Research: Science and Education
Chemical Education Research
The Influence of Collaborative Learning on Student Attitudes and Performance in an Introductory Chemistry Laboratory Ivan A. Shibley Jr.* Department of Chemistry, Penn State Berks-Lehigh Valley College, Reading, PA 19610;
[email protected] Dawn M. Zimmaro University Testing Services, University Park, PA 16802
Collaborative learning can be defined as students working together toward a common goal using well-structured assignments that help guide a group of students toward a particular learning outcome (1). There are several instructional approaches to organizing students into working or learning groups in the classroom and the terms cooperative and collaborative learning are often used interchangeably. Collaborative learning, as described in this paper, differs from cooperative learning. Stodolsky outlined five types of peer instructional work groups, three of which are relevant to this paper (2). The first type is completely cooperative, characterized by interdependence among students with regard to completing a task. In a completely cooperative group, students work together toward a common goal. Members share all aspects of the group process and every individual is expected to contribute to the group’s task. Evaluation is based on the group product, not individual accomplishment. A second type of peer work-group is cooperative. In this arrangement, some division of tasks and activities may occur. The students still share a common goal and all are expected to contribute to the group activity. Evaluation is based on the group product. The major difference between completely cooperative and cooperative work-groups is that students work together all the time in the completely cooperative setting, whereas students in the cooperative setting may work separately part of the time. The third type of peer work-group, the type most relevant to this paper, is the helping obligatory, or collaborative, work group. In a collaborative group, students have individual goals, which are usually similar, but are in a face-to-face group. Small work groups are formed in which students have individual tasks to accomplish but are required to assist one another. Students are expected to offer mutual assistance to all members within the group, but evaluation is based on individual performance. The laboratory activities described in this paper most closely resembled the collaborative learning model. Students assisted one another in the steps and process of the laboratory, discussed questions with each other, and even helped each other organize data, but each student was required to submit an individual laboratory report. A benefit of collaborative learning seems to be related to the attitudes of students. A recent meta-analysis of collaborative (and cooperative) learning (because the two terms are used interchangeably, the study looked at both types of learning) in chemistry classes found that collaborative learning improved student attitudes toward science courses (3). Although col-
laborative learning can have some influence on student performance (4, 5) the main impetus for the use of collaborative learning in this study was to help students develop a more positive view of chemistry and to adjust better to college life. Johnson, Johnson, and Houlbec (6 ) report that collaborative learning has a positive effect on interpersonal relations in such areas as students’ commitment to learning, taking personal responsibility to complete the work, motivation and persistence in working on tasks, satisfaction and morale, and willingness to listen to and be influenced by peers. The effects of collaborative learning may translate to the laboratory in the effort and attention students put into their work as well as their willingness to interact with and get support from their peers. Because students need to learn how to develop connections with and rely upon fellow students, an introductory chemistry course provides an ideal intervention point. The introductory chemistry course provides an academic means for students to begin building a support group of peers early in their college careers. The students help each other learn chemistry and, through the group interaction, develop a more positive attitude about the course and about chemistry. Course Description The introductory chemistry course at Penn State University is designed for students who either scored poorly on the chemistry placement exam or who do not need much chemistry for their major. These introductory chemistry sections (3 credit hours) enroll approximately 35–40 students in both fall and spring semesters. The course consists of two credit hours of lecture and one credit hour of laboratory. It had two sections in each semester during the study. The control laboratory section was designed to introduce students to laboratory methods by having them independently carry out individual experiments. The laboratory was taught on a separate day from the lecture and there were no more than 24 students in each laboratory section. All students met at a common time for the lecture. Experimental Design The study was run for three consecutive semesters (fall 1998, spring 1999, and fall 1999). All sections were taught by the same professor (Shibley). Each semester, one laboratory section served as the control group and the other as the experimental group. Students did not know which section was the experimental group when they registered; they were
JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu • Vol. 79 No. 6 June 2002 • Journal of Chemical Education
745
Research: Science and Education
informed about the structure of the laboratory on the first day of class. The control section was taught using the same laboratory experiments as those used for the collaborative (experimental) section, but the collaborative section was given a supplement to their laboratory manual. The supplement explained modifications to the individual laboratories—for example, running two experiments in parallel and comparing the results. Students in the collaborative section performed their laboratory experiments in groups of four but each student submitted an individual lab report to ensure individual accountability. A discussion of how the group functions and the roles within the group occurred on the first day of lab in the collaborative section. The groups had to select a leader for each laboratory throughout the semester and the role of the leader had to be rotated equitably among all group members (7). Data collection was designed to provide information about academic performance and student attitude. The following data were collected from both control and experimental sections of the laboratory. 1. Overall course grades reported as a percentage. The grade included lab reports, lab quizzes, lecture quizzes, homework, and exam grades.
Table 1. Student Grades in CHEM 11 before Use of Groups in Lab and in Control and Experimental Sections in This Study Section
The data for grades, SRTEs, and open-ended comments were analyzed by comparing the two laboratory sections in each semester and by collapsing the data across all sections for control and experimental groups. An independent t-test was used to test for significant differences between sections, with p < .05 considered as significant. Results and Discussion Neither the average course grade nor the laboratory grade differed significantly between sections; nor were the grades significantly different from the previous two years of introductory chemistry taught by Shibley (Table 1). The evidence from grades suggests that short-term student achievement in the course is not compromised by collaborative work in the laboratory. One reservation sometimes voiced by chemists is that group work might make a course “too easy”. The average laboratory grade for the collaborative group is slightly lower but the overall course grade is higher. Considering that the experimental groups worked together to perform the laboratories, we expected slightly higher grades in those sections. From an instructor’s standpoint, the lower laboratory grades in the collaborative section suggest that collaborative learning did not make the laboratory any “easier”. The data in Table 2 present the course ratings as determined by a form called the SRTE, Student Rating of Teaching Effectiveness. The SRTE is used in all courses at Penn State University. The SRTE requires that students rate the 746
Grade (%) Students (No.) Laboratory Overall Course
Prior sections 1
F 1996
20
88.1
75.5
2
F 1996
24
87.5
70.5
1
F 1997
22
86.7
80.2
2
F 1997
21
85.2
78.9
86.9
76.3
Av This study 1 (exptl)
F 1998
21
85.2
79.9
2 (control)
F 1998
17
88.4
81.0
1 (exptl)
S 1999
16
80.6
69.6
2 (control)
S 1999
23
82.6
73.3
1 (exptl)
F 1999
16
84.5
79.9
2 (control)
F 1999
22
83.3
79.9
Av, control
84.5
76.8
Av, exptl
83.7
77.7
NOTE: All sections were taught by Shibley.
2. Student ratings of teaching effectiveness (SRTEs). 3. End-of-course open-ended student feedback about the course. The coding scheme for the open-ended responses to the questionnaire was developed by us. Each of us independently reviewed the open-ended responses and created categories for the coding scheme. We then compared our category labels, discussed the coding to reach consensus, and identified example statements for each category. One of us (DMZ) coded all the openended responses.1
Semester
Table 2. SRTEs for Courses Taught before Use of Groups in Lab and for Control and Experimental Sections in This Study Semester
Respondents (No.)
1
F 1996
2 1 2
Section
Overall Quality a of Course
Instructor
18
6.06
6.67
F 1996
17
5.94
6.65
F 1997
19
6.05
6.56
F 1997
18
6.06
6.56
6.03
6.61
Prior Sections
Av This study 1 (exptl)
F 1998
18
6.33
6.78
2 (control)
F 1998
18
5.89
6.56 6.45
1 (control)
S 1999
11
6.27
2 (exptl)
S 1999
9
6.11
6.78
1 (control)
F 1999
12
6.17
6.83
2 (exptl)
F 1999
16
6.25
6.94
Av, control
6.07
6.61
Av, exptl
6.26
6.84 b
NOTE: All sections were taught by Shibley. aRating was on a scale of 1 to 7, on which 1 is the most negative and 7 the most positive rating. bp = .076, exptl vs control.
course and the teacher on a scale of 1 to 7, 7 being the most positive rating and 1 being the most negative. Neither ratings for the quality of the course nor the quality of the instructor differed between sections. A limitation of the SRTE is that students do not rate the laboratory and lecture separately; thus students’ perception of collaborative learning is intermingled with their thoughts about the lecture portion of the course. Another limitation of the SRTE is that the scores in this study are close to the upper limit of 7 and therefore do not provide much discrimination between sections.
Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 79 No. 6 June 2002 • JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu
Research: Science and Education Table 4. Open-Ended Responses to a Question about the Effect of Group Work on Learning in the Laboratory
Table 3. Level of Student Agreement with Statements Level of Agreement a Statement
Control Experimental (n = 44) (n = 56)
I learned more from working in pairs than I did when I had to do the lab myself. I learned more from working in a group than I would have if I had to do the lab myself.
Response
Code
No.
p
4.34
—
—
—
4.34
—
% of Total
Improved understanding of the content
27
41
Made lab more enjoyable/fun/interesting
13
20
Improved cooperation/social interaction
10
15
7
10
Increased discussion of content
The lab helped me to better understand the lecture material.
3.82
4.14
.087
Ease/speed of lab improved
6
9
I felt comfortable asking questions in lab.
4.57
4.79
.087
Group was ineffective/did not work well
3
5
3.61 (n = 41)
.061
66
100
Based on the lab, I would like to take another 3.07 (n = 27) chemistry course.b aRating
Total
was on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). was asked only in spring 1999 and fall 1999 semesters.
bQuestion
Students were asked to fill out an end-of-course evaluation form that included statements to which they could agree or disagree (Table 3) and open-ended questions that allowed free responses (Table 4). When asked whether they learned more when working with someone else (Table 3), students in the control section of the laboratory agreed that they learned more working in pairs than working individually. Students in the collaborative sections thought they learned more when working in groups, suggesting a positive attitude toward group work. Students may “like” group work because they think it requires less work, but the word “like” was not used in the statement. The conclusion, therefore, is that introductory chemistry students perceive that increased learning occurs when they work in groups of two or more. Student responses to three other questions are presented in Table 3. Although no significant difference was evident among the responses, the ratings for each question were higher in the collaborative sections. Students working in the collaborative sections felt that the lab helped them better learn the lecture material, they felt more comfortable asking questions in class, and they were more likely to take another chemistry course. The lack of significance for each question may be due to the small sample size for any given section. The most compelling evidence supporting the use of collaborative learning came from the open-ended student questionnaires given at the end of the course (Table 4). Students were asked to do the following: “Please take a few moments and discuss how group work helped you to better learn chemistry or how it hindered your learning.” The responses were categorized to look for common themes (Table 4). A sample
response for each coded category is given in Table 5. Some responses were coded in two categories. For example, consider the following open-ended response: “Group work is better than working individually. Your partners can always help you along the way.” The response was coded under two categories: “Made lab more enjoyable/fun/interesting” and “Improved cooperation/social interaction”. Of the 66 total coded responses only 3 contained negative statements about group work. Across all three sections, the most frequent response was that working in a group during the laboratory helped students’ understanding of the content (41%). The second most frequent response was that working in the group made the laboratory more enjoyable, interesting, or fun (20%). Although the impetus for group work is not to make the lab “fun”, this response suggests that one reason for the positive attitude about the course and about chemistry is that the students enjoyed the group work. Conclusions An important facet of collaborative learning as described in this article is the consistency of groups. The students in the collaborative section were asked after five weeks whether they wanted to change groups. The response was almost unanimous that they would prefer to keep the same groups. Students seemed to be developing a rapport with each other by the fifth week and they did not want their group disrupted. Because the groups were randomly assigned, there was concern that some students would not get along. Only one group (of 14 total) had a poor working relationship that was brought to the instructor’s attention. The negative aspect of consistent groups is that students might not get to interact with as
Table 5. Sample Responses for Coded Categories in Table 4 Code
Sample Response
Improved understanding of the content
All in all, I liked working as a group better. There were some labs when I felt lost, not really understanding what we were doing until it was over, on those days working as a group really saved me… the others carried me through my confusion until I "got it". Of course then their [sic] were days when I was able to carry other "lost members".
Made lab more enjoyable/fun/interesting
I tend to learn better when I work on my own, but the lab was more fun with a group.
Improved cooperation/social interaction
Had no problems with the interaction. I like that it was not changed in the middle cause that would have messed things up. It worked well because we taught others or they taught us.
Increased discussion of content
Allowed me to interact with other’s opinions as well as my own.
Ease/speed of lab improved
The lab went faster since there was [sic] four of us doing the same lab.
Group was ineffective/did not work well
I liked the group work. However, I strongly suggest that you, in the middle of the lab switch groups around. Some people tend to depend on others to do the work because they’re too lazy to try and understand it.
JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu • Vol. 79 No. 6 June 2002 • Journal of Chemical Education
747
Research: Science and Education
many other students, but that limitation is offset by the strong interaction students develop with fellow group members. Additionally, research has consistently demonstrated that maintaining stable collaborative working groups throughout a semester leads to more effective group functioning. Group cohesiveness and shared understanding of purpose relate to group achievement and satisfaction. Cohesiveness and group identity can only result when stable groups are used (8). One striking outcome of collaborative learning in this study was the willingness of students to work together effectively during class time. The students in the collaborative sections stayed in the laboratory longer to work on their results and seemed more willing to question each other rather than relying on the professor for information. The group work seemed to lessen the active involvement of the teacher in the laboratory: students did not ask as many questions of the instructor when they were working in groups. A recent report on students in an organic laboratory makes the point that collaborative learning decreases the amount of time the instructor spends answering the same question and that students exert greater independence in the laboratory (9). The increase in student self-reliance might be somewhat demoralizing for a teacher unprepared for the increased independence of students. The benefits of student independence outweigh the benefits of interaction with a teacher, however, because students are engaged in conversation with each other. Bruffee articulates the benefits of student–student conversation when claiming that “conversation with people we regard as our peers—our equals, members of our own community—is almost always the most productive kind of conversation” (10). Even though students worked well in the group, there was an expressed concern on a questionnaire handed out on the first day of class that group work might encourage “freeloaders”. This concern was addressed by assuring students that they would evaluate each other and that 4% of the final grade for the course would be based on group members’ evaluations of each other. Although students did not seem to take the rating seriously (i.e., all students rated group members high), foreknowledge of such a peer evaluation seemed to alleviate the concerns about freeloaders because in all three sections the issue was never raised again after the first week. One possible conclusion from the study is that collaborative learning may improve student attitude toward chemistry, because students in the collaborative learning sections voiced positive perceptions about the collaborative experience. A monograph on learning theories effectively summarizes the results found in our study by saying that “collaborative learning, with its focus on effort, strategy, and factors other than ability, may be uniquely situated not only as a profitable, albeit underused, vehicle for learning, but also for developing and maintaining motivationally healthy attitudes about the causes of learning outcomes as well” (11). The net result of this study has been to motivate a change in the way introductory chemistry is taught at Berks campus.
748
The impact of the groups will be extended beyond the laboratory in future sections by using groups in the lecture portion of the course as well. Students will meet with their group at the beginning of each lecture session to discuss homework. Groups will work on problems in class and group quizzes will be given. The goal of extending the groups into the lecture portion of the class is to capitalize on the positive student attitudes generated via collaborative learning. Collaborative learning has powerful effects that may not translate into all chemistry classes, but for an introductory chemistry course, collaborative learning provides a pedagogical method that may improve student attitude in a challenging subject. Acknowledgments This work was supported in part by grants from two Penn State University institutes: the Schreyer Institute for Innovation in Learning and the Center for Excellence in Learning and Teaching. Note 1. DMZ was involved in the project as an evaluation specialist. She has extensive background in coding qualitative questionnaire responses. She was not involved in the instruction or delivery of the course content in any way and therefore acted as an unbiased rater of the open-ended comments.
Literature Cited 1. Millis, B. J.; Cottell, P. G. Cooperative Learning for Higher Education Faculty; Oryx: Phoenix, AZ, 1998. 2. Stodolsky, S. S. In The Social Context of Interaction: Group Organization and Group Processes; Peterson, P. L.; Wilkinson, L. C.; Hallinan, M., Eds.; Academic: San Diego, CA, 1984; pp 107–124. 3. Bowen, C. W. J. Chem. Educ. 2000, 77, 116. 4. Dees, R. L. J. Res. Math. Educ. 1991, 22, 409. 5. Smith, M. E.; Hinckley, C. C.; Volk, G. L. J. Chem. Educ. 1991, 68, 413. 6. Johnson, D. W.; Johnson, R. T.; Holubec, E. J. The New Circles of Learning: Cooperation in the Classroom and School; Association for Supervision of Curriculum and Development: Alexandria, VA, 1994. 7. Towns, M. H. J. Chem. Educ. 1998, 75, 67. 8. Brilhart, J. K.; Galanes, G. J. Effective Group Discussion, 9th ed.; McGraw-Hill: Boston, 1998. 9. Hass, M. A. J. Chem. Educ. 2000, 77, 1035. 10. Bruffee, K. A. Collaborative Learning: Higher Education, Interdependence, and the Authority of Knowledge; Johns Hopkins Press: Baltimore, MD, 1993. 11. Stage, F. K.; Muller, P. A.; Kinzie, J.; Simmons, A. Creating Learning Centered Classrooms: What Does Learning Theory Have to Say? ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports: Washington, DC, 1998.
Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 79 No. 6 June 2002 • JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu
