The TEC Model of Online Collaborative Learning
Miri Shonfeld
Kibbutzim College of Education & Mofet Institute
Israel
mirish@macam.ac.il
Elaine Hoter
Talpiot College of Education & Mofet Institute
Israel
elaine@talpiot.ac.il
Asmaa Ganayem
Mofet Institute & Al-Qasemi College of Education
Israel
asmaa@qsm.ac.il
Abstract: The current study investigates changes in group cohesion and collaboration in an
online environment using the TEC (Trust building in an Online Collaborative Environment) model.
The TEC model provides a template for gradual contact and collaboration in small heterogeneous
groups in online environments. Data was collected from a one year online college course which
included students from 8 different teacher education colleges representing different cultural groups
in Israel (Arabs and Jews). The course used both synchronous and a-synchronous platforms and the
assignments were carried out in small multicultural groups. Results show significant improvement
in cohesiveness and collaboration within the small work groups.
Introduction
"Collaborative learning" existed before the internet era, and much before computerized learning. At the
beginning of the 20th century, Dewey (1916) pointed out the importance of group study and the value
of collaborative learning. This observation was echoed many decades later by Vygotsky (1978).
Researchers of social psychology conducted studies at the turn of the 20th century which indicated the
added value of the group as opposed to the individual. The average cumulative product of the group
was greater than that of the individual. Later on, work began on group assignments based on problemsolving studies (PBL) and the advantages of collaborative learning as opposed to competitive learning
(Webb & Sullivan Palinscar, 2001)
In their wake, social presence, defined as the students' ability to efficiently create a research
community, was examined (Rourke, Anderson, Garrison, & Archer, 2001). From there it became clear
that learning, research, community and cooperation, impact on each other in an effective learning
arena. Vigotsky (1978) relates to these interactions by asserting that learning develops in a social
setting, and formulation of ideas comes through language and speech. He found that children working
in a group regulate each other's actions. Gerdy (1998) further commented that good learning, as is good
work, is collaborative and social, not competitive and isolated. Collaboration and mutual give-and-take
advance thinking and increase understanding.
The Social Identity Model of Deindividuation Effects (SIDE) (Postmes et al., 1998 ; Reicher et
al.,1995) presents a theoretical framework that explains how CMC (Computer-mediated
communication) triggers different identification processes as a consequence of participants’ anonymity
in online interaction. SIDE posits that anonymity leads to depersonalization and de-individuation,
which increases participants’ awareness of social categories, if they are made obvious during an online
group interaction. SIDE theorists have suggested that high prominence of group membership in
anonymous, text-based CMC would magnify social attraction toward the in-group, and at the same
time increase negative responses toward the out-group. Research on intergroup dynamics in CMC
showed inconsistent results (Walter & Carr, 2010)
Over time, as groups collaborate, they tend to communicate socio-emotional messages and become
more cohesive. Early CMC research argued that CMC inhibits or blocks the expression of socioemotional messages (because there are no nonverbal cues). Walther’s (1992) social information
processing theory explains how CMC users adapt socio-emotional messages to online language and its
research has shown that, in this way, online cohesiveness develops over time. Both cohesiveness and
collaboration are identified as co-determinants of group productivity and affective responses of group
members. (Dailey 1977).
Collaborative learning has attained considerable importance in education, in that it relates to the
reciprocity between the student and his environment, and allows each student to express himself within
a group while concurrently supporting social interaction within that group. Studies on collaborative
learning in education, both in the psychological and business administration fields, focus on the
interrelationships of the group participants, their individual accomplishments, as well as the group
product. This allows educators to refine teaching methods and collaborative learning structures (Resta
& Carrol, 2010).
In a paper written in the United States, leading teacher-training administrators recommended that
students be trained for teaching by effectively participating as members of a working staff (Resta &
Carrol, 2009). The recommendation, as it appears in the paper, is based on a vision in which there are
learning groups of new teachers, experienced teachers, students and communal experts, working
together in an environment combining online learning and classroom study. Consequently, schools
become learning centers within a study network. Such environments are part of the global work
structure, and the educational system is preparing students to be proficient in such a setting. Studies
have shown that heterogeneous groups produce more varied results than homogeneous ones. Such
groups are formed these days via the internet and comprise students from various countries (Jhen,
Northcraft, & Neale, 1999).
Collaborative learning has been found to increase the involvement of the student (Shonfeld, Resta &
Yaniv, 2010), thus enhancing his ability to study. This assumes that the teacher cannot simply convey
ready knowledge - the student must actively make the connection in his mind (Barkley, Cross &
magor, 2005). Collaborative learning also appears as one of the seven principles of good experiences in
learning (Chickering & Ehrman, 1996). It seems that in order to succeed in the information age, it is
necessary, in almost every area, to know how to work in groups. The topics are complex, and each
person has expertise in a different area, so that group learning produces more varied results.
In the wake of online learning, a wave of studies appeared, but most of them related to elementary and
high school populations. Very few studies relate to higher education (Barkley at al., 2005), maybe
because higher education generally does not have a uniform curriculum, and lecturers have the
autonomy to teach individual programs. Also, the approach to studies in these institutions is based
mainly on personal achievements of the students. However, in the last decade, collaborative learning in
higher education has gained more importance because it provides students with the necessary skills for
the workplace of the future, in which many companies utilize working groups.
The TEC Center at the Mofet Institute uses the TEC model as a pedagogical platform for online
teaching in a multi-cultural environment, with collaborative learning serving as a basis for study and
development. Collaborative learning is presented in the model as a factor that develops over the year of
study (Hoter, Shonfeld & Ganayem, 2012). It is similar to the model suggested by Salmons (2008), and
which ranks collaborative learning by several grades of cooperation. The first stage begins with a
dialogue followed by an evaluation of colleagues. These two levels express mutual support but not
actual collaborative work. There are also two levels of collaborative work, the first one being parallel
cooperation, in which each student does his part, with the sum of the parts creating the entire puzzle.
Only after the student has gone through the aforementioned stages, can he reach the final goal of
synergetic cooperation. At the highest level of cooperation, the students are dependent upon each other
for the success of the assignment. They discuss and solve dilemmas together and the final product is a
result of complete cooperation. Of course, the participants must go through preparation processes and
the various previously mentioned stages, in order to succeed in synergetic work.
The programs of the Center for Technology and Multiculturalism suggest projects which take place in
advanced technological environments, and which lead to study and discussion among groups of
lecturers, teachers, and students from different cultures in Israeli society: Religious, secular, Jews and
Arabs. The projects include conferences, courses, and workshops taking place in a technological
environment, with synchronous and non-synchronous collaborative learning. Development of projects
and learning-units within a multicultural environment are also included. During the course of study,
collaborative technologies such as blogs, wiki, social networks, virtual spheres, and others are utilized.
The courses are conducted according to the TEC model which was developed by the originators and
administrators of the Center (Hoter, Shonfeld, & Ganayem, 2009), and which is based on gradual
development of the relationship among the participants: In the first stage, communication takes place
via texts; in the second stage it is auditory; in the third stage the online visual aspect is added; in the
final stage, face to face meeting occurs. The program is designed for the professional development of
teachers and students, as well as the promotion of teaching and collaborative learning in an online
environment.
Methodology
The research was done within the framework of the "Advanced Teaching Environments" course, in
which students from eight teacher education colleges learned progressive teaching methods, and
developed collaborative tasks in multicultural groups. The students studied synchronously (using the
Elluminate program) and with the a-synchronous program Moodle. The group and collaborative work
was done in small groups, with an average of 6 members per group. In most of the groups the students
were from different colleges. The students were divided into 17 subject groups, and were requested to
choose a work group in which there was no other student from the same college. The subjects were
relevant topics for study such as: Special populations, English, stories for children, and others. The
collaborative work took place solely in an online environment, using a designated forum for each
group.
During the course, the students were exposed to internet tools and programs that contribute to the
integration of ICT (information and communication technology) in pedagogy and learning, and mainly
online cooperation such as Voicethread (www.voicethread.com) , Mindomo (www.mindomo.com) ,
Voki, virtual spheres, development, etc. The students were required to get the feel of doing exercises
and implementing these tools in the framework of disciplinary topics, chosen from the areas of
knowledge with which they engage in their college. They were expected to carry out group tasks where
communication and discussion groups were conducted in the learning environment set out in the
course, as described above.
The assignments reflect the levels of cooperation, which steadily increase throughout the year.
Ultimately, the students meet face-to-face twice during the year, at the end of the first and second
semesters. The meeting in the first semester is part of the collaborative sequence and a continuation of
the teamwork, whereas the end-of-the-year meeting is designed as a festive summary with a view to the
future, as the graduates will take their turn continuing and applying the model in their own
environment.
The course was accompanied by a research project, so the students were required to answer a
questionnaire at the end of each semester. The questionnaire was disseminated online in Hebrew and
Arabic, and the students were asked to fill it out within two weeks of the date of distribution. The
current research compares the results of the questionnaire at the end of the first semester with those at
end of the school year. The first questionnaire was answered by 69 students and the second by 58
students, where 58 were the same students.
The questionnaire contained two background questions relating to the institutional affiliation and the
name of the work group. Additionally, there was a set of statements assessing the student's attitude to
the group, the group work, and the group cohesion, modeled after the Wang questionnaire (Wang et al.,
2009). This in turn was based on various studies and questionnaires (Piper et al., 1983; Evans & Jarvis,
1986; Seashore, 1954; Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1998; Spears and Lea, 1992), as follows:
"How do you feel in the subject group? On a scale of 1-5, grade your agreement with the following
statements." The questionnaire contained 15 statements, each of which had to be graded. (1 = don't
agree at all,till 5 = agree very much).
The statements:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
I am interested in my group.
I am not satisfied with my group.
There is a feeling of cohesion in the group.
The members of my group are more in sync than other groups.
The group participants are well-suited to one another.
My group participants helped each other with assignments more than other groups.
My group is unique.
The group members are different from each other.
The group members get along well compared to other groups.
I don't feel part of the group.
I see myself as a member of the group.
By and large, the members of the group are trustworthy.
I can rely on the group members with whom I work.
Generally we were considerate of the group members' feelings.
The members of my group are not reliable.
Results
It was found that the feeling of cooperation increased from semester A' to semester B'. In a check of the
reliability of the 15 statements as an indicator of group cohesiveness, it was found that the statements
were very reliable as a group cohesiveness indicator 0.886. The findings showed that group
cohesiveness increased from the questionnaire at the end of semester A' (N=69, M=3.80) till the one at
the end of semester B' (N=58, M=4.09). There is a distinct difference in group cohesiveness (P>0.001)
Descriptive Statistics
N
Minimum Maximum Mean
Std.
Deviation
g_mean_2_no_8
69
1.85
4.92 3.8016
.64647
g_mean_3_no_8
58
2.54
5.00 4.0942
.69404
Valid N
(listwise)
48
No differences were found among groups of different cultures as far as their attitude to collaborative
work in a heterogeneous group.
Discussion and Conclusion
Diverse online groups do not automatically become cohesive units when working together. This
research shows that when certain conditions are met, namely small groups of about 6 members carrying
out joint online collaborative activities, where the activities progress gradually in the amount of
collaboration required and the technologies used, as well as the academic demands on the students,
then cohesion between the group members becomes stronger.
Further research is needed to ascertain which of the requirements of the TEC model are fundamental in
increasing cohesiveness within the groups.
Bibliography
Chickering, A, W., and Zelda F. G. (1987). Seven Principles for Good Practice. AAHE Bulletin 39: 3-7
Dewey, J. (1916), Democracy and Education: an introduction to the philosophy of education,
NewYork, Macmillan
Dailey R.C. (1977). The Effects of Cohesiveness and Collaboration on Work Groups: A Theoretical
Model. Group Organization Management vol. 2 no. 4, 461-469
Evans C. R., & Jarvis, P. A. (1986) The group attitude scale: A measure of attraction to group. Small
Group Behavior, 17, 203-216.
Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Leidner, D. E. (1998). Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, 3(4). Retrieved March 16, 2004 from
http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol3/issue4/jarvenpaa.html
Gerdy, K. (1998). If Socrates only knew: expanding law class discourse. CALI Conference on Law
School Computing, Chicago, Illinois.
Jehn, K., Northcraft, G. & Neale, M. 1999. Why differences make a difference: A field study of
diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44: 741763.
Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, F. P. (2012). Joining Together: Group Theory and Group Skills. NJ, US:
Prentice-Hall
Ministry of Education. (2011). Adapting the Educational System to the 21st Century. Retrieved
October 1st, 2011 from:
http://cms.education.gov.il/EducationCMS/Units/MadaTech/englishsifria/AdaptingtheEducation
Systemtothe21Century/Vision_and_rationale.htm
Hoter, E., Shonfeld, M., & Ganayem, A. (2009). ICT in the service of multiculturalism. The
International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, Vol 10(2). Retrieved April
30, 2009, from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/601/1207
Piper, W. E., Marrache, M., Lacrois, R., Richardson, A. M., & Jones, B. D. (1983). Cohesion as a basic
bond in groups. Human Relations, 36, 93-108.
Postmes , T. , Spears , R. , & Lea , M. ( 1998 ). Breaching or building social boundaries? SIDE-effects
in computer-mediated communication . Communication Research , 25 , 689 – 715.
Postmes , T. , Spears , R. , & Lea , M. ( 2002 ). Intergroup differentiation in computer-mediated
communication: effects of depersonalization . G roup Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice
, 6 , 3 – 16 .
Reicher , S. D. , Spears , R. , & Postmes , T. ( 1995 ). A social identity model of deindividuation
phenomena . European Review of Social Psychology , 6 , 161 – 198 .
Rourke, L.; Anderson, T.; Garrison, D. R.; Archer, W. (2001). Assessing Social Presence in
Asynchronous Text-based Computer Conferencing. Journal of Distance Education , 14(2), 5071
Shonfeld, M. Resta, P. &Yaniv, H. (2011). Engagement and Social Presence in a Virtual Worlds
(Second Life) Learning Environment. Proceedings of SITE, Nashville, USA.
Palloff, R, M, & Patt, K. (2005). Collaborating Online: Learning Together in Communities. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Resta, P., Carroll, T. (2010). Redefining Teacher Education for Digital-Age Learners: A Call to Action,
The Summary Report of the Invitational Summit on Redefining Teacher Education for DigitalAge Learners. Austin, Texas: The University of Texas at Austin Learning Technology Center.
Shonfeld, M., Hoter, E., & Ganayem, A. (In Press). Connecting Cultures in Conflict through ICT in
Israel. In R. S. P. Austin & W. J. Hunter (Eds.), Linking Schools: Online Learning and
Community Cohesion. Routledge.
Seashore, S. E. (1954). Group cohesiveness in the industrial work group. Ann Arbor, MI: Survey
Research Institute for Social Research
Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1992). Social influence and the influence of the 'social' in computer-mediated
communication. In M. Lea (Ed.), Contexts of computer-mediated communication (pp. 30-65).
Hertfordshire, England: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Walther , J. B. , & Carr , C. T. ( 2010 ). Internet interaction and intergroup dynamics . In H. Giles , S.
Reid , & J. Harwood (Eds.), T he dynamics of intergroup communication (pp. 209– 2 20) . New
York, NY: Peter Lang.
Walther, J. B. (in press). Groups and computer-mediation. In Amichai-Hamburger, Y. (Ed.), The social
net (2nd ed.). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Wang, Z., Walther, J. B. and Hancock, J. T. (2009), Social Identification and Interpersonal
Communication in Computer-Mediated Communication: What You Do Versus Who You Are in
Virtual Groups. Human Communication Research, 35: 59–85
Webb, N. M. & Palincsar, A. S. ( 1996). Group Process in the Classroom. In Berliner, D. C. & Calfee,
R. C. (Eds.). Handbook of Educational Psychology (pp. 842-873). NY: Macmillan Library
Reference USA.