Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Collaborative Learning in College Science: Evoking Positive Interdependence

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Active Learning in College Science

Abstract

Collaborative learning is a widely used instructional method, but its learning potential is often underused in practice. To identify the importance of various factors underlying effective collaborative learning, we selected and analyzed five different life science courses with successful collaborative learning and focused on factors that, according to students, increased the effectiveness of collaboration. Nine focus group interviews were conducted and analyzed. Results show that factors evoking effective collaboration were student autonomy and self-regulatory behavior, combined with a challenging, open, and complex group task that required students to create something new and original. The design factors of these courses fostered a sense of responsibility and shared ownership of both the collaborative process and the end product of the group assignment. The attitude of the teacher is also of importance, especially expressing trust in the students’ abilities. We conclude that those who design collaborative learning environments should use challenging and relevant tasks that build shared ownership with students. In this chapter the main factors supporting collaborative learning are described and some suggestions are provided to implement them.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 219.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 279.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 279.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Adams, S., Bilimoria, K., Malhotra, N., & Rangachari, P. K. (2017). Effort and trust: The underpinnings of active learning. Advances in Physiology Education, 41, 332–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aggarwal, P., & O’Brien, C. (2008). Social loafing on group projects: Structural antecedents and effect on student satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Education, 30, 255–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barron, B. (2000). Achieving coordination in collaborative problem-solving groups. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9, 403–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 307–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berliner, D. C. (2002). Educational research: The hardest science of all. Education Research, 31, 18–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bivins, T. H. (2006). Responsibility and accountability. In K. Fitzpatrick & C. Bronstein (Eds.), Ethics in public relations: Responsible advocacy (pp. 19–38). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Brewer, S., & Klein, J. D. (2006). Type of positive interdependence and affiliation motive in an asynchronous collaborative learning environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 54, 331–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, Y., & Brickman, P. (2018). When group work doesn’t work: Insights from students. CBE- Life Sciences Education, 17, ar42: 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chinn, C. A., O’Donnell, A. M., & Jinks, T. S. (2000). The structure of discourse in collaborative learning. The Journal of Experimental Education, 69, 77–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64, 1–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety: Experiencing flow in work and play. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1929). The sources of a science of education. New York: Liveright.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillenbourg, P. (2002). Over-scripting CSCL: The risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design. In P. A. Kirschner (Ed.), Three worlds of CSCL. Can we support CSCL? (pp. 61–91). Heerlen: Open University Nederland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fink, D. L. (2004). Beyond small groups: Harnessing the extraordinary power of learning teams. In L. K. Michaelsen, A. B. Knight, & L. D. Fink (Eds.), Team-based learning: A transformative use of small groups in teaching (pp. 3–26). Sterling: Stylus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillies, R. M. (2004). The effects of cooperative learning on junior high school students during small group learning. Learning and Instruction, 14, 197–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillies, R. (2014). Cooperative learning: Developments in research. International Journal of Educational Psychology, 3, 125–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gully, S., Incalcaterra, K., Joshi, A., & Beaubien, J. (2002). A meta-analysis of team-efficacy, potency, and performance: Interdependence and level of analysis as moderators of observed relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 819–832.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, D., & Buzwell, S. (2012). The problem of free-riding in group projects: Looking beyond social loafing as reason for non-contribution. Active Learning in Higher Education, 14, 37–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hänze, M., & Berger, R. (2007). Cooperative learning, motivational effects, and student characteristics: An experimental study comparing cooperative learning and direct instruction in 12th grade physics classes. Learning and Instruction, 17, 29–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (1989). Cooperation and helping in the classroom: A contextual approach. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 113–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Making cooperative learning work. Theory Into Practice, 38, 67–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An educational psychology success story: Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Education Research, 38, 365–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (2007). The state of cooperative learning in postsecondary and professional settings. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 15–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (2014). Cooperative learning: Improving university instruction by basing practice on a validated theory. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 25, 85–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kagan, S. (1994). Cooperative learning (2nd ed.). San Clemente: Kagan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khosa, D. K., & Volet, S. E. (2013). Promoting effective collaborative case-based learning at university: A metacognitive intervention. Studies in Higher Education, 38, 870–889.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, A. (2002). Structuring peer interaction to promote high-level cognitive processing. Theory Into Practice, 41, 33–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirschner, P. A. (2001). Using integrated electronic environments for collaborative teaching/learning. Research Dialogue in Learning and Instruction, 2, 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linton, D. L., Farmer, J. K., & Peterson, E. (2014). Is peer interaction necessary for optimal active learning? CBE-Life Sciences Education, 13, 243–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Livingstone, D., & Lynch, K. (2000). Group project work and student-centred active learning: Two different experiences. Studies in Higher Education, 25, 325–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lou, Y., Abrami, P., & d’Apollonia, S. (2001). Small group and individual learning with technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 71, 449–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nokes-Malach, T. J., & Richey, J. E. (2015). When is it better to learn together? Insights from research on collaborative learning. Educational Psychology Review, 27, 645–656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palincsar, A. S., & Herrenkohl, L. R. (2002). Promoting thinking through peer learning. Theory Into Practice, 41, 26–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parkinson, T. J., & St George, A. M. (2003). Are the concepts of andragogy and pedagogy relevant to veterinary undergraduate teaching? Journal of Veterinary Medical Education, 30, 247–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pauli, R., Mohiyeddini, C., Bray, D. E., Michie, F., & Street, B. (2008). Individual differences in negative group work experiences in collaborative student learning. Educational Psychology, 28, 47–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peeters, A., & Wiegant, F. A. C. (2019). Good practice: Writing a book. Journal of the European Honors Council. (in press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Pekrun, R. (2006). The control-value theory of achievement emotions: Assumptions, corollaries, and implications for educational research and practice. Educational Psychology Review, 18, 315–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raidal, S. L., & Volet, S. E. (2009). Preclinical students 19 predispositions towards social forms of instruction and self-directed learning: A challenge for the development of autonomous and collaborative learners. Higher Education, 57, 577–596.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salomon, G., & Globerson, T. (1989). When teams do not function the way they ought to. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 89–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scager, K., Akkerman, S. F., Pilot, A., & Wubbels, T. (2014). Challenging high ability students. Studies in Higher Education, 9, 659–680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scager, K., Boonstra, J., Peeters, T., Vulperhorst, J., & Wiegant, F. A. C. (2016). Collaborative learning in higher education: Evoking positive interdependence. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 15, ar69: 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Serrano, J. M., & Pons, R. M. (2007). Cooperative learning: We can also do it without task structure. Intercultural Education, 18, 215–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shimazou, J., & Aldrich, H. E. (2010). Group work can be gratifying: Understanding and overcoming resistance to cooperative learning. College Teaching, 58, 52–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shuell, T. J. (1996). Teaching and learning in a classroom context. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 726–763). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slavin, R. E. (1980). Cooperative learning. Review of Educational Research, 50, 315–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slavin, R. E. (1991). Group rewards make groupwork work. Educational Leadership, 48, 89–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice. Boston: Allyn Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slavin, R. E. (2014). Cooperative learning and academic achievement: Why does groupwork work? Anales de Psicologia, 30, 785–791.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, J. (1987). Social influences on the construction of pupils’ understanding of science. Studies in Science Education, 14, 63–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tanner, K., Chatman, L. S., & Allen, D. (2003). Approaches to cell biology teaching: Cooperative learning in the science classroom – Beyond students working in groups. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 2, 1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teasley, S. D. (1995). The role of talk in children’s peer collaboration. Developmental Psychology, 31, 207–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Theobald, E. J., Eddy, S. L., Grunspan, D. Z., Wiggins, B. L., & Crowe, A. J. (2017). Student perception of group dynamics predicts individual performance: Comfort and equity matter. PLoS One, 12, e0181336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Boxtel, C. (2000). Collaborative concept learning: Collaborative learning tasks, student interaction and the learning of physics concepts. PhD thesis, Utrecht, Netherlands: Utrecht University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Boxtel, C., van der Linden, J., & Kanselaar, G. (2000). Collaborative learning tasks and the elaboration of conceptual knowledge. Learning and Instruction, 10, 311–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veenman, S., Denessen, E., van den Akker, A., & van der Rijt, J. (2005). Effects of a cooperative learning program on the elaborations of students during help seeking and help giving. American Educational Research Journal, 114–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Visschers-Pleijers, A. J. S. F., Dolmans, D. H. J. M., De Leng, B. A., Wolfhagen, I. H. A. P., & van Der Vleuten, C. P. M. (2006). Analysis of verbal interactions in tutorial groups: A process study. Medical Education, 40, 129–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Volet, S. E., Summers, M., & Thurman, J. (2009). High-level co-regulation in collaborative learning: How does it emerge and how is it sustained? Learning and Instruction, 19, 128–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N. M. (2009). The teacher’s role in promoting collaborative dialogue in the classroom. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 1–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N. M., & Palinscar, A. S. (1996). Group processes in the classroom. In D. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 841–873). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N. M., Nemer, K. M., & Zuniga, S. (2002). Short circuits or superconductors? Effects of group composition on high-achieving students’ science assessment performance. American Educational Research Journal, 39, 943–989.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiegant, F., Scager, K., & Boonstra, J. (2011). An undergraduate course to bridge the gap between textbooks and scientific research. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 10, 83–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiegant, F., Boonstra, J., Peeters, A., & Scager, K. (2012). Team-based learning in honors science education: The benefit of complex writing assignments. Journal National Collegiate Honors Council, 13, 219–227.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiegant, F. A. C., Scager, K., Peeters, A. J. M., & Boonstra, J. (2014). The challenge of writing a PhD proposal in honors (undergraduate) education: A group project as significant learning experience. In M. V. C. Wolfensberger, L. Drayer, & J. J. M. Volker (Eds.), Pursuit of excellence in a networked society: Theoretical and practical approaches coming from the conference excellence in higher education and beyond (pp. 77–84). Munster: Waxmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wittrock, M. C. (1990). Generative processes of comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 24, 345–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woolley, A. W., Aggarwal, I., & Malone, T. W. (2015). Collective intelligence and group performance. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24, 420–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Social Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    Karin Scager & Jonne Vulperhorst

  2. Department of Biology, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    Johannes Boonstra, Ton Peeters & Fred Wiegant

Authors
  1. Karin Scager
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Johannes Boonstra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ton Peeters
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jonne Vulperhorst
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Fred Wiegant
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Karin Scager .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Departments of Biological Sciences and Science Education, California State University, Chico, CA, USA

    Joel J. Mintzes

  2. Science Learning Associates, Wrightsville Beach, NC, USA

    Joel J. Mintzes

  3. Department of Biological Sciences and Center for STEM Education, California State University, Fresno, CA, USA

    Emily M. Walter

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Scager, K., Boonstra, J., Peeters, T., Vulperhorst, J., Wiegant, F. (2020). Collaborative Learning in College Science: Evoking Positive Interdependence. In: Mintzes, J.J., Walter, E.M. (eds) Active Learning in College Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33600-4_16

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33600-4_16

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-33599-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-33600-4

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation