What was good about it?
Uesful to see something come together, fairly rapidly (more so that firing emails back and forth, and a more organised way of working on a shared document (no concerns about working on an older version etc).
What was bad about it?
An early mistake on my part - researching formative rather than summative assessment. Probably caused by skim-reading the posts in the discussion thread, this probably wouldn't have happened face to face.
Communication feels a little stilted and formal. If something has been dropped (e.g. a question not answered), it feels forced to bring it up again.
What worked?
Somebody has to start the work, when somebody does, things can move quite well, but it seemed that especially where there is a little confusion or lack of clarity, that people can wait for somebody else to start. This happens face to face, but the asychronous communication probably makes it worse. You don't have any clues as to if a colleague is sat at their computer waiting for something, or if they've wandered off for lunch.
What did not work?
What would you do differently next time?
Did everyone pull their weight?
There did appear to be differences in the amount of effort or attention paid to the task, however this might be due to differing levels of familiarity with both the material and the enviornment. One of the facets of online communication often observed elsewhere is that people who are active participants, active in discussions, and who are 'early movers' can often exert substantial influence over the process.
No comments:
Post a Comment