Effective instructors in online communities have four major responsibilities including facilitate discussions and activities, model acceptable learning behaviors, participate in the development and preservation of the community, and evaluate student progress (Pallloff & Pratt, 2005). It is possible for students to complete course requirements without instructor involvement, except for the task of assessment. The evaluation process is a critical element for both instructor and student. The instructor must provide fair and challenging assessment while proving adequate student progress. The student must provide evidence of learning to receive acceptance from the instructor using chosen methods of assessment. Therefore, the means of evaluation profoundly affects the online course as it provides the final outcome for success.
The course readings for Module 3 emphasized collaborative assessment as the best approach for online learning communities. The issue in collaborative assessment involves providing individual progress monitoring based on cooperative assignments. Based on Siemens (2008a) analysis, a rating scheme based on individual contributions provides fair and targeted outcomes. This tailors assessment to individual needs by examining the impact of the student’s strengths and weakness on the final product. Davis (2007) discusses the significance of web 2.0 tools in assessing cooperative groups because it allows instructors to continuously assess individual contributions to group projects as well as provide peer assessment and feedback. Individual accountability is determined through tracking edits and additions to web-based software such as wikis and blogs.
This brings us to another issue in collaborative assessment. Students that do not wish to collaborate in online communities present challenges for the learning group and the instructor. The instructor must communicate the “participative pedagogy” at the onset of the course to inform students of the decision to utilize collaborative activities (Siemens, 2008a). Additional help from the instructor includes role-playing activities, assessment models including group and individual efforts, and collaborative awareness. Assessment plans must include rubrics for collaborative awareness to evaluate efforts of interaction within the online community (Siemens, 2008b). Members not contributing to the final product are negatively impacting the group and need to receive assignment to another group or individual form of evaluation.
Students involved with an inactive or intimidated peer should first build trust by openly discussing roles and responsibilities (Siemens, 2008b). If a team member continues to exhibit harmful behaviors towards the group, the instructor must intervene to prevent this humanistic poison from destroying group dynamic and successful outcomes.
References
Davis, V. (2007, October 9). Cooperative learning notes: Day 2. Message posted to http://coolcatteacher.blogspot.com/2007/10/cooperative-learning-notes-day-2.html
Palloff, R., & Pratt, K. (2005). Collaborating online: Learning together in community. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Siemens, G. (2008a). Assessment of Collaborative Learning [DVD]. Laureate Education, Inc.
Siemens, G. (2008b). Learning communities [DVD]. Laureate Education, Inc.
Thank you for pointing out what I missed on my blog assignment. I do not know how I missed that we needed to find another blog on this topic.
ReplyDeleteI am glad to see you pointed out that the evaluation process is critical for both the instructor and the students. This was a point that also stood out to me as being important because it not only shows if the students have learned the information, it also shows if the instructor is presenting the information in an effective way to promote learning (Siemens, 2008).
I would have a hard time dealing with someone that was not participating in a group that I was working in. The students would have already had the rules and procedures explained at the beginning of the course (Palloff & Pratt, 2005). I think the students would know if they were not contributing and I would feel more comfortable with the instructor taking control of the situation. On the other side, if I was the instructor, I would talk to the student privately, and find out if there were any reasons for the lack of participation.
Palloff, R. & Pratt, K. (2005). Collaborating online: Learning together in community. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Siemens, G. (2008). Assessment of collaborative learning [DVD]. Laureate Education, Inc.
Certainly the instructor should intervene, but in the online environment, we share common goals, and I would talk to my group member before addressing the instructor. As adults, we know about responsibility, and if a peer is not committed to the program, the group should discuss it just to see if there are any underlying issues like apprehension towards technology, family issues, or personality traits that are keeping this person from participating.
ReplyDeleteLuckily, my group members, like yourself, have been very supportive of each other in this process. But you know, when we are working just as hard as can be and end up failing at an assignment that we all reflected upon and saw no concerns, should we be considered inadequate based on peer review? I think we develop a sense of content based on one another and sometimes the instructor does not understand our relationship due to the fact that he/she published the design. Just a thought, but I am with Siemens on his idea of assessing the individual's progress rather than looking at rigid content analysis.
I think that both of you have made really good points about collaborating. I think that creating a collaborative environment may be easier in higher education because we are all adults. Whether we like working in groups or not, I find that most adults are willing to play the game because we are professionals. I still have doubts about collaborating online the K12 world.
ReplyDeleteKristen