Groups Organisational and learning perspectives

Piet Van den Bossche, Wim H. Gijselaers, Mien Segers, Paul A. Kirschner (2006)

Social and Cognitive Factors driving teamwork in collaborative Learning environments: Team learning Beliefs and Behaviours

Small Group Research (2006) 37:490-521

P492 ‘In the past, research on collaborative learning has particularly focused on the structural conditions leading to better outcomes eg group size, nature of the task ( Dillenbouurg, Baker, Blaye & O’Malley (1996), Webb and Palincsar, 1996)’

This research P490 ‘ looks for the discourse practices managing the co-construction of mutually shared cognition and reveals conditions in the interpersonal context that contribute to engagement in these knowledge- building practices’

This research argues that the Co-construction requires integration of different perspectives ( cognition) and practice ( group working), on social as well as cognitive P491 ‘ , although these two perspectives on collaboration are profoundly intertwined, most research focuses on one of them ( Krejins, Kirschner and Jochems, 2003). In order to integrate these two perspectives P492 ‘Barron(2003) points out that this entails an articulation of how characteristics of the interaction ( discourse practices ) interact with knowledge –building processes that lead to mutually shared cognition’ P493 ‘groups have to deal with what Barron calls both a relational space and a content space, which compete for limited attention’ that ‘ competiveness and friendships can hinder or stimulate groups , respectively, ‘

The model that will be built p494 ‘ presents an integrative perspective, building on the strength of different research strands. It includes both discourse practices that manage the co-construction of mutually shared cognition and conditions in the interpersonal context that contribute to engagement in these knowledge-building practices’ It also intergrates ideas about team working from organisation with collaborative learning research.

P494-495 “collaboration is defined as the process of building and maintaining a shared conception of a problem or task, distributing responsibility across members of the group, sharing expertise, and mutually constructing and negotiating cognition ( Roschelle, 1992).’ ‘ the interaction between members of the group and the characteristics of their discourse is considered the process’ by which this is achieved. Negotiation ( Dillenbourgh) , the process of achieving agreement, is a key element in collaborative learning with ‘real’ agreement depends on joint understanding.

The cognitive view

In a social learning situation on member will offer up their understanding ( Stahl) which can act as a trigger for others to do likewise. In this way an individual will develop ( construct) their own meaning by adapting and accommodating the views of others. (KRO Triggers and trigger clues can be built into the course design). This can evolve into co-construction by refining, building on and modifying the original offer ( trigger) in some way.

The idea of constructive conflict as a vehicle to enhance (?stimulate) co-construction

The authors argue that mutual understanding is not enough that the understanding p496 ‘ must also be accepted before they form the basis for action’ in fact coordinated action. In this way it becomes an agreed upon interpretation. ‘ So disagreement or divergence in itself seems to be less important than the fact that it generates communication among peer members ( Dillenbourgh et al, 1996). The team will only benefit if the divergence in meaning leads to further negotiation.

However, there can be times when a negotiation is seen as ‘a personal, emotional rejection and as such it can interfere with productive team behaviour ( De Dreu & Weingart, 2003)’

For the model the cognitive is identified as

Team learning behaviour

1. Construction

2. Constructive criticism

3. Co-construction

This aspect of the model embraces the ides of p504 ‘conversational actions enabling team members to become partners in the construction of shared knowledge ( Roschelle, 1992).

The social view

P497 ‘ the identification of the social conditions under which teams make this effort to reach shared knowledge is an essential prerequisite for developing enhanced understanding of successful collaboration’

The group needs to evolve as a social system. It is ‘believed’ that the interpersonal context , the social system , form the context that stimulates or inhibits learning behaviour.

Cohen & Bailey (1997) identified 4 group –level beliefs p498 ‘ that potentially affect the learning behaviour in teams’

For the model the social is identified as

Beliefs about interpersonal context

1. Psychological safety: p499 ‘ it alleviates excessive concern about others’ reaction to actions that have the potential for embarrassment or threat, which learning behaviours often have’ ( Edmonson, 1999)

2. Cohesion: Mullen & Copper (1994) distinguished between task and social cohesion. P500 ‘Teams that perform well are committed to successful task performance and regulate their behaviour to that end’ ‘high task motivation shows the existence of shared goals and the motivation to strive for it. It regulates the (learning) behaviour that fosters the achievement of these goals’ Chang and Bordia, 2001, ‘ social cohesion is a predictor of team viability’ ‘The relation of social cohesion with learning behaviour is more complex. On the one hand, it promotes learning behaviour because of the willingness to help each other, whereas on the other hand, high social cohesion could lead to an uncritical acceptance of solutions’

3. Task Interdependence: P500 ‘ Studies have shown that task interdependence leads to more communication, helping, and information sharing than individualistic tasks

4. Group Potency: ‘ the collective belief of group members that the group can be effective’ ( Shea & Guzzo, 1987a, p.26) p501 ‘ that positive evaluations of the team’s potency are expected to have positive effects on collective motivation and performance’. ‘The sense of confidence generated by high levels of potency is believed to help teams to persevere in the face of adversity ( Gully et al, 2002).

The model: p502 ‘ Beliefs about interpersonal context shape the willingness to engage in learning behaviour’

Method

2 first year undergraduate cohorts. 7 weeks f-f. One cohort self selected group members, other allocated . Questionnaire ( Team Learning beliefs and behaviors questionnaire) administered during the last week of the course. ( ‘Please indicate to what extent you agree with the following statements concerning the team in which you are working and the task with which you are dealing’ 75 teams. Assessment of psychometric properties by PCA ( varimax rotation with eigenvalues of 1.0 or above; reliability using Cronbach’s alpha)

Measuring instrument

Items adapted from research that matched the conceptual framework of the current research. Used PCA with optimal rotation and Cronbach’s alpha to test the psychometrics alongside an independently conducted theoretical critique of the individual questionnaire items. The questionnaire items can be grouped according to the components of the model under test.

1. Beliefs about learning context - psychological safety, task interdependence, cohesion ( group and task) and group potency

2. Learning behavior, items about construction, co-construction and constructive conflict)

3. Student perception of mutual understanding

4. Team effectiveness ( Hackman, 1989) 3 dimensions, performance, viability, learning

Individual measures from team members was aggregated!!!!!! P507 ‘ Within –group agreement was assessed using a multiple – item estimator’ Authors argue that individual responses within the team are examples of repeated measures.

1. The social side of collaborative learning – Beliefs about the interpersonal context

As with the cognitive dimension, survey items were selected as appropriate from a range of other research work. Initial FA of the entire set led to a number of items being dropped from the survey .

2. The Cognitive side of collaborative learning – Team learning behaviours in the model

9 questionnaire items selected from other questionnaires as best suited to obtaining student responses about construction, constructive conflict and co-construction.

FA led to one factor ie these items tap into one factor that could be termed team learning behaviour.

3. Student perception of mutually shared cognition

2 items on the questionnaire ( once again based on research)

one addresses outcome ‘ At this moment the team has a common understanding of the task we have to handle’

the other addresses process ‘ at this moment the team has a common understanding of how to deal with the task’

FA gave 1 factor loading with good results for Cronbach’s alpha.

4. Student beliefs about team effectiveness

Hackman (1989) defined 3 dimensions of team effectiveness;

Performance ( 1 item measured the product another measured the process)

Viability ( ‘ I would want to work with this team in the future’,

Learning (‘As a team we have learned a lot’ )

FA gave 1 factor loading with good results for Cronbach’s alpha.

Analysis of the model : using multiple regression and path analysis

1. Does collaborative learning build mutually shared cognition? (2-3) multiple regression analysis

2. Do identified beliefs about interpersonal context influence team learning behaviour ( 1-2) multiple regression analysis

3. Does mutually shared cognition predict team effectiveness? (3-4) stages 1-3 tested as a model using path analysis(LISREL)

4. Does mutually shared cognition mediate the relation between team learning behaviour and team effectiveness? Stages 1-4 tested as a model using path analysis(LISREL)

Acceptable goodness of fit on page 508

3 regression analyses (table 2)

Does team learning behaviour significantly predict the mutually shared cognition as reported by the team (2-3)(YES)

Does the mutually shared cognition predict team effectiveness? (3-4)(YES)

Does mutually shared cognition mediate the relationship between team learning behavior and team effectivesness (2-3-4) (PARTIALLY)

P511 ‘The originally hypothesized model is composed of paths leading from the four constructs measuring beliefs toward team learning behaviour and a path from learning behaviour toward mutually shared cognition. ‘

‘Inspection of the modification indices ( Sorbom, 1989) suggests one additional path between the task cohesion and mutually shared cognition.’

The relation between the team learning behaviours (2) and team effectiveness(4) in the first analysis is only partially mediated by mutually shared cognition.(3)

‘This model is most important and interesting if one looks from an educational point of view because in this model one can see the factors that are influencing the cognitive outcomes of team learning; the mutually shared cognition that is built through participating in the team learning activities. This is, in other words, the cognitive , the cognitive residue or the conceptual development resulting from team learning.’

A fourth multiple regression then tested i.e. bring in the social

Do the identified team beliefs (psych safety, group cohesion , group potency , interdependence) of the interpersonal context predict the occurrence of team learning behaviour? (1-2) note cohesion was split to two variables ( task & social)

Based on a multiple regression analysis, four of the five identified team beliefs, interdependence, task cohesion, group potency and psychological safety significantly and substantially predict team learning behaviour – Social cohesion was the exception and was therefore excluded from further analysis.

Further analysis supported the view that these four beliefs about the interpersonal form the context in which teams are motivated to display the crucial learning behaviour.

Testing the full model – 2 steps, step 1 does not include team effectiveness

To recap of stage 1 – testing the model stages 1-3

Taking the original model (1-2-3) and excluding team effectiveness (4) and looking at the goodness of fit indicators there is room for improvement . p511 ‘Inspection of the modification indices (Sorbom, 1989) suggests one additional path between task cohesion and mutually shared cognition’ as already described above, ( ie a path from task cohesion that bypasses group learning behaviours). Therefore the model, stages, 1-3 , is confirmed and also an additional element is indicated, p512 ‘ the shared commitment toward the task seems to have effects on mutually shared cognition (3) that are not grasped by the learning behaviours alone’

The next step included team effectiveness(4). P512 ‘ However the fit indices show that this model is not probable ………. Inspection of the modification indices ( Sorbom, 1989) showed that two additional paths are necessary; one path from task cohesion towards team effectiveness and one path from group potency to team effectiveness. P513 ‘ Both these adjustments seem theoretically acceptable. …… a high shared commitment to the task and a high group potency of the team will probably show itself in other team behaviour leading to effectiveness that is not fully grasped by the identified team learning behaviours’

	1

Note coeficients not shown – nor are the interrelationships between the 4 team learning beliefs

Conclusion

P514 ‘ team learning does not occur by just putting people together’ .

p515 ‘The identified aspects such as interdependence, task cohesion, psychological safety, and group potency , turned out to be crucial for the engagement in team learning behaviour in teams, which in turn gives rise to mutually shared cognition, in turn leading to higher perceived team effectiveness. The results of this research show that constructs and insights from organizational science concerning beliefs about the interpersonal context in teams are transferable to collaborative learning in educational settings’

‘task commitment supplemented with shared responsibility, drives people to collective learning processes. Furthermore, a high group potency belief strenghthens the idea that the investment will pay off and so encourages the process of learning’

‘students and professionals need (to learn how) to cope with these beliefs about the interpersonal context and processes’

‘This research sheds light on the cognitive demands of teams in dealing with framing of the task or problem at hand; …….. that room for construction, co-construction , and constructive conflict need to be made in the process of reaching mutual shared cognition. This can involve slowing down the interaction’

‘conflicts need to be seen as windows of opportunity instead of threats to progress. By taking them as conflicts around the interpretation of a problem, they can be the motor of further communication ( Dillenbourg et al., 1996) ‘

J & J (2009)

Hanna Järvenoja & Sanna Järvelä (2009)

Emotion control in collaborative learning situations: Do students regulate emotions evoked by social challenges?

British Journal of Educational Psychology , 463-481

Research moves from ideas of self regulated learning to how motivation is regulated in collaborative contexts where there are socio-emotional challenges.

P463 ‘ During recent years, self regulated learning (SRL) has become a major research field. SRL successfully integrates the cognitive and motivational components of learning. Self regulated learning (SRL) p463 ‘ an active, goal orientated process that encompasses the control of cognitive and metacognitive actions, motivation and affect, and context’ with social as primarily contextual article goes on to interrogate the impact of socio-emotional challenges.

In collaborative learning individuals need to regulate the process of learning together and this involves

· Negotiate

· Compromise

· Reconsider

· Explain

· Listen

P464 ‘ group members regulate their emotions and cognition together through shared responsibility for the learning task requirements’ can be conceptualized as either

1. Shared regulation – group employs common strategies and tactics to control challenges together’

2. Co-regulation , ‘in which individuals assist each other’s regulation’ – ‘ the individual seeks to affect others and is affected by others with the intention of achieving their own goals’

RQs p 466

1. What kinds of socio-emotional challenges students experience during collaborative learning

2. Whether students use self, other, or shared regulation in socio-emotionally challenging situations

3. How group members interpretations of the group challenges and of the different forms of regulation vary within and between the group

Method

63 first year teacher education students. Studied (f-f) in groups of 3-5 and participated in 3 different collaborative tasks(1-structured, creates cognitive conflicts between group members, stimulate student augmentation n and negotiation), (2-case, encourage discussion and sharing of authentic real-life experiences, share expertise), (3=Open, stimulate group to take responsibility and regulate their work, encourage students v to be persistent and tolerate uncertainty))

Measurements

Adaptive Instrument for the Regulation of Emotions (AIRE - ? whether methodology paper published). 4 sections

1. Personal task specific goals (originates from research on achievement, well-being and social Goals Dowson & McInerney(2003) – Students asked to identify the most important goal from 12 options)

2. Socio-emotional challenges (5 point Likert scale – the extent to which they experienced 14 socially challenging situations - based on empirical studies ( Van den Bossche et al, 2006) why learners fail to successfully complete. After rating all the challenges, students were asked to indicate which challenge triggered the most emotions in their group in the specific task they had just finishes) p469 ‘The 14 challenge scenarios represent five different challenge types, namely challenges in personal priorities (A,B), work and communication(C,D,E,F), teamwork(G,H,I,J) collaboration(K,L,M) and external constraints(N). This thematic distribution demonstrates that the challenges within each category share some qualitative characteristics. However, each challenge scenario describes a socio-emotionally different situation that is independent of the other scenarios)

3. Regulation of emotions (self(i), shared(we). Other(I))

4. Goal attainment and reflection on group work

Results

Quantitative

1. Association of collaborative task(1,2,3) with thematic category (5) for socio emotional challenge i.e. challenge associated with task - KRO BUT tasks always done in the same order therefore effects may be due to time spent working together rather than the type of collaborative task. Over the three tasks ( time) teamwork and collaboration become more challenging and personal priorities and work and communication less so.

2. Reports of regulation type varied between tasks and groups. Reports about self regulation varied within groups – p472 ‘ an indicator of intrinsic group dynamics’

P473 ‘To sum up, students reported experiencing a variety of socio-emotional challenges in collaborative learning situations. There was a shift from more personal priorities challenges to collaborative type challenges when the task became less structured. Regardless of the task or type of challenge, the students engages in self and shared regulation processes. The level of congruent reports of shared –regulation by group members was different. Differences that are elaborated in the qualitative analysis.

Qualitative – individual measures using personal goals(themes), socio-emotional (themes), control of social challenge, ratings of category, goal achievement and function of group in achieving goal

2 project groups chosen for detailed comparisons p473 ‘ in order to demonstrate how groups’ intrinsic dynamics vary, and how the congruence or dissimilarity in reports of shared-regulation can be explained’ Group G range of reported oshared regulation was small, whereas in B it was substantial.

Group G Task 3 (note the task could be considered to be more challenging than task 2 (see B group) but then students have group worked together for longer)

Shared learning as the personal goal

2 students reported that emotion came from challenges in collaboration and two from challenges in teamwork

2 students reported slightly more individual regulation , socially shared regulation similar for all. P474 ‘ suggesting that group members had a shared understanding oh how they interacted as a group’

all 4 students were satisfied that their personal goals had been achieved and all 4 recognised the part that the group had played in this achievement.

Group B Task 2

2 students had a personal goal well being ( avoid being stressed) whereas the other two had a social goal (have a good time and enjoy the experience)

For socio emotional challenge 2 students reported personal priorities, 1 communication and another teamwork.

2 students reported relatively high levels of shared regulation - p475 ‘members of this group did not seem to share an understanding of the shared-regulation’

All reported that they achieved personal goals but differed on their interpretation of the role played by the group.

Conclusion

P476 ‘ Most group members believe they do something together to overcome socio-emotional challenges’

‘The concept of socially shared regulation requires further eloboration and empirical evidence. The concept of socially shared regulation ( Volet et al, 200() emphasizes the use of common strategies and tactics by group members’

Socio-emotional challenge scenarios and their distribution to the different challenge types

Personal priorities

A. Our goals for the project were different

B. We had different priorities

Work and communication

C. We seemed to have incompatible styles of

working

D. We seemed to have different styles of interacting

E. One/some people had problems with other students' accents and/or level of language proficiency

and thought it was difficult to work with them

Teamwork

R People in our group did not connect very well

with one another

G. One/some people were not fully committed

to the group project

H. People had very different standards of work

I. Group members were not equal

J. Some people were easily distracted

Collaboration

K. Our ideas about what we should

do were not the same

L We differed in our understanding of the content/task

M. Our conceptions of how to organize the work varied

External constraints

N. We had different personal life circumstances

or family/study and work commitments

Examples of self, other and shared self-regulation related to challenges C and L

Type of regulation	Challenge CChallenge L
self	I tried to accept the situation, realizing that some people had different styles of working	I tried to accept the situation, realizing that some people had a different perspective or understandings of the content
other	I told the others we needed to accept different styles of working	I told the others we needed to accept that there can be different ways to understand and interpret the content or the task
shared	We accepted that different members had different styles of working	We accepted that different members had different perspectives or understanding of the content or the task

Originak teching presence

Terry Anderson, Liam Rourke, Randy Garrison & Walter Archer (2001)

Assessing Teacher Presence in a computer conferencing context

Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5, 2, p1-17.

Functions of the teacher

have always been multifaceted.

1. Designer – planning and administering instruction
2. ‘Facilitator and co-creator of the social environment conducive to active and successful learning’, p2
3. subject matter expert who scaffolds the learning

p3 ‘Fulfilling the complex responsibilities of a teacher necessitates sustained and authentic communication between and among teachers and students. While control must be shared and choices provided, the discourse must also be guided towards higher levels of learning through reflective participation as well as by challenging assumptions and diagnosing misconceptions.’

Authors argue that due to the lean medium, teaching presence critical

Support in the literature for the three roles

Theory

Berge (1995) ( identified the three roles but added a fourth, namely supporting the use of technology) Paulsen (1995), and Mason (1991) also identify three major responsibilities but present authors p4‘ depart …. In terms of how we construct and define sthe social aspects of an educational experience’ ie the creation of the social environment is the responsibility of the student as well as the teacher. In the authors’ model ‘ only the social aspects of the teacher’s messages that directly relate to the content contributions from the student are included in the teaching presence category’

Evidence

Rossman(1999) analysis of over 3000 student end-of –course evaluations from 154 university courses; comments and complaints clustered into three major groupings – teacher responsibility, facilitating discussions and course requirements.

Design & organization

P5 ‘ Building the course in a digital format forces teachers to think through the process , structure, evaluation and interaction components of the course. Much of the learned expectation of classroom norms is not available for either student or teacher use, and thus the teacher is forced to be much more explicit and transparent’ e.g. ‘designing and organizing an appropriate mix of group and individual activities’, ‘ modelling appropriate use of the medium’,’sense of the grand design’ ‘ We concur with Laurillard et al, (2000) that the teacher’s task is to create a narrative path through the mediated instruction and activity set such that students are aware of the explicit and implicit learning goals and activities in which they participate. Macro-level comments about course process and content are thus an important motivation and orientation component of this category of teaching presence.

Facilitating discourse

P7 ; the teacher regularly reads and comments on student postings, constantly searching for ways to support the development of the learning community’ ‘ this component overlaps with many of the behaviours identified in our larger model of social presence’…..’’our facilitating discourse category is more than the facilitation of social activities, ……facilitation of discourse is usually integrated within direct instruction and in situ design of instructional activity’ ‘There presence indicates the teacher is helping to create a positive learning environment’’ e.g. helping students articulate consensus and shared understanding, when these are already implicit in the discussion’ Authors see the idea of the tutor as ‘guide on the side’ as too laissez faire e.g. Salmon’s idea that the moderator of online discourse discussions requires no more academically than a similar level qualification’ Authors argue that insufficient academic competence on the part of the teacher or a reluctance to go beyond a facilitating discourse role is one possible explanation for the reports that online discussion often does not go beyond the sharing of information. P9 ‘ The design of effective learning activities leads to opportunities for students themselves to uncover these misconceptions, but the teacher’s comments and questions as direct instruction are also invaluable’

Method

Target variable – teaching presence

Categories(3) organization & instruction, facilitating discourse, direct instruction

Indicators for each category based on the literature & practice of teaching & learning

Examples of each indicator

Unit of analysis – message ‘Each message posted by an instructor was coded as exhibiting or not exhibiting one or more indicators of each of the three categories of teaching presence’ p11 ‘ Ultimately, the validity of this system will be judged according to two criteria: Does the procedure facilitate the objective quantification of the insights that an observer would gain from an informal reading of the transcripts? And does the procedure reveal additional insights that are not apparent from an informal reading’

Frequencies and percentages calculated for instructor messages of two graduate level distance education courses, one in health the other in education. ( no further details available)

Results

Table 5

Frequencies of teaching presence categories by instructor

Health Course				Education Courseb
f		%		f		%
Instructional Design	31		22.3		12		37.5
Facilitating Discourse	60		43.2		24		75.0
Direct Instruction	107		77.0		28		87.5

Note: ^a n of instructor messages =139.

^b n of instructor messages = 32.

Table 6

Frequency and percentage of messages that included 0, 1, 2, or 3 categories of teaching presence

Graduate Health Coursea				Graduate Education Courseb
f		%		f		%
0 categories	1		0.7		0		0.0
1 category	89		64.0		7		21.9
2 categories	42		30.2		15		46.9
3 categories	7		5.0		10		31.3

Note difference in number of postings by each tutor, one responding to every message, the other allowing some of the students to take over the teaching presence role.