 |
| Misconceptions * All group work is cooperative * Students can work cooperatively to complete individual assignments * One student in a group usually ends up doing most of the work * Students perceive group evaluations as being unfair * Competition is a more realistic strategy * Difficult classroom management problems accompany the use of cooperative learning strategies * High achievers suffer academically when they work in heterogeneous groups * All group members do the same work at the same rate * Cooperative learning is easy to implement Taken From: Cooperative Learning Merrill Biology by Linda Lundgren, (Lake Forest, IL: Glencoe, 1991), p.2. |
| What is Cooperative Learning? |
| Differences Between Typical Groups & Cooperative Groups |
| Typical Groups * one leader * homogeneous * success of individual is unrelated to others in the group: individual products individual materials individual rewards * groups told to "cooperate" * get the job done is the priority * teachers uses intervening behaviors (Dishon and Wilson O'Leary, 1982) |
| Cooperative Groups * all members perform leadership skills * heterogeneous * success of individual is related to others in the group: group products group materials group rewards * social skills: defined, discussed, observed, processed * get the job done and like each other are the main tasks * teachers uses interacting behaviors (Dishon and Wilson O'Leary, 1982) |
| Benefits of Cooperative Learning |
| Many people look at different teaching strategies to compare their overall effectiveness. The main way that most people judge effectiveness is by evaluating student learning. If a strategy or program produces higher amounts of student learning than other programs, it is often considered to be an exemplary teaching strategy. By examining the research that has been done on cooperative learning, we are able to see that it produces a high level of student learning and understanding in a more effective and realistic setting. First, we can look at the student learning differences between cooperative learning and traditional individual learning. "There is substantial evidence that students working together in small cooperative groups can master material presented by the teacher better than can students working on their own" (Slavin p.1). Additionally, in comparison to traditional methods, cooperative learning results in an increase in basic achievement outomes, including performance on standardized tests (Slavin p.1). The National Association for Research in Science Teaching agrees with these findings by explaining that when students talk through material and make sure that all group members understand, they are much more likely to learn more material than they woul when working individually (NARST). According to research done by Jones and Jones, motivation has a direct correlation to student learning outcomes; "if learning activities could be made more interesting, involving and accessible to all, then problems of any kind, whether learning difficulties, behavioral difficulties, or a combination of the two would be less likely to arise" (1990). Consequently, it "makes sense" to use cooperative learning since more students are intrinsically motivated to learn the material when they work together than when they work individually (NARST). In addition to an increase in motivation, "students are more positive about the subject matter, the teacher, themselves as learners, and are more accepting of each other when they work together cooperatively" (NARST). Therefore, we can conclude that cooperative learning has a positive impact on student learning, student attitudes, and intrinsic motivation levels. The National |
|