**6. Related work**

Two clusters of collaborative learning are identified [6] which are of practical value to teaching and learning facilitators. Credible alternatives, such as well-designed whole class instruction are evaluated in one of Ross's clusters. Other studies have demonstrated that collaborative instructional methods lead to cognitive and affective gains for students at different levels, including undergraduate and postgraduate levels [4, 7]. Such studies have confirmed that different collaborative structures have different effects.

It has also been recognised that there are amplifying and suppressing factors in collaborative learning which would render them ineffective for certain learners. Low ability learners with poor social or interaction skills form a good example. In our case the experimental group consisted of mature and motivated undergraduate learners. It can therefore be safely assumed that the poor social or interaction skills did not hinder their learning. All learners possessed good communication skills which was evident from their interaction within particular smaller social groups to which they gravitated.

The other cluster of collaborative learning research, which is useful to educators, focusses on mediators or mechanisms that explain why collaborative learning is effective. It is necessary to consider practical observations and findings focus on what learners say to each other and how they say it during joint tasks. This will include implicit and explicit requests for help and contributions to their work, spontaneity in order to resolve a solution jointly (or to arrive at joint understanding) [8, 9]. Such questions could also be addressed to the facilitator. Explicit answers would not be provided but further explorative questions would be offered as a form of guided assistance in order to arrive at a conclusion. Explanation and solutions are more frequently arrived at when students are working in structured collaborative groups

than when not [10]. Instrumental or mastery-oriented help seeking is characterised by students alternating between giving help and receiving it.

Many of the student conversations during the activity were very naturally occurring in structured and therefore more like tutoring sessions than basic information exchanges. Webb [11] reported six studies in which the ability to give explanations to peers correlated strongly with general ability. This resulted in dominance within a group by upper ability students. This is especially the case in collaborative learning classrooms [12]. This dominance is even stronger when the group is required to produce a single product or arrive at a single solution. The danger here is that as an activity is task-driven, pressure from more able students can create a case of 'helpers system' in which there is reduced participation by the less able in order not to slow down the group in the target driven activity. This can lead to a situation in which lesser contributors who believe that their offerings are of little value may respond by withdrawing from the task [13]. This will inevitably nearly always offer a challenge to the facilitator of such collaborative learning activities. This was minimised in our study through grouping individuals within learning and social groups that they were already accustomed to working within. Furthermore, the required attributes for successfully completing the activity relied on more than just knowledge alone as they included skills in information finding as well as a small element of luck (as games usually require).

There are potential dangers with collaborative learning. Where help is needed and requested from peers, requests have to be explicit, focused, repeated and directed to an individual who is willing and able to provide the help. Excessive help seeking reduces peer esteem as such students are viewed to be 'passengers' or free riders rather than contributors to group efforts. The skill set required to successfully complete this activity was multifaceted as it included the ability to search for information. This is a skill that most young learners are capable of doing through extensive use of search engines and the web as a whole.

It has been argued that creating classroom structures that promote interdependence and provide explicit training is a prerequisite to student willingness to help each other. This approach has been central in studies by Johnson and Johnson [14] for Learning Together. Developing a positive climate strategy for group learning is also documented in [15, 16].

There is a wealth of information available to assist teachers in the instructional challenges of group work. The work considered includes practical strategies with persuasive evidence about their effectiveness through:


These points alone (direct teaching of helpfulness, improving the social climate of the classroom, strengthening teacher interventions, and implementing reciprocal roles) amplify the positive effects of collaborative learning. One of the most accessible methods of achieving this is by providing students with generic prompts. This approach was demonstrated as part of our investigation in the ABL activity.

*Activity Based Learning (ABL) Using Gamification (GBL) in Mechanical Engineering Design… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.104773*

Such prompts force students to think about the material to be learnt in different ways. Whilst exploring the material further through a structure of deeper processing, they are facilitating more effective learning than non-elaborative questions like 'who', 'what', 'where' and so on [17]. This prompt-based structure can be extended to student-generated questions without the guidance of elaborative prompts [18]. In addition to enhancing student discourse in small groups, these prompts can be used to structure teacher interventions in small group deliberations and to move whole class discussions to deeper understanding.
