A reflection

Within a few short weeks, the Corona pandemic forcibly achieved changes that proponents of online and blended learning have been encouraging for years. Teachers who long resisted the move to online discovered that they do, in fact, have the digital literacy skills to make the transition—and in record time. I do not wish to suggest that the move to online has been unproblematic. Indeed, online learning poses a number of challenges, even when it is not undertaken in haste. For example, learners face particular challenges related to engagement, technology, and separation in online learning contexts. These challenges force us to reflect on what, exactly, we are doing when we engage in teaching and learning. However, the move to online (and blended) contexts offers teachers and course directors an opportunity to consider what kind of learning contexts we want to create. Instead of just transferring our existing course designs (the lecture and seminar format so familiar to so many) to the digital world, we have the chance to design learning activities that are more appropriate for online contexts.

In this blog post, I will explore the challenge of learner separation in online learning contexts and suggest that designing online courses according to collaborative learning models could help overcome this challenge and encourage deep learning. Collaborative learning requires a different kind of teaching than many teachers may be used to so, to close this paper, I will reflect on how we, as teachers, might adapt our own roles to online, collaborative learning contexts. 

A constructivist approach to learning

Learning […] is an active process of creating connections and seeing patterns of information within and between these connections

(Oddone, 2019)

Collaborative learning models build on constructivist theories of learning. Social constructivism is a sociological theory of knowledge in which human learning is contextual and knowledge is socially constructed—meaning it is created in interactions with others (McMahon, 1997). Constructivism, the related educational theory, suggests that learners actively participate in creating knowledge and, hence, that they must be active in the process of learning (see, for example, the work of Piaget, Dewey or Vygotsky). Although there are several varieties (Sjøberg, 2007), broadly speaking, a constructivist approach to learning recognises the importance of experience and reflection in the process of learning.  Constructivism is contrasted with a more traditional—e.g. context independent—models of learning, in which learning is an internal practice (McMahon, 1997) and the classroom is a place where an expert (teacher) “pours knowledge into passive learners” (Educational Broadcasting Corporation, 2004). In constructivist models, learners are actively engaged and challenged by listening to different ideas, and by having to explain and defend their own perspective. Through this process, they begin to create their own conceptual frameworks rather than memorising expert opinions from literature (Cooper & Robinson, 1998)and, hence, progress through Perry’s stages of intellectual and ethical development (King, 1978). 

Whereas traditional learning approaches emphasise context independence, constructivists recognise that the learning context is central to the learning (McMahon, 1997). In a classroom context, learning can easily be made active, discursive, adaptive, iterative and reflexive. We learn by asking and answering questions from other people, by exploring ideas in discussion with other people, and by assessing our knowledge in conversation with other people. Even if there is no specific design to facilitate it, learners in physical proximity to each other will typically engage each other with questions about class work and discussions about assignments. From this perspective, an online learning context can be problematic. If learning relies on interaction with other people and online learners are physically and socially separated from one another, we need to find ways to recreate the active and discursive learning that takes place (somewhat) naturally when learners meet face to face. This is not as simple as setting assignments in which learners need to work together. Group work doesn’t necessarily create the conditions for deep learning. Instead, designing emotionally and practically for collaborative learning may provide a solution (Cleveland-Innes & Wilton, 2018). 

Collaborative learning

Collaborative learning takes place when groups of learners work together to solve a problem, complete a task, or create a product (Gerlach, 1994). It is often contrasted with cooperative group work, in which learners tend to divide a task into discrete subtasks and then combine them into, for example, a paper or presentation. In collaborative group work, learners can talk to one another, present and defend ideas, discuss diverse beliefs, and question one another’s conceptual frameworks. In other words, collaborative group work provides an context where deep learning can take place.

Working cooperatively often seems to be more efficient than working collaboratively and, hence, learners who are focused on completing an assignment may tend towards cooperative work. Dividing tasks means that people can work on different things simultaneously and get to the end point more quickly. But this assumes that the end point is the presentation to be created or the paper to be turned in. If the end point is actually deep learning on a new topic, cooperative learning is quite useless. Collaborative learning takes more time. You need to let ideas simmer. Learners need to think out loud and explore ideas rather than coming quickly to conclusions and producing the required output. But slow, collaborative learning is the only way to get to the true end point of deep learning and, hence, it is slow, collaborative working we should be trying to encourage if we want effective online learning contexts.

Collaborative learning requires an appropriate emotional context. Learners must trust each other enough to share their ideas and feel safe enough to support each other’s learning (Vaughan, Cleveland-Innes & Garrison, 2013). There must also be some joy in exploring and experimenting with ideas so that learners do not feel that they must rush towards the satisfaction of completing an assignment. It is possible to design for emotions in online learning contexts, as illustrated in the following three examples: (1) Assigning learners to stable groups that they will work with throughout the course gives them the opportunity to develop trust; (2) Taking grades out of the equation (where possible) can help to remove negative emotions, such as stress and anxiety, and encourage learners to increase their in-depth understanding of a topic rather learning to pass the test (Brindley & Walti, 2009; Jones & Egley, 2007); (3) Problem based learning (PBL) can encourage enjoyment by motivating students to engage in exploratory learning. In PBL, learners are presented with a real-life problem or scenario and are given the freedom to explore different aspects of the problem in order to come up with a solution or some other insight into the problem (Wood, 2003). In the following section, I will present some other things to consider when designing for collaborative learning in an online context.

Five stages of collaborative learning

In this section, I provide practical suggestions—in the form of a five-stage model—for teachers who want to design a course that will enable collaborative learning in an online context. The five-stage structure provides support for learners on their pedagogical journey, helps them to increase their collaborative learning skills, and ensures that they are motivated at each stage. Each stage is a prerequisite for the next, which means that when you are planning a course, you should plan for learners to complete the first stage before the second and so on. My suggestions are based on Salmon’s (2016) model, which is grounded in 50 years of student-centred research. I also draw on work by Cleveland-Innes on communities of inquiry (Vaughan, Cleveland-Innes & Garrison, 2013) and emotion in teaching (Cleveland-Innes & Wilton, 2018). 

Access
Early in your online course, you must provide learners with meaningful and purposeful reasons to take part. Physical (or digital) access to platforms, processes and systems must be in place early and technical issues ironed out so that learners remain motivated to spend time and effort on their learning throughout the course.

Team building
Trust is very important in collaborative learning contexts. For collaborative learning to take place, learners need to feel safe enough to fail, and to suggest and discuss ideas and strategies without fear. Hence, learners should belong to the same groups for the duration of the course and some time at the start of the course should be devoted to establishing identities and creating community within the group. A mini group project, such as creating an introductory presentation, that takes place before the course proper commences is a great way to let a group practice working together and to develop connections.

Information exchange
Once motivation and trust have been established, it is time to start moving on to some traditional learning activities. At this stage, there should be a strong focus on learning outcomes and pedagogical objectives so that learners can understand what is expected of them. There should be increased interaction between groups of learners. The teacher should encourage groups to meet often in order to inspire collaboration (learning together) rather than cooperation (dividing and conquering tasks).

Knowledge construction
At this stage, the teacher can start to introduce more complex learning activities that involve critical thinking, judging and evaluation. These activities should have group goals, or outcomes, and should be designed so that learners start to become contributors as well as consumers of knowledge. If you have successfully activated each of the previous stages, learners should feel safe enough to demonstrate their creativity, discovery and innovation and should have faith in their own capabilities. Trust them to take responsibility for their own and their group’s learning at this stage and emphasise the enjoyment of learning.

Review
The final stage should allow the learners to reflect and critique their pedagogical journey—not just a final exam. The purpose here is to encourage students to reflect not only on what they have learnt but how they have learnt it. This meta-cognitive reflection will help them become more self-aware and is an important part of becoming a collaborative learner.

The role of teachers in collaborative learning

One of the central tenets of a constructivist approach to learning is that teachers do not drive learning (McMahon, 1997). We do not—and cannot—transmit knowledge into learners’ minds. We can create situations, environments and events where learning can take place. And we can give learners the tools, resources and confidence to learn by themselves and, more importantly, to learn together. But we cannot make them learn. In the five-stage model above, the teacher is not so much an instructor as a facilitator. She takes part in the learning process by providing resources, asking probing questions, supporting discussions, and encouraging students to explore ideas and issues rather than just completing assignments as quickly as possible.

This raises some questions about the role and the importance of the teacher in collaborative learning (and in learning in general). If learning takes place in communities of enquiry where the teacher takes a step back, what is the teacher’s value? Is she relegated to curating resources, publishing course information, and reviewing assignments? What about teaching?

A colleague reflected on just this point when she told me how Lasse Åberg, a famous Swedish artist, explained that everything he learned at art school, he learned from the other students, from the creative milieu, and not, as one might expect, from the teachers. My colleague felt dishearten by this story, as if Åberg’s story made teachers somehow redundant.

But, for me, Lasse Åberg’s story does not illustrate the redundancy of teachers. Rather, it illustrates that, teaching, if done well, might be almost invisible. (And this applies whether we are in an online, offline or blended learning context.) Rather than a traditional teaching role (transmitting knowledge) the contemporary teacher must focus on facilitation. This means creating opportunities or situations for learning. It means putting the building blocks in place to support learning. And it means creating positive emotions around learning.

Our role is to facilitate learning. To push learners in the right direction. To ask important questions. To probe. To disturb the status quo and make learners think anew. To give learners the confidence to try and fail and, hence, to learn. If we do this well, it might feel like we do nothing at all and that the learners have done it all themselves. So, Lasse Åberg’s teachers, far from being unimportant, performed perhaps the most important teaching role of all. They appeared to be unimportant while learning went on all around them.

Conclusion

In this paper, I have outlined one of the challenges of online learning contexts—namely that learners who are physically and socially separated lose the ability to learn collaboratively. In order to overcome this challenge, I have suggested a five-stage model to help teachers to design online learning contexts in which collaborative learning can, indeed, take place. It is worth noting that this model could equally well be used in offline or blended learning contexts in order to encourage the kind of learning in which learners progress through Perry’s stages of intellectual and ethical development (King, 1978). Finally, I have reflected on the role of the teacher in collaborative learning contexts and suggested that, it is not only learning that needs to be reconceptualised in online collaborative learning contexts. Teaching can look more like facilitation than instruction when learning is collaborative, which might well be a challenge to a teacher’s sense of identity.

---

References

Brindley, J. E. & Walti, C. (2009). View of Creating Effective Collaborative Learning Groups in an Online Environment, The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, [e-journal] vol. June, Available Online: http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/675/1271 [Accessed 20 May 2020].

Cleveland-Innes, M. & Wilton, D. (2018). Guide to Blended Learning, [e-book], Available Online: http://www.col.org [Accessed 20 May 2020].

Cooper, J. & Robinson, P. (1998). Small Group Instruction in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology, Journal of College Science Teaching, vol. 27, p.383.

Educational Broadcasting Corporation. (2004). Constructivism as a Paradigm for Teaching and Learning, WNET | Concept to Classroom, Available Online: https://www.thirteen.org/edonline/concept2class/constructivism/index.html [Accessed 18 May 2020].

Gerlach, J. M. (1994). Is This Collaboration?, in K. Bosworth & S. J. Hamilton (eds), Collaborative Learning: Underlying Processes and Effective Techniques, New Directions for Teaching and Learning, Jossey-Bass.

Jones, B. D. & Egley, R. J. (2007). Learning to Take Tests or Learning for Understanding? Teachers’ Beliefs about Test-Based Accountability, The Educational Forum, vol. 71, pp.232–248.

King, P. M. (1978). William Perry’s Theory of Intellectual and Ethical Development, New Directions for Student Services, vol. 4, pp.35–51.

McMahon, M. (1997). Social Constructivism and the World Wide Web – A Paradigm for Learning, in Ascilate ’97, 1997.

Oddone, K. (2019). Personal Learning Networks: Theory and Practice, Available Online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8mJX5n3IEg.

Salmon, G. (2016). Carpe Diem – 5 Stage Model, Available Online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILCnUgfeuoc.

Sjøberg, S. (2007). Constructivism and Learning, in E. Baker, B. McGaw, & Peterson P (eds), International Encyclopaedia of Education, 3rd edition., [e-book] Oxford: Elsevier, Available Online: http://folk.uio.no/sveinsj/Constructivism_and_learning_Sjoberg.pdf [Accessed 18 May 2020].

Vaughan, N. D., Cleveland-Innes, M. & Garrison, D. R. (2013). The Community of Inquiry Conceptual Framework, in Teaching in Blended Learning Environments: Creating and Sustaining Communities of Inquiry, [e-book] Edmonton: AU Press, Available Online: https://www.aupress.ca/books/120229-teaching-in-blended-learning-environments/ [Accessed 20 May 2020].

Wood, D. F. (2003). Problem Based Learning, British Medical Journal, p.326:328.