4 days term paper

Online Group Work: Advancing Cooperation, Collaboration, and Community Through Situated Learning

Introduction

Web-based learning continues to thrive, particularly as collaborative tools are enhanced and learning becomes more marketable and meaningful to students. However, the theoretical framework for the application of some online efforts is still a bit weak due to limited empirical evidence establishing not only the methodologies, but more importantly, the learning results of such instructional designs. The goal of this paper is to assemble research supporting the application of situated cognition, a theory that has promising implications but which lacks detailed research support, in online educational environments. Specifically, online group work, a strategy that can provide meaningful learning and produce strong learning communities, is addressed through the lens of situated learning. It is not the intent of this paper to delineate every aspect of situated cognition nor to provide details regarding every facet of online group work, but rather to authenticate a situated approach to online collaborative projects, or what Hiltz and Goldman (2005) label computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL), in order to enhance community and increase motivation.

Situated Learning in an Online Environment

Still considered a burgeoning theory due to its lack of strong educational models, situated learning has been closely associated with and juxtaposed against Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory, constructivism, contextualism, problem-solving skills, and cognitive information processing (Driscoll, 2005). In short, according to situated cognition and the basis of the argument of this paper, context matters. As Brown, Collins, & Duguid (1989) explain, this learning-in-practice theory “challenges” the more traditional approach of “separating what is learned from how it is learned and used” (p. 32). Rather than placing emphasis on either declarative knowledge or procedural knowledge, as many individual educational psychology theories do, situated cognition acknowledges the influence that one’s learning environment has on cognition and addresses semiosis itself – where, when, and how the meaning-making occurs. Driscoll (2005) illuminates the heart of situated cognition when she summarizes the theory’s position: “knowledge remains inert and unused if taught in contexts that separate knowing from doing….Moreover, what people perceive, think, and do develops in a fundamentally social context” (p. 156-157).

At its essence, this theory is about providing meaningful, authentic, social learning environments for students to collaboratively explore, discover, apply, and adapt what they are attempting to learn. The real value of knowledge, then, comes from its sociocultural implications and the process of constructing knowledge together. Individual learning, which is “socially defined, interpreted, and support” (Driscoll, 2005, p. 163), is only accessible and assessable after specific social influences have been factored (Lemke, 1997).

A primary objective of situated cognition is to move learners from nonparticipation or legitimate peripheral participation, where engagement is limited, to insider participation, where community members are in full participation (Driscoll, 2005). All modes of participation have legitimacy. While eventually full participation in a community of practice is desirable, “legitimate peripheral participation enables the learner to progressively piece together the culture of the group and what it means to be a member” (Herrington, Reeves, & Oliver, 2010). It is through the process of observation, cognitive apprenticeship, and collaboration that the shift in one’s participatory role metamorphoses. “As we participate, we change” (Lemke, 1997), and it is the change that spawns learning, according to situated cognition. In more traditional classrooms, this upward mobility is not always possible, as hierarchy dictates the supremacy of the teacher as head of the community. However, fostering a community of practice within a class where all members are valued and can contribute to the collective knowledge is a step toward authenticity. Even in the real world there are hierarchies, chapter fees, and degrees required before full participation in a community is enabled (Lemke, 1997), thus the concept of the teacher as head is not always counter to authentic learning environments. Mirroring the advancement of participation, Conrad and Donaldson (2011) propose a framework of engagement that moves learners through various phases in online education. Starting the course as a newcomer, students or trainees progress to the cooperator phase when they begin working with partners to advance critical thinking skills. As collaborators, learners join small groups to solve problems. Finally, initiators or partners are full members of the community and lead discussions and direct class learning.

Part of becoming active, valued members of a community involves a certain degree of competency. It is the goal, then, of situated cognition to afford learners with opportunities to experience more real-life situations that require them to perform in “more ‘worldly’ settings” (St. Julien, 1997, p. 261). How can this correlate to an online classroom where students and teachers are disembodied and coursework is completed virtually? That is indeed the central question of this paper. It is in the design of the instructional practices where competency and collaboration can and do flourish, whether it’s in a brick-and-mortar classroom or an online one. Designing projects that enable students to activate prior knowledge, manipulate, practice, experiment, and experience consequences for their choices is imperative for the collision and marriage of knowing and doing (Juwah, 2006).

According to Oliver and Herrington (2000), best practice in educational technology warrants the use of computers as a

learning partner, rather than a medium for direct instruction or a generic tool. The logic and reason behind this application of the technology stems from the need for effective learning tools not to represent the world to the learner but to assist the learning in building meaningful, personal interpretations and representations of the world. (p. 179)

This implies that online learning should then utilize existing technologies in ways that foster co-constructed realities that help students find their place in the world around them. This can be achieved through the application of situated learning. Oliver and Herrington go on to elucidate nine essential characteristics of situated learning as they apply to computer-based environments. Vital for meaningful interaction, authentic contexts in online learning take the shape of intentional instructional design “which preserves the complexity of real-life context with ‘rich situational affordances’” (p. 180). Authentic activities include those that surround students with “real-world relevance” (p. 180). Oliver and Herrington recommend loose assignment parameters, solitary complex tasks rather than a fragmented series of steps, student-selected objectives, ample time for exploration, and multi-disciplinary foci to replicate authentic situations. To “provide leaders with access to expert thinking and modeling processes,” learners need exposure to such expert performances and models and the ability to interact and share with others regarding the expertise demonstrated (p. 180). Coaching and scaffolding is enabled through strategic feedback and support at crucial points throughout the learning process. Online courses can utilize automated feedback or individual remediation, for example, to inspire learner growth. Additionally, authentic assessment is integral to situated learning practices. Assessment measures should take into account context and provide opportunities for students to demonstrate their knowledge in real-world circumstances.

The final four standards for Oliver and Herrington’s (2000) design focus on a core tenant of situated learning and the premise of this paper – collaboration. Situated cognition implies the value of multiple perspectives and representations in order to develop a well-informed understanding. This can be especially achieved through collaboration with peers and experts who hold contrasting positions. Collaborative construction of knowledge is achievable in an online environment via small groups of students who work jointly on a common goal and with mutual benefits. Requiring reflection can help students assess their own outcomes as they relate to expert performance and real-life expectations. Closely associated with reflection, articulation empowers students to define the specific knowledge they have gained as a result of their efforts. As Oliver and Herrington explain, “The purpose of articulation is to create inherent, as opposed to constructed meanings. The tasks that are required to create the appropriate contexts for articulation are complex and involve collaborative groups, which enable first social and then individual understanding” (p. 181). Each of these elements, according to Oliver and Herrington, are critical for well-designed online instruction.

Advancing Collaboration and Community

A foundation of situated learning, one’s community of practice plays a fundamental role in the development and application of knowledge. Because “learning is a co-constitutive process in which all participants change and are transformed through their actions and relations in the world” (Driscoll, 2005, p. 159), for meaningful learning to occur, learners must contribute to and partake in the communities in which they live, work, and grow. Furthermore, as Juwah (2006) argues, the demands of contemporary reality necessitate “the acquisition, development and regular updating of knowledge, skills, competences, and the ability to work in cross-cultural contexts or situations” (p. 171). Employing this theory, then, in an online learning environment means special attention must be applied to the formation and fostering of online communities of learning. “When a classroom becomes a learning community…the social structure transforms into one in which teacher and learners work collaboratively to achieve important goal, goals that may well have been established jointly” (Driscoll, 2005, p. 177). Intriguingly, some researchers indicate that online learning environments, with their sundry tools that assist with discussion and group work, actually offer more possibilities for collaboration and situated learning than do traditional face-to-face classrooms where students are often limited to discussing topics with their peers seated in their immediate vicinity (Herrington et al., 2010; Wiley, 2006).

Additionally, due to the nature of situated learning, knowledge itself isn’t fixed but rather is re-formed and adapted to fit the perceived needs of the individual or environment (Driscoll, 2005). Pinterest is a great example of this repurposing of knowledge. A chest of drawers becomes an urban garden, a sailboat transforms into a playhouse, newspaper is reshaped into a gift box, and so on. Where one person sees an old book full of valuable insight and charm, another sees wallpaper and bookmarks made out of the spine. The perceived affordance of the object or information is dependent upon the learner’s “interactive and reciprocal relation between and organism and its environment” (Driscoll, 2005, p. 162). Providing opportunities where this becomes the norm is key to a successful online program, according to situated cognitive theory.

With today’s advancements in technology, finding the right tool to support situated learning becomes a matter of selecting the very best fit for the learners, the learning context, and the objectives of the course. Collaborative and interactive tools such as chat rooms, discussion boards, blogs, and wikis, enable students to thoroughly discuss and cooperatively create products that demonstrate their learning (Juwah, 2006). Often these tools are embedded into a course’s learning management system (LMS), such as Blackboard or My Big Campus, but other free or subscription services are available, including Google Drive, PiratePad, and Blogspot.

Both synchronous (real-time) and asynchronous tools can enhance the collaborative process. Although some synchronous tools may be best suited for group discussions and team meetings, organizing all students within a group to meet at a designated time may be difficult given the non-traditional status of many online learners, and such discussions often favor the fastest typist or may encounter bandwidth issues that interfere with smooth delivery and discussion. Asynchronous tools, on the other hand, offer ample time for reflection, can accommodate various schedules, and better allow multiple voices to be heard; however, they also have the potential for information overload due to the lack of time constraints (Conrad & Donaldson, 2011).

Designing Online Group Work

One way to achieve meaningful, productive communities is through the design and development of intentional, collaborative groups that enable purposeful participation and, therefore, learning. Because “much of the learning that occurs outside the walls of formal institutions takes place through activities and tasks that are addressed and attempted by a group rather than an individual,” utilizing online group work is consistent with situated cognitive theory that places emphases on authentic, real-world experiences (Oliver & Herrington, 2000, p. 181). Virtual group work, or what some call peer learning, can take the form of co-constructed projects, joint but separate efforts, collaborative planning, and various other designs along the continuum. Through a “mutually negotiated goal” and “mutual accountability” learners work together to create meaning (Driscoll, 2005, p. 165). In some instances, online group work requires individual learners to rely heavily on other group members before, during, or after the generation of their own course products, through what Driscoll (2005) calls “planned interdependence,” a method that inspires accountability and self-awareness (p. 178). Such cooperation among learners is viewed as an essential human experience, tied to the common good of the group and both individual and community success (Slavin, 1982). One rendition of such interdependence is the application of the jigsaw method, where each member of a group is responsible for one aspect of a given project or topic. Although social cohesion theory suggests jigsawing is a great team-building activity that can enhance cooperation, others have found inconclusive evidence validating its use (Mayer, 2008).

In order to foster greater community and collaboration, the distribution of learners within groups must be regarded during the design phase. Simply dropping students into random groups does not automatically produce meaningful learning (Gillies, 2004; Johnson & Johnson, 1990). Varying levels of expertise and experiences within a group, for example, initiates a dynamic that encourages learners to build on the joint knowledge existing within their designated community. One type of group work, cooperative learning involves groups of six heterogeneous learners working together on a single project and being assessed as a team (Driscoll, 2005). Some researchers, however, recommend placing students in groups of similar or equal skill levels. They argue that more homogenous groupings or those that are self-selected by students foster greater collaboration and cooperation. Most researchers agree, however, that a supportive, open, and responsive group is key to a successful online collaborative experience (Juwah, 2006). Unfortunately, many learners do not come to the online classroom with adequate interpersonal skills necessary to facilitate such a group. This generates additional instructional need, requiring trainers and instructors to tackle relational skills necessary for successful interaction (Lee, 2006).

Perhaps more importantly, the learning task itself should be meaningful and authentic. Oliver and Herrington (2000) propose, for example, allowing students to explore varying perspectives through collaboration. In their analysis of situated cognition as it applies to web-based learning, they also suggest utilizing problem-based activities that will help students master real-world problems through authentic assignments that require learners to think outside of the classroom’s (virtual) walls. Skills learned are then more readily transferred to new, unfamiliar settings and problems. Likewise, Conrad and Donaldson (2011) encourage the application of the higher levels of Bloom’s taxonomy (application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation) to inspire greater learning and to engage learners in meaningful tasks.

Assessing Online Group Work

As situated learning implies, an individual’s response to new knowledge is often tied to their perception of the cognitive affordances. Online group work, then, when well-crafted can “facilitate learning and motivation”, or it can create a “free-loading” atmosphere “if individual accountability is not included” (Driscoll, 2005, p. 162). As a result, strong instructional design when applying situated cognition is about building on the existing cultures of students and cultivating a significant culture of learning within the educational environment. This is often achieved, in part, through the assessment methods employed.

An underpinning of situated cognition, task authenticity must also be transferred to the assessment measures employed. Oliver and Herrington (2000) acknowledge this may take significant time on the part of the student and often warrants collaboration and a “full array of tasks with the assessment seamlessly integrated with the activity” (p. 182). Juwah (2006) argues that assessment of online group work needs to address both the process of learning and the product and “should be interactive, involve group collaborative activity and be integral to learning” (p. 179). Interestingly, Glaser and Silver (1994), for example, propose enabling students to observe feedback for other students so that can they vicariously enhance their own learning and adapt their methods according to feedback given to their peers.

Adapting Collins’ (1990) three-part model for assessment, McLellan (1992) proposed a similar model designed specifically for situated learning that aligns nicely with the idea of integrated assessment throughout the learning process. The first phase, diagnosis, involves systematically evaluating and responding to students’ progress throughout a course of study. Driscoll’s (2005) reflective activity that requires students to respond to four particular prompts (“their own, individual learning,” “the learning of their collaborative group,” “the learning of the class as a community,” and “suggestions for improvement”) (p. 179), for example, could be adapted as a formative assessment activity within an online group project, as demonstrated in Figure 1. Utilizing such assessment methods enables instructors to better assess and address individual needs as they arise (Driscoll, 2005; McLellan, 1993).

Similarly, employing self-reflective practices encourages students to “deliberate on both their learning and learning processes” (Oliver & Herrington, 2000, p. 181). This could take the form of journaling, metacognitive essays, self-revision, or sundry other methods meant to empower students to take responsibility for their learning and cognitive processes. According to Conrad and Donaldson (2011), the most essential factor in self-reflection is for students to examine carefully “how the newly acquired knowledge will change the learner’s understandings and actions” (pp. 36-37). Strong self-reflection is about enabling mental mapping to connect new knowledge to existing schemata.

Figure 1. Self-reflective activity to address individual needs, based on Driscoll (2005, p. 179).

Self-Reflection on Learning

1. Individual growth. What are your personal goals for this project? Are you learning what you hoped to achieve at this point in the project? What else could you and/or your instructor do to help you accomplish your goals?

2. Collaboration. How well is your group working together? What learning goals are you able to achieve as a result of your participation in this community? What else could you, your group members, and/or your instructor do to help your group accomplish its goals or you accomplish your personal learning goals?

3. Community growth. How do you feel about the direction of the coursework overall? What about the design of the course materials, interactions, and projects help you accomplish the course goals and your personal learning goals? What adjustments could be made to help you or your group better achieve your course objectives?

Summary statistics, another element of Collins’ (1990) three-phase assessment model, are maintained to identify a pattern of learning over time. To “show when learners have achieved certain benchmarks and whether they are progressing at an adequate pace” (Driscoll, 2005, p. 180), for example, instructors can employ the history features within certain online collaborative tools. Record keeping becomes accessible with the click of a link when each individual contribution is stored electronically within the online tool itself. Caution must be applied, however, as some students may have worked on certain aspects of the project yet are not awarded “credit” because they completed work offline, such as finding valuable print resources or emailing a group member who then posted the material for them, for example. Despite the limitations of the software, the historical records of the development of the online group project does become a wealth of information, affording instructors the opportunity to intervene, offer encouragement, and generally support learning throughout the process.

The final mode of Collin’s assessment model, portfolios are “particularly well suited for assessing situated learning because of [their] emphasis on process as well as product” (Driscoll, 2005, p. 180). Portfolio assessment can again be adapted to online group work, depending on the needs of the instructor and students. To further encourage metacognition, students could be required, for example, to select key elements of various group products that they feel demonstrate their individual growth and reflect on their process of generating such artifacts within the community of practice.

In order to be truly effective, summative assessment practices must consider both the individual’s contribution as well as the group performance (Mayer, 2008). In his research, Slavin (1983) concluded that group rewards (communal incentives) combined with individual accountability achieved the greatest results in cooperative learning environments. In practical terms, this might include a rubric evaluating the group product and collaborative efforts as a whole as well as the individual performance, contribution, and collaborative practices. Conrad and Donaldson (2011) also promote the use of peer evaluation as a means of accurately determining the effectiveness of the teamwork. Although some argue that such assessment measures may not expose the real efforts of the team due to lack of student directness or honesty, a well-designed peer evaluation tool could guide students to offer specific positive comments as well as detailed feedback regarding how the project or process could be improved the next time. As mentioned previously, teaching these types of interpersonal skills, where students respond to each other “tactfully and helpfully,” is vital to a successful assignment (p. 67).

Increasing Motivation, Learning, and Transfer

The impact that situated cognitive theory and online group work have on student learning depends on a number of factors. Research has shown, for example, that groups that are collectively rewarded based on the performance of individuals within their group often achieve the highest returns in motivation (Mayer, 2008). Tobias (2006) supports the application of intentional, meaningful metacognitive practices that require students to think critically about what they know, what they can do, and what they don’t know and can’t do, to increase motivation and ultimately influence cognitive growth. Each specific instructional method related to online learning, then, plays a role in the impact group work and situated learning has on motivation, learning, and transfer.

Ultimately, authentic tasks and assessments, driving forces of situated learning, naturally induce motivation and therefore increase learning. As Herrington, Reeves, and Oliver (2006) explain, “the more similar learning tasks are to ‘real-world’ tasks, the more likely students are to engage in the tasks, and the more likely they are to develop knowledge, skills, and attitudes that will transfer to real contexts” (p. 91). Through their studies of problem-based learning Herrington et al. concluded that such real-world tasks enhance cognitive, affective, and conative learning. Whereas previous models may have touched on one or two of the modes of learning, Herrington et al. argue that problem-based learning addresses all three in meaningful ways.

Conclusion

Researchers have consistently found cooperative learning efforts enhance productivity and learning, although there is no definitive proof that it is more effective than some traditional individual learning methods (Mayer, 2008; Lee, 2006). Despite some evidence that group work can produce meaningful results, Mayer (2008) points out the need for more substantial research supporting online collaboration, specifically with studies tied to performance related to explicit learning objectives, and Driscoll (2005) acknowledges the limitations of existing evidence in favor of situated learning. Furthermore, designing effective online team projects can be limited by timing, tools, and physical distance. In spite of the setbacks, positive evidence remains that warrants additional study and exploration of situated learning and collaborative group work in online learning environments.

References

Brown, J. S., Collins, A., Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 32-42.

Conrad, R. & Donaldson, J. A. (2011). Engaging the online learner: Activities and resources for creative instruction (updated ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Gillies, R. M. (2004). The effects of cooperative learning on junior high school students during small group learning. Learning and Instruction, 14, 197-213.

Glaser, R. & Silver, E. (1994). Assessment, testing, and instruction: Retrospect and prospect. Review of Research in Education, 20, 393-421.

Herrington, J., Reeves, T. C., & Oliver, R. (2006). A model of authentic activities for online learning. In C. Juwah (Ed.), Interactions in online education: Implications for theory and practice (pp. 91-103). New York, NY: Routledge.

Herringon, J., Reeves, T. C., & Oliver, R. (2010). A guide to authentic e-learning. New York, NY: Routledge.

Hiltz, S. R., & Goldman, R. (Eds.) (2005). Learning together online. Mahweh, NJ: Erlbaum.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1990). Cooperative learning and achievement. In S. Sharan (Ed.), Cooperative learning: Theory and practice (pp. 23-37) New York, NY: Praeger.

Juwah, C. (2006). Interactions in online peer learning. In C. Juwah (Ed.), Interactions in online education: Implications for theory and practice (pp. 171-190). New York, NY: Routledge.

Lee, A. (2006). Learning and transfer in two web-based and distance applications. In H. F. O’Neil & R. S. Perez (Eds.), Web-Based learning: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 221-238), Mahweh, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Lemke, J. L. (1997). Cognition, context, and learning: A social semiotic perspective. In D. Kirschner & J. A. Whitson (Eds.), Situated cognition: Social, semiotic, and psychological perspectives (pp. 37-56). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Mayer, R. E. (2008). Learning and instruction (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

McLellan, H. (1993). Situated learning in focus: Introduction to special issue. Educational technology, 33, 5-9.

Oliver, R., & Herrington, J. (2000). Using situated learning as a design strategy for web-based learning. In B. Abbey (Ed.), Instructional and cognitive impacts of web-based education (pp. 178-191). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publ.

Slavin, R. (1982). Cooperative learning: Student teams. Washington, DC: National Education Association.

Slavin, R. (1983). When does cooperative learning increase student achievement? Psychological Bulletin, 94, 429-445.

St. Julien, J. (1997). Explaining learning: The research trajectory of situated cognition and the implications of connectionism. In D. Kirschner & J. A. Whitson (Eds.), Situated cognition: Social, semiotic, and psychological perspectives (pp. 261-279). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Tobias, S. (2006). The importance of motivation, metacognition, and help seeking in web-based learning. In H. F. O’Neil & R. S. Perez (Eds.), Web-Based learning: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 203-220), Mahweh, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Wiley, D. (2006). Scalability and sociability in online learning environments. In H. F. O’Neil & R. S. Perez (Eds.), Web-Based learning: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 295-306), Mahweh, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.