What exactly *is* collaboration?

What exactly *is* collaboration?

by Emma Duke-Williams -
Number of replies: 34

Deirdre Bonnycastle wrote,

...I think Moodle is a much better discussion tool than Wave.

This reminded me of something that I was thinking about before we started - what exactly do we mean by "collaboration"? It's a term we use a lot; yet what is it?

  • Is a discussion on a forum collaboration, or merely a discussion? Suppose that leads then to a shared conference paper?
  • What about the website where everyone does their own page & someone just links them all together? Collaboration or not?
  • How about the slide show where one person selects the slides, another the music (and iMovie sorts out how long before the next picture pops up!)
  • Does collaboration have to focus on the creation of something "real" (or virtual!) or can that something be a shared idea / vision?
Copying this to wave: SCOPE - What is collaboration? (URL ... maybe!)

In reply to Emma Duke-Williams

Re: What exactly *is* collaboration?

by Deirdre Bonnycastle -
I remember a previous SCoPE session where Gilly Salmon talked about her 5 Stages of Collaboration. Unfortunately I'm not at work to find the URL but managed to find this adaption. I liked it because it described the everyone does their own thing as a step towards collaboration.
In reply to Deirdre Bonnycastle

Re: What exactly *is* collaboration?

by Emma Duke-Williams -
I like those pictures at the bottom - I've seen the steps a zillion times before, but the pictures are new :)

I'm not sure, though, that it really answers to me what collaboration is ... what do you think, Deirdre? I agree that Moodle is a good site for *discussion* - would you say it's also good for *collaboration* - or do we need something else? (But, of course, it comes back to what we understand by collaboration itself. And I'm not sure on that one!)
In reply to Emma Duke-Williams

Re: What exactly *is* collaboration?

by Nicholas Bowskill -
Emma, I've been following these discussions in the background and I felt your point hit the nail on the head. It's not really about one tool over another is it? It's about what we really mean about the term collaboration exactly as you say. Excellent point!

Can I offer a couple of examples that might serve to illustrate? One online and the other on campus.

I worked as an online tutor team half in the UK and half in China. We tutored on an online course together as a highly distributed tutoring team. We each had a group to care for and to try and maintain some sort of cohesion as we went through a very strange but exciting experience, I started a blog in the tutor-space. I kept the blog throughout and the other tutors annotated it according to aspects they agreed or disagreed with. So we worked inside this one diary as a way of checking our understanding over time. That for me was collaboration (apart from designing the course together as well).

Currently I'm using voting technology on campus to get students working as a group reflecting together. It's a process of cooperative inquiry using a snowball/pyramid discussion technique to generate a whole-class view before voting. That always feels like very close collaboration (see http://www.sharedthinking.info for more on this).

So for me its not tools because you can do something collaborative with almost anything. For me it's about being genuinely collaborative. Thanks for the prompt to participate Emma. I'm always enjoying these discussions.

Nicholas Bowskill
Faculty of Education
University of Glasgow
Scotland

http://www.sharedthinking.info
In reply to Emma Duke-Williams

Re: What exactly *is* collaboration?

by Deirdre Bonnycastle -
I personally prefer and use wikis for collaboration, both small scale (research projects) and large (international project) because they provide tools for a creative initiative that builds a product which is my collaborative ideal. They change as people edit and add to others content. Pages can be rearranged and shifted to other locations to keep the site manageable. So I guess I believe that people collaborate to produce a product both tangible (papers, educational resources, events) and intangible (political change).

Learning to collaborate at the highest level takes time, so it rarely happens in 1 week assignments unless the teams have worked together previously. I think we are too hasty in bemoaning students assigning tasks because assignment is a useful method in short term projects. If you want them to collaborate at a higher level, set tasks over the semester that build team skills.

Discussion on the other hand is about learning and grappling with ideas, it is more free flowing, less organized. Discussion tools need to record statements and replies in chronological order to allow people to follow the progression. Discussion tools also need to send people emails saying there are new messages (something Wave doesn't seem to do). SCoPE is a great example of a online discussion tool because people can add new threads when they want to follow a new discussion tangent. I think SCoPE still uses Moodle.

PS I had the wrong person it was Janet Salmon not Gilly who did the session in SCoPE as Sylvia kindly reminded us.
In reply to Deirdre Bonnycastle

Re: What exactly *is* collaboration?

by Sylvia Currie -

Deirdre Bonnycastle wrote,

PS I had the wrong person it was Janet Salmon not Gilly who did the session in SCoPE as Sylvia kindly reminded us.

Deirdre, actually Gilly Salmon did facilitate a SCoPE seminar where she shared her 5-stage model for e-learning. Janet Salmons facilitated the seminar on online collaboration. She probably also referred to Gilly's resource!

In reply to Emma Duke-Williams

Re: What exactly *is* collaboration?

by Sylvia Currie -
Janet Salmons facilitated a SCoPE seminar in 2007 called Collaborate Online. She defined collaboration as "an interactive process that engages two or more participants who work together to achieve outcomes they could not accomplish independently."

I like that concise definition. approve

I once had an instructor in an undergraduate course who wrote a paper about the projects we completed during the course. I wish I could find it just now! (And don't you wish more instructors would share papers like that with their students!) In any case, she looked at the processes at the various stages of the project groups using a framework of:
  • collaboration
  • cooperation
  • communication
Although we produced some interesting projects the instructor concluded that there really wasn't much evidence of collaboration, but clear examples of cooperation and communication. In most cases the group members simply divvied up the workload then pieced it all together.

But in that example the focus is mostly on the individuals and how they are each contributing to a final product. It seems there should be more of a focus on the actual interactions.

Dave Pollard (first blog I ever subscribed to!) created a really useful table in 2005 to distinguish among
  • collaboration
  • cooperation, and
  • coordination
And more in his post, also from 2005: "virtual collaboration". Notice that he suggests social networking tools are best suited for finding collaborators and that "most actual collaboration is done using other tools and media".
In reply to Sylvia Currie

Re: What exactly *is* collaboration?

by Jenny Mackness -

Although we produced some interesting projects the instructor concluded that there really wasn't much evidence of collaboration, but clear examples of cooperation and communication. In most cases the group members simply divvied up the workload then pieced it all together.

This describes what I often come across with student groups. I would agree with your tutor that this is co-operation more than collaboration.

I'm wondering whether collaboration is a function of the task - by that I mean that the activity that students are set has to lend itself to collaboration and if that is what you want your students to do, then not allow them to avoid it. For example:

- A task that asks a group of 6 students to work together to produce a powerpoint presentation on a given topic could easily lead to co-operation more than collaboration, because they can each work on one or more slides independently.

- A task that requires a group of students to research a given topic with a view to solving a given problem, is more likely to be collaborative. It is not clear how to go about this task or even what the expected outcome might look like.

These are my first thoughts. Not sure if I should be here or in Google Wave!

Jenny

In reply to Jenny Mackness

Re: What exactly *is* collaboration?

by Emma Duke-Williams -
Jenny,
I fully agree that most of what I see from students is co-operation, rather than collaboration; though I think both of the two tasks you've suggested could be either - depending on how you structure it; and the support you give. I just don't think I've really got that bit sorted.

However, it's something that I'd like to return to in week 3 - getting students to collaborate (do we need to? do they need to??); once we've thought about how we do it ourselves!

Here or wave is fine! I think that it's inevitable that some people feel happier in wave than others.


In reply to Jenny Mackness

Re: What exactly *is* collaboration?

by WL Wong -
Hear, hear Jenny.

Given that there is a large body of research around Computer Supported Collaborative Learning stating how successful CSCL has been, it is certainly worth re-looking at the research and looking at the evidence and checking if some of the collaboration may indeed be other Cs (as per Sylvia's post).

Cheers
Wai-Leng
In reply to Sylvia Currie

Re: What exactly *is* collaboration?

by Therese Weel -
Thank you for these references Sylvia.

I like the way Dave Pollard has laid out the attributes of each in his matrix.
It has given me something to think about this morning.

It's helpful to be aware of these distinctions. Collaboration is very much a "we" process. Its fun and helps us to accomplish significantly more that we could do as a group of coordinated individuals. Better ideas and more aha moments.

Much depends on the the relationships you develop with the other people. Being authentic, truthful and respectful of others aids the process. True collaboration is a rare bird.

I interact virtually with people quite a bit. We don't collaborate in the true sense of the word very often but when we do it's great fun. Sometimes we are cooperating, sometimes we are coordinating, mostly we're just sending signals back and forth. Hovering between these interactions is fine. Each has it's value, time and place.

Good tools are fun, interesting and as easy to use as turning on a hair dryer.

I use skype alot - the ability to pass links back and forth is fabulous.
When the communication gets confusing - it's time for a voice chat.

Delicious is still my favorite KM tool and Twitter is my signaling system at the moment. Both are easy and useful because the people and projects I want to keep in touch with use them. Other tools may be better but the if the rest of the gang's not there. What good is it?

Google wave - not a favorite. I do appreciate the tour though.
If we keep kissing frogs - eventually we'll find another prince.

Therese






In reply to Therese Weel

Re: What exactly *is* collaboration?

by Emma Duke-Williams -

Therese Weel wrote,

Other tools may be better but the if the rest of the gang's not there. What good is it?

A very good point; and, the other aspect of that is how, as a group, do you make the choice? First to initiate it? Person with the loudest voice? Person who's the most persuasive? The most interoperable tool, so that as many as possible can use their favourite client etc., ?


Emma
(And just remembered how the quote feature works ... you have to select what you want to quote - not just click quote & assume you'll get the whole message)

In reply to Emma Duke-Williams

Re: What exactly *is* collaboration?

by Therese Weel -

Emma Duke-Williams wrote,

A very good point; and, the other aspect of that is how, as a group, do you make the choice? First to initiate it? Person with the loudest voice? Person who's the most persuasive? The most interoperable tool, so that as many as possible can use their favourite client etc., ?


The early adopters are the people, and places to keep your eye on.

Scope is a great source for learning about collaborative tools, particularly because we roll up our collective sleeves and use them.

Loudness and persuasive dialogue are turn-offs. Great tools are easy, fun, provides value and are useful which includes interoperability.

As a group the crowd decides. In my experience we may start with a tool - and if we find it isn't working for us we'll move to another. For example if traffic on skype makes it unusable - we move our discussion elsewhere.


In reply to Therese Weel

Re: What exactly *is* collaboration?

by Colby Stuart -
Therese also has made another interesting point here:
"Scope is a great source for learning about collaborative tools, particularly because we roll up our collective sleeves and use them."

Through my decades of collaboration in everything from the creative industry through to academic scientific communities and into the WWW or social networking, I have found SCoPE to be a place where the sheer joy of sharing, participation and playful encounter comes alive. In this space we share ideas, demonstrate tools, take each other into experiences with tools, platforms and spaces.

SCoPE has captured the essence of what creates a safe collaboration space. No one is left behind. There is room for each person to contribute and ask questions and never feel like they fall short in doing so. Even if we have no time, we still can follow and join in when time permits. It's our choice.

The platform and tools in SCoPE have grown as the people and group have communicated what they needs to grow. In other words, SCoPE services the continual growth of communication and collaboration by listening with resonance. Through that, SCoPE has serviced us all - so that we can focus and continue to share and learn from one another - on all levels.

SCoPE "is" a fine example of collaboration and the value that comes from that.

Thank you, Sylvia and everyone for that. We appreciate how much we enjoy this space to share, learn, contribute.

In reply to Colby Stuart

Re: What exactly *is* collaboration?

by Emma Duke-Williams -

Colby Stuart wrote,

I have found SCoPE to be a place where the sheer joy of sharing, participation and playful encounter comes alive.

I'd like to second that & the thanks that Colby gave to Sylvia - and all the participants!

I've certainly enjoyed these 3 weeks & the opportunity to play. big grin

In reply to Colby Stuart

Re: What exactly *is* collaboration?

by Deirdre Bonnycastle -
I agree even though my time is really minimal, I try to read something from SCoPE once a day.
In reply to Sylvia Currie

Re: What exactly *is* collaboration?

by Cindy Underhill -
Hi Sylvia,

I appreciate the differences outlined in the distinctions you've outlined. I think collaboration is quite different than cooperation, communication and coordination - though those aspects may be involved in a collaboration.

In my experience, true collaboration is rare because it involves:
  • shared vision (which requires examination of motivations)
  • letting go of control (hard to do if you have a notion about what would constitute an acceptable outcome)
  • shared responsibility (for success and failure)
  • flexibility and openness to change.
  • time for relationships/trust to develop

Much depends upon the willingness of collaborators to check their egos at the door - and this is sometimes a hard pill to swallow - for any of us!

Interesting discussion!
In reply to Cindy Underhill

Re: What exactly *is* collaboration?

by Nicholas Bowskill -
Hi Sylvia,
I think the 5 points you raised were really useful. I'd just like to try and build on that if I can by saying that there is a real need in collaboration to recognise that the group is a resource as much as a process for learning. In addition, the diversity that exists in most groups is the driver for learning together. Walter Stroup at University of Austin, Texas puts it better when he says that the diversity is the 'engine' for learning.


Best wishes,
Nick


Nicholas Bowskill,
Faculty of Education
University of Glasgow,

Creator of Shared Thinking
http://www.sharedthinking.info
In reply to Cindy Underhill

Re: What exactly *is* collaboration?

by Emma Duke-Williams -

Cindy Underhill wrote,

Much depends upon the willingness of collaborators to check their egos at the door - and this is sometimes a hard pill to swallow - for any of us!

How well put! Thank you Cindy. I also agree that true collaboration is, indeed rare; even when it's face to face. My gut feeling is that it's even more difficult in an online environment.

In reply to Cindy Underhill

Re: What exactly *is* collaboration? [an investment of time]

by Paul Beaufait -
One characteristic of collaboration that is of particular interest or, should I say, concern is the time it takes. Crossing over from Emma's mindmap (found in the wave, Mapping the Work), where I'd just tacked "How to find or make the time?" onto the branch Emma, I suppose, had named after this forum; I find here, and more recently in the Mapping ideas forum, that both Deirdre and Cindy mention time-related issues, specifically:

a) the time it takes students to get worked up to collaboration (Deirdre, p. 49691),
b) the time it takes participants (educational practitioners?) to come to trust one another (Cindy, p. 50041), and
c) hopes that college committee members will begin to use their wikis (more) collaboratively in time (Deirdre, p. 50771; all with emphasis added in the snippets below).

Deirdre Bonnycastle wrote,

Learning to collaborate at the highest level takes time, so it rarely happens in 1 week assignments unless the teams have worked together previously.

 

Cindy Underhill wrote,

In my experience, true collaboration is rare because it involves:

shared vision (which requires examination of motivations)
letting go of control (hard to do if you have a notion about what would constitute an acceptable outcome)
shared responsibility (for success and failure)
flexibility and openness to change
time for relationships/trust to develop ...

 

Deirdre Bonnycastle wrote,

I actually know more faculty who use wikis in this way than use them with students. All the committees in my college also have wikis but that is more cooperative. Since I believe that collaboration happens over time, I'm hoping that will change.

 


It is interesting to note, in reference to Dierdre's remark about faculty committees, that although educational practitioners (among others) frequently refer to wikis, for example, as collaborative tools, tools aren't collaborative, are they? It's the people who use them (and processes in which they use them) that are--or aren't--isn't it?

How many people you know will willingly invest the time necessary to engage (repeatedly) either in collaborative activities, such as explicitly and jointly sharing, comparing, integrating, and synthesizing their ideas, and collectively crafting, revising and polishing products of their endeavours, or in long-term developmental processes, such as observing, analyzing and documenting the processes themselves? The difference between page/post numbers for the snippets above hints at how long it might take active members of a community to begin to come to grips with concepts, purposes, and practices of collaboration. That's 1080 posts, actually closer to 2000 for the seminar so far, according to my calculator;-), not counting loosely integrated wavelets, graphics, and blips in Google Wave!

In reply to Paul Beaufait

Re: What exactly *is* collaboration? [an investment of time]

by Emma Duke-Williams -

Paul Beaufait wrote,

as collaborative tools, tools aren't collaborative, are they?

I can see where you're coming from - though I'd see it as more of a case of "some tools have feature sets that can enable collaboration" - in a way that others don't.

So, the simple comparison between an HTML editing programme (probably not Dreamweaver with its checkin/checkout features!) & a Wiki, or Google Docs & Word is that any can be used for a collaborative exercise, but the Wiki & Google Docs make it easier than Word & the HTML editor, as you don't have to worry about versions etc., Everyone is working on the same view.

In another message, someone mentioned the fact that face to face is often the ideal situation. In that case, we've invariably got a single whiteboard/ flip chart / whatever we're working on - back to the single view.

I think that what Sylvia & I were thinking about at the start of this is the growth of tools that does make it much easier - and how we can use them.

I fully agree with you & the others who've pointed out the time (and, implictitly trust) involved in true collaboration, rather than co-operation.

I'm also most impressed with your counting of the posts!
In reply to Emma Duke-Williams

Re: What exactly *is* collaboration? [an investment of time]

by Nicholas Bowskill -
Hi,
This search for and review of collaborative tools misses the key issue of the context under consideration. There is fun and appeal in exploring each new technology as it arises but it risks disregarding the context, rationale and aims of collaboration in the rush to 'see what we can use this for.' Certainly we need to understand different technologies but when do we discuss the goal and purpose and context? I would suggest that to ignore the pedagogy is bad practice.

Is this a discussion about distance learning or campus based learning? Is this really a discussion of collaboration or tools? Are we talking about staff or student development? Where is that context?

What about providing a notional case study of pedagogical need as a basis for considering a given tool? For example, what are the design goals and constraints of this activity in which we are engaged as a possible case study for staff development contexts? That would give you time, audience, activity design, aims and outcomes to evaluate amongst a host of other things. We are discussing de-contextualised ideas in at least 2 different places. The key 'time' factor may be that of how to save 'wasted time' for those involved in this collaboration. :)


Best wishes,
Nick


Nicholas Bowskill,
Faculty of Education
University of Glasgow,

Creator of Shared Thinking
http://www.sharedthinking.info
In reply to Nicholas Bowskill

Re: What exactly *is* collaboration? [design-able/coerced?]

by Paul Beaufait -

Nicholas asks some telling questions about seminar content and virtual, physical, discussion, and perhaps even personal conceptual contexts (our mindsets, which he or someone else suggests on another thread might be revealed by mindmaps); he suggests that someone provide a notional case study, one that exemplifies the goals and constraints of current activity; and then he makes an interesting observation regarding de-contextualization.

Is this a discussion about distance learning or campus based learning? Is this really a discussion of collaboration or tools? Are we talking about staff or student development? Where is that context?

What about providing a notional case study of pedagogical need as a basis for considering a given tool? For example, what are the design goals and constraints of this activity in which we are engaged as a possible case study for staff development contexts? That would give you time, audience, activity design, aims and outcomes to evaluate amongst a host of other things. We are discussing de-contextualised ideas in at least 2 different places. (15 March 2010)



If I may venture a response to his first few questions, assuming that the two different places to which he refers are this moodle site (seminar venue) in tenuous conjunction with a collection of Google waves (and other sites such as MindMeister), I'd say:

Yes, we're discussing possibilities for distance learning, at least some of us, and yes, probably campus-based, too, though at any particular juncture in the discussion exactly which may be obscure;
Yes, possibly, for staff and students, if there is such a thing as coerced collaboration; and or but also for ourselves and peers, near or distant;
Yes, we're discussing collaboration, per se, at least in this particular forum, possibly online, face-to-face or blended, and again exactly which may be obscure.

I gather from the example Nicholas gives, listing elements for "a possible case study", that he is quite interested in "design goals and constraints … for staff development contexts", and this makes me wonder (again) how all the big pieces fit together:

Instructional design and actual learning;
Collaborative design and collaborative learning; and
Staff or student development, administered or coerced, and collaborative development, self-initiated and self-directed.


Nicholas, most of the rest of this post might better be directed to you:

I get an impression that you have a preference for highly contextualized discussions, a preference perhaps of the sort to which a "personal preferences" twig on the mindmap Emma started refers. However, I'm unsure to what extent you feel discussion manifests or reflects collaboration. (In a previous SCoPE seminar, Sarah Haavind, as I recall, suggested that discussion does that, if it reaches a certain depth. [Perhaps Sylvia can reconnect us to that discussion.]). Yet I sense a desire on your part for productivity or deliverables, motivation to produce and promulgate, if not formally publish, a case study on staff development, collaborative or otherwise.

How far is that off the mark?
In reply to Paul Beaufait

Re: What exactly *is* collaboration? [design-able/coerced?]

by Emma Duke-Williams -
Interesting points, Paul & Nicholas.

One thing that I think has come out of this discussion very much for me is the differences in ways that we approach how we do things. In another thread,

Colby Stuart wrote,

What I have experienced is that the most important collaborative tool that each of us has is our imagination. Without that, we are simply robots regurgitating information. Many of those blessed with a vivid imagination are poo-pooed by those who expound on information knowledgeably.


And I think it's those differences between us that can lead to fabulous examples of working together, collaboratively, but can also lead to tensions when there are different priorities of approach. I wonder how we can work together.

I can see Nicholas' point about needing to be clear about the situation that we're working in - I've often felt that staff (personal) development is something we don't always consider in the same way that we consider student learning (for example, do we think about pedagogies when we're thinking about working with others on a shared project) - yet often we're doing something that by its very nature involves us in learning.

That's one of the reasons I was keen to look at how we're using these tools ourselves - as my personal view is that it's really useful to feel I've used a tool to learn from others. I guess, were you to pin me down, I'd probably say that it's pretty much a Vygotskyian approach to learning - but not always - though not quite sure what I'd have as the alternative (unless we start to look at connectivism etc)
In reply to Paul Beaufait

collaborative dialogue - reaching a certain depth

by Sylvia Currie -
The earlier SCoPE seminar Paul refers to was Talking the Walk: Narratives of Online Learner Collaboration. Sarah Haavind, who has done a lot of research on collaborative dialogue, contributed an interesting perspective to that discussion (as she always does!). In this post Sarah attached an excerpt from her methodology that explains the "depth" that leads to a collaborative event.


In reply to Emma Duke-Williams

Re: What exactly *is* collaboration? [tool independent?]

by Paul Beaufait -
We're definitely in agreement about certain tools facilitating, if not enabling collaboration. However, an experience I've had this past week, revising a co-authored paper transferred into Google Docs, has made it painfully clear that not all affordances of online tools outshine desktop tools and mail transfers. Let's take Docs, for example, and Word.

Change tracking, for instance, a relatively advanced function in Word, is virtually useless in Google Docs, where, to get a rich, informative, contextual display roughly equivalent to Word's original version showing markup display, using Google's push-button and drop-down menu interface, takes - these are rough estimates - five to ten times longer than in Word. That is, hand-made strike-thoughs, and highlights of additions or revisions, in addition to adding comments to explain those changes or request others.

Let me err on the low side in my estimates today, say: 500 points of change (large and small, on a 25+ page draft), taking five minutes on average, or roughly 40 hours of interesting but rather tedious keyboard and mouse work in Docs, compared to about eight hours in Word, into which the paper had to be rendered anyway. So, ...:

What drove us to Google Docs?



A short and silly answer is collaboration fever; more to the point are:

- Differences in preferred and up-to-date desktop word-processing software, and technological fluency therewith: Pages and Mellel, or Open/Neo Office and Word, and possibly others;

- Possibilities of simultaneous editing by co-authors (three in the same time zone), mixed with desires not to have to merge separate versions of the same document, and then try to unravel peer edits over and through peer edits; and

- Individual (non-collaborative) priorities limiting time available to get simultaneous takes in a single view approach.

What kept us doing piece-meal mark-up in Docs?



The short answer is same as above, plus a desire to see and understand what one another was doing, or had done, and to get an inkling of why. Would that motivate students either on campus or online? I doubt it. Granted, Google Wave might have given us a similarly rich, informative, contextual display, but that would have been one which still needed to be rendered into a form suitable for publication in traditional (printed or printable) form.

PS: Regarding the numbers of current seminar posts that I estimated in this forum yesterday, I'd like to make a retraction, one contributors here may be unable to make more than 30 minutes after posting. My estimates were off by a factor of ten, or so, because I mistook p numbers in permalinks as page or post numbers. There are only about 150 posts here, nothing at all closer to 2000.
In reply to Paul Beaufait

Re: What exactly *is* collaboration? [tool independent?]

by Emma Duke-Williams -

Paul Beaufait wrote,

A short and silly answer is collaboration fever$: more to the point are:

Actually, I don't think that it is a "silly" answer; I think that we have to decide what's best for the time/place. That's one of the reasons we'd wanted to focus this seminar more on the "tools" than the "pedagogies".

I've felt in the past that we've also used Google Docs because it's "collaborative", when, as you say, it would have been easier (and saved lots of formatting issues) to have used Word & those that prefer Open Office / whatever just having to put up with the choice (though with Google Docs, chances are someone would have preferred Zoho!)

I wonder if this starts to get us back to the discussion of what's the actual key aim ... to enhance collaboration & develop collaborative skills; or the product that's being worked on. Perhaps that also helps to make a choice.
In reply to Emma Duke-Williams

Re: What exactly *is* collaboration? [tool independent?]

by Deirdre Bonnycastle -
This reminds me of the Progress vs Process debate that is always an issue when working with small groups. I tend to be product/progress focused, so I'm interested in the best tools to get things done but I am very aware that needs to be balanced by "Process" people. Whenever I setup online groups, part of the discussion I suggest they have is around "group roles". If they see different roles as contributors to the overall project, it helps overcome issues of "so and so brings my marks down" so I have to do everything.

So here is a story; when my daughter returned to high school from being home schooled, people complained about her being on their projects because she was obviously severely dyslexic. The team that was "forced" to take her, discovered that she had phenomenal research skills from her years of home schooling and their team marks went up even if she couldn't write the final essay.

So maybe part of learning to collaborate is learning how to discover, trust and utilize the strengths of individuals. The energizer person who brings the "virtual coffee" to an all-nighter is as valuable as the person who brings the research.
In reply to Deirdre Bonnycastle

Re: What exactly *is* collaboration? [tool independent?]

by Emma Duke-Williams -

Deirdre Bonnycastle wrote,

If they see different roles as contributors to the overall project, it helps overcome issues of "so and so brings my marks down" so I have to do everything.

How very true - and also allows groups to see that if they all have naturally very similar roles, that they may have to work to ensure that all roles are covered.

Good to hear about your daughter & her research skills :)

In reply to Emma Duke-Williams

Re: What exactly *is* collaboration?

by Deirdre Bonnycastle -
I was just looking at a tremendous example of K-12 Global collaboration and realized I have 89 collaboration resources on Delicious.Enjoy.
In reply to Deirdre Bonnycastle

Re: What exactly *is* collaboration?

by Paul Beaufait -
Deirdre,

Thanks for sharing pointers to your Delicious bookmarks both here and on on the mindmap Emma started. Great idea!

Cheers, Paul
In reply to Emma Duke-Williams

Re: What exactly *is* collaboration?

by Sylvia Currie -
Clint Lalonde, who has been participating in this seminar (mostly over in the waves, I think), is co-facilitating a discussion this week as part of his graduate course at Royal Roads University. Clint posted about his distributed discussion experiment on his blog. He is directing the course participants to a blog post by Ben Grey who writes about the differences between collaboration and cooperation. I thought I'd mention it here because Clint refers back to this SCoPE discussion, and also because there is an interesting discussion developing over there.

How's that for connecting some dots!