Bridget Barron (2003)
When Smart Groups Fail
The Journal of Learning Science,12(3), 307-359
Value of collaboration and the problems that can occur
P308 ‘intense interaction between partners, nurtures achievements when partners share interests, knowledge, personal history, and a commitment to work ‘ quotes John-Steiner, 2000.
but
‘groups are source of aggravation, feelings of wasted time and discouragement’ ( Salomon & Globerson, 1989)
outcomes of collaborative groups can be very different, i.e. there is variance between groups
p309 ‘ there is a need for better articulation of the characteristics of interactions that lead to differentially productive joint efforts’ p301 ‘ even when the knowledge or insights that individual members generate does not differ between groups’
units of analysis – individual or group
Therefore
‘research in this article is concerned with advancing the understanding of how the microinteractional processes between collaborators ‘ influence collective achievements and what individuals learn from their interactions’
Three Main ( general) ideas
Attention ‘ management of attention is a fundamental aspect of interactional work during collaborative problem solving’, quotes Roschelle, Teasley
In Face to face there are non verbal strategies for joint attention eg pointing, tapping, moving to share perspective of the workgroup
Metacognitive comments eg need to keep pace
‘both speakers and listeners have consequential roles to play in establishing joint attention’
there are ‘barriers that some participants face having their ideas heard and how this is particularly challenging if partners are self-focused’ KRO seems that it applies to 6th graders also. On the other hand ‘persistence coupled with increasing strength of presentation can pay off’ but might be offputting or discouraging, particularly for more passive members.
think in terms of a ‘cognitive space’ plus ‘a relational space’ ‘which are negotiated simultaneously and can compete for limited attention’ ‘ information made available in the space from the self and from others’ activities must be integrated’ ie relational aspects of the interpersonal context.
There is sometimes an unwillingness to negotiate a shared space.
Crook 1996, p116 describes ‘intersubjective attitude’
Fogel (1993) p337 ‘ true communication takes co-regulation , a willingness and openness to be influenced by others’
P331
“Maintaining the group as a unit of analysis focuses attention on the emergent patterns of interaction and allows for the identification of individual conversational moves that shift patterns’ eg persistence
‘an important property of language in interaction is its flexibility and generativeness. Silence, repetition of ideas, eye gaze, gestures, physical synchrony, laughter, pauses, interruptions and overlaps in turn taking do not have single meanings but have productive ambiguity, thus depending on the context they signal different things to different people’.
RQs
1. ‘What interactional processes are associated with better group problem solving’
2. ‘How does the quality of group problem solving relate to individual learning as indicated by subsequent independent performance on the same and a related problem’
3. ‘What social and cognitive factors contribute to the emergence of more and less productive interactional patterns’
p312 ‘ Although Rochelle’s analysis focused mostly on the cognitive aspects of creating a joint problem space other studies suggest that to deeply understand the nature of productive collaboration, attention must be paid to the ecology of relations that develops within interactions that allow group members to access and functionally express knowledge and other cognitive resources’
e.g.
Engle & Conant (2002) describe a student scenario with sustained debate over several weeks p312 ‘ students passionate engagement was reflected in intensive emotional displays, persistence in having their ideas heard, additional research, and continued attention over weeks’ . A key aspect of their discourse that allowed for productive learning conversation rather than developing into argumentation shouting matches was the appropriation of scholarly moves such as various kinds of evidence to justify their claims’ KRO what is the equivalent, appropriation of moves, for social ?
Design
Problem
How to get back from Cedar Creek before nightfall – based on mathematical calculations. 6th graders, similar ability > 75%, same gender triads.
Students required to complete a workbook that posed 8 questions ( 2 planning, 3 subproblems planning questions, 3 solutions). Analysis based on the first subproblem.
Groups were videotaped
Group as the unit of analysis
IV Level of group performance on a complex problem
DV uptake of a correct proposal and response sequences ; based on the observation that correct proposals were not always taken up.
Scoring
Three calculations required for the first subproblem. 0,1, or 2 for each i.e. 1 for partial , 2 for a total solution.
Individual as unit of analysis
Ability of individuals to solve similar problems in the future.
Group as the unit of analysis
Time sequence of proposals and responses
Scoring
Transcripts parsed into turns. Backchannel e.g. umhh, yeah, aldo considered as turns
Analysis
6 staged approach. 1,2,3,4,& 6 based on group as the unit of analysis
Quant (1-5), qual (6)
1. Group problem (sub) solving compared
7 gained total solution, 1 a partial solution, 4 below 50% correct
2. Groups compared for other variables
prior achievement
number of turns
difference beteen partners in turns taken
correct proposals made
3. apply a coding scheme for the way in which correct proposals are responded too.
Three categories, accept, discuss, reject or ignore.
Chi square analysis- significant association between success of groups and pattern of response to proposals.
4. Links between a correct proposal and the relatedness of the prior discussion.
Used the video data
Using Chi square analysis , two associations are confirmed.
Success and relatedness to previous discussion
Relatededness to the prior discussion and acceptance of a correct proposal
5. Individual student subsequent performance
Students in the success groups performed better than student in the unsuccessful groups
6. Sequential view of the interrelation between cognitive and social based on four triads. p331 ‘maintaining the group as a unit of analysis focuses attention on the emergent pattern of interaction and allows for the identification of individual conversational moves that can shift patterns’
Four groups, 2 successful (c&d), 2 unsuccessful (a&b) included in this analysis
Group a
Competitive nature of exchanges.
Claims of competence
Failure to acknowledge the contribution of others
Domination of the workbook
3rd member used mainly as a scribe
Group b
Parallel efforts on different parts of the problem
3rd member mostly used as a scribe but makes timely and appropriate suggestions albeit in a hesitant way. Although one other member begins to take notice, other member jumps in with own ideas. Example of a damaged turn Erikson 1996, p37-38 due to hesitancy
Group c
Triad who confronted some of the same issues as group b but who had members that demanded the joint attention be preserved. Third member used physical contact when necessary. There was also evidence of metacommunication ‘wait until the first parties written down’
During initial brainstorming all three were visibly excited and engaged. Third member took on observer role to some extent for part of the time whilst other two put forward parallel ideas
Group 4
‘exchange of conversational turns is rapid ‘ with all three participating. Joint attention and joint problem space maintained throughout.’ P347 the workbook served as a centre of co-ordination ( suchman, 1997, p42) for group work
‘In the two most successful groups, we see an interweaving of members own content space work with an awareness of others’ progress’
Portraits of interactional contexts
‘In less successful cases, relational issues arose that prevented the group from capitalizing on the insights that fellow members had generated. These included competitive interactions, differential efforts to collaborate, self-focused problem solving trajectories.
Behaviorally these manifested as violation of turn taking norms, difficulties in gaining the floor, domination of the workbook, competing claims of competence’
‘Persistence and resistance to dominating efforts were effective’
p349 ‘successful achievement of a joint problem-solving space was especially reflected in high rates of huddling around workbooks and mutual gaze’…….’it was not that more successful groups were immune to problems of coordination but rather that members used strategies that recruited or evoked a joint focus of attention’
lead to
idea of ‘a between person state of engagement’
Finally author broadly discusses three issues
Ethos/assessment approaches that value competition over collaboration
Previous practice and experience eg norms, appropriation of practice
Friendship and familiarity including familiarity with practice
