Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Community college students' perceptions of collaborative learning in developmental writing classes: Identifying the factors that promote positive active learning
(USC Thesis Other)
Community college students' perceptions of collaborative learning in developmental writing classes: Identifying the factors that promote positive active learning
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
NOTE TO USERS
This reproduction is the best copy available.
®
UMI
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
COMMUNITY COLLEGE STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF COLLABORATIVE
LEARNING IN DEVELOPMENTAL WRITING CLASSES: IDENTIFYING
THE FACTORS THAT PROMOTE POSITIVE ACTIVE LEARNING
by
Debra Jenkins-Farve
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
August 2004
Copyright 2004 Debra Jenkins-Farve
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UMI Number: 3145195
Copyright 2004 by
Jenkins-Farve, Debra
All rights reserved.
INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
®
UMI
UMI Microform 3145195
Copyright 2004 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company
300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Collaboration is truly a social process. In the pursuit of this study, my
collaboration with others has been very social, very pleasantly social in nature. As
such, the preparation of this dissertation has been made less tedious and more
engaging. Professors, colleagues, family, and friends have all contributed to making
this a memorable experience.
Thank you to Dr. Linda Serra Hagedom, my Advisor and Committee Chair,
for all o f your patience and expertise in helping me to make sense of the maze of
statistical data. Thank you to Dr. Melora Sundt for your sage advice and insightful
comments. To Dr. Stuart Gothold, I express thanks for the invaluable time you have
so generously given to this project, beginning with the days of my course work with
you, to the present. And to Dr. Fran Newman, I give thanks for starting me out on
this journey of inquiry and discovery. All of you have taught me the meaning of
perseverance as you encouraged me to stay focused.
As I complete this study, I am indebted to Syd Bartman, Lois Cole, Kathy
Henkins, Dionne Loera, Patricia VanOsterhoudt, and Margie Whalen, all dedicated
Professors who agreed to survey their writing classes and who also very generously
volunteered their time to be interviewed. They all serve as great models of
developmental mentors. Moreover, I would be remiss if I did not extend a heartfelt
thanks to the 112 students who so eagerly volunteered to complete the surveys and
interviews. I also wish to thank Odette Richardson and Ann Marie West in Research
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
iii
and Institutional Effectiveness for helping me to format the survey
instrument and for generating the resulting statistics.
Finally, I must thank my family. Without their support, this project may not
have been possible. Thanks to my Mom and Dad, who although no longer with us,
continue to shine down on us. To my two daughters, Danielle and Lisette, and my
son, Reynaud, Jr., thanks for giving me your unconditional love, for being
understanding when work and school have taken time away from my being with you.
And a special thanks goes to my husband, Reynaud, for all o f the love and
understanding that you have shown during these many years. Your unwavering
support for me, which began with technical support on the computer and extended to
moral support, and child care has been the inspiration for me to continue this work.
Moreover, your belief that I could, at times when I thought that perhaps I couldn’t,
was the motivation to actually finish this work. Merci, and Voila!
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
IV
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ii
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES vi
ABSTRACT vii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION 1
Background 1
Statement of the Problem 3
Purpose of the Study 5
Research Questions 7
Hypotheses 8
Significance of the Problem 8
Methodology 9
Assumptions 10
Limitations 11
Delimitations 11
Definition of Terms 11
Organization of the Study 12
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 14
Literature Review 15
Social Interaction/Interdependence 16
Ethnicity and Collaborative Learning 19
The Instructor’s Role in Collaborative Learning 25
Gender and Collaborative Learning 28
Conclusions 33
Implications 35
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
PAGE
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 36
Research Design 37
CHAPTER 4
FINDINGS 46
Descriptive Statistics 46
Reliability of Data 47
Relationships Among Variables 49
Qualitative Data 53
Research Questions 55
Summary 63
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION 65
Conclusions 65
Recommendations 76
REFERENCES 79
APPENDIXES
A Survey Instrument One 85
B Informed Consent Form 87
C Faculty Collaborative Learning Interview Responses 91
D Responses to Collaborative Learning Survey (Part 2) 106
E Responses to Student Collaborative Learning Interview 144
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
LIST OF TABLES A N D FIGURES
TABLE PAGE
1 Student Demographics 40
2 Results of Student Collaborative Learning Survey, 50
3 Item Analysis of 19 Survey Statements 52
FIGURE
1 Sharing of Groups’ Constructed Knowledge 27
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ABSTRACT
This study examined students’ perceptions regarding their involvement in
collaborative learning in community college developmental writing classes and
identified those aspects of collaborative learning which contribute to maximizing
adult learning. The research employed a mixed method design, with the quantitative
study as the dominant approach and the qualitative component as the accompanying
study. The sample comprised 112 community college students enrolled in
developmental writing classes.
A factor analysis of the 19 survey statements generated four scales:
Discrimination, Active Participation, Satisfaction with Collaborative Learning, and
Comfort. In addition to the survey instrument, interviews were conducted with 18
students from the same sample and 6 developmental writing instructors.
From the students’ perspectives Factor 3, Satisfaction with Collaborative
Learning received the highest scores in a comparison between factors, followed by
Factors 1, 2, and 4. Based on Factor 3, students seemed to find satisfaction with the
social interaction inherent in collaborative learning, the ideas/knowledge transmitted
and gained through collaboration, and the chance to be active participants in the
learning process.
Factor 1, Discrimination, revealed that students perceived their collaborative
learning groups’ climate to be free of gender, ethnic or age discrimination. This
made for a positive learning experience.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
viii
In Factor 2, Active Participation, the majority of students in both
the quantitative and qualitative study revealed that they thought of themselves as
participants who very often to often explained a concept or helped someone who did
not understand, and encouraged or praised other group members.
In Factor 4, Comfort Level, students responded that they did not feel gender
or ethnic discrimination within the group.
There was no difference in perceptions between Whites, African-Americans,
and Hispanics. However, although Asian-American students do express satisfaction
with the collaborative process, their scores on Factor 3 were slightly lower than the
other.ethnic groups’.
There was no identifiable difference between male and female students when
controlling for the four factors. Women scored just slightly higher than men did on
Factor 3.
From the developmental mentors’ perspectives, the variables that contribute
to a positive collaborative learning experience occurred when the instructor acted as
facilitator, guide or coach.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
In 1910, Fresno Junior College was the first two-year college established in
California. Following the lead of previously established two-year colleges in the
United States, the California junior college started as an extension of the local high
school. At the junior college, high school graduates could take post-graduate courses
at no cost to the students. The overarching goal of the community college from that
time to the present has been to remove any barriers to educational development, to
enhance and support human growth for those from every social stratum, and at any
age (Cohen & Brawer, 1996). This means that today’s community college should
serve those who aspire to a baccalaureate degree, those who choose to obtain
vocational training through a certificated program, and those who are less interested
in degrees, but more interested in taking courses for life-long learning. As Dougherty
(1994) has pointed out, the community college is generally located in an urban
community, is cheaper to attend, is a commuter school, and has an open admission
policy which allows admittance to any student with a high school diploma or its
equivalent. As such, the American community college, with such mass appeal,
represents the democratization of education.
Background of the Problem
Cohen and Brawer (1996) note that in their attempt to educate the masses, the
community college serves a broader sector of the local population than does any
other higher education institution. Some research evidence supports the belief that
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
compared to students of four-year institutions, community college students
are more practically job oriented in their educational goals; however, the perception
of higher education for occupational training is prevalent in students of both two-
and four-year educational institutions (Cohen & Brawer, 1996). Thus, the challenge
of the community college is to serve both traditional and non-traditional students.
However, McGrath and Speer (1991) warn that the unique challenge of the
community college is to sustain its commitment to the education of millions of non-
traditional students who would never have been able to attend college. McGrath
(1991) characterizes the non-traditional student as low income, minority, part-time,
sometimes less interested in a degree, and episodic in course taking. Dougherty
(1994) extends this characterization of the community college student to include
those who are heavily working class, and generally older than the four-year college
student.
Within a student population of such diversity exists a diversity of learning
styles. The challenge of the community college instructor is to provide quality
instruction for a student population with a wide range of academic abilities;
moreover, although most community college students are able to learn, they are
relatively unpracticed (Thornton qtd in Cohen and Brawer, p. 161), Astin (1993)
adds that although the community colleges are primarily teaching institutions, the
low rate of student retention mandates an exploration of ways to enhance the
students’ academic engagement. Over the years, cognitive and social psychologists
have offered theories of adult learning which might assist instructors in
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
understanding how students become successful learners. With the lecture
method, a teacher-centered instructional method as the dominant pedagogy in most
higher education classrooms (Lenning & Ebbers, 1999; Pascarella & Terenzini,
1991), one instructional strategy has been explored as an alternative learning
experience: collaborative learning. MacGregor (1992) defines collaborative learning
as an educational strategy that includes having students work in groups of two or
more to explore an idea, solve a problem, or create a product. Collaborative learning
currently represents but a small percentage of the instructional methods used. In
1991, Johnson and Johnson reported that collaborative learning is used less
frequently than lecture, seatwork, or individual instruction. Yet studies have shown
that cooperative learning strategies such as collaborative learning have great
potential for enhancing academic achievement.
Statement of the Problem
Until recently, addressing the problem of high drop out rates at postsecondary
institutions has been the job of student services. However, the fact that the 40%-
50%attrition rate for all entering students at the two-year public colleges has
remained constant over the decade signals the need for a closer look at the problem
of student engagement in the classroom (Tinto, 1993). To this end, counseling and
assessment are still important components of the solution to the attrition problem, but
the cause has also been undertaken by instructors in the classroom. A shift from the
traditional competitive, individualistic method of learning has occurred. This
presentational style of teaching has been supplemented with collaborative learning as
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
a methodology to meet the needs of both non-traditional and traditional
students. Collaborative learning, which promotes cooperation rather than
competition in learning, represents a positive change in postsecondary education.
Collaborative learning, as a method to achieve proficiency, has been advocated as
early in history as the Talmud. Within these writings of Jewish laws and tradition, it
is stated that to understand the Talmudic teachings one must have a learning partner
(Johnson & Johnson, 1993). Down through the ages, collaboration has been
espoused by such people as the Roman philosopher Seneca, who can be quoted as
advising Qui docet discet, or “When you teach you learn twice” (Johnson & Johnson,
1993). In the late eighteenth century England, Joseph Lancaster and Andrew Bell
developed schools structured by educational peer groups. In 1806, the Lancastrian
school opened in New York City with a mission to promote cooperative learning.
In the 1920s, John Dewey envisioned learning as a social endeavor in which all
participants work together responsibly towards a common goal. According to
Bruffee (1999), although in the 1940s and 1950s cooperative/collaborative pedagogy
waned, in the 1960s interest in cooperation in education waxed. Brufee (1999)
attributes this to the growth of self-help mutual-aid groups and the impetus of the
women’s movement. Olsen and Kagan (1992) add that the desegregation of schools
in the 1960s contributed to the resurgence of cooperative learning as educators
sought to incorporate social integration into the classroom; it was anticipated that the
prosocial behavior that collaboration and interdependence are believed to foster
could lead to academic achievement. In 1974, the social reconstructionist Paulo
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
5
Freire advocated allowing the students to take an active role in constructing
new knowledge. In his 1984 article “Strangers No More,” Freire purports that
“teaching cannot be done from the top down, but only from the inside out, by the
students themselves with the collaboration of the educators” (p. 159). Current
advocates such as Shlomo Sharan, David W. Johnson, Roger T. Johnson, Vince
Tinto, and Bruce Speck concur. Researchers Sharan, David Johnson and Roger
Johnson have focused on kindergarten through high school students, while Tinto and
Speck have documented research on collaborative learning at the four year colleges.
What each of these proponents of cooperative learning believes is that collaborative
pedagogy has greater efficacy in attaining individual knowledge. While the resulting
literature on collaborative learning has measured the efficacy of collaboration based
upon outcomes related to cognitive development and social interaction, only a
limited portion of the literature has focused on the community college students’
perceptions of and attitudes towards cooperative education. O f equal importance in
the understanding of the benefits of cooperative learning is the understanding of how
students themselves perceive the way their groups are functioning (Sharan, 1990). In
addition, such student revelations will help educators become better facilitators in
today’s student-centered classroom.
Purpose of the Study
Webster’ s Dictionary defines the verb to “perceive” as follows: “to become
aware of through the senses, e.g., by hearing or seeing.” And the noun “perception”
is defined as an “awareness or understanding through the senses of an external
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
6
object.” The purpose of this study was to examine students’ perceptions of
their involvement in collaborative learning in the community college developmental
writing class, and to identify for developmental mentors those aspects of
collaborative learning which contribute to maximizing adult learning. Given the high
student attrition rate at the community college, many developmental mentors have
implemented collaborative learning as a supplement to the traditional lecture method
of instruction. As such, the purpose~of this study was to address such issues as the
student’s awareness o f and attitude towards the environment in his/her collaborative
group, the group interaction, and the benefits of collaborative learning. The study
introduced relevant variables that pertained to these issues as well as identified those
factors that were statistically significant. The students in the study were exposed to
both traditional and cooperative/collaborative learning. The study also examined
faculty members’ perceptions of the efficacy of collaborative learning in the
community college classroom.
Cooperative education is broadly defined by Whipple (1987) as a “pedagogical
style which emphasizes cooperative efforts among students, faculty and
administrators. Rooted in the belief that knowledge is inherently social in nature, it
stresses common inquiry as the basic learning process” (as cited in Sheridan, Byrne,
& Quina, 1989, p. 49). Barbara Leigh Smith and Jean MacGregor (1992) narrowed
this definition when they proposed that cooperative learning represents the most
carefully structured end of the collaborative learning continuum (p. 12). And
Johnson and Holubec (1992) refined the meaning by defining cooperative learning
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
as the instructional use of small groups so that students work together to
maximize their own and each others’ achievement (p. 1).
Although cooperative learning and collaborative learning involve similar
processes, they have different goals. Romer and Whipple (1991) can be quoted as
defining cooperative learning as
noncompetitive learning in which the reward structure
encourages students to work together to accomplish a common
end. [Collaborative learning] takes the students one step
further, to a point where they must confront the issue of power
and authority implicit in any form of learning but usually
ignored (p. 66).
Lenning and Ebbers (1999) contend that “collaborative learning has been
emphasized at colleges and focuses on ways to structure productive and positive
interdependence among students while at the same time holding individuals
accountable for learning outcomes” (p. 32).
Research Questions
Question 1) From the students’ perspectives, what variables contribute to a
positive collaborative learning experience?
Question 2) Are the perceptions of collaborative learning similar or different
for students of different ethnic groups?
Question 3) Are the perceptions of collaborative learning similar or different
for male and female students?
Question 4) From the perspectives of developmental mentors, what variables
contribute to a positive collaborative learning experience?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Hypotheses
Hypothesis 1) From the students’ perspectives, there are several variables
that contribute to a positive collaborative learning experience.
Hypothesis 2) Student perceptions of collaborative learning will vary
depending upon ethnicity.
Hypothesis 3) Student perceptions of collaborative learning will vary
depending upon gender.
Hypothesis 4) From the perspectives of developmental mentors, there are
numerous variables that contribute to a positive collaborative learning experience.
Significance of the Problem
The study of student and faculty perceptions of the merits of collaborative
learning was significant because it helped to create an understanding of what
enhances active, lifelong learning. Although the lecture method is the most widely
used method of instruction in higher education, it remains a very passive method of
instruction. Student involvement in the construction of knowledge is quite limited
and, therefore, their “ability to retain information from lectures is quite limited”
(Speck, 2002). This type o f student disconnect with the information could explain
why public community college students exhibit such a high attrition rate and low
achievement rates. If collaborative learning enables the students to reach their
cognitive and affective goals, certainly a high level of satisfaction with the learning
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
experience will be engendered. In addition, developmental mentors will be
able to facilitate a more student-centered learning environment. An identification of
those variables that promote a positive learning experience can enhance the
teaching/learning process for both mentors and students.
Methodology
This study employed a mixed method design in which the dominant approach
was a quantitative study, and the accompanying study was qualitative in nature. The
quantitative study employed an in-class, self-administered student survey which
had been piloted with community college students in remedial writing courses. It
included questions regarding the use and implementation of collaborative learning in
their developmental writing courses. The survey concluded with several open-ended
questions regarding the collaborative learning experience. This same survey also
requested demographic information from each participant. The qualitative interview
was conducted outside of class with 18 community college students from the sample
population who had taken the survey and had volunteered to participate in the
interview. I conducted a one-on-one interview with each of these students.
Because students had self-selected to be in these developmental writing
classes and were then members of an intact group, random assignment to
experimental treatment was not possible. Therefore, this design is considered quasi-
experimental. In addition, because the same set of subjects participating in the
collaborative learning experiment was also a part of the traditional lecture method,
the within-subject design or repeated measures design was involved.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1°
Descriptive statistics provided results of the Likert attitude scale. A
factor analysis was done to identify the pattern of underlying factors in students’
feelings toward collaborative learning. A t-test for gender was run to determine if
there were any differences in responses between the two groups. A regression was
run to check for differences among the four major ethnic groups and a calculation of
the means determined where any differences might lie.
In addition, instructors from these classes were interviewed regarding their
perceptions of collaborative learning, its implementation, its efficacy, and their
satisfaction with this method of instruction.
Assumptions
For this study, the following assumptions were made:
1. The survey accurately represented what was being measured.
2. The data were accurately recorded and analyzed.
3. The subjects responded truthfully, to the best of their abilities.
4. The community college used in this study was representative of community
colleges in California and across the United States.
5. The sampling of students provided representative demographics of the
population sampled.
6. The measures used were reliable and valid indicators of the constructs to be
studied.
7. The research, data analysis, findings and conclusions o f this study represent
“good research.”
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
11
8. The purposes, processes, and elements of this study have a degree of
applicability and generalizability to urban community colleges throughout the
country.
Limitations
1. This study is limited to subjects who agree to participate voluntarily.
2. This study is limited to the reading comprehension and writing ability o f some
students.
3. This study is limited to the number of subjects surveyed and the amount of time
available to conduct the study.
4. Validity of this study is limited to the reliability of the instruments used.
Delimitations
This study confined itself to surveying community college students in
developmental writing classes. This study focused on examining their perceptions of
the use of collaborative learning in their particular writing courses. Only full-time
and part-time students enrolled in these classes were included in the study.
Definition of Terms
Collaborative Learning: 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 (Smith & MacGregor, 1992, p. 3).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
12
Cooperative Learning: Cooperative learning represents the most
carefully structured end of the collaborative learning continuum.... It is the
instructional use of small groups so that students work together to maximize their
own and each other’s learning. Cooperative learning is based on positive social
interdependence and individual accountability (Johnson, Johnson & Holubec, 1992,
pp. 1:13, 1:17, 1:20).
Learning communities: This is a form of collaborative learning that functions
as an “umbrella program, within which are nested all three major forms of
educational collaboration: 1) collaboration between students, 2) collaboration
between teachers, and 3) collaboration between students and teachers” (Cuseo, 1992,
p. 2).
Traditional learning: In traditional learning one appointed leader/teacher
provides instruction for everyone at the same time (Sharan, 1990, p. 174). Through
homogeneous membership, students are expected to work independently; each
student is individually responsible for an assigned task, and social skills are taught
indirectly (Johnson, Johnson & Smith, 1991, p. 25).
Organization of the Study
Chapter 1 of the study presents the introduction, the background of the
problem, the statement of the problem, the purpose of the study, the questions to be
answered, the research hypotheses, the significance of the study, a brief description
of the methodology, the assumptions, limitations, delimitations, and the definitions
of terms.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Chapter 2 is a review of relevant literature. It addresses the
following topics: students’ perceptions based on social interaction, ethnicity, and
gender.
Chapter 3 presents the methodology used in the study, including the research
design; population and sampling procedure; and the instruments and their selection
or development, together with information on validity and reliability. Each of these
sections concludes with a rationale, including strengths and limitations of the design
elements. The chapter goes on to describe the procedures for data collection and the
plan for data analysis.
Chapter 4 details the results of the study, and Chapter 5 discusses and
analyzes the results, culminating in conclusions and recommendations.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
14
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Decreasing funds, increasing enrollment, and living up to the college’s
mission statement to provide quality education for students of varying abilities are
but a few of the challenges that the community colleges face at the start of this 21st
Century. Mala Holt (1993), in her article “Knowledge, Social Relations, and
Authority in Collaborative Practices of the 1930s and the 1950s,” equates this to the
conservative catch phrase “do more with less” (p. 552). Even though financial
support for educational resources in higher education has been rapidly dwindling,
and conversely while the new and re-entry student population is swelling, instructors
are being asked to engage students more actively in their education. Institutions
seem to have no trouble recruiting students, but the problem seems to be with the
students’ successful matriculation. Open enrollment, an egalitarian educational
philosophy which states that everyone should have equality of access to educational
opportunities regardless of socio-economic background, race, sex, or ability, is the
cornerstone of the community college’s mission. As such, students are rarely denied
admission to the community college. Consequently, students in the community
college classroom represent a continuum of abilities. Those who are prepared for
the demands of college will find success, and those who are underprepared become
dropouts. One means of engaging students in education is to transform them from
passive receptacles of knowledge to active agents in the transmission and creation of
knowledge. Collaborative learning, a subset of cooperative learning, can provide
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
15
this needed transformation (Astin, 1993; Cooper, et al., 1990; Tinto, 1993).
Research over the years has shown that the benefits of collaboration significantly
outweigh those of the traditional lecture method of teaching (Sharan, 1990).
Literature Review
This Literature Review examines studies that focus on the appeal of the
collaborative process in academia. It is important to present this review of the
literature complete with the major findings from research conducted at the four-year
colleges and universities along with some relevant studies from the K-12 levels.
Currently there is generally more research published about collaborative learning and
its effects at the K-12 and four-year levels than at the two-year community college
level. Lenning and Ebbers (1999) report that Johnson et al. (1981) have conducted a
meta-analysis of 122 studies done at the elementary and secondary levels while
Slavin (1983) has analyzed 46 studies. Johnson, Johnson, and Smith (1998) submit
that they have found over 305 studies that compare the relative efficacy of
cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning on individual achievement in
college and adult settings (p. 30). Nevertheless, the findings in these areas can have
implications for comparable areas in the community college. Therefore, this
literature review will focus on those areas of collaborative learning that involve
social interaction/interdependence and group environment as related to ethnicity and
gender.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
16
Social Interaction/Interdependence
A Native American proverb advises “Tell me and I will forget; show me and
I might remember. Involve me and I will understand.” In his 1972 monograph,
Edgar Dale substantiated this adage when he reported that on average students will
remember 10% of what they read, 20% of what they hear, 30% of what they see,
50% of what they hear and see, 70% of what they say, and 90% of what they say and
do. In order for deep learning to take place, students must be active, perceptive
participants in the process. This involves the social process of reading, hearing,
seeing, saying, and doing.
Interestingly enough, one assumption of collaborative learning is that
knowledge acquisition is a social process. Based on this assumption, collaborative
learning requires group members to exchange information and insights, discover
weak points in each other’s reasoning strategies, correct one another and adjust their
understanding on the basis of others’ understanding (Johnson & Johnson, 1993).
This kind of social interdependence is the foundation for cooperative and
collaborative learning. Ted Panitz (1997) in “Forty-Four Benefits to CL” has written
that collaborative learning promotes social interaction skills and develops oral
communication skills. According to Shlomo Sharan (1990), cooperative approaches
to education have their roots in attempts to understand and influence social attitudes
and behaviors, and most current cooperative learning systems also embrace social
goals such as improving interpersonal or inter-group relations. Johnson, Johnson,
and Smith (1991) point out that “interaction with peers provides support,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
17
opportunities, and models for prosocial behavior...and that students learn to
view situations and problems from perspectives other than their own” (pp. 48-49).
Jeff Golub (1988) notes that “Collaborative learning has as its main feature a
structure that allows for students to talk: “students are supposed to talk with each
other, and it is in this talking that much of the learning occurs” (p. 1). The social
constructionist Kenneth Bruffee (1984) describes collaborative learning as a process
that “personalizes knowledge by socializing it, providing students with a social
context of learning peers with whom they are engaged on conceptual issues” (as qtd
in Sheridan, Borne, & Quina, 1989). In “Collaborative Learning and the
Conversation of Mankind,” Bruffee (1984) further contends that collaborative
learning provides a kind of social context, the kind of community, in which normal
discourse occurs. Bruffee posits that collaborative learning, by its very nature,
encourages conversation among students, for he says “to think well as individuals,
we must learn to think well collectively - that is, we must learn to converse well” (p.
640). It is during this conversing, that internalized thought is shared in a social
context. It is through collaborative learning that knowledge and meaning are
created.
Although students come to college with general communication skills, such
specific skills as tolerant listening, constructive disagreement, thought eliciting,
seeking clarification and assistance, and summarizing are often lacking (Cooper et
al., 1990A). This can be remedied through the cooperative learning process. In his
research, Tinto (1994) quotes one student as saying: “We were all learning together,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
18
but each person learns differently... .We helped each other... copying notes
for the days we missed, dividing things up.... Just studying for things and talking to
each other about our projects”(p. 6). Shared learning can be the connection between
the academic and social world, both of which are essential to a successful student
life. A case in point was found at the University of Washington where the Freshman
Interest Group members encouraged each other to maintain class attendance and
class participation (Tinto, 1994). Tinto also notes that the learning communities at
the University of Washington reduced students’ feelings of anonymity and decreased
the tendency of students to skip certain classes.
Tinto and his team member Goodsell-Love (1994) summarized their findings
by saying that in linking the social to the academic, learning communities make for a
more powerful learning experience, one that transcends the typically uninvolving
academic experience of the first year. It is an experience that significantly impacts
both first year learning and persistence into the second year of college (p. 11).
In addition, Armstrong and Yarborough (1996) have concluded that “as
group participants spend time together, ..: they develop interdependence, ... and
group members must come to know, trust, and depend on each other” (pp. 34-35).
Moreover, collaborative learning students in an elementary school study were more
likely to report that they learned more in groups than alone. Among perceived social
benefits for these children were learning how to work in groups, learning to be
cooperative, learning to understand, learning to appreciate others, and preparing for
adulthood (Solomon et al., 1985, p. 242). In Building Learning Communities fo r
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
19
New College Students, Tinto and Russo (1994) report that learning
communities especially on the non-residential community college campuses have
provided a space for the emergence of a supportive community of peers that
continued outside the program (p. 6). Berry (1991) asserts that
one commonality found among educators involved with this
(collaborative learning) approach is that collaborative learning
calls on levels of integrity and interventiveness that many
students never knew they had. And, it teaches effective
interdependence in an increasingly collaborative world that
today requires greater flexibility and adaptability to change than
ever before (p. 12).
Ethnicity and Collaborative Learning
Of equal importance to a successful group experience is the climate of the
group. Therefore, the climate established by ethnicity was a key variable to examine
regarding student perceptions. Berry (1991) states that “the presence and
involvement of multi-racial, multi-cultural and multi-ethnic groups in the schools
mandate that creative approaches to the developing student skills, attitudes and
understandings must move in new and varied directions” (p. 13). Bruffee (1998)
notes that participatory learning allows students of various ethnicities to engage in a
process of reacculturation, transforming the student from the traditional classroom to
a model for collaborative learning experiences. One of the 44 benefits of
collaborative learning that Ted Panitz (1997) reports is that it promotes positive race
relations. After conducting research, Slavin (1980) concluded that collaborative
learning techniques “have strong and consistent effects on relationships between
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
20
black, white, and Mexican-American students” (p. 337). Faculty
responding to a University of Rhode Island survey cited one of the major benefits of
collaborative learning for students in and beyond the classroom was a greater
tolerance to diversity (Sheridan et al., 1989, p. 52).
The cognitive styles that students bring with them to the classroom have
underpinnings in the socialization practices of their cultures. Identifying and
incorporating these styles into instructional methods are key to structuring the
learning environment to meet the needs and expectations of the students. Although
the literature shows that collaborative learning has been recommended for all types
of learning styles, it exhibits significant cultural congruence with Native American,
Mexican-American, and African-American learning styles.
Recognizing the fact that the characteristics ascribed to the cultural group do
not apply uniformly to individual members of the group, researchers have
hypothesized that different cultures exhibit different learning styles (Shade 1989).
Researchers have found that Native American students tend to be field sensitive/field
dependent learners (Irvine & York, 1995; Shade, 1989; Tharp, 1989). The field
sensitive/dependent learner prefers visual, spatial, and perceptual information as
opposed to verbal information; learns privately, rather than in public; observes and
then performs rather than risks making an error; learns through experiencing and
learns in natural settings; has a generalist orientation, an interest in people and
things; prefers small-group work; and appreciates holistic presentations and visual
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
21
presentations (Irvine & York, 1995; Kaulback, 1984; Mehan, 1987; More,
1987; Phillips, 1972).
As such, collaborative learning could be identified as a teaching method
consistent with the Native American student’s learning style. For collaborative
learning is “similar in organization to local Indian community contexts, where
cooperation and not competition is valued, and sociality and not individuality is
emphasized” (Mehan, 1987, p. 120). Phillips (1972) found that Indian children
performed better in classroom situations where they did not have to perform
publicly, where teachers did not control performance styles, and where the instructor
did not correct the students’ errors publicly. To maximize peer group interaction
Pepper and Henry (1986) advise the instructor to use cooperative learning groups as
opposed to traditional grouping, to provide a high percentage o f group projects and a
low percentage of oral questions and answers, and to encourage student-designed
games for instruction. Collaborative learning has been proven to be one effective
way to establish cultural congruence in the Native American classroom.
Collaborative learning has also been advocated as one instructional modality
that fosters cultural congruence in the classroom for Mexican-American students.
Like that of the Native American students, research indicates that in general,
Hispanics are also field sensitive/field dependent learners (Irvine & York, 1995;
Ramirez & Castaneda, 1974; Shade, 1989). Some common values found in
Mexican-American culture are delineated in the study by Ramirez and Castaneda
(1974):
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
22
1. a close identification with community, family and ethnic
group
2. a sensitivity to the feelings of others
3. clear definition of status and role within the community and the
family
4. a preference for cooperative efforts rather than competitive
individualism to realize achievement or success.
Mexican-American students seem to enjoy collaborative learning because
being a member of a group and contributing to its enhancement are important
cultural values in the Mexican-American community (Shade, 1989). Teachers of
Mexican-American children report that Mexican-American children attempt to work
together on assignments (Shade, 1989). The instructor who does not understand the
underpinnings of this type of cognitive behavior might mistake this for cheating.
However, in their article, Delgado-Gaitan and Trueba (1985) perceived this
preference of Mexican-American students to work together as an attempt to
collectivize their learning experiences and maximize their intellectual exchange and
knowledge acquisition. This parallels Mexican-American socialization practices. In
addition, Mexican-American students prefer to work with some classroom authority
rather than working alone (Shade, 1989). Ramirez and Castaneda (1974) advocate
collaborative learning as a field-sensitive teaching style because this method of
teaching and learning encourages cooperation and development of group feelings
and encourages the class to think and work as a unit.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
23
Like Native Americans and Mexican-Americans, African-
Americans, in general, tend to exhibit field-sensitive characteristics (Gilbert & Gay,
1989; Shade, 1989). According to Gilbert and Gay (1989) African-American
students tend to function better in cooperative, informal, and loosely structured
environments in which teachers and students work closely together to achieve
common goals. According to Berry (1991) Irvine & York (1995), and Shade (1989)
some characteristics of field-sensitive African-American learners are as follows:
1. the preference for affective materials to facilitate their learning
2. the preference for a socially interactive environment
3. an orientation for people and feelings rather than things
4. a preference for kinesthetic/active instructional activities
5. a belief in collective and mutual responsibility
Of these characteristics, the “kinship system, worldview, and social interactive
behaviors have the greatest impact on learning styles” (Shade, 1989, p. 20).
Thus, the promotion of cooperative learning in the classroom provides the
opportunity for African-American students to participate with their peers and ,
consequently, to meet their needs for social interaction. A study by Tucker and
Yates (1976) concluded that while research has shown that both black and white
students realize significant gains from collaborative learning as compared to
individual learning efforts, black students could expect proportionately greater
advantages from working in groups.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
24
Characteristics such as social/peer interaction, collective
responsibility, cooperation as opposed to competition, active involvement, and
teacher/leader as facilitator mirror the values of the Native American, Mexican-
American, and African-American community of learners. However, because of the
high success rate of Asian American students who experience the traditional
instructional modality of lecture/test, Asians in American schools have been
stereotyped as the “model minority” (Diaz, 2001). Because the hard working, high
achieving, polite, docile, teacher centered Asian-American style of learning appears
to be compatible with the dominant style of teaching and learning in the American
classroom, studies of Asian-American students are limited (Diaz, p. 64). However,
Diaz (2001) warns that what must also be noted is that Asian-American students
value cooperation and harmony; they tend to help one another, and prefer highly
structured activities. As such, collaborative learning with socialization, problem
solving, and cooperation as its core could prove to be the challenge to the “model
minority” stereotype.
Shade (1989) cautions that characteristics of any cultural group do not
necessarily apply uniformly to individual members of a group, that culture is but one
variable that influences learning styles, and that minority students can succeed
through the use of more than just one instructional modality. Culture and ethnicity
simply serve as frameworks for a development of learning style preference.
Agatucci (1989) cites Rose when asserting that democratizing American higher
education should not be read as sacrificing excellence by increasing access. For
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
25
according to Berry (1991) collaborative learning offers an opportunity to
diffuse cultural tension without the loss of cultural identification.
The Instructor’s Role in Collaborative Learning
Traditionally, instructors have been viewed as the ultimate authority in the
classroom. The phrase “sage on the stage” has been coined to describe the model
through which the instructor lectures to his audience of students. Davis (1993) can be
quoted as describing the typical lecturer as such:
For hundreds of years, college teaching was typified by a
professor reading a lecture to an audience of note-taking
students. The professor’s duties were to compose and present
authoritative lectures, to test students on their knowledge and to
assign grades (p. xix).
The lecture method, which according to McKeachie (1999), O ’Donnell and
Dansereau (1994), Johnson and Johnson (1991), and Speck (2002) is the predominant
pedagogical technique in higher education, does however have its advantages.
Students hone their listening, notetaking, and outlining skills. Indeed, such
proficiencies are essential for college success, yet none of these skills promotes
higher order thinking skills. Speck (2002) declares that “the professor may do a
wonderful job of synthesizing, analyzing, and evaluating during the lecture, but
students are not given the opportunity to practice such skills” (p. 11).
Collaborative learning represents a transformation of students from passive
learners to an active learners who do get the opportunity to synthesize, analyze, and
evaluate as they problem solve. Learning is now student centered, as students consult
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
26
with each other in small groups, consult their textbooks, consult with the
instructor and make presentations to the larger group. Figure 1 illustrates the
relationship of the students to the instructor in a multi-ethnic class of collaborative
learners.
“Tell me and I will forget/Show me and I might remember/involve me and I
will understand” (anonymous). This Native American proverb is at the heart of what
happens in the transformation from lecture to collaboration. As such, when students
become collaborators, the role of professor is metamorphosed. The instructor is no
longer “the sage on the stage,” but has now become “the guide on the side.” He/She
becomes both facilitator and mentor
Dale (1997) posits that the professor becomes a “facilitator of learning rather
than a transmitter of knowledge” (p. 17). As such, Berry (1991) points out that “the
professor should establish and communicate clear objectives, procedures, time tables
and evaluation methodology” (p. 25). The challenge to uproot the conventional idea
that the instructor is the authoritative figure to which students must defer is ever
present in the collaborative learning paradigm. However, according to Speck (2002),
the instructor does have three types of authority: official authority, subject matter
experience, and teaching authority (p. 61). As an official authority the instructor is
an agent of the college who adheres to the college’s policies and procedures. The
instructor’s credentials and academic degrees give him/her subject matter authority.
And because of his/her teaching experience, the instructor is assumed to be a
teaching authority.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
27
SHARING OF
GROUPS’ CONSTRUCTED
KNOWLEDGE
Students o f Students o f Students of
Collaborative Collaborative Collaborative
Learning Group Learning Group Learning Group
Caucasian Caucasian Caucasian
Hispanic Hispanic Hispanic
African-American African-American African-American
Native American Native American
Native American
Asian-American Asian-American Asian-American
INSTRUCTOR AS FACILATOR AND MENTOR
Figure 1
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
28
Whether acting as the official authority, the subject matter authority
or the teaching authority, the instructor is expected to model the democratic decision
making process that is at the heart of education. The instructor becomes a mentor
when he/she works one-on-one or in groups with students. Speck (2002) defines this
role as one which requires the instructor to “model particular behaviors which he/she
expects of students, and to change the dynamics of the classroom” (p. 18).
Gender and Collaborative Learning
In regards to gender and collaborative groups, Panitz (1997) reports that
collaborative learning increases the leadership skills of female students. In a
discussion of adult learning and book groups, Sandra Kerka (1996) quotes Pearlman
(1994) and Saal (1995) in saying that “women are supposed to be more comfortable
with sharing their inner lives and personal experiences, more driven by the need for
connection, and likely to prefer a noncompetitive atmosphere for intellectual
activity” (Imel, 1996, p. 84). In a study of tenth grade biology students, Lazarowitz
and Karsenty (1990) report that
girls did as well as boys within each group treatment, and the
differences found were only between the groups.... In a
learning environment where girls do not have to compete or to
behave according to teachers’ and students’ social expectations,
they are able to fulfill their academic potential (pp. 142-143).
Lenning and Ebbers (1999) posit that “interaction between peers of the same sex
appears to have the most positive effect on student outcomes, with social
relationships and values having a more important relationship to learning for women
than for men” (p. 51).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
29
In Women’ s Ways o f Knowing, Mary Belenky et al, (1986), focus
on gender differences. These authors report that women prefer to work
cooperatively in problem solving and are empowered when given recognition as
being knowledgeable beings. Therefore, collaboration rather than competition might
be in keeping with women’s “ways of knowing.”
In In a Different Voice, Carol Gilligan (1982) reports the results of the
research from three studies: the college student study, the abortion decision study,
and the rights and responsibilities study. Her research explored the differences
between males and females when trying to make meaning of their world. Women
identified care and responsibility as the central motif of their moral code, and men
valued universal justice. According to Scholossberg, Lynch, and Chickering (1989),
this probably reflects the greater importance that women in society place on
interpersonal relationships, whereas men place greater value on personal
achievement over personal relationships.
Gillian’s ethic of care finds relevance in the community college student
population. As Cohen and Brawer (1996) report, by 1991, the percentage of women
in community colleges was 57.5%, with 66% of them attending part-time. Overall, in
each year since 1978, more women than men have earned associate degrees; in 1990,
58% of the degrees went to women (p. 48). The ethic of care indicates the kind of
support that female adult learners prize most. Schlossberg et al. (1989) contend that
it is important that developmental mentors provide support for the female adult
learner’s “special need for information, guidance, and encouragement. Most of all,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
30
caring was the sense on the part of each individual adult learner that he or
she mattered” (p. 106).
Although collaborative learning encompasses a broad spectrum of techniques
(Goodsell, Maher, Tinto, Smith, & MacGregor, 1992), each technique involves the
social interaction of students in groups of two or more students. Since, as
Schlossberg et al. point out, most women have a preference for socialization in
learning, collaborative learning could be a worthwhile complement to the lecture
method.
Collaborative Learning in the College Writing Class
Kenneth Bruffee (1981) describes collaborative learning as a process which
“personalizes knowledge by socializing it, providing students with a social context of
learning peers with whom they are engaged on conceptual issues” (p. 745). Bruffee
(1999) asserts that the techniques of collaborative learning foster the “conversation
of mankind.” For Bruffee, communities of learning peers are created when people
talk with one another, but are sustained when people write to one another. For this
reason, writing lies at the center of collaborative learning as the most important
element in the craft of social interdependence (p. 53). There is.no more important
skill to learn in acquiring the craft of interdependence than learning to write
effectively (p. 53). Writing is not ancillary to teaching with collaborative learning, as
it is to traditional teaching; it is central (p. 54).
Therefore, the use of collaborative learning techniques can be very beneficial
in higher education writing classes. Cooperative learning builds a sense of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
31
community in a writing classroom. Conversation is the vehicle for this
type of learning community. Bruffee (1999) bases the value of such conversation on
three assumptions:
First, students can only write about what they can talk about
with one another, and also, in most cases, they can only write
about what they have already talked about with one another.
Second, students can write effectively only to people they have
been and continue to be, directly or indirectly, in conversation
with. And third, students’ writing can only be as clear, incisive,
and effective as their conversation is, both their conversations
about the topic they are writing on and their conversation about
writing itself (p. 58).
Given these assumptions, collaborative learning techniques afford students the best
opportunity to discuss writing topics and the process of writing with their peers.
Because the majority of today’s community college students are commuter
students, they rarely have time to build social ties on campus. Hence, the use of
collaborative learning techniques in writing courses serves the need for socialization.
The social support that collaborative groups provide has been found to positively
influence academic achievement (Astin, 1993; Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 1991;
Tinto, 1994; Triesman, 1985). It is not atypical to have community college students
who are underachievers, who do not value academic work and who are satisfied with
just getting by (Johnson, Johnson, and Smith, 1991). Such attitudes can be changed
through positive interaction in which peer group members work together to complete
assignments, solve problems, or assist each other in clarifying ideas.
The high attrition rate in writing courses at the community college is a
serious concern. According to Johnson, Johnson, and Smith (1998), two of the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
32
causes of college student attrition are social alienation and academic
alienation. Base groups provide a set of personal and supportive relationships and an
academic support system that may prevent many students from dropping out of
college through integrating students into college life (p. 4:14).
Collaborative learning in writing classes could also have psychological
benefits. “With the increase in the past two decades in adolescents’ and young
adults’ concern for personal well-being, there has been a corresponding diminished
concern for the welfare of others (particularly the less advantaged) and of society
itself’ (Astin, Green, & Korn, 1987). Working as a community o f writers can
engender close relationships that foster trust, empathy, and “a conviction that what
one is doing has meaning and is of some significance” (Johnson, Johnson, & Smith,
1998A, p. 4:16).
In classical humanism, paideia is the notion of man as an autonomous
personality, an individual who aims at self-realization and self-fulfillment (Sanford,
1962, p. 902). Collaborative learning is a means to self-realization and self-
fulfillment, but through interdependence. Collaborative learning, as a time-honored
social process, has been and continues to be a positive factor in the development of
medical, legal, scientific, and artistic communities of learners. Bruffee (1984)
contends that the main goal of collaborative learning is to provide a context in which
students can practice and master the normal discourse exercised in established
knowledge communities in the academic world and in business, government and the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
33
professions. As a part of the humanistic tradition in education,
collaboration will continue to be a significant pedagogical technique in higher
eduation.
Conclusions
Results of the prevailing body of research on collaborative learning in
primary, secondary, and higher education indicate improved academic achievement
for students. Social interaction, gender and ethnicity are major factors in studying
what makes collaborative learning a successful methodology.
Social interaction is inevitable in the classroom environment whether
instructing whole groups of 25 or more students or several small groups of 2 to 4
students. The classroom is a social network through which reacculturation takes
place. Bruffee asserts that:
One purpose of collaborative learning is to give college and
university students opportunities to experience this
reacculturative, conversational process, direct and indirect, by
which not only scientists, but also doctors, lawyers,
mathematicians, sociologists, classicists, and other bearers of
intellectual tradition construct knowledge in the language of
their communities of knowledgeable peers (p. 54).
If instructors intend to address the cognitive styles of the students in the
multi-ethnic classroom, a recognition of the diverse learning styles is imperative. The
modality of the classroom should have cultural congruence for the students.
Collaborative learning with socialization implicit in its methods has been found to be
of benefit to students of Native American, African American, Asian American, and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
34
Hispanic cultures. According to Ramirez and Castaneda (1974), Delgado-
Gaitan& Trueba (1985), Shade (1989), Irvine and York (1995), cognitive patterns
such as a preference for small-group work, an appreciation of holistic presentations
and visual presentations, and an identification with community and family are
nurtured in the collaborative learning classroom. Tucker and Yates (1976) have
concluded that white students, just as minority students, do realize the same
objective advantages of collaboration in the classroom.
Theory and research on gender awareness have been an important
consideration in the shifting teaching paradigm. Speck (2002) quotes Markel (1998)
when he writes that “women’s communication patterns are more focused on
maintaining the group, and men’s on completing the task” (pp. 54-55). Speck further
notes that in balanced groupings, gender differences can be quite positive. With the
slightly higher percentage of women (57%) in community colleges, collaboration
rather than competition might be the preferred pedagogy of student development.
The social and collaborative nature of writing lends itself to cooperative
learning in the college writing classes. Bruffee (1999) asserts that “Writing is not
ancillary to teaching with collaborative learning, as it is to traditional teaching. It is
central” (p. 54). For Speck (2002) “Sharing views, experiences, or research with
others and submitting them for criticism, discussion, and modification are essential
parts of the process of effective communication” (p. 5). The interdependence that
collaborative learning produces can not only improve student writing but can also
provide for the establishment of knowledge communities in the academic world
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
35
much like those of the professional knowledge communities in which
students hope to participate as they choose their careers.
Implications
Collaborative learning as an emergent teaching paradigm requires that
instructors reassess their roles in respect to the adult learners’ roles in the classroom.
Collaborative learning research indicates that the active, social participation inherent
in cooperative education provides a complement to the lecture method. No longer is
the instructor the proverbial sage on the stage; he/she has now become the guide on
the side. As such, students take more responsibility for learning as they jointly
construct knowledge. The relationships between students and instructors become
personal transactions as opposed to the idea of students as receptacles and instructors
as fonts of knowledge. Individualistic competition is transformed into cooperative
teams of active learners. The organizational structure of the classroom is evolving
from the sole reliance on lecture to the empowerment of students as active
participants in the creation of knowledge through collaborative learning.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
36
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This chapter includes the research questions, the hypotheses, and a
description of the research methodology. The latter includes the sampling procedure
and population, instrumentation, and procedures for data collection and analysis.
Question 1) From the students’ perspectives, what variables contribute to a positive
collaborative learning experience?
Question 2) Are the perceptions of collaborative learning similar or different for
students of different ethnic groups?
Question 3) Are the perceptions of collaborative learning similar or different for
male and female students?
Question 4) From the perceptions of the developmental mentors, what variables
contribute to a positive collaborative learning experience?
The research questions generated the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1: The variables that contribute to a positive collaborative learning
experience are social interaction, respect for the opinions of others, shared
responsibility, and a sense of achievement.
Hypothesis 2: Due to cultural congruence, the perceptions of collaborative learning
are similar for various minority groups.
Hypothesis 3: The perceptions of collaborative learning are different for male and
female students.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
37
Hypothesis 4: From the perceptions of developmental mentors, those
variables that contribute to a positive collaborative learning experience for students
are a) instructor as facilitator or coach, b) social interaction, c) a sense of
achievement.
Research Design
The purpose of this quantitative/qualitative study was to understand students’
attitudes and perceptions in relation to their involvement in the collaborative learning
process. This information could aid instructors in preparing more meaningful
collaborative learning exercises to facilitate the construction of knowledge in
classrooms across the curriculum.
The preceding literature review indicates that previous studies prove that
students, as a whole, report favorable reactions to the social interaction and climate
set through gender and ethnicity in collaborative learning settings.
Because students had self-selected to be in all six of these developmental
writing classes and were members of an intact group, random assignment to
experimental treatment was not possible. Therefore, this design is quasi-
experimental. In addition, because the same set of subjects who participated in the
collaborative learning experiment was also a part of the traditional lecture method,
the within-subject design or repeated measures design was involved.
Both the traditional method of teaching and learning and the collaborative
learning method were employed in each of the six developmental writing classes.
The traditional learning method involved the instructional use of lecture, whole-class
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
38
instruction, and individual student response or individual seatwork which
fosters competition among students. For collaborative learning, students worked in
groups of two or three but no more than four to solve a given problem (i.e., identify
causes and effects for a writing assignments, create a thesis based on a reading,
create a thesis based on a prompt, create an outline for a paragraph or essay, or peer
edit one another’s writing assignments). Everyone in the group was expected to
contribute in the creation of new knowledge; one volunteer or appointee acted as
recorder and another acted as reporter for the small group.
Population and Sample
On this 400 acre community college campus, two-thirds of the student
population is in the 18-25 age range. As the largest single campus district in the state
of California, the spring 2003 enrollment was as follows: credit students - 25,098;
non-credit students - 12,637; Community Service Fee Classes - 2,114; full-time
students - 6,207. The ethnicity of credit enrollment is as follows: Hispanic - 38.2%;
White (Non-Hispanic 21.7%; Asian - 21.3%; Black/African-American (Non-
Hispanic) - 5.5%; Filipino - 4.7%; Other, Non-White - 3.1%; American
Indian/Alaskan Native - 0.6%; Pacific Islander - 0.4%
(http://research.mtsac.edu/pdf/reports/spring%202003%).
The sample for this study encompassed community college students, 18 years
and older who were enrolled in the developmental writing courses (English 67 and
68). The 112 students from the six classes represented a cross section of ethnic and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
39
cultural diversity. Table 1 presents the demographic profile of the
respondents. Of the total number of respondents, approximately two-thirds were
female, and between 19 to 20 years old. Hispanics represented just over half o f the
respondents. In addition, almost three-fourths of the students had completed 11 or
fewer units.
This campus employs 363 full-time and 832 part-time faculty members with
a master’s degree as minimum qualifications. The sample for the faculty interview
consisted of 6 instructors who had all used collaborative learning in their remedial
writing classes within the College’s Department of English and Literature.
Approximately, 10 years ago, four of the six instructors had participated in a Title III
classroom-based research project, one strand of this government-funded project was
collaborative learning. These instructors have implemented collaborative learning in
their writing and literature classes since that time.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
40
Table 1. Student Demographics (N=T 12)
Categories Number of
Responses
Percentage
of Responses
Number of
Missing
Responses
Gender Female 71 63%
9
Male 39 35%
Age 19-20 70 63%
20-25 29 26%
26-30 4 4%
31-35 2 2% 2
36-40 3 3%
> 40 2 2%
Ethnicity Am Ind/An 2 2%
Asian 14 13%
Black/AA 6 5%
Hisp/Lat 62 55% 3
Ntv Hi/oth
PI
3 3%
White 20 18%
Other 2 2%
Units
Completed
0-11.5 73 65%
12-29.5 29 26% 3
30-59.5 6 5%
60 or more 1 1%
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
41
Instrumentation
For the students, a survey instrument of quantitative and qualitative questions
was administered in each of the 6 classes (see Appendix A). This three-part survey
had been piloted in other developmental writing classes. For the pilot, a total of 62
community college students from 2 developmental writing courses, one freshman
composition course and one African-American Literature course responded to the
survey. Using the 5-point Likert scale as a reliable measure of attitude, a three-step
factor analysis was done for the pilot study, just as was done for this study. Five
factors emerged: Positive for Group Work, Active Participant, Discrimination 1,
Discrimination 2 and Alone.
The survey instrument for this study was driven by several extant bodies of
research. Part I of the survey is based upon the research of Dr. Robert J. Sternberg,
Professor of Psychology at Yale University, Fiechtner and Davis (1984-1985), and
Cooper and Mueck (1990). Part I of the survey contained 20 statements with two
sections of responses: A) level of agreement and B) frequency of engagement. Both
sections used a 5-point Likert scale as a measure of attitude. In Section A the
students’ level of agreement with the 19 statements ranged from “strongly agree” to
“strongly disagree.” These statements made inquiry into the student’s perception of
his/her relationship to the group of collaborators. Using the same 19 statements,
Section B served as a measure of the frequency of the student’s engagement in
collaborative learning. Engagement frequency ranged from “very often” to “never”
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
42
to “not applicable.” The last question of Part 1, #20, asked the student if
this collaborative learning experience represented his/her first encounter with group
learning. If the student answered “yes” to question #20, he/she was asked to skip
Part 2 and go directly to Part 3. If the student responded “no,” then he/she was asked
to go on to Parts 2 and 3.
Part 2 of the survey contained 7 open-ended, qualitative questions. This part
of the survey was based on the literature of Cooper and Mueck (1990). These
questions elicited responses to such issues as the students’ previous experiences with
collaborative learning, the most appealing and least appealing aspects of
collaborative learning, the benefits of using collaborative learning, and the ways to
improve collaborative learning techniques (see Appendix A and Appendix D). This
part of the survey was based on the literature of Cooper and Muerk (1990).
Part 3 of the instrument made inquiry into student demographics: gender, age,
ethnicity, and number of units completed to date. This background information was
solicited not only for the purpose of profiling the respondents, but also for possibly
explaining some of the differences in attitude and perception among those of
different age groups, ethnicities, and between males and females.
The data from these responses were analyzed through descriptive statistics, a
factor analysis, regression, and t-tests.
An interview of the 6 faculty members and 18 students was also conducted
(see Appendix C). The faculty interview consisted of 7 open-ended questions which
asked the instructors to present their definitions of collaborative learning, to explain
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
43
their teaching goals, to describe their roles in the classroom, to estimate
what percentage of their courses was conducted through lecture, discussion, seat
work, technology, oral questions and answers, and collaborative learning. In
addition, they were asked to relate any benefits or drawbacks of collaborative
learning that they might have experienced. And finally, each was asked to describe
one type of collaborative learning exercise which she deemed a success in her
writing class. This information was used in a general discussion surrounding a
description of the instructors’ perceptions and uses o f collaborative learning as a
teaching methodology in the community college developmental writing classes.
To obtain qualitative information, the student interview consisted of 6 open-
ended questions which asked the students to first define collaborative learning (see
Appendix E). The second question asked the student to evaluate how often he or she
participated in that class’s collaborative learning exercises. The student was then
asked to tell what he/she liked or disliked about participating in collaborative
learning. The students were also individually asked if they felt that collaborative
learning had improved or hampered their learning. Finally, the students were asked
to compare the lecture method to the collaborative learning method by listing the
benefits of one over the other. The purpose of this interview was to have students
explain their attitudes and perceptions of the collaborative learning experience.
Instructors were also asked to participate in an interview which provided
qualitative data for the study (see Appendix C).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
44
Data Collection
The survey and student interview were administered during the Spring 2004
semester to 112 students across six developmental writing classes in the community
college. Participating classrooms were identified as those in which the instructors
employ collaborative learning as part of their instructional methodology. The
developmental writing classes were English 67 and 68, and Writing. Although the
objectives of both classes are to improve students’ writing and to enhance students’
critical thinking, English 67 starts with sentence writing and moves to paragraph
writing while English 68 begins with paragraph writing and culminates with essay
writing and an introduction to documentation. English 68 and 67 are, respectively,
one level and two levels below transfer.
The instructors for each of these six developmental writing classes
volunteered to participate in a Faculty Collaborative Learning Interview (see
Appendix C). They were identified as instructors who employed collaborative
learning as part of their pedagogy in the developmental writing courses at the
community college.
Data Analysis
Descriptive statistics generated by the Statistical Package fo r the Social
Sciences (SPSS) provided the results of the Likert attitude scale. A three-step factor
analysis was done to identify the pattern of underlying factors in students’ feelings
about collaborative learning. Step 1 of the factor analysis involved data reduction
for exploratory purposes. The SPSS sub-program reduced the data to 6 factors that
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
45
have a shared value (Eigenvalue) of 1 or greater. A factor matrix generated
the loading of each variable or item number onto a particular factor.
The second step was a reliability check or the verification of how reliably
these items work together. A computation of Alpha levels for each factor
determined correlation or non-correlation.
The third step was the factor analysis which involved scale formation, a
process that allows for the combination of those variables given in each factor.
Using the Likert scale of 1 through 5 (strongly agree to strongly disagree),
the mean or average score of responses was computed for each subscale.
In addition, a t-test for ethnicity and a t-test and an Analysis of Variance
(ANOVA) for gender was run to determine if there were any differences in responses
between the groups.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
46
CHAPTER 4
FINDINGS
The following chapter presents the results and interpretations of both the
statistical analyses and qualitative analyses in the context of the research questions
presented in Chapter 1. Statistical and qualitative findings were interpreted in
relation to the extent to which they supported or failed to support the research
hypotheses.
The first section of the chapter presents a descriptive profile of the population under
study. The second section presents the reliability of the data. The third section
examines the relationships among observed variables. The fourth section presents the
qualitative data obtained through instructor and student interviews. And the fifth
section addresses answers to the research questions.
Descriptive Statistics
The sample comprised 112 subjects, 18 years of age or older. During the
spring of 2004, these subjects were enrolled in credit, non transferable
developmental writing courses at the community college. The classes were chosen
because collaborative learning techniques were identified as part of the instructional
methodology of the course. In terms of gender, the sample was 63.4% female and
34.8% male, with 2 missing responses. The sampled group had an age distribution
of 18-19 years comprising 62.5%; 20-25 years comprising 25.8%; those comprising
26-30 represented 3.6%; the age group 31-35 represented 1.8%, while the age group
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
47
36-40 accounted for 2.7% and those over 40 characterized 1.8% of the
sample. The 2 missing responses account for the final 1.8%.
The ethnic composition of the sample is as follows: Hispanic/Latino 55.3%;
White, 17.9%; Asian, 12,5%; African-American, 5.4%; Native Hawaiian/Pacific
Islander, 2.7%; American Indian or Alaska Native, 1.8%; Other, 1.8%; and 3 non
respondents account for 2.7%.
In reporting how many college units they had completed, the students
responded in this manner: 0-11.5 units = 65.2%; 12-29.5 units = 25.9%; 30 - 59.5
= 5.4%; 60 or more units = 0.9%; with 3 non-respondents rounding out at 2.7%.
With 7 of the 112 responses unreported, 71.4% of the students reported that
this was not their first collaborative learning experience.
Reliability of Data
A factor analysis was done using the 19 survey statements of agreement
found in the survey instrument. For each factor, the Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient
was performed in order to determine scale reliability. Reliability indicates the
repeatability of such findings. As a common measure of reliability, Cronbach’s
Alpha measures the internal consistency of a given scale. In other words, the alpha
coefficient indicates the compatibility of the items that form the scale. Those Alpha
coefficients which are > .7 prove to be compatible.
Four factors emerged for degree of agreement, each composed of shared
characteristics. Factor 1, labeled “Discrimination,” had these three items: #16 - The
group climate was free of gender discrimination; #18 - The group climate was free
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
48
of age discrimination; and #17 - The group climate was free of racial
discrimination. The Cronbach’s Alpha for this factor was a very reliable .9431.
Factor 2 was labeled “Active Participation.” The 4 items in this factor, were
as follows: #1 - 1 was frequently an active participant in my group; # 3 - 1
explained/helped someone who didn’t understand; # 8 - 1 encouraged and praised
others in the group; # 9 -1 felt comfortable with my role in the group. The
Cronbach’s Alpha for Factor 2, Active Participation, was .7046. This score indicates
reliability.
Factor #3, which was labeled “Satisfaction with Collaborative Learning,”
yielded 5 items: # 2 - 1 was able to know my classmates better; # 6 - 1 learned through
my participation in the group; #13 - 1 enjoyed working with my classmates in small
groups; #14 - 1 preferred to work alone rather than with the group; and # 1 9 -1 got
together with group members outside of class either for a social function or to study.
The Alpha Coefficient was .7078. However, although items #4 (I felt encouraged by
the group), #12 (I found new ways of viewing ideas), and #15 (The group work
sometimes changed my point of view) were separately grouped as Factor 5 and
received an Alpha of .6141, these items seemed to logically correspond to Factor 3
“Satisfaction with Collaborative Learning.” Therefore, Factors 3 and 5 were
combined; the resulting Cronbach Alpha was an even more reliable .7409.
Factor 4 was labeled “Comfort Level,” with an Alpha of .6520. The items in
this scale were: # 7 - 1 felt comfortable asking for explanations or help from the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
49
group; # 1 0 -1 felt discriminated against by the group because of my
gender; and #11 - 1 felt discriminated against by the group because of my ethnicity.
Relationships Among Variables
The 112 responses for the first 19 statements of the Student Collaborative
Learning Survey were tabulated using SPSS (see Table 2). Based on these statistics,
the students’ Degree of Agreement was tabulated for the Likert scale responses
“Strongly Agree,” “Agree,” “Neither Agree Nor Disagree,” “Disagree,” and
“Strongly Disagree.” On the other hand, the Degree of Engagement scale was
tabulated for Likert scale responses “Very Often,” “Often, ” “Occasionally,”
“Never,” and “Not Applicable.” In addition, the combined percentages for
“Strongly Agree” and “Agree” responses for Degree of Agreement were tabulated
and the combined percentages for “Very Often” and “Often” responses in Degree of
Engagement were tabulated (see Table 3).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 2. Results o f Student Collaborative Learning Survey
ITEM % AGREEM ENT % ENGAGEM ENT
SA A N D SD VO
Oj
OCG N N /A
1. I was frequency an active participant in ray group. 27 57
10
6 0 20 39 37 2 0
2 . 1 was able to know my classmates better.
27 61 11 2 0 19 37 38 0 3
3. I explained/heiped som eone who didn’t understand. 22 . 53 20 4 1 16 31 46 4 1
4. I felt encouraged by the group.
10 54 31 5 0 9 39 41 5 ■ 3
5 . 1 felt hesitant to speak in the group.
5 19 21 33 20 4 18 38 33 4
6 . 1 learned through my participation in the group.
24 55 15 4 1 25 45 24 . 1 1
7. I felt comfortable asking for explanations or help from
the .group.
26 57 14 2 ' 0 23 39 31 3 2
S. I encouraged and praised others in the group. 13 50 29 5 1 7 41 39 8 2
9. I felt comfortable with my role in the group. 21 54 21 3 0 21 46 24 4 3
10. I felt discriminated against by the group because o f my
gender.
1 1 6 28 63 2 5 7 66 18
11. I felt discriminated against by the group because o f m y
ethnicity.
1 2 6 27 63 3 5 5 67 18
1 2 .1 found new ways o f viewing ideas through the group. 13 63 20 4 0 17 42 29 7 3
13.1 enjoyed working with my classmates in small groups. 29 54 15 2 I 24 40 30 2 2
14. I preferred to work alone rather than with the group 8 13 37 21 20 13 10 42 25 7
SA=Strongly Agree; A=Agree; N=Neither; D=Disagree; SD=Strongly Disagree VO=Very Often; 0=O ften;
OCC=Occasionally; N=Never;
N /A =N ot Applicable
Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE 2 . Results o f Student Collaborative Learning Survey (Continued)
ITEMS
AGREEM ENT ENGAGEM ENT
SA A N D SD VO 0 OCC N N /A
15. The group work som etim es changed my. point o f view
7 59 25 6 3 7 30 44 12 4
16. The group climate was free o f gender discrimination.
45 38 8 4 3 34 22 11 12 16
17. The group clim ate was free o f racial discrimination
47 31 12 4 3 36 20 12 13 16
18. The group clim ate was free o f age discrimination.
46 32 13 3 3 37 16 12 14 15
19. I got together with group members outside o f class ....
14 3 0 . 19 18 16 6 19 29 34 9
SA=Strongly Agree; A =A gree; N=Neither; D=Disagree; SD =Strongly Disagree VO=Very Often; 0 = 0 fte n ;
OCC=Occasionally; N=Never;
N /A =N ot Applicable
52
Table 3. Item Analysis of 19 Survey Statements
Statements
Agreement
SA + A
Engagement
VO + O
1 .1 was frequently an active participant in my group. 83.9% 58.9%
•
2 . 1 was able to know my classmates better. 87.5% 55.4%
3 . 1 explained/helped someone who didn’t understand. 75% 46.4%
4 . 1 felt encouraged by the group. 63.4% 48.2%
5 . 1 felt hesitant to speak in the group. 24.1% 22.3%
• .
6 . 1 learned through my participation in the group. 79.5% 70.0%
• 7. I felt comfortable asking for explanations or help 83.0% 62.5%
from the group.
8 . 1 encouraged and praised others in the group. 63.4% 48.2%
• 9. I felt comfortable with my role in the group.
75.0% 70.0%
' •
10. I felt discriminated against by-the group because 1.8% 7.1%
of my gender.
•
11. I felt discriminated against by the group because
2.7% 8.0%
o f my ethnicity.
• 12. I found new ways o f viewing ideas through the 75.9% 58.9%
group.
• 13. I enjoyed working with my classmates in small
82.4% 64.3%
groups.
• 14. I preferred to work alone rather than with tire
21.4% 22.3%
group.
•
15. The group work sometimes changed my point of
66.1% 37.5%
view.
• 16. Tire group climate was free o f gender 82.1% 56.2%
discrimination.
• 17. The group climate was free o f racial 78.6% 55.4%
discrimination
• 18. The group climate was free o f age
77.7% 52.7%
discrimination.
• 19. I got together with group members outside o f 45.0% 25.0%
class ....
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Qualitative Data
Of the 112 students (with 7 missing responses) 71% responded that this was
not their first collaborative learning experience. These students went on to complete
Part 2 of the collaborative learning survey (see Appendix A). Part 2 contained 7
open-ended questions regarding their collaborative learning experiences in this class
and any of their previous classes. First, they were asked to describe any collaborative
learning experience(s) which they may have had prior to this writing class. Then,
they were asked to identify both the best and least appealing aspects of group
learning. Next, they were asked to describe how the group work may have assisted
them in understanding the course’s content. The sixth question of the survey asked
the student if he/she were the instructor in this writing class, would he/she use
collaborative learning in the class. The last question of Part 2 asked the students how
often they would assign individual (not group) projects.
Next, six community college developmental writing instructors were
interviewed. The instrument, entitled Faculty Collaborative Learning Interview,
contained 7 questions. The interview began with each instructor’s personal
definition of collaborative learning. Then the instructors went on to explain their
primary teaching goals in their developmental writing classes. Each instructor
described her role in the classroom and then gave an analysis of how much time was
spent during the average class session on lecture, seat work, technology (i.e.,
computers, audio/visual, etc.), oral questions/answers, and collaborative learning or
group work. The interview continued with the writing instructor’s first explaining
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
54
what she perceived to be the major benefits of collaborative learning and
then describing what she has found to be the problems and drawbacks encountered in
this pedagogy. The interview ended with the instructor describing one type of
collaborative learning exercise that she has used in her writing classes.
Eighteen students from the developmental writing classes of these instructors
were interviewed. Before beginning the interview, each student was asked to read
and, if in agreement, to sign the Informed Consent Form (see Appendix B). The
instrument used, entitled Student Collaborative Learning Interview, contained 6
questions (see Appendix E). The interview began with the student’s personal
definition of collaborative learning. Then each student was asked to explain how
often he or she participated in collaborative learning in the developmental writing
class. The students described first what they liked and then what they disliked about
participating in collaborative learning. Then each student responded to whether or
not he/she thought collaborative learning had helped or hampered learning in this
class. Finally, the student was asked to describe the benefits of the lecture method
that are not found in collaborative learning and vice versa: what benefits of
collaborative learning are not found in the lecture method.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
55
Research Questions
Question 1) From the students’ perspectives, w hat variables contribute to a
positive collaborative learning experience?
The statistics generated by SPSS provided a basis for analysis o f the data.
The results of this data support the contention that students, in general, have a
positive attitude toward working collaboratively.
Among the four factors, Factor 1, Discrimination, had the highest alpha of
.9431. This factor identifies the types of discrimination group members might face.
In response to the statement “The group climate was free of gender discrimination,”
83% strongly agree/agree, while 56% felt that this occurred very often/often.
Seventy-eight percent felt that the group climate was free of racial discrimination,
with 56% reporting that this was the case very often/often. In addition, 78% of the
students strongly agree/agree that the group climate was free of age discrimination.
Fifty-three percent responded that very often/often age discrimination was not
present.
Factor 3 (Satisfaction with Collaborative Learning), generated the second
highest alpha of .7409. First, social interaction seemed to be a high priority. Eighty-
eight percent strongly agree/agree that they were able to know their classmates
better, and 55% felt that this happened very often/often. Those who strongly
agree/agree that they enjoyed working with their classmates in small groups
represent 82% of the sample, and 64% said such enjoyment happened very
often/often. Conversely, only 21% strongly agree/agree that they preferred to work
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
56
alone rather than with the group; while similarly, only 22% said that they
would rather work very often/often by themselves. Students seem to value working
in small groups in the classroom, and 45% responded that they got together with
group members outside of class either for a social function or to study. However,
meetings outside of the classroom for work or socialization are characterized as
happening very often/often only 25% of the time, occasionally 29%, and never 34%.
Sixty-three percent of the group strongly agree/agree that they were encouraged by
the group, while 48% perceived this feeling of encouragement as occurring very
often/often. Acquiring knowledge seems to also be a positive factor in collaborative
learning. Eighty percent of the students strongly agree/agree that they learned
through participation in the group, and 70% felt that they learned very often/often.
While 66% strongly agree/agree that the group sometimes changed their point of
view, this occurred very often/often only 38% of the time and occasionally, 44%.
Along the same lines, 76% strongly agree/agree that they found new ways of
viewing ideas through the group, and 59% said this occurred very often/often.
Factor 2, Active Participation, with a Cronbach’s Alpha of .7046, gives
insight into students’ perceptions. Seventy-five percent of the students strongly
agree/agree that they explained/helped someone who did not understand, while 47%
explained/helped someone else very often/often, and 46% did so occasionally. In
their responses, 63% of the students strongly agree/agree that they encouraged and
praised others in the group, and 48% encouraged or praised others very often/often,
39% occasionally. In addition, 84% of the students strongly agree/agree that they
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
57
were frequently active participants in their groups; likewise, 59% very
often/often and 37% occasionally were active participants in the group. Results show
that 75% of the students strongly agree/agree that they felt comfortable with their
roles in the group; similarly, 67% felt this way very often/often.
The Fourth Factor, Comfort Level, has an alpha of .6520. Those students
who strongly agree/agree that they felt comfortable asking for explanations or help
from the group equal 83%, with 62% reporting that this occurred very often/often. A
mere 2% strongly agree/agree that they felt discriminated against by the group
because of gender, and 7% responded that this happened very often/often. Only 3%
strongly agree/agree that they felt discriminated against by the group because of
ethnicity, and 8% claim that this happened very often/often.
Based on the responses given to the open-ended questions in Part 2 of the
survey, 71% of the students report that they had experienced collaborative learning
in previous classes, such as fire tech classes, high school classes, child development
classes, science labs and English courses. Some said that they engaged in
collaborative projects at work. They identified the best aspects of group learning as
hearing and developing more than one idea, hearing various points of view, learning
from other people/each other, and meeting new people. The least appealing aspects
of collaborative learning were identified as having to work with students who did not
contribute equally to the workload, too many opinions on an idea, stubborn people
who won’t collaborate but who dominate, and depending on others who are
unreliable. Students also responded that talking in the group helped them to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
understand what they were unclear about in the assignments, opened their
minds to seeing different perspectives, helped them gain knowledge, and made the
work easier because they could ask a peer for help. When asked to imagine
themselves as the instructor in this writing class, the students were asked if they
would use collaborative learning in their classroom. The responses were an
overwhelming “yes” and one “no” response. Those who responded yes said that
collaborative learning helped them to get acquainted with others in the class and to
practice working well with others; collaboration cleared up confusion, and overall
they acquired more knowledge. The one “no” response claimed that he/she would
not use collaborative learning in the classroom because during group work, people
have a tendency to talk too much instead of work. When asked how often they
would assign individual work (not group work) if they were the teacher, the
responses ranged from 75% to 50% of the time, to every other class meeting, to the
majority of the time because students need to learn how to work alone, to it depends
on the needs of the lesson, and finally to individual work only on tests.
Next, a student interview was conducted with 18 students from the 112 who
had taken the survey. The interview began with the student’s definition of
collaborative learning. Practically all of the students defined collaborative learning as
two or more people working together. To that some students added that collaborative
or group learning meant working to clarify answers, to bring ideas together, or to
have each person “chip in” or contribute to a huge project. One definition that was
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
59
different from the rest was one in which a student characterized
collaborative learning as “taking advantage of smart people.”
Question 2) Are the perceptions of collaborative learning similar or different for
students of different ethnic groups?
The ethnic groups listed in the Part 3 of the survey are American
Indian/Alaska Native, Asian, Black/African American, Hispanic/Latino, Native
Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, White, Other. O f the 112 participants in the
survey, 109 responded as follows: 55% - Hispanic/Latino; 18% - White; 13% -
Asian; 5% - Black/African American; 3% - Native Hawaiian/other Pacific Islander;
2% - American Indian/Alaska Native; and 2% Other. Three ethnic groups were
represented in such small numbers that including them would threaten the validity of
the analysis. Therefore, these groups, American-Indian/Alaska Native (2 subjects),
Native Hawaiian/other Pacific Islander (3 subjects) and Other (2 subjects) represent
fewer than 3% of the total. The individual scores within each group would
contribute a disproportionate weight to the model compared to the individuals in the
other larger groups. Dummy variables were used in the coding scheme for ethnicity.
A regression was run using each of the four factors as the dependent variable to
determine if there existed a difference in perceptions between ethnic groups.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
60
Since Hispanics represent the largest group o f respondents,
Hispanics served as the reference group. For Factor 1, Discrimination, the only
group that differed significantly was Asian students, at .027 (p < .05). A calculation
of the mean also shows that Asians with a mean of 6.91 perceived the group climate
to be free of gender, racial and age discrimination. However, African/Americans
with 6.40, Whites and Hispanics with 5.0 respectively felt slightly more certain that
the group was free of discrimination.
Continuing to use Hispanics as the constant, a regression for Factor 2, Active
Participation, was run. No significant difference was found between the groups
using Active Participation as the dependent variable. With p< .05, the levels of
significance were as follows: Asians - .276; African-Americans - .321; Whites -
.777. Each group was rather similar in agreement that they were active participants
in the collaborative learning process.
A calculation of the means for each group reveals that all groups felt that they
actively participated in the collaborative learning process, with Hispanics giving the
highest rating to participation at 8.04, followed closely by Whites at 8.26, Asians at
9.17 and African-Americans at 9.40.
For Satisfaction with Collaborative Learning, Factor 3, there is a significant
difference noted for Asians when using Hispanics as the intercept. With p<05, the
level of significance for Asians was .008. There was no difference between the other
groups with African-Americans at .483, and Whites at .090. After determining the
means for each group, although Asians expressed satisfaction with collaborative
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
61
learning with a mean of 13.33, the other groups had slightly higher
satisfaction levels: Hispanics - 10.52; African-Americans - 11.80; and Whites -
12. 11.
Factor 4, Comfort Level had no significant differences between the groups.
The following levels of significance (p< .05) illustrate this: Asians - . 101; African
Americans - .419; Whites - .908, with Hispanics as the reference group. A
computation of the means for the four ethnic groups reveals that Asians reported a
lower comfort level at 12.25, followed closely by African-Americans at 12.60, and
Whites at 13.10, followed by Hispanics at 13.38. In other words, because of the
negative value associated with “I felt discriminated against by the group because of
my gender or ethnicity,” reverse order applies. The higher mean scores of Hispanics
indicated that they disagree that discrimination by gender or ethnicity was evident in
their group work, and the slightly lower scores of Asians indicated that to an extent
there were feelings of discrimination.
Question 3) Are the perceptions of collaborative learning similar or different for
male and female students?
O f the 112 students surveyed, 110 reported gender as follows: 71 females and
39 males. Using Factor 1, Discrimination, as the dependent variable in a Oneway
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was completed. The results show that there is no
effect for gender when p< 05: Asian - .087; African-American - .760; White - .669,
with Hispanics as the reference group. A computation of the means shows that
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
62
females reported a discrimination-free environment with a score of 5.13.
Their scores were slightly higher than those reported by males, 5.93.
On Factor 2, Active Participation, there was no effect for gender. For both
females and males in all of the ethnic groups there were no significant differences in
how they perceived their participation in the group. A computation of the means
showed that females reported slightly higher scores for active involvement in the
groups: females -8 .1 9 and males - 8.67.
Using Factor 3, Satisfaction with Collaborative Learning, as the dependent
variable, an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was run to determine if there existed a
difference in satisfaction with collaborative learning for females and male.
However, again, there was no difference in the satisfaction levels of collaborative
learning (.074 with p<05). Although the results were not significant, they were
close, with women showing higher satisfaction (10.87) than men (12.3).
For Factor 4, Comfort Level, gender was not a significant factor; there was
no difference between men and women in any of the ethnic groups at .802, with p<
.05. The means show that both groups were very close in their opinions that neither
race nor age discrimination was apparent in the group: females - 13.13 and males -
13.03.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
63
Questions 4) From the developmental m entor’s perspective, what
variables contribute to a positive collaborative learning experience?
Based on the interview with community college instructors there are several
variables which contribute to a positive collaborative learning experience. First of
all, each of the 6 instructors defined collaborative learning along the lines of shared
group activities, sharing skills, developing ideas, essentially helping each other to
learn (see Appendix C). These developmental mentors perceived their roles in the
classroom as that of a facilitator, role model, guide, coach. As such, they witnessed
students who benefited from collaborative learning as those who can interact in a
social setting with those of different ages, cultures, races, etc., those who are active
rather than passive in the learning process, and for those with different learning
styles, collaborative learning gave them the review, rehearsal, and practice needed by
most students.
Summary
The results of the student survey, student interviews, and the faculty
interviews corroborated some, but not all of the initial hypotheses presented in
Chapter 1. The results support the hypothesis and research literature that students
find social interaction, the ability to increase knowledge, and active participation to
be the key elements in a positive collaborative learning experience. With Hispanics
as the largest group and therefore the reference group, Asian groups showed the only
significant difference in that their satisfaction with collaboration was slightly lower
than that of the other three ethnic groups. In a calculation of the means, females’
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
agreement is just slightly higher than males on Factor 3, Satisfaction with
Collaborative Learning. Finally, developmental mentors’ perceptions of what makes
for a positive collaborative learning experience - social interaction, active
participation, and the transmission of knowledge - correlate with those of the
community college students.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
65
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION
This chapter includes a review of the purpose of the study, a review o f the
hypotheses, a discussion of the investigation, and the conclusions of the study,
followed by a statement of policy recommendations as well as suggestions for
further research.
The purpose of this study was to determine community college students’
perceptions regarding their involvement in collaborative learning. Developmental
writing served as the academic discipline. The students had been exposed to both
traditional and cooperative/collaborative learning. The study addressed such issues
as the student’s attitude toward the social environment in his/her collaborative group,
the group interaction, and the advantages and disadvantages of collaborative
learning. The study introduced relevant variables that pertain to these issues as well
as identified those factors that are statistically significant. This study also examined
faculty members’ perceptions of the efficacy of collaborative learning in the
community college writing class.
Conclusions
The quantitative data of the survey in some cases support and in other
instances negate the hypotheses presented in Chapter 1 and the information
submitted for the literature review. This part of the exploratory study began with a
factor analysis which divided the survey items into 4 factors that had a shared value
(Eigenvalue) of 1 or greater: Factor 1 - Discrimination; Factor 2 - Active
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
66
Participation; Factor 3 - Satisfaction with Collaborative Learning; and
Factor 4 - Comfort Level.
The qualitative data of Part 2 of the student survey/the student interviews
and the faculty interviews support the prevailing body of research on collaborative
learning. Results indicate that students value the social interaction, the acquisition of
knowledge, and the active participatory role that collaborative learning affords them.
Instructors felt that they were facilitators of knowledge and that students learn and
retain information best when they have had an active role in the construction of
knowledge.
Hypothesis 1): From the student’s perspective, there are several
variables that contribute to a positive collaborative learning experience.
The results of both the quantitative and qualitative data support the assertion
that, in general, students have a positive attitude towards working in collaborative
learning groups. Students seem to obtain gratification from the social interaction
inherent in collaborative learning, the knowledge that is transmitted and gained
through collaboration, and the chance to be active participants in the learning
process. As Factor 3, Satisfaction with Collaborative Learning, showed students
valued the social interaction provided by small group collaboration. In the student
survey, students reported that the best aspects of collaborative learning were
“meeting new people,” “getting closer to others,” “getting along with others to get
the work done,” and “learning to respect each others’ opinions.” Fewer than one-
fourth of the students preferred to work alone. This concept is supported by
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
instructors who were interviewed. They reported that “in groups of three
or four, students are much less likely to remain passive or unengaged. Another
instructor can be quoted as having said that feeling connected to someone on campus
can be “hard to establish on a commuter campus like ours. Collaborative learning
helps students to get to know others and feel invested in the community o f learners
of which they are a part.” In the student survey, they wrote that if they “all put in
their unique ideas, they would learn from each other” because sometimes “working
together develops an enormous amount of thought (ideas) and the presentation of
different points of view.” This corroborates the social constructionist theories which
purport that it is natural for students to talk to each other, and in doing so, new
knowledge is constructed Bruffee ,1984; Freire, 1984; Golub, 1988; Johnson,
Johnson, & Smith 1991; Sharan, 1990). In addition, students reported feeling
encouraged by the group. Student responses in both the survey and the interview
support the theory that when the social is linked with the academic a more powerful
learning experience takes place (Bruffee, 1984; Freire, 1984; Goodsell-Love, 1994;
Tinto, 1994). One student can be quoted as having written, “The best aspect of group
learning is meeting new people, getting closer to others and expanding my
knowledge.” Another can be quoted as having said, “ The best aspect of learning (is)
through others and not necessarily just by what the teacher is saying. Having
teamwork (means) developing critical thinking.” Instructors who were interviewed
reported that the major benefits of collaborative learning for their students were that
“Students gained confidence, became more comfortable with one another, and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
68
interacted with students from different ages, cultures, and races, which
enhanced critical thinking.” Students responded that they learned more by
participating in the group, and they also found new ways of viewing ideas through
participation in the group “even though I may not have agreed with some of them.”
Based on the student interview, another element that contributed to student
satisfaction was the premise that if collaborative learning is to be successful, each
student must contribute equally to the group. In other words, there must be an equal
division of labor among the group members; no student wanted to carry the burden
for someone else. For these adult learners, collaboration was a mutual endeavor of
interdependence, which made the workload more manageable. As Armstrong and
Yarborough (1996) and Berry (1991) have reported, collaborative learning promotes
the interdependence that the increasingly collaborative global workforce requires.
Conversely both students and instructors cited the unequal division of labor
as the greatest disadvantage of collaborative learning. One student can be quoted as
facetiously saying “Collaborative learning means taking advantage of smart people.”
Others interviewed said, “Working with people that did not do the work,” “not
carrying their own weight,” and having to do more than half the work,” all presented
a major hindrance. “Lazy people who don’t do anything,” “one person stuck with
more work,” and “being depended on to do all the work” are quotes which echo the
same sentiment of the unequal work effort. One student summed it all up when she
identified why contributing unequally was the least appealing occurrence in
collaborative learning: “When some people just don’t care to do any work, you don’t
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
69
learn anything because only half the group is doing the assignment.” One
instructor acknowledged that when all students do not contribute equally, this can be
a major hindrance to the learning process. To remedy this, she advised close
monitoring of the group and making certain that each member has a specific
role/task/job to fulfill in the group.
A second factor that revealed students’ perceptions of what a profitable
collaborative learning experience encompassed is delineated in Factor 2, Active
Participation. Both the quantitative and qualitative data show that students who were
active participants in collaborative learning were very often to often engaged in the
group’s work. They frequently explained a concept or helped someone who did not
understand. In the learning centered classrooms that collaborative learning purports
to promote, Speck (2002) has noted that “the best models for active learning put the
responsibility for synthesis, analysis, and evaluation on the students’ shoulders...”(p.
12). This process is enacted when each student in the group is given a specific
task/role to fulfill. Students in this study had at various times served as researchers,
recorders, and reporters for their groups. Moreover, just as much as the students
enjoyed encouragement, they reported that they regularly engaged in giving praise or
encouragement to others in the group. Students in the survey and interview reported
that they enjoyed collaborative learning because of the “teamwork,” the process of
“learning how to get help from others and giving it back in return,” and “being able
to ask questions and discuss what we were learning.” An instructor shared that
active participation allows “us to learn best that which we articulate for ourselves”
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
70
and collaborative learning “lets students review, rehearse and practice in
order to learn.” As one student succinctly stated in the interview, “ I am hearing it
over and over again, and I can remember it better.” Both the quantitative and
qualitative studies show that the vast majority o f subjects agreed that they were
active participants in the group’s work and that they more often than not felt
comfortable in that role.
Whereas one item in Factor 2, Active Participation, solicited the student’s
level of agreement with and degree of frequency in explaining to or helping
someone, Factor 4, Comfort Level, asked students whether or not they felt
comfortable asking for explanations or help from the group. The overwhelming
majority very often felt comfortable being on the receiving end of knowledge
acquisition. These students of collaborative learning have corroborated what
advocates of collaborative learning contend when they state that they feel more
comfortable asking questions and seeking possible solutions from peers (Bruffee,
1999; Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 1998; Tinto, 1994). Students responded in the
collaborative learning interview and survey that they “learned through peers,” “got
different points of view,” “learned new ways of doing things,” “were able to ask
questions,” enjoyed “having others there to helme with any questions I had or things
I didn’t understand,” and finally “There is a better understanding of the assignment
from peers whose dialogue/dialect is understandable at the peer’s level.”
In keeping with the concept of comfort level, the number of students who felt
discriminated against because of gender or ethnicity in Factor 4 was negligible. The
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
71
vast majority did not feel discriminated against by the group. Students said
that they could only learn “different ideas from different people.” “I learn who my
classmates are.”
Factor 1 makes further inquiry into the group climate of discrimination in
regards to gender, ethnicity and age. The predominant response was to strongly agree
or agree that the group’s climate was free of these types of discrimination.
Hypothesis 2): Student perceptions of collaborative learning will vary
depending upon ethnicity.
A regression, using dummy variables as the coding scheme for ethnicity, was
run. Hispanics in this sample (55%) were represented in greater proportion to the
population (38%). It could be hypothesized that this disproportionate representation
can be attributed to the method of placement into the various levels of writing. The
College currently uses the Assessment of Written English (AWE) for placement of
all incoming students. The AWE requires that each applicant must submit a writing
sample based on a chosen prompt. Based on the student’s demonstration of unity,
support, coherence and sentence construction in writing, placement could range from
pre-college writing classes to freshman composition. Second language interference
prevalent in the writing samples could explain why only 1.9% of Hispanic students
place directly into Freshman Composition. According to the College’s Office of
Research and Institutional Effectiveness, AWE placement into Freshman
Composition by ethnicity is as follows: Whites - 8%; American-Indian/Alaska
N ative-8 % ; Filipino - 7%; Pacific Islander - 5%; African-American - 3%; Asian
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
72
- 3%; Hispanic 2%; and for total ethnicity, a mere 4% achieve direct
placement into Freshman Composition.
As such, the largest group of respondents for English 67 and 68
(developmental writing), Hispanics, was used as the reference group. With p < .05,
there was no difference between Whites, African Americans, and Hispanics.
However, Asians differed significantly from the other ethnic groups on Factor 3,
Satisfaction with Collaborative Learning. A regression and ANOVA showed that
although Asians were satisfied with the collaborative experience, Whites, African
Americans, and Hispanics gave slightly higher scores for this learning technique.
This recalls the literature on ethnicity and collaborative learning which states that
although Asian-American students value cooperation and harmony, and tend to help
one another, they may be reluctant to take the reigns of authority from the instructor
unto themselves (Diaz, 2001). Asian-American students have more confidence in a
teacher-centered approach to learning. This might account for the slightly lower level
of satisfaction with collaboration when compared to the other ethnic groups.
Hypothesis 3): Student perceptions of collaborative learning will vary
depending upon gender.
There was no identifiable difference between male and female students when
controlling for the Four Factors. Although the difference was insignificant, it might
be worth noting that on Factor 3, women scored just slightly higher than men on
satisfaction with the collaborative learning experience
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
73
Hypothesis 4): From the developmental mentor’s perspective,
there are numerous variables that contribute to a positive collaborative learning
experience.
From the developmental mentor’s perspective, the variables that contribute to
a positive collaborative learning experience are the teacher as guide, facilitator, or
coach; they also cited student involvement, and the ability to work as team (see
Appendix C). Proponents of cooperative/collaborative learning concur with the
observations of these instructors (Berry, 1991; Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 1998;
Speck, 2002; Tinto, 1994).
In Facilitating Students' Collaborative Writing, Speck (2002) has declared,
“No longer only the sage on the stage, the professor now has opportunities to work
with students individually and in groups” ...(p. 18). Instructors in the interview
conceded that the presentational method has its merit as a way to present
foundational information. Berry (1991) validates this idea when he states that
instructors do have the obligation to establish such things as clear objectives,
procedures, timetables, and methods of evaluations. Thus, the instructors interviewed
employed the lecture method on average 20% of the time, and they incorporated
collaborative learning on average 28% of the time, followed by discussion 17%, seat
work 16%, oral questions and answers 15%, and technology 4%. When using
collaborative methods, they saw themselves as mediators or learning facilitators who
model the behaviors which they expect of the students. Along the same lines, others
interviewed saw their professorial roles as mentors, guides, and coaches. As such,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
74
they “answered questions as they arose, monitored group progress (or lack
of it), and steered students in the right direction if they had gotten off course” (see
Appendix C).
Instructors also responded that student involvement was necessary to a
successful collaborative learning experience. The instructor’s transformation from
sage on the stage to guide on the side is necessitated by the goal to transform
students from passive receptacles of knowledge to students who construct knowledge
and “profit from each other’s insights” (Speck, 2002, p. 13). One instructor defined
collaborative learning as “students work(ing) together in pairs or small groups to
accomplish a specifically designated task that I, the instructor, have proposed or
designed.” Learning means doing; consequently, presenting a task for the group to
accomplish encourages active learning. As such, Speck sees the task-oriented group
as “self-starting and self-perpetuating” (p. 65). Given a task or a problem to solve,
most groups will begin to seek solutions by pooling their intellectual resources.
Based on the student interviews (see Appendix E), students valued the exchange of
ideas and the chance to obtain varying ideas on a given topic. Students admitted that
sometimes their perspectives were changed by the group dynamics. Speck asserts
that “their (students’) real strength lies in their willingness to talk and to listen to
each other. Because of this openness, they will draw reluctant members into the
discussion so that eventually the group really has no reluctant members” (p. 65). This
sentiment was echoed during the interview by a student who said that he/she would
use collaborative learning if he/she were the instructor because “it helps non-social
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
75
people meet new people, and helps everyone with their work at the same
time” (see Appendix D). Astin (1985) reports that 10 years of research found that
student involvement academically and socially was the key to persistence and
achievement.
The ability to work as a team was also cited as being necessary for a positive
collaborative learning experience. In the student-centered classroom, learning
becomes a social enterprise. The instructors interviewed felt that if they modeled a
supportive environment as coach, mentor, or guide, this would permit students to
develop as a community of learners who were comrrlitted to not just their own
learning but to each other’s learning. Johnson, Johnson and Smith (1998) emphasize
that the “interpersonal interaction in which students construct their knowledge is
enhanced by a supportive environment and the development of a learning
community” (p. 1:10).
In conclusion, instructors see themselves as models for student behavior in
the classroom. This involves serving as facilitator, mentor, coach and guide.
Supportive behavior such as this is the encouragement students need to become
involved and take responsibility for their learning. However, just as important as a
supportive environment is the ability to create a task-oriented group of learners who
will work together as a team. The instructor as mentor/guide/coach/facilitator,
student involvement, and the ability to work as a team are the variables identified by
developmental mentors as those which contribute to a positive collaborative learning
experience.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Recommendations
It is evident from the literature review in Chapter 2 and the results of this
study that additional research can be conducted which examines students’
perceptions of collaborative learning. The main focus of education is to help students
improve their cognitive skills, to enhance their social skills, and to prepare them to
live as productive citizens in the 21st Century. For community college
developmental mentors, this can be a daunting task as nontraditional students with
varying abilities seek equality of educational opportunity. In student interviews,
students overwhelmingly felt that collaborative learning had enhanced their
academic skills. They also responded that working with other students in groups had
improved their social skills. Although this was a rather small study, if this study can
be considered generalizable to other community college classrooms, then instructors
could benefit from the construction of a theoretical framework for collaborative
learning, not just for writing classes but for courses across academic disciplines. In
creating such a framework, one might consider the marriage o f learning styles and
collaborative learning. There are approximately six learning styles. The first type,
labeled interactive learners, seems most suited to collaborative learning because
students must verbalize their thoughts and feelings through discussions, debate,
question and answer sessions. Other learners such as haptic learners, who learn
through their sense of touch, visual learners who must see something, aural learners
who learn by listening, kinesthetic learners who must be physically active in order to
learn, and print-oriented learners, who learn best by reading and writing, may find
permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
77
benefits in collaborative learning. Such a learning styles/collaborative
learning template might integrate instructional techniques and tasks that appeal to the
various kinds of adult learners. One drawback of such an activity would be the
amount of time needed to properly implement this type of teaching method, for the
instructor would have to assess the student’s learning style and establish an activity
within the group which would be a good fit for that style of learning. However, the
benefits gained from such an endeavor might be well worth the amount of time
spent.
Furthermore, a comparative study of the efficacy of collaborative learning as
an instructional method for non-native speakers versus native speakers could prove
to be insightful. How much does each student sample feel empowered by group
work? What are the advantages and disadvantages for each group?
Finally, one determination that this study was unable to make was how
Native American, Alaska Natives, native Hawaiians and other Pacific Islanders
perceive collaborative learning. This study focused on Hispanic/Latino, Asian,
African-American, and White respondents because of the small number of other
ethnicities in the sample. They were not included in the regression and ANOVA to
determine if there were a significant difference in perceptions of the absence or
presence of discrimination within the group, active participation, satisfaction with
the collaborative learning experience, or comfort levels. A study of these ethnic
groups would contribute valuable insight into perceptions o f what makes for a
productive collaborative learning experience.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
At a time when student outcomes are a major concern for
instructors, further study of a pedagogy that is student-centered, interpersonal,
interdependent, and cognitive skills-enhancing is imperative
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
79
REFERENCES
Agatucci, C. (1989). Empowering students through collaborative learning strategies.
paper presented at the meeting of the 40* Annudl Conference o f College
Composition and Communication, Seattle, Washington.
Armstrong, J.L. & Yarbrough, S.L. (1996). Group learning: the role of environment.
Learning in groups: Exploring fundamental principles, new uses, and
emerging opportunities, ed. by Susan Imel. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Astin, A. (1985). Achieving educational excellence. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Astin, A. (1993). What matters in college? San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Astin, A. (1993). What matters in college?. Liberal Education, 79(4): 4-15.
Astin, A., Green, K., & Korn, W. (1987). The American freshman: Twenty year
trends. Los Angeles: University o f California Higher Education Research
Institute.
Belenky, M. Clinchy, B. Goldberger, N., & Tarule, J. (1986). Women’ s Ways o f
Knowing: The Development o f Self, Voice, and Mind. New York: Basic
Books.
Berry Jr., L. (1991). Collaborative learning: A program fo r improving the retention
o f minority students. (Report No. HE028436). Virginia: Educational
Resources Information Center. (Eric Document Reproduction Service
NO.ED384323).
Bruffee, K. A. (1981). Collaborative learning. College English, 43(7): 745-747.
Bruffee, K.A. (1984). Collaborative learning and the conversation of mankind.
College English, 46{7), 635-652.
Bruffee, K.A. (1999). Collaborative learning: Higher education, interdependence,
and the authority o f knowledge. 2n d ed. Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins
University Press.
Cohen,A.M. & Brawer, F.B. (1996). The American community college. 3rd ed. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cooper, J., Prescott, S., Cook, L., Smith, L., Mueck, R., & Cuseo, J. (1990).
Cooperative learning and college instruction. Long Beach: The California
State University.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
80
Cooper, J.L., & Mueck, R. (1990). Student involvement in learning:
Cooperative learning and college instruction. Journal on Excellence in
College Teaching, 7(1), 68-76.
Cuseo, J. (1982). Cooperative learning: A pedagogy for diversity. Cooperative
Learning and College Teaching, 3(1), 2-6.
Dale, E. (1972). Building a learning environment. Monograph Series No.3.
Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.
Dale, H. (1997). Co-authoring in the classroom: Creating an environment fo r
effective collaboration. Urbana, IL: National Council for Teachers of
English.
Davis, B.G. (1993). Tools fo r teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Delgado-Gaitan, C. & Trueba, H.T. (1985). Ethnographic study of participant
structures in task completion: Reinterpretation of “handicaps” in Mexican
children. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 8 ,6 7-75.
Diaz, C. (2001). Multicultural education in the twenty-first century. New York:
Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers, Inc.
Dougherty, K. (1994). The contradictory college. New York: State University of
New York.
Fiechtner, S.B., & Davis, E.A. (1984-85). Why some groups fail: A survey of
Students’ experiences with learning groups. The Organizational Behavior
Teaching Review, 9(4), 58-71.
Freire, P. (1984). Strangers no more: A liberatory literacy curriculum. In J. Britton
(Ed.), English Teaching: An International Exchange. Portsmouth, N.H.:
Heinemann.
Gilbert, S.E., & Gay, G. (1989). Improving the success in school of poor black
children. InB.J.R. Shade (Ed.), Cidture, Style and the Educative Process.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Golub, J. (Ed.). (1988). Focus on collaborative learning. Urbana, II: National
Council of Teachers of English.
Goodsell, A., Maher, M., Tinto, V., Smith, B., & MacGregor, B. (1992).
Collaborative learning: A sourcebook fo r higher education. University Park:
national Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning and Assessment.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
81
Holt, M. (1993). Knowledge, social relations, and authority in
collaborative practices of the 1930s and the 1950s. College Composition and
Communication, 44, 538-555.
Irvine, J.J. & York, D.E. (1995). Learning styles and culturally diverse students: A
literature review. In J.A. Banks and C.A.M. Banks (Eds.), Learning Styles
and Culturally Diverse Students: A Literature Review. New York: Simon &
Schuster, 1995.
Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1991). Learning together and alone: Cooperative,
competitive, and individualistic. 3rd ed. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1993). Cooperative learning: Where we have
been, where we are going. Cooperative Learning and College Teaching,
3(2), 6-9.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R.T. & Holubec, E.J. (1992). Advanced cooperative
learning (Rev. ed.). Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T. & Smith, K.A. (1991). Cooperative learning:
Increasing college faculty instructional productivity. ASHE-ERIC Higher
Education Report 20(4). Washington, D.C.: Graduate School of Education
and Human Development, The George Washington University.
Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T. & Smith, K.A. (1998A). Active learning:
Cooperation in the college classroom. Edina, MN: Interactive Book
Company.
Johnson, D.W!, Johnson, R.T. & Smith, K.A. (1998B). Cooperative learning returns
to college: What evidence is there that it works? Change, 30(4), 26-35.
Kaulback, B. (1984). Styles o f learning among native children: A review of the
research. In B. J.R. Shade (Ed.), Culture, Style and the Educative Process.
(pp. 137-149). Springfield: Charles C. Thomas.
Kerka, S. (1996). Book groups: Communities of learners. New Directions fo r Adult
and Continuing Education, 71, 81-90.
Lazarowitz, R., & Karsenty, G. (1990). Cooperative learning and students’ self
esteem in tenth grade biology classrooms. In Cooperative Learning Theory
and Research. Ed. S. Sharon. New York: Praeger.
Lenning, O.T. & L.H. Ebbers. (1999). The powerful potential o f learning
communities: Improving education fo r the future. ASHE-ERIC Higher
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
82
Education Report, 26(6). Washington, D.C.. The George
Washington University Graduate School of Education and Human
Development.
MacGregor, J. (1991). What difference do learning communities make? Washington
Center News 6, 4-9.
Mcgrath, D., & Speer, M.B. (1991). The academic crisis o f the community college.
New York: State University of New York.
McKeachie, W.J. (1999). Teaching tips: Strategies, research, and theory fo r college
and university teachers (10th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Mehan, H. (1987). Language and schooling. In G. Spindler & L. Spindler (Eds.),
Interpretive Ethnography o f Education: At Home and Abroad, (pp. 109-123).
Hilsdale, N. J.: Erlbaum.
More, A.J. (1987). Native Indian students and their learning styles: Research results
and classroom applications. In B.J.R. Shade (Ed.), Culture, Style, and the
Educative Process, (pp. 150-166). Springfield: Charles C. Thomas.
0 ’Donnel,A., & Dansereau, D.F. (1994). Learning from lectures: Effects of
cooperative review. Journal o f Experimental Education, 61(2), 116-125.
Olsen, R.E, & Kagan, S. (1992). About cooperative learning. In C. Kessler (Ed.),
Cooperative Language Learning (pp. 3-4). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice
Hall Regents.
Panitz, T. (1997). Forty-four benefits to collaborative learning.
fhttp ://TPANITZ@MECN.MASS .EDUl.
Pascarella, E.T. & Terenzini, P.T. (1991). How college affects students: Findings
and insights from twenty years o f research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Pepper, F.C. & Henry, S. (1986). Social and cultural effects on Indian learning style:
Classroom implications. In B.J.R. Shade (Ed.), Culture, Style and the
Educative Process, (pp. 33-42). Springfield: Charles C. Thomas
Phillips, S. (1972). Participant structures and communicative competence: Warm
Springs children in community and classroom. In C. Cazden, V. John, and
D. Hymes (Eds.), Functions o f Language in the Classroom, (pp. 370-394).
Prospect Heights, 1 1 1 : Waveland Press.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
83
Ramirez, M. & Castaneda, A. (1974). Cultural democracy: Bicognitive
development and education. New York: Academic Press.
Romer, K.T. & W.R. Whipple. (1991). Collaboration across the power line. College
Teaching, 39 (2), 66-70.
Sanford, N. (ed.). (1962). The American college: A psychological and social
interpretation o f the higher learning. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Schlossberg, N. K., Lynch, A.Q., & Chickering, A.W. (1989). Improving higher
education environments fo r adults. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Shade, B.J.R. (Ed.). (1989). Culture, style and the educative process. Springfield:
Charles C. Thomas Publisher.
Sharan, S. (Ed.) (1990). Cooperative learning: Theory and research. New York:
Praeger.
Sheridan, J., Byrne, A., & Quian, K (1989). Collaborative learning: Notes from the
field. College Teaching, 37(2), 49-53.
Slavin, R. E. (1980). Cooperative learning. Review o f Educational Research, 50,
315-342.
Smith, B. & MacGregor, J. (1992). What is collaborative learning? Washington
Center News, 7(3), 3-9.
Solomon, D., Watson, M., Battistich, V., Schaps, E., Tuck, P., Solomon, J., et al.
(1985). A program to promote interpersonal consideration and cooperation in
children. In Cooperative Learning: Theory and Research, edited by S.
Sharan, pp. 231-260. New York: Plenum.
Speck, B.W. (2002). Facilitating students’ collaborative writing: ASHE-ERIC Higher
Education Report, 28 (6). Washington, D.C.: Graduate School of Education
and Human Development,The George Washington University.
Tharp, R.G. (1989). Psychocultural variables and constants: Effects on teaching and
learning in schools. American Psychologist, 44(2), 349-359.
Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent
research. Review o f Educational Research, 45(1), 89-125.
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures o f student
attrition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
84
Tinto, V. (1994). Building learning communities fo r new college students.
The Pennsylvania State University: National Center on Postsecondary
Teaching, Learning, and Assessment.
Treisman, U. (1985). A study of the mathematics performance of Black students at
the University of California, Berkeley (Doctoral dissertation University of
California, Berkeley, 1985). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1641 A.
Tucker, B.M. & Yates, F.J. (1976). Success expectations and preferences for
individual and collaborative learning among black and white college
students. The Journal o f Negro Education, 45(3), 295-305.
Whipple, H. (1986). CUE News, 2:2.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPEND D C A
85
SURVEY INSTRUMENT ONE
COJLLAB0.8ATIVS.L£.AK«ING TECHNIQUES ASSESSMENT SURVEY
Class _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Reference. & __________________ .Date _______________
llotaljSa in an effort to gather important information about teaching anti learning, we are asking for your
assistance in completing this survey. Your responses are IMPORTANT and will be kept CONFIDENTIAL
The survey can be completed in DARK PEN or PENCIL.
Please mark the circles fully as shown: ----------------------------------------
Like
this
NOT Like
th e se
& 0
:PoFieachistatemen^beIow:^yoa'f wjlL-b6:.marfaRg.“ twov{2}“ ’ h'ubbletf
* ,1 — k_*}'v w . *'% ».(« p - T • * *
(T) bub 1° n Section A anri o ne*ttl bubble n sc.c*1oVB hat b*» fre p rp e rttv o u re x p e 4 n c e ^
ins m«*ir_gr°up- ie arrrn g 'm tm c if-n m th t d a ^ ^
SECTION 5
Ho'ff often d id y ou engage in the activity
in each statem ent?
m ar« y o u r lev e l
O ’ O Q O O
1. I w as frequently an acbve
participant in my group.
2. i w as able to know my
classm ates better.
3. I explainedifoelpad
som eone who didn't
understand.
4. i felt encouraged by the
group.
5. [ felt hesitant to speak in
the group.
6. I learned through my
participation in the group.
7. | felt comfortable asking
for explanations or help from
the group.
3. i encouraged and praised
others in the group.
9, I felt comfortable with my
role in the group.
1Q . I fett discriminated
against by the group because
of my gender.
11.1 felt discriminated
against by the group because
of my ethnicity.
1 2 .1 found new ways of
viewing ideas through the
group.
13. i enjoyed working with my
classm ates in small groups.
14. I preferred to work alone
rather chon with the group.
15. The group 'work
sometimes changed my point
cif view.
15. The group difnale was
free of gender discrimination.
17. The group climate was
free of racial discrimination.
13. The group climate was
free of age discrimination.
19.! got. together with group
members outside of class
either for a soda! function or
to study.
O
O
O
O
O
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
0
o
o
o
o
o
c
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
:0
o
O '
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o o o o o
o o o
. O o
o o o o o
o o , o o o
- ■
- . . .
—
o o o o o
o o o o o
o o o o o
o 0 o 0 o
o o o o o
o 0 o o o
o o o 0 o
o o o o o
0 0 o o o
o o o o o
o o o O o
o o 0 o o
0 Q • o o o
PL EA SE CONTINUE THS SURVEY ON THE NEXT PAGE.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
86
APPENDIX A (con’t)
Yes (If Yes, go to and complete Part 3.)
No (tf No, go to and complete Parts 2 and 3.)
O
O
P A R T 2 : P lease respond to th e following q u e stio n s. Feei free to u s e the bottom of this form or
a n o th er sh ee t of paper to com plete any an sw ers.
1. Describe any previous collaborative/group learning experience(s) that you have had.
2. W hat was the best aspect of group learning?
3. W hat was the least appealing aspect of group learning?
4.. How has the collaborative/group work in this class changed your ability to analyze the readings?
5. Describe how your group work aided your understanding of the course's content
€. if you were the instructor in this class, would you use collaborative learning/group work? Please explain why or why
n ot
7. if you were the instructor in this class, how often would you assign individual (not group) projects? Please explain your
answ er.
P A R \ 3 : P lease a n sw er th e following d em o g rap h ic q u e stio n s a b o u t yourself.
" " j n
American Indian or Alaska Native
Asian
Black/African American
Hispanic or Latino
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander
W hite'
Other
Female
Male
Under 20 years
20 — 25 years
26 — 30 years
31 — 35 years
3 6 —40 years
Over 40 years
O
O
O
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
0 to 11.5 units
12 to 29.5 units
30 to 59.5 units
■ S O or more units
O
O
o
o
T h a n k yo u fo r c o m p le tin g th is s u rv e y . P le a s e re tu rn th is s u rv e y to th e te a c h e r in c la s s .
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
87
APPENDIX B
Informed Consent Form
University of Southern California
Rossier School o f Education
IM-ORUED i 'OSSE.Yl FOR NOE-MEDICAL RESEARCH
CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH
Community College Students’ Perceptions o f Collaborative Learning in
Developmental Writing Classes: Identifying the Factors That Promote Positive,
Active Learning
You are asked to participate in a research study conducted by Dr. Linda Serra
Hagadom, Ph.D., M.Ed.., B.A. and Debra Jenkins-Farve, M.A. B.A., from the
Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern California. The results
will be contributed to a dissertation. You were selected as a possible participant in
this study because you are a community college students in a developmental writing
class which uses collaborative learning activities. A total of 18 subjects will be
selected from developmental writing classes to participate. Your participation is
voluntary.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
This study is designed to examine student perceptions regarding their
involvement in collaborative learning in the community college developmental
writing classes and to identify those aspects of collaborative learning which
contribute to maximizing adult learning.
PROCEDURES
If you volunteer to participate in this study, we would ask you to do the
following things:
1) make an appointment for an oral interview
2) participate in a 20 minute oral interview which consists of your
responding to 6 open ended questions regarding your perceptions of and
participation in collaborative learning.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
88
POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOM FORTS
There are no risks or discomforts involved in the interview. The only
foreseeable inconveniences might be time away from your work, studies, or family
and friends. Since the interview will take place at a mutually agreed upon time, the
inconveniences should be minimal.
POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO SUBJECTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
Those variables of collaborative learning which will help to maximize adult
learning will be identified for students and developmental mentors in the community
college.
PAYM ENT/COM PENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will not be paid for participating in this research study. However, you will
receive a token gift for completing the interview.
CONFIDENTIALITY
Any information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be
identified with you will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with your
permission or as required by law.
Research data will be stored in the home of the student investigator in a
locked file cabinet, and the confidentiality of your interview will be maintained. No
names or other identifying information will be collected. Only the Student
Investigator, Debra Farve and Principal Investigator, Linda Hagedorn will have
access to the data.
When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no
information will be included that would reveal your identity. The data will be
destroyed approximately 2 years after the dissertation has been approved.
PARTICIPATION AND W ITHDRAW AL
You can choose whether to be in this study or not. If you volunteer to be in
this study, you may withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind. You
may also refuse to answer any questions you don’t want to answer and still remain in
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
89
the study. The investigator may withdraw you from this research if
circumstances arise which warrant doing so.
IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to
contact Dr. Linda Serra Hagadorn, Principal Investigator at the University of
Southern California, WPH 500B, Los Angeles, CA 90089; phone number (213) 740-
6772 or Debra Jenkins-Farve, Co-Principal Investigator at Mt. San Antonio College,
1100 N. Grand Ave, Dept, of English and Literature, Walnut, CA. 91789; phone
number (909) 594-5611, extension 4664.
RIGHTS OF RESEARCH SUBJECTS
You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation
without penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies because of
your participation in this research study. If you have questions regarding your rights
as a research subject, contact the University Park IRB, Office of the Vice Provost for
Research, Grace Ford Salvatori Building, Room 226, Los Angeles, CA 90089-1695,
(213) 821-5272 orupirb@usc.edu.
SIGNATURE OF RESEARCH SUBJECT, FAKENT OR LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVE.
I understand the procedures described above, have carefully read the
information contained in the Experimental Subject’s Bill o f Rights for Psychosocial
Studies, and I understand fully the rights of a potential subject in a research study
involving people as subjects. My questions have been answered to my satisfaction,
and I agree to participate in this study. I have been given a copy of this form.
Name of Subject
Name of Parent or Legal Representative (if applicable)
Signature of Subject, Parent or Legal Representative Date
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
90
n/< ; \ a i ( m o f m i - s i r ;,i ii m
I have explained the research to the subject or his/her legal representative,
and answered all of his/her questions. I believe that he/she understands the
information described in this document and freely consents to participate.
Name of Investigator
Signature of Investigator Date (must be the same
as subject’s)
SIGNATURE OF W ITNESS (If an oral translator is used.)
My signature as witness certified that the subject or his/her legal
representative signed this consent form in my presence as his/her voluntary act and
deed.
Name o f Witness
Signature of Witness Date (must be the same as subject’s)
End of informed consent
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX C
Faculty Collaborative Learning Interview Responses
1. Please give your definition of collaborative learning.
• Groups of 2 or more, each taking tasks to complete an assignment, prepare
presentation, or edit work..
• A prepared activity where students teach other students or students help each
other learn.
• Students work together in pairs or small groups to accomplish a specifically
designated task that I (the instructor) propose or design.
• Collaborative learning involves having students work together in pairs or
small groups in order to understand material better. Collaborative activities
include a range of activities: solving problems answering questions,
discussing ideas about reading or lectures or rough drafts, completing
projects, reviewing materials.
• Sharing, working together - helping each other learn by explaining what one
knows—working together to teach and learn simultaneously.
• Collaborative learning allows students to share skills, develop ideas, and
further critical analysis.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
92
2. W hat do you consider to be your primary teaching goals? (e.g., to
improve student’s critical thinking, to improve writing skills, etc.)
• Improve critical thinking, improve writing skills and communication skills,
and to prepare students for subsequent classes.
• My primary teaching goals are to improve students’ writing and thinking
skills and to help them become better students/scholars and citizens.
• To promote student critical thinking and (critical) writing skills.
• My primary teaching goals vary for each class. In writing classes,
particularly English 67 [from sentences to paragraphs] my goal is to build
students’ repertoire of choices that they can make as writers. That is, they
learn a variety of sentence structures—coordination, subordination,
transitions, relative clauses, appositives—that allow them to express
themselves clearly and smoothly. They learn a range of ways to think about
and plan writing, using whatever words for them as individuals—
brainstorming, clustering, outlining, rough drafts. And they get repeated
opportunities to write, putting into practice this sense of writing as an
enterprise that involves making choices from a range of possibilities. The
emphasis of the course is not error-driven; we don’t emphasize all o f the
things that can go wrong with writing. Instead we look at the ways
successful writers put words on paper, and we practice doing that. I want
them to be comfortable with academic discourse— reading it, thinking about
it, writing it.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
93
• That’s a tough question. It’s hard for me to separate the goals— of
course— the desire to learn whether it be to learn to think critically and
logically or to improve mechanics and writing skills must come first.
• My primary goal in developmental writing is teaching grammatical rules and
helping students expand upon their critical thought through full paragraphing.
3. W hat do you consider to be your role(s) in the classroom?
• I present ideas to the class. I act as a mediator when discussing controversial
topics for the purpose of developing critical thinking. I lecture and offer
information on various writing techniques and forms of persuasion.
• My role in the classroom is to achieve those goals by whatever means are
most effective.
• As learning facilitator and role model.
• I am the teacher, a reader and writer and editor for many years. I bring that
expertise to the table, explaining as clearly as I can those areas that
experience has taught me will be problematic for inexperienced writers. I ’m
the coach, encouraging them as they write, suggesting adjustments and
corrections and possibilities in their writing performance. And yes, I’m the
facilitator who puts them into groups, creates individual roles for them to
play, has them tackle a topic and learn it together. During those times, I
answer questions, monitor group progress (or lack of it), and help steer them
in the right direction if they’ve gotten off course.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
94
• Coach? Guide?
• I see myself as a facilitator for classroom activities, a guide for correct
grammatical usage, and a person who cares about how her students are
succeeding in writing.
4. W hat percentage of your course is conducted in
Lecture: 20% 30% 15% 30% 10% 15%
Discussion: 25% 20% 10% 10% 30% 10%
Seat Work: 5% 15% 5% 10% 10% 50%
Technology: 10% 0% 0% 10% 0% 5%
Oral ques/ans: 20% 15% 10% 10% 30% 5%
Collab.Learn/: 20% 20% 60% 30% 20% 15%
5. W hat have you found to be the major benefits of collaborative learning in
your writing classes?
• Students gain confidence, become comfortable with one another which helps
in discussion and communication. Students also interact with students from
different ages, cultures, races, etc. which enhances critical thinking.
• Students are forced to engage in the learning process since all participants are
given responsibility/role. And they often seem more interested in
talking/working with their peers than in a whole-group setting.
• Students take charge of the learning process and invest in it. Students
become increasingly active, not passive in the learning process. Stronger
students coach and tutor weaker students. What happens in the classroom
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
95
seems less artificial and arbitrary. Gap between instructor and
students grows smaller. Students gain in assertiveness and self-expression.
A) Student involvement: in groups of 3 or 4, students are much less likely
to/able to remain passive/unengaged. In a whole-class situation, there is
often a “gang of five,” a small group of students who always answer the
questions. The rest learn that they don’t have to respond. Collaborative
learning gets everyone involved in active learning. B) Rehearsal of
knowledge: we learn best that which we articulate for ourselves. C.L. lets
students do that, getting help and corrections from each other. C) Questions:
Students will ask each other questions readily: too often, no matter how
encouraging the teacher tries to be, students are hesitant to ask questions in a
whole-class setting. D) Creative thinking: When a small group is asked to
discuss a reading and is given a direction/lens with which to consider the
reading, the free-ranging talk that happens in a small group often gives rise to
unexpected insights, ideas that might not come up in an oral question/answer
whole class situation. E) Community building: Several studies indicated that
students are more likely to stay in school if they feel connected to someone
on campus. This can be hard to establish in a commuter campus like ours.
C.L. helps students get to know others and feel invested in the community of
learners of which they are a part. F) Learning styles: Repeatedly, when
students take learning styles tests, they are not strong auditory learners. Thus
classes that rely almost entirely on lectures seem to me to present particular
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
96
problems. Anytime I present a new concept or skill to the class, we
follow up with a collaborative learning exercise that lets them review,
rehearse, and practice what they learned. G) Understanding: Because of all
of the benefits listed above, students learn the material better. H) It’s more
fun: □
• Atmosphere— student involvement, enthusiasm and a group of participating
students. Students get to know each other better and seem to work together
more as a team overall.
• The students gain the ability to work as a team through collaborative
learning. Working together increases class morale and helps students see that
others are struggling with the same concepts. Students become more verbal
with classmates, which may lead into a more active class discussion.
6. W hat are some of the problems/drawbacks that you have encountered in your
use of collaborative learning?
• Some students complete tasks quicker than others. Some need more time or
do not comprehend their goal/task as well as their group members. Students
who work at different paces pose a problem.
• A major drawback is often encountered in developmental-level classes.
There, students don’t have enough of a skill base or knowledge base to
facilitate their and others’ learning. Another drawback is that students often
perceive collaborative activities to be the “same thing” they did in high
school, and they revert to immature behavior and expectations.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
97
• Some cultural groups seem to prefer to work competitively rather
than collaboratively. Some (very few) students feel anxious or
uncomfortable working with others. A few immature students may benefit
from others who do more work. Some students want to socialize (flirt, chat,
etc.) rather than get to (or stay at) work.
• Problems: a) Groups can get off track if not monitored— either because they
don’t stay on task or because they don’t really understand the task, b) One
person can dominate the group; this too needs to be monitored, c) It takes
more time than lecture. (But it’s worth it.) d) I remain uncertain about
whether I should form the groups consistently. I tend to let them choose their
groups, and once they’re comfortable with them, I’m not always comfortable
insisting that they work with a new group.
• Students who don’t or won’t participate.
• At times students have had difficulty shifting from working together to
working as an individual. Students have occasionally complained that others
in the group are not pulling their weight which is especially frustrating if the
assignment calls for them to work outside the classroom, on their own time.
7. Please describe one collaborative learning exercise that you use in your
classes.
• The English 67 (Sentences to Paragraphs) students do a weekly
vocabulary exercise based on vocabulary words drawn from the novel we
are reading. Each group of four works together with a college-level
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
98
dictionary— writing sentences, tracing etymologies, probing
connotations, multiple meanings, parts of speech, syllabication, accents,
synonyms, antonyms, analogies, etc., as required. After each group has
produced its best possible answers, the group members designate an
emissary
• PRESENTATION: The group’s 10-15-minute presentation offers
information and arguments about your subject. Your audience is the class
and instructor. Each group m em ber must participate in presenting
m aterial to the class and taking part in discussion o f the topic.
Have fun with the presentation and do something that will interest your
audience; for example, you may create a mock trial or mock talk-show,
or debate. You can also role play, create a short skit, and/or involve
your audience w ith questionnaires, quizzes, surveys (perhaps you
can offer inexpensive “prizes such as stickers or candy). Just be sure
your presentation is relevant to your subject and arguments.
Assign duties:
Presenter 1: Responsible for gathering and presenting information,
discussing the topic, and creating a group MLA formatted typed works
cited page for the instructor.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
99
Presenter 2: Responsible for gathering and presenting
information, discussing the topic, and creating any handouts for the class.
Handouts MAY be copies of articles, an outline of the presentation,
charts, graphs, surveys, etc.
Presenters 3 and 4: Responsible for gathering and presenting information,
discussing the topic, and creating any visual aids, such as posters, graphs,
props, or signs. Any props or signs should require only about a one
minute or less set-up and take-down.
For the presentation, each presenter will receive the same group score.
Scoring is based on preparation, organization, completion of works cited,
handout, visual aids, relevance of presentation information to the topic,
and time.
• One collaborative learning exercise I use in my writing classes is to set up
a,hypothetical scenario based on a controversial or recent issue on which
the students will be writing an essay. To illustrate: the hypothetical event
could be that the college president has decided that almost all classes will
be taught next year via distance learning. Students are put into groups
representing different interest groups related to the scenario; for instance,
they would be put into either the Administration Faculty, Student or
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
100
Alumni group. In each group, students arrive at a consensus
on how people in their interest group would respond to the hypothetical
event. Following the assignment to read several texts related to the
subject matter, groups re-convene to refine their positions and plan how
to present that position or debate that position with the other groups.
These activities allow students to delve deeply into the facets of the issue,
to encounter other positions on the issue, and finally to write from that
experience and exposure.
• This week, my students are writing a descriptive/analytical paper on an
artwork. I put ten different artworks (well, Xeroxed reproductions of
paintings) around the room. Students wandered about and looked at them
until they identified the painting that most interested them. They then got
into groups based on the painting they had chosen. They’ve been
working together, focusing first on listing what they saw in the painting,
thinking about what they would need to include in the descriptive
paragraph, clarifying parts of the image about which they were unsure.
Then their work has shifted to talking about their interpretations/analysis
of the painting, thinking about what suggests, what it means, what it
conveys. These discussions have been quite lively. Having done this for
part of two class sessions (and some of them have done it in the study
group with our Supplemental Instructor), they are writing individual
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
101
papers on the painting they have worked on in C.L. Before
they turn in their drafts today, they’ll have at least two people read their
papers and place pencil underlinings at any spots that need editing or
revision.
• I have the students go over practice grammar tests together.
• At times students have had difficulty shifting from working together to
working as an individual. Students have occasionally complained that
others in the group are not pulling their weight, which is especially
frustrating if the assignment calls for them to work outside the classroom,
on their own time. Therefore, the following collaborative learning
exercise has proven to be effective...
Assignment: Cause/Effect, Fishbone
Read ALL directions FIRST
Please follow these steps:
1) Join a group of four students.
2) Draw a fishbone chart like the one on the board at the front of the
class.
3) Chose a Cause/ Effect topic, needs to address academic inquiry.
Think about your reading for Cause and Effect from the textbook.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
102
Please have your topic APPROVED by me BEFORE
proceeding.
4.) Write your topic on the top of your fishbone ( you can do any
design you wish as-long as it looks like a fish) and tack your fish up
somewhere in the room.
5.) Next, individually take several sticky notes from the blue bag on
the front table and give single reasons for what CAUSES the OTHER
topics you see listed around the room. Post your notes on the top
bones of the fish—the ones pointing UP.
6) When this is finished, meet with your group again, SORT the notes
on your fishbone and with a marker label them in large TOPICS on
the bones pointing UP.
7) Then, individually take several sticky notes from the blue bag on
the front table and give single reasons for what EFFECTS there are
for the OTHER topics you see listed around the room. Post your
notes on the bottom bones the ones pointing DOWN.
Again, when this is finished, meet with your group, SORT the notes on your
fishbone and with a marker label them on the bones pointing DOWN.
Finally, present your fishbone to the class in a three minute presentation.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
103
English 1A: Guidelines for Group Presentations. (Worth: 20
Pts).
Oral presentation: 20 minutes
The purpose of the group presentation is to teach the class about the basic
essay structure. By presenting the ideas you become active in your
learning process and are able to define terms and concepts better than if
you just heard about them in class. In order to complete the presentation
and receive an “A” please do the following with your group which you
will present in a typed OUTLINE. Please make thirty-five copies of your
outline to share with the class.
1. Explain what “type” of essay you are describing, for example if you
have chosen the chapter on “Evaluation,” use the chapter information and
your own interpretation to explain what “Evaluation” means. Please give
real life examples of when a person could use “Evaluation” to help
him/her better make a informed discussion or educated criticism o f a
subject.
2. Find and state what your GROUP believes to be the thesis statement of
the essay. Please state the thesis clearly and directly telling the class
which page and paragraph the thesis is placed in. Describe whether or not,
you believe the thesis is in an effective placement in the essay and why.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
104
Please describe the importance of the thesis statement and how
it helps control the rest of the essay by giving specific examples of
support.
3. Chose and state three topic sentences and prove HOW they support the
thesis statement. State the relationship between the topic sentence and the
thesis ideas.
4. Because language is so important for communication, state EIGHT
specific terms which are purposely used by the author of the essay to
support his or her thesis statement. Emphasize the importance of those
specific terms to relate the impact of the thesis to the reader. In. other
words, WHY has the author chosen THOSE words for his or her essay?
5. Please bring an attractive VISUAL AID to capture the attention of your
class members — they will love you for it! Visual images help people
retain information longer. Using a large poster board with pictures,
drawings and illustrations to make your point is a HIGHLY effective
teaching tool.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
105
6. In order to INCLUDE your fellow students in your
discussion, present them with a game, survey, contest, anything you can
think of to get them THINKING WITH YOU!!
PLAN AHEAD:
Find effective ways to communicate with your group by phone, email,
quick meetings before and after class, etc. The presentation needs to show
organization and participation by ALL members, although each person
will be graded on his or her own merit.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
106
APPENDIX D
Responses to Collaborative Learning Survey (Part 2)
1. Describe any previous collaborative/group learning experience(s) that you
have had.
• Working at work and group socials.
• High school projects
• Throughout all education
• In high school we would get in groups in different classes to share our
work and to help each other out.
• In my high school classes
• I have worked as (in) a group all my life while attending school and I
enjoyed it.
• I haven’t really had any because I ’ve been out of school for a couple
of weeks.
• I have had collaborative group learning in my math class and it also
helped me understand and help others in things they had trouble with.
• The hardest thing is to work outside class due to the time.
• Fire tech classes
• They were nice and friendly
• They were great and helped me a lot to understand what we were
learning
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
107
• They were good, but sometimes I got stuck doing all the
work.
• Going to tutoring with my classmates. We would go so we could get
help with our homework or classwork.
• Poetry projects, acting projects, debating.
• To do the research with my classmates.
• Discussing the problem using verbs and pronouns.
• I don’t talk a lot in group work
• I had many group learning (experiences) like in chemistry labs or
physics labs, and they were very helpful!
• I had an English-Learning class before and we used the same
method.
• (In) many classes I have done group work
• In high school I did some. They were good. I found that the groups
were better if I knew the people in the group. I could open up and
then would learn more.
• All my years of school.
• Working in a small group to learn from the textbook.
• It was very helpful because it gave me new ideas.
• My previous group experience was not collaborative.
• We researched, made a group discussion, and gave presentations.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
108
• I often am put in groups for a learning activity usually in
English or history classes.
• During high school in science I would do projects with different
people in groups.
• Critical thinking activity, comma punctuation activity
• Class discussions about grammar and class work. Outside activities
that show us how strategies could be used for work.
• We had our link activities to show us that no matter how much we
can’t get it to keep trying. It also helped with our critical thinking and
fixing mistakes.
• I ’ve done group learning in high school as well.
• In class groups and activities projects.
• Group presentations.
• Presentations, study group.
• I’ve done a lot of group work in high school and in my Read. 80 class.
• In high school we (did) projects together in groups.
• I have worked on commas, discussions on grammar and outside
projects.
• I have been in many group activities in the past that have helped my
life in many ways.
• We worked together with a mind-challenging project.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
109
Group activities- group discussions- and projects in
groups.
We have had a grammar learning experience by collaborating in small
groups several times this year.
We have done fun activit(ies) within our group to learn about how to
be a critical thinker and how to work as a team.
In my Human Services class we get in groups to discuss the material
in the book. Everybody had an opinion.
I have been in several reading groups.
Other classes (are) Child 5, Child 10, high school, etc.
I have done some collaborative learning in high school and in college.
I think it is a good way to not only meet new people but to learn from
others.
In English class we sometimes correct our papers in groups. We
always correct our homework in groups.
Our group had to open up a restaurant, and it went extremely well.
In my reading and Learn class we had group projects.
In my child development class, we had to get into a group for a
project.
Regular group work— in comp class we did projects— in old English
classes we did essays.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
110
In other classes/we would do group activities.
I used to have other classes
Throughout my educational experience I have worked with other
students to get more ideas.
I have worked with other groups in my Learn 71 class and it just
depends on the people that are in the group.
In high (school) we used to get in groups and complete projects
together.
Church study groups and also in high school.
I have had previous collaborative learning experiences in other classes
such as math, psychology, and Beg. Drawing. They were fun.
Any previous learning experience I have is visual.
Previous group learning I’ve had were not always good, but not
always bad. I liked it when everyone did their work. I hated it when
only half did their work.
At my old high school and also every class that I took and in college
as well as a few classes.
Throughout school from subjects like English and math to computer
science and manufacturing!
I’ve worked in a group in my English 67 class, with Other people very
good.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
I l l
• I ’ve had previous collaborative/group learning in my Arch
II course.
• Worked in groups all through high school.
• I am working in a group right now for our Criminal class. We had to
write an 8-page paper and our group decided to divide the work then
meet and put it together.
• In my last semester’s reading class we were to be in groups, too and
communicate any problem that we had.
• I had groups for fire classes, EMT, the Fire Academy, history and
other classes.
• ' English 67
• Had to work together in a group project and meet outside of class.
• Working on test(s).
• Working together in Educ 10 with classmates making posters then
presentations.
• Learning techniques research paper.
• In my sociology, physiology classes we would study together and
help each other.
• Sometimes it is hard to pay attention to everyone’s ideas. Sometimes
it is hard to come to a mutual agreement.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
112
• Basic group projects in high school. I always end(ed) up
towing the line..
• Groups in other classes, working on difficult topics.
• Ethics— for a group project.
• In forensics, speech.
• English 68 — high school— other classes.
2. W hat was the best aspect of group learning?
• Developing an enormous amount of thought (ideas) more people—
sometimes a stronger point of view.
• Interacting with others.
• Communication.
• Different points of view.
• Combined thought.
• Getting to hear everyone’s ideas, even though I may not have agreed with
some of them.
• You learn through peers.
• Different points of view.
• We all put in our unique ideas, and we learn from others.
• I can see different opinions, and I get new ideas.
• It gets me motivated.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
113
• You communicate more with classmates and learn what they
like and dislike of others.
• Meeting new people.
• Learn(ing) things from different points of view.
• The best aspect of group learning was hearing other’s thoughts, ideas, and
opinions, etc.
• The best aspect was that I learned from other people, if I did not get
something.
• The best aspect of group learning is the ability to get more than one point
of view on a particular subject or idea.
• That everyone has different comments towards the subject.
• Making posters, having a better view.
• Main ideas.
• The best aspect of group learning is meeting new people, getting closer to
others, and expanding my knowledge.
• Sharing ideas.
• The best aspect of group learning was that we got to see things from each
other’s point of view.
• Input from other students.
• The best aspect was that everyone has their own opinion and different
views on things.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
114
• That’s because I am hearing it over and over again, I can
remember it better.
• You get another point of view that you possib(ly) never thought of.
• Share opinions.
• Learn from each other.
• Getting different ideas/points of view.
• If the ideas were actually good, they were really good and worth learning.
• Getting to know each other.
• You get other people’s ideas and points of view.
• You see other people’s points of view.
• I don’t have to do all the work.
• I get to go over the assignment with other people and share ideas on how
I feel about the assignment.
• You get to meet new people.
• Getting along with others to get the work done.
• Learning how to get help from others and giving it back in return.
• Teamwork.
• The best aspect of learning through others and not necessarily just by
what the teacher is saying. Also having teamwork and developing critical
thinking.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
115
• Everyone has their own point of view, but seem to understand
things better when talking to someone else.
• We get to know each other and work together.
• That you see all points of view from the different people.
• Getting to know people, understanding on the same level.
• That all ideas come together as one.
• You learn new things, points of view.
• Everyone puts in their ideas.
• Well organized and understand everyone.
• Knowing sometimes that you are hot the only one who doesn’t
understand.
• Well, we worked together in a group, so teamwork was very effective.
We also learned to respect other’s opinions and to keep an open mind.
• Learning different points of view.
• We all worked together.
• Getting different opinions from different people.
• I like the fact that we may work together and possibly learn new ways of
doing things.
• To help and learn.
• We meet each other.
• Very cooperative.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
116
• Helps to put grammar in an essay and understanding the
grammar.
• You have people to get their opinions.
• Being able to ask questions and discuss what we were learning.
• Not sure, but some people learn better.
• Group work.
• Transferring the ideas.
• Discuss together.
• Doing the work as a team.
• Cooperative learning and outside input.
• We can know different people’s opinion.
• Getting to hear people’s opinions on subjects and the talent people have.
• If I did not understand I could ask my group for help. The would try and
help as much as they could.
• You get many different options.
• Able to correct mistakes right then and there.
• You get to know each other better.
• Succeeding together.
• There are more points of view and we can share ideas and see things that
we had not seen before.
• Meeting people and learning things better.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
117
• Everything was much easier.
• You get to know the people in the group better, their opinions and
everyone helps out everyone.
• Hearing everyone’s opinions.
• It helped me to have others there to help me with any questions I had or
things I didn’t understand.
• One would be able to view an alternate perspective.
• You get to know new people.
• Learning new things and meeting new people.
3. W hat was the least appealing aspect of group learning?
• Sometimes other members of the group are not at the level you are at.
• The pressure they put on you.
• People sometimes fail to work, therefore aren’t there in class.
• Nothing.
• A lot of people in one group.
• Working with people that did not do the work is a problem.
• There were too many bosses.
• I didn’t have any.
• Sometimes there are stubborn people who don’t want to change their own
ideas or they don’t want to collaborate with each other.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
118
• Finding time for all to meet after class.
• Sometimes people won’t agree for anything.
• Having to do more than half the work.
• There was nothing that was not appealing. It was all productive.
• People wanting to do it their way. Getting grouped with people who
don’t like (each other).
• Too many ideas. We don’t know which one is best.
• People not carrying their own weight.
• Not helping anyone that had problems with the essay handout.
• Too much opinion in group work.
• Sometimes working with people who don’t like to study
• The papers that were due.
• Some people get lazy and wait for answers.
• Admitting what I did not get.
• You sometimes don’t agree with each other.
• A big group.
• None
• Everyone talking about different topics.
• Lazy people who don’t do anything.
• Sometimes the work is not spread equally.
• Some people would not put as much work or effort into it.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
119
• One person would be stuck with more work.
• Frustration.
• There really wasn’t any.
• Nothing.
• That at first some people were giving up.
• No one showing up for the learning.
• None.
• Nothing.
• That the ideas and opinions don’t get together as much as you try.
• Everyone has different views, but others are working to leave you out.
• That you have to depend on others.
• The whole critical thinking.
• Sometimes we have to wait for someone to catch up or pay for their
mistakes.
• Messing around.
• Talking too much if you are grouped with your friends.
• Being depended on to do the work.
• Some people work at a different speed than you.
• Sometimes not everyone will do their part in the assignment.
• Talking out loud.
• Some people’s points of view suck.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
120
• If someone was a lagger.
• None.
• Stupid people.
• Not enough group.
• Too big of a group.
• None.
• Being uncomfortable with people who would not open up.
• Some people had attitudes and were not very friendly.
• The least appealing would be when sometimes you want to keep your
opinion or view to yourself.
• Some students could (not) care less and don’t do assignments.
• The least appealing aspect was that we would get someone who did not
want to cooperate.
• The least appealing was that some people just don’t care to do any work.
You don’t learn anything when only half the class/group is doing the
assignment.
• When one of the group members does not do their part.
• Not enough conversation.
• Too much talking and not enough of conversation.
• The conflicts between ideas because then I would need to explain and
prove my idea to be the right one. ,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
121
• There was no least appealing aspect.
• The least appealing aspect of group learning was when others remained
quiet.
• Sometimes not enough time to get everyone’s opinions/info in the group.
• Some people do the work at the last minute.
• I liked everything.
• When you get people who want to talk not learn.
• We respect opinions.
• Sometimes other group members don’t participate.
• Lazy people in the group.
• Some members are slack offs/ irresponsible.
• The slackers who don’t want to work, so I have to work three times as
hard.
• One person did not work.
• Counting on other people.
4. How has the collaborative/group work in this class changed your ability to
analyze the readings?
• Because it made me see things through other’s eyes.
• We analyze each question and we can listen (to) ideas.
• It helped a little.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
122
• We didn’t have any group work.
• Makes us open our eyes to some (one) else’s point of view that is better
or the same.
• It has changed my ability to analyze the readings because now I take both
sides into consideration.
• It changed my ability by showing me how to understand stuff better by
working in groups.
• It helps me do the readings and allows me to analyze the reading more
thoroughly.
• It helped me to better understand and how to have my reading more
better.
• Helped me to understand better.
• Sometimes it makes the reading assignment easier when I don’t
understand it, and someone else does and explains it.
• Group talking.
• It seems a little easier.
• Evaluations are done by other students, often giving another view.
• If I answer a question wrong, someone is there to tell me what my
mistake was.
• I can see better what I am lacking in.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
123
• I can understand things more by having someone tell how
they understood it.
• Has helped a lot in my understanding.
• I look at the situation from different point of view, different perspective.
• They opened up different ways of seeing things.
• It hasn’t.
• It gave me another view of the work.
• No, not really.
• Helps realize things you missed.
• It hasn’t really.
• I tried to talk with other classmates about how they felt about the reading.
• It made me understand it better.
• I am not sure.
• Somewhat.
• Helped to understand the concept in how to be a good writer.
• It has changed by making me write more than what I could imagine.
• It has changed my ability in a good way because I analyze my reading
more carefully.
• I use a dictionary or ask for help.
• It helps you look at all the opinions of the readings.
• Yes, because you have help in learning the book.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
124
• It makes us learn how to critical(ly) think.
• I concentrate more and analyze what I am doing more carefiil(ly).
• You get ideas from the other students who don’t think like you.
• Saw other’s point of view.
• To take our time and have patience.
• View different points of view.
• Well, I could look at the reading in many perspectives now, not just one.
• Take time, time management.
• It really hasn’t. I usually have to get the group started.
• It made me look at my work in more detail.
• By putting in a hands on view, it becomes a more memorable experience;
therefore changing the way you analyze the concept.
• It changed me to be confident and gain knowledge.
• It was ok.
• By listening to different points of understanding.
• Writing an essay.
• See different views.
• I can do it better and understand better what I read when we talk about it.
• Not much.
• It helped by giving me another point of view.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
125
• After each group work, I tried to think about other’s ideas and
start to improve myself.
• I know how to find the main point.
• Made it easier for me to do my work that the professor gave me.
• It hasn’t.
• I can ask other people’s view points if I didn’t understand.
• It helped me look at the readings in a different way, instead of how the
author wrote it.
• Not at all.
• It changed in that I have to see everything as if I am the writer.
• I can analyze it better because if I don’t understand something, they can
help explain it to me.
• Opens more points of view.
• The group showed me if I missed a part of the reading.
• It has helped me to understand and analyze things.
• I feel now that I have a little better reading skills.
• It has helped by getting to know the way my classmates think, and I have
learned new things.
• Yes.
• Helped me to be more involved.
• Collaborative group work hasn’t been able to change my own ideas.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
126
• Questions are more easy to ask a classmate.
• I see other viewpoints. I can see how sometimes I think of other answers
that are still correct, just different.
• More of an understanding.
• It helped.
• It allowed me to see from a different view.
• I learned to see a subject from many points of view to comprehend it
better.
• Not really
• It made me view things more carefully.
• Get whole different view.
• They give me more ideas to reflect on.
5. Describe how your group work aided your understanding of the course’s
content.
• They could describe things I didn’t understand.
• More ideas and ways to write and analyze things.
• We tried to analyze it by hearing what each one of us thought about it.
• I learned more about the subject, but I could have done it by myself.
• Many brains work better than one helping the doubts one may have when
somebody else knows the answers.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
127
• Learned more and understood more.
• It aided my learning that other people felt the same way, sometimes they
answered my questions without having to ask the teacher.
• Easy to seek help; you feel more comfortable.
• Collaborative work has been useful for some ideas brought forth.
• They helped me understand things I did not understand.
• Because everybody had different points of view.
• They explained things to me that I didn’t know; they were nice and
understanding.
• I help understand more.
• Sometimes I have doubts about some parts of the readings and the group
shows me a different way to find out answers.
• Demonstrates new points of view.
• They helped me to understand to see what others were seeing.
• By getting more understanding.
• When I didn’t understand, I could ask the teacher’s aid for help. I might have
not been the only one who didn’t understand. Others might have felt the same
way too.
• It helped me with my look on the work, corrections, and how to write my
essay different(ly).
• I can learn more knowledge from the classmates.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
128
• Better understanding of material.
• By making me put words that go good with the essay. Making sure
everything was put in the essay correctly.
• (When) they explain something I don’t know, they help me.
• With correcting my pronunciation.
• It made a big difference and helped make it easier.
• We discuss it so then I can hear it again and understand not only my point,
but others.
• The people in the group helped me understand a topic better.
• Very good knowledge!
• By talking about the subject and discussing it.
• Sometimes I learned, but other times I didn’t.
• They can explain and help me out.
• It helps by just adding another way of viewing the content.
• It helped me look at English in more detail. I learned new ways to observe
writing and essays.
• Only when the teacher would help out it would aid me in some things.
• We asked each other questions and answered them. We helped one another
understand better. We weren’t afraid to ask.
• There’s different ways of doing things, not just your way.
• They understand by the courses we have and a lot of reading and writing.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
129
• We all tried to make each other understand.
• I was weak at something, they weren’t, and I learned from them.
• My group work helped me understand better what we were doing (really
helpful).
• Some new things I didn’t know and they learned things I knew.
• Being a part of group work helps me to feel comfortable in getting something
wrong; students break things down more thoroughly.
• If you don’t understand something, your group is there to help.
• We know what the teacher expects of us.
• It was understandable because I would say my thoughts and opinions.
• Everyone does their own part and then present it to the group.
• Not much
• What I didn’t know the other students told me.
• Gave me other people’s takes on it, so it helped.
• I understand it a little better because I had other people helping me.
• I haven’t really. Work is done alone, corrected in groups.
• Because if I didn’t understand something maybe someone could explain it to
me.
• If I didn’t get something in the reading, the group would help me.
• It slowed me down because I had to help others.
• By talking about the assignments and going over it.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
130
• Interpreting differently.
• Everyone helped each other.
• I can check my answers and compare with those in the group.
• They aided my understanding by getting to know different approaches.
• They helped to understand it more and helped me to understand it more.
• I was able to ask questions in a smaller group.
• It broke everything down better.
• It aided the course content because sometimes we split the assignment so that
each of us did a section and explained it.
• It gave me different points and views.
• They went step by step until everyone knew what they were doing.
• The others in my group helped me to better understand by showing me with
examples what the work is.
• It made me a stronger student in class.
• My group work aided my understanding of the course’s content in allowing
me to figure out what was expected.
• If we didn’t understand the material, the group made sure I did.
• I got other students’ opinions, and I gave them mine.
• It usually helps me a lot to hear it explained in a different way.
• We read the subject, and everybody gives his or her opinions.
• Others knew things that I didn’t.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
131
6. If you were the instructor in this class, would you use collaborative
learning/group work? Please explain why or why not.
• Yes, it is good to know how to work well with others and get to know others.
• Yes, most people work better together.
• Yes, because all other types of learning do not allow other views.
• Yes, because people feel more comfortable to ask any questions about the
class to a peer than to a teacher.
• No, many people can learn well independently. Perhaps I would assign
(collaborative learning) in situations.
• Yes, it gives the student a good chance to get to know each other as well as
how others are viewing things.
• Yes, because it helps a lot and sometimes learning from peers is more
helpful.
• They could describe things that I didn’t understand.
• Yes, because it helps you get a better understanding of the material.
• Yes, because it helps non-social people meet new people, and helps everyone
with their work at the same time.
• Yes, because sometimes can be confusing and my classmates can help me
understand(ing) it.
• I would use collaborative learning to allow everyone to get to know each
other.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
132
• Yes, but I ’d let the students decide if they want to join a group or
work alone.
• Yes, I would use collaborative learning. I feel it helps students understand
things more.
• Yes, because it gives the kids a chance to work on their communication
skills.
• Yes, it gets students to relate to other people and work better together and
help each other.
• Yes, because you can learn more.
• Yes, I would use it half of the time because students can help each other out.
• No, because people in groups have a tendency to talk instead of work.
• Yes, that way, students are less timid to speak.
• Yes, it helps you feel more at ease to ask questions or admit you don’t
understand.
• Yes because we can get some feedback.
• O f course, because we need to do a lot of activities and fun games that we
can relate to to help us learn while enjoying a game.
• Yes, it helps the student to work and develop correct critical thinking skills.
• Yes, students seem to be more comfortable with the instructor and their
classmates.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
133
• If I was the instructor, I would use group work in order to enhance
learning skills and critical thinking steps.
• Yes, because without group work it is harder and boring.
• Yes, because some students would rather go to a peer than a teacher for help.
• Yes, because it helps students to not be scared of learning. You have
classmates that are willing to help.
• Yes, because it helps you to open more to others, and especially to your
work.
• Yes, because it helps most of the students succeed better or see new things
differently.
• Yes, because students learn more. They are not only learning from the
teacher, but the students as well.
• Yes, because I think it is a good way to learn of other’s opinions.
• Yes, because they would collaborate and have more answers to an activity.
• Yes, sometimes it is hard for people to get involved on their own. This way,
they have someone to understand them and help them.
• Yes, because I find it is much easier for most students to learn when they are
involved in what they are learning “hands on.”
• Yes, it helps students get more of an understanding.
• Yes, I would. It would make the class less boring.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
134
• Yes, because it lets the students learn from other students with
different styles of learning.
• Yes, I would try as much as possible. I think it helps visual learner.
• Yes, I would because it draws the class closer together so everyone can get
acquainted with each other so that no one is shy around anyone else. I think
class would be more fun.
• Yes.
• Yes, it makes everyone come out of their shells.
• Probably not— because a lot of students do not do the assignments.
• Yes, I would because in a group, you can share answers with a small number
of people instead of the entire class.
• Yes, I would because people learn better by. repetition.
• Yes, because the students get to know each other better.
• Yes, because you get to know the classmates more, you feel that you are not
far behind.
• Yes, students can learn from one another.
• Yes, one gets different points of view. Then we talk about our differences.
• No, I wouldn’t wan to force people to do that.
• Yes, I would choose to use collaborative learning/group work for this class
because some students learn (more) by other students than (from) the teacher.
• Yes, sometimes it is better that way.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
135
• It depends on the situation.
• Yes, because it is fun.
• I would use collaborative learning work but not all the time because some
people slack off and don’t do the work.
• Yes, it helps people more and gets the group closer and more responsive.
• Yes, because working with others helps you understand better.
• Yes, that way you can learn from your mistakes if the group discusses the
material.
• Yes, so students learn from each other.
• I think this class is one of the best classes, and I don’t need to add anything.
• Sometimes just for fun, but other times it gets out of control.
• Sometimes, not every time because if I don’t like it, I don’t want the other
student to be discontent too.
• Yes, because it gives students a chance to get help from other peers, some
students are shy and won’t ask for help. But by being in a group, one can
learn from others.
• Yes, better than doing everything alone.
• I would use collaborative learning/group work because it brings students
closer to each other and it allows the students to view things differently
without being afraid.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
136
• Yes, I would use group work so if I didn’t teach it right, then a
fellow student can help them out.
• Yes, it allows students to further enrich their minds by using the minds of
their fellow students to better understand the subject.
• Yes, because I feel it would help students with their learning and their social
skills with each other.
• Yes, because students participate more.
• Yes, because it can give other different views of things, and expand their
ideas.
7. If you were the instructor in this class, how often would you assign
individual (not group) projects? Please explain your answer.
• Not much, because it is always better to work with others. You get more
out of it.
• I would assign them every now and then because while it is great to work
with others, you can still learn for yourself.
• Fifty percent of the time.
• I would assign individual projects the majority of the time because the
point is to know how much the student knows and not other members of
the group.
• As often as in groups.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
137
• Three times a week, even though we meet only twice a week.
• I would ask if they would rather do it alone or in a group.
• Once every two weeks because the students should learn how to work by
themselves.
• Very often, it brings out the creativity in a person’s mind to work alone,
at least for me.
• Twice a month.
• Depends on the needs of the lesson.
• I would do it occasionally because a student should learn to work with
other people.
• Every once in a while but not every time because I like to discuss with the
whole class.
• I would assign individual assignments when I want to know how the
student is doing.
• I would have group assignments at least once every other week, so that
the teacher can make sure that the student is making progress.
• Mostly this is the assignments I would give because grading is more
accurate.
• Only on tests because I personally think that people should do tests on
their own.
• Once a week.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
138
• I would instruct group projects less than individually working
because then people rely on other people to do the work because they are
lazy and still get credit.
• Often.
• I would give out regular assignments daily and do group assignments like
once a week.
• Seventy-five percent of the time - individual work. Twenty-five - group
work.
• Very seldom, but it depends on the assignment.
• Not often, sometimes they have to be independent in thought, but life
usually consists of working with others. So group work just prepares
them for that.
• Whenever I notice there is a big percentage who don’t understand, this
way they could help each other out.
• Once a week so that they could have fun in the activities and they are
learning.
• It depends on the subject, but I think maybe 2 or 3 times.
• Maybe half time alone and the other half with a group.
• Once in a while because it is a lot harder to do a project by yourself than
with a group. I think you learn better when you do projects with partners
or with a group.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
139
• H alf o f the time when we have projects we will have
individual projects and the other half group projects.
• Never, you are always going to need someone’s hand in help and having
people stand by you makes a special ? project. It teaches you to work
together.
• Every week, because it brings the class together and the progression is
greater.
• Once a week, like that one day out of the week you work alone and the
other day you work in groups.
• I would assign individual projects often. In order to see a student’s
capability, the student should work alone.
• Once every 2-3 weeks. Students should see others’ points of view on
what is going on in the class as far as homework.
• I don’t want to teach this class, but not group, never.
• Maybe once every two weeks because most students want to learn that is
fun and enjoyable for them or else they will be bored and cannot
concentrate.
• Only if I do my own and let someone else correct.
• Very often.
• At least twice a week.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
140
• I would prefer twice a week because it will help knowledge
and (create) better skills.
• I would do about 60% individual work and 40% group because
sometimes people just copy others when they are in a group.
• Projects would be done individually because too often there are one or
two students that don’t do their part.
• Regularly.
• I will assign them occasionally.
• As soon as I find out some students start to be dependent on the group
and stop working, I would start to assign individual work for a period.
• 1) one project (semester) and 2) I think it is enough for one semester.
• I would give them individual projects when they understand the work and
if they could do it on their own.
• Often, to build independence and not have to rely on group members.
• Every time they have a job or homework. Group projects can practice
cooperation from each other.
• Probably, once a month.
• I would assign individual projects about every two weeks. You do not
need to have group assignments all the time. You will be on your own
one day, so you will need to know how to work on your own.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
141
• Depending on the projects, but if it was something that needed
to be learned and was important I would make it individual.
• Only every big project.
• All semester, because I like to learn generally from my experience rather
than somebody else’s experience.
• Sometimes I would have individual (projects) to see what the student
knows, ... so half of the time.
• Often because it is an English class and some people like working in
groups.
• I would assign individual work if it was a little project that I knew one
person could do it by himself or herself.
• Every day because you are always not going to have people around you.
• Only when needed. I would assign individual projects. I prefer group
work.
• Depends on the class of work assigned.
• Twice a week.
• - o
• I would have like three or four big projects in the semester so you can be
able to know your classmates a little better.
• About once a month, so I could see who is really learning, and so I could
help those who are having trouble.
• As much as possible.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
142
• Once a month.
• Once a week to help the students understand the material better.
• Individual work is important, proves you understand by yourself. And I
think pretty often.
• As often as possible.
• Never, because individual work leads to procrastinating, while group
work has peer pressure to finish.
• Every other day—that way, the students won’t breeze through class.
• Most often as an individual you need to learn and understand on your
own as well as with others.
• I will only assign individual projects when necessary.
• Once a week. Students would feel enthusiastic and have a better view of
the project they are working on.
• Once in a great while, so that way they don’t goof off and slack off their
homework and work.
• I would assign an individual project for every group project. It would
allow students to both interact and be individually responsible for their
■ own work.
• I would not assign them very often because people learn better in groups.
• I would not assign individual projects that often because I believe that
group effort is more interesting and quicker.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
143
• About 45% individual work and 55% group work.
• At least every other assignment because I would want to know if they can
work on their own and work in a group without slacking off.
• Maybe twice a semester.
• I would assign it half the time because when you get good groups it helps
a lot, but when you get bad groups, one person gets overloaded with
work.
• Never, because this is not the way that students can learn more.
• I would probably assign half and half, some group so that students can
meet each other and feel comfortable with others, and individual work so
they could think for themselves.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX E
Responses to Student Collaborative Learning Interview
1. Please define collaborative learning/group work.
• Getting students together to get to learn from each other, use each other’s
ideas to solve problems and to do work.
• Learning with a group of other classmates to help clarify and answer if
you are not sure.
• Discussion amongst people in the class.
• A group of people working on a subject or project together.
• To work in a group where everyone pitches in ideas; working together;
from 2-5 people per group.
• Colleagues in teamwork or working as a team to find a solution and
everyone does his part. We come up with a final answer and hope it is the
right solution!
• When a group of people work together and put input in to get the job
done.
• It is when you get into a group of 2 people or more and you review
questions or a subject and give your thoughts on the topic.
• When a certain group of students work together, bring ideas together,
help out—for example to do a presentation.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
145
• Collaborative learning is when a teacher submits a subject
and you work with a group or another person to collaborate on a topic.
• We get in groups and work with classmates, getting information.
• Collaborative learning is.. .taking advantage of smart people. Ideally,
people chipping in and contributing to one huge project, but most times
only 2 or 3 people will pull the group through.
• Work in groups of 2-5 people and work on assignments or go over the
answers in comparison and contrast and give each individual idea and
agree on what the answer is — teamwork.
• Classmates helping each other—group put together by teacher or
voluntarily... where they are given a topic and they discuss each other’s
point of view, depending on the topic and how knowledgeable you are,
you might relate to a response.
• A group with different people trying to get an answer from all of them
and getting different opinions from each person.
• Working with others in your class on an activity that you are learning;
working in groups.
• Two or three, maybe five students get together to discuss whatever we are
studying at that time for input.
• Working as a group of people and getting different opinions to get to an
answer.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
146
• 2. How often do you participate in group/collaborative
learning in this writing class ?
• I always participate. Every class has collaborative learning, 2 times per
week.
• Whenever it is in a class.
• I participate as much as I can.
• Frequently, the class meets 2 times a week and c.l. is usually assigned
once a week.
• I would say that we worked more in groups than in the beginning of the
semester. We meet 2 times per week and we have c.l. about one time per
week.
• I participate mostly all the time. When she (the instructor) tells us to split
into groups doing exercises and studying for tests, we do c.l. about once a
week. We meet 2 times a week.
• I always participate. We meet twice a week and have c.l. once of the two
times. I participate because it helps me learn better.
• Pretty often. Twice a week we are usually always in groups.
• Throughout the semester. We meet 2 times a week and average about
once a week with group work, and sometimes 2 times a week.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
147
• I participate more often than others, especially if I feel that I
have something worthwhile to say. Four times in seven meetings, for
about 15-20 minutes each time.
• In a semester of about 17 weeks, I estimate we have collaborative
learning about 12 times.
• I always participate. I don’t want a bad grade, and I usually take the lead
in planning. We have one big group project for the whole semester and
small group sessions about twice a month.
• I participate whenever my teacher has it— almost every time we meet
which is once per week for a three hour time block. We get into groups
for about 20 minutes each time.
• I participate in each class. The instructor uses c.l. in practically each
class, for a 3-hour class that meets once a week.
• I participate often, during every other class period. We meet two times a
week.
• I participate often with partners of three. We meet two times a week at
least one time a week and sometimes 2 times a week we do c.l.
• When we have collaborative learning, which is every other class,
sometimes every class of English 67, I participate.
• In English 67, 80% of the semester is spent on c.l.
• 3. What do you like about participating in collaborative learning?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
148
• If I have doubts, I like to see that other people have the same
ideas, and I can say that maybe I am not looking at the situation in the
wrong way. Others see it that way too. I like the positive feedback.
• I like meeting new people and that the work is shared between/among
people.
• You develop many ideas and put them all together to see the outcome.
• You get different opinions and ideas together and you get a better
understanding about the project.
• That you can see what other people are thinking, their ideas. You work
with other people and get to know them over the semester.
• Teamwork. I like working as a team. We can ask our teammates for the
answers if we don’t know and then if we all don’t know then we ask the
teacher for help. C.L. is fun. I like working as a team.
• I like learning about what other people think of the subject. I may not
always agree, but it is just cool to hear other people’s input.
• I like it because not only do you learn, but you get to know people in the
class. If you get home and have questions, you feel comfortable calling
that person. I like reviewing people’s thoughts; they may catch
something that I did not.
• I like it because you learn more and get more ideas rather than just your
own... the fact that everyone helps out.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
• That I get to her other people’s opinions and when I hear their
opinions, it makes me think deeper about the subject.
• Learn more about other people, helps get more information, helps you get
your work done and it’s another good way to study.
• Getting everyone’s opinions and ideas and trying to meld it into a
recognizable piece of work is good.
• I like it because you learn different ideas from different people. If you
are stuck on something, the person maybe can help you with ideas. There
is a better understanding of the assignment from peers whose
dialogue/dialect is understandable at the peer’s level.
• It gives me a chance to discuss ideas and get questions answered, and
gives a chance to know your classmates. I feel more comfortable if I
need to ask them about something that I don’t understand.
• You learn more than when you are by yourself, and you get to know more
people.
• The hands-on/interaction with what I am learning stays in my head longer
because I am a hands-on person.
• I do not like a whole lot about c.l. It has helped maybe once or twice,
depending on who I am paired with. Sometimes, I have been given a
different perspective.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
150
• I like the different opinions of different students; it helps to
come to your own conclusion, and I learn who my classmates are.
• 4. What do you dislike about participating in collaborative learning?
• If I get into a group with people who don’t want to participate, it makes it
hard.
• Sometimes one person does not do anything, and the rest of the group has
to take one the responsibility.
• If it is a project, I do not like it when people do not do their fair share.
• People look at you as if you are wrong if you give a certain opinion that
they don’t like. This makes me not want to participate with them. Or
sometimes people make themselves the leader and take over the group.
They think they are the wise ones.
• Sometimes other group members won’t participate and others have to do
all the work; sometimes some group members are slower.
• When people don’t participate or if they don’t know the answer or did not
do the assignment—they just quit.
• I dislike that there are people who don’t participate, yet they expect you
to do everything.
• I don’t dislike c.l. But sometimes when you really know the people, you
don’t focus as much or you go off topic in conversation.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
151
• Sometimes not everyone participates or a group member is
absent and the only way we can communicate is through the phone and
sometimes they are not home, etc.
• When people take other people’s opinions the wrong way/misinterpret
and they get angry about someone else’s opinion.
• If you have a project, everyone may not participate and some will do
more than others.
• Everything! I despise it (c.l.) heartily because half of the time I get stuck
with a bunch of slackers, and I become “the group.” I hate when my
grade depends on their being stupid, and I hate getting one grade for the
group.
• When two or more people talk and talk and talk or other have no input but
just copy. The discussion becomes hard. It makes c.l. useless.
• I don’t dislike c.l., but I dislike that some people do not participate. So
when these people are present, I don’t get a chance to learn or to teach
someone else.
• Some people don’t like your opinions, and sometimes they won’t even
ask your opinions; instead they get the opinions from themselves.
• When one person has to work harder than the others, but both get the
same credit.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
152
• Other people in the group don’t seem to do the homework, so
they don’t participate; in other words, they don’t do their fair share of the
work.
• When student are immature, you are stuck with people who are not
motivated. You are stuck in a black hole. Sometimes the group can be
biased against a person (e.g., lifestyle: skateboarder; clothes, race, age,
etc.).
• 5. Do you think that participating in collaborative learning in this class
has improved or hampered your learning?
• Improved— brainstorming together is good. If I get stuck, other people in
the group have helped me to move on or proceed with my paper.
• Improved— because I get to know classmates, but we are able to come up
with a group project to share with the whole class.
• Improved—because I get everybody else’s ideas, and it helps me in my
work.
• Improved— because you start to ignore the people with negative
comments, and I begin to believe that what I say is not wrong. I start to
build confidence.
• I think I am the same because in the group we just reviewed other
people’s essays.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
153
• Improved—because everybody needs help and working as a
team it is easier to find the answer. I work better on a team; answers
seem easier with a team.
• Has improved a lot. Mainly in reading short stories. I comprehend more
as part of the discussion. I may learn of something that I missed in the
reading assignment.
• Improved— because when the lecture is too fast, someone in the group
will get what you didn’t and you can pick up on it from them. This helps
me, and I can probably help someone else.
• Improved— because if you work in groups, then what you know, you say
it out loud, and then you hear it again, then others have to write or say it,
and it helps me remember more.
• Improved— as I am not so shy anymore about speaking up first.
• Improved—because it helps you to study, gather more information from
people who are in a similar situation as you.
• Improved by expanding my creativity and helping me learn new things.
It has hampered me because I have been dragging the group’s weight. It
has made my life harder and busier because I end up doing all the work.
• Improved— you have people who do participate, and they elaborate on
their ideas. You have people who help to do the work.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
154
It has improved learning in that I get to read other people’s
writing and their skills. I can see where I am weak, and it gives me a
view on how to improve.
Improved—because we get to know different words, to talk more, to the
people in the class and get more information (e.g., for the essays we do).
It has improved my learning because in writing people sometimes give
up, but the group gives you ideas and motivation to improve and keep
writing. You begin to not fear failing, but to fear not trying at all.
It has not hampered me. I have improved only a few times that everyone
has participated. In a small group, it is easier for me to discuss. But
when everyone does not participate, I don’t want to deal with it.
How have I improved? Well, from seeing different work habits and
hearing different opinions, I get the best learning for myself. I can pick
anyone’s brain and put it to the best use.
6a. What benefits do you get from the lecture method that are not found
in the collaborative learning method?
The teacher’s outlook on how the paper should be done—the criteria to
follow. I follow directions better rather than figuring them out on my
own.
The instructor talks and you can ask questions and give each person a
chance to answer. Then she/he (the instructor) gives clarification.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
155
• Knowledge from the professor is a benefit.
• , The RIGHT answer! The teacher answers the question that the student
has regarding the lecture. I pay more attention to the teacher since there
is no noise or other people disturbing or talking to me.
• When the teacher lectures, I can learn more because I am more focused. I
can get unfocused in a group.
• The lecture gives you direct answers, whereas in c.l. you have to figure
out the answer for yourself, the long way, the hard way.
• Mainly, the teacher goes in depth about the subject and gives all the
important facts about the readings and she explains things better than
what we do in the group. She makes us expand our minds.
• In lectures you get ALL the main points.
• You listen to the lecture, take notes and have something to study from.
You can ask questions of the professor and expect to get the right answer.
• When the teacher lectures, the teacher knows more about the subject and
is giving the RIGHT answer.
• Understanding exactly what needs to be done. Helps you get your work
done CORRECTLY. I really don’t like lecturing a lot because it gets me
tired and frustrated. I like working with more people.
• The lecture method gives you independence to work individually on what
you want to do. I am an auditory learner, so the lecture is better for me.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
156
The teacher can include the whole class as a big group, yet
each student maintains his own individuality.
• Lecture gives exactly what will be on the test and quiz and will go over
all the CORRECT answers.
• Lecture gives the right answers. Even though you can learn from other
students, you might get close to the right answer, but the lecture gives you
the whole picture of what the subject is.
• The lectures are more specific and from the teacher. It helps us to know
more about what we have learned.
• In c.l. you must figure out things on your own. But the lecture tells you
everything straight out and explains step by step.
• I understand a lecture better because that is my learning style. I will
grasp directly from the instructor whatever is being taught. I would grasp
from a group if everyone participated.
• The teacher gives the info that she wants you to learn and what she
expects from you. She gives the proper way to write and the skills you
need to analyze your work. Lecture is teaching the whole class.
• 6b. What benefits do you get from the collaborative learning method that
are not found in the lecture method?
• The ability to be able to talk to someone, other than the professor, a peer.
If you are afraid to talk to the instructor, you can talk to the students,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
157
maybe approach the teacher as a group and see if you should
change or modify your work.
• Lectures can be boring, and you lose interest.
• From c.l. you get understanding from all or several different sides.
• You start expressing yourself more in c.l. and there is more participation
with the teacher who is on the side to help you. Also, you identify with
different people around you.
• Sometimes if you have a questions, you can’t ask during the lecture, but
must wait until after the lecture. In c.l. you could ask questions at any
time and talk to the other group members about the assignment/subject
and have your questions talked about immediately.
• You don’t get direct help in lecture. You don’t want to interrupt the
teacher and maybe feel embarrassed.
• Just getting everyone’s thoughts on what the students think is good about
c.l. In lecture you don’t get feedback from other students, whom you
might be able to relate to with your own ideas. In lecture, you are mainly
taking notes on what the teacher says.
• More time to think and write out the thoughts, more time to go back— not
as fast. More time to review while getting to know people.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
158
• Since you are working with students, you are not afraid of not
knowing something or asking questions. You are a student, and they are
students just like you.
• I am collaborating with my own age students and we are not lecturing to
each other, but giving our opinions.
• C.L. allows you to relax and work at your own pace; you don’t have
pressure from the teacher’s talking and talking, and you get to work with
other people in the class, to read their work, to compare your work with
theirs, and to get ideas.
• Theoretically, it is supposed to open my eyes to the ideas of others, and it
should not be hard or time consuming as it would be if you were working
alone. Realistically, none of the above occurs because the smart people
in the group help the mentally challenged people do their work. It
becomes a tutoring session.
• This type of communication from classmates may help to clarify ideas.
You can take the assignment outside of class with classmates, whereas
the teacher won’t come to your house or other meeting place to meet your
time frame.
• This depends on the teacher. A teacher who does not communicate makes
you feel intimidated. You may ask a question and get an answer that is a
question. In c.l. if other people are a little more knowledgeable, and I feel
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
159
comfortable asking them, I will benefit from c.l. But without
a good teacher, you won’t be successful.
• We work as a group, and we take the ideas from our own minds— we
express ourselves; instead of writing notes from the lecture, we talk about
them.
• You figure out a lot on your own; it gives you an open mind and teaches
you to think on your own for life.
• In c.l. perspectives, whether correct or incorrect are found. During the
lecture, the teacher will only discuss the correct answer or his/her
perspective when teaching.
• As opposed to teaching the whole class, c.l. techniques helps you to learn
individually, but through the group. With the group, you get exposed to
more ideas and answers. Then you can put it all together for yourself.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Examining the factors that predict the academic success of minority students in the remedial mathematics pipeline in an urban community college
PDF
Academic success and student-parents in the Los Angeles Community College District
PDF
Asian students in community colleges: A study of intersecting effects of student characteristics, construct models of retention, social reproduction and resulting variables as applied to the stud...
PDF
Adult urban community college student success: Identifying the factors that predict course completion and goal attainment for students aged 25 years and older
PDF
Academic, environmental and social integration variables that maximize transfer preparedness for Latino community college students: An application of academic success models to the study of Tran...
PDF
Community college students and achievement in mathematics: Predictors of success
PDF
Factors influencing academic success of Chinese international students in Los Angeles community colleges
PDF
Academic success for African -American male community college students
PDF
A study of the Navy College Program for Afloat College Education: Implications for teaching and learning among nontraditional college students
PDF
Community college English courses: The road less traveled by community college students
PDF
Evaluating the California Community Colleges Registry
PDF
International students: Patterns of success
PDF
Fulfilling the mission to serve the underserved: A case study of a private, Catholic, urban college's two -year program
PDF
Assessment of nursing college students' learning styles in Taiwan using the Myers -Briggs Type Indicator
PDF
China's critical educational access demand and United States higher education distance learning curriculum: An answer?
PDF
An examination of the contract education program in a multi-college community college district in Southern California: A descriptive and qualitative case study investigation
PDF
"Home boy" to "school boy": Inside the PowerBuilders Workshops at CSULA. A qualitative examination of access, mobility, and leadership qualities of minorities in higher education
PDF
Assessment of Taiwanese business students' learning styles using the Myers -Briggs Type Indicator
PDF
A study of student retentiveness, achievement, and program completion in a school -to -career program
PDF
Alumni student -athletes' attitudes towards educational philanthropy
Asset Metadata
Creator
Jenkins-Farve, Debra
(author)
Core Title
Community college students' perceptions of collaborative learning in developmental writing classes: Identifying the factors that promote positive active learning
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
education, adult and continuing,education, community college,education, language and literature,OAI-PMH Harvest
Language
English
Contributor
Digitized by ProQuest
(provenance)
Advisor
Hagedorn, Linda Serra (
committee chair
), Gothold, Stuart (
committee member
), Sundt, Melora (
committee member
)
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c16-665192
Unique identifier
UC11340804
Identifier
3145195.pdf (filename),usctheses-c16-665192 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
3145195.pdf
Dmrecord
665192
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Jenkins-Farve, Debra
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA
Tags
education, adult and continuing
education, community college
education, language and literature