This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
In reflecting on our collaborative process, one conclusion became clear. Namely,


the authors believed in a learning centered approach to classroom teaching versus an instructor centered paradigm. Since the seminal work of Barr and Tagg (1995), a shift in how we think about teaching is occurring. The authors outline the assumptions behind each of these approaches and weigh the merits for improved teaching that occurs when learners are the focus in the classroom setting. Inherent in this ongoing discussion are differences in disciplinary orientation that preferences content over learning-directed outcomes. Additionally, we are aware that the risks for faculty in teaching are different depending on institutional type, position (untenured versus tenured), and discipline (those with licensure requirements). The participants in this project came from a position in which they felt free to take risks. Those faculty who are tenured and participated did not have to worry about the potential impact of poor teaching evaluations. By putting ourselves in the position of learners, we were able to experience


firsthand what our students might feel when they are presented with a new form of learning—namely, collaborative writing. As a result, we now have more empathy for the student perspective and also can understand better the importance of clarity in assignment design and ease of use of the technology. We all got to touch the technology, experiment with a variety of tools, and determine what worked best for us.


Challenges Any collaboration is not without challenges, this one included. One of the


challenges we faced was figuring out when and how to move from the collaborative brainstorming, discussing, and contributing stages to final production. In the same way that we have suggested implementing a timeline for collaborative writing projects for our students, we had to navigate the stages from initial group meetings in the May seminar to the production of the final manual to share publically. Initially, we had to get used to the messy process of writing jointly, which included the presence of multiple voices in a single document and different assumptions we each brought to the table regarding collaborative writing. The process began as a collaborative effort among many participants. This collaboration started in Google Documents, with edited versions


100


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128