What_is_Collaborative_Learning.pdf in slide show

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242282475
What is Collaborative Learning?
Article · January 1993
CITATIONS
410
READS
42,025
2 authors:
Barbara Leigh Smith
The Evergreen State College
33 PUBLICATIONS 1,214 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Jean T MacGregor
The Evergreen State College
24 PUBLICATIONS 1,181 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Jean T MacGregor on 18 August 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

What is Collaborative Learning? Washington Center for Improving the Quality of Undergraduate Education
What is Collaborative Learning? *
by Barbara Leigh Smith and Jean T. MacGregor
*This is an abbreviation of Smith and MacGregor’s article, “What Is Collaborative
Learning?" in Collaborative Learning: A Sourcebook for Higher Education, by Anne
Goodsell, Michelle Maher, Vincent Tinto, Barbara Leigh Smith and Jean MacGregor. It was
published In 1992 by the National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, and
Assessment at Pennsylvania State University.
“Collaborative learning” is an umbrella term for a variety of educational approaches
involving joint intellectual effort by students, or students and teachers together. Usually,
students are working in groups of two or more, mutually searching for understanding,
solutions, or meanings, or creating a product. Collaborative learning activities vary
widely, but most center on students’ exploration or application of the course material, not
simply the teacher’s presentation or explication of it.
Collaborative learning represents a significant shift away from the typical teacher-
centered or lecture-centered milieu in college classrooms. In collaborative classrooms,
the lecturing/ listening/note-taking process may not disappear entirely, but it lives
alongside other processes that are based in students’ discussion and active work with the
course material. Teachers who use collaborative learning approaches tend to think of
themselves less as expert transmitters of knowledge to students, and more as expert
designers of intellectual experiences for students-as coaches or mid-wives of a more
emergent learning process.
Assumptions about Learning
Though collaborative learning takes on a variety of forms and is practiced by teachers of
different disciplinary backgrounds and teaching traditions, the field is tied together by a
number of important assumptions about learners and the learning process.
Learning is an active, constructive process: To learn new information, ideas or skills,
our students have to work actively with them in purposeful ways. They need to integrate
this new material with what they already know-or use it to reorganize what they thought
they knew. In collaborative learning situations, our students are not simply taking in new
information or ideas. They are creating something new with the information and ideas.
These acts of intellectual processing- of constructing meaning or creating something
new-are crucial to learning.
Learning depends on rich contexts: Recent research suggests learning is fundamentally
influenced by the context and activity in which it is embedded (Brown, Collins and
Duguid, 1989). Collaborative learning activities immerse students in challenging tasks or
questions. Rather than beginning with facts and ideas and then moving to applications,
collaborative learning activities frequently begin with problems, for which students must
marshal pertinent facts and ideas. Instead of being distant observers of questions and
answers, or problems and solutions, students become immediate practitioners. Rich
contexts challenge students to practice and develop higher order reasoning and problem-
solving skills.

Learners are diverse: Our students bring multiple perspectives to the classroom-diverse
backgrounds, learning styles, experiences, and aspirations. As teachers, we can no longer
assume a one-size-fits- all approach. When students work together on their learning in
class, we get a direct and immediate sense of how they are learning, and what
experiences and ideas they bring to their work. The diverse perspectives that emerge in
collaborative ‘activities are clarifying but not just for us. They are illuminating for our
students as well.
Learning is inherently social: As Jeff Golub points out, “Collaborative learning has as
its main feature a structure that allows for student talk: students are supposed to talk with
each other....and it is in this talking that much of the learning occurs.” (Golub, 1988)
Collaborative learning produces intellectual synergy of many minds coming to bear on a
problem, and the social stimulation of mutual engagement in a common endeavor. This
mutual exploration, meaning-making, and feedback often leads to better understanding on
the part of students, and to the creation of new understandings for all of us.
Goals for Education
While we use collaborative learning because we believe it helps students learn more
effectively, many of us also place a high premium on teaching strategies that go beyond
mere mastery of content and ideas. We believe collaborative learning promotes a larger
educational agenda, one that encompasses several intertwined rationales.
Involvement. Calls to involve students more actively in their learning are coming from
virtually every quarter of higher education (Astin, 1985; Bonwell and Eison, 1991; Kuh,
1990; Study Group on the Conditions of Excellence in Higher Education, 1984).
Involvement in learning, involvement with other students, and involvement with faculty
are factors that make an overwhelming difference in student retention and success in
college. By its very nature, collaborative learning is both socially and intellectually
involving. It invites students to build closer connections to other students, their faculty,
their courses and their learning.
Cooperation and teamwork. In collaborative endeavors, students inevitably encounter
difference, and must grapple with recognizing and working with it. Building the
capacities for tolerating or resolving differences, for building agreement that honors all
the voices in a group, for caring how others are doing -- these abilities are crucial aspects
of living in a community. Too often the development of these values and skills is
relegated to the “Student Life” side of the campus. Cultivation of teamwork, community-
building, and leadership skills are legitimate and valuable classroom goals, not just extra-
curricular ones.
Civic Responsibility: If democracy is to endure in any meaningful way, our educational
system must foster habits of participation in and responsibility to the larger community.
Collaborative learning encourages students to acquire an active voice in shaping their
ideas and values and a sensitive ear in hearing others. Dialogue, deliberation, and

consensus-building out of differences are strong threads in the fabric of collaborative
learning, and in civic life as well.
Collaborative Learning Approaches
Collaborative learning covers a broad territory of approaches with wide variability in the
amount of in-class or out-of-class time built around group work. Collaborative activities
can range from classroom discussions interspersed with short lectures, through entire
class periods, to study on research teams that last a whole term or year. The goals and
processes of collaborative activities also vary widely. Some faculty members design
small group work around specific sequential steps, or tightly structured tasks. Others
prefer a more spontaneous agenda developing out of student interests or questions. In
some collaborative learning settings, the students’ task is to create a clearly delineated
product; in others, the task is not to produce a product, but rather to participate in a
process, an exercise of responding to each other’s work or engaging in analysis and
meaning-making.
Cooperative Learning
Cooperative learning represents the most carefully structured end of the collaborative
learning continuum. Defined as “the instructional use of small groups so that students
work together to maximize their own and each other’s learning” (Johnson et al. 1990),
cooperative learning is based on the social interdependence theories of Kurt Lewin and
Morton Deutsch (Deutsch, 1949; Lewin, 1935). These theories and associated research
explore the influence of the structure of social interdependence on individual interaction
within a given situation which, in turn, affects the outcomes of that interaction (Johnson
and Johnson, 1989). Pioneers in cooperative learning, David and Roger Johnson at the
University of Minnesota, Robert Slavin at Johns Hopkins University, and Elizabeth
Cohen at Stanford, have devoted years of detailed research and analysis to clarify the
conditions under which cooperative, competitive, or individualized goal structures affect
or increase student achievement, psychological adjustment, self-esteem, and social skills.
In cooperative learning, the development of interpersonal skills is as important as the
learning itself. The development of social skills in group work-learning to cooperate -- is
key to high quality group work. Many cooperative learning tasks are put to students with
both academic objectives and social skills objectives. Many of the strategies involve
assigning roles within each small group (such as recorder, participation encourager,
summarizer) to ensure the positive interdependence of group participants and to enable
students to practice different teamwork skills. Built into cooperative learning work is
regular “group processing,” a “debriefing” time where students reflect on how they are
doing in order to learn how to become more effective in group learning settings (Johnson,
Johnson and Holubec, 1990).
Problem-Centered Instruction
Problem-centered instruction, widely used in professional education, frequently is built
around collaborative learning strategies. Many of these spring from common roots,
especially the work of John Dewey in the early part of this century. Dewey endorsed
discussion-based teaching and believed strongly in the importance of giving students

direct experiential encounters with real-world problems. Guided Design, cases, and
simulations are all forms of problem-centered instruction, which immerse students in
complex problems that they must analyze and work through together. These approaches
develop problem-solving abilities, understanding of complex relationships, and decision-
making in the face of uncertainty. While problem-solving has long been a focus of
professional education, it is increasingly regarded as an important aspect of the liberal
arts as well.
In collaborative endeavors, students inevitably encounter
difference, and must grapple with recognizing and
working with it.
Guided Design: Guided Design is the most carefully structured approach to problem-
centered instruction. The approach asks students, working in small groups, to practice
decision-making in sequenced tasks, with detailed feed-back at every step. Developed in
the late 1960’s in the engineering program at West Virginia University, the Guided
Design approach has since been adopted in many disciplines and professional programs,
most notably in engineering, nursing and pharmacy, but in many liberal arts and sciences
courses as well (Borchardt, 1984; Day et al, 1984; deTornay and Thompson, 1987;
Miller, 1981; Roemer, 1981; Vogt et al., 1992).
Cases: Case studies have long been a staple for teaching and learning in the professions,
particularly in the fields of business, law and education, and they are now being used in
many other disciplines as well (Christensen and Hanson 1987). A case is a story or
narrative of a real life situation that sets up a problem or unresolved tension for the
students to analyze and resolve. The use of cases does not necessarily imply collaborative
learning or small seminar discussion. However, case method teaching frequently asks
small groups of students to tackle cases in class or in study group sessions.
Problem-centered Instruction in Medical Education. Problem-centered instruction has
also emerged in recent decades in the field of medical education. This work began in
England, then spread to Canada and ultimately to the U. S. M.L.J. Abercrombie’s
research in England in the 1950’s made a compelling case for discussion methods of
teaching, contending that when people work in teams, they make more valid judgments
than when working alone. This pioneering research had a profound impact on
collaborative learning in medical education both in England and North America
(Abercrombie, 1961, 1970). McMaster University in Canada was one of the early leaders
in problem-centered medical education (Barrows and Tamblyn, 1980), followed by
Western Reserve University, the University of New Mexico, and others. In 1985, the
Harvard Medical School adopted a problem-based curriculum entitled “New Pathways”
that has garnered national attention.
Simulations: Simulations are complex, structured role-playing situations that simulate
real experiences. Most simulations ask students, working individually or in teams, to play
the roles of opposing stakeholders in a problematic situation or an unfolding drama.
Taking on the values and acting the part of a stakeholder usually gets students

emotionally invested in the situation. The key aspect of simulations, though, is that of
perspective-taking, both during the simulation exercise and afterwards. Following the
simulation, there is usually a lengthy discussion where students reflect on the simulation
and explore their own actions and those of others. This is where important concepts and
lessons emerge. There are now a large number of simulations or educational games, as
they are sometimes called, relating to many disciplinary areas (Abt, 1987; Bratley, 1987).
Writing Groups
Both in theory and practice, the most concentrated effort in undergraduate collaborative
learning has focused on the teaching of writing. The writing group approach, (known
variously as peer response groups, class criticism, or helping circles) has transformed
thousands of college writing classes. Through the spread of writing-across-the-curriculum
initiatives, writing groups increasingly are appearing in other courses as well.
Peer writing involves students working in small groups at every stage of the writing
process. Many writing groups begin as composing groups: they formulate ideas, clarify
their positions, test an argument or focus a thesis statement before committing it to paper.
This shared composing challenges students to think through their ideas out loud, to hear
what they “sound like,” so they will know “what to say” in writing. Writing groups also
serve as peer response groups. Students exchange their written drafts of papers and get
feedback on them either orally or in writing. This is a challenging process, one that
requires students to read and listen to fellow students’ writing with insight, and to make
useful suggestions for improvement. Word processors have helped peer writing
enormously; in many writing labs, students share their drafts and revise them right on the
screens.
Peer Teaching
With its roots in our one-room schoolhouse tradition, the process of students teaching
their fellow students is probably the oldest form of collaborative learning in American
education. In recent decades, however, peer teaching approaches have proliferated in
higher education, under many names and structures (Whitman, 1988). The following
examples represent three of the most successful and widely adapted peer teaching
models.
Supplemental Instruction: The Supplemental Instruction approach is an undergraduate
teaching assistant model developed by Deanna Martin at the University of Missouri-
Kansas City. It has been adopted at hundreds of colleges in the United States and abroad.
This urban campus recognized the need to offer tutoring help to students, but budgetary
constraints made one-to-one tutoring too expensive. Its search for an alternative approach
led to “Supplemental Instruction.” This approach focused not on “at risk students,” but
rather on “at risk classes,” entry-level classes in health sciences, and later in general arts
and sciences classes, where more than 30 per cent of the students were either
withdrawing or failing. The university invites advanced undergraduates who have done
well in those classes to become “SI leaders.” These students are paid to attend the class,
and to convene Supplemental Instruction sessions at least three times a week at hours
convenient to students in the class. (Blanc, DeBuhr and Martin, 1980)

Writing Fellows: The Writing Fellows approach, pioneered by Tori Haring-Smith at
Brown University, is a peer teaching approach somewhat parallel to Supplemental
Instruction. The writing fellows are upper-division students who are strong writers. After
extensive training, these students are deployed to an undergraduate class (generally in the
discipline of their major) where they read and respond to the papers of all the students.
Haring-Smith calls this a “bottom-up approach” to sustaining writing-across-the-
curriculum initiatives, particularly in large classes where many faculty flag at assigning
writing because there are simply too many papers to which to respond. Over 50 colleges
and universities have created Writing Fellows Programs.
Mathematics Workshops: A third peer teaching approach that spread rapidly in the late
1980’s is the intensive mathematics workshops program developed by Uri Treisman
while he was at the University of California at Berkeley. Treisman wanted to address the
drawbacks of traditional tutoring models-particularly those geared to minority students in
academic difficulty. Finding that study groups made a difference in student success, he
created a co-peer teaching approach called the Professional Development Program. The
program assumes the culture of an honors program rather than a remedial program.
Graduate instructors (usually doctoral candidates) lead math workshops built around
small group problem-solving, with an explicit emphasis on peer teaching. These
workshops supplement the regular lecture and discussion sections of mathematics
courses. This intensive small group workshop approach, which emphasizes developing
strength rather than remediating weakness, and peer collaboration rather than solo
competition, completely reversed the prevailing patterns of failure by Hispanic and
African American students in calculus classes at Berkeley (Treisman, 1985). This
intensive math workshop approach has since spread widely in the mathematics
community in high schools, as well as in both two- and four-year colleges.
Writing Fellows... are a “bottom-up” approach to
sustaining writing-across-the curriculum initiatives...
Discussion Groups and Seminars
The terms discussion group and seminar refer to a broad array of teaching approaches.
In college settings we usually think of discussions as processes, both formal and
informal, that encourage student dialogue with teachers and with each other.
All the approaches we have described above involve discussion. Most, however have
distinct protocols, goals, or structures framing the activity. What we are describing here-
more open-ended discussion or seminars-puts the onus on the teacher or the students to
pose questions and build a conversation in the context of the topic at hand. There is
enormous variability, then, in terms of who sets the agenda, who organizes and monitors
the discussion, and who evaluates what. Some discussions or seminars may be heavily
teacher-directed, others much more student-centered. There are myriad possibilities for
discussions, and many good resources on strategies exist (Christensen et al.,1991; Eble,
1976; McKeachie, 1986; Neff and Weimer, 1989).

Learning Communities
Collaborative learning practitioners would say that all collaborative learning is about
building learning communities. However, we use the term learning community here in a
broader but more specific sense, in terms of intentional reconfiguration of the curriculum.
In the past 15 years, a number of colleges have recognized that deep-seated structural
factors weaken the quality of undergraduate learning and inhibit the development of
community. These schools have attacked the problem directly by developing learning
communities, a “purposeful restructuring of the curriculum to link together courses so
that students find greater coherence in what they are learning and increased interaction
with faculty and fellow students” (Gabelnick, MacGregor, Matthews, and Smith, 1990).
As such, learning communities are a delivery system and a facilitating structure for the
practice of collaborative learning.
Learning community curriculum structures vary from campus to campus. They can serve
many different purposes, but have two common intentions. They attempt to provide
intellectual coherence for students by linking classes together and building relationships
between subject matter, or by teaching a skill (e.g., writing or speaking) in the context of
a discipline. Second, they aim to build both academic and social community for students
by enrolling them together in a large block of course work. Learning communities
directly confront multiple problems plaguing under-graduate education: the
fragmentation of general education classes, isolation of students (especially on large
campuses or commuter schools), lack of meaningful connection- building between
classes; the need for greater intellectual interaction between students and faculty; and
lack of sustained opportunities for faculty development.
By altering the curricular structure to provide larger units of study, learning communities
frequently provide more time and space for collaborative learning and other more
complicated educational approaches. Small group workshops and book seminars are
staples of most learning communities. Peer writing groups and team projects associated
with labs and field work are also fairly common. Study groups emerge in learning
communities, both intentionally and spontaneously. These programs provide a unique
social and intellectual glue for students that results in high rates of student retention,
increased student achievement and more complex intellectual development (MacGregor,
1991).
Creating a collaborative classroom can be
wonderfully rewarding opportunity but it is also
full of challenges and dilemmas.
Collaborative Learning: Challenges and Opportunities
Creating a collaborative classroom can be a wonderfully rewarding opportunity but it is
also full of challenges and dilemmas. Few of us experienced collaborative work in our
own undergraduate settings, and much of our graduate school training reinforced the
teacher-centered, lecture-driven model of college teaching. For each of us, stepping out
of the center and engaging students in group activity is hard work, especially at first.

Designing group work requires a demanding yet important rethinking of our syllabus, in
terms of course content and time allocation. If some (or a great deal) of the classroom
time is considered an important social space for developing understandings about course
material, or if some of the out-of-class time is devoted to study groups or group projects,
how should we design the rest of the class time (lectures, assignments, examinations)?
How do we ensure students are learning and mastering key skills and ideas in the course,
while at the same time addressing all the material of the course? Teaching in
collaborative settings puts front and center the tension between the process of student
learning and content coverage.
As we become more involved in using collaborative learning, we discover what radical
questions it raises. Collaborative learning goes to the roots of long-held assumptions
about teaching and learning. Classroom roles change: both teachers and students take on
more complex roles and responsibilities. (Finkel and Monk, 1983; MacGregor, 1990 ).
The classroom is no longer solo teacher and individual students- it becomes more an
interdependent community with all the joys and tensions and difficulties that attend all
communities. This degree of involvement often questions and reshapes assumed power
relationships between teachers and students, (and between students and students), a
process that at first can be confusing and disorienting (Romer and Whipple, 1990).
Not only is course content reshaped, so are our definitions of student competence.
Because the public nature of group work makes demonstration of student learning so
continuous, collaborative learning both complicates and enriches the evaluation process.
Challenges to collaborative learning at the classroom level are compounded by the
traditional structures and culture of the academy, which continue to perpetuate the
teacher-centered, transmission- of-information model of teaching and learning. The
political economy of the academy is set up to front load the curriculum with large lower
division classes in rooms immutably arranged for lectures, usually in classes limited to
fifty-minute “hours.” Student-student interaction; extended, careful examination of ideas;
the hearing-out of multiple perspectives; the development of an intellectual community -
all these are hard to accomplish under these constraints.
The lecture-centered model is reinforced (both subtly and blatantly) by institutional
reward systems that favor limited engagement in teaching, and give greater recognition to
research. Achievement for teachers and students alike is assumed to be a scarce honor,
which one works for alone, in competition with peers. This assumption of scarcity is the
platform for norm-referenced grading, or “grading on the curve,” a procedure that
enforces distance between students and corrodes the trust on which collaborative learning
is built.
Moreover, our definitions of our selves as teachers, as keepers and dispensers of
disciplinary expertise, are still very much bound up in the lecture podium. For example, a
colleague recently told us a poignant story about his dean coming to observe his teaching.
The dean looked into the room where students were avidly engaged in small group work.

Turning to leave, the dean said to our colleague, “Oh, you’re doing groups today. Ill
come back when you’re teaching.” We have a long way to go.
What really has propelled us and our colleagues into collaborative classrooms is the
desire to motivate students by getting them more actively engaged. Nonetheless, wanting
to be a facilitator of collaborative learning and being good at it are very different things.
As with all kinds of teaching, designing and guiding group work takes time to learn and
practice. And for students, learning to learn well in groups doesn’t happen overnight.
Most teachers start with modest efforts. Many work with colleagues, designing, trying
and observing each other’s approaches.
At their best, collaborative classrooms stimulate both students and teachers. In the most
authentic of ways, the collaborative learning process models what it means to question,
learn and understand in concert with others. Learning collaboratively demands
responsibility, persistence and sensitivity, but the result can be a community of learners
in which everyone is welcome to join, participate and grow.
References
Abercrombie, M. L. J. Aims and Techniques of Group Teaching. Surrey, England: Society for Research
into Higher Education. 1970.
Abercrombie, M. L. J. The Anatomy of Judgement. London: Book Guild, 1961.
Abt, C. Serious Games. Washington, D.C.: University Press of America, 1987.
Astin, A. Achieving Educational Excellence. San Francisco, Jossey Bass, 1985.
Barrrows, N.S. and R.M. Tamblyn. Problem-Based Learning: An Approach to Medical Education. New
York: Springer Publishing, 1980.
Blanc, R. A. and L.E. DeBuhr, and D. C. Martin. ‘Breaking the Attrition Cycle.” Journal of Higher
Education. 54, (1), 1983.
Bonwell, C. and J. Eison. Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom. ASHE-ERIC Higher
Education Report (1),1991.
Borchardt, D. Think Tank Theatre: Decision-Making Applied. Lanham, MD: University Press of America,
1984.
Brown, J.S., A. Collins, and P. Duguid. “Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning.” Educational
Researcher. 18 (1), 1989.
Bratley, P. et. al. A Guide to Simulations. 2nd edition. Springer-Verlag, 1987.
Bricker, David C. Classroom Life as Civic Education: Individual Achievement and Student Cooperation in
Schools. New York: Teachers College Press, 1989.
Christensen, C. R., and A.J. Hansen. Teaching and the Case Method. Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business
School, 1987.

Christensen, C.R., D. Garvin, and A. Sweet. Education for Judgement: The Artistry of Discussion
Leadership. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Busi-ness School, 1991.
Day, P.J., H.J. Macy and E.C. Jackson. Social Working: Exercises in Generalist Practice. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1984.
de Tornay, R. and M.A. Thompson. Strategies for Teaching Nursing. New York: John Wiley and Sons,
1987.
Deutsch, M. “A Theory of Cooperation and Competition.” Human Relations, 2. Eble, K. The Craft of
Teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1976.
Finkel, D. L. and G. S. Monk. “Teachers and Learning Groups: Dissolution of the Atlas Complex.” In C.
Bouton and R. Y. Garth (Eds.) Learning in Groups. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, no. 14 San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1983.
Gabelnick, F. and J. MacGregor, R. Matthews, and B.L. Smith. Learning Communities: Creating
Connections Among Students, Faculty and Disciplines. San Francisco: Jossey Bass New Directions for
Teaching and Learning, Number 41, Spring 1990.
Gere, A. Writing Groups: History, Theory and Implications. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University
Press, 1987.
Golub, J. (Ed). Focus on Collaborative Learning. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English,
1988.
Johnson, D.W. and R.T. Johnson. Cooperation and Competition: Theory and Research. Edina, MN:
Interaction Book Company, 1989.
Johnson, David W., R. Johnson, and E. Holubec. Circles of Learning: Coopera-tion in the Classroom.
Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company, 1990.
Kuh, G. et al. Involving Colleges: Successful Approaches to Fostering Student Learning and Development
Outside the Classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1991.
Lewin, K. A Dynamic Theory of Personality. New York: McGraw Hill, 1935.
MacGregor, J. What Difference Do Learning Communities Make?” Washington Center News, (6) 1, 1991.
Olympia, WA: Washington Center for Undergraduate Education, The Evergreen State College.
MacGregor, J. “Collaborative Learning: Shared Inquiry as a Process of Reform.” In M. Svinicki, (Ed.) The
Changing Face of College Teaching. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, no. 42, San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, 1990.
McKeachie, W. Teaching Tips: A Guidebook for the Beginning Teacher. Lexing-ton, MA: D.C. Heath,
1986.
Miller, D.I. Experience in Decision Making for Students of Industrial Psychol-ogy. Washington, D.C.:
University Press of America, 1981.
Neff, R and M. Weimer. Classroom Communication: Collected Readings for Effective Discussion and
Questioning. Madison, WI: Magna Publications, 1989.
Roemer, K.M. Build Your Own Utopia. Washington D.C.: University Press of America, 1981.
Romer, K. and W. Whipple. “Collaboration across the Power Line.” College Teaching, 1990, 39 (2).

Spear, K. Sharing Writing: Peer Response Groups in English Classes. Ports-mouth, NH: Boynton/Cook,
1988.
Study Group on the Conditions of Excellence in Higher Education, Involvement in Learning: Realizing the
Potential of Higher Education. Washington D.C. National Institute of Education, 19841.
Treisman, U. “A Study of the Mathematics Performance of Black Students at the University of California,
Berkeley.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of California-Berkeley. Dissertation Abstracts International 47:
1641-A. 1985.
Vogt, R., B. Cameron and E. Dolan. Economics. Toronto: Holt, Rinehart and Winston of Canada, 1992.
Wales, C. and Stager. The Guided Design Approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology
Publications, The Instructional Design Library, Volume 9, 1978.
Whitman, N. Peer Teaching: To Teach is to Learn Twice. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No.4,
1988. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education.
View publication stats

What_is_Collaborative_Learning.pdf in slide show

More Related Content

Similar to What_is_Collaborative_Learning.pdf in slide show (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

What_is_Collaborative_Learning.pdf in slide show