Cooperative learning groups - Essay Example

?Running Head: Education Cooperative Learning Groups in Mathematics A Discussion Paper Introduction Scholars, educators, and school officials have become more and more interested in students’ performance in mathematics. Several studies have reported that, starting from middle school, girls are prone to develop more unconstructive attitudes towards math and score low on standardized exams (McCafferty, Jacobs & Iddings, 2006). Moreover, a significant relationship has been found between performance and attitudes. Certain factors that are associated with performance of students in math comprise learning experiences, sense of belongingness, racial or ethnic affiliation, gender, self-worth, stereotyping and attitudes. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (as cited in Tipps, Johnson, & Kennedy, 2010, p. 52) claimed that instruction, competent educators, high expectations and equity should be awarded to every learner. By doing so, performance of students in math has a better chance to progress. The topics crucial for every student are usually included in Geometry, Algebra I and Algebra II subjects. However, only 62 percent of the overall population of high school graduates in 2000 finished three years of math in a manner that successfully introduced them to this integral content (DiMaggio, 2001, p. 5). This figure implies that students are not gaining the knowledge and proficiency they should possess to perform well in the world outside schooling. In fact, of roughly 70% pupils who promptly advance to college, approximately 28% should enroll in refresher or remedial programs in math or English (DiMaggio, 2001, p. 5). Moreover, a significant number of fourth grade and eight grade students poorly performed in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in 2003 (DiMaggio, 2001, p. 5). Every state that participated in the NAEP 4th grade math assessment test in 2000 and 2003 reported improvements in mean scores. Among the states that participated in the NAEP 8th grade assessment test in 2000 and 2003, the mean scores improved in numerous states (DiMaggio, 2001, p. 5). In a nutshell, the mean scores at all grade levels improved. Such progress is inspiring and rewarding but the scores still show the unsatisfactory outcome of collaborative attempts to greatly improve the performance of all students. To sum up, the performance of students in math is not where they should be when measured up to the nation’s standards, the achievement levels of their international counterparts and their capacity to function well beyond high school (Strebe, 2009). The nation needs individuals that is capable of performing in the contemporary world, which implies that new teaching and learning strategies are needed to achieve the desired outcomes in math and other major subjects. Cooperative Learning Groups Learning has traditionally been focused on ‘competition’, hence, the emergence of cooperative learning. Cooperative learning is a model of instruction where small groups composed of learners of distinct capability levels team up to achieve common objectives and take full advantage of their potentials. Cooperative learning facilitates individual responsibility within the framework of cooperation or group dynamics (Williams, 2002). Teamwork is an important component of the attainment of learning objectives of the course. In the context of cooperative learning, the learning is planned and organized to ensure that learning is actually occurring (Kagan, 1994). The teacher picks the groups to think about a multitude of perspectives, capabilities, ethnic/racial affiliations, gender and other attributes. Furthermore, cooperative learning builds a classroom partnership and harmonizes individual responsibility and interdependence. Because the task of the group is incomplete until every member has accurately and clearly understood the topic, every student is contributing to the attainment of a shared objective. With every student accountable to a specific part of the learning task, personal learning is strengthened as an outcome of discussing the topic with the members (Williams, 2002). Eventually, every student should show understanding of the topic and get an individual performance assessment (Bernstein, 1992). Cooperative learning is a continuous process fostering stronger stability than an infrequent group exercise. Cooperative learning necessitates and improves the communication abilities of students. Positive Effects of Cooperative Learning Cooperative learning, as a classroom management approach, boosts students’ knowledge, creativity, performance, motivation, enthusiasm and fairness. Because learners are involved seriously and eagerly in the process of learning and encouraged to make group learning possible, they become more interested in their personal contribution and their group’s efficiency leading to a greater focus on their undertaking (Gilkey & Hunt, 1998). Educators are aware that learners who are inactive, disengaged, not adequately encouraged, or who have low self-esteem to accomplish an undertaking effectively resort to other activities to occupy their time, mostly disruptive ones. These issues are resolved in cooperative learning groups. For the learner who is not adequately encouraged the group helps by motivating him/her to take full advantage of his/her skills to ‘peer teach’ with a poorly performing group member or a student who may be having difficulties in understanding a specific topic (Reif, 2008). Therefore, for poorly performing students or those who do not have a healthy self-esteem the cooperative learning group helps improve their knowledge of a topic. Last but not least, cooperative learning aids in strengthening attachments among students. Quite frequently, most of the disturbances in the classroom stem from interpersonal issues. Rivalry, bossy attitudes, ignorance of cultural diversity within the classroom and behavioral differences generate unhealthy relationships among students (Strebe, 2009). Fights, bullying, confrontations and commotion can arise, which are not favorable to learning. Normally, a cooperative learning setting generates more favorable and broadminded relationships between group members and among students in general (Tipps et al., 2010). Cooperative learning can be used as a functional pedagogical instrument and a classroom management approach. With regard to mathematics, many people believe that acquiring proficiency in this discipline is an independent or lone task, the one where only a small number of gifted individuals do extremely well and the others merely survive. Thus, recognition of cooperative learning is expressed in the Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) (Gilkey & Hunt, 1998, p. 65): “Small groups provide a forum in which students ask questions, discuss ideas, make mistakes, learn to listen to others’ ideas, offer constructive criticism and summarize their discoveries in writing.” Several scholars, like Neil Davidson (as cited in Gilkey & Hunt, 1998), support the application of cooperative learning in math due to a number of reasons. First, small groups create beneficial learning resources and social support system for the teaching and learning of math. Pupils are granted opportunities to discuss topics or concepts, raise issues or questions, elaborate concepts and topics, exchange ideas in a useful manner and communicate their ideas and sentiments about their learning experiences (McCafferty et al., 2006). Second, cooperative learning groups make success possible for students in math. Group members are not competing against one another. The relationship within the group ought to aid every member in understanding the models and problem-solving techniques. Math problems in school, not like other kinds of life problems, can in fact be worked out in realistic time durations. Furthermore, math problems are perfectly appropriate for brainstorming or group discussion because they have answers that can be precisely and impartially explained (Williams, 2002). Lastly, math problems can normally be deciphered by quite a few distinct techniques. Group members can talk about the advantages of various suggested solutions and maybe find out a number of techniques for answering similar problem (Tipps et al., 2010). Learning mathematics is full of interesting and challenging concepts that deserve group reflection. Students learn not only by reflecting independently but also by discussing and thinking with others. Math creates numerous opportunities for creativity, critical thinking, formulating inferences and verifying them objectively, for raising interesting problems and working out complicated ones. Students in teams can usually deal with difficult problems that are outside one’s abilities at that particular phase of development (Quimby, 1993). As stated by Bernstein (1992), individuals trying to understand and resolve such similar problems usually achieve unsatisfactory outcomes or, worst, fail and experience serious disappointment. Negative Effects of Cooperative Learning Just like any classroom management model, cooperative learning also has its own share of disadvantages. First, students who have poor social abilities would lack the knowledge of how to perform tasks in groups and this may lead to conflicts. Second is the unequal distribution of work among students. There are some group members who do the hard work while the others are doing little or nothing but share the same grade with the hardworking ones (Quimby, 1993). Third, rivalry will arise between groups and the unsuccessful group will become frustrated and may stop to participate (Quimby, 1993). This will not just diminish their performance in class but also their sense of worth. Basically, cooperative learning groups can simply become a setting where ‘the blind lead the blind’ (Reif, 2008, p. 422). A teacher’s role is being assigned to students who have insufficient topic knowledge and experience in teaching. Moreover, they have much fewer ideas about subject-matter concepts that are integral to instruction and learning. Thus, they can normally give their fellow students instructions and guidance which are not helpful enough and assessment which seems less valuable than that obtained from experienced and knowledgeable teachers (Reif, 2008). Furthermore, students generally do not possess the core interpersonal social capabilities that grown-ups have attained as a product of their extensive experience relating to and intermingling with other people (Strebe, 2009). Consequently, cooperative learning groups can also be burdened by behavioral clashes that could be prevented by more experienced individuals. Therefore, if teachers are planning to apply cooperative learning, they should be discerning about the kinds of issues or activities assigned to the cooperative learning groups. Studies on the success of cooperative learning groups in math suggest it should function appropriately with several math abilities and problems. Nevertheless, the judgments of educators may not demonstrate this discerning attitude and educators could, though discouraged, employ cooperative learning comprehensively. Simple problems are not likely to deliver desired outcomes in cooperative learning groups for there is moderate necessity to work in partnership. Key Components of Cooperative Learning Spencer Kagan (1994) enumerated key components of successful cooperative learning, namely, simultaneous interaction, equal participation, individual accountability, and positive interdependence. ‘Simultaneous interaction’ engages a number of students all at once. ‘Equal participation’ implies that members of a group are given equal chances to contribute or involve their selves. ‘Individual accountability’ obliges members of a group to be responsible for inputs and outputs of the group work. ‘Positive interdependence’ implies that the success of the group is attained through the participation and productivity of every member. In addition, cooperative abilities and team building are integral to the success of cooperative learning (Kagan, 1994). Members of a group relate to each other by sharing their experiences, revealing who they are, and their aspirations. Creating a group name, drawing an emblem, or choosing a motto builds group identity and value. Students get to know each other and recognize the experience and abilities each one contributes to the undertaking. Interpersonal capabilities are improved through collaboration with group mates (Strebe, 2009). Students become skilled at cooperating enthusiastically and justly, sharing and alternating duties, and explaining outcomes of group exercises. A competent educator encourages cooperative abilities by embodying them, choosing students to act for exercise, and supervising discussions and assessments of collective efforts. Cooperative Learning Groups Models/Strategies In cooperative learning learners are sorted out in groups that are diverse so that learners with distinct socioeconomic status, ethnic and racial affiliation, levels of capability, and other attributes collaborate. There are different models or strategies of cooperative learning, and some of the major ones are (1) think, pair, share, (2) games and contests, (3) jigsaw, and (4) creative projects. ‘Think, Pair, Share’ is intended to encourage students to respond to questions and to work with a fellow student. The model is explained by Canady and Rettig (as cited in Gilkey & Hunt, 1998, 67): “Each person in the classroom picks or is assigned a partner. The teacher asks students to enter Think Mode and then poses a question. After (at least) three seconds of ‘wait time’, students are instructed to discuss possible responses with their partner. Students then ‘share’ their responses as the teacher calls upon students randomly or solicits a volunteer.” With two individuals writing down solutions or feedback, responses are more precise and understandable, and more accurate in applying correct mathematical concepts. In games and contests, students compete against other students with the same skill level and knowledge in mathematics. The champion at every contest contributes a fixed score to the home team; this implies that poor performers have the same chance to bring scores for their team as do the high performers (Strebe, 2009). The aspect of excitement is fostered by the inclusion of games. According to Tipps and colleagues (2010), members of the team support and aid one another in getting ready for the games through group discussions and dry runs. In jigsaw, students are assigned into several groups and assigned a topic to study. In this initial grouping, every member of the group becomes proficient on or knowledgeable of the same topic. New groups of a proficient student from every group are assembled and every member gives an account of his/her experiences with other students within the group (Tipps et al., 2010). Every member in a group becomes proficient on a similar topic. Every member in a group has a chance and obligation to assist others in learning and to gain knowledge for themselves. Similarly, using projects is an effective technique to motivate learners to be innovative or creative, to take advantage of their previous knowledge and to try to learn more. A math project involves all the energies used up in problem solving, examining a concept, or using a math concept; specifically, the preliminary preparation, the exploration, the demonstration, and the report. It ought to create a new math principle or premise, demonstrate the link between a math concept or theory and some other math disciplines, or show the practical value of a math concept (Williams, 2002). The demonstration should be an activity through words, images, diagrams, paradigms, and drawings (Gilkey & Hunt, 1998). So basically, all of these cooperative learning strategies are designed to help students explain their answers, feedback, and responses clearly and accurately. Connection of Cooperative Learning and Higher Order Thinking Some educators fear that some models of cooperative learning make the context of learning excessively controlled and hence unnatural, rely excessively on external motivation, and put emphasis on lower-level thinking exercises, hence depriving students of creativity and of chances to develop higher-order thinking abilities. Students involved in higher level thinking usually work out concepts and knowledge that change their nature and value, like when students merge concepts in order to consolidate, conclude, clarify, assume, interpret, or generalize (Strebe, 2009). Sorting out facts and concepts through these techniques help learners decipher problems and find out new definitions and ideas. According to Bernstein (1992), this higher level thinking takes place when teachers intentionally organize activities to make the most of cooperative learning where students are introduced to other perspectives that dispute current theories and knowledge. Kenneth Bruffee, in a speech for the International Association for the Study of Cooperation in Education convention in 1994, elaborated his argument that cooperative learning was useful for learners at primary and secondary levels, and that cooperative learning was the more ideal alternative for older learners (McCafferty et al., 2006, p. 6). As mentioned by Williams (2002, p. 14), Yael Sharan in a speech at a similar convention proposed that there is a broad array of alternatives as regards to the influence of teachers on the interaction between students, and that Group Investigation — a cooperative learning strategy — gives students the opportunity to gain significant level of control over some issues like cooperative techniques, group mates, and choice of topic, which then promotes higher-order thinking. Conclusions Cooperative learning, as a classroom management approach, clearly promotes higher-order thinking, especially when used in mathematics and science subjects. If educators teach their students to perform tasks productively in groups or teams, the outcomes can be a quite dynamic and creative environment. Ultimately, the limitations of cooperative learning are overshadowed by its strengths in the field of mathematics. A large number of these strengths stem from the inner motivational benefits of cooperative learning and the degree to which it cultivates improvement in behavior and attitudes, enthusiasm and equal opportunities. References Bernstein, B. (1992). Cooperative learning in math. New York: Carson Dellosa Pub Co Inc. DiMaggio, M. (2001). Why isn’t the mathematics we learned good enough for today’s students? The imperative of mathematics literacy. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers. Gilkey, S. & Hunt, C. (1998). Teaching mathematics in the block. New York: Eye on Education. Kagan, S. (1994). Cooperative learning. New York: Kagan Cooperative Learning. McCafferty, S., Jacobs, G., & Iddings, A. (2006). Cooperative learning and second language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Quimby, L. (1993). Cooperative learning in math: It’s affect on achievement and behavior of low achieving fifth grade students. Washington: Whitworth College. Reif, F. (2008). Applying cognitive science to education: Thinking and learning in scientific and other complex domains. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Strebe, J. (2009). Engaging mathematics students using cooperative learning. New York: Eye on Education. Tipps, S., Johnson, A., & Kennedy, L.M. (2010). Guiding children’s learning of mathematics. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning. Williams, R. (2002). Cooperative learning: A standard for high achievement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Read More