From: Valerie, Boes
Email: vboes@cats.ucsc.edu
Course: psych 100K: Thought and Language
College: Crown
Instructor: Eugene Matusov
ClassWeb: http://www.ematusov.com/psych100K
ChildrenObservations: Yes
Date: 19 Mar 1997
Time: 20:40:08
Remote Name: ss1mac-06.ucsc.edu
In this study, we chose to focus on collaborative learning. The main question guiding our paper is how may collaborative learning be successfully facilitated. In order to address this research question, we examined three interrelated aspects of collaborative learning. First, we examined the environment in terms of the special setting, as well as the atmosphere in which people were involved. Next, we explored the forms of interactions between adults and children. Finally, we examined how children collaboratively learn with other children when no adult was involved in the activity. To explore our question, we relied upon undergraduates’ observational field notes and personal observations of children’s engagement with others in computer games activities at a Latino community-based after school program (four days a week). Based on our findings, we argue that this collaborative learning environment was constructed by program participants, and that could be fostered in other institutions. This paper was collaboratively written by Miguel Berkstron, Shannon Sandall, and Valerie Boes -- all of who participated in the program.
Introduction
For the past ten weeks, University of California undergraduate students from a psychology class have been working with children at a University community-based after school program (UC Links). The aim of the program is to promote computer literacy among Latino-descent children, as well as other children through their involvement with others in computer games and other activities. to foster a collaborative learning environment, undergraduate students worked as equals with children in computer games, sharing ideas in order to arrive at a common solution. By studying collaborative learning we will understand how to better facilitate this model and, hopefully be able to find it’s benefits for mainstream schooling.
In presenting our study, we will first provide information on the methodology utilized, followed by our report finding, and our interpretations of how the findings demonstrate evidence of facilitation of collaborative learning, and ways in which it might be more successfully achieved.
Methods
In our research we observed elementary school children playing with several computer games. this was facilitated at a community resource center in the area that was attended by predominantly Latino descent children. We were given use of two main rooms. The first room had computers lining the walls all the way around. Approximately twenty computers in all. Each computer had at least one chair in front of it, and sometimes several other chairs. Several of the computers had CD-ROM’s and one was hooked to the Internet. All the other computers were base line computers with Windows installed. The second room we used was full of tables and chairs, and had a black board at the far end. This room was for art projects, board games and homework.
Our sample as a whole came from about forty public elementary school children, most of who were predominantly Spanish speakers from the local area. The field notes and research that our specific group focused on revolved around about twelve of these forty students.
When the undergraduates were at the site they would work with these children one on one or in groups. The undergraduates purpose was to try to facilitate collaborative learning between themselves and the kids, and between the kids and their peers. After working with the children the undergraduates would make field notes to track their progress. They would then discuss what they had observed and compare it to research that was already available. By doing this they were able to find good comparisons in several of their field notes and in the literature at hand.
The environment at the site facilitates collaborative learning. By environment, We mean the physical environment and the atmosphere. The physical environment involves “the concrete atmosphere surrounding” (Sharon Wie), the children and the undergraduates interactions. The physical environment allows children to move around freely. This environment is completely different from the environment in traditional classrooms. Children at the site can do a number of activities- color, homework, play on the computers, talk, etc. They are not bound to their seats while a teacher speaks to them. The children have the freedom to work with who they want to or they can work alone. The reason the physical environment is mobile, is because of the atmosphere at the site. The site is completely informal and children are in charge of what they want to do. Undergraduates roles can change depending on what the children want. This is one of the reasons that collaborative learning occurs so often. The undergraduates are there to help, observe, and play with the children. The two dimensions, the physical environment and the atmosphere, we believe, contribute to the collaborative learning that occurs daily at the site.
The freedom to be mobile in the site allows for collaborative learning to occur. One undergraduate wrote:
“Jake*, who had been playing on another computer, came over to me and watched me play for a while (I found out later from M that he came over because he was bored of what he had been doing before). I made it to a high level, so Jake had to watch me for a long time. He made some helpful suggestions (kill the monsters at the bottom of the screen for more points, and how to better use the rocks), which I took as a tool of his to fit in and be asked to play when I was done. When my game was over, I asked if he wanted to play two player with me and he happily accepted. I game him first player, and main control of the keyboard, and we played for about half an hour. He and I made a great team”. (J.T, field note, 2/5/97)
Jake had the option to work by himself or with someone. When working collaboratively with J, they were able to exchange information that could help them in the future. In another undergraduates field note, she and a child were playing Where in the world is Carmen Sandiego when another child came over to join them. Again mobility provided an opportunity for collaborative learning to occur:
“The two went around looking for clues. When Yolanda* (who acted as though she was in charge, by usually controlling the mouse) didn’t understand a clue, she got Susie* to tell her the answer. When neither of them knew the answer, they asked me if I knew” (J.M, field note, 2/5/97).
The two children and the undergraduate all used there prior knowledge to solve a common problem. When their knowledge wasn’t sufficient they looked to yet another child to receive help from:
“At one point, we were having trouble playing the game, as none of us knew it very well. Yolanda decided to ask Wednesday* for help. She went over to another computer and asked Wednesday to help since she had played this game several times. Wednesday came over and showed us what we needed to know” (J.M field note, 2/5/97).
Had they been in a traditional classroom setting, the children would have missed the opportunity to move about freely and learn from one another.
“Formal learning traditionally takes place in the classroom. In this environment, lectures are well planned, questions and recitations are used to achieve a specific learning objective (Lehane and Goldman, 1976). There is one area of study that is focused on at a time. There is little or no interaction between the students or between the students and the teacher. Students in the classroom setting are passive learners, where information is taught to them. In a formal classroom setting, the teacher often teaches in one style, ignoring other styles that may be effective for the children’s learning” (Sarmac, 1996).
Unlike a traditional formal school environment, the site’s environment provides autonomy for the children and undergraduates to collaborate and learn from each other. In one undergraduates field note, a child expresses the desire to learn and the undergraduate is able to facilitate learning through collaboration:
“Vince* came over to see what I was doing. He said “Hey, can you get to our page?”. I asked him if he meant a website on the internet”(L.B. 2-12-97).
L [an undergraduate student] and Vince did a few things on the Internet together. While they were interacting, L taught Vince a few specifics about the Internet that he didn’t already know while he taught her the process in creating a web-site. L reflections in her field note said,
“I would characterize this as collaborative because even though I was sitting in front of the computer and discussing aspects of the web sites loading, Vince was directing me around his web-site once we got there. He knew much more about 'creating' a web-site than I did, and even though he wasn’t explaining the process to me, in a sense, he was taking me through different areas and answering my questions about them”(L.B. 2-12-97).
In a traditional classroom, this would not happen because the child is usually taught while the teacher teaches. The environment at the site gave Vince the opportunity to choose what to learn. From this, he was able to learn new information and teach L new information.
In addition to the physical environment, the atmosphere allowed for collaboration to take place. One aspect of the atmosphere was the role of the undergraduates and the children. An after school program in Southern California, La Clase Magica, which the site is similar to, is structured to facilitate collaborative learning also. When attending an after school program such as La Class Majica, it is hard to push aside the teacher/student relationship that occurs within schools.
“Although participation in La Clase Magica is voluntary, some aspects of the tasks are unavoidably formal and school-like. These elements were not lost on the children who, for the first several quarters of the project addressed all of the adults as 'Teacher.'”(Vasquez 1994, pg. 164)
Like La Clase Magica, at times the children looked at the undergraduates as “teachers”. Because the atmosphere in the site is conducive to collaborative learning, the wall of the teacher/student relationship was altered. This is demonstrated in an elaboration of J.T’s field note I quoted earlier,
“We (Jake and J) would remind each other when to be careful, and when to get the bonus fruit. He and I were obviously equals at the game, and we felt no sense of competition. What I mean by that is we both had a stake in each others game. I would give him hints, and congratulate him if he made a high score, and I would console him if he did not, and Jasper did the same for me. I really had a good time, and I felt that Jasper and I bonded over the experience” (J.T. field note).
Both undergraduate and child felt comfortable with each other and the environment they were in, that they felt as “equals” and were able to help, encourage, and share an experience-in other words collaborate. Another undergraduate, who also worked with Jake, took on the role of the learner when working collaboratively:
“I decided to join Jake because he was the only available child. He was already involved in a game of Space Invaders when I sat down. He at me immediately with excitement and said look at my score, I almost beat the high score. I started to ask questions about how to maneuver the space craft left and right and that the space bar is for shooting bullets. He then proceed to explain that if you hold the key down constantly, a constant stream of bullets will result” (M.C., 2-11-97).
Again the wall between teacher/student was broken down. Jake was furthering his understanding in the game, while M learned a new game.
The environment children learn in has always intrigued researchers. The previous writing illustrated how the special environment as well as the atmospheric environment can help to facilitate collaborative learning. Next, we will address how adult-child collaboration occurred at the site.
When undergraduates and children work together at the site there were many dimensions to their relationship. At times the undergraduate was looked upon as a teacher. Other times the undergraduates were look at as learners. Still other times, there was not a clear definition of the role the undergraduate or the child took on. Most of the time there was a bit of each dimension occurring simultaneously within a situation. This is obvious in a field note of an undergraduate who was playing Oregon Trail 2 with a child. ( Oregon Trail 2 is a game where the player must make decisions on anything from what profession to be to what to do in case of disaster. The object of the game is to make it through the trail alive.)
“From the very beginning Ion* was very much in control of the game and I was watching. He would explain what he was doing so that I could understand. Before leaving you are required to purchase some supplies and Ion repeatedly turned to me and asked what I thought of his purchases. We continued playing like this, him making most of the decisions, but frequently asking what I thought he should do or what my opinion was about what he thought he should do”(A.W., 2/16/97)
This field note represents how the child has control of the game but needs a little assistance. Through collaboration with an undergraduate he is able to think about his moves, ask questions to A.W. and then decide what he feels is best. In another field note on Oregon Trail 2, the undergraduate had not yet played the game so Dan* played the role of the teacher while A(the undergraduate)* played the role of the learner.
“Dan came up to me with the Oregon trail box in his hands and asked if I wanted to play. He assured me that he knew how to play and that he could do it without my knowing how. I asked if he would teach me how to play along the way” (A.W., 2/7/97).
Later on in the game, A described how the session had moved from teacher/learner to a collaborative experience.
“Once I started to get more of an idea about how the game worked I started to ask more questions of Dan and he seemed to include me in his decision making” (A.W., 2/7/97).
When asked what approach was used in the session with the child, A said collaborative. She justified this by saying:
“I would say that it was a collaborative experience because we were both taking the role of teacher and learner and peer participant throughout the game. Dan was teaching me how to play the game and what the goal s were and what the short cuts were. I was explaining what certain words meant that he didn’t understand, was helping him read the words that he wasn’t comfortable with and we were both consulting each other’s advice to make the next decision as to what we should do in a particular situation. It was clear that Dan held the expertise in how the game worked and this was his domain. I was the one who was more familiar with reading, with dimensions of length together providing each other with access to the information that the other didn’t have and also consulting each other on decisions and valuing each other’s feedback”(A.W., 2/7/97).
As we can see by this field note collaborative learning can start in many different ways. As is the case in many collaborative experiences, collaborating together often comes naturally.
One aspect of the site that was taken into consideration was the multi-cultural backgrounds. We wanted to know how we could draw upon the children’s backgrounds in order to facilitate a place where the children and undergraduates would feel comfortable with each other and their differences in order to set way for collaboration to occur. As stated before, the site has many Latino children who’s primary language is Spanish. The games at the site are largely in English. However, there are a few games in Spanish. One of the games is Carmen SanDiego (This is a game where the player goes from country to country trying to catch a thief. You ask different people on the screen questions and they give you clues). One field note where two undergraduates ( one who is bilingual and the other is not) worked with two Spanish speaking children describes how through collaboration the undergraduates and children worked through the Spanish version of the game Carmen SanDiego:
"The conversation was occurring in both English and Spanish, particularly Spanish when talking about the specific clues given. M* (undergraduate), does not speak Spanish, was actively trying to understand what was going on by asking both Dan and Arial* to translate what the words meant and by asking me about the overall turn of events. Without knowing Spanish, M managed to remain quite involved and an active participant in the game, receiving much of the necessary information second hand. Perhaps her experience is quite similar to that of children who don’t speak any English playing with other children who are bilingual and English only.” (A.W., 1/31/97).
By relying on the background knowledge of the children and A, M was able to participate and help in the game. The children were able to help an undergraduate which they probably would normally think of as a source of knowledge. But as it turned out M needed them- their language. Later in the field note, A explains why she feels the children benefited from their collaborative experience:
“It was particularly beneficial for Dan and Arial because they were able to play a challenging game in Spanish which was probably had some what of a validating feeling for them in that the language used to think critically was Spanish, not English, the important information was in Spanish not English. Also they seemed to have a really good time working at a difficult game and wanted to continue. It seems that this game provided them with a challenge that they felt they were capable of accepting. Collaboration was definitely the only way to work through this game and both Dan and Arial were well aware of that- this included not only their collaboration with each other, but our collaboration with them, plus the help of some outside resources” (A.W., 1/31/97).
This is an excellent example of one of our goals being accomplished in one afternoon. The benefits of the collaborative experience was beneficial to all- the children and the undergraduates.
Sometimes collaborative learning occurs on its own. Other times it takes effort on the part of undergraduate and child. One task the undergraduates had to do to facilitate collaborative learning was to determine how much assistance they should provide and at what time should they provide that assistance. An undergraduate describes her process of how to determine when to intervene and assist:
“Daffey* was not familiar with world geography (this is a major set back when you are playing Where in the World is Carmen SanDiego). She did not understand most of the location clues involved with that portion of the game, so that is where I found myself jumping in to help a lot. At first, I tried to not say too much because I was thinking about the article we read where the student teacher interjected too much in the children’s activities. I also wanted to give her a chance to figure things out, not just tell her the answers. However, I found that it was more important to tell her most of the location with the geography so she could concentrate on learning how to find the suspect” (M.G., 1/23/97).
M took into consideration class readings when making her decision. Even though she choose to intervene, she did so because she was working with an individual child. And M decided that for collaborative learning to take place, she would need to intervene.
This previous writing shows that having children and adults collaborate as equals in a learning environment is a wonderful way to help facilitate the progression of learning. It takes the pressure off both the participants, as they need not play a strict role in the situation (teacher, student: authority figure, pupil). However, another type of collaborative learning exists that most people tend to overlook. This is the child-child interaction. Our next section will address how children (of all ages) can work together to collaboratively problem solve, without an adult aide.
As we have seen, collaboration between the undergraduates and the children at this site help facilitate learning of various computer games. However, undergraduates aren’t the only resource that the children can and do use. It was also observed that learning takes place when a more capable peer helps another peer. And in fact, it has been noted that,
“By whom the performance is assisted is less important than that performance is achieved, and thereby development and learning proceed. To the extent that peers can assist performance learning will occur through that assistance.”(Tharp & Gallimore, 1988, pg.123)
It has been noted that the kids at this site will collaborate in order to learn how to play a game which is unfamiliar or to give each other tips. In this collaboration we see peers who are also equals, effectively teaching and learning within the context of an informal setting. In that, children choose to be there and to learn using various resources. I would suggest that although an undergraduate with more knowledge is not necessarily present, the learning that takes place in child-run collaboration is valuable and meaningful. In addition, I would suggest that the more capable peer may feel empowered by sharing their knowledge with a peer. With these predictions in mind, we will show through other’s observations, that in fact these suggestions hold truth.
It was observed that sometimes children play a game by themselves and when they get stumped, they will ask for help; being another child or an undergraduate. As one undergraduate observed,
“I think that it’s interesting to see how many resources Katy and Amy used to play the game. They, especially Katy, went about this in a very systematic way. First asking her friend, who she seemed very comfortable with. Then asking me. And finally using the computer itself, with a little help from me.” (J.M., 2/10/97).
In this same field note the undergraduate describes how two girls are playing a game together. When one or both of them couldn’t figure out a specific clue, they asked another child. Thus they invited collaboration to take place. The other child with whom the collaboration took place seemed willing to help.
“Katy decided to ask Mary for help. She went over to another computer and asked Mary to help, since she had played this game several times. Mary came over and showed us what we needed to know.” (J.M., 2/10/97).
In fact in an attempt to encourage collaborative learning to take place at this site, a board that had names of “expert” players of each game was implemented. It is up in the room with a few kids names by each game so that when other kids get stuck at a particular game they know who they can ask for help. From a different after school program located in San Diego for elementary school children we found that kids really enjoy being considered “expert” players. This site implemented what they called a Wizard maze, where kids can become Wizard’s Assistants. It was shown that these kids did enjoy and find satisfaction in their role as a more capable peer. The assistant’s role was to help other children in games that they already were experts in. It was shown that kids are honored when they are put in a teaching role. It was noted that,
“In addition to the honor involved, children who became Wizard’s Assistants are introduced to more complex activities and are given greater responsibilities for helping other children...” (Nicolopoulou & Cole,pg.291).
This program positively reinforced the effects of collaborative learning between peers, as did our UC Links program. Some children at the site, went out of their way in order to become an expert at a game so that in turn they could teach and coach their peers. One undergraduate observed,
“I think that this is interesting, that she learns how to play the game and then tries to teach someone else how she plays the game. For example on the school bus game she likes to make the driver’s license how she likes, so when she called Nancy over she would pick out the driver’s for her.” (K.S. 2-7-97).
This particular child seems to get a lot of pleasure being able to teach and run a child based collaboration. She is shown trying to gather kids together so that she can run a collaborative experience.
As part of collaborative learning, child-run collaborative learning is a way in which children can work together to go beyond individual knowledge and come to a shared understanding, which is more likely to stay with the child. As Tharp & Gallimore note,
“The child, through the regulating actions and speech of others, is brought to engage in independent action and speech. In the resulting interaction the child performs through assistance and cooperative activity, at developmental levels quite beyond the individual level of achievement.” (Tharp & Gallimore,pg.121).
To the extent that these children help increase or maintain the culture of collaborative learning, the benefits for all involved are enjoyed.
In addition to the beneficial collaboration that took place at this site, one drawback was that sometimes children had a hard time initiating or asking for help from their peers. However when they did, they found it pleasing and satisfying. One undergraduate actually was able to facilitate a child-run collaborative learning experience. In response to this experience he commented,
“... if classes were run like this... If kids could have discussion sections with older and younger pupils together then collaborative learning would work.” ( M.B. 1-27-97).
However, it was also observed that the children, at times, don’t feel comfortable asking their peers for help. Also because of personalities, sometimes the children may feel threatened by a peer’s help. As one undergraduate reflects on a child run collaborative experience,
“I think it would have been interesting if Amy and Mike could have worked together...I have a feeling there would have been a power issue though because both kids seem to like to be in control when working on the computers." (V.B. 1-28-97).
Although this might happen, most of the field notes pertaining to child-run collaboration suggested a positive experience. And as another undergraduate writes,
“I noticed that they did learn from their interactions with each other” (Sarmac, 1996).
So as an environment the program didn’t force the children to collaborate, but if it happened they learned and possibly made new friends.
Once the comfortability issues are resolved it was observed that not only did the children help each other with clues or getting a game started, they gave each other tips on winning the games. One undergraduate observed two boys playing Pac Man,
“The boys would watch one another playing the game and give each other tips on where to go and how to avoid being eaten by the characters of the game”(G.B 2-11-97)
In this and similar episodes the children rather than being in a teacher/learner role, were cooperating and each helped when needed. This was an effective approach and evidence for collaborative learning.
Discussion
As children grow and develop they must be presented with a learning environment that is conducive to their cognitive ability. If a child is presented with the opportunity to converse with other children, younger and older, as well as with adults in an equal discussion environment, then the child is more likely to cognitively develop. Our findings in our research and from the field notes have illustrated how small discussion groups of collaborative learners help children grow cognitively and feel comfortable with their ability in a learning environment.
We are aware however that our findings do have their limitations. Such as personal interpretations in field notes, or the possibility of a misinterpreted event. As well, we had no quantitative measure of actual development cognitively, we only had qualitative information that was recorded by ourselves, and our peers. A final possible limitation is that this paper is a group project and we all don’t have the exact same ideas.
We hope that learning institutions will recognize the benefits of collaborative learning, and hopefully in time, will learn to facilitate collaborative learning, and possibly adopt this model.
REFERENCES
1. Lehane & Goldman (1976)
2. Moll, L.C. (1990). Vygotsky and Education: Instuctional implications and applications of sociohistorical psychology. (pp. 1-15)
3. Nicolopoulou Q. & Cole M (1993). Generation and Transmission of Shared Knowledge in the Culture of Collaborative Learing: The Fifth Dimention, Its Play-World, and Its Institutional Contexts.
4. Sarmac, (1996)
5. Tharp R. & Gallimore R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, Learning, and Schooling in Social Context. (pp. 27-69).
6. Vasquez, O (1994). The Magic of La Clase Magica: Enhancing the Learning Potential of Billingual Children.
7. Wie, S (1997).
Fieldnotes
J.T, 2/5/97
L.B. 2/12/97
M.C. 2/11/97
A.W. 2/16/97
A.W 2/7/97
A.W. 1/31/97
M.G. 1/23/97
J.M. 2/10/97
K.S. 2/7/97
M.B. 1/27/97
V.B. 1/28/97