h1

iCamp Trial 2 initial scheme

July 16, 2007

Barbara Kieslinger asked me to make the scheme of Trial 2 of iCamp Project. Here is something preliminary to discuss. The lines connecting tools and activities actually mean the free choice (coupling) among those tools on the basis of affordances perceived in the activities at team level and anticipated tool affordances.

trial 2 image

LEARNERS MAKE WEBLOGS AND VIDEO OR PHOTOLOGS TO GET INTRODUCED.
Getting introduced patterns

FACILITATOR INTRODUCES PROJECTS, MAYBE IN WEBLOG. FACILITATOR INTRODUCES HOW WORK IS ORGANISED.

LEARNERS SELECT TEAM ACCORDING TO THE PROJECT.

AFTER ASSEMBLING TEAM ENVIRONMENT AND DISTRIBUTING TASKS THEY DO PERSONAL CONTRACTS.

trial2

Some ideas:
http://tihane.wordpress.com/2007/02/19/work-distribution-patterns/
Community-directed application of contracts
What are conversational contracts

PEER-EVALUATION PAIRS MUST BE CREATED TO MONITOR PERSONAL CONTRACTS AT CERTAIN TIMES. ONLY TEAM-MEMBERS CAN DO IT FROM INSIDE BECAUSE THEY KNOW WHAT IS ESSENTIAL FROM THE PROJECT ASPECT AND WHAT TASKS THEY DIVIDED TO PEOPLE.

TEAMS CONSTRUCT THE PROJECT IN SHARED AREA, THEY CAN ALSO AGGREGATE PROJECT FROM PERSONAL ARTIFACTS, BUT BETTER TO MAKE SHARED ARTIFACT OR CONSTRUCT SOMEWHERE.

CERTAIN TIME-SLOTS MUST BE DECIDED TO ANALYSE TEAM-MEMBERS BY PERSONAL CONTRACTS FROM THE PROJECT ASPECT. TEAM CAN DECIDE TO CHANGE PERSONAL CONTRACTS AT SOME EXTENT IF PROJECT DEVELOPS DIFFERENTLY. BUT THIS CAN HAPPEN ONLY AT CERTAIN ANALYSIS/REFLECTION MOMENTS.

FACILITATOR SUPPORTS TEAMS AT TEAM/PROJECT LEVEL USING WEBLOG AND MONITORS THE TEAMS IN THEIR AGGREGATORS. FACILITATOR DOES NOT DO PERSONAL-CONTRACT LEVEL SUPPORT BECAUSE HE/SHE IS OUTSIDER.

TEAM-MEMBERS EVALUATE EACH OTHER IN THE END OF THE PROJECT USING CONTRACTS, THEY MAY NEED TO PRESENT IT TO THE FACILITATOR SO THAT IT WAS CONTEXTUALISED.
FACILITATOR CAN EVALUATE THE INDIVIDUAL CONTRACTS ONLY IN THE END.

FACILITATOR EVALUATES THE PROJECT. WILL WE LET THE TEAM ALSO TO EVALUATE THE PROJECT?

About these ads

3 comments

  1. Thank you Kai for getting this started. I do have a few questions I would like to further discuss with you on the schema:
    1. as in the first trials we were not distinguishing from the beginning between facilitators and learners (actually I hope that the facilitators will be learners also to a certain extent in our trials ;-))
    So I would prefer to talk about people or actors and then for certain activities we could distinguish between facilitators and learners (e.g. the learning contracts will only be kept by the learners; but then e.g. introducing oneself could also be done by the facilitators (or maybe some of them already have a weblog or personal website they would want to provide)

    2. shall we have contacts for the team and for the individual? I thought that the learning contract will be something individual; but of course the group also has to do some negotiation regarding the joint project; this had also taken place in the first trials where the groups individually established their “regulatory space”. So the question is in how far do we want to intervene here and suggest something from the beginning?

    3. individual learning contract: according to the draft it seems that only the peers can comment on the learning contract. Don’t you think that the facilitators might also want to give feedback to the individual learning contract or that the learners themselves might want to get some feedback from the facilitators? At least once or twice during the whole period?

    4. let me summarize the assessment process (because this is something that we had quite some discussions on during our first trials with the facilitators):

    peer assessment within the group (peers assess their peers on an individual basis)
    self assessment reflected in the personal learning contract
    facilitators assesses the project of the group
    group assessment: shall the group also assess the final project outcome? I think it would be good, but maybe we should discuss this also with the facilitators because finally we also have to agree on some weighting for the different assessment parts.

    Generally I think that the assessment again will need some intense discussion with the facilitators.

    Then I was wandering about the image: should we reduce some of the connections and only indicate some examples or some suggestions (e.g. that have proven to be a good choice from the first trials)? Currently it is hard to recognize which tools can be used for which activities; we do want to leave it mainly up to the users, but still I think that we could indicate some suggestions. Or maybe we can leave them but highlight in some colors those that we can recommend?


  2. 1. as in the first trials we were not distinguishing from the beginning between facilitators and learners (actually I hope that the facilitators will be learners also to a certain extent in our trials ;-))

    Actually I agree with you. But i kept two lines to make it more clear what the facilitator might do in respect to supporting and evaluation.

    So I would prefer to talk about people or actors and then for certain activities we could distinguish between facilitators and learners (e.g. the learning contracts will only be kept by the learners; but then e.g. introducing oneself could also be done by the facilitators (or maybe some of them already have a weblog or personal website they would want to provide)

    The last comment is what i agree with, everyone needs to get acquainted. I have no good idea how exactly to indicate it on the figure. The other aspect is that team also monitors and supports its members at projectwork, not only the facilitators.

    2. shall we have contacts for the team and for the individual?

    I think we agreed that at team level there will be just communication and sort of contract what they try to keep but that they dont formulate as a contract document.

    But some common ground is essential to preapere individual contracts. Figure 2 was my initial image how to shift between discused contract at group level to the individual contracts and back.

    I thought that the learning contract will be something individual; but of course the group also has to do some negotiation regarding the joint project; this had also taken place in the first trials where the groups individually established their “regulatory space”. So the question is in how far do we want to intervene here and suggest something from the beginning?

    I think facilitators can suggest them to organise work in team from the project perspective. This will provide them with the need for some task-regulation, activity-planning and evaluation..that is more or less what contract is. We should not tell them much about contracts, but they must be aware that contract will slow them down in projectwork and give them new experiences of reflecting ones own activities. If contract elements are built in to the wiki/blog then there is no need to talk of individual conversational contracts per se..or maybe one time how this kind of work is helpful.

    3. individual learning contract: according to the draft it seems that only the peers can comment on the learning contract. Don’t you think that the facilitators might also want to give feedback to the individual learning contract or that the learners themselves might want to get some feedback from the facilitators? At least once or twice during the whole period?

    This is tricky because facilitators do not invest equally much on this trial supporting. Maybe the facilitator could help to support the peer-evaluation process rather than evaluate the student’s contract?
    I would let the students to present their evaluations in the middle of planning and in the middle of some project realization and then in the end. The facilitator could be involved in this peer evaluation presentation and give his/her comments and suggestions how to improve the process. If facilitator intervenes to this evaluation what is meant to increase individual self-regulation during the project we will break down the team and create artificially situation where each student interacts with the facilitator and not with the team-members what they actually should do.
    I would suggest that facilitator can evaluate the fulfilled contract in the end of the project.

    4. let me summarize the assessment process (because this is something that we had quite some discussions on during our first trials with the facilitators):

    peer assessment within the group (peers assess their peers on an individual basis)

    how each person fulfilled the contract that was necessary to work together on the project
    I think each person should make for itself some challenges what she/he is interested in in that project. So the fulfilment and methods of these challenges and evaluation of what the student wanted to be evaluated about should be also part of this peer assesment.

    self assessment reflected in the personal learning contract

    Ok

    facilitators assesses the project of the group

    ok

    group assessment: shall the group also assess the final project outcome? I think it would be good, but maybe we should discuss this also with the facilitators because finally we also have to agree on some weighting for the different assessment parts.

    I think it is actually part of the project cycle that they must evaluate what they reached

    Generally I think that the assessment again will need some intense discussion with the facilitators.

    Then I was wandering about the image: should we reduce some of the connections and only indicate some examples or some suggestions (e.g. that have proven to be a good choice from the first trials)? Currently it is hard to recognize which tools can be used for which activities; we do want to leave it mainly up to the users, but still I think that we could indicate some suggestions. Or maybe we can leave them but highlight in some colors those that we can recommend?

    i think the image may be as it is (except maybe some changes later in the facilitators/learners activities).
    I would rather provide the students with some example cases how it happened in trial 1.

    For example:
    how people get introduced in trial 1 by using blogs, communication tools, social bookmarking

    how people worked collaboratively using these tools, what were the pitfalls

    We cannot reduce many arrows because we can of course suggest that aggregator will aggregate certain tools and then the shered environment is actually this new aggregation. I think students may need some examples of aggregated environments. A good idea would be showing them some of the schemes my students made..but many are in estonian.

    This assembling of the group environment is crucial and it is not so easy to understand for people who are not familiar with tools. The whole concept of rrs feed is very unclear for many and they have problems in viewing their learning space as the flow of information not as the bunch of tools. This is something i could tell to facilitators of my experiences, but not at this meeting.

    There is ppt in Slideshare net about these environments and activity patterns which you may indicate.

    http://www.slideshare.net/kpata/web-20-landscapes


  3. [...] of this topic: Trial 2 [...]



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: