Return to CreateDebate.comcscl • Join this debate community

SISLT CSCL


Debate Info

17
15
Team3: Yes, it is substantial Team4: No, it is incidental
Debate Score:32
Arguments:32
Total Votes:32
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Team3: Yes, it is substantial (17)
 
 Team4: No, it is incidental (15)

Debate Creator

odellh(25) pic



[Team3/4] Collaboration is a substantial asset in building new knolwedge

Some say that the social nature of learning provides natural mechanisms and supports for developing new ideas, integrating new concepts and building new competencies. Designers of CSCL should focus on making sure that students interact effectively and have a positive social experience during their lessons. Others say that though students learn with and from each other, this social nature of learning is incidental to the primary tasks of examining and making sense of the subject matter. Designers of CSCL should focus on making sure that students interact effectively with the subject matter and use social interaction as a way to reinforce the direct learning that students do in the subject matter. What is your argument? Provide your reasoning with evidence.

Team3: Yes, it is substantial

Side Score: 17
VS.

Team4: No, it is incidental

Side Score: 15
1 point

Module 2 - Team 3 Position

Although CSCL is fundamentally different from other domains of study in the learning sciences, it takes collaborative and cooperative learning, that is, learning and interactions that take place among students when they work together in a small group that promote social learning. Therefore, we are of the position that learning in collaboration is better than learning alone and that it broadly involves active engagement and interaction among group members to achieve a common goal. Our arguments are supported by the following points.

First, group members can use their collective knowledge about a problem-solving task or domain to cue each other’s prior knowledge when trying to think of ideas, strategies, and solutions. Although, this depends on collaborators having some shared (i.e., common) knowledge to increase the likelihood of retrieving the most relevant knowledge for the problem or task.

Side: Team3: Yes, it is substantial
odellh(25) Disputed
1 point

Drawing on prior knowledge is a key to learning new topics. You can draw on your prior on knowledge on your own; there is no need for a group or partner to do this for you. Your knowledge is yours, how you make connections is up to you alone. If drawing on prior knowledge in a group setting and one does not share the common knowledge of the others, that member will already feel behind. This will leave him/her unengaged and frustrated, concluding in lack of learning.

Side: Team4: No, it is incidental
bfolarinde(5) Disputed
1 point

Regardless of whether it’s new or prior knowledge, one could be limited to one’s own knowledge and ideas when learning individually, but in cooperative and collaborative learning, students talking together provide for input and listening, have to assess the thoughts/ideas of peers, determine whether they “fit” their own, whether they disagree, or partially agree. Students have an opportunity to speak their ideas/thoughts for better formulation, thereby promoting better understanding and increased knowledge for the task.

Side: Team3: Yes, it is substantial
1 point

Secondly, collective knowledge occurs when students learn together or work together in a group; they complement one another’s knowledge, so that different members of the group may contribute different components of the solution. For example, one individual in the group with unique knowledge could explain to the others a strategy or solution, and this explanation could benefit both those who receive it as well as the one who generates it. And since explaining or demonstrating a task or skill is in a different cognitive domain within Bloom’s Taxonomy than information recall there are benefits to all members of the group – including the original knowledge provider.

Side: Team3: Yes, it is substantial
odellh(25) Disputed
1 point

The second tier in Bloom’s Taxonomy is understand; to comprehend the meaning and interpret instruction, when understanding is reached one is to state the problem in their own words. If working in a group, one is more likely to use the words of their peers, they will not gain full understanding because this was not reached on their own.

Side: Team4: No, it is incidental
bfolarinde(5) Disputed
1 point

On the contrary, collaborative learning would rather promote understanding among the group. In collaborative learning, where one student is weak could be the strength of another student. Tackling a task together collaboratively will forester understanding among the group thereby giving better meaning of instructions. The issue of using peer’s words may definitely not exist where all members of the group have better understanding of the concepts or tasks.

Side: Team3: Yes, it is substantial
1 point

Thirdly, collaboration can also increase memory and problem-solving resources through each individual’s contribution to the recall of the relevant problem features and possible strategies. This is in line with both the cognitive load model and the ZPF model. Consequently, the group has more cognitive resources to spend thinking through possible solutions and correcting errors.

Also, collaborative learning can increase individual motivation and engagement. For example, students in cooperative groups help each other, encouraging engagement in the learning activity. The act of establishing what information is shared by all collaborators contributes to the construction of common ground, while the exchange of multiple perspectives of shared information provides for the opportunity to reexamine and reevaluate stored perceptions and acquire points of view that they might not have considered if working alone.

Side: Team3: Yes, it is substantial
odellh(25) Disputed
1 point

Technology is not enough to improve memory and allow the learning to retain information. It can lead to information overload and in turn decrease the collaboration among learners.

Side: Team4: No, it is incidental
bfolarinde(5) Disputed
1 point

While technology is not enough to improve memory and allow the learning to retain information, it can contribute immensely to collaborative learning. The use of technology play an integral part in supporting collaborative and cooperative learning. For example, email, video-conferencing and real-time audio exchange can help support group development, particularly when groups are working in distributed settings. Technology can also provide an electronic record of team activity or support other group processes such as brainstorming and consensus-building, wiring and editing, document versioning etc. Ultimately, participating in this online debate in this course would have not been possible without the use of technology.

Side: Team3: Yes, it is substantial
1 point

In addition, in line with small group cognition theory, when small groups engage in cooperative problem solving or collaborative knowledge building, there are distinctive processes of interest at the individual, small-group and community levels of analysis, which interact strongly with each other.

Furthermore, collaborative and cooperative learning promote positive relationships and social support in agreement with social judgment theory, which states that social judgments individuals make about each other result in either a process of acceptance, resulting in mutual liking and respect, or a process of rejection, resulting in mutual dislike and lack of respect. Cooperative experiences promoted greater task-oriented and personal social support than learning alone.

Side: Team3: Yes, it is substantial
odellh(25) Disputed
1 point

While collaboration can create individual motivation and engagement, it can just as easily destroy it. For example, one student did not make the needed connections with the others in his group. He is not comfortable enough to speak up and his group members move on without him. He is unengaged and giving up, he will not learn.

Side: Team4: No, it is incidental
bfolarinde(5) Disputed
1 point

On the contrary, the chances of collaboration destroying individual motivation and engagement are very minimal. Instead, collaborative can boost the morale and interaction of team members in a group. Intact, cooperative and collaborative learning are instructional contexts in which peers work together on a learning task, with the goal of all participants benefiting from the interaction. So there would be no reason why other team member will be disengaged. Collaboration promotes patience, intellectual maturity, emotional intelligence, and working together regardless of the individual differences.

Side: Team3: Yes, it is substantial
1 point

Lastly, working cooperatively with peers and valuing cooperation result in greater psychological health than working independently. Cooperative attitudes were highly correlated with a wide variety of indices of psychological health. More specifically, cooperativeness is positively related to emotional maturity, well-adjusted social relations, strong personal identity, ability to cope with adversity, social competencies, basic trust and optimism about people, self-confidence, independence and autonomy, higher self-esteem, and increased perspective taking skills.

For these reasons we assert that the construction of an effective social environment to enhance collaborative learning is not just an incidental benefit but an essential part of any successful distance education solution.

Side: Team3: Yes, it is substantial
odellh(25) Disputed
1 point

Lack of cooperative learning leads to anxiety and possible negative attitudes towards other group learners and instructors. If learning is not student centered instructions, students’ self-esteem will decrease leading to poor psychological health. Academic excellence is more often personified by valedictorian than by academic teamwork, Johnson, Johnson, Smith (1998). Learners today do not understand the cooperative learning in the social environment in which they are surrounded.

In conclusion, collaboration can destroy a learning environment for students. One can do things alone and gain a better understanding than they would have with a group. While collaboration holds this idea of increasing knowledge and oneself, it will only work under perfect circumstances that are neither realistic or achievable.

Side: Team4: No, it is incidental
bfolarinde(5) Disputed
1 point

On the contrary, collaboration in learning environments has become an essential skill in the 21st century. The benefits of students’ learning together, truly collaborating, discussing and sharing is great. Research supports the premise that students, in well-designed learning environments experience meaningful learning, develop higher order thinking, and learn to evaluate and acknowledge multiple viewpoints.

In conclusion, the importance of cooperation and collaborative learning cannot be overemphasized, it has impacted and will continue to impact the field of education positively both nationally and internationally.

Side: Team3: Yes, it is substantial
1 point

Team 4

While CSCL may lead you to believe it is right for everyone, it should not be an approach for every learning situation. CSCL has a number of limitations for both the instructor and student.

Our first argument will be directed at the students. Students find it hard to engage in spur-of-the-moment written communication, which makes social collaboration more challenging. Social loafing, free-riding, and the sucker-effect are other social factors that impact the collaboration performance. Such negative behaviors happen easily with technology. Technology adds a pressure to students participate in group discussion within a timeframe. This makes the students without much technology experiences feel behind, and also may create a sense of competition among students. This creates nervousness and tension which negatively impacts the students’ experience.

Side: Team4: No, it is incidental
odellh(25) Disputed
1 point

We agreed with you that free-riding, the sucker-effect, and social loafing, a situation where some group members do not engage optimally in the task because they believe someone else in the group will pick up the slack, may exist in some collaborative learning. In fact, there are some cases where some group members feel reluctant to engage in social interactions during group work, and they often use delay tactics in responding to the group work so that the other group members can get the work done. However, these are not necessarily applicable to most collaborative learning. On the contrary, collaborative and cooperative learning foster social support and increase individual motivation and engagement. For example, students in cooperative groups help each other, encouraging engagement in the learning activity.

Side: Team3: Yes, it is substantial
debatesp(8) Disputed
1 point

CSCL communities may appear to be engaged and learners motivated to participate through group collaboration but evidence shows online learners can tend to be dispersed not leading to a positive learning experience. Our stance it that CSCL does not foster collaboration without a great deal of learner and instructor commitment. Instead it could harm the learning experience, resulting in negative directions.

Side: Team4: No, it is incidental
1 point

Secondly, lack of training to instructors and students. Even with the best CSCL resource available, if the instructor/ student are not trained their lessons/ performance will suffer. Another technological issue is selecting the right resources. With all the CSCL resources out there how does one simply pick out the correct tools for their assignment? Some learning topics will require more resources than others; some learning topics will require different resources than others. If the instructor/ student are not comfortable with the resources their outcome will lack understanding and comfort.

Side: Team4: No, it is incidental
odellh(25) Disputed
1 point

Well, we will like to point out that the issues of ‘whether the instructor and student are trained or not’ and ‘whether the right resources were selected or not’ are not specific to collaborative and cooperative learning. These can definitely affect students regardless of whether they learning in a group or individually. On the other hand, I think collaborative can help resolve these issues in the sense that in collaborative learning, collective knowledge occurs when students learn together or work together in a group; they complement one another’s knowledge, so that different members of the group may contribute different components of the solution.

Side: Team3: Yes, it is substantial
debatesp(8) Disputed
1 point

We fully dispute the concept presented by our opponents, "stating that trained instructors and the right resources don't effect collaboration and cooperative learning". Studies have shown that CSCL combining computer-supported learning, technology, and active learners is a challenge. The results of a study at New Jersey Institute of Technology and Penn State, indicate that collaborative learning requires the building and sustain learning communities. It is very difficult and produces a negative experience for the learners in many cases. Computers used in learning, are often looked upon with skepticism and resulting with outcomes being anti social and a place for only the computer savvy. A loss of social relationships and community can only be gained through traditional learn.

Side: Team4: No, it is incidental
1 point

Thirdly, students in collaborative learning activities can feel a high level of frustration which causes negative effects. It can be frustrating if the student is not engaged in the activity. Frustration can also occur when collaborating with people they do not know well. This introduces negative emotions and that results in a bigger challenge when trying to motivate the student affecting the students’ learning experience. This may cause the student to abandon their studies and give up on the class.

Side: Team4: No, it is incidental
odellh(25) Disputed
1 point

Although frustration may occur when collaborating with people they do not know well or when other group member do not engage in the activity, one of the goal of collaborative learning is to foster knowledge and mutual act of working together among group members. Collective knowledge occurs when students learn together or work together in a group. For example, one individual in the group with unique knowledge could explain to the others a strategy or solution, and this explanation could benefit both those who receive it as well as the one who generates it. Also, working cooperatively with peers and valuing cooperation result in greater psychological health than working independently. More specifically, cooperativeness is positively related to emotional maturity, well-adjusted social relations, strong personal identity, ability to cope with adversity, social competencies, basic trust and optimism about people, self-confidence, independence and autonomy, higher self-esteem, and increased perspective taking skills

Side: Team3: Yes, it is substantial
debatesp(8) Disputed
1 point

CSCL results in negative experiences and even depression. This defeats our opponent’s theory that CSCL increase memory and problem-solving due to the evidence in which depression counteracts when learners work together in a group. A study of social and psychological effect of using the Internet in learning communities done by Robert Kraut at Carnegie Mellon University found that people who spend even a few hours a week online experience higher levels of depression and loneliness that they would have if they spent time face-to-face with other learners. This raises troubling questions about the nature of virtual communication and CSCL and the disembodied relationships that are found in the vacuum of the Internet with a course using CSCL.

Side: Team4: No, it is incidental
1 point

Our fourth argument is based on collaboration not being a given of CSCL but instead a hoped-for byproduct. Collaboration is an incidental byproduct at best in building new knowledge, not a substantial asset. Learning is perceived as an active, not passive process where knowledge is constructed not merely acquired. Each learner has a different interpretation of the learning and knowledge gaining process based on past experience and cultural differences. CSCL is not merely the belief that a course can be offered through eLearning and presented to learners without a great deal of continuous instructor involvement. It is quite often a false mindset to develop an eLearning course without the 3 C’s; consideration, constant and consistent involvement from both learners and instructors. Without the 3 C’s, continued involvement and collaboration among learners towards gaining knowledge is not going to happen.

Side: Team4: No, it is incidental
odellh(25) Disputed
1 point

It is argued that collaborative success is not a given in a CSCL environment and is therefore an incidental byproduct of the process, not an integral part. But scholars – from Vygotsky in 1978 through to modern researchers such as Kreijns and Kirschner - reiterate the same point: the key element in CSCL learning is social interaction. (Kreijns, Kirschner, Vermuelen, 2013) That it has not always been done successfully does not negate the fact that it needs to be done successfully.

Side: Team3: Yes, it is substantial
debatesp(8) Disputed
1 point

The quality of group learning based on CSCL in an online course is greatly diminished compared to a traditional face-to-face community. In order for collaborative learning to be effective and gained, the learner must have a deep knowledge of the topic. The level of learning needed for a learner to gain knowledge requires critical thinking and interaction of the material. Biggs (1985) associated deep learning approaches with effective involvement, which is supported by interaction.

Side: Team4: No, it is incidental
1 point

Our last argument supports the points presented in argument two. When an instructor develops a course with the thought of implementing CSCL and does not fully understood the requirement need for success, learners will not incidental or magically collaborate an assignment. Collaboration will not take place and the takeaway of knowledge by the learner will not happen. Learning and collaboration in this type of atmosphere will be taken for granted. A study regarding learning systems conducted by Marsick and Volpe (1999) concluded that informal incidental learner through computer-supported activities is haphazard and influenced by chance.

CSCL is not an absolute transfer of knowledge, it is a self-interpretation by each learner. The transfer of knowledge requires the learner to fully consider the information and build a constructive takeaway experience which does not happen by chance. A great deal of knowledge the learner gains from a CSCL supported course, depends on the past experience and skill levels which must be fully considered before implementing. If CSCL is a new experience for the learner, it can in turn harm the gaining of knowledge instead of being an asset.

Side: Team4: No, it is incidental
odellh(25) Disputed
1 point

Similarly, an argument that too many practitioners misuse or do not understand the tools available does not mean that the edifice those tools were designed to build is unnecessary – it means that the tools need to be refined. In their conclusion, Marsick and Volpe state that two components that make the efficacy of CSCL cloudy include the difficulty of transferring and negotiating knowledge – passing on knowledge in a community of practice – and incorporating the impact of distributed working relationships and cultural differences. We submit that these cloudy areas are exactly the areas that an emphasis on effective community building will bring into focus.

Conclusion

It has been said that a collaborative heavy CSCL is not an absolute transfer of knowledge. We agree, inasmuch as there is never an absolute transfer of knowledge. According to the constructivist school of education we as learners generate knowledge and meaning through the interaction of experience and ideas we bring to the subject matter. We assimilate new concepts and points of view and arrive at a modified understanding of the material. The more points of view, the more raw computational mass we have to work with and the better our final understanding.

Side: Team3: Yes, it is substantial
debatesp(8) Disputed
1 point

CSCL communities tend to be large and dispersed in space and time; not offering a close knit face-to-face traditional classroom experience - misusing tools without well planned explanations dispensed to the learner. In order for a positive learning experience to be gained the right software and well given direction needs to be offered to the learner and this is something that rarely happens. The learner experiences a negative, non-collaborative experience. The opponent suggest that small group cognition engage cooperative problem solving which is not lost if well planned learning direction is not given.

Although people argue that collaboration is a benefit and asset of CSCL, believing that collaboration is an incidental byproduct is correct. Our opponents, those in favor of collaboration as an asset of CSCL, will most likely point out that CSCL is better than learning alone leading to learner collaboration as an asset. Their views are incorrect based on the following research and evidence.

In closing, while many may believe CSCL is an asset, understanding that it is not and finding ways to supplement learning to foster collaboration needs to happened, the research speaks for it self.

Side: Team4: No, it is incidental