A design goal for any group activity should be to build strong group interdependence, the "one for all and all for one" camaraderie that encourages members to help each other work toward a common objective. This can be as simple as offering bonus points to a study group if everyone in the group scores above a certain minimum grade on an assignment, test, or individual paper. This will motivate the better-prepared students to help and encourage the members who are most likely not going to meet the goal, and the less-prepared students are likely to work harder so as not to disappoint the group.
An example of effective goal interdependence coupled with peer instruction was used by Online Learning Statistics Professor Tom Barker, who gave a quiz to his class that he had organized into study teams. The teams were advised prior to their fourth and last quiz that if everyone on the team scored above 80% correct, then everyone would get 2% bonus points added to their score. And if everyone on a team scored above 90%, then each team member would receive 3% bonus points added to their score. The result?
Group members need to interact frequently; this is best accomplished if groups have fewer than six members.
The Online Learning Department has created an online evaluation tool called Clipboard. The best use of this tool, however, is not simply at the end of a team project, but 25% - 30% into the process, when students can learn from the feedback and make adjustments. According to Barbara Millis, director of faculty development at the US Air Force Academy and author of "Managing!-and Motivating!-Distance Learning Group Activities", peer evaluation helps to build team skills as it "permits students to reflect on their process and outcomes, and provides teachers with continuous feedback." As examples, she recommends, after an assignment is completed, students respond to the following questions:
For example, Online Learning faculty member Kitren VanStrander used the peer evaluation tool created by Online Learning with her Intro to Quality class. They completed the tool at four points during the teams' work throughout the quarter. The feedback they received informed them of their performance along the way, and was in itself beneficial to learning about quality improvement.
Group project evaluations are peer evaluation in another form. Once projects are completed and posted, groups evaluate one another's projects according to the project criteria. For example, for his Software Process Management class, Online Learning faculty member Tim Wells asks students to propose a topic to cover from the list of course topics. Teams of five people are assembled and grouped by similarity of topics. Students write individual reports and comment on one another's work. Students are asked to criticize the work of their peers, providing both positive feedback and suggestions for improvement for certain milestones (outline, draft report). Students are asked to pay particular attention to references in the report and to suggest other references, with a rationale for those suggestions.
Devise assignments whereby students develop expertise in different topics and are charged with teaching other students in a structured format (develop an activity, an interactive online lecture, a game, a quiz).
Barbara Millis, director of faculty development at the US Air Force Academy and author of "Managing!-and Motivating!-Distance Learning Group Activities", suggests that clear instructions include an estimate of the time involved to do the work; this helps students budget their time.
Millis explains that "heterogeneous grouping, deliberately mixing students based on achievement level, gender, ethnicity, academic interests, learning styles or other relevant factors... will typically permit students to work constructively with other individuals who bring different strengths and approaches to academic tasks... preparing students for the modern work place and for society as a whole." Most authorities agree that instructors should form groups to ensure students are exposed to diverse ideas.
Keep collaborative teams together long enough to do needed team-building and to create a meaningful product; this may take at least half of an academic quarter.
Establish a way to differentiate individual work, by monitoring discussion, establishing milestone "meetings," requiring progress reports. Grades for team effort alone raise student concerns about those who will not do their fair share, but receive the grade others have earned. Clear grading should have a mechanism to grade individual as well as group effort. How is this done?
Be sure that email is used only for "housekeeping" details (i.e., when to chat, where to post, format of written work) and the discussion board is reserved for posting substantial work and for discussion of content or issues. In this way, the communication posted on the discussion board is substantive and easier to evaluate.
Students who say they do not like collaborative projects may have had a bad experience in a team where some members procrastinated, or where they took on more than a fair share of the workload, or where communication was difficult. Make collaborative work more attractive by giving students more control over process and outcomes. Allow students choice in learning activities, decision-making, initiation of activity, and end-products. For example: RIT faculty member Christine Sevilla allows her students in Strategic Planning & Evaluation to select from an array of potential topics for their group assignment and for individual projects. Among the potential assignments is the opportunity to define unique projects with guidance from the instructor.
Provide a timeline for work to be done, with milestones for meaningful chunks of work.
Allow students to relate and apply coursework to student needs, interests, and to their workplace or life experience. Direct and immediate application of course concepts is motivating and enhances the learning.
Model questioning with open-ended questions to start and then encourage questions and dialogue within the group. Encourage negotiation within the group by beginning the process.
Communications Professor David Neumann finds that collaboration begins best with a conversation.
Students expect timely and direct feedback, but it should not always be posted publicly. A message of praise or a message with pointers for improvement should be sent privately, while messages explaining or contributing to course content should be added to the course discussion.
Start a debate, ask for a critique, establish a panel discussion, solve a problem... ask any open-ended question.
Instructors are needed to guide the discussion in the right direction. A reply to every message will halt discussion. Small groups need the freedom to conduct their own discussions.