ERIC Document Reproduction Service Report ED 377038 (1994)



Richard M. Felder
Department of Chemical Engineering
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, NC 27695-7905

Rebecca Brent
School of Education
East Carolina University
Greenville, NC 27858

Work Supported by National Science Foundation
Division of Undergraduate Education Grant DUE-9354379

October 1994


A longitudinal study of a cohort of engineering students has been under way at North Carolina State University since 1990. Dr. Richard Felder taught the students five chemical engineering courses in five consecutive semesters using several nontraditional instructional methods, including cooperative (team-based) learning. The performance of the students in these courses and their responses to the instruction have been chronicled elsewhere (Felder et al., 1993, 1994a, 1994b).

As part of the longitudinal study, Dr. Felder and Dr. Rebecca Brent, a professor of education at East Carolina University, adapted or devised procedures for implementing cooperative learning in courses that stress quantitative problem solving. These procedures are summarized in this report. The objectives of the report are to offer some ideas for using cooperative learning effectively in technical courses, to give advance warning of the problems that might arise when CL is implemented, and to provide assurances that the eventual benefits to both instructors and students amply justify the perseverance required to confront and overcome the problems.


Introduction: Elements of Cooperative Learning
In-Class Exercises
Out-of-Class Exercises
Case Study: Cooperative Learning in a Sequence of Chemical Engineering Courses
Issues and Answers


Cooperative learning (CL) is instruction that involves students working in teams to accomplish a common goal, under conditions that include the following elements (Johnson, Johnson, and Smith, 1991):

  1. Positive interdependence. Team members are obliged to rely on one another to achieve the goal. If any team members fail to do their part, everyone suffers consequences.

  2. Individual accountability. All students in a group are held accountable for doing their share of the work and for mastery of all of the material to be learned.

  3. Face-to-face promotive interaction. Although some of the group work may be parcelled out and done individually, some must be done interactively, with group members providing one another with feedback, challenging one another's conclusions and reasoning, and perhaps most importantly, teaching and encouraging one another.

  4. Appropriate use of collaborative skills. Students are encouraged and helped to develop and practice trust-building, leadership, decision-making, communication, and conflict management skills.

  5. Group processing. Team members set group goals, periodically assess what they are doing well as a team, and identify changes they will make to function more effectively in the future.

Cooperative learning is not simply a synonym for students working in groups. A learning exercise only qualifies as CL to the extent that the listed elements are present.

Cooperative learning may occur in or out of class. In-class exercises, which may take anywhere from 30 seconds to an entire class period, may involve answering or generating questions, explaining observations, working through derivations, solving problems, summarizing lecture material, trouble-shooting, and brainstorming. Out-of-class activities include carrying out experiments or research studies, completing problem sets or design projects, writing reports, and preparing class presentations.

A large and rapidly growing body of research confirms the effectiveness of cooperative learning in higher education (Astin, 1993; Cooper et al., 1990; Goodsell et al., 1992; Johnson et al., 1991; McKeachie, 1986). Relative to students taught traditionally - i.e., with instructor-centered lectures, individual assignments, and competitive grading - cooperatively taught students tend to exhibit higher academic achievement, greater persistence through graduation, better high-level reasoning and critical thinking skills, deeper understanding of learned material, more on-task and less disruptive behavior in class, lower levels of anxiety and stress, greater intrinsic motivation to learn and achieve, greater ability to view situations from others' perspectives, more positive and supportive relationships with peers, more positive attitudes toward subject areas, and higher self-esteem. Another nontrivial benefit for instructors is that when assignments are done cooperatively, the number of papers to grade decreases by a factor of three or four.

There are several reasons why cooperative learning works as well as it does. The idea that students learn more by doing something active than by simply watching and listening has long been known to both cognitive psychologists and effective teachers (Bonwell and Eison, 1991), and cooperative learning is by its nature an active method. Beyond that, cooperation enhances learning in several ways. Weak students working individually are likely to give up when they get stuck; working cooperatively, they keep going. Strong students faced with the task of explaining and clarifying material to weaker students often find gaps in their own understanding and fill them in. Students working alone may tend to delay completing assignments or skip them altogether, but when they know that others are counting on them, they are often driven to do the work in a timely manner. Students working competitively have incentives not to help one another; working cooperatively, they are rewarded for helping.

The proven benefits of cooperative learning notwithstanding, instructors who attempt it frequently encounter resistance and sometimes open hostility from the students. Bright students complain about begin held back by their slower teammates, weaker or less assertive students complain about being discounted or ignored in group sessions, and resentments build when some team members fail to pull their weight. Instructors with sufficient patience generally find ways to deal with these problems, but others become discouraged and revert to the traditional teacher-centered instructional paradigm, which is a loss both for them and for their students.

In this paper we outline several cooperative learning exercises that have worked particularly well for us in engineering courses. We then suggest ways to maximize the benefits of the approach and to deal with the difficulties that may arise when CL is implemented. The primary sources for the material to be presented are Johnson, Johnson, and Smith (1991) and our personal experience.
(Return to table of contents)


Early in a class period, organize the students (or have them organize themselves) into teams of two to four students, and randomly assign one student in each group (e.g. the youngest one or the one with the darkest hair or the one whose home town is farthest away from campus, or the student to the right of the one in the selected category) to be the team recorder for that class period. Several times during the period - ideally, after no more than 15 minutes of lecturing - give the teams exercises to do, instructing the recorders to write down the team responses. In longer exercises, circulate among the teams, verifying that they are on task, everyone is participating, and that the recorders are doing their job. Stop the teams after a suitable period has elapsed (which may be as short as 30 seconds or as long as 10 minutes, depending on the exercise) and randomly call on students to present their teams' solutions. The exercises can range from short questions to extensive problem-solving activities in a variety of categories.

Asking the students to think in advance about the questions can effectively motivate them to watch for the answers in the rest of the class period.

This approach to classroom questioning offers several advantages over more conventional methods. Asking questions of the class as a whole usually produces either an embarrassing silence (especially in large classes) or answers volunteered by two or three students - the same students every time. Calling on students individually often creates an atmosphere of tension in the classroom, with many students worrying more about whether you will single them out than about what you are teaching. On the other hand, when students are asked to generate answers in small groups, most of them will get right to work without feeling threatened and you'll get all the responses you want.

The groups should generally be given enough time to think about the problem and to begin to formulate an answer but not necessarily enough to work through to a complete solution.

Have the students work for several minutes in this way, stop them, call on one or more pairs to summarize their work, and then have the students continue with the roles reversed.

If you assign students to read complex material on their own, many or most will not do it, and if you write it on the board, they will copy it into their notes without necessarily understanding or even thinking about it. If you require them to explain it to one another, however, they will either work through it and achieve understanding or get stuck and be primed to hear the explanation when it is presented.

You might also pose problems that are incompletely defined and require estimations or assumptions to be solved. Felder has asked a chemical engineering class to estimate the rate of heat input to a teakettle on a stove burner turned to its maximum setting. To get the solution, the students have to apply standard engineering calculations but they must also estimate the volume of a typical kettle and the time it takes to heat a kettle to boiling, estimations that are not included in the problem statement. Working on such problems trains students to exercise higher-level thinking skills and prepares them to engage in similar thinking on homework assignments and tests.

The collective response to the latter exercise provides the instructor with a clear indication of how well the class worked that day and what points should be addressed at the beginning of the next period.

Alison King (1993) uses an exercise she calls guided reciprocal peer questioning, which consists of giving students high-level question stems and having them use these stems to construct specific questions on the course material, which they then ask their classmates. Some of these generic stems are

"What is the main idea of...?"
"What if...?"
"How does...affect...?"
"What is the meaning of...?"
"Why is...important?"
"What is a new example of...?"
"Explain why...."
"Explain how...."
"How does...relate to what I've learned before?"
"What conclusions can I draw about...?
"What is the difference between ... and ...?"
"How are ... and ... similar?"
"How would I use ... to ...?"
"What are the strengths and weaknesses of...?"

King finds that repeated use of these exercises leads to a noticeable improvement in the higher level thinking abilities of her students.

An effective variation of the in-class group exercise is think-pair-share. Students first work on a given problem individually, then compare their answers with a partner and synthesize a joint solution. The pairs may in turn share their solutions with other pairs or with the whole class. Another variation that has already been described is TAPPS--thinking-aloud pair problem-solving (Lochhead and Whimbey, 1987). Students work on problems in pairs, with one pair member functioning as problem-solver and the other as listener. The problem solvers verbalize everything they are thinking as they seek a solution; the listeners encourage their partners to keep talking and offer general suggestions or hints if the problem solvers get stuck. The roles are reversed for the next problem.

Still another in-class strategy, Jigsaw (Aronson, 1978), is excellent for tasks that have several distinct aspects or components. Home teams are formed, with each team member taking responsibility for one aspect of the problem in question. Expert teams are then formed of all the students responsible for the same aspect. The teams go over the material they are responsible for and plan how to best teach it to their home groups. After adequate time has been given, the students return to the home teams and bring their expertise to bear on the assigned task. Positive interdependence is fostered because each student has different information needed to complete the task.

Besides their pedagogical benefits, in-class cooperative exercises make classes much more enjoyable for both students and instructors. Even the most gifted lecturers have trouble sustaining attention and interest throughout a 50-minute class: after about ten minutes, the attention of the students starts to drift, and by the end of the class boredom is generally rampant. Even if the instructor asks questions in an effort to spark some interest, nothing much usually happens except silence and avoidance of eye contact. A well-known study of information retention supports this picture of what happens: immediately after a lecture, students were found to recall about 70% of the content presented during the first ten minutes and 20% of the content of the last ten minutes (Hartley and Davies, 1978).

When group exercises are interspersed throughout a lecture, the picture changes. Once a class accustomed to group work gets going on a problem, the classroom atmosphere changes: the leaden silence changes to a hum, then a chatter, punctuated by arguments and laughter. Most students - even those not doing much talking - are engaged in thinking about the question at hand instead of just mechanically transcribing notes from the chalkboard. Even if some students refuse to participate, as they might, an active involvement of 90-95% is clearly superior to the 5-10% or less that characterizes most lectures.
(Return to table of contents)


Research and design projects, laboratory experiments, and homework problem sets can all be effectively completed by teams of students. The teams may function as formal cooperative learning groups, remaining together until the completion of an assignment and then disbanding, or as cooperative base groups, remaining together for an entire course or even longer (Johnson et al., 1991). The periodic reforming of formal cooperative learning groups exposes the students to a larger variety of learning styles and problem-solving approaches than they would see in base groups; the base groups tend to provide more assistance and encouragement to their members. (A third category, informal cooperative learning groups, refers to teams that come together and disperse within a single class period, as in the exercises listed previously.)

Following are several suggestions for setting up CL groups and structuring assignments:

On the first day of class, we have the students fill out a questionnaire indicating their sex, ethnicity, and either overall GPA or grades in selected prerequisite courses. (Students who do not wish to provide this information are free to withhold it, but few do.) We use the collected questionnaires to form the groups, following the guidelines given above. We have also occasionally let students self-select into groups, stipulating that no group may have more than one student who earned A's in specified courses and strongly recommending that women and minority students avoid groups in which they are outnumbered. While not perfect, this system at least assures that the very best students in the class do not cluster together, leaving the weaker ones to fend for themselves.

A problem may arise if assignments require long periods of time out of class and many students live off campus and/or have outside jobs. Instructor-formed groups may then find it almost impossible to agree on a suitable meeting time and place. We have shuffled groups to allow commuters to work together to the extent that they can, recognizing that they will lose some of the benefits of CL by not having as much face-to-face interaction as the other students in the class.

(Return to table of contents)


This section presents a case history of cooperative learning in a a sequence of chemical engineering courses that Felder taught in successive semesters to roughly the same body of students. Five semester-long courses constituted the experimental sequence:

  1. CHE 205 - Chemical Process Principles (Fall 1990 - 4 credits). Material and energy balances on chemical processes, basic concepts and calculations.

  2. CHE 225 - Chemical Process Systems (Spring 1991 - 3 credits). Process variable measurement methods, computer simulation of processes, applied statistical analysis.

  3. CHE 311 - Transport Processes I (Fall 1991 - 3 credits). Fluid dynamics and heat transfer.

  4. CHE 312 - Transport Processes II (Spring 1992 - 3 credits). Mass transfer and separation processes.

  5. CHE 446 - Chemical Reactor Design and Analysis (Fall 1992 - 3 credits).
The basis for the instructional approach used in all five courses was the cooperative learning model articulated by Johnson, Johnson, and Smith (1991), with most deviations from their recommendations being due primarily to the instructor's inexperience and/or timidity. Homework assignments were done by fixed teams of three or four students that with few exceptions remained together for an entire semester, and in-class exercises were done by groups of two to four students that changed from one class period to another. A chronology of the study follows, narrated by Felder.

First day of CHE 205. I announced that all homework must be done in fixed groups with one solution set handed in per group, gave the criteria for group formation (three or four members, no more than one of whom could have received A's in specified mathematics and physics courses), and specified individual roles within groups (coordinator, recorder, and one or two checkers, with the roles rotating on each assignment).

I spent some time explaining why I was doing all this, assuring the students that it wasn't just a game I was playing with them or something I designed to make my life easier (quite the contrary). I told them that both educational research and my experience indicated that students learn better and get higher grades by teaching one another some of the time rather than listening to professors lecture all of the time. I also guaranteed them that when they went to work as engineers they would be expected to work in teams, so they might as well start learning how to do it now. During the next two days, several students expressed strong reservations about group work and requested permission to work alone. Permission was denied.

Second day of CHE 205. I interspersed small group problem-solving exercises throughout my lecture. The student response was variable - the level of interaction generally decreased with distance from the front of the room. At the end of the period, I asked students who had not yet affiliated with homework teams to get together after class with teams of three willing to pick up a fourth member and work things out, which they did.

First homework assignment. Assignments were turned in by most students working in groups as instructed, but also by several individuals and one "group" consisting of the student, Elvis Presley, and Richard M. Nixon. I applauded that student for creativity but informed all those who had not yet joined a group that the fun was over and I would accept no further assignments from individuals. By the due date of the second assignment, all students were in homework groups.

First three weeks. I continued to use in-class group exercises, generally taking about ten minutes of every 50-minute period, and occasionally beginning the period by telling the students to sit somewhere new and work with people they had not worked with before. I varied the exercises, using a mixture of problem-solving, think-pair-share, trouble-shooting, brainstorming, and question generation, so that the students never knew what was coming from one class to the next. The level of active student involvement continually increased, leveling out at 90-100%.

Occasionally in class I offered suggestions for effective homework team functioning, trying not to be too preachy about it. A recommendation I made on several occasions was for the students to set up all problem solutions individually, then work together to complete the problem set. I occasionally got complaints in my office about team members not pulling their weight or missing group sessions, or about personal conflicts between group members, and I met with several groups in my office during the semester to help them work out solutions. (In the end, only one group actually dissolved out of roughly 35 in the class.)

Dropouts during this period brought some groups down to two members. Some pairs combined, others disbanded and individually joined teams of three. (In subsequent courses, I allowed some pairs to remain intact if dropouts occurred late in the semester.)

End of four weeks. The class average on the first test was 66, brought down by some very low grades (as low as 10). Some students complained that the better members of their groups had been working out most of the homework solutions and the complaining students were consequently hurt on the test. I announced in class that students doing all the work in their teams were hurting their classmates rather than helping them, and I repeated the message about setting up problems individually and completing them in groups. The students who had complained soon afterward reported improved interactions within their groups.

End of six weeks. Midsemester evaluations were overwhelmingly positive about group work. I announced that students who wished to do so could now do homework individually. Out of roughly 115 students remaining in the course, only three elected to do so, two of whom were off-campus students who were finding it difficult to attend group work sessions. In courses I taught subsequently, I occasionally assigned individual homework but never again let the students opt out of assigned group work.

Last half of CHE 205. The student lounge began to resemble an ant colony the day before an assignment was due - small groups clustered everywhere, occasionally sending out emissaries to other groups to compare notes and exchange hints (which I permitted as long as entire solutions were not exchanged). The nature of my office hours changed considerably from the start of the semester, with fewer individual students coming in to ask "How do you do Problem 3" and more groups coming in for help in resolving debates about open-ended problems. I inferred with considerable satisfaction that the students had begun to count on one another to resolve straightforward questions instead of looking to me as the source of all wisdom.

The final grade distribution in CHE 205 was dramatically different from any I had ever seen when I taught this course before. In the previous offerings, the distribution was reasonably bell-shaped, with more students earning C's than any other grade. When the course was taught cooperatively, the number of failures was comparable to the number in previous offerings but the overall distribution was markedly skewed toward higher grades: 26 A's, 40 B's, 15 C's, 11 D's, and 26 F's. Many of those who failed had quit before the end of the course. The course evaluations were exceptionally high and most students made strong statements about how much the group work improved their understanding of the course material. My conclusion was that CL led to improved learning in all but the least qualified and most poorly motivated students.

Remaining courses. At my encouragement, new teams formed at the beginning of each semester, even when all members of a team from the previous semester remained in the sequence. I continued to ask the teams to assess their performance periodically and to meet with me if they had persistent problems. The students' level of comfort with cooperative learning continually increased, although there were always problems that needed attention. No more than two teams in any semester had recourse to the last resort options of firing or quitting.

I observed a greater sense of community in this cohort of students by the time they were juniors than I had seen in any other chemical engineering class. They studied together, partied together, and displayed a remarkable sense of unanimity in complaining about things in the chemical engineering program that they didn't like. One student commented, "This class is different from any I've been in before. Usually you just end up knowing a couple of people - here I know everyone in the class. Working in groups does this."

Several times during the experimental course sequence the students were asked to rate how helpful cooperative learning was to them. Their ratings of group homework were consistently and overwhelmingly positive. At the midpoints of the introductory sophomore course, the two junior courses, and the senior course, the percentages rating CL above average in helpfulness were respectively 83%, 85%, 87%, and 86%, and the percentages rating it below average were 9%, 7%, 7%, and 7%. The ratings of in-class group exercises were also positive, but it took many of the students longer to appreciate the benefits of these exercises. Above average ratings were given by 41%, 70%, and 86% of the respondents in the two junior courses and the senior course, and below average ratings were given by 24%, 12%, and 6%, respectively. (The question was unfortunately omitted in the sophomore course survey.)

In the semester following the experimental course sequence, the students were asked to evaluate the sequence retrospectively. Of 67 seniors responding, 92% rated the experimental courses more instructive than their other chemical engineering courses, 8% rated them equally instructive, and none rated them less instructive. Sixty percent considered the experimental courses very important factors in their decision to remain in chemical engineering, 28% considered them important, and 12% rated them not very important or unimportant. Ninety-eight percent rated group homework helpful and 2% rated it not helpful, and 78% rated in-class group work helpful and 22% rated it not helpful.

One episode in particular led me to believe that group work was having the desired effect on the quality of the students' learning. In the third semester of the study, the class was taking fluid dynamics and heat transfer with me and thermodynamics with a colleague. My colleague is a traditional instructor, relying entirely on lecturing to impart the course material, and he is known for his long and difficult tests, with averages in the 50's or even less not unheard of. The average on his first test that semester was 72, and that on the second test was 78, and he ended by concluding that it was perhaps the strongest class he had ever taught. Meanwhile, I casually asked the students how things were going, mentioning that I heard they were doing well in thermo. Several of them independently told me that they had become so used to working in groups, meeting before my tests, speculating on what I might be likely to ask, and figuring out how they would respond, that they just kept doing it in their other classes - and it worked! To my way of thinking, cooperative learning had achieved its intended effect.
(Return to table of contents)


We regularly teach about cooperative learning in faculty development workshops and find that the participants fall into two broad categories. On the one hand are the skeptics, who creatively come up with all sorts of reasons why CL could not possibly work for their subjects and their students. On the other hand are the enthusiasts, who are sold by our descriptions of the method and its benefits and set out to implement CL fully in their very next class. We know all the reservations about cooperative learning, having once had them all ourselves, and we can usually satisfy most of the skeptics that the problems they anticipate may not occur, and if they occur they are solvable. We worry more about the enthusiasts. Despite our best efforts, they often charge off and simply turn students loose in groups, imagining they will immediately see the improved performance and positive attitudes that the CL literature promises them.

The reality may be quite different. Many students - especially bright ones - begin with a strong resistance or outright hostility to working in teams, and they may be quite vocal on the subject when told they have no choice. Moreover, interpersonal conflicts - usually having to do with differences among team members in ability, work ethic, or sense of responsibility - inevitably arise in group work and can seriously interfere with the embattled group's morale and effectiveness. Instructors unexpectedly confronted by these problems might easily conclude that CL is more trouble than it is worth.

As with so much else in life, however, in cooperative learning forewarned is forearmed. The paragraphs that follow itemize common concerns about CL and our responses to them.

(Return to table of contents)


The research and anecdotal evidence confirming the effectiveness of cooperative learning is at this point overwhelming. Regardless of the objective specified, cooperative learning has repeatedly been shown to be more effective than the traditional individual/competitive approach to education.

Obstacles to the widespread implementation of cooperative learning at the college level are not insignificant, however. The approach requires faculty members to move away from the safe, teacher-centered methods that keep them in full control of their classes to methods that deliberately turn some control over to students. They have to deal with the fact that while they are learning to implement CL they will make mistakes and may for a time be less effective than they were using the old methods. They may also have to confront and overcome substantial student opposition and resistance, which can be a most unpleasant experience, especially for teachers who are good lecturers and may have been popular with students for many years.

The message of this report, if there is a single message, is that the benefits of cooperative learning more than compensate for the difficulties that must be overcome to implement it. Instructors who pay attention to CL principles when designing their courses, who are prepared for initially negative student reactions, and who have the patience and the confidence to wait out these reactions, will reap their rewards in more and deeper student learning and more positive student attitudes toward their subjects and toward themselves. It may take an effort to get there, but it is an effort well worth making.
(Return to table of contents)


Aronson, E., N. Blaney, C. Stephan, J. Sikes, and M. Snapp, The Jigsaw Classroom. Beverly Hills, CA, Sage, 1978.

Astin, A, What Matters in College: Four Critical Years Revisited. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass, 1993.

Bellamy, L., D.L. Evans, D.E. Linder, B.W. McNeill, and G. Raupp, Teams in Engineering Education. Report to the National Science Foundation on Grant Number USE9156176, Tempe, AZ, Arizona State University, March 1994.

Bonwell, C.C. and J.A. Eison, Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1, George Washington University, 1991.

Conciatore, J., "From flunking to mastering calculus." Black Issues in Higher Education, Feb. 1, 1990, pp. 5-6. See also R.E. Fullilove and P.U. Treisman, "Mathematics Achievement among African American undergraduates at the University of California Berkeley: An evaluation of the mathematics workshop program," Journal of Negro Education, 59(3), 463-478 (1990).

Cooper, J., S. Prescott, L. Cook, L. Smith, R. Mueck and J. Cuseo, Cooperative Learning and College Instruction. California State University Foundation, Long Beach, CA, 1990.

Feichtner, S.B. and E.A. Davis, "Why some groups fail: A survey of students' experiences with learning groups." The Organizational Behavior Teaching Review, 9(4), 75-88 (1991).

Felder, R.M., K.D. Forrest, L. Baker-Ward, E.J. Dietz, and P.H. Mohr, "A longitudinal study of engineering student performance and retention. I. Success and failure in the introductory course." J. Engr. Education, 82(1), 15-21 (1993).

Felder, R.M., P.H. Mohr, E.J. Dietz, and L. Baker Ward, "A longitudinal study of engineering student performance and retention. II. Differences between students from rural and urban backgrounds." J. Engr. Education, 83(3), 209-217 (1994a).

Felder, R.M., G.N. Felder, M. Mauney, C.E. Hamrin, Jr., and E.J. Dietz, "A longitudinal study of engineering student performance and retention: Gender differences in student performance and attitudes." ERIC Document Reproduction Service Report ED 368 553 (1994b).

Felder, R.M., "Reaching the Second Tier: Learning and Teaching Styles in College Science Education." J. College Science Teaching, 23(5), 286-290 (1993).

Goodsell, A., M. Maher and V. Tinto, Collaborative Learning: A Sourcebook for Higher Education. National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, and Assessment, University Park, PA, 1992.

Hartley, J. and I.K. Davies, "Note-taking: A critical review," Programmed Learning and Educational Technology, 15, 207-224 (1978), cited by McKeachie (1986), p. 72.

Heller, P., R. Keith, and S. Anderson, "Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part 1: Group versus individual problem solving." Am. J. Phys. 60(7), 627-636 (1992).

Heller, P., and M. Hollabaugh, "Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part 2: Designing problems and structuring groups." Am. J. Phys. 60(7), 637-644 (1992).

Johnson, D.W., R.T. Johnson and K.A. Smith, Cooperative Learning: Increasing College Faculty Instructional Productivity, ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 4, George Washington University, 1991.

King, A., "From sage on the stage to guide on the side." College Teaching 41(1), 30-35, 1993.

Lochhead, J. and A. Whimbey, "Teaching Analytical Reasoning through Thinking Aloud Pair Problem Solving," in J.E. Stice, Ed., Developing Critical Thinking and Problem-Solving Abilities. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, No. 30. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass, 1987.

McKeachie, W., Teaching Tips, 8th Edition. Heath & Co., Lexington, MA (1986), pp. 46, 49, 120, 144-145, 196-200, 250.

Tschumi, P., 1991 ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings, New Orleans, Am. Society for Engineering Education, 1991, pp. 1987-1990.

(Return to table of contents)

Go to bibliography of Richard Felder's education-related papers
Go to Richard Felder's home page