Student Groups as Tutors in Information Systems Education - Students’ Perspectives on Collaboration and Outcomes

Antonis Natsis, Pantelis M. Papadopoulos, Nikolaus Obwegeser

Abstract

The study explores the potential of the research-teaching nexus in a peer-tutoring setting. During the Fall semester of 2016, students in an Information Systems course worked collaboratively on domain topics, assigned to them by the teacher and created educational material for their fellow students. Students’ tutoring role was concluding with a class presentation and a discussion session in each course lecture. The study focuses on students’ perspectives in the collaborating groups and the audience and analyzes how learning strategies in self-regulation, peer learning, and help seeking affect students’ experiences during group work. Analysis of student activity revealed four distinct patterns of collaboration. Findings suggest that students that rely more on group members for help were less satisfied by the communication among them. However, students were in general satisfied with their collaboration, being able to adapt the activity to their needs. Similarly, the teacher and the audience (students attending the student-tutoring sessions) evaluated positively students’ performance as teachers.

References

  1. Brew, A. (2003). Teaching and Research: New relationships and their implications for inquiry-based teaching and learning in higher education. Higher Education Research & Development, 22(1), 3-18. doi: 10.1080/0729436032000056571
  2. Dettori, G., & Persico, D. (2008). Detecting SelfRegulated Learning in Online Communities by Means of Interaction Analysis. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 1(1), 11-19. doi: 10.1109/TLT.2008.7
  3. Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by 'collaborative learning'? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches (pp. 1-19). Oxford: Elsevier.
  4. Eryilmaz, E., Thoms, B., Mary, J., Kim, R., & Canelon, J. (2016, 5-8 Jan. 2016). Task Oriented Reading of Instructional Materials and Its Relationship to Message Scores in Online Learning Conversations. Paper presented at the 2016 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS).
  5. Griffiths, R. (2004). Knowledge production and the research-teaching nexus: the case of the built environment disciplines. Studies in Higher Education, 29(6), 709-726. doi: 10.1080/0307507042000287212
  6. Healey, M. (2005). Linking research and teaching: exploring disciplinary spaces and the role of inquirybased learning. In R. Barnett (Ed.), Reshaping the University: New Relationships between Research, Scholarship and Teaching (pp. 67 - 78.): McGraw Hill / Open University Press.
  7. Jenkins, A., Lindsay, R., & Brew, A. (2003). Reshaping Teaching in Higher Education: Linking Teaching with Research. London: Routledge.
  8. King, A. (1998). Transactive Peer Tutoring: Distributing Cognition and Metacognition. Educational Psychology Review, 10(1), 57-74. doi: 10.1023/a:1022858115001
  9. Kolic-Vrhovec, S., Bajšanski, I., & Zubkovic, B. R. (2011). The role of reading strategies in scientific text comprehension and academic achievement of university students. Review of psychology, 18(2), 81- 90.
  10. Kyza, E., Georgiou, Y., Hadjichambi, D., & Hadjichambis, A. (2013). Teacher Framing, Classroom Collaboration Scripts, and Help-Seeking and Help-Giving Behaviors. In M. K. Nikol Rummel, Mitchell Nathan, Sadhana Puntambekar (Ed.), To See the World and a Grain of Sand: Learning across Levels of Space, Time, and Scale: CSCL 2013 Conference Proceedings Volume 1 - Full Papers & Symposia: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
  11. McNamara, D. S., Ozuru, Y., Best, R., & O'Reilly, T. (2007). The 4-pronged comprehension strategy framework. In D. S. McNamara (Ed.), Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies (pp. 465-496). Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
  12. Noroozi, O., Weinberger, A., Biemans, H. J. A., Mulder, M., & Chizari, M. (2012). Argumentation-Based Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (ABCSCL): A synthesis of 15 years of research. Educational Research Review, 7(2), 79-106. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2011.11.006
  13. Panadero, E., Kirschner, P. A., Järvelä, S., Malmberg, J., & Järvenoja, H. (2015). How Individual SelfRegulation Affects Group Regulation and Performance: A Shared Regulation Intervention. Small Group Research, 46(4), 431-454. doi: 10.1177/1046496415591219
  14. Pifarre, M., & Cobos, R. (2010). Promoting metacognitive skills through peer scaffolding in a CSCL environment. International Journal of ComputerSupported Collaborative Learning, 5(2), 237-253. doi: 10.1007/s11412-010-9084-6
  15. Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & Mckeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and Predictive Validity of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (Mslq). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53(3), 801-813. doi: 10.1177/0013164493053003024
  16. Solimeno, A., Mebane, M. E., Tomai, M., & Francescato, D. (2008). The Influence of Students and Teachers Characteristics on the Efficacy of Face-to-Face and Computer Supported Collaborative Learning. Computers & Education, 51(1), 109-128.
  17. van der Pol, J., Admiraal, W., & Simons, P. R. J. (2006). The affordance of anchored discussion for the collaborative processing of academic texts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(3), 339-357. doi: 10.1007/s11412-006-9657-6
  18. Vogel, F., Wecker, C., Kollar, I., & Fischer, F. (2016). Socio-Cognitive Scaffolding with ComputerSupported Collaboration Scripts: a Meta-Analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 1-35. doi: 10.1007/s10648-016-9361-7
  19. Webb, N. M., Franke, M. L., De, T., Chan, A. G., Freund, D., Shein, P., & Melkonian, D. K. (2009). 'Explain to your partner': teachers' instructional practices and students' dialogue in small groups. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39(1), 49-70. doi: 10.1080/03057640802701986
Download


Paper Citation


in Harvard Style

Natsis A., Papadopoulos P. and Obwegeser N. (2017). Student Groups as Tutors in Information Systems Education - Students’ Perspectives on Collaboration and Outcomes . In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Education - Volume 2: CSEDU, ISBN 978-989-758-240-0, pages 37-45. DOI: 10.5220/0006286700370045


in Bibtex Style

@conference{csedu17,
author={Antonis Natsis and Pantelis M. Papadopoulos and Nikolaus Obwegeser},
title={Student Groups as Tutors in Information Systems Education - Students’ Perspectives on Collaboration and Outcomes},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Education - Volume 2: CSEDU,},
year={2017},
pages={37-45},
publisher={SciTePress},
organization={INSTICC},
doi={10.5220/0006286700370045},
isbn={978-989-758-240-0},
}


in EndNote Style

TY - CONF
JO - Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Education - Volume 2: CSEDU,
TI - Student Groups as Tutors in Information Systems Education - Students’ Perspectives on Collaboration and Outcomes
SN - 978-989-758-240-0
AU - Natsis A.
AU - Papadopoulos P.
AU - Obwegeser N.
PY - 2017
SP - 37
EP - 45
DO - 10.5220/0006286700370045