What makes some groups more collaborative or successful than others?

Teachers are faced with the issue of recognising which groups may be collaborating successfully in their classroom and which groups are not. It may not be possible to look for all the above characteristics, some are only detectable in post-hoc analysis of data collected, such as the observation of the strategies of others in the group. Barron ( 2000a) has described three markers indicating collaborative activity:

1. Mutuality: highly collaborative groups take turn, respecting others’ right to speak even during conflicts.

46

2. Shared task alignment: highly collaborative groups arrive at a solution by referencing each other’s ideas.

3. Joint attention is exhibited by highly collaborative groups. These share resources and use them as tools around which to collaborate rather than appropriate or share them out.

Joint attention around the artefacts in the history mysteries in the SynergyNet project was seen to be created more quickly and more easily whilst using the multi-touch tables than it was when using paper based versions of the tasks (Mercier, Higgins, Burd & Joyce-

Gibbons 2012).

However, collaboration by itself is not an indicator of success at the task set. It may be that some groups show low levels of collaboration yet are successful at task completion. There are many reasons for this, for example, this may be because of individual ability, task simplicity or the working of an inner group within the whole. To determine what if any relationship existed between the two, Barron carried out a mixed methods study, looking first quantitatively at the kinds of response students gave to each other and how connected these were to the utterances which had previously gone before it (Barron, 2003). There were significant differences in the performance of groups that could not be accounted for by either pre-existing variables nor by interaction variables such as the number of turns taken or the number of correct responses brought to the group. What differed was how students responded to ideas of other group members.

More successful groups responded to correct proposals by discussing them or accepting them. Less successful groups responded with silence or rejected them without giving an explanation. Conversation in less successful groups was more off topic and even when it was on topic, it was not as tightly focused as in successful groups. When someone generated a correct proposal, the ensuing conversation was not closely related to that

47

proposal. Barron concluded that this made it harder for the group to recognise the significance of that proposal. This issue of recognition was less problematic in more successful groups. (Barron, 2003, p.349)

Qualitative analysis showed less successful groups had relational issues that stopped uptake of good ideas by group members. These difficulties appear to stem from a more individualistic approach by members of the groups whose interactions were more

competitive. The efforts made by group members were more asymmetric. The approach to problem-solving, even as a group, was focused on the self.

The less successful groups went against turn-taking norms when they had been established with dominant behaviour by some group members, echoing Johnson & Johnson’s idea of the learning leader and listener, Barron showed that both were important for the uptake of ideas. It was not enough for someone to be right, or partially right, they had to be accepted and their ideas elaborated upon. For less successful groups this was particularly difficult. Most difficult of all for these groups were mitigated ideas. These were often ideas or suggestions put forward in such a way as to avoid causing offence, such as rhetorical

questions and thinking aloud (Linde, 1998).

2.4 The role of the teacher

Of the numerous studies which focus on collaborative learning, few deal explicitly with the role of the teacher in fostering collaborative practices in the classroom. In general the literature regards teachers as important but does not examine in detail with the mechanics of what they are required to do. In one study for example (Puntambekar & Kolodner, 2005), the teacher refrained from interrupting the working of the groups despite real problems being observed, such as students needing help understanding the problem, applying knowledge they had, evaluating the designs, explaining the failures and engaging in revision. Students also

48

neglected to use informational resources unless explicitly prompted. All areas a teacher could have helped address. The researchers noted that the teacher monitored the groups “The teacher walked from group to group to make sure students were on task and to listen in on their discussions and help them out of quandaries.” (2005, p.198). However, they do not go into greater detail as to the nature of the help offered, or the impact that it may have had.

Some researchers have put forward normative guidelines as to the design of lessons which teachers have to deliver, one such (Barron et al., 1998) advises that teachers should:  Define learning-appropriate goals that lead to deep understanding.

 Offer scaffolds to support students learning.

 Ensure multiple opportunities for formative assessment and revision of work.

 Design social organisations that promote participation and result in a sense of agency. However, the researchers do not offer positive analysis as to the impact of these strategies, nor how they may be implemented in greater detail.

Johnson & Johnson (1999) draw a distinction between what teachers do in formal cooperative learning environments and informal ones. In formal ones, where students work together as a group for a number of sessions, the teacher has three tasks; make pre-

instructional decisions as to the task, composition of the group and resources available. They explain the task, stressing both interdependence and accountability. They monitor students’ learning and if necessary, intervene in a group. Intervention can be to assist with the task or to improve students’ interpersonal skills (the subcategories of intervention are reminiscent of the problematization and holding students accountable categories of the Engle & Conant framework discussed in section 2.5). Finally they assess group learning. Informal cooperative learning situations are where students are grouped in temporary, ad-hoc groups which last no more than a single session. Here the teacher is responsible for ensuring that the students do

49

the work; “Organising material, explaining it, summarising it and integrating it into existing conceptual structures” (Johnson and Johnson, 1999, p.69).

Johnson and Johnson do not explain why there is a difference between the role of the teacher in the formal and informal learning environments. Nor do they elaborate on what kinds of intervention teachers may attempt to ensure that students are on task and working together.

Both groups of researchers argue that the teacher has a role in organizing

collaboration, one relating to task focus and one assessing the students. Both argue that the teacher must hold the students accountable for their participation.