12.11.06
Posted in competitive, Social cognitive, social interaction, metacognition, Achievement, motivation, Cognitive, Cooperative Learning, Tutoring, Information Processing at 11:45 am by youngsah
O’Donnel, A., Reeve, J.M. Smith, J. (2006) Chapter 12: Learning from Peers. Educational Psychology: Reflection for Action, Wiley. p. 388-425.
Generally a good overview of peer learning including cooperative learning and peer tutoring. It gives an overview of several perspectives and brings in specific theorists and their ideas while talking about the application of their ideas to classroom practice. I didn’t realize how much I needed an overview to consolidate my thinking until I read this chapter. It bridged application and theory very well for me and helped me compare and contrast different perspectives more effectively. Also, it got me thinking a bit about special education and ESL students in cooperative learning which I haven’t really looked at all that much.
Permalink
12.10.06
Posted in social interaction, Achievement, Cooperative Learning, Annotated References - RDP readings at 4:02 am by youngsah
Hooper, S. and Hannafin, M.J. The Effects of Group Composition on Achievement, Interaction, and Learning Efficiency During Computer- Cooperative Instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3), p. 27-40.
125 students were paired (somehow) into either heterogeneous or homogeneous pairs where students were evaluated either individually or as a pair. Heterogeneous groups increased efficiency and interaction in low-ability students but not high ability students. Homogeneous groups increased efficiency for high ability students, when compared with heterogeneous groups, but not low ability students. Students in group accountability conditions had higher posttest achievement scores than those who were in an individual accountability condition.
Good overview of the claims of the cooperative learning literature. Much of the cooperative learning literature focuses on (if they mention group composition at all) heterogeneous groups. TAI and Jigsaw both focus and hinge on group members having differing knowledge. In addition, the authors also used one of my favorite social science terms: social loafing. Social loafing can and does occur when too many people are in a group and group members can get along without doing too much work. I don’t think this concept is addressed enough in the cooperative learning literature.
Permalink
10.30.06
Posted in Achievement, cooperative context, Collaborative Learning, motivation, Cognitive, Cooperative Learning, Annotated References - RDP readings at 1:54 pm by youngsah
Gillies, R.M. (2003). The behaviors, interactions, and perceptions of junior high school students during small-group learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), p. 137-147.
This study examined over one hundred 8th grade students from multiple schools while participating in structured or unstructured group work in heterogeneous achievement groups over three semesters. Gillies focused on helping (both helping behavior and receiving help), task structure, and student perception. Students were less cooperative in unstructured groups than structured ones, but students showed similar learning outcomes. Students in structured group work also thought that group work was more fun and produced better quality work.
It would have been more interesting to have the structured and unstructured groups compared with competitive or control groups on these measures. But that wasn’t the author’s intent or line of inquiry. She wanted to look at whether there was a difference (looking at lots of measures) between structured and unstructured group learning experiences. She found a couple. Interestingly enough, although the interactions might be different the academic benefit was similar or the same. Students may feel differently about their group experiences but they were still educational experiences either way.
Permalink
Posted in Achievement, Meta-Analysis, Tutoring, Cooperative Learning, Annotated References - RDP readings at 11:18 am by youngsah
Rohrbeck, C.A., Ginsburg-Block, M.D., Fantuzzo, J.W., and Miller, T.R. (2003). Peer-assisted learning interventions with elementary school students: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(2), p. 250-257.
This study is a meta-meta-analysis that looks at the effectiveness of peer assisted learning (PAL) methods in elementary schools. The authors state that it’s important to look at PAL in this age range because this is when children are forming their ideas about school and assimilating into the school culture. They then go on to criticize the PAL literature. They point out that many pieces are atheortical, that old meta-analyses are not as good as newer ones, and that there is often little ecological validity. Articles were found using searches on PsycINFO and ERIC. Results were then categorized and analyzed. The authors addressed publication bias by calculating the number of studies with no effect to negate the effects that the authors were finding, the results were nearly 200. Their results both summarized the literature and discussed it’s results. Most studies did not report the age, gender, or ethnicity of the subjects. Math, science, and social studies were the most popular content areas (this study only looked at PAL used to teach academic subjects). Generally PAL had an effect on student achievement outcomes. It was more effective for younger students, students in urban areas, and low income families.
Interesting overview of the literature. I don’t think I’ve read a meta-analysis that talks about other meta-analyses before. Though this study does analyze non-meta studies, it does discuss them a lot. It discusses the method and limitations of meta-analyses. This is certainly a study full of citations and data analysis. I’m somewhat impressed by the size of the data. I found their end caps of theory (they only mentioned it at the beginning and the end without going into any depth) a little sparse and not as useful or intriguing as they could have been.
Permalink
10.23.06
Posted in competitive, Intergroup competition, Achievement, Meta-Analysis, motivation, Annotated References - RDP readings at 1:54 pm by youngsah
Tauer, J.M., and Harackiewicz, J.M. (2004). The effects of cooperation and competitions on intrinsic motivation and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(6), p. 849-861.
This paper looks at four studies. Three are behavioral and the other is survey based. All studies look at how competition and cooperation affect motivation and performance. The authors favor a combination of the two approaches: intergroup competition. The authors assert that intergroup competition, found in such circumstances as sports, work, and school, is something that is under researched and relevant to understanding of cooperation and competition. One experiment focused on free throw shooting at a basketball camp. There was a competitive condition (make more baskets than another person), cooperative condition (there is a goal of how many baskets to make) and intergroup competition (make more baskets than another team). Subjects in the intergroup competition condition enjoyed the task more and made more free throws than subjects in other groups. Studies 2 and 4 were behavioral studies similar to the first one with tweaks to test the explanatory influence of other variables. Results were similar. Study 3 asked subjects what kind of circumstances they might like better.
This article covered two concepts that I’ve been meaning to find out more about. First, there’s some debate as to how to evaluate cooperative/collaborative learning. Individual grades can often make people competitive while cooperative evaluation is very complicated. Second, many of the studies I have been reading have been on student opinions and feelings about cooperative learning and this study measures that but it also measures achievement. Now basketball achievement may not be affected in the same way as scholastic achievement but I’ll have to see that from my future readings. I liked the way that the authors kept modifying the first study to try to see if there was anything else going on.
Permalink
10.09.06
Posted in Team-Assisted Individualization, Collaborative Learning, Achievement, Student Centered Learning, motivation, Cognitive, Cooperative Learning, Tutoring, Annotated References - RDP readings at 2:05 pm by youngsah
Slavin, R.E. (1996). Research for the future: Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What we know, what we need to know. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 43-69.
A general overview of what this author thinks needs to be addressed in further studies in Cooperative learning. The author talks about the problem of different researchers agreeing that cooperative learning can improve learning but differing on how they explain these effects. The author also covers 4 theoretical perspectives (Motivational, Cognitive, Cognitive Elaboration, and developmental) and talks about their implications for further research. A couple minor perspectives are also discussed including Social cohesion (in motivational). The author talks about how tasks based on different perspectives are often hard to compare because they often use different methodologies (pairs, groups of 4, different kinds of tasks, etc.). The paper also covers the topics of individual and group accountability, and group goals.
Ha, ha, page 50 of this paper (and reiterated on page 58), “One of the most effective means of elaboration is explaining the material to someone else.” Then the author goes on to cite several studies. On the other hand, this paper does mention that advocates for gifted students sometimes make the complaint that cooperative learning is not as beneficial to them as it is to other students. More research needed. Other than the general good overview of the field, this article is for me hopeful because it shows that there are still a lot of problems and angles left to cooperative learning.
Permalink
