Advertisement

Education and Information Technologies

, Volume 22, Issue 3, pp 939–964 | Cite as

Blending the CoI model with Jigsaw technique for pre-service foreign language teachers’ continuing professional development using Open Sim and Sloodle

  • Nikolaos PellasEmail author
  • Anna Boumpa
Article

Abstract

This study seeks to investigate the effect of pre-service foreign language teachers’ interactions on their continuing professional development (CPD), using a theoretical instructional design framework consisted of the three presence indicators of a Community of Inquiry (CoI) model and the Jigsaw teaching technique. The investigation was performed through a case study with thirty-five (n = 35) teachers who participated voluntarily in three consecutive tasks, by blending Sloodle as a free plug-in via the three-dimensional (3D) multi-user virtual world Open Simulator (Open Sim), with the purpose of creating virtual learning environments. A mixed-method research was conducted to be measured pre-service teachers’ engagement, using a validated CoI model questionnaire proposed by Arbaugh et al. (2008) for collecting the quantitative data, and secondly their opinions for participation, achievements, abilities and difficulties, when studying collaboratively with their peers for gathering the qualitative data, after finishing several learning tasks. The study findings indicate that collaborative practice-based tasks in synchronous communication modes, such as group work, team effort, instructor’s or peer feedback and consolidated learning material in a 3D multi-user virtual environment have enhanced the learning experience for more meaningful outcomes. The highest mean scores were adequately addressed to the teaching and social presences, indicating that pre-service teachers were enough satisfied due to the easy expression of proposals and the sense of freedom for exchanging ideas/opinions with their colleagues. This study contributes on the fundamental issues of cooperation, socialization, retention and attendance rates rising among teachers’ interactions with the respect to empower not only their CPD, but also their management and learning responsibilities, based on the affordances that a 3D technology-enhanced environment can provide.

Keywords

Continuing professional development CoI model Instructional design framework Jigsaw Open Sim Sloodle 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Funding

This study was not funded by anyone.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Akyol, Z., & Garrison, D. R. (2008). The development of a community of inquiry over time in an online course: Understanding the progression and integration of social, cognitive and teaching presence. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 12(2–3), 3–22.Google Scholar
  2. Arbaugh, B. (2004). Learning to learn online: a study of perceptual changes between multiple online course experiences. The Internet and Higher. Education, 7(2), 169–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berns, A., Gonzalez-Pardo, A., and Camacho, D. (2013). Game-like language learning in 3-D virtual environments. Computers and Education, 60(1), 210–220.Google Scholar
  4. Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what language teachers think, know, believe, and do. Language Teaching, 36(2), 81–109.Google Scholar
  5. Buraphadeja, V., & Dawson, K. (2008). Content analysis in computer-mediated communications: analyzing models for assessing critical thinking through the lens of social constructivism. American Journal of Distance Education, 22(3), 130–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Callaghan, M. J., McCusker, K. A., Lopez Losada, J., Harkin, J. G. and Wilson, S. (2009). Teaching engineering education using virtual worlds and virtual learning environments. International Conference on Advances in Computing, Control, and Telecommunication Technologies (pp. 295–299). New Delhi. Google Scholar
  7. Chen, Y. H., Jang, S. J., & Chen, P. J. (2015). Using wikis and collaborative learning for science teachers’ professional development. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. doi: 10.1111/jcal.12095.Google Scholar
  8. Cho, Y., Yim, S. & Paik, S. (2015). Physical and social presence in 3D virtual role-play for pre-service teachers. The Internet and Higher Education, 25(1), 70–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Correa, D. M. (2001). New technologies in teaching and learning English. In M. B. Fortkamp, & R. P. Xavier (Eds.), EFL Teaching and learning in Brazil: theory and practice (pp. 211–222). Florianópolis: Insular.Google Scholar
  10. Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L., Gutmann, M. L., & Hanson, W. E. (2003). Advanced mixed methods research designs. In A. Tashakkori, & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 209–240). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  11. Dennen, V., Darabi, A. & Smith, L. (2007). Instructor–Learner Interaction in Online Courses: The relative perceived importance of particular instructor actions on performance and satisfaction. Distance Education, 28(1), 65–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dickey, M. D. (2005). Brave (new) interactive worlds: A review of the design affordances and constraints of two 3D virtual worlds as interactive learning environments. Interactive Learning Environments, 13(1–2), 121–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dillenbourg, P., & Hong, F. (2008). The mechanism of CSCL macro scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(1), 5–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gamage, V., Tretiakov, A., & Crump B. (2011). Teacher perceptions of learning affordances of multiuser virtual environments. Computers & Education, 57, 2406–2413.Google Scholar
  15. Garrison, D. R. (2000). Theoretical challenges for distance education in the 21st century: A shift from structural to transactional issues. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 1(1).Google Scholar
  16. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education model. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 87–105.Google Scholar
  17. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2010). The first decade of the community of inquiry framework: A retrospective. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1–2), 5–9.Google Scholar
  18. Garrison, D. R., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2007). Researching the community of inquiry framework: Review, issues, and future directions. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(3), 157–172.Google Scholar
  19. Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Facilitating cognitive presence in online learning: Interaction is not enough. American Journal of Distance Education, 19(3), 133–148.Google Scholar
  20. Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Fung, T. S. (2010). Exploring causal relationships among teaching, cognitive and social presence: Student perceptions of the community of inquiry framework. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1–2), 31–36.Google Scholar
  21. Gorsky, P., & Blau, I. (2009). Online teaching effectiveness: A tale of two instructors. International Review of Research on Open and Distance Learning, 10(3), 1–27.Google Scholar
  22. Gregory, S., & Masters, Y. (2012). Real thinking with virtual hats: A role-playing activity for pre-service teachers in Second Life. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(3), 420–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hinze, U., Bischoff, M. & Blakowski, G. (2002). Jigsaw method in the context of CSCL. In: Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications (Vol. 1), 789–794.Google Scholar
  24. Huang, K., Lubin, I. A. & Ge, X. (2011). Situated learning in an educational technology course for pre-service teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(8), 1200–1212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jick, T. D. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 602–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Joo, Y., Yon Kim, K., & Kyung Kim, E. (2011). Online university students’ satisfaction and persistence: Examining perceived level of presence, usefulness and ease of use as predictors in a structural model. Computers & Education, 57, 1654–1664.Google Scholar
  27. Kallonis, P. & Sampson, D. (2011). A 3D Virtual Classroom Simulation for supporting School Teachers’ Training based on Synectics - ‘making the strange familiar. In Proceedings of the 11th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT 2011). Athens, Georgia, USA, IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar
  28. Kanuka, H., & Anderson, T. (1998). Online social interchange, discord, and knowledge construction. The Journal of Distance Education, 13(1), 57–74.Google Scholar
  29. Kling, R., & Courtright, C. (2003). Group behavior and learning in electronic forums: A sociotechnical approach. The Information Society, 19(3), 221–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kemp, J., Livingstone, D. & Bloomfield, P. (2009). SLOODLE: Connecting VLE tools with emergent teaching Practice in Second Life. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(3), 551–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Konstantinidis, A., Tsiatsos, Th., Terzidou, Th. & Pomportsis, A. (2010). Fostering collaborative learning in second life: metaphors and affordances. Computers & Education, 55(2), 603–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kordaki, M., Siempos, H., & Daradoumis, T. (2009). Collaborative learning design within open source e-learning systems: lessons learned from an empirical study. In G. Magoulas (Ed.), E-Infrastructures and technologies for lifelong learning: Next generation environments (pp. 212–232). IDEA-Group Publishing.Google Scholar
  33. Liu, T. C. (2005). Web-based Cognitive Apprenticeship Model for Improving Pre-service Teachers’ Performances and Attitudes towards Instructional Planning: Design and Field Experiment. Educational Technology & Society, 8(2), 136–149.Google Scholar
  34. Martzoukou, K. (2013). Empowering information literacy and continuing professional development of librarians: new paradigms for learning and practice. Worldwide Commonalities and Challenges in Information Literacy Research (pp. 647–654). Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
  35. Macdonald, J., & Poniatowska, B. (2011). Designing the professional development of staff for teaching online: an OU (UK) case study. Distance Education, 32, 119–134.Google Scholar
  36. McKerlich, R., Riis, M., Anderson, T., & Eastman, B. (2011). Student perceptions of teaching presence, social presence, and cognitive presence in a virtual world. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 7(3), 324–336.Google Scholar
  37. Pellas, N. (2014a). Open source virtual worlds for e-learning. In M. Khosrow-Pour (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology (pp. 7538–7547). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.Google Scholar
  38. Pellas, N. (2014b). A cybernetic framework to articulate the organizational complexity of users’ interactions with the Jigsaw technique in an Open Sim standalone server. International Journal of Innovation and Learning, 17(3), 326–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pellas, N. (2014c). The influence of computer self-efficacy, metacognitive self-regulation and self-esteem on student engagement in online learning programs: Evidence from the virtual world of Second Life. Computers in Human Behavior, 35(1), 157–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pellas, N. (2015). Bolstering the quality and integrity of online collaborative courses at university-level with the conjunction of Sloodle and Open Simulator. Education and Information Technologies. doi: 10.1007/s10639-014-9365-1.Google Scholar
  41. Pellas, N., & Kazanidis, I. (2014a). The impact of computer self-efficacy, situational interest and academic self-concept in virtual communities of inquiry during the distance learning procedures through Second Life. World Wide Web Journal, 17(4), 695–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pellas, N., & Kazanidis, I. (2014b). Online and hybrid university-level courses with the utilization of Second Life: Investigating the factors that predict student choice in Second Life supported online and hybrid university-level courses. Computers in Human Behavior, 40(2), 31–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rayner, C., & Fluck, A. (2014). Pre-service teachers’ perceptions of simSchool as preparation for inclusive education: a pilot study. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 42(3), 212–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rovai, A. P. (2002). Sense of community, perceived cognitive learning, and persistence in asynchronous learning networks. The Internet and Higher Education, 5(4), 319–33.Google Scholar
  45. Ryoo, J., Techatassanasoontorn, A., Lee, D. & Lothian, J. (2011). Game-based Infosec education using Open Sim. In Proceedings of the 15th Colloquium for Information systems security Education. Ohio.Google Scholar
  46. Seezink, A., & Poell, R. (2010). Continuing professional development needs of teachers in schools for competence-based vocational education. Journal of European Industrial Training, 34(5), 455–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sing, C. C., & Khine, M. S. (2006). An analysis of interaction and participation patterns in online community. Educational Technology & Society, 9(1), 250–261.Google Scholar
  48. Singhal, M. (1997). The internet and foreign language education: Benefits and challenges. The Internet TESL. Journal, III (6). Wang, F. & Burton, J. (2013). Second Life in education: A review of publications from its launch to 2011. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(3), 357–371.Google Scholar
  49. Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2009). Cognitive presence and online learner engagement: a cluster analysis of the community of inquiry framework. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 29(3), 199–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2010). Learning presence: Towards a theory of self-efficacy, self-regulation, and the development of a communities of inquiry in online and blended learning environments. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1721–1731.Google Scholar
  51. Swan, K., Garrison, D. R. & Richardson, J. (2009). A constructivist approach to online learning: The community of inquiry framework. In C. R. Payne (Ed.), Information technology and constructivism in higher education: Progressive learning frameworks (pp. 43–57). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Traphagan, T., Chiang, Y., Chang, M., Wattanawaha, B., Lee, H., Mayrath, M., Woo, J., Yoon, H., Jee, M. & Resta, P. (2010). Cognitive, social and teaching presence in a virtual world and a text chat. Computers & Education 55(2), 923–936.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wang, X., Kim, B., Lee, J. W. Y., & Kim, M. S. (2014). Encouraging and being encouraged: Development of an epistemic community and teacher professional growth in a Singapore classroom. Teaching and Teacher Education, 44, 12–24.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Product and Systems Design EngineeringUniversity of the AegeanSyrosGreece
  2. 2.Secondary Education, 2nd High school of HermoupolisSyrosGreece

Personalised recommendations