What makes it to the board: assessment via whiteboard

What initially sparked my interest in Group 6's discussion of rights and responsibilities on Day One was an exchange between Melanie and Ingrid where Melanie states "I have the right to be dumb every once in awhile. Please be nice to me if I'm on the wrong track." Ingrid then restates as "The right to be ignorant," which to me was a fascinating way to put this idea. Yet, what was ultimately put on their whiteboard was the right "To not know everything." As I blogged the last week (here), this prompted me to begin to notice the negotiation of the group in deciding what to put on the whiteboard.

There have been other posts that have dealt with interesting aspects of whiteboard collaboration, such as Kara's post from last summer about inequality of access (here) and from the PHSYLRNR listserve on "The Power of the Marker" (here). Unlike the phenomena these posts discuss, Group 6 is actually working collaboratively and productively. They are using the whiteboard as both a collaboration tool - where they can revise and refine what they have written as a group - and as a presentation space - where they are consciously thinking about how to succinctly summarize a right or a responsibility that they all recognize. Also, although there is some evidence of "the power of the marker," they are pretty good about sharing power among the group members. Thus, instead of issues of inequality of access or the power dynamics, what captured me is the idea of the whiteboard as an incomplete assessment tool. What happens to our assessment if what makes it to the whiteboard is a thin representation of an incredibly rich interaction?

The whole discussion of rights and responsibilities was about 15 minutes and this was the whiteboard they had produced at the end:

I want to focus on just a few pieces of this longer conversation, so to provide some context, below is a breakdown of how the conversation progressed (anything in quotes is something that is actually on the board):

1. "Listen" followed by a discussion of whose R & R's to focus on
2. "Participate/be active" and "Be Respectful"
3. "To not know everything" (i.e. the right to be ignorant)
4. "Turn off phone" and "Be on time
5. "To ask questions" and "To tolerate differences"
6. off-topic
7. "To apply information"
8. shoptalk
9. not just give answers (Clip 1)
10. "Stay on task"
11. "guide discussion" and "wait time"
12. "receive information" (Clip 2)
13. Be patient
14. Discussion of the role of videographers

Originally, there were several of pieces of this conversation that I wanted to share, but I have narrowed it down to #9 and #12 (noted as Clip 1 and Clip 2 above). There are a few other clips on the server if you are interested (#5, #7, #13).

I chose these two because Clip 1 is an example of an interesting conversation about pedagogy that never actually made it onto the board in that form and Clip 2 is a fairly lengthy conversation boiled down to a single, somewhat ambiguous phrase ("receive information"). What makes it more interesting is that these two conversations are on either side of adding "guide discussion" and "wait time" to the board and for both of these phrases, someone proposed the point and it was written right away with no elaboration or discussion.

Note: I haven't transcribed them yet, so let me know if that is necessary.

Clip 1: The responsibility to not just give answers

Clip 2: The right to receive information

Just to restate what captured my attention: we often use whiteboards as a tool for assessment, but it is not always an accurate reflection of the interactions that actually occur. How does this or even should this influence the way that we use whiteboards in our assessment of group work?