Download Cooperative Learning Running head: COOPERATIVE LEARNING

Cooperative Learning 1
Running head: COOPERATIVE LEARNING STRATEGIES
Cooperative Learning Strategies Most Effective on Student Achievement
Chris Carpenter
EDAD 530
A paper presented in partial completion of course requirements for EDAD 530 – Educational
Research
Fall, 2012
Cooperative Learning 2
Abstract
Education has seen a lot of dramatic changes both internally and externally within the last 50
years as the world is changing at a faster rate each year. Along with this change in environment,
comes a change in the student population with students exhibiting varying needs This paper
identified cooperative learning and its varying strategies such as Teams, Games, Tournaments
(T.G.T.), Teacher Assisted Instruction (T.A.I.), Students, Teams, Achievement Division
(S.T.A.D.), and Jigsaw I and II as strategies with strong support for successful implementation in
a variety of classroom settings. This researcher concluded that any one of the following
strategies could be useful in raising student achievement, knowledge acquisition and transfer, as
well as classroom behavior in a time when education witnesses significant reforms thus moving
classrooms toward being less teacher-centered and more student-centered.
Cooperative Learning 3
Table of contents
Chapter 1
Introduction
Chapter 2
4
7
Review of Literature
Chapter 3
Summary, Conclusion and Implications
References
12
Cooperative Learning 4
Cooperative Learning Strategies Most Effective on Student Achievement
Educators are at a pivotal juncture, as they continue to be challenged to meet the needs of
a growing population of diverse learners. How do educators meet the needs of today’s learner
when demands for an increasing knowledge and vocabulary are witnessed? On the surface, the
answer seems to be complex due to the reliance on technology and the needs of a diverse
population. The transmission of knowledge from one generation to the next, however, can be
achieved by returning to core principles that have allowed societies and groups of people to
thrive.
Without the cooperation of its members, society cannot survive. In human societies the
individuals who are most likely to survive are those who are best enabled to do so by their group
(Montagu 1965, as cited in Johnson & Johnson, 2009).
Research, Gupta, and Parija (2009) suggests that cooperative learning represents an
established approach for all educators, regardless of subject area and discipline, which can
motivate all students to experience high levels of success in and out of the classroom.
Problem Statement
The purpose of this paper is to investigate cooperative learning methods and it’s impact
on student motivation and achievement. The question guiding this research is, “What teaching
approaches and classroom arrangements are best suited for contemporary students?” “Which
teaching approaches and classroom arrangements result in increased academic achievement and
enhanced social/emotional growth for elementary and secondary students?”
Definitions
Before a review of literature can be accomplished, some terms must be defined.
Gupta and Parija (2009) define cooperative learning as the instructional use of small
Cooperative Learning 5
groups so that students work together to maximize their own and each other’s learning. It may
be contrasted with competitive (students work against each other to achieve an academic goal
such as a grade of “A” that only one or a few students can attain) and individualistic (students
work by themselves to accomplish learning goals unrelated to those of the other students)
learning (Johnson, & Johnson 2009). Zakaria, & Iksan, (2007) identify cooperative learning as
the classroom environment where students interact with one another in small groups on an
academic task to reach a common goal or outcome.
There are many strategies that can be seen as effective but there are four specific
strategies that are seen as most effective and they are; Teams, Games, Tournaments (T.G.T);
Teacher-Assisted Instruction (T.A.I.), Student-Teams-Achievement Division (S.T.A.D.), and
Jigsaw I and II. Slavin (2010) defined (T.G.T) as a comprehensive review in which students are
broken into “Study Teams” to prepare for a range of questions about material covered in class.
They are then broken into “Tournament Teams” with students of similar ability and answer
questions and receive points to bring back to their “Study Teams”. Teacher-Assisted Instruction
(T.A.I.) was also defined by Slavin (1986) as a method useful for math students between grades
3 up through algebra. The students take a placement test and then placed in teams. Teachers are
able to work with small teams while students try to teach themselves. Students then take weekly
evaluations unassisted and awarded prizes for successful completion of units. Very similar to
(T.A.I.), Student-Teams-Achievement Division (S.T.A.D.) was another developed by Robert
Slavin and several colleagues at Johns Hopkins University where students are broken into
heterogeneous teams after the course material is taught. They then work together in “Study
Teams” to master the material. The students then tested individually over the material and
recognition is noted for students whom improve their score or receive a perfect score (Miller and
Cooperative Learning 6
Peterson, 2012). Lastly, Jigsaw I and II is a strategy in which a class is broken up into “Home”
groups and “Expert” groups. One member from each “Home” group leaves the group to become
part of an “Expert” group. The students prepares material and teaches them “Home” group about
their information and are responsible for teaching the class about a certain area of information.
The main difference between Jigsaw I and II lies in that Jigsaw II the “Expert” groups are tested
before returning to “Home” groups to teach the information. (Sahin, 2010)
Limitations
This paper is limited to a review of literature addressing teaching approaches and
classroom arrangements which result in increased academic achievement and enhanced
social/emotional growth for elementary and secondary students. Any generalization to aspects
other than teaching approaches and classroom arrangements which result in increased academic
achievement and enhanced social/emotional growth for elementary and secondary students is
beyond the scope of this paper.
Cooperative Learning 7
Chapter Two
American culture is deeply ingrained in the success of the individual at the cost of
the group. This is most evident in our sports teams where individual accomplishments often
overshadow team efforts. The successes that are experienced with this mentality do come at a
cost. When one examines any situation more closely, it is the work of many individuals through
cooperation and teamwork that has afforded any individual his or her accomplishments. While I
think each of these sentences is correct, you will need a source for the previous sentence, as that
is not an opinion without disagreement. I couldn’t find one so I just deleted the statement.
Teaching and Learning
“The challenge of today’s classroom is to effectively teach students of varying ability and
differing rates of learning” (Johnson & Johnson, 2007).
While teaching and learning have proven to be more complex than originally thought, a
developing instructional strategy having positive effects on both achievement and attitudes
toward school is Cooperative Learning (Johnson, Johnson, & Shane, 2009).
Cooperative learning advocates the use of highly structured groups created around a specifically
designed task or problem (Onwuegbuzie, & Daros-Voseles, 2001). Cooperative learning is a
technique under the umbrella of collaborative learning in which the group as a whole and each
individual within the group is assessed. David and Roger Johnson (2009) delineate five main
components to truly define a strategy as cooperative learning. First, there has to be individual
accountability where each person is responsible for showing their knowledge on the content.
Next, there has to be some positive interdependence where each team member “feels” that their
contribution is important and they need the involvement of each person of the group. Third, face
to face promotive interaction must occur resulting in each person of the group sharing his or her
Cooperative Learning 8
ideas and helping group members on specific topics (Johnson, and Johnson 2009). This is
defined as individuals encouraging and facilitating efforts to achieve, tasks, and produce in order
to reach the group’s goals (p. 3). Fourth, interpersonal and small group skills should be observed
with each person engaging socially to encourage short term as well as long term success. Lastly,
group processing is present with each group assessed by the instructor on the capabilities and
actions of the group as well as the individual contribution (p. 4).
Cooperative learning has changed the traditional approach to public and private
education from being strictly teacher-centered and individualistic to more student-centered and
interpersonal in nature and has been widely studied within the last 50 years (Gupta & Parija
2009). Cooperative Learning has been witnessed for many years with an enhanced research
focus, since the 1960’s, by David and Roger Johnson, Robert Slavin, David DeVries, and Keith
Edwards. The interpersonal nature of cooperative learning has brought about changes in lessons
needing strictly a cognitive goal to including a social/emotional connection as well. While many
cooperative learning strategies are witnessed, the four strategies more widely implemented are
Teams, Games, Tournaments (T.G.T.), Students, Teams, Achievement Division (S.T.A.D.),
Jigsaw I and II, and Team Assisted Individualization (T.A.I.) (Slavin 1986, Slavin 2010, Miller
and Peterson 2010, and Sahin 2010).
Teams, Games, Tournaments (T.G.T.)
Teams, Games, Tournaments or (T.G.T.), developed by Robert Slavin (2010) in
the 1970’s was created to allow students to review materials as a replacement for a test or quiz.
The material should be taught in class through traditional methods with students placed into
Cooperative Learning 9
heterogeneous “Study Teams” with varying ability levels. These groups review the material in
their “Study Teams”, and move to “Tournament Teams” of similar ability in which they are
tested earning from 2 – 6 points to their “Study Teams” (p. 3).
Students, Teams, Achievement Division (S.T.A.D.)
. Students, Teams, Achievement Division (S.T.A.D.), which was developed by Robert
Slavin and several colleagues at Johns Hopkins University, establishes “Study Teams” which are
heterogeneously mixed based on varying ability, gender, ethnicity, etc. The team assignments are
determined after the course material is taught and the group is then provided a worksheet with
answers to help quiz one another in an effort to master the material. Each student is then tested
individually and scored. Upon scoring, recognition goes out to those whom improved or scored
a perfect score. (Arends 1997, as quoted in Miller and Peterson, 2012).
Jigsaw I and II
Sahin (2010) defines the Jigsaw I and II as techniques students are divided into “Home
Groups” and “Jigsaw Groups” within the class. Each person then leaves the “Home Group” and
combines with members from other “Home Groups” to form a “Jigsaw Group.” Students in
“Jigsaw Groups” learn a specific portion of the material and become experts in that area before
preparing materials to teach students in their “Home Groups”. Jigsaw I is a useful Cooperative
Learning technique but not as widely implemented as Jigsaw II. Jigsaw I and Jigsaw II are
similar strategies except Jigsaw II uses a formal test of “Jigsaw Groups” before students return to
their “Home Groups”.
Chris, I am confused about this section. I do not see a source except
Sahin and I am unsure whether that references Jigsaw I and II or Jigsaw III. Please provide
sources for the information about Jigsaw I and II and delete the information about Jigsaw III.
Team Assisted Individualization or (T.A.I.)
Cooperative Learning 10
Team Assisted Individualization or (T.A.I.) is another commonly used
cooperative learning strategy also developed by Robert Slavin (1986). Unlike the other
techniques, T.A.I. was designed specifically to target mathematics from grades 3 through algebra
in high school. Students take a placement test to determine ability and team members work on
different units at their own rate. Students check the work of team members with an answer sheet
and help with any questions. An unassisted unit test is then administered with that test graded by
peers. Each week, teachers then score number of units completed and award prizes for
completed units that exceed the passing score, with extra points provided for perfect scores and
completed homework. (T.A.I.) allows teachers to work with small groups on specific lessons
with which students are struggling (Slavin, 2010).
While numerous variations of cooperative learning are present, 164 studies (28% since
1990) have been completed since 1970 (Johnson & Johnson, 2007), revealing that cooperative
learning is a relatively recent strategy. Sahin (2010) verified effectiveness of cooperative
learning in a nontraditional Turkish setting. Johnson, Johnson, and Smith (2010) investigated of
the effectiveness of cooperative learning in post-secondary education is also being initiated.
Their research was consistent with research from as early as the 1970’s that there was a dramatic
increase in quality of relationships, knowledge acquisition, knowledge transfer, and higher level
reasoning in post-secondary institutions (p.7).
Opposing Views
Many challenges are present as educators move away from traditional methods of
teaching and learning (Potential Challenges, 2012) and one of the concerns relates to coverage of
material. Cooperative learning could be seen as a grossly inefficient strategy, since many
instructors witness a dramatic (perhaps as much as 50%) reduction in the course material which
Cooperative Learning 11
can be presented (McManus, 1996 as quoted in Potential Challenges). Cooperative learning may
address less material but a deeper level of understanding is witnessed with explicit instruction
and modeling of proper group-work required, which also reduces classroom time. Potential
Challenges (2012) also noted that many students have had little experience or a bad experience
while criticizing peers or are unwilling to receive criticism in return.
Cooperative learning also is difficult for teachers who use more traditional methods of
teaching, as students become dependent on groups creating a challenge for students to transition
to a lecture format (Spencer, 2012). Teachers most often pick groups but even this will be
problematic too. There will be personality clashes even at the teacher’s best intentions. While
teachers assign members to groups in cooperative learning, challenges continue to be witnessed
with behaviors such as avoidance, intimidation, and gossiping, resulting in less than productive
group work and less than satisfactory groups (Spencer, 2012).
Cooperative Learning 12
Chapter Three
As education is shifting to meet the needs of our youth, educational researchers and
teachers alike are actively searching for a better way to reach children. Their hope is to provide
students with meaningful experiences that provide the necessary skills to be successful not only
in the classroom but beyond. Cooperative learning has been heavily researched by Robert Slavin
at Johns Hopkins University, David Johnson and Roger T. Johnson all revealing a successful link
to student achievement. The goal of this paper is describe effective cooperative learning
strategies which can be implemented in any classroom.
Summary
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Daros-Voseles, D. A. (2001) as well as Zakaria, E., & Iksan, Z.
(2007) are a few whom have shown cooperative learning strategies successful applications in a
range of settings. Cooperative learning is linked to an increase in student motivation, attitudes
towards school, and improved interpersonal relationships (Johnson & Johnson, 2007; Slavin,
2010; Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 2010). While cooperative learning is a promising strategy,
some concerns are present (Spencer, 2012). Students who are prone to problematic behaviors
such as gossiping, intimidation, and avoidance, when working in groups, interferes with the
successful implementation of the cooperative learning technique (Spencer, 2012). Cooperative
learning strategies such as (T.G.T.), (T.A.I.), (S.T.A.D.), or Jigsaw I or II have many positive
effects on students both with and without disabilities most notably student achievement, social
attitudes, and behavior (Miller & Peterson, 2012).
Cooperative Learning 13
Conclusion
Cooperative learning is a great tool for teaching and learning. It has been thoroughly
researched in a variety of classrooms and all have shown similar results. Sahin (2010) proved
the effectiveness of cooperative learning in a Turkish classroom looking to improve written
expression. He, along with other researchers such as David Johnson and Roger Johnson (2009),
have all noticed observable improvements in student relationships, efforts to achieve in school,
and psychological health. All of these heavily influential improvements can be instrumental in
raising student achievement and perceptions towards school. Students are also intrinsically
motivated in many ways such as to encourage group mates to perform and to learn, as well as
their own accountability to perform for their group (Slavin 2010). In all, as administrators are
instructional leaders and need strategies to move teachers forward to meet the needs of a diverse
population of learners. Cooperative learning is an easy to implement tool to provide teachers to
meet those needs.
Chris, this entire section is not supported by the literature review which you have
completed. Your focus is on the link between cooperative learning and student achievement and
your conclusion should address only the findings from your research. In spite of the identified
negatives, what advantages linked to student achievement are found with cooperative learning?
Implications
This literature review exploring the link between cooperative learning, increased
academic achievement, and enhanced social/emotional growth suggests that cooperative learning
is a promising strategy. However, further investigation is recommended.
Cooperative Learning 14
References
Gupta, M., & Parija, P. (2009). Cooperative learning: An efficient technique to convert students
into active learners. MIER Journal of Educational Studies, Trends and Practices Vol 2,
No 1 (2012) Retrieved from
http://www.mierjs.in/ojs/index.php/mjestp/article/view/59/38. Chris, is there more to this
source?) No unfortunately Yes there is. I have included the URL.
Johnson, D. & Johnson, R. (2004), Cooperative learning: Two heads are better than one.
Minneapolis, MN: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Johnson, D., Johnson, R., & Shane, M. B. (2007). Cooperative learning methods: A meta
analysis. In Minneapolis, MN.
Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. & Smith, K. (2008).Cooperative learning returns to college: What
evidence is there that it works? Change. July/August, (pp. 27 – 35). Retrieved from
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:ml_l6g4kKOUJ:www.sjsu.edu/advising/d
ocs/CooperativeLearning.pdf
Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (2009). An overview of cooperative learning. Retrieved from
http://www.co-operation.org/?page_id=65
Johnson and Johnson's thoughts on cooperative learning. (2012). Retrieved from
http://www.teach-nology.com/currenttrends/cooperative_learning/johnson_and_johnson/
Miller, C., & Peterson, R. (2012). Creating a positive climate: Cooperative learning. What
Works in Preventing School Violence The Safe and Responsive Schools Project
www.indiana.edu/~safeschl. Skiba (Ed.), Indiana. Retrieved from
http://www.indiana.edu/~safeschl/cooperative_learning.pdf
Chris, I also think there is more that should appear related to this source.) I looked again and this
Cooperative Learning 15
is the only info I could locate…
Chris, this is the additional information which you need to cite this source
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Daros-Voseles, D. A. (2001). Role of Cooperative Learning in
Methodology Courses: A Mixed-Methods Analysis. In Research in Schools
(1st ed.,
pp. 61-75).
Potential Challenges. (2012). SERC. Retrieved October 30, 2012, from
http://serc.carleton.edu/introgeo/cooperative/challen.html
Sahin, A. (2010). Effects of Jigsaw I and II on Achievement. In Educational Research and
Reviews (5th ed., pp. 777 - 787). Ataturk, Turkey: Academic Journals.
Slavin, R. (2010). What Makes Groupwork Work? In Co-Operative Learning (pp. 1 - 13).
Retrieved from
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:EnokW2lMtC0J:www.successforall.org/S
uccessForAll/media/PDFs/CL--What-Makes-Groupworkwork.pdf+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESi2O2l5PNxzxtIju1ljCS3GweRu6K6e
Mdek6LgvDQvXJdo94ZwwvxhC4X2bViT_1QgTAgIjxQgTCvsJewxcoQM_u4309xk3G
jKr3ZHYv3XKJHQSXH3E2s_pNWtrIAXcGwXevgaf&sig=AHIEtbQoUi3EKQdCsNkv
mLNEP_spsy7KMw.
Spencer, J. (2008, April 24). Teacher Commons: Cooperative Learning: Criticisms. Teacher
Commons. Retrieved October 30, 2012, from
http://teachercommons.blogspot.com/2008/04/cooperative-learning-criticisms.html
Zakaria, E., & Iksan, Z. (2007). Promoting cooperative learning in science and education: A
malaysian perspective. Eurasia Journal of Mathamatics and Science Education, 3(1), 35
Cooperative Learning 16
- 39. Retrieved from http://www.ejmste.com
Scoring Rubric Research
Name: _Chris Carpenter_ Peer Reviewer:__________________ Date: __11/13/2012___
OUTCOME: Students will gather supporting information and communicate in writing, for the
purposes of informing, persuading, and /or giving opinion regarding an approved topic of their
choice.
TASK: The student will complete a related literature paper focusing on an area in which they
have an interest.
STANDARDS:
The levels at which students perform the task.
In progress 1
Item(s) missing
or inaccurate.
Title page/Abstract/Table of Contents
Proficient 3
Advanced 5
Self-Score
Items present
with 4 or less
errors.
Items present
and complete
with no errors.
Introductory Chapter
Advanced 5
In progress 1
Proficient 3
Foundation for
study need not
established.
Foundation for
study need is
established.
Foundation for
study need is
established.
Problem not
identified or
stated.
Problem
introduced or
stated.
Problem
introduced or
stated.
Delimitations
and/or
definitions are
unclear or not
concise.
Delimitations
and/or
definitions are
unclear or not
concise
Delimitations
and/or
definitions are
clear and
concise
Self-Score
Instructor
Score
Instructor
Score
Cooperative Learning 17
Literature Review Chapter
In progress 1
Foundation for
study need not
established.
Problem not
identified or
stated.
Literature
review is
inadequate not
presenting
current data.
Proficient 3
Advanced 5
Foundation for
study need is
established.
Foundation for
study need is
established.
Problem
introduced or
stated.
Problem
introduced or
stated.
Literature
review is
adequate
presenting
current data.
Literature
review is
exemplary
presenting
current data and
diverse
perspectives.
Self-Score
Instructor
Score
Organization (Chronological Patterns, Comparison & Contrast, Cause-Effect, Description,
Analysis)
In progress 1
Proficient 3
Advanced 5
Lacks
introduction,
significant part
of the body
and/or
conclusion.
Introduction
directs the
development of
the paper with
transitions
guiding the
reader through.
Introduction
directs the
development of
the paper with
effective use of
transitions
among the
introduction,
body, and
conclusion.
Paragraphs do
not clearly
explore topics.
Paragraphs
signal the major
divisions of
thought and
sentences flow.
Paragraphs
signal the major
divisions of
thought and
sentences flow
with ideas in a
logical
sequence.
Self-Score
Instructor
Score
Cooperative Learning 18
Conventions (Mechanics and Usage)
Self-Score
Proficient 3
Advanced 5
Instructor
In progress 1
Evidence of
editing but 610 errors.
Strong evidence
of editing (0-5
errors).
Illegible/verb
tense errors,
spelling,
possessive
errors/pages not
numbered.
Legible with
verb tense,
spelling, and
possessives
correct/pages
are properly
numbered.
Exemplary with
verb tense,
spelling, and
possessives
correct/pages
are properly
numbered.
In progress 1
Summary, Conclusions, Implications Chapter
Self-Score
Proficient 3
Advanced 5
Little evidence
of editing (10
or more errors).
Introductory
paragraph
fails to state
significance of
the study or
review
problem.
Introductory
paragraph
states
significance of
the study and
reviews
problem.
Summary does
not review
major ideas of
the literature.
Summary
reviews major
ideas of the
literature.
Conclusions
are not
justified by the
analysis of the
literature.
Conclusions
are justified by
the analysis of
the literature.
Introductory
paragraph states
significance of the
study and reviews
problem.
Summary reviews
major ideas of the
literature clearly
stating diverse
perspectives.
Logical
conclusions are
justified by the
analysis and
weight of the
literature.
References
Score
Instructor
Score
Cooperative Learning 19
In progress 1
Proficient 3
Less than 8
references
cited
providing
documentation
for the
conclusions.
8-11
references are
cited
providing
documentation
for the
conclusions.
Advanced 5
12-15 references
are cited
providing
appropriate
documentation for
APA format
has been
followed with
no more than
5 references
older than 7
years.
APA format
has been
followed with
no more than
3 references
older than 7
years.
the conclusions.
APA format has
been followed
with no more than
2 references older
than 5 years.
Self-Score
Instructor
Score