SELF REFLECTION PAPER 1

MDDE 601 Assignment #2C Self-Reflection Paper

Robyn Shinkaruk

Group 2

Master of Education in Distance Education, Athabasca University

MDDE 601: Introduction to Distance Education

Dr. Tsinakos

July 5, 2020
SELF REFLECTION PAPER 2

When working on Assignment 2A, Nichole Parker and Robyn Shinkaruk (the author of

the current paper) engaged in an inclusive collaborative process that included multiple methods

of communication. The methods of communication involved the use of personal cellular devices

for sending text messages and making phone calls, as well as the use of Web 2.0 tools such as

Google drive. As Deng, Li, and Lu (2018) state in their article, Google drive is many learners’

first choice because of its “comparative advantage in synchronous editing” (p. 731). The author

agrees, as the writers were able to edit their paper together in real time and see the changes the

other person was making. Throughout the paper, the author explains the tools and techniques that

worked well, and the ones that needed improvement in order to be effective in group or partner

collaboration. Further, the author explicates the strategy used by the group to respond effectively

to forum responses in part 2B of the assignment.

Technology and Tools

For part 2A of this assignment, wherein the authors were asked to compose a critical

review on their choice of topic within Distance Education (DE), several tools and technologies

were used to optimize the collaboration capabilities of the group. The beginning stages of

facilitating communication between partners was done over email in order to get to know each

other’s interests within DE. Then, the partners exchanged phone numbers and switched

communication mainly over to text messages and phone calls. This enabled faster

communication as mobile phones were often near the receiver and shorter, less formal messages

could be sent. Considering mobile devices are essentially a hand-held computer, information can

be universally accessed at any time, making the communication process smoother and searching

for relevant information faster (McGreal & Elliot, 2008).

While talking on the phone, the authors created a Google Document in order to

synchronously write down some of the ideas they had. The authors decided to utilize a Web 2.0

technology to collaborate since they learned about the benefits it can have for collaboration in

class, and that made a substantial difference in favor of positive interactivity. Without the use of

this technology, the authors would not be able to see the changes in real time. This saves a lot of

time and effort, as being able to see what the other person is working on eliminates the chance

for repeated work.

Collaboration

Collaborative learning is “where students work together to achieve educational objectives

under an instructor’s guidance or supervision” (Gapinski, 2018, p. 2). It represents a shift away

from the typical teacher-centered format to a more student-centered, active learning approach

that relies on working with others to achieve a common goal (Gapinski, 2018). While working

on their assignment, Parker and Shinkaruk took on an active approach to learning, whereby they

chose a topic that was of interest to the both of them (the effect of interaction on learner

satisfaction and persistence), then proceeded to do research in order to learn more about it. The

method the group members used required a copious amount of communication in order to ensure

they both had a similar understanding of the topic and were able to hold discussions to counter

each other's arguments.

As Bernard et al. state in their article, maintaining online communication develops

critical thinking skills as it compels students to develop their own ideas, engage in respectful

arguments, and refine opinions (2004). The group members effectively collaborated throughout

all aspects of the assignment including the research, writing, and forum facilitation. Further, the

author believes that both members improved their critical thinking skills, as they were able to
SELF REFLECTION PAPER 4

internally reflect on their partners critiques and ideas and use that to build on their own

preexisting opinions.

Forum Facilitation

Parker and Shinkaruk engaged in constant discourse during the forum facilitation

component of the assignment. The authors alternated their responses so the workload was not

unequal. They also made sure to inform each other over text message or phone call if someone

planned on responding, so the other person did not waste their time coming up with a response.

This eliminated extra work and chances for conflict, as the workload was decided before the

facilitation began.

Before responding to the posts, the authors reviewed each responder's introduction post

and any other previous posts so that responses were more personalized, and discussion was

increasingly meaningful. The author believes the willingness to review past conversations and

put in extra work was one of the strengths of the group. In addition, the group members

constantly communicated if an issue arose so one member did not feel isolated or unsure of how

to proceed.

Conclusion

The first and second part of this assignment had a plethora of strengths that contributed to

the success of the group. The modes of communication chosen by the group were effective;

email was satisfactory when communicating with the professor and to facilitate the beginning

stages of interaction between group members, and instant messaging tools such as text

messaging and phone calls were practical for instant communication. Collaboration within the
SELF REFLECTION PAPER 5

group was exceptional due to the advanced planning and delegating by the group members. This

was aided by technology that enabled quick two-way communication.

A limitation was the technical lag of Google documents; when both members had the

program open, it took a few moments for the information to appear. This slowed down the

thinking and writing process as it was not possible to write and brainstorm fluidly without

unnatural pauses. The group members partially alleviated this issue by talking to each other on

the phone at the same time, so the ideas came across clearly without misconceptions.

Considerations for future research include increased use of instant communication, such

as video chat or other multimodal methods. For example, the groups most productive work was

done while synchronously editing a Google document and talking on the phone. The advanced

planning done by the group members was shown to be an effective tactic, as was staying in

constant communication during the forum facilitation to ensure both group members had their

voices heard.
SELF REFLECTION PAPER 6

References

Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Lou, Y., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Wozney, L., Wallet, P. A.,

Fist, M., & Huang, B. (2004). How does distance education compare with classroom

instruction? A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Review of Educational Research,

74(3), pp. 379-439. Retrieved from http://0-

rer.sagepub.com.aupac.lib.athabascau.ca/cgi/reprint/74/3/379

Deng, L., Li, S. C., & Lu, J. (2018). Supporting Collaborative Group Projects with Web 2.0

Tools: A Hollistic Approach. Innovations in Education and Teaching International,

55(6), 724-734. http://eds.b.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?

vid=5&sid=7ecf09f7-7d07-4ad5-92a3-3f4d04090694%40pdc-v-sessmgr03

Gapinski, A. J. (2018). Assessment of Effectiveness of Teamwork Skills Learning in

Collaborative Learning. The Journal of Management and Engineering Integration, 11(2),

1-15. http://eds.b.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=0&sid=8c3c1319-8511-

4552-a343-12eaf4079629%40pdc-v-sessmgr01

McGreal, R., & Elliot, M. (2008). Technologies for e-learning. In T. Anderson (Ed.), The Theory

and Practice of Online Learning (pp. 143-165). Athabasca AB: AU Press. (pdf)