faculty of education professorial lecture 9 december 2008
DESCRIPTION
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?) - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
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
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!