Implications and Effects of Cooperative Learning - Essay Example

Implications and Effects of Cooperative Learning Definition of Terms Cooperative Learning – a teaching strategy that is commonly applied to a small, heterogeneous group of students who are working together in order to achieve a common goal. (Kagan, 1994) Low Achievers – refers to students that fails to achieve good grades in school, having difficulty in learning, and is often characterized by having to repeat a subject for another semester. Introduction Cooperative learning has been considered one of the best approaches in enabling the students to become motivated in terms of their individual learning process and acquiring a better academic performance. In the process that students go through cooperative learning, learners are being taught how to become responsible for their own learning including their teammates’ learning performance. It also promotes a simultaneous interaction among the students in class. One of the better sides of cooperative learning is the fact that the learning strategy is not limited in developing a positive impact on the learners’ learning potential. It also has a long-term implication on the future work performance of the students since cooperative learning teaches them to appreciate the importance of team work or positive interdependence as they go through the process of individual accountability and equal sharing of responsibilities for the benefit of the team. Considering the positive effects of cooperative learning on students’ academic performance, the use of cooperative learning could create a serious instructional dilemma in the case of students who are considers as academically low achievers and those students who works best without social interactions. Implication and Effect of Cooperative Learning for Low Achieving Students For many years, cooperative learning has been considered as effective instructional strategies when it comes to enhancing the students’ social skills, student learning process including their academic performances regardless of their educational level. (Johnson & Johnson, 1999) Cooperative learning is defined as “a social interdependence theory assuming that cooperative efforts are based on intrinsic motivation that is being generated by interpersonal factors and a joint aspiration to achieve a common goal.” (Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 1998) It means that students are expected to encourage and support each other as they work on accomplishing a new project. Aiming to develop a variety of effective teaching methods that could promote cooperative learning, researchers such as: Johnson and Johnson (1999) developed the ‘Learning Together’ aside from the ‘Alone and Constructive Controversy’; Cohen (1998) introduced the ‘Complex Instruction’; Sharan and Sharan (1994) created the ‘Group Investigation in the Cooperative Classroom’; Kagan and Kagan (1994) developed the ‘Structural Approach: Six Keys to Cooperative Learning’; and Slavin (1986) implemented the use of ‘Student Teams Achievement Divisions’ (STAD). Even though these five teaching methods promote cooperative learning, each of these methods has its own especial functions and proper applications. Robert E. Slavin’s ‘Student Teams Achievement Divisions’ (STAD) is one component of the three strategies of Student Learning Teams that has been developed at Johns Hopkins University. (John Hopkins University, n.d.) STAD is very flexible since it can be used in any subject at all levels. In the process of using STAD method, teachers are responsible in grouping 4 – 5 students as one team when trying to solve a given case study. When it comes to academic assessment, students are given individual quizzes which will be totalled with other group members in order to compute the team’s score. Learning Together by Johnson and Johnson is a model that organizes teaching instruction based on the principles of good interdependence, individual accountability including the importance of developing social and collaborative skills through the promotion of one-on-one interaction. (Ghaith, 2003) The function of individual accountability in Learning Together is important since it avoids allowing some students to from enjoying a ‘free-ride’ from the work performance of their team members. Unlike the other models, Learning Together also provides a conceptual framework on how teachers should plan and develop a teaching instruction based on the students’ specific needs and school context. (Johnson & Johnson, 1989: 226) The Complex Instruction (CI) is an instructional approach that is commonly used by teachers when they try to engage the students to go through a cooperative group work while teaching the students in higher academic levels. Contrary to the flexibility of the STAD (John Hopkins University, n.d.), complex instruction is not compatible to lower grade level since these students have not yet completely develop their critical thinking needed in making the complex instruction work. The usual role of teachers when it comes to being the main source of knowledge, giving direct feedback to students, and controlling over the class discussion are disregarded when using complex instruction since these functions are taken over by the students. (Ben-Ari, 1997) In the process, students are able to develop and strengthen the cognitive abilities of students enrolled in higher educational level. The Group Investigation in the Cooperative Classroom by Sharan and Sharan (1990) provides the students with more choices and control over their own learning process as compared with other cooperative learning methods. In the learning process of the students, learners are given the opportunity to be a part of the planning the teaching and learning process. In other teaching methods, students are not given the opportunity to choose their own team members based on their common personal interests. It is only with Group Investigation method wherein students could enjoy forming their own group members. (Blosser, 1992) Lastly, the Structural Approach: The Six Keys to Cooperative Learning by Kagan and Kagan (1994) is an instructional method that is not based on a lesson plan. The said instructional method makes the planning and preparation of structural approach to cooperative learning minimal. Since the students are not aware on what to expect in each class, the use of Kagan structural approach makes the teaching and learning even more exciting and fun. (Kagan, Winter 2003) For this reason, most of the students under the use of this teaching model are highly motivational on the part of the students. Cooperative learning has been widely used by educational institutions for the reasons that the teaching method is purely based on theory, proven effective by several research studies, and is easily applicable to students of all ages. (Johnson, Johnson, & Stanne, 2000) Similar to the of positive result of Sapon-Shevin’s (1994) study on the impact of cooperative learning on the students’ academic performance, a past research study conducted by Slavin (1991) regarding cooperative learning reveals that cooperative learning strategy could improve the students’ academic achievement as well as their interpersonal relationship skills regardless of the subject matter, educational level, or geographical location of the schools (urban, rural, and/or suburban). This study also shows that the application of cooperative learning is proven to improve the learning and academic performance of students that are high, average, and low achievers. Eventhough there is no research studies found to determine the effectiveness of Kagan’s Cooperative Learning Structure, the meta-analysis conducted by Johnson, Johnson, and Stanne (2000) which includes a total of ten cooperative learning methods particularly Johnson & Johnson’s ‘Learning Together and Alone’ and ‘Constructive Controversy’; Aronson & Associates’ ‘Jigsaw Procedure’; Slavin & Associates’ ‘Student Teams Achievement Divisions’ (STAD) and ‘Team Accelerated Instruction’ (TAI); Cohen’s ‘Complex Instruction’; Stevens, Slavin, & Associates’ ‘Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition’ (CIRC); Kagan’s ‘Cooperative Learning Structures’; Sharan & Sharan’s ‘Group Investigation’; and DeVries & Edwards’ Teams-Games-Tournaments (TGT) shows that cooperative learning methods is most likely to create a positive academic results among the students than the use of competitive or individualistic methods of learning. Another study shows that teachers who have decided to adopt the Student Teams Achievement Divisions (STAD) should strictly utilize the cooperative learning framework to avoid future arguments due to possible management conflicts. (Nath & Ross, 1996) In line with the STAD method, teachers should be able to know by heart the teaching philosophy and set of effective teaching principles in order to gain benefits with the use of the Student Teams Achievement Divisions (STAD) method. (Sapon-Shevin & Schniedewind (1989 / 1990) Since cooperative learning is usually conducted in group of students which is primarily composed of high, average, and low achieving students belonging to different ethnicity and gender, peer tutoring and learning support being extended to the low achieving students improve the mutual concerns of each students. Considering that cooperative learning enhances the social interaction among the students, the special learning needs of the low achieving students can be fulfilled. (Johnson, 1998) In some cases, randomly selected team members could develop and enhance each of the students’ knowledge, skills, and talents to meet their specific end-goal. (Kagan, 1994) The combination of establishing a common group goal and having an individual accountability are considered a common factor when it comes of maximizing the effects of cooperative learning on the students’ academic performance. In general, the use of individual grading system combined with group grades and team rewards could increase the motivation of students to participate in the group activities. (Slavin, 1995) However, other researchers argued that the use of a combined grading and team rewards could result to the possibility of promoting a free-rider effect among the students who chose not to participate in the group activitiy or extend their maximum capabilities to improve the group performance. (Joyce, 1999; Cohen, 1998) Teachers should avoid using a group grading system since it could de-emphasize the students’ personal ability, perseverance to strive hard in school activitiy, and hard-work. (Kagan, 1995) For this reason, the grading system or learning assessment becomes crucial when using collaborative learning because of the possibility that high achievers could take over all the academic work and leaving the low achievers doing nothing. In the process, the low achievers loses their learning opportunity. A positive social interaction among the students does not always result to an improved academic performance. A good social interaction could establish and maintain trust among the students provided that a good leadership is present in order to manage petty conflicts that could hinder the students’ academic performance. (Goodwin, 1999) In line with this matter, students with disorders related to their behavior performs better in terms of their academic performance when given a direct instructional method instead of applying the cooperative group method whereas students that were provided with social skills instruction performs better with cooperative group method. (Prater, Bruhl and Serna, 1998) Basically, socialization is important among the students as well as being a part of a group since it allows them to share their inner most feelings and eventually receive some emotional motivation and support from their peers as they learn to view other people’s perspectives. (Sapon-Shevin, 1994) A traditional teaching method wherein teachers have more control in giving lessons in class and individual assignments; including other necessary assessments could be less motivational among some of the students. Using cooperative learning strategy breaks the monotonous teaching and learning relationship between the mentors and the learners. With the use of cooperative learning, students are encouraged to interact with their fellow students by allowing them to go through a group work. A good social interaction among the students does not promise a good academic performance among the low achievers. Since social interaction among the students enables them to build trust on their fellow students (Goodwin, 1999), there is a strong tendency that learners’ motivation in terms of learning and participating in group work could increase over time. By strengthening the students’ ‘trust’ among their team members, the learning experience among the students becomes more enjoyable regardless of their individual academic performances. As part of making the cooperative learning methods work, teachers need to determine the major factors that cause a student to become low achievers. By knowing these factors, it is easier for the teacher to come up with a proper solution on how to increase the academic performance of low achieving students. Not all students who are classified as low achievers are slow learners. There are also some possibilities that these students are not focused on their studies because of external problems related to their family, friends, or a significant other. Becoming bored in the teaching method use in a traditional class teaching also affects the learning abilities of the students. Collaborative learning allows each student to interact with their classmates. (Ghaith, 2003; Sharan & Sharan, 1990; John Hopkins University, n.d.) However, teachers need to assess whether it would we better to allow the low achieving students to have the freedom to be a part of the teaching and learning process as suggested by Sharan and Sharan (1990) in the Group Investigation method; allowing the students to be responsible in taking over their own learning through intensive research work or controlling over the class discussion that is being promoted in the Complex Instruction method; allowing the students to form into 4 – 5 team members as they try to solve a given case study as being described in the Student Teams Achievement Divisions (STAD); and / or implementing Kagan’s (2003) structural approach to learning which uses the six major key instructions to cooperative learning. The use of Structural Approach could increase the enjoyment of the students when participating in classroom activities due to the fact that the planning and preparation of the teaching instruction to be used in each class is not based on a strict lesson plan. (Kagan, 2003) There are some cases wherein a pure social learning theory is not enough to develop the cognitive learning of the students. (Ben-Ari, 1997) Some students learn through observation and imitation. Therefore, learning from students’ fellow students may not be very effective when it comes to increasing the learning performance of low achieving students. Despite all the benefits and good impact of cooperative learning in the academic performance of low achieving students, there will always be a limitation in each of the five cooperative learning methods presented in this study. In line with this matter, teachers should choose carefully by analyzing the type of cooperative learning teaching methods applicable for low achievers in Singapore Secondary Schools. In some cases, it is highly recommended to combine several teaching methods based on its especial functions in order to improve the academic performance of low achieving students. Conclusion The results of several research studies conducted in the past shows that cooperative learning improves the students’ social skills, makes learning experience more enjoyable as it increases the academic performance and interpersonal skills of high, average, and low achieving students regardless of the subject matter, educational level, or geographical location of the schools. (Johnson, Johnson, and Stanne, 2000; Johnson & Johnson, 1999; Sapon-Shevin, 1994; Slavin, 1991) Even though low achievers could improve their learning with the use of cooperative learning method, this strategy may not work all the time. There are some cases wherein the major cause of students’ low achievement is not due to a poor teaching method. Sometimes these low achieving students need special counseling to remove the negative emotions which could hinder the learning progress of the students. It is possible that the main cause of students’ academic failure is due to external factors such as problems related to their family, friends, and/or significant other. Therefore, it is essential for teachers to understand the main causes of the students’ low academic grades. In terms of enhancing and maximizing the impact of teaching methods in cooperative learning of the students, teachers should be able to manage to effectively combine the existing cooperative learning methods based on the teachers’ assessment on the students’ learning capabilities especially when the task assigned to a group of students requires a higher-level of critical thinking. Considering the different needs of each students’, mixing Johnson and Johnson’s ‘Learning Together’’; Cohen’s ‘Complex Instruction’; Sharan and Sharan’s ‘Group Investigation in the Cooperative Classroom’; Kagan and Kagan’s ‘Structural Approach: Six Keys to Cooperative Learning’; and Slavin’s ‘Student Teams Achievement Divisions’ (STAD) could create a more effective tool in order to improve the learning experience of the low achieving students in Singapore Secondary Schools. *** End *** References: Ben-Ari, R. (1997). Complex Instruction and Cognitive Development. In Cohen E.G. and Lotan R.A. (Eds) Working for Equity in Heterogenous Classrooms: Sociological Theory in Practice. NY: Teachers College Press. Blosser, P. (1992). Using Cooperative Learning in Science Education. Retrieved October 19, 2007, from Science, Mathematics, Technology, and Environmental Education: http://www.stemworks.org/Bulletins/SEB92-1.html Cohen, E. (1998). Making Cooperative Learning Equitable . Educational Leadership , 56:18 - 22. Cohen, E. (1998). Making Cooperative Learning Equitable. Educational Leadership , 56:18 - 21. Ghaith, G. (2003). Effects of the Learning Together Model of Cooperative Learning on English as a Foreign Language Reading Achievement, Academic Self-Esteem, and Feelings of School Alienation. Bilingual Research Journal , 27(3):451 - 474. Goodwin, M. (1999). Cooperative Learning and Social Skills: What Skills to Teach and How to Teach Them. Intervention in School & Clinic , 35: 29 - 34. John Hopkins University. (n.d.). Retrieved October 19, 2007, from STAD (Student Teams Achievement Division): http://www.pwcs.edu/curriculum/sol/stad.htm Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1989). Effective Staff Development in Cooperative Learning: Training, Transfer, and Long-Term Use. In Brody C. and Davidson N. (Eds) Professional Development for Cooperative Learning: Issues and Approaches. Albany: State University of New York Press. Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1999). Learning Together and Alone: Cooperative, Competitive, and Individualistic Learning (5th Ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Johnson, D., Johnson, R., & Smith, K. (July/August 1998). Change. 27 - 35. Johnson, D., Johnson, R., & Stanne, M. (2000, July). Cooperative Learning Methods: A Meta-Analysis. Retrieved October 18, 2007, from http://www.co-operation.org/pages/cl-methods.html Johnson, G. (1998). Principles of Instruction for At-Risk Learners. Preventing School Failure , 42:167 - 181. Joyce, W. (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. Kagan, S. (Winter 2003). Kagan Structures: Research and Rationale in a Nutshell. Retrieved October 19, 2007, from Kagan Online Magazine: http://www.kaganonline.com/KaganClub/FreeArticles/ResearchInNutshell.html Kagan, S., & Kagan, M. (1994). The Structural Approach: Six Keys to Cooperative Learning. In Sharan S. (Ed) Handbook of Cooperative Learning Methods. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Nath, L., & Ross, S. (1996). A Case Study of Implementing a Cooperative Learning Program in an Inner-City School. Journal of Experimental Education , 64:117 - 137. Prater, M., Bruhl, S., & Serna, L. (1998). Acquiring Social Skills through Cooperative Learning and Teacher-Directed Instruction. Remedial and Special Education , 19:160 - 172. Sapon-Shevin, M. (1994). Cooperative Learning and Middle Schools: What Would it Take to Really Do It Right? Theory into Practice , 33:183 - 190. Sapon-Shevin, M., & Schniedewind, N. (1989 / 1990). Selling Cooperative Learning without Selling it short. Educational Leadership , 47:63 - 65. Sharan, Y., & Sharan, S. (1994). Group Investigation in the Cooperative Classroom. In Sharan S. (Ed) Handbook of Cooperative Learning Methods. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press. Slavin, R. (1995). Cooperative Learning. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Slavin, R. (1991). Synthesis of Research on Cooperative Learning. Educational Leadership , 48:71 - 82. Slavin, R. (1986). Using Student Team Learning (3rd ed). Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University. Read More