Structured activities in CSCL: a case study

1
Structured activities in CSCLa case study

• Francesca Pozzi Donatella Persico
• CNR-ITD
• Rhodes, 9th June 2009

2
Starting questions

• Does the whole idea of using scripts (or simply
  strategies and techniques) to facilitate
  interaction impose a structure that hinders true
  collaboration rather than fostering it?
• Does it make sense to pursue the golden script
  or wouldnt be better to strive to understand why
  some scripts are effective?

3
The context

• Two twin teacher training courses (TD-SSIS
  Veneto and TD-SSIS Liguria 2007)
• Same objectives
• Same contents
• Learning communities
• TD-SSIS Liguria 24 student teachers
• TD-SSIS Veneto 21 student teachers
• same tutor
• Same blended approach and course structure
• Same CMC system (Moodle)

4
Course structure
face-to-face modules
technique
online modules
JIGSAW
ROLE PLAY
DISCUSSION
5
Method interaction analysis
Quantitative indicators (based on data tracked
by Moodle)
Qualitative indicators (based on manual
content analysis)
Pozzi et al., 2007 Persico et al., 2009
6
Method for content analysis

• Units of analysis chosen unit of meaning
  Henri, 1992
• Tot. number of messages exchanged 1164
• Tot. number of coded units 4163
• Inter-rater reliability calculated on a sample of
  110 messages (10 of the total)
• Holsti coefficient 0,87
• Percent agreement 0,83

7
Results Participative dimension
8
Results- Qualitative dimensions
Legend

• Indicators distribution seems similar regardless
  of the activity proposed
• S1 is always quite low, while S2 is very high
• C1 is always lower than C2 and C3 is almost
  absent
• T1, T2 and T3 are always very close.

9
Results- Qualitative dimensions
Legend

• Again there is a common trend in all three
  activities
• S1 is always quite low, while S2 is very high
• C1 is always lower than C2 and C3 is almost
  absent
• T1, T2 and T3 are always very close.

10
Main points

• differences between the levels of participation
  in the two courses (may depend on students)
• in both the courses indicators seem to follow the
  same trend independently of the structure of the
  activity used
• each activity in our study revealed a specific
  ability as for supporting one or another
  dimension, namely
• the Discussion resulted more participated by both
  the groups and the one which mostly fostered the
  social dimension
• the Role Play always obtained the lowest levels
  for C1, as well as for C2 and C3 while it seems
  to be quite good as for the teaching dimension
  (especially for the aspects of discourse
  facilitation which concern taking responsibility
  of the group learning process)
• the Jigsaw obtained in both the courses the
  highest level of group knowledge building
• but note that some of the data in our study may
  have been even affected by the order in which the
  activities were proposed.

11
Conclusions

• there is no activity that - in principle - is
  better than others
• the task and the strategy used may have a
  different impact on the different dimensions,
  i.e.
• a low structure seems to foster more the social
  dimension
• a higher degree of structuredness seems to have
  more positive effects on the cognitive dimension
• choosing too strictly between structured and
  non-structured activities within a course may not
  be particularly useful rather
• ? a more effective decision making criteria could
  be that of alternating structured with
  non-structured activities, depending on which
  dimension needs to be fostered and on the phase
  of the course (at the beginning, mid-way through
  or at the end).