Collaborative Learning in Small Groups in an Online Course – A Case Study

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-943067/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Collaborative Learning in Small Groups in an Online Course – A Case Study

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-943067/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Journal Publication

published 10 Mar, 2022

Read the published version in BMC Medical Education →

You are reading this latest preprint version

Background: The ability to learn collaboratively and work in teams is an essential competency in both educational and healthcare settings, and collaborative student activities are acknowledged as being an important part of the pedagogical approach in higher education and teaching. The course that was the focus of this research, a 15-ECTS-credit online course in the philosophy of science and methods, was offered online as part of 11 master’s-level health programmes at a university in Norway. Collaborative learning in combination with digital teaching tools, was the preferred pedagogical approach in the online course. The aim of the study was to explore, describe and discuss factors influencing small group learning in this online course.

Methods: We performed a qualitative case study, collecting data through both individual and focus group interviews between February 2018 and May 2019 of master’s-level students who had participated in the online course. We performed six focus-group and 13 individual interviews, and a total of 30 master’s students participated in the study. Data were analysed using content analysis.

Results: The results showed that three different processes were used to facilitate completion of students’ course assignments and learning outcomes. These three working processes were not dynamic, with different groups changing working processes throughout the course, but static and constant. The names of the different working processes reflect the main characteristics of each one: 1. joint responsibility – flexible organization; 2. individual responsibility – flexible organization; and 3. individual responsibility – unorganized.

Conclusions: Planning online learning requires a focus on how students collaborate and learn online, so that they can gain in-depth knowledge and understanding. This study shows that even if contextual factors are the same (e.g., group size, relevant assignments, and student autonomy in terms of group organization), the way in which students collaborate and work together differs. Although the identified working processes promoted collaboration and learning, the first process (joint responsibility, with flexible organization) was the only working process found to promote in-depth learning. Future online teaching might require an even stronger focus on students’ internal motivation for learning and the importance of teacher presence and teachers’ ability to facilitate online learning.

Medicinal Chemistry

Internal Medicine

Collaborative learning

small group

online course

case study

qualitative study

in-depth learning

working process

Education is increasingly being offered online, and there is growing demand in higher education for online studies and courses using online resources in teaching and learning (1, 2). E-learning worldwide is expected to account for 30% of all educational provision (3, 4). This has led to an increase in educational provision offered online (all or in part) and the need for improved articulation between technology and pedagogy in higher education (5). However, even though online teaching is in demand in both educational institutions and among students themselves, studies show that the ability to complete online education is reduced, compared to face-to-face teaching (6, 7, 8). One suggestion for reducing dropout rates is to have a mix of online and face-to-face courses in study programmes (9).

Collaborative learning (CL) and teamwork skills developed through working in groups are important competencies for healthcare workers (10). Group work is therefore a pedagogical method that is widely used in health and social science education (e.g., problem-based learning (PBL), team-based learning (TPS) and simulation training), and much research has been carried out into these pedagogical methods (11). Collaborative learning is defined as teaching or learning activities that promote an individual’s own learning and that of others in small groups (two to five students) or collaboration (cooperation) to achieve common goals (12, 13). In CL, learning is a dynamic process involving interaction between individual students’ drive to learn and a social activity in a specific context (14, 15, 16, 17). While students in CL are mutually dependent on one another, in order to be able to discuss and reflect and thus achieve a deeper understanding of the subject matter, they learn from one another through reflection in the situation and on the situation (18, 19, 20, 21).

Research has revealed design and group working process factors that can positively influence collaboration within groups. Design factors include group size (three–five), group composition and the nature of the assignments (21). Positive interdependence and individual accountability are important factors for group working processes (21, 22). In Norway, two reports (23, 24) have concluded that students’ learning depends on how digital tools are implemented and how these tools are used within the pedagogical situation. It is therefore important to look at which factors are important for CL in order to achieve in-depth learning and collaboration, and complete assignments. An understanding of the factors that facilitate students’ collaboration is critical to understanding how this approach to learning can be used more effectively in online courses in higher education.

The aim of this study was therefore to explore, describe and discuss the factors influencing small-group learning in an online course. The questions that we asked were as follows:

How did the students collaborate in small groups to achieve learning online?
What factors were important for collaborative learning in small groups in this online course?

When the study was conducted, all master’s students at the Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, had completed an online course in the theory of science and methodology (MaMet). In some degree courses, this was the only online subject, while for others, it was one of several online subjects. A key learning method in this course was CL in small groups, through written assignments and peer reviewing of fellow students’ assignments.

Description of MaMet

The online course in the philosophy of science and methods was completed in 11 master’s programmes, and each study programme was responsible for administering the course by facilitating, guiding and following the students over the course of this module in their master’s programme. The number of students enrolled in each programme differed, ranging from 12 to 90. MaMet is grounded on a small-scale online course, where there is planned discussion and feedback among teachers and students throughout the whole course. Student activity and collaborative learning are a cornerstone in the pedagogical and didactical thinking in MaMet, and work in small groups, with assignments, is the most prominent methodology in implementation of the course. By completing every problem-based assignment in the course, students gain the knowledge and skills to be able to design their own study protocol. The digital resources in MaMet include a design focusing on learning outcomes, enabling students to develop the ability to understand and perform research projects. Each study programme creates its own assignments, making them relevant to specific professions/programmes and ensuring an appropriate level of challenge.

Each group in the study consisted of the same students throughout the whole course and included three to five students. Group members were responsible for the work processes of the group, how task problems were solved, when and how the group members met and the collaborative structure within the group. Group composition and the content of assignments were defined by the master’s programme. The groups did not have supervisors for small-group collaboration.

This case study involved individual and focus group interviews with master’s students in the Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, to gain feedback about their experience of collaborative online learning in small groups in an online course. By conducting a qualitative case study, we were able to generate an in-depth understanding of a complex issue in a real-life context (25, 26).

The aim of this study was to describe differences between and the perceptions of participants, and thereby obtain a varied and multiple description of the phenomenon being investigated (27, 28). We conducted both focus group and individual interviews because we found that some of the participants were reluctant to talk in groups. Having done this, we obtained both an in-depth insight and a broad range of information about the phenomenon investigated (29).

Participants and settings

Participants for the individual and focus group interviews were selected by means of purposeful sampling. This sampling method enabled us to include participants who could contribute information relevant to the aim of the study (26, 30). Participants were master’s students who had participated in the 15-ECTS-credit online course in the philosophy of science and methods. They were recruited either by invitation via the online course or by being contacted when attending lectures on campus. Participants eligible for the study were given information about how to participate in the study. Six focus group meetings were held, and 13 individual interviews were carried out, resulting in 30 participants in the study. Two of these were males, and the rest were females, which reflects the gender distribution in the programmes. The participants were recruited from nine master’s-level health and social science programmes in the same faculty.

Data collection

The interviews were conducted between February 2018 and May 2019. The focus group interviews were conducted face to face, and students from one master’s programme were not mixed with students from other programmes, thereby ensuring that students were with others whom they were familiar with (31). Some individual interviews were conducted over the phone, and other interviews were face-to-face. During a focus group interview, participants will be influenced by and have an influence on others present, providing a collection of rich and meaningful data (31). We believe that interaction through focus groups can inspire participants to reflect and talk about the challenges associated with the topic. To facilitate this interaction, we conducted the face-to-face interviews in settings free of disturbance, located on the campus. The interviewer made all the arrangements regarding the time and place, in agreement with the participants. The telephone interviews were conducted when convenient for the students. Moreover, both the interviewer and the students thought this worked well.

The same person (MJH) moderated all individual and focus group interviews, and the same person (IR) co-moderated all focus group interviews. The data collection was conducted within two months of the course ending. In this way, the students would still be able to remember their experiences while, at the same time, having a certain amount of distance from them. The researcher leading the interviews had not been involved in developing the online course. The themes in the semi-structured interview guide were as follows: a typical day (what activities/events took place and when); use of resources; motivation for online learning; collaboration in students’ respective small groups; and collaboration with teachers and fellow students. If any particular theme was not mentioned by the students during the conversation, the interviewer asked about it. The interviews were recorded and transcribed.

Data analysis

Content analysis was used when analysing the data (27, 32). All three authors read the interviews several times to get an overall impression. Two of the researchers (MJH and KAA) divided the text into units of meaning and grouped and coded these. This was done for each interview, separately, before identifying categories across all interviews. One of the researchers (KAA) created a condensed narrative with quotes, to illustrate what appeared in the categories. All three researchers discussed the sub-categories and further abstracted and reorganized these into themes and sub-themes. A description of the students’ (condensed) views formed the basis for the results presented. To ensure that the analysis and results were consistent with the overall impression of the data, the researchers read the entire text and carried out the coding several times.

The participants reported that group members organized themselves in the course, and the way in which they did so (to complete a group assignment) seemed to happen randomly rather than by virtue of a clear plan for how best to work together. If individuals, or a minority in the group, saw that the working process was not appropriate, this was not addressed in the group. The main reason for this was that they did not want to upset the group or create any bad feeling. Furthermore, the students said that one of the challenges associated with the group working process was ensuring that all individuals in the group achieved the same level of understanding and learning. This phenomenon was most strongly expressed among groups where members took joint responsibility and the work was organized clearly.

The results of the study showed that when students were working on self-directed assignments in the online course, three different approaches were evident, which were used to solve problems and thus achieve the course’s learning outcomes. These three working processes were not dynamic, with different groups changing their working processes throughout the course, but rather they were more static and constant. This meant that groups starting with a particular way of working maintained this throughout the course, even though students often realized, as the work progressed, that there could be other and more appropriate ways to work together to complete the various assignments.

Even though the study revealed three particular working processes, there were nuances within each of these, related to how respective groups chose to organize their work. This meant that the main features of how groups worked corresponded with how they organized themselves and distributed the work internally within the groups. Although group-level differences in work processes affected how the students worked and solved problems, the main features of groups reflected one of the three working processes identified. The names of the different working processes reflect the main characteristics of the group approach: 1. joint responsibility – flexible organization; 2. individual responsibility – flexible organization; and 3. individual responsibility – unorganized.

Regardless of which working processes the students engaged in, the students reported that group assignments were important for the learning philosophy and methods relevant to science, and that problem-based assignments enabled them to use all the learning resources in the online course as the assignments were so closely linked to the learning resources. Furthermore, the students stated that it was appropriate for the same students to work together throughout the whole course. The subjects were complex and demanding to understand, and by having the same people in the groups, the working process was predictable. The students also thought that the group sizes were appropriate.

1. Joint responsibility – flexible organization

It was clear that before work started, the students were prepared and informed about the assignments ahead of them. The groups had a clear structure. This included the framework for how the work was to be tackled, but the structure was flexible and could be adjusted during the working process to suit the needs of the groups. There was clear loyalty in relation to the work process to be carried out, and participation levels in the group working processes were high. The groups were characterized by discussion and reflection on the assignments, and an understanding that learning was promoted through the group working process. The groups worked independently with less need for input from the teachers.

When working on tasks, groups collaborated in different ways to solve the assigned problem.

a) In some of the groups, the students started the work together, distributing the work among group members and then coming together to discuss progress, distributing further work within the group as required. The work was characterized by short meetings to clarify a common understanding and to distribute responsibilities.

b) Some groups chose an approach with less individual flexibility but a greater degree of cooperation and common understanding. Here, the groups spent a long time on the working processes, and all the work was done while the group members were together. Despite some differences in working processes, the main characteristic of collaboration was that the groups had a shared goal (i.e., that all students in the group would have a common understanding of the task in hand and respective contributions), and they thus took responsibility for their own and fellow students’ learning.

2. Individual responsibility – flexible organization

In this working process, the rationale for the online course and how the assignments would contribute to the students becoming better professionals was less clear to the students. As a consequence, group members often had varying degrees of preparedness, and use of the digital learning resources was more fragmented, with these only used in connection with the task that individual students had to perform. Because students were not very prepared when groups met for the first time, they organized the work by dividing tasks among themselves and completing different parts of the overall task separately, bringing the respective contributions together to assemble an answer at the end. In this collaboration process, work was also distributed within groups differently. Assignments were tackled either by distributing an entire task to each of the members, or they divided the relevant task into smaller units. In both approaches, individuals had responsibility for completing part of the overall task.

In these groups, there was less focus on meeting one another to discuss the work in progress, but there was a greater focus on the final product. Discussion about the product was characterized by whether the thesis contained what it needed for it to be approved, and there was less discussion of group members’ understanding of the task. Group members’ input tended to be presented to the group individually, rather than during group discussion, which could result in a situation with two conflicting inputs. It was thus up to the person responsible for delivering the assignment to assess which input should be considered or whether the input should be considered at all. With assignments divided into fragments, and the fact that there was less concern for wholeness and understanding, students in groups taking this approach to working had a greater need for input and confirmation from the teachers.

3. Individual responsibility – unorganized

This working process had, in principle, no group structure because how the work in the group was carried out depended on individuals taking responsibility on behalf of the whole group. The main characteristic of this working process was that the student(s) who took responsibility were the same throughout the online course, and these students were highly motivated. They recognized the importance of learning and therefore knew how to go about solving the assignment problems. The groups lacked structure and organization, and there was an absence of cooperation and discussion. Most of the group members gave their input only when the product was available.

In this working process, one or two students in each group were responsible for the work. Group members who did not take any responsibility only attended group meetings when these did not conflict with their own needs or priorities. Group dynamics therefore only existed to a limited extent because the groups were characterized by an absence of participation, discussion and flexibility among group members. Those individuals who took responsibility had little opportunity to assume responsibility for anything other than their own learning and understanding, but they expressed the desire for a community where they could share knowledge through discussion and reflection and thus enable everyone to gain greater knowledge.

The aim of this study was to explore, describe and discuss factors influencing collaborative learning in small groups in an online course. Overall, students reported a positive experience of studying the philosophy of science and methods in an online context, and most of the students in our study reported that working in small groups was essential for learning complex aspects of the philosophy of science and methods. The group design characteristics that were important for the students were group size, an interrelationship between digital resources and assignments, and continuity of group members throughout the whole online course, which made them better able to complete complex assignments. These factors are in line with the factors identified by Scager (21) as being important. By working in small groups, the students experienced a level of support and understanding among their fellow students, and the fact that all assignments in the online course were group-based forced them to work collaboratively to achieve the learning outcomes.

Even though the students thought that CL was essential for their learning, not all reflected on the connection between group working processes and their learning. We found that the different working practices adopted during the online course could be differentiated into three main group working processes. These processes were not all focused on collaborative learning, and some focused more on the students’ own learning and competencies. These findings are in line with those of Johnson et al. (13), who also found variations in small-group working. The three main working processes were consistent throughout the whole online course. All three working processes involved an activity that promoted both individuals’ own learning and that of others, through knowledge sharing within the groups. An exception to this was where certain students contributed little to achievement of the overall group goal. All the working processes identified seem to be in line with the definition of collaborative learning (12, 13). However, we found that the working process involving joint responsibility (with flexible organization) was the only one to promote deep learning. In this working process, the students had shared responsibility for assignments and a common understanding of the work, with all participants acquiring greater knowledge and understanding. Through sharing responsibility, group discussions and feedback, the students not only acted as a group but more like a team (33). Among the groups using working process number 1, two approaches to the organization of work could be observed, meaning that the students often had meetings, but how they met and collaborated was different. Some groups met and distributed the work, clarifying assignments, discussing different opinions and interpretations, and coming to an agreement and common understanding. They worked on their specific set of tasks and then met again to finalize the work and complete the assignment. The other approach was to have a discussion and work together towards completion of the assignment, changing the campus group to an online group focusing on collaborating in real time. Students in groups using both forms, working together as a team to complete different aspects of complex assignments, achieved in-depth learning among all group members. This collaborative approach to working is in line with the community of inquiry framework, which emphasizes that collaboration in an online environment is essential when constructing knowledge (34). Through social and cognitive interaction, the students in our study constructed knowledge relating to the philosophy of science and methods, learning collaboratively and working together as a team. In their study, Shea and Bidjerano (35) found that both social presence and teaching presence are important for online learning and are correlated with cognitive presence. The students were socially present, and interaction was promoted. They involved themselves and their fellow students and were committed to working as a team and to the subject matter (35, 36, 21).

In working process number 2 (individual responsibility, with flexible organization), students acted more as individual contributors than as team members. The students’ preparations in advance of the assignment were insufficient, and groups started their collaboration by dividing the assignment into different sub-assignments, with students taking individual responsibility for their task. Groups used a “stapler” (as described by Scager) (21), i.e., a group member who was responsible for integrating each student’s work into a group paper. The groups did not seek to establish common knowledge or a shared understanding of the topic, and each student had individual responsibility for seeking out the necessary knowledge to complete his or her contribution to the assignment. Due to a lack of continuity in their interaction and collaboration, these groups might have lost the potential learning effect of collaboration. Johnson and Johnson (37) have called this behaviour “pseudo learning”. Although a sense of team cohesiveness is maintained through equal contributions by each member and by agreeing on the distribution of the workload, this method of organizing work does not ensure that students perceive their work as an activity which facilitates learning; rather, they see it more as a way to “get the job done”.

Students adopting working process number 3 (individual responsibility, with unorganized groups) were organized as a group but did not act as a group, and the groups did not organize themselves. Only one or a few students took responsibility and got involved in the work, while the other group members did not participate in small-group collaboration. The students who took responsibility worked and collaborated in many of the ways that the students in working process 1 did, taking responsibility, using available resources and completing the assignments. Bliss and Lawrence (38) claim that one of the biggest obstacles to group learning is students who do not participate. Our findings demonstrate that this can indeed be a problem. However, it is not the major obstacle to achievement of the learning outcomes. The students who did not participate made a choice that had consequences for their own learning and that of the other group members. The students who became involved were deprived of the benefits that could be achieved through discussion, including developing a deeper understanding of the subject matter and maximizing their potential. This has also been reported by Bliss and Lawrence (38) and Liu and Tsai (39). On the other hand, these students became well acquainted with the subject matter and were able to complete the assignments.

The groups were autonomous in terms of how and when they wanted to work. According to self-determination theory (17, 40), this should be an important factor in students’ internal motivation for learning, which should be promoted as much as possible. Our findings suggest that how students perceive the subject they are studying is related to the importance of the subject. Another key factor affecting adoption of collaborative work practices is having a common understanding of the subject and students’ expectations regarding their own level of participation in the subject. The students who organized their work using working process number 1 had a common understanding when they started collaborating on the assignment. This made the members aware of what the group should do and the expectations of one another. It is uncertain whether all members fully recognized the meaning of the subject and were internally motivated, but the way of working led to deeper learning. Students in the groups that used working process number 2 were probably mixed in terms of their views of the usefulness, but since the groups had not clarified in advance how they should work, those who emphasized fragmentation and individual responsibility had an impact. It is uncertain whether all students in these groups chose a working process that required less work and collaboration, as Scager (21) and Salomon and Globerson (22) have also pointed out. It is more likely that the working processes arose due to a lack of understanding of the consequences of different group working processes for both their own and fellow students’ learning, and the strategies used by the group at the outset persisted throughout the whole online course. The students who used working process number 3 had also not clarified the working process in advance, but in this case, the students who did not find meaning exhibited behaviour that sabotaged the entire group working process. In all three working processes, there was probably a mix of students who saw the benefit of the online course. However, through conscious choices on the part of the students, and a common understanding, group working process number 1 facilitated deeper learning, regardless of perceived meaning. This was due to the members taking responsibility and contributing to the working process and content (positive interdependence).

Strengths and limitations

This case study gave us the opportunity to explore, in depth and over time, students’ experience of collaborative learning in small groups in online courses. Since there is little research (to the best of our knowledge) on how students learn in online subjects that are part of an otherwise campus-based education, it was important for us to gain an insight into different approaches to collaboration and the significance of these for learning. This study was based on semi-structured interviews with students in relation to one case, and it is not representative of the larger population. Although the students attended several courses, the context was limited. We have described the case thoroughly so that readers can understand and recognize the parameters and relate them to their own situation (21, 42). In this way, the findings may be useful in designing and implementing similar online courses.

Another strength, yet also a possible weakness, of the study is that two of the researchers were the ones who developed the online course. This gave them an understanding of the challenges and strengths of the course, but at the same time, they had to work to maintain an analytical distance from the data. The third researcher was not directly involved in development of the course and could therefore view the data impartially.

This study contributes to knowledge of important group working process factors in collaborative learning in small groups in online courses. The planning of online learning requires a focus on how students collaborate and learn online. This study shows that even if design factors are the same (e.g., group size, challenging and relevant assignments, and student autonomy in terms of being able to organize group working processes), the working process that each group chooses can differ. Although the various working processes were found to promote collaboration and learning, only one working process promoted in-depth learning. Future online teaching might require an even stronger focus on students’ internal motivation for learning and the importance of teacher presence and teachers’ ability to facilitate online education.

CL: Collaborative learning

MaMet: The online course in the philosophy of science and methods

ECTS-credits: European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was approved by the Norwegian Centre for Research Data (NSD-60336) and the academic institution. All the participants gave written consent after receiving written and oral information about the study and were given the option to withdraw from the study if they wanted to. All data were anonymized and kept confidential, in compliance with the ethical guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki.

Consent for publication

Not applicable

Availability of data and materials

The transcribed interviews are only available for the authors.

Competing interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Funding

Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Norway funded working hours for MJH, IR and KAA.

Authors' contributions

The manuscript has been read and approved by all named authors. All authors have contributed to the design, data collection, analysis, writing, revision and approval of the manuscript. MJH moderated all individual and focus group interviews. IR co-moderated all focus group interviews. MJH and KAA divided the text into units of meaning and grouped and coded these. KAA created a condensed narrative with quotes, to illustrate what appeared in the categories. All three researchers discussed the sub-categories and further abstracted and reorganized these into themes and sub-themes. All authors reviewed the manuscript. We further confirm that the order of authors listed in the manuscript has been approved by all of us.

Acknowledgements

We are very grateful to all the students who shared their experience with us.

Jara M, Mohamad F. Pedagogical templates for e-learning. Leading education and social research. Institute of Education, University of London. 2007.
Saqr M, Fors U, Tedre M. How the study of online collaborative learning can guide teachers and predict students’ performance in a medical course. BMC Medical Education. 2018; 18(1): 24.
Lillejord S, Børte K, Nesje K, Ruud E. Learning and teaching with technology in higher education – a systematic review. In: Knowledge Centre for Education. Oslo. 2018. www.kunnskapssenter.no Available from https://www.forskningsradet.no/om-forskningsradet/ publikasjoner/2018/lear
European Commission. Report to the EU Commission on new modes of learning and teaching in higher education. 2014. http://ec.europa. eu/dgs/education_culture/repository/education/library/reports/ modernisation-universities_en.pdf
Jones A, Bennett R. Reaching beyond an online/offline divide: invoking the rhizome in higher education course design. Technology, Pedagogy and Education. 2017; 26(2): 193–210.
Allen IE, Seaman J. Changing Course: Ten Years of Tracking Online Education in the United States. Sloan Consortium (NJ1). 2013.
Ali R, Leeds E. The Impact of Face-to-Face Orientation on Online Retention: A Pilot Study. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration. 2009; 12(4).
Bawa P. Retention in Online Courses: Exploring Issues and Solutions—A Literature Review. SAGE Open. 2016; January–March: 1–11.
Nilson L, Goodson L. Online Teaching at Its Best. Merging Instructional Design with Teaching and Learning Research. Jossey-Bass. 2018.
Iqbal MP, Velan GM, O’Sullivan AJ, Balasooriya C. The collaborative learning development exercise (CLeD-EX): an educational instrument to promote key collaborative learning behaviours in medical students. BMC Medical Education. 2020; 20: 62.
Wilson KJ, Brickmann P, Bramie CJ. Group Work. Evidence-Based Teaching Guides. CBELife Sciences Education. 2018; 17(1): 1–5.
Le H, Janssen J, Wubbels T. Collaborative learning practices: teacher and student perceived obstacles to effective student collaboration. Cambridge Journal of Education. 2018; 48(1): 103–122.
Johnson DW, Johnson RT, Smith KA. Cooperative learning: Improving university instruction by basing practice on validated theory. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching. 2014; 25(3&4): 85–118.
Cacciattolo K. Defining workplace learning. European Scientific Journal. 2015; 1: 243–250.
Illeris K. A comprehensive understanding of human learning. In: Illeris K (ed.), Contemporary Theories of Learning. Learning Theorists.. . In Their Own Words (2nd ed.). 2018; pp. 8–22. New York, US: Routledge.
Patton N, Higgs J, Smith M. Using theories of learning in workplaces to enhance physiotherapy clinical education. Physiotherapy Theory and Practice. 2013; 29: 493–503.
Ryan RM, Deci EL. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 2000; 25: 54–67.
Billett S, Choy S. Learning through work: Emerging perspectives and new challenges. Journal of Workplace Learning. 2013; 25: 264–276.
Harasim L. Learning Theory and Online Technologies. Taylor & Francis eBooks (2nd ed.). Routledge. 2017.
Laal M, Laal M. Collaborative learning: what is it? Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2012; 31: 491–495.
Scager K, Boonstra J, Peeters T, Vulperhorst J, Wiegant F. Collaborative Learning in Higher Education: Evoking Positive Interdependence. CBE Life Sciences Education. 2016; 15(4): ar69.
Johnson DW, Johnson RT. An Educational Psychology Success Story: Social Interdependence Theory and Cooperative Learning. Educational Researcher. 2009; 38(5): 365–379.
Damşa C, de Lange T, Elken M, Esterhazy R, Fossland T, Frølich N, … Stensaker B. Quality in Norwegian higher education: A review of research on aspects affecting student learning. 2015; 24(34).
Nerland M, Prøitz T S. Pathways to quality in higher education: Case studies of educational practices in eight courses. NIFU report 2018: 3(35).
Crowe S, Cresswell K, Robertson A, Huby G, Avery A, Sheikh A. The case study approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology. 2011; 11: 100.
Creswell JW, Creswell JD. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Sage, Los Angeles. 2018.
Lindgren BM, Lundman B, Graneheim UH. Abstraction and interpretation during the qualitative content analysis process. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 2020; 108: 103632.
Kvale S, Brinkmann S. Den kvalitativa forskningsintervjun (The Qualitative Research Interview). Lund: Studentlitteratur. 2014.
Sandelowski M. Focus on Research Methods: Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Sampling, Data Collection, and Analysis Techniques in Mixed-Method Studies. Research in Nursing & Health. 2000; 23: 246–255.
Patton MQ. Qualitative research & evaluation methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 2015.
Krueger RA, Casey MA. A Practical Guide for Applied Research. Sage Publications, Inc., California. 2000.
Graneheim UH, Lundman B. Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Educ. Today. 2004; 24(2): 105–12.
Bang H, Middelfart TN. Effektive ledergrupper 2.utg. Gyldendal. Oslo. 2019.
Garrison DR, Anderson T, Archer W. Critical Inquiry in a Text-Based Environment: Computer Conferencing in Higher Education. The Internet and Higher Education. 2000; 2: 87–105.
Shea P, Bidjerano T. Measures of Quality in Online Education: An Investigation of the Community of Inquiry Model and the Net Generation. Journal of Educational Computing Research. 2008; 39: 339–361.
Pelz B. Three Principles of Effective Online Pedagogy. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks. 2004; 14(1).
Johnson DW, Johnson RT. Learning Together and Alone: Cooperative, Competitive, and Individualistic Learning (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Bliss C, Lawrence B. From Posts to Patterns: A Metric to Characterize Discussion Board Activity in Online Courses. Online Learning (Newburyport, Mass.). 2019; 13(2).
Liu CC, Tsai CC. An analysis of peer interaction patterns as discoursed by on-line small group problem-solving activity. Computers and Education. 2008; 50: 627–638.
Jeno LM, Raaheim A, Kristensen SM, Kristensen KD, Nielsen Hole T, Haugland MJ, Mæland S. The Relative Effect of Team-Based Learning on Motivation and Learning: A Self-Determination Theory Perspective. CBE – Life Sciences Education. 2018; 16(4).
Salomon G, Globerson T. When teams do not function the way they ought to. International Journal of Educational Research. 1989; 13: 89–99.
Karlgren K, Larsson F, Dahlstrøm A. Eye-opening facilitator behaviours: an interaction analysis of facilitator behaviours that advance debriefings. BMJ STEL. 2020; 6: 220–228.

No competing interests reported.

Download PDF

Journal Publication

published 10 Mar, 2022

Read the published version in BMC Medical Education →

Editorial decision: Major revision
26 Oct, 2021
Reviews received at journal
17 Oct, 2021
Reviewers agreed at journal
06 Oct, 2021
Reviewers invited by journal
06 Oct, 2021
Editor assigned by journal
06 Oct, 2021
Editor invited by journal
30 Sep, 2021
Submission checks completed at journal
29 Sep, 2021
First submitted to journal
27 Sep, 2021

You are reading this latest preprint version

Collaborative Learning in Small Groups in an Online Course – A Case Study

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Background

Description of MaMet

Methods

Participants and settings

Data collection

Data analysis

Results

1. Joint responsibility – flexible organization

2. Individual responsibility – flexible organization

3. Individual responsibility – unorganized

Discussion

Strengths and limitations

Conclusions

Abbreviations

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1