Definition of Collaborative Learning - Essay Example

?2. LITERATURE REVIEW This chapter reviews literature relevant to collaborative learning. It starts with defining the term collaborative learning, which is followed by discussing its historical perspective. Considerable attention has been given to the previous research regarding collaborative learning, which was carried out both at local and international levels in many countries. Literatures on collaborative problem solving and lesson study were also discussed in this chapter. 2.1. Definition of Collaborative Learning Collaborative learning is broadly defined as learning acquired by students in paired or group work. It is a naturally social act in which students communicate with each other (Gerlach, 1994). Learning occurs through the conversation between students. Roschelle and Teasley (1995) define collaboration more specifically as “mutual engagement of participants in a coordinated effort to solve a problem together”. Collaborative interactions are characterized by shared goals, symmetry of structure, and a high degree of negotiation, interactivity, and interdependence. Interactions producing elaborated explanations are particularly valuable for improving student learning. Nonresponsive feedback, on the other hand, can be detrimental to student learning in collaborative situations. Collaboration can have powerful effect on student learning, particularly for low-achieving students. However, the author looked at two phases of collaboration: students’ collaboration and teachers’ collaboration. Such literature on students’ and teachers’ collaborations supports the idea of how powerful collaboration can be in improving both students’ performance in learning mathematics and teachers’ instructional practices. 2.2. Historical Perspectives of Collaborative learning Much of the research on collaborative learning is rooted in the work of Piaget and Vygotsky (Dillenbourg et al., 1996). For instance, socio-constructivists were laid down by Piaget’s system of developmental stages, which expressed ideas related to cognitive conflict, and described children’s cognitive progress. Based on socio-constructivist approach, cognitive conflict is critical in contributing growth. Social interactions generate conflict to the extent that students may become able to interact with peers at higher developmental levels. In this case, group heterogeneity is beneficial as it consists of students with different backgrounds. So, they are expected to construct knowledge as they have their own knowledge and perspectives. Similar to Piaget, Vygotsky was more concerned about collaboration in heterogeneous groups. According to Vygotsky, the zone of proximal development is the distance between what a student can accomplish individually and what he can accomplish with the help of a more capable “other.” Vygotsky (1978) called this capable other as the more knowledgeable other (MKO). The MKO is anyone equipped with a better understanding or higher ability than the learner. In the traditional approach to teaching math, the MKO is usually identified as the teacher. Teacher-centred instruction usually has the teacher as the source of knowledge and the most well-informed and skilled individual in the classroom. However, based on Vygotsky’s definition, the MKO could be anyone, including students themselves, computers, or anything that has better knowledge and can guide the students in understanding the subject matter. These different historical perspectives have resulted in different research paradigms. Dillenbourg et al. (1996) categorized research taken from Piaget and Vygotsky, and classified cognition approaches as the “effect” paradigm, the “conditions” paradigm, and the “interactions” paradigm, respectively. The latest variant of the interactions paradigm might be known as the “computer-supported” paradigm. Each of these paradigms is described below. The “effect” paradigm relates to those working with impact of end process of collaboration, or to those who accurately evaluate the outcome of collaboration. They neither examine the process of collaboration, nor distinguish differences on group performance and individual performance. This type of research supports the positive and successful effect on student learning, and performance can be extremely achieved with the adaptation of collaborative classroom structures. Furthermore, among students working in groups, those who are guided by peers during collaboration and who tried to understand the assistance they received improved much better, as compared to those who passively received assistance. The research on “conditions” paradigm done by Webb (1991) reported that mixed ability groups and genders are important contributors in moderating the effect of collaboration. The “interactions” paradigm develops in response to the complexities associated with the former paradigm, and attempts to identify mediating mechanisms between collaboration and learning outcomes (Dillenbourg et al., 1996). Webb (1991) meta-analyzed 17 studies of how collaborative structures affected student learning outcomes in math. She found that content-related (elaborated) explanations positively and significantly correlated with subsequent math achievement in a majority of studies, with partial correlations ranging from 0.07–0.53. Much research has been done on the area of collaborative learning. Assigning students to groups or pairs, in order to achieve a common academic goal, is a well used strategy in teaching students of all ages and demographics. It is widely considered that students may benefit from interaction with peers when engaged in a learning process. Collaborative learning has been implemented to support individual learning in several ways, including the development of critical thinking skills. “Collaborative learning is a relationship among learners that requires positive interdependence..., individual accountability (each of us has to contribute and learn), interpersonal skills (communication, trust, leadership, decision making, and conflict resolution), face-to-face promotive interaction, and processing” (Srinivas, 2012). There are several assumptions and approaches regarding the concept of collaborative learning. That learners are active participants, who assimilate new information and relate it to a framework of prior knowledge and experience, is of fundamental importance here. Within the process of collaboration, learners are required to critically evaluate and analyse new information rather than passively take it in and memorize it. If the learner is not presented with the opportunity to discuss, argue, evaluate, analyze, examine alternatives, and hear various perspectives about new learning material, then a constructivist approach to teaching has not been implemented, and thus, collaborative learning techniques are rendered useless. 2.3. Previous research on Collaborative learning The idea, that collaborative learning can improve student’s critical thinking skills, has been widely researched. Gokhale (1995) reiterates that “there is persuasive evidence that cooperative teams achieve at higher levels of thought and retain information longer than students who work quietly as individuals. The shared learning gives students an opportunity to engage in discussion, take responsibility for their own learning, and thus become critical thinkers.” In this study, the author explores the potential advantages of collaborative learning versus individual learning in a technical field. This was done in response to the fact that much of the literature on collaborative learning has focused on non-technical areas, such as humanities subjects. The independent variable in this case was the instructive technique, which had two categories; individual or collaborative learning; while, the dependant variable was the resulting score achieved by the learners. It was found that those who participated in collaboration scored higher than those who did not. Gokhale concluded that collaborative learning may indeed support deeper learning and foster critical thinking skills, primarily through group discussion and evaluation of diverse ideas and perspectives. It was also interestingly noted that collaboration did not make a difference to the learning of factual information. Several different strategies of collaborative learning have been investigated to identify the most effective ways to support learning through collaboration on various subjects. Blankenstein et al (2009) researched the recall benefits of listening to group discussion versus participating in a group discussion. They found that those students, who actively provided explanations and participated, recalled more than the control group after one month. Similarly, meta-cognition has been proven to be enhanced via collaborative discussion. Hurme et. al (2006) investigated patterns of interaction and meta-cognitive content of group discussion in the area of mathematics. It was found that there was a correlation between meta-cognitive activity and features of interaction. Other strategies of supporting the learning process through collaboration have been researched within environments of hypermedia. Winters and Alexander (2009) investigated the area of computer learning environments (CLEs). This issue has been relatively neglected, as research has focused primarily on non-computer aided learning. The authors looked at the subject of science as a study field which typically utilized computers to aid teaching and analysed regulatory behaviours of those engaged in collaborative environments. Results showed a significant correlation between students’ regulatory behaviours and their learning gains. In 2008, Oner also investigated the area of student participation in computer supported collaborative learning (CSCL) environments, with a view to improve students’ mathematical proof skills. He asserts that through using a particular CSCL tool, community plays a vital role in the production of mathematical knowledge. In 2011, Ell & Meissel also looked at the subject of mathematics, and how the teaching of the subject was supported by group collaborators including both teachers and students in a rural community. The authors describe how teachers sought to promote constructive dialogue and stimulate action by working collaboratively. Compared to individual learning or isolated learning, it appears that group and collaborative methods do promote a deeper level of learning in many ways that go beyond simply remembering facts, especially in Mathematics. Mathematics has indeed been shown to possess the potential to benefit from collaborative learning, as demonstrated in the work of Hurme et. al, Oner, and Ell and Meissel. However, in the work of both Hurme et. al and Oner, collaboration within mathematics was researched within the scope of computer supported environments. While Ell & Meissel’s study researched a non-computer aided mathematical learning environment, it was the teachers’ collaboration which was examined as having beneficial outcomes, as opposed to students’ collaboration. 2.4. Local studies on collaborative learning Although literature on collaborative learning is very limited in local studies, student collaboration has been seen to be adapted in some research works. Ng Sui Fung (2011) and Azrina (2008) claimed essential skill derived from different approaches they used. For instance, Ng Sui Fung emphasised on the use of cooperative learning; while Azrina, recognised the need to use group work approach in her study, and the need of enhanced communication skill, social skill and teamwork skill. Ng Sui Fung reported that there was statistically significant improvement in students’ achievement after the intervention of cooperative learning. Similarly, research done by Azrina reported that group work approach was the main contribution to students’ achievement in Mathematics. In the findings, most of the students (participants) preferred to learn and work with other people. They believed that working together with peers would generate more ideas, improved communication, and teamwork skill, as they could learn from each other’s experience and could motivate one another to improve their learning. They could cooperatively give ideas and find out better problem-solving methods. However, based on the observation conducted by Azrina, teachers utilized group work only for introducing new topic or new concept. Lack of encouragement from the individual to the group was identified. The researcher recommended adapting problem solving would enhance the encouragement of giving help and motivation among group members. The findings of both researchers, Ng Sui Fung (2011) and Azrina (2008), the mathematics achievement test improved after the intervention. Likewise, Noor Kartimala (2006) asserted that the cooperative learning strategy could enhance the student’s performance in Mathematics. Experimental groups were taught using STAD (Student Teams Achievement Division) method, TGT (teams Games Tournament) method, and using JIGSAW, and had significant difference in students’ mathematics achievement test. 2.5. Previous research on collaborative problem solving Collaborative learning in solving word problems is a particular topic, which has not been researched extensively, compared to other areas of learning. Shuhua An and Zhonghe Wu investigated ways to help primary grade students overcome difficulties in solving mathematical word problems. In their research, while integrating mathematician’s chair, students had to go through several processes to create and solve problems collaboratively. They emphasized collaborative problem solving in the activity. During group discussion, students physically put their heads together and got up from their seats to collaborate and share ideas in writing word problems. Students were assigned roles at each group to share duties. Those duties were: 1) finding and writing down numbers used in the problem; 2) finding and writing down clue words; 3) drawing pictures or representations; and, 4) writing equations or number sentences used to solve the problem. This can be supported by Natzel, who, in her study, focused on “active exchange of ideas” in attempting to solve problem when students worked together. The students could learn from each other’s experiences. Furthermore, the benefits of collaborative problem solving were discussed in Bobbette’s study. Firstly, students participated actively in group work activity. Passive learners began actively engaging in mathematical problem solving through collaborative learning. Secondly, students became more motivated, more informed about the problem solving process, and less competitive. Rather than competing for correct answer, they began to share their problem-solving competencies. Even though, the students sought answers form their peers, but gradually they began to realize that when they worked together indirectly, they learnt how to solve problem cooperatively. Through their participation, students finally discovered that there were often several correct ways of finding a solution. Additionally, their language developed as they worked together in Spanish and English to solve the problems. The students needed to use general terms, problem specific terms, and technical mathematical language during the discussion. Code-switching between Spanish and English was recognised as one way to ensure that everyone in the group understood the instructions. 2.6 Definition of lesson study “Lesson study is teacher-led professional learning and conducted with a common goal. It is focused on subject content in the context of student thinking and informed by outside expertise (through knowledgeable others)”, according to Patsy and Yoshida (2005, p.5). Lesson study is a cycle of activities in which teacher needs to go through several processes, especially in designing, implementing, and improving one or more research lessons, and promoting changes in instructional practice, as well as student learning (Stigler & Hiebert, 1999). Steps, that encompass a lesson study cycle, are defined below to provide an overall understanding of the structure: The process of lesson study begins with defining research theme that focuses on desired student characteristics. Select a lesson study goal that is aligned with research theme. The team invites an outside expert (knowledgeable other) to collaborate with the team to enhance content knowledge, guide the thinking about student learning, and support the team’s work. Team writes a lesson plan after selecting the unit and topic aligned with the lesson study goal. One teacher of the team will be the implementer, and the other will be the observer. After the lesson is implemented, the team discusses the lesson as a reflection stage. Data from the reflection stage are used to refine the lesson for the next teaching. Then, teaching, observation, and discussion on what the team has learned through the first cycle, can help to fine tune the research as it goes forward (Patsy and Yoshida, 2005, p.4) 2.7. Research on Teachers’ Collaboration in Lesson Study Much research has been conducted recently on lesson study involving teachers collaboration (e.g. Isoda, 2011; Maitree Inprasithra, 2011; Chew and Lim, 2011; Stephens, 2011; White, 2003). Teachers’ collaboration receives much emphasis on the lesson study approach, and becomes an important key to success on any aspect of teaching and learning. Maitree Inprasithra (2011) found that teachers collaboratively worked on three basic phases, which was “Plan”, “Do” and “See” phases. These phases recognised the needs for the teachers’ collaboration. Firstly, teachers collaborated with researchers, co-researchers and school coordinators in designing a research lesson; secondly, they collaboratively observed the implementation of research lesson; and finally, they collaboratively discussed and reflected on the lesson observed. Such teachers’ collaboration was seen during data collection on research conducted by Chew and Lim (2011), in which the participants discussed and planned collaboratively a draft 40-minute lesson. The research lesson was taught by two participants and was observed by group members and lecturers. The participants collaboratively discussed and revised the lesson plan, and came up with new version of the lesson plan. In sharing reflection stage, teachers’ collaboration seemed to be effective because the participants (teachers) were actively engaged in giving suggestions and ideas, with the aim of refining the new vision of lesson plan. White (2011) found in his research that 94% of the respondents agreed that lesson study promoted “working collaboratively and sharing ideas.” For all cohorts and across all the surveys, teachers and leaders continually highlighted and commented upon the use of collaborative work, working on common goals, sharing of ideas, team teaching, and co-operation among staff, and regarded these as the major benefits of the program (p.123). 2.8. Research on Problem Solving in Lesson Study There is a lot of research regarding the incorporation of problem solving approach in lesson study (e.g. Isoda, 2011; Maitree Inprasitha, 2011; Chew and Lim, 2011; Takahashi, 2009; Stephen, 2011). Elementary mathematics lesson in Japan has adapted a significant amount of problem solving as the basis of instructional approach. It is believed that the problem solving approach stimulates creative mathematical activity, and enhances students’ interest through students’ collaborative work (Takahashi, 2009). Problem solving is a good practice allowing teachers to train students, who would like to think for themselves (Isoda, 2011). In research done by Maitree Inprasitha, some features of an approach called Open Ended Approach were integrated into lesson study research, which involved individual learning and group learning. Students, through written work, were able to communicate their mathematical ideas by developing their own methods to solve the problem situation given in the lesson. 2.9. Summary Recent studies, which were presented in this chapter, recognised the need to run the lesson study research. Many aspects of teaching and learning must be taken into consideration, so that learning outcomes may be fruitful and successful. In this study, the author identified how students learnt collaboratively via lesson study in finding different methods, and went beyond the assigned task or given problem. Students were expected to construct their own knowledge and thinking about strategies to solve problem. In students’ collaboration, noticeable elements were teamwork, communication, participation and problem solving. In the Collaborative Learning classroom, students are not treated as mere receivers of information. They do not just sit passively in the classroom, taking down notes and answering when called. Rather, they actively engage in discussions, share their knowledge on the subject matter, investigate, discover, and actively participate in group activities, acting both as the source and receivers of knowledge, depending on the situation at hand. Read More