Nyomtassa ki az oldalt!

Chapter 7
APPENDIX


7.1. Fears and prejudices against co-operative learning

Below we list typical fears that have arisen during the last few years when introducing co-operative structures, and the prejudices that substantially limit the understanding of co-operative learning.

  1. “There is no guarantee for correct solutions when children learn together, since it is not the teacher who explains them the subject material.”

Co-operative learning presumes that children are competent in their own learning. Traditional education also presumes it “secretly”, since it considers students able to study at home on their own, or to interpret, take notes and study frontal presentations.

The chance of mistakes and errors, of course, are present in learning together as well, but the point is that in continuous micro-group publicity it is instantly revealed, both for the teacher and for the micro-group, when someone is not aware of the solution of a problem or when the group is mistaken.

The teacher monitors the groups learning together continuously, step by step, therefore he or she will notice when joint thinking gets stuck in a group much earlier than when lecturing in front of the board and judging whether the class understands everything only from feedback by four or five children.

Learning together publicly in micro-groups allows the teacher to track and monitor individuals continuously without disturbing or hindering the learning process (e.g. by oral testing in front of the whole class).

In addition, in comparison with traditional forms of checking and assessment, the teacher can observe students’ learning and co-operation skills in much more versatile situations of learning, such as asking questions, argumentation, making joint notes, brainstorming or summarising individual collections. There is an opportunity for written and oral testing in the same way, but these are not the exclusive means of monitoring progress and learning.

If the teacher is able observe what forms of learning, behaviour or co-operation an individual is lacking, which learning competencies need to be improved, the teacher will be able to provide the proper co-operative tools for the individual or for the micro-group.

If a group has difficulties in finding the significant points of a text, the teacher can teach them some highlighting techniques, such as the interpretation chart, in which they have to fill in a chart containing incomplete sentences based on the text together (e.g. in roundtable). Later they can make answers to random questions based on the text. For example they decide which WH question to answer by rolling a dice containing question words (Who? What? Why? How? etc.).

Later they can make a chart by highlighting important questions and answer them on the basis of the text, etc.

Misunderstanding is a form of comprehension, too. Correcting misunderstandings is the correction of an existing construct of knowledge. During the process of active knowledge construction – in more fortunate cases – teacher themselves keep correcting their personal constructs as well. This correction is a part of the learning process as much as the discovery of correct solution. If we compare this correction process to the passive state when a student does not make a construct of any subject, because he attends traditional lessons totally passively – let us say, he is eating secretly – then it is clear, that misunderstanding is an obvious sign of student activity in the classroom.

  1. “I am afraid I will not progress with the subject in co-operative structuring at the same pace like when I give lectures to the class”.

It is important to ask who needs to make progress in the subject materials. The participants of learning, or those who structure the learning process, i.e. the teachers?

The teacher may “present the subject matter” at his or her own pace, but only a few students will “get the message” in the class. In this case, pleading why the others have not paid attention, why they do not work harder refers to the fact of not being aware of the nature of learning.

Guiding attention and “diligent” interpretation also includes being able to ask questions, to express interpretation and ideas in connection with the topic. During disciplined frontal work there is no chance for everyone to do these. Thus we socialise students – by means of the learning processes viewed as traditional in Hungary – not to ask their questions, only add meaningful comments, etc; that is, not to pay attention to lectures after a while. And they will not progress together with the teacher: their silence is not the silence of attention but of discipline. Although nowadays maybe the noise of not paying attention proves that a part of the class “is not progressing with the teacher”...

In co-operative learning – primarily due to the tools of equal participation and parallel interaction – everyone has the opportunity to ask questions, express ideas or their not understanding, etc. Therefore it is likely that 90-95 per cent of the whole class progress together in the learning process. This progress is granted by active learning and participation activities, in other words, it is obviously not the teacher’s progress alone, but that of the participants’ as well.

  1. “If the children teach other, due to the low number of lessons we certainly cannot cover as much of the subject matter as the teacher frontally covering all of it.”

The amount of the knowledge acquired within a certain period of time is not identical with the amount of lectures given within a certain period of time. For those who do not pay attention, surely not. But those who do have not performed such activities that are essential for acquiring institutional or academic knowledge either (e.g. individual reading comprehension, individual note-taking, individual research, collective interpretation, collective note-taking, individual presentation, etc.).

The means of co-operative structuring of learning make it possible for each student to use the above cognitive and interpretive schemes and learning methods, selecting from a much wider range than in case of passive listening. The “lesson to be learned” must be “delegated” to the micro-groups in a way they really can learn them with the help of various cognitive schemes.

In terms of efficient utilising of time, a 45-minute lecture (which is followed by 5-6 people out of 25-30 in a controlled way) does not seem efficient. A co-operative lesson, where only 1-2 students’ co-operation needs to be granted with additional effort, is more efficient since the others deal with the subject during that time.

It is common experience that a learning community can cover a larger amount of the subject matter more thoroughly by co-operative learning (by observing its fundamental principles, especially parallel interaction, individual participation, constructive interdependence and continuous publicity).

The most time in traditional education is used up by the teacher verbalising the subject matter, which is actually available from other sources as well. This takes time from the students, and does not provide an opportunity for them to verbalise what they have attained or their comments themselves, or to approach the subject with cognitive schemes chosen from a wider range than passive listening.

  1. ”Co-operative learning helps to improve personal and social skills primarily, however, it improves learning competencies or obtaining knowledge to a less extent.”

The conscious development of personal and social skills is the means, not the ends of learning in processes based on learning together. In co-operative learning we do not presume that everyone is already able to co-operate, but we provide everybody with co-operative structures and present behaviour models with the help of which each participant can develop these competencies for the sake of more efficient learning together.

However, the focus of co-operative learning is still learning. In comparison with traditional frameworks of structuring learning, the substantial difference is that it involves each and every participant efficiently in the activities necessary for learning. It provides the opportunity for every one to take part in learning forms that go beyond passive listening, that are selected from a wide range of varieties, and that are based on the processing of information of various levels. The development of personal and social skills aims at the practical realisation of this general participation.

  1. “Cooperative learning may be useful for children with a poor performance, however, it does not serve the progress of well-performing children efficiently.”

This is the most common limitative prejudice – even the Johnson brothers have dealt with it. {25} They prove, with reference to research, that the performance of talented children does not lag behind the performance of talented children educated within individualistic or competitive frameworks. If we compare their attainment later – for example one or two years after graduating from school – there is a significant difference indeed; in favour of the students having participated in co-operative learning. By co-operative learning, more deeply ingrained knowledge is developed, the students will be able to outline divergent cognitive and problem-solving strategies, and they react more sensitively and maturely to challenges requiring developed social competencies: they are more tolerant and empathetic to their peers.

If we take the individual as a starting point in co-operative learning, it is clear that in case of student s with more developed competencies we can accomplish individual development plans fitted to them. We can structure learning together, with the help of co-operative roles, by observing equal participation and constructive interdependence in a way that satisfies the demands and developmental needs of each participant.

The objections that plead the amount of subject matter to be learned, also wither in light of research in connection with co-operative learning. The opportunity that co-operative group-work can be interwoven with individual development goals provides an excellent chance to expand and open the one-source, course-book-centred view of education and to make participants aware of the fact knowledge does not have only one source.

The “amount of the subject matter” is limited merely by the interest of the participants – teachers and students alike. Obviously, if teachers themselves do not “step out of” the frameworks provided by textbooks, it would be difficult to expect that from their students. At the same, time, if the students cannot relate to the matter, that is, if we have not taken their demands or states concerning learning into account, or if we have not assigned their tasks in correspondence with their individual development needs, we will have a problem with the “amount” to be learned indeed.

In our opinion, the extent of general and average subject matter to be learned in Hungary is not too much, but barely enough for attaining general literacy. It seems to be too much because the ways leading to it are not appropriate. Participants are not able to acquire learning and cognitive schemes aimed at processing information such as reading comprehension, argumentation, handling charts, critical thinking, etc. within the framework of traditional education. Co-operative learning, on the other hand, shows us how to make “such an amount” available for every single student by means of the above ways of learning.

Excellent answers for the above questions can be found, for example, in an article by József Benda. They examined the development of reading comprehension in a (experimental) group learning in a co-operative environment and in a (control) group learning within the traditional framework; i.e. they tested how reading comprehension was developed by the influence of pedagogical work. Benda, corresponding to international research as well, found the following:

“As we have expected, the development of children in the traditional control class with disadvantaged family backgrounds increased the least (7.6%). However, the development rate of children in the experimental group belied their social backgrounds. The disadvantaged caught up with, and the advantaged significantly exceeded (16.6%) the development of the socially-economically most advantaged control group (13.7%)!”{26}

As we can see, the students with socially more favourable backgrounds achieved their aimed level of development as the ones learning in the traditional educational framework. They did not tail away, they had good results. Significant difference can be seen in case of children with less favourable, or even disadvantaged backgrounds. Their development rate in reading comprehension was twice as much as that of their peers with similar backgrounds but learning in the traditional framework; but it even was higher than in case of their more advantaged peers! It means that co-operative learning provides these children with a real chance of “catching up” – if we regards learning as competition –, because if they are able to develop their skills faster than their peers, sooner or later they will surely get rid of the disadvantages arising from their social status and catch up with their peers. Becoming equal partners in the development of their skills as well, they will acquire wide-ranging knowledge and informedness going beyond textbooks with ease and with hard work. And most importantly, They learn how to realise their ideas in accordance with their demands and needs, in co-operation with their partners.

The article also touches upon the attitude towards school. This changed negatively in the control group in case of both social backgrounds, that is, it deteriorated. These children, may they come from whatever family background, feel increasingly worse in the traditional school. However, in co-operative classes, both groups’ attitudes improved, they liked going to school more and more. What is interesting that the attitude of advantaged children improved more, which means that it caused significant positive changes for them that their knowledge, their help and good relationship with the other students is needed, and, as we could see above, not at the expense of their performance.

  1. “Cannot we apply frontal techniques in co-operative learning?”

Now it is time to defend frontal co-operative strucutres. What we know as traditional education in Hungary, does not even meet – unfortunately – the qualitative criteria of frontal teaching, although several efficient elements of frontal group techniques have emerged in Hungary as alternatives of traditional education. Co-operative learning makes use of numerous visual-frontal strucutres{27} for continuously maintaining publicity, granting equal access to the knowledge of the whole large group this way as well.

However, it is important emphasise when and to what extent we use frontal techniques in co-operative learning.

Some of the teacher’s instructions are given in the publicity of the large group indeed – step by step – but these can be replaced by previously prepared written instructions, thus large-group attention is only necessary for a few general or spontaneous instructions.

Frontal presentations can be used mostly in situations when there is no other source available than the teacher, that is, when it can be read neither in the textbook, nor other books available at the library, nor on the Internet. Even in these cases, only short presentations of maximum fifteen minutes can be considered, accompanied with learnable handouts, charts aiding note-taking or previously provided points helping taking notes. The fundamental development goal of co-operative learning is to improve the skills necessary for individual processing of information in micro-groups, not to give teacher’s lectures.

Another case of frontal utterances is when we react to the learning situation itself, for example with the aim of developing personal, social or cognitive skills. These utterances can be considered metalinguistic, i.e. utterances connected not to the given topic but to its processing, while reflecting on situations that may be for the edification of the large group.

Of course, co-operative learning has some co-operative frontal tools as well. Some of these need to be used with care, because they bear the non-parallel interactive nature of frontal techniques.

Such a tool is the above described group Round Robin. Groups work individually on a task, then present their findings one after the other, verbally, by way of their representatives. In a class of 8-10 micro-groups, even if everyone has only 5 minutes to speak, takes the whole lesson. Therefore it is essential to minimise the time of speech (e.g. 2-3 sentences, or presenting the solution in one sentence, etc.).

The recognition of this problem has led – by applying the principle of parallel interaction – to the written form of group Round Robin, in which the solutions and findings of the groups go around in written form. Here each group can interpret the findings of every other group at the same time, receiving their materials one after the other. However, it is useful to minimise the number of rotations here as well. For example, if all the groups have worked on the same problem, it is enough to pass their materials to one or two other groups for checking.

So co-operative learning applies frontal techniques in which all co-operative principles can be found. It is expedient to structure frontal processes in a way that these really co-operative elements dominate.

Such a structure is e.g. collection on pieces paper in a round chart. The groups work on different tasks. The tasks, which – due to constructive interdependence – are complementary, are presented in a round chart, dividing it into as many parts as the number of tasks. The representatives of the groups bring their solutions on pieces of paper – large enough to be eligible from a distance – at the same time, and they stick them to the appropriate segment of the chart. This way all the solution sin the class can be checked by everyone – including the teacher – within a few minutes.

For example each group collects animals from different continents, and they stick their collection on a map of the world, in two or three minutes. The pieces of paper contain the names of the animals in large letters. Groups use different colour paper, and the members use different colour markers assigned to their roles. Thus, when the solutions are put up on the chart, we instantly can see which group or group member needs to elaborate on their task further.

In short, we can say that there are frontal elements in co-operative learning as well, but we must apply them carefully, in moderation, and keeping co-operative principles in view. That is to say, the difference results not from the difference between frontal and co-operative education, but from the presence or absence of fundamental co-operative principles.

  1. “Co-operative learning requires much more provision and preparation from the teacher’s part then traditional education.”

This fear is grounded. Co-operative learning requires a process designed and planned ahead step by step, so it is hard to imagine someone just “dropping by” a class without careful preparation.

Preparation for class here does not only mean to plan the teacher’s activities, but to plan students’ activities, moreover, at the level of the individual. This is one of the points where the art of education can be grasped in co-operative learning: preparing the sources, the tasks generating learning together, monitoring together and the publicity of knowledge in a way in which we can experience the pleasure of learning with our students.

On the other hand, this hard work has the benefit that the teacher will not have to deal with the subject matter during the lesson, but he or she can observe the students freely during their shared learning activities. He can focus on what might be his task in such cases: observing personal, social and cognitive competencies, the development of their co-operative skills, and achieving academic and professional goals.

The Johnsons also highlight that the teacher basically performs two kinds of activity in the learning process: monitoring, and, if necessary, intervening. During monitoring, he observes the development of various skills of different students, and the smoothness of co-operation. However, he does not intervene when the students cannot find the solution, only when he finds that the co-operation between them is obstructed. Then he intervenes only to provide a role model, to promote co-operation, not to – for instance – tell the correct solution, since it would suggest that the knowledge of the group, in the end, depends on him.

Another side of the art of pedagogy can be achieved with the help of co-operative education when the teacher reacts to emerging and observed development needs with creative and co-operative methods in the planned learning process – that is what we called co-operative correction earlier. The point that is liberating in co-operative education demanding thorough preparation is that when learning takes place, the teacher can focus on the children, because it is not she who has to “make progress in the matter”, but can freely observe how they make progress in it. And she can dedicate her energies to the pedagogical and co-operative complementation of the observed co-operative and learning deficiencies.

  1. “Co-operative learning requires constant co-operation from everyone. What happens to those who are not willing to co-operate?”

Co-operative learning does not demand co-operation from anyone, it does not presumes that participants must be able to co-operate, but it views the process of learning in a way that it must provide opportunity for co-operation for everyone. So, co-operative learning offers the opportunity of co-operation for everyone, as well as to develop their skills of co-operation, and a real chance for participation in attaining knowledge together. From this respect it is learner-centred, that is, it takes the individuals taking part in learning as its starting point – their needs, expectations, fears, inhibitions, requests, objections, etc.

While we allow a student not willing to co-operate not to take part in any group’s work, we can find a way, together with the student, he or she will work – either all alone, but setting actual goals and deadlines, or as some kind of in-between actor, but with a concrete role.

For example he or she can be a Courier who helps sharing solutions between groups, or even monitoring learning and co-operation skills.

The most important thing here is that a personal conversation and/or a process of making acquaintance based on concrete things needs to start here. On the basis of the knowledge obtained about the student, the needs and expectations outlined in the conversation, and the discovered needs a mutual decision will help the co-operative structure we will construct in the end to be efficient.

We should not hesitate to use co-operative roles either created with drama pedagogical thoroughness or quite simple ones. The point is that we cannot leave our participants not willing to co-operate alone with their development needs and expectations. A “micro-group” with such needs and demands is formed when we ourselves turn to the individual with acceptance, understanding his or her aloofness and stand by him or her. Building on this understanding and acceptance, co-operating with him, together – like a micro-group of two –, we find out what he will do while the others work in groups.

However, with respect to accessing knowledge, the teacher still only needs to stick to co-operative principles.

If our “private student” asks about something connected to the subject, we can refer him to the groups, since we respond to individual questions from the groups in the same way. If he needs sources, he also will have to turn to the groups – except for individual resources – because the instruction is the same for every student in this case.

Observing the co-operative principles, because of its flexibility and openness, generates the co-operative tools of individualisation. By the fact that the individual can articulate his or her not knowing or unwillingness or indifference, the individual instantly is involved in the group learning together. The lack of ability for co-operation does not result in moral judgements in co-operative learning systems.

Co-operative learning presumes the psychological fact – as we have discussed earlier – that our abilities contributing to co-operation can be improved for a lifetime. Thus, a co-operative teacher will approach any not co-operating learning situation with an attitude that presumes the certain possibility of achieving a more co-operative state.

  1. “If the students work in groups, how could I assess individuals?”

The micro-group is specifically important because it is instantly revealed – at least for the small group – when someone gets stuck in their individual task.

In co-operative learning, the teacher can observe even each individual student’s personal, social and cognitive competencies or informedness during the lesson, engaged in learning activities. There is no opportunity for this in case of frontal class-work, because the teacher is primarily engaged in conveying the “subject matter”, and can rely on feedback only from a few students.

Co-operative learning knows several ways of monitoring students individually or interpersonally. In addition, these monitoring processes are constantly recorded, in accordance with the principle of publicity. Thus individual performance also can be tracked.

Co-operative learning does not exclude traditional forms of assessment: oral presentations, random tests, progress tests, etc. However, it is an essential difference that while in the traditional framework the teacher provides feedback on individual performance by gradation – perhaps complemented with some verbal comments –, in co-operative learning individual performance will be incorporated in individual and micro-group development plans as well. That is to say, since the micro-group has assisted preparation, in the view of results it also van be analysed how efficient and inclusive this assistance has been. In the light of this analysis the teacher and the peers provide co-operative tools assisting individual learning for each participant.

  1. “This thing may work with 20 people, but how could it be applied to a class of 32?”

The first step is to get acquainted with the children. Tools aimed at group-processing are excellent in this respect.

For example with a tree of expectations I can see their knowledge of the subject (as we may remember, these are put on the tree on fruit-shaped pieces of paper by the groups), as well as their questions, expectations and demands concerning the given topic and its processing (these are written on the flowers).

During learning together, flowers ripen into fruit, and new expectations bloom into new flowers on the expectation tree of the community learning together.

During the production of the tree of expectations and the learning activity, the condition of the most basic learning, personal and social skills can be observed very well. It means that the teacher can collect not only the demands but the recognised development needs during an activity.

In connection with the class of 32 the fear conceived is what will happen if a wrong practice is imprinted due to learning in small groups.

Within a frontal framework, when we focus on conveying the subject, we have little chance to monitor each child’s understanding step by step. However, in a co-operative framework, due to the publicity of micro-group work we can easily recognise incomplete solutions and inaccurate practice.

In a class of thirty-two – out of eight groups of four which we were monitoring during their solving a mathematical problem – we only found one person with reliable knowledge. He has completed the task quickly – without the others – and now he is waiting for the others struggling with it. The situation is not really promising. There is only one person in the whole class who understands the task, and he will not talk to the others!

Now we trust this person to check his three peers’ knowledge with exercises of the same kind given by him, to help them understand and practise as thoroughly as he can do it.

When two of his group understand it, we can suggest working in pairs (pair of pairs). If all four of them understand it and can explain it to each other, I pair them up individually with a member of three other groups. Thus I form new groups of four in half of the class (16 people). In these groups the members of the original group understanding the task teach their peer to solve the problem based on their own successful way, which we can continue to monitor. If we see that a group gets stuck, we ask them to send an envoy to another group, or ask for one. If all four groups can understand and explain the task, I group together half of the class in pairs; 16 who knows and 16 others.

What are the other four groups doing meanwhile? I can give them another task of revising or grounding nature. The first group that meets the challenge can transfer it to the other three, just like in the other half of the class. Thus, when the 16 pairs sit down together, they can teach even two types of tasks to each other.

All this means that 32 people have acquired two types of tasks in three controlled steps, by individually controlled learning and practice.

The fact that the first ones to complete teach the others, produces negative interdependence. Therefore – taking it further – I would give eight different types of task to the eight groups, and I would have this nice line of jigsaw started by the two groups of four that finish first. When we finish practising these two types, the practice of another two types can be started in jigsaw, etc.

After the particular steps of practising, groups can return to their own types, and the two groups the types of which we have just covered can get new tasks.

Learning and practising together increasingly contributes to the comprehension of their original tasks. Thus it will be more likely to have another two groups in the eight that can get the next jigsaw started. Finally, all eight types can be learned thoroughly during the lesson.

Introducing co-operative learning has a shocking effect on teachers. It is difficult to face the fact that what we have thought to be comprehensible, turns out to be understood only by a few children in co-operative learning. It is instantly revealed that the students having been considered able to learn individually do not even understand the task and cannot start solving the problem. That is, it becomes clear as early as in the first step if we have not assessed something correctly.

  1. ”I have tried to apply co-operative structure, but the children did not co-operate, moreover, they did not even progress to solving a problem, although they already have covered that subject. Maybe this thing does not work in my class?”

The dedicated teacher who turned to me with the above problem, also told me that she trusted the children’s abilities and did not assign any roles to them within the groups; she believed in spontaneous co-operation. They wanted to practice a subject (mathematical operations with algebraic fractions in the secondary school) she previously had taught frontally. She found out that the eight group only was able to solve one of the eight types of tasks! That means that the frontal way ways not suitable for the students to acquire autonomous knowledge on the subject. While when traditional ways of education (teacher’s frontal lecture on operations with algebraic fractions) were applied not knowing did not even surface, in co-operative learning, not understanding and not being able to solve the mathematical problem was revealed instantly, and there was no chance to go on until they were resolved.

It is also hard to face the fact that however good lecturers we are, we cannot be sure that each of our listeners are engaged the subject so much that they are able to learn and practise autonomously. In co-operative systems, we can get acquainted with students according to their real abilities and skills.

In frontal situations students’ abilities are revealed only to the extent the teacher wishes it. If the teacher doers not check on them, she can go on with the subject feeling reassured. However, in co-operative situations involving micro-groups we can observe actual responses to actual problems. This provides us with the opportunity to acknowledge the participants’ emotions, attitudes and needs having been revealed this way, and structure further steps in response to these.

When I found out in a group of children aged about 12 that they found studying literature absolutely unnecessary, and they were not even willing to do it, I – as I mentioned earlier –, on the one hand, started thinking about what I could bring up as an evidence for the necessity of dealing with poems in an experiential way. On the other hand, I also asked them what they would have found interesting. Many things surfaced (boys, girls, love, friendship, money, career, sin, justice, etc.), so it was not difficult to choose literary topics in which I could show them some fascinating pieces. Besides Endre Ady’s poems, Villon, Apuleius, they were incited the most by The Little Prince, Winnie the Pooh, LeatherstockingTales, a Hungarian ballad and avant-garde poetic techniques (free verse, collage), haiku and prosodic poetry, as well as Saussure’s, Pierce’s and Wittgenstein’s approaches on linguistic philosophy and semiotics.

One of the most excellent points in co-operative learning is that we can track individual progress step by step; we can see which individual skills and knowledge could be develop by what kind of co-operative tasks.

If we recognise that the students’ skills are from what we have thought or what they have pretended, we need to get back to fundamental co-operative principles, roles, teacher’s attitudes and structures.

Developing co-operative and learning competencies is an essential condition of co-operative learning. Learning together does not presume that everybody is able to co-operate, it only provides an opportunity for everyone to co-operate! Supported by clear principles of co-operation, it releases participants’ creativity, because it only sets the frames of co-operation in a palpable way.

It introduces learning structures and behaviour models through co-operative roles that guide participants towards autonomous and co-operative learning.

These skills cannot develop without practising teachers’ attitudes supporting the fundamental principles. Initially, let us accept that our knowledge is collective; let us believe that everyone is able to thematize their own problems and achieve autonomy in resolving them, especially if they get co-operative help. For the realisation of these attitudes we recommend Rogers’ and Gordon’s books.

Pedagogical practice structured with the help of fundamental co-operative principles actually leads to the development, clarification and maturity of co-operative attitudes, for teachers and participants alike.

In the above mentioned example of a fellow teacher – operations with algebraic fractions – we have to accept that we “progressed in the subject” at the blackboard to no avail; students lagged behind. That is, we were not really effective in frontal work!

However, there was an exercise one of the groups was able to complete. Then, building on it – constructive interdependence! – we can structure the jigsaw on them. Meanwhile the others will reprocess the deductions of their textbook. Thus practising the exercise taught by one group and processing the textbook material brought by the other part of the class will meet when one half of the class help the other, even in pairs. One of them explains the solution of the problem, the other one the deduction in the textbook.

This jigsaw also provides an example for solving further types of problems – also comparing them to the course book.

When all the groups have practised the first exercise – completed by the first group and compared to the textbook – problem solving can go on. Each group is given a different type of exercise in operations with algebraic fractions, with reference to the corresponding sections of the textbook. The group that can solve the problem first will start the jigsaw.

Besides fundamental principles, behaviour models and attitudes, in the fourth dimension of development we will have to make a practical plan that keeps the common needs and demands outlined in the former three areas in view. It means that if we see that our students – e.g. in secondary school – are not able and willing to co-operate, we will obviously have to step back.

We need to find frameworks which facilitate co-operation even more. The first step of introducing co-operative learning is the consciously designed formation and development of groups. At this point we need to need to reduce our academic goals for a while so that we can mature micro-groups to co-operative ones, and only then we can restart learning activities, but now in a higher gear.

  1. “So now we have to learn yet another method again? We already have got acquainted with drama pedagogy, project education, text-based evaluation, individual development planning and competency-based development!”

Co-operative learning is not another method, rather a framework for the application of various educational methods, techniques and competency development tools. A new paradigm of structuring learning, that fundamentally directs attention to the structures of organising learning, and lines up feasible co-operative structures along the fundamental principles.

In case of co-operative learning, the emphasis on structuring learning from a methodological aspect. The teacher approaches learning and techniques or methods to be applied with attitudes and lesson structuring ways that comply with the co-operative principles.

Therefore the new methodological elements, techniques and pedagogical approaches having emerged in educational reforms during the last fifteen-twenty years all can be structures within the co-operative framework as well.

Drama pedagogy also knows some co-operative and small-group tools. There are no barriers for the dramatic situations to be processed and performed by micro-groups of 2-6. They can produce variations on a given situation, or elaborate on several situations subsequently. The point is to check whether the co-operative principles have been manifest in our practice of drama pedagogy so far. If not, what drama pedagogical tools can we use to achieve them simultaneously?

Competency-based development is there among the basic principles of co-operative learning, thus our knowledge in this field and our learning development techniques can be structured in compliance with them as well.

Child-centred educational approaches based on the autonomy and competent personality of the student (Waldorf, Freinet, Montessori education, etc.) acknowledge co-operative learning as their efficient tool that structures learning together with view to each child’s development needs and demands, involving them in learning together and providing them with increasing autonomy.

Complex Hungarian programmes (such as the Comprehensive School or the humanistic Co-operative Learning programme), as well as international inventions established in Hungary (Complex Instruction Program, Step by step Education Program) already have integrated the inventions of co-operative learning in their systems.

Text-based evaluation as a form of authentic feedback also complies with the principles of publicity and competency development in co-operative educational systems. In addition, co-operative practice provides handy tools of evaluation. At the same time, we also can use numeric categories (marks, percentages) for assessment and evaluation; the stress is on the fact that criteria need to be clear for participants as well.

In co-operative learning, we often speak of individualisation. Pedagogical processes including each participants and based on individual development plans serve as the basis of structuring learning. Therefore successful models of individual development plans, knowledge, experience and teaching skills in this field can help in extending the means of individual development plans to each student in practice with the help of co-operative learning.

We even can structure our development tools used in traditional frontal education in micro-groups. Competition exercises in mathematics, that have been distributed frontally, can be given to student quartets as well. I can have a small group interpret the deduction of a theorem as well. Thus most participant really will use their brains to solve the problems which are aimed at making them think, not only the few ones who have volunteered so far.

It is clear that co-operative learning provides a way of structuring various efficient and effective methodological elements. It is not a new method but a new framework in which priorly known and new pedagogical, educational and learning development methods and techniques can be structured successfully, with the participation of every single student.

  1. “I form new groups in every lesson. Sometimes my class just falls apart, and the children are less and less motivated. What might be the problem?”

Random group formation or creating new groups each time only can be successful when we do it in an already co-operating large group. When introducing co-operative learning, it is expedient to form groups that are heterogeneous in every respect (ways of learning, different levels of development of various skills, sex, but along sociometric relations), to which we string threads of affection based on sociometry, as cohesive forces.

“If there is at least one person in the group I like, I feel more like taking part in the group-work.”

Children have to learn to co-operate and to recognise their own roles in co-operation the same way as they have to learn to read and write. Therefore, initially, the teacher will be engaged in the development of consciously formed groups, and he or she must focus on it. As long as children do not have shared experiences, do not know each other well enough, do not recognise co-operative principles with the help of co-operative activities developing community and helping to get acquainted with each other, but with no stake, and as long as they do not start apply them consciously, the teacher has the leading role in structuring their work, in maturing the groups into teams.

If a child is put to another group every time, lesson by lesson, there will be no supporting small group built around him, in which continuous micro-group publicity and reflection are among the most important elements of development.

If I always have to work in different groups, I am not urged to develop, since the system of responsibility and accountability is much looser than in permanent groups. I always can tell my new pairs that I have a headache, and they will do everything instead of me, while in a permanent group they will request a check-up or protest against my simulating.

Children should start with activities in pairs or trios, in which the personal space is more direct than in groups of 5-6. In pair-work there certainly is one person they have to address. They will be able to face their own needs, demands and expectations really efficiently in this personal space, and the same way, they will be able to perceive, know and understand their peers more accurately.

These micro-communities provide an inclusive framework for developing personal and social competencies, i.e. the small, co-operative micro-groups are able to accept participants with their whole personalities, but it is also a development process. If the children have success in their first micro-groups together, they have been able to progress in co-operation, only then we can form new groups and keep children together in them until the first few successes again. During the stages of maturing children acquire a number of real co-operative skills, and, in our experience, within 1.5-2 years they can work efficiently and effectively in any kind of distribution.

Let us start with small groups of 2-4, formed in a controlled way, which have matured into a small community and have been kept together until the first few successes. Then let us restructure them in a controlled way – when they are able to work smoothly together – to other groups, forming these consciously again. After a few such development periods groups can be formed spontaneously or randomly as well.

The essence of co-operative learning is that while participants realise that it is much better to work together and they can make bigger progress this way, they also recognise that they are free to express their interests and feelings related to the subject, as well as their expectations and ideas. They understand that one of the most important purposes of co-operation is to help everyone in achieving their individual goals. That is, they recognise how to use co-operation for their own purposes during experiencing co-operation. At this point it will not be a question any longer if they are interested in working together...

The co-operative way of maintaining motivation is involving the interests of the participants in planning learning. Of course, the level of interest may be uninterest – then our goal is to incite it. In co-operative learning it is instantly revealed if it has been successful. If not, we have to widen our horizon of our subject so that we can make it attractive for everyday interests as well.

  1. “Co-operative learning can be a form of non-subject-based education, but these two are not the same, or are they?”

Non-subject based education is an educational political term for us, which is intended to express that now is the time for a change in upper elementary educational methods, educators’ attitudes, and in the comprehension of the processes of learning. Fortunately, there can be experienced a continuous renewal in everyday educational practices in Hungary, the pioneers of which are nursery schools and lower elementary teachers. These changes already have some real results in childrens1 performance, which is also justified by international surveys. The expressions ‘non-subject based’ and ‘lower elementary teaching methods’ in ministerial guidelines are not methodological terms, but temporary terms of educational policies that can be easily interpreted in pedagogical discourses. Non-subject based education means that the focus shifts from school, subjects to student s and process of learning. The goal is to enable them to develop their competencies in the given academic fields.

During the last twenty years several methodological innovations have been born or been adopted in Hungary by nursery school and lower elementary teachers, and a number of them have incorporated the frameworks of co-operative learning (Humanistic Co-operative Learning, Step by Step Program, Rogers), while other programmes (Freinet, Montessori, Waldorf) or approaches (project pedagogy, drama pedagogy) are able adapt the fundamental principles and tools of co-operative learning successfully.

Co-operative learning provides an excellent framework for non-subject based education. It maintains freedom of methodology, that is, it is efficient and effective for any methodology facilitating non-subject based development, and at the same time, it is equitable – it provides an inclusive framework.

Co-operative learning can work well in any time structure – lessons, project days, project weeks, day care, forest school weeks, class trips. Whatever form non-subject based education takes in a particular institution, co-operative structures can be applied.

Co-operative learning is able to differentiate to a higher degree than techniques differentiating at the group level (e.g. “talent groups” or “select groups”), since it is capable of following authentic development plans at the level of the individual, which are in accordance with the participants’ needs, demands, expectations, desires, career plans, ideas and undertakings.

It is more efficient not only because it is inclusive but because its heterogeneous micro-group structure does not separate the human resources of the class or the grade from each other, but joins them personally in micro-groups of 2-4; thus evenly distributing the human resource within the large-group and connecting them with a high number of synapses.

  1. “It is unclear form me how I can make individualised plans in co-operative learning. How can I help those who progressed ahead and those who lag behind?”

For teachers having got used to practices traditionally called frontal class-work, it is unimaginable how they could teach individually, making individual development plans. Especially in a class of thirty students.

It is maybe one of the most important bases of differentiation at the individual level, which we simply called individualisation, to get acquainted with participants’ needs, desires, career plans, demands and interests. Of course, a wide range of observation tools need to be utilised for that. Besides placements tests and oral reports spontaneous observation is necessary in the middle of learning, argumentation, interpersonal and communicational activities. All these are impossible to carry out with thirty people in case of a frontal class. When teachers working with the same class get together and share their observations and their resulting ideas about each individual student, it also helps their horizons of observation.

As a result of the principle of co-operative publicity, co-operative micro-groups and the individuals within can be observed in learning, interpersonal and personal situations, both spontaneously or in a planned way. Thus we can see exactly what competencies they have in particular fields. There is an opportunity to track even only one child through all learning activities without disturbing. Or we may monitor only one skill during a lesson, by spontaneously observing the whole large group while micro-groups work on their tasks. As we already have mentioned, what might be shocking is the fact that the participants’ personal, social and learning behaviour forms are revealed instantly, together with their actual abilities, knowledge and approaches. Even if teachers used co-operative learning for nothing else than observe children’s competencies more thoroughly, their developments could be more well-grounded, since they would involve a much wider range of observation tools than the usual ones. We hope that it can turn educators to a deeper, more understanding and more accepting approach.

At the same time, we have already discussed in the chapters on basic principles and structures that co-.operative structures and roles themselves make a significant contribution to individualisation in the class.

In a student quartet the person who “brings” the solution into the group can find an outlet to express himself; he does not even have to putt up his hand, and he does not simply need to say the results, but he is the one who teaches his solution to the others, thus he can improve his (social and learning) competencies spontaneously. The others also will develop at the same time by way of this teaching and learning. They learn hoe to ask questions, word their ideas and articulate their understanding when it is their turn in the quartet. Since a task can be regarded as finished when everybody understands the solution and is able to apply it on their own, even those will develop in spontaneous individualisation who are the furthest from a particular field.

However, individualisation ensured with the help of structures and roles only develops spontaneously during its functioning. If it is not the case, the planned process has to be adjusted, intervention is needed for the immediate development of social competencies.


7.2. A collection of the co-operative structures in the handbook

A sequence of steps concerning the collection of structures

Teachers attending our training have indicated that they would like to take some particular methodological examples with them as well, since we have seen it appear on the “flowers” of several micro-groups on the expectation trees of teacher training sessions.

So besides group-formation and group-processing, co-operative principles and roles, competency-based development, the experience and reflective analysis of co-operative structures from the aspects of participants/structurers and designing their own co-operative structures, we also incorporated a sequence of steps ingraining co-operative structures in the thematics of our training. Its goal is to ingrain actual and particular co-operative structures in the memories of the participants, besides experiences and reinforced attitudes. If they take home only 10-12 from the 20 introduced, experienced and applied structures off this book, they can construct complex lessons from them, or they can try them one by one, in 15-20 minutes.

The sequence of steps presented at the end of the collection and serving the purpose of ingraining can be applied – for example in a school staff or at a co-operative workshop – when there is explicit demand for getting acquainted with more co-operative structures. It is no way a sequence for beginners. Besides being demanded, it is only useful to apply it when a group is already able to work co-operatively, that is, when it has had experienced successes in co-operative learning, co-operative structures, is aware of the significance of co-operative principles and is able to analyse co-operative structures on the basis of these principles. Therefore we inserted this sequence at the point at which the groups have achieved the above during training.

Of course, this sequence can be done in itself e.g. in a teaching staff, but obstacles are expected if the staff in need of community development. The depth of ingraining is not guaranteed either, since we cannot link it to anything consciously if we perform this variation on pair of pairs in itself. However, carrying out the sequence is granted, and participants can get acquainted with several co-operative structures. If you wish to try this sequence in the staff as an autonomous activity, plan with a longer interval for each step, and provide sources for the participants – e.g. this handbook (only one copy of a source for each pair; it is important from the aspect of constructive interdependence so that they will need to share them or use them together).

The second part of the appendix contains cuttable flashcards which include all the co-operative structures mentioned in the handbook. We recommend these for the sequence aimed at ingraining.

Practising the analysis of principles

The collection also can be used for individual learning. The reader, by analysing each co-operative structure on the basis of the fundamental principles, can acquires an analytical approach that allows for structuring individually constructed structures in class with manifesting the principles.

At the beginning, and it is common among more experienced co-operative teachers as well, we often do not pay attention to the basic principles, just keep stumbling between traditional group-work, differentiated education and co-operative structures in turns, sometimes applying different approaches unconsciously. In this case we meet failures sooner or later, as it was proved by both Hungarian and international research as early as in the eighties. Checking for co-operative principles is the most important at this point! If one of them is not present, that will be the first one we need to integrate in micro-groups’ and large groups1 learning together. Thus we allow the resources of the students to be released – within the real co-operative frames this time – and they can solve their problems and develop themselves more and more autonomously, following their self-actualising tendencies.

Adjusting basic principles usually works, regardless of the fact if the teacher inserting the missing principles believes in its significance, since spontaneous individualisation, proven by decades of research, facilitates the solution of the problem instantly. The manifestation of the principles grants co-operation. So then we only need to refine them, and the re3sults will come. This is the point that can be surprising initially; that we left out something we did not attributed significance to, however, we later insert it and it turns out to fire up the machine...

This structure-list also can be used to practise analysis on the basis of co-operative principles, examining the presence of fundamental co-operative principles in each co-operative structure presented above. In the description of some structures sometimes we used Kagan’s terms{28}, however, we had to recreate the descriptions of these before the Kaganian definitions were not unambiguous sometimes; but we basically use our own terms and definitions here. For more detailed descriptions and versions of some structures, see the handbook!

Co-operative structures

Card-sized pieces of paper with some information written on both sides – these are flashcards. For example: term – definition; multiplication – product; Hungarian word – English word; picture – word; year – historical event, etc. The cards can be made either by the teacher or by the students. It can be a tool of processing new topics, or revising and checking on old ones.

Task assignment

Every micro-group chooses or is given a topic. (It can be the same, or different for each one.) The groups make up questions in connection with the topic, and write them down, Each group passes the written questions to the adjacent one, and they also receive a set of questions. The group answers the questions they received together, and write their answers below the questions. Then they give the sheet back to the sender for checking and assessment. Task assignment also can be done within the micro-group.

1 goes, 3 stay

The groups either work on the same topic, or on different ones. When they are ready they send one of their peers to another group to check what outcome they have. Meanwhile the members staying at their place also receive a visitor from another group. After sharing their information, everyone goes back to their own groups and tell them what they have seen. If there are several rounds, each time a different person goes to a different group.

3 go, 1 stays

The groups either work on the same topic, or on different ones. When they are ready, one member stays at the desk, while the others go to different groups to see what outcome they have. Meanwhile, the member staying at their desk also receives visitors from other groups. After sharing their information, everyone goes back to their own groups and tell them what they have seen. If there are several rounds, each time a different person stays at the desk.

Inside-outside circle

The large group forms two concentric circles with the same number. Students standing in the inner circle face their peers in the outside one, so that everybody is facing someone. “Insiders” ask a question, “outsiders” answer it. Insiders confirm the answer or make their peers correct them by further questions. Finally they congratulate them. Now outsiders take one step to the left, and are asked another question by their new peer, and answer it. They keep going until they get back to their original partners. Now they swap places, those who have asked now answer and vice versa, and a new round begins.

Group jigsaw

Group members work on different segments of the same topic individually. Individual segments are adjusted to the skills and attainment of particular students, that is, they are differentiated. Group members share their individually elaborated segments with the others. The teacher always checks on the whole topic.

Student quartet

The teacher assigns a task to the group. (It may be very short or complex as well.) The group works together on the task, then they check if their solution can be explained by each member. The teacher asks questions about their solution, asking each groups, but picking individual members randomly. The work of the group is assessed on the basis of the reply of the answering member.

Paired interview

Pairs ask each other about a particular topic, and take notes of the answers. (First one asks and takes notes, the other answers, then they swap.) Then each pair finds another pair (if they work in micro-groups of four, the other half of their group) and by changing pairs, they tell their new partner what they have heard from the previous one. The new pair can add their own knowledge to the original answers. Now the two pairs turn to each other and sum up the interviews and amendments together.

Checking in pairs

Students make pairs. One of them works on the task, while the other observes his or her work and helps with questions, if necessary. When the task is completed, the tracking partner praises the other, and they swap roles. The difficulty of the tasks and the difference between them depends on how experienced the pairs are in solving them.

Round Robin

First, individual work (collecting items, wording opinions, solving a problem, etc.) takes place in a particular topic – possibly in writing. Then the members of the group take turns to present one item of their individual work (collection, opinion, solution, etc.), and the others indicate if they have the same item. They continue until everyone finishes.

Group round Robin

Groups take turns in presenting their work, one item at a time. The other groups check if they have the same item, and if yes, they indicate this fact to the student/teacher co-ordinating Group Round Robin. They keep taking turns until each items are presented.

Roundtable

Everyone has their share in making a note together within a micro-group. For example they write down the key sentences summarising a topic, one by one; or they collect items individually (possibly in writing). Then the members take turns in presenting am item of their individual collection. Meanwhile one member – the one presenting, but it is even better if the one sitting on his/her left or opposite him/her – writes down the item on a sheet of paper they share. They go around presenting and writing until each item is presented.

Written Round Robin

Several pieces of written material go around the groups; each groups receives one at the same time. It can be presented by the person having worked on it, or it can be interpreted and complemented by the whole group, without any help. Written notes go around until they all are received by every group and they go back to their makers, with feedback from the others.

Expert jigsaw

We choose as many topic segments as the number of member of micro-groups. The large group is rearranged, those are put in a group who work on the same topic; these are the expert groups. They discuss their topics, amend deficiencies with questions, summarise and learn their particular segment. They use it for preparing for going back to their original micro-groups and teaching them the topics they have become “experts” of in the group processing the same topic.

Collection by pieces of paper on a round chart

The groups collect information on a particular topic on small pieces of paper. Each member writes the same amount of pieces. The pieces will contain the collective opinion of the group, only writing is performed individually. Each member has their pieces (or the ones they received from their peers) in front of them. Groups put the pieces on a round chart (a big circle divided into segments) put out for the whole large group. They put on their pieces at the same time, therefore it is expedient to make them large and legible from a distance.

Paper and scissors

The small group cuts out pieces of paper and shapes for the members for the purpose of various tasks, as the teacher instructs them. Each micro-group – regardless of their size – is given only one coloured sheet of paper (a different colour for each group), and only one pair of scissors. Their task is to cut the sheet into as many pieces as many people there are in the group, but the one who has the scissors cannot touch the sheet. The other members, however, have to move (fold, hold to the scissors, etc.) the paper together, and they cannot let it go.

Window

Window is a co-operative tool of collection in writing, which consists of a shared part in the middle, and smaller sections around this. The topic and the name of the group go in the middle. The number of the surrounding equals to the number of group members, and they are numbered from 1 (in a group of four, four window segments surround the middle, numbered 1-4). The items are written in them on the account of how many people have collected the same, regardless of the fact whether the item is correct or not.

Moving Round Robin

Groups make some large-sized written or illustrated product. They put the products on the wall, more or less at even distances. The students from groups; each group needs to include, if possible, at least one of the makers of every product. The groups go around the products, and the one who has participated in its production, talks about it. The others can ask questions and take notes.

Group Round Robin with notes

Micro-groups present their solutions on pieces of paper; each member has at least one piece containing some significant information. Groups take turns speaking. One member of the group – another one in each round – presents a piece and stick it on the class placard. The note (a key sentence, a date, a name, a notion, etc.) must be large enough to be legible from a distance. More detailed information can be found on the back of the paper (argumentation for the key sentence, event for the date, definition of the notion, etc.). Groups take turns until everyone has stuck their notes.



    25 Johnson, D. W. – Johnson, R. T. – Holubec, Ed. – Roy, P.: Circles of learning. Alexandria, 1984.

    26 Benda József: A kooperatív pedagógia szocializációs sikerei és lehetőségei Magyarországon. (Új Pedagógiai Szemle, 2002. 9. és 10. sz.) [The socialisation successes and potentials of co-operative pedagogy in Hungary]

    27 Excellent ideas of such techniques can be found in Peter Nissen and Uwe Iden’s book Kurz(s)Korrektur Schule, published in Hungarian as Moderátoriskola. (Transl.: Ferenc Loránd. Műszaki Könyvkiadó. Budapest, 1999.)

    28 KAGAN, Spencer – KAGAN, Miguel (2009): Kagan Cooperative Learning. San Clemente: Kagan Publishing.