Issues in On-Line Collaboration

As Siemens (2008) mentioned, a collaborative learning community should be assessed by the contributions of its members. This could include the amount of input and feedback a user provides, participation in listservs or similar message boards, or simply counting the amount of times a user accesses the content. Using some of these methods could allow professors to assess fairly keeping in mind the different skill levels of participants. Discussion boards and listservs require limited skill requirements to participate. Some just require the use of email and responding to messages via the same method. With the assumption the learners are required to use technology to access the course, this type of collaboration does not require much more skill.

Measuring participation has fallen into a couple of categories that can be subverted by savvy students. One area is the amount of time spent in a module or looking over discussions of others. Unless schools implement timing out systems, students can sit for hours with the course in the background. This causes problems though as some users can read many posts over a time frame and would be frustrated having to log in repeatedly. Another area of concern is measuring the quantity of work submitted to the collaborative group. Simple “I agree” or “Good point” responses often flood discussions and offer no benefit for the group. Instead of learning, the group turns into the mutual admiration society where everyone agrees with the author, no matter the topic. There will always be some form of subjectivity when grading participation because using targets like “2 responses of at least 100 words” becomes a game of just counting the words and not focusing on the quality of the response.

One area that is hard for an instructor to gauge in collaborative assignments is the amount of knowledge a student brings. Unless the student self identifies that he/she is skilled or not in a certain area, the instructor usually does not know. However, in collaborative assignments, the skilled student could teach the unskilled their knowledge which would allow two types of assessment. The skilled student could be measured on how well they really knew the material by how well the unskilled student mastered the content. The unskilled student could also be assessed on their knowledge after being exposed to the new material. Both participants could evaluate each other. The unskilled student could evaluate how effective the skilled student was in presenting the material. The opportunities for evaluation in collaborative environments are there, but require a change of focus from both instructors and students.

Pallof and Pratt (2005) mentioned one area where instructors and institutions could improve upon. When dealing with reluctant or non-cooperative students, they suggest providing information for students in conflict resolution. Usually, when students want to work alone, either they are allowed to do so, or the group just does the work without them and grumbles about it. As students see themselves as equals, it is hard to move into the role of trying to convince someone else to do their part of the work. Peer pressure is not effective and students worry about offending the other party, especially if technical issues or family emergencies caused the lack of participation. The two prior situations could also be solved by the authors’ suggestions of having the instructor set guidelines and procedures of what the group should do in similar settings. Finally, the instructor has to take an active role in equalizing the participation within the community. Some users are excited to contribute and could scare off others while some users just prefer to say little. The instructor should help encourage dialogue, but be careful when asking users to pull back as not to totally shut down a very active participant.

References

Laureate Education, Inc . (Producer). (2008). Assessment of Collaborative Learning [Video Program]. Available from http://sylvan.live.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=4930715&Survey=1&47=7102460&ClientNodeID=984645&coursenav=1&bhcp=1.

Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2005). Collaborating online. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.