Supporting Small-Group Learning Using Multiple Web 2.0 Tools: A Case Study in the Higher Education Context.

Abstract In this single-case study, small groups of learners were supported by use of multiple social software tools and face-to-face activities in the context of higher education. The aim of the study was to explore how designed learning activities contribute to students' learning outcomes by studying probabilistic dependencies between the variables. Explorative Bayesian classification analysis revealed that the best predictors of good learning outcomes were wiki-related activities. According to the Bayesian dependency model, students who were active in conceptualizing issues by taking photos were also active blog reflectors and collaborative knowledge builders in their group. In general, the results indicated that interaction between individual and collective actions likely increased individual knowledge acquisition during the course.

[1]  Esmahan Agaoglu,et al.  A Paradigm Shift in Distance Education: Web 2.0 and Social Software , 2007 .

[2]  Josephine M. Randel,et al.  The relation of knowledge organization to performance of a complex cognitive task , 1998 .

[3]  Finn V. Jensen,et al.  Bayesian Networks and Decision Graphs , 2001, Statistics for Engineering and Information Science.

[4]  Pierre Dillenbourg,et al.  Collaborative Learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches , 1999 .

[5]  C. J. Huberty,et al.  Applied Discriminant Analysis , 1994 .

[6]  Allan Collins,et al.  The second educational revolution: rethinking education in the age of technology , 2010, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[7]  Andrew Ravenscroft,et al.  Social software, Web 2.0 and learning: status and implications of an evolving paradigm , 2009, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[8]  Ann L. Brown,et al.  How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. , 1999 .

[9]  Katrina A. Meyer.  Web 2.0 research: Introduction to the special issue , 2010 .

[10]  Charles Crook,et al.  Web 2.0 technologies for learning: the current landscape – opportunities, challenges and tensions , 2008 .

[11]  P. Dillenbourg,et al.  The evolution of research on collaborative learning , 1996 .

[12]  Charlynn Miller,et al.  RSS and content syndication in higher education: subscribing to a new model of teaching and learning , 2008 .

[13]  Hans Spada,et al.  Learning in Humans and Machines: Towards an Interdisciplinary Learning Science , 1995 .

[14]  A J McKnight,et al.  TASK ANALYSIS METHODS , 1970 .

[15]  Roger Säljö,et al.  Representational Tools and the Transformation of Learning , 2003, CSCL.

[16]  Nadire Cavus,et al.  The efficient virtual learning environment: A case study of web 2.0 tools and Windows live spaces , 2011, Comput. Educ..

[17]  Sian Bayne,et al.  The appropriation and repurposing of social technologies in higher education , 2009, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[18]  E. Soloway,et al.  Creating a Framework for Research on Systemic Technology Innovations , 2004 .

[19]  Marlene Scardamalia,et al.  Discourse About Ideas: Monitoring and Regulation in Face-to-Face and Computer-Mediated Environments , 1998, Interact. Learn. Environ..

[20]  Sanna Järvelä,et al.  Investigating student engagement in computer-supported inquiry: a process-oriented analysis , 2008 .

[21]  R. Yin.  Case Study Research: Design and Methods , 1984 .

[22]  G. Salomon.  Distributed cognitions : psychological and educational considerations , 1997 .

[23]  Sebastian Fiedler,et al.  Supporting self-organized learning with personal Webpublishing technologies and practices , 2007, J. Comput. High. Educ..

[24]  T. Paulus,et al.  To blog or not to blog: Student perceptions of blog effectiveness for learning in a college-level course , 2010, Internet High. Educ..

[25]  Peter Congdon,et al.  Applied Bayesian Modelling , 2003 .

[26]  R. Hake.  Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses , 1998 .

[27]  N. Webb.  Peer interaction and learning in small groups , 1989 .

[28]  Patrick Jermann,et al.  Group mirrors to support interaction regulation in collaborative problem solving , 2008, Comput. Educ..

[29]  David H. Jonassen,et al.  Task Analysis Methods for Instructional Design , 1998 .

[30]  Matthew Self,et al.  Bayesian Classification , 1988, AAAI.

[31]  T. Paulus,et al.  Using a social networking site for experiential learning: Appropriating, lurking, modeling and community building , 2010, Internet High. Educ..

[32]  Steve Wheeler,et al.  Learning Space Mashups: Combining Web 2.0 Tools to Create Collaborative and Reflective Learning Spaces , 2009, Future Internet.

[33]  Barbara Wasson,et al.  Designing for Change in Networked Learning Environments, Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning, CSCL 2003, Bergen, Norway, June 14-18, 2003 , 2003, CSCL.

[34]  Henry Tirri,et al.  B-Course: A Web-Based Tool for Bayesian and Causal Data Analysis , 2002, Int. J. Artif. Intell. Tools.

[35]  Stephanie D. Teasley.  Talking about reasoning : How important is the peer in peer collaboration? , 1997 .

[36]  Fengfeng Ke,et al.  The effect of peer feedback for blogging on college students' reflective learning processes , 2008, Internet High. Educ..

[37]  P. Dillenbourg.  What do you mean by collaborative learning , 1999 .

[38]  Ulrike Cress,et al.  A systemic and cognitive view on collaborative knowledge building with wikis , 2008, Int. J. Comput. Support. Collab. Learn..

[39]  Shailey Minocha,et al.  The strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of using social software in higher and further education teaching and learning , 2010, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[40]  Nina Bonderup Dohn.  Web 2.0: Inherent tensions and evident challenges for education , 2009, Int. J. Comput. Support. Collab. Learn..

[41]  Sylwia Męcfal.  Recenzja książki. Robert K. yin, Case Study Research. Design and Methods (fourth Edition), thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2009 , 2012 .

[42]  William F. Birdsall,et al.  Web 2.0 as a Social Movement , 2007, Webology.