collaborative learning

• Mission Statement by John Suler, 6/21/97
  • (...)
    
    • re: collaborative learning by John, 1/23/99
      
      

Thank you for your response, John. The content of the 8 week "Organizational Behavior and Leadership" course was divided into 4 two week units; 1-getting to know how the forum functioned, 2-Resistance to organizational change, 3-Leadership: Interactional framework, 4-A communication model. Three professors in 3 US locations headed one of the last three units. The first unit was based on Kotter's Leading Change, working with a case study in which threads were predefined by the professor. The content seemed superficial in the sense that one case study in 2 weeks did not seem to be enough material. The 45 students divided into three teams (4 locations mixed) responded to each of the threads with great zeal, resorting to similiar answers "Marcia was right, and I think... the same thing." Thus repetition generated hundreds of responses to read. Case study- defining problems resulting to "Resistance:Low Tolerance for Change" within the case study proved to uncover the same ills we found in "Resistance: Different Assessments", "Resistance: Misunderstanding and lack of trust", as well as "Resistance:Parochial self-interest". In other words, all the roads (threads)led to the same underlying problems that we had easily found in the first thread. Should we have looked beyond the threads?, we asked ourselves. The case study, problem/solution defining, took all of 2 weeks. The professors did not interact often with the students via forum. As far as superficial communications, Geneva students decided at the start to answer alternately through one member of our A, B or C teams, rather than indivdually. The numerous wordy and growing responses generated from the US boggled the foreign minds here. Once the first 2 weeks had passed with very few responses from Geneva(3 responses per thread as opposed to 10)the US students seemed to have given up on us. Once we felt ignored, participation seemed to drop from our side while the US sites continued. eg. we wrote team responses in bullet points form, the US wrote lengthy " I think we should have an understanding of poor Mary's feelings who has just been given a new position and must deal with...you, know, in my position, I've had the same problem, men are always jumping to the conclusion that women..." and maybe a conclusion 200 words later. Conclusion-It seems that 2 months was not long enough to create the necessary links in forging team spirit, which may have increased participation; although Geneva students did not seem to want an overseas team spirit , or feel that that was an objective of the course, or necessary in learning. All 45 students had given brief introductions in the beginning, which were forgotten over time. We did not have real-time chats, newsgroup- style forums, nor video conferencing. It seems that we did not know how to communicate effectively via internet; Geneva's group did not or could not appreciate the US's friendly enthusiatic way of communicating. And the US seemed to think we were rather cold, among other things. My initial question- how could we improve on our communications skill via internet in this type of learning experience, despite cultural diversity? You have already suggested a variety of internet communication channels that could help with course content. Thank you. I tried to make it short, therefor you may still be missing key elements in order to help me. Just ask.

• re: collaborative learning by John, 1/30/99