“Are online learners frustrated with collaborative learning experiences?”

This blog has the same title as one of the recommended papers for this topic (no 3) in the course, written by Neus Capdeferro and Margarida Romero (see the full reference below). I will discuss and reflect upon that theme from two perspectives: As a teacher in a course based on collaborative learning (i.e. problem-based and project-oriented learning, PBPOL) and as a participant in an ONL- & PBL-course. In the later, the collaboration is on distance, in the former both on distance and at campus. Capdeferro and Romero claims, based on some other studies described in the paper, that students engaged in collaborative learning activities could feel a high level of frustration. They define the concept of frustration based on Mandler (1975): “a negative emotion aroused upon encountering an obstacle in the achievement of a task, goal, or expectation, or in satisfying one’s needs”. Sources of frustration, according to Capdeferro and Romero, are, for example; Lack of instructions, assessment imbalance, unshared goals and communication difficulties.  To avoid or reduce frustration among collaborating participants online Brindley, Blaschke and Walti (2009) discuss some measures, for example: Monitoring and feedback, sufficient time for the task, clear instructions and motivation for participation embedded in course design.

According to my experiences being responsible and examiner for a PBPOL-course, the issues and measures mentioned above are more or less the same in online and campus courses. I recognise and experiences all discussed in the papers by Capdeferro and Romero (2012) and Lazar, Jones, Bessiere, Ceaparu and Shneiderman (2004). Hence, I think frustration in collaborative activities online have more to do with the phenomenon of collaboration, than if the course is given online or at campus. However, there seems to be differences on a more underlying level. When students are working in a team that do not meet in real life, frustrations with other team members can manifest in an earlier phase, i.e. compared with teams working together at campus. A reason might be that online-students do not get the possibility to socialise with each other in a more relaxed setting (for example, eating lunch or visiting a café together). Due to the distance, students do not get to know each other well, which prevents trust among participants in a group. This can described by means of the “Johari window” (Luft and Ingham, 2001), which is a model with the aim to improving interpersonal communication, in relation to feedback. The model describes how people in a group needs to have an “open arena” to create trust, i.e. where they know themselves and also let other know who they are.

Another reflection on frustration in collaboration is from my experience of participating in an ONL- & PBL-course. Compared with the other course, this course is not project-based, with shorter collaboration tasks in two-week sprints. Due to the course design, the collaboration is not so complex/extensive than in a PBPOL-course, which to some part reduce frustration and conflicts. If compared with the well-known FIRO-model (Fundamental Interpersonal Relationship Orientation) developed by Will Shutz, the group’s development stays in the “Inclusion phase”, i.e. being polite and avoiding conflicts. However, because of that, this type of online course can create frustration, where group members feel that the depth of collaboration not evolving so much.

References

Capdeferro, N., & Romero, M. (2012). Are online learners frustrated with collaborative learning experiences?. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(2), 26-44. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v13i2.1127

Brindley, J., Blaschke, L. & Walti, C. (2009). Creating Effective Collaborative Learning Groups in an Online Environment. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 10 (3). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v10i3.675

Lazar, J., Jones, A., Bessiere, K., Ceaparu, I., & Shneiderman, B. (2004). User frustration with technology in the workplace. AMCIS 2003 Proceedings. Paper 283. Retrieved from http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2003/283

Luft J and Ingham H's Johari Window concept. (2001-4) http://postdoc.hms.harvard.edu /slides/AliceSapienzaJohariwindowmodel.pdf

Is technologies for open education a driver for learning?

This period of the ONL-course we have focus on “Sharing and openness” in education, a very relevant and actual topic, and has been so for a long time, see for example Sharon, F. and and Deane, E. (1997). There are many aspects of “openness” in education, for example: Accessibility for both teachers and students, contributing to society (doing well), open up for joint development, and procedures how to “explore and exploit”.  

In this blog, I have chosen to elaborate on the technological possibilities of open education. The ONL-course provides an excellent opportunity to explore this topic, including many examples of different IT-tools and solutions. When getting to know some of these tools and solutions, I sometimes ask myself: Why? More precisely, in what way do these facilitate learning? An answer would be that technologies for open education make it easier for more people to attend in different forms of educations, which is a way towards opportunities for learning. Also, some tools (as the padlet for example, used and discussed in the webinar (topic 2) by Kiruthika  Ragupathi  and Alastair Creelman, provides participants to share and discuss ideas, which promote learning (i.e. based on discussions and reflections). Other tools, for example Prezi (prezi.com) or Mural (mural.com) facilitate presentations, which then promotes understanding, and learning.

However, from my point of view, the main contribution of many IT-tools and solutions is to share information. The core of education however, as I see it, is learning. And if open technologies are here to facilitate learning is not obvious to me (even if indirectly as described previously). Maybe is technologies for open education foremost about sharing and give information away (see, for example the Ted talk by David Wiley). A risk though, as I see it, is that increased openness in education more become a “quantitative approach”, i.e. sharing massive information, than a “qualitative approach”, promoting knowledge and learning. Hence, most IT-tools and solution could probably support learning in education, but need to apply with the specific context in mind (

e.g. type of course, seminar, program, lecture). In our ONL-group (no 8) we have focused on advantages and disadvantages of open education, form a wider perspective than discussed in this blog. Please take a look and share your opinions with us.

References

Fraser, Sharon and Deane, Elizabeth. Why open learning? [online]. Australian Universities' Review, The, Vol. 40, No. 1, 1997: 25-31.

Wiley, David. Ted talk: Open education and the future. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rb0syrgsH6M