Monster or Miracle?

In his paper, "Mutual Gains from Team Learning: A Guided Design Classroom Exercise," Paul N. Wilson cites his colleagues as stating that "team-based decision making can be a monster or a miracle." (Wilson, 2004)  During the time that I have spent in education, I have found this statement to be absolutely true.  Groups either tend to fly or flop and teachers either tend to mostly utilize collaborative learning or avoid it like the plague.

I believe this monster-miracle dichotomy is prevalent because of the inherently difficult nature of structuring group learning and the fact that our society has not built an educational system that is conducive to collaborative work.  I also think that technology is chipping away at the difficulty inherent in collaborative work. 

From our readings, I would argue that cooperative learning is a category that also encompasses the other three types of learning we reviewed.  So, guided design, problem-based learning, and situated learning are more detailed variations of cooperative work.  I believe educators struggle to incorporate any version of collaborative work in their classrooms.  

Mostly, I believe this happens because our system, particularly at the K-12 level, is not constructed to allow it.  Whether most admit it or not, society expects our children to be quiet, sit in rows, and learn the material so that they can recite it back accurately on the End-of-Course test and everyone can breathe a data-driven sigh of relief that knowledge has been acquired.  Even the desks are made for one student to hold their own materials.  There are few tables or surfaces conducive to group work in our public school buildings.  "The myth of individual genius and achievement...is deeply ingrained in American culture," (Johnson, Johnson, & Smith) and we have built a system that reflects that desire for individual achievement.

Beyond the system itself, though, is the complicated nature of ensuring that collaborative work is structured to be the miracle a teacher would want it to be.  In the real world, seemingly miraculous achievements (like winning an Olympic medal or growing human organs) actually require hard work and dedication.  If a teacher wants their students to learn effectively in groups, s/he is going to have to take the time to ensure the lesson incorporates all the necessary elements for success (slightly different for whatever variation of collaboration a teacher is implementing, but always incorporating team-building, specific instructions and guides, and reflection for the group and individual).  Beyond the structure, a teacher will have to accept that they are no longer the "sage on the stage" but rather are the "guide on the side."  This is a difficult transition for many teachers, as Hung et al discuss in their comparison of traditional professors to PBL tutors.  (Hung, Bailey & Jonassen, 2003)

All of that being said, there are still plenty of people that utilize collaborative learning in the classroom and see it for the boon to learning that it is.  Particularly once they get past the first few years of trying to survive day-to-day, teachers are able to think about what works best for their students and many turn to collaborative learning.  I think technology has actually made it easier for teachers to utilize this type of learning in their classrooms.  

When I first started teaching, I had one computer in my classroom.  If I wanted to facilitate learning rather than preach it, I had to spend hours of prep culling the resources my students would need to discover and then providing them with materials to create a product.  While creating newspapers, posters, and presentations with scissors and glue using knowledge gained from articles, encyclopedias, or textbooks (all dated) was still much more engaging than listening to me spout, it was not particularly easy for me to set up, and the students weren't getting much of that real-world action that makes collaborative learning so engaging. 

Then, my school went 1:1, and the whole nature of collaborative learning changed.  Once my students had access to up-to-date knowledge of the entire world at their fingertips and the creative power of a MacBook, I rarely ever stood at the front of the room and told them about literature again.  Instead, they were in groups working in a constant cycle of discovering, creating, and presenting.  Of course, it's not that collaborative learning then became easy; it's just that I could spend my time on the more important aspects of managing group interactions and growth rather than creating folders of information for each group to read.  It became more fun, and the success of the group work increased because I could really focus my attention on its structure.  

Because of my own personal experience, I truly believe that collaborative learning is the best approach for students of any age.  I deeply understand how it can be difficult to implement, but I am excited about the prospects as teachers learn to appropriately integrate technology into their organization of collaborative work.    

[Image] General ledger interface: Finished puzzle or pieces scattered about. (2012, October 24). Retrieved from http://www.thgcfo.com/general-ledger-interface/

Hung, W., Bailey, J. H., & Jonassen, D. H. (2003). Exploring the tensions of problem-based learning: Insights from research. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, (95), 13-23.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (n.d.). Cooperative learning returns to college: What evidence is there that it works.

Wilson , P. N. (2004). Mutual gains from team learning: A guided design classroom exercise. Cardon Research Papers in Agricultural and Resource Economics, 1-18.