Associate Professor University of Virginia Charlottesville, Virginia, United States
Introduction:: Active learning approaches in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) courses decrease failure rates and increase performance on summative assessments. In Fink’s taxonomy of significant learning experiences, course design should be learner-centered, so students are actively engaging not just with technical content in an engineering course but also reflecting on their own learning processes as they strive to become lifelong learners. One strategy for promoting reflection and engagement is through opportunities for collaborative learning. Collaborative learning represents a joint intellectual effort by students (and often instructors) to mutually create or find meaning, solutions, or products. Intentionally designed collaborative learning strategies support meaningful learning for students. This idea means that activities should be structured so that group members are interdependent and work together to achieve the learning objectives. Collaborative learning techniques vary from short-term activities to semester-long team projects. Are certain types collaborative activities more successful in supporting student motivation and learning strategies? Moreover, does the type of course content impact the effectiveness of collaborative learning techniques?
Materials and Methods:: Comparison groups were chosen from biomedical engineering class sections at an R1 university. The Individual group was a section of a sophomore-level core physiology course in which learning activities were primarily individual and assessed with traditional tests. The Rotating Teams group was a different section of the same physiology course in which students were assigned to new teams for each of the four course units. Students did not receive specific training to develop teamwork skills, since the teams rotated several times. Teams completed some homework assignments and the four summative tests as collaborative activities. The Persistent Teams group was a section of a junior-level course in biotransport which contained several activities designed to scaffold teamwork skills. Students were assigned to teams that remained together throughout the semester as they completed a series of collaborative projects. Teams were encouraged to study together help each other with individually completed homework assignments. A series of biweekly tests were completed individually. Students in all comparison groups responded to the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) and the Generalized Self-Efficacy (GSE) scale to assess whether changes in learning strategies and self-efficacy were associated with the inclusion of the collaborative learning activities. Scores were compiled according to authors’ instructions and were compared using one-way ANOVA with a type I error rate of 0.05. Post hoc t-tests with the Bonferroni adjustment were performed to assess differences between individual group means.
Results, Conclusions, and Discussions:: The GSE scale, designed to assess a general sense of self-efficacy and ability to cope with daily stressful life events, served as a baseline for student self-confidence independent of course. GSE scores were not different among the treatment groups (ANOVA, p=0.27). The MSLQ consisted of 15 psychometric constructs associated with value-expectancy theory motivation (6 constructs), cognitive and metacognitive learning strategies (5 constructs), and resource management strategies (4 constructs). Within the Value component of motivation, Intrinsic Goal Orientation, Extrinsic Goal Orientation, and Task Value were lower in the Persistent Teams group than in the Individual and Rotating Teams groups. Within the Expectancy component of motivation, Control of Learning Beliefs was lower in the Persistent Teams group than in the Rotating Teams group, but no differences were observed in Self-Efficacy for Learning and Performance or Test Anxiety. Within Cognitive and Metacognitive Strategies, Rehearsal, Elaboration, and Organization were lower for the Persistent Teams group than the Rotating Teams group; no differences were measured in Critical Thinking or Metacognitive Self-Regulation. No differences were measured among groups for Resource Management Strategies, including Time and Study Environment, Effort Regulation, Peer Learning, and Help Seeking.
One might have expected that collaborative activities in the Rotating Teams and Persistent Teams groups would increase development of peer learning and help seeking, but this was not observed. The Persistent Teams group was a biotransport course focused on mathematical approaches and problem-solving, whereas the Rotating Teams and Individual groups were physiology courses focused on biological mechanisms. Several components associated with the Value component of motivation were lower in the Persistent Teams Group, and it is possible that course content drives lowered value and lack of belief that effort will lead to success. Lowered motivation may also manifest in reduced development of cognitive and metacognitive learning strategies. Overall, these data suggest that even though collaborative pedagogy supports learning through social construction of meaning and knowledge, situational factors associated with course content and expectations to succeed may aversely impact motivation and learning.
