Sarah Haavind

Bonnie's story conveys such a great experience. I hear her valuing the learning challenges inherent in collectively constructing an artifact of collaboration that tangibly represents the thinking and learning of the group. She states,
 
Bonnie, can you tell us more about the assigned task exactly and how was it assessed? In other words, can we delve a bit more into the key elements of the task design?
Thanks.
Sarah

Bonnie asks such an important question...and if I were the facilitator (which I often am) I'd be sitting on my hands for about 48 hours after her contribution was posted to see if others might jump in, but since I'm a participant this time, I'll partake in the luxury of responding with one comment -- Bonnie asks:

Here's a little piece out of my recent study:
According to Benuunan-Fich, Hiltz and Harasim (2005), ?conversation, argument, and multiple perspectives that arise in groups contribute to such cognitive processes  as verbalization, cognitive restructuring, and conflict resolution.? (p. 28.) In a study of several hundred undergraduates taking online courses, Navarro and Shoemaker (2000) verified that student-to-student interactions had a higher correlation (p=.24) to performance than student-to-instructor interactions (p = .10). This finding confirms and extends the enhanced learning gains established by Johnson and Johnson that resulted from peer support rather than from instructor support in face-to-face classrooms (1999).

Learning through peer collaboration is traditionally understood to involve activities where peers work together to create a product (Slavin 1986; Johnson, Johnson et al. 1994; Bruffee 1999). Such group work poses particular challenges in a distributed, asynchronous environment (Dirkx and Smith 2004; Graham and Misanchuk 2004). A primary difficulty with conducting team work or collaborative projects online is how poorly online courseware supports such group work, especially when communication is asynchronous, as it is in the VHS (Kitchen and McDougall 1999).

Collaborative dialogue is a potent, alternative form of collaborative work. Bransford and the National Research Council, in How People Learn (2000), point to the value of such student social interaction for cognitive engagement:


The use of dialogue as a learning activity is not new (Burbules 1993). Harasim (2002) describes the emerging role for computer-mediated conversation described by Brown  (1990) as ?the shift from seeing technology as a cognitive delivery system to using it as a means to support collaborative conversations about a topic and the ensuing construction of understanding? (p. 183). Brufee (1999) highlights the potential of conversation for deepened thinking. Aviv describes asynchronous learning networks as ?cooperative learning enhanced by extended think time? (Aviv 2002), since the asynchronicity provides learners the opportunity to reflect and think through a response before responding. Bender suggests, ?we can think of teaching and learning as being comprised and communicated by the words that flow between teacher and student, as well as student and student.? (Bender 2003 p.56). For this reason, Hiltz and Goldman in their recent book, Learning Together Online (2005) claim that, "asynchronicity, which may at first seem to be a disadvantage, is the single most important factor in creating a collaborative teaching and learning environment." (p. 6)

Specifically, invitations to learners to post comments to discussions of class readings, science labs, or math problems, to peer-review one another?s assignments, or to share questions and insights about a learning experience can prompt participants to collaborate, or ?co-labor?. This is what I mean by collaborative dialogue. According to Harasim (2002),


Online and asynchronously, ideas are shared using a format in which learners can take the time to reflect on the comments of others and consider their own ideas more carefully before contributing. They don?t have to jump into the often rapid and fleeting repartee of aural dialogue exchanged in ?real? time classrooms. Activities that have been shown to work particularly well are case study discussions (Benbunan-Fich 2002) and peer evaluation and feedback (Hiltz 1994; Riel, Rhodes et al. 2005).

Sorry for all the citations -- most of the references here are detailed at the end of the AERA paper I just shared in a previous post if you want them. Otherwise, please inquire. And if you haven't yet seen Hiltz & Goldman's "Learning Together Online" and you are interested in research on online learning, this is a must-have for your bookshelf.

Okay, that said, I would love to know what others think: when is it "small talk" and what makes it "collaborative dialogue"? ...if you agree at all that there can be a difference.
Sarah

I mentioned some recent research I've been doing in my previous post. I just completed my thesis (yea!) for which I examined Virtual High School classes where an unusually high amount of collaborative dialogue took place to see what instructor moves and design features prompted higher collaboration among learners in content-based discussions.

Though I do not have a narrative story to share here, I do have some evidence of course design features and instructor moves that may make a difference if fostering extended collaborative dialogue among learners online in asynchronous, threaded dialogue.

If you are interested, I've attached a paper I will be presenting at AERA in San Francisco next week that summarizes the study. Here is a brief abstract:

One of the most challenging aspects of online teaching is promoting content-focused dialogue among students that supports a course?s instructional goals. This study identified online instructor facilitation, activity designs and evaluation rubrics that promoted substantive, collaborative dialogue in Virtual High School classes (www.govhs.org). Collaborative dialogue was recognized in collaborative events that contained a minimum thread depth of four linked comments discussing course content. Course archive data and discourse analysis suggested an interplay among four key elements: a socially-bonded community of learners, collaborative activity designs, explicit scaffolding or teaching of how to collaborate, and evaluation of collaborative participation. When used together these were most likely to promote collaborative dialogue online.

If you read it, I'd love to know what you underlined and why.
Sarah

Still fussing over Derek's rich comments...one question that perhaps only Derek can clarify for me --

From When does it become collaborative? by derekc on Thu Mar 23 13:36:00 2006: About the workshop task you describe: The workshop was called "Collaborative Assessment" (what is that? The reverse of group grading?  A group of people coming to consensus on an individual's grade? or assessing work done by a collaborative group?)...and the task was to read three articles on your own, create links between them (also on your own first?) and then...what happened, you combined your lists of links and submitted for a group grade? And something else was supposed to happen where you came to consensus on a "best" list in which some items on individual's lists were improved by others in the group, some rejected with some kind of collective rationale due to further discussion?

I think I'm missing the "learning benefits" you assume in your comments.

Derek observed: Collaboration is not the same as working along side of.

--definitely I agree.

Derek added: Not even using the results of other's work.It must be more than this.

--I'm not sure this is always true. Research is built upon the knitting together of previous accepted research. I feel that is interdependent, albeit experienced perhaps, as somewhat individualized work. Though it might not be direct collaboration, I think it is a valuable form of the wider collaboration I spoke of in my previous "non-linear" comments.

Derek posits: There needs to be **inter**dependence.
But I guess I am still old fashioned enough to not like results handed in for assessment with group grades.  B ut the process of getting there I want to see collaboration built in...I'm a fan of the idea in Vygotsky's "Zone of Proximal development"

--I think I keep coming back to this because Derek is highlighting an issue for constructivist educators that I have just spent the last four (maybe 10) years exploring in depth: especially online, group work is difficult to orchestrate in a way that is reasonable for all learners/collaborators, is fair, and most important, is a rich learning experience.

However, collaborative dialogue about content in an asynchronous, threaded forum such as this one fits the criteria Derek suggests above: the "results" (posts by each individual) can be graded individually. We even have a nice set of rubrics/standards for contributing here in Scope (see the "Read Carefully/Write Carefully/Ask good questions" pop-ups to the right of the authoring screen).

It is also "interdependent" in that the richer each contribution, and the more attentively collaborators engage with one another, the more compelling the dialogue turns out for all.

So, back to the activity Derek described -- maybe the design needs to be re-visited. Using the same raw materials (three articles and 24 hours), what might be a useful, collaborative design that works for all participants, even the Dereks in the group?
Sarah

I too have been mulling over Derek's statement that without interdependence there cannot be genuine collaboration...somehow I sensed his statement indicated a precise exchange between particular parties: Derek and Sylvia collaborating here to collectively build a new understanding (or better articulation) of collaboration.

Other possibilities want to crowd in: "Online discussion does not evolve linearly through time, as classroom discussion does, but rather seems to grow like crystals from multiple conceptual seeds in many dimensions at once." (Swan & Shea, 2005)

...I know I've run across other inklings that attempt to capture that same multi-dimensional aspect of experience...constructed knowledge itself is distributed across a community of experts (Cole & Engestrom, 1999), and other similarly intriguing insights ...

Here's an example of the multi-layers of collaboration, not specifically involving certain individuals: Sylvia recently posted to the Online Facilitation list, in response to a "Teleseminar Question," a series of linkages between Scope members and the authors and contributors who were involved in the conversation to date (March 23rd). Isn't that collaboration? Call it informal, but all of us who are engaged in Scope or onlinefacilitation or wherever, are collaborating -- even when we aren't directly exchanging "a" to "b" back to "a."  We are collectively moving the conversation (about collaboration) forward in a collaborative way with our exchanges. And they are sometimes continuous and other times, long gaps of time unfold without much apparently happening, but even without our individual awareness of it, the collaboration continues, independent of the individual players. Chapters are written, talks are delivered and pondered and acted upon, conversations transpire on and offline, new knowledge is recorded, new technologies invite new possibilities...and the collective (not the individual), collaborative engagement is an intrinsic and essential aspect of forward movement for the (any) field.

So, back to Derek, I picture a much wider interdependence within which courses and formal collaborative projects are a part. Given a wider definition of interdependence, it doesn't seem so essential that the interdependence of person "a" and "b" are required for "collaboration" to be occurring. Both person "a" and person "b" may have gained essential new understandings as a result of their mutual engagement without them ever being mutually interdependent. They might both become part of one another's wider collaborative efforts to learn, grow, or develop new understanding...I think I'll stop before I fall off some cliff or other...? Other thoughts?
Sarah