When delving into this Topic 3 it became quickly apparent that there are many terms that are often used interchangeably. Yet a closer look at the definitions revealed decisive differences such as between “network” and “community” as explained by Kay Oddone in her YouTube video PLNs Theory and Practice. It is also advisable to make a distinction in the use of “collaborative” and “cooperative”. Stodolsky[i] described five types of peer instructional work groups. The both ends of this spectrum were paraphrased by Shibley and Zimmaro[ii] as follows:
- In a completely cooperative group, students work together toward a common goal. Members share all aspects of the group process and every individual is expected to contribute to the group’s task. The evaluation is based on the group product, not individual accomplishments.
- In a collaborative group, students have individual goals, which are usually similar, but work together in a face-to-face group. Small work groups are formed in which students have individual tasks to accomplish but are required to assist one another.
Shibley and Zimmaro’s interpretation of Stodolsky are in particular interesting for chemistry teachers (such as me) as they apply and analyze collaborative learning in the context of laboratory chemistry courses. A lot of discussion around collaborative learning focuses on the “why” and ways to explain the wider benefit to the students. Education in large parts of the world still follows the same traditional scheme of the teacher presenting the subject in the one or the other way, followed by a period of mostly individual studying to prepare for the final exam. In most cases collaborative learning is limited to “group work”. Students are thus often not familiar with this teaching and learning approach. But one aspect that I was missing in most discussion is the convenience factor. Traditional teaching in the sense as described above means the teacher feeds the students with pre-prepared bits and pieces which is convenient for the student. Developing and preparing the subject yourself might feel more cumbersome – at least in some cases. When looking into ways to make collaborative learning more fun I came across the concept of gamification[iii]. Gamification is the use of features such as rewarding points and achievement badges to engage a target audience and encourage desired behaviors. Like in computer games, gratification mechanisms promote the motivation of the students. If you might wonder whether this might be appliable only under very special circumstances this recent example might change your view: Making Learning Fun: Gaming in Radiology Education.[iv]
[i] Stodolsky, S. S. In The Social Context of Interaction: Group Organization and Group Processes; Peterson, P. L.; Wilkinson, L. C.; Hallinan, M., Eds.; Academic: San Diego, CA, 1984 pp 107–124.
[ii] Ivan A. Shibley Jr. and Dawn M. Zimmaro. The Influence of Collaborative Learning on Student Attitudes and Performance in an Introductory Chemistry Laboratory. Journal of Chemical Education 2002, 79, 745-748.
[iii] Cen Li, Zhijiang Dong, Roland H. Untch, and Michael Chasteen. Engaging Computer Science Students through Gamification in an Online Social Network Based Collaborative Learning Environment.International Journal of Information and Education Technology. 2013, 3, 72-77.
[iv] Omer Awan et al. Making Learning Fun: Gaming in Radiology Education. Academic Radiology 2019, 26, 1127-1136.
