I came across an article in the International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning that I thought members of our e-portfolio community might find useful.
The article, by Seung-hee Lee (Indiana University), is Design and Analysis of Reflection-Supporting Tools in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning.
One thing I like about this paper is that argues that reflection is not a solitary activity. To me, the implication of this from a software side is that both “individual” and collaborative/social tools should be included in an e-portfolio system in order to provide a more meaningful experience for e-portfolio owners, and enable deeper reflection.
My personal experience with this harkens back to the launch of our e-portfolio community of practice in early 2003. I think that was the first time I became conscious of the social aspect of reflection. The activities that Barbara Cambridge engaged us in – cubing, dialogue journaling – underscored the very notion that creating an e-portfolio is a social activity. We learn and hone our understanding of our learning and ourselves by interacting with others.
So, … about the article:
This short article provides a concise overview, theoretical foundation and design considerations for online environments that support reflection, particularly collaborative reflection. Figure 1 is a good snapshot of the concepts covered; it links the design principles (facilitating social awareness, thinking visualization, learner discourse, and group meta-cognition) to the components of an environment that support collaborative reflection. The four components include:
– Group workplace
– Reflection journal
– Thinking sharing board
– Reflective scaffolding
The research carried out by the author spanned three universities. Learners were placed into three groups: 1) learners that used collaborative reflection-supporting tools; 2) learners that used individual reflection-supporting tools; and 3) learners that used no reflection support.
The author concludes:
“…the findings show that reflection-supporting tools have positive impacts on the group performance as well as the perception of learners on collaborative learning. Also, the reflection-supporting tools in CSCL environments were effective and user friendly for group learning.”
The observations associated with each of the components provide more context; I believe that members of our community of practice will find pearls of wisdom for their specific contexts and purposes.
What was my pearl?
I took to heart the observations related to the comfort level of learners with the tools. From the preface to the discussion of the components:
“At the beginning, learners with little online group learning opportunities seemed to have psychological and cognitive overload to collaborating online, but they perceived online learning positively as time gradually went by.”
A few thoughts. ..
Students are adjusting to number of elements when they go online, with changes in environment and expectations related to (increased) personal responsibility high on the list.
Collaboration in and of itself is most likely unfamiliar to many, and adding a number of new tools that support activities carried out in new ways….
It’s not surprising that is daunting!
The comforting part is the part of the quote that says..
“..as time gradually went by”.
Students did and do adjust, if they are supported through that process, particularly if the instructor provides concrete linkages between the activities and the students’ success in the course.
This requires that we make conscious decisions about when and why we employ tools, and ensure that they support the objectives of the course.
To me this means a need to think about tools within the context of a program – not just a course (module).
This leads me to a question about the role of curriculum committees and learning technology decisions. For online programs, I believe the technology decisions are integrated within the discussions. What about “traditional” curriculum committees? Do they also discuss the role of learning technology in the overall curriculum? Is “learner support” a component of this?
Be interesting to know more about that — sounds like something I need to investigate!
Id love to hear from our Community of Practice members on this!