Group Collaborative Tasks and Language Teaching
In addition to the above recommendations, further consideration needs to made when setting up collaborative online activities for the language classroom. Like in other areas of study, motivation has a high impact on learning outcomes in the language classroom. When students are engaged in collaborative learning activities, it facilitates improved proficiency in the target language (Ibrahim & Al-Hoorie, 2018).
In a recent study conducted by Ibrahim and Al-Hoorie (2018), the researchers set out to determine which factors promoted sustained motivation in collaborative language tasks. The study differentiated between motivation and shared sustained motivation (referred to as shared sustained flow by the authors), with the latter being defined as follows:
A group of individuals working collaboratively share a special experience of total absorption in a series of tasks aimed at achieving a certain outcome (Ibrahim & Al-Hoorie, 2018, p. 51).
In their study, students in pre-sessional tertiary language courses were asked to identify the conditions that facilitated shared sustained motivation over the semester. Subsequent analysis of these interviews revealed three common themes which improved the learning environment for the respondents.
Forming a group identity
When groups are initially formed, it can be difficult at first to find common ground and purpose. The above mentioned barriers mitigate the cohesiveness of the group, preventing them from moving forward with a shared identity. This is, however, vital to the success of online collaboration in groups. Since group performance is judged by the final product, and not individual contributions, group participants with a shared identity feel a sense of responsibility for their peers.
In language courses, shared collaborative tasks should be presented so that they are “not perceived merely as a language task, but also a social opportunity for students to demonstrate their group identity (p. 58). Such team building can be established early on, and nurtured over the duration of the course.
Attaching personal value
In addition to sharing a group identity, tasks also need to be selected so that they are perceived as valuable to the learners. In the language classroom, this means that students should perceive the task, as well as the linguistic focus as congruent with their own motivation for participating in the course. In an ESP course, for example, tasks should emulate the productive and receptive skills that will be needed once the course has been completed. Tasks should be viewed as authentic and meaningful, and relevant to scenarios that the students can expect to encounter in their real lives. When groups believe in the value of a collaborative task, they can develop a sense of ownership for their work.
Providing partial autonomy
Finally, providing autonomy to our students over aspects of shared collaborative tasks can help groups to “embrace their project and foster a sense of belonging and group pride as they [draw] from each other’s resources and expertise” (p. 57).
Language teachers can choose to give students autonomy over a variety of aspects of a collaborative task, such as individual roles, the area of focus, the medium and look of the final product, submission deadlines, etc.). Teacher’s can set boundaries at the start of a task by clarifying its learning goals, milestones and timeline, and then autonomy can be provided to the students once they have understood their teacher’s expectations.
Final thoughts
While collaboration is an extremely important aspect of online teaching, its success is dependent on the level of engagement of the learners. This needs to be actively monitored as well as nurtured throughout online collaborative tasks, and is the key role of the facilitator. These strategies can help you to get the most out of your students’ online work, and can help to achieve learning goals more effectively in the future.
Nice summary of so many things! Here, just an observation re “Attaching personal value”: a few years ago, on our course on scientific methodology in medical science, students had an individual assignment to write a hypothetical research plan to examine a specific medical problem of their own choice, i.e., based on personal interest … could be almost anything within medicine. This year, we switched to a group assignment where each group of 4 was handed a problem/ an issue/ an on-going debate straight from the clinic (i.e., from clinicians we had asked to provide us with current questions/debates), and the group had to write a mini-review of current research on the topic, including their own evaluation of the included studies and their recommendation. The overall level of the resulting reports was so much higher than that of the previous course, and my guess it´s because the students felt the problems were authentic and relevant (compared to the fanciful project plans , even though they were personal) and because they could discuss them within the group rather than think all alone.
Thanks for the insights Mimmi! It’s amazing how motivating authentic tasks can be. This is an excellent example of this, as all of the other variables remained the same 🙂
Very exhaustive post Jason! Indeed collaboration can become a great motivator for students. Apparently, in project-based courses group work is an incentive. As you mentioned there are also downsides of group work. In my experience, workload is one key issue, as planning and teamwork takes most of the time. I recently read this article, I recommend you to look at: ‘Time is not enough.’ Workload in higher education: a student perspective’ by Eva Kyndt, Inneke Berghmans, Filip Dochy & Lydwin Bulckens (2014)
Excellent point Nuria 🙂 Thanks for the reference. Students definitely need space to learn to collaborate with one another, and this can certainly act as a deterrent until our learners have found a rhythm and their place within a group.
As the article that you cited suggests, there is also a different between the objective workload and the perceived workload, and it is recommended that course facilitators aspire to decrease the perceived, rather than objective amount of work to be completed.
As Dochy and Bulckens conclude, this can be accomplished in collaborative activities by providing a clear and logical structure, making ourselves available through online forums to field questions, being enthusiastic about the activities, and allowing our students to “their group members themselves to avoid being stuck with ‘free riders’”.
Thanks for this post, Jason. It’s very helpful and a great summary of key issues. I think we should rediscuss the role of the ‘facilitator’ and ask ourselves in what it differs from the role of a ‘teacher’. It’s one of my main issues right now, as you may have noticed. 🙂
Yes agreed! For me the difference is a matter of mindset. I feel that a facilitator still does a great deal of teaching, but this is student-centered rather than teacher led. Students are guided to insights, given the opportunity to make decisions about their learning path, and motivated to critically consider the course content. There is of course more focus on group dynamics, and the social processes behind learning. A good course facilitator needs to be an expert in both the course content, and in the learning process, and also needs to have the flexibility and wherewithal to spontaneously teach and fill gaps in knowledge as required. I guess I consider myself a teacher by occupation, and use the word facilitation to describe my approach or teaching strategy. I think a while blog post could be dedicated to this!