CBLE and collaborative learning

There has been a debate whether “cooperative” or “collaborative” learning strategies could promote learning in higher education. Some argue that the two concepts refer to different learning assumptions. They hold the view that co-operative learning is structural and more appropriate for learning fundamental knowledge and facts at elementary school levels, whereas collaborative learning is more non-structural and deals with higher level knowledge and views which require social skills which are more appropriate for college and university education (McWhaw et al. 2003: 73). However, others argue that the two are conceptually synonymous and that they can be interchangeably used to refer to group learning at different levels (see, for instance, Thagard 2005: 207; Gravett 2004: 23; Johnson et al. 1991: 6). To those who consider the concept to be different, collaborative learning refers to the process during which students support each other’s learning by sharing responsibilities which maximise their learning (Laurillard 1993: 267), while cooperative learning is a learning strategy according to which students are organised into small groups to maximise their understanding of facts (Bitzer 2004: 41). To some of those who consider the concepts to be synonymous, the elements of learning in co- operative learning at elementary level include positive interdependence, individual accountability and progressive interaction, social skills and group processing, which could also be used at college level (McWhaw et al. 2003: 72). The aim of this section is not to

110

dwell on the controversy of the two approaches; rather it is to show how relevant learning assumptions of cooperative and/or collaborative learning could be materialised to develop the academic and social learning skills of students at multicultural higher educational institutions. The present study which deals with inter-group learning at higher education level, takes both co-operation and collaboration as complementary approaches and synonymous concepts for organising group learning activities that would promote inter- group cohesion and success in learning.

Cooperative or collaborative learning theoretically underlies people working together effectively and efficiently towards a set common goal. This implies that collaborative participants do not limit themselves to maximising their personal success but also strive for the success of their team (Bitzer 2009: 43; Wright & Lander 2003: 238). In addition, when students of different backgrounds are brought together to engage in group learning tasks in a supportive learning environment, they may re-conceptualise their opinions of people belonging to groups of other backgrounds and rid themselves of previous misconceptions and stereotypes. Through this kind of interaction they might wipe away their wariness of others and may start working wholeheartedly for mutual learning success. In this regard, Thagard (2005: 207) contends that sustainable “communication and cooperation is necessary [for] accomplishing a task that requires more than one person”. Mutual support and collaborative effort as the basic tenets of cooperative learning result in successful cooperative learning which is characterised by “positive interdependence, face-to-face supportive interaction, individual accountability, social skills, and group processing” (Johnson, Johnson and Holubec (1990) in Johnson et al. (1991: 6). The argument seems to emphasise the view that social identities which influence interpersonal relationships could be both obvious and subtle, and require university faculties to critically understand the nature of student differences in order to apply appropriate management strategies (Garcia & Hoelscher 2008: 2).

To facilitate the exchange and sharing of experiences in teaching and learning contexts, students are expected to work together in such a way that they enhance not only their own learning but also that of their partners. Group success in learning depends on

111

exchanging and sharing cognitive ideas, principles and social values (Thagard 2005: 207). Johnson et al. (1991: 3) support this view when they state that “cooperative learning is the instructional use of small groups so that students work together to maximise their own and each other’s learning”. This understanding seems to suggest that the cooperative learning improves students’ success in learning and contributes towards better psychological adjustment of students than the competitive and individualistic learning approach (Johnson et al. 1991: 1). As Laurillard (1993: 210) asserts, “students are not simply learners of an academic subject: they are social beings” and need to acquire social skills for their lifelong community life.

There are a number of studies which underline the significance of cooperative learning in higher education. Gravett (2004: 22-31), after having thoroughly assessed student learning at higher institutions, criticised the institutions which confine their teaching to superficial learning approaches that focuses on delivering facts instead of developing in- depth learning which focuses on discerning meaning obtained from learning experiences. Based on this unfortunate state of affairs, he proposes an approach of establishing a student community of inquiry, as well as an interpretive approach to learning which is theoretically linked to collaborative learning. For Gravett (2004: 30), proper learning demands “shared goals that direct decisions and actions, shared concepts and discourse, and collaborative activity (including creative conflict) through which participants [lecturers and students] share and negotiate understandings”. The mentioned study, however, does not specifically show how student differences may influence the formation of a community of inquiry and what interpretation of relationships governs members of the community.

It could be inferred, from the study mentioned above, that the degree of engagement of students in a community of inquiry would determine their approach to learning. It would seem that students who are engaged in a cooperative social learning environment are likely to adopt an in-depth learning approach and tend to understand the underlying meaning of what they learn, whereas those who are less engaged with fellow students are likely to adopt a superficial approach that focuses on memorisation of facts of what is taught (Gravett 2004: 24). Thus, it could be argued that students who employ a superficial

112

approach may not be as successful in applying what they learn to new situations as their counterparts who use an in-depth learning approach. Similarly, Johnson et al. (1991: 103), who reviewed informal and formal grouping processes, propose the base group strategy for cooperative teaching and learning which entails heterogeneous group membership “in terms of gender, ability, and ethnic cultural backgrounds”. Although the authors recommend the base group strategy for a semester, this recommendation should be considered cautiously because group members might fail to establish sustainable positive relationships with other team members.

Collaborative learning not only develops learning outcomes such as satisfactory academic achievement, a positive attitude towards the subject matter and cooperative teams and critical thinking, but also enhances students’ social skills to apply knowledge gained from cooperative experiences. These learning outcomes suggest that a cooperative learning process would provide students with opportunities to practice skills of meaningful negotiation and teach them how to live with differences comfortably. Similarly, it would develop in members the sense of “your success benefits me and my success benefits you” (Bitzer 2009: 43). This, in turn, would help students to recognise the mutual benefit they obtain from each other’s contribution in accomplishing learning tasks. Students working cooperatively are likely to benefit from their social engagement and develop mutual trust with each other. In this way diversity sensitive collaboration becomes a major resource for successful learning and helps students develop multiple perspectives and non-threatening identities that underlie CBLEs.

Cooperative engagement presumes positive connection and communication among collaborative learners. Positive interdependence assumes the existence of individuals who care for one another and who believe that one cannot succeed without the success of other members of the group. In line with this view, students would develop accountability, social skills and group processes that would guide them in assessing individual performance, making decisions, building mutual trust, communicating, managing internal conflicts, and maintaining effective social and working relationships among the members to attain group tasks (Johnson et al. 1991: 7-8). Where an

113

institutionally set diversity management system encourages student collaboration and where students feel satisfied with their learning achievement resulting from the learning process, learning becomes a transformational and a self-emancipating experience.

Scholars accentuate the significance of cooperative and collaborative learning approaches as a means for addressing students’ diversity needs in higher education contexts. For instance, Bitzer (2009: 41-66) considers the cooperative learning approach as an alternative for addressing diversity issues in the South African higher educational context. He elaborates on the underlying premises of cooperative learning in a socially and culturally diverse educational environment by using two imaginative scenarios pertaining to higher education in South Africa. He shows that higher education teaching and learning should use cooperative learning in a way that enables diverse students to develop interpersonal communication skills which they need to accomplish team work in the work place. However, the study does not mention how the results of cooperation among a culturally diverse student population can be measured.

It should be noted, collaborative learning in higher education does not mean that all other learning approaches are ineffective. Neither does it mean that cooperative learning is the panacea for all learning related problems of multicultural students. Rather, it implies that cooperative learning requires a critical attitude and diligence in preparing and overseeing a learning environment which is more engaging, involving, and accommodative and aims at producing emancipated graduates. This assumption concurs with the view of Wright and Lander (2003: 238) who argue that a collaborative learning approach “may provide an effective means of bringing together students of different ethnic backgrounds” and that of Johnson et al. (1991: 79) who assert that cooperation results in more positive interpersonal relationships, and greater psychological health and self-esteem as opposed to the outcomes of individualistic efforts.

114

3.7 SUMMARY

In this chapter an attempt was made to indicate the interrelatedness of diversity variables which influence educational processes, policy trends and transformational management strategies aimed at CBLEs at higher education institutions in the context of a multicultural country. The discussion supports the assumption that transformational diversity management strategies relate to the administrative section and collaborative teaching and learning processes informed by a vibrant policy framework which finds expression in a collaborative learning environment in terms of engaging CBLEs which transform ethnically, linguistically and religiously diverse students and advance the outcome of holistically developed people who can adequately function in a multicultural work environment.

Information presented in this chapter discusses cross-border learning opportunities of culturally diverse students in the higher education context in terms of within-country diversity. Perspectives from other countries on CBLEs concur with some views held at the national Ethiopian level presented in Chapter 2 and therefore confirm their universality. Implications for developing relevant theoretical and conceptual frameworks that guide the research in terms of designing the research, which are presented in Chapters 4 and 5, were drawn from information presented in this chapter.

115

CHAPTER 4