Home PublicationsJRTEPast IssuesVolume 28 Number 5

Edited by Diane McGrath

Volume 28 Number 5 Summer 1996

Peer Collaboration in a Hypermedia Learning Environment

National-Louis University

Abstract

This article describes peer collaboration among middle school students using HyperCard to design multimedia research reports about mammals as part of the science curriculum. The study identifies eight factors that facilitated the development of a collaborative culture in this technology-intensive classroom: exploration, teaching on a need-to-know basis, mastery-oriented help-seeking and help-giving, teacher as facilitator of peer collaboration, student experts, teacher as co-learner, peer assessment, sense of audience, and sense of community.

To view a version of this article formatted for printing click here for Text-only Version.

Introduction

Theoretical Framework

Perkins (1986) suggests that one way to make schooling constructivist is to recast learning as a process of design. Students can design learning activities for peers or younger students, documentaries for local media, or exhibits for museums. Technology is a natural tool for engaging students in design projects. Recent studies (Brown & Campione, 1990; Harel & Papert, 1991; Kafai & Harel, 1991; Lehrer, Erickson, & Connell, 1992; Turner & Dipinto, 1992) have demonstrated that both hypermedia and Logo are ideal environments for implementing Perkins' conception of learning through design.

Philosophically, learning through design is grounded in constructivism. As designers, students are empowered to construct their understanding of the content and to communicate it to others. Students become "novice epistemologists "--young scientists and young historians--not simply consumers of the analysis of the work of such people (Harel & Papert, 1991). Learning results from classroom interactions as students accomplish a meaningful task. The role of the teacher is to assist students in understanding how to conduct research, what constitutes evidence and knowledge, and how to communicate effectively.

The literature on constructivism (e.g., Driver, 1988) points out the importance of social factors on learning. Learning is not an individual activity, it is a social activity during which understanding is developed through interactions among peers and between students and teacher. Researchers have found that computer-oriented activities increase the level of peer interaction (Hawkins, Sheingold, Gearhart & Berger, 1982) and lead to a more cooperative social structure in the classroom (Brown & Campione, 1990). Computer use in the classroom helps teachers shift their role from a traditional lecture-recitation-seatwork model of instruction to a more constructivist approach dependent on student collaboration and peer teaching (Ringstaff, Sandholz, & Dwyer, 1991).

Purpose of the Study

• How is collaboration encouraged, facilitated, and taught?
• What are the benefits of peer collaboration? What is its impact on student learning?
• What are the negative aspects of collaboration?

Project Description

The Hypermedia Zoo is an ongoing curriculum project integrating technology into the seventh-grade science curriculum. During the last four years each class of seventh-graders has learned to use HyperCard (1987-1995) to design multimedia research reports about mammals. They worked in the school's Macintosh lab for 45-minute sessions three times a week for approximately ten weeks. The middle school science teacher, one of the researchers, taught the students how to use HyperCard, the scanner, and the videodisc player; showed them how to make their own QuickTime (1989-1996) movies; took them on field trips to the zoo; and guided them as they researched mammals and developed their own stacks. The students learned HyperCard authoring and multimedia skills, but HyperCard was a means to an end, not the end itself. The technology became the medium for expression, the vehicle for presenting what they had learned about their mammal.

The school. The school, with 300 students in grades K-8, is known for its innovative, student-centered curriculum. It is affiliated with a local university and serves as an observation and practice teaching site for students in the university's teacher education programs. The middle school curriculum is integrated; however, classes are held in specific content areas. The majority of middle school students have been enrolled in the school since first grade; they know each other and the teachers well. They have the same science teacher for grades 6, 7, and 8, and the science teacher is also the advisor for some students during all three years of middle school. Thus, the science teacher and seventh-grade students have an established relationship of at least a year's duration and that extends beyond the classroom. Since their early years at the school, the students have been asked to keep journals or write essays reflecting on their learning experiences. These reflective essays continue to be a means of self-assessment throughout the middle school years.

The teacher and students.

The science teacher has been using computers in the classroom since he began teaching 15 years ago. He is committed to integrating technology into his teaching and stays up to date with new technologies and software. All the students have extensive prior experience with computers at school and most have computers at home. Typically, their written work for school is word processed. In earlier grades the students use commercial hypermedia and multimedia software, created HyperStudio (1993-1996) stacks on the Apple IIGS, and use the Internet to communicate with other students around the world.

The computer lab.
The equipment in the Macintosh laboratory changeded during the four years of the study, but, in general there were enough computers for each student (except during the first year); a graphics scanner; and several videodisc players, printers, and microphones. In the last two years students also used camcorders and a video-digitizing card to make their own QuickTime (1989-1996) movies. Three videodiscs containing motion sequences of more than 90 mammals in their natural habitats were available.

The environment.
The learning environment was one in which the students were allowed flexibility and freedom within well-defined limits. They were encouraged to consult and discuss with classmates, help one another, and walk around to see what others were doing. The teacher rarely instructed the class as a group. Instead he taught on a need-to-know basis in small groups and with individual students. Usually the instruction took the form of a dialog in which both the teacher and the students asked and responded to questions. With the teacher's attention focused on these discussions, the rest of the students had to rely on each other for assistance. The students could not depend on a book or handouts to help them recall the basics of HyperCard (1987-1995) because none were provided. With none of the traditional sources of support (teacher, book, or handouts), support from peers became a survival strategy.

The collaborative process.
The collaborative process can be defined in many different ways. In some collaborative situations students work together as a group to plan and implement a common project. In our study, however, students worked on individual projects while helping each other solve common problems. We use the term collaboration to describe peer interactions that support mutual learning. Regardless of the definition or the final product, it is the process that is essential.

Methodology and Data Sources

This study used a qualitative research paradigm. Three sources of data were examined: participant observations, teacher interviews, and written student reflections.

Participant observations.

During most of the sessions one of the researchers observed individuals or pairs of students for 5-10 min each on a rotating basis. The observations focused on students' interactions with each other, with the software, and with the teacher. During the fourth year, selected sessions were videotaped and transcribed.

Teacher interviews.

The observing researcher interviewed the teaching researcher briefly and informally several times during the unit and extensively at the conclusion of the unit.

Student reflections.
Once every 2 or 3 weeks, the teacher asked the students to write a paragraph reflecting on what they had learned that week as they worked on their HyperCard (1987-1995) mammals project. Students also wrote a final reflective essay after they had completed their projects. In the final essay, students responded to questions about how it felt to give help to and receive help from other students and about their interactions with the teacher

Analysis.
For initial analysis, the data from all three sources were entered into a qualitative analysis software program. Themes were identified and refined through a recursive process of chunking and coding. In particular, observation notes and student reflections related to the main research questions were tagged and grouped in order to identify subthemes.

Of the two researchers, one was a teacher researcher and the other a participant observer. The teacher researcher was responsible for all aspects of the instruction: planning the curriculum, establishing the learning environment, interacting with the students, and assessing their work. The observing researcher was responsible for observing and taking notes during classroom interactions. Her interaction with students was very limited, although she did respond when a student asked her a question directly or became frustrated with a technical problem. The two researchers collaborated as equal partners in planning the research, analyzing and interpreting the data, and writing.

Findings and Discussion

**Editor's Note: The data are shown in two different ways. By clicking on a major topic heading (How is Peer Collaboration Encouraged..., What are the Benefits..., What are the Negative...) you may see both teacher and student data for that topic. Or, you may see only Teacher Reflections, (or Student Reflections, or Student Essays) for all major topics by clicking on the buttons to the left.

Our findings represent a synthesis of what we have observed with four different groups of learners over four years. They are organized around the main questions that motivated the study. In general, there was high qualitative correlation among the three sources of data. That is, most of the findings are supported by multiple data sources.

Click on each of the items above to view more information.

• Exploration.
• Teaching on a need-to-know basis.
• Mastery-oriented help seeking and help giving.
• Teacher as facilitator of peer collaboration.
• Student experts.
• Teacher as colearner.
• Peer assessment.
• Sense of audience.
• Sense of community.

Exploration.
The teacher encouraged active, individual exploration in HyperCard (1987-1995) from the start. This exploration stage was instrumental in establishing multiple kinds of expertise among the members of the class. By exploring on their own, the middle school students in this study learned "a lot of neat things," and that knowledge gave them prestige among their peers. Knowledge became a commodity to be exchanged and shared. And because that knowledge was fairly evenly distributed among the students, it contributed to their feeling that the group was a community of learners. In their written reflections, students recognized the benefits of exploration:

Bev: Today HyperCard seemed to be a "discovery day." Students discovered things worthy of questions, features of HyperCard (visual effects, scripting) and how different things happened. They wondered about effects and questioned how they came about and how they could be done again, after discovering the answers to these questions themselves.

Clare: Instead of telling us everything like most teachers, you let us figure it out. Even though there were some things you wouldn't let us do, I think that letting us get totally screwed up and then find our way out of a really stupid situation might teach us more than you think.

Mastery-oriented help seeking and help giving.
Students frequently asked each other for help and were enthusiastic about sharing information. During the first year, a couple of students assumed the role of self-appointed peer teachers, but they tended to take over the keyboard and do whatever was needed for their classmate rather than explaining how to do it. This form of help-giving was dependency oriented rather than mastery oriented (Nelson-Le Gall, 1992). Although it solved the student's immediate problem, it did not contribute to an understanding of the problem or the ability to solve it independently. In the following years the teacher set ground rules for giving help: a) the person seeking help should ask and b) the person giving help should not touch another person's keyboard, the person helping should talk him or her through the process instead. Students respected these rules and their future help-giving behaviors were predominantly mastery oriented.

Teacher as facilitator of peer collaboration.
The teacher explicitly encouraged students to consult and discuss with classmates, help each other, and walk around to see what others were doing. When he was busy with a student and saw several hands raised, he reminded students that if they had a question they could ask a classmate. Sometimes he referred a particular student to another or suggested that two students work together to solve a common problem. When a student did something unique or new, he announced to the class, "If you want to know how Evan did this, just ask him."

Student experts.
After the students gained initial HyperCard (1987-1995) skills, the teacher asked for volunteers to become experts on specific techniques: scanning, accessing the videodisc, recording audio, digitizing video. These students were responsible for teaching their classmates how to do these things and for troubleshooting any problems. In general, the students thought learning from their peers was effective and efficient, as shown in the following student comment::

Bridget: In my opinion, the HyperCard technology couldn't have been taught better, for it was taught in a way that the students were in charge of the learning. When a student really learned how to use the technology they knew it well enough to teach it to a fellow classmate.

Mr. D: Anybody, come here. Eric is having a problem and we need somebody who can help with some scripting.
Matt responds: What kind?
Mr. D: Eric, why don't you explain it? Thanks, Matt.
Mr. D leaves, and Matt and Eric work together for about 5 min. Eventually Matt discovers a problem with the syntax in a script.
Eric: Oh, it worked! Thank you very much. Thank you. That's wonderful.

Peer assessment. In the process of helping each other and sharing new discoveries, students also tried out each others' stacks and offered ideas and suggestions for improvements. In addition to this informal peer assessment, each student was required to ask a classmate to provide feedback on the stack using a form the class had developed together (Dipinto & Turner, 1995). Then students had an opportunity to revise their stacks based on their classmates' comments.

Sense of audience. Although there was no specific audience beyond the classroom for the students' projects, the peer group of classmates developed into a powerfully motivating audience. In addition, students could choose to show their projects in the school's science exposition or include it in their assessment portfolios. They were also aware that each year the teacher invited some students to demonstrate their stacks at local conferences and seminars for teachers.

Sense of community.
Both individually and collectively, the students and teacher acknowledged and valued the group as a community of learners. They were sensitive to each other's feelings and forgiving of mistakes. They felt a sense of responsibility to help as needed and a joint sense of self-esteem. One student described this sense of community eloquently:

Nick: The major good thing about the teaching method used is that it brought us together more as a class. This was simply because we had to rely on each other for help, as well as be responsible enough to help other people. It is a lot easier to come together as a community when you all have a common assignment with the same problems and things to do. You can relate to someone very well-conversations are had about how the QuickTime movie won't work on your stack for some reason or how you both have had disk problems with saving stacks.

What are the Benefits of Peer Collaboration and What is its Impact on Student Learning?

Students thought there was definite value in receiving help from their peers. They said they could work better in the relaxed atmosphere: "We could work and learn at our own pace." They thought that their peers gave more succinct and direct answers to their questions than the teacher did. They felt their classmates understood their problems because "they went through the same problems as I did" and that working with peers was "more fun" and "more relaxed" than working with the teacher. Another benefit of asking a classmate for help was that it was faster than "waiting forever for Mr. D to come around to help me." From the teacher's point of view, there were few discipline problems: "Rarely did I have to deal with classroom management issues."

Being able to help someone enhanced students' self-esteem, as several students articulated in their written reflections. For example:

Jon: Helping someone in the class made me feel good. I know that I started off being very dependent on the teacher and now I myself am helping a fellow student! That really shows that I've learned a lot.

JJ: In class when I was called on to help someone it felt very good. I felt like the boss for once. Helping them was fairly easy because in general they know what I was talking about which made my job easy. Being helped by people felt good, too, because they didn't put you down and say "Ha, ha, you don't know this!" but instead helped and opened new doors on the computer for you.

Another benefit of collaboration was that students shared interesting ideas with one another. Through their individual explorations, the students learned different things about HyperCard (1987-1995), and, thus, had new knowledge to share with their peers. The things they discovered caused them to think at a deeper level to analyze how HyperCard works. As one student wrote, students discovered things "worthy of questions" and then, through further exploration, discovered the answers to those questions themselves. Students were not just navigating through stacks, they were constructing their own understanding of HyperCard.

In addition, asking for help was sometimes a way of confronting their own questions that often helped them figure out the answers themselves. Conversely, explaining something to a friend gave students an opportunity to articulate what they knew and thus to understand it better. The following student comment illustrates this concept:

Larissa: I like how one classmate was not allowed to touch another classmate's keyboard when helping them. The explainer had to think things out and say things clearly instead of just showing them quickly on the keyboard. This helps the explainer improve his/her teaching and speaking skills and it helps the student in need improve his/her listening skills. . . . Each time I helped I learned something new.

Barbara: I liked to help people because I felt I wasn't alone doing the project; we shared some problems.

Katy: Mr D is helping us more with life skills than some of us may notice.

As the students began to take charge of their own learning, the teacher became more reflective of his own role--what it meant to be a facilitator and colearner and how that might apply to his teaching outside the computer lab.

On the other hand, peer collaboration had several negative aspects. Sometimes students got bad advice from a classmate. Also, students felt there was less opportunity for the teacher's time and attention. Some of the peer experts complained that they didn't have enough time to work on their own projects because they spent so much time helping others. Occasionally students became frustrated when they asked another student for help and no one could help them. Finally, a few students were more likely to ask for help than to be asked, and the collaborative environment contributed to their negative self-esteem. They felt embarrassed when they didn't know what to do or couldn't answer a classmate's question. Although this did not occur often, they expressed these feelings more frequently near the beginning of the collaborative process.

From the teacher's point of view, establishing a collaborative learning environment required much more time than traditional instruction. However, he preferred covering fewer topics in the science curriculum in greater depth. Teachers who have less flexibility or who are constrained by curriculum standards may not be able to devote the extra time to allow the collaborative culture to take root.

Conclusion

References

Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1990). Communities of learning and thinking, or a context by any other name.Contributions to Human Development, 21, 108-126.

Dipinto, V. M., & Turner, S. V. (1995). Zapping the hypermedia zoo: Assessing students' hypermedia projects. The Computing Teacher, 22 (7), 8-11.

Driver, R. (1988). Theory into practice II: A constructivist approach to curriculum development. In P. Fensham (Ed.), Development and dilemmas in science education. Bristol, PA: Taylor & Francis.

Harel, I., & Papert, S. (1991). Software design as a learning environment. In I. Harel & S. Papert (Eds.), Constructionism. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Hawkins, J., Sheingold, K., Gearhart, M., & Berger, C. (1982). Microcomputers in schools: Impact on the social life of elementary classrooms. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 3, 361-373.

HyperCard [Computer software]. (1987-1995). Cupertino, CA: Apple Computer, Inc.

HyperStudio [Computer software]. (1993-1996). El Cajon, CA: Roger Wagner Publishing, Inc.

Kafai, Y., & Harel, I. (1991). Learning through design and teaching: Exploring social and collaborative aspects of constructionism. In I. Harel & S. Papert (Eds.), Constructionism. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Lehrer, R., Erickson, J., & Connell, T. (1992, April). Assessing knowledge design. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.

Nelson-Le Gall, S. (1992). Children's instrumental help-seeking: Its role in the social acquisition and construction of knowledge. In R. Hertz-Lazarowitz & N. Miller (Eds.), Interaction in cooperative groups (pp. 49-68). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Perkins, D. N. (1986). Knowledge as design. Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.

QuickTime [Computer software]. (1989-1996). Cupertino, CA: Apple Computer, Inc.

Ringstaff, C., Sandholz, J. H., & Dwyer, D. C. (1991). Trading places: When teachers utilize student expertise in technology-intensive classrooms [Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow Report #15]. Cupertino, CA: Apple Computer, Inc.

Turner, S. V., & Dipinto, V. M. (1992). Students as hypermedia authors: Themes emerging from a qualitative study. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 25 (2), 187-199.

Contributors

Sandra V.Turner   

Dr. Sandra Turner is Professor in the Department of Technology in Education at National-Louis University. She teaches K-12 teachers who want to use technology more effectively in their own teaching. Her research interests include students's use of hypermedia as an authoring tool, fostering communities of learning among students and teachers, gender issues in education, and the changing role of teachers in technology-rich classrooms. Dr. Turner is co-author of software to support researchers in the analysis of qualitative data and of three books for computer-using teachers.

Since this article was written, Dr. Turner has taken a position at Ohio University as Professor of Technology in Teaching and Learning. (Address: College of Education, 119 McCracken Hall, Ohio University, Athens, OH 45701. E-mail: turners@oak.cats.ohiou.edu).

Vito M.Dipinto

Vito Dipinto is Assistant Professor in the College of Education of National-Louis University in Evanston, IL. He is also the middle school science teacher at the Baker Demonstration School of NLU. He brings to his middle school, undergrad, and graduate students his experiences as an organic chemist, puppeteer, jester, Montessori teacher, and twenty years of teaching kids. But foremost, he shares his wonder and curiosity about the universe. His research interests include examining how technology can help transform traditional roles for teachers and students, the use of performance art in the expression of scientific concepts, and designing and implementing a literature-based science curriculum that pays tribute to the women and men from many cultures whose creativity paves the road of scientific knowledge. (Address: College of Education, National-Louis University, 2840 Sheridan Rd., Evanston, IL 60201. Email: vdip@evan1.nlu.edu)

Design Team

Bryan Hixson

Bryan is a masters student in Educational Computing, Design, and Telecommunications at Kansas State University. Bryan's focus area is in visual communication and multimedia production. He currently works with The Kansas Rural Child Welfare Project as an instructional/graphic designer. This project produces multimedia training for social workers in the state of Kansas. Bryan received a BFA from Oklahoma State University in 1992 in graphic design with a minor in advertising. Since this project was completed, Bryan has taken a job at Advanced Systems Technology in Lawton, OK. E-mail: bhixson@astcorp.com.

Misook Ji

Misook is a doctoral candidate. She is currently working on her PhD in Educational Computing, Design, and Telecommunications at Kansas State University. She completed her Master's in Educational Computing at KSU in 1994. Misook is from the Seoul region of Korea. She graduated from Dankook University with a Bachelor's degree in mathematics education in 1986. Misook also works as a GTA in the College of Education at KSU. E-mail: msji@ksu.edu.

Copyright © 1996, ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education). All rights reserved.