“The Ballad of Dr. Nichols”

 Dr. Nichols, a tenure-track instructor, decides to teach an online course for the first time to help boost her portfolio. She attends a Web 2.0 tools seminar the summer before her first online fall course, and is both excited and overwhelmed at all the technology available for collaborative activities. She has one month to build her course and decide on which tools to implement for a group project she is planning.

 1. TECHNOLOGY  “Evaluation and assessment strategies should take into account the specificity of the communication media in use, as new technology allows frequent and varied... strategies... (Loureiro & Moreira, 2010, p. 219).  Instructors must decided which online tools are most effective and practical for their assigned collaborations.

Two months into the fall semester and the online, group project, Dr. Nichols begins receiving complaints from students about lack of participation. Dr. Nichols sends out general announcements about how imperative participation is to the success of the project, hoping that the “nudge” will jolt the violators into action. Two weeks later, the group members complain that there is very little to no change in participation.

1. Instructors must determine how to factor peer evaluation as part of the group grade (Scherling, 2011, p. 16) 2. Instructors must also determine a method to effectively assess individual contributions. “Asking each group member to assess every other group member can be helpful to the instructor” (Palloff & Pratt, 2005, p. 84).

 In response to the numerous complaints concerning participation, Dr. Nichols decides to update the guidelines of the project assignment to include an individual participation grade. She decides that group members will evaluate the performance of their peers. Members must also evaluate their own participation and contributions. Immediately, group members began contacting her with questions as to how they and why they should be expected to evaluate the participation of their peers and themselves.

 Instructors must provide adequate assessment criteria for students to implement peer and self-evaluation (Loureiro & Moreira, 2010, p. 227)

 Dr. Nichols found the group projects very difficult to assess. Several students were upset because of the lack of participation, the late additions of peer and self-assessment, coupled with the lack of understanding as to how to assess those components. They were also unhappy about having to use technology tools that were not familiar to them, with no tutorials, and not having an understanding of why they were required to participate in a project.

 “Slavin (1996) argues collaborative group projects are ineffective unless the goal of the group is important to the members and there is individual and group accountability”(Scherling, 2011, p.14).

 After a disastrous, first-time, on-line experience and very low, course evaluation scores, Dr. Nichols initially vows to never teach an on-line course again. However, after speaking with a colleague about his rocky experience with a on-line group project and what he learned from it, she decides to revamp and give it another chance. This time, she builds her guidelines and rubrics early, and informs students from the first day of the expectations of her collaborative activities, combined with the learning outcomes of each.

Palloff, R. & Pratt, K. (2005). Collaborating online: Learning together in community. San-Francisco, Jossey-Bass.[-]] Pombo, L, Loureiro, M. and Moreira, A. (2010). Assessing collaborative work in a higher education blended learning context: Strategies and student perceptions. Educational Media International, 47(3), Scherling, S. (2011). Designing and fostering effective online group projects. Adult Learning, 22(2),