Module 3: Collaboration

Module 3: Collaboration

In module 3, I watched a video of Howard Rheingold talking about the innate sense of individuals to collaborate and seek out groups. Rheingold spoke of collaboration occurring in early civilizations such as when the “nomadic hunters. He went on to describe a range of methods in which technology produces collaboration tools such as Wikipedia.

It is my belief that humans do possess an innate instinct to collaborate as presented by Rheingold in his presentation. Often when I taught technology to elementary students, I would see from all of the age groups that when paired with others or placed in groups, many students will collaborate to accomplish objectives. According to Driscoll, constructivist theory is based on the conjecture that individuals construct knowledge as they endeavor to comprehend experiences (Driscoll, 2005). Technology offers several conduits to learning. Furthermore, Rheingold referred to the collaboration that was promoted as a result of the printing press. This innovation helped to evolve individuals into literacy which generated innovative forms of collective action in the realms of knowledge, religion and politics (Rheingold, 2008).

Collaborative and self-directed learning, engagement, inquiry, and knowledge construction can all be enhanced by way of technology and technological devices. Online access enables classroom equity and places a greater demand on learners because access to new information technology requires learners to become disciplined readers. The internet facilitates construction of knowledge and learner engagement.

Discussion comments and points of interest typify the attentive critique and analysis of individual experiences and ventures. Individuals use constructivist processes in preparing for online discussions as well as participating in them. The collaboration offered by each of the participants is developed carefully and used to show evidence of the various other learning resources and associations to course work. Learners read the issue which is up for discussion, then they assess the material and texts, read and provide their thoughts in relation to the contribution of other learners, and then articulate their own responses.

The Dunkel, Shams and George article (2011) presents the Expansive Collaboration (EC) Model’s theoretical background and role in providing students in disciplines within various educational environments. Although transdisciplinary and multi-institutional approaches create synergy not possible with a simpler collective, the EC model works differently based upon educational and community settings. The findings of the study indicate that the model operates under the premise that teaching environments, created when these diverse working teams form, deepen student interest and learning by promoting critical thinking, creative problem-solving, and enhance communication skills needed to solve nuanced issues.

References

Dunkel, F. V., Shams, A. N., & George, C. M. (2011). Expansive Collaboration: A Model for Transformed Classrooms, Community-Based Research, and Service-Learning. NACTA Journal, 55(4), 65-74.

Rheingold, H. (2008, February). Howard Rheingold on collaboration. Retrieved 4/9/12 from
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/howard_rheingold_on_collaboration.html

Module 2 Blog Post

8845 Module 2 Blog Post:

Kerr (2007) asks “Should we stick to -isms or should we be more pragmatic and just cherry pick different useful ideas out of the various theories?” This question is intriguing because as students, researchers, and experts we all have an obligation to conduct solid research which is grounded in theory. Researchers within each discipline should endeavor to add knowledge to that discipline and consequently supply illustrations which speak to the fundamental questions of the discipline. This can seem like a daunting task because grasping an understanding of all of the –isms requires a substantial amount of effort (Kerr, 2007).

The same concept is valid for selecting –isms as well. For that reason, knowledge of multiple approaches and theories can be, above all, valuable in facilitating more in-depth as well as precise research. Kapp (2007) implies that he has no definite answer as to which –ism reigns supreme but he does feel that –isms require amending. I agree that in order to ensure accuracy and validity, researchers must possess ample knowledge of theories within their discipline and those closely related. This seems to be a lot of information to digest because the evolution of an –ism can be persuaded by theorists who have different beliefs as well as those theories changing the views of those who were not on board initially (Kerr, 2007).

Kapp (2007) asks “What is the best, how do we know what makes sense or what doesn’t?” This is an important question that ultimately assists in making determinations as to deciding the exact theory or theories are best suited. The argument could be made that -isms contain weaknesses in different areas; yet, combining them can contribute to its evolution on top of presenting a more well-rounded study. According to Kapp (2007), there is no impeccable –ism, he postulates that behaviorism nor constructivism can answer how individuals process information on its own. Lower level or lower cognitive load learning is in line with behaviorist concepts involving memory, labels and recognition. Thought must be given to how they will influence the objectivity of the intended researcher. Furthermore, constructivism puts prominence on collaboration, creativity, problem solving along with procedural and rule based learning (Kapp, 2007).

Reference

Kerr, B. (2007, January 1). _isms as filter, not blinker. Retrieved March 27, 2012 from http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/2007/01/isms-as-filter-not-blinker.html

Kapp, K. (2007, January 2). Out and about: Discussion on educational schools of thought. Retrieved March 27, 2012 from http://www.kaplaneduneering.com/kappnotes/index.php/2007/01/out-and-about-discussion-on-educational/