This event, moderated by Kate Fannon, took place throughout October 2003. This article summarises the discussions that took place.

We are repeatedly told that collaboration is the way of the future in both industry and education. Industry in particular is insisting that employability skills are more important than technical skills. These skills are largely about the attributes and skills to collaborate in the workplace team. 

Participants’ experiences of collaborative learning

My recent foray into a collaborative environment has involved my employer, TAFE frontiers and our partners at OTTE. It has been challenging! Rewarding! Frightening! Enlightening! Our task is to design, build, develop, manage and maintain a new Community of Practice and launch it within one month! Collaboration has been mostly by phone, email and f2f meetings. More recently we are using the facilities within the Plone (http://demo.plone.org/)  environment. I have learned that it’s critical to establish a good working relationship with stakeholders. It’s important to be patient, tolerant and open. It’s okay to make mistakes. It’s okay for the whole team to learn on the fly. Collaboration opens your eyes to how others see the world and invites you to 'walk a mile in their shoes' before enforcing your own philosophy.

The most striking characteristic of the collaborative learning projects I set up was the engagement, the almost electric excitement of the learners in response to other learners like themselves. This was reflected in the quality of their online forums (approx 550 postings).

I have been involved in a collaborative effort with 3 other TAFEs in Victoria. I have learnt a great deal about what others in the field are doing with regards to elearning. Our visits to each other’s Institutes have provided a forum for us to discuss areas of difficulty giving us all a sense of 'not being alone,' of having others in the same situation and therefore feeling understood and supported. I would hope that the collaboration has also lead to the building of networks for all of us, networks that will grow in the future and where we can all share our experiences, both good and bad.

I participated in a course on "E" Moderation. Teams were given set tasks to complete. This was a success I think because of the social interaction that occurred. Another group I was in decided to set some rules: to respect each other’s input, encourage participation, leave no one behind (ensure we all pass), set group study times in order to keep motivation and to track individual progress, and to have fun. We all became great friends and met regularly socially. Both of these seem to follow Gilly Salmon’s steps models. Even Curt Bonk feels that learners get more value from information received in a sociodidactic environment than a formal setting. The other groups didn't gel together, they didn't get social, and they didn't all finish!

As an external student I find that collaboration comes easier online than F2F. It is easier to give opinions and share information while hiding behind your computer and keyboard, than if you were in a classroom situation where you have that fear of looking a fool. The initial use of things like chat and forums seems hard at first, but once you get the hang of it they are very useful as collaboration tools.

Personally I only collaborate with people I like and trust, people whose work I already admire and respect, people who have pretty much the same set of values and approaches that I do. I am not a risk taker collaboration–wise. I’m quite sure this means that I am missing out on many fine opportunities to extend myself by playing so very safely. And while I’m not competitive I am a really dreadful show off and a dedicated control freak - ‘personality quirks’ which mitigate against collaboration methinks. On the other hand, as a result of being a choosy, and maybe even ‘cliquey’, collaborator I’ve had great results from collaborative projects. I think chiefly because of the pre-project bonding we bring - our familiarity with each other‘s goals and MOs and our joint willingness to get stuck in and make things happen!  On reflection though, being a magnetically bonded collaborative clique of manic ‘doers’ our projects probably suffered from the absence of more reflective ‘thinkers’.

It takes some effort to enable collaboration using web based resources such as email, forums, chats, but I think it's worth it. Emails and forums in particular are very effective for me, but I know that not a lot of people like them.

In a chat we had recently in an Introduction to Teaching Online course, one of the participants said how much she looked forward to these, as they provided her with the "human touch". I find sometimes that being in close proximity with people also makes for ineffiency. Even though the communication is instant and includes non-verbal cues, emails and forums allow me time for thought before pressing that send button.
 
Comments on collaboration

Is collaboration the same as working in a team? No. When you’re in a team the roles are either clearly defined, or become clearly defined as you go along. With collaborative work there has to be such a high level of trust. The workplace means individuals try to ensure that they get all the recognition for the work they have done. After all, when we apply for a job we still take our individual resumes along!

Virtual learning and a wide range of technological communication strategies are being utilised by practitioners, but I suspect that they still see themselves as the 'guide on the side' not the 'collaborative facilitator'. This may eventually change as the practitioners become more comfortable with letting go of the reigns and allowing the learners to shape their learning in a collaborative manner.

An induction to the collaborative process is sometimes necessary to get students over their competitiveness. The way you define collaborative learning can influence how students see the process.

For many learners the challenging and frightening aspects can - and do - become the rewarding and enlightening components of their learning. There is a certain amount of fun and adrenalin pumping for learners who are challenged - even in scary situations (which the unknown often is). Perhaps they have less to lose from this experiential learning than does the practitioner?

Even before Bonk, Dewey was saying that education is a social process and that the most effective learning environments leverage off the social exchange. This seems to run contrary to our individualistic and competitive world, doesn't it?

Our society desperately needs to get back to community and that is reflected in teaching and learning.

Providing clear guidelines as to how shared information can be used in subsequent assessment is important.

With collaborative assessment you are asking learners to trust each other with a result (pass/fail). This is a big risk. If the learners are given the opportunity to work collaboratively on research or a learning project, with the requirement of an individual assignment post project/research then I think you would get better results.

Collaborative learning is one of the "natural" ways to learn. We are trying to work out how to integrate it into our current teaching/learning, but I think that we should consider collaborative learning as the norm and take it from there...

I have yet to see courses at the certificate/diploma/masters level that have significant collaborative design. And when I look at online courses in TAFE, I still see the information transmission model, often glossied up with Flash. The true collaborative learning environment would enable learners and teacher to create the content or solution to the posed problem/enquiry/challenge with access to resources. It would also involve collaborating with a different group of learners with another cultural perspective. This could be the culture of a different institution, industry, state or country - all who might approach the solution differently and give new insights. Agreements/compromises would have to be found. It is in this nexus of differing views that the collaborative learning is built and the employability skills addressed.

I think there needs to be a lot more discourse on what skill sets/ attitudinal qualities are requisite to collaborative learning.

I do think we need to prepare our learners/ clients to operate in the real world and be able to collaborate/ tolerate different world views/ work project perspectives. As you will be aware, the work world is full of individuals who have "portfolio careers" - there is no luxury of settling into one culture for life any more.

Collaborative learning is a path to the future. This is supported by a wealth of research and by futurists and strategists. "Collaboration" is a cornerstone of working and learning in a knowledge economy. BUT isn't this all very difficult in today’s world where systems and technology still support more "industrial" forms of learning? It takes a skilled teacher or instructional designer to take competency standards and develop a collaborative learning methodology and courseware around them. Difficult, but certainly not impossible.

Question: Do you see collaborative learning as the 'next wave' in flexible learning?

Answers:

No. It always has been - we just forgot about it for a century or two

I agree that group work and discussions have been going on forever in f2f and online but I see this information exchange/ reflection as only one aspect of collaborative learning - and one which does not engage the learner fully in what it takes to develop a product/ service collaboratively. In 'groupwork', learners can choose (and do) to take a back seat and observe. Online, they can 'disappear' altogether.

Question: How do we design collaborative learning and is it possible to do so with a diverse range of learners, including those with low literacy & numeracy, and low self-esteem?

Answer: Collaboration requires high levels of personal mastery and I believe low self-esteem to be in conflict with this. Personal mastery, including self-esteem issues, needs to be addressed early, preferably as a prerequisite. My experiences show the best collaborative learning environments are those where there is high interaction, trust and defencelessness of participants.

Our culture promotes individual competition and pays lip service to teamwork and team building. Before identifying the behaviours and attitudes which require re-alignment with business needs, a different reward system needs to be developed. It reminds me of the Insurance company which promoted itself on its honesty and integrity but rewarded its sales team for number of policies sold. Of course sales people did what they had to do to be rewarded.

Before most people will feel comfortable with collaboration, there are many paradoxes to be identified and dissolved, and not all of them are in the learning environment.

Question: How can we persuade practitioners to explore collaborative models of learning for their learners?

Answer:

• Show them models of successful practice in collaborative learning.
  
• Document the feedback of learners who engage in this type of learning. Ask them to compare this form of learning with what they have experienced in the past
  
• Show how the long list of personal attributes and other employability skills can simultaneously be addressed in situated, collaborative task-based/problematic learning design - anything that saves practitioners from lots of extra angst over how to set up learning to demonstrate competency in these employability skills will be welcome!
  
• Demonstrate practitioner satisfaction with being able to set up learning which puts novice practitioners into authentic learning contexts which develop their team etc skills holistically.
  
• Extend the debate over how practice firms and incubators are models of collaborative learning, where novice practitioners really come to grips with the expert practitioner domain. Explore other models of collaborative learning, appropriate for the stage of development of the learner. It is what we are on about in vet - do we do it satisfactorily? How might we more effectively get our learners ready for the real work world?

An anonymous email to the forum …..
‘Collaboration - everyone looks at a situation with 'what is in it for me'. Life is all about payoffs. What are the payoffs for putting effort into the concept of collaboration? People weigh payoffs up before they put their hands up to get involved. We live in a fairly individualistic world where collectivism isn't placed in high regard.’

Replies…
I think most people look for some personal benefit in sharing their ideas/work with others. It may not be a material benefit. It might be as simple as wanting some objective feedback or cross fertilisation of ideas or recognition for their work. Everyone has a different perspective on a problem and collaboration can produce a more rounded solution. There is so much information available out there now that I think it is really short-sighted to think that any one person has all the answers. Collaborating is a way to keep material current (though I admit, consultation can slow a process down).

I come across lots of people who base their decisions on "what's in it for me" - one only has to read the "letters to the editor" pages of newspapers to see the sheer diversity of views out there.

Yes I believe it will take a ‘what's in it for me’ attitude - why wouldn't it? But it doesn't have to be a financial benefit. Knowledge could be the ‘what's in it for me’, not just sharing, but giving. Knowledge can be tangible; it can give you that competitive edge.

Today's culture is not so different from that which has gone before over thousands of years. Competition can be destructive if pressed beyond its usefulness. Personal kudos is part of the foundation of personality development, but a totally shared and successful project creates a ripple effect in the wider community. This needs to be observed and reported upon at a later stage because it is not always perceived as a direct result of effort.

‘Knowledge is a commodity’ - it is rather narrow to think of knowledge like this, but to follow the idea further, we are always being reminded that we live in a knowledge economy and that developed nations will trade predominantly in knowledge & services. Maybe baby-boomers et al are still stuck in a post-industrial paradigm and haven't really latched on to what ‘trading in knowledge’ might mean?

Australian employees lagging behind in employability skills

The Employability Skills Framework

Personal Attributes

Key Skills

loyalty commitment honest & integrity enthusiasm reliability personal presentation commonsense positive self-esteem sense of humour balanced attitude to work and home life ability to deal with pressure motivation adaptability

communication skills that contribute to productive and harmonious relations between employees and customers team work skills problem-solving initiative and enterprise planning and organising skills that contribute to long-term and short-term strategic planning self-management skills that contribute to ongoing employee satisfaction and growth learning skills that contribute to ongoing improvement and expansion in employee and company operations and outcomes technology skills

‘Australian employees lag behind those of other countries in their interpersonal and cross-cultural and team skills’ according to two reports: the 'Worldwide Study on Innovation Management' (Droege 1999) and the 'Report of the Industry Task Force on Leadership and Management Skills' (Karpin Report 1995).

This report from the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI) -
Employability Skills - an employer perspective (PDF) informs us that employers want employability skills ‘out of the too hard basket’ and incorporated 'in a systematic way into teaching, assessing and reporting.' They say it will ‘provide a challenge to educationalists that will question the core of what they are doing’.

Responses to report

It sounds like employers don't have the time or patience, maybe even the knowledge and skills, to develop their personnel for this new age. It is like parents complaining that their children have poor manners. "Can't they include manners lessons in the schools curriculum, my children are so rude".

Even if the Education sector started facilitating employability skills training it will not have any significant benefit unless reinforced in the workplace. The strongest example I can give for this is the systemic types of corruption and maladministration allowed by organisational culture. People in these organisational systems don't usually start out corrupt!

While VET does need to respond to the employability framework, industry also needs to invest in the workforce. I say this in context of the current trend towards portfolio careers, contract work and the expectation that employees will be totally responsible for their own skill development. I wonder where this selfish attitude of industry has come from and if they have thought about what will happen in the near future when there will be a shortage of skilled workers because industry has not believed that they are also responsible for making an investment in skill development/worker capacity? How does Australia change this selfish culture?

In overcoming the divide of skills/ attitudes should there be a divided contribution by Governments/ employers in the training arena similar to the Training Guarantee Levy that was in effect in SA a number of years ago? Should all employers pay a levy each time they engage a new employee based on the "skills" of the position similar to what Job Agencies claim from employers for finding the right candidate? From a personal point of view I think we need to look at say Cert III level being Govt/ Student funded, Cert IV level Student/ Employer funded and higher qualifications employer funded. To protect the employer investment - should an employee leave - the new employer reimburses the previous employer for the training provided. The caveat is that if the employee has worked say for 5 years after the funded training (with the same employer) then there is no cost in the employment transfer.

I reckon it’s a good thing if we all get out of VET for a few months every now and then and spend time working in organisations that need our knowledge and skills in education and training. (NOT vocational skills mind you. I'm not talking voc currency here). Working in one such organisation has been a real eye opener for me - on what language we need to toss out, ideas we have in VET that are just downright silly and how we need to understand their constraints and difficulties.

I guess we already collaborate with Industry through our ITABs (Industry Training Advisory Board) but it would be better on a local platform.

Creating a ‘competitive only’ work environment is outdated practice. Larry Bossidy, cited at the COGNOS forum, states that most companies fail because they fail to see the connection between the company’s goals and the realities of how the company actually operates. Execution is a discipline that links three business processes: people, strategy and operations. It is the people element that holds it together, it's what the people can do collectively that is the key. I would view collaboration as an essential element.

We should be designing collaborative learning around solving an authentic problem. We should link our learners to other learners in other locations with different perspectives who are also solving the same problem. This is a holistic learning design where most of these attributes and skills will be demanded.

Bring in an authentic industrial guest to ‘throw in the perturb factor’ or add to the reflective process at various stages. Can you see this working in your field, with your learners? Schools around the world do this - can VET?

Is collaboration important for the future of human endeavours? Will it take the exit of the baby boomers from education....or something more? I believe that the collaborative skills behind project management are crucial to the world especially as we increasingly rely on a multi-dimensional skill base to execute most projects.

In the Year 12 final examinations our young people are forced through a highly competitive upper school programme and a very stressful end year examination system. No wonder they are wary of entering into collaborative learning activities that we as VET and Higher Ed. educationalists are now busy designing and implementing!

Most of us have been let down/sabotaged or even "ripped off" by others when collaborating, sharing knowledge and time. But I don’t like the idea of being a human silo i.e. ‘I will do my assignment by myself because I can't rely on others to pull their weight!’ Or ‘…so and so will only steal my ideas!’ Mind you that is partly the ethic behind the HSC exams...

The millennial generation are said to prefer collaborative learning.

The spirit of collaboration - Eva Cox (1995) reminds us "There is nothing wrong with dissent, debate and conflict when they are based on mutual respect and trust. We are all fallible, so no actions or ideas should be left unquestioned".

If collaborative learning is a dirty word, then we can clean it up by introducing ‘cooperative learning’ as its transitory phase. Stahl (1994) tells us this is about

• Setting clear and specific student learning outcome objectives
  
• convincing all students involved in the cooperative learning scenario of the targeted outcomes and
  
• clear task instructions.

When the student has mastered these essentials it is time to move on to the next level of constructionist learning - collaborative learning. (see http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/rpl_esys/collab.htm).

I am currently reviewing Teten, Fisher and Allen's work "How to Value and grow your online business relationships" a concise and timely book available for $10 at http://thevirtualhandshake.com/. Many of the concepts and ideas they describe are highly relevant to this discussion - relationship building, communication skills, collaboration and networking.

New Tools for Collaborative Learning

I postulate that the current menu of e-learning tech apps (especially learning management systems) provide inefficient/ineffective tools for collaborative learning. The ANTA New Practices project that I manage http://flexiblelearning.net.au/projects/toolsuite.htm has developed four template Model Collaborative Learning Environments (MCLE) called "INSTRUCTOR,” "GUIDE," "COACH," & "FACILITATOR" in a peer-to-peer online technology.

Some of my recent experiences with open source environments (like Plone) http://demo.plone.org/ persuade me to advocate the 'free' tools like these for those who wish to venture into collaborative learning. There is potential for these new tools to enable and empower members of a community to collaborate beyond the boundaries of a single learning event or project.

Yep, I'm a fan of open source (maybe it’s the socialist in me). I'm aware of Plone but haven't fiddled. I'm playing with Moodle and have experienced Mimerdesk with EdNA. A TAFE Qld Institute has used KEWL for their system. The Sunshine Coast (Community Group) at CeBIT03 in Sydney received a lot of attention. Have a look at www.communitye.net - they share their software.

How do we design learning so the core structure is a collaborative structure rather than an add on? The fact that we live in a world of mobile communication devices and have tools like MSN and Groove, but our LMSs (like WebCT and Blackboard) do not look at developing collaborative tools, is illuminating! These LMSs are antiquated and are not adequate for the kinds of interaction being increasingly demanded by a knowledge economy work world.

Technology is not only getting smaller and faster, but it’s getting to the user in easier, cheaper ways. For example: blogs, skype, messenger5, Groove, Jabber, open source, pocket PC apps etc. I believe that we have to think about the user more rather than the network.

There is no reason why mobile devices could not be used in the learning design for a collaborative project.

It is a pity that WebCT is stuck in the past in terms of its communication tools. Even some instant messaging would be good - more recognisable by the new millennials and gen Xers.

Contributors
Chris Ainsworth , Mary Aquino , Margaret Aspin , Claire Brooks , Rodger Carroll , Lynne Chapman, B Driver, Kate Fannon, Judy Fawcett, Steve Fisher, Megan Funston, Jacinta Gascoigne, Rose, Grozdanic, Jenni Harding, Laura Hendrick, Norm Henrickson, Penny Krause, Carole Mcculloch, Daniel Robertson, Anita Rodriguez, Cynthia Rohner, Greg Sutton, Dorothy Waterhouse