10.22.06
Posted in cooperative context, cooperative orientation, competitive, Annotated References - RDP readings at 6:01 pm by youngsah
Stapel, D.A. and Koomen, W. (2005) Competition, cooperation, and the effects of others on me. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 88(6), p. 1029-38.
This study talks about several studies comparing competitive and cooperative strategies. The authors focused on social comparison effects hypothesizing that cooperation would make people compare themselves more with peers and their self-view while competition would lead them to compare themselves less using their self-view to others. The authors also hypothesized that this effect may occur outside of actual competition when merely the concept of competition is activated. In study 1 they treated cooperation/competition as an individual difference variable. They measured the cooperation or competition orientation of the subjects. In study 2 they measured the cooperativeness or competitiveness of the context. Study 3, looked at whether the competitive frame of mind could be primed from words when a person the subject was competing with wasn’t present. Study 4 compared competitive v. cooperative contexts with competitive v. cooperative people. In general, they found that people did more differential thinking when either primed with a competitive context or when they had a competitive mindset. People did more integrative thinking and assimilation when they were exposed to cooperative contexts or when they had a cooperative mindset.
In general interesting. Not specifically cooperative learning but a bit outside the field. So even thinking in a competitive way or being in a competitive context (like many schools) can lead to people distancing themselves from others in their thinking processes. This certainly wouldn’t be the way to create a community of learners. It’s interesting that the subject can show this effect if he or she is merely primed for this context and that they can have a general mindset of cooperation and competition. Different methods certainly work for different people. I liked that the researchers explored these problems separately then brought them together in later studies.
Permalink
Posted in cooperative context, Healthcare, Collaborative Learning, Annotated References - RDP readings at 6:00 pm by youngsah
Panik, A., Bokovoy, J., Karoly, E., Et. Al. (2006). Research on the frontlines of healthcare: A cooperative learning approach. Nursing Research, 55(2S), pp. S3-S9.
The Panik article tried to help emergency department staff conduct research on the department by using cooperative learning. The group of investigators consisted of both researchers/scientist and clinical staff. The advantage to this was that the researcher knew how to do research and the clinical staff knew the department so together they knew what questions to ask and how to get the answers to those questions in the most scientifically valid manner possible. They surveyed patients (or people with patients) in the Emergency Department waiting room. The questionnaire was collaboratively created by researchers and staff.
This article was more about cooperative functioning than cooperative learning per se. But sometimes groups are groups. So why did they use this perspective here? The answer reminds me of an article I read way back in the day (possibly high school or early undergrad) that talked about optimum group composition, brainstorming, and creativity. That article talked about how the world has increasingly specialized knowledge and in order for new ideas and creativity to thrive in a group process you have to have people with different kinds of “bits” of information. It’s good to have them from different fields but they still need to be able to communicate with each other in some fashion but the diversity leads to new combinations of “bits” and therefore the possibility for new and better ideas than would come of any of the separate collections of “bits” of the participants. So that’s what they had happening here. They had the scientists with their research “bits” and the staff with their pragmatic context/medical “bits”. Together they designed a study and a questionnaire that could be used in a working emergency department. This is something that either group probably could have done on their own but it would likely have been more difficult.
Permalink
Posted in Collaborative Testing, Healthcare, Annotated References - RDP readings at 5:58 pm by youngsah
Mitchell, N., and Melton, S. (2003). Collaborative testing: An innovative approach to test taking. Nurse Educator, 28(2), pp. 95-7.
This is about the use of collaborative testing to decrease anxiety and increase learning among nursing students. Students take the test then have a period of time (10 minutes in this case) where they can discuss answers with a partner and change answers if they see fit. The exams are graded in such a way that any answers changed in the collaboration period are not worth as much as original answers. They tried this cooperative method because of the author’s reading of educational research, the anxiety, and poor results of nursing students on certain subjects, and the cooperative nature of being a nurse. The authors found increased performance, decreased anxiety, and increased study time when collaborative testing was employed. The authors go on to talk about cooperative testing in other disciplines.
So, healthcare learning, yes. This article takes me back to my days as a grader in a dental school. Yes, those students would have liked a collaborative test. I know I did. I actually had a collaborative math test once in high school. I had always wondered whether anyone else did that sort of thing. It does certainly take down the anxiety. There’s always the problem of student evaluation (which pops up in all cooperative learning). Interestingly enough we were just discussing this issue in TE 150. I had our class discuss whether it was more, less, or just as important to know what a student could do on his/her own (Piaget) or to know what a student could do with help (Vygotsky and ZPD). Evaluation does center on this debate
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
10.01.06
Posted in Annotated References - Class readings at 10:21 pm by youngsah
Beal, C. R., Garrod, A. C., & Bonitatibus, G. J. (1990). Fostering children’s revision skills through training in comprehension monitoring. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(2), 275-280.
This article talked about two studies. The first compared sixth and third grade children. A group of children from each grade was taught a “self-questioning method” while a group from each grade (the control group) was not. Children were exposed to stories in two sessions. In the first session experimental group, children were exposed to problematic stories while controls were exposed to non-problematic stories. Children were usually able to solve problems in the text of the stories if they found them regardless of group or age (though older children did better). Children who were taught the “self-questioning method” did better than controls at finding errors in the text.
The second study was more complicated. In the first session one group of third graders was trained in the “self-questioning method” and presented with problematic stories, one group was trained in the “self-questioning method” and presented with clear stories, one group was presented with problematic stories without training, one group was presented with clear stories without training. Six problematic stories and one clear story were used for the second session for all participants. The instruction had a significant effect effect, participants were more likely to fix missing-sentence problems than contradictions, and participants in the “self-questioning method” problematic story condition did the best of all.
At first glance, this article seems straightforward though I’m sure we’re going to pick it apart in class. I would have liked to have seen a condition where the experimenters did not remind the children to use the method (or that the method existed) in the second session to see whether they would employ this tool naturally. In a classroom context, this would be more useful than having to review and reteach a procedure that may be very artificial for a young age group. I had poor experiences with a few facets of English teaching (non-educational grammatical busywork, etc) so the article made me think of that too. Though I think, there is the assumption at least in some parts of school (especially elementary) that you give kids things that are comprehensible to read. I think they tend to expect this in writing because children are often put in situations in and out of school that are nonsensical at first to them until they parse out the meaning from the elements of the situation.
Reading is something different.
Permalink
09.25.06
Posted in Tutoring, Cooperative Learning, independent readings, Annotated References - RDP readings at 1:11 pm by youngsah
Merrett, F. and Mottram, S. (1997) Do boys or girls make better reading tutors? An empirical study to examine children’s effectiveness as tutors using the pause, prompt and praise procedures. Educational Psychology 17(4):419-433.
This study looked at peer tutoring using the “pause, prompt, and praise” procedures. This is presented as an alternative to putting poorer readers in a separate class or giving them separate instruction from the teacher. Reading level was measured before and after tutoring to determine if tutoring had any effect. There were 24 tutor-tutee pairings. The sex of the tutor and the sex of the tutee were also examined to determine if one sex was a more effective tutor, better tutee, or whether there was some kind of interaction between tutor and tutee sex. Previous studies suggested that same sex tutoring would be most effective because members of the same sex are more likely to open up to one another. All tutees except 2 improved reading skills over the course of the study but those that studied with a tutor that was of their preferred sex (students were asked whom them preferred to learn from) improved more than those that didn’t have a tutor of their preferred sex. There was no significant effect of same-sex or different-sex tutoring nor was either sex a better tutor or tutee.
A couple factors collided to create my interest in this article. First, I was a tutor in high school and college (though mostly math and science) and the hardest thing was to find the best way to help a student. Reading was something that I was never particularly good at tutoring possibly because I didn’t really understand where my students were coming from. Also, recent popular news articles have been talking about the small budget allotments for special education and this is an approach that might help that situation. Studies have shown (though I don’t remember which ones) that sometimes peers are better at teaching some things because they remember how they learned it whereas an expert just knows the information and doesn’t have as good a handle on what might be problematic for a new learner and why.
Permalink
« Previous entries · Next entries »
