e-chronicle

Description and analysis of the group learning process

SANJT was formed to work on a group assignment that involved designing an e-learning community. It consisted of four members who were interested in incorporating Second Life in the design. The design was presented on wiki (see http://sanjt.wikispaces.com/) so that individual contribution and participation was explicit.

Phase 1
At the outset of the group formation, SANJT was asked to respond to a 10-question group charter (see Appendix – SANJT Group Charter). This proved to be valuable as it helped the group members to:

• know more about each other in relation to their views and attitudes towards group work;
• come to an understanding of how the group should be structured, and the culture developed; and
• agree on how the group should collaborate, ensure accountability, measure success, and achieve high performance.

Phase 2
SANJT formally started on the project two weeks prior to the presentation date. The fact that the group members had met face-to-face during the block-mode workshop at the start of the semester, and been interacting online through Ning, helped in overcoming the initial barrier of establishing a social presence.

• Online interactions. The group first made contact with each other asynchronously on Ning, which was followed by two synchronous meetings on MSN chat and Second Life. The online synchronous interactions:
  • helped to enhance connectedness to the group and amongst the group members;
  • enabled members to discover, share and acknowledge the expertise of each member (in relation to the task), and how they could contribute to the project; and
  • ensured that all members were familiar with the technological tools (especially Second Life) that could potentially be used in the design, with the more highly-skilled member(s) ‘teaching’ the others.
• Face-to-face interactions. The group agreed on their preference to meet face-to-face after the initial online interactions, and the two face-to-face meetings proved to be productive and beneficial:
  • they further promoted connectedness to the group and amongst the members;
  • during the brainstorming session on the design and its elements, differing ideas and conflicts arose; the group debated and came to a consensus and an agreement;
  • ideas were contributed and scaffolded;
  • group members were eager to contribute and participate as they were aware that they would be accountable for their individual effort, and as a group;
  • the group came to an agreement on who was responsible for what, in accordance to their area of interest and expertise, and roles were defined;
  • the group agreed to review each other’s work once it was done, and to extend help to others if necessary;
  • group members felt very positive about the whole learning experience after each meeting.

Phase 3
In the few days leading up to the presentation, group members worked on their individual part, and kept in touch asynchronously on Ning and via email. The last leg proved to be challenging as members worked at different pace, and differing work schedules and other commitment caused delays in providing feedback to each other. Eventually, the design was completed on time, and was well received.

Synthesis of readings and research

The basic tenet of the learning process in modern cognitive theory is that learners must be actively engaged in learning; we learn by actively making neurological, cognitive and social connections (Barkley et al. 2005). Neurologically and cognitively, the mind is built throughout life by actively constructing the mental structures that connect and organise isolated bits of information (Barkley et al. 2005); socially, learning occurs through interaction and collaboration with (more capable) peers, through problem solving in real life context (Woo & Reeves 2007).

The significance of interaction and collaboration in a learning environment is resonated by many researchers and publications (Kilpatrick et al. 2003; Dixon et al. 2006; Rovai 2002; Gabriel 2004; Woo & Reeves 2007; Woodland et al. 2007; Saunders 1999). Lock (2002, cited in Gabriel 2004) proposed that communication, collaboration, interaction and participation are the four cornerstones for developing and maintaining a learning community. Meaningful interaction promotes active learning, enables effective facilitation, allows learner input in the learning process, enables the development of higher order knowledge and abilities, and enhances the quality and standards of the learning experience (Muirhead & Juwah 2004, cited in Woo & Reeves 2007). Collaboration motivates learners to become more active and more involved participants in the learning process, and is an important factor in academic achievement, personal development and student satisfaction (Barkley et al. 2005). Additionally, it is also an important life skill, and being able to work as part of a team and well-developed interpersonal skills are listed among the top attributes sought after by employers in university graduates (Elgort et al. 2008).

Smith (1996, cited in Barkley et al. 2005) listed five essential elements for successful collaborative learning groups:

1. positive interdependence – the success of individuals is linked to the success of the group;
2. promotive interaction – learners are expected to actively help and support each other;
3. individual and group accountability – individuals are accountable for his/her share of contribution, and the group is accountable for achieving its goals;
4. development of group skills – learners are required to learn the subject matter, interpersonal and small group skills in order to function as a group; and
5. group processing – learners should learn to evaluate their group productivity.

These five elements are align with the key practices identified by Hurst and Thomas (2004), which are associated with successful online teams: agreement on how the team will work together, assignment of accountability, monitoring of progress, and incorporation of social interaction.

Reflection

Collaboration is “the process of shared creation: two or more individuals with complementary skills interacting to create a shared understanding that none had previously possessed or could have come to on their own. Collaboration creates a shared meaning about a process, a product, or an event” (Schrage 1991, p. 39, cited in Gabriel 2004). One should not assume that by putting people to work on a task, they would automatically become a team and be able to work together. There must be a climate of trust – trust in other team member’s abilities, and with that comes the interest in the welfare of other members, and the motivation to assist others in their learning. On top of that, with trust comes the likelihood that members will feel safe in exposing the gaps in their learning, knowing that other members will respond in supportive ways (Rovai 2002).

Trust does not happen at the outset of a group formation; it has to be developed over time, with a strong social presence, quality interaction, and well-developed team culture. SANJT would not have functioned and worked as it did if the group work was initiated at the outset of the learning community. But because of the ongoing social and cognitive presence, and interaction on Ning since the inception of the learning community, trust building within SANJT was not an issue. Establishing an agreed group beliefs, values and processes in order to facilitate open communication, support and trust is important in achieving meaningful learning and collaboration, and a supportive group culture. Setting up a group charter at the outset to foster and focus the group is an important step in realising that team culture, thereby reducing the occurrence of unnecessary conflicts and dissatisfaction among the group members.

References

Barkley, EF, Cross, KP & Major, CH 2005, Collaborative learning techniques: a handbook for college faculty, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco.

Dixon, JS, Crooks, H & Henry, K 2006, ‘Breaking the ice: supporting collaboration and the development of community online’, Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, vol. 32 no. 2 Spring.

Elgort, I, Smith, AG & Toland, J 2008, ‘Is wiki an effective platform for group course work?’, Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 24 no. 2, pp. 195-210.

Gabriel, MA 2004, ‘Learning together: exploring group interactions online’, Journal of Distance Education, vol. 19 no. 1, pp. 54-72.

Hurst, DC & Thomas, J 2004, Developing team skills and accomplishing team projects online, in T Anderson & F Elloumi (eds), Theory and practice of online learning, Athabasca University, Athabasca.

Kilpatrick, S, Barrett, M & Jones, T 2003, ‘Defining learning communities’, The Australian Association for Research in Education, accessed 20 May 2008, www.aare.edu.au/03pap/jon03441.pdf

Rovai, A 2002, ‘Building sense of community at a distance’, International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, vol. 3 no. 1, pp. 1-16.

Saunders, S 1999, ‘Social psychology of adult learning’, in J Athanason (ed.), Adult educational psychology, Sydney Social Press, Katoomba, pp. 25-71.

Woo, Y & Reeves, TC 2007, ‘Meaningful interaction in web-based learning: a social constructivist interpretation’, The Internet and Higher Education, vol. 10, pp. 15-25.

Woodland, DE, Szul, LF & Moore, WA 2007, ‘Virtual learning communities’, Business Education Digest, vol. 16, pp. 70-80.

Appendix – SANJT Group Charter

[SA - Sabina Levine (SL); N - Nicole Brett (NB); J - Joseph Yeo (JY); T - Trent McAllan (TM)]

1. What I like most about group work

JY: That we can share the workload, learn from each other, tap on expertise of group members, complement each other.
TM: I enjoy sharing the workload and sharing ideas about reaching a common goal
SL: Certainly enjoy the social aspect of working in a group. Plus if you get good results you have somebody to celebrate your achievement with.
NB: Sharing the load collaborating on new ideas.

2. What I dislike most about group work

JY: Can be difficult to find the right people to work with, can be hard to organise logistically, some might not pull their weight.
TM: People that say that they will contribute but don’t, group members that miss deadlines.
SL: Coordinating meeting times that suit everyone can be tricky and can take up a lot of time. Also there is a dependency on other group members to do their part and not let you down. Likewise there is a pressure on me to ensure I live up to my side of the bargain.
NB: Finding time to meet not being totally in control of the outcome

3. What makes a good team player (from your perspective)

JY: Cooperative, committed to the group objectives, do their part to the best of his/her ability.
TM: People that are not afraid to share ideas, bring ideas to the table, contribute the best way they know how.
SL: A good team player is someone who is open to other people’s ideas. Someone who is also a ‘doer’.
NB: Someone who is willing to listen to others views and take them on board if they are valid. To do things when you say you will

4. What makes a bad team player (from your perspective)

JY: Opposite of #3, not contributing, not sharing, not doing any work.
TM: Don’t contribute, don’t turn up to meetings, don’t come through with what they commit to
SL: Someone who is full of all the great ideas but no clue as to how to incorporate these.
NB: Someone who does not work

5. What grade are you hoping to achieve for this part of the project

JY: At least a distinction!
TM: High credit, distinction
SL: A good mark!
NB: Distinction

6. What are your strengths in relation to this project? Think of this in terms of how you can best contribute

JY: Organisation, research, writing, graphic design.
TM: Think of this in terms of how you can best contribute – organisation, pick up on technology quickly, presentation mechanics i.e. putting a presentation together
SL: I usually work easily with others and don’t shy away from my responsibilities.
NB: Think of this in terms of how you can best contribute; a good knowledge of Second Life and Second life learning communities

7. What are your weaknesses

JY: Presentation…never good in public speaking…do I really have to speak in front of these people?!
TM: Putting to much on my plate
SL: Can get bored quickly, so need to stay focused.
NB: Lack of time

8. How would you like to arrange meetings – online or f2f – frequency

JY: Online to start with, to come up with some meat before we meet f2f to prepare for the presentation.
TM: Online to start and during the week, f2f when possible on weekends and as required as the due date gets closer
SL: Perhaps a mixture of both, although mostly in an on-line from logistical point of view.
NB: Both we have had two in SL two face to face and one on IM

9. How do you think the group should make decisions

JY: Majority rules…
TM: Majority rules
SL: If time allows perhaps a group vote.
NB: Consensus

10. What if a group member’s work doesn’t meet our standards – how do you think we should deal with this

JY: I reckon we should be honest and upfront with each other from the start; if someone is not performing, we shouldn’t be afraid to speak out…
TM: Speak up early, it is better to be upfront and honest from the start.
SL: That’s tricky, focus on your role instead and make sure your part is up to the standard. Otherwise say something diplomatically.
NB: Work with them to get it up to standard