NEW

Best of EDEN 2018 Special issue
 

There are not any recent contributions.

There are not any recent contributions.

Archives

EURODL Mailinglist

2851 subcribers
 

EURODL Visitors

back

A classification model for group-based learning

J.W. Strijbos
Educational Technology Expertise Centre (OTEC), Open University of the Netherlands, PO BOX 2960, 6401DL Heerlen, The Netherlands

© EURODL 2000

Abstract
Introduction
Group-based learning
      Co-operative learning versus collaborative learning?
      Common basis for co-operative and collaborative learning
Dimensions of group-based learning
Relationship between group size, interaction and group-based learning dimensions
Conclusion
References
Appendix
Example 1
Example 2
Example 3
Example 4
Example 5

Abstract

Most group-based pedagogy is based on two theoretical perspectives towards group learning: co-operative learning and collaborative learning. Quite often this reflects a subjective choice, based on teaching or research preferences. Moreover, a continuing debate upon the premises of the distinction or similarities between both perspectives perpetuates. In this paper, it is argued that a ‘group’ should be regarded as a distinctive ‘learning environment’, by which both perspectives can be identified as approaches to ‘group-based learning’. However, regarding the amount of pre-imposed structure, task-type, learning objectives and group size, differences become apparent. A classification-model is developed to illustrate, not only, differences between both perspectives, but also, between various types of computer support for group-based learning.

Keywords: group-based learning, co-operative learning, collaborative learning, CSCL, CMC

Introduction

Groups for educational purposes are intensively researched since the 1970’s, mostly at the elementary level. Rapid development of computer support for communication and collaboration stimulated its use for pedagogical practices in higher and distance-education. At present, however, there are no clear guidelines to determine what group-based learning method should be applied. Quite often it seems a subjective decision, based on either teaching pedagogy preferences or the prevailing theoretical research paradigm. Also, many researchers indicate a lack of theory and guidelines for the use of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) to support working and learning in groups (Brush, 1998; Hinssen, 1998).

This paper will focus on the main perspectives towards groups for educational purposes: ‘co-operative learning’ and ‘collaborative learning’. Specifically two questions will be addressed: ‘Is there a common basis for both perspectives?’ and ‘What are key elements for a process-based classification of (computer supported) groups for educational purposes?’. Past research has mainly focussed on the quality of collaborative products. The outcome, however, is mediated by the quality of intra group processes (Shaw, 1981). A process-based classification identifies crucial elements of group-based pedagogy design for face-to-face, as well as, computer supported learning environments.

Group-based learning

Co-operative learning versus collaborative learning?

Research literature of the 1970s and 1980s is dominated by co-operative learning as the generic term for group-based learning. Since the beginning of the 1990s the concept of collaborative learning came into fashion. In recent literature researchers do distinguish between these two generic terms of group-based learning (Panitz, 1996; Slavin, 1997; Lehtinen, Hakkarianen, Lipponen, Rahikainen & Muukkonen, 1998; Kirschner, 1999), but on the ground(s) of this distinction there is, however, no agreement.

Panitz (1996) regards collaboration as a personal philosophy of intra group interaction and co-operation as a (set of) structure (s) facilitating group performance. However, it rules out any variable that may enhance a group’s performance trough structuring group member’s activities and, moreover, tends to associate co-operative learning with artificial interaction (as a result of the structure) and collaborative learning with a ‘natural’ interaction process.

Another ground on which such a distinction could be based are the characteristics of the knowledge domain (Slavin, 1997). Co-operative learning is associated with well-structured domains whereas collaborative learning is associated with ill-structured domains. However, it requires general agreement on criteria that distinguish between well and ill-structured domains. Also, most domains contain both well-structured and ill-structured knowledge. Both are problematic issues.

Lehtinen et al. (1998) focus on individual group member’s ‘role’ regarding group performance: co-operative learning is associated with division of labour, whereas during collaborative learning each member equally contributes whilst problem solving. Like Panitz’ (1996) distinction, it rules out any use of ‘structure’ to facilitate group performance. Yet, several researchers have pointed out that effective collaborative skills are not spontaneously acquired (Johnson, Johnson & Johnson-Holubec, 1992; Cohen, 1994). Some amount of structure may help students learn these specific skills for effective collaboration.

Some overall remarks can be made. Firstly, all described clarifications distinguish between co-operative and collaborative learning on a single ground. Secondly, often it is stressed that more similarities than differences, between co-operative and collaborative learning, exist (Kirschner, 1999). In sum, both may be considered more effectively as approaches to ‘group-based learning’: emphasising the ‘group’ as their common ground.

Common basis for co-operative and collaborative learning

In general there is agreement upon five characteristics of ‘group-based learning’ (Lamberigts, 1988; Sharan & Sharan, 1992; Johnson, Johnson & Johnson-Holubec, 1992; Slavin, 1997).

First, groups are composed of either a minimum of two up to six participants. Second, group-based learning is characterised by ‘positive interdependence’ that refers to the level of group member interdependence for group performance. It can be stimulated through the task (group task), resources, goals, rewards, roles or the environment (Brush, 1998). A third characteristic concerns the task: it has to be a genuine group task, i.e. the effort of all group members is needed to accomplish this shared task. Yet, not all researchers hold the same interpretation of a ‘group task’. A fourth aspect is ‘individual accountability’ that refers to each student’s individual responsibility for a specific aspect of either group process, group performance, or both. Individual accountability is enhanced through grading students for their individual effort or performance, as well as the group’s performance. The final characteristic is a shift in the role of the teacher. Whereas whole-class settings are ‘teacher-centred’, during group-based learning the teacher becomes a coach and more autonomy (‘student centred’) is granted to the students. Although not a characteristic, it is often advised to assess whether students already have effective group processing skills, and if not to develop these through some sort of team building exercise (Sharan & Sharan, 1992; Slavin, 1995).

Among these general characteristics two stand out. Both were introduced in the early 1980s and counter, although not likewise articulated, possible negative effects of group-based learning. Individual accountability (suggested by Slavin) was introduced to counter the ‘free-rider effect’: some students would not invest any (or little) effort into group performance. Assigning individual responsibilities ensures each student’s participation. Actually, the ‘free-rider effect’ is a synonym for what is known in group dynamics research as ‘diffusion of responsibility’ (Shaw, 1981; Forsyth, 1990). Positive interdependence (suggested by Johnson & Johnson) was introduced to enhance intra group interaction. This aspect aims at promoting group cohesion and a heightened sense of ‘belonging’ to a group. Social dynamics research has revealed group cohesion as an essential element for effective group performance (Shaw, 1981: Forsyth, 1990).

Since both ‘individual accountability’ and ‘positive interdependence’ relate to well known aspects group dynamics, it supports our claim that the group should be viewed as a common ground (hence ‘group-based learning’). Moreover, it is a learning environment with specific characteristics that affect individual group members and subsequent intra group processes during group-based learning. Social dynamics research and specifically small group theory may reveal other variables that affect group interaction and performance. Although proponents of collaborative learning emphasise that students are required to regulate their own learning, they implicitly assume that students have these skills or that they spontaneously develop from collaborative interactions. Yet, how should we proceed if we assume that students do not possess these skills (or at least not all necessary skills)? Perhaps some amount of structure may be beneficial for students to learn effective skills for collaborative learning. The use of ‘positive resource interdependence’ does not necessarily contradict the process of ‘scaffolding’ (often regarded as a key element of ‘collaborative learning’). What needs to be determined is the extent to which ‘individual accountability’ and ‘positive interdependence’, comprise some amount of pre-composed structure facilitating interaction processes and the development of collaborative skills. A lack of structure may very well impede individual effort into group performance (Brush, 1998).

As discussed, several distinctions between ‘co-operative’ and ‘collaborative’ have not clarified the difference satisfactorily. Moreover, from a group dynamics perspective both can be classified as two sides of the same coin: approaches to group-based learning. However, characterising them as ‘approaches’ indicates that a difference does exist. It may be fruitful for further theoretical as well as practical insight, to differentiate group-based learning along several dimensions of concepts closely related to group interaction and performance. The next section will suggest three major dimensions of group-based learning.

Dimensions of group-based learning

One dimension comprises the amount of structure, in terms of prescribed procedures for effective collaboration, provided to students: ‘high amount of structure’ versus ‘low amount of structure’. An issue that needs to be addressed is when and how structuring elements are used to support group interaction, learning of subject matter and skills for effective and efficient group performance. Although, too much structure may create artificial interaction, no structure may result into fragmented, situational and optional interaction.

Another dimension comprises the learning objectives: ‘lower level skills’ versus ‘higher level skills’. According to Slavin (1995) co-operative methods (e.g., STAD, TGT, TAI, CIRC) are "most appropriate for teaching well-defined objectives" (p. 5), or rather ‘lower-level skills’ (Cohen, 1994). However, giving and receiving conceptual feedback (lower level skill) is only one aspect that stimulates learning. Argumentative discussion, consensus generation and conflict resolution (higher level skills) may be stimulated through group-based learning as well.

The third dimension comprises task-type. Cohen (1994) stresses that it is essential to use ‘group tasks’ instead of individual tasks that all students must master. In general, groups tend to be more effective when the task requires a variety of information, consisting of several subsequent steps and can be solved by adding individual contributions (Shaw, 1981). Apart from ‘additive’, group tasks can be ‘disjunctive’ and ‘conjunctive’ as well (Shaw, 1981). Group performance on disjunctive tasks depends on its most competent member, whereas performance on conjunctive tasks depends upon the least competent member. Kumar (1996) identifies different task-type categories: concept-learning tasks, problem-solving tasks and designing tasks. He regards ‘concept learning’ as fact-based tasks and the latter two as analysis and synthesis tasks. Most group-based learning procedures (e.g. STAD, TGT and LT) typically use ‘additive and/or disjunctive’ or ‘concept learning’ tasks which can be typified as ‘well-structured tasks’. Whereas group-based learning in higher and distance education use ‘conjunctive’ or ‘analysis and/or synthesis’ tasks which can be regarded as ‘ill structured tasks’. Concept learning can be seen as a lower-level skill, whereas analysis and synthesis can be regarded as higher-level skills. Cohen (1994) argues that no explicit pre-imposed structure(s) is needed if the task is ill structured. Yet, according to Kumar (1996) analysis and synthesis tasks involve rigorous task-division which is, however, only one possible approach to promote effective interaction during group problem solving. Moreover, rigorous task division will result in an ‘additive’ group performance product (A+B+C+D). Whereas ‘synthesis’ should reflect a shared group performance product (A) through extensive collaboration during group problem solving or a design task. Figure 1 illustrates all three dimensions and the respective positions of both approaches at the extremes.

Figure 1. Three dimensions of group-based learning

Relationship between group size, interaction and group-based learning dimensions

A final aspect that affects a group’s functioning is its size. Group performance effectiveness depends, as group size increases, on the one hand upon the groups’ use of increased resources and alternate opinions and on the other hand upon the handling of increased co-ordination and group management processes (Shaw, 1981). Group performance on additive/ disjunctive tasks increases as group size is expanded, but decreases on conjunctive tasks with increased group size (Shaw, 1981). Often no explicit distinction is made between dyads (two member groups), small groups (three to six members) and large groups (seven or more members) and research that compares different group sizes is virtually non-existent (Fuchs, Fuchs, Kazdan, Karns, Calhoon, Hamlett & Hewlett, 2000). Fuchs et al. (2000) argue that group size likely affects equality of interaction and contribution to a shared product. The effect of group size on interaction can be related to a typology of student-student interaction. Figure 2 illustrates four types of student-student interaction.

Figure 2. Four types of student-student interaction

Figure 2 is an extension of Rafaeli and Sudweeks (1997) distinction between three modes of communication: ‘one-way communication’, ‘two-way communication’ and ‘interactive communication’. The intervals represent temporal communication sequences: plain arrows represent ‘unrelated’ messages, whereas dotted arrows represent ‘related’ messages that, not only, build forth on preceding messages, but also, constitute the input in the next interval.

Asymmetrical interaction refers to ‘one-way communication’ (e.g. a sixth grade student who corrects a fifth grade student’s work). Reactive interaction refers to ‘two-way communication’ in separate intervals (e.g. two fifth grade students, working individually on the same problem, exchanging suggestions). Reciprocal interaction refers to ‘interactive communication’, spread across intervals (e.g. two students, working as a dyad, on the same problem). As a supplement to Rafaeli’s (1997) modes, which all refer to dyadic interaction, a forth communication mode can be distinguished. Networked interaction refers to ‘networked communication’ in small groups (three to six members): messages potentially affect other group members and they, not only, build forth on preceding messages, but also, constitute further communication input (e.g. a small group of three students writing a collaborative research proposal). If equal participation, interaction and effort investment is an aim, group size should not exceed six members. In a group of seven or more members, ‘free-riding’ is more likely to occur and equality is difficult to assure. Although interaction processes in large groups (seven or more members) can be referred to as ‘whole group interaction’, it does not constitute a fifth interaction type. Whole group interaction is composed of reactive, reciprocal and networked communication patterns; it is, however, often unstructured and/or optional. Table I illustrates the relationship between interaction type, task-type and group size.

Group size does not only have a strong relationship with the three dimensions of group-based learning, but also with computer support for education. Crook (1994) distinguishes three categories: interaction with computers, interaction at computers and interaction through computers. Interaction with computers refers to individual interaction with a computer simulation or an intelligent tutoring system. In that interaction is individual, it will not be further discussed. Interaction at computers represents a group of students interacting with a computer program or tutorial. Communication is mainly face-to-face (F2F), between a dyad or small group of students that are seated behind a computer. Interaction through computers refers to interaction between group members via networked computers (e.g. e-mail, newsgroups, CSILE, WebCT). Table II illustrates the importance of group size with respect to different forms of computer support during group-based learning.

Table I. Difference between group-based learning extremes for various group sizes, in terms of task-type and interaction-type.

Table II. Different types of computer support for group-based learning, based on group-size.

In sum, group size may be strongly related to group interaction and an important determinant for group performance. In contrast with the current tendency, researchers should treat dyads, small groups and large groups as distinctive categories. Moreover, research evidence on performance (and group interaction) should be handled accordingly. Appendix A illustrates the complexity of group-based learning. Five examples of group-based learning are described. Specifically, problems are addressed that arise if key aspects are not elaborated or the chosen combination of task-type, group size and amount of structure is not appropriate with respect to the chosen learning objectives.

Conclusion

The starting-point of this paper was a perpetuating discussion upon the ground(s) of the distinction or similarity between group-based learning perspectives. Also, in contrast to most outcome-oriented research on group-based learning, the premises for a process-oriented focus were investigated. Specifically two questions were addressed: ‘Is there a common basis for both perspectives?’ and ‘What are key elements for a process-based classification of (computer supported) groups for educational purposes?’.

In the last decade of the 20th century researchers either regarded ‘co-operative’ and ‘collaborative’ as identical concepts or distinguished between them on a single ground. For educational design of group-based learning practices these provide little hold. However, as argued, a shared basis does exist, which can be traced back to group dynamics research. Co-operative and collaborative learning should be regarded as approaches to group-based learning. Moreover, a group should be treated as a ‘learning environment’ with specific characteristics that affect intra group interaction and group performance, as opposed to a ‘black box’ approach.

A process-oriented perspective reveals three key dimensions for educational design of group-based learning: both approaches relating to the ‘extremes’ of these dimensions. Group interaction, group performance and subsequent individual learning depend on the chosen learning objective, task-type and the amount of pre-imposed structure upon group interaction. Another factor that needs further consideration is group size. Amongst few studies that have investigated a possible relationship between group size and intra group interaction, Fuchs et al. (2000) compared dyadic and four member groups’ performance on a complex task (‘ill structured’/ several possible solutions). Although not significant, a trend was observed favouring dyadic compositions with respect to participation equality, especially in favour of low achieving students. However, (small) group compositions elicited more cognitive conflict (more disagreement and negotiation) and appeared better suited for average and high achieving students. Even though Fuchs et al. (2000) study was conducted at the elementary level it suggests a possible relationship between group size, interaction and performance. Research on group-based learning in higher and distance education should take group size into account as well.

In distance education, computer mediated communication (CMC) is increasingly used to support group-based learning of geographically dispersed students. During computer conferencing mostly large groups are deployed (Harasim, 1993; 1995; Hiltz, 1994) and CMC based group-tasks often consist of commenting on draft/final products in dyads. Recently a tendency seems to develop in favour of small groups to increase student participation and reduce ‘free-riding’. Students are required to solve an ill-structured problem through extensive interaction and create a shared artifact. Especially, if one aims at higher-level cognitive gains (Brandon & Holllingshead, 1999), complex tasks requiring extensive interaction and communication, are most applicable. However, it requires on the one hand that students are dependent on each other, but on the other hand that they are held accountable for their contribution to group interaction and performance. Several evaluations of courses at the Open University of the Netherlands (OUNL), that rely on computer mediated communication support for group-based learning, reveal that groups need some amount of structure to co-ordinate their activities. Such a group-based method could be located in the upper left quadrant of figure 1, and may consist of assigning each student a specific role, comprised of activities that are important for successful group interaction and performance.

The object of the classification-model presented is to stimulate researchers and course developers to consider carefully which group-based learning method will be most supportive to student learning. Educational design of group-based learning should focus on the combination of learning objective(s), task-type, amount of pre-imposed structure and group size. It appears reasonable to assume that this combination determines the nature of the interaction process, or rather the intensity of the interaction process (e.g. reflected through increased communication demands). Table I and table II provide criteria that may guide course developers (and researchers) in making well-considered choices, with respect to group-based learning design, regarding the combination of learning objectives, task-type, group size and group interaction intensity. Currently, some OUNL courses (graduate courses) are being re-designed, using the outlined process oriented approach. Also, existing group-based learning practices can be evaluated using these criteria (Appendix A). Follow-up research is needed to test, verify and sharpen these criteria.

References

Brandon, D.P., & Hollingshead, A.B. (1999). Collaborative learning and computer-supported groups. Communication Education, 48 (2), 109-126.

Brush, T.A. (1998). Embedding cooperative learning into the design of integrated learning systems: rationale and guidelines. Educational Technology Research & Development, 46(3), 5-18.

Cohen, E.G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64, 1-35.

Crook, C. (1998). Children as computer users: the case of collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 30 (3/4), 237-247.

Forsyth, D.R. (1990). Group dynamics (2nd ed.). Belmont: Brooks & Cole.

Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Kazdan, S., Karns, K., Calhoon, M.B., Hamlett, C.L., & Hewlett, S. (2000). Effects of workgroup structure and size on student productivity during collaborative work on complex tasks. Elementary School Journal, 100 (3), 183- 212.

Harasim, L. (1993). Collaborating in cyberspace: using computerconferences as a group learning environment. Interactive Learning Environments, 3(2), 119-130.

Harasim, L., Hiltz, S.R., Teles, L., & Turoff, M. (1995). Learning networks: a field guide to teaching and learning online. Cambridge, Ma: MIT Press.

Hiltz, S.R. (1994). The virtual classroom: learning without limits via computer networks. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Hinssen, P.J.H. (1998). What difference does it make? The use of groupware in small groups. Enschede: Telematica institute. [Phd. Thesis]

Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., & Johnson-Holubec, E. (1992). Advanced cooperative learning. Edina: Interaction Book Company.

Kirschner, P.A. (1999). Using Integrated Electronic Environments for Collaborative Teaching/Learning. Keynote speech, presented on August 26, 1999 at EARLI ’99.

Kumar, V.S. (1996). Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning: Issues for research. http://www.cs.usak.ca/grads/vsk719/academic/890/project2/project2.html [Retrieved on 4-8-1999].

Lamberigts, R.A.J.G. (1988). Cooperatief leren. Onderwijskundig Lexicon, II, C1300-1 –C1300-19.

Lehtinen, E., Hakkarainen, K., Lipponen, L., Rahikainen, M., & Muukkonen, H. (1998). Computers supported collaborative learning: a review. CL-NET project

Panitz, T. (1996). Collaborative versus cooperative learning [On-line]. http://ericae.net/k12assess/colcoo.htm [Retrieved on 23-9-1999]

Rafaeli, S., & Sudweeks, F. (1997). Networked interactivity. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 2 (4). http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol2/issue4/rafaeli.sudweeks.html [Retrieved on 19-7-1999]

Sharan, Y., & Sharan, S. (1992). Expanding cooperative learning through group investigation. New York: Teachers College Press.

Shaw, M.E. (1981). Group dynamics: the psychology of small group behavior (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Slavin, R.E. (1995). Cooperative learning: theory, research and practice. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Slavin, R.E. (1997). Educational Psychology: theory and practice (5th ed.). Needham Heigts, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

This paper is partly based on a presentation at the Educational Research Days (ORD), 24-26 May, 2000

Appendix

22/11/00 (article received July 2000)