INTRODUCTION:

Small group learning is an educational approach.[1] The group work has to be carefully planned and frequently requires a facilitator to ensure group progress. In addition the group function and the learning that takes place needs to be assessed and evaluated. The material learned is just as important as the group's ability to achieve a common goal. Group discussion plays a valuable role in the small group learning of students.[2] Discussion can allow students to negotiate meanings, express themselves in the language of the subject, and establish closer contact with academic staff than large group learning methods.

Gaps in small group learning:

In reality, of course, the experience of some small group learning environments did not always live up to such lofty ideals. Students did not want to talk; they did not even talked to each other, but responded to questions from the tutor. Likewise, the tutors gave a talk rather than conducting a dialogue. Sometimes students did not prepare for the sessions; A few students dominated or blocked the discussion; the students wanted to be given the solutions to problems rather than discuss them. At the end of semesters/terms some small groups dissolved without the students knowing each other’s names some times. At times the notion of listening, at best, seem to be perceived by students as a passive state of dependence on tutors or another talkative student and, at worst, downright non-engagement because of an apparently apathetic approach to preparation. Thus facilitating a group is complex, challenging work.

Despite all of this, small group work can be immensely rewarding for students. With the right tasks and problems set, students can learn to collaborate with one another, develop interpersonal awareness, debate heatedly about a subject that only lecturers were obsessed with, and challenge orally (if not in writing) accepted ideas that they have heard in lectures or read in the literature. Collaborative learning can be a change from the current approach in teaching and learning of small groups.[3]

Collaborative learning in small group sessions:

Collaborative learning is a situation in which two or more students learn or attempt to learn something together.[4] Unlike individual learning, students engaged in collaborative learning capitalize on one another’s resources and skills (asking one another for information, evaluating one another’s ideas, monitoring one another’s work, etc.).[5,6] More specifically, collaborative learning is based on the model that knowledge can be created within a population where members actively interact by sharing experiences and take on asymmetry roles.[7] In other words, collaborative learning refers to methodologies and environments in which learners engage in a common task where each individual depends on and is accountable to each other. These include both face-to-face conversations [8] and electronic discussions.

Advantages of collaborative learning:[9]

· It has been shown to have a positive effect on student learning when compared to individual or competitive conditions

· It has the potential to produce a level of engagement that other forms of learning cannot

· Students may explain things better to another student than a teacher to a class. Students learn how to teach one another and explain material in their own words

· Questions are more likely to be asked and answered in a group setting

· Positive interdependency is achieved as individuals feel that they cannot succeed unless everyone in their group succeeds

· Interpersonal and collaboration skills can be learned in a cooperative learning activity

Disadvantages of collaborative learning:[10]

· People need to go at different speeds

· Someone may try to take over the group

· Quiet (silent) people may not feel comfortable

· Sometimes people just don't get along

These disadvantages can be overpowered by using technology.

Technology enhanced learning:

Technology has become an important factor in collaborative learning.[11] It enhances efficient learning to ensure availability to students anywhere and anytime, promoting self-directed lifelong learning. Over the past ten years, the Internet has allowed for a shared space for groups to communicate. Virtual environments have been critical to allowing people to communicate long-distances but still feel like they are part of the group. Researches revealed how technology has helped increase the potential of collaborative learning. In addition the current students, the digital natives always comfortable with using technology in their day to day activities.

The objectives of this paper were to determine whether collaborative learning during a small group teaching have effect on students’ engagement and learning and to evaluate the use of technology in collaborative learning.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

Study design, settings and sampling

A descriptive, cross-sectional study was conducted in the month of January, 2016, in one of the private universities in Malaysia. Pharmacy students in this university were invited to participate in this study. (n=48). A sample size was calculated through Raosoft software in which the population was taken as 50; power was kept as 80%, response distribution as 50%, while confidence interval and margin of error was set at 95% and 5% respectively. A total of 45 pharmacy students were needed to be sampled to generalize the findings. Convenient sampling was done. Nevertheless, 45 students participated in this study which was the minimum required sample size. A verbal consent was obtained from all the participants. This study was approved by the Institute for Continuous Learning of this university.

METHOD AND IMPLEMENTATION:

This study was conducted in one of the private universities in Malaysia. An actual small group teaching session of students was selected. All the students from a larger group were broken into 8 smaller groups of 6 students. Students were assigned in each group on a random basis to prevent cliques forming. Each group was given a case study to discuss. Group round was done so that everyone in the group is involved from the start as a way of checking on learning issues. Students were asked to click the link which carried a case study (uploaded on e-learn portal prior to the session) by the tutor. Each group were given separate link which had different cases. Each link for a group was a virtual wall (padlet application) that allowed students to express their thoughts on a given topic/case easily. It worked like an online sheet of paper where students can put any content (e.g. images, videos, documents, text) anywhere on the page, together with anyone, from any devices like smart phones, laptops, tablets etc. Within each group the students could see their peer thoughts, comments, and ideas in their own device. Once each group finished their discussion on virtual wall, the fishbowl method was used for further discussion with other groups. When one group was discussing an issue or topic, the other groups listened, looking for information, resources. In fact the other groups could see on their own devices the discussion carried out by the group which was discussing the case. The roles was then reversed.

Data Analysis:

Data were analysed by using SPSS v.20. Descriptive analyses were employed to express the data as frequencies and percentages. Shapiro-Wilks test was carried out to test the normality of the data. As the data distribution was not normal, skewness of the data were analysed. Skewness tolerance value was 1.90 and hence the data was considered normally distributed.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION:

The total number of respondents were 45. Data were collected and summarized by using “poll everywhere” application. The students’ opinion on collaborative learning is mentioned in Figure 1. Figure 2 and 3 shows the impact of collaborative learning on student interaction with their classmates in small group teaching.

Almost 70% of students felt that they had learnt from the peers during collaborative learning. More than 60% of the students said that collaborative learning was as advantage for them to learn from the resources and skills exhibited by their peers. About 60% of the students said that, they actively interacted by sharing their experiences and resources during collaborative learning. More than 70% of the students agreed that, technology (padlet) was an important factor in collaborative learning.

Most of the students commented that the collaborative learning helped them to interact with their peers and learn from the peers. [12]Students also said that, they were able to access the discussion by other groups at any time later as the links were available online.[13] Most of the students said that, learning collaboratively is more fun.[14] Students also said that, using the technology (padlet) is efficient and easy way to obtain information from peers.

Based on the findings, having collaborative learning in other small group teaching activities could have an impact on students being more engaged and share their experiences and skills with their peers.[15] The results of this study support many theoretical constructs. Theoretically speaking, the concept of collaborative learning, the grouping and pairing of students for the purpose of achieving an academic goal, has been widely researched and advocated throughout the professional literature.[16-18]The term "collaborative learning" refers to an instruction method in which students at various performance levels work together in small groups toward a common goal. [19, 20] The students are responsible for one another's learning as well as their own. Thus, the success of one student helps other students to be successful.

Proponents of collaborative learning claim that the active exchange of ideas within small groups not only increases interest among the participants but also promotes critical thinking. According to Johnson and Johnson,[8] there is persuasive evidence that cooperative teams achieve at higher levels of thought and retain information longer than students who work quietly as individuals. The shared learning gives students an opportunity to engage in discussion, take responsibility for their own learning, and thus become critical thinkers.

Recommendations and Implications:

For collaborative learning to be effective, the facilitator must view teaching as a process of developing and enhancing students' ability to learn. The facilitator’s role is not to transmit information, but to serve as a facilitator for learning. This involves creating and managing meaningful learning experiences and stimulating students' thinking through real world problems.

Future research studies need to investigate the effect of different variables in the collaborative learning process. Group composition: Heterogeneous versus homogeneous, group selection and size, structure of collaborative learning, amount of teacher intervention in the group learning process, differences in preference for collaborative learning associated with gender and ethnicity, and differences in preference and possibly effectiveness due to different learning styles, all merit investigation. Also, a psycho- analysis of the group discussions will reveal useful information. Many perspectives contribute to the understanding of technology in support of collaborative learning. Research is needed to better understand presage variables such as student characteristics and the technology affordances that enhance or constrain collaborative learning.

CONCLUSIONS:

Facilitators of small group teaching can consider the results of this study as a reference while planning/designing their small group teaching session. From this study, it can be concluded that collaborative learning fosters the members actively interact by sharing experiences and take on asymmetry roles through discussion, clarification of ideas, and evaluation of others' ideas. Therefore, if the purpose of small group teaching is to enhance the learners to engage in a common task where each individual depends on and is accountable to each other, then collaborative learning is more beneficial.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:

This study was done to fulfil the assignment work given by Institute for Continuous Learning-International Medical University, to complete the course- Fundamentals of Teaching and Learning in Health Professions Education (FTL 15/3).

COMPETING INTERESTS:

None of the authors have any competing interests in the manuscript.

REFERENCES:

1. Huggett KN. Teaching in Small Groups. An Introduction to Medical Teaching. 2010:27–39. doi:10.1007/978-90-481-3641-4_3.

2. Jaques D. ABC of learning and teaching in medicine: Teaching small groups. BMJ. 2003; 326:492–4. doi:10.1136/bmj.326.7387.492.

3. Husbands C. Facilitating effective student learning through teacher research and innovation. Teacher Development. 2011;15:401–2. doi:10.1080/13664530.2011.608523.

4. Andriessen J, Baker M, Suthers D. Argumentation, Computer Support, and the Educational Context of Confronting Cognitions. Arguing to Learn. 2003:1–25. doi:10.1007/978-94-017-0781-7_1

5. Gokhale AA. Collaborative Learning Enhances Critical Thinking. Journal of Technology Education. 1995;7. doi:10.21061/jte.v7i1.a.2.

6. Egan R. Conceptual and Qualitative Terms in Historical Perspective. A Companion to Chinese Art. 2015:277–92. doi:10.1002/9781118885215.ch13.

7. Andrich D. A framework relating outcomes based education and the taxonomy of educational objectives. Stud. educ. eval. 2002;28:35–59. doi:10.1016/s0191-491x(02)00011-1.

8. Gillies RM. Teachers’ and Students’ Verbal Behaviours during Cooperative Learning. The Teacher’s Role in Implementing Cooperative Learning in the Classroom 2008:238–57. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-70892-8_12.

9. Duarte M, Costa A. Meaning and benefits of the EUR-ACE label: Portuguese higher education institutions. 2015 International Conference on Interactive Collaborative Learning (ICL) 2015. doi:10.1109/icl.2015.7318167.

10. Forsler I. Thinking Together. Online Collaborative Learning among Swedish Art Teachers. INTED2016 Proceedings 2016. doi:10.21125/inted.2016.0434.

11. Special session E-learning: opportunities and challenges for learning and teaching. 28th International Conference on Information Technology Interfaces, 2006. doi:10.1109/iti.2006.1708445.

12. Rau W, Heyl BS. Humanizing the College Classroom: Collaborative Learning and Social Organization among Students. Teach Sociol. 1990;18:141. doi:10.2307/1318484.

13. Slavin RE. Cooperative Learning and Achievement: Theory and Research. Handbook of Psychology, Second Edition 2012. doi:10.1002/9781118133880.hop207008.

14. Macdonald-Wilson KL, Nemec PB. Education and training column: The learning collaborative. Psychiatr.Rehabil. J. 2015;38:96–8. doi:10.1037/prj0000126.

15. Tolsgaard MG, Kulasegaram KM, Ringsted CV. Collaborative learning of clinical skills in health professions education: the why, how, when and for whom. Medical Education. 2015;50:69–78. doi:10.1111/medu.12814.

16. Launer J. Collaborative learning groups. Postgrad. Med. J. 2015;91:473–4. doi:10.1136/postgradmedj-2015-133611.

17. Hall P, Brajtman S, Weaver L, Grassau PA, Varpio L. Learning collaborative teamwork: an argument for incorporating the humanities. J.Interprof. Care. 2014; 28:519–25. doi:10.3109/13561820.2014.915513.

18. Mccollum M, Chapin A, Burns C, Peterson C. Rewarding collaborative learning skills in the pre-clerkship curriculum. Medical Education. 2013;47:1135–. doi:10.1111/medu.12333.

19. Khosa DK, Volet SE, Bolton JR. Making Clinical Case-Based Learning in Veterinary Medicine Visible: Analysis of Collaborative Concept-Mapping Processes and Reflections. J. Vet. Med. Educ. 2014;41:406–17. doi:10.3138/jvme.0314-035r1.

20. Mcmurtry A, Rohse S, Kilgour KN. Socio-material perspectives on interprofessional team and collaborative learning. Medical Education. 2016;50:169–80. doi:10.1111/medu.12833.

Received on 30.05.2018 Modified on 18.06.2018

Research J. Pharm. and Tech 2018; 11(9): 4143-4146.

DOI: 10.5958/0974-360X.2018.00761.8