28.3: Definitions and Distinctions
- Page ID
- 89529
“When a word becomes fashionable—as is the case with ‘collaboration’—it is often used abusively for more or less anything.” (Dillenbourg, 1999, p. 1)
Though there are no hard and fast definitions of collaboration and cooperation, generally we perceive them to differ in emphases along the following dimensions, with the more collaborative elements on the right (Table \(\PageIndex{1}\)).
| Cooperation | Collaboration |
|---|---|
| products | processes |
| collocations | syntheses |
| division of labour | mutual responsibility |
| work environments | learning environments |
Since it is easy to confound the terms cooperation and collaboration, or to use them virtually interchangeably due to their similar Latin origins meaning to work together, we would like to draw a working distinction between cooperative and collaborative learning endeavours from McInnerney and Roberts (2004), who hold that “the term collaborative should be used for those learning techniques that emphasize student-to-student interaction in the learning process, while the term cooperative should be used where students are required to work in small groups, usually under the guidance of the instructor” (p. 207). This distinction resonates in Finkelstein’s view of guidance: “Although the presence of a facilitator can guide collaborative activities, these interactions tend to be more egalitarian in nature and can happen at any time, in both structured and informal settings” (2006, p. 3).
Panitz recognizes similar processes in both cooperation and collaboration, such as learner grouping and tasking, and then the sharing and comparing of “procedures and outcomes” (Panitz, 1996, para. 7). However, for cooperation, Panitz asserts, those processes enable learners to achieve goals and create products that are “usually content specific”, that teachers determine and control, while “collaborative learning is more studentcentred” (Panitz, 1996, para. 4).
An important dimension of collective endeavours that Lavin and Tomei examine in Wiki Technology for Online Education (Chapter 25, Tools for Online Engagement and Communication) is the relative emphases placed on process and product. Product orientation characterizes cooperative endeavours, while process orientation reflects more collaborative ones.
Other distinctions to note between cooperative and collaborative activities concern the level of interdependence among learners, the nature of group roles—leadership in particular—and the complexity of interaction. For practical purposes, let us define interdependence as “a dynamic of being mutually responsible to and dependent on others” (Wikipedia, Interdependence).
Typically, the term collaborative applies when the level of interdependence among learners is higher and when group members’ roles overlap to a greater degree than in cooperation. Whereas Dirkx and Regina consider “level of interdependence” and “learner accountability” crucial (2004, p. 155), Graham and Misanchuk consider fostering interdependence and accountability as “key challenges” in structuring computer-mediated group activities. Further, they argue that interdependence needs to be higher for collaborating than for cooperating groups (2004, pp. 183–184).
Dillenbourg defines collaboration as convergence of “three concurrent processes, which are neither independent of each other, nor identical,” namely processes of communication, coordination, and problem-solving (2002, p. 22). Ingram and Hathorn view collaboration as “a more complex working together” than cooperation, particularly with regard to “the interactions and effectiveness for instruction and education” that collaboration entails (2004, p. 216). Their definition is consistent with the others, but adds criteria of equality, authenticity, and synthesis. Thus, for Ingram and Hathorn, collaboration requires “roughly equal participation, genuine interaction among the participants, and the synthesis of work into a unified whole” (p. 215). At its best, wiki work typifies that unification, as Lavin and Tomei explain in Wiki Technology for Online Education (Chapter 25, Tools for Online Engagement and Communication).
Graham and Misanchuk also distinguish learning groups from work groups as they examine “benefits and challenges of group work in online learning environments” (2004, pp. 181–182). Throughout this section, we will focus on learning groups that Graham and Misanchuk might characterize by: “flat leadership”, fuzzy roles, valuing learning over productivity, focusing on processes rather than outcomes, and assuming group responsibilities as often to learn skills as to use them (p. 185).