SISLT CSCL

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Learning in collaboration could be better than learning alone under perfect circumstances. The instructor must make all lessons engaging enough to reach every student. The group members must make individual connections to feel important and comfortable in their learning environment. The group then must collaborate and to promote learning. While collaboration may help a few students, it will damage the majority. Reaching this level of mutual willingness to participate is unrealistic.

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

Counter-Argumentation

Learning in collaboration could be better than learning alone under perfect circumstances. The instructor must make all lessons engaging enough to reach every student. The group members must make individual connections to feel important and comfortable in their learning environment. The group then must collaborate and to promote learning. While collaboration may help a few students, it will damage the majority. Reaching this level of mutual willingness to participate is unrealistic.

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

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.

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.

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.

------------------------------

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.

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.