Assessing Collaborative Efforts

Part1 - A summary of assessment strategies for online learning community participation:

Assessment in an online community collaborative project team should look very different from the traditional marking system that is prevalent in the educational environment. Here is a summary of some recommended assessment strategies for use in collaborative team activities. These are applicable to both online DE environments and f2f classrooms in assessing collaborative project teams:

• participation in discussions/blogs is a significant part of course grades (Swan, 2004) and Siemens (2008). Assessment scale ranges from the highest level of synthesis, integration, and application to analysis to the lowest level of summarizing (Palloff & Pratt, 2005);

• learning community members assess each other, based on clearly defined rubrics either written by the team or by the instructor, “a simple rule to remember when assessing collaborative work is that collaborative activities are best assessed collaboratively” (Palloff & Pratt, 2005, p. 44);

• team product achievement to the clearly defined instructor rubrics (Siemens, 2008);
• individual improvement assessed by the instructor (Siemens, 2008);

• feedback from networking and community responses (Siemens, 2008);

• team process in their product achievement as assessed by the instructor and each team member (this might include discussions, how decisions were reached (whole team vs individual and consensus vs voting), managing time deadline requirements, conflict resolution, team responsibility organization, team self-monitoring, and team leadership (Siemens, 2008);

• individual electronic portfolios including individual contributions as well as the team product are helpful in assessing the individual contributions to the team (Palloff & Pratt, 2005); According to Siemens (2004), learning is now a process of living. Formal education is only a stage of learning. Learning continues in virtually all aspects of life. Schools assign grades to demonstrate competency. Learning through life experiences creates artifacts instead that can be displayed in eportfolios. To move to more authentic assessment (as opposed to testing), is to create an assessment-trail that is centralized and under leaner control (Siemens, 2004);

• individual reflective self-assessment, (Palloff & Pratt, 2005);

• more traditional assessment of skills can be done with simulations, (Palloff & Pratt, 2005); and

• an online quiz is constructed from information shared on the forum during discussions contributing to the round robin (Stewart, 2007).

To summarize, factors other than grading contribute positively to the effectiveness of small collaborative learning groups in the online environment. Several authors are cited with specific instructional strategies that facilitate learner participation in small group projects. Benefits include an enhanced sense of community, increased skill acquisition, and better learning outcomes. Brindley, et al (2009) collected data on teams over a three year period from a class in an international master of distance education program and concluded that the “introduction of grading has made no discernible difference to participation in study groups based on a straightforward comparison of participation rates between the graded and non-graded sections”. The authors proposed alternative methods to encourage learners to experience the value of collaborative learning by creating study group experiences that are motivating and rewarding. They include many of the strategies that are listed above.

Part 2 - Problems with team member participation?

Occasionally, one member of a study group does not pull his or her weight but this is the exception rather than the rule, and in most cases the groups organize themselves relatively quickly and all learners contribute fairly equally to the task. (Brindley, et al, 2009)

However, uncooperative or unproductive team members can be detrimental to a team if left unchecked. “A house divided cannot stand” comes to mind (as I am listening to a PBS review of pre-Civil War times playing in the background). Preventative maintenance, in my opinion, is the best approach to ensuring a team’s effectiveness.

This is accomplished by a combination of factors including: clear rubrics by the instructor, incorporating team participation and peer assessment as part of the course grade, team development of mission and charter, team development of time lines to accomplish the end product, team monitoring, and instructor established assessments including input from peers, self-reflections, and self-evaluations. Davis (1993) recommends strong expectations at the very beginning of a team with informal monitoring by the instructor and team self-evaluations for team effectiveness. She also suggests informing students about the research studies on the effectiveness of collaborative learning and describing the role it will play in the course.

In addition, establishing team norms and a team charter upfront by the team that align with the instructor’s team expectations should prevent any one individual monopolizing team decisions, but require all voices to be heard in the decision-making process.

If a problem still exists, the team should work with the student to see what the issues are and if the student needs extra support from other team members. Eventually, if the student is stubbornly refusing to participate, the team should continue by taking over that student’s responsibilities, notify the instructor and let the instructor conference with the student. Since it has already been established upfront that the student’s grade is dependent on their team participation, the instructor and the student should work out a resolution.

References:
Brindley, J. E., Walti, C., Blaschke, L.M., (2009). Creating Effective Collaborative Learning Groups in an Online Environment. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(3). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/675/1271

Davis, B.G., (1993). An online excerpt on Collaborative Learning: Group Work and Study Teams from Tools for Teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Retrieved from http://teaching.berkeley.edu/bgd/collaborative.html

Palloff, R.M., & Pratt, K. (2005). Collaborating online: Learning together in community. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publisher. A Wiley Imprint.

Siemens, G. (2008). Assessment of Collaborative Learning. (Vodcast). Principles of Distance Education DVD produced by Laureate Education, Inc. Baltimore.

Siemens. (2004, December 16). ePortfolios. Retrieved from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/eportfolios.htm

Stewart. (2007, Fall semester). Learning by design. Retrieved from http://www.baker-evans.com/knowledgegarden/Learning+by+Design?page=Learning+by+Design&comments_parentId=2547&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain

Swan, K. (2004). Relationships between interactions and learning in online environments. The Sloan Consortium. Retrieved from http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/books/pdf/interactions.pdf.