Discussion Area for INLT Post-IGC Workshop paper on Collaborative learning
For the discussion to work we need people to engage with it. We hope therefore that you will plan to visit the Web site every few days during the discussion period and contribute your views. Above all we should aim for the discussion to be stimulating and enjoyable.
In making your comments, please phrase the majority of them as discussion points, expressing viewpoints, and raising questions to encourage other colleagues to respond. These comments should be addressed to all the delegates and not just the authors. You may also like to make some suggestions to the authors about additional points and references that they might consider including.
Authors are encouraged to join in the debate of their own papers by responding to issues raised and clarifying their own views.
To join the discussion simply send your comments by email to Mike Sanders (masanders@plymouth.ac.uk) who will add them to the appropriate area of this webpage. Here are some guidelines when submitting comments.
- If responding to a comment please remember to indicate which comment you are responding to in your email (e.g. you may wish to use "Re: subject")
- If you are posting a new comment please give your comment a title or subject
- We will not display your email address with your comments unless you indicate in your email that you are happy for us to do so
Many thanks for your input
Comments / Threads So Far
- Comment on Collaborative learning paper (from Karl Donert)
- Comment on Collaborative learning paper (from Eric Pawson)
- Comment on Collaborative paper (from Julie Trafford)
- Comment on Collaborative paper (from Margaret Keane)
- Comment on Collaborative paper (from Michael Bradford)
- Comment on Collaborative paper (from Brian Chalkley)
- Comment on Collaborative paper (from Margaret Keane)
Subject: Comment on Collaborative learning paper
From: Karl Donert ,Liverpool Hope University, UK
Date: 11th June 2006
Posting:
I was thinking that the concept of dialogye (as part of the collaborative process) might be an interesting topic or theme to discuss.
What do Geographers have to contiribute? Are we good at dialogue? Or have we become entrenched in our own subject.
I should also add something on the original European philosophy of collaboration across European borders leading to the removal of such boundaries under the Schengen agreement. This relates therefire to the free movement of students, workers, goods and information. Yet language in Europe has remained a barrier for some aspects. The adoption and acceptance of English as lingua-franca is likely to change that. Esperanto was never going to replace the tower of Babel!
Furthermore we need to deal with cultural collaboration, cross-cultural and inter-cultural dimensions and the resultant notions of citizens collaborating in a responsible and democratic way. What contribution can and should Geography and geographers bring?
Subject: Comment on Collaborative learning paper
From: Eric Pawson, University of Canterbury, NZ
Date: 12th June 2006
Posting:
I’ve enjoyed reading this paper, especially for the clarity with which it lays out collaboration at the institutional and learner levels, and begins to evaluate it for the latter. The question on page 2 - 'should we be teaching students how to collaborate?' - is an interesting one. My institution requires all students to be warned of the perils of plagiarism at the same time as extolling the virtues of active learning means like groupwork. To many, there seems to be some confusion between these!
At the institutional level, isn’t the time-honoured system of external examiners a good example of collaboration? New Zealand geography departments used to exchange Masters theses and Honours papers on a roster not only for examination purposes, but also for comment and discussion on graduate teaching methods and syllabi. This was an excellent system that has fallen into disuse since universities started to require a more formal means of external examination of theses. Now universities are catching up with where their geographers were at long ago, with attempts to formalise benchmarking/learning at inter-institutional level.
Out of interest, has anyone attempted to evaluate faculty benefits from inter-institutional collaboration? Do the economies of scale stack up? I chair the advisory board of a Pacific Studies centre that cannot survive on its research income, but lacks the staff to put on a sufficiently expansive syllabus to attract the students who would represent the necessary $. We are considering on line collaborative courses with similar units in other parts of the Pacific. I can see that the students would benefit from a fuller syllabus, but am not sure what the initiative would do to faculty!
Subject: Comment on Collaborative paper
From: Julie Trafford, University of Auckland, NZ
Date: 20th June 2006
Posting:
This is a very interesting paper! I think in the current times of increased competition both within and among our institutions, promotion of collaboration and collaborative learning is an extremely positive step.
Yes, I do believe that we should promote and encourage collaborative learning (as well as teaching and research), and that the process and benefits of collaboration can be modelled and taught in the day-to-day ways in which students and academics learn, teach and research. It can become part of our departmental cultures - the way we do things around here. I believe that collaboration substantially enhances knowledge production and learning - provided that limits are provided through clear tangible outcomes and deadlines, especially for undergraduate students. I think that effective collaboration is also the global culture in many 21st century organisations beyond the academy, where many geography graduates will seek employment.
I believe that the diverse intra- and inter-(even trans-) disciplinary relations of geography provides an ideal landscape to reap the fruits of collaborative learning, teaching and research- by incorporating the best ideas from each (sub)discipline.
I think, as the paper shows, that there are already many avenues in which geography academics can and do engage in collaboration - including these INLT workshops and associated collaborative projects. How much collaborative learning we each achieve depends on how much we consciously put into, engage in and put into practise the shared conversations and findings. I believe that successful collaborative learning requires maximum input by all. I think that academics and departments need to enhance their own collaborative learning, teaching and researcxh before modelling the concept to students. There is an interesting question of how we can measure collaborative learning over the longer term, to show the 'value-added'? How can we prove that the 'benefits' exceed the 'costs'?
Upon reflection, over my time as an undergraduate, Masters and now PhD student in the School of Geography and Environmental Science at the University of Auckland I have witnessed numerous opportunities for collaborative learning, teaching and research. While I did not always take or make the most of these opportunities as an undergraduate, I have had many powerful collaborative learning experiences while engaged in postgraduate work. In hindsight, I wish I had taken some of these opportunities to work with and learn from my peers more seriously!
My PhD research, supervised by Prof. Richard Le Heron, is exploring postgraduate geography research experiences in New Zealand. I am particularly interested in the collaborative learning, teaching and research that takes place among students and their supervisors, between students, between students and external agents, within intra- and inter- (or trans-) disciplinary research projects, and inter-institutional interactions.
I look forward to the onging discussions on collaborative learning, both on-line and in Brisbane.
I challenge each of us to take at least one aspect of learning from this workshop and the associated collaborative projects to put into practise to in some way enhance the quality of the learning, teaching or research of geography at our respective institutions.
Subject: Comment on Collaborative paper
From: Margaret Keane,
St Mary’s University College, UK
Date: 23rd June 2006
Posting:
The international collaboration between students from Belfast and Northern Colorado during 2005, using the CGGE Nationalism module, allowed the implementation of some of the modifications recommended as a result of the main Project evaluation. Apart from these, specific recommendations arising from the Northern Ireland experience of 2004/05 were incorporated, many of which overlapped with the main proposals(Keane, 2005). These included ways to encourage more critical thinking, the development of reflective practice, emotional expression and more effective team work. Implementation of change related to both the collaborative activities and to their assessment.
The coherent structure and ordering of the CGGE Nationalism materials was maintained, insofar as it was a framework designed to permit a logical development of the module concepts. Any modification of the materials needed to address a critical issue inherent in the module materials - the uni-dimensional understanding of concepts. Apart from the cultural difficulties presented, such a fixed interpretation this does not encourage critical thinking or fruitful collaboration. Activities were redesigned, then, which assumed greater conceptual ambiguity. Additionally, the insertion of a local context, to the national and global contexts make better sense of otherwise complex concepts, and it improved motivation. In turn, this aided more effective local team collaboration as some local groups wrestled with the questions, even in a local context. On balance, the fact that teams were self-selected, on this occasion, was a contributing factor.
It was observed in 2004-05 that question-focused activities were leading to information exchange, internationally and locally, rather than knowledge construction. Questions were designed, therefore, to urge students to move beyond the information - gathering and exchange stage, to thinking critically about their findings, to compare theory and practice and to develop their understanding further. The assessment was planned accordingly. In practice, the goal of the new questions was too ambitious, in the light of time available. Indeed, a even sharper unitary focus for discussion would be probably be desirable and would be more fertile ground for collaboration (Keane, 2005).
Assessment using the grading of discussion board entries may be measurable, but the 2004-05 experience suggested more opportunity could be inbuilt to allow for reflection, since reflection is an important part of the learning experience (Keane, 2005). In 2005/06, therefore, assessment of individual discussion board contributions was dropped in favour of a mix of assessment modes, one collaborative and one individual. Firstly, a weekly (local) team report reflecting on the unit concepts, requiring reference to the discussion board entries, was designed to encourage collaborative critical review meetings and to test levels of conceptual understanding. Secondly, a weekly individual journal entry to elicit change in individual opinions and emotions to the module theme was planned to track growth of intercultural understanding. Together they were a profitable way for students to digest what they had learned and to consider the key issues of the module. Even if uneven participation on the discussion boards resulted, it was a small price to pay for the amassing of marks from entries for their own sake, as seen in 2004/05. In addition, a more theoretical individual terminal essay, analysing the main theme of the module and requiring additional reading, and a question(s) in the terminal examination was assigned to suit each university’s course structure This adaptation to allow for level of students and for the context within which modules are being used indicates the flexibility of the CGGE material which can be adapted to suit individual needs.
The time lag problem remained for many students, in spite of a protocol introduced to ensure that exchanges took within a specific timeframe. For others, enthusiasm was so high that it was not an inherent issue. Another time-related complaint which may be more easily addressed was the lack of time to research answers. The initial on-line socialisation phase which was upgraded in 2004-05 from a homepage proved positive encouragement for most but was a negative experience for others. This icebreaker should be encouraged but the time involved needs to be balanced against the profitability. As before, it was through the off-task independent conversations that the best relationships were formed and that most discussion took place. A balance between project task(s) and conversation seems the most productive format for collaborative learning and learning concepts and skills used by geographers to analyse global issues (Keane, 2005). The 2005/06 Northern Ireland teams’ consensus was that the outcome was an enriching experience, and it indicates the promise of international collaboration using discussion boards. The active sharing of ideas helped geography students grow towards recognising and accepting that international attitudes and behaviours may be rooted in cultural differences and contexts.
Keane, M.C. (2005) Geography forum: intercultural learning online. In K. Donert & P. Charzynski (Eds) Changing Horizons in Geography Education, pp236-40 (Torun: HERODOT).
Subject: Comment on Collaborative paper
From: Michael Bradford, University of Manchester , UK
Date: 24th June 2006
Posting:
I guess at this satge there might be a tendency for descriptions of cases to dominate. I am not sure that they convey much of an argument at present. I find the issue of measuring the value-added etc intersting but it probably applies to any form of learning. The ethics of control groups etc As someone who evaluates urban policy I am very aware that quantitative measures may be preferred by paymasters but may be very dubious too. Knowing that you are measuring the same thing across a number of students is not that different from across a number of areas. The local contexts are all very significant.
Subject: Comment on Collaborative paper
From: Brian Chalkley, University of Plymouth, UK
Date: 29th June 2006
Posting:
- This paper is already in a fairly advanced shape.
- There is a mouthwatering list of questions posed at the start but not all of them actually receive much discussion later on.
- The examples section seems a little disjointed and needs to be further integrated with the paper as a whole. Why were these particular case studies chosen?
- Is the section on CGGE perhaps a little too long and detailed? What wider lessons can be drawn from it?
Subject: Comment on Collaborative paper
From: Margaret Keane,
St Mary’s University College, UK
Date: 7th July 2006
Posting:
I’d like to comment on a couple of the points that were raised by Karl Donert as they go right to the heart of the collaborative process.
1. He considers the question of language as a barrier to communication.
At the heart of the collaborative process is communicating with one another to construct a new understanding.
-The language that we use is central to this. English is becoming one lingua franca which of us cause to sigh with relief! However, with this comes a cultural imperialism which should be resisted. I am among the many who need to recognise that communication is two-way and that I should learn to speak at least one other language with some fluency. As geographers in the English speaking world, perhaps we could include ‘other’ language readings(brief) on all reading lists, for example, to normalize multilingualism ‘awareness’ (in the first instance).
-Cultural understanding underpins communication Language can be ‘got around’ if there is openness to cultural difference.
Knowledge and understanding of Cultural contexts can be a foundation on which to build collaboration, whether on-line or face to face. Students can be prepared even at the most basic level by materials prepared , if possible, by local people so that assumptions and ambiguities are reduced, a danger in interpretation. How important do you consider cultural / inter-cultural dimension of collaboration to be?
2. Karl also poses the question: Have Geographers become too entrenched in geography?
We may have become too self absorbed in a world where our ‘clothes’ are being stolen and repackaged daily. We certainly are not at the vanguard of interdisciplinary collaboration. In short, while we are discussing ourselves, others who are less territorially concerned ( and perhaps have a more secure identity) are getting on with discussing many of the major themes of the day and, in the process, developing the ability to communicate.