Vertex

Several recently conducted studies have examined collaborative learning, but all of these have examined groups of participants already familiar with the process (see Armstrong, 2001; Tisue, 1999; and Portwood, 2000). The current action research study involved participants new to the collaborative process and documented their experiences in a collaborative learning group. It was assumed that the theory of collaborative learning could be rather directly expressed in action, thus allowing an action research approach consistent with Lewin, Lippitt, and White's (1939) definition of action research. The research also had the added feature of being a participatory action research project, in that the participants in the collaborative learning group conducted the research in an attempt to further understand their practice and experiences as collaborators. The study was guided by the research question: What are the attributes of a successful collaborative learning experience?

Course Participants

The participants were nine graduate students in Adult and Community Education and a faculty member experienced in collaborative learning. All were engaged in a three-credit-hour seminar in collaborative learning at Ball State University during the summer of 2001. Though not a requirement for participation in the course, all but one of the participants were experienced educators, and all had varied personal backgrounds. For example, one participant was from Central America. The ages of the four males and six females ranged from early-thirties to mid-fifties.

Course Structure

The collaborative learning course was structured in a recursive manner; the subject matter of the course was the collaborative learning process, and the course was conducted using collaborative methodology, with the intent to co-construct knowledge. Rather than simply talking, the group often stopped their discussion to examine the process of their conversation. This recursive process allowed the participants not only to talk, but talk about how they talked. Thus, the participants learned about collaborative learning in a collaborative fashion.

Although the course drew upon readings from authors such as Mezirow (1996), Bohm (1990), and Shotter (1993), the participants' experiences were the primary sources of content for the course. Following the model of Dominice (1991), each participant wrote, and in turn, verbally shared an educational autobiography, providing starting points for discussion. The participants questioned one another and explored ideas and concepts that rose to the surface of the conversation. This continued throughout the duration of the course.

Research Method

Five of the ten course participants elected to be primary investigators in the research project. They were all equal participants in the design and execution of the research project, and in this sense, mirrored the course experience. The research design was a modified action research modeled after Heron's (1996) Co-operative Inquiry which emphasizes research "with" people rather than research "on" people, and Participatory Action Research as defined by Lewis (2001) which promotes training research participants to conduct research in their own lives and experiences.

After the course was completed, all ten participants were interviewed using a phenomenological protocol, looking for the lived experiences (Van Mannen, 1990) of the course participants. Interviews began with a question about the respective participants' experience in the course, then followed an open structure in response to the participants' remarks. The five researchers performed initial coding of the transcribed interviews independently. The researchers then continued the analysis process as a group, following Strauss and Corbin's (1998) constant comparative method of qualitative data analysis with one unique variation. When analyzing the transcripts of the five primary researchers, the group did not rely solely on the transcripts. This analysis was augmented by the interviewees being present to provide an interpretation and explanation of the content of their transcripts. Two additional class participants volunteered to take part in the interpretation and analysis of their interviews as well.

Findings

The analysis resulted in three emergent themes that reflect the experiences of the participants: Dialogue and Reflection, Interpersonal Relationships, and Group and Individual Responsibilities. These themes are not isolated or stagnant, but rather are dynamic and represent an interwoven gestalt that reflects the rich experience of the participants.

Dialogue and Reflection

Dialogue and reflection were found to be important, but also interdependent, features of the collaborative learning experience. In analyzing the interviews, we found two distinct contributors that fostered the development of dialogue: enablers of dialogue, i.e., those things that, had they not developed, dialogue would not have occurred, and skills necessary for maintaining dialogue, which included listening, reflection, and suspending assumptions. We discovered that reflection was not only the most important skill, but that it was also multifaceted. Dialogue and reflection are described as interdependent because in many of the interviews participants talked about an ongoing cycle of dialogue and reflection.

The enablers of dialogue were sharing/openness, trust, and group identification. The analysis revealed that the autobiographies contributed significantly to the development of these enablers. One member described the autobiographies as the "key in all the process." Another member noted:

"I think they really contributed to the overall cohesiveness of the class because as we shared personal things about our lives and our feelings, then the group became more trusting with each other and able to work together."

Sharing/openness and trust were important to enabling dialogue as one member stated:

"I say that I felt that we were a group of friends and I think you establish your friends by mutual respect and trust and openness and sharing with each other our lives and our feelings, I believe and our understanding."

The development of group identification was also important as illustrated by the following two statements from participants. The first:

"I think that in this kind of session you have to change your mind and be more group-centered than self-centered."

"Like the first night of class it was like I don't want to talk to these people and then by the end of class it was like we're buddies because we knew so much about each other's lives that it was more comfortable to talk openly."

In the skills necessary for maintaining dialogue, the importance of listening is illustrated by what this member said: "In this context I found out that if I was to be productive in the process I was forced to put aside what I was going to say and concentrate more on what people were saying." Another group member put it this way: "... I think the reality is when you're trying to construct knowledge you have to listen to where the other people are coming from and not put your own framework on top of that."

Another important skill is that of "suspending assumptions," where a participant learns to temporarily hold their own thoughts and ideas about an idea until they first have a complete understanding of another's' ideas. Then the first participant can share their ideas without interfering with others ideas. Once all assumptions (thoughts and ideas about a topic) are fully understood by all participants the conversation can move on to an examination of those ideas. Suspending assumptions is illustrated by this group member's comment:

"And I guess this is a way to illustrate assumptions. We need to ask why I believe this? Then find if we need to change some of our assumptions. This is really important."

Data analysis revealed that for these participants reflection had four facets: Reflection-in-Action, Reflection-on-Action, Reflection-as-a-Group, and Reflection-as-Individuals.

The first two forms of reflection are consistent with the work of Schon (1987). He defines Reflection-in-Action as engaging in the reflective process while one is engaged in an activity. For Schon, Reflection-on-Action takes place after an action is complete and one reflects on one's experiences. The participants in this study described Reflection-in-Action and Reflection-on-Action in a manner consistent with the work of Schon, but in terms of their own experiences. Reflection-in-Action was described by participants as a process that took place parallel to the dialogue. Participants, both collectively and individually, reflected on the dialogue as they participated in it. Reflection-on-Action was described by participants as pauses in the dialogue taken by the group to collectively examine what was said and why it was said.

However, the participants in this study added to Schon's conceptualization of reflection by differentiating between reflecting as an individual and reflecting as a group. While Schon limited his description of reflection to an individual activity, participants in this collaborative learning group saw themselves reflecting in action and reflecting on action as individuals at some times and as a group at other times. Reflection-as-a-Group was described by one participant as processing and reflecting on shared group meanings, while Reflection-as-Individuals occurred primarily between group meetings. One participant described this as:

"There's something about that time period between the meetings that is important for people to process what they've discussed and what they've learned through the group interaction."

Interpersonal Relationships

One of the most salient aspects of the process of collaborative learning is the interpersonal relationships that develop among the learners. According to studies related to collaborative learning, the combination of relationships with positive traits such as engagement, commitment, and responsibility becomes a powerful tool for the social construction of knowledge (Peters & Armstrong, 1998). In this study, all the participants described the relationships as positive and atypical from those of a traditional classroom. One participant expressed it this way:

"It was the first time knowing my classmates in a different way. Now they mean more to me. My vision of them changed."

Data analysis suggests that as these interpersonal relationships evolved, the participants felt free to communicate openly their feelings, beliefs, opinions, assumptions, and so forth. As one participant said:

"I felt that people were not as afraid to perhaps, oh, speak up and express an alternative opinion because we knew that others were not going to take offense. "

"I was terribly impressed about everybody's openness and honesty. It's not surprising as much as it is rewarding."

It is important to point out that in spite of the positive relationships that developed, conflict arose. Research indicates (Armstrong, 2001) that it is not unusual in the process of collaborative learning for a variety of conflicts to emerge and this group was no exception. While there were a few minor conflicts for this group, the central conflict was a disagreement between two members about the purpose of the group such that at one point the two openly argued about what topics the group should be discussing at a particular time. As with most successful collaborative learning endeavors, other members of this group intervened and the participants were able to constructively resolve these conflicts. Collaborative Learning uses conflict to build rather than destroy relationships. One participant in this group explained:

"I'm not sure in collaborative learning that we have to work through conflict, but in this particular instance, I think it was a very positive thing for us, working through conflict. In this group it was a meaningful experience."

"I really valued this group. I thought it's one of the better groups that I've worked with in a long time and I really enjoyed the experience. I felt I could trust them. I felt a high level of trust and support. "

Another important aspect of interpersonal relationships that arose from the analysis was the diversity of the group. As noted earlier, there was an even mixture of genders in the group, but the greatest sources of diversity were those of profession, socio-economic background, and age. Some were early in their respective careers, some were in mid-career, some were beginning a second career, and one was retired after successfully operating and then selling his own business. Participants ranged in age from early-thirties to mid-fifties. From the perspective of the participants, this diversity added a unique flavor in terms of the development of relationships and dialogue. One participant said:

"But diversity I thought was really interesting because we were all at different points in our lives and careers and in different age groups, and I thought it was interesting to bring different groups like that together."

A final important component of this theme was that the facilitator and learners viewed each other as equals. As a result, the participants assumed diverse roles throughout the process, such as those of summarizer, task-master, challenger, observer, and facilitator. This fact directly influenced the whole dynamic of the process of collaborative learning and level of engagement of the participants, as illustrated by a participant who said:

"Collaborative learning is a group effort in which participants take responsibility for keeping the group moving and making sure everyone is included."

As evidenced by this analysis, especially by altering the role of the facilitator as noted above, collaborative learning added new dimensions to the teaching/learning process. A further exploration of these new dimensions is illustrated by the responsibilities assumed by various group members.

Group and Individual Responsibilities

Frequent allusions to the different responsibilities of participants highlight its importance as a theme. Described as an evolutionary process, this theme encompasses the responsibilities of the facilitator to the group, the individual as a learner, the individual to the group, and finally, the responsibility of the participants to collectively construct knowledge.

Woven within this theme was the idea that the roles assumed at times by the different members of the group entailed different responsibilities. The changing responsibilities of the facilitator to the group (described as becoming less directive) were recognized by all of the participants, although more positively by some than others. One participant put it this way:

"An effective group sort of works the facilitator out of a job and it becomes a group facilitation thing."

This is consistent with Bohm (1990), who described the evolution of the facilitator responsibilities thusly, "It may be useful to have a facilitator to get the group going, who keeps a watch on it for a while and sort of explains what's happening from time to time, and that kind of thing. But his function is to work himself out of a job." (p. 10).

Understanding the responsibilities of the facilitator is not the same as accepting them, and one of the participants, who described herself as someone who came into the class "with somewhat of a negative feeling," struggled to understand the challenges faced by the facilitator in a collaborative learning experience. She felt that the instructor risked frustrating students who, like herself, were accustomed to a traditional classroom with the traditional responsibilities of the instructor. One implication that can be drawn is that in order for the group to be successful, it is imperative that the participants understand the unique role and responsibilities of the facilitator in collaborative learning.

Participants addressed the responsibilities of the individual as a learner through their reflections on the process of collaborative learning, a process that was described as being developmental. One participant stressed the need for each member of the group to be a self-directed learner. An observation made by the researchers is that collaborative learning works best with individuals who have reached a certain maturity--not necessarily a chronological maturity--but a maturity in their readiness to learn for intrinsic reasons. The learners must understand that they are not only responsible for their own personal learning, but must also accept responsibility for the learning of their fellow collaborators.

The idea of each individual having responsibilities to the group was an important concept. We found that participants strove to delineate their responsibility to the group by expressing a need to hear one another; to really listen without trying to impose their own meanings on another's words, and yet to make sure the voice of each was heard. One participant summarized this as follows:

"As a participant in collaborative learning, it's important that my voice be heardÉI can't assume that other people will know what I'm thinking. There's a responsibility for hearing what the others have to say, but I think there is also a responsibility for making sure that you are a part of what's being heard."

The participants' responsibility to collectively construct knowledge was widely recognized. One participant, the only one with prior group experience, confessed that she initially felt a sense of responsibility for the group structure, and expressed her relief at relinquishing that responsibility as the others became more skillful at the collaborative process, saying, "Toward the end I think people did get it. The group was the one that was responsible for [the learning]. "

Others noted the group's responsibility to ensure no single person dominated. One individual expressed it as a responsibility to go beyond just speaking and listening to others, to be a part of constructing new knowledge:

Summary and Discussion

This study identified three themes -- Dialogue and Reflection, Interpersonal Relationships, and Group and Individual Responsibilities - central to successful collaborative learning. Dialogue was found to have enabling and skills components. The enablers were sharing/openness, trust, and group identification, while skills were listening, reflection and suspending assumptions. Reflection had four facets: reflection-in-action, reflection-on-action, reflection as a group, and reflection as individuals. Interpersonal relationships were manifested in equal relationships among the learners.

Group and individual responsibilities evolved over time and included the responsibilities of the facilitator to the group, the individual as a learner, the individual to the group, and the responsibility to collectively construct knowledge. In this group the facilitation became a shared responsibility of all participants rather than remaining the sole responsibility of the faculty member/facilitator. Collaborative learning seems to work best with participants who have reached a level of maturity where they can assume responsibility for their own and others' learning. Participants strove to delineate their responsibilities to each other by not only truly hearing others, but by creating equal opportunity for each voice to be heard. And lastly, but perhaps most importantly, the participants recognized their responsibilities to collectively construct knowledge.

While these findings are generally consistent with and supportive of findings from previous research (Peters and Armstrong, 1998; Armstrong, 2001) there are three significant differences that stand out. First, the description of reflection that emerges from the participants in this study is more richly detailed in its characterization of the reflection within a group than any previously reported. Schon (1987) and Mezirow (2000), among others, commendably detail reflection in learning, but they restrict their discussion to reflection as an activity of the individual. The findings of this study suggest that reflection can be a group process in addition to an individual one. Further research may allow us to more fully understand the process of group reflection and to determine if this is a phenomenon unique to collaborative learning or if it is present in other forms of adult learning.

Secondly, this study supports the importance of interpersonal relationships in collaborative learning. What is not clear is how these interpersonal relationships influence the learning in a group. One can speculate that the relationships are the context within which the learning occurs, and in fact, other authors have done just that (see for example, Shotter, 1993), but there is no direct evidence that this is the case. Further research that can separate the learning from the interpersonal relationships and examine the association between the two needs to be conducted.

Lastly, this study was conducted in a participatory fashion that gave voice to the participants of the collaborative learning group. Much of what has been written about collaborative learning in the past has been focused on the role of the teacher or facilitator of a collaborative learning group (see Imel, 1996; Bruffee, 1999, among others). Further research from the participants' perspective will enrich our understanding of the collaborative process, which will eventually lead to more applications for collaborative learning.

References

Armstrong, J. (2001). Collaborative learning from the participants' perspective. Paper presented at the 42nd Annual Adult Education Research Conference. June 1-3, 2001, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan.

Bohm, D. (1990). On Dialogue. Ojal, CA: David Bohm Seminars.

Bruffee, K. (1999). Collaborative Learning: Higher Education, Interdependence, and the Authority of Knowledge. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Dominice', P. (1991). Composing education biographies: Group reflection through life histories. In Mezirow, J. and Associates (1991). Fostering critical reflection in adulthood: A guide to transformative and emancipatory learning (pp. 194-212). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Heron, J. (1996). Co-operative inquiry: Research into the human condition. London: Sage Publications.

Imel, S. (Ed) (1996). Learning in Groups: Exploring Fundamental Principles, New Uses, and Emerging Opportunities. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, no. 71. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lewin, K., Lippitt, R. and White, R. (1939). Patterns of Aggressive Behavior in Experimentally Created Social Climates. Journal of Social Psychology, 10 (pp.271-299.

Lewis, H. (2001). Participatory research and education for social change: Highlander research and education center. In Reason, P. and Bradbury, H. (Eds.) Handbook of action research: Participative Inquiry and Practice. (pp. 356-362) London: Sage Publications.

Mezirow, J. (1996). Contemporary paradigms of learning. Adult Education Quarterly, 46 (3) 158-172.

Peters, J. and Armstrong, J. (1998). Collaborative learning: People laboring together to construct knowledge. In Saltiel, I, Sgori, A. and Brockett, R. (Eds.) The power and potential of collaborative learning partnerships. New directions for adult and continuing education no. 79 (pp. 75-85). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Portwood, M. (2000). The experience of students in a collaborative learning classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Tennessee.

Schon, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Shotter, J. (1993). Conversational realities: Constructing life through language. London: Sage Publications.

Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishers.

Tisue, L. (1999). Facilitating dialogue and decision making in a family business. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Tennessee.

Van Mannen, M. (1990). Researching Lived Experience: Human Science for an Action Sensitive Pedagogy. Ontario, Canada: Althouse Press.

Discussion Question

What do you feel are the benefits of collaborative learning in the adult education classroom at either undergraduate, graduate, GED, or ESOL levels? The drawbacks? Why?