Artefact #4: The Collaborative Group Project

I chose this group project because it demonstrated my skill progression across most of the program competencies.  As one of my final group projects in my program, it is also a good reflective piece from the end of my Masters journey.

 Working with two other students on this project required a great deal of coordination due to our vast differences in time zones (4.7).  We also had different ideas of how the project should come together.  While attempting to put this jigsaw together, I was working on a second Masters course, working-full time, and had just moved into my new home, adjusting to my new family situation.  This was the most challenging group assignment I had completed in my Masters program and it was an exercise in being a true professional.

As well as working on my management skills, the type of work involved in the project included components in research, instructional design, communication, and interpersonal skills.

Learning 1: Look at instructional design problems through a different lens

I am grateful to work with fellow students who propose ideas I never considered.  I had heard of the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework for computer-based instruction (Garrison et al., 2000), but until brought forward by one group member, I had not thought of it as an instructional design model for distance education.

Essentially, the CoI model describes how valuable educational experiences are the intersection of thoughtful teaching, social, and cognitive presences.  It is a combination of the roles of the teacher, the interpersonal communication between students, and ongoing intrapersonal cognitive reflection that make up quality learning in an online environment. 

We chose to analyze MDDE 601.  We recognized there were areas of the course that could be improved (1.1) and wondered if the CoI framework could be used, as described by Szeto (2005), as an instructional design (ID) model (1.3, 5.5).  After researching the CoI framework along with other design options, we decided this model worked best for this type of learning environment (1.4, 1.6).  We used this model to analyze the course and identify areas of weakness in the course design (1.2, 2.7).

I found the CoI framework makes a good ID model for analyzing the strengths of an existing course in higher education (2.6).  It reminds the designer to deliberately change focus to encompass all three presences of the CoI model, even when looking at the same learning activity.  Viewing one activity through all three lenses allows a more thorough analysis than using other design models, but context is key in its application (2.4).  The CoI framework would not be useful to a large degree in my work situation, but it certainly supplements my perspective on the use of ID models and reminds me to look at an ID problem from different angles.

Learning 2: Management and organization of a project is as important as the actual work

This was my last larger group project and I considered it my opportunity to improve on a previous project I did a few years back with three members (4.7).  Though the project turned out well, I remember it was more time consuming to try and reach a consensus with three, and it was also more difficult to divide up the work equally.  I was determined that with this group, we would be more efficient at managing tasks and organizing our project (6.5). 

Our professor had us choose a group leader who would communicate directly with him and post the assignment for peer review.  No other leader responsibilities were specified, and no specific roles were outlined for other group members.  Compounding this was a laundry list of challenges. 

Our first challenge was our geographical distance.  We were each four to eight time zones apart so coordinating decision-making took more time, and having three cooks in the kitchen made decision-making challenging.  We felt it was important for each member to have equal access to information and time to reflect, so if a question was posed on a Tuesday, responses and a decision might not be made until Friday.  Even though our group leader set reasonable deadlines for each step in the writing process, we still fell behind schedule because of the time lag between communications. 

Our second challenge became the decision-making itself.  We were a group of three with strong opinions, but initially, no one wanted to cause any resentment by making the final choice.  After we waffled back and forth for a week on choosing a design model, I realized I needed to take the lead to get the project moving forward.  I had to throw emotion out of the equation and make choices for practical reasons only.  After other group projects, I had become rather shrewd when it came to choosing topics that would be easy to adapt to large group management.  There are three presences in the CoI model, which meant there was one for each of us through which to analyze our course design.  I made my case for the CoI model and persuaded the other group members to get moving on the course analysis.  Though I felt one group member was not entirely convinced, I had to stay firm to keep our project on track.

Our third challenge was using collaborative tools effectively.  After choosing a topic, our leader had not appointed a method to write collaboratively online.  At this point in the project, we were a week and a half in, and my frustration level was rising.  Emailing word documents drafts back and forth was not effective because we couldn’t see changes in real time, and I had no idea where each of us was in our writing until an attachment showed up in my inbox. 

In this project, I suggested we use an online collaborative space for our initial research and copy and past any articles of interest.  Though I was not voted the team leader, I took on creating this space and got the ball rolling (3.1, 3.5).  The team leader and I added our pieces to the Google Doc and were easily able to comment on each other’s work back and forth.  Unfortunately, our third group member did not feel comfortable with this approach and submitted her piece via email at the eleventh hour.  At this point, I had to give up on the Google Doc because of the third member’s comfort level with communication technology (3.2).  For the remainder of the project, we emailed comments back and forth on my master draft until we ran out of time to improve it anymore.

If I could do this over, I would probably set up our timelines in a more structured way and strongly suggest sharing our work at particular waypoints to avoid inconsistencies in the final paper.  Our planned timeline was not specific enough with only two deadlines.  We should have required twice-a-week check-ins in some way to ensure everyone was fulfilling their responsibilities.  Because our group was not as like minded and faced greater time constraints than my other group assignments, outlining specific roles and responsibilities for each member would have benefited us enormously.  In our initial Skype meeting, we should have first outlined our goals for the assignment, who would be responsible for each task, and specify our timeline.   I now realize it’s important to also discuss a contingency plan if something goes wrong to ensure accountability of all members.  All these details should have been discussed in the first half hour of our meeting, and only once our planning was solidified, we could then broach the topic of the assignment.

The project eventually came together, but there was a lot of panic and hard feelings near the deadline.  I ended up assuming much of the responsibility over the project at several points along the way due to a lack of consensus and disregard for the communication time lag.

Learning 3: Understand not everyone is at the same place in their journey

I have high expectations of myself regarding quality of work and meeting deadlines.  I tend to expect the same of others, but I need to realize this is unfair.  While it may be reasonable to expect the same level of performance from work colleagues, I cannot expect the same of fellow students who may be working at different levels of experience.

I don’t have much experience using other collaborative technologies, but I have used Google docs successfully on multiple assignments and community projects.  I found the greatest benefit of this software is when coordinating a document with large groups of people.  I found not everyone participates in the document’s development, but just being able to see the progress, or know that you have access to the living document lets others feel that the development is a fair and transparent process. 

I remember being apprehensive using Google docs for the first time, but I am fully aware of the role perspective plays when trying something new for the first time. If I choose to have an open mind, giving myself time to explore the tool and the freedom to make mistakes, I am usually much more successful and confident using an application.  Adobe Connect was a program that I was much more apprehensive about using at first, but my instructor took the time at the beginning of my first session to point out best practices and had us use many of its features during her presentation to increase our comfort levels.   Reflecting back, perhaps I should have introduced Google docs more gently with that group member, instead of expecting her to simply use it.

During this project, I realized that not all of us were ready to use the online collaboration tools available to us.  After many years of learning online and doing group projects, I have not only embraced these tools, but am now as efficient writing online as I am on a Word document (3.1).  I was surprised to learn that one group member still wrote her work on paper, then transposed everything into a Word document.  At that moment I realized that not everyone is ready for newer collaboration technology and I must work with colleagues where they are at (3.4).

Learning 4: Communication is difficult in distance projects

Due to compounding factors, we reached a point at the end of our timeline where we were two and a half days late with our draft submission and our instructor and fellow classmates were waiting on us.  Since I was the only one finished and more experienced with APA guidelines, I asked my partners to send me their drafts as soon as they could, so I could combine our pieces into a final paper.  After hearing back that neither was ready, I was so frustrated that I wrote a draft of the whole assignment myself in one long afternoon.  I sent it to my partners and asked if I could submit this in the interim while they completed their parts.  They were not happy with me, but I sent it in anyway. 

I am still conflicted about this decision.  I took away my team members’ choice and opportunity to contribute by not waiting for their submissions.  I should have been more open about my frustrations and allowed my team members the professional courtesy to submit their pieces when they were ready.  After this experience, I have come to realize that expectations and reality rarely coincide in group projects and I need to be better at accommodating others in their work processes.  Eventually, my partners sent in wonderful individual project components, which were then put together into a solid final paper.  After this experience, I now enter into group projects with more reasonable expectations and a more structured management plan.