Assignment 2.2
Description of the group learning process
Reflecting on the learning experiences from completing the design of JuJU Online (McAuslan et al 2008), it is clear that our group conformed closely to Tuckman’s four stages of group development (Smith 2005) and I will use these as the basis for my analysis of the group processes.
The JuJus enjoyed a reasonably simple forming stage. This was because the forming process was voluntary, which allowed likeminded people to form groups around a shared context.
The storming phase was not characterised by conflict but rather by a general lack of focus. In this phase there was a tendency for each individual to create their own space within the wiki and a general reluctance to alter the work of others. Whilst this was a very democratic process, where everyone was able to contribute information, it did have the potential to take the task well beyond its original scope. Communication also lacked focus during this stage as there was no clear delineation between the purpose of the Ning forum and the Wiki forums. This had a tendency to make the communication process more demanding than it needed to be.
During the norming process decisions in relation to the scope of the project were made, leading to the establishment of a definitive structure for the site. During this phase the group also overcame its nervousness in relation to changing the work of other group members and, as a result, there was a much greater balance between content creation and the refinement of existing content. As this phase progressed the group members fell into natural roles, with some focusing on the theory side and others focusing on the design itself. Issues around communication were also resolved during this phase with Ning and the wiki being given clearly defined communication roles. A face to face meeting also supplemented the norming process, serving as the final focal point for the group in its creation of a shared vision.
Given the substantial amount of information gathered during the storming and norming phases, the performing phase was a relatively simple process of tweaking and refining the ideas of the group to achieve the final vision.
Was our learning group effective?
Johnson and Johnson (1998) identified five elements that they believed made a learning group effective and I will base my analysis of the effectiveness of the JuJus on these five elements.
The first element is positive interdependence which focuses on the level to which the group works collaboratively to achieve shared goals. Whilst the JuJus lacked some focus at the start, once clear group goals were established there was a strong focus on these goals and minimal distraction from individual goals.
The second element is individual responsibility and accountability. This is concerned with the level to which individuals within the group are accountable for doing their ‘fair share’ of the work. For the JuJus this process was underpinned by the requirement to identify a process for dealing with people who were not pulling their weight. Thankfully, this process was never called upon and participation levels were generally very high. This was due mainly to the high commitment levels of the group members, but was also facilitated by the technology utilised which allowed group members to easily track their own participation levels in relation to those of the other group members.
The third element is promotive interaction which looks at how much the group interacts and encourages each other. The JuJus were certainly very good at this and there was a healthy level of encouragement within the group. The group also performed well in this regards because it created an atmosphere where ideas could be challenged in a non-confrontational manner.
The fourth element is the need for effective groups to have strong social skills that allow the group members to interact effectively. The JuJus social skills were very strong and allowed a cooperative rapport to be established very quickly. This rapport helped bond the team and get it working together effectively, creating an environment where each group member could achieve at a high level.
The fifth element concerns the group’s ability to reflect on the group processes that are occurring and take corrective action as required. The JuJus were very self aware and reflective and were quick to take effective action when group processes were not working.
Overall I believe that the JuJus adhered well to Johnson and Johnson’s (1998) elements and the high quality of the outcome is testament to the merit of these elements as an accurate measure of team effectiveness.
How does this further inform my experiences of learning communities?
Reflecting back on the assessment task, and my readings associated with group learning, I have identified a number of key learnings that I can apply to my own context, these being:
- Group tasks will only truly succeed if the task is relevant to the participants (Lotan 2003). The fact that the JuJus were able to choose a focus that was relevant to us all certainly enhanced the learning experience and this will be a crucial part of group task designs within my context.
- Clear evaluation criteria focuses the group towards common goals (Lotan 2003). Having clear evaluation criteria from the start certainly served to focus our group early and avoid conflict over the way that the task would be completed. These criteria also provided an important focal point to which the group returned when making decisions in relation to the final design.
- Effective group learning incorporates space for fun and socialising (Saunders 1999). This was certainly the case with the JuJus and this element helped bring the group together and create a high level of camaraderie. The importance of face to face elements was also stressed during the completion of this task. The ability to meet face to face once during the process further enhanced this social aspect and helped bond the group.
- It is important that participants in this type of collaboration are given the opportunity, time and support to learn the technology. I initially found using the wiki to be very challenging, as I was required to learn the wiki technology as I was working on the group task. Learning to learn is not an easy task for many adults and time for familiarisation with the technology needs to be factored into any collaborative tasks that I introduce within my context.
Overall, I found this whole process invaluable as it gave me a hands-on demonstration of how collaboration works within the virtual world, something that was not really present in the community that I studied in assignment 1.2 (Reason 2008).
REFERENCES:
Johnson, D. & Johnson, R. (1998). Social psychological applications to social issues. Cooperative learning and social interdependence theory, viewed 25th May 2008, http://www.co-operation.org/pages/SIT.html
Lotan, R. 2003, ‘Group-Worthy Tasks’, Educational Leadership, Vol 60, Issue 6, pp 72-75.
McAuslan, M., Murphy, D., Reason, M., Salter, P., Sleigh, J. & White, N. 2008, Assessment Task 2: Learning Community Design, Sydney, viewed 6th June 2008, http://mendingjuju.wikispaces.com/
Reason, M. 2008, Assignment 1.2, Confessions of an elearning skeptic, Sydney, viewed 25th May 2008, http://malreason.edublogs.org/assignment-12/
Saunders, S. 1999, ‘Social Psychology of Adult Learning’ in James Athanasou (ed.), Adult Educational Psychology, Sydney Social Press, Katoomba, pp 26-71.
Smith, M.K. 2005, ‘Bruce W. Tuckman – forming, storming, norming and performing in groups’, the encyclopaedia of informal education, viewed 30th May 2008, www.infed.org/thinkers/tuckman.htm
Entries (RSS)