Online Collaborative
Activities:
The Developmental Dimension
Stanley J Oldfield
David R Morse
The UK Open University
Overview
•
•
•
•
What do we mean by collaboration?
What are the benefits of collaborative learning?
Why are students negative about collaboration?
How should we deliver collaborative learning
experiences?
• What models are available for designing collaborative
activities?
• What tools are appropriate for supporting collaborative
activities?
• Conclusions
What do we mean by collaboration?
• There would appear to be no commonly agreed
definition for collaboration in the educational literature
• In fact cooperation and collaboration are often used
interchangeably and indistinguishably
• We would argue for collaboration to be reserved for
describing activities in which there is a significant
degree of genuine interdependence, both of activities
undertaken and deliverables produced
• Collaboration is the antithesis of competition and
hence not a major component of traditional higher
education!
What are the benefits of collaborative
learning?
• Students build their own knowledge through active
personal engagement
• Students develop interpersonal and teamwork skills
needed in the workplace
• Students develop an understanding of the multiple
perspectives needed for living in a multicultural society
• Students engage in the appropriate professional
discourse for their discipline
• Students share their skills and experience to solve more
complex problems than they could handle as
individuals
Why are students negative about
collaboration?: Individual issues
• Our students tend not to possess or value skills in
communication, reflection and collaboration
• Waite et al (2004) provided an analysis of CS students’
resistance to collaboration, which included:
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
A preference for working alone
Procrastination
Experimentation
Disregard for process
Combativeness
Unwillingness to support others
Absence of passion / motivation
Why are students negative about
collaboration?: Institutional issues
• No collaborative culture in traditional education:
unwillingness to give or receive (constructive ) criticism
from peers
• No sense of purpose: Too many collaborative activities
delivered simply because of institutional directives –
jumping on the current bandwagon
• No sense of progression: Too many collaborative
activities delivered at the same, introductory, level of
sophistication
• No recognition of how much non-class time is
involved: Too many collaborative activities delivered
simultaneously but independently
• Inadequate preparation for, and progression towards,
more complex activities. Insufficient emphasis on
reflection about collaboration
• Insufficient awareness of the affordances of, and the
appropriate use of, collaborative software tools (by
faculty as well as students!)
• Perceived inequity of assessment procedures
How should we deliver collaborative
learning experiences?
• Gradually
• Purposefully
• Meaningfully
• Realistically
• Reflectively
• Reinforcingly
• Progressively
• Consistently
• etc
We need a delivery model to help us in this task -
What models are available for
designing collaborative activities?
In developing and delivering our virtual teamworking
course at the UK Open University we looked at a
number of existing models for learning, both online
and offline, individual and collaborative, including:
Salmon’s online learning model
Kolb’s experiential learning model
Boehm’s software process model
Tuckman’s small group development model
None of the existing models for learning adequately
captures or represents the progressive nature of
collaborative experiences over time, and we felt the
need for a new model which explicitly represented the
developmental dimension
We also wanted to emphasise the reflective aspect of
the process, so that students learn not only through
collaboration, but also about collaboration
We based our model on Bruner’s Spiral Curriculum
which argues for education to be approached as a
developmental process with structure, sequence and
reinforcement [Oldfield and Morse 2007b]
1: The teamworking cycle
• Our initial concern was to
visualize the iterative sequence
of activities taking place
within any major collaborative
experience, including an
element of reflection
• We modified Kolb’s model to
represent the essential
elements of collaboration
Activities in the teamworking cycle
Define: Identify and clarify the problem, discuss the approach to
be taken, and decide on the rules of operation for the team
Distribute: Share out the identified roles, responsibilities and
tasks amongst the team members, and specify the required
interactions and delivery schedules for the products of the
current cycle
Deliver: Complete and deliver the individual products and
combine these into the required team products for the current
cycle
Debrief: Reflect, as a team and as individuals, on the process
undergone and the products delivered, in preparation for
progressing to the next cycle of activity
2: The developmental helix
• Our other major concern was
to visualize the essentially
incremental, developmental
nature of students’
collaborative experiences over
time and over a succession of
activities / courses
• For this purpose we used a
helix to represent the
development dimension
3: The helical teamworking model
• Combining these two
concepts - of an iterative
cycle and incremental
development - gave us a
new helical model for
(online) collaboration
• The knowledge, skills and
behaviours acquired in one
cycle need to be explicitly
applied and developed in
subsequent cycles
Levels of interaction
Level 5: Collectiveness
Level 4: Collaboration
Level 3: Cooperation
Level 2: Communication
Level 1: Connectedness
• We also need to
incorporate increasing
levels of interaction into
the successive cycles of
activity, in terms of the
complexity of the tasks
undertaken, the decisions
made, the tools used, the
artefacts delivered…
[Oldfield & Morse 2008]
What tools are appropriate for
supporting collaborative activities?
• Computer Mediated Interaction (CMI) is probably the
most radical innovative aspect of technology enhanced
learning
• Experience of online collaboration is as important for
students in a campus-based environment as it is for
distance learners [Oldfield and Morse 2007a]
• CMI can be motivational and vocational – reflecting
current usage in both social and business contexts
• CMI can be extensional – providing a platform for
interaction to take place over longer time periods and
across wider geographical areas
• CMI can be functional – providing facilities for
extended discussion, decision-making, archiving
interactions, sharing information, co-creation of shared
artefacts, etc.
• Good tools make interaction easier, and a single point
of access is recommended both for students and tutors
• However, too many tools can distract the team, distort
the task, and disrupt the process
• And we need to remember Lipnack and Stamp’s
comment that successful online collaboration is only
10% about the technology and 90% about people
• Our initial experience was using a simple conferencing
environment (because that was all we could assume was
available to everyone on the course) which students
found adequate for task but very time-consuming
• Over time we were able to run trials using a team-based
Wiki environment and an associated team-based Forum
and this proved much more effective and efficient for
important activities such as the centralised making and
recording of team decisions and the centralised
creation and presentation of team artefacts
• The asynchronous and persistent nature of the Wiki
and the Forum had many advantages for students in
terms of: ongoing discussion; development of team
documents; recording agreed team rules, roles and
responsibilities; displaying individual contact details and
availabilities; etc. However, student teams found that
for purposes of planning, task allocation, and
coordination of individual activities it was beneficial to
use a more transient, synchronous, meeting tool to
speed up the decision making process and to achieve
consensus
Conclusions:
What do institutions need to do?
• Ensure that they provide coherent development of online
collaborative experiences over a degree programme
• Ensure that they provide an online environment flexible enough
to incorporate all the relevant tools to support student
collaboration and tutor observation
• Ensure that all staff are kept up-to-date with the technological
and pedagogical implications of introducing new communication
technologies and tools into the teaching and learning process
• Ensure that they engage in routine evaluative trials of new
technologies and tools prior to wholesale adoption, rather than
simply following the latest fashion
• Ensure that they recognise and reward faculty for the extra
workload involved in developing and running online
collaborative courses
Acknowledgement
• The work presented in this paper arose from a period
of secondment of Stanley Oldfield to a Teaching
Fellowship with one of the UK Open University’s
HEFCE funded Centres of Excellence in Teaching and
Learning, on a project entitled ‘Building Effctive
Student Teams’
References
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Haythornthwaite C. (2006) Facilitating Collaboration in Online Learning, Journal of Asynchronous
Learning Networks, 10(1) pp 7-24
Kozlowski W.J. & Ilgen D.R. (2006) Enhancing the Effectiveness of Work Groups and Teams,
Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7(3) pp 77-123
Oldfield S.J. & Morse D.R. (2007a) Exploiting Connectedness in the Informatics Curriculum,
ITALICS, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp 27-45.
http://www.ics.heacademy.ac.uk/italics/vol6iss3/oldfield_morse.pdf
Oldfield S.J. & Morse D.R. (2007b) Designing Courses to Develop Online Teamworking Skills: A
Helical Model, Proceedings of the Informatics Education Europe II Conference (IEEII2007), Thessaloniki,
Greece, pp 276-285.
http://www.seerc.org/ieeii2007/PDFs/p276-285.pdf
Oldfield S.J. and Morse D.R. (2008) C is for Collaboration: A Developmental Perspective,
Proceedings IADIS e-society Conference, Algarve, Portugal
Powell A. et al (2004) Virtual Teams: A Review of Current Literature and Directions for Future
Research, The DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp 6-36
Waite M.W. et al. (2004) Student Culture vs. Group Work in Computer Science, Proceedings
SIGCSE 2004, Norfolk, Virginia, USA, March 3-7, 2004, pp 12-16.