Encouraging Collaborative Learning in the Classroom:
What Universities Can Do

Caroline Clements and Daniel Johnson
The University of North Carolina at Wilmington

Introduction

Collaborative learning is a teaching method that emphasizes teamwork and consensus-building in learning. While varied in form, its emphasis on interdependence in achieving learning outcomes and its student-centered approach are perhaps its most constant features (Butler & Coleman, 2003; Davidson, 1994; Freeth & Reeves 2004; Panitz, 2004). In collaborative teaching the faculty member becomes a facilitator rather than a transmitter of learning (Alderman, 2000; Barkley, Cross, & Major, 2004; Matthews, Cooper, Davidson, & Hawkes, 1995). In highly structured experiences (e.g., the COLT program at William and Mary College) such collaborations span time zones and continents (Hamada & Scott, 2000). 

Although numerous studies demonstrate the efficacy of collaborative based learning activities, obstacles to university implementation remain high (Dillenbourg, Baker, Blaye, & O'Malley, 1996). Objections come from students and instructors (Panitz, 1996). Student objections typically include preferences for traditional knowledge transmission models (Drane, 2000), objections to working with others, and complaints about doing the professor’s job for them. Educator objections include fears of increased time commitments, lack of familiarity with teaching strategies, and concerns about negative evaluations from students (Francescato et al., 2006; Panitz & Panitz, 1998). Furthermore, few faculty were exposed to this type of learning as students, and even fewer received formal training once they began teaching.

With years of National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) (e.g., Bridges, Kuh, & Day, 2002) data portraying alarming rates of disengagement from the learning process, universities are increasingly pressed to implement techniques designed to encourage active learning. Collaborative learning necessitates student engagement and thus is an obvious antidote to disengagement. To facilitate this process, in 2005, the provost at The University of North Carolina at Wilmington (UNCW) directed the Center for Teaching Excellence (CTE) to address student disengagement in learning as a top priority for Center activities. The provost announced this decision at a full faculty meeting, underscoring administrative support for these efforts. Such administrative support is a critical component of any university’s efforts to implement collaborative learning across the curriculum. As it now stands, the provost’s directive is being accomplished in a number of ways, two of which are highlighted in this article.

Implementing Collaborative Learning – Phase 1

First, the CTE Director, in association with the Director for University Planning and the Director of the Center for Faculty Leadership, is sponsoring a number of faculty and staff workshops highlighting relevant NSSE findings. These information sessions are essential in laying the groundwork for subsequent workshops designed to teach effective collaborative learning techniques. The obstacles to implementation of collaborative learning techniques are real, and faculty are unlikely to tackle such obstacles without a clear understanding of the necessity for doing so.

We have found that simply offering workshops on collaborative learning techniques often results in us “preaching to the choir.” Our goal is to contact all teaching personnel to generate institution-wide commitment to collaborative learning. By the end of this year, we estimate that all department chairs and the majority of faculty will be acquainted with NSSE findings for our institution. Once faculty see NSSE data from their own students, they seem to understand the mandate we have as educators to create an environment in which students are actively engaged in achieving learning outcomes. Reactions to these workshops have been overwhelmingly positive.

Phase 2

With the groundwork laid, we are now engaged in phase two of the process. In this phase, we are offering seminars teaching collaborative learning techniques. Again, the directive from the provost is quite broad. Therefore, the scope of the training is also broad. Small group workshops and large group seminars are offered as well as one-on-one consultation. In addition, we are in the process of creating a voluntary team of peer reviewers who will visit classes and offer constructive feedback as faculty implement collaborative learning techniques. Such review is designed solely for the faculty member’s benefit and is not part of the reappointment and tenure process, removing most evaluative concerns.  

Collaborative learning is broadly defined in CTE workshops as learning that occurs as a result of collaboration between a faculty member and any other partner in a professional context. This model is deliberately inclusive in order to attract the widest range of faculty. In CTE workshops, faculty learn how to model collaborative learning for their students, as they are encouraged to partner with other faculty members, students, and community members. Workshops demonstrate how collaborative learning affords a myriad of opportunities for faculty to optimize their efforts in teaching, research, and service. In addition, faculty are shown how collaborative efforts in these three areas can reinforce each other, allowing professors to “double and triple-dip” with each learning project.

Means of encouraging collaboration between and with students is the skill most emphasized in CTE workshops. Depending on skill level, students may collaborate with faculty as performers in faculty productions in the arts and humanities, co-authors, or research associates. Such collaborations render academic learning more “real,” highlight opportunities for students beyond the classroom, and increase student motivation and engagement. Most faculty readily see the benefit of such faculty-student partnerships and many professional organizations (e.g., the National Collegiate Honors Council) encourage faculty members to publish with students. This is perhaps the easiest form of collaborative learning to “sell” to faculty and, thus, may be a wise first step.

Encouraging faculty to implement collaborative learning based on student-to-student partnerships is often a tougher sell, for all the obstacles noted above. Recognizing that faculty are scholars who have acquired their roles through respect for academic practice, we have found that a data-driven approach works best. Scholarly presentations of papers, conference proceedings, and data documenting the efficacy of collaborative learning techniques, obstacles to implementation, and evidence-based solutions to such obstacles tend to win more support than appeals to change. Once faculty see the efficacy data, once they learn what techniques work in ameliorating time constraints and evaluative concerns, they are much more likely to begin the process of implementing collaborative learning techniques in their own classes.

The admonition to start small is worth repeating at every workshop. Such a warning tends to alleviate anxiety created by the suggestion that one’s teaching approach needs to be totally transformed. It is also best practice. Collaborative learning grows best within the individual’s own teaching style and discipline (Chickering & Reisser, 1993). Peer-based transmission of discipline specific techniques is a very important component in this regard and is planned for the UNCW campus.

Conclusion

Obstacles to implementation of collaborative learning practices are varied and real. Ameliorating time constraints and evaluative pressures requires an institutional commitment to active learning practices across the curriculum. Overcoming lack of familiarity with collaborative learning techniques requires that faculty be given the time and training to “retool and rethink” their teaching approach. Despite these and other challenges, our mandate not only to teach our students but to affect them in meaningful ways is clear. A passive, disengaged student becomes a passive, disengaged adult. The opportunity to change this process, though challenging, is one we can ill afford to miss.

References

Alderman, B. (2000). Get Real! Collaborative Learning in Higher Education, 4 (1). Retrieved December 23, 2005, from http://www.gu.edu.au/school/art/text

Barkley, E., Cross, P., & Major, C. H. (2004). Collaborative learning techniques: A handbook for college faculty. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bridges, B., Kuh, G. D., & O’Day, P. (2002). The national survey of student engagement. Retrieved February 21, 2006, from http://nsse.iub.edu/nsse_2002/index.cfm

Butler, T., & Coleman, D. (Sept, 2003). Guest editorial: Models of collaboration. Collaborative

Strategies. Retrieved February 21, 2006, from http://www.collaborate.com/publication/newsletter/publications_newsletter_september03.html

Chickering, A. W., & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and identity (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Davidson, N. (1994). Cooperative and collaborative learning: An integrative perspective. In J. S. Thousand, R. A. Villa and A. I. Nevin (Eds.), Creativity and collaborative learning: A practical guide to empowering students and teachers (pp. 13-30). Baltimore: Paul H Brookes Publishing.

Dillenbourg, G. P., Baker, M., Blaye, A., & O'Malley, C. (1996). The evolution of research on collaborative learning. In E. Spada & P. Reiman (Eds.), Learning in humans and machine: Towards an interdisciplinary learning science (pp. 189-211). Oxford: Elsevier.

Drane, C. (2000). Certain knowledge and the conventional university. Retrieved February 21, 2006, from http://members.tripod.com/vstevens/papyrus/00mar03c.htm

Francescato, D., Porcelli, R., Mebane, M., Cuddetta, M., Klobas, J., & Renzi, P. (2006). Evaluation of the efficacy of collaborative learning in face-to-face and university contexts. Computers in Human Behavior, 22(2), 163-176.

Freeth, D., & Reeves, S. (2004). Learning to work together: Using the presage, process, product (3P) model to highlight decisions and possibilities. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 18(1), 43-56.

Hamada, T., & Scott, K. (2000). A collaborative learning model. The Journal of Electronic Publishing, 6(1). Retrieved February 21, 2006, from http://www.press.umich.edu/jep/06-01/hamada.html

Kuh, G., Kinzie, J., Schua, J., Whitt, E., & Associates (2006). Student success in college: Creating conditions that matter. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Matthews, R. S., Cooper, J. L., Davidson, N., & and Hawkes, P. (1995). Building bridges between cooperative and collaborative learning. Change, 27(4), 34-37.

Panitz, T. (1996). Collaborative learning: Some points for discussion
In DeLiberations on teaching and learning in higher education: A magazine for academics, librarians and educational developers. Retrieved December 23, 2005 from http://www.lgu.ac.uk/deliberations/collab.learning/panitz.html

Panitz, T. (2004). Using cooperative learning techniques to establish a student-centered, interactive learning environment. In S. Cassara (Ed.), Teaching for our times, partnerships and collaborations, (pp. 22-33). Boston, MA: Bunker Hill Community College.

Panitz, T. & Panitz, P. (1998) Ways to encourage collaborative teaching in higher education. In J. F. Forest (Ed.), University teaching: International perspectives (pp. 161-202). New York: Garland Publishers.

Caroline Clements is Director of the Center for Teaching Excellence (601 S. College Road, Wilmington, NC, 28403 USA, clementsc@uncw.edu, (910) 962-4297) and an Associate Professor of Psychology at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington. Daniel Johnson is an Assistant Professor and Assistant Chair in the Department of Music at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington.