The logistics of group work can sometimes be a challenge, but more often than not, it is incredibly stimulating! I tend to think of it as building a mosaic; each member brings with them a unique set of skills and new ways of thinking. When you figure out how to make these different facets of skill and experience fit together, the results can be mind-expanding and the final picture can become much richer for it. : )
This very much describes how I felt about our rubric project. We were fortunate to agree on a base framework early on, then we each came up with a number of questions and aspects of importance to research. We started quite wide in scope, then we narrowed it… then we widened it again. It was a great experience. We decided that it was important to keep a systems-based framework that addressed important overall goals, reworking this where needed, and adding/tailoring important facets that directly applied to our context. We were hoping for a balanced approach that considered both the micro/macro levels. We also decided to make the sheet into a worksheet that can be printed and actually used to evaluate and compare LMS’s (each LMS gets a page to evaluate it, then these pages can be compared to weigh out the decision). Since we were identified as members of the YesNet’s LTAC (Learning Technologies Advisory Committee) our rubric is geared towards the LTAC team.The sheet provides an opportunity to give an overall numerical score and observational notes regarding how each LMS addresses each specific criteria. Some minor inspiration was also taken from other systems/software/usability rating scales like the SUS scale and SSM.
The main takeaways for me are that it’s difficult to be narrow and comprehensive at the same time. Perhaps this balance is important in order to be flexible and transferable? Also, if two or more approaches work well perhaps they can help inform one another? A hybrid approach can be used in some cases too, although this is a bit scary to tackle. I also realized that it is difficult to take into account the needs of all stakeholders involved so I’m glad that we were a multifaceted team.
Anyway, that’s my thought bubble for today. Many thanks to my group and I hope we did well!
You’ve touched upon a specific and salient tension: strategic (macro) and operational (micro). In reality there’s no universal magic balance—the best tack I’ve found is to work both within a context (such as your scenario) whilst being mindful of creating something than can be transferred to other contexts.
Well said!
Thanks John that helps add a bit of clarity. We tried hard not to ‘zoom in’ only on the micro, even though this was very tempting given the added details we were able to dig up on our scenario. We recognized that this runs the risk of taking aspects of the ‘strategic’ for granted, possibly resulting in our failure to address the larger system. Our group was very passionate about the project, so we got quite involved and eventually a bit too complex so we had to reign things in a bit. This panning in and out of scope did prove very useful though, because we were able to look at the different vantage points of our stakeholders needs in much greater detail than we thought possible in the given time frame. We had a very well rounded group and we also had a lot of fun! : )
Hi Bobbi,
I agree that groupwork can be very rewarding and stimulating, and depending on the specific instructional design choices these experiences can pan out in very different ways. In this case, the groups were assigned as well as the topic, which makes for a very different experience than self-directed choice of topic and groupmates.
One aspect of the rubric assignment I really liked was that it was part theoretical, but backed by real-world details that we could “dig up” as you put it. This really allowed for deep discussion about the applicability of the scenario and our choices in creating the rubric, and how each portion of the assessment could be weighted – with attempts to not take too much artistic license either way.
In terms of your group’s submission, I thought your rubric was well researched, comprehensive, and incorporated a visual aesthetic that was easy to navigate with the use of tables and shading.
Thanks Nicola, I completely agree that assigned groupings for projects tend have a different dynamic. It used to drive me crazy in my IxD/INDD design practice when I was grouped with people with very differing interests. I quickly realized though that this type of grouping/working is much more representative of real-life practice and helps us to develop new skills and sometimes push ourselves beyond our normal comfort zones. I think that no matter how different the group, the end result can be good if each members contributions are given equal weight/consideration. This can be a tough balance to try to find though :\