A Justification for Collaborative Learning Environments. Part 4 - Comparative Analysis

A Justification for Collaborative Learning Environments. 

Part 4 - Comparative Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Collaborative learning, a form of active learning, is an alternative learning technique to the transitional lecture based styles.  collaborative learning involves teams of students working toward a common solution through group discussion.  This form of learning encourages active participation by the learners in the teams.  In this style of learning, the instructor's role changes from one of knowledge transfer to one of knowledge facilitation.  Instructors focus on encouraging engagement by team members and facilitating the learning process. 

Teamwork is a requirement in today's businesses.  Organizational structures have seen a change from the tall, formal hierarchies, to flatter, team-based structures.  Bishop and Mahajan identified that business managers use teams to meet organizational goals 68% of the time (n.d.).  Other studies identify that team development skills as the fourth most most cited required skills in organizations (Blanchard, n.d.).  During the process of learning the course objectives in collaborative learning, students develop the teamwork skills organizations rely on so heavily.  The process of the classroom is part of the learning.

Two different methods of teaching were used in the same course over different semesters.  The purpose of the study was to compare the learning outcomes between lecture-oriented techniques and collaborative learning techniques in a similar course.  The study evaluated student's average scores from an activity that was presented as a quiz in a lecture-oriented course against the same activity used as a collaborative learning team assignment in the following semester.  Additionally, retention was measured by presenting the above mentioned activity a second time to the collaborative learning students.

METHODS

In the Spring of 2012, a Business Course was taught using a lecture-oriented method.  In the Fall of 2012, collaborative learning was introduced for the same course for the purpose of this research.  The student's learning outcomes will be evaluated by the following two methods:

1.  The same activity was given in both semesters.  A careful diagnosis of average scores and student performance between the two semester can be utilized to analyze students' learning outcomes

2.  Students in the collaborative learning sections were asked to complete the activity a second time individually, in a later class, to identify retention of the assessed materials.

RESULTS/CONCLUSION

The results of this study indicate that collaborative learning techniques lead to an increase in learning and retention by students.  

Although the students in the lecture-oriented course received a longer lecture covering the assessed materials, their average score was 11% lower than the collaborative course students.  the average score for the assessed materials in the lecture-oriented course was a 63%.  The students who received a more condensed version of the lecture, but collaborated on the activity, averaged 74%.  

The second attempt at the activity by the collaborative learning students resulted in an average score of 70%.  This indicates a strong level of retention, and again, an increased understanding for the assessed materials over the lecture-oriented method from the previous semester.

A Justification for Collaborative Learning Environments. Part 3 - A Peer Review

A Justification for Collaborative Learning Environments.  

Part 3 - A Peer Review

As part of our annual performance evaluation process, faculty are encouraged to invite other faculty to their class for peer evaluations.  I was interested in hearing another instructor's opinion of my new collaborative learning environment as well.  Below is a copy of the review from a fellow faculty member, providing yet another justification for this learning environment.

On the day that I observed class, Professor Kuhl returned and reviewed a recent exam and, afterwards, introduced a chapter that explored the circumstances under which parties to a contract can rescind it.

Nearly all students engaged the various topics that filled the class period, and attendance appeared to be at or very near 100%. As the class reviewed the exam, Professor Kuhl invited students to defend those answers for which she did not assign them credit. The exercise produced informed, spirited, and civil discussions filled with teachable moments that Professor Kuhl used to very good effect (even though she mostly—and, it seemed to me, rightly—resisted their attempts to add to their exam score).

Then, Professor Kuhl briefly introduced the new chapter. She aptly used a traditional format of talk and chalk and accompanied this with slides. She often asked students questions or prompted them for comments. The dead silence that instructors often confront in such situations was absent. Students were clearly comfortable speaking in class and several volunteered comments and questions. These exchanges most impressed me.

Professor Kuhl followed her brief lecture with an active-learning group activity, in which students worked through a series of case studies that required them to apply the concepts contained in the lecture. Students joined their pre-assigned groups and engaged the activity. Few if any students distracted themselves or others with tangential discussions and the like. 

Throughout the exercise, Professor Kuhl visited each group and, when necessary, helped them along. Afterwards, groups shared and debated their responses. Like the earlier exercise, this activity produced informed and spirited discussions filled with teachable

moments. And, again, Professor Kuhl used these to terrific effect. Professor Kuhl assigned credit to each group based on their participation, rather than on the quality of their responses. If the credit that students receive for group exercises comprises a relatively small percentage (say 10% to 15%) of their final grade, then this assessment approach is, I think, an effective and low-cost way to stimulate discussion and maintain attendance; otherwise, Professor Kuhl may want to assess these outcomes more critically. In any case, the activity inspired me to try something similar in my courses.

In conclusion, Professor Kuhl is passionate about teaching. Her stage presence exudes confidence and control, while it comforts and earns the trust of her students. Most important, her hard work in the classroom (and in preparation for it) seems to contribute significantly to student learning. I applaud her efforts to balance active and more-traditional lecture-format learning approaches.