Collaboration, Dialogue, and Critical Openness through Problem–based Learning Processes

Moira G. C. Lee Oon-Seng Tan

Introduction

The 21st century is often described as the knowledge-based era. Knowledge is proliferating at an increasing pace. We will not be able to effectively harness the power in all that knowledge if we do not know how to integrate learning from different disciplines and sources through collaborative inquiry and synthesis. Problem–based learning (PBL) is an attempt to achieve that goal: it entails learning to deal with situations where we are uncertain about data, information, as well as the solutions, and mastering the art of harnessing intelligence through self-directed as well as collaborative learning (Tan, 2003).

In PBL classes, learning is done in small groups. Small-group learning provides opportunities for students to actively engage in interactive inquiry and group learning, with the aim to:

• gain a deeper understanding of the knowledge (content and process) being acquired
• learn problem-solving processes

• learn to benefit from team perspectives
• develop interpersonal and communication skills
• learn to be effective team contributors

This chapter focuses on the key psychological aspects of collaboration, dialogue, and critical openness in PBL processes.

Collaborative Learning

Collaborative learning is often used as an umbrella term for a variety of educational approaches involving joint intellectual effort by participants, or participants and facilitators together (Bosworth & Hamilton, 1994; Bruffee, 1984, 1987, 1993; Gamson, 1994; Goodsell et al., 1992; MacGregor, 1990; Matthews, 1996; Whipple, 1987; Wiener, 1986). There is wide variability in collaborative learning activities, but in PBL participants' active exploration of new knowledge, peer learning, and collective inquiry and deliberations are directed toward the resolution of the given problem. In PBL, simulated or real-world problem scenarios are often selected and designed to motivate the formation of a learning community through partnership, working in small groups and networking with people. Questions, problems, or the challenge of discovering something “new” drives the collaborative learning activity.

There are four essential elements in the collaborative learning approach. First, collaborative learning promotes an active engagement with the dialogue process. It is based on the idea that learning is a naturally social act in which the participants talk among themselves. It is through talk that learning occurs. The rapid interchanges ignite a myriad of activities: exploration, clarification, shared interpretation, revelation of differences of opinions, illustration and anecdote telling, explanation through gesture, and expression of doubt.

Second, collaborative learning is based on the social constructionist theory of knowledge creation. Knowledge is regarded as intrinsically the common property of a group, and participants and facilitators are involved in a common enterprise, a mutual search for understanding. Since everyone is grappling with the material simultaneously, collaborative learning has the potential to unleash a unique intellectual and social synergy.

Third, there is a distinct shift in the locus of authority from the traditional teacher to the dynamic learning community, and the traditional classroom social structure is replaced with negotiated relationships between participants as well as between the community of participants and the facilitators. The end result of stimulating interdependence is that the learning community becomes more autonomous, articulate, and socially and intellectually mature.

Fourth, collaborative learning fosters a learning culture where there is an atmosphere of critical openness. There is a ready forum for interchange of ideas and of varying perspectives. The paradox of collaborative learning is that, through the process of interacting with others, individuals rediscover themselves and their perspective expands. If collaboration is to provide a way for participants to negotiate multiple positions, it must involve two recursive moves: a dialectical encounter with an “other” (person or idea) and a reflexive engagement with self.

Stimulating Thinking through Dialogue

Students learn in the PBL process that teamwork and collaboration are important for developing cognitive processes pertaining to scanning the environment, understanding the problem, gathering essential data and analyzing them, and elaborating on solutions. Dialogue is essential to ensure that we are not locked into our own limited or prejudiced perspectives. It is important for developing critical thinking and reflection.

In Problem–based approaches, we “make our thinking and mind visible through dialogue” (Tan, 2003, 151). Dialogue is dialogos in Greek, logos referring to the making of meaning. PBL involves creating meaningful learning through inquiry and through various channels of dialogue. Through collegial critique, self-evaluation, and reflection, we sharpen our mental tools in problem solving.

In contrast to didactic instruction, in collaborative learning everyone contributes in order to create something together. Through mutual exploration, meaning-making, and feedback, there might arise the “germination of an idea that neither party had at the beginning of the exchange” (Furedy & Furedy, 1985, 64). There emerges “shared creation—a situation where two or more individuals with complementary skills interact and create a shared meaning that none had previously possessed or could have come to on their own” (Schrage, 1990, 40).

Differences of opinions are part and parcel of dialogue, reaffirming that consensus should be seen in terms of differences and not just of agreements, as the result of conflicts and not as a monolith. The creative sparks that might be ignited through dialogue move the collaborative learning community to “a different place and level.” Growth, movement, and vitality mark the synergistic energy of these communities. A life of its own emerges, and new depths of insight and learning are generated. According to Bohm (1996) and Isaacs (1994), dialogue is given space to emerge within a “life of its own,” while Freire's (1993) concept of dialogue is about confronting oppressive structures that inhibit the empowerment of participants. Dialogical education is an integral component in collaborative learning. Wallis and Allman (1996) emphasized that students engaged in dialogical education are not only developing critical understanding but also experiencing and learning a way of communicating that seems extremely appropriate for all types of democratic participation: “Because dialogue is the seal of the transformed epistemological and ontological relations, it develops both critical thought and trusting, harmonious relations between those who engage in it. In an educational context, this means authentically transformed student-teacher relations” (p. 177).

Collaborative learning and dialogue in PBL require an enlightened understanding and effective mediation and facilitation (Tan, 2003). Poor dialogue can happen when PBL groups lack the foundation knowledge and skills, prerequisite experiences, and maturity. The result of poor collaborative learning could be a “pooling of ignorance.”

The concept of “generative listening” plays an integral role in the dynamics inherent within collaborative learning communities. Listening attentively and taking in the other's meaning is part of learning. On the other hand, there is a risk of being influenced by what is heard. In this sense, listening gives dialogue its relational and transformative power. Through mutual reflection, dialogue begins to clarify the places where assumptions are tangled or seem to contradict. The act of attentive listening elicits people's true voices and inner wisdom. Pockets of silence might make it easier for the learning community to become “observers of one's own thinking” (Senge, 1993). There might then arise an increased understanding of the participatory nature of thought.

It might be useful to make a subtle distinction between the terms dialogue and discussion. Discussion shares its root meaning with percussion and concussion, both involving breaking things up. Specifically, the term discussion stems from the Latin discutere, which means “to smash to pieces.” In dialogue, there is the free and creative exploration of complex issues, a deep listening to one another, and suspension of one's own views. By contrast, in discussion, different views are presented and defended and the best view is sought to support decisions that must be made. Dialogue and discussion are potentially complementary, but it seems necessary to distinguish between the two and to move consciously between them. In our opinion, the term dialogue is more consonant with the discursive relational dynamics of collaborative learning; there is a constant movement toward shared minds rather than a single overpowering position.

In the field of organizational theory, Bill Isaacs, Director of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Dialogue Project, has conducted pioneering research in dialogue process, emphasizing that dialogue differs markedly from the casual discourse of daily life, persuasive discussion, negotiation, or formal debate. Dialogue is most useful for learning about complexity where no one has “the right answer.” Rather than trying to understand an issue by breaking it into parts, the practice of dialogue draws attention to the whole. As each person offers a unique contribution to the dialogue, the intent is not to persuade but to explore from another perspective (Bohm, 1996; Isaacs, 1994; Senge et al., 1994).

As conceived by Bohm (1996), dialogue is a multifaceted process that explores the manner in which thought is generated and sustained on a collective level. Such an inquiry calls into question deeply ingrained assumptions about culture, meaning, and identity. Bohm suggested that four elements permeate the dialogue process. First, there is suspension of assumptions. To suspend one's assumptions means to hold them, as if they were hanging in front of you, constantly accessible to questioning and observation. This does not mean throwing out assumptions, suppressing them, or avoiding their expression. Rather, it means being aware of them and holding them up for examination. This cannot be done if one is defending one's opinions. Nor can it be done if one is unaware of one's own assumptions, or unaware that one's views are based on assumptions rather than incontrovertible facts.

In Bohm's second element, the spirit of inquiry involves an open space in which to ask questions about where a particular assertion, belief, or idea comes from. In dialogue, a person who is making broad generalizations can be subject to inquiry. How did he get there? Can he provide others with the data that supports his conclusions? There is greater possibility for deeper understanding arising from the inquiry.

Third, generative listening involves letting go of “building my case” when someone is speaking from a different point of view. It involves listening for understanding rather than preparing to convince the other person that he or she is wrong.

Fourth, holding tension of opposites is an essential element of dialogue.

Maintaining a space for polarity and opposites is an acknowledgment of the wide variation in views usually present in a diverse group. There is a container built that respects differences and enjoys and cultivates the energies among diverse elements.

Cultivating Critical Openness

Participants in PBL groups bring their own diverse experiences and learning, which in turn stimulate their own thinking and self-assessment. Entering into critical appraisal with others of one's findings and presentation helps develop the spirit of critical openness and critical reflective thinking.

In a learning community, critical thinking is not relegated to just the cognitive dimension; it has relational and emotional dimensions. The quality of relationships affects the extent to which participants engage in critical openness. “Emotions are central to the critical thinking process. As we try to think critically and help others to do so, we cannot help but become aware of the importance of emotions to this activity. Asking critical questions about our previously accepted values, ideas, and behaviors is anxiety-producing” (Brookfield, 1987, 7).

The process of critical thinking entails an iteration between collaboration (shared world) and reflection (private world) for the purpose of assessing new ideas and perspectives through experience and relationships (Brookfield, 1987; Dewey, 1933; Freire, 1993; Garrison, 1992). In the process of critical thinking, there is “a listening to others in mutuality and self-criticism” (Thiselton, 1995). Dewey (1933) viewed thinking as both an internal and an external process and posited that critical reflective thinking is relating abstract ideas to external things.

In the context of adult education, Brookfield (1987) suggested a five-phase model of critical thinking. The phases consist of a triggering event;appraisal of the situation; exploration to explain anomalies; development of alternative perspectives; and integration of diverse perspectives into the fabric of life. In the integration phase, individuals appraise their perspectives through dialogue with others. Thus, it is in the shared world that meaning is achieved. While constructing meaning is a personal responsibility, the process of critical thinking also includes the application of meaning structures to the specifics of the context. The further grasp of concepts is enhanced through collaborative action, which necessitates sharing control of the process.

Mezirow (1991) has written extensively on reflective learning, a term that he uses synonymously with critical thinking. According to him, meaning is always an interpretation from a contextually defined perspective. Meaning is about one's experience, which guides further action and the revision of meaning schemes. Focusing on communicative learning, Mezirow (1978) posited that through discourse there is the potential for assessing evidence and arguments to consensually arrive at a provisional judgment about the justifiability of the idea. It is through the process of critical discourse that contested meanings are confirmed or negated.

In reflecting on the phrase critical openness, Watson (1987) raised three concerns: the problem of critical openness being used to mean the opposite of a committed approach; the unfortunate negative and “destructive overtones” that are sometimes associated with “critical”; and the varying capacity of people to think critically. She suggested an alternative in the phrase critical affirmation. For her, critical affirmation is a warmer phrase than critical openness. Its primary meaning is to make firm, strengthen, support, and confirm. It has a positive ring and synergizes with conviction, commitment, and certainty. According to Watson, critical affirmation encompasses five dimensions: the desire to find insights; the expectation that probably insights are to be found; the determination to try to uncover them; the rigorous use of critical faculties in so doing; and the desire to make other people's insights one's own.

In our opinion, Watson's concept of critical affirmation does not get at the “appreciation of differences” nor at “suspension of judgments” that are enmeshed within the concept of critical openness. Additionally, Watson's fifth proposition about making other people's insights one's own implies a unity that is elusive. It is possible to learn from other people's insights, but they will always be “other” to one's own insights. Contrary to Watson's view, Thiessen (1993) recommended that the phrase normal critical openness be used. He suggested that adding the word normal guards against the negative adversarial connotation some read into the word critical. For Thiessen, normal critical openness entails having a disposition to form and revise one's own views in the light of evidence and arguments. This is not incompatible with having strong convictions, so long as there remains “the permanent possibility of reopening even settled issues” (Hare, 1979, 30).

The Value of Questions

Learning involves dealing with uncertainty and ambiguity. It is about inquiry and deliberation, becoming critically minded and intellectually curious.

Usher, Bryant, and Johnston (1997) observed that “difficulty, uncertainty and error are not necessarily flawed states to be overcome but ongoing conditions of the educational process itself. … they are educationally beneficent correctives to arrogance and complacency” (p. 25).

In PBL, facilitators often intentionally engage in challenging participants with questions and more questions. Facilitators do not present themselves as “experts” having answers to every issue. The message to participants is often that they have to go away and do more work on it and that we are leaving you with more questions to ponder over as a result of the interaction.

PBL facilitators are often confronted with participants' discontent with “an amalgamation of what others think” and inchoate conclusions. It is often argued that facilitators deliberately leave issues open-ended because they believe that the nature of the reality we are dealing with is open-ended and the nature of collaborative learning is open-ended too. To be left with questions is to leave further learning open.

In realizing that others also wrestle with questions, a corresponding openness in voicing one's own questions might arise. There is a growing awareness that questions are a vital part of learning and growing. In PBL, participants realize that others have the same doubts, questions, and difficulties that they have. They learn that it is all right not to have all the answers, and for them to ask questions and to have doubts. In a collaborative learning community, participants work through questions together and they will come to realize that it is all right to live with unanswered questions.

The importance of questions has been raised. MacMurray (1957) remarked: “The rationality of our conclusions does not depend alone upon the correctness of our thinking. It depends more upon the propriety of the questions with which we concern ourselves. The primary and critical task is the discovery of the problem. If we ask the wrong questions, the logical correctness of our answer is of little consequence” (p. 21). Questions always bring out the undetermined possibilities of something: “To understand the questionableness of something is already to be questioning” (Gadamer, 1996, 375).

The value of raising provocative questions is a pivotal feature in the philosophy underpinning radical adult education. While most educational philosophies, such as that of humanistic adult education, attempt to mobilize education to reform society, the radical approach proposes profound changes at the root of the system. Thomas (1982) explained that “radicalism is the expressed intention to attack the foundations of a system, complemented by a visible, manifold effort to do so, whether or not that effort is successful” (p. 13). The radical approach questions the assumptions on which organizations, institutions, and society rest. Radicals claim that wrong questions are asked mainly because they are not sufficiently basic.

Conclusion

In PBL, learning is transformed into an active process where participants are mutually engaged in dialogue, often fueled by questions and a meaningful sharing of roles and responsibilities. Learners are exposed to the richness of critical openness, which makes them more discerning and wise. It is important for PBL practitioners to reflect on the notions of collaboration, dialogue, and critical openness. Collaboration as a competence includes inter- and intrapersonal skills and effective communication and social skills. The ability to work in teams and to collaborate effectively is critical for all professionals today. Globalization calls for effective communication across cultures as well as working with others for mutual benefit and the achievement of goals. Moreover, with increasing complexity and specialization of tasks, we need to share resources and optimize on the different strengths of people in a group. Dialogue and openness are important to making thinking visible to people we work with.

References

Bohm, D. (Ed.) (1996). On dialogue (L. Nichol, Ed.). London: Routledge.

Bosworth, K., & Hamilton, S. J. (Eds.) (1994). Collaborative learning: Underlying processes and effective techniques. New directions for teaching and learning, No. 59. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Brookfield, S. D. (1987). Developing critical thinkers: Challenging adults to explore alternative ways of thinking and acting. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bruffee, K. A. (1984). Collaborative learning and the conversation of mankind. College English, 46, 635–52.

Bruffee, K. A. (1987). The art of collaborative learning. Change, 19, 42–47.

Bruffee, K. A. (1993). Collaborative learning. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. Boston: D. C. Heath.

Freire, P. (1993). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Herder and Herder.

Furedy, C., & Furedy, J. (1985). Critical thinking: Toward research and dialogue. In J. G. Donald & A. M. Sullivan (Eds.), Using research to improve teaching (pp. 51–70). New directions for teaching and learning, No. 23. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Gadamer, H.-G. (1996). Truth and method (2nd rev. ed., J. Weinsheimer & D. G. Marshall, Trans. & Rev.). London: Sheed and Ward.

Gamson, Z. F. (1994). Collaborative learning comes of age. Change, 26, 44–49.

Garrison, D. R. (1992). Critical thinking and self-directed learning in adult education: An analysis of responsibility and control issues. Adult Education Quarterly, 42, 136–48.

Goodsell, A., Maher, M., Tinto, V., Smith, B. L., & MacGregor, J. (1992). Collaborative learning: A sourcebook for higher education. Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University, National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning and Assessment.

Hare, W. (1979). Open-mindedness and education. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press.

Isaacs, W. (1994). Dialogue. In P. M. Senge, A. Kleiner, C. Roberts, R. B. Ross, & B. J. Smith (Eds.), The fifth discipline fieldbook (pp. 357–64). London: Nicholas Brealey.

MacGregor, J. (1990). Collaborative learning: Shared inquiry as a process of reform. In M. D. Svinicki (Ed.), The challenging face of college teaching (pp. 19–30). New directions for teaching and learning, No. 42. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

MacMurray, J. (1957). The self as agent. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press (1991).

Matthews, R. S. (1996). Collaborative learning: Creating knowledge with students. In R. Menges, M. Weimer, & Associates (Eds.), Teaching on solid ground (pp. 101–24). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Mezirow, J. (1978). Perspective transformation. Adult Education, 28, 100–10.

Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schrage, M. (1990). Shared minds: The new technologies of collaboration. New York: Random House.

Senge, P. M. (1993). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. London: Doubleday Dell.

Senge, P. M., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R. B., & Smith, B. J. (Eds.) (1994). The fifth discipline fieldbook. London: Nicholas Brealey.

Tan, O. S. (2003). Problem–based learning innovation: Using problems to power learning in the 21st century. Singapore: Thomson Learning.

Thiessen, E. J. (1993). Teaching for commitment: Liberal education, indoctrination and Christian nurture. Leominster, Herefordshire: Gracewing.

Thiselton, A. (1995). Interpreting God and the postmodern self. Edinburgh: T & T Clark.

Thomas, J. E. (1982). Radical adult education: Theory and practice. Nottingham: Department of Adult Education, University of Nottingham.

Usher, R., Bryant, I., & Johnston, R. (1997). Adult education and the postmodern challenge: Learning beyond the limits. London: Routledge.

Wallis, J., & Allman, P. (1996). Adult education, the critical citizen and social change. In J. Wallis (Ed.), Liberal adult education: The end of an era? (pp. 163–79). Nottingham: Continuing Education Press, University of Nottingham.

Watson, B. (1987). Education and belief. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Whipple, W. R. (1987). Collaborative learning: Recognizing it when we see it. American Association of Higher Education Bulletin, 40, 3–7.

Wiener, H. S. (1986). Collaborative learning in the classroom: A guide to evaluation. College English, 48, 52–61.