Advertisement

Hybrid learning environment: Collaborative or competitive learning?

  • Calixto Gutiérrez-Braojos
  • Jesus Montejo-Gamez
  • Ana Marin-Jimenez
  • Jesús Campaña
S.I. : VR in Education
  • 12 Downloads

Abstract

The aim of this study is to analyze the effect of different conditions of face-to-face learning on the participation and learning of students in the virtual community. In particular, we analyze the effect of collaboration vs intergroup competition learning on interdependence, regulation of socio-cognitive conflict, participation, and the quality of the contributions in a virtual learning platform. This study took place in an educational research course. The participants in the full investigation were 36 (94.44% females) undergraduates enrolled in the subject of educational research, which was part of a 4-year social education degree program. A Latin Squares design was applied to carry out the full investigation. The results show that conditions of collaboration without competition in face-to-face environments facilitate better quality of learning to a greater extent. In addition, there are no benefits of intergroup competition over individual competition learning. Thus, in this study, collaborative learning designs without any competition could be considered more consistent with the goal that underpins the main right to education: Each student is able to achieve what he has to achieve, taking advantage of the abilities of each and every agent in the learning community (teacher and students) to do so. These results are not consistent with previous studies. We suggest that characteristics of the sample could explain these differences between studies.

Keywords

CSCL SOLO taxonomy Socio-cognitive conflict Positive interdependence Intergroup competition Collaborative learning 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study has been made possible by the program Jose Castillejo of the Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports; and the collaboration of the IKIT; and the department of Curriculum, Teaching and Learning at OISE, University of Toronto.

References

  1. Álvarez RB, Mayo IC (2009) Las tecnologías de la información y la comunicación en la educación superior. Estudio descriptivo y de revisión. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación 50(7):1–12Google Scholar
  2. Arnab S, Nalla M, Harteveld C, Lameras P (2015) An inquiry into gamification services: practices, experience and insights. In: Proceedings of the international gamification for business conference, 21–22 Sept 2015, Aston, Birmingham, UK.Google Scholar
  3. Baer M, Leenders RTAJ, Oldham GR, Vadera AK (2010) Win or lose the battle for creativity: the power and perils of intergroup competition. Acad Manag J 53(4):827–845.  https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.52814611 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Basheri M, Munro M, Burd L, Baghaei N (2013) Collaborative learning skills in multi-touch tables for UML software design. Int J Adv Comput Sci Appl 4(3):60–66Google Scholar
  5. Biggs JB, Collis K (1982) Evaluating the quality of learning: the SOLO taxonomy. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown N, Smyth K, Mainka C (2006) Looking for evidence of deep learning in constructively aligned online discussions. In: Banks S, Hodgson V, Jones C, Kemp B, McConnell D, Smith C (eds) Proceedings of the fifth international conference on networked learning. Lancaster University, Lancaster, pp 315–322Google Scholar
  7. Butera F, Mugny G (2001) Conflict and social influences in hypothesis testing. In: De Dreu CKW, De Vries NK (eds) Group consensus and minority influence implications for innovation. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 160–182Google Scholar
  8. Butera F, Darnon C, Mugny G (2010) Learning from conflict. In: Jetten J, Hornsey M (eds) Rebels in groups: dissent, deviance, difference and defiance. Wiley, Oxford, pp 36–53Google Scholar
  9. Carter SP, Greenberg K, Walker MS (2017) The impact of computer usage on academic performance: evidence from a randomized trial at the United States Military Academy. Econ Educ Rev 56:118–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cheng-Huan C, Chiung-Hui C (2016) Employing intergroup competition in multitouch desing-based learning to foster student engagement, learning achievemet, and creativity. Comput Educ 103:99–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Commission E (2015) ECTS users’ guide. Publications Office of the European Union, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  12. Darnon C, Muller D, Schrager SM, Pannuzzo N, Butera F (2006) Mastery and performance goals predict epistemic and relational conflict regulation. J Educ Psychol 98:766–776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Deutsch M (1949) A theory of cooperation and competition. Hum Relat 2:129–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Deutsch M (2006) Cooperation and competition. In: Deutsch M, Coleman PT, Marcus EC (eds) The handbook of conflict resolution: theory and practice. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp 23–42Google Scholar
  15. Dillenbourg P, Schneider D, Synteta P (2002) Virtual learning environments. In: Dimitracopoulou A (ed) 3rd Hellenic conference ‘information & communication technologies in education’, Kastaniotis editions, Rhodes, Greece, pp 3–18Google Scholar
  16. Doise W, Mugny G (1984) The social development of the intellect. Pergamon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  17. Doise W, Mugny G, Perret-Clermont A (1975) Social interacction and the development of cognitive operations. Eur J Soc Psychol 5:367–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Downing K, Chim TM (2004) Reflectors as online extraverts? Educ Stud 30(3):265–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Echeverría L, Cobos R, Machuca L, Claros I (2017) Using collaborative learning scenarios to teach programming to non-CS majors. Comput Appl Eng Educ 25:719–731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fischer G, Rohde M, Wulf V (2007) Community-based learning: the core competency of residential, research-based universities. Int J Comput Support Collab Learn 2(1):9–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Garrison DR, Kanuka H (2004) Blended learning: uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. Internet High Educ 7:95–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ghaith GM, Shaaban KA, Harkous SA (2007) An investigation of the relationship between forms of positive interdependence, social support, and selected aspects of classroom climate. System 35:229–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gutiérrez-Braojos C, Salmerón P (2012) Building knowledge: theoretical model to analyze knowledge builders. C. 16th annual Knowledge Building Summer Institute, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  24. Gútierrez-Braojos C, Salmerón-Pérez H (2015) Exploring collective cognitive responsibility and its effects on students’ impact in a knowledge building community. J Study Educ Dev 38:327–367Google Scholar
  25. Hatzipanagos S (2006) HOT and flaming spirals: learning and empathic interfaces in discussion forum text-based dialogues. European Journal of Open Distance and ELearning, Retrieved 06 July 2013 from http://www.eurodl.org/materials/contrib/2006/ Stylianos_Hatzipanagos.htm
  26. Holmes K (2005) Analysis of asynchronous online discussion using the SOLO taxonomy. Aust J Educ Dev Psychol 5:117–127Google Scholar
  27. Inkpen K, Booth KS, Klawe M, Upitis R (1995) Playing together beats playing apart, especially for girls. In: Proceedings of CSCL ‘95, pp 177–181.Google Scholar
  28. Johnson DW, Johnson RT (1989) Cooperation and competition: theory and research. Interaction, EdinaGoogle Scholar
  29. Johnson DW, Johnson R (1996) Meaningful and manageable assessment through cooperative learning. Interaction, EdinaGoogle Scholar
  30. Johnson DW, Johnson RT (2004) Cooperation and the use of technology. In: Jonassen DH (ed) Handbook of research on educational communications and technology, 2nd edn. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp 785–811Google Scholar
  31. Johnson DW, Johnson RT (2005) New developments in social interdependence theory. Genet Soc Gen Psychol Monogr 131(4):285–358MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ke F, Grabowski B (2007) Gameplaying for math’s learning: Cooperative or not? Br J Educ Technol 38(2):249–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Koschmann T (1996) Paradigm shifts and instructional technology. In: Koschmann T (ed) CSCL: theory and practice of an emerging paradigm. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, pp 1–23Google Scholar
  34. Lacasa P (1993) La construcción social del conocimiento: Desarrollo y conflicto sociocognitivo. Una entrevista a Willem Doise. Infancia y aprendizaje 61:5–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mehlenbacher B (2010) Instruction and technology, designs for everyday learning. The MIT Press, Cambridge, p 495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mugny G, Doise W (1983) La construcción social de la inteligencia. Trillas, MéxicoGoogle Scholar
  37. Mugny G, Doise W, Perret-Clermont AN (1975–1976) Conflit de centrations et progrès cognitif[Conflict of centrations and cognitive progress]. Bulletin de Psychologie 29:199–204Google Scholar
  38. Mugny G, Levy M, Doise W (1978) Conflit socio-cognitif et développement cognitif [Socio-cognitive conflict and cognitive development]. Revue Suisse de Psychologie 37:22–43Google Scholar
  39. Mugny G, Giroud JC, Doise W (1978–1979) Conflit de centrations et progrès cognitif II: nouvelles illustrations expérimentales [Conflict of centrations and cognitive progress II: new experimental illustrations]. Bulletin de Psychologie 32:979–985Google Scholar
  40. Mugny G, De Paolis P, Carugati F (1984) Social regulations in cognitive development. In: Doise W, Palmonari A (eds) Social interaction in individual development. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 127–146Google Scholar
  41. Mugny G, Tafani E, Butera F, Pigière D (1999) Contrainte et de´pendance informationnelles: influence sociale sur la repre´sentation du groupe d’amis ide´al [Informational constraint and dependence: soial influence on the representation of the ideal group of friends]. Connexions 72:55–72Google Scholar
  42. Neugebauer J, Ray DG, Sassenberg K (2016) When being worse helps: the influence of upward social comparisons and knowledge awareness on learner engagement and learning in peer-to-peer knowledge exchange. Learn Instr 44:41–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Quiamzade A, Mugny G, Butera F (2013) Psychologie sociale de la connaissance. Fondements théoriques. [Social psychology of knowledge Theoretical foundations]. Presses Universitaires de Grenoble, GrenobleGoogle Scholar
  44. Regueras LM, Verdú E, Muñoz MF, Pérez MA, de Castro JP, Verdú MJ (2009) Effects of competitive e-learning tools on higher education students: a case study. IEEE Trans Educ 52(2):279–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Scardamalia M (2002) Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. In: Smith B (ed) Liberal educación in a knolwedge society. Open Court, Chicago, pp 67–98Google Scholar
  46. Scardamalia M (2004) CSILE/knowledge forum. In: Kovalchick A, Dawson K (eds) Education and technology: an encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO, Santa Barbara, pp 183–192Google Scholar
  47. Schrire S (2006) Knowledge building in asynchronous discussion groups: going beyond quantitative analysis. Comput Educ 46:49–70.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.04.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Stahl G (2006) Group cognition: computer support for building collaborative learning. The MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  49. Stahl G, Koschmann T, Suthers D (2006) Computer-supported collaborative learning: An historical perspective. In: Sawyer RK (ed) Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 409–426Google Scholar
  50. Tauer JM, Harackiewicz JM (2004) The effects of cooperation and competition on intrinsic motivation and performance. J Pers Soc Psychol 86(6):849–861.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.6.849 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wang X, Wallace PW, Wang Q (2017) Rewarded and unrewarded competition in a CSCL environment: a coopetition designado with a social cognitive perspectiva using PLS-SEM analyses. Comput Hum Behav 72:140–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Westbrook V (2006) The virtual learning future. Teach High Educ 11(49):471–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Yang SJH, Chen IYL, Kinshuk NS, Chen NS (2007) Enhancing the quality of e-learning in virtual learning communities by finding quality learning content and trustworthy collaborators. Educ Technol Soc 10(2):84–95Google Scholar
  54. Yazici HJ (2005) A study of collaborative learning style and team learning performance. Educ Train J 47(3):216–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Yu F-Y (2001) Competition within computer-assisted cooperative learning environments: cognitive, affective, and social outcomes. J Educ Comput Res 24(2):99–117.  https://doi.org/10.2190/3u7r-dcd5-f6t1-qkrj MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Yu F-Y, Han C, Chan T-W (2008) Experimental comparisons of face-to-face and anonymous real-time team competition in a networked gaming learning environment. CyberPsychol Behav 11(4):511–514.  https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2007.0171 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Research Methods in Education, Faculty of Educational SciencesUniversity of GranadaGranadaSpain
  2. 2.Department of Mathematical Education, Faculty of Educational SciencesUniversity of GranadaGranadaSpain
  3. 3.Department of Quantitative Methods, Faculty of Business ManagementUniversity of GranadaGranadaSpain
  4. 4.Department of Computer Sciences and Artificial Intelligence, High School of Informatics and TelecommunicationsUniversity of GranadaGranadaSpain

Personalised recommendations