Environment

toc

=Collaboration= Effective collaboration involves sharing information relevant to the community’s purpose. According to Larusson and Alterman, common expectations about process and product result from agreement about shared activities, roles, and responsibilities (2009). Traditional collaboration via technology includes synchronous conferences, communication via e-mail and revision through attached files. Trentin points out that this process puts inequitable burden on the group member responsible for managing the overall document and makes evaluation of individual contribution to the whole work a challenge (2009). Social connection, transformation of hypertext structure, and real-world applicability are benefits of collaborative work discussed in a study by Larusson and Alterman. In fact, their evidence shows that students read other’s “posts multiple times before writing their own”, demonstrating collaboration through synthesis (2009). Evidence from another study demonstrates collaboration when students initiate and/or answer questions, engage the teacher in individual dialogue, and converse with peers about their wikis both socially and as part of the final critique of the project (Heafner & Friedman 2008). Using web 2.0 technology, specifically wikis for co-writing and Diigo for research, spreads editing responsibility across all group members, while guiding individual members to collaborate in the creation of the “whole”(Larusson & Alterman 2009).

=Wikis= Wikis allow users to create and edit content without a hierarchical structure, providing equal and immediate access to the whole collective of information. They are a combination between a shared online document and a web page, allowing readers to click through highlighted words for more detail via external links and pop-up windows, essentially 21st century footnotes. Wikis are structured with basic tools to support collaboration. The revision history, for example, documents the editing changes that have been made to the information - including who and when those changes took place. The discussion pages, on the other hand, provide a forum for participants to communicate regarding the value or accuracy of the information provided. Other types of communication are necessary, especially in the time-sensitive school setting, in order for students to keep up with current events or to be directed to a particular place in the wiki (Grant 2009; Larusson & Alterman 2009).

=Diigo= According to Estelles, Gonzales and del Moral, Diigo is a social book marking system that “allow[s] users to store, classify, organize, describe, and share links to interesting web sites, blogs, pictures, wikis, videos, and podcasts" (2006, p. 176). The group feature allows students to share annotations directly on the source, essentially eliminating any contextual or interpretive interference that may occur when students paraphrase and share information using a traditional communication method. Comment features encourage discussion regarding the accuracy, relevance, and interpretation of the information. One sixth grade science teacher, Will Ferriter, explains, “Diigo provides [his] students the opportunity to interact with one another and with nonfiction text (2011, p. 85). Diigo is a more efficient way to consume, evaluate, and share information.

=Role of Teacher= The teacher plays an essential role in creating an environment where thoughtful collaboration takes place. Grant explains that teachers need to both model and facilitate the process (2009). Direct instruction in how to effectively reflect on learning supports the early stages of collaborative work. Thoughtful reflection is not the same as the comments you find on most blogs or you-tube. It is based on evidence collected through research, provides context to all consumers, encourages understanding and problem solving, and should not be confrontational. Rimor et al believe that facilitating a constructivist approach to learning focuses reflection on identifying the problems and gaps in understanding and deciding how to solve problems as an explicit part of the process (2010).

Communication
Communication of information, or representation system as explained by Larusson and Alterman (using definitions created by Perry 2003; Garfinkel 1967; Schegloff 1992), is composed of media, representational artifacts, and content which allows participants to progress with little common ground (2009). Examples of these representational systems include webquests, jigsaw projects, and expert groups. Direct instruction by the teacher can scaffold process and product. Structuring the wiki to support a shared view of work, reflection, and collaboration (Larusson & Alterman 2009) embeds Trentin’s explanation of the five main elements to successful collaboration: individual study, co-planning of the hypertext’s general structure and division of work, development of the various parts of the wiki, links to pages created by others, and peer review (2009).

Example
An example of this structure is seen in the design of the WikiDesignPlatform (WDP), developed in the GROUP lab at Brandeis University. The WDP has been used with collaborative learning environments in numerous activities. It enriches the collaborative space by providing a “suite of transcription, analysis, awareness, navigation, and communication components”. Its “plasticity” allows it to be customized to the learning activity, yet the similarity of basic interface and design elements ensure a “low learning overhead”. This type of scaffolding guides and organizes the students’ interactions, which helps the students coordinate and share a common view of their cooperative activity (Larusson & Alterman 2009). The results of the Larusson and Alterman study testify to the effectiveness of this scaffolding, especially in larger teams where the instructor scaffold pages of the WDP is the center of the collaboration (2009).

In addition to the WDP, Larusson and Alterman modeled additional communication methods to help students maintain a common view of the joint enterprise (2009), for example, e-mail, online chat, and face-to-face discussion. A second important aspect of modeling is the explicit instruction of features to update students of new events, for example, rss feeds, blogroll and Diigo updates, which can be customized to find relevant materials in a timely fashion.

=Role of Student= The role of student in a successful collaborative environment falls into three categories: producer, consumer, and evaluator. According to Larusson and Alterman (2009) and Grant (2009), students develop and share their own opinions through individual research and in response to the ideas presented by previous contributors. In either case they are producing content that becomes part of the whole. Larusson and Alterman also note that “students read ongoing discussion between other students even if they did not directly contribute to the conversation” (2009), essentially consuming the information presented by others. In addition, students using a wiki can see what others have produced and hypertextually linked to which in turns supports development of their own work (Trentin 2009).

While producing and consuming information from the collaboration, students must reflect on the quality of the work (their own and others) and “whether or how it could be improved” (Grant 2009). Heafner and Friedman found that as students collaborated on a project, they offered suggestions, gave recommendations, and asked questions (2008). This type of reflective collaboration only takes place in an environment where collaborative communities “define the relevance, usefulness and validity of knowledge for themselves, but that knowledge is also contingent on broader social, cultural and historical constructions of knowledge” (Grant 2009). Additionally, seeing learners as having the potential to legitimately contribute to the work of the real world give that activity meaning and relevance (Grant 2009).

=Safety= Safety is an issue that schools must address to engage [students] in productive and creative social learning through Web technologies while protecting them from undue harm (Sharples, Graber, Harrison, & Logan 2009). Sharples et al suggest that adults who see the ease with which children adopt the medium [web 2.0] and make it their own think it is unsafe (2009). They continue to imply that the responsibility to help children develop appropriate skills for engaging with the new social media resides with schools (2009). Explicitly teaching digital citizenship as outlined in the ISTE NETS for students (2007) is the best way to make that happen. Schools that understand the “norms, habits and risks of social networking” can provide guidance to students (Sharples et al 2009). To scaffold appropriate behavior teachers must hold students accountable for their digital footprint and time on task.