A case for a collaborative classroom

20 AbouT cAmpus / mAy–june 2011

A Case for a Collaborative Classroom

By Dorothy A. Osterholt and Katherine Barratt

Collaboration is an important skill. But what do we do when students just can’t (or won’t) work together effectively? Dorothy A. Osterholt and Katherine Barratt

share their structured, supportive approach.

Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com)© 2011 by American College Personnel Association and Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

DOI: 10.1002/abc.20057

sTudenTs making The TransiTion inTo college typically come face to face with increased independence and decreased external struc-ture. This may be especially problematic for students with learning disabilities who may be less capable of managing in times of change than others. The out-come is often chronic procrastination, absenteeism, and work-completion problems. yet these behaviors can actually be symptoms of a much more significant issue that encompasses social and emotional com-petencies. likewise, these underlying issues may not be as readily identifiable as the overt behavior itself. in their 2001 article “The relation of ld & gender with emotional intelligence in college students,” authors henry b. reiff, nanette m. hatzes, michael h. bramel, and Thomas gibbons support the need for adapting the curriculum, which “ultimately may lead to more effective practices in preparing students with and without ld to meet the demands of college and the workplace” (p. 76). Thus, while this article may address a larger population of students in the transition process who exhibit similar challenges, our research specifically addresses students with learning disabilities at our campus. close examination of the barriers these

students were experiencing that limited their academic success helped build a case for moving toward a class-room environment in which collaborative learning takes place.

Context

landmark college, founded in 1985, was the first degree-granting institution designed

exclusively to serve the unique needs of students with learning disabilities. in its short history, the school has looked closely at the needs of these students as they enter college. The first-year program at the college has continually broadened to target emerging needs as they become apparent.

in the fall of 2008, a project was initiated to exam-ine how the first-year faculty could ease the transi-tion into our college. our students often struggle with understanding the realistic demands of meeting college expectations. This difficulty encompasses interfacing with college support systems and the broader commu-nity with social interaction as well as developing self-management and self-knowledge about their learning disability.

some students had been responding positively to the course content of our existing first-year program,


which was based on teaching the physical, emotional, and behavioral factors affecting learning. study skills were integrated with the content to help students improve study comprehension and retain the concepts being taught. nevertheless, each semester a significant number of students just did not engage and address their personal learning challenges through the por-tion of the curriculum that allowed for self-discovery and disclosure. These students struggled with devel-oping sound peer-to-peer communications in class. They had trouble maintaining regular attendance and written work completion, and often they did not use teacher and other campus resources to their advantage. As a result, they made very little headway in preparing for the next semester; adapting to the academic and social expectations of the college community remained highly challenging. based on the predominance of this kind of student profile, we believed a new paradigm could provide an avenue to increase our students’ engagement in the college during this time.

We started this process by thoroughly reviewing the current literature to determine the characteristics of successful first-year programs. From this we noted the increased national interest in including service experi-ences starting in the first semester of college. studies such as lori simons and beverly cleary’s reveal that

students who engaged in service learning experiences were more likely to become involved in the broader college community. Additionally, the studies indicated that positive changes in personal dedication carried over to their academic studies. however, we found little acknowledgment about the benefits to students with learning disabilities. by this very fact, our inter-est to integrate this approach in our classes was greatly heightened.

a neW approaCh

The projecT began at the start of the fall semester 2008 with the introduction of modified

service learning model into our first-semester classes that would be fully integrated into the curriculum plan to begin immediately. The students’ experiences outside the class would be processed during regularly planned class discussions and written reflection that focused on leadership skills, cooperative decision mak-ing, and sharing a mutual goal. Through such efforts, we hoped to help students understand the transfer-ability of important social competencies to their aca-demic performance and class participation. We were also especially interested in those social behaviors that required collaboration such as risk taking, advocacy, and negotiation when students were working with their peers and other adults. Through close examina-tion of their responses, we asked ourselves these ques-tions: Would these extracurricular experiences transfer into the academic realm and lead to improving atten-dance, procrastination tendencies, and work comple-tion? Would they also facilitate communication with faculty? Furthermore, would becoming “grounded” in a broader community foster a smoother overall transi-tion to college life?

in addition to improving students’ work ethic and self-advocacy, we hoped to foster interest in par-ticipating in this experience and address an array of “social readiness” levels by offering students a num-ber of options for service, rather than assigning them. however, we discovered that a dramatically high per-

Dorothy A. Osterholt holds an m. ed. degree and has 30 years of experience teaching students from elementary through adult education. As a founding faculty member of landmark college, she has taught in the english department and First year studies program.

Katherine Barratt holds a cAgs degree in adult education/reading specialist. her teaching covers a diverse student population from elementary through adult literacy. she has taught for 13 years in the First year studies program at landmark college.

We love feedback. send letters to executive editor jean m. henscheid ([email protected]), and please copy her on notes to authors.

Each semester a significant number of students just did not engage and address their personal learning challenges through the portion of the curriculum that allowed for self-discovery and disclosure.


We hoped to help students understand the transferability of important social competencies to their academic

performance and class participation.

centage of students were functioning with inadequate social skills to participate to our expectations in the experiential learning component of the classes. Further research of the literature in the area of social pragmat-ics that focused on students with ld reinforced the conclusions we were drawing from our own obser-vations. similar findings were stated by Tanis bryan, Karen burstein, and cevriye ergul, in their 2004 article, “The social-emotional side of learning dis-abilities: A science-based presentation of the state of the Art.” They assert, “A host of negative or inappro-priate behaviors have been attributed to students with ld, including a lack of skills in initiating and sustaining positive social relationship.” Furthermore, “students with language and/or learning disabilities demonstrated consistent and pervasive deficits in conversations across settings, conversational partners, age groups and types of pragmatic skills measured” (p. 47). in our classes, these deficits were most noticeable when students were asked to initiate and maintain topic discussion, speak in turn, clarify others’ comments, and maintain verbal engagement and eye contact. As a result, we coupled what we learned in the literature with our observa-tions to create four levels of interaction in both social and academic realms. These characteristics represent the most critical behaviors that either limit or promote collaboration (see Figure 1). This continuum measures our students’ comfort levels in various social and aca-demic situations, which provides a more precise and comprehensive view of their skills.

a CritiCal looK at the approaCh

by The fifTh Week of The Term, we noted a high incidence of nonparticipation in service

learning activities. because of this overall unaccept-able level of engagement, we stepped back to assess our direction and reexamine the efficacy of the ser-vice learning approach. We began this appraisal by making a thorough review of the inventories that we had administered to the students at the beginning of the semester as part of our research. The purpose of the inventory was to seek information regarding stu-dents’ self-perception of their comfort level in various

situations encountered in a college setting. upon our review, the insight we gained was invaluable as to the significant contrast between their self-perception of sociability and their actual participation. it highlighted two significant disparities. First, those who were the least academically engaged and did not participate on any level outside of class described themselves as “completely comfortable” in similar inventory situa-tions. This clearly exposed the disparity between their self-perception and actions in this area. This led us to question how these students understood the expecta-tions of the service learning experience. second, situa-tions about “interaction with strangers” were scored as “somewhat or completely uncomfortable” by a major-ity of the students. in this case, we speculated that either fear or pride was interfering with their ability to interrelate successfully with others, both inside and outside of the classroom. george g. bear and Kathleen m. minke’s 1996 research findings concurred by say-ing that these inflated perceptions were due to either a deficit in social perception or an attempt at self-preser-vation. but, ultimately, we came to the realization that the root of the problem for the majority lay in the fact that they indeed were deficient in the necessary social and emotional competencies to successfully engage at the college level.

our plan, then, was to determine the essential academic and social skills and how we could improve them in the classroom without forfeiting content. We returned to the initial inventory and selected some par-ticular situations that not only profiled individual stu-dents, but also demonstrated the issues of the class as a whole. We then compared that information to our assessment of class performance through such vehicles as grades, participation, homework, and attendance, which confirmed the discrepancies we found between the student’s perception of his/her social strength and actual actions. This allowed us to come up with a social and academic continuum of skills described on the social/pragmatic development hierarchy. The hier-archy then became a tool to create individual profiles that specifically indicated strengths and weaknesses on a personal basis. We used this information to look at the social interactive make-up of our classes and develop


appropriate activities at each level that would sup-port our students’ growth in collaborative skills. The collaboratively based approach allowed us to develop the social proficiencies within the course content by restructuring the interactive nature of the classroom.

soCial/pragmatiC development hierarChy

each of The four designaTed sec-Tions of the social/pragmatic development

hierarchy is based on our conclusion that one’s ability to work collaboratively is essential in the classroom as well as the broader college community, and thus is the

foundation for future success. This model made it visu-ally clear that collaborative skills could touch on both the social and academic aspects of a student’s life and could be reciprocally reinforced. The lowest hierarchal level was the “isolated noncollaborative student.” These students likely have difficulty expressing their role in learning and generally remain disengaged and distant from their classmates in the classroom. next, “conditional collaborative students” show a willing-ness to engage with their familiar peer group; however, they have difficulty with appropriate conversation in small group (or even partner) situations and contrib-ute minimally. in contrast, they are more at ease in

Figure 1. Social/Pragmatic DeveloPment HierarcHy


outside social situations when they can choose with whom they interact. The third level is the “uncon-ditional collaborative student.” These students dem-onstrate an understanding of the social and academic connection for successful performance. likewise, they act collaboratively when part of a structured group. They can follow through with suggestions made by faculty or an advisor but do not yet initiate proactive behavior on their own. The highest level on the hier-archy is the “outreach collaborative student.” At this point, students utilize the interconnection between academic and social skills for successful performance by self-advocating and assuming leadership. They also demonstrate resiliency to maintain effort.

by using this information, we were able to identify several major characteristics that described the major-ity of our students. most notable was the tendency to maintain a lifelong pattern of strong parental ties as the major support system. These students had yet to learn the skills to self-advocate on their own behalf. henry reiff and his colleagues concur, saying, “[students with ld] need to adapt to a new environment and develop effective compensatory and coping strategies as the safety net of parents and the structure and sup-port offered at the secondary level are pulled away” (p. 69). it was not uncommon to find students who were truly uninformed and genuinely lacked basic knowl-edge about their learning difference. on the other hand, some attempted to cover up their disability by simply avoiding situations such as meeting with faculty one-on-one and participating in small group work dur-ing class that might reveal their challenges. We found further agreement with later findings from henry rei-ff’s 2004 article “reframing the learning disabilities experience redux”: “When parents advocate on an accumulative basis they may send the message that their son or daughter does not have the knowledge nor the skills to advocate for him/herself” (p. 186). both of these self-perceptions suggested, as well, a significant lack of the maturity necessary to work effectively with others in a college setting. These levels of discomfort were obvious and prompted us to speculate about bona

fide safety issues coming into play for our students. For these reasons, we took steps to modify our curricu-lums to encompass a number of social and emotional competencies that were lacking. We placed a strong emphasis on raising the students’ comfort level through structured inclusive small group/paired activities that reinforced the course content taught.

Almost simultaneously, students were themselves expressing the need for safety through journal writing and individual conferences; that is, they were asking for an environment free from ridicule, nonjudgmental feedback from peers regarding personal contributions, and a sense of sincerity when asking for direct support. As an example, one student reflected on the theme of safety when she said, “i think the most helpful aspect of this class was the support you gave us all. i always feel comfortable going to you for help with class or even personal issues.” her willingness to seek support was an indication that, for her, the safety barrier was addressed. she also highlighted the fact that she was not singled out, but her issues were being addressed within the context of the whole group.

The ability to collaborate as a prerequisite social skill seemed to be a theme in the literature about the first-year/service learning experience. however, when we asked our students to accomplish work through a cooperative process in partner/triad configurations, we observed minimal interactive behavior. They accom-plished little. We clearly determined that a shift to explicit collaborative instruction addressed their needs and became the most valuable technique to move stu-dents’ social competencies to the next level.

CollaBoration in praCtiCe

our neW undersTanding of The challenges that characterized these students

prompted us to design a continuum of experiences that would strengthen social and emotional skills within our curriculum content. We found it was effective to incorporate collaboration into every class from the first day. This doesn’t have to require a large investment

We placed a strong emphasis on raising the students’ comfort level through structured inclusive small

group/paired activities that reinforced the course content taught.


of time. According to brain researcher david sousa, it takes as little as five minutes of daily reflection to engage students to talk about the content and con-solidate new information to strengthen memory. We directed the collaboration by setting the purpose, iden-tifying specific outcomes, and assigning various roles to the group members to ensure that they all were actively engaged.

The essentials of the collaborative process were introduced in a highly structured and predictable class regimen in which everyone was a participant and respected as a learner. The purpose and outcome of paired work was explicit and stressed appropriate shared dialogue. Findings were shared in class and recorded for reference. students were exposed to a variety of perspectives and learned to appreciate different ways of thinking. Further benefit came from the opportunity to debrief, which, for some, demystified the value of collaboration. documentation of change and improve-ment was derived from their written records. one of the most effective activities placed paired collaboration into the lecture format either at the start of the class to stimulate ideas and thinking or as a midway break to consolidate and review new concepts.

As students became more proficient in paired activities, they were exposed to larger group work in order to learn higher-level collaborative skills such as negotiating various perspectives to come to an agree-ment. in terms of supporting learners who were developing the emotional skills needed for this level of engagement, the larger group activities imposed a larger risk for exposing themselves. it required the par-ticipants to carefully consider many logical arguments through meaningful dialogue and debate in specifically designated group roles. These rotating roles provided the structure for all students in the group to engage fully. students learned to take responsibility for each role they fulfilled. continual practice helped them build the skills for future similar experiences.

At the end of every collaboration, students debriefed about the effectiveness of their group process and the work that was completed. Although this was

challenging at first for some students, with practice we saw signs of social growth and an increased comfort when participating. in addition, for those students with memory issues, the interactive verbal practice with key concepts reinforced the content and resulted in improved grades. Thus, it was a regular part of the class format, and students were given the opportunity to see the benefits of working together in which everyone was a participant and was respected as a learner.

At the beginning of the semester, our students generally demonstrated a poor sense for planning and building academic connections as well as mispercep-tions about curricular expectations. inadequate expe-rience participating in discussion left many decidedly unsure about breaking their silence. some students who expressed feelings of isolation at the start of the semester and were not especially receptive at first were still able to make significant gains in their interactive skills with classmates. by deliberately bringing a well-integrated collaborative process to our students, we helped them expand intellectual competency in the content as well as build peer social affiliations that were cooperative in nature rather than competitive.

ConClusion

alThough our discoveries played a key role in how we redesigned our classes to explicitly

address the social/pragmatic deficits of our students, we also recognize a larger benefit to this design of collab-orative skill development. in a 2008 USA Today article, erin banco reported on a nationwide survey by the federal government indicated that there were in excess of 200,000 college students diagnosed with a learning disability. As this number increases, college faculty are faced with the task of supporting the needs of these students within the classroom. in light of this reality, we believe that designing a classroom in which stu-dents can be supported through collaborative activities will benefit not only students diagnosed with ld, but all new students transitioning into the college commu-nity. Thus, to help students with learning disabilities in

We clearly determined that a shift to explicit collaborative instruction addressed their needs and became the most valuable technique to move students’ social competencies to the next level.


their transitional stage, we support the collaborative-centered approach to learning that provides the explicit direction and practice of social pragmatics within the class setting. As the number of students with ld increases on college campuses, all college faculties will be called upon to pay attention to a changing popula-tion in their classrooms and make a pedagogical shift that meets the needs of these students. A move toward student-centered learning with regular structured col-laborative activities would represent a forum for discus-sion to foster the scholarly as well as the interpersonal growth of students (liff, 2003, pp. 28–34).

notes

banco, e. (2010, August 11). college-bound kids with learn-ing disabilities get help. USA Today. retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2010-08-11-disabilitystudent11_sT_n.htm

bear, g. g., & minke, K. m. (1996). positive bias in main-tenance of self-worth among children with ld. Learning Disability Quarterly, 19, 23–32.

bryan, T., burstein, K., & ergul, c. (2004). The social-emotional side of learning disabilities: A science-based presentation of the state of the art. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27, 45–51.

liff, s. b. (2003, spring). social and emotional intelligence: Applications for developmental education. Journal of Developmental Education, 26, 28–34.

reiff, h. b. (2004). reframing the learning disabilities experience redux. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 19, 185–198.

reiff, h. b., hatzes, n. m., bramel, m. h., & gibbon, T. (2001, january). The relation of ld and gender with emotional intelligence in college students. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 66–78.

simons, l., & cleary, b. (2005). student and community perceptions of the “value added” for service-learners. Journal of Experiential Education, 28, 164–188.

sousa, d. A. (2006). How the brain learns. Thousand oaks, cA: corwin press.

Some students who expressed feelings of isolation at the start of the semester and were not especially receptive

at first were still able to make significant gains in their interactive skills with classmates.

Documents

A case for a collaborative classroom