Advertisement

Blending Classroom, Collaborative, and Individual Learning Using Backstage 2

  • Sebastian MaderEmail author
  • François Bry
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 804)

Abstract

Seminars are difficult and therefore often neglected classes in STEM education even though they greatly contribute to the students’ scientific maturity. Seminars are a traditional educational format blending classroom, collaborative, and individual learning: Seminar participants are tasked to discover, understand, and convey a scientific or technical issue to the other seminar attendees in an essay and in an oral presentation engaging them into a fruitful discussion. Seminars are rightly considered a cornerstone of STEM education, yet they are often frustrating experiences for both learners and teachers due to insufficient supervision and practice. This article reports on using Backstage 2, a web platform that, by offering a virtual space and tools for a fruitful communication, bridges classroom, collaborative, and individual learning activities. The contribution of this article is threefold: First, a class format aimed at boosting collaboration in seminars, second, technological tools supporting collaboration among seminar attendees, and third, an evaluation of the approach demonstrating its effectiveness.

Keywords

Online learning environments Blended learning Peer review Computer-supported collaborative learning 

References

  1. 1.
    Alonso, F., López, G., Manrique, D., Viñes, J.M.: An instructional model for web-based e-learning education with a blended learning process approach. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 36(2), 217–235 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bonk, C.J., Graham, C.R.: The Handbook of Blended Learning: Global Perspectives, Local Designs. Wiley, San Francisco (2006)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bry, F., Pohl, A.: Backstage: a social medium for large classes. In: Campus Transformation-Education, Qualification and Digitalization, pp. 255–280 (2014)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chen, Y.C., Hwang, R.H., Wang, C.Y.: Development and evaluation of a Web 2.0 annotation system as a learning tool in an e-learning environment. Comput. Educ. 58(4), 1094–1105 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dunning, D., Heath, C., Suls, J.M.: Flawed self-assessment: implications for health, education, and the workplace. Psychol. Sci. Public Interest 5(3), 69–106 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fischer, F., Bruhn, J., Gräsel, C., Mandl, H.: Fostering collaborative knowledge construction with visualization tool. Learn. Instr. 12(2), 213–232 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Flint, J.: Feedback-proxys zur digitalisierung von classroom response systemen. Doctoral thesis, Faculty of Computer Science and Electrical Engineering, University of Rostock, Germany (2017)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Garrison, D.R., Kanuka, H.: Blended learning: uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. Internet High. Educ. 7(2), 95–105 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Halverson, L.R., Spring, K.J., Huyett, S., Henrie, C.R., Graham, C.R.: Blended learning research in higher education and k-12 settings. In: Learning, Design, and Technology, pp. 1–30 (2017)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hanrahan, S.J., Isaacs, G.: Assessing self- and peer-assessment: the students’ views. High. Educ. Res. Dev. 20(1), 53–70 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kay, R.H., LeSage, A.: Examining the benefits and challenges of using audience response systems: a review of the literature. Comput. Educ. 53(3), 819–827 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lundstrom, K., Baker, W.: To give is better than to receive: the benefits of peer review to the reviewer’s own writing. J. Second Lang. Writ. 18(1), 30–43 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    McGee, P., Reis, A.: Blended course design: a synthesis of best practices. J. Asynchronous Learn. Netw. 16(4), 7–22 (2012)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pohl, A.: Fostering awareness and collaboration in large-class lectures. Doctoral thesis, Institute of Iformatics, Ludwig-Maximilian University of Munich, Germany (2015)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sheaa, P., Bidjeranob, T.: Learning presence: towards a theory of self-efficacy, self-regulation, and the development of a communities of inquiry in online and blended learning environments. Comput. Educ. 55(4), 1721–1731 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Singh, H.: Building effective blended learning programs. Educ. Technol. 43(6), 51–54 (2003)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Su, A.Y., Yang, S.J., Hwang, W.Y., Zhang, J.: A Web 2.0-based collaborative annotation system for enhancing knowledge sharing in collaborative learning environments. Comput. Educ. 55(2), 752–766 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sun, Z., Liu, R., Luo, L., Wu, M., Shi, C.: Exploring collaborative learning effect in blended learning environments. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 33(6), 575–587 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Topping, K.: Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Rev. Educ. Res. 68(3), 249–276 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Weinberger, A., Ertl, B., Fischer, F., Mandl, H.: Epistemic and social scripts in computer-supported collaborative learning. Instr. Sci. 33(1), 1–30 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Williams, E.: Student attitudes towards approaches to learning and assessment. Assessm. Eval. High. Educ. 17(1), 45–58 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Yardi, S.: The role of the backchannel in collaborative learning environments. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Learning Sciences, pp. 852–858. International Society of the Learning Sciences (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for InformaticsLudwig-Maximilian University of MunichMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations