RTL2 Assignment 2 - 18036116

Part 1: Literature Review

Holistic Question: How does ICT enhance student engagement in collaborative and
cooperative learning within the classroom?

“Learning in groups” is a new learning approach conceptualised around the recent

technological advancement in education. This approach is known as “cooperative learning”

(CL) which has recently been modified to provide the knowledge based society with new

opportunities, rules and principles in undertaking CL (Laguador, J. M., 2014). When

uncovering the term CL, our results often refer to the work completed within teams through

instructional guidance that encourages and requires teamwork for the completion of learning

tasks (Lehtinen, E., 2003), projects and assignments where particular standards are devised

and met through teamwork. When compared to the meaning of collaborative learning there is

a clear divide in the participation towards learning goals. CL is inclusive of the individual

member holding their own accountability for their work through the completion of set tasks

that have been assign within a group context (Felder & Brent, 2007; as cited in Laguador, J.

M.,2014). Whereas, collaborative learning (CBL) is identified for the shared participation in

development of working towards a shared learning goal (Jeong, H., & Hmelo-Silver, C.E.,

2016). An example of this can be witness through problem solving activities that interact with

group work through two means: shared learning and independent learning in a group context.

In order of supporting the advancing trend of technology, students both need to be able to

participate in collaborative and cooperative learning through presentation of their shared

learning and ‘individual portioning’ (Dillenbourg, 1999; Lehtinen, Hakkarainen, Lipponen,

Rahikainen, & Muukkonen., 1999; as cited in Jeong, H., & Hmelo-Silver, C.E, 2016). This

discussion will further look at the considerable factors of cooperative and collaborative

learning through the effects of technology within the classroom context. In reflection an

analysis will look into how these factors contribute to student engagement.
Cooperative Learning (CL) Vs Collaborative Learning (CBL)

Group work provides students with an opportunity to learn and develop

communication and social skills through the participation within both cooperative and

collaborative learning. The CL approach is implemented to encourage student-centred

classrooms that meet the syllabus outcomes set by certifying bodies and agencies of high

education (Laguador, J. M., 2014) [e.g. NSW Education Standards Authority, and Australian

Curriculum and Assessment Reporting Authority]. The theory of CL approach is divided into

two perspectives known as ‘motivational and social’ (Lehtinen, E., 2003). Motivational

theory derives on social rewards and the structure in which students can attain their own

personal goals through group success. Whereas, social theory focuses on the facilitation of a

cohesive group to uphold motivational theory (Lehtinen, E., 2003). As defined by Cheng &

Ku in 2009 (as cited in Ciampa, K., 2014) CL is based on the social learning theory that

students are inclined to possess high self-efficacy, confidence and higher motivation to

complete set tasks when they know they will have assistance from their peers in group work

activities. The practice of CL provides students with the input to appreciate the multiple

perspectives that others will provide through respecting each other’s values and beliefs;

which “can assist in overcoming student confidence issues by improving their participation

through the encouragement and supportiveness in group behaviours” (Ciampa, K., 2014).

According to (Ciampa, K., 2014) the incorporation of ICT assisted in positively engaging

students in task-orientated interaction that saw results of improved learning outcomes,

motivation and persistent in the completion of learning tasks and activities.

Collaborative learning (CBL) traditionally involves the interaction of small-group

settings, although in knowledge building communities ‘collaboration’ can go beyond fixed

small groups to members of societal communities (Zhang, Scardamalia, Reeve & Messina,

2009; as cited in Jeong, H., & Hmelo-Silver, C.E, 2016). CBL is known for its promotion of

‘greater learning’ for an inclusive approach that considers and factors different theoretical

approaches within its design. These approaches identify the specific features of the learning

task and locates them within a historical, cultural, organisational and physical context

(Lehtinen, E., 2003) to allow student engagement to thrive through background knowledge

and prior learning. Gan, Menkhoff & Smith (2015) discusses the incorporation of interactive

digital media in CBL to allow students to maximise each other’s and their own learning

through a ‘socio-cultural context that encourages sharing, negotiating and discussing

information through interactive processes’ (Wang, Q., 2008). Computer-supported

collaborative learning (CSCL) provides learners with seven affordances that deliver the

opportunity to engage, communicate and share their knowledge through the foundation of

productive CBL learning processes (Jeong, H., & Hmelo-Silver, C.E., 2016) and network-

supported learning (Lehtinen, E., 2003). When referring to CSCL, there are two perspectives

that technology offers: ‘through’ and around’. CBL ‘through’ technology refers to the use of

computers as a medium for social capabilities such as online discussion forums that explore

the social and cultural construct of online communities (Lehtinen, E., 2003). Collaboration

‘around’ technology relates to the face-to-face setting that allows computers to become the

focus of interaction (Jeong, H., & Hmelo-Silver, C.E., 2016). The perspective of CBL

‘around’ technology can help learners overcome any challenges or demands through a

collaborative environment. Many current studies, draw focus to collaboration ‘through or

supported ‘by computers and lures attention to the multiple ways in which computers

provides and distracts student’s academic goals (Lehtinen, E., 2003). Although the

application of technology within learning supported has provided possibilities for resourceful

and specific tools that allow for mediated communication. Experiments conducted by
(Lehtinen, E., 2003) show that ICT allows students to learn more within a faster time frame

in control groups, and also showed improved motivation and social interaction (Lehtinen, E.,

2003).

Teaching Pedagogies in the Digital Age

Cooperative learning

Educators must understand the importance of creating a safe and supportive learning

environment when utilising the CL approach. This means creating a welcoming classroom

that acknowledges the composition of each individual within the team (Laguador, J. M.,

2014). To encourage student participation within a CL classroom we must consider the

students’ needs and success in achieving learning outcomes. Therefore, teachers must plan

and prepare activities and materials that will encourage and motivate high levels of group

participation in completing learning tasks and activities (Laguador, J. M., 2014). This can be

enabled through Content Management Systems (CMS) that allows students to access and

control their own independent learning at their own pace within group access of course

materials (Erbaggio, P., Gopalakrishnan, S., Hobbs, S., & Liu, H., 2016). Teachers

controlling an interactive CL environment must execute continuous observations to look for

attributes of student engagement such as active participation and involvement within group

work that convey student understanding amongst learning procedure (Pellas, 2014; as cited in

Howard, S. K., Ma, J., & Yang, J., 2016). Issues of ICT engagement and efficacy in learning

design need to be address by teachers to ensure that students are able to benefit from

technology integrated learning, for it can provide opportunities for students to convey

leadership skills through group dedication, commitment and participation in their own

learning (Laguador, J. M., 2014).

Collaborative learning

Our goals as teachers should be to provide each individual student with a fun,

enjoyable learning experience incorporating feedback, engagement, self-discovery (Gan, B.,

Menkhoff, T., & Smith, R., 2015), and multiple means of representation [e.g. online tools],

expression [e.g. individual reflection], and engagement [e.g. class participation and team

dynamics] (CAST, 2018). “The main idea behind active learning is to involve students in

doing things and thinking about the things they are doing” (Gan, B., Menkhoff, T., & Smith,

R., 2015, p.662). CSCL focuses on the instruction as enacted practice rather than

instructional efficacy, which is supported by the progressive inquiry model that provides

students with the ability to understand other students thinking and their interpretation

(Lehtinen, E., 2003). The ‘progressive inquiry model’ is separated by sub tasks that are

defined through the learning strategies teachers imply within instruction to deepen the

student’s knowledge, widen their contextual information, provide critical evaluations and

generate constructive working theories that support the learning of the individual (Lehtinen,

E., 2003). In relation to mobile learning, theoretical approaches that involve learner control,

and engage student’s curiosity through complex learning activities allow students to actively

benefit from the engagement of learning conversations with online communities (Ciampa, K.,

2014). CSCL learning provides students with the opportunity to learn what they want, when

they want and how they want (Collins, A., & Halvesron, R., 2009). This opportunity along

with the composition of interactive learning engages students through deeper learning in the

combination of visual, written and physical stimulus (Mayer, 2005; as cited in Ciampa, K.,

2014). CSCL provides a better understanding of concepts and simulations of learning

processes that cannot simply be demonstrated without the aid of technology within delivery

of instructional knowledge (Laguador, J. M., 2014).

Educational technology: The Digital Age

Creating learning environments with appropriate application of technology is important in

promoting innovation of real life scenarios within the classroom (Laguador, J. M., 2014). The

main challenge of technology-driven learning is the ability for adaption within schools

(Collins, A., & Halvesron, R., 2009). Technology can provide more opportunities for

personalised learning, greater collaboration and help instructors to become effective teachers

through change leadership (Gan, B., Menkhoff, T., & Smith, R., 2015). In reflection, teaching

within the digital age comes down to the teacher’s strategies in mediating what they find is

engaging for the students and how they believe students will learn from these strategies

(Trigwell & Prosser, 2004; as cited in Howard, S. K., Ma, J., & Yang, J., 2016).
References:
CAST (2018). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines version 2.2. Retrieved from
http://udlguidelines.cast.org
Ciampa, K. (2014). Learning in a mobile age: an investigation of student
motivation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30(1), 82-96.
Collins, A., & Halvesron, R. (2009). Rethinking Education in the Age of Technology:
The Digital Revolution and Schooling in America (Technology, Education--Connections
(Tec))(Technology, Education-Connections, the Tec Series). John Seely Brown Publisher.
Erbaggio, P., Gopalakrishnan, S., Hobbs, S., & Liu, H. (2016). Enhancing student
engagement through online authentic materials. IALLT Journal of Language Learning
Technologies, 42(2).
Gan, B., Menkhoff, T., & Smith, R. (2015). Enhancing students’ learning process
through interactive digital media: New opportunities for collaborative learning. Computers in
Human Behavior, 51, 652-663.
Howard, S. K., Ma, J., & Yang, J. (2016). Student rules: Exploring patterns of
students’ computer-efficacy and engagement with digital technologies in learning. Computers
& Education, 101, 29-42.
Jeong, H., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2016). Seven affordances of computer-supported
collaborative learning: How to support collaborative learning? How can technologies
help?. Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 247-265.
Laguador, J. M. (2014). Cooperative learning approach in an outcomes-based
environment. International Journal of Social Sciences, Arts and Humanities, 2(2), 46-55.
Lehtinen, E. (2003). Computer-supported collaborative learning: An approach to
powerful learning environments. Powerful learning environments: Unravelling basic
components and dimensions, 35, 54.
Wang, Q. (2008). A generic model for guiding the integration of ICT into teaching
and learning. Innovations in education and teaching international, 45(4), 411-419.
 Part B: Data collection protocol

Dear Potential Participant:

I am working on a project titled “How does collaborative and cooperative learning impact on
student engagement in Stage 4 and 5” for the class, ‘Researching Teaching and Learning 2,’
at Western Sydney University. As part of the project, I am collecting information to help
inform the design of a teacher research proposal.

In brief, the project will explore how ICT affects student engagement in cooperative and
collaborative learning within the classroom. The type of information that we are wanting to
learn from the participants is how technology affects the ways in which students engage with
the curriculum content within a group-based setting. The mode of data collection will be
through a series of classroom observations.

By signing this form, I acknowledge that:

• I have read the project information and have been given the opportunity to discuss the
information and my involvement in the project with the researcher/s.
• The procedures required for the project and the time involved have been explained to
me, and any questions I have about the project have been answered to my satisfaction.
• I consent to the multiple classroom observations that will be undertaken as part of the
study.
• I understand that my involvement is confidential and that the information gained
during this data collection experience will only be reported within the confines of the
‘Researching Teaching and Learning 2’ unit, and that all personal details will be de-
identified from the data.
• I understand that I can withdraw from the project at any time, without affecting my
relationship with the researcher/s, now or in the future.

By signing below, I acknowledge that I am 18 years of age or older, or I am a full-time

university student who is 17 years old.
Signed: __________________________________
Name: __________________________________
Date: __________________________________

By signing below, I acknowledge that I am the legal guardian of a person who is 16 or 17

years old, and provide my consent for the person’s participation.
Signed: __________________________________
Name: __________________________________
Date: __________________________________
 Classroom Observations Date:
Teacher: _______________________ Grade: _______ Period:___________

Data Collection Chart Field Notes

Time Activity/ Task Independent Student Engagement Use of Does the (other
(I), Technology technology relevant data)

Undecided
Cooperative enhance

Disagree

Disagree
Strongly

Strongly
(CL) or learning?

Agree

Agree
Collaborative How?
(CB)

Summary on student engagement

___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
Classroom Layout
Technology Device: (C) computer, (I) iPad, (P) Phone. Level of Engagement: (V) very low, (L) low, (M) medium, (H) high, (VH) very high

Key:

Comments:
 Part C: Data Collection protocol explanation
The data collection protocol observation allows educators to participate in a hands-on

experience through visual, verbal and physical expression. The purpose of observation within

the research task is to witness the use of ICT within the classroom setting to see if these

‘assistive technologies’ are effective in upholding student engagement; or if they are simply

distractions amongst learning. The significant focus of data collection will be placed on the

situation of the activities, and whether they are undertaken through cooperative or

collaborative learning opportunities. As stated within previous literature, “The effects of ICT

depend not only on the equipment, but also on the pedagogical implementation of

technology” (Lehtinen, E., 2003) Therefore, in assessment of student engagement we must

consider the pedagogical approaches that assist and support the inclusive relationship of

assistive technologies within delivery of lesson content.

To complete an analysis of the classroom observation a Likert scale (Likert, 1932) is used to

describe the student contribution to their learning. In this setting I have referred to a ‘5

responses’ scale that measures the attitude and opinion of what is visually being perceived. It

will be measured through the expressions conveyed in practice that persuade the observer to

agree or disagree with the engagement provided from the student (McLeod, 2008). In further

observation, written explanations will be created to identify particular students who are more

engaged then other students. This will allow the observer to draw more attention to the

students who are engaged and not engaged; and the other factors that counter play within the

collection of data. Whether this may be technology based or contextual to the collaborative

design of the lesson in which students may be distracted through other factors like behaviour,

attention and communication deficiency.

The level of engagement throughout the lesson will be measure with a conclusive report that

highlights each student interaction through a Likert scale that identifies “very low to very

high” engagement in learning. This written explanation will also provide seating placement

and information of what technology device each student is using to provide more qualitative

depth within findings. The aim of these observations are to ‘notice set goals, act upon these

goals, achieve the set goals and exceed one’s goals’ as mentioned by Anna Bajena (2015).

In collection of data, our set goal refers to the group’s overarching topic on ‘cooperative and

collaborative learning, and the impact it has on student engagement’. In identifying our set

goals, I refer to Bell (2006) who emphases a four step process called ‘peer observation of

teaching’(PoT) which includes: ‘pre-observation meetings, lesson observation, post

observation feedback and reflection’ (Sullivan, P.B., et al, 2012). In undertaking the PoT

process, we are preparing ourselves as change leaders through the action of self-reflection

and evaluation of one’s teaching style, delivery of content and personal beliefs.

Collaborative learning both as educators and students is resourceful as we learn together

through different methods, styles and experiences. In reflection of the observation as the main

data protocol, I believe it will serve as valuable feedback for teachers to understand where

changes may need to be made. It will additionally assist in areas for self-reflection of

methods that allows us to further face the prominent issue of obtaining student’s engagement

within the digital age.

REFERENCES:
Bajena, A. (2015). Competence Assessment - Which scale to choose?. Retrieved from
https://emplo.com/blog/competence-assessment-which-scale-to-choose#.W5IzpZMzbOQ
Bell, M. (2002) Peer observation of teaching in Australia. York: LTSN Generic
Centre.
Gebhard, J. (YEAR) Reflective development of teaching through exploratory self-
obseravtion: learning to see out teaching differently. International Journal of Innovation in
English Language, Nova science publishers INC, 3:1.
Likert, R. (1932). A Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes. Archives of
Psychology, 140, 1–55.
Lehtinen, E. (2003). Computer-supported collaborative learning: An approach to
powerful learning environments. Powerful learning environments: Unravelling basic
components and dimensions, 35, 54.
McLeod, S. A. (2008). Likert scale. Retrieved from
https://www.simplypsychology.org/likert-scale.htm
Sullivan, P. B., Buckle, A., Nicky, G., & Atkinson, S. H. (2012). Peer observation of
teaching as a faculty development tool. BMC medical education, 12(1), 26.