Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
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