A participation in a collaborative learning community should not be assessed by quantity, but quality. The varying levels of skill and knowledge that students bring to a course should be regarded by the instructor’s “fair and equitable assessment” of learning by the quality of the student’s communication with his/her fellow classmates and the in-depth online conversations taking place in and among the various classmates. Paloff and Pratt point out: “Students often have far more information about the workings of a small group than does the instructor” (p. 48). The instructor should be drawn to the activity of students as the various course requirements occur. Thus, the instructor can observe and maintain a control over the direction of the students’ progress in small groups. Assessment could also be a collaborative effort between the instructor and the peer groups.
However, if the student does not wish to participate or network in a learning community, then the student may be directed to a f2f classroom by the instructor (probably as a last resort). The other members of the learning community, there may be able to persuade and encourage a reluctant classmate through help in navigation (if the problem is in technological experience) and perhaps a partnership with one or others that could encourage the classmate in the use of technology and participation.
Sometimes blogging and/or wiki’s can be very daunting, despite the “ease” of use purported by the website. Communication with this classmate (should be emphasized) is a very necessary part of winning over the technological challenge of the course.
The instructor’s role is that of facilitator and guide. Encouraging a student to continue within the collaborative community is essential to the success both to the student and the individual “team” members. Again, as Paloff and Pratt (p.14) explain ( echoing Siemens and Hurst/Thomas ) trust must be established first and foremost, including the elements of performance and competence, integrity and concern for others.
References:
Palloff, R. and Pratt, K. (2005). Collaborating Online: Learning Together in a Community. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.
Siemens, G. (2008) “Assessment of Collaborative Learning” Laureate Productions.
Hurst, D. and Thomas, J. (2010). Developing team skills and accomplishing team projects online, in The Theory and Practice of Online Learning (Ed. Terry Anderson). Second ed., Chapt. 18, pp. 441-469. Athabasca University, Edmonton, AB Canada.
Chris, you certainly have a great handle on this assignment. I agree quality can trump quantity but it is not always so clear to determine. Collaboration when it really clicking means people are learning from one another. It requires everyone to accept to agree to disagree. When someone refuses to participate, we have an entirely different set of rules. At this level, it is understood the quality of the discussion should require a deeper level of understanding and commitment from everyone. Otherwise, I could just type in some down home wisdom. Forget the fact my collaboration does not move the discussion along. Small doses can be as effective. Quality should require the responder to take pause and reflect before answering.
ReplyDeleteAndrew: Exactly, "quality should requre the responder to take pause an reflect before answering". DE allows that to happen. I know that I have often taken the opportunity to review my response (whether it be in a discussion or blog) and sometimes I edit a great deal. Thanks for pointing that out.
ReplyDeleteWhen I am having a problem with students participating in a F2F collaborative assignment, I encourage my students through a variety of ways; however, before organizing another collaborative network, I counselor him/her. I then allow the student to select members of the group. I believe it would be advantages to allow members to have some input no matter if it is online collaboration or F2F collaboration.
ReplyDeleteI have had more success than failures when I allow my students to group themselves. There were times when the group was more “vocal” than productive, but for the most part they enjoy working with familiar students. As time moves on, I do alter the groups’ dynamics by moving a couple of members to other groups.
Do you believe it is important to get student input in an online collaborative network? Why or why not?
Wanda: Generally I would want student input in an online collaborative network. However, I think that the input might be more evident in the actual assignment area. Sometimes the innovative student will consciously or unconsciously incorporate what he/she has read into the actual lesson assigned and therefore show an understanding of that particular assignment. Sometimes I think a facilitator has to be somewhat of a detective to ascertain the higher ordered skills that a student retains through the assignment/project phase.
ReplyDeleteDoes this make any sense? :(
Thanks for the thought-provoker! :)