I would like to initiate a series of discussions about collaborative learning (CL) techniques starting with the question of why more teachers do not use CL and ending with suggestions for policies which will encourage CL.

I just returned from a wonderful Lilly New England conference on teaching excellence and was pleased to see at least one session dealing with CL during each time slot and many presenters used CL as part of their session procedure. One thing struck me however, there was a great deal of hesitation from participants toward adopting CL techniques in their classes, especially among the science and engineering teachers and many questions were raised about how to start.

The material which follows comes from a book chapter which my wife and I have written entitled "Encouraging collaborative learning in higher education". I would like to use some sections as a basis for our discussions. At the end of this series I will propose a set of policies which are necessary for CL to have any chance of success at the college or K-12 levels.

The discussion will start with a general statement which will be followed by a number of reasons why more teachers do not use CL and then move to administrators, students and parents reactions to CL.

The following topics regarding why CL has not been adopted will be presented and discussed over the next few weeks.

Introduction and overview-

Teachers-

LOSS OF CONTROL IN THE CLASSROOM-

LACK OF SELF CONFIDENCE BY TEACHERS-

FEAR OF THE LOSS OF CONTENT COVERAGE-

LACK OF PREPARED MATERIALS FOR USE IN CLASS-

TEACHERS' EGOS-

LACK OF FAMILIARITY WITH ALTERNATE ASSESSMENT TECHNIQUES-

CONCERN WITH TEACHER EVALUATION AND PERSONAL ADVANCEMENT-

STUDENTS' RESISTANCE TO COLLABORATIVE LEARNING TECHNIQUES-

LACK OF FAMILIARITY WITH CL TECHNIQUES AND CLASS MANAGEMENT-

LACK OF TEACHER TRAINING IN COLLABORATIVE TEACHING METHODS-

Administrators

LACK OF TRAINING OR EXPOSURE TO COLLABORATIVE LEARNING-

LACK OF FAMILIARITY WITH ALTERNATE STUDENT ASSESSMENT TECHNIQUES

Students

STUDENTS' LACK OF FAMILIARITY WITH COLLABORATIVE TECHNIQUES-

FEAR OF LOSS OF CONTENT AND ABILITY TO ACHIEVE HIGH GRADES -

Parents

LACK OF PARENT UNDERSTANDING OF COLLABORATIVE LEARNING

WHY MORE TEACHERS DO NOT USE COLLABORATIVE LEARNING TECHNIQUES

Considering the overwhelming number of benefits created by the use of collaborative learning methods, it is surprising that so few teachers use this paradigm. The cause lies in the current educational system which emphasizes content memorization and individual student performance through competition.

Few teachers or students have had any exposure to the CL teaching/learning technique. Teachers are not trained during their certification processes in collaborative methods and those that are often receive incomplete training. If teachers are taught by the lecture method while at teachers' college, then it is hardly surprising that this will be the method of choice when their turn arrives to take over the classroom. And the fact that most students have been exposed only to the competitive, individualistic approach used in our school systems today at all levels constitutes a major problem. Students are not likely to change their attitudes from one class to another unless they are trained in CL techniques.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

RESPONSES---

From: Brian Fowler <fowler@helios.usq.edu.au>

From this side of the Pacific I would have to agree with every word that Ted has written about the in built conservation of teaching methodology. This was a topic that I touched on at a number of venues when I visited various campuses last year following the Cape Cod Conference. In this country (and yours I am sure) there is the further complicating factor that even if a new staff member has experienced collaborative learning (or any other technique other than chalk/talk) the senior faculty won't let them do anything different. Until the senior faculty are willing to see change in their Department, then life is very difficult for the junior member who wants to introduce innovation.

Brian Fowler University of Southern Queensland Australia
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: IN%"aroj@abo.fi"

Greetings from Vasa, Finland!

Thanks for initiating a new discussion about C!!! In this mail I will ask you two questions and then continue with telling you a little about my own experiences.

I used to be a high school teacher in math, physics and chemistry but since two years I am involved in teacher education and doing qualitative research on students4 conceptions of mathematics and science teaching. Here in Finland teachers do not know much about CL. In higher ed. the main teaching method is the teacher telling-method. In primary ed. the situation is slightly better but in secondary schools you also mostly find the teacher lecturing in front of the class. You can also find student4s doing so called group-work but the work is seldom structured in a way that is cooperative- collaborative. The group-work often ends up in a frustrating

situation with one student doing the work or, at worse, with a big "fight" in the group and no one doing the work... Reading through the list of topics you deal with in your book I nodded in agreement many times!

Last Saturday I met a couple of teachers that are engineers and teaching in an Institute of technology. I spent about half an hour discussing cooperative learning and made them do a small exercise. I gave them a paper with about 40 pictures of different things and animals. Their task was, in groups of three, to agree on a classificationsystem, name the classes and describe them. They were also aware of that they would all have the responsibility to tell about their classificationssystem in a new group. Everybody enjoyed the exercise. But then came the questions like How can I be sure that the students learn more with a cooperatively structured approach than with "ordinary" teaching?? What do research say that can convince us that it is worth while to change our teaching? How can I be sure that all the students learn what I want them to learn (if I don4t tell them..)? etc.

When I have talked with secondary students about mathematics teaching it becomes very clear that their view of what math teaching should be like is very, very narrow. And they mostly don4t see that it could be in any other way than the teacher telling about the topic, showing some examples, doing the exercises that the techer put them to do and do the homework that the teacher gives them. They also say things like it is no use for me to try to change the teaching method used by the teacher as "the teacher has already decided how to conduct the lesson and will not change the plans".

Ann-Sofi Rvj-Lindberg, Department of Teacher Education,
Abo Akademi University, BOX 311, FIN-65101 Vasa, Finland
E-mail:aroj@abo.fi Phone. +358-61-3247382 Fax +358-61-3247302

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: IN%"whiteley@mathstat.yorku.ca" "Walter Whiteley"

We (Pat Rogers and I) are in the first stages of a project to encourage use of study groups / collaborative learning in the Mathematics and Statistics courses here are York.

After a public session to encourage people to think about that option (the usual information about improved student retention and satisfaction), we spent part of the summer preparing some handouts for students, and for teachers, on forming and supporting out of class study groups. Interestingly, one 'change' which encourages instructors to form study groups and accept group assignments for out of class work is also a factor which discourages them from trying in class collaborative learning: classes are getting biing) is getting smaller! People will consider group assignments because that means less marking time. It is easier (at least initially), to imagine collaborative learning in a classof 10, 20, even 30, that a class of 140 in a room that holds 140, with fixed chairs and 'benches'. I am currently struggling with a class of 30-35 in a classroom of 80 nailed down chairs and tablets for writing. I want to work with groups of four, and it is awkward.

One other thought, about student's resistance. Some of the excellent students in high school were forced to do 'group projects' but in fact they worked and others went along for the ride. Group work may not be collaborative and can be done badly (like lecturing can be). Over the summer, I witnessed a number of conversations between two strong students (bothof whom are now in my class and both of whom were doing summer research - in a team setting). It is clear thatthere is deep scepticism. One was convinced by the very processof reading material and preparing the handouts on studygroups! The other - we will see.

Finally, something that is scary for students and faculty alike: the switch to collaboartive learning in subjects like math is almost certainly tied with a switch in the cognative level of the demands: more open-ended problems, more conceptual work, less memorization and calculation. An assignment requiring a lot of writing in math, with multiple 'good' answerss, is scary for the students. It would be impossible without collaborative techniques, but the shift in the kind of work is also intimidating and is associated, for the student and the teacher, with the shift in classroom form (from lecturing to collaborative in class techniques).

It is an interesting 'thought experiment' to imagine shifting the kinds of assignments and evaluation (which we say we want) and realizing the pressure that would build to shift to group work and collaborative learning. Perhaps on of the strategies for encouraging group work is the get an agreement on the goals and then realize that a shift is essential to realizing those goals with most of our students.

Walter Whiteley York University Toronto Ontario
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: IN%"hsitler@westol.com" "Helen Sitler"
CC: IN%"WAC-L@POSTOFFICE.CSO.UIUC.EDU"

Ted, this topic is of interest to me. My first response is that it's

not only teachers who are reluctant to try collaborative methods.

Students who've experienced largely teacher-centered classrooms are

reluctant, too. Student resistance is, I believe, one reason for why

instructors try collaborative learning and then drop it.

It's interesting that you're finding the most distrust among science and

engineering instructors. On the job don't their students have to

collaborate frequently? It would seem to me a worthwhile skill to

cultivate if one's future job depends on the ability to get along and get

it done together.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: Pat Stephens Williams <patsw@SIU.EDU>

In response to Helen's comment on resistance of science and engineering:

It's been my experience that although collaborative work is dominant in the science and technology "real" world, instructors are hesitant to use it

because of the time factor involved. I have been told by several that they

have more information than they can possibly teach in a semester anyway,

without taking time out from lecture to use collaborative activities. Many

seem to be unaware of being able to teach the same information of the

lecture through collaboration.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: IN%"TCC-L@UHCCVM.ITS.Hawaii.Edu"

Subj: Andrew Petto <AJPETTO@MACC.WISC.EDU>

Andrew Petto recently quoted a student's description of how she learned the Kreb's cycle in a recent class...

>>>Oh, I don't remember a thing about it; and I never really understood it, but i was essential for me to memorize all the steps to pass the exam and the course, so I did.>>>

Andrew,

Possibly I'm missing something from your message or maybe I read it too fast, but in my experience as a biology student and instructor, many if not most students survive college-level science classes in this way. The sheer volume of material covered in most college-level science classes coupled with a semester system that divides students' attention among many different classes promotes memorization/regurgitation behavior. I didn't begin to understand the Kreb's cycle until I started teaching it. Participation in massive biology sections at a state school didn't promote deep understanding of critical concepts. I too survived by memorizing cycles etc. that I didn't truly understand. At least the memorization did plant kernels of knowledge that did sprout when I had to teach the subject later on.

This is a question that I've struggled with for a long period of time. How

do you convey difficult technical topics in a manner that students can

understand in the brief time allotted during a semester class? Your

technique of discussing the effects of poisons on the cycle sounds wonderful.

Attention grabbers really cause things to stick in students' minds.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: IN%"felder@eos.ncsu.edu" "Dr. Richard Felder"

You're probably aware (as you seem to be about pretty much everything) that I've written a couple of pieces related to your topic. My column on student resistance went out on STLHE a year or so ago, and Rebecca Brent and I have co-authored an ERIC monograph on cooperative learning in technical subjects and a College Teaching article on student resistance. All three of these papers are reprinted on my Web site (the URL is in the signature to this message). I try not to overindulge in self-promotion, but it may be that participants in the forthcoming discussion would find the papers useful adjuncts to the ideas to be contributed. (I'll probably also throw my two cents into the discussion somewhere along the line.)

........................................................................

Richard M. Felder, Hoechst Celanese Professor

Dept. of Chemical Engineering, N.C. State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7905 phone: (919)515-2327, FAX: (919)515-3465

email: felder@eos.ncsu.edu http://www2.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/RMF.htm

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: IN%"msneddon@mail.educ.gov.bc.ca"

I read with great interest your plans for discussing collaborative

learning. You seem to have a good handle on many of the difficulties

experienced by educators as they begin to explore such a change in their

classrooms. In British Columbia, we have been exploring what we have

termed "cooperative learning" for some time. In fact, we have just

completed a complete revision of the K to 12 provincial curriculum and

cooperative learning is a key instructional strategy suggested at every

grade level and in every subject area. Our post secondary institutions, at

least at the college and technical school level are also defining the use

of it in their instructional strategies.

I also teach a course in Cooperative Learning for the University of Victoria that is offered throughout the province via video tape, and teleconferencing. Teacher training is the single most important issue and,

from personal experience workshops are only useful in promoting awareness. Collaborative learning is an extremely complex activity that can only be learned in the context of using it in the classroom. Teachers need

opportunities to learn some of the structure, implement it and return for support and new components of the model. With such a model we have had great success in British Columbia. As a teacher of senior mathematics and physics let me suggest that the payoff in the sciences and mathematics is at least as great as in the arts.

The reason more teachers do not use the model is all that you have

outlined. Teachers who try it without the support discover that it doesn't

work or that it takes too much class time or it is more effort than it is

worth. If we want it to be used as a viable technique, then we need to

make sure that teachers (pre and inservice) are well enough trained to

implement it.

Malcolm Sneddon Province of British Columbia

Ministry of Education, Skills, & Training Curriculum Branch

Fax: (604)356-2316 Phone: (604)356-2317

E-mail: msneddon@mail.educ.gov.bc.ca

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: IN%"TCHRMARCIE@aol.com"

Thanks for starting the discussion. I agree with all you have written. I

teach cooperative/collaborative learning at WSU to all the new Masters in

Education students. They tend to worry about the student who wastes time when he/she is in a group. This is a concern. Individual accountability must be built into the process. Once teachers realize that they can ask a student to leave a group if he/she is not participating or working with that student on an individual basis some of that fear dissipates. When my students have the opportunity to try the collaborative structures I teach right away, they keep on using them because they see the benefits immediately. Many times we take a class and don't put the new ideas into practice. We forget. I go to many conferences as a presenter, and I notice that practically all the sessions are lecture. When I do something interactive, it is always well received at a conference.

I am looking forward to more chapters.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: IN%"sgawilk@umslvma.umsl.edu"

Three separate comments for you:

1) I have convinced my undergraduate and graduate students to use

collaborative learning through constructing my college courses so that much collaboration occurs through various levels and projects. This seems to work much better than telling them to do it themselves.

2) I am working with professors from the Arts and Science College to get

professors together with those from the School of Education to teach

interdisciplinary courses and hopefully some new techniques can be

exchanged.

3) I attended a Wakonse Conference in Michigan with other professors from many areas and disciplines. Many are discovering collaborative learning.

Gayle A. Wilkinson Secondary Curriculum and Instruction

Department of Educational Studies Teacher Education

269 Marillac Hall sgawilk@umslvma.umsl.edu

University of Missouri-St. Louis 8001 Natural Bridge Rd.

St, Louis, MO 63121-4499 (314) 516-5951

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: IN%"nwillard@ordata.com" (Nancy Willard)

I have written a book on Internet ethics that will soon be published by

McGraw-Hill (_The Cyberethics Reader_). We are discussing the

establishment of a web site that would serve as a resource for instructors

and their students. I would be interested in developing some suggestions

for cooperative learning activities that an instructor could use in

conjunction with my site, but am not sure where to start.

I also wanted to share an interesting perspective with you. I have been

doing some consulting work for schools related to Internet access.

Recently, I did some work with the folks putting together a state education

network. This effort is being directed by 2 education service district

superintendents who, quite frankly, are real "control freaks". Watching

(and getting involved in) the politics of the relationship between these 2

superintendents and a highly innovative teacher/media specialist/tech

coordinator group that is supposed to be developing plans for professional

development was a real eye-opener.

It was very clear that the superintendents had a much lower level of

understanding of the technology than did the teacher's group and that this

was causing them to try to hold tight to the reins. This, I believe, is

similar to the response of many teachers whose students get access to the

Internet and all of a sudden the teacher realizes that he/she is no longer

in control and the supreme source of all information.

The superintendent's also were very frustrated at one point in time because the teacher's group began to discuss online about an issue that was concerning them. The superintendent's actually communicated privately with several of the contributors to the conversation that they had some direct authority over suggesting that it was inappropriate to be having such dialogue.

Information dissemination with this group was also very interesting. A technical report was drafted by the tech committee, then brought to the

steering committee for review, then taken to the board of the overall

education service district organization, and finally a copy was provided to

the teacher's group even though what they were working during this period of time was directly related (and the above-mentioned concern was

technical).

It seems to me that the issue of collaborative learning needs to be viewed

from the perspective of the power relationships that exist within our

schools (society). I suspect that the introduction of technology will have

an increasing impact on these power relationships and will act to undermine the power structure. I do not suspect that those who have a strong ego need for control will feel very comfortable with this. From the

perspective of the classroom, it is quite possible that cooperative

learning will be technology-pushed, rather than teacher-led. It should be

an interesting period of time.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: IN%"Elyssebeth.Leigh@education.uts.edu.au"

Elyssebeth Leigh

I have been enjoying your contributions to aednet for some time and am

intersted in your ideas about the above topic.

At present I am in the midst of a situation where a colleague is averring

her dedication to collabotarive learning yet the going is tough and she is

begining to 'blame' the students and seems unaware of her contribution to

the situation and also resistant to my interventions. I am beginning to

consider whether there is an invisible line beyond which most people are

unable to pass - it seems to lie in the area of 'control' and the relative

strength of personal needs to be in control. On a couple of personality

indicators we are quite different andthe ones which seem to count at thsi

time are the "J" on MBTI and the "Completer-finisher" and "Monitor

Evaluator" on the Belbin Team roles inventory. There are two separate - but releted - issues. The first cncerns the actual nature ofthe problems arisisng andthe rooot causes of them. Her difficulties are of her making in conjunction with angst in the class, and together they have been unable to surmount the resulting difficulties. The second factor whcih is as much my concern is that any 'faiilures' in one situation are seen as sufficient evidence to dis-prove the validity or value of the approach. This ignores the 'failures' of conventional teaching but does remove from observers any sense of enquiry towards attempting the porcess. Such onlookers are 'afraid' of the possibility that the same may happen to them, and uncertain of their own capacity to withstand the heat of such responses. It is easier therefore - to attack the entire approach, and they need never address their own deeply hidden concerns, because they 'transfer' their attack to the front end of the debate and avoid any need to consider their preparedness to attempt the process in their own classrooms. It is a classic (?) ploy of those who are on the 'resistor' end of an adoption of innovation scale. And of course they claim the weight of education quality on "their side" since "it is only good practice" to have something confirmed as useful before it is adopted. Such a position successfully removes the need to put their own concerns o nthe line and places the role of justification on to

collaborative learning supporters. There is more I can add but will leave it to a later mail. In the meantimeI am clearly (I hope) both a supporter and a user!

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: IN%"FMCBH@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU" "Annette Gourgey"

I'm looking forward to your series on CL. I have some reflections

that are somewhat peripherally related to the reasons for reluctance

listed in your post, but which may have some relevance.

I wrote you some time in the summer about my impending meeting with

the stats committee at Manhattan Community College to develop projects.

It has gone better than I anticipated. I've been meeting with the chair

and have essentially become a new member. She has been very interested

in my ideas for projects that involve students in applied statistics as it is practiced by professionals in business and social sciences, rather than projects that focus on theoretical mathematical exercises without applications. The students are almost exclusively taking it for majors like business, social service, and health sciences; out of 120 students I've met so far,only one has been a math major. Thus the emphasis on applications

rather than theory.

What has struck me in meeting with this professor is that although

she is interested in new ideas, her conception of math and statistics

is extremely narrow. She is so steeped in the minutiae of her subject

(she has a masters in statistics as well as a doctorate in math)

that she doesn't see the "big picture." She appears not to have a

clear idea of why statistics is important to learn, how it is used

in the non-theoretical world, or what her broad instructional

objectives are. For example, whereas I will start the first class

with a discussion of what is statistics and how is it used in

many different professions, she will start them the first day

with summation notation. When we discuss topics, she focuses on

*how* to do it and will ask me *why,* as though she is herself not

clear on the purpose. She has a lot of difficulty designing the part

of the assignment that asks students to summarize and interpret their

calculations.

I guess my point is that a major lesson for me in experimenting

with CL was that you have to be very clear on the broad context of

learning your subject and on what you feel is important for students

to learn--both important content and important reasons for learning

it. If you're not sure of your purpose, or of the larger framework

that you want students' subject-matter learning to fit into, you

will have a very difficult time knowing how to structure CL experiences

so that students find them purposeful and useful. I fear that professors

are so intimately involved with their subject that they take it too

much for granted and have stopped asking these broader questions

which would put them back in touch with the perspective of the

novice student just entering the field. When they are so

involved with the trees that they can't see the forest,

about all they can do is lecture on what is, to them but not to

the students, self-evident. And the gap between teacher and

student remains wide.

A student who is repeating the course told me last week that she thinks

that if her previous teacher had made statistics so understandable, she

would not have failed it the first time. This is not only about CL but

about having the context and the objectives clear. But what makes using

CL different from lecturing is that it forces you to examine what you

are really trying to get students to learn, why, and how *they* learn

it best. I do sometimes lecture, but after working with CL, even my

lectures are different--more interactive, more aware of how the

students are responding, more like conversations.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: Rex Campbell <Rex_R._Campbell@MUCCMAIL.MISSOURI.EDU>

There needs to be another topic in your list: the lack of opportunity to use

collaborative learning. For many of us who teach in large institutions of

higher education, the large class sizes and lack of available flexible resources (human, physical and financial) make it very difficult to use such techniques regardless of their perceived value. A discussion of innovative ways of implementing such techniques would be most helpful.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: johnson@spider.math.ilstu.edu (Todd Johnson)

To: amte@csd.uwm.edu

One reason teachers (a) may not be interested in using cooperative groups

or (b) have not been successful implementing cooperative groups is that the teachers have not been prepared to deal with the affective side of

cooperative groups. Policies, books, workshops, and training programs tend

to address selecting cooperative tasks, managing cooperative groups, or

cognitive aspects of cooperative learning. Unfortunately, teachers are not

prepared to deal with individuals expressing their resolution of issues

such as Trust on the personal level as the group deals with Trust at the

group level. Robert D. Boyd wrote a series of articles concerning

Developmental Stages of Small Groups and Personal Transformation in SmallGroups in the 1980's in SMALL GROUP BEHAVIOR. In to prepare middle school teachers to deal with affective elements that arise in cooperative small groups, I hope that your book will take into account personal transformations and the developmental stages of small groups.
 
 

Todd Johnson | Illinois State University

e-mail: johnson@math.ilstu.edu | Mathematics Department

phone: 309-438-7656 | 4520 Math

office: 317 STV | Normal, IL 61790-4520

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: Jeff Driggs <driggsj@cougarnet.byu.edu>

To: teachnet@byu.edu

Let me begin by thanking Ted Panitz for initiating this discussion of collaborative learning. I'm a part-time instructor of freshman writing (Honors 200: Intensive Writing) and, until this semester, have used collaborative learning very little. When I began teaching three years ago, I learned that most of the other Honors 200 teachers assigned one essay each semester as a collaborative paper, so I did, also, but that was

about as far as I went. And at the time, I had never heard the term "collaborative learning."

One reason I would submit that teachers don't use collaborative learning more is that students don't like it--if it's not presented right. I heard nothing but complaints about those collaborative papers. As honors students, they had very high academic standards, were very competitive, and greatly resisted relinquishing any part of their grade to a group effort. It seemed like they had all had negative experiences working with groups in high school--most of them claimed they had ended up doing the majority of the work. And they felt their grades always suffered because of them. I found in practice that the papers were, indeed, not of the caliber I was used to getting from the students individually. They were generally about rough-draft quality, because by the time the groups had gotten that far, they were so sick of working together that they didn't want to put any more effort in, as a group. Sometimes someone from the group would take it upon herself (or have foisted upon her)--and it was, generally, a "her," to compile and retype the whole thing alone, so that one person would attempt to bring it up to her standards using her style. These were

better papers, but were not purely collaborative efforts.

And of course, occasionally, there were problems with severe disagreements or students who failed to do their share of the work. How do you handle that as a teacher? How do you avoid "punishing" the ones who do their work, but the whole is not very good? For the most part, I had to throw out of consideration uncharacteristically lower grades on

collaborative papers when assigning the final grade for each student. I reassured myself that the opportunity for them to work together was worth the effort, even if the written result wasn't up to par.In fact, however, because of my students' resistence, I may very well have given

up on the idea, had I not learned about true collaborative learning, the benefits of it, and some techniques for doing it right. But those are topics for future discussions

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: HALLENC@jkhbhrc.byu.edu Cynthia_Hallen@byu.edu

To: teachnet@byu.edu

I have found that collaborative learning works best for in-class

practice activities that are not graded, or for out of class study

sessions for exams. Collaborative learning does not seem to be as

much of a challenge as collaborative evaluation. It may be that

people want to learn together in groups, but they want to be judged

as individuals, as in life.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: "Monte R. Swain" <ACAD.PO1.MRSWAIN@BYUGATE.byu.edu>

To: teachnet@byu.edu

I have also been quite frustrated in my previous efforts to use CL

papers. However, this semester I'm trying a new model. I'm just finishing

grading the first round of papers. I've taught this class several times (a

graduate accounting course). This is clearly the best quality "first

papers" I've received. I have high hopes for the rest of the semester,

and (assuming this works well) will start migrating this process to some

of my undergraduate classes.

The CL paper assignment structure is described below (as lifted from

this semester's class syllabus). I look forward to your comments.

Monte Swain Assistant Professor

School of Accountancy and Information Systems

monte_swain@byu.edu

DESCRIPTION OF MY CLASS CL (A.K.A. GROUP) PAPER PROCESS:

Group Papers. There will be four group papers during the semester.

Each group should have four members. Each member of the group will

take primary responsibility to manage and write one paper. These papers

will be rigorously graded for content and for grammar (refer to the

separate handout "Professional Writing in Acc 691R"). Plan on the

average score on these papers to be about 75%. Each paper will be graded on a 40 point scale and each member (other than the paper manager) of the group will receive that score. The score for the paper manager will be doubled (i.e., 80 points possible). The purpose of this "odd" evaluation system is to create incentive for the group to work together to develop ideas and content, do the necessary research, and provide editing input to the final draft. However, four people can not crowd around the word processor to actually write the paper. Therefore, one person from the group needs to take primary responsibility to manage a project and personally write the paper. This is a typical writing model in the "real world of business."

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: Rick Garlikov <hmwkhelp@SCOTT.NET>

Ted, please give an example of something that is better learned under a

collaborative learning method than some other way.

I disagree that the cause of not using collaborative learning techniques

is that most material "taught" today involves memorization. Even if all

the material required understanding, rather than memorization, working

through material to understand it still requires individual, often

patient, effort. Someone remarked once that "We teach kids in groups,

but learning is an individual activity"; there is a sense in which I

agree with that. So I am assuming you have something in mind other than

that kind of effort by the individual.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: DEANIE FRENCH <DF12@SWT.EDU>

The topic of collaborative learning has been an interest of mine for some

time. I have looked at learning from three perspectives--teacher directed

student directed, and peer assisted learning. To use this form of learning

I believe that you must separate "normative" referencing portions from

criterion referencing portions if you are evaluating individuals. Some

of my ideas are summed up in a web paper," Cyberlearning..Not Classroom

Learning...The Future". http://www.health.swt.edu/HSR/Faculty/French/cyberpap.html

I am starting my first total Internet based course in Oct. and I hope students will be able to use a listserv and chatroom for collboration. They

will be graded as individuals on the final but there is a criterion referenced exercise for each of ten lessons. In a Media graduate class, students work together on all of the modules if they desire to do so. The class is divided into criteria for a "B" and advanced work for an "A". For the "B" portion I will give them feedback along the way to improve. I also use "competitive criterion referencing" whereby if someone barely meets criterion referencing guidelines and still has managed to do sub graduate level performance, I make them redo it and then I'll accept it. This has definately improved the level of first time submissions. I also work with A students because the students aren't competing with each other or against those who stopped at the B level. If the student does not want to continue improving, I'll let them settle for a "C".

The key to successful collaboration is how students are graded and preparing them for changing their learning style to accomodate another type learning style. I began my research in the 70's and I want to keep learning more.

Deanie French, MSN,Ph.D. df12@swt.edu

Health Services and Research Southwest Texas University

Phone: 512-245-3497 Fax: 512-245-8712

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: DANIEL L HODGES <hodgesd@LANECC.EDU>

Rick Garlikov's comment on collaborative learning reminded me of an

old social psychology finding. There's a phenomenon called "social

facilitation" (Floyd Allport's phrase, I believe) whereby people's

performance of a skill they have learned thoroughly gets better when they

do it in front of an audience. Think of sports. And if they are trying

to learn something or explore new behaviors or gently practice a fragile

new cognitive or physical skill, then the presence of others facilitates

cruder behavior because the skills are not well learned. Since their

natural tendency is to make mistakes, other people would facilitate

mistakes.

In social psych books it led to the recommendation to study alone and

learn your material thoroughly and then take the test in front of a

watching crowd. If you haven't learned the material well, just half-way,

the presence of others will inhibit your performance.

Anyway, there must be two effects of collaborative learning. One

that promotes discovery of ideas, talking, energizing your willingness to

work and so on. And a second effect that inhibits practice, damages

exploration of how a cognitive skill generalizes to new cases or

discriminates between deceptively similar cases. If the social

facilitation principle applies in general, then the wise instructor should

provide social support for one phase of learning and provide blessed

privacy and freedom from fear of being evaluated while the person builds up skill.

How does that sound?

Dan Hodges

Coordinator of Testing E-mail: hodgesd@lanecc.edu

Lane Community College Phone: 541-747-4501, x2233

4000 East 30th Ave. FAX: 541-744-4166

Eugene, OR 97405

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: Barbara Davies <cindylou@GETNET.COM> (aera-k)

I am very interested in the topic of why teachers are not usin more cooperative learning in planning and implementing lessons. I am a Staff Development Teacher who teaches cooperative learning both in my own school district and also at Arizona State University as a graduate level class. I think that teachers have a difficult time making the leap from learning the strategies learned in class to applying them in their own teaching situation. I also that without collegial coaching or support, they may try it once or twice,feel it is not as successful as they would like it to be, and abandon it. If they have support in which they can self-analyze with another person, they are more likely to try it again and feel some success. I look forward to your next topic.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: IN%"akezar@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu" "Adrianna J. Kezar"

I appreciate your efforts to open a dialogue about collaborative

learning. I have been working on a project to reform undergraduate

education and this is one of the main initiatives that we examined. One

of the dilemmas (beyond the many you brought up in your email) is that

collaborative learning is based on assumptions about the nature of

knowledge that differ from the assumptions that many faculty members and students are introduced to earlier in their experience. You are probably familiar with the work of the Washington Center out of Evergreen State. The produce a quarterly newsletter, many of them address integrating collaborative learning into the classroom since this is one of their four major initiatives (also included are learning communities that are based on collaborative learning principles).

I would be happy to contribute more to this dialogue in any way I can.

Since I work as the Associate Director for the ERIC Clearinghouse on

higher education I can run searches about collaborative learning and send

a copy of such bibliographies to you for distribution to interested

individuals. Please let me know if there is some information that would

be helpful

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: IN%"ELGBB@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU" "Elisabeth Gareis"

Ted,

Thanks for the CL info. I heard about the list from a colleague who

forwarded your recent call for contributions to me. We just received

a grant to conduct a process education workshop at our college (Baruch/

CUNY) and are therefore interested in how we can entice people to

participate in the workshop.

By the way, here's a contribution I would like to make already. I think

one of the reasons why people don't embrace CL more passionately is

that it doesn't match their own learning and teaching style (nature or

nurture???). We need to remember, of course, that students in our classes

may not prefer what we prefer and therefore should include all kinds of

different teaching techniques. "Teach to each" as a motto then means

that CL should be at leasts part of our repertoire.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: IN%"JGRANTMCL@okuc02.okanagan.bc.ca"

I've used a variety of different teaching methods in classes. my formal appointment is in an education (elementary) program here at okanagan university college in kelowna, bc though i cross over and usually teach one course in the math dept most semesters. from some of your previous letters i suspect that you teach math. is that correct? Anyhow I would like to point to a few perceived obstacles that are not so commonly identified. the first is the mismatch between assessment practices and collaborative learning. how often are students permitted to collaborate in tests? also, the structures within disciplines such as math, science, and engineering often make it very difficult to have anything other than a common final

usually worth 50% or so. this indirect control reduces autonomy when students in one class proceed to speak to their peers who are just rolling along through a set of lectures and exercises. that's one issue. Another is the structure of timetabling. 50 minute classes that see students studying chemistry one moment and shakespeare the next and derivatives the next

do not create the best environment for accommodating collaborative process. whether it be a crowded curriculum or athe jumpy nature of a student's day, it's far from the most favourable set up. having said that, yes there are alternatives to the lecture method that need to be explored. in my own classes there are many days when nothing resembling a lecture takes place. in fact, sometimes a course has been virtually devoid of any such lectures. The nature of the class, the physical setting, the students' big picture timetables, the goals of a faculty, and my own objectives figure into the varying natures that courses take. This is some of my insight into this issue based on experience. i will say that it is much easier to implement collaborative learning when i teach the only section of a course or when the course is not perceived by students to be a content course, per se.

for instance, my mathematical methods courses in education are conducive to such approaches.

john grant mcloughlin

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: Kathleen McKinney <kmckinne@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu>

Despite all the potential positive outcomes of CL and CLGs, given all the

barriers to using it/them, I sometimes think it is amazing we do as much

as we do.

In my experience, some of the reasons CL is not done more often include:

- -Faculty who have little training in CL and/or are just too used to lecturing.

- -Faculty who believe this is too "soft" of a method.

- -Faculty who try it and it is a disaster because they don't put in the work

to do them right.

- -Faculty who don't know how to deal with some of the tough issues like grading.

- -Faculty who know it is a lot of work and are unwilling to expend the effort.

- -Faculty who fear students' reactions and whose teaching evaluation heavily

relies on student evalutation.

- -Faculty have colleagues look down on CL so they feel pressured not to use CL.

- -Reward systems that don't reward such efforts.

- -Student resistance due to fear of the "free rider," not wanting to do

anything different, not wanting to do anything active, not wanting to work

with other students for a variety of reasons.

- -Situational reasons like the class is too large, the topic isn't conducive

to CL, the room has chairs that cannot be moved, etc. (all of these, of

course, can be dealt with).

Well, unfortunately, there are many more such barriers. I hope we will

share useful solutions.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: IN%"BKS@CEIS.UHCOLORADO.EDU" "Barb Stuart"

I recently completed a doctoral class on Human Learning offered

through the University of Colorado Institute of Cognitive Science.

We studied in particular, self regulated learning. I studied Vygotsky

and came away with a formidable conviction about the rightness of fit

with the notion that people learn best through collaboration. I believe that as I moved toward more and more experiential classrooms, and my evaluations skyrocketed, students learned more. That's what they said, in addition to learning how to think in new ways and feeling informed richly by others.

I recently wrote a paper and found a quote I like that goes perhaps

to week 2 about "loss of control". I think that teachers are fearful

of sharing the "expert" role, or assuming a novice role, or giving up

any of the power that comes at the head of the classroom. Here's the

provocative quote:

Csikszentmihalyi explains that in the "flow" experience, what people enjoy is not the sense of being in control but the sense of exercising control in difficult situations: It is not possible to experience a feeling of control

unless one is willing to give up the safety of protective routines. Only when a doubtful outcome is at stake and one is able to influence that outcome, can a person really know whether she is in control (p. 61).

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: IN%"annc@christa.unh.edu" "Ann L Cunliffe"

I have some experience of collaborative learning methods at college level

and as a parent of a grade schooler.

Some of the issues for me are:

- balancing collaboration with some sense of direction in any

learning opportunity.

- doing the groundwork necessary for collaborative learning to be

effective, eg. discussion the learning process itself, learning styles,

maximising the opportunity. My preference is using the Honey and

Mumford model as a basis because it allows for some individualization

while offering a fairly 'simple model'for discussion. I've used this

with adult learners and undergrads. I also find

problem solving and team issues important to the effectiveness of any

collaborative learning experiences.

- designing meaningful (ie relating to the philosophy and content

of cl) evaluation or grading processes, which students and myself feel

comfortable with.

- time, I find it much more time consuming in terms of prep.

implementation and evaluation but

- much more rewarding from the viewpoint of student learning.

- degree of collaboration; in content, process, design of learning?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: Jean Spanko <jspanko@MTNSIDE.SCOTTSDALEUD.K12.AZ.US>

This is a subject near and dear to me. I have been using cooperative

learning for about 7 years. The discovery of this way of

orchestrating my classroom has made a giant impact on my teaching.

I am a district trainer for cooperative learning and was trained by

Spencer Kagan. I went to a week-long institute this summer, and one of

the great "aha's" for me was the notion that we need to approach

teachers with a realistic view. According to Kagan, we have lots of

teachers who have attended a workshop or institute and returned home

excited about this strategy. They work long hours to plan and

implement a complex cooperative learning "event," may enjoy some

success, but eventually find that this is hard, time-consuming work

that cannot be done daily. Soon, reality hits and the teacher goes

back to his/her traditional mode of teaching.

What Kagan suggests is that we begin our training with simple

structures which can be implemented within a traditional environment.

For instance, a "Think-Pair-Share" can be done, even with students in

rows. As teachers become comfortable with an ever-widening variety of

structures, they can begin thinking about how to arrange the room to

accomodate these new strategies.

Many teachers whom I have trained report that they are overwhelmed

with the classroom management problems inherent in suddenly putting

their kids in teams, rearranging their rooms, assessing in new ways,

etc.

I believe Kagan is correct - we need to get teachers using cooperative

learning as naturally as they use lecture, testing, questioning, etc.

I do think that at some point teachers will have to "make the leap,"

in order to get the full benefit of a cooperative classroom, but

perhaps we've been asking them to leap before they know they can walk.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: Sherry Bogert <bogert@CHAMPLAINCOLLEGE.QC.CA>

I agree with Rex. I tried to do some collaborative learning sessions in a

"lecture" class of 400+ students. Students were placed into groups and

for about five consecutive classes they were given activities to work on

for part of the hour session. The structure of the room made discussion

prohibitive, and the noise in the room was distracting. Many of the

students hated the trial and so I discontinued it.I thought that it might not

be possible to start such a format part way through the semester.

The following semester, I once again tried a co-operative/collaborative

learning approach,starting with the very first class. The class was much

smaller with a registration of about 150 students. It was a second

year physiology course, primarily for nursing students. There was a

mutiny after the third class, with 60 students signing a petition to say that

they didn't want this new format,and that I should do lectures only. I spent the weekend mulling over their request and asked for their patience and co-operation, as I intended to continue with the format. Attendance dwindled as the semester progressed, however a few students were very enthusiastic with this format, and maintained that they learned a lot.

On a more positive note, I have tried this approach with much smaller

groups(up to 40 students)and have found it to work well in Biology

courses withstudents in science and non-science programs. In one class

that had about 50 students, again the noise became prohibitive, and I

needed to move several groups to another room to reduce the din.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: Jane McDonald <JMCDONAL@CS7.CONESTOGAC.ON.CA>

I've learned a lot about using collaborative learning (or, as she refers to it, co-operative learning) from Dr. Idalynne Karre at the University of Northern Colorado in Greeley. Dr. Karre uses this technique in all her classes, regardless of size - 35 students to 300 students - and as a result of her success, a significant number of her colleagues are beginning to use co-operative learning. Although Dr. Karre would be a better source of information, I can tell you that her success seems to me to revolve around creating a community of learners in her classroom. She assigns students to heterogeneous groups on their first class day and the groups remain the same throughout the semester. The first few classes are devoted not to

content but to the tasks of developing team identity, setting rules for team conduct, clarifying the ways in which learning might occur during the semester, and having fun. Although this takes time, in the long run it saves time because groups have bought into the method and use class time productively.

A group of community college teachers in Western Ontario were introduced to Dr. Karre and her approach to teaching in May this year. At the start of this semester, quite a few of these teachers began using collaborative learning in their classrooms in such diverse subject areas as computer applications, mechanical technology, biology, nursing leadership and student success strategies. I'd be glad to answer any specific questions about how these teachers are doing or can refer you directly to them. I would also be glad to tell you more about Dr. Karre.

Jane McDonald Professional Development Consultant

Conestoga College Kitchener, Ontario

(519) 748-5220 ext. 719 email jmcdonal@cs7.conestogac.on.ca

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: Karen McComas <mccomas@MARSHALL.EDU>

I found in the local school supply store, some great workbooks in the

elementary and middle school sections with ideas about activities for

developing team identities, using collaborative activities, etc. I just

geared them up for the appropriate age level, the concepts were the

same. On an interesting note, I'm in Communication Disorders and we

train folks who want to be Speech Pathologists, so we spend lots of time

working with children....once my students discovered my sources for

ideas...they urged me to use the worksheets, etc. right out of the

workbooks....they thought if fun to have the cute cartoons, etc.

Another aspect I would like to mention is the "mutiny" that a previous

commenter mentioned. From my own experience and from what I have read,that is not uncommon. Collaborative learing is scary to students....and

remembering that they want to do well, makes the mutiny a bit easier for

me to take. I think you suggestion to them that this was an "experiment"

is a wise one. Hang in there....students don't need you to stand in

front of them and tell them what they are able to read....they need you

there to expand upon the readings, explain the difficult concepts,

demonstrate applicability, etc. Good luck!

I agree that collaborative learning is scary for students and some will

resist but I do not believe that telling them it is an experiment is a

good idea. In my experience that makes them even more nervous. If we

are to face reality, everything we do in the classroom is an experiment

which we are not sure is going to work with every student. But talking

about education as an experiment makes them very upset. We should avoid the use of the word. Tell them that it is an opportunity to learn more, to learn important skills which they will need in the working

world--anything but an "experiment".

Karen L. McComas Communication Disorders, Marshall University

Huntington, WV 25755-2634

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: johnson@spider.math.ilstu.edu (Todd Johnson)

To: amte@csd.uwm.edu

Ladnor--

I think you have COOPERATIVE LEARNING confused with having student work together. Putting students into groups to learn is not the same thing as structuring cooperation among students. Cooperative learning requires (a) POSITIVE INTERDEPENDENCE and (b) INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNTABILITY. You may be interested in reading Active learning: Cooperation in the college classroom by Johnson, D, Johnson, R., and Smith, K. (1991).

I am also surprised by the idea that, "Things that aren't apparent

immediately to the common sense can only become convincing and publicly accepted by continual propaganda.." Structured inquiry exists to take us beyond common sense. What great ideas are immediately apparent?

Todd Johnson | Illinois State University

e-mail: johnson@math.ilstu.edu | Mathematics Department

phone: 309-438-7656 | 4520 Math

office: 317 STV | Normal, IL 61790-4520

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: IN%"gallagher@mail.snip.net" "John V. Gallagher"

>I am interested in your thread and hope to learn much from it. I know of the old saying that teachers teach the way they are taught and some of that fault must lie at the feet of teacher educators. However, I believe much of the blame must be aimed at our talented colleagues in the "academic" departments where our students learn the content of their majors. We in teacher education have the considerable problem of trying to correct the attitudes of many students towards how they learned a discipline. They want to do it the same way with children in the K - 12 levels. In some cases, it is almost impossible to change these attitudes in the few credit hours we have in the teacher education portion of their degree program. I think we need to do it BEFORE student teaching. I will be interested in seeing what you and others post and look for strategies to implement. I need to do more CL in my teaching and do it better. So, thanks for starting this thread.

>John V. Gallagher, Ph.D. Associate Professor

>Secondary Education/Foundations of Education School of Education

>Rowan College of New Jersey 201 Mullica Hill Road

>Glassboro NJ 08028-1701

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: "Nancy L. Stegall" <nstegall@devry-phx.edu>

At our institution, we have attempted to provide CL training by

establishing two extra "CFP" hours in our freshman program. During these

hours, which students are required to attend (but receive no credit),

instructors lead CL activities to enrich their content presentations. The

activities are designed and evaluated during a team meeting each week,

and all involved instructors are required to attend that meeting. The

original thinking was that this space would allow instructors to

experiment with CL in a risk-free environment so that they could later

implement the CL techniques in their classrooms. The results have been

somewhat disappointing. Although the program has lasted through four

terms, the instructors have not really "bought into" CL. Why? Here are

some of the reasons I have been given--

It's too much work. Designing a really effective CL activity takes time

and serious planning. Instructors who have taught out of the same set of

lecture notes for 25 years are reluctant to abandon those notes and

invest the time in thinking through the learning process behind those

notes.

Fear. If we give up the notion that our job is to transfer our knowledge

into students' heads, then what _is_ our job? There are certainly days

when I do little besides watching and monitoring active students who are

very happy and engaged in learning without me. If this is the case, why

am I even needed in the classroom? If students "catch on" will teachers

be made redundant?

Lack of confidence in creativity. Designing good CL activities does

require creativity (an ability to shift paradigms and re-think content,

anyway). Many instructors feel they just don't have that level of

creativity or energy.

These are just some thoughts I had while reading your topic outline--

additions to (elaborations on?) your list that have struck me during my

years of working with instructors. I'll be anxious to see what others

say.

Nancy L. Stegall, Professor/Web Administrator

DeVry Institute of Technology

http://www.devry-phx.edu/academx/faculty/stegall.htm

2149 W. Dunlap, Phoenix, Arizona 85020

Phone:870-9222 E-Mail: nstegall@devry-phx.edu or stegall@primenet.com

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: Rick Yount <WYount@AOL.COM>

<< Teachers are not trained during their certification processes in

collaborative methods and those that are often receive incomplete training. If teachers are taught by the lecture method while at teachers' college, then it is hardly surprising that this will be the method of choice when their turn arrives to take over the classroom >>

Tie this idea to Steve's "defense" (or "rationale") for memorizing Kreb's

cycle (whatever that is) while in college. Onle when he began TEACHING it did he begin to understand it. So much to learn. So little time. A drib here and a dab there. Just enough to test by way of TF, MC or fill-in-the-blank test items.

Seems to me CL techniques ( and *skills*) would require a semester long

course involving concepts and techniques, followed by intensive practicum

work (perhaps within the class itself), followed by barriers (attitiude,

administrative, teacher, learner) and how to overcome them -- using CL

techniques as the major thrust of the latter part of the course.

Otherwise, we're back to "lecturing over the 12 values of the discussion

method" type teacher training. Perhaps this is an area for professional

development within the CC system after teachers have resieved their basic

training.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: Michele Costabile Doney <costabil@PILOT.MSU.EDU>

>Tie this idea to Steve's "defense" (or "rationale") for memorizing Kreb's

>cycle (whatever that is) while in college. Onle when he began TEACHING it did he begin to understand it. So much to learn. So little time. A drib here and a dab there. Just enough to test by way of TF, MC or fill-in-the-blank test items.

Can you suggest a collaborative way to teach/learn the Krebs Cycle? I

learned it by memorizing the various steps along the pathway. I saw it as

my own responsibility to make sure I internalized the information. Could I

rattle it all off now, five years later? No, but I would recognize a

component if I saw its name, and I still understand the basic concept and

purpose of TCA/ETC. As fashionable as it is to malign rote memorization, it

does have its uses. I personally feel I learned more in lectures and labs

than in any other type of course. Those things that I did not retain in

long term memory are retained in a very rich set of lecture notes and

textbooks which I never sold back. I can refer to them as needed much more easily than I can access vague memories of a group discussion that didn't stay on track. I wrote this very same thing on a course evaluation form for a grad class entitled "Teaching College Science." I know a thousand times more about biochemistry after having sat in a semester's worth of lectures. I know very little more about teaching college science than I did before I took the grad course, although I can certainly make traxoline now. In addition, in order to experience the same body of information I experienced in a mostly lecture-based undergraduate experience the lecture-free, memorization-free way, I'd have been in college forever.

Collaborative learning is an extremely valuable technique, and I certainly

don't mean to imply otherwise. But as someone who actually enjoys a good

lecture class, I thought I'd defend lectures and memorization, lest they be

labelled as the great evils of education.

Michele Doney costabil@pilot.msu.edu Michigan State University Museum East Lansing, MI 48825 (517) 353-3795

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: Andrew Petto <AJPETTO@MACC.WISC.EDU>

Rick raises an important point:

>Otherwise, we're back to "lecturing over the 12 values of the discussion

>method" type teacher training. Perhaps this is an area for professional

>development within the CC system after teachers have resieved their basic training.

I recently attended a presentation in which the author said that there is no

point in keeping people in their chairs for more than 35 minutes, since at that point, they begin to lose the ability to keep focused on a linear track (of course, he took 90 minutes to follow this line of reasoning, all the evidence, etc.).

However, colleagues at the UW, Jean Heitz and Marian Meyer, run a training workshop for TAs in the Zoology Department called "Teaching the Way We Were Taught -- NOT!" They say that we all are tempted to lapse into lecture, especially when the class is not responding, simply because we "know" the lecture mode. It forms the bulk of our own educational experience as students (and even at professional meetings).

Finally, let me commend to all of you an article in the most recent _Science and Education_ which also ties in the themes of collaborative learning and

content-driven expository teaching. With the unlikely title "Providing a

contextual base and a theoretical structure to guide the teaching of science

from early to senior years," Arthur Stinner has suggested that "contextual"

teaching helps students to build a framework for learning the really hard stuff -- like what is phosphoglyeraldehyde and why should I care to learn about this? His science ed students were successful in teaching difficult concepts to students by building a science "story" -- a combination of history, theory, experiments, ideas, even "romance or adventure. When students were able to contextualize the information into the "Larger Context Problem" with an identifiable central theme, they were more successful at learning the stuff -- and happier about it, too! Check it out -- Science and Education 5(3):247-266; 1996. Problem is, Stinner admits, few of our texts are set up this way (and although publishers I have talked to are sympathetic -- at least to my face -- they are too worried about sales to risk printing a text THIS way). Now, off to prepare my Wednesday fare -- two sets of collaborative problems for learning this week's theme, tissues. Tomorrow we unravel the secret behind the preponderance of sarcomas among cancers and try to re-wire a negative feedback

loop into a positive one.

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

>Can you suggest a collaborative way to teach/learn the Krebs Cycle? I

>learned it by memorizing the various steps along the pathway. I saw it as

>my own responsibility to make sure I internalized the information.

Well, yes. I did it last week -- we compared the effects of cyanide to

uncouplers as poisons that undo cellular respiration in very different ways.

Groups of 2-3 students had to solve the problem, then we followed some of the explanations/solutions in class the next time around. It is also clear in the OTHER work that the students due for this class that they must take

responsibility for their own learning -- in fact, I think that collaborative

learning is exactly that -- students must be actively involved in conceiving of and internalizing the materials.

>Could I rattle it all off now, five years later? No, but I would recognize a

>component if I saw its name, and I still understand the basic concept and

>purpose of TCA/ETC.

But, if you really learned it, at least you ought to be able to have it at hand

in the class that you took the NEXT semester in which it was discussed in a

nearly identical context. Not that you wouldn't need a refresher, but that you would not be clueless. Memorizing in a context; memorizing so that material is readily at hand when needed in related contexts; Good, good. We all have to drill ourselves on some details to be sure we got it right.

What *I* was complaining about, at least, was memorization as a survival skill only and not in conjunction with a learning strategy. I have also (I think we all have) had great wonderful and wise teachers who have

lectured primarily in their classes. My organic chem teacher was one, and I loved the course (and did well, too). But he never had us memorize anything for the sake of memorizing it. He always argued that the reason to have something readily at hand was that it was necessary to do so and there were no viable alternatives to having it committed to memory.

And in his classes, the answer to over half the exam questions was "water." He argued that the stuff was to damned important to organic chemistry that we ought to be accustomed to seeing it everywhere.

Andrew J. Petto, Editor, National Center for Science Ed.

PO BOX 8880, MADISON WI 53708-8880 ajpetto@macc.wisc.edu

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: George Jacobs <gmjacobs@pacific.net.sg>

Sender: cl@jaring.my

Ted Panitz has invited list members to discuss why more teachers do not use CL. In addition to - but also overlapping with - the reasons Ted gave arethe following ones I've heard:

1. Physical setting, e.g.,

a. classrooms without walls or with very thin walls, so "noise" from CL

could disturb other classes

b. chairs and tables that are screwed to the floor making it difficult for

students to collaborate "eye-to-eye, knee-to-knee

c. large class size

2. When students collaborate, it's the blind leading the blind. This is

especially heard with lower proficiency classes.

3. CL runs counter to some teachers' views on the philosophy and psychology of learning. This is discussed in: Rich, Y. 1990. Ideological impediments to instruction innovation: The case of cooperative learning. Teaching and Teacher Education 6:1. 81-91. Also, the whole literature on change in education, e.g., the work of Michael Fullan, has lot of lessons about how hard change can be.

4. Societal values/culture, e.g.,

a. Teachers should be "sages on stages"

b. Competition prepares students for the real world

Of course, as we know, despite all these reasons why teachers do not use CL, many teachers, myself included, wouldn't dream of teaching without CL as part of our repertoire.

George M Jacobs

SEAMEO Regional Language Centre 30 Orange Grove Road

SINGAPORE 258352 Tel: 65-737-9044, ext. 608 Fax: 65-734-2753

Email: gmjacobs@pacific.net.sg

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: IN%"MDEB@FHSUVM.FHSU.EDU" "Elton Beougher -- email:mdeb@fhsuvm.fhsu.edu

Department of Mathematics and Computer Science

Campus phone - (913)628-5912

My experience with using collaborative/cooperative learning, a la Johnson and Johnson, in college classes has not been too successful. One of the keys to their method is that groups develop into supportive arrangements, with each student concerned with the welfare of the others in the group. With the pattern of student absences that is prevalent on college campuses, this is impossible. The feeling of belonging to a group cannot be established when the membership of the group is so mobile.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: scrugs <scrugs@USER1.CHANNEL1.COM>

I have to agree with Jean. I teach two separate grauate level courses for

teachers based on Kagan's philosophy. One of the questions asked of me

is, "How can I make this a success with my class?" I always tell teachers

to start simply in September. Introduce a simple structure and a team

building activity and build upon that. Take the whole first term to get

you and your students into the groove of cooperative learning. It will

not work perfectly the first time you employ cooperative methods, but in

time it will.

What I would like to add to the discussion is the dimension of support

from other teachers and administrators. Without support and encouragement from peers, mentors and "the bosses" teachers can feel discouraged. Take it from one who has taught in a system in which the best, most innovative teachers are not encouraged or supported and the worst receive flattering newspaper stories written about them. Go figure.

Hank Garvey Kennedy Middle School Woburn MA

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: Adele Sanders <sanders@EDTECH.UNIVNORTHCO.EDU>

Subject: Re: Collaborative learning (pet peeves)

This is a topic I feel I must contribute my own pet peeves to.

PP #1 - teachers I have worked with believe that if they aren't "doing" jigsaw, or give their students roles (you know - one is secretary, one is leader, one is materials retriever, etc.) then they aren't really doing "formal" cooperative learning.

PP #2 - many teachers say that children helping children is cooperative learning - afterall, they are cooperating with each other by sharing, giving of their knowledge.

PP #3 - many teachers' lessons that purportedly put students together

to "work cooperatively" have as their underlying focus, children getting along with each other ("They aren't hitting each other, are they?").

MY challenge and question = what if, after teachers actually work

with students on what it means to work with others, come to

consensus, share ideas and materials, and so on, the students are

actually given interesting and challenging work TO DO TOGETHER. What

if they are asked to not only process "How did each member of the

group feel about their role/participation in the group?" and "How do

you think your group did as a team?" they were asked to process what

new knowledge or ways of thinking, etc. came from working with the

group?

My experience has been that teachers often stop short of the

cognitive piece. So, why is it that adults collaborate, but students

are only expected to cooperate? (Check the literature, whatever and

wherever and see if the use of cooperative effort isn't pigeonholed

for children/students and collaborative effort typically names what

adults do. If we worked to change the language from cooperative learning

to collaborative learning, would the practice of providing more

interesting work and problems for the students to labor over increase

the likelihood of better real learning? Would it increase the

likelihood of students cooperating because their focus is on

something valuable and valued?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: Barb Bloemhof <bloemhbl@MCMAIL.CIS.MCMASTER.CA>

Subject: Re: Experiments in Collaborative Learning

I agree with Don... using the word "experiment" might be expedient in the

short term, but it's probably got longer term costs; as he points out,

everything we do in the classroom is an experiment (good point!).

My experience is that if you want to try anything "new", you need to

explain why. In fact, if lecturing were not the modal teaching method,

you would have to explain why you were lecturing and not doing something

else. I saw an initiative to introduce different media into a first-

year principles course dismissed because "the students didn't like it."

I asked if any case had been made to the students to justify the

"different" approach, and was told no, that the people trying the new

mode had reasons for not "biasing" people's perception by saying anything

about it. But you cannot feed steak to a baby... if there are reasons

for doing collaborative learning, or introducing different media in the

classroom, I feel you must communicate those reasons, so that people can

give the change a fair try and not begrudge it because it's "different".

When I do things "differrently" and explain why, usually people give it a

shot. If I've accurately described the difference in results they should

find with "my" method, they are usually pretty reassured and the

experience is a good one for them and me.

As the instructor, students perceive you as (a lot of different roles,

but importantly) an expert in teaching... you are already starting from a

position where your word is valued. If you can just communicate why you

are going to the extremes of preparing laboriously (as anyone who has

taught collaboratively can attest, it's a *lot* more prep time!), and

remember that you cannot please everyone, you are just looking for people

to buy in and give it a try, I think (I hope?) that you will find better

reception.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: Chester Bowling <cxb37@PO.CWRU.EDU>

Subject: Re: Experiments in Collaborative Learning

I think Don and Barb are right about not calling collaborative

learning an experiment, unless the students have agreed to be test subjects

ahead of time. It also seems to me that the "experimenting" has already

been done. I would guess that is why people are converting to

collaborative learning from more traditional methods. They have read

research that tells them that collaborative is more efficient or effective

than other methods. I suggest that the research that has convinced you

will convience your students. Share it with them.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: SSloan@VAX2.Winona.MSUS.EDU (Sally Sloan)

To: amte@csd.uwm.edu

Subject: Re: common sense & CL

can't resist jumping into this one... I think Ladnor was reflecting some

political realities. What seems common sense to one may seem radical and

impossible to others. To effect change - even something so simple seeming

as having students work in study groups (a LONG way from formal J and J

Cooperative Learning) is not acceptable to many students or faculty.

Isn't the issue how we can convince others of what we believe?

To reply to the earlier question of why faculty do not use Coop Lrn more -

I believe a big part is that there really is serious resistance to the

notion, and so many teachers simply have not the energy to deal with that.

ANother aspect is the imperfect understanding of what CL really is as

compared to simply getting students to work together.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: "Harding, Carol - Humanities" <hardinc@FSA.WOSC.OSSHE.EDU>

Ted, as someone who had some intensive training in CL about 4 years

ago, I used it for a while - in large part because I had a lot of

support from colleagues and supervisors when I ran into roadblocks.

I've since changed schools and the support system disappeared. Now I

use bits and pieces rather than the whole system. I've also found

that it tends to work better with a semester system rather than

quarters. The students have a better chance to learn to trust each

other and learn each other's weaknesses, I think. It also takes less

proportional time out of the whole term to set up the groups and get

them working well.

If you haven't been in touch with anyone from Maricopa Community

Colleges in Arizona (Phoenix area), they've done a lot with CL in the

system.

Carol Harding English Dept. Western Oregon State College

Monmouth, OR 97361 hardinc@fsa.wosc.osshe.edu

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Paul Smith psmith@po-1.aea9.k12.ia.us (Paul Smith)

heproc-l@rrpubs.com

There are many reasons why participants did not jump on the band

wagon of collaborative teaching. One is they want to protect what they know because it in some way makes them special and needed. The second is that some of them are probably not good at teaching and do not want anyone else to know that. Third, universities and colleges do not honestly encourage collaboration but quietly prefer singular efforts. As one comes up through he system this mind set becomes quite clear.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: Anne Doyle <doyle@U.WASHINGTON.EDU>

This topic interests me, too. I agree with Helen that students are often reluctant to collaborate. And her point is well-taken: engineers and other professionals do collaborate in their work. Her comments, and those of the author who began this thread, sparked two responses in me.

First, it seems to me that most teachers at secondary and

college level assume that students already know how to collaborate, so

the teachers spare little thought on the communicative goals of

the collaboration, focusing on the assignment design mainly in terms

of the content knowledge to be mastered. Or, at most, they provide

students with a "role-based" format for collaborating (i.e., someone is

timekeeper; another is recorder; another is discussion-leader, etc.)

Although most students have social, personal, perhaps even political

agendas which may run counter to effective collaboration, few teachers

directly address this conflict. At the very least,

confusion among the students (about whether--to be successful--a

collaborative experience must be productive, comfortable, equitable, or

evenly-distributed among the participants) suggests that students and

perhaps teachers as well need a clearer sense of what the communicative

goals of a collaborative activity should be.

Second, it occurs to me that the communicative goals and format

of a collaboration differ from assignment to assignment, and may even

differ over time in a long-running collaborative assignment. Perhaps

teachers should foreground the nature of collaboration in their own

fields. We know that collaboration takes slightly different forms in

different disciplines. For example, I know of two high-tech companies

which recently faced problems in deciding what sort of technical support

would best promote collaboration between their staffs on a mutual project.

The sales staff wanted full-video teleconferencing capabilities (naturally

enough--a good salesperson reads voices and faces as a part of her

profession), but the engineers didn't really want the video or audio link.

They favored a shared CAD (computer-assisted design) system and email,

with occasional support telephone calls (again, a natural choice, since

studies suggest that engineers communicate successfully through shared

sketches and designs). Providing collaborators with the wrong format

for their particular collaborative needs can be counterproductive.

When designing a collaborative activity, then, teachers need to help

students understand that "collaboration" differs in different

professions and tasks.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: Rick Yount <WYount@AOL.COM>

Subject: Re: Collaborative learning discussion series #1

Here's two cents, from my chapter on Humanistic Learning in *Created to

Learn* published last January... One of the things I discovered in

researching ed psyc texts on cooperative learning was that the CL approaches discussed today are much more achievement oriented (at least in principle) than the group catharsis type approaches espoused by Rogers (et al) in the 1970s...

....... The newest manifestation of humanistic theory is cooperative learning. The term cooperative stands against competitive. Cooperative learning classrooms refrain from grading systems that pit individual students or student teams against each other in a race for limited high grades. In cooperative learning, high grades can be earned by every student or student team that meets the requirements for excellence. Students are encouraged to help each other learn. Emphasis is given to active participation in achieving both cognitive and affective outcomes. Cooperative learning places more emphasis on academic achievement. It provides less unstructured freedom than the Open Classroom and does not cater to individual student preferences as in Learning Styles. Research has shown that Cooperative Learning increases achievement, motivation to learn, higher thinking skills and interpersonal relationships in students.

.........

Key for me is "race for limited high grades". This is one of the most

destructive aspects of education -- I had a class (as a student) once with

100 students in it. The teacher announced on the first day that only the top 10 would receive A's. His rationale was that this would produce excellence. What it produced was dog-eat-dog cannibalism, pitted student against student, promoted cheating on exams, and left some students completely demoralized because they knew they would never be able to learn as much as about 25% of the class who had already had the same course using the same book in college!

I use groups as an enhancement for other activities, and keep group work

limited in time because I've seen groups head off into "whadayaDOinaftaclass?" fluff. But I will never limit the number of students who can earn A grades arbitrarily... it creates a few winners (who are probably already winners) and many more losers, with little link to actual learning or meaningful growth.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: David Lee Mount <dmount@ARN.NET>

>There needs to be another topic in your list: the lack of opportunity to use

>collaborative learning. For many of us who teach in large institutions of

>higher education, the large class sizes and lack of available flexible

>resources(human, physical and financial) make it very difficult to use such techniques regardless of their perceived value. A discussion of innovative ways of implementing such techniques would be most helpful.

>Rex Campbell University of Missouri

My partner and I have used collaborative learning techniques in classes

with no additional resources, no faculty support, no "flexible" physical

resources, no additional time, etc. We had 170 students in the classes and

were initially met with hostility (both from students and faculty) as well

as some other intereresting reactions What size are you calling "large"?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: Jean Goulet <goulet@DMI.USHERB.CA>

Isn't this the biggest problem with innovation in teaching and learning?

Who really measures the effect of the "experiments"? As soon as a new

method is proposed, we don't really test it scientifically. As long as we

continue doing so, no one will believe our "improvements" are real. Has

anyone ever proposed an objective way to measure the efficiency of a new

technique, using "control groups", or other experimental techniques? If

teaching wants to be considered as "serious" as research, it needs to

address this problem.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: "Dr. Christopher Knapper" <knapper@PSYC.QUEENSU.CA

In response to Jean Goulet . . .

Of course we should encourage colleagues to monitor the effectiveness of

educational innovations (and many people do -- there is a considerable

literature about efficacy of different teaching methods, such as

problem-based learning). But while we are at it, how about monitoring the

efficacy of traditional methods too? Why do we take for granted that the

status quo works fine? For example, there's lots of evidence that lectures

are a pretty poor way of fostering learning (see Bligh's classic book,

"What's the use of lectures?" for a summary of the evidence), yet this

method still predominates in higher education. What about the evidence for prevailing testing/assessment measures, such as multiple-choice tests? Do they encourage the sort of learning that teachers and students want to see?

Although I favour systematic collection of data about learning outcomes, I'm not sure that the best way of testing innovations is through controlled

experiments, which are notoriously difficult to arrange in real-world

settings. We might learn from the recent Consumer Reports survey of the

efficacy of psychotherapy which many people believe shed more light than

many years of controlled experiments. (There was a very good commentary of the Consumer Reports study in American Psychologist by Martin Seligman, who served as advisor on the project, and who is now President of the American Psychological Association. I'll bet Joe Parsons could give us the reference!)

Dr. Christopher Knapper Director, Instructional Development Centre

Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, CANADA K7L 3N6

Phone (613) 545 6428 Fax: (613) 545 6735

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: "Dr. Richard Felder" <felder@EOS.NCSU.EDU>

The biggest problem with teaching and learning isn't that we don't test

innovations scientifically. Many do so, and probably more have done so with cooperative/collaborative learning than with any other instructional method in existence. The problem is that most people who aren't educational psychologists don't bother to do with pedagogy what they routinely do with their disciplinary specialities, namely, check the literature to see what's there.

A good starting point for those interested in seeing what thousands of research studies have shown about the effectiveness of COOPERATIVE learning (group work with measures to assure positive interdependence, individual accountability, face-to-face promotive interaction, development of appropriate interpersonal and communication skills, and periodic self-assessment of group functioning) is Johnson, Johnson, and Smith, "Cooperative Learning: Increasing College Faculty Instructional Productivity, ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 4, 1991.

There are more recent reviews, but I don't have the references handy at the moment. Others can probably cite good reviews of other collaborative learning approaches.

The other problem with not consulting the literature is that many who don't do so simply plunge into some form of group work without taking the necessary precautions or building in the structures that have been shown to make this approach effective. They end up encountering the student resistance and outright hostility that several contributors to this discussion have described, and they conclude that the approach doesn't work in large classes, or in graduate courses, or in whichever setting they happen to have made their attempt. If you'll forgive the self-promotion, I would recommend that those planning to try group work for the first time and those who are already wrestling with the student resistance to it check out the paper "Navigating the Bumpy Road to Student-Centered Instruction," College Teaching, 44(2), 43-47 (1996). You can view and download the paper on my Web site (URL given below).

Richard M. Felder, Hoechst Celanese Professor

Dept. of Chemical Engineering, N.C. State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7905 phone: (919)515-2327, FAX: (919)515-3465

http://www2.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/RMF.html

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: Alan Wright <WAWRIGHT@IS.DAL.CA>

Further to Chris Knapper's point, see his excellent chapter "Understanding

Student Learning: Implications for Instructional Practice" in "Teaching

improvement Practices: Successful Strategies for higher Education" (W. Alan Wright and Associates, Anker Publishing, 1995)

Also, see Barbara Millis "Introducing Faculty to Cooperative Learning" and

David Kaufman "Preparing Faculty as Tutors in Problem-Based learning" in

the same book. The beauty of these three chapters (in my thoroughly biased but nevertheless valid view !) is that they

1) review the literature well

2) tell us what the "promise" of a given technique might be

3) suggest, in practical terms, how to implement the ideas with faculty

colleagues.

It's very important, I think, to bridge the gap between theory and practice

in educational innovation. The above-mentioned essays accomplish this

objective. We may not always have "controlled experiments", as Chris

Knapper says, to turn to, but we do have a fair bit of information on 'best

practices' which we have not properly exploited in higher ed. P.S. I'd like to hear your distinctions between the concepts of collaborative learning and cooperative learning. Some 'specialists' are horrified at the thought that they (the terms, not the experts) may be confounded or confused. Is the distinction neat? Is one a subset of the other? Have we, on the list, been referring to "cooperative learning" at times when we should have been referring to "collaborative learning"? Definitions anyone?

W.Alan Wright Executive Director,

Office of Instructional Development and Technology,

Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, B3H 3J5

Telephone:902-494-1622 Fax:902-494-2063

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: Susan Smith <susmith@CCS.CARLETON.CA>

Subject: Collaborative vs. Cooperative Learning

Alan Wright writes:

>

> P.S. I'd like to hear your distinctions between the concepts of

> collaborative learning and cooperative learning. Some 'specialists' are

> horrified at the thought that they (the terms, not the experts) may be

> confounded or confused. Is the distinction neat? Is one a subset of the

> other? Have we, on the list, been referring to "cooperative learning" at

> times when we should have been referring to "collaborative .

Kenneth Bruffee, Professor of English and Director of the Scholars

Program at Brooklyn College, addressed this question in an article in

Change, Jan/Feb, 1995, p. 12-18, entitled Sharing Our Toys:

Cooperative Learning vs. Collaborative Learning. He makes the

claim that the differences between the two have two causes. First,

"collaborative and cooperative learning were developed originally for

educating people of different ages, experience, and levels of mastery

of the craft of interdependence. Second, when using one or the other

method, teachers tend to make different assumptions about the nature

and authority of knowledge."

He goes on to say that cooperative learning is primarily the method

used in primary school, and that collaborative learning is more

refined and more appropriately used at post-secondary levels of

education. The goal of cooperative learning is to "hold students

accountable for learning collectively rather than in competition with

each other", while the goal of "collaborative learning seeks to shift

the locus of classroom authority from the teacher to student groups."

He examines ways in which each of these goals undercuts the other, and

concludes that the terms collaborative and cooperative can not be used interchangeablly. I think establishing the terms of what we consider collaborative learning is important.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: James Rhem <rhem@MSN.FULLFEED.COM>

Subject: collab/coop & power

Apropos the current discussion and respect to experts in both collab and

coop camps, how can it really be (in practice, not in theory) that shifting

responsibility toward a collective, cooperative aggregate of students and

away from a competitive arrangement does not also shift the authority for

knowledge onto the students? I certainly can see "in theory" how the

teacher and the students could continue to regard the teacher as "the

authority," but in practice, it would seem to me that students would

inevitably begin to feel like sovereign learners.

James Rhem Executive Editor & Book Acquisitions Editor

THE NATIONAL TEACHING ACE/Oryx Series

& LEARNING FORUM on Higher Education

213 Potter Street Phone: (608) 258-8747

Madison, WI 53715 FAX: (608) 258-9955

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: Louis_Schmier <lschmier@GRITS.VALDOSTA.PEACHNET.EDU>

Richard:

You are so right. Too many of us think that there are automatic and

miraculous solutions and answers in the techniques and methods themselves. I have learned that there are more components to teaching than equipment, technique, and information. Teaching is not just the lectures and handouts that a person carries into the classroom, or even the technology and technique a person carries into the classroom. It's also that

attitude that a person carries in his head, the committment he carries in

his heart, and the passion in his soul. I think, for teaching and learning, attitude is essential and powerful. I can think "what to do" with my brain, but it's my heart which says, "take a chance. Go ahead," and it's the faith in my soul which drives and directs me by saying "it's the right thing to do, play with it if need be, stay with it if it works, discard it if it doesn't."

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: Sharon Jacobson <sjacobs@ARNIE.PEC.BROCKU.CA>

Subject: taking a chance

Louis Schmier recently wrote " I can think "what to do"

>with my brain, but it's my heart which says, "take a chance. Go ahead,"

>and it's the faith in my soul which drives and directs me by saying "it's

>the right thing to do, play with it if need be, stay with it if it works,

>discard it if it doesn't."

When I first joined this list five years ago, I had never taught in higher

education and came seeking help and advice. I have finally begun my first

appointment at Brock University in St. Catharine's, Ontario. And in my

first few weeks here I have taken a lot of chances with my students, always listening to my heart and combining my passion about what I teach with my knowledge about the topic. The other night we were learning about the power of language and sensitive terminology. The students were frustrated with the books approach and they could not understand what the big deal was. "If a person can't see, then a person can't see. Who cares whether you call them a blind person or a person who is blind. Why were people so upset about what they were called." I had them do an exercise in class that I was not sure would work but it did and made an impact on them that they has carried into their other classes. Working in groups of about 10, these 120 students made up a list of anything they have ever said to anybody that might be considered disrespectful, insensitive, or offensive. After a few minutes I had those hand picked people come down and write some of the words/phrases that their group had come up with . The class continued to laugh but more out of discomfort than fun. The people coming down would write the words down on the overhead

and read them out loud. After all the groups were done, drawing from the

words/phrases that they had compiled, I developed a list of words that had been said to or about me. Not one student laughed. As we talked about the shifts in their reactions, they became more aware of how easy it is to offend someone without knowing it, and the impact that language can have on someone's life. One student at the end of class said "I guess I will never know how many people I have kept from being my friends because of the disrespectful and insensitive way I have spoken to them."

Sharon Jacobson BROCK UNIVERSITY DEPT OF RECREATION AND LEISURE STUDIES PHYSICAL EDUCATION COMPLEX ST. CATHARINE'S ONTARIO L0S 1K0 905-688-5550 EXT. 4100 905-688-0541 (FAX)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: tbassare@keene.edu (Tom Bassarear)

To: amte@csd.uwm.edu

I don't think it is controversial to say that to teach in a way that is

consistent with the three sets of NCTM Standards and modern theories of

learning, it is hard to imagine no having one's students in small groups at

least part of the time. I think the controversy comes in "how" to do it.

With respect to Ladnor's perspective on common sense, I think that common sense is fine and some people have more common sense than others, but common sense alone to guide one's use of collaborative learning makes no more sense than common sense alone guiding one's teaching of mathematics. Just as the NCTM Curriculum, Teaching, and Assessment Standards provide a framework for thinking about mathematics, teaching, and assessing, so too does one need a framework for thinking about collaborative learning, or any other aspect of one's teaching.

An earlier book by Johnson, Johnson, and Holubec "Cooperative in the

Classroom" distinguishes "Cooperative Learning Groups" from "Traditional

Learning Groups." While I have some differences with their approach toward cooperative learning, I have found the chart instructive.

From my own experience with collaborative learning, I have found that

students often do not have the social skills to do collaborative learning

well and it does take some time "away from content" to deal with this. Some proponents of collaborative learning have argued that students need time to process the effectiveness of their group. I find that this is one aspect of collaborative learning that many teachers tend to skip or gloss over, but which makes a big difference. At the same time, and here is where we get back to common sense being guided by principles and theories, we have to stop and ask why are we doing this and how does it fit with other aspects of our teaching. I have been persuaded by the many educators who have described "constructivist" epistemology and I believe that my teaching today is more "constructivist" than it was 10 years ago. So I see that "how" I facilitate collaborative learning needs to be consistent with how I facilitate other kinds of learning in my classrooms.

Let me be specific. During the first two weeks of the semester, I have my

students work in small groups with a variety of different students. During

this time, they get to know the names of most of the students in the class

and a little bit about others. Then I establish "base groups," that is,

groups that will work together for the next three weeks on a larger

exploration about numeration. The first activity in base groups is to

respond to this question: in the past three weeks, you have worked in a

number of groups, and some have likely worked "better" than others.

Describe the characteristics of a well-functioning group. Each group takes

5 minutes to construct a list and then we take 20 minutes to construct a

whole class list which includes some elaboration (e.g., what does

"respecting each others' ideas" look like?). I collect each group's list

and then compile that into a set of guidelines which I give back the to the

class as a handout which we occasionally refer to. When I compare the list

my students generate to the lists that various proponents of collaborative

learning have proposed, invariably my students will capture most of the

characteristics that the proponents argue for. I denote in italics the

characteristics that I feel are important that did not emerge from the

class discussion, so that the students can see that this set of guidelines

is essentially "their" set. Over the course of the semester, we will

occasionally spend time discussion specific items on the list if necessary.

Thus, I do have to spend the major portion of one class on launching

collaborative learning; after that the amount of time "away from content"

is generally minor. However, what this adds to the quality of both the

small-group and whole-class discussions is enormous.

However, when I first began trying to implement collaborative learning

into my teaching, it was not terribly smooth, and felt more like a

technique rather than something connected to my larger principles and

goals.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: Kara Staunton <kara@BCN.NET>

I based my whole classroom on cooperative and collaborative learning

(although I have to admit I'm still not clear on what the difference, if

any, is between "cooperative" and "collaborative"). It took a lot of

courage and planning to go ahead and break the mold of teacher directed,

lecture teaching. The school at which I teach is traditional and when I

began working there last year, there were few, if any, teachers using

this method. When I first started doing it, I got a few stares and

comments about how "loud" and my classes were. But I stuck through and

have found it to be most effective.

I spend the first two weeks of school just learning and reviewing the

basic social skills needed to work in a group: how to listen, respect,

teamwork, communication, problem solving, etc. We don't even start any

curriculum until two weeks into the year. But it is well worth the time

because then you have built a foundation for the whole year on which to

work.

I have a few structures that I like to use, although I would love some

more suggestions. I have never quite figured out how to use jigsaw if

anyone could give me some tips, I'd appreciate it.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: Adele Sanders <sanders@EDTECH.UNIVNORTHCO.EDU>

Based on my knowledge and experience, I think about coop/collab

learning as being able to have students cooperate = GET ALONG, or

having students actually explore, share, collaborate AND BUILD ON each other's

ideas so that they end with something - idea, attitude, knowledge

that is more than what each person started with alone - and can

express it in some way. Isn't that what teachers do when they

collaborate on what/how to teach a theme, or how to handle a

particular student's problem? what a researcher and a classroom teacher do when

they

are working toward a single goal? My peeve is that many teachers I

have interacted with have stopped short of the "building on" piece.

After working on helping the students sit together, listen to each

other, take turns and share the work, their future efforts are just

like their past ones - students work toward getting along, rather

than creating and building shared understandings that are then applied to

something. When the group work activity is over, teachers typically

process students' efforts by asking individuals across various groups to state how their

group did together. What if we started asking students what they now

know, or think, or can do that they couldn't before the group effort?

To me, that is fruit of collaboration - okay, it is reached through cooperation.

okay, i've unwound. and NO, i don't see it as a semantic game!

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: Sandie Lee Walser <walsersl@TENET.EDU>

According to theory, with jigsaw you take one student from each group to

form a new group. The new group answers the problem, learns the new

material, or what ever and then reports back to their original group and

teaches the original group the new learning. Mechanically, group A students are labeled 1, 2, 3. and 4, group B students are labeled 1, 2, 3, and 4, group C are labeled 1, 2, 3, and 4 and so on. For the jigsaw, all #1's

will work together, #2's together, etc. The numbers will then work go

back to the letter group and work. Honestly, I have not been that

successful with jigsaw in my math classroom, but have a friend that also

teaches math that loves it. He especially uses it on word problems.

A trick that has really helped at times is a grading trick. Personally,

I can not deny a student a grade because a student in his group has not

learned the test material. I award positive. If all in the group are

there on test day and pass the test, everyone in the group gets 5 bonus

points. If all make a 90 or better, they get 10 bonus points. (Yes I

will record a 110 in the grade book.) It doesn't work with every group,

but I have really seen it work with some. This week at the first of the

period I told the class there would be an quiz at the end of the period

and then did the normal review over homework and introduced the new

lesson. After the quiz at then end of the period, I had 6 of 8 groups in

one class, 5 of 8, and 7 of 8 groups earn bonus points. Those kids were

so excited. I saw phone numbers exchanged and promised extracted to get

their homework done. It was neat.

The difference between cooperation and collaboration to me is a suttle

one. Collaboration carries more personal responsibility to the group.

There aren't as many attempting to freeload. It is more of an attitude.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: Jean Spanko <jspanko@MTNSIDE.SCOTTSDALEUD.K12.AZ.US>

Dear Kara,

Cheers to you for hanging in there in the face of the "stares" of your

colleagues! I have worn out about three of Spencer Kagan's Cooperative Learning books. The book is jam-packed with structures and organized in a way to help you find them easily, depending on the goal you're trying to

accomplish. You can order it, or get a catalog by calling1-800-WEE-COOP.

As for jigsaw, the trick is finding the right material. I often use

it with multiple articles on a topic, e.g., animal rights. Each

student on the team has a different article - one might be on use of

animals for cosmetic testing, another on factory farming, etc.

I group all the kids with like articles into "expert teams," where

they read and discuss key points from the article. After they have

had a thorough discussion with their "expert teams," they return to

their home team to teach their material.

This is a good place for flexible grouping. You can have reading

materials of varying difficulty - the "expert teams" are actually

tracked at that point, with all members of an expert team being at

roughly the same reading level.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: METZKEL@QUEEN.LSC.VSC.EDU

I have team taught a large (for our college) 65+ introduction to education

course for that last 6 years. Last year it became evident that the

lecture format was of limited success...not only academically but (if

you can believe this) classroom management wise! We had students sitting in the back laughing, talking, playing tic tac toe...even when one of us meandered throught the back tables and confiscated tic tac toe games the behavior continued. Thus, we decided to try a cooperative learning

structure this year...it is a natural for me...not so for my teammate...so

that has been an interesting evolution and took time and energy to work

out the kinks both with students (we give them 5x8 cards for feedback now and again and they are free to give us cards at any time they feel the

need...both for positive and negatvie comments...the formal feedback

cards ask for what they like? dislike? would like changed?) and with

ourselves...which has included discussions of our roles, how well our

students are learning, the fear of

"watering down" content, etc...

We have divided our group into 11 groups of 6 and one group of 4...each

group has a color coded folder with group tasks listed on one side,

attendance and current events on the other, and group journal (multiple

blue books!), assignments, etc in the folder. Each student developed

a name tag on color coded heavier stock paper and those are used each

class period...I feel knowing each student's name is critical and this

has facilitated my learning along with providing us with an opportunity

to emphasize the importance of teaching/learning through multiple modalities (seeing, hearing, etc) The name tags are wonderful and personal and give us opportunities to learn about our students and their interests...the most serious complaints of the structure so far are colors...the chartreuse group hates their color, the buff groups wants a less bland color...we have taken to calling them the chamois group...the pink group wants a flashier name...

We put a thought question on the board before class begins each day so that groups focus on the topic for the day...sometimes it is an opinion question sometimes a review of the last class...sometimes a sort of assessment question that gives us an idea of what their prior knowledge is...

During the class we do a combination of lecture, discussion in small groups,

reporting out from groups on questions, activities, etc...I want to share

some notable incidents that feel like success to us...for example we used to

lecture about developmental theory...and this time we had each student

find out when they first sat up, crawled, made a first step...and then

by developing graphs in their group journals and synthesizing that on the

blackboard with a whole class graph...the groups came up with the three

principles of deveopment we used to take at least 2 classes to present in

lecture, in about 20 minutes! I believe that our students will "know" those

principles on the midterm like they never "knew" before! We did the same type activity for the pros and cons of special education labeling and the groups actually came up with some interesting ideas not usually dealt with in the literature and gave us some touch points to exand upon in discussion and mini lecture...I could go on and on...because we are so excited about the way we are being able to avoid lecture and yet "teach" all the concepts we delineated before we began this semester...the depth of coverage continues to amaze and satisfy us...we feel that we are able to cover a similar amount of material with much less lecture and at a deeper level for the learner... at any rate it is not without drawbacks...we have to be constantly more creative and thoughtful (I shouldn't have used the word drawback I see now, but I can't correct with this email program...sorry)...it is much more time consuming as far as planning goes...we cannot just say...are you covering_____? we have to formulate questions that get where we want to go. There is nothing like a poorly worded question or shallow question to get the whole class in an uproar of what do you want, what do you mean, etc and set us back precious minutes! The creativity is sometimes difficult... I am a storyteller ...metaphor maker...so I have to think in different ways which is expanding when it is not a bit daunting...But the structure has really made this course wonderful and I really look forward to it...and I think our students are getting much more than they did previously...I will give the list an update after the next exam...since we expect the same learning!

Linda MEtzke Lyndon State College, Lyndonville, VT 803-6266249

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: IN%"JCAndrz@aol.com"

While i was training to be a math teacher, grades 6-12, i came across a

wonderful master teacher in Wheeling, IL who used cooperative learning in her classroom. Also, at Roosevelt University in Chicago, where I was working toward a Masters in Secondary Ed and pursuing a tching certificate, my methods professor brought cooperative learning into the curriculum. This was about ten years ago and I believe that these were just 2 individuals who loved the concept, so I tried to learn all I could from them. Unfortunately, when I got my first job teaching 7th and 8th grade math in Buffalo Grove, IL, the emphasis was on raising standardized test scores to look good compared to neighboring districts. My principals and other math staff were no help when it came to group activites, in fact, I was told in order to have effective discipline, kids should work quietly on their own. Anyway, I used cooperative groups succesfully in my Remedial 7th grade class (yes, that's what it was called), because these kids got so much out of being able to help others. In fact, most of them had never experienced the giving end, since they thought of themselves as "remedial". Since then, I have moved on to Community College Non-credit education, but working with local high schools is big part of my job in a program I created called College for Teens. We offer SAT and regents exam prep classes and I have a few teachers who use cooperative learning. From their feedback, kids are not used to it, nor are parents. In fact, one parent called me this past Spring to say that she was not happy with a math review class because "the teacher wasn't teaching all the time, he was letting the kids teach each other!" So the resistance is far-reaching.

Hope this info helps you. I will be interested to read what you find out and what conclusions and actions you come up with. If you would like me to contact my teachers who support this concept, you can e-mail me directly at:

Janet Andrzejewski, Lifelong Learning Coordinator

Onondaga Community College Center for Community Education

EXCELL Bldg Syracuse, NY 13215

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: paddyb@true.net (Jennifer Kaplan)

Subject: CL discussion

The subject of CL (or cooperative learning as it was called when I started

teaching) is one that I am very emotional about. As a new teacher (this is

my 8th year), I was trained in cooperative learning techniques and I used

them, successfully I thought, in my teaching. I don't neccessarily go

'whole hog' into it, but I have the kids working in pairs or groups,

checking homework together, doing activities and investigations rather than direct instruction and sometimes even taking group quizzes. I have always found this to work well. The kids do learn from each other and build confidence in their abilities, and all of that good stuff.

Last year I had a group of integrated math 2 students - two classes

actually - who were a bit weak mathematically and also a bit lazy. I had

them doing investigations; I really had to, we have block scheduling and I

am not going to talk at a class for 100 minutes at a time. When a student

asked a question, if it was about a formula or definition that should have

be 'known' I would say, "Do you think you could look that up somewhere?"

and if it was about an exercise, I would usually ask a group member to try

to explain first and if that didn't work I would go back and explain.

Conceptual problems I would field on my own. Well, the upshot of this

shaggy dog story is that I am now the "Teacher Who Does Not Explain" in

school.

I still stand behind my techniques. I still used partners and groups and

investigations and things seem to be better this year, but I understand the

stigma which can go along with it. I'm glad to see the topic being

discussed and hope that maybe something good can come of it.

Thanks for letting me go on. Any helpful hints and suggestions are greatly

appreciated

Jennifer Kaplan

Colegio Internacional de Caracas email: paddyb@true.net

POBA #233 phone: (582) 51 95 55

PO Box 02-5255 fax: (582) 93 05 33

Miami, FL 33102

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: Don Coleman <mtbb0@ms.uky.edu>

Jennifer, wear the badge proudly.

One of my colleagues has tried group work (I don't think he

really knows what cooperative learning is) in his course for

elementary teachers. It is his first attempt. He was as excited

as I have ever seen him. "They were asking GREAT questions!"

he said, among other things. He also noted that it is a good

thing we don't have to "cover much material".

I think the main thing going for CL is that it shifts the

responsibility for the learning where it should be - on the

student. Is that something that we should argue about?

(By the way, I am terrible at CL myself, but I keep trying.)

Don Coleman | (606) 277-7678 (Home)

Mathematics Dept | 257-4802 (Office)

University of Kentucky | 257-4078 (Fax)

Lexington, KY 40506-0027 | email: mtbb0@ms.uky.edu

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: LCoes@aol.com

Subject: CL by Accident

I became a fan of cooperative learning quite by accident.

In the early and mid-80's, as in most schools, we did not have enough

computers to go around, so, when we did use the computer lab, kids had to share. I was worried about that, big time. What I found was a big surprise. As students hundled over the green-dotted computer screens of the old Apple II's, they started talking among themselves--about mathematics! The talk was not as precise as I would have liked, but then again, they were really doing some mathematics and their conclusions, though unrefined, were surprisingly perceptive.

Did it work without a computer? I didn't think it would, but I was

surprised again. With the right kind of problems--and I don't think you cando CL without a good problem to chew on--I got the same kind of productivedialogue.

I'm a little worried when schools want to structure and standardize CL

to the point where it can lose its spark. It's a great way to kick around

good ideas and to solve problems that would leave individuals glum-faced and frustrated. I *don't* think you need to use CL all the time, especially when the tasks are reasonably handled on an individual basis. The best bet is to encourage cooperation when nothing but cooperation will get the job done. Andthere are plenty of good problems that will fit the bill.

Terry Coes

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: paddyb@true.net (Jennifer Kaplan)

>[RAR now] I wonder about that distinction between "a formula...that

>should be 'known'" and a "conceptual problem." Every formula has a

>concept behind it, the understanding of which often makes the formula

>itself easily memorable, and its use plain.

I knew that this statement would be controversial and I tried to make it as

nuetral as possible. To elaborate, if a student asked me, while we were

studying surface area, how to find the surface area of a cylinder, I would

first ask, what parts make up a cylinder, or what pieces would we have to

cut out of paper to make a cylinder and then work from there to the 'how

to'. If a student in the same class asked me the same question two classes

later, I would ask his/her partner to try to explain it. If a student in

the same class asked me again two weeks later, I might ask the student to

come after school so that we could work on the topic. When, during the

course any year which follows, the topic came up again as part of something else, an a student had a question, I would direct the students attention to places where he/she could find help on his/her own (our books have a 'toolbox' with mini review lessons covering topics from previous courses.)

This is an example and I really don't think it is an unreasonaable

approach. If Jeanette knows that every time she asks me what the quadratic formula is, I will tell her, why would she bother too learn it? If she has to look it up every time, it gives her extra incentive.

I also want to take a minute to explain my philosophy in this. The world

of math and science and technology is ever changing. While I can try to

anticipate the needs of my students, I will not be with them, sitting on

their shoulders, giving them directions, for the rest of their lives. I

feel that the best thing I can do is to give my students the tools they can

use to read and learn and understand on their own and the confidence to use

those tools. The CL approach does that. Yes, it;s scary for students and

teachers, but in the end students *must* be weaned from the idea that the

teacher is the font of all knowledge and that nothing can be learned

without his/her help. Just an aside as a question for teachers: how much

gets done in your classroom when you are absent and there is a non-math

teacher as a substitute?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: Annette Taylor <taylor@pwa.acusd.edu> tips

I use as much collaborative learning techniques as possible. I find that

my colleagues do not for the following reasons:

1. they are not convinced 'activities and discussions' are pedagogically

sound ways of achieving teaching/learning

2. they have never been a part of this themselves--being schooled in lecture

style they believe if it ain't broke don't fix it

3. they are too lazy to change their canned lectures into anything else

4. they don't know how to give up control

5. even if students bitch and moan about lecture everyone seems to

accept that as OK. but if students bitch and moan about collaborative

learning then it seems to be a more serious indiccation that one should

go back to lecturing--at least that has been my experience.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: IN%"mchadwic@teleport.com" "Mary Chadwick" Hope Christian School Aloha, Oregon

Some comments on collaborative learning:

At our small K-12 private school, some teachers are criticized for

using collaborative learning techniques. The classroom appears to be

out of control to some who beleive a classroom should have all

students sitting quietly in rows and listening to the teacher talk. I

had a problem with our math teacher confronting me with this

stituation and even reported to the principal that my classroom was

out of control. This is my preferred method of teaching. I teach

history, career education, and personal finance. I have even

effectively taught geometry and health using this method. I believe

students have a lot to learn from each other, as well as stimulate and

motivate each other. It has not worked for me with all groups. Two

groups that do not seem to work well for me using this method are

either extremely passive groups or, on the other end of the

personality scale, extremely social groups. My passive classes are too

complacent and need extra stimuli to draw them out, while the social

groups lose control and begin their own interactions aside from the

intended objectives. I would be very interested in methods of dealing

with these two types of groups.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: "Jess Brewer, UBC Phys (604)822-6455, FAX 222-1074" <msr@TRIUMF.CA>

Subject: Gulp, here goes nothing...

I feel a little like a company executive raising her hand at a

Union meeting, but there is no reason you should care what I

feel like; sorry to mention it. I have a challenge to which

I suspect I will receive several responses:

There are at least some students who register for specific courses

in order to learn about specific subjects from people whom they

expect to know a lot about those subjects, usually by virtue of

having absorbed a lot of information and thought long and hard

about its interpretation and implications. Doesn't anyone find it

just a little condescending to spend their students' time and money

"teaching them how to live" instead of about the subject they

signed up to master? Playing counseling psychologist to someone

who came to you to learn how to solve differential equations is

a form of betrayal in my view. Whenever I do it (as I sometimes

do, sheepishly) I always realize that I am pushing some hidden

agenda, usually something I would call politics, and I try to be

sure the students know exactly what I am up to so they can be

appropriately skeptical. Here is my challenge: if you want to

preach, become a minister; if you want to counsel, go study

psychology and (when you are qualified to give people advice

-- if indeed anyone really is) hang out a shingle advertising

yourself as a counsellor; but when you contract with people to

help them master certain skills and understand certain ideas,

don't go playing Don Juan to their Carlos Castaneda unless

you think you have the Nagual to back it up! -- Jess

------------------------------

From: Billy Strean <BSTREAN@PER.UALBERTA.CA> University of Alberta

Subject: Gulp, here goes nothing...

Jess, Yes. You have sparked at least one reply (intentionally to the

list). Because we choose to think we teach students and not disciplines, does not make us counselling psychologists. Because we are passionate about what we do, does not make us ministers. Because we believe that we help others to learn and understand best when we attend to the whole person, does not mean we are playing Don Juan. There is just as much an agenda, and perhaps a more insidious one, behind trying to teach "just the facts" and not attending to the complexity of the people trying to learn them.When I listen to the teachers who have been recognized for being

outstanding (like the 3M/STLHE Award winners), one commonality I hear is that they care about their students and communicate that caring

effectively. If I believe that my students will learn best in a community, I need to work to develop that community. If I want my students to develop attitudes and passion in addition to acquiring skills and knowledge, then it serves my purpose to display some of the caring of a counsellor and the sense of mission of a preacher.

Maybe a difference between us is that I don't agree with your comment, "but there is no reason you should care what I feel like." I think there are

loads of reasons why I should care about what you feel. I believe we are

part of a community and it is part of my role in the community to care

about your feelings. If I don't meet my obligations to facilitate learning and pursuing my broader mission is the reason, then I have violated my "contract" with the students.

Some students, perhaps because of their position on a trajectory of

intellectual development, may want me to put forth "truths" I have learned for them to copy down. But meeting that desire may not be the best way to facilitate their growth.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: Louis_Schmier <lschmier@GRITS.VALDOSTA.PEACHNET.EDU>

Subject: CL

It has been my experience that a lot of our colleagues are opposed to

active learning because:

a. they have not read the literature and hide that fact with "guesses",

"instinct", "supposes", and name calling

b. they've made a superficial effort at trying it, thinking that

they would not have to change their attitdues--what I call just moving

chairs around--and it failed which gave them the ammo of "I told you so"

c. they've made an effort at it thinkiing it had automatic curative

powers of Lourdes and were disillusioned when it did not

c. they are not convinced 'activities and discussions' are pedagogically

sound ways of achieving teaching/learning, but remain open-minded and wish further discussion

d. their experiences have been with lecturing and feel that if it was

good enough for them, it's good enough for the whole world.

e. they're scared to try something new and strange for fear of failing

f. they are too lazy to change their canned, yellowing lectures into anything else

g. they don't know how or want to give up control

h. they would have an "what am I now" identity crisis

i. they don't trust students unless students agree with them

j. they use students complaints about collaborative learning as a serious

sign to keep lecturing while ignoring student complains about lecturing with a "what do students know."

k. they don't truly consider teaching the "important" mission of academia

worhty of their time and effort, and want to get out of classroom and into

the lab/library/archive asap

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: Robert Baudouin <baudoir@DENEB.CI.UMONCTON.CA>

Subject: Re: Gulp, here goes nothing...

I thank you for your thoughts. Even if they might appear unpopular

they are very important. This being said, I partly aggree with you.

Some colleagues, I find, stretch the limit of their contract. Teaching students 'how to live' should not be done at the detriment of the course matter. After all, if I see on a transcript that the student as taken such or such a course, I have expectation as to what was learned. On the other hand, it is not what you teach that is important, it is what the students learn. To promote better learning, you often have to promote better living. I have no qualms about teaching students how to study, manage their time, etc. during class time.

And I am always concerned about how students feel about the subject matter and the course. If a student approaches me to discuss a personnal issue, I will counsel him or her to the best of my ability and/or refer to a specialist.There are and always will be grey areas, but I rather sin by including to much rather than too little of the 'mushy stuff'.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: Louis_Schmier <lschmier@GRITS.VALDOSTA.PEACHNET.EDU>

Subject: here goes nothing

Billy:

You know Idn't agree with you . Why is that we academicians so often much prefer to emotionally sterilize our workplace, to ignore the turth that human beings, as learning beings, are emotional beings no less than they are intellectual beings. Why is it that we are so quick to say that we want to illuminate or open the minds of students and then cringe if someone talks about the hearts of students? Somehow I think we forget that when anyone thinks, that person feels. Sometimes I think we look upon ourselves and the students as a segmented, compartmentalize, categorize, separated being in which the emotions, the spirit, and the intellect are placed apart in distinct and unrelated cells. How many times to find ourselves saying, "Oh, that's not my job" when it comes to

addressing non-academic concerns of the students however much such concerns may impact on a student's academics? How many times to we find ourselves perceiving that schools deal with a student's intellect, the parents with the students emotions and values, the church with the student's spirit, and the physician with his/her stomach, and that somehow one has nothing to do with the others. The fact that so many professors often want to ignore emotion and spirit in both themselves and the classroom doesn't mean either a professor's or student's emotion or spirit

is not present, is not affecting his/her performance, or is not unaffected by what goes on in the classroom. In short, whether we like it or not, know it or not, he or she has no choice than to teach what we might call the "whole person." No, I think we all have to include, not exclude, the addressing of students emotions and spirit in their classes. We have to realize that while we're dealing with the intellect, we're affecting the emotion; and while we're dealing with the emotion, we're affecting the intellect. The "whole person" of a student is not an ideal; it's not an abstraction. It is a description of reality.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: Bill Timpson <wtimpson@LAMAR.COLOSTATE.EDU>

What a good and lively discussion. While completing a new book, "CONCEPTS AND CHOICES IN TEACHING" (Madison, WI: Magna, 1996) including a chapter on "Group Learning", I spent an entire semester sitting in on Ken Klopfenstein's linear algebra class at Colorado State University where he was experimenting with converting a substantial course component to collaborative learning (CL).

One issue we discussed at length was the student desire for more lecturing

from Ken although the time set aside for CL seemed to promote more

attendance, engagement, active learning, and critical and creative

thinking.

One dynamic which Ken also noted was the drain on his own enthusiasm when students sat passively as he lectured. The energy which CL generated in class fed his own enthusiasm. The smaller groups also allowed him to observe students using math and to interact with them on a more intimate level.

One related recommendation which arose is that teachers who experience

these kinds of responses need to solicit more than just end of course

evaluations from students. Peer observations and mid-semester feedback from students could provide additional data and counteract the press by some students for the "easier" and more comfortable teacher-directed lecture.

Bill Timpson School of Education

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: GRAHC@APSU01.APSU.EDU

>Hi, Ted and other TIPsters.

>While I appreciate Ted's excellent work on collaborative learning, and

>use these techniques in my own classroom, I find the following

>fascinating. In David Hothersall's History of Psychology, there is a

>description of a relevant research study that students really enjoy.

>Jackson & Padgett (1982) studied songs written by individual Beatles, and

>those written by Lennon and McCartney together. Success was defined by

>sales and chart ranking. The songs written by individual Beatles were

>significantly more successful than songs written by the Lennon/McCartney team.

>One could argue that group learning and group work are different

>processes, but we shouldn't lose sight of the weaknesses of group

>endeavor. There are legitimate reasons why American students dislike

>group work, and we have to keep questioning our techniques.

>

>Best regards,

>Laura

Thank you Laura for raising concern about collaborative learning. While I

think there is a place for collaborative learning (I also incorporate it

into a number of my classes), I'm not sure the evidence suggests that it is always beneficial. Here's a study done by one of our graduate students that compliments the study described by Laura.

The study was one of group problem solving. Participants were first to

generate their own solution to a problem and then were to work collectively with other group members to generate a group solution. What the student found was that for every group, one of the individual solutions was better than the overall group solution. I guess the implication of this study is that group work is a good way to insure mediocrity.

I think the point we need to keep in mind is that there are a wide variety

of "teaching tools" that we have at our disposal. None of them is always

best. We should use them with some caution and discretion.

Buddy Grah Dep't of Psychology Ausin Peay St. Univ.

Clarksville, TN 37044

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: Annette Taylor <taylor@pwa.acusd.edu>

Gee, I believe it is the instructor's new job role to select out the one individual contribution in each group that is so outstanding and suggest to the other group members to learn from that one in particular. I have found that within a group the 'best' individual product changes from

assignment to assignment, so that ultimately most of the students at some

point offer a best assignment to their classmates. But it is being right

there and watching the process by which the best idea was devleoped by

a classmate that I think the others learn--better than if I provide a

single example on my own--which may not be as good as the best provided by one of the classmates. (I have students work alone first, then have them bring their individual product to the group.)

So there is more to this business if it is to be pedagogically sound

and it _is_ very threatening to instructors because (1) it takes a heck of

a lot more work to prepare and (2) we often find our students have done

better than us!

Of course some students will consistently be better than others, but in

a small group of peers I find the others learn better than when I

consistently try to provide the model since I seem to be held in a

different regard than peers, despite my efforts to be 'friendly and

approachable. Students expect me to come up with great work more so

than themselves or their peers.

I don't get the part about "ensuring mediocrity"--did the best student

change their great idea based on such a small group's pressure. If so

something is wrong in how the groups are being prepared--that person

with the best idea should be teaching the others and not diluting his/her

own work. So I'm confused about why this happened--these should not be the kinds of groups that function without instruction or direction, as in a

social psych study--these are groups that should be carefully instructed

and taught in a group process that fits that teaching situation. I

would argue this prior instruction was deficient in the gorups on which the

graduate student did her study.

> Thank you Laura for raising concern about collaborative learning. While I think there is a place for collaborative learning (I also incorporate it into a number of my classes), I'm not sure the evidence suggests that it is always beneficial. Here's a study done by one of ourgraduate students that compliments the study described by Laura. The study was one of group problem solving. Participants were first to generate their own solution to a problem and then were to work collectively with other group members to generate a group solution. What the student found was that for every group, one of the individual solutions was better than the overall group solution. I guess the implication of this study is that group work is a good way to insure mediocrity. I think the point we need to keep in mind is that there are a wide variety of "teaching tools" that we have at our disposal. None of them is alway best. We should use them with some caution and discretion.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: powell@direct.ca (Ross Powell)

>The study was one of group problem solving. Participants were first to

>generate their own solution to a problem and then were to work collectively with other group members to generate a group solution. What the student found was that for every group, one of the individual solutions was better than the overall group solution. I guess the implication of this study is that group work is a good way to insure mediocrity.

>Buddy Grah

Buddy,

I feel like I'm missing something from this study; perhaps you can help

Were the groups encouraged, permitted, discouraged,...? from making use of the solutions generated by individuals in the first place?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: Barbara Fritzsche <bfritzsc@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu> TIPS

There are clearly cases in which group work results in social loafing and

process loss (e.g., Ringlemann effect), but there are also situations in

which teams outperform individuals. A great demonstration of this "synergy" effect is the Nasa Moon Survival Task (or other similar tasks like the desert & mountain tasks). Students are told that they have just crashed on the moon and they have certain supplies available to them. Their individual task is to rank order the usefulness of the supplies in reaching the Mother Ship on the other side of the moon. Then, they get into groups and try to reach consensus on the best ranking. The rankings are then compared w/ Nasa scientists' rankings. You will find that the group ranking outperforms all (or almost all) individual rankings and the group ranking (achieved through consensus) outperforms the average of the individual members' rankings.

The conditions that seem to be relevant are: the problem can be solved by

reason/logic, there is a definite answer to the problem, and each individual

has some but not all of the information to solve the problem. This task can

lead to discussions of group process, consensus, groupthink, types of power, etc.

Of course, there are many variables that determine whether a group will

outperform individuals... I just wanted to put in my $.02 in defense of some groupwork...

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: mather@HG.ULETH.CA Jennifer Mather

Subject: Re: Gulp, here goes nothing...

Jess, I feel privileged to be your respondent, and will try to continue the

dialogue. Yes, different subjects call out different amounts of subjectivity

on the way to Truth. Maybe Physics is easier to teach because there appear to be solid answers, and even if they are not solid the students get to learn them on the way to finding what you describe as their own paths. But a few years ago I thought through a teaching philosophy, and decided that my philosophy was basically student-centered, that I wanted to bring them to learning mostly by helping them discover the ideas for themselves (and hopefully these are the ideas I want them to discover!). In some ways I believe I've got what I want them to learn as fully in my head as any lecturer, but have the obligation of letting them be guided to find out for themselves (which of course is harder). Still, part of this guidance is something I didn't hear you say, cheerleading and modeling to make them get more excited about learning.

Any help?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: "Jess Brewer, UBC Phys (604)822-6455, FAX 222-1074" <msr@TRIUMF.CA>

Subject: Re: Gulp, here goes nothing...

Hi Estelle, and thanks for the kind words; but your remarks have

triggered another urge to comment -- I guess I am just a compulsive

second-guesser, maybe it is correlated with my discipline? Anyway,

I hope people don't think I am DIScouraging them from finding the

teaching style that works for them; more than anything else, what

will work for your students is what you can do with conviction and

energy. There is an amazing variety of "what works" in the classroom

just as there is in other human relationships; I just get antsy when

people start declaring some teaching methods to be dinosaurian and

inexcusable, whereas their own should be made mandatory for all....

I am thinking of a famous prof we used to have in our Dept (now

deceased) who was a living legend for his physics lectures: he

would arrive punctally at the second the bell rang, walk to the

blackboard, pick up the chalk, and begin; 50 minutes later, to

the second, he would make a period at the end of the last sentence

on the blackboard, put down the chalk and walk out of the room.

In the process he would place on the blackboard a magnificent

exposition, complete with derivations and succinct, lucid verbal

annotations, of the day's topic -- which, if you copied it down

meticulously, would serve better than any textbook for a concise

guide to the subject. The very idea of establishing warm personal

relationships with his students would have caused him to chuckle

and utter some barbed rejoinder, and yet every person I have ever

met who took a course from him agrees that it was "the best course

I ever took" in terms of the knowledge and understanding of the

subject he imparted. I have encountered maybe half a dozen people

in my life who were capable of this sort of awe-inspiring scholarship;

it is certainly not for everyone, and I know I don't have what it

takes, but I keep struggling to find what talents and passions I

do have that can be put to work effectively in the classroom.

It seems to me that the greatest asset the University represents

to society is a reservoir for diversity of excellence -- both

students and teachers have a sacred duty to explore broadly and

find their own ORIGINAL ways of being excellent. It disturbs me

immensely when I get the impression that a majority of educational

theorists are working to root out "dinosaurs" like the prof I

mentioned above and make them learn how to teach "properly."

Now, I doubt that anyone will jump up and say, "Yes! It is our

plan to eliminate such impersonal lecturing completely!" but

I also think that each of us harbours a little of this agenda;

sort of a superposition of states with some amplitude in the

sanctimonious zealot, to borrow a metaphor from quantum mechanics.

I am not suggesting that you collapse the wavefunction and eliminate

all traces of zeal; I know I haven't! But please be aware of the

hazards of that zeal as well as its powerful role in motivating

evolutionary change.

Boy, do I ever go on! Talk about pontification, eh? Well, if

you want advice on how to kick a habit, ask a junkie. C'est moi.

Tuum est. BTW, Estelle, you realize this is only peripherally

directed at you. Thanks for all the wonderful caring work you

do on this campus; I may snipe at your "politics" from time to

time, but the place would be a LOT worse without you! -- Jess

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: "Jess Brewer, UBC Phys (604)822-6455, FAX 222-1074" <msr@TRIUMF.CA>

Subject: Re: Gulp, here goes nothing...

Jennifer, I have no argument with your methodology (of guiding

rather than directing) if it works FOR YOU. But I urge you to

formulate your teaching philosophy on what works (for you) in

the classroom, rather than on how it ought to be. I don't like

seeing the word "obligation" in a description of a philosophy

of teaching. I hope that was not really what you meant, and I

hope you are enjoying being a guide (coach?) rather than a

director. If you are good at it you are probably a more

effective teacher than I am! As for the "cheerleading and

modeling," consider this: a good coach is the most important

cheerleader of all, even if (s)he never yells; sometimes what

counts most is an honest stopwatch and a smile at the end of

the race. Keep up the good work -- Jess

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 00:52:36 -0700

From: Michael Cosentino <michaelc@SEDONA.NET>

Subject: Re: Collaborative learning discussion

I think the responses to this have been excellent. I will only add that the

positive interdependence component, so very necessary, is difficult to

write into high school lessons. CL works best where students are

motivated. Best is not the word. Easiest is the word. I have used it with

at riak high school students but they hate it. It is a constant battle and

many teachers don't believe its worth it.

I have also heard resentment from my new community college students.

(Intro to Composition classes) It takes a few weeks to show them the value

of the techniques. They figure they paid their money to be taught by the

prof, not to work through problems together.

MIchael Cosentino

michaelc@sedona.net

Mingus Union High School

Cottonwood, Arizona 86326

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++