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’
|
 |
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) ‘
