Evaluating Collaborative Learning Using Community of Inquiry Framework for a Blended Learning Formal Methods Course

Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 715)

Abstract

A Formal Methods course was taught using a blended-learning pedagogy at graduate level. The blended-learning environment was designed with the objective of improving the students’ learning experience and to address some of the inherent challenges of teaching FM. This study presents results of evaluating the contents of online discussion forums that were used in the course. The Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework was used to assess the level of collaborative learning by measuring social presence, teaching presence and cognitive presence of the participants. The results of the study show healthy levels of participation on all the three CoI dimensions. More importantly, there was no or little difference between mandatory and non-mandatory discussions. However, the discussion in mandatory forum was more open and organized on social front indicating an evolved sense of community and trust for time-critical and mission critical tasks within the course.

Keywords

Formal Methods Blended learning Community of Inquiry Discussion forum 

Notes

Acknowledgement

This research is part of a larger research project at Riphah International University WISH campus. The contributions of Dr. Aslam Asadi, Dr. Saba Riaz and Ms. Sadia Nadir are also acknowledged.

References

  1. 1.
    Schreiner, W.: The RISC ProofNavigator: a proving assistant for program verification in the classroom. Form. Asp. Comput. 21(3), 277–291 (2009)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dony, I., Le Charlier, B.: A tool for helping teach a programming method. ACM SIGCSE Bull. 38(3), 212–216 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gopalakrishnan, G., et al.: Some resources for teaching concurrency. In: Proceedings of the 7th Workshop on Parallel and Distributed Systems: Testing, Analysis, and Debugging, p. 2 (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Watson, J.: Promising Practices in Online Learning: Blended Learning: the Convergence of Online and Face-to-Face Education. North American Council for Online Learning (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cole, J., Foster, H.: Using Moodle: Teaching with the Popular Open Source Course Management System. O’Reilly Media Inc., Sebastopol (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Garrison, D.R., Anderson, T., Archer, W.: Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: computer conferencing in higher education. Internet High. Educ. 2(2), 87–105 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Habrias, H.: Teaching specifications, hands on. In: Formal Methods in Computer Science Education (FORMED), pp. 5–15 (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Barbu, A., Mourlin, F.: Enhancing student understanding of formal method through prototyping. Formal Methods in the Teaching Lab, p. 85 (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Paige, R.F., Ostroff, J.S.: Specification-driven design with Eiffel and agents for teaching lightweight formal methods. In: International Conference on Technical Formal Methods, pp. 107–123 (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Henz, M., Hobor, A.: Teaching experience: logic and formal methods with Coq. In: International Conference on Certified Programs and Proofs, pp. 199–215 (2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Walther, C., Schweitzer, S.: Verification in the Classroom. J. Autom. Reason. 32(1), 35–73 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ahrendt, W., Bubel, R., Hähnle, R.: Integrated and tool-supported teaching of testing, debugging, and verification. In: International Conference on Technical Formal Methods, pp. 125–143 (2009)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Miller, A., Cutts, Q.: The use of an electronic voting system in a formal methods course. In: Workshop on Formal Methods in the Teaching Lab (FM-Ed 2006), pp. 3–8 (2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lau, K.-K., Bush, V.J., Jinks, P.J.: Towards an introductory formal programming course. ACM SIGCSE Bull. 26, 121–125 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rodger, S.H., Wiebe, E., Lee, K.M., Morgan, C., Omar, K., Su, J.: Increasing engagement in automata theory with JFLAP. ACM SIGCSE Bull. 41, 403–407 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lau, K.-K.: Active learning sheets for a beginner’s course on reasoning about imperative programs. ACM SIGCSE Bull. 39, 198–202 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Graham, C.R.: Blended learning systems. In: The Handbook of Blended Learning, pp. 3–21 (2006)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Garner, R., Rouse, E.: Social presence–connecting pre-service teachers as learners using a blended learning model. Stud. Success 7(1), 25–36 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pelliccione, L., Broadley, T.: RU there yet? using virtual classrooms to transform teaching practice. In: Curriculum, Technology and Transformation for an Unknown Future. Proceedings Ascilite Sydney, pp. 749–760 (2010)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Stacey, E.: Effective Blended Learning Practices: Evidence-Based Perspectives in ICT-Facilitated Education: Evidence-Based Perspectives in ICT-Facilitated Education. IGI Global, New York (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chen, W., Looi, C.-K.: Incorporating online discussion in face to face classroom learning: a new blended learning approach. Australas. J. Educ. Technol. 23(3), 307–326 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    On-line education: a new domain*. http://www.bdp.it/rete/im/harasim1.htm. Accessed 05 May 2017
  23. 23.
    Gay, G., Sturgill, A., Martin, W., Huttenlocher, D.: Document‐centered peer collaborations: an exploration of the educational uses of networked communication technologies. J. Comput. Commun. 4(3) (1999)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Vrasidas, C., McIsaac, M.S.: Factors influencing interaction in an online course. Am. J. Distance Educ. 13(3), 22–36 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ruberg, L.F., Moore, D.M., Taylor, C.D.: Student participation, interaction, and regulation in a computer-mediated communication environment: a qualitative study. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 14(3), 243–268 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Prain, V., Lyons, L.: Using information and communication technologies in English: an Australian perspective. In: English in the Digital Age. Cassell Education, London (2000)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Garrison, D.R., Anderson, T., Archer, W.: The first decade of the community of inquiry framework: A retrospective. Internet High. Educ. 13(1), 5–9 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Szeto, E.: Community of Inquiry as an instructional approach: what effects of teaching, social and cognitive presences are there in blended synchronous learning and teaching? Comput. Educ. 81, 191–201 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Garrison, D.R., Anderson, T., Archer, W.: Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. Am. J. Distance Educ. 15(1), 7–23 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Morueta, R.T., López, P.M., Gómez, Á.H., Harris, V.W.: Exploring social and cognitive presences in communities of inquiry to perform higher cognitive tasks. Internet High. Educ. 31, 122–131 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D.R., Archer, W.: Assessing social presence in asynchronous text-based computer conferencing. Int. J. E-Learn. Distance Educ. 14(2), 50–71 (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Saad Zafar
    • 1
  • Naurin Farooq Khan
    • 1
  • Seema Hussain
    • 1
  1. 1.Riphah International UniversityIslamabadPakistan

Personalised recommendations