EME6635Su07TheoryPapers

I would say that this method is used to directly increase individual accountability given that students are asked to evaluate the performance of individual students. Nevertheless, some of the individual behaviors that are assessed and promoted in peer evaluations will indirectly increase inter-dependence. Overall, I guess its a toss up as to which category or function is performed by using this method.

Maybe we can use a wiki to compile all the peer ratings into one single worksheet. I think that efficiency is a must here so that students can concentrate on the main task - building and defending their arguments. Any other ideas on how best to implement the peer review process? Another question: How many times do the student evaluate one another during each debate? Is this a summative or formative evaluation?

How would the peer ratings count towards the students' participation score for participating in the debate?

Perhaps one can present more social skill tips and/or training over the course of the semester so that students have all the prerequisite social skills by the time they participate in the last and the fourth debate in EME5457. The question is which specific social skills should be addressed in the course without committing too much time on this one activity?

Just a Point of information: There are a total of four debates in EME5457, dispersed over the 16 week semester.

I think that there should be a distinction made between an "intellectual skill" versus a "social skill". Formulating arguments and etc. is something I see as an intellectual/argumentation skill (like the "fermenting" skills or roles described by JJ&H). Social skills, on the other hand, is concerned with how to "present" an argument or a challenge without sounding sounding offensive or arrogant - presenting one's ideas in ways that maintains positive relationships between participants (e.g. focus on the issue not on individual personalities, etc.). Social skills are taught to help maintain positive social relationships.

I like how you stated the findings in terms of what Beichner "found" or "observed" in their study (as opposed to stating the finding in terms of a claim or position statement. This type of statement is more effective in establishing the credibility because it is explicitly linked to the study's findings.

This could also help reduce the amount of time students spend on producing a group contract, and therefore, reduce the work load placed on the students. One of my concerns is student's work load (which must be taken into consideration when we discuss any of the solutions proposed in this document. --Allan

Note that this one is the same concept as that proposed in method #4 "Teammanship Ratings"

This method could be presented or subsumed under the method "Assigning Roles" (Role Interdependence). Using message labeling is one way of implementing roles. Therefore, this entry could be presented under "Implementation Issues".

It seems then that we are assuming that "positive interdependence" can be measured and/or defined in terms of how often presented arguments are challenged (therefore, groups are both working and "thinking" together)? I think this is a very useful way of looking at the meaning of the term "positive interdependence". --Allan

Pre-Structured Discussion Threads = Instructor creates one discussion thread for posting Supporting Arguments. The instructor creates a separate thread for posting Opposing Arguments.

Thanks Pat for linking your analysis back to the weaknesses we identified in week 3. :-)

Using email to perform this role is a good idea so that the number of message posted to the discussion forum is kept at more manageable numbers. I often perform this role myself by posting messages of this kind to a separate discussion thread located at the top of the forum titled "Instructor comments".

Other factors include amount of content covered in the lesson, and the number of roles that must be performed to successfully complete the task.

I noticed that this method was not reported here in this group document. Check page 54 of JJH for the description. On impact, I would reference and report the effect size achieved from using "structured controversy" reported in the Johnson 2000 article. On the topic of how to implement this method (already implemented in the debate), maybe we can think of ways to use this method to improve the quality of the after-debate essay? --Allan

Each debate team could share a wiki document to summarize and list all their arguments so that everyone is working off one shared artifact (or environment). As a result, the wiki would also serve to establish goal interdependence (creating one joint product, see p 53 in JJH textbook). I don't have any leads on any studies that show what impact this strategy has on the group's performance. However, you could by way of analogy refer to the Cho2002 study where they report performance gains when students focused their joint attention on a group concept map while engaging in a group discussion.

This is not a weakness in students' performance. It is a factor that contributes to poor performance. No?

This is not a measure of weaknesses in student's performance. Instead, it is a factor that influences students' performance. Or a weakness in the activity's design.

If we encourage students to invite others to share opposing viewpoints, then we would have to call the activity something else other than a "Debate" given that this is not a behavior you see in most formal debates. Regarldess, it is a good idea given that one of my studies (Jeong, 2006) found that simply using conversational language (e.g. tag questions) can increase the number of explanations posted in reply to each challenge by 70%.

The most obvious solution here is to provide access to more research findings and journals that present statistical numbers to demonstrate the veracity or strength of given claims. I could present a list of recommended journals and instruct students to find and make reference to at least one article to support a claim or counter claim. Your thoughts?

There were only five postings that were labeled as EVID out of the 121 total student postings - four of these were posted in response to challenges. How can we get students to support their claims with supporting evidence? The most obvious solution here is to provide access to more research findings and journals that present statistical numbers to demonstrate the veracity or strength of given claims. I could present a list of recommended journals and instruct students to find and make reference to at least one article to support a claim or counter claim. Your thoughts?

This in my opinion is the main weakness in the quality of students' essays. Students need to present both sides of the argument. But even if students do that, I think another contributing factor is that students are at a lost as to how to articulate how one arrives at a conclusion based on all the presented arguments. Possible Solution: Have students collaboratively write an essay/conclusion statement and have student apply any of the tive methods explained in "RankingProposals.doc" found in the Documents folder.

The responses below clearly show that most of us did not feel comfortable editing the work of other students in class. This would suggest that we are using Wikis merely as another tool for hosting group discussions, and not using it to collaboratively write, edit, and produce a high quality final product. However, one of the students noted that he/she would be comfortable making edits on other students' work if he/she could present his/her justifications and reasons for doing so. Perhaps more edits would be make to produce a higher quality end product is I simply asked or required each student to explain his/her actions within the "Notes about this edit..." textfield located at the bottom of each wiki page during page edits. What do you think?

Perfect! I like how you were able to tie in additional conditions that you manifested from your collaborative learning activities.

Would it be possible to list your prior assumptions in your introduction?

Previously, I discussed about 12 assumptions contributing to successful collaborative learning. Therefore, I decided to restate them in the appropriate section of this document.

It would've been nice to see those 12 assumptions in your second theory paper. Perhaps Dr. Jeong will allow the next class to review both theory papers in Diigo so that the reviewer can assess the papers as a whole.

Elaborate on how these assumptions proved to be true for the debate activity.

I talked about the after debate poll and neglected to elaborate on the actual debate. Good catch.

For my own purposes, I am going to rewrite my personal theory. It won't be bound by lword limits, and will present a clear and complete picture of my theory.

Melissa, I overlooked this as well, I took the students' resistance as resistance to learning or thinking about how they learn, rather than resistance to social interaction. How will you address this in your classes in the fall? Maybe you can steer me in the right direction...!! michele w.

Michele, I'm honestly still thinking about this one and here is why... This past year (being my first year), I tended to let the students pick their own groups. Therefore, the amount of resistance I had to put up with was very little, as it was their own choices. However, I think the usage of roles can assist in this-maybe one person as a team leader, one as a conflict resolution specialist, one as a secretary/communicator-just a thought, but still one in progress because this next year, I will assign groups I believe.

missing a word here maybe.. mw

Thanks!

M, That role assignment is tricky business--after completing a workshop several years back, I tried using the role cards for reader, recorder, checker of understanding, and one other I can't remember now. I paired the roles with an assignment that was probably innappropriate, and things kind of crashed. I learned. Will you have base groups as well? These are great because if you have the students for the 9 weeks or all year (I don't know) then they'll have a base to return to which helps with CL. michele w.

I have students for one semester. I do like the idea of base groups, as the students get to know each other and how each other work, and I don't have to wait for students to form groups. It does concern me a bit though, as high school students, and especially mine, are not as mature, responsible and overall, as hard-working as this class was. I am concerned about issues arising within groups and how to deal with that issue-for example, I had one student in my first class who honestly, the rest of the kids just didn't like, because of his attitude. Therefore, finding a group for him to work in was quite a feat each time. So is it fair for a group of students to have to work with another all semester who they don't get along with? On the role issue, I was thinking pretty basic. For example, a team leader in charge of reporting anything to me and turning everything in...a secretary in charge of notating daily tasks, logging work, conversations, etc....something along that line-again, I'm still refining a lot of this! Heck...I'm refining a lot after my first year of teaching! :)

I think you mentioned that this was your first year of teaching (?). Based on your comments here, it sounds like you'll be able to show future students some examples of what your just past students have done to give them some of this prior understanding...? michele w.

I have a whole file cabinet full! :)

I agree with you in that I will not probably not use them myself in the Army for the same reasons you have mentioned :)

In my feedback, Allan mentioned that I may be able to impart some rewards for participation. Classroom incentives may work here.

Will you agree that there are several other key factors that can be considered as the conditions underlying that of effective collaborative learning, such as positive interdependence; individual and group accountability; promotive interaction preferably face-to-face - to make members of the group personally committed to each other as well as to their mutual goals; interpersonal and small-group skills; and self assessment of group functioning.

I agree. I must admit that I was minimizing my words because of the 800 word maximum. I could have put more information from the articles.

I think that the use of "Personal Experience" section is a very nice way to present to the gist of your previous theory paper to the reader. I like it very much.

Dave, thank you so much for your feedback. I have really enjoyed working with you in this course.

I had a similar point to this in my paper. I think the greatest difference in the military environment is the fact that not having the right person for the job can cost someone their life or health. The talents and skills of leaders determine their roles. In collaborative learning, each student could quite honestly take a leadership role and thrive. Great thought process and insight into how you guys do it in the Army.

Well, thanks for your comments. As I had commented in your paper, I concurred with you especially on how things are "operated" in the uniformed services.

Not quite sure how this fits in with the rest of the paragraph...is this needed?

Hi Melissa! I guess I inserted that there because I didn't realize, in my original personal theory, that those particular theories supported CL, you are right it could use rewording--any suggestions? michele w.

I like the format! The paper was organized and arranged nicely!

Cool, glad you think so---I wasn't sure it would fly with Dr. Jeong, but it kept me organized and my thoughts in order!! mwirt

I'm not sure that the coordination needed in CL relates as evidence to supporting the need of familiarizing students with simple or recognizable material upfront. Can you help me with the connection?

When the students are new to a certain body of information, AND new to CL at the same time, there's a double learning curve--SO, establishing a "common ground" and a comfort zone for students is essential for learning to take place. As the evidence states, "problem solving conversations present special mutual knowledge problems"....Again, the third column tries to tell the tale, maybe needs rewording... mwirt