Online collaboration in a large university class supports quality teaching
Quality teaching in large classes is generally challenging to achieve. In large classes, there are fewer possibilities for students to interact with the teacher and with each other; the motivation to study decreases as does the possibility for receiving feedback during the learning process. This can result, among other things, in reduced understanding of the learning material and therefore in lower academic performance. The aim of this study is to investigate whether computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) can have a positive impact on aspects of quality teaching such as interaction, motivation and understanding. Two online collaborative activities were designed and implemented in a regularly scheduled course with approximately 200 undergraduate students. This study adopted a mixed method of both qualitative and quantitative analysis: data were collected from surveys, in-depth interviews, forum logs, and exam scores. The results show that CSCL facilitates motivation, interaction and achievement of deep understanding. More particularly, one CSCL activity was found to be a significant contributor to students’ academic performance and this confirmed that traditional lecturing blended with CSCL improves the quality of the teaching compared to traditional lecturing only, at least as far as understanding is concerned. Moreover, the study indicates that different types of collaborative activities have different effects on learning and that the design of collaborative activities is therefore critical to outcomes. In this respect, it also reveals that social loafing, which is usually considered to have only negative effects on collaboration, can instead have a positive impact on learning if the task is appropriately designed.
KeywordsComputer-supported collaborative learning Mixed method Learning design Large class pedagogy
We would like to thank the Department of Psychology and Cognitive Sciences at the University of Trento for offering Nan Yang a Full Scholarship as this research was done during her doctoral study. We also would like to thank the Dean of the Department, Professor Remo Job, for giving us permission to access to the students’ university entrance data and Marta Cazzanelli for her continual help in providing data about students’ exam scores in the Philosophy of Science Course. Besides, we would like to thank Professor Lombardi and Professor Micciolo for their suggestions on the regression analysis. Last but not least, we would like to thank Dr. Magda Altman for proofreading.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
We received ethical approval from the Ethics Committee of our university, and we also followed the BERA 2011 Ethical Guidelines to conduct this study. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants in this study.
- Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2014). Lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R package 1.1-7. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4.
- Biggs, J. B., & Collis, K. F. (2014). Evaluating the quality of learning: The SOLO taxonomy (structure of the observed learning outcome). St. Louis, MO: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
- Biggs, J. B., & Tang, C. S. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student does. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill/Society for Research into Higher Education/Open University Press.Google Scholar
- Blumenfeld, P. C., Kempler, T. M., & Krajcik, J. S. (2006). Motivation and cognitive engagement in learning environments. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning science (pp. 475–488). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Carbone, E., & Greenberg, J. (1998). Teaching large classes: Unpacking the problem and responding creatively. In M. Kaplan (Ed.), To improve the academy (pp. 311–326). Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press and the Professional and Organizational Development Network in Higher Education.Google Scholar
- Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
- Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by collaborative learning. In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 1–19). Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
- Ghislandi, P. (2005). Didattiche per l’università (Vol. 1). Trento: University of Trento.Google Scholar
- Ghislandi, P., & Raffaghelli, J. (2014). Scholarship of teaching and learning for quality teaching and learning in higher education. European Journal of Research on Education and Teaching, Special Issue: Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 7(1), 107–128.Google Scholar
- Golbeck, S. L., & El-Moslimany, H. (2013). Developmental approaches to collaborative learning. In C. E. Hmelo-Silver, C. A. Chinn, C. K. K. Chan, & A. O’Donnell (Eds.), The international handbook of collaborative learning (pp. 41–56). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Hamilton, E. R. (2007, July). Principles and grand challenges for the future: A prospectus for the computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) community. In Proceedings of the 8th international conference on computer supported collaborative learning (pp. 247–256). International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
- High Level Group on the Modernisation of Higher Education. (2013). Report to the European Commission on improving teaching quality and learning in Europe’s higher education institutions. Retrieved 4/5/2015 from http://ec.europa.eu/education/library/reports/modernisation_en.pdf.
- Karadimce, A., & Davcev, D. (2013). Experiments in collaborative cloud-based distance learning. In Presented at the third international conference on advanced collaborative networks, systems and applications (COLLA), Nice, June 21–26, 2013. Chamonix: IARIA XPS Press.Google Scholar
- Laurillard, D. (2012). Teaching as a design science: Building pedagogical patterns for leaning and technology. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Leger, A., Godlewska, A., Adjei, J., Schaefli, L., Whetstone, S., Finlay, J., Roy, R., & Massey, J. (2013). Large first-year course re-design to promote student engagement and student learning. Toronto: Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario. Retrieved August 24, 2014, from http://www.heqco.ca/SiteCollectionDocuments/Large%20First%20Year%20Course%20Redesign%20ENG.pdf.
- Monks, J., & Schimidt, R. (2010). The impact of class size and number of students on outcomes in higher education (electronic version). Retrieved December 16, 2016, from Cornell University, School of Industrial and Labor Relations site: http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/workingpapers/114.
- Morris, R., & Hayes, C. (1997). Small group work: Are group assignments a legitimate form of assessment. In Learning through teaching (pp. 229–233).Google Scholar
- Ramsden, P. (2003). Learning to teach in higher education. London: Routledge/Falmer.Google Scholar
- Steiner, I. D. (1972). Group processes and productivity. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
- Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Witkin, H. A. (1972, November). The role of cognitive style in academic performance and in teacher–student relations. In Presented at the symposium on “Cognitive Styles, Creativity and Higher Education” sponsored by the Graduate Record Examination Board, Montreal, Canada, November 8–10 (pp. 1–58). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
- Witkin, H. A., Moore, C. A., Goodenough, D. R., & Cox, P. W. (1977). Field-dependent and field-independent cognitive styles and their educational implications. Review of Educational Sciences, 47(1), 1–64.Google Scholar
- Yang, N. (2014). Perception and barriers of quality teaching: From the perspective of university teachers in Italy, UK and China. Formazione and Insegnamento, European Journal of Research on Education and Teaching, Special Issue: Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 7(1), 275–288.Google Scholar