www.monash.edu.au

Denise Kirkpatrick Director, Learning & Teaching

Learning together online: towards an understanding of online collaboration

www.monash.edu.au

2

Learning & Teaching Online

• Potential• Innovation or adaptation?• Collaboration examples• Issues• Strategies

www.monash.edu.au

3

The online role-play evolution

• Middle east politics simulation (Vincent)• Pollutsim (1996-1999) [task & tool

analysis]• Technology assessment involvement in

Middle east politics (1999 – 2000)• Mekong e-Sim (2000 – 2004)

www.monash.edu.au

4

Mekong e-Sim motivated by:

• Create student experiences involving multiple perspectives, authentic learning & context,

• Address internationalisation, • Develop generic skills (communication,

collaboration, leadership, decision-making, IT)• Develop discipline specific content knowledge• Link geographically distributed students• Create an interdisciplinary experience-

understand other perspectives

www.monash.edu.au

5

Roleplay-simulations

• Participants adopt a functional role or persona within a simulated environment or scenario. They are problem-based units of learning set in motion by a particular task, issue, policy, incident or problem.

www.monash.edu.au

6

What happens in a roleplay-simulation?

Adopt a role

Interaction & debate

Reflection &

LearningIssues & problems occur

www.monash.edu.au

7

Mekong e-Sim

• Online roleplay- simulation• Students collectively take on persona relevant to scenario• Personae respond to key events and triggers as events

unfold• Persona groups comprise same discipline/institution and

mixture

www.monash.edu.au

8

e-Sim Stages

Briefing/Familiarisation (1 Week)Briefing/Familiarisation (1 Week)

Role Adoption (1 Week)Role Adoption (1 Week)

Interaction (2.5 Weeks)Interaction (2.5 Weeks)

Public Inquiry (0.5 Weeks)Public Inquiry (0.5 Weeks)

Debriefing/Reflection (2 Weeks)Debriefing/Reflection (2 Weeks)

www.monash.edu.au

9

Assessment

Issue paper: group task, issues specific to persona, student drop box

Participation: group task, email, public inquiry, news events, group and peer assessment

Critical learning incident: individual task, observation, interpretation, knowledge outcomes

Debriefing essay: policies, e-Sim dynamics, group dynamics, reflection

www.monash.edu.au

10

Features

• High level of student engagement with ideas (via learning activities)

• Structured interaction• High level of interaction within

and between personae• Accountability• Interdependence• Flexibility

www.monash.edu.au

11

Mekong e-Sim supported collaboration between:

• Staff• Students• Disciplines ( Engineering, Geography,

Economics, Media, Arts)• Institutions (4 universities)

• Inside the e-Sim– http://online.uts.edu.au

www.monash.edu.au

12

e-Sim Collaboration issues

Institutional:managing LMS across multiple sites

Academic Issues: • Teaching & learning practices &

philosophy• Assessment practice & policy• Distribution of workload & W/L

policies

www.monash.edu.au

13

e-Sim: Academic issues

Negotiation was required

– Low level of funding allowed minimum changes to existing practices & resources

– High level of student interdependence across institutions required standardisation of practices

www.monash.edu.au

14

e-Sim: Shared Assessment Practice

– Assessment governance varied between subjects

– Agreed assessment criteria/outcomes/frameworks

– Needed agreement on process: level of feedback,marking time, grades or marks, turnaround time

– Inter-marker variability & moderation

www.monash.edu.au

15

Cross Institutional Collaboration

• Genuine commitment to collaboration• Mutual dependence between all parties• Alignment of learning outcomes and

assessment• Shared responsibility• Clear (& shared expectations)• Flexibility & willingness to adapt

www.monash.edu.au

16

Encouraging Learner Collaboration

• High level of positive interdependence – Between students sharing persona;

– Among personae within the RPS scenario (in relation to information & actions);

– Independent and group work tasks

www.monash.edu.au

17

Encouraging Learner Collaboration

• Individual accountability– Online self and peer assessment of

contribution

– Statistics on participant access

– Facilitator access to discussion groups

www.monash.edu.au

18

http://online.uts.edu.au

www.monash.edu.au

19

Masters/DPsych- Adult Mental Health

• Online case base approach (PBL principles)

• Extensive use of student collaborative work

• Seven increasingly complex cases

www.monash.edu.au

20

Cases

• 7 cases (patients) representing key psychological disorders

• Scientist-practitioner model• Raise professional problems raised in &

by the cases• Exemplified range of possible

approaches to treatment

www.monash.edu.au

21

Text based cases

• Provide original input – case (patient)• Students respond to original information,

preliminary diagnosis• Student discussion of opinions and

justifications• Individual and group activities• “Expert comment”• On-going information provision – students

revise diagnosis

www.monash.edu.au

22

Cases

• Formulate treatment plan• Evaluation of treatment• = complete treatment cycle

www.monash.edu.au

23

Cases

• Sequenced through year• Scaffolded• Trigger information relating to client &

disorder released to progress case development & initiate learner activities

• Individual and group activities - structured

www.monash.edu.au

24

Issues

• Need for organisation – staff & student• Structured activities and sequence• Making the personal connections• May be more time consuming• Need to design meaningful tasks• Students need a legitimate reason to

collaborate- clear purpose for collaboration

www.monash.edu.au

25

Issues

• Flexibility vs structure and accountability

• Development time vs staff ongoing involvement

• Alignment of assessment & process• Student training & familiarisation

www.monash.edu.au

26

Outcomes

• High level of student motivation & engagement

• Improved student learning outcomes• Improved understanding of complexities

of practice• “Managed” staff workload and input• High retention rate• High levels of interaction

www.monash.edu.au

27

In Conclusion

• Not just the technology but the design• However technology supported

particular activities and interactions• Technology made some things possible