Vol. 31 No. 1 (2016)
Research Articles

Activity Dashboard, Time Management, Self-Regulation and Efficiency in a CSCL Environment

Gaëtan Temperman
Université de Mons
Bruno De Lièvre
Université de Mons

Published 2016-07-22

Keywords

  • Awareness,
  • social presence,
  • activity dashboard,
  • Computer supported collaborative learning,
  • self-regulation,
  • effectiveness,
  • efficiency
  • ...More
    Less

How to Cite

Temperman, G., De Lièvre, B., & De Stercke, J. (2016). Activity Dashboard, Time Management, Self-Regulation and Efficiency in a CSCL Environment. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education Revue Internationale Du E-Learning Et La Formation à Distance, 31(1). Retrieved from https://ijede.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/918

Abstract

This article focuses on the integration conditions of a self-regulation tool in a collaborative distance-learning environment. An experimental study was conducted to address this issue. This study was conducted as part of a program of practical classes taught remotely with a group of 108 master’s degree students and with a two-variable factorial plan. The first variable was about the incentive given to students to use the self-regulation tool. The second variable brought the students to adopt different modes of organization for completing their task. The analysis of the results shows that the students who had to plan their work spontaneously used the tool more than those who negotiated their schedule. It also shows that the students encouraged to use the tool completed the training more quickly and were more efficient in their teamwork. Moreover, this study suggests some interaction between the two variables. Students from the spontaneous schedule group, who were also encouraged to use the self-regulation tool, reached a higher level of collaboration efficiency (work quality/time used).

Cet article se concentre sur les conditions d'intégration d'un outil auto-réglementé dans un environnement collaboratif d'apprentissage à distance. Une étude expérimentale a été menée pour aborder cette question. Cette étude a été réalisée dans le cadre d'un programme de cours pratiques enseignés à distance avec un groupe de 108 étudiants à la maîtrise et avec un plan factoriel à deux variables. La première variable était sur la mesure incitative donnée aux étudiants à utiliser l'outil d'auto-réglementé. La deuxième variable a amené les étudiants à adopter différents modes d'organisation pour effectuer leur tâche. L'analyse des résultats montre que les étudiants qui ont eu à planifier leur travail spontanément ont utilisé l'outil plus que ceux qui ont négocié leur horaire. Elle montre aussi que les étudiants encouragés à utiliser l'outil ont terminé la formation plus rapidement et étaient plus efficaces dans leur travail d'équipe. De plus, cette étude suggère une certaine interaction entre les deux variables. Les étudiants du groupe de planification spontanée, qui ont également été encouragés à utiliser l'outil d'auto-réglementé, ont atteint un niveau plus élevé d'efficacité de la collaboration (qualité du travail / temps utilisé).

 

References

  1. Alavi, H. &, Dillenbourg, P. (2012). An Ambient Awareness Tool for Supporting Supervised Collaborative Problem Solving. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 5(3), 264-274.
  2. Balduf, M. (2009). Underachievement Among College Students. Journal of Advanced Academic, 20, 274-294.
  3. Buder, D. (2010). Group Awareness Tools for Learning: Current and Future Directions. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(3), 1114-117.
  4. Clark, H.H. & Brennan, S.E (1991). Grounding in Communication. In B. Resnick, J. Levine, & M.Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 127-149), New York: American Psychological Association.
  5. De Lièvre, B., Depover, C., & Dillenbourg, P. (2006). The Relationship Between Tutoring Mode and Learners’ Use of Help Tools in Distance Education. Instructional Science, 34, 97-129.
  6. Dillenbourg, P. (2002). Over-scripting CSCL: The risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design. In P. A. Kirschner (Ed.), Three worlds of CSCL: Can we support CSCL, (pp. 61-91). Heerlen: Open Universiteit Nederland.
  7. Dourish, P., & Belloti, V. (1992). Awareness and Coordination. In Shared Work Spaces, ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work CSCW'92, (pp. 107-122). Toronto, Canada.
  8. Gafni, R., & Geri, N. (2010). Time Management: Procrastination Tendency in Individual and Collaborative Tasks. Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge, and Management, 5, 115-125.
  9. Gutwin, C., & Greenberg, S. (2002). A Descriptive Framework of Workspace Awareness for Real-Time Groupware. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 11(3-4), 411-446.
  10. Henri, F., & Lundgren-Cayrol, K. (2001). Apprentissage collaboratif à distance : pour comprendre et concevoir des environnements d’apprentissage virtuels. Sainte-Foy, Canada : Presses de l’Université du Québec.
  11. Janssen, J., Erkens, G., & Kirschner, P. (2011). Group Awareness Tools: It’s What You Do With it That Matters. Computers in human behavior, 27(3), 1046-1058.
  12. Jermann, P., & Dillenbourg, P. (2008). Group Mirrors to Support Interaction Regulation in Collaborative Problem Solving. Computers & Education, 51(1), 279-296.
  13. Kraut, R.E., Fish, R. Root., R., & Chalfonte, B. (2002). Informal Communication in Organizations: Form, Function, and Technology. In S. Oskamp & S. Spacapan (Eds.), Human reactions to technology: Claremont symposium on applied social psychology, (pp. 145-199). Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
  14. Leinonen, P., Järvelä, S., & Häkkinen, P. (2005). Conceptualizing the Awareness of Collaboration: A Qualitative Study of a Global Virtual Team. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 14(4), 301-322.
  15. Michinov, N., & Primois, C. (2005). Improving Productivity and Creativity in Online Groups Through Social Comparison Process: New Evidence for Asynchronous Electronic Brainstorming. Computers in Human Behavior, 21(1), 11-28.
  16. Michinov, N., Brunot, S., Le Bohec, O., Juhel, J., & Delaval, M. (2011). Procrastination, Participation, and Performance in Online Learning Environments. Computers & Education, 56, 1-10.
  17. Romero, M., Tricot, A., & Mariné, C. (2009). Effects of a Context Awareness Tool on Students’ Cognition of Their Team-Mates Learning Time in a Distance Learning Project Activity. In C. O’Malley, D. Suthers, P. Reimann & A. Dimitracopoulou (Eds.), Proceedings of computer supported collaborative learning practices. Atlanta: USA.
  18. Saab, N. (2012). Team Regulation, Regulation of Social Activities or Co-Regulation: Different Labels for Effective Regulation of Learning In CSCL. Metacognition and Learning, 7(1), 1-6.
  19. Salonen, P., Vauras, M., & Efklides, A. (2005). Motivation and Affect in the Self-Regulation of Behavior – Social Interaction: What Can itTell Us about Metacognition and Co-regulation in Learning? European Psychologist, 10(3), 199-208.