Collaborating to learn and learning to collaborate

Donald ChristieDepartment of Childhood and Primary Studies

and Applied Educational Research CentreUniversity of Strathclyde

Faculty of Education Professorial Lecture9 December 2008

Outline• Prologue: research roots (routes?)• Collaborating to Learn and Learning to Collaborate

– Researching collaborative group work in schools (TLRP ScotSPRinG Project)

– Researching teachers as collaborative learners (AERS LLT Network Project 2)

– Researching the research process itself: community of enquiry as a collaborative model for educational research (AERS LLT Network Project 1)

• Reflections and Future directions• Epilogue

Prologue

• Early experiences of collaborating in research teams at Stirling and Aberdeen as contract researcher in Pure and Applied Cognitive Psychology

• Family and entry into teaching profession• Early Jordanhill College collaborations

– Anne Ramsay (Children and computers)– John MacBeath and Ken Dundas (ITE student experiences)– Ralph Dutch (Northern College) and Peter Clarke (Stress survey)

• University of Strathclyde, post-merger collaboration with David Warden, Department Psychology – Perceptions of prosocial and antisocial behaviour– Fostering interpersonal awareness through peer learning (ESRC)

• Collaboration in Educational Studies with Joan Menmuir – Personal Constructs of Early Years Practitioners

Lessons..

• The importance of respecting and valuing others• Willingness to share and to contribute is vital• Need to create space for dialogue • Need to listen

Collaborating to learn and learning to collaborate?

Theoretical framework

• Learning construed as a social process • Potential of social interaction as a powerful

means of facilitating learning.• Ideas of Piaget, Vygotsky, Leont’ev, Lave,

Wenger, Engeström and othersRole of differences in conceptual understanding and

expertisePivotal interrelationship between language and

thought and hence the importance of dialogueAll activities can be seen as cultural practices or ways

of achieving particular objectives which are shared between members of a community.

Conceptual complexity or confusion?

Collaborationversus

Co-operationversus

Co-location

Other related ideas…Partnership, community(?), peer mediation, reciprocityscaffolding

Key mediating role of language and importance of dialogue

ScotSPRinG Project:Supporting group work in primary classrooms

Donald Christie, University of Strathclyde Caroline Donaldson, formerly University of DundeeChristine Howe, formerly Strathclyde, now Cambridge UniversityEmma Jessiman, formerly University of StrathclydeAllen Thurston, formerly Dundee, now Stirling UniversityAndrew Tolmie, formerly Strathclyde, now Institute of Education, LondonKeith Topping, University of DundeeKay Livingston, formerly Strathclyde, now Glasgow University

www.tlrp.org/proj/phase111/Scot_extb.html and www.groupworkscotland.org

ESRC Teaching and Learning Research Programme www.tlrp.org

• Scottish Extension Project• Linked to TLRP Phase II Project:

Social Pedagogic Research into Grouping (SPRinG) Project (Maurice Galton, Peter Blatchford and Peter Kutnick)

• ScotSPRinG focused investigation on – P6/P7 stage, age range 10-12 – Curriculum area: Primary Science - general and specific attainment – Social relationships, attitudes and self-esteem– Looking at composite and non-composite classes and– Urban and rural school contexts

Background and Funding

Research Design• Initial Survey• Two-phase intervention

– Phase 1: Social and communication skills training– Phase 2: Group work in science topic studies – Intervention sample: 24 schools/classes (+ 3 controls);

31 teachers; and c. 600 pupils in P6/P7 classes• Classroom observations and ratings (at 3 time

points)• Pre- and post-test battery

– General attainment measures (PIPS tests)– Specific attainment measures in science– Attitudes, social relations, self esteem measures, etc.

Intervention Sample: Urban and Rural schools; Composite and Non-composite classes

24 Primary Schools:12 in West/Central Scotland; 12 in East/North Scotland

Composite Single-age

Urban 6 schools 6 schools

Rural 6 schools 6 schools

In-service session

Photo credit Dr Allen Thurston

Observed v. Reported Group Work

• National survey of teachers suggested “group work” was a common feature of classroom practice.

• However, initial observations showed in most classrooms children were unfamiliar with skills and processes of collaborative group work At Time 1, children were more likely to be working on their own

in supposed group lessons At Time 1, children working IN groups, not working AS groups

• Quality of interaction and amount of collaborative dialogue significantly improved from Time 1 to Time 3, especially children sharing ‘propositions’ and ‘explanations’ (cf. ‘exploratory talk’, Mercer, 1996).

Gains in Science attainmentIntervention Control

Single-Age Composite Total Intervention

Urban Rural Urban Rural

Evaporation &Condensation

Pre-testPost-test

(Max=19)

8.59 (2.83)10.92 (3.59)

9.92 (3.14)12.15 (3.25)

9.85 (5.07)12.67 (3.17)

9.26 (2.73)12.48 (3.98)

9.23 (3.59)12.20 (3.56)

10.30 (3.26)10.14 (3.00)

Force & MotionPre-testPost-test

(Max=34)

20.94 (5.45)23.56 (5.26)

22.30 (4.57)24.38 (5.08)

19.87 (4.47)22.78 (5.19)

19.86 (5.12)23.59 (4.94)

20.52 (4.91)23.54 (5.19)

23.15 (5.09)23.88 (5.04)

ANCOVAs E&C pre- v. post- F (1, 509) = 63.31, p < .001, partial eta squared = .29 F&M pre- v. post- F (1, 460) = 43.10, p < .001, partial eta squared = .23

• Regression analysis showed cognitive gains were predicted by improved group work quality, in terms of:collaborative quality of pupil dialogue: sharing ideas

and explanations quality of teacher support: non-intrusive, scaffolding

Process x Outcome Interaction

Teacher Perceptions

Teachers rated all aspects positively:

• Value of the in-service training provision

• Quality and value of materials and resources provided

• Impact of intervention on their practice

• Impact of intervention on the children’s learning

Findings of ScotSPRinG Project

In the cognitive domain:• Collaborative group work is effective across

wide range of class/school contexts• Gains made attributable to the quality of

collaborative dialogue in groups (explanations/ propositions)

• Successful group work in is associated with tasks that emphasise children sharing, discussing, agreeing and recording.

• Successful group work is also associated with a non-directive, but supportive role on the part of the teacher

More ScotSPRinG findings

In the social and affective domains:• High quality preparation for/implementation of

group work yields benefits in social relationships• And some small but measurable effects in self-

esteem

Overall conclusion:• Good planning, preparation and implementation

of collaborative group work enables it to yield socio-emotional as well as cognitive benefits

• Children need to learn to collaborate if they are going to collaborate to learn!

Deriving the Standard for Chartered Teacher:a collaborative research exercise.

• International literature review• 20 Focus Groups (N=300) on general issues surrounding

Chartered Teacher Programme• 17 Focus Groups specifically on qualities of accomplished

teaching with range of stakeholders (N=235: HMI, TEI, teachers, parents, pupils)

• Individual behavioural event interviews with 19 “accomplished” teachers

Plus..• Data from two national consultations (2 x 60,000

questionnaires!)• Collaborative project team: Edinburgh, Strathclyde Univ. and

private sector partner…Arthur Andersen Consultants(!)

Teachers as collaborative learners?

Researching the Standard for Chartered Teacher (SCT)

Grounded theory/content analysis by the hexagonal ‘post-it’ method!

Modelof the

CharteredTeacher

New models of teacher professionalism

Standard for Chartered Teacher includes commitment to:“…Collaboration with, and influence on, colleagues”

“For example, by: • acting as a source of advice to colleagues on particular aspects

of teaching and learning • contributing to school development and to strengthening its

capacity for self-evaluation through analysis, sharing and dialogue with colleagues, and modelling good practice

• contributing to the school's in-service and CPD activities • working as a leading member of a team, inside and outside the

classroom, to share good practice, improve teaching and learning and develop resources for use in the school.”

(Standard for Chartered Teacher, Scottish Executive, 2003)

Extended teacher professionalism entails collaboration • Strong drive towards multi-professional

approaches in the “caring professions”• “Full service schools” serving children, their

families and their communities• Demands collaboration

– with other teachers– with other professions– with parents– with community groups, agencies and businesses– BUT ALSO with children and young people

themselves (See Daniels et al. Learning in and for interagency working, www.tlrp.org )

Teachers as collaborative learners?

Applied Educational Research Scheme (AERS)Learners, Learning and Teaching Network (LLTN)

Project 2: “Teachers as Learners”

Donald Christie, StrathclydeMorwenna Griffiths, EdinburghAileen Kennedy, Strathclyde

Lesley Reid, EdinburghChristine Fraser, Aberdeen

Stephen McKinney, GlasgowMary Welsh, Strathclyde

Alastair Wilson, Strathclyde(With research support from Eleni Karagiannidou and Liz Seagraves)

Framework Terms of categorisation What is being categorised?

Bell and Gilbert’saspects of professionallearning (amended)

Personal/social/occupational

Domain of influence ofprofessional learning

Kennedy’s frameworkfor analysing CPD

Transmission/transitional/transformation

Capacity forprofessional autonomyand transformativepractice supported bythe professional learning

Quadrants of teacherlearning

Formal/informalPlanned/incidental

Sphere of action inwhich the professionallearning takes place

Triple-lens framework

Collaborative CPD• Learning as socially-situated and not an individual

activity• Value of sustained and collaborative CPD (Cordingley et

al., 2005)• Role of collaborative CPD in shaping professional

identity, especially in early years (Rhodes et al., 2005)• Successful learning communities: learning is central;

good relationships fundamental (Bolam et al., 2005)• Electronic (Wilson et al., 2008) and/or local collaboration

(James et al., 2006)• Attends to personal, social and occupational dimensions

(Bell & Gilbert, 1996)• Emphasis on importance of relationships in early

professional development (Jim McNally, TLRP EPL Project)

Levels of engagement in collaborative learning

Level Type of engagement Extent of shared concern

Exemplification

1 Being beside others(Co-location)

Common location Colleagues in a staffroomParticipants at an in-service course

2 Talking with others(Co-operation)

Common interests Stage partners (primary) or subject teachers (secondary) discussing curriculum

3 Engaging with others(Collaboration)

Common problem or task

Colleagues involved in school-based action research project to address a shared problem

Research as form of collaborative activity?

Applied Educational Research Scheme (AERS)Learners, Learning and Teaching Network (LLTN)

Project 1: Building Communities of Enquiry in Educational Research

Donald Christie, StrathclydeClaire Cassidy, StrathclydeNorman Coutts, Aberdeen

Jayne Dunn, Dept of Education, South Australia, formerly DundeeSanna Rimpilainen, Stirling, formerly Strathclyde

Christine Sinclair, StrathclydeDon Skinner, Edinburgh

Alastair Wilson, Strathclyde

Community of Enquiry: model for educational research?

International literature review and conceptual analysis yielded seven factors worthy of consideration by those seeking to establish community of educational enquiryDialogue and participationQuality of relationshipsPerspectives and assumptionsStructure and contextClimatePurpose(s)Control

Research as form of collaborative activity?

Community of Enquiry Collaborative enquiry creates new knowledge AND new models of applied research (Cassidy, et al., 2008)

Entails collaboration – with other practitioners,– with policy makers, – with HEI researchers, – with all stakeholders, including:– children as co-enquirers/co-researchers

The Virtual Research Environment (VRE) as platform for collaborative enquiry• Use of VRE first suggested by Prof Mary James (TLRP Learning

to Learn Project) and then pioneered by LLT2• Incredible explosion of interest: now over 200 worksites

supported through AERS LLTN.• Particularly successful have been examples where children and

young people (and B.Ed.4 students) are participants/co-enquirers.

• Provides space for “voices” of marginalised groups to be expressed and listened to, creating new forms of research evidence (see Wilson, et al., 2008)

• Adopted as part of the Research to Support Schools of Ambition Project (led by Prof Menter at Glasgow)

• Now accepted as platform for research communications in faculty.

• Not all worksites have thrived and many have defied predictions in terms of the way they have been used.

Why collaborate in research?

Sound theoretically and ethically• Social learning • Cultural capital/Social capital• Respectful, participatory, inclusiveSound methodologically and pragmatically• Facilitates capacity building in broad sense• Potentially more ecologically valid • Pooling expertise increases capability within any

given projectSound economically and politically • Scarce resources better used• Policy imperative: “joined-up” research for

“joined-up” policy

Learning to Collaborate

Requires…• Effort • Commitment • Social and communication skills• Organisation • Engagement with, and in, action/activity• Plus…Need to consider 7 factors!

Collaboration can enhance learning in schools, BUT….Collaboration is not a panacea!

In classroom learning • Collaborative learning is most suitable where there is a need for

learners to reach new levels of conceptual insight by transcending current understanding through being challenged by others’ perspectives (E.g. Damon & Phelps, 1989)

• Collaborative learning is not best suited to situations calling for the acquisition of new skills, routines or strategies, or to practice-based learning tasks.

• Collaborative group work can also enhance motivation, but individual effort remains essential

• Learning to collaborate has both intrinsic and instrumental value, but need for individual self regulation clearly also remains

Community of Enquiry may be a powerful model for educational research, BUT…Again, collaboration is not a panacea!

• Research entails many phases of activity, not all of which are collaborative in nature or necessarily lend themselves to collaboration.

• Some phases of research have clear potential for collaboration, e.g. research planning and generating research questions.

• Others like reading, thinking, data analysis and report writing may at times entail essentially individual activity

• Some of these may call for a combination of individual and collaborative approaches, with interesting possibilities emerging.

Future directions for my research

• AERS LLTN projects will continue to publish for at least 18 months; Project 2 team to align with SERA Network; Project 1 team to continue pioneering work with VRE

• Opening up to scrutiny the area of inter-professional/ multi-professional forms of collaborative working to address social disadvantage Cross-faculty research group from GSSW, CPS, EPS and CS Developing pump-priming bid to University RDF for preparatory

review of policy and research Aim to submit bid to ESRC in by Summer 2009

• Collaborative group work across the curriculum Harness significant expertise within CPS and across Faculty to

form group to research collaborative learning in context of ACfE

Epilogue

“Not everything that counts can be counted and not everything that can be counted counts” (Einstein)

Ultimately it is people that matter

Thank you everyone for listening!