In this blog post, I have chosen to reflect on an occasion when real collaborative learning took place, that moved my own thinking forward.

In the beginning of 2000 I studied a full-time bachelor programme. It was a campus programme, but because of the subject matter (ICT and learning) many of the courses had elements of blended learning (even if they did not use the concept at that time). Along with more traditional activities, such as campus lectures, seminars, and laboratory work, we also had a permanent home online, First Class – an online conference tool similar but not equivalent to today’s learning management systems.

For each course in the programme, we had a course area on FirstClass, where we could communicate and work together in the course. This was convenient since the students in the programme were not only 19 year old youths, but also working age students with families. We were also scattered around the county (i.e. a majority not living on campus). All these factors contributed to the fact that an online area where we could communicate and work together were appreciated. With that said, it was not easy in the beginning.

A common source of frustration is social loafing behaviour and free riders (Capdeferro & Romero, 2012). To avert this in the groups, the teachers began the courses with the activity of group contracts (Centre for teaching excellence, 2019). I think they sometimes termed it learning contracts as well. Prior to working with the content in the course, the group had to discuss how to work with each other (both f2f and online) and how to act if the agreement were not followed. It happened once or twice during the three-year programme that some of the groups consulted their contracts and the teachers when group work did not work, in order to remedy the situation.

One of the strategies for improving the quality of group collaboration is to provide sufficient time. Brindley et al contends that “most importantly, time is required for the discussion and exchange of ideas that are crucial to deeper learning” (Brindley, Walti & Blaschke, 2009, p. 12). It is also widely known that time-on-task also affects learning and the quality thereof (Romero & Barberà, 2011). One of the things I liked most with the learning design of the programme were that we had a designated space for each course on the online conference platform. There, the teachers had integrated asynchronous online seminar discussions stretched out in time during most part of the course. In this way, we prepared for synchronous f2f seminars and also continued the f2f seminars later online. We also had seminars entirely online, stretched out during the course. I think this way of working supports time-on-task in general, but the format also affords possibilities for deeper learning in that the students could read, discuss and then read some more to deepen the discussions even more. In between, there were time for reflection, something that is also beneficial for learning.

References

Brindley, J., Blaschke, L. M. & Walti, C. (2009). Creating effective collaborative learning groups in an online environment. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(3).

Capdeferro, N. & Romero, M. (2012). Are online learners frustrated with collaborative learning experiences?. The International review of research in open and distance learning, 13(2), 26-44.

Centre for teaching excellence (2019). Making Group Contracts. Centre for Teaching Excellence, University of Waterloo. Available:https://uwaterloo.ca/centre-for-teaching-excellence/teaching-resources/teaching-tips/developing-assignments/group-work/making-group-contracts

Romero, M., & Barberà, E. (2011). Quality of e-learners’ time and learning performance beyond quantitative time-on-task. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 12(5), 125-137. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v12i5.999