Elizabeth Murphy (2004)
Recognising and promoting collaboration in an online asynchronous discussion
British Journal of Educational Technology, 35,4,421-431
Definitions: collaboration (purposive sharing)
Frameworks – conceptual framework for collaboration: interaction, articiculating individual perspectives, accommodating and reflecting on individual perspectives, developing & building shared goals and purposes, producing shared artefacts.
Method Instrument for measuring content based on this framework ie subcodes for each stage
Findings: most did not show any evidence of accommodating to the perspectives of others.
Conclusion: ‘higher level processes of collaboration need to be more explicitly and effectively promoted.
Collaboration
P421 ‘ Collaboration is more than interaction and requires ’coordinated, synchronous activity that is the result of a continued attempt to construct and maintain a shared conception of a problem’ (Roschelle and Teasley, 1995,970). Collaboration represents a ‘purposive relationship’ the intent of which is ‘to produce something to solve a problem, create or discover something’ (Schrage, 1995,29) and to work together to achieve shared goals (Kaye 1992: Rochelle and Tealey, 1995).
(KRO responsible for the emboldened)
p422 ‘ in order for interaction to lead to collaboration in a context of online learning, specific measures must be taken to actively and consciously promote collaboration’
In order to promote collaboration the following are necessary
Understanding of the concept
Understanding how it manifests online
Identification & measurement
Supports and scaffolds that move discussants beyond interaction to collaboration.
Paper is about an identification & measurement instrument. The instrument is based on, p422, ‘ the development of a model which conceptualises collaboration on a continuum of processes that move from social presence to production of an artefact’ This concept gave a preliminary version of the instrument that covered six processes. After application the instrument was further developed to provided indicators for each process.
Conceptual framework for collaboration ( six stage process)
- Interaction – p 422 ‘ participants show awareness of each other’s presence and begin to relate as a group’ key element is social presence which creates cohesion which feeds back into more interaction.
- Articulating individual perspectives – p422 participants ‘do not explicitly reference the perspectives of others or solicit feedback from them’ ‘postings at this stage may read like a series of monologues (Henri, 1995)’.
- Accommodating and reflecting on the perspectives of others
- Co-constructing shared meaning p423 ‘ as participants articulate and externalise their perspectives, areas of disagreement or conflict become explicit. When individuals’ perspectives are challenged , they must work together to produce shared meaning ( O’Malley, 1995).
- Developing & building shared goals and purposes
6 Producing shared artefacts
Producing shared artefacts note p423 the author argues that ‘ until this something new has been envisioned and created, collaboration is not complete’ ( KRO is this statement due to the influence of the fostering creativity researchers)..
The author argues that the earlier stage processes are prerequisites for the achievement of shared purpose and goal, but that ‘ participation at the lower levels does not guarantee that higher levels will be automatically reached’
Method
Based on group of eleven ( KRO is this two many, to what extent does collaboration depend on the group and its structure?) practioners ( pre-service teachers of French as a second language) over 4 weeks. Course module involved a three-step approach to collaborative problem solving consult, gather, produce. After each stage individuals are asked to compare individual and joint perspectives. 103 messages.
Instrument & Indicators on page 426-427
Results
P428 ‘ the process/indicator which occurred most often was ‘ articulating individual perspectives: statement of personal opinion or beliefs making no reference to perspectives of others (IO)’ 69/103 messages. Most did not show any evidence of accommodating to the perspectives of others.
Although students did get to the stage of questioning others perspectives P429 ‘ there were only two instances in which a participant directly responded to a question raised by another participant’ i.e. only two instances that meaning was being co-constructed… Only one instance of the fifth process , building a shared solution.
Similarity between these findings and other work
P 429 ‘ findings similar to the conclusion reached by Murphy and Laferriere (2001) in their analysis of two online asynchronous discussion forums using the TORI model of group development. In that study, the groups were moved through three stages
- Trust formation & Open communication
- Realisation of goals
- Interinfluence.
In neither study did participants reach the third stage. ie the individual perspective prevailed.
Conclusion
P430 ‘ the higher level processes of collaboration need to be more explicitly and effectively promoted’
