1、Cooperative Learning: We Instead of Me1Running Head: COOPERATIVE LEARNINGLEARNING TOGETHERCooperative Learning: We Instead of MeCaryn AshersonCalifornia State University, NorthridgeCooperative Learning: We Instead of Me2ABSTRACTMany students enter school without a caring support system. This study a
2、imed to build small learning communities in the classroom in order to provide learners with nurturing, positive relationships with other students. It was theorized that beneficial interpersonal connections and a sense of belonging would help motivate students to put forth additional effort. Moreover
3、, it was presumed that if classmates success was tied together, group members would feel an obligation to do their best for the sake of the team. Ninety-two 6th grade science students at a public school in the Beverly Hills Unified School district were observed in cooperative learning groups to exam
4、ine whether working in teams had any effect on achievement, motivation to learn, and interpersonal relationships. Students were grouped by academic ability, gender, personality, perseverance, ability to stay on task, and previous success at team learning. Students were instructed using the Student-T
5、eams Achievement-Divisions (STAD) method. This method began with information being presented to students in a lecture format. Next, students worked in groups to master the material. Subsequently, they were given individual quizzes. Teams were recognized by earning improvement points on successive qu
6、izzes. The study did not find statistically significant improvement in achievement scores. However, the research did uncover that cooperative learning can lead to improvements in motivation and interpersonal relationships among students. Cooperative Learning: We Instead of Me3Chapter 1 Introduction“
7、Can we work on this with a partner?” There is not a week that goes by in which a student does not chime in with the aforementioned question. Undoubtedly, students yearn for opportunities to connect with their classmates. This can be especially true for middle school students given that early adolesc
8、ence can be a time when children struggle to fit in. Without a solid support system, feelings of loneliness and isolation can escalate. Therefore, by constructing learning groups in which students can collaborate, schools can ensure that every student is engaged in positive and caring alliances with
9、 peers. When implemented properly, cooperative learning can provide an ideal way to cultivate supportive relationships between students. At the same time, learning in teams can help equip pupils with the necessary critical thinking skills that will prepare them to enter todays workforce.Traditionall
10、y, students have been taught in whole groups where the teacher talks 70% of the time (Goodlad, 1984; Cuban, 1988; Sirotnick, 1983). Students have been expected to sit and listen passively, without talking or engaging with their classmates. Yet, studies have shown that students attention decreases as
11、 lectures progress (Stuart and Rutherford, 1978). Consequently, cooperative learning has changed classrooms from being “teacher-centered,” where the focus is on the teacher imparting knowledge to the pupils, to “student centered,” where the students are expected to take a more active part in their o
12、wn learning. In cooperative classrooms, students remain in charge of their own discoveries and can become truly excited about the learning process. When there is a shift to student-centered learning, “teacher talk” is reduced by 50%, Cooperative Learning: We Instead of Me4and that time can be spent
13、praising and aiding students in their exchange of ideas (Vermette, 1998).Purpose StatementThe purpose of this study was to explore the effects of cooperative learning on achievement, motivation, and interpersonal relationships in my 6th grade science classroom. Even though I had implemented team lea
14、rning in my classroom before, I had never been satisfied with the results. I had struggled to get students to feel like their success was mutually tied together. However, it always appeared that one or two students in the group frequently did most of the work, or else students worked separately. Mos
15、t students seemed to prefer working collaboratively; yet I often questioned whether they were actually achieving a great deal of learning in their groups. One of the key reasons I chose to study team learning was because I needed practice applying this instructional method successfully in my classro
16、om. I knew that, if executed effectively, collaborative teams could bring about a learning community in which all students felt acknowledged and accepted. At the same time it could promote the use of higher level thinking skills and active, meaningful learning. Moreover, I knew that listening to stu
17、dents working in groups could provide me with a greater insight into how well key concepts were being understood.I hypothesized that underachieving students would be more motivated to learn when their peers depended on them for team success. In turn, I believed that high-achieving students would hel
18、p their low-performing partners process abstract information by simplifying the language of Cooperative Learning: We Instead of Me5the text. All in all, the ultimate goal was to empower students to reach their full potential and be the best they could be.The specific research questions are: 1. What
19、are the effects of cooperative learning on student achievement?2. Does working in cooperative groups increase motivation and interpersonal relations between students?Importance of the StudyIn todays workforce, people are expected to work collaboratively, as well as to possess problem solving skills
20、and analytic abilities. Cooperative learning prepares students for the realities that they will be facing when they enter the existing job market. Working in teams will refine students abilities to reason, as well as increase their understanding of complex ideas and content knowledge (Johnson wherea
21、s the other group was taught using individualized instruction. The collaborative teams scored much higher on the tests generated by their teachers. Moreover, the investigators found that constructing teams of students with diverse backgrounds and various achievement levels did not negatively affect
22、the academic advantage that cooperative groups provided. As a result, the study not only supported the idea that cooperative learning could enhance achievement; it also substantiated the use of mixed, heterogeneous grouping.Next, Sharan, Ackerman, and Hertz-Lazarowitz (1980) proved that small-group
23、instruction led to higher order learning. Two-hundred and seventeen students in the second through sixth grades were involved in a study in which large group discussion was compared with learning in small groups. The evidence from the study found that the students who learned Cooperative Learning: W
24、e Instead of Me10in the small groups were more creative and benefited academically from collaborating with each other. Their cognitive reasoning abilities and critical thinking skills improved.Moreover, Humphreys, Johnson, and Johnson (1982) found that cooperative learning resulted in increased comp
25、rehension, recall, and transfer of knowledge. The researchers instigated a six week study involving 44 ninth graders. Students were taught under one of three circumstances: cooperatively, competitively, and individualistically. One week after all of the units, students took a retention test to evalu
26、ate the long standing effects of the teaching strategies. The authors stated, “In all aspects, members of the cooperative team scored higher; they liked their classes better, they learned more, and they remembered more for a longer amount of time” (p.355). Thus, cooperative learning can increase the
27、 enjoyment of learning, advance academic achievement, and improve student retention rates. This outcome provided a significant rationale for the implementation of group learning. These are just several of the overwhelming number of studies that demonstrated the academic benefits that cooperative lea
28、rning might foster. These reports influenced my research in that they reinforced my confidence that applying cooperative learning practices in my classroom could lead to positive academic growth for my students. I employed several of the same tactics to implement my research to see if my results wou
29、ld yield similar findings to the studies mentioned above. Cooperative Learning: We Instead of Me11MotivationResearch showed that when students worked in groups, they were more enthusiastic about taking responsibility for their own learning. Jeanne Gibbs claimed (2006), “The power of being included a
30、nd valued by peers motivates students to actively participate in their own learning” (p.10). Therefore, when instruction becomes student-centered, students have an increased incentive to partake in schoolwork and they put more effort into their learning. By providing students with positive connectio
31、ns to other learners, teachers can inspire students to become increasingly involved in their own education.Working together in teams was a positive motivating experience in a study conducted by Slavin and Karweit (1981). In this investigation, 456 fourth and fifth graders were assigned to two groups
32、. In one group, students were taught using individualistic teaching methods. The second group was taught using cooperative learning methods. The students were surveyed after one semester and the results determined an increase in motivation to learn and in self esteem. The researchers concluded that
33、“teamed students are more likely to succeed in schoolwork and therefore feel more motivated to learn in this way” (p.34). Slavin and Karweit speculated that working in groups resulted in students academic success which, accordingly, made the learners feel good. This, in turn, elevated student motiva
34、tion to learn.When team members like each other and have positive feelings toward their group they will be more likely to put forth their best effort (Johnson Vermette, 1998). Thus, each group consisted of a mix of high- and low-ability students with average ability students.Additionally, the teams
35、were built with attention paid to gender. Deborah Tannen, an expert on communication patterns between males and females, found that men and women use Cooperative Learning: We Instead of Me16talk for different reasons. She maintained, “Men use talk to solve problems, build hierarchies, and maintain p
36、ower, whereas women used it to build communities, forge connections, and simply for venting (p.84, Tannen).” As a result, the teams were constructed using a 50-50 gender split. The expectation was that this group arrangement would increase the likelihood of a combination of positive group qualities
37、including, a strong focus on completing the task at hand, willingness to act as a leader, a comfort with interacting with new people, and responsiveness to other peoples feelings and outlooks (Vermette, 1998). These factors seemed to play a significant part in generating a dynamic and productive tea
38、m. In fact, several research studies have substantiated the claim that the use of a 50-50 gender split generated more positive benefits than would have occurred in single-sex teams (Warring, Johnson, Maruyama, Johnson, Johnson, Scott, Sadker whereas 13 favored working alone. When asked why they woul
39、d prefer to work in a group, these were the most common responses:Response Number of Student ResponsesCooperative Learning: We Instead of Me23Because its more fun and you have someone to keep you company.20Two heads are better than one/ It cuts down on the work you have to do and makes it easier.31B
40、ecause if I dont understand something, my partner can help me/We can incorporate each others ideas and hear other opinions.22The most common responses to preferring to work alone included:Response Number of Student ResponsesI like to work alone because that way I can do things how I want to/ I like
41、to be in control.7I can accomplish more by myself/Its less of a hassle.4It is less distracting/ I dont have to keep telling my partners to pay attention.5I dont want my partners to do something wrong.2What are the effects of cooperative learning on student achievement?The first topic studied in grou
42、ps was plate tectonics. Information was first presented to the students in the form of a lecture. The lessons lasted one to two class periods and incorporated visuals and various forms of multimedia. Next, students worked in teams for one to two class sessions to ensure that all group members had ma
43、stered the material. They worked collectively to complete review worksheets. Then they discussed answers to questions in their workbooks and addressed each others misunderstandings. Individual tests were given after the teacher presented Cooperative Learning: We Instead of Me24the material and one t
44、o two periods of the students practicing in teams. Group members were not allowed to help each other during the tests.Chapter 1 Test - Coperative GroupsPeriod 1A40%B32%C0%D16%F12%ABCDFThe first test revealed relatively positive results, with 72% of the class receiving As or Bs. Of the four students
45、who received Ds, one was an English Language Learner (ELL) and another was a special needs student with autism. Additionally, one of the students had a 61% grade point average in the class. One of the students who earned an F on the test was a resource student with an IEP and the other student had a
46、 58% average in the class. These low scores were not atypical of these students. The overall class average was 78.3%.The next topic covered was volcanoes. Students worked on various tasks in groups including testing the thickness of liquids and relating viscosity to the explosivity of volcanic erupt
47、ions. Cooperative Learning: We Instead of Me25They examined the textures of different volcanic rocks, as well as mapped the location patterns of volcanoes around the world. At the close of the unit, students practiced for the test with their teams for several days. Chapter 3 Test- Coperative Groups
48、Period 1A8%B24%C4%D24%F40% ABCDFThe mean score was 64.5 % which was 13.8% lower than the average from the original test. There were twice as many Ds and Fs compared to the previous exam. It is possible that students did exceptionally well on the first test because it was the first time they got the
49、chance to work together as a team. The novelty of the experience might have been very motivating for students. However, it might be more likely that the reason for the increased failure rate was that less time was spent reviewing how to work cooperatively during this unit. Because students had done so well during the first chapter, it was mistakenly assumed that less time had to be spent Cooperative Learning: We Instead of Me26modeling how to communicate efficiently and how to settle conflicts constructively. As a result, it is likely that students were not as focu
