SISLT CSCL
[Team3/4] Collaboration is a substantial asset in building new knowledge.
Some say that the social nature of learning provides natural mechanisms and supports for developing new ideas, integrating new concepts and building new competencies. Designers of CSCL should focus on making sure that students interact effectively and have a positive social experience during their lessons. Others say that though students learn with and from each other, this social nature of learning is incidental to the primary tasks of examining and making sense of the subject matter. Designers of CSCL should focus on making sure that students interact effectively with the subject matter and use social interaction as a way to reinforce the direct learning that students do in the subject matter. What is your argument? Provide your reasoning with evidence.
Team3: Yes, it is substantial
Side Score: 15
|
 |
Team4: No, it is incidental
Side Score: 13
|
|
|
|
|
When talking about CSCL developing a higher achievement level, it is important to also think outside the academic realm. For example, in the article "An Overview of Cooperative Learning" by Roger T. and David W. Johnson, the authors state, " The more socially skillful students are and the more attention teachers pay to teaching and rewarding the use of social skills, the higher the achievement that can be expected within cooperative learning groups." (Johnson 1994). I agree and firmly believe that when social skills are improved, the ability to attain empathy and new knowledge is also strengthened. Academically speaking, placing students in a group does not guarantee interaction. However, placing students in a group and fostering social interaction with questions and projects that are designed for every member to play a role, that will develop social skills to help in the workforce and help obtain new knowledge about the content area. These social skills are just as important to develop interdependence. Johnson, R. T., & Johnson, D. W. (1994). An overview of cooperative learning. In J. Thousand, A. Villa, & A. Nevin (Eds.), Creativity and collaborative learning. Side: Team3: Yes, it is substantial
From the teacher point of view, often times competition is promoted in the classroom as an external incentive for students to perform well against their peers. However, cooperative learning is said to have a higher effect. As stated in research by David W. and Roger T. Johnson in the article "An Educational Success Story", the authors study the effects of competition versus cooperative learning. They find, "Cooperative experiences promote more frequent insight into and use of higher cognitive and moral reasoning strategies than do competitors or participants working individualistically." (Johnson and Johnson 2009). While teachers want to motivate their students, a higher understanding of the material will be developed when group members have to work together to achieve a common goal. New and unique experiences are creating that force students to problem solve rather than race against a time clock. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An Educational Psychology Success Story: Social Interdependence Theory and Cooperative Learning. Educational Researcher, 38(5), 365–379 Side: Team3: Yes, it is substantial
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 Side: Team4: No, it is incidental
Personally, I think it is of the utmost importance to teach children and adults the value of others' opinions. When learning through collaborative spaces, this allows us to take on the thoughts and feelings of others, learning how to adapt and problem solve. We are raised to see differences as a positive, yet our learning environment does not always do so. As mentioned in the "Contributions to a Theoretical Framework for CSCL" article by Gerry Stahl, "Collaborative knowledge building is structured by the intertwining of group and personal perspectives. One should neither ignore nor fixate upon the role of individual minds, but see them in interaction with group understandings." (Stahl 2002). As mentioned in the research, collaborative learning promotes compromise. As citizens and children of this nation, isn't that what we want kids to grow up learning? IF CSCL is going to give people the opportunity for growth and acceptance, I am definitely in support of that. Stahl, G. (2002). Contributions to a theoretical framework for CSCL. In Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning: Foundations for a CSCL Community (pp. 62–71). International Society of the Learning Sciences. Side: Team3: Yes, it is substantial
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. Side: Team4: No, it is incidental
I believe that CSCL can be most effective if it is designed for fostering social interaction, according to Bannan (2002), online learning, can help students to construct interaction by sharing information related to the course content, moreover, in my opinion, they can perceive collaborative learning activities as frustrating or satisfying experience. I believe that in online learning an effective experience can be constructed if they share similar goals and by effective organizations of the group. Side: Team3: Yes, it is substantial
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. Side: Team4: No, it is incidental
The way students interact with each other is an important subject in CSCL, that should get attention alongside devoting time to helping teachers to create appropriate interaction between students and materials, in the article titled” an overview of cooperative learning” authors have spoken about how students should interact with each other to get benefits from cooperative learning, I agree and firmly believe that within cooperative learning students learning is affected through various ways as stated by Johnson at al (1994), like positive interdependence, individual accountability and interpersonal and small group skills, in all of them how students interact with each other socially has been intensified, because students learning in cooperative learning is affected by another group member directly or indirectly, so, the ability of students in grouping affect the outcomes of cooperative learning, and is considered as promotive for constructing positive relationships. for instance, students with disabilities in groups according to inclusion are liked, accepted and chosen as friends, which results in “creativity”, “self-esteem”, “understand interdependence” (Johnson et al, 1994). however, in my opinion the subject of the material is also an important item in cooperative learning that should be considered. Johnson, R. T., & Johnson, D. W. (1994). An overview of cooperative learning. In J. Thousand, A. Villa, & A. Nevin (Eds.), Creativity and collaborative learning. Side: Team3: Yes, it is substantial
The way students interact with each other is an important subject in CSCL, that should get attention alongside devoting time to helping teachers to create appropriate interaction between students and materials, in the article titled” an overview of cooperative learning” authors have spoken about how students should interact with each other to get benefits from cooperative learning, I agree and firmly believe that within cooperative learning students learning is affected through various ways as stated by Johnson at al (1994), like positive interdependence, individual accountability and interpersonal and small group skills, in all of them how students interact with each other socially has been intensified, because students learning in cooperative learning is affected by another group member directly or indirectly, so, the ability of students in grouping affect the outcomes of cooperative learning, and is considered as promotive for constructing positive relationships. for instance, students with disabilities in groups according to inclusion are liked, accepted and chosen as friends, which results in “creativity”, “self-esteem”, “understand interdependence” (Johnson et al, 1994). however, in my opinion the subject of the material is also an important item in cooperative learning that should be considered. Johnson, R. T., & Johnson, D. W. (1994). An overview of cooperative learning. In J. Thousand, A. Villa, & A. Nevin (Eds.), Creativity and collaborative learning. Side: Team3: Yes, it is substantial
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. Side: Team4: No, it is incidental
One of the consequence of cooperative learning is knowledge building which is according to Stahl (2002) in comparison to learning a “tangible” result of cooperation among students, it is also mediated through “discourse” and “artifact”, discourse is a traditional medium of knowledge building, I agree and firmly believe that discourse can be utilized as an motivative method encourage progressive communication between students and students teachers, In my opinion the type of discourse and emotive participation of teachers can result in building collaborative knowledge. Knowledge building is also mediated by artifacts, which can play pivotal role in CSCL, I believe that artifacts are constructive in cooperative learning because the results of using artifacts can be used in evaluating how learning has taken place and to judge its success, for instance: technological artifacts like web apps can provide communication media that support collaboration, or the group efforts may be resulted in constructing of an artifact like: work of art, design, or a report. Stahl, G. (2002). Contributions to a theoretical framework for CSCL. In Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning: Foundations for a CSCL Community (pp. 62–71). International Society of the Learning Sciences. Side: Team3: Yes, it is substantial
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. Side: Team4: No, it is incidental
Team 3 Rebuttal Statement While we acknowledge our opposing team had some valid statements, we still feel that overall CSCL is an essential building block for knowledge construction. Throughout our research, it is stated over and over again how CSCL is beginning to transform ordinary direct instruction, and create more meaningful experiences for students to engage in. To discuss some of our opponent’s points furthermore: Whether the lesson is developed for question and answers, the art of CSCL allows the social skills to automatically come into play. There is no need to develop anything but questions on the subject matter because the social interaction is natural to participate. With CSCL, we are taking away the need for a separate lesson and instead using our time in the classroom more efficiently and effectively.
In some cases, although individual learning makes students finish their homework quickly, others may not finish in class and plan to finish at home. Additionally, individual learning requires students to manage their time, which some students may not handle well. Teachers should spend time teaching study skills if necessary and should always provide a structure with individual learning. In group learning, on another hand, teachers explain expectations and assign different roles for each group member. Because students are monitored by their teachers, they work faster than they do individually. Overall, we should not consider individual learning superior to group learning. Although competitiveness breeds academic excellence, competitive individuals will have a more negative perception of their opponent’s personality if they lose compared to if they win. It expands the negative emotion among students and as a result, they cannot work with each other. Lastly, the talk of real world application must be addressed. With CSCL, students are able to communicate and manage their learning with others. This is preparing them for their later work in society in the work force. If we expect students to not use one another as a resource and learn individually, we are taking away their ability to problem solve without giving up. We are also taking away their ability to research and connect with others over similar topics. It is so important to give these skills as young individuals so that later in life, individuals and not isolated and confused trying to solve problems alone rather than asking for help. Overall, we encourage you to think about this. Is CSCL perfect? No. Does more research need to take place? Yes. But, it would be foolish to deny that CSCL has a positive outcome so far, and should be pursued in the future with hopes of bringing about new and interactive social learning standards for the future. Side: Team3: Yes, it is substantial
|
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. Side: Team4: No, it is incidental
It is true that one cannot collaborate with members who do not pull their weight. However, one might also say this is a failure for the setup of the project. "Positive interdependence states that team members should be linked to each other in such a way that each member cannot succeed unless the others succeed and/or that each member's work benefits the others." (Kreijins, Kirschner, Jochems 2003). Rather than say this interdependence creates a sense of laziness, this instead creates feelings of belonging and accomplishment knowing the task of the group is completed with the help of every perspective. Side: Team3: Yes, it is substantial
I am somehow disagreeing with this statement that one’s academic success or failure should not be dependent on the rest of the group because when people are working in the group they are unintentionally affected by another persons performance. Moreover, the reason for participating in the group is working with each other for reaching one goal. So, if group performance has decreased due to issues like social loafing it should be solved within team, and all team members should try to work prominently with each other to prevent such issues, one recommendation can be creating group with small number of participants so in this way all the member are aware of the activity of the rest of the team members, so In this way all team member are forced to do their duties and responsibilities. Side: Team3: Yes, it is substantial
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. Side: Team4: No, it is incidental
It is true that some learn better in a face to face environment. But not all. As Stahl also mentions, "Collaborative knowledge building is structured by the intertwining of group and personal perspectives. One should neither ignore nor fixate upon the role of individual minds, but see them in interaction with group understandings." (Stahl 2002). With this definition, Stahl mentions an important idea of being in a group. Some individuals will not feel as natural, free, or comfortable to speak in face to face settings, whereas CSCL gives people the platform to perform in a way that works best for them. Side: Team3: Yes, it is substantial
I disagree that face to face interaction is a prominent option in knowledge building, in Collaborative knowledge building focus is on understanding learning process where personal understanding can not be built internally without social interaction. People need to participate in a social process and create new knowledge collaboratively, although face to face interaction cannot occur in online environments as physical classroom, other features are more likely to occur In online environment, that can compensate face to face interaction, for example in classes with large number of students, teacher can be in touch with all students in the same degree in online courses, moreover, all of them have equal access to course material. Side: Team3: Yes, it is substantial
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. Side: Team4: No, it is incidental
While it is never okay to force a student with these mental issues/thoughts to work with a group, you can't let fear keep you from playing the game. If we never ask individuals to work with one another, their role in society is directly diminished. We nee to encourage these collaborations and conversations at a young age to build successful citiizens in the workplace. The workforce relies on people interacting with one another, and no matter the mental state, individuals will have to learn to work together. Why not set them up for success by starting with CSCL in classrooms? Side: Team3: Yes, it is substantial
I agree. Also, as a teacher, there are special needs students who do not work well in group settings. I have a student in my class with autism. He is constantly taking kids pencils out of their hands, getting up and leaving the room, etc. While he is very bright, he doesn't work well in groups. Even after meeting with the SPED teachers, we agree that individualized instruction would benefit this student more and other students. I would also like to add that we do try to put him in groups, but it does but more workload on the others in the group. Side: Team4: No, it is incidental
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. Side: Team4: No, it is incidental
1
point
i disagree that learning individually is less effective, Although in knowledge building achievements may differ, one of its bases is that the process of knowledge building is the same from early childhood to adults, so if learners are doing it individually they can also benefit from it, because Learning which is an internal, unobservable process can be done individually too. Side: Team3: Yes, it is substantial
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. Side: Team4: No, it is incidental
More research will always be necessary, for any topic. As we travel through generations, technology is becoming more and more prevalent in our everyday lives. We must look to use technology in a way that is beneficial, and a way that is conducive to all our future needs. Time is moving faster and fast, most spent online, so it makes sense that our education moves this way as well. The disservice would be to halt CSCL in hopes for something better, when something better has not come along yet. Being traditional and face to face is a thing of the past; we can choose to change and move forward, or stay stagnant and fall behind. Side: Team3: Yes, it is substantial
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.
. Side: Team4: No, it is incidental
|
