The assessment of collaborative activities within the online community can be a difficult and demanding process. Yet, it is no more difficult than assessing collaborative activities within a traditional classroom. Collaborative learning demands participation of all stakeholders no matter the method of delivery. It is equally frustrating, however, to be a participant in a group where expectations are high and participation is low. Siemens (n.d.) suggested various means of assessing students based on group work. They are: Peer assessment based on ratings systems; Use list serves to solicit comments from professionals; and Instructor assessment based on active time-on-task participation. Regardless, assessment should be considered an extension of teaching, not a separate element (Siemens, n.d.).
A reluctant student poses a challenge to collaboration. Each student depends on the attention and efforts of the other students for a successful venture. Should one or more participants evade their responsibilities then the learning process suffers for all. If, however, students are permitted to work with their strengths then some of the discomfort could be dispelled. For instance, those strong in math could head up data collection and those with artistic skills could design the graphics. While flexibility in time, situations, and abilities must be acknowledged for different learners, it cannot substitute for accountability and achievement. All can, and should, contribute to the best of their capability. Communication, once again, is the key. Should a conflict interfere with the process, it is paramount that this issue is communicated to the other participants. Should a neglectful pattern become evident, and should encouragement from other participants hold no positive effect, it is ultimately up to the instructor to negotiate intervention strategies.
One other point: Siemens (n.d.) also suggested that assessment should be based on student growth. For instance, a low level student that makes significant strides could be marked on par or above the high achiever with who makes small gains. I would caution that this could be a dangerous practice for multiple reasons. This system would be easy to manipulate. A high achiever could easily simulate ignorance in order to game the ratings. This method tends to encourage initial mediocrity in upper-level performers. Also, a student, already on the upper end of the curve, has little room for advancement. For instance, if a student is already scoring at the 99th percentile, and achieves a one point gain, he has effectively topped out the scale; whereas a student that initially scores on the 70th percentile and achieves a gain of 8 points (a significant and noteworthy gain) does not mean they have achieved top-quality work. And finally, such a practice lowers the credibility of the institution that supports it. Graduates who are confirmed with inflated grades will reflect poorly on the institution as they are interviewed for the workplace.
Siemens, G. (n.d.) Assessment of collaborative learners. Retrieved October 7, 2009 from the EDUC-7102-2/EDUC-8842-2 Principles of Distance Education Web site: http://sylvan.live.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=3649021&Survey=1&47=5797856&ClientNodeID=984645&coursenav=1&bhcp=1
