Chapter 1

16

EFFECT OF COLLABORATIVE LEARNING APPROACH ON ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT, SOCIAL SKILL DEVELOPMENT

AND MOTIVATION LEVEL OF SECONDARY SCHOOL

STUDENTS IN PAKISTAN STUDIES

By

EID AKBAR

(113-NUN-0522)

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

In

Education

FACULTY OF ARTS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

NORTHERN, UNIVERSITY, NOWSHERA

PAKISTAN 2015

DECLARATION

I hereby declare that the material presented in my thesis, titled, Effect of Collaborative Learning Approach on the Academic Achievement, social skill development and motivation level of Secondary School Students in the subject of Pakistan Studies completed under the supervision of Prof. Dr Rabia Tabassum, is my own work and nothing is plagiarized.

___________________

(Eid Akbar)

CERTIFICATION

I certify that the contents and format of the thesis submitted by Mr Eid Akbar have been found satisfactory and the work is original to the best of my knowledge. I recommend it to be processed for evaluation by External Examiners for the award of the degree.

____________________________

(Dr. Rabia Tabassum)

APPROVAL SHEET

It is certified that the contents and format of the thesis, titled, Effect of Collaborative Learning Approach on the Academic Achievement, Social Skill Development and Motivation Level of Secondary School Students in the subject of Pakistan Studies, submitted by Mr Eid Akbar have been found satisfactory for the requirements of the degree, hence, approved for the award of Ph. D degree in Education.

Supervisor: ____________________________

(Dr. Rabia Tabassum)

Member: ______________________________

(Prof. Dr. R. A. Farooq)

Member: ______________________________

(Dr. Muhammad Nasir)

External Examiner:________________________

Date: _________Dr. Rafaqat Ali Akbar

DeanDirector

Faculty of Arts and Social SciencesBoard of Advanced Studies and Research

Dedication

Dedicated to all those people who are playing their role

positively in gaining and imparting education in

the most serious conditions

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgementsxv

Abstractxvi

Chapter 1:INTRODUCTION1

1.1STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM4

1.2OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY4

1.3HYPOTHESES/ASSUMPTIONS4

1.4SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY5

1.5METHOD AND PROCEDURE5

1.5.1Population5

1.5.2Sample5

1.5.3Research Instrument6

1.5.4Collection of Data6

1.5.5Analysis of Data7

1.6RATIONALE OF THE STUDY7

Chapter 2:REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE9

2.1 LEARNING9

2.1.1Cognitive Learning Theory9

2.1.2Behavioral Learning Theory10

2.1.3Social Learning Theory10

2.1.4Humanistic Approach to Learning11

2.1.5Constructivist Learning Theory11

2.1.6Perceptions from the above Definitions11

2.2.COLLABORATIVE LEARNING APPROACH12

2.2.1Introduction12

2.2.2Collaborative Learning12

2.2.3Goals of Collaborative Learning15

2.2.4Essential Five Elements of Collaborative Learning15

2.2.5Components of Classroom-based Collaborative

Learning16

2.2.6Teachers Role in Classroom-based

Collaborative Activities 18

2.2.7Students Roles in Classroom-based Collaborative

Activities 19

2.2.8Characteristics of Effective Classroom-based

Collaborative Learning Approach19

2.2.9Collaborative Learning Techniques21

2.2.10Strategies for Effective Collaborative Learning35

2.2.11. Benefits of the Collaborative Learning Approach35

2.2.12. Difference between Collaborative and Cooperative

Learning Approach35

2.2.13Role of Collaborative Learning Approach41

2.2.14What does Collaborative Learning Produce?41

2.2.15Process of Collaborative Learning42

2.2.16Five Phases of Designing Instruction for

Collaborative Learning42

2.2.17Learning Theory behind Collaborative Learning44

2.2.18Collaborative Learning and Contemporary

Educational Philosophies52

2.3SOCIAL SKILLS DEVELOPMENT56

2.3.1Some Good Outcomes of Good Social Skills 59

2.3.2Some Poor Results of Poor Social Skills60

2.3.3Approaches to Social skills Assessment61

2.4MOTIVATION64

2.4.1Types of Motivation67

2.4.2Different Perspectives and Motivation69

2.4.3Importance of Motivation69

2.4.4Sub-scales or Indicators of Motivation70

2.5RELATED RESULTS IN PREVIOUS STUDIES71

2.5.1Collaborative Learning and Academic Achievement71

2.5.2Collaborative Learning and Students Retention

Level79

2.5.3Social Skills Development and Collaborative

Learning80

2.5.4Collaborative Learning and Motivation Level82

Chapter 3:METHOD AND PROCEDURE86

3.1POPULATION86

3.2SAMPLE86

3.3RESEARCH INSTRUMENT87

3.3.1 Pilot-testing Results91

3.3.2 Validity of Pre-test and Post-test91

3.3.3Reliability of Pre-test and Post-test91

3.4RESEARCH DESIGN92

3.5VERIABLES OF THIS STUDY94

3.6DELIMATATION OF THE STUDY94

3.7INSTRUCTIONAL SITUATION94

3.8TREATMENT95

3.9COLLECTION OF DATA111

3.9.1Quantitative Data Collection111

3.9.2Qualitative Data Collection112

3.10ANALYSIS OF DATA114

3.10.1Quantitative Data Analysis114

3.10.2Qualitative Data Analysis115

Chapter 4:ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA117

4.1ANALYSIS OF QUANTITATIVE DATA117

4.2ANALYSIS OF QUALITATIVE DATA133

4.2.1Social Skills Development133

4.2.2Improvement in Motivation Level144

4.3DISCUSSION155

Chapter 5:SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS160

5.1SUMMARY160

5.2CONCLUSIONS162

5.3RECOMMENDATIONS162

5.4FUTURE RESEARCH163

BIBLIOGRAPHY165

ANNEXURES193

LIST OF TABLES

Table NoTitle Page No

1Difference between cooperative and collaborative learning approaches36

2Comparison between collaborative learning approach and traditional

teaching method39

3Allocation of the sample students according to their achievement level87

4Observation techniques and their conditions113

5Significance of difference between mean achievement scores of control

and experimental groups on pre-test117

6Significance of difference between mean achievement scores of control

and experimental groups on post-test118

7Significance of difference between mean achievement scores of high

achieving students of control and experimental groups on pre-test119

8Significance of difference between mean achievement scores of high

achieving students of control and experimental groups on post-test121

9Significance of difference between mean achievement scores of lower

achieving students of control and experimental groups on pre-test122

10Significance of difference between mean achievement scores of low

achieving students of control and experimental groups on post-test123

11Significance of difference between mean achievement scores of

experimental group on pre-test and post-test124

12Significance of difference between mean achievement scores of high

achieving students for experimental group on pre-test and post-test125

13Significance of difference between mean achievement scores of Low

Achieving Students for experimental group on pre-test and post-test126

14Detailed table about number, mean scores, SD scores and grand mean

of the low achieving students and high achieving students for control

and experimental groups on post-test127

15One Way ANOVA for significance of difference between mean scores

of high achieving students and low achieving students for control and

experimental groups on Post-test128

16Significance of difference between mean achievement scores of control

and experimental groups on retention test128

17Significance of difference between mean scores of high achieving

students of control and experimental groups on retention-test129

18Significance of difference between mean achievement scores of high

achieving students of control and experimental groups on retention test131

19Detailed table about number, mean scores, SD scores and grand mean of

The low achieving students and high achieving students for control and

Experimental groups on retention-test132

20One Way ANOVA for significant difference between mean scores of

high achieving students and las for control and experimental groups on

retention-test 132

21Percentage of alternatives of each sub-scale of social skill on each

technique and time143

28Percentage of alternatives of each sub-scale of motivation on each

technique/time154

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure NoTitle Page No

1 Common group-goals achieved by many collaborative learning activities15

2Sub-scales of social skill taken from the CASELs theoretical framework,

identified by IAE59

3Picture (Symbolic Outlook) of the Fishbowl Activity96

4Figurative presentation of Syndicate Activity (SA)101

5Figurative presentation of Paired Annotation Activity (PAA)106

6Percentage of academic achievements of control and experimental

groups on pre-test118

7Percentage of academic achievements of control and experimental

groups on post-test119

8Percentage of academic achievements of HAS of control and experimental

groups on pre-test120

9Percentage of academic achievements of HAS of control and experimental

groups on post-test121

10Percentage of academic achievements of LAS of control and experimental

groups on pre-test122

11Percentage of academic achievements of LAS of control and experimental

groups on post-test123

12Percentage of academic achievements of experimental group on pre-test

and post-test125

13Percentage of academic achievements of HAS for experimental group on

pre-test and post-test.126

14Percentage of academic achievements of LAS for experimental group on

pre-test and post-test127

15Percentage of academic achievements of control and experimental groups

on retention-test129

16Percentage of academic achievements of HAS of control and experimental

groups on retention-test130

17Percentage of academic achievements of LAS of experimental and control

groups on retention-test131

ELLIPSIS OF THIS STUDY

ANOVAAnalysis Of Variance

AQAsking Question (sub-scale of motivation)

CASELCombination of Academic and Social-Emotional Learning

Coll.LCollaborative Learning

CommCommunication (sub-scale of social skill)

CopCo-operation (sub-scale of social skill)

DiscDiscipline (sub-scale of social skill)

DfDegree of Freedom

DisttDistrict

EMISEducation Management Information System

FAFishbowl Activity (collaborative learning technique)

FPFishbowl Panel

GHSGovernment High School

GWGroup-Work (sub-scale of social skill)

HASHigh Achieving Students

HoNull Hypothesis

IAEInternational Academy of Education

KPKKhyber Pakhtun Khwa (a province of Pakistan)

LASLower Achieving Students

NSRNowshera (a district of KPK)

PAAPaired Annotation Activity (collaborative learning technique)

PECPanel in the External Circle

POST-TESTPost-Hoch Achievement Test

PRE-TESTPrevious Achievement Test

P.SPakistan Studies

IntInitiation (a sub-scale of social skill)

R CRandomly Selected Control Group

R ERandomly Selected Experimental Group

S ASyndicate Activity (collaborative learning technique)

S DStandard Deviation

SDEStandard Error

T TTaking Turn (a sub-scale of motivation)

WFTWait For Turn (a sub-scale of social skill)

ACKNOWLEDEMENTS

First of all the researcher is going to thanks the Supreme Authority (Allah almighty) who is the real campaigner of every man and who succeed everyone who struggle to accomplish his/her own task.

It is great honor for the researcher to present the heartiest thanks to his research supervisor, Professor Dr Rabia Tabassum for her kind and sympathetic supervision, valuable suggestions, passionate guidance, and loving attitude, through which the researcher became motivated and completed the present thesis.

The researcher is also deeply indebted to Professor Dr. R.A. Farooq (Dean Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences; and member of the supervisory committee) who treated the researcher just like his sons Nauman and Zeeshan and that whose loving glory keep the researcher always alert to work hard, accurately and continuously for conducting meaningful and evidence-based research. The researcher is, definitely, proud of to be the student of such a legend educationist.

Rector of the university Dr Abdul Majeed, Controller of Examinations Mr Zafar Iqbal, and Deputy Registrar Mr Muhammad Malik are also thanked for their kind and appropriate possible facilitation during the whole Ph.D session; course-work and research-work.

Parents and wife of the researcher also deserve to be thanked for their perpetual prayers and encouragement in every difficult moment.

EID AKBAR

ABSTRACT

This study was aimed at investigating the effect of collaborative learning approach on the academic achievement, social skills development and motivation level of secondary school students in public sector. This study also investigated effect of three collaborative learning techniques (fishbowl, syndicate, and paired annotation). A true-experimental (pre-test post-test equivalent group design) was used. The objectives of the study were; (i) To explore the effects of collaborative learning approach on the academic achievement of the students in the subject of Pakistan Studies; (ii) To explore the difference between pre-test and post-test scores of both the control and experimental groups; (iii) To investigate the effectiveness of collaborative learning approach for both the high achievers and low achievers; and (iv) To explore the effect of collaborative learning techniques on social skills development and motivation level of the students; (v) To measure the retention level of both control and experimental groups. For achieving these objectives null hypotheses were formulated and tested.

The 281284 secondary school students in Khyber Pukhtunkhwa constituted the population of this experimental study. Sixty eight students of 9th class of Government High School No. 1, Nowshera Kalan were taken as sample of the study that were divided into two groups; control and experimental groups on the bases of pre-test scores. For this purpose pair-random sampling technique was applied. Students in the control group were taught through traditional learning activities (lecture method) in the classroom, while students in the experimental group were given treatment as collaborative learning. Data was collected through pre-test, post-test, retention test, and an observation log. The collected numerical data was analyzed with the help of mean, standard deviation, t-test and ANOVA. While the qualitative data collected through observation log, was analyzed qualitatively in the form of descriptions. The major findings were found as under; (1) Collaborative learning activities (fishbowl, syndicate, and paired annotation) improved academic achievement of secondary school students. (2) Retention level of the students who learn collaboratively was better than those who learn through traditional learning methods. (3) Collaborative learning activities developed social skills of the students. (4) Collaborative learning activities improved motivation level of the students.

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

Mankind is social and likes to learn in social circumstances. And thus, collaborative learning approach is a proper answer to this leaning in human nature. Therefore, most of the teachers consider collaborative interaction as beneficial to learning and helps to improve the learning process, encourages their motivation and interest, and helps them learn how to cooperate with people not only in a classroom setting but also in real life (Zarei & Gilani, 2012).

John Dewey suggested that students should not only learn from teachers but also from their peers. And peer learning is possible in group-work because students in group work not only learn from their peers, but also train new skills and improve learning ability. The statement, Sink or swim together (Roger & Johnson, 1994, p. 1) highlights the importance of group-work. During the 1970s, group work methods appeared as a new effective approach in the United States which resultantly induced other countries too. Johnson and Johnson (1989) are of the view that collaborative learning increases students capabilities in leadership and effective communication. It also enables them to handle disputes constructively. John Dewey (1966) believed that education was a process of living and that it is the responsibility of schools to take over childrens interests, increase and develop their horizons, and support them in responding appropriately to new ideas. In addition, learning should not only be an active and dynamic process based on childrens expanding curiosity in their world but also child-centered and responsive to the childs own developing social interests and activities. It is the students interaction which makes them able to learn social behavior, receive feedback and understand subject matter easily (Gillies and Ashman, 2003). McWhaw et al, (2003) are of the view that societal changes (team-work/group-learning) have shifted the teaching learning process from teacher to student therefore learner-centered approaches of learning are emerging very rapidly. Therefore, the role of the teacher shifts from the sage on the stage to the guide on the side (Gillies and Ashman, 2003) pp-69-70. Group learning leads to academic achievement and cognitive benefits but also promotes student learning (Cockrell et al. 2000; Hiltz 1998; Johnson et al. 2000; and Slavin 1992). Group-learning increases the development of critical thinking skills and promotes greater transfer of learning (Brandon and Hollingshead 1999; Cockrell et al. 2000). Group learning also aids in the development of social skills such as communication, presentation, problem-solving, leadership, delegation and organization (Cheng and Warren 2000).

In Pakistan the current position of education is not satisfactory. According to the National Education Census of Pakistan there are about 50,585 villages in the country in which 10,908 villages have no educational institution in it. Literacy rate in Pakistan is 65 percent (Ahmad, 2009, pp. 10). Population of 5-16 years old children is 53 million in which half population is out of school (Editorial, The Daily Mashriq, 2014). Enrollment in higher education is 2.9 percent. Drop-out rate is 59 percent before completing secondary education. According to World Bank recommendations every state/country is responsible to spend six percent budget of the GDP but Pakistan could not exceed from 2.7 percent of the GDP. In its neighborhood South Korea spends $ 130 per student, Malaysia spends $ 128, and India spends $ 9 while Pakistan is spending only $ 3 (Ahmad, 2009; pp. 5-6). Moreover, education system of Pakistan dispossesses the students of their inherent abilities of observation, reflection, critical thinking, questioning, enquiry, curiosity, reasoning, imagination, discovery, experimenting and creativity (Ahmad, 2009; pp. 17-18). It is also obvious that Pakistani education system kills creative and productive faculties of learners and makes them as passive learners rather than active participants (Farooq, 2014). Teaching/learning-process is limited to better numerical results in examinations. Many causes are there that Pakistan have not yet materialized the dream of prosperous and developed Pakistan, such as out-dated curriculum, less trained and non-enthusiastic teachers, non-coordinating and non-cooperative learning approaches, strategies, and methods toward principals of educational psychology and poor external/internal examination system, class system (produced by capitalism) for quality manpower in Pakistan, teacher-centered teaching approaches. In addition, good teachers are those who complete their lessons in-time and leave the learners do preparation for examination. The concentration of such teachers, no doubt, is on their own performance and do not determine whether the learner acquired the targeted goals or learned the desired lesson (Ahmad, 2009; pp. 10).

Since the most demanding thing of present day education, in general, in the world and particularly in Pakistan is that teaching/learning process must be learner-centered. In such a situation in Pakistan learning may be occurred if teachers facilitate learning by learners and by various ways/strategies that may widen the scope of learning-activities. These ways and means (approaches) need careful application of learning principles and instructional strategies (Ahmad, 2009; pp. 102 & 103). Especially at secondary level, teaching humanities, arts, and social sciences are wonderfully important to be taught in accordance with the modern learning approaches because these disciplines give students a sense of values, citizenship, and developing their social and spiritual aspects of education.

1.1STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

This study intended to examine the effectiveness of collaborative learning approach on the academic achievements; social skills development and motivation level of secondary school students in the subject of Pakistan Studies.

1.2OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

Major objectives of the study were:

1. To explore the effects of collaborative learning approach on the academic achievements of the students in the subject of Pakistan Studies.

2. To explore the difference between pre-test and post-test scores of both the control and experimental groups.

3. To investigate the effect of collaborative learning approach for both the high achievers and low achievers.

4. To measure the retention level of experimental and control groups.

5. To investigate the effect of collaborative learning approach on the social skills development and motivation level of the secondary school students.

1.3HYPOTHESES

To achieve the objectives of the study following null hypotheses were tested:

1. There is no significant difference between the mean scores of experimental and control groups on pre-test.

2. There is no significant difference between the mean scores of experimental and control groups on post-test.

3. There is no significant difference between the mean scores of high achievers of experimental and control groups on post-test.

4. There is no significant difference between the mean scores of low achievers of experimental and control groups on post-test.

5. There is no significant difference between the mean scores of experimental and control groups on retention test.

6. Collaborative learning does not improve social skills and motivation level of the students.

1.4SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

This experimental study will provide proper professional guidelines for making the teaching learning process more effective and will prove to be helpful by increasing the volume of students participation in the teaching learning process. This study will also provide base for future researchers interested in applying this learning approach in classroom-based environment at different grades or levels and in different subjects.

1.5METHOD AND PROCEDURE

1.5.1Population

The 281284 secondary school students (classes IX X) in public sector in Khyber Pukhtunkhwa constituted the population of this experimental study.

1.5.2Sample

Sixty eight students of 9th grade of Govt High School No. 1 Nowshera Kalan, District Nowshera were included in the sample. These students were divided into experimental and control groups through pair random sampling on the basis of pre-test scores.

1.5.3Research Instrument

Two teacher made tests, i.e. pre-test, post-test and an observation log were used as the research instruments of this study. Both the tests covered multiple choice items from first two chapters of the subject Pakistan Studies. The teacher-made pre-test helped to measure the academic achievements of the students before the treatment and the teacher-made post-test helped to measure the academic achievements of the students after the treatment. Pre-test was composed of ninety six multiple choice test items, selected unequally from the first two chapters of 9th grade Pakistan Studies. These two units were Ideology of Pakistan and Making of Pakistan.

The post-test included ninety test items, selected from the above mentioned chapters. Post-test was composed of five sections; section A comprised fifty multiple choice test items, section B included ten matching column test items, Section C was composed of ten true-false test items, Section D had ten completion type test items and section E included ten short questions. Wording and theme of the first fifty questions of the pre-test and post-test were the same but the remaining forty items of the post test were different in form but same in theme.

1.5.4Collection of Data

The data was collected in two ways and two forms; for investigating the academic achievements (quantitative data) of the whole sample, the researcher administered pre-test to the sample students before the treatment was started. Post-test was then administered to sixty one sample students after the treatment was over (seven students were found absent from the post-test). After the duration of two and half months a retention test was also administered to both the groups. Normally, the retention test is administered after one month when the treatment is over but the students were not available due to summer vacations from fifteenth June to first September. Therefore, retention test was administered one and half month late.

For collecting qualitative data in order to investigate the effects of the treatment (Collaborative Learning) on the students motivation level and social skills development, the researcher, developed and used a structured observation check-list, containing two sections; one for checking improvement in social skills and the other for motivation level of the students for experimental group. Both the sections were composed of six sub-categories.

1.5.5Analysis of Data

The numerical data, gathered through applying pre-test, post-test and retention-test was analyzed by applying t-test and ANOVA at 0.05 levels. The researcher, in this study, analyzed the qualitative data through typological analysis method. LeCompte and Preissle (1993, pp- 257) say that it is essentially a classificatory process wherein data are put into groups, subsets or categories on the basis of some clear criterion. Miles and Huberman (1984) call it process of secondary coding. Lofland (1970) states that, while creating typologies, the researcher must accumulate consciously all the data on how a participant addresses a specific problem. The researcher must classify the data into sets and subsets and present them in an ordered, named and numbered way for the reader.

1.6.RATIONALE OF THE STUDY

To advance reading comprehension and learning performance, learners can make use of the internet anytime and anywhere for sharing their composite annotations, and interact with others. That is why the web-based collaborative learning techniques are proposed to provide a flexible learning environment that will improve reading comprehension and learning performance of individual learners (Chen, Wang, & Chen, 2014). Though computer-supported or in other word web-based collaborative learning is, nowadays, very popular in the educational settings and numerous researches have been conducted on it yet classroom-based collaborative learning is essential very much because in this era of technology, still 62% of the participants in the seminar had a preference for the physical presence of the professor during the lecture (Cogburn, 2001). Many research studies on collaborative learning, teaching and reading such as (Behjat, 2011; Jacobs, 2000; Jacobs & Hannall, 2004; Klinger, 1999; Momtaz & Garner, 2010; OBrien, 2007), have been conducted but only a few of these studies are concerned with the issue of which technique is more effective. It goes without any argument that different collaborative techniques have different effects. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to try to fill part of the existing gap in an area in need of further exploration. The collaborative leaning approach is a learner-centered approach based on group-work. Pakistan Studies (for class 9th and above) is the developed form of Social Studies (for class 8th and below) and this subject is learnt very well through constructivist learning approach and collaborative learning techniques because it is collaborative in nature and wants students to learn together in pairs or in groups (Santrock, 2011).

Chapter 2

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

2.1. LEARNING

According to a well-known educational psychologist Santrock (2006) Learning scope is very vast. It includes academic and non-academic behaviors and that learning cannot be limited to school only, it may take place everywhere, when individuals face or make use of their earlier experiences. For learning, there must be an environment and it may be formal (inside the school) or informal (outside the school). Verginia Tech (accessed on 25/07/2010) defines learning environment as it is generally constructivist in nature that make the learners busy in sense-making about any problem. There are four crucial elements of learning environment; enabling context, resources, set of instruments and scaffolds. Downes, (2007) says that a learning environment is similar to some real-world application or discipline. Reeves (2006) mentions some factors of learning environment such as; goals, context, instructional design, learners tasks, teachers role, learners role, illustrations, and assessment. Different theorists define learning differently.

2.1.1. Cognitive Learning Theory

Cognitive learning theorists say, Learning is the process of producing positive changes in the nervous system or in behavior (Rabia, 2004). This learning occurs through assimilation and accommodation. Learning is the process through which a learner gains, proceeds and saves or accepts information. Learning is a view point accepted by learner, allowing her/him to get information, adopts attitude and practices through observation.

2.1.2. Behavioral Learning Theory

Hourcade (2008) says that behaviorism or behaviorists look at learning from the perspective of observing and measuring behaviors as a response to stimuli. But they close their eyes to what happens in the brain and treats it as a black box. Behaviorists are of the view that learning is the permanent change in the behavior of individual. In other words a relatively lasting change in behavior that occurs as a result of persons interaction with environment is called learning. Behavioral learning is the acquisition of new behavior through conditioning. Skinner (1938) is of the view that learning occurs through operant conditioning (Law of effect). Pavlov (1927) states that learning occurs when nature reflects respond to stimulus. Management scholars are widely convinced that learning is a highly problematic concept (Clegg, Hudson, & Steel, 2003). It is also becoming unambiguous that learning is a profoundly reflexive construct. Because on one hand it requires the undoing of earlier learning (Chia, 2003) and on the other hand, it is now extensively acknowledged that learning is not a process taking place within the realm of learners cognition (Tsoukas, 2002).

2.1.3. Social Learning Theory

Learning cannot be limited to ones own schooling it occurs throughout ones life. Social learning theorists claims people learn from one another through observation, imitation and modeling. Brown and Duguid (2000) are of the view that learning is a social process and that peers networks are similarly important resources to any faculty or institution.

2.1.4. Humanistic Approach to Learning

This learning approach focuses on human experience and reasoning. Its radical aspect is The central role of learner in learning. Learning is a natural human activity. Animals also learn but not intensively and intentionally like human beings.

2.1.5. Constructivists Learning Theory

Constructivists such as Bruner (1996), Vygotsky (1986) and Dewey (1963) say that learning involves constructing ones own knowledge from ones own experience. According to constructivists student constructs or builds ideas and concepts based upon current and past knowledge or experiences. Learning is the individual growth of a man through co-operative interaction with others. it enables a learner to act better in his/her environment, advance and accept behaviors, create and maintain beneficial relationships and get his/her desirable success. Learning is an activity and experience making contents and gaining patterns. Learning is not the direct product of some study of facts about the world but it is a byproduct of participation in cultural activity which increases literacy abilities of a learner.

2.1.6. From the above Definitions it is Perceived that

Learning occurs through two sources; experience and training. Learning will occur if it is needed or it has some specific objectives. Learning has three important factors environment, heredity and psychology. Learning occurs in the environment formally inside the school and informally outside the school. Learning is dependent variable upon (i) maturation (ii) motivation (iii) growth and development. Learning has four crucial elements i-e Person, interaction, environment and change in behavior. Change in behavior of a person takes place in the following forms: (i) habits, (ii) conduct / manner, (iii) practices, (iv) tendencies and inclinations, (v) understanding / comprehension, (vi) insight and sensitivity, (vii) skills and knowledge. And that learning is a process not a product. Learning is not something done to students but something that students themselves do.

2.2. COLLABORATIVE LEARNING APPROACH

2.2.1 Introduction

It is obvious that the new era of education is focusing on making the students able to be more active than the teacher in learning through their own investigative process. It is also tried to help students learn how to organize and construct their own views, reflect on problems, form hypothesis and seek evidence. Such types of processes make the students able to build their thinking skills and improve their problem-solving abilities for facilitating learning of scientific concepts and ideas (Change et al., 2003). The purpose of the todays classrooms is to engage the students in active learning, and for the promotion of active learning, therefore, teachers of all types of subjects in all kinds of educational institutions are trying to incorporate collaborative learning into their teaching. (Doaz et al., 2010)

2.2.2. Collaborative Learning

Before defining collaborative learning, it is essential to define the word collaboration. It is the mutual engagement of participants in a co-ordinate effort to solve a problem together. Gokhale (1995) defines collaborative learning as it is an instruction method in which students at a range of performance levels work together in small groups toward a common goal" (pp. 22). Lakkala (2007) further revealed that students are active representatives who share ideas, solve problems, use various information sources and create knowledge together in collaborative learning. In collaborative activities, each member in a group is playing a role to the success of the entire group. Group members work collectively to achieve common learning goals.

According to Daniels and Walker (2001) this learning approach is beneficial within complex and difficult situation. As a frame work it stresses learning, understanding and the development of improvements in the problem situation. This learning approach also emphasizes talking with rather than talking at. At this learning approach learners talk with, discuss and thus develop improvements of the problem situation. Within the discussion active listening, questioning and arguments take place. For discussing situation improvements 1-2-6 approach is used. The Greenwood Dictionary of Education defines it as collaborative learning is a method of teaching and learning in which students work together to explore a considerable question or create a meaningful project. Basically it is the umbrella term covering many forms of learning from small group projects to the more particular forms of group-work. A group of students discussing a lecture or a shared assignment is the example of collaborative learning. Zarei & Gilani (2012) say that collaborative learning is "a situation in which two or more people learn or attempt to learn something together and solve a problem" or "mutual engagement of participants in a coordinated effort to solve a problem together" (p-5). Barkley, Cross & Major (2005) have noted that "collaborative learning is to work with another or others"

Concept of small groups is that they may have 2-3, 4-10, 8-12, and 20-30 members. Pairs/threes are good for basic communication skills practice (listening, questioning, and clarifying). They not only generate data but also check out data and share their interpretations, make sense of confidence by active involvement (self-belief), put down foundation for sharing and co-operating in bigger group. Groups, consist of 410 members, are also very effective in functioning because they generate ideas, criticize ideas, usually sufficient members are there to enable allocation of roles and responsibilities, therefore a widespread work can be tackled easily e.g. project work, problem-based learning, syndicate exercises etc. Groups, consisting of more than ten members, are become difficult to hold them on to a task focus. Though, in large size of group members, workshop activities are possible yet it hinders the discussion process and the teacher may face difficulties in maintaining accommodating educational environment (McCrorie, 2006).

Collaborative learning is a process that encourages constructive discussion of ideas, collaborative arguments and interaction among participants that is why it is based on social learning theory constructivism. Brandon (1999) says that it was basically adopted in classroom-based environment, but with the popularization of internet facility it was used mostly in web-based environment especially in higher education. With respect to abilities learners are not the same, thus if they work together, they can support each other and advance their learning process. It is suitable and powerful not only for high-achieving students but also for low-achieving students (Lai, 2011). Collaborative learning approach may be used in two ways; online/web/computer-based method and classroom/paper-based method. This was also proved by (Inkpen et al, 1999; Scott et al, 2003). They explored the effect of using multiple input-devices to support childrens collaboration. So they found that children were more engaged and active while using input-devices. They also found that children preferred having their own input-devices rather than sharing. They also found that childrens collaborations in these settings were similar to collaborations in paper-based activities (Hourcade, 2008, p-336).

2.2.3. Goals of Collaborative Learning

Zarei and Gilani (2012) affirm that students in one collaborative learning-group have the same academic purpose therefore they try to complete a task together through collaborative effort (p-15). Collaborative learning-groups are not only completing a targeted task together, but also helping each other to solve a problem; consequently they need to decide as a group. Collaborative learning is for all the students to help each other learn all the materials together. In other words its goal is to allow students to work together to maximize their own and others learning.

Figure 1: Common group-goals achieved by different collaborative learning activities.

2.2.4. Essential Five Elements of Classroom-based Collaborative Learning

According to Roger & Johnson (1994) this learning approach organizes different students and the tutor to direct the small group learning in the presence of these five essential components that must be truly collaborative: (a) Clear and positive interdependence among students (b) Regular group self-evaluation (c) Interpersonal behaviors that promote each members learning (d) Individual accountability and personal responsibility (e) Using sufficient interpersonal skills. Besides these elements mentioned above some other elements of group-learning are; (a) Positive interdependence; Group-members are aware that they should achieve their common learning goals through collaborative activities. (b) Individual accountability; A group-member (each student) is responsible for his/her own learning. Though, at the same time, all the group-members are responsible for the groups success. (c) Face to face promotive interaction; each group-member should work together with the other members of the group. This type of cooperation in which group-members help each other and achieve a targeted task creates an environment where each member learns more than he/she would have learned individually. (d) Social skills; Students working in a collaborative group improve their social skills. They learn how to resolve a problem and take a decision as a group. (e) Group processing; team-members should observe group-functioning and groups activities as a learning unit and gives suggestions for developing the learning process. Group-processing is a vehicle for learning the targeted topic or lesson and improving social skills among group-members (Johnson, Johnson, and Holubec, 1990).

2.2.5. Components of Classroom-based Collaborative Learning

According to Brandon (1999) there are five components of classroom-based collaborative learning: (a) Peer (b) Traditional classroom learning environment (c) Tutor (d) Communication and (e) Learning group.

Pauli, Mohiyeddini, Bray, Michie, & Street (2007) are of the view that learning groups can face many types of social challenges, which intervene with the social process of learning and task achievement. These challenges can range from perceived inappropriateness of personality characteristics to emerging problems in social relationships. While conducting a group learning activity, for example, challenges can arise as a result of differences in particular goals, priorities and expectations, or conflicts generated by interpersonal dynamics, such as different ways of working or communicating, the tendency of some individuals to depend on others to do their share of the work, and power dynamics among members (Arvaja, Salovaara, Hakkinen, & Jarvela, 2007). These challenges can also be triggered by circumstances external to the task itself. For example, group members may experience practical hurdles that constrain their full engagement and participation ( Jarvenoja & Jarvela, 2009; Volet & Mansfield, 2006) and resultantly place great pressure on the students to maintain social development and motivation level and to achieve their targeted common group goals (Pierson, Cerutti, and Swab (2006) point out that collaborative learning needs interaction among students. If students are aware of the goal of the interaction, they would participate more and more in group activities). Thus when individuals characteristics, goals, and situational requirements conflict and create inconsistency, clear-cut negative emotions are produced, collaborative learning comes forward to end them by forcing individuals to exercise control over their emotions, their motivation, and sometimes their social environment. Researches, conducted on collaborative learning, shows that each collaborative learning group produces its own social dynamics and it is through members interactions that engagement, as performed motivation, is afforded or restricted (Jarvenoja & Jarvela, 2009). This shows the importance of enhanced understanding the dynamics and interpersonal coordination of shared and self-regulatory processes (Vauras, Salonen, & Kinnunen, 2009), which occurs in collaborative learning activities. Collaborative learning groups as social systems can come into contact with disturbances and ongoing challenges. These necessitate coordination of contacts to sustain the system as a whole and to re-establish engagement. In collaborative learning groups, socio-emotional challenges generated during collaborative learning activities, force individuals to cope psychologically with their emotions to reinstate their motivation and engagement.

2.2.6. Teachers Role in Classroom-based Collaborative Activities

Farrell and Jacobs (2010) recommend that the teacher should take part in classroom-based collaborative activities like a member of the group, and he/she should provide them chances to learn on their own. Tinzmann, et al. (1990) mentions three roles of teachers in a classroom-based collaborative learning. The 1st role is as a facilitator. Teachers connect new information to the prior knowledge and facilitate collaborative learning by designing different tasks. The 2nd role for the teacher is modeling. The teacher guides them by demonstrating himself/herself. The 3rd role is coaching. The teachers help students to adopt an appropriate strategy and use it in the learning process. Faryadi (2007) tells that teacher is like a friend or helper in classroom-based collaborative learning. Teachers support and convince students to perform their activities together. Wang, (2007) sees the teacher as a supporter, an observer, a change agent, and an advisor in a classroom-based collaborative learning. Teachers do interfere in the learning process but very little and indirectly. The teaching-process, no doubt, is teacher-driven but cooperative/collaborative learning-process is a student-centered. Jolliffe (2007) also argues that the teacher is an observer in the cooperative/collaborative classroom. He/she monitors the entire class activities. For this purpose a teacher can utilize talented students services because monitoring and observing the entire class-activities is difficult job. Teacher plays his/her role as facilitator, organizer or guide. He or she participate the group negotiation if he/she thinks that it is necessary or peers cannot communicate each other properly or the students need. The prime responsibility of a facilitator or organizer is to ensure whether the group functions well or not (Ellington and Race, 1993). As in every teaching technique/strategy the science of teaching must meet the art of practice. Instructor need time to learn the science and improve the expertise of using collaborative learning. This (science/art) includes knowing when and how to use positive interdependence, individual accountability, promotive interaction, social skills development and group processing (McWhaw et al, 2003).

2.2.7. Students Roles in Classroom-based Collaborative Activities

Describing students role in collaborative activities (Farrell & Jacobs, 2010; Tinzmann, et al 1990) are of the view that students are the center of the collaborative learning-process. These authors also articulate that in different collaborative learning techniques/activities students are collaborators and active participants. Since students play various roles in collaborative learning-activities such as facilitators, time keepers, checkers, encouragers, recorders, summarizers, elaborators, and observers in their own groups therefore they should have a chance to try different roles and responsibilities in the classroom for their groups success.

2.2.8. Characteristics of Effective Classroom-based Collaborative Learning Approach

The main characteristics of classroom-based collaborative learning approach are (a) Participation, (b) Social grounding, (c) Collaborative learning conversation skills, (d) Performance analysis and group processing, and (e) Promotive interaction. As in every teaching technique/strategy the science of teaching must meet the art of practice. Instructors need time to learn the science and improve the expertise of using collaborative learning. This (science/art) includes knowing when and how to use positive interdependence, individual accountability, promotive interaction, social skills development and group processing (McWhaw et al, 2003). Tinzmann, et al. (1990) points out the following four characteristics of collaborative classrooms; (a) shared knowledge among teachers and students: In traditional classrooms, teacher is the only source for giving information. Thus there is one-way to give information and knowledge; teacher-to-student. But in collaborative classrooms communication is two-way; teacher-to-student and student-to-teacher. (b) Shared authority among teacher and students: in collaborative classrooms teacher shares his/her own power with students. Only teacher is not responsible for teaching the students directly but they also try to learn by constructing their own knowledge. (c) Teacher as a mediator: the third characteristic of collaborative classrooms is that the teacher just helps students connect new information to their experiences and prior knowledge and helps them to learn by themselves. (d) Heterogeneous grouping of students: in collaborative learning groups different students have different knowledge backgrounds and capabilities, so they have a chance to convey their knowledge and information to the other group-members. One useful source to facilitate collaborative learning is to introduce teams (groups) that have been assigned to work on class-related tasks. The group or team dynamics (team performance, leadership style, and the interdependence between team members) can have a sound influence on the effectiveness of this method for student learning (Jago, 1982). In order to complete the task successfully collaboration in groups will require a significant amount of shared interaction, decision-making, and responsibility (Ingram & Parker, 2002). The collaborative group activities, mentioned above, are strongly influenced by the level of trust among group members, particularly when the completion of ones own work depends on the ongoing collaboration of another person or group of people (Bos, et al, 2002; and Zheng, et al 2002). Consequently, trust is an important factor for interdependent group members to work together effectively.

2.2.9. Collaborative Learning Techniques

According to Bruffee (1999), collaborative learning techniques are more difficult to define than cooperative methods. And Rose (2002: p 17) says "they consist of an extensive choice of strategies. There are more than 100 collaborative learning techniques, so it is teachers' responsibility to select one or more of these techniques to be used in classrooms. Haenen and Tuithof (2008) maintain that collaborative learning techniques are a strong tool for student-centered learning/classrooms. Cuseo (2002) divides collaborative techniques into two different categories, dyadic teams (pairing structures/two-members) and small group structures (more than two members). Sub-types of dyadic teams are; lecture processing structures (e.g. active knowledge sharing), discussion structures (e.g. think-pair-square), reading and writing structures (e.g. cooperative dyads), and peer tutoring structures (e.g. drill-review pairs). Small group structures may be divided into brain-storming structures (e.g. unstructured sorts), pairing structures within-groups (e.g. team-pair-solo), writing structures (e.g. team journal), and information processing and studying structures (e.g. cooperative concept mapping). Though in the conclusion section of their study , Zarei and Gilani (2012) decide, based on the obtained results, that collaborative learning-techniques are not likewise advantageous and that these techniques appear to have uncommon effects yet in the light of numerous studies on collaborative techniques it has been proved that these techniques have better effects than the traditional teaching techniques.

Using classroom based collaborative learning techniques is essential and important to learning but the teacher should be aware of different collaborative learning techniques and also identify which of them is more appropriate and useful for her/his classroom. These techniques help students work together more effectively (Jacobs, Power, & Loh, 2002). But how teachers can identify which technique is more appropriate for their classrooms is an important question. Teachers should have enough awareness about collaborative learning techniques if they want to succeed in teaching. Using accurate and acceptable collaborative learning techniques makes the learning-process more meaningful for learners. These learners share their information, give and receive ideas/opinions to and from their classmates (Zarei & Gilani, 2012). In order to carry out the collaborative learning activities, an appropriate collaborative learning technique must be set and followed by all the users (collaborators). There may be different kinds of collaborative techniques (Barkley, Cross & Major, 2005), techniques for discussion like Buzz Groups, techniques for reciprocal teaching like Fishbowl, techniques for problem solving like Analytic Teams, techniques for using graphic information organizers like Word Webbing, and techniques for focusing on writing like the Round Table.

Some other collaborative learning techniques are; Fishbowl, Stand-up and share, Active learning, Snowball, Structured problem solving, Seminar, Jigsaw, Note comparing, Syndicate, Buzz groups, Paired annotations, Think-pair-share, Roundtable, and Three-stay-one-strayed (Dillenbourg, 1999; Gerlach, 1994; and MacGregor, 1990). Durkee (2014) has identified these sixteen collaborative learning techniques; Group Discussion, Three-step Interview, Jigsaw, Note-taking Pairs, Fishbowl, Learning Cell, Critical Debates, Round Robin, Buzz Groups, Assigned Discussion Leader, Individual Presentation, Write/Pair/Share, Think/Pair/Share, Turn to Your Partner, Group Survey, Clusters. There are numerous factors which affect selection of collaborative learning techniques, such as the class- size, length of time, and the nature of tasks that students receive in their groups. Oliva (1992), in his study, recommended seven types of groups (collaborative learning groups), used by instructors/teachers in their teaching of mathematics. These groups are; the horse-shoe, round table, syndicate, buzz, brainstorming, nominal and fish bowl groups.

Think-pair-share is a short and risk-free collaborative learning technique, particularly suitable for less-experienced learners and teachers. Peer commenting technique is used in a face-to-face interaction. The learners comment on the work of their group members. Since the learners rely upon each other for feedback, thus interdependence is provided to them. Students Team is a collaborative learning technique in which teacher supports learners to acquire skill of working together and supporting each other in learning and answering a question. In collaborative learning approach successful students teams are built around three components: Promotion of ongoing accountability, Linked and mutually reinforcing assignments, and Practices that stimulate ideas exchange. Pause procedure; in order to introduce different types of active and collaborative learning structures into the traditional teaching (lecture) method, the pause procedure is applied in the classroom-based learning environment. After every fifteen minutes the teacher pauses in his/her lecture for 2-3 minutes and thus the students get opportunity to clarify, modify and save the information already taught to him. This technique is implemented through advising the students to summarize the key points of the teacher with their group-members. Buzz Groups; A large group of students is subdivided into smaller groups of 4-5 students to consider the issues surrounding a problem. After twenty minutes of discussion, one member of each sub-group presents the findings of the sub-group to the whole group.

a. Fishbowl Activity (FA)

Fish bowl is a collaborative learning technique applied in classrooms where group dynamics (team performance, leadership style, and the interdependence between group members) are important. This technique allows its members for a more profound discussion of any given topic. In a language arts-classroom based learning, it can determine how groups can collaborate to assemble meaning from a text. They develop peer writing and discussions as students analyze a text and connect their responses with others (Barkley et al, 2005).

It is a strategy used in classrooms and other settings where active groups are important. This technique allows for a richer discussion of any given topic, and it frequently helps build community by focusing attention on the ways that particular group might work together more productively. As students examine a text and attach their responses with others', they model peer writing circle discussions. Two concentric circles are formed. The interior group (fishbowl panel) discusses a topic, while the outside group (panel in the external circle) observes (SI Showcase, 2009). There are two groups; fishbowl panel and panel in the external circle. In particular, the first group works on inquiring about other points-of-view, listening to and summarizing ideas, and other communication skills while solving the given problem. The second group focuses their concentration on the vibrant group and make sure they are prepared to discuss how well or poorly the first group worked together to solve the problem. After the given length of time, the class discusses what had and had not come about during the activity (Bruffee, 1999).i. Steps for setting up fishbowl activity (FA)

Fishbowl is used in many ways in the classroom. A small group of students (as many as half the class) place themselves in an interior circle (fishbowl panel) in the middle of a room. This small group will perform a discussion collectively while the rest of the students (panel in the external circle) observe, take notes, and later throw up questions and produce comments about what they observed. The teacher can be part of either the inner circle (fishbowl) or the outer circle (panel in the external circle). To start on, teachers select students for the fishbowl panel who are absolutely skilled at group discussion or might intentionally choose one or two who are new to it so that the fishbowl doesn't seem too "perfect" for those who are observing. Once the group is recognized, the teacher should lay down some clear cut rules. These rules guarantee that group members perform particular discussion skills, such as taking turns, developing upon an earlier person's comments, and asking questions to broaden thinking (Chris & Willard, 2008). These rules might contain: Students should only assert supported ideas, agree with a speaker and append supporting information, conflict with a speaker and put forward refuting information, or connect contributions. One should not interrupt a speaker. One should not speak a second time until everyone has availed a chance.

The guiding principles for the outside circle (panel in the external circle) may consist of listening silently, taking notes on discussion skills, and noting nonverbal communication. Each student in the external circle might be consigning a student in fishbowl panel to watch carefully, or the "outside" students can be posed to observe every person. Generally, the quiet, observing students concentrate on two aspects of group discussion that generally aren't observed in group discussions. The teacher or a student within the fishbowl, with the commencement of discussion, offers an open-ended question, and the fishbowl panel discusses it. Students might at first be self-conscious as part of the group "on stage," but they usually comfortably developed as the discussion flows. After a prescribed time, the fishbowl panel brings to an end their discussion and the panel in the external circle discusses what they viewed. This session may receive as much time as the fishbowl discussion itself, or more. The teacher might commence by appealing the outside circle to include their thoughts on the subject of the fishbowl discussion. The participants of fishbowl panel listen and then act in response to the comments. Teachers may also demand those who are in the inner circle to appraise their discussion first, and then ask the members of outside circle to comment, as long as all the members can discuss what happened. The gathering might finish with a whole-class discussion about what they understood and how it would be appropriate to future discussions. The teacher must perform groups discussion and whole class discussion according to a pre-planned lesson (Appendix F).

ii. Benefits of the fishbowl activity (FA)

This activity is useful for a teacher when he/she wants to see what differences students have and how they tackle them. Students in the outside circle can monitor how certain individuals question, respond to, and make meaning of a text, which can shape small-group discussions. Fishbowl Activity (FA) allows students to apply group discussion skills. Fishbowl Activity (FA) also coaches about observation, listening, and community-building skills. Fishbowl Activity bestows students with the opportunity to discover small-group discussion practice in a struggle to improve upon them.

iii. Guidelines for the fishbowl activity (FA)

The teacher must change places of the two circles after one round of a panel is completed. When all the members have gone through both the inside and the outside of the fishbowl circles, the teacher can pose some questions like: What did you learn from each other? How do you feel you will take what you learned from this task into small-group discussions and into whole-class discussions?

The teachers can leave a vacant seat in the fishbowl panel (FP) for an outside participant who wants to speak. He/she should come forward to the vacant seat and continue the discussion until someone else from outside the circle wants to join. That person then raps the first person on the shoulder, and they silently change places.

The teachers must, for a while, stay out of the fishbowl activity (FA), since their existence can make the discussion less natural. Whether in or out of the group, however, the teacher must give time and be present at the behavior issues that the fishbowl group cannot control, and maintain group etiquettes.

b. Syndicate activity (SA)

Syndicate groups

They are groups in which participants are asked to prepare (individually or in pairs) a pre-selected topic around a theme and report back at the syndicate group. Again this needs to be well facilitated, and everyone needs to be well-prepared and be willing to contribute, and time is needed to be set aside for discussion (McCrorie, 2006). There are several sub-groups, forming part of a larger group; work on a problem for a set time and report to the whole group (Lowry, 1998). Mckerlie et al, (2011) is of the view that syndicate learning is a shape of peer learning. It involves small groups of between 5 and 10 students working in semi-independent groups for the achievement of a common goal or task. These students groups are generally tolled with a task and are given set information and useful resources. Students are often given freedom to organize the allocated time and group meetings in whatever way they choose to achieve the targeted task. The teacher is most often not present in the classroom, however, when the teacher is present, its role in contact sessions is of a guide rather than of an instructor (Collier & Clark, 1986). Syndicate groups, indeed, are expected to need to adopt an inquiring, problem-solving approach to collaboratively complete the common assignment. The syndicate-groups, however, are directed on achieving a shared task rather than necessarily solving a problem. It is obvious that students build up a greater faculty for applying learned concepts in new situations (Collier & Clark, 1986; Lowry, 1998). Collier and Clarke (1986) illustrate how syndicate groups change students towards adopting a deep approach to learning. This type of learning is demonstrated by the students when they search for deeper meaning and personal relevance in the topic and adopt a more questioning approach to their learning (Marton, and Saljo, 1984).

Process of syndicate activity:

In this technique a group of students is broken down into sub-groups (syndicates) of 4-5 students/members. It is optional to assigned different tasks or the same task to each syndicate. This process may include the following steps (Dillenbourg, 1999; Gerlach, 1994; and MacGregor, 1990).

Step 1: An opening meeting is owned to explain the procedures, to divide up assignments and to set up the syndicates. According to the nature of the task, this meeting could be utilized, for example, to look at a video-clip, examine an experiment or a display which will function as the stimulus for the task each syndicate is going to undertake.

Step 2: Each syndicate (sub-group) works independently in which they discuss, construct views and infer principles for themselves from reading and doing research. It is imagined that the small number of individuals in the group means everyone can take full and active part in completing the assigned task. In order to complete their assigned task each syndicate write a joint report or prepare notes for an oral report.

Step 3: In the third step there are a number of available options

Each syndicate submits it paper to the instructor who may summarize their conclusions and present it in a lecture. The instructor may correct mis-conceptions and reach the subject clear of what students have presented. The purpose is to consolidate what the students have learned.

Otherwise, each syndicate (sub-group) constructs an oral presentation to the full group. Members from other syndicates not only comment on the presentation but also ask questions to clarify. The teacher/instructor receives different reports and gives comments or his/her views. The instructor tries to find commonalities and formulate generalizations based on the various reports. Occasionally, the instructor or teacher may call experts to come and comment on the syndicates (students) work (Appendix G).

c. Paired annotation activity (PAA)

In Paired Annotations, two students compare their personal impressions/ notions or commentary on an article, lesson, story, topic, or as a whole on a chapter, after group members read and reflect on the assigned task, they write their observations about the important points and their responses to them in their paper. In class, they change papers with another student who has also read and made comments on the topic. The pair (or group-members) discusses the main points of the topic or lesson and looks for zones of agreement and disagreement. Finally, all the groups arrange a composite annotation that summarizes the particular topic, lesson, article, chapter, or concept (University of Berkeley- group work. (2011). Speaking in common manner, the annotation is an important explanatory/ descriptive note which is written on a text. Formally or in other words it is a value adding note or marking that is associated to an existent information object. It represents a record of interaction between the reader and the information object (MacMullen 2005). Several research studies have investigated the practice of making annotations on paper as well as the use of annotations and their functionality in the context of hypertext (web). (Ovsiannikov et al. 1999), For example, carried out a survey to study on how people compose annotations in an academic research-environment. They summarized the common functions and uses of annotations as to remember, to think, to clarify and to share (Mostefai et al, 2012). Students are paired up to study /learn the same article, chapter or content area and discuss double-entry paper for reading and reflection. Students talk about key points and look for conflicting and adhering thinking and ideas. Students, collectively, prepare a combined annotation (explanation) that summarizes the article, chapter, or concept and then present it to teacher (Brown and Lara, 2007). Students typically use annotation techniques, such as underlining, highlighting, noting writing and summarizing, to support their reading in traditional printed books. These annotation techniques are very supportive in identifying/understanding and memorizing the reading contents in an article, chapter, lesson or topic (Hoff, Wehling & Rothkugel, 2009). Researchers are of the view that effective learning-groups have three or four members but there may be other situations in which two students (as members) are considered more effective (Bonwell, Eison & Bonwell, 2000). Generally annotations are made by marking or highlighting important information on a paper-based document. And adding information to it is a commonly used learning technique (Glover et al., 2007). Marshall (1997, 1998), by examining more than 150 used academic textbooks of college students, found that college students used numerous forms of annotation to support their learning. These forms are ranging from highlighting key words to addition of relational notes on the margins.

The large use of Web-based learning materials contests the use of traditional paper-based annotations. Learners, who use Web-based learning materials, have new tools that allow them to take online emerged annotations. Comparing web-base annotation to paper-based annotations, tools of web-based annotation provide new possible means of learning collaboratively on Web-based materials. The previous literature and studies do not show any evidence that paper-based annotations have positive effects on learning (Dunlosky et al., 2013). Therefore the researchers, now a day, are exploring whether the collaborative feature of Web annotation tools helps to promote teaching/learning process (Sun, & Gao, 2014).

Web-based annotation refers to comments, notes, explanations, or other types of external remarks, attached to a Web-document or a selected part of the document. Euzenat (2002) states that an annotation is the content, embodied in a formal language and appended to the document. Campbell (2002) is of the view that annotation means to present comments on information objects at other times and usually by others people. Aiken, Thomas and Schennum (1976), in a study, pointed out the material, in a learners notes, were twice as likely to be recalled as material that was not in the learners notes. Shimmerlick and Nolan (1976) reveal that the group who acquires reorganized notes, recalls more of the part on an immediate test than the sequential notes group as well as on a delayed test given one week later (retention test). In addition, the result of many researches shows that the effects of note taking were particularly strong for students who were not above average in verbal ability. Based on the above mentioned studies, annotation is an imperative learning situation because it supplements and improve the acknowledgment of course content. Annotation can benefit learning in these categories; Attention, Discussion, Organization or construction of his/her own knowledge, and Indexing.

In this activity students are encouraged to read important chapters or articles before starting the original class session. In addition, this useful "front-loading" of course- material, another vital objective is to build critical thinking and writing skills by having students contrast and by comparing their answers to the same piece of scripts. This activity is carried out with the help of three steps (Dillenbourg, 1999; Gerlach, 1994; and MacGregor, 1990).

Step 1: Identification of text-materials on the topic under-consideration

The instructor or the students themselves try to identify a pool of articles or key resources on a concern specific topic. Students, working individually, are guided to prepare a deep explanation on one of the articles, chapters, lesson or topic (according to the students level). They do so by citing key points, extracted from the original source, on the left-hand side and reactions, questions, comments, and connections with other readings on the right-hand side.

Step 2: Making pairs of different students

After starting the period, the teacher randomly pairs the students with other students who have read and analyzed the same article, chapter, lesson or topic. The two partners (pairs) now read one another's reflective comments and explanations, and compare key points they have identified and their specific responses to them. Then they discuss their reasons for these choices, similarities and differences.

Step 3: Preparation of composite annotation

In order to prepare the composite annotation, then, working together, they summarize the article, chapter, lesson or topic. If time permits and it must be permitted, pairs of students can present to the whole class their joint (composite) annotations. This step is very important because it offers more peer reinforcement and advances the communication, speaking and presentation skills of students, they will need in future.

The above mentioned activity may be continual for several times during the academic year or semester, pairing different students with each other. Students are enabled to reflect on their own thinking skills (meta-cognition) and to compare their thoughts and ideas with that of other students. Paired annotations activity makes the students more skilled to identify key points in an article, chapter, lesson or topic. Students in pairs are also more expected to remember the text-materials because they had not only an opportunity to give a personal response, but also to talk about their response with another student. This activity motivates students to arrive prepared because of peer pressure. Their Informal and hand-written notes on the pieces will strengthen their thinking and provide feedback leading to more refined/ mature writings in the future. It is also effective for sharing perfect models with the class as a whole. If time is a problem, then the third (final) step of preparing a joint and composite annotation can be excluded. The students time can be permitted, however, to discuss their reactions, responses and hand-written notes, because it is more valuable learning tool (Dillenbourg, 1999; Gerlach, 1994; and MacGregor, 1990).

There may be other classroom-based collaborative learning techniques. They are; audience reaction team, brainstorming , carousel/graffiti brainstorming, cube it, debates, fish bowl, group writing activity, head to head write off , jigsaw, numbered heads together, paired annotations, pairs check, paraphrase passport, peer editing, Phillips 66 (buzz groups), reciprocal peer questioning reciprocal teaching, role play, round table, send a problem, stir the class (question/answer collaboration), structured controversy, talking chips, think aloud pair problem solving, thinkpair share (four-step discussion), three step interview, turn 4 review, and walking tour/gallery tour (Audience reaction team, 2011; and Frey et al, 2009).

2.2.10. Strategies for Effective Collaborative Learning

Strategies for effective collaborative learning approach are; Encouraging participation, maintaining social grounding, supporting collaborative learning conversation skills, evaluating group processing.

2.2.11. Benefits of the Collaborative Learning Approach

There are many aspects of benefits of collaborative learning such as this approach; (a) Builds self-esteem in students, (b) Enhances students satisfaction with the learning experiences, (c) Promotes positive attitude toward the subject matter, (d) Provides weaker students with extensive one-on-one tutoring, (e) Provides stronger students with the deeper understanding that comes only from teaching materials, (f) Promotes learning goals rather than performance goals, (g) Develops social competence, (h) Strengthen coordination & communication skills, (i) Produces team-building spirit, (j) Develops supportive relationships, (k) Produces quality of problem solving and conflict resolution, (l) Promotes decision making and negotiation.

2.2.12. Difference between Collaborative and Cooperative Learning Approach

Gillies and Ashman, (2003); and Tinzmann, et al. (1990) think that, paying attention to the size of the groups, cooperative and collaborative learning are the same, and are often used interchangeably, but there are some differences between these two types of group learning. They both point out that cooperative learning happens in small groups, but collaborative learning happens in both small and large groups (Zarei and Gilani, 2012). Cooperative learning fastens to traditional knowledge while collaborative learning associates to the social constructivist movement and authority of knowledge (Panitz, 1996). In most of the research literature, both the terms are used interchangeably. Koschmann et al. (1994: p-255), for example, consider cooperative learning as a sub-category of collaborative learning. In the same way, Curtis and Lawson stamp the approach taken by cooperative learning champions Johnson and Johnson as 'collaborative' on the basis that the latter use the term 'cooperative learning' "to describe the higher level processes that others would regard collaborative". With the view to the educational livelihood of any individual person, collaborative learning picks up where cooperative learning leaves off' (Bruffee 1999: 87). Collaborative learning is composed of a lot of formal and informal activities that take in any form of peer and student interaction. This is the broadest and most general of the three terms (co-operative, collaborative and learning communities). This term illustrates any classroom activity, conducted and organized by an instructor, which involves student peer-to-peer involvement. Cooperative learning is more closely defined as a sub-set of collaborative learning (Cuseo, 2002). In short there are major differences between these two approaches (Zarei & Gilani, 2012, p-33; Barkley, et al. 2005).

Table 1: Difference between cooperative and collaborative learning approaches

S.No

Collaborative learning approach

Cooperative learning approach

1

Learning involves participants, working together on the same task.

Learning is carried out through division of work i-e each member of the group is responsible for some portion of the problem solving.

2

Coordination among group-members occurs throughout the learning process

The task is split hierarchically into independent sub-tasks and coordination is needed only for assembling partial results.

3

Stresses upon common group goals and common understanding.

Stresses upon individual goals and individual understanding.

4

Close negotiation and interaction

Less negotiation and interaction.

5

Has its origin in higher education

Has its origin in K-12 education. (the Greenwood Dictionary of Education)

6

Students discussion is the main quality on unstructured activities.

Small group work on structured activities.

7

No ideal group size (Bruffee, 1999: 91)

Group members less than 6.

8

Individual success depends upon group success.

Group success depends upon individual success.

9

All group members contribute fairly equally to the same task.

Each group member engages in his/her individual assignment. (Brindley & Walthi, 2009)

10

Used in both physical and digital environment.

Only in physical environment (Change, Sung & Lee 2003).

11

Low teacher control

(teacher rarely intervene)

High teacher control

(teacher often intervene)

12

Learner Motivation is intrinsic

Learner motivation is extrinsic

13

Favors Peer assessment

Favors assessment through teacher

14

Not limited to classrooms

Limited to classrooms

15

Stresses both learning-process and product

Stresses just learning product

16

Is rooted in social constructivist phenomenon

Is rooted in cognitive and social development

17

Suitable for learning non-foundational knowledge

Suitable for learning facts and formulas

18

Goal is to develop autonomous learning

Goal is to find solution of a problem

19

Refers to socio-cognitive conflicts

Refers to socio-psychological work (Tolmie, et al. 2010)

The idea, that cooperative learning is for children and collaborative learning is suitable for college students, is not correct all the time because nowadays, college teachers also use cooperative learning (Barkley, et al. 2005).

Table 2: Comparison between Collaborative Learning Approach and Traditional Teaching Method

Dimensions

Traditional Teaching Method

Collaborative Learning Approach

Independence

None or negative

Active participator, autonomous learners

Learner role

Positive receiver and performer

Active participator, autonomous learners

Teacher roles

The center of the classroom,

control of teaching pace and

direction, judge of students right or wrong, the major source of assistance, feedback, reinforcement and support, Teacher-domination,

controller, and authority

Organizer and counselor of group work, facilitator of the communication tasks, intervener to teach collaborative skills, observer, change agent, advisor, and supporter.

Materials

Complete set of materials for each students

Materials are arranged according to purpose of lesson. Usually one group shares a complete set of materials

Types of

Teaching-activities

Knowledge recall and review,

phrasal or sentence pattern

practice, role play, translation,

listening etc, Focus on drills and practices as well as memory and review of knowledge

Any instructional activity, mainly

group work to engage learners in

communication, involving processes like information sharing, negotiation of meaning and interaction, Group discussion, work together effectively, and teamwork skills

Interaction

Some talking among students,

mainly teacher-student interaction, Negative interdependence

One-way transmission.

Intense interaction among students, a few teacher-student interaction, Positive interdependence two-way communication

Room arrangement

Separate desk or students placed pairs

Collaborative small groups

Student

expectation

Take a major part in evaluation own progress and the quality of own efforts toward learning. Be a winner or loser

All members in some way contribute to success of group. The one who makes progress is the winner

Teacher-student

relationship

Superior-inferior or equal

Cooperating and equal

Evaluation

Emphasis on both learning

process and outcomes

Emphasis on learning

outcomes

Taken from Wang (2007, p. 25) and Zhang (2010, p. 82)

2.2.13. Role of Collaborative Learning Approach

Advancement in the learners behavior: it is considered more cross-ethnic cooperation than from a whole-class teaching method. That is why it produces tolerance and deep acceptance of students and closed relationship among students of different ethnicities. During learning from one another social & democratic skills are produced in students. Improvement in the learners academic achievement: in this approach weaker students learn more from the students with greater abilities, thus both the students are frequently brainstorming among themselves. They also get closed feedback from their peers and teacher. Banerjee (2011) argues that collaborative learning happens when students work together in groups for understanding a concept or text, creating a solution for their problem, searching an area of knowledge, applying their knowledge, conceiving new ways to apply their knowledge they have learned in the collaborative class, and for constructing a physical object.

2.2.14. What does Collaborative Learning Produce?

In collaborative learning approach it is supposed that situations are dynamic, systematic and changing, therefore it is considered the only framework that can be changed and fit to a new or specific situation for producing; Conversation among different group members, Unity of the scientific and traditional approaches towards problem situation, deep understanding of the problem situation, closed relationship, respect and trust among different group members, clear and distinct concerns about the problem situation, clear and definite improvements in the problem situation.

2.2.15. Process of Collaborative Learning

Aim of collaborative learning process is to describe the activity-chain of collaborative learning or to provide basis for designing different learning activities in classroom. This process involves four steps (Kienle, 2006);

a. The first step is set off by the representative (teacher or coordinator) preparing the assignment and workplace for the students and teacher to do their activities in a collaborative class, i.e. prepare the groups, structure the course and include any learning contents into the system

b. Secondly, the teacher and students will work on their own items/ data. The primary task for the teacher will be as under; the processes of explaining, editing and exporting the material and knowledge in the classroom. These activities involved directing, simulating and searching.

c. Thirdly, the students carry out their activities that have been inculcated by the teacher. The students will work together with the teacher to work with the learning materials that been assigned by the teacher.

d. Fourthly, the teacher and students can collaborate by discussion and negotiation. The students will ask questions to the teacher. The teacher will discuss and come out with solution.

2.2.16. Five Phases of Designing Instruction for Collaborative Learning

Collaborative learning, no doubt, stands for a significant move away from teacher-centered learning to student-centered learning. In this project, the strategy of collaborative learning is founded on the collaborative learning model from Reid et al. (1989). They are of the view that there are five phases in the designing of instruction for collaborative learning.

Phase I: Engagement

In this phase, collaborative activities are shaped in order to ensure group activities.

Phase II: Exploration

In the 2nd phase, learners work on the initial discovery of ideas and information. Some information is presented and the some are left to the imagination of the learners. Reflection that includes questions (KWHLS) can be employed for learners of all levels to ensure that every learner follows the goals that are individually beneficial and yet matching with the groups common goals in learning activities. KWHLS stands for;

K: What do I know?

W: What do I want to learn?

H: How will I learn it and work with others to attain mutual goals?

L: What have I learned?

S: How have I shared or will share when I learn from others?

Phase III: Transformation

Here the learners and their groups engage in activities to change information by categorizing, clarifying, explaining or integrating learning concepts. It is important at this stage of learning that tasks require discussion and involvement from all group members.

Phase IV: Presentation

In this phase, learners are entailed to prepare presentations of their work. They will receive feedback from their peer or expert in their groups.

Phase V: Reflection

In this last phase, learners explore what they h