The collaborative structures of Atelier Geelong teams
المؤلف:
Richard Tucker
المصدر:
Enhancing Teaching and Learning through Assessment
الجزء والصفحة:
P218-C19
2025-07-08
386
The collaborative structures of Atelier Geelong teams
In order to find out the effect of assessment procedures on the learning of individuals within a collaborative design team, it is necessary first to know something about how the teams collaborated. In order to achieve this understanding we shall examine the teams in the three categories of organization in which they worked together in 2003.
When, in 2003, students were allowed to choose their own team-mates, the team-working of approximately 40% of the teams could be described with the term 'democratic collaboration'. This resulted when there was no clear leader, and/or in most cases of this type when students were too polite, or of such similar ability that they felt they had no right to criticize at any depth. In such cases, those developed were those elected democratically. This often implied that the ideas selected had prompted the fewest objections, which frequently resulted in a product that in advertising parlance is commonly (unkindly) known as "lowest common denominator." This clearly was not a mode of collaborative working that encouraged risk for as Schrage implies, innovation is more often than not the product of a diverse range of skills and abilities (Schrage, 1995).
It might be appropriate to describe the groups driven by one or two high achievers, which numbered six - the least common of the three primary collaborative modes- as 'oligarchic collaborators.' Not only did these groups often produce the most accomplished and innovative designs, but they usually resulted in a positive learning environment for everyone. This included low achievers, who in these groups were often encouraged to develop previously unchallenged abilities.
If 40% of the teams could be described as democratic and 20% as oligarchic then, in turn, to describe the organization of approximately another 30% of the 2003 teams we might use another term with Platonic origins, namely 'timarchic collaboration.' For, in common with Plato's description (1955) of a society divided by internal strife and characterized by conflict and selfish ambition, this last type of group was born out of dissent. Often the result was piecemeal design with little cohesion. Most failures of teams to bond, due to either clashing personalities or other failures to communicate, led to this common solution; namely, a design of disparate parts defined merely by an allocated footprint. We shall consider in our conclusion what effect the use of different assessment modes may have had on the proportional distribution of these three collaborative modes.
الاكثر قراءة في Teaching Strategies
اخر الاخبار
اخبار العتبة العباسية المقدسة
