One of the important developments in the contemporary discussion of teaching and learning has been the emphasis on cooperative or collaborative learning. Though it is premature to say that a "paradigm shift"--from the conventional idea of individual and sometimes competitive learning to cooperative, supportive collective patterns--has occurred, there are nonetheless many practitioners out there giving useful thought to how and why students should be working cooperatively.
Millis and Cottell's new book is a major document for this movement. The plan of the volume begins with an overview of cooperative learning, which includes considerable discussion, some of it slightly anxious, of whether coooperative and collaborative learning are different and answers the question "Why change?" It moves through detailed chapters on Classroom Management, Structuring the Cooperative Classroom--with many examples, exercises, and projects--and Assessing the Cooperative Classroom--which deals with the knotty question of grading groups on a common project when some worked more than others--and ends with Supporting Cooperative Efforts.
For the faculty member already persuaded of the benefits of cooperative learning the meat of this book will be in the chapters on Classroom Management and Structuring, with their wealth of suggestions. For most of us, though, who may not be that far along, the most important matters probably come earlier. The section on "Why Change?" for instance (a title which might appear in any book on teaching or even on the professoriate) roots the need for cooperative learning in the changing workplace, the changing student populations, and the changing teahcing paradigm. The authors also address, and try to answer, important objections:
1. Group work is "soft." By using it, I will lower my standardsand make less rigoroud demands on my students.
2. I can't possibly cover all the content using group work.
3. If I turn the class over to small groups, I will lose control.
4. My students will reject classroom activities they regard as frivolous or irrelevant. Students want to learn from an authority figure--me!
5. If I learned my discipline the traditional way, then everyone must learn it the traditional way. Furthermore, I have no role models.
6. Colleagues, as well as students, will think I'm not fulfilling my professional obligations if my classroom seems noisy and out-of-control.
7. I don't know how to evaluate students who spend so much time focused on group work.
8. Introducing cooperative-learning activities will take too much time. I already suffer from too many demands; I cannot possibly revise my course syllabus and rework my course content.
Every reader of this review will recognize these concerns. Millis and Cottell do a good job at trying to assuage them, though it probably isn't helpful to say to doubters that "learning cannot occur through traditional delivery methods," even if, as I doubt, it is true. (If Barbara Millis, who works at the Air Force Academy, has persuaded her colleagues there that cooperative, possibly "soft," classroom methods are best then those of us who work in civilian colleges and universities ought to be persuadable.)
To me the richest theoretical section of this book comes in the claim--based on research--that cooperative learning promotes "deep learning." The deep learning approach has four components: Motivational context; learner activity; interaction with others; and a well-structured knowledge base. All of these are explained and documented.
Many college faculty, very likely, will never believe the cooperative learning is valid; a larger group will accept its validity, at least theoretically, but for one or more of the reasons listed above will find it hard to implement. But we should all favor deep learning. And, in Cooperative Learning for Higher Education Faculty, we have a resource which, if properly used, can help us overcome our fears and perturbations and give us countless ideas to get us and our students underway.
Merritt Moseley,
UNC Asheville