Collaborative Learning (CLL)

At the end of the 18th _{century, the concept of collaborative learning (CLL) was}

applied at the University of Glasgow by George Jardine (Gaillet, 1994). Afterwards, an American researcher John Dewey developed the idea of CLL and endorsed the concept of collaboration as a primary procedure to implement learning. Therefore, it became an essential part of their way of teaching and learning (Smith & MacGregor, 1992).

CLL is a personal philosophy, not just a classroom technique or an abstract mechanism (Panitz, 1999) as it needs an internal belief in it from the members of the learning process, including learners, educators, curriculum designers and management. The CLL process consists of two main features: creating and sharing. Each member participates in developing and exchanging with others what was created and developed. These two features form the idea of collaboration (Laal & Laal, 2011). Thus, the term collaboration leads to another phase of education, which is organising or distributing the responsibilities and tasks to be shared between the group members (Smith & MacGregor, 1992; Tinzmann, et al., 1990).

Between 1960 and the 1980’s many researchers, such as Slavin (1983), Johnson and Johnson (1989) supported the idea of CLL and agreed that this kind of learning could lead to solving the psychological problems that face learners. Slavin (1983) claimed that collaboration between students encourages them to work harder since collaborative learning has a positive impact on students’ behaviour, learning and efficiency regardless of their ages (Slavin, 1983; 1990). Millis (2002) claimed that CLL impacts students’ learning positively as it reinforces the social interaction between students, sustains their personalities and increases their trust and belief in themselves, and grants students the opportunities to learn more by asking more and checking more resources related to the case they are studying. According to Smith and MacGregor (1992), collaborative work gives the members the possibility to share and exchange their knowledge. Thus, feedback will be received from other members in the group, which

improves students’ learning, as they aim to meet the expectations of others (teacher and other students).

Johnson and Johnson (1991), and Johnson et al. (1991) defined collaborative learning as the use of small groups in educational activities to maximise students’ learning and improve their academic performance and engagement, as students share their experience and ideas. Johnson et al. (1991) stated that collaborative learning needs the effective participation of all members to achieve the best outcome. For instance, two or more learners collaborate to create a shared understanding of a concept, discipline or area of practice that was not known previously, such as building a new model or developing new knowledge that none of them possessed before. According to Gerlach (1994), the definition of collaborative learning must be built on the idea of defining learning as a social activity where participants talk and chat among themselves. In other words, learning takes place collaboratively through the interaction between learners.

Dillenbourg (1999) claimed that CLL is a kind of learning that takes place when two or more people attempt to acquire new knowledge together through some learning activities. Dillenbourg’s definition can be divided into three components. Firstly, the number of participants. There must be two or more learners which can be considered as a pair or a small group (3-5 students) or a full class (more than 15 students). Secondly, the acquisition of new knowledge, which can be interpreted as learning activities, such as writing an essay or a problem-solving activity. Finally, the term together, which might be interpreted as the interaction between learners, face-to-face interaction or distance- based learning using the communication tools, such as the social media websites (Smith & MacGregor, 1992).

However, for the purpose of this study, I would define collaborative learning as a set of educational activities that are conducted to implement teaching and learning. These activities require the participation of groups of students who collaborate to solve problems, complete tasks, create and grasp new concepts.

Williams and Eberechukwu (2015) claimed that the use of digital technology could promote collaborative learning. Chandrasekaran et al. (2016) suggested that the CLL does not require the members to be in the same place physically, nor does it require a specific time. It is particularly relevant these days with the presence of electronic communication and social media; learners from America can collaborate with learners from another continent, such as Europe or Asia. Hence, learning is no longer restricted

to the classroom, as it takes place inside or outside the school at any convenient time for learners.

Laal and Ghodsi (2012) stated several significant advantages of CLL. Firstly, Social benefits; as CLL develops learning communities and supports the social interaction between learners. Hence, all members of the learning process, including students and teachers, can learn from each other. Secondly, Academic benefits; CLL Promotes learner's critical thinking. Thirdly, Psychological benefits. Finally, CLL can be applied on a minor scale inside the classroom and a major scale likewise outside the school.

Educators can collaborate as well to improve their skills and to build new knowledge (Mistry & Sood, 2012). Hence, these educators will stay up to date and capable of meeting the expectations of the learning process. They are likely to be organised and always looking for further development through collaboration and exchanging ideas. Indeed, Laal and Ghodsi (2012) suggested that the use of CLL ensures that both students and educators perform successfully in the learning process.

In line with Burgelman et al. (1996), Lave and Wenger (1991) believed that CLL should not be limited to students only, but it should be between students and their teachers and between teachers themselves in the form of communities. Furthermore, Lave and Wenger suggested that working as a community and using digital technology throughout the school for this purpose would offer a more significant benefit for the school and might lead to developing teachers’ skills related to educational technology. Putnam and Borko (2000) stated that any improvement in the teacher’s academic level would not happen unless teachers had the opportunity to interact with other teachers and experts in the professional community. Sachs (2003) argued that if teachers have no social interaction or are isolated, their work will become dull routines without any progress and these teachers will avoid or not benefit from any new challenges and opportunities that might improve their skills.

In CLL, learners are working in groups, where each group consists of two or more learners. Their main target is to explore specific concepts or phenomena and look for new knowledge and models (Gleeson, et al., 2004). This leads to conclude that collaborative learning can serve many educational approaches, one of the most important of which is concentrated on learners’ exploration of the topics they study.

Collaborative learning as a learning method helps to move learning from traditional teaching, which is known as the teacher-centred approach, towards a modern learning style, which is more concentrated on the positive interaction between learners and educator. This kind of learning is known as student-centred learning, where the emphasis is on student’s ownership of learning and of responsibility for learning (Lowman, 1987; Smith & MacGregor, 1992). Since the modern learning style is based on the positive interaction between teachers and students, I would suggest that this style of learning should be called teacher-student centred learning, which emphasises the shared or joint responsibility of the teacher and student.

It seems likely that when using CLL, students are more engaged in learning (Laal & Ghodsi, 2012). Teacher’s role is kept in the learning process, but not as the only knowledge provider. However, using the collaborative learning method, the teacher’s role can be described as the role of the organiser or tasks’ distributor, but no longer as the transmitter or the only source of knowledge. This claim is supported by Abdu et al. (2012), who argue that for teachers using this method it is sufficient to distribute the tasks to the group’s members, to direct them, to keep monitoring at a distance and intervene in the time of need. However, the use of collaborative learning does not mean that the teaching activities will disappear entirely, such as lecturing, listening and note- taking process, but these activities can run parallel to the process of collaboration between learners themselves and between learners and educators (Smith & MacGregor, 1992).

With regard to the teacher’s role in CLL, Rae et al. (2006) and Laal and Ghodsi (2012) believed that the use of CLL would reinforce the sense that the teachers who rely substantially on the use of collaboration to implement learning tend to think of themselves less expert as transmitters of knowledge to students, and more expert as designers of intellectual experiences for students. Abdu et al. (2012) confirmed in their study that the teacher who applies collaborative learning serves less like an agent for the transmission of knowledge and more as a moderator. I would claim that this is an ordinary sense, as long as these teachers are not transmitters anymore, they are just directing the learning process from a distance; however, teachers are requested to keep developing their academic level to be capable of interfering and supporting whenever learners need help. In other words, there should not be any connection between the experience as a transmitter and the teacher’s academic level and skills of the taught subject.

Dillenbourg (1999), Smith and MacGregor (1992) believed that collaborative learning is addressed and evaluated from a developmental perspective, as a biological and cultural process, which occurs over the years. Therefore, teachers may use many rubrics to judge the achieved progress and to decide if learning took place or not. For instance, the rubrics can be based on the quality of the gained knowledge or by the achieved progress in the problem-solving area, the overall performance, the improvement in dealing with the application, analysis and evaluation of problems.

Like any other method of learning, CLL requires an appropriate environment for learning to take place. Creating a positive collaborative learning environment can be achieved by dividing learners into groups, distributing tasks between the groups, which reinforces the social interaction between learners as well as enabling them to exchange their knowledge, experience and thoughts (Lowyck & Poysa, 2001; Brindley, et al., 2009). Students from different academic levels including high achievers and low achievers have to be seated in the same group, so that weaker students may benefit from the contact with stronger students, proper instructions have to be distributed by the teacher. Webb (1982) confirmed the effectiveness of the heterogeneous pattern of distribution for both high and low achievers. Webb stated that when high achievers were distributed homogeneously, they interacted less efficiently as they expected that every student in the group should have grasped the content, unlike the situation of heterogeneous distribution. Cheng et al. (2008) claimed that the rules and guidelines must be distributed to learners in advance, so learners stay on the correct path towards achieving the target of the collaborative learning process.

Laal and Ghodsi (2012) suggest that CLL can be divided into two types. Firstly, internal CLL if it takes place inside the classroom. This kind of learning mode requires students to be divided into groups. Students in each group should be seated at round tables so that the conversations, discussions, creation and exchanging of ideas can take place. In this mode of learning, all students should participate effectively, as all in one and one in all. Secondly, external CLL, if it takes place outside the classroom. In this case, learners have to communicate using a virtual learning platform, such as the social media websites, a telecommunications application like Skype, or a learning management system, such as the desire to learn (D2L).

Based on the discussed perceptions of the CLL, I would describe the term collaborative learning as a trick or a trap (positive trap). While the teacher’s goal is to

teach students, unfortunately, often the students’ goal is to escape from the traditional time of the lesson, which they have to spend inside the classroom. Very often, students tend to chat with each other. CLL grants them this opportunity, but with the condition that the teacher chooses for them the topic to chat about. In other words, the teacher enables students to waste class time efficiently. The selected topic for students should be related to the lesson with some ordering of the ideas, instructions, structures, and competitions between the members must be arranged. As such, the response level towards learning from learners will be higher and quicker. Thus, learners can be shifted from passive to active learners, as they will be able to create, invent and overcome the challenges more effectively.

2.3.2.1 Collaborative or Cooperative Learning?

Both terms collaborative and cooperative are very close in meaning, so as to be considered as having the same definition, especially for non- native speakers. These two expressions agree about an essential point that both terms require working together as a group to achieve a common goal. This kind of learning is known by various names: collaborative learning, cooperative learning and collective learning. However, the main point here is that the term collaboration is not precisely the same as the term cooperation (Panitz, 1999).

Cooperation and collaboration seem to overlap, but in the cooperative model of learning the teacher still controls most of what is going on in the class (Ahmed, 2017), even though students are working in groups. In other words, the teacher remains in the centre of the learning process. On the other hand, in collaborative learning, the teacher can be considered as a member of each group and students are taking almost full responsibility for working together, sharing the ideas and building a new knowledge together (Panitz, 1999).

Lane (2016) stated that in collaborative learning, there should be shared goals since students learn from the teacher and each other. In contrast, in cooperative learning, the teacher stays in control of everything in the class (is the centre of the process). Theroux (2001 ) argued that collaborative learning has many common areas with cooperative learning, but it differs from cooperative learning by being more student- centred learning than teacher-centred learning. In the case of collaborative learning, students are in charge of their own learning, including the learning outcomes and

building their own knowledge, as shown in Table 1. Panitz supported this idea:

Cooperative learning is defined by a set of processes which help people interact together in order to accomplish a specific goal or develop an end product, which is usually content specific. It is more directive than a collaborative system of governance and closely controlled by the teacher. (Panitz, 1999, p. 5)

In general, teachers who rely on either a collaborative or cooperative learning method in their teaching have continuous development. They are involved with the learners, working with them individually or in groups. Their engagement with the students should include distributing the tasks, offering help in the time of need, observing, supplying students with extra resources and giving hints on how to reach the targets.

Teacher Student

Collaborative

learning Member in the learning process.

The centre of the learning process (student-centred learning)

Cooperative learning

The centre (controller) of the learning process (teacher-centred

learning)

A controlled member in the learning process by the teacher.

Table 1. Distinctions between collaborative and cooperative learning, based on the research projects of (Panitz, 1999), Theroux (2001 ) and Lane (2016).