Assessing collaborative work is tremendously difficult. The problem is that not everyone will do as much work as everyone else, but that does not mean that he or she did not learn as much as everyone or deserves a different grade. The problem is truly evaluating students for what they are capable of compared to what they are submitting. The only true way to do this is to start off a class by starting with independent work, then introduce collaborative work and community building, and then let them work collaboratively together. We can't just assume that everyone will want to work together and/or work together well. Dr. Siemens makes a great introductory comment where "We are no longer a society of individual geniuses." However, "In a society where individual contributions are highly acknowledged, collaborative learning environments can be a challenge for many students." The idea is to show students the benefits of collaboration before assigning it.
If a student does not want to network or collaborate in a learning community for an online course, the members of the group should try to communicate with the person to try to understand why. If the members are unsuccessful, the members should notify the superior about what is occurring. However, if the superior (or teacher) has built a good community prior to the project than things should run smooth, but we always need to be open to this happening. And f the student still refuses to do the work in a group, the teacher can always hold a majority of the grade to this aspect, thus making it mandatory to collaborate. Without this participation, this person will not pass, or be able to receive a top grade.
This participation will also be the means for evaluation which makes it ever important. Having the peers rate the peers, and receive feedback from others could be very powerful both for the giver and receiver. Dr. Siemens states that the students can do this by assessing their peers, writing and recieiving feedback from the entire community, and even evaluate student contributions as Wikispaces does with the history option.
Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2008). Assessment of collaborative learning featuring Dr. George Siemens. United States: Walden University. Podcast retrieved from http://sylvan.live.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=4199707&Survey=1&47=4862829&ClientNodeID=984645&coursenav=1&bhcp=1
Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2008). Learning communities featuring Dr. George Siemens. United States: Walden University. Podcast retrieved from http://sylvan.live.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=4199707&Survey=1&47=4862829&ClientNodeID=984645&coursenav=1&bhcp=1
I can agree, if the stage is set by the instructor at the beginning of the course, by building a great online community, trust should be formed and members should feel comfortable within the community. In addition, everyone in the community should be aware of the requirements and the need to collaborate in order to get the best possible results from the class. You commented that if the student still refuses to participate in the group activity, their grade should reflect this. This is correct. Every class has a rubric and grading system that explains what is required for that grade, if the minimum is not met by this student, their grade in fact should reflect it, but if the minimum is met, although it is minimum and that minimum is good work, the instructor should grade the student for the work that is completed based on the rubric.
ReplyDeleteAretha...
ReplyDeleteOne thing that I have found that is if you give credit for the minimum, although I am always hesitant because this could set a precedent to only receive the minimum, can give positive reinforcement for a student who never receives it. It could be the start to a student excelling where they never did before.
If the student is not going to participate, they will continue to not participate so giving credit for the minimum, especially at the beginning could be more beneficial than not.