Dissertation

CHAPTER 2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE 2
Computer –Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) 3
Learning through Teams 4
Rationales for Teams 4
Supporting Teams 6
Social Interaction 6
Collaborative Learning… 8
Cooperative Learning 9
Group Learning 11
Student to Student Interaction 12
Peer Learning 14
Learning Communities 15
Active Learning 16
Motivation 18
Self-­‐Study… 19
Self-­‐study is a personal situated inquiry 20
Self-­‐study is critical collaborative inquiry 20
Self-­‐study is improved learning 20
Self-­‐study is a transparent and systematic research process 20
Self-­‐study is knowledge generation and presentation 21
Action Research 24
Differences between Action Research and Self-­‐study 24
Summary… 24
REFERENCES 28
Figures 31
Table 32

CHAPTER 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Extensive lit review that will specify with time
CHAPTER 2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE 14
Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) 15
Learning through Teams 15
Rationales for Teams 16
Supporting Teams 17
Social Interaction 17
Collaborative Learning 19
Cooperative Learning 19
Group Learning 20
Student to Student Interaction 21
Peer Learning 23
Learning Communities 23
Active Learning 24
Motivation 25
Pair-Programming 27
Community Colleges 29
Self-Study 31
Action Research 34
Differences between Action Research and Self-Study 35
Summary 35

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Computer –Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) 5
Learning through Teams 6
Rationales for using Teams 6
Supporting Teams 8
Social Interaction 8
Collaborative Learning 10
Cooperative Learning 9
Group Learning 12
Student to Student Interaction 13
Peer Learning 15
Learning Communities 16
Topic 10. Active Learning 17
Motivation 17
Self-Study 20
Self-study is a personal situated inquiry 20
Self-study is critical collaborative inquiry 21
Self-study is improved learning 21
Self-study is a transparent and systematic research process 21
Self-study is knowledge generation and presentation 22
Action Research 25
Differences between Action Research and Self-study 25
Summary 25

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Computer –Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) 5
Learning through Teams 6
Rationales for using Teams 6
Supporting Teams 8
Social Interaction 8
Collaborative Learning 10
Cooperative Learning 9
Group Learning 12
Student to Student Interaction 13
Peer Learning 15
Learning Communities 16
Topic 10. Active Learning 17
Motivation 17
Self-Study 20
Self-study is a personal situated inquiry 20
Self-study is critical collaborative inquiry 21
Self-study is improved learning 21
Self-study is a transparent and systematic research process 21
Self-study is knowledge generation and presentation 22
Action Research 25
Differences between Action Research and Self-study 25
Summary 25

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 191
Learning Theories and Psychological Aspects of Learning 193
Social Interaction and Constructivism 193
Motivation and Attitude 194
Active Learning 196
Collaborative Learning in Groups 197
Collaborative Learning 197
Cooperative Learning 198
Learning through Teams 199
Pair Programming 201
Teaching and Learning 3D Animation 207
Community Colleges as Learning Environments 211
Research Approaches to Teaching Improvement 212
Action Research 212
Self-Study 213
Summary 217

Corrections and alterations – Even though Dr. Hoffman’s corrections were very thorough, a few issues jump at me today that did not when I first wrote these pieces.
- In the prospectus, I included one only research question and that is not enough for a doctoral dissertation.
- I used the term instruments and that is not the standard terminology, it should be instead, Data Sources.
- Even though I had finished my data collection, it was not enough and I didn’t know it. With my busy schedule, I had not written on my teacher’s journal sufficiently. This specific fact caused me serious drawbacks later on.
In Chapter 2, my literature review topics started out very different than what it is today. At first, I was just looking at different aspects of experimenting with collaboration and that explains my literary research choices: Computer –Supported Collaborative Learning, Learning through Teams, Social Interaction, Collaborative Learning, Cooperative Learning, Group Learning, Student to Student Interaction, Peer Learning. The chapter also describes the related studies on Learning Communities, Active Learning, Motivation.

Error – At this point I believed that theoretical framework was the teaching strategy I chose to study, Pair Programming. However, theoretical framework is the general theory upon which the entire study will frame its perspective observational lens, in my paper, Constructivism. Moreover, eXtreme programming(XP) and pair programing (PP)are in fact different. XP is a software development methodology, which is intended to improve software quality and responsiveness to changing customer requirements. As a type of agile software development, it advocates frequent "releases" in short development cycles, which is intended to improve productivity and introduce checkpoints at which new customer requirements can be adopted. Meanwhile, PP is a collaborative programming strategy that is based on two programmers sharing one computer. While one writes the code, the other looks for errors and gives general ideas of where the project should go. Half way through the work they switch places. Even though I mistakenly used the XP nomenclature at first the strategy I was referring to was actually PP.

Transition - This moment also marks the transition from a general study in classroom collaboration, to the use of a more specific pairing strategy, PP.

Be sensitive to wording and local conventions.
Ellen - When you use words like Hawaiian students, here in Hawaii that means Native Hawaiians. Please change all the uses of Hawaiian to students in Hawaii or something similar.

Motivated and anxious – Although excited by the moving forward of the deadlines, they were also a reason for a lot of stress, considering I was teaching full-time and had to juggle different family duties. The proposal was the first writing I sent to the entire committee, which added to the burden I was feeling. Nonetheless, I was looking to pair up with other students on the weekends to increase my writing production.
Also, the diagram I built with all my research lit review topics, surrounded by constructivism did not please the committee. They said it was not my place to create a theoretical diagram.
Moreover, I still called my conceptual framework PP in my proposal and although I mentioned triangulation as a form of assuring validity, I was not aware that it actually meant that I had to triangulate every data source for each theme. Only later, when I worked closely with Dr. Kritzer I understood that concept fully. I also kept wrongly using the term instrumentation. My data analysis was always a problem from the beginning and became a crucial issue as time went on. Also, I did not start my lit review using Zotero so my articles were not saved in that tool making it difficult to use this online research organizing tool later in the study process even though it was a requirement from the ETEC department.

I also notice that committee members have different strengths. Some are more concerned about theory and content, while some are more concerned about formatting.

Dissertation set for May 6. I received lots of comments from my proposal defense, however, something in the core of my work was faulty and I didn’t know what. The committee and my advisor told me to restructure the way I presented my data, which I did over and over again.

So the dissertation was not signed off by the entire committee on the defense (May 6th,2013) and I was due for contract renewal at work, which also required quite a bit of writing and analysis of my teaching. Therefore, I postponed my revisions for the next semester. Meanwhile, my husband was offered a job in California requiring us to move there. I had to quit my job at the CC and prepare for the move.

So I did write on the deficit theory adding pertinent literature and rewording ability to experience. However, communication with faculty was not the same at a distance. Email responses took longer and my motivation started to change.

…and that was what happened again, another no. By this time I started to get the picture that things might not have a happy ending after all.

This was the first time that someone other them myself and my coding partners were going to see my raw data, and I was very hopeful and proud of what I had collected.

But communication became harder and harder as distance separated us.

I started the new year with hopes and tried to clarify the data as much as possible asking for extra information from the retention office at the CC. However, I was trying to quantify a study that is not quantifiable.

I started the new year with hopes and tried to clarify the data as much as possible asking for extra information from the retention office at the CC. However, I was trying to quantify a study that is not quantifiable.

Talking to my advisor only through email became a very difficult task as we lost connection and momentum. I felt that I always needed to confirm what I had understood in order to avoid working towards erroneous goals.

There is a two week standard period for an advisor to respond to a student email however, when you don’t have any other contact with the advisor, the communication process slows down quite a bit.

My analysis was always a problem no matter how much I worked on the data, how many tables I’d make, it seemed that it was never enough

…always need for feedback

All possible ways of demonstrating my data and the way I coded were explored. Still, something was missing.

The coin started to drop. I did not have enough data from the start.

After another complete overhaul of the dissertation I decided to force a committee meeting in which I would be present. Another dissertation rejection stimulated me to stay in Hawaii for a while and work closely to Charlotte Kritzer, the expert in self-study in my committee.

…so I submitted the dissertation to the committee again and it was rejected for lack of analysis . At this point, Charlotte referred me to Dr Ann Freese an internationally recognized expert in self-study and suggested that I consult with her on possible issues that might be overshadowing the success of the study.

Ann asked me to write about my personal history going into the CC and how did it fit with my background. Why did I teach strict classes while in truth I am a very soft and caring person?

After struggling, working very close to Ann, she asked to see my raw data. Although I had it all in tables, which I had spent several months working on its digital version, I asked my husband to send the raw material from California to Honolulu. When Ann finally got a hold of it, the great realization was explicit: I never had enough data. My entrances in my personal journal were not sufficient. Trying to carry a full time load teaching and collecting data, had been too much for me and I fell short of personal reflections. All this time, my committee members and I have been changing the way we demonstrated my data and analyzing it in different ways however, it would be impossible to complete a thorough self-study, when the essentials are not there. Insufficient data.

Motivated and on schedule – My prospectus and chapter 2 were the first official writings towards my goal of graduating by my deadline. I was thrilled and very motivated to continue with my project. I had gotten the job, now I just had to get better and better at it.

Motivated and anxious – Although excited by the moving forward of the deadlines, they were also a reason for a lot of stress, considering I was teaching full-time and had to juggle different family duties. The proposal was the first writing I sent to the entire committee, which added to the burden I was feeling. Nonetheless, I was looking to pair up with other students on the weekends to increase my writing production.

communication with faculty was not the same at a distance. Email responses took longer and my motivation started to change.

However, now I was not as secure things were going to go smoothly.

Things were looking good after all that work and I built expectations again. However, I had lost complete contact with my dissertation committee and did not know anymore what were their expectations. Too much time had passed and I felt lost and disconnected. I felt as if I was working without a goal. I needed to have a little more control over what was going on.

So now, I was not only communicating often through email with Charlotte but I was also seeing her in person once a week. For these face-to-face meetings I would gather questions and have them immediately answered. If I didn’t understand, I was right there to ask her to rephrase the answer. Slowly, we built an emotional connection based on collaboration and great expectations. It felt wonderful knowing I was learning from the expert in self-study and that this time things were going to be different.

Besides a fast exchange of emails, the meeting in person once a week, Charlotte also gave back all my documents annotated with careful recommendations for changes.

Lost motivation completely. Got an office assistant job at a real estate agency.