You are here:

How do Virtual Teams Collaborate in Online Learning Tasks in a MOOC? ARTICLE

, Maastricht University, School of Health Professions Education ; , , ,

IRRODL Volume 19, Number 4, ISSN 1492-3831 Publisher: Athabasca University Press

Abstract

Modern learning theories stress the importance of student-centered and self-directed learning. Problem-Based Learning (PBL) supports this by focusing on small group learning centered around authentic problems. PBL, however, usually relies heavily on face-to-face team collaboration and tutor guidance. Yet, when applied in online/blended environments, such elements may not be feasible or even desirable. This study explores how virtual teams collaborate in online learning tasks in the context of a nine-week Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) where international, virtual teams worked on PBL-like tasks. Twenty-one self-formed teams were observed. An inductive thematic analysis resulted in five themes: 1) team formation and team composition, 2) team process (organization and leadership), 3) approach to task work (task division and interaction), 4) use of tools, and 5) external factors (MOOC design and interaction with others). Overall findings revealed that online, virtual teams can collaborate on learning tasks without extensive guidance, but this requires additional communication and technological skills and support. Explicit discussion about group organization and task work, a positive atmosphere, and acceptance of unequal contributions seem to be positive factors. Additional support is required to prepare participants for virtual team work, develop digital literacy, and stimulate more elaborate brainstorming and discussion.

Citation

Verstegen, D., Dailey-Hebert, A., Fonteijn, H., Clarebout, G. & Spruijt, A. (2018). How do Virtual Teams Collaborate in Online Learning Tasks in a MOOC?. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(4),. Athabasca University Press. Retrieved October 17, 2018 from .

View References & Citations Map

References

  1. Ahn, J., Butler, B.S., Alam, A., & Webster, S.A. (2013). Learner participation and engagement in open
  2. Barber, W., King, S., & Buchanan, S. (2015). Problem based learning and authentic assessment in digital pedagogy: Embracing the role of collaborative communities. Electronic Journal of eLearning, 13(2), 59-67. Retreived from www.ejel.org
  3. Barrows, H.S., & Tamblyn, R.M. (1980). Problem-based learning: An approach to medical education. New York, NY: Springer.
  4. Bergman, E., De Feijter, J., Frambach, J., Godefrooij, M., Slootweg, I., Stalmeijer, R., & VanDer Zwet,J. (2012). AM last page: A guide to research paradigms relevant to medical education. Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 87(4), 545.
  5. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101..
  6. Clark, D. (2016). MOOCs: Course completion is wrong measure. Retrieved from http://donaldclarkplanb.blogspot.nl/2016/02/moocs-course-completion-is-wrongmeasure.html
  7. Cormier, D., & Siemens, G. (2010). Through the open door: Open courses as research, learning, and engagement. EDUCAUSE Review, 45(4), 30-39. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/through-open-door-open-courses-research-learningand-engagement
  8. De Freitas, S.I., Morgan, J., & Gibson, D. (2015). Will MOOCs transform learning and teaching in
  9. Dolmans, D.H.J.M., de Grave, W., Wolfhagen, I.H.A.P., & Vander Vleuten, C.P.M. (2005).
  10. Evans, B.J., Baker, R.B., & Dee, T.S. (2016). Persistence patterns in massive open online courses (MOOCs). Journal of Higher Education, 87, 206-242.
  11. Hayashi, S., Tsunekawa, K., Inoue, C., & Fukuzawa, Y. (2013). Comparison of tutored group with
  12. Hollands, F.M, & Tirthali, D. (2014). MOOCs: Expectations and reality. Full report. New York, NY:
  13. Littlejohn, A., Hooda, N., Milligan, C., & Mustain, P. (2016). Learning in MOOCs: Motivations and self-regulated learning in MOOCs. Internet and Higher Education, 29, 40-48.
  14. Veletsianos, G., & Shepherdson, P. (2016). A systematic analysis and synthesis of the empirical MOOC literature published in 2013-2015. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(2), 198-221. Doi: dx.doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v17i2.2448.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact info@learntechlib.org.