Mendingjuju – Analysis of Collaborative Approach to Learning Community Design

Introduction

 

This report provides participant observation and analysis of the group mendingjuju responding as individuals to actively socially construct knowledge as a collaborative group through the mendingjuju wiki. The analysis is supported by a synthesis of readings and research and a final reflection on how this collaborative process has contributed to my experience of learning communities.  

 

 

1.      A description and analysis of the group learning process

 

The following describes the group processes, collaborative behaviours and activities that contributed to the social construction of knowledge and group learning process.

 

1.1 Clarification of ideas through group communications

 

Clarification assist learners construct ideas and concepts and minimises confusion that could arise from readings or generating obscure ideas which could impede future learning (Stacey 1999). Williams, Duray and Reddy (2006) suggest that interaction by clarifying ideas promotes intrinsic motivation by highlighting the relevance of new information. This was evident in the beginning of the assignment when the group was attempting to define the focus for the assignment. A key example was a group member’s efforts to clarify that we understood the question and clarification of group direction . Throughout the learning journey there were many attempts to clarify points, terms, readings, rules, sectional responses, new ideas and concepts. Without face to face contact the group relied heavily on asynchronous chat via the Ning and discussion threads in the mendingjuju wiki to assist with decision making and clarifying ideas.   

 

1.2 Use of feedback and learning conversations

 

“Constructive feedback expressed sensitively should promote adult learning by reducing defensiveness and maximizing collaboration “(Saunders 1999, 49)     

 

Soliciting feedback from group members was common practice within mendingjuju. This included discussion posts utilising open-ended questions about ‘what do others think’ and subsequent direct feedback on a group member’s contribution. Kermally (2002) states that ‘tacit knowledge can be transferred from one individual to another and from individuals to groups through conversations, dialogues and meetings’ (Huang and Liaw 2004, para 16).

 

There was strong evidence of the use of social conversation to share experiences and create and exchange tacit knowledge, particularly in relation to real world organisational application, personal work practices and current instructional design practices. Saunders (1999) states these learning conversations can be both collaborative and challenging and result in explicit disclosure in terms of what people have noticed and the sense they have made of it.

 

1.3 Diverse perspectives

 

Pushing understanding beyond individual limits by considering diverse perspectives and different ideas aids in developing an individual’s construction of knowledge and associated language to express that knowledge (Stacey 1999).  The blending of two groups into one, which is documented in the history, represented a group of people with mixed organisational, teaching and learning backgrounds with differing levels of expertise and interests. Navigating and negotiating through the different perspectives and ideas was a challenge of the group process, particularly in the short amount of time the group had to pool information and generate knowledge. Having to consider each others perspectives and ideas definitely contributed to a learning rich environment, co-creation of knowledge and the comprehensive learning community design outcome.

 

1.4 Group sharing of resources, ideas and expert advice

 

Observations by Stacy (1999) suggest that the sharing of resources, ideas and expert advice facilitates the online learning process. Mendingjuju group members were generous of their time, sharing resources and supplying references and links to their prior research. Evidence of this collaborative behaviour is supported in discussion threads and extensive reference list and additional readings list.  Mendingjuju group members were also able to offer and share their expert advice relating to their tacit knowledge of real world application and organisational practices. Additionally, each person supported the cognitive development in the group by providing or sharing knowledge with each other whilst the technology (mendingjuju wiki) assumed the role of managing explicit knowledge and provided the framework or supporting tool to facilitate group interaction (Huang and Liaw 2004).  

  

 1.5. Simulation and practice of new knowledge

 

Bruffee (1993) states that collaborative groups give group members the chance to learn the terminology and concepts of the new knowledge community and provide a secure place to learn and practice the new language and ideas (Stacey 1999).

 

The mendingjuju group of seven participants was recently exposed to a vast range of new online learning technologies and learning theories as part of the Masters subject E-Learning Experiences One. The mendingjuju wiki and Ning provided a safe environment for members to practice their new knowledge, express and use new terminology and simulate online learning’s prior to implementation in the real world.  

 

1.6 Socio-affective collaborative support  

 

Posting supportive comments and sharing personal anecdotes and information provides a network of social interaction and the foundations for mutual respect and trust which is needed for a successful collaborative group process (Stacey 1999). This is also supported by Johnson and Johnson (1998) who suggest the more students care about each other, the greater they are committed to each other’s success and will work harder for a greater productive outcome. This was evident in the friendly nature of the group which fostered a supportive and goal oriented environment, particularly after the face to face meeting. The addition of the face to face meeting gave the group a further opportunity to socialise, broaden relationships and ensured consensus in relation to answering the assignment question. Johnson and Johnson (1998) state that interpersonal relationships are at the heart of communities of practice and that learning communities are based as much on relationships as they are on intellectual discourse.

 

 

1.7. High self – efficacy, common goals and interests 

 

Bandura (1988) suggests that people with a high self-effacious outlook fosters strong interest and involvement in activities and they will often set challenging goals and maintain strong commitment to them. The group’s charter and discussion on the Ning show evidence of a group of individuals who have high assurance in their capabilities and approached the task as a challenge to be mastered and maintained a strong commitment to finishing the task.  The early formation of the group within the context of the assignment demonstrated common goals and an expressed interest in a practical organisational application.

  

1.8 Group motivations and interdependency.

 

Johnson and Johnson (2005) state that shared responsibility through positive social interdependence and relationships created amongst group members increase responsibility towards team mates. The expectations of the group were clearly set out in the group charter which saw the group expressing a desire for high grades as a common motivator and an implicit understanding that others are dependent on your individual contribution to achieve the overall mark. The group’s desire to meet face to face and the class presentation set an expectation that you would have to face the group if you became a social loafer so there was a powerful motivator to apply oneself.

 

1.9 Changing roles with changing needs

 

The “….autonomy of collaborative groups meant that they organized roles according to the needs of the group with each changing task and stage.” (Stacey 1999, p.10). This became evident in mendingjuju particularly after the face to face meeting where we could collectively assign roles, prior to that it was mainly an organic process with free flowing contribution. Roles were allocated to each group member depending on interest and expertise to finalise the assignment and prepare for the presentation.

 

The role of cultivating a community requires leadership and is often taken on by a person or a small group though this role becomes more distributed in more mature communities (Wenger, White, Smith and Rowe 2005, Wenger 2005). Although we all participated in cultivating the learning community it was clear one group member, who had the full support of the group, had taken a lead role throughout the duration of the assignment. This was evident in the group member’s number and quality of contributions.

 

A learning community cannot expect to have the full attention of their members and cannot assume that all their members have the same level of commitment and the same learning needs (Wenger et al 2005). There can also be tension between the collective interest of the group and individual members (Johnson and Johnson 1998). This was also evident with the varying amount of time allocated by each member, the different levels of contributions, and different learning outcomes which will become explicit in the final assignments.

  

1.10 Mixed modes of interaction (Online and F2F)

 

Throughout the group collaboration process we ultilised both the Ning and the Wiki to negotiate the flow of communication. The Ning was primarily our administration area and general social discussion whilst the Wiki focused on critical thinking related to answering the question. The group found it beneficial to include one face to face meeting to finalise the project and the presentation. Johnson & Johnson (1996) suggest that incorporating face-to-face interactions is one of the defining aspects of group work (Lopez-Ortiz and Lin 2005).

 

 

2.0 Synthesis of readings and research from this subject relating to group and collaborative learning

 

 

Lopez-Ortiz and Lin (2005) state that social constructivist theory has begun to be accepted as a theoretical perspective for explaining the effectiveness of collaborative learning in an online environment to the extent that Kanuka and Anderson (1998, p.60) suggest it is ‘currently the most accepted epistemological position associated with online learning’. The relevance for learning communities is that adult learners are more interested in immediate  and real world knowledge application and in this assignment the ability participate in a group with common interests facilitated a sense of ownership that enhanced motivation and investment in the learning activity (Lopez-Ortiz and Lin 2005). 

 

Bruffee (1993) supports such a social constructivist viw by suggesting that through collaborative learning, learners construct knowledge with richer meaning by reaching consensus while working, talking, and sharing with others (Boyer, Maher and  Kirkman 2006)

 

 

Johnson and Johnson (1998, 2005) take an alternative view and suggest that the most important theory dealing with group collaboration is social interdependence theory. Deutsch (1949, 1962), Johnson and Johnson (1989) state ‘social interdependence exists when individuals share common goals and each individual’s outcomes are affected by the actions of the others’ (Johnson and Johnson 1998, para. 8).

 

Johnson and Johnson (1996) have outlined important aspects that characterize effective group work which include ‘….positive interdependence among group members to achieve a group goal, group and individual accountability, interpersonal skills, the ability to self monitor group work and ensure consistent progress towards the goal, and the ability to discontinue patters of behaviour that impede the progress’ (Lopez-Ortiz and Lin 2005, para.7).  There is also evidence to suggest that collaborative group work results in higher level reasoning, critical thinking, longer term retention of what is learned and increased learning satisfaction (Johnson and Johnson 1998, Esposito 2005).

 

Saunders (1999) has researched the implications and relevance for social psychology on group dynamics and suggests that adults learn best from interpersonal relationships and the ability to harness group energy to facilitate the learning process.  However Saunders (1999) cautions that there are aspects of groups that both advantage and disadvantage the group learning process. For example opinions can be influenced by the norms and goals of the group and individuals often feel pressure to conform. Within the group individuals are rewarded for conforming and punished for opposing the group thus fostering groupthink (Saunders 1999). In highly cohesive groups, the need to maintain group consensus may suppress critical evaluation and behaviours like social loafing (people in group not carrying their weight) can occur (Saunders 1999).  

 

3.0 Conclusion and reflection on how this process can further inform my experiences of learning communities

 

By participating in mendingjuju collaborative wiki it has assisted me to:

 

• understand the importance of having an educationally sound theoretical rationale to underpin design for learning communities
• understand how learning is occurring in online environments and the multitude of online tools that are available to support and enhance learning communities (eg Wikis, Ning, weblogs, social bookmarking etc) 
• understand the importance of an integrated technology platform which supports the learning process. Importance needs to be placed on usability flexibility , integrated technology and adaptability into work-home life 
• understand the different perspectives/goals/dynamics and theories of group work which need to be factored into the design of collaborative learning environments
• understand that learning is occurring and can be enhanced through group interaction provided through social activities in online learning communities 

 

Reference List

 

Bandura, A (1988) ‘Organisational applications of social cognitive theory’ Australian Journal of Management, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 275–302

 

Boyer NR, Maher PA and Kirkman S (2006) ‘Transformative Learning in Online Settings: The Use of Self-Direction, Metacognition and Collaborative Learning’ Journal of Transformative Education Vol. 4 pp. 335-362

 

Esposito, M (2005)’Emotional Intelligence and Andragogy: The Adult Learner’ proceedings of the 19th International Conference, Learning Organization in a Learning World, April 18th-22nd 2005. King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi Thailand. Viewed 29^th May 2008

 http://www.ittl.org/Publications/Emotional_Intelligence_and_Andragogy1.pdf

 

Huang, HM and Liaw, SS (2004) ‘The Framework of Knowledge Creation for Online Learning Environments’ Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, Vol. 30 No. 1, Winter, pp 1-8, viewed 29^th May 2008 <http://www.cjlt.ca/content/vol30.1/cjlt30-1_art3.html>

 

Johnson, DW and Johnson, RT (1998) ‘Cooperative Learning and Social Interdependence Theory’ Social Psychological Applications To Social Issues, viewed 29^th May 2008 <http://www.co-operation.org/pages/SIT.html>

 

Johnson, DW and Johnson, RT (2005) ‘New Developments in Social Independence Theory’ Genetic Social and General Monographs 131, No. 4 pp285-358, viewed 30^th May 2008

<http://www.co-operation.org/pages/social_interdependence.pdf>

 

Lopez-Ortiz, BI and Lin, L (2005) ‘What Makes an Online Group Project Work? Students Perceptions before and after an Online Collaborative Problem/Project-Based (PBL) Experience’ Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning  Vol. 2, No. 2 pp 47-54, viewed 29^th May 2008  <http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Feb_05/Feb_05.pdf#page=51>

 

Saunders, S (1999) ‘Social Psychology of Adult Learning’ Adult Education Psychology, Sydney Social Press, Katoomba, pp 26-71

 

 

Wenger, E (2000) ‘Communities of practice and social learning systems’. Organization, Vol. 7, No.2, pp 225-246.

 

Wenger E, White N, Smith JD and Rowe K (2005) ‘Technology for communities’, viewed 29^th May 2008  <http://technologyforcommunities.com/CEFRIO_Book_Chapter_v_5.2.pdf>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ramblings | Comment (0)