Team 4 Rebuttal:

Our opposition stated that social loafing could be solved with smaller groups and members being aware of each other’s contributions. As one of us is a teacher, we can affirm that this is not always a solution to social loafing. In fact, oftentimes, the smaller the group, the more work that the other members have to do because of one member “loafing”.

Our opposition stated that some students benefit from online learning settings while others benefit more in face-to-face settings. While this is true, students should be versatile enough to know how to best meet their own individual learning styles within the given contexts. CSCL can be valuable, and we don’t argue that, but it is not valuable for everyone. In fact, our opposition even acknowledged that face-to-face collaboration is not for every student.

Our opposition argued that we should encourage students with mental issues to collaborate. We don’t disagree that all students should be encouraged to collaborate from time to time, but we fail to see how forcing students to do things under the guise that “they will be expected to do this in the real world” is an argument with considerable merit. There are too many things we ask students to do in the classroom that actually do not translate into the workplace at all.

Additionally, the opposition agreed that learning individually is not less effective than learning collaboratively. In saying this, one could infer that they believe that learning individually and learning in collaboration have, at the very least, the same efficacy.

Lastly, we agree with the point that more research must be done, and progress should not be halted for the sake of waiting on something more effective to come along. We do, however, maintain that collaborative learning has not yet proven itself to be superior to individual learning. There is simply not enough evidence to prove this as a universal truth for all learners (Stahl 2016).

Stahl, G. (2016). GLOBAL INTRODUCTION TO CSCL. [S.l.], LULU COM.

.

This looks like an accidental repeat. :) Just didn't want to lose points for not responding.

We don't believe that collaboration has no purpose in a classroom; we just don't believe it should be the main focus of energy for the majority of a class. You note that positive interdependence can positively affect student outcomes, but Johnson and Johnson also say that face-to-face interaction is a large factor in creating those positive outcomes (1994). Seeing as how more and more learning spaces are entering an online platform, the kind of constant collaboration you are arguing for just may not be feasible.

Johnson, R. T., & Johnson, D. W. (1994). An overview of cooperative learning. In J. Thousand, A. Villa, & A. Nevin (Eds.), Creativity and collaborative learning.

I think this argument is perfectly valid in American culture today, even if we do largely derive from the "self-made man" ideology. We have come to value engaging in community and contribution as part of being citizens.

However, I think this point fails to completely take other cultures into account. For example, in parts of Asia, an individualistic knowledge-building culture is the norm. In many cases, competitiveness breeds academic excellence. This is not to say that collaborative learning could not be helpful for these students, but it is ethnocentric and culturally indifferent to have other cultures subscribe to our western standards. Perhaps we could learn a bit from their norms as they learn a bit from ours.

It is obvious that discourse is the traditional medium of knowledge building. After all, in order for knowledge to be transferred, a communication must take place. And yes, communication is more than words and their relationship with other words, and gestures, pauses, etc. Meaning is a "shared, collaborative, interactive achievement," but this is true of all communication (Stahl, 2002). We fail to see how this specifically prescribes the ideal learning situation.

Regarding cognitive artifacts, we also agree that it can impact knowledge-building. However, even Stahl admits that "it is often possible for individuals who have mastered certain skills (cognitive artifacts) to develop related knowledge and artifacts on their own" (2002). And isn't that the goal of all learning? We want our students to take something personal away from it and be able to apply it in the real world where they often may not have group support.

Stahl, G. (2002). Contributions to a theoretical framework for CSCL. Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning: Foundations for a CSCL Community, International Society of the Learning Sciences.

In this same article, Johnson and Johnson also point out that there are psychologists who believe there are conditions under which individual efforts and competition can be an asset to students (2009). First, winning must not be the ultimate goal. Second, everyone in the class must have a chance of winning. Lastly, there is clear criteria for how to succeed (Johnson and Johnson, 2009). As teachers, we make these things possible by setting a positive classroom environment that encourages a growth mindset and has clear expectations for grading and assessment (rubrics, checklists, etc). We teach kids that taking risks can sometimes teach you more than playing it safe.

The authors also note that cooperative learning is not always feasible for a number of reasons. Sometimes it is expensive or too burdensome to plan logistically. Other times, the demeanor of your students makes cooperative learning close to impossible (Johnson and Johnson, 2009).

Furthermore, they also state that "individualistic efforts can supplement cooperative efforts", even and especially when the individual content can play a role later in cooperative learning (Johnson and Johnson, 2009). This means that both types of learning have value; however, collaboration is incidental to the learning of facts and concepts. We are not saying it cannot enhance instruction, but we are saying that primarily individualized learning is superior.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An Educational Psychology Success Story: Social Interdependence Theory and Cooperative Learning. Educational Researcher, 38(5), 365–379

I agree that placing kids in a group does not assure interaction, but isn’t placing and fostering interaction with design question and answers a focus on the subject matter?

I see what you mean, but the social nature of learning can be interpreted as incidental given that the tasks focus on subject matter. Therefore, its core was centered on the subject matter to build knowledge. Collaboration aids the process, but it is the subject matter that will ultimately create the learning because “the expected social interaction does not always occur” (Kreijns, Kirschner et al. 2013)

Kreijns, K., P. A. Kirschner, et al. (2013). "Social Aspects of CSCL Environments: A Research Framework." Educational Psychologist 48(4): 229-242.

More research needs to be conducted on the effectiveness of collaborative and individual learning. The vast majority of collaborative learning studies in labs are performed on adults (Nokes-Malach, Richey et al. 2015). Adult learning theory is very different than children’s learning theory, so that is a current weakness of the research. Furthermore, classroom evidence is not entirely convincing that collaboration is always the most effective method of knowledge-building. In fact, the results are mixed. Some evidence even shows that collaborative inhibition is often an issue due to cognitive load and retrieval disruption (Nokes-Malach, Richey et al. 2015). This shows that, insofar as lab and classroom experiments go, there is no conclusive evidence that collaboration is the best method or even a preferred method of knowledge-building.

References:

Nokes-Malach, T. J., J. E. Richey, et al. (2015). "When is it better to learn together? Insights from research on collaborative learning." Educational Psychology Review 27(4): 645-656.

Roger, T. and D. W. Johnson (1994). "An overview of cooperative learning." Creativity and collaborative learning.

Stahl, G. (2002). Contributions to a theoretical framework for CSCL. Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning: Foundations for a CSCL Community, International Society of the Learning Sciences.

Stahl, G. K., Maznevski, M. L., Voigt, A., & Jonsen, K. (2010). Unraveling the effects of cultural diversity in teams: A meta-analysis of research on multicultural work groups. Journal of international business studies, 41(4), 690-709.

To believe that collaboration is a substantial asset to knowledge-building is giving collaboration too much credit. Collaborative learning has its merits, and no one would reasonably argue that its social nature does not aid knowledge-building; however, a student’s cognitive experience of knowledge-building is primarily achieved at the individual level. Stahl (2002) notes that knowledge building “must pay due regard and respect to essential roles of both collaborative groups and their individual members” (p. 7). Ultimately, at its best, collaboration aids the learning process. As its worst, collaborative inhibition causes its students to actually learn less than they would in an individual setting.

Roger and Johnson (1994) noted that the quality of peer relationships “has widespread and powerful impact on individuals’ cognitive and social development” (p. 5). This is an advantage when the quality of peer relationships is good, but when they are not, it has to be assumed that the adverse can also occur. The healthier the relationships, the more easily the group works together. However, “states of depression, anxiety, guilt, shame, and anger decrease the energy available to contribute to a cooperative effort” (p. 9). It cannot always be assumed that students, either in a K12 classroom or adult learning settings, are in states where collaborative learning would be beneficial. For an individual suffering from them, social anxiety, depression, and self-consciousness can negatively impact even the most well-intentioned collaborative efforts.

Face to face interaction is more likely to occur and aid in academic learning in a physical classroom than in an online environment, therefore, collaboration is forced to be incidental in knowledge building because it can never be the sole focus in an online environment. In his “five elements of cooperative learning”, Stahl notes that face-to-face interaction must occur (Stahl, Maznevski et al. 2010). It just isn’t happening in classes like ours. CSCL designers should focus on facilitating more meaningful online collaboration in order for all five elements of collaborative knowledge-building to be met.

One’s academic success or failure should not solely depend on the rest of the group due to the issues such as social loafing (Stahl, Maznevski et al. 2010; Nokes-Malach, Richey et al. 2015). We have all been part of a group project where one person does not pull their weight. Whether that is due to the lack of role assignments or just sheer laziness or apathy, it usually ends up creating a negative effect by detracting from the enjoyment of the project for the rest of the team members who are making up for the slack. The contributing team members grow resentful, and their intrinsic motivation (to learn for the sake of learning) fizzles out and becomes solely replaced by the extrinsic motivation of a grade. As a result, negative collaborative conditions can take hold which can lead to reduced individual efforts and diminished group success.