What is Collaborative Learning?. Collaborative learning is a type of active learning that takes place in student teams .
Collaborative learning is a type of active learning that takes place in student teams.
It centers on the students’ discovery, study and use of information in a collaborative manner, rather than an instructor simply lecturing and the students individually, passively taking notes.
Their analysis generally requires interpretation, assessment, evaluation, comparison, synthesis, and so on.
Collaborative learning aids in students’ socialization, and requires them to divide up tasks, provide feedback, and debate different conclusions.
It encourages problem solving skills, understanding complex relationships and decision making in an open ended situations. Such problem solving processes also mirror “real world” working environments.
Collaborative learning often allows for “peer coaching,” when the higher achieving students can help their less achieving team members understand a problem and possible solutions.
Also, in many cases the answers the students derive to a problem or issue through collaborative learning tend to be better than they would otherwise come to on their own.
Finally, all the students become actively involved in learning information on the topic of the course.
In collaborative learning, the professor acts more as an organizer, facilitator, and mediator than as a transmitter of knowledge.
Collaborative learning often involves challenging students with analytical problems which they must solve in teams by obtaining information or utilizing information given to them.
The faculty member creates teams, with the number of students on each team corresponding to the number of subcomponents of the problem, issue or topic at hand. Each student has to take one of those components (as assigned by the professor or self-chosen by the student) and becomes an “expert” on it, either through materials provided him or her by the professor, or through the student’s own research.
Then the “experts” on each subcomponent (there will be one such “expert” from each team) come together to form the “expert committee” on that subcomponent. This committee synthesizes their knowledge, finds a consensus, and devises the best means to teach their consensus to their original team members.
The original team then re-constitutes, and each “expert” then teaches his or her team mates the expert consensus on that problem subcomponent.
A variation would be for each group to then devise their own solution to the entire problem, and these solutions be discussed and modified according to one of the other collaborative learning techniques described below.
Schematically, this would be a possible structure of a jigsaw:
Group A: Student 1A, Student 2A, Student 3A, Student 4A
Group B: Student 1B, Student 2B, Student 3B, Student 4B
Group C: Student 1C, Student 2C, Student 3C, Student 4C
Group D: Student 1D, Student 2D, Student 3D, Student 4D
In this technique, each student is assigned a number, for example from one to four (perhaps counting off, randomly chosen, self chosen, and so on).
Then students form teams with (in this example) four members, each member having a different assigned number (in other words, each team would have a student numbered “one,” “two,” “three,” and “four”).
Each team then performs the assigned task, decides on the answer to the problem, or otherwise completes the assignment. The students then return to their original seating position.
The professor then decides on a number (e.g., from one to four), and calls on each student with that number to give their group’s “answer,” explain the solution to the problem to the class, etc.
Since no one knows which student number the professor will call on to give the answer, all students will have a “vested interest” in the solution.
The professor poses to the class a problem requiring analysis, evaluation, and/or cognitive synthesis. The student is given a very limited amount of time to consider the question and find a response (typically one to five minutes).
Then the student pairs with a partner (for example, the student to the left of her or him).
These students share their responses, and develop the best answer. This could then be continued in another round, with the answer from the student pair being further discussed with another pair of students (for example, a pair of two students in the front row of the class turns to their counterparts in the second row, etc).
Students are divided into teams. On an index card, the teams are provided with a problem, issue, or topic. Each team comes to a consensus on the best answer to the question, and writes their answer on the back of the card. (Perhaps dissenters are allowed to put their dissenting answer on the card as well, and identify it as a dissenting answer).
The card is then passed on to the second team. The second team does the same as the first. The second team then turns the card over to see the first team’s answer. The second team considers the first team’s answer, and modifies it or contradicts it, as they decide. They write their answer on back of the card next to the first team’s answer.
The card is passed to a third team, and so on.
The card could also eventually make its way back to the first team, which could then respond, modifying their original answer, the new consensus answer, and so on.
Of course, there would probably be as many questions on as many cards as there is teams, so that each team is always working on a problem, and passing it “down the row,” so to speak.
At the end of the class session, the students have minute to write their responses to one or more of the following questions:
What was the most important or useful thing you learned today?
What two important questions do you still have; what remains unclear?
What would you like to know more about?
Their answers might then help the professor tailor the course material to students’ interests, facilitate designing questions for group discussion, and also show which students understand the material and which don’t. (Of course, this really isn’t collaborative learning so much as a form of active learning).
Students work in small groups to write a paper together, going through each stage.
They formulate ideas, create a thesis statement, find supporting evidence, and so on.
This involves continuous peer review.
The professor begins with a controversy (e.g., in order to develop and use “green” energy, should people be made to pay “X” more per (gallon, kilowatt, etc)?).
The professor then allows the students to consider the issue, bring together their evidence, and so on. The students might perform these tasks in like-minded groups.
Then, after presenting their arguments, the students are made to argue the opposite side just as effectively, with the same depth of evidence, etc. Again, this could be made a group exercise.
If desired, the students could then be made to indicate if their original views had changed.
A variation, related to a specific course topic, would be these questions: Did A cause B, is A responsible for B, is A more important than B, etc.
Simulations are complex, role-playing activities that attempt to resolve an open ended question.
Students take on highly defined roles that mimic actual roles in history or in the present (such as justices on the Supreme Court).
Often students are placed into teams for this project (such as the leadership of a particular country, or of a particular political party, and so on).
There should be a strong tension between the different roles (and/or teams), which gives the students and/or teams different goals, methods, motivations, benefits, drawbacks, dilemmas, and so on.
Often students can become emotionally invested in a simulation, and tend to perform exceptionally well, both in learning and in effort to accomplish their tasks.
After the simulation is finished there is usually a “debriefing” session, where students analyze the simulation, their own actions, that of their team and other teams, and discuss the advantages and disadvantages of exploring the problem using simulations.
There are numerous pre-fabricated simulations or educational games available.
These analytical questions are often used in collaborative learning:
These analytical questions are often used in collaborative learning:
This tends to be a critical component of a successful collaborative project, and of well-functioning teams.
On the first day of class, students must understand the project and what is expected of each student and of the teams as a whole.
Students must be aware that their grade is in part a group grade; thus, there is a great degree of inter-dependency. For each student to succeed, the entire group must succeed.
Also, encourage students to discuss their own fears (and also perhaps hopes) with regard to working in groups on a project, and address those issues accordingly. For a variety of reasons, some students will balk at engaging in the project, and choose to drop the class. In many cases, this is for the best, lest that student “spoil” the project, be uncooperative, disruptive, and so on.
Over the course of the project, make sure that the teams have a very clear idea of the steps they need to take to complete the project and fulfill their tasks. The teams should write out their own plans of action in this regard, and indicate who is responsible for what, when, etc.
Then each team member should have a copy of this list, so that everyone is aware of their responsibilities. These lists could even be posted for everyone to see, increasing the pressure on each student to fulfill all of their tasks on time.
Project time lines may help: this would be in a linear form, with the X axis as time, and on the line indicate what goal should be accomplished when, and by whom.
If the project lasts over several weeks, it is important for the professor to have specific points in time at which each team has to report to the professor what they have so far accomplished (or not accomplished), problems they have encountered, and so on. Perhaps task restructuring, reworking a project time line, or other remedy may be necessary.
When the project involves team papers, the better students sometimes complain that the less capable students “drag them down.” One way to resolve this is to have each student turn in a component of the team paper (for example, the analysis of a survey question), and then the team as a whole writes the overall paper (such as the analysis of a survey).
More weight could be given to the individual component paper than the team analysis paper. Some educators suggest that the individual component be given much more weight in determining that student’s final grade than that part of their grade derived from the team’s overall grade for the completed project.
Some studies show that teams often have higher achievement when there is “competition” between the teams. In simulations, for instance, if an international crisis occurs, the competition could be which country gains the most advantage by the time the crisis is resolved. Each “country” is represented by a team that comprises its “leadership.”
Redistributing the members of one team into other teams tends to disturb and confuse the established teams, and require many tasks (such as work distribution) to be reconfigured, thus tending to slow down the team.
Rather, the malfunctioning team should themselves analyze (perhaps with the professor) why they aren’t working well together, and find their own solution. This then becomes part of the learning process.
It tends to be harder for someone to “shirk” their responsibilities in small groups, for example teams of three people.
Also, the teams may decide beforehand how they wish to deal with “shirkers,” if the situation arises.
Another tactic is to let each team decide, by majority vote, to dismiss a low performing member.
That student would face the choice of persuading their team to let her or him rejoin the team, promising to do “x, y, or z.”
Or this student might persuade another team to accept him or her.
Students could, at some point early in the project, arrive at a consensus as to which traits, skills, and responsibilities will be assessed, such as timeliness, thoroughness, making meetings on time (or at all), and so on.
These could then be the “data points” for the peer evaluation. At the end of the project, each student writes a short description of the role of each other team member (including themselves), and suggests a grade for each team member.
Any consensus with regard to a particular team member may well have evaluative worth for the professor. Sometimes such evaluations actually occur in the middle of the project, to address on-going problems.
Always make sure that teams are designed so that each team member has roughly the same amount of work and responsibilities.
The professor might let the students choose their own teams. The risk is self-selected groups and too great a tendency to socialize.
Faculty might choose teams with consideration of their students’ personalities or academic abilities and past success. Often, this is done to make teams basically similar with regard to key types of students (for example, perhaps each team should have a “talkative” student, or a student who tends to take a leadership position, or a good writer, or students with high and with low performance histories).
A “middle ground” between the two above methods is to have each student write down the names of three students they would like to work with, and from these lists the professor creates the teams, using the criteria above.
A variation of this is to ask non-scalable rather than scalable questions.
For example, one might ask: what is most important to you: political belief, religious belief, ethnic identity, regional identity, or some other aspect of identity?
Still another variation is to ask open ended questions: list four things most important in defining yourself, in rank order.
From this, teams can be formed according to the task requirements.
Research shows that groups of four or five members work best in most situations.
The less skillful the group members, the smaller the groups should be.
The shorter the amount of time available, the smaller the groups should be.
http://teaching.berkeley.edu/bgd/collaborative.html (accessed February 1, 2011).