Abstract:

Eighty-three percent of first year college students and ninety-four percent of seniors make class presentations, while an equivalent number work with classmates outside of class to prepare class assignments (National Survey of Student Engagement, 2007). Group projects have the means to provide increased student understanding of content and instructor related advantages including multiple perspectives and pooled efforts (Young & Henquinet, 2000). The process of presenting acts as reinforcement for learning that will oftentimes motivate presenters towards adequate preparation and information grounding. When students are given the opportunity to produce a tangible product or demonstrate something to an audience, their willingness to put forth quality increases (McTighe, 1996). From an instructor’s standpoint, presentations provide an alternative means for students to demonstrate their competency vested in a culminating course project. Students are able to demonstrate meaningful, multidimensional tasks via authentic means. There are problems associated with group work that arise, however. Some are tied into intra-group dynamics, whereas others are contributed to the scheduling and locale logistics characteristic of 15-20 students with 15-20 different daily agendas.

This research explores cooperative approaches to group project and presentation assignment processes in undergraduate, PK-12 teacher education courses, and the use of computer mediated communication (CMC) to increase group productivity and satisfaction. Six sections of an educational technology course in a large Midwestern university were assigned an end of semester group presentation project on discipline specific technology integration. The groups in four sections were given specific criteria and encouragement on the use of CMC to facilitate the group-work process, while two sections were not. Based upon responses to a questionnaire, significant differences were noted among the groups in regards to satisfaction with the presentation, and the perception that this CMC criterion-base presentation experience was more positive.

References:

McTighe, J. (1996). What happens between assessments? Educational Leadership, 54 (4), 6-12.

National Survey of Student Engagement. (2007). Experiences that matter: Enhancing student learning and success. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University, Center for Postsecondary Research.

Young, C.B., & Henquinet, J.A. (2000). A conceptual framework for designing group projects. Journal of Education for Business, 76 (1), 56-60.

Keywords:

E-cooperative, Computer Mediated Communication, CMC, Group, Student, Project, Online, Asynchronous.