Collaborative, Connected, and Experiential Learning:
Reflections of an Online Learner
D. Bruce Curry
Art director/teacher at St. Paul Christian Academy, a private kindergarten
through sixth grade (K-6) school, located in Nashville, Tennessee.
Email: dbrusse@earthlink.net
Telephone: Home: (615) 776-2073, Work: (615) 269-4751
Abstract:
Online learning is a relatively young field, which is still being defined as a
discipline. As faculty members wrestle with decisions about how to structure
online courses for collaborative, connected learning, student perspectives of
successful courses can provide valuable insights for decision-making. The
author, a second year student in Nova Southeastern University's (NSU) School of
Computer and Information Sciences (SCIS) Doctoral Computing Technology in
Education (DCTE) program, presents general research findings pertaining to
collaboration in online learning courses along with personal insights into what
makes a project-based online course successful as a collaborative learning
experience.
Introduction
While online learning offers students many advantages over campus-based
learning, problems do exist. One such problem is the attrition rate of online
learners, brought about in large part by a sense of isolation (Adelskold,
Aleklett, Axelsson, & Blomgren, 1999). One teaching/learning model, which
can ameliorate this sense of isolation, is collaborative learning. Collaborative
learning involves students in social interaction, as groups work together to
solve problems. Students in distance education programs, though separated
spatially, can gain a sense of togetherness as they share and clarify ideas,
actively contribute to a team, and cooperatively solve problems (Cecez-Kecmanovic
& Webb, 2000).
Until recent times, collaborative approaches to distance learning were limited by the cost and sophistication of the technology. However, with advances in computer technologies and telecommunications, it is now possible to offer collaborative learning experiences in a cost-effective manner. These advances coincide with a general shift in educational theory to a collaborative constructivist conception of learning, which recognizes the learner's need to share control and assume responsibility for constructing meaning in the context of a peer group (Anderson & Garrison, 1998).
However, few studies have been conducted that examine the impact of the collaborative teaching/learning model in the distance-education setting (Hardwick, 2000). As faculty members wrestle with decisions about how to structure online courses for collaborative learning, student perspectives of successful courses can provide valuable insights for decision-making. This paper presents general guidelines for collaborative learning in online courses, along with personal insights into what makes a project-based online course successful as a collaborative learning experience.
General Guidelines
Collaborative learning is an outgrowth of cooperative learning, in that
students must develop cooperative learning skills in order to use them in
self-directed, high-performing teams. These teams conduct free inquiry and
members jointly solve problems. Success in cooperative learning is grounded in
the skills students develop within the context of the structure provided by the
instructor. In distance learning, students must possess or develop the technical
skills necessary for online communication, as well as acquire and practice
social behaviors necessary for collaboration (Kemery, 2000).
Effective Team Members
Instructors should provide guidance for students on how to work effectively in
collaborative teams. The social aspects of successful teams should be explicitly
taught and not assumed. In order for teams to succeed, certain member qualities
must be present. Among those desirable qualities are an ability to clarify and
commit to goals, an interest in other team members beyond the task at hand, a
desire to confront conflict positively, an understanding of others'
perspectives, a commitment to make decisions inclusively, the valuing of
individual differences, a willingness to freely contribute ideas and encourage
team members, an open and honest evaluation of team performance, and a readiness
to celebrate accomplishments (Robbins & Finley, 1995).
Communication: The Key to Collaboration
The essence of project-based, online collaborative learning is communication
because positive group formation and learning occur through on-going dialogue (Kemery,
2000). Asynchronous communications can be utilized for much of the collaborative
effort, through email with attachments and private forums. Additionally,
synchronous private chat rooms can be used advantageously to facilitate
collaborative learning (Lai, 1999). Synchronous communications are critical for
establishing team roles, responsibilities, goals, deadlines, and for resolving
differences of opinion. Team chats are also important for building
relationships, encouraging one another, maintaining momentum, and celebrating
accomplishments.
Personal Reflections
This section presents personal reflections pertaining to my involvement in a
rewarding collaborative experience in one of my first courses taken in NSU's
DCTE program. As is true of all courses in the program, it began with a
weeklong, on-campus meeting, in which students were introduced to instructors
and to one another, and were familiarized with the course content and
requirements. The remainder of the course (nearly five months) was conducted
entirely online.
Many factors were responsible for the successful implementation of this collaborative online learning experience. While there are several categories of factors, which could be discussed, this paper directs attention to instructor factors and student factors. For the purposes of discussion, instructor factors are defined as those things that the instructor does to facilitate an environment conducive to collaboration. Student factors are defined as those things for which students are responsible if the learning process is to be productive and successful.
Instructor Factors
Challenging project
For collaboration to work, the team project must be challenging enough to demand
teamwork. Members need to sense that they are dependent upon one another in
order to be successful. If this criterion is met, members will be more likely to
appreciate each other's unique contributions. Furthermore, challenging projects
emulate real world situations and help prepare learners to be productive members
of society.
George K. Fornshell, Ph.D, taught the particular course under consideration, Project in Courseware Design and Development. The course content focused on the design, development, implementation, and evaluation of technology-based, content-intensive courseware. Students worked in teams to master the principles of instructional design (analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation). Team members jointly developed an educational courseware product. This development process included planning the product, creating a working prototype of the content-rich courseware, alpha/beta testing the product, and reflecting on the learning experience.
Clearly stated project requirements
Clearly stated project requirements give team members a common starting point
and provide a structure upon which to build. They also assist students with the
planning of collaborative work responsibilities. The instructor provided the
following outline for our courseware design and development project:
Assignment 1: Analysis and Design
Part 1: Product Review (individual submission)
Part 2: Instructional Design (team submission)
Assignment 2: Implementation (team submission)
Part 1: Written Materials--Summary description of product
Part 2: Electronic Product
Assignment 3: Evaluation and Reflections
Part 1: Evaluation (team submission)
Alpha test (evaluation forms and summary)
Beta test (evaluation forms and summary)
Part 2: Reflection (individual submission)
A personal communication from the student to the professor concerning the
overall learning experience
Flexibility in meeting project requirements
Flexibility in meeting project requirements balances the provision of clearly
stated requirements. Flexibility enables students to develop ownership of the
project, provides room for creativity, aids in the development of critical
thinking skills, and encourages a sense of team unity and individuality.
Each team was permitted to freely choose what its educational unit would be. The only requirement was that the product needed to be a complete unit of study with educational value. Our team chose to develop a photography unit because I was experienced in that area and could act as the Subject Matter Expert (SME) for the team. I also had an extensive collection of photographs and a scanner for converting them to a digital format. Other team members were more experienced with the technical aspects of the project.
Subdividing the project
The instructor, by properly subdividing a project, can help teams manage a
challenging task, encourage teams to keep on schedule, and provide opportunities
for important instructor feedback during the process. Our project was divided
into three assignments with two parts for each, resulting in six separate
submissions. The first assignment had two parts: an individual submission and a
team submission. This technique allowed students to receive both individual and
group feedback early in the term.
General guidelines for team formation
Providing guidelines for team formation is critical for team success and cannot
be overemphasized. Team formation guidelines help students choose team members
intelligently, aid in the formation of team member roles, and help provide a
basis for mutual respect among team members. General guidelines for creating
teams were presented both by the professor (Dr. Fornshell) and by a guest
professor (Dr. Abramson) during the weeklong, on-campus session. The importance
of having a balance of skills on the team was emphasized. Additionally, the
various roles in the instructional design team were discussed so students would
have an idea of what skills were necessary and important to have on the teams.
Allocating time for team relationship building
Relationship building allows team members to get to know and appreciate one
another's strengths and weaknesses, facilitates the initial ideation stage of
project development, and lays the foundation for a successful collaborative
experience. When it comes to team relationship building, NSU's DCTE program
structure and other hybrid programs (having both on-campus and online
requirements) afford, in my opinion, an advantage over purely online programs.
The weeklong, face-to-face session at the beginning of the term provided time and proximity for team relationship building. During the week, Dr. Fornshell built ample time into the schedule for students to mingle and form teams. He also provided opportunities for the teams to meet and begin to formulate project plans. Important brainstorming sessions enabled our team to discuss several options before finally settling on the photography idea.
Maintaining a presence with students
It is very important in online courses for the instructor to maintain a presence
with the students. Dr. Fornshell accomplished this by assuming the role of an
office manager for all the design teams. He sent timely emails, which served to
help manage the various teams and to ensure that things were proceeding smoothly
with the groups. He also provided models for unfamiliar products, such as
examples of flowcharts and representative storyboards. These project
requirements needed additional explanation because the finished products were
dependent upon the context in which they were developed. Dr. Fornshell managed
to achieve a delicate balance between providing enough guidance and allowing
teams sufficient freedom. I never felt like he was micro-managing the project.
Student Factors
Instructors can only do so much to facilitate rewarding collaborative learning
experiences. In the final analysis, team members play an important role in the
success of the project. Our team (the ShootSmart group) consisted of four
members with varied backgrounds. Randy (from New Jersey) is a technology
coordinator for a K-12 school district. Bob (from Connecticut) is in charge of
technology staff development at his K-12 school. Chris (from Germany) teaches
technical English at the university level. I (Bruce) am from Tennessee and teach
art at the elementary level. I was also a landscape architect for 15 years prior
to entering the field of education. Our ages range from 26 (Bob) to 46 (me). In
what follows, are personal reflections on factors, which I believe were
important in making our group successful.
Defining team member roles
The diversity of backgrounds was our team's strength. It made defining team
roles a natural process. Clear and distinct roles aided in team communications
and gave members a sense of responsibility and importance. They also assisted in
assigning work responsibilities and made project management easier. Our roles
were project manager (Randy), SME (me), Web design/layout (Bob), and Web
programming (Chris). Because Dr. Fornshell provided considerable latitude in
determining instructional units, our team was able to choose a subject that fit
our varied backgrounds. It was no accident that our team chose photography as
its unit of instruction. Because I did not have the level of technical expertise
that my cohorts had, a decision was made to choose a subject in which I was the
SME. This decision empowered me to make a significant contribution to the team.
Defining team member responsibilities
Project responsibilities proceeded directly and naturally from team member
roles. Responsibilities and authority in the given areas of responsibility were
well defined. While some overlap existed, individual team members were given
more decision-making authority in their various areas of expertise. This
principle was used throughout the ShootSmart project and was helpful in
resolving disagreements.
Establishing team goals
Team goals should encourage a standard of excellence, be challenging yet
reasonable and doable, and be agreed upon by all team members. Our group used
online synchronous meetings to gain consensus on goals. The accomplishment of
those goals was celebrated online throughout the course of the project, as each
deadline was met.
Establishing team deadlines
The major deadlines were set by the professor and were based on experience
teaching the class. However, team members also had the opportunity to establish
sub-deadlines. These were set well before the actual deadlines to give members
time to review and correct work prior to submission. Additionally, major
portions of work were subdivided in order to meet schedules. In collaborative
efforts, the project manager, by virtue of his role and responsibility, should
have more authority in setting deadlines. However, team members must also be
convinced that the work can be done in the allotted time. Once set, team members
should hold each other accountable for meeting deadlines with encouragement and
weekly meetings.
Guidelines for team communications
In order for collaboration to work, team members must be respectful and
considerate of one another, must understand that everyone's opinions and
thoughts are valued, and must be open and honest with communication (frankness
is desirable for group members as time is critical). Our team communicated in a
professional manner. We managed to balance respect and consideration with open
frankness. There were disagreements, but they were resolved in a civil manner.
The fast pace of work demanded that members communicate in an honest, clear, and
concise manner.
Guidelines for resolving differences of opinion
Conflicts concerning the project were resolved by listening to all arguments,
debating, and coming to a decision. Decisions were based on ideas and not on
personalities. Team members were concerned with the quality of the project and
different perspectives were considered important for developing good solutions
to problems. As project manager, we looked to Randy when consensus could not be
reached. In the rare cases where there was an impasse, we put the issue to a
vote. We were each voted down at least once during the project. The project was
better because of these healthy debates.
Scheduling regular online synchronous meetings
Of all the communication tools used during the project, the weekly AOL Instant
Messenger (AIM) chat room meetings were perhaps the most important to the
success of the project. We established a time to meet each week, and followed
through on these meetings throughout the term. The time was 4:30pm Central to
accommodate everyone's work schedules. It was 11:30pm for Chris, who was in
Germany.
These meetings were extremely productive and were used for a variety of
purposes. In addition to brainstorming, resolving problems, coming to consensus,
setting time schedules, maintaining enthusiasm through group synergy, and
generally having fun, these meetings were also used to refine papers prior to
submission. The time difference worked well for the team. After one of our
online meetings, Chris (in Germany) would go to bed and the rest of us would
continue to work through the evening. When Chris woke the following morning, his
email would be waiting with attached content to integrate into the Web-based
courseware.
Other means of team communications
In addition to the weekly online meetings, we used email with attachments to
follow up discussions and to send subject matter content for inclusion into the
ShootSmart Web site (Curry, D.B., Johnson, C., Palmer, R., & Polselli, R.N.,
1999). The attachments were mostly in the form of Word documents and PowerPoint
files. The subject matter content was sent in PowerPoint files, which acted as
mockups for the individual Web pages. Additionally, Chris created a private,
threaded discussion forum and Randy created a Web page for posting the project
schedule and due dates.
Summary
Online collaborative project-based courses can be extremely rewarding
experiences if certain elements are present. A thoughtful instructor, capable of
balancing guidance with freedom is one critical factor. Another is a team with
the skills, both technical and social, to truly collaborate. When those two
factors and all they entail come together in a learning environment,
collaborative projects can result in outcomes far exceeding the expectations of
the professor. Such is the case in this example. The friendships formed through
this collaborative process are strong to this day. The ShootSmart team remains
intact and each of us benefits continually from the mutual encouragement we
receive from one another in the online learning environment. This collaborative,
connected, learning experience is truly the highlight of my educational career,
thus far.
References
Adelskold, G., Aleklett, K., Axelsson, R., & Blomgren, J. (1999).
Problem-based
distance learning of energy issues via computer network. Distance Education,
20(1), 129-143.
Anderson, T. D. & Garrison, D. R. (1998). Learning in a networked world: New
roles and
responsibilities. In Gibson, C.C. (Ed.), Distance Learners in Higher Education:
Institutional Responses for Quality Outcomes (pp. 1-8). Madison, WI: Atwood
Publishing.
Cecez-Kecmanovic, D. & Webb, C. (2000). A critical inquiry into Web-mediated
collaborative learning. In Aggarwal, A. (Ed.), Web-based Learning and Teaching
Technologies: Opportunities and Challenges (pp. 307-326). Hershey, PA: Idea
Group Publishing.
Curry, D. B., Johnson, C., Palmer, R., & Polselli, R. N. (1999). ShootSmart:
Mastering
the Art of Photography. Available: http://www.killingly.k12.ct.us/kis/ShootSmart/index.htm
.
Hardwick, S. W. (2000). Humanising the technology landscape through a
collaborative
pedagogy. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 24(1), 123-129.
Kemery, E. R. (2000). Developing on-line collaboration. In Aggarwal, A. (Ed.),
Web-
based Learning and Teaching Technologies: Opportunities and Challenges (pp.
227-245). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.
Lai, K. W. (1999). Net-Working: Teaching, Learning & Professional
Development with
the Internet. Dunedin, New Zealand: University of Otago Press.
Robbins, H. A., & Finley, M. (1995). Why Teams Do Not Work: What Went Wrong
and How to Make It Right. Princeton, N.J.: Peterson's/Pacesetter Books.