Groupbased learning Dynamic interaction in groups.doc

《Groupbased learning Dynamic interaction in groups.doc》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《Groupbased learning Dynamic interaction in groups.doc（8页珍藏版）》请在三一办公上搜索。

1、Group-based learning: Dynamic interaction in groupsJ.W. Strijbos Correspondence concerning this paper should be sent to J.W. Strijbos, Open University of the Netherlands, Educational Technology Expertise Center, PO Box 2960, 6401 DL, Heerlen, The Netherlands. E-mail: jan-willem.strijbosou.nl (or Fax

2、: +31 45 5762806) & R.L. MartensEducational Technology Expertise Centre (OTEC)Open University of the Netherlands (OUNL)EURO-CSCL Conference 2001, March 22-24, Maastricht, The NetherlandsAbstractMost group-based pedagogy is based on two theoretical perspectives towards group learning: co-operative le

3、arning and collaborative learning. Quite often it reflects a subjective choice, based on teaching or research preferences. Moreover, a continuing and confusing debate upon the premises of the distinction or similarities between both perspectives perpetuates. First, this paper discusses that a group

4、should be regarded as a distinctive learning environment, by which both perspectives can be identified as approaches to group-based learning. However, regarding the amount of pre-imposed structure, task-type and learning objectives, differences are apparent. Second, although social constructivist th

5、eory emphasises the importance of social interaction, no theoretical explanation is presented. Moreover, the interaction process is treated as a black box through which students pass, and come-out somehow changed. A conceptualisation of group interaction lacks. A theory on group-based learning shoul

6、d not only identify key elements for the design of group-based pedagogy, but also conceptualise group interaction. A dynamic perspective on social interaction is proposed. Different group-based pedagogy approaches, may very well result in different interaction processes, and thus be applicable to ac

7、hieve different learning objectives.Keywords: group-based learning, collaborative learning, cooperative learning, CSCLIntroductionGroup-based learning procedures have been actively studied since the 1970s. Several group-based methods have been developed, mostly for face-to-face classrooms and usuall

8、y for the elementary grades, although several of these methods have been, with varying results, implemented at college and/or university-higher education. Rapid development of computer support for communication and collaboration stimulated its use for pedagogical practices in higher and distance-edu

9、cation. At present, however, there are no clear guidelines to determine what group-based learning method should be applied. Quite often it seems a subjective decision, based on either teaching pedagogy preferences or the prevailing theoretical research paradigm. This paper discusses the conceptualis

10、ation of group-based learning and subsequent interaction processes. Specifically three questions will be addressed: Is there a common basis for both main perspectives: co-operative and collaborative learning?, What are key elements for a process-based classification of (computer supported) groups fo

11、r educational purposes? and How can group interaction be conceptualised?. Past research has mainly focussed on the quality of collaborative products. The outcome, however, is mediated by the quality of intra group processes (Shaw, 1981). A process-based classification, and a dynamic perspective on g

12、roup interaction, identifies crucial elements of group-based pedagogy for face-to-face, as well as, computer supported learning environments.1. Group-based learning1.1 Co-operative learning versus collaborative learning?Literature of the 1970s and 1980s is dominated by co-operative learning as the g

13、eneric term for group-based learning. Since the beginning of the 1990s the concept of collaborative learning came into fashion. In recent literature researchers do distinguish between these two terms of group learning (Panitz, 1996; Slavin, 1997; Lehtinen, Hakkarianen, Lipponen, Rahikainen & Muukkon

14、en, 1998; Brandon & Hollingshead, 1999; Dillenbourg, 1999; Kirschner, 1999; Scanlon, 2000), but on the ground(s) of this distinction there is, however, no agreement. Panitz (1996) regards collaboration as a personal philosophy of group interaction and co-operation as a (set of) structure (s) facilit

15、ating group performance. However, it rules out any variable that may enhance a groups performance trough structuring members activities. Moreover, it associates co-operative learning with artificial interaction (as a result of provided structure) and collaborative learning with a natural interaction

16、 process. Another ground on which this distinction is based are the characteristics of the knowledge domain (Slavin, 1997). Co-operative learning is associated with well-structured domains whereas collaborative learning is associated with ill-structured domains. However, it requires general agreemen

17、t on criteria that distinguish between well and ill-structured domains. Also, most domains contain both well-structured and ill-structured knowledge. Lehtinen et al. (1998) focus on individual group members role during group performance: co-operative learning is associated with division of labour, w

18、hereas during collaborative learning each member contributes equally whilst problem solving. But, like Panitz (1996) distinction, it rules out any use of structure to facilitate group performance. Yet, several researchers have pointed out that effective collaborative skills are not spontaneously acq

19、uired (Johnson, Johnson & Johnson-Holubec, 1992; Cohen, 1994). Some amount of structure may help students learn these specific skills for effective collaboration. Some overall remarks can be made. Firstly, all described clarifications distinguish between both perspectives on a single ground. Secondl

20、y, it is often stressed that more similarities than differences, between co-operative and collaborative learning, exist (Kirschner, 1999). In sum, both may be considered more effectively as approaches to group-based learning: emphasising the group as their common ground. 1.2 Common basis for co-oper

21、ative and collaborative learningIn general, there is agreement upon five components of group-based learning (Lamberigts, 1988; Sharan & Sharan, 1992; Johnson, Johnson & Johnson-Holubec, 1992; Slavin, 1997). First, groups are composed of either a minimum of two up to six participants. Second, group-b

22、ased learning is characterised by positive interdependence. It refers to the level of group member interdependence, and can be stimulated through the task (group task), resources, goals, rewards, roles or the environment (Brush, 1998). A third component is the task: it has to be a genuine group task

23、, i.e. the effort of all group members is needed. Yet, not all researchers hold the same interpretation of a group task. A fourth component is individual accountability. It refers to each students individual responsibility for a specific aspect of either group process, group performance (or both) an

24、d is enhanced through grading students for their individual effort or performance, as well as the groups performance. The final component is a shift in the role of the teacher. Whereas whole-class settings are teacher-centred, during group-based learning the teacher becomes a coach and more autonomy

25、 (student centred) is granted to the students. Although not a component, it is often advised to assess whether students already have effective group processing skills, and if not to develop these through some sort of team building exercise (Sharan & Sharan, 1992; Slavin, 1995). Among these general c

26、omponents two stand out. Both were introduced in the early 1980s and counter, although not likewise articulated, possible negative effects of group-based learning. Individual accountability (Slavin, 1980) refers to each students individual responsibility for a specific aspect of either group process

27、, group performance, or both. It was introduced to counter the free-rider effect: some students would not invest any (or little) effort into group performance. Actually, the free-rider effect is a synonym for what is known in group dynamics research as diffusion of responsibility (Shaw, 1981; Forsyt

28、h, 1990). Positive interdependence (Johnson, 1981) was introduced to enhance group interaction and refers to group member interdependence (e.g., group members carry out different tasks, all of which are needed in the final product). It aims at promoting group cohesion and a heightened sense of belon

29、ging to a group. Social dynamics research has revealed group cohesion as an essential element for effective group performance (Shaw, 1981: Forsyth, 1990). Since both individual accountability and positive interdependence relate to well-known aspects of group dynamics, it supports the claim that the

30、group should be viewed as a common ground (hence group-based learning). Moreover, it supports the claim that a group should be viewed as a learning environment, because apparently specific characteristics of groups affect individual group members, group interaction processes and group performance. S

31、ocial dynamics research and specifically small group theory may reveal other variables that affect group interaction and performance. Although proponents of collaborative learning emphasise that students should regulate their own learning, they often implicitly assume that students have these skills

32、 or that they spontaneously develop from interactions. Yet, can it not be equally likely that students do not possess these skills (or at least not all necessary skills)? Recent research indicates that students, at least in an asynchronous situation, identify difficulty co-ordinating their activitie

33、s (Benbunan-Fich & Hiltz, 1999). Perhaps some amount of structure may be beneficial for students to collaborative more efficiently. What needs to be determined is the extent to which individual accountability and positive interdependence comprise some amount of pre-composed structure (e.g., rules or

34、 procedures on group interaction), that facilitates interaction and the development of collaborative skills. A lack of structure may very well impede individual effort into group performance (Brush, 1998). In sum, several distinctions between co-operative and collaborative have not clarified the dif

35、ference satisfactorily. Moreover, from a group dynamics perspective both can be classified as two sides of the same coin: approaches to group-based learning. However, characterising them as approaches indicates that a difference does exist. It may be fruitful, for further theoretical as well as prac

36、tical insight, to differentiate group-based learning along dimensions closely related to group interaction and performance: three dimensions can be identified and will be illustrated in section 2. In section 3 the claim of a group as a learning environment, and more specifically the conceptualisatio

37、n of group interaction processes, will be illustrated trough a dynamic social systems perspective. Finally, the impact of group size on interaction processes and subsequent interaction patterns will be discussed.2. Dimensions of group-based learningThe first dimension comprises the amount of structu

38、re, in terms of prescribed procedures for effective collaboration, provided to students: high level of pre-structuring (e.g., rigorous task division, communication protocols) versus low level of pre-structuring. An issue that needs to be addressed is when and how structuring elements are used to sup

39、port group interaction and efficient group performance. Although, too much structure may create artificial interaction, no structure may result into fragmented, situational and optional interaction. Another dimension is comprised of the learning objectives: open skills versus closed skills. Accordin

40、g to Slavin (1995) co-operative methods are “most appropriate for teaching well-defined objectives” (p. 5). Cohen (1994) refers to these as lower-level skills, but the concept of closed skills is less debatable. Closed skills are relatively fixed skills that can be trained separately, for instance a

41、 procedure for long divisions. Learning of argumentation, negotiation and conflict resolution, or rather open skills, may be stimulated through group-based learning as well. The third dimension comprises task-type. Cohen (1994) stresses that it is essential to use group tasks instead of individual t

42、asks that all students must master. In general, groups tend to be more effective when the task requires a variety of information, consisting of several subsequent steps and can be solved by adding individual contributions (additive), but can be disjunctive and conjunctive as well (Shaw, 1981). Group

43、 performance on disjunctive tasks depends on its most competent member, whereas performance on conjunctive tasks depends upon the least competent member. Most group-based learning procedures (e.g., STAD and LT) typically use additive or disjunctive (learning of concepts , rules, procedures) tasks wh

44、ich can be typified as well-structured tasks (with limited solutions), whereas group-based learning in higher and distance education aims at negotiation and/or synthesis tasks, or rather ill-structured tasks (multiple solutions). All dimensions are depicted in figure 1. Both approaches can be positi

45、oned at the extremes.Figure 1. Dimensions of group-based learning3. Social construction of knowledgeSocial constructivist theory is usually regarded as the theoretical basis for group-based learning. Social-constructivism is a generic term for several theories that emphasise prior knowledge, social

46、interaction and the learning context, and are based upon Piagetian and Vygotskian theory: e.g., social construction of shared perspectives (Resnick, 1991; Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1991), situated learning (Brown, Collins & Duguid, 1989), cognitive apprenticeship (Collins, 1988). Although many perspec

47、tives acknowledge the influence of both peers and the learning context, no theoretical explanation is presented for the interactive processes that actually take place (Crook, 1998). As Kumar (1996) states: “the social interaction is assumed as a black box that boosts collaborative learning”. Further

48、more, since research on (small group) social dynamics indicates that several variables affect group interaction and performance (Shaw, 1981; Forsyth, 1990), a conceptual understanding of group interaction processes needs to be specified in order to investigate the processes during group-based learni

49、ng. The concept of distributed cognition elaborates on the process of social construction of knowledge, and a dynamic system approach appears suited to formulate a conceptual understanding of group interaction processes and will be discussed in further detail. 3.1 Distributed cognitionDistributed cognition refers to cognitions originating during interaction. With regard to an educational context, it can be defined as “A