Simulation and hybrid authentic-learning approaches do not necessarily differ in participants or experienced meaningfulness of collaboration¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r? · q2
Currency · newest study 2019 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Matching the two basic approaches and their variants to the five dimensions identified meaningful patterns, with simulation and hybrid approaches not necessarily differing on participants or experienced meaningfulness. → U. Cress 2019

Evidence¶

U. Cress 2019¶

U. Cress, C. P. Rosé, N. Law, S. Ludvigsen. (2019). Investigating the complexity of computer-supported collaborative learning in action. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-019-09305-2

q2 · i? · review · r?

Pattern identified by Hod and Sagy's review across the articles they coded with the taxonomy's five descriptors (participants, setting, timeframe, computer support, meaningfulness), as reported by the editorial: simulation and hybrid approaches "do not necessarily differ with regard to participants or the extent they experience the collaboration as meaningful."

"For instance, simulation and hybrid approaches do not necessarily differ with regard to participants or the extent they experience the collaboration as meaningful."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• No significant difference between virtual simulation and authentic video on the basic observation dimension of assignments — related
• In a qualitative pilot with 10 speech-language pathology graduate students, most felt the Simucase assessment cases lacked authenticity because they included too few behavioral modifications — related