Self-Regulation and Collaborative Learning
Topic 5: Collaborative learning theories
Embedded Files
My Reflections
My Reflections
Dillenbourg’s (1999) analysis on the definitions of collaborative learning highlighted the need for specifications and context on how we discuss collaboration.
In an effort to contextualize collaboration as much as possible, examining pair or small group collaborative learning in borderline situations of contradicting personalities is a point that really interests me. More specifically, it would be interesting if the likelihood of an effective collaboration could be predicted based on the characteristics of the two people involved. For example, if a pair consists of a member with a very structured working style, high intensity and text/grades anxiety and a member with opposite traits, e.g a more free-form working style, low priority on grades, is it possible to bridge those characteristics in the collaborative interactions? And if it’s possible, is it “worth” it, compared to individual work? Would a pair like this require more emotional support and scaffolding from the facilitator of the activity which would override the cognitive part of the process? These are a few questions that come to my mind.
Even though people cannot fit into boxes and one’s character traits are fluid and can also be perceived differently from person to person, perhaps a mixed data collection method of carefully structured self and peer-questionnaires could help the teacher gain insights on students’ characteristics.
It’s important I think to decide beforehand whether the individuals have more to “lose” than to “gain” in a collaborative situation like this. Even though argumentative discourse is a promising method for achieving cognitive gains (Kuhn, 2015, p.50), socioemotional aspects should be taken into account to achieve a good balance between cognitive and emotional loads.
Seeing ourselves and the others (my interpretation)
Image taken from Pinterest
This is a topic relevant to emerging technologies as well. For example, on complex matters like this one, if a teacher could have access to student profiles based on each student’s trajectory through the course, they would be able to ask, for example, from the AI tool to provide them with recommendations on group formation and scaffolding actions that would benefit this specific pair or group of learners most. The student profile would be updated both by the teacher (see human-in-the-loop) and the AI.
In Kuhn’s (2015) article the viewpoint of collaboration as a skill with a developmental trajectory also evoked new ideas for me, because since now when designing learning activities, I had been thinking about collaborative learning only as a pedagogical approach, kind of like opening a toolkit and picking collaboration as the tool that I thought fit the activity best. However, I wasn’t considering the students’ diverse starting points and prior empirical knowledge on how collaboration works for them personally and in general. Therefore, this is an area that I personally need to focus more in future learning design endeavours.
Related Readings
Related Readings
Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by collaborative learning? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 1–19). Oxford: Elsevier.
Kuhn, D. (2015). Thinking together and alone. Educational Researcher, 44(1), 46–53. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X15569530
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse