Elements of Cooperative Learning
Over the past twenty years different approaches to
cooperative learning have been proposed by different individuals. The three
most popular are those of David Johnson and Roger Johnson (Johnson et al.,
1994), Robert Slavin (1994, 1995), and Shlomo Sharan and Yael Sharan (Sharan,
1995; Sharan & Sharan, 1994). To give you a general sense of what
cooperative learning is like and to avoid limiting you to any one individual's
approach, the following discussion is a synthesis of the main features of each
approach.
Group Heterogeneity
The size of cooperative-learning groups is
relatively small and as heterogeneous as circumstances allow. The recommended
size is usually four to five students. At the very least, groups should contain
both males and females and students of different ability levels. If possible,
different ethnic backgrounds and social classes should be represented as well.
Group Goals/Positive Interdependence
A specific goal, such as a grade or a certificate
of recognition, is identified for the group to attain. Students are told that
they will have to support one another because the group goal can be achieved
only if each member learns the material being taught (in the case of a task
that culminates in an exam) or makes a specific contribution to the group's
effort (in the case of a task that culminates in a presentation or a project).
Promotive Interaction
This element is made necessary by the existence of
positive interdependence. Students are shown how to help each other overcome
problems and complete whatever task has been assigned. This may involve
episodes of peer tutoring, temporary assistance, exchanges of information and
material, challenging of each other's reasoning, feedback, and encouragement to
keep one another highly motivated.
Top
Individual Accountability
This feature stipulates that each member of a group
has to make a significant contribution to achieving the group's goal. This may
be satisfied by achieving a minimal score on a test, having the group's test
score be the sum or average of each student's quiz scores, or having each
member be responsible for a particular part of a project (such as doing the
research and writing for a particular part of a history report).
Interpersonal Skills
Positive interdependence and promotive interaction
are not likely to occur if students do not know how to make the most of their
face-to-face interactions. And you can safely assume that the interpersonal
skills most students possess are probably not highly developed. As a result,
they have to be taught such basic skills as leadership, decision making, trust
building, clear communication, and conflict management. The conflict that
arises over differences of opinion, for example, can be constructive if it is
used as a stimulus to search for more information or to rethink one's
conclusions. But it can destroy group cohesion and productivity if it results
in students stubbornly clinging to a position or referring to each other as
"stubborn," "dumb," or "nerdy."
Equal Opportunities for Success
Because cooperative groups are heterogeneous with
respect to ability and their success depends on positive interdependence,
promotive interaction, and individual accountability, it is important that
steps be taken to ensure that all students have an opportunity to contribute to
their team. You can do this by awarding points for degree of improvement over
previous test scores, having students compete against comparable members of
other teams in a game- or tournament-like atmosphere, or giving students
learning assignments (such as math problems) that are geared to their current
level of skill.
Team Competition
This may seem to be an odd entry in a list of
cooperative-learning components, especially in light of the comments we made earlier
about the ineffectiveness of competition as a spur to motivation. But we're not
being contradictory. The main problem with competition is that it is rarely
used appropriately. When competition occurs between well-matched competitors,
is done in the absence of a norm-referenced grading system, and is not used too
frequently, it can be an effective way to motivate students to cooperate with
each other.
Top
The short answer to this question is yes. In the
vast majority of studies, forms of cooperative learning have been shown to be
more effective than noncooperative reward structures in raising the levels of
variables that contribute to motivation, in raising achievement, and in
producing positive social outcomes.
Effect on Motivation
Because a student's sense of self-esteem can have a
strong effect on motivation (a point we made in the last section of this
chapter), this variable has been examined in several cooperative-learning
studies. The results are encouraging, yet confusing. Slavin (1995) found that
in eleven of fifteen studies, cooperative learning produced bigger increases in
some aspect of self-esteem (general self-esteem, academic self-esteem, social
self-esteem) than the noncooperative method with which it was compared. But
these effects were not consistent across studies. Some researchers would report
increases in academic self-esteem or social self-esteem, but others would find no
effect. Adding to the confusion is the conclusion drawn by Johnson and Johnson
(1995) that cooperative learning consistently produced higher self-efficacy
scores than did competitive or individualistic conditions. Such inconsistencies
may reflect weaknesses in the self-esteem instruments that were used
(self-ratings are not always accurate), weaknesses in the designs of the
studies (many cooperative-learning studies last anywhere from a few days to a
few weeks, yet changes in self-esteem happen slowly), or differences in
specific cooperative-learning programs. Perhaps future research will clarify
this issue.
Another way in which cooperative learning
contributes to high levels of motivation is in the proacademic attitudes that
it fosters among group members. Slavin (1995) cites several studies in which
students in cooperative-learning groups felt more strongly than did other
students that their groupmates wanted them to come to school every day and work
hard in class.
Probably because of such features as promotive
interaction and equal opportunities for success, cooperative learning has been
shown to have a positive effect on motivation inducing attributions. Students
in cooperative-learning groups were more likely to attribute success to hard
work and ability than to luck (Slavin, 1995).
A strong indicator of motivation is the actual
amount of time students spend working on a task. Most studies have found that
cooperative-learning students spend significantly more time on-task than do
control students (Johnson et al., 1995; Slavin, 1995).
Top
Effect on Achievement
Slavin (1995) examined several dozen studies that
lasted four or more weeks and that used a variety of cooperative-learning
methods. Overall, students in cooperative-learning groups scored about
one-fourth of a standard deviation higher on achievement tests than did
students taught conventionally. This translates to an advantage of 10
percentile ranks (60th percentile for the average cooperative-learning student
versus 50th percentile for the average conventionally taught student). But the
beneficial effect of cooperative learning varied widely as a function of the
particular method used. The best performances occurred with two techniques
called Student Teams-Achievement Divisions and Teams-Games-Tournaments. The
cooperative-learning features that seem to be most responsible for learning
gains are group goals and individual accountability.
David Johnson, Roger Johnson, and Karl Smith (1995)
also reviewed much of the cooperative-learning literature but drew a somewhat
different conclusion. They found that the test scores of students in the
cooperative-learning groups were about two-thirds of a standard deviation
higher than the test scores of students in competitive or individualistic
situations. This translates to an advantage of 25 percentile ranks (75th versus
50th). It's not clear why Slavin's analysis produced a somewhat lower estimate
of the size of the advantage produced by cooperative learning. It may be due in
part to differences in the studies cited by each; Slavin focused on studies
lasting at least four weeks. It may also be due to differences in the
cooperative techniques used by various researchers.
In addition to achievement outcomes, researchers
have also assessed the impact of cooperative learning on problem solving. Given
the complex nature of problem solving and the multiple resources that a
cooperative group has at its disposal, one would logically expect cooperative
learning to have a positive effect on this outcome as well. This hypothesis was
confirmed by Zhining Qin, David Johnson, and Roger Johnson (1995). After
reviewing forty-six studies, they concluded that students of all age levels
(elementary, secondary, college, adult) who worked cooperatively outscored
students who worked competitively. The average student in a cooperative group
solved more problems correctly than 71 percent of the students who worked
competitively.
Top
Effect on Social Relationships
In most studies students exposed to cooperative
learning were more likely than students who learned under competitive or
individualistic conditions to name a classmate from a different race, ethnic
group, or social class as a friend or to label such individuals as
"nice" or "smart." In some studies the friendships that
were formed were deemed to be quite strong. A similar positive effect was found
for students with mental disabilities who were mainstreamed. Finally, the
cooperation skills that students learn apparently transfer.
Cooperative-learning students were more likely than other students to use the
cooperative behaviors they were taught when they worked with new classmates
(Johnson & Johnson, 1995; Slavin, 1995).
Students who learn cooperatively tend to be more
highly motivated to learn because of increased self-esteem, the proacademic
attitudes of groupmates, appropriate attributions for success and failure, and
greater on-task behavior. They also score higher on tests of achievement and
problem solving and tend to get along better with classmates of different
racial, ethnic, and social class backgrounds. This last outcome should be of
particular interest to those of you who expect to teach in areas marked by
cultural diversity.
Top
When researchers attempt to explain the widespread
positive effects that are typically found among studies of cooperative
learning, they usually cite one or more of the following explanations (Slavin,
1995).
Motivational Effect
The various features of cooperative learning,
particularly positive interdependence, are highly motivating because they
encourage such achievement-oriented behaviors as trying hard, attending class
regularly, praising the efforts of others, and receiving help from one's
groupmates. Learning is seen as an obligation and a valued activity because the
group's success is based on it and one's groupmates will reward it.
Cognitive Development Effect
According to Lev Vygotsky, collaboration promotes
cognitive growth because students model for each other more advanced ways of
thinking than any would demonstrate individually. According to Jean Piaget,
collaboration among peers hastens the decline of egocentrism and allows the
development of more advanced ways of understanding and dealing with the world.
Cognitive Elaboration Effect
As we saw in Chapter 9, new information that is
elaborated (restructured and related to existing knowledge) is more easily
retrieved from memory than is information that is not elaborated. A
particularly effective means of elaboration is explaining something to someone
else.
Now that you are familiar with interpretations of
motivation, it is time to consider in the Suggestions for Teaching that follow
how the information and speculations you've learned can be converted into
classroom practice.
Top
The general idea behind cooperative learning is
that by working in small heterogeneous groups (of four or five students total)
and by helping one another master the various aspects of a particular task,
students will be more motivated to learn, will learn more than if they had to
work independently, and will forge stronger interpersonal relationships than
they would by working alone.
There are several forms of cooperative learning,
one of which is Student Team Learning. Student Team Learning techniques are
built on the concepts of team reward, individual accountability, and equal
opportunities for success. Team reward means that teams are not in competition
with one another for limited rewards. All of the teams, some of them, or none
of them may earn whatever rewards are made available depending on how well the
team's performance matches a predetermined standard. Individual accountability
means that each member of the team must perform at a certain level (on a quiz,
for example) for the team's effort to be judged successful. It is not
permissible for one team member's above-average performance to compensate for
another team member's below-average performance. Finally, equal opportunities
for success allow students of all ability levels to contribute to their team's
success by improving on their own past performances (Slavin, 1995).
Robert Slavin (1995), a leading exponent of
cooperative learning, reports that cooperative learning produced significantly
higher levels of achievement than did noncooperative arrangements in
sixty-three of ninety-nine studies (64 percent). The results for the Student
Team Learning programs have been the most consistently positive. Of particular relevance
to this chapter are the findings that students who cooperate in learning are
more apt to list as friends peers from different ethnic groups and are better
able to take the perspective of a classmate than are students who do not work
in cooperative groups.
Although cooperative learning is a generally
effective instructional tactic, it is likely to be particularly useful with
Hispanic-American and Native American students. Children from both cultures
often come from extended families that emphasize cooperation and sharing. Thus,
these students may be more prepared than other individuals to work productively
as part of a group by carrying out their own responsibilities as well as
helping others do the same (Sadker & Sadker, 1991; Soldier, 1989).
Top
Cooperative-learning methods have proven effective
in increasing motivation for learning and self-esteem, redirecting attributions
for success and failure, fostering positive feelings toward classmates, and
increasing performance on tests of comprehension, reasoning, and problem
solving (Johnson & Johnson, 1995; Johnson et al., 1995; Slavin, 1995). Accordingly,
you may want to try one or more of the cooperative-learning techniques
described by Johnson and Johnson (Johnson et al., 1994) and Slavin (1995). To
familiarize you with these methods, we will briefly describe the Student
Teams-Achievement Divisions (STAD) method devised by Slavin and his associates
at Johns Hopkins University.
STAD is one of the simplest and most flexible of
the cooperative-learning methods, having been used in grades 2 through 12 and
in such diverse subject areas as math, language arts, social studies, and
science. As with other cooperative-learning methods, students are assigned to
four- or five-member groups, with each group mirroring the make-up of the class
in terms of ability, background, and gender. Once these assignments are made, a
four-step cycle is initiated: teach, team study, test, and recognition. The
teaching phase begins with the presentation of material, usually in a
lecture-discussion format. Students should be told what it is they are going to
learn and why it is important. During team study, group members work
cooperatively with teacher-provided worksheets and answer sheets. Next, each
student individually takes a quiz. Using a scoring system that ranges from 0 to
30 points and reflects degree of individual improvement over previous quiz
scores, the teacher scores the papers. Each team receives one of three
recognition awards, depending on the average number of points earned by the
team. For example, teams that average 15 to 19 improvement points receive a
GOOD TEAM certificate, teams that average 20 to 24 improvement points receive a
GREAT TEAM certificate, and teams that average 25 to 30 improvement points
receive a SUPER TEAM certificate.
The cooperative methods developed by the Johnsons
are similar to those developed by Slavin, but with two exceptions: these
methods place a greater emphasis on teaching students how to productively work
together, and they recommend using team grades, rather than certificates or
other forms of recognition, as positive reinforcers.
Top
The New Circles of Learning: Cooperation in the
Classroom and School (1994),
by David Johnson, Roger Johnson, and Edythe Johnson Holubec is a brief (105
pages) and readable description of the basic elements of the authors' version
of cooperative learning.
In Cooperative Learning: Theory, Research, and
Practice (2d ed.,
1995), Robert Slavin describes the cooperative-learning techniques that he
favors, analyzes the research evidence that supports their use, and provides
detailed directions on how to use them.
Cooperative learning is sufficiently flexible that
it can be used at all level of education. Four books that describe how to use
cooperative methods for specific grade levels are Cooperative Learning in
the Early Childhood Classroom (1991), by Harvey Foyle, Lawrence Lyman, and
Sandra Thies; Cooperative Learning in the Elementary Classroom (1993),
by Lawrence Lyman, Harvey Foyle, and Tara Azwell; Cooperative Learning in
Middle-Level Schools (1991), by Jerry Rottier and Beverly Ogan; and Secondary
Schools and Cooperative Learning (1995), edited by Jon Pederson and Annette
Digby.
*Finally, a collection of forty-eight articles that
originally appeared in the Journal of Educational Leadership between
1985 and 1991 can be found in Cooperative Learning and the Collaborative
School (1991), edited by Ronald Brandt.
This was
excerpted from Biehler/Snowman, PSYCHOLOGY APPLIED TO TEACHING, 8/e, 1997,
Hougton Mifflin Co. (Chapters 4 & 11).
For more information on cooperative learning in
Orlich et al, TEACHING STRATEGIES, 5/e, Houghton Mifflin Co., 1998, see Chapter
8, "Small Group Discussions and Cooperative Learning."
For more information on cooperative learning in the
Grabes' INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY FOR MEANINGFUL LEARNING, 2/e, Houghton Mifflin
Co., 1998, see pages 8-9, 69-71, 244-245, 351-354
For more information on cooperative learning in
Gage/Berliner, EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY, 6/e, 1998, see Chapter 10,
"Teaching Small Groups: The Discussion and Cooperative Learning."
A Definition of Collaborative vs Cooperative Learning
Ted
Panitz (1996)
I have
been searching for many years for the Holy Grail of interactive learning, a
distinction between collaborative and cooperative learning definitions. I am
getting closer to my elusive goal all the time but I am still not completely
satisfied with my perception of the two concepts. I believe my confusion arises
when I look at processes associated with each concept and see some overlap or
inter-concept usage. I will make a humble attempt to clarify this question by
presenting my definitions and reviewing those of other authors who have helped
clarify my thinking.
Collaboration
is a philosophy of interaction and personal lifestyle whereas cooperation is a
structure of interaction designed to facilitate the accomplishment of an end
product or goal.
Collaborative
learning (CL) is a personal philosophy, not just a classroom technique. In all
situations where people come together in groups, it suggests a way of dealing
with people which respects and highlights individual group members' abilities
and contributions. There is a sharing of authority and acceptance of
responsibility among group members for the groups actions. The underlying
premise of collaborative learning is based upon consensus building through
cooperation by group members, in contrast to competition in which individuals
best other group members. CL practitioners apply this philosophy in the
classroom, at committee meetings, with community groups, within their families
and generally as a way of living with and dealing with other people.
Cooperative
learning is defined by a set of processes which help people interact together
in order to accomplish a specific goal or develop an end product which is
usually content specific. It is more directive than a collaboratve system of
governance and closely controlled by the teacher. While there are many
mechanisms for group analysis and introspection the fundamental approach is
teacher centered whereas collaborative learning is more student centered.
Spencer
Kagan in an article in Educational Leadership (Dec/Jan 1989/1990) provides an
excellent definition of cooperative learning by looking at general structures
which can be applied to any situation. His definition provides an unbrella for
the work cooperative learning specialists including the Johnsons, Slavin,
Cooper, Graves and Graves, Millis, etc. It follows below:
"The
structural approach to cooperative learning is based on the creation, analysis
and systematic application of structures, or content-free ways of organizing
social interaction in the classroom. Structures usually involve a series of
steps, with proscribed behavior at each step. An important cornerstone of the
approach is the distinction between "structures" and "activities".
"To
illustrate, teachers can design many excellent cooperative activities, such as
making a team mural or a quilt. Such activities almost always have a specific
content-bound objective and thus cannot be used to deliver a range of academic
content. Structures may be used repeatedly with almost any subject matter, at a
wide range of grade levels and at various points in a lesson plan."
John
Myers (Cooperative Learning vol 11 #4 July 1991) points out that the dictionary
definitions of "collaboration", derived from its Latin root, focus on
the process of working together; the root word for "cooperation"
stresses the product of such work. Co-operative learning has largely American
roots from the philosophical writings of John Dewey stressing the social nature
of learning and the work on group dynamics by Kurt Lewin. Collaborative
learning has British roots, based on the work of English teachers exploring
ways to help students respond to literature by taking a more active role in
their own learning. The cooperative learning tradition tends to use
quantitative methods which look at achievement: i.e., the product of learning.
The collaborative tradition takes a more qualitative approach, analyzing
student talk in response to a piece of literature or a primary source in
history. Myers points out some differences between the two concepts:
"Supporters
of co-operative learning tend to be more teacher-centered, for example when
forming heterogeneous groups, structuring positive inter- dependence, and
teaching co-operative skills. Collaborative learning advocates distrust
structure and allow students more say if forming friendhip and interest groups.
Student talk is stressed as a means for working things out. Discovery and
contextural approaches are used to teach interpersonal skills."
"Such
differences can lead to disagreements.... I contend the dispute is not about
research, but more about the morality of what should happen in the schools.
Beliefs as to whast should happen in the schools can be viewed as a continuum
of orientations toward curriculum from "transmission" to
"transaction" to "transmission". At one end is the
transmission position. As the name suggests, the aim of this orientation is to
transmit knowledge to students in the form of facts, skills and values. The
transformation position at the other end of the continuum stresses personal and
social change in which the person is said to be interrelated with the
environment rather than having control over it. The aim of this orientation is
self-actualization, personal or organizational change."
Rocky
Rockwood (National Teaching and Learning Forum vol 4 #6, 1995 part 1) describes
the differences by acknowledging the parallels they both have in that they both
use groups, both assign specific tasks, and both have the groups share and
compare their procedures and conclusions in plenary class sessions. The major
difference lies in the fact that cooperative deals exclusively with traditional
(canonical) knowledge while collaborative ties into the social constructivist
movement, asserting that both knowledge and authority of knowledge have changed
dramatically in the last century. "The result has been a transition from
"foundational (cognitive) understanding of knowledge", to a
nonfoundational ground where "we understand knowledge to be a social
construct and learning a social process" (Brufee, Collaborative learning:
Higher Education, Interdependence, and the Authority of Knowledge, 1993).
Rockwood states:
"In
the ideal collaborative environment, the authority for testing and determining
the appropriateness of the group product rests with, first, the small group,
second, the plenary group (the whole class) and finally (but always understood
to be subject to challenge and revision) the requisite knowledge community (i.e.
the discipline: geography, history, biology etc.) The concept of non-
foundational knowledge challenges not only the product acquired, but also the
process employed in the acquisition of foundational knowledge."
"Most
importantly, in cooperative, the authority remains with the instructor, who
retains ownership of the task, which involves either a closed or a closable
(that is to say foundational) problem ( the instructor knows or can predict the
answer). In collaborative, the instructor--once the task is set-- transfers all
authority to the group.In the ideal, the group's task is always open
ended."
"Seen
from this perspective, cooperative does not empower students. It employs them
to serve the instructor's ends and produces a "right" or acceptable answer.
Collaborative does truly empower and braves all the risks of empowerment (for
example, having the group or class agree to an embarrassingly simplistic or
unconvincing position or produce a solution in conflict with the
instructor's)."
"Every
person, Brufee holds, belongs to several "interpretative or knowledge
communities" that share vocabularies, points of view, histories, values,
conventions and interests. The job of the instructor id to help students learn
to negotiate the boundaries between the communities they already belong to and
the community represented by the teacher's academic discipline, which the
students want to join. Every knowledge community has a core of foundational
knowledge that its members consider as given (but not necessarily absolute). To
function independently within a knowledge community, the fledgling scholar must
master enough material to become conversant with the community."
Rockwood
concludes:
"In my teaching experience, cooperative represents the best means to approach mastery of foundational knowledge. Once students become reasonably conversant, they are ready for collaborative, ready to discuss and assess,...."
"In my teaching experience, cooperative represents the best means to approach mastery of foundational knowledge. Once students become reasonably conversant, they are ready for collaborative, ready to discuss and assess,...."
Myers
suggests use of the "transaction" orientation as a compromise between
taking hard positions advocating either methodology.
"This
orientation views education as a dialogue between the student and the
curriculum. Students are viewed as problem solvers. Problem solving and inquiry
approaches stressing cognitive skills and the ideas of Vygotsky, Piaget, Kohlberg
and Bruner are linked to transaction. This perspective views teaching as a
"conversation" in which teachers and students learn together through
a process of negotiation with the curriculum to develop a shared view of the
world."
It is
clear to me that in undertaking the exercize of defining differences between
the two ideas we run the risk of polarizing the educational community into a we
versus them mentality. There are so many benefits which acrue from both ideas
that it would be a shame to lose any advantage gained from the
student-student-teacher interactions created by both methods. We must be
careful to avoid a one-size-fits-all mentality when it comes to education
paradigms.
As a
final thought, I think it behooves teachers to educate themselves about the
myriad of techniques and philosophies which create interactive environments
where students take more responsibility for their own learning and that of
their peers. Then it will become possible to pick and chose those methods which
best fit a particular educational goal or community of learners.
No comments:
Post a Comment