Advertisement

Analysis of Temporal Characteristics of Collaborative Knowledge Construction in Teacher Workshops

  • Ni ZhangEmail author
  • Qingtang LiuEmail author
  • Jiaojiao Zhu
  • Qiyun Wang
  • Kui Xie
Original research
  • 8 Downloads

Abstract

Teacher workshops attract teachers with common goals; they wish to improve their teaching practices and subject and information technology knowledge. The asynchronous online discussion is the main activity in teacher workshops. An analytical model was developed in this study to examine the temporal characteristics of collaborative knowledge construction in teacher workshops. Specifically, 664 posts were analyzed from an asynchronous online discussion—involving 91 teachers—on the topic, “How to Make a Language Course Interesting?” The aim of this paper is to present the changes in knowledge construction levels and teachers’ social interactive characteristics resulting from participation in teacher workshops. From the findings of this study, advances in theory, methodology and pedagogical practice are indicated. The findings also indicate that knowledge construction levels and teachers’ social interactive characteristics change at different stages of discussions. Suggestions for improving the effects of online teacher workshops are provided.

Keywords

Teacher workshops Collaborative knowledge construction Temporal characteristics 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by Chinese Ministry of Education & China Mobile under Grant [Number: MCM20170502]; Chinese National Natural Science Foundation Project under Grant [Number: 71704062]; Department of Science and Technology of Hubei Province of China under Grant [Number: 2017ACA105].

References

  1. Baek, S. I., & Kim, Y. M. (2015). Longitudinal analysis of online community dynamics. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 115(4), 661–677.  https://doi.org/10.1108/imds-09-2014-0266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baeten, M., Kyndt, E., Struyven, K., & Dochy, F. (2010). Using student-centered learning environments to stimulate deep approaches to learning: Factors encouraging or discouraging their effectiveness. Educational Research Review, 5(3), 243–260.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2010.06.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barkley, E. F., & Major, C. H. (2005). Collaborative learning techniques: a handbook for college faculty. The Jossey-Bass Higher and Adult Education Series, 56(4), 328–329.  https://doi.org/10.1177/104515950301400412.Google Scholar
  4. Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Freeman, L. C. (2002). Ucinet for windows: Software for social network analysis. Harvard: Analytic Technologies.Google Scholar
  5. Chieu, V. M., & Herbst, P. (2016). A study of the quality of interaction among participants in online animation-based conversations about mathematics teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 57, 139–149.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.03.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dillenbourg, P., Järvelä, S., & Fischer, F. (2009). The evolution of research on computer-supported collaborative learning: From design to orchestration. In N. Balacheff, S. Ludvigsen, T. Jong, et al. (Eds.), Technology enhanced learning: Principles and products (pp. 3–19). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dillenbourg, P., & Jermann, P. (2006). Designing integrative scripts. In F. Fischer, I. Kollar, H. Mandl, et al. (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning: Cognitive, computational and educational perspectives (pp. 275–301). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  8. Duncan-Howell, J. (2010). Teachers making connections: Online communities as a source of professional learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(2), 324–340.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00953.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fosnot, C. T., & Perry, R. S. (2005). Constructivism: A psychological theory of learning. In C. T. Fosnot (Ed.), Constructivism: Theory, perspectives and practice (pp. 8–33). New York: Teacher College Press.Google Scholar
  10. Gunawardena, C. N. (1995). Social presence theory and implications for interaction collaborative learning in computer conferences. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 1, 147–166.  https://doi.org/10.31274/etd-180810-507.Google Scholar
  11. Hanushek, E. A., & Woessmann, L. (2010). The high cost of low educational performance: The Long-run economic impact of improving PISA outcomes. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  12. Herrmann, K. J. (2013). The impact of cooperative learning on student engagement: Results from an intervention. Active Learning in Higher Education, 14(3), 175–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hill, A. G., Srinivasa, S., Hawken, S. J., Barrow, M., Farrell, S. E., & Hattie, J. (2012). Impact of a resident-as-teacher workshop on teaching behaviour of interns and learning outcomes of medical students. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 4(1), 34–41.  https://doi.org/10.4300/jgme-d-11-00062.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Holmquist, P. O. (2015). Theorizing teaching and learning: Pre-service teachers’ theoretical awareness of learning. European Journal of Teacher Education, 38(1), 102–118.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2014.902437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ida, B. N. M. (2017). Promoting primary school teachers’ competence through dynamic interactive workshop and partnership. International Journal of Linguistics: Language and Culture, 3(1), 1–5.  https://doi.org/10.21744/ijllc.v3i1.335.Google Scholar
  16. Keogh, E. (2005). Datamining and machine learning in time series database. In Proceedings of the 5th industrial conference on data mining.Google Scholar
  17. Liesel, E., Tilda, L., Irma, E., & Ronél, F. (2015). In-service teacher training to provide psychosocial support and care in high-risk and high-need schools: School-based intervention partnerships. Journal of Education for Teaching, 41(3), 267–284.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2015.1044226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lin, S. (2004). The application of practice teaching model based on workshops. Modern Education Forum, 3, 67–78.Google Scholar
  19. Lin, S. Y., & Xie, Y. (2017). Effects of tag cloud-anchored group discussions on pre-service teachers’ collaborative knowledge construction. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 33(2), 73–85.  https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.2885.Google Scholar
  20. Loes, C. N., An, B. P., Saichaie, K., & Pascarella, E. T. (2017). Does collaborative learning influence persistence to the second year of college? Journal of Higher Education, 88(1), 62–84.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2016.1243942.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lucas, R. I., Promentilla, M. A., Ubando, A., Tan, R. G., Aviso, K., & Yu, K. D. (2017). An AHP-based evaluation method for a teacher training workshop on information and communication technology. Evaluation and Program Planning, 63, 93–100.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2017.04.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Matijević, M., Topolovčan, T., & Rajić, V. (2017). Teacher assessment related to the use of digital media and constructivist learning in primary and secondary education. Croatian Journal of Education, 19(2), 563–603.Google Scholar
  23. Muñiz-Rodríguez, L., Velázquez, P. A., Muñiz, L. J. R., & Valcke, M. (2016). Is there a gap in initial secondary mathematics teacher education in Spain compared to other countries? Revista De Educacion, 372, 111–132.Google Scholar
  24. Pea, R. D. (1993). Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions (pp. 47–87). Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Prichard, A., & Woollard, J. (2010). Psychology for the classroom: Constructivism and social learning. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Rustaman, N. Y., Rusdiana, D., Efendi, R., & Liliawati, W. (2017). The workshop program on authentic assessment for science teachers. Journal of Physics Conference Series, 812, 012062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sang, Y. C. (2017). The design, implementation, and evaluation of Korean k-12 teacher training workshops. Journal of the National Council of Less Commonly Taught Languages, 21, 145–167.Google Scholar
  28. Scott, J. (2012). What is social network analysis?. New York: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
  29. Shankar, R., Orion, N., King, C., Warrier, A. K., Narahari, A. M., & Swamy, S. G. S. (2017). Teacher training workshops in India—A report. Journal of the Geological Society of India, 89(2), 217–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Skrypnyk, O., Joksimovic, S., Kovanovic, V., Gasevic, D., & Dawson, S. (2015). Roles of course facilitators, learners, and technology in the flow of information of a cMOOC. International Review of Research in Open & Distance Learning, 16(3), 188–217.  https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v16i3.2170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Stahl, G. (2000). A model of collaborative knowledge building. In International conference of the learning sciences (Vol. 113, pp. 201–212). MIT Press.Google Scholar
  32. Taylor, G. W., Fergus, R., Lecun, Y., & Bregler, C. (2010). Convolutional learning of spatiotemporal characteristics. In European conference on computer vision (Vol. 6316, pp. 140–153). Springer.Google Scholar
  33. Thompson, L. M., Uyeda, K., Wright, J., & Halfon, N. (2005). Family support: Fostering leadership and partnership to improve access and quality (building state early comprehensive systems series, number 14). Los Angeles: National Centre for Infant and Early Childhood Health Policy.Google Scholar
  34. Valtonen, T., Sointu, E., Kukkonen, J., Kontkanen, S., Lambert, M. C., & Mäkitalo-Siegl, K. (2017). TPACK updated to measure pre-service teachers’ twenty-first-century skills. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 33(3), 15–31.  https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.3518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Vuopala, E., Hyvönen, P., & Järvelä, S. (2016). Interaction forms in successful collaborative learning in virtual learning environments. Active Learning in Higher Education, 17(1), 25–38.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787415616730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wise, A. F., Zhao, Y., Hausknecht, S., & Chiu, M. M. (2014). Temporal considerations in analyzing and designing online discussions in education: examining duration, sequence, pace, and salience. Assessment and Evaluation of Time Factors in Online Teaching and Learning, 2, 198–231.  https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-4651-3.ch008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Xie, K., & Ke, F. (2011). The role of students' motivation in peer-moderated asynchronous online discussions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(6), 916–930.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01140.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Xie, K., Yu, C., & Bradshaw, A. C. (2014). Impacts of role assignment and participation in asynchronous discussions in college-level online classes. Internet and Higher Education, 20(1), 10–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Yilmaz, K. (2008). Constructivism: Its theoretical underpinnings, variations, and implications for classroom instruction. Educational Horizons, 86(3), 161–172.Google Scholar
  40. Zhang, S., Liu, Q., Chen, W., Wang, Q., & Huang, Z. (2017). Interactive networks and social knowledge construction behavioral patterns in primary school teachers' online collaborative learning activities. Computers and Education, 104, 1–17.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.10.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zhang, S., Liu, Q., & Xiong, J. (2015). Research on teacher workshop training model from the perspective of cognitive apprenticeship. China Educational Technology, 8, 114–120.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Educational Information TechnologyCentral China Normal UniversityWuhanChina
  2. 2.National Institute of EducationNanyang Technological University50 Nanyang AvenueSingapore
  3. 3.Department of Educational StudiesThe Ohio State UniversityColumbusUSA

Personalised recommendations