Cooperative learning in middle and secondary schools
Cooperative learning in middle and secondary schools
Slavin, Robert E.
The Clearing House Washington
Mar/Apr 1996 Vol. 69, Iss. 4, p.200
|Abstract (Document Summary) |
|Adolescence is a time when teenagers are particularly susceptible to peer norms, norms that favor sports and social success over |
|academic achievement. Cooperative learning and the research supporting its positive effects on academic achievement and intergroup|
|relationships are discussed. |
[pic]
|Full Text (3448 words) |
|Copyright Heldref Publications Mar/Apr 1996 |
|Adolescence is a time of great potential and great danger in human development. Characteristics of this developmental period have |
|enormous importance for the design of instructional environments, especially those for at-risk learners. For example, adolescents |
|are highly susceptible to peer norms. If those norms favor academic excellence, students will be motivated to achieve. However, it|
|is far more common that adolescents' peer norms denigrate academic excellence and favor sports and social success. More ominously,|
|adolescents' peer norms usually value independence from adult authority, which can lead adolescents into oppositional |
|behavior-from skipping school to defying teachers to drug use or vandalism. The structure of the traditional classroom is highly |
|inconsistent with adolescent development and peer norms. Traditional classrooms expect students to work independently and to |
|compete for good grades, teachers' approval, and recognition. Research has long shown that when socially interacting peers are |
|placed in individual competition with each other, they discourage each other from working hard. In adult occupational settings, |
|this is called a "work restriction norm" (Vroom 1964). In schools, students try to reduce each other's academic efforts (to make |
|success easier for themselves) by calling hard workers "nerds," "geeks," or "teacher's pets." This is much in contrast to the |
|situation in sports, where excellence is strongly valued by peer norms (Coleman 1961). The difference between sports and academics|
|is primarily in the interpersonal consequences of success. In sports, one person's success helps the entire team to succeed. In |
|academics, one person's success makes success for others more difficult. |
|Further, traditional schools treat adolescents as children, rarely giving them authority, responsibility, or even opportunities |
|for active participation. In fact, adolescents crave responsibility and abhor playing a passive role. Little wonder, then, that so|
|many of them seek responsibility, authority, active peer-oriented participation, and adult-like roles in antisocial arenas: |
|delinquency (which among adolescents almost always involves groups or gangs), drug abuse, early sexual experimentation, early |
|parenthood, and so on. |
|Cooperative learning-instructional programs in which students work in small groups to help one another master academic content-can|
|be an ideal means of capitalizing on the developmental characteristics of adolescents in order to harness their peer orientation, |
|enthusiasm, activity, and craving for independence within a safe structure. There are many forms of cooperative learning that are |
|widely used at all levels of education. The particular forms developed and researched at Johns Hopkins University, called Student |
|Team Learning (Slavin 1994), were strongly influenced by James Coleman's (1961) Adolescent Society, which contrasted adolescents' |
|peer support for sports and social activities to their lack of support for academics and proposed that the cooperative dynamics of|
|these peer-supported activities be embedded in daily classroom organization. The purpose of this article is to describe the |
|cooperative learning programs that have been most extensively studied in grades 6-12 in middle, junior, and senior high schools |
|and to summarize the outcomes of studies at this level. Student Team Learning Student Team Learning methods are cooperative |
|learning techniques developed and researched at Johns Hopkins University. More than half of all experimental studies of practical |
|cooperative learning methods involve Student Team Learning methods. |
|All cooperative learning methods share the idea that students work together to learn and are responsible for one another's |
|learning as well as their own. In addition to the idea of cooperative work, Student Team Learning methods emphasize the use of |
|team goals and team success that can only be achieved if all members of the team learn the objectives being taught. That is, in |
|Student Team Learning the students' tasks are not to do something as a team but to learn something as a team. |
|Three concepts are central to all Student Team Learning methods: 1. Team rewards. Teams earn certificates or other awards if they |
|achieve above a designated criterion. Grades are not given based on team performance, but in senior high schools students may |
|sometimes qualify for as many as five bonus points (on a one-hundred-point scale) if their teams meet a high criterion of |
|excellence. The teams are not in competition to earn scarce rewards; all (or none) of the teams may achieve the criterion in a |
|given week. |
|2. Individual accountability. The team's success depends on the individual learning of all team members. This focuses the activity|
|of the team members on tutoring one another and making sure that everyone on the team is ready for a quiz or other assessment that|
|students will take without teammate help. |
|3. Equal opportunities for success. Students contribute to their teams by improving over their own past performance. This ensures |
|that high, average, and low achievers are equally challenged to do their best, and the contributions of all team members will be |
|valued. Research on cooperative learning methods (summarized below) has indicated that team rewards and individual accountability |
|are essential elements for producing basic skills achievement (Slavin 1995a). It is not enough to simply tell students to work |
|together. They must have a reason to take one another's achievement seriously. Further, research indicates that if students are |
|rewarded for doing better than they have in the past, they will be more motivated to achieve than if they are rewarded based on |
|their performance in comparison to others, because rewards for improvement make success neither too difficult nor too easy for |
|students to achieve. |
|Three principal Student Team Learning methods have been extensively developed and researched in secondary schools (grades 6-12): |
|Student Teams-Achievement Divisions (STAD), Teams-Games-Tournament (TGT), and Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition |
|(CIRC), which is used in reading and writing instruction in grades 3-7. Student Teams-Achievement Divisions (STAD) |
|In STAD (Slavin 1994), the teacher assigns students to four-member learning teams that are mixed in performance level, sex, and |
|ethnicity. The teacher presents a lesson after which students work in their teams to make sure that all team members have mastered|
|the lesson. All students then take individual quizzes on the material; they may not help one another on the quizzes. Students' |
|quiz scores are compared with their own past averages, and points are awarded based on the degree to which students can meet or |
|exceed their own earlier performance. These points are then summed to form team scores, and teams that meet certain criteria may |
|earn certificates or other recognition. The whole cycle of activities-from teacher presentation to team practice to quiz -- |
|usually takes three to five class periods. |
|STAD has been used in a wide variety of subjects, including mathematics, language arts, and social studies, and has been used from|
|grade two through college. It is most appropriate for teaching well-defined objectives with single right answers, such as |
|mathematical computations and applications, language usage and mechanics, geography and map skills, and science facts and |
|concepts. Teams-Games-Tournament (TGT) |
|Teams-Games-Tournament (DeVries and Slavin 1978; Slavin 1994) was the first of the Johns Hopkins cooperative learning methods. It |
|uses the same teacher presentations and team work as in STAD, but it replaces the quizzes with weekly tournaments, in which |
|students compete with members of other teams to contribute points to their team scores. Students compete at three-person |
|"tournament tables" against others with similar past records in mathematics. A "bumping" procedure keeps the competition fair. The|
|winner at each tournament table brings the same number of points to his or her team, regardless of which table it is; this means |
|that low achievers (competing with other low achievers) and high achievers (competing with other high achievers) have equal |
|opportunities for success. As in STAD, high-performing teams earn certificates or other forms of team recognition. |
|Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition (CIRC) |
|CIRC is a comprehensive program for teaching reading and writing in the upper elementary and middle grades (Stevens, Madden, |
|Slavin, and Farnish 1987). In CIRC, students are assigned to teams composed of pairs of students from different reading groups. |
|While the teacher is working with one reading group, students in the other groups are working in their pairs on a series of |
|cognitively engaging activities, including reading to one another, making predictions about how narrative stories will come out, |
|summarizing stories to one another, writing responses to stories, and practicing spelling, decoding, and vocabulary. If the |
|reading class is not divided into homogeneous reading groups, all students in the teams work with one another. Students work as a |
|total team to master main idea and other comprehension skills. During language arts periods, students write drafts, revise and |
|edit one another's work, and prepare for "publication" of team books. In most CIRC activities, students follow a sequence of |
|teacher instruction, team practice, team pre-assessments, and quiz. That is, students do not take the quiz until their teammates |
|have determined that they are ready. Certificates are given to teams based on the average performance of all team members on all |
|reading and writing activities. |
|Mostly found in elementary schools, CIRC is also used in the early middle grades and has been studied at that level by Stevens and|
|Durkin (1992). Other Cooperative Learning Methods Jigsaw |
|Jigsaw was originally designed by Elliot Aronson and his colleagues (Aronson, Blaney, Stephan, Sikes, and Snapp 1978). In |
|Aronson's Jigsaw method, students are assigned to six-member teams to work on academic material that has been broken down into |
|sections. For example, a biography might be divided into early life, first accomplishments, major setbacks, later life, and impact|
|on history. Each team member reads his or her section. Next, members of different teams who have studied the same sections meet in|
|"expert groups" to discuss their sections. Then the students return to their teams and take turns teaching their teammates about |
|their sections. Because the only way students can learn sections other than their own is to listen carefully to their teammates, |
|they are motivated to support and show interest in one another's work. Slavin (1994) developed a modification of Jigsaw and |
|incorporated it in the Student Team Learning program. In this method, called Jigsaw II, students work in four- or five member |
|teams as in TGT and STAD. Instead of each student being assigned a unique section, all students read a common narrative, such as a|
|book chapter, a short story, or a biography. However, each student receives a topic on which to become an expert. Students with |
|the same topics meet in expert groups to discuss them, after which they return to their teams to teach what they have learned to |
|their teammates. Then students take individual quizzes, which result in team scores based on the improvement score system of STAD.|
|Teams that meet preset standards may earn certificates. Learning Together |
|David and Roger Johnson at the University of Minnesota developed the Learning Together model of cooperative learning (Johnson and |
|Johnson 1994). The methods they have researched involve students working in four- or five member heterogeneous groups on |
|assignment sheets. The groups hand in a single sheet and receive praise and rewards based on the group product. The model |
|emphasizes the use of team-building activities before students begin working together and regular discussions within groups about |
|how well group members are working together. Group Investigation |
|Group Investigation, developed by Shlomo Sharan at the University of Tel Aviv (Sharan and Sharan 1992), is a general classroom |
|organization plan in which students work in small groups using cooperative inquiry, group discussion, and cooperative planning and|
|projects. In this method, students form their own two- to six-member groups. After choosing subtopics from a unit being studied by|
|the entire class, the groups further break their subtopics into individual tasks, and carry out the activities necessary to |
|prepare group reports. Each group then makes a presentation or display to communicate its findings to the entire class. Research |
|on Cooperative Learning A recent review of research on cooperative learning (Slavin 1995a) identified fifty-two studies conducted |
|over periods of at least four weeks in regular secondary schools (grades 6-12) that have measured effects on student achievement. |
|These studies all compared effects of cooperative learning with effects of traditionally taught control groups on measures of the |
|same objectives pursued in all classes. Teachers and classes were either randomly assigned to cooperative or control conditions, |
|or they were matched on pretest achievement level and other factors. Academic Achievement |
|Of these studies, thirty-three (63 percent) found significantly greater achievement in cooperative than in control classes. |
|Sixteen (31 percent) found no differences, and in only three studies did a control group significantly out-perform the |
|experimental group. |
|It should be noted, however, that the effects of cooperative learning vary considerably according to the particular methods used. |
|Two elements must be present if cooperative learning is to be effective: group goals and individual accountability (Slavin 1983a, |
|1983b, 1995a). That is, groups must be working to achieve some goal or earn rewards or recognition, and the success of the group |
|must depend on the individual learning of every group member. In studies of methods of this kind (e.g., STAD, TGT, CIRC), effects |
|on achievement have been consistently positive; twenty-three out of thirty such studies (77 percent) found significantly positive |
|achievement effects. In contrast, only ten of twenty-two secondary studies (45 percent) of cooperative methods lacking group goals|
|and individual accountability found positive effects on student achievement, and three found higher scores in control groups. |
|Cooperative learning methods generally work equally well for all types of students. Although occasional studies find particular |
|advantages for high or low achievers, boys or girls, and so on, the great majority find equal benefits for all types of students. |
|Sometimes a concern is expressed that cooperative learning will hold back high achievers. The research provides absolutely no |
|support for this claim; high achievers gain from cooperative learning (relative to high achievers in traditional classes) just as |
|much as do low and average achievers (Slavin 1991). Intergroup Relations |
|Social scientists have long advocated interethnic cooperation as a means of ensuring positive intergroup relations in desegregated|
|settings. Contact theory (Allport 1954), the dominant theory of intergroup relations for many years, predicted that positive |
|intergroup relations would rise from school desegregation if and only if students were involved in cooperative, equal-status |
|interaction sanctioned by the school. Research on cooperative learning methods has borne out the predictions of contact theory. |
|These techniques emphasize cooperative, equal-status interaction between students of different ethnic backgrounds sanctioned by |
|the school (Slavin 1995b). In most of the research on intergroup relations, students were asked to list their best friends at the |
|beginning of the study and again at the end. The number of friendship choices students made outside their own ethnic groups was |
|the measure of intergroup relations. Positive effects on intergroup relations in secondary schools have been found for STAD, TGT, |
|Jigsaw, Learning Together, and Group Investigation models (Slavin 1995a, 1995b). |
|Two of these studies, one on STAD (Slavin 1979) and one on Jigsaw II (Ziegler 1981), included follow-ups of intergroup friendships|
|several months after the end of the studies. Both found that students who had been in cooperative learning classes still named |
|significantly more friends outside their own ethnic groups than did students who had been in control classes. Two studies of Group|
|Investigation (Sharan, Kussell, Hertz-Lazarowitz, Bejarano, Raviv, and Sharan 1984; Sharan and Shachar 1988) found that the |
|improved attitudes and behaviors of students toward classmates of different ethnic backgrounds extended to classmates who had |
|never been in the same groups. Self-Esteem |
|Students in cooperative learning classes have been found to have more positive feelings about themselves than do students in |
|traditional classes. These improvements in selfesteem have been found for TGT and STAD (Slavin 1995a) and for Jigsaw (Blaney, |
|Stephan, Rosenfeld, Aronson, and Sikes 1977). Other Outcomes |
|In addition to positive effects on achievement, intergroup relations, acceptance of mainstreamed students, and selfesteem, |
|cooperative learning has been found to have positive effects on a variety of other important educational outcomes. These include |
|liking of school, development of peer norms in favor of doing well academically, feelings of individual control over the student's|
|own fate in school, and cooperativeness and altruism (see Slavin 1995a). TGT (DeVries and Slavin 1978) and STAD (Slavin 1995a; |
|Janke 1978) have been found to have positive effects on students' time on-task. A study in the Kansas City schools found that when|
|students who were at risk of becoming delinquent worked in cooperative groups in sixth grade they had better attendance, fewer |
|contacts with the police, and higher behavioral ratings by teachers in seventh through eleventh grades than did control students |
|(Hartley 1976). A yearlong study of TGT and STAD in middle schools by Hawkins, Doueck, and Lishner (1988) found that low achievers|
|who experienced cooperative learning had fewer suspensions and expulsions than did control students; they also gained more in |
|educational aspirations and positive attitudes toward school. Conclusion |
|Research on cooperative learning methods in secondary schools supports the usefulness of those methods for improving student |
|achievement at a variety of grade levels and in many subjects and for improving intergroup relations and the self-esteem of |
|students. Cooperative learning, especially when groups are rewarded based on the individual learning of all group members, is an |
|instructional approach that is congruent with the developmental needs of adolescents. It gives adolescents a degree of |
|independence and authority within their groups, and it creates a situation (as in sports) in which the progress of each group |
|member contributes to the success of his or her peers. This creates peer norms favoring academic excellence, a strong motivator |
|for adolescents. Cooperative learning is not a panacea for all of the problems of adolescence, but it can provide a means of |
|harnessing the peer-oriented energies of adolescents for pro-social rather than antisocial activities, and for this reason alone |
|it should be an important part of every middle and high school teacher's repertoire. |
|[Reference] |
| |
|REFERENCES |
| |
| |
|[Reference] |
| |
|Allport, G. The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, Mass.: Addison Wesley. Aronson, E., N. Blaney, C. Stephan, J. Sikes. and M. Snapp.|
|1978. The jig |
| |
|saw classroom. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage. Blaney, N. T., S. Stephan, D. Rosenfeld, E. Aronson, and J. Sikes. 1977. |
|Interdependence in the classroom: A field study. Journal of Educational Psychology 69(2): 121-28. |
| |
|Coleman, J. S. 1961. The adolescent society: New York: Free Press of Glencoe. |
| |
|DeVries, D. L., and R. E. Slavin. 1978. Teams-Games-Tournament (TGT): Review of ten classroom experiments. Journal of Research and|
|Development in Education 12(1): 28-38. |
| |
|Hartley, W. 1976. Prevention outcomes of small group education with school children: An epidemiologic follow up of the Kansas City|
|School Behavior Project. Unpublished manuscript, University of Kansas Medical Center. |
| |
|Hawkins, J. D., H. J. Doueck, and D. M. Lishner. 1988. Changing teacher practices in mainstream classroom to improve bonding and |
|behavior of low achievers. American Educational Research Journal 25(1): 31-50. Janke, R. 1978. The Teams-Games-Tournament (TGT) |
|method and the behavioral adjustment and academic achievement of emotionally |
| |
| |
|[Reference] |
| |
|impaired adolescents. Paper presented at the annual convention of the American Educational Research Association, Toronto (April). |
|Johnson, D. W., and R. T. Johnson.1994. Learning together and alone. 4th |
| |
|ed. Boston: Ally and Bacon. |
| |
|Sharan, S., P. Kussell, R. Hertz-Lazarowitz, Y. Bejarano, S. Raviv, and Y. Sharan. 1984. Cooperative learning in the classroom: |
|Research in desegregated schools. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum. Sharan, S., and C. Shachar. 1988. Language and learning in the |
|cooperative classroom. New York: Springer. |
| |
|Sharan, Y., and S. Sharan. 1992. Group investigation: Expanding cooper |
| |
|active learning. New York: Teacher's College Press. Slavin, R. E. 1979. Effects of biracial learning teams on cross-racial |
|friendships. Journal of Educational Psychology 71(3): 381-87. . 1983a. Cooperative learning. New York: Longman. . 1983b. When does|
|cooperative learning increase student achievement? Psychological Bulletin 94(3): 429-45. -. 1991. Are cooperative learning and |
|untracking harmful to the gifted? Educational Leadership 48(6): 68-71. |
| |
| |
|[Reference] |
| |
|. 1994. Using student team learning. 4th ed. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, Center for Social Organization of Schools |
| |
|. 1995a. Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice. 2nd ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. |
| |
|-. 1995b. Cooperative learning and intergroup relations. In Handbook of research on multicultural education, edited by J. Banks. |
|New York: Macmillan. |
| |
|Stevens, R. J., and S. Durkin. 1992. Using student team reading and student team writing in middle schools: Two evaluations. Tech.|
|Rep. No. 36. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, Center for Research on Effective Schooling for Disadvantaged Students. Stevens, |
|R. J., N. A. Madden, R. E. Slavin, and A. M. Farnish. 1987. Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition: Two field experiments.|
|Reading Research Quarterly 22(4): 433-54. Vroom, V. H. 1964. Work and motivation. New York: Wiley. Ziegler, S. 1981. The |
|effectiveness of cooperative learning teams for increasing cross-ethnic friendship: Additional evidence. Human Organization 40(3):|
|264-68. |
| |
| |
|[Author Affiliation] |
| |
|Robert E. Slavin is co-director of the Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed At Risk, Johns Hopkins University, |
|Baltimore, Maryland. This article was written under funding from the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, US. |
|Department of Education (No. OERI-R117-40005). However any opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily |
|represent OERI positions or policies. |
| |
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related download
- cooperative learning in middle and secondary schools
- resources for social skills groups university of washington
- oshkosh community ymca razor planet
- table 7 characteristics of maricopa students participating
- educational evaluation report
- central city elementary
- handbook sportsengine
- handbook amazon web services
Related searches
- secondary schools in dubai
- classroom learning activities middle school
- fun learning activities middle school
- compare and contrast primary and secondary succession
- cooperative strategies in business
- primary and secondary succession compare and contrast
- cooperative companies in the us
- cooperative education in pennsylvania
- cooperative learning group
- cooperative learning teaching strategy
- cooperative learning models
- cooperative learning pdf