collaborative-learning-versus-cooperative-learning

合作学习与协作学习概念辨析：collaborative learning versus

cooperative learning

A Definition of Collaborative vs Cooperative Learning

Ted Panitz (1996)

I have been searching for many years for the Holy Grail of

interactive learning, a distinction between collaborative and

cooperative learning definitions. I am getting closer to my

elusive goal all the time but I am still not completely satisfied

with my perception of the two concepts. I believe my confusion

arises when I look at processes associated with each concept and

see some overlap or inter-concept usage. I will make a humble

attempt to clarify this question by presenting my definitions and

reviewing those of other authors who have helped clarify my

thinking.

Collaboration is a philosophy of interaction and personal

lifestyle whereas cooperation is a structure of interaction

designed to facilitate the accomplishment of an end product or

goal.

Collaborative learning (CL) is a personal philosophy, not just a

classroom technique. In all situations where people come

together in groups, it suggests a way of dealing with people

which respects and highlights individual group members'

abilities and contributions. There is a sharing of authority and

acceptance of responsibility among group members for the

groups actions. The underlying premise of collaborative learning

is based upon consensus building through cooperation by group

members, in contrast to competition in which individuals best

other group members. CL practitioners apply this philosophy in

the classroom, at committee meetings, with community groups,

within their families and generally as a way of living with and

dealing with other people.

Cooperative learning is defined by a set of processes which help

people interact together in order to accomplish a specific goal or

develop an end product which is usually content specific. It is

more directive than a collaboratve system of governance and

closely controlled by the teacher. While there are many

mechanisms for group analysis and introspection the

fundamental approach is teacher centered whereas collaborative

learning is more student centered.

Spencer Kagan in an article in Educational Leadership (Dec/Jan

1989/1990) provides an excellent definition of cooperative

learning by looking at general structures which can be applied to

any situation. His definition provides an unbrella for the work

cooperative learning specialists including the Johnsons, Slavin,

Cooper, Graves and Graves, Millis, etc. It follows below:

"The structural approach to cooperative learning is based on the

creation, analysis and systematic application of structures, or

content-free ways of organizing social interaction in the

classroom. Structures usually involve a series of steps, with

proscribed behavior at each step. An important cornerstone of

the approach is the distinction between "structures" and

"activities".

"To illustrate, teachers can design many excellent cooperative

activities, such as making a team mural or a quilt. Such

activities almost always have a specific content-bound objective

and thus cannot be used to deliver a range of academic content.

Structures may be used repeatedly with almost any subject

matter, at a wide range of grade levels and at various points in a

lesson plan."

John Myers (Cooperative Learning vol 11 #4 July 1991) points

out that the dictionary definitions of "collaboration", derived

from its Latin root, focus on the process of working together; the

root word for "cooperation" stresses the product of such work.

Co-operative learning has largely American roots from the

philosophical writings of John Dewey stressing the social nature

of learning and the work on group dynamics by Kurt Lewin.

Collaborative learning has British roots, based on the work of

English teachers exploring ways to help students respond to

literature by taking a more active role in their own learning. The

cooperative learning tradition tends to use quantitative methods

which look at achievement: i.e., the product of learning. The

collaborative tradition takes a more qualitative approach,

analyzing student talk in response to a piece of literature or a

primary source in history. Myers points out some differences

between the two concepts:

"Supporters of co-operative learning tend to be more

teacher-centered, for example when forming heterogeneous

groups, structuring positive inter- dependence, and teaching

co-operative skills. Collaborative learning advocates distrust

structure and allow students more say if forming friendhip and

interest groups. Student talk is stressed as a means for working

things out. Discovery and contextural approaches are used to

teach interpersonal skills."

"Such differences can lead I contend the

dispute is not about research, but more about the morality of

what should happen in the schools. Beliefs as to whast should

happen in the schools can be viewed as a continuum of

orientations toward curriculum from "transmission" to

"transaction" to "transmission". At one end is the transmission

position. As the name suggests, the aim of this orientation is to

transmit knowledge to students in the form of facts, skills and

values. The transformation position at the other end of the

continuum stresses personal and social change in which the

person is said to be interrelated with the environment rather than

having control over it. The aim of this orientation is

self-actualization, personal or organizational change."

Rocky Rockwood (National Teaching and Learning Forum vol 4

#6, 1995 part 1) describes the differences by acknowledging the

parallels they both have in that they both use groups, both assign

specific tasks, and both have the groups share and compare their

procedures and conclusions in plenary class sessions. The major

difference lies in the fact that cooperative deals exclusively with

traditional (canonical) knowledge while collaborative ties into

the social constructivist movement, asserting that both

knowledge and authority of knowledge have changed

dramatically in the last century. "The result has been a transition

from "foundational (cognitive) understanding of knowledge", to

a nonfoundational ground where "we understand knowledge to

be a social construct and learning a social process" (Brufee,

Collaborative learning: Higher Education, Interdependence, and

the Authority of Knowledge, 1993). Rockwood states:

"In the ideal collaborative environment, the authority for testing

and determining the appropriateness of the group product rests

with, first, the small group, second, the plenary group (the whole

class) and finally (but always understood to be subject to

challenge and revision) the requisite knowledge community (i.e.

the discipline: geography, history, biology etc.) The concept of

non- foundational knowledge challenges not only the product

acquired, but also the process employed in the acquisition of

foundational knowledge."

"Most importantly, in cooperative, the authority remains with

the instructor, who retains ownership of the task, which involves

either a closed or a closable (that is to say foundational) problem

( the instructor knows or can predict the answer). In

collaborative, the instructor--once the task is set-- transfers all

authority to the the ideal, the group's task is always

open ended."

"Seen from this perspective, cooperative does not empower

students. It employs them to serve the instructor's ends and

produces a "right" or acceptable answer. Collaborative does

truly empower and braves all the risks of empowerment (for

example, having the group or class agree to an embarrassingly

simplistic or unconvincing position or produce a solution in

conflict with the instructor's)."

"Every person, Brufee holds, belongs to several "interpretative

or knowledge communities" that share vocabularies, points of

view, histories, values, conventions and interests. The job of the

instructor id to help students learn to negotiate the boundaries

between the communities they already belong to and the

community represented by the teacher's academic discipline,

which the students want to join. Every knowledge community

has a core of foundational knowledge that its members consider

as given (but not necessarily absolute). To function

independently within a knowledge community, the fledgling

scholar must master enough material to become conversant with

the community."

Rockwood concludes:

"In my teaching experience, cooperative represents the best

means to approach mastery of foundational knowledge. Once

students become reasonably conversant, they are ready for

collaborative, ready to discuss and assess,...."

Myers suggests use of the "transaction" orientation as a

compromise between taking hard positions advocating either

methodology.

"This orientation views education as a dialogue between the

student and the curriculum. Students are viewed as problem

solvers. Problem solving and inquiry approaches stressing

cognitive skills and the ideas of Vygotsky, Piaget, Kohlberg and

Bruner are linked to transaction. This perspective views teaching

as a "conversation" in which teachers and students learn together

through a process of negotiation with the curriculum to develop

a shared view of the world."

It is clear to me that in undertaking the exercize of defining

differences between the two ideas we run the risk of polarizing

the educational community into a we versus them mentality.

There are so many benefits which acrue from both ideas that it

would be a shame to lose any advantage gained from the

student-student-teacher interactions created by both methods.

We must be careful to avoid a one-size-fits-all mentality when it

comes to education paradigms.

As a final thought, I think it behooves teachers to educate

themselves about the myriad of techniques and philosophies

which create interactive environments where students take more

responsibility for their own learning and that of their peers. Then

it will become possible to pick and chose those methods which

best fit a particular educational goal or community of learners.

现代汉语词典中：

合作：互相配合做某事或共同完成某项任务。

协作：若干人或若干单位互相配合来完成任务。

从汉语释义来说，事实上合作协作差别不是很大。只不过当我们把合作、协作分别赋予cooperative和collaborative之后，它们的含义发生了变化。

?