Blended collaborative constructive participation (bccp) a model for teaching in higher education

eLearning

Papers27www.elearningp

apers.eu

eLearning Papers • ISSN: 1887-1542 • www.elearningpapers.eu

n.º 27 • December 2011

1

In-depth

blended teaching, higher education, knowledge building, web-forum discussion

Tags

Authors

M. Beatrice [email protected] [email protected] of Bari, Palazzo Ateneo, Bari (IT)

Blended Collaborative Constructive Participation (BCCP): A model for teaching in higher education

The Blended Collaborative Constructive Participation (BCCP) model is a university teaching model built upon six years of experimentation.

Through a flexible structure and a set of six types of activities, the aim of this model is to put into practice a series of already well-established pedagogical principles, such as the Community of Learners, the Community of Practice, the socio-constructivist di-mension, the dialogical perspective, and knowledge building.

A three-level system is presented as an assessment tool for web-forum discussions, or-ganized around the contents of the course. This system is meant to be used by teachers and by students to monitor and support the evolution of the discussion.

1. IntroductionMany universities have already experimented various distance learning, blended learning or network learning solutions. Even traditional universities are in the process of softening their resistance to such solutions (Cahill, 2011). Volery and Lord (2000) warn that if universities do not adopt e-learning, they will be left behind and they will lose ground to other types of educational providers. In general, there is a growing interest from universities in understand-ing advantages, costs, and conditions of introducing e-learning as part of their educational provision to students.

Many factors are recognized as critical for successfully delivering e-learning. O’Neil, Singh, and O’Donoghue (2004) distinguish structural issues, students’ learning strategies, and in-structors and teaching style. These factors are surely interconnected but each of them needs a careful and specific design.

Many authors have indicated the innovation of teaching models as a crucial aspect (Waks, 2007). Calls for a new teaching pedagogy, that is capable of fruitfully exploiting the potenti-alities of technology, can be found in almost all the research dealing with e-learning in higher education (McFadzean, 2001). Nevertheless, clear and detailed indications about how to change such a teaching model and how the innovative teaching model should be, are lacking. In this paper, we propose a model for university blended teaching where structure and activi-ties are clearly described. The model has been developed during six years of experimentation funded by the Italian Ministry of Research. The starting point of the model was the trans-formation of strong theoretical ideas into practices that are suitable for a blended context. Results of each year of experimentation were implemented the following year, therefore the model we now present has a strong empirical basis. In the following section we will briefly present the theoretical background inspiring the model.

mailto:Bealigorio%40hotmail.com?subject=

mailto:lgbt01gb%40uniba.it?subject=



2

In-depth

eLearning


apers.eu

2. Theoretical background The model we propose, called Blended Collaborative Construc-tive Participation (BCCP), follows Nkonge and Gueldenzoph’s (2006) recommendations to successfully use technology in higher education. These recommendations are: (a) to encour-age contact between students and professors, (b) to develop reciprocity and cooperation among students, (c) to encourage active learning, (d) to give prompt feedback, (e) to emphasize time on task, (f) to communicate high expectations, and (g) to respect diverse ways of learning. We also implemented some of MacKeogh and Fox’s (2009) suggestions, in particular as re-gards: (a) flexible modular frameworks, (b) innovative pedagogi-cal approaches, (c) new assessments created from learning out-comes, and (d) e-portfolios.

Furthermore, the BCCP model inherits well-established, non-technologically based educational models, such as:

a) The Community of Learners (CoL) (Brown & Campione, 1990), that considers students as active learners, capable of increasing, deepening, and evaluating their own knowl-edge. Each student is, at the same time, a learner and a teacher when s/he becomes an expert on a specific part of the learning contents. In this sense, in a CoL, activities are based on the exchange of roles, self-evaluation, active searching of sources, and metacognition. Swapping roles, in particular, is a crucial aspect of this model. Groups are essential in a CoL: they are an ideal place to test roles, to discuss, and to compare ideas and information. The groups regularly meet and update each other about their progress through so-called “cross-talk” meetings, meant as moments for groups to reciprocally challenge each oth-er about the activities under development. In fact, during the “cross-talk”, students ask each other critical questions and offer stimuli for new directions;

b) The Communities of Practice (CoP) (Wenger, 1998). Ac-cording to this model, learning happens when people can participate in cultural practices, crucial for the com-munity; therefore, learning is closely related to a growing sense of personal engagement in the practice, a common objective, and a set of constantly negotiated procedures, routines, and languages;

c) The socio-constructivist dimension, the dialogical dimen-sion, and the knowledge building approach (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1994), according to which learning does not

refer to the individual’s achievements, but rather to a clear attempt to improve collective learning. Such a result is only possible through a guided and structured interac-tion between peers and expert guidance. To enrich this perspective, discussions and interactions between vari-ous points of view are considered crucial. The interactive moments should not be aimed at converging toward a pre-fixed definition or idea; on the contrary, the multiplic-ity of perspectives should be maintained. When differ-ent points of view are confronted, discussed, mixed and integrated, then knowledge building implies a dialogical management between many positions, each of them pro-vided by a “voice”, in the bakhtinian sense (Bakhtin, 1981). This means that no attempt is made to converge toward a unique and common point of view; rather, new knowledge is possible when all the positions and voices are consid-ered and reciprocally enriched (Roth, 2009);

d) The Progressive Inquiry Model (PIM) (Hakkarainen, Lip-ponen, & Järvela, 2002), that considers learning as an inquiry process deriving from general and broad ques-tions – which we have called “research questions”- and proceeding towards critical and scientific thinking. In this model, students are spurred to finalize their learning to realize a common and shared objective. This principle helps students collaborate in order to reach a status be-yond individual achievement.

Other sources of inspiration include the Reciprocal Teaching (RT) model (Palincsar & Brown, 1984), the Jisgaw model (Aron-son & Patnoe, 1997) and the general principles for collaborative learning and peer discussion (Dillenbourg, 1999).

It may appear that the BCCP model is based on a copious theo-retical background. Actually, all these theories have numerous dimensions in common. First of all, they aim to support active and self-regulated learners; secondly, they seek to balance in-dividual agency with the sense of belonging to a community; finally, the specific finalization toward the production of a con-crete product – be it a paper, a map, a grid or a table. Another idea common to the theoretical approaches used in the BCCP model concerns the importance given to metacognition, critical reflection, and self-assessment.

Instead of looking for new pedagogical models, which would imply a radical and not always feasible change for teachers, we propose to put into practice the many good pedagogical ideas contained in the above-mentioned perspective. With the BCCP



3

In-depth

eLearning


apers.eu

model we attempt to highlight the link between theories and practice, and we consider technology to be capable of setting up arenas where theories can actually be put into practice. Therefore all the theoretical ideas we have presented can be found in the elements composing the BCCP model, which will be presented in the next section.

3. Structure and activities of the BCCP model

Before presenting the structure and the activities composing the BCCP, a few assumptions should be cleared. First of all, we conceive the blended dimension as carefully integrating online and offline activities. These two contexts are not simply a re-proposition of one another, neither is the online arena consid-ered a repository of educational materials. Rather, we consider online and offline as strictly interwoven, one empowering the other (Bonk & Graham 2006; Ligorio, Loperfido, Sansone, & Spadaro, 2010). Secondly, we assume minimum technology competencies for both teachers and students. No fancy soft-ware or complicated platforms are needed. Participants should only be able to navigate and perform simple operations such as downloading and uploading materials, opening new folders, orienting and posting notes in web-forums, and managing per-sonal profiles. In our experience we used a free platform called Synergeia (bscl.fit.fraunhofer.de), that provides basic function-alities such as the possibilities to create folders, web-forums, wikis, and conceptual maps. Like many other platforms, Syner-geia also provides inquiry tools to check users’ participations and to check by whom each item online has been posted, read, and/or modified. Any platform or virtual space offering these tools could be used to implement the BCCP model.

In order to describe the model we distinguish structural ele-ments and activities (Ligorio & Sansone, 2009).

3.1 The structure

The structure of the BCCP model concerns the contents, the way students are grouped, and the timing and alternation of online and offline. As recommended by MacKeogh and Fox (2009), we propose to structure the course into modules, as many as need-ed to cover the contents of the course and also taking into con-sideration the time available. The teacher is usually in charge of organizing the contents and the sequence of the modules, although there should be space for flexibility and negotiation with the students in order to take into account their pre-existing

knowledge and interests. We recommend giving the students an overview of the modules, the rationale of their sequence, each module’s goals, and the goals of the whole course.

Each module should propose the same type of activities and the same tempo. This would support the students’ perception of many possibilities – as many as the number of modules – to repeat the activities and, eventually, to improve their perform-ance. By moving from one module to the next, students should gradually feel more confident of the structure of the modules and become more independent and active.

Furthermore, we propose considering a final module devoted to the preparation of a collective product - for instance, a list of important points about the course or an instrument such as a grid to guide observational activities. Such a module should help students build up a general vision of the course and of the links between the modules. Moreover, during this final module students are forced to go back to all the previous modules, so that those modules to which less attention was devoted can then be compensated.

Students are usually divided into groups that may vary in size, from a minimum of three to a maximum of eight, following rec-ommendations from the literature about group size (Blumen-feld, Marx, Soloway & Krajcik, 1996; Dillenbourg, 1999). There-fore the number of groups to be formed depends on the total number of students attending the course (i.e., when there are 17 students, then two subgroups can be formed, one with eight members and the other with of nine). Groups are the engine of collaborative learning. In fact, small groups support active learn-ers and foster individual responsibility for achieving common goals and joint enterprise (Wenger, 1998). Halfway through the course, the groups should be broken up and recomposed. This way, students can experience a new group and test their social skills in a different context.

In general the offline meetings will follow the agenda given by the course. This may range from one hour weekly to many hours spread over two or three weekly meetings. Regardless of the specific agenda, our general suggestion is to devote equal time to the teacher’s lecturing and to group discussion about the online activities. Two types of lectures can be offered: a) lecturing to start up a module - these are lectures during which the teacher outlines the main points of the module, presents the educational materials, and sets up the research question of the module; b) lecturing on-demand, requested by the students about points and concepts needing clarification during the dis-



4

In-depth

eLearning


apers.eu

groups. For instance, if in a course there are three groups, there will be three students reading the same material, and they will confront and discuss this particular reading and their reviews on it. So this activity leads to a twofold level of discussion: a cross-group discussion about the same ma-terial, and group discussion regarding all the materials of the module. Students enter the group discussion with two “voices”: their own personal view, and that of the author of the material read. This way, naïve and rhetorical discussions are also avoided.

Furthermore, for each module, the teacher reads and com-ments two to three reviews for each group so that, by the end of the course, each student will have at least two com-mented reviews. In order to improve their writing skills, the students are required to read and discuss in group the teach-er’s comments, even when they do not concern their own review. The reviews are aimed at enhancing the students’ ability to acquire their own critical self-assessment.

This activity is inspired by the Jigsaw. In fact, students cover a piece of the module with their individual readings and by posting and reciprocally reading the reviews they cover the content of the whole module. Comparing many papers and being encouraged to express personal points of view assures the dialogical nature of the discussion. In fact, many voices are involved in this activity — specifically, the students’ voice, both as individuals and as part of a group, the voice of the ex-perts of the material read, and finally the voice of the teacher.

b) Discussing. Many types of discussions are possible online: informal, organizational and module-specific, all conducted asynchronically via web-forum. Informal and organizational discussions are possible throughout the course, as students are allowed to open up new discussion forums whenever they like. These spaces represent interesting opportunities for students to express their thoughts and feelings about their participation in the course. They are important spac-es because various matters are addressed and solved and, above all, a sense of community is built. While informal and organizational discussion forums are freely organized by the students, the module-specific discussions are guided by the research question negotiated during the face-to-face meet-ings. Each group attempts to answer the research question by comparing and discussing the various materials read by the students composing the group. The discussions around the content are set in such a way as to foster a knowledge

cussions. This is a way to make the students active and capable of regulating the learning process. The research questions and the lecturing on-demand can be defined as negotiation spaces between the teacher and the students, meant as ways to break traditional unidirectional teaching (from teacher to student).

The online activities should be performed in between the face-to-face meetings. Students can log online from university com-puters or from their private locations. The BCCP model is very flexible in terms of online activities: they can require just a few hours from one face-to-face meeting to the next, or many hours per day. In fact the model can be tailored based on the needs, aims, and constraints of the students. In any case, students should be free to spend the required hours online at their own convenience.

3.2 The activities

Six activities compose the BCCP model. This set of activities rep-resents the complete model but it is not always necessary to implement all the activities; it is perfectly possible to select only a few and neglect the others.

a) Reading and writing. Each participant is required to read in-dividually the educational material the teacher assigns him/her. This material may have several formats (such as a chap-ter, a journal article, a website or a set of slides), carefully selected by the teacher, and posted online in a specific folder. To perform this task, a few days are usually allotted. This as-signment is always part of each module; therefore, each stu-dent is required to read a number of documents similar to the number of modules composing the course. Later, students have to write a short critical review about that material. To write such a review, the teacher offers the following precise indications: a) reporting the main issues of the document they have read, b) outlining its contribution to the research question of the module, c) giving a personal opinion, and d) from the second module on, comparing the paper with the previously read materials, either by the same student or by other students.

The critical reviews are posted in a virtual folder and all the group members have to read and comment on them. The re-views represent the starting point for the online discussions in each group, but they also support cross-group discussions around the same materials. In fact, the same material is read by one student in each group. Therefore, the number of stu-dents reading the same material depends on the number of



5

In-depth

eLearning


apers.eu

building process (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 2003). To achieve such an objective, both individual and social dimensions are strongly interwoven (Chan & van Aalst, 2004).

c) Searching new materials. Students are encouraged to search new material to better address the module and to post it online accompanied by a short justification. The justification contains information about author and/or website credibility, why the material should be considered relevant for the mod-ule, and how it can contribute to the inquiry on the module’s research question. Students appreciate this practice and in-creasingly select interesting educational material. The aim of this activity is twofold: it supports the students’ sensation of being active by contributing to the selection of educational materials; and, at the same time, students can reflect on the criteria for recognizing valuable information obtained on the Internet.

d) Building collaborative products. The BCCP model proposes group-products and a collective final product. Group-prod-ucts are built before moving on to a new module and they can be a written synthesis or a conceptual map.

The synthesis describes how the group worked during the module-specific discussion. The teacher provides a guideline about this product, which includes the following points: a) the length of the text (usually about 500 words); b) if and how the discussion moved from the research question ini-tially launched to eventual new questions; c) how the final answer was negotiated. The synthesis clearly aims to sustain reflective thinking, and to provide inputs that will improve the reasoning and inquiry process for the next module. A wiki-like tool is highly recommended to build this product.

The conceptual map can be designed by using specific soft-ware or the Microsoft tool to build diagrams, or even just pencil and paper. The map should be about “what” has been discussed, therefore it should contain the main ideas borne from the discussion and the final research answer given by the group. This activity is useful to improve learning through the recognition of primary concepts of knowledge and the re-lationships between them (Novak & Gowin, 1984). The final maps can be stored in a folder and students can discuss and comment on them. In this manner, reflection on the process of building a concept map and on the differences between composing a text and a map is promoted. This is also a way to allow students to try out different formats and communica-tion modes.

The final common product can be different things: a check list, an observational grid, a questionnaire or even multime-dia. As we have already said, a final module could be devoted entirely to the preparation of this product. This is an activity carried out by all the participants of the course.

Having products typifying the group work means externaliz-ing the culture of the group and creating further occasion for self-assessment and reflection upon learning processes.

e) Role-taking. In our model, a number of roles are proposed and all of them are aimed at shaping active students. In fact, ideally, each student should always play a role; this way, the student can always take the responsibility of some task es-sential for the group and for the whole course. All roles are meant to interweave the process of learning with the acquisi-tion of abilities and professional skills. So far, the roles tested in our blended courses are (Spadaro, Sansone, & Ligorio, 2009):

• E-tutor, focusing on group management and supporting group discussion;

• Critical friend, designed to promote cross-group collabo-ration by reading and commenting on the activities and products of a different group;

• Person responsible for a collaborative product (synthesis, map, final product), with the responsibility of guiding the activities necessary to finalize the product and of describ-ing it during the face-to-face meetings;

• Person responsible for taking notes and/or video clips from face-to-face meetings and for uploading them on-line. Students covering this role should be sensitive to the needs of the students who are not able to attend the class;

• Person responsible for negotiating the lecture on-demand with the teacher, on behalf of the group.

The whole set of roles is meant to support positive social interaction, knowledge building, and a sense of challenge in the students themselves. In fact, students find themselves acting in ways they would not normally act, so they experi-ence new ways of being. Role-playing has an impact on self-representation, broadens the range of learning strategies and positions, and enriches the identity trajectory. Different situ-ations, triggered by the roles, stress different aspects of the self and produce new identity positioning (Hermans, 2004). Specific discussions about the roles, about how students feel when playing them and about how to improve their efficacy,



6

In-depth

eLearning


apers.eu

are available throughout the course. These discussion forums are presented as crucial moments for the knowledge building process.

f) E-portfolio and self-assessment. In order to support self-evaluation and metacognitive reflection about the activities performed, students are required to construct a personal e-portfolio and complete a self-assessment form, provided by the teacher. The e-portfolio can be used in different ways at different moments: at the start of the course, students can post their expectations and the goals they would like to achieve; and at the end of each module, students should fill in self-assessment forms and select their best products of the module; at the end of the course, students may report their assessment about the course and their own learning; they

can also compare their final self-assessment with their initial expectations.

The self-evaluation form comprises several questions, through which students describe how the activities they per-formed (reviewing, role-taking, online activities, offline meet-ings, conceptual maps, synthesis) have contributed to their learning, both in terms of content and skills. Self-assessment stimulates students’ metacognitive processes and reflec-tion on their own abilities and skills; moreover, it supports the development of critical self-evaluation. At the end of the course, the teacher takes into account the progress shown in the self-evaluation filled forms.

Table 1 presents a synopsis of the proposed activities, with the annotation of the pedagogical references and their aims.

Reading and writing Individual reading of the assigned material

Individual writing of a short review following the teacher’s instruction

Cross-group discussion involving students reading the same material

Collective discussion about the teacher’s comments on the review

Pedagogical references: Jigsaw, RT, dialogical perspective, PIM

Aim: to develop academic skills in reading and writing

Discussing Group discussion about the research question

Pedagogical references: PIM and dialogical perspective

Aim: to express and compare ideas (both personal and based on the readings)

Searching new materials Students search new material that is relevant for the module

Pedagogical references: CoL and CoP

Aim: to recognize scientific material

Building collaborative products Written synthesis of how the group discussed

Conceptual map of the main ideas discussed, and the answer to the research question

elaborated by the group

Pedagogical references: PIM; collaborative knowledge building and externalization

Aim: academic skills and practical skills about e-learning (the content of the course)

Role-taking E-tutor, critical friend, person responsible for the collaborative products, person responsible for

taking notes and/or video clips from face-to-face meetings and for uploading them online.

Pedagogical references: scaffolding, CoL, CoP, self-development and positioning

Aim: to support active learning and responsibility taking

E-portfolio and self-assessment Opening and maintaining a personal folder

Filling in a self-assessment form

Pedagogical references: self-assessment and metacognition

Aim: to improve skills for self-assessing expectations, activities, collaboration

Table 1: The activities composing the BCCP model



7

In-depth

eLearning


apers.eu

The set of activities proposed with our model is designed mainly to support active learners and collaborative knowledge build-ing. In fact, individual learning (by reading and writing) is the starting point for subsequent collaborative activities such as discussing and preparing group products. Indeed, the complex architecture of this blended course allows, simultaneously, indi-vidual work, work within small groups, and large group activity.

4. Assessing the BCCP modelHow can a teacher monitor the efficacy of the BCCP model? The quality of the products and the amount of presence online, checked through specific tools embedded in the platform, are good indicators of the students’ learning. But, to understand the effects of the model, we consider crucial the assessment of the quality of the discussions around the module-research question. In order to assess the discussions around the research question we will present an analysis of one of our courses. The assessment of these discussions is focused on understanding if and how the knowledge building process is progressing. To un-ravel this point we looked at how students picked up the con-tent offered by the reading materials and how they elaborated it.

4.1 Context and participants

The discussions analyzed here took place during a course on Educational Psychology and e-Learning, offered at the Univer-sity of Bari (Italy) in the academic year 2009-2010. This particu-lar course lasted 13 weeks and was divided into five modules. All the modules were aimed at supporting a fairly good under-standing of what e-learning means, its main issues and its prob-lematic aspects. The first four modules covered the educational content of the course, while the last one was devoted to the collaborative building of a grid meant to guide the observation of e-learning courses. The modules were about a) technology and learning; b) e-learning contents; c) online identity; and d) new trends.

16 students –4 males and 12 females, 22 years old on average– were divided into two groups of eight participants each. In this particular course students attended eight module-based discus-sions and produced 511 notes in total.

4.2 Methods of analysis

A qualitative analysis was used. The aim was to gain an in-depth understanding of the content of the notes posted in the forum

through a content analysis, using a simple categorization that can also be used by teachers to assess in itinere the online dis-cussion.

In particular we considered three levels (Cucchiara & Ligorio, 2009), inspired by Bereiter and Scardamalia’s (2003) sugges-tions about the knowledge building process:

a) “facts”, which are information collected by reading the educational material or the outcome of past knowledge. This level can be recognized whenever the student writes something like “As I read …” or “As the teacher said during the lecture …”;

b) “simple theories”, when students elaborate hypotheses and explanations about facts. This level should be assigned whenever there is a statement like “I think …” or “My im-pression is …”;

c) “complex theories”, representing a deeper level of elabo-ration and understanding in which students can explain more facts, compare several ideas, and answer the re-search question guiding the module. This level is recogniz-able when students declare something like “By comparing different ideas …” or “I would like to add something new”.

More than one level could be assigned to a single note; in fact, one note could refer to many levels. Therefore we segmented the note in as many parts as the levels we could recognize in it. After all the notes were analyzed, segmented, and categorized, we counted the frequency and the percentage of frequency of each level.

Two researchers first analyzed 10% of the corpus together, to get in tune about the meaning of the levels and how to segment the notes. Then, they individually assigned the categories to the remaining notes. Later they compared the categories assigned and found an agreement of 85%. The controversial cases were discussed until a common decision was made and 100% of the agreement was reached.

4.3 Results

Results show that 22.5% of the interventions were about “facts”, whereas ”simple theories” appeared in 40% of the cases, and 32,5% of the cases could be considered “complex theories”.

To understand how these frequencies were distributed through-out the discussion, we segmented each discussion into three periods by simply looking at the dates of the notes: initial, inter-mediate and final period. It was found that the “facts” always



8

In-depth

eLearning


apers.eu

reached the highest frequency at the start of the discussions (on average 18% more compared to the final part). This level seems to be aimed at laying out a common ground for the dis-cussion by sharing and reporting the concepts of the module in the web-discussion.

The “simple theories” are the most frequent level in all the dis-cussions. This result may indicate that students are indeed able to produce theories, although they often remain at a simple level. For students, this is a way to share and test their hypoth-eses or ideas.

The last level, concerning “complex theories”, appears mostly at the end of the discussions, when students finalize their answer to the research question. At this level students are attempting to raise the quality of the ideas by comparing and synthesizing the various positions that emerged and trying to reach a higher level of understanding of the concepts discussed.

Moreover, in order to understand how the discussion shifts from one level to the next, we observed these occurrences in detail. We found a type of intervention capable of sustaining such a movement and called it “transaction comment”. This type of intervention seems to be capable of sustaining the de-velopment of the discussion toward a higher level. The “trans-action comment” has a specific feature: it does not strictly refer to the content of the discussion, but it is a discourse strategy, with the clear purpose of triggering interactions among stu-dents. For example, after expressing their ideas, students may ask questions or opinions from their peers (i.e. “what do you think about this?”) with the intention of eliciting feedback, or obtaining their alliance or collaboration. The “transaction com-ments” are usually able to push other participants to comment and contribute to the general discussion. Often such comments unveil the intention to support the development and improve-ment of ideas and the shift from one level to the next.

We found that “transaction comments” caused: a) on average, 21% of the passages from “facts” to “simple theories”; b) on average, 32% of the passages from “simple theories” level to “complex theories”.

This result highlights the social and dialogical nature of the discussion, in that it progresses within the dialectic exchange between students and the mutual support they give each oth-er. The “transaction comments” represent a form of help and a scaffold explicitly offered to and requested by the students,

aimed at stimulating the improvement of ideas (Cucchiara & Li-gorio, 2009).

This type of result can provide useful feedback to teachers and students for improving their discursive practices and the online discussion.

5. ConclusionsIn this paper we have presented the Blended Collaborative Con-structive Participation model as a teaching model for university. The model is built upon well-established pedagogical principles and attempts to put them into practice. We consider the intro-duction of technology in university contexts, where face-to-face meetings are paramount, as a great occasion to strengthen the link between theory and practice.

The structure and the activities composing the model are the re-sult of six years of experimentation during which many improve-ments were produced. Furthermore, the model proved in many ways to be efficient and effective. In this paper we have pre-sented the method of analyzing the discussions about the learn-ing material, guided by a research question. The reason for this choice is the fact that we consider the asynchronous web-forum peer discussion to be a very crucial aspect of e-learning. But it is not easy for teachers and instructors to monitor its depth and quality. We consider the analysis we have presented to be a tool that teachers and instructors can easily master. By looking at the three levels we propose (fact, simply theory, complex theory), the quality of the discussions can be monitored, and by using the transaction comments, it can be advanced.

ReferencesAronson, E. & Patnoe, S. (1997). The jigsaw classroom: Building cooperation in the classroom (2nd ed.). New York: Addison Wesley Longman.

Bakhtin, M. (1981). The Dialogic Imagination. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

Bereiter, C., Scardamalia, M. (2003). Learning to work creatively with knowledge, in De Corte, E.; Verscheffel, L.; Entwistle, N.; Merrienboer, J.V. (eds.), Powerful learning environments: Unravelling basic components and dimension. Oxford: Elsevier Science.

Blumenfeld, P.C., Marx, R.W., Soloway, E., & Krajcik, J. (1996). Learning with Peers: from small group cooperation to Collaborative Communities. Educational Research, 25, (8), 37-40.



9

In-depth

eLearning


apers.eu

Bonk, C. J., & Graham, C. R. (Eds) (2006). The Handbook of Blended Learning: Global Perspectives, Local Designs. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.

Brown, A.L. & Campione, J.C. (1990). Communities of learning or a content by any other name. In D. Kuhn (ed.), Contribution to human development. (pp. 108-126). New York: Oxford University Press.

Cahill, J. L. (2011). Implementing online or hybrid courses in a traditional university. eLearning Papers n.º 24, April 2011, http://www.elearningpapers.eu/en/download/file/fid/22293

Chan, C.K.K., & Van Aalst, J. (2004). Learning, assessment, and collaboration in computer-supported collaborative learning. In J. W. Strijbos, P. Kirschner, & R. Martens (Eds.), What we know about CSCL: and implementing it in higher education (pp. 87-112). Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Cucchiara, S., & Ligorio, M.B. (2009). From facts to theories: a case study. Paper presented at Knowledge Building Summer Institute. Palma de Mallorca, 29 August - 3 September 2009.

Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by collaborative learning? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.) Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches (pp.1-19). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.

Hakkarainen, K., Lipponen, L., & Järvela, S. (2002). Epistemology of inquiry and computer-supported collaborative learning. In T.D. Koshmann et al (Eds), CSCL 2: Carrying Forward the Conversation (pp. 129-156). Mahwah, N.J.: Laurence Erlbaum Associates.

Hermans, H. (2004). Mediated identity in the emerging digital age: A dialogical perspective. Identity: An international Journal of theory and research, 4(4), 297-405.

Kershaw, A. (1996). People, planning, and process: The acceptance of technological innovation in post-secondary organizations. Educational Technology, 44-48.

Ligorio, M.B., Loperfido, F.F., Sansone, N., & Spadaro, P.F. (2010). Blending educational models to design blended activities. In D. Persico & F. Pozzi (eds.) Techniques for Fostering Collaboration in Online Learning Communities: Theoretical and Practical Perspectives (pp.64-81) IGI Global.

Ligorio, M. B., & Sansone, N. (2009). Structure of a Blended University course: Applying Constructivist principles to a blended course, in C. R. Payne (Ed.) Information Technology and Constructivism in Higher Education: Progressive Learning Frameworks. London, IGI Global, pp. 216-230.

Nkonge, B., & Gueldenzoph, L. E. (2006). Best practices in online education: Implications for policy and practice. Business Education Digest, (15), 42-53.

Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York and Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

O’Neill, K., Singh, G., & O’Donoghue, J. (2004). Implementing eLearning Programmes for Higher Education: A Review of the Literature. Journal of Information Technology Education V.3, 313-323 .

Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 2, 117-175.

Roth, W. M. (2009). Dialogism: A Bakhtinian Perspective on Science and Learning. Rotterdam: Sense Publisher.

Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer Support for Knowledge-Building Communities. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 256-283.

Singh, G., O’Donoghue, J, & Worton, H. (2005). A Study Into The Effects Of eLearning On Higher Education. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice.

Spadaro, P. F., Sansone, N., & Ligorio, M. B. (2009). Role-taking for Knowledge Building in a Blended Learning course. Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society, 5 (3), 11-21.

Volery, T., & Lord, D. (2000). Critical success factors in online education. The International Journal of Education Management, 14 (5), 216 – 223.

Waks, L. J. (2007). The concept of fundamental educational change. Educational Theory, 57(3), 277-295. Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com.proxy1.ncu.edu/?did=1380272801 &sid=1&Fmt=3&clientId=52110&RQT=309&VName=PQD

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice. Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Copyrights The texts published in this journal, unless otherwise indicated, are subject to a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-NoDerivativeWorks 3.0 Unported licence. They may be copied, distributed and broadcast pro-vided that the author and the e-journal that publishes them, eLearning Papers, are cited. Commercial use and derivative works are not permitted. The full licence can be consulted on http://creativecommons.org/licens-es/by-nc-nd/3.0/

Edition and productionName of the publication: eLearning Papers ISSN: 1887-1542Publisher: elearningeuropa.infoEdited by: P.A.U. Education, S.L.Postal address: c/Muntaner 262, 3r, 08021 Barcelona (Spain)Phone: +34 933 670 400Email: [email protected]: www.elearningpapers.eu

http://www.elearningpapers.eu/en/download/file/fid/22293

http://www.elearningpapers.eu/en/download/file/fid/22293

http://proquest.umi.com.proxy1.ncu.edu/?did=1380272801 &sid=1&Fmt=3&clientId=52110&RQT=309&VName=PQD



http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/

mailto:editorial%40elearningeuropa.info?subject=

http://www.elearningpapers.eu