28.5: Issues and Solutions

Fostering and facilitating collaboration is no cakewalk. Pedagogical and technical problems are part and parcel of collaboration, as are information management and communicative workload problems (Daradoumis and Xhafa, 2005).

Grouping

Group social relationships form the core of collaborative endeavours, and, according to Shirky (2003), it is impossible to separate them completely from technological issues. However, since careful group formation, consolidation, and commitment building are clearly conducive to success in collaboration, let us consider those first and leave examination of tools for subsequent chapters.

Group formation

Issues associated with group formation become very important at the earliest stages of collaborative projects. One possible approach is the “radical model” that Roberts points out (2005b, p. 8; in Learner Assessment and Peer Evaluation Protocols). The radical model calls for random assignment of learners to groups but may be among less desirable alternatives when striving to engender anything like socially bonded communities of learners (Haavind, 2005). Taylor suggests that effective collaborative groups require “group composition of optimal heterogeneity” and that “difference of viewpoints is required to trigger interactions” (2005, p. 23).

As educators, we may find that group formation is better not left to chance. That is even truer if we agree that Daradoumis and Xhafa’s collaborative group formation methods are “dynamic collaborative processes” leading both to “better learning outcomes” for learners and to “professional development in a networked learning environment” for educators (2005, p. 221). Although devoting an extended period of time to group formation may be a luxury that not only adult and tertiary educators but also leaders in the workplace feel they cannot afford, it behooves us to examine one such process for means of learner engagement that could also work on the fly.

Daradoumis and Xhafa prescribe a four-phase, eightday long process solely devoted to group formation, beginning with a two-day group analysis of a case study on collaborative group work, the purpose of which is to familiarize learners with whether and how groups collaborate effectively. The second phase (one day) consists of learners sharing information about themselves that they deem relevant to the tasks ahead, including: “personal data, expertise level, work pace, available working time, temporal coincidence, goals, … [as well as their] attitudes towards collaborative learning, social aspects of collaboration, and previous experience in group work”. The final two phases of group formation take five more days: four for negotiation of actual group memberships, plus one for putting group membership proposals to tutors for their approval (2005, pp. 221–223). Though we question whether learners could share so much information about themselves, their goals, and their attitudes, in as little as one day, especially considering multiple time zones or locations around the world, with the exception of the case study analysis this whole process reflects similar yet satisfying group formation summarized in a later section in this chapter, Beyond the Mines of Bhoria.

This sort of group formation is an intensive hands-on process involving educators in “supervising, guiding, and motivating students through the whole process”, as well as in “organizing and restructuring” learners’ online environments, as necessary, in order to alleviate learners’ interaction workloads, and to facilitate identification of suitable group mates and location of groups in the process of formation. Not only educators, but also learners, should pay particular attention to the “degree of commitment” shown by one another during group formation (Daradoumis & Xhafa, 2005, p. 224), because commitment is a key indicator of success in collaboration.

Group consolidation

Once learners make commitments to join groups and get approval from course supervisors if necessary, the induction process should continue, because group formation alone is not enough. Group consolidation is of equal importance, because success depends on whether individuals continue to engage in group activities and deepen their relationships with one another. Daradoumis and Xhafa (2005) attribute many collaborative failures to lack of ongoing commitment by members to their groups and mutual purposes. To assure such commitment, groups need ongoing guidance, engendering trust and facilitating self-determination. Addressing all foreseeable challenges is no easy matter.

Striving to obtain and incorporate learner input from group goal-setting onwards is a challenging way for educators to extend the range of collaborative activities that they foster and facilitate. Gathering learner input early in an online course can create opportunities for learners to take initiative, to demonstrate or develop leadership skills, and to negotiate commitments and leverage engagement in more collaborative activities to follow. One such activity could be determining when and how to engage in collaboration.

How much input should learners have when determining the rules of engagement? This is important because, according to Currie, the existence or necessity of guidelines, rules, and governance define collaborative groups (personal correspondence, March 10, 2006), regardless of whether these guidelines come from educators or learners.

Daradoumis and Xhafa propose that learners consolidate their group by coming up with their own “specific and flexible” guidelines for group interaction (2005, p. 226). They argue:

A clear identification of the [learning and social] goals and the responsibilities of each member will result in elaborating an adequate working methodology, good planning and timing, and fair and viable assignment and distribution of the constituent tasks to be performed. (Daradoumis & Xhafa, 2005, p. 227)

It is unfortunately true that the greater the number and complexity of collaborative activities you plan, the more chances there are for problems to arise at any point in the process from group formation to self and peer evaluation. Pedagogically, when group work and production are highly collaborative, individual evaluation is a problem. Technically, when “frequent, or even intensive, interactions for decision-making or conflict resolution” are necessary, asynchronous communication may not suffice. Moreover, collaborative activities are typically time-consuming. For example, Daradoumis and Xhafa (2005) allocate a period of a week for group consolidation alone, which is more time than educators on tight schedules may wish to invest towards fostering learner collaboration unless they are responsible for design and implementation of courses of study that bridge semesters or span years.

Perhaps more important, from learners’ perspectives, intensive collaboration may generate huge quantities of information. This information, if unmanaged, may lead to information overload and withdrawal from groups. If group members must manage this overload, information management activity may interfere with so-called “real work and learning” (Daradoumis & Xhafa, 2005, p. 228). Thus, concerns about speed of progress may precipitate educators to intervene by assigning groups and roles; setting assignments, tasks, and schedules; preauthenticating resources; and controlling or prescribing rather than scaffolding evaluation processes.

Although adopting such time-saving tactics may satisfy educators’ and even learners’ desires to enhance productivity, it also can diminish opportunities for learner collaboration, and thus for learners to acquire skills and proficiency in planning, regulating, and assessing collaborative endeavours. Given administrators’ affinity for quantifiable learning outcomes and concerns about time schedules, it is all too easy for educators under time pressure to adopt a product-oriented approach. However, unless and until learners invest thoroughly in collaborative activities, engaging intensively and over extended periods of time (for example, see Bonnie’s Story below), they may fail to acquire the skills necessary to carry out collaboration with near-peers in educational or in future work environments.

In educational environments, all these points weigh towards the aim of educating the target population, but in the workplace other factors may override these considerations. Yet we would like to underscore the following four points from educational research into collaboration:

1. Allow as much time as possible for groups to share information that may not appear immediately relative to the task at hand.
2. Allow groups to develop their own guidelines for group interaction.
3. Beware of information overload, and realize that an important part of the collaborative process is managing the information produced.
4. Be prepared to deemphasize the product in favour of developing collaborative skills, so as to permit group members to invest thoroughly in collaborative activities.

Community building

“In a learning communities approach … students become responsible for their own learning and the learning of others. Students also develop ways to assess their own progress and work with others to assess the community’s progress. In contrast, in most classrooms the teacher is the authority, determining what is studied and assessing the quality of the students’ work”. (Bielaczyc & Collins, 1999, p. 275)

Community building figures prominently in a later chapter but is worth briefly mentioning here. In order for a collaborative culture to flourish, there needs to be some sense of community, and a prerequisite for community is an atmosphere of comfort, sharing, and trust, as highlighted by Neal (2005b). However, it is no easy matter to create such an atmosphere, and it takes time. For example, Riel, Rhodes, and Ellis (2005) find that although learning circles provide a suitable structure for peer review, it is not always easy to build a sufficient level of trust in the short time available in a typical course. For that reason, educators may opt for practical approaches, including technical training, rather than trying to foster and facilitate more complex collaborative structures.

The Concord Consortium model for quality online courses presents community-building activities as but one of nine key program elements. Proponents of this model assert that “learning through collaboration requires participants to take intellectual risks”, and that it is necessary to “nurture a community culture in which participants are supportive and honest”. This model presupposes that failures are okay, as long as they become learning experiences, and the model relies upon trained and experienced facilitators “to foster this sense of intellectual trust and safety” (Concord Consortium, 2002, pp. 1–2). One source of such training is PBS TeacherLine (http://teacherline.pbs.org/teacherline/about .cfm).

The Concord model for community building encourages educators to make “expectations about good group processes” explicit, and to use “inclusive and collective language that focuses on content” rather than individuals. Setting aside time for the participants to get to know each other is “an essential first step” (Concord Consortium, 2002, p. 2). Educators who follow this model also exploit a host of other “techniques for building and maintaining group cohesion”, including “anonymous polls, role-playing, use of smaller discussion groups with rotating roles, or weekly online meetings” (Concord Consortium, 2002, p. 2).

All of those suggestions imply recognition that learner communities manifest both educational and social dimensions. Those suggestions may serve to underpin what Bielaczyc & Collins call “community identity” development by fostering “a collective awareness of the expertise available among members of the community” (1999, p. 275). For more on community building, see Chapter 30, Supporting E-learning through Communities of Practice.

Blending

Blending venues, modes, and media presents learners with opportunities as well as challenges to experiment with various forms of interaction that they may find useful for collaborative endeavours. While White (2003) asserts that collaboration can occur online, she suggests expanding the concept of blending. So, when we advocate blending, we mean not only online and offline activities (Harris, 1995), but also synchronous and asynchronous (time-delayed) interactions (Knowplace, 2006), using various means of computer-mediated communication and involving individual as well as collective endeavours (White, 2003), including self- and peer assessments.

Both assessment and blending are issues that emerge in a later section in this chapter, Learners’ Stories of Online Collaboration. We also explore assessment in Assessment Schemes for Adult Learners (below).

For instance, Harris (1995) advises subsuming collaborative activities to curricular goals, yet is against conducting such activities online when learners can participate more readily face-to-face. Similarly, Dillenbourg points out that many scripts capable of promoting collaboration actually integrate individual and collective activities. Dillenbourg favours face-to-face work whenever feasible and advocates group formation defaults that accommodate match-ups by geographic proximity and availability to meet (2002, p. 13). He also highlights scheduling of critical activities during limited opportunities for busy adult learners to actually meet face-to-face (p. 16).

In telecommunication mode, Federer (2003a) finds that, though some learners are capable of immediate responsiveness, others need time to formulate and communicate their ideas. However, since intensive combinations of both synchronous and asynchronous communication within short time frames take their toll on both online educators and learners, Federer advocates combining data from both learner surveys and facilitators’ logs to find “optimum times … for online vs. offline collaboration” (2003b).

According to Finkelstein, synchronous online settings “offer an immediacy that not only allows collaboration to begin instantaneously, but also diminishes the actual time spent on task” (2006, p. 4). For both online courses and work groups, Neal suggests starting with early, intensive, synchronous activities as a means to generate group energy and to create a social context for subsequent, time-delayed interactions (2005a). Such activities are consistent with recommendations for community building.

Tools

“Increasingly, course approaches (constructivist approaches) are adopting group work and collaboration on projects as assessed course activities, and students are largely stuck fumbling with sharing Word documents in a discussion forum, through IM, or through email. Obviously, distance students don’t have the luxury of being able to meet face to face to work on projects together, and even if they can, sometimes it’s not always the most efficient way of getting something done.” (Morgan, 2005)

Some kind of asynchronous interactive environment that allows social interaction is necessary to enable collaborative learning activities, but discussion boards, familiar tools for many online educators, frequently provide insufficient structure to engender collaborative discussions.

Dillenbourg argues that “an important ergonomic feature [of remote interactions] is the degree of integration of task interactions and social interactions” (2002, p. 17 [italics in original]), or the extent to which specific tools allow learners to communicate upon what we might call learning objects. Yet he points out drawbacks of such integration for learners who prefer to use familiar communication software such as chat, discussion boards, or email for various interactions.

However, as Moore and Marra assert, when contributions to discussion boards “lack focus or the board content becomes confusing, … this critical component of an online course can both be an ineffective communication tool and actually impede learning” (2005, p. 191). They surmise that “empirical evidence to indicate that text-based communication used in computer conferencing can facilitate higher-order and critical thinking is only just emerging, and not entirely consistent in its results” (p. 193).

Some educators opt for increasingly structured approaches yet may not achieve the results they desire. For example, Dillenbourg suggests “a certain degree of coercion [scripted interaction] is required for efficiency reasons, but too much might be in contradiction with the very idea of collaborative learning and might decrease student motivation” (2002, p. 20).

Balancing rules, structures, scripts, protocols, or other means of coercion against group autonomy and interdependence is indeed a tricky feat. For example, Moore and Mara examine an “argumentation protocol … designed to facilitate knowledge construction”, an arguably collaborative process that they demonstrate and exemplify in practice discussion. Yet, they conclude, “the argumentation protocol, as we implemented it, may have negatively affected students’ quantity and quality of participation” (2005, p. 207).

If more technological structures fail to consistently foster learner collaboration, perhaps creating cultures of collaborative development can. Many teacher educators, in fact, advocate starting by teaching teachers (and administrators) to collaborate in online projects by having them participate in online projects themselves (Crichton & LaBonte, 2003; Taylor, 2005).

Similarly, educators who want to get learners to use weblogs and wikis effectively need to use the same tools effectively themselves. (See Chapter 25, Tools for Online Engagement and Communication.) At this juncture, however, we shall give tools a reprieve, and next take a closer look at assessment schemes, to see whether they are likely to promote collaboration.

Assessment Schemes for Adult Learners

“What is assessed in a course or a program is what is valued; what is valued becomes the focus of activity. The link to learning is direct. Instructors signal what knowledge skills and behaviors they believe are most important by assessing them. Students quickly respond by focusing their learning accordingly”. (Swan, Shen & Hiltz, 2006, p. 45)

With respect to adult learners in particular, Huang offers six principles to guide both instructional designs and teaching practices:

1. Authenticity: Allowing learner participation in course design can help avoid pre-authentication and can ensure that courses are meaningful and authentic with respect to adults’ needs, working lives, and experiences.
2. Learner-centeredness: In order to develop “ownership of the learning process by learners”, the learners themselves need to become invested in the process from the planning stage onward.
3. Facilitation: Although provisions for autonomy are essential for adult learners in a constructivist model, designers and instructors still need to facilitate and support [both] autonomous and collaborative learner development.
4. Interaction: Interactions with tools, peers, materials, and instructors can serve as motivation for adult learners, and also as springboards for critical reflection.
5. Collaboration: Collaborative endeavours that involve sharing, reflection, negotiation, and synthesis of knowledge are conducive to adult learning.
6. Critical thinking: Adult learners need to use “higher order thinking skills … to determine the authenticity and quality of information”, processes, and tools at their disposal. (Huang, 2002, pp. 32–34)

To those principles let us add that adults ought to evaluate the “discussion-oriented, authentic, project-based, inquiry-focused, and collaborative” learning processes in which they participate (Huang, 2002, p. 35), in order to determine how effective those processes are in helping themselves to achieve their own educational, social, and future goals.

However, it appears to be rather rare for collaborative ideals to carry over into assessment practices. For example, Roberts points out that, even in so-called radical models of collaboration, assessment is often the last holdover from the new paradigm, and he speaks of “a fairly traditional model of assessment, since the grade awarded is based on the standard paradigm of attempting to assess the individual’s own efforts, even within the context of an online collaborative learning environment” (2005b, p. 8).

While Haavind (2006) construes scaffolding and evaluation of participation as fundamental to collaborative learning endeavours, learners’ expectations and educators’ proclivities may disincline towards collaborative evaluation processes. For example, learners may respond quickly to external rewards, marks, or grades that educators offer as incentives for collective learning behaviours. However, where incentives or coercion come into play, they may induce cooperation rather than collaboration, which ultimately depends upon learners’ self-motivation and mutual responsibility for joint learning outcomes.

At their best, technological tools may enable us to assess learning processes and outcomes that we have been unable to assess before, provide more immediate diagnoses and feedback on difficulties learners encounter, and even adapt content presentation accordingly. However, there are still problems of skills that elude technological assessments, including unresolved validity issues, technical glitches, or system failures, as well as formative and social shortcomings to such assessments (Carnegie Mellon, 2002; Advantages and disadvantages of using advanced technology for assessment). Even in what you could call cutting-edge introductions to uses of social software and activities for collaborative learning purposes (Cameron & Anderson, 2006), assessment criteria range from “none” for orientation to tools and environment, to familiar and formulaic measures, generally based on quality and quantity of written products or online postings.

In fields that are specifically concerned with such interaction, such as education, there is less pressure to have such collaborative processes produce concrete results, with processes rather than products being the keys. Additionally, the inability of decision makers in other fields to appropriately assign credit in a way that reflects the collaborative process makes collaboration a much more difficult affair to promote. An episode of the beloved US television series M*A*S*H serves to illustrate this problem. When Hawkeye develops a new surgical technique that is worthy of publication, the fact that this technique arose only because of the intense collaborative environment in which he worked led the other doctors to be envious of the acknowledgment he received for his paper. The solution, that of having the paper published with the MASH 4077^th unit as the author, while a Hollywood resolution that fits the time constraints of series television suggests that collaborative work can encourage examination of values and ideas. So exposing students in other fields, such as the sciences, to collaborative learning not only creates opportunities to advance different forms of problem-solving, but also enables the examination of received wisdom.

Often assessment seems contrived and controlled by instructors rather than learners, for summative rather than formative purposes. Modes of assessment that Graham and Misanchuk observed cover the gamut from individual to peer group and from process to product. However, in none of the examples that they mention do they refer to collaboration in the evaluation process (2004, p. 194); it appears as if the synergy of social cognition gets lost in the shuffle of assessment technologies. So for the future, Dede envisions arguably more suitable “peer-developed and peer-rated forms of assessment” (2005, Implications for Higher Education’s Strategic Investments).

“Our assessment practices have to keep in step with our understanding of human cognition, and new technologies are one set of tools that can help us to meet this challenge.” (Carnegie Mellon, 2002)