Asia Pacific Educ. Rev.
DOI 10.1007/s12564-011-9156-y
Learning through collaboration: student perspectives
Gihan Osman • Thomas M. Duffy • Ju-yu Chang •
Jieun Lee
Received: 11 August 2010 / Revised: 15 January 2011 / Accepted: 27 February 2011
 Education Research Institute, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea 2011
Abstract This research examines the effectiveness of
collaborative learning pedagogies from the perspective of
students. There is a rich history of research on collabora-
tive learning demonstrating the effectiveness and this has
led to indexing educational quality by student engagement.
However, the findings from this study question the efficacy
of collaborative pedagogies in their actual implementation.
While collaboration was a part of the most highly rated
learning experiences, these pedagogies were typically
described as ineffective. Key factors that students see
associated with effective collaboration are reported. The
students’ perceptions of learning as reflected in their
comments on collaborative learning, implications for set-
ting expectations for college learning, and needs for faculty
development are discussed.
Keywords Collaborative learning
Undergraduate
education
Student engagement
Small group discussion

Whole class discussion
Group project
G. Osman
Graduate School of Business, Arab Academy for Science
and Technology, Maadi, Cairo, Egypt
T. M. Duffy
Barbara Jacobs Chair of Education and Technology,
Indiana University at Bloomington, Bloomington, IN, USA
J. Chang
Indiana University at Bloomington, Bloomington, IN, USA
J. Lee (&)
Accreditation Center for Education, University of Seoul,
Seoul, Korea
e-mail: JieunHelena@gmail.com
Introduction
Kuh and his associates (Carini and Kuh 2002; Kuh 2002)
have argued that the quality of the learning experience of
students should be most central to any measure of the
effectiveness of higher education. They further argue,
based on the work of Chickering and Gamson (1987), that
the quality of the learning experience can be indexed by the
degree to which a student is actively involved in the edu-
cational process, whether in or outside of the classroom.
The emphasis on student engagement as an index of
learning effectiveness is consistent with ongoing and
increasing attention to collaborative learning pedagogies
(e.g., Andriessen 2006; Phipps et al. 2001; Veerman and
Veldhuis-Diermanse 2006). By collaborative learning, we
mean any of the variety of strategies employed by an
instructor to promote students working together to advance
their understanding of a subject matter. With the focus on
‘‘understanding’’, we include the variety of collaborative
and cooperative learning strategies (Cooper and Mueck
1990; Dansereau 1988), but would exclude the strategies
that focus mostly on drill and practice or surface-level
comprehension of the text. The collaborative learning
strategies all prompt students to interact with one another,
encouraging them to articulate their perspectives and to
resolve differences in understanding. From a social con-
structivist view, both the need to explain to others and to
accommodate the position of others supports the student in
constructing a richer and more elaborate understanding of a
topic (Duffy and Cunningham 1996; Scardamalia and
Bereiter 1991). Additionally, the active learning process is
seen as more motivating (Johnson and Johnson 1989) since
students are actively involved and vested in discussion.
Research findings support the theoretical framework,
with over 600 studies dating from the late 1800s indicating
123

that learning in cooperative and collaborative groups is
more powerful than having students work individually or in
competition with one another (Johnson and Johnson 1981;
Johnson et al. 1981). Small-group work is reported to have
a significantly positive effect on student attitudes toward
learning (Carlsmith and Cooper 2002; Springer et al. 1999).
Discussion allows students to generate and exchange a
diversity of opinions, and this has been found to lead to better
retention (Gatfield 1999). Moreover, students working in
groups have been reported to develop a more in-depth
understanding of a particular topic (Hill 1996) that leads to
significant gains in academic achievement (Hill 1996;
Hunter 1996; Millis and Cottell 1998).
While the research evidence appears to provide over-
whelming support for collaborative learning, there is also
a body of research that questions its effectiveness. For
example, Stasser et al. (2000) found in a collaborative
decision-making task that participants tend to discuss
what they share in common rather than the expertise each
brings to the discussion, even when they know that each
one in the group has particular expertise. Indeed, the
contributions of information unique to an individual tend
to be ignored by the group. This is consistent with Col-
lette et al.’s (1999) argument (from Kanuka and Garrison
2004) that groups very often stay in the comfort zone,
sharing what they have in common. It also conforms to
the findings that group brainstorming is often less effec-
tive than participants working individually (Lewis et al.
1975; McGrath 1984; Osborn 1953). That is, there is
tendency for group think. Finally, the work of Sweller
(1988) on cognitive load theory would suggest that col-
laborative learning of any complex subject matter may
overload the memory system and be less effective than a
clear and well-designed lecture.
Unsupervised small groups may also be expected to spend
considerable time off-task. While there are little data on this
issue, Kanuka and Garrison (2004) and Brookfield and Pre-
skill (1999) argue for the importance of the instructor in
keeping students on task. Indeed, Mikulecky (1998) found
that students in small group discussions spent considerable
time off-task, discussing social events. Similarly, Klemm
and Snell (1996) note that small group discussions can easily
become trivial if there is no instructor monitoring.
Wiley and Bailey (2006) also point to research that
suggests motivation and effort may be impacted by a
lowered sense of individual responsibility in a group set-
ting. Group decision makers, feeling less investment in
their decisions, tend to contribute less than they would
individually. They also note that when ad hoc groups are
formed, in contrast to continuing groups, work and inter-
personal processes need to be developed. The development
process and especially the failure to develop effective
processes can lead to ineffectual group performance.
123
G. Osman et al.
Finally, Johnson and Johnson (1989) have long argued
that mutual interdependence is essential to successful
group performance. Unless individual success is depen-
dent on the success of the individual members, then the
group process will suffer. But it may not be sufficient to
have mutual interdependence in terms of the final product.
We are sure that faculty and students have all experienced
the incorrigible free loader who does not care about
mutual interdependence. Hence, Rau and Heyl (1990)
require students to complete preliminary work in prepa-
ration for the group assignment, and a student may only
participate with the group if he or she completes the
preliminary work in a way that indicates the materials
were read.
Given this literature on what can go wrong with group
work, how are we to account for the rich literature indi-
cating the success of such groups in the college classroom?
We suspect that part of the answer rests in the research
environment. That is, when one is conducting a research
study, the methodology is closely controlled and the ‘‘best’’
collaborative learning methods will be used. Certainly,
under controlled conditions with careful attention to prac-
tice, we may expect success of collaborative activities. Of
course, there are numerous correlation studies also showing
the success of collaborative learning strategies across a
wide variety of classrooms (e.g., Hake 1998). However,
correlation studies in natural settings are fraught with
interpretive difficulty.
For example, instructors more committed to teaching are
likely to not only use collaborative learning but also work
much harder on all aspects of their teaching. Thus, it may
well be the quality of the faculty not collaborative learning
that leads to better performance. Similarly, better students
and students more interested in the subject matter are more
likely to engage in collaborative groups and also to perform
at a higher level. It may well be the ability or motivation of
the students, not the pedagogy, that leads to better
performance.
The purpose of this study is to examine the student
perception of the practice of collaborative learning peda-
gogies in the college classroom. Our goal is to understand,
from the student perspective, what instructors are doing in
their use of collaborative learning pedagogies. Several
studies have also indicated the link between students’
perceptions of their learning experiences and individual
and group outcomes (e.g., Lizzio and Wilson 2005; Murray
2001; Scheja 2006). Thus, we regard students’ perceptions
as reasonable indicators of the experience. But beyond that,
the students’ perceptions of their collaborative experiences
may be expected to influence how they respond to similar
activities in the future. For example, Deutsch (1962) indi-
cates that one of the four factors that determine learners’
choice to continue to be part of group work is related to
Learning through collaboration
their past experiences with groups. We thus believe it
important for us to identify how students perceive these
experiences.
Of course, collaborative pedagogies are a part of a much
larger situation and many important variables including
instructor, classroom, and student characteristics transcend
all aspects of the classroom experience. That is, the
boundary between collaborative pedagogy and the broader
classroom culture and context is unclear. It is in circum-
stances such as these that Yin (2003) argues that a quali-
tative approach to obtaining rich understanding of the
phenomenon is called for. It is with this in mind that we
conducted in-depth interviews to obtain the perceptions of
students as to their best learning experiences and the role, if
any of collaborative pedagogy in that experience, the fre-
quency of their experience with collaborative pedagogies,
the variety of collaborative experiences, their judgment of
the value of that collaboration, and the critical attributes of
the experience that impacted success.
Of course, critical to the students’ perceptions is their
sense of ‘‘learning’’ and hence how collaboration contrib-
utes to learning. We define learning in terms of increased
understanding of the subject matter as we do not want the
focus to be simply on passing whatever tests the instructor
devised for the course.
In conducting the interviews, we sought to leave it up to
the students to consider all their collaborative learning
experiences. Thus, we did not predefine collaboration
except as having two characteristics: assigned or structured
by the instructor and students working together. However,
after initial probing as to their best learning and collabo-
rative learning experiences, we probed more deeply in
terms of three types of collaboration: small group collab-
oration during the class, whole-class discussion, and col-
laborative projects that extend over weeks. However, there
was no further definition and thus any collaborative or
cooperative pedagogy could be described under one of
these three categories.
Since this is an initial examination of student views of
collaborative pedagogies, we sought a sample of students
who would have rich experiences with collaborative
learning and who were likely to thoughtfully reflect on
those experiences. With this in mind, we purposefully
sampled upper-level undergraduates in the teacher educa-
tion program who were also actively involved in thinking
about and advising on the curriculum. We sought students
in teacher education because Carini and Kuh (2002) found,
and our data confirmed, that collaborative pedagogies were
used far more extensively in teacher education. While this
focus will limit the generality of the study, we see it as
providing descriptions and interpretations of the richness of
collaborative experiences that can then inform further
work.
Method
Participants
The participants were ten undergraduate education majors
who served on an educational advisory committee in a
teacher education program at a large mid-western univer-
sity in the United States. There were five female and five
male participants with self-reported GPA ranging from
3.35 to 3.96 on a four-point scale. The eight seniors and
two juniors volunteered for the study and were not com-
pensated for their participation.
Interview protocol
A semi-structured interview was conducted, guided by five
question categories moving from general to specific. Stu-
dents were first asked to describe two of their best under-
graduate learning experiences, which was followed by a
question of their best collaborative learning experiences. In
each case, students were asked to describe the experiences
in detail.
The next three questions probed their experiences with
small group discussion, whole-class discussion, and group
project. For each type of collaborative learning context, we
sought to understand how frequently it was experienced,
how effective it was overall, that nature of the experience,
and what the critical factors were in determining the suc-
cess or failure. Examples of positive and negative experi-
ences were sought in addition.
Interviewer training
The Interviewer training and the refinement of the inter-
view protocol occurred through repeated practice inter-
views with undergraduate students and team review of the
recording of those interviews.
Procedure
Students were interviewed individually by two interview-
ers, with one taking the lead in the discussion while the
other monitored the interview and filled in with questions
or clarifications as needed. All students agreed to have the
interview tape-recorded.
After basic instructions, students were asked to reflect
on their best learning experiences in each of their college
years. Five minutes were allowed for reflection and note
taking. The interview then began.
Interviews lasted between 45 and 90 min. After review-
ing all the interviews, follow-up interviews were scheduled
with the students in order to gather more details. The fol-
low-up interview lasted for about 45 min.
123

Data analysis
The constant comparative method that allows simultaneous
coding and analysis was used in extracting key variables
and themes. Glaser and Strauss (1967) argue that this
method makes ‘‘probable the achievement of a complex
theory that corresponds closely to the data, since the con-
stant comparisons force the analyst to consider much
diversity in the data (pp. 113–114).’’
The tape recordings were transcribed, and the accu-
racy of the transcription was verified by tracking the
complete transcript against the audio record. Each tran-
script was first analyzed, using open coding (Boeije
2002), by one researcher to capture descriptions of each
individual’s collaborative experiences and to identify the
key variables impacting each collaborative experience.
Different extracts from the interviews were compared for
consistency of emerging themes. Extracts that were
coded similarly were compared for commonalities and
differences. A second researcher then reviewed the
transcript and analysis to validate the codes and vari-
ables, interpretation of the variables, and the themes.
Disagreements in analysis were easily resolved through
discussion.
Interviews were then compared. Extracts from different
interviews dealing with the same theme or having the same
code were then compared to come up with the character-
istics of each category. Codes were sometimes extended or
combined, and the categories refined during this stage.
Cross-interview comparisons were confirmed by at least
two of the researchers.
Results
Students did not have trouble identifying their best
undergraduate learning experiences. They readily descri-
bed a whole course they took or a particular class session or
activity. While the interviewers had made no mention of
our focus on collaborative learning, every interviewee
named at least one collaborative learning experience;
eighteen of the twenty ‘‘best’’ learning experiences
described by interviewees involved some form of collab-
orative learning. Fourteen of the eighteen collaborative
experiences involved group projects.
Small group discussions
After discussing their overall best learning experiences, a
series of questions probed their experiences learning in
small groups.
123
G. Osman et al.
Frequency
Students were consistent in reporting that small group
discussions occur very frequently in the teacher education
classrooms; much more often than in classes taken outside
the discipline. The percentage of classes that involved
small group discussions varied. Two students reported that
small group discussion was part of all of their classes; three
students reported it occurred in 10–20% of their classes;
one reported 20–40%; and three reported a range of
50–75%. One student did not respond to the question about
frequency.
Preferences
While only one student identified small group discussion as
among the best collaborative learning experiences, five of
the ten students acknowledged that small group discussions
had the potential of being beneficial, but four noted that it
too often fell short of that potential. The exception to this
qualified praise was a student who described small group
discussions as a waste of time in terms of benefit.
The most commonly reported merit of small group
discussion was that it served to actively involve more
students. Six interviewees reported that students who are
reticent to speak in public are likely to become more active
in smaller groups. Britney explained:
In a lot of my classes there are some really quiet
people and I think they’re just afraid to speak out in
front of a whole big group of people. But if they’re
with one or two other people they’ll be more willing
to share their ideas and you’ll see that they have some
real valid points … to bring to the class.
Two students also reported that discussions usually
made the class more engaging. Sally explained that the
class goes ‘‘smoother’’ because ‘‘you’re listening to a
whole diverse people’s opinions.’’
Critical factors
When we asked about the factors that make small group
discussion an effective learning experience, the students
identified four factors: interest, participation, class envi-
ronment, and role of the instructor.
Relevance Having a topic that addresses students’ current
interests and future needs was one of the major success
factors, mentioned by eight students. When students do not
regard the topic as relevant, seven interviewees com-
mented, they are likely to go off-task. Students complained
that discussion topics are often contrived in order to cover
Learning through collaboration
the content rather than to address issues relevant to the
students.
Rebecca emphasized that controversial topics usually
trigger students’ excitement and engagement, noting that it
is always a benefit when ‘‘a teacher can present questions
that engage the students and cause real critical thinking.’’
Jacob, a non-traditional student in his forties, however,
warned against posing questions and issues that are vague
or too philosophical.
A relevant topic may not be presented in a way that
engages the students. Jennifer described the failure of a
discussion of ‘‘No Child Left Behind’’, a legislation that is
having a major impact on teaching in the United States:
… We divided into groups and we were supposed to
talk about what we thought about it [No Child Left
Behind legislation], the pros and the cons or some-
thing like that. I just remember that no one really
formed groups. It would be like two students here and
three students there talking about nothing that had to
do with the course. And then we all came back
together as a class to discuss and no one had anything
to discuss. It was a total failure as a lesson because
that was the whole point is we were supposed to have
these wonderful ideas but no one cared to have them.
Instructors typically address relevance by organizing
discussion around readings that were assigned for home-
work the previous day, according to four interviewees.
However, four students indicated that this is not an effec-
tive strategy because too many students come to class
without having finished the readings; these students often
go off-task. To overcome the lack of preparation problem,
one student suggested that discussion be about topics stu-
dents are familiar with without having to do any reading.
Structure and accountability Discussions often seem
pointless—without a clear goal—as indicated by four in-
terviewees. Jim explained that discussions become point-
less and demotivating when the instructor asks students to
discuss a topic without providing guidelines for what is to
be produced from that discussion. Ann explained that she
liked it when her instructor assigned a certain number of
points to be covered during the discussions, because the
task gave her a sense of direction.
In addition to providing clear guidance on the assign-
ment, five out of our ten interviewees noted that account-
ability for the work is essential. Michael commented that
‘‘there has to be some sort of either reward or some sort of
… product to hand in at the end.’’
Class environment The importance of knowing one’s
group members and feeling comfortable with them was
identified by five of the ten students. Michael said he is
often silenced by the worry of making a fool out of himself.
He indicated that since classes in the education are very
‘‘chronological’’, a group of students tends to share many
classes, and this brings a high degree of comfort. This is
certainly consistent with research in higher education,
where a sense of an academic community has been found
to be central in freshman retention (Kuh 2002). Our data
suggest the sense of community also impacts learning in
the classroom.
Participation Consistent with Light (2001), our students
appreciated homogeneity among group members in terms
of participation and knowledge level. When asked to
describe ineffective small class discussions, six of ten
students complained about unequal participation that was
attributed to failure to come prepared, lack of interest, or
lack of knowledge about the subject. Jim explained that
when students do not have the same level of interest, it
becomes hard to ‘‘really communicate and get something
from each other.’’ This imbalance is often due to the
diversity of academic levels in class.
Instructor’s role Four of the interviewees emphasized the
importance of the instructor’s role in assuring quality of
group discussion. The instructor’s rapport with students was
seen as critical to success of the discussion. For example,
Jennifer commented that ‘‘the classes where those [small
group discussions] aren’t effective are the ones where there’s
a wall between the professor and the students.’’ When the
teacher does not care about the class, the students do not care
either. Another way to ensure quality, according to Michael,
is for the instructor to ‘‘focus more on getting the entire class
comfortable to share with each other.’’
It is also important that the instructors monitor the work
of each group. Anna noted the importance of the instructor
genuinely following what each student is doing in the small
groups. Most instructors, she suggested, ‘‘get focused on
just one group, and they get in that group and everyone else
is off-task.’’ Rotating among groups, according to Sally,
also allows students to ask the instructor questions specific
to their individual interests and needs.
Whole-class discussion
Whole-class discussions for our interviewees are those
situations where the students have primary responsibility
for conducting the discussion, e.g., a topic is introduced in
the class and students discuss that topic. The topic may be
related to the assigned readings or be based on student field
experiences. It may be general, unstructured discussion of
an issue or more structured formats like debates and sim-
ulations. The instructor typically plays a minor role in these
discussions according to five out of our ten interviewees.
123

Frequency
Six of the interviewees indicated they are involved in whole-
class discussion in at least 50% of their courses and, for those
courses, whole-class discussion occurs every day or every other
day. Jacob claimed that all of his teacher education class meet-
ings involved whole-class discussions. In contrast, Michael
estimated that ‘‘out of four regular classes there’s only about one
a semester that really utilizes whole class discussion.’’ The
remaining three students did not provide their views on this issue.
Preference
When discussing the different collaborative pedagogies,
whole-class discussions were reported to be more consis-
tently a positive experience. When asked to compare whole-
class and small group discussion, six interviewees expressed
a preference for whole-class discussion while only two
preferred small group discussion. The students cited two key
factors for their preference. First, the instructor is always
present in the whole-class discussion and hence students stay
on topic. In small group discussions, students are likely to go
off-task, as reported by seven interviewees. Second, seven
students noted that the whole-class discussion meant being
exposed to a wider variety of views. Anna explained:
They [small group and whole class discussions] both
give everyone a chance to talk, but if it’s a whole group
it’s more like you can go back and forth like across the
room; this person thinks this and that person thinks
that. And you can kind of talk it out with each other and
then other people can give their opinion too and it gets
everyone to thinking about something. But if you use
small groups it’s a smaller section of people and a lot of
times they’ll think the same thing about something.
David, for example, recalled a cognitive course he took in his
junior year in explaining his preference for whole-class
discussion:
Maybe [it’s] because we really got to work with each
other in the classroom. We had a lot of [whole class]
discussions and you could hear a lot of other people’s
point of view and we would just talk and talk and talk
about things and it wasn’t so structured and so lecture
like some other classes plus the fact that we were able
to talk and really get to know each other and it was
just much more of a comfortable environment.
Critical factors
Most of the same factors reported for small group discus-
sion also appeared critical to the success of whole-class
discussion, often in the very same way.
123
G. Osman et al.
Relevance The relevance of the topic was seen as a
critical success factor by all but one of the students. Sally
noted that the instructor can play an important role in
sustaining relevance by drawing linkages from what the
students say:
If the teachers based their questions on the discussion
off of what … the students have said in the class then
I think that’s more enjoyable because you’re talking
about what the students are interested in rather than
what the teacher is.
Structure and accountability The structure and account-
ability of the task was not identified as a critical success
factor. It would seem that having to produce something is
not critical to the success of whole-class discussion.
Michael recalled one of his whole-class discussions:
There was never a set agenda so to speak. We met as a
group and we sat in a circle and we made our day’s
activities based on what we each had to say about the book.
One reason this factor might not be important is that this
activity is monitored by the instructor.
Classroom environment The interpersonal comfort level
was a key element. Four interviewees emphasized that the
importance of the interpersonal comfort is even greater in
the whole-class environment since one is expressing a
viewpoint to the whole class. Jacob noted the importance
of comfort in reducing the challenge of talking in front of
the class:
You know you get the feeling of it’s going to be okay.
I’m not going to get hit by a spitball you know or
booed out of a room because people do that. But
there’s an awful lot of pressure in a large classroom
that we put on ourselves.
Participation Broad participation in the discussion is also
critical. Four students indicated that whole-class discus-
sions were not effective when a small number of students
dominate the discussion. Consistent with the work of
Fritschner (2000), students report that this domination is a
frequent occurrence.
Instructor’s role Instructors in whole-class discussions,
according to our interviewees, are expected to take care of
‘‘administrative or housecleaning type of things’’ and really
step back to let students ‘‘take charge and moderate dis-
cussions.’’ Although the students still saw the instructor’s
input to be very important, four students do not expect the
instructor to intervene except when it is necessary. For
example, Brian explains a successful discussion:
Learning through collaboration
Students take charge and moderate discussions. She
[the instructor] really didn’t have much to do with
other than kind of facilitate. She actually didn’t do
too much other than occasionally giving her own
thoughts but I remember that discussion being very
interesting. She didn’t jump in; she let it flow for the
most part.
When instructors dominate, as two interviewees com-
mented, they often do not listen to the students or build off
of students’ comments, hence demotivating students.
Rebecca talked about one of her experiences where the
instructor didn’t seem to really care about what they said:
One of my professors responds to every question with
the same exact gestures and articulations to every
single time … [I]t just doesn’t seem like she cares
and nobody wants to talk. Nobody will share
anything.
Michael recalled one instructor who claimed he was
going to moderate, but then dominated and shut down
discussion perhaps reflecting the distinction between
instructor intentions and actions: ‘‘What happened was the
professor, who said he was a talk show host who tried to be
like a moderator, but he talked the entire time.’’
Group projects
Group projects described by the students lasted anywhere
from 1 week to the whole semester and included from three
to seven team members. A wide range of projects was
described: writing a paper, making a presentation, teaching
a class, writing a lesson plan, and designing or producing a
product of some other kind.
Frequency
Nine students reported that over 50% of the classes they
took had at least one group project. Five students stated
that it is far more likely to have group projects in the
teacher education classes than in other classes.
Preference
Six students viewed group projects as more negative than
positive. Two of them were outspoken in their dislike of
group projects, stating they ‘‘hated’’ them and suggested
that this feeling was widespread. Michael stated that ‘‘a lot
of people … will drop classes if they find out there’s going
to be a large group project.’’
While six students had a negative attitude toward group
projects, four saw the benefit. David explained it as
follows:
… projects really give you an opportunity to use your
imagination and just go wild on it and do whatever
you want, just incorporate so much into it and I just
feel it’s such a great experience for a student to do
projects … I feel that when you’re physically doing
something and really putting your all into something,
I feel that you learn better and you may not realize at
the moment you’re learning but eventually you do
realize.
David acknowledged that these are the benefit of pro-
jects alone and not necessarily that of working collabora-
tively on the project. However, seven interviewees valued
learning from the divergent perspectives presented by team
members. Brian explained ‘‘everybody’s individual con-
tribution contributes to my experience … if it wasn’t them,
it would be different. And if I was alone, I wouldn’t have
the benefit of their views.’’
Consistent with this view, two students argued that
project work should be done as a team rather than divided
up—in other words, collaboratively rather than coopera-
tively. When the work is divided, students think of the
project as an individual learning experience with a coor-
dination component tacked on.
Critical factors
As with the other collaborative pedagogies, the structure of
the task, the role of the instructor, and participation were
identified as key factors underlying the success or failure of
group projects. Since most projects are worked on outside
class, class environment was not mentioned by our students
with reference to projects.
Relevance None of the students identified the relevance
of the project as critical. This is likely because projects by
definition entail application of concepts to situations typi-
cally chosen by the students.
Structure and accountability The rationale for the task
requiring a group was a key factor. Three students reported
that many group projects do not require a group effort and
would more effectively be carried out individually. They
pointed to the frequent requirement for group papers as a
prime example, e.g., Michael noted:
It’s really frustrating when you have to work in a
group when there’s no clear reason why you’re doing
this project in a group if it’s something you could
take on as an individual and learn about as you do it
yourself.
Grading is a significant issue in group projects as reported
by two interviewees. Linking individual performance to the
123

performance of the group creates a perceived level of
unfairness and brings about the tensions between group
members. This student perspective contrasts to the value of
mutual interdependence reported by researchers in the
design of cooperative learning experiences (Cooper and
Mueck 1990). It may be that while the mutual interdepen-
dence leads to higher test scores, it is not a preferred learning
environment and may even be avoided.
Participation Participation was reported by six students
as the most important factor in group projects and the one
that most often seems to doom the project to failure. Even
when the students work collaboratively, rather than divid-
ing the work, there are issues of effort and ownership.
Jennifer makes this point.
… In general I’m not a big fan of team work because
… I’m an over-achiever, and I’m like well if I don’t
do this then it’s not going to get done how I would
like it to be done and I don’t like depending on other
people for my grade.
Some problems of team work can be overcome, as two
students suggested, by letting students to form their own
teams, working with others who are trusted and similarly
motivated. Rebecca suggested that longer projects, running
the entire term, were better than shorter projects because
they develop ‘‘a great deal of trust and mutual respect …
and it is … what its like to be out in the field … [where]
you’ll work with people for at least a year.’’
Instructor’s role Nine students described the instructor as
critical to the effectiveness of projects. The primary
responsibilities of the instructor were identified as three-
fold: provide guidance on the work (five students), help
assure all students are participating (three students), and
grade in a way that takes into account individual contri-
bution (two students). Guidance includes providing clear
project requirements and a timeline, but it also involves
listening to the students and providing timely feedback.
Britney reflected the general view of the students in this
description:
… it was really interesting because she[instructor]
gave us specific roles in the group … there were four
different jobs … we had to meet four times. So each
time we met, the roles shifted and so we had different
responsibilities within that meeting and then we had
to report to her and send her an email after each
meeting like this is what we did; this is what the roles
were; and these are the questions we have and this is
what progress we’ve made toward our actual pre-
sentation. So I thought that was really neat because
there was accountability for all. She could tell who
123
G. Osman et al.
was doing what and we all had our turn in these
different roles and then we’re actually working
toward a useful presentation that we then later had to
get up in front of the class and go through.
Discussion
Our students reported a very high use of collaborative
activities in their education classes, much more so than in
classes outside of education. Thus from the perspective of
student engagement, as described by Chickering and
Gamson (1987) and Kuh (2002), these students are in a
highly productive educational environment, one where we
would expect high degrees of engagement and learning.
However, the students tell different stories. While they see
the potential of collaborative learning strategies, they also
report that the strategies too often fail.
Small group discussion, from the reports of our students,
is the least effective collaborative pedagogy. There were
only two mentions of small groups among the descriptions of
best learning and collaborative learning experiences. This
pedagogy was described as the approach that while having
potential, normally fails. In contrast, group projects, when
they work, lead to the most memorable learning experiences.
Fourteen of the eighteen best collaborative experiences were
project based and these were frequently among the best
learning experiences overall. But, it is also the case that
group projects are most often a failure, creating strong neg-
ative feelings in students, such that some avoid classes with
team projects. Central to the failure of the team projects
would seem to be a combination of the unequal commitment
and ability of the students and the failure of the grading
policy to take into account individual contribution.
A whole-class discussion, while mentioned only once in
describing best experiences, was reported as the collabo-
rative strategy that seems to consistently lead to a positive
experience. Surprisingly, for students, whole-class discus-
sion did not refer to the teacher-led discussions that have
been the focus of research on classroom interaction.
Instead, they refer to the contexts where the students are
responsible for the flow of the discussion and, as described,
the instructor plays a facilitating role.
Looking across the students’ perceptions of the peda-
gogical strategies, the critical role of the instructor stands
out. Regardless of pedagogy, it is the instructor that is seen
as primarily responsible for making it ‘‘work.’’ Structuring
the task, assuring the topic is relevant, grading based on
individual contributions, keeping the discussion stay on
topic, and giving students primary responsibility for the
discussion were all critical instructors’ responsibilities
mentioned by the interviewees. In contrast to this
Learning through collaboration
comprehensive list of instructor variables, students only
identified lack of motivation to participate, lack of prepa-
ration, and dominance by particular individuals as student
factors impacting success.
A second factor that stands out is students’ weak sense
of academic commitment. There are four areas of student
comments relevant to inferring their academic commit-
ment: the instructor characteristics, the value of collabo-
ration, the comments on preparation for class, and their
views on what should be learned.
Instructors, as we noted, are seen as key to the success of a
learning environment. But, seldom if ever did the students
describe the expertise and knowledge of the instructor as
important; rather it was how approachable, empathetic, or
humorous he or she was. We do not disagree with the impor-
tance of these latter characteristics, but we are concerned that
students did not report expertise as important. In this teacher
education program, students seem to seek personality rather
than expertise. The University of Aalborg serves as an inter-
esting contrast. The University has adopted a project-based
curriculum where responsibility for learning falls on students.
The instructors are there to support student learning (Kjersdam
and Enemark 1994). Under these circumstances, expertise is the
most important instructor characteristic in student ratings while
the instructors’ ability to involve students, their interest in stu-
dents, and their ability to speak to an audience were all rated low
in importance (Kjersdam and Enemark 1994; F. Kjersdam,
personal communication).
The second factor relevant to inferring their academic
commitment is their view of learning. In all of our interviews,
neither critical evaluation nor evidence-based reasoning was
ever described as part of the collaborative process or of
learning. Rather, the value of collaborative learning was
repeatedly described as hearing the opinions of other stu-
dents. Whole-class discussion was preferred in part because
there were more opinions available. As Sally noted, if you go
around the room, ‘‘you get everyone’s opinion.’’ The quality
of the discussions was never mentioned. This, of course,
contrasts to current theoretical rationale for collaborative
pedagogy and for the centrality of active learning.
The third factor relevant to academic commitment is the
student response to the fact that many students come to
class unprepared. Kuh (2002) found that students study
10 h per week on average and this is certainly consistent
with the descriptions provided by our students who suggest
that coming to class without preparation is widespread.
While students react against the lack of preparation, they
do not suggest strategies to assure that students are pre-
pared. Rather, the proposal is that the topic for classroom
discussion should reflect common knowledge and not
depend on having read the assignment. Again, discussion
seems to be for sharing opinions rather than for critically
understanding the subject matter of the course.
The final factor related to academic commitment is the
belief that all learning must have direct application to the
field. Of course, education is an applied field, but we are
concerned that students are looking for applied instruction
rather than support for developing an understanding that will
guide their own ability to apply principles, i.e., becoming
reflective practitioners (Parsons and Brown 2002; Schön
1983; van Manen 1995). Repeatedly we heard students state
that if they could not see the immediate relevance, then it was
not worth the effort. Indeed, even a discussion of No Child
Left Behind—a legislation having a dramatic impact on
teaching—did not stir interest. As, Jacob noted, ‘‘I think that
… big philosophical questions that have no wrong answer
and they also don’t have a right answer and so no one knows
what to say.’’ This, of course, suggests that students would
find any discussion of how people learn (Bransford et al.
2000) to be too abstract and would prefer simply receiving
the teaching procedures and rules someone derived from the
understanding of the learning process.
Each of these four factors leads to questions about stu-
dents’ academic expectations and goals. It simply reflects
an academic context of which they are a part, including the
setting of expectations by the instructors and the policies of
an institution.
Certainly, we must question the effectiveness of any
pedagogical strategy that does not focus on changing these
expectations and goals. The collaborative learning assign-
ments described by the students typically lacked require-
ments for some output from the discussion or for any
substantial argument development. Certainly, the guidance
provided to faculty for implementing collaborative learning
strategies addresses the structures needed for effective
collaboration (Cooper and Mueck 1990; Johnson and
Johnson 1981; Savery and Duffy 1995). Certainly, we do
not think that faculty cannot follow that guidance. Rather
the challenges are likely due at least in part to the difficulty
faculty encounter in transferring the principles to their
particular subject matter and goals. Additionally, the time
and effort in designing effective collaborative tasks can be
difficult to manage along with the normal teaching
demands and other responsibilities. Finally, faculty who
are teaching practitioners rather than researchers may well
lack the rich tacit knowledge underlying terms like ‘‘col-
laborate.’’ The issues are very similar to those found in
translating research to practice in elementary and second-
ary education (Blumenfeld et al. 2000; English 2003).
Conclusions and recommendations
This study was quite limited in scope, being based on ten
students who reasonably can articulate, in one academic
area. As such, the reach of these findings is limited.
123

However, recent literature in social research acknowledges
the importance of small samples and case studies in
reaching a deeper understanding of issues and developing a
theory (Mahoney 2000; Maxwell 2004; Yin 2003). It is
within this context and with the view that this is an
exploratory study to identify further research on collabo-
rative pedagogies in the wild that we feel that limited or
petite generalizations (Stake 1995) are warranted.
In particular, the results from this qualitative study
suggest the importance of carefully crafting any survey of
student experiences with collaboration (see e.g., Gottschall
2006). For example, surveys must distinguish best experi-
ences from common experiences. And the surveys must be
clear as to why the students value collaborative learning—
we cannot assume it is because of the learning that occurs.
Perhaps the clearest message from this research is that
we may be emphasizing learner-centered instruction rather
than learning-centered instruction (Anderson 2004). A
learner-centered strategy may be characterized as one
where the emphasis is on involvement of students and
interaction among students. It is much like the expectations
presented by the interviewees: the instructors will listen to
them, not redirect them, but rather build on what students
say. We find this perspective reflected in many of the books
on collaborative learning (e.g., Bray et al. 2000).
In contrast, problem-based learning (PBL) and cooper-
ative learning strategies can be characterized as a learning-
centered collaborative strategy. For example, in PBL, the
students engage in cycles of collaborative work and indi-
vidual evidence gathering. The group activity sets the stage
for individual study by generating hypotheses regarding an
issue, identifying evidence-in-hand relevant to the
hypotheses, and most importantly, identifying what evi-
dence needs to be gathered to further evaluate the
hypotheses (Barrows 1992; Savery and Duffy 1995). It is
this latter stage that seemed to be missing in the collabo-
rative activities our students reported and in much of the
focus on learner-centered instruction (Bray et al. 2000).
Our findings also suggest that research must move
beyond looking at student ‘‘engagement’’ to student learn-
ing as a function of these collaborative pedagogies. As
collaborative pedagogies become more and more popular,
we must be concerned that the pedagogies as implemented
do in fact impact learning (e.g., Bullen 1998; DeLoach and
Greenlaw 2003). Thus, we would urge that surveys of
student engagement like NSSE include items that address
the learning aspect of interaction. The concern is that
‘‘engagement’’ as indexed by activities will lead to overly
simplistic and potentially misleading conclusions of
teaching quality simply based on the amount of interaction.
Finally, the results have implications for instructor
development. Supporting instructors in developing collab-
orative teaching strategies must include guidance on how
123
G. Osman et al.
to assure that students come prepared for class and that
discussion is based on evidence rather than opinion. That
is, there must be a focus on learning-centered collaborative
pedagogies. To insure preparation and meaningful contri-
butions to collaborative activities, instructors might need to
underscore mutual interdependence (Johnson and Johnson
1989), require students to do some initial individually
unique work (Rau and Heyl 1990) in preparation for group
activities, reward individual as well as group contributions
(Price et al. (2006), and set clear challenging expectations
with regard to what would be considered as a meaningful
evidence-based contribution.
This study was conducted as an initial exploration into
the variables and patterns in the practices of collaborative
learning pedagogy. We focused on students we expected to
be reflective and who were taking courses where collabo-
rative learning was common in order to provide richness to
this initial exploration. Therefore, our findings certainly
need to be validated in other disciplines and institutions. If
our findings are consistent across universities, there are
certainly implications for clarifying the academic mission
of the university for both students and instructors. While a
goal of student satisfaction is certainly important that sat-
isfaction must be interpreted in terms of student learning.
Student expectations for engagement with the text as well
as other students must be established in orientation and
reinforced through advisors. But most importantly, the
classroom environment must demand that use of informa-
tion resources and the demonstration of evidence-based
reasoning.
References
Anderson, T. (2004). A second look at learning sciences, classrooms,
and technology: Issues of implementation: Making it work in the
real world. In T. Duffy & J. Kirkley (Eds.), Learner-centered
theory and practice in distance education: Cases from higher
education (pp. 235–249). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Andriessen, J. (2006). Collaboration in computer conferencing. In A.
M. O’Donnell, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, & G. Erkens (Eds.),
Collaborative learning, reasoning and technology (pp.
197–232). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Barrows, H. S. (1992). The tutorial process. Springfield, IL: Southern
Illinois University School of Medicine.
Blumenfeld, P., Fishman, B. J., Krajcik, J., Marx, R. W., & Soloway,
E. (2000). Creating usable innovations in systemic reform:
Scaling up technology-embedded project based science in urban
schools. Educational Psychologist, 35(3), 149–164.
Boeije, H. (2002). A purposeful approach to constant comparative
method in the analysis of qualitative interviews. Quality &
Quantity, 36, 391–409.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How
people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington,
DC: National Academy Press.
Bray, J., Lee, J., Smith, L., & York, L. (2000). Collaborative inquiry
in practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Learning through collaboration
Brookfield, S. D., & Preskill, S. (1999). Discussion as a way of
teaching: Tools and techniques for democratic classrooms. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bullen, M. (1998). Participation and critical thinking in online
university distance education. Journal of Distance Education,
13, 1–32.
Carini, R. M., & Kuh, G. D. (2002). Tomorrow’s teachers: Do they
engage in the ‘‘right things’’ during College? Phi Delta Kappan,
84(5), 391–398.
Carlsmith, K. C., & Cooper, J. (2002). A persuasive example of
cooperative learning. Teaching of Psychology, 29, 132–135.
Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good
practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3–7.
Collette, D., Kanuka, H., Blanchette, J., & Goodale, C. (1999).
Learning technologies in distance education. Edmonton, AB:
University of Alberta.
Cooper, J., & Mueck, R. (1990). Student involvement in learning:
Cooperative learning and college instruction. Journal on Excel-
lence in College Teaching, 1, 68–76.
Dansereau, D. F. (1988). Cooperative learning strategies. In C.
E. Weinstein, E. T. Goetz, & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Learning
and study strategies: Issues in assessment, instruction, and
evaluation (pp. 103–120). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
DeLoach, S. B., & Greenlaw, S. A. (2003). Electronic discussions
create critical thinking spillovers? Contemporary Economic
Policy, 23(1), 149–163.
Deutsch, M. (1962). Cooperation and trust: Some theoretical notes. In
M. R. Jones (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (pp.
275–318). Lincoln: Nebraska University Press.
Duffy, T. M., & Cunningham, D. J. (1996). Constructivism:
Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In D.
Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational commu-
nications and technology (pp. 170–198). New York, NY: Simon
& Schuster Macmillan.
English, L. D. (2003). Reconciling theory, research, and practice: A
models and modeling perspective. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 54, 225–248.
Fritschner, L. M. (2000). Inside the undergraduate college classroom:
Faculty and students differ on the meaning of student partici-
pation. The Journal of Higher Education, 71(3), 342–362.
Gatfield, T. (1999). Examining student satisfaction with group
projects and peer assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in
Higher Education, 24(4), 365–377.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded
theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York, NY:
Aldine de Gruyter.
Gottschall, H. M. (2006). Faculty and student attitudes towards group
work in higher education and why faculty use groups. Unpub-
lished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.
Hake, R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A
six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introduc-
tory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66, 64–74.
Hill, S. S. (1996). Cooperative learning: A catalyst for change in the
college classroom. Final report. Unpublished manuscript, Flor-
ida Community College at Jacksonville, Jacksonville, FL.
Hunter, C. L. (1996). Student as teacher: Cooperative learning
strategies in the community college classroom. In Issues of
education at community colleges: Essays by fellows in the Mid-
Career Fellowship Program at Princeton University. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University.
Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. T. (1981). Effects of cooperative and
individualistic learning experience on interethnic interaction.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 444–449.
Johnson, R., & Johnson, D. (1989). Cooperation and competition:
Theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
Johnson, D. W., Mariyama, G., Johnson, R., Nelson, D., & Skon, L.
(1981). The effects of cooperative, competitive and individual-
istic goal structures on achievement: A meta-analysis. Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 89, 47–62.
Kanuka, H., & Garrison, D. R. (2004). Cognitive presence in online
learning. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 15, 30–39.
Kjersdam, F., & Enemark, S. (1994). The Aalborg Experiment.
Aalborg: Aalborg University Press.
Klemm, W. R., & Snell, J. R. (1996). Enriching computer-mediated
group learning by coupling constructivism with collaborative
learning. Journal of Instructional Science and Technology, 1(2).
Retrieved from http://www.usq.edu.au/electpub/e-jist/abstrac2.htm.
Kuh, G. (2002). From promise to progress: How colleges and
universities are using student engagement results to improve
collegiate quality. (National Survey of Student Engagement
Annual Report). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University.
Lewis, A. C., Sadosky, T. L., & Connolly, T. (1975). The
effectiveness of group brain-storming in engineering problem-
solving. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 22(3),
119–124.
Light, R. (2001). Making the most of college: Students speak their
minds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Lizzio, A., & Wilson, K. (2005). Self-managed learning groups in
higher education: Students’ perceptions of process and outcomes.
The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 373–390.
Mahoney, J. (2000). Strategies of causal inference in small-N
analysis. Sociological Methods & Research, 28, 387–424.
Maxwell, J. A. (2004). Causal explanation, qualitative research, and
scientific inquiry in education. Educational Researcher, 33(1),
3–11.
McGrath, J. (1984). Groups: Interaction and performance. New
Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Mikulecky, L. (1998). Diversity, discussion, and participation:
Comparing a web-based and campus-based adolescent literature
classes. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 42(2), 2–16.
Millis, B., & Cottell, P. (1998). Cooperative learning for higher
education faculty. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press.
Murray, H. (2001). Low-inference teaching behaviors and college
teaching effectiveness: Recent developments and controversies.
In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education handbook of theory and
research (pp. 239–271). New York, NY: Agathon Press.
Osborn, A. F. (1953). Applied imagination (Revised Ed.). NewYork,
NY: Scribner’s.
Parsons, R., & Brown, K. (2002). Teacher as reflective practitioner and
action researcher. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Phipps, M., Phipps, C., Kask, S., & Higgins, S. (2001). University
students’ perceptions of cooperative learning: Implications for
administrators and instructors. Journal of Experiential Educa-
tion, 24, 14–21.
Price, K. H., Harrison, D. A., & Gavin, J. H. (2006). Withholding
inputs in team contexts: Member composition, interaction
processes, evaluation structure, and social loafing. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 91(6), 1375–1384.
Rau, W., & Heyl, B. S. (1990). Humanizing the college classroom:
Collaborative learning and social organization among students.
Teaching Sociology, 18, 141–155.
Savery, J. R., & Duffy, T. M. (1995). Problem based learning: An
instructional model and its constructivist framework. Educa-
tional Technology, 35, 31–38.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1991). Higher levels of agency for
children in knowledge-building: A challenge for the design of new
knowledge media. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1, 37–68.
Scheja, M. (2006). Delayed understanding and staying in phase:
Students’ perceptions of their study situation. Higher Education,
52(3), 421–445.
123

Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals
think in action. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Springer, L., Stanne, M. E., & Donovan, S. S. (1999). Effects of
small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics,
engineering, and technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Edu-
cational Research, 69(1), 21–51.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Stasser, G., Vaughan, S., & Stewart, D. (2000). Pooling unshared
information: The benefits of knowing how access to information
in distributed among group members. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 102–116.
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on
learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257–285.
123
G. Osman et al.
Van Manen, M. (1995). On the epistemology of reflective practice.
Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 1, 33–50.
Veerman, A., & Veldhuis-Diermanse, E. (2006). Collaborative
learning through electronic knowledge construction in academic
education. In A. M. O’Donnell, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, & G. Erkens
(Eds.), Collaborative learning, reasoning and technology. Mah-
wah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Wiley, J., & Bailey, J. (2006). Effects of collaboration and
argumentation on learning from web pages. In A. M. O’Donnell,
C. E. Hmelo-Silver, & G. Erkens (Eds.), Collaborative learning,
reasoning and technology. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Yin, R. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, NJ: Sage.