10.08.06
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
09.25.06
Posted in Tutoring, Cooperative Learning, independent readings, Annotated References - RDP readings at 1:11 pm by youngsah
Merrett, F. and Mottram, S. (1997) Do boys or girls make better reading tutors? An empirical study to examine children’s effectiveness as tutors using the pause, prompt and praise procedures. Educational Psychology 17(4):419-433.
This study looked at peer tutoring using the “pause, prompt, and praise” procedures. This is presented as an alternative to putting poorer readers in a separate class or giving them separate instruction from the teacher. Reading level was measured before and after tutoring to determine if tutoring had any effect. There were 24 tutor-tutee pairings. The sex of the tutor and the sex of the tutee were also examined to determine if one sex was a more effective tutor, better tutee, or whether there was some kind of interaction between tutor and tutee sex. Previous studies suggested that same sex tutoring would be most effective because members of the same sex are more likely to open up to one another. All tutees except 2 improved reading skills over the course of the study but those that studied with a tutor that was of their preferred sex (students were asked whom them preferred to learn from) improved more than those that didn’t have a tutor of their preferred sex. There was no significant effect of same-sex or different-sex tutoring nor was either sex a better tutor or tutee.
A couple factors collided to create my interest in this article. First, I was a tutor in high school and college (though mostly math and science) and the hardest thing was to find the best way to help a student. Reading was something that I was never particularly good at tutoring possibly because I didn’t really understand where my students were coming from. Also, recent popular news articles have been talking about the small budget allotments for special education and this is an approach that might help that situation. Studies have shown (though I don’t remember which ones) that sometimes peers are better at teaching some things because they remember how they learned it whereas an expert just knows the information and doesn’t have as good a handle on what might be problematic for a new learner and why.
Permalink
09.18.06
Posted in motivation, Annotated References - RDP readings at 2:45 pm by youngsah
Townsend, M.A.R., Moore, D.W., Tuck, B.F., and Wilton, K.M. (1998). Self-concept and anxiety in university students studying social science statistics. Educational Psychology. 18(1): p 41-60.
In this study, students enrolled in an educational psychology course were tested before and after the course on measures of mathematics self-concept and math anxiety. Females tend to have a lower math self-concept than females and math self-concept tends to decrease in college. During the course there were many cooperative learning opportunities including labs. Math anxiety lessened as the course went on (though not significantly) though those with advanced math experiences had overall lower math anxiety than those who had less advanced math. Math self-concept was lower at the beginning than the end and lower in those with less advanced math than those with advanced math. Generally, student’s liked the cooperative atmosphere of the class and lab sessions and said that they learned something even if they did not decrease their anxiety.
I was previously a math tutor (mainly algebra) so I am familiar with the phenomena of math anxiety and especially math self-concept. I am also a TA for an intro educational psychology course. I find the use of cooperative learning in math/statistics interesting because its most traditionally thought of in social science or English contexts. I had some experience of cooperative learning in math/statistics though in high school (at one point we even did some assignments where we were graded as a group or pair). I find it interesting but not surprising that math anxiety and self-concept are so hard to change. Usually a student has a long experience of encountering math by the time they get to college and 1 class that shows them different evidence about their math skills probably won’t change their mind.
Permalink
Next entries »
