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
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
12.03.06
Posted in metacognition, coregulation, social interaction, Social cognitive, Annotated References - RDP readings at 2:22 am by youngsah
Salonen, P., Vauras, M., and Efklides, A. (2005). Social interaction – what can it tell us about metacognition and coregulation in learning? European Psychologist. 10(3): 199-208.
The authors looked at motivation, metacogniton, and cognitive and affective processes in cooperative learning. They conducted two experiments focusing on the above factors and what they could tell us about scaffolding mismatches. Study 1 had 114 students and 6 teachers (in six classes). Students ranked themselves and their classroom peers on math skills while teachers rated their students, students then did some math problems and reported their metacognitive experience. Judgments of good students by teachers, peers, and self were similar. Judgments of “not so good” students were negative in teachers and peers and somewhat optimistic by the students themselves. The second study looked at interpersonal interactions when students were cooperatively working on a word problem in math. They didn’t find much metacognitive coregulation.
This article isn’t that cooperative until the second study but it does set up a social direction that I’m going. So a lot of the studies I’ve read talk about the classroom/group structure, cooperative v. competitive, motivation, etc. but (other than TAI) they didn’t really talk about who was in the group so much and if and why that might matter. This study doesn’t necessarily touch that (it only says that the interactions matter).
Permalink
