Chance favours only the prepared mind: Incubation and the delayed effects of peer collaboration

Abstract

Research has shown that the beneficial effects of peer collaboration are not always apparent until some time has elapsed. Such delayed effects are not readily incorporated in current models of collaborative learning, but because they constitute incubation effects in the psychological sense of the term, they should in principle be consistent with cognitive accounts of how incubation occurs. Accordingly, the paper reports three studies which test whether, in accordance with cognitive models of incubation, the delayed effects of peer collaboration could result from: (a) the breaking over time of unhelpful mental sets, (b) the engagement in post-collaborative reflective appraisal, and (c) the experience of subsequent events that, thanks to collaboration, can be used productively. The studies involved 9- to 12-year-old children working on the factors relevant to floating and sinking. The results provide no evidence for the relevance of set breaking or reflective appraisal, but suggest strongly that peer collaboration can 'prime' children to make good use of subsequent input. It is argued that in addition to clarifying how the delayed effects occur and applying incubation models in a novel context, the results flag up issues that are common to collaborative and cognitive theory, and that neither address adequately.

A Phase Model of Intergenerational Learning in Organizations

“…For instance, participants in an intergenerational learning program reported a more positive attitude toward the other generation after a few interactions (Hwang, Wang, & Lin, 2013;Penick et al, 2014). Similarly, developmental psychologists have proposed the notion of an "incubation effect," meaning that the beneficial effects of peer collaboration on individual learning oftentimes only become apparent after some time has elapsed (Howe, McWilliam, & Cross, 2005). In the following, we build on social identity theory, knowledge management approaches, and the group development literature to argue that it is of particular importance to understand not only what types of knowledge are exchanged in intergenerational learning groups, but also when different types of exchange processes take place.…”

Talk and the Development of Reasoning and Understanding

“…Moreover, the expression of contrasting opinions during group work was the single most important predictor of learning gain. They also found that the positive effects of group work are often delayed [Howe, Tolmie, & Rodgers, 1992] and this seems to be because dialogue primes children to make good use of subsequent experiences [Howe, McWilliam, & Cross, 2005]. Howe et al [in press] also found that group work seemed most productive when teachers did not intervene, but left pupils to work through problems without intervention.…”

Collaborative Group Work in Middle Childhood

“…However, noting that most emerge from studies that use delayed post-tests administered several weeks after the group tasks, Howe, McWilliam, and Cross [2005] attempted to explain them by considering both collaborative and post-group experiences. In one of their three studies with 9-to 12-year-olds working on object flotation, they found that collaborative group work primed productive use of subsequent events, particularly events that highlighted the role of object size in floating and sinking.…”

“…It also re-vitalizes the Piagetian/Bakhtinian emphasis upon coordination, and it could involve comparison and resolution (albeit over a protracted period) as discussed above with Type 2 joint construction. However, far from requiring complex reasoning, Howe, McWilliam, & Cross [2005] showed how basic memory processes are sufficient to keep contradiction 'live' during the post-group period. Specifically, current analyses of human memory anticipate continuing activation of slots (e.g., 'object size is relevant to flotation') that have incompatible values (e.g., 'big things float' and 'small things float').…”

“…Nevertheless, it requires a great deal of additional research. The evidence that unresolved contradiction stimulates growth is limited to Howe, McWilliam, & Cross' [2005] examination of one factor (object size) in the context of one topic (flotation). The evidence that it activates a default mechanism is non-existent.…”