Cooperative Learning- Implementing Student Teams and Achievement Divisions Presenter: Matthew Hillmer Date: 06/30/2005

What must a program do insure successful results?  To effect change in classroom practice, a program must appeal to teachers’ imaginations, win their enthusiasm, and solve their real, practical problems- all without additionally taxing their already overtaxed energy or time (Slavin, 1981)

 What type of classroom do you want? Competitive? Cooperative?  How is my classroom presently situated?  To what extent is my classroom a cooperative learning environment?  What decisions went into your cooperative learning activities?  Was cooperative learning environment your decision or the school administration?

Is Cooperation an Educational Fad?  What is your interpretation of what cooperation means in the classroom context?  Cooperation is strongly encouraged in the KCK school district particularly through Kagen cooperative learning structures. Poor implementation because no definition, demonstration, research, or techniques were provided by administration. When guidelines or inspiration is not provided, first year teachers often struggle with structure and implementation of cooperative learning.

Competitive or performance- focused classrooms (Johnson & Johnson, 1991)  Students in independently structured classrooms work by themselves to accomplish foals unrelated to those of the other students  Students engage in a win-lose struggle in an effort to determine who is the best  Students perceive that they can obtain their goals only if the other students in the class fail to obtain their own goals

Competitive or performance- focused classrooms: Rewards  Performance focused or competitive classroom are the most common in classrooms today.  Their regard structure is competitive because grading is on a comparative standard.  The competitive rewards disrupt interpersonal bonds among students, because each student potentially blocks others from achievement their goals of academic success.

Class Discussion  Why do students support their fellow students sports achievement in their peers and yet they do not support their classmates inside the classroom?

The two major theoretical perspectives of cooperative learning  Cognitive Emphasizes the effects of students working together (Slavin, 1987)  Motivational Emphasizes the students’ incentives to do academic work. (Slavin, 1987) Cooperative goal structure creates a situation in which the only way group members can attain their personal goals is if the group is successful. (Slavin, 1990)

Research that promotes the practice of cooperative learning  Johnson, Maruyama, Johnson, Nelson and Skon (1981) conducted a meta-analysis of 122 studies related to cooperative learning and concluded that there was strong evidence for the superiority of cooperative learning in promoting achievement over competitive and individualistic strategies.  In a review of 46 studies related to cooperative learning, Slavin (1983) found that cooperative learning resulted in significant positive effects in 63% of the studies, and only two studies reported achievement for the comparison group.

Benefits of Cooperative Learning Environment  Classrooms using cooperative learning methods have generally surpassed control groups in the areas of mathematics, language, social studies, and reading achievement.  Increases positive relationships among white, black, and Hispanic students  Increases student self-esteem  Increases student’s liking of school.  Increases support for peers’ academic efforts.

Cooperative Learning  In a cooperative learning environment students discuss subject matter, help each other learn, and provide encouragement for member of the group.  Promotes positive interdependence, where students perceive that their success or failure lies within their working together in a group  Promote more positive attitudes toward the instructional experience than competitive or individualistic methodologies.

Student Teams- Achievement Divisions implementing a cooperative learning structure  Essential feature is heterogeneous teams. Team has 4-5 members Teams are made up of high, average, and low achievers, different gender, and differing ethnicity. Teacher ranks the students from highest to lowest based on past experience and teacher judgments to help determine the group mixing

Student Teams- Achievement Divisions Structure  Classes follow schedule direct teaching (40 min) team practice (40 min) quiz (20 min).  Teacher begins a unit by presenting a lesson in a lecture- discussion format.  Students work in teams on work sheets. The goal is to master the material. Students check and test their teammates about the material.  Student take individual quiz on material. Student’s score is compared with their own past history, and students contribute points to their teams based on how much they improve upon their scores from the past.

STAD- Rewards and Questions  Rewards- Team Recognication in class newsletter (Slavin, 1981).  Questions for you.  Is this enough of a reward for today’s kids?  Should there be supplemental rewards?  Why was this chosen as a reward?

References  Abu, R. & Flower, J. (1997) The effects of cooperative learning methods on achievement, retention, and attitudes of home economics students in North Carolina, Journal of Vocation and Technical Education, Volume 13, Number 2  Johnson, D.W. & Ahlgren, A. (1976) Relationship between student attitudes about cooperation and competition and attitudes toward schooling. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68 (1),  Johnson, D.W. & Johnson, R.T. (1991) Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic,. Third Edition. Englewood cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.  Johnson, D.W. & Johnson, R.T. (1989). Leading the cooperative school. Edina, MN: Interaction.  Johnson, D.W. Maruyama, G., Johnson, R.T. Nelson, D,& Skon, L. (1981). Effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures of achievement: A meta analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 89,

References  Johnson, D.W. & Johnson, R.T. (1990). Social skills for successful group work. Educational Leadership, 47(4),  Slavin, R.E. (1983) When does cooperative learning increase achievement? Psychological Bulletin, 94,  Slavin, R.E. (1987) Developmental and motivational perspectives on cooperative learning: A reconciliation. Child Development. 58,  Slavin, R.E. (1990) Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice. NJ: Prentice Hall.  Slavin, R.E. (1991) Student Team learning: A practical guide to cooperative learning. Washington, D.C.: National Education Association.