Saturday, October 15, 2011

Model 3 Blog - Section1: Assessing Collaborative Efforts By: Cecil Mittoo

Collaborative learning communities are associated with distant education. Collaborative learning suggests interaction among a learning group to include the instructor. Dr. George Siemens [video presentation 2008b] sees the process of teaching, learning and assessment to be under the same umbrella.  Participation of learners in the learning community ensures wider knowledge building from defining problems to finding solutions.  The learning community is an important component of distance education.  Participation of the learner is therefore a requirement.  Since the learning process is enriched by participation of members, then assessment will take into account the group’s performance with contribution from all its members. Education for the most part falls within the social context.  Solution to problems requires a collaborative effort. This is because problems have taken on a diverse nature from a global perspective where the individual thinking alone does not ensure clear definition and solution that serves to benefit all. According to Dr. Chris Dede [video presentation 2008a] “People come together with different views to co-construct issues in order to understand each other’s perspective well enough to accomplish something together.” The knowledge that we create in a learning community is created on a collective bases therefore assessment should be done on a collective basis.

Palloff et al. (2005) notes “Evaluation of students in an online course can be challenging” (p.41).  Angelo and cross (1993) in Palloff et al. (2005) identify  face to face assessments as being very effective for traditional education and see parallel evaluation methods to be effective for online courses (p.41). Assessment for online learners is thought to be more reliable when done by class members. This takes the blunt of the responsibility from the instructor (p.44). Dr. George Siemens (video presentation 2008b) notes that Students doing online courses comes with varying experiences and knowledge and there are those who will participate and improve immensely than others. Better performing students are worth recognizing for the level of their achievement; however there need to be a method of recognition. On the other hand peer to peer evaluation can be a critical issue and Dr. George Siemens (2008b) thinks that such evaluation should not be awarded by grades but in a qualitative form.  When students in a group performs at a higher level than others the question of “fair and equitable assessment” arises, Dr. George Siemens (video presentation 2008b) believes there should be a way for acknowledges better achievers.

If a student does not want to network or collaborate in a learning community for an online course this creates a challenge for the other group members. This defeats the principle on which the online course is constructed.  Essentially, the question may be asked if this is good or bad.  It could be both. One bad is if the student in question mislead the group with inaccurate information in a purposeful way, then time can be “wasted” verifying information from credible sources. On the other hand that student could have great experiences and knowledge that would be value added in collaborative interaction and co- knowledge construct.
But the real concern is; what should the other members of the learning community do?  This is a difficult task, and what the other members do can either “make or break the situation.”  I believe that from the onset of any online course members of a learning community must seek to build a “social trust.” This might entail many non-academic parameters that establish a comfort zone.  In a parallel situation of building a comfort zone via technology for communicating, Dr. George Siemens [video presentation 2008a] believes that people are becoming more appreciative of online communication via technology. If this comfort is already established then the face to face interaction is not an issue for community members to “dive” into social networking and interacting to share their personal challenges, strengths, preferences and “baggage” that they will take to the online course. And, there will be members that gravitate to each other with higher levels of trust and comfort. Shaffer et al. (1993) in Palloff et al. (2007) believes that there is “our human yearning for a sense of belonging, kinship and connection to a greater purpose”(p.27). The group should know these relationships and let the “best people” seek out the non- participating member and gradually have the group to show concern and bring back that member to the fold. The group should refrain selfish thoughts and personal biases. It is better not to succeed than to create mistrust, anarchy and cause the permanent loss of a group member.

There is a human side to learning that needs to blend in with the technology and collaborating. Palloff et al. (2007) espouses “When we discuss community building online we are normally concerned with humanizing a ‘non-human,’ technological environment and creating a learning community in the process” (p.45).  The issues of members bridging the gap of alienation and feeling accepted is practical than philosophical.

One can never be certain of what the issues are that prevents participation of a group assigned member.  Palloff et al. (2005) sees problems ranging from personal, beliefs, and experiences. There is professional help for the instructors’ and team perspective. And, if the group sense difficulty, then let the situation be dealt with from a professional perspective. Anderson (2010) identifies “Well prepared resources can be provided online” (p.430). The instructor should make use of these resources. Anderson (2010) speaks of three assistance that should be in place from the institution perspective, “The institution should provide this resource and all institutional staff should be trained to identify when a learner might benefit from a session with a counselor” (p.430).

The impact that a non-participating group member would have on the instructor’s assessment plan can lead to credit being offered to members who are non-deserving, or weight heavily in causing the entire group to be seen as low performers.  Knowing the possibilities, the instructor along with the class group should be able to identify issues and problems from an early stage so that proper assessment strategies can be put in place. The instructor must take this initiative to have a backup plan that will reflect the true performance of other group members.  I believe the built in assessment strategies in collaborative interaction on an ongoing basis will be a good starting point.   

References:

Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2008a). Educational technology: The Importance of Collaboration [Dr. Chris DedeVideo program]. Available fromhttp://laureate.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=5260641&CPURL=laureate.ecollege.com&Survey=1&47=4769372&ClientNodeID=984645&coursenav=0&bhcp=1

Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2008a). The Future of Distant Education [Dr. George Siemens’ Video Presentation]. Available from: http://laureate.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=5260641&CPURL=laureate.ecollege.com&Survey=1&47=4769372&ClientNodeID=984645&coursenav=0&bhcp=1.

Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2008b). Learning Communities. [Dr. George Siemens’ Video Presentation]. Available from: http://laureate.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=5260641&CPURL=laureate.ecollege.com&Survey=1&47=4769372&ClientNodeID=984645&coursenav=0&bhcp=1.

Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2007). Building Online Learning Communities: Effective Strategies for the Virtual Classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2005). Collaborating Online: Learning Together in Community. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Anderson, T. (Ed.). (2008). The Theory and Practice of Online learning. (2nd ed.). Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University Press. Chapter 17, “Supporting the Online Learner.” Susan D. Moisey & Judith A. Hughes.

No comments:

Post a Comment