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
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
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
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
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
