28th January 2016

Collaborative Learning

What does "collaborative" actually mean?

Chai, Lim, So, Cheah (2011) define collaborative learning as "...when students interact for the purpose of achieving better understanding about a concept, a problem or a phenomenon, or to create a novel piece of knowledge or solution that they don't previously know..." (p. 6).  They further go on to differentiate between "collaborative learning" as opposed to "cooperative learning" and discuss that cooperative learning, where students are working effectively together, is the "scaffold" or beginning of collaborative learning which is more structured in terms of "group formation, interaction, procedure and outcomes activity"  (p. 8).  When students are truly working together collaboratively Chai et.al (2011) point out that they also acquire "soft skills" such as seeing the perspectives of others, improved communication skills and awareness of their own strengths and weaknesses (p. 6). I think it is important that children develop these skills as early as possible at school as they are essential skills to have in the workplace (team work) and in society in general.

I think that many confuse cooperation with collaboration, particularly in relation to group work. I think collaboration is happening in group work when all participants have equal input and contribution to the outcome, however often in reality, one or two individuals will dominate a group, doing most of the work while the others sit by passively and contribute little.  This is a particular issue in the adult ESL classroom where often there is some disparity between language levels within the class, so those more competent, particularly in oral skills, will take the lead.  Cultural background and personality also come into play in group dynamics in the adult ESL classroom.  Therefore it is essential for the teacher to plan collaborative lessons carefully to ensure learning outcomes are being met, particularly when ICT is being incorporated.  Group work is a favoured activity in ESL classrooms as it is the best way for students to communicate with each other and practice their oral skills, however it is important to always be aware of the group composition and try to encourage students to form new groups for different activities.

Chai et. al. (2011) further note that the "affordance" and ICT tool brings, meaning "the actions people can perform by using certain features of ICT tools" (p. 20) support collaborative learning, for example the structure of blogs is conducive to diary writing,  (this is one way I use blogs in my Cert III EFS writing class), with the most current entry on top. 

How can Web 2.0 technologies support collaborative learning?  What are the issues raised by Luckin, Clark, Graber, Logan, Mee & Oliver (2009) and how can they be overcome?

Web 2.0 technologies by nature can enhance social interaction, applications such as Facebook, wikis, blogs, forums and discussion boards etc., require the input of more than one person.   Luckin, Clark, Graber, Logan, Mee & Oliver (2009) conducted a study which showed that high school students in the UK had high level of access to Web 2.0 technologies, however few were aware of the complete range of Web 2.0 activities beyond social media (Facebook), playing online games or instant messaging for example,  and they found little evidence that many are "making effective and/or 'groundbreaking' use of Web 20 and other internet technologies" (p. 88).   Many common Web 2.0 technologies such as wikis, blogs and podcasts / discussion boards, were considerably under-utilised, with students reading information on these platforms but rarely contributing or collaborating on them (pp. 91-92).   They also note that most Web 2.0 activities are undertaken outside school and discuss research, for example by (Selwyn 2006) that the use of technology at school is limited and constrained by issues such as:

• filtering / blocked sites
• gatekeeping
• timetabling
• lack of access
• reduced connectivity / speed
• system bottlenecks
• outdated software
• lack of skills    (p. 88)

I can say that all of these issues have an impact on students using Web 2.0 ICT tools in my organisation.  As discussed in earlier posts, the organisation is unable to keep up with contant upgrades of hardware and software so what students and teachers are expected to use is very out of date.  The network often "goes down" for long periods of time and connectivity is often slow.  There has been a conscious move to a BYOD environment and decommissioning of dedicated computer rooms in an attempt to overcome some of these issues, but of course this raises another set of issues such as digital equity (discussed in earlier posts).

Luckin et.al. (2009) categorised the students in the study into 3 groups:
1.  "Researchers" - read a lot of material online, but little evidence of "critical enquiry or analytical awareness" - most students in the study were in this group (p. 95).
2.  "Collaborators" - file sharing, gaming and communicating on social network - few students in the study genuinely engaged in "collaborative learning using Web 2.0 technology" though (p. 96)
3.  "Producers and publishers" - share experiences online with input from teachers with evidence of "copublication and production" - despite the students extensive use or "consumption of products using Web 2.0 tools" e.g. YouTube, uploading and sharing photos, playing games etc., very few created or published content or fit into this group (p. 97).

The issues identified in this study are complex.  Policy and curriculum needs to be more specific about the integration of Web 2.0 technologies, and schools / educational institutions need to be supportive in terms of providing the infracture (up to date hardware and software; high speed internet access for example) and also importantly, provide professional learning opportunities for teachers to learn how to plan and integrate Web 2.0 technology into their programming and lessons to bring the students beyond the "researcher" stage into "collaborators" and ultimately "producers and publishers".  I think there is an expectation that having students bring their own devices will go some way to solving the inadequate hardware / software dilemma and that teachers will 'figure out' themselves how to integrate new ICT technologies in the classroom.  Of course neither of these expectations are realistic. 

" Interactivity" in the classroom and its impact on learning. 

Beauchamp & Kennewell (2010) discuss the idea of "orchestration of resources" being the key element of "interactivity" and classroom practice.  (p. 764).

Describe briefly what a group of your students would look like if they were using a form of ICT of your choosing and participating in each onf the following:

• Group interaction:  Beauchamp & Kennewell (2010) describe group work as "orchestrated by learners rather than teachers, though teachers may have a significant influence" (p. 760).  If the group in my class were contributing to the class wiki for example, they would have a guideline from me: i.e.  "post your thoughts about the smoking ban on campus", from there the activity would be guided by the learners themselves, contributing and sharing ideas.
• Authoratitive interactivity:  Beauchamp & Kennewell (2010) give an example of students working individually using tutorial software to "carry out a fixed procedure to complete a familiar task" (p. 760).  My students often use tutorial software such as "Brain Pop" to practice new vocabulary or grammar points.
• Dialectic interactivity:  Students working individually again may use a more constructive mode of tutorial software such as "Grab a Word" which is more interactive with the students and records their progress through the activities.
• Dialogic interactivity:  Beauchamp & Kennewell (2010) give the example of students using the interactive whiteboard (IWB) to search the internet together so ideas can be "explored and their thinking focused by evaluating what they find on the web" (p. 764), this is an activity that my students could do as a class activity to practice using search engines to locate specific information for their information reports.
• Synergistic interactivity:  Beauchamp & Kennewell (2010) described this as "independent reflective activity carried out by students collectively in the whole class setting" with teachers and students choosing ICT tools and "orchestrating features" (p. 764).  I have not been this far with my students!   Is it possible?  Beauchamp & Kennewell (2010) go on to say that for this method to work successfully, "the ability of all learners and the teacher to use the tool to contribute on equal terms is central" (p. 764).  As I've discussed before, there is great disparity in ICT capability with my learners, in one class there can be ICT engineers and students who have never (or hardly) used a computer before.  However this would certainly be achievable in a class of homogenous learners, for example the "Skillmax" class which we run for migrant professionals - most of whom come from ICT and / or engineering background.

References:

Beauchamp, G., & Kennewell, S. (2010). Interactivity in the classroom and its impact on learning. Computers & Education, 54(3), 759-766. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.033  

Chai, C.S., Lim, W, So, H., Cheah, H.M. (2011).  Advancing Collaborative Learning with ICT: Conception, Cases and Design.  Ministry of Education, Singapore, 1^st Edition.

Luckin, R., Clark, W., Graber, R., Logan, K., Mee, A., & Oliver, M. (2009). Do Web 2.0 tools really open the door to learning? Practices, perceptions and profiles of 11–16‐year‐old students. Learning, Media And Technology, 34(2), 87-104. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17439880902921949