Job Discussion Forums

[darkside1]

Has anyone taught in a programme where cooperative learning was (or is) used successfully as an approach to teaching and learning?

I have had some limited success with students who are 'challenging' behaviour- wise (state school, poor area, not exclusively esl students), but I wonder if anyone else has an experience to share.

By cooperative learning I mean setting up teams or groups with a purpose and defined roles for a medium to long period of time. The opposite would be teacher- led, direct method instruction.

CL and other approaches akin to Constructivism are pushed on an M Ed. I'm doing right now, but I have mixed feelings about their effectiveness in an environment where exam results are viewed as 'proof' of good teaching.

[Glenski]

I've tried that with 3rd year HS students and with 1st year HS students in Japan.

The 1st year students were in groups for discussing a chapter a week in a novel they read. Each student had a different role in the group every week. They got bored easily and didn't read often enough. These were a hand-picked group of 15 higher level kids, too.

The 3rd year students cooperated for the most part to achieve the goals of the groups (creating presentations 4 times a year), but they had to be monitored very closely because some kids didn't do much of the work.

BTW, my school is considered a pretty good one.

I'd advise careful monitoring, plus some system to keep individual students accountable even in a group, plus extremely clear goals. In my 3rd year class, I team taught with a Japanese teacher, and despite us giving instructions in both languages, students were often lost. I think that reason was because they were simply not paying attention and taking notes.

[guest of Japan]

In my high school in Japan I don't have enough classtime to do a genuine cooperative learning project, and a one-off lesson is pretty hard to achieve because the student language ability is too low. That said I do try to make sure at least 50% of my classtime is used for pair or group work. It's basically task-based learning (a distant cousin of cooperative learning). The activities are usually pretty clearly defined. They range from information exchange activities to surveys, and target specific communicative or grammatical points. About 50% of my students thrive in these activities. The other 50% need to be prodded heavily.

I've also taught history in a public high school in the US. At that time cooperative learning was my best friend.

Cooperative learning is very tricky. You hear a lot about in in Ed. programs, but seldom see it in action. Probably, the cooperative learning you experienced duing your own education was just simply group work where the smart kids did all the work and the others loafed about. I didn't clearly understand the potential of cooperative learning until one of my professors taught us using the approach and then had us teach mock lessons the following week in our fields using it as well. If you haven't experienced this, then I advise you to ask you professor to at least do the first part. It's eye-opening.

[Roger]

I have virtually zero experience doing this; what little I did was requiring students to exchange their writing exercises with each other in order to learn to identify problems and faulty English. It worked wonderfully in my Chinese classes but it was rather novel for them and it takes a lot of "tact" to implement.

Now, for truly cooperative teaching/learning, I think you need to direct your research to some MONTESSORI school. It is their philosophy that older children can help younger ones to make progress in certrain subjects. How it works is beyond me, and I also have read critical observations that dwelt on the Montessori objectives: apparently, learners don't necessarily fare better academically. They do seem to enjoy learning more. That a few will get ahead of the rest is normal, isn't it?

[darkside1]

Thanks for the replies guys.

I'll take onboard the points about monitoring, tracking individual student performance and setting clear group goals. In my case goals will break down 50- 50 positive behaviour/ boosting grades.

Sure, some students will always do better than others, but is that down to innate 'ability' or a supportive environment (inside and outside of class)? If it's the latter, then teaching methodology can make a difference.

I'm lucky in that I work with smallish class sizes anyway and can count on learning support teachers in the classes where I want to implement CL.

Incidentally, the M. Ed. course is taught partially using groupwork, and it threw up exactly the issues raised here, mainly the 'free rider' problem of some students taking a backseat and allowing peers to complete tasks. So you'd have to ask how much learning was internalised there.

[moonraven]

I have been using cooperative learning almost exclusively for several years now. My students decided that a) groups should be maximum 5--to avoid the free rider syndrome and b)that there are no subjects which would not be better taught using the cooperative learning model. I have found it to be extremely effective.

[sprightly]

we did something like this in my first year of university--the class was 'introduction to religious studies.'

the profs who used the approach got around the freerider issue by having students talk about what they had learned, and from whom. this was NOT a 'joe sat on his arse and did nothing' compaint writing. the learning could be from the subject matter, eg 'jane brought in a really interesting article about hindu death rituals' or not, eg 'sarah suggested we make a website where we could keep all of our work, and comment on or correct it.'

so part of your mark came from the outcome of your project, part from what other students learned from you, and part from what you learned from others. the last bit prevented people from writing nothing at all, or just complaining.

[Glenski]

In my experience, with a classroom of 30-45 students, you can't make groups larger than 3, and even so, there are so many things going on with the projects that you can't possibly monitor everyone constantly, so SOMEONE is bound to be goofing off. I've done this alone and with a Japanese teacher in the room to help maintain discipline and to keep students on track with their group projects.

In the end, the best way to have someone "prove" he was doing the work was to give each student in the group some specific written homework. Even for the group presentations, it didn't take much for someone to skim by and do nothing, even if I graded the whole group's presentation score on what EVERYone contributed.

Besides, to have one student talk while the other 29 or 44 are sitting there listening to what he/she may have done individually wastes a whole lot of time that I just don't have.

[distiller]

Cooperative learning can be used effectively. I would not use it exclusively or fall into the idea that it is a cure all for unimaginative students. I've used it for a few years and find that it can work but the students have to be trained. You can't just put a bunch of kids in a group, tell them what to do and they do it. You have to establish roles and rules, especially for those who do not fulfill the group's expectations. I find the humiliation of having to go before a class for a presentation unprepared just once is enough to get students to realize that their lives will be a lot easier and more fun if they do their bit. It can be difficult with large classes though. The key is to pound it into to them again and again over a long span of time so that it becomes second nature. I find it give students a sense of responsibility and ownership for their educations.

[CostaRicaTEFL]

Some points to using groups (in whatever approach):

1. Everyone has a task.

2. There is a product of some sort.

3. Clear instructions, carefully crafted to avoid dead time for any given student.

4. Can be used long-term or for a lesson or part of a lesson.

5. Four is a good number of students. Try to include a high, 2 mid and a lower student (relative to the class mix).

6. Changing groups up every so often (a month?) can be useful.

7. Don't leave them unattended: monitor, assist. I.e., walk around! After they are well-trained in working this way more autonomy can be given.

Hope this is useful!

[XXX]

I have found that keep all the groups on task is the main draw back. I have also found that you might have say two hard workers in a group of three with one slacker who goes along for the ride. It is not my favorite technique.

[guest of Japan]

You have to make the exercise impossible to finish unless all members participate. To do this assign not only different roles, but also different materials to each of the students in the group. You must also keep the activity strictly timed into segments which force them to stay on task.