The days of assessing the amount of student
‘regurgitated’information are in the past. The traditional individualistic ways
in which we have learned and taught – listening to lectures, answering multiple
choice questions to show mastery, receiving individual grades, etc. – began to
change around the 1950s, and change continues to be necessary to fit our more
collaborative world (Laureate, 2008b). Siemens suggested several models of
assessing collaborative work:
1. students
can assess one another via virtual questionnaires and models
2. “students
receive feedback from on-line communities” (Laureate Education, 2008a)
3. instructors
assess based on student individual participation with the project or within the
course
4. instructors
analyze data within the learning management system that informs them how much
time students spent logged into the course, measuring students’ “time on task”
Dr. Siemens made an excellent point, one
that I constantly remind teachers of: not all assessments need to result in a
grade. Formative assessment should be conducted to improve instruction or
learning, not as a “gotcha” to see who hasn’t successfully mastered the
material! Teaching with individualized lesson plans and planning using one
classroom students’ data is not as effective as teachers participating in
learning communities where all teachers who share the same group of students
collaborate, create lessons, analyze individual student academic achievement (or
lack thereof), and create common interventions. This is an example of a
high-functioning learning community and will result in more effective teaching
and better prepared students.
Traditional methods of teaching (lecture) and assessment
have not “fairly” transformed to the real world, and the goal is to change
this. Analysis of how much a student grows in the learning process must also be
recognized, and the equity and validity of evaluating what was to be learned.
If students are provided a real-world activity resulting in a much more
realistic learning opportunity, learning will be more memorable and meaningful.
It takes many individuals to create, problem solve, and function in real-world
systems.
Siemens used blogging as an opportunity to operate as an
individual in a collaborative environment in which other students provide
feedback (Laureate, 2008b). Siemens (2008) and Pallott & Pratt (2005)
suggest that trust is an important factor needed in a collaborative
environment. Pallott & Pratt (2005) also include that some type of
relationship building in the form of networking occur to build a sense of
belonging in virtual collaboration groups.
To address students who choose not to participate in
collaborative group assignments, Pallott & Pratt (2005) suggest that
instructors explain “…why the activity is occurring and how it contributes to
learning objectives for the course” (p. 24). If guidelines are established at
the onset, the amount of discouragement by students should be minimal. I believe
that students should be informed during the admissions process that they will
occasionally be expected to work in collaborative groups. They also offer
several other suggestions like partnering students with similar backgrounds,
and addressing potential technology problems that could occur and suggesting
alternative sources at the onset of the course (Pallott & Pratt, 2005).
References:
Laureate Education, Inc. (2008a).
“Assessment of Collaborative Learning”. Principles
of Distance Education. Baltimore, MD:
Author.
Laureate Education, Inc. (2008b). Learning
Communities. Principles of Distance Education. Baltimore, MD: Author.
Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2005). Collaborating
online: Learning together in community. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
