Creative Education, 2009, 32-38
Published Online September 2009 in SciRes (http://www.SciRP.org/journal/ce)
What is Collaborative Learning*
ABSTRACT
“Collaborative learning” is an umbrella term for a variety of educational approaches involving joint intellectual effort
by students, or students and teachers together. Usually, students are working in groups of two or more, mutually
searching for understanding, solutions, or meanings, or creating a product. Collaborative learning activities vary
widely, but most center on students’ exploration or application of the course material, not simply the teacher’s presen-
tation or explication of it.
Keywords: Collaborative Learning, Problem-Centered Instruction, Peer Teaching
1. Introduction
Collaborative learning represents a significant shift away
from the typical teacher-centered or lecture-centered mi-
lieu in college classrooms. In collaborative classrooms,
the lecturing/listening/note-taking process may not dis-
appear entirely, but it lives alongside other processes that
are based in students’ discussion and active work with the
course material. Teachers who use collaborative learning
approaches tend to think of themselves less as expert
transmitters of knowledge to students, and more as expert
designers of intellectual experiences for students-as
coaches or mid-wives of a more emergent learning proc-
ess.
2. Assumptions about Learning
Though collaborative learning takes on a variety of forms
and is practiced by teachers of different disciplinary
backgrounds and teaching traditions, the field is tied to-
gether by a number of important assumptions about
learners and the learning process.
2.1. Learning is an Active, Constructive Process
To learn new information, ideas or skills, our students
have to work actively with them in purposeful ways.
They need to integrate this new material with what they
already know-or use it to reorganize what they thought
they knew. In collaborative learning situations, our stu-
dents are not simply taking in new information or ideas.
They are creating something new with the information
and ideas. These acts of intellectual processing- of con-
structing meaning or creating something new-are crucial
to learning.
2.2. Learning Depends on Rich Contexts
Recent research suggests learning is fundamentally in-
fluenced by the context and activity in which it is em-
bedded (Brown, Collins and Duguid, 1989). Collabora-
tive learning activities immerse students in challenging
tasks or questions. Rather than beginning with facts and
ideas and then moving to applications, collaborative
learning activities frequently begin with problems, for
which students must marshal pertinent facts and ideas.
Instead of being distant observers of questions and an-
swers, or problems and solutions, students become im-
mediate practitioners. Rich contexts challenge students to
practice and develop higher order reasoning and prob-
lem-solving skills.
2.3. Learners are Diverse
*This is an abbreviation of Smith and MacGregor’s article, “What Is
Collaborative Learning?” in Collaborative Learning: A Sourcebook fo
r
H
igher Education,
b
y Anne Goodsell, Michelle Maher, Vincent Tinto,
Barbara Leigh Smith and Jean MacGregor. It was published In 1992
by the National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, and
Assessment at Pennsylvania State University.
Our students bring multiple perspectives to the class-
room-diverse backgrounds, learning styles, experiences,
and aspirations. As teachers, we can no longer assume a
one-size-fits-all approach. When students work together

What is Collaborative Learning33
on their learning in class, we get a direct and immediate
sense of how they are learning, and what experiences and
ideas they bring to their work. The diverse perspectives
that emerge in collaborative ‘activities are clarifying but
not just for us. They are illuminating for our students as
well.
2.4. Learning is Inherently Social
As Jeff Golub points out, “Collaborative learning has as
its main feature a structure that allows for student talk:
students are supposed to talk with each other....and it is in
this talking that much of the learning occurs.” (Golub,
1988) Collaborative learning produces intellectual syn-
ergy of many minds coming to bear on a problem, and
the social stimulation of mutual engagement in a com-
mon endeavor. This mutual exploration, meaning-making,
and feedback often leads to better understanding on the
part of students, and to the creation of new understand-
ings for all of us.
3. Goals for Education
While we use collaborative learning because we believe
it helps students learn more effectively, many of us also
place a high premium on teaching strategies that go be-
yond mere mastery of content and ideas. We believe col-
laborative learning promotes a larger educational agenda,
one that encompasses several intertwined rationales.
3.1. Involvement
Calls to involve students more actively in their learning
are coming from virtually every quarter of higher educa-
tion (Astin, 1985; Bonwell and Eison, 1991; Kuh, 1990;
Study Group on the Conditions of Excellence in Higher
Education, 1984). Involvement in learning, involvement
with other students, and involvement with faculty are
factors that make an overwhelming difference in student
retention and success in college. By its very nature, col-
laborative learning is both socially and intellectually in-
volving. It invites students to build closer connections to
other students, their faculty, their courses and their learn-
ing.
3.2. Cooperation and Teamwork
In collaborative endeavors, students inevitably encounter
difference, and must grapple with recognizing and work-
ing with it. Building the capacities for tolerating or re-
solving differences, for building agreement that honors
all the voices in a group, for caring how others are doing
these abilities are crucial aspects of living in a commu-
nity. Too often the development of these values and skills
is relegated to the “Student Life” side of the campus.
Cultivation of teamwork, community-building, and lead-
ership skills are legitimate and valuable classroom goals,
not just extracurricular ones.
3.3. Civic Responsibility
If democracy is to endure in any meaningful way, our
educational system must foster habits of participation
in and responsibility to the larger community. Collabo-
rative learning encourages students to acquire an active
voice in shaping their ideas and values and a sensitive
ear in hearing others. Dialogue, deliberation, and con-
sensus-building out of differences are strong threads in
the fabric of collaborative learning, and in civic life as
well.
4. Collaborative Learning Approaches
Collaborative learning covers a broad territory of ap-
proaches with wide variability in the amount of in-class
or out-of-class time built around group work. Collabora-
tive activities can range from classroom discussions in-
terspersed with short lectures, through entire class peri-
ods, to study on research teams that last a whole term or
year. The goals and processes of collaborative activities
also vary widely. Some faculty members design small
group work around specific sequential steps, or tightly
structured tasks. Others prefer a more spontaneous
agenda developing out of student interests or questions.
In some collaborative learning settings, the students’ task
is to create a clearly delineated product; in others, the
task is not to produce a product, but rather to participate
in a process, an exercise of responding to each other’s
work or engaging in analysis and meaning-making.
5. Cooperative Learning
Cooperative learning represents the most carefully struc-
tured end of the collaborative learning continuum. De-
fined as “the instructional use of small groups so that
students work together to maximize their own and each
other’s learning” (Johnson et al. 1990), cooperative
learning is based on the social interdependence theories
of Kurt Lewin and Morton Deutsch (Deutsch, 1949;
Lewin, 1935). These theories and associated research
explore the influence of the structure of social interde-
pendence on individual interaction within a given situa-

What is Collaborative Learning? 34
tion which, in turn, affects the outcomes of that interac-
tion (Johnson and Johnson, 1989). Pioneers in coopera-
tive learning, David and Roger Johnson at the University
of Minnesota, Robert Slavin at Johns Hopkins University,
and Elizabeth Cohen at Stanford, have devoted years of
detailed research and analysis to clarify the conditions
under which cooperative, competitive, or individualized
goal structures affect or increase student achievement,
psychological adjustment, self-esteem, and social skills.
In cooperative learning, the development of interper-
sonal skills is as important as the learning itself. The de-
velopment of social skills in group work-learning to co-
operate-is key to high quality group work. Many coop-
erative learning tasks are put to students with both aca-
demic objectives and social skills objectives. Many of the
strategies involve assigning roles within each small group
(such as recorder, participation encourager, summarizer)
to ensure the positive interdependence of group partici-
pants and to enable students to practice different team-
work skills. Built into cooperative learning work is regu-
lar “group processing,” a “debriefing” time where stu-
dents reflect on how they are doing in order to learn how
to become more effective in group learning settings
(Johnson, Johnson and Holubec, 1990).
6. Problem-Centered Instruction
Problem-centered instruction, widely used in professional
education, frequently is built around collaborative learn-
ing strategies. Many of these spring from common roots,
especially the work of John Dewey in the early part of
this century. Dewey endorsed discussion-based teaching
and believed strongly in the importance of giving stu-
dents direct experiential encounters with real-world
problems. Guided Design, cases, and simulations are all
forms of problem-centered instruction, which immerse
students in complex problems that they must analyze and
work through together. These approaches develop prob-
lem-solving abilities, understanding of complex relation-
ships, and decision-making in the face of uncertainty.
While problem-solving has long been a focus of profes-
sional education, it is increasingly regarded as an impor-
tant aspect of the liberal arts as well.
In collaborative endeavors, students inevitably en-
counter difference, and must grapple with recognizing
and working with it.
6.1. Guided Design
Guided Design is the most carefully structured approach
to problem-centered instruction. The approach asks stu-
dents, working in small groups, to practice deci-
sion-making in sequenced tasks, with detailed feed-back
at every step. Developed in the late 1960’s in the engi-
neering program at West Virginia University, the Guided
Design approach has since been adopted in many disci-
plines and professional programs, most notably in engi-
neering, nursing and pharmacy, but in many liberal arts
and sciences courses as well (Borchardt, 1984; Day et al,
1984; deTornay and Thompson, 1987; Miller, 1981;
Roemer, 1981; Vogt et al., 1992).
6.2. Cases
Case studies have long been a staple for teaching and
learning in the professions, particularly in the fields of
business, law and education, and they are now being used
in many other disciplines as well (Christensen and Han-
son 1987). A case is a story or narrative of a real life
situation that sets up a problem or unresolved tension for
the students to analyze and resolve. The use of cases does
not necessarily imply collaborative learning or small
seminar discussion. However, case method teaching fre-
quently asks small groups of students to tackle cases in
class or in study group sessions.
6.3. Problem-Centered Instruction in Medical
Education.
Problem-centered instruction has also emerged in recent
decades in the field of medical education. This work be-
gan in England, then spread to Canada and ultimately to
the U. S. M.L.J. Abercrombie’s research in England in
the 1950’s made a compelling case for discussion meth-
ods of teaching, contending that when people work in
teams, they make more valid judgments than when
working alone. This pioneering research had a profound
impact on collaborative learning in medical education
both in England and North America (Abercrombie, 1961,
1970). McMaster University in Canada was one of the
early leaders in problem-centered medical education
(Barrows and Tamblyn, 1980), followed by Western Re-
serve University, the University of New Mexico, and
others. In 1985, the Harvard Medical School adopted a
problem-based curriculum entitled “New Pathways” that
has garnered national attention.
6.4. Simulations
Simulations are complex, structured role-playing situa-
tions that simulate real experiences. Most simulations ask
students, working individually or in teams, to play the

What is Collaborative Learning35
roles of opposing stakeholders in a problematic situation
or an unfolding drama. Taking on the values and acting
the part of a stakeholder usually gets students emotion-
ally invested in the situation. The key aspect of simula-
tions, though, is that of perspective-taking, both during
the simulation exercise and afterwards. Following the
simulation, there is usually a lengthy discussion where
students reflect on the simulation and explore their own
actions and those of others. This is where important con-
cepts and lessons emerge. There are now a large number
of simulations or educational games, as they are some-
times called, relating to many disciplinary areas (Abt,
1987; Bratley, 1987).
7. Writing Groups
Both in theory and practice, the most concentrated effort
in undergraduate collaborative learning has focused on
the teaching of writing. The writing group approach,
(known variously as peer response groups, class criticism,
or helping circles) has transformed thousands of college
writing classes. Through the spread of writing-across-the-
curriculum initiatives, writing groups increasingly are
appearing in other courses as well.
Peer writing involves students working in small groups
at every stage of the writing process. Many writing
groups begin as composing groups: they formulate ideas,
clarify their positions, test an argument or focus a thesis
statement before committing it to paper. This shared
composing challenges students to think through their
ideas out loud, to hear what they “sound like,” so they
will know “what to say” in writing. Writing groups also
serve as peer response groups. Students exchange their
written drafts of papers and get feedback on them either
orally or in writing. This is a challenging process, one
that requires students to read and listen to fellow stu-
dents’ writing with insight, and to make useful sugges-
tions for improvement. Word processors have helped
peer writing enormously; in many writing labs, students
share their drafts and revise them right on the screens.
8. Peer Teaching
With its roots in our one-room schoolhouse tradition, the
process of students teaching their fellow students is
probably the oldest form of collaborative learning in
American education. In recent decades, however, peer
teaching approaches have proliferated in higher education,
under many names and structures (Whitman, 1988). The
following examples represent three of the most successful
and widely adapted peer teaching models.
8.1. Supplemental Instruction
The Supplemental Instruction approach is an under-
graduate teaching assistant model developed by Deanna
Martin at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. It has
been adopted at hundreds of colleges in the United States
and abroad. This urban campus recognized the need to
offer tutoring help to students, but budgetary constraints
made one-to-one tutoring too expensive. Its search for an
alternative approach led to “Supplemental Instruction.”
This approach focused not on “at risk students,” but
rather on “at risk classes,” entry-level classes in health
sciences, and later in general arts and sciences classes,
where more than 30 per cent of the students were either
withdrawing or failing. The university invites advanced
undergraduates who have done well in those classes to
become “SI leaders.” These students are paid to attend
the class, and to convene Supplemental Instruction ses-
sions at least three times a week at hours convenient to
students in the class. (Blanc, DeBuhr and Martin, 1980).
8.2. Writing Fellows
The Writing Fellows approach, pioneered by Tori Har-
ing-Smith at Brown University, is a peer teaching ap-
proach somewhat parallel to Supplemental Instruction.
The writing fellows are upper-division students who are
strong writers. After extensive training, these students are
deployed to an undergraduate class (generally in the dis-
cipline of their major) where they read and respond to the
papers of all the students. Haring-Smith calls this a “bot-
tom-up approach” to sustaining writing-across-thecur-
riculum initiatives, particularly in large classes where
many faculty flag at assigning writing because there are
simply too many papers to which to respond. Over 50
colleges and universities have created Writing Fellows
Programs.
8.3. Mathematics Workshops
A third peer teaching approach that spread rapidly in the
late 1980’s is the intensive mathematics workshops pro-
gram developed by Uri Treisman while he was at the
University of California at Berkeley. Treisman wanted to
address the drawbacks of traditional tutoring models-
particularly those geared to minority students in academic
difficulty. Finding that study groups made a difference in
student success, he created a co-peer teaching approach
called the Professional Development Program. The pro-
gram assumes the culture of an honors program rather
than a remedial program. Graduate instructors (usually

What is Collaborative Learning? 36
doctoral candidates) lead math workshops built around
small group problem-solving, with an explicit emphasis
on peer teaching. These workshops supplement the regu-
lar lecture and discussion sections of mathematics
courses. This intensive small group workshop approach,
which emphasizes developing strength rather than reme-
diating weakness, and peer collaboration rather than solo
competition, completely reversed the prevailing patterns
of failure by Hispanic and African American students in
calculus classes at Berkeley (Treisman, 1985). This in-
tensive math workshop approach has since spread widely
in the mathematics community in high schools, as well as
in both two- and four-year colleges.
Writing Fellows... are a “bottom-up” approach to sus-
taining writing-across-the curriculum initiatives...
9. Discussion Groups and Seminars
The terms discussion group and seminar refer to a broad
array of teaching approaches. In college settings we usu-
ally think of discussions as processes, both formal and
informal, that encourage student dialogue with teachers
and with each other.
All the approaches we have described above involve
discussion. Most, however have distinct protocols, goals,
or structures framing the activity. What we are describing
here-more open-ended discussion or seminars-puts the
onus on the teacher or the students to pose questions and
build a conversation in the context of the topic at hand.
There is enormous variability, then, in terms of who sets
the agenda, who organizes and monitors the discussion,
and who evaluates what. Some discussions or seminars
may be heavily teacher-directed, others much more stu-
dent-centered. There are myriad possibilities for discus-
sions, and many good resources on strategies exist
(Christensen et al.,1991; Eble, 1976; McKeachie, 1986;
Neff and Weimer, 1989).
10. Learning Communities
Collaborative learning practitioners would say that all
collaborative learning is about building learning commu-
nities. However, we use the term learning community
here in a broader but more specific sense, in terms of
intentional reconfiguration of the curriculum. In the past
15 years, a number of colleges have recognized that
deep-seated structural factors weaken the quality of un-
dergraduate learning and inhibit the development of
community. These schools have attacked the problem
directly by developing learning communities, a “pur-
poseful restructuring of the curriculum to link together
courses so that students find greater coherence in what
they are learning and increased interaction with faculty
and fellow students” (Gabelnick, MacGregor, Matthews,
and Smith, 1990). As such, learning communities are a
delivery system and a facilitating structure for the prac-
tice of collaborative learning.
Learning community curriculum structures vary from
campus to campus. They can serve many different pur-
poses, but have two common intentions. They attempt to
provide intellectual coherence for students by linking
classes together and building relationships between sub-
ject matter, or by teaching a skill (e.g., writing or speak-
ing) in the context of a discipline. Second, they aim to
build both academic and social community for students
by enrolling them together in a large block of course
work. Learning communities directly confront multiple
problems plaguing under-graduate education: the frag-
mentation of general education classes, isolation of stu-
dents (especially on large campuses or commuter
schools), lack of meaningful connection- building be-
tween classes; the need for greater intellectual interaction
between students and faculty; and lack of sustained op-
portunities for faculty development.
By altering the curricular structure to provide larger
units of study, learning communities frequently provide
more time and space for collaborative learning and other
more complicated educational approaches. Small group
workshops and book seminars are staples of most learn-
ing communities. Peer writing groups and team projects
associated with labs and field work are also fairly com-
mon. Study groups emerge in learning communities, both
intentionally and spontaneously. These programs provide
a unique social and intellectual glue for students that re-
sults in high rates of student retention, increased student
achievement and more complex intellectual development
(MacGregor, 1991).
Creating a collaborative classroom can be wonderfully
rewarding opportunity but it is also full of challenges and
dilemmas.
11. Collaborative Learning: Challenges and
Opportunities
Creating a collaborative classroom can be a wonderfully
rewarding opportunity but it is also full of challenges and
dilemmas. Few of us experienced collaborative work in
our own undergraduate settings, and much of our gradu-
ate school training reinforced the teacher-centered, lec-
ture-driven model of college teaching. For each of us,

What is Collaborative Learning37
stepping out of the center and engaging students in group
activity is hard work, especially at first.
Designing group work requires a demanding yet im-
portant rethinking of our syllabus, in terms of course con-
tent and time allocation. If some (or a great deal) of the
classroom time is considered an important social space
for developing understandings about course material, or
if some of the out-of-class time is devoted to study
groups or group projects, how should we design the rest
of the class time (lectures, assignments, examinations)?
How do we ensure students are learning and mastering
key skills and ideas in the course, while at the same time
addressing all the material of the course? Teaching in
collaborative settings puts front and center the tension
between the process of student learning and content
coverage.
As we become more involved in using collaborative
learning, we discover what radical questions it raises.
Collaborative learning goes to the roots of long-held as-
sumptions about teaching and learning. Classroom roles
change: both teachers and students take on more complex
roles and responsibilities. (Finkel and Monk, 1983; Mac-
Gregor, 1990 ). The classroom is no longer solo teacher
and individual students- it becomes more an interde-
pendent community with all the joys and tensions and
difficulties that attend all communities. This degree of
involvement often questions and reshapes assumed power
relationships between teachers and students, (and be-
tween students and students), a process that at first can be
confusing and disorienting (Romer and Whipple, 1990).
Not only is course content reshaped, so are our defini-
tions of student competence. Because the public nature of
group work makes demonstration of student learning so
continuous, collaborative learning both complicates and
enriches the evaluation process.
Challenges to collaborative learning at the classroom
level are compounded by the traditional structures and
culture of the academy, which continue to perpetuate the
teacher-centered, transmission-of-information model of
teaching and learning. The political economy of the
academy is set up to front load the curriculum with large
lower division classes in rooms immutably arranged for
lectures, usually in classes limited to fifty-minute
“hours.” Student-student interaction; extended, careful
examination of ideas; the hearing-out of multiple per-
spectives; the development of an intellectual community -
all these are hard to accomplish under these constraints.
The lecture-centered model is reinforced (both subtly
and blatantly) by institutional reward systems that favor
limited engagement in teaching, and give greater recogni-
tion to research. Achievement for teachers and students
alike is assumed to be a scarce honor, which one works
for alone, in competition with peers. This assumption of
scarcity is the platform for norm-referenced grading, or
“grading on the curve,” a procedure that enforces dis-
tance between students and corrodes the trust on which
collaborative learning is built.
Moreover, our definitions of our selves as teachers, as
keepers and dispensers of disciplinary expertise, are still
very much bound up in the lecture podium. For example,
a colleague recently told us a poignant story about his
dean coming to observe his teaching. The dean looked
into the room where students were avidly engaged in
small group work.
Turning to leave, the dean said to our colleague, “Oh,
you’re doing groups today. Ill come back when you’re
teaching.” We have a long way to go.
What really has propelled us and our colleagues into
collaborative classrooms is the desire to motivate stu-
dents by getting them more actively engaged. Nonethe-
less, wanting to be a facilitator of collaborative learning
and being good at it are very different things. As with all
kinds of teaching, designing and guiding group work
takes time to learn and practice. And for students, learn-
ing to learn well in groups doesn’t happen overnight.
Most teachers start with modest efforts. Many work with
colleagues, designing, trying and observing each other’s
approaches.
At their best, collaborative classrooms stimulate both
students and teachers. In the most authentic of ways, the
collaborative learning process models what it means to
question, learn and understand in concert with others.
Learning collaboratively demands responsibility, persis-
tence and sensitivity, but the result can be a community
of learners in which everyone is welcome to join, par-
ticipate and grow.
REFERENCES
[1] Abercrombie, M. L. J. Aims and Techniques of Group
Teaching. Surrey, England: Society for Research into
Higher Education. 1970.
[2] Abercrombie, M. L. J. The Anatomy of Judgement. Lon-
don: Book Guild, 1961.
[3] Abt, C. Serious Games. Washington, D. C.: University
Press of America, 1987.
[4] Astin, A. Achieving Educational Excellence. San Fran-

What is Collaborative Learning? 38
cisco, Jossey Bass, 1985.
[5] Barrrows, N. S. and R. M. Tamblyn. Problem-Based
Learning: An Approach to Medical Education. New York:
Springer Publishing, 1980.
[6] Blanc, R. A. and L. E. DeBuhr, and D. C. Martin. ‘Break-
ing the Attrition Cycle.” Journal of Higher Education. 54,
(1), 1983.
[7] Bonwell, C. and J. Eison. Active Learning: Creating Ex-
citement in the Classroom. ASHE-ERIC Higher Educa-
tion Report (1), 1991.
[8] Borchardt, D. Think Tank Theatre: Decision-Making
Applied. Lanham, MD: University Press of America,
1984.
[9] Brown, J. S., A. Collins, and P. Duguid. “Situated Cogni-
tion and the Culture of Learning.” Educational Researcher.
18 (1), 1989.
[10] Bratley, P. et al. A Guide to Simulations. 2nd edition.
Springer-Verlag, 1987.
[11] Bricker, David C. Classroom Life as Civic Education:
Individual Achievement and Student Cooperation in
Schools. New York: Teachers College Press, 1989.
[12] Christensen, C. R., and A. J. Hansen. Teaching and the
Case Method. Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School,
1987.
[13] Christensen, C. R., D. Garvin, and A. Sweet. Education
for Judgement: The Artistry of Discussion Leadership.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Busi-ness School,
1991.
[14] Day, P. J., H. J. Macy and E. C. Jackson. Social Working:
Exercises in Generalist Practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall, 1984.
[15] de Tornay, R. and M. A. Thompson. Strategies for Teach-
ing Nursing. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1987.
[16] Deutsch, M. “A Theory of Cooperation and Competition.”
Human Relations, 2. Eble, K. The Craft of Teaching. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1976.
[17] Finkel, D. L. and G. S. Monk. “Teachers and Learning
Groups: Dissolution of the Atlas Complex.” In C. Bouton
and R. Y. Garth (Eds.) Learning in Groups. New Direc-
tions for Teaching and Learning, No. 14 San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, 1983.
[18] Gabelnick, F. and J. MacGregor, R. Matthews, and B. L.
Smith. Learning Communities: Creating Connections
Among Students, Faculty and Disciplines. San Francisco:
Jossey Bass New Directions for Teaching and Learning,
Number 41, Spring 1990.
[19] Gere, A. Writing Groups: History, Theory and Implica-
tions. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press,
1987.
[20] Golub, J. (Ed). Focus on Collaborative Learning. Urbana,
IL: National Council of Teachers of English, 1988.
[21] Johnson, D. W. and R. T. Johnson. Cooperation and Com-
petition: Theory and Research. Edina, MN: Interaction
Book Company, 1989.
[22] Johnson, David W., R. Johnson, and E. Holubec. Circles
of Learning: Coopera-tion in the Classroom. Edina, MN:
Interaction Book Company, 1990.
[23] Kuh, G. et al. Involving Colleges: Successful Approaches
to Fostering Student Learning and Development Outside
the Classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1991.
[24] Lewin, K. A Dynamic Theory of Personality. New York:
McGraw Hill, 1935.
[25] Mac Gregor, J. What Difference Do Learning Communi-
ties Make?” Washington Center News, (6) 1, 1991.
Olympia, WA: Washington Center for Undergraduate
Education, The Evergreen State College.
[26] MacGregor, J. “Collaborative Learning: Shared Inquiry
as a Process of Reform.” In M. Svinicki, (Ed.) The
Changing Face of College Teaching. New Directions for
Teaching and Learning, No. 42, San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass, 1990.
[27] McKeachie, W. Teaching Tips: A Guidebook for the Be-
ginning Teacher. Lexing-ton, MA: D. C. Heath, 1986.
[28] Miller, D. I. Experience in Decision Making for Students
of Industrial Psychol-ogy. Washington, D. C.: University
Press of America, 1981.
[29] Neff, R and M. Weimer. Classroom Communication:
Collected Readings for Effective Discussion and Ques-
tioning. Madison, WI: Magna Publications, 1989.
[30] Roemer, K. M. Build Your Own Utopia. Washington D.
C.: University Press of America, 1981.
[31] Romer, K. and W. Whipple. “Collaboration across the
Power Line.” College Teaching, 1990, 39 (2).