Cooperative Learning in Secondary Education - Literature review Example

Students Name : Course Enrolment : Contact Details : Proposed Topic : The Effect of Cooperative Learning on Students in Secondary School Abstract Outstanding academic performance is very important to all students, thus reported divergence in student’s learning ability concerns not only teachers but the entire educational institution. Cooperative learning is seen as an alternative to conventional teaching method. Some researchers found statistical evidence that cooperative learning helps enhance student’s achievement. Scholars emphasize the exclusivity of each individual and the need for self-initiative. Cooperative learning represents a great leap toward better dependence of self and peers and seen as favouring the democratic system that highlights individual participation for the betterment of society. The broad studies carried out on group learning showed cooperative learning as a more efficient instructional method over a competitive and individualistic system. However, assessments about cooperative learning depend mostly on lower level students. In fact, some researchers who have tried assessing higher-level students encountered a dissimilar and negative result. In view of these variations, it is therefore essential to conduct further research on cooperative learning in higher education. 1. Introduction Cooperative learning as a rapidly developing innovative approach to teaching and has been always a contentious issue in the area of education. According to Glaser and Resnick (1989, p.397) cooperative learning is intimately linked with research in educational psychology having to do with alternatives to conventional classroom organization composition. I have chosen the topic because it is relevant to my profession and innovations in my field of work always fascinate me. Although I have read some interesting and convincing empirical research on the topic, I am still not completely induced by their results, as there are many unreciprocated questions. Consequently, I selected five relevant articles on topic for review to find the answers to some significant questions. For instance, what is the effect of stakeholder’s perceptions on the cooperative process? What is the effective number of students in a group? Who will be in the group together? In addition, how it can specifically enhance learning in secondary schools. Another is the fact that some studies in secondary education reveal that only two-thirds favour cooperative learning over a traditional teaching approach. In view of these uncertainties, I have decided to focus my research on the effects of cooperative learning exclusively in secondary education. 2. Literature Review 2.1 Introduction Cooperative learning is not entirely new as according to Singer et. al. (2003, p.161), students taught and learned from each other in colonial and frontier America. Cooperative learning was used in grassland schoolhouse and it was well appreciated in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and many teachers continue to use fundamentals of cooperative learning in group work, projects, and reports. Supporters of cooperative learning assumed that it improves student interest as it gives them a better chance to know what is occurring in their class and in their education. In large classes, it provides students with more awareness as they are involved in assisting each other. In addition, student’s at all academic levels, including students in need of improvement and academically advanced students, appears to learn more and efficiently, in cooperative learning group. Supporters also assert that it improves social skills and ideals that are essential for future academic and economic achievement and that are necessary for involvement in multicultural, democratic communities. Academic performance difference between advantaged and disadvantaged student groups in the U.S. indicated that at least 30% of elementary and secondary schools are disadvantaged and that their percentage will escalate quickly, thus aggravating the academic performance divergence between the advantaged and the disadvantaged unless efficient educational alternatives are implemented (Devillar and Faltis 1991, p.30). One of the most important and reliable findings from the social loafing literature is that people put forth effort when they see it to be necessary and idle when they perceive their labours as superfluous. Similarly, people will also persevere when their labours and assistance are being appraised even when there are no rewards for involvement (Gillies and Ashman 2003, p.74). Nobody endorses that cooperative learning be the lone teaching approach to be utilize in a classroom but the point is that cooperative learning can beneficially come to take a regular and momentous place in a teacher’s list. Educational groups engaged in cooperative learning offer a potentially productive area of research (Frey et. al. 1999, p.25). Experimental research about cooperative learning was positively on track since the 1970s and numerous reviews of the research literature facilitated the establishment of significant findings concerning cooperative learning and its advantage. Some found statistically constructive effects on achievement and on race affairs in the schools. On the other hand, their assessment depends mostly on research with students in grades K-9. Some reports on a mixture of 37 studies of cooperative learning in secondary schools established that just over two-thirds of study results favoured cooperative learning over conventional forms of instruction. These investigations found only six studies at higher levels or grades 10-12 who described limited successes for cooperative learning. Thus, it is urged that more research concentration be given to the higher grades (Orey et. al. 2004, p.150). 2.2 Context of Cooperative Learning- (Article 1 – Jacob (1999) The conservative attitude to studying the use of educational innovations in everyday setting is acontextual. According to Jacob (1999, p.2), researchers generally evaluate how teachers use an innovation to a list of ‘fidelity criteria’ that developers or researchers have concluded are significant to realization of the developer’s objectives. However, many research papers have shown that an extensive collection of educational innovations have been influenced by their contexts. For instance, anthropological studies of a broad assortment of innovations overseas signify the significance of considering the local context if an innovation is to be effectual and maintainable. In addition, study of teaching practices in the United States between 1890 and 1990 impart a historical factor to the investigation of context and educational innovations. Teacher-centred education in previous years has been for the most part fashioned by two intersecting context. Long-standing cultural philosophy about the character of knowledge, teaching and learning, and the social setting; the ethic, racial, and social backgrounds of the children attending the school, instituted the external context. The school and classroom organization structures formed the internal context within which different teacher ideas and professional philosophy worked their way in determining a resilient realistic pedagogy called teacher-centred instruction. Dishevelled as these situational influences are, disentangling them and assigning a relative weight to the influence of each is impossible. In studies of modern-day innovations, Jacob (1999, p.2) added, some scholars have contended that adaptation to the local context is crucial for successful functioning. In a review of research on curriculum innovations, the mounting attention to contextual impact on education innovations was recognized by identifying interest in contextual influences as a discrete viewpoint or ‘implementation perspective’ within the study of education innovations. 2.3 Group Learning in Secondary School – (Article 2 – McAfferty et. al. 2006) Some scholars highlight the exclusivity of each individual and the need for self-initiative contrary to ‘one-size-fits-all’ and teacher-fronted instruction. This highlighting on the individual might be seen as an opposition with cooperative learning that centre on relations between people. However, ranging from teacher a teacher centred approach to self-study; cooperative learning symbolized a major leap from reliance on teachers and toward better dependence on self and peers. More importantly, the rationale of cooperative learning is not to make all to feel similar, but to make everybody to consider and to impart and to expand their individual thinking through meeting with others. This view is seen as in favour of a democratic system, which underscores involvement of the individual for the larger good (McCafferty et. al. 2006, p.16). Cooperative learning is developing rapidly (Becker et. al. 2006, p.39). Elementary and secondary school teachers began adding in cooperative learning into their classes in the late 1980s, as well as economics lessons in grades K-12 (see National Council on Economic Education’s website for examples, www.ncee.net) and it is developing into a convenient alternative to ‘chalk and talk’ method. Group learning according to Gillies and Ashman (2003) has been described from hypothetical standpoint as inspirational, social interdependence learning, cognitive-developmental and social loafing. Moreover, the majority of research carried out on group learning has revealed it a more efficient instructional technique over competitive and individualistic methodologies (p.74). It refers to a collection of practices concerning small-group instruction and students’ functioning together in learning activities (Mash and Barkely 2006, p.536). In a study conducted on cooperative learning with elementary and secondary school students, around 78% found a considerable encouraging effect on achievement. This is because according to McAfferty et. al. (2006, p.181), students in secondary school level is commonly seen as being competent of greater autonomy and peers become especially essential in their lives. However, while these studies demonstrated distinct advantages, it does not mean that cooperative learning is suitable or valuable for college or university students. The degree to which peer relations is encouraged in the classroom; the observations revealed that the academic classroom is one of a small number of venues in which individuals can be productive with minimum social contact. Most importantly, this is because the conventional classroom typically has an ‘individualistic’ or ‘competitive’ rather than a ‘cooperative’ task and reward configuration. Not only does such a structure dishearten peer interaction, but also the competitive aspect helps guarantee that when it does happen, it will not be in a context that is most favourable for the development of pleasant peer interactions. Latest evidences contrasting the products of cooperative versus traditional learning situations, for instance, suggest that cooperative goal structures, as compared against competitive or individualistic ones, encourage a more sociable and healthy interaction, more constructive outlook toward self and others, and better output in most conditions (Eisner 1985, p.73). Teacher-centred and individual learning approaches also play significant functions in instruction, and can be conveniently linked with cooperative learning, as can group actions that are not structured along cooperative learning lines. It is imperative to observe that many cooperative learning practices incorporate the use of teacher instruction like STAD, while other cooperative learning techniques, students spend a moment or two working by themselves. Thus, there is more litheness to cooperative learning than is generally believed, and no there is no evidence to believe that a lecture cannot include some aspect of cooperative learning even if the focus is on some other means of instruction. Irrefutably, it is expected that cooperative learning provide some educational purpose better than others do and it is up to the teacher to choose when it is best employed. However, it is essential to take into account that cooperative learning is exigent or complicated to apply (McCafferty et. al. 2006, p.197). In traditional schools, the principal often operates in the same manner that teachers does in the school, as the teacher does in respect to the students in the class. The principal is the authoritative figure for the teachers and similarly, teachers are for their students. Principals frequently interact with the staff as a group of individuals similar to that of a teacher’s conduct ‘whole-class instructions’ as if the class is a collection of individual students unrelated to each other (Sharan et. al. 1999, p.29). 2.4 Effectiveness of Cooperative Settings – (Article 3 – Pedersen and Digby (1995)) Based on my observation, most of the literature present finding of studies that examine the usefulness of cooperative conditions. Pedersen and Digby (1995, p.241) presents a few of those findings most of which comes from qualitative data which reveals that students in cooperative settings help each other with the learning process and form support groups. Moreover, retention rates and academic achievement scores are higher than those students that are exposed to alternative settings. Cooperative learning enhances relations amongst cultural groups and students with special needs. A review of research by Johnson and Johnson (1974) as cited by Deci and Ryan (1985, p.258), asserted that the cooperative setting promotes intrinsic motivation in that it leads to fewer apprehension, greater task participation, and a more constructive emotional tendency than does competition. Its exceptional configuration also helps to ease the weighty paperwork of most teachers. Students in cooperative settings build up enhanced recall ability and the greater extent of student independence within a group resulted in an increase of knowledge, improvement in writing process, and reduction of spelling mistakes, thus enhancing achievements. Students working in undersized cooperative groups can learn information better and more swiftly than students working independently, while improving their sense of worth and individual enthusiasm. More essentially, cooperative learning improves critical thinking proficiency. In a meta-analysis conducted by Johnson et. al. (2000) as cited by Gillies and Ashman 2003, p.74) of 158 studies, 21 % were conducted at a post-secondary level. However, this meta-analysis neither investigated which of these two approaches, direct nor conceptual, was more fitting for college and university students nor did it contrast the impact of prearranged cooperative groups with unstructured combined groups. It may be arduous to make evaluations about the value of cooperative classrooms when such classrooms have been the exception and not the norm of student’s familiarity. Children with more long-term experience to the cooperative settings approach learn differently than students having less experience to a cooperative setting. It may be that an alteration to a cooperative environment is more complicated to implement after students have spent years in more conventional settings, making the teacher’s responsibility more strenuous that it might otherwise be and making the involvement less effectual because student’s earlier experiences have significantly tinted their relationship to the school setting (Speece and Keogh 1996, p.201). Although the predominant use of peer tutoring in higher education seems to occur within a pair, there are some occurrences of peer tutoring in small learning groups. When assessment was made between group size conditions, the study found the students in pairs, triads, or quad groupings all surpassed individuals. However, the researchers found no performance distinction between groups of various sizes, and they concluded that any partnership size consisting of up to four members would be similarly successful in increasing academic performance (Falchikov and Blythman 2001, p.21). 2.5 Competition and Cooperation – (Article 4 – Falchikov and Blythman (2001)) Contrast between competition and cooperation were explored for many years. Social and psychological conditions under which individuals compete or cooperate were investigated. May and Doob (1937) according to Falchikov and Blythman (2001, p.51), scrutinized the subject of cooperation or competition in an assortment of circumstances, including that of learning, concluding that competition and cooperation can both be promoted or disrupted by education. They also indicated the basis of disagreement between the two modes of interaction in an educational setting. In addition, they investigated the origin of conflict between cooperation and competition, distinguishing the impact of fundamental cultural values in encouraging competition. The assumption was that the structure of education in any culture or sub-culture will be organized in a way planned to disseminate characteristics of the cultures that are most greatly cherished by those who organize education, and to alter essentials which those who are managing needs to modify. The principles of cooperation may be highlighted by society, but the fundamental structure of the education system is competitive (Falchikov and Blythman 2001, p.51). “Competition is learned” (Kohn 1993, p.24). This author explains that the study of some literature through many disciplines makes it clear that the vast mainstream of philosophers and researchers who have explored competition have concluded that the competitive orientation is definitely learned. Individual by nature aiming for goals, but workings with each other (cooperation) or against each other (competition) are learned type of conduct. Competition is a learned phenomenon and individuals are not born with enthusiasm to win or to be competitive. We inherit a potential for a degree of activity, and we all have the impulse to stay alive. However, the determination to succeed comes through education and the pressure of one’s family and surroundings. The efficacy of cooperative learning schemes is a matter of established research (Reeves 2002, p.15). The reality is that we live in a competitive world and in order that our children can survive such a challenge, they must learn competition in the classroom. However, this is a concept that needs some more examination. Standards or principles in reality encourage successful competition, but not by setting a student against the other. Instead, standards encourage achievement by constructing collaboration and successful underpinning among elements of a learning team. Applying cooperative learning is not adversative to competition since cooperative collaboration is fundamental for victorious competition. The challenge however is to utilize competition in the correct circumstances (Reeves 2002, p.16). It is imperative that educators become more aware of the impacts of competition and cooperation on their lives, their schools, programme and society and commence deliberating their thinking with their contemporaries and students. They should reflect about their technique to cooperative learning that includes teaching collaborative skills and processing the group experience, help students to convey their proficiency and perception about cooperation to other circumstances. When teachers value cooperative learning for a variety of goals, such as academic, affective, and social achievements, students will also appreciate cooperative learning as a means to learn and co-exist rather than purely as a medium for academic development (Pedersen and Digby 1995, p.387) 2.6 Cooperative Incentive, Socializing and Democratizing – (Article 5 – Ellsworth et. al. 1994) A cooperative incentive structure, Meisel (1986, p.207) explains, is one in which two or more people are compensated, based on their functioning as a group. This means two or more individuals are compared with one another, and those performing best are rewarded. In preceding studies, cooperative learning approaches that used group rewards and individual responsibility lead to higher educational gains than competitive or individual motivation systems. Even if cooperative learning approaches have concentrated on school achievement, majority of researchers and experts would hold academic achievement to be minor to the social interactions advantage of cooperative learning. These actions have been shown to augment a range of pro-social activities such as helping, sharing, cooperating, and generalization of cooperation to other settings. It appears that cooperative learning could be used to circuitously teach social skills to children in classroom settings since the eventuality of corroboration require working together, assisting, and partaking from all group members. The social contact instigated in the cooperative learning environment was not restricted to only the circumstances where cooperation was implemented. Studies found the students in classes that used cooperative learning had appreciably more interracial interactions mutually in classroom and outside of the classroom during their spare time. This constructive transfer of the consequence of cooperative learning on students’ social relations was also seen in their friendships (Ellsworth et. al. 1994, p.129). In cooperative learning, the class altogether operates as a system (Sharan et. al. 1999, p.9). Cooperative learning as a socializing and democratizing process must also include diverse ability within the learning groups (Wraga and Hlebowitsh 2000, p.72). 2.7 Research Methodology 2.7.1 Research Methods of the Five Articles As previously discussed, most research findings about cooperative learning effectiveness come from qualitative data. This means most of the researchers used qualitative method for data collection. Qualitative methods of data gathering and analysis produce findings that are mostly not available through statistical procedures or other means of quantification. According to Strauss and Corbin (1998, p.11), it is a type of research about “person’s lives, lived experiences, behaviours, emotions, and feelings as well as about organizational functioning, social movements, cultural phenomena, and interactions between nations”. However, information from this type of research may measure like survey data about the subject of study but “the majority of the analysis is interpretative” (p.11). Researchers reviewed in this paper used qualitative methods and gathered data through interviews and observations. In these five articles, the majority of them used interviews, case study, and data that have been quantified earlier by other researchers. The researchers then used qualitative analysis to determine the concept and relationships in raw data and organizing them into a theoretical descriptive scheme. Triangulation is predominantly employed as most of them are adding multiple data to confirm their argument. Triangulation is a “critical element in the practice of social science” (Denzin and Lincoln 2003, p.187) and the utilizing numerous approach or triangulation shows effort to acquire a systematic knowledge of the subject in question (Denzin and Lincoln 2003, p.187-188). 2.7.2 Proposed Research Method There are many reasons why researchers reviewed in this paper employed qualitative methods but probably, the most valid reason is the “nature of the problem” (Strauss and Corbin 1998, p.11). As previously discussed, qualitative methods are very useful in acquiring complex information about behaviours, belief, organizational functioning, etc. that may be challenging to acquire or comprehend using traditional research process (Strauss and Corbin 1998, p.11). For my research thesis, I would like to investigate further about questions that were set forth in this paper and for that reason; I am proposing to use a mixed methodological approach as this can provide better opportunities for answering all research questions. Mixed method research studies according to Tashakkori and Teddlie (2003, p.11) normally use qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis methods in “either parallel or sequential phases”. It can also answer questions that other methodologies cannot and “can provide better and stronger inferences” (Tashakkori and Teddlie 2003, p.15). It can help me meet the criteria for evaluating the integrity of the answers better than a single approach design. The foremost benefit of mixed methods research is its ability to concurrently answer “confirmatory and exploratory questions’ (Tashakkori and Teddlie 2003, p. 14), and therefore useful in validating and creating hypothesis in the same research. The primary functions of mixed methods, triangulation and complementary, are linked to the fact that mixed methods results to several assumptions that support and stabilize each other. Similarly, development, initiation, and expansion are linked to the reality that inference of mixed method in previous phase initiates the design of the subsequent phase. It can all together corroborate a quantitatively derived proposition and investigate in greater depth the processes by which various relationships have transpired. Finally, it is very important to bear in mind that mixing of methods should be done in a way that has “complementary strengths and non-overlapping weaknesses” (Tashakkori and Teddlie 2003, p.16). 2.7.3 Methods for Data Gathering “High quality data collection is fundamental to the advancement of knowledge in the social sciences” (Axinn and Pearce 2006, p.1) and since mixed method is my selected research methodology, my data collection strategy would be a combination of the elements of two methods. Survey interviews using standardized questions will be conducted along with observations and unstructured or ethnographic interviews. The use of questionnaires in surveys will allow me to use multiple sources of information and interview a larger sample of population (Axinn and Pearce 2006, p. 5) while qualitative unstructured interviewing will allow me to explore participant’s experiences further and hear their explanations on the issue. In addition, observation can help me gather actual experiences of the participants such as feelings and conversations regarding the issue (Macnee and McCabe 2008, p.168). 2.7.4 Assessment and Analysis Approach Statistical analysis of numerically coded data and the interpretive analysis of data coded as text will be use to assess the information gathered. Statistical analysis will help me “ensure reliability, validity, and generalizability” (Hatch 2002, p.14). It can assist in the interpretation, give meaning to data, and make sense of the issues involved. Since interpretive analysis can help me construct meaning from the data gathered from qualitative interviews by separating and authenticating individual factors of purpose, intention, conviction, and goals in social change (Monroe 1997, p.20), I can make inferences, develop my insights, refine my understanding, and draw conclusions from them (Hatch 2002, p.180). 3. Conclusion The success of cooperative learning requires an integration of pedagogy, subject content, tools, and most of all the open mindedness of both students and academics. It also depended heavily on the high motivation of students and teacher’s in trying out the innovation and the mutual trust. A look at the past may help reveal the voids in the present body of literature on cooperative learning in secondary education. Some suggestions may help illuminate the fact that many questions remain unanswered regarding the effectiveness of cooperative learning. In future research, I intend to answer some significant questions that primarily include the effect of cooperative learning upon academic achievement of students in secondary schools. What are the aspects of cooperative learning that could enhance student’s academic performance in secondary school? What impact do perceptions of these stakeholders have upon the cooperative process? How do teachers, students, and parents perceive their roles and how their roles changed in cooperatively structured classroom? How can teachers work together to implement cooperative learning? What impact do cooperative activities have upon self-perceptions of students? How many students per group and which students will be grouped together?. How should group seating be arranged? Do they need to spend time discussing how well their groups work together? 4. Reference List Research Articles: Ellsworth Nancy, Hedley Carolyn, Baratta Anthony.1994. Literacy: A Redefinition. US: Published by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Falchikov Nancy and Blythman Margo, 2001, Learning Together: Peer Tutoring in Higher Education. UK: Published by Routledge Jacob Evelyn.1999. Cooperative Learning in Context: An Educational Innovation in Everyday Classrooms. US: Published by SUNY Press McCafferty, Steven G. Jacobs George M., DaSilva Iddings Ana Christina. 2006. Cooperative Learning and Second Language Teaching. US: Published by Cambridge University Press Pedersen Jon and Digby Annette. 1995. Secondary Schools and Cooperative Learning: Theories, Models, and Strategies. UK: Published by Taylor & Francis Supporting Articles and References: Axinn William and Pearce Lisa Deanne, 2006, Mixed Method Data Collection Strategies: Strategies, US: Published by Cambridge University Press Becker William, Becker Suzanne, and Watts Michael. 2006. Teaching Economics: More Alternatives to Chalk and Talk. UK: Published by Edward Elgar Publishing Deci Edward Ryan Richard. 1985. Intrinsic Motivation and Self-determination in Human Behavior. US: Published by Springer Denzin Norman and Lincoln Yvonna. 2003. The Landscape of Qualitative Research: Theories and Issues. UK: Published by SAGE DeVillar Robert and Faltis Christian. 1991. Computers and Cultural Diversity: Restructuring for School Success. US: Published by SUNY Press Eisner Elliot. 1985. Learning and Teaching the Ways of Knowing. US: Published by University of Chicago Press Frey Lawrence, Gouran Dennis., and Poole Marshall Scott. 1999. The Handbook of Group Communication Theory and Research. UK: Published by SAGE Gillies, Robyn and Ashman Adrian. 2003. Co-operative Learning: The Social and Intellectual Outcomes of Learning in Groups. US: Published by Routledge Glaser Robert and Resnick Lauren. 1989. Knowing, Learning, and Instruction: Essays in Honor of Robert Glaser. US: Published by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Hatch Amos, 2002, Doing Qualitative Research in Education Settings, US: Published by SUNY Press Kohn Alfie.1993. No Contest: The Case Against Competition. US: Published by Houghton Mifflin Books Mash Eric and Barkley Russell. 2006. Treatment of Childhood Disorders. US: Published by Guilford Press Macnee Carol Leslie and McCabe Susan, 2008, Understanding Nursing Research: Using Research in Evidence-based Practice, US: Published by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Meisel Julius.1986. Mainstreaming Handicapped Children: Outcomes, Controversies, and New Directions. US: Published by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Monroe Kristen, 1997, Contemporary Empirical Political Theory, US: Published by University of California Press, 1997 Orey Michael, Fitzgerald Mary Ann, and Branch Robert Maribe. 2000. Educational Media and Technology Yearbook: 2004 Edition Volume 29. US: Published by Libraries Unlimited Reeves Douglas B.2002. The Leader's Guide to Standards: A Blueprint for Educational Equity and Excellence. US: Published by Wiley_Default Sharan Shlomo, Shachar Hanna, and Levine Tamar. 1999. The Innovative School: Organization and Instruction. US: Published by Greenwood Publishing Group Singer Alan, Murphy Maureen, and Hines Maxwell, 2003.Teaching to Learn, Learning to Teach: A Handbook for Secondary School Teachers. Hofstra New Teachers Network. US: Published by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Speece Deborah and Keogh Barbara. 1996. Research on Classroom Ecologies: Implications for Inclusion of Children With Learning Disabilities. US: Published by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Strauss Anselm and Corbin Juliet. 1998. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. UK: Published by SAGE Tashakkori Abbas and Teddlie Charles. 2003. Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research. U.K.: Published by SAGE Wraga, William and Hlebowitsh Peter. 2000. Research Review for School Leaders: Volume III. National Association of Secondary School Principals. US: Published by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Read More