Teacher
Development: Building Effective
Virtual Communities
through
Cooperative Learning
by Hilarie B. Davis, Ed.D.
and Robert J. Myers, Ph.D.
presented at the 1998 Annual Conference
of the
American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA
Abstract
A
web site for an online graduate course in Earth
systems science for middle school teachers was designed to affect
teachers'
knowledge about Earth systems science and resources and their use of
constructivist teaching practices, particularly collaboration, rubrics
and the
use of journals. In the 16 week
course 44 teachers experienced collaborative inquiry as they worked in
groups
to develop knowledge of individual spheres and create Earth systems
diagrams as
teams. Individually, they created
Earth systems science lessons and local event analyses.
Teachers were administered an
exploratory pre course survey to guide ongoing development and
formative
assessment. A post course survey
provided information on the validity of the design and its affect on
the
participant's attitude changes, knowledge gains, time spent and
suggestions for
further improvement. An archive
analysis is currently underway. Revisions to the site design and
content, the
course methodology and assessment tools are discussed.
Introduction
Online
courses consisting of communities of
learners are experiencing increasing use and credibility (Duffy, Dueber
and
Hawley, in press; Hewitt and Scardamalia, 1997; Hewitt, Web and Rowley,
1994)
due to their potential for increasing intentional learning through
interpersonal interaction (Scardamalia and Bereiter, 1994). This paper outlines the design,
development and implementation of an online middle school teachers'
Earth
systems science graduate course designed to use web-based interactions
for
learning. The themes of Earth
system science (ESS) content and collaborative, inquiry-based science
education
mirror each other within an electronic environment where teacher
participants
take responsibility for their learning within a structure of clear
expectations
and a web of relationships.
Description
of the course
This
16-week course was created to provide
professional development in Earth system science for middle school
teachers. The course was delivered
through the World Wide Web (WWW) and used the jigsaw method of
collaboration
through threaded discussion areas. The course addressed the US National
Research Council's standards for
including inquiry-based approaches in science through explicitly
modeling a
collaborative, student-centered environment in which teachers relied on
each
other for input, knowledge-building and feedback.
Two
sections of participants (middle-school
teachers) enrolled in the course
(N=44). Each section had
two mentors, a master teacher and an Earth systems scientist. The role of the mentors was to answer
Earth systems science questions, prime discussions, reply to journal
entries,
give feedback on Earth systems science thinking, connect course
participants
around interests and needs, provide administrative and technical
assistance and
track down people who did not post messages. Participants were chosen
for the
course based on access to the WWW and their stated interest in helping
refine
the course for future iterations.
Course
activities consisted of online collaborative
discussions to develop knowledge and exchange ideas, individual
research for
information concerning Earth systems science, team construction of
Earth
systems diagrams about major Earth events, and individual journal
reflections.
Inquiry
in a Community of Learners
A
primary concern during course design was to
create an online learning environment of inquiry where interdependence
among
participants provided the glue necessary for a successful community of
learners. To provide a framework for
supporting inquiry, we looked to Bereiter’s discussion of inquiry
(1992) in
which he describes the scientific approach to inquiry as the commitment
to:
• work toward a common understanding
satisfactory
to all
• frame questions and propositions in
terms of
evidence
• expand the body of valid propositions
• subject any belief to examination
Davis's
(1997) recipe for building a community
includes shared goals, challenges that cause relationships to form
through
exchanges of ideas, regular reflection for metacognition, and a
structure or
place for the virtual community to form.
One means of following this recipe is to have participants focus
on
information collection, then enter "virtual space" where they test
ideas and ask questions of each other, and of mentors.
Rogers and
Laws (1997)
addressed the challenge of building an online community by supporting
extensive
discussions and providing opportunities for cooperative learning.
Jigsaw
cooperative learning structures (Grisham and Molinelli,
1995; Aronson, 1978) provide a useful method for
creating interdependence by having team members form temporal ad hoc
groups to
become "experts" on a content area, then return to their original
team to share their expertise. Cooperative learning like that required
in the
Jigsaw method requires interaction among students on learning tasks.
The belief
is that the interaction in itself will lead to students to construct
knowledge
(Damon, 1984; Murray, 1982; Wadsworth, 1984). "Students learn from one
another because in their discussions of the content, cognitive
conflicts arise,
inadequate reasoning be exposed, disequilibration will occur, and
higher-quality understandings will emerge" (Slavin, 1995b).
Electronic
Tools for Building a Community of Learners
Web
design goals to support inquiry in an
electronic distributed environment have been developed by Duffy, Dueber
and
Hawley (in press):
• focus the user on problem solving
• promote attention to and reflection
on the
argument and goals
• provide appropriate structures for
the
communication need
• support coaching
These
design goals led to the construction of the
ACT tool (Asynchronous Collaboration Tool) with two discussion spaces:
conversational and issues-based.
Using a PBL model, learners generate questions in conversational
space
(chronologically organized) and then develop full arguments in
issue-based
discussions (organized with topical threads.) The notion of different
spaces
for different functions defines the task and protocol for contribution,
providing both focus and comfort to the participants to encourage
participation.
Establishing
intention and protocols for
discussions is paramount in Scardamalia and Bereiter’s (1991) CSILE
(Computer
Supported Intentional Learning Environment) system.
Learners label their entries in the database in terms of
thinking, such as “what I need to know” or “my theory” or “new
experiment”
(Oshima, 1994). Recent research
(Hewitt, Web, and Rowley, 1994) suggests that considerable face-to-face
interaction may be necessary to the successful use of CSILE for
rigorous
inquiry. The Collaboratory Notebook (CoVis, Edelson and O’Neill, 1994)
represents another electronic distributed learning tool for
collaborative
inquiry in which students label their entries as “information” “commentary” “question”
and “conjecture” etc. The labels are
intended to scaffold the discussion, and
invite connections and feedback.
It is possible that their use eliminates one level of
interpretation for
the reader, so that responses are more forthcoming, connected and
useful.
The
challenge of creating and sustaining
knowledge-building conversations using technology in face-to-face
situations
has been addressed by Brown and Campione (1994). Different
groups are established to build individual and
collective expertise, groups reform to address specific tasks as they
are
identified. Technology serves as a
tool for managing information, but more importantly for establishing a
growing
base of knowledge applied to a task or problem.
In
considering the core of virtual learning,
Mitchell, writes, in City of Bits
(1997), "no matter how extensive a virtual environment or how it is
presented, it has an underlying structure of places where you meet
people and
find things and links connecting those places. This is the organizing
framework
from which all else grows. In cyberspace, the hyperplan is the
generator."
Goals
The
challenge presented for the design team of the
Earth system science course was to create a collaborative learning
environment
exclusively online. It required
integrating the research on collaborative learning in face-to-face
situations,
online environments, and emerging web systems such as ACT.
Two
questions guided the development team in
creating the course and the mentor team in implementing it:
• How do we create a community of
learners to
address how to teach Earth systems science through inquiry?
• What structures and tools will
support a
collaborative online learning environment?
The
design had to accommodate the belief that
experiencing collaborative inquiry is essential to being an effective
Earth
systems science teacher, within the context of no face-to-face
interaction
- an exclusively web-based
environment. The following design elements were deemed critical to
collaboration and knowledge-building:
• Complex tasks
• Differentiated roles
• Designated spaces for specific
activities
• Reflection by learners
• Feedback learner-to-learner,
mentor-to-learner
• Expanding information sources
• Clearly defined criteria for success
(rubrics)
Design
The
development team consisted of instructional
designers, Earth systems scientists, a graphics artist, a web master,
and an
expert in creating online collaborative environments.
The design goals led to decisions about the methodology,
site design and tool selection.
Discussion of each goal provided perspective and generated
possibilities
which were woven into the final design.
Collaborative
structures in an online environment
An online
environment
supports the development and maintenance of a learning community in
some
interesting ways. Commitment and
involvement are intensified by the public nature of the text-based
environment. Reflection is
facilitated by the asynchronous threaded public discussions and an
online
private journal. Self-regulation
comes through the feedback from other members in developing "expert
packets" and preparing systems diagrams according to criteria. A
collaborative inquiry method supports the flow of energy toward new
levels of
understanding as members "jigsaw" between expert groups and event
teams. Content and resources are provided in the week-by-week course
outline,
and a resource space grows with participants' suggestions.
Five main
areas of the
site greet course participants on the home page (Figure 1):
•
Course Description
•
Overview of Activities and Grading
•
Library of Ideas and Resources
•
Students' Guide to the Virtual Learning Community
•
Weekly Course Outline (pull down menu with 16 weeks)
The Course Description briefly summarizes the collaborative
methodology,
goals , expectations for participation, and provides "getting
started" resources on Earth systems science, inquiry and other
topics. This section is designed
to provide a common understanding of the "operating procedures" of
the course, so participants have a structure to begin with which
requires
participation and rigorous thinking.
The Overview of Activities and Grading is listed on the home
page to
make the criteria for success clear and accessible. It was hypothesized
that
objective criteria would scaffold student-to-student and
mentor-to-student
feedback and collaboration in discussions (Figure 2).
The Library of Ideas and Resources is the entry way to the
knowledge-building discussion areas, the reflective journal spaces and
the
evolving resource guide. Seven archival spaces in the Classroom
(Figure 3)
were created for specific purposes:
Whole Class
Discussion
Space
• Course
Space - a
general, administrative area for discussion
Whole Class
Collection
Spaces
• Classroom
Application
Space - individually developed activities
• Local Event
Space -
individually developed ESS diagrams
• Resource
Space - for
collecting resources for all course activities
Small Group
Discussion
Spaces
• Sphere
Space -
knowledge-building by sphere groups
• Event Space
- ESS diagrams for the four events by
event teams
Individual
Reflection
Space - Private
• Journal
Space - weekly
reflections on content/process of learning
The design
incorporates
"issue" and "conversational" spaces as proposed by Duffy et
al (in press). In The Great Good
Place (1989), Ray Oldenburg writes about the need for "third" places
in modern community where an informal public life can develop, the mood
is
playful and there are "regulars." Virtual
environments make good third places because people
can come and go, recording their thoughts asynchronously, but
connecting them
with other people's ideas through the threaded discussions.
The site also
incorporates public and private spaces for different size groups. Public spaces create a sense of
belonging to a community which has its own life. The
Course Space is a kind of bulletin board where messages
are posted for everyone to see, while Sphere Space and Event Space are
for
small group teams to be productive together. They
are public, but since everyone belongs to a group which
is task or issue driven, they may not take the time to go to the other
groups
to drop in, pick up on the conversation or "lurk" so they are
semi-private functionally. Private spaces support ongoing reflection
about
learning. In this case the Journal Space is a continuous record of
self-reflection on what and how each person is learning. and a way to
communicate with mentors.
The
designation of
different spaces also supports differentiated roles, since each space
has a
particular task associated with it.
The rubrics provide the scaffolding for the kind of thinking
which needs
occur for knowledge-building.
The Students' Guide to the Virtual Learning Community was
written to
scaffold the social interaction so essential to collaboration. There are also strategies to support
the individual success of participants.
Tips are given on how to write messages that get responses and
how to
give constructive feedback. As
participants build ideas and knowledge in the Sphere and Event Spaces,
many
different kinds of interactions will occur. Gerdau
(1998) suggests that group members engaged in
collaborative inquiry develop more of an appreciation of the value of
the group
over time, as they develop listening, clarifying and piggybacking
skills. The mentors will also coach
participants in supportive feedback language, such as summarizing
ideas,
quoting sources, suggesting ideas and asking questions.
The Weekly
Course Outline provides
activities, resources and information.
The importance of a clearly stated, challenging and complex task
is
described by Cohen (1986, pp. 69-70), who states "if the task is
challenging and interesting, and if students are sufficiently prepared
for
skills in group process, students will experience the process of group
work
itself as highly rewarding."
The
complex task is provided by the very nature of
the Earth systems science content. By viewing Earth as a system, in
which the
land, water, air and living things are interdependent and co-evolving,
students
learn each of the areas in the context of the others, as well as
applied to
familiar settings and events.
Event teams are asked to create an Earth systems diagram
supported by a
description for each of four events.
The
Earth systems scientists on the team posited
that Earth’s systems are most clearly seen when they are under stress
during
anomalies, such as hurricanes, tornadoes, and flooding.
By focusing on events such as these, as
well as human induced stresses, such as deforestation, learners are
able to
identify the relationships among the spheres in light of the event. Four events were identified for the
course which stress Earth systems and can benefit from the use of NASA
resources such as satellite imagery: volcanoes, sea ice, hurricanes and
deforestation.
Resources
The online
environment
was viewed as a place for collaboration and knowledge building, rather
than a
repository for Earth systems content.
With this principle in mind, participants were mailed necessary
background
reading materials, CD-ROMs, and other supporting materials. The weekly instructions incorporate
those resources. An abundance of resources encourages both independence
and
interdependence. Participants can
choose the resources to fit their style and interests and contribute
information and reflections from those sources as well as their own
experience. Interdependence is
encouraged because it is difficult for one person to use all the
resources, and
so a team might organize to "divide and conquer" the readings. With an abundance of resources,
individuals are more likely to be providing new information or
complementary
information from a different source, making it more valuable to the
group in
developing their ideas.
Course
Methodology
The
three goals of the course are: Earth Systems
thinking; Event analysis and Classroom Applications.
The event analysis is a common goal of each team and leads
to the formation of the jigsaw expert groups and is followed by the
development
of a classroom application. Being
part of two groups invites multiple perspectives, interdependence in
data
gathering from individual expertise and expert groups, and negotiation
in
developing a rigorous analysis.
The implications for course methodology are to:
• define the team task
• provide a model of an Earth systems
science
analysis of an event
• plan repeated experiences for teams
to do Earth
systems science analyses
• plan to provide feedback on analyses
• develop guidelines for evaluating
Earth systems
science diagrams (rubrics)
Method
A post course
survey was
completed by 29 of the participants,14 in the Wheeling section and 15
in the
Idaho section. Participants were
asked to reflect on the importance of various skills to effective Earth
systems
science teaching, changes in their knowledge, attitudes and practice as
a
result of the course, and the effectiveness of the elements of the
design. Data is presented in graph form to
show
simple averages or relative average ratings. T-tests
for paired samples were used to test for significant
difference between means where it was appropriate.
The p values are reported in the narrative.
This self-report data will be
reexamined in light of the results of a subsequent study of the
archival
discussions and products of the participants.
Results
Thinking
about science
from an integrated, coordinated and thematic perspective requires a
shift from
the traditional discipline-based approach, a "reform of
thought." The
"right" answers are those which have the most support by the members
of the group, given the current knowledge base.
As learners
construct the
systems diagrams, they build on each other's thinking, challenge it and
support
it, depending on what knowledge they bring from their sphere groups AND
the
connections they make in the process of thinking about all the effects
within
the system. In constructing the systems diagram, participants can build
off
each others' ideas and make sense of the emerging patterns of meaning
in
response to the challenge.
Perhaps the
best test of the
efficacy of an experience is whether or not you would recommend it to
your
friends. Eighty-three percent
(24/29) of participants responding said definitely “yes” to the
question,
“Would you recommend this course to a friend?” for reasons like these:
“An
excellent way to learn earth science from a new perspective, improve
your
internet capabilities, great materials, learn to use a new research
tool (the
web).”
“I
would tell my friends that I learned a lot. That
when the group works well together, you learn so much
more than working alone... that I got some really wonderful free
materials, and
leads to some cool web sites...that I met a group of new friends and
resources
for new ideas.”
“I
learned more from this course than I have learned in a long time.”
An opposing
opinion was
offered by a few teachers who found the course disjointed or too time
consuming:
“Although
I learned a lot, the course takes way too much time.
I spent far more time that I would for most 3 credit
courses.“
Many
participants had
good ideas for how to prepare their friends for taking a “cutting edge”
course
as one person called it, including: stay involved with your group; ask
lots of
questions; set aside time to do it at least three days a week for a
couple of
hours and more on the weekends; be prepared to love it and spend a lot
of time
exploring ideas and resources.
What were
participants
expectations? Did the course meet them?
The responses were fairly evenly divided between: 1) wanting to
learn
more about Earth systems science and how to teach it; 2) wanting to
improve in
using the internet or computer for learning and teaching; and 3) no
expectations. Approximately 90% of the people who finished the course
had their
expectations fulfilled and more.
The remainder felt they had not invested enough time, or they
did not
enjoy the emphasis on group interaction. The range is represented by
the
comments below:
“That I would
learn a new
way of thinking about earth science concepts, and I would communicate
via the
web with other teachers around the state.
I would also receive materials that I could use in my classroom. Class far surpassed my expectations.”
“I guess I
expected a
more linear approach to the course and a clearer picture of what was
required.
I would have preferred to work on my own more.“
Time
Spent in the Course
How much time
did the
participants spend in the course? Participants were asked how much time
they
spent per week in the course. The
majority (94%) reported spending 5-10 hours per week or more due to
depth and
variety of resources (see Figure 4).
Those who reported spending less than 5 hours per week (6%) most
frequently commented that they could or should have spent more time,
but did
not have it available. Most people (56%) reported spending 5-10 hours a
week.
Figure 4:
Time Spent per
Week
Relative to
time spent on
other graduate courses, 43% of the participants reported spending more
time,
27% reported equal time, and 30% spent less time. For
some participants, connectivity limited their time.
See Figure 5.
Figure 5:
Time Spent
Compared with other Graduate Courses
How much time
was spent
online? 52% reported spending
>40% of their time online using online resources and participating
in the
online discussions. See Figure 6.
Figure 6:
Time Spent
Online
Change
in understanding of key concepts
Participants
were asked
to rate the change in their understanding of Earth systems science,
collaborative learning, investigative research and learning communities
on a
scale of 1 to 4 (highest). Average
changes reported in Figure 7 indicate fairly substantial change. Participants reported the greatest
change in their knowledge of Earth systems science (ratings ranged from
3-4). Several people reported a
"rounding out" of their knowledge as a result of working in the
sphere groups and having an opportunity to focus on one sphere at a
time in
relation to an event. Others
reported that having to struggle with creating Earth systems diagrams
for four
different events showed them how much they had learned.
Ratings for investigative research
ranged from 2-4, and from 1-4 for collaborative learning and learning
communities. Participants who
rated no change in their understanding of collaborative learning also
rated
learning communities low (N=2) and commented on the lack of value in
the group
work.
Figure
7: Change in Understanding of Key Concepts
Increase
in knowledge
A main goal
of the course
was to increase participants knowledge of Earth system science
resources and
teaching strategies, so they were asked to rate their change on a scale
of 1-6
(highest). Comments included: "I have binders full of great classroom
activities and resources!"
"It is absolutely amazing how many sites and resources are
available. I am really excited about using these in my classroom next
year."
Participants
were also
asked about the increase in their knowledge of satellite imagery since
it was
included in the course, but not extensively taught like it is in
face-to-face
sessions. The average rating for
using satellite imagery was 4.58, lower than the other two areas. As expected, some participants felt
they had only scratched the surface and wanted more in-depth
instruction. Others had difficulty because
of the
slowness of a dial up connection.
Others suggested more emphasis on this topic throughout the
course.
Figure
8: Increase in Knowledge as a Result of the
Course
Factors
Affecting Success of Earth Systems Science
Teachers Participants
were asked
to rate the importance of five factors in the success of ESS teachers
and then
to rate their ability in each area as a result of the course (See
Figure 9). On
a scale of 1-4 (highest) all five factors had an average rating of 3 or
better
lending some support to the choice of these factors.
Although the course did not directly address three of the
five factors (organizational context, writing to learn, and using
technology
for teaching), it modeled them intensively.
When asked to
rate their
ability on the five factors as a result of the course, there was a
significant
difference (.05 level) between the importance and ability ratings in
the areas
of creating ESS lessons (p=.005) and authentic tasks (p=.0226),
indicating
participants still feel they need to improve in those areas relative to
their
perceived importance. No
difference between importance and ability was found in the areas of
organizational context (p=.6253) , writing to learn (p=.8513) and using technology for teaching
(p=.2266 ) . This may indicate
that there is adequate attention, support or learning in the course for
these
areas relative to their perceived importance. A
separate analysis of the two sections of the course
revealed no difference in importance and ability in the Wheeling
section in
creating ESS lessons (p=.0454), indicating greater comfort in this area
for
this section. A second study being
conducted on archival transactions may shed some light on this
difference
between sections.
Figure 9:
Factors
affecting Earth systems science teachers
Participants
were asked
to respond to an open-ended question about their expectations for the
course.
Of the 33 participants who responded in the, 24 identified a key goal
as
gaining confidence and a better understanding in teaching ESS. Other goals included: improve in use of
the Internet or technology (15); develop, locate lesson plans,
activities and
strategies I can use in my classroom/pedagogy (10);. be made aware of
ESS
resources (5); and work/get to
know others interested in ESS nationwide (5).
“I
expected to learn about just the Earth’s
spheres. I didn’t realize they
would be connected to an event and they would affect each other during
or after
the event. My expectations were
met many times over.
Use
of Classroom Strategies
One of the
goals of the
course was to influence teachers to use strategies with their students
which
support learning Earth system
science through immersing them in an environment which modeled those
strategies. Criteria in the form of rubrics and sources of activities
which use
them were also provided.
Teachers were
asked to
rate their use of the strategies before and after course by responding
to the
question: “How likely were you to use this in your classroom prior to
the
course? After the course?” A
significant difference (.05 level) was found in the entire sample for
increased
use of all the strategies associated with constructivism, including
learner-centered activities (p=.0032), jigsaw (p=.0064), collaborative
grouping
(p=.0002), use of journals (p=.0006), teaching for connections
(p=.0001), and
sphere/event study groupings (p=.0001).
Teachers reported greater intention to use all the strategies,
especially the sphere/event strategy and teaching for Earth systems
science
interconnections.
As seen in
Figure 10,
teachers reported significant increases in the use of all strategies,
especially in the area of sphere/event studies and in teaching for
Earth
systems science interconnections.
This suggests an increased likelihood of use of these strategies
as a
result of the course. This is
especially important, since few of the teachers reported using jigsaw
learning
groups before the course. One participant commented, “This course has
provided
a host of supportive contexts which I have internalized, enlarged upon,
and
will continue to expand upon.”
Figure 10:
Use of
Classroom Strategies
Effectiveness
of Design
As discussed
in the
background section, the development of the web site environment for the
course
was guided by the design goals of particular spaces, functions, and
flow to
create a community of learners.
Participants were asked to rate statements about the design
elements
from 1-6:
•
I had no trouble navigating about the site itself.
That is, material was presented in such a way that it was
"obvious" as to how to make the "right choices."
•
The sphere group exercises (jigsaw) helped the participants become
knowledgeable in content area so that they could contribute to group
discussions.
•
The event study groups worked well for the participants.
They helped in the development of
the earth systems
diagram.
•
I plan to use the classroom activities I encountered during this course.
•
The journals helped the participants
reflect on what had taken place each week.
•
The course rubrics were of great value.
•
The jigsaw groups worked well for the participants.
Figure 11:
Effectiveness
of Design
As seen in
Figure 11,
average ratings ranged from 3.73 to 5.45, providing support for the
effectiveness of the design elements in their desired roles. The rubrics were not posted in their
final form until the third week, which may account for their lower
rating. One participant commented, “The
rubrics
were great for guiding us on what exactly the course designers
anticipated we
would be doing in each space.”
Having specific expectations to meet increased the time
commitment for
some participants. One person
commented, “It was just too time-consuming for me to put in the time to
make
the grade.”
The classroom
activities
and resources which pointed to them were almost universally appreciated
by participants. The most popular ones
included the
volcano sites, Weather on other Planets, and the ETE modules, but the
most
frequent comment was, “so many were excellent.”
The site
design was
fairly highly rated (4.15) for ease of navigation. Participants
suggested
embedding more directions in the weekly outline, making separate
archives for
the groups to work in, making the threads easier to read and browse,
and
checking in with every person within the first three days by phone,
fax, or
email) to make sure they are connected and have found all the parts of
the
site.
Function
of the Cooperative Groups
Additional
questions were
asked about the use of cooperative groups to try to tease out what made
them
effective for participants. They were asked to respond to the following
statements on a scale of 1-6, with 6=strongly agree:
•
Cooperative learning in this course helped clarify ideas and concepts
through
discussions (both Sphere and Event Groups).
•
Cooperative learning in this course facilitated critical thinking.
•
Cooperative learning in this course provided opportunities for learners
to
share information and ideas.
•
Cooperative learning in this course provided opportunities for us to
take
control of our own learning, in a social context.
•
Cooperative learning in this course provided validation of individuals’
ideas
and ways of thinking through conversation, multiple perspectives, and
argument.
As Figure 12
shows, the
ratings ranged from 4.76 to 5.12, indicating fairly high value for all
the
functions of cooperative groups.
Many participants commented on how nice it was to have so much
choice
about what to read, when and what and how to contribute to the groups. Those who did not find the cooperative
groups as helpful made comments such as: “the groups I was in did not
get to
the conversation stage” or “I prefer working alone.”
As one person commented to a mentor, “It’s hard to hide in a
group in a face-to-face class, and almost impossible in an online
course.” The typical challenges of uneven
participation of group members, lack of direct communication about
individual
needs, and different pacing needs of participants were dealt with in
various
ways. One person commented, “I am
not sure the labor was evenly divided, but that happens in the
classroom too.” Experiencing both the
power and
challenges of collaborative learning were valuable to many people, as
one
person remarked, “It was important for me to be a student and
experience this
first hand.”
Figure 12:
Value of
Cooperative Groups
Role
of Design in Demonstrating Performance
Course grades
were based
on individual reflection (journals), use of the ESS ideas and
information for
teaching (classroom applications) participation (sphere and event
study) and
synthesis of all the ideas (final product):
• Sphere
study
10
points
• Event
study
25
points
• Classroom
applications
25
points
• Journal
reflections
25
points
• Final
project
15
points
Figure 13:
Role of Design
in Demonstrating Performance
Participants
were asked
to rank from 1-6 (highest) the usefulness of the various structures for
showing
what they learned. As seen in Figure 10, the relative ranking of the
structures
was weighed toward the sphere and event study groups. Because of the
cooperative learning structure, participants reported gaining insights
in the
group discussions and learning from a variety of people with different
experiences. Many commented on the
power of learning about a single sphere, then applying it to an event. By studying each sphere in depth for
one of the events, many people felt they improved dramatically in their
ability
to map the relationships in an ESS diagram.
Course
Design and Delivery
To examine
the flow of
ideas, support and feedback in the site design, we asked participants
to
respond to statements with a rating of frequency in their experience in
the
course with (1) always (2)
often (3) seldom (4) never; and a
level of importance (1)
Very important (2) Sort of important
(3) not very important.
It was
important
that: and
The mentors/facilitators:
• responded
to the
participants journal entries
• answered
questions
about ESS content
•
responded to requests for technical assistance
•
responded to requests for administrative assistance, e.g., clarifying
assignments, group membership, and location of course content
•
primed group discussion by offering "expert" ideas, hypotheses, or
thoughts for our consideration, research, and exploration
•
offered feedback on the earth systems diagrams
•
helped connect people to each other
•
helped track down people who seemed to be "lost" in cyberspace
Figure 14:
Course Design
and Delivery
Usefulness
of Course Resources
Participants
were asked
to rate the course resources sent to them on a scale of 1-5 (never . .
.
always) in terms of how often they used them. Average
ratings ranged from 3.57-4.10, indicating an
effective choice of resources for the course.
Figure 15:
Usefulness of
Course Resources
Educational
or Scientific Importance of the
Study
An overriding
objective
in the development of this online course was to create "reasons" for
individuals to engage in the material that could be transferred into
the
classroom. The population
consisted of very busy classroom teachers who needed to be actively
involved to
compete with their other activities and who could see the practical
usefulness
of the expectations. Course
developers purposely designed the structure so that the course was
student-centered and so that participants relied on each other for
input. As discussed above, this was
accomplished
through the jigsaw strategies that made participants depend on each
other for
essential information in creating the Earth systems diagrams.
As part of
this “first
run” participants were asking to be forthcoming in their comments
throughout the
course and in the surveys. Many
changes were made along the way to improve communications and better
meet the
course goals. For example, a
participant provided instructions for using of chats for discussions
and
setting up a web page for a group.
Others suggested collapsing the old discussions to make loading
quicker. Mentors changed the
suggested posting deadlines to give people the whole weekend to work.
Since the
course ended,
the site has been redesigned with a visual metaphor of the classroom to
make
the functions of the spaces clearer.
The rubrics have been revised and better integrated into the
activities.
The week-by-week outline has more directions about where (space) and
when to
participate. One section of this new course is currently being run and
others
are contemplated as partnerships are formed with teacher inservice
programs.
Conclusions
This middle
school course
was designed to address the needs and style of that group of teachers
and their
students- lots of activity, changing groups, ongoing reflection, an
opportunity
to even out their knowledge of the spheres, and the challenge of doing
rigorous
analysis of events from an Earth systems science perspective.
While the use
of a
complex instructional strategy like jigsaw in a non face-to-face
environment
was considered risky, it was also deemed essential to create the
engagement
necessary for knowledge-building.
It also provided the perfect opportunity to “walk the talk”
about
constructivist student-centered strategies (Johnson and Johnson,1992).
The course
evaluations
indicate that the design was successful in accomplishing the course
goals of
increasing the participants’ knowledge of Earth systems science and
resources,
and their use of constructivist and student-centered strategies. While not a goal of the course, comfort
with technology and the Internet in particular increased for those
participants
who had apparently signed up to “get their feet wet” in an environment
they see
as a strong part of the future of education for themselves and their
students.
In addition
to the
refinement of this course, an elementary course is currently being
piloted with
K-4 teachers in Earth systems science.
The K-4 course is designed to meet the needs of that group of
teachers and
their students - hands-on, classroom-based action research with
activities,
focused on concept development, stable groups, an opportunity to build
science
knowledge, an emphasis on integrated unit development around essential
questions. Many of the principles
of course development from the middle school course have been employed
or
adapted to make the course site easy to use and supportive of
interaction. A 9-12 course is in the
planning stage.
The
importance of place,
identity, flow of ideas and information and reflection come alive in a
web-based course. The clarity of
definition, the scaffolding and the explicitness required caused the
team to
examine and reexamine both their assumptions and their practice - the
goal for
the teachers as well as their students. The web provides the
opportunity to
explore the premise that learning is most powerful in a social context
(Vygotsky, 1978). The challenge is
to watch ourselves and how our ideas develop through interaction - to
become
productively self-conscious collaborators in knowledge-building.
References
Aronson, E.,
Blaney, N.,
Stephan, C., Sikes, J., & Snapp, M. (1978). The Jigsaw
Classroom.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Berg, K.F.,
(1993,
April). Structured cooperative learning and achievement in a high
school
mathematics class. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American
Educational Research Association, Atlanta.
Bereiter, C.
(1992).
Implications of Postmodernism for science, or, science as progressive
discourse. Educational
Psychology, 29, 3-12.
Brown, A.L.
&
Campione, J.C. (1994). Guided Discovery in a Community of Learners. in
K.
McGilly (Ed.) Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and
classroom
practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books.
Damon, W.
(1984). Peer
education: The untapped potential. Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology, 5, 331-343.
Davis, H.B. (1997, January). Building
virtual communities:
Parallel universes of the mind,. http://www.eclipse.net/~hilaried/parallel.html.
Duffy, T.,
Dueber, W.
& Hawley,C.L. (in press). In C.J. Bonk & K.King. Electronic
collaborators: Researching the discourse of learner-centered
technologies.
Edelson,
D.D., &
O’Neill, D.K. (1994). The CoVis Collaboratory notebook: Computer
support for
scientific inquiry. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the AERA. New Orleans, LA.
Gerdau, J.
(1998). A
Study of Collaborative Inquiry Groups. Dissertation from Columbia
University.
Grisham, D.,
&
Molinelli, P. (1995) Cooperative
learning, Westminister, CA:
Teacher Centered Materials.
Hewitt, J.
&
Scardamalia, M. (in press) Design principles for the support of
distributed
processes. Educational Psychology Review.
Hewitt, J.,
Scardamalia,
M. & Webb, J. (1997) Situative design issues for interactive
learning
environments: The problem of group coherence. In M. Scardamalia &
C.
Bereiter, Sociocognitive Design Issues for Interactive Learning
Environments
Across Diverse Knowledge-Building Communities. Symposium conducted
at the
annual meeting of the AERA, Chicago, ILL.
Hewitt, J.
Webb, J. &
Rowley, P. (1994) Student use of branching in a computer-supported
discussion environment. Poster session presented at the annual
meeting of
the AERA, New Orleans.
Johnson,
D.W., &
Johnson, R.T. (1992). Positive interdependence: Key to effective
cooperation. In
R. Hertz-Lazarowitz & N. Miller (Eds.), Interaction in
cooperative
groups: The theoretical anatomy of group learning (pp. 174-199).
New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Meloth, M.S.,
&
Deering, P.D. (1992). The effects of two cooperative conditions on peer
group
discussions, reading comprehension, and metacognition. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 17, 175-193.
Mitchell,
W.J. (1997) City
of Bits. http://www-mit.rpi.edu/City_of_Bits/
Murray, F.B.
(1982).
Teaching through social conflict. Contemporary Educational
Psychology,
7, 257-271.
NRC (National
Research
Council) (1996). National
Science Education Standards.
Washington D.C.:National Academy Press.
Oldenburg, R.
(1989). The
Great Good Place. NY: Paragon House.
Oshima, J.
(1994) Coordination
of solo- and joint-plane of student activity in CSILE: Analysis from
the
perspective of activity theory by Leontiev and Engestrom. paper
presented
at the annual meeting of the AERA, New Orleans, LA.
Rogers, C.S.,
& Laws,
P. (1997, May). Successes and
lessons learned in an online course on socioemotional development, http://leahi.kcc.hawaii.edu/org/tcc-conf/pres/rogers.html.
Scardamalia,
M. &
Bereiter, C. (1991). Higher levels of agency for children in knowledge
building: A challenge for the design of new knowledge media. The
Journal of
the Learning Sciences. 1, 37-68.
Slavin, R.E.
(1995a). Cooperative
learning: Theory, research, and practice (2nd Ed.). Boston: Allyn
&
Bacon.
Slavin, R. E.
(1995b). Research
on Cooperative Learning and Achievement: What We Know, What We Need to
Know. Johns Hopkins University: Center
for
Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk. October.
Vygotsky,
L.S. (1978). Mind
in Society (Edited by M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, &
E.
Souberman). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wadsworth,
B.J. (1984). Piaget's
theory of cognitive and affective development (3rd Ed.), New York:
Longman.