Investigating Web 2.0 Affordances to Support Collaborative Learning Activities in Higher Education

471 Pages·2015·29.79 MB·English

by  Andreas Kuswara

Web 2.0 affordances to support
collaborative learning in higher education

Andreas Utomo Kuswara
M.Comm(IS), MM (IS), B.CompSci, B.EEng.

This thesis is presented for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy

Macquarie University
Faculty of Human Sciences
School of Education

28 November 2015

Table of Content
Abstract __________________________________________________________________________ vii
Statement of Candidate __________________________________________________________ ix
Acknowledgements _______________________________________________________________ xi
1 The Research Problem ________________________________________________________ 1
1.1 Overview _____________________________________________________________________________ 1
1.2 Technology in learning _____________________________________________________________ 6
1.3 Aim of the study ___________________________________________________________________ 11
1.4 Outline of the thesis _______________________________________________________________ 13
2 Literature Review_____________________________________________________________ 15
2.1 Introduction ________________________________________________________________________ 15
2.2 Collaborative learning _____________________________________________________________ 15
2.3 Meaningful learning _______________________________________________________________ 20
2.4 Learning in a digital world ________________________________________________________ 28
2.5 Affordance in learning _____________________________________________________________ 42
2.6 The framework for analysis _______________________________________________________ 55
2.7 Positioning the study ______________________________________________________________ 62
3 Methodology _________________________________________________________________ 65
3.1 Approaches _________________________________________________________________________ 65
3.2 Case Study Criteria _________________________________________________________________ 66
3.3 Case Study Design _________________________________________________________________ 67
3.4 Observation & Data collection ____________________________________________________ 73
4 Case Study 1: Pilot Case _____________________________________________________ 81
4.1 Introduction ________________________________________________________________________ 81
4.2 Web 2.0 tools ______________________________________________________________________ 82
4.3 Learning tasks ______________________________________________________________________ 82
4.4 Methodology _______________________________________________________________________ 89
i
4.5 Results______________________________________________________________________________ 92
4.6 Integrated discussion _____________________________________________________________ 98
5 Case Study 2: Wiki to support professional experience___________________ 111
5.1 Introduction ______________________________________________________________________ 111
5.2 Pre-service teacher professional experience ___________________________________ 111
5.3 Learning tasks ____________________________________________________________________ 112
5.4 Methodology _____________________________________________________________________ 117
5.5 Results_____________________________________________________________________________ 120
6 Case Study 3: Wiki to support science pedagogy _________________________ 145
6.1 Introduction ______________________________________________________________________ 145
6.2 Science pedagogy ________________________________________________________________ 145
6.3 Learning tasks ____________________________________________________________________ 148
6.4 Methodology _____________________________________________________________________ 151
6.5 Results_____________________________________________________________________________ 155
7 Conclusion __________________________________________________________________ 177
7.1 Discussion of findings ___________________________________________________________ 177
7.2 Suggestions for future work ____________________________________________________ 190
7.3 Conclusion ________________________________________________________________________ 191
8 References ___________________________________________________________________ 193
9 Appendix A: Research Instruments ________________________________________ 203
10 Appendix B: A framework for Web 2.0 learning design ________________ 207
11 Appendix C: Realising the potential of Web 2.0 for collaborative learning
using affordances _______________________________________________________________ 231
12 Appendix D: Matching the affordances of wikis to collaborative
learning . ______________________________________________________________________ 253
13 Appendix E: Research Output ____________________________________________ 265
14 Appendix F: Case 1 Data _________________________________________________ 267
ii
15 Appendix G: Case 2 Data _________________________________________________ 305
16 Appendix H: Case 3 Data _________________________________________________ 373
17 Appendix I: Final Ethics Approval Letters ________________________________ 449
17.1 Ethics Approval Case 1: Computing Unit ____________________________________ 450
17.2 Ethics Approval Case 2: Education Unit ______________________________________ 452
17.3 Ethics Approval Case 3: Education Unit ______________________________________ 454
17.4 Ethics Approval Case 4: Education Unit ______________________________________ 456

Figures and Tables
Figures
Figure 1 Learning as intention-action-reflection (Jonassen and Land, 2000, p.v) ......................................10
Figure 2 Learning in context (Jonassen and Land, 2000, p.vii) ...........................................................................12
Figure 3 Outline of Thesis ...................................................................................................................................................14
Figure 4 Meaningful learning continuum (Novak, 2002, p.552) .........................................................................21
Figure 5 Characteristics of meaningful learning (Jonassen, Howland, Marra, & Crismond, 2008, p.3)
........................................................................................................................................................................................................21
Figure 6 A taxonomy of meaningful learning (Jonassen, 2000b) ......................................................................24
Figure 7 Problem-based learning cycle (Hmelo-Silver, 2004, p. 237) ...............................................................25
Figure 8 Components of PBL (Koschmann et al., 1996, p.98) .............................................................................26
Figure 9 The revised Bloom’s taxonomy (Anderson, Krathwohl, & Bloom, 2001, pp. 32, 46, 67) .......28
Figure 10 Three-stages of learning process ................................................................................................................29
Figure 11 The revised Bloom-taxonomy-cognitive process (adapted from Anderson et al., 2001) ...31
Figure 12 Mind map of Bloom's revised digital taxonomy (Churches, 2008, Retrieved from
http://www.techlearning.com/article/8670) ..................................................................................................................33
Figure 13 Development of human activity theory....................................................................................................38
Figure 14 Classification of affordance (Gaver, 1991, p.80) ....................................................................................52
Figure 15 Web 2.0 tools pervade learning activity...................................................................................................54
Figure 16 Nested nature of activity theory dynamics (Jonassen and Rohrer-Murphy, 1999, p.67) ....56
Figure 17 Activity system as framework for analysis ...............................................................................................57
Figure 18 Research design ..................................................................................................................................................68
Figure 19 Observation Framework ..................................................................................................................................76
Figure 20 Activity system as framework for analysis of Case 1 ..........................................................................87
Figure 21 Sample Wiki from Group 22 (Kuswara & Richards, 2011b, p.323) ...............................................90
Figure 22 Reflective practice cycle (Beale, 2007) .................................................................................................... 112
Figure 23 Activity system as framework for analysis of Case 2 ....................................................................... 114
iii
Figure 24 Case 2 - Front page ....................................................................................................................................... 124
Figure 25 Case 2 - System log ....................................................................................................................................... 125
Figure 26 Case 2 - Sharing of reflections (a) ........................................................................................................... 126
Figure 27 Case 2 - Sharing of reflections (b) .......................................................................................................... 126
Figure 28 Case 2 - Sharing of reflections (c) ........................................................................................................... 127
Figure 29 Case 2 - Co-production (a) ......................................................................................................................... 127
Figure 30 Case 2 - Co-production (b) ........................................................................................................................ 127
Figure 31 Case 2 - Task 1 (a) .......................................................................................................................................... 128
Figure 32 Case 2 - Task 1 (b) .......................................................................................................................................... 129
Figure 33 Case 2 - Task 2 (a) .......................................................................................................................................... 129
Figure 34 Case 2 - Task 2 (b) .......................................................................................................................................... 130
Figure 35 Case 2 - Task 3 ................................................................................................................................................. 131
Figure 36 Technological pedagogical & content knowledge (TPACK), (Mishra and Koehler, 2006, p.
1025) .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 147
Figure 37 Activity system as framework for analysis of Case 3 ...................................................................... 149
Figure 38 Case 3 - Front page (a) ................................................................................................................................ 159
Figure 39 Case 3 - Front page (b) ................................................................................................................................ 160
Figure 40 Case 3 - Lesson plan sample 1 ................................................................................................................. 161
Figure 41 Case 3 - Lesson plan Sample 2 ................................................................................................................ 161
Figure 42 Case 3 - Lesson plan sample 3 ................................................................................................................. 162
Figure 43 Case 3 – Comments (a) ................................................................................................................................ 163
Figure 44 Case 3 – Comments (b) ................................................................................................................................ 163
Figure 45 Case 3 – Comments (c) ................................................................................................................................ 163
Figure 46 Case 3 – Comments (d) ................................................................................................................................ 164
Figure 47 Factors influencing student's perception of affordance ................................................................. 180
Figure 48 Two-stage affordance utilisation process in technology-mediated collaboration ............. 185
Figure 49 Ecosystem of technology-mediated collaboration ........................................................................... 187

Tables
Table 1. Contrasting Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 by observation, adapted from (O'Reilly, 2005) .................... 7
Table 2. Case study 1 – Familiarity with tools (n=3)................................................................................................ 95
Table 3. Case study 1 - Ease of use of tools (n=3) .................................................................................................. 95
Table 4. Case study 1 - Usefulness of tools (n=3).................................................................................................... 96
Table 5. Case study 1 – Perception of tools (n=3) ................................................................................................... 96
Table 6. Case study 1 - Influence of the tool (n=3) ................................................................................................ 97
Table 7. Case study 1 – Collaboration (n=3)............................................................................................................... 98
Table 8 Stages of learning (NSW Department of Education and Communities) ..................................... 115
Table 9. Case study 2 - Familiarity with wiki ............................................................................................................ 120
Table 10. Case study 2 - Ease of use of wiki (n=12) ............................................................................................ 121
iv
Table 11. Case study 2 - Usefulness of wiki (n=12) .............................................................................................. 121
Table 12. Case study 2 – Perception of wiki (n=12) .............................................................................................. 122
Table 13. Case study 2 - Influence of the wiki (n=12) ......................................................................................... 122
Table 14. Case study 2 – Collaboration (n=12) ....................................................................................................... 122
Table 15 Title of science lesson plans ......................................................................................................................... 151
Table 16. Case study 3 - Familiarity with wiki (n=30)........................................................................................... 156
Table 17. Case study 3 - Ease of use of wiki (n=30) ............................................................................................ 156
Table 18. Case study 3 - Usefulness of wiki (n=30) .............................................................................................. 157
Table 19. Case study 3 – Perception of wiki (n=30) .............................................................................................. 157
Table 20. Case study 3 - Influence of the wiki (n=30) ......................................................................................... 158
Table 21. Case study 3 – Collaboration (n=30) ....................................................................................................... 158
Table 22. Collaboration, technical affordance and utilization of wiki ............................................................ 178
Table 23. Questionnaire: Likert Scale Questions ..................................................................................................... 203
Table 24. Questionnaire: Reflection open-ended questions .............................................................................. 203
Table 25. Interview guiding questions (Students) .................................................................................................. 204
Table 26. Interview Guiding Questions (Teachers) ................................................................................................. 205
Table 27. Case study 2 Questionnaire Response 1 ................................................................................................ 305
Table 28. Case study 2 Questionnaire Response 2 ................................................................................................ 306
Table 29. Case study 2 Questionnaire Response 3 ................................................................................................ 308
Table 30. Case study 2 Questionnaire Response 4 ................................................................................................ 310
Table 31. Case study 3 Questionnaire Response 1 ................................................................................................ 373
Table 32. Case study 3 Questionnaire Response 2 ................................................................................................ 375
Table 33. Case study 3 Questionnaire Response 3 ................................................................................................ 377
Table 34. Case study 3 Questionnaire Response 4 ................................................................................................ 379
Table 35. Case study 3 Questionnaire Response 5 ................................................................................................ 380
Table 36. Case study 3 Questionnaire Response 6 ................................................................................................ 382
Table 37. Case study 3 Questionnaire Response 7 ................................................................................................ 384

v
This page is deliberately left blank.

vi
Abstract
Technology plays a significant role in higher education and much emphasis has been given to the
technology itself rather more than the effectiveness of its application for learning. Many scholars
agree that an effective learning activity should enable learners to think and act upon the object of
learning. Furthermore, in a socially-situated learning context, the social negotiation and
renegotiation processes are as important as the individual cognitive processes. This importance is
further emphasised by the rise of socially-enabled Web 2.0 technologies which connect learners in
ways previously not possible. Thus, knowledge no longer just exists in the mind, but also in the
discourse and social relationships which bind those individual and socially negotiating minds; and
in the artefacts they produce and consume during that discourse. Therefore, there is a constant
construction and negotiation between components of a learning activity.
All the discussions mentioned above challenge educators to adopt the same technology that has
changed students’ social interaction, into an effective learning tool. This study offers a practical
framework to empower educators in the design and evaluation of technology usage as part of their
students’ learning. It explores socially situated collaborative learning as an activity system including
a community of learners within a specific learning context. The context formed by customs, history,
rules, law, and roles, influenced the learners as active agents supported by Web 2.0 affordances to
produce artefacts and achieve meaningful learning outcomes.
Through three case studies in computing and education, the study observed and interviewed
students about their use of wikis in different collaborative learning activities, students’ expectation
and familiarity towards the technology itself; and the interplay between personal perception and
group discovery of technology affordances.
Although there are many practical findings from the study, and some are not unfamiliar to academics,
the study discovered that the process of imparting technology use to students in collaborative
learning settings is a two-step process of (1) inspiring the perceptive senses of students and (2)
vii
nurturing group work dynamics within the team to induce an atmosphere that promotes perceived
affordance of the tool into practical utilization that benefitted the entire group. This discovery would
inform academics in our approach to encourage technology mediated collaboration in our teaching.
The study observed that different technical affordances were being used in response to the needs
of the collaboration activity being conducted. This confirms the argument which promotes the uses
of a set of tools rather than a single individual tool to support collaboration needs. Factors such as
students’ clarity of the tasks and positive expectation of what the tool can do for them based on
their past experiences also contributed positively to the perception of the affordances.
Contrary to commonly held perceptions that academics have little influence on the way students
use technology in their learning, the study indicated that there is a significant role that academics
can take in particular, when influencing perceptions of affordances and scaffolding the experience
with technology during the design and teaching stages of a unit. Academics’ traditional role, such
as nurturing a conducive environment for positive group work dynamics also contributed to this
extended role. Although a hands-off approach from the academic can lead towards accidental
success, this study suggested well designed and purposely enacted interventions would lead to
better learning outcomes.

viii