I recently saw a documentary “A Life on Our Planet” narrated by David Attenborough (Hughes, Scholey, & Fothergill, 2020). In it, he put forth a notion that unlike other flora and fauna, humans do not need physical change in their bodies to create changes to the world around them. Humans can do that, but humans can also impart knowledge from one to the next generation so that the next generation can tame the world using the learning of the previous generation.
To me, this is an apt description of the role of education in human’s survival. It also brings out the notion of learning as a community endeavour; for a generation is a community. It is as if the nature and our ancestors are telling us to learn as a community.
At the same time, I am mindful of negative characterisation of learning in a team. There have been times when students, often in confidence, vent their frustration at team members. To be clear, there are students who praise each other in a team. However, one cannot dismiss that there are also dysfunctional teams in learning, which feels unnatural considering the evolutionary description of learning as a community.
The findings of Capdeferro and Romero (2012) qualify and quantify this negative characterisation. In that study, various sources of students’ frustration were investigated. It boils down to one thing: participation asymmetry. Do other team members take more than they share? Do I put in too much effort while other team members do not? It is not unique to learning and certainly not unique to online experience. For me, this phenomenon is another attestation of “The Tragedy of the Commons” (Hardin, 1968).
However, after following reading and discussions on the topic of Learning in Communities in ONL, I revisit this topic and now consider whether that was the only explanation, especially in the context of learning. I now come to think that it is important to understand the level of connection that student wants to operate. The four stages outlined by Siemens (2002) (communication, collaboration, cooperation and community) help to situate where students may want to position themselves in team learning.
It is possible that one student in a team aims for collaboration while the other team member aims for community, hence creating perceived participation asymmetry. This may be more pronounced when learning is assessed. I am quite intrigued if there are studies that examine the issue of learning in communities compounded with assessment. I think that will be very relevant to university.
References:
Hughes, J., Scholey, K., & Fothergill, A. (Directors). (2020). David Attenborough: A Life On Our Planet [Motion Picture].
Capdeferro, N., & Romero, M. (2012). Are Online Learners Frustrated with Collaborative Learning Experiences? International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 13(2), 26-44.
Hardin, G. (1968). The Tragedy of the Commons. Science, 62(3859), 1243-1248.
Siemens, G. (2002, October 8). Interaction. E-Learning Course. Retrieved from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/Interaction.htm
Hi Andi,
It’s interesting that the aspect of topic 3 that resonated with you (at least based on what you chose to blog about) was the asymmetrical participation issue. I say interesting because when I saw that same paper, I didn’t really see how the question and study were specific to the online learning environment. I mean, this is just part of life, and I daresay, one that extends to our personal relationships too. Like, I think it’s pretty common for life partners to argue about perceived unfairness when it comes to divvying up the domestic chores.
Could I please ask if you see something about online learning environments that somehow lend a unique twist to this issue of asymmetrical participation & assessment, and if so, what it is ?
Thanks,
joanna
Hi, Joanna,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Indeed asymmetrical participation is something not specific to online learning or team learning. At the same time, I have observed that asymmetrical participation inhibits students achieving the full benefit of team learning. In the context of a team project, students work together (at least they are supposed to) to meet team objectives, e.g. developing a prototype. Teams with large asymmetrical participation usually will produce sub par results. Siemens (2002) situates where students’ participation level may be (communication, collaboration, cooperation and community). Instead of just leaving this matter as students having different level of participation without knowing what this levels are, I can help team members be clearer and more transparent about what level of participation is expected or agreed.
Hi Andi,
Thank you for an inspiring blog post. You forward ‘participation asymmetry’ as different aims among group members. Does it also include a division of group work among group members? What is your interpretation of that concept?
Best regards,
Maria
Hi, Maria. Thanks for your post. I would think that division of team work contributes to asymmetrical participation. Some team members may want to get things done quickly; hence tend to select the portion of work that they know best and less appreciative to explore new areas. Other team members may want to learn a lot; hence tend to select the portion of work that they find interesting (and know least) and more adventurous to explore new areas. This will create tension within a team that may inhibit learning. I am thinking that as the teacher I can help students realising the full potential of team learning by facilitating discussion about this matter in a team; something for me to try next semester.
Thoroughly enjoyed reading your post (and others). You mention: “There have been times when students, often in confidence, vent their frustration at team members.” I wanted to ask if you found what students say confidentially and what they input into their peer evaluations differ (where they say nothing negative or minimal criticism….at least nothing like what was confided)? I have found that to be the case in my context, and have often wondered why they do this. Is it guilt? Fear of impacting on a student’s ability to “pass”? Or something else?
Hi, Sonja. Thank you for the kind words. Actually I somewhat found congruency between what students shared in confidence and what students input in the peer evaluation. Some context: I conduct peer evaluation that is anonymous to students but not anonymous to instructors; and I mention this to students before peer evaluation. The variety comes from the level of social loafing that triggers students to vent their frustration to instructors. Some students are triggered by moderate level of social loafing, others by severe social loafing (from team members’ perspective).
In your experience, I wonder about the intention of students confiding in instructors about their peers; whether it is to ask for instructors’ help to resolve team issues, to seek “justice” in terms of marks, or other intention. Understanding students’ intention may help understanding their actions.
Thank you for sharing this, it’s really helpful for people like me. 1v1 lol
thanks for helpfull writing. this article very important and true. Greffe de Cheveux Turquie
Hello, This subject very interesting. thanks for helpfull writing. this article very important and true. Burun Estetiği
Thank you for an inspiring blog post. You forward ‘participation asymmetry’ as different aims among group membersaestheticairways