scholarly journals Group Leadership in Online Collaborative Learning

2011 ◽  
pp. 1052-1059
Author(s):  
Agnes Kukulska-Hulme
Keyword(s):  
Collaborative Learning ◽  
Leadership Styles ◽  
Group Dynamics ◽  
Online Discussion ◽  
Emergent Leadership ◽  
Group Leadership ◽  
Online Groups ◽  
Online Collaborative Learning ◽  
Student Activity ◽  
Teachers And Students

Online collaborative learning emphasizes student activity and is associated with changes in perceptions of who is responsible for leading groups of learners. It raises questions about the roles of teachers and students as leaders. A teacher may act as the guide or as a member of the group and a co-learner. An important question is whether the success or failure of online collaborative learning depends on the role and skills of a group leader. There is reason to believe that online groups do need guidance, but there is a need to consider the extent to which instructors make students aware of their roles, and the degree to which they are tangibly present in an online environment. A related issue is the skill set of the online leader, variously known as the online moderator, facilitator, coordinator, and so on, depending on his or her role. In actual fact, there may be different ways in which group participants contribute to leadership and numerous ways in which teams of teachers share responsibility for leading online groups. Group leadership should always be considered in the context of a range of factors that impact group dynamics. It is useful to be aware of the different philosophies that underpin online discussion and group working, the tasks in which learners engage, and the skills that instructors and students have or need to develop. Self-direction is a pivotal concept for the consideration of emergent leadership in online groups. Other important issues are leadership styles, social roles, relationships and norms, as well as the tools and media that may play a role in how collaboration is experienced by learners.

scholarly journals Group Leadership in Online Collaborative Learning

2011 ◽  
pp. 975-983 ◽  
Author(s):  
Agnes Kukulska-Hulme
Keyword(s):  
Collaborative Learning ◽  
Group Leader ◽  
Online Environment ◽  
Group Leadership ◽  
Online Groups ◽  
Online Collaborative Learning ◽  
Student Activity ◽  
Teachers And Students

Online collaborative learning emphasizes student activity and is associated with changes in perceptions of who is responsible for leading groups of learners. It raises questions about the roles of teachers and students as leaders. A teacher may act as the guide or as a member of the group and a co-learner. An important question is whether the success or failure of online collaborative learning depends on the role and skills of a group leader. There is reason to believe that online groups do need guidance, but there is a need to consider the extent to which instructors make students aware of their roles, and the degree to which they are tangibly present in an online environment.

Thinking Out of a Bowl of Spaghetti

2004 ◽  
pp. 132-159 ◽  
Author(s):  
John M. Dirkx ◽  
Regina O. Smith
Keyword(s):  
Collaborative Learning ◽  
Group Dynamics ◽  
Small Groups ◽  
Teaching And Learning ◽  
Group Development ◽  
Learning Approaches ◽  
Online Groups ◽  
Online Collaborative Learning ◽  
Learning Programs ◽  
Exponential Rates

Online learning programs have been expanding at exponential rates. To help encourage the development of learning communities within these environments, practitioners and scholars are advocating more collaborative learning approaches. Yet, many students express reservations about learning in small groups, particularly online. In this chapter, we explore more deeply the nature of student ambivalence about online collaborative learning. Weaving the findings of case studies of online groups with research and theory in collaborative learning and group dynamics, we argue that students hold on to highly subjective and individualistic understandings of teaching and learning. These perspectives manifest themselves in their overall approach to group inquiry and decision making. To embrace a more interdependent and intersubjective perspective requires a paradigm shift among members with regard to teaching and learning, and a working through of the powerful emotional dynamics associated with group development. We conclude with suggestions for designing and facilitating online environments that addresses these issues.

Assessing Online Collaborative Learning

2011 ◽  
pp. 282-293 ◽  
Author(s):  
Linda Harasim
Keyword(s):  
Collaborative Learning ◽  
Conceptual Change ◽  
Online Discussion ◽  
Theoretical Framework ◽  
Educational Activities ◽  
Workplace Education ◽  
Online Student ◽  
Online Collaborative Learning ◽  
Team Projects ◽  
Or Team

This chapter considers the unique opportunities for assessing online collaborative learning (OCL) in both formal (primary, secondary, and tertiary) and non-formal (workplace) education contexts. The chapter provides a theoretical framework, a methodology, and a set of tools for understanding and assessing online collaborative learning and conceptual change. Online collaborative learning (OCL), it is argued, provides hitherto unprecedented qualities for implementing, supporting, and assessing individual and group intellectual progress. The chapter focuses especially on the unique opportunities whereby instructors, educators, researchers, and students can analyze and assess learning (conceptual change) in OCL environments and applications: that is, online discussion that progresses from divergent (brainstorming) to convergent (conclusive statements) in such educational activities as group seminars, discussions, debates, case analyses, and/or team projects. Examples of OCL applications, such as the design of online student-led seminars, and ways to assess student moderators and student discussants, are included.

Process and Product Oriented Online Collaborative Learning Tasks

2011 ◽  
pp. 1680-1685
Author(s):  
Xinchun Wang
Keyword(s):  
Collaborative Learning ◽  
Online Discussion ◽  
Interactive Learning ◽  
Group Cohesion ◽  
Discussion Group ◽  
Learning Activities ◽  
Web Based ◽  
Online Collaborative Learning ◽  
Learning Tasks ◽  
Online Discussion Group

Although the pedagogical advantages of online interactive learning are well known, much needs to be done in instructional design of applicable collaborative learning tasks that motivate sustained student participation and interaction. Among others, some of the known factors that affect the outcomes of interactive learning include the structure of the online discussion, group size and group cohesion, strictly enforced deadlines, direct link of interactive learning activities to the assessment, and the differences between process and product oriented collaborative learning. This study explores the differences between process and product oriented group learning activities and their impact on online cooperation and collaboration in Web-based courses.

PENERAPAN STRATEGI MAKE A MATCH UNTUK MENINGKATKAN HASIL BELAJAR IPS KELAS IV SDN 005 KOTO SENTAJO KECAMATAN SENTAJO RAYA

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 444
Author(s):  
Fuji Nengsih
Keyword(s):  
Action Research ◽  
Initial Data ◽  
Learning Outcomes ◽  
Primary Schools ◽  
Activity Cycle ◽  
Student Activity ◽  
Teachers And Students ◽  
Classroom Action Research ◽  
Improved Learning ◽  
Daily Test

IPS learning is a science of socio-cultural phenomena, and economics. IPS education in primary schools aims todevelop student potential. This study is a classroom action research that aims to improve the learning processwith the ultimate impact of improved learning outcomes. Data obtained on teacher activity cycle II percentage62.5% and 71% at the second meeting. Cycle II the percentage of teacher activity 83% and 92% at the secondmeeting whereas in student activity on cycle I with percentage 50% and second meeting 62,5% increase in cycleII become 75% and 88% at second meeting cycle II. The activity of teachers and students influences the IPSlearning result data with average views on the initial data 68.3, increased to 79.8 and in the daily test II with anaverage of 89.5. The conclusions in this study are make-match strategies effective in improving IPS learningoutcomes.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document