Collaboration and the augmentation of understanding

My belief in the role of collaboration in understanding and knowledge has been transformed as result of my experience in the SLIS program and online learning environments such as LIBR 250. Even though at times group work seems more burdensome, I now understand the importance of collaboration in understanding and knowledge. Two examples from LIBR 250 demonstrate the efficacy of collaboration and interaction in the learning process. To prepare this blog, I went back and reviewed the 250knowledgecenter that we collaborated on this semester. What started as a few entries grew, and became emblematic of an organic and interactive dialog that fostered understanding. My understanding of learning paradigms, learning theories and instruction is all the more richer because this learning process was driven by collaboration and engagement with the material and my peers. My experience with blogging this semester in LIBR 250 also reinforces to me the importance of collaboration in understanding. For me the understanding in this experience comes from the interaction that I have with my peers, whether it's me responding to your blogs or the responses that you all provide to me.

As a result of the experiences that I have had, I firmly believe that virtual environments have the potential to increase the efficacy of collaboration. Virtual environments afford not only recognition of different learning styles but also modes of collaboration. Collaborative modes that may be leveraged in virtual environments include Wikis, blogs, discussion boards, online productivity and collaboration tools (Zoho and Google Apps), and even multimedia sharing (something that Mary Ann does frequently). LIBR 250 has embraced many of these collaborative modes, and has favorably impacted understanding as a result.

In terms of collaboration in teaching, I will instead transfer this to collaboration in the workplace. The company that I work for just launched a new product that identifies leakage and fraud in the auto insurance industry. This product took over 5 years to launch, and was result of collaboration by 200 staff members each contributing something unique. My contribution to the product was to negotiate and acquire datasets from various entities that would be used for the algorithms. Traditional predictive modeling in the insurance industry assigned too much risk to urban drivers with lower income. The new model that my company released more accurately and fairly assigns risk to suburban drivers with higher income, and will be used by the California Department of Insurance. The success of this product was predicated by the collaboration and contributions of many staff members.

Differentiating Factors: Collaboration, Interaction and Feedback

The growth in online learning in higher education has been nothing short of prodigious, and has emerged as a viable option to learning in the traditional classroom. Although research indicates that students can and often do learn effectively in an online environment, qualitative differences  exist between online and face to face learning. According to McConnell (2000), major areas where online learning differs from face to face include "group dynamics, accessing other groups, and the total effect of the group". These elements that McConnell has identified indicate that collaboration is a major differentiating factor between online and face to face learning. More specifically, online technologies have the ability to alter the dynamics of learner collaboration. Groups in the online environment may be less hierarchical and less intimidating for some learners. Online collaboration also affords more ways of expression of individual strengths (multiple intelligences theory), so the likelihood of active participation by all learners in a wide variety of groups is improved.

Beyond the collaboration explicated by McConnell, Orellana, Hidgins, and Simonson (2009) indicate that interaction is a major determinant in learning and satisfaction in the online environment (p.425).  Interaction in an online environment is qualitatively different from that in face to face, and can take several forms. These forms of interaction include "learner-learner, learner-instructor, learner-content, and learner-interface" (Orellana, Hidgins, and Simonson, 2009, p.432-3). The various forms of interaction that are exhibited in online learning allow for greater  expression of different learning styles, and favorably impact the potential for transferability and engagement.

My experience with online learning indicates that collaboration, interaction, and the provision of feedback are differentiating factors. I initially was resistant to online collaboration, and felt uncomfortable working in this type of mode with peers that were time zones away. At some point during my first semester in this program I let go of that hesitancy, started to trust in the process, and now enjoy working in collaboration. Interaction in the online learning environment has also been an area of difference, especially in terms of how I interact with the content and the interface. I struggled at first when I read about different learning paradigms. But when the same material was presented in the form of a video by the instructor or even better an infographic that I constructed, my learning grew. Lastly, a major way that online learning is different for me is the desire for almost continual feedback. Whether it is in the form of a graded assignment, a practice quiz, or an exchange of ideas on a discussion board, I crave feedback in the online environment as a means of reassuring me as learner.

Sources:

McConnell, D. (2000). Implementing computer supported cooperative learning. London: Kogan Page Limited. Retrieved November 14, 2010, from http://jabba.edb.utexas.edu/it/fc_resta_courses_files/itpm/m0_7.html

Orellana, A., Hudgins, M., & Simonson, M., eds. (2009). The perfect online course: best practices for designing and teaching. Charlotte, NC: Inf

The tools of "Teacher Assessors" and "Learning Consumers"

Although assessment is tenuous to neatly define and deploy, it plays an essential role in the learning process for both the teacher and the student. For the teacher, formative or summative assessment is a means of determining whether or not students are learning and understanding.  There is a seamlessness in the relationship between the teacher and assessment, and  Wiggins and McTighe (2006) go so far as to propose a "teacher assessor" role. These authors place assessment in the context of teaching by posing two questions in Stage 2 of the UbD matrix: "what is evidence of the desired results" and "what is the appropriate evidence of desired understanding" (Wiggins and McTighe, 2006, p.147). Assessment varies by the teacher, but is almost always not a one-off and occurs along a continuum. Wiggins and McTighe (2006) argue that "rather than using a single test, of one type, at the end of teaching, effective teacher-assessors gather lots of evidence along the way, using a variety of methods and formats" (p.152). Types of teacher assessment may be evidenced as "performance tasks, academic prompts, quiz and test items, and informal checks for understanding" (Wiggins and McTighe, 2006, p.153). Although it may be easier to assess for learning based on rote memorization, the emphasis should be on assessment for knowledge that represents transferability. Wiggins and McTighe (2006) explicate that "understanding is revealed in performance" and "assessment for understanding must be grounded in authentic performance-based tasks" (p.153). This would include the transference of  knowledge to the real world, and how understanding in one area may lead to content mastery in others. Holistic and analytical rubrics have utility in terms of assessment of student performance.

Assessment is also a tool for the student and heavily impacts the learning experience. Lombardi (2008) notes that research has shown that "students engage with subject matter based in part on their expectations about how their achievement will be evaluated" (p.1).  Effective assessment as a tool guides the student, and will allow for recalibration in the learning process. The type of assessment used by the teacher influences the student's engagement with the subject matter. Students are able to modify their use of assessment as a tool, as they progress in the learning experience. Lombardi (2008) argues that there has been a change in undergraduate attitudes towards assessment, and that these students now view themselves as "learning consumers" (p.4). As such, these students are using assessment as a tool for "increased transparency from instructors" and they also want "processes in place to help them improve and develop, guided by clear, practical, and specific feedback" (Lombardi, 2008, p.4).

Sources:

Lombardi, M. (2008, January). Making the grade: the role of assessment in authentic learning. Educause Learning Initiative. Retrieved October 30, 2010 from http://www.educause.edu/ELI/MakingtheGradeTheRoleofAssessm/162389

Wiggins, G. & McTighe, J. (2006). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.