Group items tagged

Why not an actual link? michele wirt

Good catch, thanks

A great spot for a sample diagram or graphic organizer example. michele wirt

It would also be nice to see this series of steps re-written for instructors eaching in online environments. Or, present this guideline in more generic terms so that it applies to both F2F and online teaching.

Why not post the models' diagrams? michele wirt

I would present the last sentence at the beginning of the guideline (instead of at the end) to firmly establish the importance and purpose of the guideline. The next guidelines, 7.2, does not appear to present a clear purpose or function.

I tried to post the model diagram but was unable to make it work. I ended up with a big blank box so I deleted it. I also attempted to insert a link to the diagram online but again when I followed the link I ended up at a big blank box. I'm not sure why.

Grammatical problem: "Guestures" should be spelled "gestures."

Note: When you highlight one word (particularly a word that occurs frequently within the document), Diigo will highlight the first instance of the word in the document. Just watch out for this when you are highlighting single words.

Place the guideline, "Transfer and maintenance are the keys to greater expertise," at the beginning of the paragraph. Placing the elaboration/explanation points at the end rather than the beginning allows readers to identify the main point of the guideline up front.

Great suggestion. I'll do that.

What is the relationship between this section and the sections before and after it. I notice that the items before and after are numbered Guidelines 1.5 (then the highlighted text is insterted) Guidelines 1.6. Consider rearranging these and putting the highlighted text after, unless it was here for a purpose. If so, perhpas it should be given a guildine number.

I am the author of the highlighted section, and i must say this must have been an oversight on my part. I agree that this section should be moved to Guideline 1.7 because the last sentence highlighted beginning with "According to Salmons" does not belong here. I have a question for Dr. Jeong, when should we revise our report to reflect the comments we received from our fellow classmates?

It may be unfair of me to say this, but it seems like this section contains an etxteremly long entry consisting of 6 guidelines that are essentially pages 57-61 of the Johnson and Johnson book. Were our guidlines limited to around 200 words. If so, should they be lengthened for cases like this where there simply is not enough space to get everything in? OR... is there a way to summarize all of this content into a briefer guildine or two?

There seems be a lot of information in this section of the report becuase there was a lot of articles to gather information from. Interpersonal skills, constructive criticism, debates, and constructive criticism regarding debates are important social and teamwork skills we believe are necessary for collaborative learning. How would you suggest we go about simplifying this material without losing valuable informaiton?

Dr. Jeong removed all of the word limitations from the directions for this assignment. While you are correct that this section contains a lot of information, I agree with Motorya that it would be difficult to eliminate areas without eliminating necessary elements.

Does DAT only work with Blackboard or will it analyze any type of posting forum feeds? Dr. Jeong, I suppose this is a quesiton for you if you happen to come across it.

According to Dr. Jeong's article on Discussion Analysis Tool, the minimum software requirements for DAT is MS Excel with Macro security set at low or medium level, therefore, DAT can be used with any program that supports MS Excel.

Yes. DAT can be used to analyze any sequential data. But ForumManager is used to download Blackboard discussion forums.

Does DAT work only with blackboard? Dr. Jeong, this is a quesiton for you if you find it. What does DAT do with text structured from other posting forums and LMS dialog diagrams?

According to Dr. Jeong's article on Discussion Analysis Tool, the minimum software requirements for DAT is MS Excel with Macro security set at low or medium level, therefore, DAT can be used with any program that supports MS Excel.

Consider rewriting as an instrucitonal guideline. For example: "Have students assess their content understanding with self assessment techniques like "Self Quizes," "Reflective Journals", "Content Mastery Checklists" and "Team member evaluation forms."

That is a great suggestion - and a pretty easy fix. Thank you!

Thanks for adding the numbering system to the questions and guidelines! I think it makes the document much easier to browse and easier to identify the various sections and subsections. I still think, though, that we need to add indentations to clearly demark each section and subsection. Good job laying out the steps in formulating a guidelines. :-)

This looks like another separate guideline. Maybe you could number if Guidelines 1.1b. If so, number the guidelines above as Guidelines 1.1a?

I think that this part (guidelines for constructive criticism) is redundant with Guideline 1.2 below. I suggest that this part can be combined with Guideline 1.2 which consists of guidelines on how to prepare students in how to engage in constructive criticism.

From the way it is written, the article is summarized first and then the guidelines are stated below the article. I agree that the report could be better organized in listing both the summary of the article and the guidelines together so that it won't be so confusing to viewers.

My comment is that the methods for assessing learning (Q4) should be separate with the challenges associated with the methods. Instead of writing the contents under Guideline 4.11, I suggest that this part of the content regarding 'the challenges associated with the use of self assessment' should be written under a new topic called 'Major challenges associated..'.

That is a good suggestion. I think that the reason we did not separate the two is because the question directly asks that we address both the methods and challenges - we probably just thought that since the question covered both, we would respond to both in the same section. I like your suggestion though - it would be nice to not have quite so many guidelines under this question!!

It seems to me that these 4 levels of cooperative skills are not hierarchical in nature. Am I right to say that in order for a group to be successful, its members have to possess all 4 sets of skills? In that case, I wonder if "sets" instead of "levels" will make more sense? I know that the txtbk presented it as "levels'....

The levels are hierarchial in terms of the mental complexity of the task. The first level of skills is the least complex. For instance: It is "easier" to 'use a quiet voice', or 'take turns', than it is to 'explain step-by-step on'es reasoning'. Each level also includes a variety of skills. I will try to clarify the guideline by writing: Level 1 - Forming skills (meaning level one includes the set of forming skills). I hope this helps.

Although I know that it is recommended for the instructor to conduct seperate series of sessions for the students to practice the skills one by one, I wonder if it is feasible for the skills to be paired up or even combined into one complete package for the students to practice all of them at the same time. Especially since forming skills seemed to be the "ground rules", it might be more meaningful if the students practice together with another level of skills.

I reviewed the source of this information and the text does not provide much explanation of these patterns. She (Burgoon) included these terms at the end of a paragraph without expounding upon them. Perhaps the information can be found in earlier chapters of the text (which were not given access to). The person who posted this guideline may be able to give you more insight as to why they chose to start with this sentence.

(Melissa Wilson) Clarification would be beneficial Based on the text and Burgoon's research, the patterns of reciprocity, compensation and dominance are vital to online conversations. These terms were introduced, but an explanation and/or example would be beneficial for further understanding based on their importance.

Thru group processing, members may reveal issues that they can resolve amongst themselves.  For example, schedules, pace, roles, and attitudes can typically be worked out amongst the members. The instructor may need to get involved in more serious issues, such as when someone is simply not cooperating and hurting the group; or, when the group cannot come to a resolution and requests a mediator.

(Melissa Wilson) Guideline 4.6 Clarification: I understand what you are saying under the guideline on group reviews, but does Sharan advise that students typically make the changes (as stated) or that instructors typically make adjustments when needed? Are these merely self-assessments or are they instructor assessments which impact grading?

(Melissa Wilson) Sharisse, Thanks for the explanation! I understand what you are saying...I was just initially thinking of larger problems that typically require complete group changes, but I see what you are saying! Thanks for the clarification!

I would say that this method is used to directly increase individual accountability given that students are asked to evaluate the performance of individual students. Nevertheless, some of the individual behaviors that are assessed and promoted in peer evaluations will indirectly increase inter-dependence. Overall, I guess its a toss up as to which category or function is performed by using this method.

Maybe we can use a wiki to compile all the peer ratings into one single worksheet. I think that efficiency is a must here so that students can concentrate on the main task - building and defending their arguments. Any other ideas on how best to implement the peer review process? Another question: How many times do the student evaluate one another during each debate? Is this a summative or formative evaluation?

How would the peer ratings count towards the students' participation score for participating in the debate?

Perhaps one can present more social skill tips and/or training over the course of the semester so that students have all the prerequisite social skills by the time they participate in the last and the fourth debate in EME5457. The question is which specific social skills should be addressed in the course without committing too much time on this one activity?

Just a Point of information: There are a total of four debates in EME5457, dispersed over the 16 week semester.

I think that there should be a distinction made between an "intellectual skill" versus a "social skill". Formulating arguments and etc. is something I see as an intellectual/argumentation skill (like the "fermenting" skills or roles described by JJ&H). Social skills, on the other hand, is concerned with how to "present" an argument or a challenge without sounding sounding offensive or arrogant - presenting one's ideas in ways that maintains positive relationships between participants (e.g. focus on the issue not on individual personalities, etc.). Social skills are taught to help maintain positive social relationships.

I like how you stated the findings in terms of what Beichner "found" or "observed" in their study (as opposed to stating the finding in terms of a claim or position statement. This type of statement is more effective in establishing the credibility because it is explicitly linked to the study's findings.

This could also help reduce the amount of time students spend on producing a group contract, and therefore, reduce the work load placed on the students. One of my concerns is student's work load (which must be taken into consideration when we discuss any of the solutions proposed in this document. --Allan

Note that this one is the same concept as that proposed in method #4 "Teammanship Ratings"

This method could be presented or subsumed under the method "Assigning Roles" (Role Interdependence). Using message labeling is one way of implementing roles. Therefore, this entry could be presented under "Implementation Issues".

It seems then that we are assuming that "positive interdependence" can be measured and/or defined in terms of how often presented arguments are challenged (therefore, groups are both working and "thinking" together)? I think this is a very useful way of looking at the meaning of the term "positive interdependence". --Allan

Pre-Structured Discussion Threads = Instructor creates one discussion thread for posting Supporting Arguments. The instructor creates a separate thread for posting Opposing Arguments.

Thanks Pat for linking your analysis back to the weaknesses we identified in week 3. :-)

Using email to perform this role is a good idea so that the number of message posted to the discussion forum is kept at more manageable numbers. I often perform this role myself by posting messages of this kind to a separate discussion thread located at the top of the forum titled "Instructor comments".

Other factors include amount of content covered in the lesson, and the number of roles that must be performed to successfully complete the task.

I noticed that this method was not reported here in this group document. Check page 54 of JJH for the description. On impact, I would reference and report the effect size achieved from using "structured controversy" reported in the Johnson 2000 article. On the topic of how to implement this method (already implemented in the debate), maybe we can think of ways to use this method to improve the quality of the after-debate essay? --Allan

Each debate team could share a wiki document to summarize and list all their arguments so that everyone is working off one shared artifact (or environment). As a result, the wiki would also serve to establish goal interdependence (creating one joint product, see p 53 in JJH textbook). I don't have any leads on any studies that show what impact this strategy has on the group's performance. However, you could by way of analogy refer to the Cho2002 study where they report performance gains when students focused their joint attention on a group concept map while engaging in a group discussion.

The responses below clearly show that most of us did not feel comfortable editing the work of other students in class. This would suggest that we are using Wikis merely as another tool for hosting group discussions, and not using it to collaboratively write, edit, and produce a high quality final product. However, one of the students noted that he/she would be comfortable making edits on other students' work if he/she could present his/her justifications and reasons for doing so. Perhaps more edits would be make to produce a higher quality end product is I simply asked or required each student to explain his/her actions within the "Notes about this edit..." textfield located at the bottom of each wiki page during page edits. What do you think?

I completely replaced/revised the entry that was here for the following reasons: (a) Space would not allow me to just add my entry. (b) Both would be too long and unhelpful. (c) The original was not written as a instructional giudline. (d) Primarily becuase the entry simply used Harris' descriptions of the kinds of decisions we already make. It didn't give any prescriptive info that collaborative groups could use to make better decisions together. I replaced the original entry with his 6 step decision making procedure.

If I have been to presumptuous, then the original text of the entry is pasted here.
1) Optimizing
Try to discover as many alternatives as possible and choose the very best. The criteria to look at:
a. importance of the problem
b. time available for solving it
c. cost involved with alternative solutions
d. availability of resources, knowledge
e. personal psychology, values
2) Satisficing
This strategy suggests that the first satisfactory alternative is chosen rather than the best alternative. For example, if you are very hungry, you might choose to stop at the first decent looking restaurant in the next town rather than attempting to choose the best restaurant from among all (the optimizing strategy). The word satisficing was coined by combining satisfactory and sufficient.
3) Maximax
This stands for "maximize the maximums." This strategy focuses on evaluating and then choosing the alternatives based on their maximum possible payoff. This is sometimes described as the strategy of the optimist, because favorable outcomes and high potentials are the areas of concern. It is a good strategy for use when risk taking is most acceptable, when the go-for-broke philosophy is reigning freely.
4) Maximin
This stands for "maximize the minimums." In this strategy, that of the pe

This could be rewritten into "guideline" format somewhat readily, for example: A flowchart is: a visual representation.......... Flowcharts show: x., y., z., etc. They have shown: a., b., c., They allow learners to: ....... michele w

Michelle, Consider restating your comment. The way you've written it out with spaces between the lines isn't clear. How is what you've suggested any different than what Melissa wrote? I'm confused... :) (Its a regular feeling these days).

I would start by stating the purpose or function of the guideline (instead of stating it at the end of the guidelines). For example: "In order to allow learners to....., have students produce flowcharts that represent....etc.etc.

Hi Jesse- I guess I was trying to save space doing that-- I meant putting a colon after the verbs, then listing or bulleting the rest. I.E. Flow Charts allow: -large text -ease of enhancement -simultaneous editing -promotion of discourse michele w.

(Melissa Wilson) Hey guys! I completely agree with making this into a guideline as Dr. Jeong indicated. I believe I misunderstood exactly what I was supposed to be doing, and how this all was supposed to flow, but better understand now-thanks for the advice!

(Jesse Gentile) Allen, I agree 100%. They are definitely concept maps. But these were the diagrams in the documents you linked with this question so I was a bit confused. Why is this question separate from the one that follows it about flow charting? They seem fairly similar.

(Jesse Gentile) I created several diagrams to illustarte collaborative learing. I may create more as I have time.

(Jesse Gentile) I re-wrote much of this section entirely as a instructional guideline. Much of what was here was really just descriptive information about the kinds of skills students need but did not give any guidelines for instructors: The original is pasted here: * In addition to the levels of collaboration and necessary skills at each level, chapter 8 in the Johnson, Johnson & Holubec outlined the following guidelines for the skills students should possess: 1) Teachers must keep in mind the fact that they have to teach students the skills they need for effective and productive collaboration. They must not assume that students possess these skills. 2) There are four levels of cooperative skills that students use as they divide roles in collaborative learning: * Forming Skills - Skills needed to establish a cooperative learning group * Functioning Skills - Skills needed to manage the group's activities and maintain working relationship among members * Formulating Skills - Skills needed to increase student understanding of material being studied, stimulate the use of higher-quality reasoning strategies, and maximize mastery and retention of material * Fermenting Skills - Skills needed to stimulate reconceptualization of the material being studied, cognitive conflict, the search for more information, and the communication of the rationale behind one's conclusions. 3) There are five steps in teaching teamwork skills: * Establish the need for the skill * Define the skill * Guide practice of the skill * Guide feedback and reflection * Repeat steps 3 & 4 frequently

(Kenisha Thompson) Thank you for your willingness to re-write the section as a guideline. As a matter of semantics, my problem was with creating guidelines because I was submitting principles that instructors must follow based on the articles. Also, I thought our instructions were to bring across the main points of the articles to those who were in other groups. Sorry about the confusion.

I would delete the bold font in these bullet points. Same below.

This is much better, Jesse. Thank you! If you could, please indent and align the remaining block of text.

What you have here are the beginning of what could be a potentially useful guideline. Perhaps you can start by saying something like this: "GUIDELINE#XX: One of the limitations of asynchronous discussions is that conversations often diverge and branch into multiple topics, and ideas raised in the conversations are rarely summarized and brought to closure or consensus. To promote convergence (define it here), one can do the following: ......" Also, the ideas presented in the bullets are a bit vague and may need more explanation.

Levels 1 - 5 look very similar to the way they appear in the Salmons text. This is all very helpful information and I understand why you would want to include it in the wiki document. One recommendation is to change it into a guideline by saying something like "In order to encourage true collaboration in the dialogue stage, be sure to model and explain the following skills: (then list the skills). Something similar could be done for the other 4 levels as well. Another idea is to post a few examples of how one might model and explain these behaviors for students. (Activities that could be done in the classroom to help students practice the skills).

(Kenisha Thompson) Thank you for the feedback, Heidi. This was one of my first contributions and I think I leaned more towards summarizing the articles and submitting principles rather than guidelines.  Also, your suggestions were very good.  I'll incorporate them for my final submissions.

This question does not seem "guideline friendly". It would be difficult to answer the question and post guidelines at the same time so I understand why there are not specific guidelines here. It would be nice to have the following affordances and limitations grouped so that all of the affordances are together and all of the limitations are together. I think it would be easier for the reader if it were organized in that way.

(Kenisha Thompson) Heidi, you bring up a good point. If a person is looking to answer these questions, then they are not going to come up with a guideline, but rather an answer or solution. The instructions tell us to organize the guidelines around the questions, but that can be confusing.

Thanks for the comment Heidi. I will try to rearrange the contents and make sure that it is placed under a specific heading as to provide a better guideline.

When I read this, I find it somewhat 'distasteful'. While I agree that it is important that practice will facilitate the students to be competent in the skills instructed, I find it unnecessary and more importantly, wrong to make sure that they are compelled to do so. In fact, I am very skeptical about the effectiveness of if the students need to be compelled into practising the skills. I think the onus is on the instructors to ensure that the students are willing to practice the skills over and over again through measures such as incentives' systems, etc.

Dave, The operative word as you suggest here is "willing"--instructors ensure students are willing....you mean by reward? the reward thing would tend to "compel" students also. michele w.

(Jesse Gentile) I think it was late when I wrote that out. Compell doesn't have to be the operative word here. Ensure, encourage, motivate... students to repatedly practice the skills until they become natural. I will say this though. Any of you who have taught in public school will know that sometimes it becomes an absolute mystery as to what would "motivate" students to do certain things. Adult learners in online settings will probably be far more cooperative than kids form socially unbalanced communities, but even adutls can be stubborn if they just don't want to do something. As all of us move back out into the 24/7 world I want to encourage all us as classmates to be ready for things to NOT work like the research says they will. A great discouragement for me as a public school teacher was constantly hearing people OUTSIDE the classroom saying "If you only did this, if you only did that... then everyhting would be alright. Everyone certainly does and will put the onus of responsibility on the teacher to make anything and everything happen in the classroom. What we don't realize though is that teachers reach a point of exhaustion where they simply can not do all and be all that everyone is calling them to do. In a 2006 article by washingtonpost.com I read the popular statistic that 50% of teachers quit in the first 5 yeras of that career. I realize this post is not about public school teachers, but I couldn't help throwing in this personal conviciton . I agree with Dave, but I remember all my undergrad college professors saying, "If you do this, if you do that.. .then this will happen."

I am curious to know how it is determined that Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) will derive a greated total effort of group as compared to face-to-face learning. I will think that it depends largely on whether the activities conducted in the face-to-face learning sessions promote collaboration amongst the learners. If they do, I will think that we human beings as social animals may not fare too badly in the total effort of group as compared to CSCL learning.

Dave, I think some of the research suggests that since all the non-verbal ques of things like gender, personality, and learning style are absent online, there is a more "level playing field", and less tendency to capitalize on/exploit/discriminate, etc. than in f2f environments. My hope is that there will always be human activities that necessitate f2f, while other things may be better suited for online. michele wirt

I think this is a subjective matter and some people would prefer CSCL over f2f activities. I would think that the author (McConnell) would provide this information based on previous research results. In my opinion, the number one reason for why group effort is much better in CSCL is because of the flexibility of time. People are more comfortable and contribute better ideas if they have they are able to work at their own time and pace.

(Melissa Wilson) I agree and also believe this is a very subjective matter-a lot is going to be based upon the learners involved. However, this particular aspect is referring to the "total effort of the group" and I think this would often be greater in a computer-supported environment. Evidence shows that learners who participate in distance learning are often motivated individuals. These are learners who often work in CSCL. There is often a greater flexibility of time, resulting in less frustration. Tasks can be divided up amongst group members and accountability factors can remain in place to promote participation and effort.

I somewhat felt quite differently in this aspect. While I agree that students are able to multi-task, I am not sure if the depth of analysis will increase likewise. Afterall, if I made a comment and there is no reply/ response from my classmates/ instructor until 2-3 days later, I may have already forgotten the key ideas/ rationale that prompted me to submit the posting in the 1st place. On the other hand, I will think that face-to-face learning sessions will allow the students to engage in in-depth discussions as long as time is permissible. Nonetheless, I do agree that TIME is a premium but I believe it is a constraint that learners in both CSCL and face-to-face settings will experience anyhow. Somehow, I find it hard to believe if someone tells me that a CSCL learner has more time than a face-to-face learner. I will agree that CSCL has more flexibility in time management though.

Dave, But then, in f2f environments, the school day/period ends, sometimes with a day or even a week in between in higher ed. Online, there is more of a sense of flux as you suggest. As for "forgetting", I think you may have a point in that it may be more diffucult to forget when you don't have all your senses with their associations working together like you do in f2f. mwirt

(Kenisha Thompson) Also, regarding multi-tasking, you have the option of having multiple windows open and collaborating ideas from several different sources. For instance, if you read something online, you can go out to other sites and do more research and post about it to the discussion board. In a f2f class, the conversation is less scattered and is restricted to what the instructor or students want to present.

Thanks for your comments. I'll try to include them in the final report.

(Melissa Wilson) So... you could say that learners will remain on task more in a f2f environment because the "conversation is less scattered." Learners in a CSCL environment have a greater flexibility to multi-task and may tend to get off task during this. I am a learner who remains more on task through distance learning than I did in a traditional f2f classroom. I think this entire chart is difficult honestly...because each depends on the learners and environment involved. As far as time, I think like Dave said, it depends on the class and how often the meetings occur.

%&%nbsp;Is this the same as a web diagram (see the following links for examples)? http://exchange.ucop.edu/__Help/Web Help/00011EFD-80000002/00011EFE-80000002/Project Resources - Edu/Graphic Organizers - Edu/F1043 http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/document/curricul/bbtech/bbeng34.pdf

Formatting: You may want to bullet these items to match your previous postings :-)

Thanks Sharisse, I'll try to reorganize the contents and include the bullets before the final submission of this report.

(Melissa Wilson) Sharisse or Sya, You're just referring to the author title here, correct?