Cooperative Learning is Engaged Learning

Running Head: COOPERATIVE LEARNING IS ENGAGED LEARNING Cooperative Learning Azra Ali Huda School and Montessori

If you walk- through a school building during class times and you hear a pin drop and it is not a standardized testing day, there is room to ponder whether or not our students are learning in those quiet classrooms. Silence may speak volumes on a school s discipline structure but it may provoke a teaching enthusiast to question the silent learning environment. As Islamic School educators, we face similar challenges in motivating and keeping our students actively engaged in the learning process. The 21 st century digital natives that we teach in our classrooms need constant stimulation and sense of gratification. Our task of imparting knowledge is a critical one and one that is 3- dimensional. Most of the traditional models of teaching were based on content and skills. Our newer models of curriculum frameworks include the content, skills and critical thinking processes along with the concept- based approaches. So it is no longer about Let s open our books to page 31 and work on #1-20 approach. Students today need learning to be contextualized and conceptualized. There is a big why do I need to learn this question that is constantly overarching students mindset in the classroom. As teachers, our role is to facilitate and guide students thinking skills. We are no longer the dispensers of information, the correctors of mistakes but more importantly the facilitators of learning and directors of stimulating thinking. As our roles change, so must our approaches to learning and teaching. The craft of teaching in the 21 st century requires conscious planning, skillful articulation and implementation as well as artful presentation. This paper offers suggestions and ideas that any teacher can adapt to his or her classroom needs. The goal of this paper is to spark the reader s interest in developing a more student- centered approach to teaching and learning. With the student centered model, the aim is to engage students actively in the learning process. What does active learning look like? Feel like? Sound like? This paper will examine some research based models with Harvard Project Zero and Cooperative Learning Strategies. This paper is structured in three parts: literature review on cooperative learning, sample overview of cooperative learning, Kagan s Cooperative Learning Strategies and its practical implications to the classroom. In Cooperative Learning, students work in heterogeneous groups to meet common sets of goals. There is a special emphasis on students use of social skills and interdependence to support, monitor and give help to each other. (Kagan, 1994) Students work together to learn with group and individual accountability in place. According to Kagan, the basic elements are: 1. Positive Interdependence - occurs when gains of individuals or teams are positively correlated. 2. Individual Accountability - occurs when all students in a group are held accountable for doing a share of the work and for mastery of the material to be learned. 3. Equal Participation - occurs when each member of the group is afforded equal shares of responsibility and input. 4. Simultaneous Interaction - occurs when class time is designed to allow many student interactions during the period.

Historically, cooperative learning structures have been used for decades in the United States. Cooperative learning strategies have been added as a useful instructional repertoire for the past decade by teachers. Many research studies in the past 20 years have explored the principal questions on the effectiveness of these cooperative learning structures. Most research was centered on cooperative learning as a way to change classroom and hence the activities designed for learning. The central aim is to engage students actively with positive academic interactions and accountability. Accountability, both group and individual needs to be an integral component in order for cooperative learning to work effectively. According to Slavin (1994) group and individual accountability is the hallmark of student achievement in terms of using cooperative learning in the classroom. Slavin (1994) suggested group goals to help motivate students to learn providing reasons to cooperate in a meaningful way. (Deutsch, 1949, Johnson & Johnson 1989, Stevens 1994). In an effort to reduce the free rider effect, where students may not do their share of work and rely on group members to accomplish goals, the individual accountability system reduces this effect (Joyce, 1999). The two elements must be consciously planned for and linked to make cooperative learning process effective. The group s success will be directly linked to individualized output. This interdependence will lead to an increased level of motivation that individuals are contributing to their own learning and group learning and not just completing a task. Based on synthesized research on cooperative learning, student achievement was significantly more in experiment group than in control group. According to Slavin (1991), positive effects were found across grade- levels, subjects, demographics and subgroups based on 67 studies. Johnson, Johnson and Stance (2000) summarized similar results, which linked positive effects of cooperative learning structures. According to Slavin (1994), students in a cooperative learning classroom discuss, debate, disagree and ultimately teach one another. It is clear and evident that cooperative learning structures, if implemented effectively can enhance student achievement. In addition, the side- effects are even more notable. Slavin(1991), indicates that the positive effects of cooperative learning have been consistently found in such outcomes as self- esteem, intergroup relations, acceptance of handicapped students, attitudes towards acceptance and ability of work cooperatively. As we glean at contemporary research on cooperative learning, Robert Marzano s research as summarized in Classroom Instruction That Works identifies the nine learning strategies for increasing student achievement. Marzano cites cooperative learning as an effective, high- yield strategy for increasing student achievement. According to Marzano (2001), students who are regularly exposed to cooperative learning gained 23 percentile points on achievement tests.

Teachers must form groups based on common goals as well as a system that rewards success. For example, team members can earn points or other rewards for their team by performing well on a test (Stevens, Slavin, and Farnish 1991). Since individual success can possibly lead to group success, the team success depends on the learning of each student. This method reinforces the value of helping each group member achieve success. These types of interdependent learning environments reinforce group goals and accountability that each individual has. In essence, this helps students care about the success of their fellow students, become better listeners, and value alternative methods for solving problems (Stevens, Slavin, and Farnish 1991). Since cooperative learning is based on the premise that students who work together are responsible for one another s learning as well as for their own (Lindauer and Petrie 1997), students must learn communicate with each other and value individual perspectives but most importantly recognize that there is more than one way of solving a problem. It is critical that teachers plan cooperative learning structures consciously. Numerous studies have shown that in order for cooperative learning to be effective, the essential elements must be present. Dividing students up into groups to complete a task is not cooperative learning. Merely because students work in small groups does not mean that they are cooperating to ensure their own learning and learning of others in their group (Johnson, Johnson, 1993) There are a variety of readily available cooperative structures pre- designed to help students engage in cooperative learning. Although the names for these structures may vary from author to author, the key elements must be present in order to increase effectiveness. The following elements listed below are essential in all cooperative learning structures: A clear set of Learning Outcome Objectives All students in the group have ownership of the targeted outcome Clear and complete set of task completion directions or instructions are given Heterogeneous Groups Equal Opportunity for Success Positive Interaction Face- to- Face Interactions Positive Social Interaction Behaviors and Attitudes Access to Must Learn Information Opportunities to complete required information- processing tasks Sufficient time is spent learning Individual accountability Public recognition and rewards for group academic success Post- group reflection (debriefing) on within- group behaviors

Figure 1.2 Condensed List of Cooperative Learning Activity Format Options CL Activity Format Benefits Challenges Group Products/ Performance. The group works together to create a product or The finished product is motivational. Provides the feeling of winning as a group. High stakes create increased chances for conflict and therefore need for conflict resolution skills. Assessment choices will performance that meets certain True interdependence is often have a dramatic influence on the way the criteria. required. Has a built-in quality of project proceeds. going somewhere. Inquiry-based/Discovery/ Lab activity. The group takes part in collaborative research using an inductive or deductive process. Collaborative Content Processing. Students examine information together and discuss it; then report their findings. Jigsaw Model. Students are divided into like-sized groups. Those students learn a topic or skill; each group is then divided into new groups so that each group has a representative who can teach each topic or skill. Inquiry-based learning is inherently authentic as well as engaging. The skills learned in this kind of activity lend themselves to real life applications, and meet many learning style needs. The quality of thinking is better as a result of having more perspectives and the opportunity to process verbally rather than just mentally (Slavin, 1994). This method can be an effective way to present content. Students learn to become experts and to teach to others. With large numbers it can be more efficient than presentations. Inquiry-based learning may be unfamiliar to some students, and will need to be well structured. The process will need to be taught before it can be assumed that students will be able to apply it effectively. It is possible that students can be left behind in the process if they are neglected. It is difficult for the teacher to be sure that the groups are discussing the academic content rather than something else. Having effective expectations in place is critical, especially for such things as noise level, how to take turns, and listen effectively. The mechanics of the jigsaw are rather tricky at first, and will always require precise coordination of the teacher. Assessment is difficult in that the teacher cannot observe each presentation of content, so must use some other means to ensure quality (Gunter et al, 2007) Graffiti Model. Groups are given a question or topic. For a set amount of time each group writes answers to the question on a sheet of paper. Groups then rotate to the next sheet of paper. When all groups have completed each station, the original group summarizes the findings for their question or topic. Collaborative Assessment. Groups are given a task and can work together to produce one product or independent products depending on the choice of the teacher. Collaborative Group Work. Students complete independent assignments, but are allowed to talk to one another and give and receive assistance and peer tutoring. Groups are exposed to each question in the process. Insights from other groups help reinforce the benefits of working collaboratively. Each answer is completed with a depth that no single group could have accomplished. The quality of the outcome is usually better. The process itself promotes learning and deeper processing of the material. Can be done soundly and reliably (Shindler, 2004). Students learn how to teach one another and explain material in their own words. Students are free to interact as much or as little as they need to in an attempt to meet their goals and needs. Logistics need to be clearly established or groups may be confused. Groups need to be encouraged to think independently, or they tend to replicate the comments of previous groups (Gunter et al, 2007). Collaborative exams are only recommended for groups who have demonstrated advanced cooperative learning skills and levels of responsibility. Having individuals turn in independent products can be a useful compromise design. Some students may use the time to socialize rather than attend to the academic task. Expectations need to be in place for what qualifies as an appropriate noise level, what constitutes cheating, and what actions qualify as an abuse of the privilege.

Figure 1.1 (UNT in Partnership with TEA, 2008) Kagan s Cooperative Learning Structures Structure Brief Description Academic/Social Functions Team Building Round-robin Each student in turn shares something with his or her teammates Expressing ideas and opinions, creation of stories. Equal participation, getting acquainted with teammates Class Building Corners Each student moves to a corner of the room representing a teacher-determined alternative. Students discuss within corners, then listen to and paraphrase ideas from other corners. Seeing alternative hypotheses, values, and problem solving approaches. Knowing and respecting different points of view, meeting classmates. Communication Building Match Mine Numbered Heads Together Color- Coded Co-op Cards Pairs Check Students attempt to match the arrangement of objects on a grid of another student using oral communication only. Mastery The teacher has students number off within groups. (1,2,3 and 4). The teacher asks a high consensus question. The students put their heads together to make sure everyone on the team knows the answer. The teacher calls on a number (1,2, 3 or 4) and only the student with the number can raise his/her hand to respond. Student memorizes facts using a flash card game. The game is structured so that there is a maximum probability of success at each step, moving from short-term to long-term memory. Scoring is based on improvement. Students work in pairs within groups of four. Within pairs students alternate-one solves a problem while the other coaches. After every two problems the pair checks to see if they have the same answers as the other pair. Vocabulary development. Communication skills, role-taking ability. Review, checking for knowledge, comprehension. Memorizing facts. Helping, praising Practicing skills. Helping, praising

Concept Development Three-Step Interview Think-Pair- Share Team Word- Webbing Students interview each other in pairs, first one way, then the other. Students share with the group information they learned in the interview. Students think to themselves on a topic provided by the teacher; they pair up with another student to discuss it; they then share their thoughts with the class. Students write simultaneously on a piece of chart paper, drawing main concepts, supporting elements, and bridges representing the relation of ideas in a concept. Sharing personal information such as hypotheses, reactions to a poem, and conclusions from a unit. Participation, listening Generating and revising hypotheses, inductive reasoning, deductive reasoning, application. Participation, involvement Analysis of concepts into components, understanding multiple relations among ideas, differentiating concepts. Role-taking Multifunctional Roundtable Inside- Outside Circle Each student in turn writes one answer as a paper and pencil are passed around the group. With Simultaneous Roundtable more than one pencil and paper are used at once. Students stand in pairs in two concentric circles. The inside circle faces out; the outside circle faces in. Students use flash cards or respond to teacher questions as they rotate to each new partner. Assessing prior knowledge, practicing skills, recalling information, creating cooperative art. Team building, participation Checking for understanding, review, processing, helping. Tutoring, sharing, meeting classmates. Partners Jigsaw Co-op Students work in pairs to create or master content. They consult with partners from other teams. They share their products or understanding with the other partner pair in their team. Each student on the team becomes an"expert"on one topic by working with members from other teams assigned the corresponding expert topic. Upon returning to their teams, each one in turn teaches the group and students are all assessed on all aspects of the topic. Students work in groups to produce a particular group product to share with the whole class; each student makes a particular contribution to the group. Mastery and presentation of new material, concept development. Presentation and communications kills. Acquisition and presentation of new material, review, informed debate, Interdependence, status, equalization. Learning and sharing complex material, often with multiple sources, evaluation, application, analysis, synthesis. Conflict, resolution, presentation skills.

Once the learning targets are identified, teachers can engage in a conscious planning cycle to identify which Cooperative Learning structure to use. Each of the different activities will have different benefits. Therefore it is critical that teachers take the time to study the structures prior to implementation. As teachers get more comfortable based on experiences, some activities will prevail more in the instructional cycle than others. The key to designing an effective Cooperative Learning activity is to introduce each of the processes for the learning activity you choose. It is not advised to introduce new content and new structure of cooperative learning at the same time. With each successive attempt, students will begin to feel more comfortable and so will the teachers. It is essential that teachers write out the directions for the students so that visual prompts are available for them. In terms of the procedures, it is important as well for the teachers to ensure that the numbering process for certain activities are carefully planned out. For example, if you have 25 students, consider having groups of 5 rather than groups of 4. Students should not feel left out and neither should the teacher lose valuable class time figuring out how to recalibrate the groups. Cooperative learning structures also require student roles to be assigned. This is an integral part of individual accountability. According to Johnson and Johnson (1999), assigning students roles within the group has many advantages and can help set students up for success. Role assignments can provide clarity and ensure that students are able to complete their tasks. Most importantly, students recognize that having roles ensures that students have a dual sense of responsibility, one to themselves and another to their peers in the group. Since teachers are assigning the roles, the students can be matched to their skill sets at times and other times students can be assigned roles that may be out of the comfort zone. This allows for students to have an opportunity to appreciate their own and peers performance in roles previously avoided. It is highly recommended that teachers keep written copies of role- descriptions for students. Here are some suggested roles that can be useful in various cooperative learning activities (Johnson and Johnson, 1999): manager, reporter, consensus builder, researcher, monitor and leader. As teachers, it is imperative for us to utilize the best practice research to engage our students actively in the classroom. It is essential that cooperative learning is infused in all subjects because it plays an important role in life s experiences. Students will learn significant life skills by working and thinking together to solve problems. An ideal classroom would represent teams, roles for each member of the team and structures in place to celebrate mutual accomplishments. In conclusion, as teachers we use many different strategies from within our repertoire to try to reach students of different abilities and learning styles. Cooperative learning provides a method that achieves this goal, while at the same time promoting active learning and a supportive learning community. Learning collaboratively can be applied in various ways, thus ensuring success for all students.

Works Cited Marzano, R.J. Pickering, D., & Pollock, J.E. (2001). Classroom Instruction that works: Research- based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development. Lindauer, Patricia, and Garth Petrie A Review of Cooperative Learning: An Alternative to Everyday Instructional Strategies. Journal of Instructional Psychology 24 (September 1997): 183-88. Cohen, E. G. (1998). Making cooperative learning equitable. Educational Leadership, 56, 18-22. Goodwin, M. W. (1999). Cooperative learning and social skills: What skills to teach and how to teach them. Interventions in School & Clinic, 35, 29-34. Johnson, D. W. & Johnson R. T. (1999). Learning Together and Alone: Cooperative, Competitive, and Individualistic Learning (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Stanne, M. B. (2000). Cooperative learning methods: A meta- analysis. Retrieved July, 2000 from the World Wide Web: http://www.clcrc.com/pages/cl- methods.html Johnson, G. M. (1998). Principles of instruction for at- risk learners. Preventing School Failure, 42, 167-181. Joyce, W. B. (1999). On the free- rider problem in cooperative learning. Journal of Education for Business, 74, 271-274. Kagan, S. (1994). Cooperative Learning. San Clemente, California: Kagan Publishing. Kagan, S. (1995). Group grades miss the mark. Educational Leadership, 52, 68-72.