0
10
0 Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Day of Week
Hour of Day
Logins by Hour of Day Logins by Day of Week
100
60
80
40 60
40
20 20
0
0 Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
Day of Week
Hour of Day

38. Practical Case
(c)Satisfaction Rates:
Faculty and Learners

39. New Educational Roles
Faculty Satisfaction
A recent Study of 255 faculty using CLO in 31
colleges in State University of New York found:
• 96% of faculty expressed general satisfaction
• 74% believed that Online Learning is equivalent
or better than in other modes
• 89% believe that interaction was equivalent or
higher online
• 88% believe that interaction among students was
equivalent or higher online
• 62% believe that they know their students as well
or better online

40. The Virtual Professor
• New Roles
• Instructor becomes less a provider & entertainer and
more a facilitator as students take more responsibility
for generating input, references, and analysis
• New Experiences
• Revitalization for teaching - providing students
with better learning experience through collaborative
learning & knowledge building
Copyright 2000: Linda M. Harasim, Ph.D.

41. New Educational Roles
The Virtual Learner
Gender Difference? Women NOT disenfranchised!
• 77% of males report a positive experience with VU
• 81% of females report a positive experience with VU
Satisfaction
• 85% of students reported that they would take another
online course
• Students note that advantages outweigh disadvantages
• No reports of extra or excessive workload
Dissatisfaction
• Technical Problems and Slow Access Times
• Communication Anxiety

42. The Virtual Learner
Virtual online learning environments
dramatically change the patterns of
student interaction and support an unprecedented
level of learner input, interaction, and exchange.
Overall Students Report ”Very Positivequot; Experience (SUNY)
• 90% of students report high levels of satisfaction w/ OCL
• 86% of students report spending more time studying in OCL
courses
• 91% of students felt that they learn more online
• 47% reported they participated more online than in
classroom (19.2%)
4 Better understanding of curriculum through collaboration
4Greater control and management of time Copyright 2000: Linda M. Harasim, Ph.D.

43. Practical Case
(d) Completion Rates

44. Completion rates for Universities and workplaces
using Online Collaborative Learning:
COMPLETION RATES
Education
Workplace/ Public/Private
Modality
Corporate Universities
92% (Virtual-U)
Online 96%
[Harasim, 2000]
Collaborative (NACTEL) 90% (Pace)[Sachs 2003]
Learning [Sachs 2003] 91% (SloanC Consortium)
OCBT
20%

45. SUCCESS STORIES

46. SUCCESS STORIES
1. University of Phoenix Online
• Created Separate Virtual University
• Major Financial and Strategic Investment
• Focus on “How People Learn: OCL” vs Technology
• 200,000 students; 7,000 faculty
2. State University of New York
Virtualized a Traditional University
•
Major Financial & Strategic Investment
•
Create Special SLN Unit
•
Focus on Faculty training, OCL Pedagogy
•
3. Open U Online MBA
Government & University Mission
•
Small Class Size
•

47. Institutional Issues:
•New Institutional Mission & Vision
•Supported by Major Financial Investment
•Major Investment in Ongoing Faculty Training
•Major Investment in Student Support & Services
•Recognition that Elearning is NOT a Cost-
Saving Strategy: EL is costly but CRUCIAL
•Maintaining Quality Control While Accommodating
Massive Increases in Student Enrolment
•Appropriate Use of Technology
•Service is King!
•Reinvest Profits to Academic Mission

48. PEDAGOGIC ISSUES:
•Pedagogy is King!
•OCL has highest Satisfaction Rate]
•OCL has lowest Drop Out rate
•OCL Provides BEST learning environment in both
Blended and Totally Online courses
•Major Investment in Ongoing Faculty Training
•Major Investment in Student Support & Services
•Technology is important but in service to Good
Pedagogy!
•Small Class Size (UoPX=11/course;
SUNY=17/course;OU MBA=25 max/course)
•Maintain Quality Control

49. How to Design and Implement OCL?

50. Data on Learning Strategies (100 Courses)
100% use Collaborative Learning
50
40
Discussions & Individual
Work
33%
30
30% Discussions Only
26% Discussions & Group
20 Work
Discussions, Group &
Individual Work
10
11%
0

51. OCL Pedagogies: How To?
1. Getting Started with OCL work
2. Student-Led Online Seminars
3. Student-Led Debates
4. Student-Led Book/Article Reviews

52. Getting Started with OCL
ICE Breaking: Getting Comfortable Online
-move from what I know to what I need to know.
Start easy! Three online conferences
whereby each student can introduce
him/herself!!
• Self Introductions: Who Am I? What am I studying? Why is
this important to me? Who is my family? What do I care
about/participate in culturally? In sports? In my spare time??
• What are my Learning Objectives? What do I expect
from this course? What do I expect from learning online?
• Great Debate: What are my initial concepts on the subject?
And how do I defend them?

53. STUDENT MODERATING
Students are expected to Moderate an Online
Seminar for 1 week. They work in groups of
3-4 students. This assignment is worth 30%
of total grade
1. Introduction to Topic (10%)
• Overview of topic
• Design of Seminar: (Discussion? Debate? Role Play?)
• Discussion Questions (3)
• Readings
2. Facilitating Week-long Discussion (10%)
3. Summary (10%)

54. Student Discussant
A student will be a Discussant in the remaining 5
weeks of online Seminars
Discussant of Online Seminar:
• Log on at least 2 times per week to respond
to the 3 DQs and to respond to others
• Input at least 4 messages per week
• Ensure Quality of Content move to IG->IO->IC
• Reference the Literature
• Contribute new Ideas

55. SHOW AND TELL!

56. The END
THANK YOU!
From Linda Harasim
harasim@sfu.ca

57. Rubrics & Grade Sheets for Student Discussants
The unit of analysis for assessment purposes is the quality
and quantity of messages by each student discussant in
each seminar. My approach has always been to give
more weight to the quality of the discussant input than to
the quantity. Nonetheless, active participation by each
student should also be recognized since this contributes to
the overall quality of a seminar and student engagement
in the online community.

58. Rubrics & Grade Sheets for Student Discussants
Week One Week Two Week Three Week Four TOTAL Total
Qual Quan Quan Quan
CIPATION Qual Tot Qual Tota Qual Tota /X of X%
Quan Total Total
al l l
Student 1
Student 2
Student 3
Student 4
Student 5

59. Rubrics & Grade Sheets for Student Discussants
TOTAL per week: ?
Quantity of the Message Input: Some considerations:
1.1. ACTIVE WRITING: Posted at least 4 messages with substantive
input
2.2. REPLYING: Logged on at least 2x/week, to respond to DQ and to
respond to other Discussants
3.3.CTIVE READING: Read all messages
Quality of the Message Input:
1.Addressed 3 DQ Thoughtfully
Referenced Readings
Added new Insights
Posed new Ideas, Questions
2.Built Knowledge (Moved from IG, to IO, to IC).

60. Rubrics & Grade Sheets for Student Discussants
QUANTITATIVE QUALITATIVE A QUALITATIVE B TOTAL
WEEK 1
WRE RPLY READ DQ1 DQ2 DQ3 Qual Quan Total
IG- IO-
IO IC
Student 1
Student 2
Student 3
Student 4

61. OCL Pedagogies: How To Assess?
Rubrics for Group Work
http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/profdev/rubrics.shtml
Enhancing Group Experience
http://datasearch.uts.edu.au/site_manager_sites/iml_
2003/learnteach/enhance/ groupwork/index.html
Teaching Strategies: Group Work
http://www.crit.umich.edu/tstrategies/tsgwcl.html
Cooperative Learning http://www.ntif.com/html/lib/faq/cl-
utenn.htm
Grading Group Projects
http://research.umbc.edu~korenman/wmst/group_gra
ding.html
Sample Grading Form
http://research.siue.edu/~korenman/wmst/group_gra

62. OCL Pedagogies: How To Assess?
Rubric for Individual Contributions to Group
http://uwacadweb.uwyo.edu/consumerissues/Group%
20MembContribRubric.htm
Group Development
http://matsone.csuhayward.edu.bcorreia/web-paper/
Guidelines
http://www.bothell.washington.edu/faculty/mgoldberg
/students/groupskills.htm
Evaluation Group Projects
http://www.utc.edu/Units/walkerTeachingResourcesC
enter/FacultyDevelopment/Ev alGroups/index.html

63. Practical Case
(e) Pedagogical, Institutional, and
Workplace Innovation

64. • Encourage
pedagogical renewal
• Enable institutional
• Provide students and
renewal to
faculty with
maintain reputation
opportunities for
Workplace and
knowledge work,
institutional
collaborative
innovation is key
learning
to society and to
survival in a very
competitive
marketplace.

65. Conclusions
• It’s the Pedagogy, • Better than - as
not the Technology: good as!
– Choosing the • If More is Better,
Pedagogy then More and
– Choosing the Better is BEST!
Technology
Challenges Ahead!