The Learning Activity

While you read this section , please think about and comment upon:

1. Without worrying to much about the problems they state (computer jargon) do you think the problem they set is well worded and likely to motivate a student to resolve it , comment on it? Can you think of a better question format?

Critique: The learning activity

Throughout the paper the authors have used introduction sentences to good effect. This is no exception, describing as it does how the rest of the section unfolds. The writers also refer again and bring us back to the collaborative, outcome based learning theory they adopt when they talk of the activities needing to ‘meaningfully apply content in an authentic way (Oliver & Omari, 1999).

The figures presented are essential to the conceptualization of their research and although they would have benefitted from a little more explanation, perhaps with arrows to point out key areas, they are clear enough to the reader. Additionally the figures do relate to the text and are not out of place.

The writers refer to text books each of the cohorts uses as a foundation , citing this would have been useful , or at least showing it clearly in the references would have been useful. Referring back again to the ‘ill-structures’ (Oliver & Omari, 1999), problems is a good organizational device, it reminds us of the grounding of the theoretical background to the research.

The authors refer to scaffolding and how this supports task completion. I think they missed an interesting opportunity to discuss how a problem-based collaborative methodology sits well with scaffolding. The focus questions they develop may be acting as the scaffolding although they don’t state this and peer support, collaboration and feedback may help with self-efficacy (Lin, 1999) which could lead to motivation in completing the task. It may also have been useful to discuss how scaffolding and guided questions may work against the ‘ill-structured’ methodology behind the problem –based question formation. It seems to me these would enhance one another, and may be a factor in how the learners develop their answers, especially as they will know that their peers are also ranking them over the course in terms of problem-solving capabilities. Related to this we do not know whether these grades go towards a final mark or act as a self-grade, this may affect extrinsic motivation on the collaborative tasks if they know it goes towards a final grade or that they are performing for their peers (Schunk, Pintrich, Meece, 2002).

In the final part of this section the writers talk of ‘interesting contrasts’ (Oliver & Omari, 1999) between the two classes. These contrasts, although not part of the research specifically, would be useful to know, especially as the writers are grounding their research in socially constructive theory. How each cohort manages the problem and the collaboration would inform how to adapt this course in the future, and at minimum inform future tutors of the course the diversity of problem-solving tasks to expect.

This section is successful in going into more detail about the research problem. It clearly shows the website layout in the figures and we understand better the context of the groups and the problems set, with an example answer to refer to. Some development of educational points raised is lacking that I feel would have informed us more about the issues they faced.