Student-submitted provocations for 3/30/2005

Ellen Donaghy

I chose to read Chapter 7 (peer critique) and 10 (cyberbuddies) together, as I think they have a lot of overlap and contradiction between them.

Good ol‘ Kenny B recommended using groups of five for collaboration. Fakler and Perisse used groups of 3 for peer critique, and Corrigan and Gers used pairs for cyberbuddies. It seems that the groups of 3 became skilled at communicating when a group member wasn't pulling his or her weight, encouraging that group member to get back on track. The pairs had difficulty communicating their needs to one another and in some cases were unable to complete the task as assigned.

How might group size have influenced this? Does that third member make a big difference?
Might the project titles Peer Critique and Cyberbuddies have had anything to do with how seriously the students took the projects?

It was not all wine and roses for Fakler and Perisse, however. They state that the students did not become heavily invested in the project until Fakler and Perisse intervened and began to grade participation and the quality of the critiques.

How might a similar intervention by Corrigan and Gers have affected their project?

For Corrigan and Gers, it seems that they had as many failures, students who were unable to complete the task as assigned, as they did successes. While many students were unable to profile their cyberbuddies, Corrigan and Gers still seem to declare the project an overall success.

Did they meet their gobal goal—teaching communication skills—without meeting their local goal—having students write profiles of other students based on online interviews?
When students profiled themselves rather than their partner, how can Corrigan and Gers measure to what extent the students learned what C&G intended they learn since they did not complete the assigned task?