Teamwork has become increasingly popular in recent years, with more and more workplaces expecting their employees to work collaboratively with each other. In response, organizations like the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology have increasingly required educational institutions to incorporate teamwork into their curricula, and a collaborative approach to learning has grown in popularity (Ruiz Ulloa & Adams, 2004).

Like many students, I have always been a little wary of group work, having had bad experiences in the past. I have, however, had positive ones as well; there are a number of benefits to working collaboratively, including a shared (and so perhaps reduced) workload, exposure to different viewpoints, and the ability to take on larger projects. I am, therefore, interested in studying the theory behind collaborative learning, as I hope to one day help my own students experience the positive aspects of group learning while avoiding the negative ones. This topic is also closely related to my current projects for my Ph.D., a point to which I will return later.

Collaborative learning has been defined as “an educational approach to teaching and learning that involves groups of students working together to solve a problem, complete a task, or create a product” (“What is collaborative learning?”, 1997). According to Kenneth Bruffee, the basic idea was developed by a group of British educators in the 1950s and 60s; prominent figures early in the theory's life were Edwin Mason and Charity James, who saw collaborative learning as a way to democratize education during the tumultuous Vietnam era. Collaborative learning became popular in America in the 1970s, as a response to struggling college students refusing traditional tutoring and counseling programs (Bruffee, 1984).

As Smith and MacGregor note, collaborative learning makes several assumptions about how learning occurs:

1. Learning is an active process whereby students assimilate the information and relate this new knowledge to a framework of prior knowledge.
2. Learning requires a challenge that opens the door for the learner to actively engage his/her peers, and to process and synthesize information rather than simply memorize and regurgitate it.
3. Learners benefit when exposed to diverse viewpoints from people with varied backgrounds.
4. Learning flourishes in a social environment where conversation between learners takes place. During this intellectual gymnastics, the learner creates a framework and meaning to the discourse.
5. In the collaborative learning environment, the learners are challenged both socially and emotionally as they listen to different perspectives, and are required to articulate and defend their ideas. In so doing, the learners begin to create their own unique conceptual frameworks and not rely solely on an expert's or a text's framework. Thus, in a collaborative learning setting, learners have the opportunity to converse with peers, present and defend ideas, exchange diverse beliefs, question other conceptual frameworks, and be actively engaged. (cited in “What is?”, 1997)

With the exception perhaps of the first point above (which is a more constructivist view), the collaborative learning approach is grounded in social cognitivism, specifically the idea that cognition and learning are social endeavors. Lev Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development is especially relevant here, as are Lave and Wenger’s communities of practice (Kalantzis & Cope, 2012).

Image from New Learning, p. 210.

The Zone of Proximal Development shows what learners can do with help—in this case, the help of their peers. Teammates are external sources of knowledge students can rely on to learn and accomplish what must be done. While doing so, teams learn how to work together and become communities of practice, with their own “practices, routines, rituals, artifacts, symbols, conventions, stories, and histories” (Wenger, 1998).

Collaborative learning is very widespread, and there are many examples of its use in practice, including group projects, peer instruction and the flipped classroom method, and more. Groups can be either long-term, lasting over the course of a semester or longer, or more fleeting, sometimes lasting only a part of a single class period. The choice of duration usually depends on the instructor's goals for a group, and there are benefits and drawbacks to both options. Being part of several short-term groups allows students to interact with a variety of their peers, and sometimes only a brief interaction is necessary to accomplish a task, though it can be difficult to establish lasting relationships or adjust group practices to be more effective in a short amount of time. Long-term groups, on the other hand, have the time to accomplish more complex work, build meaningful interpersonal relationships, and improve their processes, though the longer work time can also lead to members "getting stuck in a rut" or falling into inefficient habits.

In the video below, Cornell professor Jed Sparks discusses an example of short-term group activities in his classroom:

In the video, Sparks describes how he divides his class into lecture, activity, and peer instruction sections. He reports that students are much more engaged and excited when performing collaborative activities than when working alone or simply listening to him lecture.

Another example of collaborative learning that I have personally had a good deal of experience with is pair programming, a common practice in Computer Science courses, especially those that are early in the sequence of courses.

Image from https://image.slidesharecdn.com/pairprogramming-120415162145-phpapp01/95/pair-programming-1-728.jpg?cb=1363781496

In this technique, two students sit beside each other at the same computer. One student is the driver, physically typing the code into the machine. The other is the navigator, giving directions and pointing out any errors that occur. The students finish writing their program in this way, switching roles after set time intervals.

While I was initially doubtful about the technique, I have found it very useful. Having someone else there to bounce ideas off of, even if they are equally inexperienced as you, is extremely helpful. A second pair of eyes is also great at picking out mistakes you may miss on your own. Perhaps my favorite benefit, though, is that pair programming keeps you focused and engaged; you are less likely to wander away to Facebook or Pinterest if someone else is sitting next to you, counting on you to keep working. My partners and I always noticed that we finished our work much quicker together than when we worked alone, and it was of better quality.

Despite its popularity and potential benefits, there are some drawbacks to collaborative learning. Some critics claim that group work is an "avoidance of teaching" and a way for teachers to avoid responsibility ("What are some critical perspectives?", 2004). Others note that instructors can see up to a 50% reduction in coverage of course material when using cooperative learning techniques ("Potential Challenges with Cooperative Learning, 2016). Vicki Randall (cited in "Critical perspectives", 2004) warns against overusing collaborative work, citing the burden placed on stronger students in mixed-ability groups and the encouragement of lower-level thinking as common weaknesses of the approach.

One solution that has been proposed by these critics (in addition to careful consideration of the structure and learning goals of the class to ensure they align with a collaborative approach) is working more closely with students to understand how they learn best (i.e., independently or collaboratively) and using this insight to combine pedagogical approaches in a way that best suits the students ("Critical perspectives", 2004).

See the following websites for more critical views of collaborative learning, and suggestions on how to address these concerns:

• "Potential Challenges with Cooperative Learning"
• "What are some critical perspectives?"
• "Cooperative Learning: Criticisms"

In addition to theoretical concerns, more practical challenges to implementing collaborative learning exist as well. One of the most obvious questions raised by the collaborative learning approach is how student teams should be formed and by whom, as well as what these teams should look like (i.e., the mix of skills, demographics, etc.).

Considering a collaborative learning approach provides several implications to consider when designing and implementing learning environments, both in-person and digital. First, a method to select teams must be chosen, based on the intended learning goals of the course. For online or other technological learning environments, automated team formation tools can be used or perhaps even integrated more seamlessly into the platform.

Designers should also consider to what extent team behavior should be regulated; i.e., should the instructor or environment intervene if a team member is not participating adequately? Some kind of behaviorist conditioning approach could be applied here, with contributions earning students a reward. If nothing else, there should be a way (like a summative peer evaluation assignment) for students to report any problems that occurred throughout collaborative work so that grades can be adjusted accordingly or other disciplinary actions taken.

Finally, collaborative learning environments must accommodate students with differing situations and needs. All students should have an equal opportunity to meet with their teammates; for synchronous classes (either in-person or online), this may mean setting aside class time for this purpose, and perhaps reserving physical meeting space in the case of in-person environments. It should also be made clear what kinds of technology (devices, software) will be required for collaboration, and educators should try their utmost to ensure that every student has access to these. Students who have IEPs or need other specialized accommodations should also be considered when designing these environments.