Tag Archive | cooperative learning

ENGL 810 – Paper # 4: Theories and Methods – Cooperative Learning and the Turn from the Lecture

Oct28
20120326-coclecturehall1

The lecture format as an effective pedagogical method is now considered a thing of the past. Most teachers prefer a focus on cooperative and collaborative classroom activities.

Cooperative learning, based on the social development theory of education advocated by groundbreaking psychologist Lev Vygotsky, has been one of the most – if not the most important theory and method used in the field of development and ESL education since at least the 1960s. Cooperative learning is a teaching strategy in which small groups of students use learning activities to find answers to problems and collectively combine their knowledge to arrive at solutions. According to Kenneth Bruffee, such a method sprung from Vygotsky’s work because it showed teachers that “reflective thought is public or social conversation internalized,” and that [t]o think well as individuals, we must learn to think well collectively – that is we must learn to converse well” (640). This was the launching point for cooperative learning in which students work collectively to improve both as a community and individually. While a 1960s and 70s definition of cooperative learning came from a Vietnam-era in which teachers were looking to democratize education and “eliminate socially destructive authoritarian social forms” (Bruffee 636), by the 1980s, the idea of social conversation became accepted when more American teachers discovered it as a way of helping poorly prepared academic students who had difficulty adapting to the “traditional” or “normal” conventions of the college classroom: “It was the traditional classroom that seemed to have left these students unprepared in the first place” (267). According to Nicole Tong, the head of developmental education at Northern Virginia Community College, today, for most developmental educators, Vygotsky and cooperative learning is still an integral part of the classroom space. Such cooperative methods include “tutoring inside and outside of classrooms” and working together as a way of discovering that their voices are “worthy of consideration.”

In considering these multiple reasons for taking up the challenge of cooperative learning, developmental and educational psychologists have also found the technique to be a break from two traditional ways of thinking about writing education – that solo writing and the lecture format can be sufficient in teaching students to improve their work. According to George Slavich and Philip Zimbardo, lecturing is still the most common format used in higher education, yet educational psychology shows that it “accounts for only a small part of the pedagogical progress that has been made” (570), and that all contemporary theories derive from Piaget and Vygotsky which “emphasize the importance of active engagement and social interactions for promoting learning” (576). Studies have also shown that students are proven to learn more, have better attendance, persistence, and engagement in classrooms with collaborative and cooperative learning rather than students taking a lecture-based class (570). This research shows that cooperative learning can become a democratic process to make education more effective for students who failed in traditional classrooms. Although there is some slight pendulum-swing on the lecture format, with some teachers still arguing for the lecture as a way to engage students in higher-order thinking, Rebecca Shuman points out that a lecture is frequently what students want, as it allows them to disengage from the material and sit back “counting minutes” until class is over. She advocates that a cooperative classroom space give students what they need, in forcing “involvement, investment, and sometimes even retention.”

In addition to a strong movement away from the lecture approach, the idea of writing as a solo activity has also fallen out of favor. Perry Klein and Tracey Lealock have noted that “[u]naided, human cognition” on an individual level has a small capacity for storage, timing, and processing, and that nearly all writing and learning activities (aside from tests) involve social activity (136). In fact, studies have shown that cooperative learning allows members to pool knowledge, “share cognitive load among members,” and check each others’ thinking for errors (134). This leads to texts that are more accurate linguistically and writing that contains more new ideas as members learn and refine new ideas (140-141). Jehangir’s research concurs, noting that “‘there is a growing sense that teaching and learning don’t really happen unless there is some kind of building relationship – not only between teacher and students but between teachers, students, and subject’” (91). Collaborative writing even has the benefit of getting “richer thinking and more voices into solo writing as well,” according to Elbow (267). With all of this said, the theory of writing as a solo activity that can be improved through lectures has been (almost) fully relegated to the past.

With cooperative learning now being a defining pedagogical model for developmental and ESL students, there are still some trends that are being discussed within the field. One such topic for discussion is that cooperative learning must be more than simple group work – just putting students into groups in class will not necessarily foster the types of gains expected by Vygotsky’s theory. For example, Jehangir notes that for real cooperative learning, a teacher must facilitate, teach, and familiarize students with the process of working together (93). Katherine Mason also notes that it is not as simple as group work, stating that teachers must model appropriate feedback for group work, otherwise students might sit silently without participating effectively (56-57). Elbow argues that in particularly effective cooperative work, switching drafts back and forth between one or more writers, which helps to “stop the stifling of minority voices,” is necessary to make sure that everyone has their voice heard within the writing (266). The last trend in facilitating cooperative learning now deals with online learning, in which both Mason and Klein and Lealock advocate for collaborative online submissions to improve student writing. Mason has students respond to each others’ paper proposals online, which she says leaves students with fresh ideas that she, as a teacher, wouldn’t have considered (55). Klein and Lealock argue that online learning activities lead to higher-quality discussions and written contributions, as students draw on a variety of resources, “including other discussants’ prior contributions” in their own posts (146). Few teachers today deny the power of cooperative education.

Vygotsky and a cooperative theory of learning has strongly influenced my own classroom; as I’ve mentioned in my other posts, I’m still figuring out how to best incorporate such work in a way that is meaningful, and hope to make such work more useful. The research for this paper has gotten me closer, I think, to defining a pedagogy of cooperative work. However, one thing I find discouraging are the many social and learning disabilities that my students face. Working at any college, but particularly a community college, means facing students with a variety of learning needs. When students come to me with accommodation letters outlining issues such as severe depression and autism, I wonder how (or if) they will be able to work in groups in a way that will be useful to themselves and the majority of their classmates. Most students work well in groups, but some absolutely resist group work, projects, or even peer review. As Nicole Tong points out, our students “have [different] academic needs and the way to broach these gaps” cannot be approached as if they are one student body, but must be treated individually. Therefore, can cooperative learning become problematic when we start to consider the extremely varied needs of our students?

Screen Shot 2015-10-27 at 8.07.23 PM

According to this data published by the National Center for Learning Disabilities in 2014, 67 percent of students with learning disabilities are enrolled in higher education at some time (the same as the general population), yet they attend community colleges at twice the rate of the general population, creating questions about what theories and methods will work.

While I certainly try to consider all learning needs and absolutely vary my teaching methods to meet the differing learning styles of my students, if most (or all) of the research says we need to involve our students in cooperative learning, more research must be done on how to deal with a population of students dealing with diagnoses of ADHD, autism, and depression on a greater scale than ever before. I am a strong advocate for cooperative learning, but I believe the research behind this issue is failing in one major capacity that needs further investigation.

Works Cited

Bruffee, Kenneth. “Collaborative Learning and the ‘Conversation of Mankind.’” College English 42.7 (1984): 635-652. Print.

Elbow, Peter. “Using the Collage for Collaborative Writing.” Teaching Developmental Writing. Ed. Susan Naomi Bernstein. 3rd ed. Boston: Bedford-St. Martin’s, 2007. 261-268. Print.

Jehangir, Rashne. “Cooperative learning in the multicultural classroom.” Theoretical perspectives for developmental education. Ed. J. L. Higbee, & D. B. Lundell. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, General College, Center for Research in Developmental Education and Urban Literacy, 2001. 91-99. Print.

Klein, Perry D., and Tracey L. Lealock. “Distributed Cognition as a Framework for Understanding Writing.” Past, Present, and Future Contibutions of Cognitive Writing Research to Cognitive Psychology. Ed. Virginia Wise Berninger. New York: Psychology Press Taylor and Francis Group, 2012. 133-152. Print.

Mason, Katherine. “Cooperative Learning and Second Language Acquisition in First-Year Composition: Opportunities for Authentic Communication among English Language Learners.” Teaching English in the Two Year College 34.1 (2006): 52-58. Web.

Schuman, Rebecca. “Professors Shouldn’t Teach To Younger Versions of Themselves.”Slate.com. Slate 21 Oct. 2015. Web. 23 Oct. 2015.

Slavich, George, and Philip G. Zimbardo. “Transformational Teaching: Theoretical Underpinnings, Basic Principles, and Core Methods.” Educational Psychological Review 24 (2002): 569-608. Print.

Tong, Nicole. Personal interview. 20 Oct. 2015.

Vygotsky, Lev. Mind in Society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1978. Print.

Engl PAB Entry 8

Oct21

Mason, Katherine. “Cooperative Learning and Second Language Acquisition in First-Year Composition: Opportunities for Authentic Communication among English Language Learners.” Teaching English in the Two Year College 34.1 (2006): 52-58. Web.

In this article, Katherine Mason provides a definition of cooperative learning for ESL and developmental English learners that encompasses both face-to-face teaching and online teaching as a way to improve student outcomes. Mason notes that many ESL students come into college with a fear of speaking English in front of their classmates when it isn’t their native language. This occurs for two reasons. One is that in their culture, educational emphasis is placed on listening rather than speaking. The other is that when students are set up to do group work and must be actively engaged, they often feel that their classmates (particularly those who are not ESL speakers) have better and smarter ideas and they fear looking stupid or less educated (52).

Mason notes that despite this fear, often, setting up a space in which students feel comfortable doing cooperative learning, which she defines as

“face-to-face or online” communication that “promotes a sense of community among students” and includes an emphasis on “interdependence, individual accountability, equal participation, and simultaneous interaction,” promotes greater learning and more comfort in speaking English and sharing their ideas (53).

She notes that cooperative learning has the power to increase linguistic diversity in students more than a traditional lecture. She does warn, however, that a teacher must create modeling and feedback for students so they can successfully work cooperatively (53).

Some of Mason’s recommended activities include both classroom and online work. For classroom work, she recommends asking students to write a stance on an issue and some counterarguments. When sharing their arguments with teams of four or five, other teammates may suggest other possible counterarguments, which helps students develop ideas for writing and practices spoken English (54). For online cooperative learning she suggests asking students to put paper outlines on a Blackboard forum where a small group will read and respond to each other’s proposals providing group critiques (55). Mason has found that such group work is better than a teacher giving feedback, as students often think of feedback that even the teacher wouldn’t have thought about and that students benefit not only from receiving but from giving feedback (55). The students also report that they become more careful about their own drafts when they realize the criticisms they see in other students’ drafts (56).

Screen Shot 2015-10-20 at 7.54.28 PM

Here is an example of a similar Blackboard peer review I did in my own class. Students submit their thesis statements and evidence to the board and must respond to at least two of their classmate’s work.

Finally, Mason notes that teachers shouldn’t be too worried about students who are initially quiet or reluctant to participate. She believes that many quiet students are gaining “peripheral participation” and absorbing ideas by listening and that as the semester goes on, they are more likely to become active participants when they learn that speaking up is good practice to think critically and an opportunity to share their opinion (54). Ultimately, this shows the true value of cooperative learning:

“The very act of genuinely communicating with peers from diverse backgrounds through cooperative team-building structures alleviates fears, breaks down stereotypes, and promotes relationship building among students” (57).

Students who learn cooperatively become better writers, students, and more culturally-aware citizens.

Something that struck me as I read this was a reminder of Dell Hymes’ definition of communicative competence. Communicative competence in a cultural aspect as Hymes describes it is when someone learns how to speak language effectively to a particular culture to accomplish their purpose. When I have such a linguistically diverse class (particularly for my ESL English classes), getting students to the place that Mason describes, where students feel comfortable enough for their voices to be heard and are able to be understood is always one of my main goals. My goal is not for students to leave my class speaking standard English, but to be able to comfortably communicate in a college classroom with peers and to take some new knowledge away from that. The question I must then ask is, how do I speed up the process of getting those uncomfortable students to speak? It seems that Mason would argue the more they speak, the more quickly they will improve, but often getting my quietest students to speak is like pulling teeth. However, such cooperative learning would, as both Hymes and Mason would argue, make students improve more rapidly. How to speed up their communicative competence is something I need to consider further.

Lev_Vygotsky

Lev Vygotsky, the father of a developmental theory of education, changed everything when he introduced the ZPD, which has spurred decades of thinking on cooperative learning in the classroom.

In addition to Hymes, Mason’s definition fits very well again with a developmental theory of learning. Vygotsky’s ZPD helps explain Mason’s success. What she is describing here – students being “equal partners” in learning and being required to participate with their group gives them not only the feedback of their peers to make themselves better, but in giving feedback, they gain the confidence in their abilities and thoughts that eventually will allow them to move to new levels of competence as learners (Vygotsky 86). When Mason notes that often times students will provide feedback that she has never considered before is something I frequently encounter. While I am happy to sit down with students in conferences to discuss their writing, I am still only that – one perspective. By allowing students opportunities for conferring with peers as well, they gain new ideas and I gain new ideas also. This form of cooperative learning benefits both the students and the teacher alike. However, the questions that arise out of this yet again has to do with how I pair students for such work. Is it best to allow students to pick their own groups, or should I form them myself specifically putting weaker and stronger students together? If I do that, do the stronger students only benefit from helping others but not get a perceived benefit on their own? I frequently remember my own peer review days when I felt I got nothing worthwhile out of feedback. In what ways do teachers respond to the problems of such drastic differences in abilities and help cooperative learning improve all students? I haven’t figured out the most ideal solutions to these problems in my own class yet.

Works Cited

Hymes, Dell. “On Communicative Competence.” Research Planning Conference on Language and Development Among Disadvantaged Children. Yeshiva University. Frankfurt Graduate School. 7 June 1966. Address.

Mason, Katherine. “Cooperative Learning and Second Language Acquisition in First-Year Composition: Opportunities for Authentic Communication among English Language Learners.” Teaching English in the Two Year College 34.1 (2006): 52-58. Web.

Vygotsky, Lev. Mind in Society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1978. Print.

Engl PAB Entry 7

Oct19

Jehangir, Rashne. “Cooperative Learning in the Multicultural Classroom.” Theoretical Perspectives for Developmental Education. Ed. J. L. Higbee, & D. B. Lundell. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, General College, Center for Research in Developmental Education and Urban Literacy, 2001. 91-99. Print.

collaborative-learning260_tcm4-660290

If four heads are really better than one, what are the best ways to implement cooperative learning to make it more productive for developmental English students?

In Lev Vygotsky’s revolutionary books Thought and Language and Mind in Society, he outlines a developmental theory of learning, in which he articulates a definition of what he calls a “zone of proximal development (ZPD), which is “the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers” (Mind in Society 86).

Vygotsky notes that children are able to copy or imitate actions that go beyond their own capabilities, and this imitation, when cooperating and interacting with people in his peer environment (this could be peers or adults), eventually become “part of the child’s independent developmental achievement” (88, 90). By working with others, children are able to do more later on their own. This concept is key to a developmental theory of learning because it highlights how important imitation is to our development.

Such a concept has become highly important to the world of developmental/ESL English education. It is frequently found in the formats of modeling and cooperative learning in particular. In modeling, students see examples of the work they are expected to perform and then follow that particular style, becoming more competent through practice; cooperative learning also fits well with developmental theories of learning, because it allows students to work together to accomplish more. This is what Rashne Jehangir wrote about in her book chapter “Cooperative learning in the multicultural classroom.” Jehangir determines that through opening up controversial topics in a developmental education setting through the use of cooperative learning, students would learn more and also develop greater cultural awareness.

Jehangir first notes that the history of this issue has been examined since at least the 1960s. According to Parker Palmer, “‘there is a growing sense that teaching and learning don’t really happen unless there is some kind of building of relationships—not only between teacher and students but between teachers, students and subject’” (91). Jehangir also notes that other scholars believe in “‘constructivism where knowledge is actively built by learners, working together cooperatively and interdependently’” (91-92).

However, Jehangir quickly throws away the idea of simply putting students into group work, which she notes “does not result in the development of community, nor does it dissolve the competitive, individualistic behavior that many students think is expected of them” (93). She notes that for real cooperative learning, a teacher must facilitate, teach, and familiarize students with the process of working together (93). Jehangir believes that such a model of cooperative learning is particularly productive for developmental English because such a diverse and multicultural classroom will “use the rich tapestry of difference to allow students to teach each other” (96).

Recommendations that Jehangir uses to build such cooperative learning are to get students to define the word “community,” to “allow students to initiate ownership and accountability of the classroom experience” and have them state what they hope will come out of a classroom where peer interaction is crucial (97). Students must also create their own rules for their classroom community, while the instructor models and facilitates “appropriate use of the rules established by the students themselves” (97). Next, group activities that require students to listen carefully, consider what their partners have said, and give students time to self-reflect and summarize such discussions in the classroom are crucial (98).

I first learned about Vygotsky in Dr. Louise Phelps’ Productive Theory course during summer 2015. It was a particular turning-point for me in thinking about how to best approach my classes and students as individuals and as co-learners in the classroom space, but also made me think about NOVA’s policies for developmental education and if they are best being utilized.

First, I considered how learning such a method gave a name to something I already attempt to practice. I have always found group work to be particularly productive in classes. However, both Vygotsky and Jehangir made me think about how I am implementing such group work – do I need to spend more time, as Jehangir says, linking “classroom activities or assignments so that group members need each other’s input in order to be successful” (95)? I teach a developmental English course in which I, like Jehangir, discuss various controversial topics about race and gender. As Jehangir stated, do I need to spend more time than I do building a community classroom in which students feel safe? In addition, I normally let students choose their own work groups. These are often productive, but not always. Do I need to spend more time thinking about who is in  which group to allow for greater ZPD possibilities? While I am highly intrigued by the idea of cooperative learning, I now fear that the little I am doing in my own classroom to facilitate it is insufficient, and I may need to consider other advice from readings for paper 4 to find better ways to implement cooperative learning into my classroom.

Finally, at looking at NOVA’s developmental English department as a whole, thinking about Vygotsky and Jehangir makes me question yet again (as I have in several other PAB entries) whether or not NOVA is implementing developmental education in the most efficient manner. Would mixing class time with “regular” and “developmental” students, while offering developmental students additional time with the instructor be more productive? It seems that if we want to move towards a productive, cooperative, and developmental theory of learning, such a model might be necessary.

Works Cited

Jehangir, Rashne. “Cooperative learning in the multicultural classroom.” Theoretical perspectives for developmental education. Ed. J. L. Higbee, & D. B. Lundell. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, General College, Center for Research in Developmental Education and Urban Literacy, 2001. 91-99. Print.

Vygotsky, Lev. Mind in Society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1978. Print.

Vygotsky, Lev. Thought and Language. Trans. Alex Kozulin. 1962. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1986. Print.