Teaching Education

ISSN: 1047-6210 (Print) 1470-1286 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cted20

Students’ willingness to practice collaborative

learning

Yehudith Weinberger & Miri Shonfeld

To cite this article: Yehudith Weinberger & Miri Shonfeld (2018): Students’ willingness to practice
collaborative learning, Teaching Education, DOI: 10.1080/10476210.2018.1508280

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2018.1508280

Published online: 23 Aug 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 5

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cted20
TEACHING EDUCATION
https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2018.1508280

ARTICLE

Students’ willingness to practice collaborative learning

Yehudith Weinberger and Miri Shonfeld
Kibbutzim College of Education, Technology and the Arts, Tel Aviv, Israel

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The study presented here sought to determine how student tea- Received 3 October 2017
chers’ personal characteristics, attitudes, knowledge, experience Accepted 25 July 2018
and skills for using collaborative learning influence their willing- KEYWORDS
ness to use this demanding pedagogy in their classes. A structural Collaborative learning;
equation modeling (SEM) analysis model based on data from student teachers;
questionnaires emphasized the direct effect of experience on knowledge; experience;
attitudes and skills, but showed no such effect on knowledge. willingness; attitudes
There was no difference in research variables based on gender,
age and degree in respondents’ willingness to integrate collabora-
tive learning. One major conclusion of the study is that teacher
education programs should include a study of the theoretical and
strategic aspects of collaborative learning, as well as active experi-
ence with this pedagogy.

Introduction
One of the strongest criticisms leveled at the higher education system, and particularly
at teacher education, is that it does not provide students with the relevant professional
expertise demanded of their profession (Libman, 2014). Helping young people acquire
the appropriate professional skills for future employment calls for higher education
systems to invest in the development of cognitive, social and emotional skills, as well
as the construction of substantial knowledge in relevant fields (Pellegrino & Hilton,
2012). In the eyes of educators, politicians and industry leaders these ‘twenty-first-
century skills’ are based, inter alia, on cooperation, the ability to work collaboratively,
and the promotion of effective interpersonal communication (OECD, 2017; Tan, Wong,
Fang, Devi, & Gopinathan, 2010). In a society that calls for productive modes of
collaboration in order to address complex scientific and social issues, greater involve-
ment of students in dialogue, and an increased emphasis on collaborative discourse and
argumentation, have become essential modes of engagement and learning (Harney,
Hogan, & Quinn, 2017). The importance of collaboration is also noted, albeit indirectly, in
UNESCO’s paper from the ‘rethinking learning in the digital age’ summit (Shonfeld et al.,
2017). In this paper, the authors call for the promotion of ‘Digital Agency.’ Since ‘Digital
Agency’ is mainly based on accountability, which can be achieved and strengthened by
collaboration (Puji & Barratt, 2018), their call supports the importance of including
collaborative learning (CL) in teacher education. In the field of teacher education, it is

CONTACT Miri Shonfeld [email protected] Hayrden 60 Nehalim 49950, Israel

© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 Y. WEINBERGER AND M. SHONFELD

essential that future teachers develop the skills that enable students to work produc-
tively in teams in both face-to-face and online group work (Harasim, 2012; Shonfeld,
2017). The basic assumption of the current study is that engaging student teachers in
collaborative learning, which encourages active participation, will contribute both to the
quality of their learning process, and to their ability to participate in, and lead, colla-
borative learning in their teaching (Brett, 2004; Cockerill, Craig, & Thurston, 2018; Gillies,
in press; Kalaian & Kasim, 2017; Palloff & Pratt, 2005; Stahl, 2006).
The benefits of active participation and interaction with the environment to learning
are anchored in a wide base of educational research (Burr, 2015; Stahl, 2006; Vygotsky,
1978), which has enhanced educators’ awareness of the importance of peer interaction
in the learning process. For example, Gillies (2008) reported that students’ performance
was better in schools where teachers had been trained to include cooperative learning
in their teaching, and where students regularly participated in these activities. Research
findings indicate that motivation increases in active learning settings and in programs
that implement CL (Lin, Hsu, Lin, & Hsiao, 2018), and CL has also been found to foster
creativity (Marashi & Khatami, 2017).
Despite the widespread influence of social constructivism that supports CL methods,
in education (Johnson & Johnson, 2009; Stahl, 2006), teachers’ perceptions of their
students’ learning processes are not always indicative of a concomitant internalization
of these ideas. Several studies that involved teachers of various disciplines and age
groups portrayed a mental model amongst teachers that perpetuates traditional percep-
tions of learning (Strauss & Shilony, 1994; Strauss & Ziv, 2012). In the traditional model,
teachers’ actions are perceived as central to the learning process; the student is con-
sidered a passive recipient of knowledge, and knowledge is perceived as objective. This
traditional paradigm remains dominant especially in universities and colleges, which,
despite their acknowledged appreciation for collaborative learning and their policy of
encouraging its incorporation in their teaching, still make little use of the alternative
approach.
When university students work in collaborative groups, compared to students who
study individually, motivation and achievement increase, as evidenced in university
achievement tests (Johnson, Johnson, Roseth, & Shin, 2014; La Rocca, Margottii, &
Capobianco, 2014). Additionally, research that examined achievements of students in
peer-driven conditions pointed out that they scored significantly higher on perceived
consensus and efficacy, as well as in team orientation, compared to the facilitator-driven
group. Those in the peer-driven situations also scored significantly lower on discomfort
in-group learning (Harney et al., 2017). The motivation and output enhanced by colla-
borative work suggest that collaboration among learners in all settings should be
increased (Johnson & Johnson, 2009), especially in teacher education. However, lecturers
in institutions of higher education tend to avoid integrating collaborative practices in
their teaching. This avoidance is due to a variety of technical, organizational and
economic limitations (Ubell, 2010), not least of which is the fact that they lack the
required training (Murray & Lonne, 2006). Other studies have shown that even when
teachers integrate collaborative practices in higher education classes, they tend to
emphasize the task’s products, rather than teamwork and collaboration (Fransen,
Kirschner, & Erkens, 2011). It is mostly used at the lowest levels of Salmons’ taxonomy
(Salmons, 2006), such as in discussion groups and peer review and not at the higher
 TEACHING EDUCATION 3

levels of sequential collaboration, where group members are interdependent, nor in

synergistic collaboration, where students work together throughout to create a product.
The role of the teacher is understandably critical to the success of collaborative
learning in the classroom (Cohen, 1994; Gillies & Boyle, 2008; Slavin, 2010).
Collaborative learning presents teachers with many challenges, in practice and in
attitude. It calls for teachers to practice collaborative teaching methods and models,
as well as evaluation methods (Sharan, 2010; Slavin, 2010). They should feel comfortable
releasing a great deal of their control over the learning process in order to increase
students’ responsibility for their learning. Teachers may be reluctant to change familiar
ways of teaching in favor of an unfamiliar new process (Shonfeld, 2017; Zygouris-Coe,
2012). However, a deep understanding of group dynamics can allow them to create a
suitable environment for implementation. Developing the discussion skills central to
group work requires a considerable amount of time (Gillies, 2016; Sharan, 2014). In
addition, teachers must be non-judgmentally aware of group interaction, encourage
active participation and leadership, impart collaborative and communicative skills, and
help solve problems when a confrontation arises among group members (Salman,
Najjar, & Zidan, 2012). The teacher, thus, takes on additional roles to that of instructor:
counselor, guide, encourager and especially, moderator (Shonfeld, 2017).

The study
The present study was designed to investigate which variables influence student tea-
chers’ willingness to use collaborative learning in their own teaching. It examined
student teachers’ personal characteristics, their experience with collaborative learning,
their skills at using collaborative learning, and their attitudes and knowledge of this
methodology.
Since collaborative learning is of particular importance for the future, the study aimed
to discover what influences student teachers’ acceptance and/or rejection of collabora-
tive learning. The implementation of collaborative learning in practice is closely tied to
teachers’ educational beliefs, their personal theories and their former experience (De
Hei, Strijbos, Sjoer, & Admiraal, 2015). Skilled teacher-facilitators will be able to elicit
effective and in-depth discussions, team products and team work, in which all group
members participate (Tal-Elhasid & Meishar-Tal, 2007), thereby emphasizing the learning
process and not just the content (Smith, 2008). This study examines a variety of factors
(knowledge, attitudes, skills and experience) that may influence student teachers’ will-
ingness to use collaborative methods in their instruction. All of these factors are
potentially relevant when planning teacher education programs geared toward prepar-
ing teachers to cope with the challenges of future generations.

Method
The study utilized both quantitative and qualitative methods, based on a questionnaire
that included closed and open-ended questions. The use of the open questions enabled
us to understand the meanings ascribed to collaborative learning by the participants in
the study. In addition, the comparison between the qualitative and the quantitative data
strengthened the interpretation of the results.
4 Y. WEINBERGER AND M. SHONFELD

Setting
This study took place at a teachers’ college in Israel that grants a B.Ed., M.Ed. and
teaching certificates for academics. The college, founded in 1939, sought to establish
an institution for teacher education (K-10) in the spirit of the progressive pedagogical
concepts of education at the time, which emphasized active learning. The campus
houses a student body of 5500, who come from all sectors of Israeli society.

Sample
The administrative staff of the Faculty of Education distributed a questionnaire to 500
students of different departments. The students were pre-service teachers from the
undergraduate programs and in-service teachers from the graduate programs. Of
these, a total of 305 responded. The analysis of the demographic questions in the
questionnaire provided a characterization of the sample that included three variables:
Gender, Age, and Degree. Table 1 presents the sample, which is representative of the
actual distribution of the students in the college of education in relation to the
characteristics.
As can be seen from Table 1, most of the respondents were women, the majority of
ages between 20 and 40 years old. More than half of the respondents were studying in
the undergraduate programs (55%) and the rest were in different graduate programs.

Research tools
The data were collected at the end of the school year by means of a Students’
questionnaire. The questionnaire was based on the ‘collaborative learning’ questionnaire
for instructors, which had been administered in a previous study and revealed the
difference in the use of collaborative learning between women and men, lecturers and
pedagogical advisors, and lecturers in the undergraduate and the graduate programs
(Shonfeld & Weinberger, in press). The Instructors’ questionnaire was based on three
validated questionnaires: ‘Collaborative Learning’ (Brown, 2008), ‘Collaborative Learning,
Social Presence, and Satisfaction’ (Spears, 2012), and ‘Leading Pedagogical Change’
(Weinberger, 2018). The translated Hebrew questionnaire was retranslated to English
(reversed translation) to correct any misunderstandings in translation. For this study, the
Instructors’ questionnaire was modified to suit students (questions about the ‘use in
class’ were changed to ‘use in practice’ and so on). It was administered to 10 students as
a pilot questionnaire and amended based on their comments.

Table 1. Distribution of study subjects according to individual characteristics (n = 305).

Variables Values N %
Gender Male 22 7.4
Female 276 92.6
Age 20–29 189 62.4
30–39 70 23.1
40–49 36 11.9
50–59 8 2.6
Degree Undergraduate 170 56.3
Graduate 132 43.7
 TEACHING EDUCATION 5

The questionnaire included one multiple-choice question about the respondent’s experi-
ence in collaborative learning (with answers ranging from 1 = not at all, to 2 = some classes,
3 = most classes, 4 = all classes), three open-ended questions, and 20 statements to be rated
on a five-point Likert scale (ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). It
consisted of five parts, according to the themes of the study: (1) knowledge about collabora-
tive learning, (2) attitudes towards collaborative learning, (3) previous experience with colla-
borative learning, (4) skills required to practice collaborative learning, and (5) willingness to
implement it. Knowledge of the characteristics of collaborative learning was addressed with
an open question and 13 statements about its advantages and disadvantages. The items are
presented in Table 2. Reliability for the advantages section of the questionnaire was
Cronbach’s alpha = .74. Reliability for the disadvantages section was α = .69. The attitude
section consisted of four statements, and the reliability of this section was α = .79. The
‘previous-experience’ section of the questionnaire consisted of one multiple-choice question
about the amount of students’ experience with collaborative learning in their college classes
(Experience). The fourth part consisted of one question dealing with the respondents’ feelings
regarding their possession of sufficient skills to practice collaborative learning in class (Skilled).
The fifth part had one question that dealt with students’ willingness to integrate collaborative
learning in their teaching (Willingness). This was the dependent variable.

Analysis
Data were analyzed using two methods, according to the type of question in the
questionnaire: quantitative analysis for the closed questions and qualitative for the
open-ended ones. The quantitative analysis was done using SPSS and was based on
correlation, regression and a structural equation modeling (SEM). Pearson correlations
were examined for continuous research variables and chi-square tests were used for
discrete variables. MANOVA was conducted to examine differences between groups, and
hierarchical regression was conducted to explain the variance in willingness to practice
CL in class and to find interactions and moderators. The examination of the SEM was
done using AMOS 23 and is presented in Figure 1.
In the qualitative analysis, the focus of inquiry was the students’ answer to the open
question about the characteristics of collaborative learning. An interpretive content analysis
of the statements was conducted in three stages. First, we applied an intuitive process of
bottom-up coding (Bowen, 2009) using an emic approach (subject’s point of view). Based on
this coding, major themes were formulated (Denzin & Lincoln, 2002). In the second stage,
the themes were mapped by finding the connections between them, and categories of
analysis were determined (Denzin & Lincoln, 2008). Finally, the analytic process of grouping
all the statements in their respective categories was carried out top down, according to the
etic approach (researcher’s point of view). This type of analysis offers a broad interpretation
and a variety of meanings for the research topic. A system of conceptualizations was
developed, which reflected the student teachers’ response-patterns to the research ques-
tions, and the study’s narrative line was then constructed (Strauss & Corbin, 1997).

Ethical aspects
Information was gathered anonymously to reduce any interference with respondents’
statements. No personal identification of the respondents was required during the
6 Y. WEINBERGER AND M. SHONFELD

information-gathering phase. The qualitative analysis involves ethical considerations and

judgment, and was therefore conducted by one author and validated by the other.

Results
This study examined students’ knowledge of collaborative learning and their attitudes
towards it, their previous experience with collaborative learning as students and their
willingness to use collaborative learning in their teaching in practice in class. Statistical
analyses of these data were designed to identify the factors that might influence
students’ willingness to incorporate collaborative learning in their teaching.

Facts and statistics about collaborative learning among student teachers

Information about the extent of the students’ collaborative learning experience was
derived from a multiple-choice question. Descriptive statistics applied to the question-
naire results indicated that, on average, respondents reported a reasonably high level of
experience of collaborative learning in their studies (range: 1–4, M = 3.00, SD = .72). This
means that, according to their perceptions, the students experienced collaborative
learning in some of their courses. Since these data are based on students’ pedagogical
perceptions of what constitutes collaborative learning, we supplemented our quantita-
tive analysis with the qualitative analysis of their answers to the open question about
the characteristics of collaborative learning.
In their answers to the open question, students noted the common aspects of
cooperation during the learning process, such as interaction between learners or
organizing work together on specific tasks, both during and between lessons: ‘Shared
decisions, organizing a fair division of labor.’ The characteristics that recurred most
often in the students’ descriptions referred to their active participation in learning
(‘Active learning, in which everyone present is involved, where everyone learns and
teaches’), to reciprocity in the learning process (‘if we don’t understand, we explain
to one another. The ability to change my opinion, share and listen to other voices in
the group’), and to the opportunities that active participation opens up for learners
(‘to express themselves and to develop independence’). In addition to these char-
acteristics, the students’ answers to this question included two additional dimensions
that are deeply significant for shared learning:

(1) The social significance of learning interaction: fostering skills and building habits
for collaborative work, and generating social norms.
(2) The significance of shared knowledge constructed in the process of collaborative
learning.

According to the respondents, collaborative learning emphasizes group activity and

the attainment of a common goal through the coordinated action of all group members:
‘A group of people with a shared goal, investment, coordinated expectations and
devotion to the process.’ This perception emphasizes engaging learners in extensive
interpersonal communication and fruitful social interaction, which fosters and exercises
learners’ social skills, such as reciprocity, concession, flexibility, inclusion, patience and
 TEACHING EDUCATION 7

empathy. ‘You learn to share the burden, to compromise and to take responsibility . . . to
accept others’ opinions even if they differ from yours.’ It is a process that ‘offers
opportunities for growth and development.’
Interactions of this sort also express and take advantage of students’ diversity.
‘Everyone contributes their strengths, and benefits from the contributions of others.’
Exposure to multiple perspectives, highlighting the differences between them, makes it
possible for all learners to express themselves, encouraging them to exercise openness
and flexibility towards one another: ‘Every student brings his or her own world of
knowledge to the group.’
The reciprocity of interaction between peers in collaborative learning extends beyond
the learners themselves, and reflects the relationship between the learners and the
teacher. Positioning the teacher away from the center, and framing the teacher’s role
as that of mediator and facilitator in the learning process, allows for mutual inspiration
in an atmosphere of comfortable equality. In the words of one student: ‘learning that
requires listening, consultation, mutual feedback . . . the students and the teaching staff
are full partners in the learning process . . . shared personal experience, with the spot-
light on the learner rather than on the teacher.’
The collaborative processes described above also define the particular type of
knowledge generated by collaborative learning. Collaborative learning generates new
and diverse knowledge, arising from the different perspectives of the individual
students, the result of ideas coming together during the completion of complex
tasks, so that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. ‘Learning together in
groups can make several people learn and make breakthroughs together . . . working in
synchronicity, generating new knowledge, combining multiple insights. . .’ The premise
is that ‘the students bring a world of knowledge with them,’ and that the learning
process, which includes ‘adding and merging information,’ generates new, shared
knowledge that expands learners’ horizons.
The students also addressed some of the challenges of collaborative learning. They
noted the complexity of this method’s social aspect:

It’s a cumbersome process, with everyone doing a different part and you have to combine
all the parts artificially . . . it’s very hard to reach a consensus, to see everyone cooperating
and to find time to work as a group . . . for the most part I experienced difficulty with the
division into groups. It was sometimes threatening and problematic.

They also noted the difficulty that stems from the teacher’s inappropriate facilitation of
students’ group work. This resulted in students experiencing unfair assessment. As one
student reported: ‘I sometimes found myself doing an entire project alone, without the
help of my peers, who got credit in the end for the work I had done . . . it’s a bit
annoying. I felt that my work was not properly appreciated.’
It seems that their experience as students with collaborative learning provided the
respondents with knowledge about its advantages and disadvantages, and their positive
attitudes can be seen in Table 2. This table also presents the extent to which the
respondents feel skilled enough to teach with collaborative learning and their will-
ingness to use it.
As can be seen from the data, the highest scores for the advantages of collaborative
learning related to statements that deal with the benefits of communication and
8 Y. WEINBERGER AND M. SHONFELD

Table 2. Mean and Standard Deviation of the different statements of the research variables (range
1–5).
Variables Statements M SD
Advantages of collaborative Fostered exchange of knowledge and experience 4.57 0.55
learning Enhanced communication skills 4.47 0.66
Making new friends 4.13 0.86
Developed skills 4.12 0.83
Better comprehension of the topics 4.08 0.68
Developing higher order thinking skills 3.98 0.89
More relaxed atmosphere 3.74 0.98
Disadvantages of collaborative Not suitable for all types of students 4.14 0.88
learning Not suitable for all topics 3.79 1.10
The students’ success depends on their group members 3.60 1.05
Unfair evaluation of each student’s investment 3.22 1.05
Difficulty getting members to actively participate in tasks 2.67 0.94
Waste of time 2.57 0.99
Attitudes towards collaborative The activities are important to my learning experience 4.02 0.82
learning The activities are important to my learning as a future teacher 3.76 0.90
I took part in collaborative work in my courses 3.69 1.00
I prefer to do all my learning activities alone. 3.36 1.04
I learn better working in a group than alone 2.90 1.08
Collaborative learning skills I feel that I’m skilled enough to practice collaborative learning with 3.60 0.96
my pupils
Willingness to use collaborative I am willing to incorporate collaborative learning in my classroom 3.99 0.81
learning

personal interaction. The highest scores for disadvantages of collaborative learning

address statements that deal with the suitability of collaborative learning to different
topics and different learners. The high score produced by the attitude statements
indicates that, from the students’ points of view, experiencing collaborative learning in
teacher education is of the utmost importance. The students also showed a moderate to
high sense of being skilled enough to practice this method in their own classrooms, and
high willingness to do so.

The links between students’ characteristics and research variables

One of the research questions dealt with the effect of various students’ characteristics on
their knowledge, attitude and willingness to use collaborative learning. Differences in
instructors’ use of collaborative learning were found in a previous study using the same
questionnaire (Shonfeld & Weinberger, in press). In order to find the relationship between
participants’ characteristics and the research variables, the categorical variables Gender
and Degree were subjected to MANOVA, and Pearson correlation was done for the
continuous variable – Age. The MANOVA found no significant differences between male
and female students, (F(6, 291) = 1.27, p > .05) in all research variables. However, it found
significant differences in the Degree variable, (F(6, 295) = 2.85, p < .01, η2 = .06.) Table 3
presents the differences between graduates and undergraduates in research variables.
Table 3 presents the univariate ANOVA that was performed separately for each of the
variables. Significant differences were found only relating to Experience and
Disadvantages. The results show that the Experience mean of the undergraduate
respondents was higher than the mean of the graduates. This means that undergradu-
ate students have more experience with collaborative learning in their courses.
Significant differences were found according to Degree in relation to Disadvantages as
 TEACHING EDUCATION 9

Table 3. Differences between graduates and undergraduates (means and Standard Deviation).
Degree
Undergraduates Graduates
Variables M (SD) M (SD) F(1, 322) η2
Advantages 4.12 (.52) 4.22 (.51) 3.11 .01
Disadvantages 3.43 (.62) 3.20 (.62) 10.05** .03
Attitudes 3.51 (.70) 3.59 (.73) .96 .00
Experience 3.07 (.70) 2.90 (.74) 4.80* .02
Skills 3.54 (.92) 3.69 (.99) 1.78 .01
Willingness 3.94 (.79) 4.08 (.84) 2.25 .01
*p < .05. **p < .01.

well, with the mean in the undergraduates’ responses higher than in those of the
graduates. This means that undergraduate students rated the disadvantages of colla-
borative learning higher than graduates did.

Factors that explain the variance of willingness to integrate collaborative learning

In order to examine the relationship between research variables (Collaborative Learning
Experience, Skills, Attitude, Advantages, Disadvantages, Willingness) Pearson correlations
were examined, and the findings are presented in Table 4.
The results presented in Table 4 show that there is a low negative correlation
between age and experience and between age and disadvantages, meaning that the
younger students report having more experience in collaborative learning in their
courses, but also see more disadvantages in collaborative learning. There is a positive
low correlation between experience in collaborative learning and the feeling of being
skilled enough to incorporate collaborative learning methods in teaching. There is a
positive high correlation between familiarity with the advantages of collaborative learn-
ing and attitude towards collaborative learning, and between familiarity with its advan-
tages and willingness to implement it in teaching. However, there is negative correlation
between the knowledge of the advantages of collaborative learning and the knowledge
of the disadvantages of collaborative learning. This means that the more positive
knowledge of collaborative learning’s advantages the respondents had, the lower their
rating of its disadvantages. There is a high negative correlation between knowing the
disadvantages of collaborative learning and using it in teaching.
There is also a low positive correlation between attitude to collaborative learning and
the feeling of being skilled enough to implement collaborative learning methods, and a
high positive correlation between attitude to collaborative learning and willingness to use
it in teaching. Finally, there is a high positive correlation between the feeling of being
skilled enough to teach collaborative learning methods and the willingness to do so.

Regression: the variables that contribute to the willingness to use collaborative

learning
A hierarchical regression analysis was conducted to examine the extent to which the
different variables contribute to students’ willingness to use collaborative learning
during their teaching. The predictors were entered at five steps: (1) Personal details
that were found to correlate with research variables (Degree, Gender and Age); (2)
10 Y. WEINBERGER AND M. SHONFELD

Table 4. Pearson correlations between research variables (n = 305).

Variables Age Experience Advantage Disadvantage Attitude Skilled Willing
Age
Experience −.18**
Advantages .04 −.04
Disadvantage −.15** .01 −.38*
Attitudes .07 .13 .53*** −.46***
Skilled .10 .20*** .10 −.20*** .22***
Willing .10 .14 .36*** −.35*** .51*** .43***
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Experience with collaborative learning; (3) Knowledge about advantages and disadvan-
tages; (4) Attitude to collaborative learning and feeling skilled enough to implement it;
(5) Interactions between variables. The criterion for significance was that the β coeffi-
cient is less than .05. In the fifth step, no significant contribution was found, so Table 5
presents only the first four steps.
The regression explained 38% of the variance of respondents’ willingness to use
collaborative learning. Of the demographic variables, degree, gender and age contributed
only 2% to the explained variance of use of collaborative learning, and not significantly.
The second step introduced experience with collaborative learning. It contributed
significantly by adding 3% to the explained variance of respondents’ willingness to use
this method. This means that students that have more experience with collaborative
learning would be more willing to use it in class. The third step introduced the advantages
and disadvantages of CL, which added (significantly) 17% to the explained variance. The β
coefficient of disadvantages is negative, which means that students who see fewer
disadvantages in collaborative learning will be more willing to implement it. In opposition
are the advantages, meaning that students who see more advantages in collaborative

Table 5. Hierarchical regression coefficients to explain the variance of respondents’ willingness to

use collaborative learning (n = 305).
Step Predictors B β R2 ΔR2
1 Degree .02 .01 .02 .02
Gender −.03 −.01
Age .12 .12
2 Degree .02 .01 .05** .03**
Gender −.07 −.02
Age .15 .15*
Experience .19 .17**
3 Degree −.09 −.06 .22*** .17***
Gender −.09 −.03
Age .14 .13
Experience .19 .17**
Advantage .40 .27***
Disadvantage −.31 −.24***
4 Degree −.03 −.02 .38*** .16***
Gender −.01 −.00
Age .07 .07
Experience .06 .05
Advantage .17 .11
Disadvantage −.12 −.09
Attitude .37 .33***
Skilled .25 .30***
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
 TEACHING EDUCATION 11

learning will be more willing to use it. The fourth step introduced students’ feeling that
they are skilled enough to use collaborative learning, which contributed significantly by
adding 16% to the explained variance in willingness to use collaborative learning.
Based on the difference between the β coefficient for the experience variable
between steps 2 and 3 (β = .19, p < .01) and 4 (β = .06, p > .05), we may conclude
that attitude and skills are mediators. Indeed, in the Sobel analysis test mediation, the
result was significant (Z = 3.09, p < .01).
Relying on these results, an SEM analysis model was performed and the results are
presented in Figure 1. The model includes one exogenous variable – experience (con-
tributes to others but not contributed to by them). Other variables are endogenous and
are contributed by others. From those variables, advantages and disadvantages, attitude
and feeling skilled are mediators. While advantages and disadvantages mediate between
experience to the other variables, attitude and feeling skilled mediate between advan-
tages and disadvantages to the target variable, which is willingness to teach with
collaborative learning methods.

Figure 1. A model to explain willingness to integrate collaborative learning in teaching.

The examination of this model was done using AMOS 23. The analysis of the model
yielded a high level of compatibility (NFI = .99, CFI = .99, RMSEA = .05, χ2 = 3.7, p > .05).
The model highlights the direct effect of experience on attitudes and skills, but shows
no effect on knowledge of advantages and disadvantages. It shows the effect of
advantages on attitude and the effect of disadvantages on attitude and skills. In addi-
tion, it presents the direct effect of attitudes, skills, and knowledge of advantages on
willingness to integrate collaborative learning in teaching.

Discussion
What can be learned from the findings of this study regarding ways of enhancing
collaborative learning in teacher education? The SEM analysis model (Figure 1) displays
the links between student teachers’ prior experience, existing knowledge of advantages
and disadvantages, attitudes, and feeling of being skilled in collaborative learning, and
their contribution to the respondents’ willingness to incorporate collaborative learning
in their teaching. The factors found to be most influential toward student teachers’
12 Y. WEINBERGER AND M. SHONFELD

willingness to use collaborative practices are their attitudes and their feelings of being
skilled in this approach. Attitudes were found to be mainly affected by students’ knowl-
edge of collaborative learning’s advantages and disadvantages, as well as by their
former experience. Student teachers’ sense of being skilled was found to be affected
by their knowledge of the disadvantages of collaborative learning and by their
experience.
As noted above, although the student teachers’ prior experience was relatively high,
it was not found to greatly influence their knowledge of the advantages and disadvan-
tages of collaborative learning. These latter two were both found to be important factors
in shaping the student teachers’ attitudes and their feeling of competence in using
collaborative learning practices. One possible explanation for this finding is that stu-
dents experienced collaborative learning as learners but were not exposed directly and
systematically to the philosophical knowledge and the principles of the CL pedagogy as
a whole. This explanation is supported by evidence from additional studies, which have
found that student teachers lack the required training (Murray & Lonne, 2006) for
employing collaborative learning as a teaching strategy, and that they do not practice
collaborative teaching methods and models (Sharan, 2010; Slavin, 2010).
Students’ perceptions of collaborative learning, as shown in the qualitative analysis,
contained references to both its advantages and disadvantages, with emphasis on its
social benefits. The quantitative findings support this conclusion, as the highest scores in
students’ responses about the characteristics of collaborative learning referred to its
advantages in fostering the exchange of knowledge and experience, enhancing com-
munication skills, and making new friends. This is in accordance with other studies about
students emphasizing the enhancement of social skills (Akhtar, Perveen, Kiran, Rashid, &
Satti, 2012; Sharan, 2010), which are part of the skill set that has been marked crucial for
meeting the challenges of the twenty-first century (OECD, 2017).
The students’ perception of collaborative learning reflects the active involvement
that social interactions and dialogical processes enable in the construction of knowl-
edge and the production of meaning. This perspective, rooted in social constructi-
vism, is reinforced by the findings of a study carried out with in-service teachers in
Ireland, which highlighted the centrality of the pupils in creating cognitive and
affective knowledge during collaborative instruction (Austin, Smyth, Rickard, Quirk-
Bolt & Metcalfe, 2010). The teacher’s role, therefore, is to guide and direct students
through the process of constructing knowledge by means of dialog and discourse
(Libman, 2014).
Our findings also indicate that there is no difference based on gender, age and
degree in respondents’ willingness to integrate collaborative learning. In this, they
correspond to the findings of De Hei et al. (2015), who investigated lecturers’ beliefs
about collaborative learning and did not find any gender differences. However, our
undergraduate respondents reported experiencing more collaborative learning in
their courses than the graduate students did. This may be due to the extended
practical part of their training program (field practice), which prepares them to teach
and includes opportunities for the actual implementation of various teaching meth-
ods in the educational field. On the other hand, the M.Ed. program is designed for
graduate students who are already experienced practicing teachers. It, therefore,
does not include practice sessions and provides students with no opportunities to
 TEACHING EDUCATION 13

explore various methods in their studies at the college. Indeed, in a previous study it
was found that the pedagogical advisors, who are in charge of practical training,
integrate collaborative learning into their lessons far more frequently than other
faculty members (Shonfeld & Weinberger, in press). It is important to note that
those pedagogical advisors teach only undergraduate students, and that they pro-
mote the practice of CL in teaching.
The undergraduates, who had more practice in collaborative learning in their college
classes, rated the disadvantages of collaborative learning more prominently than their
colleagues in the graduate programs. There may be several reasons for their more
negative impression of collaborative learning, compared to the graduate students’
more positive perception. Conceivably, undergraduate students’ perceptions are based
on the fact they mainly experience collaborative learning as learners, while the graduate
students are experienced teachers, who might have had prior opportunities to imple-
ment various methodologies in their classrooms. Another possible explanation is that
these perceptual differences are due to graduate students’ position as advanced aca-
demic learners, with deeper instructional perspectives. The pre-service teachers may not
see the benefit that justifies the considerable investment of time that collaborative
learning requires (Panitz, 1997). Therefore, it is important to prepare undergraduate
pre-service teachers to successfully use collaborative learning, and deepen their profi-
ciencies in this essential twenty-first-century methodology (Dobber, Akkerman, Verloop,
& Vermunt, 2014; Harasim, 2012; Sharan, 2010).
As is well known, collaborative learning is not an easy task – for teachers and for learners
(Gillies, 2016; Johnson & Johnson, 2013). For teachers, the greatest challenge is to change
their traditional role and become more of a facilitator; for students, it is to become more
active and cooperative in undertaking joint tasks. In higher education, as previously
mentioned, collaborative learning is not yet very common (Ubell, 2010) and student
teachers do not always experience it effectively. Collaborative learning is mainly imple-
mented at the lowest levels of Salmons’ taxonomy (Salmons, 2006), such as through
discussion groups and peer review (Fransen et al., 2011) and not effectively enough.
Since implementing collaborative learning seems like such a complex and demanding
task (Shonfeld, 2017; Zygouris-Coe, 2012), it requires the support of teacher education
programs and of ongoing professional development (De Hei et al., 2015). Based on the
outcome of this study, we recommend that, alongside active experience with the method,
teacher education should include the study of its theoretical and methodological aspects.
This might include the history of the development of collaborative learning, for example,
pointing out the differences between collaborative learning and cooperative learning,
exploring the development of the levels of CL and of various methods and models
(Johnson & Johnson, 2009), or the affinity between CL’s rationale and constructivist learning
theories, like, for example, the OCL (Online Collaborative Learning) theories (Harasim, 2012).
Another possible component could embrace the presentation and comparative ana-
lysis of different methodological approaches and methods of CL, each adapted to
different goals, specific learners’ characteristics, various disciplines topics, or different
learning outcomes (Johnson & Johnson, 2009). For example, the Tec model (Shonfeld,
Hoter, & Ganayem, 2013) might be one of the models that the students could explore.
Such a course should also include an introduction to the theoretical literature and the
research data regarding challenges of CL, such as regulating and organizing
14 Y. WEINBERGER AND M. SHONFELD

collaborative groups, managing the teacher’s role in group dynamics, evaluating group
work, and the assessment of learning procedures and outcomes (Dobber et al., 2014;
Sharan, 2010; Slavin, 2010).
In addition, at the completion of a collaborative activity or task, it is highly recom-
mended to conduct a discussion in which participants reflect on their personal experi-
ences. This is the instructor’s opportunity to point out the connection between students’
reflections, the theories underlying the task, and the behaviors it demonstrated. In this
way, teachers might explore the personal, theoretical and professional implications of
their experience with collaborative learning (Cockerill et al., 2018; Sharan, 2002), and
develop their metacognitive knowledge in this subject (Zohar & Barzilai, 2015).
In order to benefit most from these courses, instructors would do well to become proficient
in collaborative learning, so as to teach students effectively. De Hei et al. (2015) named seven
aspects that instructors in higher education should master: designing tasks, providing effec-
tive peer feedback, assuring task accountability and teamwork, motivating students to
collaborate, assessing collaboration, and determining criteria for group formation. Mastering
these should make teachers better equipped to prepare their student teachers for the
requirements of the twenty-first century (Melamed et al., 2010; OECD, 2017). Such an agenda
might promote ideas that emphasize the essence of meaningful social interactions in learning
and teaching, which are essential for pre-service teachers’ work (Pellegrino & Hilton, 2012).
However, it is important to note that in order to make a change in students’ behavior, teacher
educators must be engaged in leading such a change, teaching the concepts it requires and
modeling it in their own classroom practice (Thi Mai & Hall, 2017). As Baloche and Brody (2017)
advocate, teacher education programs would do well to provide relevant theories, models
and strategies of collaborative learning, as well as effective modeling.
The main contribution of this article in the field of CL in teacher education is the
model that presents the factors that affect student teachers’ willingness to use CL in
their classes. The central limitation of this study is the fact that it was carried out in only
one college in one country. The results of the current study justify further research in
other teacher colleges, in this country and in other countries. In addition, the data
gathered were mainly declarative information, and based on students’ self-reports. We
did not actually observe the classes or analyze the syllabi of the courses. We recommend
that subsequent research projects include observations of what actually takes place in
classrooms that implement collaborative learning.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors
Dr. Yehudith Weinberger, B.Sc. (Biology), M.A. (Science Education), Ph.D. (Education), is the rector
of Kibbutzim College of Education, Technology and the Arts, the leading teacher education
college in Israel. She serves as a referent of the Ministry of Education for new academic programs
that are submitted to the Council for Higher Education in Israel. Her major areas of expertise are:
Higher order thinking and metacognition, empathy in education, and teacher education and
development.
 TEACHING EDUCATION 15

Dr. Miri Shonfeld is the head of the Technology, Education, and Cultural Diversity (TEC) Center at
Mofet Institute and a faculty member of the graduate program in Technology in Education at
Kibbutzim College of Education in Tel-Aviv. Her research deals with online learning environments,
collaborative work, intercultural links and professional development.

ORCID
Yehudith Weinberger http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7712-486X
Miri Shonfeld http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2193-211X

References
Akhtar, K., Perveen, Q., Kiran, S., Rashid, M., & Satti, A. K. (2012). A study of student’s attitudes towards
cooperative learning. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 2(11), 141–147.
Austin, R., Smyth, J., Rickard, A., Quirk-Bolt, N., & Metcalfe, N. (2010). Collaborative digital learning
in schools: Teacher perceptions of purpose and effectiveness. Technology, Pedagogy and
Education, 19(3), 327–343.
Baloche, L., & Brody, C. M. (2017). Cooperative learning: Exploring challenges, crafting innovations.
Journal of Education for Teaching, 43(3), 274–283.
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research
Journal, 9(2), 27–40.
Brett, C. (2004). Off-line factors contributing to online engagement. Technology, Pedagogy and
Education, 13(1), 83–95.
Brown, F. A. (2008). Collaborative learning in the EAP classroom: students’ perceptions. ESP World, 17(7),
1–18.
Burr, V. (2015). Social constructionism. New York, NY: Routledge.
Cockerill, M., Craig, N., & Thurston, A. (2018). Teacher perceptions of the impact of peer learning in
their classrooms: Using Social Interdependence theory as a model for data analysis and
presentation. International Journal of Education and Practice, 6(1), 14–27.
Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of
Educational Research, 64, 135.
De Hei, M. S. A., Strijbos, J. W., Sjoer, E., & Admiraal, W. (2015). Collaborative learning in higher
education: Lecturers’ practices and beliefs. Research Papers in Education, 30(2), 232–247.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2008). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative
research – Strategies of qualitative inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of
qualitative inquiry (pp. 3–7). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2002). The qualitative inquiry reader. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dobber, M., Akkerman, S. F., Verloop, N., & Vermunt, J. D. (2014). Regulating collaboration in
teacher education. Research Papers in Education, 29(1), 69–92.
Fransen, J., Kirschner, P. A., & Erkens, G. (2011). Mediating team effectiveness in the context of
collaborative learning: The importance of team and task awareness. Computers in Human
Behavior, 27(3), 1103–1113.
Gillies, R. (2008). The effects of cooperative learning on junior high school students’ behaviours,
discourse and learning during a science-based learning activity. School Psychology International,
29(3), 328–347.
Gillies, R. M. (2016). Cooperative learning: Review of research and practice. Australian Journal of
Teacher Education, 41(3), 3.
Gillies, R. M. (in press). Promoting academically productive student dialogue during collaborative
learning. International Journal of Educational Research. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2017.07.014.
Gillies, R. M., & Boyle, M. (2008). Teachers’ discourse during cooperative learning and their
perceptions of this pedagogical practice. Teacher and Teacher Education, 24, 1333–1348.
16 Y. WEINBERGER AND M. SHONFELD

Harasim, L. (2012). Learning theory and online technology: How new technologies are transforming
learning opportunities. New York, NY: Routledge Press.
Harney, O. M., Hogan, M. J., & Quinn, S. (2017). Investigating the effects of peer to peer prompts on
collaborative argumentation, consensus and perceived efficacy in collaborative learning.
International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 12(3), 307–336.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, F. P. (2009). An educational psychology success story: Social inter-
dependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational Researcher, 38(5), 365–379.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, F. P. (2013). Joining together: Group theory and group skills. Boston:
Pearson.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., Roseth, C. J., & Shin, T.-S. (2014). The relationship between
motivation and achievement in interdependent situations. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 44, 622–633.
Kalaian, S. A., & Kasim, R. M. (2017). Effectiveness of various innovative learning methods in health
science classrooms: A meta-analysis. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 22(5), 1151–1167.
https://doiorg.elibrary.jcu.edu.au/10.1007/s10459-017-9753-6
La Rocca, C., Margottii, M., & Capobianco, R. (2014). Collaborative learning in higher education.
Open Journal of Social Sciences, 2, 61–66.
Libman, Z. (2014, April 3–7). Learner performance in statistics: A comparison of three instructional
constructivist-based approaches. AERA (American Educational Research Association) Meeting,
Philadelphia.
Lin, Y., Hsu, Y., Lin, Y., & Hsiao, W. (2018). An action research of nature science education in junior
high schools focusing on influence of play-oriented cooperative learning. International Journal
of Organizational Innovation (Online), 10(3), 226–244.
Marashi, H., & Khatami, H. (2017). Using cooperative learning to boost creativity and motivation in
language learning. Journal of Language and Translation, 7(1), 43–58.
Melamed, U., Peled, R., Mor, N., Shonfeld, M., Harel, S., & Ben Shimon, A. (2010). A program for
adapting colleges to train educators in the 21st century. Israel: Ministry of Education.
Murray, M. H., & Lonne, B. (2006). An innovative use of the web to build graduate team skills.
Teaching in Higher Education, 11(1), 63–77.
OECD. (2017). Piza 2015 collaborative problem solving framework. OECD. Retrieved from http://
www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/Draft%20PISA%202015%20Collaborative%20Problem%
20Solving%20Framework%20.pdf
Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2005). Collaborating online: Learning together in communities. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Panitz, T. (1997). Collaborative versus cooperative learning: Comparing the two definitions helps
understand the nature of interactive learning. Cooperative Learning and College Teaching, 8, 2.
Retrieved from http://home.capecod.net/~tpanitz/tedsarticles/coopdefinition.htm
Pellegrino, J. W., & Hilton, M. L. (2012). Education for life and work. Developing Transferable
Knowledge and Skills in the 21stCentury. Washington, DC: The National Academic Press
Puji, A., & Barratt, L. (2018). Individual accountability in cooperative learning in EFL classrooms:
More opportunities for peer interaction. Journal of Asia TEFL, 15(1), 1–16.
Salman, E., Najjar, Z., & Zidan, W. (2012). Computerized collaborative learning – How to prepare pre-
service student teachers! Proceeding of the International Conference on Information
Communication Technologies in Education ICICTE2012, Rhodes, Greece. Retreived from http://
www.icicte.org/ICICTE12Programme3.htm
Salmons, J. E. (2006). Taxonomy of collaborative e-learning (Doctoral dissertation). Union Institute &
University.
Sharan, Y. (2002). Essential features of a teacher education program for cooperative learning. Asia
Pacific JE, 22(1), 68–74.
Sharan, Y. (2010). Cooperative learning for academic and social gains: Valued pedagogy,
Problematic practice. European Journal of Education, 45(2), 300–313.
Sharan, Y. (2014). Learning to cooperate for cooperative learning. Anales De Psicología/Annals of
Psychology, 30(3), 802–807.
 TEACHING EDUCATION 17

Shonfeld, M., Hoter, E., & Ganayem, A. (2013). Connecting cultures in conflict through ICT in Israel.
In R. S. P. Austin & W. J. Hunter (Eds.), Online learning and community cohesion: Linking schools
(pp. 42–58). NY: Routledge.
Shonfeld, M. (2017). Lemida Shitufit Baidan Hadigitali [Collaborative learning in the digital age]. In
O. Goldsten & U. Melamed Eds., Pedagogyia Bayidan Hadigitaly [Pedagogy at the Digital Age].
Israel: Kalil: Mofet. [Hebrew].
Shonfeld, M., & Weinberger, Y. (in press). What influences teacher educator’ use of collaborative
learning? In M. Shonfeld & D. Gibson (Eds.), Collaborative earning in a Global World. NY: IAP.
Shonfeld, M., Passey, D., Lon, A., Miriam, J., Toshinori, S., Anneke, S., . . . Louise, S. (2017). Digital
agency to empower equity in education: Summary report. Rethinking Learning in a Digital Age.
EDUsummIT, (2017, 39–45.
Slavin, R. E. (2010). Instruction based on cooperative learning. In R. Mayer (Ed.), Handbook of
research on learning and instruction (pp. 344–360). London: Taylor and Francis.
Smith, R. O. (2008). The paradox of trust in online collaborative groups. Distance Education, 29(3),
325–340.
Spears, L. R. (2012). Social presence, social interaction, collaborative learning, and satisfaction in
online and face-to-face courses. (Doctoral dissertation, Iowa State University).
Stahl, G. (2006). Group cognition: Computer support for building collaborative knowledge.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. M. (1997). Grounded theory in practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Strauss, S., & Shilony, T. (1994). Teachers' models of children's minds and learning. In L. Hirschfeld &
S. Gelman (Eds.), Mapping the mind: Domain specificity in cognition and culture (pp. 455–473).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Strauss, S., & Ziv, M. (2012). Teaching is a natural cognitive ability for humans. Mind, Brain, and
Education, 6(4), 186–196.
Tal-Elhasid, E., & Meishar-Tal, H. (2007). Wikis in academic courses: Models of usage and collabora-
tion, Y. InEshet, A. Caspi, & Y. Yair. (Eds.) Learning in The Technological Era (pp. 127-136), Chais
Conference on Instructional Technologies Research. Raanana: Open University of Israel. [Hebrew].
Tan, S. K., Wong, I. Y., Fang, Y., Devi, L., & Gopinathan, S. (2010). Educational collaboration across
borders: The preparation of the transforming teacher education. Redefined professionals for
21st century schools report. Journal of Education for Teaching, 36(4), 477–493.
Thi Mai, H. N., & Hall, C. (2017). Changing views of teachers and teaching in Vietnam. Teaching
Education, 28(3), 244–256.
Ubell, R. (2010). Virtual teamwork: Mastering the art and practice of online learning and corporate
collaboration. NJ: John Wiley Online & Sons.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Weinberger, Y. (2018). Strategies for Effecting System-wide Pedagogical Change: Identifying and
Addressing the Gap between Organizational and Pedagogical Implementation. Professional
Development in Education, 44(1), 47–61.
Zohar, A., & Barzilai, S. (2015). Metacognition and teaching higher order thinking (HOT) in science
education: Students’ thinking, teachers’ knowledge, and instructional practices. In R. Wegerif, L.
Li, & J. Kaufman (Eds.), Routledge international handbook of research on teaching thinking (pp.
229–242). Oxon, UK: Routledge.
Zygouris-Coe, V. (2012). Collaborative learning in an online teacher education course: Lessons
learned. Proceedings of ICICTE, 58(1), 332–342.