🎓 Interdependent learners
Alexia, Christian, and Alberto are working together on a project. Later, they are assessed individually via a final exam. Should Alexia’s final grade depend on Christian’s and Alberto’s performance?
When designing group projects, it’s often better to evaluate both the group as a whole and each learner individually. Ideally, an individual’s grade should consider three factors:
Their personal progress
The progress of their peers
The overall group result
💬 Encouraging quality conversations
Simply putting learners in the same space isn’t enough. You need to explicitly structure interactions to foster individual progress.
Without guidance, learners may simply repeat what they already know, resulting in discussions that don’t contribute to learning.A proven method to generate meaningful discussions is structured controversy.
Structured controversy unfolds in five phases:
Phase 1: The entire group researches and defines the problem.
Phase 2: Learners are divided into two groups – one “for” and one “against” – and prepare their arguments.
Phase 3: Open discussion, where learners share their arguments freely.
Phase 4: Role reversal. Learners identify the most convincing arguments from the opposing side.
Phase 5: Learners develop a joint synthesis.
🖥️ Collaborative online learning: common tools
Virtual classrooms: Video conferencing
Teamwork and instructor communication: Email
Live comments during virtual classes: Chats
Topic-based discussions: Forums
Document and inspiration sharing: Social media
🤝 The role of pairs in solving creative problems
Alexia and Alberto are tasked with solving an ambiguous problem with both ethical and financial dimensions – a problem with no definitive answer.
Would they learn better by working individually or exchanging ideas in real-time via chat?
Research suggests that working in pairs is more effective for such scenarios.
👨💻 Effectiveness of remote group work
Alexia, Christian, and Alberto need to collaboratively redesign their production chain.
Would the final product be of higher quality if they worked face-to-face or collaborated synchronously online?
According to Tutty and Klein (2008), synchronous online collaboration produces better projects. However, face-to-face collaboration leads to more effective long-term learning.
⏳ Allowing time for collaboration
Suppose Alexia, Christian, Alberto, and Léa are tasked with identifying the cause of an IT incident. Alberto and Léa collaborate online (via chat) with a 20-minute time limit. Christian and Alexia also collaborate online but have unlimited time. Which group makes better decisions?
While one might assume that time limits lead to efficient solutions, the opposite is true: groups with unlimited time produce better results.
🎯 Group composition
When forming groups or subgroups, aim for heterogeneous levels of learners, mixing beginners with more experienced participants.
The only exception is when all learners are highly skilled. Avoid, however, isolating “weaker” learners into separate groups whenever possible.
👉 Group size
For individual skill-building: Opt for pairs (e.g., learning to operate machinery).
For reflection or solving creative problems: Choose groups of 3–5 learners (e.g., analysing the causes of the Russian Revolution).
👉 Structured collaboration
Structured collaboration yields better results than unstructured or chaotic teamwork. Provide clear instructions and assign specific roles beforehand, such as: the dreamer, the critic, the realist, the neutral observer (this role distribution is inspired by Walt Disney’s method).
💡 Social learning and engagement
Beyond learning outcomes, social learning enhances learner satisfaction and engagement.
Keywords: group work, collaboration, collaborative learning among learners
If you have further questions, feel free to reach out to us at [email protected]. Our team is here to support and guide you through your projects! 💬