Evolution of collaborative learning

Group work has been approached from Behaviourism, Constructivism, Social Development, and most recently collaboration in computer mediated situations (Dillenbourg et al., 1996; Blatchford et al., 2003; De Laat and Lally, 2003; Siemens, 2005), hence the constantly evolving focus of study. Influenced by behaviourist views, the first investigations measured the effects of group work on student individual skills such as problem solving (Rojas-Drummond and Mercer, 2003), planning and execution of ideas and building with accuracy (Azmitia, 1988).

Around 1995, based on Vygotsky’s (1978) theory of social interaction for knowledge gain, research concentrated on the dynamics and mechanisms of social activity enabling or discouraging learning in relation to compatibility of group work (Webb, 1989), (Gauvain and Rogoff, 1989), students’ verbal interactions (Teasley, 1995; Baker, 1999; Wegerif et al., 1999; Rojas-Drummond and Mercer, 2003), and influence of teacher on group interactions (Cohen, 1994). These studies shed a new light into the importance of appropriately paring students, quality of activities and teacher training as scaffolds for successful interactions. For instance, in a study by Wegerif et al. (1999) students were taught the use of Exploratory Talk (i.e. engaging in critical and constructive

conversation as a means to facilitate academic and social gains). The study concluded that Exploratory Talk increased individual problem-solving abilities. This and other studies brought attention to the influence of environment, activity and subjects on collaborative interactions.

A second reoccurring theme of this period was the influence of teacher-student

interactions in the quality of collaboration. For instance, Rojas-Drummond and Mercer (2003), found that students who were explicitly taught how to use Exploratory Talk during group work improved communication and collaboration skills. In a similar way, Stevens et al. (1991) demonstrated student individual and group gains when direct teacher instruction was offered prior to group work.

32

Perhaps the most distinguished figures of this period, Johnson and Johnson (1999) explored cooperative learning from the social perspective. These authors appealed to the need for cooperative learning considering the achievement and socialization crises of the time. They delineated nine principles of cooperation: positive interdependence, individual accountability, heterogeneous groups, shared leadership, shared

responsibility, emphasis in task and maintenance, direct teaching of social skills, teacher first observes and then intervenes, and groups evaluation of the effectiveness of their own processes of interaction (Johnson et al., 1994). In their extensive line of research, Johnson and Johnson (2014) reviewed the concepts of individualistic,

competitive and cooperative learning. They showed that in 685 studies conducted in the last 200 years, “Working together to achieve a common goal produces higher

achievement and greater productivity than does working competitively or

individualistically.” (2014, p. 843). They added that in cooperative learning students achieve higher-order thinking skills such as critical thinking and problem-solving. In brief, the extensive research by Johnson and Johnson (1994, 2014) on cooperative learning showed the benefits and need for group work as a means of improving academic and social abilities.

A new shift has occurred by developments in technology and new paradigms for group work are emerging (Scardamalia and Bereiter, 2006; Stahl et al., 2006). Access to information and connectivity with online users in addition to the introduction of technology in the classroom have provoked new forms of collaboration (Lipponen, 2002; Siemens, 2005; Downes, 2012; AlDahdouh et al., 2015) and a different

understanding of learning (Davis and Sumara, 2006; Scardamalia and Bereiter, 2006; Siemens, 2006b; Siemens, 2008). Hence the emergence of new focuses of study: aspects such as collaborative knowledge building, group and individual perspectives, mediation by artefacts (Stahl, 2002), network formation and navigation, and distributed knowledge (Siemens, 2008; Downes, 2012) are some clear examples of this.

A new definition of learning has also emerged: previously perceived as a transactional activity, now learning is defined from collective social experiences (Scardamalia and Bereiter, 2006), the ability of individuals to connect with other individuals and artefacts and the way knowledge travels between individuals and devices which allows learning to emerge (Siemens, 2006b). Instruments of connectivity (e.g. Internet and software) and knowledge acquisition are now essential key players. This is explained in

33

Liponnen’s (2002) definition of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) as “how collaborative learning supported by technology can enhance peer interaction and work in groups, and how collaboration and technology facilitate sharing and distributing of knowledge and expertise among community members” (p. 1). Observed closely, a shift is noticed from the individual or the nature of the group’s interaction, to a view that acknowledges a connected system inclusive of individuals and artefacts where context (i.e. place for interactions) is integrated in the understanding of group work. However, earlier studies in CSCL insisted in the use of Constructivist and social theories for the explanation of CSCL (Lipponen, 2002), then to be cautiously

challenged by authors such as Dillenbourg et al. (1996) who used distributed cognition as a new tool for exploring group work. In this attempt, they mentioned the difficulty of the social scientist to accept the group rather than the individual as a single cognitive system. Inevitably, new paradigms for group work have emerged.

For Dillenbourg and colleagues (Dillenbourg et al., 1996; Dillenbourg, 2013) the challenge of technology in the classroom was taken from the perspective of improving as opposed to changing the classroom. For this, they explain the role of the teachers as the orchestrator of activities in the classroom. Orchestration in Dillenbourg et al. (2013) terms, refers to “…how a teacher manages, in real time, multi-layered activities in a multi-constraints context” (p.1). Furthermore, Dillenbourg (2011) explains the context of the classroom into three circles of understanding: how individuals interact with technology, how tools affect team collaboration and how the classroom functions as a user. This last circle is what the authors refer as orchestration, which aim is to

understand how technology can improve existing processes.

Other authors such Siemens (2008) and Davis and Sumara (2006) are proposing new theories of explanation from the perspective of networks and complex systems, discussed in Chapter 3. Studies of this nature are focused on explaining collaborative learning in online face-to-face and asynchronous interactions. For instance, Poutanen et al. (2011) used complex systems for the study of a blended learning university course, in which students participated in face-to-face and online environments for lectures and discussions. Similarly, Levenson (2014) studied how in a mathematical classroom, teachers can set up the conditions for a complex system where the emergent phenomenon is mathematical creativity, without a teacher direct and explicit

34

Lally (2003) studied the interactions of students in tutoring and online collaborative learning situations. These authors identified these interactions between students in both situations as complex systems and therefore proposed the need for a multi-method approach for the explanation of a phenomenon.

The study of collaborative learning has experienced multiple transformations related to theories of explanations, shifts on paradigms and most recently the introduction of technologies into the classroom. The study of collaborative learning has also gained a new status because of our most recent ability to interact face-to-face as well as online. Technology and connectivity have allowed for the most rapid experience of knowledge creation humans have ever experienced, producing a new need to distribute our efforts to continue expanding our knowledge. It is under this landscape that Self-Organized Learning Environments (SOLE) situates itself, as a 21st _{century ready approach to}

learning.