Collaborative Learning
Collaborative learning is a broad strategy that can range from students working in pairs to working in groups of various sizes. The concept is based in sociocultural learning theory and constructivism and focuses on how people learn within social interactions by respecting knowledge held within the group (Ertmer & Newby, 2018; Panitz, 1999; Yang, 2023). Students can use the perspectives of other students and the shared experience of learning together to improve critical thinking skills (Kaddoura, 2013), experience deeper learning (Sembert et al., 2021), and connecting by negotiating boundaries of knowledge with peers (Yang, 2023).
Overview
The purpose of collaborative learning is to allow students to:
- build knowledge within social groups through activities,
- test out that understanding with the whole class as groups share what they have learned with each other,
- then confirm the accuracy of their knowledge against the broader knowledge of the field by getting feedback from the instructor. (Bruffee, 1995)
Collaborative learning is not just for task division or coming to agreement, but enables students to “develop, compare, and understand multiple perspectives on an issue” (Karagiorgi & Symeou, 2011, p. 21). The classroom culture should enable groups to develop theories and refine these theories together.
Individual performance can put a lot of undo pressure on students, which is not helpful to maximize learning potential. By focusing on achieving a common goal, students are able to participate in socialization (McKeachie & Svinicki, 2006, p. 78). Students are more likely to communicate a lack of understanding to a peer than to an instructor (McKeachie & Svinicki, 2006).
In collaborative learning “group rewards (instead of individual rewards) and individual accountability (achieved by task specialization and division of labor) are critical to improving students’ achievement.” (Slavin, 1983 as referenced in Yang, 2023, p. 723)
There is distinction made in the literature between the processes of collaborative learning and cooperative learning (Bruffee, 1995; Panitz, 1999; Yang, 2023) that discusses the purpose of the interaction and distinguishes the process of learning from the product created because of working with members of a group. However, the terms have more similarities than differences. For brevity, the two terms are used interchangeably here.
Types of Collaborative Learning Activities
As previously mentioned, Collaborative Learning is a broad strategy that has a broad range of implementation strategies. Below explain some of these strategies.
Alternative Plans
Good collaborative learning tasks encourage individuals within groups to bring compelling ideas to the group to help other members of the group think about the task differently. For example, the task might be to come up with three alternative plans, pick the best, and describe the reasoning behind why the selection is preferable within the defined context. (Bruffee, 1995)
Collaborative Problem Solving
With this method the instructor provides a loosly structured problem to the student groups and the students decide how they are going to proceed in solving the problem. The following criteria must be present:
- a novel problem to be solved (i.e., as opposed to completing a routine task)
- objective accountability(i.e., the quality of the solution is visible to team members),
- differentiation of roles (i.e., team members complete different tasks), and
- interdependency (i.e., a single person cannot solve the problem alone) (Graesser et al., 2018, p. 60)
These requirements can quite easily be met for various disciplines and skill levels.
Think-Pair-Share
Another well documented strategy Think-Pair-Share was developed by Dr. Frank Lyman in 1981. The strategy is to have students 1) reflect on a question or idea presented in class, 2) discuss their ideas with someone else in the class, then 3) share their own —more refined— thoughts or their peer’s thoughts with the rest of the class. In Sembert et al. (2021) Dr. Lyman provides insight into how he came up with the idea when observing a student teacher. The student teacher was having problems with the class participation with the model where only one person could talk at a time. Lyman connected the need for students to have a pause to collect their thoughts before sharing with a need for more students to be able to participate. So, he grouped the students together to share with each other before sharing their thoughts with the whole class. The Think-Pair-Share method was born.
Teaching Format Modifications
At Utah State University, courses can be taught in one of five different delivery formats, each having their own unique challenges and benefits. Below expounds on how to modify Collaborative Learning Techniques for some of those teaching formats that might not already be explicitly obvious.
Connect
Collaborative learning activities are possible in Connect and Online courses, but they require some technological mediation. For the Think-Pair-Share method, that might look something like the following:
Assign students to work with a buddy for the semester. Pairing each student with someone who is different from them can make it possible for the pair to have varying perspectives for discussion. When students work with the same partner for the duration of the course it gives them a chance to get to know each other. Allow them to pick with their partner what format of communication will work best for them (i.e. phone call, text messaging, instant messaging app, etc.). In each class period, provide at least one opportunity for students to stop and think, then connect with their buddy, then share their group perspectives with the class.
Sembert et al. (2021) used the Think-Pair-Share approach in a virtual course with live instruction via online video conferencing. Students were assigned a buddy based on their answers to a pre-course “All About Me” survey to maximize diversity, where possible. Buddies reported sharing insights with each other, asking for clarification, or getting professional support. Two of the students shared their experience in the class by noting feelings of socialization, camaraderie, and safety within the virtual environment. One of the students expressed a desire to have all his instructors use the Think-Pair-Share or buddy system.
Considerations
Working in collaborative groups introduces the possibilities that students might not manage time efficiently and get off task, some students in the group may choose not participate fully or may not be able to do so for various reasons (a.k.a. “social loafing”), and lack of social skills might result in conflict or disruption to group productivity (Graesser et al., 2018, p. 62). Some structural or task ground rules and instructor coaching can help to alleviate these issues.
Collaborative inhibition is when the group that has collaborated doesn’t do as well on a recall task as a group who hasn’t worked together. Graesser et al. (2018) referenced a couple of studies (Andersson, Hitch, & Meudell, 2006; Weldon & Bellinger, 1997) which have identified this effect.
Resources
Ideas for additional collaborative learning activities can be found on the USU Teach website:
- Think-Pair-Share (Kaddoura, 2013; Sembert et al., 2021)
- Three-Step Interview (Yang, 2023)
- Case Study (Cornell University Center for Teaching Innovation, 2024)
- Team-Based Learning (Cornell University Center for Teaching Innovation, 2024)
- Jigsaw (strategy first developed by Elliot Aronson (McKeachie & Svinicki, 2006)
- Fishbowl Debate (Cornell University Center for Teaching Innovation, 2024)
References
Bruffee, K. A. (1995). Sharing Our Toys: Cooperative Learning Versus Collaborative Learning. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 27(1), 12–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.1995.9937722
Cornell University Center for Teaching Innovation. (2024). Examples of Collaborative Learning or Group Work Activities. https://teaching.cornell.edu/resource/examples-collaborative-learning-or-group-work-activities
Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. (2018). Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism: Comparing Critical Features From an Instructional Design Perspective. In R. E. West (Ed.), Foundations of Learning and Instructional Design Technology (1st ed.). Available at https://edtechbooks.org/lidtfoundations
Graesser, A. C., Fiore, S. M., Greiff, S., Andrews-Todd, J., Foltz, P. W., & Hesse, F. W. (2018). Advancing the Science of Collaborative Problem Solving. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 19(2), 59–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100618808244
Kaddoura, M. (2013). Think pair share: A teaching learning strategy to enhance students’ critical thinking. Educational Research Quarterly, 36(4), 3–24.
Karagiorgi, Y., & Symeou, L. (2011). Translating Constructivism into Instructional Design: Potential and Limitations.
McKeachie, W. J., & Svinicki, M. (2006). McKeachie’s Teaching Tips: Strategies, Research, and Theory for College and University Teachers (Twelfth Edition). Houghton Mifflin Company.
Panitz, T. (1999, December). Collaborative versus Cooperative Learning. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED448443
Sembert, P. J., Vermette, P. J., Lyman, F., Bardsley, M. E., & Snell, C. (2021). Think-Pair-Share as a Springboard for Study Buddies in a Virtual Environment. Excelsior: Leadership in Teaching and Learning, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.14305/jn.19440413.2021.14.1.04
Yang, X. (2023). A Historical Review of Collaborative Learning and Cooperative Learning. TechTrends, 67(4), 718–728. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-022-00823-9