CollaborationTools_Jan09

A Teaching with Technology White Paper Ashley Deal | 1.23.2009CToololalbsoration The landscape of technology that can be used to support project- based collaborative learning is vast and varied. Educators can benefit from a more detailed and disaggregated view of what tools are available, and how they can be used most effectively in support of specific teaching and learning goals. In this paper, we offer a working model of the collaborative process and outline basic approaches to assessing project-based group work. We then discuss potential risks and benefits of taking project-based collaborative learning online, and give an overview of technology tools that can be used to support various activities in project-based collaborative learning. http://www.cmu.edu/teachingCreative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/us/

Teaching with Technology January 2009 Project-based collaborative learning isWorking Definition Project-based collaborative an active, problem-centered approach This paper presents a Project-Basedlearning broadly to teaching and learning. As the name working model of the consists of the implies, it is a fusion of two related following types of activities: approaches—project-based learning and collaborative process, collaborative learning—which are often and gives an overview Communication discussed separately in the literature. Team Definition Project-based learning requires of technology tools & Participants the student to engage in design, prob- that can be used to lem-solving, decision-making, and Project Management investigative activities, often resulting in support project-based an artifact or product (“Project-based collaborative learning. Resource learning,” 2008). Collaborative learn- Management ing involves joint intellectual effort by Co-Creation & Ideation groups of students who are mutually Consensus searching for meanings, understand- • enable local and remote presentation, Building ing, or solutions (Smith and MacGregor, and allow for archiving of completed Presentation & Archiving 1992). Both approaches require a central projects. question or problem that serves to orga- While the landscape of technol- nize and drive activities, and encourage ogy that can be used to support central application, analysis, and synthesis of activities of project-based collaborative course material. learning is vast and varied, it is often Learning Problem- Collabora tive Learning lumped together under a single label: “collaboration tools.” Educators and Based educational technologists can benefit from a more detailed and disaggregated view of what tools are available, and how Artifact Group different types of tools can be used most Outcome Work effectively in support of specific teaching and learning goals. To that end, this paper presents a The fusion of these two approaches working model of the collaborative learn- can be characterized simply as people ing process, and gives an overview of working together to create something, types of tools that can be used to support and to meet certain learning objectives project-based collaborative learning. We throughout the process. This context use a model of the collaborative process yields an ideal yet complex territory for to frame the discussion of collaboration support with technology tools. Tools are tools. It is intended as one possible view of currently available that can: the process and supporting technologies. • facilitate real-time and asynchronous For the sake of simplicity, we divide text, voice, and video communication; the process into distinct phases, and pres- • assist in basic project management ent a sequence of those phases that we activities, like task management, cal- feel clearly summarizes the collaborative endaring, workflow planning and process. However, we acknowledge that routing, and time tracking; collaborative work is not typically linear, • support co-creation by enabling and the phases are often not distinct. groups to modify output in real-time It is important to note (in this paper, or asynchronously; and in the process of implementing • facilitate consensus building through technology support for a collaborative group discussions and polling (see learning project) that not every collab- Cavalier, 2008 and 2007); orative effort requires every type of tool, • simplify and streamline resource man- and no single system or product encom- agement in terms of basic file sharing, passes all the features discussed in the in addition to more advanced features following sections. Decisions about like search, tagging, version tracking, which collaboration tools to use should privilege management, and so on; be driven by learning objectives.Collaboration Tools 2

Teaching with Technology January 2009Technology Support for Project-Based Collaborative LearningCommunication Resource ManagementVirtual Meetings, Email, InstantMessaging, Screen Sharing, Blogs, Co-CreationVoice/Video/Web Conferencing, & IdeationDiscussion Boards Concept Mapping, Wikis,Team Definition Project Virtual Whiteboards, Presentation& Participants Management Real-Time Collaborative & Archiving EditingSocial Networking, Task Management, Time Webinars, Slide Shows,Presence Management, Tracking, Workflow Routing, File Storage, Search, Hosted Media SharingUser Profiles, Contact Milestones, Calendaring Database Management,Management Version Tracking, Access Management, Social Bookmarking, Commenting, Tagging Concensus Building Polling, Question Management, Process ArchivingThis model presents a high-level Team Definition & Participants Co-Creation & Ideationview of the collaboration process, Tools in this category are designed to help Co-creation and ideation tools facilitate theand lists available tools and team members identify key players in a most direct interaction between teamtechnology that can support each project, and draw on the appropriate “people members on the goals or desired outcomesphase. It is not intended to indicate resources” at the appropriate time. They also of the project. Using these tools, participantsthat the process is strictly linear, allow participants to manage their availability can often work in groups directly editing ornor that every project requires for various types of interaction (e.g., text chat building the project artifact.every type of tool. Technology or video conferencing).support should be selected based Consensus Buildingon the requirements of the Project Management While co-creation and ideation tools helpindividual learning activity. Project management tools are geared toward generate possible alternative solutions to a handling the logistical aspects of planning, given problem, consensus-building toolsCommunication scheduling, workflow, and task management. help participants narrow and refine theThe entire project-based collaborative effort proposed solutions.takes place in the context of communication. Resource ManagementMany features of collaborative software are Some of the main challenges faced in Presentation & Archivinggeared toward the facilitation and collaboration are the most basic. Resource These tools allow the project team to presentmanagement of effective communication management tools help address common outcomes to the instructor, to a project client,among team members. issues, like having access to a shared or to the general public. Communication storage space for project files, and tools also factor heavily into this phase of keeping up with multiple versions of the project-based collaborative learning. same document.Collaboration Tools 3

Teaching with Technology January 2009Assessments & ExamplesTo shed light Project-based collaborative learning is not project-based collaborative learning on the use of a new idea; it is firmly grounded in a long- online. Finally, we will give an overview technology standing body of theory and research of existing technology tools that can to support into teaching and learning. But the com- be used to support various activities in project-based plexity of the topic and the diversity of project-based collaborative learning. collaborative project-based collaborative learning strat- learning, we egies—not to mention the ever-growing The Eberly Center for Teaching address the selection of technology tools that can be Excellence at Carnegie Mellon offers following three used to support these strategies—make valuable information about group work topics: it difficult to analyze and measure direct as an instructional strategy on their web effects on student learning. site at http://www.cmu.edu/teaching/ Approaches to designteach/design/instructionalstrategies. assessment in The body of technology-based col- This information does not deal spe- project-based laborative learning research to date is cifically with technology, but offers collaborative largely descriptive. Educators outline practical information about why and learning their approach to a specific collaborative when to use group work, and how to learning project (or collaborative learn- structure and assess group work for Potential risks ing in general), and offer observations on optimal effectiveness. and benefits of perceived challenges and successes. technology- Approaches to Assessment mediated While this type of commentary is collaboration useful, these descriptions stop short of There are three areas of project-based the type of comparative analysis we typ- collaborative learning activities that can Example ically present in this White Paper series. be assessed. Instructors can evaluate the tools & As such, it is difficult to make any gen- process students use in approaching a technologies for eralizations from this research about given problem and finding solutions; they project-based what makes technological supported can assess the final product or end result collaborative for collaborative learning successful or of the project; or they can evaluate the learning unsuccessful. individual student’s learning outcomes. Project-based Often, instructors evaluate group collaborative learning work in just one of the areas above. is not a new idea; it is Using a single approach to assessment firmly grounded in a can be problematic, however, because long-standing body of the relationship between these ele- theory and research into ments is unknown. Instructors should teaching and learning. keep in mind that a satisfactory final product does not necessarily indicate Instead of following our usual that students approached the prob- approach, we will outline three basic lem according to the preferred process. approaches to the assessment of proj- Similarly, even using the correct process ect-based learning activities. We focus to arrive at a satisfactory final product on assessment because it plays a critical does not indicate that individual stu- role in how students approach a given dents grasped relevant concepts. project, and is complicated somewhat by factors specific to project-based The paper, “Doing with collaborative learning (i.e., assessing Understanding: Lessons from Research individual versus group work, process on Problem- and Project-Based versus outcomes). Next, we will pres- Learning” (Barron, Schwartz, Vye, ent relevant research from the fields Moore, Petrosino, Zech, and Bransford, of cognitive, social, and organiza- 1998) presents a good example of stu- tional psychology to demonstrate the dents following the proper process and potential risks and benefits of taking reaching desired outcomes, while lack- ing a basic understanding of underlying concepts. The authors describe a model rocket building activity that is intended to familiarize sixth-grade students with the scientific method.Collaboration Tools 4

Teaching with Technology January 2009Assessments & Examples Most students properly constructed Technology-Mediated continued and launched the rockets, but were Collaboration unable to describe the purpose of the project, or what made a given type of An often-overlooked body of research rocket better or worse. Many of these on collaboration comes from the field students would be given high marks of psychology. Thomas Finholt and if assessed solely on process (how the Stephanie Teasley summarize much rocket was built) and product (whether of the relevant work in their paper, the rocket properly launched). In this “The Need for Psychology Research case, it required a more appropriate on Computer-Supported Cooperative framing of the project using a clear Work” (1998). driving question, and pre- and post- evaluations to determine individual Finholt and Teasley note that cog- learning outcomes from the project. nitive, social, and organizational psychologists have examined work in Good assessment provides opportu- groups for more than 20 years, and nities for students to demonstrate and have been able to identify some of the practice the knowledge and skills artic- relative strengths and weaknesses of ulated in the learning objectives, and for relying on technology in the context of instructors to offer targeted feedback group collaboration. that can guide further learning. For example, psychology research To evaluate learning outcomes in has demonstrated that computer-medi- terms of declarative and conceptual ated groups are better at generating a knowledge, instructors might use tra- range of ideas, while face-to-face groups ditional assessment methods, like short perform better at tasks that require answer or essay questions. Declarative problem-solving or reaching consensus knowledge is knowing facts, formulas, and semantic meanings, and conceptual Computer-mediated knowledge involves an understanding of groups are better more complex relationships, causes, etc. at generating a range of ideas, and Evaluating a group’s process can participation tends help instructors assess procedural and to be more equally contextual learning. Procedural learn- distributed. ing refers to students’ understanding of how to execute some task, while contex- on group preferences. Furthermore, tual learning describes students’ ability participation in computer-mediated to discern what contexts require the groups tends to be more equally dis- application of given tools or concepts. tributed, whereas face-to-face groups are more easily dominated by a single Finally, assessing the product or out- or few individuals (Finholt and Teasley, comes from student work can provide 1998, p. 45). an opportunity to gather informa- tion about advancements in student’s In social psychology, a commonly metacognitive learning. For example, observed phenomenon is “social loaf- instructors can ask for reflection on the ing,” or the likelihood that individual overall experience and process when people exert less effort to meet a goal students are presenting the final prod- when working in a group than they uct. Instructors might learn more about might otherwise exert working toward student learning by listening to how the the same goal on their own. Social student describes the product or out- loafing is often attributed to the percep- lines the process than from the quality tion that an individual’s contributions of the final product itself. (In his course, might not be evaluated. Therefore, Building Virtual Worlds, Carnegie Mellon Professor Randy Pausch encour- aged students to take risk by giving an award to the team that failed most spectacularly in attempting a new and ambitious project.)Collaboration Tools 5

Teaching with Technology January 2009Assessments & Examples technology that allows an instructor information (information that is not continued to monitor individual or group perfor- considered “common knowledge”) than mance might help mitigate social loafing. members of face-to-face groups (p. 46). Interestingly, studies have shown that Furthermore, higher status group mem- technology allowing performance to be bers have been shown to dominate in monitored at the group level is better both face-to-face and computer-medi- for reducing social loafing when com- ated groups (p. 46). pared to monitoring at the individual level (Finholt and Teasley, 1998, pp. These lessons and others from the 45–46). Monitoring at the group level field of psychology demonstrate that also reduces the stress associated with instructors should be cautious and monitoring performance. thoughtful about how group dynamics can be influenced when work moves to Group decision support systems the digital realm. (GDSS) are a relatively heavily inves- tigated category of collaboration Example Tools & technology. They combine “communi- Technologies cation, computing, and decision support technologies to facilitate formulation The range of tools available creates and solution of unstructured problems many interesting opportunities for by a group of people” (Desanctis and collaboration and instruction, but deci- Gallupe, 1987). Research has shown sions about which tools to use (and that these systems increase the qual- how) should be shaped by the objec- ity of decisions, facilitate more equal tives of the assignment. Decisions about which This section of the paper outlines collaboration tools some of the main categories of tools to use (and how) available, and some of the general fea- should be shaped by tures that might be useful in the context the objectives of the of project-based collaborative learn- assignment. ing. For more information on specific products, please see the Appendix on participation, and encourage groups to “Available Products.” stay focused on tasks. However, groups using GDSS take longer to reach a deci- Collaboration Suites sion, achieve less overall consensus, and Several companies have developed fami- less satisfaction with the decision-mak- lies of applications that meet a range of ing process and outcomes (Finholt and collaborative needs. These tools might Teasley, 1998, p. 46). be used individually, but they are often designed to work together or integrate Computer mediated groups for optimal usefulness. outperform face-to-face groups in brain- storming tasks (p. 45) due to reduced These systems might include tradi- production blocking (the tendency tional desktop applications for word for one individual to inhibit contribu- processing, spreadsheets, communica- tions from other people during a group tion, or calendaring, but often extend discussion). Along the same line, physi- beyond basic functionality by virtue cally dispersed participants outperform of the ability for these artifacts to be physically proximate participants when accessed and edited by multiple mem- using the same decision support system bers. Collaboration suites also might while brainstorming. include an additional “aggregator” application that allows pieces from However, computer-mediated groups each of the other applications to be are less likely to exchange unshared pulled together into a common work space. Course Management Systems Most course management systems give instructors the ability to make groupCollaboration Tools 6

Teaching with Technology January 2009Assessments & Examples work spaces for their students. Tools Current real-time continued available in group spaces might include communication tools discussion boards or other group com- allow students to munication tools, file sharing, and peer exchange ideas in evaluation tools. a manner that more closely approximates While these tools are not ideal for the face-to-face supporting complex collaborative experience. efforts, in many cases these tools are readily available to instructors and can be easily activated. For information about Carnegie Mellon’s course man- agement system, please visit http://www. cmu.edu/blackboard. Project Management Tools cepts with the help of rich media, and Project management solutions are multi- exchange information and ideas in a functional systems that often deal with manner that more closely approximates logistical issues, like scheduling, time the face-to-face experience than tradi- tracking, task management, resource tional text-only communications. allocation, collaborative writing or edit- ing, communication, file sharing, and And So On... process documentation. Web-based tools are also available to support collaborative concept mapping, These tools might be particularly collaborative writing, stand-alone list useful for semester-long projects where or task management, software devel- the instructor hopes to monitor group opment and issue tracking, creative interactions and evaluate students’ or design collaboration, slide sharing, work processes and communications. market research, contact management, and on and on. Many of these products Wikis are presented in the Appendix. A wiki is a page or collection of web pages that allows anyone with proper privileges to modify, add, or delete content. A wiki also often has the func- tionality of maintaining a document history, which allows users to track and view changes over time. Wikis are most effective for collab- orative writing or collaborative creation of text-based documents. However, the ability to incorporate other media types (audio, video, images) is often considered useful in encouraging rich communication. Real-Time Communications Products in this category include web-based presentation tools, screen sharing applications, web or audio con- ferencing tools, and VoIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) or internet-based telecommunications. These tools are especially useful for project teams that are not co-located, or who do a significant portion of their work at a distance. They allow teams to share work in progress, discuss con-Collaboration Tools 7

Teaching with Technology January 2009ConclusionCollaboration This report is intended to give instructors Support tools can be a basic understanding of project-based very useful collaborative learning, and the types of If you are an instructor at Carnegie in supporting tools that are currently available to sup- Mellon and are interested in discussing project-based port project-based collaborative learning the use of collaboration technologies in collaborative activities. Although “collaboration tools” your class, please contact the: learning. Projects are typically lumped together as a single should be category, we believe that a more disag- Office of Technology for Education selected carefully gregated view is useful when considering [email protected] based on learning what types of tools might be most useful 412-268-5503 objectives. given the details of a specific group work assignment. Our consultants will be happy to assist you with any phase of planning, designing, implementing, funding, and evaluating the use of technology tools and strategies for teaching. References Barron JS, Schwartz DL, Vye NL, Moore A, Petrosino A, Zech L, Bransford JD, & The Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1998) “Doing with understanding: Lessons from research on problem- and project-based learning.” Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7 (3&4), 271-311. Cavalier R (2008) “Campus conversations: modeling a diverse democracy through deliberative polling.” Diversity and Democracy 11(1): 16-17. Cavalier R, Bridges M (2007) “Polling for an Educated Citizenry.” Chronicle of Higher Education, January 2007 (volume 53, issue 20). Desanctis G, Gallupe BR (1987) “A foundation for the study of group decision support systems.” Management Science, 33 (5), 589-609. URL http://www.jstor.org/stable/2632288 Finholt TA, Teasley SD (1998) “Psychology: The Need for Psychology in Research on Computer- Supported Cooperative Work.” Social Science Computer Review, 16: 40-52. Project-based learning. (2008, November 22). In Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved December 12, 2008, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project-based_learning Smith BL, MacGregor JT (1992) “What is collaborative learning?” Goodsell AS, Maher MR, Tinto V (Eds.), Collaborative Learning: A Sourcebook for Higher Education. National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, and Assessment at Pennsylvania State University. About the Series The purpose of the Teaching With Technology White Paper series is to provide Carnegie Mellon faculty and staff access to high-quality, research-based information with regard to a given classroom technology. These papers offer a general overview of the technology topic, summarize findings from available assessments and evaluations, and give direction toward further reading and online resources. This series does not introduce original research findings from technology assessments or evaluations conducted at the Office of Technology for Education and/or Carnegie Mellon University. The papers serve as literature reviews, intended to provide scholarly integration and synthesis of the most sound and comprehensive studies documented at the time of publication.Collaboration Tools Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. To view a copy of this license, visit: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/us/ write to: Creative Commons, 171 Second Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, California, 94105, USA. 8

Available Products Teaching with Technology January 2009 Appendix One Collaboration SuitesCollaboration Tools Google http://www.google.com/intl/en/options/ (under “Communicate, show & share”) Zimbra http://www.zimbra.com/ Zoho http://www.zoho.com/ Course Management Systems Blackboard http://www.blackboard.com/ Moodle http://moodle.org/ Sakai http://sakaiproject.org/ Project Management Tools ActiveCollab http://www.activecollab.com/ Basecamp http://www.basecamphq.com/ Copper http://www.copperproject.com/ GoPlan http://goplan.info/ ProjectSpaces http://www.projectspaces.com/ WebEx WebOffice http://www.weboffice.com/ Wrike http://www.wrike.com/ Wikis OpenTeams http://www.openteams.com/ PBwiki http://pbwiki.com/ Springnote http://www.springnote.com/ Wikispaces http://www.wikispaces.com/ Real-Time Communications Acrobat Connect http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobatconnect/ Campfire http://www.campfirenow.com/ GoToMeeting http://www.gotomeeting.com LiveMeeting http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/livemeeting/ Skype http://www.skype.com/ Vyew http://vyew.com/ WebEx http://www.webex.com/ Yugma http://www.yugma.com/ 9

Available Products Teaching with Technology January 2009 Appendix One, continued Collaborative Concept MappingCollaboration Tools bubbl.us http://bubbl.us/ Comapping http://www.comapping.com/ Gliffy http://www.gliffy.com/ Mind42 http://www.mind42.com/ Mindmeister http://www.mindmeister.com/ Mindomo http://www.mindomo.com/ Thinkature http://thinkature.com/ WriteMaps http://writemaps.com/ List/Task Management Backpack http://www.backpackit.com/ Clocking IT http://www.clockingit.com/ Loose Stitch http://www.loosestitch.com/ Remember the Milk http://www.rememberthemilk.com/ Ta-da Lists http://www.tadalist.com/ Software Development & Issue Tracking Lighthouse http://lighthouseapp.com/ Planix http://planixonline.com/ Unfuddle http://www.unfuddle.com/ Presentation & Slide Sharing BubbleShare http://www.bubbleshare.com/ SlideShare http://www.slideshare.net/ Collaborative Writing Writeboard http://www.writeboard.com/ WriteWith http://www.writewith.com/ Creative/Design Collaboration ConceptShare http://www.conceptshare.com/ Octopz http://www.octopz.com/ Stixy http://stixy.com/ 10