Content uploaded by Eka Amalia
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Eka Amalia on May 09, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Collaborative Learning: The Concepts and Practices in the Classroom
Eka Rizki Amalia
Institut Pesantren Kiyai Haji Abdul Chalim (IKHAC), Mojokerto
ekarizkiamalia@ikhac.ac.id
ekarizkiamalia2104@gmail.com
Abstract
Communication and collaboration are regarded as part of essential focus to prepare students for
increasingly complex life and work environments in the 21st century. Collaboration skills are highly
required by the students to provide themselves with the ability to work effectively and respectfully
with diverse teams in the future. Collaborative Learning (CL), then, is very crucial and said to be able
to facilitate the students to attain higher level thinking and preserve information for longer times than
individual learning. This article reviews Vygotsky’s idea of the “zone of proximal development” and
the concepts of Collaborative Learning. Then, the characteristics and principles of CL are presented.
The discussion of how collaborative learning differs from cooperative learning followed by some
ideas of collaborative works in the classroom and how they are best practiced also complete the
discussion. In addition, method for examining CL process including conversation analysis is
discussed.
Keywords: collaborative learning, cooperative learning, conversation analysis
1 Introduction
The historical idea of collaborative learning and the concepts of Zone of Proximal
Development” by Vygotsky
Vygotsky views learning basically as a social process which is activated through the Zone of
Proximal Development (ZPD) (Dillenbourg, 1999), famously known as sociocultural theory. This
theory explains how learning is negotiated in relation to the context and experience with peers coming
from any possible social relationship. In sociocultural theory, learning is viewed as social term which
results from the informal relationship between social interaction and cognitive development of an
individual. The interaction structures and establishes the learning process (Lantolf and Pavlenko,
1995). The relation between what Vygotsky has uttered about sociocultural theory and learning can be
seen in collaborative learning (CL) theory. It says that working with a more competent person can
improve personal development. Vygotsky concluded this theory after completing some observations.
2
First he noted that a child learn from other people in his/her environment. The learning itself thus is
mediated in a social level. After then, the child internalizes it in individual level. He/she absorbs and
processes what he/she has already got from other people and environment. The second is that learning
in social level often involves more capable persons who provide mentoring and guidance to the less
experienced ones. The knowledgeable ‘mentors’ might come from peers or older people. They all
engage in particular activity then unintentionally collaboration occurs through the process of guidance
upon the less experienced individuals. To constitute the learning process from social to individual
levels, language serves as “a psychological tool to regulate objects, others, and oneself in organizing
functions that are critical to mental activity” (Lin, 2015). This is where language becomes filters as
well as a tool to mediate the learning process to occur.
This view implies that the development of an individual cannot be merely seen from the
individual itself. Social factors as the external world affect and influence this development and
therefore should also be taken into account. Thus, the learning, as Vygotsky (1986) noted, is
“embedded within social events occurring as a child interacts within people, objects and events in the
environment”. The interaction stimulates the mental functions to work as the result of various input
captured. To be more specific, mental functions such as thinking, reasoning, and problem solving, can
be carried out by individuals while collaborating with peers (Wertsch and Rogoff, 1984).
In the teaching and learning process area, interaction among the students and between the
students and the teacher facilitate the students to improve and advance their development. It is
assisted through the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) which is defined by Vygotsky (1978) as
“the distance between the actual development level as determined by independent problem solving
and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance
or in collaboration with more capable peers”. This indicates that an individual has two levels of
development; actual development and potential development.
It can be inferred that actual development refers to the development of individuals which is
already attached in their mental setting. It can be from their genes or self-learning. At this level,
individuals learn and work independently without others’ help. On the contrary, potential development
comes from the interaction between individuals and environment. The environment here can refer to
peers or more proficient adult which collaboratively engaged with the individuals to perform
particular work. In this level, the individual is unable to perform independently but dependently with
more capable persons. By learning from the expert, the potential development increases as the less
capable individual will learn from the more capable ones. This is where the process of collaborative
learning benefits students with weaknesses to improve with the help of their knowledgeable peers.
This discussion highlights that Collaborative Learning provides students with opportunities to
get new ideas from their peers and thereby establish mutual interaction in the learning process. The
3
more beneficial interaction takes place, the more development the students are able to attain. Peer
interaction is also said to be able to ”promote learners’ ZPD and it has valuable role to play in
language learning situation” (Lin, 2015).
2 The Characteristics of Collaborative Learning
The characteristics of collaborative learning can be clearly seen if the approach is compared to
the traditional one. Collaborative Learning differs from traditional language teaching approach in
some aspects; the first is in its goal structure. Johnson and Johnson (1979) in Lin (2015) refer the goal
structure as the type of interdependence among students and are categorized into three: collaborative,
competitive, and individualistic. In collaborative goal structure, a learner is able to achieve learning
goals when their peers also achieve theirs. Even though the portion is relatively different from one to
another, the least capable learner will still also capable of achieving the goal of learning depend on
his/her capacity. The competitive goal structure does not allow all individuals to achieve the learning
goal. Instead, an individual learner achieves while others do not. In individualistic goal structure,
there is no relationship between the achievement of an individual and the involvement of others either
in the form of collaboration or competition. In other words, one’s achievement is independent from
others’. This occurs because each individual learner learns by themselves. There is no such kind of
peer mentoring or competition with others. In relation with this, Zang (2010) concludes that CL
belongs to the category of collaborative goal structure while competitive and individualistic goal
structures are closely similar to the traditional teacher-fronted learning.
The second difference between collaborative learning approach and the traditional one lays on
the learners’ participation upon the teaching and learning activity. Traditional approach tends to focus
on teacher-centered rather students-centered learning. Students are rarely involved in the teaching and
learning process but to only pay attention to what the teacher is explaining. Many of traditional
learning approach use grammar-translation and audio-lingual methods as the ingredients. Such
teaching methods only focus on certain aspects of language without providing sufficient practice for
the students to practice and deepen their understanding upon the material given. Most interaction
taking place is limited to teacher-student interaction. Student-student interaction is rarely seen.
Students are conditioned to be passive almost all the time. They only become recipients of the
knowledge delivered by the teacher. There is no sufficient space given to discuss and enlarge their
communicative competence. CL, in contrast, shares common ideas with Communicative Language
Teaching (CLT) where there are interactions between teacher and the students and among students
(Zang, 2010). When the students are given the chance to communicate not only with the teacher but
also their friends, it is actually facilitating the students to acquire communicative competence. The
communication which occurs is actually activating their mental function to maximize thinking,
4
reasoning, and problem solving. When these activities take place, learners are unconsciously
enriching their storage of knowledge. They do not simply being a passive recipient but very active one
as they do not only absorb the knowledge as input but also question, criticize, argue, and any other
critical thinking activities.
3 The Principles of Collaborative Learning
Lin (2015) mention some principles of Collaborative Learning, they are as the following.
3.1 Provide more language practice opportunities
CL allows the students to be engaged in the learning process as they work together towards
a common learning goal. When they discuss or share ideas with others, they automatically are
practicing their language competency. In the EFL class, this is one of the challenge in which the
students are asked to speak English as a foreign language as the main targeted goal. The problem
will exist more when there are more less capable students than the expert ones. The teacher will
need to switch his/her learning approach into the traditional one as he/she is trying to explain
certain language focus to the students. The fact that the students are actually in needs of
practicing the language on their own in certain amount of time will be reduced by the long
duration the teacher needs to explain the difficult material. Other challenge present as the more
capable students have no peers to practice the conversation since the weak students are unable to
respond the English conversation in a meaningful way.
3.2 Improve the Quality of Student Talk
Zang (2010) explains that in traditional EFL classroom, discourse is set up by the teacher
in an artificial setting, whereas CL can be designed to create social setting that is similar to real-
life situation in the way that language is used. It helps the students to produce not only in its
quantity, but also optimize the conversation by engaging themselves in requesting, clarifying, and
negotiating conversation during the CL. Furthermore, as Long and Porter (1985) in Lin (2015)
indicates, in CL directed learning, language adjustment occurs as the students try to make
themselves understood. Consequently, they will also try to make others understand what is
intended to say. They will speak in different ways to ensure others to listen to and comprehend
what he/she is saying by using different ways of speaking. By this, students are subconsciously
accustomed themselves to use appropriate language.
5
3.3 Create a Positive Learning Climate
Barfield (2003) in Lin (2015) states that language learning is an emotional and
psychological experience to some extent. Thus when learners’ psychological condition is
troubled, then the learning might not accomplished maximally. CL create situation in which
learners feel more convenient and relax since there is no strict regulation of how they should
learn. Learners are also freed to talk and discuss with their peers of difficult points from the
material given by the teacher. This is quite different with traditional learning approach, where the
students are afraid to make mistakes in speaking as they have to speak organized in front of their
friends with correct and proper grammar and accuracy. This situation limits the students’
opportunity from experiencing various learning situation in which possible to result in a further
and deeper understanding of certain topics. DiNitto (2000) suggests that CL “allows for the
negotiation of meanings and therefore the learners’ understanding is reshaped”. Positive affective
situation thereby improve the students’ learning and further the achievement.
3.4 Promote Social Interaction
In CL, the interaction between the learners and their peers are constructed through the
discussion and sharing ideas between them. The interaction takes place in a very comfortable
situation while at the same time, learners exchange different ideas and perceptions among them.
Jiang (2009) claims this situation as improving learners’ linguistics competence and
communicative skills as well. This also promotes social interaction between the learners
themselves through discussing, questioning, responding, and organizing learning process.
3.5 Allow for Critical Thinking
Compared to individual learning, CL is believed to enhance learners’ critical thinking. This
process occurs when the students are discussing, clarifying, and evaluating peers’ opinions (Lin,
2015). In line with this, as Johnston, James, Lye, and McDonald (2000) mention, CL encourages
critical thinking through problem-solving process. Learners engage actively in the discussion
which fosters their mind to think critically of the topics being discussed.
4 Collaborative and Cooperative Learning as Different Communicative Strands
Collaborative and cooperative learning are most interchangeably used in their term. Most tends
to consider the two concepts as the same. However, some researchers have made some discussions to
specify those two different communicative strands in EFL classrooms.
6
Oxford (1997) differs cooperation with collaboration in its form, that cooperative learning is
considered to be more structured. It does not happen randomly but more organized than collaborative
learning. The structured form might be found in some aspects; the technique the teacher use for
his/her teaching activity, also the target and procedure of how the students work together in group. In
contrast, CL is “related to social constructivist epistemology, with the goal of acculturating students
into the immediate community of learning and the wider world of the target language and culture”
(Lin, 2015). In other words, CL mediate learners to experience an unplanned, spontaneous learning
situation in which they have opportunity to gain as much knowledge as possible through the peer-
mentoring without being framed into specific learning borders. Learners can maximize mutual social
engagement for the purpose of learning. Learners can interchange their knowledge and ideas others do
not possess. Therefore, the maximum goal of learning is possibly to be reached.
Roschelle and Teasley (1995) give more detailed discussion about cooperative learning, that it
is a work that is “accomplished by the division of labor among participants, as an activity where each
person is responsible for a portion of the problem-solving”. It can be inferred from this explanation
that cooperative learning demands the individuals in the group to be involved in the equal share and
that each of them shall complete what has been authorized to them. Each member of the group has
equal and fair division of duty and task. Whereas, as has been previously mentioned, CL involves “the
mutual engagement of participants in a coordinated effort to solve the problem together” (Roschelle
and Teasley, 1995). This suggests that in CL, each individual in the group are possibly to change roles
of when to become the mentor and when they need the assistance from their peers.
Based on these discussions, it is clear that collaborative learning differs from the cooperative
one in the concept and division of task. However, some spontaneous division of task may also occur
in CL. We can take example in a situation where a group of learners is about to discuss a certain topic.
Those who have the knowledge upon the topic will automatically take the role as the mentor to others
since he will be able to speak and say more on related issues of the topic. Meanwhile, other members
will become the observers. However, they still have the opportunity to contribute by suggesting their
ideas or at least give their opinion or critics upon subject being discussed, which is not the prior role
of the ‘speaker’. Based on this assertion, cooperative learning and CL is not different in terms of task
distribution. Even though there is no clear and structured division of task in CL, learners still share
unstipulated responsibility upon their roles in group.
5 Collaborative Learning in Practice
Before discussing what activities can be employed as CL, it is better to first discuss whether
collaborative skills can be trained or not. Educators are suggested to give explicit instruction to
7
develop collaboration skills (Lai, 2011). The training could be in the form of instruction given in
effective communication, how to find for help, and how to give help to others (Fall, R. Webb, N., &
Chudowsky, N., 1997). Similar to this, Webb (1991) recommends training students in general
interpersonal and teamwork skills which include coordination, communication, conflict resolution,
decision making, problem solving, and negotiation. This kind of training stresses on how to give
explanation, how to directly and explicitly ask for help, and how to respond to others’ help
appropriately (Lai, 2011). Lai (2011) further suggests teacher provide many opportunities for students
to practice collaboration skills by using tasks which are similar to group-based assessments’.
Besides providing explicit instruction, teachers are also suggested to compose and organize
tasks to support collaboration (Bossert, 1998; Webb, 1995), by, as Webb (1995) suggests, defining
specific roles within tasks. For example, one student could become a leader with the duty of
constructing and organizing planning of the task. Others may act as the doer of the task. Webb (1995)
suggest that a student may take the role as the leader with the responsibility to summarize and recount
the main points of the material, while others may act as the listeners who are responsible to identify
and detect errors or omissions in the summary and ask questions to clarify the material. Similar to
this, Dillenbourg (1999) recommend the teachers to specify rules for interaction. For example, every
group member should ask at least one question. This activity could encourage the students to share
idea then speak it up.
Teachers should also monitor and regulate the students’ interaction (Lai, 2011). In certain times,
students might lose ideas of what to discuss next. The presence of the teacher could stimulate and
trigger temporally-blank situation to be active again. Teachers could encourage the students to give
new ideas or providing groups with feedback thus the discussion will be more fruitful.
The techniques to arrange and organize CL activity can be various. One example is reciprocal
teaching which is described by Palincsar (1987) as “an interactive teaching procedure in which the
teacher and students collaborate in the joint construction of text”. In reciprocal teaching, two people
or groups agree to help each other. In the context of teaching and learning activity in class, teacher
and students change roles as “leader” and “respondent”. At first, the teacher can assume as being the
leader to give students example of how to administer the learning as Lai (2011) recommend
employing several strategies to direct discussion by: “asking questions, summarizing responses,
clarifying misunderstanding, and supporting predictions about upcoming text content”. After the
students experience being the “respondent”, they will then be able to recognize of how to act as the
“leader” then take the role of it.
One idea to conduct CL is as what Bossert (1988) indicate as “learning together”. Here, the
competence of the group members are various and different one to each other. The members of the
group work together and help each other to complete a single lesson. The example of this is “jigsaw”.
8
The application of this technique is by diving students into groups of 4 to 5 with heterogeneous
competency. Each group has an expert individual which was given the material by the teacher. The
teacher can also explain a bit of the material to the expert students. Having given the material, the
expert students are assigned to their original groups to mentor and share what they have learnt to their
peers. In this approach, students can be assessed as a group or individually (Lai, 2011). Jigsaw is quite
similar with “group investigation” technique, except that in “group investigation”, students are free to
choose the material to study and divide the task to the group members.
Lai (2011) promotes other example of “learning together” with what is called as “student team
learning”. The procedure of this technique is by dividing students into groups with mixed ability. In
each group, the members help prepare each other to perform best in a quiz competing with other
teams. Team with the highest mean levels of each member’s performance is acknowledgeable. Other
variation of “student team learning” is “team assisted individualization”. It is more specific in that the
students must take proficiency tests before moving on to more difficult material and their scores on
these mastery test affect the team’s scores. There are many other methods can be applied for CL. The
important point is that the teacher must vary the activities, the task structures, the reward and
reinforcement to achieve the target of learning.
6 Method for Examining Collaborative Learning Processes
Collaborative learning is a type of group-based method with several possible goals of
assessment. Webb (1995) mentions some purpose of examining CL. Teacher might want to assess
student’s individual achievement in learning which is proven by student’s knowledge or skill
performed in group. Secondly, teacher might want to assess the student’s ability to work and learn
from collaboration in the group which is scored from their individual and group assessment
achievement. Thirdly, teacher might assess the group’s productivity, evidenced by the quality or
quantity a task finished collaboratively. The last is that teacher is possibly trying to measure the
students’ collaborative skills which consist of coordination, communication, decision-making, conflict
resolution, and negotiation. Webb (1995) further advice teachers to be very specific upon the goals of
learning and organize the tasks based on those learning purposes.
Researches have proposed several observational tools to record students’ interaction. One of the
most widely used is “conversational analysis”. Webb (1991 and 1993) has developed coding system
of students’ communication and for grouping them based on their group behavior. First, he
differentiates between responsive and non-responsive feedback. Responsive feedback involves
substantive corrections, elaborations, and explanations. Whereas, non-responsive feedback happens
when there is no response given to student who asks for help, no correction when student making
9
errors, and student given the answers without getting any explanation of why those answers are
correct. Later, Webb (1993) categorizes students’ behavior into four; the first type is students who are
capable of solving problems by themselves without any or only little assistance from others. The
second type of students are those who are facing difficulties but willing to express them by making
errors or asking questions that signal they do not understand. The third type is students who mimic
others’ work without trying to solve it by themselves. The last category is students who give no
contribution verbally during group discussion.
Conclusion
The discussion above suggest a number of potential benefits of collaborative learning, which in fact,
are able to enhance students to prepare themselves to being a part of small unit of massive group in
the future later after they engage in working situation. In the teaching and learning context,
Collaborative Learning allows the role of teacher to being more as facilitator rather the controller in
the classroom. The teacher mediates the learners’ interaction and collaboration of work towards a
common learning target. Students become actively involved in the learning experience and take the
responsibility of their own learning through the interaction. This affects the learning atmosphere to be
conducive. A fun and less-stressed learning situation is established, self-development and self-
autonomy are enhanced thus learners’ achievement is improved.
References
Bossert, S. T. (1988). Cooperative Activities in the Classroom. Review of Research in Education,
15(1988-1989), 225–250.
Collaborative-learning: cognitive and computational approaches. Elsevier, Oxford, 1–19.
Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by collaborative learning? In: Dillenbourg P (ed)
DiNitto, R. (2000). Can collaboration be unsuccessful? a sociocultural analysis of classroom setting
and Japanese L2 performance in group tasks. J Assoc Teach Jpn. 34(2):179–210.
Fall, R. Webb, N., & Chudowsky, N. (1997). Group Discussion and Large-scale Language Arts
Assessment: Effects on Students’ Comprehension. CSE Technical Report 445. Los Angeles,
CRESST.
Jiang, Y.M. (2009). Applying Group Work to Improve College Students’ Oral English. Int Edu Stud 2.
(3):136–139.
Johnston CG, James RH, Lye JN, McDonald IM. (2000). An Evaluation of Collaborative Problem
Solving for Learning Economics. J Econ Edu 31(1):13–29.
Kelly, James S. (2002). Collaborative Learning: Higher Education, Interdependence, and the
Authority of Knowledge by Kenneth Bruffee: A Critical Study. Journal of the National
Collegiate Honors Council. –Online Archive. 82.
Lai, Emily. (2011). Collaboration: A Literature Review. Pearson. –
10
Lantolf JP, Pavlenko A. (1995). Sociocultural theory and second language acquisition. Annu Rev Appl
Linguist. 15:108–124.
Lin, L. (2015). Exploring Collaborative Learning: Theoretical and Conceptual Perspectives.
Investigating Chinese HE EFL Classroom, (11-28). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Oxford, R. (1997). Cooperative learning, collaborative learning, and interaction: three communication
strands in the language classroom. Mod Lang J 81(4):443–456.
Palincsar, A. S. (1987, April). Collaborating for Collaborative Learning of Text Comprehension.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
Washington, D.C.
Roschelle, J. & Teasley, S. D. (1995). The Construction of Shared Knowledge in Collaborative
Problem-Solving. In C.E. O'Malley (Ed.), Computer-supported Collaborative Learning (69–
97). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes.
Harvard University Press: Cambridge.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1986). Thought and Language. The MIT Press: Cambridge.
Webb, N.M. (1991). Task-related verbal interaction and mathematical learning in small groups.
Research in Mathematics Education, 22(5), 366–389.
Webb, N. M. (1993). Collaborative group versus individual assessment in mathematics: Processes and
outcomes. Educational Assessment, 1(2), 131–152.
Webb, N. M. (1995). Group collaboration in assessment: Multiple objectives, processes, and
outcomes. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 17(2), 239–261.
Webb, N. M., Nemer, K. M., Chizhik, A. W., & Sugrue, B. (1998). Equity issues in collaborative
group assessment: Group composition and performance. American Educational Research
Journal, 35(4), 607–651.
Zhang, Y. (2010). Cooperative language learning and foreign language learning and teaching. J Lang
Teach Res. 1(1):81–83.
