| TL Advisor Blog
|
|
|
Permanent link“Collaboration” seems to be one of the buzzwords in education today. Even the esteemed N.C.T.E. identifies one of its “21st Century Literacies” as the ability to “build relationships with others to pose and solve problems collaboratively and cross-culturally.” Couple this with the explosion of Web 2.0 tools including blogs, wikis, podcasting, social networking and all the other “cool tools,” and you have a formula ripe for collaboration. But to call collaboration “new” is forgetting our roots. There is no topic more researched in the history of education than the value of “working together.” Leaders such as the Johnsons of the University of Minnesota, and Spencer Kagan, have researched and developed programs that have fine-tuned Cooperative Learning to a science. The problem, however, is that oftentimes, the connection between Cooperative Learning and technology is overlooked. Unfortunately, some teachers get so caught up in the excitement of the tool, that they may lose sight of the learning. Also, turning students loose on a wiki does not guarantee that any “learning” occurs. The philosophy of “If you build it, they will come,” should be changed to “If you build it, they will come…but they may not do anything.”
Enter Cooperative Learning.
A way to ensure learning in a tech-based collaborative activity is to structure the Positive Interdependence and Individual Accountability into the lesson. Let’s take for example, a collaborative writing assignment using a wiki. The “typical” wiki involves a large number of students adding text, images, and links to a rather substantial document. Many successful projects have been created this way; however I would like to offer another possibility. We must first realize that the terms “wiki” and “collaborative writing” are as interchangeable as the terms “stove” and “baking a cake.” The former is a tool, the latter, a process.
Many times in wikis, students add, but are reluctant to edit the work of others—and rightly so. When collaborating on a Google Doc with fellow presenters, I would not consider editing or deleting work of my colleagues. As a result, most wikis take on the look of a patchwork quilt, with each “panel” reflecting the ideas of a single individual. Don’t get me wrong, the quilt model can fulfill some great objectives; however, for a true collaborative writing process, the final product needs to resemble, not a quilt, but a blanket. To achieve this, teachers, once again must embrace those Cooperative Learning structures in cyberspace, that they did in their classrooms.
Positive interdependence: We are better together than alone. Johnson and Johnson identify twelve types of Positive Interdependence, and further go on to state that for a lesson to succeed, at least three need to be present. A wiki assignment constructed properly can have at least four. Goal interdependence relies on the teacher creating a challenge for the students to create a compelling document. A unified vision of that goal is essential. Role interdependence is achieved by assigning specific, unique roles to individuals in the group. Each may be responsible for drafting a particular section and revising another. Environment interdependence becomes inherent within the wiki itself. If students have a part in creating a unique space they tend to take more ownership; therefore, I encourage student to select color schemes, titles, and images to “dress up” the assignment…that is, after the text is completed. Task interdependence relates closely to “Role.” “Task” is the idea that one portion may not be completed unless another’s task is completed. Veronica cannot edit the segment unless Jonathan drafts it, and so on. Individual Accountability: EVERYONE learns One of the common criticisms of “Group Work” is that an unequal distribution of work and learning often results. In order to ensure that everyone participates, contributes, and learns, the teacher must structure several layers of individual accountability. First, wiki groups should contain no more than four members, and two or three is actually more desirable. Identifying roles and assessing is much more realistic in a group of three. Furthermore, “hiding” among three people is very difficult. Also, teachers must assess the project at various times during the project. Teachers need to assess and give feedback at the outlining, drafting, revising, and publishing stages. Also, since most wikis have history features, teachers need to continually view the participation of each member. Admittedly, even though these technologies are relatively new, these concepts are not. When I first attempted a collaborative writing project via a wiki, the results were far below what I expected. Achievement soared only when I applied Cooperative Learning strategies. Jon Orech, the Instructional Technology Coordinator at South High School, in Downers Grove, Illinois, will be speaking at Tech Forum Midwest in Chicago on Friday, April 24. Posted by Christine Weiser at 03/25/2009 11:18:03 AM | Nice post Jon... I am excited to read this post as I have even more anticipation and excitement about our presentation at Tech Forum Midwest this April.
On a personal note, I am more than happy to have you edit, delete, and completely change anything we have in our Google Doc for our presentation as I trust that you are going to make it the best you can.
The difficulty of true collaboration in my opinion is trust amongst the collaborators. We ask our students and often our colleagues to work together in an environment where trust has not been built. Just think about what happens when students get assigned to their groups and their teammates have prior baggage and history together or when they don't know each other at all. Why should they trust their partners? Why would they feel comfortable with editing their partners work?
Whenever these discussions on collaboration come up, I often think of sports teams. I know you have a background in football and can agree that the best teams always have "team" effort.
Basically, I agree with you in so many ways. We can't expect our students to collaborate in a wiki just because the technology is set up as a collaborative tool. I believe in what some other educators have identified as a "hand-shaking period". If we don't help our students learn how to work collaboratively, I don't care what kind of project you put together, they won't learn collaboratively.
I have said for a long time that educators themselves don't collaboratively work together and it all goes back to "trust". Ever notice that people are always more willing to verbalize their opinions in a meeting but they don't take that same initiative on paper. Collaborative work within a wiki or shared document brings with it accountability. We are always more willing to put ourselves out there when there is less accountability. Many times we don't trust that we can truly be open when we can so easily be held accountable. Posted by: Scott Meech ( Email: | Visit ) at 3/25/2009 5:05 PM
|
Thanks, Scott. I too am excited about "collaborating" with you at TFMW.
I am glad you posted this. In an advanced CL course I took with the Johnsons, the cornerstone of the whole class was trust, and that the best way to build trust is to be trustworthy. And you are so right, we sometimes ask kids to do things that we as professionals struggle with. My wife had to work collaboratively, on line, for a grad class project. Without boring you with details, there were several obstacles the group had to conquer, many caused by egos, not content. It all worked out, but it took time.
Right here and now is a classic example of Positive Interdependence, because, thanks to you, I will be reviewing that textbook I had,and will be including the concept of "trust" in our presentation.
Your accountability issue is interesting. I would say that you are more likely to "put yourself out there" if you feel a sense of obligation to the group. If you have struggled together, and know they are counting on you, and have your back, then you will go to the wall for them, to achieve the goal.
Quick story: Wife's on-line grad class: night of group presentation using webex or something. 20 minutes before her group goed on, our power goes out. Panic. By the time power was restored, and she rebooted, class was over. BUT, simultaneously, she got 3 skype calls...all the people from her group who were worried about her. Once they found out, they all immediately emailed the prof explaining the situation and how my wife was an integral member of the group. Yes, she got an A. Despite egos, when it came down to it, they trusted her, and helped her out. OK way more than you bargained for, right?
See? 2 heads are better than one...Especially if one is gray and the other is bald!
Thanks, Scott. Posted by: Jon Orech ( Email: | Visit ) at 3/26/2009 6:15 AM
|
Good information, Thank you Posted by: mohd yusof ( Email: ) at 3/27/2009 10:53 AM
|
Would you please post the citation for Johnson and Johnson that mention. Thanks. Posted by: Martos ( Email: ) at 4/6/2009 11:53 AM
|
Do you have a sample lesson to share, using the Wikipedia idea? Posted by: Cynthhia Wandling ( Email: ) at 4/17/2009 8:12 AM
|
Martos,
Here is the link for the Johnson Webpage: http://www.co-operation.org/ Posted by: Jon Orech ( Email: ) at 4/20/2009 10:24 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Sun |
Mon |
Tue |
Wed |
Thu |
Fri |
Sat |
| |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
| 7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
| 14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
| 21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
| 28 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Blogroll
Archive
BlogCategories
Recent Posts
|
|