Fractal Depth, Part II--If I Could Only Do It Over Again
phlezk responded to my first posting on "fractal depth" by asking about the term. To answer, I'll quote from page 117 of Hagel and Armstrong's Net Gain:
A community's "fractal depth" is the degree to which it can be segmented. The spirit of community, as reflected in the importance of the relationships between and the roles of community members, is what makes a virtual community such a powerful business model. If this spirit tends to be greater in smaller groups where it's possible for people to have more in common, then the more ways a community can be split into smaller subcommunities the better. We call this a community's "fractal depth."
Bear in mind that I'm still reading the book and still reflecting on what I've read, but my current interpretation of the significance of fractal depth is pushing me to make changes in the way I teach. First, one school of thought holds that the best way to structure groups is to assign students to groups randomly. Larry Michaelson demonstrates a way to do this when he conducts his workshops on team-based learning. I've been assigning students to online groups randomly using the Generate Groups feature of WebCT. Proponents of this approach say that diversity is a valued quality in groups and that diversity is better ensured by this approach.
Another school of thought holds that students work better in groups when they self select into groups. The idea here is that they will select friends as members of their group. Proponents of this approach recognize that friends have something in common, which is a strength.
Because of Hagel and Armstrong what I now realize is that both approaches are WRONG! The "spirit of community" will be strongest where students have a great deal in common with their group members. Too often, though, the things that friends in a class have in common are things that matter little to the efficient functioning of a team.
My thinking now is that the rapport and trust that DrTammy emphasizes can be better and more easily established by grouping students according to shared interests. Thanks, DrTammy for introducing me to Palloff and Pratt. I haven't read their book yet, but I think what I want to do would meet with their approval. Next semester I will create a survey of students' academic and personal interests and use the survey results to match students as I place them into groups. This will be lots of work in big classes, but if the fractal depth that leads to rapport and trust mean improved student learning it will be worth it.
A community's "fractal depth" is the degree to which it can be segmented. The spirit of community, as reflected in the importance of the relationships between and the roles of community members, is what makes a virtual community such a powerful business model. If this spirit tends to be greater in smaller groups where it's possible for people to have more in common, then the more ways a community can be split into smaller subcommunities the better. We call this a community's "fractal depth."
Bear in mind that I'm still reading the book and still reflecting on what I've read, but my current interpretation of the significance of fractal depth is pushing me to make changes in the way I teach. First, one school of thought holds that the best way to structure groups is to assign students to groups randomly. Larry Michaelson demonstrates a way to do this when he conducts his workshops on team-based learning. I've been assigning students to online groups randomly using the Generate Groups feature of WebCT. Proponents of this approach say that diversity is a valued quality in groups and that diversity is better ensured by this approach.
Another school of thought holds that students work better in groups when they self select into groups. The idea here is that they will select friends as members of their group. Proponents of this approach recognize that friends have something in common, which is a strength.
Because of Hagel and Armstrong what I now realize is that both approaches are WRONG! The "spirit of community" will be strongest where students have a great deal in common with their group members. Too often, though, the things that friends in a class have in common are things that matter little to the efficient functioning of a team.
My thinking now is that the rapport and trust that DrTammy emphasizes can be better and more easily established by grouping students according to shared interests. Thanks, DrTammy for introducing me to Palloff and Pratt. I haven't read their book yet, but I think what I want to do would meet with their approval. Next semester I will create a survey of students' academic and personal interests and use the survey results to match students as I place them into groups. This will be lots of work in big classes, but if the fractal depth that leads to rapport and trust mean improved student learning it will be worth it.
posted by Ronald M. Ayers at 3:47 AM
1 Comments:
Dr. Tammy, to embed links, use good ole fashioned HTML. for a link, it would go < A HREF = " yahoo.com " > click here < / A >, without all the spaces.
Dr. Ayers, I do believe teams work well, but as far as choosing teams, that's a difficult choice. Friends obviously comes to mind first, but some people are more likely to goof off than to get any real work done. The random groups that you made seem to work well, though there was only one assigned thing in 'real life', the rest online.
Also, thank you for linking me. I hope you enjoyed my work.
Post a Comment
<< Home