Final Summary: Cooperative learning in education

Cooperative learning is the name given to a range of educational instruction strategies that emphasise the cooperative interaction between students for their own and each others' education and learning. In these strategies, students work in groups to complete an activity, often with individual goal or roles within the group, with recognition of a successful activity given to the whole group (Nattiv, 1994; Slavin, 1999). There are different ways to implement a cooperative learning activity, each reflective of the cognitive, academic and social development desired for the activity (Kagan, 1989).

Cooperative learning tasks have been shown to improve student learning for all students when compared to traditional instruction methods (Nattiv, 1994). In a review of cooperative learning literature, Tateyama-Sniezek (1990) found that only a small number of cooperative learning studies included students with individual needs and that reports on the improvement of academic achievement for these students was inconsistent. The opportunity for promotion social interaction and relationships between students with individual needs and their peers has positively commented on, so long as it was secondary to academic improvement.

The participation of students with individual needs in cooperative learning activities and the types of learning and engagement by those students during the activities was the aim of a study by Dugan et al (1995). The students in the study were eighteen fourth grade students, of which two were students with autism. One of the students with autism was described as moderate-functioning and other high-functioning, both were identified as having problems with comprehension and abstract reasoning. The study compared student academic achievement and engagement in the teacher's standard instruction to that in student team cooperative learning tasks. It was found that the cooperative learning tasks improved the learning of students with autism in some aspects of the unit studied, however they continued to have difficulty with comprehension and abstract reasoning tasks. All students were significantly more engaged during the cooperative learning task than during the traditional instruction. Dugan et al (1995) noted that the students with autism participated appropriately in peer tutoring activities, but interacted with their peers less in the larger group activities.

Gillies and Ashman (2000) found that “children with learning difficulties benefit from working in small, structured cooperative groups in their classrooms” (p. 26). Their study involved 152 grade 3 students from around Brisbane, Australia, twenty-two of these students had an identified learning difficulty requiring weekly specialist support. The students worked in groups to complete tasks and to improve their learning, however learning was assessed individually. Half of the groups received training in small group task management and interpersonal skills and behaviours; this is the “structure” alluded to earlier. Students with learning difficulties who received this training achieved better results on curriculum aligned assessment tasks and were observed to participate in the group tasks more and spent less time in off task behaviours when compared to the students with learning difficulties who did not receive the training. It was noted that the participation students with learning difficulties in group discussions often lead to clarifications which helped all members of the group.

The dependant effect being measured in the Gillies and Ashman study is that of the cooperation training, all students participated in similar cooperative learning activities and in similar groups. No connection between individual improvement and the cooperative learning group was mentioned by Gillies and Ashman, which makes it difficult to determine the motivation for student participation in the groups. Perhaps this is why the students who received cooperative learning training gained more from being in the cooperative learning groups, the training showed the students the benefit of working as part of the group. In a normal classroom this training will be provided by the classroom teacher, who will need to know the cooperative skills required and how to teach those skills to their students. In a follow up to a similar study, Gillies (2002) reports that students who previously received cooperative learning training were able to demonstrate that training two years later.

These studies indicate that cooperative learning improves the learning of students with individual needs when they are learning from the same curriculum as their peers and all students are equipped with interpersonal cooperation skills. Students with individual needs may not be learning from the standard curriculum and instead have an individual learning plan. A cooperative learning task can be created which is accessible to student and their group and contains individual goals that reflect the learning plan of the student with individual needs. The student will benefit from the social interaction component of the cooperative learning exercise, developing their social interaction skills and improving their relationships with their peers, while in an environment supportive of their learning.

A rarely mention aspect of successful cooperative learning exercises is that of group composition, which in studies is randomly assigned, mixed ability groups. A study by O'Connor and Jenkins (1996) observed the participation and interactions of students with mild disabilities during peer tutoring reading exercises and small team exercises. They observed students with disabilities received more help than an average peer, however the type of help provided was different for each students. Some partners provided supportive, collaborative work, while other partners discouraged participation of the student with a disability. Similar observations were made during group work, some students with disabilities were able to make meaningful contributions, while others were not, some contributions were accepted by the group, while others were not. O'Connor and Jenkins (1996) noted that for teachers “finding suitable partners for children with disabilities was among their stiffest challenges” (p. 40), however they provide no suggestion for alleviating the challenge.

O'Connor and Jenkins did observe that a classroom environment which encourages cooperation and fosters respect for students with disabilities improved the quality of the cooperative learning exercise. Teachers who found ways to reinforce cooperative behaviour and provided groups the means to monitor their own success improved the outcomes of the cooperative learning exercises.

Cooperative learning is an instructional method which, when used appropriately, can improve the academic and social development of students, including students with individual needs. To be used successfully for a student with individual needs, the cooperative learning activity will be relevant and meaningful to the student and their peers, in a group of supportive peers, in a classroom that encourages cooperation and respect, and training in cooperative interactions provided when necessary.

References

Dugan, E., Kamps, D., Leonard, B., Watkins, N., Rheinberger, A., Stackhaus, J. (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.

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.

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

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.

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

Slavin, R. (1999). Comprehensive approaches to cooperative learning. Theory Into Practice, 38(2), 74-79. Retrieved from Business Source Premier database.

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.

Final Summary: Bilingual literacy in education

Bilingual is the term used to describe a person who can speak two languages, their mother language and a second language (Luchtenberg, 2002). The mother language is the language of their parents, although the situation can exist where the second language is also spoken by a parent. When the mother language is the majority language of the country of residence, the language spoken by those with societal power in the country (Hornberger,1998), the second language will be the language of a different society or country, selected by the learner or the learner's school. If the mother language is instead an indigenous language, a migrant language or other minority language the second language will be the majority language of the country of residence. In the latter situation, the majority language is learnt so that a person can obtain an education and/or employment, access services and interact socially (Davis, 2009).

There are cultural factors involved with majority language and minority language learning and bilingualism. Luchtenberg (2002) states that in Germany there is a “reluctance to refer to migrant students ... as bilinguals and to develop bilingual programmes for them, and yet on the other hand there is wide support for German students in various bilingual programmes” (p. 50) and this view is present in other countries. It is based in the idea of nation, of which language is a part; migrants need to learn the language to be part of the nation, while a bilingual national is a resource for the whole nation. The part which is forgotten is, a bilingual migrant is an equal resource for the nation as a bilingual national.

School aged, minority language students learn the majority language through specialist classes with specialist language teachers or in mainstream classes with bilingual support teachers (Grant & Wong, 2003; Salend & Dorney, 1997). In most educational jurisdictions, majority language learning is not considered part of the school educational achievements of minority language speakers (Grant & Wong, 2003; Luchtenberg, 2002), despite the obvious language needs of those students.

In Australia, English as a Second Language classes provide English language students with language education, recognised educational achievement and additional support when required (Luchtenberg, 2002). Languages Other Than English classes may provided minority language speakers the opportunity (subject to teacher availability) to use their mother language in school , while exposing majority language speakers to different languages (Luchtenberg, 2002). Finally, in senior secondary school a minority language speaker may be able to study their mother language as part of their senior certificate (Mercurio & Scarino, 2005). However, the ideal situation for minority language students is that of a bilingual education, where the languages are given equal right of use and used instructionally in a coordinated manner (Hornberger, 1998).

The availability of bilingual education is limited, as it feared it will result in minority language speakers having limited literacy in the majority language, or even both languages (Molyneux, 2009). Literacy, the ability to read, write, use and understand language in a variety of different contexts (Krause, 2010), is developed in sociocultural settings, which influence the meaning and purpose of words in language and the value of written language (Langer, Bartolome, Vasquez & Lucas, 1990). For people to take meaningful roles in a society, they must be literate in the majority language as well as able to speak that language.

Molyneux (2009) reports on a school in Melbourne, Australia, which provides a two year English-Vietnamese or three year English-Mandarin Chinese bilingual education, for students from Vietnamese or Chinese backgrounds. It was found that in the early primary school years, not all students achieved English language requirements, however this improved over the course of their education. The students understood the importance of learning both languages and valued the linguistic outcomes, however they felt that bilingual education required more work than monolingual education. This shows that bilingual education does not result in limited majority language literacy.

The level of a person's literacy in their mother language effects the learning of literacy in a second language (Davis, 2009; Langer et al, 1990). Spoken language is rich in context and relates to concrete experiences (Davis, 2009), while literacy develops metalinguistic and metacognitive strategies for thinking about language and the meaning of words (Langer et al, 1990). Langer et al (1990) found that in a group of Mexican-American students, it was the meaning construction strategies used in Spanish reading that had the greatest effect on the student's understanding while reading English.

It is not always mother language literacy which has the greatest effect on literacy education.

A recent study by Davis (2009) attempted to ascertain if developing mother language literacy would improve second language literacy acquisition. The students for this study were a group of adult,

Southern Sudanese refugees in Sydney, Australia who had little or no literacy in their mother language, Dinka, and English. The refugees were taught basic Dinka literacy for two months followed by three months of English literacy. The literacy of the refugees in both languages improved, however Davis did not attribute this to Dinka literacy improvement. Instead it was attributed to the environment of care and respect created by the teacher, the relevance of the literacy materials to the refugees and the presence of Dinka-English bilingual teaching staff.

Bilingual special education teachers, special education teachers who can speak the majority and minority language, are able to assist mainstream teachers in education of minority language speaking students. Including these students in mainstream classes is important as “inclusion programs seek to acknowledge, affirm, and address the individual educational needs of students by educating them together in high-quality, age-appropriate learning communities” (Salend & Dorney, 1997, para. 1). Through cooperation with the bilingual special education teacher, the classroom teacher can create meaningful learning experiences for all students and allow for the cultural, educational and linguistic background of the minority language speaker. It is beneficial for the minority language speaker to have opportunities to use their mother language and languid instruction sessions for all students will allow the minority language speaker's peers to understand the difficulties in learning a new language (Salend & Dorney, 1997).

The language, literacy and curricular education of minority language speakers in majority language classrooms can be achieved through the use of an inclusive, caring classroom which provides relevant, engaging content and supports, with the assistance of bilingual special education teachers, the development of the majority language and expression in the minority language. Alternatively, a school with a bilingual education program can support the development of the majority and minority languages as well as literacy and curricular education.

References

Davis, Z. (2009). First language (Dinka) literacy as a foundation for English language, literacy and numeracy. Canberra, Australia:Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. Retrieved from http://www.deewr.gov.au/Skills/Programs/LitandNum/LiteracyNet/Documents/FirstLanguageDinkaLiteracy.pdf

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., Bartolome, L., Vasquez, O., Lucas, T. (1990). Meaning construction in school literacy tasks: A study of bilingual students. American Educational Research Journal, 27(3), 427. doi: 10.3102/00028312027003427

Luchtenberg, S. (2002). Bilingualism and bilingual education and their relationship to citizenship from a comparative German-Australian perspective. Intercultural Education, 13(1), 49-61. doi: 10.1080/14675980120112931

Mercurio, A., Scarino, A. (2005). Heritage languages at upper secondary level in South Australia: A struggle for legitimacy. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 8(2,3), 145-159. doi: 10.1080/13670050508668603

Molyneux, P. (2009). Education for biliteracy: Maximising the linguistic potential of diverse learners in Australia's primary schools. Australian Journal of Language & Literacy, 32(2), 97-117. Retrieved from Education Research Complete database.

Salend, S., & Dorney, J. (1997). The roles of bilingual special educators in creating inclusive classrooms. Remedial & Special Education, 18(1), 54. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.