Understanding the Social and Cognitive Nature of Collaboration: Implications for Practice

Abstract

Understanding how cognition develops as a result of collaboration is a continuing educational endeavour along with identifying effective strategies and understandings related to collaborative learning. With this endeavour in mind, this paper reports on findings from a research project that examined the mechanisms and processes utilised by teachers to enhance collaboration in a problem-based learning approach to school-based STEM education. The research involved purposive sampling of 35 teachers from 15 schools in two states within Australia. The study followed a longitudinal qualitative research design (2021–2024) and drew information from teacher round-table discussions that were then thematically analysed to reveal five key themes about collaboration as part of classroom learning: (1) collaboration requires active learning, (2) collaboration involves effective communication, (3) collaboration is purposeful and driven by shared goals, (4) collaboration is fluid and dynamic, and (5) collaboration values diversity. The findings of this research primarily contribute to the field through theoretical insights that propose a new framework for understanding the cognitive nature of effective collaboration, which when translated into an actionable assessment matrix can assist teachers as they work to implement effective learning through collaboration in the classroom.

1. The Problem: Reaching a Shared Understanding About the Nature and Intention of Collective Learning

In the educational literature, a variety of terms are used to connote students working in non-individualistic or collective modes. Groupwork, teamwork, cooperation, and collaboration all speak to a form of collective activity, but in educational contexts, these terms are not uniformly understood or defined. Some researchers, for example, do not differentiate between collaborative and cooperative learning, using the terms interchangeably (Gillies, 2019; Kirschner et al., 2018; Seel, 2012; Shahamat & Mede, 2016), while others make clear distinctions between them (Falcione et al., 2019; Kozar, 2010; Major, 2020; Roschelle & Teasley, 1995; Warwick et al., 2013). Others refer only to collaborative learning (Rojas-Drummond & Mercer, 2003; Wentzel & Watkins, 2002; Wood & O’Malley, 1996), cooperative (Borman et al., 2007), or another form of similar definition (Blatchford et al., 2003; Resnick & Schantz, 2015).

In the most literal, and perhaps intuitive, sense, terms such as collaboration, cooperation, teamwork, and groupwork suggest students collectively involved in the accomplishment of a task to which they all in some way contribute. Experienced pedagogues and educational researchers, however, have noted that different kinds of collective activity result in different levels of academic and social success. It is also apparent that occasions exist in which an “assembly bonus” occurs, wherein the performance of the group cannot be accounted for as simply the sum of individual knowledge or skills.

When terms hold distinct meanings, this has implications for the design of approaches and subsequent learning (Kozar, 2010; Major, 2020). For educators, distinguishing between forms of collective learning is important for designing appropriate learning activities tailored to meet specific student objectives (Dillenbourg et al., 1996; Roschelle & Teasley, 1995). Acting in ignorance of these differences can impede teachers from organising group work in the most effective manner (Kozar, 2010).

In an educational endeavour to identify common effective strategies and pedagogical understandings related to collective learning, this paper attempts to extend current theoretical explanations for effective collective learning experiences. It draws on data from an educational research project that examined collaboration, through a social cognition lens, to understand the mechanisms and processes utilised by teachers to enhance collective learning experiences in a problem-based learning (PBL) approach to school-based STEM education. The findings from the study were developed into an actionable account of teaching effective collaboration that includes an assessment matrix for collaboration in the classroom.

2. Defining a Difference Between Cooperation and Collaboration

Considering distinctions in the literature between cooperation and collaboration is an important start in understanding the nature and purpose of different collective learning experiences.

Cooperative learning is often defined as the process of working together in small groups to accomplish a shared goal in an interdependent, mutually helpful manner (Kozar, 2010; Major, 2020). This typically involves structured activities that can usually be completed within one class period, with the teacher assigning students to groups and providing assistance as needed (Major, 2020). Cooperative work is accomplished by dividing associated tasks among students, where each student is responsible for a portion of the problem-solving (Roschelle & Teasley, 1995).

Collaborative work, in contrast, involves students engaged in achieving a common goal while respecting each other’s contribution to the group (Kozar, 2010; McInnerney & Roberts, 2004). Collaboration typically involves the students self-selecting group members and managing themselves, taking responsibility for working together towards the common goal. These groups are typically less structured compared with groups involved in cooperative learning, with no specialised roles necessarily assigned (Blumenfeld et al., 1996; Major, 2020). As the aim is to share ideas with the whole group, interdependence is highlighted, with little or no emphasis on extrinsic group rewards to ensure cooperation or to motivate students to work together (Blumenfeld et al., 1996). Collaborative learning can be seen as “the mutual engagement of participants in a coordinated effort to solve the problem together” (Roschelle & Teasley, 1995, p. 70).

The key distinction made between cooperative and collaborative learning approaches seems to be that cooperation is more focused on students working together to create an end product. Therefore, cooperation can be achieved if each group member is responsible for a portion of the problem-solving, completing their assigned parts individually before bringing their results to the group (Dillenbourg et al., 1996; Kozar, 2010; Roschelle & Teasley, 1995). Cooperation allows group members not to get in each other’s way as they work (Nelson, 2008). The aim of collaboration differs, as the intention is to build collective knowledge through conversation. As students converse, they are exposed to, and draw on, the expertise of others and learn from each other (Blumenfeld et al., 1996). Successful collaboration requires students to share in the process of knowledge creation through a higher level of interaction and interdependence (Falcione et al., 2019). This implies direct interaction among group members to produce a product, involving negotiations, discussions, and accommodating each other’s perspectives (Dillenbourg et al., 1996; Kozar, 2010; Roschelle & Teasley, 1995).

3. Understanding Cognition as a Collective Enterprise

Most accounts of human cognition are individualistic, seeing the unit of cognition as seated in and contained within the individual. In such accounts, all behaviour, including social behaviour, is explained through an individualistic lens. Recent work in cognitive science and philosophy has challenged this notion, positioning reasoning less as an individual faculty and more as a social skill (Karasavvidis, 2001; Sperber et al., 2012). To be called reasonable after all, as for most virtues, is a social complement. Cognitive reasoning lies at the heart of collective learning. How the nature of this reasoning is understood provides insight into how we might position a task along a continuum from individual to collective student activity.

Traditionally, the theoretical background to optimising collective learning is provided from a variety of sources, including Vygotsky’s social constructivism (Blatchford et al., 2003; Gillies, 2014; Resnick & Schantz, 2015; Rojas-Drummond & Mercer, 2003; Udvari-Solner, 2012; Warwick et al., 2013; Wood & O’Malley, 1996), Bandura’s social learning theory, and Freire’s discourse of social justice (Udvari-Solner, 2012). Further work in philosophy and cognitive science can also clarify the mechanisms of collective learning. This work has a strong cognitive focus, with particular attention to the nature of reasoning as an individual or collective enterprise.

A cognitive focus is useful in several ways. One is that much of the interaction between students in collaborative contexts is cognitive. In times of uncertainty or decision-making, students need to explain to each other their understanding and their reasoning, justify suggested inquiry pathways, analyse situations, arguments, and possibilities, and evaluate potential courses of action and the ideas of others. Such activity often occurs during cycles of creativity and critical thinking, and, as much critical thinking is analytical and evaluative, at its core is the identification, analysis, evaluation, and construction of arguments (Ellerton, 2020; Ellerton & Kelly, 2021). Arguments formalise the giving and taking of reasons, a fundamentally social activity since we reason with and towards each other. Indeed, much productive discourse and dialogue is generated by this process. The value of an argumentative focus for collaborative work is well-understood (Bailin & Battersby, 2015, 2016; Kuhn, 2009, 1991; Van Gelder et al., 2004), since we must reason, explain, and justify to someone and analyse and evaluate, in part, the thinking of others. The central role of arguments as a mechanism of interaction between students in collaborative inquiry contexts is therefore of critical pedagogical interest. Another reason a cognitive approach is useful is that focussing on cognitive actions helps determine and understand the factors that make collaborative thinking optimal. Twenty-first century skills such as teamwork, critical and creative thinking, communication, and social and interpersonal skills are all interconnected, and a focus on cognition also provides a focus on the mechanisms of development of these interconnected skills.

4. Positioning the Assembly Bonus as a Theoretical Frame

Collaborative learning has been shown to enhance academic performance and increase motivation to learn among students (Falcione et al., 2019; Gillies, 2014, 2019). It allows students to learn from one another, negotiate meaning, and improve their social skills (Kozar, 2010). A noteworthy concept in this area is the “assembly bonus”, identified by Michaelsen et al. (1989, p. 843), which illustrates the profound advantage of collaborative efforts. Their research found that the performance of the group (3–8 members) often surpasses the most capable individual, with groups excelling beyond individual scores 97% of the time. Just as striking, in 40% of the cases, group success could not be explained by either the average or the highest individual scores (Michaelsen et al., 1989).

This phenomenon can be further understood through Woolley et al.’s (2010) notion of a general collective intelligence factor, or c-factor. This factor, similar to individual general intelligence, highlights how groups can function with heightened efficiency when measured across a wide variety of tasks. The c-factor is not strongly linked with individual or average general intelligence; rather it is most strongly aligned with “average social sensitivity of group members, [and] the equality in distribution of conversational turn-taking” (p. 686).

These insights suggest that working collaboratively offers unique learning potential that individual efforts may not achieve. In educational contexts, understanding how the “assembly bonus” enhances group outcomes can also provide valuable insights into improving individual learning outcomes. Exploring the mechanisms of collective learning such as enhanced social interaction and equitable participation can enhance social interaction, and equitable participation can highlight pathways to both effective group and individual learning. Therefore, the assembly bonus serves as a compelling theoretical framework for exploring the dynamic relationship between collaboration and learning in the classroom. These results suggest that collaborative approaches provide opportunities for improving group outcomes, but in educational contexts, it is also important to improve individual learning outcomes. It is therefore salient to consider how improving group outcomes might be related to improving individual outcomes and what mechanisms might be involved.

5. Pedagogical Application

The framing of the collective as a means of developing the individual is not novel. From the aphoristic (e.g., “it takes a village to raise a child”) to the conceptual (e.g., Vygotsky’s social constructivism), we have long recognised the importance of the group to developing the person. However, the mechanisms of this have not been so carefully researched or articulated in a way that yields pedagogical traction. Given the distinctions as outlined in collective learning above, it is sensible to investigate which approaches are educationally most useful.

Mercier and Sperber (2011) theorised that our reasoning ability has developed, in the evolutionary sense, for the social function of improving our communication and for developing shared meaning rather than as an individual truth-seeking faculty. It is not that these functions are mutually exclusive, but that the former has primacy over the latter.

Reasoning contributes to the effectiveness and reliability of communication by enabling communicators to argue for their claim and by enabling addressees to assess these arguments. It thus increases both in quantity and in epistemic quality the information humans are able to share (pp. 71–72).

This view, backed by significant empirical data (Mercier & Sperber, 2011), shows that the contexts in which we reason best are social ones, and that many common reasoning errors occur when abstracting our reasoning into individualistic and context-free frameworks. When our reasoning is tested in meaningful, social contexts, it seems we collectively perform quite well. Developing our argumentation skills collectively is also the vector for improving them individually, since others provide the epistemic friction against which we must push to be rationally persuasive. This is not quite the social constructivism of Vygotsky, but it does speak to the same necessity for social cognition in learning how to think well individually. It also provides evidence for the earlier claim that a focus on collective assembly bonuses can pay pedagogical dividends in terms of individual success.

Arguably, no one strategy or approach is universally optimal. The best approach is almost always contextually determined. The Education Endowment Foundation’s (2021) report on collaborative learning, however, drawing on 11 meta-analyses and one single study, highlights that the impact of collaborative approaches on learning is consistently positive, but the extent of the impact varies, depending on factors including how well an approach is designed and implemented. In other words, the strategies and approaches themselves cannot do the pedagogical heavy lifting, they must also be executed with a level of pedagogical awareness, indeed expertise, to optimise their effect. As Deanna Kuhn (1999) notes, “practice does not make perfect in the absence of understanding” (p. 24). It is therefore important for educators to understand the theoretical basis of collaborative success, at least to the extent that teachers are able to hypothesise and give direction to their practice. Working within theory is a critical aspect of improving teacher expertise, to enable “a deep understanding of pedagogical principles to inform practice, and in which clear criteria for success allow for feedback to improve understanding” (Hegazy et al., 2021, p. 4).

6. The Study: The Role of Collaboration in PBL in School-Based STEM Education

Identifying effective pedagogical strategies designed to provide opportunity for social interactions that build social cognition are critical for meaningful and engaging classroom learning. From 2021 to 2023, as part of a research project designed to understand more about how problem-based learning (PBL) may enhance school-based STEM education, the mechanisms and processes teachers utilised to enhance collective learning experiences in PBL were openly discussed and examined. Earlier phases of the research as outlined by Smith et al. (2022) developed a set of key principles characterising a pedagogical framework for a PBL model of school-based STEM education. These principles included problems embedded in rich and relevant learning contexts; flexible knowledge, skills, and capabilities; active and strategic metacognitive reasoning; and collaboration based on intrinsic motivation (2022). The research aimed to position teachers as co-researchers, critically reflecting on their teaching practice to explore how each of these principles could be translated into a variety of school-based STEM learning contexts. The findings in relation to the final principle about collaboration provide greater insights into how teachers work to enhance collective learning experiences and the value these collective learning experiences provide for the learner. In particular, the cognitive nature of effective collaboration was explored, providing actionable insights for collaboration in the classroom.

7. Methodology

The study worked with 15 schools in two states within Australia and involved 35 teachers from Year 5 to Year 10. Participants were selected based on an expression of interest, and purposive sampling was used to ensure schools who had a demonstrated commitment to STEM education were seen as participants who would more likely be committed to the project. Four aims framed this research: (i) to generate research-informed principles of practice for a problem-based learning (PBL) model of school STEM education; (ii) embed the principles of practice for a PBL model of STEM education into a coherent and sustainable pedagogical framework informing school-based STEM education; (iii) actively position teachers as key decision-makers about how to use this pedagogical framework so that they build the professional knowledge, capacity, and confidence needed to design and implement authentic and relevant STEM education consistent with the principles of a PBL model of STEM education; and (iv) produce evidence-informed exemplars of powerful school-based PBL practice in STEM education (Years 6–10) that developed a common teacher professional language and shared understanding about PBL.

The research addressed the following question: How do teachers, in different school settings, learn to make sense of, implement and adapt their pedagogical approaches consistent with the principles underpinning a PBL model of STEM education?

Phase 1 of the project identified four key principles of PBL (Smith et al., 2022). The principle relating to the focus of this paper is collaboration based on intrinsic motivation. This principle defines collaboration as requiring active student involvement and conditions that encouraged learners to engage with trial and error to collaboratively reassess alternate approaches to select the most effective solution to a given problem. When attending to this principle, teachers focused on involving their students in a series of discussions and negotiations through focused and purposeful group interactions. Collaboration necessitated learners to collectively decide how to clarify a problem, generate further questions, and undertake purposeful research, and that this process initiated a demand for learning. Teachers encouraged their students to share ideas, listen actively, value diversity of ideas, offer and accept feedback, and engage in metacognitive reasoning and decision-making.

The study was a longitudinal qualitative research project. Researchers and practitioners worked together in the design and implementation of the PBL pedagogical framework, and a feature of the research was a focus on iterative design cycles in the refinement of the PBL pedagogical framework and the production of exemplars of practice sensitive to the varying range of contexts in which teachers undertake their work (Wang & Hannafin, 2005; Anderson & Shattuck, 2012).

A design-based research approach (The Design-Based Research Collective, 2003) was applied as this served both a practical purpose to produce a framework and exemplars of practice, and a theoretical intention to advance knowledge of PBL as a model for STEM education in schools. This also enabled the research to effectively attend to the many complex and changing educational systems in which the project activities took place.

Prior to commencing the research, Human Research Ethics approval was secured from both the university and relevant sector authorities. Informed consent, confidentiality, and the right to withdraw were critical aspects of the study design to ensure alignment with ethical guidelines.

Teachers attended five professional learning days where they engaged with each other to explore each of the PBL principles. On these days, teachers worked together to discuss and socially construct an understanding of the intention, nature, and implications of each principle. The conversations were intended to enable them to translate these intentions through their classroom teaching. Teachers determined a focus for an action research investigation with their school-based colleagues. Each group of teachers then reported back in subsequent sessions sharing the insights they were gaining about how the PBL principles were shaping their teaching in STEM education. Teachers participated in round-table discussions as they explored the principles to consider what this information might mean for their practice. These discussions were taped and then transcribed. This became a significant dataset in the research and was identified in evidence citations by a descriptor of the corresponding professional learning day (e.g., Day 3), followed by the label ‘teacher discussion’ in evidence citations. Teachers also completed reflective writing, shared planning artefacts, and developed digital stories to capture their experiences and learning.

Datasets were analysed using a thematic analysis approach where the aim was to identify, analyse, and report patterns (themes) within and across each dataset. The key unit of analysis in this study was teacher thinking about collaboration, examined closely through the language teachers used to describe their observations, and interpretations of classroom activity. When working to understand or incorporate the principle of collaboration based on intrinsic motivation, teachers frequently described observations of student behaviour and planned strategies for enhancing collective learning experiences. Analysing key terms used across datasets provided insight into how teachers conceptualised and fostered collaborative learning, moving beyond simply labelling student interactions as ‘group work’. The analysis attempted to identify the cognitive and behavioural aspects of collaboration as well as the practical classroom implications.

Three facilitator-researchers independently reviewed the datasets, paying close attention to recurring terms and expressions related to collaboration, highlighting commonalities and differences across a dataset. This process began with familiarisation with the data, generating initial codes, searching for themes among these codes, reviewing and refining these themes, defining and naming them, and finally producing a set of key findings. This method enabled researchers to systematically extract themes that captured something significant in relation to the research question while maintaining a focus on the context within which the data were collected. Therefore, the purpose of the analysis was not to document classroom enactments of collaboration, but to examine the teachers’ understandings of the nature of collaboration in PBL in school-based STEM education

Researchers employed triangulation as a methodological strategy to enhance the validity and reliability of the findings and to mitigate potential researcher bias. Through regular team discussions and collaborative analysis sessions, researchers critically assessed and challenged individual interpretations to ensure that the findings reflected a balanced and nuanced understanding of the data. The triangulation process involved several iterative steps. First, multiple data sources (interviews, reflective writing, and planning artefacts) were compared to confirm consistency in emerging themes. Second, researchers independently coded sections of data, followed by collaborative discussions to reconcile interpretations and refine the coding. Frequently used terms became initial codes, which organised and identified key concepts and patterns in the data. Concepts were considered provisional until consistently observed across multiple data sources. The coding process involved grouping related concepts to identify broader themes. For example, the theme of active learning was derived from codes such as “working together”, “decision-making”, “interactive discussions”, and “focusing on the problem at hand”. High consistency in teacher articulation validated the clarity of the emerging key concepts. These terms, often present in the data, indicated that collaboration was not passive but required focused, collective intellectual, behavioural, and social engagement, which was eventually refined by the theme of ‘active learning’. Similarly, terms such as “negotiation” and “active listening” became initial codes that led to an overall theme of effective communication.

Finally, feedback from the participants during the round-table discussion further served as a form of member checking. This combination of data, researcher, and participant triangulation ensured that the findings reflected a balanced and nuanced understanding of the data. This collaborative triangulation process strengthened the study’s conclusions and enhanced the objectivity and credibility of the research outcomes.

It is important to note that teacher participants were engaged in different PBL projects that ranged from the design of sustainable housing to recycling clothing to develop new products for everyday use. Therefore, the intention of the research was not to examine the problems teachers were exploring, but instead focus on teacher learning about the role of collaboration in the learning process, not on evaluating specific student projects.

It is also important to note that the aim of the thematic analysis was to capture the richness and diversity of teacher perspectives, rather than determine the prevalence.

Through this transparent and collaborative coding approach, five overarching themes were identified, which became defining features of collaboration based on intrinsic motivation and enabled a deeper understanding of the conditions required. When presenting the results of this study, quotes were used from the data as a valid form of evidence. These quotes provide direct insights into the participants’ experiences, perspectives, and emotions and offer a firsthand account of the participants’ views, lending authenticity and credibility to the research findings. These quotes also bring themes and patterns to life, illustrating how individual participants articulated their experiences, which helps to clarify abstract concepts or themes as identified by the researchers. Quotes also enable an understanding of the nuances and complexities of the participants’ responses that might be lost in summary form. Context mattered in this study as the school contexts were varied, and therefore capturing the nuances of teacher considerations were important. Quotes were also used to show that the data were not manipulated or misinterpreted, an important aspect of the transparency of the analytical process. The quotes cited bridge the gap between raw data and the themes derived from the analysis, providing a richer and more comprehensive understanding of the study’s findings.

8. Results

Data analysis revealed that attending to the PBL principle of collaboration based on intrinsic motivation was a key area of interest to many teachers as they attempted to implement a PBL approach in STEM education. The consideration of intrinsic motivation as a key determinant of group composition, individual involvement, and learning activation was initially challenging for teachers. As they worked together to determine how to action this intention in their classroom teaching, they openly discussed and considered a range of implications for practice. The analysis of datasets collected across the professional learning days revealed that many teachers arrived at a realisation that randomly assigning students to groups and allocating roles, as many had done previously, was an approach focused on task completion rather than creating the conditions for rich interactive learning and problem solving. However, collaboration based on intrinsic motivation aims to create self-motivated interactions that develop social cognition. These opportunities allow students to engage in negotiations through focused discussions and purposeful group interactions, therefore framing a new role for the learner in a collective experience.

Conceptualising collaboration as being essentially about social cognition provided a rich lens for data analysis. The analysis of various datasets from the teacher professional learning days revealed five key themes:

(1)

Collaboration requires active learning;

(2)

Collaboration involves effective communication;

(3)

Collaboration is purposeful and driven by shared goals;

(4)

Collaboration is fluid and dynamic;

(5)

Collaboration values diversity.

Over time, these themes became defining features of collaboration based on intrinsic motivation and enabled a deeper understanding of the conditions required to enhance social cognition and the role of this learning in PBL in STEM education. These themes also marked a clear difference from traditional teaching approaches designed to facilitate ‘teamwork’. These findings are explained in the following section and are illustrated by presenting quotes from the ongoing discussions that took place to capture the co-production of perspectives in the group context. The chosen quotes became representative of agreed positions.

8.1. Collaboration Requires Active Learning

Collaboration, as a pedagogical principle in PBL, necessitates the opportunity for learners to collectively decide how to clarify a problem, generate further questions, and undertake purposeful research. This involves the development of particular skills and dispositions and requires active involvement from all students. As one teacher noted, “there is no such thing as passive collaboration”. This perspective resonates strongly with social cognition, since each student must be part of the cognitive process. Data collected from teacher groups on the third day of the professional learning program identified that collaborating as part of a PBL approach required learners to be involved in:

Interactions between each other framed by conversations where students were working together, demonstrating flexibility of thinking, working to personal strengths, demonstrating an awareness of personal weaknesses, open to collaboration with wider range of students, open to considering wider perspectives, willing to build on personal skills, developing ideas and understanding, with the ability to listen and not always respond (active listening).

(Day 3 BCE Teacher discussion: Collaboration tensions)

Collaboration was therefore a collective activity in which learners worked together to “unpack the problem; overcome problems and develop individual skills including empathy, active listening, focus and self-reflection” (Day 3 MACS Teacher discussion: Collaboration tensions).

When active collaboration was taking place, teachers witnessed students sharing ideas, listening actively, valuing a diversity of perspectives, offering and accepting feedback, and engaging in metacognitive reasoning and decision-making. As a collective, the teachers on Day 3 of the PL program identified that collaboration was about ‘being’ rather than ‘doing’, “where you are making decisions, and this needs some reflection time to decide if something needs to change and this often involves trial and error” (Day 3 MACS Teacher discussion: Collaboration and intrinsic motivation).

There was also a change in how learners activated their own knowledge, strategically positioning their ideas so that they could build on their prior knowledge, constructing new knowledge and ultimately directing their own learning.

In PBL, collaboration is an interactive social process requiring active student involvement and conditions that encourage learners to utilise trial and error to collaboratively reassess alternate approaches and from this select the most effective solution to a given problem. This type of collective learning demands more than simply placing students in teams and expecting them to find ways to work together.

8.2. Collaboration Involves Effective Communication

Data collected from teacher professional learning days emphasised the importance of communication in collaboration, both between the teachers and students and among the students themselves. Teachers highlighted that learning was a social process where learners were actively sharing ideas, building upon such thinking, interactively exploring, and critically assessing reasoning. This also required students to provide critical feedback to other members of their group. Modes of communication, the giving and taking of reasons, and the testing of ideas and assumptions were also noted as important. Therefore, effective communication was critical to effective collaboration and required the development of active listening skills, where all group members were being attentive to each other. This was something best learned through modelling, and the teachers realised such explicit modelling had been missing from the student experience.

That’s the thing—do we ever actually model effective collaboration and cooperation for our kids? We don’t, because in the classroom they only ever see one teacher and kids. They don’t actually watch adults communicate, collaborate…They don’t sit in the staff meetings. They don’t actually have the model of good communication and good negotiation.

(Day 3 MACS Teacher discussion: Collaboration tensions)

The teacher’s comments evidenced a realisation that “our students had no idea how to work successfully together. They didn’t know how to communicate properly. So, we really focused on explicitly teaching collaboration, and some activities around collaboration” (Day 3 BCE Teacher discussion: Characteristics of collaboration). Effective collaboration required students to respectfully give and receive feedback. Teachers identified that effective communication involved “negotiation—negotiating roles to get started. A willingness to be challenged—challenging each other’s ideas. Active listening—being attentive to each other. Compromise—reaching an outcome based on negotiation” (Day 3 BCE Teacher discussion: Characteristics of collaboration). Effective communication was essentially about “flexibility of thinking and a shared productive struggle” (Day 3 BCE Teacher discussion: Characteristics of collaboration).

Teachers recognised that collaboration is a social process involving the essential role of communication and that this required explicit modelling.

8.3. Collaboration Is Purposeful and Driven by Shared Goals

Teachers suggested that effective collaboration required a well-understood learning outcome and purpose. This understanding enabled students to work together to achieve a shared goal. Collaboration thrived where shared goals, or global issues required “big collaboration efforts to solve” (Day 3 MACS Teacher discussion: Collaboration tensions).

Generating learning issues and objectives, generating their own goals I think is really key to that process of having that ownership and buy in, and valuing failure as well. I think that that’s something that is unusual in a typical high school classroom.

(Day 3 MACS Teacher discussion: Collaboration tensions)

Shared goals are important in social cognition since they provide a vector of progress that can be understood by students, and along which their thinking, can be guided. As indicated in the following comment, shared goals, especially goals developed by students as opposed to being imposed upon them, provided agency and individual motivation towards collective success.

…if there’s that motivation there then they’re more inclined to listen to others and take on their ideas and change their own idea about what they want to do.

(Day 3 MACS Teacher discussion: Collaboration tensions)

When students are involved in setting shared goals, they feel more agency and are more open to listening to and incorporating others’ ideas, ultimately enhancing their collective success.

8.4. Collaboration Is Fluid and Organic

The importance of synergy in collaboration was also highlighted in the data, emphasising that effective collaboration is best achieved when roles are not strictly defined, or when students are not constrained by predefined roles. Instead, collaboration emerged as a shared, evolving process where roles are negotiated based on strengths and weaknesses as students learn from one another. Here, knowing each other’s strengths and weaknesses became crucial. In opposition to the competitive nature that might exist in a classroom, collaboration promoted an environment in which students were happy to work together, and where they were not worried about how working with others could “bring my mark down”. While teachers raised questions about role assignment and the necessity of specific structures for successful group work, data analysis indicated that effective collaboration is fluid and organic. Teachers emphasised the need for accountability, in that every team member had to be accountable to the others for the quality of not just their work, but of their thinking. This shared nature of collaboration was in contrast with the more static, fixed, and siloed experience of other group work.

Collaboration that was fluid and organic was often challenging for teachers because it required investment in student agency. As indicated in the following comment made by a teacher, this required letting go to provide students with permission to follow their ideas and lead interactions with their peers.

So our initial challenges were very much getting started. We found this process initially quite daunting… letting go, of traditional teaching pedagogies, and having that open-ended inquiry approach, which has that student voice, student agency, and then taking it as far as they want it to go. So I think that power of letting go was an initial challenge.

(Day 3 BCE Teacher discussion: Collaboration tensions)

Effective teamwork thrives when roles are flexible rather than strictly defined. Collaboration became a shared, evolving process where students negotiated roles based on their strengths and weaknesses, fostering a supportive environment free from competition. While this fluid approach posed initial challenges for the teachers, it ultimately encouraged deeper engagement and accountability among team members for both their work and their collective thinking.

8.5. Collaboration Values Diverse Perspectives

Teachers suggested that effective collaboration provided opportunities for shared experiences and unique perspectives. It allowed for diverse perspectives, building on skills, and the development of ideas and understanding.

I wanted students to collaborate and work together. Often, we put students in groups, and it’s just everybody taking a turn to do their little bit. Um, I put a really big emphasis on, you know, that in STEM we don’t have to know everything, um, but we rely on someone’s expertise, and they become sort of, you know, almost like, um, you know, ‘mini teachers’ in the classroom.

(Day 3 BCE Teacher discussion: Collaboration tensions)

Inclusivity was highlighted as a key aspect of successful collaboration, which allowed an interaction process that encouraged a sense of collective responsibility. Teachers discussed the importance of assisting students to identify the unique contribution they were able to make to the group and how their contribution would be important to the overall group success. Teachers described how they encouraged students to consider the following questions:

“What are the best ways that I think? And how can I maybe contribute to this task when I’m drawing a blank? What are my strengths?”.

(Day 3 BCE Teacher discussion: Collaboration tensions)

Teachers discussed the importance of drawing on the strengths within the group where students “can also seek amongst their group members to try to fill gaps where one person has a strength, another one might have a, a weakness and really pull from their strengths”.

(Day 3 BCE Teacher discussion: Collaboration tensions)

Successful collaboration fosters a sense of collective responsibility, encouraging students to recognise and leverage their individual strengths while relying on their peers’ expertise. Collaboration is enriched by diverse skills and insights, ultimately enhancing group success.

9. Discussion

This theoretical treatment and study together enhance our understanding of collective learning experiences within a problem-based learning (PBL) approach to STEM education. While identifying effective strategies and pedagogical insights related to collective learning is an ongoing process, the findings emphasise the cognitive aspects of effective collaboration based on intrinsic motivation. Using key concepts within social cognition as a lens through which to analyse data obtained from teacher professional learning days provided a wealth of potential criteria to help understand effective collaboration in the classroom.

As previously outlined in earlier sections of this paper, existing research on collective learning provides insights into how we might position a task along a continuum from individual to collective student activity (see Major, 2020) for a sample learning continuum. At the individualistic end, we can consider tasks that have few opportunities for interaction, are demarcated into exclusive student activities (i.e., highly modularised), do not require students to have deep knowledge or understanding of the ultimate goal, do not rely on dynamic interactions of individual components (discursive or otherwise) for each stage to progress, and are not intended to develop social capabilities. Such activities could be described, as Nelson (2008) does, by using an assembly line analogy, wherein an activity can arguably be carried out by a single person, provided sufficient time and resources are available. In other words, such activities are designed to produce exactly the sum of individual effort.

At the collective end of the continuum, tasks might require collective problematisation (in cases of “ill-defined” problems), dealing with uncertainty and ambiguity, and high levels of student interactivity throughout, where students work to develop a shared understanding of the goal and the problem, requiring the need for cycles of creativity and criticality, during which students collectively generate, challenge, or test ideas. Additionally, students need to develop the social and cognitive skills necessary for productive interactivity, much of which occurs in discursive and dialogic contexts. In contrast to the individual end of the continuum, tasks are intended to produce more than the sum of individual effort.

For the purposes of this paper, we refer to the latter work—being optimally social, marked by high levels of interactivity and shared understanding—as collaborative, with the distinction between cooperation, groupwork, and teamwork left unresolved for the moment.

In the context of PBL, a clear distinction emerged between traditional cooperative learning methods and new, more dynamic ways of learning. Interestingly, for many teachers, cooperative learning had, in their experience, been defined in part by students taking on assigned roles within small groups to complete a specific task. In contrast, the data showed the importance of synergy in collaboration, emphasising that it is best achieved when students are not constrained by predefined roles. Collaboration was observed when students engaged in pursuing a common goal while respecting each other’s contributions (Kozar, 2010; McInnerney & Roberts, 2004). This collaborative process was significantly enhanced when the students recognised a meaningful purpose for their learning, worked together to establish shared objectives, and took responsibility for their collective success. Teachers suggest that effective collaboration provides opportunities for shared experiences and unique perspectives. It allows for diverse perspectives, building on skills, and the development of ideas and understanding. Consequently, inclusivity is also highlighted as a key aspect of successful collaboration, allowing for an interactive process that encourages a sense of collective responsibility.

The structure of groups in this context needed to be fluid and organic, deviating from the rigid frameworks typical of traditional cooperative learning. Without strictly assigned roles, it was possible for the groups to achieve high levels of individual and collective accountability to ensure rigour and authenticity of work, in that every team member had to be accountable to the others for the quality of not just their work, but of their thinking through the respectful giving and taking of reasons and feedback. Students were given permission and support to openly share and critically evaluate ideas, provide constructive feedback, and appreciate the diversity of perspectives within the group. The most successful groups were those where all members collaborated effectively to solve problems, reinforcing the importance of a supportive and inclusive learning environment. This fluid, organic, and shared nature of collaboration is in contrast with the more static, fixed, and siloed experience of other group work.

These changes capture the thinking that began to emerge as teachers moved from positioning a group task from the focus on individual contribution to a more collective student activity. Using a theoretical continuum to explain the changes, teachers were redesigning experiences moving students from having few opportunities for interaction where they had been essentially undertaking exclusive student activities (i.e., highly modularised), to activities where students were developing deep knowledge or understanding of the ultimate goal. Teachers began to see the importance of relying on the dynamics of the interactions between individuals within the group and developing the students’ social capabilities.

The theoretical framework of social cognition together with teacher data on collaboration suggest a range of criteria that could be used to describe successful collaboration. We present below a candidate list of criteria for this purpose, in no intended order of significance. These criteria represent aspects of teacher discussions and findings that provide some structure for discussion and refinement. A list of descriptors for these criteria (poor-excellent) is given in a matrix as Appendix A, with a full 5 point scale available in the Supplementary Materials. The criteria and broader matrix are not intended to be definitive, but to present a model of how such a resource might be developed. It is intended as a starting point for educators to discuss with each other and with students as to how collaboration can be understood and improved during learning. It is assumed that further research will provide more guidance as to how this might develop in the future.

• Candidate criteria for collaboration

• Shared Goals and Vision
• Open Communication
• Mutual Trust and Respect
• Intrinsic motivation/Active Participation
• Flexibility
• Diversity of Skills and Knowledge
• Joint Decision-making
• Shared Accountability
• Conflict Resolution
• Feedback Loops
• Shared Leadership
• Synergy
• Transparent Processes

10. Limitations of Study

Several limitations should be considered when interpreting and applying the findings of this study. The teachers involved were selected from two different states within Australia, emphasising the important consideration that context brought to this study. School contexts were varied, and therefore the study attempted to capture the nuances of teacher considerations, however, the specific classroom and school contexts also played an important role, as the dynamics of collaboration are shaped by local conditions and practices. The teachers in the study had expressed an interest in STEM education but represented varying levels of experience and familiarity with student-centred approaches, which likely influenced their engagement with and interpretations of the collaboration principle. Finally, as clearly stated in the paper, implementing the collaboration assessment matrix is something that requires future discussion and experimentation. There are opportunities for future research to trial and evaluate this matrix with teachers.

11. Conclusions

This study contributes to a deeper understanding of collective learning within a problem-based learning framework in STEM education, highlighting the cognitive and social dimensions of collaboration. By examining teacher experiences and applying a theoretical lens grounded in social cognition, we identified a set of key themes to enhance collaboration in the classroom, helping educators to conceptualise and design tasks that move beyond modularised, individual efforts towards dynamic, synergistic collaboration.

The findings underscore that effective collaboration is not merely a matter of task completion but involves the cultivation of shared understanding, mutual accountability, and inclusive dialogue. Teachers observed that when students were freed from rigid role assignments and encouraged to engage organically, collaboration flourished. This fluid structure allowed for the respectful exchange of ideas, critical feedback, and the development of collective responsibility.

Significantly, collaboration is understood as more than the sum of individual contributions. As individuals reason together, their inputs and outputs can form a system that encompasses and extends what is possible as separate agents. Other minds act as cognitive resources that are not available to students acting in isolation. Students are not always just communicating the results of their completed cognition, but are engaged in a flow of ideas and exchange of partially formed thoughts to see where they may lead. The exchange is a part of the cognitive process, and the result is more than the sum of the parts.

This social cognition lens reframes collaboration as a process in which learning develops through the dynamic cognitive interplay between students. It also reinforces the importance of designing learning experiences that support this kind of engagement, enabling students to feel safe to share, challenge, and develop ideas together. The matrix provided in Appendix A offers a practical starting point for educators to reflect on and develop collaborative practices in their classrooms.

Ultimately, this research invites a shift in pedagogical thinking from viewing group work as a logistical arrangement to understanding it as a rich, cognitive, and relational process. By embracing the complexity and potential of collective learning, educators can foster deeper understanding, creativity, and critical thinking. While the study was positioned within a STEM context, the theoretic development of collaboration offered suggests that the characteristics of effective collaboration articulated here could be applied in alternative contexts.