12.11.06
Posted in Contemporary and Historical Views, Research Development Project, Miscellaneous at 3:43 pm by youngsah
There was a time in cooperative learning research when it seemed that every researcher had his or her own pet method of constructing a cooperative learning group. There was Jigsaw, developed by Aronson, to help social tensions that he saw within schools and get children to generally cooperate and become positively interdependent. Students in groups became experts in a subtopic of the lesson and then reported to their group so that everyone would be reliant on the experts teaching them the subtopic. Slavin had several methods including TAI (Team Assisted Instruction), STAD (Student Teams-Achievement Divisions), and a modification/simplification of Jigsaw, called Jigsaw II. Kagan has a whole curriculum of cooperative learning that includes several different methods including Think-Pair-Share. In Think-Pair-Share, pairs of students learn a lesson, are then asked a question, after time to think each individual student answers the question, and then the pair discusses their answers. O’Donnel, et. al. use Scripted Cooperation to give cooperative groups more structured interactions. Johnson and Johnson use Structured Controversies to give teachers and students a way to discuss controversial issues in the classroom in a structured way. Students research and pick a position on an issue, they then tell others of their stance, discuss the position with others, argue for the other side of the issue, and finally the class comes to a consensus. These are only some of the many methods that were constructed. These methods are still widely used in some cases though many modifications have certainly been made. Many current studies look at other implications for these methods, like whether they increase social interaction, motivation, achievement, or critical thinking.
More recently, there has been a push to find out what the basic parts of good cooperative learning are. The answer depends greatly on the researcher’s perspective. Different types of group methods and activities might focus on building different skills or knowledge within the students in the group. If the researcher were looking to further social skills, he or she would certainly have different ideas about how groups should be evaluated, structured, and what is a successful/good group than someone who is merely trying to increase knowledge, skills, or critical thinking within individual students. The area of cooperative learning is so broad and filled with so many researchers from so many disciplines looking at so many aspects of the issue that there are a lot of available perspectives. There are information processing perspectives, cognitive perspectives that focus on cooperative learning’s ability to cause deeper processing, perspectives that focus on motivation, perspectives that focus on the social aspect, constructivist perspectives, and many others not here mentioned. Generally, most perspectives agree that heterogeneous (usually heterogeneous in skill or ability) groups and positive interdependence are important for good cooperative groups. Occasionally researchers will group students based on interests or in other things that ensure that the group members are peers. Generally, heterogeneity in groups is promoted because the less able students learn from the more able ones and the more able ones solidify their own ideas/skills through teaching them to others. In homogeneous groups where all members have the same skills/knowledge learning can and does occur, but it is usually not as deep as that in heterogeneous groups and the structure of activity would likely be different.
There is still some disagreement as to how groups should be evaluated for optimum learning and fairness. Most if not all of the above-mentioned methods have methods of evaluation associated with them, however, each is different. For example, Jigsaw II and STAD (both methods by Slavin) have individual quizzes/tests as well as a group improvement component to evaluate students. Methods like Structured Controversies do not really have any particular method of evaluation attached to them. They could be graded, ungraded, or in other ways reinforced or not reinforced depending on the teacher’s wants, needs, and knowledge of the situation. Many studies have shown that some individual accountability is needed for successful groups, otherwise bad things like social loafing or focusing on outcomes can occur. However, there is no agreement about the degree of individual accountability needed and how to balance that accountability. Some researchers would go as far as collaborative testing (which has its own debate about how grades should be allotted), while others merely want part of the individual grade based on things like group improvement or group project. Some even promote intergroup competition as a way to motivate students while giving them the benefits of a cooperative learning environment. Different balances might be good for different situations or classrooms. Sometimes in practice, though there is cooperative learning in the classroom, all grades and evaluations are individual which is not ideal. For some students this will decrease the amount of extrinsic motivation they have for working constructively in a group. Also, this type of disconnect between classroom activity and evaluation can negate some of the benefits of cooperative learning because it can lead to a competitive position even within the group. In addition, in some of these classrooms students might engage in negative interdependence (the opposite of positive interdependence a core of cooperative learning) where an individual success depends on others failing. This is certainly an issue in research and in practice that is still being worked out.
Recently there has been a lot of focus on cooperative learning using technology. A lot of previous research has focused on cooperative learning within the classroom in part because it’s harder to find and examine it “in the wild” without influencing what goes on to a great degree. Technology might be an answer to that problem or it may just be a new avenue to use formal practices of cooperative learning. To some degree public knowledge has it that technology is something that separates people by providing an intermediary or substitute for human interaction. The current research focuses on the use of computer as mediator/intermediary. Many university classes have discussion boards, online resources, chat rooms, or class email lists that are used to varying degrees by instructors. That coupled with the familiarity of the student population with technology, especially things like instant messaging software and discussion boards; make this type of interaction ideal an ideal alternative for cooperative learning outside the classroom. Online mentoring is available and there are several online tutoring sites of various sizes. Teachers have used different technologies to varying levels of success. Technology has been embraced in education to such a degree that it is interesting that there is not more research about connecting classroom and technology using cooperative learning.
Though the topics and foci may have changed, there has not been much change in the methods of the field. Experiments are popular. Usually a particular cooperative learning method is compared either to other cooperative learning methods or to traditional classroom practices. Students/subjects are often given surveys or tests afterward to determine which condition increased knowledge, skill, motivation, or any other number of qualities that the researcher might think that cooperative learning might have an influence on. Future studies, technologically based or not are likely to have the same methods as well. There probably should be more comparing and contrasting of different methods in the same contexts but that research will likely come with time.
Permalink
Posted in Annotated list of Scholars, Research Development Project at 6:33 am by youngsah
Aronson, Eliot. Created Jigsaw method (http://www.jigsaw.org). Has focused on attitude change and social influences in his work and created Jigsaw to diffuse racial tensions exacerbated by competitive learning methods in Texas in the 1970s. “The only psychologist to have earned the APA’s highest honors in all three major academic categories” (http://aronson.socialpsychology.org/).
Johnson and Johnson
Johnson, David W. Co-director of the Cooperative Learning Center. Publishes many articles and books with Roger T. Johnson.
Johnson, Roger T. Co-director of the Cooperative Learning Center. Publishes many articles and books with David W. Johnson.
Together their research gives evidence to the effectiveness of cooperative learning in education and explores appropriate structures to maximize its utility.
Kagan, Spencer. He has published over 100 studies and has his own publishing company that distributes a great deal of literature, resources, and textbooks on cooperative learning and professional development for teachers (http://www.kaganonline.com).
O’Donnell, Angela M. Educational psychologist currently at Rutgers. With others, she developed the learning method of Scripted Cooperation. She has also published many books on the topic of cooperative learning.
Slavin, Robert. Chair of the Success for All Foundation (http://www.successforall.net) and Co-Director of the Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk at Johns Hopkins University. Has published more than 15 books and over 200 articles (http://www.csos.jhu.edu/contact/staff/vitae/bob%20slavin.pdf). QAIT model (http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/instruct/dirinst.html)
Webb, Noreen M. A professor at UCLA, her research has concentrated on cooperative learning with a focus on its practical use and outcomes, especially in relation to mathematics education.
Permalink
Posted in Major publications, organizations, and conferences, Research Development Project at 6:28 am by youngsah
Journals
American Educational Research Journal – published by AERA, it is a publication for research studies. It contains sections on Social and Institutional Analysis as well as Teaching, Learning and Human Development.
Contemporary Educational Psychology – This journal publishes research, critiques, and theoretical pieces that focus on the application of educational psychology. It’s published 4 times a year.
Developmental Psychology – This APA published journal publishes research articles, reviews, and theoretical articles. It focuses on human development across the lifespan and is published bi-monthly.
Educational Researcher – This AERA published journal focuses broadly on research in education though it may contain critiques, reviews and essays. It is published 9 times a year.
Journal of Educational Psychology – This journal published by APA mainly focuses on research having to do with education though it does publish reviews and theoretical pieces. It is published quarterly.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology – This APA published journal focuses on personality and social psychology with sections including Attitudes and Social Cognition, Interpersonal Relations and Group Processes, and Personality Processes and Individual Differences. It is published monthly.
Professional Organizations and conferences
APA - This association focuses on psychology in general but has an education division which puts on the ELC.
Education Leadership Conference – Held yearly by the APA Education Directorate Board of directors.
Regional APA conferences could also be places to present research on cooperative learning (Eastern Psychological Association (EPA), Midwestern Psychological Association (MPA), New England Psychological Association (NEPA), Rocky Mountain Psychological Association (RMPA), Southeastern Psychological Association (SEPA), Southwestern Psychological Association (SWPA), Western Psychological Association (WPA))
AERA – has a broad focus on education from a broad range of disciplines in educational research. The organization also holds a yearly conference.
ISETL – International Society for Exploring Teaching and Learning. Focus on effective and practical methods of teaching and learning. The organization has a conference and has published a journal (International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education) since 2005.
Permalink
Posted in Research Development Project at 12:54 am by youngsah
I still think cooperative learning is generally a good thing however, I know now that like most generally good things in the social sciences, it is complicated. Is it good for everyone? Mostly. Is it useful in all subject areas? Yes, but it’s generally used differently. Does it help achievement, self-efficacy, and interest among many many other things? Generally yes. Is there any agreement on how it can be best implemented? No.
I am currently excited about aspects of cooperative learning that I will have to attend to later, like the social aspect (attacking cooperative learning from a more social psychology perspective) of group interaction, which Kelly Mix got me excited about. It is almost as if she reminded me of my interest because it is the kind of thing I pay attention to in life situations. Also, this interests me personally because of my experiences in groups. I tend to fill a certain role when I am in groups, to some degree, independent of the other members of my group. There is a lot of research on this type of thing in social psychology but it does not seem to be that well integrated into educational theory on cooperative learning. The focus instead tends to be on ability/skill or social skills. Group dynamics matter. In few instances, some researchers have acknowledged them by assigning certain jobs in a group to certain individuals rather than letting the group decide who does what. In addition, the idea of social loafing (one general criticism of peer learning) could use some researching by me. My readings in cooperative learning this semester have also touched on motivation, one of my other general interests in education, which I will pursue more in the future.
This semester I have used a lot of cooperative learning in the classes I have taught and in presentations to some of the classes I have taken. Generally, things have worked out well, though often I am more conscious about what I am doing than I was when I started. I make sure I give very clear objectives for the group, appropriate time to finish, and group people with differing abilities and base levels of social interaction. Sometimes it is helpful to have groups of people that have similar interests or skills because that can increase group motivation to complete the given task. I had the opportunity to change the base groups of my classes midway through the year and I had to think about how I was going to go about that. I have to say that most of the groups had members of differing skill and social ability.
It seems like there is a lot of new research in the field turning to online environments as places for cooperative learning. I have read some studies about this but I am not really that interested in creating completely computer based learning groups as much as groups that work both in the classroom and on the internet. There does not seem to be as much research on this as there is on completely computer based environments or cooperative learning using computer games or programs within the classroom. I believe that calculated use of technologies to connect teachers and other students with students might be helpful in creating a community of learners, helping students think more deeply about material and connect different topics but the evidence to back me up is rather scant. However, I do not seem to be the only one thinking these things. Maybe this is just people blindly clinging to novel technology but from my grasp of the non-technological research in the field, I do not think so.
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
12.09.06
Posted in Notes from Meetings, Research Development Project at 2:09 am by youngsah
Charles (Andy) Anderson - declined meeting but did send me some articles.
Jere Brophy - talked a lot about motivation (one of my other interests). He suggested I read his book as an overview and have me the syllabus for his course. Talked a bit about Slavin as early in the field and suggested that I ready Sharon and Johnson & Johnson. Also talked about the problem of group grading as a current topic in the field.
Raven McCrory - suggested I contact C. Anderson and C. Schwarz to talk about cooperative learning in science education.
Kelly Mix - Talked about many different concepts/theories including: Vygotsky, social construction, embodiment, group dynamics. Suggested reading Being There Andy Clark Ch. 4 on Collective Wisdom;Dodge, K; Rogoff, B; Azmetia; Dodge; and Burke. So generally I got a new perspective.
Christina Schwarz - suggested several books for overview. Including Creating Scientific Communities in the Elementary Classroom by Patty Jacobs, Maureen Reddy, Caryn McCrohon, Leslie Rupert Herrenkohl, and for inquiry: Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A Guide for Teaching and Learning by Steve Olson (Editor), Susan Loucks-Horsley (Editor). Also suggested Brown, A and Featherstone.
Permalink
09.11.06
Posted in Research Development Project at 8:42 pm by youngsah
To say I have had a variety of educational experiences in from elementary through high school is an understatement. I went to seven different schools in that period primarily because I was put in different academic programs. One of these programs specialized in teaching math, science and technology and it tried to create an environment that had elements more like a workplace than a traditional school setting. Specifically where a normal program has a day that is segmented into separate unrelated blocks this program tried to be more interdisciplinary where information learned in one class applied and was needed for another. Also, teachers encouraged sharing information by letting us discuss ideas amongst ourselves and assigning many group projects instead following a path focusing more on individual and competitive learning. I’m currently teaching a class and it is obvious to me that when we are doing group activities or discussions that my students are much more engaged in the material than they otherwise would be doing straight book activities and lecture.
Cooperative learning seems to be getting slightly more mainstream than previously competitive learning is still the primary if not only practice in most areas. Recently there has been a great deal of research in cooperative learning relating to technology and using technology to enhance and facilitate cooperative learning specifically in web based and audio/video technologies. This vein of research will change as technologies evolve. Studies in group dynamics and context will also lead to interesting research. The differences between formal groups (those set up and guided by someone like a teacher) and more informal ones (those that are formed by the people in them) will likely change as studies continue. Teachers and researchers will try to maximize the utility gained from formal groups while informal groups will likely be similar to those in the past since they are formed naturally.
Cooperative learning could certainly be related to motivation in various ways, including but not limited to student’s motivations to cooperatively learn, student’s motivations to learn in general, or different social motivations. Cooperative learning might have affects on attention or development of student interest. Student self-efficacy and classroom context might have effects on cooperative learning by changing group dynamics among other things.
Permalink
