Depth Education: A Masters Student’s Experience

This week we discussed the Depth Education Model in college.  We looked at the three aspects of a Model of Deep Learning. They include:

1. Conditionalised Knowledge
2. Metacognition
3. Communities of Inquiry

Conditionalised knowledge can be described as problem-based learning. It gets the learner to apply their knowledge in situations that are as authentic as possible.

Metacognition involves getting the learner to think and reflect on what they have learned.

Communities of Inquiry are learning communities where participants collaborate to understand concepts and share knowledge.

As we discussed this model in college, I began to think about our experience in our Masters and analyse how well this model is applied to the course.  

Conditionalised Knowledge

Our assignments are realistic and represent the type of work that we will be doing after the course. Each module provides us with an opportunity to apply what we have learned to an authentic problem. Some examples are listed below:

• To apply our knowledge of writing an instructional document, we were given a poorly designed set of instructions describing how to assemble a polytunnel. Our task was to redesign the instructions. This felt like a realistic situation as I, for one, had no prior knowledge of polytunnel assembly, and had to start researching the topic from scratch. This task was worthwhile as I know that in future I may be working with topics with which I am unfamiliar.
• I will be applying everything I have learned about instructional design during my developmental project. To add to the authenticity of this assignment, we carried out needs assessments and front-end analyses with SMEs and end-users.
• To consolidate our technical writing knowledge, we carried out a research project. In this project, we either did a content analysis or a usability test. I did the latter and went through the whole process of designing the test, interviewing real participants, and analysing and documenting the results.

Metacognition

This blog plays a major part in bringing the metacognition aspect of the model into our studies. It definitely gets me to look back over what we have covered and think about how each topic applies to my experience in the teaching world and my future career as an instructional designer/ technical writer.

Communities of Inquiry

A community of inquiry has run, and continues to run, throughout our time in the masters, in the form of an online forum. The forums in each module are an invaluable tool in this course where questions can be asked and ideas shared. Very often when I read through the forum, I find an answer to a question that I had been wondering myself.

Additionally, our virtual team is acting as a community of inquiry. We have a slack account where we discuss our ideas and debate the best course of action for our project. We have also talked about topics unrelated to the project, such as our jobs, our daily lives and our college experience. It has been a fantastic learning experience for me to hear from students around the world as well as those closer to home. It has given me an insight into how other people like to organise information.

Why employ a Model of Deep Learning?

The benefits of this model are clear to see. Students gain a deeper understanding of an area, the opportunity to use their knowledge, and an insight into the knowledge of others. Writing a blog twice a week is time-consuming and, as a first-time blogger, it is difficult to gauge the appropriateness of my writing style and content. However, it has engaged me in critical-thinking and encouraged me to look at other blogs and articles to find solutions to any problems I may encounter with my virtual team. I have looked at theories and concepts covered in lectures as topics that are applicable to my own past and future experiences.

In a way, Communities of Inquiry must provide relief to teachers and lecturers, as students can answer each other’s questions and questions are usually not repeated as everyone has access to the answers. This is also very important for distant learners who cannot ask questions face-to-face. These communities give distance learners the feeling of being in a classroom with others and the ability to engage with both students and teachers.

Consistency: A Team Challenge

How does a team divide their workload and merge their products into a cohesive document?

It is week 3 of our virtual collaboration project and the cogs in the Team 6 machine are still turning. The process, however, is not without its challenges.

I think one of the biggest tests faced by our virtual team is dividing the workload among the nine members in a way that is fair and results in a product with a consistent layout and style.

We have moved into an editing phase in our project. Last week, we had assigned two team members the task of writing the first draft of our instructions. They were working from style guides put together by our research team. They also had a lengthy phone conversation about the style of writing, headings, and numbering that they would use. They decided to work on separate sections and merge them into a first draft. This all seemed to make sense; agreeing on the style and formatting, and sharing the workload between them.

The first draft came back and each section was well-written and clear. However, even with all the prior planning and preparation, it still contained many inconsistencies in format and writing style. It also highlighted how an application can appear differently on all computers, and how everyone has their own way of carrying out a task. For example, if two people were describing how to save a document on Microsoft Word, one person might say “Click File> Save”. Another person might choose to say “Ctrl + S”.

This left us with a dilemma. What is the best way to divide work in a virtual project? We started to use Google Docs in order to critique the draft and make suggestions. Having never used Google Docs before, I was fascinated at how I could watch somebody on the other side of the world make live changes to a document. The writers took the comments on board and redrafted the piece before leaving it in the hands of the editors. But again, the same question stands: how do we divide the editing among the editors?

One suggestion was to give a section to each editor, allow them time to edit and then put the pieces back together. However, I feared that this would produce the same result as in the writing phase: inconsistencies in style and formatting. The ideal situation would be to have a live meeting and edit the piece together. Alas, time differences and work commitments are also preventing this. While researching how to overcome this obstacle, one editor found this useful article:

https://www.samepage.io/blog/9-rules-better-real-time-team-document-collaboration

We are taking on much of the advice outlined in the above article.

1. We are not oversharing the editing task. The rest of the team have access to the document as we edit it, but they have agreed to save their comments until we are finished.
2. We have an editing channel set up in Slack so that we can discuss the process and ask questions, and not overcrowd the document with comments.  
3. No changes are made until the full editing team is in agreement. I think this is essential and shows respect towards your team mates.
4. Also on that note, nobody is to overwrite changes made by somebody else, without discussing it first.

I have suggested that we each make our editing comments on Google Docs to the full document rather than sections, and respond with whether we agree or disagree. We will make changes when the editing team are in agreement. Hopefully, this will lead to a more consistent look and feel to the document. If this process does not work, however, we may have to go back to the drawing board and find out from a technical communication professional how editing works in the professional world.

A Working Relationship Built on Emojis

Over the past few days, I have been looking at the communication challenges identified by Flammia et al. (2016), and cannot help but reflect on the communication styles on display in our own virtual collaboration project.

Flammia et al. (2016) describe four categories of communication styles and their challenges:

1. Direct/ Indirect Communication Styles:  Speakers with an indirect communication style do not express themselves explicitly and avoid bluntness. They focus on not upsetting the group. I think this reflects the mentality of a lot of Irish people. In my experience, we are concerned that stating things too bluntly or directly may be perceived as rudeness. To use a common Irish saying, we do not want “to put anyone out”; Translation: we do not want to upset or put any undue pressure on anyone. This results in a communication style fraught with ambiguity, which may be understandable to Irish people, but confusing to other nationalities, even native English speakers. However, from my point of view, the Irish faction of our team have been living up to the name of technical communicators by being as direct (yet polite) as possible. The chat groups have been clear, with the occasional clarification needed now and then.
2. Elaborate/ Exact/ Succinct Communication Styles: Flammia et al. (2016) define this style as a continuum, with ‘elaborate’ and ‘succinct’ on opposite ends, and ‘exact’ situated in between the two. The terms are self-explanatory: an elaborate communication style is long-winded in nature with the use of ornate language, and a succinct communication style uses the minimum words necessary. As I reflect on our Slack chat groups, I would identify the team’s communication style as being mostly ‘exact’. The Irish group sometimes appears to sway to the more elaborate side of exact but this may be due to the fact that we outnumber the other groups, or have not progressed on to the translation phase of the process. Our position on the continuum may alter as the project progresses on to other stages, where some participants will become more involved, and possibly more vocal, than others.
3. Instrumental/Affective Communication Styles: As the project manager for this assignment, I have strived to use an instrumental communication style at all times. An instrumental style is specific and conveys a message as clearly as possible. During meetings, I have attempted to have a well-defined agenda and ensure that I make my point understandable to the whole team. This communication style is very effective in this forum as it has led to our success in delegating tasks, organising a schedule, and providing constructive feedback.
4. Personal/Contextual Communication Styles: In a personal communication style, the speaker places emphasis on himself/herself. In a contextual communication style, the emphasis is on the group. In the latter, the speaker uses ‘we’ instead of ‘I’. I would not have thought about these communication styles before this week and I cannot say, as of yet, which bracket the members of our team fall into. However, so far the team has been working harmoniously, looking out for one another, and giving words of encouragement where necessary. This may indicate that we are employing a contextual communication style. In other words, the team is thinking of the group as a whole and not emphasising themselves over anyone else.

Non-Verbal Communication

Flammia et al. (2016) emphasise the importance of non-verbal communication. They point out that the inability to communicate non-verbally with a virtual team may interfere with overall communication. My virtual team are communicating through chat groups on slack. It is difficult to convey the correct tone or emotion in a written message, particularly when most of the group have never even met face-to-face. We are not familiar with our colleagues’ personalities, and yet we are striving to build up a positive, friendly working relationship. To help convey the tone and emotion behind our messages, quite a few of us have started using emojis. We don’t overuse them but they have proven to be useful in lightening the tone or conveying when we are joking about something. It may not seem like a very professional approach, and it probably would not go down well in the working world. However, it has definitely helped build a good balance of work and play. In fact, I was looking at this blog post by Someone Somewhere:

https://zedie.wordpress.com/2018/07/17/what-your-emojis-say-about-you/

This blog discusses how psychologists are investigating the effects of emoji use in communication. They have found that emojis enable non-verbal communication and add to the clarity of a message. Our virtual team group chats are the living proof of these findings.

References:

Flammia, M., Cleary, Y. and Slattery, D. (2016) Virtual teams in higher education, Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

Unconventional Meetings for Non-Conventional Students

Virtual Collaboration Project Update

My virtual collaboration team have crossed another few items off the to-do list this week by deciding on a topic and devising a schedule for the coming weeks. We are in a research phase at present, investigating style guides, existing instructions, and usability tests.

Convergence

I was reminded of my virtual Team in a lecture this week, when the topic of the convergence of student types arose. Tait and Mills (1999) describe student archetypes of the conventional and non-conventional (distance learning) student. They describe the conventional student as being aged under 24, and most likely not working. Therefore, being a student is their primary role. The non-conventional student is the opposite of this description, i.e. over 24, and working as well as studying. Nobody on my virtual team seems to fit the conventional student archetype described by Tait and Mills (1999). The group fit in both the over 24 and under 24 categories, and study both on-campus and off-campus. Yet, the majority seem to work in some capacity. A younger member of the group particularly contradicts the archetype, as she is studying full-time for an undergraduate degree and working in the evenings when lectures are over. Most team members appear to be juggling work, family, and college life, and this brings its own challenge.

Unconventional Meetings for Non-Conventional Students

Due to the team’s range of commitments, it is nearly impossible to arrange a meeting time to suit all team members. This is not ideal because we will always be missing somebody for whom we may have a question, or who may have a valuable suggestion or solution to a problem.

To overcome this problem, we have set up channels on Slack about different topics. Usually, we need everyone’s input on a topic, but cannot arrange a whole-team meeting.  Now, we put a deadline for when we have to have come to a consensus on this topic. For example, we have been trying to research and agree on a design template and style guide so that the writers can get started. We want everyone to be in agreement about this but due to work and family commitments, we cannot have a meeting to discuss it. Therefore, we set up a design/layout channel on the 6^th of February. Everyone has agreed to check in each day with the channel to provide their own research, review the research of others and come to a consensus, by the 9^th of February at 2pm.

We have started to call this process ‘informal meetings’ and they usually take place over two or three days. The obvious drawback is that the decision process takes much longer, but on the plus side, everyone is included and this process generally leads to a fully informed decision with which everyone is happy.

References:

Tait, A. and Mills, R. (1999) The Convergence of Distance and Conventional Education. London: Routledge.