Reflections on collaborative intelligence and learning differentiation in group work

​In the following update i would like to reflect upon how learning differentiation and collaborative intelligence work together in education. If learning differentiation is personalisation of learning and collaborative intelligence is collectivisation of knowing, how can these two concepts connect? If we take collaborative group work into consideration i think that at a basic level there are two major questions to be asked:

1. How does difference in skill level influence the learning outcome of the individual group members?
2. How can collaborative group work be designed so that it is challenging every participant at their own specific level of competency at the same time?

I will not try to answer every question in depths, but i will try to put down some thoughts that will make my own, and hopefully my readers a bit more knowledgable on the topics. 

What is Collective Intelligence and Learning Differentiation?

From Kalantzis' and Copes (2015) entry into the Sage Handbook of Learning, the concept of learning differentiation is defined in the following way:  

"Learners can be doing the same thing at their own pace, or they can be doing different things according to their needs or interests. Such is the objective of adaptive, personalized or differentiated instruction which calibrates learning to individuals" (Kalantzis and Cope 2015: 384).

Differentiated learning is the calibration and adaptation of ways of learning to the individual learner - differentitation is personalisation. The authors describe how digital and social technology offers new ways of making media personal, and that this makes for great ways of adapting the curriculum and teaching methods to the individual learner. A good example of a highly personalized learning expierence is adaptive testing, where questions are tailored based on the previous responses, so that the learner is challenged at their own skill level all the time. Another example of differentiated learning is the reflexive pedagogical idea of positioning the student as knowledge producer. In this way of learning, learners are not REproducing knowledge, but are instead producing knowledge. This makes it possible for each student to take their own knowledge, interests and skill level as the starting point of learning. As I read Cope and Kalantzis this way of working resembles problem based learning - see this wikipedia entry: Problem-based learning.

From the same publication comes a definition of Collaborative intelligence:

(Collaborative) Intelligence is our capacity to reach for always-available social memory and to apply available logics and computational tools. It is what we can do together in communities of practice. (Kalantzis and Cope 2015: 384)

In a digital world knowing is more social than ever. Outsourcing our knowledge onto services like wikipedia, ties the individuals personal capacity of knowledge to communitys of collaboration. This requires a different skill set. One in which critical source assesment, peer reviewing and the ability to create connections between sources of knowledge are key skills to be taught to students. This is true on both a global level - using wikipedia and other socially curated sources of knowledge. As well as in collective group work - where working on top of each others writings and providing peer feedback is mandatory for succes. In relation to group work I understand this concept as linked to Project based learning - see this wikipedia entry : Project based learning.

Question 1. How does difference in skill level influence the learning outcome of the individual group members?

As I have described in my last update I come from an academic background with a high level of collaborative group work, and I have through out my education pondered the question of how the composition of the group influences the individual members learning outcome? 

I have experienced how a group with a high degree of congruence of knowledge and experience among its members, accelarates a project into a whole new level of complexity and quality. In these situations the collaborative intelligence of the group are truly a greater capacity than any one of its members on his or her own. I have also experienced the completely opposite situation, in which the experience and knowledge was highly divided, and in such a way that for my part the greatets challenge was to teach the other members how to do academic field work, theoretically based analysis and so forth. In these kinds of groups difference in experience and skill level makes it more difficult to work together, and the collaborative difficulties makes for an uneven educational experience for the group members. I have several times thought, that had I been in a group of equally experienced and able students, my educational outcome in regards to theoretical analysis and field work would have much greater.

But being the more experienced part of the group I learned something very different, something not directly inteded by the curriculum. I learned alot about learned about teaching academic subjects to my peers, and learned how to work in a group where skills are diverse.

Great skill level diversity in a group might create an expert position, a position where the student with expertise on a speficic topic becomes the group authority figure. In some groups this dynamic can be established in a fast and non dramatic way, and in other groups there is an extensive proces of hierachy establishment that sometimes creates long dragging conflicts and the like, which in turn hinders learning outcome of the group.   

My experience is that the more clear the different skill sets of the group is, and the more explicit the different positions of the group is, the more easy it is to establish an effective working hierachy in a highly differentiated group. A group with a well established hierachy of experience is more effective, and can lead to educational experiences for every participant in a quicker way. 

Question 2. How can collaborative group work be designed so that it is challenging every participant at their own specific level of competency at the same time?

Taking from the reflections on the last question i have an idea as to how differentiated groups might create more effective ways of working together by establishing skill hierachies, which again might challenge every group member at their own level. 

My idea is that students could gather knowledgepoints in different skills based on peer review of their participation in group work, as well data taken from their participation in the collaborative work on a digital platform like eg. CGScholar. 

​A students paritipation in a group project could be peer reviewed during and after the project ends. The reviewers could be students as wells as teachers and examinators. The single student would be building a sort of knowledge reputation, signaling to potential group members that this student is at a certain skill level. In addition the individual student would be incentivised to work at gaining points in different categories, and not just pursuing tasks in which they are already competent. 

The skillpoints gathered by the students could also replace the normal grading system, and even make way for a more reflexsive assesment structure in higher education, since student would working to gain a certain amount of points, and not just be graded at the end of each semester. 

What do my fellow e-Learners think? Have you experienced some of the same issues with regards to collaborative intelligence, group work and learning differentiation? Do you see any pitfalls in my proposal of a new system? 

I would very much like to hear your comments. 

Yours sincerely

Thomas Struve Mørch