Jan Thornton, Chair of CIRT, explained the terms and purpose of the AIRE grant, noting that faculty discussion, along with workshops and curriculum development, is an important part of the implementation of the award.
 

 Three faculty members presented collaborative learning techniques that they have developed in their courses.

Rob Thompson, Chemistry
 As one segment of his Analytical Chemistry course, Mr. Thompson developed a cooperative learning exercise which entailed acquiring the steps of basic scientific method through the stages of solving a murder mystery.  Warning that such a pedagogical method entails more work for the instructor than traditional teaching methods, Mr. Thompson nevertheless felt that the results were well worth it, for students achieved a greater depth of understanding of scientific methods and principles than with conventional learning.  The formats of the exercise included group discussion, working in pairs on focussed tasks, the development of oral argumentation, and the production of posters and reports.
 Noting that the role of the teacher becomes that of facilitator and consultant in this method, Mr. Thompson acknowledged that somewhat less content was covered and fewer instrumental techniques were mastered than in a conventionally taught course.  However, he described the students as much more actively engaged in the learning process and not simply following someone else's instructions.  Motivation to do well was strong:  at the end of the segment, a jury of non-experts at a public mock trial decided the case on the basis of oral arguments and evidence presented.  Mr. Thompson felt that all students did well in this segment of the course, including those who did not normally excel in traditional course work.
 In the ensuing discussion, an audience member posed the following question: was it the collaborative aspect of this course, specifically, that led to better engagement of the students or was it the intriguing format (murder mystery)?   Mr. Thompson acknowledged the validity of the question, but suggested that certain collaborative exercises (chemically analyzing evidence, etc.) were valuable and could be separated from the trial itself.

Jan Thornton, Neuroscience
Ms. Thornton described the use of journal clubs in neuroscience courses for the purpose of critically analyzing primary scientific literature.  In the process, the students: learn cooperatively, learn to discuss controversial topics in a civil manner, and learn to come to a conclusion about the literature and the topic.  They also learn the relation between science and society and how the press looks at scientific topics.  They learn to be better citizens for life by being critical and discerning about sometimes controversial and politically significant topics.
 Three journal club activities are scheduled over the course of a semester in a class of mostly juniors and seniors.  The first one is highly structured and modeled in order that students can learn the format. For the first journal club, students are assigned a ¬focus article which they read, outline, and critically evaluate, according to a form given to them.  Then they read and analyze other articles cited by the focus article.  In class, students discuss the article in small groups (5-9 students each).  Each member of the group must come to the discussion with an outline and an analysis of the article in writing and must speak during the discussion. Ms. Thornton noted that the requirement of written matter helped shy members who, if nothing else, could read from what they had written. For the second and third journal clubs, students have more freedom and responsibility, including choosing focus articles. Each student must serve as a presenter for one journal club and as a discussant at the other.  Presenters have to do a complete analysis of the focus article and all the articles cited by it, discussants only have to outline and analyze the focus article.  By the point at which the article is presented and discussed, the presenters have already met extensively outside of class, in prep sessions which amount to collaborative learning.
Ms. Thornton emphasized that the quality of learning is better in journal clubs than in individual reading assignments: students thoroughly acquire a sound ability to analyze scientific literature.  Students who write well and score high on traditional written exams also do well in journal clubs.  But some other types of students excel in journal clubs as well. Like Mr. Thompson, Ms. Thornton emphasized that setting up and facilitating journal clubs is a great deal of work for the instructor compared to conventional teaching methods, but the student response is overwhelmingly positive, as is the quality of their learning.  She pronounced the extra work well worth it.
 In response to questions, Ms. Thornton explained that she does not randomize the grouping of students in journal clubs.  This means that friends can work together, if they like.  She acknowledged that there are some arguments for random groupings.  Regarding evaluation, she explained that there are written evaluation forms, reports by presenters and discussants, and oral performance in the presentations.
 

Anne Trubek, Expository Writing
 Ms. Trubek outlined for the group a collaborative writing project she uses in expository writing.  The focus of the course is the history of writing in the computer age, a look at technology and its effects on writing and learning.
 The course utilizes a software program called Storyspace featuring a series of linking windows.  Each window can be filled with an idea, in this case on cognitive or social aspects of technology, such as privacy and first amendment issues.  After pursuing individual writing projects on the topic, late in the semester, after they have become acquainted with one another, students form groups by areas of interest.  As in the case of the previous two speakers,  Ms. Trubek described a fairly structured exercise:  students had to meet a series of deadlines including the first project proposal, revised proposals, annotated bibliography, work with reference librarians, etc.  Because they were working in groups, they had to determine how to divide up these tasks and meet intermediate deadlines.  Finally, they had to give two presentations to the class by computer.  Finally, a paper and a written evaluation of their work were required.  Ms. Trubek explained that the evaluation was useful as a way of allowing students to vent if some group members had not contributed fully.
 In order to carry out the project in the allotted time, a good deal of cooperation and planning was necessary by each group.  Students did not write in groups, but rotated the disk among themselves nightly to edit and re-edit the work.  Finally, they would �go public” with their work in the larger group.  The result was a collaborative piece of writing for which they had to take public responsibility.
 

 Participants discussed aspects of collaborative learning in the ensuing discussion.  One faculty member noted that some of the techniques described could be utilized in large classes, like dividing the class into small, random groups assigned to research a topic and present the results to the class.  It was also favorably noted that student participation rates rise when they have responsibilities toward a small groups.  In short, it was agreed that students are much more invested in such a process.  It was also agreed, by the presenters and the participants, that collaborative learning methods can seem threatening to the instructor, for they require letting go of control of the course.

 Other comments/questions:

�Do all students buy in or do some resist this form of learning?  Most buy in, but the techniques and goals must be carefully explained at the outset.

�Are students simply being motivated to work more rather than collaboratively?  Students are clearly engaged with each other; they are motivated by the collaborative aspect of the exercise.

�The goal of collaborative learning techniques is not learning more (content) but learning skills.

�One audience member described as a comfortable but not optimal learning experience the large lecture course, in which vocabulary and concepts wash over passive students like surf.  He noted that he had incorporated some collaborative (active) learning techniques into a physics course for non-majors.  His goal in doing so was to get the students to learn the unfamiliar scientific vocabulary by actively enunciating it.

�Some participants agreed that collaborative learning is better than individual learning because it is a synthesis of (at least) two persons' work.

�Others asserted that a different skill is being learned in collaborative methods, and that it is not easy to quantify.

�It was agreed that the instructor must start with a very challenging problem, one too difficult for one person to tackle alone.  Then students learn that they must learn together.  Learning together is a skill to be learned and then practiced over and over, multiple times, in many courses.