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
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
10.09.06
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
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
« Previous entries
