Collaborative Learning in Learner Development

Introduction

Collaborative learning (CL) is intuitively a very familiar concept. When two or more people work together to achieve a task or to understand something, there is potential for collaborative learning to occur. By pooling their resources groups can compensate for individual shortcomings and can surpass individual limitations to reach a level of achievement which is beyond even the most able member’s capacities. To be banal, we recognize that two heads are often better than one and, as teachers, we often wish to encourage this supportive learning environment in order that no one is left behind and so that students learn to care for those around them. In our own field of language learning, it is useful for students to converse with other students in the target language in order to gain practice in using the language. In other areas of education pair and group work are often used to achieve other goals such as the development of social and teamwork skills and to foster citizenship. It is tempting to see collaborative learning everywhere because our students are regularly collaborating with each other. The papers in this collection, however, are written partly with the aim of showing that collaborative learning is, in fact, a rather elusive bird, something which is hard to identify and pin down and often only evident circumstantially. More broadly, the papers aim at shedding light on why or how or whether collaborative learning is an effective means of language and content learning.

The idea for this collection of papers grew out of discussions held at the JALT Learner Development Special Interest Group Tokyo Get-togethers from March 2012 onwards. Each month a small group of us discussed many of the basic definitional issues as well as some of the practical aspects of implementing CL in the classroom. We returned time and again to the basic questions of what collaboration is, how it might differ from collaborative learning, and what the distinction might be between collaborative and cooperative learning. We wanted to understand how informal, ad hoc groups, cooperative groups, and teams differed from each other and how we and our students should go about organizing CL groups. Once implemented, we wondered how we could assess learners’ performance as they engaged in CL and we considered what we would need to do in order to research the effectiveness of CL for ourselves. When, for example, might it be better for learners to work alone rather than in groups? In learner development terms, we thought about the experiences our learners may already have had with CL and ways of using this experience when introducing CL into our classrooms. We also discussed the merits of teacher- and learner-initiated CL considering whether the latter might lead to a truer, more committed form of CL than the former. In some philosophical forays, we even discussed high- versus low- quality collaboration, whether disagreement, disjuncture, and disharmony are necessary ingredients for successful collaborative learning, whether CL is a process or a product, and also whether certain types of learning can only occur in social interaction.

After the idea for a collection of papers had emerged, the four editors began to explore the topic together. We discussed how the origins of collaborative learning in education may be traced back to theories of learning which see learning as an inherently social process. Vygotsky’s writings have been particularly influential in this respect. CL may also however have fuzzier roots in humanistic approaches in education that gained ground in the West from the 1970s and which emphasized caring and sharing amongst students in order to develop more rounded members of society (e.g., Rogers, 1969; Curran, 1976; Moskovitz, 1978; Stevick, 1980). In the field of second language acquisition (SLA), the interaction approach has stressed the importance of using the target language in learner-learner and learner-teacher interaction because it leads to breakdowns in communication which in turn lead to negotiation for meaning, a site for language learning to occur (Long, 1996). The emphasis on communicative interaction has therefore perhaps encouraged teachers to introduce groupings that have collaborative characteristics.

We also realized that one might alternatively trace support for collaborative learning to less theoretical sources. Many teachers ask their students to work in pairs and groups because it encourages learners to rely more on their own resources rather than on the teacher. It breaks down the normal dynamic of the classroom and overturns traditional authority relationships. It turns the class into a more student-centred environment and may help improve the atmosphere by enabling students to relax or by encouraging them to take more responsibility for their own learning. There is an emphasis on process rather than product with the discussion and exchange of ideas and the resolution of disagreements an integral part of a more personalized and negotiated form of learning. It is also motivational in that learners are in a position where they support each other so that learning becomes social rather than individual. Working together also demonstrates how effective cooperation can be and that, in order to solve many problems in the real world, it is useful to collaborate with others and to negotiate ways through difficulties. Collaborative learning therefore represents a whole nexus of interwoven folk knowledge about teaching and learning that makes sense to a great many teachers.

The contributors to this collection of papers are either teachers of English as a foreign language or are language teacher educators. We therefore have an interest in how CL may contribute to language learning. It will be apparent, however, that most of the papers do not focus directly on the ways in which CL and second language learning relate, but on ways in which CL may create favourable conditions for second language learning, or on ways that it may contribute to enhanced content learning. Throughout this introduction and elsewhere in the collection we are addressing foreign language teachers who may be interested in the direct and indirect contributions CL may be able to make to second language learning, but at the same time we are addressing foreign language teachers as educators who may see the value in using CL when helping their learners to engage with content matter other than the target language itself.

The Structure of this Book

The first two background chapters are intended to help readers orient themselves towards collaborative learning and assist them in critically assessing the chapters that follow. In Chapter 1, we attempt to clarify several issues which frequently complicate our understanding of CL. In Chapter 2, we explain some of the areas we think are key to exploring in greater depth what collaboration and collaborative learning involve.

The ten original studies which form the core of this collection appear as Chapters 3 to 11. Chapter 3, written by Steven Paydon and Dexter Da Silva, is an exception to the other papers in not being based on a piece of empirical action research. Instead Paydon and Da Silva present a discussion of the complex issue of trust which they consider an essential element when the goal is long-lasting, committed and valuable collaborative learning. Chapters 4, 5 and 6 are studies of CL implementations in regular university English language classes. In Chapter 4, Etsuko Shimo investigates the relationship between the CL activities she uses in an integrated skills course and students’ motivational orientations. In Chapter 5, Hiromi Tsuda also explores the connection between CL and motivation, but specifically focuses on the use of CL pre-listening tasks. In Chapter 6, Chika Hayashi analyzes in detail entries in a group journal to see how collaboration and students’ writing developed over the course of a year.

The following two chapters move us beyond regular English language courses to explore CL in different contexts. In Chapter 7, Martin Mullen and Chris Fitzgerald explain how CL activities were integrated into a course specifically aimed at developing learner autonomy. In Chapter 8, Mathew Porter shows how materials for collaborative activities were used and assessed in a self-access learning centre environment.

The next two chapters are concerned with the implementation of CL within university seminar classes. In Chapter 9, Tim Ashwell shows how a team-based learning approach was used in a seminar class which focused on topics in linguistics. In Chapter 10, Ken Ikeda explains how he introduced cross-institutional CL to help his students develop their graduation thesis projects and help him grow professionally as a seminar teacher.

In the final two chapters, the role of CL in formal teacher development is explored. In Chapter 11, Ann Mayeda looks at how CL activities helped pre-service trainee teachers of English to young learners develop both their English language proficiency and their disposition towards teaching. In Chapter 12, Hideo Kojima shows how collaborative learning developed between colleagues in an elementary school as they implemented English language activities.

Chapter 1

Clarifying Terms / 協働学習？協同学習？：用語の一律化

Alison Stewart & Tim Ashwell

Abstract

This chapter discusses the key terms chosen for this book, collaborative learning and learner development, and proposes broad definitions for each of them that can serve as a rationale for the project and a common point of departure for the action research studies that follow. Learning in groups is considered first of all as a mode of learning that has precedents in history and in non-Western cultures. It is only relatively recently that the benefits of working in groups have been acknowledged and exploited, for example, by proponents of cooperative learning (CoopL) and collaborative learning (CL). Although these terms are often used interchangeably, the authors have chosen CL because of its association with a more transformative view of interactive learning. Similarly, learner development is discussed in relation to other terms associated with learning to learn and learner autonomy. Drawing particularly on the Shizuoka definition of teacher-learner autonomy, learner development is defined as the holistic development of the individual (intellectual, emotional, physical and spiritual). Living in society, individuals have a responsibility for the wellbeing of others; thus, learners are responsible for furthering their own development but at the same time they are also responsible for helping others to develop and learn.

第一章ではこれからの章の基盤となる協働学習(collaborative learning)と学習者デイベロップメント(learner development) の二つの概念の定義をすると共に、この著書の執筆に至った理由について述べる。グループによる学習は学びの形態の一つとして過去、及び、西洋以外の文化圏では古くから浸透している。協同学習(cooperative learning (CoopL))と協働学習（collaborative learning (CL)）のようにグループで学ぶ利点は近年になってようやく認識されるようになった。ただ、協同学習と協働学習は必ずしも区別されて使われている概念ではなく、相互交渉（インターアクション）によって意味や知識の構築が成されると捉える協働学習(collaborative learning (CL))の方を我々は定義とすることにした。同様に学習者デイベロップメント(learner development)の定義は学びの学習(learning to learn)と学習者オートノミー(learner autonomy)の概念と類似であると考えられてきた。本著では静岡宣言を基に、学習者デイベロップメント（learner development）を個人の心身、知力、精神力、情動などを含む、学習者の全人格的な発達につなげる行為と位置付けることにした。ここでは個人は自からの学習やデイベロップメントだけに責任をもつだけではなく、他者の学びやデイベロップメントにも責任をもつことであると捉える。

Introduction

In this chapter, we review terms that are commonly used to denote learning in groups and discuss the meaning and significance of collaboration for learner development, another term that we seek to clarify. We have chosen to use the term collaborative learning (CL) for this collection, but it will be apparent from a cursory review of the literature that there are a number of similar terms in use. In this section, we discuss the three most commonly used terms, group, cooperative and collaborative learning, and consider the similarities and differences between them.

Group, Cooperative and Collaborative Learning

Group learning may be considered a generic term for any classroom arrangement that involves learners working together rather than individually. Because it is such a commonly used term, we begin by taking a very broad view of what group learning means and discuss it from a variety of different perspectives.

Taking a broad historical perspective, learning in groups is sometimes viewed as a progressive, humanistic trend in mainstream education compared with a style of learning where learning is viewed as an exclusively individual endeavor. What we might think of as traditional education, however, with learners seated in rows all facing the front as a teacher lectures from behind a lectern on a podium, is not in fact, a natural educational style, but was itself an innovation. The Prussian system of education, implemented under Wilhelm von Humboldt in the early 19th century, created a standardized system of compulsory education. Whilst nowadays the term Prussian education tends to connote a militaristic conformity to rules and regulations, in its time it was a significant development that brought high levels of education, which had been the preserve of a privileged elite, to the masses, a reform that aimed at underpinning economic growth and social stability (Howatt & Smith, 2007).

In time, however, the Prussian model’s emphasis on the dominance of the teacher and on learners’ unwavering acceptance of the curriculum began to be questioned. In diverse and democratic societies, such a regimented approach sits awkwardly with wider social mores, and a classroom in which learners are encouraged to speak up and speak often may be more respectful of the individual learners’ rights and needs. Indeed, as the learners’ autonomy has come to be valued more, the role of the teacher as the leader of the class at all times becomes less prominent, and the class as a group can be reconfigured into smaller groups. In smaller groups, individual learners have more chance of playing an active role in activities such as reviewing and confirming new information, formulating questions, problem-solving, and so on.

Group learning in language pedagogy can similarly be regarded as a historically and socially situated phenomenon. Indeed, Holliday (1994) addressed this phenomenon explicitly by identifying two distinct cultures of language teaching: one originating in commercial language schools in English-speaking countries, which he termed BANA (Britain, Australasia and North America), the other prevalent in formal educational institutions worldwide, which he termed TESEP (Tertiary, Secondary and Primary Education). Whereas the BANA culture of teaching favored more learner-centered classrooms, TESEP continued, and in many places still does continue, to be teacher-dominated. As Holliday describes in his study of conflicting teaching cultures (1994), teaching methods that originated in commercial language schools in English-speaking countries were not (and still are not necessarily) easily introduced into institutions where language is treated like other academic subjects as a distinct and bounded body of knowledge. The difference in the way power is distributed in a classroom can probably be explained by the fact that the students in commercial language schools are adults who choose and pay for their education, unlike in primary and secondary educational institutions where the students have no choice.

It is also perhaps not surprising that Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) first emerged from this BANA context, as classes full of learners who did not necessarily share a common language with each other or with the teacher had to learn the language through communication. Working together in pairs or in groups, where the onus is on learners to negotiate communication with each other and thus facilitate learning for each other can thus be seen as a pragmatic alternative to instruction by a teacher.

Whilst Holliday has focused on the culture of educational institutions, other researchers have looked at attitudes toward and practices involving pair or group work in CLT in national cultures. In a point-counterpoint debate, for example, Liao (2004) objected to Bax’s (2003) claim that CLT was an appropriate approach to language learning in any context. Elsewhere, some researchers argued that mutually supportive and collaborative groups are characteristic of many non-western cultures (Flowerdew, 1998; Nguyen, Terlouw, & Pilot, 2006). Scollon (1999), for example, suggests that contradictory educational cultures or discourse that she observed in Hong Kong could be characterised as Socratic or Confucian, with the former emphasising individual initiative and achievement of the learner and the latter valuing social harmony and acceptance of authority, characteristics which would clearly work in favour of collaboration in groups. Such stereotypical descriptions of culture may now be regarded as rather old-fashioned; more recently, culture is regarded more microscopically, such as Holliday’s (1999) small cultures, which he uses to describe any class or group of learners who meet together at regular and frequent intervals, or else culture is avoided altogether and replaced with alternative terms such as identity or discourse (Atkinson & Sohn, 2013). Thus, whereas national culture used to be thought of as a primary identity of individuals and groups, diversity, hybridity, and variability are now more widely assumed to be more important factors in the make-up of any group of learners, and this very complexity is a benefit and a resource for learning (Holliday, 2010).

The rising importance and value of group learning might be part of a social or political trend, but at the same time, its role in language learning has been further supported by findings in research first in the field of Second Language Acquisition and, more recently, in sociocognitive and sociocultural approaches to language learning research. These theories will be considered in detail in the following chapter. For now, however, it should be noted that the recommendations arising from this research are incorporated in textbooks and other language learning/teaching materials that are produced by the global ELT publishing industry (Gray, 2010). These publications, which are assumed to be best practice in the field of language teaching, have been influential in promoting and normalizing practices in the classroom, including group learning.

Whereas the term group learning is thus very broad, the terms collaborative learning (CL) and cooperative learning (CoopL) have tended to be more narrowly defined, but ambiguities remain, since in some cases they are used interchangeably and, in others, they are used with quite distinct meanings. Barkley, Cross and Major (2005), for example, argue that CL may tend to be applied to interactive group learning at the tertiary level and CoopL at the primary/secondary levels of education. One can also argue, as Barkley and colleagues do, that there is a branding issue involved here too. Some writers seem to have appropriated the terms and are particularly associated with their use. Bruffee (1981, 1999) has assiduously promoted collaborative learning as a particular form of learning more appropriate for the college level while Johnson and Johnson (1989, 1995), Kagan (1997) and others have tended to monopolize the use of the term cooperative learning to apply to interactive group learning for school students. Oxford (1997), in contrast, prefers to distinguish and define CL, CoopL and interaction as three different communicative strands in the language classroom.

The distinction has more substantial roots, however, in the different conceptions writers may have of the status of knowledge and how this relates to the authority of the teacher. Bruffee (1999) contends that the prevalent view is that college and university professors discover, store and purvey knowledge, while their students consume, process, and use it (p. xi). By contrast, his book on CL proposes that instead, professors and students alike construct and maintain knowledge in continual conversation with their peers (p. 3). Barkley et al (2005) sum up the position Bruffee (1999) takes about the differences in these terms:

Whereas the goal of cooperative learning is to work together in harmony and mutual support to find the solution, the goal of collaborative learning is to develop autonomous, articulate, thinking people, even if at times such a goal encourages dissent and competition that seems to undercut the ideals of cooperative learning (p. 7).

CL can thus be seen as part of the social constructivist movement, whereas CoopL deals exclusively with traditional canonical knowledge.

Others see CL and CoopL lying on a continuum from least to most structured respectively. Smith and MacGregor (1992), among others, see CL as an umbrella term that subsumes CoopL at one end of this same continuum. Similarly, Panitz (1996) sees collaboration as a philosophy of interaction and personal lifestyle whereas cooperation is a structure of interaction designed to facilitate the accomplishment of an end product or goal. He suggests that CoopL is more controlled by the teacher with a strong emphasis on structure, and that CL is more student-centred. He further suggests that CoopL may have American roots with writers drawing on Dewey’s (1916, 1938) emphasis on the social nature of learning and on Kurt Lewin’s work on group dynamics (1947), while CL may have British roots. He refers to Myers (1991), who sees CoopL as transmission education at one end of a spectrum and CL as transformation education at the other, and who further proposes a type of transaction education as a compromise position. In this view, education becomes a conversation between the student and the curriculum, and teaching becomes a conversation in which teachers and students learn together through a process of negotiation with the curriculum to develop a shared view of the world.

To sum up, group learning is a general term that applies wherever learners interact in pairs or larger groups in order to pursue or provide mutual support for learning. Group learning may be a feature of particular cultures, national or educational, but it has been promoted around the world as a more democratic and pedagogically sound way of conducting all kinds of learning, including language learning. CoopL and CL, by contrast, tend to be defined more narrowly, although the specific ways in which they have been defined are contradictory. Despite the differences in these definitions, CL is the term that tends to be associated with the kind of autonomy-fostering, dialogic, transformative education that is of interest to the Learner Development SIG as a community of researchers and practitioners. These attempts to draw a distinction between CL and CoopL are made not so much in order to pinpoint an exact meaning for the term that we have chosen, but rather to indicate ranges or scales of meaning within which our definition might be located. In the same way, now, we wish to turn to learner development and consider some of the meanings and associations of that term in comparison with other similar or related terms. What are the differences between learner development, learner autonomy and interdependence, and how can each of the terms be related to CL?

Learner Development, Learner Autonomy, and Interdependence

Before discussing the meanings of learner development, learner autonomy and interdependence, we start with a word of caution regarding the ways in which terms become imbued with semantic and political connotations. A classic example, which many readers will be familiar with, is the controversy which has surrounded the terms learning and acquisition in the field of Second Language Acquisition for so long. In his theory of Second Language Acquisition (SLA), Krashen (1981) distinguishes between acquisition, which he defines as a natural, intuitive and subconscious process, and learning, which he sees as a conscious process which usually occurs in a situation of formal instruction. In the case of languages, Krashen argues, acquisition is more effective than learning. Acquisition means intuitive, practical mastery of the language, gained through natural communication. Paling in comparison, learning means memorization of rules and conventions, and what is learned is often soon forgotten. In the past twenty years, in the light of a growing interest in alternative approaches in applied linguistic research (Atkinson, 2011), learning has come back into favour, even among SLA researchers (Ortega, 2011). Nevertheless, Krashen’s definitions of acquisition and learning are a reminder of how easily terms can be loaded semantically. Terms are also politically charged once a researcher or group of researchers lays claim to them and affixes their own definition onto them, as Krashen did with acquisition and learning.

Turning now to learner development, we can see that, as the name of the Special Interest Group (SIG) to which we and the chapter contributors all belong, this term also carries a raft of associations and connotations. This was not always the case. In an online article, Richard Smith, one of the founders of the SIG, relates that the name was chosen over a number of other terms connected with learner training and learner autonomy precisely because it had not then been used in the literature, and therefore came without semantic baggage (Smith, 1995). Over the 20-year history of the SIG, however, learner development has become established