collaborative learning: what do students say? thomas duffy learning sciences, school of education...

Collaborative Learning: What Do Students Say?

Thomas DuffyLearning Sciences, School of Education

Gihan OsmanInstructional Systems Technology,

School of Education

IU-SOTL meetingNovember 4, 2005

Collaborative Learning

• An umbrella term for a variety of educational approaches involving joint intellectual effort by students, or students and teachers together. (Smith and MacGregor, 1992)

• Our focus: those approaches as they are organized by the instructor as part of the instructional process.

Why Collaborative Learning? Theoretical Basis

All theoretical views of learning would agree that learning should improve if the student:

• Confronts alternative perspectives• Articulates his or her own perspective• Is more actively involved and so more motivated

Why Collaborative Learning? Research Basis

• 600+ studies find learning in cooperative and collaborative groups more powerful than having students work individually or in competition (Johnson & Johnson, 1981; Johnson, Maruyama, Johnson, Nelson, & Skon, 1981).

• Small-group work has a significant positive effect on:– attitudes toward learning, – attitude toward themselves, – persistence,– achievement (Springer, Stanne & Donovan, 1997).

• Students working in groups may develop a more in-depth understanding of a particular topic (Hill, 1996)

An Example: Correlational Research

• Hake (1998) collected data from 62 intro physics courses (6,542 students).– Used a common pre and post test (Force Concept Inventory)– Included high school and college courses – Faculty reported teaching method

• Contrasted courses reporting use of interactive learning methods to others.

• Examined gain scores relative to the maximum possible gain.

An example: Experimental Research

• Okada & Simon (1997) randomly assigned 27 male undergraduate science major into two conditions: pairs (18 participants) or singles (9 participants)

• Compared the performance on problem solving task (Dunbar, 1993) to discover scientific laws with the aid of experiments

• Pairs were more successful than singles– Participated more actively in explanatory activities (hypotheses and

alternatives ideas)

Our Concerns

1. These studies typically treat collaboration as a global variable -- “collaboration” works.

2. Only 39 of 383 research reports on small group learning in the sciences provided enough data to calculate an effect size (Springer, et al, 1999)

• Of the 39, few had a control group or random assignment

3. Our personal experiences suggest that collaboration is often not effective.

Our Concerns

4. Correlational studies could easily have a third variable affecting both collaborative activity and learning

• For example: better teachers use collaborative strategies with better students.

5. Experimental studies are controlled so we know what can happen if the conditions are replicated.

• But even here, the studies too often are evaluative (does collaboration work?) rather than seeking understanding (why does it work?).

6. There is evidence that points to where collaborative activity can go wrong.

Why Collaboration May Not Work

• In small group decision making, people tend to discuss what they share in common rather than the expertise each brings to the discussion (Stasser, et.al. 2000)

• Brainstorming is typically less effective than participants working individually (Osborn,1953; Lewis and Sadosky, 1975; McGrath, 1984).

• A rich research literature that demonstrates the limited conditions under which collaborative learning may be effective, e.g., – Interdependence among students is critical.– 60% of the students reported that they were annoyed by frequent

talkers (Karp and Yoels, 1976).

– A wide variety of design variables (role of instructor, structure of the task) impact effectiveness.

Our Modest Study

Goal: Examine collaborative learning from the students’ perspective based on their overall experience.

Collaboration: Any group activity assigned by the instructor as a part of the course.

Method

Participants: Ten juniors and seniors in the School of Education who are on committees relevant to educational programs and teaching quality.

Interview: Semi-structured interviews conducted individually. Interviews were 60 to 90 minutes and one person participated in a follow-up interview of 60 min.

Interview Protocol

• Questions elicited detailed information about: – Best general undergraduate learning experience– Best and worst collaborative learning experience– Positive and negative experiences with small group

discussion, group project, and whole class discussion

• Information sought about collaborative activities: – How frequently it was experienced – How effective it was overall– What critical factors determined success or failure

Data Analysis

• The transcripts were analyzed individually– descriptions of the collaborative experiences themes

related to each of the types of learning experiences.

• After an interview analysis was completed, a second researcher analyzed the interview.

• After all of the interviews were analyzed, the constant comparative method (Glaser & Strauss,1967) was used to identify common themes and experiences.

“Best” General Learning Experiences

• Every interviewee named at least one collaborative learning experience.

• Twelve of the twenty “best” learning experiences described involved some form of collaborative learning.

• While collaboration was part of the activities, it was only

identified twice as a key characteristic of the best experience

• Four of the twenty best experiences were with lecture classes.

“Best” Collaborative Learning Experiences

• Collaborative task mentioned as part of overall “best” collaborative learning experiences:

– group projects (14).

– small group discussion (2),

– whole class discussion (1).

Small Group Discussion: Definition

• The instructor breaks the class into small groups to discuss an issue for some portion of the class period.

Small Group Discussions

• Frequency: – Occurs very frequently in Education; – Much less frequently outside education.– Most education instructors use small group discussion in most

class meetings.

• General attitude: – Has potential– Too often falls short of that potential.

Small Group Discussions: The potential

• Students are actively involved, especially reticent students.

In a lot of my classes there are some really quiet people and I think they’re just afraid to speak out in front of a whole big group of people but if they’re with one or two other people they’ll be more willing to share their ideas and you’ll see that they have some real valid points and that they have a good perspective to bring to the class.

• The class is more engaging; ‘smoother’ You don’t feel like you’re just listening to someone talk about what they think. You’re listening to a whole diverse people’s opinions and on what you’re learning about”.

It’s better than the boredom of taking notes passively.

Whole Class Discussion

• Students have primary responsibility for conducting the discussion– e.g., A topic is introduced in the class and students discuss that topic.

– A debate or simulation

– An experience sharing session

• They are not question and answer situations.

• The instructor may play a minor role in these discussions.

Whole Class Discussion

• Frequency: – Six students indicated that half of their courses have whole class

discussion. For those courses, discussions occurred every day. – One student indicated that “out of 4 regular classes there’s only

about 1 a semester that really utilizes collaborative learning [whole class discussion].

– The remaining three students did not provide their views on this issue.

• Duration:– Whole class discussion did not take up the entire class time.

• General attitude:– Is generally seen as the most consistently effective approach.

Whole class Discussion: Preference to small group discussion

• Six of the ten students expressed a preference for whole class discussion.– The students hear a wide variety of ideas (6 students) They [small

group and whole class discussions] both give everyone a chance to talk, but if it’s a whole group it’s more like you can go back and forth like across the room; this person thinks this and this person thinks this and you can kind of talk it out with each other and then other people can give their opinion too and it gets everyone to thinking about something. But if you use small groups it’s a smaller section of people and a lot of times they’ll think the same thing about something and then they’ll be thinking something completely different from another student.

– The instructor is always present in the whole class discussion and hence students stay on topic.

• Two student preferred small group discussions, while the other two expressed no preference.

Group Projects: Definition

• A wide range of projects were described including: writing a paper, making a presentation, teaching a class, writing a lesson plan, designing or produce a product, or performing a model lesson

• Projects lasted anywhere from one week to the whole semester

• Projects included from three to seven team members

Group Projects

• Frequency: – Nine of the ten students reported over 50% of the classes they

took had at least one group project.

– Most students stated that it is far more likely to have group projects in the School of Education classes than in classes outside the School

• General attitude:– Fourteen of the best experiences reported by students involved

group projects

– But, students indicated that group projects were over-utilized in education.

Group Projects: Students do not seem to like them

Students saw the potential of group projects, but:

• Six of the ten students viewed group projects as more negative than positive.

– Two of those students were outspoken in their dislike of group projects, stating that they hated them.

– They suggested this feeling was very widespread, with Michael stating:

I know a lot of people who will drop classes if they find out there’s going to be a large group project. I have at least two friends who are adamant about it. They’ll just drop it [the class] the first day if they see there’s going to be a lot of group work in the class.

.

Summary

• Collaboration does not always work. Though it is part of many of students best experiences, it often fails.

• Small group discussion normally fails

• Whole class discussion seems to be consistently successful

• Group projects are most often unsuccessful, but when successful, they tend to be the most memorable.

• Across the different activities, the students regard the instructor as the person responsible for making it work. Less emphasis on student responsibility.

What makes a difference?

• Relevance of the topic to practice

• High participation rates

• Clearly defined purpose and structure

• Socially comfortable environment

• Student ownership of the activity.

1. Relevance to Practice

• Is important for the success of both small group and whole class discussions– Topics discussed in class are often contrived – Teacher should build on students ideas and interests

• Motivates students

• Is not mentioned in relation to projects – Projects tend to be relevant by definition

2. High Participation Rates

• Discussion should not depend on pre-assigned readings. – Lack of participation results from lack of interest or

preparedness in small group discussions

• High participation is why students like whole class discussion.

• Unequal participation in term of quality and quantity is a main reason why all types of collaborative activities fail.

• Failure to assess based on individual contribution is frustrating

3. Clearly Defined Purpose and Structure

• Many group projects do not require a collaborative effort.

• In many cases the goal or purpose is not clear -- what the product should be.

• Students go off-task without guidance and monitoring.

• Students want to be held accountable for their individual contributions to projects.

4. Socially Comfortable Environment

• Knowing ones group encourages participation in discussions.– Speaking up in front of the whole class is challenging.

• Establishing a comfortable safe environment is the instructor’s role.

• Choosing one’s team members based on comfort and trust is important for the success of projects.

5. Students Ownership of the Activity

• It needs to be the students’ discussion not the instructor’s discussion– Instructors should not stop discussions that move in

unpredicted directions.– Instructors should play a background, monitoring role.

• Students need acknowledgement for their individual contributions (esp. with projects)– (Grading based on individual and team performance

can enhance ownership. Ed.)

What is the Value of Collaborative Learning?

What the students say:• Value is in the opportunity to hear diverse opinions

on a topic.– It is okay if that topic does not require any prior reading.

– The more opinions the better.

– Opinions should be accepted by the instructor and other students (safe environment; instructor respects student).

What is the Value of Collaborative Learning?

What the students do not say:• There is no mention of using evidence to evaluate

opinions. – It is okay if the discussion is not based on the readings.

• There is no mention of faculty expertise in the subject area– Practical experience of faculty is important– An accepting attitude is important

Closing Perspective

Learning-centered

≠

Learner-centered

Closing Perspective

• Collaborative learning can be successful but most often is not.

• This is likely due to two factors.– The lack of intellectual rigor of the collaborative

activity.

– The lack of student readiness to engage in a intellectually rigorous activity.

How Can We Design Collaborative Tasks?

•Define a clear goal or product to arise from the discussion.

•Require evidence based reasoning in presenting their perspectives.

–Collaboration typically cannot be a stand alone activity

•Grade the work and provide feedback relevant to the quality of the argument and the evidence supporting the argument.

•Establish mutual inter-dependence in the grading–Student receives a grade for how well they do as well as how well others on their team do.

One Model of Collaborative Learning

• Problem based learning emphasizes:– Problems presented so students take

ownership of the problem– Hypothesis generation– Gathering of evidence to evaluate the

hypothesis– Mentoring on good inquiry not based on prior

knowledge of the subject.

An example of a PBL model

Nature of arguments, evidence

QuickTime™ and aSorenson Video 3 decompressorare needed to see this picture.

QuickTime™ and aSorenson Video 3 decompressorare needed to see this picture.

Cardean University’s MBA courses

Student Readiness

Book worth reading. Rebekah Nathan (2005) My Freshman Year

Course offering (spring) Learning and Cognition in Post-

Secondary Education

EDUC-P650 Sect. 27012

Instructor: Thomas M. Duffy

Meeting Time: Monday 9:30 –12:15

Learning Sciences Program Brochure is on the table