Cooperative Learning: A Review of the Process and Current Scholarly Reviews - Research Paper Example

Section/# Cooperative Learning: A Review of the Process and Current Scholarly Reviews on the Topic as it Relates to the Classroom and the Individual Cooperative learning may be defined as an approach to the organization of learning that relies on the ability to “structure positive dependence” on the individuals within the group. As such, the process differs substantially from that of traditional learning. In traditional learning, the teacher/lecturer is responsible for relating the information to a group of students where the main objective is for the students to absorb and understand the information being related by the instructor (Kagan, 1994). Conversely, in cooperative learning, the students form groups that work to provide a collective that seeks to complete tasks and foster the learning experience. In this way, the stigma of asking one another for assistance and guidance is no longer seen as a type of weakness or unethical behavior, it is viewed as a net positive and allows members of the group to take roles toward expounding the information to their pears; thereby reinforcing the information and ensuring that all the group can understand and appreciate the information they have discovered prior to moving on (Sharan, 1992). It should be noted early on that cooperative learning is often wrongly confused with “group work/learning” due to the fact that both learning styles depend on the use of the group to effect the learning environment. However, the fundamental difference lies in the fact that “group work/learning” relies on the group to determine the speed and structure that the individual task will be undertaken (Johnson, 1991). As such the process of cooperative learning works to split the difference between a situation in which the group determines the speed and learning tasks and a situation in which the instructor/teacher relates the information and the students individually are responsible for the content. As such, cooperative learning depends on the instructor/teacher to set the guidelines and learning objectives for the groups and then rely on the groups to differentiate the material amongst each other in an attempt to formerly involve the process of collaboration and cooperation in the learning environment (Joliffe, 2007). One of the greatest perceived benefits of cooperative learning is that it relocates the emphasis away from the individual and into the group. Regardless of the way that one might feel with relation to the way in which the learning process/classroom should be structured, it is inarguable that the real world environment with which students will be faced upon successful completion of their education is one in which group understanding, cooperation, and the ability to understand and work well under situations are integral roles towards success (Lyman, 1993). As such, this understanding has led many to question if this is the case why our educational system for so long championed the individualized theory of education and learning if the fact of the matter is that group organizational skills are so heavily emphasized with relation to success and employment in our current society. In order for cooperative learning to take place, there are 5 essential elements that must be put into action (Walter, 2004). These will be briefly disused in the following paragraphs so as to give a thorough understanding to the reader of the practice and how it must be engaged in order to maximize its efficiency. The first of these five key factors relates to the concept of positive interdependence. This concept relates to the notion that students must first realize that it is beneficial to them to collectively work to tackle an issue/problem set rather than work to solve the problem relying entirely on themselves. This concept, once realized, forms the cornerstone of cooperative learning as the “buy in” of key shareholders is assured in this first acceptance of the belief and understanding that working together the prospect of solution creation is much higher than what it would be if one decided to rely solely on themselves. A secondary notion that is implicit in the term positive interdependence is the further realization of each shareholder that they are responsible for an individual portion of the solution. In this way, it is easy to see that the first part of positive interdependence is the understanding that forming and participating in the group is a necessary part of working to solving a given issue/problem. Secondly, the individual must then realize that he/she is responsible for a respective individualized component of this solution. In this way, the issue plus the solution to the issue are presented to the participant as action is required in order to attain the goals set before the participant. The second of the five key factors that are necessary for cooperative learning to take place involves to face-to-face promotion of interaction. What is meant but this is that the group members must come to understand that each of their individual success is inexorably tied to the success of the group. This concept is a simple one; however, to fully appreciate it, one must let go of the innately human desire to seek personal gain and work instead to benefit the collective. As a function of this understanding, the group member must additionally accept his/her responsibility for the information/learning task that they are uniquely responsible for. In this way, the cooperative learning process incorporates both aspects of individual learning and group learning. By relying on the human desire to control a certain aspect that they can be responsible for as well as combining this desire with the needs of the group, the cooperative process keeps an even footing on both individualized learning styles and group learning styles. The third of the five key factors relates to notion of group and individual accountability. Oftentimes when individuals are organized into groups, the immediate reaction of the participants is that their level of personal accountability has somehow been diminished. It is from this type of reaction that group organizers/leaders and loafers are born. As certain group members seek to obtain a free ride on the backs of those that are more driven to succeed, the dynamics of the group are quickly differentiated. This specific weakness will be discussed at greater length further in this analysis. Perhaps most importantly of all of the five factors that have thus far been listed is the fourth. This fourth factor of cooperative learning hinges upon the social skills that cooperative learning necessarily entails and instills in the participant. As such, the student is encouraged to integrate with and collaborate with the group. As stated previously, this type of activity encourages the individual to hone their leadership, decision making, trust affirming, communication, and conflict management skills (Jacob, 2009). Furthermore, it is inarguable that each of these skills is an invaluable part of preparing individuals for the arduous nature of the workplace and real-world settings. Furthermore, these are specific skills that are not all necessarily related by the traditional learning methods that have been in place in our educational system for quite some time. Likewise, the fifth of the five cooperative learning requirements involves group processing. Group processing involves the process of self-assessment that a group must necessarily make in order to determine the best ways that it can increase peak efficiency and bring about the goals that the group was organized to accomplish. The last of these requirements heavily involves aspects of introspection as it relates to the learning needs and requirements of the group. As such, it is incumbent that the group is firmly committed to whatever tasks they are engaged upon and has fully embraced the third requirement of cooperative learning. In this way, the reader can understand that each of these five requirements is highly interdependent and inter-related. The second part of this brief analysis will work to determine the drawbacks (cons) that exist with relation to cooperative learning. As such, it is has been of integral importance to understand and appreciate the inter-connectivity that exists between each of the five requirements presented earlier in this analysis towards understanding how the process can break down at any one of the stages that have previously been mentioned. The first of these drawbacks is with relation to the very first of the five requirements that were previously listed in order for cooperative learning to take place. The drawback hinges upon the fact that a “positive interdependence” is in and of itself an abstract theory that is not likely to lend itself well to being naturally adopted with relation to the classroom (Adams, 2006). Furthermore, only a brief analysis of the two sub-requirements of “positive interdependence” alerts the reader that the likelihood of it been effectively enacted in a classroom is highly unlikely and must take place under the most perfect of circumstances. The fact of the matter is that humans oftentimes behave in a manner that can easily be described as entropic. Much the same as matter in the physical world seeks a state of lower energy; humans do not naturally lend themselves to organization and cooperation as a natural result of the fact that people are usually innately selfish and do not wish to share anything, including responsibility, among others. An additional drawback relates to the second of the five requirements; that of “face-to-face promotive interaction. Although this author fully believes that such efforts can be nurtured and encouraged, the fact remains that the interactions that oftentimes take place between students in a classroom cannot e defined as “promoting” or “working to assist” those that are having difficulty. Sadly, the opposite is often true as students lend themselves towards degrading and humiliating those students that they view as somehow providing a stumbling block to the progress of the remainder of the students. Furthermore, the theory of promotive interaction also contends that students will explain to one another what they have learned/are learning. Again, the issue here is that when put into practice, individuals are not always keen to share ideas; believing instead that any bit of information they may retain will somehow serve as a competitive advantage for them and could help to differentiate them from the remainder of the students. In this way, selfish motives again work to wreak havoc on the process prior to any cooperative learning actually taking place. Although drawbacks to cooperative learning can be found in each of the five requirements that have been listed, this author strongly considers the third requirement to be the one which is perhaps the most unrealistic of all (Cohen, 2004). The third requirement involves to accountability that each group member must feel in order for cooperative learning to take place. From past experience as well as a host of educational readings that this author has engaged, one this is very clear; individuals in groups do not always behave in an accountable way. Further, one of the first reactions that is seen when groups are formed is that of “social loafing”. Social loafing is a term used to describe the actions of certain members of a group that see the opportunity that has been provided them not as an opportunity to learn but instead as an opportunity to relax, enjoy the conversation, and achieve little to any real work. As such, the notion that groups will naturally gravitate towards ideas of individual and group responsibility appears to be an understanding that could be affected by seeing reality through rose tinted glasses. Likewise, when one considers classroom dynamics, a further issue is brought to light. More and more often educators are led to be more aware of the fact that students have different needs and levels of socialization in which they are comfortable with. As such the fourth requirement of cooperative learning might not always suit those individuals who are introverted and do not thrive in group situations. Although the group setting is a powerful tool to prepare students for many experiences they will encounter in the workplace, the issue is that many quieter/more introverted students will find the process overwhelming and likely they will withdraw and contribute little; not due to the fact that they are not capable of contributing but because they may feel the entire situation is so cacophonous that their voice cannot be heard or if it is, their ideas will not be considered (Davidson, 1992). A secondary issue as it relates to a particular drawback of the 4th requirement is that the particular environment and way in which cooperative learning takes place, as it relates to socialization, emphasizes the primacy of those popular students within each group. In this way, the needs, learning styles, ideas, and possibility to be heard from those individuals who are less popular and/or more introverted is outright stymied. In this way, the process is operating on far less than peak efficiency. Due to the fact that only certain movers and shakers in the group are letting their ideas and thoughts be known and others are contented to sit quietly, the process is delegitimized. Without full cooperation, the process itself loses its ability to teach (Gillies, 2007). Finally, with respect to the fifth requirement, human nature also falls short of the ideal that is put forward by cooperative learning. The fifth requirement mentions that it is incumbent upon the group to work to self-assess themselves at opportune times in order to work to increase their efficiency (Foyle, 1991). When one thinks back over the groups they have been part of, this phase is usually enforced in that a facilitator asks the participants what they might do better the following time in order to increase their performance/increase efficiency. However, the most common reaction among participants is that this is merely the final impediment to being able to leave the group and pursue an action they would rather perform (Everett, 2002). As such, the responses are far from helpful and usually are concentric on the agreement that everything was fairly good. This answer is usually given so that the facilitator will wrap up and end the session so that they may disband. Likewise, as in the simplified example illustrated above, it was the facilitator that forced the participants to engage in this self-examination; not the participants themselves; not the group members themselves desiring a sense of accountability and improvement for the future. In this way, it is somewhat unreasonable to expect that groups in an educational setting will work to self-examine themselves of their own volition in order to find ways that they can maximize their overall effectiveness for the future. Likewise, the issue is not that the set of the five requirements is a bad educational practice. Implemented in the perfect setting with the perfect group the benefits of this model would doubtless lend themselves to a superior model of educational achievement; however, the problem is that the nature of humanity and the classroom do not lend themselves willingly to such a form of instruction/education. Although elements of the theory hold astoundingly useful ways in which cooperation can be furthered and achieved, the fact of the matter is that human nature does not lend itself to such a form of instruction without naturally exhibiting many of the negative tendencies that have been discussed at some length within this analysis. References Adams, D. (1996). Cooperative learning critical thinking and collaboration across the curriculum. Springfield, Ill., U.S.A: C.C. Thomas. Cohen, E. (2004). Teaching cooperative learning the challenge for teacher education. Albany: State University of New York Press. Davidson, N. (1992). Enhancing thinking through cooperative learning. New York: Teachers College Press. Everett, T. (1980). The New York Botanical Garden illustrated encyclopedia of horticulture. New York: Garland Pub. Foyle, H. (1991). Cooperative learning in the early childhood classroom. Washington, D.C: NEA Professional Library, National Education Association. Gillies, R. (2007). The teacher's role in implementing cooperative learning in the classroom. New York London: Springer. Jacob, E. (1999). Cooperative learning in context : an educational innovation in everyday classrooms. Albany: State University of New York Press. Jolliffe, W. (2007). Cooperative learning in the classroom putting it into practice. London Thousand Oaks, Calif: Paul Chapman Pub. SAGE Publications. Johnson, D. (1991). Cooperative learning : increasing college faculty instructional productivity. Washington, DC: School of Education and Human Development, George Washington University. Kagan, Spencer (1994). Cooperative learning. San Juan Capistrano, CA: Kagan Cooperative Learning. Lyman, L. (1993). Cooperative learning in the elementary classroom. Washington, D.C: NEA Professional Library. Sharan, Y. (1992) Expanding cooperative learning through group investigation. New York: Teachers College Press. Walter, S. (2004). Education programs for improving intergroup relations theory, research, and practice. New York: Teachers College Press. Read More