INVESTIGATING COLLABORATIVE LEARNING PRACTICES IN THE LOWER SECONDARY SCHOOL CURRICULUM IN UGANDA

ACASE STUDY OF YUMBE SECONDARY SCHOOL

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.0 Introduction

In order to prepare students to function successfully in acquisition of knowledge that prepares them to meet the current needs of the society, one of the educational system’s goals is developing students’ ability to interact, collaborate and work in virtual teams (Dery et al., 2017). Collaborative learning (CL) has the potential to shift the emphasis from individual efforts to group work, from independent to community learning, in which students work together on shared tasks or on creating group outcomes (Laal, 2013). Within this pedagogical design, learners have the opportunity to be active, conduct dialogues with peers, present their arguments and ideas, exchange perspectives, ask questions and become critical thinkers as teachers act as facilitators (Shamir‐Inbal, & Blau, I. 2021; Lee & Hannafin, 2016).

This study would wish to establish the collaborative learning practices that might have propelled students’ learning in the lower secondary schools in Uganda. Collaborative learning has great potential in formal education because it promotes the joint construction of knowledge, as well as the development of skills to optimize learning (Miguel &Herrera, 2021; Vlahopol, 2016). It generates positive student outcomes such as increased academic achievement, improved abilities in apply knowledge and generate new ideas (Mokgojoa, 2020). Collaborative learning involves small groups of students sharing responsibilities, taking collective decisions and acting together in order to learn together (White, & Pea, 2011).

This approach actively engages learners to process and synthesize information and concepts, rather than use rote memorization of facts and figures (Kirschner, Paas, & Kirschner, 2009).In other words, learners work with each other on projects, collaborating as a group to understand the concept (Valamis, 2019).

This chapter provides a background to the study which comprised the historical, theoretical, conceptual and contextual perspectives. It also includes the problem statement, purpose of the study, research questions, justification of the study, and significance of the study, conceptual frame work and operational definition of terms.

Background to the study

This section focuses on the historical, theoretical, conceptual and contextual perspectives, which provide information as regards the background on collaborative learning.

1.1.1 Historical perspective

In the study on the history of collaborative learning the findings indicates that the idea of CL came into being thanks to the efforts of British teachers and researchers in the 1950s and 1960s who after studying the interaction of medical students with their teaching physician, M.L.J. Abercrombie concluded that the medical students who learned to make a diagnosis as a group reached to a good medical judgment, faster than individuals working alone (Le, Janssen, & Wubbels, 2018).

Collaborative learning practice further examined During the 1970s, college professors became increasingly alarmed that students seemed to be having difficulty with the transition into writing at the college-level. Researchers looking into this problem decided that the help being offered to students was too similar to classroom learning (Zhang, Scardamalia, Reeve, & Messina, 2009).

Katja etal, (2018) affirmed that one of the principal benefits of collaborative learning is its potential to develop students’ transversal skills: social skills, problem solving, self-effectiveness, responsibility, the capacity for reflection and initiative. Contemporary learning paradigms argue for the facilitation of lifelong learning in collaborative as opposed to individual environments. This is based upon the premise that the collaboration process will include discussion, argumentation and reflection upon the task at hand, thus leading to deeper processing of the information and richer and more meaningful learning. These environments can be either traditional collaborative ones, such as in face-to-face problem- based learning, or computer-mediated environments, which can be synchronous or asynchronous and/or distributed or non-distributed, according to Naujokaitiene, & Passey, (2019) Although, different educational, social, and economic arguments have been advanced to explain the potential of collaborative learning and justify its use, it is argued that the basic rationale for choosing collaborative learning as the preferred educational approach should be its relative effectiveness and efficiency for learning in comparison with more traditional educational approaches in which learning takes place as an individual activity.

Proponents of collaborative learning claim that the active exchange of ideas within small groups not only increases interest among the participants but also promotes critical thinking. There is persuasive evidence that cooperative teams achieve at higher levels of thought and retain information longer than students who work quietly as individuals (De Hei, Strijbos, Sjoer, & Admiraal, 2015). The shared learning gives students an opportunity to engage in discussion, take responsibility for their own learning, and thus become critical thinkers. In spite of these advantages, most of the research studies on collaborative learning have been done at the primary and secondary levels. As yet, there is little empirical evidence on its effectiveness at the college level. The advances in technology and changes in the organizational infrastructure put an increased emphasis on teamwork within the workforce. Workers need to be able to think creatively, solve problems, and make decisions as a team. Therefore, the development and enhancement of critical-thinking skills through collaborative learning is one of the primary goals of technology education.

According to Lai (2011), research on collaboration has stemmed from three distinct strands: research comparing group performance to individual performance, identifying the conditions which favor or challenge collaboration as more or less effective, and research exploring the characteristics of interactions that evaluate the impact of collaboration on learning and achievement including the moderators such as use of new technologies that facilitate numerous interactions. For example, research have been conducted in this domain including designing interactive learning environments (Borokhovski, Tamim, Bernard, Abrami, & Sokolovskaya, 2012), technology integration in postsecondary education (Schmid, Bernard, Borokhovski, Tamim, Abrami, Surkes, Wade & Woods, 2014), and collaboration and its impact on student learning (Williams, 2009; Tomcho, & Foels, 2012).

1.1.2 Theoretical perspective

This study is supported by the social learning theory by Vygotsky (1962). The theory states that social learning helps us to understand how people learn from each other in social contexts and informs us on how teachers construct active collaborative learning communities. Vygotsky (1962) stated that we learn through our interactions and communications with others. He suggested that learning takes place through the interactions students have with their peers, teachers, and other experts. The role of the teachers is to create a learning environment that maximizes the learner’s ability to interact with each other through discussion, collaboration, and feedback (Vygotsky, 1962).

Vygotsky’s (1962) theory of the Zone of Proximal Development enables learners rely on one another to accomplish tasks that they would not have been able to complete individually. Based on this, collaborative learning is key for developing critical thinking skills in which students retain more information when they collaboratively work in groups. He affirmed that peer-to-peer learning fosters deeper thinking in the classroom which is highly influenced by use of relevant interactive approaches which places the teacher as a facilitator during the teaching and learning process. This theory further suggests that group learning helps students to develop their higher level of thinking, oral communication, self-management and leadership skills. Vygotsky (1962) examined how interactive teaching approaches influence the learning activities and suggested that for learning to take place, interactions between teachers and their students or the students among themselves have to be eminent. On this note, this theory will inform this study on collaborative learning through which learners can reach their zone of proximal development and/or highest potential as a result of learning collaboratively with their peers.

1.1.3 Conceptual perspective

Collaborative learning practice entails individuals working in groups, communicating and contributing during all activities towards a shared goal or specific task outcome (Vangrieken, Docky, Raes & Kyandt, 2015). It is an approach to teaching and learning where students gather together to solve problems resulting in a joint solution in the form of a product or an idea. It relies on the idea that learning is a natural social activity involving negotiations (Osipov & Ziyatdinova, 2017).

Collaborative learning encounters an interaction between the teacher and the students. It is a child-centered method where learners share their learning experiences in a social setting. Collaborative learning is the educational approach of using groups to enhance learning through working together. Groups of two or more learners work together to solve problems, complete tasks, or learn new concepts. This approach actively engages learners to process and synthesize information and concepts, rather than using rote memorization of facts and figures. Learners work with each other on projects, where they must collaborate as a group to understand the concepts being presented to them. Through defending their positions, reframing ideas, listening to other viewpoints and articulating their points, learners will gain a more complete understanding as a group than they could as individuals (Le, Janssen, & Wubbels, 2018).

Collaborative learning entails students working together without immediate teacher supervision in groups small enough that all students can participate collectively in a task, collaboration as the mutual engagement of participants in a coordinated effort to solve a problem together. Thus collaboration can be termed as coordinated, synchronous activity that is the result of a continued attempt to construct and maintain a shared conception of a problem (Naujokaitiene, & Passey, 2019).

The teacher-centered model of imparting knowledge is a system that recognizes the teacher as as the expert in charge of imparting knowledge to his or her students via lectures or direct instruction. In this setting, students are sometimes described as “empty vessels,” listening to and absorbing information (Smit, De Brabander, & Martens, 2014).

Learner-centered teaching methods shift the focus of activity from the teacher to the learners. These methods include: Active learning, in which students solve problems, answer questions, formulate questions of their own, discuss, explain, debate, or brainstorm during class (Al-Zu’be, 2013).

Collaborative learning is an educational approach to teaching and learning that involves groups of students working together to solve a problem, complete a task, or create a product. According to Gerlach, Collaborative learning is based on the idea that learning is a naturally social act in which the participants talk among themselves (Naujokaitiene, & Passey, 2019).

1.1.4 Contextual perspective

The education system in Uganda has gone through numerous changes over the last
decade, including changes in curriculum, increased funding by the government, and
the increased role of the private sector in the provision of education from primary
to university education level (Ayorekire &Twinomuhangi, 2017). Secondary school education in Uganda is guided by the National Secondary Education curriculum, most of which was inherited from the British at independence in 1962 (Sekagya, 2005).The lower secondary school curriculum is currently undergoing a number of reforms with emphasis on altering not only the number of subjects that are taught but also ‘how and why’ they are taught (Ayorekire &Twinomuhangi, 2017).

The old curriculum which is Knowledge-based curriculum aimed at transferring knowledge from the teacher to the students by lecturing, talking and asking them to read the textbook or writing notes on the board for them to copy and learn (NCDC, 2019). Further Students acquired the knowledge without fully understanding it and were tested at the end of a topic, term or school course to see if they remembered it (NCDC, 2019).

This has called for a review of the curriculum whose focus is to produce secondary school graduates with competences that are required in the twenty first century by promoting values and attitudes that enhance effective learning and acquisition of skills in order to reduce unemployment among school graduates in Uganda (NCDC, 2019).A good number of generic skills have been developed in the new lower secondary school curriculum which emphasize collaborative learning for instance creativity and innovation, cooperative and self- directed learning has prepared students to work with others to generate ideas, work effectively in diverse teams and interact effectively with others (NCDC, 2019). This study wants to establish whether this skills can develop collaborative learning practices among secondary school students in Uganda a case of Yumbe district.

1.2 Problem statement

Collaborative learning is an ideal practice that has benefited students in higher learning institutions and secondary schools in particular (Jarvel & Hadwin 2013). It is associated with students learning from one another’s experiences and sharing knowledge, as well as active participation in the learning processes in which students take control in constructing their own knowledge (Hadwin et al., 2019). It increases students’ social competency and academic self-concept (child & shaw, 2019). Leadership, decision-making, trust-building, communication, and conflict-management skills empower students to manage both teamwork and task work successfully among others (Laal, Laal, & Kermanshahi, 2012). These benefits are aligned to the 21st Century skills such as Critical thinking, Creativity, Collaboration, Communication, Information literacy, Media literacy, Technology literacy and problem-solving that are needed in the labor market and contribute in shaping a learner’s life (Atieno, 2020).

Teaching and learning in a modern classroom is no longer an act of transferring knowledge. The act of teaching has become a multidiciplinary enterprize to develop critical thinking, interaction, and collaboration among learners. Given these multidisciplinary changes in curriculum and its relative learning objectives, the need to collaborate in order to create learning environments has gained momnetum in this decade or so. Instead of teacher-centred approaches, the focus has shifted to learner-centred and learning-centred strategies. In the current educational landscape, learners are no more the empty vessels to be filled in, rather they need to be the co- creators of knowledge; they should be willing to take ownership of their learning and contribute to the development of knowledge. However despite the benefits of collaborative learning there is a still a challenge in adoption of these very essential learning techniques in Uganda. It’s against this Background that this study intends to investigate into investigating collaborative learning practices in the lower secondary school curriculum in Uganda.

1.3 Purpose of the study

The purpose of this study is to establish how collaborative learning has been taken up in the lower secondary curriculum in Uganda. This will include establishing the teacher and student’s experiences as well as challenges as regards implementation of collaborative learning using the new curriculum. This will inform the use of collaborative learning as an instructional approach as well as teacher training as regards collaborative learning approaches.

1.4 Research questions of the study

This study will be guided by the following specific objectives:

How is collaborative learning undertaken in the lower secondary curriculum in Uganda?
What are teachers’ experiences in implementing collaborative learning in the lower secondary school curriculum in Uganda?

What are students’ experiences as regards collaborative learning in the lower secondary school curriculum in Uganda?

1.5 Scope of the

This section of the study will include; Time scope, content scope and Geographical scope.

1.5.1 Geographical scope

This study will be carried out in Yumbe secondary school.

1.5.2 Content scope

The study will cover areas of how is collaborative learning undertaken in the lower secondary curriculum, teachers’ experiences in implementing collaborative learning in the lower secondary school curriculum and students’ experiences as regards collaborative learning in the lower secondary school curriculum.

1.5.3 Time scope

This research process run from Jan 2022 to November 2022

1.6 Significance of the study

This study is intended to How is collaborative learning undertaken in the lower secondary curriculum among Yumbe secondary school .

This research will provide additional information to the body of knowledge regarding the importance of pedagogical training in improving the quality of teaching and learning in Schools. This will contribute immensely to enhance the capacity of policy makers in the education sector and other interested stakeholders to address the challenges facing our education system in general and Kayunga School specifically. This therefore will also influence different stakeholders in different parts of Uganda to adopt key information, which is necessary for successful implementation of the new lower Secondary curriculum.

1.7 Limitations of the study

The researcher anticipates encountering the following challenges during the course of data collection. Inadequate funding, interruption due to Covid-19 and its related consequences such as lockdown and avoidance of face to face contact, processing data, typing, printing, and binding the dissertation, which may delay the research process and submission of the final dissertation. Distances between Yumbe Schools coupled with scattered respondents in these centers may make it difficult to contact the entire group of respondents. This may affect the quality of the process of data collection and production of the report. Domestic and administrative responsibility of respondents may affect their commitment and interest in this study. This may eventually affect the quality of the research report.

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.0 introduction

This section presents the discussion of the study in line to the findings of other others.

2.1 How is collaborative learning undertaken

Collaborative learning allows the students to be engaged in the learning process as they work together towards a common learning goal. When they discuss or share ideas with others, they automatically are practicing their language competency. In class, this is one of the challenge in which the students are asked to speak English as a foreign language as the main targeted goal (Jeong, & Hmelo-Silver, 2016).

In collaborative learning teachers need to switch his/her learning approach into the traditional one as he/she is trying to explain certain topics to the students. The fact that the students are actually in needs of practicing the study on their own in certain amount of time will be reduced by the long duration the teacher needs to explain the difficult material. Other challenge present as the more capable students have no peers to practice the conversation since the weak students are may be unable to respond the topic in a meaningful way (Kaendler, Wiedmann, Rummel, & Spada, 2015).

A collaborative (or cooperative) learning approach involves students working together on activities or learning tasks in a group small enough for everyone to participate on a collective task that has been clearly assigned. Students in the group may work on separate tasks contributing to a common overall outcome, or work together on a shared task. Some collaborative learning approaches put mixed ability teams or groups to work in competition with each other in order to drive more effective collaboration (Laal, & Laal, 2012). There is a very wide range of approaches to collaborative and cooperative learning involving different kinds of organisation and tasks. Peer tutoring can also be considered as a type of collaborative learning (Laal, & Ghodsi, 2012).

The impact of collaborative approaches on learning is consistently positive. However, the size of impact varies, so it is important to get the detail right. Effective collaborative learning requires much more than just sitting students together and asking them to work in a group; structured approaches with well-designed tasks lead to the greatest learning gains. There is some evidence that collaboration can be supported with competition between groups, but this is not always necessary, and can lead to learners focusing on the competition rather than the learning it aims to support. Approaches which promote talk and interaction between learners tend to result in the best gains. There remain a fairly limited number of published studies on collaborative learning in Australian and New Zealand contexts. A meta-analysis on the topic is yet to be published. The few studies that have been published indicate that collaborative learning is an effective way of engaging students in learning, as long as it is well structured and well communicated (Jamieson 2018).

A 2014 review article about cooperative learning was conducted by academics at the University of Queensland. The article found that cooperative learning was most likely to be effective when groups included four or fewer students with mixed prior achievement, and when students worked on tasks that required them to cooperate (Hardy, Edwards-Groves, & Rönnerman, 2012).

Zang (2010) explains that in traditional classroom, discourse is set up by the teacher in an artificial setting, whereas Collaborative Learning can be designed to create social setting that is similar to real-life situation in the way that language is used. It helps the students to produce not only in its quantity, but also optimize the conversation by engaging themselves in requesting, clarifying, and negotiating conversation during the Collaborative Learning.

Lin (2015) indicates, in Collaborative Learning directed learning, language adjustment occurs as the students try to make themselves understood. Consequently, they will also try to make others understand what is intended to say. They will speak in different ways to ensure others to listen to and comprehend what he/she is saying by using different ways of speaking. By this, students are subconsciously accustomed themselves to use appropriate language.

Lin (2015) states that language learning is an emotional and psychological experience to some extent. Thus when learners’ psychological condition is troubled, then the learning might not accomplished maximally. Collaborative Learning create situation in which learners feel more convenient and relax since there is no strict regulation of how they should learn. Learners are also freed to talk and discuss with their peers of difficult points from the material given by the teacher. This is quite different with traditional learning approach, where the students are afraid to make mistakes in speaking as they have to speak organized in front of their friends with correct and proper grammar and accuracy.

This situation limits the students’ opportunity from experiencing various learning situation in which possible to result in a further and deeper understanding of certain topics. Collaborative Learning allows for the negotiation of meanings and therefore the learners’ understanding is reshaped. Positive affective situation thereby improve the students’ learning and further the achievement (Al-Samarraie, & Saeed, 2018).

In Collaborative Learning the interaction between the learners and their peers are constructed through the discussion and sharing ideas between them. The interaction takes place in a very comfortable situation while at the same time, learners exchange different ideas and perceptions among them. Jiang (2009) claims this situation as improving learners’ linguistics competence and communicative skills as well. This also promotes social interaction between the learners themselves through discussing, questioning, responding, and organizing learning process.

Compared to individual learning, CL is believed to enhance learners’ critical thinking, this process occurs when the students are discussing, clarifying, and evaluating peers’ opinions (Lin, 2015). Collaborative learning also encourages critical thinking through problem-solving process. Learners engage actively in the discussion which fosters their mind to think critically of the topics being discussed (Kaendler, Wiedmann, Rummel, & Spada, 2015).

Collaborative learning (CL) in its form, that cooperative learning is considered to be more structured. It does not happen randomly but more organized than collaborative learning. The structured form might be found in some aspects; the technique the teacher use for his/her teaching activity, also the target and procedure of how the students work together in group. Collaborative learning is related to social constructivist epistemology, with the goal of acculturating students into the immediate community of learning and the wider world of the target language and culture (Lin, 2015).

In other words, Collaborative learning mediate learners to experience an unplanned, spontaneous learning situation in which they have opportunity to gain as much knowledge as possible through the peer-mentoring without being framed into specific learning borders. Learners can maximize mutual social engagement for the purpose of learning. Learners can interchange their knowledge and ideas others do not possess. Therefore, the maximum goal of learning is possibly to be reached.

Roschelle and Teasley (1995) give more detailed discussion about cooperative learning, that it is a work that is “accomplished by the division of labor among participants, as an activity where each person is responsible for a portion of the problem-solving”. It can be inferred from this explanation that cooperative learning demands the individuals in the group to be involved in the equal share and that each of them shall complete what has been authorized to them. Each member of the group has equal and fair division of duty and task. Whereas, as has been previously mentioned, CL involves “the mutual engagement of participants in a coordinated effort to solve the problem together” (Roschelle and Teasley, 1995). This suggests that in CL, each individual in the group are possibly to change roles of when to become the mentor and when they need the assistance from their peers.

Based on these discussions, it is clear that collaborative learning differs from the cooperative one in the concept and division of task. However, some spontaneous division of task may also occur in CL. We can take example in a situation where a group of learners is about to discuss a certain topic. Those who have the knowledge upon the topic will automatically take the role as the mentor to others since he will be able to speak and say more on related issues of the topic. Meanwhile, other members will become the observers. However, they still have the opportunity to contribute by suggesting their ideas or at least give their opinion or critics upon subject being discussed, which is not the prior role of the ‘speaker’. Based on this assertion, cooperative learning and CL is not different in terms of task distribution. Even though there is no clear and structured division of task in CL, learners still share unstipulated responsibility upon their roles in group.

Before discussing what activities can be employed as CL, it is better to first discuss whether collaborative skills can be trained or not. Educators are suggested to give explicit instruction to develop collaboration skills (Lai, 2011).

2.2 Teachers’ experiences in implementing collaborative learning

Teachers in numerous countries worldwide often confront education reforms in their career. In education reform initiatives, school teachers are often encouraged to implement innovative teaching strategies to enhance teaching quality. Collaborating is considered a feasible approach to changing teachers’ traditional teaching philosophy. However, even though schools have organized a teaching team for their teachers, some teachers still preferred to work alone in their classrooms (Nompula, 2012). The reasons may include that the teachers found working individually faster than collaborating with others (Sikes, 2009) and they preferred self-directed learning, especially older teachers (Richter, Kunter, Klusmann, Lüdtke & Baumert, 2011). Based on the above phenomenon, teachers’ experiences in, and barriers on, participating in collaborative learning should be a concern.

Collaborative learning models promote the sharing and public co- construction of group knowledge (Bridges and Hallinger, 2019). Students are said to benefit from both explaining to others and having material explained to them by their peers (Bruffee, 2014). Hence, from having permission to privately construct understandings, students are now obliged to publicly display their construction of knowledge before their peers. Multiple constraints to speaking in tutorials have been identified. Personal factors such as interest, comprehension and confidence as well as group factors that selectively encourage participation all affect degree of verbal input (Fassinger, 2015) referred to fac tors such as poorly formulated ideas, ignorance of a subject, and fear of appearing unintelligible to one’s peers and instructors as key constraints. She also emphasized the role of the group members in creating pressure for particular students not to speak or to speak briefly whilst giving other students permission to speak.

Teachers conducting collaborative Teaching structures instead of professional learning community have been implemented as part of the school improvements to promote a collaborative mode of teaching and comprehensive education for students in many countries around the world. In Taiwan, organizing teams of teachers from the same subject area or for the same grade level is a regular administrative affair in a school. In the early years, the tasks of these teaching teams only focus on choosing the teaching materials, arranging learning activities, and setting an academic schedule for a semester. Less than 10 years ago, the concept of a professional learning community from Western countries advanced Taiwanese schools’ teaching teams into becoming a learning community to facilitate teachers’ professional development. In recent years, the concept of teacher professional development in Taiwan has also been impacted by the “Lesson Study” delivered from Japan, and approximates the tendency of teacher collaboration. The collaborative activities adapting Lesson Study is also perceived as valuable by school teachers in other countries, such as Singapore (Lim, Lee, Saito, & Haron, 2011).

Teachers teaching in collaborative approach, promote the sharing and public co-construction of group knowledge (Bridges and Hallinger, 2018). A significant benefit of collaborative Learning is regarding to the groups operating together long enough during a course. The people in teams will get to know each other and extend their activities outside of class. Students will contact each other to get help with questions or problems they are having, and they will often continue their communications in later terms, CL helps to develop learning communities within classes and institutions (Ono, & Ferreira, 2010). .

In one of the analysis of Teachers contribution in collaborating learning approach indicates that teachers are able to understand the students strengths and weaknesses and in turn it enables the students to understand how to improve students ability, Kadroon & Inprasitha, (2013) referred to factors such as poorly formulated ideas, ignorance of a subject, and fear of appearing unintelligible to one’s peers and instructors as key constraints. She also emphasized the role of the group members in creating pressure for particular students not to speak or to speak briefly whilst giving other students permission to speak.

Teachers collaborating on a project such as a lesson can exchange teaching ideas and experiences, discuss teaching practices, provide each other with feedback, and participate in further changes to teachers’ cognition and/or behavior. During collaborating, teachers collectively develop a perspective on how to enhance students’ learning. Such practices that emphasize teachers’ collaboration to promote teachers jointly engaging in a sustained analysis of teaching and learning are seemingly considered a feasible process of teacher professional development. Currently, teachers are often expected to improve their teaching as well as to enhance student learning through mutual experience-sharing and collective learning in school teaching teams. However, teachers struggle with the move from isolation to collaboration and the tension between autonomy and collaboration (Puchnera, & Taylor, 2016).

Numerous challenges make it difficult for teachers to engage in collaborations, such as the absence of a supportive environment, unwillingness to share, and lack of time to collaborate with colleagues (Harfitt & Tavares, 2014). The processes of teacher collaborations are complex because of involvement in an organizational context collegiality (Ning, Lee, & Lee, 2015), mutual trust between teachers in engaging in dialogue and experience-sharing (Sztajn, Hackenberg, White, & Allexshat-Snider, 2017), teacher autonomy (Roux, & Valladares, 2014) and a critical focus on collaboration (Doppenberg, den Brok, & Bakx, 2012).

Studies have revealed certain barriers that reduce teachers’ willingness to collaborate with each other. A lack of a regular common schedule is a frequently mentioned problem, although the significance is controversial (Sawyer & Rimm-Kaufman, 2017). Teachers need to find a common time to plan, meet, coordinate, and implement a new, shared curriculum (Muscelli, 2012; Suzanne, 2012). Developing long-lasting relationships built on trust requires a considerable amount of time, as does maintaining a good program (Bullough & Birrell, 2019).

Cultural and language factors have also been identified as having a role in constraining Teachers participation in collaborative learning (Zhang 2011). The literature points to the active preference for some cultural groups to listen to learn silently in the classroom (Khoo, 2013). Two key issues need to be appreciated here. Firstly, the demands of communicating in a second language with all its nuances may make public displays of knowledge more challenging than when verbalizing in a first language. Further, the language of any classroom could be viewed as unique. For example, in Australian classrooms, informal conversational ‘local’ idiomatic English is combined with the languages of the subject under study and the more formal discourse of the classroom.

According to Wilkerson, (2011) Teachers’ level of cultural literacy also impacts on their ability to fully engage with the obligations of classroom practice. cultural literacy as knowledge of meaning systems and an ability to negotiate these systems within different cultural contexts . Students differ in their ability to read the embedded interaction norms of any new classroom setting as well as in their ability to adjust their behaviours to fit within these norms. Teachers are expected to read what is valued in terms of how and when participation is appropriate and to perform a list of communicative functions such as smooth turn-taking and the acceptance of creative silences.

A long-lasting commitment with a vision and relationships based on trust can enhance the quality of teacher collaborations by building a stronger sense of community, emotional attachment, and empathic concerns regarding others’ needs, which are identified by teachers as high-level professional competence in teacher collaborations (Tseng & Kuo, 2010). Vangrieken, et al. (2015) reviewed literature related to teacher collaboration and indicated the actions facilitating collaborations (e.g., realizing task interdependence, developing clear roles for the team members, a defined focus for collaboration). In addition, group level interventions (e.g., mainly focused on group members’ composition) and structural supports (e.g., scheduling adequate time for collaboration, structuring collaboration meetings formally) seem to be the important points of action in order to facilitate teacher collaboration.

Teaching and learning in a modern classroom is no longer an act of transferring knowledge. The act of teaching has become a multidiciplinary enterprize to develop critical thinking, interaction, and collaboration among learners. Given these multidisciplinary changes in curriculum and its relative learning objectives, the need to collaborate in order to create learning environments has gained momnetum in this decade or so. Instead of teacher-centred approaches, the focus has shifted to learner-centred and learning-centred strategies. In the current educational landscape, learners are no more the empty vessels to be filled in, rather they need to be the cocreators of knowledge; they should be willing to take ownership of their learning and contribute to the development of knowledge (De Hei, Strijbos, Sjoer, & Admiraal, 2015).

The use of collaborative approaches in pedagogies have gained currency in the last few decades. collaborative learning entails “students working together without immediate teacher supervision in groups small enough that all students can participate collectively in a task, Thus collaboration can be termed as “coordinated, synchronous activity that is the result of a continued attempt to construct and maintain a shared conception of a problem.collaboratively rich environment has been strongly recommended to improve students’ cognitive performance, social relationships, and metacognition (Paris & Winograd, 2019).

2.3 Students’ experiences as regards collaborative learning

Lai (2011) indicates that learning together with what is called as student team learning, the procedure of this technique is by dividing students into groups with mixed ability. In each group, the members help prepare each other to perform best in a quiz competing with other teams. Team with the highest mean levels of each member’s performance is acknowledgeable. It is more specific in that the students must take proficiency tests before moving on to more difficult material and their scores on these mastery test affect the team’s scores. There are many other methods can be applied for Collaborative learning. The important point is that the teacher must vary the activities, the task structures, the reward and reinforcement to achieve the target of learning.

In collaborative a teacher might want to assess student’s individual achievement in learning which is proven by student’s knowledge or skill performed in group. Secondly, teacher might want to assess the student’s ability to work and learn from collaboration in the group which is scored from their individual and group assessment achievement. Thirdly, teacher might assess the group’s productivity, evidenced by the quality or quantity a task finished collaboratively. The last is that teacher is possibly trying to measure the students’ collaborative skills which consist of coordination, communication, decision-making, conflict resolution, and negotiation. Webb (2015)

Feed is easily attainable in Collaborative learning approach something that enhances the performance and faster learning acquisition from the team members. Responsive feedback involves substantive corrections, elaborations, and explanations. Whereas, non-responsive feedback happens when there is no response given to student who asks for help, no correction when student making errors, and student given the answers without getting any explanation of why those answers are correct. Later, Webb (2013) categorizes students’ behavior into four; the first type is students who are capable of solving problems by themselves without any or only little assistance from others. The second type of students are those who are facing difficulties but willing to express them by making errors or asking questions that signal they do not understand. The third type is students who mimic others’ work without trying to solve it by themselves. The last category is students who give no contribution verbally during group discussion.

Collaborative learning is an umbrella term for a variety of educational approaches involving joint intellectual effort by students, or students and teachers together. Usually, students are working in groups of two or more, mutually searching for understanding, solutions, or meanings, or creating a product and this therefore enhances there Active Listening skills and Critical Thinking ability, (Jeong, & Hmelo-Silver, 2016).

Collaborative learning represents a significant shift away from the typical teacher- centered or lecture-centered milieu in college classrooms. In collaborative classrooms, the lecturing/ listening/note-taking process may not disappear entirely, but it lives alongside other processes that are based in students’ discussion and active work with the course material. Teachers who use collaborative learning approaches tend to think of themselves less as expert transmitters of knowledge to students, and more as expert designers of intellectual experiences for students-as coaches or mid-wives of a more emergent learning process (De Hei, Strijbos, Sjoer, & Admiraal, 2015).

In collaborative goal structure, a learner is able to achieve learning goals when their peers also achieve theirs. Even though the portion is relatively different from one to another, the least capable learner will still also capable of achieving the goal of learning depend on his/her capacity. The competitive goal structure does not allow all individuals to achieve the learning goal. Instead, an individual learner achieves while others do not. In individualistic goal structure, there is no relationship between the achievement of an individual and the involvement of others either in the form of collaboration or competition. In other words, one’s achievement is independent from others’. This occurs because each individual learner learns by themselves. There is no such kind of peer mentoring or competition with others (Naujokaitiene, & Passey, 2019)

Many of traditional learning approach use grammar-translation and audio-lingual methods as the ingredients. Such teaching methods only focus on certain aspects of language without providing sufficient practice for the students to practice and deepen their understanding upon the material given. Most interaction taking place is limited to teacher-student interaction. Student-student interaction is rarely seen. Students are conditioned to be passive almost all the time. They only become recipients of the knowledge delivered by the teacher. There is no sufficient space given to discuss and enlarge their communicative competence. CL, in contrast, shares common ideas with Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) where there are interactions between teacher and the students and among students (Zang, 2010). When the students are given the chance to communicate not only with the teacher but also their friends, it is actually facilitating the students to acquire communicative competence. The communication which occurs is actually activating their mental function to maximize thinking, reasoning, and problem solving.

Interactions among student-student, studentteacher and student-content are vital to engage learners for collaboration (Schmid et al., 2014). Since interaction is a primary condition to collaborate, three types of interactions, as mentioned above, have been effective, particularly in various theoretical frameworks on distance and online education. Interactions among students trigger the learning process. In this connection, the understanding of collaborative and cooperative learning is a must (Decuyper, Dochy, & Van den Bossche, 2010).

Presumably, the aim of collaborative learning is the co-construction of knowledge through interaction. So collaborative learning refers to a variety of educational approaches that encourage students to work together, including cooperative learning; problem-based instruction; guided design; writing groups; peer teaching; workshops; discussion groups; and learning communities (Smith & McGregor, 2012).

collaborative demands of tutorials place significant demands on students, both overseas-educated and local. The question needs to be asked whether students choose to be silent or are silenced by the sociocultural context itself. We need to establish if silence denotes failure to learn or simply another way of learning in the dialogic classroom. These questions are addressed by examining the expe- riences of four ‘silent participants’ in the small group collaborative setting of a PBL tutorial (Muhonen, Rasku-Puttonen, Pakarinen, Poikkeus, & Lerkkanen, 2017).

The training could be in the form of instruction given in effective communication, how to find for help, and how to give help to others (Fall, Webb, & Chudowsky, 2017). Similar to this, Webb (2019) recommends training students in general interpersonal and teamwork skills which include coordination, communication, conflict resolution, decision making, problem solving, and negotiation. This kind of training stresses on how to give explanation, how to directly and explicitly ask for help, and how to respond to others’ help appropriately (Lai, 2011). Lai (2011) further suggests teacher provide many opportunities for students to practice collaboration skills by using tasks which are similar to group-based assessments.

Teachers should also monitor and regulate the students’ interaction (Lai, 2011). In certain times, students might lose ideas of what to discuss next. The presence of the teacher could stimulate and trigger temporally-blank situation to be active again. Teachers could encourage the students to give new ideas or providing groups with feedback thus the discussion will be more fruitful.

The techniques to arrange and organize CL activity can be various. One example is reciprocal teaching which is described by Davis, Palincsar, Smith, Arias, & Kademian, (2017) as “an interactive teaching procedure in which the teacher and students collaborate in the joint construction of text”. In reciprocal teaching, two people or groups agree to help each other. In the context of teaching and learning activity in class, teacher and students change roles as “leader” and “respondent”. At first, the teacher can assume as being the leader to give students example of how to administer the learning as Lai (2011) recommend employing several strategies to direct discussion by.

CHAPTER THREE

RESEACH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction

This chapter presents the research design, sample size, sampling procedures, research instruments, procedure for data collection, data analysis and ethical consideration.

3.2 Research design

A descriptive case study design will be used for this study in which only qualitative approach of research will be applied (Baxter & Jack, 2008). A case study design will be used so that the information about the practice of constructivist strategies in Yumbe district secondary Schools can add more knowledge to existing information and this will be presented in chapter four of the dissertation. The information presented in the above chapter will be collected from Yumbe Schools. The researcher will apply both qualitative approaches in order to be able to describe the findings. For example qualitative approach will be used to collect data to describe the available training needs.

3.3 Sample size

It is impossible to study the whole targeted population of the study and therefore the researcher will take a sample of the population this is also further supported by Mugenda and Mugenda (2003) who notes that a researcher should choose a sample out of the whole targeted population. A sample is a subset of the population that comprises members selected from the population. Using Krejcie and Morgan’s (1970) table for sample size determination approach, a sample size of 375 respondents will be selected from the total population of 11,097of both Teachers and Head Teachers.

Table showing the sample size of respondents

Respondents	Population	Sample size	Sampling procedure
Students	10,260	319
Teachers	810	29	Random sampling
Head Teachers	27	27	Purposive sampling
Total	11,097	375

3.4 Sampling procedure

In this study, the researcher will use purposive sampling technique to choose Head Teaches. Purposive sampling is a form of non-probability sampling in which a researcher rely on his or her own judgement when choosing members of the population to participate in the study. This sampling technique will be used to access a particular group of people whose profile fits the context of this study. White (2005) explains that in purposive sampling, the concern is to acquire in depth knowledge from those who are in position to give it.

3.4.1 Random sampling Technique;

Random sampling is a part of the sampling technique in which each sample has an equal probability of being chosen. A sample chosen randomly is meant to be an unbiased representation of the total population. If for some reasons, the sample does not represent the population, the variation is called a sampling error (Jia, & Barabási, 2013). The study will use random sampling Technique for sampling Teachers.

3.5 Research instruments

These are data collection methods and tools. These will include lecture observation tools and interview guide:

3.5.1 Focus group discussion

The questionnaire will use focus group discussion in getting information from teachers. This will involve arranging teachers in the groups of ten and posing a topic to be discussed as the researcher acts as secretary to record the opinion of the respondents. According to Lavrakas, Traugott, Kennedy, Holbrook, de Leeuw, & West, (2019) indicates that Focus group discussion is frequently used as a qualitative approach to gain an in-depth understanding of social issues. The method aims to obtain data from a purposely selected group of individuals rather than from a statistically representative sample of a broader population. Even though the application of this method in conservation research has been extensive, there are no critical assessment of the application of the technique. Focus group discussion will be used for getting information from students.

3.5.2 Lecture observations tools

These are tools such as books, pen and recorder which will be used to note down and record information and practices that are observable and may not easily be shared by respondents by asking questions,

3.5.3 Interview guide

These are questions design according to the objectives of this research to guide the researcher in the process of carrying out the interviews to collect qualitative data from the respondents to supplement the data gathered from the questionnaire. It will help to get immediate and in-depth information especially for respondents with very busy scheduled who may not have adequate time to fill the questionnaire and return in time.The interviews will be carried out inorder to get information from Head Teachers.

3.8 Validity and reliability

It is vital that the researcher ensures the validity and reliability of the research instruments. This will be done by pretesting the data collection instruments using a few selected respondents from each category of the population to ensure that the questions are clear and in line with the research objectives.

3.8.1 Validity

Validity is defined as the extent to which results can be accurately interpreted and generalized to other populations (Oso & Onen, 2008). While Borg & Gall, 1989 as cited in Onyinkwa, (2013) validity is defined as the degree to which results obtained by the research instrument correctly represented to the phenomenon understudy and Mugenda & Mugenda, (1999) as the accuracy and meaningfulness of inferences which are based on the research results.

In this study, validity will be achieved by establishing content validity. The researcher will achieve content validity by using the experts to assess the validity of the research instrument. The experts especially research supervisors will be given data collection tools to assess whether the items in the instruments are valid in relation to research topic, objectives, and questions. From the instruments they will declare some items valid and others invalid. Those declared invalid will be dropped, others adjusted, while the valid ones will be maintained. Then content validity index (CVI) will be computed by dividing the number of items declared valid by total number of items/questions in the data collection instrument.

3.8.2 Reliability

According to Mugenda and Mugenda, (2003) reliability is the measure of the extent to which research instruments are able to provide the same results upon being tested repeatedly. Crobach’s coefficient alpha (a) as recommended by Amin, (2005, P.302) will be used to test the reliability of the research instrument. Reliability will be done by ensuring that only teachers, secondary school students and Head teachers are the ones who information is got from.

3.9 Data collection procedure

After formulation of data collection instruments, the researcher will take the tools to the supervisor for approval. The researcher will then seek for an introductory letter from the office of the Head of Department of Education, Kyambogo University; this introductory letter will be presented to the respondents of the School to obtain permission to conduct the study. Thereafter, the instruments will be issued out to few selected respondents for pretesting. Pretesting will help the researcher to get the feedback on whether the respondents are able to interpret and answer the questions in line with research purpose.

3.10 Data Analysis

The data collected from the questionnaire will be coded (quantitative data), entered in a computer program known as a Statistical Package for Social Scientists (SPSS 20) for analysis. This is because it quicken the process of data analysis; possibility of occurrence of errors is minimum. It can also be used for analyzing both quantitative as well as qualitative data and has multiple features Descriptive statistics analysis will be used in chapter four of the research to determine the distribution of respondents on personal information and the questions under each of the variables. Inferential statistics will be used to test the hypothesis. Spearman rank order correlation coefficient will be used to test the hypothesis given that the scales to be used in the questionnaire will be ordinal (Sekaran, 2003). The data will organized and presented in tables form. Qualitative data from interviews and observation will be reviewed thoroughly, sorted and classified into themes and categories.

3.11 Ethical Considerations

The researcher will protect respondents against potentially harmful effects of participation, for example, stress, hunger and loss of self-esteem. To achieve this, participants will be requested not to disclose their identity anywhere on the questionnaire. The respondents will be inform about the procedures of the study and they will be asked to make their decision to either participate or withdraw from participation. The researcher will provide information on the purpose of the study, benefits of the study to the respondents, expected duration of participation and procedures that will be used.

The researcher will seek the consent of the participants and inform participants who would be willing to participate that their involvement in the study is purely voluntary. The willing participants will be assured that the information that they would provide will not be used for any other purpose except for this research. Information relating to the respondents to this study will be kept and not disclose to any other persons and all information collected will be kept anonymous. Works of other scholars will always be cited by quoting the sources of information

REFERENCES

Baafi, R. A. K., & Atieno, L. V. (2020). Interactive media in higher education: a strategy for enhancing students ‘learning achievement and cultural integration. eLearning & Software for Education, 3.

Borokhovski, E., Tamim, R., Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., & Sokolovskaya, A. (2012). Are contextual and designed student–student interaction treatments equally effective in distance education?. Distance Education, 33(3), 311-329.

Corral-Lage, J., De La Peña, J. I., & Peña-Miguel, N. (2021). Transformation in economic studies via problem-based learning: facing fears to acquire professional skills. Spanish Journal of Finance and Accounting/Revista Española de Financiación y Contabilidad, 50(3), 359-380.

Davis, E. A., Palincsar, A. S., Smith, P. S., Arias, A. M., & Kademian, S. M. (2017). Educative curriculum materials: Uptake, impact, and implications for research and design. Educational Researcher, 46(6), 293-304.

De Hei, M. S. A., Strijbos, J. W., Sjoer, E., & Admiraal, W. (2015). Collaborative learning in higher education: lecturers’ practices and beliefs. Research Papers in Education, 30(2), 232-247.

Dery, K., Sebastian, I. M., & van der Meulen, N. (2017). The digital workplace is key to digital innovation. MIS Quarterly Executive, 16(2).

Hardy, I., Edwards-Groves, C., & Rönnerman, K. (2012). Collaborative learning as a travelling practice: How practices of learning ‘travel’. Educational Practice and Theory, 34(2), 5-22.

Jameson, J. (2018). Critical corridor talk: Just gossip or stoic resistance? Unrecognised informal higher education leadership. Higher Education Quarterly, 72(4), 375-389.

Jeong, H., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2016). Seven affordances of computer-supported collaborative learning: How to support collaborative learning? How can technologies help?. Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 247-265.

Kaendler, C., Wiedmann, M., Rummel, N., & Spada, H. (2015). Teacher competencies for the implementation of collaborative learning in the classroom: A framework and research review. Educational Psychology Review, 27(3), 505-536.

Laal, M. (2013). Positive interdependence in collaborative learning. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 93, 1433-1437.

Laal, M., & Ghodsi, S. M. (2012). Benefits of collaborative learning. Procedia-social and behavioral sciences, 31, 486-490.

Laal, M., Laal, M., & Kermanshahi, Z. K. (2012). 21st century learning; learning in collaboration. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 47, 1696-1701.

Le, H., Janssen, J., & Wubbels, T. (2018). Collaborative learning practices: teacher and student perceived obstacles to effective student collaboration. Cambridge Journal of Education, 48(1), 103-122.

Lee, E., & Hannafin, M. J. (2016). A design framework for enhancing engagement in student-centered learning: Own it, learn it, and share it. Educational technology research and development, 64(4), 707-734.

Muhonen, H., Rasku-Puttonen, H., Pakarinen, E., Poikkeus, A. M., & Lerkkanen, M. K. (2017). Knowledge-building patterns in educational dialogue. International Journal of Educational Research, 81, 25-37.

Naujokaitiene, J., & Passey, D. (2019). Influences on developing collaborative learning practices in schools: Three cases in three different countries. European Education, 51(3), 212-230.

Nompula, Y. (2012). An investigation of strategies for integrated learning experiences and instruction in the teaching of creative art subjects. South African Journal of Education, 32(3), 293-306.

Ono, Y., & Ferreira, J. (2010). A case study of continuing teacher professional development through lesson study in South Africa. South African journal of education, 30(1).

Shamir‐Inbal, T., & Blau, I. (2021). Characteristics of pedagogical change in integrating digital collaborative learning and their sustainability in a school culture: e‐CSAMR framework. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 37(3), 825-838.

Smit, K., De Brabander, C. J., & Martens, R. L. (2014). Student-centred and teacher-centred learning environment in pre-vocational secondary education: Psychological needs, and motivation. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 58(6), 695-712.

Sparrow, D. B., Chapman, G., Smith, A. J., Mattar, M. Z., Major, J. A., O’Reilly, V. C., … & Dunwoodie, S. L. (2012). A mechanism for gene-environment interaction in the etiology of congenital scoliosis. Cell, 149(2), 295-306.

Tomcho, T. J., & Foels, R. (2012). Meta-analysis of group learning activities: Empirically based teaching recommendations. Teaching of Psychology, 39(3), 159-169.

Van Leeuwen, A., & Janssen, J. (2019). A systematic review of teacher guidance during collaborative learning in primary and secondary education. Educational Research Review, 27, 71-89.

White, T., & Pea, R. (2011). Distributed by design: On the promises and pitfalls of collaborative learning with multiple representations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(3), 489-547.

Zhang, J., Scardamalia, M., Reeve, R., & Messina, R. (2009). Designs for collective cognitive responsibility in knowledge-building communities. The Journal of the learning sciences, 18(1), 7-44.

Zu’bi, M. F. (2016). Collaboration with Suppliers and Lead Users in New Product Development and Open Innovation: Empirical Evidence from Jordanian Companies. Engineering Management Research, 5(1).

Onen Yagos, W., Tabo-Olok, G., & Ovuga, E. (2020). Students’ Prior Knowledge and Skills in Computer and Internet Use: An Exploration of Incoming First Year Undergraduate Health Sciences Students at Gulu University, Uganda.

Research writer