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.

اخر الاخبار

اخبار العتبة العباسية المقدسة

متحف الكفيل يباشر صيانة منسوجات تراثية تابعة للعتبة العسكرية المقدسة

العتبة العباسية المقدسة تستذكر مظلومية الإمام الكاظم (عليه السلام) عبر مجلس عزاء

قسم العلاقات العامة يناقش مع منتدى شباب الإسكان إقامة مهرجان تكريم طالبات المدارس المرتديات العباءة في القادسية

سماحة السيد الصافي يدعو إلى توحيد الجهود في تحقيق التراث لضمان الرصانة والدقة وخدمة الساحة العلمية

المزيد

الآخبار الصحية

6 فواكة تساعدك على الشعور بتحسّن عند المرض

حفاظا على صحة العين.. هذا أفضل وقت لتناول فيتامين أ

الاستخدام اليومي لسماعات الأذن.. أخطر مما تتصور !

هل توقيت نشاطك اليومي يؤثر على صحة دماغك؟.. العلماء يجيبون

المزيد

الآخبار التكنلوجية

ابتكار ألماني قد يغيّر مستقبل صناعة البلاستيك

تحديثات وأرباح عبر المشاهدات.. ما الذي تخطط له "لينكد إن"؟

"الكوكايين الوردي".. مخدر جديد يثير قلق السلطات الأميركية

دراسة: تغيّرات في أسلوب القيادة قد تكشف مبكرا عن الخرف !

المزيد

مواضيع ذات صلة

Parents with Learning Disabilities CONCLUSION

PROVISION OF SUPPORT

CARING FOR CHILDREN

EUGENICS AND ETHICAL ISSUES

PARENTING

DISCRIMINATION AND DIVERSITY

THE HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

Parents with Learning Disabilities

Legislation and Learning Disabilities CONCLUSION

LEGAL SAFEGUARDS

MENTAL CAPACITY ACT 2005

THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998