Author: Dr Darryl Dymock and Mr Peter Hobson

University of New England

Keywords: Collaborative Learning Groups, CLG's, distance education, audioconferencing, voicemail, isolation, teaching initiative.

Article style and source: UltiBASE STAR Article

Contents

• Abstract
• Situation
• Target
• Activities
• Results
• Conclusions
• Recommendations to Others
• Acknowledgements

Abstract

Using audioconferencing, Collaborative Learning Groups (CLGs) were established among distance education students enrolled in three education units at the University of New England in 1996. The purpose of the CLGs was to help overcome the sense of isolation many distance education students feel, and to encourage students to take more responsibility for their own learning through discussion with other students without the presence of the lecturer. In second semester, voicemail was introduced to enhance the functioning of the CLGs. Generally, students who participated felt their learning was enhanced, but there was still quite a strong desire expressed for the lecturer to be part of the discussions.

Situation

The objectives of the Collaborative Learning Groups project were:

• To break down the isolation experienced by distance learners
• To encourage students to become more self-directed in their learning
• To develop students' awareness of the benefits of collaborative approaches to learning
• To develop deeper learning
• To increase students' sense of satisfaction with the learning experience

It was decided that these issues could be addressed by establishing telephone discussion groups which did not directly involve the lecturer. While 'teletutorials' are common in distance education, a major aim of this project was to encourage students to take greater responsibility for their own learning. Audioconferencing was chosen because of the ready availability and ease of use of the telephone. The project was undertaken with the assistance of a National Teaching Development Grant through what is now the Committee for University Teaching and Staff Development (CUTSD).

Target

There was a total of 187 students enrolled in the three units: in semester one, 81 undergraduate students in an undergraduate Education unit, ESCC 211/311; in semester two, 85 students in a postgraduate Education unit, EDCO 491, along with a further group of 21 third and fourth-year undergraduate plus some postgraduate students, in ESCC 312/412.

Groups were selected where possible on the basis of geographical proximity, with a maximum of eight students in each because of the limitation of the conferencing facility used. All enrolled students were invited to participate in the Collaborative Learning Groups, but participation was voluntary.

In first semester, 55% of the 81 students enrolled were from Sydney, 33% from country NSW and ACT, 12% from Qld and one from Victoria. In second semester, 30% of the were from Sydney, 42% from rural NSW, 16% from Victoria, 2% from Tasmania and 10% from Queensland.

Activities

Students were informed of their learning groups, along with a rationale and instructions on how to make the best use of the telephone conferencing, in the printed material they received on enrolment. It was made clear that participation in the groups was optional. A range of relevant issues and topics for them to discuss was suggested and the relation of these to the overall aims and content of the unit was made clear.

An initial audioconference for each group was organised early in the semester with the lecturer present. This audioconference was arranged through Telstra's Conferlink facility, whereby the Telstra operator rang each person in the group, using the group lists provided by the lecturer. This session was used to provide the initial group meeting, to clarify the expectations and process for CLGs, to appoint a volunteer coordinator for each group, and to plan dates for the subsequent teleconferences when the lecturer was not present. Students were encouraged to exchange brief biographies and photographs to aid the "getting to know you" process.

Each group then had the opportunity to 'meet' by audioconference at a pre-arranged time, three or five times during the semester depending on the unit being studied, with discussion facilitated by the volunteer 'coordinator' from among the students. The main differences between these audioconferences and the initial one were that:

1. the students took responsibility for making the conference calls at the times pre-arranged by their group, and
2. the lecturer did not participate in the groups' discussions.

Discussion was based on the printed material and audiotapes developed for the units as part of the normal study package for UNE distance education students. In semester two a voicemail facility became available at UNE which could be accessed by individual students at their convenience and at their own expense, and was used to provide further lecturer guidance to the CLGs.

In ESCC 312/412 in semester two, five voice mail messages were linked to five CLGs and provided topics for discussion at the next CLG, as well as lecturer's comments on topics set for the previous CLG. Two separate CLG sessions, involving the lecturer and the group coordinators, were also held to review progress.

Since EDCO 491 is divided into three modules, three CLGs were arranged in second semester for students in that unit, with the co-ordinators of the groups asked to ring in to the lecturer at a pre-arranged time to advise of any issues raised by group members in relation to their studies, as well as of any problems with the group process or any technical difficulties. The lecturer then prepared a voicemail message of about ten minutes in response to issues raised by the co-ordinator on behalf of the various groups after each CLG.

Results

Evaluation took place through a survey at the end of each semester of all students enrolled in the three units, using questionnaires, whether or not they participated in the CLGs or Voicemail.

Overall, 76 out of a possible 187 students responded to the surveys, of whom 49 (64% of respondents, 26% of the total) took part in at least one CLG. For the sake of brevity, only the major results are discussed in this report. Further details are available from the authors.

CLGs

In answer to the three options in the question, 'Did the CLGs enhance your learning?', the 49 students who took part responded to the three options as follows:

1. In a significant way: 33%
2. In some way/a minor way: 57%
3. Very little/not at all: 10%

Asked whether they would be prepared to pay if necessary to participate in a CLG, 75% of the 52 students who responded to that question said they would be prepared to pay the costs themselves.

Voicemail

Voicemail was available only from Semester Two, so responses came from the survey of students in EDCO 491 and from two surveys of students in ESCC 312/412. Sixty students from a possible 106 responded (57%). Of these 60, 33 (55%) listened to one or more of the Voicemail messages. Most students who did not take part thought the existing materials were adequate.

In response to the question, 'Was Voicemail support helpful?', the 33 students responded as follows:

1. Very helpful: 42%
2. Some help: 55%
3. No help: 3%
   

Some students commented favourably on the audiotapes provided in the first semester ESCC unit, even though there was no question about these. A few students suggested email contact with lecturers as a useful substitute for Voicemail support.

Conclusions

Overall, there was generally strong support for the principle of collaborative learning, and most students who took part indicated that they thought their learning had been enhanced, but there was also a need expressed by some students for continuing lecturer involvement in the process. Groups that met as planned over the semester generally reported enthusiastically on the experience, particularly in terms of the social interaction and peer support. Other groups indicated that they started off well at the first session, but that subsequent arrangements to meet broke down, or that they felt the need for the lecturer's input. One of the key features of a successful CLG seems to be that the group has at least one enthusiastic and energetic member (usually the volunteer coordinator) who ensures that the group persists. There also appears to be a need to schedule meetings so that the members of the group see them as a priority amongst the competing demands of occupational and domestic responsibilities.

Recommendations to Others

1. Collaborative learning groups through audioconferencing can be a valuable teaching tool in countering the isolation felt by distance education students. The basic requirement is access to a touchtone telephone which metropolitan students and the large majority of country students already possess.
   
2. Outcomes of CLGs in terms of more self-directed and deeper learning appear to depend on the extent of students' willingness to get involved, to share ideas with other students, and to take responsibility for their own learning. Substantial effort is needed to break down students' long-standing inhibitions about self-directed and collaborative learning and over-reliance on lecturer leadership in all facets of their learning experience. It may take more than one semester or one such experience to do this.
   
3. There is a need for careful lecturer structuring of the CLG program and setting of tasks, with regular feedback to students. Voicemail provides a very useful way of achieving the latter. The initial [Conferlink] session organised by the lecturer is essential in getting the program under way and establishing the groundwork for subsequent group meetings.
   
4. It is important to have strong student co-ordinators (but even that does not guarantee a group will continue), with careful briefing of coordinators by the lecturer in advance and regular collaboration during semester.
   
5. CLGs and Voicemail should be seen as adjuncts to the more traditional modes of distance education, not as a sufficient replacement on their own.
   
6. Lecturers who use CLGs and voicemail need to be aware of the considerable extra time and effort involved.
   

Acknowledgements

The Project Team would like to acknowledge the assistance of:

• Sam Meredith, UNE Distance Education Centre, for assistance with initial planning and organisation of the project.
• The Project Reference Group, particularly for the suggestions they made for improving the initial information sent to students about the CLGs.
  Project reference group:
  • Dr Diane Thompson, Deakin University
  • Dr Judy MacCallum, Murdoch University
  • Mr Terry Brown, University of New England
  • Mr Edward Reid-Smith, Wagga Wagga (External student, UNE).
    
• Lynne Chapman and Kim Guthrie of the University of New England for their assistance with Voicemail.
  
• Kerith Power of the University of New England for assistance with data collation and analysis.
  
• Peter Curnow of the University of South Australia for assistance with the questionnaires.
  
• Financial support through the National Teaching Development Grant, Committee for the Advancement of University Teaching (CAUT).

Further Contact