- Pierre Dillenbourg and Daniel Schneider's work on Collaborative Learning and the Internet
- Greg Kearsley and Ben Shneiderman's Engagement Theory
- Jan Buffington's study of Learning Communities as an Instructional Model
Although they take different tacks, each theory emphasizes collaboration as an important element and explores how technology can be used within an educational framework. Since I completed my undergraduate study in education, I have seen the benefits of effective collaboration in action. I was excited to be able to do additional research on this topic and see what some experts have to say on the subject. Although collaboration plays a slightly different role within each of these theories, it serves an essential purpose in each one. Here will follow a look at some of the similarities and differences beyond collaboration within these theories including technology, role of conflict, types of tasks, curriculum, and applicability to the corporate world.
Each of these theories investigates how technology affects student learning. Dillenbourg and Schneider warn early in their work that every five years or so, people need to be reminded that technology will not, on its own, improve education. Collaboration can be effective without the aide of technology. With the advent of the internet and its ability to facilitate distance learning, a focus must be placed on studying new tools. Before educators jump in with both feet, they need to investigate which tools will actually facilitate effective collaboration via distance learning. Kearsley and Shneiderman see technology as a key tool in the quest for engagement of the learner. It has the ability to engage students in ways that may not have been available without. Buffington recognizes that Learning Communities need to meet regularly. Technology can be used to help that happen when parties cannot be physically in the same place.
One interesting aspect of Collaborative Learning and the Internet is how it sees conflict to be a key mechanism of collaborative learning. This does not mean fighting and arguing, but that learners who are having to process differing viewpoints than their own are more likely to grow and learn. The two other theories did not emphasize this idea. One of the conditions of learning found by Dillenbourg and Schneider is through rich tasks that cannot be performed alone. Engagement Theory also emphasizes the need for rich tasks in the form of project based materials. Buffington puts more focus on the type of environment needed to foster collaboration than on the types of tasks, but did see the need for learners to have some common ground or shared practice to work with.
Dillenbourg and Schneider do not mention much about whether or not tasks need to be curriculum based. A key component of Engagement Theory, however, is that the most engaging tasks are non-academic in focus. They should give students the opportunity to apply what they have learned outside the classroom. In the Learning Communities model, curriculum is driven by the learner. Students can drive what they learn, while the instructor acts as a facilitator. This also applies to corporate applications where the workers make more decisions about what there work should be rather than the managers. Engagement theory focuses more on classroom engagement. The principles found in Collaborative Learning and the Internet research could apply to both the classroom and the corporate world, as collaboration and the internet are prevalent in both areas.
Overall each of these learning theories have differences, but they all seem to point in similar directions. Students and workers learn more through collaboration. Technology can be a useful tool to foster that collaboration, especially in a distance learning environment. Students learn more when they are interacting and working with others. No man is an island.
Word Clouds created using Jason Davies Word Cloud Generator
Bibliography:
One interesting aspect of Collaborative Learning and the Internet is how it sees conflict to be a key mechanism of collaborative learning. This does not mean fighting and arguing, but that learners who are having to process differing viewpoints than their own are more likely to grow and learn. The two other theories did not emphasize this idea. One of the conditions of learning found by Dillenbourg and Schneider is through rich tasks that cannot be performed alone. Engagement Theory also emphasizes the need for rich tasks in the form of project based materials. Buffington puts more focus on the type of environment needed to foster collaboration than on the types of tasks, but did see the need for learners to have some common ground or shared practice to work with.
Dillenbourg and Schneider do not mention much about whether or not tasks need to be curriculum based. A key component of Engagement Theory, however, is that the most engaging tasks are non-academic in focus. They should give students the opportunity to apply what they have learned outside the classroom. In the Learning Communities model, curriculum is driven by the learner. Students can drive what they learn, while the instructor acts as a facilitator. This also applies to corporate applications where the workers make more decisions about what there work should be rather than the managers. Engagement theory focuses more on classroom engagement. The principles found in Collaborative Learning and the Internet research could apply to both the classroom and the corporate world, as collaboration and the internet are prevalent in both areas.
Overall each of these learning theories have differences, but they all seem to point in similar directions. Students and workers learn more through collaboration. Technology can be a useful tool to foster that collaboration, especially in a distance learning environment. Students learn more when they are interacting and working with others. No man is an island.
 |
| View as PDF |
Word Clouds created using Jason Davies Word Cloud Generator
 |
| Collaborative Learning and the Internet |
 |
| Engagement Theory |
 |
| Learning Communities as an Instructional Model |
Bibliography:
Buffington, Jan. “Learning Communities as an Instructional Model.” Emerging Perspectives on Learning, Teaching and Technology. Ed. Michael Orey. MediaWiki, n.d. Web. 15 Sept. 2015. <http://epltt.coe.uga.edu/index.php?title=Learning_Communities_as_an_Instructional_Model>.
Dillenbourg, Pierre, and Daniel Schneider. “Collaborative learning and the Internet.” ICCAI 95 article. CERN Webmaker, 8 Feb. 1995. Web. 15 Sept. 2015. <http://tecfa.unige.ch/tecfa/research/CMC/colla/iccai95_1.html>.
Ellis, Andrea M. “Active Engagement Theory.” N.d. Theories in Occupational, Technical, and Workforce Education. Web. 15 Sept. 2015. <http://ocedtheories.wikispaces.com/file/view/EngagementTheory_AndreaEllis_PDF.pdf>.
Odom, D. “Engagement Theory.” The Encyclopedia of Educational Technology. Ed. Bob Hoffman. San Diego State University Department of Educational Technology, 6 Dec. 2010. Web. 16 Sept. 2015. <http://eet.sdsu.edu/eetwiki/index.php/Engagement_theory>.
No comments:
Post a Comment