Strengthen Cooperative Learning
Definitions
Cooperative Learning is pedagogy in which students study together in a specific type of group work that possesses five defining elements (Johnson & Johnson, 1989):
- Positive interdependence (sink or swim together – a win-win relationship)
- Face-to-face promotive interaction (helping each other learn, applauding success and efforts)
- Individual and group accountability (each one answerable to the achievement of the goal)
- Interpersonal and small group skills (communication, trust, leadership, decision making, conflict resolution)
- Group processing (reflecting on how well the team is functioning and how to improve)
Collaborative Learning as defined in EnTeam professional development is an extension of cooperative learning that includes all five elements listed above plus the additional element: the process of measuring cooperative performance. By measuring cooperative performance, objections to cooperative learning are solved.
Efficacy of Cooperative Learning
Research shows that cooperative learning is one of the most effective pedagogies in education because it produces students with high levels of academic achievement and respectful behavior toward each other and toward teachers (Gillies, 2007) (Marzano, Pickering, & Pollock, 2001). While numerous studies and meta-analyses show that cooperative learning is effective, research also shows that cooperative learning is used less often than would be desirable (Abrami, Poulsen, & Chambers, 2004).
Objections to Cooperative Learning
Although cooperative learning is an effective teaching method supported by extensive research and espoused by leading educators (Gillies, 2007), many teachers avoid using it. Three of the main reasons teachers object to cooperative learning are:
- Time objection – cooperative learning takes longer to prepare and to use than direct instruction.
- Assessment objection – grading individual student performance is difficult during the cooperative activity.
- Free-rider objection – strong students do most of the work and others get a free ride.
Each of these objections is overcome when teachers use the EnTeam process in alignment with the Common Core State Standards.
Time Objection
Teachers have two time objections to cooperative learning:
- It takes time to prepare lesson plans that use cooperative learning.
- It takes class time when students study cooperative learning lessons.
Preparing cooperative learning lessons is different from preparing lectures. Teachers who have invested time in writing lectures may be reluctant to use another pedagogy. When teachers use EnTeam framegames, the time required to create a cooperative learning lesson plan is brief.
Teachers can cover more curricular content during a class period when they use direct instruction by lecturing to students than is possible to cover with cooperative learning. Since teachers are often pressured to follow pacing guides that dictate how quickly they should present the curriculum, teachers feel that they do not have time to put students into small groups and allow them to explore ideas and discuss the content with other students.
The flaw in this objection is that students tend to retain only a small fraction of lectures and their ability to apply the content to diverse situations is less than the ability of students taught through cooperative learning. Therefore, the time devoted to cooperative learning is more productive than time spent in lectures because students gain more in an hour of cooperative learning than an hour of lecture. And fortunately, the Common Core State Standards reduce the breadth of curricular content required and stresses the depth of understanding.
Assessment Objection
When students work individually, the performance of each one can be evaluated and graded by observation. When students work in a cooperative-learning group, it is difficult to assess each individual’s progress. The assessment typically is made after the cooperative learning activity reaches a stopping point.
When teachers use the EnTeam process, a series of formative assessments occur and data on student performance is generated on the score sheets.
Free-Rider Problem
The most frequent complaint about cooperative learning is that a few students do most of the work and others do little and learn less from the experience. Even when teachers assign specific roles to individual students, the strong students tend to do most of the work. As a result, many students and teachers object to cooperative learning.
However, when teachers use the EnTeam process of measuring cooperative performance as explained below, the work is divided into discreet units where partners need each other. Because student need each other, students have an incentive to encourage each other to do their individual parts. As a result, the free rider problem is largely mitigated because of the positive peer pressure and the transparency of the scoring process.
Strategies for implementing Collaborative Learning
EnTeam Organization provides support for teachers who are interested in increasing their use of collaborative learning in several ways:
- Staff Professional Development
- Classroom-embedded professional development
- Bridge – Building Leagues
- EnTeam Certification in Measurement of Improvements in Cooperation
-
- Social-Emotional Learning Game Certification Training
- Academic Game Certification Training
- Online Game Certification Training
References
Abrami, P. C., Poulsen, C., & Chambers, B. (2004). Teacher motivation to implement an educational innovation: factors differentiating users and non-users of cooperative learning. Educational Psychology, Vol. 24, No. 2, 2001-216.
Gillies, R. M. (2007). Cooperative Learning: Integrating Theory and Practice. Los Angeles: Sage.
Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1989). Cooperation and Competition: Theory and Research. Edina, MN: Interaction.
Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J., & Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that works: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.