When you look at a single paragraph taken out of context, it is exactly that – a single paragraph taken out of context. It is too bad this single paragraph touching on the use of electronic-mediated communications for decision making, was chosen to be representative of the author’s viewpoint of electronic communications for learning, which is probably inaccurate. The authors’ clearly believe in the positive possibilities of group membership and certainly acknowledge the fundamental human motivation for interaction with other human beings. Having said that, it would seem their viewpoints expressed on group decision-making via electronic communication (on pg. 281) are part of a larger defense where they are comparing the advantages and disadvantages of group vs individual decision-making. Their primary defense for group decision-making as a more effective process with greater gains, rests on the merits of process gain (two minds are better than one), greater collective recall of significant information and greater probability of identifying misleading or inaccurate information. All of which can be facilitated in electronic encounters as easily as in face-to-face group encounters.
One of the main points the authors make on computer-mediated decision-making is too much information about the other who is, or others who are collaborating, is missing. Visual clues to character traits of the individuals involved in the group process are not readily available to all participants.
Another key point Johnson & Johnson make on this topic is the inherent need people have to make person-to-person contact. It is this contact that sparks innovation and creativity often leading to the dynamic interactions of group work and the attainment of group goals. Oftentimes immediate reactions to body and facial cues which tend to spur heated conversations and controversy can be avoided with electronic communication. While it is true that when compared with face to face interactions you lose some non-verbal communication, you also lose intimidation, fear of group rejection, fear of negative peer judgment, fear of being ostracized, etc., which are precipitated on visual and physical clues. It is difficult to subtly intimidate someone in writing. People are less likely to write slams and textual attacks and more likely to say them in the heat of the moment. Intense human emotions can work both ways. With real-time group collaborations, there is always the risk that the social aspect will begin to overshadow the progress and productivity of the group.
The authors mention the concept of social facilitation as a mechanism for intellectual impairment. On simpler (often rote/practiced tasks) performance can be enhanced by peer evaluation, but this is rarely the case for more difficult tasks unless a high degree of group trust has been established. With electronic communication systems even a low-level of group trust is adequate because of the inherent perception (whether accurate or not) that peer evaluation is minimized in electronic group interactions. The argument can now be made that electronic anonymity can be utilized in a positive way, with electronic collaborations between ‘unfamiliar’ students designed to spark intellectual disequilibrium, at the same time minimizing social impairment or interference. The distribution of perceived and real power is also enhanced in electronic collaborations as it can be designed so that all participants have equal opportunity for contribution to the whole. After all, rejection is easier to take if someone edits your written words as opposed to rejection in front of your peers.
In comparing the group decision-making process to collaborative learning (classroom or electronic), the advantages and disadvantages for group decision-making outlined in Figure 7.1 on pg. 268 of the textbook can be made for collaborative learning as well. There are learning tasks and situations where student collaboration can be highly effective. There also are circumstances where individual student learning is more efficient and more productive. Masterful teachers are those who can make these distinctions. Learning new material for the first time is probably best if undertaken by individual learners. Reinforcement, refinement, and expansion of learned material is best when undertaken by a group of practiced learners. Ultimately in the classroom both methods can, and should be used sequentially to provide the best environment for learning.
If group diversity is one of the factors that positively influences intellectual process gains and intellectual risk-taking, it would seem that most classrooms cannot provide this optimal diversity. This is where electronic educational groups offer the greatest advantage for educational purposes; they hold the greatest possibility for intellectual, socioeconomic, religious, racial, ethnic, gender and geographic diversity. If, in addition, our public education system remains committed to producing students with critical thinking skills, that goal cannot be attained at the level of the individual. Individual learners lack the objectivity necessary to honestly evaluate the merits and deficiencies of their own thought processes. ‘I think therefore I am’ is not enough for today’s learners or educators. ‘We think therefore we change’, and in the final analysis change equates with learning and with survival. We argue that this ‘we exchange’ can occur electronically with greater efficiency and greater productivity.
The ubiquitous of digital media communication requires that educators recognize the powerful momentum it has gained. Online communication is layered in overlapping tiers of "connectedness"from the local level all the way to global dissemination of information. It is becoming a necessity to be facile with online communication regardless of preference.
Face to face conferring is not always possible as groups and individuals interact from greater and greater distances. Video conferences offer a good solution to the concerns raised by the authors; one can read the others in a video conference to a certain degree.
The advantages and gains offered by online community offset many of the disadvantages suggested by the authors. Engaging the use of digital media for cooperative sharing and learning moves the experience beyond classroom walls and outweighs the possibility of misinterpreted exchanges/information garnered from ‘body language’. Children are learning to ‘read’ and respond within online forums, they are mastering digital language and all it's nuances. Portals opened through digital media offer a comprehensive perspective - which has the potential to equalize educational opportunities and to expand the individual learner's personal horizons for global learning.
Computer-supported cooperative and collaborative learning presents opportunities to individuals whose communication-capabilities are circumscribed by handicaps or special-needs. This environment also supports rich, student-centered learning where the child makes the decisions and asks the questions. There is too much at stake to dismiss the opportunity to continue to develop and expand computer-mediated decision-making. Technology is here and creating rich and supportive learning spaces for students will help propel them into a future with the tools to achieve success.
No comments:
Post a Comment