After getting some of the apprehensions and general scepticism off my chest, I feel ready to approach this course with a more open mind. And it is encouraging that the question I asked in my first post is (somewhat) addressed in the reading material for this week. Davidson and Howell Major’s (2014) article on group learning seems like a good starting-point. The two authors distinguish among three types of group learning. As the title of their article suggests, these are coöperative learning, collaborative learning, team-based learning and problem-based learning. All four approaches are constructivist in nature, but to different degrees, it seems.

The coöoperative approach is the one I am best familiar with from before and have used in my own classrooms. What I like about this kind of group work is that I still have some control over what my students learn (p. 14). When students work together in groups, typically with study questions, they sometimes move superficially from topic to topic or fail to identify the complexity of a particular question. As a supervising teacher, I can take students back to insufficiently explored topics, rephrase questions, offer more background of perspectives, and thereby guide their learning, but still in small groups.

Collaborative learning seems more constructivist (or “interpretivist”) in  nature than coöperative learning (p. 21). Davidson and Howell Major refer to K. A. Bruffee, who points out that collaborative learning changes the teacher’s position to that of a participant, “thus shifting the nature of the authority in the classroom” (Davidson & Howell Major, 2014, p. 21). Comparisons to the production of a musical theatre drama emphasize the demands this puts on students. I think this approach might work wonderfully with advanced students, but not as well with students, who need more help.

Problem-based learning, next, is mostly associated with the health professions (p. 25). The number of cases that count as problem-based learning is sympathetic and the approach seems promising, as students get to work with with real-world problems in setting that mimic authentic situations (p. 26). I have thought about how to adapt this approach to literary (or even language) study but so far, the possible scenarios I have come up with have seem a bit far-fetched and inefficient – too much focus on processes and procedure and not enough on building a broad knowledge base from which to draw support for the former.

I’m not able to draw any definitive conclusions about what I have read so far, but Davidson and Howell Major’s comparative article has not convinced me of the universal appeal of either collaborative learning or PBL. I am simply not convinced that either is the most time-efficient or otherwise effective way to learn, although I have seen the benefits of coöperative learning first-hand. Kirschner et al. echo many of my own thoughts here: “Because students learn so little from a constructivist approach, most teachers who attempt to implement classroom-based constructivist instruction end up providing students with considerable guidance” (Kirschner et al., 2004, p. 79). They do also add, however, that “the advantage of guidance begins to recede … when learners have sufficiently high prior knowledge to provide ‘internal’ guidance” (p. 75). I will keep on reading.

References:

Davidson, N. & Howell Major, C. (2014) Boundary crossings: Cooperative learning, collaborative learning, and problem-based learning. Journal of Excellence in College Teaching 25 (3/4), p. 7-55.

Kirschner,  P. A., Sweller, J. & Clark, R. E. (2004) Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching. Educational Psychologist,  41(2), p. 75–86.