Unit 2-Collaborative Learning

The recent “Harvard cheating scandal” brings to light some of consequences of not providing students with guidelines of when collaborative learning is acceptable and expected and when it is not. The controversy began a few months ago when students in a government class were given a take-home final exam. According to the university, the instructions clearly stated that students could use notes and outside sources, but collaboration was not allowed. However, many of the implicated students say that the instructions were unclear and they even reviewed some of the questions with the TA’s.

Here are some interesting articles about the scandal:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/01/harvard-cheating-scandal-_n_2600366.html

http://chronicle.com/blogs/ticker/argolinkroundups/morning-roundup-harvard-cheating-scandal

Here is a John Stewart video. It is not too informative, but very funny. It is worth noting that Stewart is shocked that students can use the internet to do their final exam.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/02/12/jon-stewart-on-harvard-cheating-scandal-in-u-s-government-class/

Students at Harvard are understandably upset about the uproar, since many are being harshly penalized. It is surprising that a class would create a dynamic of collaboration and, then, when it comes down to the assignment (which is most likely represents a significant portion of their grade) the professor would ask students to work alone. As one Harvard student points out in an editorial for the school newspaper:

The definition of collaboration has become increasingly nebulous, and the difference between acceptable and unacceptable collaboration even more so. Take home exams in particular have become uncomfortable gray areas in which both spheres often overlap. It falls on the university to articulate the boundaries of student collaboration; only through greater clarity can we hope to avoid an incident like this in the future. http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2012/9/4/harvard-cheating-scandal/

The author of this article makes a valid point. Collaboration in an academic setting (where grades are the outcome) needs specific guidelines in order for students to know what is expected of them. The syllabus, the exam, and the exact nature and course content of the class have not been released, so it would be unfair to pass judgment on the professor or the student behavior. It has been confirmed that it was a large class (with more than 200 students) and there were several TA’s, and some the class notes can be found on the web.

Undoubtedly, there are professors who still use the traditional lecture/exam approach; however, I believe that this professor probably utilized collaborative learning for certain types of assignments. There is a general consensus that collaborative learning creates a more effective learning environment in the classroom. Most professors would agree that collaboration allows students build on existing skills by providing them with a common goal and that the teacher’s role is to encourage students to take charge of their learning.  However, this problem of the “nebulous nature” of collaboration is often true in college classes. If a class structure encourages collaborative work throughout the semester and then gives a final exam which does not allow students to work together, students may be confused. Professors frequently allow/encourage students to work together for participation grades, but when it comes to designing written assessments they often take the more traditional route. Consequently, most final exams and papers are individual projects.

Since the students were allowed to use outside resources the exam probably had problem-based questions. If the professor was letting them find data from the internet, library and use their notes, why did he/she draw the line at collaboration? Apparently, the incident began when a TA reported seeing a series of similarly phrased responses to the exam questions. The students must have been aware that the TA’s would notice and were not afraid of repercussions because they thought they were completing a project the way that had been instructed.  

Cooperative learning, as defined by Johnson, Johnson, & Smith in “When Cooperative Learning Returns to College: What Evidence Is There That It Works?” brings the idea of collaborative learning one step further because group assessment is an intrinsic part of the program. In a cooperative learning environment, “students must believe they sink or swim together” (5). Thus, in this context, students would be correct when they assumed the exam was collaborative and working together would be the only way to successfully complete the exam in the allotted time. The exam questions would also encourage the kind of discussion, analysis and critical thinking that takes place during class and group work.

My own face-to-face classes always function better when students are given time to become friendly and talk outside of the class because they feel more connected and try to help each other succeed. This idea of connectedness is one of the goals in almost all the articles they we have looked at in this unit. In that Harvard class, students felt connected enough to share information without being afraid of their own grade being lowered, so the professors and the TA’s had created a what Millis would call a “non-threatening context for interaction”(1). This “scandal” could be viewed as natural consequence of promoting dynamic connections that students make in class. Professors and TA’s should consider themselves successful if students feel comfortable enough work on exams together.

Teaching a class online changes the dynamics of the student’s relationship as well. It makes the casual discussion from a chance meeting on campus impossible, but chatrooms, hangouts, and facebook give students a variety of ways to interact and hopefully form a group of learning communities that work together. In an on-line class environment a professor must make an even more concerted effort to create community by using online forums and web-chats (skype).  For brainstorming and communicating with the teacher the students could use a program called PrimaryWall ( sticky note tool  which people to work together in real-time).If a teacher creates community effectively, there will be a “risk” that the students won’t be able to stop collaborating. Of course, if we give them the right kind of tasks, we will not want them to.

 

 

Unit 1 blog-individualized learning

Personalized Systems of Instruction and Audio Tutorial Approach

 

Students in 2012 differ from those of 10 or 15 years ago because of the amount of interaction they have online and the time they spend on their computers/tablets/smartphones.  There is no doubt that this affects how they learn.  Designers of Personalized Systems of Instruction and those who are redesigning the Audio Tutorial Approach to take advantage of the variety of web-based activities can learn from the success of the many programs and video games that have people glued to their seat in front of their screens.   Comparing the content of university classes and video games would not be useful, but some the basic elements of the PSI design incorporate what game designers have known for years.  A successful video game includes clear objectives, levels that become more difficult as the user progresses, immediate feedback, and the ability advance at one’s own pace.  Interactive games are also designed to solve the problems of student isolation that can occur in the Audio Tutorial Approach.  

                I don’t play video games much, although, I do enjoy the occasional stress release I get from playing Angry Birds on my telephone. Its simplicity and clear objectives are integral parts of the game. I know I have failed when the pigs snicker at me. Also, when a new kind of bird is presented a short video is shown demonstrate what the bird can do.  Thus, I instantly understand what I must do to conquer the pigs.  In a similar way, students succeed when they are informed of the objectives of the class at the beginning of the semester and before each module.  

                In all courses, students need feedback before they can move to the next module and online quizzes can give them this same satisfaction.  In Angry Birds, levels are unlocked as one successfully takes out the pigs and their structures. The modules of PSI’s and ATA course require that students satisfactorily complete a level before they go on to the next one.  Several years ago, I read an article about the reasons why video games are so addictive.  One of the important elements was giving the user a sense of mastery. Games were designed to just be difficult enough for a player to feel a sense of accomplishment when he/she passed a level, but not so difficult that he/she became too discouraged to continue playing. This is another important lesson to contemplate as modules are being conceptualized.   Students should be given different activities to understand the materials and memorize the important facts just as players are given different types of birds. Mastery of the level comes from figuring how to utilize each one.  Of course, video games are self-paced.  Sometimes I need 30 tries and other times the destruction of the pigs’ and their dwellings is achieved much more quickly.   

                As Beth Montelone pointed out, one of the main complaints about the Audio Tutorial Approach was from students who as “sat alone in their carrel”(224) .  These days, students often sit in front of their computer and post on Facebook instead of speaking to their peers (who are often sitting right next to them).   There are also many chat room applications that could be used to avoid this problem. Such programs also solve the difficulties of teacher “presence” which Koen grapples with in his article. Interactive role-play games have been creating virtual communities for many years.

                Another thing that game creators often do well is create games that appeal to many different cultures.  In Yusuke Morita’s article, they explore the cultural barriers to creating an appealing course and course format to learners in Japan and the U.S.  Perhaps these social programs and games will give us clues on ways of navigating the potential pitfalls of teaching to a culturally-diverse audience that we may not know.    

                Since Duke is only just beginning its investment into on-line classes. I probably will be using these learning modules that we create as tutorials or extra practice for my students and I hope I can put the content into a format that holds their attention and allows them to practice vocabulary and structures in a more creative way.