COLLABORATIVE VERSUS COOPERATIVE LEARNING- A COMPARISON OF THE

TWO CONCEPTS WHICH WILL HELP US UNDERSTAND THE UNDERLYING NATURE

OF INTERACTIVE LEARNING
By Ted Panitz
I have been searching for many years for the Holy Grail of interactive learning, a
distinction between collaborative and cooperative learning definitions. I am
getting closer to my elusive goal all the time. I believe confusion arises when
people look at processes associated with each concept and see a certain
amount of overlap or inter-concept usage. I will clarify the definitions of
collaborative and cooperative learning first by presenting my definitions of the
two terms and reviewing those of other authors who have helped clarify my
thinking and second by presenting and analyzing the educational benefits of
collaborative/cooperative learning techniques.
The underlying premise for collaborative and cooperative learning is founded in
constructivist epistemology. Johnson, Johnson & Smith (1991) have summarized
these principles in their definition of a new paradigm of teaching. " First,
knowledge is constructed, discovered, and transformed by students. Faculty
create the conditions within which students can construct meaning from the
material studied by processing it through existing cognitive structures and then
retaining it in long-term memory where it remains open to further processing and
possible reconstruction. Second, students actively construct their own knowledge.
Learning is conceived of as something a learner does, not something that is done
to the learner. Students do not passively accept knowledge from the teacher or
curriculum. Students activate their existing cognitive structures or construct new
ones to subsume the new input. Third, faculty effort is aimed at developing
students' competencies and talents. Fourth, education is a personal transaction
among students and between the faculty and students as they work together.
Fifth, all of the above can only take place within a cooperative context. Sixth,
teaching is assumed to be a complex application of theory and research that
requires considerable teacher training and continuous refinement of skills and
procedures" (p1:6)
The following will serve as a starting point for this discussion. A basic definition of
the terms collaborative and cooperative, reduced to their simplest terms, is
presented:
Collaboration is a philosophy of interaction and personal lifestyle where individuals
are responsible for their actions, including learning and respect the abilities and
contributions of their peers;
Cooperation is a structure of interaction designed to facilitate the
accomplishment of a specific end product or goal through people working
together in groups.
Before we proceed with the theoretical underpinning of each method it would be
helpful to describe the differences between
the two paradigms in terms of an actual class.
In the cooperative model the teacher maintains complete control of the class,
even though the students work in groups to accomplish a goal of a course. The
cooperative teacher asks a specific question such as, What were the five causes
of the start of World War II? The teacher provides additional articles for the
students to read and analyze, beyond the text, and then asks the students to work
in groups to answer the question. The groups then present their results to the whole
class and discuss their reasoning. A follow up question may then be posed to the
groups to analyze the United Nations to determine if this has been an effective
organization to prevent world wars and to make recommendations on possible
changes needed to make the UN more effective. The teacher might use specific
structures, such as a Jig Saw model, to help facilitate the group interactions.
He/she might require a specific product such as a term paper or report, class
presentations, and an exam at the end of the topic. The students do the work
necessary to consider the material being covered but the teacher maintains
control of the process at each stage.
In the collaborative model groups would assume almost total responsibility for
answering the question. The students determine if they had enough information to
answer the question. If not they identify other sources, such as journals, books,
videos, the internet, to name a few. The work of obtaining the extra source
material would be distributed among the group members by the group members.
The group would decide how many reasons they could identify. The collaborative
teacher would not specify a number, but would assess the progress of each group
and provide suggestions about each groups approach and the data generated.
It might also occur to the students to list the reasons in order of priority. The teacher
would be available for consultations and would facilitate the process by asking for
frequent progress reports from the groups, facilitate group discussions about group
dynamics, help with conflict resolution, etc. The final product is determined by
each group, after consultation with the teacher. The means of assessment of the
groups performance would also be negotiated by each group with the teacher.
Some groups might decide to analyze the UN, as the cooperative group was
directed to do, or they might try to come up with a completely new organization.
They might go back through history to determine how other periods of peace
were created. The process is very open ended while it maintains a focus on the
overall goal. The students develop a very strong ownership for the process and
respond very positively to the fact that they are given almost complete
responsibility to deal with the problem posed to them and they have significant
input into their assessment.
The underlying premise for both collaborative and cooperative learning is
founded in constructivist theory. Knowledge is discovered by students and
transformed into concepts students can relate to. It is then reconstructed and
expanded through new learning experiences. Learning consists of active
participation by the student versus passive acceptance of information presented
by an expert lecturer. Learning comes about through transactions and dialogue
among students and between faculty and students, in a social setting. Students
learn to understand and appreciate different perspectives through a dialogue
with their peers. A dialogue with the teacher helps students learn the vocabulary
and social structures which govern the groups students wish to join, such as
historian, mathematician, writer, actor, etc.
Ken Bruffee (1995) identifies two causes for the differences between the two
approaches. He states: "First, collaborative and cooperative learning were
developed originally for educating people of different ages, experience and
levels of mastery of the craft of interdependence. Second, when using one
method or the other method, teachers tend to make different assumptions about
the nature and authority of knowledge." (p12) These different assumptions will be
explored throughout the paper. The age or education levels as a distinction have
become blurred over time as practitioners at all levels mix the two approaches.
However, what determines which approach is used does depend upon the
sophistication level of the students involved, with collaborative requiring more
advanced student preparation working in groups. Other determining factors are
the philosophy and preparation of the teacher.
Brufee sees education as a reacculturation process through constructive
conversation. Students learn about the culture of the society they wish to join by
developing the appropriate vocabulary of that society and by exploring that
society's culture and norms (i.e. that of mathematician, historian, journalist, etc.).
Brufee identifies two types of knowledge as a basis for choosing an approach.
Foundational knowledge is the basic knowledge represented by socially justified
beliefs we all agree on. Correct spelling and grammar, mathematics procedures,
history facts, a knowledge of the contents of the constitution, etc., would
represent types of foundational knowledge. Brufee contends that these are best
learned using cooperative learning structures in the early grades. He states: "The
main purpose of primary school education is to help children renegotiate their
membership in the local culture of family life and help them join some of the
established knowledge communities available to them and encompassing the
culture we hold in common. An important purpose of college or university
education is to help adolescents and adults join some more of the established
knowledge communities available to them. But another, and perhaps more
important pirpose of college or university education is to help students renogotiate
their membership in the encompassing common culture that until then has
circumscribed their lives." (p15)
Brufee defines nonfoundational knowledge as that which is derived through
reasoning and questioning versus rote memory. He writes: "It is more likely to
address questions with dubious or ambiguous answers, answers that require well-
developed judgment to arrive at, judgment that learning to answer such a
question tends, in turn, to devlop." (p15) The other way in which nonfoundational
education differs from foundational is that it encourages students not to take their
teacher's authority for granted. Students should doubt answers and methods for
arriving at answers provided by their professors, and perhaps more importantly
they need to be helped to come to terms with their doubts by participating
actively in the learning and inquiry process. Out of this process knew knowledge is
often created, something not likely to occur when dealing with the facts and
information associated with foundational knowledge. Collaborative learning shifts
the responsibility for learning away from the teacher as expert to the student, and
perhaps teacher, as learner. Brufee sees the two approaches as somewhat linear
with collaborative learning being designed to pick up where cooperative learning
leaves off. In effect, students learn basic information and processes for interacting
socially in the primary grades and then extend their critical thinking and reasoning
skills and understanding of social interactions as they become more involved and
take control of the learning process through collaborative activities. This writer
believes that the transition is better viewed as a continuim from a closely
controlled, teacher-centered system to a student-centered system where the
teacher and students share authority and control of learning.
Collaborative learning (CL) is a personal philosophy, not just a classroom
technique. In all situations where people come together in groups, it suggests a
way of dealing with people which respects and highlights individual group
members' abilities and contributions. There is a sharing of authority and
acceptance of responsibility among group members for the groups actions. The
underlying premise of collaborative learning is based upon consensus building
through cooperation by group members, in contrast to competition in which
individuals best other group members. CL practitioners apply this philosophy in the
classroom, at committee meetings, with community groups, within their families
and generally as a way of living with and dealing with other people.
Cooperative learning is defined by a set of processes which help people interact
together in order to accomplish a specific goal or develop an end product which
is usually content specific. It is more directive than a collaborative system of
governance and closely controlled by the teacher. While there are many
mechanisms for group analysis and introspection the fundamental approach is
teacher centered whereas collaborative learning is more student centered.
Spencer Kagan (1989) provides an excellent definition of cooperative learning by
looking at general structures which can be applied to any situation. His definition
provides an umbrella for the work cooperative learning specialists including the
Johnsons, Slavin, Cooper, Graves and Graves, Millis, etc. It follows: "The structural
approach to cooperative learning is based on the creation, analysis and
systematic application of structures, or content-free ways of organizing social
interaction in the classroom. Structures usually involve a series of steps, with
proscribed behavior at each step. An important cornerstone of the approach is
the distinction between "structures" and "activities". To illustrate, teachers can
design many excellent cooperative activities, such as making a team mural or a
quilt. Such activities almost always have a specific content-bound objective and
thus cannot be used to deliver a range of academic content. Structures may be
used repeatedly with almost any subject matter, at a wide range of grade levels
and at various points in a lesson plan."
John Myers points out that the dictionary definitions of "collaboration", derived
from its Latin root, focus on the process of working together; the root word for
"cooperation" stresses the product of such work. Co-operative learning has largely
American roots from the philosophical writings of John Dewey stressing the social
nature of learning and the work on group dynamics by Kurt Lewin. Collaborative
learning has British roots, based on the work of English teachers exploring ways to
help students respond to literature by taking a more active role in their own
learning. The cooperative learning tradition tends to use quantitative methods
which look at achievement: i.e., the product of learning. The collaborative
tradition takes a more qualitative approach, analyzing student talk in response to
a piece of literature or a primary source in history. Myers points out some
differences between the two concepts: "Supporters of co-operative learning tend
to be more teacher-centered, for example when forming heterogeneous groups,
structuring positive inter-dependence, and teaching co-operative skills.
Collaborative learning advocates distrust structure and allow students more say if
forming friendship and interest groups. Student talk is stressed as a means for
working things out. Discovery and contextual approaches are used to teach
interpersonal skills. Such differences can lead to disagreements.... I contend the
dispute is not about research, but more about the morality of what should happen
in the schools. Beliefs as to what should happen in the schools can be viewed as a
continuum of orientations toward curriculum from "transmission" to "transaction" to
"transmission". At one end is the transmission position. As the name suggests, the
aim of this orientation is to transmit knowledge to students in the form of facts, skills
and values. The transformation position at the other end of the continuum stresses
personal and social change in which the person is said to be interrelated with the
environment rather than having control over it. The aim of this orientation is self-
actualization, personal or organizational change."
Rocky Rockwood describes the differences by acknowledging the parallels they
both have in that they both use groups, both assign specific tasks, and both have
the groups share and compare their procedures and conclusions in plenary class
sessions. The major difference lies in the fact that cooperative deals exclusively
with traditional (canonical) knowledge while collaborative ties into the social
constructivist movement, asserting that both knowledge and authority of
knowledge have changed dramatically in the last century. Rockwood states: "In
the ideal collaborative environment, the authority for testing and determining the
appropriateness of the group product rests with, first, the small group, second, the
plenary group (the whole class) and finally (but always understood to be subject
to challenge and revision) the requisite knowledge community (i.e. the discipline:
geography, history, biology etc.) The concept of non-foundational knowledge
challenges not only the product acquired, but also the process employed in the
acquisition of foundational knowledge. Most importantly, in cooperative, the
authority remains with the instructor, who retains ownership of the task, which
involves either a closed or a closable (that is to say foundational) problem ( the
instructor knows or can predict the answer). In collaborative, the instructor--once
the task is set-- transfers all authority to the group. In the ideal, the group's task is
always open ended. Seen from this perspective, cooperative does not empower
students. It employs them to serve the instructor's ends and produces a "right" or
acceptable answer. Collaborative does truly empower and braves all the risks of
empowerment (for example, having the group or class agree to an
embarrassingly simplistic or unconvincing position or produce a solution in conflict
with the instructor's). Every person, Brufee (1995) holds, belongs to several
"interpretative or knowledge communities" that share vocabularies, points of view,
histories, values, conventions and interests. The job of the instructor is to help
students learn to negotiate the boundaries between the communities they
already belong to and the community represented by the teacher's academic
discipline, which the students want to join. Every knowledge community has a
core of foundational knowledge that its members consider as given (but not
necessarily absolute). To function independently within a knowledge community,
the fledgling scholar must master enough material to become conversant with the
community." Rockwood concludes: "In my teaching experience, cooperative
represents the best means to approach mastery of foundational knowledge.
Once students become reasonably conversant, they are ready for collaborative,
ready to discuss and assess,...."
Myers suggests use of the "transaction" orientation as a compromise between
taking hard positions advocating either methodology. "This orientation views
education as a dialogue between the student and the curriculum. Students are
viewed as problem solvers. Problem solving and inquiry approaches stressing
cognitive skills and the ideas of Vygotsky, Piaget, Kohlberg and Bruner are linked
to transaction. This perspective views teaching as 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."
Brody and Davidson (1998) look at the differences between the two paradigms
epistomologicly. In the early1970s some educators were formulating methods
based upon studies of human social interaction and group learning. These studies
lead to cooperative learning strategies based upon social interdependence
theory, cognitive-developmental theory and the behavioral learning theory.
Another group of educators based their framework for group work on theories
derived from studies about the social nature of human knowledge. The different
roots of constructivism formed the basis of collaborative learning.
Johnson, Johnson, and Smith (1998) clarify the differences between the
cooperative learning strategies. "Social interdependence theory assumes that
cooperative efforts are based on intrinsic motivation generated by interpersonal
factors and a joint aspiration to achieve a significant goal. Behavioral learning
theory assumes that cooperative efforts are powered by extrinsic motivation to
achieve rewards. Social interdependence theory focuses on relational concepts
dealing with what happens among individuals (for example cooperation is
something that exists only among individuals not within them), whereas the
cognitive-development perspective focuses on what happens within a single
person (for example, the disequilibrium, cognitive reorganization). The differences
across these theoretical assumptions have yet to be fully explored or solved." (p29)
Brody and Davidson (1998) identify a series of questions for teaching and learning
in the classroom which help distinguish between the approaches. (p8)
"Questions teachers ask from the cooperative learning perspective
1. How do we teach social skills?
2. How can we develop self-esteem, responsibility, and respect for others?
3. How does social status effect learning in small groups?
4. How do you promote problem solving and manage conflict?
5. Are extrinsic or intrinsic rewards more effective?
6. How can we prove that cooperative learning increases academic
achievement?
7. How do we teach children to take on various roles?
8. How do we structure cooperative activities?
Questions teachers ask from a collaborative perspective
1. What is the purpose of the activity?
2. What is the importance of talk in learning?
3. To what extant is getting off topic a valuable learning experience?
4. How can we empower children to become autonomous learners?
5. What is the difference between using language to learn and learning to use
language?
6. How can we negotiate relevant learning experiences with children?
7. How do we interact with students in such a way that we ask only real questions
rather than those for which we already know the answers?
8. How can we use our awareness of the social nature of learning to create
effective small group learning environments?"
Johnson, Johnson & Holubec (1991) have established a definition of cooperative
learning which identifies five basic elements necessary for a procedure to be
considered cooperative. They also define structures and evaluation procedures
within which any content may be taught, rather than defining procedures based
upon specific curriculum. They have developed an extensive set of worksheets for
teachers and students to use in establishing the five elements. The Johnson's five
items are as follows.
"Positive Interdependence- Students perceive that they need each other to
complete the group's task
("sink or swim together"). Teachers may structure positive interdependence by
establishing mutual
goals (learn and make sure all other group members learn), joint rewards (if all
group members achieve above criteria, each will receive bonus points), shared
resources (one paper for each group or each member receives part of the
information), and assigned roles (summarizer, encourager of
participation, recorder, time keeper etc.). Face-to- Face Promotive Interaction-
Students promote each other's learning by helping, sharing, and encouraging
efforts to learn. Students explain, discuss, and teach what they know to
classmates. Teachers structure the groups so that students sit knee to knee and
talk through each aspect of the assignment.
Individual Accountability- Each student's performance is frequently assessed and
the results are given to the group and the individual. Teachers may
structure individual accountability by giving an individual test to each student or
randomly selecting one member of the group to give the answer.
Interpersonal And Small group Skills- Groups cannot function effectively if students
do not have and use the needed social skills. Teachers teach these skills
as purposefully and precisely as academic skills. Collaborative skills include
leadership, decision making, trust building, communication, and conflict-
management skills.
Group Processing- Groups need specific time to discuss how well they are
achieving their goals and maintaining effective working relationships among
members. Teachers structure group processing by assigning such tasks as (a) list at
least three member actions which helped the group be successful and (b) list one
action that could be added to make the group more successful tomorrow.
Teachers also monitor the groups and give feedback on how well the groups are
working together and the class as a whole. (p1:33)
The National Council of Teachers of Math (NCTM) has a similar definition as
presented by Alice Artzt and Claire Newman (1990) in their book "How to use
cooperative learning in a math class. "Cooperative learning involves a small group
of learners, who work together as a team to solve a problem, complete a task, or
accomplish a common goal. There are many different cooperative learning
techniques; however, all of them have certain elements in common. These
elements are the ingredients necessary to insure that when students do work in
groups, they work cooperatively. First, the members of a group muct perceive that
they are part of a team and that they all have a common goal. Second, group
members must realize that the problem they are to solve is a group problem and
that the success or failure of the group will be shared by all members of the group.
Third, to accomplish the group's goal, all students must talk with one another- to
engage in discussion of all problems. Finally, it must be clear to all that each
member's individual work has a direct effect on the group's success. Teamwork is
of utmost importance."
Many of the elements of cooperative learning may be used in collaborative
situations. For example students work in pairs together in a Think-Pair-
Share procedure, where students consider a question individually, discuss their
ideas with another student to form a consensus answer, and then share their
results with the entire class. The use of pairs can be introduced at any time during
a class to address questions or solve problems or to create variety in a class
presentation. The Jig Saw method (Aronson 1978) is a good example. Students
become "experts" on a concept and are responsible for teaching it to the other
group members. Groups subdivide a topic and members work together with those
from other groups who have the same topic. They then return to their original
groups and explain their topic. Slavin developed the STAD method (Student
Teams-Achievement-Divisions) where the teacher presents a lesson, and then the
students meet in teams of four or five members to complete a set of worksheets on
the lesson. Each student then takes a quiz on the material, and the scores the
students contribute to their teams are beased upon the degree to which they
have improved their individual past averages. The highest scoring teams are
recognized in a weekly class newsletter. In another method developed by Slavin-
TGT (Teams-Games-Tournaments) instead of taking quizzes the students play
academic games as representatives of their teams. They compete with students
having similar achievement levels and coach each other prior to the games to
insure all group members are competent in the subject matter. Other structures
include: Co-op, Co-op (Kagan), CIRC- Cooperative Integrated Reading and
Comparison (Madden, Slavin, Stevens), Group Investigation (Sharan,
Aharan), Issues Controversy, Learning Together (Johnson, Johnson), Jigsaw
II(Slavin), TAI-Team Assisted Individualization (Slavin, Leavy, Madden), Structured
Controversy (Johnson, Johnson).
OPTIONS IN COOPERATIVE LEARNING (Lee 1997)
There are many ways that cooperative learning can be implemented. An
educator's philosophy plays a key role in determining how cooperative learning is
used. The table below displays a number of issues in education. Following the
table, implications of various choices are discussed. Please bear in mind that the
choices in the table are not either-or choices. Instead, they represent continua,
and the views of educators lie at many different points along these continua.
Further, a given educator's views are affected by the students the are currently
teaching.
1. student-centered--------------------------teacher-centered
2. intrinsic motivation---------------- extrinsic motivation
3. knowledge construction-------------knowledge transmission
4. loose, trusting students to do----------- structured,
it right social engineering
Issue 1. Student centered -- Teacher-centered
The issue here is the role of students in shaping the classroom. Student-centered,
also called learner-centered, means that students provide input into what the
class does and how it does it. This includes decisions about what to study, how to
study it (e.g., by reading, field trips, discussion, lecture), choice of group mates,
how often to use groups, which group activities to do, how assessment is
conducted, and what rewards and punishments - if any - are given.
In a teacher-centered situation the above decisions are made exclusively by the
teacher. Teachers are the bosses, leaders, and creators, while students are the
employees, followers, and users. The what and how of learning are preplanned by
the teacher. When students are in groups, they are studying material chosen by
the teacher. The teacher decides who is in which group, gives groups time limits
for finishing their tasks, and does all the assessment.
Issue 2. Intrinsic motivation - Extrinsic motivation The issue here is how students
become motivated to learn and cooperate. Intrinsic motivation comes from within
students. For example, they want to learn for the joy of learning, because they are
very interested in the topic, or to improve themselves. Helping other students flows
from the desire to be altruistic and the enjoyment of collective effort. Students
learn together without the use of grades, team award certificates, and other
rewards or punishments to encourage them.
On the other hand, extrinsic motivation comes from outside the students. For
example, they learn in order to receive praise, grades or other rewards from
teachers, parents, classmates, and others. They may not help one another learn if
there are no outside incentives. When rewards or threats of punishment are not
there, students may be less eager to learn and to help one another.
Issue 3. Knowledge construction - Knowledge transmission
This issue involves the process by which students learn. Knowledge construction, a
concept from cognitive psychology, is the idea that learners construct their own
networks of knowledge by connecting new information with their past knowledge
and interests. Each person is different; we each will come away from the same
lesson with different constructions of the ideas presented. Teachers can facilitate
this construction work, but the key is what happens in each individual's mind. The
use of open-ended questions is consistent with knowledge construction. In this
view, collaborative interaction in groups provides students with many opportunities
to build and try out their developing knowledge.
Knowledge transmission, a concept from behaviorist psychology, sees knowledge
flowing directly from the teacher to the student, just like the teacher is pouring
knowledge into the students' heads. What the teacher teaches should go into
each learner's head without being filtered by what is already there. Close-ended
questions tend to predominate in this type of instruction. The main role of groups
from this perspective is to make sure group members master the material
transmitted by the teacher.
Issue 4. Loose -- Structured
This issue refers to the extent which teachers believe groups of students will work
together well without teacher intervention. Teachers may start by using more
structure and as students become familiar with the group process and proficient
at working together they eventually, may be looser about structuring group
activities and teaching collaborative skills in order to encourage effective group
interaction. On the other hand, other teachers feel that they need to be like social
engineers, structuring group interaction, or else students will not reap the benefits
of working together. The issues discussed above are also heard when some
people contrast the terms "collaborative learning" and "cooperative learning". At
the same time, it should be pointed out that other educators use the two terms
interchangeably.
Collaborative Learning (Orr 1997)
Frequently, when students or teachers hear the phrase collaborative learning, they
automatically assume a work group context, harken back to their own unpleasant
experiences with work or study groups, and dismiss the notion of collaboration as
an unworkable approach that attempts to transfer the burden of teaching from
teacher to student. Such anxiety is worth noting because it represents an acute
misunderstanding of what has become a most viable approach to teaching and
learning.
Collaborative learning is based upon the following principles:
1. Working together results in a greater understanding than would likely have
occurred if one had worked independently.
2. Spoken and written interactions contribute to this increased understanding.
3. Opportunity exists to become aware, through classroom experiences,of
relationships between social interactions and increasedunderstanding.
4. Some elements of this increased understanding are idiosyncratic and
unpredictable.
5. Participation is voluntary and must be freely entered into.
Cooperative Learning is very similar except that it introduces a more structured
setting with the teacher in total control of the learning environment. Interactive
learning relies on the application of computer technology as the collaborative
medium between student and teacher. But all three learning approaches
recognize that learning is indeed a two-way street with teaching and learning
being two components of the same educational system. The approaches diverge
in the amount of freedom allowed the participants; collaborative learning
strategies are the most open.
In my classes, I view student-teacher and student-student collaboration as
essential to successful learning. Thus, I will seek every opportunity to encourage
collaborative experiences. This does not imply that there will be no traditional
lecture formats. Some lecturing is necessary either to clarify complex informational
ideas or to present material not readily available. But students will experience a
variety of instructional methods and they will be actively involved in the learning
experience