Collaborating to learn
and learning to collaborate
Donald Christie
Department of Childhood and Primary Studies
and Applied Educational Research Centre
University of Strathclyde
Faculty of Education
Professorial Lecture
9 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 others
 Role of differences in conceptual understanding and
expertise
 Pivotal interrelationship between language and
thought and hence the importance of dialogue
 All 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?
Collaboration
versus
Co-operation
versus
Co-location
Other related ideas…
Partnership, community(?), peer mediation, reciprocity
scaffolding
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 Dundee
Christine Howe, formerly Strathclyde, now Cambridge University
Emma Jessiman, formerly University of Strathclyde
Allen Thurston, formerly Dundee, now Stirling University
Andrew Tolmie, formerly Strathclyde, now Institute of Education, London
Keith Topping, University of Dundee
Kay Livingston, formerly Strathclyde, now Glasgow University
www.tlrp.org/proj/phase111/Scot_extb.html and www.groupworkscotland.org
Background and Funding
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
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 attainment
Intervention
Single-Age
Evaporation &
Condensation
Pre-test
Post-test
(Max=19)
Force & Motion
Pre-test
Post-test
(Max=34)
Control
Composite
Total
Intervention
Urban
Rural
Urban
Rural
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)
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
Process x Outcome Interaction
• 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
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 selfesteem
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!
Teachers as collaborative learners?
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(!)
Researching the Standard for Chartered
Teacher (SCT)
Grounded theory/content analysis by the hexagonal
‘post-it’ method!
Model
of the
Chartered
Teacher
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, Strathclyde
Morwenna Griffiths, Edinburgh
Aileen Kennedy, Strathclyde
Lesley Reid, Edinburgh
Christine Fraser, Aberdeen
Stephen McKinney, Glasgow
Mary Welsh, Strathclyde
Alastair Wilson, Strathclyde
(With research support from Eleni Karagiannidou and Liz Seagraves)
Triple-lens framework
Framework
Terms of categorisation
What is being
categorised?
Bell and Gilbert’s
aspects of professional
learning (amended)
Personal/social/
occupational
Domain of influence of
professional learning
Kennedy’s framework
for analysing CPD
Transmission/transitional/
transformation
Capacity for
professional autonomy
and transformative
practice supported by
the professional learning
Quadrants of teacher
learning
Formal/informal
Planned/incidental
Sphere of action in
which the professional
learning takes place
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 staffroom
Participants 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 schoolbased 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, Strathclyde
Claire Cassidy, Strathclyde
Norman Coutts, Aberdeen
Jayne Dunn, Dept of Education, South Australia, formerly Dundee
Sanna Rimpilainen, Stirling, formerly Strathclyde
Christine Sinclair, Strathclyde
Don 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 enquiry
 Dialogue and participation
 Quality of relationships
 Perspectives and assumptions
 Structure and context
 Climate
 Purpose(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/coenquirers.
• 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, inclusive
Sound methodologically and pragmatically
• Facilitates capacity building in broad sense
• Potentially more ecologically valid
• Pooling expertise increases capability within any
given project
Sound 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!