This topic of ONL192 was about getting the teams to closely examine learning in communities, networking and collaboration. Our PBL scenario provided the experiential learning to allow us to address the the effectiveness of small collaborative learning groups in the online environment and the difference between collaboration and cooperation. This topic was where our group, PBL13, with the vital support of our facilitators, moved from cooperation to real collaboration.

There were two articles we were directed to read:

• Brindley, J., Blaschke, L. M. & Walti, C. (2009). Creating effective collaborative learning groups in an online environment. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(3). Available here.
• Capdeferro, N. & Romero, M. (2012). Are online learners frustrated with collaborative learning experiences?. The International review of research in open and distance learning, 13(2), 26-44. Available here.

In this post, I am going to examine the first of these. The authors of this paper proposed alternative methods from grading to encourage learners to experience the value of collaborative learning by creating study group experiences that are motivating and rewarding. My focus on this paper is because reading it, I felt like I was ‘Alice Through the Looking Glass’ as the study mirrored the experience I was undergoing in ONL itself.

I can explain this by briefly examining the strategies the authors identified that “instructors should incorporate … to improve the quality of group collaboration and to increase the likelihood of student participation.” and comparing it to my own ONL experience. Reading the paper in no way lessened my participation in creating a successful online collaboration.

The first of these strategies “Facilitate learner readiness for group work and provide scaffolding to build skills” and is concerned with teaching “the necessary skills for effective online collaboration, particularly those skills that will help them succeed in a group environment, such as planning and negotiation skills”. The earlier ONL topics and the original connecting week provided these elements to our PBL group. Further, the ONL FISh design helped us to utilise the “information literacy skills (how to retrieve, evaluate, apply, and source information effectively) and (use) the technology effectively.” By Topic 3, our group was confident enough in our level of participation that we identified a tool, coggle, to serve as both our investigation repository and our shared artefact.

The second strategy is to, “establish a healthy balance between structure (clarity of task) and learner autonomy (flexibility of task)” Our facilitators provided guidelines to support team member performance and the organisers ensured that the task was achievable, sustainable, and properly timed within the course. We had personal control over the task (content, process, intentions, goal setting, consequences, outcomes, group partners), and as Brindley et al stated our “engagement, responsibility, and sense of the relevance of the task were heightened.” Our group had also established the elements of “informality, familiarity, honesty, openness, heart, passion, dialogue, rapport, empathy, trust, authenticity, disclosure, humour, and diverse opinions” (Chapman, Ramondt, & Smiley, 2005) necessary for successful community learning and so fulfil the third strategy, namely, “nurture the establishment of learner relationships and (our) sense of community.”

At our regular, synchronous Zoom sessions, our facilitators helped “to keep discussions on track, support and animate dynamic conversation, help students stay focused on the task, assist with relationship building, and provide reassurance.” In our group areas, in response to our posts they provided feedback and general information and so facilitated the fourth strategy. The ONL course itself provided the elements to meet the fifth strategy of making “the group task relevant for the learner.” We personalised and named the character in the scenario, following the arc we had begun with topic 2. This enabled us to “control and direct (our) learning to the greatest extent possible to achieve a purpose that was specific to (our) needs and challenged (our) zone of proximal development.” The course itself also met the sixth strategy by choosing “tasks that are best performed by a group”.

The final strategy considered by Brindley et al is to “provide sufficient time”. Although in the two weeks devoted to a topic, I often felt rushed and needed to fit the work around the “demands of career, home, and community”, the other strategies had ensured I had the desire to remind involved and participate in the work. For me, the links this iteration of ONL provided to these strategies helped the group achieve deeper learning and built our confidence and skills.

Our group decided to focus on this element from the scenario: “…to really recognize the value of becoming part of a learning community and collaborate with their peers in a way that makes use of all the different competencies that group members bring into the work?” View our work here.

As well as the articles mentioned above this blog also referenced:

Chapman, C., Ramondt, L., & Smiley, G. (2005). Strong community, deep learning: Exploring the link. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 47(3), 217-230.

The image for this post which I feel represents our group’s virtual online collaboration is eLearning” by Donald Clark is licensed under CC BY-NC 2.0