This blog has the same title as one of the
recommended papers for this topic (no 3) in the course, written by Neus
Capdeferro and Margarida Romero (see the full reference below). I will discuss
and reflect upon that theme from two perspectives: As a teacher in a course
based on collaborative learning (i.e. problem-based and project-oriented
learning, PBPOL) and as a participant in an ONL- & PBL-course. In the later,
the collaboration is on distance, in the former both on distance and at campus.
Capdeferro and Romero claims, based on some other studies described in the
paper, that students engaged in collaborative learning activities could feel a
high level of frustration. They define the concept of frustration based on Mandler
(1975): “a negative emotion aroused upon encountering an obstacle in the
achievement of a task, goal, or expectation, or in satisfying one’s needs”. Sources
of frustration, according to Capdeferro and Romero, are, for example; Lack of
instructions, assessment imbalance, unshared goals and communication
difficulties. To avoid or reduce
frustration among collaborating participants online Brindley, Blaschke and Walti (2009) discuss some measures, for
example: Monitoring and feedback, sufficient time for the task, clear
instructions and motivation for participation embedded in course design.
According to my experiences being
responsible and examiner for a PBPOL-course, the issues and measures mentioned
above are more or less the same in online and campus courses. I recognise and
experiences all discussed in the papers by Capdeferro and Romero (2012) and Lazar,
Jones, Bessiere, Ceaparu and Shneiderman (2004). Hence, I think frustration in
collaborative activities online have more to do with the phenomenon of
collaboration, than if the course is given online or at campus. However, there
seems to be differences on a more underlying level. When students are working
in a team that do not meet in real life, frustrations with other team members can
manifest in an earlier phase, i.e. compared with teams working together at
campus. A reason might be that online-students do not get the possibility to
socialise with each other in a more relaxed setting (for example, eating lunch or
visiting a café together). Due to the distance, students do not get to know
each other well, which prevents trust among participants in a group. This can
described by means of the “Johari window” (Luft and Ingham, 2001), which
is a model with the aim to improving interpersonal communication, in relation
to feedback. The model describes how people in a group needs to have an “open
arena” to create trust, i.e. where they know themselves and also let other know
who they are.
Another reflection on frustration in
collaboration is from my experience of participating in an ONL- &
PBL-course. Compared with the other course, this course is not project-based,
with shorter collaboration tasks in two-week sprints. Due to the course design,
the collaboration is not so complex/extensive than in a PBPOL-course, which to
some part reduce frustration and conflicts. If compared with the well-known
FIRO-model (Fundamental Interpersonal Relationship Orientation) developed by Will
Shutz, the group’s development stays in the “Inclusion phase”, i.e. being
polite and avoiding conflicts. However, because of that, this type of online
course can create frustration, where group members feel that the depth of
collaboration not evolving so much.
References
Capdeferro, N., & Romero, M. (2012).
Are online learners frustrated with collaborative learning experiences?. The
International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(2),
26-44. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v13i2.1127
Brindley, J.,
Blaschke, L. & Walti, C. (2009). Creating Effective Collaborative Learning
Groups in an Online Environment. International Review of Research in Open and
Distributed Learning, 10 (3). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v10i3.675
Lazar, J., Jones,
A., Bessiere, K., Ceaparu, I., & Shneiderman, B. (2004). User frustration
with technology in the workplace. AMCIS 2003 Proceedings. Paper 283.
Retrieved from http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2003/283
Luft J and Ingham H's Johari Window
concept. (2001-4) http://postdoc.hms.harvard.edu
/slides/AliceSapienzaJohariwindowmodel.pdf
Hi Fredrick,
SvaraRaderaVery interesting Blog post and agree with you in a sense that when it comes to the phenomenon Collaboration people can misinterpret or misunderstand what it actually means and when that happens its easy to feel frustrated by small things within the PBL Group.
Kanyisa :)
Hi!
SvaraRaderaYou portray an important dilemma: the tension between a group staying primarily in the "inclusion phase", focusing on being polite and avoiding conflict, and, the associated "depth" of the collaborative inquiry/learning outcome. To some extent, this is also a cultural phenomenon. In my experience, many groups in Sweden see the "inclusion phase" as the ultimate goal, while not recognizing there my be a price to pay for the niceness in terms of depth. I have also experienced, in other settings, much less niceness, and more depth in the shared inquiry, but with sections of the group being stranded or left behind. This begs the question whether the depth (which, in the extension may lead to scientific advances), or, the inclusiveness, is more important, and, down the road, what happens to the world of academia when one prioritizes one or the other? Excellence among a few, or, slightly less excellence (still good though) and morse inclusive? I think one at times can sense this tension in academia. How to optimally promote solid collaboration, in light of this tension, is an intriguing challenge. Sorry for the way too long comment, your blog resonated with a similar experience. Thanks for sharing! // Ingrid
Hej Ingrid, thanks for sharing interesting thoughts. I agree, and I think that many people do not be aware of,or reflect upon, group dynamics in a more systematic way. The strong individualism in the research community is an example of that, from my point of view. And often students focus to quickly on creating efficiency (resource focus) and not effectiveness (flow/value focus). //Fredrik
RaderaDear Fredrik, Thank you for yet an inspiring post. You caught my attention when writing that online-students do not get the possibility to socialise with each other in a more relaxed setting. We know that building trust is important for the learning process, but how could we support building trust in an online setting? Is it possible to socialise in a relaxed online setting? Some examples comes to my mind. One of them is examples I've seen of coffee areas on LMSs or lounge settings in virtual worlds used for higher education. Another example I am thinking of is Gilly Salmon's e-tivities where some of them concerns building trust in online settings. I think it is possible, but it does not come by itself... Best wishes, Karin
SvaraRaderaHi Karin, thanks for your comments. For me, how to work with and mange group/team dynamics in online-settings is really really interesting. From my current PBPOL-course, just recently finished, I've made many reflections, which I hopefully will get time to sort out and learn from later on :-). //Fredrik
SvaraRadera