Advertisement

Students’ Perceptions on Co-creating Learning Material in Information Systems Education

  • Antonis NatsisEmail author
  • Pantelis M. Papadopoulos
  • Nikolaus Obwegeser
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 865)

Abstract

Following the increased interest in students becoming partners in teaching and learning in higher education settings, this study explores students’ perceptions on a collaborative content generation activity, in which students assume also the role of peer-tutors. Students in an Information Systems course collaborated on domain topics, assigned to them by the teacher, and created learning material for their fellow students. In the peer-tutoring session following the creation of the learning material, students presented the topic in class and discussed it with their peers. Each peer tutoring session was assessed by the students as audience (students attending the student-tutoring sessions). The aim of the study is to explore students’ perspectives on the collaborative content generation assignment. Our focus primarily is to examine how students’ experiences regarding the collaboration were affected by learning strategies in self-regulation, peer learning, and help seeking. Results showed that students were more engaged in the course after participating in the co-creating learning material activity and also, four distinct patterns of collaboration were revealed by analyzing student activity. Even though students were in general satisfied with their collaboration, as they could suit the activity to their needs, those students who relied more on their group for help proved to be less satisfied by the communication among group members. In addition, the teacher and the audience evaluated positively the students’ performance as peer-tutors. This paper is an extended version of [1], presented at the 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Education.

Keywords

Co-creation Collaboration Peer-tutoring Learning strategies 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work has been partially funded by a Starting Grant from AUFF (Aarhus Universitets Forskningsfond), titled “Innovative and Emerging Technologies in Education”.

References

  1. 1.
    Natsis, A., Papadopoulos, P.M., Obwegeser, A.: Student groups as tutors in information systems education: students’ perspectives on collaboration and outcomes. In: McLaren, B.M., Costagliola, G., Uhomoibhi, J., Escudeiro, P., Zvacek, S. (eds.), Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Education – Volume 2: CSEDU 2017, pp. 37–45, Porto, Portugal (2017)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    McCulloch, A.: The student as co-producer: learning from public administration about the student–university relationship. Stud. High. Educ. 34(2), 171–183 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bovill, C., Cook-Sather, A., Felten, P.: Students as co-creators of teaching approaches, course design, and curricula: implications for academic developers. Int. J. Acad. Dev. 16(2), 133–145 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Deeley, S.J., Bovill, C.: Staff student partnership in assessment: enhancing assessment literacy through democratic practices. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 42(3), 463–477 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bovill, C., Cook-Sather, A., Felten, P., Millard, L., Moore-Cherry, N.: Addressing potential challenges in co-creating learning and teaching: overcoming resistance, navigating institutional norms and ensuring inclusivity in student–staff partnerships. High. Educ. 71(2), 195–208 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Draper, S.W.: Catalytic assessment: understanding how MCQs and EVS can foster deep learning. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 40(2), 285–293 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Casey, M.M., Bates, S.P., Galloway, K.W., Galloway, R.K., Hardy, J.A., Kay, A.E., Kirsop, P., McQueen, H.A.: Scaffolding student engagement via online peer learning. Eur. J. Phys. 35(4), 045002 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brew, A.: Teaching and research: new relationships and their implications for inquiry-based teaching and learning in higher education. High. Educ. Res. Dev. 22(1), 3–18 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Healey, M.: Linking research and teaching: exploring disciplinary spaces and the role of inquiry-based learning. In: Barnett, R. (ed.), Reshaping the University: New Relationships between Research, Scholarship and Teaching, pp. 67–78. McGraw Hill/Open University Press (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jenkins, A., Lindsay, R., Brew, A.: Reshaping Teaching in Higher Education: Linking Teaching with Research. Routledge, London (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Obwegeser, N., Papadopoulos, P.M.: Integrating research and teaching in the IS classroom: benefits for teachers and students. J. Inf. Syst. Educ. 27(4), 249–258 (2016)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Griffiths, R.: Knowledge production and the research–teaching nexus: the case of the built environment disciplines. Stud. High. Educ. 29(6), 709–726 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kolić-Vrhovec, S., Bajšanski, I., Zubković, B.R.: The role of reading strategies in scientific text comprehension and academic achievement of university students. Rev. Psychol. 18(2), 81–90 (2011)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    McNamara, D.S., Ozuru, Y., Best, R., O’Reilly, T.: The 4-pronged comprehension strategy framework. In: McNamara, D.S. (ed.), Reading Comprehension Strategies: Theories, Interventions, and Technologies, pp. 465–496. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, Mahwah (2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Eryilmaz, E., Thoms, B., Mary, J., Kim, R., Canelon, J.: Task oriented reading of instructional materials and its relationship to message scores in online learning conversations. In: Paper Presented at the 2016 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) (2016)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    van der Pol, J., Admiraal, W., Simons, P.R.J.: The affordance of anchored discussion for the collaborative processing of academic texts. Int. J. Comput.-Support. Collab. Learn. 1(3), 339–357 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Webb, N.M., Franke, M.L., De, T., Chan, A.G., Freund, D., Shein, P., Melkonian, D.K.: ‘Explain to your partner’: teachers’ instructional practices and students’ dialogue in small groups. Camb. J. Educ. 39(1), 49–70 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    King, A.: Transactive peer tutoring: distributing cognition and metacognition. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 10(1), 57–74 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Noroozi, O., Weinberger, A., Biemans, H.J.A., Mulder, M., Chizari, M.: Argumentation-based computer supported collaborative learning (ABCSCL): a synthesis of 15 years of research. Educ. Res. Rev. 7(2), 79–106 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vogel, F., Wecker, C., Kollar, I., Fischer, F.: Socio-cognitive scaffolding with computer-supported collaboration scripts: a meta-analysis. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 29(3), 477–511 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Solimeno, A., Mebane, M.E., Tomai, M., Francescato, D.: The influence of students and teachers characteristics on the efficacy of face-to-face and computer supported collaborative learning. Comput. Educ. 51(1), 109–128 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pifarre, M., Cobos, R.: Promoting metacognitive skills through peer scaffolding in a CSCL environment. Int. J. Comput.-Suppor. Collab. Learn. 5(2), 237–253 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kyza, E., Georgiou, Y., Hadjichambi, D., Hadjichambis, A.: Teacher framing, classroom collaboration scripts, and help-seeking and help-giving behaviors. In: Nikol Rummel, M.K., Nathan, M., Puntambekar, S. (eds.), To See the World and a Grain of Sand: Learning across Levels of Space, Time, and Scale: CSCL 2013 Conference Proceedings Volume 1-Full Papers & Symposia, pp. 272–279. International Society of the Learning Sciences (2013)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dettori, G., Persico, D.: Detecting self-regulated learning in online communities by means of interaction analysis. IEEE Trans. Learn. Technol. 1(1), 11–19 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Panadero, E., Kirschner, P.A., Järvelä, S., Malmberg, J., Järvenoja, H.: How individual self-regulation affects group regulation and performance: a shared regulation intervention. Small Group Res. 46(4), 431–454 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pintrich, P.R., Smith, D.A.F., Garcia, T., Mckeachie, W.J.: Reliability and predictive validity of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). Educ. Psychol. Meas. 53(3), 801–813 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Dillenbourg, P.: What do you mean by ‘collaborative learning’? In: Dillenbourg, P. (ed.), Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches, pp. 1–19. Elsevier, Oxford (1999)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Antonis Natsis
    • 1
    Email author
  • Pantelis M. Papadopoulos
    • 1
  • Nikolaus Obwegeser
    • 2
  1. 1.Centre for Teaching Development and Digital MediaAarhus UniversityAarhusDenmark
  2. 2.Department of ManagementAarhus UniversityAarhusDenmark

Personalised recommendations