UNIVERSITY TEACHING SERVICES
BLACK BAR SERIES
Collaborative
Learning
Activities
UTS
Collaborative Learning
Activities
University
University
Teaching
Teaching
Services
University Teaching Services
Services
What are collaborative learning activities?
Students engaged in collaborative learning work together toward a
common academic goal. There is considerable variation in definitions as to the
degree of structure involved, the permanence of the student groupings, and
levels of group, as opposed to individual, accountability. However, the following
characteristics are part of most definitions:
— Activities include an element of positive interdependence among
group members
— Collaborative learning preserves individual accountability
— Activities include face-to-face interaction among students and with the
instructor
— Activities are designed to enhance students’ cooperative skills
— Collaborative learning is best suited to processing or practicing newly
introduced concepts.
Beyond these essentials, there is considerable scope for variation in the
design of such activities. Activities may be designed and implemented with
greater or lesser degrees of departure from an instructor’s usual teaching style,
so a course’s format need not be radically altered to accommodate collaborative
activities. Whether in a large lecture course or small seminar, these activities add
to the ways students work with new knowledge, thereby increasing the quality
of their learning.
The following activities were chosen with particular criteria in mind: they
should be easy to implement; they should provide a loose structure for student
practice with readings, lecture material, or their own writing; they should not
require group grades; and they should require student preparation, not for a
grade, but in order to participate in the class community. In addition, each of
these activities involves various possible sizes of groups and various amounts of
in-class, group activity. For this reason, the collaborative activities listed here are
suited to classes of varying size and format. The first activity is highly
recommended for the first day of class to accustom the students to active
participation; the other activities can be implemented at any time.
First Day of Class: Groups of 4-5 students develop questions they have about the
class, its structure, content, requirements, and so on. The syllabus is distributed,
and groups review their questions in light of the syllabus. The class reconvenes
to discuss any existing questions and to review groups’ preconceptions and
thoughts about the course. (adapted from Kadel and Keehner 1994, 111)
Encouraging Reading Outside the Classroom: A reading review sheet of 3-12
questions is distributed before a given reading assignment. The day the reading
is to be discussed, small groups begin the class by comparing their answers to the
review questions. Groups might be asked to pinpoint a particularly difficult
Page 1
question and to reach a consensus on the answer to report to the class.
Alongside this activity’s primary goal of increasing the number of students completing reading
assignments in a timely fashion, the collaborative group work gives more students confidence to
participate in class-wide discussion. Students are given intrinsic motivation for coming to class
prepared lest they be unprepared for the small group discussion with their peers. This activity can be
used for insuring preparation for any in-class activity. (adapted from Kadel and Keehner 1994, 11920; and Hawkes 1991)
Dialectical Notebook: All students read an article. A pair of students, A and B, share a notebook for
responding to the article. For example, student A chooses and comments upon a series of excerpts
that particularly characterize the article’s meaning. Student B then writes a response to A’s
commentary; A then responds to both the initial choices and B’s response; and B then completes the
sequence by responding to A’s last entry. These steps could be abridged, but the essential ingredient
of this activity is the peer interaction in written form. This writing need not happen during class
time; notebooks could be exchanged in class at each stage. At the end of the sequence, at the time the
reading is scheduled for class discussion, all students will have had plenty of opportunity to test and
react to one another’s ideas. (adapted from Kadel and Keehner 1994, 132-3)
Double Entry Journals: The left side of a standard notebook page is used for summarizing a given
reading and listing 6-10 major points. The right side is used for reaction to the reading and answering
pre-distributed questions. These journal entries can then be used in group work to summarize
members reactions, to draft a ‘burning question’ that was not resolved by the reading, or to
summarize the group’s discussion for the class. The journalling forms the groundwork for class
discussion and ensures preparation on the part of the students. (adapted from Hughes and Townley
1994, 14-17; for further discussion of the collaborative use of journals, see Bolling 1994)
Jigsaw: This activity is particularly suited to situations in which students require practice with
content that is easily divided into constituent parts. Groups are assigned a specific aspect or element
of the concept under consideration (e.g., different aspects of a work of literature, different steps or
methods for solving a given problem), and each group member is expected to become an ‘expert’ on
that aspect. The groups are then reshuffled to include one member from each of the previous groups
in one new group, and each expert is responsible for ‘teaching’ their particular area of expertise to the
other group members.
Develop expertise
Teach to new group
group 1
group 2
group 3
1
2
3
1
1
2
2
3
group 1
group 2
group 3
1
1
1
3
2
3
2
3
2
3
In this activity, students practice with new concepts and methods by, first, reviewing and
practicing with peers, and, second, by teaching the material to others. This is not the first time the
new group members have heard of the new concept; for them the ‘expert’s’ presentation is further
review as well. (adapted from Hughes and Townley 1994, 13; Millis and Cottell 1993; and Crowley
and Dunn 1992)
Page 2
Pairs and Squares: Each student, individually, spends 5 minutes writing their answer to a given
problem or question. Pairs of students then compare and discuss their responses. Groups of pairs (4
students) then compare findings and try to reach consensus for presentation to the class as a whole.
This activity encourages students to gradually increase the amount of feedback they receive on a
particular problem. Individual accountability is preserved by the initial 5 minutes, followed by
practice in developing consensus. (adapted from Hughes and Townley 1994, 13-14)
2 x 4 Debate: Pairs of students take on one side of a given issue and prepare for a very brief, tightly
structured debate with another pair that has prepared the opposing side. The debate itself might only
involve a one-minute presentation by each side with 30 second rebuttals. The class could then
reconvene to discuss the process and the results. (adapted from Hughes and Townley 1994, 14)
Bookends: Pairs of students work together before a lecture session starts to compile what they
already know about a topic and what questions they have already developed. After the lecture,
students are given time to consider what was added in the lecture and to go over any questions that
have not yet been addressed. (adapted from Holubec 1992, 182)
With the exception of the First Day of Class, each of these activities requires prior, individual
preparation on the part of students. The incentive for this preparation comes not from a grade to be
given by the teacher, but from the interest of the student in being able to contribute to subsequent
activities with their peers. This self-interest has been found to be stronger motivation for higher
quality preparation than more traditional methods of testing student preparation (Lowman 1990). In
addition to this potential benefit from using such collaborative methods in the classroom, these
activities also give students the opportunity to practice using new knowledge and developing
essential skills of oral and written expression.
The following references are all available through University Teaching Services (474-7025).
Bolling, A. 1994, ‘Using Group Journals to Improve Writing and Comprehension’, Journal on
Excellence in College Teaching 5(1), 47-55.
Crowley, M. and Dunn, K. 1992, ‘Moving Towards a Cooperative Classroom’, handout from
workshop presented at S.T.L.H.E. conference, York University.
Hawkes, P. 1991, ‘Collaborative Learning and American Literature’, College Teaching 39(4), 140-144.
Holubec, E. 1992, ‘How Do you Get There From Here? Getting Started With Cooperative Learning’,
Contemporary Education 63(3), 181-184.
Hughes, H. and Townley, A. 1994, ‘Cooperative Learning in Graduate Education: A Study of Its
Effectiveness in Administrator Training in Two California Universities’, ERIC document ED
375517.
Kadel, S. and Keehner, J. 1994, Collaborative Learning: A Sourcebook for Higher Education vol. 2
(National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning and Assessment, Pennsylvania State
University).
Lowman, J. 1990, ‘Promoting Motivation and Learning’, College Teaching 38(4), 136-139.
Millis, B. and Cottell, P. 1993, ‘Moving Beyond the Basics: Cooperative Learning Strategies for
Advanced Practitioners’, handouts from workshop presented at 1993 POD National Conference.
© 01/97
University Teaching Services
University Teaching Services
The University of Manitoba
220 Sinnott Bldg., 70 Dysart Road
Winnipeg, MB R3T 2N2
(204) 474-7025
Fax: (204) 474-7607
Page 3