Abstract
Language classrooms are often dominated by competitive tasks with individualistic goals that fail to promote peer learning, negotiation of meaning, and scaffolded learning. By tweaking tasks to make them more collaborative, both teachers and students can enhance language learning as well as obtain peripheral benefits.
The purpose of education
The noblest purpose of education is to move students away from dependence on the teacher toward the autonomy of becoming self-directed learners. One of the ironies of this aim is that it is often best achieved through the use of collaborative tasks, not the more common competitive tasks with individualistic goals used in most classrooms.
To disambiguate the terms, in this paper, goals are from the perspective of the student and tasks are from the perspective of the teacher. Perceptions might differ between the teacher and the student. For example, teachers often assign group work tasks, assuming that students will work together, engaging in peer support and teaching. But students often divide such tasks, and approach them individualistically, particularly if the assessment structure for the task requires that each student list his or her personal contributions.
Johnson & Johnson (1990) suggest there are three basic types of goal structure that provide motivation in classroom learning:
- individualistic, where learners believe their chances of reaching the goal are unrelated to what others do
- competitive, where learners believe they can reach the goal only when others cannot
- cooperative, where learners believe that he or she can reach the goal only if others can too.
The differences between individualistic, competitive and cooperative tasks are generally clear, but what is the difference between cooperative and collaborative tasks?
A cooperative task is one that can be divided up into separate parts with each student completing his or her part independently. Cooperation is more like a relay race in which each team member contributes a portion of the total effort with the rest of the team doing little more than offering a bit of advice or cheering on the side. In contrast, a collaborative task is one in which all members of a team must work closely together to achieve a goal, such as in a tug of war.
In office environments and most other work environments, we mostly stress cooperation and collaboration. This makes it all the more mystifying why our classrooms so often stress competition. Competition is normal and healthy but it is not the only way to meet objectives or to educate students.
To extend the sports metaphor, imagine a teacher suddenly informing a class that students have one minute to prepare for a long-distance foot race. What would be the reactions? Most students would claim that they were not properly prepared, having worn the wrong clothes and shoes. Some would immediately evaluate the other students and determine each student’s chance of success vis-à-vis their own. Those who were most able (the best runners) might welcome the challenge, thinking the likelihood of winning was good; competition tends to reaffirm high-achieving students’ current abilities and their sense of themselves.
Those who were least able might rebel at the task, refusing to participate, not bothering to make an effort, or adopting a tactical approach, such as finishing the race but only just–perhaps walking instead of running. This is a phenomenon often seen in the classroom among those we mislabel disruptive students. They do not just opt out of an activity, they make a show of doing so. Their shallow posturing is that the task is not worth doing, rather than being one that they feel unable to complete competitively or successfully.
In the classroom, students may display this range of behaviors in reaction to competitive tasks, from withdrawal and feigned indifference to the confidence that fuels intrinsic motivation. These variable reactions to the stress of competition give the illusion that competitive tasks help to identify a bell curve of achievement across a student population. In reality, the construct of what is being tested is not achievement in a task, but rather the students’ motivation to attend to it to the best of their abilities.
An alternative to avoid this haphazard range of responses can be collaborative tasks that mirror modern workplace practices and provide opportunities to take advantage of each student’s individual special skills and contributions. Unlike cooperative work, collaborative work has the additional benefit of turning any task into a peer learning opportunity.
Three simple tasks
In workshops in 25 countries, I have given teachers three simple alphabet tasks to illustrate the language production differences between competitive and collaborative tasks. In the first task, teachers are required to work individually and silently, listing one animal for each letter of the alphabet. The only stimulus material is a picture of an alligator with the words, “A is for alligator.” When working with larger audiences, often, a group of teachers at the back of the room opts out, defiantly crossing their arms to signal that they think the task is either impossible or too simple; they are unwilling to try. At this point, I have not earned their trust nor am I able to compel them to comply.
However, even though it is a childish activity, some teachers are highly motivated by the individualistic goal and the competitive nature of the task. They work diligently to complete it. Some even decline to lower their pens when the time for the task has expired. In one session in Bogota, Colombia, I jokingly asked at the end of this first round whether or not anyone had been able to list 26 animals, one for each letter of the alphabet, not expecting anyone to answer. But a visiting American teacher had done so, probably aided by web searches on his mobile phone.
The American teacher’s success pointed out a core problem with competitive tasks: “Excellent,” I said. “We have one winner!” And then, after a short pause, I added, “And 499 losers.” This somewhat cruel observation was meant to point out that while competition might motivate many to do their best, losing a competition may be demotivating, erasing the gains in a student’s interest in a topic, or in learning altogether if the student consistently fails to achieve the same score as others in the class.
The second task
In the second task, teachers continue compiling their lists but with two changes. They are allowed to work in a pairs or small groups and they are shown an illustrated collage of animals.
The collage does not depict one animal for every letter of the alphabet but the contrast from the first task is striking. From the forced silence and solemnity of the first task, the room is suddenly charged with heated conversations and laughter. More importantly, important language-learning functions take place, as illustrated by this dialog between three teachers in the Bogota workshop. The first teacher points to one of the animals.
Teacher 1: “Oh! I know that one. It’s an elk!”
Teacher 2: “Don’t be ridiculous, that’s not an elk. It’s a deer!”
Teacher 3: “You’re both wrong. It’s a moose.”
Teacher 1: “What’s the difference between a deer and a moose?”
Teacher 3: “A moose is bigger and its horns–”
Teacher 2: “Not horns, they’re called antlers.”
Teacher 3: “Yes, that’s right. Its antlers are flat, not just pointy.
Unlike the first task, which was purely about recollection, not language learning or learning of any kind, this iteration of the alphabet game is a language learning task. As is usually the case with exchanges among other participants, the task promotes two important peer-teaching aspects of language learning:, negotiation of meaning and scaffolded learning.
All peer teaching is important because it shifts the center of knowledge in the classroom from the teacher to the students, who can often explain ideas to their peers in ways that are easier to understand. Asking questions of a peer is also less threatening and students with prior knowledge get opportunities to share information that, collectively, likely exceeds that of the teacher.
Negotiation of meaning, based on clarifying what has been said, occurs when students sort out their ideas, trying to establish differences such as a moose being bigger than a deer. Scaffolded learning takes place when students discuss subtleties, such as defining the differences between horns and antlers; one idea builds on another and naturally expands into other areas, such as the qualities of flatness and pointiness.
The vital point is that none of this language learning and language practice is mandated in the task. Rather, it is the natural outcome of the task. Students teach each other and language acquisition and development comes as an unconscious by-product of collaboration. Teachers aware of these byproducts undertake a kind of subversive teaching, understanding that while the students consider the task to be about naming animals, the teacher understands that the focus is far broader.
The third task
The third task differs only in terms of the stimulus material. In this third variation, teachers are presented with the silhouettes of 26 creatures, one for each letter of the alphabet. Many of these are culturally specific; unlike Asians, Latin Americans tend to recognize the lizard depicted for the letter i is an iguana.
Other creature letters, such as u is for unicorn, expose a curious student habit: the manufacture of rules where none have been specified. “You didn’t tell us we could use imaginary animals!” one teacher might complain, while another replies, “We did. And we used dinosaurs as well.” When students work alone, they are more likely to misunderstand directions and impose false rules on themselves, avoiding the risk of feeling foolish for having made an error. Working collaboratively in a group helps to share not just the work of the task but the approach to it.
One letter that inevitably leads to consternation is x, depicted on the outline of a fish. On being told that it stands for x-ray fish (Pristella maxillaris), many refuse to accept the truth and, after (or during) class, will look it up online and/or query their friends (“Have you ever heard of an x-ray fish?” or “Do you know the name of a creature that begins with x?). This informal research and discussion are peripheral benefits of an engaging task: language learning and practice are extended beyond the classroom.
Collaborative tasks in a university context
The same benefits that accrue from simple and game-like collaborative tasks can also apply to university level coursework. Among the most common of university tasks for students is the writing of essays. However, when assigning essays, teachers often choose a single topic or perhaps give a narrow selection of topics, not because it increases learning, but rather because it simplifies marking. It would be possible to assign an essay as a group task, but that would likely make it a cooperative task in which students pursue individualistic goals.
As an alternative, consider the following American SAT essay topic published as a practice example:
Do people place too much value on ideas or activities that are practical? (CollegeBoard, 2015, para. 12)
If given to a class, this essay topic would prompt individualistic and competitive goals among the students who would hoard their choices of ideas and activities. Sharing would not be seen as beneficial them. However, the writing of the essays could be turned into a collaborative language learning and peer teaching task by changing the parameters. The teacher could perhaps narrow the question, for example, to ideas alone, but then, in a brainstorming session, ask students to each think of a different idea that is considered practical.
The immediate result would be a collective definition what is meant by the question, clarifying it for all concerned. From this, students would proceed to produce more examples than were necessary, therefore giving themselves the chance to choose the best ones while eliminating those which were generally considered weak. Because students were essentially talking about variations on a theme, the competitive aspect of the task would largely disappear and students would feel more confident in collaboratively discussing their essays with others without the competitive fear of giving away their best ideas.
Peripheral benefits would be that the teacher would not be subjected to reading nearly identical papers and peer plagiarism would likely decrease as students each focused on a unique topic.
Conclusion
In the language classroom, we will always have a variety of competitive, cooperative, and collaborative tasks; variety is preferable. But it is important that the quantity and quality of language interactions that are prompted in completing a task are recognized and encouraged. In both competitive and cooperative tasks, students tend to largely work alone and, without conversation, peer learning, negotiation of meaning and scaffolded learning are minimized.
Through collaboration, there is “the potential to build a classroom learning community in which students turn to each other as resources and the teacher becomes one channel, among many, for learning”
(Savage, 1996, p. 4). Teachers should embrace this paradigm shift to a more student-centered approach.
References
Johnson, D. and Johnson, R. (1990). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive and individualistic learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall
Kozar, O. (2010). Towards better group work: Seeing the difference between cooperation and collaboration. English Teaching Forum, v48 n2 p16-23 2010
Nunan, D. (ed.) (1992a) Collaborative language learning and teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
SAT essay prompts. (2015) CollegeBoard. Retrieved from: https://professionals.collegeboard.com/testing/sat-reasoning/prep/essay-prompts
Savage, A. (1996). The collaborative ESL classroom: Perspectives and techniques. ERIC. Retrieved from: http://eric.ed.gov/?q=The+collaborative+ESL+classroom%3a+Perspectives+and+techniques.+&id=ED394349