Alm Module 3-Collaboration

Rheingold (2008, February) discussed people collaborating to achieve positive collective results. While I do not necessarily believe that it is a “basic instinct” to work together and interact in a group, I believe that human beings strive to do things that make their own individual lives easier, so in that context, i.e., a more self-serving context, I think human beings will work collaboratively to strive for a positive collective result if it is in the individual’s self-interest. Sociology says that human beings are by nature gregarious, and I presume that means that people band together, for example, in towns and cities because they need each other’s assistance to live in modern society. That grouping into villages, towns, communities, and cities seems to imply a need to live in groups in order to cooperate for better living conditions because we do not have time to grow our own vegetables and other necessities. We buy gas from the gas station, groceries from stores, and clothing from department stores. So, it would seem that we are at least cooperating for a positive collective results.

There is at type of collaboration on a face-to-face level that I call teamwork that is real collaboration. I have been in those teamwork situations where the team had to come up with a product or a solution and after meeting a time or two, individual egos merge into a group synergistic entity that comes up with products and solutions that no one individual in the group would have thought of alone. It is a fascinating process and exciting to observe and participate in. While Driscoll claimed that “Rather, collaboration enables insights and solutions to arise synergistically (Brown et all, 1989) that would not otherwise come about” (p. 396). I have not experienced that type of synergy in an online setting, and I think it may require a physical presence for it to work.

Technology can facilitate collaboration based on constructivist principles by incorporating opportunities to discuss ideas and ask questions and by setting up group activities that promote collaboration, so, some types of collaboration are possible in an online setting. Ill-devised concepts or erroneous ideas can be clarified through collaboration and students can learn in virtual reality situations that give them opportunities to understand different points of view and as Driscoll stated, “transmission or sharing of cultural knowledge” (p. 397). Papanikolaou and Boubouka (2010) conducted an empirical study that ask three questions: “What are the design variables for a collaboration script intended to promote metacognitive knowledge; what types of metacognitive knowledge should be better supported at specific phases of a project, and which phases of a project should be better supported by peer learning?” (p. 137).

Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Papanikaou, K., and Boubouka, M. (2010). Promoting collaboration in a project-based e-learning context. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(2), pp. 135-155

Rheingold, H. (2008, February). Howard Rheingold on collaboration [Video file]. Retrieved from
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/howard_rheingold_on_collaboration.html

Posted comments to:

http://technibug.wordpress.com/2012/04/13/module-3-blog-3-collaboration-4/#comments

http://jacobseduc8845.wordpress.com/2012/04/13/lets-make-meaning-online-and-together/#respond

Alm's Module 2 Blog Post--Cognitivism as a Learning Theory

Too Many _isms?

Karl Kapp stated on his blog that “The issue many forget is that “learning” is not one thing…it is a multi-layered word that tends to get treated as if it were just one thing…and it’s not. It is multi-facetted and that is why developing new models for “learning” is so difficult…there are too many levels for one school of thought or one model to do it all” (http://www.kaplaneduneering.com/kappnotes/index.php/2007/01/out-and-about-discussion-on-educational/). Here is the essence of the issue on the abundance of “–isms.” I see learning as a giant disco ball, with innumerable facets. There is still too much unknown, and there will never be a time when we know everything there is to know about learning. There never will be a one size fits all “ism” because learners do not fit a one-size-fits-all learning model.

Stephen Downes claimed that “I haven't harped on this, because it should be obvious, but it remains puzzling that so much of the instructional design community remains rooted in behaviorism - this more than 30 years after the theory was abandoned everywhere else” (http://www.downes.ca/cgi-bin/page.cgi?post=37293). Behaviorism could not have been totally abandoned because clearly there are times when it works; we still have learning objectives because they help the student focus and serve as a foundation for the design of the instructional material. No one admits to being a behaviorist though. Perhaps, that is what Downes meant.

Each new ism is a stepping stone to a previously unidentified aspect or fact of learning. With the advent of the computer, how people learn changed. New tools and methods in the future may change how the mind takes in information and may change how the brain functions, so the quest will always continue. As Bill Kerr stated on his blog “It seems to me that each _ism is offering something useful without any of them being complete or stand alone in their own right” (http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/2007/01/isms-as-filter-not-blinker.html). A stand-alone ism is an oxymoron.

Downes, S. (2006, December 21). Definitions: ABCD objectives [web blog post]. Retrieved from http://www.downes.ca/cgi-bin/page.cgi?post=37333

Kerr, B. (2007, January 1). _isms as filter, not blinker [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/2007/01/isms-as-filter-not-blinker.html

Kapp, K. (2007, January 2). Out and about: Discussion on educational schools of thought [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://www.kaplaneduneering.com/kappnotes/index.php/2007/01/out-and-about-discussion-on-educational/

BLOGS I POSTED TO:

Jessica's http://jygreensblog.blogspot.com/2012/03/module-2-cognitivism-as-learning-theory.html?showComment=1333129545817#c4004395357910189606

Tim Weaver's at http://weave1-weave1.blogspot.com/2012/03/tweavermod-2-cognitivism-as-learning.html