Nola Campbell was a leading educator and an online pioneer in our country before she sadly died last year. She is well known for a rule for her students in online forums.
"Wait three before me" - in other words, three other students need to have responded to you before you go back in again. I THINK it was just for a first post in a thread.
I asked her about this in a cafe at some stage, and she said 1) it avoided the ABAB syndrome: discussion eddies involving the loquatious 2 students. 2) It meant students were aware of tring to kep posting rates up to support others, and seemed to apreciate creatng a god foundation for a thread/discussion.
I'll read your work Sarah. Looks like you are onto something - with the observations to support it.
-Derek
Off to work now. (50 minutes late). Bagel and coffee on the way. I have re-writen my wild west collaboration based course case study. I'l chec the other thread later and see if it's still a valid contribution.
Derek Chirnside
Posts made by Derek Chirnside
Sarah, I'm back and this deserves some response.
This was a workshop for staff where a method of 'Collaborative Assessment' was presented. 30 points for three pieces of writing. 3 points for the creation of the links.
I was doubting whether it was real collaboration.
No. You osted your three orignal articles. You then created links between any of the other articles. Each link had a small reflection on the link (al that I saw were either comparing lke with like (reflecting maybe on a smal difference) or contrasting like with unlike. All grading by lecturer.
Point taken. Agreed.
This is the crux. This is why I am here in this discussion, even though I shouldn't be. :-) The notion of collaborative dialogue.
{Don't even try to respond to this next paragraph}
a) How I hate to be grading this!! b) How do you respond to the question "have I done enough Yet?" (Where is the joy in learning?) c) Wow, that student knows more than me and it's only week three. d) Oh dear, xxx still has not got it, there goes an hour of backchanelling. e) What a wonderful weekend of posts, there they go, I am their leader, I must follow. f) Where is everyone? This was supposed to be a week's activity . . . g) No we don't need 5 screenfuls, Jimmy, read the instructions. h) Hmm. This has NOTHING to go with the learning ourcomes, but it sure is fun - OK, lets redefine the goal. i) What just happened? This was a (great/lousy/boring/magnificent) week online. What did we do (wrong/right)? j) This is fun. Getting to know more about what is going on.
I think for me this is the basis: f2f or online. Issues of power, identity, sharing, common goals, mutuality, knowledge, humour, puns, levity, course objectives, participants, facilitators etc all assisting occassional periods of deep collaborative dialogue.
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?)
This was a workshop for staff where a method of 'Collaborative Assessment' was presented. 30 points for three pieces of writing. 3 points for the creation of the links.
I was doubting whether it was real collaboration.
...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?
No. You osted your three orignal articles. You then created links between any of the other articles. Each link had a small reflection on the link (al that I saw were either comparing lke with like (reflecting maybe on a smal difference) or contrasting like with unlike. All grading by lecturer.
I think I'm missing the "learning benefits" you assume in your comments.
AHH, now this is interesting. This is a faith statement.
"Carefully reading the work of others in your class, and reflecting on
how they responded to the required reflections, then fndng and
reporting on links between them - then reading other lnks by other
students - It's got to be good for you" How often do we put in
our assignments, get a grade and NEVER see another piece of work by any
student ever?--I'm
not sure this is always true. Research is built upon the knitting
together of previous accepted research.<snip>
Point taken. Agreed.
<snip>
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).
This is the crux. This is why I am here in this discussion, even though I shouldn't be. :-) The notion of collaborative dialogue.
{Don't even try to respond to this next paragraph}
a) How I hate to be grading this!! b) How do you respond to the question "have I done enough Yet?" (Where is the joy in learning?) c) Wow, that student knows more than me and it's only week three. d) Oh dear, xxx still has not got it, there goes an hour of backchanelling. e) What a wonderful weekend of posts, there they go, I am their leader, I must follow. f) Where is everyone? This was supposed to be a week's activity . . . g) No we don't need 5 screenfuls, Jimmy, read the instructions. h) Hmm. This has NOTHING to go with the learning ourcomes, but it sure is fun - OK, lets redefine the goal. i) What just happened? This was a (great/lousy/boring/magnificent) week online. What did we do (wrong/right)? j) This is fun. Getting to know more about what is going on.
I think for me this is the basis: f2f or online. Issues of power, identity, sharing, common goals, mutuality, knowledge, humour, puns, levity, course objectives, participants, facilitators etc all assisting occassional periods of deep collaborative dialogue.
Well Hi Bonnie, a little late but some comments.
Pragmatism also maybe: no goal, wil they learn anything?
There is also the context to consider here. Victor Chen made a comment last week "The old saying: not everything that counts you can count, and not everything that you can count, counts" I'd never heard the old saying.
Discussing doctors bedside manners with doctors in training. Aim: for them to improve their bedside manner. Now, you can make them sit a m/c test, but is this really measuring it? Video one another, and feedback? An artifact, but well, are we really measuring things? Can you really artifact everything? I actually don't know.
Hmm. Dialogue or communcation? I'd say some communication needed, but dialogue absence can be made up for other facets.
Small talk does not make it nto the meeting minutes - but does it help lubricate the wheels to nurture the real business?
I suppose it reflects my materialism, but I tend to anchor collaboration
on artifacts: what is the result of the collaboration, what products
have been made, what evidence of collaboration has been produced? There
are no prescribed ways of getting to the artifact so that the
collaborators themselves decide how to get there themselves. But
without the goal of producing something, anything, would they proceed?
Pragmatism also maybe: no goal, wil they learn anything?
There is also the context to consider here. Victor Chen made a comment last week "The old saying: not everything that counts you can count, and not everything that you can count, counts" I'd never heard the old saying.
Discussing doctors bedside manners with doctors in training. Aim: for them to improve their bedside manner. Now, you can make them sit a m/c test, but is this really measuring it? Video one another, and feedback? An artifact, but well, are we really measuring things? Can you really artifact everything? I actually don't know.
- Must communication occur between collaborators for collaboration to occur?
Hmm. Dialogue or communcation? I'd say some communication needed, but dialogue absence can be made up for other facets.
-
What I mean here is do
you think there might be a tendancy to elevate online communication
because it is documented when on closer analysis the content might just
be idle chit-chat, small talk - the kind that we would not if it were
to take place in the non-virtual? For example, small talk does not make
it into the minutes of a meeting.
We are trying to build in 'Postlets' into our forums. Mini social/feedback affirmations (From : Hey, well done | I agree | read this, back later | Sally, hope this didn't strain you too much after a netball game to This has altered my thinking | Hmm, should I revisit my weekly reflection) Which would NOT appear in the main flow of the thread. Sarah's superb post that follows does a little more justice to this topic. It's also the social presence idea from Terry Anderson.Small talk does not make it nto the meeting minutes - but does it help lubricate the wheels to nurture the real business?
[I would have posted this elsewhere, but inside a post I couldn't figure out how to link to this post]
Hey I like this Sylvia.
Not sure what I think about competion. Two weeks back a student said to me after an introduction to threaded forums "But if you post something and someone else uses it, won't they get a jump on you?"
What about a "cylinder view". We need 45 mL's to be genuinely collaborative. You have listed a few ingredients. But a lot of some (Like purposeful - they NEED to know it soon) can make up for not much other (like co-operation) and everything else is made up by tons of commnication/dialogue.
I see a huge difference dependent on the the required outcome - Product (up for assessment, or presentation at a conference maybe) or formless personal learning benefit (Increased understanding) or required personal learning benefit (I need to as an individual sit a test on the results of our collaboration)
Aside: my interdependence useage: this comes from Johnson & Johnson who are known for collaborative small group work work. For them it is the sine qua non of collaboration. But they began in an era when a definite huge hit was needed in this direction. 25 years later, we may have moved on from such a strong need, and actually have a better appreciation. - D
Hey I like this Sylvia.
Not sure what I think about competion. Two weeks back a student said to me after an introduction to threaded forums "But if you post something and someone else uses it, won't they get a jump on you?"
What about a "cylinder view". We need 45 mL's to be genuinely collaborative. You have listed a few ingredients. But a lot of some (Like purposeful - they NEED to know it soon) can make up for not much other (like co-operation) and everything else is made up by tons of commnication/dialogue.
I see a huge difference dependent on the the required outcome - Product (up for assessment, or presentation at a conference maybe) or formless personal learning benefit (Increased understanding) or required personal learning benefit (I need to as an individual sit a test on the results of our collaboration)
Aside: my interdependence useage: this comes from Johnson & Johnson who are known for collaborative small group work work. For them it is the sine qua non of collaboration. But they began in an era when a definite huge hit was needed in this direction. 25 years later, we may have moved on from such a strong need, and actually have a better appreciation. - D
[Just working my way down this thread. Hope I don't mess up the flow to much]
Crystals: What a wonderful metaphor!! I don't quite have as linear view of what happens in a classroom (with good faclitation) but point taken.
"a precise exchange between particular parties": taking this slightly out of context, I worked alongside of many "collaborating" academics working on a range of activities in 1998 working on presentations for conferences where they were in three or four locations. I thought this:
LOW LEVEL:you cite someone's work (not collaboration)
MIDDLE LEVEL: your read and like/dislike smeone's work and contact and talk (becomes collaboration)
TOP LEVEL: you click and say 'lets work together' and maybe co-publish.
As an aside, there was a real ZING in some little crystalline entitities in this group of academics, even with dry academics (Who else gets excited about Joe visiting XYZ INC in Michegan and discovering a new level three point two(i) radiating axis in YYtrium??). On a purely existential level, this is why I like collaboration, once we figure out what it is. It (generally) energises the participants. it creates a buzz in the classroom. [I sometimes don't need evidence to do it, thinking of Sarah's recent post, but I always am on the look out for it - and I'm appreciating this discussion to get me beyond the "I know it when I see it" syndrome]
Sarah's comment above: "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." "
Yes. I think what I look for in collaboration in learning is a - b - a actually moving a and b forward in their understanding. Maybe I recant a little here on my original hard cliff edges . . .
Collaboration can produce products, genuinely collaborative.
or Collaboration can seem lower down the scale outwardly) but still work inwardly. - D (Off to reply to Sylvia's search for 10)
Crystals: What a wonderful metaphor!! I don't quite have as linear view of what happens in a classroom (with good faclitation) but point taken.
"a precise exchange between particular parties": taking this slightly out of context, I worked alongside of many "collaborating" academics working on a range of activities in 1998 working on presentations for conferences where they were in three or four locations. I thought this:
LOW LEVEL:you cite someone's work (not collaboration)
MIDDLE LEVEL: your read and like/dislike smeone's work and contact and talk (becomes collaboration)
TOP LEVEL: you click and say 'lets work together' and maybe co-publish.
As an aside, there was a real ZING in some little crystalline entitities in this group of academics, even with dry academics (Who else gets excited about Joe visiting XYZ INC in Michegan and discovering a new level three point two(i) radiating axis in YYtrium??). On a purely existential level, this is why I like collaboration, once we figure out what it is. It (generally) energises the participants. it creates a buzz in the classroom. [I sometimes don't need evidence to do it, thinking of Sarah's recent post, but I always am on the look out for it - and I'm appreciating this discussion to get me beyond the "I know it when I see it" syndrome]
Sarah's comment above: "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." "
Yes. I think what I look for in collaboration in learning is a - b - a actually moving a and b forward in their understanding. Maybe I recant a little here on my original hard cliff edges . . .
Collaboration can produce products, genuinely collaborative.
or Collaboration can seem lower down the scale outwardly) but still work inwardly. - D (Off to reply to Sylvia's search for 10)