Overall, I would like to think we did a generally good job
collaborating with this interactivity concerning our circumstances. Although we
were all busy, at some points we would find each other online and explain to
each other what was happening, our opinions, and if someone posted one of your
ideas of technology already, then we just had to find another one. I think it
was an unspoken rule that we couldn't take someone else's technology (for the
most part, I DID see a little bit of repetition here and there). Although some
people had some difficulty editing (which got fixed) due to the fact that
"mail.montclair.edu" was not a supported domain-name by google.docs,
we found our way around to help everyone that we could to log in and
contribute! Another issue that arose was that some students' blogs were nowhere
to found, or some other students had little-to-no information or communication
when we first began to embark on this interactivity.
This interactivity had me questioning the concept of working
with others online and whether it was really effective in getting things
finished. I mean, I almost feel like this assignment would've taken more time
in person because we would've had to argue all of our points and come up with,
but I do think we collaborated our ideas and created one large spreadsheet! It
was easy to set up, it was organic, and it was quick- which is what I would
like to think is the point of using technology within a classroom.
Another part that I questioned was: How do we work through
situations where we are made to work with people who do not communicate via
e-mail at all? It goes to show how much the world has changed because of
technology. This made me really grateful that all of our contributors (or most,
rather) were willing to work with us and if most of them weren't e-mailed, they
immediately e-mailed us to find out what was happening!
Janet, can you help me understand what specifically made your group process authentic collaboration?
ReplyDeleteIn Merriam-Webster's dictionary, collaboration is defined as:
Deleteto work jointly with others or together especially in an intellectual endeavor.
In the same dictionary, authentic means:
not false or imitation : real, actual
To me, what we did was not a false or imitated act of working with others in an intellectual endeavor. I really think we came together with a specific pursuit and created a list together. Our list was only as extensive as it was because we worked together to create that product. Essentially, even if we didn't speak together at all or even saw each other- it still would have been considered an "authentic collaboration" to me. If we're working off of the true definition of collaboration, that's all it is. It depends on how you as a person would define "working together." I really think that essentially, no matter how you put it- we did work together. We had an idea and we shared it with each other via e-mail. Working with each other doesn't necessarily mean that we have to be near each other and speaking to each other in person.
I think that if the question was "Did you guys think that was authentic interaction?", I'd probably answer no. We don't have to interact with each other to collaborate. Surely, we interacted behind computer screens with each other, but I think REAL, TRUE interaction comes from being in person.
Musicians can collaborate and create music and CD's together all the time without ever interacting with each other in person- sometimes, even animated movies work that way. All the actors do their voice parts from separate parts of the world. They've worked with others to create a product.