ID Models that include Collaboration

Collaborative Design Model: Moallem, 2003
This is an interactive design model that focuses on interactivity to promote learning. According to Moallem (2003) there are two types of interactivity: cognitive or individual interaction (interaction with content) and social or interpersonal interaction (interactions between students and between students and teachers). This model emphasizes the vital role of human interaction in learning. Moallen (2003) states: “Emotions, feelings, motivation, and attitudes are integral parts of an intellectual and social development” (p. 86). The Collaborative Design Model supports problem based learning as a form of instructional procedure. Problem based learning transfers control of the learning process from the teacher to the students. Problem based learning structures and supports a carefully planned series of collaborative learning activities. “In such an environment learners are exposed to multiple perspectives that serve to form cognitive scaffolds as the students exchange information with each other, the people around them, and experts in the field” (Moallem, 2003, p. 86). Moallem’s model relies on McGrath and Hollingshead’s (1993) task classification theory: generate, choose, negotiate, execute. McGrath and Holligshead’s (1993) model predicts the effects of task and computer mediated communication on group performance. Learners generate plans, discussions, ideas; choose preferred answers or responses; negotiate conflicts and resolve indecisions; and execute the required intellectual or psychomotor tasks that are needed to accomplish the objectives. Based on this framework, Moallem’s (2003) Collaborative Design Model uses generative and intellective tasks for problem-solving: “Problem-based learning was used as the general instructional design model to develop both a culminating project (a real-world problem-solving task) and a series of authentic but generative and intellective problem-solving tasks or collaborative activities to organize the course content, as well as to structure students’ social interactions” (Moallem, 2003, p. 89). According to Moallem, this model establishes individual accountability; encourages commitment to the group and its goals; facilitates smooth interaction among group members at both an interpersonal and group levels; and also provides stability of groups so that group members can work with each other for longer periods of time in order to reduce the time and effort for establishing group norms, group task performance, and interaction patterns. “A successful, interactive and collaborative online course requires well-developed collaborative tasks or problems, or activities that stimulate peer interaction and encourage peer collaboration (Moallem, 2003, p. 99).

R2D2 Model, Bonk and Zhang, 2006
Read, Reflect, Display and Do
Based on Kolb’s (1984) effective learning phases of experiential learning: getting involved in concrete experiences; reflective listening and observations; creating an idea with an abstract coneptualization; and making decisions through active experimentations.
Different from other design models with same or similar names because this model focuses on the type of tasks, resources, and activites that one embeds in online course to address different human learning strengths and preferences or skills areas.
Integrates 4 types of learning activities: Reading/listening; Reflecting/writing; Displaying; Doing.
Similar to VARK but puts more emphasis on Reflective activities.
Reading/Listening: (learning activities) Reading materials and information searches, Online discussions, group discussions, presentations, Guest expert chats, Online tutorials, webinars, audio files, video files, meetings in chatrooms, online brainstorming online testing, webquests, scavenger hunts: (Technologies) Announcements, Q&A, FAQs, Breeze, Elluminate Live, IM, Chat, Bulletin Boards, Listservs, podcasts, Webcasts, captivate
Reflection: (learning activities) Posted interviews, online role plays, debates, mock trials, collaborative group papers, annotate articles, reflective writing, group reflections, individual reflections, blogging, providing feedback from group, individuals, instructors, conferences with live feeds, observe expert performances, online modeling, archived examples; (technologies) Blogs, bulletin board, streaming audio, video; threaded discussion forums, , elluminate, breeze, LMS, word documents, with comments, eportfolios, webpages, etc.
Displaying: (learning activities) e-portfolios, reflections, video library of concepts, cases or experts, graphic representations, timelines, interactive visuals with online chats, peer evaluations, peer critics, draw tools in asynchronous chats, flash visuals and animations, virtual tours, project gallery, blogging; (technologies) Concept mapping, Visual Understanding Environment VUE, Timeliner or other online timeline tools, blogs, IM with whiteboards, virtual tours
Doing: (learning activities) online demonstrations, interactive, project-based learning with dynamic online databases, case simulations and manipulations, case-based learning, online simulations and lab resources, oral histories, PBL, online survey, online radio stations, digital movies, online galleries for current, past and future students

Implications for Design, Hung and Chen, 2001: Based on Principles of situated cognition and Vygotskian thought:
4 dimensions: Situatedness, Commonality, Interdependency, Infrastructure (fostered by rules, ratings or points system to motivate participation, accountability mechanisms, credibility of a contributors review and facilitating structures,,information architecture facilitating the interdependencies)
1. Situatedness: Learning is embedded in rich cultural and social contexts-acquiring both implicit and explicit knowledge (web-based with common networked platform, anywhere, anytime access)
2. Learning is reflective and metacognitive, internalizing from social to the individual (environment should be portable , focus on tasks and projects, enabling learning through doing and reflection-in-action, focus on depth over breadth, thus enabling learners to analyze communicative “speech acts”)
3. Commonality: Learning is an identity formation or act of membership (environment should create a situation where there is continual interest and interaction through the tools embedded in the environment)
4. Learning is a social act/construction mediated between social beings through language, signs, genres and tools (environments should capitalize the social communicative and collaborative dimensions allowing mediated discourse and should have scaffolding structures which contain the genres and common expressions used by the community)
5. Interdependency: Learning is socially distributed between persons and tools (environments should create interdependencies between individuals where novices need more capable peers capitalizing on the zpd and should capitalize on the diverse experiences in the community)
6. Learning is demand driven-dependent on engagement in practice (environment should be made personalized to the learner with tasks and projects as embedded in the meaningful activity context , environment should be able to track the learner’s history, profile, and progress and tailor personalized strategies and content)
7. Infrastructure: Learning is facilitated by an activity-driven by appropriate mechanisms and accountability structures (environments should have structures and mechanisms set up to facilitate the activity (project) processes where learners’ are engaged in and environment should have the potential to radically alter traditional rules and process that were constrained by locality and time)

Thomas Reeves Model of Effective Dimensions of Interactive learning on the WWW (1998)
Parts of Model include: Cultural Habits of the Mind, Aptitiude and individual differences and origin of motivation (these 3 have arrows showing that they impact the next sequence) Opportunity to construct learning, Task ownership, Sense of Audience, collaborative support, teacher support, metacognitive support (These 6 have arrows showing they produce the following) Knowledge and skills, Robust mental models, and higher order outcomes. P. 4 Model
“Given an appropriate instructional design, two or more learners working together via the WWW might accomplish more than an isolated learner because the interactions among the learners may have more influence on their learning than the interactions between the learners and the web-based content. The proliferation of web-based tools for groupwork make this one of the potentially most powerful factors in this model of interactive learning on the web” quote on collaboration p.6

Roblyer & Wiencke,2003, Design and Use of a Rubric to Assess and Encourage Interactive Qualities in Distance Courses
“Distance learning theory and research holds that interaction is an essential characteristic of successful distance learning courses.” P. 77
Wagner(1994) stipulates 3 prerequisites for learner engagement:
1. Operatinal definition of interaction based on relevant theory and research; 2. Course designs that go beyond replicating face-to-face methods and infuse interaction in ways that take advantage of the mediation possible between learner and technology; 3. Empirical assessments of interaction and measurement of effects on achievement
Quote: “However, The needed articulation from theory and research to course design guidelines and impact research has not taken place. Course designers and instructors continue to report design guidelines primarily as “best practices” based on personal experiences. One reason for the lack of transfer from theory to practice in this area is the complex nature of interaction in distance courses and the difficulty of designing assessment and evaluation tools that build on a solid theoretical framework, yet provide sufficiently practical guidelines to make the concept of interaction measurable and useful to distance instructors and researchers alike.”
3 concepts that permeate interaction
1. Moore’s 1989 identification of types of interaction: learner-content, learner-learner, learner-instructor
2. interaction as message transmission (Shannon & Weaver, 1949; Wagner, 1994; Yacci, 2000)
3. interaction as social and psychological connections (Zhang & Fulford, 1994; Wolcott, 1996; Gilbert & Moore, 1998) “These authors share the view that a distance learning environment in which there is friendly and open exchange among students and instructor is likely to be more productive from a learning standpoint than an environment in which exchanges are formal and circumscribed.” P.80

Learning theories Factors influencing interaction: Wagner (1994) feedback, elaboration, learner control, self-regulation, motivation
Instructional theories Factors- (Gagne, Briggs, and Wagner, 1992) 9 different events of instruction could provide conditions “external to the learner to support internal processes of learning” (p. 188) instructional activities to accomplish each event would differ according to desired learning outcomes…more learner autonomy and collaborative relationships…
“First, it is apparent that Interaction is achieved through a complex interplay of social, instructional, and technological variables. Second, though influenced by all these factors, the aspect of interaction acknowledge to be most meaningful to instructors and designers is student engagement in the learning process. Third, Student engagement can be increased when learning structured around collaborative experiences.
Social interaction and instructional interaction are part of the course design.
Strategies to increase social rapport include: introductions at the beginning of the course, icebreakers, group-building strategies, brief bio exchanges, sharing photos, small group discussion intermittent chats, emails, and bb postings of informal observations and information.
Activities designed to encourage, support, require interaction.
Small groups, collaborative learning designs “not only require students to interact, but also make frequent, meaningful interaction more manageable.
Instructor engagement includes consistent, timely, and useful feedback to students.
WisCom Model, Gunawardena et al, 2006.
Community Centered: common goal is wise community, reflective dialogue
Mentoring acts as mechanism for people supporting people.
Mentoring aids: matching inexperienced with experienced: instructors assistants peers, experts, Proteges paired with mentors with common interest..
Knowledge innovation purposeful creation sharing and preservation of meaningful
socially constructed ideas. Cyclic Process, but unfolds in 4 phases: Create, record, Access, Enable—through interaction, archives, retrival, making connections between concepts
This is a 5 step design:
1.Learning challenge
2.Initial exploration
3.Resources
4.Reflection
5.Preservation