Cooperative and collaborative learning techniques can approximately double the rate of learning (Wiliam, 2018). They also enable development of speaking, listening, planning and relational skills (Baines et al, 2015). Understandably, cooperative / collaborative techniques have wide appeal to teachers: In 1993, 62% of middle school teachers reported sustained use of cooperative learning techniques (Puma et al, 1993). By 1998, 81% of teachers reported daily use of cooperative techniques (Antil et al, 1998). However, the Education Endowment Foundation’s ‘Collaborative Learning Approaches’ report (EEF, 2021) is less positive: They report an impact of 5 extra months of learning per academic year, however, the evidence strength is low. The low evidence strength results from the low number of recent papers, lack of independent evaluation, non-independent evaluations giving elevated outcomes and the large unexplained variation between studies. As always, the EEF evaluation leads to more questions that need to be addressed:
A. Does peer-reviewed evidence exist that demonstrates that collaborative / cooperative strategies support more effective and / or efficient learning than individual learning?
B. Is there a theoretical framework that can be used to understand the outcomes of studies (and so support teachers in implementing cooperative / collaborative strategies)?
C. If evidence exists, what conditions is success contingent upon?
Of the 107 studies passing the inclusion criteria in the EEF report, 30 had large effect sizes related to achievement and 17 had negative effect sizes. For studies performed in 105 primary schools, the equivalent numbers were 19 and 20 respectively. The range in outcomes is worrying. Similarly, reputable researchers who publish in independently peer-reviewed journals see a range of effect sizes. For example, Robert Slavin, a lead researcher in this domain, has reported 20 effect sizes over a 30-year period. Two of the effect sizes were very negative, whereas others were positive. However, the large majority of the positive effect sizes were less than 0.2 (low impact). Such variability could be interpreted to mean that collaborative learning can have a positive effect. However, the high proportion of negative / neutral / low size effects demonstrates that successful use of collaborative / cooperative techniques is complex (see also, Slavin, 2010). Also, given that only one study published since 2010 has had a large positive effect, we might tentatively conclude that historical studies were unreliable; this would be aligned with the EEF’s own conclusions. On a more positive note, cooperative learning almost always improves affective outcomes (Slavin, 2010; Baines et al, 2015); students feel more successful, enjoy working in groups and like subjects where group work is used. However, this may pander to what students want, rather than what they need.
Collaborative cognitive load
Sweller’s cognitive load theory (e.g. Sweller, 2019) has largely been associated with learning by individuals. It describes selection of environmental information, processing alongside existing knowledge in the working memory (WM) before encoding and consolidation in the long-term memory (LTM). Associated with this are a variety of instructional effects which influence the effectiveness of learning. When collaborative / cooperative learning is viewed through the lens of cognitive load theory we gain insights into factors that affect learning in groups and why outcomes of studies are inconsistent (Kirschner et al, 2018).
Application of cognitive load theory to collaborative / cooperative learning hinges on the distinction between biologically primary and biologically secondary knowledge as described by Geary (Geray, 2008; Geary 2012; Geary et al, 2016). Information that humans have evolved to acquire automatically is biologically primary knowledge. This category includes general problem-solving strategies, communicating through speaking and listening and social relations. Biologically secondary knowledge is domain specific and includes almost everything that students are taught in their formal education. Critically, biologically primary knowledge is acquired with very little effort, very little load on the working memory and doesn’t require explicit instruction. By comparison, a great deal of effort is required to learn biologically secondary knowledge, explicit instruction is required (Kirschner et al, 2006; Sweller et al, 2007).
It was proposed that, under some circumstances, biologically primary knowledge associated with cooperative / collaborative learning could be used to improve acquisition of biologically secondary knowledge; if this is the case, cooperative / collaborative strategies should improve the efficiency and effectiveness of learning because the intrinsic cognitive load on the working memory of individuals is reduced. However, we also need to consider extraneous cognitive load on working memories caused by the need for group coordination; it is the balance between the reduced load on individual working memories caused by collaboration and the increased extraneous cognitive load caused by group coordination and communication that determines the value of collaboration in a specific context (Kirschner et al, 2009).
It was suggested that:
a. If intrinsic load of the task is low, do not use collaborative / cooperative strategies; the extraneous cognitive load due to communication and coordination needs will most likely decrease the effectiveness and efficiency of learning.
b. If the intrinsic load of the task is too high for one person to manage, consider using collaborative / cooperative strategies to reduce the intrinsic load borne by individuals. Care should be taken to try to minimise the extraneous load caused by coordination and communication needs (Kirschner et al, 2018).
The complexity of the task was also an important point raised by teachers (Gillies et al, 2010). Where tasks are challenging or wicked (Marshall, 2008) because they are open-ended or discovery based, students are inclined to share and discuss information in order to solve the problem. Tame problems negated the impact positive effects of collaborative / cooperative learning activities.
Nokes et al also considered the question of when to use collaborative learning as opposed to individual learning and recognise that it is a complex issue (Nokes et al, 2015).
A model for understanding collaborative / cooperative strategies rooted in cognitive science should prove popular with educators as teachers are positive about cognitive science strategies (Perry et al, 2021). Over 80% of contributors to the study considered cognitive science as central to their approach, had received training and thought that the cognitive science strategies were supported by robust scientific evidence. The same document identified significant diversity in how cognitive science strategies are applied and that teachers face difficulties in understanding and implementing strategies. Willingham also warned that Principals are less confident in their teachers’ knowledge (Willingham, 2018). Given that our understanding of collaborative cognitive load is in its infancy, the findings of Perry et al and Willingham and the complexity of outcomes from studies into collaborative / cooperative learning we should proceed cautiously to avoid negative effects caused by lack of understanding.
Conditions for successful collaborative work.
If we turn our attention to identifying conditions that success is contingent upon, there are some indications in the literature. Slavin (2010) found that it is important that students don’t just do something together (a common informal structure), they must learn something as a team. The teams require group goals and individual accountability; the success of the group must depend on every team member learning something rather than just doing something. This message was reinforced by William, who is very supportive of the work from Slavin’s research group (Wiliam, 2018). The focus on every team member learning rather than completing something is key. Where the task is to complete a task (e.g. a worksheet or solve a problem) the less able students can be perceived as a barrier and they can get ignored. Where the purpose is for everybody to learn something, team members are more motivated to explain concepts to each other; the participants that gain the most are those that give and receive elaborative explanations. (Slavin, 2010). Careful planning of activities to ensure that teams have common goals and individual accountability is critical, as is the avoidance of social loafing and other passive behaviours.
As alluded to above, the intrinsic cognitive load related to the task and the extraneous cognitive load related to communication and group corordination is key (Kirschner et al, 2009). For cooperative / collaborative learning to be beneficial, the benefits of sharing the intrinsic cognitive load of the task between group members must outweigh the cognitive costs of communicating and coordinating the group. The nature of the task must therefore be given careful consideration. The challenge within the task must be such that there is a benefit to members if they communicate and share information (Gillies et al, 2010); it is the frequency of task-related interactions that determines gains in assessments and conceptual understanding (Cohen et al, 1999). Ultimately, the type of task determines the extent of interactions which determines achievement gains (Gillies, 2010). From Tom Sherrington’s perspective, tasks would fall into the challenging tasks that build the canopy of the trees in the learning rainforest (Sherrington, 2017).
The use of collaborative cognitive load theory to explain some of the variation in impact of collaborative / cooperative approaches hinged on biologically primary knowledge being used to support learning of biologically secondary information. However, several groups have found that students need to be taught how to cooperate (for example, Baines et al, 2015; Gillies et al, 2010). The skills require explicit teaching over a number of lessons; teachers need to carefully consider whether their cooperative lesson will focus on skills acquisition or learning of course content. If the skills are taught then students exhibit more on-task behaviour, give more detailed explanations and assistance and attained higher learning outcomes (Gillies et al, 2010).
The complexity of the planning, and the criteria for success, associated with cooperative / collaborative learning would make it prudent to provide high levels of support for teachers; this contributes to successful and impactful implementation (Baines et al, 2015). There needs to be a clear commitment from senior leaders to support teachers in implementing these strategies if they are to be used. This includes regular training from a specialist, meeting time allocated to learning from each other and protected planning time. These are significant commitments with substantial opportunity costs.
Concluding remarks.
At this point in time, the studies that address cooperative / collaborative learning present mixed results. There are multiple reasons for this including study design and the complexity of collaborative / cooperative learning. The complexity of the subject means that very few teachers will currently have the ability to deliver cooperative / collaborative learning in an impactful way; the line of demarcation for acceptable performance is far to the right on the distribution of all staff (see Shifting lines: does everything work somewhere? – A Chemical Orthodoxy for a great blog on this). The uncertainty around the evidence, and therefore the quality of teacher training and other development activities, makes it unlikely that the majority of staff could support impactful cooperative / collaborative learning.
The additional planning required for collaborative / cooperative learning comes with a substantial opportunity cost as time will not be used for driving other initiatives that have greater certainty of positively impacting on student outcomes and therefore futures. When we factor in the loss of learning time allocated to learning the subject so time can be used to develop the necessary skills, it is hard to justify the use of collaborative / cooperative learning techniques at this point. For the approach to become more attractive, the quality of research needs to improve and clearly identify the factors that ensure success and how these factors might be implemented in the classroom.
References
Antil, L. R., Jenkins, J. R., Wayne, S., & Vadasy, P. F. (1998). Cooperative learning: Prevalence, conceptualizations, and the relation between research and practice. American Educational Research Journal, 35(3), 419–454.
Baines E, Blatchford P and Webster R (2015) The challenges of implementing group work in primary school classrooms and including pupils with special educational needs (online) Available at: http://maximisingtas.co.uk/assets/content/education-3-13.-group-work.pdf (accessed 29th July 2023).
Cohen E. G, Lotan R. A, Scarloss B. A & Arellano A. R (1999) Complex instruction: Equity in cooperative learning classrooms, Theory Into Practice, 38:2, 80-86, DOI:10.1080/00405849909543836
Education Endowment Foundation (last updated July, 2021) Collaborative learning approaches (publication) Available at: https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/education-evidence/teaching-learning-toolkit/collaborative-learning-approaches#nav-what-is-it (accessed 29th July 2023).
Geary, D. (2008). An evolutionarily informed education science. Educational Psychologist, 43, 179–195.
Geary, D. (2012). Evolutionary Educational Psychology. In K. Harris, S. Graham, & T. Urdan (Eds.), APA Educational Psychology Handbook (Vol. 1, pp. 597–621). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
Geary, D., & Berch, D. (2016). Evolution and children's cognitive and academic development. In D. Geary & D. Berch (Eds.), Evolutionary perspectives on child development and education (pp. 217–249). Switzerland: Springer.
Gillies, R. M., & Boyle, M. (2010). Teachers' reflections on cooperative learning: Issues of implementation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 933–940. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.10.034
Kirschner, P., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41, 75–86.
Kirschner F, Paas F and Kirschner P (2009) A cognitive load approach to collaborative learning: United brains for complex tasks (online) Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225385080_A_Cognitive_Load_Approach_to_Collaborative_Learning_United_Brains_for_Complex_Tasks (accessed 29th July 2023).
Kirschner P et al. (2018) From Cognitive Load Theory to Collaborative Cognitive Load Theory (online) Available at: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs11412-018-9277-y.pdf (accessed 29th July 2023).
Marshall, T. (2008). Wicked Problems. In: Erlhoff, M., Marshall, T. (eds) Design Dictionary. Board of International Research in Design. Birkhäuser Basel. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7643-8140-0_304
Nokes-Malach, T. J., Richey, J. E., & Gadgil, S. (2015). When is it better to learn together? Insights from research on collaborative learning. Educational Psychology Review, 27, 645-656. DOI: 10.1007/s10648-015-9312-8
Paas F and Sweller J (2012) An Evolutionary Upgrade of Cognitive Load Theory: Using the Human Motor System and Collaboration to Support the Learning of Complex Cognitive Tasks (online) Available at: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10648-011-9179-2.pdf (accessed 29th July 2023).
Perry, T., Lea, R., Jørgensen, C. R., Cordingley, P., Shapiro, K., & Youdell, D. (2021). Cognitive Science in the Classroom. London: Education Endowment Foundation (EEF).
Puma, M. J., Jones, C. C., Rock, D., & Fernandez, R. (1993). Prospects: The congressionally mandated study of educational growth and opportunity. Interim Report. Bethesda, MD: Abt.
Robyn M. Gillies (1999). The Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 92, No. 6 (Jul. - Aug., 1999), pp. 357-363. Published By: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
Sherrington, T (2017). The learning rainforest great teaching in real classrooms. John Catt Educational.
Slavin R (2010) Co-operative learning: What makes group-work work? (online) Available at: http://www.curee.co.uk/files/publication/%5Bsite-timestamp%5D/Slavin%20%282010%29%20Cooperative%20learning.pdf (accessed 29th July 2023).
Sweller, J., & Sweller, S. (2006). Natural information processing systems. Evolutionary Psychology, 4, 434–458.
Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J.J.G. & Paas, F. Cognitive Architecture and Instructional Design: 20 Years Later. Educ Psychol Rev 31, 261–292 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09465-5
Wiliam D (2018) Collaborative Learning (video) Available at: https://education.gov.scot/improvement/learning-resources/dylan-wiliam-collaborative-learning (accessed 29th July 2023).
Willingham D (2018) Unlocking the science of how kids think. Education Next. Summer 2018. Vol.18 No.3 (online) Available at https://www.educationnext.org/unlocking-science-how-kids-think-new-proposal-for-reforming-teacher-education/ (accessed 21 August 2022).
Comments