Harris Article Analysis and Parallels to My Proposed Project (Summer, 1998)
David M. Stone, University Laboratory High School, Urbana, IL
I found the Harris article, "Organizing and Facilitating Telecollaborative Projects," to be interesting and quite pertinent to the goals and activities of my final project. I read the article initially as an historical document, written at a time when modems were the standard mode of professional Internet use and electronic communication. At that time, web browsers and search engines were just beginning to broach the technology horizon. Online educational project prototypes were in their infancy, and Internet-based resources were largely oriented toward professionals in the military, the sciences and information technology fields. Upon reading the article a second time, the connections between it and a number of my technology-related activities became clear. The following discussion is divided into three components: 1) an article summary, 2) a discussion of the article's pertinence to Biology WorkBench activities and 3) a summary of the article's pertinence to my EdPsy 387 final project.
The article proposes a structured procedural checklist for those interested in initiating online collaborative projects. The paper is divided into eight main sections:
1) Choose the Curricular Goal(s)
Major points center around clearly determining whether the proposed activity matches one or more of specified process goals. In the early stages of project development, it is essential that student learning goals for the collaborative activity be tied directly to the curriculum, and that those learning goals be better accomplished through the project, than is possible using more traditional teaching/learning tools.
2) Choose the Activity's Structure
Sixteen activity structures are identified, with links to each activity structure type. Project developers should review possible activity structures and choose or create the most appropriate one early in the planning process.
3) Explore Examples of Other Online Projects
Gopher tools are introduced and instructions regarding how to access a number of the better gopher sites is provided. Alternatively, access information using telnet is provided for those lacking gopher software. Seventeen gopher sites are provided for initial browsing.
4) Determine the Details of Your Project
An explicit list of essential elements for every telecomputing project description and plan is presented. This list includes: Title, Educational Purpose(s), Contact Person (name and e-mail address), Curricular Areas the Project Addresses, Grade Levels for Which the Project is Designed, Number of Collaborators, Summary of the Project's Plan, Directions for Registration or Joining the Project, Timeline (including specific tasks to be completed and all interim deadlines), Procedures for Participation in the Project (detailed, specifically-stated, and numbered), Sample of Student Work the Project Will Generate and Project Conclusion (including plans for how the project will be shared with all participants).
5) Invite Telecollaborators
Once a detailed file of project specifics is uploaded to a particular web site, a brief project description should be posted to electronic sites frequented by other K-12 teachers with Internet access sites (e.g. newsgroups and list-servs). Several list-servs, including subscription information, are presented.
6) Form the Telecollaborative Group
Respond immediately to each potential telecollaborator, sending each a long, detailed file that tells all about the project. Information should include: how interested teachers can register to participate in the project, maximum number of classes that can take part, and the deadline for requesting participation.
7) Communicate!
Much of the advice in this section comes from Waugh, Levin, and Smith's article (1994, see Harris article for reference). The following are several of the major points: 1) form a distribution list for periodic progress reports and sharing of materials sent to meet interim deadlines, 2) sign all of your e-mail with all of the names of the people contributing to the message (when in doubt, err on the side of inclusion), 3) provide brief synopses of ongoing discussions, so that readers clearly understand the context in which you are asking questions or making comments and 4) share your knowledge freely with newcomers. The above-stated article also makes a number of suggestions to continue communication including the use of short private messages: 1) "return receipt messages," 2) "cheerleader messages," 3) "ping messages," and 4) "thank-you messages."
8) Create Closure
The telecomputing project should end with a final, tangible product that is firmly scheduled, completed, and shared with all participants, then made available to a larger, interested community. Anonymous feedback, made available through a file archive or Gopher online, allows the developers vital information and may impact other teachers' design and implementation efforts in the future. Post-project communication allows students and teachers to share perspectives and memories of different aspects of the project, as well as discuss possibilities of working together in the future.
This article applies directly to each of the components of my project, all of which are partially or entirely web-based. The article is particularly pertinent to the component of my project which uses a computational science-based molecular biology tool, NCSA Biology WorkBench. I am part of a group who are interested in adapting this tool for middle- and high school use. Comprised of teachers, undergraduate and graduate students, professors and NCSA Education Division staff, the Biology WorkBench Education Version development group currently doesn't work as it must for efficient development efforts to occur. As I read through Harris' checklist of procedural steps for development of an online project, it became clear to me that our major impediments to progress could have been, and may still be, overcome by following the Harris model. Specifically,
1) Choose the Curricular Goal(s)
The teachers began the project unfamiliar with the software and its applications, and are struggling to understand it ourselves. Though several of us have direct tie-ins to our teaching, those tie-ins are not as clear to everyone. We have yet to individually determine and share our curricular goals, so at this time we are essentially working backwards.
2) Choose the Activity's Structure
The structure of the software was already defined, so it is up to us as educators to develop lessons which use the software, rather than choosing or creating the most appropriate structure ourselves. Again, we are working backwards.
3) Explore Examples of Other Online Projects
There are few similar projects of this type, though ChemViz and some of the astronomy-based supercomputing projects may be quite pertinent. We have not explored those other projects as a group, which I believe significantly limits our creation of a collective vision and subsequent development efforts. I hope that the NCSA Professional Development Workshop scheduled for July 20-24 will allow us to see these other developed projects and will serve to catalyze our collective efforts as a development group.
4) Determine the Details of Your Project
This stage is in progress, though it probably should have been well developed prior to development of the group of involved teachers. Title is established, Educational Purpose(s) are in progress and will be determined in part by participating teachers. Contact Person (name and e-mail address) is established. Curricular Areas the Project Addresses is still not fully clear. Grade Levels for Which the Project is Designed is somewhat clear, though we need to learn more about Biology WorkBench capabilities and develop several strong high school activities before we can expand the project to truly meaningful activities at the middle school level. Number of Collaborators is somewhat clear, though granting initiatives are underway which will give us University of Illinois student assistance in terms of support, web page construction and prototype development. Summary of the Project's Plan is unclear at this point. Directions for Registration or Joining the Project has been informal and is dealt with in detail in the following section. Timeline (including specific tasks to be completed and all interim deadlines) has yet to be stated, which causes problems in that participating teachers are all heavily involved in school-related activities year-round. Without clear timelines, Biology WorkBench efforts will always receive lower priority than well established deadlines for summer courses and committees, as well as the daily teaching, grading, committee and after-school activities during the school year. Procedures for Participation in the Project have never been expressed in any written form - all of the participating teachers are volunteers. Samples of Student Work that the Project will Generate have never been fully addressed during our meetings. While the Project Conclusion (including plans for how project results will be shared with all participants) has received some discussion, timelines are entirely lacking.
5, 6) Invite Telecollaborators, Form the Telecollaborative Group
These are modified to "Inviting Teacher-Developers" and "Form the Collaborative Development Group" for Biology WorkBench purposes. Invitation was done by contacting teachers in Champaign and Urbana who have been involved in NCSA education efforts throughout the past few years, as well as biology teachers at all of the high schools in Champaign-Urbana. I believe the group size to be appropriate for development - I certainly don't think we would want to expand beyond the current size.
7) Communicate!
Much of the advice from the 1984 Waugh, Levin, and Smith's article has been followed. A distribution list has been established, though we have had no substantial progress reports or sharing of materials up to this point. Ongoing teacher discussions pertaining to Biology WorkBench have yet to occur. The NCSA Principal Investigator does an excellent job with electronic messages, though we haven't had sufficient activity occur for these to be significant. The scientist involved in the effort has a number of ongoing projects, so his activity and communication have been sparse up to this point.
8) Create Closure
This is probably our major weakness at this point. We have yet to establish either a) the type of final tangible product, b) its format and appearance, c) a firm schedule of development activities or d) a mechanism of distribution once the project is completed.
Clearly the Internet plays a significant role as outlined in my project proposal. Aside from the additional perspective the Harris article has provided me regarding Biology WorkBench development efforts, it has made clear the necessity of considering means of project distribution upon project completion. At this point, it seems that distribution of my project through web sites that provide biology teaching materials (e.g. Access Excellence) would be appropriate. Additionally conference presentations at state and national, technology and supercomputing conferences will be useful in terms of distribution, as well as establishment of relationships for future collaborative technology-based teaching endeavors.
Written July, 1998 for EdPsy 387, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign CTER Program