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
Posted in competitive, Glossary of Important Terms, Collaborative Testing, Collaborative Learning, Cooperative Learning, Team-Assisted Individualization, Research Development Project at 12:53 am by youngsah
Collaborative Learning - This term sometimes used interchangeably with cooperative learning. Sometimes used to refer to cooperative learning that occurs more informally.
Collaborative Testing - testing groups or pairs of students rather than testing students individually. Grades can be given individually or as a group. Generally decreases test anxiety, increases performance, and in some cases increases the time students study for the test.
Competitive Learning - students learning individually or in groups. Either groups or individuals compete for grades or other recognition.
Cooperative Learning - students learning together in small groups that have some kind of common goal. There are many different methods of cooperative learning. This term sometimes used interchangeably with collaborative learning.
Group investigation – cooperative learning strategy by Sharan and Hertz-Lazarowtz where different groups investigate a subtopic and then the groups present what they’ve learned to the whole class.
Jigsaw method - method of cooperative learning. Students work in small groups (5-6 people) where each student is or a couple students are assigned to research part of the thing they are learning. After that individual work is done they go back to the group and teach that part to the rest of the group.
Scripted Cooperation – A peer learning method by O’Donnell, et. Al. that gives pairs (typically) of students a scripted approach to tackle a lesson that involves summarizing information followed by elaboration and criticism of the summary.
TAI (Team Assisted Instruction) - type of cooperative learning. 4 member heterogeneous ability teams. Students work both independently and as a team and are graded individually and as a team.
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
10.22.06
Posted in cooperative context, cooperative orientation, competitive, Annotated References - RDP readings at 6:01 pm by youngsah
Stapel, D.A. and Koomen, W. (2005) Competition, cooperation, and the effects of others on me. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 88(6), p. 1029-38.
This study talks about several studies comparing competitive and cooperative strategies. The authors focused on social comparison effects hypothesizing that cooperation would make people compare themselves more with peers and their self-view while competition would lead them to compare themselves less using their self-view to others. The authors also hypothesized that this effect may occur outside of actual competition when merely the concept of competition is activated. In study 1 they treated cooperation/competition as an individual difference variable. They measured the cooperation or competition orientation of the subjects. In study 2 they measured the cooperativeness or competitiveness of the context. Study 3, looked at whether the competitive frame of mind could be primed from words when a person the subject was competing with wasn’t present. Study 4 compared competitive v. cooperative contexts with competitive v. cooperative people. In general, they found that people did more differential thinking when either primed with a competitive context or when they had a competitive mindset. People did more integrative thinking and assimilation when they were exposed to cooperative contexts or when they had a cooperative mindset.
In general interesting. Not specifically cooperative learning but a bit outside the field. So even thinking in a competitive way or being in a competitive context (like many schools) can lead to people distancing themselves from others in their thinking processes. This certainly wouldn’t be the way to create a community of learners. It’s interesting that the subject can show this effect if he or she is merely primed for this context and that they can have a general mindset of cooperation and competition. Different methods certainly work for different people. I liked that the researchers explored these problems separately then brought them together in later studies.
Permalink
