Proceedings of the 2011 15th International Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design
Collaborative Design of Computer Network Using Activity-Led Learning Approach Robert Bird1, Rahat Iqbal1, Margarida Romero2, Anne James1 1
Faculty of Engineering and Computing, Coventry University Coventry, CV1 5FB, UK
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] 2
eLearn Centre, Universitat Oberta de Catalunya Spain
[email protected]
students’ role may range from being an autonomous learner to being more directed as a member of a project team; the tutor’s role can be that of a task setter and guide ranging through to a facilitator; and the learning activity can range from being very prescriptive (finding a specific solution to a given problem) to students working towards achieving their own individual goals [7].
Abstract—In order to enhance students’ problem-solving competences it is necessary to develop their technical skill as well as their soft skills such as business, communication and team working. In this paper, we introduce an Activity-Led Learning (ALL) approach and analyze its impact on students’ engagement (time-on-task), satisfaction and group performance. We also propose a Group Performance Model (GPM) in order to deploy ALL successfully in the master-level module, Network Planning and Management. The model facilitates group formation and allows group integration and cooperation by developing ‘common ground’ amongst group members. This paper also presents students evaluation from two perspectives; students direct feedback on the module and indirect measures based on common ground and Task Performance Time (TPT) analysis.
We applied a holistic approach, balancing prescriptive tasks with open ended solutions. This is achieved through an approach called ‘Activity-Led Learning (ALL)’ initiated by Coventry University, UK to enhance student learning experience and address the problem of student satisfaction and retention rates. Additionally, this approach helps to enhance students’ problem-solving competencies and thus improves their employability [8].
Keywords: Activity-Led Learning, common ground, e-learning, network design, education, time-on-task.
I.
ALL is designed for collaborative learning purposes. This provides each individual with a source of direct, continued support: they need to find solutions to a given problem. By requiring students to work collaboratively, it encourages them to form personal and social bonds. When ALL is being used in its pure form, lecturers have a role of supportive facilitator rather than the traditional role of ‘expert’ as discussed in more detail in section IV. This pedagogy leads to the development of a learning community involving staff and students [9].
INTRODUCTION
Over recent years there has been an increased interest in engaging students more directly in their learning [1, 2]. Early innovations were delivered under the name of ‘active learning’ and were a response to recognising that students often learnt more if they were physically involved in their learning: practical activity to support material delivered in class. Such delivery mechanisms have been developed and have evolved, with a spectrum of different approaches emerging. There are many variant approaches, with names which are interpreted flexibly, including Problem-Based Learning [3] Enquiry-Based Learning [4] and Activity-Led Learning. [5] Most of the pedagogical innovations of the last years have considered the teamwork and the use of the ICT that lead to the development of the Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) activities [6], preparing them to prepare them to perform on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW).
Although ALL has many advantages as compared to the traditional didactic methods of module delivery (i.e. lectures and assessment by means of assignments and or examinations to test knowledge), it can produce poor results if not applied carefully. In order to ensure that ALL produce better results, we propose a Group Performance Model (GPM) that facilitates group formation and allows group integration and cooperation by developing ‘common ground’[10] amongst group members. Our approach is similar to the existing problem or scenario based approaches, from the perspective of task completion but significantly different in its design and application based on GPM.
The traditional approaches (such as the traditional lecturing led by the tutor) and the active learning approach of CSCL differ in a number of dimensions. The student activities and learning maybe tightly controlled or may be open-ended; the 978-1-4577-0387-4/11/$26.00 ©2011 IEEE 146
The rest of the paper is organised as follows. Section 2 discusses ALL and Network Planning and Management module on which ALL is applied. Section 3 discusses Group Performance Model (GPM) and its components. It also describes how this model was applied to ALL. Section 4 discusses ALL and GPM. Section 5 presents evaluation results. Section 5 concludes this paper and briefly describes our future work. II.
ACTIVITY-LED LEARNING
In Network Planning and Management module, we adopt ALL. Through this approach, students not only gain a set of technical skills but also business knowledge and practice some of their soft skills on real life situations. Instead of a set of lectures where students are passively presented knowledge, the knowledge is developed by them, during the process of solving a series of inter-related activities delivered via case studies. Case studies and their deliverables are designed in such a way to make sure that all the outcomes of the modules are achieved. The following five case studies meet the intended learning outcomes of the module. Details of these case studies are omitted due to space limitations. Case Study 1: Requirements Analysis and success criteria: Students create a plan simulating “real world” issues enabling them to understand the technical and non technical requirements of their customer. Case Study 2: Analysis of existing networks and security: Network design does not ignore current infrastructure: appreciation of the current network, its limitations and potential. As a deliverable, students are asked to design a plan of approaching the existing network and highlight the tools and procedures that will help them analyse the existing network. Students produce Flow analysis of the network to help them to understand the design requirements in the later stage of the project. Case Study 3: Logical structure of the network and planning: Students create a logical diagram of the new network supporting the design decisions with customer requirements and flow analysis done in the previous part. They present the logical layout plan including the addressing and naming
conventions. They are required to introduce redundancy and elements of guaranteed service into their network design. Case Study 4: Physical structure of the network and implementation: Students select the equipment and create the implementation plan that would not only minimise the budget but also offer scalability proportional to the customer requirements. Case Study 5: Network Management: Students are asked to propose the manageability plan covering the procedures and tools that will be used by future managers of the network in order to effectively manage the proposed network. A. Teaching, Learning and Assessment Teaching, learning and assessment methodology is shown in Figure 1. To enhance students’ efficiency and guide them in the learning process, the following steps are involved: 1) Teaching Teaching is delivered via an introductory lecture, presentation of case study problem and discussion with students. This also includes formative feedback on students’ ongoing process. 2) Learning Learning is achieved by discussing the case study problem with simulated stakeholders or facilitators and also group based research and discussion with their peers. Further research work is undertaken individually contributing to group task achievement. 3) Assessment Assessment is conducted via three methods which include group, individual and peer. Group assessment is carried out examining documentation developed by each group in response to the problem. There is then an assessed/debrief seminar, in which groups of students discuss their solutions to the case study problem; two academics observe the quality of their discussion and interview them in order to assess their individual performance/technical knowledge and overall group performance. Grades are then determined accordingly. Individual assessment includes critical evaluation of the proposed solution and reflective diary. The group marks are then individualised based on the peer assessment.
Figure 1. Teaching, learning and assessment methodology
147
III.
B. Assessment and Group Formation We designed a set of self-assessment questionnaires for the students to complete. These were given a weighted score and groups of 4-6 students selected on the basis of shared skills and abilities. The self-assessment process had the potential to produce disparate results: if students either under estimated or over estimated their capabilities, knowledge or skill set. This was a process that was dependant upon tutor interaction and observation: it was readily apparent which individuals were engaging in the process and those who were more reticent or “slow” to engage. It was recognised that there would be different rates at which these processes enabled individuals to achieve ‘common ground’ dependent upon their inter-personal interactions. This process was dynamic and was important to changing student perceptions as to their role in the module and their understanding about how they engaged in it. Individuals were allocated to those groups on the basis of self assessed scoring and actual skills perceived by the tutor. Forming a balanced group, is an essential component of ALL. Failure in creating balanced groups will lead to problems in cooperation and decrease the quality of their jointly dtermined solutions.
GROUP PERFORMANCE MODEL
The Group Performance Model (GPM) provides a structure within which students are introduced to the ALL methodology and are transformed from a number of individual learners into a cohesive group of collaborative colleagues. We describe the structure of the module and the manner in which we have employed GMP as a vehicle to deliver more effective learning outcomes and equip students with enhanced skills. The GMP provides a well defined structured process, as shown in Figure 2, whereby students were guided through steps that defined transformation into a homogeneous group. The incremental nature of the process is described below:
The groups were therefore formed with a developmental model of increasing ‘common ground’ between students. Students were engaged in a process of ‘interviewing’ each other with a questionnaire that built upon their first selfassessment.
Figure 2.
The questionnaires focused on domain knowledge of students. The inclusion of questions of a more personal nature (although it only focussed upon non-invasive material) was designed to act as an ‘ice breaker’ in order to break down barriers and enable some effective communication. Such informal interview took place between subgroups, each consisting of two students. Following that they introduce their colleague(s) to their other group members; this process was designed to bring the individual students together in a group format in order that they would be able to gain knowledge of each other. The amount of energy i.e. individual and group interation between students, generated by these processes, if managed appropriately, is considerable. However, having achieved a level of interaction indicating a suffcient level of engagement, it was necessary to then focus that activity upon common goals, in order to establish group norms in respect of task completion. As such the facilitator then introduces a task in order to focus individuals upon a definable goal. The first group task was to select a group leader for the first case study; there was no prescription as to who was selected or volunteered, save that each group was required to have a leader.
Group Performance Model
A. Self Assessment In the initial stage of the process the students came together as a cohort. In this instance all students were engaged on full time Masters Courses where this module was a mandatory component. In this stage we consider a self-assessment methodology for the evalution of the learner. McCarthy, Meier and Rinderer (1985) [11] consider self-assessment as an intra psychological evaluation of self-efficacy during the task. This was a preliminary attempt to seek some level of understanding as to the level of self awareness of students.
C. Developing Common Ground ALL requires interaction between students; the use of group meetings to examine a case study problem requiring their physical presence. We believe a key element in this teaching methodology relates to an appreciation of ‘Common Ground’ theory in the facilitation of group processes. We briefly discussed below how it was used and the purpose of that use.
We provided the students with a self-assessment document where they assessed their own knowledge of computer networking disciplines, to grade themselves and to describe any relevant experience they had. The intention of a number of the questions was to establish what elements might constitute ‘Common Ground’ for the students. The establishment of ‘common ground’ was to progress group development and to facilitate group processes, by the use of directed activities. These enabled “face to face” interaction and sought to break down barriers on an inter-personal level.
In espousing common ground, Clark asserted, ‘individuals engaged in conversation must share knowledge in order to be understood and have a meaningful conversation’ [12]. We
148
determined that for effective and continuing collaboration; the need to establish and build common ground was a structured process. In relation to the Group Performance Model (GPM), we established the first principle element of ‘co-presence’ as a means of creating a shared context for establishing common ground as shown in Figure 3.
The group was given a task relating to their case study, an element of which was for them to determine their individual roles. The sharing of the tasks associated with the case study and the manner in which they were required to combine their joint efforts was an element of problem solving for the group to address.
The subsequent elements of Clark’s communication constraints were facilitated by it. The learning materials required each team member to have assigned roles, in a case study context that required a skill set or was one that had to be acquired, over and above their involvement in the process as ‘students.’ Therefore initial student engagement through facilitated exercises, where a group of students become a homogenous entity, a ‘Project Team or Board,’ was established. Recognising that ‘being part of an ineffective or dysfunctional team may well be inferior to independent study’ [13], we created an supportive group environment. In order to engage in joint problem solving, it was identified as a core process to address the case study. In this context, the nature of the ‘common ground’ necessary to facilitate this outcome was determined. Studies have focussed, on ‘how the media through which communication is conducted affect the ability of cooperating [students] to accomplish a shared task.’ [14]
E. Form – Norm – Storm - Perform This element of the Group Performance model draws upon Tuckman’s theory of group development [16] and was explained in the context of the transferable work skills the module intended to facilitate. The process of Forming – Storming – Norming – Performing is a model first proposed by Bruce Tuckman in 1965, (The stage ‘Transform’ was added later) who maintained that these phases are all necessary and inevitable in order for the team to grow, to face challenges, to tackle problems, to find solutions, to plan work, and to deliver results. Essential to the understanding of group processes was an emphasis on the importance of maintaining a diary in which students would record their experiences in a group context and relate it to their reflections upon their learning and time spent on task. This process is designed to: a) recognise their personal learning styles, b) recognise how they address issues such as conflict, in achieving consenus and in the context of ‘Common Ground’, maximising the effectiveness of their communication, c) identify how their individual personality traits contribute or otherwise, to collaborative work, and d) Find out their estimated time on task and the actual time spent on task. Integral to this is the belief that life-long learning can be achieved where self-awareness and assessment is embraced as a means of enhancing personal performance. This introduction to concepts that underpin Personal Performance Assessment criteria, as it relates to future student employment, seeks once again to acquaint students with their future work environments.
Common ground was partly addressed through the use of a common taxonomy and terminology inherent in the module content. This was initially facilitated through ‘ice breaking’ [15] exercises as discussed above where individuals were required to complete self-assessment questionnaires in order to determine their level of knowledge and computer networking experience.
Figure 3. Students at various stages of establishing ‘Common Ground.’
D. Assign Roles and share tasks We allocated individual students to separate groups on a basis of assessment of a skill and experience blend. They were directed to undertake a joint interviewing and introduction exercise, where the group could become acquainted in a nonthreatening environment. j
The groups were briefed about the mechanics of ALL as a discipline and inter-related ‘group dynamics.’ The face-to-face establishment of ‘Common Ground’ would then be consolidated by the use of team meetings that were to be held at times convenient to group members to reinforce its cohesive effect.
F. Complete Tasks and Present Results As described above in section 2, the groups were given five case studies to investigate and present their solution to the assessed seminar. Tutors interviewed Groups individually on their technical knowledge of their case study solution and upon the processes their group followed to achieve this result (See Figures 4 and 5). Group members were interviewed as to their individual comprehension of specialist areas and their knowledge of their colleagues’ areas of responsibility. G. Reflect on Individual and Group Performance Groups were given individual and group feedback on their case study results prior to submission of the next case study to address any area of weakness or development. The groups were able to identify any issues in their group structure and allocation of responsibilities that prevented them achieving higher grades. In the context of Tuckman’s Theory, this meant: x x
149
re-focussing upon their tasks assessing quality of individual contributions’
x
identifying personal commitments preventing contributions towards group activity. Group consensus on the way forward in order to maximise their potential and to achieve higher grades is identified. The GPM identifies a return to ‘Assign roles & share tasks’. Groups either retained their leader or selected a new one for the new task. 1) Tuckman’s model and the Group Performance Model (a) “Forming”: Team forms to complete a task. They behave like individuals; have generally positive feelings and relationships. Little trust evident. (b) “Storming” Group tackles the task suggesting different approaches and unless the team leader directs, there can be division and conflict if no consensus. Interpersonal relationships tested and unless resolved may lead to long-term sense of grievance. If group fails to confront areas of disagreement, ultimately it may be the group cannot develop any further. Group members may withdraw if frustrated. (c)’Norming’: stage is dependent upon negotiating the ‘Storming’ period for more cohesive working relationships; group rules detailed or reinforced; group identity firmly established. All group members’ contributions are valued and their joint efforts contribute to their solution. Confidence in each other increases and any reliance on a group leader may diminish; the group views itself as the ‘finished article’ and complacency may set in reducing the group’s efficiency. (d) ‘Performing’: Group processes are at their most cohesive and productive. Self-criticism, intense debate and processes characterised by enjoyment and humour. A further stage was identified as ‘Adjourning’ or ‘Transforming’. It relates to the completion of the task and the break up of the group. The transforming element relates to the positive recognition of the skills and experiences gained within the successful addressing of a group task. Successful and effective groups foster the achievement of similar results in future group or team environments.
Figure 5. Tutor-student informal group discussions
IV.
ACTIVITY-LED APPROACH AND THE GROUP PERFORMANCE MODEL
A. Teaching The design of the Module involved initial delivery of lectures concerning ALL, self-reflection and understanding the nature of the process they undertake. The case study is introduced with sufficient information concerning the background of the problem for them to proceed. Importantly, feedback is given during the dedicated consultation sessions as well as through discussion forums. B. Learning The learning style [17] was one where individual investigation of core elements relating to networks were undertaken to address knowledge gaps and to distribute work amongst the group. This was then discussed by the group, sharing knowledge between colleagues and determining whether there was further research to be completed. During the learning process and at the completion of the case study submission a discussion with simulated stakeholders took place, with tutors assuming these roles, where comprehension of the problem and group solution was tested. Individual learning styles obviously varies, as did the adaptation to ALL where the responsibility for learning is borne by the individual student. The transition from a passive, receptive learning environment to one requiring self directed learning, was adopted by individual students at different times dependent upon their personal acceptance of the transition. Where group’s establishment of common ground and progressing rapidly through the Form – Norm – Storm – Perform continuum occurred, this was indicative of adapting to the ALL methodology. C. Assessment The assessment process was achieved through three elements: a group assessment of the case study documentation, individual assessment via the student’s reflective diary and peer assessment from colleagues. The Reflective Diary is a key element in establishing the extent to which students (a) understand the group processes that either prevent or enable
Figure 4. Tutor-student interaction: testing out technical knowledge
150
them to achieving their joint goals and (b) how their personal learning development has progressed or otherwise. The extent to which students engage in self reflection is an individual preference; feedback was given to students in order for them to better focus their reflection upon the elements to maximise their learning. For some students this was not an easy task: whether as products of different educational systems, they found this an alien and confusing process was at times clear. However, the evidence was that for students who were able to comprehend its importance, their personal and group reflections were very insightful. The extent to which this enabled some to identify with clarity, issues that prevented group’s from becoming more effective, was particularly noteworthy. This was particularly pertinent when there were inter-personal issues within individual groups, which prevented effective group interaction. Where individuals did not confront issues, this meant that there were potential barriers to the achievement of group goals and task completion. D. Feedback Throughout the module the amount and nature of feedback given to the students changes as along with the role that the staff plays in the case study. At the beginning of each case study the staff plays a role of lecturer who provides a background knowledge to the students introducing new concepts and pointing out valuable resources and thus building the domain knowledge. Following that the role of the staff changes to the business-oriented client. Students are given very high level overview of the problem as well as the deliverables of the project. As students progress through the case study they discover missing information which is being delivered to them through the discussion. At this stage staff plays a role of technical customers resolving any doubts students might have concerning the existing customer infrastructure or technical requirements. Once they establish this knowledge the role of the staff changes to the facilitator (or project management) keeping the students on track. Finally the role changes to business focused customer who evaluates the quality of the submitted documentation and pays (in terms of marks) for a solution E. Group Development The GPM seeks to identify how through facilitating common ground in a managed fashion, that group development could be nurtured and developed. There were sufficient opportunities for groups to take advantage of one-to-one sessions with Tutors in which to address concerns and issues they had encountered in respect of the case studies. Issues that groups had encountered were addressed and in the context of the GPM, were identified as elements of the group dynamics inherent in groups’ functioning in addressing joint tasks. The model seeks to identify how a structured introduction to this style of learning, with common ground facilitated in a safe learning environment, can be a firm foundation to enabling positive group development.
F. Enabling A Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) One of the elements relevant to common ground was the manner in which students were able to interact when outside of the classroom environment. In order to enhance the recognition of common ground as a pivotal element in its contribution to group development, group meetings were positively encouraged to enable co-presence. It was however identified that personal commitment and other circumstances might limit these opportunities. In this respect the facility for access to resources as well, as to individual group discussion forums had been identified. The University’s VLE “Moodle” was employed for Discussion Forums [18]. In respect of the discussion groups, it was useful for us to monitor the level of interaction within groups as well as to assess the depth and intensity of debate generated. Case study 5 required students to utilise an online discussion forum to address specific questions that the group was required to debate and the results of the debate would be collated together as a group solution. V.
EVALUATING THE STUDENT LEARNING EXPERIENCE
We carry out evaluation based on student feedback in order to find out whether students like the teaching and assessment methods introduced in this module. Secondly, we performed task performance time analysis in which we analysed the correlation between the estimated time on task and the actual time spent on task and group performance (awarded mark). A. Student Feedback Figure 6 shows the results obtained as part of module evaluation. More than 80% students evaluated positively the Activity-Led Learning approach and the way it was implemented. Importantly, they highly appreciated the feedback given on each case study, helping them to improve the next case study. They commented: “it brought together individuals of different levels of network knowledge and experience”, “gain more knowledge from different people”, “excellent approach”, “detailed feedback on each section of the case [study] shows your strengths and weaknesses and helps to improve further” [students]. The results of student feedback are shown in Figure 6. B. Task Performance Time Analysis (Performance relative to anticipated time and actual time-on-task spent by students.) We relate this performance to estimated time-on-task and actual time-spent-on-task; as well as we consider group interpersonal-relationships and dynamics. Time-on-task have been considered as one of the measures of students’ engagement in the CSCL activities [19] and a predictor of performance [20, 21]. Students were asked to write in their diary: a) the time they estimated they would spend on each task; b) the actual time they spent on case study – this was then compared to their performance as shown in Figure 7. We have only included the results of the four case studies for better understanding. We recognise that the group’s that spent more time-on-task but scored poor performance grades, were unable to establish
151
proper common ground. There have been some obstacles such as the cost of coordination of group work and spending of left over time, especially working on the case study after four hours of intensive class work, when they feel fatigued. Broadly all groups with the exception of Group 1 and 5 demonstrated a relationship between effort expended (time-ontask) and grade achieved (performance). In the case of Group 5, this was a ‘control’ group whose formation was not determined by the GPM and the establishment or otherwise of ‘common ground’ was left to group processes. They were randomly assembled and given the same task and resources as other groups; as such they did not have the same environment the other groups had. Their results can be therefore compared with other groups to determine the impact of GPM. Group 1 had different issues with team members leaving early on in the process resulting in individuals having to share a higher workload and issues relating to their interpersonal relationships. We believe that this group spent more time on establishing group norms because common ground was not adequately established. As a result their group efforts (time-ontask) has exceeded their grades – too much time has been spent unproductively. C. Observations regarding Group Performance In respect of the highest grades achieved, there is a direct relationship with the amount of effort expended. Group 4 demonstrably illustrates this, although Group 3 did achieve slightly poorer results with an economy of effort. There were however some apparently perverse results where Group 4 spent considerably more time on Case Study 4 than Case Study 3, yet their assessed grade did not reflect the extrea effort. When questioned as to why the extra time was spent on Case Study 4, the Group answered that they had particulalry enjoyed this one and time was spent on debating its merits, rather than on their task submission. The Group was however not dissapointed that the grade did not reflect their extra activity. They recognised that the learning that it had facilitated was recognised as was the life lesson that spending extra time on a task, just because you are enjoying it, was an alluring “hazard.” It is of note that this qualatative outcome i.e. student recognition that there was more to their learning outcomes, than the grade achieved, was a mature response indicative of the benefits of ALL.
The ‘control’ group 5 were significant in the manner in which they lacked drive, direction and as a result, they requested more time to complete the initial case studies. The time they spent unsuccessfully on seeking to resolve issues like determining a group leader, prevented them from engaging fully upon case study tasks. Despite significant tutor support, they appeared unable to address group issues. The conclusion reached was that a failure to establish ‘common ground’ in a structured manner impacted upon their wider group behaviours. In respect of the GPM, the ‘assigning roles and sharing tasks’ stage was not adequately resolved initially. Prescriptive tutor intervention did result in the group finally addressing key tasks, but this group did not achieve the level of interaction observed in other GPM facilitated groups. Their group performance was the poorest of all the groups and their levels of self reflection shallow and lacking in insight. D. Dealing with Groups and Individuals The appreciation of these results in the context of this paper is limited by the constraints of space. It is perhaps worthy of note that in respect of the identification of any “problem” groups was a relatively simple process, addressed by Tutor interventions. Student issues concerning individual members failure to adequately contribute or not meeting deadlines was facilitated through themselves as group members. In the case of that failing to address individual issues, tutor interventions were clealry detailed as a means of achieving resolution. Individual students are able to develop skills that directly enhance their potential employability. The GPM process enables them to appreciate their own learning styles, their impact upon others and how to work collaboratively. The processes identified in the GPM are simply expressed, but represent complex human interaction. Whilst the students, the “target audience” are a technologically aware and enabled generation, in the field of education, they are in the main, firmly rooted in passive learning. The transformation into active learners however, was one that was embraced enthusiastically. VI.
CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK
In this paper, we have discussed an Activity-Led Learning Approach (ALL) that was applied to a master-level Network Planning and Management module. This approach helps to enhance students’ problem-solving competences through developing their technical skill as well as their soft skills such as business, communication and team working. In order to deploy ALL successfully, we propose a Group Performance Model (GPM). The model facilitates group formation and allows group integration and cooperation by developing ‘common ground’ amongst group members. The evaluation results and students feedback show a significant improvement in student learning this discipline as well as developing their soft skills. Our future work will include the refinement of the GPM and its application to a wider group of students in other courses in the University.
Figure 6. Student feedback
152
Figure 7. Group performance, estimated and actual time-on-task
REFERENCES Bonwell, C.; Eison, J. (1991). Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom AEHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1. Washington, D.C.: Jossey-Bass. [2] Mayer, R. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist 59 (1): 14–19. [3] Problem Based Learning (PBL) http://www.learningtheories.com/problem-based-learning-pbl.html accessed online 29th March 2011 [4] Enquiry Based Learning (EBL) http://www.gel.bham.ac.uk/Enquirybasedlearning.shtml accessed online 29th March 2011 [5] Iqbal, R., Shah, N., (2010): "Activity-Led Learning Approach for Network Planning and Management", Proceedings of the Enquiry, Autonomy and Graduateness: Achieving an outstanding student learning experience Conference, pp.65-72. [6] Dillenbourg, P., Järvelä, S. & Fisher (2009) The evolution of research on computer-supported collaborative learning: from design to orchestration. In N. Balacheff, S. Ludvigsen & De Jong, T. Lazonder, A & Barnes, S. (Eds.), Technology-Enhanced Learning: Principles and Products. Springer. [7] Savin-Baden, M. & Howell Major, C. (2004). Foundations of ProblemBased Learning. Maidenhead: SRHE/OUP. [8] Hill, R. and Petty, G. (1995). New Look at Selected Employability Skills: A Factor Analysis of the Occupational Work Ethic, Journal of Vocational Education Research, 20(4), 59-73. [9] Williams, M., Burden, R. L.,(1997) Psychology for language teachers: a social constructivist approach, Cambridge University Press. [10] Clark, H. H. , & Brennan, S.E. (1991). Grounding in Communication. In L. Resnick, J. Levine & S. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on Socially [1]
[11]
[12] [13]
[14]
[15] [16] [17]
[18] [19]
[20]
[21]
153
Shared Cognition, Hyattsville, MD:American Psychological Association, 127-149. McCarthy, P., Meier, S., & Rinderer, R. (1985). Self-Efficacy and Writing: A different view of self-evaluation. College Composition and Communication , 36(4), 465-471. Clark, H. H., (1996). Using Language. Cambridge University Press. Oakley, B Felder, R M Brent, R Elhajj, I Turning Student Groups into Effective Teams Journal of Student Centred Learning Volume 2, No. 1, 2004 / 9. K. Kutti, E.H Kirsten, G Fitzpatrick, P Dourish and K Schmidt (eds) Proceedings of the Eighth European Conference on ComputerSupported Cooperative Work, 14-18th September 2003 Helsinki, Finland http://www.thetrainingworld.com/resources/Training_Methods_and_Act ivities/Icebreakers/ accessed 19th September 2010. Tuckman, B (1965) Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychologicakl bulletin 63 (6) 384-399 Kolb, D. A. (1994). Learning styles and disciplinary differences. In K. Feldman and M. Paulson (eds), Teaching and Learning in the College Classroom. http://www.moodle.org Moodle is an Open Source VLE used as the protal for student support. Romero, M. (2010). Gestion du temps dans les Activités Projet Médiatisées à Distance. Editions Européenes Universitaires. ISBN 978613-1-52102-7. Gest, S. D., & Gest, J. M. (2005). Reading Tutoring for Students at Academic and Behavioral Risk: Effects on Time-On-Task in the Classroom: Education & Treatment of Children Vol 28(1) Feb 2005, 2547. Biderman, M. D., Nguyen, N. T., & Sebren, J. (2008). Time-on-task mediates the conscientiousness--performance relationship: Personality and Individual Differences Vol 44(4) Mar 2008, 887-897.
