Indeed a seamless integration of web, email, newsgroup and a searchable document database are the components that make a formidable groupware application.

Hellblade: Senua’s Sacrifice was one example, with Pratchett pointing out the help provided by the Wellcome Trust’s Public Engagement Fund. The trust is a foundation in England that gives grants to projects in film, TV and video games that have a biological or neurological component. Part of the grant process also comes with support from consultants, who work with recipients. For Hellblade, that meant replicating Senua’s psychosis in a convincing and sensitive way, and so University of Cambridge’s Professor Paul Fletcher became integral to the game’s development.

humanities scholars have collaborated with computer scientists to build tools to facilitate these essential functions of the humanities in new ways.

keep accessibility top of mind

Adapt or remix OERs with your students.

free of charge and free of licensing restrictions

agreement template

L’intention d’une approche d’enseignement à travers un réseau social virtuel est de transformer une activité individuelle en une activité sociale. Tout le monde a bien compris combien les étudiants d’aujourd’hui ont besoin d’interactions et par voie de conséquence, l’offre d’outils de collaboration en ligne se diversifie. A tel point qu’il devient compliqué d’en évaluer chaque fonction et d’en mesurer la valeur pédagogique. Concernant la curation et  l’annotation, des enseignants du cégep Vanier, soutenus par la VTÉ, ont tenté d’y voir plus clair. 

they meet at their concept and terminology interface and work out little shifts in meaning and use which each can find digestible in his system, and which permit quite precise definitions in each system of the terms and concepts in the others.

7. Team Cooperation

A group of local or global learners who reach a common outcome while connecting and learning online

Web annotation, for example, is catching on as a new mode of collaboration, peer review, and other research functions.

That’s true not just within the classroom environment, but in the web of interactions students experience

Seneca does not just give him advice and comment on a few great principles of conduct for his benefit. Through those written lessons, Seneca continues to exercise himself; according to two principles that he often invokes; it is necessary to train oneself all one’s life, and one always needs the help of others in the soul’s labor upon itself.

In the most physically salient and concrete example, ‘spatial boundaries’ [11] at work—such as office or cubicle walls—are being removed to create open ‘unbounded’ offices in order to stimulate greater collaboration and collective intelligence. Does it work?

The large majority of researchers accepted my invitation to connectwith practitioners.

As shown below, practitioners very clearly prefer hands-on matchmakin

Overall, however, these data showhow practitionersare often nottime-sensitive when interacting with res

As shown below, most of the 37 practitioners that reached out were facing a mome

Afterwards I followed up with practitionersand asked if the conversation provided useful information addressing their cu

One way to reduce the impact of status differentials is to communicate each individual’s expertise to the entire group upfron

most importantly, however, when the group has real synergy, it will by far exceed the best individual performance. Synergy is best thought of as members of the same team feeding off one another in positive ways; as result the "whole" becomes better than "the sum of the parts". Collaboration can actually raise the "group IQ" – i.e. the sum total of the best talents of each member on the team.

In effective collaboration, all people involved use their emotional intelligence well to balance emotional needs with their thinking, build authentic relationships and make good quality decisions on behalf of the organisation. Whether working with others one-to-one, in small groups or large teams, there is exemplary communication with empathy that engages hearts and minds.  This occurs at all levels of the organisation.

t turns out emotional intelligence in a group setting accelerates the group's development. Team members need EI on an individual level. And when we work together with EI, it's fascinating to see what happens. Studies are finding that collaboration among those with high emotional intelligence creates outcomes that exceed the sum of their individual talents. Shared emotional intelligence not only improves work processes, it improves the work product!

To cultivate such a mind, he says, we need an education that features “exploration, challenging problems, and the tolerance, if not active encouragement, of productive mistakes.

Assume shared responsibility for collaborative work, and value the individual contributions made by each team member

Generally, collaboration has been accepted as a skill that’s essential to achieve meaningful and effective results. In the past decade, however, it has become increasingly clear that collaboration is not only important but necessary for students and employees, due to globalization and the rise of technology.

Malaysia cannot build smart cities on its own. Its partnership with Alibaba shows how collaboration can drive technological advancement forward. Data democratisation should help speed up development through internal collaboration.

Many tasks worth completing require cooperation –yet crowdsourcing has largely focused on independent work. Distributed teams have always facedchallenges in cultural differences and coordination[60], but crowd collaboration now must createrapport over much shorter timescales(e.g., one hour) and possibly wider culturalor socioeconomic gaps

Finally, it will be amajor research undertaking to invent and describe the tasks and techniques that succeed with synchronous collaboration

RISTEK says it wants to promote research collaborations

where there’s collaboration, where there are pages for a lot of people who are discussing and editing each other and calling each other out and correcting and learning from each other — that’s what I think the open internet is.

It creates more of a community because you get closer to someone once you’ve spent a solid 24 hours working with them. It’s definitely experience to be had.

global technology firm with social and economic justice at its very core

Thus mass collaboration is more refined and complex in its process and production on the level of collective engagement.

could both study and create “non-print,” “electronic,” and “visual” texts

Center of Excellence

Remote collaboration pain? Try a dash of Google Drawings!

Multimedia portfolios of student work

review and critique each other’s work.

working with members of the community

holding themselves accountable

build relationships through mechanisms

egularly working on teams

Lots of talking and listening; a constant exchange of ideas

Inter- and intra-personal skills. Character and culture are important values that are emphasized as much as academic subjects

listen well—to be a good “critical friend.”

learn as much from their peers as from their teachers or a textbook

EVIDENCE OF THINKING, NOT JUST GROUP WORK

The transformative view is that learning is a social process, with students and teachers working in partnership with each other and with experts beyond school, supported by digital technologies. In the transformative view, collaboration, creativity, innovation, entrepreneurial know-how, and ethical citizenship infuse teaching and learning. Students and teachers co-design their work. The learning environment, which extends beyond the classroom, is purposefully designed for students to think, research, analyze, develop and improve their ideas, and demonstrate deep understanding through the work they produce

Collaboration is the social process that supports learners' development of capabilities in which they learn to do without assistance things that they could initially do only with assistance. If learning really is a social process, then collaboration is required. The assistance that learners require may be provided by experts such as teachers and by peers, who collectively have expertise distributed among them.

The Triple Feedback Loop offers a compass by aligning the information flows in a framework for operating a network of disparate players with different goals who work together on an overarching goal.

Introduction

I arrived in class to find our partner librarians ready to teach our students. 

One implication of the naturalness with which we divide cognitive labor,” they write, is that there’s “no sharp boundary between one person’s ideas and knowledge” and “those of other members” of the group.

Forms, rubrics, charts and graphs are useful in these situations to objectively document personal traits with the goal of improving performance in current and future projects.

Structured methods of collaboration encourage introspection of behavior and communication.[5] These methods specifically aim to increase the success of teams as they engage in collaborative problem solving

Use meeting time to exchange ideas, not generate them.

A team at Facebook reviewed thousands of headlines using these criteria, validating each other’s work to identify a large set of clickbait headlines. From there, we built a system that looks at the set of clickbait headlines to determine what phrases are commonly used in clickbait headlines that are not used in other headlines. This is similar to how many email spam filters work.

our faculty are evaluated on not just research, teaching and service but also collaboration

(i) those who make only an occasional or rela- tively minor contribution to a piece of research; (ii) those not seen as, or treated as, 'proper' researchers (e.g., technicians, research assistants).

(d) those responsible for a key step (e.g., the original idea or hypothesis, the theoretical interpreta- tion);

(a) those who work together on the research project throughout its duration or for a large part of it, or who make frequent or substantial contribution; (b) those whose names or posts appear in the original research proposal ~9; (c) those responsible for one or more of the main elements of the research (e.g. the experimental de- sign, construction of research equipment, execution of the experiment, analysis and interpretation of the data 20 writing up the results in a paper).

putative criteria for distin- guishing 'collaborators' from other researchers.

one possibility would be to include as a 'collaborator' anyone providing an input to a particu- lar piece of research. However, this weak definition of collaboration would bring in such large numbers of collaborators that it would be too unwieldy for all practical purposes.

A.E. Nudelman and C.E. Landers, 1972, The failure of 100 divided by 3 to equal 333, American Sociologist 7, 9.

Using a combination of questionnaires and interviews, Nudel- man and Landers [48] found that for the case of a three-author article the first author received 75% of the intellectual credit of a single-author paper, the second author 62% and the third author 58%. Thus, a three-author paper would be given a total of nearly twice the credit of a single-author paper.

They found that scientific output as mea- sured by publications is closely dependent on the frequency of collaboration among authors.

high productivity (in terms of published output) is indeed correlated with high levels of collaboration [1-4,24,30,51,52,58,60].

A pioneering insight into the productivity of sci- entists was provided by Lotka in 1926--an insight since confirmed by numerous others. He showed that the number of authors producing n papers is propor- tional to 1/n 2 [32]. Thus, the number of researchers producing just one paper in a given period of time is two orders of magnitude greater than the number of researchers producing 10 papers in the same time and four orders of magnitude greater that the number producing 100 papers. Lotka's findings have led some investigators to ask if prolific authors tend to collaborate more than less prolific authors.

We also show that co-authorship is no more than a partial indicator of collaboration

ependingon the participants, the following kinds of col-laboration can be identified:

(6) International col/ahoralÍon. International col-laborative behaviour among scientists has beenstudied by Frame and Carpenter [6]. The degree ofcollaboration was found to be higher in basicfields of science (such as physics, mathematics,and chemistry) than in applied fields (such asengineering and technology, clinical medicine andbiomedical research). Frame and Carpenter fur-ther found that(a) the extent of international collaboration wasinversely proportional to the size of a country’sscientific enterprise, and(b) extra-scientific factors such as geography,politics, and language, played a strong role indetermining who collaborates with whom in theinternational scientific community.

5) Collaboration between organizations. Scien-tists and engineers employed in different organiza-tions often collaborate on research projects ofmutual interest. Such collaboration may be spurredby informal contacts or prior acquaintance of theresearchers. It is also possible that when a scientistleaves an organization and joins another, he or shemay carry on an unfinished research project in thenew organization with the continued collaborationof former colleagues. Inter-organizational col-laboration may also be necessitated by a commun-ity of concerns (as between two government agen-cies) or by the complexity of a research project, orwhen researchers in one organization may need touse expensive equipment or specialized serviceavailable at another organization. According torecent data published by the U.S. National ScienceFoundation, research collaboration between in-dustries and academic institutions has been gradu-ally increasing [ 1 1 J.

upert1isor- assistant collaboration. Earlierstudies on the sociology of science, for example, byCole and Cole [5], have shown the existence of astratified structure within the scientific commun-ity. In research projects requiring extensive use oflaboratory facilities or very specialized equipment,the principal investigator is often assisted by anarray of laboratory assistants and technicians.

(2) Collaboration among colleagues. It is a verycommon practice in corporate research centers fora number of colleagues to be working on one ormore projects, each contributing expertise in adifferent aspect of the project. In interdisciplinaryfields such as environment, energy, or space re-search, scientists and engineers from a wide varietyof specialities often collaborate. It is not uncom-mon for chemists, chemical engineers, materialsengineers, biophysicists, and other specialists to beworking together in an interdisciplinary project.Husband-and-wife teams can also be included inthis category.

( 1 ) Teacher-pupil collaboration. This is a verycommon mode of collaboration in an academicsetting. The professor in a university departmentprovides the ideas and guidance, and sometimesalso the funds from a research grant, and theresearch assistant or student does most of thebench work. The resulting project report, con-ference paper, or journal article usually carries thenames of both the professor and the student. It isnot uncommon for a professor to be guiding severalstudents in different research projects at the sametime

Bibliometric studies of research collaboration:A review

Friedlander argues that for digital humanities to thrive, "one component must be a set of organizational topics and questions that do not bind research into legacy categories and do invite interesting collaborations that will allow for creative cross-fertilization of ideas and techniques and then spur new questions to be pursued by colleagues and students"  [Friedlander 2009, 6]. As she suggests, the digital humanities need to move beyond large numbers of small, uncoordinated projects. Collaborative projects attract more resources and more attention. If properly designed, they also may be more sustainable, creating platforms on which new projects can be constructed. The plethora of boutique digital humanities projects risks the same fate as most digital learning objects. While intended for general use, they lack a common technical platform, common data structures, and common means to aggregate or decompose modules to a useful level of granularity [Borgman et al. 2008].

Does mega-authorship threaten our concept of authorship in science? It would be easy, and fun, to write with a scandalized tone about how mega-authorship corrupts all that is good and decent about scientific publishing. But does it really matter? I think both yes and (mostly) no.

What to do when your coauthor doesn’t return your calls.

Of course, they will most likely all be co-authored pieces, but the significant point is that the REF rules, except in special cases, impose no penalty on genuinely co-authored work; they explicitly state that it is welcomed. In most cases, there is no disadvantage in submitting a co-authored item to the exercise (although there is some complication when co-authors submit in the same return); it is not as if it counts as half an output or less.

he case for more collaborative work can be made. Indeed, most of us do it already, to some degree. We tend to discuss our ideas with colleagues and seek trusted opinions. We present talks at conferences and seminars, and use the feedback to develop ideas before publication. We solicit comments on drafts. Colleagues share a research environment that, if it is effective, contributes to the quality of all output. Yet when the work appears, the standard model is still sole ownership. A colleague could have given a lot of input, discussing ideas or providing comments on early drafts, yet their accepted reward is only to appear in the list of acknowledgements. This seems a paltry return on what can be a considerable amount of effort, an effort that is obviously a degree of collaboration. Perhaps one tries to mitigate the paltry reward by extracting a reciprocal amount of uncredited assistance in return.

Typically, authors can write something better together than they could have produced alone.

Combination acts

In some domains, path-breaking work is nec-essarily the outcome of collaborative activity rather thanindividualistic scholarship, a fact reflected in the modestproportion of federal research funds which is allocated toindividual investigators rather than teams. Collaborationsare a necessary feature of much, though by no means all,contemporary scientific research.

Researching the chosen issue

If, at the dawn of the web, I was to take a list of things the web would bring about and show them to a researcher, they might disagree on the level of interest people would have in things (what’s with the cat pictures, spaceman?) but there’d be little there to surprise them except for one item: the most used reference work in the world will be collaboratively maintained by a group of anonymous and pseudonymous volunteers as part of a self-organizing network.

We are naturally creative and curious. We just have to build systems that nurture our inherent abilities. Schools do not do that.

You don’t have to do everything yourself!

inevitably, to academics working as part of a team

“open” as in students can modify it

The Open Badges discussion forum, started by the Badge Alliance is a great place to discuss this course and connect with the worlwide badges community!

instructional arrangement s where children work together to plan, draft, revise, and edit their compositions

collaboration

to interact and collaborate with others.