Skip to main content

Diigo Home
Home/ 1001teachers/ Group items tagged collaboration

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Clay Burell

Flixn.com | Video Everywhere - 0 views

flixn.com

collaboration flatworld video web2.0

shared by Clay Burell on 25 May 07 - Snapshot
  • Clay Burell
    Clay Burell on 25 May 07
     
    Thanks to Patrick Higgins (who thanks Will Richardson) for this find:  this might be just the peer feedback tool we're looking for for the 1001 Tales writing workshop.  It requires a webcam, but otherwise is dead easy to embed--easier than Yackpack, and video added to boot.  (And check out the film debut of Patrick's Audrey, who can't be more than four moons old, on his demo.  Priceless, Patrick.)

    I'm seeing this as a way for students to give peer feedback by reading their flat classroom peers' works aloud into their webcam, pausing for commentary all the while.  At a couple stages in the Flat World Tales, we had students podcast themselves reading their own works, then listen and reflect about what they heard.  Otherwise, no audio-video was used; instead, students only wrote their feedback on each other's wiki page.  My students said this took them upwards of a half hour per story feedback.

    So Flixn might be faster, easier, and more effective--and more social.  Some of the student feedback expressed regret that they could not see or hear their flat classroom partners this time around.

    I'm really liking this....Chris Watson, are you listening? 

Clay Burell

Collaborative Writing - 0 views

www.sis.pitt.edu/...node31.html

collaboration education web2.0 wiki writing writing_process

shared by Clay Burell on 25 Mar 07 - Snapshot


  • Based on the results of the study conducted by Ede and Lunsford
    [39], seven organizational patterns for collaborative authoring were
    identified. These patterns are:

    1. the team plans
      and outlines the task, then each writer prepares his/her part and the group
      compiles the individual parts, and revises the whole document as needed;
    2. the team plans and outlines the writing task, then one member prepares
      a draft, the team edits and revises the draft;
    3. one member of the team
      plans and writes a draft, the group revises the draft;
    4. one person
      plans and writes the draft, then one or more members revises the draft
      without consulting the original authors;
    5. the group plans and writes
      the draft, one or more members revise the draft without consulting the
      original authors;
    6. one person assigns the tasks, each member completes
      the individual task, one person compiles and revises the document;

    7. one dictates, another transcribes and edits. Results from the study
      indicated that the percentage of writing groups that use these methods often
      or very often range from 3% (method 5) to 31% (method 3).
    • Clay Burell
      Clay Burell on 25 Mar 07
       
      Interesting research on collaborative writing models.  Obvious relevance to classroom wiki workshop designs and roles.


  • Survey one, which was administered to a large group of writers
    (approximately 800), provides information on the amount of time spent on the
    various phases of the writing process. The results show that generating
    ideas (14%), note-taking (13%), organizational planning (13%), drafting
    (32%), revising (15%), editing (13%) contribute to the total writing
    process. Ede and Lunsford [39] also examined co


    llaborative authoring and the results
    indicates that the level of satisfaction in the group writing process is influenced by eight items:

    • the degree to which goals are articulated and shared;
    • the degree of openness and mutual respect;
    • the degree of control the writers have over the text;
    • the degree to which writers can respond to others who modify the text;
    • the way in which credit (directly or indirectly) is acknowledged;
    • the presence of an agreed upon procedure for managing conflicts and
      resolving disputes;
    • the number and types of (bureaucratic) constraints imposed on the authors--
      deadlines, technical/legal requirements, etc., and;
    • the status of the project within the organization.
    • Clay Burell
      Clay Burell on 25 Mar 07
       
      Again, interesting for wiki-based projects.  The percentages of total project time taken by each phase of the writing process is especially relevant to the student-created wiki textbook project I'm launching in my history class this week.
1 - 2 of 2
Showing 20▼ items per page