Nyomtassa ki az oldalt!

Chapter 2
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF CO-OPERATIVE MICRO-GROUPS


The basic concept of co-operative learning is structural, since it transforms the organisation methods of learning and teaching creating basic structural units: micro-groups... while, at the same time, also transforming our frameworks of thinking about learning...


2.1. What is a micro-group?

The topic of micro-groups deserves an own volume, however, here we only can reflect on the significance of micro-groups from several aspects. Fortunately, this topic is not unfamiliar for Hungarian academic discourse, thanks primarily to Ferenc Mérei’s widely known sociometric model. It seems the notion of micro-group was justified in Hungarian pedagogical discourse by the verification of this model.

However, the co-operative term ‘micro-group’ is different from the one used in sociometry. By micro-group, sociometry means the smaller units of 4-6 people outlined in sociometric tests, developing spontaneously, based on mutual relationships.

In contrast, in co-operative learning micro-groups mean the basic units (2-5 people) of co-operative structure, established mainly in a controlled way within the large group. Co-operative learning can be regarded as micro-group structured in this respect, since it applies learning structures based on micro-groups of 2-5.

In the following, we only can show how manifold the significance of micro-groups may be in co-operative learning. We use the term ‘micro-group’ here, although we consider the term ‘small group’ as adequate as the former one. However, in Hungarian pedagogical discourse ‘small group’ is generally used for a group with less members than a class (10-15 people), which is also called a small class.

We think that in some time ‘small group’ will refer to micro-groups of 2-5 exclusively, as this process has started in certain semantic fields of the expressions ‘small-group education’ and ‘education based on group-work’. As we mentioned in the introduction of this handbook, therefore we use the terms ‘micro-group’ and ‘small’ group as synonyms for co-operative micro-groups of 2-5.

The expression ‘micro-group’ suggests that in pedagogical practice we can obtain advantages similar to the revolutionary advantages of microchips, with respect to efficiency, effectiveness and equity. Micro-groups are the essence of co-operation; if co-operation works in the micro-groups, it will work in the whole class.

However, it does not develop spontaneously; in co-operative learning we consciously provide the participants with tools and activities with the help of which they learn to give and receive feedback on their and their peers’ learning and attainments in an authentic way.


2.2. Micro-group as a basic co-operative structural unit

As we have seen, the basic structural unit of co-operative learning is the heterogeneous micro-group (of 2-5 people). Not the micro-group as a ‘small mass’, but as a group-structuring framework that enables students with different abilities, cultural and social backgrounds, sexes and even ages to work together efficiently, effectively and equitably to achieve their collective and individual goals.

Micro-group is the framework of co-operative learning, and, at the same time, its opportunity as well. A human-scale framework in which the individual does not vanish amalgamated into the community, but without which it is impossible to take part successfully in the individual or collective journey to knowledge. It is a co-operating micro-community space where everyone has the opportunity for personal co-operative outlets, individual and common success, if the fundamental co-operative principles prevail.

Therefore, in co-operative structuring of learning, we have to plan pedagogical processes down to the level of the individuals sitting at the same desk. That is, during planning, we have to keep in mind who will do exactly what at this imaginary desk. The practical principles, attitudes, personal, social and cognitive competency models, techniques and structures of co-operative learning help to implement this aspect. If we handle the small group in the same way as the large group – for example if we give the same general instruction s such as “discuss”, “evaluate”, “solve” etc. – co-operation will not be granted. In this case, co-operation is left to spontaneity, only the relationship is permissive her, while in – however, misunderstood – frontal teaching spontaneity is forbidden. However, spontaneity in itself does not contribute to the development of the skills necessary for co-operation, nor, consequently, to equal access. Moreover, in case of groups without any intention for co-operation, it will rather lead to constrained or unconstrained roles of free riders and workhorses, in Kagan’s terms. In contrast, we have to plan learning structures and activities at the level of the micro-group and in a personalised way, so that spontaneity can meet individual and collective learning needs and demands.

Micro-group as the basic structure of learning together structurally deconstructs the hierarchical, logocentric and teacher-centred education, since parallel interactions in the micro-groups within the class eliminate the monopoly of hierarchic control of attention. The main guideline of learning is not the teacher’s speech, lecture and testing. Of course, there are moments or periods when all attention is directed towards the teacher even in co-operative learning (but this attention must be founded). Co-operative learning has a participant-centred aspect, that is, it regards it as professionally and scientifically grounded that participants must be involved in the pedagogical process, thus creating a determining basis of learning together. Therefore it does not stop at the moral propagation of co-operative principles but creates structural guarantees for the efficient participation of each participant in the mutual process of learning. One of these guarantees is that it creates a micro-group structure based on fundamental co-operative principles in the class during co-operative learning, thus participants can be involved and have direct access to their peers’ knowledge and to the resources offered by the teacher.

It is true, however, that one of the sources of knowledge is listening to a master whose each expression is teaching in itself. But are we teachers all such masters of teaching...?

Micro-group structure in co-operative learning allows for partnership between participants. Their relationship is equal in terms of access to knowledge. (That is another issue where each individual is on this path.) The point is that everyone needs to have a chance to express themselves, have ideas, ask questions, make mistakes, correct them, etc. That is, participation in the process of learning must be granted for everyone by structural means. The personality of the teacher has a significant role in learning, but the role of the personality of children is just as important. Therefore their personal and actual participation cannot depend on the fact how many students the teacher has capacity to pay attention to. In a group of thirty the teacher needs to find partners to structure learning together. It may come as a surprise, but these partners – the children – have always been there, but it depended on the teacher to what degree they could become partners. Participation in learning together must not be left to the fancies of personal contacts with the teacher. We do not state here there is no need for personal contact with the teacher. On the contrary, we think the opposite way. As Niel also claims{15}, it is necessary to spend some time with each student separately in order to establish personal relationships. However, the personal relationship between student and teacher cannot be the exclusive source of development during learning together.

Micro-group is the substantive space of personal and social behaviour. Where our elbows touch, where we can see into each other’s learning customs, there always will be an opportunity to hone our personal and social skills. Development of personal and social skills is not the target but a tool of co-operative learning. The more a person is aware of himself and the more he is able to establish harmonic relationships with his peers, the more efficient learning together becomes, and consequently, individual learning as well. But the micro-group needs to implement fundamental co-operative principles concerning attitudes, competency development models and the means promoting practical achievements, so that this path of development can be accessible for everyone.

In order to develop cognitive skills, everything that has been planned at the level of the whole class needs to be brought down to the level of individual micro-groups. This way we can determine who does what and how, and to what depth they would be involved in learning together.

When planning co-operative learning structures, we must have a single imaginary micro-group in mind during work. It is not enough to plan how we would divide the materials to be covered by the groups, we also need to see how everyone will be able to take part equally and to access others1 knowledge equally, step by step, including ourselves, the ones who structure learning.

If it is not concretely planned who will do what, then the micro-group will not grant the implementation of fundamental co-operative principles, therefore co-operative structures/techniques must be applied within the small groups as well. In an experienced co-operative group, where the appropriate personal and social skills already have been developed, the learning process does not need to be planned step by step, because group gestures are automatic. But in structuring co-operative learning and at the initial stage of development it is very important to plan who does what within the micro-group.

In summary, we would like to highlight that micro-group structure is a key issue, but the implementation of the principles are in the focus. That is to say, learning in small groups does not necessarily mean learning co-operatively. Micro-group structure is markedly useful for the children to experience observing the basic principles in groups of 2-5, to experience its advantages and to apply them later adaptively, that is, in new situations. Therefore it is advisable to grant co-operation between group members and groups by well-known and described co-operative structures/techniques initially so that the principles would be surely implemented, while later only the implementations of principles will be a key aspect, and newer structures are created on this basis.


2.3. Micro-groups as the personal space of learning together

Guarantee for being addressed
“In a group of 3-4 I have the opportunity to take part in learning processes in my whole person – my posture, mimic, aura, smell, etc.” This group size means the scale and confines the space in which students can access the sources of knowledge safely: either their peers or other means of acquiring knowledge.

Granting personal presence is a guarantee for spontaneity as well. Spontaneous feedback, ideas, solutions open up new personal resources of the individuals working in a micro-group. Therefore co-operative learning requires an environment where the space of micro-groups comply with the criteria of personalness and personal expression.

However, this personalness is only possible in interpersonal relations, that is why it is expedient to start co-operative work in micro-groups of 2-3; this grants “being addressed”. This scope of personalness aimed at co-operation requires interpersonal publicity, in other words, each participant needs to be paid attention to by at least one of their peers. Group roles and structures help everyone to enter the established space. Co-operative structures almost always initiate their series of steps at the individual and personal level; at a stage of personalness where there is no need for publicity because the individual has to draw on himself (on his own knowledge, experience, approach and emotions).

The purpose of Rally Robin is often misunderstood when the teacher asks a question and suggests answering it in the form of Rally Robin immediately. Rally Robin always starts with individual work. Enough time is provided for everyone to collect their answers (or, if they do not have any, their questions) individually, and Rally Robin only starts only then – and we will instantly know how many members have the same answers (or questions). Rally Robin started with instant answering also can have a sense, for example when I want children to practise arithmetic sequences, but even then I would reserve the right of passing and asking back!

Micro-group publicity is primarily called personal from the point of view that it grants a more personal presence in comparison with the publicity of the large group based on the teacher’s presence and communication. It is true even in the most extreme cases, because a person’s behaviour is observed by at least one peer (even if it refers to the fact that the person does not want to co-operate), so there is a chance to give a response to it with the help of the teacher and the peers.

Micro-groups, providing continuous publicity, grant the continuous publicity of learning and attainment by structural means. Learning-centred approach starts from the actual state of the learning community, and plans the processes of development and eliminates the factors hampering learning in relation to them, so that participants would be able to be involved in the processes of learning and self-development with their whole personalities.

In a class of 30, during the activity traditionally called frontal class-work, the teacher is unable to provide opportunity for each child to ask questions, tell their ideas, to find out what they do not understand or what they have completed, etc.

However, in the publicity of a micro-group, if I am a participating student, at least one of my peers who learn with me, but rather 2 or 3 partners will know all the time what I do not understand, what I know, what I have or have not completed.

The micro-group based on co-operative principles complies with the democratic principle of subsidiarity structurally as well: it provides continuous opportunity for every participant to express themselves, that is, to ask questions, make decisions, take or not take on tasks in learning together. All members’ questions, ideas and interpretations related to learning and knowledge, and their performance is publicised, at least for one or two peers. This micro-group publicity of peers also forms the co-operation of the group in the spirit of co-operative principles, and the personal involvement and responsibility of the individual members.

Micro-groups and the co-operative principles, structures and roles operated within them divide the rights, obligations and responsibilities also existing – and primarily taken by the teacher – in traditional structuring of education –, and delegate them to a lower level, namely, to the level of the small group – also in accordance with the democratic principle of subsidiarity. That is to say, the more emphasis is on the rights and obligations of actors (here the students), the action process (in our case, learning) is the more democratic. Co-operative learning is able to grant this by a concrete system of tools. However, we must be aware of the fact that this involves a significant change in the role of the teacher. That is, the teacher plays preparatory, organising, co-ordinating, model and monitoring roles.

“Staying on task”, “making the most of the time limit”, “preparing written tasks” and “intense participation” take place at the same level as the interaction of acquiring knowledge: within the micro-group. These activities are granted to be realised by the continuous publicity provided in structuring; either within the micro-group or between small groups.

If we want to think over our work as teachers in terms of the criteria of quality education, we must ask the following questions: Am I able to grant on my own that each student deals with the topic of the lesson? Can I make everyone complete their written tasks? Can i see how they make use of the time? Do I plan and convey learning processes in a personalised way?

Of course one single person cannot be expected to meet all these demands in a class of 25-30, or even less, even if she makes huge efforts, while the 25-30-strong human resource is “wasted”, although they could help with the task. Thus, democratisation does not only makes the process equitable, but it also increases efficiency (maximising the exploitation of resources) significantly.

Co-operative micro-group-based structures allow us to grant democratic and personal articulation of needs, interests and values in a mass of any number of individuals. In the micro-groups everyone can represent themselves, their families and culture, etc. with their whole personalities.

A system of practical co-operative principles and tools may be the practice that miniaturises the efficient and effective forms of democratic societal behaviour in co-operative micro-groups. Micro-groups provide personal access to the achievements of co-operative democratic coexistence. The same way the collective human culture is made personally accessible by bits, microchips and memes (with the help of computers), organic and democratic networks of co-operative micro-groups could make the real scenes of practising democratic publicity, behaviour and popular sovereignty personally accessible.{16}

In summary, we highlight the fact that for granting personalness, micro-groups are necessary, indeed. However, within a micro-group, parallel small-group publicities are created, which in themselves do not grant personal involvement in the learning process for everyone (see Kagan’s “workhorses” and “free riders”). In order to achieve personal involvement, co-operative principles must be implemented within the micro-groups, with the help of co-operative techniques/structures. Structuring, developing and improving publicity within micro-groups is one of the most important purposes of co-operative group development.


2.4. Micro-groups as the space for continuous, conscious
       and spontaneous feedback in learning together

In learning, one of the most important tools of competency development is continuous feedback or reflection. This can be provided by peers working on the same subjects as usefully as by educators. If they are unable to convey their knowledge to their peers, or if they cannot answer their questions convincingly, it is clear that they need to improve their own knowledge, and that we cannot say that they have thorough knowledge of the subject. It also becomes clear that peers’ questions, although resulting from not understanding something, moves the group forward – together with the members’ individual knowledge. We must consider students competent in solving their own problems; we have to believe in their self-actualising tendencies to which the micro-group provides a framework.

Several facts can be mentioned as deficiencies of traditional means of feedback. For example they do not enable students to give feedback on their knowledge frequently enough (it is enough if we think about the frequency of tests). Checking is quite random, too (let us think about the choice between picking students who volunteer a lot and those who almost never put up their hands). It is also important to note that feedback between student and teacher is much more characterised by supervision than by the expression of partnership.

In a co-operative class the peers learning together are continuously present, they are accessible, they can be addressed, and sooner or later they routinely share their knowledge, ideas, doubts and deficiencies... etc. And in doing so they do not depend on the teacher. At the same time, it is a crucial question whether educators becomes aware of the fact that the more they focus on creating a community which is able to give partnerial feedback, the more effective they will find the time spent on academic subjects.

Many teachers claim that they do not have enough time for the development of the group because they would “lag behind with the curriculum”, while, at the same time, adding that only few children keep up with the pace of lessons. So they keep struggling with most of the children – or, in a more fortunate case, only with a few of them – during teaching. In co-operative learning the question that is raised is not whether the children pay attention to the subject, but which of their abilities and skills need to be developed so that everyone would pay attention to the subject and improve their skills and knowledge in the class. However, for this it is essential that participants can give feedback to each other more and more consciously and to learn to comprehend and digest feedback from their peers and teachers. Such feedback is necessary in which participants learn on their own what they need in order to improve and learn more effectively.

We can regard feedback as authentic in the pedagogical process when participants understand, process and applies those changes and modifications which they need for the sake of successful development, and which they are able to make conscious during feedback.

Within the space of the micro-group, in its physical closeness, members can perceive each other’s learning habits and behaviour, patterns and schemes with each of their senses. During continuously shared work spontaneous sampling and copying takes place, formed by thew already existing abilities of the members of the group. This is why the monitoring role of the co-operative teacher is very important. Thanks to the learning structures based on the fundamental principles, the opportunity for activity is inspiring for every child, however, it may happen that some participants do not want or are not able to co-operate. Sometimes the planned co-operative task is interrupted because of deficiencies or conditions related to social skills (e.g. an unresolved conflict within the group). In such cases the learning activity continues in the other groups, while we focus on the spontaneously emerging development task in this group and provide them with concrete conflict management techniques; in other words, we shift focus, and another developmental activity takes place.

In novice micro-groups it often happens that when important elements need to be highlighted in a conjunct collection (dates, formulae, historical correlations, etc.), the group members cannot agree upon which four most characteristic items to underline together. While the other groups complete the task within a given period of time, in one such group everything is stopped, or they engage in fierce debate and have not underlined anything yet. The condition in this activity is that only those items can be underlined on which everybody agrees. If there is no consensus and a conflict emerges, we can offer a by-pass: each group member can suggest one item to underline, which must be accepted and represented by the others as the four essential items found by the four of them. They can decide the question by weighted voting or other co-operative means.

The educators provide behaviour models themselves, mostly by assembling roles, tools, tasks and instructions. This way the continuous learning together in micro-groups helps the development of personal, social and cognitive skills, based on actual learning activities and their experiential knowledge.

In summary of the above, we wish to highlight that the publicity of micro-groups needs to be utilised for developing and improving peer feedback, with the explicit goal of making interactions related to learning as efficient and effective as possible. The time dedicated to feedback is of key importance and requires particular planning by the teacher. Educators must find out what kind of models and strategies they introduce in order to generate authentic feedback. When choosing models to be introduced/applied it is expedient to take the findings of cross disciplines (psychology, educational sociology, social psychology) into account as well.


2.5. Micro-group as the community core of learning together

The development of the micro-group

Micro-group, as a structurally granted personal space allows for the manifestation of group-cohesion forces. The small group can evolve into a community or team very soon, if we continuously assist its development by appropriate means. The continuous publicity of the micro-group, which is an important tool of developing personal and social skills, enables students learning together to become partners whose shared goal is – among other things – to achieve each of their individual and personal learning goals. In this personal space participants not only can represent their values, opinions and culture, but for the sake of mutual learning they help each other participant to articulate these. Thus, getting to know and accepting each other, applying the tools of co-operation and conscious competency development, micro-groups mature into small, co-operating communities, which will be one of the bases of the co-operation within the large group.

The principle of equal participation in co-operative learning also means that sooner or later each person must work with everyone else in the group.

For example, in jigsaw, the members of the micro-group get parted and deepen their knowledge in different fields with the members of other micro-groups, then, returning to their original one, they put together the knowledge they obtained somewhere else. These are called “expert groups”, since the persons coming from different micro-groups work on a subject together. Here any one person works together with the members of at least two or three other micro-groups. So we have an opportunity to create any number of temporary groups in addition to the original ones. Thus everyone can work together with everyone else even within on project.

It may happen that children cannot co-operate because they have not acquired the usage of co-operative tools yet. Co-operative learning does not presume that everybody is able to co-operate, therefore it provides them with applicable tools for co-operation. The educator structuring learning in a co-operative way facilitates the development and improvement of the skills necessary for co-operation by structuring the processes and structures of learning in a way that renders co-operation unavoidable.

For instance in the above example of jigsaw, when everyone leave their micro-groups – e.g. in a class of grade four to study different domesticated animals – any person’s knowledge will only be complete if the group members share their knowledge with each other. However, we need to give them tools for sharing it: e.g. they can record items in a group chart such as the number of legs, diet, size, where they are kept, etc. This way everyone’s knowledge is revealed and they can access it equally. Wee can see that here they study animals together. This enables them later to simulate, plan or observe biological communities, and to deepen their knowledge by studying the acquired elements in their ecological relations. (What a barn-yard, domestic pig keeping, the fauna of a stream is like, etc.)

When planning groups, we also have to take the children as our starting point. The development and improvement of the groups must be based on their versatile personalities. Therefore we always must keep heterogeneous groups in view in co-operative learning! Manifold understanding students in several dimensions is capable of optimising this heterogeneity. One such dimension is the is status of the children’s personal, social and cognitive competencies; the other one is their personal value preferences, and the third one is the sociometric status of the large-group. Further personality and group dimensions could be enumerated here, but the key point is that the human resources of the large group must be divided proportionately and in a parallel way into micr-groups.

For example, if I have performed a sociometric test which shows who individuals want to be in the same group with, and I also have surveyed the interests of the children, I will certainly be able to put any child in a group with at least one other they like to be with or with whom they share an interest. I strengthen the cohesiveness of the micro-group by planning this way.

In summary, we could highlight that micro-groups also can be the means of developing and improving community in the class, if the teacher consciously improves co-operation within micro-groups. Micro-groups can be set up as really heterogeneous groups by educators who know their students well, which ensures smooth co-operation at the initial phase of applying co-operative structures. The aim is to bring each student’s social competencies to a level at which even random group-making cannot endanger co-operation.

Groups must be kept together in each learning project or topic at least until their first joint success. They must not be separated even if they cannot co-operate. That step would convey the message that co-operation depends on the assembly of the participants.


2.6. Micro-group as the guarantee of individualisation

Learning processes thought over on a scale of 3-4 people allow for planning personalised forms of learning and behaviour. We plan simultaneous processes within the micro-group accurately, taking each child into account individually. It is easy to characterise different tasks along their roles.

If we want children in an inexperienced co-operative group of 4 to solve a reading comprehension task, we will need a Taskmaster who keeps the group on task; a recorder who co-ordinates the recording of anything the group has found; an Encourager who takes care of equal participation; and a Timekeeper who structures the efficient utilisation of the time available. The encourager will be a person that is already good at reading comprehension, since he also will be able to pay attention on the others’ participation. The recorder will be a student who has difficulties in writing or taking notes. I also can differentiate between tools related to roles even in different groups. The Recorder of group one can use charts well, but wording is difficult for her. I will give her the task of note-taking not in the form of a chart but as incomplete sentences. In another group, the Recorder is only able to take notes with the help of an interpretation chart. In the third group I would like to improve the Recorder’s creativity, so I put a question dice on their desk, and they will have to answer random questions- generated by throwing the dice – based on the text.

In order to differentiate between identical roles it is necessary for the teacher to continuously monitor children’s activity, so that she is able to notice progress and stops and react to them with providing the appropriate functions, resources and aids.

Since students in a micro-group developed and operated on the basis of co-operative principles surely will take an active part, individualisation take place mostly in an automatic way.

It often happens even in case of frontal teaching that most students understand the task, but four or five children still do not. If I go to them separately to explain, consequently the one will start working on the task at last who has not understood it and to whom I arrived last. In co-operative learning, however, when someone does not understand a task, he can ask his partners immediately, and gets an instant response to his individual questions or misunderstandings. That is, in co-operative learning the same five children can get immediate answers from each other at the same time, with a minimum loss of time; not to mention the fact that explanations by peers sometimes promote understanding more easily than teachers’ explanations. In co-operative learning we direct those who have questions to their group members, and if the whole group has a question, first we direct them to other groups.

Approaching it from the other side, those who know the solution or recognise some essential relation can present their thoughts, solutions or extra knowledge arising from their interests instantly in the micro-group. It does not depend on the fact whether the teacher picks them or if someone else has told the solution before, as in traditional frontal education. In other words, those who have progressed further in some field and those who are encumbered equally have the chance for spontaneous individualisation.

It is important to emphasise that the personal and social competencies of participants are necessary for the smoothness of spontaneous or automatic individualisation, so we must pay attention at the beginning and make sure that students really help and listen to each other – well-thought co-operative structures help in this.

Individualisation is not the children’s task but of the teachers’ structuring learning; they are the ones who have to individual development plans for each student for the sake of high-quality education.

It is a frequent mistake when educators take individual plans from special education teachers, and they only apply them in case of children with learning difficulties. Students who progress well ahead walk as individual a path as their peers with difficulties, therefore individual planning is necessary for them as well. Another common misunderstanding is that development mainly concerns competencies of learning; while the total personality or other dimensions of the personalities (e.g. personal, social and cognitive competencies, spatial, musical or physical intelligence) of students are neglected; when, in fact, if we want to involve students in planning and realising individual development, we have to address their personalities as wholes, and we have to respond to their whole personality in our plans. Children’s strength are also often omitted in planning, although some strength can be found in any child if we widen our horizons of knowing our students. Planning based on their strengths is especially useful in co-operative learning, since that is how I can concert the different resources in the class and assemble heterogeneous groups properly. Finally, personalised development plans need to be recorded in a way that the goals and tasks, activities and resources are clear for students, their parents and other teachers alike.

In summary, we can see that the well-structured micro-group – thanks to co-operative principles, attitudes and methods – grants the realisation of individual development plans permeating down to the level of the individual. A part of the individualised development takes place automatically and spontaneously, even without the attendance of the teacher. It is especially true for groups progressing ahead in co-operation. Teachers are the most efficient when they think about what tasks, activities, roles and functions help the most in the development of each single student.


2.7. Possible options for creating micro-groups

Micro-groups always must be consciously planned in the beginning so that each small group can be diverse! Creation of the groups must be followed by group development, team building. Without these we cannot be sure about the effectiveness of learning.

The ultimate aspect of the creation of micro-groups is the even and parallel distribution of resources, i.e. heterogeneity. Micro-groups structured as the basic units of co-operative learning can be established either in a guided way or randomly. However, forming such groups is not a sufficient condition of establishing co-operative micro-group structures. After forming them, they must be matured into teams, that is, group development or group processing is the following step. This development is realised in the form of continuous and authentic feedback in co-operative learning. It is facilitated by group roles and co-operative structures and techniques.

Random group-formation

In case of random group formation there is an equal chance of creating homogenous and heterogeneous groups. Occasionally we are necessitated to apply random group formation methods, especially when we have no prior knowledge about the group, we do not even have an opportunity to obtain prior knowledge, and we spend such short time with the group that the time spent on thoroughly coming to know them would not pay off.

Some examples of random group formation:

a) Random role jigsaw

  • Prepare tools and materials corresponding to the roles to be used (e.g. role cards with the name of the role; or cards or markers in different colours). Pick as many roles as the number of people in each micro-group; and as many cards of each role as the number of the micro-groups to be formed. (That is, there will be as many role cards in total as the number of people in the large group).
  • Everybody in the room randomly picks or chooses a tool (a card or marker).
  • Participants walk around the room and find 3-4 people with different tools.
  • Groups formed this way sit down and get to know each other.

b) Random group formation with collage jigsaw

  • Choose as many pictures related to the topic as the number of intended micro-groups.
  • Cut the pictures to as many parts as the number of people in each micro-group (that is, there will be as many pieces in total as the number of people in the large group).
  • Each participant picks a piece.
  • Participants walk around the room and find those people who have complementary pieces.
  • Groups formed this way sit down and get to know each other.

c) Random interest jigsaw

  • Divide the subject to be dealt with to as many subtopics as the number of intended micro-groups.
  • Prepare as many copies of a subtopic as the number of people in one micro-group.
  • Write the titles of the subtopics onto paper strips (that is, there will be as many strips in total as the number of people in the large group), and put them on a desk that can be walked around.
  • Each participant chooses a strip according to their interests.
  • Those who have chosen the same subtopic find each other and form a group.

Guided group formation

Only guided group formation can unambiguously ensure the aims of co-operative learning: the interactive learning process in heterogeneous groups and the corresponding development of competencies. For guided group formation we need to have prior knowledge about each student and about the whole group as well. Well-thought and well-planned group formation requires thorough preparation from the teacher, based on the below points.

  • The teacher must know what kind of knowledge, skills and abilities each student has in a given field. The assessment of these does not only help group formation, but it serves as a starting-point for differentiating and individual development in co-operative learning.
  • Making the sociometry of the class concerns group formation from the aspect of the tasks of continuous group processing. We need to know who the students are able and willing to co-operate with, who are in the centre or on the periphery.
  • We also have to take the even distribution of gender, ethnicity, religion and social status into account, also focussing on heterogeneity.

According to the above, a heterogeneous group can be regarded as ideal – in case of for participants – in the following case.

  • Concerning the given field, there is an outstanding student, one in need of significant help and two others with average performance.
  • We exactly know about the relationship between the members. (Putting “archenemies” or “best friends” in a group may be feasible, but in this case group development needs to have more emphasis for the sake of continuous and balanced co-operation. However, at first it is more expedient to encode less challenging group development aims into group formation.)
  • There are both girls and boys.
  • The group is diverse concerning ethnic, religious and social background.

Some examples of guided group formation:

a) Guided role jigsaw

  • Prepare tools and materials corresponding to the roles to be used (e.g. role cards with the name of the role; or cards in different colours). Pick as many roles as the number of people in each micro-group; and as many cards of each role as the number of the micro-groups to be formed. (That is, there will be as many role cards in total as the number of people in the large group).
  • Write the names of those you intend the roles for on the back of the cards.
  • Everybody picks or chooses a tool (a card with the name turned down).
  • Participants walk around the room and give the card to the person whose name is on it.
  • When everyone has his or her own card, they find 3 or 4 people with different role cards.
  • Groups formed this way sit down and get to know each other.

b) Guided group formation with collage jigsaw

  • Choose as many pictures related to the topic as the number of intended micro-groups.
  • Cut the pictures to as many parts as the number of people in each micro-group (that is, there will be as many pieces in total as the number of people in the large group).
  • Write the names of those you intend the roles for on the back of the pieces.
  • Each participant picks a piece.
  • Participants walk around the room and give the card to the person whose name is on it.
  • When everyone has their own piece, they walk around the room and find those people who have complementary pieces.
  • Groups formed this way sit down and get to know each other.

c) Guided group formation with silent symbol finding (symbol jigsaw)

  • Choose as many symbols (star, circle, square, cross, etc.) as the number of intended micro-groups.
  • Copy the symbols of small pieces of sticking paper or post-it notes, in correspondence with the number of people in each group. (For example, in case of groups of four, four pieces with a star, four pieces, with a circle, etc.)
  • Participants sit in a circle meditating or focussing on silence with their eyes shut.
  • Gently stick the same symbol on the forehead (or on the back) of those belonging to the same group, based on the prepared list.
  • When everybody has a symbol, participants can open their eyes and try to find their group. There is only one rule: no talk!
  • When the groups have been formed, it is worthwhile to ask how they could decide where they belong. (No one would be able to find their own place without the co-operation of the others.)
  • Groups also can be formed if four different symbols have to belong to one micro-group of four.



    15 Alexander Sutherland Neil writes in his famous book Summerhill, to which, among other authors, Thomas Gordon refers to as a volume he learnt a lot from, about his personal “therapeutic” conversations with each student as a significant and essential element of his model which takes children’s mind into account and is based on spontaneity and following interests freely.

    16 E. F. Schumacher’s book Small Is Beautiful (Harper and Row. New York, 1973.), which is considered a basic volume influencing ecological thinking also writes about the necessity of humane, human-scale, “small” technological and social systems.