{"id":3758,"date":"2018-09-12T08:00:16","date_gmt":"2018-09-12T13:00:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/braindevs.net\/blog\/blog\/?p=3758"},"modified":"2018-08-28T12:17:10","modified_gmt":"2018-08-28T17:17:10","slug":"update-on-collaborative-learning","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.learningandthebrain.com\/blog\/update-on-collaborative-learning\/","title":{"rendered":"Update on &#8220;Collaborative Learning&#8221;"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Last week, I wrote about a potential strategy for making group-work more effective. A Boston-based research team has found reason to think that &#8220;intermittent&#8221; collaboration might yield better results than constant (or absent) collaboration.<a href=\"https:\/\/braindevs.net\/blog\/\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/AdobeStock_182043612_Credit.jpg\"><img decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignright size-medium wp-image-3754\" src=\"https:\/\/braindevs.net\/blog\/\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/AdobeStock_182043612_Credit-300x200.jpg\" alt=\"collaborative learning\" width=\"300\" height=\"200\" srcset=\"https:\/\/www.learningandthebrain.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/AdobeStock_182043612_Credit-300x200.jpg 300w, https:\/\/www.learningandthebrain.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/AdobeStock_182043612_Credit-768x512.jpg 768w, https:\/\/www.learningandthebrain.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/AdobeStock_182043612_Credit-1024x683.jpg 1024w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px\" \/><\/a><\/p>\n<p>Although I&#8217;m excited to see these results, my article concluded with two concerns:<\/p>\n<p><strong>First<\/strong>: the research was done with college students. It might not apply to younger learners.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Second<\/strong>: the participants weren&#8217;t exactly\u00a0<em>collaborating<\/em>. They were (or were not) looking at each others&#8217; answers after they solved problems.<\/p>\n<p>They did not do what typically happens in schools, where students work on problems and projects together all at the same time.<\/p>\n<p>So, again: this research might not (or, might) apply in our classrooms.<\/p>\n<p>(I should be clear: the <em>researchers<\/em> don&#8217;t claim to be studying collaboration. Their research field is &#8220;collective intelligence.&#8221; The most obvious place to <em>apply<\/em> their research is in what teachers call &#8220;collaboration.&#8221;)<\/p>\n<h2>Thoughtful Update for Concern #1&#8230;<\/h2>\n<p>When I have questions about a study, I try to ask the researchers for their thoughts. In this case, I reached out to Dr. Jesse Shore with my two concerns.<\/p>\n<p>His answers struck me as particularly helpful, and so I&#8217;m sharing them with you. (I&#8217;m rewording passages from his email, but with his permission drawing substantially on them.)<\/p>\n<p>First, Dr. Shore explains why intermittent &#8220;collaboration&#8221; helps:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>The results depend on (1)\u00a0people trying more diverse solutions when they are <strong>not<\/strong> <strong>seeing<\/strong> others&#8217; solutions [ACW: that&#8217;s how\u00a0<em>working alone<\/em> helps]\n<p>and (2) learning from the solutions of others when they <strong>do\u00a0see<\/strong> them [ACW: that&#8217;s how <em>&#8220;collaborating&#8221;<\/em> helps].<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Intermittent collaboration makes time for both benefits.<\/p>\n<p>For this reason, Dr. Shore suspects that this strategy would work well with younger students. There&#8217;s no obvious reason why 3rd graders (for example) wouldn&#8217;t &#8220;try more diverse solutions when not seeing others&#8217; solutions,&#8221; nor why they wouldn&#8217;t &#8220;learn from others&#8217; solutions when they see them.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>Such hypotheses need testing, but that&#8217;s a plausible set of presumptions with which to start.<\/p>\n<h2>&#8230;and Concern #2<\/h2>\n<p>Dr. Shore shares my concern about applying &#8220;collective intelligence&#8221; research directly to &#8220;collaboration.&#8221; After all, collaboration includes at least two other key variables.<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\">The &#8220;free rider&#8221; problem. When groups work together, some people can just sit back and let others do all the work.<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\">Interpersonal relationships. In groups, some people like each other and work well together; others just don&#8217;t. Or, a student might adopt another student&#8217;s strategy not because it works well, but because that student is popular.<\/p>\n<p>Despite these other variables, Dr. Shore writes, &#8220;my guess is that intermittent interaction would still be best.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>After all&#8211;as I think about his summary&#8211;it seems clear that intermittent collaboration would interrupt the &#8220;free-rider&#8221; problem. I can&#8217;t let you do all the work if I have to work by myself at times.<\/p>\n<h2>The Big Picture<\/h2>\n<p>First: Dr. Shore offers us good reasons to think that &#8220;intermittent&#8221; interaction would indeed benefit typical kinds of school collaboration.<\/p>\n<p>Its benefits, most likely, help students of all ages. And it might help with (and certainly wouldn&#8217;t exacerbate) the additional complexities of full-on collaboration.<\/p>\n<p>Second: this strikes me as an excellent example of the philosophy that teachers shouldn&#8217;t just &#8220;do this thing,&#8221; but instead should &#8220;think this way.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>In this case: when we see research about &#8220;collaboration,&#8221; we should not simply enact its guidance. Instead, we should contemplate the specific ways it does, and does not, fit exactly with what we do.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Last week, I wrote about a potential strategy for making group-work more effective. A Boston-based research team has found reason to think that &#8220;intermittent&#8221; collaboration might yield better results than constant (or absent) collaboration. Although I&#8217;m excited to see these results, my article concluded with two concerns: First: the research was done with college students. [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":18,"featured_media":3754,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[55],"class_list":["post-3758","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-lb-blog","tag-collaboration"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.learningandthebrain.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3758","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.learningandthebrain.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.learningandthebrain.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.learningandthebrain.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/18"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.learningandthebrain.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3758"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/www.learningandthebrain.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3758\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3770,"href":"https:\/\/www.learningandthebrain.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3758\/revisions\/3770"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.learningandthebrain.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3754"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.learningandthebrain.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3758"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.learningandthebrain.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3758"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.learningandthebrain.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3758"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}