The following is a reflection paper for an applied research class, COML 501/513, on campus at Gonzaga in January of 2012. It was led by Dr. Deanna Dannels and Dr. Ann Darling.
“If we examine communication carefully, we can see that what is often actually happening is that the people are negotiating a variety of differences in order to generate something new that they then hold ‘in common.’”
~David Bohm (Bohm, 2009, p. 42)
It began with a fort. The assignment was on a giant sticky note: “Hello, COM513! Using all possible resources, make a fort!!..15 minutes.” The instructions were for a class of thirteen graduate students—barely acquainted. In my mind I thought, “I could build a fort by myself and do a good job; why must we build one together?” But we worked together regardless of my inner rebellion. With blankets and bedspreads borrowed from a local hotel, chairs, tape, pins, signs, and other found objects, a fort was birthed. Negotiations were disorganized; ideas were disjointed; leadership ebbed and flowed and the final product was not particularly artful, but it was a genuine group effort. For me, probably the oldest in the group, that few minutes of fort-building was uncomfortable, frustrating, scary—and the beginning of a dismantling of my mental framework about working with others.
For much of my life I held the notion that working with others is a kind of crutch. I have always resisted group work; it seemed counterproductive. I remember telling one of my art professors I would not work on a collaborative mural project because I could not see how I could possibly merge my work with others’. It seemed that my best efforts were always forged alone where I determined the direction of the learning. I loved to paint—alone; I loved to read—alone; if I did work in a group, I wanted to be the one calling the shots.
But Spokane was about collaboration. The discomfort could confirm my unchallenged paradigm or it could be a bridge to learning.
As coincidence would have it, when I got back to New Mexico from my class in Spokane I read an article by quantum physicist, David Bohm (2009). His contribution to my emerging collaboration revelation expanded my appreciation of the practical outcomes of working together well. He states, “If people are to cooperate, they have to be able to create something in common, something that takes shape in their mutual discussions and actions, rather than something that is conveyed from one person who acts as an authority to the others” (Bohm, p. 44). He articulates an expansive picture of working together when he extends cooperative meaning-making to the learner’s engagement with inanimate objects and nature much like the experience of the scientist researching cures or the artist painting a flower, “The continual emergence of something new that is common” (Bohm, p. 44) to both the thought and the thing observed; this embodies the extension of my reflection on learning in Spokane: in collaborative learning, everything matters: fellow students, instructors, interviews, focus groups, contributions after the ftf class, and all the nuances associated with these events and engagements. It is an alliance with all the “available resources”—a holistic collaboration.
These ideas need to find a place in my world and my passion. I teach online and face-to-face undergraduate art classes and want to implement application of what I have learned about learning in these places.
Practices of Collaboration in Live Art Classes
In my live classes I want to investigate ways that creating art and understanding the process of art-making can be enhanced through the experience of effective collaboration. Making art is an especially solitary activity. Most of the assignments are designed to require honing of right brain skills. Genuine right brain engagement and simultaneous peer engagement are, in my experience, distracting and possibly mutually exclusive and I usually discourage conversation. In right brain function, as applied to drawing or painting, engagement with the object is primary; whether it is a human form, a paper bag, or imaginary images, the goal is to transcend the rational mode and move into a creative right brain flow. This does not preclude energizing collaborative learning. The introduction of collaboration is a healthy, albeit novel, balance for the art student and one where creative borders can be expanded and new ways of thinking and doing engendered. There are three areas where I am planning to integrate collaboration in a classroom of solo creators: critiques, group work, and student teaching.
Critiques.
A cardinal rule in classroom critiques is the avoidance of negative comments. Many of my students are not art majors and it is important they feel good about their art—but not at the expense of learning. Charlan Nemeth (2012)) in her work with groups states, “Dissent stimulates new ideas because it encourages us to engage more fully with the work of others (Lehrer, 2012). The four critiques in the semester are required and usually are a fairly insipid learning experience mostly because of the fear of stepping on or being stepped on or not knowing what to look for in the art being critiqued. I plan to change this by modeling the kind of engagement I think will benefit the students. They need to see a good sample and have specific means of looking at work. I will divide the class into small groups to collaboratively work with one piece and then come together in the class to report their results. The safety in the smaller group will allow for greater engagement with the piece and more thoughtful ways of communicating. Another critique approach I tried this past week was to do a mid-project viewing of assignments with two fellow students input to redirect or tweak the work before naming it as finished. Critiques possess potential to reinforce aspects of “imaginative learning” (Liu, & Noppe-Brandon,2011 p. 37) mentioned in the book, Imagination First of “noticing deeply… embodying…questioning..indentifying patterns…making connections…exhibiting empathy…creating meaning…taking action…reflecting and assessing” (Liu & Noppe-Brandon, 2011, p. 37-38).
Group projects.
I will integrate one group project into the syllabus in the next semester in each of my three live classes. Some of the ideas I have include:
· In Drawing I: A mural that is a kind of glossary of textures that are created with a fine tip marker. This glossary mural can be displayed with an explanation of texture from class readings and lectures and will serve as a way to expand the students’ repertoire and educate non-art students. Ethnographic interviews with local artists which include a description of art methods and daily routines would explore what it means to be an artist. These could be group efforts with a summary presented before the class.
· In Design I: A class book will give students a place to collaboratively describe and illustrate the principles and elements of good design. The illustrations will be both original and also highlight famous works of art. The book will be bound and credited to the particular class and made available as a learning tool for future classes.
· Human Figure: The collaborative development of a life-size human skeleton on a two-dimensional surface will inform the student of the skeletal structure while developing their drawing skills. The collaboration will bring more eyes into the accurate representation as each one contributes his part to the whole. Collective decisions on poses and mediums are small ways that will give them ownership of their learning.
Students teaching students.
Invariably in a class of 10-15 students, several will grasp the assignment with greater clarity and be ready to move on. As students work, I am always working with them individually and seldom have adequate time to get to all of them. I would like to use my learners as a teaching resource to benefit the class as a whole. Using students to help other students will give them an opportunity to mutually articulate the project and generate ideas for improvement.
Practices of Collaboration in Online Learning
“No matter when and how it takes place, if used effectively, collaboration causes a synergistic transformation that enhances the value of the thoughts, activities, and discussions of a group of people working toward a common goal. It creates a final result that is greater than the sum of its parts.”
~Patricia Comeaux (Comeaux, 2002, p.xvii)
Online learning is large in my world. My graduate work at Gonzaga is mostly online with the exception of a couple of excursions to classes in Europe and this class in Spokane. When I began the COML program in 2011, I had great hopes that somehow there would be some real communication in this communication program—I don’t see that happening much. There is collaborative work in some of the classes accomplished mostly through asynchronous messages on the discussion board or email. The discussion board is a tool for engagement and students frequently learn more from their peers than the professor (Light, 2001). The online learning experience is essentially collaborative but reminds me of the weakness of collaboration in learning. I brought these concerns to my two professors in the Italy COML program over coffee in Rome and Florence last summer; I also heard one of them address this after the Visiting Scholar public lecture in Spokane stating, “Something needs to change.”
In the online classroom, collaboration and accountability are different from a live class. One of my students was three weeks behind in his assignments and emailed me stating that he forgot about the class because he did not have to report bodily. Though part of the motivation behind online learning is the freedom to come to class at midnight or midday, the lack of a sense of community can be a hindrance to involvement. Engagement is notoriously asynchronous and isolated. Some of the ideas I want to implement to facilitate more effective collaboration include:
· Begin the semester with a synchronous introductory session, preferably with video. This introduction will include information promoting the primacy of learning collaboratively.
· A Wimba classroom will be scheduled at least twice during the semester.
· Each module will be introduced with a video orientation and difficult concepts will be addressed with video lectures as the semester proceeds.
· Establish small groups of three to four who will stay together as groups through the semester. They will engage synchronously on some kind of regular basis and will work together on group projects. This does not eliminate engaging the entire class on the Discussion Board, but affords a place of more personal connection. Skype kinds of connections are useful.
· Encourage the class to connect with one another on a social media site. I invite my students to “friend” me on Facebook. I understand the potential problems, but thus far it has been a good experience. After the Spokane class, I created a special page for one of my classes on Facebook as another place to connect.
· Wikis can be used as a creative and helpful collaborative tool that are easily accessed on Blackboard (Palfrey& Gasser, 2008)
Final Words
In concluding my reflection, I can see the value in reflecting; it appends to the learning about learning already in progress. This class was far more than I anticipated and I appreciate the fearless presentation of new ideas and methods provided by our instructors. It seems they went out on a limb to facilitate an experience that will impact beyond this semester.
References
Bohm, D. (2009). On communication. In J. Stewart, Bridges not walls (pp. 42-46). New York,NY: McGraw-Hill.
Comeaux, P. (2002). Communication and collaboration in the online classroom. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing.
Lehrer, J. (2012, January 30). Groupthink: The brainstorming myth. The New Yorker, pp. 22-27.
Light, R. (2001). Making the most of college: Students speak their minds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Liu, E. & Noppe-Brandon, S. (2011). Imagination first. New York: Jossey-Bass.
Palfrey, J. & Gasser, U. (2008). Born digital. New York, NY: Basic Books.
