Please cite this article as: LOTFI, Z.

Collaborative Learning for Secondary School: A Study on Important Features for Learners and Teachers at Secondary Schools. The 23rd AAOU Annual Conference of Open &Distance Learning, 2009 Tehran, Iran. 880 - 889.

Collaborative Learning for Secondary School: A Study on Important Features for Learners and Teachers at Secondary Schools
Zahra Lotfi Faculty of Computer Science & Information Technology, University of Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia lotfinasri@yahoo.com
ABSTRACT Nowadays, educational technology is getting growing importance for the learning environment. So e-learning is an essential tool for teaching and learning. Many researches have been done to investigate the effectiveness of e-learning. Therefore consideration must be given to the development of collaborative activities outside the classrooms, which enables students to learn together. This research offers collaborative learning in a good learning environment to do homework and projects. The purpose of the study was to find out the essential features on collaborative software, particularly on Secondary School and Pre University learners participation. It also aimed to find out how to u se collaborative software to do homework and projects together in separate places and also to improve the learning skills. They were willing to consider this learning method for further studies. The instruments used to gather data were interviews and also a survey which undertook the completion of two printed questionnaires for both learners and teachers before the implementation of the software. The data collected was then subjected to statistical analysis. The findings gathered and analyzed in Educational Complex of Imam Khomeini Kuala Lumpur were found to satisfy the involvement of collaborative learning at home. Collaborative learning can be put into practice to enhance learning and teaching. The respondents perceived the positive effect of collaborative learning features tested. Generally, the respondents were willing to consider Collaborative learning as they planned to do their homework and projects together for better learning effectiveness. The two main criteria for choosing collaborative software were its software contents and web page accessibility. Finally, the research contributions and future enhancements are elaborated. Keywords: cooperative/collaborative learning, teaching/learning strategies, distributed learning environments, e-learning, educational software, technology

1. INTRODUCTION
Collaborative Learning supports active student involvement in the learning field. In CL, students are able to work together in small group towards a shared learning goal. Collaborative learning emphasizes on collaborative efforts among students in their group along with the teachers guidance. Students are accountable for their own, and also responsible for the group members learning. Hence, the success of one helps other students to be successful (Gokhale, 1995). Collaborative Learning gives students the opportunity to express and discuss their opinions, and encourages their understandings (Nobel, 2002). 880

The aim of this research is to determine essential and suitable features of a collaborative tool for learners from learners and teachers view.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW
The twenty-first century ushered unprecedented developments in the field of education all over the world. The once favored teacher-centered strategy in the classroom became the center of debates among educators and social scientists. Tracing from McLuhans notion of global village, the world now, through computers and the World Wide Web give access to all information. Knowledge is no longer the monopoly of the teacher.

2.1.

Computers and Education

Computers are interactive tools in teaching and learning. Invented to assist human endeavors as well as improve practical and theoretical aspects of science and technology, computers have now become indispensable in almost all aspects of life. Molnar (1997) believes that technology and education are highly interrelated. Although technology increases productivity, it also requires a highly skilled work force that is computer literate. Within the education sector, teachers should possess the skills to address what Kress (2005) calls new literacies. With a broader perspective in education, both teachers and students find ways to have access to new intellectual tools of modern learning. Through computers and global networks, learning leads to collaborative efforts between teachers and students in the classroom, workplace, and even in the homes. As the tools are extended and applied in a wider scale, the flow of information exchange also spreads to other networks where learning also takes place. According to Molnar, research shows that educational technology, when properly applied, can provide effective means for learning because the new intellectual technologies pave the way in the expansion of human capacity and reasoning to compensate human limitations.

2.2.

Collaborative Learning

In contrast to one-way learning process or teacher-centered, collaborative learning aims at giving importance to various individuals who are in a situation to learn something not as separate learners but together (Dillenbourg 1999). He explains that members of collaborative learning can be a pair, or a small group composed of three to five individuals. It can also be a class of twenty to thirty individuals, a community with a few hundreds of people, and a society of several millions of people. Dillenbourg (1999) lists different types of interaction as members engage in sharing information. This includes face-to-face in real time or computer mediated communication in virtual time. Since collaboration in whatever form is a joint activity, he stresses that in some situations, there is a systematic division of tasks among those who take part in the joint activity. In the classroom, for instance, Nobel (2002) stresses that collaborative learning is a result of interaction between peers engaged in the common task assigned to students who are tasked to complete it. In this context, students work together as a team and play significant role to accomplish the task. If such task needs more time, students may continue working out of the classroom. In the end, students feel that they are part of the learning process. Goodyear (2000) confirms that collaborative learning offers an environment that benefits students because it sustains interest, builds their confidence, and provides a more natural learning atmosphere. When students work 881

among themselves, they also learn to manage their time and initiate new skills in their own learning in collaboration with their peers and other friends. Nagata and Rondowski (1998) classify collaborative learning as an umbrella term for the various types of learning involving a group of individuals. They point out that collaborative learning is synonymous to cooperative learning. Although in essence, the common ground is cooperative among learners, in collaborative learning, the aim is to assign responsibility to students. This does not always happen in cooperative learning because the teacher depends highly on structured design that is assigned to student to accomplish. Thus, in cooperative learning, teachers intervention is present while in collaborative learning, the way of completing the task may diverge from what the teacher has earlier planned.

2.3.

Advantages of Collaborative Learning Applications

While collaborative learning helps students to learn more effectively, many educators place a high premium on teaching strategies that go beyond mere mastery of content and ideas. Experts believe collaborative learning promotes a larger educational agenda that encompasses several intertwined rationales involving students, teachers and staff, and various institutions, especially schools. Panitz (2002) lists more than 60 benefits of collaborative learning that enhance skills related to critical thinking, communication, and teamwork while Gokhale (1995) puts more emphasis on students discovery, construction, and awareness of their own thinking process. According to Katz and Lesgold (1993), studies have shown that self evaluation in terms of elaborating and explanation concepts as well as sharing the process to others assist significantly in learning. Critical thinking methods illustrate the divergent ways of information processing and active learning. The integration of interaction in the whole process of collaborative learning between and among students or partners create practical social context in educational settings (Goodyear 2000). This environment proves beneficial in sustaining students interest to learn in a much more natural atmosphere where they develop their personal skills, namely, teamwork or collaboration, communication, co-ordination, and time management. Extending this area of concern to professionals leads to increasing projectbased and team-based activities that are grounded on sharing of tasks and responsibilities. The end goal is aimed at lessening individual competition that has been well entrenched in almost all working environments in different centers of learning and professional endeavors.

2.3.1. Benefits to Students and, Teachers

Collaborative learning is learner-centered or student-centered. As mentioned earlier, students are the active agencies who are provided the courseware to complete assigned tasks in collaboration with others. Towards this end, students become thinking individuals. Working closely with others promotes critical thinking, develops higher level of cognitive skills, and communication skills. It also fosters metacognition among students as well as improves recall of text content. Because students are actively involved in the learning process, teachers allow them to do the exercises that are less restricted. Collaborative learning also reduces tension by increasing students persistence to accomplish the tasks. In its wider application, collaborative learning appropriates students 882

the ability and freedom to solve problems using new techniques that they can discover by themselves. Weaker students are assisted by advanced students in an atmosphere of trust. Through teamwork, learning is shared among themselves (Panitz 2000). In collaborative learning environment, teachers and staff are introduced to a range of themes, topics, and topics for students to complete. A wider range of resources through various online links result in a more dynamic engagement between students, teachers, and staff (Nobel 2002). The benefits of CL are outlined and summarized (Panitz 2000). CL is used to personalize large classes to encourage students to participate. It promotes understanding among teachers and staff and provides teachers to explore on assessment techniques aside from the traditional exams or tests after each lesson.

2.4.

Collaborative learning tools and features

Ab Rahman (2006) shows classification tools and features of CL applications with WeRcLeA (the reviewing tool for CL applications). Based on this Research that derived from the summary of the reviews of three classifications (Kaye (1995), Landon (2002), and Koschmann (1996)) the four aspects are found. The four categories of tools for learners are: Communication tools(Asynchronous(Group email, Announcement, Calendar, Discussion forum) and Synchronous (Chat, Shared Whiteboard, Application sharing, Virtual space, Voice chat, Video conferencing) Shared repository tools (Search Facility, curriculum objective/Syllabus, Shared Bookmark, Real-time data, data collection, List of projects, Frequency Asked Questions(FAQ)) Group learning tools(Project Space or Group space, Personal space, Group Forming, Negotiation, Expert Services, Presentation and Submission, Online guide, Wiki) Assessment tools(Self-reflection, Self-assessment, Group-assessment, Progress Tracking, Online Survey)

3. METHODOLOGY
This research focuses on important collaborative learning tools and features, of CL applications suitable for supporting learners and teachers collaborative activities from their views. The methodology used in this research follows the steps below: Arranging two meeting for obtaining CL tools and features from students view Making two questionnaires for learner and teacher based on suitable tools and features of CL in the literature review and two meetings To distribute and return the questionnaires Obtain weighted average values of the features and tools of CL application, Mean Value for each category of tools for learners and teachers, and the Overall mean value based on questionnaires.

883

3.1.

The Meetings

To gather suitable CL tools and features, we arranged two meetings each taking 1.5 hours (one period), with Grad 10 (containing 22 students) and Pre University (containing 20 students).we followed these items in each meeting - Introducing CL tools and features for learners - Explaining each CL tool and feature for learners - Discussing the important ones from students view - Obtaining suitable CL tools and features from learners view.

3.2.

The questionnaires

Two forms of questionnaires each being two-page structured consisting three sections were made for learners and teachers in order to find the suitable CL tools and features for learners based on the meetings. Section I measures the general details and students satisfaction of using CL applications. Section II, measures the application details that indicate the essential tools and features from students or teachers views and the last section, is free response feedback.

3.2.1. Implementation of the learners questionnaire

The participants of the questionnaire were 205 students from grades 9,10, 11&Pre

University from the Complex of Imam Khomeini in Kuala Lumpur. Before filling up the questionnaires, the following steps were taken: 1- The research was explained and introduced. 2- The Collaborative Learning applications were explained. 3- Collaborative tools and features were introduced. 4- One CL application was shown and its tools and features were indicated. Then, the questionnaires were given and collected back. This task took about a month.

3.2.2. Implementation of the teachers questionnaire

The participants of the questionnaire were 55 teachers from secondary and Pre University. Before filling up the questionnaires, oral explanations were given to some and for the rest written explanations were sent by email. Then, the questionnaires were given and collected. This task took more than a month.

3.2.3. Data Collection and Analysis of the questionnaires

From 711 students in Educational Complex of Imam Khomeini in Kuala Lumpur 224, study in Secondary and Pre University. Based on Krejcie & Morgan table, the required sample size would be about 205. These questionnaires were analyzed and the following values were calculated: Weighted average value (WAV) of each feature and the Mean Value for learners and teachers: WAV = (P + 2 Q + 3 R + 4 S) / 205 Where P, Q, R and S are the number of responses for the Likert Scale 1, 2, 3, 4 respectively and 205 is the total number of responses. Mean Value for each category of tools for learners and teachers: As the mean value is calculated from the weighted average value (WAV), it is concluded that the greater the mean value, the more important is that category of tools. The mean value of each category of tools is calculated by the following formula: 884

Mean Value = (WAV1 + WAV2 + WAV3+ + WAVn) / n Where n is the maximum number of features in that category of tools. The overall mean value: It is concluded that the greater the overall mean value, the greater is the importance of the tools. The overall mean value is found by the following formula: Overall mean value = (mean value1 + mean value2 + .. +mean value5) / 5 The number represents the 5 categories of learners tools which are: - Asynchronous communication - Synchronous communication - Shared repository - Group learning - Assessment

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

The results of this research are divided in two parts, the result of meetings, and questionnaires.

4.1.

The Results of the Meetings

The results of these two meeting are shown in figure 1

Figure 1: The important CL tools and features for Learner from learners and teachers view

4.2. The Results of the Questionnaires

The research results are divided in two parts, Section I, and II results of both questionnaires.

4.2.1. Results of Section I:

This section obtained general details. There were 16 and 21 questions for learner and teacher, respectively. Some questions required general data, such as age, gender and educational

885

experience. There were 150 male, and 55 female learners participating. On the other hand, 4 male, and 51 female teachers were involved. There are questions requiring details related to the research, as well. The important statements are listed in Table 1.
Table 1: The important output of both questionnaires Statements Learners Percentage 1- Having computer at home 97.56 2- Having computer at school 100 3- Using computer every day 87.80 4- Using Internet every day 87.05 5- To like to work with computer 92.68 6- To like to do or plan the homework using a computer 78.05 7- Not to like traditional learning 85.37 8- To like to communicate together through the Internet to do 80.49 the homework 9- To like to share the duty or the homework 82.93 10- To like to do/plan the assignment through the Internet 70.10 Teachers Percentage 100 100 81.82 72.73 90.91 81.82 63.64 54.55 60.00 64.40

Table 1 shows that most participants like to use computer and technology in learning and teaching fields. They are also interested in sharing activities and tasks and like to engage to CL applications for learning and teaching.

4.2.2. Results of Section II:

This part discusses the results of Section II for some features of CL applications based on learners and teachers questionnaires.

4.2.2.1. Asynchronous Communication

This part contains the results of some asynchronous communication features of CL applications that are categorized based on learners and teachers views.
Table 2: Importance of Asynchronous Communication features for Learners and Teachers Features Weighted Average Value Weighted Average Value (WAV) for Learner (WAV)for Teacher Group Email 3.07 3.18 Announcement, Event, News 3.05 3.05 Calendar(Exam time table) 3.41 3.27 Discussion Forum 3.00 3.05 Mean Value for Communication Asynchronous Learner 3.13 Teacher 3.14

Table 2 shows that all features of Asynchronous communication tools category are very important as the WAV obtained in all seems to exceed 3.00. Calendar (exam time table) is rated to be the highest with 3.41 and 3.27points. The mean values 3.13 and 3.14 prove that asynchronous communication is very important.

4.2.2.2. Synchronous Communication

Table 3: Importance of Synchronous Communication features for Learners and Teachers Features Weighted Average Value Weighted Average Value (WAV) for Learner (WAV)for Teacher Chat 3.39 2.55 Shard Whiteboard 2.82 2.82 Video Conferencing 2.71 2.18

886

Mean Value Communication

for

Synchronous

Learner 2.97

Teacher 2.52

Table 3 shows that the important synchronous communication tools are chat for learners and shared whiteboard for teachers. However, video conferencing is not that important to them. One reason for it is that they can communicate face to face in school every day. The mean values being 2.97 for learners and 2.52 for teachers represent that some synchronous communications are more important in a CL application. For both types of participants, chat with 3.39, 2.55 for learners and teachers respectively and shared whiteboard with 2.82 for both, are more significant.

4.2.2.3. Shared Repository

Table 4: Importance of Shared Repository features for Learners and Teachers Features Weighted Average Value Weighted Average Value (WAV) for Learner (WAV)for Teacher Search Facility 3.27 3.27 Syllabus, Curriculum objectives 3.12 3.27 Shared Bookmarks 3.02 2.45 Frequently Asked Questions(FAQ) 3.02 3.00 Mean Value for Shared Repository Learner 3.11 Teacher 3.00

In Table 4, the search facility with 3.27 and syllabus, curriculum objectives with 3.12 are rated to be the highest for learner and similarly with 3.27 (search facility), 3.27 (syllabus, curriculum objectives) for teacher. From learners view, search facility and syllabus, curriculum objectives are rated as important which is very close to 3.00 the average. FAQ, in addition is rated to be close to the average as well as search facility and syllabus (curriculum objectives) from teachers view. The mean values being 3.11 for learner and 3.00 for teacher show that shared repository tool category is very important through participants observations.

4.2.2.4. Group Learning

Table 5: Importance of Group Learning features for Learners and Teachers Features Weighted Average Weighted Average Value (WAV) for Learner Value (WAV)for Teacher Project Space 3.20 3.27 Personal Workspace 3.10 3.00 Group Forming 3.39 3.16 Negotiation 3.30 3.19 Wiki 3.00 3.00 Presentation and Submission 3.07 3.01 Expert Services 3.01 3.01 Online guides and support 3.00 3.07 Mean Value for Group Learning Learner 3.13 Teacher 3.09

In Table 5, it is found that students positioned group forming, negotiation and project space as important group learning features with weighted average value of 3.39, 3.30 and 3.20. Also, it is shown that teachers placed project space, negotiation, and group 887

forming as the important group learning features with WAV of 3.27, 3.19 and 3.16. The mean values being 3.13 for learner and 3.09 for teacher show that group learning tool category is very important in participants observation.

4.2.2.5. Assessment
Table 6: Importance of Group Learning features for Learners and Teachers Features Weighted Average Value Weighted Average (WAV) for Learner (WAV)for Teacher Self-assessment 2.82 3.39 Group assessment 2.82 3.50 Mean Value for Group Learning Learner 2.82 Teacher 3.45

Value

Table 6 shows assessment features not to be important from learners view and to be very important from teachers view.

5. CONCLUSIONS
Figure 2 summarizes the important categories of tools from learners and teachers views. The categories of tools are depicted in a bar chart with their respective mean values.
Figure 2: Important tools from Learner and Teachers views

3.5 3.45 3.4 3.35 3.3 3.25 3.2 3.15 3.1 3.05 3 2.95 2.9 2.85 2.8 2.75 2.7 2.65 2.6 2.55 2.5 2.45 2.4 2.35 2.3

3.45 3.14 3.13

2.97 3.11 3 3.13 3.09 2.82 2.52 Learner Teacher

Mean Value

Categories of tools for learners

Figure2 shows that the asynchronous communication and group learning tools are highly important with 3.13 as the mean value. Also, the assessment tool holds the highest importance with 3.45. All other categories are also important except for synchronous communication and assessment from learners view and synchronous communication

888

from teachers view. The overall mean value for learners view is 3.032 and for teachers view is 3.04. This research describes the implementation and analysis of the questionnaires on the importance of tools and features to support learners and teachers collaborative activities. REFERENCES
Ab Rahman, H. (2006), The development of WeRCLeA : a reviewing tool for collaborative learning applications, University of Malaya, Faculty of Computer Science and Information Technology, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Dillenbourg, P. (1999). Introduction: What do you mean by "collaborative learning "? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative Learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 1-19) Amsterdam: Pergamon, Elsevier Science. http://tecfa.unige.ch/tecfa/publicat/dil-papers-2/Dil.7.1.14.pdf Gokhale A.A. (1995), Collaborative Learning Enhances Critical Thinking, Journal of Technology Education, 7(1), fall 1995. Goodyear, P. (2000), Networked learning in higher education, Available: http://csalt.lancs.ac.uk/jisc/Guideline 1.html (Accessed: 2009, Feb10) Katz, S., & Lesgold, A. (1993). The role of the tutor in computer-based collaborative learning situations. In: Lajoie, S.P. & Derry, S.J.(Eds.), Computers as Cognitive tools. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ. Kaye, A. R., 1995, Computer Supported Collaboration Learning , Information Technology and Society, PP 192-210. Koschmann, T. D.,1996, CSCL: Theory and Practice of an Emerging Paradigm: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, Mahwah, New Jersey. Krejcie, R. V. & Morgan, D. W., (1970), Determining Sample Size for Research Activities,Educational and Psychological Measurement,no.30, pp. 607-610. Kress, G. (2003): Literacy in the New Media Age. London: Routledge. Landon, B., British Columbias Centre for Curriculum, Transfer & Technology (C2T2) and Western Cooperative for Educational Telecommunications http://www.edutools.info/course/index.jsp (Accessed: 2009, July 4) Molnar, A.R., 1997., Computers in Education: A Brief History.,T.H.E. journal,vol.24, no.11, pp.63-69. Nagata, K. & Ronkowski, S.(1998). Collaborative Learning: Differences Between Collaborative and Cooperative Learning, The Office of Instructional Consultation, University of California Santa Barbara. http://www.oic.id.ucsb.edu/Resources/Collab-L/Differences.html (Accessed: 2009, Jun 2) Nobel,A. , Ingleton,C., Double , L. & Rogers, T. (2002), Leap into ... Collborative Learning , Availible: http://www.adelaide.edu.au/ltdu/leap/leapinto/collab_learning.pdf (Accessed : 2009,Fab18). Panitz, T. (2000), Benefits of Collaborative Learning, Available: http://www.gphillymath.org/ListServers/coop_learning.pdf (Accessed: 2009, Feb10)

889