Introduction:
"Working
collaboratively" and teaching "thinking skills" have
become very trendy catchphrases that have become embedded in education
culture over the past 10 years. But these two phrases need to be questioned
and examined, otherwise precious time, money and energy could well
be wasted on nice sounding phrases. Do students benefit from working
collaboratively? Is collaborative learning pedagogy based on good
research documentation? Is collaborative learning a process which
the 21st century is going to demand of our students? Is it necessary
to teach thinking skills to all students? Is it possible to teach
a generic set of thinking skills? Is "thinking" actually
necessary? In this article we hope to address some of these issues.
The
21st century is increasingly demanding a new balance between "knowing
what" and "understanding how" to think. The shift in
this continuum towards "understanding how" is one of the
great education trends, which has gathered significant momentum in
the past 15 years. The reason for this accelerated shift is that we
can now "know what" by being relatively familiar with Google©
search tools and how to operate them. 'Knowing what' does not necessarily
imply understanding, and much of our teaching and assessment in the
20th century was focused on knowing what, because it was really considered
to be the benchmark for being an educated person. Being able to take
what students know, and apply that to their ability to be creative
was almost accepted as a given right. In other words if students knew
enough to "know what" then they would be smart enough to
"understand how" and consequently have the capacity to think
laterally, and be creative and innovative!
Decision
Making Overload:
In
the past it simply was not necessary for everyone to have the ability
to think; in a conscious sense. The amount of decision-making that
is required of each individual in the 21st century is dramatically
greater than that of the 20th, and certainly far greater than in previous
centuries. A person growing up in a small village 150 years ago did
not have to make choices about such things as a power provider, a
telephone company, a place of work, which channel to watch; even who
to marry would be reduced to a limited choice of those available in
the local village.
Decision-making
was often left up to the Lord of the Manor or the local, kaumatua,
village elder or Shaman. Increasingly, in the 21st century people
are feeling overwhelmed by the numerous daily decisions they have
to make without the essential skills to make those decisions effectively
and efficiently. They are expected to make informed decisions on a
whole range of issues no matter what their social status, academic
training or work placement. They are required to make all these decisions
with virtually no training in how to make effective decisions, and
how to think through the issues effectively, concisely and collaboratively.
In short their inability to cope with the number of decisions they
need to make is causing many to be paralysed into inactivity. This
is one of the great issues, and one of the greatest challenges of
the 21st century. It is also one of the insidious undercurrents causing
mental stress in almost all our lives.
Unless
we educate our young people to work through decision-making processes
effectively and concisely, and boost their self esteem, they will
continue to take their own lives, "opting out of the system"
rather than fulfilling their true potential, and choosing gladly to
let marketing companies and their peers make their decisions for them.
A
Thinking Curriculum:
These
are just some of the reasons why we must ensure that we not only teach
our students to know what, but also to understand how, and in order
to understand how, they must understand how to think. The UK National
Curriculum has identified this new balance in the opening statement
of their "Learning Across the Curriculum" document.
"By using thinking skills, pupils can focus on 'knowing how'
as well as 'knowing what' - learning how to learn. The following thinking
skills complement the key skills and are embedded in the National
Curriculum"
If
our students are required as we are, to make informed decisions on
a wide range of issues every day, the obvious implication must be
that we need to teach them to be critical thinkers, that they need
to be able to process information effectively, synethesise the huge
range of information that is available, and be able to reason through
and evaluate what they read, see, hear and do. In order to understand
how to think, students must be able to think deductively and logically
and have an appreciation and understanding of their own thinking (metacognition).
The
role of collaboration in "knowing how" cannot be underestimated.
Last year we presented a simplified diagram (available from http://www.i-learnt.com/Thinking_What_is_2.html)
which provided an overview of the thinking process(es). The model
proposed that thinking happened when we changed some aspect of our
initial worldview, and developed a new (but not necessarily improved),
world view. In order to begin this process we identified a range of
thinking initiators. Almost all of these initiators occur more readily,
and are reflected on more deeply in collaborative situations. Encouraging
collaborative environments within the classroom can be achieved in
many different ways.
1.
Setting tasks and questions that allocate a variety of roles to individuals
within a group. The sum of the individual activities and actions contributes
to the success of the group.
2. Encouraging groups to report back the sum of their actions and
activities (their findings) to their peers.
3. Using effective software environments that encourage collaboration
(http://www.knowledgenetworks.co.nz)
.
4. Putting powerful but simple and effective communication tools into
the hands of students.
Historically
much of what is called "teaching thinking" has focused on
procedural skills within artificial contexts or even without context
at all. To quote a recent paper from NESTA http://www.nestafuturelab.org/reviews/ts04.htm
(May 22 2003)
"In fact successful thinking skills programmes promote a variety
of apparently quite different kinds of things including, strategies,
habits, attitudes, emotions, motivations, aspects of character or
self-identity and also engagement in dialogue and in a community of
enquiry. These thinking skills are not united by any single psychological
theory."
In
order to ensure that these thinking skills are transferable to new
and different contexts it is imperative that students carry out thinking
tasks in authentic contexts. We "think" with the help of
tools using various strategies, and through interaction with other
people. Students need to be able to "use" all these tools
effectively but they have to be taught how.
The
process of reflection can come via metacognition, or more often than
not, it comes from saying what is known, and having it reflected by
another person. This is often what happens in collaborative projects.
Collaborative projects require good oral language and a good understanding
of social nuance and culture. In many cases this cannot be taught
extrinsically but, when taught intrinsically students can be made
aware of particular social and learning strategies, and encouraged
to be empathetic through practicing the art of "seeing things
from other people's perspectives".
To quote Rupert Wegerif from "Designing Technology to Promote
Thinking" (essential reading) http://www.nestafuturelab.org/reviews/ts01.htm
[May 23 2003]
"The
research evidence seems to suggest that transferable thinking skills
will not result unless activities are embedded in teaching and learning
dialogues, either with a teacher or with other students. In other
words the activity, however creative or fun, needs to be framed in
such a way that learning goals are made explicit and bridges are built
between contexts."
To
make the contexts as authentic as possible it is important that the
information that is being accessed is "primary source information"
rather than secondary. Primary source information is information accessed
from its original source rather than through an intermediary news
service, television, book or web site. Accessing primary source information
has been traditionally very difficult but with web based resources
and communication tools it can now be done relatively easily.
For example, if an earthquake were to strike a small village in Turkey
such as Bakirkoy, imagine the impact if teachers and students could
speak first-hand to the students who have experienced the earthquake
(assuming they still have an Internet connection!). In order to find
the students in this village, teachers can use e-Pals http://www.epals.com
An
Example:
We
searched for the village name and asked for someone who had a knowledge
of the English language. The result of this search is below:
Ozel
Kultur Ilkogretim Okulu - Turkey
Profile name: Ozel
Kultur Ilkogretim Okulu
Created by: Birgul
Bayraktar
Language(s): English
Age range: 11-12
Number of participants:
20
Means of Communication: Chat/IRC
software, Postal Mail
City/town: Bakirkoy
State/province: Istanbul-Turkey
Country: Turkey
Not
only does this service return the desired result, but by clicking
on the contact button
An
e-mail program is set up and addressed to the intended recipient.
There are in fact 130 schools in Turkey registered with e-Pals. This
web site is possibly one of the most powerful collaborative internet
tools for teachers. No matter where an event might take place there
is almost certainly a school nearby. The e-Pals web site also has
the capability to translate your comments and requests from English
into seven different languages. Incredibly this is a free service.
Students
accessing primary source information become personally involved, and
by proxy take ownership of the process and the responsibility for
any outcome that may be achieved. By removing any intermediary, the
responsibility and ownership is transferred from the teacher/intermediary
to the students: this is the power of primary source communication.
Once students have developed the capability of communicating with
their peers from around the world they can proceed to develop a news
service that can be provided on-line either as a web site, a daily
"live" news service, or a broadcast service provided they
have a network of televisions and a video server/hub in the school.
All of these high level tasks require a wide range of skills, and
are compatible with the demands of 21st century communities.
Boys
& Collaboration:
The
education of boys is another area on which this issue has considerable
impact. Over the past 20 years there has been a considerable shift
in the manner and type of assessment activities that students have
been asked to carry out. The statistical results of this shift show
that boys are no longer achieving the same percentile academic success
as girls. There have been many conferences dealing with the issues
of "failing boys" but most have resulted in considerable
confusion. The issue of boys "failing" is really about their
learning styles and their competitive instincts. The new style of
assessment is much more focused on the capacity to read the question
effectively and to create a considerable written response. In the
past boys were able to answer questions succinctly, without the use
of too much language and in general the answers they were presenting
were based primarily on recall of known facts. Boys are far more competitive,
in general, than girls, and so working in groups often results in
conflict and a competition for who is in charge. There are those that
suggest that this reflects genetically the competition for a mate.
Whether or not that is the case, the now well-documented consensus
suggests that boys do not perform as well in group- based assessments
as girls.
The
issue now facing those responsible for the education of boys is that
in rich information environments and a working world that emphasises
innovation, group work and good communication are absolutely essential.
We could revert to assessment tasks that would facilitate an increase
in boys' apparent "success" but this does not empower them
for the 21st century working or social environment. In the past boys
sat very comfortably in production based workplaces where teamwork
and collaboration was in general non-essential. Boys did particularly
well here as they were "competing" with each other to complete
tasks. With the near extinction of this type of work boys are now
faced with having to re-orient their skill sets, and learn to work
together in teams and collaborative groups. Changing assessment tasks
to better suit boys is not going to solve the issue.
Collaboration
and teamwork are now essential in almost all occupations, and there
are considerable and obvious social advantages in empowering boys
with this skill set. I have no doubt that these changes will not come
particularly naturally, and it will take some considerable resolve
to change this culture, but just as the agrarian and the industrial
revolutions changed the way in which we worked and operated as communities,
the knowledge/information revolution is about to repeat the process.
We will struggle with some elements of it as we redefine social norms
and expectations, and the issue regarding the success of boys will
be one which will cause continuing social debate and angst for some
time to come.
In
summary:
Engagement in collaborative learning is one of the recognised elements
that encourage transferable thinking skills. The capacity of individuals
to work in teams and collaborative groups allows good reflective practice
which in turn encourages the development of new ideas, possibly resulting
in innovation. The 21st century, with it's plethora of very inexpensive
forms of global communication and access to information, enables these
teams and talent groups to function successfully without having to
reside in a common location.
Distributed
groups relying on discrete skill/talent sets are now commonplace,
and once again this hinges on new sets of communication skills and
a considerable increase in the amount of communication that now takes
place. The stark reality is that in 2003 it takes less than one day
to make the same volume of phone calls as were made throughout the
world in the whole of 1984,and this does not include chat, instant
messaging, e-mail and list group discussions! We are in the middle
of the most spectacular social and workplace revolutions ever. The
big question is: Will our education system propel this revolution
or be dragged along by it?
