Well, we did it. The wiki is finished. I had to miss the penultimate Skype chat as I had grand-mother duties. Nigel was not able to attend as well. The other 5 had a very productive chat, deciding on what needed to be done and dividing up work. They actually went well beyond the hour discussing things.L had set up screen sharing, so everyone could see the wiki together and discuss what needed to be done. I read the chat and caught up with what needed to be done. I was able to work solidly Mon-Weds on the wiki. Everyone is working hard. I added quite a bit on the Wiki Creation page - documenting our collective progress and using quotes from Skype and the DB to substantiate. The others liked this and a few added some bits to it. People are still producing new pages - particularly N and T - although we had agreed not to. S and T are also developing bits on pages they had previously started. There is a good team going between SH, N and S in pulling together the bibliography. In the end, there were seven separate pages for the biblio. L did a fantastic job adding navigation links. I finished adding linking sentences to structure the narrative in the support section. Our Skype chat on the last Saturday was much more relaxed. We were joking with each other - emoticons all over the place. We all commented on the difference in that we were relaxed. We could see we would finish by the Sunday midnight deadline.
Over the weekend, we kept the Skype chat open while we worked. That proved really productive, we could double check with people on gaps we found. And also we could joke with one another while we worked. It really felt we were working together by having the chat open - instead of being alone on our computers. We all commented on how the Skype chat really brought us together as a team. That we felt a team using it - rather than working asynchronously.
The final product looks good. A few weeks ago, I wasn't sure we could have produced such a fine wiki. I think it provides a cohesive narrative. And it is a great resource. I think A really drove it and while I may have liked a more creative way of organizing the wiki, I hadn't a clear vision in the start to push that idea. In the end, we all pulled together to produce a good wiki.
Monday, 12 December 2011
Thursday, 1 December 2011
Course Collaboration - Weeks 10 & 11
Did some more work on my pages, adding more critique. And I decided I really needed to create a new page about more educational applications. N is starting to do more work on his pages. In fact, I was amazed at how much writing he has been able to produce these past two weeks. But ii seems to be still a bit on a tangent. Everyone is writing now.
I reviewed the pages that were 'in review'. People have confirmed which papers they were going to develop, which to drop. But there are also new pages appearing.
I think one problem is that we really needed to appoint on an editor. A from the start has been working and has had a big impact on the shape of things. I worry about her trying to write the whole thing, maybe because she doesn't trust us to do so. I have coordinated some things - informal chair of Skype but there has been no discussion or agreement on a 'leader' or 'editor'. It may be that until we started skyping we didn't have a sense of each other. Or at least I didn't.
There was more open tension during the last Skype meeting. N had put on the DB the day before that he thought our tutor should be more involved. He quoted from the course handbook that he was to be intensely involved but he hasn't to date. At the Skype meeting he suggested that our tutor have a look at the wiki. I was surprised at the vehemence that A immediately said NO. She said it is our wiki. Others were more careful in their response. L suggested that we may get a better mark because he has not been involved. But A remained completely against him looking at the wiki. Is it because she wants to maintain control?
N continued the discussion on the DB over the weekend. I didn't see the thread until Monday as I was busy all weekend. In the end our tutor said he would have a look. He gave some good feedback and basically said we were on track.
This week we have been editing each other's sections. I had to finish the new page I created which I did. Then I reviewed the section A had been mostly writing. I quite enjoy editing and she responded positively to my suggestions. She did mention in the DB that she was surprised that others were not adding links as they write. I replied that it had to do with different styles and others agreed. She seemed surprised by this. I think she is a bit rigid in there being one best way to write. I have started to go through the editing S has done in my section - very helpful. I am also starting to add the links. I noticed A has started to add more to the meta pages. I do think she is doing too much and dominating. Yet she has added good material. But I don't know if we will have time to edit all this down. The narrative is emerging though.
I reviewed the pages that were 'in review'. People have confirmed which papers they were going to develop, which to drop. But there are also new pages appearing.
I think one problem is that we really needed to appoint on an editor. A from the start has been working and has had a big impact on the shape of things. I worry about her trying to write the whole thing, maybe because she doesn't trust us to do so. I have coordinated some things - informal chair of Skype but there has been no discussion or agreement on a 'leader' or 'editor'. It may be that until we started skyping we didn't have a sense of each other. Or at least I didn't.
There was more open tension during the last Skype meeting. N had put on the DB the day before that he thought our tutor should be more involved. He quoted from the course handbook that he was to be intensely involved but he hasn't to date. At the Skype meeting he suggested that our tutor have a look at the wiki. I was surprised at the vehemence that A immediately said NO. She said it is our wiki. Others were more careful in their response. L suggested that we may get a better mark because he has not been involved. But A remained completely against him looking at the wiki. Is it because she wants to maintain control?
N continued the discussion on the DB over the weekend. I didn't see the thread until Monday as I was busy all weekend. In the end our tutor said he would have a look. He gave some good feedback and basically said we were on track.
This week we have been editing each other's sections. I had to finish the new page I created which I did. Then I reviewed the section A had been mostly writing. I quite enjoy editing and she responded positively to my suggestions. She did mention in the DB that she was surprised that others were not adding links as they write. I replied that it had to do with different styles and others agreed. She seemed surprised by this. I think she is a bit rigid in there being one best way to write. I have started to go through the editing S has done in my section - very helpful. I am also starting to add the links. I noticed A has started to add more to the meta pages. I do think she is doing too much and dominating. Yet she has added good material. But I don't know if we will have time to edit all this down. The narrative is emerging though.
Tuesday, 22 November 2011
Course Collaboration - Weeks 8 & 9
I felt very productive during Week 8, organizing the wiki and adding bits. I also set up the new 'home page' for the support section. A decided to mirror my style with the 'home page' for teaches. During our second Skype meeting, everyone seemed enthused by our progress. The structure suggested by A is working. Everyone seemed to get a boost after the first Skype meeting and there was far more content being put up by everyone although N was the only one who did not put much up. As well as individual content, there was some collaborative writing. In our second Skype discussion, I suggested that instead of thinking of 'my pages', we should start thinking of 'our pages' and there was enthusiastic agreement all round.
I had less time to work on the wiki during Week 9. However, I managed to add some critique to the pages I already created. And I continued to organize the content into folders. A continues to create quite a lot of content. But also S, S and T are adding a lot. T and L have been creating images for navigation and N created a header for the wiki. N, however, is still not doing much writing, just adding small bits.
Before our third Skype meeting, A suggested that we needed to be ruthless and delete undeveloped pages. She created a short list for discussion at Skype. At the meeting, I brought this up and asked whether there were any pages in this list that people were going to develop. This was the first time that I noted anxiety among some members of the group - in particular N but also S. It was mostly their pages that they had just started which was on the list. N was particularly defensive and didn't seen to understand my suggestion to group them in a folder so we could all review them. After the meeting, he brought up the issue again in the DB. Both A and I tried to explain we were not going to delete them but make them more visible by being all together so people could develop them if they wish. S understood and was pleased they were more visible. I am not sure about N.
This has been the only bit of tension so far in the group. And it is understandable. People have different working styles. N has been very slow to produce content but after the third Skype meeting, he has been developing his pages. The only thing is I am not sure if they link in with the rest of the wiki. He is still thinking individually rather than collectively. Both A and I tried to encourage him and others to maybe concentrate on developing existing pages rather than adding new pages. However, it is hard to know whether N felt agrieved as he had done a lot of background work and was holding back in putting anything up on the wiki. I am doing more work on common pages now in particular the metapages. But still need to add some more critical pieces.
I had less time to work on the wiki during Week 9. However, I managed to add some critique to the pages I already created. And I continued to organize the content into folders. A continues to create quite a lot of content. But also S, S and T are adding a lot. T and L have been creating images for navigation and N created a header for the wiki. N, however, is still not doing much writing, just adding small bits.
Before our third Skype meeting, A suggested that we needed to be ruthless and delete undeveloped pages. She created a short list for discussion at Skype. At the meeting, I brought this up and asked whether there were any pages in this list that people were going to develop. This was the first time that I noted anxiety among some members of the group - in particular N but also S. It was mostly their pages that they had just started which was on the list. N was particularly defensive and didn't seen to understand my suggestion to group them in a folder so we could all review them. After the meeting, he brought up the issue again in the DB. Both A and I tried to explain we were not going to delete them but make them more visible by being all together so people could develop them if they wish. S understood and was pleased they were more visible. I am not sure about N.
This has been the only bit of tension so far in the group. And it is understandable. People have different working styles. N has been very slow to produce content but after the third Skype meeting, he has been developing his pages. The only thing is I am not sure if they link in with the rest of the wiki. He is still thinking individually rather than collectively. Both A and I tried to encourage him and others to maybe concentrate on developing existing pages rather than adding new pages. However, it is hard to know whether N felt agrieved as he had done a lot of background work and was holding back in putting anything up on the wiki. I am doing more work on common pages now in particular the metapages. But still need to add some more critical pieces.
Wednesday, 9 November 2011
Course Collaboration - Week 7
The whole group had a very successful Skype chat on Saturday morning where we discussed several issues and came up with an action plan for the week. However, L was not present and noone seemed to know what had happened to her. Later in this week we found out that she had left the group early on. Noone had informed us. But what is telling, is that we were supposed to be collaborating in developing a resource and we did not realise until week 6 - when we were organizing a simultaneous meeting - that one of us had dropped out.
I think that illustrates how we were working on our own pieces in isolation and that the Discussion Board is not an effective way to keep track of where people are at. Our tutor apologised on the DB for not telling us. He was preoccupied in easing her exit out of the course and then when that was done, he had forgot to tell us.
We agreed on following A's tentative structure - see how it works out. I volunteered to organize the work that has been done on the wiki into folders. It is something I needed to do to see how it all hangs together and whether the proposed structure is correct. It seems to be working. I have done quite a bit of work on integrating the wiki this week and I feel we are finally collaborating. Only N seems less involved in that he has not written much content - although he has been more active on the DB this week and has made some suggestions.
We have agreed to meet weekly on Saturday morning with a Skype chat. I think this is necessary to keep the collaboration going. I feel more optimistic about the wiki this week.
I think that illustrates how we were working on our own pieces in isolation and that the Discussion Board is not an effective way to keep track of where people are at. Our tutor apologised on the DB for not telling us. He was preoccupied in easing her exit out of the course and then when that was done, he had forgot to tell us.
We agreed on following A's tentative structure - see how it works out. I volunteered to organize the work that has been done on the wiki into folders. It is something I needed to do to see how it all hangs together and whether the proposed structure is correct. It seems to be working. I have done quite a bit of work on integrating the wiki this week and I feel we are finally collaborating. Only N seems less involved in that he has not written much content - although he has been more active on the DB this week and has made some suggestions.
We have agreed to meet weekly on Saturday morning with a Skype chat. I think this is necessary to keep the collaboration going. I feel more optimistic about the wiki this week.
Thursday, 3 November 2011
Course Collaboration - Weeks 4-6
I haven't been reflecting in this blog because the last few weeks have been busy with personal matters. A visit from my sister, my daughter in her first professional play and then a week ago setting off for an 8 week backpacking tour of SE Asia, and also a visit from another friend. I have had to prioritise my work on the online course I am running and just intermittently checking up on the collaborative work to be done on the wiki for the course where I am a student.
A has continued to work diligently on the wiki. She is using a model of a digital essay and is focussing on the content, references etc. As an essay it is excellent work but I feel that her dominance in the group is shaping the wiki. Some others have now added content - T, L, Sh and S. But it is more of an abbreviated form. I am just dipping in and adding a few bits here and there. But I feel I have not been able to be engaged in the same way. Somehow I feel lethargic - I feel that I am not working nearly as hard as I have on other modules.
However, up to this week, you cannot say that we are all collaborating. We are all working on our separate bits. This week, I have engaged more on the course. There was talk about needing to have a synchronous meeting to discuss the wiki. I saw it was difficult to organize on the discussion board, so I set up a Doodle schedule - posted the links on the discussion board and it worked. We are meeting on Skype Saturday morning. I also raised on the discussion board, the issue of what kind of a resource we are creating, the balance of multi-media and text, that A's model was of a digital essay -which was fine but that we need to have a discussion of what we want to look at. I also posted the assessment details and posted a draft agenda. I feel I was more active in organizing the group this week and everyone responded positively. I noticed however, that there is one member -L - who has not said anything or posted anything on the wiki.
Anyway, A came up with a suggestion for collaborating on a technology page in the wiki - i.e. how a certain technology relates to some aspect of what we separately have been focussing on. Again everyone responded positively.
I think A is conservative in terms of the form of the wiki - she didn't do the Digital cultures or Digital Futures course. I think my expectations have been raised by them which is why I feel disappointed in this course. However, it is interesting in terms of the difficulties of collaborating on a wiki. I think having no guidance or content or form is too extreme for a group who have never worked together before.
A has continued to work diligently on the wiki. She is using a model of a digital essay and is focussing on the content, references etc. As an essay it is excellent work but I feel that her dominance in the group is shaping the wiki. Some others have now added content - T, L, Sh and S. But it is more of an abbreviated form. I am just dipping in and adding a few bits here and there. But I feel I have not been able to be engaged in the same way. Somehow I feel lethargic - I feel that I am not working nearly as hard as I have on other modules.
However, up to this week, you cannot say that we are all collaborating. We are all working on our separate bits. This week, I have engaged more on the course. There was talk about needing to have a synchronous meeting to discuss the wiki. I saw it was difficult to organize on the discussion board, so I set up a Doodle schedule - posted the links on the discussion board and it worked. We are meeting on Skype Saturday morning. I also raised on the discussion board, the issue of what kind of a resource we are creating, the balance of multi-media and text, that A's model was of a digital essay -which was fine but that we need to have a discussion of what we want to look at. I also posted the assessment details and posted a draft agenda. I feel I was more active in organizing the group this week and everyone responded positively. I noticed however, that there is one member -L - who has not said anything or posted anything on the wiki.
Anyway, A came up with a suggestion for collaborating on a technology page in the wiki - i.e. how a certain technology relates to some aspect of what we separately have been focussing on. Again everyone responded positively.
I think A is conservative in terms of the form of the wiki - she didn't do the Digital cultures or Digital Futures course. I think my expectations have been raised by them which is why I feel disappointed in this course. However, it is interesting in terms of the difficulties of collaborating on a wiki. I think having no guidance or content or form is too extreme for a group who have never worked together before.
Wednesday, 12 October 2011
Course Collaboration - Week 3
Our tutor directed our attention the other day to an observation of a colleague about the nature of initial contributions to a collaborative wiki?
She made the point that the first posting may be made with the intention of stimulating colleagues to build further, or with the intention of "marking out territory" as one's own, and that intending to discourage further colonisation. The former might be seen as more generally positive than the latter. Although "ownership" per se is not a bad thing in any collaboration, so the ideal is probably some balance.
I must admit that my initial fear was of people 'marking out territory' before I was ready to consider where I wanted to focus. At the same time, I recognized that as a bit of an irrational fear as two people could have very different perspectives on the same topic and would benefit by collaboration.
I have now made my mark on both the wiki and bubbl.us and I have had responses by A - who has been working on the wiki from the beginning. Also there have been a couple of others who are now writing in the wiki. There are three others who are making 'their mark' in the wiki - so that is 5 out of 8 of us. A is looking hard at linkages and there are linkages between her interest in AI and mine in extended/augmented cognition.
I still feel I need to read more of a range of things - that I am not working hard enough. I am finding the unstructured nature of it - not exactly hard but I am not motivated. I like the topic but I feel I am sluggish. I think I need more structure or more stimulation. It is very different from the other modules I have taken. I can see another course's wiki and I can see how they have covered a lot of ground already.
She made the point that the first posting may be made with the intention of stimulating colleagues to build further, or with the intention of "marking out territory" as one's own, and that intending to discourage further colonisation. The former might be seen as more generally positive than the latter. Although "ownership" per se is not a bad thing in any collaboration, so the ideal is probably some balance.
I must admit that my initial fear was of people 'marking out territory' before I was ready to consider where I wanted to focus. At the same time, I recognized that as a bit of an irrational fear as two people could have very different perspectives on the same topic and would benefit by collaboration.
I have now made my mark on both the wiki and bubbl.us and I have had responses by A - who has been working on the wiki from the beginning. Also there have been a couple of others who are now writing in the wiki. There are three others who are making 'their mark' in the wiki - so that is 5 out of 8 of us. A is looking hard at linkages and there are linkages between her interest in AI and mine in extended/augmented cognition.
I still feel I need to read more of a range of things - that I am not working hard enough. I am finding the unstructured nature of it - not exactly hard but I am not motivated. I like the topic but I feel I am sluggish. I think I need more structure or more stimulation. It is very different from the other modules I have taken. I can see another course's wiki and I can see how they have covered a lot of ground already.
Wednesday, 5 October 2011
Course collaboration - week 2
It is starting to get a bit unnerving as the discussion board has been rather quiet. We are all reading and exploring possible topic areas. By definition, that is solitary work. Only one person who has pretty clear ideas - at least about her broad topic area - has been posting regularly. One person has posted that she somehow missed the suggested initial readings and is now catching up on those. Interesting question, can reading only been done as a solitary activity? Is is possible to make it collaborative?
I have decided my broad topic area - extended cognition and augmented cognition. And I can see how this can be linked to AI - one topic area already identified by someone else. I have ordered several books but I think I may be reading too deeply, too soon. Perhaps a few short articles, videos etc may be more conducive to discussing these areas collaboratively.
I have decided my broad topic area - extended cognition and augmented cognition. And I can see how this can be linked to AI - one topic area already identified by someone else. I have ordered several books but I think I may be reading too deeply, too soon. Perhaps a few short articles, videos etc may be more conducive to discussing these areas collaboratively.
Thursday, 29 September 2011
Augmented cognition- explorations
As I mentioned, I decided that I wanted to explore the topic of augmented cognition. But what is augmented cognition?
Kruse and Schmorrow (2005) define it as follows:
A leader in developing augmented cognition is the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). The video below explains their vision of how it can be applied. The scenario takes place in the year 2030.
Kruse and Schmorrow (2005) define it as follows:
The goal of Augmented Cognition research is to create revolutionary human-computer interactions that capitalise on recent advances in the fields of neuroscience, cognitive science and computer science. Augmented Cognition can be distinguished from its predecessors by the focus on the real-time cognitive state of the user, as assessed through modern neuroscientific tools. At its core, an Augmented Cognition system is a 'closed loop' in which the cognitive state of the operator is detected in real time with a resulting compensatory adaptation in the computational system, as appropriate.p.xvii
A leader in developing augmented cognition is the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). The video below explains their vision of how it can be applied. The scenario takes place in the year 2030.
Monday, 26 September 2011
Course collaboration - week 1
There are eight of us on the course Psychological and Social Contexts of E-Learning. Most of us are on our last module for the MSc but I only have 'met' one of them before. Mostly everyone had logged in and introduced themselves on the first day but one person very clearly emerged as a 'leader' in the sense of initiating ideas both on the content of the course and raising questions on how we should work together. She also started a thread on the risky nature of a group assessment but ended with her reasons for feeling positive about it. We as a group are also responsible for deciding what areas the course would cover. As I am getting back into the MSc after a terms break my own ideas were rather fuzzy and initially I felt rather uneasy about carving out my own area or someone claiming an area I would like before I got round to it. In the end, that didn't happen as I quickly participated in putting out my fuzzy ideas and after some reading and help from our tutor I realised that what I am interested in looking at is augmented cognition. I even started brainstorming about it on bubbl.us but haven't connected it to the group wiki yet due to technical issues when I tried to do so last week.
As a group we are still getting to know one another - although several people had already participated together in earlier modules. I feel that I have done my share of collective work - suggesting how we might work together through the discussion threads. Most people haven't decided on their topic areas yet but it is early days.
As a group we are still getting to know one another - although several people had already participated together in earlier modules. I feel that I have done my share of collective work - suggesting how we might work together through the discussion threads. Most people haven't decided on their topic areas yet but it is early days.
Friday, 23 September 2011
Reasons for this blog
My immediate reason for writing this blog is that I am currently taking part in a module for an MSc in E-learning where the main assessment is a collaborative wiki which course members will develop around the topic Psychological and Social Contexts of E-Learning. 70% of our grade on the course will be based on this activity. We will be assessed as a group NOT individually. We are also responsible collectively to come up with the content of this course. The purpose of this blog is to reflect on this collective activity (20% of our grade will be on a reflective account on this experience of online collaborative learning).
I am also interested in online collaboration in academic writing. So far I have had two experiences of this. I have written a chapter with co-author Judy Davidson for Denzin and Lincoln (2011) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, Los Angeles: Sage. I am currently writing a chapter for another book with co-authors Linda Gilbert and Kristi Jackson. The chapter I wrote with Judy was done mainly in a PBWorks wiki with occasional face to face meetings - I am based in London, UK and Judy is based in Lowell, MA USA. The work I am doing with Linda and Kristi is done by writing drafts and posting them in Dropbox and very regular Skype conversations - Linda is in Georgia, USA and Kristi in Denver, CO USA.
I am also interested in online collaboration in academic writing. So far I have had two experiences of this. I have written a chapter with co-author Judy Davidson for Denzin and Lincoln (2011) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, Los Angeles: Sage. I am currently writing a chapter for another book with co-authors Linda Gilbert and Kristi Jackson. The chapter I wrote with Judy was done mainly in a PBWorks wiki with occasional face to face meetings - I am based in London, UK and Judy is based in Lowell, MA USA. The work I am doing with Linda and Kristi is done by writing drafts and posting them in Dropbox and very regular Skype conversations - Linda is in Georgia, USA and Kristi in Denver, CO USA.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)