An Overview Of Cooperative Learning
David W Johnson and Roger T Johnson
Without the cooperation of its members society cannot survive, and
the society of man has survived because the cooperativeness of its
members made survival possible…. It was not an advantageous individual
here and there who did so, but the group. In human societies the
individuals who are most likely to survive are those who are best
enabled to do so by their group.
(Ashley Montagu, 1965)
How students interact with each another is a neglected aspect of
instruction. Much training time is devoted to helping teachers arrange
appropriate interactions between students and materials (i.e.,
textbooks, curriculum programs) and some time is spent on how teachers
should interact with students, but how students should interact with one
another is relatively ignored. It should not be. How teachers
structure student-student interaction patterns has a lot to say about
how well students learn, how they feel about school and the teacher, how
they feel about each other, and how much self-esteem they have.
In the mid-1960s, cooperative learning was relatively unknown and
largely ignored by educators. Elementary, secondary, and university
teaching was dominated by competitive and individualistic learning.
Cultural resistance to cooperative learning was based on social
Darwinism, with its premise that students must be taught to survive in a
“dog-eat-dog” world, and the myth of “rugged individualism” underlying
the use of individualistic learning. While competition dominated
educational thought, it was being challenged by individualistic learning
largely based on B. F. Skinner’s work on programmed learning and
behavioral modification. Educational practices and thought, however,
have changed. Cooperative learning is now an accepted and often the
preferred instructional procedure at all levels of education.
Cooperative learning is presently used in schools and universities in every part of the world, in every subject area, and with every age student. It is difficult to find a text on instructional methods, a teacher’s journal, or instructional materials that do not discuss cooperative learning. Materials on cooperative learning have been translated into dozens of languages. Cooperative learning is now an accepted and highly recommended instructional procedure.
Cooperative learning is presently used in schools and universities in every part of the world, in every subject area, and with every age student. It is difficult to find a text on instructional methods, a teacher’s journal, or instructional materials that do not discuss cooperative learning. Materials on cooperative learning have been translated into dozens of languages. Cooperative learning is now an accepted and highly recommended instructional procedure.
Definition of Cooperative Learning
Students’ learning goals may be structured to promote cooperative,
competitive, or individualistic efforts. In every classroom,
instructional activities are aimed at accomplishing goals and are
conducted under a goal structure. A learning goal is a desired future
state of demonstrating competence or mastery in the subject area being
studied. The goal structure specifies the ways in which students will
interact with each other and the teacher during the instructional
session. Each goal structure has its place (Johnson & Johnson,
1989, 1999).
In the ideal classroom, all students would learn how to work cooperatively with others, compete for fun and enjoyment, and work autonomously on their own. The teacher decides which goal structure to implement within each lesson. The most important goal structure, and the one that should be used the majority of the time in learning situations, is cooperation.
In the ideal classroom, all students would learn how to work cooperatively with others, compete for fun and enjoyment, and work autonomously on their own. The teacher decides which goal structure to implement within each lesson. The most important goal structure, and the one that should be used the majority of the time in learning situations, is cooperation.
Cooperation is working together to accomplish shared goals. Within
cooperative situations, individuals seek outcomes that are beneficial to
themselves and beneficial to all other group members. Cooperative
learning is the instructional use of small groups so that students work
together to maximize their own and each others 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.
In cooperative and individualistic learning, you evaluate student efforts on a criteria-referenced basis while in competitive learning you grade students on a norm-referenced basis. While there are limitations on when and where you may use competitive and individualistic learning appropriately, you may structure any learning task in any subject area with any curriculum cooperatively.
In cooperative and individualistic learning, you evaluate student efforts on a criteria-referenced basis while in competitive learning you grade students on a norm-referenced basis. While there are limitations on when and where you may use competitive and individualistic learning appropriately, you may structure any learning task in any subject area with any curriculum cooperatively.
Theorizing on social interdependence began in the early 1900s, when
one of the founders of the Gestalt School of Psychology, Kurt Koffka,
proposed that groups were dynamic wholes in which the interdependence
among members could vary. One of his colleagues, Kurt Lewin refined
Koffka’s notions in the 1920s and 1930s while stating that
(a) the essence of a group is the interdependence among members (created by common goals) which results in the group being a “dynamic whole” so that a change in the state of any member or subgroup changes the state of any other member or subgroup,
and (b) an intrinsic state of tension within group members motivates movement toward the accomplishment of the desired common goals. For interdependence to exist, there must be more than one person or entity involved, and the persons or entities must have impact on each other in that a change in the state of one causes a change in the state of the others. From the work of Lewin’s students and colleagues, such as Ovisankian, Lissner, Mahler, and Lewis, it may be concluded that it is the drive for goal accomplishment that motivates cooperative and competitive behavior.
(a) the essence of a group is the interdependence among members (created by common goals) which results in the group being a “dynamic whole” so that a change in the state of any member or subgroup changes the state of any other member or subgroup,
and (b) an intrinsic state of tension within group members motivates movement toward the accomplishment of the desired common goals. For interdependence to exist, there must be more than one person or entity involved, and the persons or entities must have impact on each other in that a change in the state of one causes a change in the state of the others. From the work of Lewin’s students and colleagues, such as Ovisankian, Lissner, Mahler, and Lewis, it may be concluded that it is the drive for goal accomplishment that motivates cooperative and competitive behavior.
In the late 1940s, one of Lewin’s graduate students, Morton Deutsch,
extended Lewin’s reasoning about social interdependence and formulated a
theory of cooperation and competition (Deutsch, 1949, 1962). Deutsch
conceptualized three types of social interdependence–positive, negative,
and none. Deutsch’s basic premise was that the type of interdependence
structured in a situation determines how individuals interact with each
other which, in turn, largely determines outcomes. Positive
interdependence tends to result in promotive interaction, negative
interdependence tends to result in oppositional or contrient
interaction, and no interdependence results in an absence of
interaction. Depending on whether individuals promote or obstruct each
other’s goal accomplishments, there is substitutability, cathexis, and
inducibility. The relationships between the type of social
interdependence and the interaction pattern it elicits is assumed to be
bidirectional. Each may cause the other. Deutsch’s theory has served
as a major conceptual structure for this area of inquiry since 1949.
Types Of Cooperative Learning
Formal Cooperative Learning
Formal cooperative learning
consists of students working together, for one class period to several
weeks, to achieve shared learning goals and complete jointly specific
tasks and assignments (Johnson, Johnson, & Holubec, 2008). In
formal cooperative learning groups the teachers’ role includes (see
Figure 4):
1. Making preinstructional decisions.
Teachers (a) formulate both academic and social skills objectives, (b)
decide on the size of groups, (c) choose a method for assigning students
to groups, (d) decide which roles to assign group members, (e) arrange
the room, and (f) arrange the materials students need to complete the
assignment. In these preinstructional decisions, the social skills
objectives specify the interpersonal and small group skills students are
to learn. By assigning students roles, role interdependence is
established. The way in which materials are distributed can create
resource interdependence. The arrangement of the room can create
environmental interdependence and provide the teacher with easy access
to observe each group, which increases individual accountability and
provides data for group processing.
2. Explaining the instructional task and cooperative structure.Teachers
(a) explain the academic assignment to students, (b) explain the
criteria for success, (c) structure positive interdependence, (d)
structure individual accountability, (e) explain the behaviors (i.e.,
social skills) students are expected to use, and (f) emphasize
intergroup cooperation (this eliminates the possibility of competition
among students and extends positive goal interdependence to the class as
a whole). Teachers may also teach the concepts and strategies required
to complete the assignment. By explaining the social skills emphasized
in the lesson, teachers operationalize (a) the social skill objectives
of the lesson and (b) the interaction patterns (such as oral rehearsal
and jointly building conceptual frameworks) teachers wish to create.
3. Monitoring students’
learning and intervening to provide assistance in (a) completing the
task successfully or (b) using the targeted interpersonal and group
skills effectively. While conducting the lesson, teachers monitor
each learning group and intervene when needed to improve taskwork and
teamwork. Monitoring the learning groups creates individual
accountability; whenever a teacher observes a group, members tend to
feel accountable to be constructive members. In addition, teachers
collect specific data on promotive interaction, the use of targeted
social skills, and the engagement in the desired interaction patterns.
This data is used to intervene in groups and to guide group processing.
4. Assessing students’ learning and helping students process how well their groups functioned.
Teachers (a) bring closure to the lesson, (b) assess and evaluate the
quality and quantity of student achievement, (c) ensure students
carefully discuss how effectively they worked together (i.e., process
the effectiveness of their learning groups), (d) have students make a
plan for improvement, and (e) have students celebrate the hard work of
group members. The assessment of student achievement highlights
individual and group accountability (i.e., how well each student
performed) and indicates whether the group achieved its goals (i.e.,
focusing on positive goal interdependence). The group celebration is a
form of reward interdependence. The feedback received during group
processing is aimed at improving the use of social skills and is a form
of individual accountability. Discussing the processes the group used
to function, furthermore, emphasizes the continuous improvement of
promotive interaction and the patterns of interaction need to maximize
student learning and retention.
Informal Cooperative Learning
Informal cooperative learning
consists of having students work together to achieve a joint learning
goal in temporary, ad-hoc groups that last from a few minutes to one
class period (Johnson, Johnson, & Holubec, 2008). During a lecture,
demonstration, or film, informal cooperative learning can be used to
focus student attention on the material to be learned, set a mood
conducive to learning, help set expectations as to what will be covered
in a class session, ensure that students cognitively process and
rehearse the material being taught, summarize what was learned and
precue the next session, and provide closure to an instructional
session. The teacher’s role for using informal cooperative learning to
keep students more actively engaged intellectually entails having
focused discussions before and after the lesson (i.e., bookends) and
interspersing pair discussions throughout the lesson. Two important
aspects of using informal cooperative learning groups are to (a) make
the task and the instructions explicit and precise and (b) require the
groups to produce a specific product (such as a written answer). The
procedure is as follows.
1. Introductory Focused Discussion:
Teachers assign students to pairs or triads and explain (a) the task of
answering the questions in a four to five minute time period and (b)
the positive goal interdependence of reaching consensus. The discussion
task is aimed at promoting advance organizing of what the students know
about the topic to be presented and establishing expectations about
what the lecture will cover. Individual accountability is ensured by
the small size of the group. A basic interaction pattern of eliciting
oral rehearsal, higher-level reasoning, and consensus building is
required.
2. Intermittent Focused Discussions:
Teachers divide the lecture into 10 to 15 minute segments. This is
about the length of time a motivated adult can concentrate on
information being presented. After each segment, students are asked to
turn to the person next to them and work cooperatively in answering a
question (specific enough so that students can answer it in about three
minutes) that requires students to cognitively process the material just
presented. The procedure is:
a. Each student formulates his or her answer.
b. Students share their answer with their partner.
c. Students listen carefully to their partner’s answer.
d. The pairs create a new answer that is superior to each member’s
initial formulation by integrating the two answers, building on each
other’s thoughts, and synthesizing.
The question may require students to:
a. Summarize the material just presented.
b. Give a reaction to the theory, concepts, or information presented.
c. Predict what is going to be presented next; hypothesize.
d. Solve a problem.
e. Relate material to past learning and integrate it into conceptual frameworks.
f. Resolve conceptual conflict created by presentation.
Teachers should ensure that students are seeking to reach an
agreement on the answers to the questions (i.e., ensure positive goal
interdependence is established), not just share their ideas with each
other. Randomly choose two or three students to give 30 second
summaries of their discussions. Such individual accountability ensures
that the pairs take the tasks seriously and check each other to ensure
that both are prepared to answer. Periodically, the teacher should
structure a discussion of how effectively the pairs are working together
(i.e., group processing). Group celebrations add reward
interdependence to the pairs.
3. Closure Focused Discussion:
Teachers give students an ending discussion task lasting four to five
minutes. The task requires students to summarize what they have learned
from the lecture and integrate it into existing conceptual frameworks.
The task may also point students toward what the homework will cover or
what will be presented in the next class session. This provides
closure to the lecture.
Informal cooperative learning ensures students are actively involved
in understanding what is being presented. It also provides time for
teachers to move around the class listening to what students are
saying. Listening to student discussions can give instructors direction
and insight into how well students understand the concepts and material
being as well as increase the individual accountability of
participating in the discussions.
http://www.co-operation.org/?page_id=65
http://www.co-operation.org/?page_id=65
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar