William Cope
Adam P Rusch
Jason Berg
Duane Searsmith.png "Rita van Haren")
Rita van Haren
Eric Patnoudes
Maura Rodgers Brand
Jason Williams
Melanie Lamus
Heather A Ochmane-Learning Ecologies MOOC’s Updates
Groupthink, Excessive Conformity, In-Group Bias, etc. (down sides of "collaborative intelligence")
Here, I am focusing on potential detrimental manifestations within social dynamics that can occur during cooperative learning and collaborative knowledge-making. I do so NOT because I'm opposed to collaborative learning, but because I know that teachers employing collaborative/social learning approaches need to be attentive to learner group interactions and learning processes to assure that negative effects like "groupthink," in-group bias or stereotyping do not predominate.
It is generally known that there is an evolutionarily developed tendency in humans to seek group harmony through behaviors like conformity, mutual imitation and submission of individual volition to peer influence (Boyd & Richerson 1985; Richerson & Boyd 2005; Blute 2010). When groups of students take part in social learning, it is not unlikely that such genetically inscribed predispositions might emerge as part of the group learning dynamic (Efferson, Lalive, Cacault & Kistler 2016, 2). Teacher framing and monitoring of social learning is therefore necessary. What are some of the techniques and strategies teachers may use to avoid conterproductive group dynamics in learning? Here are a few suggestions, some supported by research, others by practical thinking and "common sense."
Values, Rubrics, Clear Standards, Rules and Expectations
First and foremost, it is important to affirm fundamental values in which all learning ought to be grounded. Devotion to truth is one important value, with its corollary is that arguments and positions taken ought to be supported by evidence that is broadly considered to be valid or that can be verified as true using reasonable and approved methods. Respect for individuals and for difference is another, with its own corollary that "ad hominem" attacks are disallowed in all cases. Individuals or groups may disagree about the truth, but they must remain more committed to seeking the truth through conversation and collaborative investigation than to "winning an argument" or "defeating an opponent." These fundamental values (among others) ought to be inscribed in a clear set of rules and be part of a teacher's expectations throughout any learning process. The goal is for learners to make good use of their individual cognitive (and metacognitive) capacities and to avoid being overly influenced by emotion or social dynamics. Teacher expectations can do a lot to reinforce those values.
Group Diversity, Variety of Activities
Group think and in-group/out-group dynamics tend to come to the fore precisely when there is a poverty of distinct perspectives or when emotional attachment to a group (or an exaggerated sense of the group's value) exercises more influence than, say, rational thought or devotion to the common good (Oinas-Kukkonen 2008). One way to keep the group dynamics more fluid and less allegiance-oriented is to require students to work in different social groupings over time and to do a variety of activities that disallow intellectual conglomeration around an implicit or explicit group identity or group-specific social code. Assure that students encounter divergent points of view from time to time and engage in real conversation with them.
Metacognition
Teach students about group psychology, including the propensity of human groups, under certain conditions, to develop a social mindset that can contravene open-mindedness and genuine learning. Being aware of this biologically-based tendency of the human brain will make it more likely for learners to identify the unhealthy social dynamics that can result. Metacognition is not a magic bullet, but it will enable mindful resistance to counterproductive influence and harmful thinking and actions. Teach students about the cognitive benefits of honestly confronting divergent perspectives and of having real empathy for others, both which are helpful strategies for good social learning, but also for developing a more fluid intelligence, a higher degree of social perception, increased emotional intelligence, greater mental acuity, more creativity and personal satisfaction, in the long run. Teach students mindfulness.
Leveraging Technology
There is some evidence that social groups, working together with technology-based decision-support systems, are more successful at finding optimal solutions than either humans alone or software alone, even when information-sharing is imperfect (Wagy & Bongard 2015; Luo, Iyengar & Venkatasubramanian 2015). What is more, artificial-intelligence enhanced software that analyzes situations and presents options (or even simpler technology-based information sharing) has potential for serving as a check on invalid socially- or emotionally-driven rationalizations. An "objective" machine-based perspective can empower minority points of view by offering a dispassionately gathered ensemble of information or evidence to be used in group discussions. It may even be possible, over time, that we will develop good AI-enhanced bias-detection software to monitor the argumentation or artifact creation during computer-mediated social learning.
Instructor Presence, Instructor Care, Modeling
Finally, as already suggested, instructor intervention, monitoring and framing are key. Most importantly, the teacher or facilitator of social learning can serve as a model, both of respect for all persons (even during argumentation) and persistent devotion to the truth. Most importantly, an instructor who has obvious dedication to the progress and well-being of learners will have a real measure of social influence among social learning groups. If that instructor then models good social learning practices and moderates group dynamics well, it assures that a positive and productive learning experience is all the more likely to happen.
Final Words
By proactively facilitating good group dynamics while respecting learner autonomy, teachers and facilitators of social learning can promote the best use of the affordances of digital communication and online connectivity in social learning and collaborative intelligence processes. I recognize that the required teaching skills and propensities (the ones that I'm evoking here ...and others) may not come easily or naturally to all teachers. They can, however, be learned, practiced, deepened and improved over time. That said, these are skills and approaches that require care and attention. Teacher metacognition and mindfulness are, for that reason, important elements for supporting the development of good, open-minded, productive and engaging social learning, while avoiding the emergence of problematic group dynamics.
references
Boyd, Robert &, Richerson, Peter J. (1985). Culture and the Evolutionary Process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Blute, Marion. (2010). Darwinian Sociocultural Evolution: Solutions to Dilemmas in Cultural and Social Theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Efferson, Charles, Lalive, Rafael, Cacault, Maria Paula & Kistler, Deborah. (2016). The evolution of facultative conformity based on similarity. PLoS ONE 11(12): e0168551. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0168551
Luo, Yu, Iyengar, Garud & Venkatasubramanian, Venkat. (2015). Soft regulation with crowd recommendation: Coordinating self-interested agents in sociotechnical systems under imperfect information. PLoS ONE 11(3): e0150343. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0150343
Oinas-Kukkonen, Harri. (2008). Network analysis and crowds of people as sources of new organisational knowledge. In: Koohang, Alex et al., ed., Knowledge Management: Theoretical Foundations. Santa Rosa, CA, US: Informing Science Press. P. 173-189.
Richerson Peter J. & Boyd, Robert. (2005). Not By Genes Alone: How Culture Transformed the Evolutionary Process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Wagy, Mark D. & Bongard, Josh C. (2015). Combining Computational and Social Effort for Collaborative Problem Solving.
Hi Annie, Thanks for both of your posts. The second is balm on my heart and on my wounded ego. (Which, in the long run, truly are the least important aspects of all of this.) Your first post, though, touches on issues that I think are extremely important and troubling. On the one hand, I firmly believe in the value of new learning modalities, including social learning and personalized or self-directed learning. (After all, most Ph.D. are earned at the end of a long trajectory of largely self-directed learning, writing and knowledge-making.) On the other, I sincerely believe that such learning must be monitored, mentored and validated by experienced teachers if educational institutions are to then consider it analogous to more traditional learning. Your long post above points toward that very crux: The need for serious, well-trained, conscientious teachers who are also subject-matter experts and who fully engage in educational processes, to assure the efficacy and validity of learning, including learner-generated active learning. Kenya provided a highly illustrative example in a teacher who was able to manage learner groups proactively in a way that maximized learning, drawing on teaching experience, attentive observation and an understand of both the learners and the social dynamics in their groups. That's a convergence of experience, practice, training and extreme care for the learning process, with a deft human touch. You can't get that from a robot tutor, no matter how good the algorithms.
Alas, some folks think that one of the greatest values of adopting social or collaborative learning is that it dispenses with highly-qualified teachers or permits doing more with less in instructional costs or tenure-track faculty lines. A terrible miscalculation in my view. Yet, for many administrators, this is the Brave New World toward which we are sailing. (Not for all administrators, by any means, but there are enough HE administrators who care more about financial performance than they do about strategic pedagogical thinking that it's worrisome.)
In my view, universities and other institutions need to invest in *more* teaching expertise and greater depth of experience and innovative vigor among teachers, not less. That said, I am afraid that a large percentage of current face-to-face teaching faculty members, including the most experienced is quite reluctant to adapt to new learning modalities. (I say this based on conversations at my institution, correspondence with extra-institutional colleagues and contacts at conferences.) To move toward good social learning, personalized learning, self-directed learning, etc. in higher ed. will require flexibility and adaptation by current teachers, along with institutional commitment to high-quality teaching and learning, including some wiggle room for errors and adjustments to teacher-learning, accompanied by high levels of engagement on all sides and effective feedback loops about learning outcomes (to be taken seriously by administrators and teachers alike). It seems to me that just about all of that must happen before higher ed will be able to do a good job of moving toward beneficial and sustainable use of the affordances that Bill Cope and Mary Kalantzis say are the future of all learning.
Implementing a new vision is always difficult, but in this vision, there are pitfalls in multiple directions, in my opinion, including the fallacy that student social learning requires less engagement and less work on the part of teachers. Thanks for pointing that out. (Which, to be honest, was in the background of my thinking about the update, but not explicitly part of the concerns that I expressed above.) Your bringing that thread of thought into the open and weaving it together with your own excellent comments gives me hope that maybe I'm not a lone voice in the wilderness. For that, thanks, Annie!
Also, I cannot believe that someone marked you down like that on the peer review . . . this would have earned top marks if I'd come across it in my section.
-Annie
@Robert: honestly, I think it's very important that we all include our reservations in discussions of the course materials--we don't want to go too brave new world! on this material. New pedagogical strategies will *always* have advantages and disadvantages, and we cannot use those strategies effectively if we're not taking care to acknowledge and account for the disadvantages. Your initial update, honestly, encapsulates many of my concerns about collaborative intelligence and active knowledge making; my research specialty is the English medieval period, and it is INCREDIBLE how much misinformation shapes students' knowledge of the period! They simply have too little knowledge to accurately sort through all the information out there and make knowledge.
Overall, one major takeaway for me of your whole discussion is the continued necessity of professional, well-educated instructors. The current attempts in both for-profit and non-profit education to de-professionalize teaching is one of the most foolish things that administrators are doing, and it could do major damage down the road. One of the reasons I'm trying to move from teaching to instructional design is so that I can have more of an impact on averting this crisis; instructional designers who really understand the theory behind the practice can help to prevent stupid administrative decisions when it comes to the need for effective teaching faculty.
-Annie (aka Nancy)
@Robert - I look forward to your next update.
Thanks Kenya. Your comments are spot-on, as always. Thanks for sharing your wisdom and experience. (Unfortunately, Scholar no longer lets me edit the update above, so I can't fix it.) Perhaps I'll do create another update along these lines soon.
That said, I'm not sure that my chosen topic, which is somewhat in tension with the gist of the Cope/Kalantzis lesson, was particularly apt or wise. Oh well, Live and Learn.
Best,
Robert
@Robert - My takeaway from your update relates to the ongoing responsibility of intentionality on the part of the instructor in group settings. One of the best examples of this that I noted in an e-learning environment was in an ESL course (Academic English) for fairly advanced students in a learning lab where I observed an instructor who was able to construct and re-constitute groups via the computer while observing their social dynamics and work products from her work station. In so doing, active learning took place, many of the cautions you advise against were avoided and students who might be reticent to interact with those they didn't know had the opportunity to get to work with several classmates in one period. This required a great deal of work on the part of the teacher but academic strengths where capitalized upon quickly and struggling students could receive the help they needed more readily.
In light of what our professor shared, a video example in addition to citing more of your sources and perspectives with distanced objectivity throughout your update might speak to the concern you referenced from a classmate in your comments. I do hope that's helpful.
Cheers - Kenya
The last item in my reference list above is incomplete. It ought to have read more like this:
Wagy, Mark D. & Bongard, Josh C. (2015). Combining computational and social effort for collaborative problem solving. _PLoS ONE_ 10(_11_). Retrieved from http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0142524
Because I am unable to edit the update above, I am unable to add to the list of references. But I've recently come across a terrific book that folks interested in intercultural learning, cognition, connected or social learning across cultural barriers, etc., ought to consider reading:
Joseph Shaules, _The Intercultural Mind: Connecting Culture, Cognition, and Global Living_ (Boston, MA: Intercultural Press, 2015).
Google Books link: https://books.google.com/books?id=bMcNBAAAQBAJ
Hmmm... in the peer review on Coursera, someone found that this update is far below par in general, for example that it does not source relevant resources and links and that it fails to meet the standard of Formal scholarly referencing and web links to a comprehensive range of sources. Most of all, the summary judgment of one of my peer learners is that the update above is of zero interest and brings no new information to the learning process (0 points = Not interesting, nothing new).
I would note that the update cites a range of references in APA style. It may not be a great scholarly piece. But it does have proper scholarly form and cites an array of references based on recent disciplinary and interdisciplinary research, scholarly articles and books that offer support for many of the ideas I advance in the update.
Perhaps the piece is too long and some readers found it extremely boring. Maybe it does not strike everyone as relevant. I will readily acknowledge that it is too textual and does not present its concepts and arguments multi-modally. But the update is, if nothing else, *scholarly*.
I accept the judgment of my peers. (What choice do I have?) Their collective review, on average, generates a score that means that the update above is unacceptable and does not earn a passing grade.
...OK. I'm resilient. (Discouraged but resilient.) I'll try again. But I must also say, Professors Cope and Kalantzis, that there is a significant structural problem with the peer review process in the e-Learning Ecologies MOOC that, in my view, calls its integrity into question.
Another nefarious effect, linked to the ones I mention here, but not exactly analogous to them, is the risk of individuals and groups being strongly influenced by what Eli Pariser called the bubble filter. That's the bubble created around internet consumers by search engine and social media algorithms that tend to cater to their preferences and biases based on their internet behaviors. You can see excerpts from Pariser's book here: https://books.google.fr/books?id=-FWO0puw3nYC.
You can also read a pretty good post by Roman Niklas Meier on this phenomenon here: https://www.coursera.org/learn/elearning/discussions/all/threads/TgrUKOYLEeaOJwr5wT2zdA
I note that some of the strategies that I mention in my post above (diversity, variety, metacognition) can address the internet bubble bias to some degree. Indeed, one of the values of social learning and collaborative intelligence is that it helps combat the bubble filter by exposing learners to a variety of perspectives and sources of information.