Tateyama-Sniezek, K. (1990). Cooperative learning: Does it improve the academic achievement of students with handicaps?. Exceptional Children, 56(5), 426-437. Retrieved from Education Research Complete database.
This is the review mentioned in Dugan et al (1995). It is a literature review of pre-1990 studies on cooperative learning. It found only twelve studies on cooperative learning included students with individual needs and presented academic improvement as a dependant variable. Tateyama-Sniezek concluded that these studies presented inconsistent results to the benefit of cooperative learning to students with individual needs. It was not my intention to use research published before 1990, however this article creates an excellent starting point for discussion of cooperative learning for students with individual needs. It is also an interesting read in its own right.
2010-07-31
Cooperative learning and autism
Dugan, E., Kamps, D., Leonard, B. (1995). Effects of cooperative learning groups during social studies for students with autism and fourth-grade peers. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 28(2): 175–188. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1995.28-175.
This study is interesting as it is aimed at determining if students with autism can participate in cooperative learning activities, the forms of learning and engagement between students with autism and their peers during "traditional instruction" and cooperative learning and the type of interaction that occurs between students during both instruction types. Lofty goals. During their literature review the authors commented on a lack of definitive studies of students with learning disabilities in cooperative learning activities, as identified by Tateyama-Sniezek (1990).
The study involved 2 students with autism in a class of 18 fourth grade students in an inner-city (I assume USA) elementary school. One of the students with autism was described as moderate-functioning and other high-functioning, both identified as having problems with comprehension and abstract reasoning.
The traditional teaching method was
The teacher's lecture and discussion format included introducing key words and facts, posing questions to individuals, and using maps. The students were expected to use texts and take notes. (p. 178)
with students seating in assigned groups of 3 or 4. The cooperative learning groups with three or four members consisting of a high ability student, 1 or 2 moderate ability students and one low ability student. In two of the groups the low ability student was one of the students with autism. The cooperative learning method was teacher presentation of new or review content, followed by peer tutoring and whole group activities. Additionally, group member were assigned roles, however it was not specified if they were permanent or rotating. Group social skills training was given, with a sticker-based reinforcement chart provided for each group. Interestingly, after three weeks the students were shifted back to the traditional instruction for two weeks, then shifted to cooperative learning again (duration initially unspecified, however the results reveal it was six weeks).
In the first cooperative learning period, the test results of the students with autism improved compared to the pretest results. In the second cooperative learning period showed general improvement for both students, however for one student the amount of improvement fluctuated. The peer students also improved test results during the cooperative learning periods. The two students with autism had higher levels of engagement during the cooperative learning activities. However, they only cooperatively interacted during the peer tutoring sessions.
This is a good paper as it shows that cooperative learning activities improve the educational outcomes of students with special needs. It also shows that there are small benefits to engagement and interaction for students with autism.
This is a good paper as it shows that cooperative learning activities improve the educational outcomes of students with special needs. It also shows that there are small benefits to engagement and interaction for students with autism.
The types of peers matter.
O'Connor, R.E., Jenkins, J.R. (1996). Cooperative learning as an inclusion strategy: A closer look. Exceptionality, 6(1), 29-51. doi: 10.1207/s15327035ex0601_3
Cooperative learning ties with Vygotsky, student's work in the zone of proximal development.
Cooperative integrated reading and composition (CIRC) model – a mixture of instruction, individual reading, assessment and cooperative group work, normally given in the order of instruction, group work, individual assessment and group recognition. This model rewards the group for the improvement of individuals. The groups were nominally four students, of mixed ethnicity, gender and achievement. Each group were give reading tasks at the same reading ability level.
In the first year of their study was at a single school, where there were 12 students with learning disabilities (11 qualified for special education support, where the twelfth qualified for behavioural support). Two students were dropped from the study due to insufficient cooperative learning observation time as they received specialist tuition. Also observed was an average student of the same gender and class for each student with a learning disability. The school was in its fourth year of CIRC implementation and the teachers had received substantial training in cooperative learning. They observed student behaviour and interactions.
The authors give many examples of interactions between students with learning disabilities and their tutoring peer, some positive, some negative, some neutral. The focus of the study had been the interactions between the students with disability and their tutoring peer. The teaching environment was also found to affect the success of cooperative learning exercises. The content of the paper is very detailed and an excellent read for methodology in these types of exercises.
2010-07-27
Cooperation training in Australia
Gillies, R.M., Ashman, A.F. (2000). The effects of cooperative learning on students with learning difficulties in the lower elementary school. Journal of special education, 34(1), 19-27. doi: 10.1177/002246690003400102
This paper reports on a study of cooperative learning in Australian schools. The focus of the study was the effects of cooperative learning training on the behaviour and outcomes of students with learning disabilities.
Participants were from 25 grade 3 classes from 11 schools of similar socio-economic status from around Brisbane. Of the 152 students, 22 were identified as have learning difficulties, with reading levels below that of their grade level and phonological processing problems. These students had also been receiving specialist teacher help. All of the students were placed in groups containing an identified high ability student, two medium ability students and a low ability student. The low ability student group contained the students with learning difficulties. The groups some group were then given cooperation training, with 12 of the students with learning difficulties receiving this training. The student's were pre- and post-tested using the measures selected for the study. Groups were video recorded twice for behaviour observations.
The study found that students with learning difficulties were more involved with group activities and exhibited less off-task behaviour when the students were in a group which had cooperation training. It was commented that the students in the cooperation training group did not provide more, or better, explanations, than the non-trained group, however they did provide more directions. Students in the cooperation training group achieved better outcomes at the end of the study on the comprehension questionnaire, but not the standardised test. This was attributed to the questionnaire having a closer alignment to the curriculum than the test.
The authors finish by stating that their study supports cooperative learning as a means of improving outcomes and helping behaviours of students with learning difficulties, however they feel that the conclusions that can be drawn are limited due to the small number of students with learning difficulties.
Main quote: "results of this study suggest that children with learning difficulties benefit from working in small, structured cooperative groups in their classrooms" (p. 26).
Gillies, R. (2002). The Residual Effects of Cooperative-Learning Experiences: A Two-Year Follow-Up. Journal of Educational Research, 96(1), 15. Retrieved from Education Research Complete database.
This paper initially sounded like a follow-up to the Gillies and Ashman (2000) paper above, however it is instead appears to be a follow up to a previous study performed by the pair. Most of the experimental conditions were the same, however there are a few differences. First is that they are year 5 students and the students split into groups based on whether they received cooperative learning training or not in the previous study and did not receive any additional training.
It was found that the previously trained students were more on task, sharing and responsive to group members needs than non-trained students. The previously trained students also provided more explanations than the untrained students. It was also noted that the trained students used more sophisticated language and language strategies as they gave explanations to their group. This paper is good as it shows that the cooperation training lasts, it does not fade away after the end of the study.
An important note for both these studies is that they report on the effect of cooperation training rather than cooperative learning. Both the trained and untrained students were given the same cooperative learning activities. Looking at the results in Gillies and Ashman (2000) show that the untrained group improved they group behaviour and results, however the improvement was not as significant as trained group.
This paper reports on a study of cooperative learning in Australian schools. The focus of the study was the effects of cooperative learning training on the behaviour and outcomes of students with learning disabilities.
Participants were from 25 grade 3 classes from 11 schools of similar socio-economic status from around Brisbane. Of the 152 students, 22 were identified as have learning difficulties, with reading levels below that of their grade level and phonological processing problems. These students had also been receiving specialist teacher help. All of the students were placed in groups containing an identified high ability student, two medium ability students and a low ability student. The low ability student group contained the students with learning difficulties. The groups some group were then given cooperation training, with 12 of the students with learning difficulties receiving this training. The student's were pre- and post-tested using the measures selected for the study. Groups were video recorded twice for behaviour observations.
The study found that students with learning difficulties were more involved with group activities and exhibited less off-task behaviour when the students were in a group which had cooperation training. It was commented that the students in the cooperation training group did not provide more, or better, explanations, than the non-trained group, however they did provide more directions. Students in the cooperation training group achieved better outcomes at the end of the study on the comprehension questionnaire, but not the standardised test. This was attributed to the questionnaire having a closer alignment to the curriculum than the test.
The authors finish by stating that their study supports cooperative learning as a means of improving outcomes and helping behaviours of students with learning difficulties, however they feel that the conclusions that can be drawn are limited due to the small number of students with learning difficulties.
Main quote: "results of this study suggest that children with learning difficulties benefit from working in small, structured cooperative groups in their classrooms" (p. 26).
Gillies, R. (2002). The Residual Effects of Cooperative-Learning Experiences: A Two-Year Follow-Up. Journal of Educational Research, 96(1), 15. Retrieved from Education Research Complete database.
This paper initially sounded like a follow-up to the Gillies and Ashman (2000) paper above, however it is instead appears to be a follow up to a previous study performed by the pair. Most of the experimental conditions were the same, however there are a few differences. First is that they are year 5 students and the students split into groups based on whether they received cooperative learning training or not in the previous study and did not receive any additional training.
It was found that the previously trained students were more on task, sharing and responsive to group members needs than non-trained students. The previously trained students also provided more explanations than the untrained students. It was also noted that the trained students used more sophisticated language and language strategies as they gave explanations to their group. This paper is good as it shows that the cooperation training lasts, it does not fade away after the end of the study.
An important note for both these studies is that they report on the effect of cooperation training rather than cooperative learning. Both the trained and untrained students were given the same cooperative learning activities. Looking at the results in Gillies and Ashman (2000) show that the untrained group improved they group behaviour and results, however the improvement was not as significant as trained group.
2010-07-16
Becoming a reader and writer in a bilingual special education classroom
Ruiz, N.T., Vargas, E., Beltran, A. (2002). Becoming a reader and writer in a bilingual special education classroom. Language arts, 79(4), 297-309. Retrieved from http://faculty.washington.edu/smithant/Ruiz%20Vargas%20and%20Beltran.pdf
This is an interesting article, however it is important to note that the only "bilingual" part is that it is the classroom (and teachers I presume) that is bilingual. The article gives the story of a boy who migrated from Guatemala to the United States with his family. He was identified as not able to read or write in Spanish or English and was assessed as having a learning disability during his third year of school. Two specialist teachers (the second and third authors) petitioned for the boy to be placed in their specialist classroom. After one and a half years, the reading and writing ability, I am assuming in Spanish, of the boy increased by approximately 3.5 grade levels.
The specialist classroom was run on set of twelve classroom conditions, which are very similar to the Productive Pedagogies and the elements of the Quality Teaching Framework. The teachers also identified a set of principles for bilingual students with learning disabilities from the literature. These principles were:
Again, very similar to the PP/QTF, so I am sure that they can be applied for a "normal" classroom, rather than a special education one. The classroom activities promoted the use of written materials with feedback received from the whole class group. Importantly, initial emphasis was on the message contained within the written piece, rather than the spelling and grammar. Engagement between the boy and his peers was easily facilitated by the boys drawing ability, which was seen as a desirable asset for cooperative activities. It was this range of activities which improved his literacy. The teachers themselves feel that the improvement occurred because he "became a highly motivated participant in all activities in his general education classroom, as well as in the resource room" (p. 304).
This is an interesting article, however it is important to note that the only "bilingual" part is that it is the classroom (and teachers I presume) that is bilingual. The article gives the story of a boy who migrated from Guatemala to the United States with his family. He was identified as not able to read or write in Spanish or English and was assessed as having a learning disability during his third year of school. Two specialist teachers (the second and third authors) petitioned for the boy to be placed in their specialist classroom. After one and a half years, the reading and writing ability, I am assuming in Spanish, of the boy increased by approximately 3.5 grade levels.
The specialist classroom was run on set of twelve classroom conditions, which are very similar to the Productive Pedagogies and the elements of the Quality Teaching Framework. The teachers also identified a set of principles for bilingual students with learning disabilities from the literature. These principles were:
- Connect students’ background knowledge and personal experiences with literacy lessons.
- Foster the use of students’ primary language in literacy lessons.
- Create opportunities for students to meaningfully and authentically apply their developing oral language and literacy skills.
- Foster increased levels of interaction (oral language, reading, and writing) among students and teachers. (p. 299)
Again, very similar to the PP/QTF, so I am sure that they can be applied for a "normal" classroom, rather than a special education one. The classroom activities promoted the use of written materials with feedback received from the whole class group. Importantly, initial emphasis was on the message contained within the written piece, rather than the spelling and grammar. Engagement between the boy and his peers was easily facilitated by the boys drawing ability, which was seen as a desirable asset for cooperative activities. It was this range of activities which improved his literacy. The teachers themselves feel that the improvement occurred because he "became a highly motivated participant in all activities in his general education classroom, as well as in the resource room" (p. 304).
2010-07-09
Interim Summary: Cooperative learning for mathematics education
Cooperative learning is the name given to a range of educational instruction methods in which students work in groups with defined goals (Nattiv, 1994). Cooperative learning has been described as “one of the greatest success stories in the history of educational innovation” (Slavin, 1999, 74) and has been found to improve student learning.
An important part of cooperative learning is that students are individually accountable for their own learning, quite often with individual goals within the group goal. Individual accountability and goals are very important components, as without them a single student in the group may do all the work, dictate roles to the other group members or group members may ostracise a group member, ignoring any contributions they may make (Slavin, 1999). Antil, Jenkins, Wayne, & Vadasy (1998) report that in six schools in a single region of the United States of America, 81% of the teachers used cooperative learning activities daily, however only 24% of those teachers used any form of individual accountability within those activities.
There are a range of different structures which can be applied for different educational exercise. The term structure is used because an activity has a “specific content-bound objective” (Kagan, 1989, p. 12), whereas a structure can be modified for any specific learning task. As there are a range of structures, it is important to consider the type of cognitive, academic and social development desired by the activity. Where the activity occurs in the lesson plan and the resources required also needs to be considered. Some structures encourage inductive reasoning, review of knowledge, equal participation, debate, role-taking and team building. The social interaction component of the structure has equal time with the cognitive and academic components.
Numbered Heads Together is a cooperative learning structure which Kagan (1989) suggest can replace the traditional Whole-Class Question-Answer structure. In the Numbered Heads Together structure, the teacher numbers off students who form groups based upon the number they are given. The teacher asks a question and the groups then discuss the question and how it should be answered. Finally, the teacher picks a number and that group answers the question. In this structure the students are group tutoring for knowledge and comprehension, where the Whole-Class Question-Answer structure had individual students competing for the teacher's attention.
A different cooperative learning structure is the Jigsaw method, in which a group assigned learning task is divided into distinctive components and given to individual members of a group (Sharan, 1980). The completion of the learning task is dependant on each member finishing their component and teaching it to the other group members, as each member is required to learn the content for assessment. The task components are structured so that one member of each group in the class is doing the same component, but for different group tasks. When combined with communication and tutoring training, the Jigsaw method has been observed to improve academic achievement as well as self-esteem and student cooperation (Sharan, 1980).
A cooperative learning structure used in the cooperative learning in mathematics studies is Student Teams and Achievement Divisions (STAD) (Nattiv, 1994; Slavin, 1999). In this structure students are split into small groups, usually of mixed gender, ability, ethnicity, for group problem solving and peer tutoring. The teacher instructs the class in a new topic and instead of traditional individual exercises the students split into their groups to do the exercise. The execution of the group work can vary, some groups may form problem solver and solution checker pairs, who then check their solution with the whole group, or a whole group approach may be taken with the problems. Nattiv (1994) performed a study where primary students were taught how to give explanations to other students when they encountered difficulty with problems. Using the STAD structure and this training, it was found that there was a strong, statistical correlation between giving or receiving explanations and improvement in student achievement. Not surprisingly, high achieving students gave more explanations, while low achieving students received more explanations from group members.
Currently, cooperative learning appears to be an excellent technique at improving student achievement. Of interest for further research are additional structures and studies identifying structures for mathematical learning.
References
Antil, L.R., Jenkins, J.R., Wayne, S.K., and Vadasy, P.F. (1998). Cooperative learning: Prevalence, conceptualizations, and the relation between research and practice. American Educational Research Journal, 35, 419-454. doi:10.3102/00028312035003419
Kagan, S. (1989). The structural approach to cooperative learning. Educational Leadership, 47(4), 12-15. Retrieved from MasterFILE Premier database.
Nattiv, A. (1994). Helping behaviors and math achievement gain of students using cooperative learning. Elementary School Journal, 94(3), 285-297. Retrieved from Education Research Complete database.
Sharan, S. (1980). Cooperative learning in small groups: Recent methods and effects on achievement, attitudes, and ethnic relations. Review of Educational Research, 50, 241-271. doi:10.3102/00346543050002241
Slavin, R. (1999). Comprehensive approaches to cooperative learning. Theory Into Practice, 38(2), 74-79. Retrieved from Business Source Premier database.
An important part of cooperative learning is that students are individually accountable for their own learning, quite often with individual goals within the group goal. Individual accountability and goals are very important components, as without them a single student in the group may do all the work, dictate roles to the other group members or group members may ostracise a group member, ignoring any contributions they may make (Slavin, 1999). Antil, Jenkins, Wayne, & Vadasy (1998) report that in six schools in a single region of the United States of America, 81% of the teachers used cooperative learning activities daily, however only 24% of those teachers used any form of individual accountability within those activities.
There are a range of different structures which can be applied for different educational exercise. The term structure is used because an activity has a “specific content-bound objective” (Kagan, 1989, p. 12), whereas a structure can be modified for any specific learning task. As there are a range of structures, it is important to consider the type of cognitive, academic and social development desired by the activity. Where the activity occurs in the lesson plan and the resources required also needs to be considered. Some structures encourage inductive reasoning, review of knowledge, equal participation, debate, role-taking and team building. The social interaction component of the structure has equal time with the cognitive and academic components.
Numbered Heads Together is a cooperative learning structure which Kagan (1989) suggest can replace the traditional Whole-Class Question-Answer structure. In the Numbered Heads Together structure, the teacher numbers off students who form groups based upon the number they are given. The teacher asks a question and the groups then discuss the question and how it should be answered. Finally, the teacher picks a number and that group answers the question. In this structure the students are group tutoring for knowledge and comprehension, where the Whole-Class Question-Answer structure had individual students competing for the teacher's attention.
A different cooperative learning structure is the Jigsaw method, in which a group assigned learning task is divided into distinctive components and given to individual members of a group (Sharan, 1980). The completion of the learning task is dependant on each member finishing their component and teaching it to the other group members, as each member is required to learn the content for assessment. The task components are structured so that one member of each group in the class is doing the same component, but for different group tasks. When combined with communication and tutoring training, the Jigsaw method has been observed to improve academic achievement as well as self-esteem and student cooperation (Sharan, 1980).
A cooperative learning structure used in the cooperative learning in mathematics studies is Student Teams and Achievement Divisions (STAD) (Nattiv, 1994; Slavin, 1999). In this structure students are split into small groups, usually of mixed gender, ability, ethnicity, for group problem solving and peer tutoring. The teacher instructs the class in a new topic and instead of traditional individual exercises the students split into their groups to do the exercise. The execution of the group work can vary, some groups may form problem solver and solution checker pairs, who then check their solution with the whole group, or a whole group approach may be taken with the problems. Nattiv (1994) performed a study where primary students were taught how to give explanations to other students when they encountered difficulty with problems. Using the STAD structure and this training, it was found that there was a strong, statistical correlation between giving or receiving explanations and improvement in student achievement. Not surprisingly, high achieving students gave more explanations, while low achieving students received more explanations from group members.
Currently, cooperative learning appears to be an excellent technique at improving student achievement. Of interest for further research are additional structures and studies identifying structures for mathematical learning.
References
Antil, L.R., Jenkins, J.R., Wayne, S.K., and Vadasy, P.F. (1998). Cooperative learning: Prevalence, conceptualizations, and the relation between research and practice. American Educational Research Journal, 35, 419-454. doi:10.3102/00028312035003419
Kagan, S. (1989). The structural approach to cooperative learning. Educational Leadership, 47(4), 12-15. Retrieved from MasterFILE Premier database.
Nattiv, A. (1994). Helping behaviors and math achievement gain of students using cooperative learning. Elementary School Journal, 94(3), 285-297. Retrieved from Education Research Complete database.
Sharan, S. (1980). Cooperative learning in small groups: Recent methods and effects on achievement, attitudes, and ethnic relations. Review of Educational Research, 50, 241-271. doi:10.3102/00346543050002241
Slavin, R. (1999). Comprehensive approaches to cooperative learning. Theory Into Practice, 38(2), 74-79. Retrieved from Business Source Premier database.
Interim Summary: Bilingual literacy in education
Bilingual literacy is a term used to describe the literacy, particularly literacy development, of second language speakers and learners. It is difficult to separate the literacy component from the larger issue of multiple language learning and speaking. The following summarises fragmented, personal research in the topic of bilingualism and bilingual literacy.
Literacy describes the ability to read and write in a range of different contexts, the ability to use and understanding written language and is connected to speaking, listening and critically analysing information (Krause, 2010). Literacy is a sociocognitive activity, in that literacy and the learning of literacy takes place in a sociocultural setting, which influence the meanings and purpose of words in language (Langer, 1990).
Where different societies within a country speak different languages, there exists majority language and a minority language, where majority and minority refer to societal power of those that speak the language (Hornberger, 1998). The minority language speakers, literate in their own language, are forced to learn and become literate in the majority language. For this reason, Hornberger (1998) states that Indigenous and immigrant languages in danger across the world as they are “subjected to seemingly irresistible social, political, and economic pressures” (p. 439).
In education, the minority language speakers are taught the majority language as they are learning the language. Grant and Wong (2003) estimate that in the United States of America “30–40% of school-age English language learners fail to reach acceptable levels of English reading [based on State-wide, standardised testing] by the end of their elementary schooling” (p. 387). They believe that English reading specialist teachers are not trained adequately for teaching language minority students and that there had been little research about English literacy development for minority language speakers. However the nature of standardised testing means that they most likely expected the same English reading level as first language English students.
Understanding how bilingual speakers construct meaning from text is an important consideration in bilingual education. A small study by Langer (1990) found, in their group of Mexican-American students, that it was the strategies employed for meaning construction in Spanish (the first language), rather than English fluency, which had the greatest effect on English reading ability. Additionally, greater understanding of difficult passages of English text was achieved when they were mentally processed in Spanish. The literacy context was also found to be important, as the students had greater understanding of the story genre when written in English than the Spanish written factual report. These observations indicate that the first language of the speakers has a clear role in second language education.
When studying the Oyster-Adams Bilingual School (Washington DC, USA), Freeman (as cited by Hornberger, 1998) found that while the school embed English-Spanish bilingual education in the school curriculum, teaching pedagogy and social relations, the languages were not used equally. Examples given for this inequality were English code switching in Spanish classes and English written school district tests, however the degree which the school controls district tests is questionable. It was found that the school created an environment in which minority language learners could speak and learn in their language and promoted their rights, while teaching the majority language learners a second language and acceptance of minority language speakers. At this school the majority language learners were taught the second language in a method that treated the language as a resource for students, in this case a resource for learning, which is an approach Hornberger (1998) advocates for teaching languages to majority language speakers.
The future of bilingual education requires that bilingualism is built into all aspects of education, so that students are taught “how to transfer knowledge and strategies acquired in one language to another language” (García, 2000). By giving bilingual language and biliteracy equal time with content, the languages will be a resource that students will draw upon in their education. Future personal research will seek to establish a better picture of bilingualism and bilingual literacy and techniques to use in a classroom to develop bilingualism and bilingual literacy.
References
García, G.E. (2000). How will bilingual/ESL programs in literacy change in the next millennium? Reading Research Quarterly, 35(4), 521-522. Retrieved from Education Research Complete database
Grant, R. & Wong, S. (2003). Barriers to literacy for language-minority learners: An argument for change in the literacy education profession. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 46(5), 386. Retrieved from Education Research Complete database.
Hornberger, N.H. (1998). Language policy, language education, language rights: Indigenous, immigrant, and international perspectives. Language in Society, 27(04), 439-458. doi: 10.1017/S0047404598004011
Krause, K.-L., Bochner, S., Duchesne, S., & McMaugh, A. (2010). Educational psychology: For teaching and learning (3rd ed.). South Melbourne, Australia: Cengage Learning
Langer, J. A. (1990) Meaning construction in school literacy tasks: A study of bilingual students. American Educational Research Journal, 27(3), 427. doi: 10.3102/00028312027003427
Literacy describes the ability to read and write in a range of different contexts, the ability to use and understanding written language and is connected to speaking, listening and critically analysing information (Krause, 2010). Literacy is a sociocognitive activity, in that literacy and the learning of literacy takes place in a sociocultural setting, which influence the meanings and purpose of words in language (Langer, 1990).
Where different societies within a country speak different languages, there exists majority language and a minority language, where majority and minority refer to societal power of those that speak the language (Hornberger, 1998). The minority language speakers, literate in their own language, are forced to learn and become literate in the majority language. For this reason, Hornberger (1998) states that Indigenous and immigrant languages in danger across the world as they are “subjected to seemingly irresistible social, political, and economic pressures” (p. 439).
In education, the minority language speakers are taught the majority language as they are learning the language. Grant and Wong (2003) estimate that in the United States of America “30–40% of school-age English language learners fail to reach acceptable levels of English reading [based on State-wide, standardised testing] by the end of their elementary schooling” (p. 387). They believe that English reading specialist teachers are not trained adequately for teaching language minority students and that there had been little research about English literacy development for minority language speakers. However the nature of standardised testing means that they most likely expected the same English reading level as first language English students.
Understanding how bilingual speakers construct meaning from text is an important consideration in bilingual education. A small study by Langer (1990) found, in their group of Mexican-American students, that it was the strategies employed for meaning construction in Spanish (the first language), rather than English fluency, which had the greatest effect on English reading ability. Additionally, greater understanding of difficult passages of English text was achieved when they were mentally processed in Spanish. The literacy context was also found to be important, as the students had greater understanding of the story genre when written in English than the Spanish written factual report. These observations indicate that the first language of the speakers has a clear role in second language education.
When studying the Oyster-Adams Bilingual School (Washington DC, USA), Freeman (as cited by Hornberger, 1998) found that while the school embed English-Spanish bilingual education in the school curriculum, teaching pedagogy and social relations, the languages were not used equally. Examples given for this inequality were English code switching in Spanish classes and English written school district tests, however the degree which the school controls district tests is questionable. It was found that the school created an environment in which minority language learners could speak and learn in their language and promoted their rights, while teaching the majority language learners a second language and acceptance of minority language speakers. At this school the majority language learners were taught the second language in a method that treated the language as a resource for students, in this case a resource for learning, which is an approach Hornberger (1998) advocates for teaching languages to majority language speakers.
The future of bilingual education requires that bilingualism is built into all aspects of education, so that students are taught “how to transfer knowledge and strategies acquired in one language to another language” (García, 2000). By giving bilingual language and biliteracy equal time with content, the languages will be a resource that students will draw upon in their education. Future personal research will seek to establish a better picture of bilingualism and bilingual literacy and techniques to use in a classroom to develop bilingualism and bilingual literacy.
References
García, G.E. (2000). How will bilingual/ESL programs in literacy change in the next millennium? Reading Research Quarterly, 35(4), 521-522. Retrieved from Education Research Complete database
Grant, R. & Wong, S. (2003). Barriers to literacy for language-minority learners: An argument for change in the literacy education profession. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 46(5), 386. Retrieved from Education Research Complete database.
Hornberger, N.H. (1998). Language policy, language education, language rights: Indigenous, immigrant, and international perspectives. Language in Society, 27(04), 439-458. doi: 10.1017/S0047404598004011
Krause, K.-L., Bochner, S., Duchesne, S., & McMaugh, A. (2010). Educational psychology: For teaching and learning (3rd ed.). South Melbourne, Australia: Cengage Learning
Langer, J. A. (1990) Meaning construction in school literacy tasks: A study of bilingual students. American Educational Research Journal, 27(3), 427. doi: 10.3102/00028312027003427
2010-07-08
The Structural Approach to Cooperative Learning
Kagan, S. (1989). The structural approach to cooperative learning. Educational Leadership, 47(4), 12-15. Retrieved from MasterFILE Premier database.
This paper discusses a range of structures which can be used by a teacher for cooperative learning. The author states that traditional techniques promote competition and anti-socialism. The idea of structures is that they can be adapted for the desired activity, however a single structure is not suited to every educational goal. The structure needs to be selected based upon the desired cognitive, academic and social development as well as its location within the the lesson plan.
Some of the structures given:
This paper discusses a range of structures which can be used by a teacher for cooperative learning. The author states that traditional techniques promote competition and anti-socialism. The idea of structures is that they can be adapted for the desired activity, however a single structure is not suited to every educational goal. The structure needs to be selected based upon the desired cognitive, academic and social development as well as its location within the the lesson plan.
Some of the structures given:
- Numbered Heads Together: The teacher numbers the students into groups, which get together. The teacher asks a questions and each group discusses the question and how it should be answered. Finally, the teacher picks a number and the students from that group give their answer.
- Three step interview: Students in pairs take turns at talking and listening (the first two step), while in the third step the students share, with a small group or the class, what they learnt from the other student. This third step contains accountability for learning and assists in the learning of the whole group/class.
- Co-op Co-op: The description is strange, however the idea is to present cooperative learning structures, rather than specific activities. Its described as a 10 step structure in which student teams create a project to educate the rest of the class. In the project each student has their own task and the whole task is finished when those components are assembled together. I am not sure how this is 10 steps.
Contains maths
Nattiv, A. (1994). Helping behaviors and math achievement gain of students using cooperative learning. Elementary School Journal, 94(3), 285. Retrieved from Education Research Complete database.
This paper starts by saying that cooperative learning is a name given to a wide range of education strategies based on the idea that students are placed into small groups, where each member works towards a group goal while being an accountable individual. Teams may contain a mix of genders, ethnicity and student ability level. Students instructed through cooperative learning learn more than students instructed through individual or competitive methods. It has been found that students who give and receive explanations relevant to the topic learn more than those that are given the answer without explanation.
The study was of 101 students in grades 3-5 in a elementary school in northern Utah, with "exemplary" teachers who were positive about and enjoyed teaching maths. The students were split into groups of six, mixed gender and ethnicity and containing two students of high, medium, and low ability (based on data from a standardised test three months prior). Students were instructed in helping behaviours for three weeks prior to the study, practised with daily feedback. Instruction methods included direct instruction, role playing, modelling, singling out correct behaviours, team points and feedback regarding effectiveness. Students were taught and shown methods of asking questions and explaining how to do things. The students and teachers had not previously been trained in cooperative learning or helping behaviours.
The cooperative learning system was one based on class wide direct instruction followed by student tutoring groups on the content. The students take a test on the concept and the team earned points based upon improvement over previous test results. Some of the tutoring took place by the group splitting into pairs which worked as solver/checker and the whole group coming together frequently to check progress and answers. They working in these groups for three weeks prior to the study.
The maths topics while the study was progressing were multiplication (3rd), measurement of distance, area and volume (4th) and complex fractions(5th), all involving comprehension, computation, application and some problem solving and use of manipulatives. Each team was video taped an average of twice a week for 5 minutes, with only on team taped at a time. The behaviours targeted were 'gives explanation', receives explanation', 'asks for help (receiving)', 'gives help other than explanation', 'receives help other than explanation', 'gives answer only', 'receives answer only' and 'receives no help after asking'.
When a behaviour was observed it was recorded for that student, with behaviours recorded again if went for longer than 30 seconds.
The results found that giving and receiving explanations or other help were positively related to achievement. High ability students gave more help, low ability students received more help and medium ability students giving and receiving help. Giving and receiving answer only was not significantly (statistically speaking) related to achievement. There was no dependence on helping behaviours and gender observed. 5th grade students gave/received only answers half as often as 3rd and 4th grade students, however giving and receiving answers only occurred infrequently. Not receiving help after asking had the lowest mean observation frequency. They reported that sometimes team helping, one helping many and helping without being asked was observed. The author questions if students would engage in helping behaviours if they had not been taught them.
This paper starts by saying that cooperative learning is a name given to a wide range of education strategies based on the idea that students are placed into small groups, where each member works towards a group goal while being an accountable individual. Teams may contain a mix of genders, ethnicity and student ability level. Students instructed through cooperative learning learn more than students instructed through individual or competitive methods. It has been found that students who give and receive explanations relevant to the topic learn more than those that are given the answer without explanation.
The study was of 101 students in grades 3-5 in a elementary school in northern Utah, with "exemplary" teachers who were positive about and enjoyed teaching maths. The students were split into groups of six, mixed gender and ethnicity and containing two students of high, medium, and low ability (based on data from a standardised test three months prior). Students were instructed in helping behaviours for three weeks prior to the study, practised with daily feedback. Instruction methods included direct instruction, role playing, modelling, singling out correct behaviours, team points and feedback regarding effectiveness. Students were taught and shown methods of asking questions and explaining how to do things. The students and teachers had not previously been trained in cooperative learning or helping behaviours.
The cooperative learning system was one based on class wide direct instruction followed by student tutoring groups on the content. The students take a test on the concept and the team earned points based upon improvement over previous test results. Some of the tutoring took place by the group splitting into pairs which worked as solver/checker and the whole group coming together frequently to check progress and answers. They working in these groups for three weeks prior to the study.
The maths topics while the study was progressing were multiplication (3rd), measurement of distance, area and volume (4th) and complex fractions(5th), all involving comprehension, computation, application and some problem solving and use of manipulatives. Each team was video taped an average of twice a week for 5 minutes, with only on team taped at a time. The behaviours targeted were 'gives explanation', receives explanation', 'asks for help (receiving)', 'gives help other than explanation', 'receives help other than explanation', 'gives answer only', 'receives answer only' and 'receives no help after asking'.
When a behaviour was observed it was recorded for that student, with behaviours recorded again if went for longer than 30 seconds.
The results found that giving and receiving explanations or other help were positively related to achievement. High ability students gave more help, low ability students received more help and medium ability students giving and receiving help. Giving and receiving answer only was not significantly (statistically speaking) related to achievement. There was no dependence on helping behaviours and gender observed. 5th grade students gave/received only answers half as often as 3rd and 4th grade students, however giving and receiving answers only occurred infrequently. Not receiving help after asking had the lowest mean observation frequency. They reported that sometimes team helping, one helping many and helping without being asked was observed. The author questions if students would engage in helping behaviours if they had not been taught them.
An overview of a school: contains cooperative learning
Slavin, R. (1999). Comprehensive approaches to cooperative learning. Theory Into Practice, 38(2), 74. Retrieved from Business Source Premier database.
Most of the paper discusses observations at the Lincoln Elementary School, which had implemented "Success for All" and "Roots and Wings" programs, which had improved student outcomes with cooperative learning activities. In a younger group they have a reader-listener activity where one student reads while the other listens, correcting errors and helping with difficult words. They then work on sheets where one acts as the teacher while the other is the learner. For older students, readings is in groups of four where one student reads a story and they then work together to find elements of the story and review the book. It describes a maths activity (science really) in which students measure, in groups of four, the distance travelled by cars after they have rolled down a ramp. They then analyse the data on their own (this is year 4 though, so nothing big) and then compare and discuss within the group. I see what the activity is like, but it doesn't sit as a cooperative learning activity to myself. In other maths situations, the whole class is given instruction, but they work on problems as a group. They use open ended, group based rich tasks for a combined SOSE-Science class. Strong parental involvement to continue education at home (mostly reading). It concludes by saying the programs show that a "comprehensive approach can be developed, evaluated, and disseminated to make the promise of cooperative learning a reality for very large numbers of children" (p. 79).
Most of the paper discusses observations at the Lincoln Elementary School, which had implemented "Success for All" and "Roots and Wings" programs, which had improved student outcomes with cooperative learning activities. In a younger group they have a reader-listener activity where one student reads while the other listens, correcting errors and helping with difficult words. They then work on sheets where one acts as the teacher while the other is the learner. For older students, readings is in groups of four where one student reads a story and they then work together to find elements of the story and review the book. It describes a maths activity (science really) in which students measure, in groups of four, the distance travelled by cars after they have rolled down a ramp. They then analyse the data on their own (this is year 4 though, so nothing big) and then compare and discuss within the group. I see what the activity is like, but it doesn't sit as a cooperative learning activity to myself. In other maths situations, the whole class is given instruction, but they work on problems as a group. They use open ended, group based rich tasks for a combined SOSE-Science class. Strong parental involvement to continue education at home (mostly reading). It concludes by saying the programs show that a "comprehensive approach can be developed, evaluated, and disseminated to make the promise of cooperative learning a reality for very large numbers of children" (p. 79).
Some notes regarding cooperative learning:
- High awareness in education, however numbers probably overstate amount of sustained use.
- A study showed 81% using cooperative learning daily, but only 24% used individual accountability linked to group goals.
- Requires group goals with individual accountability, without this one child may do the work, or do all the thinking with other taking clerical roles, or students may be left out.
- here exist a problem between using cooperative learning and linking with curriculum goals.
Languages under attack?
Hornberger (1998)
The paper starts by discussing the need for policy and education to preserve and sustain indeginous and immigrant languages, which the authors feel are "under attack" (p439) - in the USA in particular, and may hae been true elswhere at the time of writing. They give the example that there are 175 indigenous langagues, of which only 20 are being "transmitted as child languages" (p3). I assume they use "transmitted" to mean "formal instruction", rather than informal instruction in the parent to child form. Apparently endangered languages have received increasing scholarly attention in recent years. They give many examples of programs to improve te use of languages throughout the world, holding the South African constitution, which recongnises 9 national languages and gives provision for more, as the paragon on bilingualism. Also give are examples of Govermernt policy and societal pressure for a single language.
In developing billingual education, the author believes that it is best developed in a way which makes the minority language a resource for the majority language speakers, rather than just a right of the minority language speakers. A bilingual school in the USA is given as an example. This school has a policy of billinguistic use of Spanish and English and this is embedded in the school curriculum, teacher pedagogy and social relations at the school. In practise, this was not entilrely acchieved, for example the school district standardised testing was only in English, the Spanish language students achieved a greater degree for billingism than the English speaking students. What they achieved was a school which promotoed, and gave, the rights of a minority language group while teaching the majority language students a second language. In my opinion, this is still a great achievement.
Kura Kaupapa Maori, community based schools in New Zealand were given as an example of language and cultural revitalisation, however these sound like immersive schools and therefore not billingual. However, I think the Education Foundations textbook may contain imformation on the movement towards English/Maori billingual schoools in New Zealand.
A study by Crease in the UK reports that "language rights of the children rarely became a priority equal to the content-based aims of secondary education" (p454) and trying to change the system was viewed as a deficit thinking by the billingual students.
The paper starts by discussing the need for policy and education to preserve and sustain indeginous and immigrant languages, which the authors feel are "under attack" (p439) - in the USA in particular, and may hae been true elswhere at the time of writing. They give the example that there are 175 indigenous langagues, of which only 20 are being "transmitted as child languages" (p3). I assume they use "transmitted" to mean "formal instruction", rather than informal instruction in the parent to child form. Apparently endangered languages have received increasing scholarly attention in recent years. They give many examples of programs to improve te use of languages throughout the world, holding the South African constitution, which recongnises 9 national languages and gives provision for more, as the paragon on bilingualism. Also give are examples of Govermernt policy and societal pressure for a single language.
In developing billingual education, the author believes that it is best developed in a way which makes the minority language a resource for the majority language speakers, rather than just a right of the minority language speakers. A bilingual school in the USA is given as an example. This school has a policy of billinguistic use of Spanish and English and this is embedded in the school curriculum, teacher pedagogy and social relations at the school. In practise, this was not entilrely acchieved, for example the school district standardised testing was only in English, the Spanish language students achieved a greater degree for billingism than the English speaking students. What they achieved was a school which promotoed, and gave, the rights of a minority language group while teaching the majority language students a second language. In my opinion, this is still a great achievement.
Kura Kaupapa Maori, community based schools in New Zealand were given as an example of language and cultural revitalisation, however these sound like immersive schools and therefore not billingual. However, I think the Education Foundations textbook may contain imformation on the movement towards English/Maori billingual schoools in New Zealand.
A study by Crease in the UK reports that "language rights of the children rarely became a priority equal to the content-based aims of secondary education" (p454) and trying to change the system was viewed as a deficit thinking by the billingual students.
"A serious commitment to provision of the rights for children to be educated in their own language requires a systemic and systematic effort, which cannot necessarily be handled by an add-on program or policy." (p454)
2010-07-06
Meaning construction means what?
Langer, J. A. (1990) Meaning construction in school literacy tasks: A study of bilingual students. American educational research journal, 27(3), 427. DOI:10.3102/00028312027003427
This paper is based on a study of Mexican-American students in 5th grade in a public school a low-income area of Northern California. The goal of the study was to observe the strategies used by bilingual students to construct meaning from text, how they use both languages and the knowledge sources they rely on when they read. The student's were all of Mexican ancestry, with a mix of USA and Mexican born students, however all have some literacy in Spanish (mostly their first language) and English. The students where given reading passages in Spanish and English and then answered questions pertaining to the content of each passage. For the responses, the interviewers were bilingual and allowed the students to answer the questions in either language.
To me, the detailed discussion of the results is meaningless - what they say makes sense but I do not understand it in the broader context. And for the detail required in the summaries I think it is not necessary. In the summary they give the broader picture of their results. They found that students with good meaning making strategies in their first language were able to transfer them to their second language. The meaning making strategies employed by students separated good readers and poor readers, rather than fluency in English. Students with poor strategies in Spanish had difficulty making sense of English despite English language proficiency. Through the questioning process, they found that Spanish fluent students thought in Spanish when they encountered difficult concepts in English. The understanding of the readings was, in order of highest to lowest understanding, the Spanish story, the English story, the Spanish report and then the English report (although the English story score was only higher than the Spanish report). The authors attributed this to genre familiarity - not surprising since children of that age are more familiar with stories. Also not surprising was that the type of question asked affected the student's ability to communicate their answer.
In the background part of the paper, there is a discussion of "Literacy as a Sociocognitive Activity" (p431), that literacy is not just reading and writing, but also thinking about language and text. I think it should be taken one step further to it is about thinking. There is also a component to literacy which is about the society in which reading/text occurs. They have three assertions "All learning is socially based", "Literacy learning is an interactive process" and "Cognitive behaviors are influenced by context, and effect the meanings that learner produce" (p431). These are interesting assertions and I think I agree with them.
They also discuss the constructive aspects reading, how understanding the meaning of text is a process which builds upon itself, based upon what has already been read in the text, the knowledge of person reading the text and the sociocultural background in which it is being read. And I hope that passage is as confusing as the three paragraphs in the paper, it takes a long time to say little.
This paper is based on a study of Mexican-American students in 5th grade in a public school a low-income area of Northern California. The goal of the study was to observe the strategies used by bilingual students to construct meaning from text, how they use both languages and the knowledge sources they rely on when they read. The student's were all of Mexican ancestry, with a mix of USA and Mexican born students, however all have some literacy in Spanish (mostly their first language) and English. The students where given reading passages in Spanish and English and then answered questions pertaining to the content of each passage. For the responses, the interviewers were bilingual and allowed the students to answer the questions in either language.
To me, the detailed discussion of the results is meaningless - what they say makes sense but I do not understand it in the broader context. And for the detail required in the summaries I think it is not necessary. In the summary they give the broader picture of their results. They found that students with good meaning making strategies in their first language were able to transfer them to their second language. The meaning making strategies employed by students separated good readers and poor readers, rather than fluency in English. Students with poor strategies in Spanish had difficulty making sense of English despite English language proficiency. Through the questioning process, they found that Spanish fluent students thought in Spanish when they encountered difficult concepts in English. The understanding of the readings was, in order of highest to lowest understanding, the Spanish story, the English story, the Spanish report and then the English report (although the English story score was only higher than the Spanish report). The authors attributed this to genre familiarity - not surprising since children of that age are more familiar with stories. Also not surprising was that the type of question asked affected the student's ability to communicate their answer.
In the background part of the paper, there is a discussion of "Literacy as a Sociocognitive Activity" (p431), that literacy is not just reading and writing, but also thinking about language and text. I think it should be taken one step further to it is about thinking. There is also a component to literacy which is about the society in which reading/text occurs. They have three assertions "All learning is socially based", "Literacy learning is an interactive process" and "Cognitive behaviors are influenced by context, and effect the meanings that learner produce" (p431). These are interesting assertions and I think I agree with them.
They also discuss the constructive aspects reading, how understanding the meaning of text is a process which builds upon itself, based upon what has already been read in the text, the knowledge of person reading the text and the sociocultural background in which it is being read. And I hope that passage is as confusing as the three paragraphs in the paper, it takes a long time to say little.
Cooperative Learning for Maths: References
Kramarski, B. and Mevarech, Z.R. (2003). Enhancing Mathematical Reasoning in the Classroom: The Effects of Cooperative Learning and Metacognitive Training. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 281-310. doi:10.3102/00028312040001281
Slavin, R.E., Lake, C., and Groff, C. (2009). Effective Programs in Middle and High School Mathematics: A Best-Evidence Synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 79, 839-911. doi:10.3102/0034654308330968
Armstrong, N., Chang, S.-M., Brickman, M. (2007). Cooperative Learning in Industrial-sized Biology Classes.
CBE Life Sciences Education, 6, 163-171. Retrieved from http://www.lifescied.org/cgi/reprint/6/2/163
Sharan, S. (1980). Cooperative Learning in Small Groups: Recent Methods and Effects on Achievement, Attitudes, and Ethnic Relations. Review of Educational Research, 50, 241-271. doi:10.3102/00346543050002241
Slavin, R. (1999). Comprehensive Approaches to Cooperative Learning. Theory Into Practice, 38(2), 74. Retrieved from Business Source Premier database.
Ross, J. (1995). Effects of feedback on student behavior in cooperative learning groups in a grade 7 math class. Elementary School Journal, 96(2), 125. Retrieved from Education Research Complete database.
Slavin, R. (1991). Synthesis of Research on Cooperative Learning. Educational Leadership, 48(5), 71. Retrieved from MasterFILE Premier database.
Nattiv, A. (1994). Helping behaviors and math achievement gain of students using cooperative learning. Elementary School Journal, 94(3), 285. Retrieved from Education Research Complete database.
Jones, E., Wilson, R., & Bhojwani, S. (1997). Mathematics instruction for secondary students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30(2), 151-163. Retrieved from CINAHL Plus with Full Text database.
Slavin, R. (1996). Cooperative learning in middle and secondary schools. Clearing House, 69(4), 200. Retrieved from MasterFILE Premier database.
Springer, L., Stanne, M.E., and Donovan, S.S. (1999) Effects of Small-Group Learning on Undergraduates in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology: A Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research, 69, 21-51. doi:10.3102/00346543069001021
Slavin, R. (1983). When does cooperative learning increase student achievement?. Psychological Bulletin, 94(3), 429-445. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.94.3.429.
Webb, N.M., and Farivar, S. (1994). Promoting Helping Behavior in Cooperative Small Groups in Middle School Mathematics. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 369-395. doi:10.3102/00028312031002369
Antil, L.R., Jenkins, J.R., Wayne, S.K., and Vadasy, P.F. (1998). Cooperative Learning: Prevalence, Conceptualizations, and the Relation Between Research and Practice. American Educational Research Journal, 35, 419-454. doi:10.3102/00028312035003419
Kagan, S. (1989). The Structural Approach to Cooperative Learning. Educational Leadership, 47(4), 12. Retrieved from MasterFILE Premier database.
Slavin, R.E., Lake, C., and Groff, C. (2009). Effective Programs in Middle and High School Mathematics: A Best-Evidence Synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 79, 839-911. doi:10.3102/0034654308330968
Armstrong, N., Chang, S.-M., Brickman, M. (2007). Cooperative Learning in Industrial-sized Biology Classes.
CBE Life Sciences Education, 6, 163-171. Retrieved from http://www.lifescied.org/cgi/reprint/6/2/163
Sharan, S. (1980). Cooperative Learning in Small Groups: Recent Methods and Effects on Achievement, Attitudes, and Ethnic Relations. Review of Educational Research, 50, 241-271. doi:10.3102/00346543050002241
Slavin, R. (1999). Comprehensive Approaches to Cooperative Learning. Theory Into Practice, 38(2), 74. Retrieved from Business Source Premier database.
Ross, J. (1995). Effects of feedback on student behavior in cooperative learning groups in a grade 7 math class. Elementary School Journal, 96(2), 125. Retrieved from Education Research Complete database.
Slavin, R. (1991). Synthesis of Research on Cooperative Learning. Educational Leadership, 48(5), 71. Retrieved from MasterFILE Premier database.
Nattiv, A. (1994). Helping behaviors and math achievement gain of students using cooperative learning. Elementary School Journal, 94(3), 285. Retrieved from Education Research Complete database.
Jones, E., Wilson, R., & Bhojwani, S. (1997). Mathematics instruction for secondary students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30(2), 151-163. Retrieved from CINAHL Plus with Full Text database.
Slavin, R. (1996). Cooperative learning in middle and secondary schools. Clearing House, 69(4), 200. Retrieved from MasterFILE Premier database.
Springer, L., Stanne, M.E., and Donovan, S.S. (1999) Effects of Small-Group Learning on Undergraduates in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology: A Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research, 69, 21-51. doi:10.3102/00346543069001021
Slavin, R. (1983). When does cooperative learning increase student achievement?. Psychological Bulletin, 94(3), 429-445. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.94.3.429.
Webb, N.M., and Farivar, S. (1994). Promoting Helping Behavior in Cooperative Small Groups in Middle School Mathematics. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 369-395. doi:10.3102/00028312031002369
Antil, L.R., Jenkins, J.R., Wayne, S.K., and Vadasy, P.F. (1998). Cooperative Learning: Prevalence, Conceptualizations, and the Relation Between Research and Practice. American Educational Research Journal, 35, 419-454. doi:10.3102/00028312035003419
Kagan, S. (1989). The Structural Approach to Cooperative Learning. Educational Leadership, 47(4), 12. Retrieved from MasterFILE Premier database.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)