CTE View column by Dan Bernstein: From dreaded ritual to achieving common goals: Experiences with collaborative learning
Many students groan when an instructor mentions group work. What was promoted as an effective teaching method has become an often dreaded ritual. It seems strange that helping students be active learners would evolve into something students do not like.
There are many kinds of collaborative learning in use in higher education. At the simplest end, many instructors switch from speaking to a class to structuring conversation among students. In a version referred to as “think-pair-share,” students briefly consider a question posed by the instructor, pair off with a nearby colleague, and then discuss their answers or ideas. Often taking only a minute or two, this method at its best can provide students with an opportunity to learn from each other’s skills or insights. Many people employ this technique as an aid to attention, finding that students are more likely to sustain interest in a presentation if it is punctuated by brief conversations.
At its highest level, collaborative learning uses a carefully managed group process to arrive at a level of understanding that could not be achieved by working alone. Forming the group is an explicit part of the course, and one course goal is learning the skills needed to achieve a result as a team. This has a double benefit of enhancing content learning through engagement and supporting the growth of team-based skills in communication and problem-solving.
I have tried different versions of collaborative learning, with mixed results. I have had pretty good luck with think-pair-share. Six years ago, I tried some four-person groups. I formed groups based on where people were sitting, and they researched a structured problem and produced a jointly authored paper. I was unhappy with the products, and students were unhappy with the process. There were the now- familiar complaints about free-riders, missed meetings and uneven contributions. The volume of those complaints grew when students tried to allocate effort to revise the paper. I abandoned that approach in a big hurry and have not revisited it since.
Recently I have been interacting with KU Prof. Dan Spencer, whose courses are all organized into team-based projects (see pp. 4-5). As he described what works and does not work in collaborative learning, I felt like he had been a fly on the wall of my classes. My poor results were entirely predictable from his point of view, and I felt challenged by his calm assurances that current KU students can do this work very well.
First, I created groups that have complementary skills, using measures of effective and timely performance along with preferences for learning modes and computer skills. Second, I gave them easy tasks early in the term so they got used to being responsible to each other. Third, following one of Dan’s suggestions that I feared the most, I had them serve in assigned roles with names like Recorder and Communicator.
The results have been very encouraging. There were no hassles with a group think-pair-share, and team communications in threaded discussions were civil and productive. They shared some open-ended research conducted in the new Budig collaborative space (though I preserved individual written products). Finally, each person had to contribute results to others in order to complete an individual assignment. During this last project, communication was good and there was plenty of support for common goals.
If you want your students to work together, it can be done by following some of Dan Spencer’s simple guidelines. I have not turned my whole course into a team-based enterprise, but I can attest to the practical wisdom of his suggestions and experience. This version of collaborative learning I will keep doing. An instructor should use carefully constructed collaborative assignments and never use group interaction just as busy work.