Learning Framework>Connect>Collaborate
"Learners share information to collaboratively construct socially shared knowledge."
(Jonassen, 1999)
(Jonassen, 1999)
Collaboration is a hallmark of constructivist learning and the main vehicle for connecting in a constructivist-learning environment. It offers students a means to test out ideas and understandings in the presence of others. The social interaction provides students with multiple perspectives, allowing them to “reconcile dissonant views” (BCIT, 2003), resulting in accommodation and the building of knowledge. Collaboration enables students to learn strategies and skills from others as well as to contribute to the group through their own roles, gifts, and strengths.
During the MET program I have had many opportunities to collaborate with others as we have built artifacts to demonstrate our learning. These assignments included a group paper in ETEC520, leading a weekly topic in ETEC511 and ETEC512, an online course presented in Moodle for ETEC510, a group weblog in ETEC540, and of course the ubiquitous discussion forums where we as “groups of thinking individuals” (BCIT, 2000, p.14) had our ideas and concepts debated and challenged, resulting in compromise and what Jonassen (2000) refers to as deep, engaging knowledge building. Each of these instances of collaboration served to provide multiple perspectives and opportunities to restructure thinking, resulting in the building of my own knowledge. While I learned much through all of my collaborative assignments, I would like to focus on one that I felt was not successful.
During the MET program I have had many opportunities to collaborate with others as we have built artifacts to demonstrate our learning. These assignments included a group paper in ETEC520, leading a weekly topic in ETEC511 and ETEC512, an online course presented in Moodle for ETEC510, a group weblog in ETEC540, and of course the ubiquitous discussion forums where we as “groups of thinking individuals” (BCIT, 2000, p.14) had our ideas and concepts debated and challenged, resulting in compromise and what Jonassen (2000) refers to as deep, engaging knowledge building. Each of these instances of collaboration served to provide multiple perspectives and opportunities to restructure thinking, resulting in the building of my own knowledge. While I learned much through all of my collaborative assignments, I would like to focus on one that I felt was not successful.
Artifact 1
In Learning Technologies: Selection, Design and Application (ETEC565A), we were asked to conduct one of our weekly discussions within a wiki page rather than on the Vista discussion thread. There were specific guidelines and instructions, but basic to the task was that we would set up the discussion, come to a consensus on the topic and present it once there was consensus. This was a whole class assignment so there were 23 students working within a collaborative space. The purpose was for us to get a feel for collaborative work in a wiki space.
Activity Reflection
|
Reflection
Knowledge Gained and Impact Made For me this assignment was not a successful one in terms of collaboration. In the end we never had all 23 contribute to the conversation. We also were not able to come up with a cohesive conversation/discussion or a consensus. The open nature of the assignment as well as the working space became a stumbling block for our success. The assignment was not wasted however. I learned some valuable lessons about collaboration, something that I have struggled with implementing in my own classroom. In the past I have not been a fan of collaboration because I feel that it is often not successful. As a teacher I have considered setting up collaborative groups to be more trouble than they are worth. However, as I come to the end of my MET program and have read much about constructivist teaching strategies, I do see the value and even necessity of this component for learning and recognize that I need to understand what contributes to a successful collaborative experience. Johnson and Johnson (1999) suggest five criteria for collaborative learning.
Missing from our experience was the promotive interaction. This means face-to-face working together. As MET students we have all worked on successful collaborative projects that are not face-to-face, however usually these projects are conducted in small groups (no more than five) and there is one or more “face-to-face” encounters through communication software in order to negotiate the project. In the case of this assignment, the group was too large and there was no interaction other than disparate postings. Without timely interaction, the other four criteria could not occur. In the end we were not able to maximize our learning as it pertained to that week’s topic. Through this experience, as well as through readings and discussions in Constructivist Strategies for e-Learning (ETEC530), I realize that collaboration needs to be purposefully set up, as well as overtly taught in order to be successful. In terms of using wiki as a collaborative space, I do think it has great potential for the classroom. I have used Wikispaces with my own students, however in the future I would offer them greater support in their use of the space. |
Artifact 2 & 3
While the reflection above represents an unsuccessful learning experience in terms of outcomes, most of my experiences in the program were positive collaborative experiences. Text Technologies: The Changing Spaces of Reading and Writing (ETEC540) was an example of a Web 2.0 type of collaboration. In this course everything that we created became part of a community weblog. Making connections was encouraged as we linked our own work to others or commented on work that interested us.
The wiki allowed us to work together on a collaborative document. Some members contributed to a first draft of a section while others contributed by adding more information and editing in order to complete the project. The instructions and expectations were clear, allowing effective collaboration.Work could be done asynchronously. Each person had the expectation that their work could be edited or changed by others rather than retaining the rights to original, static work.
http://wiki.ubc.ca/Course:ETEC540/2012WT1/Orality_and_Literacy
References, Links and Key Resources
ETEC540 (Sept., 2013). Text, technologies [Community Weblog]. Retrieved from http://blogs.ubc.ca/etec540sept12/
Johnson, D., Johnson, R. (1999). Learning together and alone: cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Jonassen, D.H. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: A new
paradigm of instructional theory, Volume II, pp. 215-239. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Orality and literacy. Retrieved August, 4, 2013 from http://wiki.ubc.ca/Course:ETEC540/2012WT1/Orality_and_Literacy
ETEC540 (Sept., 2013). Text, technologies [Community Weblog]. Retrieved from http://blogs.ubc.ca/etec540sept12/
Johnson, D., Johnson, R. (1999). Learning together and alone: cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Jonassen, D.H. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: A new
paradigm of instructional theory, Volume II, pp. 215-239. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Orality and literacy. Retrieved August, 4, 2013 from http://wiki.ubc.ca/Course:ETEC540/2012WT1/Orality_and_Literacy