During Lab work on Jan 28, we experienced Video 360 cardboard movies
let’s take 5-10 min and check out the following videos (select and watch at least three of them)
F2F students, please Google Cardboard
Online students, please view on your computer or mobile devices, if you don’t have googles at your house (you can purchase now goggles for $5-7 from second-hand stores such as Goodwill)
Both F2F and online students. Here directions how to easily open the movies on your mobile devices:
Copy the URL and email it to yourself.
Open the email on your phone and click on the link
If you have goggles, click on the appropriate icon lower right corner and insert the phone in the goggles
Open your D2L course on your phone (you can use the mobile app).
Go to the D2L Content Module with these directions and click on the link.
After the link opens, insert phone in the goggles to watch the video
Videos: While watching the videos, consider the following objectives:
– Does this particular technology fit in the instructional design (ID) frames and theories covered, e.g. PBL, CBL, Activity Theory, ADDIE Model, TIM etc. (https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2020/01/29/im-690-id-theory-and-practice/ ). Can you connect the current state, but also the potential of this technology with the any of these frameworks and theories, e.g., how would Google Tour Creator or any of these videos fits in the Analysis – Design – Development – Implementation – Evaluation process? Or, how do you envision your Google Tour Creator project or any of these videos to fit in the Entry – Adoption – Adaptation – Infusion – Transformation process?
– how does this particular technology fit in the instructional design (ID) frames and theories covered so far?
– what models and ideas from the videos you will see seem possible to be replicated by you?
Find one F2F and one online peer to form a group.
Based on the questions/directions before you started watching the videos:
– Does this particular technology fit in the instructional design (ID) frames and theories covered. e.g. PBL, CBL, Activity Theory, ADDIE Model, TIM etc. (https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2020/01/29/im-690-id-theory-and-practice/ ). Can you connect the current state, but also the potential of this technology with the any of these frameworks and theories, e.g., how would Google Tour Creator or any of these videos fits in the Analysis – Design – Development – Implementation – Evaluation process? Or, how do you envision your Google Tour Creator project or any of these videos to fit in the Entry – Adoption – Adaptation – Infusion – Transformation process?
– how does this particular technology fit in the instructional design (ID) frames and theories covered so far?
– what models and ideas from the videos you will see seem possible to be replicated by you?
exchange thoughts with your peers and make a plan to create similar educational product
Evaluate the ability of the game you watched to be incorporated in the educational process
Assignment: In 10-15 min (mind your peers, since we have only headset), do your best to evaluate one educational app (e.g., Labster) and one leisure app (games).
Use the same questions to evaluate Lenovo DayDream:
– Does this particular technology fit in the instructional design (ID) frames and theories covered, e.g. PBL, CBL, Activity Theory, ADDIE Model, TIM etc. (https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2020/01/29/im-690-id-theory-and-practice/ ). Can you connect the current state, but also the potential of this technology with the any of these frameworks and theories, e.g., how would Google Tour Creator or any of these videos fits in the Analysis – Design – Development – Implementation – Evaluation process? Or, how do you envision your Google Tour Creator project or any of these videos to fit in the Entry – Adoption – Adaptation – Infusion – Transformation process?
– how does this particular technology fit in the instructional design (ID) frames and theories covered so far?
– what models and ideas from the videos you will see seem possible to be replicated by you?
1990 – The Cognition & Technology Group at Vanderbilt University develops the Anchored InstructionEducational Model.
1990s – Multimedia and CD-ROMs are introduced in educational environments.
1991 – Lave and Wenger introduce the Communities of Practice Model and the Situated Learning Theory in “Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation”.
1991 – Hudspeth and Knirk publish the case-based Learning Model in Performance Improvement Quarterly.
1992 – Roger C. Schank releases a technical report, introducing the Goal-based Scenario Model.
1993 – The first Computer-supported Intentional Learning Environments (CSILEs) prototype is used in a university setting.
1995 – Saltzberg and Polyson publish Distributed Learning on the World Wide Web, which outlines the Distributed Learning Model.
1995 – Dodge and March develop WebQuest.
1996 – Professor Joseph R. Codde publishes a report that outlines Contract Learning.
2007 – M. Lombardi publishes a report, outlining the Authentic Learning Model.
Applications for the 2018 Institute will be accepted between December 1, 2017 and January 27, 2018. Scholars accepted to the program will be notified in early March 2018.
Title:
Learning to Harness Big Data in an Academic Library
Abstract (200)
Research on Big Data per se, as well as on the importance and organization of the process of Big Data collection and analysis, is well underway. The complexity of the process comprising “Big Data,” however, deprives organizations of ubiquitous “blue print.” The planning, structuring, administration and execution of the process of adopting Big Data in an organization, being that a corporate one or an educational one, remains an elusive one. No less elusive is the adoption of the Big Data practices among libraries themselves. Seeking the commonalities and differences in the adoption of Big Data practices among libraries may be a suitable start to help libraries transition to the adoption of Big Data and restructuring organizational and daily activities based on Big Data decisions. Introduction to the problem. Limitations
The redefinition of humanities scholarship has received major attention in higher education. The advent of digital humanities challenges aspects of academic librarianship. Data literacy is a critical need for digital humanities in academia. The March 2016 Library Juice Academy Webinar led by John Russel exemplifies the efforts to help librarians become versed in obtaining programming skills, and respectively, handling data. Those are first steps on a rather long path of building a robust infrastructure to collect, analyze, and interpret data intelligently, so it can be utilized to restructure daily and strategic activities. Since the phenomenon of Big Data is young, there is a lack of blueprints on the organization of such infrastructure. A collection and sharing of best practices is an efficient approach to establishing a feasible plan for setting a library infrastructure for collection, analysis, and implementation of Big Data.
Limitations. This research can only organize the results from the responses of librarians and research into how libraries present themselves to the world in this arena. It may be able to make some rudimentary recommendations. However, based on each library’s specific goals and tasks, further research and work will be needed.
Big Data is becoming an omnipresent term. It is widespread among different disciplines in academia (De Mauro, Greco, & Grimaldi, 2016). This leads to “inconsistency in meanings and necessity for formal definitions” (De Mauro et al, 2016, p. 122). Similarly, to De Mauro et al (2016), Hashem, Yaqoob, Anuar, Mokhtar, Gani and Ullah Khan (2015) seek standardization of definitions. The main connected “themes” of this phenomenon must be identified and the connections to Library Science must be sought. A prerequisite for a comprehensive definition is the identification of Big Data methods. Bughin, Chui, Manyika (2011), Chen et al. (2012) and De Mauro et al (2015) single out the methods to complete the process of building a comprehensive definition.
In conjunction with identifying the methods, volume, velocity, and variety, as defined by Laney (2001), are the three properties of Big Data accepted across the literature. Daniel (2015) defines three stages in big data: collection, analysis, and visualization. According to Daniel, (2015), Big Data in higher education “connotes the interpretation of a wide range of administrative and operational data” (p. 910) and according to Hilbert (2013), as cited in Daniel (2015), Big Data “delivers a cost-effective prospect to improve decision making” (p. 911).
The importance of understanding the process of Big Data analytics is well understood in academic libraries. An example of such “administrative and operational” use for cost-effective improvement of decision making are the Finch & Flenner (2016) and Eaton (2017) case studies of the use of data visualization to assess an academic library collection and restructure the acquisition process. Sugimoto, Ding & Thelwall (2012) call for the discussion of Big Data for libraries. According to the 2017 NMC Horizon Report “Big Data has become a major focus of academic and research libraries due to the rapid evolution of data mining technologies and the proliferation of data sources like mobile devices and social media” (Adams, Becker, et al., 2017, p. 38).
Power (2014) elaborates on the complexity of Big Data in regard to decision-making and offers ideas for organizations on building a system to deal with Big Data. As explained by Boyd and Crawford (2012) and cited in De Mauro et al (2016), there is a danger of a new digital divide among organizations with different access and ability to process data. Moreover, Big Data impacts current organizational entities in their ability to reconsider their structure and organization. The complexity of institutions’ performance under the impact of Big Data is further complicated by the change of human behavior, because, arguably, Big Data affects human behavior itself (Schroeder, 2014).
De Mauro et al (2015) touch on the impact of Dig Data on libraries. The reorganization of academic libraries considering Big Data and the handling of Big Data by libraries is in a close conjunction with the reorganization of the entire campus and the handling of Big Data by the educational institution. In additional to the disruption posed by the Big Data phenomenon, higher education is facing global changes of economic, technological, social, and educational character. Daniel (2015) uses a chart to illustrate the complexity of these global trends. Parallel to the Big Data developments in America and Asia, the European Union is offering access to an EU open data portal (https://data.europa.eu/euodp/home ). Moreover, the Association of European Research Libraries expects under the H2020 program to increase “the digitization of cultural heritage, digital preservation, research data sharing, open access policies and the interoperability of research infrastructures” (Reilly, 2013).
The challenges posed by Big Data to human and social behavior (Schroeder, 2014) are no less significant to the impact of Big Data on learning. Cohen, Dolan, Dunlap, Hellerstein, & Welton (2009) propose a road map for “more conservative organizations” (p. 1492) to overcome their reservations and/or inability to handle Big Data and adopt a practical approach to the complexity of Big Data. Two Chinese researchers assert deep learning as the “set of machine learning techniques that learn multiple levels of representation in deep architectures (Chen & Lin, 2014, p. 515). Deep learning requires “new ways of thinking and transformative solutions (Chen & Lin, 2014, p. 523). Another pair of researchers from China present a broad overview of the various societal, business and administrative applications of Big Data, including a detailed account and definitions of the processes and tools accompanying Big Data analytics. The American counterparts of these Chinese researchers are of the same opinion when it comes to “think about the core principles and concepts that underline the techniques, and also the systematic thinking” (Provost and Fawcett, 2013, p. 58). De Mauro, Greco, and Grimaldi (2016), similarly to Provost and Fawcett (2013) draw attention to the urgent necessity to train new types of specialists to work with such data. As early as 2012, Davenport and Patil (2012), as cited in Mauro et al (2016), envisioned hybrid specialists able to manage both technological knowledge and academic research. Similarly, Provost and Fawcett (2013) mention the efforts of “academic institutions scrambling to put together programs to train data scientists” (p. 51). Further, Asomoah, Sharda, Zadeh & Kalgotra (2017) share a specific plan on the design and delivery of a big data analytics course. At the same time, librarians working with data acknowledge the shortcomings in the profession, since librarians “are practitioners first and generally do not view usability as a primary job responsibility, usually lack the depth of research skills needed to carry out a fully valid” data-based research (Emanuel, 2013, p. 207).
Borgman (2015) devotes an entire book to data and scholarly research and goes beyond the already well-established facts regarding the importance of Big Data, the implications of Big Data and the technical, societal, and educational impact and complications posed by Big Data. Borgman elucidates the importance of knowledge infrastructure and the necessity to understand the importance and complexity of building such infrastructure, in order to be able to take advantage of Big Data. In a similar fashion, a team of Chinese scholars draws attention to the complexity of data mining and Big Data and the necessity to approach the issue in an organized fashion (Wu, Xhu, Wu, Ding, 2014).
Bruns (2013) shifts the conversation from the “macro” architecture of Big Data, as focused by Borgman (2015) and Wu et al (2014) and ponders over the influx and unprecedented opportunities for humanities in academia with the advent of Big Data. Does the seemingly ubiquitous omnipresence of Big Data mean for humanities a “railroading” into “scientificity”? How will research and publishing change with the advent of Big Data across academic disciplines?
Reyes (2015) shares her “skinny” approach to Big Data in education. She presents a comprehensive structure for educational institutions to shift “traditional” analytics to “learner-centered” analytics (p. 75) and identifies the participants in the Big Data process in the organization. The model is applicable for library use.
Being a new and unchartered territory, Big Data and Big Data analytics can pose ethical issues. Willis (2013) focusses on Big Data application in education, namely the ethical questions for higher education administrators and the expectations of Big Data analytics to predict students’ success. Daries, Reich, Waldo, Young, and Whittinghill (2014) discuss rather similar issues regarding the balance between data and student privacy regulations. The privacy issues accompanying data are also discussed by Tene and Polonetsky, (2013).
Privacy issues are habitually connected to security and surveillance issues. Andrejevic and Gates (2014) point out in a decision making “generated by data mining, the focus is not on particular individuals but on aggregate outcomes” (p. 195). Van Dijck (2014) goes into further details regarding the perils posed by metadata and data to the society, in particular to the privacy of citizens. Bail (2014) addresses the same issue regarding the impact of Big Data on societal issues, but underlines the leading roles of cultural sociologists and their theories for the correct application of Big Data.
Library organizations have been traditional proponents of core democratic values such as protection of privacy and elucidation of related ethical questions (Miltenoff & Hauptman, 2005). In recent books about Big Data and libraries, ethical issues are important part of the discussion (Weiss, 2018). Library blogs also discuss these issues (Harper & Oltmann, 2017). An academic library’s role is to educate its patrons about those values. Sugimoto et al (2012) reflect on the need for discussion about Big Data in Library and Information Science. They clearly draw attention to the library “tradition of organizing, managing, retrieving, collecting, describing, and preserving information” (p.1) as well as library and information science being “a historically interdisciplinary and collaborative field, absorbing the knowledge of multiple domains and bringing the tools, techniques, and theories” (p. 1). Sugimoto et al (2012) sought a wide discussion among the library profession regarding the implications of Big Data on the profession, no differently from the activities in other fields (e.g., Wixom, Ariyachandra, Douglas, Goul, Gupta, Iyer, Kulkami, Mooney, Phillips-Wren, Turetken, 2014). A current Andrew Mellon Foundation grant for Visualizing Digital Scholarship in Libraries seeks an opportunity to view “both macro and micro perspectives, multi-user collaboration and real-time data interaction, and a limitless number of visualization possibilities – critical capabilities for rapidly understanding today’s large data sets (Hwangbo, 2014).
The importance of the library with its traditional roles, as described by Sugimoto et al (2012) may continue, considering the Big Data platform proposed by Wu, Wu, Khabsa, Williams, Chen, Huang, Tuarob, Choudhury, Ororbia, Mitra, & Giles (2014). Such platforms will continue to emerge and be improved, with librarians as the ultimate drivers of such platforms and as the mediators between the patrons and the data generated by such platforms.
Every library needs to find its place in the large organization and in society in regard to this very new and very powerful phenomenon called Big Data. Libraries might not have the trained staff to become a leader in the process of organizing and building the complex mechanism of this new knowledge architecture, but librarians must educate and train themselves to be worthy participants in this new establishment.
Method
The study will be cleared by the SCSU IRB.
The survey will collect responses from library population and it readiness to use and use of Big Data. Send survey URL to (academic?) libraries around the world.
Data will be processed through SPSS. Open ended results will be processed manually. The preliminary research design presupposes a mixed method approach.
The study will include the use of closed-ended survey response questions and open-ended questions. The first part of the study (close ended, quantitative questions) will be completed online through online survey. Participants will be asked to complete the survey using a link they receive through e-mail.
Mixed methods research was defined by Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004) as “the class of research where the researcher mixes or combines quantitative and qualitative research techniques, methods, approaches, concepts, or language into a single study” (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004 , p. 17). Quantitative and qualitative methods can be combined, if used to complement each other because the methods can measure different aspects of the research questions (Sale, Lohfeld, & Brazil, 2002).
Sampling design
Online survey of 10-15 question, with 3-5 demographic and the rest regarding the use of tools.
1-2 open-ended questions at the end of the survey to probe for follow-up mixed method approach (an opportunity for qualitative study)
data analysis techniques: survey results will be exported to SPSS and analyzed accordingly. The final survey design will determine the appropriate statistical approach.
Project Schedule
Complete literature review and identify areas of interest – two months
Prepare and test instrument (survey) – month
IRB and other details – month
Generate a list of potential libraries to distribute survey – month
Contact libraries. Follow up and contact again, if necessary (low turnaround) – month
Collect, analyze data – two months
Write out data findings – month
Complete manuscript – month
Proofreading and other details – month
Significance of the work
While it has been widely acknowledged that Big Data (and its handling) is changing higher education (https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=big+data) as well as academic libraries (https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2016/03/29/analytics-in-education/), it remains nebulous how Big Data is handled in the academic library and, respectively, how it is related to the handling of Big Data on campus. Moreover, the visualization of Big Data between units on campus remains in progress, along with any policymaking based on the analysis of such data (hence the need for comprehensive visualization).
This research will aim to gain an understanding on: a. how librarians are handling Big Data; b. how are they relating their Big Data output to the campus output of Big Data and c. how librarians in particular and campus administration in general are tuning their practices based on the analysis.
Based on the survey returns (if there is a statistically significant return), this research might consider juxtaposing the practices from academic libraries, to practices from special libraries (especially corporate libraries), public and school libraries.
References:
Adams Becker, S., Cummins M, Davis, A., Freeman, A., Giesinger Hall, C., Ananthanarayanan, V., … Wolfson, N. (2017). NMC Horizon Report: 2017 Library Edition.
Andrejevic, M., & Gates, K. (2014). Big Data Surveillance: Introduction. Surveillance & Society, 12(2), 185–196.
Asamoah, D. A., Sharda, R., Hassan Zadeh, A., & Kalgotra, P. (2017). Preparing a Data Scientist: A Pedagogic Experience in Designing a Big Data Analytics Course. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 15(2), 161–190. https://doi.org/10.1111/dsji.12125
Bughin, J., Chui, M., & Manyika, J. (2010). Clouds, big data, and smart assets: Ten tech-enabled business trends to watch. McKinsey Quarterly, 56(1), 75–86.
Cohen, J., Dolan, B., Dunlap, M., Hellerstein, J. M., & Welton, C. (2009). MAD Skills: New Analysis Practices for Big Data. Proc. VLDB Endow., 2(2), 1481–1492. https://doi.org/10.14778/1687553.1687576
Daniel, B. (2015). Big Data and analytics in higher education: Opportunities and challenges. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(5), 904–920. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12230
Daries, J. P., Reich, J., Waldo, J., Young, E. M., Whittinghill, J., Ho, A. D., … Chuang, I. (2014). Privacy, Anonymity, and Big Data in the Social Sciences. Commun. ACM, 57(9), 56–63. https://doi.org/10.1145/2643132
De Mauro, A. D., Greco, M., & Grimaldi, M. (2016). A formal definition of Big Data based on its essential features. Library Review, 65(3), 122–135. https://doi.org/10.1108/LR-06-2015-0061
De Mauro, A., Greco, M., & Grimaldi, M. (2015). What is big data? A consensual definition and a review of key research topics. AIP Conference Proceedings, 1644(1), 97–104. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4907823
Eaton, M. (2017). Seeing Library Data: A Prototype Data Visualization Application for Librarians. Publications and Research. Retrieved from http://academicworks.cuny.edu/kb_pubs/115
Emanuel, J. (2013). Usability testing in libraries: methods, limitations, and implications. OCLC Systems & Services: International Digital Library Perspectives, 29(4), 204–217. https://doi.org/10.1108/OCLC-02-2013-0009
Graham, M., & Shelton, T. (2013). Geography and the future of big data, big data and the future of geography. Dialogues in Human Geography, 3(3), 255–261. https://doi.org/10.1177/2043820613513121
Hashem, I. A. T., Yaqoob, I., Anuar, N. B., Mokhtar, S., Gani, A., & Ullah Khan, S. (2015). The rise of “big data” on cloud computing: Review and open research issues. Information Systems, 47(Supplement C), 98–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.is.2014.07.006
Laney, D. (2001, February 6). 3D Data Management: Controlling Data Volume, Velocity, and Variety.
Miltenoff, P., & Hauptman, R. (2005). Ethical dilemmas in libraries: an international perspective. The Electronic Library, 23(6), 664–670. https://doi.org/10.1108/02640470510635746
Philip Chen, C. L., & Zhang, C.-Y. (2014). Data-intensive applications, challenges, techniques and technologies: A survey on Big Data. Information Sciences, 275(Supplement C), 314–347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2014.01.015
Provost, F., & Fawcett, T. (2013). Data Science and its Relationship to Big Data and Data-Driven Decision Making. Big Data, 1(1), 51–59. https://doi.org/10.1089/big.2013.1508
Reyes, J. (2015). The skinny on big data in education: Learning analytics simplified. TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 59(2), 75–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-015-0842-1
Schroeder, R. (2014). Big Data and the brave new world of social media research. Big Data & Society, 1(2), 2053951714563194. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951714563194
Sugimoto, C. R., Ding, Y., & Thelwall, M. (2012). Library and information science in the big data era: Funding, projects, and future [a panel proposal]. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 49(1), 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1002/meet.14504901187
Tene, O., & Polonetsky, J. (2012). Big Data for All: Privacy and User Control in the Age of Analytics. Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property, 11, [xxvii]-274.
van Dijck, J. (2014). Datafication, dataism and dataveillance: Big Data between scientific paradigm and ideology. Surveillance & Society; Newcastle upon Tyne, 12(2), 197–208.
Waller, M. A., & Fawcett, S. E. (2013). Data Science, Predictive Analytics, and Big Data: A Revolution That Will Transform Supply Chain Design and Management. Journal of Business Logistics, 34(2), 77–84. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbl.12010
West, D. M. (2012). Big data for education: Data mining, data analytics, and web dashboards. Governance Studies at Brookings, 4, 1–0.
Willis, J. (2013). Ethics, Big Data, and Analytics: A Model for Application. Educause Review Online. Retrieved from https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/idcpubs/1
Wixom, B., Ariyachandra, T., Douglas, D. E., Goul, M., Gupta, B., Iyer, L. S., … Turetken, O. (2014). The current state of business intelligence in academia: The arrival of big data. CAIS, 34, 1.
Wu, X., Zhu, X., Wu, G. Q., & Ding, W. (2014). Data mining with big data. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 26(1), 97–107. https://doi.org/10.1109/TKDE.2013.109
Wu, Z., Wu, J., Khabsa, M., Williams, K., Chen, H. H., Huang, W., … Giles, C. L. (2014). Towards building a scholarly big data platform: Challenges, lessons and opportunities. In IEEE/ACM Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (pp. 117–126). https://doi.org/10.1109/JCDL.2014.6970157
Flipped classroom is an instructional strategy and a type of blended learning that reverses the traditional educational arrangement by delivering instructional content, often online, outside of the classroom.
In essence, “flipping the classroom” means that students gain first exposure to new material outside of class, usually via reading or lecture videos, and then use class time to do the harder work of assimilating that knowledge, perhaps through problem-solving, discussion, or debates.
I have a long way to go in my skill set in making the videos interesting (they, to me anyway, are really boring to watch).
I’m not sure how much they (the videos) are being utilized. There are just certain items that are learned better through direct one on one contact.
I know as I’m teaching, I get direct feedback from my students by looking at their faces and gauging comprehension. I, as a teacher, don’t get that feedback as I’m designing and creating my videos.”
although learning styletheories serve as a justification for different learning activities it does not provide the necessarytheoretical framework as to how the activities need to be structured (Bishop and Verleger, 2013). p. 99
One observation from the literature is there is a lack of consistency of models of the FCM (Davieset al.,2013, p. 565) in addition to a lack of research into student performance, (Findlay-Thompson andMombourquette, 2014, p. 65; Euniceet al., 2013) broader impacts on taking up too much of thestudents’time and studies of broader student demographics. In another literature review of the FCM,Bishop and Verleger concur with the observation that there is a lack of consensus as to the definitionof the method and the theoretical frameworks (Bishop and Verleger, 2013). p. 99
The FCM isheavily reliant on technology and this is an important consideration for all who consideremploying the FCM. p. 101
Gross, B., Marinari, M., Hoffman, M., DeSimone, K., & Burke, P. (2015). Flipped @ SBU: Student Satisfaction and the College Classroom. Educational Research Quarterly, 39(2), 36-52.
we found that high levels of student engagement and course satisfaction characterised the students in the flipped courses, without any observable reduction in academic performance.
Hotle, S. L., & Garrow, L. A. (2016). Effects of the Traditional and Flipped Classrooms on Undergraduate Student Opinions and Success. Journal Of Professional Issues In Engineering Education & Practice, 142(1), 1-11. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)EI.1943-5541.0000259
It was found that student performance on quizzes was not significantly different across the traditional and flipped classrooms. A key shortcoming noted with the flipped classroom was students’ inability to ask questions during lectures. Students in flipped classrooms were more likely to attend office hours compared to traditional classroom students, but the difference was not statistically significant.
Heyborne, W. H., & Perrett, J. J. (2016). To Flip or Not to Flip? Analysis of a Flipped Classroom Pedagogy in a General Biology Course. Journal Of College Science Teaching, 45(4), 31-37.
Although the outcomes were mixed, regarding the superiority of either pedagogical approach, there does seem to be a trend toward performance gains using the flipped pedagogy. We strongly advocate for a larger multiclass study to further clarify this important pedagogical question.
Tomory, A., & Watson, S. (2015). Flipped Classrooms for Advanced Science Courses. Journal Of Science Education & Technology, 24(6), 875-887. doi:10.1007/s10956-015-9570-8
Helping a psychology student from Edinburgh Napier with his essay:
To what extent have the new generation of psychodynamic psychoanalysts addressed the issues raised by the ferocious critiques of Freud’s work that have emerged?
Almond, R. (2006). How do we bridge the gap? Commentary on Luyten, Blatt, and Corveleyn. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 54(2), 611–618.
Ambrosio, J. (2010). A Fearsome Trap: The will to know, the obligation to confess, and the Freudian subject of desire. Educational Philosophy & Theory, 42(7), 728–741.
Appelbaum, J. (2013). Psychoanalysis and philosophy: Nurturing dialogues. The American Journal of Psychoanalysis, 73(2), 117–120.
Auxéméry, Y. (2015). « Névrose » et « Psychose »: Quelles définitions pour la psychiatrie contemporaine ? = “Neurosis” and “psychosis”: What definitions for contemporary psychiatry? Annales Médico-Psychologiques, 173(8), 643–648. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.amp.2014.12.015
Brookes, C. E. (2015). Review of From classical to contemporary psychoanalysis: A critique and integration. Psychodynamic Psychiatry, 43(4), 507–512.
Cohen, J. (2007). Interdisciplinary Psychoanalysis and the Education of Children: Psychoanalytic and Educational Partnerships. Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 62, 180–207.
Cooper-White, P. (2002). “Higher Powers and Infernal Regions”: Models of Mind in Freud’s Interpretation of Dreams and Contemporary Psychoanalysis, and Their Implications for Pastoral Theology. Pastoral Psychology, 50(5), 319–343.
Cooper-White, P. (2014). Review of Psychoanalysis, monotheism and morality: The Sigmund Freud Museum Symposia, 2009–2011. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 62(6), 1163–1170. http://doi.org/10.1177/0003065114558924
Cortina, M. (2012). Review of Psychoanalysis and motivational systems. A new look. Psychodynamic Psychiatry, 40(2), 357–364.
Daldin, H. (1988). The fate of the sexually abused child. Clinical Social Work Journal, 16(1), 22–32.
Dimen, M. (2014). Inside the Revolution: Power, Sex, and Technique in Freud’s “‘Wild’ Analysis”. Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 24(5), 499–515.
Eckardt, M. H. (2003). Evolution of psychoanalysis. Journal of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis, 31(4), 726–728.
Eliman, S. J. (2005). Rothstein as a Self and Object Freudian. Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 15(3), 459–471.
Friedman, N. (1976). From the experiential in therapy to experiential psychotherapy: A history. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research & Practice, 13(3), 236–243. http://doi.org/10.1037/h0088347
Golding, R. (1982). Freud, psychoanalysis, and sociology: some observations on the sociological analysis of the individual. British Journal of Sociology, 33(4), 545–562.
Gordon, P. (2014). Radical analyses? Psychodynamic Practice, 20(1), 68–74.
Granqvist, P. (2006). On the relation between secular and divine relationships: An emerging attachment perspective and a critique of the “depth” approaches. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 16(1), 1–18. http://doi.org/10.1207/s15327582ijpr1601_1
Greenwood, D. (2010). Embracing the “allegiance effect” as a positive quality in research into the psychological therapies-exploring the concept of “influence”. European Journal of Psychotherapy & Counselling, 12(1), 41–54.
Hansen, I. A. (2007). Buddhist Influences on the Idea of the Unconscious. Psychological Perspectives, 50(2), 181–197.
Jeffrey M JJ Jackson. (2008). Philosophy as Melancholia: Freud, Kant, Foucault. Psychoanalysis, Culture & Society, 13(3), 299–315.
Jones, G. Y. (1999). “Beyond the Oedipal Complex”: Freud and Lacan revisited. Psychodynamic Counselling, 5(4), 453.
Kerr, J. (2012). Review of From classical to contemporary psychoanalysis: A critique and integration. Psychoanalytic Review, 99(5), 785–792.
Knoblauch, S. H. (2005). Body Rhythms and the Unconscious: Toward an Expanding of Clinical Attention. Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 15(6), 807–827.
Kronemyer, D. E. (2011). Freud’s Illusion: New Approaches to Intractable Issues. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 21(4), 249–275.
Kruger, L.-M. (2006). A tribute to 150 years of Sigmund Freud: Not mastering the mind: Freud and the “Forgotten Material” of Psychology. Psycho-Analytic Psychotherapy in South Africa, 14(2), 1–12.
Lee, N.-N. (2014). Sublimated or castrated psychoanalysis? Adorno’s critique of the revisionist psychoanalysis: An introduction to “The Revisionist Psychoanalysis”. Philosophy & Social Criticism, 40(3), 309–338.
Lenthall, A. (2007). Review of Psychotherapy and phenomenology: On Freud, Husserl and Heidegger. Psychodynamic Practice: Individuals, Groups and Organisations, 13(4), 423–427. http://doi.org/10.1080/14753630701609939
Moyaert, P. (2013). The Death Drive and the Nucleus of the Ego: An Introduction to Freudian Metaphysics. Southern Journal of Philosophy, 51, 94–119.
Noys, B. (2009). Revolution in Psychology: Alienation to Emancipation The Lacanian Left: Psychoanalysis, Theory, and Politics. Historical Materialism, 17(1), 183–190.
Palombo, J. (2013). The Self As a Complex Adaptive System Part I: Complexity, Metapsychology, and Developmental Theories. Psychoanalytic Social Work, 20(1), 1–25.
Pavón-Cuéllar, D. (2014). The Freudo-Marxist Tradition and the Critique of Psychotherapeutic Ideology. Psychotherapy & Politics International, 12(3), 208–219.
Pedroni, I. (2015). Finding New Ways of Belonging Through Religious Experience in the Framework of a Therapeutic Encounter. International Journal of Psychoanalytic Self Psychology, 10(4), 343–354.
Price, M. (1995). The illusion of theory: Discussion of R. D. Chessick’s “Poststructural psychoanalysis or wild analysis?.” Journal of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis, 23(1), 63–70.
Robinson, P. (1985). FREUD UNDER SIEGE. Halcyone (01986449), 7, 1–15.
Samuels, R. (1998). Passing beyond ego psychology: Freud, Lacan and the end of analysis. Clinical Studies: International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 4(1), 93–104.
Schafer, R. (1970). Requirements for a critique of the theory of catharsis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 35(1, Pt.1), 13–17. http://doi.org/10.1037/h0029613
Schafer, R. (1975). Psychoanalysis without psychodynamics. The International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 56(1), 41–55.
Shafranske, E. P. (1992). A Psychoanalytic Response to Hood. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 2(3), 161.
SHILL, M. (2011). Intersubjectivity and the Ego. Psychoanalytic Social Work, 18(1), 1–22.
Thomas, A. (2007). Practical Irrationality, Reflexivity and Sartre’s Regress Argument. Teorema, 26(3), 113–121.
Tillman, J. G. (1998). Psychodynamic psychotherapy, religious beliefs, and self-disclosure. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 52(3), 273.
Wax, M. L. (1995). Method as Madness: Science, hermeneutics, and art in psychoanalysis. Journal of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis, 23(4), 525–543.
Webster, J. (2013). Critique and cure: A dream of uniting psychoanalysis and philosophy. The American Journal of Psychoanalysis, 73(2), 138–157. http://doi.org/10.1057/ajp.2013.1
Weinberger, J., & Westen, D. (2001). Science and psychodynamics: From arguments about Freud to data. Psychological Inquiry, 12(3), 129–132. http://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1203_02
Zepf, S. (2012). Repression and Substitutive Formation: The Relationship Between Freud’s Concepts Reconsidered. Psychoanalytic Review, 99(3), 397–420.
Zepf, S. (2013). Abwehr, Verdrängung und Ersatzbildung: Die Beziehung zwischen Freuds Konzepten neu organisiert. Defence, Repression and Substitutive Formation: The Relationship between Freud’s Reorganized Concepts, 29(4), 499–515.
Crompton, Muilenburg and Berge’s definition for m-learning is “learning across multiple contexts, through social and content interactions, using personal electronic devices.”
The “context”in this definition encompasses m-learnng that is formalself-directed, and spontaneous learning, as well as learning that is context aware and context neutral.
therefore, m-learning can occur inside or outside the classroom, participating in a formal lesson on a mobile device; it can be self-directed, as a person determines his or her own approach to satisfy a learning goal; or spontaneous learning, as a person can use the devices to look up something that has just prompted an interest (Crompton, 2013, p. 83). (Gaming article Tallinn)Constructivist Learnings in the 1980s – Following Piage’s (1929), Brunner’s (1996) and Jonassen’s (1999) educational philosophies, constructivists proffer that knowledge acquisition develops through interactions with the environment. (p. 85). The computer was no longer a conduit for the presentation of information: it was a tool for the active manipulation of that information” (Naismith, Lonsdale, Vavoula, & Sharples, 2004, p. 12)Constructionist Learning in the 1980s – Constructionism differed from constructivism as Papert (1980) posited an additional component to constructivism: students learned best when they were actively involved in constructing social objects. The tutee position. Teaching the computer to perform tasks.Problem-Based learning in the 1990s – In the PBL, students often worked in small groups of five or six to pool knowledge and resources to solve problems. Launched the sociocultural revolution, focusing on learning in out of school contexts and the acquisition of knowledge through social interaction
Socio-Constructivist Learning in the 1990s. SCL believe that social and individual processes are independent in the co-construction of knowledge (Sullivan-Palinscar, 1998; Vygotsky, 1978).
96-97). Keegan (2002) believed that e-learning was distance learning, which has been converted to e-learning through the use of technologies such as the WWW. Which electronic media and tools constituted e-learning: e.g., did it matter if the learning took place through a networked technology, or was it simply learning with an electronic device?
99-100. Traxler (2011) described five ways in which m-learning offers new learning opportunities: 1. Contingent learning, allowing learners to respond and react to the environment and changing experiences; 2. Situated learning, in which learning takes place in the surroundings applicable to the learning; 3. Authentic learning;
Diel, W. (2013). M-Learning as a subfield of open and distance education. In: Berge and Muilenburg (Eds.). Handbook of Mobile Learning.
15) Historical context in relation to the field of distance education (embedded librarian)
16 definition of independent study (workshop on mlearning and distance education
17. Theory of transactional distance (Moore)
Cochrane, T. (2013). A Summary and Critique of M-Learning Research and Practice. In: Berge and Muilenburg (Eds.). Handbook of Mobile Learning.
( Galin class, workshop)
P 24
According to Cook and Sharples (2010) the development of M learning research has been characterized by three general faces a focus upon Devices Focus on learning outside the classroom He focus on the mobility of the learner
25
Baby I am learning studies focus upon content delivery for small screen devices and the PDA capabilities of mobile devices rather than leveraging the potential of mobile devices for collaborative learning as recommended by hope Joyner Mill Road and sharp P. 26 Large scale am learning project Several larger am learning projects have tended to focus on specific groups of learners rather than developing pedagogical strategies for the integration of am mlearning with him tertiary education in general
27
m learning research funding
In comparison am learning research projects in countries with smaller population sizes such as Australia and New Zealand are typiclly funded on a shoe string budget
28
M-learning research methodologies
I am learning research has been predominantly characterized by short term case studies focused upon The implementation of rapidly changing technologies with early adopters but with little evaluation reflection or emphasis on mainstream tertiary-education integration
p. 29 identifying the gaps in M learning research
lack of explicit underlying pedagogical theory Lack of transferable design frameworks
Pachler, N., Bachmair, B., and Cook, J. (2013). A Sociocultural Ecological Frame for Mobile Learning. In: Berge and Muilenburg (Eds.). Handbook of Mobile Learning.
(Tom video studio)
35 a line of argumentation that defines mobile devices such as mobile phones as cultural resources. Mobile cultural resources emerge within what we call a “bile complex‘, which consist of specifics structures, agency and cultural practices.
36 pedagogy looks for learning in the context of identify formation of learners within a wider societal context However at the beginning of the twentieth first century and economy oriented service function of learning driven by targets and international comparisons has started to occupy education systems and schools within them Dunning 2000 describes the lengthy transformation process from natural assets Land unskilled labor to tangible assets machinery to intangible created assets such as knowledge and information of all kinds Araya and Peters 2010 describe the development of the last 20 years in terms of faces from the post industrial economy to d information economy to the digital economy to the knowledge economy to the creative economy Cultural ecology can refer to the debate about natural resources we argue for a critical debate about the new cultural resources namely mobile devices and the services for us the focus must not be on the exploitation of mobile devices and services for learning but instead on the assimilation of learning with mobiles in informal contacts of everyday life into formal education
37
Ecology comes into being is there exists a reciprocity between perceiver and environment translated to M learning processes this means that there is a reciprocity between the mobile devices in the activity context of everyday life and the formal learning
45
Rather than focusing on the acquisition of knowledge in relation to externally defined notions of relevance increasingly in a market-oriented system individual faces the challenge of shape his/her knowledge out of his/her own sense of his/her world information is material which is selected by individuals to be transformed by them into knowledge to solve a problem in the life world
Crompton, H. (2013). A Sociocultural Ecological Frame for Mobile Learning. In: Berge and Muilenburg (Eds.). Handbook of Mobile Learning.
p. 47 As philosophies and practice move toward learner-centered pedagogies, technology in a parallel move, is now able to provide new affordances to the learner, such as learning that is personalized, contextualized, and unrestricted by temporal and spatial constrains.
The necessity for m-learning to have a theory of its own, describing exactly what makes m-learning unique from conventional, tethered electronic learning and traditional learning.
48 . Definition and devices. Four central constructs. Learning pedagogies, technological devices, context and social interactions.
“learning across multiple contexts, through social and content interactions, using personal electronic devices.”
It is difficult, and ill advisable, to determine specifically which devices should be included in a definition of m-learning, as technologies are constantly being invented or redesigned. (my note against the notion that since D2L is a MnSCU mandated tool, it must be the one and only). One should consider m-learning as the utilization of electronic devices that are easily transported and used anytime and anywhere.
49 e-learning does not have to be networked learning: therefore, e-learnng activities could be used in the classroom setting, as the often are.
Why m-learning needs a different theory beyond e-learning. Conventional e-learning is tethered, in that students are anchored to one place while learning. What sets m-learning apart from conventional e-learning is the very lack of those special and temporal constrains; learning has portability, ubiquitous access and social connectivity.
50 dominant terms for m-learning should include spontaneous, intimate, situated, connected, informal, and personal, whereas conventional e-learning should include the terms computer, multimedia, interactive, hyperlinked, and media-rich environment.
51 Criteria for M-Learning
second consideration is that one must be cognizant of the substantial amount of learning taking place beyond the academic and workplace setting.
52 proposed theories
Activity theory: Vygotsky and Engestroem
Conversation theory: Pask 1975, cybernetic and dialectic framework for how knowledge is constructed. Laurillard (2007) although conversation is common for all forms of learning, m-learning can build in more opportunities for students to have ownership and control over what they are learning through digitally facilitated, location-specific activities.
53 multiple theories;
54 Context is central construct of mobile learning. Traxler (2011) described the role of context in m-learning as “context in the wider context”, as the notion of context becomes progressively richer. This theme fits with Nasimith et al situated theory, which describes the m-learning activities promoting authentic context and culture.
55. Connectivity
unlike e-learning, the learner is not anchored to a set place. it links to Vygotsky’s sociocultural approach.
Learning happens within various social groups and locations, providing a diverse range of connected learning experiences. furthermore, connectivity is without temporal restraints, such as the schedules of educators.
55. Time
m-larning as “learning dispersed in time”
55. personalization
my note student-centered learning
Moura, A., Carvalho, A. (2013). Framework For Mobile Learning Integration Into Educational Contexts. In: Berge and Muilenburg (Eds.). Handbook of Mobile Learning.
students’ multimedia assignments, which lead to online resources
collaboration with other departments for the students projects
moving the class to online environment (even if kept hybrid)
What is it?
the complexity of the learning environment is turning instructional design into a more dynamic activity, responding to changing educational models and expectations. Flipped classrooms, makerspaces, and competency-based learning are changing how instructors work with students, how students work with course content, and how mastery is verified. Mobile computing, cloud computing, and data-rich repositories have altered ideas about where and how learning takes place.
How does it work?
One consequence of these changes is that designers can find themselves filling a variety of roles. Today’s instructional designer might work with subject-matter experts, coders, graphic designers, and others. Moreover, the work of an instructional designer increasingly continues throughout the duration of a course rather than taking place upfront.
Who’s doing it?
The responsibility for designing instruction traditionally fell to the instructor of a course, and in many cases it continues to do so. Given the expanding role and landscape of technology—as well as the growing body of knowledge about learning and about educational activities and assessments— dedicated instructional designers are increasingly common and often take a stronger role.
Why is it significant?
The focus on student-centered learning, for example, has spurred the creation of complex integrated learning environments that comprise multiple instructional modules. Competency-based learning allows students to progress at their own pace and finish assignments, courses, and degree plans as time and skills permit. Data provided by analytics systems can help instructional designers predict which pedagogical approaches might be most effective and tailor learning experiences accordingly. The use of mobile learning continues to grow, enabling new kinds of learning experiences.
What are the downsides?
Given the range of competencies needed for the position, finding and hiring instructional designers who fit well into particular institutional cultures can be challenging to the extent that instructors hand over greater amounts of the design process to instructional designers, some of those instructors will feel that they are giving up control, which, in some cases, might appear to be simply the latest threat to faculty authority and autonomy. My note: and this is why SCSU Academic Technology is lead by faculty not IT staff.
Where is it going?
In some contexts, instructional designers might work more directly with students, teaching them lifelong learning skills. Students might begin coursework by choosing from a menu of options, creating their own path through content, making choices about learning options, being more hands-on, and selecting best approaches for demonstrating mastery. Educational models that feature adaptive and personalized learning will increasingly be a focus of instructional design. My note: SCSU CETL does not understand instructional design tendencies AT ALL. Instead of grooming faculty to assume the the leadership role and fill out the demand for instructional design, it isolates and downgrades (keeping traditional and old-fashioned) instructional design to basic tasks of technicalities done by IT staff.
What are the implications for teaching and learning?
By helping align educational activities with a growing understanding of the conditions,
tools, and techniques that enable better learning, instructional designers can help higher education take full advantage of new and emerging models of education. Instructional
designers bring a cross-disciplinary approach to their work, showing faculty how learning activities used in particular subject areas might be effective in others. In this way, instructional
designers can cultivate a measure of consistency across courses and disciplines in how educational strategies and techniques are incorporated. Designers can also facilitate the
creation of inclusive learning environments that offer choices to students with varying strengths and preferences.
“I’d really rather work alone. . .” Most of us have heard that from a student (or several students) when we assign a group project, particularly one that’s worth a decent amount of the course grade. It doesn’t matter that the project is large,…
we train students to join the workforce. Team work is key. None of this lone wolf , inner child stuff. You cant be a nurse, a plant worker, someone in business unless you can teamwork……….
if you want to be an academic , even then you have others in your department , you teach . whether they are shy, introverted makes no difference. We humans are a pack type animal.
You can make all the esoteric analogies you want. But in this world , its a we world not an I one.
Professor (Adjunct) at Manchester Community College
With the demographics that I work with, I do not feel that group projects are particularly productive. One thing we must always be sure of before assigning a group project is whether or not doing so supports the objective of the course. That said, a mandatory group project might not be appropriate, say, in an accounting class, where group dynamics and playing well with others is not particularly a focus of the class objective.
For business classes, I give the option of group vs. individual project – but make it clear that the expectation multiplies by the number of group members. Our students work different schedules and all commute to class – the logistics alone can be overwhelming. Who’s going to watch the kids and the dogs?
Historically, group projects can be particularly overly stressful for students requiring accommodations and/or are living with physiological or mental health issues. When a group project is assigned, it is incumbent upon the instructor to ensure any such issues are addressed.
Assigning a group project now also makes us responsible for ensuring that the group functions appropriately, and the role of each group member is clearly identified so that you are able to assess performance. “Free riders” are an inherent reality in group projects, and as with public goods, someone still has to pay the price. (I have used a group project in an economics class – with a student “plant” to demonstrate the “free rider.”)
Overall, I feel that group projects should only be assigned in a controlled structured environment, otherwise someone will always feel left out. I use scheduled group projects only in classes where doing so meets a course objective, as I feel this is fairest to all of the students.
No doubt the ‘lone wolf’ phenomenon is real, and we as educators have created it. Our educational system has reinforced to students that individual performance is supreme, and that is how they have generally been judged. Students have spent years polishing their capabilities to excel individually, and then suddenly we are saying that they need to not only work effectively in teams, but also figure out how to push team efforts to an excellent level so that their individual grade does not suffer due to below-average performance by other team members. So, first we need to be more consistent in our message(s) to students. We should be talking about critical professional skills (higher-level thinking, problem solving, communication, and teamwork) from the time they enter our university. And our curricula and courses should be designed to help them develop these skills. In the meantime, we should do all that we can to help them be successful in their new and unfamiliar teamwork roles. One way I have tried to reduce surprises and conflicts is to require student teams to develop a team charter before they commence any work. A charter lays out goals and methods for the team, along with expectations for team members and agreement on how conflicts will be resolved. I have students start at this link to learn about the benefits and structure of team charters: http://www.clarosgroup.com/jumpstart.pdf.
Adjunct Lecturer at Asia Pacific International University
I was one of those students who hated group work. The reason for me at least was because the group would slow me down. Often when people work in groups accountability goes down and people go off task. I remember being in groups were nobody wanted to do the assignment but wanted to socialize. In the real world this is not as bad because people are being employed and paid money so they have some motivation to work together.
Sadly, there are times were students need to work in groups. However, if I have a student who insist on working alone I tried to make accommodations for them because that student used to be me.
Associate Professor , Anatomic and Clinical Pathology at King Abdulaziz University
Top Contributor
I agree with Alan that team projects should be chosen only if they are required to support the ILOs.However although the course may or may not require the team project we should keep in mind that all graduates are sooner or latter going to work outside the institution with people whom they dont know at all.If they are not encouraged to deal with their own familiar peers (at a relatively more flexible stage of their lives) I dont see how we can expect them to demonstrate standard collegiality later on in their careers.So I think team projects do groom our students with culture, grace , dignity and respect above all.It fosters life long professional relationships in which the team members become invested in each others ” development and well-being”
Yes! a serious challenge to team project is that of ” free riders” because they can potentially annoy and de- motivate delligent students.In my experience there has always been a note of caution in using “team projects ” since team’s performance is difficult to implement which I suppose is about ” performance mangement”.
This can be addressed by choosing the right design for the project that should be designed in a way that individual efforts are observable and measurable keeping the number of students to small.There are different models of team projects .I think “additive tasks where the individual inputs are added together so that the group productivity is determined by the individual contributions of all group members” are the best .The monitoring can be done by the direct supervision of the facilitator or by peers. We may also indirectly stress the potential for reputational consequences for poor individual effort that may work into motivating their engagement next time.
Team composition is an important determinant of team performance. Allowing teams to form autonomously with like-minded individuals who have self-selected into the team knowing who they will be working with are likely to perform better.But as an educator I have experienced that learning outcomes are better met with heterogeneity within the team.
Other way of engaging ” free riders” into teams is by using a mechanism to make the P & P well known to all students at the begining and by continuous monitoring of effort so that at the end they could share in a reward only if there is substantial evidence that they have worked hard enough to deserve it.
1. complicated schedules. I generate groups with catme.org, which will take into account parameters that you determine (schedules, grades, etc.), allowing you to say what should and should not match, and how important it is, in order to come up with groups. I often modify the groups based on what I know of the individuals, but the main thing they help with is sorting the schedules. There is a catme users group on Linked In.
2. loafers. When I grade a group project, 1/3 of the grade is the overall project (and each member of the group gets the same grade), 1/3 is for the individuals’ performance (in presentation, answering questions, etc.) and 1/3 of the grade is peer grades. Every student grades the other members of the group. My assessment of the students’ contrubutions, and their peers’ assessment, is usually very close, but being allowed to grade their co-workers gives the student a little bit of feeling of input that helps to deal with the feeling of unfairness in being burdened with an uncooperative group member.
my group projects , except for one, are all where i can observe.
that being said i hear every semester the “i work better alone or it’s not fair to grade me with a group”
inevitably i ask them what “field” they are going into? we don’t need sole workers in the fields we ready them for.
1. the entire group gets the same grade.
2. all the groups , usually 4 or 5 of 4 or 5 students each, grade each other by student and by group.
3. everyone has same instructions……build a model for the physical folks, make an oral presentation ,3 to 5 minutes each student, in front of entire class and me, and bring it all together with a written report on the subject of a minimum of 20 pages for a C grade.
One of our Profs adds this little tidbit……..if after 2 weeks into the 5 week assignment, the team wants to remove someone for lack of commitment or participation, they can vote them off the team.
BUT they all have to put that in writing AND say why……….AND SIGN IT
the tossed student can then do the entire project all by themselves………BUT they lose one grade. so from an A to a B for example. WHY? it’s a team project and they know it ahead of time……
this isn’t Burger King and NO you can’t have everything YOUR own way in work either….
the other students are harsher graders then i usually turn out to be to….
I have to admit I never liked team projects at first. I would be one that would rather do it myself and on my time, but with the way the world is today that is not a good idea anymore. You have to be able to work on virtual teams. Employers want to know that students have that skill. I always have the teams fill out an evaluation that I only read on their team members.
Former Professor at Georgia College & State University
Mary Bisson’s recognition of two flaws of group work, coordinating schedules and accounting for those who “loaf” through the project, is very real. I hated college committees for a third reason: conflicting learning styles (I’m being polite about the clashes). Some need reflection and contemplation before decision-making, others need visual prompts to facilitate understanding, and still others were more interpersonally oriented and needed to talk it over with someone, etc., etc. The notion that our society is “team” oriented is flawed. Most of our organizations are authoritarian, including the law, education, business, and the military. There is someone at the top who makes decisions–a judge, a teacher, a CEO, a general–and those below must follow. Only about 20% of us, on average, actually participate in one of the few “democratic” group activities: Juries.
My group projects were mainly during class time, during which I broke the large group into smaller ones, conducted an activity, and had a return to the larger group for reporting results.
Brian Murphy is right about our fostering individual success as the prime focus of our educational evaluation, yet working in groups is important. Learning to subjugate the self for a larger goal involving others is an important awareness, and those who cannot do this become outlaws…or CEOs or professors (being facetious here).
Assistant Professor at Saint James School of Medicine
I have observed marked improvement in group projects after providing the students with a workshop session on the Tuckman Stages of Team Development. Once they understand the causes of the Storming phase, they readily adopt the leadership strategies for moving into the Norming and Performing phases.
Former Professor at Georgia College & State University
Tuckman has fun ideas because he rhymes, but the “stage” idea can be misleading since groups don’t always necessarily progress in these phases or the phases overlap. Having taught small group communication at my college, I can say that Tuckman’s (and Jensen) ideas came out of his research in the 60’s and 70’s and have been criticized for “overreaching” when trying to formulate neat stages, but his work has been very influential. Still, consideration of the purpose of the group, its “chemistry,” and the outside pressures guiding it is important. A family discussion at Thanksgiving is very different from small groups of students asked to analyze a short story, or a Senate committee charged with examining a marriage rights bill. Whether they neatly go from Forming to Storming to Norming to Performing is questionable (Tuckman later added “Adjourning” as a fifth stage).
And Ron, I thought I had pointed to Wall Street bankers when I mentioned outlaws.
Biology Professor at Pellissippi State Community College
To David Muschell,
You are incorrect about military decision making. While generals (and colonels and majors) do have to make snap decisions in the midst of combat, the planning for combat operations is a lot more group based than most civilians think. The book “Into the Storm’ by General Fred Franks (co-written by Tom Clancy) describes the degree of collaboration between higher and lower levels of command and between adjacent units. The military understands that the best ideas don’t always come from the top. The lower ranking leader is often closer to the action and able to provide a different perspective.
Former Professor at Georgia College & State University
You have to have extreme admiration for Frederick Franks, but saying that the military structure is not authoritarian may overlook the fact that most of the best authoritarian leaders take input from others, especially those closest to the decision making theater, before making a decision. If a judge doesn’t look at precdents, a teacher at educational psychology, or a cop at the law, we can get bad decisions. The worst authoritarian leaders ignore those below them and dictate.
Professor of Curriculum, Educational Management and Research at UNEFM
I applaud Mary for raising this reflection in the group because it is a reality that we are in our teaching performance and hardly we have strategies, but Rana, Brian and Grace made some interesting proposals that we can apply.
Professor and Founder International Professors Project
Top Contributor
@David …I apologize for missing Wall Street going David.
There many other instances of overvaluing a theory, a law or an idea, since almost no reader or student, or even a professor will check the research design and statistics and logical analysis of all such.
Mallow’s “theory” of personalty was disproved fifty years ago(?), but as the following years rolled by, HR professionals and many other admins were attached to the theory at the hip. It was a nice contribution to use as a subjective guideline for further work, but not to assume the hierarchy postulated almost always works–and even almost perefect does not a theory make–its considered to have been disproven.
Many people have a miserable childhood: physically and/or emotionally, and go hungry but pretty well climb the ladder toward self actualization.
Professor and Founder International Professors Project
Top Contributor
@David …I apologize for missing Wall Street going David.
There many other instances of overvaluing a theory, a law or an idea, since almost no reader or student, or even a professor will check the research design and statistics and logical analysis of all such. Masow’s “theory” of personalty was disproved fifty years ago(?), but as the following years rolled by, HR professionals and many other admins were attached to the theory at the hip. It was a nice contribution to use as a subjective guideline for further work, but not to assume the hierarchy postulated almost always works–and even almost perefect does not a theory make–its considered to have been disproven.
Many people have a miserable childhood: physically and/or emotionally, and go hungry but pretty well climb the ladder toward self actualization.
Biology Professor at Pellissippi State Community College
Yes the military is authoritarian, but Soldiers also have to work in groups. All of my military training courses were taught in the small group style. My work as a staff officer was all done within small groups. And in Gen. Franks book he explains a lot about the reflective nature of his decision making process. How he would have his staff develop multiple possible plans and then not choose one until he had a chance to reflect on it. As he stated (paraphrasing a bit from memory): he often waited until the situation developed a bit and then the best option presented itself.
I think that it is important that students learn that group work of some time is required in all professions. Whether the group gets to make the decision or only pitch a particular plan, they stil have to work together to finish whichever job they are given.
Professor (Adjunct) at Manchester Community College
Not sure how the discussion digressed to military groups – or quoting Tommy Franks as a reliable source – but institutions such as the Army and Marine Corp do operate as small groups. The “basic” in basic training emphasizes the breaking down of individuality and being rebuilt to “all you can be” as part of a “group project.”
No place for that in accounting class.
The use of “small group” or team project instruction permeates throughout the public sector – whether military or civilian. But your added value to any group or organization remains what you contribute as an individual; first you must learn as an individual before you can effectively contribute to a group.
Group dynamics are important, but should not affect the individual outcome if not part of the learning objectives in the curriculum. I spent little time as a staff officer in the Army and never did figure out what the group think was leading to “decisions” that were handed down – and thanks to line officers like James Blunt who think as individuals, and disobeyed orders from General Wesley Clark, that we succeed as nations.
Professor of Psychology at Franklin Pierce University
I use team work in classes where, as Alan mentioned above, a particular goal is enhanced. However, I never make the project worth more than 20% of the final grade because I once saw a stellar student miss out on admittance to his preferred grad school (he was admitted to another) due to one B on his transcript (from a course where the team grade was 60%).
I also believe that equating classroom team work with the world of employment is a terrible mistake. They are just not apples to apples! The people I work with have a lot more in common with me than students in a class room have with each other; and this class room heterogeneity is at it’s worst in the freshman and sophomore years. As for the team I work with, we have identical advanced degrees in the same field. All of us competed during hiring with other applicants, yet we, not those others, got hired. The chances that our personalities would mesh well are not guaranteed, but the odds are a lot higher than randomly throwing together a group of students.
Also regarding actual employment, there are many jobs that do not require team work, and shy people or those with Asperger’s, for example, tend to self-select and gravitate to these positions. One example is a family member who works at the American College of Surgeons in Chicago. He sits in an office all by himself editing manuscripts and may see his boss once a week. Though this is not my idea of a fun time, he loves his job.
Assistant Professor Process Technology at College of the Mainland
Question: if you go into a workplace right out of College , what are you?
answer: A freshman in the workplace. A lot of book learning maybe, but damn little practical experience.
Teamwork is a requirement for the majority of folks outside Academia. You don’t have to like the other, you sure as heck don’t have to have the same outside interests.
But you do have to work together. The Team will have type A’s and type B’s and folks who play well with others and folks that don’t. There for sure are no guaranties, but i know of none except death and taxes anyways. There is a valid reason for teaching teamwork. It has a function in life and in the workplace.
and i see the “Asperger’s clause too. Which just in last few months has been called into question, if it even exists. If 5 % are that way, we modify everything and NOT teach or lead the other 95%? I modify my entire class for the same percentages? (and i know you can argue whatever that % should be and miss the point)
We do student NO service by NOT getting them out of their comfort zone in this regards.
Assistant Professor at Univ of Manitoba, Inner City Social Work Program
Top Contributor
I use group work for several classes and find that my students are apprehensive about this style UNTIL I explain that although it is “group” work they will ONLY be graded on their portion. For example, when I have the 4 groups go out to do a community assessment on the 4 sections: demographics, community characteristics, community services, and strengths and challenges, I have each student take a portion of their section and present their 4-5 page paper, as a poster presentation, in which they are quizzed about their poster and the information they gathered on the community for their particular section. Each student in each group has their section to present and defend, while at the same time they must all work together to ensure that their section is accurate! And I make sure to reinforce this grading system every class until the poster presentation, which is usually the last class before the final exam. I find that when this is explained properly, at the beginning of the class, and reinforced when the assignment is discussed, then there are fewer questions/problems. Students need to learn the importance and value of teamwork.
I have personally always hated group work – whether as a student or as an employee. Quite frankly, working with others lowers the quality of the work I could do on my own. Either that, or I end up doing all the work myself, anyway, because I have lazy group members. However, I also accept that I have to do it, so when required, I do it, and “we” produce a mediocre outcome. When I’m allowed to work alone, I get excited about the possibilities, get creative, excel, the product is better, and it’s delivered faster.
I don’t blame students for hating group work. When they say they hate group work (when I DO assign it, and I DO), I tell them that hating something is no reason not to learn to do it and no reason not to do it and do it well. “For example,” I tell them, “I also really hate doing the dishes.”
Assistant Professor at Saint James School of Medicine
It can be very difficult when individual group members simply do not have any competencies relevant to the group assignment. However, working in teams in which individual members contribute their highest level of expertise or talent to the project generates outcomes that are greater than those that could be produced by a single person working alone.
Assistant Professor Process Technology at College of the Mainland
and BINGO !!!!!!!!!!!!! Rana Thank you very much. That is EXACTLY why we should do teams in college.
BTW………….rarely in 30 + years in 5 different sets of Plant experiences have i ever been asked if i wanted to join a group. I was assigned.
I was not the lead in the group more then i was. When i was leader, i was “graded” on how the team did. The sum of the parts is most often better then just 1 part. This ” I excel when i am working alone” besides being egocentric is most often NOT true in more Industries and careers then it is.
Steve Jobs , Bill Gates, et al might be really impressive individuals no doubt, but Apple, Goggle, Microsoft, and every top 500 company is team work oriented.
Here’s what I would see…the high achievers didn’t like group work because they ended up carrying the lesser achievers. The lesser achievers didn’t like group work because they were unveiled as lesser achievers.
Assistant Professor Process Technology at College of the Mainland
maybe, but that is the real world isn’t it? Sometimes i was the high achiever , some times not so much……….It isn’t us vs them………..it’s how do you work in teams to get the “job” or “assignment” done? and maybe more importantly how do i feel about the job i am doing?
and with peer grading input, every one in class knows who is who just like in real world.
I was turned down for a promotion once early on in my career field. The Boss 2 levels up said he couldn’t afford to lose me cause i was such a great member of the team……….
Boy did i hem and haw and get bent………..then my direct boss came to me and asked me if i trusted him and his boss or not?
i had to say yes since that was the truth………i got more of a raise and moved into a more visible spot on other teams then the fella who got promoted.
Assistant Professor at Univ of Manitoba, Inner City Social Work Program
Top Contributor
I agree with Rana and Wethington! I know that my wife has standards and she told me of one bad experience where she had to expel a member of her group and then explain to the prof why. After receiving a 1 page group assignment, which was due the following week, one group member choose not to submit anything until 10pm the night before the assignment was due for the 8am class. This was after repeated phone calls and emails asking for her input! So the next morning, this group member was told that her name would be removed from the next assignment, with a handwritten explanation that she had not contributed to the assignment and the prof was also given copies of the unanswered emails for the week! The funny thing, the assignment was on Humanities and covered free will. My wife told the prof that the other group members and she were using their collective “free will” and asking this student to be removed from the group. It was done, as the prof used his free will and placed her in another group — where she caused them havoc for the rest of the semester! The problem with group work stems from conflicting personalities rather than one person maybe not wanting to do “real” work to get the job done.
But she knows that she can be hard on group members and tells them in the beginning. If you tell students that this is about teamwork and the ability to show respect for others talent, time, skill, etc, and communicate your feelings in a non-confrontational way, then group work can be amazing.
Currently my wife is helping to mentor my 4 groups writing their portion of their class community assessment, so she is helping to reign 24 different personalities and working/writing styles so that these students individual papers can be edited into one cohesive paper. Yes, group is challenging for some, as trying to overcome the need to control everything can be exhausting.
Assistant Professor at Univ of Manitoba, Inner City Social Work Program
Top Contributor
Michael – maybe the “lesser achiever” did not appreciate the demeaning tone used by those who thought they were the “higher achievers.” I know that once group members start to label others, then that shows a lack of respect. While there are (many) times that group members may not contribute what they need to the group as a whole, it is up to the instructor to be made aware of this “problem” and let the students know that there is a solution to the situation of one or several members of a group not pulling their weight and doing their job to get the project done. That is why I grade on individual work within the group assignment- that way, the students still need to work together in order to ensure that the group project is well covered/presented and at the same time one member is not carrying the academic work load for the entire group. Group work is team work!
Associate Professor and Program Director at Paralegal Program, Kapi`olani Community College
Having the group spirit falter because one member doesn’t show up consistently can negatively impact the final project. However, in the real world for which I am preparing my students, they will run into good teammates and bad teammates, and they will need to produce the best work they can, despite any slackers. This is my strategy.
I give only one group project as semester (and not in each course) in recognition of the difficulty that students have in collaborating with each other in a non-residential community college setting where 75% of the students work. I assign a maximum of three people per team and I give them a description of the three roles that are important on this team – the coordinator, the scribe, and the document preparer – and each team gets to decide who gets which role. This gives them a structure right from the start and helps manage expectations.
In addition to the rubric for the project, I also provide them, right from the start, with a team member rubric that allows them to rate their team members as participating at a 100%, 80%, 60%, 40%, 20% or 0 level. I tell the students that if one of their members is slacking, that they will have to pitch in and do the work so that they produce a quality product, but that their teamwork multiplier will be applied to their colleague (so that if the team product receives 25 points, the two dedicated members get 100% of that, or the full 25 points, while a somewhat less productive member could get an 80% rating and thus earn only 20 points, or a real slacker get 40%, or 10 points). I reserve the right to make the final judgment in case of conflict.
So each student knows that they cannot coast with penalty – the individual grade they get will be adjusted according to their peers’ perception of them. So far, I have not had many team member downgrades, and no challenges to a group’s decision to downgrade the contributions of one of its members.
I agree that it helps to reinforce that they will be evaluated privately to me from their group members. I guess there will never be a perfect situation in teamwork; but when it works the members of the team can learn from it. The real world workplace will have obstacles along the way and the more practice the better.
I have had students say well if I was working in the workplace with this team I would quit. I try to explain to students that is not always an option. Working with team members is here to stay.
Professor (Adjunct) at Manchester Community College
In my function as an employment counselor, I would never consider recommending a customer take a position or place a client in a job where they are not comfortable. There is a job out there for everyone, that they will enjoy as part of their own fulfillment. If someone is uncomfortable with group work, we would not attempt to place someone in such a position, that could very well be paramount to failure.
Working with team members, as an overpowering concept, is overrated. That goes to the current warm fuzzy that people are happier if they socialize with the people they work with. Another not so bright idea – effectively, it breaks the workplace into age groups. Let’s face it – the years I worked as a ski instructor, my “peers” (and I do hate that term) were almost young enough to be my grandchildren. Not only did we not socialize outside of work, but a lot of folks probably would ave thought it was creepy for me to be hanging around with teenage boys and girls!
While at work, we may have to suffer participating with others for a project, there are usually some major differences than in the classroom. Most likely, the team has been chosen because of the unique skills they bring to the project. Their will be a designated arbitrator or team leader, and it is not just a random group of people who may or may not ave similar goals. Although we mean well in academia, are we really satisfying the need for any particular skills or are we blindly following our own “intuition.”
Having been to faculty and staff meetings that may take weeks just to come up with a mission statement, one must question whether or not we are helping or hurting students by having them participate in our personal version of group dynamics. I don’t teach HVAC – I leave that to the experts. Same with group dynamics – let’s have the black belts (re: General Electric) take the lead. Better yet – maybe we should send faculty to Six Sigma Certification. http://www.ge.com/sixsigma/SixSigma.pdf
The root cause for all maladies in executing any large sized projects in any Country lies in this very basic ‘hatred’ to get associated with group tasks or assignments by the students. It may sound strange, but it is true through empirical proof. The very fact that Chinese are very successful in their ventures, be it the Olympics or in delivering mega projects, with a spectacular finish are all linked into their cultural inheritance to consider themselves as a part and parcel of a large family at all times and in all places. The elements of Guanxi (establishing personal rapport with one another), the Mianzhi phenomenon (influence of Face), and their indomitable ethnographic bonding (‘minzhu de jing mi jie he) all play predominant roles in their work environment. In contrast to Chinese, people in other parts of the world are all influenced by their ‘self centric’ attitude and the desire to excel and compete with peers as an individual rather than as a group. Where ever there is a cohesion between the team members, as in the case of sports / games, the clear results of success can be easily discerned due to synergy creation. If the culture of group work is indoctrinated into the young minds right from their preliminary schooling days, by designing mini projects involving team participation, we as teaching fraternity can really transform our society in a great way!
professor at Seneca College of Applied Arts and Technology
First, the “theory” –
In schools, colleges and universities, students are mainly graded on their individual competence as demonstrated in examinations of one sort or another. Assessment of personal performance and individual accountability for achievement are – like it or not – endemic to the liberal tradition (broadly defined) that has been increasingly part of Western culture since the early political theories of possessive individualism articulated by Hobbes and Locke. They are also essential to Western concepts of fairness, to what’s left of the idea of a “meritocracy,” and to concepts of unfairness such as collective punishment for the bad acts of a few (never mind coercion in the interest of creating “snitches” – as in “you’ll all get a detention until you ‘rat out’ the kid who hit the teacher in the back of the head with a piece of chalk … or a snowball”).
Group work (along with group-think and group-speak) may well be the order of the day (or the day after tomorrow) in the organizational-cum-corporate society (never mind that all members of the group are ready and willing to stab their colleagues in the back at an opportune moment and to win some sort of reward/promotion for doing so); however, we must at least acknowledge that an undiminished sense of personal responsibility and a complete dedication to teamwork are fundamentally contradictory – the potential problems this poses for employees’ mental health are enormous, if only in terms of issues of cognitive dissonance.
Now, the practice –
We all know (or should know) that assigned group work is mainly a farce. For example, tasks are almost never equally shared. The “smart kids” do the work and the dullards ride the coat-tails … especially if the smart kids are also easily intimidated and the dullards carry weapons. In any case, when all members of the group receive the same grade for an allegedly collaborative accomplishment, the ones who were mainly responsible for whatever success was achieved will inevitably feel resentment and the laggards will feel empowered for having “gamed the system.” Neither is a commendable result.
But, please, don’t get me wrong. I am a tremendous supporter of working in groups … provided that the groups are self-selected. Throughout undergraduate school and at least for my first postgraduate degree, I benefited a great deal from working with colleagues-friends in informal arrangements running from organized “study groups” in preparation for examinations to extended and unstructured “seminars” that could go for hours after a class (with or without libations at a local pub). In fact, I regard these often seemingly endless chats about this or that to have been essential to whatever learning took place for me and, I think, for others as well.
The point?
The trick is to distinguish between authentic “education” and “job training” in the sense of practice for corporate success by mirroring the “labour process” of employment and the “learning process” of education. As with most insinuations of the “business model” into the “academic atmosphere,” the results can be at best ambiguous, often oxymoronic and mostly a sham.
Incidentally, at a near-by university, several students were expelled for “plagiarism” in that they had gathered in a study group (online, I think) “brainstormed” about what was likely to be on the final exam, assigned responsibility for members to come up with answers to one or more questions, shared the information and – when the exam was written – got “caught” for providing almost identical word-for-word responses. So, it seems that not only the students but also the professors and the authorities above them are totally confused about what all of this means and may portend for a very uncertain future.
Self-selected groups are definitely the way to go. I have had very interesting issues, though, where after a time, no one would select a certain person for their group. That person had to wander around the room asking groups to please accept him in the group. Thank you for this wonderful post and the reminder that education is not all “job training.”
I do like team work. It is inspiring, fun, and let you communicate with others and build life-time friendships. Sometimes, group work hold you back, but it pays off when you meet people might need your help. This might release and ignite your mental reasoning, which will make you smarter.
The fact that one uses self – selected teams might work if all were of the exactly same motivation i suppose. I have seen “hi-performance” teams before, doesn’t usually work except maybe in a research environment.
We here select the teams. Why? Because of demographics, mixing the students up. They come to us not from the same demographic , except maybe for ivy-leaquers. We mix races, sexes, ages, family backgrounds, and the students demonstrated or even perceived abilities.
We give them projects including hands-on, oral, written, and presentations on subjects they know little if anything about. We set a timeline and send them off. As a Prof i nudge, cajole, push a little, send in right directions for info, and educate….
Take more time then a lecture? damn sure it does……But the outcome, oh the outcome when a team gets accomplishment that the project works!!!!
I have even seen teams who were successful, turn around and help other student teams reach the finish line. WITHOUT ME ASKING THEM TOO!!!
And they all Cheered and laughed and bonded thru it all……..Their eyes lite up, they hug each other, a sense of accomplishment is born showing how teamwork……..WORKS!!!!!
Anybody ever seen a high school or college debate team win??? WOW……..
I am not as eloquent as Howard. But i teach in a real world . :
“The trick is to distinguish between authentic “education” and “job training” in the sense of practice for corporate success by mirroring the “labour process” of employment and the “learning process” of education. As with most insinuations of the “business model” into the “academic atmosphere,” the results can be at best ambiguous, often oxymoronic and mostly a sham.”
Teams aren’t back stabbing, cut your throat minded or bad things. Neither is business. To even imply such when discussing what i believe we are to do as educators and mentors is ludicrous. You want to develop that side ?
I certainly don’t. It’s always amazing to me what stops Academia from investing in what supposedly is our concerns, the students.
Like it or not students need to go to jobs after college. Most of those jobs will NOT be academic in nature.
I rarely got to “pick” my teams i worked on. In Academia i sure haven’t. In workforce , omg i mean jobs…….GASP….in the “real “world, the same was true.
Doctors work together in surgery with all sorts of specialized training to ensure the outcome, a healed patient. Businesses can’t run without teamwork. The Military , far from what has been said here, may have top down leadership, but you can not fix a jet or ship or tank all by one person.
We tell the students “you can either be an agent for change in your life……or get run over by it”
Founder, Clavester University College Ltd; Clicking Connections; Oh Gracie! Sorrel jelly, wine and short stories
Re grade and plagiarism:
All group members have a collective responsibility where a group task is concerned. One cannot say not me, but the others. The grade is to be the same in my book.
My students are definitely fans of forming their own groups. What I did this semester was let them pick a topic, and also tell me if there were people in class they wanted to work with. For people who had other people they specifically wanted to work with, I tried to accommodate them. For people who did not know the other students well enough to know whom they wanted to work with, I assigned them to groups by the topic they were interested in.
I have a question for those of you who let students form their own groups, though. How do you handle that in a class of, say, 20-30, when the students don’t really know one another yet?
associate professor, faculty of art at Ontario College of Art & Design
At OCAD University in Toronto, i give my students a group assignment as their first assignment. I allow them to form their own groups and intervene when they are uncertain.
The students produce a short performative drawing using old-school overhead projectors and drawings on acetate, creating a narrative or music to accompany the images. I video their performances and later together we review the projects and offer critique based on the predetermined criteria. The project is only worth 20% of their total grade for the course in order to factor in the coasters. The results vary from year to year.
The project is not so much about product, although of course it is an important factor, but rather about learning to work in a group – how to organize themselves and utilize each others strengths to best advantage. Even in the arts, we are dependent on each other to form our ideas and forward them through the creation of exhibition venues for example. Often, after this project, students find peers and friendships emerge which sometimes continue long after they have graduated. In a large university setting is often hard for students to connect with one another, and let’s face it, so much learning comes from informal discussions among peers as from formal lecturing at the front of the lecture hall. And in the professional world, the discussion goes on after a degree is achieved.
