peer learning

advertisement
Lecture 12
COOPERATIVE LEARNING, OR, MORE APPROPRIATLEY,
PEER LEARNING
Prereading:
Textbook, Pages 268-283.
A useful starting point for your reading and a productive resource overall is:
Graves, N. & Graves, T. (1990). A part to play. Melbourne: Latitude.
1. INTRODUCTION
Peer education (note the term) is one of the most commonly used techniques to foster
and nurture student learning. Despite the popularity of the approach, in many cases the
implementation is far from ideal and the results achieved are not consistent across
groups, time, class and so on.
2. DEFINITIONS
Peers working together to improve some aspect of academic achievement
You will find many similar definitions in books by many of the most prominent
researchers in the field e.g., the Johnson brothers, Spencer Kagan, Noreen Webb, Robert
Slavin, Donald Dansereau, Rachel Hertz-Lazarowitz.
3. EXAMPLES
There are many different examples of peer education in common use. The most popular
peer education technique reported in the literature is Aronson’s Jigsaw method. Other
techniques include:
(), () etc
All of these techniques differ in terms of:
3.1
3.2
The techniques you may choose to use in your own curriculum area need to be chosen
on the basis of their suitability for the specific learning outcomes you are addressing,
class composition, gender balance and so on.
1
COOPERATIVE LEARNING
4. PERSPECTIVES ON PEER LEARNING
Peer learning can be organized in terms of the tasks assigned and hence the goals
established, the reward structures contingent on completion of the task, the size and
makeup of the group, and the roles and patterns of interaction that will exist between
group members during the conduct and completion of the task.
Several theoretical orientations can be identified that have influenced the growth and
development of peer education approaches. They include:
1. Social-psychological perspectives including:
a. Social-motivational perspectives
b. Social-cohesion perspectives
2. Cognitive-elaboration perspectives
3. Cognitive-developmental perspectives
Each of these perspectives posits specific mechanisms that promote learning. Thus:
Theoretical perspective
Social motivational
Social cohesion
Cognitive elaboration
Cognitive development-Piaget
Cognitive development-Vygotsky
Mechanism for promoting learning
Interdependence created through
motivation based on the use of rewards or
recognition for group productivity
Interdependence created through care and
concern for each other. Strong focus on
team building and developing social skills.
Deeper processing of information;
activation of schemas, rehearsal,
metacognition, encoding of information
Students are made aware of their beliefs
and then presented with contradictory
experiences that lead to firstly, assimilation
of new information, and then restructuring
and adaptation (accommodation) because
of cognitive disequilibrium/conflict leading
eventually to a new equilibrium being
established
Modelled behaviour that is scaffolded
(guidance, support and tutelage –hints,
tips, reminders) and internalized within a
child’s zone of proximal development
[Adapted from: O’Donnell, et al (2009), p.339]
Specific peer learning approaches derived from the various perspectives include:
Social-motivational – Teams-Games Tournaments (TGT), Team-accelerated
Instruction (TAI) developed specifically for mathematics, Cooperative
Integrated Reading and Composition (CIRC) developed specifically for reading
and writing, Student Teams Achievement Division (STAD), Jigsaw developed
for mastering content
Social Cohesion – Learning together, Kagan’s structural model, Group Investigation
Cognitive elaboration – Scripted cooperation, reciprocal teaching, transactional
teaching
5. BASIC DESIGN PRINCIPLES
Peer education methods are generally characterized (thought not always) by the
following features:
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
Note that this set differs slightly from that described in your textbook but is consistent
with Graves and Graves (1990), Slavin (1991, 1995), and the work of the Johnson
brothers (1994).
Some points of difference (Davidson & Worsham, 1989, Page XII) might include:







Using homogeneous rather than heterogeneous groupings. This structuring
can be used because high-ability students benefit from complex tasks that
have a clear solution; whereas heterogeneous groupings are more suited for
tasks which do not have a clearly defined answer and which allow for
multiple perspectives and competencies in the final outcome or product
(Fuchs et al, 2000-Note that this research was done in an elementary school
context)
Processing social skills be reflecting on the way they were employed and on
how their use could be improved in the future
Means of structuring positive independence (goals, tasks, resources, role
assignments, rewards
Perspective taking
Status treatments designed to recognize the competence of low status students
Shared leadership
Use of specific structures e.g., interview, round-robin, think-pair-share
3
COOPERATIVE LEARNING
6. RESEARCH ON THE EFFECTIVESS OF PEER EDUCATION APPROACHES
Before we begin exploring the academic and social benefits of peer education approaches
we must recognize that peer education approaches are a great way to:
IMPROVE INDIVIDUAL ACHIEVEMENT
Yes, you heard that right. We use peer education approaches to improve individual
performance and achievement.
Peer education has been researched for over 100 years. The general consensus of this
research is that statistically significant effects have been found in levels of academic
achievement, productivity, and social development. In terms of:
Academic achievement we see:
*
*
*
*
*
Social development we see:
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Mean effect size data (Hattie, 2008) suggests that peer education approaches can be highly
effective. For example:
Reciprocal teaching
Cooperative learning (really a basket of methods)
0.86
0.59
Factors affecting the functioning of groups







Size of group
Gender balance
Race and Ethnicity
Language (1st, 2nd etc)
Status characteristics
Nature of discourse quality*
Degree of specific training in interpersonal skills
Also:






Level of interpersonal skills
Task completion by group
Prior experiences in cooperative groups
Level of student-student cooperation
Rivalry among groups and also misbehaviour
Arrangement of furniture in the learning space
 Teacher commitment and classroom-management skills

E.g., Categories of talk related to discourse quality in terms of the kinds of
conversations people (not students) have when viewing museum exhibits (Allen,
2002-you can download the preprint of this article) include perceptual talk,
conceptual talk, connecting talk, strategic talk, and affective talk.
7. EXPLAINING THE RESEARCH RESULTS
Cognitive process factors underlying casual mechanisms for increased achievement
include:
Observational learning:
Cognitive restructuring:
Increased organizational efficiency:
Increased practice, rehearsal, and elaboration
Development of self-regulation:
5
COOPERATIVE LEARNING
A number of affective and motivational factors are also suggested as aiding cognitive
gains. They include:
Increased attention:
Taking responsibility for one’s own learning:
Peer support:
Development of peer norms:
Absence of negative consequences for talking in class:
Mastery goals oriented towards learning:
8. IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES
A number of negative effects have been observed in peer education settings (Salomon &
Globerson, 1989). They include:
*
*
*
*
Many of these problems can be ameliorated or eliminated if the practitioner adheres to
the basic principles for structuring peer education that were detailed earlier. In particular,
many teachers do not spend enough time developing the necessary teamwork skills
prior to using peer education approaches.
A further extension of peer education approaches is in the field of computer supported
cooperative work (CSCW). Although the literature is growing rapidly on the value of
CSCW and similar approaches, almost all of the evidentiary data confounds
achievement results due to the presence of ICT media with pedagogical approaches.
That is, claims are made of the alleged superiority of ICT cooperative approaches based
on gains in achievement or similar metrics.
Almost none of the studies making these claims attempt to account for the influence of
pedagogy on the results. The authors of these studies do not answer the question “Are
my results due to the specific ICT being used, the pedagogical approach utilised
(cooperate learning for example) or some combination of factors”. This is a serious
methodological failure.
9. COOPERATIVE GROUPS AND THINKING
THINKING DIMENSION
Thinking needed to develop attitudes and
perceptions that create a positive mental
climate
Thinking needed to acquire and integrate
knowledge
ROLE OF COOPERATIVE GROUP
Establishing group norms and sharing and
diffusing responsibilities
Generating rich and varied options and
promoting accuracy through constant
interpersonal critique
Establishing group rewards
Thinking needed to extend and refine
knowledge
Thinking needed to make meaningful use
of knowledge
Thinking needed to develop favourable
habits of mind
Task specialisations
Use of interpersonal and intrapersonal
feedback
REFERENCES
Allen, S. (2002). Looking for learning in visitor talk: A methodological exploration. In
G. Leinhardt, K. Crowley, & K. Knutson (Eds.), Learning conversations in museums
(pp. 259-303). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
O’Donnell, A.M., Reeve, J., & Smith, J.K. (2009). Educational psychology, reflection for
action (2nd Edn.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
7
Download