Collaboration and Technology for Teaching and Learning

3

The marriage of these two trends-collaborative learning and computer networks-is a natural one.

One of the key capabilities of computer networks is the range of new communication channels that are opened up. These extend from simple email, which has become almost ubiquitous, to more sophisticated media such as audio and video as well as comprehensive systems that are meant to support collaborative work. The question then becomes how to apply these possibilities to enhancing academic collaboration.

If collaboration involves the give-and-take of ideas and the easy sharing and modification of partial work products to produce new synthesized outcomes, then computers that have access to networks, including the Internet, have many relevant capabilities. These include synchronous communications through text (instant messaging and chat), voice communications similar to telephony, and videoconferencing. In addition, asynchronous communications such as email and threaded discussion boards allow people to communicate without being online simultaneously. The increasingly rich media environment of the World Wide Web and the growing ability to send files and documents to other people also open new possibilities.

Characteristic of Online Collaborative Tools

There are many different ways of collaborating online, using a plethora of technologies. Currently, most of the online collaboration taking place in business (and probably in academia as well) uses simple email with attachments [12]. This has become a familiar means of communication for most people and has the advantages of being relatively fast and reliable yet still asynchronous. Another technology being discovered by businesses is instant messaging, which is becoming another collaborative tool, although in tertiary education we suspect that students still use it far more for social purposes. There are many other technologies available, however, which are beginning to be discovered by users.

Some of the key characteristics of online technologies that can enable effective collaboration are

• Synchronous messaging, in which participants exchange messages almost instantly in "real time." Originally, such instant messaging and chat systems were entirely textbased-you typed a message, which was sent to the other participants when you pressed the Enter key. Increasingly, however, it is possible to do this over computer networks using audio and even video. • File sharing, which enables people easily to work together on documents and other products. Email attachments are a simple form of file sharing, but better ones exist that allow better tracking of who has changed the document and other information.

• Application sharing takes file sharing a step further and allows groups to simultaneously work together in the same software. For example, it might be possible for two or more people to write and edit in Microsoft Word while using synchronous communications to discuss what they are doing. Application sharing enables very complex and fruitful collaboration, even when people are separated widely in space.

• Scheduling in which people can more easily find times for meetings, either face-toface or online.

• Audio and video, which allow more "natural" communications than text-based tools might.

• Whiteboard, which can be the online equivalent of a classroom whiteboard, where individuals can quickly write or sketch ideas while discussing them using other communications channels.

• Voting and Consensus Building tools can help a group quickly take the pulse of its membership and find where common ground exists and where significant disagreements remain.

• Synchronized Web browsing allows people who might be communicating synchronously in other ways to view the same Web sites and discuss them.

Not all collaborative technologies use the same tools, of course, and only a few have all of these available. One other criterion used in selecting the tools that our Learning Community studied was that they be low-or no-cost to the Kent State University community.

Specific Collaborative Technologies and their Characteristics

As noted, the most common online technology used for collaboration is email. Most people in academia use email, and many institutions are requiring it. Kent State University, for example, delivers some vital information to students only through their university email accounts. Its advantages include ease-of-use, ubiquity, its asynchronous nature which allows communications that are independent of time and space, and the ability to share documents and other files as 6 attachments. It can be slow and not completely reliable, however, and can discourage the rapid give-and-take of a good conversation.

Instant messaging and chat systems are proliferating rapidly as collaborative tools as well, with even many businesses recognizing that their use can go far beyond the social interactions they are associated with. New instant message/chat systems are able to share live Web links and attach file and documents much like email. Thus, you gain the ability to converse more naturally about the documents that you send back and forth. Increasingly systems such as NetMeeting and Learnlinc combine audio and/or video communications with these capabilities as well. Often a text chat will run at the same time and provide yet another communications channel.

WebCT is one of several course management systems that are widely used in higher education.

Others include Blackboard and eCollege. These software platforms are designed to help faculty make online course materials available to students relatively easily and securely. With the increasing use of collaborative teaching and learning, it is well to look at these systems to determine how well they support such strategies. WebCT does contain many of the tools that can facilitate collaboration among students. At this writing, however, they are not well integrated or easy to use for that purpose. Within WebCT, there is a chat tool, an asynchronous threaded discussion board, a separate email system, and a tool that allows individual students or groups to post documents for others to view. Making all these work together to help the groups collaborate can be difficult, time-consuming, and tedious for the instructor, and the result will still not include all the features one might like. Perhaps future versions of the software will improve these capabilities. A comprehensive software system that enables small group collaboration is called Groove (www.groove.net). Designed from the ground up to support this kind of work, Groove includes most of the key characteristics of collaborative systems mentioned above. To use Groove, one member of a group creates a shared space and invites other members into it. Groove is very flexible, with a growing variety of company-and externally-developed tools that can be added to or deleted from the shared space. The tools include an asynchronous discussion board, an area to store files, various outliners, sketchpads, and text tools, a notepad, a meeting manager, a web browser, and many others. Always available are synchronous text and audio chat facilities as well as an email-like system for communications. See Figure 1 for the look of a Groove space.

Current Research Directions

The study now beginning by the Collaborative Technologies Learning Community investigates online collaborative processes in the context of higher education. Instructors of both face to face and distance learning graduate classes are using one of six different collaborative software packages: Groove, WebCT, FrontPage Discussion Board, WebWhiz Discussion Board, The Palace, and SharePoint Team Web Services. Instructors are asking students to participate and logging their activities after each session. Approximately 100 graduate students agreed to participate.

The Collaborative Technologies Learning Community includes faculty members and graduate students from many different disciplines. One of the first challenges faced by the team was to agree upon a working definition of collaboration. We borrowed heavily from the small group In the end, we conceptualized on-line collaboration as the integration of effort by small groups whose interactions were mediated through a software program designed to support such interactions. Collaboration is not division of labor. Rather it is the active involvement of all members of the group in all phases of the activity or project. In the present study those activities were designed by each instructor in support of achieving individual and collective learning objectives.

The challenge with defining on-line collaboration as a group activity is that groups who do not meet face-to-face do not always conceive of themselves as a group [14]. In part, this study will explore the effects of the software capabilities and their usage upon satisfaction levels with group interactions and outcomes.

A rubric (Table 1) was developed to account for the various capabilities of each of the software programs, such as chat, threaded discussions, and the other features listed above. As members of teams log their activities at each session, the data will reveal trends of use for particular capabilities as well as providing cues as to which capabilities are most popular and how they are actually put to use.

Three sets of variables were identified for investigation in this study. The first set of variables centers upon the various capabilities of each system. The second set centers upon how the various 9 capabilities are actually employed. Past research has indicated there are faithful uses, which are those intended by the system designer. There are also innovative or ironic uses of capabilities.

These uses are essentially workaround behaviors that are used to adjust for needs not met by the system. Sometimes ironic uses actually impede a function of the system design such as seeking out identity clues in an anonymous environment [1].

The final set of variables centers on effects that result from the intersection of the first two sets of variables. This set of variables is used to explore the processes and outcomes of the group as influenced by software capabilities and use. In particular, the present study will look at interaction patterns among group members and individual levels of satisfaction with the on-line collaborative process and its outcomes, as well as with the capabilities of the software.

Interaction logs will be the primary means to collect data from individuals. After each session using the software, participants will be asked to log their individual activities and their purposes for engaging in those activities. Participants will also be asked to report on their level of satisfaction with the session activities and with the collaborative environment. The log form used to collect self-report data appears in Figure 2.

One interesting feature of on-line collaboration is the presence of an archive of group activity.

Rarely does such a resource exist for studying collaboration in face-to-face groups. The archive of discussions, chats, documents, and so forth for each group will be examined. Interaction patterns will be determined by intersecting self-report data and archived interactions. Equality of participation and influence will be determined in this fashion. Satisfaction reports will be looked at relative to interaction patterns. Additional patterns of influence to be explored are message contingency and integration of the network.

The result of this study will be a comparative case study exploring differences in patterns and outcomes between groups. A number of follow on studies are in the conceptual phase of development and will hinge on the outcomes of the present study.

Summary and Conclusions

Computers connected across networks provide an opportunity for us to change how we work in many ways. They can affect how and with whom we do research, how professors teach and students learn, and a variety of other processes. Some of these changes are already starting to take place using familiar technologies such as email. Much more is possible, however. Our goal in the Kent State University Collaborative Technologies Learning Community is to explore some of the technologies available to enable and enhance collaboration with a view toward helping people make better choices about which ones to use.

One thing we have learned is that we cannot separate the technologies from how they are used. Therefore, we are beginning research on the use of various collaborative technologies for teaching and learning, which we outlined here. We believe that this study will both make our recommendations stronger and lead to more detailed research in the future. At the same time, the members of our group are increasingly using collaborative technologies ourselves, especially Groove, as a way of increasing the effectiveness of the group.