Not only did I find this morning's online conference very helpful but it also prompted me to have a go at fitting some of what we discussed into the STARR model. Here's what I came up with:
Situation
The context
Task
Problem we were trying to solve
Action
What did we do to solve it?
Results
What happened? Did we succeed/adjust?
Reflections
What did you learn?
What roles should each of us be allotted?
There was general resistance to the idea and agreed we would just let people's roles emerge (or not).
The decision was vindicated because first John and then later Asanka, was absent from the project for a substantial period in each case.
I have always agreed that resilience is an essential ingredient of successful learning but when I was unable to muster that resilience for 2-3 weeks I began to ponder ways of helping students cope with absence and still make a success of their course. I suppose a more generous timetable, with an empty week or two would offer some support.
We needed to agree the next steps and reassess our overall progress
We held an online conference
The whole team of 4 meet for 90 minutes and held a wide-ranging discussion including some areas where we did not agree, at least not at first.
We agreed a number of points which are explored below
I find online video conferences play an important part in online courses for me. The opportunity to speak 'face-to-face' unfailingly has a positive affect on my relationship with the team. We were able to hammer out some unclear points very constructively
How will we complete the Features page
David will carry on entering details from the storyboard; we will all add our assessment of priorities
This was a really practical and realistic agreement.
Once again, we realised that in a team it important to share out the work rather than everyone doing everything
How do we record changes on the Features page
Asanka suggested an extra column for changes and comments
Again this very good idea was adopted.
We may not have made clear enough at the start whether the project was for teachers or students. Who are the learners?
Patrick reminded us that it was our original aim to enable learners to deal with dilemmas. Teachers come on our course and explore digital story-telling. We need to teach teachers about d.s. We are saying "come and learn how to be a better teacher. how to be more culturally aware' (Patrick) "The new technology is a side effect. We want to "create awareness of cultural issues"
We all agreed that this was the case. We restated our intention to retain that emphasis
I was reminded gently by the team that I seemed to have overlooked our original thrust. This was done without fuss and was a nice piece of team dynamic I thought.
Should the prototype reflect the story board precisely or would it be more constructive to make changes as we feel they become necessary? Patrick felt "we shouldn't mimic the story board".
For example, Asanka pointed out that we have not made any allowances for different levels / abilities / ages of students
Patrick and Asanka were keen to build into the prototype any changes which seemed desirable whereas John and David felt that the expectation was that the prototype would reflect the story board as completed recently.
I think there was a loose agreement that the prototype should represent the storyboard without change.
I learned that everyone in the group sees that compromise is very important. We have never had a situation where someone was so convinced of the importance of what they wanted that they would not budge.
The tone was relaxed but very professional.
Ironically I also would have liked more about how the d.s. site could be slanted towards different student cohorts but I felt that it would delay us if we went down that route at this stage
Asanka would have wanted more learner focus
John pointed out that his story board had quite a deliberate emphasis on the student role, to avoid a teacher-led delivery. Some sessions had no teacher involvement at all. That emphasis wasn't reflected in the final storyboard.
John pointed out that the wording of our final story board was often quite general (eg students access / are shown digital stories) so that perhaps that gave scope for a more constructivist approach with less teacher input.
I have learned that working in an online team like this requires a complex mix of reactions and behaviours from all of us. Sometimes we express an opinion or an idea which is adopted. At others an equally sound idea (or so I think) doesn't get adopted. You shrug your shoulders in the realisation that we need to keep moving forwards in the interests of the project.
The website was much-improved but could still be tidier
David, who has become the de facto web manager, offered to carry out some more improvements
Our discussion about how to improve the site did succeed. Time will tell (no pressure, David) if we see some improvements
That delegation is sometimes appropriate on a project such as this one.
My first STARR
Not only did I find this morning's online conference very helpful but it also prompted me to have a go at fitting some of what we discussed into the STARR model. Here's what I came up with:
Situation
The context
Task
Problem we were trying to solve
Action
What did we do to solve it?
Results
What happened? Did we succeed/adjust?
Reflections
What did you learn?
What roles should each of us be allotted?
There was general resistance to the idea and agreed we would just let people's roles emerge (or not).
The decision was vindicated because first John and then later Asanka, was absent from the project for a substantial period in each case.
I have always agreed that resilience is an essential ingredient of successful learning but when I was unable to muster that resilience for 2-3 weeks I began to ponder ways of helping students cope with absence and still make a success of their course. I suppose a more generous timetable, with an empty week or two would offer some support.
We needed to agree the next steps and reassess our overall progress
We held an online conference
The whole team of 4 meet for 90 minutes and held a wide-ranging discussion including some areas where we did not agree, at least not at first.
We agreed a number of points which are explored below
I find online video conferences play an important part in online courses for me. The opportunity to speak 'face-to-face' unfailingly has a positive affect on my relationship with the team. We were able to hammer out some unclear points very constructively
How will we complete the Features page
David will carry on entering details from the storyboard; we will all add our assessment of priorities
This was a really practical and realistic agreement.
Once again, we realised that in a team it important to share out the work rather than everyone doing everything
How do we record changes on the Features page
Asanka suggested an extra column for changes and comments
Again this very good idea was adopted.
We may not have made clear enough at the start whether the project was for teachers or students. Who are the learners?
Patrick reminded us that it was our original aim to enable learners to deal with dilemmas. Teachers come on our course and explore digital story-telling. We need to teach teachers about d.s. We are saying "come and learn how to be a better teacher. how to be more culturally aware' (Patrick) "The new technology is a side effect. We want to "create awareness of cultural issues"
We all agreed that this was the case. We restated our intention to retain that emphasis
I was reminded gently by the team that I seemed to have overlooked our original thrust. This was done without fuss and was a nice piece of team dynamic I thought.
Should the prototype reflect the story board precisely or would it be more constructive to make changes as we feel they become necessary? Patrick felt "we shouldn't mimic the story board".
For example, Asanka pointed out that we have not made any allowances for different levels / abilities / ages of students
Patrick and Asanka were keen to build into the prototype any changes which seemed desirable whereas John and David felt that the expectation was that the prototype would reflect the story board as completed recently.
I think there was a loose agreement that the prototype should represent the storyboard without change.
I learned that everyone in the group sees that compromise is very important. We have never had a situation where someone was so convinced of the importance of what they wanted that they would not budge.
The tone was relaxed but very professional.
Ironically I also would have liked more about how the d.s. site could be slanted towards different student cohorts but I felt that it would delay us if we went down that route at this stage
Asanka would have wanted more learner focus
John pointed out that his story board had quite a deliberate emphasis on the student role, to avoid a teacher-led delivery. Some sessions had no teacher involvement at all. That emphasis wasn't reflected in the final storyboard.
John pointed out that the wording of our final story board was often quite general (eg students access / are shown digital stories) so that perhaps that gave scope for a more constructivist approach with less teacher input.
I have learned that working in an online team like this requires a complex mix of reactions and behaviours from all of us. Sometimes we express an opinion or an idea which is adopted. At others an equally sound idea (or so I think) doesn't get adopted. You shrug your shoulders in the realisation that we need to keep moving forwards in the interests of the project.
The website was much-improved but could still be tidier
David, who has become the de facto web manager, offered to carry out some more improvements
Our discussion about how to improve the site did succeed. Time will tell (no pressure, David) if we see some improvements
That delegation is sometimes appropriate on a project such as this one.