John Eklund, Access OnLine Pty Limited, NSW Australia., johne@accessonline.com.au
Vicki Kwan, The University of Technology, Sydney, vkwan@dinsdale.com.au
One of the most promising ways the Internet is being utilised in schools is to participate in global or collaborative Internet projects (Carrucan et. al., 1998). These projects often involve students in using the Internet and WWW for research, publishing of Web pages and e-mail. These project-based learning contexts are motivating students and providing real life contexts for successful collaborative learning (Lonergan, 1997; Federman & Edwards, 1997; HREF8; Mather, 1996). One such project is the Australian School's Web Challenge, and this forms the vehicle on which our study of collaborative uses of ICT is based.
To date, most of the literature about collaborative ICT projects, with the possible exception of Wyld (1996), is dominated by academic discourse and anecdotal reports of successful classroom practice [HREF1]. The most significant aspect of these sources is that the majority claims positive learning outcomes. With a large body of such evidence proclaiming the benefits of collaborative Internet projects and ever increasing numbers of Australian and overseas schools participating, this paper offers survey evidence establishing how these projects are enhancing education of Primary education students.
This paper reports results from a survey, a component of a much larger study, that aims to determine the value of ICT in enhancing collaborative learning in the Primary classroom.
Collaborative learning, like PBL, is a teaching method that is underpinned by constructivism. Current terminology such as 'groupwork', 'co-operative' and 'collaborative' learning are used interchangeably in the literature. Collaborative learning is often used to describe the entire spectrum of learning activities that involve students working together. Collaborative learning entails high levels of social interaction, whereas co-operative learners can work side-by-side with little interaction (Underwood & Underwood, 1999). Research on the outcomes of collaborative learning is well known and convincing. Qin, Johnson & Johnson (1995) found cooperative learning to be superior to competitive learning for preschoolers to adults when engaging in higher level tasks such as problem solving. Slavin (1991, 1995) found it improves academic achievement for students with ranging abilities and ages in a variety of school regions and subjects. Johnson & Johnson (1989-1990) found that cooperative learning produced positive attitudes towards learning, expanded self-concept and self-esteem, improved relationships between students, increased feelings of social support, and enhanced student acceptance of differences such as minority group membership, gender or disability.
It is now widely believed that ICT are most effective in education when used collaboratively (Crook, 1994). More often than not computers in schools are used by pairs or small groups of children (Wegerif & Scrimshaw, 1997), and increasingly many teachers believe that this interaction is resulting in productive learning (Light & Littleton, 1999).
Collaborative Internet projects can be defined as projects where students and teachers at separate locations work on joint activities to achieve set objectives and outcomes. Communication between project participants is via the Internet (Carrucan, 1998; HREF1). In some of the literature these projects are also labeled as global or on-line projects. Projects usually run over a fixed period of time and as current ones end they are replaced by new initiatives. One of the first and longest running collaborative Internet projects is an initiative that began between Australia and Alaska, the Australasian Writing Project (1982).
Students began by introducing themselves in electronic letters and writing reports on their interests. They continued by sharing genre writing including poetry, electronic journalism and discussion on major issues and legends from their cultures. This project has now developed into an organisation called CPAW (Computer Pals Across the World) which oversees a range of English related global projects (HREF3). To date there are other innumerable pre-organised collaborative Internet projects covering all subject areas and disciplines, available to students and teachers all around the world. (HREF3; HREF7; HREF11; HREF12; HREF13; HREF14) There are also rapidly increasing opportunities for participation in Australian made projects (HREF6; HREF5; HREF4). These are tailored specifically to meet Australian educational outcomes and becoming an increasingly popular choice for Australian teachers.
A number of sources are also reporting a wide range of educational benefits arising from collaborative projects. There are many widely reported positive learning outcomes of collaborative Internet projects: increased student motivation and understanding of learning as students become involved in real-life situations, promoting active, self-directed learning (Lonergan, 1997, Federman & Edwards, 1997; HREF7; Mather, 1996). Collaborative Internet projects are helping increase co-operation skills in young students. (Mather, 1996) In addition many authors report increases in skills including data collection, organisation and synthesis, problem solving, publishing of findings. (CMIS, 1999; NSW Department of School Education, 1997; Longergan, 1997, Ponting & Kendall, 1997). Collaborative projects are "one of the most exciting educational pursuits a teacher may undertake when using the Internet." (Carrucan et. al.,1998, p.108). They provide students with "a close simulation of the workplace of the future." (Ponting & Kendall, 1997, p.7).
| QUESTION |
|
|
| 1. Before participating in the Australian Schools Web Challenge... | ||
| 1a. My students had experience making World Wide Web sites. |
|
|
| 1b. My students had limited experience browsing and searching the Internet. |
|
|
| 1c. My students had a high level of computer literacy. |
|
|
| 1d. My students had difficulty working together in groups. |
|
|
| 2. After participating in the Australian Schools Web Challenge... | ||
| 2a. My students are working more effectively as team members. |
|
|
| 2b. My students are less confident users of technology. |
|
|
| 2c. The Challenge was an effective way to promote groupwork in my classroom. |
|
|
| 2d. The Challenge was not an effective way to promote skill acquisition in technology. |
|
|
| 3. My students achieved syllabus outcomes by participating in the Challenge. |
|
|
| 4. Using technology during the Challenge helped my students learn collaboratively. |
|
|
| 5. We completed the Challenge as an extra curricular activity. |
|
|
| 6. The Challenge was hard to integrate into my teaching program. |
|
|
| 7. My students enjoyed participating in the Australian Schools Web Challenge. |
|
|
A standard deviation of 1.15 (Table 1) for question 1c shows that student teams had varied prior levels of computer literacy. The high level of neutral responses (13 out of 51) suggests individual teams comprised of students with varying levels of computer literacy.
To expand this initial profile, questions 1a-1c were combined to show supervising teachers' perceptions of their teams' overall prior technological skills. Question 1b. was stated negatively in the survey, teachers answering whether their students had limited experience searching the Internet. The results of this question were inverted with teachers who believed their students had limited experience being reallocated a score of 1 or 2, and those who had greater experience a score of 4 or 5. This enabled a consistent composite score of questions 1a-1c to be calculated (Figure 1). A composite score of (3-6) indicated low prior computer skills, (7-11) medium skills and (12-15) high prior computer skills. According to this scale 46% (22 of the 48) teachers believed their teams possessed low prior technological skills, 50% (24 of the 48) medium and only 4% (2 of the 48) high prior technological skills. Most of the 24 teams with medium skills had students with varied prior skills, either high or low technological skills in 2 out of 3 categories.
Alternatively students prior knowledge may not be the only or main indicator of a team's performance in the ASWC. School support and the teacher's time available to work on the ASWC with the students may also greatly effect the team's performance. Other research also agrees that teachers and programs that are supported by executive staff and school communities will be more successful than those that are not (Alexander et. al., 1999, p. 3-4; Currucan & Lambert, 1999).
Survey results institute that 90% of team supervisors found the ASWC an effective way to promote technological skill acquisition and 70% found it highly effective. Teachers commented that the ASWC "provided a great context for the acquisition of IT [Information Technology] literacy" and "rate(s) highly as an effective way to promote the skills associated with developing websites".
After the ASWC 61% (31 of the 51) of supervising teachers believed their students were working more effectively as team members. In addition with a mean of 3.98 in Question 2c (Table 1), a majority of schools (70%) found the ASWC an effective way to promote group work in the classroom. Some teachers who responded neutrally may have experienced technical or equipment problems that impeded the development of groupwork throughout the ASWC. One teacher commented, "Due to lack of computers there are far more effective ways to promote groupwork in the classroom which allow students to become more involved".
The Challenge enhanced student learning by making learning relevant and enjoyable. All case study participants and 98% of survey respondents indicated that students had enjoyed participating in the Challenge. Most importantly, students had not only enjoyed the experience, but had acquired technological skills and syllabus and non-syllabus outcomes as a result. Findings from the survey and case study show that the Challenge was a highly effective way for students to learn technological skills. 98 % of survey respondents reported their students had become more confident users of technology, regardless of their prior knowledge and 90% believed the Challenge had been an effective way to promote technological skill acquisition. In addition findings from both the case study and survey show students achieved syllabus and non-syllabus outcomes as a result of participation in the Challenge.
The Challenge enhanced learning by providing a technological context that resulted in the development of effective collaborative and group work skills. 61% of survey respondents believed their students were working more effectively as team members after the Challenge and 70% found the Challenge an effective way to promote group work in the classroom. Similarly, the case study team showed the development of collaboration and group work skills: co-operation, sharing of information, discussion, helping each other, peer tutoring, turn taking, giving and receiving help and conflict resolution.
A vital goal of research is "to identify educational best practice and improve it" (Cooley, Gage & Scriven, 1982). This study has provided valuable insights for educators into the effectiveness of emerging technologies in enhancing collaboration and student learning. It has provided some of the first solid evidence that has the potential to strengthen teaching practice. Often research findings are not integrated into the education system because they are not translated from academic writings into a practical form useful for educators (CBSSE, 1999).
Teachers have been hesitant in the past to implement emerging technologies into their classrooms following a history of inappropriate and unsuccessful changes in the education sector (Heppell, 1994). Those who have pioneered in the area have done so without reference to a supporting body of research. Now teachers can base their practice in this emerging area on research. As a result teachers can consider using information technology in collaborative ways in their classroom with increased confidence in its ability to facilitate the attainment of a multitude of educational outcomes.
It is probable that many outcomes of the ASWC study will be universally applicable to other projects. Teachers can include collaborative Internet projects, specifically the ASWC into their school curriculum and teaching programs with increased confidence that they will not only be an enjoyable experience for student but also deliver sound educational outcomes.
Further research will build upon findings of this study by comparing and contrasting learning outcomes of the ASWC with a variety of other Collaborative Internet Projects (CIPs). Further research into CIPs should question:
Blumenfeld, P.C., Marx, R.W., Soloway, E. & Krajcik, J., 1996, Learning With Peers: From Small Group Cooperation to Collaborative Communities, Educational Researcher, Vol.25, No.8, pp.37-40)
Carrucan, T., Crewe,T., Matthews, E. & Matthews, S., 1998, The internet manual for teachers, Macmillan, Cpt. 9.
CBSSE (Commission on Behavioural and Social Sciences and Education), 1999, Improving Student Learning: A Strategic Plan for Educational Research and Its Utilization, National Academy Press, http://books.nap.edu/books.
Cooley, W.W., Gage, N.L. & Scriven, M., 1982, The vision thing: Education research and AERA in the 21st Century, Educational Researcher, Vol; 26, No; 4, pp. 18-21.
Cohen, L. & Manion, L., 1994, Research Methods in Education, 4th Ed, Routledge, London.
Crook, C., 1994 in Light & Littleton, 1999, Learning with Computers, Analysing productive interaction, p.2.
Eklund, J. & Quinn, C.N., 1999, The Australian Schools Web Challenge: A Study of the Effectiveness of a Global Project in Enhancing Learning Through Collaborative Uses of Technology, AUSWEB99, http://ausweb.scu.edu.au/aw99/papers/eklund1/paper.html
Federman, A.N. & Edwards, S., 1997, Interactive, collaborative science via the 'Net: live from the Hubble Space Telescope, Technical Horizons in Education, Vol;24, No;10, pp.20-23.
Gaer, S., 1998, Project-based Learning,, Santa Ana College, http://members.aol.com/ CulebraMom/pblprt.h
Heppell, S. 1994, Learning and the children of the information age, Proceedings of the Second Interactive Multimedia Symposium, Perth, Western Australia, 23-28 January 1994.
Howe, C. & Tolmie, A., 1999, Learning with Computers, Analysing productive interaction, Routledge, London, Cpt. 3.
Johnson, D.W. & Johnson, R.T., 1989-1990, Social skills for successful group work, Educational Leadership, Vol;47, p.30.
Light, P. & Littleton, K., (eds) 1999, Learning with Computers, Analysing productive interaction, Routledge, London, Cpt.1.
Lonergan, D., 1997, Network science: bats, birds, and trees, Educational Leadership, Vol;55, No;3, pp34-38.
Mather, M, 1996, Come-as-you-are field trips, Technology and Learning, Vol;16, No;17, pp. 32-33)
NSW Department of Education and Training, 1999, Using the Internet: Training and Development Directorate, NSW Department of Eduction and Training, NSW.
Pedretti, E., Mayer-Smith, J., & Woodrow, J., 1998, Technology, Text, and Talk; Students' Perspectives on Teaching and Learning in a Technology Enhanced Secondary Science Classroom.pp. 569 - 590.
Ponting, J. & Kendall, J., 1997, Passport to the Internet in the Australian Classroom, Hodder Education, Australia.
Qin, Z., Johnson, D.W. & Johnson, R.T., 1995, Cooperative versus competitive efforts and problem solving, Review of Educational Research, Vol;2, pp. 129-143.
Ryan, C. & Koschmann, T., 1994, The Collaborative Learning Laboratory: A Technology-Enriched Environment to Support Problem-Based Learning, Proceedings of the National Educatiional Computing Consference 1994, Boston, pp. 160-163.
Slavin, R.E., 1995, Cooperative Learning, In McInerney, D.M. & McInerney, V., 1998, Educational Psychology: Constructing Learning, 2nd Edition, Prentice Hall, Sydney
Underwood, J. & Underwood, G., 1998 in Learning with Computers, Analysing productive interaction, Routledge, London, cpt.2
Wegerif, R. & Scrimshaw, P., 1997, (eds) in Light & Littleton, 1999, Learning with Computers, Analysing productive interaction, p.2.
Wyld, S., 1996, The Internet in Education: Implementation in the Primary School Context, University of Technology, Sydney.