Group assignments that students must work together to complete should replace a substantial amount of traditional lecture-based instruction in college and university courses. Reason: It is vital for students to gain experience collaborating with peers to study a topic and to achieve a common goal.

Group assignments that students must work together to complete should replace a substantial amount of traditional lecture-based instruction in college and university courses. Reason: It is vital for students to gain experience collaborating with peers to study a topic and to achieve a common goal.

Although collaboration and teamwork skills are of great significance for most students in their career, the claim that traditional lecture-based instruction in college and university courses ought to be replaced by group assignments in an attempt to promote peer collaboration seems compelling merely on the surface. In my opinion, courses should be dominated by neither group assignments nor independent endeavors, as both of them complement one another rather than acting as substitutes.

To be clear, group assignments do have a positive impact on encouraging collaborative learning among peers. On the one hand, doing a problem set with a study group helps clarify fuzzy concepts, thus promoting the understanding and learning quality. On the other hand, when working in groups, students are increasingly exposed to diverse perspectives, the agreements and conflicts in which, in accordance with the particular background and standpoint of each member in the group, enhances the critical thinking ability of every group member. Another important end is that during the discussion and debates, the communication skills are promoted naturally, and the common goal achieved in the end boost the self-fulfillments of students.

While the above-mentioned merits of teamwork, the necessity and the extent of replacing traditional lecture-based instructions which tend to involve only individual learning with group work, however, should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. There is a trade-off between working as a group or independently, and the gains of this trade-off do not always larger than the cost. This is true for most theoretical courses, such as math and physics, in which numerous complex and even arcane concepts that are difficult for most students to understand are included. For this type of course, group learning can obfuscate students rather than enlighten them, and one far better approach is to resort to a professor devoted to the particular field and explain the concepts clearly and directly. Yet, for more practical courses such as computer programming, working in teams to finish a big project that has practical application helps to not only reinforce the knowledge learned in class but also promotes the ability of time management and oral communication.

Another chief problem with the claim is that it implies that traditional lecture-based instruction cannot be collaborative. However, with the advance of digital media, many professors today are engaging their students by using interactive digital teaching tools. Under such circumstances, the whole class is gathered to work towards a common goal collaboratively, but without the need of assigning substantial group work.

In conclusion, despite the commendable aim at training students in peer collaboration, the particular measure of substituting substantial traditional lectured-based instruction with group work is not the optimal idea, and should be examined on a case-by-case basis to take full advantage of complimentary teaching methods. Otherwise, students may not fully comprehend the topics covered in the course. Besides, one can also incorporate the element of peer collaboration in traditional lectured-based instruction.