Generic issues

Generic Issues Involved in Adopting Collaborative Learning (CL)
Readers Comments...

Subject: Teaching teachers how to use collaborative teaching techniques
From: 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.

Subject: Teaching teachers how to use collaborative teaching techniques
From: WYount@AOL.COM (Rick Yount)

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 "defence" (or "rationale") for memorising Kreb's cycle (whatever that is) while in college. Only 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 (attitude, 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 received their basic training.

Subject: Teaching teachers how to use collaborative teaching techniques
From: ajpetto@macc.wisc.edu (Andrew Petto)

Rick [Yount] 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 received 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).

Subject: Network of support required to use collaborative teaching methods
From: cindylou@getnet.com (Barbara Davies)

I am very interested in the topic of why teachers are not using 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.

Subject: Network of support required to use collaborative teaching methods
From: 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

Subject: Network of support required to use collaborative teaching methods
From: jspanko@mtnside.scottsdaleud.k12.az.us (Jean Spanko)

This is a subject near and dear to me. I have been using co-operative 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 co-operative 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 co-operative 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 accommodate 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 co-operative 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 co-operative classroom, but perhaps we've been asking them to leap before they know they can walk

Subject: Network of support required to use collaborative teaching methods
From: kmckinne@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu (Kathleen Mckinney)

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 evaluation.
• 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.

Subject: Network of support required to use collaborative teaching methods
From: gmjacobs@pacific.net.sg (George Jacobs)

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 are the following ones I've heard:

1. Physical setting, e.g., classrooms without walls or with very thin walls, so "noise" from CL could disturb other classes chairs and tables that are screwed to the floor making it difficult for students to collaborate "eye-to-eye, knee-to-knee 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 co-operative 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., Teachers should be "sages on stages" 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.

Subject: Network of support required to use collaborative teaching methods
From: nstegall@devry-phx.edu (Nancy Stegall)

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--

Subject: Network of support required to use collaborative teaching methods
From: hardinc@fsa.wosc.osshe.edu (Carol Harding)

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. [Other responses to - Tips to successful implementation] ||Kennedy 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.

Subject: Approaches to Building a Productive Community within the class
From: jmcdonal@cs7.conestogac.on.ca (Jane McDonald)

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

SUBJECT: Approaches to Building a Productive Community within the class
From: doyle@u.washington.edu (Anne Doyle)

This topic interests me, too. I agree with Helen [Sitler] 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 favoured 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.

SUBJECT: Approaches to Building a Productive Community within the class
From: WYount@aol.com (Rick Yount)

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 co-operative 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 co-operative learning. The term co-operative stands against competitive. Co-operative learning classrooms refrain from grading systems that pit individual students or student teams against each other in a race for limited high grades. In co-operative 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. Co-operative 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 Co-operative 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 demoralised 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.

SUBJECT: Approaches to Building a Productive Community within the class
From: tbassare@keene.edu (Tom Bassarear)

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 "Co-operative Learning Groups" from "Traditional Learning Groups." While I have some differences with their approach toward co-operative 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.

SUBJECT: Approaches to Building a Productive Community within the class
From: sanders@edtech.univnorthco.edu (Adele Sanders)

Based on my knowledge and experience, I think about coop/collab learning as being able to have students cooperage = 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 co-operation. okay, I've unwound. and NO, I don't see it as a semantic game!

Subject: Approaches to Building a Productive Community within the class
From: 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 individualisation 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?

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).

Subject: The loss of control in the classroom engendered by CL techniques
From: 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 co-operative 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 co-ordinator 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 on-line 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 organisation, 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 co-operative learning will be technology-pushed, rather than teacher-led. It should be an interesting period of time.

Subject: The loss of control in the classroom engendered by CL techniques
From: Elyssebeth.Leigh@education.uts.edu.au (Elyssebeth Leigh)

I have been enjoying your contributions to aednet for some time and am interested 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 collaborative learning yet the going is tough and she is beginning 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 and the ones which seem to count at this time are the "J" on MBTI and the "Completer-finisher" and "Monitor Evaluator" on the Belbin Team roles inventory. There are two separate - but related - issues.

The first concerns the actual nature of the problems arising and the root 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 which is as much my concern is that any 'failures' 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 process.

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 on the 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 meantime I am clearly (I hope) both a supporter and a user!

Subject: The loss of control in the classroom engendered by CL techniques
From: psmith@po-1.aea9.k12.ia.us (Paul Smith)

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.

Subject: What evaluation is there to justify the use of CL techniques
From: goulet@dmi.usherb.ca (Jean Goulet)

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.

Subject: What evaluation is there to justify the use of CL techniques
From: knapper@psyc.queensu.ca (Christopher Knapper)

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

Subject: What evaluation is there to justify the use of CL techniques
From: felder@eos.ncsu.edu (Richard Felder)

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 co-operative/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 CO-OPERATIVE 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, "Co-operative 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-Centred 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

Subject: What evaluation is there to justify the use of CL techniques
From: lschmier@grits.valdosta.peachnet.edu (Louis Schmier)

Richard: [Felder] 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 commitment 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."

Subject: What evaluation is there to justify the use of CL techniques
From: 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 least part of our repertoire.