Instructional Design & Technology
Cooperative Learning Effects in Online
Instruction
Beth Allred Oyarzun
Instructional Design & Technology
Increase of Online Courses
• Economics• Classroom space• More students • Class scale (more sections, more
students)
• Obstacles• Work• Family• Other
Instructional Design & Technology
Introduction
• Face-to-face/online comparison (Bernard, et.al., 2009)
• Transactional distance (Moore, 1989)
• Three Types Interaction (Moore, 1989)
• Communities of Inquiry (Garrison et.al., 2000)
Purpose – Does cooperative Learning increase achievement and/or assist in creating a community of inquiry in online courses?
Instructional Design & Technology
Cooperative Learning
• Students work together to accomplish a shared learning goal. (Johnson & Johnson, 1999)
Cooperative Learning Methods
Method DeveloperLearning Together & Alone Johnson and JohnsonTeams-Games-Tournaments (TGT) Devries and EdwardsGroup Investigation Sharan and SharanConstructive Controversy Johnson and JohnsonJigsaw Aronson and AssociatesStudent Teams Achievement Division (STAD) Slavin and AssociatesComplex Instruction CohenCooperative Integrated Reading & Composition (CIRC)
Stevens, Slavin, and Associates
Instructional Design & Technology
Cooperative Learning
• A meta-analysis of 158 cooperative learning studies found that 8 methods of cooperative learning increased achievement and improved cognitive and social development in face-to-face classes. (Johnson, Johnson, & Stanne, 2000)
• Another meta-analysis of 168 studies in higher education found that cooperative learning strategies promoted higher achievement than competitive or individualistic learning strategies in face-to-face classes. (Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 1998)
Instructional Design & Technology
Cooperative Learning
• There are relatively few studies of cooperative learning in distance education.• One study found no significant differences
on declarative knowledge, but a significant difference on procedural knowledge in the cooperative group. (Riley & Anderson, 2006)
• A meta analysis of student-student interaction studies found that stronger student to student interactions increased achievement. (Borokhovski et. al, 2012)
Instructional Design & Technology
Community of Inquiry
Instructional Design & Technology
Community of Inquiry
• The causal relationship between the three constructs was examined and found that social presence is the mediating variable between teaching and cognitive presence. (Shea & Bidjerano, 2009)
• A literature review of all COI studies found that only 5 studies measured student learning. (Rouke & Kanuka, 2009)
Instructional Design & Technology
COI – Social Presence
• The ability of participants to project their personal characteristics into the community.• Effective communication• Open communication• Group cohesion
Instructional Design & Technology
COI - Cognitive Presence
• The extent to which community participants are able to construct meaning through sustained communication• Triggering and event• Exploration• Integration• Resolution
Instructional Design & Technology
COI -Teaching Presence
• The design, facilitation, and direction of cognitive and social processes for the purpose of obtaining meaningful and worthwhile learning outcomes• Design and organization• Facilitation• Direct Instruction
Instructional Design & Technology
Methodology
Participants• 34 undergraduate college students
enrolled in an online instructional technology course.
• The population varied from traditional campus students taking some online courses to non-traditional students taking all online courses
Instructional Design & Technology
Methodology
Design• The duration of the study was 6 weeks and
covered two instructional units. • There were two sections of the class that
were treated as intact groups. • During the first unit of instruction, one
section received the individual treatment and the other received the cooperative treatment. During the second unit the treatments switched.
Instructional Design & Technology
Methodology
Treatment• The cooperative treatment used was
the group investigation method. • This treatment requires that students
work on an individual assignment and a group presentation in self selected small groups
• The participants received a group grade for the presentation and an individual grade for the assignment.
Instructional Design & Technology
Methodology
Materials• Each unit of instruction required in depth
instructional development projects.• Unit 1 – develop an lesson for online learning• Unit 2 – develop a portfolio of your teaching
philosophy, instructional resources, and a lesson plan.
• Detailed instructions and rubrics were provided for each assignment
• Specific instructions regarding group roles, communication tools, and grading were also provided for the cooperative groups.
Instructional Design & Technology
Methodology
Instrumentation• The Community of Inquiry Survey
was administered at the end of each unit
• A Satisfaction survey was administered at the end of each unit
• Final grades for each unit were collected
• Demographic data was also collected
Instructional Design & Technology
Results
Demographics• 29 female – 5 male participants• 9 sophomores, 19 juniors, 4 seniors,
2 non-traditional participants• 4 had some computer knowledge,
27 were comfortable with computers, 3 were advanced.
Instructional Design & Technology
Results
Achievement• The results indicate that there were
no significant differences in achievement in either unit possibly due to a ceiling effect
Cooperative Individual ANOVA M SD M SD F p
Unit 1 27.13 3.71 24.83 7.99 1.241 .274Unit 2 27.2 3.73 28.18 2.25 .909 .347
Instructional Design & Technology
Results
Community of Inquiry
Cooperative Individual ANOVA M SD M SD F p
Unit 1 CoI 163.16 33.50 178.40 19.99 2.42 .130TP 50.37 11.71 58.93 6.15 6.57 .015*SP 38.95 8.34 39.47 6.59 .039 .845CP 42.95 8.69 48.60 5.25 4.91 0.34Unit 2 CoI 189.53 20.83 167.89 28.41 6.10 .019*TP 59.60 8.35 54.74 8.39 2.83 .102SP 43.47 7.07 37.79 8.47 4.34 .045*CP 50.53 5.36 45.84 7.35 4.30 .046*
Instructional Design & Technology
Results
Satisfaction• The results show no significant differences in satisfaction.
However, there was a trend indicating the extension students were more satisfied with the cooperative treatment while the campus students were more satisfied with the individual treatment.
Cooperative Individual ANOVA M SD M SD F p
Unit 1 26.74 6.18 29.07 4.46 1.506 .229Unit 2 31.27 4.43 27.74 6.17 3.48 .071
Instructional Design & Technology
Discussion
• The results of this study suggest that the cooperative group investigation method may help build a community of inquiry for certain student populations, particularly, the population of students that do not have a connection to the campus.