 |
 |
 |
remote collaboration learning environment
By Dr P John Williams and Anthony Williams
With the introduction of the internet in educational institutions there has developed an interest in the educational opportunities this medium has the potential to provide. This is becoming more the case with an increasing emphasis on flexible delivery and distance education. Predictions include on-line global universities (Jones, 1995) and increasing incentives allowing students physical or electronic mobility (Richardson, 1995).
Some research has been conducted into problem solving in a technology education context (Kimbell, et al, 1991) but again not at a distance (McCormick, 1994).
Silva and Breuleux (1994) explain this hesitancy to incorporate the newer applications of technology in the classroom on the teachers' lack of experience with the process. The computer technology is available in universities and schools but its full capability for expanding the opportunity for collaboration is not yet realized.
As with the introduction of any new technology, new strategies and protocols often need to be implemented to optimise the use of the technology. It is therefore imperative that appropriate protocols are developed to provide the mechanism for the effective educational implementation of these methodologies and the associated technologies.
The context of technology education
To appreciate the need for the implementation of collaborative methodologies into technology teacher education in Australia, it is important to consider the historical development of technology education. During the 1980's education became a focal issue for social attention.
There was a general feeling of concern over secondary school graduates and consequently for the teacher training of the teachers that would address the technological issues present. In order to identify the problems that existed and the areas that needed development, a number of studies were conducted.
As a result of these studies (such as the Carrick Report, 1989), and other influences such as the national project on technology which developed 'A Statement on Technology for Australian Schools' (Australian Education Council, 1994), technology education is currently undergoing significant changes toward meeting the needs of students in an increasingly technological environment. The current trends in technology education include :-
- The incorporation of a diverse range of technologies and a variety of application of these technologies.
- The identification of problem solving and design as appropriate for teaching these technologies.
- An emphasis on the development of creativity and adaptability skills.
- Collaborative work in the problem solving process.
Distance collaboration in the area of technology education has been traditionally problematic given the reliance on tools, machines, equipment and product outcomes. Despite the problems associated with the introduction of this form of collaborative methodology, it has the potential to broaden the students experience through its inclusion into a technology education curriculum. The benefits to be achieved through the inclusion of the remote collaboration strategy encompass:
- Increased application of technology (Silva, 1994)
- Student centred approach (Clement, 1993)
- Increase in the level of participation and collaboration (Carmel, 1993)
- The development of writing and documentation skills (Riel, 1990)
- Deeper cognitive processing gained though the interaction of group members (Cohen, 1995)
- The terminal interaction medium provides contemporality, sequentiality and reviewability (Hooper, 1992)
These points indicate some of the potential benefits to be gained through the incorporation of problem based remote collaborative interaction into the technology curriculum. The difficulty is that as yet the complexities of merging this strategy into the curriculum remain largely unexplored.
Authors such as Cross (1983), Martin (1982) and Olsen (1992), have examined the thinking processes involved in group design and problem solving. This research provides a level of understanding about the protocols that designers follow within groups interacting face to face. Broome and Chen (1992), Galegher (et. al, 1990) and King (1989) have extended this further and have examined group design and problem solving in a technological context.
The majority of this research, in the use of the design paradigm, is in the industrial domain (Cooley, 1994). Research by Gay and Lentini (1995) examined the strategies used by designers in industry to enhance the application of the technologies associated remote collaboration.
This research monitored the skills and strategies used by individuals using this form of interaction during their training and thus provides some insights into the process.
The collaborative design project
This project which this paper is based upon was conducted over two years initially between The University of Newcastle and Edith Cowan University in Perth. During its second year The Australian Catholic Sydney and the University of South Australia also participated. Classes of students were used in the respective technology teacher training courses at each institution. The students were randomly paired, and then worked together on the project.
The project was stated in terms of a design brief: design and construct a camp chair that would meet the defined needs of a seat used in this context. Students were expected to elaborate on the context and develop specific design criteria and specifications in consultation with their partner. As an outcome of the collaborative design process, each member of the team was to construct the designed chair.
Communication between partners was limited to fax and Email, with no uniform facility for graphics to be sent by E-mail across the participating universities.
Students were instructed to keep paper copies of all their faxes and electronic copies of all e-mails sent and received. The electronic copies were to be kept in their software folders to which the lecturers had access. At the close of the project students submitted a hard copy of all interactions, this material constituting the design folio.
Issues
As an outcome of reviewing this learning activity it was apparent that a number of issues impacted on the process. From these issues can be derived strategies that will facilitate the effective implementation of remote collaboration. The following section discusses the issues and where possible strategies that have been used to overcome these issues.
Information overload
Designers working at a distance have to confront information in a manner differing from normal personal interaction. Concepts tend to come 'fully developed' rather than evolving as a consequence of the interaction of a meeting of people in the group. The information tends to arrive in large 'lumps' without an indication of the preceding progression of thought. Participants need to be warned of this potential difficulty, and in cases where the explication of logic is important, can be aware of the need to do so. Participants need to realise that the documentation they communicate may need to provide a more explicit explanation than would be required if they were interacting in person.
Pressure to synthesize material
Often large amounts of information arrive at the time of an interaction. Participants find that there is the tendency to try and respond too quickly without actually going through the details thoroughly. The analysis and synthesis stages are often rushed, thus causing frequent revisits to material previously covered. Participants must be encouraged to take time in responding, and not necessarily respond at the first consideration of the interaction.
Lack of a collaborative vocabulary
The limited instances of interaction between participants increases the necessity for understanding. There is in any group situation, and particularly in a design group in a technology context, a variety of backgrounds and experiences present.
When remoteness and limited forms of communication are available, especially technological language, problems arise. The resulting climate is one that can foster misconceptions and misunderstandings. Participants need to be aware of the necessity to elaborate on terminology which may be open to interpretation or potentially misunderstood outside of a group of technical experts.
Clarity and precision in communication
Related to the previous point, in this project, students expressed a concern for clarity and precision in the communication process, both in diagrams and discussion. It was felt there were inadequate opportunities to ensure that the interpretation of the message sent was the same as the intended message. If not the same, then delays were experienced in the process as misconceptions were corrected, or unintended solutions were developed.
This feeling is supported by the research literature, that special efforts must be made to ensure clear and precise communication is involved. Participants may gain benefit from having a colleague read the message prior to it being sent. Potential misinterpretations or necessity for elaboration may be identified before the message is sent.
Hesitancy to address sensitive topics
This hesitancy may grow out of the individuals sense of remoteness from the group. An individual designer working remotely to other members in a collaborative process may find it difficult to gauge initially the groups reactions, and secondly individuals reactions to an issue or proposal. This engenders a sense of isolation which in turn evidences itself in a hesitancy to confront sensitive issues.
Issues that are very real to an individual are definitely not obvious to their remote colleague. The instructor must explain the potential for participants to feel these problems and encourage participants to convey such issues objectively.
Timetables
An organizational problem that may impede communication is a lack of timetable synchronization between participants, particularly when there is a time frame in which a project is to be completed. This was experienced in this project, in that the semester holidays and other activities did not match well between institutions.
So although the semester was 13 weeks long, there were only 8 weeks when all groups were concurrently in session. Little communication took place outside of these 8 weeks. In the evaluation of the project, 81% of students felt that this was a major problem in accomplishing the design exercise.
Monitoring
The remote collaboration between participants also extends to the instructor. Unless participants share concerns with the instructor it is not possible for the instructor to observe what is developing in the project. For example in the context of this project it was felt by the lecturers to be more difficult to monitor for the purposes of encouraging and guiding students in their design process.
In face to face small group design work the activities and processes being adopted by groups are obvious and so easier for a lecturer to monitor, however in this project the process was less transparent. Monitors need to structure their time and also structure the electronic systems involved to ensure ease of observation of process. One strategy therefore to help facilitate communication is to set the timetable parameters so communication can be well planned.
Delays in communication
In moving from a face-to-face to a remote collaborative situation, the speed and frequency of communication is different. A problem perceived by students in this project was these delays in communication. The students were used to receiving immediate feedback when working with others and it was a problem for them to have to wait for responses to their ideas.
A number of students felt that as a result of this the 'discussion was not fluid'. Participants should be encouraged to send a simple 'message received' response to their partner as not knowing what is happening with the message they just sent can cause insecurity.
Appropriate methods of communication
A whole range of electronic communication facilities are available for use in remote collaborative work, from the telephone to Cee-U-Cee-Me and video conferencing and many internet web based formats. In this project communication was limited to fax and Email.
One third of the students stated that they recognized that both Email and fax were essential modes of communication for the project. Of the remaining students, 60% preferred using fax and 40% preferred Email.
The overall tendency was for students to use the fax for communications which were more specifically about the design, while Email was used for more management tasks. Table 1 gives a breakdown of the type of communication used for a range of specific purposes.
This data reinforces the preference for fax communication, predictably for all those tasks involving graphics. Design considerations and sharing ideas were the only purpose for which E-mail was preferred.
PURPOSE
Graphic Ideas
-
Design Specifications
Design Considerations
Sharing Ideas
Design Modifications
Final Design
Table 1
As the process of designing progressed within each group over time, a number of trends developed in the use of the two communication media. One was an increasing interdependence between the two media. The type of communication available must suit the nature of the material to be communicated.
Nature of the process
A number of students expressed the concern that the design process they followed was 'out of sequence'. This probably reflects the feeling that the sequence was new to them rather than it being a reflection of a need to follow a set sequence.
Students also felt that both the process and the solution were more simple than was appropriate. There was inadequate time for both the exploration of a range of options and to discuss them in depth. While the time frame for this project would normally be adequate, because of the time consuming nature of the communication it did not seem to be so.
It needs to be made explicit to collaborative participants that preconceptions about the nature of the process they may follow in remote communication may not apply, and that if the context is new to them, so may be the process.
Comparable hardware and software
The participants must be aware of the fact that their partner may not have communication equipment that is totally compatible with their own. Even in the situation where the participants were working with equipment in a university there was a vast difference between the types of communication technology available to them. If this was a problem when participants are working in an institution then participants working from home may be confronted with far greater equipment compatibility problems.
The instructor must appreciate what the participants are able to access and support the students in finding levels of communication supported by the equipment available to the participants. Instructors may need to form collaborative groups based upon communication equipment.
Knowledge of collaborators
In this project, the extent to which students knew their partner seemed to have no effect on the success or otherwise of the outcome. The first time the project was conducted, videos were made by each of the groups in which each individual introduced themselves and talked for a couple of minutes about their interests and activities.
The videos were then exchanged between the groups. Students indicated that they felt this did not enhance the process or outcome of the project. In the evaluation at the end of the project students responded significantly (p<0.05) negatively to the notion that knowing some of the personal details of their partner helped in the design process.
A minority of students developed a relationship or discussed topics other than those related to the design task. For example:
Clinton
...we had some big northwesters and the waves are absolute soup here too. Lets just say I will be doing other things ... this weekend instead of surfing.
Damo
Developing this type of relationship did not correlate with better results, as these students were both in the bottom quartile of marks.
Frequency of communication
In this project there was a significant (p<0.05) correlation (r=0.75) between the number of communication exchanges (both fax and E-mail) a pair of students engaged in, and their combined final grade for the project. There was no examination of the 'quality' of the communication, but it seems that the more the pair communicate with each other, the better the final outcome.
It was also the case that within each pair, the student who initiated more of the communication received the higher score (with one exception). This may indicate that frequent communication should be encouraged, and maybe relates to the previous point in that if communication is frequent, there may be fewer points or concepts dealt with in each communication and therefore information overload is less likely to occur.
Inconsistent Progress
Progress on a task in a remote collaborative context is often inconsistent because of factors beyond the participants control, such as hardware and software failures, and non-synchronous timetables.
In this case progress was not consistent for many students, and resulted in a rush of activity at the end and a consequently less well produced outcome. If progress throughout a task could be signposted a number of times throughout the project, it may encourage effort to be more consistent over time.
Size of group
Often the size of a group is dictated by the type of expertise required for the accomplishment of a particular task. In the absence of this requirement, general educational research about the optimum size of groups would provide guidelines. In this project, where students worked in pairs, many students reported dissatisfaction with their partner, probably at least partly because of the size of the groups. Complaints included poor communication skills, low levels of competency, 'I was always the leader' and 'my partner was not creative enough'. The numbers of complaints about partners were the same from each institution and two pairs of students complained about each other, though for different reasons.
Conclusion
The application of flexible delivery at the tertiary level is expected to grow in the future. Flexible delivery has the potential to provide many with the opportunity to undertake tertiary study and the diversity of disciplines that use this strategy will also grow.
Collaboration in learning groups is a strategy that has proved very effective when students are able to discuss issues among themselves as well as work collaboratively on learning tasks. The strategy of collaborative learning has, because of technological development, become a potential instructional methodology in the flexible delivery domain.
The project that informed this paper, despite being focused on design, is able to offer some insights to the dilemmas that participants confront in remote collaboration. In summary below are listed a number of strategies that will support and lead to the effective application of remote collaboration.
- Encourage students to be specific and precise in their correspondence
- Encourage participants to be considered in their communication
- Participants must appreciate the concept of being supportive of their collaborators
- Develop mechanisms whereby the instructor is able to monitor the activity and provide advise and support continuously during the process
- Keep the channels of communication open
- Encourage the participants to make effective use of the communication technologies available to them.
The experience of and the evaluation of this project suggests that students do find the activity challenging but on reflection appreciate and value the learning experience.
References
Australian Education Council. (1994). Statement of Technology for Australian Schools. Melbourne: Curriculum Corporation.
Boud, D. and Feletti, G. (1991). The challenge of problem based learning. London: Kogan Page.
Broome, B.J., Chen, M., 1992, Guidelines for Computer Assisted Group Problem Solving: Meeting the Challenges of Complex Issues, Small Group Research, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp 216-236.
Carmel, E., Whitaker, R.D. & George, J.F., 1993, Pd and Joint Applications Design: A Transatlantic Comparison, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 36, No. 4, pp 40-48.
Carrick, (1989). The Carrick Report on Secondary Education. Sydney: NSW Government Printer.
Chen, H. & Yen, J., 1996, Toward Intelligent Meeting Agents, Computer, August, pp 62-71.
Clark, H.H. & Brennan, S.E., 1991, Grounding in Communication, in Resnick, L.B., Levine, J. & Teasley, S.D. (Eds.), Perspectives in Socially Shared Cognition, American Psychological Association, Washington, pp 127-149.
Clement, A. & Van den Besselaar, P., 1993, A Retrospective Look at Pd Projects, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 36, No. 4, pp 29-37.
Cohen, M. & Riel, M., 1989, The Effect of Distant Audiences on Student Writing, American Education Research Journal, Vol. 26, pp 153-159.
Cooley, E., 1994, Training an Interdisciplinary Team in Communication and Decision Making Skills, Small Group Research, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp 5-25.
Cross, N., 1983, The Relevance of Cognitive Styles in Design Education, Design Methods and Theories, Vol. 17, No. 1, 1983, pp 35-70.
Engel, C.E. (1991) Not Just a Method but a way of Learning, in D. Boud and G. Feletti, (eds.) The Challenge of Problem Based Learning. London: Koogan Page.
Galegher, J., Kraut, R.E. & Egido, C., 1990, Intellectual Teamwork: Social and Technological Foundations of Cooperative Work, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associations.
Gay, G. & Lentini, M., 1995, Use of Communication Resources in a Networked Collaborative Design Environment, International Media Group, Cornell, pp 1-12.
Hooper, S., 1992, Cooperative Learning and Computer Based Instruction, Educational Technology Research and Development, Vol. 40, pp 21-38.
Jones, C., 1995, On Line Study is Virtually Here, The Australian, Dec. 6, pp 34.
Kimbell, R. et al, 1991, The Assessment of Performance in Design and Technology, London, HMSO.
King, A., 1989, Verbal Interaction and Problem Solving Within Computer Assisted Cooperative Learning Groups, Journal of Education Computing Research, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp 1-15.
Martin, W.M., 1982, The Act of Design and its Relationship to Cognitive Abilities and Cognitive Style., Design Methods and Theories, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp 8-22.
McCormick, R. et al, 1994, Problem Solving in Design and Technology: A Case of Situated Learning? A paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association, New Orleans.
Olsen, G.M. et al, 1992, Small Group Design Meetings: an Analysis of Collaboration., Human Computer Interaction, Vol. 7, pp 347-374.
Richardson, J., 1995, Global Market Puts Emphasis on Partnerships, The Australian, Dec. 6, pp 34.
Riel, M., 1990, Cooperative Learning Across the Classroom in Electronic Learning Circles, Instructional Science, Vol. 19, pp 445-466.
Silva, M. & Breuleux, A., 1994, The Use of Participatory Design in the Implementation of internet Based Collaborative Learning Activities in K-12 Classrooms, Interpersonal Computing and Technology, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp 1-16.
Williams, A. & Williams, P.J., 1997. Problem based learning: an appropriate methodology for technology education. Research in Science and Technological education, 15(1), pp 91-103.
Return to top
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
