COMPUTER SUPPORTED COOPERATIVE LEARNING
Dr David McConnell
Centre for the Study of Networked Learning
Adult Continuing Education,
University of Sheffield,
Sheffield UK
WHAT IS COOPERATIVE LEARNING ?
Background
In this short “lesson” I have chosen
to focus on the nature of cooperative learning as a way of introducing
some current concepts and topics which can be useful when thinking
of introducing cooperative ( or colllaborative, as it is also
called ) learning in online learning environments.
I draw on my experience of adult learning as
a source of “evidence” about cooperative learning, but
also refer to research carried out into cooperative learning in
schools. The relationship between the two is not trouble free
and certainly poses some interesting problems and issues for us
to consider.
INTRODUCTION
"Cooperative learning" is fairly
new concept, certainly as a way of thinking about and conducting
the educational process. Cooperation in learning is not in itself
new, but the idea of "cooperative learning" as a particular
system of learning is. But what do people mean when they talk
of cooperative learning ? And what are the outcomes and benefits
to the learner of cooperating with other learners ?
In this “lesson” my aim is to provide
a general overview of the meaning of cooperative learning, its
benefits to learners, and some of the issues surrounding the use
of cooperative learning methods. I will look at the nature of
cooperation and what it means to cooperate in learning. I will
also consider what educationalists mean when they talk about cooperative
learning, and will look at some of the research that has been
conducted into cooperative learning.
This “lesson” is taken from my book
“ Implementing Computer Supported Cooperative Learning”
published by Kogan Page, London (1994). In other sections of the
book, I relate these general understandings of cooperative learning
to the particular concern of computer supported cooperative
learning.
THE NATURE OF COOPERATION
The act of cooperation is something which is
deeply embedded in western societies. It seems to be a fundemental
aspect of our every-day lives that people cooperate, although
we do make choices about when to cooperate and with whom. The
nature of cooperation is something which social scientists are
interested in analysing and researching. How is cooperation defined
?
"acting together, in a coordinated way
at work, or in social relationships, in the pursuit of shared
goals, the enjoyment of the joint activity, or simply furthering
the relationship." ( Argyle, 1991, p15).
This is a fairly wide ranging definition that
can be useful in thinking about the nature of cooperation in learning
situations. It emphasises the role of groups of people in cooperative
acts and points to the wider social dimension of cooperation.
Cooperation is seen as central to our everyday lives.
Why cooperate? Argyle (1991,p20) suggests
three possible reasons, or motivations for people to cooperate.
People cooperate for external rewards; they cooperate in order
to form and further relationships; and they cooperate in order
to share the activities they are involved in. If we view learning
situations as part of the wider social context in which we live,
then it is not difficult to relate to this. The educational system
may not be particularly concerned with fostering cooperation in
learning ( indeed, as we know, there is often a concern to ensure
that learners do not cooperate ), but informally learners do work
together and share their learning to some degree, depending on
the particular context. Why do they do this ? Because they know
that it is beneficial for themsleves and for others to share their
learning.
Formalising what happens informally is one
of the purposes of cooperative learning. By building on our knowledge
that learners do cooperate in order to achieve external rewards
( grades, diplomas and degrees, amongst other things ), to develop
and sustain friendships and to share in what they are doing, we
can show that cooperative learning offers a view of learning which
is socially-based. In its broadest forms, those interested in
cooperative learning do not view the learning process as a purely
individual pursuit concerned largely with accumulating intellectual
knowledge. They view learning as part of the wider social context
in which we live, a point to which I will return throughout this
book.
A Theory of Cooperation
The social science view of cooperation focuses
on the intrinsic aspects of cooperation in society, and relates
these to ideas about survival and evolution. Another view comes
from politcal science and emphsises the self-interest associated
with cooperation.
The political scientist Robert Axelrod suggests
a theory of cooperation based on mutual reciprocity. This theory
combines the realisation that there is always an element (at least)
of self-interest in any cooperative effort, as well as a concern
for others, or a concern for the welfare of the group as a whole.
Altruism ( which can be described as a sense of social responsibility,
a sense of community, a sense of group-interest (Margolis, 1982)),
it is suggested is never a self-less pursuit. "True"
altruism is cooperation as ideology.
The theory of cooperation derives from analysis
of the Prisoners' Dilemma Game, where players have two choices
: to cooperate or to defect. The dilemma is that if both defect,
they will do worse than if they had cooperated. The theory suggests
that cooperation always benefits both players.The Prisoners' Dilemma
Game, where players work on a tit-for-tat basis, suggests that
you should cooperate if the other player does, but also cheat
if they do over a long period of time. Everyone wins if they cooperate.
For example, even if you don't like the other learner, cooperation
based on reciprocity can develop, and you both benefit from that.
The traditional educational system can be viewed
as one set-up to encourage envy. There are those who can, and
those who can't. The advice of Axelrod's theory is, don't be envious.
Envy leads to trying to win, which leads to defection. In most
educational systems, students are required to do the same piece
of work ( an essay or some other assignment) which they know will
be assessed according to a set of well defined criteria. Often
there is a limited number of high grades being offered, and the
students know this. This encourages competition. The students
compete on a zero-sum basis; whatever one person wins, the other
loses. Cooperation theory suggests that if they were to cooperate,
they could all do well ( this of course requires an unlimited
number of high grades to be on offer ). If not, then some will
inevitably do better, which will lead to everyone competing. In
non zero-sum learning situations, all learners can do equally
well if they cooperate.
" The main results of Cooperation Theory
are encouraging. They show that cooperation can get started by
even a small cluster of individuals who are prepared to reciprocate
cooperation even in a world where no one else will cooperate.
The analysis also shows that the two key requisites for cooperation
to thrive are that the cooperation be based on reciprocity, and
that the shadow of the future is importnat enough to make reciprocity
stable. But once cooperation based on reciprocity is established
in a population, it can protect itself from invasion by uncooperative
strategies.' (Axelrod, 1984, p173).
The emphasis given in the above quotation is
mine. I think it indicates a wider aspect of cooperative learning
which is important, and that is that individual learners must
wish to cooperate, and must be willing to act in cooperative ways
in order for that to succeed. We shall see below some of the differences
between cooperative learning situations where learners are asked
by someone else (usually a teacher) to cooperate, and are rewarded
by that person for doing so; and cooperative learning situations
where learners themselves choose to cooperate with no external
rewards or policing by a teacher. The design of the cooperative
events may appear similar, but the relationship of the learner
to them differs, and the motivation of the learner to cooperate
will be different.
How can Axelrod's theory help in thnking about
cooperative learning ? Behind his theorising is the assumption
that the world is largely made up of egoists. He asks if cooperation
can occur in these circumstances without a central authority.
In most ( if not all) learning contexts, there is always a central
authority, usually a teacher or tutor who's job it is ( amongst
other things) to ensure that students learn the material put in
front of them.We shall see below how this works in many cooperative
learning situations. Axelrod's theory poses the question : what
would happen if there was no such central authority, if learners
were not policed ?
COOPERATION IN LEARNING
In the very broadest sense, cooperative learning
involves working together on some task or issue in a way that
promotes individual learning through processes of collaboration
in groups. It is " the opportunity to learn through the expression
and exploration of diverse ideas and experiences in cooperative
company.....it is not about competing with fellow members of the
group and winning, but about using the diverse resources available
in the group to deepen understanding, sharpen judgement and extend
knowledge." (Cowie and Rudduck, 1988, p 13).
Cooperative learning is process driven ie
those involved engage in a social process and have to pay attention
to that process in order for them to achieve their desired end
point. It usually involves people working in groups ( ie at least
two people are involved, usually more). There may be group "products"
towards which the learners are working; cooperative learning can
give rise to "products" which are not easily achievable
by people learning on their own. And there may be individual "products"
which are achieved through the people in the group helping each
other deal with their own individual learning concerns. Because
cooperative learning has a large social dimension to it, it is
usually enjoyable and developmental ie it gives rise to outcomes
which are not usually considered academic, such as increased competence
in working with others, self assurance, personal insight and so
on, as well as academic outcomes.
Unlike traditional, curriculum-based learning
where the learner works for themself, does not share their learning
in a public forum, and works largely in isolation,the form of
cooperative learning which I shall largely be focussing on in
this book (cooperative learning where indiviiduals work closely
with others on their own learning) engages the learner in thinking
about why they are learning, and for who's purposes they are learning.
For example, working cooperatively in a group involves me in thinking
about what I am trying to achieve through my learning and engages
me with the other group members in thinking this through. The
group helps me with my learning, and by the same measure I help
the others in the group with their learning. Additionally, there
will be times when all members of the group work on something
collectively, such as the process aspects of the group work eg
pursuing questions about how we are working together; where the
power and authority currently lies within the group, and why;
the "roles" we are adopting within the group and how
this happens to come about, and so on.
Cooperative learning makes public our own learning,
the learning of others and the learning of the group. This "making
public" works as a central process in cooperative learning
and confirms its social and democratic nature. It can be thought
of along several dimensions : our learning is public when it is
known to others and to ourselves; it is blind when it is known
to others but not to ourselves; it is hidden when it is known
to ourselves but not to others; and it is unconscious when it
is not known to ourselves or to others.
Working cooperatively with others helps raise
the public awareness of our learning so that those aspects of
learning which are blind, hidden and unconscious become clear,
open and conscious. We become aware of our learning by working
with others and by focussing on the processes of working cooperatively.
We reduce the hidden and blind areas and open the public areas
through the groups' cooperative work.
This of course requires commitment to working
cooperatively, and agreement on how the cooperative group will
function. If a group has people in it who are not willing to cooperate
then it is unlikely that they will engage in making their learning
public. Similarly, if the group does not address it's own learning
and come to some initial, and through time ongoing, agreement
about itself then it is likely to fragment and the members will
essentially end up learning in isolation. It is of course the
case that people who wish to work cooperatively are not always
willing, or able, to be public about their learning. This raises
the issue of choice within cooperative learning, and is an issue
for the group to address. People will vary in the degree to which
they wish to be public. And at different times they will vary
in the degree to which they wish to be confronted with those aspects
of their learning that are blind, hidden or unconscious. Within
the kinds of computer supported cooperative learning groups which
I shall be discussing later in this book, these issues and concerns
are dealt with by the individuals in the groups as part of the
learning process itself.
At this point, it will be useful to say something
about groups, as they are central to learning cooperatively.
Defining "Group"
In its simplist sense, a group exists when
there are two or more people together. But in educational terms,
what more can we expect from a definitioin of a group? When people
come together to work in educational settings, they usually have
a purpose for doing so; they have something in mind that they
are trying to achieve or work towards; they have a notion of who
they are as a group ie who the members of the group are; they
often have an idea of how they are going to work together, or
at least they often address this issue once they are working together.
In arriving at a usable defintion of a group,
we can "imagine" groups from various perspectives. For
example, sociologists will generally think of groups from what
they can observe of the external life of the group. Psychologists
will be more concerned with the internal life of the group. This
difference of view point - "societies as (composed ) of groups
-sociological viewpoint; and "groups as societies" -psychological
viewpoint (McCollom and Gillette, 1990) provides two different
ways of thinking about , working with, and examining groups.
Neither of these viewpoints is however sufficiently
useful on its own for people in education and training who are
working with groups. A viewpoint that encompasses both disciplines,
and is indeed interdisciplinary, is probably more useful. Consider
the following definition :
" A human group is a collection of individuals
(1) who have significantly interdependent relations
with each other
(2) who perceive themselves as a group, reliably
distinguishing members from non members
(3) whose group identity is recognised by non
members
(4) who, as group members acting alone or in
concert, have significantly interdependent relations with other
groups, and
(5) whose roles in the group are therefore
a function of expectations from themselves, from other group members,
and from non-group members." ( Alderfer, 1984, as quoted
in Gillette and McColom, 1990).
This seems to me to be a more useful definition
of a group. It comes from Organisational Behaviour (OB), an interdisciplinary
field which looks at human relations at various levels, and applies
its findings to places of work, including education and training
organisations. According to McCollom and Gillete :
" OB writers describing groups, for example,
acknowledge the individual group member's experience, the group
process and output, and the environmental context of the group
all as important components of group theory." (p5)
In discussing Alderfer's definition of a group,
they state that :
"A group is defined here by individual
members' experience, by the relationships among members, and by
members' relations with nonmembers. The "new tradition"
we describe here requires maintaining a complex view of the simultaneous
influences on group dynamics created at different levels of the
social system in which the group exists." (p5).
The view of groups taken in this “lesson”
has much in common with the OB perspective. People working cooperatively
in CSCL environments do work in groups. These groups work in complex
ways, in open learning situations where there are many different
simultaneous influences on the group. And because members of CSCL
groups will usually work from different locations and are therefore
dispersed, or in virtual (Wexelblat, 1993) groups, there are influences
from beyond the social structure of the group itself, such as
influences from their personal amd home lives (In later sections
of the book, I discuss what we mean by the dispersed environments
in which CSCL groups work).
In thinking about groups in CSCL environments,
we therefore have to keep in mind not only the nature of the group
vis a viz its members and their purposes for working together,
but also the wider contexts in which they function. When learners
work cooperatively in CSCL groups, they will be viewing the work
of the group from their own perspective and from that of the other
learners. Additonally, their work in the group will be influenced
by what is happening around them in their social and other work
lives, and they will be bringing these experiences and perceptions
into the work-life of the group.
WAYS OF THINKING ABOUT, AND CARRYING OUT, COOPERATIVE LEARNING
The term cooperative learning has particular
meaning for many practitioners and researchers within the USA
and Israel where it is most commonly practiced as a system of
education. In the U.K. and elsewhere, cooperative learning has
perhaps less specific meaning, and encompasses a wide range of
activities and methods, most of which are based on group work
where the emphasis is on discussion.
The American perspective on cooperative learning
is particularly interesting and influential. And unlike the U.K.
scene, in America there has been considerable research conducted
into cooperative learning. I will therefore largely discuss the
American perspective here and examine the research which has been
conducted into such cooperative learning situations. ( In a later
section of the book on designing for computer supported cooperative
learning, I widen the definition of cooperative learning somewhat,
and offer some alternative ways of thinking about cooperation
in learning).
Two Views of Cooperative Learning
But at this stage, I would like to summarise
what I see as two views of cooperative learning. In doing this
I will necessarily pose them as belonging to different ends of
a spectrum in order to make my point. In practice, however, they
are more likely to share much more in common than might be suggested
here.
There are a series of dimensions of cooperative
learning which help to illuminate these two views. For example,
when considering cooperative learning we have to think of such
things as the degree to which the teacher imposes a structure
on the learning events; the amount and kind of control over the
learning that the teacher takes; whether the learners are working
from internal motivation which arises from their interest and
engagement with their learning, or from external motivation which
is controlled by some external force, such as the award of grades
or certificates or other externally held rewards (see Figure 1).
The practice of cooperative learning can vary along these dimensions,
depending on the views of the teacher in relation to each dimension,
and the context in which the teacher and learners are working.
This indicates that there can be no one view
of cooperative learning, but rather a variety of views. Cooperative
learning is a rich and diverse concept.
Structure
higly structured------------------------------------------------------------------------no
structure
Teacher Control
high---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------low
Moderation of Learning
external--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------internal
Learner Motivation
external--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------internal
Learning Content
curriculum-based--------------------------------------------------------------------learner-based
Assessment
uinlateral by teacher----------------------------------------------------------unilateral
by learner
Figure 1 : Dimensions of cooperative learning
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
View One
The first view is dominant in the cooperative
learning movement in compulsory school education in the USA and
Israel. It is curriculum-based and applies a broad behaviouristic
approach to learning. Cooperative learning tasks are part of an
overall curriculum which students have to work through. Cooperation
is structured and policed by a teacher. Motivation to learn is
largely by rewards allocated by an external moderator (teacher).
It is criterion referenced with external assessment of learning
(usually unilateral by the teacher). Learning goals are defined
largely by the teacher.
Although this form of cooperative learning
has its origins in compulsory school education, it is now also
being applied in higher education with apparant success. It is
however important to bear in mind that much of the research conducted
so far into cooperative learning in the USA has been carried out
in schools, and much of that in experimental, research settings.
Researchers are now beginning to carry out studies into cooperative
learning in higher education, and are claiming similar successes
to those now widely accepted within the compulsory education sector
( for examples, see the journal Cooperative Learning and College
Teaching ).
Considerable research has been carried out
into this form of cooperative learning, much of it in America
and Israel. The focus is largely on cooperative learning situations
where teachers follow pre-defined, well developed classroom methods.
Students are led by the teacher in working through these methods,
with much guidance and external rewards for achievement. The issue
of rewards is an important (though, as we shall see, controversial)
one. The design of cooperative learning events usually means that
students work in teams, or groups.Teams often vie for rewards
which are held by the teacher who polices their activities, and
who controls the allocation of the awards. For example, in describing
a cooperative method called Team Assisted Individualization (TAI),
Slavin comments that :
" Each week, teachers total the number
of units completed by all team members and give certificates or
other team awards to teams that exceed a criterion score
based on the number of final tests passed, with extra points for
perfect papers and completed homework." (Slavin, 1990, p
5, emphasis his).
and later, in describing the Jigsaw cooperative
learning method :
" students take individual quizzes, which
result in team scores based on the improvement score system....Teams
that meet preset standards may earn certificates." ( Slavin,
1990, p10)
and in describing the Learning Together method
:
" students work in four or five member
heterogeneous groups on assignment sheets. The groups hand in
a single sheet, and receive praise and rewards based on the group
product." (Slavin, 1990, p12).
This suggests the possibility for a large element
of competition in these cooperative classes.
Many researchers and practitioners believe
that students working in cooperatIve groups need some external
incentive to cooperate. Knight and Bohlmeyer (1990) quote the
work of Slavin who suggests that cooperative incentive methods
and structures can take one of three basic formats :
a. a cooperative incentive for individual
learning within the group eg each person's performance is used
to arrive at an average mark or grade or other reward for the
group as a whole.
b. a cooperative incentive for group
learning where the group reward is based, for example, on a group
product.
c. an individualistic incentive for individual
learning, where individuals are rewarded for individual performance,
but within a cooperative working environment.
View Two
My second view of cooperative learning is a
somewhat looser one which eminates from practice in liberal school
education and adult education, as well as from the practice of
group work generally. Within the compulsory school education sector,
this view is perhaps more prevalent in the U.K. (Topping, 1992).
It is a form of open, negotiated learning.
Within post-compulsory education, it has a history in the humanistic
approach to education ( eg Rogers, 1969), and in the self-directed
approach to learning ( Knowles, 1975). This approach emphasises
internal moderation by learners themselves. It is problem or issue
based. Learners learn largely through intrinsic motivation, and
rewards are largely intrinsic. There is little if any "policing"
by a teacher or tutor. There is much choice by learners in decision
making and in group processing. There is often internal assessment
of learning, which may involve self, peer and tutor collaborative
assessment. The learning goals are largely defined by the learners
themselves.
( I discuss this form of cooperative learning
in some detail in Chapter Four of the book, on designing for
computer supported cooperative learning).
THE OUTCOMES OF COOPERATIVE LEARNING
Measuring Achievement
In their work into the relative impact on achievement
of competitive, individualistic and cooperative learning efforts,
Johnson and Johnson (1990) looked at 323 studies conducted over
the last 90 years. Their conclusions indicate that cooperative
methods lead to higher achievement than competitive or individulastic
ones when measured by a variety of possible indices. They used
four indices of achievement :
1. Mastery and Retention of Material
Students in cooperative learning environments
perform at a higher level than those working in competitive or
individualstic environments (Johnson and Johnson,1990). When achievement
in "pure" cooperative groups is compared with achievement
in groups using a mixture of cooperative, competitive and individualistic
learning methods then the results show that the "pure"
methods consistantly produce significantly higher achievements.
2. Quality of Reasoning Strategies
-Individuals working in cooperative groups use focusing strategies more often than those working competitively or individualistically. Learning problems are therefore solved faster.
-Those involved in cooperative work use elaboration and metacognition strategies ( such as showing an awareness, and self-control of learning) more often than those working in competitive and individualistic situations.
-Higher level reasoning is promoted by cooperative learning.
-When comparisons are made between students
using cooperative, competitive and individualistic learning strategies
for tasks requiring higher or lower level reasoning strategies
to solve them, students in cooperative groups discovered and used
more higher level strategy methods.
3. Process Gains
Process gains such as new ideas and solutions
are generated through group interaction that are not generated
when persons are working on their own.
4. Transference of Learning
There is a high degree of group-to-individual
transference after working in cooperative groups, ie when individuals
have worked in a cooperative environment, their learning is transfered
to situations where they have to work on their own.
Johnson and Johnson conclude that :
"On tha basis of the research conducted
to date (which is considerable), it may be concluded that generally
achievement is higher in cooperative situations than in competitive
or individualistic ones and that cooperative efforts result in
more frequent use of higher-level reasoning strategies, more frequent
process gain, and higher performance on subsequent tests taken
individually (group-to-individual transfer) than do competitive
or individualistic efforts" (Johnson and Johnson, 1990, p26)
Slavin (1990) suggests that in addition to
these academic outcomes, cooperative learning has positive effects
on social, motivational and attitudinal outcomes also. He suggests
that :
- Cooperative learning works positively in promoting intergroup relations, such as cross cultural relations.
- It can help to overcome barriers to friendship, interaction and achievement of academically less able students, and can increase self esteem in students since they work in situations where they are more likely to be liked by their peers, which in itself has positive effects on achievement.
- Cooperative learning creates norms in groups that support high achievement. Typically, students feel that their peers want them to do their best. This is supported by the work of Deutsch (1949) who carried out laboratory experiments which suggested that students who discuss human relations issues with each other under cooperative conditions a) felt more pressure to achieve from their peers; b) felt more of an obligation to their group mates; and c) had a stronger desire to win their peers' respect. Students in competitive learning settings do not exhibit these traits.
- Cooperative learning leads to success, which in turn leads to students thinking that they can succeed.
- It increases time on task, ie the time actually spent doing work out of the total non-instructional time. Time on task is increased by improvements in the students' motivation to learn and by engaging their attention.
- Students in cooperative learning situations enjoy being in those classes.
- Cooperative learning increases the positive affect of classrooms. Students like their classmates and are liked by them.
- Students working cooperatively become more
cooperative; they learn pro-social behaviours such as how to get
along with others, how to listen and so on.
Other researchers (Sharan, 1990) suggest that
cooperative learning fosters knowledge about the learning process,
and therefore encourages a spirit of learning to learn. It also
informs students about the construction of understanding and knowledge.
These two suggested attributes of cooperative learning are highly
developmental outcomes. ( In the book I look at how cooperative
learning can encourage a spirit of learning and an understanding
of the nature of knowledge in a later case study chapter on computer
supported cooperative learning).
It has to be noted that the educational situations
that Johnson & Johnson and Slavin and other workers in this
field are referring to are school contexts where the teacher has
ultimate power and control, and where the teacher assesses and
rewards individual groups through the use of grade-points and
other such devices. The role of the teacher is central to cooperative
learning in these studies. He/she largely chooses the topics to
be covered and the particular cooperative method to be used. The
teacher functions in what might be termed a policing role, acting
as arbitrator, ultimate decision maker, power controller and rewarder.
Additionally, there seems to be the assumption that the social
interaction, personal purposes and goals of the learners are predictable
and amenable to teacher control.
Experience in working with older or more "adult"
learners in post-compulsory educational settings suggests that
their behaviours are less predictable than those of children (
I leave aside the question of whether children's behaviour is
indeed more predictable ), and less amenable to the sorts of control
that appear to be used in the studies reported above into cooperative
learning tasks. ( I discuss in a later chapter what might happen
when groups of learners work in situations where there is little
if any external policing carried out on their behalf,and where
the control is by the learners themselves ).
Explaining High Achievement Oucomes
The effects of cooperative learning on achievement
are positive. Why do students do so well in cooperative learning
groups ? Slavin ( 1990) suggests two theoretical models which
can be used to throw light on this :
The first model - motivational theory
- suggests that the motivation of each student working in coopertaive
learning groups is high. The reward or goal structures of cooperative
learning groups is said to increase students' motivation to achieve.
It is the effect of cooperating with others within a defined and
well planned learning environment where each student knows the
goals to be achieved, which motivates students to cooperate and
do as well as they can. Learning goal structures can take at least
three forms :
a) cooperative - where each individual's goals
contribute to those of other individulas
b) competitive - where the goals of one individual
frustrate those of others
c) individualistic - where the goals of one
individual have no effect on those of others.
In the cooperative goal structure, the only
way to achieve your own goals is through working with others.
Group work of this kind becomes self-reinforcing. The group provides
the necessary praise and reward for the positive effort of each
member. To work in this way requires each member to try their
hardest, to be a regular attendee of the group and to help others.
We will see later how this works in cooperative groups learning
in electronic environments.
The other explanation for the high achievement
of learners in cooperative groups - cognitive or learning theory
- is attributed to the cognitive processes occuring during cooperative
learning. Cooperative learning involves dialogue between learners,
and a great degree of interaction generally. This increases the
learner's grasp of conceptual material. In developmental terms,
each student who works closely with their peers will be exposed
to situations where their own conceptual skills are stretched
by the interactions with their peers. Their actual developmental
level and their potential developmental level are narrowed by
the interactions they engage in with peers of greater capability.
This is called the zone of proximal development ( Vygotsky, 1978
p86).
Slavin notes that Piaget has also suggested
something similar :
" Students will learn from one another
because in their discussion of content, cognitive conflicts will
arise, inadequate reasoning will be exposed and higher quality
understanding will emerge" (Slavin, 1990 p 16).
There is an obvious difference between the
work of Piaget and Vygotsky, and that is that Piaget largely views
development from an individualistic perspective whereas Vygotsky
views it from a a social, communicative perspective (Jones and
Mercer,1993). It might be proposed therefore that the work of
Vygotsky may have more to offer those interested in cooperative
learning.
Talk in Learning
Other researchers such as Douglas Barnes in
the UK (Barnes and Todd, 1977) have indicated the importance of
talk in learning. They have shown that this form of cooperation
can benefit all learners, especially those from lower middle class
homes who will conduct high level discussions of academic subject
matter when in group-discussion situations. But it should not
be assumed that it is a case of the "brighter" students
always helping the less bright ones, as seems to be the suggestion
in the interpretation of Vygotsky's work mentioned above. The
social interaction in cooperative groups produces superior problem
solving in all the students involved. The "better" students
do not merely supply answers to the less able ones (Sharan and
Shachar, 1988 p 4).
And the talk indulged in need not be formal
or structured for learning to occur. Informal talk, or chat, can
help many learners make the link between their present understanding
of a topic or issue, and a more meaningful understanding :
" Children learn by talking and listening
and should be given more opportunity to talk. Children talking
in small groups are taking a more active part in all their work.
Tentative and inexplicit talk in small groups is the bridge from
partial understanding to confident meaningful statement. Present
talking is future thinking." (Barnes et al, 1969, p126).
This view of the role and importance of talk
is supported by other researchers such as Rosen ( in Barnes et
al, 1971), Phillips ( as quoted in Graddol, 1989) and Graddol
and Swann, 1989.
In my experience, this is also true of students
in post-compulsory education, and is a central aspect of the design
of CSCL environments. Cooperative learners should be encouraged
and supported in all kinds of talk : informal and tentative, and
formal too.Talk is central to cooperative learning groups and
we can predict that working in this way will improve the learning
of all members of the group.
What are the functions of talk and conversation
in learning situations? Barnes and Todd suggest several functions
of both a social and cognitive nature :
LEVEL ONE
1. Discussion Moves - such as Initiating, extending,
eliciting, responding
2. Logical Processes - such as proposing causes
and results; advancing evidence; evaluating; suggesting ways forward
LEVEL TWO
3. Social Skills - such as progressing through
task; competition and conflict; supportive behaviour.
4. Cognitive Strategies - such as constructing
questions; raising new issues; setting hypotheses; using evidence;
expressing feelings.
5. Reflexivity - such as monitoring your own speech; evaluating your own and others' performance; being aware of strategies.
(Barnes and Todd, 1977)
In their research into communication and learning
in small groups, they applied these categories to the analysis
of talk in small learning groups. They also suggest that this
system may be of use to those wishing to get a better understanding
of the usefulness of talk in learning situations. Teachers and
tutors can develop their understanding of talk by analysiing group
discussions using these categories.
When Barnes and Todd played back to teachers
recordings of groups talking, the teachers were impressed and
somewhat surprised by the level and content of discussions taking
place in these small groups :
"When we played back the recordings to
the teachers, their reactions were commonly of surprise and delight.
They were surprised because the quality of the children's discussions
typically far exceeded the calibre of their contributions in class;
and were pleased to hear the children manifesting unexpected skills
and competencies." (Barnes and Todd, 1977, p ix).
Motivation - Extrinsic and Intrinsic
The question of what motivates students to
work cooperatively is of particular importance and raises some
interesting questions about our views of learning. Studies focussing
on motivation have used various reward systems or incentive structures
such as group or individual rewards and intergroup competition
to try to illuminate the issue. Some researchers feel that extrinsic
rewards are needed in order to motivate students in cooperative
learning groups ( eg Slavin, 1990). Others suggest that the intrinsic
motivation afforded by the personal involvement of students in
the cooperative tasks is sufficient to produce high achievement
(Sharan and Shachar, 1988, p120). What is at issue here seems
to be a matter of personal educational philosophy, as much as
anything else. For example, the American educational system seems
to be built round extrinsic rewards. Students studying in most
situations seem to require the presence of an extrinsic reward
to motivate them. No less so perhaps in cooperative learning groups.
In other countries, and other educational systems,
this may not be the case. For example, Sharan and Shachar report
on a series of experiments into cooperative learning in Israel.
They explain that teachers there had voiced concern about rewarding
students for learning. Their particular cooperative learning methods
took this into account and emphasised the intrinsic nature of
learning such as the degree of involvement, interest and attention
which is evident in cooperative learning :
"..the Group-Investigation approach to
instruction ( a particular type of coopertaive learning
) is based on theoretical principles that emphasise the importance
of "intrinsic motivation", of arousing students' involvement
by structuring the learning situation to maximize their initiative
and responsibility for their learning, both individually and collectively."
( Sharan and Shachar, 1988, p119)
They note, in support of their belief, that
students chose to remain in the class and continue with the cooperative
work rather than take the usual break in-between classes. There
was no "reward" to continue other than the sense of
achievement gained form working with others. The intrinsic motivation
was sufficient. In forming a conclusion about the relative worthwhileness
and appropriateness of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation, they
offer the following hypothesis :
" Indeed, we are inclined to speculate
that the kind of motivation stimulated by external rewards, and
the kind fostered by the social-intellectual environment created
by the Group-Investigation approach, may very well be two completely
different kinds of motivation whose differences are not fully
captured by the terms 'extrinsic' and 'intrinsic'." (Sharan
and Shachar,1988, p 120).
(In a later chapter, I look at a computer
supported cooperative learning programme which emphasises a community
of learners in which the philosophy of cooperative learning is
one largely based on intrinsic motivation ).
Before closing this lesson, a word on the role
of the teacher or tutor or facilitator in cooperative learning
is perhaps needed. The role of the teacher or tutor in cooperative
learning is to provide a supportive context for the cooperative
group to work. In some situations, the tutor will wish to provide
a fairly structured context where they as tutor will assign work
to the learners and provide roles for them within the group. They
will set-up group processes and ensure that they are followed
through, and they will make decisions about the learning and its
assessment, and how it should be carried out.
In other situations, tutors will wish to provide
more open contexts for the groups to work in, which rely less
on external structure. They will minimise their own role and influence
in the work of the group. This does not mean that they will not
be active in the work of the group, but they will be conscious
of their special role as tutor and will work towards a situation
where they will not overly police the activities of the group.
(These issues concerning the role of the teacher or tutor in cooperative
learning are discussed in more depth in later chapters of my book
).
CONCLUSION
This “lesson” has looked at what
cooperative learning is and how it benefits learners, both indvidually
and collectively. Although the label "cooperative learning"
is used to describe a variety of seemingly diverse activities,
and has perhaps different meanings and purposes in different contexts
and cultures, there is a common belief that it is a highly beneficial
form of learning.
In summary, we can say that cooperative learning
- helps clarify ideas and concepts through discussion
- develops critical thinking
- provides opportunites for learners to share information and ideas
- develops communication skills
- provides a context where the learners can take conrol of their own learning in a social context
- provides validation of individuals' ideas and ways of thinking through
conversation (verbalising)
multiple perspectives (cognitive restructuring)
argument (conceptual conflict resolution).
References
Argyle, M (1991) Cooperation : The basis of sociability, Routledge, London.
Axelrod, R (1990) The evolution of cooperation, Penguin Books, London.
Barnes, D, Britton, J, Rosen, H and the L.A.T.E. (1969) Language, the learner and the school, Penguin, Middlesex, England.
Barnes, D and F Todd (1977) Communication and learning in small groups, Routledge and Kagan Paul, London.
Cowie, H and Rudduck, J (1988) Co-operative Group Work : an Overview, BP Educational Service, Sheffield University, UK.
Graddol, D (1989) Some CMC discourse properties and their educational Ssgnificance, in Mason, R & Kaye, AR (1989) Mindweave: communication,computers and distance education, Pergamon, Oxford.
Graddol, D. and Swann, J. (1989) Gender voices, Blackwell, Oxford.
Johnson, D W and Johnson, R T (1990) Cooperative learning and achievement., in Sharan, S (1990) op cit.
Jones, A and Mercer, N (1993) Theories of learning and information technology, in Scrimshaw, P (editor) 1990 Language, classrooms and computers, Routledge, London.
Knight, G P and Bohlmeyer, E M (1990) Cooperative learning and achievement : methods for assessing causal mechanisms, in Sharan, S (19 ) Cooperative Learning : Theory and Research, Praeger, NY.
Knowles, M (1975) Self-directed learning : a guide for learners and teachers, Asscociation Press, Chicago.
Margolis, H (1982) Selfishness, altruism and rationality, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
McCollom, M and Gillette, J (1990) The emergence of a new experiential tradition. in Gillette, J and McCollom, M (editors) (1990) Groups in Context : A New Perspective on Group Dynamics, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass.
Rogers,C (1969 ) Freedom to Learn, Charles E Merrill, Columbus Ohio.
Sharan, S (1990) Cooperative learning : theory and research, Praeger, NY.
Sharan, S and Shachar, H (1988) Language and learning in the cooperative classroom., Springer-Verlag, NY.
Slavin, R E (1990) Cooperative learning : Theory, research and practice, Prentice-Hall
Topping, K (1992) Cooperative learning and peer tutoring : An overview, The Psychologist, 5, 151-161.
Vygotsky, L S (1978) Mind in Society, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Wexelblat, A (1993) The Reality of Cooperation
: Virtual Reality and CSCW, in Wexelblat, A (editor) (1993) Virtual
Reality : Applications and Explorations, Academic Press, Boston.
Copyright
This “lesson” is the copyright
of David McConnell. You may use it for your own purposes as a
participant on the PiODL course, but please respect my copyright
and do not re-distribute it or pass it on or make it available
in any form to anyone else.
David McConnell
d.mcconnell@sheffield.ac.uk
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
QUESTIONS
Some possible questions and issues to consider
:
1. What, if any, is your own experience of cooperative learning
a) as a learner
b) as a practitioner ( ie someone who involves
their learners in cooperative learning )
2. What for you are / would be the major issues
in trying to implement cooperative learning ?
3. From your experience on the Pedagogy in
Open and Distance Learning course ( and maybe also other online
courses that you have experienced ), what issues do you think
need to be considered when asking learners to participate in cooperative
learning tasks in online learning environments ?
Please give your replies to these issues
in the Web-based discussion area of PiODL so that everyone
can read and benefit from each personÕs input.
David McConnell
d.mcconnell@sheffield.ac.uk
ONLINE RESOURCES
You might like to search the Web for other
resources concerned with computer supported cooperative ( or collaborative
) learning. Try using the Alta Vista search engine to see if you
can find anything :
http://www.altavista.digital.com/
Here are a few Web resources that I have
come across that might interest you :
Mindweave : In 1988 the UK Open University ran the fist major conference on computer mediated communications in education. It was a major event which brought together practitioners, researchers and administrators from around the world. The proceedings of the conference were published as a book : Mindweave : Communication, computers and
distance education, edited by Robin Mason and
Anthony Kaye, published by Pergamon Press. The book is now out
of print, but you can read it chapter by chapter online at : http://acacia.open.ac.uk/Mindweave/Mindweave.html
The Adult Education Network ( AEDNET ) is a popular resource for adult educators world wide. It hosts an international discussion group for practitioners, students and researchers in continuing education. The electronic journal New Horizons is published by AEDNET. This site gives directions on accessing AEDNET and how to search the AEDNET discussion lists and past volumes of the New Horizons journal.
http://www.nova.edu/Inter-Links/education/aednet.html
Open Learning Australia
: an Australian site which is of special interest to those of
you involved in Further Education. Holds some interesting ideas
and resources : http://www.ola.edu.au/
Open Net :
This is a useful and interesting web site in Australia with lots
of information, resources and links to other sites : http://www.opennet.net.au/
World Lecture Hall
: contains links to pages created by lecturers world wide who
are using the Web to deliver class material. Includes lecture
notes, multi-media textbooks etc on a vast range of subjects.
Well worth a visit ! : http://www.utexas.edu/world/lecture/index.html
Just in Time Open Learning (jitol)
: a Sheffield University project ( run by David ad Mick ) on the
use of CMC / CSCL etc in continuing education. The focus is largely
on how we can support professional people in the creation of new
understandings, and the creation of ‘new’ knowledge,
of their practice. Good links to other sites : http://www.shef.ac.uk/uni/projects/jitol/
CSCL95 Conference Proceedings
: The first international conference on CSCL was held at Indiana
University in 1995. Researchers from over the world considered
the latest ideas and methods for encouraging collaboration in
learning, ranging from primary and secondary schooling to further
and higher education. This web site offers links to resources
about collaborative learning generally, but in particular presents
the proceedings of the CSCL95 conference ( look for the “
Past Conferences in CSCL” link ) : http://www.cica.indiana.edu/cscl95/
Computer support for collaborative learning, University of Calgary. A useful place for finding references and other resources :
http://www.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/projects/grouplab/projects/cscl/cscl-home.html
Web Tools for CSCL
: Lots of interesting online tools and ideas for developing your
Web CSCL courses : http://www.iis.sinica.edu.tw/CCL/html/related.html
Dr E’s Eclectic Compendium of Electronic Resources for Adult/Distance Education : A very useful place to find all sorts of DL resources and links to other web sites. Information on discussion lists can be found here too.
http://www.oak-ridge.com/ierdrep1.html
International Centre for Distance Education
(ICDL) : A really useful site for
finding lots of resources relating to distance education. The
ICDL currently offers a huge bibliographic reference library for
online searches in DL, well worth looking at; library services
for DL researchers; a list of journals and newsletters in DL and
links to other educational providers. Visit it at : http//acacia.open.ac.uk/
UK Open University : this is the home page of the UK OU. General information and links to services etc :
Athabasca University
: this is Canada’s national distance learning university.
http://www.athabascau.ca/
Commonwealth of Open Learning : A useful resource with general information about the COL, publications, events guide and so on. There are some useful links to regional OL sites across the globe :
http://www.col.org/desource.html
California Institute for Health Sciences
: an example of an institution offering its course via the Internet.
Worth looking at if only to see how the Californians are doing
it ! : http://www.cchs.edu/whydista.html
Canadian Association for Distance Education
: Canada is at the fore-front of distance education and the use
of telematics. This site contains information on school based
DL resources and projects, as well as other more generalinformation
: http://142.26.6.221/disted/cade/cade.html
Virtual universities ?
Can the Virtual University deliver REAL
learning ? The Teleteaching Conference 1996 was preceded by an
online discussion via the Web on the potential of the Virtual
University. An Ôinternational panel of expertsÕ discussed
seven topics with other online visitors, on issues of strategy,
pedagogy, new technologies, staff development, research, lessons
learned and services. This is an interesting example of a web-based
international discussion. You can read the proceedings on : http://www2.openweb.net.au/TT96University/
The Globewide Network Academy : entitled “a place for helping distant learners find what they are looking for”, this site is another example of an organisation offering its programs via DL. Useful to see how others do it ! :
http://uu-gna.mit.edu:8001/uu-gna/index.html
Open and Virtual Universities
: A list of Open and Virtual Universities which is a useful starting
point to visit some of the world’s online institutions :
http://www.msvu.ca/aau/University.html
Community-based learning on the Web : A community access web site in Canada about the potential of TeleEducation in the community. Has online resources, bibliographies and surveys, as well as several short (1 -2 pages ) modules about using the web in the community. Well worth looking at, on :
http://cnet.unb.ca/clrn/nb/c/leafs/learning_on_the_web/
Computer supported cooperative work (CSCW) :
You might be interested in the ways organisations are using these technologies for cooperative work :
http://www.econ.kuleuven.ac.be/tew/academic/infosys/research/groupwre.htm
If you come across anything that you
think might interest me and the other participants / tutors on
PiODL please do put it on the Web based discussion area of PiODL.
David McConnell
d.mcconnell@sheffield.ac.uk