TASK 2
CSCL CSCL in the Classroom
Josmar Hilde Mikkel, Redentine
As a lot of educational theories portrays what we are now talking of as a learning environment where the students have an active participation in the learning process, shifting from a teacher led class instruction to a more pupil centred practices (Cuban, 2001: p.14.) In a CSCL learning environment the teachers involve students to work in group work as they assign tasks that has to be done in class using the technology available during the lesson. Such tasks can range from simple preparation of a presentation to designing a project or even programming in Computer Studies. It is, therefore, important to notice that the role of the teacher in CSCL learning scenario is different from the conventional way of teaching. Whereas traditionally, students followed a sequential way to work tasks (from text books or handouts) and so the teacher knows what should happen next, but in a CSCL approach to learning, the learning process is more open and makes it more difficult to the teacher to determine what the students have achieved and what to achieve next. Consequently, no matter how much student-centred education gets, the role of the teacher is always pertinent in the learning process of the students. When using such pedagogies the teacher’s role is not just to give tasks to the students and leave them unattended but the teacher should be helping the students to be able to search for and build their own knowledge. While the students start working on their tasks, the teacher should still present for the students, this time being there to monitor and control. Taking myself as an example, I use this method a lot in teaching Computer Studies. One way of teaching these studies is to divide a single topic into four smaller parts and assign each part to a different group of students (four groups working on different parts of the topic). While the students get on with their work, the teacher can roam around them by using the round-robin method to monitor and control each and every students while taking into consideration their behaviour and participation in the group. This is because the teacher, according to Greiffenhagen (2011: p.3), “has to act as a ‘coach’, ‘facilitator’, or ‘guide’ for pupils”. Again, Greiffenhagen (2011: p.26) pointed out that it is not only important how the teacher introduces a new topic to the students but also how the teachers approach the students when they are working on the task they are expected to work out. This also applies when the task provided to the students requires that they work at school and continue at home over a period of time. In our experience as teachers, we found out that this holds true, especially when students have to develop a project in collaboration with other peers over a period of time, such as their Robotics project in which it usually takes six weeks for the students to complete, First explanations are always extremely important in order for the students to have a clear picture but when the students start working on the project it was noticed that when monitoring was done week after week, the students kept focused on the task and the final results produced were of higher standard than when the students are left unattended. This is what Gerry Stahl (2011:102) refers to as intersubjectivity. The groups need to assure that they have a common understanding of the task, so that the group members can aim for the same goal. Moreover, as it was stated in Greiffenhagen (2011), the teacher should not only monitor the students while working but there should also be some kind of intervention from the ones listed hereunder:
Praising work done and encouragement to continue Interaction as intimate-egalitarian orientation Still keeping the central figure in class Interaction in rigid authority
While keeping these four types of interventions in mind, it is also evident that students get to understand more what is to be done when they interact with the teacher even if the task was explained before it was assigned to them. Sometimes, the teacher can find him/herself repeating the same explanation to the students as this makes them reassured of what is expected from them. Apart from that, if the teacher takes the role of a guide and allows students to ask for help can also give the chance to the teacher to remind important points, ask questions, clarify problems, give announcements, maintain order and make sure that all students are working on the task, for whole class at once. Thus, the students would be able to engage more in their work while building their own knowledge as they know that there is still a presence of a facilitator who they can refer to. Gerry Stahl (2011) defines “group cognition” as ways in which small groups accomplish cognitive tasks (Stahl:20). Cognitive processes that are usually being attributed to individual students are here conducted by small groups of students, as group cognitive processes. The shared ideas that occur when small groups consider shared problems and build joint knowledge does not occur within the head of an individual student, but comes from the group as a whole (Stahl, 2010). At this point it is also important to note that through our own experience a drawback that one can encounter is that students do not feel comfortable to work in groups on their own and they are most of the time calling the teacher for help. So using CSCL in the classroom can sometimes create a chaos of students shouting from every side of the classroom to ask for help. This points out the necessity of the teacher being a leader of the class that keeps on monitoring and guiding the students even when they are engaged in their work. Computers promote collaborative learning because of their 'fun' and engaging nature. In his study, Greiffenhagen, (2011) discussed the remarkable effect of technology in the learning process. Teachers who participated in this study mentioned the fact that students ‘loved it’ and that the kids remained focused. In addition, since it is visual, hence students find it easy and engaging without realizing that they are actually learning. However, it is important to note that when kids are left alone, technology can be distracting and puts the students off track. For instance, in our experience as teachers, when we organized online discussions as part of the tasks that the students had to do, we noticed that when left alone the discussion took a different path than the focus subject. Thus, we firmly believe that the use of technology should be monitored, especially when used by young kids and adolescents in order to maintain organization and a proper margin for the students to follow. In this task we were supposed to use the Wiki to work on the task. Former experiences with the Wiki made us use the Google Documents as a collaborating tool in this task. This is because we preferred the multiple ways of collaboration-forms that Google Docs offers, like comment directly into the text. Hence, as with our experience using Adobe Connect to communicate with each other and Google Docs to discuss the content of the task and the course literature related to it, collaborating on adding and removing content, re-writing paragraphs, spell checking each other’s most recent contributions and so on, we are building a joint knowledge on the subject. Enabling joint knowledge implies some knowledge of technology and also requires technology that is functional for its purpose. We as students ourselves have experienced that a technology that works streamlined simplifies the knowledge building. If it doesn’t, too much effort and time is gone with dealing with technical problems.
As the learning theories, constructivist and socio-cultural, differ on what the main focus of learning is, both can be applied when evaluating how successful a CSCL-session has been. Applying one does not necessarily exclude the other. Ludvigsen and Mørch conclude their article by stating that disagreements among theorists belonging to different learning sciences “[…] concern why it is that certain forms of collaboration and discourse are considered to be beneficial for learning” (Ludvigsen & Mørch:634-635).
References Greiffenhagen, C. (2011). Making rounds: The routine work of the teacher during collaborative learning with computers. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning . Ludvigsen, Sten R. and Mørch, Anders I. 2010. «Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning: Basic Concepts, Multiple Perspectives, and Emerging Trends» The International Encyclopedia of Education. Stahl, G. (2011). Essays in computer-supported collaborative learning. Lulu.com