Collaboration Dynamics

Magdalena Garzn Marta Libedinsky Fundacin Evolucin Argentina mgarzon@fundacionevolucion.org.ar

Abstract: In the Web 2.0 era, collaboration plays a crucial role. How can educators take advantage of the potential that the Web 2.0 offers to develop genuine collaboration among students? What type of activities can strengthen collaboration? What kinds of work dynamics promote and sustain collaboration? This article establishes five modes in which collaboration may be presented: joint, sequential, complementary, mosaic and mirrored production. The purpose of the poster session is to help teachers to design their own collaboration activities.

Introduction
Today promoting collaboration among students is a frequent challenge facing teachers who wish to make use of the advantages and the potential of the Web 2.0. Many of the proposals for collaborative activities or global projects seek to set up exchange methods and collaboration between the participants, not always successfully. What usually happens is that traditional classroom work is divided up via the Internet and the production obtained is not the result of collaborative work. The objective of this piece is to provide teachers with a series of ways to organize and structure collaboration work, so that they may provide their students with genuine collective construction experiences. The collaboration dynamics presented arise from the analysis of global projects within the framework recent research (Manso, Garzn, Rodriguez, Perez, 2010) which outlines a series of qualities required to promote effective ICT integration, and development of students comprehension. Within the aforementioned study, educational proposals were analyzed, and some characteristics were identified that favor collaboration between students. These dynamics are also the result of an analysis of the global projects driven by the Red Telar1, an Argentine school network.

The collaboration concept

We understand collaboration as the situation in which one or more persons learn and try to learn something, together (Dillenbourg, 1999). As indicated by Dillenbourg, together may imply a vast variety of scenarios, from a real shared work to a task divided systematically. The collaborative situation is a type of social contract between individuals, groups or communities, (teachers, students, parents, etc.). The participating parties have a common goal, even though their personal motivations may differ. This implicit social contract specifies how the interactions are to be provided, the conditions required to start

them, and the scenarios and roles that the participants assume (hierarchical or distributed). Within a school context, it is desirable that interactions be facilitated, monitored and regulated, that is to say, that the necessary scaffolding be provided to carry out productive interactions. In a collaborative learning process, the parties are committed to learn something together, therefore a part of what should be learnt during a lesson plan or project, may only be obtained if the group work is performed in collaboration. That is to say, to cooperate in the achievement of a goal, that one cannot achieve individually (Gros, 2000; Wiske, 2006). To collaborate with others it is necessary that the activity be developed by at least two participants (by participants it is understood individual students, or small groups led by their teachers), to work on a common subject, not only simultaneously in time, but also in a coordinated manner, generating a positive interdependence. This implies: -Sharing responsibilities, -Giving and receiving support (emotional and cognitive), -Arguing/discussing own decisions and accepting the decisions of others, -Making agreements, -Listening to opinions, interchanging information, and points of view, -Comparing ideas, interpretations and alternative representations (Stone, 2006). Collaboration requires a clearly established framework for all participants. The objectives of the joint task, the activities implied and the work calender should be made explicit and public and roles and functions must be well outlined. It is advisable that upon starting an activity involving the collaboration of others to take time for the participants to introduce themselves to each other.Also some time is required for closure and for a task evaluation, to analyze the results of the collaboration project. In summary, to work in collaboration requires that the participants are absolutely clear as to the goal they are pursuing (to know what is expected of them in terms of products and learning), and their role (commitments and responsibilities) in the joint task.

Collaboration Dynamics
When designing learning activities based on collaborative tasks, work dynamics must be outlined to promote and sustain the collaboration. We establish five modes in which collaboration may be presented in learning situations: -Joint production -Sequential production -Complementary production -Mosaic production -Mirrored production

Joint production

Figure 1: Representative Outline of the joint production The participants (or group of these), work simultaneously on the same task, studying a common subject during an agreed-to period of time, to obtain a shared product. Even though tasks are distributed internally, all participants are responsible for the total product.

_________________________________
[1] Red Telar www.telar.org

Advantages: The joint production demands a significant degree of coordination between the participants so as not to overlap contributions and respect the contributions of all. It also requires permanent negotiation and argument on decisions and to establish agreements, to arrive at the final version of a product. Disadvantages: To achieve a truly joint production may be difficult among many participants. It is recommended that work groups of two or three persons be established so that negotiations are carried out between a limited number of participants. Example. Associated Classrooms. Students from one class connect with another school classroom, to jointly research a certain topic; in 2010, the topic assigned was Living together. Students must collectively construct a blog that reflects the process and the results of an investigation. They are the ones that determine the sections that make up the report, and organize the tasks. (Developed and managed by Relpe Red Latinoamericana de Portales Educativos {Latin American Network of Educational Sites} www.aulashermanas.org/) Sequential production

Figure 2: Representative Outline of the sequential production Participant 1 develops a production, or does one of the steps, which is a requirement for what participant 2 must perform. Between them all, they develop a final product. Advantages: It generates a commitment; the contribution of each participant is highly valued and necessary. It generates a close relationship between the members who share a process. Disadvantages: Interdependence is concentrated on each of the participants that are a part of the sequence. The project fails if one of the participants does not comply with his part, as this is a requirement so that the others may advance. Example 1. Bb 2.0. Collaborative music and spoken word project: Each participant composes and plays a part of a song, they put the parts together, to play the complete song (Conceived by Darren Solomon from Science for Girls http://www.inbflat.net/ ) Example 2: OneSong. Collaborative Song Writing. The first participant begins the song with just one line. The next person adds another line, and so on. Each participant from across the world contributes one line, adding to the existing ones, and building a truly global song. (http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=16214912331 ) Complementary production

Figure 3: Representative Outline of the complementary production Participant 1 produces a sector of the total, participant 2 another sector, and so on. Between them all, they develop a final product. Generally, the aim is to create a type of electronic publication (wiki, blogs, web sites, digital newspapers, gallery of images), where each participant contributes with his share to a collective publication. In turn, the published works may be commented on by all participants. Advantages: The interdependence between the participants is not essential for the projects success, as each participant is committed to and develops a sector of the total, in an independent manner, and at his own pace. The final product, though less rich, can continue progressing. The same task may even be distributed amongst various participants, in case any of them abandon the project. Disadvantages: The participants are not involved in all the aspects of the project, they will certainly not learn the aspect that they were assigned to investigate in the same way as that investigated by others. With some subsequent activity it will be necessary to reinforce their knowledge, so that all shall know the final product. Example. Newsday Project: Each participant writes an article concerning current local, national, or global issues, and amongst all the participants they conceive a school newspaper. They will also be able to read and choose articles from other schools to download, and include them in their own newspaper (Developed by Global School Net http://www.globalschoolnet.org/gsnnewsday) Mosaic production

Figure 4: Representative Outline of the mosaic production All the participants send the data produced at their location into a common data base, which is later used to perform an analysis or as input to produce the product. Technologically, an empty structure (data base) exists, which each participant completes with his own input. Generally, this deals with data bases that are completed based on the information that the students are gathering or creating. The data bases may be consulted and used by the entire community. The collaboration makes sense only to the extent that an instance is later furnished in which the data gathered is used to perform an analysis, or as input to produce a product. Advantages: The interdependence is distributed amongst all the participants, which insures

the continuity of the project, even if some will give up along the way. Disadvantages: The risk exists that participation may be limited to the first part of the individual contributions and the collaborative part of the work is neglected. This last point is fundamental to establish a type of collaboration that exceeds exhibiting ones own product. Example 1. Multicultural calendar. Each participant describes a holiday at his location; the description produced becomes part of a common annual calendar. All participants may consult the calendar to acquire knowledge about similar or different holidays, the details of what is being celebrated, and the traditions upheld by the people on that day. (Developed and managed by Kidlinks www.kidlink.org) Example 2: The international boiling point project. Each participant boils a certain quantity of water within a controlled environment, and shares the results in a data base. Participants then compare their results with those obtained by participants in other parts of the world, and answer the question: What causes a pot of water to boil? (Developed and managed by the Center for Innovation in Engineering and Science Education (CIESE) http://www.k12science.org/curriculum/boilproj) Mirrored production

Figure 5: Representative Outline of the mirrored production Both participants 1 and 2, perform the same task in a parallel manner: they describe or investigate the same subject, exchanging constructive feedback on the work that the other participant has prepared. The collaboration makes sense in terms of the feedback and/or the analysis of similarities and differences. Advantage: A close link is generated between the pair of participants. Disadvantages: The interdependence is concentrated on both participants. It is necessary to ensure participation, and clarify the commitment that the project implies. Furthermore, the risk exists that participation will be limited to the first part of the individual contribution, and that the work instance with the others production be neglected. This latter point is fundamental to establishing a collaboration type that exceeds exhibiting ones own product. Example 1. My school, your school project. Each participant in a parallel manner, answers several questions concerning his school, this information is then exchanged, descriptions are read, and new questions are mutually exchanged, in depth, on some issues that appeal to them. (Developed and managed by Telar network www.telar.org). Example 2: The MindsEye Monster Exchange Project. Each student must describe a monster they have drawn, to allow another student who has never seen the drawing to redraw the original following the description. The projects aim is that the second drawing be as similar

as possible to the original picture (developed by Brian Maguire and managed by Susy Calvert www.monsterexchange.org) Each one of the aforementioned dynamics may be presented independently or combined. All these imply working together towards achieving a common goal.

Conclusions
The five collaboration dynamics presented may be adopted by teachers to design their own activities within their classroom or with students from other schools. These may also be used by global project designers or other web initiatives to structure exchange between participants. Web 2.0 applications constitute the ideal support to implement these collaboration dynamics, as they were designed to allow persons to exchange and work together, in a simple and intuitive manner. We expect that considering collaboration dynamics in terms of structure, distinguishing the roles of participants and the characteristics of the final production may guide teachers in the design of school activities, and in taking advantage of and using the possibilities provided by Web 2.0 tools.

References
Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by 'collaborative learning'? In P. D. (Ed) (Ed.), Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches (pp. 1-19). University of Geneva, Switzerland: Oxford: Elsevier. Gros, B. (2000). El ordenador invisible. {The invisible computer} Hacia la apropiacin del ordenador en la enseanza. {Towards the adaptation of the computer to teaching} Barcelona: Gedisa. Harris, J., & Hofer, M. (2009). Instructional planning activity types as vehicles for curriculum-based TPACK development . In C. D. Maddux (Ed.), Research highlights in technology and teacher education 2009 (pp. pp. 99-108). Chesapeake, VA: Society for Information Technology in Teacher Education (SITE). International Education and Resources Network. (Ed.) (2010/11). iEARN Project Book. 2010/2011. Learning with the world not just about it USA. Retrieved from http://www.iearn.org/sites/default/files/documents/20102011iEARNProjectBook.pdf January 20, 2011 Manso, M., Garzon, M., Rodriguez, C., & Perez, P. (2010). Qualities of Educational Practices That Support Effective Integration of Information and Communication Technologies and Students Disciplinary Understanding. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Conference (AERA). Denver, CO Wiske, M. S., Franz, K. R., & Breit, L. (2005). Teaching for Understanding with Technology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.

Acknowledgements
7

This publication reports on a research project financed by Canada's International Development Research Centre (www.idrc.ca). The authors wish to thank Micaela Manso from Fundacin Evolucin (Argentina) for her contribution to the writing of this article.

Garzon, M. & Libedinsky, M. (2011). Collaboration Dynamics. In M. Koehler & P. Mishra (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2011 (pp. 288-293). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.