Epic Think Tank
Collaboration and e-learning
Part 1: What works in collaborative learning - and what doesn't?
One of the valuable aspects of Epic Think Tanks is hearing candid
accounts of panellists' real experiences in running innovative learning
campaigns - war stories of the 'leaders and bleeders'! We had two
fascinating examples here.
One panellist described how she designed, ran and evaluated a course
with no content at all, composed solely of collaborative exercises.
This was an adventurous, totally online course for first year undergraduates,
which was all about using the Internet. It was designed to take
learners who had very little online experience to a level of knowledge
where they could build their own website, and was also an experiment
in the value of peer learning.
Post-project evaluation identified three distinct ability levels
among the learners, including a small but fairly intractable group
of people who, it was concluded, would never be suited to collaborative
online learning. The course experienced a high rate of drop-outs.
It proved demanding and exhausting for both learners and moderators,
with 'collaboration fatigue' setting in over time. However, for
many who did stay the course, the experience was rewarding and in
some cases even life-changing.
Quite extraordinary results were achieved, considering the low
skills base from which many of the learners had started. Large numbers
completed the whole assignment within seven months, as opposed to
the scheduled nine.
The conclusion drawn from this experience of going 'collaboration-only'
- given the wear and tear on both teachers and taught - was that
'some collaboration is good, but more is not necessarily better'.
A proper balance needs to be sought between collaboration and content,
as the collaboration-only route does not suit all. Further, it sparked
the reflection that, psychologically speaking, online collaboration
'opens a can of worms'.
Other studies have shown liberating effects for the socially shy
in taking collaboration online, but in this particular case it was
found that the anxieties inherent in a communal learning situation
were increased, and new anxieties created. The online environment
was found by learners to be far more critical than they had expected,
and in some cases even 'sinister'.
A contrasting experience was offered by another panellist, on whose
collaboration-intensive course, 'the students did it all'. With
relatively little 'pump-priming' the community achieved 'flow' -
and the tutors stood back.
This latter course was designed to take learners who were computer
users, but whose use of computers was quite narrow, through to wider
management roles - and it may be that the different skill profile
of this group accounted for the much easier ride experienced by
tutors. However, other factors may have come into play as well.
The many contrasts between the examples given so far have pointed
up how different the experience of collaborative learning can be,
dependent on the nature of the group involved, the sort of tasks
they undertake and the different levels of pre-knowledge and motivation
possessed by the individuals in the group.
Collaborative learning relies to a much larger extent for its
success on the experience and motivation of the participants concerned
than does a content-led approach. Group dynamics and psychology
come heavily into play. Motivation, especially, is a key factor.
The entrepreneurial perspective brought to the discussion by a
serial CEO among the panellists focused minds on the importance
of achieving an attractive value proposition for any collaborative
exercise - the classic win/win situation.
When a learner commits his or her knowledge to an email for the
benefit of other learners, what is happening is a conversion of
tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge. Value is being transferred,
and this transfer involves an investment, in this case an investment
of time by the sharer. In order to make this investment, and to
continue making this investment, the knowledge-sharer has to believe
that at some point there will be payback in kind. The structure
and composition of the group itself, in so far as this indicates
an ability to deliver value for the individual learner, therefore
becomes an essential motivating factor.
In the Education market there is, in some sense, a market in motivation.
An elite brand like Oxford University will attract the most motivated
learners, and the difficulty of getting accepted for a place at
Oxford becomes in itself a motivating factor for those who
study there. Before the course even starts the student has made
a formidable investment in time, hopes, passion and probably, at
some point, cash (though not necessarily their own, as many an impoverished
parent will tell you).
Contrast this situation with the average corporate training day,
a learning event traditionally dogged by low learner motivation,
where the greatest perceived value of participation is often the
prospect of a day out of the office.
Several lessons for collaborative learning came out of this discussion:
- The nature and composition of the group is an important motivating
factor - both in encouraging people to want to join and in ensuring
full participation.
- Setting tough entry criteria for a collaborative group will
not necessarily discourage people from wanting to join it - conversely,
to certain people it will make the group more attractive.
- Making the learners work hard before the collaboration
even starts will likewise be a motivating factor.
- The tutor's role becomes less to do with subject matter expertise
and more about leadership and even marketing.
- The level and type of tutor support needed in online collaboration
will vary widely depending on the tasks pursued and the knowledge
and experience profile of the group.
Having established general points about what makes collaboration
work, the discussion burrowed deeper into the subjects, situations
and learners that best suit collaborative learning.
Next>>
Part 2 What best suits collaboration?
Part 3 Collaboration in the blend
Afterword
Back to Features
|
