User:Akmspencer/sandbox

Online Collaborative Theory by Linda Harasim

Current trends in the field of distance learning education indicate a continuous shift in instructional perspectives and theoretical frameworks developed, with student collaboration at the core of learner-centred constructivist environments. The purpose of this article is to examine the emergence of the online collaborative learning Theory, the benefits and implications, the use of online collaborative learning theory (OCL) as matched to traditional discussion based classroom learning and the use OCL in emerging technology tools to foster student interaction in online learning. Introduction Linda Harasim, professor at the School of Communication at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, developed online collaborative learning theory (OCL) in 2012. The amalgamation of both constructivist approaches to learning and the development of the Internet has led to the development of a particular form of constructivist teaching a theory originally called computer-mediated communication (CMC), or networked learning. The introduction of more flexible approaches to learning and greater use of online tools offer new opportunities for student collaboration and new challenges for teachers supporting group work (Bonk, Malinkowski, Angeli, & Supplee, 1998; Palloff & Pratt, 1999) According to Harasim (2012) OCL takes the form of instructor-led group learning online. In OCL, students are encouraged to collaboratively solve problems through discourse instead of memorizing correct answers. The teacher plays a crucial role as a facilitator as well as a member of the knowledge community under study. OCLbuilds on and integrates theories of cognitive development that focus on conversational learning (Pask, 1975), conditions for deep learning (Marton and Saljø, 1997; Entwistle, 2000), development of academic knowledge (Laurillard, 2001), and knowledge construction (Scardamalia and Bereiter, 2006) Harasim (2012) also reinforces that the role of teacher is critical to this knowledge construction, not only through facilitating the process and providing resources to the group, but also through ensuring that the core concepts and practices of the subject domain are fully integrated. The teacher is here understood to be a representative of the knowledge community or subject domain under study.

Harasim (2012) emphasises in the diagram above the importance of three key phases of knowledge construction through discourse: •	idea generating: this is literally brainstorming, to collect the divergent thinking within a group; •	idea organising: this is where learners compare, analyse and categorise the different ideas previously generated, again through discussion and argument; •	intellectual convergence: the aim here is to reach a level of intellectual synthesis, understanding and consensus (including agreeing to disagree), usually through the joint construction of some artefact or piece of work, such as an essay or assignment. This results in what Harasim (2012) calls a Final Position, although in reality the position is never final because for a learner, once started, the process of generating, organising and converging on ideas continues at an ever deeper or more advanced level. The role of the teacher or instructor in this process is seen as critical, not only in facilitating the process and providing appropriate resources and learner activities that encourage this kind of learning, but also, as a representative of a knowledge community or subject domain, in ensuring that the core concepts, practices, standards and principles of the subject domain are fully integrated into the learning cycle History From the very early days of online learning, some instructors have focused heavily on the communication affordances of the Internet (Hiltz and Turoff, 1978). They have based their teaching on the concept of knowledge construction, the gradual building of knowledge mainly through asynchronous online discussion among students and between students and an instructor. It must also be noted that collaborative learning activities have been restricted to full-time students in on-campus settings because of the logistical difficulties in finding time and space for students to work together (Kimball, 2001). However, the advent of Internet-based communication technologies has transformed higher education for both teachers and learners (Collis, 1996) Online discussion forums go back to the 1970s, but really took off as a result of a combination of the invention of the World Wide Web in the 1990s, high speed Internet access, and the development of learning management systems, most of which now include an area for online discussions. These online discussion forums have some differences though with classroom seminars: •	first, they are text based, not oral; •	second, they are asynchronous: participants can log in at any time, and from anywhere in the world with an Internet connection; •	third, many discussion forums allow for ‘threaded’ connections, enabling a response to be attached to the particular comment which prompted the response, rather than just displayed in chronological order. This allows for dynamic sub-topics to be developed, with sometimes more than ten responses within a single thread of discussion. This enables participants to follow multiple discussion topics over a period of time Advantages and disadvantages Strengths of the OCL theory may include: •	OCL when applied appropriately, can be on par with college classrooms which can lead to deep, academic learning, or transformative learning, as well as, if not better than, discussion in campus-based classrooms. The asynchronous and recorded ‘affordances’ of online learning more than compensate for the lack of physical cues and other aspects of face-to-face discussion; •	OCL supports high level skills development as a result can also directly support the development of a range of high level intellectual skills, such as critical thinking, analytical thinking, synthesis, and evaluation, which are key requirements for learners in a digital age. Limitations of OCL may include: •	it does not scale easily, requiring highly knowledgeable and skilled instructors, and a limited number of learners for discussion to be effective; •	OCL is not friendly to science and engineering disciplines. It is more likely to accommodate to the epistemological positions of faculty and instructors in humanities, social sciences, education and some areas of business studies and health and conversely it is likely to be less accommodating to the epistemological positions of faculty in science, computer science and engineering. However, if combined with a problem-based or inquiry-based approach, it might have acceptance even in some of these subject domains. •	The OCL theory, discussion forums are not an addition or supplement to core teaching materials, such as textbooks, recorded lectures, or text in, but are the core component of the teaching. Textbooks, readings and other resources are chosen to support the discussion, not the other way round. This is a key design principle, and explains why often instructors or tutors complain, in more ‘traditional’ online courses, that students don’t participate in discussions. Often this is because where online discussions are secondary to more didactic teaching, or are not deliberately designed and managed to lead to knowledge construction, students see the discussions as optional or extra work, because they have no direct impact on grades or assessment. It is also a reason why awarding grades for participation in discussion forums misses the point. It is not the extrinsic activity that counts, but the intrinsic value of the discussion, that matters (Brindley, Walti and Blashke 2009). Thus although instructors using an OCL approach may use learning management systems for convenience, they are used differently from courses where traditional didactic teaching is moved online.

Emerging technology in OCL and its implementation Emerging technologies offer a vast range of opportunities for promoting collaboration in both synchronous and asynchronous learning environments, distance education programs around the globe face challenges that may limit or deter implementation of these technologies. Social software applications such as Writeboard™, InstaColl™, and Imeem™ and Blackboard are prominently used today. This approach to the use of online technology for teaching is very different from the more objectivist approaches found in computer-assisted learning, teaching machines, and artificial intelligence applications to education, which primarily aim to use computing to replace at least some of the activities traditionally done by human teachers. With online collaborative learning, the aim is not to replace the teacher, but to use the technology primarily to increase and improve communication between teacher and learners, with a particular approach to the development of learning based on knowledge construction assisted and developed through social discourse. This social discourse furthermore is not random, but managed in such a way as to ‘scaffold’ learning: •	by assisting with the construction of knowledge in ways that are guided by the instructor; •	that reflect the norms or values of the discipline; •	that also respect or take into consideration the prior knowledge within the discipline. Chickering and Ehrmann (1996) provided seven principles for implementing new technologies in distance education programs. Online distance learning can integrate emerging technologies for either synchronous or asynchronous modes by applying these seven principles. Regardless of delivery method, technology should: (1) Encourage contact between students and faculty. (2) Develop reciprocity and cooperation among students. (3) Use active learning techniques. (4) Give prompt feedback. (5) Emphasize time on task. (6) Communicate high expectations. (7) Respect diverse talents and ways of learning. The seven principles, along with the specific needs of the course, will help determine the purpose and rationale of integrating the particular technology, and how it benefits the learner. Designers and administrators must understand how the technology tool selected will aid interaction and which types of interaction it will promote

4.4.8 Summary Many of the strengths and challenges of online collaborative learning apply both in face-to-face or online learning contexts. It could be argued that there is no or little difference between online collaborative learning and well-conducted  traditional classroom, discussion-based teaching. Once again, we see that the mode of delivery is less important than the design model, which can work well in both contexts. Indeed, it is possible to conduct either model synchronously or asynchronously, at a distance or face-to-face. Online learning environments may promote collaborative learning which involves the active construction of knowledge through social negotiation, only if participants can relate to one another, share a sense of community and a common goal. The development of social presence and a sense of an online community becomes key to promoting collaborative learning and knowledge building However, there is enough evidence that collaborative learning can be done just as well online, which is important, given the need for more flexible models of delivery to meet the needs of a more diverse student body in a digital age. Also, the necessary conditions for success in teaching this way are now well known, even though they are not always universally applied

References Aace-web-static.s3.amazonaws.com. (2018). [online] Available at: https://aace-web-static.s3.amazonaws.com/2017/02/Linda-Harasim.jpg [Accessed 4 Mar. 2018]. Brindley, J., Walti, C. and Blashke, L. (2009) Creating Effective Collaborative Learning Groups in an Online Environment International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, Vol. 10, No. 3 Beldarrain, Y. (2006). Distance Education Trends: Integrating new technologies to foster student interaction and collaboration. Distance Education, 27(2), pp.139-153. David L, "Online Collaborative Learning Theory (Harasim)," in Learning Theories, December 17, 2015, https://www.learning-theories.com/online-collaborative-learning-theory-harasim.html. Entwistle, N. (2000) Promoting deep learning through teaching and assessment: conceptual frameworks and educational contexts Leicester UK: TLRP Conference Garrison, R., Anderson, A. and Archer, W. (2000) Critical Inquiry in a Text-based Environment: Computer Conferencing in Higher Education the Internet and Higher Education, Vol. 2, No. 3 Fisher, M. (2003). Online Collaborative Learning: Relating Theory to Practice. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 31(3), 227-249. Retrieved March 4, 2018 from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/72302/. Harasim, L. (2012) Learning Theory and Online Technologies New York/London: Routledge Harasim, L. M. (1995). Learning networks: A field guide to teaching and learning online. MIT press. Harasim, L. (1996). Online education. Computer networking and scholarly communication in the twenty-first-century university, 203-214. Harasim, L. M. (1990). Online education: Perspectives on a new environment. Greenwood Publishing Group Inc Hiltz, R. and Turoff, M. (1978) The Network Nation: Human Communication via Computer Reading MA: Addison-Wesley Scardamalia, M. and Bereiter, C. (2006) Knowledge Building: Theory, pedagogy and technology in Sawyer, K. (ed.) Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences New York: Cambridge University Press Stacey, Elizabeth 2005, A constructivist framework for online collaborative learning: adult learning and collaborative learning theory, in Computer-supported collaborative learning in higher education, Idea Group Publishing, London, pp.140-161

Reflection This journey in completing this article has refreshed and reminded me of the rigour of post graduate studies. The search for a theory that was not chosen by colleagues and not posted on Wikipedia was indeed a challenge. The anxiety of waiting for the approval from tutor would be remembered. Despite the challenges a can say that learning was achieved although it is continuous (Final learning position.). In choosing the Online Collaborative Learning theory it has allowed me put the mode of delivery of this course into perspective by its application. We have grown so accustomed to the traditional face to face classroom learning and classroom setting. However, with the Online collaborative theory the student can have the same meaningful type of learning collaboration when we post in the respective learning areas and as we interact with our colleges in various localities across the region using the numerous technologies afforded to us via the internet. I have been able to generate and organise ideas in the group work assignments. the interaction has allowed me to able to find consensus and understanding while respecting the views of even if it’s different to mine which is called knowledge construction. The role of the tutor as facilitator is key as the literature and assignments are posted with deadlines and the appropriate feedback. This has led to the development of the knowledge community with the constant communication of ideas As we continue progress into the course learning is not final because for a learner, once started, the process of generating, organising and converging on ideas continues at an ever deeper or at a more advanced level. Akmspencer (talk) 05:45, 4 March 2018 (UTC)