This month they have published a summary publication on Collaborative Learning (or cooperative learning). Presumably the definition of collaborative learning incorporates pair and / or larger groupings, although the research base from which the summary is comprised tends to veer towards viewing cooperative learning as the latter. What does the summary tell us? Well, once again, not much really. 'Structured approaches with well-designed tasks lead to the greatest learning gains', it concludes. Teachers and school leaders probably didn't need a summary document to realise that. However, the document is somewhat more effusive, lavish and confident in its overall evaluation of the effect of collaborative learning than in the feedback publication, stating:
'The impact of collaborative approaches on learning is consistently positive...Evidence about the benefits of collaborative learning has been found consistently for over 40 years and a number of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of research studies have been completed.'
This intrigued me because, to be honest, I am somewhat sceptical of collaborative or cooperative learning. I was intrigued even more when I lunged into the technical research which informed the summary document, and read at the beginning of Slevin's research on 'Cooperative Learning and Research' from 1996 that 'research on cooperative learning is one of the greatest success stories in the history of educational research'. Wow! What a claim! Just what have I been missing when it comes to collaborative learning?!
My own experiences over 18 years in the classroom would suggest to me that there is probably merit in well-structured pair work between two pupils, but that larger group work is more of an enigma. No matter how structured and well designed, it is hard not to assume that a small number of children may drift off task momentarily or otherwise - the 'social loafers' in the group in the back corner - taking the opportunity which presents itself when the teacher's attention is divided amongst 5 or 6 groups to discuss how Arsenal beat Chelsea in the FA Cup or the latest goings-on in Hollyoaks. Experience has also taught me that, typically, a few in the group tend to carry the weight for others who lack the intrinsic motivation to see the group task through with equal attention and care. And then of course, there is the big question as to whether the collaborative learning is ultimately more effective than whole-class teaching, which I sometimes doubt. My experiences, rightly or wrongly, would lead me to believe that intrinsically motivated, hard-working, driven and conscientious pupils tend to baulk somewhat at the thought of having to work collaboratively in a group alongside more 'reticent' class mates, who in turn view collaborative learning as an opportunity to 'slip under the radar' as regards task focus. No doubt some children may indicate that they want group work because it is 'fun', but if you read my article on the Stranmillis I-Pad research, you will be able to hazard a guess as to my views on this! Not surprising then that I have a very strong preference for children sitting neatly at individual desks, in pairs or rows looking towards the front of the classroom, as opposed to children sitting in groups, sometimes with their backs to the front of the class as a result.
I should say at this point that I am a staunch advocate of non-setting / non-streaming at a classroom level. I feel that the greatest driver of success in the classroom is not streaming, but rather exposure to high-quality teacher subject knowledge in an ethos of high expectations and standards, effective questioning and reciprocal use of academic register, excellent modelling and when teachers scaffold 'up' to ensure all pupils meet challenging learning intentions. If this occurs, I feel that undoubtedly all learners are pushed on significantly. However, these views are based on the teacher-pupil dynamic. When the discussion turns to pupil-pupil dynamic in the non-streamed classroom, and in particular through collaborative learning, I feel the need to be more circumspect. And it is here that I turn to Slevin's research.
Despite the seemingly positive reviews of collaborative learning, sadly Slevin's research has served to make me just more uneasy about it. Slevin identifies four main theoretical perspectives designed to explain the achievement effects of cooperative learning:
* motivational perspectives
* social cohesion perspectives
* developmental perspectives
* cognitive elaboration perspectives
Motivational perspectives focus primarily on the reward or goal structures under which pupils operate. Typically, pupils may receive an individual mark which equates to the average of the team at the end of the exercise / assessment, and therefore there is a very strong incentive for group members to help each other and do whatever is necessary to help the group succeed, including coercing each other towards maximum effort. Empirical research is positive, as long as group rewards are based on the individual learning of all group members. Yet something about this type of collaborative learning disconcerts me. Why should the onus be put on hard-working, diligent, driven pupils to 'bring along' the learning of their more reticent peers? Why should the attainment and achievement of one pupil be fettered to the achievement of another? Does this approach - dare I say it - not amount to a certain abdication of responsibility in the classroom for pupils' learning?
Social Cohesion perspectives: These perspectives are also motivational, but focus more so on the notion that pupils work collaboratively out of a desire to help each other, cohesion, team work and a care for each other rather than rewards or goal structures which may be borne out of self interest. A social cohesion perspective typically emphasises teamwork in preparation for cooperative learning. Yet Slevin's research indicates that empirical studies on social cohesion perspectives which emphasise team work without group incentives are not likely to increase attainment when compared with traditional whole class teaching approaches.
Development perspectives are cognitive, and work on the assumption that pupil interaction around appropriate tasks increases their mastery of critical concepts as they are all operating within each other's zones of proximal development. Drawing on the thinking of Vygotsky and Piaget, proponents of development perspectives argue that pupil interaction on learning tasks will lead in itself to improved pupil outcomes. Pupils will learn from one another because in their discussion of the content, cognitive conflict will arise, inadequate reasoning will be exposed, disequilibration will occur and higher quality understandings will emerge. Given that the authors of the Stranmillis research which I discuss here quote Piaget at the start of their research, I presume they may also have a penchant for this thinking on collaborative learning. However, surely our children need the underpinning knowledge and baseline cognitive framework in order to handle this type of cooperative learning? It assumes that our pupils have the ability to manage cognitive conflict, decipher rational and irrational thinking, synthesise information and new knowledge leading to greater understanding - all amongst themselves. It would be my strong view that - if underpinning intrinsic cultural knowledge is not evident - this type of development perspective is not conducive to pupil learning. Indeed, not surprising really that Slevin concludes that closely related methods such as 'group discovery methods' find few achievement benefits.
Cognitive Elaboration perspectives focus on the assumption that if information is to be retained in memory and related to information already in memory, the learner must engage in some sort of cognitive restructuring - or elaboration - of the material. It is, in my opinion, the perspective which focuses most on what I believe may be worthwhile in cooperative learning - pair work which focuses on some sort of 'peer tutoring' approach - where pupils work together on the acquisition and internalisation of advanced knowledge and the development of robust lateral thinking leading to new understandings, using the firm foundations of strong core knowledge explicitly taught prior. Peer learning could include the acquisition of knowledge from textual references, could involve taking on the roles of recaller and listener in order to embed knowledge further, leading to activities which scaffold understanding upwards.
So...where does this analysis of research leave my views on group work? Well, I think that group work is essentially problematic when trying to assess its impact on pupil learning, despite positive research. Every second in the classroom counts, and I am not convinced that much group work expedites learning in any great way. Slevin's research also queries the efficacy of cooperative learning which is based on 'task specialisation'. I think the greatest potential may possibly lie in carefully planned and structured pair work which stretches and challenges pupils to arrive at new understandings based on appropriate access to new knowledge and a core foundation of knowledge which resides in long-term memory.
Sadly, though, we seem to live in an educational environment where 'group work' is too readily accepted as the 'desired thing'. Our own Education and Training Inspectorate in Northern Ireland - particularly before the onset of industrial action - made reference in Inspection reports to lessons where there was 'over-direction' by the teacher. What does that even mean? And, indeed, what is wrong with a lesson with robust 'teacher direction' if it is imparting strong knowledge? And whilst there are activities which are not teacher-led, the problem is that many teachers probably equate 'over-direction' with the assumption that they must be doing more group work.
Unfortunately, I am not sure in myself that the empirical evidence on the efficacy of group work is strong enough, and therefore I am more than happy for the lessons in my school to be 'too overly-directed', as long as they contain challenge, strong questioning, modelling and ultimate ambitious scaffolding of pupil activities.
No comments:
Post a Comment