Chapter 2

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

This chapter presents the review of related literature and studies that had
close bearing with the present study.

Related Literature

Collaborative Learning (CL) is a very important strategy to foster critical

thinking, learner’s autonomy, self-decision among the students. It does not just mean

doing the project in a group, but it is a highly advanced level of psychological situation,

which triggers the latent mentle faculties among the participants. It needs

expertise to implement it in our classrooms. To understand how collaborative learning

situation goes on in a class (virtual/face to face) we have reviewed the research work

done in the field of collaborative learning, holding the specific objectives to find out: (i)

the effects of collaborative learning on teaching learning process; (ii) the use of various

collaborative learning strategies; (iii) various methods to access and analyze

collaborative process and interaction patterns; (iv) online resources for collaborative

learning. The review briefs the results of various studies revealing the benefits of

collaborative learning to improve the four skills of language, to promote self-efficacy,

motivation, critical thinking and to develop sense of community, among both the

teachers and students. Various methods and techniques for collaboration and in

depth analyses of the interaction patterns and characteristics has been discussed.

Various online resources such as, Google Docs, Cloud Services, think Lets, class blog
etc. has been explored. The studies also revealed the importance of interaction in

collaborative learning.

The quality in education marks the growth of a nation. In 21st century the learner

needs to become more critical, an independent thinker; but at the same time he must be

able to work in teams, as a problem solver in a team. Collaborative learning serves the

maximum to the purpose. It gives you freedom and autonomy to learn independently

and creating new things, while learning and growing with your team members at the

same time. The research work has been in progress to see the effects of

collaborative learning in the classroom. The concept of collaborative has its roots in

our own social set up. We grow up together in our social group, learning from each

other. The deepest core of our intellect is stimulated when we interact, discuss

and work with others. But this may not happen when working alone. Psychologists,

realizing the importance of collaborative learning, are keenly involved in knowing the

most productive techniques of applying collaborative learning into the classroom; be it

in a classroom of a traditional setting, a computer supported or entirely a virtual

environment.

Dillenbourg (1999) says that “collaborative learning is a situation in which two or

more people learner (a pair, a small group, a class, a community, a society …

and all intermediate levels) attempt to learn something (follow a course, study course

material, perform learning activities such as problem solving) together (face-to-face or

computer mediated, synchronous or not).” Thus, we can say that online

collaborative learning includes building and sharing knowledge by the learning

groups using asynchronous or real time communication network via computers.

 Historically, according to Dillenbourg, Baker, Blaye, and O’Malley (1996), a great

amount of research on collaborative and cooperative learning stemmed from the works

of Piaget and Vygotsky. Piaget’s system of developmental stages describing children’s

cognitive progress contributed to the development of socio-constructivists paradigm.

Similarly, his concept of cognitive conflict provided a cognitive framework to understand

learner’s experiences. In addition, social interactions mediate cognitive conflict that

allow learners to interact with peers at more advanced developmental levels. On the

contrary, regarding cognitive conflict Vygotsky stressed the value of social interaction

itself for causing individual cognitive change, as opposed to being merely stimulated by

it (Dillenbourg et al., 1996). Internalized social interaction causes conceptual changes in

participants that help them negotiate meaning. A similar concept, the zone of proximal

development, according to Vygotsky, is the distance between what a student can

accomplish individually and what he/she can accomplish with the help of a more

capable “other.” While Piaget suggests pairing children based on different

developmental stages to facilitate cognitive conflict, Vygotsky, on the other hand,

recommends pairing children with adults. Unlike Piaget and Vygotsky who maintain that

cognitive conflict causes conceptual change, socio-culturalists privilege collaborative

learning that takes place within the zone of proximal development (Dillenbourg et al.,

1996). According to Kreijns, Kirschner, and Jochems (2003), a new strand of research

regarding collaborative learning emerged in the late 1990s that focused on new

technologies for mediating, observing, and recording interactions during. On the whole,

four strands came into existence out of the seminal works of Piaget, Vygotsky and their

shared concept of cognition and research built on them – the “effect” paradigm, the
“conditions” paradigm, the “interactions” paradigm, and “computer-supported” paradigm

respectively (Dillenbourg et al., 1996, pp. 8 -17 ). In thenext paragraphs, the author

discusses these paradigms. The “effect” paradigm investigates outcomes of

collaboration rather than the collaborative process itself, and compares group

performance with individual performance. This paradigm maintains that a collaborative

classroom culture can have powerful effects on student learning and performance.

Webb (1993) found that the students who worked in groups on computational math

problems scored significantly higher than equivalent-ability students who worked

individually.

The “conditions” paradigm tries to determine the conditions that moderate the

effectiveness of collaboration on learning, for instance, individual characteristics of

group members, group heterogeneity and size, and task features. Webb’s (1991) study

reported significant differences in the collaborative learning experiences of boys and

girls. Boys were more likely than girls to give and receive elaborated explanations, and

their explanations were more likely to be accepted by group mates than girls’

explanations (Dillenbourg et al., 1996). To overcome the complexities of former

paradigms, the “interactions” paradigm emerged to identify the intersecting systems

between collaboration and learning outcomes. In a way, this paradigm tried to explain

the characteristics and processes of interactions which measure the effect of

collaboration on learning (Dillenbourg et al., 1996). In this regard, Webb (1991) reported

that the effect of collaborative learning on student achievement depends on the quality

of the interactions among them.

 While there are diverse definitions provided for the term ‘collaboration’, such as

working constructively with others (Knight & Yorke, 2003); sharing unique ideas and

experiences with group members (Hathorn & Ingram, 2002); or group members

contributing to the whole to achieve a common goal (Roberts, 2004); these definitions

share two important elements: that there is an agreed goal as well as a shared

ownership of the final product (Storch, 2013). While collaborative learning is often used

interchangeably with cooperative learning, it is possible to distinguish between the two.

Cooperative learning tends to focus on each portion of the task delegated to each

individual in a group, whereas collaborative learning emphasizes more on the mutual

engagement and the non-separable nature of the individual contribution to the task

(Kozar, 2010).

Collaborative learning has attracted much attention in educational research

because of the importance of collaborative competence for graduates expressed by

national agendas, employers, and students themselves (Robbins & Hoggan, 2019;

Williams, 2017). The existing studies on collaborative learning fall into two broad

themes: one theme examines benefits of collaborative learning, and the other theme

investigates factors which are related to quality of collaborative learning. Regarding the

first theme, research has demonstrated that collaborative learning is beneficial to

develop other important learning skills, such as higher-order metacognitive abilities,

critical thinking, problem solving, and decision making (e.g., Gokhale & Machina, 2018;

Jonassen & Kwon, 2001); to foster positive affect, attitudes, and motivation in learning

(e.g., Zheng, 2017); to enhance level of engagement and in-depth learning (e.g., Zhu,

2012), and may also lead to better academic performance (e.g., Sung et al., 2017).
 For the second theme, which concerns the factors associated with experience in

collaborative learning, three broad categories of factors have been investigated: namely

(1) the setting of collaboration, including group composition (e.g., Lee & Lee, 2016) and

group size (e.g., Schellens & Valcke, 2006); (2) learning activities in collaboration:

including types of activities (e.g., Zheng et al., 2015), structure of activities (e.g., Kapur

& Kinzer, 2009), and the availability of scaffolding (e.g., Gu et al., 2015); and (3) student

factors, including emotion and affect (e.g., Reis et al., 2018), self-efficacy (e.g., Wilson &

Narayan, 2016), regulatory behaviors in collaboration (e.g., Kwon et al., 2014), and

metacognition (e.g., Akyol & Garrison, 2011). Of these student factors, however, there

has been little research into students’ learning orientations, which have been

systematically investigated in student approaches to learning research, showing there

are distinct variations of learning orientations amongst students (Han & Ellis, 2020a,

2021; Lonka et al., 2004; Ramsden, 1988). The current research aims to fill this gap by

investigating patterns of students’ collaborative learning based on their learning

orientations.

SAL research is a well-recognized framework in higher education to investigate

variations of student learning experience and how such variations are related to

qualitatively different learning outcomes (Biggs & Tang, 2011; Herrmann et al., 2017).

The collective body of research using SAL framework has identified key elements that

are able to distinguish between relatively more successful and less successful

experiences of learning. Of the identified elements, how students’ go about learning

(i.e., their approaches), how they perceive learning (i.e., their perceptions), and how the

approaches and perceptions are related to learning outcomes, have been systematically
researched (Entwistle, 2009; Trigwell & Prosser, 2020). Past studies have examined

students’ approaches in different learning designs, such as approaches to inquiry,

approaches to discussions, approaches to problem-solving, and approaches to using

online technologies in blended courses. Despite the differences in the learning designs,

two broad categories of approaches to learning have consistently been confirmed,

namely deep and surface approaches. While the former involves strategies that are

proactive, reflective, and analytical with an intent to gain meaningful and in-depth

understanding of the subject matter; the latter tend to aim to satisfy learning

requirements or to complete the required tasks, involving mechanistic and simplistic

strategies and that are often largely fragmented from meaning (Nelson Laird et al.,

2014).

Students’ approaches to learning are not a fixed personal trait, rather, they may

vary depending on the learning contexts and are related to students’ perceptions of

learning and teaching (Entwistle, 2009). When students perceive teaching being high

quality, being clear about learning goals, and encouraging students’ independence in

learning, they are more likely to adopt deep approaches. When students perceive the

workload of study is not appropriate and the means of assessments do not match their

learning goals, they tend to adopt surface approaches (Lizzio et al., 2002; Wilson &

Fowler, 2005). These associations have been confirmed and extended to blended

course designs. For example, positive perceptions of the online workload and an

integrated learning environment, that includes both face-to-face and online learning

experiences, have been found to be related to deep approaches to using online learning

technologies; whereas perceptions of inappropriate online workload and fragmentation

between face-to-face and online learning experiences in the same course are typically

associated to surface approaches learning and to using online learning technologies.

SAL research has also shown that logical relations amongst approaches to

learning and perceptions of learning and students’ learning outcomes, which jointly

reflect students’ learning orientation. Students adopting deep approaches, having

positive perceptions of learning and teaching, and achieving higher level of academic

performance are referred to as having an ‘understanding’ learning orientation

(sometimes ‘meaning’ learning orientation). On the other hand, those using surface

approaches, holding negative perceptions, and attaining relatively poorer learning

outcomes are known as having an ‘reproducing’ learning orientation (Ellis et al., 2016,

2017; Han & Ellis, 2020a; Han et al., 2020). While an individual student’s learning

orientation is relatively stable as reflected in the consistency across how student’

conceive learning, approach learning, and perceive learning in one learning context or

across a number of learning contexts. Nevertheless, “stability of orientations does not

imply fixity”, as orientations are relational, changeable, and responsive to learning and

teaching contexts, hence, contextually dependent (Ramsden, 1988, p. 175).

While SAL research has revealed variations of students’ learning orientations, the

methods used in SAL are not designed to provide detailed measures of different

patterns of students’ collaborative learning. Hence, this study draws on methodologies

from social network research, known as social network analysis (SNA) to complement

SAL methods in order to reveal nuanced features of patterns of collaboration. The

following gives a brief overview of the SNA methodology and education research using

SNA.
 SNA is a set of techniques that can be used to identify, detect, and interpret roles

of individuals (i.e., actors) within a group and patterns of ties amongst individuals (De

Nooy et al., 2011). In SNA, actors and ties are the two fundamental units, which can be

visualised in terms of network graphs with mathematical measures to identify and

analyse roles of actors and ties between them (Rulke & Galaskiewicz, 2000). In student

learning research, for example, actors can be students and teachers, and ties can be

student and teacher interaction or students’ collaboration. SNA methodology is

increasingly adopted in educational research in the areas such as network connections

of teaching discussions amongst university lecturers (Quardokus & Henderson, 2015);

patterns of research collaboration amongst faculties (Shields, 2014); interactions

between students and teaching staff in courses or study programs (Cadima et al.,

2012); students’ social and friendship ties (Rienties et al., 2013); students’ knowledge

sharing networks (Tomás-Miquel et al., 2016); students’ online discussion networks

(Gašević et al., 2019); and networks of study partners (Stadtfeld et al., 2019). In this

study, SNA is used to provide a set of measures about the student experience, which

reveal nuanced features of the patterns of students’ collaborative learning

At the same time, in 2008, Qatar University adopted a collaborative learning

strategy: this is the main strategy that is to be used in e-learning education in classroom

settings in Qatar, not least because it is seen as a tool for more effective learning and

an active learning environment for online learning. Collaborative learning has been seen

as a method to be used in classrooms to enable groups of students in their learning

tasks. Where students of various levels work together towards the same aim, they

become accountable for their own learning and that of others in their group (Maesin,
Mansor, Shafie and Nayan 2009). Collaborative learning is not only sitting students in

groups, but encourages working and interacting together to achieve collaborative work

goals. It can be done so the lessons build such an environment that students are

already working cooperatively with each other which requires an understanding of the

elements that make collaborative work be successful. In brief, in order to be successful,

collaborative work should match basic elements such as positive interdependence,

individual responsibility; direct interaction and treatment of the group's work (Laal and

Ghodsi 2012. pp. 488).

Collaborative learning and e-learning are not incompatible approaches, and there are

many kinds of collaborative learning strategies which may be used in an e-learning

environment. These include students’ team achievement divisions (STAD), self-directed

learning, learning together, small group projects, debates, simulations, role playing,

case studies, forums, talk pairs and inside-outside circles, and three-step-interviews

(Hasan 2003). Maesin et al. (2009) have indicated that collaborative learning needs

elements of individual accountability, face-to-face contact, encouraging interaction,

positive interdependency, and appropriate utilisation of collaborative skills and group

processing. It encourages communication, positive interdependency and team handling.

Students are given chances to teach through research under the guidance of an

instructor, and simultaneously to develop leadership skills, interpersonal skills and

communicative skills. Students will also increase the probability of reacting with peers

and acquaintances about different beliefs, question others’ conceptual frameworks,

defend ideas, and actively participate in collaborative learning preparation. For

‘cooperation-based societies’, curriculum development via the collaborative e-learning,

like instant chat and bulletin boards, is very useful. This model is beneficial for both e-

learning and peer teaching in the classroom, as it significantly increases the learning of

both teacher and student. It might also decrease the pressure on instructors as the only

source of knowledge (Weber 2010). As Golub (1988, p.74) points out, Collaborative

learning has as its main feature a structure that allows for student talk: students are

supposed to talk with each other and it is in this talking that much of the learning occurs,

collaborative learning produces intellectual synergy of many minds coming to bear on a

problem, and the social stimulation of mutual engagement in a common endeavour.

This mutual exploration, meaningmaking, and feedback often lead to better

understanding on the part of students, andto the creation of new understandings for all

teachers and students.

Based on these perspectives, collaborative learning aims to create a suitable learning

environment to encourage learners to strengthen and increase their own knowledge and

each other’s culture. In addition, during the independent learning activities in a research

course, students are offered chances to learn through their selfexpertise under the

guidance of an instructor, and will simultaneously develop leadership skills,

interpersonal skills and communicative skills. Students will also have more chances to

interact with peers, achieve divergent thinking, conceptual frameworks, defend ideas

and effectively participate in cooperative teaching. Furthermore, collaborative learning

connects students to the knowledge-sharing process by enabling them to motivate each

other, depend upon each other and engage in active social communication in a group

context. Thus, collaborative learning is mainly based on the ability to use a social

interface rather than being a mechanical process without interaction or dynamic

behaviour or thinking. So, collaborative learning theory is regarded as an individual

attitude rather than just a classroom method and procedure. Since collaborative

learning is based on the ability of using a social interface, as well as e-learning offering

a different kind of social platform and interface, connecting both concepts becomes

critical to studying their effect on the students’ effectiveness. To sum up, the

collaborative theory approach is without a doubt essential for successful e-learning and

education processes, and plays a critical role in distance learning methods (Brindley,

Blaschke and Walti 2009).

Collaborative learning has become popular in online courses. Teachers have

incorporated collaborative learning activities to enable learning in “socially negotiated

spaces through intellectual tools that are acquired during the course of interactions” (Ke

& Carr-Chellman, 2006). Collaborative learning is not new, as it has been previously

adopted in conventional teaching. Ke and Carr-Chellman (2006: 250) has defined

collaborative learning as “a coordinated, synchronous activity that is the result of a

continued attempt to construct and maintain a shared conception of a problem”

(Roschelle & Teasley, 1995). Curtis and Lawson (2001) see collaborative learning as a

situation in which two or more learners interact and work together to come up with a

joint solution to a problem. Collaborative learning is interchangeably used with

cooperative learning. For Bernard and others (2000), however, collaborative learning

goes beyond cooperative learning, which normally involves dividing a task among group

members and collecting these individual contributions to form one final product.

Collaborative learning involves mutual discussion, active processing of information,

analytical and critical thinking, and synthesis of the whole process (Bernard et al, 2000;
Kaven et al, 2009). In terms of theoretical inspiration, collaborative learning draws from

Piaget’s constructivism and Vygotsky’s sociocultural approaches (Thomson & Ku,

2006). According to constructivism (Piaget 1969), learning is a product of people’s

interactions rather than individual exploration (Thomson & Ku, 2006). Similarly,

Vygotsky (1978) highlights the importance of learning with peers. Siemen’s

connectivism (2005) is another framework used to explain collaborative learning (Kop &

Hill, 2008). Connectivism assumes that learning involves gathering information from

different sources (including peers), finding the connections between these, and applying

them in new contexts (Brindley et al, 2009).

The social interaction that is at the core of collaborative learning brings about several

benefits to learners. The shared exploratory activities in collaborative are said to

enhance learners’ skills in higher order thinking (Abrami & Bures, 1996; Palloff and Pratt

Collaborative Learning Activities in Online Courses: Issues and Strategies ASEAN

Journal of Open Distance Learning  Vol. 4, No. 1 (2012) 3 2005), valuing, organising,

and characterising (Wong & Abbruzzese, 2011), time management (Kitchen &

McDougall, 1999), decision making (Wong & Abbruzzese, 2011), and team work

(McLoughlin & Luca, 2002; Neo 2003). On the other hand, it has also been reported that

some learners may resist collaborative learning due to the extra time and effort it

demands of them (Ko & Rosen, 2001).

Related Study
 This study investigated obstacles and antecedents to the effectiveness of CL

from both teachers’ and students’ point of view in order to better understand the process

of CL. We found four main obstacles to the effectiveness of CL, namely students’ lack of

collaborative skills, free-riding, competence status, and friendship. The first obstacle

confirms findings of prior research showing that the lack of interpersonal and teamwork

skills may not only impede group interaction but may also stifle individual and

collaborative learning (Shimazoe & Aldrich, Citation2010; Webb, Nemer, & Zuniga,

Citation2002). When students are unskilled in collaboration, they are unable to

contribute fully to the assigned tasks. This may lead to the second obstacle, free-riding,

which has been extensively discussed in CL literature (e.g. Freeman & Greenacre,

Citation2010; Popov et al., Citation2012). The third obstacle, competence status,

confirms the finding by Bunderson and Reagans (Citation2011) showing that

competence status suppresses collective learning in such a way that low-status

students are inhibited in participating actively and are often underestimated, whereas

high-status peers have more chances to contribute and tend to ignore the efforts of low-

status members. Finally, friendship groups may not always function effectively because

friends tend to socialise more than to focus on group tasks (Janssen, Erkens, Kirschner,

& Kanselaar, Citation2009; Shah & Jehn, Citation1993). Furthermore, one may forget

their individual responsibility without being criticised by other group members. This is

clearly visible for Vietnamese and other Asian Confucian heritage cultural countries

since they want to avoid criticism and disagreement to strive for group harmony

(Nguyen, Terlouw, & Pilot, Citation2005; Pearson, Citation1991). This implies that

individuals, especially in Asian countries, may have to suppress their personal feelings
or alternative viewpoints so as not to affect interactions within a group negatively. This

cultural feature may also explain the tendency to rate peers very high in the peer

evaluation observed in our study.

We have identified three interrelated antecedents that help explain the identified

obstacles. Central to the antecedents is the strong focus of the teachers on the

cognitive aspects of CL, which led the participating teachers to neglect the collaborative

aspects of CL. These antecedents were demonstrated in the ways teachers set CL

goals, provided instruction for collaborative skills, and assessed student collaboration.

These findings of our study seem to be consistent with pleas for teacher competencies

aimed at fostering the quality of student collaboration such as defining learning goals,

instructing beneficial student behaviours, monitoring, supporting, consolidating and

evaluating student interaction (Kaendler et al., Citation2014). A lack of teacher

competencies for implementing CL may seriously and negatively impact student

learning in groups because students may aim only to achieve individual academic

learning and neglect the importance of social interaction during collaboration.

Our findings seem to imply that there are reciprocal interactions between these

three antecedents. The low attention for collaborative goals of CL may cause teachers

to ignore training students in collaborative skills and then teachers might not want to or

be unable to assess the collaborative process because of a lack of training. Previous

research supports this view. For example, students were rarely trained in social

interactions for productive collaboration (e.g. Galton, Hargreaves, & Pell, Citation2009;

Kutnick et al., Citation2005). Students’ lack of social skills training may explain why

teachers organised various group activities, but students mostly worked individually
(Blatchford et al., Citation2003). Furthermore, teachers’ lack of collaborative objectives

and credible instruments to assess collaborative skills seem to contribute to undesired

learning outcomes of collaboration (Koutrouba, Kariotaki, & Christopoulos, Citation2012;

Roseth et al., Citation2008). In agreement with these research results, the findings of

this study showed that the reciprocal interactions between three antecedents might

negatively affect student perceptions of CL and their actual collaboration. We now

present some examples to illustrate the relationships between these antecedents and

the obstacles.

Regarding the association between the first antecedent (goals) and the

obstacles, teachers may encounter major obstacles such as free-riding when teachers

and students exclusively focus on the goal of individual academic learning while

neglecting collaborative goals. When the group goal was to accomplish group tasks and

to get a high grade for the group product, less capable students were often

underestimated during CL. Feeling undervalued may cause them to withhold their

responsibility for and effort in doing group work. Our study also demonstrated an

association between the second antecedent (instruction) and the obstacles, for

example, students’ lack of collaborative skills and friendship. When teachers did not

focus on instructing collaborative skills, students found it difficult to engage in

collaborative work. Therefore, unskilled group members were unable to perform

collaborative tasks effectively, such as not being able to argue constructively as well as

critically. The third antecedent (assessment) can be linked with the obstacles, for

example, competence status. When teachers primarily concentrate on group

productivity without simultaneously assessing the collaborative performance, group

members may not be urged to strengthen social interaction and mutual help in order for

everyone to benefit from collaboration. As a consequence, low-status students may feel

unconfident to participate in collaborative work, thereby not benefiting from the

collaboration. These links between antecedents and obstacles emphasise the need to

examine whether and how the manipulation of these antecedents as well as obstacles

can have an effect on student collaboration.

The results of the present study seem to call for special attention by educators to

balance the cognitive and collaborative aspects of CL. Integration of these aspects may

help to ensure the social interaction, which is salient to the efficacy of CL (Kreijns et al.,

Citation2003). In support of this argument, Barron (Citation2003) stated that ‘to

understand the nature of productive collaboration, we need to articulate how social

goals and discourse practices interact with knowledge-building processes that lead to

co-construction of understanding’ (p. 309).

The present study is limited in that it is based solely on participants’ reports

during semi-structured interviews. The purpose of this study, however, was to deeply

understand the obstacles that teachers and students experienced during CL. By

interviewing voluntary and experienced participants, we think we have collected

valuable data, but generalisations should be made with caution. It should also be noted

that the range of participants was limited to those with experience of CL. On the one

hand, this might have favoured the results of this study towards positive experiences of

CL. On the other hand, by recruiting participants who had experience of CL, we think we

may have been able to capture a more nuanced and detailed view of the positive sides

as well as the drawbacks of CL. Clearly, observational research over a long period of CL
application is needed to validate the proposed relationships between antecedents and

obstacles. In addition, future research with a large variety of participants’ subject areas

should also investigate whether their disciplines would make a difference in the attitudes

of teachers and students towards CL practice. Finally, some cultural factors inherent to

the Asian context, such as striving for group harmony and avoiding criticism, might have

influenced some of the results thus indicating caution when thinking about these factors

in other contexts.

If the findings of this study are confirmed in other studies, these will have

practical implications for implementing CL as well as training teachers in CL design and

practice. As for CL teaching practice, it seems necessary that teachers emphasise the

dual purposes of CL (i.e. the cognitive and collaborative aspects), adequately train

students in collaborative skills prior to collaboration, and equally evaluate the

productivity and learning process of individuals and the whole group. Additionally, it

seems important that teachers take into account common obstacles that may affect the

process of CL. For teacher education (be it pre-service or in-service), teacher educators

could use the student teachers’ experience with CL to help them understand better the

problems that they and their (future) students may encounter and how they themselves

can improve the student collaboration. Teacher educators then should focus on drawing

student teachers’ attention to the antecedents of the obstacles to the collaborative

process. Furthermore, teacher education and training could help to equip student

teachers with strategies to set clear cognitive and collaborative goals for CL or to

understand how to support collaborative skills development of their (future) students.

When future efforts in teacher training and education are aimed at enhancing
prospective and active teachers’ understanding of the common obstacles to effective CL

and the antecedents that contribute to these obstacles, both teachers’ and students’

experiences during CL may improve significantly.

Studies have identified several factors to effective design and implementation of

online collaborative learning activities. Citing Hathorn and Ingram (2002), Thompson

and Ku (2006: 362) reported that researchers have identified “four critical attributes of

the discussion patterns within an online collaborative group: participation (Zafeiriou,

Nunes, & Ford, 2001), interdependence (Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 1998), synthesis

of information (Kaye, 1992), and independence (Laffey, Tupper, Musser, & Wedman,

1998).” Other studies pointed out the following OCL success factors: learners’

preparation (Bernard et al, 2000); group size (Barndon & Hollingshead, 1999; Ke &

Carr-Chellman, 2006); teacher facilitation (Brown & Palinscar, 1989; Abrami & Bures,

1996), participative environment (Wong & Abbruzzese, 2011), match with participants’

learning styles (Hayes & Allinson, 1997; Sonnenwald & Li 2003; Yukawa 2006); and

assessment (Swan, Shen, & Hiltz, 2006; Brindley et al, 2009). On the other hand,

Thompson & Ku (2006) argued that OCL could be hampered by ineffective

communication, conflict among group members, and negative attitude toward group

work. Roberts and McInnerney (2007) identified the following as the commonly cited

problems associated with OCL in the literature: student antipathy towards group work;

the selection of the groups; lack of essential group-work skills; free-riding; possible

inequalities of student abilities; withdrawal of group members, and the assessment of

individuals within the groups.

 Social interaction is crucial for effective collaboration (Volet et al., 2009).
Learning outcomes of collaborative-learning groups have been found to depend on the
quality of student discussions, including argumentation (Teasley, 1995; Chinn et al.,
2000), explaining ideas to one another (Veenman et al., 2005), and incorporating and
building on one another’s ideas (Barron, 2003). These interactions with peers are
assumed to promote students’ cognitive restructuring (Webb, 2009). Explaining things to
one another and discussing subject matter may lead to deeper understanding, to
recognition of misconceptions, and to the strengthening of connections between new
information and previously learned information (Wittrock, 1990). The question of how to
organize collaboration in a way that promotes these kinds of interactions is paramount.

Decades of research on group work have resulted in the identification of various factors
that potentially enhance the effectiveness of collaboration. These factors can be
differentiated as primary factors (design characteristics) and secondary or mediating
factors (group-process characteristics). Regarding primary factors, groups need to be
small (three to five students) to obtain meaningful interaction (Lou et al., 2001; Johnson
et al., 2007). With respect to group composition, mixed-ability groups have been found
to increase performance for students of lower ability, but this composition does not
necessarily benefit high-ability students (Webb et al., 2002). Equal participation,
however, has been shown to be more important for students’ achievement than group
composition, because students are more likely to use one another’s knowledge and
skills fully when all students participate to the same extent (Woolley et al., 2015).
Heterogeneity, with respect to diversity of perspectives and styles, has been found to
increase learning, particularly in groups working on tasks that require creativity
(Kozhevnikov et al., 2014). The nature of the task has been shown to be an important
factor as well. Open and ill-structured tasks promote higher-level interaction and
improve reasoning and applicative and evaluative thinking to a greater extent than
closed tasks (Gillies, 2014). In addition, complex tasks provoke deeper-level
interactions than simple tasks (Hertz-Lazarowitz, 1989).

Concerning secondary or intermediate factors affecting group work, positive

interdependence theory is one of the best-founded theories explaining the quality of
interaction in collaborative learning (Slavin, 1990; Johnson and Johnson, 1999, 2009;
Gully et al., 2002). According to this theory, collaboration is enhanced when positive
interdependence exists among group members. This is achieved when students
perceive the contribution of each individual to be essential for the group to succeed in
completing the assigned activity (Johnson and Johnson, 2009). Positive
interdependence results in both individual accountability and promotive interaction.
Individual accountability is defined as having feelings of responsibility for completing
one’s own work and for facilitating the work of other group members. A sense of mutual
accountability is necessary to avoid free riding (Johnson and Johnson, 2009), which
occurs when one or more group members are perceived by other members as failing to
contribute their fair share to the group effort (Aggarwal and O’Brien, 2008). Promotive
interaction has been described as students encouraging and facilitating one another’s
efforts to accomplish group goals, both with respect to group dynamics and the subject
matter (Johnson and Johnson, 2009).

Methods of inducing positive interdependence interaction are either reward or task

based (Johnson et al., 2007). Reward-based interdependence structures the reward in
such a way that students’ individual grades depend on the achievement of the whole
team. According to Slavin (1991, 1995), collaborative learning is rarely successful
without group rewards. In higher education, however, findings on the effects of reward-
based interdependence are inconclusive. The main concern is that rewards stimulate
extrinsic motivation and may be detrimental to intrinsic motivation (Parkinson and St.
George, 2003). Intrinsically motivated students put effort into a task because they are
interested in the task itself, while extrinsically motivated students are interested in the
reward or grade (Deci and Ryan, 2000). Strong incentives, such as grades, could steer
student motivation toward the reward and subsequently reduce the task to being a
means to an end. Serrano and Pons (2007), however, found that using rewards
(individual grades) created high positive interdependence in group work at a university
level. They concluded that the reward structure did direct students’ motivation toward
final grades, while the task still aroused the interest of the students. In contrast, Sears
and Pai (2012) found that rewards were not crucial factors affecting group behavior.
Their study showed that groups continued to work even after the reward was removed,
whereas the efforts of students working individually decreased after the reward was
removed.

In structured task-based interdependence, students are forced to exchange information;

this can be achieved by assigning group members different roles, resources, or tasks
(the “jigsaw” method) or by “scripting” the process, which involves giving students a set
of instructions on how they should interact and collaborate (Kagan, 1994; Dillenbourg,
2002). The effects of task structuring on collaborative learning are, however, not clear
(Fink, 2004; Hänze and Berger, 2007; Serrano and Pons, 2007). Hänze and Berger
(2007) observed no differences in achievement between students who worked in
jigsaw-structured groups and students who worked individually. In contrast, the
observations of Brewer and Klein (2006) indicated that students in groups with given
roles plus rewards interacted significantly more frequently than students in groups with
given rewards only or in groups without structured interdependence factors.
(Over)structuring interaction processes, on the other hand, could threaten intrinsic
motivation and disturb natural interaction processes (Dillenbourg, 2002). Although it is
widely accepted that positive interdependence has been shown to be crucial in evoking
social interaction, in practice, university students often tend to merely go through the
motions and choose the solution requiring the least effort, which explains why positive
interdependence often does not emerge (Salomon and Globerson, 1989). Additional
methods are necessary to encourage quality interactions that enhance learning.
Moreover, the mixed results of university education studies concerning structuring
interdependence—using either rewards or task structuring—do not solve the challenge
of how to create interdependence without disturbing the intrinsic motivation of students.
Forcing students to interact could endanger student autonomy and motivation, while
merely putting students together has been shown to be ineffective.