The new catch phrase in education is “collaborative learning.” Yet, despite substantial research suggesting the benefits of adopting collaborative learning, educators and students often abandon collaboration because of the overwhelming resistance to collaboration. Resistance can be overcome by focusing on the oft-ignored rapport-building phase in the implementation of collaborative learning techniques in educational settings. After an analysis of the nature of rapport, we present a new model called, “The Resistance Breaking Process” (RBP), which provides a conceptual framework for overcoming resistance to collaboration in the classroom. RBP as a model and its practical application provide a guide to assist academics and practitioners to better understand the nature of rapport and its crucial role in collaborative learning.
The new catch phrase in education is “collaborative learning” (Totten, Sills, Digby and Russ, 1991; Gokhale, 1995; Hamada and Scott, 2000; Leonard and Leonard, 2003). However, students often resist collaboration for many reasons, among them grade pressure and a lack of trust in both the instructor and classmates (Underwood, 2003). Educators often resist collaboration for many reasons, among them unsuccessful attempts at implementing collaborative techniques, student resistance, and time constraints (Keeley & Shemberg, 1995; Underwood, 2003). Resistance can lead to the abandonment of any collaborative learning models, or refusal to implement them in the classroom.
We argue that resistance to collaborative learning can be overcome by an adequate preparation of educators and students. We focus on the overlooked and yet crucial rapport-building phase of the collaborative learning process and its usefulness for overcoming resistance to collaboration.
Rapport is the antidote to resistance (Sapon-Shevin, 1991; Gillies and Ashman, 1998; Spencer-Oatey, 2000). However, scholars and practitioners pay little specific attention on how to reduce student resistance to collaborative learning through rapport. Instead, practitioners and scholars tend to focus on stages of the implementation process including the following: group formation, final outcomes, and communication.
We coin the phrase “Resistance Breaking Process (RBP)” to describe the process through which resistance to collaborative learning can be controlled. Our purpose is in twofold: to delineate three phases in the process of overcoming resistance and to share information about our classroom tested resistance breakers. Our model is based on over 25 years of combined classroom experience at the high school, undergraduate and graduate school levels.
Collaborative learning gained popularity throughout the 1990s and into the twenty-first century. Research suggests that it improves student achievement indicators and leads to more effective learning than traditional pedagogical strategies (Johnson, Johnson and Smith, 1991a, 1991b; Ventimiglia, 1993; Cecez-Kecmanovic and Webb, 2000).
Freire (1970) compared traditional educational strategies to a bank transaction. The professor deposited information into the students as one would deposit money into a bank. The collaborative learning paradigm requires research, abstract conceptualization, critical thinking and resourcefulness. Educators and students actively participate in the construction of knowledge in the collaborative model.
The phrases “collaborative learning” and “cooperative learning” are often used erroneously as synonyms. Collaboration is an outgrowth of cooperation. However, collaboration requires knowledge creation and thus goes beyond the cooperative goals of task completion. Panitz and Panitz (1996) points out that collaborative learning is student-focused because it emphasizes building consensus among students, while cooperative learning is teacher-centered because it encourages students to complete a given task where there is a right or wrong answer expected. Ventimiglia (1993) defines collaborative learning by distinguishing it from cooperative learning:
The collaborative model builds on cooperative learning strategies but extends beyond having the students work together to complete a pre-determined task. In college learning, professors and students actively and mutually engage in the learning process...In this approach to education, professors are, in fact, midwives, co-investigators, coaches who together with their students construct the knowledge for the course (p. 7).
The goal of collaborative learning is not to arrive at a right or wrong answer as it is in the cooperative model; rather, the collaborative model aims to stimulate creativity, innovation and complex problem-solving skills which may not always meet established expectations but which serve as pre-conditions for innovation.
The shifts in pedagogical techniques – from those which emphasized students as receptacles for knowledge to those which require active participation of both students and professors -- correspond to the necessities of countries and regions as well as organizations and individuals. By participating in the process of knowledge construction through collaboration, students develop skills and attitudes such as creativity, problem-solving, decision-making, delegation and leadership considered key to the development of individuals, organizations and countries (Piaget, 1928; Freire, 1970; Vygotsky, 1978; Sizer,1984, 1992; Sundstrom, De Meuse and Futrell, 1990).
Research in fields as diverse as organizational behavior, economics, international development and non-profit management suggests that the skills and abilities practiced in a classroom using the collaborative model correspond to those graduates will need to contribute to development on many levels (Florida, 2004; Gilson and Shalley, 2004; Sonnenfeld, 2004; Salipante and Aram, 2003; Shin and Zhou, 2003; Summers, 2003; Drazin, Glynn and Kazanjian, 1999). The key for educators, then, is to be able to implement collaborative learning in their classrooms not only because it improves student learning but also because it develops the skills and abilities which graduates will need to contribute to society.
Rapport is an integral part of preparing a classroom for the implementation of collaborative learning techniques. We all use the word “rapport” in normal conversation to indicate the relationship between and among individuals. When there is “good rapport” it means that individuals can relate to each other. “Bad rapport” indicates difficulties in the relationship. Despite this common understanding of the term, for our purposes it is necessary to distinguish among different phases of rapport development. Collaborative learning endeavors often fail because of low levels of rapport in the classroom
Tickle-Degnen and Rosenthal (1990) identify three components in the structure of rapport. The first is mutual attentiveness. Mutual attentiveness relates to the “feeling as one” and implies a focus away from self and toward others. The second is being positive. Being positive is described as a sense of “mutual friendliness and caring” (p. 286) The third is coordination. Coordination refers to predictability and equilibrium in the relationship.
However, the relative importance of each component differs over time as the relationship between and among individuals evolves. As individuals get to know each other and feel more comfortable, the importance of positivity decreases as their communication tends to become more open and honest. For example, two friends who have known each other for several years tend to communicate more openly and with more freedom to disagree than two people who have just glanced at each other across a crowded classroom.
Inversely, the importance of coordination among individuals increases as their relationship progresses. Hence, the assumption behind regular practice sessions for athletic teams is that their coordination will improve as the individuals on the team interact more with each other. The only constant component throughout the relationship is mutual attentiveness because it supports the development of coordination and diminishes the importance of positivity. Diagram 1 shows the relative importance of the three components of rapport from early to late interactions.
In the early stages of a relationship, interactions between and among individuals are characterized by awkwardness and misunderstanding (Altman and Taylor, 1973). Hence, students at the beginning of the semester appear inhibited in their interactions with their classmates and professors. Both students and professors focus on external factors, such as race, gender, clothes, and general appearance in the early stages of their relationship (Duck, 1977). The information exchanged when there is a low level of rapport tends to be superficial. However, as long as the initial interactions among individuals included the component of positivity and mutual attentiveness, rapport will improve and the information shared will become more intimate, with less emphasis on peer acceptance (Altman and Taylor, 1973).
An increase in the level of rapport leads to a multidirectional flow of ideas as students are encouraged to voice their opinions and derive meaning from the information they share (Howard-Hamilton, 2000). In short, rapport provides the very basis for collaborative learning yet it has largely been ignored in the research about the collaborative learning technique.
Despite its importance as the basis for implementing the collaborative learning model, both academics and practitioners tend to ignore the rapport-building phase (Dillenbourg and Schneider,1995).We developed the RBP as a response to the importance of rapport in the collaborative learning model and to the dearth of information related to building rapport in a collaborative learning classroom (Duranti, 1997; Calzadilla, 2001). Academics and practitioners interested in collaborative learning can use our model. The presentation of our model is in twofold: first, we present each phase of the model; after each phase we present a corresponding implementation technique.
Many of the preliminary observations which led to the development of the RBP occurred in our classrooms. .This method of model development is well-established in the education field (Leshowitz, DiCerbo and Symington, 1999).
In the late 1990s the Mexican university where we work as professors implemented the philosophy commonly referred to as “learning to learn” (Gill, 1995). Collaborative learning plays a central role in this philosophy.
The implementation of collaborative learning met with several barriers. First, most professors had received their education a traditional classroom based on individual achievement and did not readily accept the collaborative model. Second, most students came from traditional classroom settings and had little experience working collaboratively. Third, many students did not want their grades to be affected by the performance of others. Fourth, established cliques existed within the student population. And fifth, in classes taught completely in English, many students and professors did not want to work collaboratively because of their difficulty with the English language. In short, resistance to collaboration followed the pattern well-documented in the literature (Engleberg and Wynn, 2003; Tinto, Russo and Kadel,1994).
The RBP is the result of nearly five years of directed classroom-based testing. There are three interrelated phases in the RBP. As Diagram 2 shows, each phase corresponds to a different phase in the rapport-building process inside the classroom and is explained in the boxes beside the diagram. The corresponding resistance-breaking techniques are described inside the pyramid.
Initially we viewed resistance breaking as a singular event. We implemented only Phase I of the model. However, we noted that resistance re-emerged over the course of the semester. We therefore developed the RBP because it focuses on the process of overcoming resistance. It is flexible enough to permit adaptation, yet structured enough to serve as a guide for overcoming resistance to collaboration. The RBP withstands the four most common tests of formal models suggested by Mayhew (1984): clarity, parsimony, clarity and testability.
Throughout the RBP, the most practical way for educators to measure levels of resistance is by observing seating arrangements (the higher the resistance to collaboration the more students will segregate themselves through their physical spacing) and verbal and nonverbal communication patterns (the less informal conversation the higher the resistance level). Obvious changes will take place in both spatial orientation and communication patterns as students move from phase one, through phase two, and into phase three of the RBP. The role of the educator in the collaborative learning model is one of facilitator and participant. Therefore, he/she should actively participate in each activity together with the students.
Phase One of the RBP corresponds to very low levels of rapport among students and professor and the corresponding high level of resistance to collaboration. Typical circumstances in which low levels of rapport are apparent include the first day of class when students may not know each other or may have preconceived notions about others, the presence of strong cliques, and physical separation because of ethnicity, gender, age, place of origin or other sociological factors.
The goal in this phase is to readjust the web of relations within the classroom. The focus is on self and not on others. The logic behind this approach is that each person knows him/herself best. It is important to note that in Phase One, the information shared is general, thus reducing further resistance to participating in the activities. The technique we suggest for Phase One of the RBP is named “Name Tag” because it maintains the focus on the individual and allows each participant to share only the information he/she feels comfortable sharing. Diagram 3 provides a summary of Phase I of the RBP.
NAME TAG
The purpose of this exercise is to allow the students to share non-threatening yet personalized information with their classmates. It is an improvement on the traditional name-tag which includes just identifying information. This version of the name tag allows students to share non-invasive information and to learn about others.
Each student is given a piece of paper which he/she folds in thirds so that it can easily stand up on the desk in front of him/her. The facilitator draws an example of the exercise on the board, requests that the students fill in the information, and fills one out him/herself. With the exception of placing one’s name in the center, the categories chosen can change every time the exercise is done. The categories can be predetermined or the class can work to define them. However, we recommend predetermined categories because of the low level of rapport in the classroom in this phase.
The name tag below provides sample categories. In this example, students wrote down their birthplace in the upper left hand corner, their major in the upper right hand corner, their favorite song in the lower right hand corner, and their favorite movie in the lower left hand corner. Each time the exercise is done the name is in the center.
Once every student finishes his/her nametag, the activity can continue in two ways: each participant introduces him/herself based on the information on the card or the entire class gets up and is instructed to introduce him/herself to at least five people not in his/her reference group---people with whom the student may have little relationship.
As students move from Phase One to Phase Two in the RBP, the emphasis subtly changes from the self to others. Phase Two corresponds to an increasing level of rapport and a decrease in resistance to collaboration. Typical circumstances in which Phase Two is implemented include subsequent class days or when the facilitator senses increasing acceptance of differences because of previous interactions, including the name tag exercise. At this stage, students know a little bit about some of their classmates, and the atmosphere in the classroom is congenial. Therefore, the goal in Phase Two is to find connections among individuals in the group. The technique we suggest for Phase Two of the RBP is named “Nice to Meet You” because it shifts the focus from the individual to similarities among individuals yet maintains a non-invasive approach. Diagram 4 provides a summary of Phase II of the RBP.
NICE TO MEET YOU
The purpose of this activity is to move from a self-centered base to a focus on linkages among individuals. The activity consists of each student receiving a copy of the statement sheet shown in Diagram 4. The exercise is flexible---almost any statements can be used. Students are then given five minutes to interact with as many classmates as possible to find those with similar interests. For example, for the statement “Likes the same sport as I do” a student who enjoys fencing would look for someone else who likes fencing. At the end of this exercise, the students not only have shared information about themselves with their classmates but have created linkages---they have looked for similarities in the shared information.
Diagram 4: Sample Statements
Sample statements
By the end of this exercise, several barriers to collaboration will have been overcome. The students have moved from a self focus to a focus on similarities between self and others and will have now had contact with several individuals in the classroom. Nonetheless, until this point the information shared has been general and non-invasive.
Finally, the group will be ready for Phase Three which corresponds to higher levels of rapport in the classroom. Students may already be working collaboratively, or the group formation stage of collaborative learning may be about to begin. This phase differs from the other phases in its intimacy; the information shared is no longer general, it is very personalized. However, the student still controls the release of information because he/she decides which facts to share. The goal in this phase is to solidify and expand the web of relationships in the classroom and to eradicate resistance to collaboration. Upon completing this phase, the group will be well-prepared to participate in collaboration because together with Phase One and Phase Two, all of the activities have led to a level of rapport adequate for the knowledge generation and exchange of ideas involved in the collaboration model. The technique we suggest for Phase Three of the RBP is called “Building Bridges.” This activity also may be used if there is a resurgence of resistance in the classroom. Diagram 5 provides a summary of Phase Three of the RBP.
BUILDING BRIDGES
The purpose of this activity is to create intimate bonds among participants. The activity consists of conversation among team members to discover little-known facts such as a shared hobby or a familial relationship which unite them. First, the group is divided into pairs or small groups. It is important that the small groups consist of individuals who do not know each other well. The maximum number of recommended group members is four. Groups of more than four take too much time to complete the activity. The instructor can participate in one of the groups. After forming the groups, a time limit is set for the activity. A reasonable amount of time to complete the activity is between fifteen and thirty minutes. Then, each participant converses with his/her group members. The goal is to find three little-known facts which he/she has in common with the others in his/her group. That all group members wear eyeglasses is not considered a little-known fact. That all of their parents got married in the same year is. The acceptance of a fact is at the discretion of the group. Finally, each small group presents to the whole class the little-known common facts which unite the team.
Collaborative learning techniques are elements in educators’ repertoire of teaching strategies. We suggest that resistance to collaboration can be controlled by spending valuable time to prepare students and educators before their involvement in collaborative learning.
RBP model provides a conceptual framework for overcoming resistance to using the collaborative learning model in the classroom. By allowing students and educators to gradually share information with and about each other in some orderly fashion, we argue that resistance can be controlled even in classrooms with well-defined divisions. The techniques we present provide concrete activities adaptable to many classroom situations, which increase the level of rapport among students, control resistance, and provide the foundation for successful implementation of collaborative learning models in the classroom.
RBP model and its practical application provide a guide for both academics involved in research related to collaborative learning, and practitioners who have decided to implement collaborative learning in their classrooms. Our focus on the often overlooked and yet crucial rapport-building phase of the collaborative learning suggests that strategically including activities in the classroom can control and overcome student and educator resistance to collaborative learning.
Altman, I. and Taylor, D.A. (1973). Social Penetration: The Development of Interpersonal Relationships. NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Brandt, R Ed. (2000).Education in a New Era: 2000 Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. VA:ASCD.
Calzadilla, María Eugenia (2001). Aprendizaje Colaborativo y Tecnologías de la Información y la Comunicación. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación:1-10.
Cezec-Keemanovic, Dubravka and Webb, Carolyn (2000). Towards a Communicative Model of Collaborative Web-Mediated Learning. Australian Journal of Educational Technology 16 :73-85.
Dillenbourg, Pierre and Schneider, Daniel (1995). Collaborative Learning and the Internet.TECFA/ICCAI.[On-line]Available: http://tecfa.unige.ch/tecfa/research/CMC/colla/iccai95_1.html
Drazin, R., Glynn, M.A. and. Kazanjan, R.K. (1999). Mutlilevel Theorizing About Creativity in Organizations: A Sensemaking Perspective. Academy of Management Review 24: 286-307.
Duck, S. (1977). The Study of Acquaintance. Westmead, England: Saxon House
Florida, Richard (2004). No Monopoly on Creativity. Harvard Business Review 82: 14-15.
Duranti, A. (1997). Linguistic Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics.
Engleberg, I. N., Wynn, D.R. (2003).Working in Groups: Communication principles and strategies, 3rd edition. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Herder and Herder.
Gill, Jerry H. Learning to Learn: Toward a Philosophy of Education. Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books.
Gillies, R., & Ashman, A. (1998). Behavior and interactions of children in cooperative groups in lower and middle elementary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology 90: 746-757.
Gilson, Lucy and Shalley, Christina E. (2004). A Little Creativity Goes a Long Way: An Examination of Teams Engagement in Creative Processes. Journal of Management 30: 453-470.
Gokhale, Anuradha A. (1995). Collaborative Learning Enhances Critical Thinking. Journal of Technology Education 7. [On-line]. Available: http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JTE/jte-v7n1/gokhale.jte-v7n1.html.
Hamada, Tomoko and Scott, Kathleen. (2000). A Collaborative Learning Model. The Journal of Electronic Publishing 6:1. [On-line]. Available: http://www.press.umich.edu/jep/06-01/hamada.html.
Howard-Hamilton, Mary F. (2000). Creating a Culturally Responsive Learning Environment for African-American Students. New Directions for Teaching and Learning. 82 : 45-54.
Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T. and Smith, K.A.(1991a) Active Learning: Cooperation in the Classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Co., 1991. (a)
________________________________________.(1991b) Cooperative Learning: Increasing College Faculty Instructional Productivity. Washington, D.C.: The George Washington University.
Keeley, Stuart M. and Shemberg, Kenneth (1995). Coping with Student Resistance to Critical Thinking. College Teaching 43:140-146.
Leonard, L. & Leonard, P. (2003). The Continuing Trouble with Collaboration: Teachers Talk. Current Issues in Education 6. [On-line]. Available: http://cie.ed.asu.edu/volume6/number15/
Leshowitz, Barry, DiCerbo, Kristen Eignor and Symington, Scott.(1999).Effective Thinking: An Active-Learning Course in Critical Thinking. Current Issues in Education 2. [On-line]. Available: http://cie.ed.asu.edu/volume2/number5/.
Mayhew, B. (1984). Baseline Models of Sociological Phenomena. The Journal of Mathematical Sociology 9: 259-281.
Panitz, T. and .Panitz, P.(1996) Assessing Students and Yourself By Observing Students Working Cooperatively and Using the One Minute Paper. Cooperative Learning and CollegeTeaching.[On-line].Available: http://home.capecod.net/~tpanitz/tedsarticles/Assessment.htm
Piaget, J.(1928). Judgment and Reasoning in the Child. New York: Harcourt.
Salipante, Paul and Aram, John D. (2003).Managers as Knowledge Generators: The Nature of Practitioner-Scholar Research in the Nonprofit Sector. Non-Profit Management and Leadership14:129-150.
Sapon-Shevin, M. (1991). Cooperative Learning in Inclusive Classrooms: Learning to Become a Community. Cooperative Learning 12:8-11.
Shaheeda, Essack (2002). Higher Education: An Alienating Experience? Moving Towards a Collaborative and Inclusive Approach to Student Development in Higher Education. Photocopy of conference paper presented at the International Sociological Association.
Shin, Shung Jae and Zhou, Jing (2003).Transformational Leadership, Conservation and Creativity: Evidence from Korea. The Academy of Management Journal 46:703-714.
Sizer, T. R. (1984). Horace’s Compromise: The Dilemma of the American High School. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Co.
__________ (1992). Horace’s School: Redesigning the American High School. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Co.
Sonnenfeld, Jeffrey A. (2004). A Return to the Power of Ideas. MIT Sloan Management Review. 45:30-33.
Spencer-Oatey, H. Culturally Speaking: Managing Rapport Through Talk Across Cultures. New York: Wellington House.
Summers, Lawrence (2003). The Authority of Ideas. Harvard Business Review. 81: 144.
Sundstrom, E., De Meuse, K.P.and Futrell, D. (1990). Work Teams: Applications and Effectiveness. American Psychologist 45:120-133.
Tickle-Degnen, Linda and Rosenthal, Robert (1990). The Nature of Rapport and Its Nonverbal Correlates. Psychological Inquiry 1: 285-293.
Tinto, V., Russo, P. & Kadel, S. (1994). Constructing educational communities in challenging circumstances. Community College Journal.64: 26-30.
Totten, S., Sills, T., Digby, A., & Russ, P. (1991). Cooperative learning: A guide to research. New York: Garland.
Underwood, Jean D. M. (2003). Student Attitudes Towards Socially Acceptable and Unacceptable Group Working Practices. British Journal of Psychology 94:319-337.
Ventimiglia, Laura M. (1993).Cooperative Learning at the College Level. NEA Higher Education Journal p.5-30.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
© Radical Pedagogy
