Instructor Suggestions for Teamwork and Project Management, 4th Edition
Karl A. Smith – ksmith@umn.edu - http://www.ce.umn.edu/~smith
Outline







Note to Instructors
Overview of instructional strategies with emphasis on pedagogies of engagement (cooperative
and problem-based cooperative learning)
Informal Cooperative Learning Strategies
o Formulate-Share-Listen-Create (Think-Pair-Share)
o Thinking Aloud Pair Problem Solving (TAPPS)
o Bookends on a Class Session
Formal Cooperative Learning Strategies
o Cooperative Problem-Based Learning
o Cooperative Jigsaw
Cooperative Base Groups (Cohort Groups)
Instructional materials and strategies for selected chapters
References and other Resources
Note to Instructor
Thank you for considering or adopting the 4th Edition of Teamwork and Project Management for your
students. The book is intended and designed to help build student’s knowledge, skills, and habits or mind
or modes of thinking in the areas of teamwork and project management. The ways in which you design
and implement learning activities and learning environments can significantly enhance student learning.
My advice to the reader is summarized in Chapter 1 on page 3 and his included below. Your job as
instructor is to ensure that students learn and I’m confident that incorporating activity, reflection and
collaboration will help.
The principal goal of this book is to provide you, the reader, guidance on how to engage
in intelligent teamwork in engineering contexts that emphasize design and innovation. As
we start this journey together, I offer you the following suggestions that will help you get
the most from this book. The essence of the suggestions is reflected in the words activity,
reflection, and collaboration. First, I encourage you to engage in the activities, especially
the exercises, in the book, as they will help you connect with the material and its realworld applications. Second, periodically throughout the book I’ll ask you to stop and
reflect. Take advantage of the opportunity. The goal is to give you a chance to describe to
yourself what you already know and to get you to think. Then when you read on about
the topic, you’ll have a basis for comparing and contrasting. Finally, I encourage you to
collaborate with others. Working together is the norm in projects. Working together to
learn the material in this book will make it easier, and very likely you’ll remember it
longer.
1
Overview of instructional strategies with emphasis on pedagogies of
engagement (cooperative and problem-based cooperative learning)
The suggested approach is essentially an engineering design approach (Streveler, Smith & Pilotte, 2012).
That is, I recommend starting with requirements or specifications, emphasizes metrics, and then prepare
prototypes that meet the requirements. I embrace Duderstadt’s (2008) argument that “faculty members of
the twenty-first-century college or university will find it necessary to set aside their roles as teachers and
instead become designers of learning experiences, processes, and environments.”
The idea of an engineering design approach to designing courses, often referred to as a backward-looking
design process (Understanding by Design, Wiggins & McTighe, 2007) is to start by determining student
learning outcomes; develop acceptable evidence, especially feedback and assessment; and then plan
instruction. The approach has been and is being embraced by others, such as Felder and Brent’s (2003)
effective course design (Figure 1) and Fink’s creating significant learning experiences, in which he adds
emphasis on situational factors that influence the design (Fink, 2003), Figure 2.
Figure 1 Effective Course Design (Felder & Brent, 2003)
Figure 2 Creating Significant Learning Experiences (Fink, 2007)
The first step in the Understanding by Design (UbD) model is identifying what it is you want students to
know, to be able to do, and perhaps even to be as a result of the class session, learning module, course, or
program. In engineering classes learning outcomes are typically framed as cognitive outcomes, or what
we want the students to know. We encourage you to consider two additional dimensions of outcomes.
What do we want students to be able to do? And who do we want to the students to be? In other words,
what are the values and attitudes shared by members of the community that result from our designed
learning experience? Wiggins and McTighe (1998) recommend identifying big ideas, topics or processes
that (1) have enduring value beyond the classroom, (2) reside at the heart of the discipline, (3) require
“uncoverage” through faculty guidance and insights. Finally, in planning for pedagogies of engagement
(cooperative learning and problem-based learning), Wiggins and McTighe recommend considering to
what extent the idea, topic, or process offers potential for engaging students.
The second step in the UbD model is determining acceptable evidence to decide whether or not, or to
what extent, students have met the learning goals. The most important design aspect here is to use
criterion-referenced grading system, that is, a mastery model (Bloom, et.al., 1981; Smith, 1996, 1998)
2
such as a point system (i.e. >90% = A) or contract system instead of a norm referenced grading system
(grading “on the curve”). Bloom, et al. (1981) made this point as follows:
If we are effective in our instruction, the distribution of achievement should be very
different from the normal curve. In fact, we may even insist that our educational efforts
have been unsuccessful to the extent that the distribution of achievement approximates
the normal distribution (p. 52).
Determining acceptable evidence of achievement is often guided through the use of a taxonomy of
student learning outcomes. Probably the most commonly used taxonomy in engineering programs in the
United States is Bloom and Krathwohl (1956); however, for the cognitive domain I recommend Anderson
and Krathwohl (2001). See Figure 3.
Figure 3 Revised Bloom Taxonomy (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001)
The third step in the backward design process is planning instruction. Since the focus in on teamwork and
project management, I recommend focusing on pedagogies of engagement – cooperative learning,
problem-based and project-based learning, inquiry guided learning – for learning outcomes that represent
big ideas, are at the heart of the discipline, require uncoverage, and have potential for engaging students.
3
Cooperative learning is the instructional use of small groups so that students work together to maximize
their own and each other’s learning (Johnson and Johnson, 1974; Smith, Johnson and Johnson, 1981;
Johnson, Johnson and Smith, 1991). Carefully structured cooperative learning involves people working in
teams to accomplish a common goal, under conditions that involve both positive interdependence (all
members must cooperate to complete the task) and individual and group accountability (each member
individually as well as all members collectively accountable for the work of the group). Research-based
essential elements of cooperative learning are summarized in Figure 4 and the types of cooperative
learning are summarized in Figure 5.
Figure 4. Basic Elements Of Cooperative Groups
Positive Interdependence
Team members perceive that they need each other in order to complete the group's task ("sink or swim
together"). Instructors may structure positive interdependence by establishing mutual goals (maximize
own and each other's productivity), joint rewards (if all group members achieve above the criteria, each
will receive bonus points), shared resources (members have different expertise), and assigned roles
(summarizer, encourager of participation, elaborator).
Individual Accountability
Assessing the quality and quantity of each member's contributions and giving the results to the group and
the individual.
Face-to-Face Promotive Interaction
Team members promote each other's productivity by helping, sharing, and encouraging efforts to
produce. Members explain, discuss, and teach what they know to teammates. Instructors structure teams
so that members sit knee-to-knee and talk through each aspect of the tasks they are working to complete.
Teamwork (Interpersonal And Small Group) Skills
Groups cannot function effectively if members do not have and use the needed social skills. Instructors
emphasize these skills as purposefully and precisely as job-performance skills. Collaborative skills
include instructorship, decision-making, trust- building, communication, and conflict-management skills.
Group Processing
Groups need specific time to discuss how well they are achieving their goals and maintaining effective
working relationships among members. Instructors structure group processing by assigning such tasks as
(a) list at least three member actions that helped the group be successful and (b) list one action that could
be added to make the group even more successful tomorrow. Instructors also monitor the groups and give
feedback on how well the groups are working together.
Figure 5. Types of Cooperative Learning
4
Informal Cooperative Learning Groups
Students work together in temporary, ad hoc groups that last for only one discussion or class period to
achieve joint learning goals. Informal cooperative learning groups are used to focus student attention on
the material to be learned, create an expectation set and mood conducive to learning, ensure students
cognitively process the material being taught, and provide closure to an instructional session.
Formal Cooperative Learning Groups
Students work together for one or several class sessions to achieve shared learning goals and complete
jointly specific tasks and assignments. Formal cooperative learning groups provide the foundation for all
other cooperative learning procedures. They are structured through pre-instructional decisions, setting the
task and the cooperative structure, monitoring the groups while they work and intervening to improve
taskwork and teamwork, and evaluating student learning and processing group functioning.
Cooperative Base (Cohort) Groups
Long-term groups (lasting for at least one semester or year) with stable membership whose primary
responsibility is to give each member the support, encouragement, and assistance he or she needs to
progress academically and develop cognitively and socially in healthy ways.
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, & Smith,
1998, 2006). Informal cooperative learning groups also ensure that misconceptions, incorrect
understanding, and gaps in understanding are identified and corrected, and learning experiences are
personalized. Every 10 to 15 minutes, students should be asked to discuss/process what they are learning.
Breaking up lectures with short cooperative processing times will give you slightly less lecture time, but
will help counter what is proclaimed as the main problem of lectures: "The information passes from the
notes of the professor to the notes of the student without passing through the mind of either one." During
lecturing and direct teaching the instructor ensures that students do the intellectual work of organizing
material, explaining it, summarizing it, and integrating it into existing conceptual networks. The
procedure for using informal cooperative learning consists of “focused discussions” before and after the
lecture (bookends) and interspersing turn-to-your-partner discussions throughout the lecture.
1. Introductory Focused Discussion: Plan one or two questions that will help students organize in
advance what they know about the topic to be presented and create an expectation set about what the
lecture will cover. Assign students to pairs or triads. Explain (a) the task of answering the questions
in a four-minute time period and (b) the positive goal interdependence of reaching consensus.
2. Turn-To-Your-Partner Discussions: 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, ask students to turn to the person next to them and work cooperatively in answering a
5
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
d. Solve a problem
b. Give a reaction to the theory, concepts, or
e. Relate material to past learning and
information presented
integrate it into conceptual framework
c. Predict what is going to be presented next; f. Resolve conceptual conflict created by
hypothesize
presentation
Ensure students are individually accountable for answering the question by randomly choosing two
or three students to give 30 second summaries of their pair discussions. Repeat this sequence of
lecture-segment and pair-discussion until the lecture is completed.
3. Closure Focused Discussion: Give a closure discussion task that requires students to summarize
what they have learned from the lecture. The discussion should result in students integrating what
they have just learned into existing conceptual frameworks, point students toward what the homework
will cover or what will be presented in the next class session, and identifies questions they have about
what was presented. This provides closure to the lecture.
Informal cooperative learning ensures students are actively involved in understanding what they are
learning. It also provides time for instructors to gather their wits, reorganize notes, take a deep breath,
and 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 taught
(who, unfortunately, may not have graduate degrees in the topic you are presenting).
Introductory Focused Discussion Pairs
Formulate-Share-Listen-Create
To prepare for the class session students may be required to complete a short initial focused discussion
task. Plan your lecture around a series of questions that will help students organize in advance what they
know about the topic to be presented and create an expectation set about what the lecture will cover.
Write the questions on an overhead transparency or on the board.
Task: Answer the questions.
Cooperative: Create, with your partner, one answer for each question, using the following sequence:
1. Each student formulates his or her answer.
2. Students share their answer with their partner.
3. Students listen carefully to partner's answer.
6
4. Pairs create a new answer that is superior to each member's initial formulation through the
process of association, building on each other's thoughts, and synthesizing.
The discussion is aimed at promoting advance organizing of what the students know about the topic
to be presented and to set expectations as to what the lecture will cover.
Expected Criteria For Success: Each student able to explain answers.
Individual Accountability: One member from the pair will be randomly chosen to explain the answer.
Periodically use the simultaneous explaining procedure of having each group member explain the
group's answers to a member of another group.
Expected Behaviors: Explaining, listening, synthesizing by all members.
Intergroup Cooperation: Whenever it is helpful, check procedures, answers, and strategies with another
group.
Informal Cooperative Learning Planning Form
Description of the Lecture
1. Lecture Topic: ____________________________________________________
2. Objectives (Major Understandings Students Need To Have At The End Of The Lecture):
a. _________________________________________________________________
b. _________________________________________________________________
3. Time Needed: ____________________________________________________
4. Method For Assigning Students To Pairs Or Triads: _____________
5. Method Of Changing Partners Quickly: __________________________
6. Materials (such as transparencies listing the questions to be discussed and describing the formulate,
share, listen, create procedure):
____________________________________________________________________
Advanced Organizer Question(s)
Questions should be aimed at promoting advance organizing of what the students know about the topic
to be presented and establishing expectations as to what the lecture will cover.
1. ____________________________________________________________________
2. ____________________________________________________________________
7
3. ____________________________________________________________________
Cognitive Rehearsal Questions
List the specific questions to be asked every 10 or 15 minutes to ensure that participants understand and
process the information being presented. Instruct students to use the formulate, share, listen, and create
procedure.
1. ____________________________________________________________________
2. ____________________________________________________________________
3. ____________________________________________________________________
4. ____________________________________________________________________
Monitor by systematically observing each pair. Intervene when it is necessary. Collect data for whole
class processing. Students' explanations to each other provide a window into their minds that allows you
to see what they do and do not understand. Monitoring also provides an opportunity for you to get the
know your students better.
Summary Question(s)
Give an ending discussion task and require students to come to consensus, write down the pair or triad's
answer(s), sign the paper, and hand it in. Signatures indicate that students agree with the answer, can
explain it, and guarantee that their partner(s) can explain it. The questions could (a) ask for a summary,
elaboration, or extension of the material presented or (b) precue the next class session.
1. ____________________________________________________________________
2. ____________________________________________________________________
Celebrate Students' Hard Work
1. ____________________________________________________________________
2. ____________________________________________________________________
8
Thinking Aloud Pair Problem Solving (TAPPS)
This problem-solving collaborative structure was introduced by Lochhead and Whimbey (1987) as a
means to encourage problem-solving skills by verbalizing to a listener one's problem-solving thoughts.
The idea behind TAPPS is that presenting aloud the problem-solving process helps analytical reasoning
skills. The dialogue associated with TAPPS helps build the contextual framework needed for
comprehension (MacGregor, 1990). Similarly, TAPPS permits students to rehearse the concepts, relate
them to existing frameworks, and produce a deeper understanding of the material (Slavin, 1995).
Students are paired and given a series of problems. The two students are given specific roles that switch
with each problem: Problem Solver and Listener. The problem solver reads the problem aloud and talks
through the solution to the problem. The listener follows all of the problem solver's steps and catches any
errors that occur. For the listener to be effective, he or she must also understand the reasoning process
behind the steps. This may require the listener to ask questions if the problem solver's thought process
becomes unclear. The questions asked, however, should not guide the problem solver to a solution nor
should they explicitly highlight a specific error except to comment that an error has been made. [Source:
http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/archive/cl1/cl/doingcl/tapps.htm]
Bookends on a Class Session
Common informal cooperative learning techniques include “focused discussions” before and after the
lecture (bookends) and interspersing turn-to-your-partner discussions throughout the lecture. Although
three to four minute turn-to-your-partner discussions are illustrated in Figure 6, many faculty provide one
to two minutes, and some can be as short as thirty seconds.
The bookends procedure usually begins with an engagement activity—a question or task that both sparks
the students’ curiosity and helps the instructor discover what they already know about the material. A
simple and commonly used engagement activity is, “List at least three insights you gained from the
reading assignment and at least one question.” The middle part is a series of back-and-forth transitions
between the instructor talking and students working individually and then in pairs or threes. The final
bookend activity is a guided reflection on the class using questions such as, “What were the most
important concepts today?” or “What was the muddiest point?” or “Explain the following concept in your
own words.” These and several additional questions may be found in Angelo and Cross (1993).
9
Figure 6 Bookends on a Class Session
Formal Cooperative Learning
Formal cooperative learning groups are more structured than informal cooperative learning groups, are
given more complex tasks, and typically stay together longer. Well-structured formal cooperative learning
groups are differentiated from poorly structured ones on the basis of the characteristics presented in Table
1. From these characteristics we can distill five essential elements to successful implementation of formal
cooperative learning groups: positive interdependence, face-to-face promotive interaction, individual
accountability/personal responsibility, teamwork skills, and group
10
processing.
Implementing Formal Cooperative Learning
Formal cooperative learning is students working together, for one class period to several weeks, to
achieve shared learning goals and complete jointly specific tasks and assignments (such as decision
making or problem solving, completing a project, writing a report, conducting a survey or experiment, or
reading a chapter or reference book, learning concepts or procedures, or answering questions at the end of
the chapter). Any course requirement or assignment may be reformulated to be cooperative. In formal
cooperative learning groups instructors:
1. Make Preinstructional Decisions: In every lesson you (a) formulate 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.
2. Explain the Task and Cooperative Structure: In every lesson you (a) explain the academic
assignment to students, (b) explain the criteria for success, (c) structure positive interdependence, (d)
explain the individual accountability, and (e) explain the behaviors you expect to see during the lesson.
3. Monitor and Intervene: While you (a) conduct the lesson, you (b) monitor each learning group and
(c) intervene when needed to improve taskwork and teamwork, and (d) bring closure to the lesson.
11
4. Evaluate and Process: You (a) assess and evaluate the quality and quantity of student achievement,
(b) ensure students carefully process the effectiveness of their learning groups, (c) have students make a
plan for improvement, and (d) have students celebrate the hard work of group members.
If students need help in completing the assignment, they are encouraged to first ask classmates for
assistance and request help from the instructor second. Students are expected to interact with groupmates,
share ideas and materials, support and encourage each other’s academic achievement, orally explain and
elaborate the concepts and strategies being learned, and hold each other accountable for completing the
assignment at a high level of excellence. A criterion-referenced evaluation is used. In each class session
instructors must make the choice of being "a sage on the stage" or "a guide on the side." In doing so they
might remember the challenge in teaching is not covering the material for the students, it's
uncovering the material with the students.
The Instructor's Role in Cooperative Learning
Make Pre-Instructional Decisions






Specify Academic and Teamwork Skills Objectives: Every lesson has both (a) academic and
(b) teamwork (interpersonal and small group) skills objectives.
Decide on Group Size: Learning groups should be small (groups of two or three members, four
at the most).
Decide on Group Composition (Assign Students to Groups): Assign students to groups
randomly or select groups yourself. Usually you will wish to maximize the heterogeneity in each
group.
Assign Roles: Structure student-student interaction by assigning roles such as Reader, Recorder,
Encourager of Participation and Checker for Understanding.
Arrange the Room: Group members should be "knee to knee and eye to eye" but arranged so
they all can see the instructor at the front of the room.
Plan Materials: Arrange materials to give a "sink or swim together" message. Give only one
paper to the group or give each member part of the material to be learned.
Explain Task And Cooperative Structure




Explain the Academic Task: Explain the task, the objectives of the lesson, the concepts and
principles students need to know to complete the assignment, and the procedures they are to
follow.
Explain the Criteria for Success: Student work should be evaluated on a criteria-referenced
basis. Make clear your criteria for evaluating students' work.
*Structure Positive Interdependence: Students must believe they "sink or swim together."
Always establish mutual goals (students are responsible for their own learning and the learning of
all other group members). Supplement, goal interdependence with celebration/reward, resource,
role, and identity interdependence.
Structure Intergroup Cooperation: Have groups check with and help other groups. Extend the
benefits of cooperation to the whole class.
12


*Structure Individual Accountability: Each student must feel responsible for doing his or her
share of the work and helping the other group members. Ways to ensure accountability are
frequent oral quizzes of group members picked at random, individual tests, and assigning a
member the role of Checker for Understanding.
*Specify Expected Behaviors: The more specific you are about the behaviors you want to see in
the groups, the more likely students will do them. Social skills may be classified as forming
(staying with the group, using quiet voices), functioning (contributing, encouraging others to
participate), formulating (summarizing, elaborating), and fermenting (criticizing ideas, asking
for justification). Regularly teach the interpersonal and small group skills you wish to see used in
the learning groups.
Monitor and Intervene



*Arrange Face-to-Face Promotive Interaction: Conduct the lesson in ways that ensure that
students promote each other’s success face-to-face.
Monitor Students' Behavior: This is the fun part! While students are working, you circulate to
see whether they understand the assignment and the material, give immediate feedback and
reinforcement, and praise good use of group skills. Collect observation data on each group and
student.
Intervene to Improve Taskwork and Teamwork: Provide taskwork assistance (clarify,
reteach) if students do not understand the assignment. Provide teamwork assistance if students
are having difficulties in working together productively.
Evaluate and Process


Evaluate Student Learning: Assess and evaluate the quality and quantity of student learning.
Involve students in the assessment process.
*Process Group Functioning: Ensure each student receives feedback, analyzes the data on
group functioning, sets an improvement goal, and participates in a team celebration. Have groups
routinely list three things they did well in working together an done thing they will do better
tomorrow. Summarize as a whole class. Have groups celebrate their success and hard work.
Formal Cooperative Lesson Planning Form
Academic Level: __________ Course : ____________________ Date: __________
Lesson: ________________________________________________________________
Objectives
Academic: ______________________________________________________________
Teamwork Skills: ___________________________________________________________
Preinstructional Decisions
Group Size: __________ Method Of Assigning Students: ____________________
13
Roles: _________________________________________________________________
Room Arrangement: ____________________________________________________
Materials: _____________________________________________________________

One Copy Per Group

One Copy Per Person

Jigsaw

Tournament

Other: ______________________
Explain Task And Cooperative Goal Structure
1. Task: _______________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
2. Criteria For Success: _________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
3. Positive Interdependence: ____________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
4. Individual Accountability: ___________________________________________
5. Intergroup Cooperation: ______________________________________________
6. Expected Behaviors: _________________________________________________
Monitoring And Intervening
1. Observation Procedure: ______ Formal
______ Informal
2. Observation By: ______ Teacher ______ Students ______ Visitors
3. Intervening For Task Assistance: ______________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
4. Intervening For Teamwork Assistance: ________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
5. Other: ______________________________________________________________
Evaluating And Processing
14
1. Assessment Of Members’ Individual Learning: _________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
2. Assessment Of Group Productivity: ___________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
3. Small Group Processing: _____________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
4. Whole Class Processing: _____________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
5. Charts And Graphs Used: ____________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
6. Positive Feedback To Each Student: __________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
7. Goal Setting For Improvement: _______________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
8. Celebration: _________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
9. Other: ______________________________________________________________
Cooperative Problem-Based Learning
Cooperative problem-based learning is a natural technique to use in engineering because it models the
way most engineers work in practice. A typical format for problem-based cooperative learning is shown
below. The format illustrates the professor’s role in a formal cooperative learning lesson and shows how
the five essential elements of a well-structured cooperative lesson are incorporated.
Problem Based Cooperative Learning Format
TASK: Solve the problem(s) or Complete the project.
INDIVIDUAL: Estimate answer. Note strategy.
COOPERATIVE: One set of answers from the group, strive for agreement, make sure everyone is able to
explain the strategies used to solve each problem.
15
EXPECTED CRITERIA FOR SUCCESS: Everyone must be able to explain the strategies used to solve
each problem.
EVALUATION: Best answer within available resources or constraints.
INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNTABILITY: One member from your group may be randomly chosen to explain
(a) the answer and (b) how to solve each problem.
EXPECTED BEHAVIORS: Active participating, checking, encouraging, and elaborating by all
members.
INTERGROUP COOPERATION: Whenever it is helpful, check procedures, answers, and strategies with
another group.
Cooperative Jigsaw
Jigsaw strategies have been used by highly effective student study groups for some time in content-dense
disciplines such as medicine and law. They have been used on an ad hoc basis for many years to help all
students learn an enormous amount of new conceptual material. First described by Elliot Aronson in
1978, the jigsaw procedure involves students working in a cooperative group where each student is
responsible for learning a portion of the material and conscientiously teaching it to the rest of the group.
The professor’s role in a jigsaw involves carefully choosing the material to be “jigsawed,” structuring the
groups, providing a clear cooperative context for their working together, monitoring to ensure highquality learning and group functioning, and helping students summarize, synthesize, and integrate the
conceptual material. A typical template for a cooperative jigsaw is shown below. An example of detailed
guidance for learning in a jigsaw format is available in Smith (1996).
Many faculty report that the jigsaw approach provides a pleasant alternative to the lecture in helping
students learn conceptual material and that it fosters interdependence among them. Although it takes
preparation and time to set up the jigsaw, students usually learn more material and remember it longer,
and become experienced in a procedure that they often begin using on their own.
Implementing Cooperative Jigsaw
When you have information you need to communicate to students, an alternative to lecturing is a
procedure for structuring cooperative learning groups called jigsaw.
Task: Think of a reading assignment you will give in the near future. Divide the assignment into multiple
(2–4) parts. Plan how you will use the jigsaw procedure. Script out exactly what you will say to the class
using each part of the procedure. Practice talking students through their role.
Procedure: The steps for structuring a jigsaw lesson are as follows:
1. Create cooperative teach and learn groups: Distribute a set of instructions (See “Notes to
Students,” below) and materials to each group. The set needs to be divisible into the number of
members of the group (two, three, or four parts). Give each member one part of the set of
materials.
16
2. Structure preparation pairs: Assign students the cooperative task of meeting with someone else
in the class who is a member of another learning group, and who has the same section of the
material, to complete two tasks:
• Learning and becoming an expert on the material
• Planning how to teach the material to the other members of the group
3. Structure practice pairs: Assign students the cooperative task of meeting with someone else in
the class who is a member of another learning group who has learned the same material to share
ideas about how the material may best be taught. These practice pairs review what each plans to
teach their group and how. The best ideas of both are incorporated into each presentation.
4. Students return to cooperative teach and learn groups: Assign students the cooperative tasks of
• Teaching their area of expertise to the other group members
• Learning the material being taught by the other members
5. Evaluate: Assess students’ degree of mastery of all the material. Recognize those groups in which
all members reach the preset criterion of excellence.
Notes to Students
For this session we will use a procedure for structuring learning groups called jigsaw. Each member will
be given a different section of the material to be learned. Each member is dependent on the others for
success in learning all the material. Each member is accountable for teaching his or her material to the
others and learning the material they are teaching. The purposes of the jigsaw procedure are as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
To provide an alternative method of introducing new material besides reading and lecture
To create information interdependence among members to increase their sense of mutuality
To ensure that participants orally rehearse and cognitively process the information being learned
To provide an example of high-performance teamwork
Cooperative Teach and Learn Group
Your task in this group is to learn all the assigned material. Make sure each member has a different
section and that all sections are covered. Work cooperatively to ensure that all group members master all
the assigned material.
Preparation to Teach in Pairs
Take one section of the material; then find a member of another group who has the same section of the
material as you do. Work cooperatively to complete these tasks:
1. Learn and become an expert in your material. Read the material together, discuss it, and master
it. Use an active reading strategy (such as pair reading):
a. Scan section headings to get an overview of the material.
b. Silently read a paragraph (or short section).
c. Person A summarizes the content to Person B. Person B listens, checks for accuracy, and
states how it relates to material previously learned.
d. Reverse roles, and repeat the procedure.
2. Plan how to teach your material to the other group members. Share your ideas about how best to
teach the material. Make sure your partner is ready.
17
a. As you read the material, underline the important points, write questions or ideas in the
margins, and add our own thoughts and suggestions.
b. When finished, write down the major ideas and supporting details or examples.
c. Prepare one or more visual aids to help explain the material.
3. Plan how to make the other members of your group intellectually active rather than passive while
they listen to your presentation.
Practice and Consulting Pairs
If you finish the preparation and have time, meet with another person from a different group who is ready
and who also prepared the same section of the material as you did. Work cooperatively to complete these
tasks:
1. Review what each person plans to teach his or her group and share ideas about how to teach the
material. Incorporate the best ideas from both plans into each person’s presentation.
2. Make sure the other person is ready to teach the material.
Cooperative Teaching and Learning Group
Meet with your original group and complete the cooperative task of ensuring that all members have
mastered all the assigned material by:
1. Teaching your area of expertise to the other group members
2. Learning the material being taught by the other group members
The presenter should encourage:
1. Oral rehearsal
2. Elaboration and integration
3. Implementation ideas
The listening members should:
1. Clarify the material by asking appropriate questions
2. Help the presenter by coming up with novel ways of remembering the important ideas or facts
and think creatively about the material being presented
3. Relate (out loud) the information to previous learned knowledge and elaborate on the information
being presented
4. Plan (out loud) how the information can be applied in the immediate future
Monitoring the Group Work
Collect some data about the functioning of the group to aid in later group processing. The instructor will
also monitor and collect data about the material being learned and the functioning of the groups.
Evaluation and Processing
The instructor may assess participants’ mastery of all the material by giving every participant an exam or
randomly calling on individuals to explain the material they learned.
18
The instructor will ask each group to process briefly—for example, by asking the group to identify at least
one thing that each member did to help the others learn and at least three actions that could be added to
improve their learning next time.
Reminder
Learning material in a jigsaw is not a substitute for reading the material on your own later, just as
listening to a lecture is not a substitute for doing individual work. The purpose of the jigsaw is to get you
involved in the material, to give you an overview, and to try to motivate you to learn more on your own.
Source: Adapted from Johnson, Johnson, and Smith, 1991.
Cooperative Base (Cohort) Groups
Beyond active involvement with course material, a sense of belonging is one of the most important
conditions that can be created in a college classroom (Astin, 1993; Palmer, 1998; Seymour and Hewitt,
1997; Tinto, 1993). Being a part of a group not only promotes academic development but also enhances
personal development and increases satisfaction. A relatively simple and straightforward way to start
building a supportive community is through cooperative base groups.
Base groups are long-term, heterogeneous cooperative learning groups with stable membership whose
primary responsibility is to provide each student the support, encouragement, and assistance he or she
needs to make academic progress (Johnson, Johnson, and Smith, 1991, 1998a). Like many formal
cooperative learning groups, they are intentionally formed by the faculty member, usually after collecting
information from the students. Because they often stay the same during the entire course (and
occasionally even beyond it), base groups can personalize the work required and the course learning
experiences. When base groups complete and submit work in group folders, the paperwork burden for the
faculty member is often much reduced. Like other formal groups, base group members must be carefully
chosen (usually by the instructor after collecting information on preferences, available meeting times, and
many other factors), monitored (the instructor observes their conversations and interactions and gives
written feedback), and often coached to improve their communication and functioning as a group.
Below is an excerpt from the 4th edition on the importance of cooperative base groups.
Just as effective teams balance task and relationship activities, there is a growing body of evidence that
effective individuals as well as effective teams balance challenge and support. Pelz and Andrews (1966)
and Pelz (1976) describe the balance as “maintaining a creative tension between challenge and security.”
Their initial study (Pelz and Andrews, 1966) was focused on scientists and identifying productive
climates for research and development. Pelz’s (1976) study was focused on environments for creative
performance within universities. A common finding was that the most creative environments had a
balance between challenge and support. Their work reminds me of the Yerkes-Dobson law, which states
“performance increases with physiological or mental excitement, but only up to a point. When levels of
arousal/excitement become too high, performance decreases. The process is often illustrated graphically
as a curvilinear, inverted U-shaped curve which increases and then decreases with higher levels of
arousal” (Yerkes and Dobson, 1908).
19
Recently, Amy Edmondson (2008) added to this argument by noting that both psychological safety and
accountability for meeting goals are essential for effective organizations (and teams) as shown in the
Table below.
Psychological Safety
High
Low
Accountability for Meeting Demanding Goals
Low
High
Comfort Zone
Learning Zone
Apathy Zone
Anxiety Zone
Part of the basis for this claim about the importance of the simultaneous presence of safety and
accountability is Edmondson’s (1999) study of psychological safety and learning in work teams.
Social interdependence theory (Lewin, 1935; Johnson and Johnson, 2005) provides further support for the
simultaneous presence of
1. 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.
2. An intrinsic state of tension within group members that motivates movement toward the
accomplishment of the desired common goals.
The conceptual cooperative learning model, which is based on social interdependence theory and is
integral to this book, argues that for optimal learning we must balance (Johnson, Johnson, and Smith,
2006):
1. Academic Challenge: An academic demand that may be beyond the student’s capacity to achieve.
2. Social Support: Significant others helping a student mobilize her or his resources to advance on
the challenges.
And there are two types of support:
1. Academic Support: Classmates and faculty provide the assistance and help students to succeed
academically.
2. Personal Support: Classmates and faculty care about and are personally committed to the wellbeing of each student.
Maximizing team performance and individual learning requires continual attention to maintaining this
critical balance between challenge and support.
Instructional Materials and Strategies for Selected Chapters
Please refer to the Teamwork and Project Management website for the latest materials and strategies. The
URL is http://www.ce.umn.edu/~smith/
References
20
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). 2001. A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing:
Revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of education objectives. New York, NY: Addison Wesley.
Angelo, T. A., and Cross, K. P. 1993. Classroom Assessment Techniques: A Handbook for College
Teachers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Astin, A. 1993. What Matters in College? Four Critical Years Revisited. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. 1956. Taxonomy of
educational objectives: The classification of educational goals: Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New
York, NY: Longmans.
Bloom, B. S., Madaus, G. F., & Hastings, J. T. 1981. Evaluation to improve learning. New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
Duderstadt, J. J. 2008. Engineering for a changing world: A roadmap to the future of engineering
practice, research, and education. The Millennium Project, The University of Michigan. Retrieved from
http://milproj.dc.umich.edu/
Edmondson, Amy. 1999. Psychological safety and learning in work teams. Administrative Science
Quarterly 44 (2).
Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. 2003. Designing and teaching courses to satisfy the ABET engineering
criteria. Journal of Engineering Education, 92(1), 7–25.
Fink, L. D. 2003. Creating significant learning experiences: An integrated approach to designing college
courses. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T. 1974. Instructional goal structures: Cooperative, competitive, or
individualistic. Review of Educational Research, 44, 213-240.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., and Smith, K. A. 1991. “Cooperative Learning: Increasing College
Faculty Instructional Productivity.” ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 4. Washington, D.C.:
George Washington University.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. 1991. Active learning: Cooperation in the college
classroom (1st ed.). Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., and Smith, K. A. 1998. “Cooperative Learning Returns to College: What
Evidence Is There That It Works?” Change, 30(4), 26–35.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., and Smith, K. A. 2006. Active learning: Cooperation in the college
classroom, 3rd ed. Edina, MN: Interaction Book.
Lewin, Kurt. 1935. A dynamic theory of personality. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lochhead, J., and Whimbey, A. (1987). "Teaching analytical reasoning through thinking aloud pair
problem solving" In Stice, J. E. (Eds.), Developing critical thinking and problem-solving abilities, New
Directions for Teaching and Learning No. 30.
21
MacGregor, J. (1990). "Collaborative learning: Shared inquiry as a process of reform" In Svinicki, M. D.
(Ed.), The changing face of college teaching, New Directions for Teaching and Learning No. 42.
Millis, B. J., and Cottell, P. G., Jr. (1998). Cooperative learning for higher education faculty, American
Council on Education, Series on Higher Education. The Oryx Press, Phoenix, AZ.
Palmer, P. 1998. The Courage to Teach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Pelz, Donald. 1976. Environments for creative performance within universities. In Individuality in
learning, edited by Samuel Messick (pp. 229–247). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Pelz, Donald, and Frank Andrews. 1966. Scientists in organizations: Productive climates for research
and development. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.
Seymour, E., and Hewitt, N. M. 1997. Talking About Leaving: Why Undergraduates Leave the Sciences.
Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.
Slavin, R. E. 1995. Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn &
Bacon.
Smith, K. A. 1996. Cooperative learning: Making “groupwork” work. In C. Bonwell & T. Sutherlund
(Eds.), Active learning: Lessons from practice and emerging issues. New Directions for Teaching and
Learning, 67, 71-82. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Smith, K. A. 1998. Grading cooperative projects. In B. Anderson & B. W. Speck, (Eds.). Changing the
way we grade student performance: Classroom assessment and the new learning paradigm. New
Directions for Teaching and Learning, 78, 59-67.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Smith, K.A., 2000. Going deeper: Formal small-group learning in large
classes, In J. MacGregor, et.al., eds. Strategies for energizing large classes: From small groups to
learning communities, New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 81, 25-46, San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass.
Smith, K.A., 2011. Cooperative learning: Lessons and insights from thirty years of championing a
research-based innovative practice. Proceedings 41st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference,
Rapid City, South Dakota.
Smith, K. A., Johnson, D. W., and Johnson, R. T., 1981. The use of cooperative learning groups in
engineering education. In L.P. Grayson and J.M. Biedenbach (Eds.), Proceedings Eleventh Annual
Frontiers in Education Conference, Rapid City, SD, Washington: IEEE/ASEE, pp. 26-32.
Smith, K.A., Sheppard, S.D., Johnson, D. W., and Johnson, R. T., 2005. Pedagogies of engagement:
Classroom-based practices (Cooperative learning and problem-based learning). Journal of Engineering
Education, 94(1): 87–101.
Streveler, R.A., Smith, K.A. and Pilotte, M. 2012. Aligning Course Content, Assessment, and Delivery:
Creating a Context for Outcome-Based Education. In Dr. Khairiyah Mohd Yusof, Dr. Shahrin
Mohammad, Dr. Naziha Ahmad Azli, Dr. Mohamed Noor Hassan, Dr. Azlina Kosnin and Dr. Sharifah
22
Kamilah Syed Yusof (Eds.). Outcome-Based Education and Engineering Curriculum: Evaluation,
Assessment and Accreditation. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Tinto, V. 1993. Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures of Student Attrition (2nd ed.).
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. 1998. Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. 2005. Understanding by design, expanded (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Yerkes, R. M., and J. D. Dodson. 1908. The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity of habit-formation.
Journal of Comparative Neurology and Psychology 18, 459–482.
23