Comparing Productive Online Dialogue in Two Group Styles: Cooperative and Collaborative

Abstract

This study examined the influence of group structures upon six groups of distributed graduate students as they pursued a six-week problem-based learning activity by communicating in an asynchronous computer conference. Henri and Rigault's (1996) content analysis framework and Howell- Richardson and Mellar's (1996) guidelines for interconnectedness of messages were used to analyze the messages. In addition, learners' perceptions of interdependence and intersubjectivity were gauged from a self-reported survey developed by the researcher. Overall comparisons revealed that group conferences with role assignment had higher levels of interconnected messages. Weekly comparisons also indicated higher perceptions of intersubjectivity and deep processing for the role assignment group during the initial weeks of the activity. Over time, however, these levels equalized across group structures.Strategies for small-group learning range from the systematic and prescriptive variety, commonly known as cooperative learning strategies, to the more democratic dialogue-based varieties known as collaborative learning strategies. These approaches have much in common: both require active student involvement; employ the principles of interdependence, that is, a mutual reliance upon one another (Johnson and Johnson 1989); and rely upon student interaction as a primary means of promoting learning. However, as Matthews and others (1995) point out, these approaches also have distinct differences, such as the "degree of involvement of the teacher … the extent to which students need to be trained to work together in groups … group formation" (36).These approaches disagree about the amount and type of structure that is appropriate for promoting complex reasoning, critical thought, and the development of problem-solving skills. Those who promote a cooperative approach generally argue that higher-order thinking occurs when learners are given the means (i.e., the structure and task specialization) with which to interactively engage in high-level discussions that lead to greater conceptual understanding (Johnson and Johnson 1989). In contrast, the collaborative camp contends that "too much structure on a task that involves higher-order thinking skills is dysfunctional because it impedes conceptually oriented interactions" (Cohen 1994). Proponents of collaborative strategies rely upon dialogic strategies where group members perceive and reconcile multiple perspectives, negotiate meaning, and build intersubjectivity, that is, a "shared collective understanding" (Bonk and Cunningham 1998, 41). Collaborative strategies are viewed as a more complementary match for groups of mature learners (Bruffee 1999) as they employ complex reasoning during a process of solving ill-structured, real-world problems (Duffy and Cunningham 1996).The effect of course structure upon the collective understanding (intersubjectivity) of small-group learning can also be cast in terms of the theory of transactional distance (Moore and Kearsley 1996). Transactional distance may ...

The influence of social presence and teaching presence on the quality of online critical inquiry

“…Her methodology and assessment framework have been used frequently by researchers for assessing the quality of learner discourse supported by CMC (e.g., Bonnett, Wildemuth, & Sormewald, 2006;Rose, 2004). Although, researchers have criticized Henri's framework for assessing the quality of computer-mediated discourse, most have built their procedures on her seminal ideas (e.g., Curtis & Lawson, 2001).…”

Learning and Affective Support Online in Small Group and Class Contexts

“…The longevity of the small groups and the extensive experience of small online group processes gained by students during the programme may be a key to the success of the groups. Rose (2004) suggests that collaborative groups with a common history, that are together for more than three weeks, effectively develop high levels of interaction, coordination and shared knowledge.…”

Collaborative learning in pre‐service teacher education: an exploratory study on related conceptions, self‐efficacy and implementation

“…Both approaches share a sense of community and share the belief that learning is an active, constructive process (Millis and Cottell 1998). Therefore, some authors see CL as a broader, more general concept covering multiple approaches on peer collaboration, among which for example cooperative learning (De Wever 2006;Meloth and Deering 1999;Millis and Cottell 1998;Palinscar 2002;Rose 2004). We agree with De Wever (2006) and Dillenbourg (1999) who argue that constructive learning contexts are ill-structured and therefore rather collaborative than cooperative.…”