Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
STRUCTURED STUDENT INTERACTIONS IN ONLINE DISTANCE LEARNING: EXPLORING THE STUDY BUDDY
ACTIVITY
Colin M. Madland !
1
CHAPTER I SIGNIFICANCE
2
STRUCTURED STUDENT INTERACTIONS
!
Content
Student/Self
Teacher/Self
Student/Student
Structured Learning Activity
Stud
y Bud
dy A
ctivit
yStructured Learning Activity
3
RESEARCH QUESTIONS1. Do online graduate students who participate in a
structured study buddy activity tend to use deep approaches to their learning?
2. As a cooperative learning activity, does the study buddy activity provide sufficient scaffolding to promote deep approaches to learning?
3. In what ways do students find value in the study buddy activity?
4
CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW
5
COOPERATIVE LEARNING
Slavin, R. E. (2011). Instruction based on cooperative learning. In R. E. Mayer & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning and instruction (pp. 344–360). New York: Routledge.
Group Goals based on
learning of all group
members
Social cohesion
Enhanced learning
Motivation to learn!!!
Motivation to encourage
groupmates to learn!!!
Motivation to help
groupmates learn
Elaborated explanations
(peer tutoring)!!
Peer modeling!!
Cognitive elaboration!
!Peer practice!
!Peer
assessment and correction
6
APPROACHES TO LEARNINGDeep Approach Surface Approach
7
APPROACHES TO LEARNINGDeep Approach
Deep approaches to learning are
characterized by the appropriate use of high-level cognitive skills for
tasks which require them.
Surface Approach
7
APPROACHES TO LEARNINGDeep Approach
Deep approaches to learning are
characterized by the appropriate use of high-level cognitive skills for
tasks which require them.
Surface Approach
A surface approach is characterized by
students relying on low-level cognitive skills
when high-level cognitive skills are
required.
7
CHAPTER III METHOD
8
RESEARCH DESIGN
• Exploratory
• Mixed Methods
• Revised 2-Factor Study Process Questionnaire
• Qualitative items included throughout
9
RESEARCH DESIGN
Survey students in MDDE 604 from Fall 2012 and Winter
2013
Quantitative Qualitative
Explanations of quantitative survey responses
Data Collection
10
RESEARCH DESIGN
Independent samples t-test!Descriptive statistics
Phase 1 Phase 2
Code responses!Eliminate redundancies!
Identify themes
Data Analysis
11
CHAPTER IV QUANTITATIVE RESULTS
12
APPROACH TO LEARNING
Participants Non-Participants p
Deep Approach 37.8 36.3 0.492
Surface Approach 18.6 20 0.569
13
STRUCTURE
Mean % who Agree or Strongly Agree
The instructor’s description of bunnies and bears was useful in choosing a
study buddy.2.72 12*
I would participate in the study buddy again. 4.28 88
The instructions for the study buddy were easy to follow. 3.8 76
*28% disagree or strongly disagree.14
STRUCTURE
n % of Total
I had a good study buddy experience. 21 84
The study buddy should be a formal part of the course. 19 76
15
VALUE
Mean
Social cohesion 4.12
Developmentally appropriate challenge 3.7
Motivation 3.62
Cognitive restructuring 2.92
16
CHAPTER V QUALITATIVE RESULTS
17
APPROACH TO LEARNINGI also buy books or download research articles that enrich or contradict the course readings.
[I] look up alternate sources to the material in books/articles from previous courses and in the AU library.
I approached each topic with these questions: ‘What here applies to me and to my work?’ ‘How might this help me with my work?’
18
VALUE
At the same time I found that at the beginning just by trying to help improve assignments of my study buddy and talking about them helped me to improve my thinking and logic.
I got to see another’s work that caused me to consider an alternative point view and to contribute my perspective of their work.
My study buddy became my audience as I was writing—I was writing to explain the material to her. In turn, she was able to point out gaps in my reasoning, to question what I meant and to help me sharpen my ideas and arguments. I trust that I was able to do the same for her.
19
VALUE‘I have gained way more from this activity than I expected. I have also had more fun than expected since I've got a partner who shares my sense of humour. This kind of activity is unique in just how intimately people work together and get to see others' flaws and strengths. This experience has been extremely enriching.’
I think that the study buddy option was of value because I like and respect the opinions of my Buddy. If I was working with someone who I did not feel that way about - it would not be a valuable exercise.
I knew there was someone out there who depended on us to have work completed on time. My study buddy helped me to work a little harder! :)
20
STRUCTUREFormalizing it in the course gives an impetus to try it out. Some may choose to continue it themselves in the future, I certainly would like to.
Peer review is important, especially for instructional design. No one person has all the experience so multiple points of view are valuable. People will organize based on their own needs.
It doesn't always work out so it should be left to us without a grade
It doesn't always work out so... it should have more structure to start us off.
21
STRUCTUREWe worked together to negotiate timelines that worked for each of us, and we kept to those timelines to within a few hours.
We developed a timeline and agreed to an exchange date for our assignments. We agreed to allow each other to put a hand up and say that we needed more time, without question. It was a very collaborative relationship.
22
DIFFICULTIES AND NON-PARTICIPANTS
• Incongruent motivations
• Workload
• Inadequate or superficial feedback
• Reticence to participate based on past negative experiences
23
CHAPTER VI MERGING THE RESULTS
24
APPROACH TO LEARNING
Quantitative Results Qualitative Results
Results did not indicate deep approaches. Deep approach more apparent.
No significant difference between groups.
Responses to research question #3 indicate deeper approaches.
25
VALUE
Quantitative Results Qualitative Results
Social cohesion = 4.12
All quantitative results were supported except for cognitive
restructuring which showed strong evidence that deep strategies were
used but not detected by the instrument.
Developmentally appropriate challenge = 3.7
Motivation = 3.62
Cognitive restructuring = 2.92
26
STRUCTURE
Quantitative Results Qualitative Results
Utility of bunny/bear characterization was inconclusive.
Majority had a positive experience and would participate again. Importance of negotiation.
Most think the activity should be mandatory. Inconclusive; conflicting results.
27
CHAPTER VII CONCLUSIONS &
RECOMMENDATIONS
28
RECOMMENDATIONS• Faculty and instructional designers should consider
adding this and other structured cooperative learning strategies to their courses.
• Keep the activity voluntary with a small incentive for providing evidence of participation.
• Faculty should promote the social and cognitive benefits of the study buddy activity.
29
RECOMMENDATIONS
• Promote the study buddy as a ‘Structured Peer Review’ to encourage higher quality feedback.
• Provide more structure in the form of suggested questions for critical thinking.
30
