A RT IC L E S

Collective Learning Agreements as Democratic

Practice and Joint Empowerment

Patrick G. Coy

When decision-making power about what happens in a classroom

is rarely shared with students, hierarchies are reinforced, knowledge is
static, and learning becomes passive. Learning agreements and learning
contracts can undercut these dynamics, modeling democracy while pro-
moting cooperation. Analyzing collective learning agreements in under-
graduate conict management courses, this article explores what students
perceive to be productive learning methods and argues that collective
learning agreements facilitate active learning, self and class governance,
and shared responsibility for individual and collective success. Jointly con-
structing collective learning agreements disrupts traditional power rela-
tions while engendering creativity in students and professors alike.

Good education is always more process than product.

Parker J. Palmer,
The Courage to Teach

T here are many ways to restructure classroom processes to increase stu-

dent learning and meet the goals of both a liberal and a critical educa-
tion. The list of possible approaches is long and varied, with some techniques
able to assist student learning in one dimension but not another. Although
no single approach is capable of doing everything, there is an approach that

I thank Vasili Rukhadze and most especially Amanda Clark for their assistance on this article.
I am also appreciative of the hundreds of students who have experimented with learning agree-
ments with me in our courses over the years.

Conflict Resolution Quarterly, vol. 31, no. 3, Spring 2014 229

Wiley Periodicals, Inc. and the Association for Conict Resolution
Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/crq.21087
230 COY

is rooted in nding out from students themselves what will help all of them
individually to learn in a shared classroom and then collectively committing
to do those things. This approach thus acknowledges that the educational
experience belongs as much to students as to teachers (Hansen 1991). It also
recognizes that learning is a subjective, dynamic, and highly individualized
process, even when it occurs within an institutionalized educational setting
(Murphy 1999). More important, this approach blends the individual with
the collective in creative ways, becoming an experiment and a lesson in dem-
ocratic practice. That approach is a collective learning agreement process.
A collective learning agreement is best dened as a participatory and
democratic process that leads to the creation of a collective document that
describes those preferred actions, processes, behaviors, and methods for
both student and teacher in order to best facilitate learning. A useful short-
hand way to think about a learning agreement is that it supplements the
traditional content-focused plan with a process-focused plan (Knowles
1986). It is used to inform the choices made in the planning and structur-
ing of the learning process and in the subsequent monitoring and evalua-
tion of the same by both students and teachers.
In this article, I ground the collective learning agreement process in the
theory and practice of cooperative and transformational learning and review
the literature on learning agreements. I briey explain the data set of fteen
collective learning agreements, providing a detailed explanation of the class-
room processes used for creating and implementing the collective learning
agreements that make up the data for this article. I next present and discuss
the ndings arising from the analysis of the learning agreement data and
end with a conclusion. I demonstrate in this article what undergraduates in
conict management courses think productive learning environments and
practices look like and are made up of. I blend data-driven analysis with
descriptions of and personal reections on a particular pedagogical praxis.

Theory and Literature

Participatory learning processes are more advantageous than simply lectur-

ing in part because they contribute to learning the valuable cooperation
skills that are at the heart of conict resolution and ultimately of demo-
cratic practice (Hedeen 2003). Consequently, the process of creating col-
lective learning agreements and incorporating the varied teaching and
learning processes that they invariably call for is both good pedagogy
and good citizenship. Learning agreements have proven to creatively engage
Conflict Resolution Quarterly DOI: 10.1002/crq
 Collective Learning Agreements as Democratic Practice 231

students and teachers. Students are more participatory in their learning

(Codde 1996) and more motivated (Greenwood and McCabe 2008), and
they take additional responsibility for their own learning (Knowles 1986).
This is important because teaching processes that hinder learning by expe-
rience and downgrade personal responsibility also thwart genuine under-
standing and short-circuit the important processes of internalization
(Prasad 1984). In this regard, Paulo Freire (1990) argued persuasively that
education is more than one of the roads leading to freedom; it is in fact the
practice of freedom. In this model, students are cocreators of the educa-
tional process and also of knowledge itself.
Acknowledging that there is information that learners do not know and
that educators should teach them does not preclude including learners in
the construction of the learning process. Learning agreements help re-
dene student and teacher roles and encourage students to take active
responsibility toward not only their own learning but for others in the class
as well (Freie 1992). This last aspect in particular is a radical departure from
dominant practices. Schneider (2010) discusses the success he has had with
democratizing his classroom by including students in the preparation of
classroom activities. The educator becomes less of an authoritative gure,
doling out assignments and lecturing incessantly while students take notes,
and becomes more of a facilitator (Glennon 2008). Such an approach is
valuable in virtually any subject matter, and it is particularly germane for
teaching and learning the applied skills of conict management.
Many classroom cultures are not only competitive but also dened by
an authority gure telling students what will be done when and what
behaviors are expected of them. In contrast, using democratic processes
like a collective learning agreement helps students and teachers alike to
contest the typical constructions and reconstruct a particular course as an
active community engaged in a shared process of learning (Caspary 1996).
I argue that not only does the collective learning agreement itself lend
positive outcomes, but the multistep process of creating it (which I detail
in a later section) fosters a sense of inclusion and engenders cooperation.
Anderson, Boud, and Simpson (1996) point out that group contracts
help students overcome a sense of isolation and foster the spirit of team-
work and cooperation that is essential to student empowerment. Students
see not only that they are part of something bigger than themselves, but
that their behaviors are integral to both individual and collective success.
This collective responsibility aspect is no minor matter. Students recognize
that they share similar or complementary ideas, questions, and needs.

Conflict Resolution Quarterly DOI: 10.1002/crq

232 COY

I have found that many students, especially traditionally reserved and quiet
ones, eventually become more willing to express those ideas due to a dual
horizontal process: the creation of the collective learning agreement and
the implementation and monitoring of it in an exercise of collective respon-
sibility. In short, students are better able to communicate, formulate genu-
ine goals, and make decisions when learning agreements are used
(Stephenson and Laycock 1993; Wilde and Hardaker 1997).
In a university setting, learners come from many dierent backgrounds,
educational histories, learning styles, language barriers, and even age. The
numbers of students of color and rst-generation students of many eth-
nicities are increasing. Student bodies are also rapidly becoming interna-
tionalized as Western universities adopt a business model approach and
seek out new tuition-driven revenue streams, including international stu-
dents who can pay their own way (Adams, Leventhal, and Connelly 2012).
Increasingly, cultural diversity is necessitating changes in the traditional
delivery of course material (Schwieger, Gros, and Barberan 2010).
The multicultural and internationalized classroom that most US profes-
sors increasingly walk into brings with it new challenges for which even
culturally sensitive professors are not particularly well prepared to adapt
(hooks 1994). Yet the rich experiences of these diverse learners are an impor-
tant resource for the educator and for local students who have not traveled
internationally or have limited experience with other cultures. Diverse view-
points born of dissimilar standpoints are needed not to satisfy political cor-
rectness but in order to understand the complexity of human processes
(Palmer 1998). Creating opportunities for input on teaching processes and
on classroom structure from diverse and international participants in the
beginning of a course democratizes classroom dynamics and increases
the likelihood that the learning experience is molded to benet each partici-
pant. Some international students hailing from highly hierarchical cultures
may struggle with the open, democratic, and power-sharing aspects of the
learning agreement process; for some of these students, it may ultimately be
enlightening and empowering, and for others, it may be counterproductive.
Collective learning agreements are a way to incorporate the varied
interests of all members of the nascent community of learners in a class.
The learning agreements process not only guarantees that multiple per-
spectives will emerge but that they originate directly from student interests
(Freie 1992). Dissimilar approaches to both teaching and learning can sur-
face in a nonthreatening atmosphere and gain legitimacy because they
emerged within the context of a deeply democratic deliberation where

Conflict Resolution Quarterly DOI: 10.1002/crq

 Collective Learning Agreements as Democratic Practice 233

professor and student are on a more equal playing eld. In fact, I argue that
the collective learning agreement process has the potential to address still
other issues vexing higher education today.
On the macrolevel, student retention has become one of the most
intensively studied areas in higher education (Tinto 20062007). On the
classroom level, many professors struggle with a variation on the retention
problem that contributes to the original one: poor attendance by students,
coupled with a general lack of interest and eort. Learning agreements are
a partial antidote to these issues since the process of creating learning con-
tracts has been found to be an eective way to increase both attendance
and overall participation in course work (Ray and Salomon 1996). This
should not surprise, as conict resolution scholars have long known that
disputant adherence to solutions is closely related to disputant input into
the creation of those agreements (Carpenter and Kennedy 1988; Coy
2009; Tyler et al. 1997). Put simply, people are more likely to honor and
implement that which they have had a hand in creating. Thus, students
who have a voice in the construction of their classroom learning experience
through a collective learning agreement keep coming back to participate
actively and meaningfully in the classroom they helped create. And they
are more likely to succeed. As traditional universities vie with each other
and with various alternative institutions and delivery methods in the
recruitment and the retention of students, learning contracts contribute to
achieving that latter goal.
George Cheney (1999) has shown how the practice of democracy in
the workplace and in organizations has important spin-o eects in society
as a whole. Similarly, I suggest that constructing collective learning agree-
ments is an organic, fundamentally creative classroom process that models
good social practices outside the classroom. In most areas of life, people are
expected to work with others, respecting their ideas and even their oppos-
ing approaches to shared problems. This is healthy and fertile as opposing
viewpoints often help illustrate the shortcomings or roadblocks of each
approach and can aid in creating solutions that would otherwise be over-
looked. Many times, the best ideas and aha moments come from the
interplay of contrary or competing perspectives of making an idea more
convincing to someone who opposes it (Napier et al. 2009). In a classroom
setting, active participation by all in dening the processes that will govern
our participation results in a cooperative experience that cocreates new
knowledge. All of this is not to say that there are not some challenges in the
creation process.

Conflict Resolution Quarterly DOI: 10.1002/crq

234 COY

Some have argued that creating the learning agreement itself is a time-
consuming experience that takes away from time devoted to course con-
tent (Wieseman 2004). More problematic is the fact that Wieseman (2004)
also illustrates the struggle some students have to overcome their need for
more structure and limited choices. When Kelly and Fetherston (2008)
implemented a cooperative and reective learning practice in a conict
resolution class, they found evidence that the majority of students were
initially resistant. Yet later in the semester they became not only more
accepting of these novel practices but evaluated them positively. Similarly,
some students are initially uncomfortable with the freedom of the two-step
collective brainstorming process that I use to create collective learning
agreements.1 They are accustomed to having very few choices in structur-
ing their learning experience, so this process pushes them into unfamiliar
territory.
In fact, the cultural practices of traditional classrooms are so ingrained
in so many students that some have told me that they were initially con-
vinced that the collective learning agreement process is little more than a
trick, a velvet hammer that I would eventually wield against them to suit
my singular purposes. The transparency of the process is so unsettling that
some are initially convinced that it is not what it appears to be; rather, they
think it is being used to mask some ulterior motives of the traditional
authority gure, the professor.
A vital aspect of using learning agreements is not just creating them but
revisiting the agreement throughout the semester and recapping the expe-
rience at the end. As the course progresses, both the educator and the learn-
ers should be able to address shortcomings in the agreement and make
suggestions for change (Lenth 1992; Wilde and Hardaker 1997). Closing
the loop and gaining feedback also foster a sense of achievement and gather
ideas on how to improve future learning contracts (Anderson et al. 1996;
Knowles, Holton, and Swanson 2005).
In the next section, I describe in detail how we do this in my classes,
but there are many other approaches. For instance, Kelly and Fetherston
(2008) found it useful to have students engage in reective learning by
keeping a course diary. Many students were able to better articulate not only
what they learned, but how they learned and the struggles they had in the
process. Self-reection in the form of short essays written by the students
describing how they met their learning objectives is a tool that Glennon
(2008) also uses to good eect. In short, learning agreements are best when
exibility is built in.

Conflict Resolution Quarterly DOI: 10.1002/crq

 Collective Learning Agreements as Democratic Practice 235

The learning agreement process is adaptable and can be used for dier-
ent subjects, at dierent levels, and even in a variety of group settings. The
benets are such that learning agreements are used in specialized postsec-
ondary training, such as the medical eld (Hardigan 1994; Rickard 2002;
Thorley and Gregory 1994) and the legal eld and human resources (Wallis
2008). The participation and shared responsibility associated with the
learning agreement approach are especially useful in conict resolution
education settings (Hedeen 2005). Nelkens (2009) study on the use of
learning contracts in a negotiation class showed how students were able to
use the very skills they were to learn for negotiation to craft the learning
agreement and create their own curriculum. Similarly, over the years, many
students in my applied conict management classes have reported that
they found it both appropriate and helpful to practice conict-related skills
through the learning agreement creation and monitoring process.
Communication and negotiation, two essential aspects of creating
learning agreements, are useful skills in a variety of workplace settings.
Preparing students by decentering the professors role and involving them
in the negotiated creation of learning agreements will benet students in
many ways beyond learning the course material, including equipping them
to be more responsible and critical democratic citizens.

Data and Method

The data for this article are the contents of fteen learning agreements
constructed with university classes that I taught from 1996 through 2012
(appendix A contains a sample learning agreement). All of them were
undergraduate classes; eleven of the fteen were introductory conict
management classes, with the remainder including various classes in public
sector dispute resolution, human rights, and public administration. I use
classwide learning agreements only in classes with fewer than twenty-ve
participants, thereby ensuring greater synergy between the individual stu-
dents learning needs and the contents of the agreement, which increases
the likelihood of individual ownership and implementation.
Taken collectively, these fteen learning agreements contain 423 indi-
vidual items or data points. Each class created a learning agreement con-
taining, on average, 30 individual items having to do with actions, attitudes,
behaviors, and methods. These 423 items from the fteen learning agree-
ments were the data points. The initial analysis consisted of thematically
grouping identical and highly similar items together in order to reveal
Conflict Resolution Quarterly DOI: 10.1002/crq
236 COY

larger patterns, similarities, dierences, and uniqueness. The next round of

coding consisted of coding each of the 423 items with one of three mutu-
ally exclusive codes having to do with who was considered to be primarily
responsible for implementing this item in the learning agreement: the stu-
dents, the professor, or both.
The next round of analysis involved inductively creating codes for the
groupings of identical and highly similar groups of items. This resulted in
twenty-seven codes denoting identical or highly similar items. This was
followed by a subsequent round of analysis grouping the items according
to the ve broadest categories that were revealed in the data: attitudes
and atmosphere, participation, interactive behaviors, teaching methods and
activities, and outcomes and requirements.2 In the next section, I describe
in detail the multistep process that I use for creating and using a collective
learning agreement and then explore the ndings from the data analysis.

Creating a Collective Learning Agreement

The creation of a collective learning agreement with my classes is a multi-

step, multiday process. The rst step occurs between the rst and second
class session; these early class sessions make deep impressions and also set a
tone and important precedents, perhaps even circumscribing what is pos-
sible later (Hansen 1991). These rst sessions are what Parker Palmer calls
a critical moment in teaching (1998, 145): those times when rich learn-
ing opportunities for students open up or close downdepending in part
on how the teacher manages the moment. Consequently, at the end of the
rst session of a new class where Im going to use the learning agreement
process, I assign a short essay, due at the next class. Students are asked to
identify two of their best, most productive learning experiences. At least
one of these premier learning experiences must have occurred in a formal-
ized educational setting like a school class.
There are two aspects to the essay: description and analysis. Students
rst write a few paragraphs on each of the two experiences, simply explain-
ing and describing the occasion, the parties, the setting, and their experi-
ence. Following the description for each good learning experience, they
must then devote a few paragraphs to each experience, analyzing what
made this so positive and constructive for them. Here they are asked to
specically identify the variables that contributed to the successful learning
experience, including such things as behaviors, tactics, attitudes, methods,

Conflict Resolution Quarterly DOI: 10.1002/crq

 Collective Learning Agreements as Democratic Practice 237

interactions, content, and topics. This essay is designed so that the stu-
dents come to the second class session having already thought deeply about
what helps them learn. It ensures that each student is ready and therefore
should be willing to analytically discuss the variables that contribute to a
good learning environment.
These essays also have a second important purpose: they provide me
with an individualized road map into understanding what each student in
the class considers to be eective and useful learning experiences and the
specic variables that create it. I make copies of these essays before return-
ing them with comments because they can be especially helpful to me later
in the semester in assisting students who are experiencing diculties.
I begin the second class of the semester by asking each student to write
a list of ve to ten adjectives that describe a good learning environment.
Since they have just written their essay, they are prepared for this. Then I
ask for two volunteers to come up to the board and record these adjectives.
The rest of the students then voice their adjectives one after another,
quickly, as the two volunteers write them on the board. We soon have a list
of thirty to forty adjectives describing a good learning environment accord-
ing to the experiences of this group of students. I then give the two volun-
teers an opportunity to add to the list on the board from their own
experiences.
For the next step, I explain that in order for us to create the kind of
learning environment and learning experience described by these adjec-
tives, we have to operationalize them by identifying particular behaviors,
activities, attitudes, tactics, and methods whose use by our class will create
the desired learning environment. We have to turn the descriptive adjec-
tives into short phrases with verbs that will create what is described. I ask
for a volunteer to keep notes of what we will put on the board next. I then
ask participants to identify an adjective or a related set of adjectives that we
should work on.
For example, in a recent class, someone said she wanted to work on cre-
ating an inspiring learning environment. I circled inspiring and also the
following closely related adjectives that were on the board: stimulating,
mind opening, and memorable. From these circled adjectives I drew an
arrow over to the blank half of the board and asked students to name
actions that they thought would create an inspiring, stimulating, mind-
opening, and memorable learning experience. They volunteered the fol-
lowing ways to operationalize these adjectives:

Conflict Resolution Quarterly DOI: 10.1002/crq

238 COY

Use hands-on exercises.

Everyone be willing to participate; be enthusiastic.
Use visuals.
Point out real-world applications.
Be willing to play devils advocate.
Encourage each other to think independently.
Contribute personal examples.

In another class, we decided to operationalize the adjectives structured

and organized. Participants said the following behaviors and tactics would
create a structured and organized learning environment:
Be prepared.
Follow the syllabus.
Have clear expectations.
Come to class on time; stop class on time.
Announce plans and goals for each class at start.
As a nal example, another class operationalized the adjectives comfort-
able, safe, and relaxed. This group said that the following activities would
create such an environment:
Sit in a circle whenever possible.
Use constructive criticism.
Okay to drink but not to eat.
Attack the argument, not the person.
Learn each others names.
Dont interrupt.
Get to know each other.
Arm each other.
Use check-ins after disagreements.
Everyone has the right to pass.
Once we have a substantial listing of actions, tactics, tools, and behav-
iors on the board, I ask if anyone has any questions about the meanings of

Conflict Resolution Quarterly DOI: 10.1002/crq

 Collective Learning Agreements as Democratic Practice 239

these items or about how they should be dened or understood. The ensu-
ing discussion on particular items may result in ne-tuning the wording of
the item, or it may result in a broader and more accurate shared under-
standing of what the item refers to for this group.
In the nal step of the creation of the learning agreement, I ask if any-
one has any objections to anything to which we are both collectively and
individually committing ourselves. This may result in more ne-tuning of
a few items, or it may result in erasing various items from the list. Over the
years, I have found this nal step is critically important in order to forestall
potential resentments.
Before the next class, I type up the learning agreement, prefacing it
with a paragraph that says we are individually and collectively committing
ourselves to this over the course of the semester and that we will use the
agreement periodically during the semester for self and collective evalua-
tion. I then distribute the learning agreement to the class on paper and
electronically. (See appendix A for a sample learning agreement.) This
model for creating a collective learning agreement requires a short, non-
graded out-of-class essay assignment followed by a single class session of
fty to seventy-ve minutes. Others may want to shorten or even lengthen
the process, perhaps including some team-building exercises before creat-
ing the agreement.
A common problem with collective learning agreements is that over the
course of a semester, they can easily be forgotten or ignored. To combat this
problem, I give the class an assignment around the middle of the semester
that requires them to go through the learning agreement item by item and
evaluate themselves and also the class as a whole with regard to their imple-
menting or following of that item. All students must rank themselves and
the class on a three-point scale of plus, okay, or negative for that item. I also
do the same. I then ask them to analyze these rankings as to patterns that
they see and critically comment on their performance and that of the class
in relation to the learning agreement. (This assignment is in appendix B.)
Holding everyone accountable to the agreement fosters a sense of both
individual and collective responsibility toward the goals of the agreement
and the class material and dynamics (Codde 1996; Lenth 1992).
At the next class session, when that assignment is due, we identify and
discuss the patterns the students and I have discovered, talk about what we
are doing well and what we are not doing so well, and how we can change
what we are not doing so well. These discussions may result in alterations
to our schedule or syllabus or to planned activities. Typically at this session,

Conflict Resolution Quarterly DOI: 10.1002/crq

240 COY

a class often makes adjustments to an agreement, adding, deleting, or revis-

ing specic items.
This midsemester evaluation of the learning agreement process is criti-
cal if the agreement is to have demonstrable impacts on the behaviors of
students and faculty. It is important for college professors to engage in
reective teaching practices if they are to improve their craft. Among the
useful practices for teachers are reective eld notes made immediately
after each class (Purcell 2013). Just as important is joining a critical self-
evaluation process with a collective one. Having students rate themselves
on each item, write a self-reective essay, and then have a joint class discus-
sion arising from the assignment increases student ownership of imple-
mentation in important ways. I have found that student willingness to
raise issues about problematic practices or actions in light of our learning
agreement usually spikes following this session. This is immensely empow-
ering for students and liberating for the professor. Responsibility for the
success of the class no longer resides solely or even primarily on my narrow
shoulders but is ensconced on the broad shoulders of the entire class. It is
always refreshing for me to read these self-reective essays and to have the
class critically evaluate itself in open discussion. Witnessing a change in
student actions following this midsemester correction is nothing short of
inspiring.
Student responsibility for participation is reinforced further by the fact
that students know that they must give themselves a participation grade
at the end of the semester, accompanied by a couple of paragraphs of expla-
nation as to how they arrived at that grade in light of our learning agreement.
The self-assigned grade becomes a signicant factor in my determination of
their participation grade. I rst assign what I think their participation grade
should be, and only then do I look at their self-assigned grade and explana-
tion. I then make adjustments that seem warranted. Frequently the nal
participation grade falls somewhere between the rst two versions. I turn
now to an analysis of the content of the fteen learning agreements.

Findings and Discussion

All 423 agreement items from the fteen learning agreements were
axed with one of three possible codes regarding who was primarily con-
sidered to be responsible for implementing that item: the students, the
professor, or both. The results of that coding are in gure 1. The most obvi-
ous nding is the nearly identical number of items that were directed
Conflict Resolution Quarterly DOI: 10.1002/crq
 Collective Learning Agreements as Democratic Practice 241

Figure 1. Learning Agreement Items by Primary Responsibility Type

180 166 167

160
140
Number of Items

120
100 90
80
60
40
20
0
Both Professor Students

primarily to the professor or to both students and professor. Each of these

categories accounted for 39 percent of all of the items. But the more telling
nding is that having to do with student responsibilities.
Over a sixteen-year period in fteen classes, learning agreement items
that were primarily directed toward students accounted for only 21 percent
of the total. In other words, students were consistently only half as likely to
create items that were aimed primarily at their own actions and behaviors
instead of at those of the professor. This conrms the claims over the
decades of many theorists and researchers who point to the disempowering
eects that traditional approaches to formalized education have on stu-
dents, marginalizing them into passive consumers (Caspary 1996; Dewey
1938; Freire 1970).
Even when given the opportunity to consider themselves equals or
beyond in terms of being primarily responsible for a good learning envi-
ronment and experience, students prefer to defer, choosing instead to priv-
ilege those actions for which the teacher is commonly thought to be
primarily responsible. There are at least two likely reasons for this. First,
throughout their schooling years students are rarely given a meaningful
role into how their learning experiences will be structured, what tactics will
be used, and what behaviors will be normalized. Perhaps they do not step
forward and take responsibility in part because they have so little experi-
ence with it in the classroom. Second, students may simply be rational
actors who are content to free-ride in the classroom; perhaps they are loath
to voluntarily take on responsibilities beyond those outlined in a syllabus if
they do not have to. In either case, this nding points to the steep hill that
we must climb if we are to create more democratic learning environments.

Conflict Resolution Quarterly DOI: 10.1002/crq

242 COY

Table 1. Categories of Learning Agreement Types, in Descending Order

Make material relevant
Participate actively
Vary activities
Be positive and arming
Flexibility in course
requirements
Be inclusive
Clear expectations
Get to know each other
Be prepared
Listen attentively Share personal experiences
Be open-minded Show respect
Challenge ideas, not people Use humor
Be punctual and ecient Encourage independent
Sit in circle thought
Use interactive exercises Ignore mobile electronics
Use small groups Use media
Play devils advocate Share responsibility for class
success
Avoid interruptions
Ask questions
Use and accept constructive
criticism

Still, all is not lost if students are apparently willing to climb up that hill
with their teacher. The good news is that students are just as likely to create
learning responsibilities that are directed at both themselves and the teacher
as they are to create learning responsibilities directed primarily at them-
selves. This bodes well for students and teachers to grow together into more
democratic classrooms where traditional power relations are overcome and
shared responsibility becomes even more of a norm.
Table 1 shows the twenty-seven categories or codes used to group all
423 learning agreement items. They are listed in descending order of occur-
rence within each column: the family of activities associated with make
material relevant was the most common learning agreement category of
items and the use and accept constructive criticism category was the least
common. In many cases, the title of the category is drawn directly from
specic items listed on multiple learning agreements.
Figure 2 presents these categories in another format: the gure shows
the numerical totals for the categories while restricting it to the top ten
categories out of the twenty-seven shown in table 1. Figure 2 shows that
students were signicantly more interested in wanting to make the course
relevant than they were in any other approaches save those associated with
the active participation category. The leading category, make material rel-
evant, included learning agreement items such as these:

Conflict Resolution Quarterly DOI: 10.1002/crq

 Collective Learning Agreements as Democratic Practice 243

Discuss topics and issues applicable to our lives.

Use current events as examples.
Assign homework that applies to life.
Relate the material to our everyday lives.
Connect theory to personal experience.

Notably, items in this leading category tended to be directed at the

professor, which reinforces the ndings demonstrated in gure 1. Equally
important is the fact that the second most common category of items was
grouped under the code of participate actively. Students clearly value
active learning, seeing it as a critical ingredient to individual and collective
success. Unfortunately, the message that is often sent on course syllabi is
that interactive participation is not highly valued. This important dimen-
sion of the learning experience tends to show up on a syllabus under the
catchall category of a grade for student participation. Moreover, not all
courses include a participation grade, and when they do, it usually does not
count for much, generally ranging from 5 to 20 percent. These common

Figure 2. Top Ten Categories of Learning Agreement Item Types

45
39 38
40
35
Number of Items

30
25
25 23 23
21 21 20 20
20 18
15
10
5
0
Make material relevant

Participate actively

Vary activities

Be positive and arming

Flexibility in course requirements

Be inclusive

Clear expectations

Get to know each other

Be prepared

Listen attentively

Conflict Resolution Quarterly DOI: 10.1002/crq

244 COY

practices contradict what students see as valuable aspects of the learning

experience.
Active participation was the other popular category. It included learn-
ing agreement items such as these:

Be willing to debate.
Help each other.
Use eye contact.
Attend the class.
Dont be afraid to be wrong.
Engage your colleagues directly.
Bring relevant information to class.

The students in these fteen classes clearly thought that active partici-
pation was a key ingredient in a good learning environment. This seems to
suggest that they have found interactive pedagogies to be vastly preferable
to passive ones like lecturing, for example. In fact, use lectures appeared
only once among the 423 actions that students thought would create a
good learning environment, a quite remarkable nding. This nding is
reinforced and made more interesting by the fact that the third most com-
mon category was vary activities. Variety was important not just for vari-
etys sake; a closer look at this category of items showed that students think
that variety is the spice that enlivens their learning senses and engenders
engaged learning.
I also coded the data after allowing ve metacategories to emerge
inductively. That analysis is depicted in gure 3. (The denitions of these
metacategories are given in note 2.) Figure 3 again reinforces the fact that
when students are given the opportunity to identify behaviors and activi-
ties that will help create a good learning environment, they focus much
more of their attention on the professor than they do on themselves. The
most surprising nding in gure 3 is that issues associated with course
goals, outcomes, requirements, assignments, tests, and the entire evalua-
tion process received the least attention by far. Certainly students are con-
cerned about these issues and how they may contribute to creating a good
learning environment and experience. However, most of the learning agree-
ments contain only one to three such items (out of an average of thirty
items per agreement). How to interpret this nding?

Conflict Resolution Quarterly DOI: 10.1002/crq

 Collective Learning Agreements as Democratic Practice 245

Figure 3. Learning Agreement by Metacategory

140

119
Number of Learning Agreement Items

120
108

100 95

80
63
60

40 37

20

0
Teaching Attitudes and Participation Interactive Outcomes and
Methods and Atmosphere Behaviors Requirements
Activities

One approach might be to tie it to the truly rampant grade ination

that has swept across secondary and higher education in the past two
decades. This process has resulted in an overall scaling back of the amount
and the quality of work required for an A or a B grade. In general, student
accountability for performance has been seriously downgraded, and a cul-
ture of entitlement has arisen in its place (Hassel and Lourey 2005). In
such a context, where the integrity and meaning of the evaluation processes
and of grading have eroded, it is little wonder that students do not see the
evaluation process as being integral to the creation of a productive learning
environment and learning experience. But it might also be possible to see
a silver lining in this data cloud.
For example, I nd it refreshing that students do not emphasize the
evaluation and grading process when thinking about what it takes to create
a good learning environment and experience. I would have expected some-
thing quite dierent insofar as students anecdotally seem to me to be much
more concerned about grades than they are about either course content or
learning processes. But perhaps this nding shows me, and perhaps my
teaching colleagues, that we tend to underestimate college students today.
The fact is that these ndings show that when college students in fteen
university classes over a sixteen-year period were empowered and given the

Conflict Resolution Quarterly DOI: 10.1002/crq

246 COY

opportunity to cocreate their learning environment and their learning

experiences in a particular course, they focused their attention not on eval-
uation and grading but much more on the classroom processes and dynam-
ics where we might hope they will focus: actions associated with interactive
behaviors, participation, attitudes, and atmosphere. There is, however, yet
another less sanguine line of interpretation here. It might just be that even
when presented with the opportunity to have an impact on assignments,
requirements, and evaluations at the beginning of a course, students still
see this as falling outside their legitimate role. They may simply view these
items as o the table in the exercise because of the way they have been
socialized and conditioned to understand the roles of student and teacher.
In the next section, I use an extended example to highlight and discuss
learning agreement implementation issues from the professors perspective.

Changes by Instructor Based on Learning Agreements

While it is admittedly dicult to substantially change the content of a class

and change ones plans for teaching the content when they have been made
in advance of the construction of a learning agreement for that class, there
are ways to make this more possible and less disruptive to advance plan-
ning. I build in more exibility in the weekly schedule, leaving some class
sessions identied as to be determined on the syllabus to accommodate
changes suggested through the learning agreement. Thus, if a class wants to
use role plays and simulations, bring in outside speakers with relevant
experience, or use case studies from todays world, there is room in the
schedule to accommodate such unplanned and potentially time-consum-
ing activities. A professor can also adapt course plans in a variety of ways
that honor a particular learning agreement.
As an example, the learning agreement for an environmental conict
resolution class included the item use eld experiences. Consequently, I
looked for relevant public events in the northeast Ohio area having to do
with environmental conict resolution. I eventually suggested that we
replace one of our sessions with an open house public forum to be followed
by a public meeting at Burke Lakefront Airport in Cleveland about long-
range community planning for the future of Clevelands waterways and
lakefront in general and about the small lakefront airport in particular that
was taking up valuable public land along the Lake Erie shore near down-
town. I moved readings already on the syllabus about public meetings to

Conflict Resolution Quarterly DOI: 10.1002/crq

 Collective Learning Agreements as Democratic Practice 247

coordinate with the eld trip, added others about the open house model of
public forums as expressions of deliberative democracy, and then added
online resources about Clevelands lakefront to prepare the students to get
the most out of the eld trip.
I drew up an observational sheet for the students to help focus their
observations and note taking at the public meeting. I later provided starter
questions to assist them in critically analyzing what occurred at the public
meeting in a subsequent essay assignment that was also tied to the eld trip
and the added readings. We shifted the schedule some more and focused
the class session following the eld trip on a critical discussion about the
open house and public meeting processes. We used our notes and essays
as the foundation for a particularly productive and insightful discussion
about the choices the organizers made in structuring the public forum about
the future of Clevelands lakefront. Student feedback on the value of the
eld trip and its integration into the course topics was highly positive.
Some thought it was the most awesome class they had taken part in; oth-
ers noted that they found it particularly valuable to be practicing the con-
ict resolution processes that we were also studying.
Had the class not created and then agreed to the use eld trips tactic,
we would have stayed in our quiet exurban classroom and never ventured
to Cleveland and its complicated urban planning problems. The fact is that
I simply had not thought of such a eld trip in advance, and moving the
class into a living laboratory of public sector dispute resolution to evaluate
theory against practice and practice against theory required signicant
additional and wholly unplanned work on my part. It was risky, and it
decentered my control in a variety of terrains and on multiple levels,
including class content, subjects, processes, and time and place. In that
sense, the learning agreement accomplished exactly what the literature says
it should and what I thought I wanted it to, even though I apparently was
not willing to do this without being pushed by the learning agreement
process.

Conclusion

The example demonstrates that collective learning agreements call both

students and professors outside their usual comfort zones; they can thus
engender creative and constructive pedagogies, sometimes precisely because
we are forced out of those familiar zones of practice. If we ask our students

Conflict Resolution Quarterly DOI: 10.1002/crq

248 COY

to be exible learnersas we shouldwe must be exible learners our-

selves. Anything less undercuts the dialogic dimensions of true learning
and puts cooperative and transformational education beyond our reach as
it risks reducing education to something like the transmission of knowl-
edge rather than the cooperative cocreation of it.
The ndings described in this article show that when given the oppor-
tunity to dene and create good learning environments and shape their
learning experiences, students continue to put far more emphasis on the
responsibilities of the teacher than on themselves. As disappointing as these
ndings are, we must also realize that the roots of disempowerment appar-
ently run deep and are not easily disturbed from student consciousness.
Indeed, this tells only a small part of the story. The learning agreements
constructed in these fteen courses also emphasized active participation by
all, coming to class prepared, being arming and helping each other, being
willing to play devils advocate, and a host of other interactive behaviors
that were tied to taking responsibility for our classrooms. In short, these
students saw creating a community of learners as critical to a constructive
learning experience. They have also taught me that in giving away some of
the considerable power that accrues to the professoriat, we can create a new
kind of dual respect for each other and a shared power that is greater than
the sum of its parts. Some students have reported to me that the collective
learning agreement process was the rst time that a teacher gave them the
power to decide how they could learn and how much they appreciated it.
I have concluded that teaching and learning in todays college classroom is
a dance that requires nimble footwork, and many students are actually
looking for partners with which to glide across the oor.
The collective learning agreement process is not a panacea to the mul-
titude of problems associated with increasing student learning in college
classrooms today. Insofar as this is a teacher-initiated reordering of power
relations instead of emerging organically from the students themselves, its
counterhegemonic potential is compromised (Maney, Woehrle, and Coy
2005; Shor 1996). The learning agreement process does, however, have the
potential to rearrange power at least on the margins even while democratiz-
ing the classroom. It can also increase student participation across a num-
ber of levels and measures; as the data clearly show, students value highly
participatory pedagogies as a gateway to productive learning experiences.
To the extent that the process models and inculcates cooperative learning
and shared responsibility for individual and collective success, it reinforces
not only good liberal educational practice but also good democratic practice

Conflict Resolution Quarterly DOI: 10.1002/crq

 Collective Learning Agreements as Democratic Practice 249

(Coy and Hancock 2010). These are no small matters. But to the extent
that we can make even modest advances on them, we not only create more
eective learning environments and experiences, but empower graduates
and teachers alike to become better equipped to be constructive conict
managers and the responsible, participatory, and critical democratic citi-
zens that the world so badly needs.

Notes
1. I rst learned about collective learning agreements from Bonnie Wineld
when we were graduate students at Syracuse University. Wineld is now an
administrator at Lafayette College. Typically generous, she taught me how she
constructed and used learning agreements in her classes. Over subsequent
decades, I have adapted and expanded on her approach in a variety of ways,
kept data on my use of learning agreements, and reviewed the literature on
them. But there would be no learning agreements in any of the courses I teach,
nor would this article exist, if not for Bonnie Winelds pedagogical insights
and her collegial graciousness so many years ago. My students and I owe her a
tremendous amount of gratitude for helping us to create better learning
environments and experiences.
2. In order for an action to be categorized with the interactive behavior
items, it generally had to be pointing toward interpersonal interactions within
the classroom. Moreover, these interpersonal interactions were explicit,
relatively detailed, and direct. Another key to using this category was if the
agreement item had a governing behavior dimension or a moral dimension to
it. The participation category mostly focused on student actions to contribute
to classroom activities. In order for something to be categorized with attitudes
and atmosphere, it generally had to be pointing toward the macrolevel. These
agreement items were vaguer and less explicit than the interactive behavior
category. They also did not have to do with direct interactions between
individual members of the class so much as the attitudes that they bring to
class, the tone that we were trying to set, and the structures used to do so. The
teaching methods and activities category of items mostly focused on
pedagogical choices to be made by the professor and the methods and activities
taken mostly by the professor in the classroom in order to facilitate learning.
The outcomes and requirements category included agreement items having to
do with goals, assignments, tests, and grading, for example.

References
Adams, Tony, Mitch Leventhal, and Stephen Connelly. 2012. International Stu-
dent Recruitment in Australia and the United States: Approaches and Atti-
tudes. In The SAGE Handbook of International Higher Education, edited by

Conflict Resolution Quarterly DOI: 10.1002/crq

250 COY

Darla K. Deardor, Hans de Wit, John D. Heyl, and Tony Adams, 399417.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781452218397.n22.
Anderson, Geo, David Boud, and Jane Simpson. 1996. Learning Contracts.
London: Kogan Page.
Carpenter, Susan L., and W. J. D. Kennedy. 1988. Managing Public Disputes: A
Practical Guide to Handling Conict and Reaching Agreements. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Caspary, William R. 1996. Students in Charge. In Teaching Democracy by Being
Democratic, edited by Theodore Lewis Becker and Richard A. Couto, 2752.
Westport, CT: Praeger.
Cheney, George. 1999. Values at Work: Employee Participation Meets Market Pres-
sure at Mondragn. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Codde, Joseph, R. 1996. Using Learning Contracts in the College Classroom.
http://www.msu.edu/user/coddejos/contract.htm.
Coy, Patrick G. 2009. Conict Resolution, Conict Transformation and Peace-
building. In Peace, Justice and Security Studies: A Curriculum Guide, edited by
Timothy A. McAlwee, B. Welling Hall, Joseph Liechty, and Julie Garber,
6378. Boulder, CO: Lynne Reinner Publishers.
Coy, Patrick G., and Landon E. Hancock. 2010. Mainstreaming Peace and Con-
ict Studies: Designing Introductory Courses to Fit Liberal Arts Education
Requirements. Journal of Peace Education 7:20519.
Dewey, John. 1938. Experience and Education. Toronto: Collier-Macmillan.
Freie, John F. 1992. The Individual Learning Contract. PS: Political Science and
Politics 25:230344.
Freire, Paulo. 1970. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Herder and Herder.
Freire, Paulo. 1990. Education for Critical Consciousness. New York: Continuum.
Freire, Paulo. 1998. Teachers as Cultural Workers: Letters to Those Who Dare Teach.
Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Glennon, Fred. 2008. Promoting Freedom, Responsibility, and Learning in the
Classroom: The Learning Covenant a Decade Later. Teaching Theology and
Religion 11 (1): 3241.
Greenwood, Scott, and Patrick P. McCabe. 2008. How Learning Contracts
Motivate Students. Middle School Journal 39 (5): 1322.
Hansen, Amy J. 1991. Establishing a Teaching/Learning Contract. In Education
for Judgment: The Artistry of Discussion Leadership, edited by Roland Chris-
tensen, David Garvin, and Ann Sweet, 12335. Boston: Harvard Business
School Press.
Hardigan, Patrick. 1994. Investigation of Learning Contracts in Pharmaceutical
Education.American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education 58 (4): 38690.
Hassel, Holly, and Jessica Lourey. 2005. The Dea(r)th of Student Responsibility.
College Teaching 53 (1): 213.
Hedeen, Timothy. 2003. The Reverse Jigsaw: A Process of Cooperative Learning
and Discussion. Teaching Sociology 31:32532.

Conflict Resolution Quarterly DOI: 10.1002/crq

 Collective Learning Agreements as Democratic Practice 251

Hedeen, Timothy. 2005. Dialogue and Democracy, Community and Capacity:

Lessons for Conict Resolution Education from Montessori, Dewey, and
Freire. Conict Resolution Quarterly 23 (2): 185202.
hooks, bell. 1994. Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom.
New York: Routledge.
Kelly, Rhys, and Betts Fetherston. 2008. Productive Contradictions: Dissonance,
Resistance and Change in an Experiment with Cooperative Learning. Jour-
nal of Peace Education 5 (1): 97111.
Knowles, Malcolm S. 1986. Using Learning Contracts. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Knowles, Malcolm S., Elwood F. Holton III, and Richard A. Swanson. 2005. The
Adult Learner. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Lenth, Charles S. 1992. Curriculum Contracts: Restructuring Public Policies to
Meet Contemporary Educational Needs. Liberal Education 78 (4): 2631.
Maney, Gregory M., Lynne M. Woehrle, and Patrick G. Coy. 2005. Harnessing
and Challenging Hegemony: The U.S. Peace Movement after 9/11. Socio-
logical Perspectives 38:35781.
Murphy, Brian K. 1999. Transforming Ourselves, Transforming the World: An Open
Conspiracy for Social Change. Halifax, NS: Fernwood Publishing.
Napier, Nancy K., Paul R. Bahnson, Roy Glen, Cheryl J. Maille, Kirk Smith, and
Harry White. 2009. When Aha Moments Make All the Dierence. Journal
of Management Inquiry 18 (1): 6476.
Nelken, Melissa L. 2009. Negotiating Classroom Process: Lessons from Adult
Learning. Negotiation Journal 25:18194.
Palmer, Parker J. 1998. The Courage to Teach: Exploring the Inner Landscape of a
Teachers Life. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Prasad, Devi. 1984. Peace Education or Education for Peace. New Dehli: Gandhi
Peace Foundation.
Purcell, David. 2013. Sociology, Teaching, and Reective Practice: Using Writ-
ing to Improve. Teaching Sociology 41 (1): 519.
Ray, Roger D., and Michelle Salomon. 1996. Teaching the Low-Performance
College Student: An Inexpensive Behavioral Technology That Works. Educa-
tional Technology 36 (3): 5264.
Rickard, Wendy. 2002. Work-Based Learning in Health: Evaluating the Experi-
ence of Learners, Community Agencies and Teachers. Teaching in Higher
Education 7 (1): 4763.
Schneider, Georey. 2010. Democratizing the Classroom: Sequencing Discus-
sions and Assignments to Promote Student Ownership of the Course. Review
of Radical Political Economics 42 (1): 1017.
Schwieger, Florian, Emmeline Gros, and Laura Barberan. 2010. Lessons from
the Culturally Diverse Classroom: Intellectual Challenges and Opportunities
of Teaching in the American University. College Teaching 58:14855.
Shor, Ira. 1996. When Students Have Power: Negotiating Authority in a Critical
Pedagogy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Conflict Resolution Quarterly DOI: 10.1002/crq

252 COY

Stephenson, John, and Michael Laycock. 1993. Using Learning Contracts in

Higher Education. London: Kogan Page.
Thorley, Lin, and Roy Gregory. 1994. Using Group Based-Learning in Higher Edu-
cation. London: Kogan Page.
Tinto, Vincent. 20062007. Research and Practice of Student Retention: What
Next? Journal of College Student Retention 8 (1): 119.
Tyler, Tom R., Robert J. Boeckmann, Heather J. Smith, and Yuen J. Huo. 1997.
Social Justice in a Diverse Society. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Wallis, Emma. 2008. Learning Agreements and Socially Responsible Approaches
to Professional and Human Resource Development in the United Kingdom.
Journal of In-Service Education 34:46782.
Wieseman, Katherine C. 2004. Use of Learning Agreements in Preservice Sec-
ondary Science Teacher Preparation: Joys, Struggles, Tensions, Empowerment
Issues. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association
for Research in Science Teaching.
Wilde, Francesca, and Roger Hardaker. 1997. Clarity Is Power: Learning Out-
comes, Learner Autonomy and Transferable Skills. London: Further Education
Development Agency.

Patrick G. Coy is professor and director of the Center for Applied Conict
Management at Kent State University.

Conflict Resolution Quarterly DOI: 10.1002/crq

 Collective Learning Agreements as Democratic Practice 253

Appendix A: Sample Learning Agreement

What follows are the behaviors, actions, attitudes, and tactics we have
identied that will help us construct a good learning environment and a
productive learning experience for all of us. We have each committed our-
selves to these, and we will use the agreement to help us evaluate how our
class is progressing.

Come to class prepared.

Everyone be ready and willing to contribute.
Follow the syllabus.
Have clear expectations.
Sit in a semi-circle whenever appropriate.
Be respectful of others opinions.
Think before you speak.
Be open.
Use constructive criticisms.
Separate the person from his or her opinion (attack the position, not the
person).
It is okay to drink but avoid eating.
Use hands-on exercises.
Use visuals.
Point out real-world applicationsrelate material to our lives.
Use interesting examples.
Be willing to contribute personal examples.
Encourage discussion.
Respond to each other, not just to Pat.
Think about class topics outside of class time.
Avoid interruptions.
Give feedback.
Turn o cell phones.
Avoid texting and surng.

Conflict Resolution Quarterly DOI: 10.1002/crq

254 COY

Hold no grudges.
Be open to student suggestions about testing and oce hours.
Have high expectations of each other.
Dont be afraid to be wrong.
Be willing to play devils advocate.
Ask hard and provoking questions.
Use exercises that rely on personal experiences.

Conflict Resolution Quarterly DOI: 10.1002/crq

 Collective Learning Agreements as Democratic Practice 255

Appendix B: Midsemester Evaluation Exercise for the

Learning Agreement

Part One
Step 1: On the top of the left-hand side of our learning agreement list,
write the words class as a whole. On the top of the right-hand side
of the list, write the word myself.
Step 2: Read down the learning agreement list slowly. Put a plus sign +
on the left-hand side of each technique or variable that you think our
class (all students and teacher) is using to good advantage.
Step 3: Place a minus sign by those that you think our class is using
poorly.
Step 4: Write OK by those you think our class is doing OK on.
Step 5: Now repeat step two, only this time use yourself as the evaluation
point, and put your marks on the right-hand side of the list.
Step 6: Repeat step three, using yourself as the evaluation point.
Step 7: Repeat step four, using yourself as the evaluation point.

You dont have to have marks on both sides for each technique; not all
will apply for both categories.

Part Two
Use this information for a typed, reective essay. Below are some sugges-
tions to get your reective/creative juices owing. Please go beyond them.

Put on your social scientist hat: look for patterns, and theorize about
what they may mean.
Reect on what the exercise suggests to you about the educational
process, and about our respective roles as teacher and student.
Explore what it tells you about yourself and our class.
Identify what surprises you, and ask yourself why you are surprised.

Conflict Resolution Quarterly DOI: 10.1002/crq

256 COY

Get in touch with your reactions to this assignment as you complete

it, adding them to your data source.
Make concrete suggestions for improvement.
Finally, ask yourself what you could be doing but have not been doing
to make this a better class, for yourself, and for the rest of us.

Conflict Resolution Quarterly DOI: 10.1002/crq

Copyright of Conflict Resolution Quarterly is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.