A-+Team's+script

Wtoc e l c o m  e __**Group A!**__ Have an engaging and cognitively involved collaborative learning :)

__** Team Script: [Feel free to add descriptors of roles] **__  (1) Editor  a. Changes every week  b. Prepares agenda for synchronous meetings  c. Takes meetings notes  d. Update team’s archive after each meeting  e. Outline each member’s role(s) for the week and send by email as a reminder  f. Liaises team work by email

 (2) Writers  a. Research about the assigned topic  b. Post written artifacts on wiki no later than Monday. If it’s impossible, then no later than Tuesday.

 (3) Reviewers  a. Review produced artifacts  b. Add comments, suggestions for improvements or elaborate on artifacts  c. Do this before Wednesday class

Meeting dates: Every Thurs and Sunday 630pm Weekly Team Roles

Sept 8-Sept 16 Editor: Ahlam

Sept 16 - 23 Editor: Scarlet Writer: Gilbert Reviewers: Ahlam & Nicola

= Team A's Group Inquiry Process =

Team A’s group inquiry process was a seemingly messy one but there is method to our chaos.

We were given free reign to design our own script but of course designing something from nothing is always difficult and so we accessed prior knowledge based on a unit some of us took last semester EDPC 5021 and came up with editor, writer and reviewer roles as our team script. However, we did not really follow through strictly with the roles. There are a few possible reasons for this.

1) As students, we are not used to engaging in these roles and in particular, the role of the reviewer would be especially hard for a student to stick to. This is because the grading for assignments, including this assignment, is always about the quality and quantity of your own original writing. As such being a pure reviewer would seem that you’re not contributing as much. If this were a output oriented situation, we would of course not doubt the importance of the reviewer. But this is a process oriented assignment as judged by the grading rubric to award 5% to each individual contribution for each week.

2) Our multicultural personnel makeup. All 4 of us come from different cultures and as such have different working styles. This takes quite a bit of adjusting and negotiation on its own and to do that while assimilating a new academic assignment style of group work. While there were no real explicit tensions, there is a sense of things gelling as time went along, which is evidence of an adjustment process being gone through. As such.

<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt 36pt; tabstops: list 36.0pt; tabstops: list 36.0pt; text-indent: -18pt;">3) Changing roles every week takes adjusting to. If we were to strictly follow the script of having interchanging roles every week, it would take us time to get used to the new role again and so it did not seem that efficient.

About 2 weeks into our inquiry process. It was apparent that we reverted back to task allocation rather than role allocation. This was probably because this is the one that appeals to our prior experience with collaborative work, i.e. ok you do this, you do that etc. Only one role was needed, that of the decision maker. During our group meetings, we would discuss problems, discuss solutions and the “decision maker” would make decisions if need be. I hesitate to call the decision maker the editor at this point because an editor entails more than decision making. Reviewing was done in a sporadic way, whoever had more mental energy and time would heed the call for review.

Towards the end of the assignment time period, we seemed to have stablised our inquiry process and are indeed somewhat using the original script of editor, writer and reviewer. However we do it our way which is described as follows.

<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt 36pt; tabstops: list 36.0pt; tabstops: list 36.0pt; text-indent: -18pt;">1) We have a real editor now. She is not only a decision maker but provides the vision of the final product. Furthermore she does real editing work in ensuring the flow of the writing remains congruent and providing structure in meetings.

<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt 36pt; tabstops: list 36.0pt; tabstops: list 36.0pt; text-indent: -18pt;">2) We have a fixed editor. The reason being that the end product always reflects the vision of the editor. If we keep changing the editor, the vision keeps changing and the messiness has no end. While her vision may change as time passes with new insights and inputs from the rest of us and her own readings, the change will be evolutionary which might not be the case if we were to have a totally different vision altogether.

<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt 36pt; tabstops: list 36.0pt; tabstops: list 36.0pt; text-indent: -18pt;">3) We are all writers and we negotiate for reviewers during our live meetings. This way we all can keep up with the individual assessment objectives and are allowed some choice, based on our content mastery, interest or mental energy levels.

Our experiences reflect the findings the concerns of Dillenbourg (2002) and the findings of Haake & Pfister (2010). Dillenbourg (2002, p 1) was concerned that “on the one hand, the definition of scripts constitutes a promising convergence between educational engineering and socio-cultural approaches but, on the other hand, it drifts away from the genuine notion of collaborative learning.” If we had strictly adhered to the script, we would have had a less enriching collaborative experience as the messiness required a lot of negotiation and interaction on our part.

In their experiemental study regarding scripting of higher education students, Haake & Pfister (2010) found that “No general advantage of scripting was found concerning acquisition of knowledge; nor was overscripting observed. Collaborative scripting appears to be neither generally advantageous nor disadvantageous, but highly contingent on the particular content and task under consideration.” While this may sound like common sense, this observation may be of importance in collaborative work in cultures which have a high respect for authority. Students who find adhering to the scripts may think that their inability to follow the script from a wiser teacher-figure shows some flaw in their inquiry process, whilst the findings show that it is totally natural.

Our eventual stablisation of a loose adherence to the script may be one way in which educators can balance between seeking to achieve learning goals and gaining the intangible benefits of collaborative learning.

References:

Palloff, Ena M. and Keith Pratt (2001): Lessons from the Cyberspace Classroom. The Realities of Online Teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Dillenbourg, P. P. (2002). Over-scripting CSCL : The risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design. In P. Kirschner, //Three Worlds of CSCL// (pp. 61-91).

Haake,J. & Pfister, H. (2010) Scripting a distance-learning university course: Do students benefit from net-based scripted collaboration?. //International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning.// 5(2), 191-210

** Ahlam: ** I have always loved your logic and this statement rocks: “Team A’s group inquiry process was a seemingly messy one but there is method to our chaos.” I found the point you raised about the product vs. process oriented assignment and “multiculturalism” very insightful. However, I am not sure about the accuracy of the point that shifting between different roles could cause cognitive load or burden. At the same time, this point is very interesting to explore. Is there a reference you used that could elaborate on this point? I am interested. I like your point with regard to having a “real editor”, but the rationale for the “fixed editor” is not very accurate to me. “If we keep changing the editor, the vision keeps changing and the messiness has no end.” (Gilbert) It takes away the negotiation of meaning (at least at the task level, i.e. its nature, the direction of the progress and overall image of the guide) from our inquiry process. It also has dictatorial implications for the editor role which is not the case (except for me! J  ). The discussion that follows opposes the initial statement (quoted above), so maybe we need to reformulate this statement or delete it. The last part is my favorite of it all, especially this statement: “Our eventual stablisation of a loose adherence to the script may be one way in which educators can balance between seeking to achieve learning goals and gaining the intangible benefits of collaborative learning.” (G) Great job! I really enjoyed reading it!