Collaborative Technology

Using technology for collaborative group projects

Deal, Ashley (2009).  Collaboration Tools. Teaching With Technology, Carnegie Mellon, 1-8

http://www.cmu.edu/teaching/technology/whitepapers/CollaborationTools_Jan09.pdf

The days of students gathering on a Saturday afternoon to add the finishing touches on their “How Light Affects Bean Seed Growth” tri-fold display are gone.  Group projects are becoming integrated with technology, and student collaboration more often takes place in the virtual world.   Collaboration Tools, written by Ashley Deal in 2009, examines collaborative efforts in project-based learning and how technology plays an increasing role.

Deal categorizes the assessment collaborative project into three parts, the process, the product, and evaluation of learning.   The process includes how the group works together to create the project.  Assessment includes how and what ideas were shared as well as how students worked together to create the project.  The second part, the product, is the final result of the collaborative process.  Assessing the product includes grading how well the students accomplished the goal.  The final part, and the one most overlooked, is evaluation of learning.  Evaluation of learning includes looking at the overall knowledge the student was supposed to gain from the project.  Take, for example, a science project based on the amount of light affecting a bean seed.  This science project is designed to teach students the scientific method.   Just because the end result (product) is done well, doesn’t mean the group shared ideas and worked well together.  The finished product may look nice, but not represent that the students learned about the scientific process.  For this reason, Deal emphasizes the importance of looking at all three parts of the process for assessment. 

In the article, Collaboration Tools, Deal writes about how technology works with the collaborative process.  She explores the effect of using technology to accomplish this.  Interestingly, technology seemed to decrease “social loafing”, the tendency of one individual not putting in equal amount of effort.  Blocking, one student inhibiting contributions of the others in the group, was also reduced.  And while students communicating virtually didn’t share in depth information, the productivity of brainstorming increased in the virtual environment.

Deal gives a few examples of they type of computer mediation tools available for students, and cautions that the right tools must be tailored for each specific project.  Nowhere in the article, does it mention issues of privacy, which is certainly a factor when choosing tools for the classroom.  Some of the tools she suggests are collaborative suits, course management systems, wikis, and video and audio conferencing.  Since 2009, many other tools are available for such collaboration.  Google Plus allows students to collaboratively work and edit on a paper, spreadsheet, or slide presentation while video conferencing.   Prezi allows students to collaborate on creative presentations. Blogger is another tool students can use to communicate written, video, and visual information near instantaneously.  Had this article been written at a later date, these options would integrate with the rest of this article.

Technology based collaborative projects are significant to the field of education.  As teachers look at ways to engage students and expose them to the way the world communicates, learning to work in a group using technology is vital.  It is important for educators to understand technology and the ways it can be used to create collaborative projects.