In online coursework, the collaborative efforts can take several forms:
- Email document portions to form a master report
- Working on the same Google Doc
- Contributing comments on a blog
- Responding to discussion board threads
- Building a wiki with other users
But the tricky part of any collaborative group is to measure participation by the group members. The "fair and equitable" assessment can be measured objectively by logged hours or counted words, or subjectively through value of the contributions by the teacher or group members. I believe that a balance of the two viewpoints would allow for students to demonstrate both growth in personal knowledge and contributions to the team knowledge. Students who lack some of the technical expertise may feel intimidated by the online task, and similarly students with vast knowledge may feel a burden to produce.
Dylan William (2011) explains it best that the members should be "collectively responsible but individually accountable" in order to creative an effective group.
Perhaps the simplest way to assess collaborative group is through the use of peer and self-grading. Students who prefer to work alone and do not contribute will miss out on that portion of their grade. Siemens (2007) addresses the issue with a parallel to the working world model, where we have moved away from solo geniuses and into the realm of teams of people creating the greatest influence. The student who is without the team cannot compete effectively with a group.
As instructors or guides, initially we can provide students with roles and suggestions in contributing to the team. As members become better acquainted with the process and the product, they will self-determine their own pace of contributions. High-functioning groups with regular and multiple contributors are more likely to be willing to coach a reluctant team member by assigning them tasks in the whole team effort. Low-functioning groups with more than half of the members slow to participate will need additional guidance and specific deadlines for tasks. Regardless of the instructor input into the team process, teams should be evaluated on the same scale but individuals rated on their influence on the overall group product.
Reference
Laureate Education, Inc. (2008). "Assessment of collaborative learning". Principles of Distance Education [DVD]. Baltimore, MD: Author.Willliam, D. (2011, December 18). Collaborative Learning Dylan Wiliam - YouTube. YouTube. Retrieved January 11, 2013, from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bklIS61qQA
Sharmaine Sharusan
Phd in Educational Technology
Pacific time zone, Washington state
Hi Shar,
ReplyDeleteExcellent post about collaborative group work and what a fantastic way to sum up the advice of Dylan Williams. You mention several great ways in which collaborative work can be done in online coursework. In your experiences of taking online courses, which collaborative tool do you like to use the most and why? Thank you.
Sincerely,
LeAnn
Hello LeAnn,
ReplyDeleteI am a big fan of Wikispaces, huge! I like using wikis to collaborate with teams of 2 or 3. I like watching the whole thing come together as we each add our bits and flair to the project.
However, I also find it very rewarding when editing a document with a co-author to use Google Docs. We can see each other's edits in real time and it gives me an idea of what the other person is thinking when we're not able to communicate via voice.
For asynchronous collaboration, it's definitely wiki for the win. For real-time collaboration, Google Docs allows for a tangible result rather than just talking about what we will do.
Cheers - Shar