Group Dynamics & the 21st Century Learner: Artifacts & Reflections
Course: EDUC 5105G Online Technology in Education
Professor: Francois Dejardins
Artifact: Ely High Blog
Artifact Description:
This artifact was a group presentation in the form of a blog. The purpose was to inform the class about a specific theory of change; in this case Ely's Conditions of change.
Reflection:
For this assignment we were asked to present information to the class about a specific theory of change. My group and I decided that we wanted to try something different then the presentations which we were all accustomed to. We decided that instead of creating a presentation where we delivered information and then had class participation in the form of an activity. We decided to create a scenario in the form of a blog.The class was given the following scenario: "The government has given the school board one year to demonstrate effective implementation of this technology at Ely High. Should the board be unable to demonstrate effective technological integration, the funding will be withdrawn. If they are successful, more schools within the board will receive a similar grant." Each member of the group was to be a person within the school who had difficulties implementing technology. The class was divided up into groups which followed a specific character.The classes objective was to figure out what those issues were and to help them to resolve them through a collaboration of discussion between the groups and the characters. Each character had 2 specific issues that were related to Ely's conditions of Change. Through a combination of a 2 way dialogue and group collaborations the class as a whole would be able to figure out what the conditions for change were without having a formal presentation.
This presentation works on two levels of collaboration. As you can see from the figure on the left the characters are represented by the circles on top. The second arrow shows a two way interaction between the class and the characters. This results in a collaboration of ideas which are represented in the blog responses. This continued collaboration occurs when together the group works to understand the theory. In the consolidation the presenters explain the results of all of the blog collaborations which is the constructed knowledge of the theory.
This presentation was unique and with it came some difficulties. The presenters could not control when the class responded to the blogs and thus the success of the presentation rested in the hands of the class.Some characters were not responding in a timely manner and students had to be prompted to respond which given time restraints made it difficult at times to create that collaborative experience. As well, given the fact that response times varied, gaining momentum was at times difficult. However, the end result was a collaborative experience and I felt it was a good one.
The Presenters as a group collaborated relatively easily, it only became difficult when the expectation was to have a group collaboration using an asynchronous environment. Each response had to be read and responded to and not always was this done in a timely manner. I wonder if it had been a synchronous class would it have turned out differently? I think that the live interactions would have changed the collaborative experience in that the class would have been able to respond quicker and perhaps the nature of the discussion might have been different, but I don't think that the results would have changed. They still would have been able to discover their characters issues, just with more interaction.
The Presenters as a group collaborated relatively easily, it only became difficult when the expectation was to have a group collaboration using an asynchronous environment. Each response had to be read and responded to and not always was this done in a timely manner. I wonder if it had been a synchronous class would it have turned out differently? I think that the live interactions would have changed the collaborative experience in that the class would have been able to respond quicker and perhaps the nature of the discussion might have been different, but I don't think that the results would have changed. They still would have been able to discover their characters issues, just with more interaction.
Artifact #2: 5005g Social & Cultural Context of Education
Professor: Allyson Eamer
Artifact #2: Presentation about Islamophobia ( partner Kevin Walchuk)
Artifact Description:
Students will be responsible for effectively conveying the content of a specific reading to the rest of the class i.e. function as the expert on the article’s content and as facilitator of a discussion of relevant topics. The student will be expected to be highly familiar with the assigned article, and to make a 15 minute presentation on the article, connecting its content with themes raised in this course, followed by 10 minutes of student-led discussion.
Reflection:
For this assignment we were asked to pick a topic that we were interested in and that informed our groups. Kevin and I had never worked together on an assignment and this was his first class. This added another level to our dynamic.
This was my sixth course so I naturally took the lead in selecting the technology we would use to create our presentation.In our initial meeting we decided to read the article and meet again to discuss how we wanted to present it. In the time between our meeting I set up our slide rocket for our presentation. Kevin had not used this technology before, so there was an element of skill development added to our work together. As Kevin and I continued to work together it was evident that our skills in presenting information were different. In the last 6 course I had done numerous presentations and tried to draw from that knowledge to guide our presentation, Kevin seemed to rely on putting as much information as he could on each slide. It was interesting trying to adjust the presentation without offending Kevin. To his credit Kevin was completely amenable to any suggestions that I made and seemed to encourage me taking the lead. I feel that Kevin and I collaborated well together. We were able to draw on our strengths to make the project work and in the end created a quality piece of work.
It was far easier to work with one other person than in a group. We were able to get our points across and were able to reflect on each others contributions in a respectful way. At the end of our presentation Kevin and I agreed to engage in an authentic discussion about the articles and it was in this discussion that we were able to reflect on the article. his is something that would have been difficult to do in a group. This was a great collaborative experience, that led to a great presentation.
Professor: Allyson Eamer
Artifact #2: Presentation about Islamophobia ( partner Kevin Walchuk)
Artifact Description:
Students will be responsible for effectively conveying the content of a specific reading to the rest of the class i.e. function as the expert on the article’s content and as facilitator of a discussion of relevant topics. The student will be expected to be highly familiar with the assigned article, and to make a 15 minute presentation on the article, connecting its content with themes raised in this course, followed by 10 minutes of student-led discussion.
Reflection:
For this assignment we were asked to pick a topic that we were interested in and that informed our groups. Kevin and I had never worked together on an assignment and this was his first class. This added another level to our dynamic.
This was my sixth course so I naturally took the lead in selecting the technology we would use to create our presentation.In our initial meeting we decided to read the article and meet again to discuss how we wanted to present it. In the time between our meeting I set up our slide rocket for our presentation. Kevin had not used this technology before, so there was an element of skill development added to our work together. As Kevin and I continued to work together it was evident that our skills in presenting information were different. In the last 6 course I had done numerous presentations and tried to draw from that knowledge to guide our presentation, Kevin seemed to rely on putting as much information as he could on each slide. It was interesting trying to adjust the presentation without offending Kevin. To his credit Kevin was completely amenable to any suggestions that I made and seemed to encourage me taking the lead. I feel that Kevin and I collaborated well together. We were able to draw on our strengths to make the project work and in the end created a quality piece of work.
It was far easier to work with one other person than in a group. We were able to get our points across and were able to reflect on each others contributions in a respectful way. At the end of our presentation Kevin and I agreed to engage in an authentic discussion about the articles and it was in this discussion that we were able to reflect on the article. his is something that would have been difficult to do in a group. This was a great collaborative experience, that led to a great presentation.