GARY B. RANDOLPHComputer Information Systems and TechnologyPurdue University

ABSTRACT

The principles of “Writing Across the Curriculum” (WAC) hasthe potential to help educators more fully engage the learningstyles of all students and achieve higher levels of learning accordingto the Bloom taxonomy. WAC exercises were built into an infor-mation systems class to create a fully collaborative learning ap-proach. Students worked as a team on in-class exercises, editedeach other’s work, and even collaborated on examinations. Stu-dents indicated that they learned more in this format. They alsosaid that even examinations were learning experiences, incorporat-ing brainstorming and discussion.

I. STAGES OF LEARNING

Learning is more than the acquisition of knowledge. Bloom de-fined six increasing levels of comprehension, beginning with fact-based knowledge, and proceeding through comprehension (usingthe facts and explaining facts), application (applying facts to solveproblems), analysis (analyzing concept structures), synthesis (creat-ing something new from component parts), and evaluation (mak-ing judgments and comparing new facts to existing knowledge).1

Too often traditional teaching only engages the first level of knowl-edge as students download information from a lecture and upload itback on an examination. Restructuring the educational process totake students through these other levels has been identified as cru-cial to cultivating life-long learning.2

Not only does traditional teaching fail to engage all kinds oflearning, it also fails to engage all kinds of students. Kolb describedfour stages of learning and four learning styles based on the wayspeople receive and process information. Kolb hypothesized twoaxes, one for receiving information and one for processing it (seefigure 1).

Kolb contrasted receiving information through concrete experi-ence with receiving through abstract conceptualization. For process-ing information once it is received, Kolb contrasted reflective obser-vation with active experimentation.3 The points of each of the axesrepresent four stages of learning. Concrete Experience is engaged inreading and doing homework. Reflective observation is used whenlistening to lectures. Abstract Conceptualization involves thinkingabout concepts and models. Active Experimentation occurs in labo-ratory settings and other active exercises.4 The two axes combine to

create four learning styles that Kolb calls Divergers, Assimilators,Convergers, and Accommodators.5

Learning is enhanced as more of the learning styles are engaged.Only 20 percent of the information presented is retained if abstractconceptualization is used alone. Retention rises to 50 percent if ab-stract conceptualization and reflective observation are used togetherand to 70 percent if abstract conceptualization, reflective observa-tion, and concrete experience are used. Retention can reach 90 per-cent if all four stages are employed.6

II. WRITING ACROSS THE CURRICULUM

One way to embrace all four learning styles and achieve thehigher levels of Bloom’s taxonomy is with Writing Across the Cur-riculum (WAC). Proponents of Writing Across the Curriculumsee writing as a process in which a mind creates meaning from ex-perience.7 Writing can thus involve both reflection and experimen-tation, both abstract concepts and the application of those conceptsto a concrete example. Writing Across the Curriculum programsinclude practices such as:

● expressive writing (journals and practice questions)● writing for varied audiences (bosses, clients, fictional charac-

ters, other students)● peer group editing and critiques● writing as a process rather than a finished product.8

It has been shown that many of these practices align with eachof Kolb’s learning styles. The list below is condensed from Sharpet al.9

A. Activities For AccommodatorsAccommodators receive information through experience and

process it through active experimentation. They prefer learningthrough self-discovery and enjoy interaction with others.

1) Brainstorming: Accommodators are at ease with people andare good at problem-solving.10 They often think by discussing.

2) Solving What-if problems: What-if? is a favorite question ofthe accommodator.11 Students take what they know, add some-thing of their own to it, and create something new.

3) Explaining concepts to other students: Accommodators areat ease with people and rely on other people for information.12

B. WAC Activities for DivergersDivergers receive information through experience and process it

through reflective observation. They learn well through discussionand personal interaction.13

1) Brainstorming: Divergers are good at generating ideas andalternatives.

April 2000 Journal of Engineering Education 119

Collaborative Learning in the Classroom: A Writing Across the Curriculum Approach

2) Peer reviews: Divergers like to express their thought andwork toward consensus.

3) Group writing assignments: Divergers often are excellentgroup participators, so a collaborative paper appropriately uses theirteam skills.

C. Activities for AssimilatorsAssimilators receive information through abstract conceptual-

ization and process through reflective observation. Assimilatorswould do the best of any learning style with traditional lectures. Yetthey can benefit from non-traditional assignments.

1) Modeling: Assimilators excel at organizing ideas and creatingtheoretical models. They work well with using visual modelingtools to show how ideas relate to each other.14

2) Microthemes: Microthemes are short, concise writings on aparticular topic, a small amount of writing preceded by a largeamount of thinking.15 These can often appear as application-orient-ed essay questions on an exam.

D. Activities for ConvergersConvergers receive information through abstract conceptualiza-

tion and process it through active experimentation. Often they liketo take things apart and learn by doing.16

1) Case studies: Practical assignments allow convergers to applyconcepts to real-life situations.

2) Writing to a real industry audience: Convergers enjoy writingdocuments as if they were going to be used in a real-world situa-tion.17

3) Mimicking a written model: Convergers can emulate amodel, applying that model to new situations.18

Activities in the above list tend to correspond with the higherlevels of Bloom’s taxonomy as shown in figure 2. The appropriate-ness of any of these correspondences depends much on the specificsof the individual assignments.

III. COLLABORATIVE LEARNING

Many items in the above list can be implemented with individ-ual assignments. Others, however, need a collaborative, team-based approach. Good teams develop an environment of effectivelearning, emphasizing student self-direction in their own learning,shared experiences, near-term application and performance feed-back.19 Collaborative learning not only does a better job of engag-ing all learning styles but also does a better job of preparing stu-dents for the real world where teams are the norm in modernorganizations.20

To get the fullest use of the above listed WAC exercises, a col-laborative approach was taken for the project described in thispaper. It is not the only way to proceed, but, given the advantages ofcollaborative, team-based learning, it is a very viable alternative.This paper documents just one way of implementing these tech-niques. In this case, collaboration was taken to the furthest degreepossible, involving even collaboration on examinations. This maynot be a good fit for every course. However, this case is illustrativeof the opportunities and issues involved in redesigning learning toan active learning, team-based paradigm. It is offered as an exampleof the many ways to better engage more types of learning and reacha higher level of learning according to Bloom’s taxonomy.

120 Journal of Engineering Education April 2000

Figure 1. Kolb learning styles.

Figure 2. Writing across the curriculum activities and Bloom’s cognitive levels.

IV. IMPLEMENTATION

The class that served as a host for the project was a systemsanalysis and design methods course. The setting was a small sitecampus of a major university with small classes. Collaboration wasimplemented in three ways.

First, systems analysis methodologies were taught in class usingcase studies and a workshop approach. A case study would be pre-sented to the class. Students were required to use the methodolo-gies presented in previous lectures and readings to solve the prob-lem. Class members directed the discussion. The instructor acted asteam moderator and facilitator, stepping into an instructional roleonly when necessary.

Second, the class worked as a team, with the instructor as teamleader, to develop a semester-long systems analysis project. Foreach phase, one or more persons created a rough draft of each deliv-erable (discussed below). The class then discussed the draft as ateam, with the draft authors presenting and defending their work.The team made suggestions for the final draft, which was complet-ed by another person. The various phases of the project included acombination of writing and modeling assignments.

Each assignment called for the students to apply to the on-goingproject a written or other model that had been already studied inthe workshop approach using a case study. Thus each phase of theon-going project used the WAC brainstorming, mimicking a writ-ten model, peer review, and modeling activities.

Finally, examinations also were done collaboratively. Studentscould discuss and work on problems together, though each classmember was responsible for his or her own answers. This allowedexaminations to become very different than examinations in tradi-tional examinations. All questions were either essay questions ap-plying course concepts to new situations, case studies using modelsand course concepts, or problem-solving exercises. In terms of theWAC activities discussed earlier, the examinations used brain-storming, group writing, case studies, microthemes, and what-ifproblem solving.

The course was taught using this approach in two different se-mesters, allowing a variety of assignments to be used.

1) Research: The first assignment after the on-going case wasinitially presented was for each student to self-select an area of re-search relevant to the proposed system and to seek information onthat topic from the World Wide Web. In the following class ses-sion they shared their findings and brainstormed implications forthe proposed system. This was a no-credit assignment designed toget them thinking less like students and more like team members.

2) Interviewing: The instructor would from time to time takethe role of the client so students could interview the client concern-ing the proposed system. Students held a short team brainstormingsession prior to the mock interview so they could discuss and decidewhat they needed to ask.

3) Project Assessment: The initial written assignment of theproject involved assessing the proposed project. Students were todetail the key project participants, the scope of the proposed sys-tem, and any development constraints. They were to outline theproblems and opportunities of the proposed system, including theurgency and estimated annual benefit of each. As with all writtenassignments, one or more students created rough drafts, whichwere discussed by the team in preparation for another personpreparing the final draft.

4) Profile of Existing System: This assignment involved analyz-ing the present system as described by manual input forms and re-ports.

5) Cost-Benefit Analysis: Following a lecture on cost-benefitanalysis, students worked on a practice case in class. Then as a teamthey brainstormed the potential costs and benefits of the proposedsystem in the on-going case prior to students completing the roughdrafts.

Entity Relationship Diagram and Database Design—This as-signment was to produce a model of the proposed system’s data re-lationships along with a detailed database design. Practice casestudies were discussed and worked through in class prior to turningthe assignment over to students for the rough draft.

6) Data Flow Diagram: This assignment was to produce amodel of the proposed system’s processes and the flow of datathrough the system. This also was the subject of much in-class workusing practice case studies prior to students producing rough drafts.

7) Decision Table: A decision table is an English model of aprogramming algorithm. The class as a whole did several decisiontable case studies. Then a sample decision that fit into the hypo-thetical project was introduced and assigned for rough drafts, dis-cussion, and a final draft.

8) Input Design: Following a reading and discussion of GUIscreen components and general user interface design concepts, stu-dents created rough drafts of an input screen for the proposed sys-tem. These were then compared and discussed by the team.

V. OBSERVATIONS

This course approach worked well for this class. Evaluations atthe end of the each semester indicate that students deem the ap-proach a success. The small size of the classes prevents any mean-ingful statistical analysis from being performed. However, class dis-cussion indicate that students believe they learn more by discussingand editing each other’s work. Students rate the editing of eachother’s work, the class discussions, the in-class team workshops,and collaboration on examinations all as either very valuable or ex-tremely valuable in enhancing their learning experience. Studentsalso indicate that, through collaboration, the examinations becametrue learning experiences.

Whenever a course uses team-based collaboration there is thedanger of students loafing. Individuals tend not to work as hard ingroups; if everyone is responsible, no one is responsible.21 This washandled in two ways. First, both rough and final drafts were indi-vidually graded. Students were allowed to collaborate, but eachwas responsible for what he or she turned in. Second, the examina-tions were long and complex enough that if any students loafed theentire group would not be able to finish on time. In addition, whilecollaboration on examinations was permitted, it was not demand-ed. Especially the first time the class was taught using this ap-proach, students often opted to turn in very diverging examinationanswers.

Those measures did not completely prevent social loafing.However judging from the experience of two different semesters,the degree of social loafing seems to be more related to individualpersonalities than to course structure. Plans are underway to furtherrefine the course plan by including peer evaluations on both theproject and examinations.

April 2000 Journal of Engineering Education 121

122 Journal of Engineering Education April 2000

VI. CONCLUSIONS

Not every class would fit this approach. However, the systemsanalysis and design methods class, which is heavily concept andpractice-oriented (rather than fact-oriented), is a good fit.

Collaboration did not make the class easier for students. Exami-nations were more conceptual and involved more analysis and ap-plication. Examinations took longer to take because students dis-cussed and brainstormed during the examination. The gradestended to be higher than they would have been in a traditionalclassroom environment, but both students and instructor agree thatmore was learned and, hopefully, retained for the long term.

Other educators who would like to implement similar ap-proaches are encouraged to use large, connective projects and casestudies. What students can do together is much greater than whatthey can do individually. Only a large project will sufficiently chal-lenge a group. Educators should also think through in advancewhat balance of teamwork versus individual accountability they arecomfortable with, especially with regard to social loafers. Whatworked reasonably well in this case, might not work as well withlarger class sizes. Another potential problem is personality conflictin collaborative assignments. This was avoided in the present pro-ject, first, by using a rough draft/final draft approach that called pri-marily for asynchronous collaboration and, second, by making ex-amination collaboration optional. The potential for dysfunctionalteam dynamics needs to be taken into account in designing anyteam assignment.

Educators interested in pursuing a more active learning modelare encouraged to dream big, plan carefully, and document theirsuccesses and failures for others.

REFERENCES

1. Bloom, B.S., Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification ofEducational Goals by a Committee of College and University Examiners,McKay Co., Inc., New York, NY, 1956, pp. 189–193.

2. Daigle, R.J., and M.V. Doran, “Cultivating Life-Long LearningThrough Student Participation in Exam Development” in E.D. Hoadley& I. Benbasat (Ed.), Proceedings of the Fourth Americas Conference on Infor-mation Systems, Association for Information Systems, 1998, p. 1102.

3. Kolb, D.A., Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source ofLearning and Development, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1984,pp. 40–42.

4. Stice, J.E., “Using Kolb’s Learning Cycle to Improve Student Learn-ing,” Engineering Education, vol. 77, Feb. 1987, p. 292.

5. Ref. 3, pp. 77–78.6. Ref. 4, p. 293.7. Smith, B.L., “An Interview with Elaine Maimon,” Writing Across the

Curriculum, Current Issues in Higher Education, vol. 3, 1983–84, pp. 11–15.8. Sharp, J.E., J.N. Harb, and R.E. Terry, “Combining Kolb Learning

Styles and Writing to Learn in Engineering Classes,” Journal of Engineer-ing Education, vol. 86, no. 2, 1997, p. 95.

9. Ref. 8, pp. 95–99.10. Ref. 3, p. 78.11. Ref. 8, p. 98.12. Ref. 3, p. 78.13. Ref. 8, p. 96.14. Ref. 3, p. 78.

15. Ref. 8, p. 97.16. Ref. 8, p. 97.17. Olds, B.M., M.J. Pavelich, and F.R. Yeatts, “Teaching the Design

Process to Freshman and Sophomores,” Engineering Education, vol. 80,July/August 1990, pp. 554–559.

18. Ref. 8, p. 98.19. Knowles, M.S. The Modern Practice of Adult Education, Association

Press, Follett Publishing Company, Chicago, 1980, p. 108.20. Kolar, R.L., and D.A. Sabatini, “Changing from a Lecture-Based

Format to a Team Learning/Project-Driven Format: Lessons Learned” inProceedings, 1997 ASEE Annual Conference, (CD-ROM), ASEE, 1997,p. 1.

21. Steffenhagen, B., “The Problem-Based Learning (PBL) Model” inM.A. Dyrud & J.B. Wolverton (Ed.), Proceedings of the 50th AnniversarySymposium: High Tech Education for the Third Millennium. Oregon Insti-tute of Technology, Klamath Falls, OR, 1997, p. 43.