Collaborating in small groups
Smith’s (2005:183) definition of collaborative groups used above (in ‘early course reflections’) indicates the constructivist nature of online group learning (e.g. Jonassen, 1998; Harasim, 2000). As our small group work was on promoting online collaboration, we were able to draw not just on our prior experience and knowledge of collaboration, but to reflect-in-action on the processes we were experiencing together.
As Cassandra notes above, there is also a transformational element to collaborative learning. This is supported by Wenger’s (1998:214) assertion that “communities of practice are not only a context for the learning of newcomers but also, and for the same reasons, a context for new insights to be transformed into knowledge”. As Evans et al. (2006) suggest, an individual’s identity is developed as they participate in a particular environment, with interactions, activities and the development of skills all contributing to the learner’s developing identity.
Was the small group experience a collaborative one? Did you feel like a community of practice? Did participating in small group work lead to a paradigm shift for perspective transformation for you?
Processes of online collaboration
As the USQ lecture on promoting online collaboration notes (2007), there is a clear difference between collaborative and cooperative work. Cooperative work involves splitting work into subtasks which are solved individually, while collaborative learning involves cooperation across tasks. Which one were we involved in?
Our focus was on dialogue rather than the dissemination of facts, which has been suggested to be a fundamental strategy in promoting online collaboration (Liber, 2000; Laurillard, 2000). Since our focus was collaborative learning, we took advantage of several different tools to explore different collaborative learning processes. We used synchronous and asynchronous chats (via Elluminate and the Web CT discussion board), as well as wikis, mail, and even the occasional phone call to facilitate communication.
How did we know which media was most appropriate for the group goal and processes at that time? Did we make the right choices? Is part of the reason for our successful group work that we used several different media? What things were necessary to make the process work? (e.g. social prescence) and were different things necessary in different media?
Benefits and challenges of collaborative learning
Some benefits of online collaboration are suggested to be:
– democratised participation (Lapadat, 2002)
– reciprocal learning experience
– learning and teaching between participants both formally and informally
– focus is on the learning process, including emotional support (USQ, 2007)
– “vicarious learning” – chance to observe and learn from others (Mayes, 2002)
– foster higher order thinking (e.g. perspective taking, writing, cognition) (Lapadat, 2002)
While some challenges of online collaboration are (from Lapadat, 2002):
– time consuming
– overwhelming (especially with a large number of posts)
– different media present different challenges – e,g, synchronous discussion does not allow for depth or reflection time
– lack of contextual clues (what is ‘this’ and ‘now’ online?)
– tension between social aspects of online learning (e.g. anonymity v social presence)
Smith (2005) notes that the benefits and challenges of collaborative learning are often speculative assumption rather than empirical evidence. Do any of these benefits or challenges fit with your experience of the small group work? Were benefits and challenges specific to particular group tasks or media?
Smith (2005) also raises paradoxical tension of self expression – requiring movement between individuality and interconnectivity – particularly online where consensus making and collegiality can lead to a loss of individuation. What was your experience of collaboration? Was your sense of self subsumed to the group or did the group enable further self expression?
FET8604 Theme 4 Group Reflections 
5 comments
Comments feed for this article
June 10, 2007 at 8:49 pm
clarabanana
Hi All
I hate to be super geeky and uncool, but I wanted to add a personal reflection to the above. The deciding factor for me, going into group work, was not what topic I wanted to study, but which people I wanted to work with.
I knew from previous experience that the hardest part for me about online collaboration is setting up the processes, creating mutual goals and objectives, and working a group with folk who are supportive, allow for multiple perspectives and acknowledge individuality (Andres, 2002). As McConell (2005) notes, the way group’s see themselves in terms of identity and control can affect group performance. Trust, interdependency and communication are key to group work. I knew I wanted to be in a group with folk who had similar values and attitudes towards study and deadlines. This ties into Lave and Wenger’s (1991) idea of communities of practice and Wenger’s (1998) idea of a learning community. I wanted to get together with folk who would automatically come together in a proto-community of practice. I chose my theme based not on what topic I was interested in, but what raw resources/context (i.e. the people) would best facilitate my learning. If I’m in a good group, I’ll learn easily about the topic. But it doesn’t matter how great the topic is, if I’m in a bad group, it will be a bad learning experience.
How did everyone else make initial decisions about small group work?
C.
June 13, 2007 at 2:54 pm
cassandrastar
The move to the group-based themes section of the course, posed a dilemma, as Clara points out in her reflection. My initial concern was about preferred group formation. I jumped in early regarding my theme preferences, but kept my options open between two groups, and got lucky, as those who I wanted to work with joined the group I had nominated!
Collaborative learning is integral to the constructivist learning approach (Duffy & Jonassen, 1992; Salomon & Perkins, 1998). I am not generally a “joiner”, and value independence and self-pacing in my academic work. However, as the research on online group work shows, working in the group provided both support (Selfe & Meye, 1991; Rovai, 2002; Morgan & Tam, 1999; Rose & McClafferty, 2001) and intellectual challenge (Ellis & Calvo, 2005; Hannafin, Land & Oliver, 1999). We also benefited by sharing the theme’s cognitive load (Sweller, 1988; Sweller, 1994). The task-oriented nature of the group within the course design also contributed to knowledge construction (Veerman et al, 1999), and I think that this is also bourne out in our communications. The majority of our non-task communications can be categorised as planning or social, which is more likely to foster higher order thinking (Veerman et al, 1999; Lapadat, 2002). However, I’m not sure I would refer to us as a community of practice (CoP). A CoP usually has persistence and membership with both experts and novices (Lave & Wenger, 1991), rather than being a bounded community in time and place, with only novices or learners. I would be more inclined to call us a learning community. In our learning community, we displayed both collaborative and cooperative work, given that while working together, we also produced individual assessment items; our learning was collaborative, but our assessment was cooperative.
All learning experiences offer different benefits and challenges, and online collaboration is no different. However, it is instructional design that matters most (Rovai, 2002; Veen, 1993; Reynolds et al, 2003; Swan, 2002). Research-based, iteratively-refined, feedback-informed, course design can maximise the benefits and limit the challenges. My personal challenge with this learning experience related to two of Lapadat’s (2002) observations – time consuming and overwhelming (see also: Loomis, 2000; Meyer, 2003; Son, 2002). When participation is assessed, there is no option to opt-out and successfully complete the course, this therefore leads to student anxiety. A key theme in the literature on is the need to provide clear guidelines on participation expectations and assessment criteria or rubrics (Wozniak & Silveria, 2004; Kickwood & Price, 2005; Brannon & Essex, 2001; Wu & Hiltz, 2004; Van de Vusse & Hanson, 2000). For example, in this course, a clear indication of an expectation of active engagement in discussion and assessment feedback limited to just my theme group would have limited anxiety and also workload.
The literature argues that asynchronous discussion tools are well suited to higher order thinking and knowledge construction (Mason, 1994; McConnell, 2000; Slavin, 1994; Stacey, 1996; Stacey, 1998), which reflects our use of it for topic discussion and assessment (content) discussions where time for reading and reflecting on others’ posts is possible. Our use of Elluminate was largely for planning, negotiating and discussing progress, rather than higher order thinking. However, I also think that the synchronous communications were important for more clearly establishing the social presence (Lapadat, 2000; Hoadley & Pea, 2002) of the group members. While pre-group and group discussion establish a presence, I would argue this is “academic presence” more than social presence, but Elluminate revealed Clara’s love of chocolate and drawing, Sharon’s U2 fanaticism, and that Sandra has a policy of not having her photo on the internet, and likes to stalk Shirley near the CoffeeBean. Therefore, it is clear that different media are required to draw together different elements for group formation, bonding and success.
June 16, 2007 at 1:13 am
dreamoutloud
Unlike Clara, I chose a theme rather than a group for the collaborative work, but that was largely because I knew there was only one theme on which I was confident about being able to run any sort of pedagogical event. However, I will admit to hanging back until Cassandra nominated herself for this theme for reasons not dissimilar to those described by Clara in her blog entry. When Clara and Sandra opted to join us as well, I was delighted. I knew enough about who they were, and how they were likely to work, to be confident that the collaborative experience would be a positive one. What I didn’t anticipate was how much they would each push me to experiment with unfamiliar technologies, and how strong a bond our group would forge.
Without the others suggesting the idea, I never would have thought to conduct our group discussions synchronously using Elluminate. For me, the use of Elluminate was a revelatory experience. It taught me the place of synchronous technology in facilitating quick decisions, reducing the number of discussion posts that need to be dealt with, and engendering a group camaraderie not possible through asynchronous discussions. The insights I gained were invaluable and have caused me to think more seriously about arguing for the introduction of synchronous discussion technology in the MBA distance education course I work on.
Likewise, I would not have dreamed of using a wiki or a blog had Sandra and Cassandra not made the suggestions, and had I not felt the subtle but positive group pressure to experiment and push myself outside my boundaries. As a member of a learning community, I was aware of my strengths and weaknesses within the group, perhaps more so because others were willing to own up to their own strengths and weaknesses. This meant that when suggestions were made regarding the group making use of different technologies, I knew that it would be churlish to say, “I don’t know how to do that, and I don’t think I have the time to learn how”. If others were willing to operate outside their comfort zones, then I likewise had to be willing to wholeheartedly embrace learning experiences I perhaps hadn’t sought or anticipated. So in the moments where I sat there feeling technologically inept, I reminded myself that what I was experiencing was no worse than Sandra saying she felt like a plodder, or Clara admitting she constantly felt like a fraud.
In her introduction to this section of the blog, Clara discusses the paradoxical tension of self-expression raised by Smith (2005). Given the inner conflict I experienced during the first part of the course, it could have been reasonably expected that I would struggle to reconcile my strong need for individuality with the requirement for interconnectivity during the collaborative phase of the course. It is in good measure a reflection of the openness, grace and goodwill of Sandra, Clara and Cassandra, and the technological choices they encouraged the group to make to facilitate our discussions and activities, that this was not the case. Our group’s decision to conclude the course with a collective reflective blog is a testament to the success of our group in forming a strong learning community.
June 17, 2007 at 6:45 pm
truet
My comment to Cass’s introductory post most particularly refer to “the second issue” in this reflection.
Our group’s focus was on dialogue, and reflecting on my experience has led me to two understandings. The first is clearly highly relevant to the course but second appears, at first glance to be somewhat peripheral. In actuality it is highly significant as it directly relates to the reason I am studying in this course and program. I’ll discuss the more obvious issue first and then move on to the more “peripheral” understanding.
I read Sharon’s, Clara’s and Cass’s postings before doing my own and am very glad that I didn’t know how Clara chose her group. If I had, I probably would not have joined this group. When choosing my group, my ability to “pull my weight” was uppermost in my mind. “Pulling my weight” is one of my personal “life laws” and so extends into my learning environment. I tossed up between joining the online tools group (as I had been exploring blogs and wikis and had very positive experience teaching with synchronous chat) and the dialogue group. I recognised that dialogue was the area where I needed to do significant learning but also knew that I would not be able to make a contribution equivalent to that of my more experienced, knowledgable and articulate classmates.
Clara’s suggestion that we use Elluminate was probably my saviour. The sociability of synchronous chat (Lapadat, 2002) helped me move away from my feelings of isolation and intimidation as we seemed more “ourselves” in this conversation setting. I found myself engaging with enthusiastic, passionate, patient and generous fellow learners who accepted my “novice” status and my black hat moments. Looking back, I think that Sharon, Cass and Clara became a little like unofficial mentors during this stage and to the end of the course. If we’d agreed to use asynchronous chat more, I suspect that I would have been unable to truly join the group as my inability to understand the more academic posts would have continued to be the over-riding experience. Thanks to these influence of these relationships, I moved into the pedagogical events with more confidence than I would have otherwise have possessed.
As a result of this experience, I’m now considering including synchronous chat into a first year information literacy activity which, this semester, relied on asychronous discussion, a video clip (with transcript) and email as the major tools of communication for the students and I.
Now to the second issue which is related to my professional relationships. Our group communications have led me to notice that my asynchronous posts are more casual than many of my fellow learners and that I often deliberately choose not to a more academic style described in the literature (Lapadat, 2002). As I’ve struggled with this course, I think that this difference in style could possbily have contributed to the difficulty I experienced becoming part of the learning community – I was resisting doing what everyone else was doing to be part of the community.
As synchronous chat is less formal, the tension (Smith, 2005) that I’d inadvertently created disappeared. Of course, this would not have happened but for the group members who all sought to create a comfortable, happy and productive learning group. Each of us was committed to ensuring that every group member had an equal voice. If that had not been the case, my early experience would probably have continued.
So why do I want to be able to reflect my growing education knowledge in a less formal manner that anyone can understand? In my job, I must be able to communicate these ideas and issues with colleagues and academic clients – some of whom have less knowledge than me. I need to create connections through mutual understandings rather than disconnections through an “unshared” language. I don’t want to get into the habit of using academic jargon but I wonder whether this could possibly leave me a little isolated in my course learning communities particularly if I am not feeling positive about the course experience. This is an interesting tension that I’ll be looking to work with during the remainder of the program.
Sandra
June 18, 2007 at 2:08 am
clarabanana
SMALL GROUP WRAP (Champagne and vol-au-vaunts in the green room to follow)
Social processes such as shared values and attitudes was an important factor choosing a collaborative group (Lave and Wenger, 1991; Wenger 1998). For Clara it was the key deciding factor, while Sharon, Cass and Sandra made primarily a content-based group choice, but acknowledged that the group membership was a factor in their initial feelings about the group. Sharon held back until Cass nominated herself for the theme, and felt “delighted” when Clara and Sandra signed up. For Cass, she felt she had “got lucky” with group membership. However, Sandra had initial concerns that she “would not be able to make a contribution equivalent to my more experienced, knowledge and articulate classmates”, adding if she had known Clara’s reasons for choosing a group, she may not have joined, worrying about her ability to “pull my weight”.
Key to all members was participating in a group that valued individuality, multiplicity, creating shared processes and support for members (Andres, 2002) as, for instance, Cass is “not a joiner” and Sharon expected to struggle with “my strong need for individuality with the requirement for interconnectivity”. Yet, as Cass noted, we all recognised that “collaborative learning is integral to the constructivist learning approach (Duffy & Jonassen, 1992; Salomon & Perkins, 1998)”. The group became, as Cass noted, like a learning community – a temporary gathering of novices working cooperatively on our learning and assessment tasks (Lave and Wenger, 1991). As Sharon said, this “collective reflective blog is a testament to the success of our group in forming a strong learning community”.
Sharon suggests part of the reason for our group’s success was the technological choices made to facilitate our discussions and activities, which, as Cass notes, facilitated task-oriented and social communications. Both Cass and Sandra commented on the higher order nature of thinking and dialogue through our asynchronous communications (the discussion board) (Mason, 1994; McConnell, 2000; Slavin, 1994; Stacey, 1996; Stacey, 1998), and that the synchronous communication of Elluminate sessions enhanced a sense of social presence (Lapadat, 2000: Hoadley and Pea, 2002), as well as allowing for group planning, brainstorming, clarification and consensus building. As Sandra says “The sociability of synchronous chat (Lapadat 2002) helped me move away from my feelings of isolation and intimidation as we seemed more “ourselves” in this conversation setting.”
The variety of media for group communication challenged members to learn to work across new media platforms and to better understand how these media could become pedagogical tools. For instance, Sharon found Elluminate to be a “revelatory experience” and Clara learned experientially how wikis could promote learning. For others, it was participation in pedagogical events that enabled similar insights, such as Sandra being able to pedagogically locate Breeze.
For Sandra in particular, movement between the media, illuminated a tension that exists between her writing style across asynchronous and synchronous forms which she suggested may have contributed to her difficult becoming part of the overall learning community. For her, this related to her professional identity and her need to communicate clearly with a range of clients. This may relate to the tensions explored by Smith (2005) between individual and group identity. In general, however, the tension between group and individual identity, while having been a concern for group members in the past, did not engender the same issues around trust and the interdependency that members expected (c.f. McConell, 2005).
Level of trust established have related to the honesty with which all group members shared their self-perceptions and self-assessments. Each member was motivated by the group to step outside their comfort zone and explore areas of weakness or uncertainty. As Sharon notes, “in the moments where I sat there feeling technologically inept, I reminded myself that what I was experiencing was no worse than Sandra saying she felt like a plodder, or Clara admitting she constantly felt like a fraud.”
Particular challenges in the group work were, as Cass notes, time-consuming and overwhelming aspects of online collaboration (Lapadat, 2002). Another tension, also noted by Cass, was between assessed participation and individual assessment which led to some anxiety, requiring clear guidelines on expectations and assessment criteria ((Wozniak & Silveria, 2004; Kickwood & Price, 2005; Brannon & Essex, 2001; Wu & Hiltz, 2004; Van de Vusse & Hanson, 2000)
The undoubted overall take on the small group process was a positive one, with many members having learning, experiences and ideas to take into their teaching and further study.
And thus, I end this wrap up with “Huzzahs to All!”. 🙂
Clarabanana
p.s. Sandra – I want to add one personal thing to this wrap. You had an uncanny knack for asking the right questions, ones that teased out assumptions and encouraged critical thinking. You might not think it’s worth much, but you brought something to the group that I know benefited me immensely. You pulled your weight. ‘Nough said.