Classroom Management Resource Page – Shindler – School Climate – PLSI – Teaching
- Workshops
by JVS
Chapter 14: Effectively Managing
the Cooperative Classroom (from Transformative Classroom
Management, By John Shindler)
From Transformative Classroom Management. By John Shindler. ©Allyn Bacon
Pub.
Reproduction is unlawful without
permission
In this
Chapter
“I try
cooperative learning and it just turns into a free for all social time.”
“I want to
do more cooperative learning, but I have too much to cover.”
While a cooperative learning context does introduce unique management
challenges, it can be managed as
effectively as independent activities, and offers a series of benefits that are
impossible to achieve by any other means. Moreover, the reasons that some teachers
are resistant to the idea of incorporating cooperative learning in their
classrooms are typically founded in misconceptions, and most of the causes of failure
when implementing cooperative learning are explainable and largely avoidable. But
to successfully implement cooperative learning, we must first decide that it is
worth making a commitment to doing it well, and second, we must set about learning
the skills of managing it effectively.
What is
Cooperative Learning and Why Should I Use It in My Class?
Technically, cooperative learning includes any form of instruction in
which students are working together for a purpose. Yet, as we will examine in
this chapter, the effects will be more powerful to the extent that certain
ingredients are present. The more any activity requires mutual interdependence,
collective problem solving, striving for a common goal, the better chance it
will have at achieving the potential that cooperative learning has to offer.
There are many reasons to decide that cooperative learning is worth the
effort. First, it has been shown to have a positive effect on student learning
when compared to individual or competitive conditions (Johnson & Johnson,
1999). Second, cooperative learning has the potential to meet more learning
style needs more of the time than individualized direct instruction (Shindler,
2004). Third, the interpersonal and collaboration skills that can be learned in
a cooperative learning activity teach skills that are critical for later
personal and professional success.
What
Makes a Cooperative Learning Activity Effective?
As we seek to create the most effective, engaging and productive
cooperative learning experiences for our students, consider how learning within
a social context is different from learning independently. Recall our
discussion of the social learning theory in the previous chapters. The key to a
successful collaborative effort will be to use the social aspect of the
activity to the class’ collective advantage. This will be true for both
instructional and managerial goals.
If you are incorporating cooperative learning because you think your
students need a break from the routine, and want to try something a bit more
social, you may be missing the purpose and the potential of this teaching
strategy. Having students simply work in groups may be a nice change of pace and
can be inherently more engaging for some students, but group work only
scratches the surface of what is possible when students learn within a cooperative
context. While this chapter will address how to manage any form of group
learning, it is suggested that one consider taping as much of the potential as
possible that cooperative learning has to offer.
Chapter Reflection 14.a: Recall situations
in which you were asked to work with others. What ingredients were present in
those situations in which you felt motivated and ultimately successful?
As we explore the practical aspects of effectively managing the
cooperative learning activity throughout the chapter, you will undoubtedly develop
a set of your own principles for what you think makes for an effective
cooperative learning activity. The goals of effective management will be
inherently relative to what it is each reader want to achieve. The teachers
using both the 1-style and 2-style approaches reading the chapter will likely
differ in their management and instructional goals related to effective
classroom management. However, Figure 14.1 below offers a comparison of
ingredients that will either lead to a greater opportunity for achieving what
could be considered transformative
results, and those that will limit our ability to obtain such results.
Figure 14.1 Comparison
of Ingredients in More Effective vs. Less Effective Cooperative Learning Activities
|
More Effective |
Less Effective |
|
Activity has a psychological movement toward a goal, and meets many
basic needs in the process. Students feel like they are “going somewhere.” |
Students feel like the activity is a formality and/or may recognize
that the task could be done more effectively as an independent exercise. |
|
Emphasis on the quality of the process |
Emphasis on the quality of the final product |
|
Structure supports the cohesion and social development of group
members |
Structure is either accidental, or flawed, and results in the
perpetuation of the current social structure and/or reward the advantaged
students. |
|
Expectations are clear on both the implicit and explicit levels – leading to focused
effort, and low student anxiety |
Expectations are untaught or left vague and result in confusion of
frustration. |
|
Teacher interventions lead to the development of clarity and learning,
and tomorrow being better than today. |
Teacher interventions are reactive and only act to solve problems in
the short-term, if at all. |
|
Leadership is
defined by either a 1-style teacher – promotes an ever increasing level of self-directed
effort. or 2-style teacher – promotes an ever increasing level of efficiency. |
Leadership is
defined by either a 3-style teacher – maintains an accidental climate defined by social
Darwinism. or 4-style teacher – maintains a level of threat in the room that
provides the occasional illusion of order. |
|
Students are able to share their outcomes with others – resulting in
pride in their accomplishment and reinforcing the ethic that learning is a
constructive process rather than merely a process of fact retention. |
Students work to please the teacher, and the learning process is
defined mainly by each student being required to guess what the teacher wants
and will think is “good.” |
How to
Begin
The starting point for building cooperative learning into our curriculum
should be an examination of our learning targets (i.e., standards, aims, goals,
objectives), and our management goals. Those teachers who suggest that they
have “too much to cover” to include cooperative learning are likely working
from the assumption that cooperative learning will need to be an add-on to
their curriculum. Making this assumption is much like suggesting that a social
contract is an add-on to one’s rules and management procedures. Cooperative
learning, like the social contract, is simply a tool to achieve ones teaching
goals.
A few questions to ask yourself before you begin:
Use your
answers to these questions to make choices related to what you want to achieve
in the area of cooperative learning. In the following sections you will be
asked to consider a number of options related to the following
Designing Your Cooperative Learning Activity
Once we
have identified learning targets that we judge can best be taught within a
partial or fully cooperative context, we need to make a number of design
decisions. These will include 1) selecting a learning activity structural
design/format, 2) deciding on the best group structure, 3) developing an effective
assessment system that aligns with the goals of the activity.
Our first
choice when endeavoring to introduce a cooperative exercise will need to be to
determine which structural format is best suited to our learning targets. There
are several types of format options (Johnson and Johnson, 1998). Each of the different
activity designs will have different benefits and involve different challenges.
For our purposes, we will reduce them here to a few general types, a) group
projects/performances, b) inquiry-based learning in teams, c) collaborative
content processing, d) jigsaw method, e) collaborative assessment, and e) collaborative
group work. A brief description of each of these formats is offered in Figure
14.2.
Figure 14.2 Condensed List of Cooperative
Learning Activity Format Options, their Benefits and their Management Challenges
|
CL Activity Format |
Benefits |
Challenges |
|
Group Products/ Performance. The group works together to
create a product or performance that meets certain criteria. |
The
finished product is motivational. Provides the feeling of winning as a group.
True inter-dependence is often required. Has a built-in quality of “going
somewhere.” |
High
stakes create increased chances for conflict and therefore need for conflict
resolution skills. Assessment choices will have a dramatic influence on the
way the project proceeds. |
|
Inquiry-based/Discovery/ Lab
activity. The
group takes part in collaborative research using an inductive or deductive
process. |
Inquiry
based learning is inherently both authentic as well as engaging. The skills
learned in this kind of activity lend themselves to real life applications,
and meet many learning style needs. |
Inquiry-based
learning may be unfamiliar to some students, and will need to be well
structured. The process will need to be taught before it can be assumed that
students will be able to apply is effectively. It is possible that students
can get left behind in the process if they are neglected. |
|
Collaborative Content Processing. Students examine information
together and discuss it, and then report their findings. |
The
quality of the thinking is better as a result of having more perspectives and
the opportunity to process verbally rather than just mentally. |
It is
difficult for the teacher to be sure that the groups are discussing the
academic content rather than something else. Having effective expectations in
place is critical, especially for such things as noise level, how to take
turns, and listen effectively. |
|
Jigsaw Method. Students are divided into like
sized groups. Those students learn a topic or skill, and then each group is
divided into new groups so that each group has a representative that can
teach each topic or skill. |
This
method can be an effective way to present content. Students learn to become
experts and how to teach to others. With large numbers it can be more efficient
than presentations. |
The
mechanics of the jigsaw are rather tricky at first. And will always require
precise coordination of the teacher. Assessment is difficult in that the
teacher can not observe each presentation of content, so has to use some
other means to ensure quality. |
|
Collaborative Assessment. Groups are given a task and can
work together to produce on product or independent products depending on the
choice of the teacher. |
The
quality of the outcome is usually better (Shindler, 2002). The process itself
promotes learning and deeper processing of the material. Can be done soundly
and reliably. |
Collaborative
exams are only recommended for groups that have demonstrated advanced
cooperative learning skills and levels of responsibility. Having individuals
turn in independent products can be a useful compromise design. |
|
Collaborative Group Work. Students complete independent
assignments, but are allowed to talk to one another and give and receive
assistance and peer tutoring. |
Students
learn how to teach one another and explain material in their own words.
Students are free to interact as much or as little as they need to in an
attempt to meet their goals and needs. |
Some
students may use the time to socialize rather than attend to the academic
task. Expectations need to be in place for what qualifies as an appropriate
noise level, what constitutes cheating, and what actions qualify as an abuse
of the privilege. |
When making
the decision which cooperative learning activity format is the best fit, reflect
on your desired learning targets. Does the learning lend itself to inquiry
(i.e., can it be discovered inductively)? Is there a product or performance
that would logically come out of the activity? Would processing the content
collectively bring added benefits to it when compared to having students
process it on their own?
Chapter Reflection
14.b: React to the
teacher who says “Anything that I can teach inductively I will, and anytime I
can incorporate cooperative learning into the unit or lesson, I will.” Do you
agree?
To be
effective, cooperative learning activities will need to be approached
intentionally. When we prepare a group of students for a cooperative learning
activity, we are in essence, preparing a team for a game. A famous saying in
the world of coaching is, “failure to prepare, is preparing to fail.” Those
(like the teacher quoted in the chapter introduction) who lamented that their cooperative
learning activity descended into a free-for-all when they attempt to use them
are likely underestimating the requirements of their role as the leader and the
need to take an intentional approach.
A useful
principle to keep in mind is the following - Introduce only one new variable at
a time. Therefore, never ask students to process substantially new content and
a new process at the same time. Pick one or the other. Let the student work
with content that is at least a little familiar and not too threatening when
you need them to focus primarily on developing cooperative learning skills.
When the students have gotten comfortable with the dynamics and expectations of
cooperative learning, they will be ready to work with content of any kind.
Getting there should not take long.
The task
design elements that need to be determined include: a) the size of the group,
b) the completion of the group, c) potential roles for group members.
Creating Groups
As one examines
the many factors involved in creating groups, it becomes readily apparent that
this task needs to be undertaken thoughtfully. A good portion of potential management
problems will stem from careless group development.
What is the optimal size for a
group? Two students
do qualify as a cooperative group, but if it is possible, or you feel groups of
two are too limiting, consider creating larger groups. Three or four members
are typically optimal. Most often, four members is recommended for the simple
reason that it produces fewer groups to manage. Groups larger than four are
typically problematic. In almost every case, there are students who end up
being spectators and/or marginalized by the others.
Chapter Reflection 14-c: When you have been part of groups
larger than 4, was it the case that all members were active participants? Were
there members who were spectators?
Group Composition and Selection of
Group Members
There are
several configurations that we could choose to use for grouping students. Our
choices will include having students self-select, choosing groups by random,
grouping by like-ability or mixed ability, or using a systematic method such as
combinations of learning style types or manufacturing groups that we think will
produce optimal results. They will each produce dramatically different
outcomes. Figure 14.3 compares the advantages and disadvantages of each of the
options.
Figure 14.3: Comparing the
Advantages and Disadvantages of Some of the Common Cooperative Learning
Grouping Techniques
|
Grouping Format |
Advantage |
Disadvantage |
|
Random – students number off in a
fixed pattern producing groups that have a random composition. |
Most
likely creates mixed ability, mixed learning style and mixed social group
groupings. Can be done easily. Students see it as fair. |
There is
no control over the composition of the group. Groups may or may not be equal or
desirable. |
|
Like Ability – teacher selects
students, or students self select into high, middle and lower levels
depending on the activity, skill or subject. Groups are made of students with
like levels. |
Students
can move at a pace that fits their natural inclination. Students who are low
ability can be in a position to be leaders or major contributors. High
ability students may feel more challenged. |
Group
outcomes will vary widely. Students of all abilities will miss the
opportunity to work with some students. It can create a climate of haves and
have nots. High ability students lose the opportunity to be leaders to some
degree, and lower ability students lose the contribution and modeling of the
high ability students. |
|
Mixed ability – teacher selects students
that represent different levels of ability and creates groups that consist of
students of all levels. |
It sends
the symbolic message that the class is egalitarian and classless. Higher
ability students are in a position to be experts, leaders, models and
teachers, lower ability students get the benefits of having higher ability
students in their group. |
Higher
ability students may not experience the stimulation or challenge that they
would with other higher ability students. Lower ability students may feel
perpetually like those in need of help, rather than experiencing the role of
leader or expert relative to the others in their group. |
|
Situational Leadership Type –
teacher groups students based on their profiles on each of 3 factors a) level
of buy-in, b)ability level, and c) level of political capital in the
group. |
Considers
the dimensions of buy-in level and social inclusion that are otherwise
largely ignored. Offers a systematic way to approach the leadership needs of
groups. Can lead to getting the most productive combinations of students. |
Is more
complicated and requires a significant amount of analysis to apply. |
|
Learning Style alike – teacher
creates groups that have like personality types, cognitive styles, learning
styles or kind of intelligence. |
Students
feel a greater affinity for one another. The thinking may be more harmonious
and familiar to each member. |
The
products may lack evidence of other types of thinking. Creative groups may
lack practical ideas for execution. Practical groups may lack creative
energies that would help generate ideas. |
|
Learning Style mix – teacher
selects students from a variety or learning styles to comprise each group |
Groups
will have a greater balance of types of intelligences and styles. Products
will show evidence of more skills and perspectives. |
Groups
will inherently have different ways of approaching the task and assigning
value to ideas. Requires tolerance and some degree of appreciation for the
fact that students will have different learning styles. |
|
Self-Selected groups – teacher
allows students to make their own groups. |
Relatively
easy for most students to find a group. Students will prefer this option and
so be pleased that it was chosen. |
(see
discussion above). Leads to cliques and the maintenance of the social
hierarchy and political structure in the class. Difficult to use other
systems after students have gotten comfortable with this one. |
It will be
tempting to give in to the student’s desires to make their own groups. It is usually
easier and most students will be happier. But, when making choices here, it may
be useful to consider how our choices work to promote the social frame (recall
Chapter 3) that, “when you (the students) demonstrate responsibility, you will
be given freedom.” In the short term, allowing student to self-select their
group may seem innocuous, yet, over time, it will likely lead to cliques and
entrenchment of the social structure. With each successive exercise that we
allow self-selected grouping, our students will get more accustomed to it, and increasingly
develop a sense of entitlement that it is their right to do so. A common phenomenon
is that at some point the teacher determines that they have observed too many
negative effects from the policy of self-selected grouping, and at that point decide
that they want to begin the process of assigning groups. In most cases, when they do they are often
surprised and disappointed that the students react so strongly and defiantly. This
reaction is especially strong for those students who feel that they have the
most to lose by a new arrangement. For example, the student who unconsciously
believes that they are too good for some of the other students may engage in a
display of ugly behavior that will likely take the teacher by surprise. This
event can be ugly and expose the lack of community and egalitarian politics in
the class. While our temptation will be to be angry at the student who displays
the sense of entitlement or discrimination, the fault lies with the choice we
made weeks earlier to let students self-select their groups. The event could have been avoided. Moreover,
it represents evidence that instead of our cooperative learning activities
promoting community in the group, they have actually been undermining the
democratic values in the class.
Chapter Reflection
14.d: Recall groups
that you have observed that you would consider to be “evolved” or that have
developed the qualities of a genuine community. Do you see much evidence of
cliques and a social hierarchy within the group? Why do you think this is the
case?
A good
principle to use in these cases is that when students stop caring who is in
their group, they are ready for the privilege of choosing their own. You might
be saying, “My students will always care who is in their group.” This may be
true, but you may be surprised at their ability to grow out of their
recalcitrance. One of the transformative effects of a high quality cooperative
learning process is that it helps students get past their narrow minded perspectives
of one another. In observing those teachers who have mastered this process, one
notices that students of every social sub-group work together in their classes.
In secondary schools, it is common to observe a class of students look past
social class and personality one period, and then go right back to using the
same forms of prejudice and narrow mindedness the next. What this says is that
attitude is context specific to a great extent. Progress toward egalitarianism
and equanimity may occur quickly, but effective teachers show that it is
possible eventually.
When in
doubt, default to mixed ability groups. Ability grouping has its place, but it
has some serious disadvantages. It can quickly define a culture of haves and
have nots. The effect of this will be to undermine the sense of community in
the class. Mixed ability groups have many advantages including providing
opportunities for stronger students to take on the role of peer tutor and
weaker students to benefit from having the stronger students in their groups.
If you do feel the need to ability group, try to limit it to situations in
which the ability level is mostly related to previous experience rather than
what students perceive as innate intelligence.
For example, if we created groups of experience computer users and
groups of less experienced users, and had students self-select, in this case it
is less likely that students will feel stratified than if we placed them into high
and low ability groups in an area that they felt represented a fundamental
aptitude.
Random
grouping often produces relatively desirable results and can be done rather
efficiently. For example, with a little practice (but we do need to practice),
our students can get used to numbering off into groups in a matter of a minute
or two. The following sequence can be effective. First, count the students.
Second, divide the number of students by the number that you want to have in
each group. Third, instruct them to count off. Be sure that the students say
their group numbers out loud. This will save you the trouble of learning first
hand that when you say the numbers, the groups often end up with
disproportionate sizes. Having students say their numbers promotes both memory
and honesty. Another system is for you to create random groups before the event
and then simply read them off.
Numbering off – Sample direction
sequence:
1.
Cue,
wait for 100% attention
2.
We
are going to number off into 7 groups or 4 for the next activity. When we get
into groups, I will explain what we are doing.
3.
Lets
begin counting by 7’s. When we are done the 1’s should go (determine spot), the
2’s should go (determine spot), etc
4.
Students
count (and stay put until they are all done.
5.
a)
early in the year, or if the students have taken a long time to get into groups
on their previous effort. Ok it should take us about 30 seconds to get into
groups, ready Go!
5. b) when students
have learned to move with urgency and efficiency to their group. Ready, Go!
It is best
when grouping by learning style to use mixed-style groups. To create the most
heterogeneous combination in terms of learning style, first identify each
student’s preference on the extroversion/E vs. introversion/I and concrete
(sensate/S) vs. abstract (intuitive/N) scales. This can be done in a variety of
ways including administering the Paragon Learning Style Inventory, Myers-Briggs
Type Indicator or the Kolb Learning Style Inventory. Then, once you have
determined each students style preferences, as much as possible, try to create
groups that include all 4 type combinations, i.e., – IN, EN, IS and ES (see
Figure 14.4). Refer to the previous chapter for more ideas related to how to
translate your knowledge of learning style into student success.
The
two factor dimensions that most affect how one acts and learns in school are
those of introversion/extroversion and sensation/intuition. Introverts may be more reflective while
extroverts may be more outgoing.
Practical skills may come more easily to sensates, while intuitives may
be more comfortable with imagination. When
considering learning style as a means to creating heterogeneous groups,
teachers may be most successful in their efforts by attempting to find students
for each group from each of the 4 “academic types” described below. The chart
below shows the four possible combinations or academic types.
|
|
Extroverts
(E) |
Introverts
(I) |
|
Sensates (S) |
ES's
Action oriented realists (@40%) This type loves action and things
happening. They like to get practical
results from their work, and like to work in groups. For them too much watching is a waste of
time, they want to do. They like to
share what they are doing and thinking.
They get impatient when things are too slow, complicated, or abstract. |
IS's
Thoughtful realists (@25%) This type is the most careful and
steady. They don't mind working alone
or with one other. They like practical
results and are good with details, and technical things. They are often the least expressive; they
see much but usually share little.
They don't like careless ideas, plans, or too many new things at once. |
|
Intuitives (N) |
EN's
Action oriented innovators
(@25%) This type is really motivated and
likes to make things happen. They like
to work in groups on new and interesting things. They like to take their theories and apply
them with others. They share easily,
especially what's inside. They don't
like details, routines, or the same old thing for too long. |
IN's
Thoughtful innovators (@10%) This type is the best at solving
problems. They like to work at their
own pace on their own ideas. They like
to make creative and scientific things.
They would rather express themselves through their thoughts, instead
of socializing with lots of others.
They don't like doing busy work or things that don't make sense |
Grouping
using the principles prescribed by the Situational Leadership Model (see Figure
14.4) will involve the highest level of complexity and the lowest level of
convenience, yet, bring other less obvious variables into the equation.
Therefore it has the potential to have a substantially positive effect on the
social dynamics in the class. Moreover,
it has the added benefit of maintaining our level of awareness on valuable
ingredients such as each student’s investment level and the political dynamics
in the group.
Figure 14.5.
Individual Situational Leadership Model
Research into leadership of individuals and groups
suggests that not all groups approach their work in the same manner (Hershey
& Blanchard, 1980), and therefore those in the position of leading groups
should consider the characteristics of the group and/or the individuals within
the group. Any group or individual could
be observed to have more or less of each of these 3 variables:
Variable A: Commitment/Buy-in
This variable includes the
students’ level of effort and care they put into the task. How much of themselves do they invest in the task?
This variable includes the
amount of experience, talent, skill, mental or physical ability, and resource
the student or group posses. What level
of means do they bring to the task?
This variable involves the
environmental conditions that influence the degree of inclusion or social
acceptance any student (or group) is currently experiencing. Factors include popularity, discrimination,
social hierarchy, class, and familiarity among group members. Is the student inside or out, a have or have not?
|
A |
B |
C |
(T) Type
Classification, (L) Type of Leadership
Needed |
|
+ |
+ |
+ |
(T1)
Achiever, (L1) Freedom, resources, encouragement, a chance to share
expertise. |
|
+ |
+ |
- |
(T2)
Fighter, (L2) Belonging, empathy, chance to shine, recognition of
achievement. |
|
+ |
- |
+ |
(T3)
Worker, (L3) Patience, recognition of effort, academic support. |
|
+ |
- |
|