nach oben

Technology, Knowledge and Learning

Erschienen in:

03.07.2021 | Original research

Promoting Students’ Collective Cognitive Responsibility through Concurrent, Embedded and Transformative Assessment in Blended Higher Education Courses

verfasst von: Stefano Cacciamani, Vittore Perrucci, Nobuko Fujita

Erschienen in: Technology, Knowledge and Learning | Ausgabe 4/2021

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

This study investigates different instructional designs to promote students’ collective cognitive responsibility for Knowledge Building in blended university courses. Using an iterative, design-based research methodology with reference to the conjecture mapping technique, the blended learning design of an undergraduate educational psychology course was refined over three years in three design iterations. The iterations differed substantially in the embodiment of the Concurrent Embedded and Transformative Assessment Knowledge Building principle that engaged students in knowledge assessments and strategy assessments of their community’s work. The design of the knowledge assessment involved face-to-face small group and whole class discussions in all three iterations. In the first and second iterations, students also worked online by writing individual reflections and contributing to a community portfolio. The design of the strategy assessment changed in each iteration. In the first iteration, the students’ strategy assessment took place in face-to-face discussions; in the second iteration, students contributed to an online community portfolio; and in the third iteration, the strategy assessment took place in an online community portfolio and face-to-face discussions before beginning the course and in the online community portfolio in the middle of the course. Collective cognitive responsibility was analyzed in terms of productive and informative participation, interdependence between participants, self-regulation skills. The results show that the second iteration’s design was most effective for fostering the students' collective cognitive responsibility, showing an increase in productive participation and self-regulation skills in the first part of the course and also an increase in the interdependence of participants during the course. Some implications concerning the relationship between the implementation of the CETA principle and Knowledge Building are identified for future directions of inquiry and for blended learning environments design.

Vorheriger Artikel Enacting Smart Pedagogy in Higher Education Contexts: Sensemaking through Collaborative Biography

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

The sum of the percentage is higher than 100% because some students indicated more than one problem time or the study time allotment). Three students did not post any messages.

Time 1 corresponds to the metacognitive reflection after the module 1 for the 1st and the 2nd iteration and before module 1 for the 3rd iteration; Time 2 correspond to the metacognitive reflection after module 2 for all the iterations.

Alamri, H. A., Watson, S., & Watson, W. (2020). Learning technology models that support personalization within blended learning environments in higher education. TechTrends, 65(1), 62–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-020-00530-3CrossRef

Alexander, B., Ashford-Rowe, K., Barajas-Murphy, N., Dobbin, G., Knott, J., McCormack, M., Pomerantz, J., Seilhamer, R., & Weber, N. (2019). NMC horizon report: 2019 higher education edition. CO: EDUCAUSE.

Alstete, J., & Beutell, N. (2004). Performance indicators in online distance learning courses: A study of management education. Quality Assurance in Education, 12(1), 6–14. https://doi.org/10.1108/09684880410517397CrossRef

Anthony, B., Jr., Kamaludin, A., Romli, A., Raffei, A. F. M., Phon, D. N. A. E., Abdullah, A., Ming, G. L., Shukor, N. A., Nordin, M. S., & Baba, S. (2019). Exploring the role of blended learning for teaching and learning effectiveness in institutions of higher learning: An empirical investigation. Education and Information Technologies, 24(6), 3433–3466. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09941-zCrossRef

Anthony, B., Jr., Kamaludin, A., Romli, A., Raffei, A. F., Phon, D. N. A. E., Abdullah, A., Shukor, N. A., Nordin, M. S., & Baba, S. (2020a). The International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 37(4), 179–196. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijilt-02-2020-0013CrossRef

Anthony, B., Jr., Kamaludin, A., Romli, A., Raffei, A. F. M., Phon, D. N. A. E., Abdullah, A., & Ming, G. L. (2020b). Blended learning adoption and implementation in higher education: A theoretical and systematic review. Technology, Knowledge and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-020-09477-zCrossRef

Ashton, J., & Newman, L. (2006). An unfinished symphony: 21st century teacher education using knowledge-creating heutagogies. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(6), 825–884.CrossRef

Balboni, G., Perrucci, V., Cacciamani, S., & Zumbo, B. D. (2018). Development of a scale of sense of community in university online courses. Distance Education, 39(3), 317–333. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2018.1476843CrossRef

Beaudoin, M. (2003). Learning or lurking? Tracking the invisible online student. The Internet and Higher Education, 5, 147–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(02)00086-6CrossRef

Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and mind in the knowledge age. Erlbaum.

Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1993). Surpassing ourselves: An inquiry into the nature and implications of expertise. Open Court.

Burtis, J. (1998). Analytic toolkit for knowledge forum. Centre for Applied Cognitive Science: The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education/University of Toronto.

Cacciamani, S. (2017). Experiential learning and knowledge building in higher education: An application of the progressive design method. Journal of E-Learning and Knowledge Society, 13(1), 27–38.

Cacciamani, S., Cesareni, D., Perrucci, V., Balboni, G., & Khanlari, A. (2019). Effects of social tutor on sense of community in online university courses. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(4), 1171–1784. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12656CrossRef

Cacciamani, S., Cesareni, D., Martini, F., Ferrini, T., & Fujita, N. (2012). Influence of participation, facilitator styles, and metacognitive reflection on knowledge building in online university courses. Computers and Education, 58(3), 874–884. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.019CrossRef

Cesareni, D., Cacciamani, S., & Fujita, N. (2016). Role taking and knowledge building in a blended university course. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 11(1), 9–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-015-9224-0CrossRef

Cesareni, D., Albanese, O., Cacciamani, S., Castelli, S., De Marco, B., Fiorilli, C., Luciani, M., Mancini, I., Martini, F., & Vanin, L. (2008). Tutorship style and knowledge building in an online community: cognitive and metacognitive aspects. In B. M. Varisco (Ed.), Psychological pedagogical and sociological models for learning and assessment in virtual communities (pp. 13–56). Polimetrica.

Chan, C. K. K., & Chan, Y. Y. (2011). Students’ views of collaboration and online participation in knowledge forum. Computers and Education, 57(1), 1445–1457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.09.003CrossRef

Chen, B., & Hong, H.-Y. (2016). Schools as knowledge-building organizations: Thirty years of design research. Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 266–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1175306CrossRef

Chen, B., Ma, L., Matsuzawa, Y., & Scardamalia, M. (2015). The development of productive vocabulary in Knowledge Building: A longitudinal study. In O. Lindwall, P. Häkkinen, T. Koschman, P. Tchounikine, & S. Ludvigsen. (Eds.), Exploring the material conditions of learning: The computer supported collaborative learning (CSCL) conference 2015, Volume 1 (pp. 443–450). Gothenburg, Sweden: International Society of the Learning Sciences.

Chiu, M. M., & Fujita, N. (2014). Statistical discourse analysis: A method for modeling online discussion processes. Journal of Learning Analytics, 1(3), 61–83. https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2014.13.5CrossRef

Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 15–42. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1301_2CrossRef

Conrad, R.-M., & Donaldson, J. A. (2011). Engaging the online learner: Activities and resources for creative instruction. Jossey-Bass.

De Marco, B., & Albanese, O. (2009). Le competenze autoregolative dell’attività di studio in comunità virtuali. Qwerty-Open and Interdisciplinary Journal of Technology, Culture and Education, 4(2), 123–139.

Di Donato, N. C. (2013). Effective self-and co-regulation in collaborative learning groups: An analysis of how students regulate problem solving of authentic interdisciplinary tasks. Instructional Science, 41(1), 25–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-012-9206-9CrossRef

Dunn, T. J., & Kennedy, M. (2019). Technology enhanced learning in higher education: Motivations, engagement, and academic achievement. Computers and Education, 137, 104–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.04.004CrossRef

Fabbri, L., Giampaolo, M., & Capaccioli, M. (2021). Blended learning and transformative processes: A model for didactic development and innovation. In D. Burgos, P. Ducange, P. Limone, L. Perla, P. Picero, & C. M. Stracke (Eds.), Bridges and mediation in higher distance education (pp. 214–225). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-67435-9CrossRef

Fischer, F., Kollar, I., Stegmann, K., & Wecker, C. (2013). Toward a script theory of guidance in computer-supported collaborative learning. Educational Psychologist, 48(1), 56–66.CrossRef

Fujita, N. (2020). Transforming online teaching and learning: towards learning design informed by the information science and learning sciences. Information and Learning Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1108/ILS-04-2020-0124CrossRef

Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering the transformative potential in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 7, 95–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.02.001CrossRef

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 87–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6CrossRef

Gutiérrez-Braojos, C., Montejo-Gámez, J., Ma, L., Chen, B., Muñoz de Escalona-Fernández, M., Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2018). Exploring collective cognitive responsibility through the emergence and flow of forms of engagement in a knowledge building community. In L. Daniela (Ed.), Didactics of smart pedagogy (pp. 213–232). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01551-0_11CrossRef

Harasim, L. (2012). Learning theory and online technologies. Routledge.CrossRef

Hew, K. F., Cheung, W. S., & Ng, C. S. L. (2010). Student contribution in asynchronous online discussion: A review of the research and empirical exploration. Instructional Science, 38, 571–606. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-008-9087-0CrossRef

Hewitt, J. (2005). Toward an understanding of how threads die in asynchronous computer conferences. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(4), 567–589. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1404_4CrossRef

Hrastinski, S. (2009). A theory of online learning as online participation. Computers and Education, 52(1), 78–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.06.009CrossRef

Lan, Y. F., Lin, P. C., & Hung, C. L. (2012). An approach to encouraging and evaluating learner’s knowledge contribution in web-based collaborative learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 47(2), 107–135. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.47.2.aCrossRef

Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174.CrossRef

Lee, C. Y. (2020). How to improve the effectiveness of blended learning of pharmacology and pharmacotherapy? A case study in pharmacy program. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 25(4), 977–988. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-020-09447-5CrossRef

Lee, E. Y. C., Chan, C. K. K., & Van Aalst, J. (2006). Students assessing their own collaborative knowledge building. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(1), 57–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-006-6844-4CrossRef

Lee, M. J. W., McLoughlin, C., & Chan, A. (2008). Talk the talk: Learner-generated podcasts as catalysts for knowledge creation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(3), 501–521. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00746.xCrossRef

Lee, I. A., & Preacher, K. J. (2013, September). Calculation for the test of the difference between two dependent correlations with no variable in common [Computer software]. Retrieved from http://quantpsy.org.

Mayer, R. E., Fiorella, L., & Stull, A. (2020). Five ways to increase the effectiveness of instructional video. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(2020), 837–852. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09749-6CrossRef

McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M. J. (2010). Personalised and self-regulated learning in the Web 2.0 era: International exemplars of innovative pedagogy using social software. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(1), 28–43.CrossRef

Narciss, S., Proske, A., & Koerndle, H. (2007). Promoting self-regulated learning in web-based learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(3), 1126–1144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2006.10.006CrossRef

Nguyen, N., Muilu, T., Dirin, A., & Alamäki, A. (2018). An interactive and augmented learning concept for orientation week in education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-018-0118-xCrossRef

Paavola, S., & Hakkarainen, K. (2005). The knowledge creation metaphor: An emergent epistemological approach to learning. Science and Education, 14, 535–557. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-004-5157-0CrossRef

Perrucci, V., Coscarelli, A., Balboni, G., & Cacciamani, S. (2012). Preliminary validation of the scale of sense of community in online course. World Journal on Educational Technology, 4(2), 126–136.

Preece, J., Nonnecke, B., & Andrews, D. (2004). The top five reasons for lurking: Improving community experience for everyone. Computers in Human Behavior, 20, 201–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2003.10.015CrossRef

Sandoval, W. (2014). Conjecture mapping: An approach to systematic educational design research. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(1), 18–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2013.778204CrossRef

Sansone, N., Ligorio, M. B., & Buglass, S. L. (2016). Peer e-tutoring: Effects on students’ participation and interaction style in online courses. Innovations in Education and Teaching International. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2016.1190296CrossRef

Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. In B. Smith (Ed.), Liberal education in a knowledge society (pp. 67–98). Open Court.

Scardamalia, M. (2004). CSILE/Knowledge Forum®. In Education and technology: An encyclopedia (pp. 183-192). Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO.

Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2014). Knowledge building and knowledge creation. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 397–417). Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2010). A brief history of knowledge building. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology. https://doi.org/10.21432/T2859MCrossRef

Scardamalia, M., Bransford, J., Kozma, B., & Quellmalz, E. (2012). New assessments and environments for knowledge building. In P. Griffin, B. McGaw, & E. Care (Eds.), Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills (pp. 231–300). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2324-5_5CrossRef

Schumacher, C., & Ifenthaler, D. (2018). Features students really expect from learning analytics. Computers in Human Behavior, 78, 397–407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.06.030CrossRef

Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27, 4–13. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X027002004CrossRef

Siemens, G. (2011). In 1st International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge, Banff, Alberta, February 27-March 1, 2011. Retrieved from https://tekri.athabascau.ca/analytics/.

Steiger, J. H. (1980). Tests for comparing elements of a correlation matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 87, 245–251. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.87.2.245CrossRef

Strijbos, J. W., & Weinberger, A. (2010). Emerging and scripted roles in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 491–494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.08.006CrossRef

Teplovs, C. (2008). The knowledge space visualizer: a tool for visualizing online discourse. In Paper presented at the common framework for CSCL interaction analysis workshop, international conference of the learning sciences. Utrecht: NL.

Teplovs, C. (2010). Visualization of knowledge spaces to enable concurrent, embedded and transformative input to knowledge building processes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1807/24893.

Teplovs, C., & Scardamalia, M. (2007). Visualizations for knowledge building assessment. Paper presented at the Institute for Knowledge Innovation and Technology Summer Institute 2007. Retrieved from https://ikit.org/SummerInstitute2007/Highlights/SI2007_papers/48_Teplovs.pdf.

Teplovs, C., Donoahue, Z., Scardamalia, M., & Philip, D. (2007). Tools for concurrent, embedded, and transformative assessment of knowledge building processes and progress. In C. A. Chinn, G. Erkens, & S. Puntambekar (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th international conference on computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL’ 07) (pp. 721–723). International Society of the Learning Sciences.

The Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X032001005CrossRef

Van Aalst, J., & Chan, C. K. K. (2007). Student-directed assessment of knowledge building using electronic portfolios. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(2), 175–220. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508400701193697CrossRef

Van Laer, S., & Elen, J. (2018). Adults’ self-regulatory behaviour profiles in blended learning environments and their implications for design. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 25(3), 509–539. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-017-9351-yCrossRef

Vatrapu, R., Teplovs, C., Fujita, N., & Bull, S. (2011). Toward visual analytics for teachers’ dynamic diagnostic pedagogical decision-making. In LAK’11 proceedings of the 1st international conference on learning analytics and knowledge (pp.93–98). Banff, AB: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2090116.2090129

Yang, S., Carter, R. A., Zhang, L., & Hunt, T. (2021). Emanant themes of blended learning in K-12 educational environments: Lessons from the every student succeeds Act. Computers and Education. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104116CrossRef

Zhang, J., Scardamalia, M., Reeve, R., & Messina, R. (2009). Designs for collective cognitive responsibility in knowledge-building communities. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18(1), 7–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508400802581676CrossRef

Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview. Educational Psychologist, 25(1), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2501_2CrossRef

Zimmerman, B. J. (1998). Developing self-fulfilling cycles of academic regulation: An analysis of exemplary instructional models. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulated learning: From teaching to self-reflective practice (pp. 1–19). Guilford Press.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–39). Academic Press.CrossRef

Titel: Promoting Students’ Collective Cognitive Responsibility through Concurrent, Embedded and Transformative Assessment in Blended Higher Education Courses
verfasst von: Stefano Cacciamani
Vittore Perrucci
Nobuko Fujita
Publikationsdatum: 03.07.2021
Verlag: Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in: Technology, Knowledge and Learning / Ausgabe 4/2021
Print ISSN: 2211-1662
Elektronische ISSN: 2211-1670
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-021-09535-0

Premium Partner

Marktübersichten

Die im Laufe eines Jahres in der „adhäsion“ veröffentlichten Marktübersichten helfen Anwendern verschiedenster Branchen, sich einen gezielten Überblick über Lieferantenangebote zu verschaffen.

Zur Marktübersicht

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2021

Potential Barriers to the Implementation of Digital Game-Based Learning in the Classroom: Pre-service Teachers’ Views

The Discovery of Interactive Spaces: Learning by Design in High School Music Technology Classes

Educational Potential of Augmented Reality Mobile Applications for Learning the Anatomy of the Human Body

Technology-enhanced Learning for Promoting Technical and Social Competences in Hydrological Science

Digital Media as a Medium for Adolescent Identity Development

Akasha: Custom Application to Support Elementary Geometry Learning First-Grade Children in Colombia

Premium Partner

Marktübersichten