102097 Researching Teaching and Learning 2 1

Assignment 2: Literature Review and Data Collection Protocol

Overarching Topic: Collaborative and cooperative learning and its impact on student
engagement in Stage 4 and Stage 5?

Subtopic: Does information and communication technology (ICT) enhance collaborative learning
and student engagement?

Introduction:
In the classroom context, students learn through interactions with teachers, peers

and learning technologies (Jaramillo, 1996). This group research project posits the idea that

learners socially negotiate their understanding of the world through others (Vygotsky, 1978)

and therefore collaborative and cooperative teaching strategies impact on student learning

engagement. The author’s chosen sub-topic investigates the impact of technology-specific

teaching strategies to build collaborative learning environments and to facilitate student

engagement.

The literature review consists of the research group’s consensus on the parameters

defining ‘collaborative learning’ (Rutherford, 2014), ‘cooperative learning’ (Johnson &

Johnson, 2009) and ‘engagement’ (Munns, Sawyer & Cole, 2013) and the social

constructivist theory which supports these definitions (Vygotsky, 1978). This is followed by a

discussion of the research into the use of information and communication technology (ICT)

in contemporary learning environs and the inconsistencies in ICTs impact on collaborative

learning and student engagement. The proposed observational data collection protocol and

its justification, are adapted from the research into student engagement by Munns, Sawyer

and Cole (2013) and the categorisation of group interactions by Chiu & Hsiao, (2010).

17165378 Christina Manawaiti

 102097 Researching Teaching and Learning 2 2

Part A: Literature Review

Collaborative and cooperative learning are claimed to be amongst the foremost

educational practices of the last four decades (Johnson & Johnson, 2009). These two terms

are used interchangeably, therefore the research group’s consensus on common definitions,

acknowledges the distinction given by Rutherford (2014) that: “co-operative learning” is

“the allocation of tasks between group members within a learning activity,” while

“collaborative learning” is “the combined focus of all group members on the same tasks

simultaneously” (Preface, vii). For the purposes of this research project, collaboration and

cooperation will follow Rutherford’s broad understanding which includes pedagogies that

incorporate “dialogue and group interaction between learners and a shared sense of

responsibility towards meaning-making or problem-solving” (2014, Preface, vii).

The predominance of collaborative learning can be largely attributed to the rise of

social interdependence theory and social-constructivist theory as influences in educational

pedagogy since the 1980s (Rutherford, 2014; Munns, Sawyer & Cole, 2013; Johnson &

Johnson, 2009; Vygotsky, 1978). Vygotsky’s social-constructive theory proposes that “higher

mental functions” are developed when the learner moves into areas of potential (Vygotsky’s

zone of proximal development (ZPD)) through “adult guidance or in collaboration with more

capable peers” (1978, p. 86). Hence student engagement is strongly linked to collaborative

learning environments where building knowledge is seen as “dialogic” [text emphasis] (Vass

2018, p. 102) and that engagement [author emphasis] with knowledge is contextual and

multi-faceted, (Fredericks, Blumenfeld & Paris, 2004; Munns et al, 2013; Sinha, Rogat,

Adams-Wiggins & Hmelo-Silver, 2015; Vass, 2018).

17165378 Christina Manawaiti

 102097 Researching Teaching and Learning 2 3

Due to the limitations in both scope and time-frame of the group project, the

overarching topic focuses on small ‘e’ engagement defined by Munns et al (2013) as

“substantive involvement in classroom learning experiences” demonstrated by “active,

enthusiastic and involved student learning” which is “in-task” not just “on task” (p. 19) and

is conditional upon this definition:

The term engagement [text emphasis] is used when the following three conditions

are present: the teacher provides regular and consciously crafted opportunities for

students to think hard (high cognitive), to feel good (high affective) and to work

towards being more productive learners (high operative)” (Munns, Sawyer & Cole,

2013, p.21).

These definitions will be adopted into the observational parameters for data collection on

instructional strategies to promote student participation and engagement in collaborative

learning with communication technology.

The subtopic: Information and communication technologies

With the rise of information and communication technologies in the 21st century,

digital literacy has become an essential life and work skill therefore education practices have

adapted to meet the requirements of the contemporary world (García-Sánchez, 2014).

Information and communication technology capability (ICT)1 is embedded in the Australian

curriculum, as is the development of collaborative learning and communication skills, in

personal and social capability (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority,

1
For the purposes of this literature review digital technologies includes information and communication
technologies such as: interactive white board (IWB), computers, smartphones and electronic tablets with or
without internet access, and examples of online interactive learning environments selected from blended
learning, flipped classrooms, internet research, social media, online resources and digital applications.

17165378 Christina Manawaiti

 102097 Researching Teaching and Learning 2 4

(ACARA), 2010 to present). Research into computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL)

pedagogies suggests that the introduction and proliferation of technology in the classroom

has some positive learning outcomes (Hong, Chang & Chai, 2014; Quinn, 2015; Munns et al,

2013) but with accompanying precautions (García-Valcárcel, Basilotta, & López, 2014; Hur &

Oh, 2012) and varying degrees of success (Sinah, Rogat, Adams-Wiggins & Hmelo-Silver,

2015; Chiu & Hsiao, 2010).

Positive learning engagement is potentiated in technology environments that are

inclusive of student collaboration in knowledge building and learning design. In a

quantitative analysis of 30 college students’ engagement in an online task, Hong, Chang and

Chai (2014) found that students progressively became more collaborative and productive

when engaged in collective knowledge building. In a mixed methods case study, Quinn

(2015) investigates the use of technology to assist in the collaboration between teachers

and middle school students to ‘co-design’ subject topic areas, key learning elements and

learning evidence. The results demonstrate a variance in student autonomy and indicate

that technology alone is not the driving element, but that supportive and trusting

teacher/student relationships and skilful scaffolding of tasks are key supporting structures.

In similar findings, Orlando (2013) states that effective teaching with technology is not

technology-driven but directed at optimising student engagement with high quality learning

opportunities that are contextually localised and student-focussed.

The main precaution to collaborative learning using ICT is the need for explicit

instruction of activities that scaffold student engagement in online collaborative work. In a

quantitative study of 291 Taiwanese elementary school students, Chiu and Hsiao (2010)

found that almost 70% of the groups set an online collaborative learning task were “passive

17165378 Christina Manawaiti

 102097 Researching Teaching and Learning 2 5

or reticent or frequently off task” in group participation and task completion (p. 433). The

data collection focussed on cluster analysis of the quality and content of online

communication within groups. This information was coded, categorised and quantified to

profile the communication characteristics (see insert Table 1).

Table 1: Categorisation of group interactions: Chiu & Hsiao, 2010, p. 430.

In a qualitative study, Sinah et al (2015) made video recordings of ten, mixed-ability,

science students in a collaborative project using online resources. Similar to Chiu and Hsiao

(2010), Sinah et al (2015) found contrasting results between groups in social, behavioural

and cognitive engagement, and offered advice on how to improve the design of the project

to guide students in the task and acknowledge the contribution of high quality social and

behavioural engagement to high conceptual learning. In a three-year study of laptop use in

a South Korean middle school, Hur & Oh, (2012) recorded declining engagement over time

and no significant difference in test scores compared to students without laptops. Declining

engagement was attributed to technical difficulties with the laptops and wireless

networking failures.

The caution with this application of technology for collaborative learning indicates

that exclusively computer-mediated collaborative tasks result in low quality communication

or off-task behaviours and can contribute to declining engagement. Unlike Munns et al

17165378 Christina Manawaiti

 102097 Researching Teaching and Learning 2 6

(2013) and Sinah et al (2015) who focus on teacher strategies for enhancing student

engagement, Chiu and Hsiao (2010) make little comment on the quality of the teacher

instruction given to prepare students for the online task. Given this limitation, the

categories of dialogue used in Table 1 will be adopted and adapted for use in the author’s

observational data protocol collection but the data collection will be augmented by

observational data of instructional strategies that enhance student engagement and

collaboration with information and communication technologies.

17165378 Christina Manawaiti

 102097 Researching Teaching and Learning 2 7

Part B: Data Collection Protocol: Observation

Focus: ICT impact on collaboration and engagement
Instructional strategy: high cognitive HC, high affective HA, high operative HO
Student participation: KEY
Participation Scale Code
Off task (OffT) 0-1 passive P=passive
2-4 reticent F=freq. off-task
On task (OnT) 5-7 actively participating A=actively participating
In task (InT) 8-10 knowledge emphasising KE=knowledge emphasising

Name of Course: ___________________Class/Period Observed: __________

Lesson Topic: ___________________________________________________

Student Demographics: Number of students in class ________ Males ___ Females ____

Class Layout: [draw diagram] including location of ICT devices

Time Field Notes (Record what actually happens) HC / HA / HO Participation Scale / code
I=Individual G=Group T=teacher

17165378 Christina Manawaiti

 102097 Researching Teaching and Learning 2 8

Consent Form:

Dear Potential Participant:

I am working on a project titled, Collaborative and Cooperative Learning and its Impact on Student
Engagement in Stage 4 and Stage 5, for the class, ‘Researching Teaching and Learning 2,’ at Western
Sydney University. As part of the project, I am collecting information to help inform the design of a
teacher research proposal.

The topic is: “Does information and communication technology (ICT) enhance collaborative learning
and student engagement?”

The intention of this project is to collect observational data of the levels of student participation and
engagement in collaborative ICT activities. Specifically: peer to peer interaction that demonstrates
collaborative learning and engagement through in-task activity, on-task activity, or off-task activity; and
instructional strategies that provide high cognitive (HC), high affective (HA) and high operative (HO)
learning opportunities (see attached justification of data collection for explanation terms).
By signing this form, I acknowledge that:

 I have read the project information and have been given the opportunity to discuss the
information and my involvement in the project with the researcher/s.
 The procedures required for the project and the time involved have been explained to me, and
any questions I have about the project have been answered to my satisfaction.
 I consent to the recording of observations of in-class teaching strategies and student
participation.
 I understand that my involvement is confidential and that the information gained during this
data collection experience will only be reported within the confines of the ‘Researching Teaching
and Learning 2’ unit, and that all personal details will be de-identified from the data.
 I understand that I can withdraw from the project at any time, without affecting my relationship
with the researcher/s, now or in the future.

By signing below, I acknowledge that I am 18 years of age or older, or I am a full-time university student
who is 17 years old.

Signed: __________________________________

Name: __________________________________

Date: __________________________________

By signing below, I acknowledge that I am the legal guardian of a person who is between 13 to 17 years
old, and provide my consent for the person’s participation.

Signed: __________________________________

Name: __________________________________

Date: __________________________________

17165378 Christina Manawaiti

 102097 Researching Teaching and Learning 2 9

Part C: Data Collection Protocol Explanation

The study will be conducted in a government comprehensive high school of 923

students. The chosen participants are teacher(s) of Stage 4 and 5 students. The practising

teacher(s) must use information and communication technologies (ICT) as part of their

teaching strategies. The participants will need to have signed an informed consent (included

in previous section). The intention is to conduct three observations of in-class activities that

incorporate ICT (as defined in the literature review previously), using the observation

protocol and embedded themes and patterns for analysis.

The purpose of the observation protocol is to map the use of technology-specific

teaching strategies that build collaborative learning environments and facilitate student

engagement. Qualitative data will be collected during a preservice teacher practicum from

May-June 2018 which is equivalent to Term 2 in the government school schedule. The

observation protocol design involves at least three observations of a single teacher or a

single observation of at least three teachers, with a preference for the use of multiple

participants to reduce the likelihood of repetition. To assist with the data collection, I will

use a field log of in-class events using the attached observation protocol sheet.

From the literature review, the “categories of dialogue” used in Table 1 (Chiu &

Hsiao, 2010, p. 430) have been adopted and adapted for use in the author’s observational

data protocol collection. The student participation scale applies a numerical value to the

range of low operative off-task (OffT) activity, to middle range on-task (OnT) activity and

high operative in-task (InT) activity. Examples of the accompanying behaviours are given in

the table but are not detailed in the observation protocol.

17165378 Christina Manawaiti

 102097 Researching Teaching and Learning 2 10

Table A: Categorisation of student participation scale: 0-10.

Participation category Scale Code
Off task (OffT) 0-2 passive P=passive
Gossip, bicker, disturb, distract 2-4 reticent F=freq. off-task
On task (OnT) manage process & task 5-7 actively participating A=actively participating
Presence, motivate, accountable,
solve conflicts, manage time,
seek/give help, review, confirm
In task (InT) discuss knowledge 8-10 knowledge emphasising KE=knowledge emphasising
Concept meanings, interrelationships,
hierarchical order of concepts

In addition, I am using the definition of engagement defined in the research of Munns,

Sawyer and Cole (2013) and descriptors detailed by Orlando (2013, pp.139-144, Appendix A)

by observing for evidence of high cognitive (HC), high affective (HA) and high operative (HO)

instructional strategies.

Table B: Categorisation of ICT instructional strategies (Orlando, 2013)

High cognitive (HC) Curriculum content: access new information; provide a range of vantage
points, teacher models new processes and is a knowledge resource.
High affective (HA) Learning community: shared decision making, facilitate relationships,
establish an environment of trust and respect.
High operative (HO) Scaffolding: present content / instructions in multiple ways using ICT and
IWB applications; provision of screen-based technologies as student
resources for presentation of ideas.

These data collection protocols are based on Rutherford’s broad understanding of

collaboration which includes pedagogies that incorporate “dialogue and group interaction

between learners and a shared sense of responsibility towards meaning-making or problem-

solving” (2014, Preface, vii). The protocols also follow the multi-faceted understanding of

engagement identified in multiple research projects (Fredericks, et al, 2004; Munns et al,

2013; Sinha, et al, 2015; Vass, 2018).

17165378 Christina Manawaiti

 102097 Researching Teaching and Learning 2 11

References

Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) (2010 to present).

General capabilities. Retrieved from https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-

curriculum/general-capabilities/

Chiu, C.-H., & Hsiao, H.F. (2010). Group differences in computer supported collaborative

learning: Evidence from patterns of Taiwanese students’ online communication.

Computers & Education, 54(2), 427-435. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.08.026.

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods

approaches (4th Ed.). Los Angeles, Calif.: SAGE.

Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the

concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59-109.

doi:10.3102/00346543074001059.

García-Sánchez, S. (2014). Chapter 1: Knowledge creation and digital collaboration in higher

education. In S. Rutherford (Ed.) Collaborative learning: theory, strategies and

educational benefits. Hauppauge, New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc. ProQuest

Ebook Central,

http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uwsau/detail.action?docID=2097208

García-Valcárcel, A., Basilotta, V., & López, C. (2014). ICT in Collaborative Learning in the

Classrooms of Primary and Secondary Education. Las TIC en el aprendizaje

colaborativo en el aula de Primaria y Secundaria., 21(42), 65-74. doi:10.3916/C42-

2014-06.

17165378 Christina Manawaiti

 102097 Researching Teaching and Learning 2 12

Hong, H.-Y., Chang, Y.-H., & Chai, C. (2014). Fostering a collaborative and creative climate in

a college class through idea-centred knowledge-building. Instructional Science, 42(3),

389-407. doi:10.1007/s11251-013-9289-y

Hur, J. W., & Oh, J. (2012). Learning, engagement, and technology: Middle school students

three-year experience in pervasive technology environments in South Korea. Journal

of Educational Computing Research, 46(3), 295-312. doi:10.2190/EC.46.3.e.

Jaramillo, J. (1996). Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory and contributions to the development of

constructivist curricula. Education, 117(1), 133-140.

Johnson, D.W, & Johnson, R.T. (2009). An educational psychology success story: Social

interdependence theory and cooperative Learning. Educational Researcher, 38(5),

365-379.

Munns, G., Sawyer, W., & Cole, B., (Eds.), The Fair Go Team. (2013). Exemplary teachers of

students in poverty. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, New York: Routledge.

Orlando, J. (2013). Engaging teaching practices with ICT in low SES schools. In G. Munns, W.

Sawyer & B. Cole, (Eds.), The Fair Go Team. (2013). Exemplary teachers of students in

poverty. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, New York: Routledge.

Quinn, S. (2015). Collaborative Learning Design in the Middle School: Sculpting 21st Century

Learners. International Journal of Learning: Annual Review, 21, 31-51.

Rutherford, S. (Ed.) (2014). Collaborative learning: theory, strategies and educational

benefits. Hauppauge, New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc. ProQuest Ebook

Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uwsau/detail.action?docID=2097208

Sinha, S., Rogat, T., Adams-Wiggins, K., & Hmelo-Silver, C. (2015). Collaborative group

engagement in a computer-supported inquiry learning environment. An Official

17165378 Christina Manawaiti

 102097 Researching Teaching and Learning 2 13

Publication of the International Society of the Learning Sciences, 10(3), 273-307.

doi:10.1007/s11412-015-9218-y.

Vass, E. (2018). Chapter 10: Building dialogic spaces through inclusive conversations. In W.

Sawyer, G. Munns, K. Zammit, C. Attard, E. Vass, C. Hatton (2018). Engaging

schooling: developing exemplary education for students in poverty (pp. 101-119).

Abingdon, Oxon; New York, NY: Routledge.

17165378 Christina Manawaiti

 102097 Researching Teaching and Learning 2 14

Appendix A: Descriptors of instructional strategies using ICT

Descriptors for the ways teachers use high cognitive, high operative and high affective strategies
with technology (Orlando, 2013, pp. 139-140).

17165378 Christina Manawaiti