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