Bewarethegeek Goes Digital

A description and analysis of the group learning process

Along with 5 other classmates, the edutweet group was formed. We developed a collaborative, e-learning-based model with Twitter at the centre. In our model we offer methods of asynchronous communication for groups of learners who can’t always meet face to face. Finding ourselves in the same situation due to distance issues and conflicting work commitments, the majority of communication in the group was carried out using the wiki’s discussion board and Twitter, with Today’sMeet for organised online group chats. I found this method of doing group work both effective and relevant as we were using and testing our model at the same time we were developing it. This helped us not only to flesh it out and tweak it where necessary but also showed the model’s effectiveness in an e-learning scenario.

From the group learning process itself I learned that different people work to different schedules and timeframes and each of us, having differing life commitments, will have varying amounts of time available to commit to the project. Also using the internet as an asynchronous communication medium means that responses will not be immediate nor as quick as I wanted them to be and though all of the above was very frustrating and stressful I realised that everyone wanted to achieve on this project but they would all need to do it under their own steam. This removed a lot of tension from me and I think this realisation made the experience a lot more valuable because I wasn’t focusing on forcing a group consensus. I also realised that trying to do so would most likely result in conflict. Furthermore I found that working with people from backgrounds very different to mine exposed me to a range of different approaches to proposing our model and solving problems that I would not have necessarily discovered. This is a prime example of the value of group diversity, as mentioned by Gokhale (2005).

Overall I felt that the experience was very positive. Everyone was very enthusiastic and with the exclusion of a group member who didn’t contribute as much as I felt they should have, everyone worked to deadline and produced high quality work. There was very little conflict, with the majority of members agreeing on models and concepts early on and committing wholeheartedly to the project.

Synthesis of readings and research from this subject

In our model we discussed Salmon’s (2009) 5 Step Model of Learning and its application to our learners. However on reflection I feel this model applies to our group process as well, in particular because we dealt with newer social networking tools such as Twitter and Today’sMeet and there was a varying range of experience with these technologies across the group. Already a frequent user of Twitter I feel I started the experience around Step 4, whereas other members started on Step 1 (Salmon 2009). However what I found interesting was to watch these members progress very quickly through the steps to equal with those members already further along the process. It seemed that the progress of these members was significantly faster than those of us already at Stage 4 (Salmon 2009).

I feel that this is in line with Saunders’ discussion of disclosure and social penetration theory (Altman & Taylor 1973, 1987; cited by Saunders 2008, p. 19). It seemed that the more open and willing to participate a group member was, the more they gained from the project and the faster they articulated Salmon’s steps. Saunders’ also discusses mutual disclosure and the way it can broaden the topics of discussion available (2008, p. 19) and I think this occurred not only in the process of completing the assignment but also because we were each following each other’s Twitter feeds. This added a personal element that we might not have otherwise experienced and also broadened opportunities for social exchange (Saunders 2008, p. 22). While I feel some members may have struggled with the risks of disclosure (2008, p. 19), for example writing online, which can be confronting, I feel that this was starting to be overcome in the end.

In terms of actually forming the group I feel that our experience tallied with that described by Downes (2004) and Kilpatrick et al. (2003). The common interests of both Twitter and social networking and the completion of the assignment brought the members of edutweet together with a common goal. A subsidiary of this was that social exchange (Saunders 2008, p. 19) also occurred, thus increasing the viewpoints expressed and shared and furthering each individual’s own learning.

Finally, Bandura’s work, as discussed by Cornford (Bandura, 1977, 1997; cited by Cornford 1999) with regard to modelling and learning seems to apply well here. Members of the group who were less comfortable with the technologies used modelled those who were. As a form of observational learning, this seemed very effective, though it did rely on a willingness to be mentored (Cornford 1999). Furthermore, a comparison between the person’s current and desired skill sets would have been made to determine whether learning by observation was appropriate (Cornford 1999).

A reflection of how this process can further inform your experiences of learning communities

Previous experiences with learning communities in this subject focused on a learning community that was already formed. Members already had established roles, varying skill sets and a range of social bonds. Here, we formed a group between members with few connecting ties and the common goal of completing the assignment. Therefore this experience was informative from the perspective that it added another level of depth to learning communities. Rather than having a brief interlude in an already formed community, the group learning process here allowed me to experience the formation, interaction and conclusion of being in a learning community – the entire process. Furthermore, retrospectively analysing the community in this manner gives me a kind of dual vision – I have interacted with the members of my group, in itself a small learning community, and experienced social and educational gain through disclosure and group diversity (Wenger 1999; Saunders 2008; Gokhale 2005). However I have also been able to experience the community from an academic and analytical point of view in the form of this essay. Being able to apply theory to the experience, I have found, gives way to additional frameworks and ways of understanding what I’ve experienced, which I feel adds further value to the experience and will also help me to apply these theories to future group work situations in both my studies and my workplace.

References

• Cornford, I. 1999 ‘Social learning’, in J. Athanasou (ed.), Adult educational psychology, Social Science Press, Katoomba, NSW, pp. 73-96.
• Downes, S, 2004, Learning in communities, Australian Flexible Learning Community, viewed 25 March 2009, <http://community.flexiblelearning.net.au/GlobalPerspectives/content/article_5249.htm>
• Gokhale, A. 1995. Collaborative Learning Enhances Critical Thinking, Journal of Technology Education, Vol 7, No 1.
• Kilpatrick, S., Barratt, M., Jones, T. 2003, Defining learning communities, viewed online March 24, 2009 <http://www.aare.edu.au/03pap/jon03441.pdf>
• Salmon, G. 2009 Running e-tivity plenaries – 5 Stage Model, E-tivities – The Key to Active Online Learning. Viewed online on 2 June, 2009 <http://www.atimod.com/e-tivities/5stage.shtml>
• Saunders, S. 2008, ‘Social Psychology of Adult Learning’, in Athanasou, J. (ed.), Adult Educational Psychology, edn 2, Sense Publishers, Rotterdam, ch.3.
• Wenger, E. 1999, Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity, Cambridge University Press, USA.