DukeMomEdTechBlogger: July 2012

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.