1. Group work
Ethics and Online Group Work
Learning Goals:
Identify and understand the ethical issues regarding group work in online environments. (Emtinan)
Implement online tools to support equitable group work in an online environment.
Identify 3 design/set up techniques that encourage equitable and interactive online group work. (Marcia)
Identify 3 grading techniques that support and encourage fruitful group participation by all group
members.
Select and use an effective way for group members to assess theirefforts and their group members' efforts
after a collaborative experience.
Compare and contrast online group assignments to traditional face-to face experiences.
Learning goal # 1-Identify and understand the ethical issues regarding group work in online
environments. (Emtinan)
Roberts & McInnerney (2007, p. 257) identifies seven problems associated
with online group learning:
"Student antipathy towards group work"
"The selection of the groups"
"A lack of essential group-work skills"
"The free-rider"
"Possible inequalities of student abilities"
"The withdrawal of group members"
"The assessment of individuals within the groups"
Figueira & Leal (2013, p.112) found that the most common issues with group
work are:
"A largely unequal contribution of the group participants"ƒ
"An inability of the students to manage the different ideas and opinions while progressing"ƒ
"A decentralization of the objective of the work due to the requirement for increased
autonomy and control over the choice of information and its processing"
"An individual assessment of each group participant"
References:
Figueira, A., & Leal, H. (2013). An online tool to manage and assess
collaborative group work. Paper presented at the 112-XIII. Retrieved
from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1467835970?accountid=10610
Roberts, T. S., & McInnerney, J. M. (2007). Seven Problems of Online Group Learning (and Their
Solutions). Educational Technology & Society, 10(4), 257-268.
To summarize:
- Students don’t know how to work together in a group.
2. - Students don’t have the understanding of how to construct knowledge
together.
- Grading and assessing individuals' contribution in a group work/project.
Learning Goal # 2-Implement online tools to support equitable group work in an online
environment-(Becky)
General information from reseach involving group work and online
collaboration:
"Students’ involvement in learning activities via collaborative tools improves their
final course grades (Ravid, Kalman, & Rafaeli, 2008). Better outcomes were
obtained with Wiki collaborative technology as opposed to asynchronous forums
(Levin-Peled & Kali, 2008)" (Blau & Caspi, 2009 p.48).
"When requested to collaborate by using Wikis, learners tend to avoid changing
other students’ written products (Dalke, Cassidy, Grobstein, & Blank, 2007). They
often feel that it is inappropriate to edit others' work (Coyle, 2007), and many are
reluctant to interfere with “somebody else’s material” (Konja & Ben-Zvi, 2008).
When they do, it was more on a language level than on a content level (Lund &
Smørdal, 2006), by adding more than by deleting sentences (Berger, Gorsky &
Meishar-Tal, 2008)" (Blau & Caspi, 2009 p. 48-49).
"Participants in all groups believed that collaboration improves the document
quality. However, evaluation of the contribution of collaboration was
asymmetrical - students felt that while they did not exacerbate the document they
read or edited, others worsen their document when reading, suggesting or editing
it. We therefore suggest that collaborative learning may be improved by
encouraging collaboration mainly through suggesting and receiving
improvements and less by editing each others' writing" (Blau & Caspi, 2009 p. 53).
"The challenges increase exponentially when collaborative group work is added
to the mix. Without context and support, online groups can experience
unbalanced participation, a lack of progress and direction, mistrust,
misunderstandings, and conflicts" (West & West, 2008 p.21).
"Quantitative results revealed no significant difference on student success between CL and
Traditional formats. The qualitative data revealed that students in the cooperative learning groups
found more learning benefits than the Traditional group. The study will benefit instructors and
students in distance learning to improve teaching and learning practices in a virtual classroom"
(Kupczynski et al, 2012 p. 81).
"In recent years, distance learning has made possible several innovative means
to include CL in virtual pedagogical settings. Researchers have reported that
group work through computer-mediated collaboration resulted in improved
performance, interaction, and critical thinking (Bliss and Lawrence,
2009)" (Kupczynski et al, 2012 p. 82).
3.
References:
Blau, I., & Caspi, A. (2009). What type of collaboration helps? Psychological ownership, perceived
learning and outcome quality of collaboration using Google Docs. In Proceedings of the Chais
conference on instructional technologies research (pp. 48-55).
Kupczynski, L., Mundy, M. A., Goswami, J., & Meling, V. (2014). Cooperative learning in distance
learning: a mixed methods study.
West,J. A., & West,M. L. (2008). Using wikis for online collaboration: The power of the read-write
web (Vol. 15). John Wiley & Sons.
Collaborative Tools:
Google Docs-
"Google Docs is “a free, web-based word processor,spreadsheet,presentation, form, and data storage
service offered by Google” (Wikipedia, 2010a). It allows users to create, edit and store their documents
online (Thompson, 2008). Google Docs includes four major options:Google Documents, Google
Spreadsheets, Google Presentations, and Google Drawing, which all share similar functions.This review
focuses on Google Documents and how this application can facilitate students’collaborative writing in the
English language classroom" (Wikipedia (2010).
Sharp (2009) writes that collaborative editing tools allow a group of individuals to edit a document
simultaneously while they can view the changes made by others in real time. It is the collaborative editing
tool that makes Google Docs a powerful program that can facilitate collaborative writing in the language
classroom.
"...Google Docs as it allowed collaborative writing and was freely available. We
soon learned, however, that it was not embeddable, meaning students could not
access a given Google Doc from within the course website and would need to
link to a different web- site to complete their assignments" (Roseth et al, 2013
p.57).
Watch Video
Using Google Docs for Collaborative Work
User: MSU LearnDAT - Added: 1/21/13
References:
Google Docs. Retrieved November 4, 2010, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Docs.
Sharp, V. (2009). Computer education for teachers: Integrating technology into
classroom teaching (6th ed). Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley.
Thompson, J. (2008). Don’t be afraid to explore Web 2.0. Education Digest, 74(4), 19-22
Yang, C. (2010). Using Google Docs to Facilitate Collaborative Writing in an English Language Classroom
Practice. Retrieved September 23, 2015, from http://www.tesl-
ej.org/wordpress/issues/volume14/ej55/ej55m1/
Roseth, C., Akcaoglu, M., & Zellner, A. (2013). Blending synchronous face-to-face and computer-
supported cooperative learning in a hybrid doctoral seminar. TechTrends, 57(3), 54-59.
Wikis-
4. "Wikis are best suited for collaborative activities, especially those that are
dynamic and nonlinear in construction and will result in a shared product or
outcome" (West & West, 2008 p.6).
"Educators must know how to frame wiki activities such that they lead to
meaningful learning. During the process of collaboration, edu- cators must learn
to take facilitative roles, in which they prepare students for wiki collaboration,
facilitate group progress, and manage conflicts and distractions" (West & West,
2008 p. 21).
Resources:
West,J. A., & West,M. L. (2008). Using wikis for online collaboration: The power of the read-write
web (Vol. 15). John Wiley & Sons.
Google Hangouts/Collaborate Classroom-
Watch Video
Google+: Hangouts
User: Google - Added: 9/20/11
"expanding access to computer-mediated communication technologies now make new models
possible, including dis- tance learners synchronous online attendance of face-to-face courses.
Going beyond traditional uses of videoconferencing (e.g., real-time remote viewing with limited
student interaction), this article describes the use of freely available technologies to support
synchronous coopera- tive learning activities involving both face-to- face and hybrid doctoral
students" (Roseth et al, 2013 p.54).
"Recent efforts to use computer (e.g., online) technology to support cooperative learning respond
to a call from the literature (e.g., Abrami, Bernard, Bures, Borokhovski, & Tamim, 2011; Resta &
Laferriere, 2007) and are guided by theory and research highlighting the importance of making
students feela sense of belonging (Bau- meister & Leary, 1995), meeting their needs for
autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Deci& Ryan, 2000), and maintaining mastery rather
than performance goals (e.g., Ames & Ames, 1984)" (Roseth et al, 2013 p.56).
"Google Hangouts are part of the Google suite of applications that support multi-party video chat
as well as other Google applications includ- ing Sketch-Up, Docs, Spreadsheets, Presentations,
and screen sharing. In short, Google Hangouts provided a synchronous, video, audio and text-rich
communication platform that simultaneously connected our students to the wider affordances of
the internet (Teras & Teras, 2012). With Google Hangouts, one can freely host videoconferences
involving up to ten people and, if needed, also record the conference, store it to YouTube and
provide a link for later viewing" (Roseth et al, 2013 p.56).
Resources:
Roseth, C., Akcaoglu, M., & Zellner, A. (2013). Blending synchronous face-to-face and computer-
supported cooperative learning in a hybrid doctoral seminar. TechTrends, 57(3), 54-59.
Discussion Boards-
"The discussion board, an asynchronous communication tool, is conducive for
social interaction where knowledge and understanding are discussed, thus
5. providing an effective collaborative learning platform (Bliss and Lawrence,
2009)" (Kupczynski, 2012 p.83).
"A benefit of discussion boards is the valuable learning accomplished in an
asynchronous environment. Collaboration in an asynchronous environment offers
flexibility, where synchronous communities are dependent on each other
(Paulsen, 2008)" (Kupczynski, 2012 p.83).
"Asynchronous formats in online learning promote reflective discussion
responses (Prestera and Moller, 2001)" (Kupczynski, 2012 p.83).
"In evaluating online collaboration tools, Havard et al., (2008) discovered how
students find the discussion board to be “flexible, convenient, and efficient” due
to its asynchronous format (p. 44)" (Kupczynski, 2012 p.83).
"Further, threaded discussions in the discussion board encourage student
interactions and collaboration (Prestera and Moller, 2001)" (Kupczynski, 2012 p.83).
Resources:
Kupczynski, L., Mundy, M. A., Goswami, J., & Meling, V. (2014). Cooperative learning in distance
learning: a mixed methods study.
Learning Goal # 3-I dentify 3 design/set up techniques that encourage equitable and
interactive online group work-(Marcia)
According to Scherling (2011), instructors can:
2. set up effective online group work by beginning group work early so that the members have
enough time to work together
3. having the group members set up guidelines for their activity and participation
4. create authentic problems for the group to address
5. set up some method for the instructor to monitor group progress.
According to Roberts, & McInnerney (2007), set up / design methods that can improve group
work are:
7. Explaining the multiple gains and advantages ofgroup work (to counterantipathy)
8. Have a clear and explicit method of assessment (to counter antipathy)
9. Select either random or hereogenous group members
10. Provide courses that covereffective group work methods or provide instruction at the
beginning of a course on effective group work
11. Identify and contact possible "free-rider" students before group work has even begun
12. Create subgroups where appropriate
According to Kali, Levin-Peled, and Dori (2009), design principles can effectively improve group work.
They focus mostly on:
1. Creating group work where students instruct each other
2. Use student work as a course text
They researchers tried a jigsaw activity using these principles, but found they
had to provide much more structure to the activity in a second iteraction to
achieve higher levels of thinking.
Another design method that can allow for more effective and ethical group work are
collaboration scripts. Macro scripts organize resources, steps of the process, and learners.
6. Micro scripts provide learners with clear ideas about roles and next steps in the process. They
can provde a literal script that tells users how to respond or ask questions (Weinberger,
2011). Used in CSCL, these have been shown to improve indiividual learning, as well as the
effectiveness of the group, though not in all cases (Weinberger, 2011). Scripts can, according
to Weinberger (2011).
1. Increase self-regulation by providing steps for the regulation of learning
2. Provide a method to share knowledge across team members
3. Provide specific prompts for steps to take in the process
4. Automate how group members should coordinate (rather than placing those demands on the
learners themselves)
5. Increase student awareness of the knowledge and abilites of their group members, and how they
work together
References
Kali, Y., Levin-Peled, R., & Dori, Y. J. (2009). The role of design-principles in designing courses that
promote collaborative learning in higher-education. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(5), 1067-1078.
doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2009.01.006
Roberts, T. S., & McInnerney, J. M. (2007). Seven Problems of Online Group Learning (and Their
Solutions). Educational Technology & Society, 10(4), 257-268.
Scherling, S. E. (2011).Designing and Fostering Effective Online Group Projects.Adult Learning, 22(2),13-
18. Retrieved
from http://authenticate.library.duq.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=
eric&AN=EJ926217&site=ehost-live
Weinberger, A., (2011). Principles of Transactive Computer-Supported Collaboration
Scripts. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 6(3): 189. Retrieved
from https://www.idunn.no/dk/2011/03/art06
Learning Goal # 4- Identify 3 grading techniques that support and encourage fruitful group
participation by all group members. -Jessica
Roberts and Mclnnerney (2007) state, " Assigning group grades without attempting to distinguish
between individual members of the group is both unfair and deleterious to the learning process,for many
reasons which should be apparent from earlier discussion,and may in some circumstances even be illegal"
(p.264).
Robert and Mclnnerney also offer several solutions for appropriate grading for the purpose of
measuring group productivty:
Solution 1: use individual assessment.
For example, while skills may be built up by a series of group projects throughout the semester, the
assessment ofthe student learning process may take place through individual tests orassignments placed
throughout the semester, or via an end-of- semester examination, or via a combination of these.
Solution 2: assess individual contributions.
Instructors may in addition require students to record their own contributions and reflect upon them, in the
form of a diary or journal, or perhaps in the form of a more structured portfolio, to be submitted to the
instructorat the end of the course.
Solution 3: use self, peer, and group assessment techniques.
One technique is to have students within each group anonymously rate their fellow group members.
An alternative scheme uses a pie chart. Students are advised to divide up the pie according to their relative
contributions to the group. Since this is done by all students anonymously and online, there is little fear of
repercussions from aggrieved students.
The link to the video below discusses the most effective assessemnts in an online environment:
Assessments in Online Environments
References:
7. Roberts, T. S., & McInnerney, J. M. (2007). Seven Problems of Online Group Learning (and
Their Solutions). Educational Technology & Society, 10(4), 257-268. ** Great article Marica!
YouTube: "Assessment and Evaluation in Online Courses". DrChristopherDavis's
Channnel. Uploaded November 21, 2011
(This section added by Marcia - hope that's ok, Jessica! Feel free to use it in your final project section):
Collaborative tools also allow instructors to grade individual contributions
from the group. The video below shows how to grade:
Grading a Wiki in Blackboard
Learning Goal # 5-Selectand use an effective way for group members to assess their efforts and their
group members' efforts after a collaborative experience. (Jordan)
Lawrie, G. A., Gahan, L. R., Matthews, K. E., Weaver, G. C., Bailey, C., Adams, P., ... & Taylor,
M. (2014). Technology supported facilitation and assessment of small group collaborative inquiry
learning in large first-year classes. Journal of Learning Design, 7(2), 120-135.
Little evidence has focused on measuring student outcomes from group processes
Assessment usually relies on peer-assessment which is prone to influence of the social functions of the
group rather than the learning experiences that took place
Assessment done through technology has shown to support the engagement of students in a group setting
and creates an opportunity for the instructorto facilitate group formation and management of collaborative
learning tasks
5 Key Elements of Constructive Cooperative and Collaborative Learning Environments:
1) Positive Interdependence - students value and perceive all individual
contributions are essential
2) Individual Accountability - students perceive a requirement to contribute
3) Social Interaction - Establish group relationships (respectful in nature)
4) Group Processing - Collective understanding how group communication
and contributions will happen
5) Communication - Establishes effective communication processes
Blackburn, M., Warwick, S., & Booth, L. (2014). Effective use and assessment of web-based
collaborative learning.
Problems with assessing group work:
unfair that grade is dependent on otherstudents'input
everyone gets same grade "flat-assessment"
not approriately rewarded for efforts
non-contributing students benefit
8. Design feature - everyone is responsible for their own task and how it is
integrated into the product/outcome
Kear, K., Donelan, H., & Williams, J. (2014). Using wikis for online group projects: Student
and tutor perspectives. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed
Learning, 15(4).
Research has found that students are reluctant to edit each other's work
which in turn impacts the effectiveness of collaborative authoring
Thomas, E., Rosewell, J., Kear, K., & Donelan, H. (2014). Learning and peer feedback in
shared online spaces.
Peer feedback is a valued form of learning activity - students engage with assessment criteria and reflect on
their own work
Possibility could be to use a Wiki to give evaluative peer comments
What is our goal? 1) engaging students 2) promoting student learning or 3)
formally assess contributions
Is it fair to give student assessment?
Is this just for learning process or is there a grade attached to the peer
feedback/evaluations?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parker and Goldrick-Jones state that collaborative writing alone provides no
guarantee of student engagement in online or traditional classes. A technique
an instructor could use is a team writing assignment in which students write
down group ethics. It allows to engage students in the dynamics and
challenges of teamwork and invites critical reflection about the role of writing
in the formation of proessional communities. Writing collaborative writing
must engage students and promote responsibility and accountability.
Well-designed collaborative assignments play a key role in preparing students
for future membership in professional communities.
9. Cooperative-learning strategies can strongly influence student engagement. It
allows students to feel as if they have a stake in the community.Collaborative
writing takes place in online environments where face to face intereactions
may not be possible. Participating in a community cannot be taken for
granted in an online environment.
A written code of ethics assignment provides assessing team effectiveness
and collaboration as a whole will depend on how effectively teams are able to
interact in both face to face and online.
The online group that wrote out their ethics guide for professionalism were at
times too lofty of goals. It was written by one member instead of the team.
Meanwhile the face to face group took a much longer approach. Collaborative
ethic writing allows for team's evolution and monitor progress. Some
students were disengaged and the group progressed very, very slowly.
In their group ethics, team members had to notify the entire team by email if
unable to attend a scheduled meeting. Other examples included
consequences should a team member fail to do something and committed to
full participation allowed for importance of their community and commitment
flourish.
Group work should include the following:
A forum for expressing, discussing and consolidating common interests
Definitions and examples of accountability
Sufficient scaffolding before, during and after the code of ethics assignment
Monitoring of team effectiveness
Regular but not heavy-handed monitoring of discussions within forums
10. Paker, A. & Goldrick-Jones, A. A code of ethics as a collaborative learning
tool: Comparing a face to face engineering team and multidsciplinary online
teams. Retrieved from http://wac.colostate.edu/books/winks/chapter15.pdf
Learning Goal # 6-Compare and contrast online group assignments to traditional
face-to face experiences. (Started by Becky-Group please add no one addressed this goal)
"A benefit of discussion boards is the valuable learning accomplished in an
asynchronous environment. Collaboration in an asynchronous environment offers
flexibility, where synchronous communities are dependent on each other
(Paulsen, 2008)" (Kupczynski, 2012 p.83).
"Asynchronous formats in online learning promote reflective discussion
responses (Prestera and Moller, 2001)" (Kupczynski, 2012 p.83).
"In evaluating online collaboration tools, Havard et al., (2008) discovered how
students find the discussion board to be “flexible, convenient, and efficient” due
to its asynchronous format (p. 44)" (Kupczynski, 2012 p.83).
o "Quantitative results revealed no significant difference on student success between CL and
Traditional formats. The qualitative data revealed that students in the cooperative learning groups
found more learning benefits than the Traditional group. The study will benefit instructors and
students in distance learning to improve teaching and learning practices in a virtual classroom"
(Kupczynski et al, 2012 p. 81).
o "In recent years, distance learning has made possible several innovative means
to include CL in virtual pedagogical settings. Researchers have reported that
group work through computer-mediated collaboration resulted in improved
performance, interaction, and critical thinking (Bliss and Lawrence,
2009)" (Kupczynski et al, 2012 p. 82).
Resources:
Kupczynski, L., Mundy, M. A., Goswami, J., & Meling, V. (2014). Cooperative learning in distance
learning: a mixed methods study.
