12.11.06
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
10.09.06
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 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
