Effect of task‐based group experience on collaborative learning: Exploring the transaction activities

Abstract

BackgroundCollaborative learning is a widely used approach where students gather in small groups to solve problems and develop skills. However, grouping students is not always effective, and it may be necessary to provide task‐specific collaborative experiences to optimize their interactions for subsequent learning tasks.AimsTo test this hypothesis, we conducted an experiment with 90 Ecuadorian students in their mathematics class.SampleParticipants were 90 Ecuadorian students (average age = 13.80 years, SD = .70; 48.89% female) from a private school in Sangolquí, who participated as part of their mathematics class.MethodThe experiment consisted of four phases: preparation, learning, retention one‐day testing, and delayed seven‐day testing. In the preparation phase, 15 triads received guidance on working collaboratively with quadratic equations (i.e., experienced groups), while 45 other individual learners worked independently. In the learning phase, 15 experienced triads and 45 individual learners (who were later divided into 15 non‐experienced triads) received a new learning task in the domain of economics, precisely the break‐even point.ResultsThe experienced group outperformed the non‐experienced group in the retention one‐day test, investing less mental effort and demonstrating greater efficiency. However, there was no significant difference in the delayed one‐week test. We analysed the interactions of the groups and found that experienced groups exhibited more cognitive, fewer regulatory, an equal number of emotional interactions, and fewer task‐unrelated interactions than the non‐experienced groups.ConclusionsProviding task‐specific collaborative experiences can reduce the cognitive load associated with transactional activities and increase learning in new tasks.

Effectiveness of Collaborative and Individualized Learning on the Learners’ Achievement in Science Among Pupils

“…The benefits of collaborative learning over individual learning are not always consistent. On the one hand, evidence suggests that a collaborative approach may be more effective than individual learning when problems are extremely complex and information is widely disseminated among different working memories [28]. In general, the findings suggest that the collaborative intervention provided pupils with the opportunity to promote more appropriate learning strategies, knowledge appropriation, academic success experience, and, as a result, a better perception of academic effectiveness.…”

“…While more knowledgeable collaborating and individual learners performed equally well in the learning phase and the delayed test, collaborative groups performed better on the retention test. Collaboration aided learning in complex tasks more than individual learning, but performance was dependent on the learner's task-specific prior knowledge [28]  ISSN: 2716-3725…”

Differences in high school students' mathematical representation ability in homogeneous classes: Which is better?

“…These obstacles are influenced by various things, male students have an orientation to be able to work independently rather than in groups. This tendency is initiated by their individualistic attitude so that they are free to imagine the supplements they provide without fear of being intimidated by their co-workers (Zambrano R. et al, 2023). This freedom has an impact on processing information, mastering concepts, and the ability to make correlations between concepts at a higher level (Ebadi et al, 2023).…”

Impacts of three approaches on collaborative knowledge building, group performance, behavioural engagement, and socially shared regulation in online collaborative learning

“…Learners were divided into groups to solve problems collectively during online collaborative learning (Reeves et al, 2004). However, grouping learners is not always effective (Zambrano et al, 2023) and learners often feel uncertainty and challenges during online collaborative learning (Mäkitalo et al, 2005).…”