Discussion arising from the publication of my definition of cooperative versus collaborative learning

From: rlaw@whe2.nl.edu (Randee Lawrence)
To: aednet <aednet@pulsar.acast.nova.edu>

This post is in response to Ted Panitz' commentary on the differences
between collaborative and cooperative learning. For the most part I agree
with Ted's distinction. Collaborative learning as I see it is more of a
philosophy of learning than a method of teaching. I do not know a great
deal about ccoperative learning except a little of Slavin's work and that
it seems to be especially effective in primary education. I get a little
concerned when I hear people say that they are doing collaborative learning
when what they really mean is that are having students work together in
small groups. This is but one manifestation of CL. I see collaborative
learning as students and teachers engaged in a process of mutual inquiry
and reflection through the sharing of ideas, experiences and perspectives.
It involves exploring problems and issues from the multiple viewpoints of
the participants in order to arrive at a deeper level of understanding and
thus co-create knowledge. Collaborative learning is based on the following
epistemological assumptions (synthesized from the writngs of Bruffee, Smith
and MacGregor, Whipple, and Bouton and Garth):

Knowledge is socially constructed by the learners; knowledge is created,
not transferred, invididuals. peers and groups are seen as sources of
knowledge along with teachers and texts; learning occurs in communication
with others rather than in individual minds; knowledge created by a group
belongs to that group; learning had affective and social dimensions.
I do not agree that collaborative learning always results in concensus
building. CL allows for divergent views to coexist in a creative tension.
Mutual understanding does not equal agreement. Rather, the collaborative
environment provides communal space for healthy conflict to occur and
mutiple perspectives and world views to be illuminated.

Randee Lipson Lawrence National-Louis University 200 S. Naperville Rd.
Wheaton, Illinois 60187
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: "Dr. Rob Higgins" rhiggins@cybercorp.net     To: aednet aednet@pulsar.acast.nova.edu Subject: Re: collaborative/cooperative learning On Tue, 8 Oct 1996, Randee Lawrence wrote:

> with Ted's distinction. Collaborative learning as I see it is more of a
> philosophy of learning than a method of teaching. I do not know a great
> deal about cooperative learning except a little of Slavin's work and tha
> small groups. This is but one manifestation of CL. I see collaborative
> learning as students and teachers engaged in a process of mutual inquiry
> and reflection through the sharing of ideas, experiences and perspectives.
> It involves exploring problems and issues from the multiple viewpoints of
> the participants in order to arrive at a deeper level of understanding and
> thus co-create knowledge.

Well, as I've indicated previously, cooperative learning was already
an established philosophy of education and the term collaborative was
used within it to refer to skills of collaboration, much as co-authors
might collaborate on a book. (or as one might, as a collaborationist,
collaborate with the enemy!! :-) which begs the question, who is the
enemy, the teacher or the students???

Anyway, in the text I'm about to cite, the term collaboration seems to
be approaching the crossover point as it is increasingly used almost
interchangeably with cooperative. Nevertheless, I would maintain that
"cooperative learning" is the best term for the field generally, and
that all the collaborative components fit nicely within it.

Adams, D., Carlson, H., and Hamm, M. (1990). Cooperative learning &
educational media: Collaborating with technology and
with each other. USA: Educational Technology Publications Inc.

Chapt. 1: Cooperative Learning
Section: Cooperative Learning Environments
Subsection: The Role of the Teacher in the Cooperative Classroom

... Traditional goal structures tended to be teacher centered with
teachers controlling learning by imparting knowledge, maintaining
control, and validating thinking.

Section: Cooperative Learning: Changing Attitudes and Values
... The ways we choose to spend our teaching/learning time convey
implicit messages to students about what is valued and important.
Traditionally, most task time was spent listening to the teacher
or working on isolated paper and pencil tasks. If such large amounts
of time are devoted to the learning of isolated facts, the underlying
assumption conveyed is that education means a tedious mastering
of a narrow range of skills, emphasizing product. Important
educational matters are much broader. Like cooperative learning,
they represent more of an attitude toward the world than a set
of subskills.

Section: Cooperative Learning and Tomorrow's School
... Students cluster together, discuss topics and learn to take
charge of their own learning. Team spirit, rather than individual
rivalry, is stressed as students learn to work together in mixed
ability groups. Students work together to accomplish a learning
goal and their team is held responsible for each group member's
learning. The student's objective is not only to complete the
task, but to learn something as a team. The success of one student
aids others.

... Within cooperative learning groups the student's role also
changes. The role of the collaborative researcher replaces the
traditional notion of student as a passive knowledge recipient.
Learning starts with curiosity, moves toward students' interpretation
of the subject's meaning in their lives, and then is connected
to other areas of knowledge.

And from the preface:
... The book is intended for ... [educators] and others curious
about the newly converging concepts of cooperative learning and
educational technology. It provides those responsible for educational
experiences with collaboration strategies and procedures for
applying technology in the classroom. We believe that by building
a dynamic and literate learning environment, with a team approach,
students will also be able to transfer cooperative models to the world
of work and the need for self-generated life-long learning.

NOTE 1: I'm sticking with "Cooperative Learning"

NOTE 2: It applies to all levels of learning (and life :-)

NOTE 3: I recommend the above book for what it says about cooperative
and collaborative, but it missed the boat slightly with respect
to computer-supported coopertive learning (CSCL) as we have
come to know it in CMC environments.

Dr.Robert N. Higgins Ph.D. | ~ ~ ~ GYMNASIA VIRTUALES ~ ~ ~
CyberCorp Inc. | GymVMOO - telnet cybercorp.net 8888
rhiggins@cybercorp.net | GymVCOW - http://www.cybercorp.net/COW
http://www.cybercorp.net | GymVCourses - http://www.cybercorp.net/gymv
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: Kim or Melodie Mackey <mackeys@alaska.net>
Subject: Collaborative Learning: Some comments

I would like to thank Ted Panitz for supplying some clarification on
Collaborative versus Cooperative learning. Herewith some comments I have
about sections of his post on Collaboration.

>Collaboration is 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.

Comment: When a teaching technique or idea is described as "a philosophy..."
alarm bells start going off in my head. Why? Because philosophy, like
religion, can lead to intolerance, pigheadedness (sp?), and unwillingness to
change one's views based on empirical evidence.

>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.

Comment: I would say that it is not necessary to have people come together
in groups before they can respect other people's abilities and
contributions. I believe this is an ongoing process in schools which the
students deal with quite successfully on their own. Sure, some people choose
not to do so...shouldn't they be allowed that choice?

>There is a sharing of authority and
>acceptance of responsibility among group members for the groups actions.

Comment: And what do you do with the kids who don't want responsibility? Who
think this type of activity is hokum? Who just want to suck off the brains
of the brightest in the group? Who refuse to participate? Who would rather
work on their own? Who see people getting credit for their ideas and decide
not to do any work if they don't get the credit they think is their just
reward? It is difficult enough for _adults_ to work collaboratively ( I have
worked in a number of such groups here in this district), let alone immature
adolescents. What has impressed me about my sojourns into the collaborative
process is the the incredible waste of time in an effort to build
"consensus" on issues that most people could care less about.

>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.

Comment: And what do you do about reasonable dissent? Consensus building
often winds up as another word for "Shut your mouth, don't object, majority
rules!". If I am in a collaborative group and I feel strongly about
something, I will be damned If I will submit to the will of the group if I
think they are wrong. For many people this is known as having "strong moral
fiber."

>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.

Comment: This is really starting to sound like a religion. I can see why
strong adherents to this philosophy will have trouble in conservative
communities....like mine.

>Collaborative learning advocates distrust structure
>and allow students more say in forming friendhip
>and interest groups. Student talk is stressed as a
>means for working things out. Discovery and
>contextural approaches are used to teach interpersonal skills."

Comment: Since this is the NCTM forum and concerns mathematics, let me just
say that I leave the interpersonal skill stuff to the students to work out
on an individual basis unless they are disrupting other students. My
emphasis will and continues to be the teaching of mathematical skills and
concepts. (With understanding, of course!)

>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."

Comment: Again, this sounds much like a religion, particularly the part
about interrelating with the environment rather than having control over it.
Here in Alaska you have to do both: without some control over local
environment, you die. And interrelating with a Moose or bear on the trail is
a quick lesson in adapt or die. Personally, I prefer to have a 30'06 or 44
magnum on my hip just in case the 'local environment' decides to have me for
lunch. Selfish of me, I know, and perhaps I will be sent to Collaborative
Hell for it, but I'll worry about that another time.

>while collaborative ties into the social
>constructivist movement, asserting that both knowledge and authority of
>knowledge have changed dramatically in the last century.

Comment: "social constructivist movement". Curious, is this related to Marxism?

>"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.)

Comment: So, the group decides their grade, then the class, and then, maybe,
the discipline, in the case of this forum, mathematics. So if the group of
kids decides that PI = 22/7 for all calculations, or that proofs are too
hard, or that a problem has no solution, they are to be allowed this in the
interests of "the ideal collaborative environment". Sounds like a recipe for
disaster. As a parent, let alone a teacher, I can see why "Collaborative
learning" has not made headway in the school system. It certainly won't in
this school system if I have anything to say about it.

>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)."

Comment: How about a solution in conflict with reality? Should we all
collaboratively jump off a cliff because the group consensus is that this
type of activity is good for us?

>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."

Comment: All authority? What about my liability if some kid wacks another
kid? What about the curriculum I am supposed to teach? How am I to determine
if the problem is open-ended or not? Trust the authority of "Collaboration
Central"?

>As a final thought, I think it behooves teachers to educate themselves about
>the myriad of techniques and philosophies which create interactive
environments where students take more responsibility for their own
learning and that of their peers. Then it will become possible to pick
and chose those methods which best fit a particular educational goal
>or community of learners.

Comment: I too think it important for teachers to educate themselves about
various techniques and philosophies, not only for educational goals and
learners, but for themselves, the parents, and the community of which they
are a part. For my community, cooperative learning seems to be much more of
a fit than collaborative learning.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: Judy Roitman <roitman@oberon.math.ukans.edu>
Subject: Re: Collaborative Learning: Some comments

Ted Panitz writes:

>>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.

Kim Mackey responds:

>Comment: And what do you do about reasonable dissent? Consensus building
>often winds up as another word for "Shut your mouth, don't object, majority
>rules!". If I am in a collaborative group and I feel strongly about
>something, I will be damned If I will submit to the will of the group if I
>think they are wrong. For many people this is known as having "strong moral
>fiber."

Here is my comment:
The whole point of collaborative learning is that you'd better not submit
to the "will of the group" because the group may be wrong wrong wrong. I
call on students at random from groups -- they'd better have a really good
idea of what's going on, and you don't get that from saying yes
absentmindedly.

I always tell my students about the role of the referee in research
mathematics, how important it is to not be satisfied too easily by what
other people say, and tell them that instead of saying "I don't understand
you" (which sounds like they're stupid) they should say "I don't *believe*
you," putting the burden on the other person to explain themselves clearly.
"Majority rules", as well as "believe-me-because-I-say-so," contradict the
spirit of collaborative learning. The concensus that CL is working towards
is the concensus of the research seminar, when people agree only because
they are completely satisfied that their conclusion is correct.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: pappel@frontier.wilpaterson.edu (Peter Appelbaum)
Subject: Re: Collaborative Learning: Some comments

 Kim or Melodie Mackey wrote:
>Comment: And what do you do with the kids who don't want responsibility? Who think this type of activity is hokum? Who just want to suck off the brains
>of the brightest in the group? Who refuse to participate? Who would rather
>work on their own? Who see people getting credit for their ideas and decide
>not to do any work if they don't get the credit they think is their just
>reward? It is difficult enough for _adults_ to work collaboratively ( I have
>worked in a number of such groups here in this district), let alone immature
>adolescents. What has impressed me about my sojourns into the collaborative
>process is the the incredible waste of time in an effort to build
>"consensus" on issues that most people could care less about.

I would say it's the teacher's job to DECIDE some things, including whether
the benefits outweigh POTENTIAL pitfalls enough to work on keeping the
cooperative or collaborative learning at the same time as saying to
themselves that they want to find ways to make sure their concerns are
dealt with. So the teacher would want to say, how can I make sure that
some students do not suck off the brains of the brightest? THEN what else
do I do? If I don't want to waste time buidling a consensus on some
issues, what are my options for avoiding this? (a: I occasionally say,
"class, it's not worth reaching consensus on this issue; as the teacher I
declare blah-blah-blah on this point; b: After an annoying waste of time
occurs, the teacher spends part of ONE class meeting talking about the
waste of time and asks the students to suggest ways to avoid such a drain
on valuable time; c: other better options abound, probably.

>Comment: And what do you do about reasonable dissent? Consensus building
>often winds up as another word for "Shut your mouth, don't object, majority
>rules!". If I am in a collaborative group and I feel strongly about
>something, I will be damned If I will submit to the will of the group if I
>think they are wrong. For many people this is known as having "strong moral
>fiber."

One thing *I* would do is raise this very issue: one day I say consensus
building can sometimes mean "shut your mouth" What times so far this year
have you felt you were being told to shut your mouth? How can a group set
up expectations to avoid this happening?

>Comment: This is really starting to sound like a religion. I can see why
>strong adherents to this philosophy will have trouble in conservative
>communities....like mine.

Yet adherents of "avoiding CL" also sound like followers of a religion
sometimes. Doesn't it work in all directions when someone is committed to
only one technique and can't imagine the value of another? For example,
surely there would be times in a CL-based class when a teacher might say,
"Yikes, this class is consistently deciding things in a direction I "know"
is "incorrect" based on my knowledge of math from when I was in college, so
we need to spend a week with me teaching some things that I know ... we'll
return to CL next week." In classes based on respect and trust, I would
expect the students to value this intervention as in their own interest, as
opposed to violating some inalienable "right".

>Comment: Since this is the NCTM forum and concerns mathematics, let me just
>say that I leave the interpersonal skill stuff to the students to work out
>on an individual basis unless they are disrupting other students. My
>emphasis will and continues to be the teaching of mathematical skills and
>concepts. (With understanding, of course!)

Isn't this implicitly advocating a certain form of interaction skills?

>Comment: Again, this sounds much like a religion, particularly the part
>about interrelating with the environment rather than having control over it.
>Here in Alaska you have to do both: without some control over local
>environment, you die. And interrelating with a Moose or bear on the trail is
>a quick lesson in adapt or die. Personally, I prefer to have a 30'06 or 44
>magnum on my hip just in case the 'local environment' decides to have me for
>lunch. Selfish of me, I know, and perhaps I will be sent to Collaborative
>Hell for it, but I'll worry about that another time.

Just like there are different approaches to religion, ranging at least from
fundamentalism to reconstruction of the tenets to meet contemporary needs
to switching religions based on convictions ... I would imagine CL might be
seen with a range at least as wide and open-ended.

>Comment: So, the group decides their grade, then the class, and then, maybe,
>the discipline, in the case of this forum, mathematics. So if the group of
>kids decides that PI = 22/7 for all calculations, or that proofs are too
>hard, or that a problem has no solution, they are to be allowed this in the
>interests of "the ideal collaborative environment". Sounds like a recipe for
>disaster. As a parent, let alone a teacher, I can see why "Collaborative
>learning" has not made headway in the school system. It certainly won't in
>this school system if I have anything to say about it.

My own approach would be to introduce questions that challenge a consensus
that I find dangerous. After all, the TEACHER is ALSO a member of the
collaborative group, so the teacher is OBLIGATED to raise objections or
share information. If I don't want them agreeing on PI=22/7 for all
calculations, then I have to introduce an example that demonstrates to the
group in some way that using that value for PI will cause problems for
them, or will not work for some instance. Thus they will not end up
forming that consensus! If they say proofs are too hard, I have to raise a
situation in which they can see that even though they are hard, they need
them for something they can understand ... then they can not reach that
consensus, and so on ...

>Comment: How about a solution in conflict with reality? Should we all
>collaboratively jump off a cliff because the group consensus is that this
>type of activity is good for us?

I say no, if the teacher sees something in conflict with a reality, then
they should pose a new question that leads the group to recognize this
conflict. One form of teaching model suggests that starting with a conflict
of this sort is a great trigger for student investigations.

>Comment: All authority? What about my liability if some kid wacks another
>kid? What about the curriculum I am supposed to teach? How am I to
determineif the problem is open-ended or not? Trust the authority of "CollaborationCentral"?

These are significant questions. Can we separate knowledge-authority from
behavior-authority? Or should we use physical behavior as part of the
colaboration and turn it back to the group: "Someone just wacked another
person; I suggest this is contrary to successful collaboration; w3hat can
we do to avoid such behavior in this room?" Or should we put limits on the
collaborative environment: "I need to inform the class that I am required
by my contract to prevent physical or verbal attacks ..."; "These are good
qestions, class, but our curriculum for the year requires us to table them
for a bit while we focus on this other topic that we have not yet explored...."

>Comment: I too think it important for teachers to educate themselves about
>various techniques and philosophies, not only for educational goals and
>learners, but for themselves, the parents, and the community of which they
>are a part. For my community, cooperative learning seems to be much more of
>a fit than collaborative learning.

I know you've alluded to some reasons for this above, but could you say
more about how you are distinguishing the two -- cooperative and
collaborative ? To be honest, I have been lumping these two together a lot
as I have been reading the posts in this stream in the list. How exactly
are the two different, and are the distinctions worth making? Are the
suggestions I have made above more appropropriate, do you think, for
cooperative rather than collaborative learning? Interesing discussion!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: Jeanette Dayman <jdayman@uoguelph.ca>

I have spent considerable time pondering the differnces between

collaborative and cooperative learning. It has been a major crux in the preliminary research I have done for my research proposal - "Implementing Collaborative Learning in Higher Education - Issues and Barriers." Before I can really proceed with the core of my paper, I need to differentiatethe two.

Many of the works you refer to in your email have been helpful to my own understanding of CL and CL, especially Kenneth Bruffee for collaboration and Johnson and Johnson for cooperation. I have found some great references from a range of articles in Change Magazine, AAHE Bulletin, Writing on the Edge, and a host of books. The National Centre of Postsecondary Teaching, Learning and Assessment have a few good publications as well, namely, Collaborative Learning: A Sourcebook for Higher Education. There seem to be a number of excellent conferneces as well that address collaborative leanring. In Canada, the Society for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education recently had their annual conference (June actually) and covered many sessions on the topic at hand.

Yes, the two concepts are very difficult to pin down, other then their
philosphical and epstimological roots they share many characteristics.
I quite like Whipple's (1997) view of collaborative learning in his
article found in AAHE Bulletin - "Collaboration is one of those words
like'salad' or 'game' that is, strictly, undefineable,...but [generally]
understood by looking at the characteristics with which it is often
associated" (p2-3). Indeed, "...collaboration is as complex a goal to
achieve, as it is to classify" (Tebo-Messina, 1993, p.63 from the
journal Writing on the Edge).

When looking CL vs CL, I tend to associate cooperative learning with basic education (k-12) and collaborative learning with higher education. Collaborative learning to me also tends to be associated with richer learning experiences than cooperative learning. From my perspective, collaborative learning can bring a diverse group of people together with their own and unique ideas, who have shared goals, who are active learners, who draw heavily upon their own experience, who are people interested in sharing new ideas, perspectives and information to create knowledge, and who are less interested in the mark they will receive, and more concerned with the learning they will take away from the process of collaborating.

This explanation is by no means exhaustive, but hints at some of my own ideas of what collaborative leanring encompasses. Below are some other explanations I have found in the literature.

Perhaps collaboration can be viewed as an umbrella term or on a continuum, where any number of cooperative, team, group learning techniques and approaches to learning are on the collaborative learning spectrum. One way to define cooperative learning may be as a subset of collaborative learning that is on the outer end of the collaborataive methods spectrum (Millis, 1995*), where it is more narrowly defined to the context of students working with students who are completing a task or project as a group, and as designated by the instructor. (yes i know, long sentence) (Eg. students placed in groups, task assigned, students take pieces to do indiviaully and come back to put together to hand into the instructor -WHAT HAVE THEY REALLY LEARNED!!!!) * from Teaching Improvement Practices:

Successful STrattegies for Higher Eduation - chapter - Introducing Faculty to Cooperative learning.

Collaborative learning then, may encompass any number of group leanring methods, emphasizing constructive efforts between and among students, faculty, researchers, etc. both in and outside of the classroom setting (Wren and Harris-Schmidt, 1991 - J of Teacher Education and Special Education), in which a common meaning or understanding of the learning at hand, is created. The group process should involve autobiography, a common inquiry process, active participation in learning and the understanding that the creation of knowledge is inherently social.

The August/September 1995 issue of The Teaching Professor offers some excellent insight into the differences of collaborative and cooperative learning. The article draws heavily from the work of Celeste Brody in "Collaborative or Coooperative Learning? Complementary Practices for Instrutional Reform." The Journal of Staff, Program, and Origanization Development, 12:3, Winter 1995: 133-143.

The debate lives on, but I am interested in what other people think. If you have any other information, tips, ideas about the implementation of collaborative learning in higher education from the perspective of faculty, administration, students, and the physical environment which collaborative learning should and shouldn't take place in, please forward to the listserve, or my personal email listed below.

Jeanette Dayman Rural Extension Studies University of Guelph
(519) 824-4120, ext. 6121 jdayman@uoguelph.ca
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: Steven Meyers <meyers@dls.net>

Jim wrote:

>I have used these techniques for years. Every time I have the same dilemma. How do I compensate for this shortcoming of cl? What suggestions would you offer me? I will assign students in groups of three to make a presentation. They are given adequate time, materials. There is always one person who does not adequately contribute as much as the otehr 2. How can I can justify giving all three the same grade?

There are several ways of minimizing social loafing in group activities.

These include:

1. Increase your ability to identify the contribution of each group  member. (Example: On a lab project, each student must collect data and turn in their data sheets with their name on them.)

2. Have each student make a unique contribution to the group project. (Example: Each group member becomes an "expert" on one particular topic, then has to share that knowledge with the group when they generate the product.)

3. Have group members evaluate each other's contribution. Provide them with evaluation criteria for greater consistency. The grade of each student can be a combination of your evaluation of the group project and the average of their peers' evaluations of their contribution.

4. Assign roles to group members during the activity (Example: Students are assigned roles such as "recorder," "leader," and
"participation-encourager.")

5. Promote group cohesion and identification with the group through stable membership throughout the semester. (Example: The groups used in cooperative learning exercises can also double as study groups for your students.)

Steven Meyers, Ph.D. School of Psychology Roosevelt University
office telephone: 312-341-6363 e-mail: meyers@dls.net
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: IN%"Rewbo@aol.com"

Here is a 1992 definition for your collection.

"Cooperative learning is group learning activity organized so that learning is dependent on the socially structured exchange of information between learners in groups and in which each learner is held accountable for his or her own learning and is morivated to increase the learning of others."

Olsen, Roger E. W-B and Kagan, Spencer (1992) "About cooperative learning" In Kessler, Carolyn (Editor) (1992) COOPERATIVE LANGUAGE LEARNING. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Regents/Prentice Hall. ISBN: 0-13-173618-3.

Roger E. W-B Olsen e-mail: rewbo@aol.com
1282 Twenty-Ninth Ave tel: (415) 665-8633
San Francisco, CA 94122 fax: (415) 681-3130
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: "Mansel A. Nelson" <man2@tntnet.slc.nau.edu>
Subject: Re: CL discussion

This is a real issue - "the teacher that doesn't explain" - or in my case

- - "the teacher that doesn't teach". The process I use (which could be called lots of things including collobrative learning) is student centered and I expect the students to find their own information using sources available to them - then they teach each other through a vareity of means.

I find the most important thing is to explain frequently to your students - - I tell them I know you don't like it (because it is a lot more work for the students) but this is why I use this approach......

I also explain to administrators and parents etc. i still get flack, but

I am also having several people and organizations approach me to become a consultant to them. I have very little "formal" training in "education" - but I am working hard and developing my own educational strategies by combining the best from all the different strategies that I run across.The key is communication - let people know what you are doing and why.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: paddyb@true.net (Jennifer Kaplan)
Subject: Re: CL discussion

>[RAR now] I wonder about that distinction between "a formula...that
>should be 'known'" and a "conceptual problem." Every formula has a
>concept behind it, the understanding of which often makes the formula itself easily memorable, and its use plain.

I knew that this statement would be controversial and I tried to make it as nuetral as possible. To elaborate, if a student asked me, while we were studying surface area, how to find the surface area of a cylinder, I would first ask, what parts make up a cylinder, or what pieces would we have to cut out of paper to make a cylinder and then work from there to the 'how to'. If a student in the same class asked me the same question two classes later, I would ask his/her partner to try to explain it. If a student in the same class asked me again two weeks later, I might ask the student to come after school so that we could work on the topic. When, during the course any year which follows, the topic came up again as part of something else, an a student had a question, I would direct the students attention to places where he/she could find help on his/her own (our books have a 'toolbox' with mini review lessons covering topics from previous courses.)

This is an example and I really don't think it is an unreasonable approach. If Jeanette knows that every time she asks me what the quadratic formula is, I will tell her, why would she bother too learn it? If she has to look it up every time, it gives her extra incentive.

I also want to take a minute to explain my philosophy in this. The world of math and science and technology is ever changing. While I can try to anticipate the needs of my students, I will not be with them, sitting on their shoulders, giving them directions, for the rest of their lives. I feel that the best thing I can do is to give my students the tools they can use to read and learn and understand on their own and the confidence to use those tools. The CL approach does that. Yes, it;s scray for students and teachers, but in the end students *must* be weaned from the idea that the teacher is the font of all knowledge and that nothing can be learned without his/her help. Just an aside as a question for teachers: how much gets done in your classroom when you are absent and there is a non-math teacher as a substitute?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
To: nctm-l@forum.swarthmore.edu
From: rpilgrim@ucsd.edu (Dick Pilgrim)
Subject: Re: Cl vs CL

Judy Roitman writes:

* The whole point of collaborative learning is that you'd better not submit
* to the "will of the group" because the group may be wrong wrong wrong. I
* call on students at random from groups -- they'd better have a really good
* idea of what's going on, and you don't get that from saying yes
* absentmindedly
* I always tell my students about the role of the referee in research
* mathematics, how important it is to not be satisfied too easily by what
* other people say, and tell them that instead of saying "I don't understand
* you" (which sounds like they're stupid) they should say "I don't *believe*
* you," putting the burden on the other person to explain themselves clearly.
* "Majority rules", as well as "believe-me-because-I-say-so," contradict the
* spirit of collaborative learning. The concensus that CL is working towards
* is the concensus of the research seminar, when people agree only because
* they are completely satisfied that their conclusion is correct.

I see Judy's meaning of concensus as appropriate for collaborative
learning. Personally, I always felt I learned much more in seminars,
including undergraduate seminars, where the group not only had to agree but
to defend the conclusion, than in a classroom presentation.

Ted Panitz writes:
* Rockwood states:
* Every person, Brufee holds, belongs to several "interpretative or knowledge
* communities" that share vocabularies, points of view, histories, values,
* conventions and interests.

* 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."

One view of teaching to which I subscribe is to help students move toward
collaborative learning, as interpreted by Judy Roitman above, as they
mature, especially those desiring to join the "knowledge community" of
mathematics.

Problems in school mathematics seem to lie with the student's acquisition
of the requisite "foundational knowledge" and the development of student
interest in joining the "knowledge 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,...."

At every level I have taught, from middle school through undergraduate,
there have been students who have acquired a disdain for the mathematics
"knowledge community" and therefore see no reason to acquire the
"foundational knowledge", all the way through a continuum to those students
already anxious to join the ranks of the mathematics "community" and
recognize the need to acquire this "knowledge". The classroom problem then
is how to involve all students - to promote *collaboration* among those
prepared for it, assist *cooperation* among those with positive or neutral
attitudes, and entice *cooperation* from those with negative attitudes
about the community.

reply to: Richard Pilgrim
University of California, San Diego
Math Testing and Placement
rpilgrim@ucsd.edu (619) 5334-3298
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: IN%"Coraggio@aol.com" Archie Tinelli

I found your discussion an interesting one and thought I'd add a word or two. I agree with Rockwood who indicated that one of the differences between the two terms was that cooperative dealt with foundational knowledge and collaborative was to evaluate and assess. That trigggered another thought. Perhaps, if we looked at learners along developmental lines, particularly as it relates to becoming self-directed learners, then the two forms of learning

might lie along a continuum whereby cooperative learning is a form of learning that would be appropriate for learners not as far along as those for whom collaborative learning would be appropriate. References to teacher-dominated aspects of cooperative learning would make sense for learners needing more structure and direction, whereas collaborative learning, with a more equal distritubution of power, would be appropriate for those needing less externally-imposed structure. If this were the case, then, as you suggest when you talk about finding ways to use the two approaches wisely, the key becomes knowing where the learners are (in their development as self-directed learners) and selecting the suitable approach.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: Ladnor Geissinger <ladnor.iat@mhs.unc.edu>
To: amte@csd.uwm.edu
Subject: CL: sense vs. nonsense

I want to thank T Panitz for the extended quotes and discussion of the differences and similarities between Cooperative Learning and  Collaborative Learning. Since I've read nothing about either, I found it somewhat helpful -- coop L seems sensible, common and directly  applicable, collab L seems radical, useless, inappropriate and a  diversion. There was nothing in the message that would entice me to read any of the articles on collaborative learning -- the quotes suggest the authors have nothing recognizable or useful to say about math and science teaching and learning.  I'm waiting for the discussion of required geometry topics for elementary and middle school teachers.

Ladnor Geissinger
Math Prof at UNC Chapel Hill & Math Chair at IAT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: M K Rippberger <mkr@MIRACOSTA.CC.CA.US>
Subject: Re: Experiments in Collaborative Learning (fwd)

My attitude toward testing was changed radically when I read an article, "The Partnership Exam," by Barbara Lester, a mathematics teacher at Ashland Community College. It was published in Innovation Abstracts, April 17, 1987, Vol. IX, No. 12. The series iss published by the Univ of Texas at Austin.

Lester described a class of 50 students in remedial algebra and told how she developed a system of pairing students to review for the mid-term exam. They worked so eagerly that she was inspired to give the exam to pairs also (students were allowed to take it "solo" too). Subsequent semesters found her using paired exams for all the course testing except the divisional competency exam at the end of the course. She indicated in her report that she would continue to gather data on the effectiveness of the collaborative study and testing procedure. Lester said, "To a veteran teacher who has heard years of disparaging remarks about mathematics, it is, indeed, heartening to see students begin a test with genuine hope, to

work at that task diligently and cooperatively and, yes, to show evidence of some enjoyment. In my opinion, the thought of cooperative learning holds many implications for individual growth and a sense of community that seems to be disappearing in today's world."

Two other articles in Innovation Abstracts also addressed collaborative testing: "Tandem Testing" by Carolyn Roth, a psychology teacher at Northern Virgina Community College (December 5, 1986, Vol VIII, No. 29), and "Why Not Team Testing?" by Julia Briggs and Thomas O. Harris, business management teachers at St Philip's College, San Antonia TX (March 2, 1990, Vol XII, No. 7).

Kathleen M. K. Rippberger
English as a Second Language & Information and Multimedia Technology
MiraCosta College, One Barnard Drive, Oceanside CA 92056
mkr@miracosta.cc.ca.us 619/757-2121, ext. 216
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
To: in%"lrnasst@kistserv.arizona.edu"

Hi Listers,

I think Bill Mead may have missed some of my own sarcasm and somewhat obtuse wit when he reacted to my post on the definitions of CL and CL. (I think I just did it again). I see nothing wrong with discussing teaching techniques which are developed ans studied by other teachers and researchers, especially if those methods represent different approaches to the standard lecture format. As the approaches evolve and more people become interested in learning about them the discussion usually turns to definitions. Not to nit pick them but to understand them better and to communicate with each other about them.

I'm not sure Bill made it to the end of my post where I concluded that each individual will take what works for them our of the approaches being defined as collaborative and cooperative. I would hope that teaching is an evolutionary process for all of us and that we would be interested in exploring new approaches just to see if they have a significant impact on our students. This can be accomlished without wholesale changes or makeovers in our teaching styles and methods. I am a strong proponent of CL (you figure out which one) but I am not satisfied with all the techniques I have tried and I do lecture as well as have interactive lectures ( another topic to differentiate differences between). I sometimes try to be a little humorous when I lecture by denying that I am doing so in my collaborative or is it cooperative classes.

I have enjpyed these discussions a great deal and I have an asbestos lined computer to avoid flame damage, so keep the responses coming. Didn;t some famous president say something about "You can agree to disagree all the time but you can't disagree to agree any oth the time"???
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: "William C. Mead" <wcm@ROADRUNNER.COM>

[WARNING: The following is a strongly stated, contrary opinion
that you may prefer to bury than read. Your choice. For my
part, I feel it necessary to voice the (strongly felt) opinion.]
I've been dismissing this thread as unimportant and mostly
skipping it. However, reading the following has made me aware of a
sense in which I consider this thread a symptom of something
widespread and very important...

Here is what became crystal clear to me when I read this:
Many educators today (not only those represented by this thread,
but also those in similar, parallel universes) have become
completely confused about what is or is not important to education.
A cancer is running through education in the US: the preoccupation
with tinier and tinier distinctions on subjects that matter less
and less. It absolutely blows my mind that intelligent adults who
are responsible for educating people in this country can consider
such a useless distinction as "CL vs. CL" to be the "holy grail
of interactive learning," and to be a proper subject for years
of endeavor. At the same time as large amounts of effort are wasted
creating and supporting meaningless distinctions, educators sit
around their terminals (an apt description of the place where such
terminal discussions take place) and bemoan how today's students
don't have the basic skills they need to satisfy a competitive world.

Get real!
William C. Mead wcm@ansr.com
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: IN%"cl@jaring.my"
Christine Lee/"@mr.nie.ac.sg

I had a similar problem of making a disinction between collaborative learning and cooperative learning when I began to be involved in training teachers in Singapore in cooperative learning strategies. This is where I have come in terms of my own understanding:

Cooperative learning is based on the principle of putting people together to work in heterogenous groups and in most cases the group consist of people of different achievement levels. While we respect that students of lower achievement level have something to contribute to the group, we are also aware that in terms of the academic tasks at hand, he may be considered by the others in the group as being to contribute less ... But that is fine...each will contribute according to his ability. In this instance, their working together is the result of cooperation...where each contributes accordingly.

In collaborative work however, I use the term to mean something less structured and where people who are experts in their own areas...and hence are seen as equal contributers ...collaborate to achieve a mutual goal. In other words, the key difference then is the level of contribution expected of each member of the team

Not sure whether or not I am on the right track.

Christine Lee Division of Geography National Institute of Education
LeeC@NIEVAX.NIE.AC.SG
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: IN%"tedu@quilombo.org

I found your insights regarding cooperative and collaborative learning insightful and instructive. It points out a division between teaching philosophies to which I have been giving quite a bit of thought.mI have often worried aobut the tendency just to make learning "fun". While I certainly hope this is _a_ goal of ours, I hope it is not the only goal. Your distinction between focusing on end product vs. process I found quite helpful. I find that I am more interested in giving my students tools than static content or end results. But I wonder if there isn't an even further dimension. I find that there are many educators so wedded to a "liberating" process, that they do not take the further step of turning the process in on itself. Urging the students to critque the tools themselves and then searching for or crafting ones that fit them even better. It might be that some of them prefer cooperative to collaborative learning (a seeming paradox?) It seems that until the members of the learning

community join together on the level of meta-process the dialogue between teacher and student will remain to some degree on the level of author and subject. Is this a third approach beyond the scope of either collaborative or coopertive learning or is it just a further iteration of collaborative learning? And does this have any implications for whether or not we choose one approach over the other at least initially?

To give you some context for my question: I am a high school teacher and a Co-Director of Quilombo, a private non-profit focused on education. Quilombo seeks to increase the participation of individuals and communities that are traditionally underrepresented, under-served, excluded, or misunderstood within schools. We examine how and why effective educational approaches work and how they can be initiated and sustained in a variety of settings. So I personally, and we as an organzation, are excited about your ideas and would love to hear about some of the resources you have used (or are using) to develop your theories.

Ted Uno
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: IN%"cl@jaring.my"
From: gansl@pppl.upm.edu.my (Gan Siowck Lee)

Thanks to Ted for presenting such interesting and thought-provoking
views. George and I would like to share some of our views which are somewhat relevant to the discussion.
READ1NG 6

OPTIONS IN COOPERATIVE LEARNING

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. (See Lesson 5 - Theories Underlying CooperativeLearning - for morediscussion of this point.) 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-centred--------------------------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 centred -- Teacher-centred

The issue here is the role of students in shaping the classroom. Student-centred, also called learner-centred, 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 groupmates, 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-centred 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 vcry 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 construaion, 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. Teacherscan 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 knnowledge.

Knowledge transmission, a concept from behaviourist 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. Those teachers who trust students to get it right, now or 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 pcoplc 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.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: IN%"orr@tech.iupui.edu" "Robert Orr"
Excellent discussion on the CL - CL debate. Myers, I think says it succinctly and well the key difference between collaborative and cooperative learning. Peggy Hite (IUB) has written an article on cooperative test taking which contains an excellent summary of the salient features of cooperative learning. In a more extensive presentation, Richard Felder and Karl Smith gave a nice NTU workshop on Cooperative Learning in Engineering which defines the field pretty well. Sharon Hamilton (IUPUI) gives an excellent definition of Collaborative Learning in her Sourcebook on that subject. I have attempted to synthesize the two plus have added my own perception to the interactive learning phenomenon which I see as technology dependent, and have summarized them in a "Teaching Philosophy" page that is part of my web page setup. Feel free to browse and offer comments. URL is

http://www.engr.iupui.edu/~orr/webpages/cpt352/tchgphil.htm
Bob Orr IUPUI (317)-274-9707 Professor of Computer Technology

Collaborative Learning

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 u nworkable 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 increased understanding.

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 coll aborative 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 doesnot 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
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: "Dr. Rob Higgins" <rhiggins@CYBERCORP.NET>

> Collaboration is 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.

You see, I would have said just the opposite. Collaboration is just a part of cooperation relating to methods and tools perhaps. Cooperation is a philosophy of interaction and lifestyle. A lifestyle of selflessness and sharing, by the way. That's partly why we have economic cooperatives and not collaboratives.

> collaboratve 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.

All of what you describe as collaborative has long been said of cooperative learning. The idea that cooperative learning is teacher centered is totally incorrect (although as in any advanced movement, some of the practitioners/writers may stray into their own limited views and ways)

> Spencer Kagan in an article in Educational Leadership (Dec/Jan 1989/1990) unbrella for the work cooperative learning specialists including the Johnsons, Slavin, Cooper, Graves and Graves, Millis, etc. It follows below:

As I say, some may stray. Kagan's description is not representative of the depth and breadth of cooperative learning (as my cites below will show)

> John Myers (Cooperative Learning vol 11 #4 July 1991) points out that 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 resp[ond to literature by taking a more active role in their own learning.

This is not supported in the literature as the quotes below show. And being neither Brit nor Yank, my bias is purely academic :-)

> It is clear to me that in undertaking the exercize of defining differences between the two ideas we run the risk of polarizing the educational community into a we versus them mentality. There are so many benefits which acrue from both ideas that it would be a shame to lose any advantage gained from the student-student-teacher interactions created by both methods. We must be careful to avoid a one-size-fits-all mentality when it comes to education paradigms. First of all they are not just methods, it is the definition of a field of theory and practice within education we are concerned with.

Why the authors of the recent materials you cite try to represent "cooperative learning" so narrowly is very strange indeed.

IN FACT, THE SUPPORTERS OF BOTH MODELS SEEM TO ENGAGE A SIMILAR PRACTICE AND MAKE CLAIMS FOR SIMILAR PHILOSOPHY AND BENEFITS. COOPTERATIVE LEARNING represented all those good things contained in contemporary views of learning before they became popular.

THERE IS NO NEED TO CHANGE THE NAME OR CREATE A NEW MODEL.

From my previous research: Higgins, R.N. (1991). Computer-mediated cooperative learning:
Synchronous and asynchronous communication between studentslearning nursing diagnosis. Doctoral Thesis. Toronto: University of Toronto

>From a subsection on Cooperative Learning:
Specific attention to student-student interaction is the
approach taken by instructors and researchers concerned with
cooperative learning. The underlying theme in cooperative
learning is based on the notion that cooperation is more human,
more productive, less wasteful, and less obstructive than
individualism and competition. Johnson (1981) observes that,
"competition and individualistic learning dominate most [North]
American classrooms, while cooperative learning experiences
appear to be far more effective in promoting desired educational
outcomes" (p. 5). Further, he notes:

It has been assumed by some that students' learning, socialization,
and development are primarily dependent on their interaction
with teachers; that peer relationships have little impact on
the student and, therefore could be ignored; and minor peer
influences that do exist in the classroom are an unhealthy
and bothersome influence, discouraging academic achievement. (p. 5)
Other benefits, such as those relating to the cognitive
aspects of learning, are revealed when the internal dynamics of
cooperative learning are examined. "The processes that promote
higher achievement ... among students may include the promotion
of high-quality reasoning strategies, the constructive
management of conflict over ideas and conclusions, increased time
on task, [and] more elaborative information processing"
(JohnsonDW85, p. 120).
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: IN%"shagberg@primenet.com" "Stephen C. Hagberg"

I want to thank you for posting the responses regarding cooperative learning. Nine years ago, I learned about cooperative learning from  attending two Spencer Kagan workshops, and have used the basic  concepts in my high school English classes ever since (I can't do  straight lecture because I put myself to sleep, so the discussion/ hands-on teaching methods work best for me). In fact, I presented an in-service for our teachers, introducing them to the basics of cooperative learning. I believe it's the planning involved that inhibits our teachers from using any new method or idea in their classes, unfortunately. But I digress :).

I really did just want to thank you because I have found the responses interesting, and I appreciate the time and effort you personally put in to begin the discussion and then to share the results with the list members.

Laurie Hagberg Village Christian High Sun Valley, CA 91352
shagberg@primenet.com
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
SEVERAL PEOPLE HAVE REQUESTED A DEFINITION OF COLLABORATIVE VERSUS COOPERATIVE LEARNING TO HELP FORM A BASIS FOR OUR CL DISCUSSION SERIES. I WOULD APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS ON THE FOLLOWING IDEAS.

PLEASE SEND POSTS TO THE LIST OR TO ME DIRECTLY.

REGARDS,
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 but I am still not completely satisfied with my perception of the two concepts. I believe my confusion arises when I look at processes associated with each concept and see some overlap or inter-concept usage. I will make a humble attempt to clarify this question by presenting my definitions and reviewing those of other authors who have helped clarify my thinking.

Collaboration is 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.

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 collaboratve 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 in an article in Educational Leadership (Dec/Jan 1989/1990) provides an excellent definition of cooperative learning by looking at general structures which can be applied to any situation. His definition provides an unbrella for the work cooperative learning specialists including the Johnsons, Slavin, Cooper, Graves and Graves, Millis, etc. It follows below:

"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 (Cooperative Learning vol 11 #4 July 1991) points out that the dictionaty 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 resp[ond 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 friendhip
and interest groups. Student talk is stressed as a
means for working things out. Discovery and
contextural 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 whast 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 (National Teaching and Learning Forum vol 4 #6, 1995 part 1) 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. "The result has been a transition from "foundational (cognitive) understanding of knowledge", to a nonfoundational ground where "we understand knowledge to be a social construct and learning a social process" (Brufee, Collaborative learning: Higher Education, Interdependence, and the Authority of Knowledge, 1993). 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 holds, belongs to several
"interpretative or knowledge communities" that share vocabularies,
points of view, histories, values, conventions
and interests. The job of the instructor id 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."

It is clear to me that in undertaking the exercize of defining differences between the two ideas we run the risk of polarizing the educational community into a we versus them mentality. There are so many benefits which acrue from both ideas that it would be a shame to lose any advantage gained from the student-student-teacher interactions created by both methods. We must be careful to avoid a one-size-fits-all mentality when it comes to education paradigms.

As a final thought, I think it behooves teachers to educate themselves about the myriad of techniques and philosophies which create interactive environments where students take more responsibility for their own learning and that of their peers. Then it will become possible to pick and chose those methods which best fit a particular educational goal or community of learners.