In one of my project courses, I apply randomly assembled groups or assemble groups based on the result from a questionnaire (Teamology, by Wilde, 2008). I do this mainly because it is an applied course, where teams work with an open problem formulation, and where group processes are part of the curriculum. I also believe diverse teams perform better in this case and if I would do the opposite and let them form groups on their own students would just choose to work with the same people as they normally do. Typically, at the beginning of the course there is a lot of complains about group formation, but fortunately, at the end of the course most people have although changed their mind and think it was a good opportunity to learn and that the outcome became good. There is although always some frustration similar to what is reported on in Capderro and Romeros (2012) article, where there is uneven workload or engagement and free riders, etc. The group assignment has differentiated grade (fail/pass/pass with distinction) and one option could be to only have fail or pass, to make it fairer. My experience, from other courses, is although that this creates less incentives so that everyone feels less committed instead of just a few. Though, one thing that works quite well is an individual logbook that everyone must submit as part of their individual assignment. Because of the log, students that take active part feel safer and more relaxed that their part will be recognized by me as a teacher. All in all, I have tried different alternatives but still not really found any good solutions for how to do benefit those who would like to do a good job and not the ones that does not care. I could just continue mixing teams but I feel that this could be improved so that less time is spent on this issue.
Last week, me and a colleague of mine (that also take the ONL course, Martin) where discussing this problem and we started thinking about that part of the problem is that students maybe are not being fully aware of the benefits with social learning. Would it be possible to implement a social learning module in a course so that students get to know the differences (and hopefully differences in outcome)?
The webinar by Kay Oddone, and her prerecorded videos on the ONL page, about Social learning was useful as a starting point. I especially found her theoretical lens interesting in where she talked about Networked learning, Connected learning and Connectivism. This gives a clear understanding to why it is important to create knowledge by social interaction and why such knowledge can’t be created in solitude. I guess most people have an idea about this, but the explicit explanation clarifies the purpose which could be good in an educational perspective. Continuing reading about Connectivism from Siemens (2005) gave me further inspiration about principles and implication. Siemens talk about (among other things) Networks, Small Worlds and Weak Ties which is a good way of explaining where knowledge in social learning comes from. The relation between a small world network and the concept of weak ties (from Granovetter) also explain why diversity is supreme to unity (in the case of social learning). Further, Brindly, Walti and Blaschke (2009, p. 4) talks about how to create effective collaborative learning teams and make a reference to Siemens, G. (2002) for how to differentiate collaboration:
1. Communication
People „talking,‟ discussing
2. Collaboration
People sharing ideas and working together (occasionally sharing resources) in a loose environment
3. Cooperation
People doing things together, but each with his or her own purpose
4. Community
People striving for a common purpose
I think this is important for this case because I don’t want students to believe that “collaboration” is only one thing and that I always want them to “collaborate”. I believe that we as teachers need to be careful when we should ask for this type of social learning but that when we ask for it, it should be performed in proper manner. Brindly, Walti and Blaschke (2009) argues that instructional strategies are superior to grading and assessment of collaborative learning in order to engage learners. For this case I found strategies such as Make the group task relevant for the learner, and Choose tasks that are best performed by a group, in line with this reasoning.
Coming to an end, would it be a good idea to create a module in a course where students tried out different ways of collaborating (according to for example Siemens definition above)? What should be they learning goals and what should be the instructions? Would they learn anything if the purpose of the social learning is only fictive? Would they notice any difference in the outcome?
References:
Brindley, J., Blaschke, L. & Walti, C. (2009). Creating Effective Collaborative Learning Groups in an Online Environment. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 10(3).
Capdeferro, N., & Romero, M. (2012). Are online learners frustrated with collaborative learning experiences?. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(2), 26-44.
Michie, S., Van Stralen, M. M., & West, R. (2011). The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implementation science, 6(1), 1-12.
Siemens, G., (2005). Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age https://jotamac.typepad.com/jotamacs_weblog/files/Connectivism.pdf
Wilde, D. J. (2008). Teamology: the construction and organization of effective teams. Springer Science & Business Media.
