An Historical Perspective on Collaborative Learning.

Abstract

Until recently, most composition teachers thought that collaborative learn ing/writing and peer-editing were relatively new teaching concepts created to solve problems brought about by the 1970s open-door college admission policies in this country. However, as a result of the growing importance of historical study in composition, we are now learning that many current teaching practices (including collaborative learning) have long and often politically inspired histories. In Writing Groups: History, Theory, and Implica tion, Anne Ruggles Gere dispels the notion that group writing is a twentieth century development by noting self-help writing groups and college literary societies in colonial America. She explains that the members of these earlier writing groups were often seeking social recognition and economic power, as were the nontraditional students entering college in the 1970s. Gere's work certainly expands the conception of collaborative learning in the United States. However, instructors in other countries and in other disciplines historically have adopted collaborative teaching practices to meet the needs of underprepared students, who in many cases have been disfranchised. To understand better the full implications of using collaborative learning in our own classrooms, we should study the contributions of our predecessors who faced educational climates similar to our own?regardless of the region or the era. Their work can teach us much about current American pedagogical practices. Over two-hundred years ago, George Jardine, professor of logic and philosophy at the University of Glasgow from 1774 to 1826, designed a method of peer review to help prepare his students for full participation in British society. Jardine created an extensive practical plan for using modern concepts such as free writing, sequenced essay assignments, writing as discovery, writing across the curriculum, and peer review (although he did

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 58 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.