Group items tagged

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?

This is not a weakness in students' performance. It is a factor that contributes to poor performance. No?

If we encourage students to invite others to share opposing viewpoints, then we would have to call the activity something else other than a "Debate" given that this is not a behavior you see in most formal debates. Regarldess, it is a good idea given that one of my studies (Jeong, 2006) found that simply using conversational language (e.g. tag questions) can increase the number of explanations posted in reply to each challenge by 70%.

This is not a measure of weaknesses in student's performance. Instead, it is a factor that influences students' performance. Or a weakness in the activity's design.

There were only five postings that were labeled as EVID out of the 121 total student postings - four of these were posted in response to challenges. How can we get students to support their claims with supporting evidence? The most obvious solution here is to provide access to more research findings and journals that present statistical numbers to demonstrate the veracity or strength of given claims. I could present a list of recommended journals and instruct students to find and make reference to at least one article to support a claim or counter claim. Your thoughts?

The most obvious solution here is to provide access to more research findings and journals that present statistical numbers to demonstrate the veracity or strength of given claims. I could present a list of recommended journals and instruct students to find and make reference to at least one article to support a claim or counter claim. Your thoughts?

This in my opinion is the main weakness in the quality of students' essays. Students need to present both sides of the argument. But even if students do that, I think another contributing factor is that students are at a lost as to how to articulate how one arrives at a conclusion based on all the presented arguments. Possible Solution: Have students collaboratively write an essay/conclusion statement and have student apply any of the tive methods explained in "RankingProposals.doc" found in the Documents folder.