Author: David Kimber

Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology University

Keywords: collaborative learning, peer-based learning, team-based learning, group learning, project based learning, management education

Article style and source: Refereed. Original ultiBASE publication based on a paper presented at the 1994 ANZAM (Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management) conference in New Zealand.

Contents

• Abstract
• Introduction
• Terms and concepts
• Themes and subsets
• History
• Different approaches
• Research outcomes relating to Co-operative Learning
  1. Increased cognitive analysis and problem solving skills
  2. Team building
  3. Improved results
  4. Increased student retention
  5. Enhancing student satisfaction and promoting positive attitudes
  6. Improved verbal skills
  7. Improved social skills
  8. Promoting self esteem
  9. Improving cross cultural understanding
  10. Replication of areas of study in the classroom
• Problems with collaborative learning
• Reasons for successful collaborative learning programs
  1. Clear definition of activities
  2. Recognition of student needs
  3. Academic honesty
  4. Group management
  5. Matching assessment with the teaching methodology
• Directions for future research
• Conclusion
• Bibliography

Abstract

This paper reviews the current literature on CL, concentrating on recent research findings. It reviews different CL strategies used in university education, and research findings on the benefits of CL. It considers the identified problems relating to the use of CL and successful approaches adopted in universities in Australia, UK and the USA. The paper analyses the development the CL approaches at the RMIT Graduate School of Business and suggests directions for future research.

Introduction

Objectives should be focused not only on the acquisition of a body of basic knowledge, but more importantly on the development of analytical and personal skills so that knowledge can be applied to detecting and solving managerial challenges (Quoted by Stinson 1991, p. 2)

In Australia the Business Higher Education Round Table has undertaken a number of surveys in the last three years. Its reports emphasize communication skills, problem solving ability, and a more holistic approach to business knowledge as issues of concern.

Interest in Group Learning has increased significantly in higher education in the last twenty years. Wagner, Scharinger and Sisak (1992, p. 3) summarise reasons for this interest.

1. ...Demand for faculty members to be both productive researchers and quality teachers,
2. larger class sizes,
3. growing importance of computer technology as an educational tool,
4. need for cultural diversity training,
5. budget constrictions.

Today one could suggest CL is an approach used often used surreptitiously and inadvertently by many academics. It is often turned to in frustration when lecturing and teacher-centred class work is recognised as a dull process for both students and academics. Given CL's proven value this is surprising. The objective of this paper is to highlight the positive outcomes of CL, recognise its areas of difficulty and to suggest techniques which enhance its usefulness.

Terms and concepts

Collaborative education is a pedagogical style which emphasizes co-operative efforts among students, faculty and administrators. It stresses common inquiry as the basic learning process.

Collaborative learning personalises knowledge by socializing it, providing students with a social context of learning peers with whom they are engaged on conceptual issues.

The focus shifts from the transmission of knowledge to the generation of it

Themes and subsets

Cooper et al (1991, p. 239) define co-operative learning as:

a structured systematic instructional strategy in which small groups work towards a common goal

its emphasis on highly structured techniques for ensuring positive interdependence within groups and its insistence on individual accountability.

in order to have an impact on achievement small group teaching procedures must include positive interdependence and individual accountability.

Whilst such approaches can be undertaken individually, group work is often a major focus. In 'real life', solutions to problems are rarely discovered without assistance from other members of an organisation. Consequently some of the literature on Problem Based Learning has been incorporated in this paper.

Collier and Clarke (1986) identified two styles of syndicate based learning. The Unstructured (U) Model took place when groups of four to six students work on assignments and present their findings to a larger group. The group work is the focus of learning and is not closely directed by academic staff. There is an expectation that 'debate within syndicates' clarifies and synthesizes student learning. The second Formal (F) Model is more tightly managed with tutors being assigned to work groups who are guided through a series of 'problem boxes'. Weekly meetings are timetabled with tutors who act as 'process-advisors' and are not necessarily full-time academic staff.

Collier's (1983) study of Management of Peer Learning found the 'U Model' was more commonly adopted in Literature, Sociology of Education and Study of Values. It is a technique often used in undergraduate and MBA programs. The 'F model' has been adopted in Medical and Engineering Schools and is used at RMIT in postgraduate management programs.

Other terms which have been applied to this field are Peer Based Learning, Problem Centred Learning, Small Group Learning, Syndicate Based Learning, Collaborative Learning, Self Directed Work Teams, Management Learning Teams, Professional Development Teams.

Whilst it is appropriate to distinguish between styles and approaches, there is a significant breadth and diversity of methodologies which fit under the general banner of small group learning. Terminology which has established definitions in one country, field or level of study may be interpreted differently elsewhere. Consequently this paper will not emphasise different themes or subsets of collaborative learning. It will concentrate on applications in Higher Education, but will touch on as many of the aspects identified by research in the field as possible. The terms Small Group Learning (SGL) and Collaborative Learning (CL) will be used synonymously as the common broad generic terms.

History

In the 1950s and 1960s the group behaviour movement centred around work of the Tavistock Institute in the UK and the Kurt Lewin and Morton Deutsch in the USA spawned an increasing interest in group based learning, especially in relation to management and science education. The development of syndicates for MBA teaching and the inquiry based ESS science curriculum were landmarks at Harvard University.

In the 1970s and 1980s David and Roger Johnston at the University of Minnesota and Jim Cooper at the California State University have been research leaders as well as correlating the findings of many others who have ventured into this field. It is evident from all their work that it has become a major field of enquiry.

Different approaches

Research outcomes relating to Co-operative Learning.

1. Increased cognitive analysis and problem solving skills.

Kulik and Kulik's (1979) review of research on teaching strategies found discussion groups promoted students' problem solving abilities.

McKeachie's (1987, 1988) and Smith's (1977, 1980) research on college classes and college teaching methods found student interaction was positively related to critical thinking skills and meta-cognitive learning strategies.

Bloom (1976) suggests that group learning can develop higher level skills of analysing, synthesising, evaluating, and conceptualising. These findings were supported by Cooper, Sanches, Prescott and Lawrence (1988), Whipple (1986), Gabbert, Johnston and Johnston (1986), Johnston and Johnston (1981) and Skon, Johnston and Johnston (1981/80).

Schmidt (1983) identified three conditions that link theory to subsequent retrieval and appropriate use of new information. They are activation of prior knowledge, similarity of context, and opportunity to elaborate on initial knowledge. Bridges suggests that these conditions are most likely to apply when problem based learning, incorporating SGL, is used. These principles are validated by Godden and Baddeley's research which suggests that:

knowledge is much more likely to be remembered or recalled in the context in which it was originally learned (Bridges 1992, p.9)

Brashford et al. (1989) suggest PBL students are more likely spontaneously to apply their learning to solve new problems than students who were taught in more traditional fact-oriented learning conditions.

Johnston et al. (1991) believe that challenge and controversy emerging from SGL can be a positive element in improving understanding. They stated that:

controversy promotes uncertainty about the correctness of one's views, an active search for more information, a reconceptualisation of one's knowledge and conclusions and consequently greater mastery and retention of the material being discussed.

2. Team Building

Beckman (1990) reinforces the view that CL strengthens skills needed for teamwork. She notes the growth of team oriented management planning in American companies and suggests CL in management schools effectively prepares students for the 'latest techniques of capitalism' (p. 32). However she believes the maintenance of power in the teacher and the university (grading) ensures that CL approaches do not really challenge the hegemony of authority and thus develop democratisation in the workplace. In fact it helps increase awareness that lower level collaboration reinforces upper level power bases.

3. Improved results

Collaborative Learning procedures are more effective for promoting student learning and achievement than traditional instructional methods which involve private, individual, and/or competitive procedures

Johnston et al (1991) believe peer feedback is an important factor for both motivation and the development of knowledge. Knowledge retention is more likely when frequent and immediate feedback occurs, a core aspect of SGL.

Studies on the effectiveness of teaching approaches favour CL techniques. Johnston and Johnston (1989) reviewed over 375 studies and fount that:

the average student cooperating performed about two-thirds a standard deviation above the average student learning within competitive or individualistic situations.

4. Increased Student Retention

5. Enhancing Student Satisfaction and Promoting Positive Attitudes

Good and Brophy's (1991) theory of motivation suggests that motivation increases with expectations of success and higher valuation of rewards. Bridges (1992, p. 11) believes PBL can emphasise these strategies by containing elements which increase student enjoyment and encourage intrinsic rewards. Such elements are opportunities for active response, use of simulations, emphasis on immediate feedback, interaction with peers, creation of finished products, and practical use of project outcomes.

6. Improved Verbal Skills

7. Improved Social Skills

Whipple (1986) found that a less hierarchical mode of thinking, greater tolerance of diversity and revitalisation in areas beyond the classroom were likely to come from CL activities.

Interpersonal relationships are developed and improved through CL. Johnston et al (1991) state:

students who studied cooperatively develop commitment and caring for each other, no matter what their initial impressions of and attitudes toward each other.

8. Promoting Self Esteem

9. Improving Cross Cultural Understanding

10. Replication of areas of study in the Classroom

Problems with Collaborative Learning

• CL requires staff to be able to provide a more individualised reaction to students. Lecturing 'en masse' is a more 'efficient' way of dealing with large numbers. This criticism overlooks one of the key concerns with lecturing - that ideas, principles and concepts presented in lectures are effectively synthesised and understood by all, or even the majority of, students.
• CL best suits gregarious, extroverted students who have well developed social skills. Introverted students, who are uncomfortable with a socially oriented learning environment, find CL methodologies threatening or frightening.
• A slow transition from traditional to collaborative mode may be necessary when students are unused to the approach. Students who are used to passive, content based learning are likely to resist a quick and rapid immersion into group based learning which de-emphasises prescribed or predetermined solutions. Overly ambitious projects with unsuitable students are likely to fail.
• Staff involved with content driven fields of study dominated by a need to cover set 'base levels of knowledge' (mathematics, languages, some fields of medicine and business) which are required as foundations for subsequent areas of study resist CL as it interferes with the delivery of defined syllabi. Collier and Clarke(1986) and others (Owen 1983, Abercrombie 1978) recognised that the tutor's role is one which can cause difficulties. In SGL tutors are required to minimise a dominant influence over the direction of students' endeavors. However, especially in unstructured group work, tutors can become concerned that the cover of material is insufficient or moving off the 'right' areas of study. The ambiguity of being a mentor rather than a didactic influence can cause insecurity for both staff and students.
• A corollary of the content and knowledge issue relates to evaluation and assessment. This is discussed in more detail below. Weiner (1989, p.59) suggests CL should be acknowledged as 'a means to generate knowledge as a social construct and not simply as the use of a new configuration of students in the classroom'. Until this is understood CL faces resistance from academics who place high value on traditional, empirically based (i.e. independent and supposedly objective) means of assessment or evaluation.
• This issue is also raised by Collier and Clarke (1986), Rodgers (1983) Fransson (1976), Owen (1983), Merton and Saljo (1976) and Newble and Jaeger(1983). Their findings reinforce the belief that students' perception of assessment has a crucial influence on the approach taken to learning. If a three hour examination emphasising Knowledge and Comprehension (Bloom's first two categories of learning) is the prime focus in students' minds, higher order skills (Analysis, Synthesis, and Evaluation (Bloom et al (1956)), those which are seen as most attainable through CL, will be de-emphasised by students. Research findings indicate that alternative approaches to assessment are an integral aspect of CL and are perhaps one of the major hurdles to its wider acceptance in education.

Reasons for Successful CL programs

1. Clear Definition of Activities

Wagner, Scharinger and Sisak (1992) state that the most effective programs are those:

in which the experiential activity and the debriefing of that activity are closely linked to a clearly established and organisationally desirable outcome.

2. Recognition of student needs

• Group learning is strongly encouraged by students. They regard size of groups as an important issue preferring four as the average group size. 'Free riding' or 'social loafing' in groups is common but is not regarded as a major constraint.
• Structural relationships relating to 'real living' constraints (i.e. real, living students time scheduling) is an overbearing and comprehensive constraint on the ability of groups to work effectively together; work, home and social pressures are major cause of 'free riding'.

Student comfort and enjoyment is an important element in effective learning. Ensuring CL approaches are accepted by students initially is essential. Strong initial resistance is likely to lead to future staff/student conflict and/or withdrawal by individual students from the groups. Explanation and clarification sessions as well as reviews of both student and teacher expectations can increase student acceptance.

At RMIT CL practices have been modified after student feedback. To encourage more audience participation in sessions built around debates, students suggested that they have a more significant role in evaluating the debate. In future students in the audience will be required to keep score sheets which will be handed in after the class.

3. Academic Honesty

Group Management

The process of managing role plays, debates and simulation games should be carefully considered before such activities are undertaken. At RMIT when such techniques have been adopted, detailed instructions are given to students carefully explaining how the process should take place. Ensuring all students understand and are happy and able to undertake the role expected of them is important. Time spent early in the process ensuring this occurs is likely to reduce confusion, conflict and problems emerging at a later stage.

5. Matching Assessment with the Teaching Methodology

Petino (1991) suggests that reducing emphasis on individually based examinations can be achieved by clear goal setting using take home examinations which are carefully worded to limit likelihood of plagiarism. Such examinations should use 'reflective' questions rather than 'regurgitative' questions which do not ask for definitions or facts but rather stress thought and application.

Another approach is to ensure that the results of examinations reinforce the concept of CL. This can be done by developing a system which allocates student grades based on both individual responses in examination as well as the group's average. This encourages high performing students to support weaker students. As the 'better' students' final mark can be 'pulled down' by lower performing students in the group, it is in their interest to 'lift' the performance of their group overall rather than concentrate purely on their own efforts.

An alternative way of diffusing the 'individual versus group' assessment issue is to segment the various objectives and evaluation approaches in a course. This would distinguish between the CL elements, both in terms of process and assessment, from the individualistic aspects. Emphasis would be given to differentiating between the outcomes from CL activities and those activities aimed at identifying individually assessed skills and/or knowledge. Time must be spent in classes to help students to recognise those differences rather than confuse and frustrate them by apparently espousing a methodology which is not reinforced by compatible assessment.

At RMIT considerable debate has been undertaken over the last ten years as to whether or not graded assessment is appropriate when CL is an important and integral element of the program philosophy. This relates in particular to post graduate management courses. In fact we have currently accepted that grading will take place in a recently restructured MBA program. However, in other areas which use contract learning and peer evaluation ungraded assessment is being maintained.

This debate will continue and approaches will be modified accordingly. My personal belief is that whilst a group process orientation invalidates individualistic performance evaluation, the recognition of higher level achievement by either individuals or groups is an issue that should be addressed. This can be done in various ways, such as awards or prizes for outstanding achievement, which do not need a fully integrated grading system for all students. Presentation assessment by peers, assignment reviews by panels etc. are often used to select suitable higher level outcomes.

Directions for future research

there is a need for evidence regarding the conditions under which syndicate-based work most effectively promotes the higher order skills and the habits of deep processing without sacrificing mastery of the basic knowledge and comprehension in the chosen field.

methods used for assessing command of the higher order skills (Analysis, Synthesis and Evaluation (Bloom,1956)).

What is the best type of training for peer teachers? What types of students will benefit most from peer teaching? What is the role of the College Professor in peer teaching programs? How do students learn to learn collaboratively?

Conclusion

All these factors open up the scope for research into how CL can be adopted during a period when student populations are rapidly changing. In fact unless this is done, traditional conservative approaches are likely to become more entrenched. It is an area I wish to pursue and I welcome any other fellow academics who may be interested in sharing the journey.

Bibliography

The Bibliography is a separate file to facilitate printing.

About the author