Journal+Article+Review+-+We+Innovate,++The+Role+of+Collaboration+in+Exploring+New+Technologies

Kris Hornick EDU 713 October 12, 2011
 * JOURNAL ARTICLE REVIEW**

Reference

Foulger, T.S., Williams, M.K., & Wetzel, K. (2008). We innovate: The role of collaboration in exploring new technologies. //International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education,// 20(1), 28-38.

Introduction

With the increasing availability of educational technology in the PreK-12 classrooms, teacher preparation programs are faced with the challenge of training pre-service teachers to integrate technology with curriculum. The rapidly changing field of technology has made it difficult for these programs to keep up. This, along with the variety of technological experiences among the students has led the researchers/instructors in this study to turn to collaboration as the primary method of learning. Their project, the Innovations Mini-Teach project, was developed to prepare pre-service teachers to work together with their peers to research and explore new technologies and to come up with ways to use new technology to enhance student learning. Collaboration offers many benefits including increased support, a variety of member experiences, and the ability to do more than one person can by him/herself. Collaboration is also a method often used in professional development, and thus prepares pre-service teachers for future training. Foulger, Williams, and Wetzel (2008) hypothesized that teachers who collaborate with others in the use of technology, have a greater potential to learn new technology and are more likely to use it in ways that enhance student learning. In an effort to focus their study, they came up with “three research questions central to the elements of collaboration…” (Foulger, Williams, and Wetzel, 2008). The three questions are listed below.
 * 1) What value did collaboration add to the ability of students to learn new technology?
 * 2) What obstacles inhibited students’ collaboration abilities?
 * 3) What are students’ perceptions about how collaborative skills may affect use of innovations in their future teachings?

The project was implemented in a required educational technology course taken within the first semester of the teacher preparation program. The Project Students in the technology courses were asked to complete surveys at the beginning of the semester which provided the instructor researchers with feedback about their experiences using technology. The students were then divided into groups heterogeneously according to their level of experience. This process dispersed those with extensive experience across the groups. Students were then assigned a technology to research and come up with possible uses the classroom. Their findings were presented to the class and documented on a class wiki. At the conclusion of the assignments, questionnaires about individual experiences were completed by all course participants, and focus groups were formed to collect more data about the project. Method All students in the required educational technology courses, taught by the three instructor researchers were involved in the study through the submission of their projects, questionnaires, and class wikis, which became an active record of their work in the class and a valuable resource for the future. Groups of two to four students each researched different types of technology and formulated possible classroom applications. The instructors provided support and coaching for the groups as needed throughout the course, but the majority of the group work took place outside of class time. The student groups then presented and demonstrated their findings to their classmates in a 15 to 30 minute presentation. Focus groups of four to eight students each were formed at the end of the semester to collect student perceptions of the project. There were 24 students total selected through a sampling technique called the maximum variation sampling (Patton, 2001). These 24 students were divided into four focus groups. Discussions by the focus groups were recorded and converted to text, then analyzed using a tool called HyperRESEARCH Qualitative Analysis Tool v. 2.8. The instructor researchers coded the discussions to identify developing themes. Results The focus group data was given primary consideration, while the presentations, questionnaires, and class wikis were used to validate this data. The results are listed relative to the research questions.

Students reported that working in small groups was valuable in that it allowed them to develop a schedule and share the work load. They also commented on how they were able to help and learn from each other as collaboration took place within and across groups, inside and outside of class. The study showed that 80 percent of the students in the focus groups enjoyed working with each other, while all students acknowledged that collaboration enhanced their learning opportunities.
 * 1) //What value did collaboration add to the ability of students to learn new technology?//

//2. What obstacles inhibited students’ collaboration abilities?// Despite the instructor researchers’ attempts to be proactive, some issues did arise. Students in the focus groups indicated they had trouble communicating with their group members while working on their projects. Ten percent of those students stated that their communication problems were severe enough to affect their work. Some were even left to do the work on their own. Another ten percent encountered less significant problems, such as broken commitments, inconsistent communication, and/or different schedules that made it difficult to meet outside of class. The students were able to handle those issues themselves.

For some, a lack of skills became an issue, especially if their group member(s) already knew how to use the technology. For example, one student reported that her group member already knew how to use the technology they were assigned, but instead of helping, the group member left her to figure it out on her own.

The instructor researchers believed these issues were similar to issues that arise in the “real-world” of professional teachers and viewed them as learning opportunities for the students; opportunities to develop interpersonal skills that would be valuable in their future positions as educators. //3. What are students’ perceptions about how collaborative skills may affect use of innovations in their future teachings?// By the end of the project, many of the students were already reflecting on their experiences and thinking about how they would use the different types of technology in their classrooms. They indicated that the ability to use the class wiki as a resource and as a way to continue sharing information long after the class ended was valuable to them. Based on the data, the instructor researchers believed they were preparing pre-service teachers to become collaborative teachers, technology leaders, and powerful problems solvers. Discussion, Implications and Recommendations Conventional pre-service programs often offer courses in which the instructor disseminates information to the students. In this type of environment, the students often remain passive in the learning process. However, in this study the students became active participants in their own learning and were empowered to take ownership of the learning process. Their collaboration experiences led to a shift in how they viewed themselves as learners. The project-based learning activities allowed the students to not only become experts with some of the technology, but also to become familiar with a wide range of technology as classmates shared their research through presentations and the class wiki. The class wiki provided an opportunity for students to share knowledge that could now be owned by all members. The digital format of the class wiki allowed for ongoing learning that is not hindered by location or time. It would be interesting to follow up with the pre-service teachers in this study to see where they are today. Are they technology leaders in their school systems? Have they continued to be innovative in their field? Do they still value collaboration?

One limitation associated with this study involves the selection of the focus groups. Students were asked if “this assignment should remain in the syllabus for next year”, and if they were available to participate in the focus group should they be selected. Seventy-five percent of the students agreed that the assignment should remain in the syllabus. Only 20% disagreed. (The article does not mention the missing five percent.) Seventy-five percent of all of the students were also willing and available to participate in the focus group. Because there were very few students who disagreed with assignment, and who were available to participate in the focus groups, this group was underrepresented in the focus group when compared to the full population. My Thoughts Project based learning activities have the benefit of mirroring real-life situations. In this study, the instructor researchers were faced with the reality of rapidly changing technology and innovation, and time constraints. At the same time, they recognized the benefits of collaboration and its use in many in-service training programs. By combining their needs with an understanding of the skills needed for future teachers, they were able to design a forward-thinking program that better prepared students for real-life situations. The students who participated in this study gained interpersonal skills related to collaboration, and a deeper understanding of themselves as life-long learners and innovators. This program is a great model for instruction, not only at the university level, but in elementary and secondary classes as well. “Making it real” is an effective way to reach many students.

It is important to note that while the students in this study were empowered by the process to take ownership of their learning, the instructor researchers had a number of supports and scaffolds in place to direct them toward specific goals. Students at the elementary and secondary levels need that structure to keep them focused and on the right track also.

I am curious about the amount of training the students received in collaboration. It is possible that since the majority of the project was to be completed outside of class, the instructor researchers may have provided some training in collaboration during class time, but there is no mention of it in the article. I believe many of the groups would have benefited from some training in collaboration prior to this study. Connections to Course Material Friend and Cook (2010) suggest that teams go through four developmental stages from the time they are formed to their final performance as a group. The four stages are forming, storming, norming, and performing. These stages were evident in the collaborative groups that were formed for the Innovations Mini-Teach project.


 * //Forming//** - In the study, the students were assigned to groups by the instructor researchers. Most students were not familiar with their group members. The authors noted that the students quickly realized the benefits of getting to know each other.
 * //Storming//** //–// Many of the obstacles to collaboration faced by the students occurred in this stage. On page 35 of the article, the authors state that “…struggles existed for nearly all of the groups.” Communication issues led to conflict; students related situations in which they felt forced to confront group members about commitment; and in a couple of cases, students opted out of the group, either by leaving the class or just not working on the project.
 * //Norming//** //–// Successful groups were able to work together to establish group guidelines and schedules. Within their groups, they recognized a need for leadership, developed new skills, addressed issues and began working on their product.
 * //Performing//** //–// This final developmental stage was evident as the students completed their products and prepared their presentations. The success of the group presentations demonstrated this performing stage.

All but two of the collaborative groups in this study appear to have gone through all four of these developmental stages. One group of the two groups was split up after a member had to leave school due to a personal family emergency. A second group of just two members did not complete all four stages because one member chose not to participate in the research, leaving her partner to do all of the work.