Work-integrated Learning (WIL)

On-line CommunityAnita M. Todd

Associate ProfessorDivision of Professional Practice

University of Cincinnati

Agenda• Introduction• The Spark• Purpose• Research Project• Methodology• Research Questions• Theoretical

Framework• Research Design

• Cycle 1 and 2– Sample– Data Sources– Analysis– Findings

• Discussion– Community

Design– Theory

Modifications• Limitations• Future Research• Thank You

Anita M. Todd

• 02–Pres.: Asst./Assoc. Professor, Professional Practice, UC – EE, EE ACCEND– IT Responsibility– SWE Faculty Advisor

• 95-02: Director, Engineering Cooperative Education, PSU• 89-95: Product Development Engineer, Cummins Engine

Company• BS ME (89) Penn State, M Ed. (05), D. Ed. (Exp. 11) UC• Four co-op experiences

– Cummins Engine Company, NY / Walt Disney World, FL

• Actively involved in regional, national, international co-op/intern organizations

University of Cincinnati

• Urban research university– Public, 37,000+ students

• Founded cooperative education in 1906• More than 5000 placements per year

– 1600+ companies– US and abroad

• Mandatory programs– Engineering and Applied Science– Design, Architecture, Art, Planning

• Optional Programs– Business– Arts and Sciences

Program Specifics• Start co-op in sophomore year• Four to six quarters of co-op• Five-year program• Introduction to Cooperative Education• Individually meet with each student• Students complete learning objectives, student

project, student report, post co-op meeting• Employers complete employer assessment• Students registered with university – 0 credit• EE Program

– 40-50 per class year– 200 student load

The Spark

• Concerned about student engagement with the university while at work

• Students not talking about their co-op experiences amongst themselves

• Technology today allows us to engage students

• Social networking extremely popular

• Believe there is a missed opportunity for learning at work

Literature ReviewBenefits of student engagement

• Linking colleagues and friends, and creating networks (Maidment, 2006; Mayer, 2002; Roberts-DeGennaro, Brown, Min, & Siegel, 2005)

• Linking university and curriculum lecturers to students (Mayer, 2002; Roberts-DeGennaro et al., 2005)

• Creating a venue for seeking advice/strategies/resources/cognitive support/psychological and emotional support (Hatton & Smith, 1995; Maidment, 2006; Mayer, 2002; Paulus & Scherff, 2008; Roberts-DeGennaro et al., 2005)

• Receiving timely information related to their field practicum (Roberts-DeGennaro et al., 2005)

• Creating a communal knowledge database (Roberts-DeGennaro et al., 2005)

• Providing a venue for students to compare and contrast experiences (Keegan, 2007; Mayer 2002)

• Providing an additional method of reflection (Hayward, DiMarco, Kranz, & Evans, 2001)

• Supporting a collective process of learning (Keegan, 2007)• Learning to use computer mediated communication / virtual

communities (Canale & Duwart, 1999; Witmer, 1998)

Literature Review

• Few studies attempted to link engagement to leaning– Students learned practical

knowledge– Students learned through

interaction, collaboration, and reflection

Literature Review

• Technical engagement– Wide variety of technologies– Primarily non-technical majors– Primarily female

Research Project

• Phase 1 – Design-based research study to

develop a WIL online community for students at work

• Phase 2– Assess effect on student learning

• Social interaction• Collaboration• Reflection

MethodologyDesign-based research stems from the works of Brown (1992)

and Collins (1992). • The simultaneous development of a learning environment

while refining learning theories.• This process takes place over continuous cycles of design,

release, evaluation, and redesign (Cobb, 2001; Collins, 1992).

• The research must lead to sharable theories.• The research must account for how the design functions in

an authentic educational setting.• The research should be documented such that it shows how

the environment development process connects to the outcomes of the design and learning theory.

Design-based Research Collaborative 2003

Research Questions • How can students’, employers’, faculty,

and field experts’ prior knowledge and experience be considered in the online community design?

• How can students’, employers’, faculty, and field experts’ design ideas and experiences using the online community influence the design of the community?

• How do students’, employers’, faculty, and field experts’ design ideas and experiences using the online community influence the underlying community design theories?

Theoretical Framework

Community-Based Online Learning Model

(Palloff & Pratt, 2003)– People– Purpose– Process

• Social Interaction and collaboration

• Reflection

Research Design• Cycle 1

– Faculty, field experts• Focus groups/survey

– Students, employers• Survey

– Develop Prototype Community

• Cycle 2– Faculty/Field Experts/Students/Employers

• Review Community/Complete Survey

– Finalize Community Design

Cycle 1 – Initial Community Development

Sample

Sample Total %

Students 30 32

Faculty 14 15

Employers 39 42

Field Experts 10 11

Total 93 100

Analysis

• Transcribed focus groups• Downloaded survey responses• Coded comments by gender and

status• Categorized by theoretical

framework– People, Purpose, Process

• Organized into themes

Findings

Sample Total %

Students 30 32

Faculty 14 15

Employers 39 42

Field Experts 10 11

Total 93 100

Findings

• Process– Ideas to support interaction and

collaboration (professional and social)• Synchronous/asynchronous discussions, event

posting, internal e-mailing, e-mentoring, wiki, file share, networking, group projects, etc.

• Purpose – Need for a purpose/goal– Need to be professional– Practical Considerations

• Privacy/security, unwanted spam, time commitment

Findings

• People– Being connected/making connections– Being “in the know”– Concerns about over-sharing

• Other– Concerns about two many networks– Concerns about student

communication skills

Cycle 2 – Initial Community Design

Prototype Community

Sample

57% retention rate

Sample Status Total %

Students 16 30

Faculty 9 17

Employers 20 38

Field Experts 7 13

Total 53 100

Analysis

• Downloaded survey responses• Coded comments by gender and

status• Categorized by theoretical

framework– People, Purpose, Process

• Organized into themes

Findings

Category of Comments

Number of Comments

Rank

Total Total

Purpose 302 1

Process 169 2

People 101 3

Other Relevant 8 4

Other Irrelevant 228

Total 808

Findings

• Purpose– Value/purpose and netiquette

• Need emphasis• Too text heavy• Professional

– Practical Considerations• Font, format page to page, graphics• Menu, security notices• Moderation and oversight

Findings

• People– Strength of resource section and calendar– Add RSS Feed– Home page with latest updates

• Process– Value of collaborative elements– Concern about depth of reflection

• Other– Too many social networks

Discussion

• Community design– Let’s take a look

• Enhancements to the Model for Community Based Online Learning– More emphasis on over sharing

• Moderation can help

– Too many social networks• Consider other platforms

– Concern about student communication

Limitations

• Engineering based• Full-time alternating co-op

program based

Future Research

Does the community meet the goal of increasing:– Social Interaction– Collaboration– ReflectionDoes this affect learning?

Comparing software platformsEffect on communication skills

Thank You

• OCEA– Provided a research grant

• University of Cincinnati– Provided a co-op student – Supporting faculty research– Provided a faculty development

grant for next phase

Anita M. ToddAssociate Professor

Division of Professional PracticeUniversity of Cincinnati

anita.todd@uc.edu

Sign in with e-mail to get copy of paperPlease complete evaluations

www.uc.edu/propractice/palStudent link

Login: Visitor PW: visitor