Analysis of factors influencing the contribution of talk to learning ...

[pic]

Analysis of factors influencing the contribution of talk to learning during
collaborative group work in science

Eira Wyn Patterson Edge Hill University
pattere@edgehill.ac.uk

Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual
Conference, University of Manchester, 2-5 September 2009

Introduction

Although greater emphasis has been placed on the significance of talk in
learning in recent years, in an evaluation of the impact of the Primary
National Strategy on pupil attainment, Ofsted associated the poor language
skills of many lower attaining pupils with their slow progress throughout
the curriculum (Ofsted, 2005). Much research has been carried out into the
potential of collaborative working for supporting learning through talk,
however just because children are involved in a group activity, it does not
necessarily follow that the interactions taking place are actually
furthering their learning.
'...observational research in British primary schools has shown that
the talk which takes place when children are asked to work together is
often uncooperative, off-task, inequitable and ultimately
unproductive.' (Mercer et al. 2004:361).

Teachers' choice of grouping is rarely related to any educational purpose,
rather these decisions are driven by class control and organisational
issues (Baines et al., 2007). Therefore the rationale for decisions
relating to grouping tends to focus on teacher-learner considerations
rather than potential learner-learner benefits. Reasons why teachers tended
to avoid collaborative group work were identified by Baines et al. (2007)
in a review of research:
. concerns that there would be loss of control resulting in off-task or
disruptive behaviours
. beliefs held by the teachers that peer interaction does not facilitate
learning.

Where collaborative group work is used, teachers often do not have a clear
understanding of the nature or purpose of the talk they want the children
to engage in. Consequences of this are that children do not have:
- a clear understanding of what they are expected to do
- a perception of what constitutes an effective discussion (Mercer,
1996).

In a review of research studies carried by Howe and Mercer (2007) it was
found that only a small proportion of the interactions taking place during
group work actually contributed to the children's learning. This highlights
the importance of developing approaches for analysing the interactions
taking place during collaborative group work in order to identify those
that support effective learning. Children are often unclear about what they
should be doing and what the aims of the activity are in collaborative
learning situations (Mercer, 1996). Findings of research studies have shown
that in order for the potential benefits of small group work to be realised
in practice, it is necessary to provide structure that enables children to
work together effectively (Gillies, 2003). In a study investigating the
role of talk in learning science, it was found teaching children language
associated with collective reasoning to support talk increased the
incidence of cognitively demanding exchanges (Mercer, et. al., 2004).

This paper analyses factors influencing peer contribution to science
learning during collaborative group work in science. The potential for
increasing the level of cognitive interaction within collaborative group
work through pedagogical interaction will also be explored.

Research questions:
. How do the behaviours and interactions observed during collaborative
group work in science impact on the level of cognitive demand of talk
episodes?
. What kinds of intervention support the development of peer
interactions to facilitate more effective learning of science through
talk?

Categorisation of the level of cognitive demand of talk
Mercer (1995)devised a classification system for talk episodes depending on
the degree to which the talk contributed to new learning:
Disputational talk
'...is characterised by disagreement and individualised decision-making.
There are few attempts to pool resources or to offer constructive criticism
of suggestions.' (Mercer 1995: 104)
Cumulative talk
'speakers build positively but uncritically on what the other has said.
Partners use talk to construct 'common knowledge' by accumulation.
Cumulative discourse is characterised by repetitions, confirmations and
elaborations.' (Mercer 1995: 104)
Brown and Palinscar (1986) also identified the importance of shared
expertise within group work contexts. The level of discussion where the
main interaction taking place involves information exchange equates to
Mercer's category of 'cumulative talk'.
Exploratory talk
Exploratory talk is characterised by co-construction of understanding
through critical but constructive engagement of learners in each other's
ideas and reasoning is apparent in the talk. Indicators of exploratory talk
include:
- the views of all members of the group are sought, respected and
considered
- ideas need to be made clear and explicit
- proposals are challenged and may even be counter-challenged, but
reasons are given for challenges
- alternative ideas are valued
- the group seeks to reach agreement through negotiation and evaluation
of different views before taking a decision or acting
- different viewpoints are discussed and reasoning is applied
- agreement is sought and joint decisions reached
(Mercer et al., 2004; Rojas-Drummond and Mercer (2003); Mercer, 1996).

Scaffolding vs Co-construction
It is important to consider the nature of exploratory talk in relation to
the concepts of scaffolding and co-construction. Wood et al. (1976, cited
in Jordan, 2004) developed the model of 'scaffolding' in which a more
competent learner provides 'scaffolding' to facilitate learning of another
less competent learner. In this model the assisted learner is supported in
achieving at a higher level within their Zone of Proximal Development
(Vygotsky 1926/1997, cited in Jordan, 2004), gradually the more competent
learner releases control to the assisted learner until eventually s/he is
able to achieve that higher level of functioning without the additional
support. In contrast to this co-construction of understanding can be
defined as the development of new shared understanding that has developed
through inter-subjective interaction (Topping, 2005). The interactions
taking place during exploratory talk take the form of co-construction of
understanding, whereas cumulative talk has elements of scaffolding.

Brown and Palinscar (1986) in their extensive review of research into
collaborative interactions concluded that 'the superiority of collaborative
cognition cannot be accounted for simply in terms of the less informed
children imitating those who already know' (p 32). Also they found that
that group interactions can result in cognitive restructuring rather than
merely 'temporary compliance or imitation' (p 31).

In order for true learning to take place 'pseudoconcsensus' needs to be
avoided ie when group members resolve a conflict in their ideas by adopting
an explanation or solution which enables both views to be accepted but does
not take into account all of the relevant evidence or information (Russell,
1982, cited in Brown and Palinscar, 1986).
Though conflict may be an essential trigger, change is mediated,
change is mediated through a process of co-elaboration and co-
construction (Bryant, 1982; Russell, 1982a, 1982b). Confrontation
provides a vantage point from which the children come to challenge
both points of view. Together they elaborate, modify, and restructure,
thereby producing a new theory that takes into account their
individual differences.'
(Brown and Palinscar, 1986: 33)

Piagetan views of learning focus on creating cognitive conflict so that
existing ideas are challenged in the light of new evidence. A major aim of
research into group work is how to promote more effective cooperation -
however it is interesting that exploratory talk is related to the creation
of constructive conflict and characterised by the challenging of others'
ideas (Mercer, 1996). A significant contributor to collaborative learning
success was found to be the degree to which discussion, defending
particular viewpoints and evaluating ideas took place. This process of
confrontation is proposed to be the 'catalyst of change' (Brown and
Palinscar, 1986: 23) and fits with the Piagetan view of learning as
assimilation and accommodation.

Research evidence indicated that for collaborative learning to be effective
'the child must be faced with a view that not only conflicts with his own
but is also one he can take seriously...it forces the child to question his
own position' (Brown and Palinscar, 1986: 31). In order for ideas to be
taken seriously evidence to justify viewpoints needs to be presented. This
may take the form of:
. sharing of observations or personal experience; or
. statement of general principles.

Counter arguments may then take the form of user of personal experience to
challenge and demonstrate limitations to the general principle. The role of
critic in the group is of particular importance and group contexts
therefore have the potential for modelling of the process of argumentation.
Structural elements of discussions involving argument were identified by
Toulmin (1958, cited in Brown and Palinscar, 1986):
. at the first level a claim is stated
. at the second level evidence is presented to back the claim which may
be in response to challenges from group members
. at the third level there may be further justification in resp