One-handed (As Opposed To Off-hand) Observation

First off, forgive the terseness and perhaps greater ill temper in my responses this week. I had my right thumb re-built last Thursday (damned osteoarthritis) and typing one-handed gets tedious in a hurry.

What struck me most about these collaborative / communication tools (or, really, rather processes) is that the technology simultaneously makes the collaboration possible while not becoming the end result, the deliverable.

That’s why I call a fishbowl a process and not a tool. It’s an elegant metaphor – participants and participation are so wonderfully transparent. In looking at the several examples, there were different software programs involved.

You wouldn’t expect to go to Best Buy and buy fishbowl software in a box. And, after all, nothing previously actually prevented a “fishbowl” from occurring in ‘real life’, was there?

The technology also seems to aid in grading. To extend the metaphor of transparency, it’s much easier to see the quality of participation.

In one of the supporting documents for the Arapahoe “Fishbowl 101,” one of the expectations reads, “Also, there will be one chair for the presenters to select 5 random people (drawn names) who at some time must jump into the discussion and participate. If a drawn name individual does not participate, he or she will not be able to regain 2 of their 10 daily points. Any sign of a lack of preparation by a circle member will result in the loss of points for that particular day.”

This seems to be a quantum leap over “old-style,” “live” classroom discussions because of the logging / tracking capacity of most of the software programs available.