10.08.06
Posted in Meta-Analysis, Collaborative Learning, motivation, Cooperative Learning, Annotated References - RDP readings at 11:08 pm by youngsah
Springer, L.,
Stanne, M.E., and Donovan, S.S. (1999). Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research 69: 21–51.
This meta-analysis on 39 studies focuses on group learning in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology (SMET) undergraduate classrooms. Research suggests that collaborative learning reflects the reality of scientific and technological practice better than competitive learning. Also, most elementary and middle school teachers of SMET subjects use cooperative learning. The authors define the differences between cooperative and collaborative learning. Generally, cooperative learning is more structured than collaborative learning and has carpeted goals and problems whereas people in collaborative learning must define these for themselves. The authors also cover motivational, cognitive, and affective perspectives on small group learning. Overall, small group learning was found to have significant positive effects on student learning in SMET classrooms.
Generally a good overview of different types of small group learning, followed by a pretty thorough explanation of the procedure of meta-analysis, followed by their results. First off, I’m torn between collaborative and cooperative learning. So I’m likely to start off on a research tangent. Intuitively I’m for both in different situations or even mixed for some sorts of situations, but we’ll see. Secondly, I found it slightly amusing that the authors complained a bit about the vagueness of other studies. They even suggested that future research be more clear in it’s methods and measures because vagueness limited the meta-analysis and possibly further study and reproduction of past studies.
Permalink
Posted in Team-Assisted Individualization, motivation, Cooperative Learning, Annotated References - RDP readings at 11:06 pm by youngsah
Nichols, J. D., & Miller, R. B. (1994). Cooperative learning and student motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 167-178.
This paper relates a study comparing cooperative learning and traditional lecturing groups based on their “efficacy, intrinsic valuing, and goal orientation” as well as their algebra skills. The cooperative learning group (experimental) only learned cooperatively for 18 weeks (1 semester) after which they were exposed to traditional lecturing. The traditional lecturing (control) group was exposed to the same condition for 2 semesters. The cooperative learning method was Team-Assisted Individualization (TAI) developed by Slavin. In this method, students are put into groups of 4 or 5 where individuals have varying levels of competence. Researchers found that the experimental group students had greater algebra efficacy and learning goals at 18 weeks. After then were put into a traditional classroom environment, experimental participants performed worse on the final than would otherwise be predicted by previous grades and competencies. Also, after put back in a traditional environment experimental students showed significantly lower learning than even students in the control group
I picked this article because I’m interested in both motivation and cooperative learning. This study used a particular method of cooperative learning: TAI. Students in groups had differing skill levels and were assessed both individually and as a group. Groups were not assessed according to what group did best but instead on member improvement. I guess that’s fair but some groups probably had more room to improve than others. I think that you would have to both individually and collectively grade students in this condition because we have to evaluate individual gains as well as the effectiveness of the group to discourage social loafing and many other group problems.
In having the groups with this kind of heterogeneity there is the problem of “exploiting” skilled students to teach less skilled ones. Some people argue that this is merely frustrating and generally not very useful for the more accomplished student. They’re not only expected to learn they’re expected to teach while they’re themselves learning the material. I’m more on the side that teaching something can clarify it in your own mind and that there can be social gains in this sort of interaction but I know there are papers out there that have a contrary position
Permalink
10.02.06
Posted in Student Centered Learning, Cooperative Learning, Annotated References - RDP readings at 12:27 am by youngsah
R.M. Felder and R. Brent, (1996). “Navigating The Bumpy Road to Student-Centered Instruction.” College Teaching, 44(2), 43-47
A FAQ type piece about student centered learning (SCL) (which includes cooperative learning) but this time about student resistance specifically. It also addresses how to react to student resistance and group problems, social loafing within groups, and whether cooperative learning is effective for minorities.
I found it funny that they compared the process of student acceptance of SCL with that of grief (Shock, Denial, Strong emotion, Resistance and withdrawal, Surrender and acceptance, Struggle and exploration, Return of confidence, Integration and success). Later on the author mentioned a student who rated his class poorly because he “makes us think”. I think these are the same issue in part. Some students may not like change of any kind, especially this dramatic. However, by college they’ve been exposed to many teachers with different methods of teaching so they shouldn’t have this severe of a reaction to mere change. Making learning more difficult by making them think might be a better reason. It’s a paradigm shift (something that few people are comfortable with). They are taught that learning is one thing, that lectures are a place where fonts of knowledge spout information upon them, and that assignments can be completed from a formulaic combination of key words or algorithms.
Permalink
Posted in Student Centered Learning, Cooperative Learning, Annotated References - RDP readings at 12:26 am by youngsah
R.M. Felder and R. Brent, (2001).“Effective Strategies for Cooperative Learning.” J. Cooperation & Collaboration in College Teaching, 10(2), 69-75
A FAQ for using cooperative learning. There was a large section on the practical aspects of the groups themselves including: group construction, group use, group problem solving, group dissolution, and firing of a group member. The article also covered how cooperative learning might interact with previous grading policies. They touched on how groups might artificially inflate grades and how grading on a curve goes against the basic theory that cooperative learning is based on. The article finishes talking about distance learning and different ways that cooperative learning might be used in those situations like using electronic media for the groups to communicate.
I thought I would read something that was not straight research for once. I had to smile near the end because they talked about student objections to cooperative or group learning and one of the examples is that students pay a teacher to teach not to watch them talk. We just covered this in TE 150 and my students were pretty convinced that this type of learning was more valuable. But the article didn’t really cover how to make the cooperative learning meaningful learning because they focused so much on the practicalities so I don’t think they really answered the question completely. Anyway, I never really was a fan of group learning as a undergraduate student but I never would have complained about it, after all, it meant less work for me and more brains to think on the problems.
Permalink
10.01.06
Posted in Annotated References - Class readings at 10:21 pm by youngsah
Beal, C. R., Garrod, A. C., & Bonitatibus, G. J. (1990). Fostering children’s revision skills through training in comprehension monitoring. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(2), 275-280.
This article talked about two studies. The first compared sixth and third grade children. A group of children from each grade was taught a “self-questioning method” while a group from each grade (the control group) was not. Children were exposed to stories in two sessions. In the first session experimental group, children were exposed to problematic stories while controls were exposed to non-problematic stories. Children were usually able to solve problems in the text of the stories if they found them regardless of group or age (though older children did better). Children who were taught the “self-questioning method” did better than controls at finding errors in the text.
The second study was more complicated. In the first session one group of third graders was trained in the “self-questioning method” and presented with problematic stories, one group was trained in the “self-questioning method” and presented with clear stories, one group was presented with problematic stories without training, one group was presented with clear stories without training. Six problematic stories and one clear story were used for the second session for all participants. The instruction had a significant effect effect, participants were more likely to fix missing-sentence problems than contradictions, and participants in the “self-questioning method” problematic story condition did the best of all.
At first glance, this article seems straightforward though I’m sure we’re going to pick it apart in class. I would have liked to have seen a condition where the experimenters did not remind the children to use the method (or that the method existed) in the second session to see whether they would employ this tool naturally. In a classroom context, this would be more useful than having to review and reteach a procedure that may be very artificial for a young age group. I had poor experiences with a few facets of English teaching (non-educational grammatical busywork, etc) so the article made me think of that too. Though I think, there is the assumption at least in some parts of school (especially elementary) that you give kids things that are comprehensible to read. I think they tend to expect this in writing because children are often put in situations in and out of school that are nonsensical at first to them until they parse out the meaning from the elements of the situation.
Reading is something different.
Permalink
Next entries »
