Unit 2 - Collaborative & Group Models

First impressions…

      I was impressed by the research substantiating improvements in learning when the various cooperative and group models are employed (Johnson et al. 1998; Haller et al. 2000; Hung et al. 2003).  Plus, learning clearly goes well beyond content, with documented improvements in critical thinking, problem-solving skills, communication, teamwork, attitudes toward learning, etc. 

      While the outcomes research is very supportive of cooperative and group instructional models, I also got the impression that success requires a very skilled instructor willing to expend significant effort, due to many difficult-to-control factors (e.g., student reluctance, personality issues, group dynamics, etc.)  The instructor’s job is more challenging because in addition to content expertise, there is a need to take on a facilitator role, teach skills for group interactions, etc.

      Finally, I was struck by how aptly Johnson et al. (1998) tied the individualistic focus of our American culture to the observation that cooperative approaches have taken a backseat to individualist/competitive approaches to learning in the US.

Similarities & Differences…

      The theories covered in Unit II have many commonalities, including group interactions, active learning, a student-directed component, and the ability to engage higher-order thinking and problem-solving skills.  Guided design and PBL share the common approach of using a problem that forms the basis for learning.  All of the methods seem particularly well suited for preparing students for future success in the workplace.  The cognitive apprenticeship seems least similar to the other models in that group interactions are not an integral part and learning occurs along side a teacher. 

Use in Practice…

      In my teaching, I do try to make use of these theories.  In general, the cooperative/group theories are great, but my impression is that they work best with mature learners, possibly because of their prior experience with group interactions.  In the community college setting, we have a heterogeneous mix of students.  The less experienced, and usually younger students can be quite negative about engaging in group work, which can be a barrier.  But, this is not to say that they will not benefit from the experience.

      I use a modified jigsaw (cooperative) approach (where the students teach each other) for anti-depressant drugs.  In my experience with jigsaw, I have noticed the potential for “less than adequate instruction” noted by Blocher (1980).  To hopefully counteract this negative, I post content outlines at the conclusion of the session. 

      While teaching pharmacy calculations, I use a cognitive apprenticeship approach. Nearly all of the content is presented in terms of “real-life” pharmacy math.  I often see the problem described by Collins et al. (1989) where students struggle because they rely on recognition of standard patterns of problems, rather than problem-solving skills.  Interestingly, this “mindset” is a major stumbling block and the course has a relatively high failure rate.  The readings made me think about using more modeling and scaffolding to foster development of necessary cognitive skills.

      The PBL approach, using case studies, is a great approach for learning topics such as ethics, disease treatment, drug interactions, etc.  Guided design is a great method too, however, it seems better suited for particular fields such as business and engineering, with complex problems having multiple potential solutions. 

Web adaptations…

      Tools that can assist in adaptation of these models to online environments include group workspaces (e.g., Google groups, etc.) and communication tools (e.g., chat, e-mail, Elluminate, discussion forums, etc.).  Koschmann (1995) described specific tools for PBL in medical education, such as video for case presentation, data banks for information queries and data sharing groupware.  Recently, at Clemson Univ, I saw a demonstration of a computer-simulated patient that can be verbally interviewed by nursing students.  The “patient” responds verbally with appropriate answers.  Development of this technology could significantly enhance web-based PBL for medical education.