Conceptualising Teacher Practice and Pupil Group Learning through Developmental Stages and Integration Factors

Abstract

This article proposes four key developmental stages and various underpinning factors pertaining to the practices of setting up and supporting group learning in the classroom setting. The discussion is mostly explained conceptually, with some compelling examples from the field. The authors subsequently advise that three elements of integration -namely, reciprocity, redistribution and exchange -are also critical to the viability of group learning. The authors aver that teachers require extensive support and guidance in order to facilitate group learning appropriately. Frequent mutual peer observations and reflection can be used to improve practices and generate investment in this approach across the entire school culture.

Comparative institutional analysis of participation in collaborative learning

“…The more teachers believe in maintaining the status quo of students' capabilities (Bjork, 2005), the less likely they are to acknowledge the advantages of collaborative learning. Likewise, the more students believe they are too incompetent to handle the tasks (Saito & Atencio, 2014a, 2014bKhong et al, 2017), the more rational it becomes to not engage in solving or questioning each other about the tasks.…”

“…Even though students' abilities and maturity may vary, and if students 1 and 2 as well as the teacher are happy with completing tasks without interactions, the cost will be low. On the other hand, if abilities vary between students 1 and 2, the gap between them will broaden, and even if the teacher provides them with opportunities to collaborate, the pair will be unable to help each other understand the content, especially those with a lower level of understanding (Saito et al, 2014a(Saito et al, , 2014b. Moreover, if both students are not keen on learning and exercise so-called "everyday politics", demonstrating their resistance against or disagreement in indirect ways (Kerkvliet, 2005) with the teacher, the emotional labour would be immense, especially if she or he chooses to introduce collaborative learning as a mandated item rather than as part of his or her own reform agenda (Hargreaves, 2004).…”

“…The first is cooperative learning, which aims to allow students to achieve academic and social goals based on role division (Gillies & Boyle, 2010;Law, 2014), rewards (Buchs et al, 2011Slavin, 2015), and sometimes competition between groups (Slavin, 2015;Williams & Sheridan, 2010). The second is collaborative learning (Saito & Atencio, 2014a, 2014bDillenbourg et al, 1996;Olivares, 2005;Roschelle & Teasley, 1995), which underlines mutual consultation based on help-seeking and dialogue between members (Knight & Mercer, 2014, 2016Webb, 2013;Webb & Mastergeorge, 2003) without role divisions, rewards, or competition (Saito & Atencio, 2014a, 2014b. Help-seeking is vital because it encourages those who do not understand the content to take the initiative to seek help for their learning (Sato, 2012).…”

Lesson study for learning community (LSLC): conceptualising teachers’ practices within a social justice perspective

“…As Sidorkin (2009) mentioned, fear of failure within competitive education systems leads to the unquestioned adoption of prevailing policies, standards and values set up dominant power. This means that, in a school setting, pupils may come to compete with each other for the sake of better scores in examinations, rather than supporting each other in meaningful ways (Saito & Atencio, 2014a, 2014b. Teachers may not cooperate and collaborate with each other in sustainable learning communities, because of conflicting interests and their desire to be appraised over others, in effect reflecting 'balkanisation' (Hargreaves, 1994).…”