Chapter 1
THE BASIC PRINCIPLES OF CO-OPERATIVE LEARNING

1.1. What makes the structure of learning co-operative?

In Hungarian pedagogical discourse usually the terms ‘co-operative learning’ or ‘co-operative techniques’ are used. However, the term ‘co-operative techniques’ is unable to grasp the significant aspect that co-operative learning is not merely a technique in the methodological sense. The term used by American authors, ‘co-operative learning’ is more telling than children simply learning together. The practice and group structure of learning and education are really reorganised in order to promote co-operation, that is, structural safeguards are built in the process. On the one hand, such circumstances and activities are created that enable each partaking student to get involved in learning dialogues directly and personally. On the other hand, conditions of activities are created that encourage co-operation among participants. Maybe that is why it is grounded to use the term ‘co-operative learning’ if we want to grasp the essence of it. The fact that educators achieve learning together by organising learning is in the focus. In other words, they make decisions mainly on issues of organisation: to use systems and structures which develop true co-operation between participants learning together in a bigger community – regardless of their age –, and by way of which participants obtain a more thorough academic-professional knowledge, not to mention the development of their personal and social skills.

According to the literature, therefore it can be stated that when we use the term ‘co-operative learning’, we mean models of co-operative learning structures. That is, such models that promote learning together for the sake of learning and by transforming the ways of organising learning. The structural principles that need to be integrated in the organisation of the learning and teaching process are called co-operative principles.

Based on Spencer Kagan’s works{2}, we speak of co-operative principles in connection with co-operative learning. However, below we introduce and take further not only the basic Kaganian principles, but further fundamental ones as well with which we complemented the Kaganian system of co-operative principles. We attempted to conceive further fundamental conditions reflected by the two other great American schools – the Aronsonian{3} and the co-operative schools connected to the Johnson brothers{4} – and by our own experience in the form of basic principles. That is how a system of co-operative principles been set up, in correspondence with previous co-operative approaches, but taken further in accordance with domestic experience. We think that this complex, yet simple system makes the characteristics and structural elements of the co-operative pedagogical paradigm comprehensible for Hungarian educators, even in practice.

1.2. The paradigmatic nature of co-operative learning

In academic discourse the term ‘paradigm’ refers to scientific approaches that shed new light on existing scientific issues, raise excitingly new questions through easily graspable examples and/or rules, and offer comprehensible solutions based on the new system. The structural approach of co-operative learning – built on fundamental principles – outlined above carries such paradigmatic features in the fields of pedagogical science and practice. A salient novelty is that it does not offer methodological solutions in relation with individual subjects, but it observes how the process of learning is organised, in other words, it observes and alters the structures of learning.

Another paradigmatic trait is that it approaches correlations which have been neglected for centuries: the correlations of the method of organising the learning process. During the past sixty years, it has been found during social-psychological and sociological studies that the goal system and organisation of shared activities has a determining impact on the development of personal and interpersonal relations, and thus the effectiveness of the shared activity – in our case, that of learning. Thus, if we change the frameworks of learning, then the community created during learning also will change, as well as the personal and social maturity and academic achievement of the students growing up in that community. That is to say, co-operative learning does not merely abolish traditional educational frameworks, but offers solutions in place of them that lead to a more efficient, effective and – since it covers each and every student – equitable pedagogical practice. The basic principles help in the elaboration of these solutions. Co-operation among participants is generated by methods following the fundamental principles.

The model of learning structures based on co-operative principles allows for the extendibility of the co-operative paradigm. The system operates not only in the classroom, but at school level as well. (The Johnson brothers published a book about the experience of co-operation at the level of pedagogists, technical staff, social and professional partner structures of the school as early as the nineties.) Co-operation can be found at the level of system-developing as well. We have conducted researches on the latter, and on extensibility – how co-operative structures can be created on the level of public education{5}.

If we attempt to distinguish between co-operative learning and other small-group learning activities, in short we can say that every form of learning is co-operative if the basic principles detailed below are present in them. At the same time, we cannot consider – even small-group – practice co-operative if not all co-operative principles prevail in them.

1.3. Flexible and open structures built on co-operation

The way – structure – of organising learning is a crucial point

The first basic principle grasps one of the determining attitudes of co-operative learning: be flexible in planning and executing, but attain improvement in co-operation and academic achievement with the help of structures, by the way you organise learning.

Teachers applying co-operative learning must make decisions. They must resolve to focus on flexibly open structures – granted by the basic principles –, and set the development of such structures as goals.

This approach sets for pedagogists that for the creation and assurance of co-operation the way of organising learning, the traditionally hierarchical system of structuring learning must be altered. Good intentions and ideological claims of co-operation are not enough, if the system and structuring of learning remains the same. In order for every pupil’s equitable development to be ensured thanks to the developing co-operation, it is necessary to change the structuring of learning. In other words, the issue of making learning co-operative requires structural answers.

Thy myth of the success of the teacher lecturing on a lectern is still very popular among pedagogists. However, besides excellent teacher personalities, it also seems important that public education should offer an opportunity for everyone, not only for the children of those families that provide a background that is closer to school socialisation. The last more than thirty years have proved that co-operatively structured learning is one of the possible and necessary means for achieving quality education, that is, it is essential for the development of an educational practice in which the aim is the efficient, effective and equitable development of each and every student. Hundreds of studies in the fields of social psychology and pedagogy – underlying co-operative learning – have shown that this way of structuring learning has a positive effect on the development of children’s tolerance and social competence, as well as on the successful development of their cognitive and learning skills regardless of their social and family background. Therefore the teacher does not only deal with planning knowledge, learning experiences and the competencies to be developed during co-operative structuring of learning, but considering the organistaion of learning is a determining part of the process of pedagogical planning.

The role of cognition in maintaining flexibility

Further crucial attitudes of co-operative structuring of learning{6} – i.e. that human knowledge is collective; everyone has the right for knowledge; knowledge is the conjunct construct of humankind; and everyone has their own personal needs and requirements concerning knowledge and learning – help us see and understand how to develop learning processes during learning together in small groups. Assuming that knowledge is a collective construct, it is clear that each child taking part in the learning must be made an active participant of the creation process. Or, following another example, if in a democratic society it is a constitutional right for everyone to access knowledge contributing to social success, then it is our constitutional obligation to provide truly equal access to the social goods available by means of public education for every child. However, our public education is capable of this presently, that is, individual success within the system of Hungarian public education is still determined by family background, in contrast with those countries in which a child can progress in the educational system regardless of family background, and where, conclusively, the average achievement shows higher degrees than in our schools.

Co-operative learning is based on the assumption that for efficient learning it is essential to recognise those who wish to learn by those who structure learning. It structures learning processes based on this recognition, taking the uniqueness of the individuals as its starting point. It is to say, the teacher is able to grant flexibility if he makes an effort to obtain thorough and efficient knowledge of the children, and provides personalised development in relation to this knowledge. Another condition of flexibility is that the teacher must be informed and experienced enough in the actual academic or art field to be able to connect the interest of the children, youngsters or adult people participating in learning to his own field.

That is why it is important in co-operative learning that the structural approach must be linked with the notion of flexibility, since the processes of learning together must be structured in a way by which they are in accordance with the personal, social, and cognitive demands, recognised needs, desires, conceptions of the participants and organisers, having been recognised and conceived together. In other words, the most flexible form of structuring learning is where the series of educational activities follow a personalised and customised development plan for each individual person.

Co-operative structuring of learning – the framework of organising learning activities

Co-operative learning is not a methodology in the didactic-pedagogical sense of the term, but rather a concept in structural methodology, a framework for organising learning activities. Its aim is to reorganise the life of a class set within a traditionally frontal framework, restructure learning activities (e.g. so that children are able to speak more, while the teacher less, etc.). The basic principles presented in this chapter show the way to this restructuring, as well as the actual practice with the help of the co-operative learning structures/methods having been developoed during the last few decades.

Co-operative learning defines the concrete practical principles, the attitudes necessary for the educator, the behavioural-psychological models contributing to development, and the practical devices having been ripened by more than 30 years of practice – the latter provide its actual methodology. The organisers of co-operative learning is able to react flexibly to the demands and needs of their students, because they do not have to stick to certain methods during learning together, but only to mutual learning involving everyone. It helps when they observe all of the fundamental co-operative principles introduced here, internalise the necessary attitudes, presents behavioural models. Then it will be possible for them to select freely and consciously from the available methodological tools, as well as to combine and create new ones.

We have learned a co-operative technique from teachers of physical education: ‘shift training’ or ‘round training’. Here the children perform various activities in small groups of three, but they all have their own tasks at each station. For example, at handstands, two children help the third one; when throwing a small ball, one throws the other two measure the length, etc. When at a certain station everyone has finished with the task, then the group moves forward to the next station. This can be regarded as a co-operative task, since the principles of co-operativity apply. Regardless of the fact whether its users have even heard of co-operative learning or not, when they apply round-training, they are working in a co-operative way.

With the help of co-operative learning, we can we can judge about any pedagogical activity whether it is based on co-operation, if the structures promote co-operation, and all the positive effect co-operative learning has in practice. The point is not to merely copy co-operative techniques and methods but to observe basic co-operative principles and acquire the attitudes. Co-operative learning frees the creative imagination of the teacher, it provides the pedagogist with the building stones of co-operative structuring, from which the teacher will be able to develop the framework of learning together flexibly, with the help of his own concepts, creativity, wide-ranging professional repertoire tuned to the participants, and also in accordance with the thoroughly known needs and demands of the groups involved in learning together.

Open co-operative structures

Following the below fundamental principles will lead to the development of co-operative structures. These structures provide the forms of co-operation step by step for everyone, as well as equal access and contribution to collective knowledge. The pioneers of co-operative learning have invented numerous well-functioning structures based on the established principles, such as RallyRobin, jigsaw or window (to be introduced later). Two approaches of co-operative techniques have spread. One of them is the Kaganian concept that experiments with new co-operative techniques, structures, and which describes these and teaches them to everybody. At present there are more than 150 described, Kaganian structures independent of topic and subject.{7} In the other co-operative school, the Johnson brothers stress basic elements and competence. According to this, the teacher always has to start from the actual community involved in learning together, and he only needs to provide the basics / principles for smooth co-operation. This approach says that the final goal of co-operative learning is to provide co-operative experience and a wide range of personal, social and cognitive competencies for every participant sooner or later. For the Johnsons, really co-operative learning means autonomous persons organising their own education in co-operating micro-groups. While the process of learning is strongly dependent of external control, even in the case of co-operative structuring, we cannot speak of real co-operative learning. The goal is to structure learning processes in a way that makes it possible for the participants to take part and develop in an increasingly autonomous way, that is, to become less and less dependent on the organisers of learning, namely the teachers.

The above approaches make it clear that the point is not simply allowing children to work together. Co-operative principles, attitudes and experience explicitly claim and prove that in heterogeneous co-operative groups such values, learning strategies, problem solving skills and deeply ingrained knowledge are created during learning together, which cannot evolve in case of traditional learning based on individual learning. Therefore it is an essential attitude in co-operative education that structures must always be open to participants showing interest or wishing to join professionally or in terms of learning, and also to the topics and correlations emerging in them.

In other words, it is not enough if teachers only implement their own ideas with the help of co-operative structuring; they also need to take the demands and emerging or recognised needs of the participating students into account. Knowing the children, constant openness to children are prerequisites of co-operation!

A device of flexible and open structures in co-operative learning can be interdisciplinary and experiental structuring of topics. The term ‘experiental’ is probably well-known among teachers, however, let us clear this notion. Here the variety and versatility of learning experiences is the thing that makes learning experiental for children. The interpretation of experiental learning as merely a series of games oversimplifies this notion.

If we take participants’ personal interest or uninterest, existing demands and expectations as a starting point, and we also take collectively revealed and recognised needs into account, then the topics to be covered are outlined by the shared fields of interest of all participants (learners and facilitators as well). There may occur situations, however, in which there is no shared section of interest. Then the teachers must expand their horizons of interpretation{8} so that they can respond to the students interests, personal questions, thematic problems, which might even be far from their persons. Interdisciplinarity is a tool for overcoming the distance between the interest of the child and the subject of the teacher. If the teacher is thoroughly experienced in his own academic field, then he is not only able to introduce the correlations between distinct academic fields, but also to link his own field with issues of everyday interest.

The following example shows that interdisciplinarity (in our example, linking semiotics to poetics) also can serve for enticing interest.

When I wanted to initiate some children into the literary nature of language, who never ever have opened a book and thought that poems were no use, I had to pore over the question whether literature has some “use” I could use as an evidence for these issues. Is there anything that only can be expressed in poems?

I should somehow trick them into speaking in poems, or at least in tropes.

I came up with lots of ideas, but a semiotic exercise was the most successful. The problem with functionalist approach is that it is descriptive, but I wanted to generate “poetic speech”. Saussureian semiology, and later semiotics, which elaborates on the relation between nominator and nominee, proved more useful. In the exercise we analysed the various references of a sentence. For example, what the sentence “I bought a beautiful little tulip” refers to. “A flower”, came the answer. “I painted a beautiful little tulip.” “To the picture of the tulip!” How many words are there in ‘beautiful little tulip’?” “Now we are talking about words!” “And in ‘You may be balm to my wounds / you beautiful little tulip’?” “To his lover!” At this point it was easy for them to explain what the relation between tulip and the subject of one’s love was. Later, when analysing metaphors, they also had to generate sentences. Pick a subject! Write a sentence about its image! Write a sentence about the word denoting the subject! And finally, write a sentence in which the subject is linked to some personal emotion or another subject which is not related to the original one. The children eventually found that they use tropologic language and they can express things they had not been able to before. One of the loveliest poems resulting from this exercise goes like “My heart is a torn coat”...

Three months later we edited a literary magazine with the children, made up of their own poems and analyses. Thirty-two kids out of fifty-five in two classes edited and contributed to this journal!

Compliance with the demands and needs of participants also includes the teachers that take part in it. If they are not inspired by teaching, if they do not have a subject in which they are experienced enough to be able to entice interest in others, then they also have something to put down in their own personal development plans!

About the principle in short

The first basic principle of co-operative learning draws attention to the fact that in order to achieve co-operation, the way of structuring learning must be transformed. Co-operation can be expected from the structure having been developed if it complies with all co-operative principles, and if it is flexible and open enough to embrace individual needs and demands of participants (all of them!).

1.4. Personally inclusive parallel interaction

More interaction in classrooms!

The co-operative principle of parallel interaction counts the personal interactions between participants. It observes how many personal interactions take place within a period. During frontal work only one personal interaction happens between the teacher and the pupil the teacher has just picked with the passive attention of the others, i.e. the interaction is personal only for two people. This means that a reaction is given to only one student’s question, solution to a problem, idea, etc. at a time, directly by the teacher.

According to the co-operative principle of simultaneous parallel interactions, the goal is to increase the number of simultaneous personal learning interactions to as many as possible. Of course, it is not possible for everyone to converse with the same person – the teacher – at the same time, therefore the principle of parallelism leads us to co-operative micro-groups. If all the pupils are placed into smaller groups, we can get as many parallel interactions as the number of groups we have created.

If I make groups of three in a class of thirty, then responses will come to the questions, thoughts and ideas of ten children from the others at the same time. If I also give a role to each of them; e.g. one refers, the other takes notes and the third ask questions, then in this class ten people refer, another ten ask and other ten people take notes in a triple interaction, simultaneously.

As we can see, parallel interaction changes our picture made of learning and knowledge and our attitudes by structural means. Michel Foucault mentions the pastoral function that has survived in a secularised form in public education systems. The lectern as a pulpit, and the symbolic arrangement of the desks – with their silent audience – conveys the message that the source of knowledge is the teacher preaching on the lectern. This hierarchical environment evoking pastoral functions may be suitable for the announcement of divine truths, but the nature of scientific or academic knowledge is different. Doubt, debate, demonstration, argumentation and understanding also play parts. Scientific truths have not only one source, and it is not the teacher. By applying parallel interactions we can not only say that we approach the process of acquisition in a child-centred way, but we really can “throw the lectern out” of the classroom, thus allowing children to take an active part in the activities connected to knowledge. This also implies the radical revaluation of the role of the educators.

The pedagogies labelled as alternative in Hungary eliminate those classroom structures one by one which suggest hierarchy, opposition and segregation even in their appearances. Chairs placed in a circle create equal opportunities even formally, since the spatial arrangement of the participants intends to show the mutuality of the flow of information, while the strictly regulated order of speaking proceeds towards equal participation. However, a large-group conversation circle is nothing else than a democratised form of frontal work, in which the opportunities of speaking per head is distributed proportionately, but their quantity does not increase in any given moment. It does not lead to simultaneous parallel interaction, because, at any point, there will always be one particular speaker or a dialogue enjoying exclusive attention. This means that the rearrangement of chairs is not enough to reorganise and restructure the learning process. The conversation circle does not offer a true alternative in terms of accessing knowledge, since it preserves the hierarchic structure of the dialogue requiring frontal attention.

The aim of parallel interaction is to involve as many people in the processes of learning as possible, while all of them receive constant feedback on their knowledge. The largest possible number can be achieved by pair-work, since in this case half of a class can express themselves at the same time. Pairwork is very useful when deep and thorough problem-solving is required, but if the group is given a difficult problem requiring a lot of thinking, it is better if all of them can think about it together, since there is a bigger chance for coming up with several ideas for the solution. When structuring parallel interactions, it is very important – especially in the beginning – to favour pairwork and groups of three, because that grants involving everyone in the collective work. Teachers making attempts at co-operative learning tend to think in larger groups initially (5-6 people), however, this can easily turn into traditional groupwork, that is, into a situation in which only one or two pupils work in the group, mostly those who have been working before as well. In order to avoid this, it is necessary to increase the number of interactions, even in larger micro-groups (of 5-6) by dividing them into subgroups of 2 or 3.

A fundamental attitude of co-operative learning is that knowledge is the result of collective creation, thus the source of feedback may not only be the teacher but peers as well. Children need knowledge about which they are able to give and receive feedback. What is such kind of knowledge worth that we cannot share and we cannot measure up ourselves? The best way to assess it is giving an account of it to or sharing it with others.

Interaction requires at least two people!

Parallelism and simultaneity in themselves are not co-operative principles. Taking tests, for instance, also happen parallelly and simultaneously; it is an interaction, since test-takers communicate with the teacher – even if feedback comes subsequently. However, it apparently lacks personalness. Parallel interaction takes place in the space of personalness during co-operative learning. That is, each participant needs to be given the opportunity to personally express their questions, ideas, opinions, emotions. Parallel interaction helps in realising it as an opportunity for every child in a class, not only for the 5-7 children who communicate well with the teacher. If you can express your expectations and demands in connection with a certain topic, if you can ask questions, brainstorm, put your feelings into words, you will develop a more thorough knowledge than by passively listening to others talking to the teacher about the subject for hours.

Parallel interaction in micro-groups allows for personal communication continuously and simultaneously. At present, we do not know any more efficient structuring principle.

Parallel interaction enables the whole class, in micro-groups, to proceed through a series of learning forms such as individual reading, interpretation, taking notes, collective interpretation, taking notes again, problem solving, individual presentation. In frontal classwork only the teacher and a “micro-group” of 5-7 volunteering children have this opportunity. What prevents us from involving everyone in learning, building upon the latter children – organising a group around each of them? By observing the principle of simultaneous parallel interaction there will be no such objection!

About the principle in short

In applying the principle of parallel interaction the number of interactions at the same moment is a crucial point, since the goal is to maximise this number. It is important that these interactions need to be personal (micro-groups of 2-4) and involve every participant of learning.

1.5. Constructive and encouraging interdependence

Inspiration by structural means

This principle is based on the approach that knowledge is collective, and we are dependent on each other in obtaining it. All of us; teachers and students alike. Competitive and classifying methods of structuring learning (e.g. which try to motivate academic achievement by means of a grading system) create negative interdependence.

If only the first one gets a reward for solving a mathematical problem individually, there will be some who will not even attempt to complete the tasks, they only will pretend to do it. Those who are able to cope with the exercise, obviously will not show their results to the others, only to the teacher. Concerning the acquisition of knowledge, here students work “against” each other – or at least not in a co-operative way. This is what we call negative interdependence.

Expressions such as “Don’t prompt!” and “Don’t look” obviously and necessarily accompany competitive structuring of learning. In other terms, the constant conditioning of “don’t help” and “don’t ask for help” operates against the natural development of social competence, while it is essential for us as – in Aronson’s term – “social animals” to recognise the situations when we are required to help in every spheres of life, and also to admit when we need help without reservations.

The point in positive interdependence is to structure learning processes in a way that acquisition is only possible by co-operation. That is, we create learning structures promoting co-operation, in which participants only can learn successfully if they really co-operate with each other.

If a micro-group only gets one copy of a worksheet, but each member must be able to complete it, then they necessarily will have to share the sheet.

If each member has to process different materials, but all of them have to know each section, then the task itself incites co-operation. I give the instructions in such a way that they only can be followed with co-operating. This is what we call inspiring interdependence.

Co-operation between students will not be achieved by telling them to co-operate (“Work together!”), but by creating situations requiring co-operation, in which they recognise the necessity of learning together through their own learning experience.

“You got only one mathematical task, but you will have finished it only when each member can complete it. I will pick someone randomly, and he or she will have to know the solution.”

Constructed by all; constructive for all

There is an underlying attitude of positive interdependence regarding the nature of knowledge. Co-operative learning is based on the idea that knowledge is a result of collective contributions. Thus, ideally, any one person’s knowledge is built on the others’ knowledge. The term ‘constructive interdependence’ used in Hungarian literature refers to this fact. In co-operative learning processes steps have to be organised in such a way that ensures that every person’s knowledge can be built upon, and the knowledge of individuals and micro-groups is built on each other.

One of the most well-known structures promoting positive interdependence is connected to Aronson’s name. This is the jigsaw method{9}. The main point of the jigsaw method is that the contents of the lesson to be acquired are divided into as many parts as the number of micro-groups, or as the number of the members in a small group. Then the children engaged in different parts teach each other their own segments. Then the lesson is built up together as a whole, step by step, like a jigsaw puzzle.

One of the most prominent problem of teachers of history and literature is that their students cannot see correspondences between different periods, moreover, they are not able to put together historical events having happened at the same time or in the same period. Teachers of sciences often complain about something similar: students do not recognise interdisciplinary relations. The problem results from the fact that the primarily applied methods in Hungary, termed as frontal education, only allow for a linear approach, and they cannot really demonstrate correlations. Constructive interdependence and simultaneous work in small groups are able to involve e.g. a historical period as a whole – even in the first 45 minutes of the time dedicated to this task – then later it can elaborated on further.

In history class, each group is designated as an empire existing in the same period, or as different rulers of an empire. While groups are engaged in their own areas (taxes, forms of governance, culture, language, events, people, economy, lifestyle, etc.), they also communicate with the other groups or time-travel to various periods of their own state so that they can understand the circumstances of their own age or country. The aspects of comparing certain eras or empires give the aspects of processing their own segments for the groups. Thus, when students elaborate on their own segments according to the same points, there will be a place for answers coming from other groups in the same structure. For example: “If we travel to the Frankish Empire, what kind of money shall we use, who is the ruler, etc.? Let’s send an envoy to find out!”

In case of sciences, groups may describe, for instance, the same phenomenon from the point of view of different disciplines, thus making it clear how each discipline approaches the same phenomenon.

Behind succession of knowledge and the principle of positive interdependence the traces of environmentally conscious way of thinking also can be discovered. The recognition of the fact that the life of our planet is our common responsibility, and therefore our lives are interdependent of everyone else’s life, of course is relevant for collective knowledge as well.

About the principle in short

Positive interdependence must implement two important points in co-operative learning.

1.6. Equal access and participation

Equal access is a basic democratic right

The basic approach of co-operative learning to knowledge is that access to knowledge is a fundamental democratic right. Everyone has the right to improve their knowledge. We can take part in collective decisions equally if we have equal access to opportunities, information, and the conditions of participation. In the same way as it is true for democratic social participation, it is also true for participation in public education.

Therefore the basic co-operative principle of equal access says that the processes of learning must be structured in a way so that everyone can access shared knowledge. Examining how a in a traditional class an attending student texting behind the desk and another student actively participating and in constant frontal communication with the teacher access knowledge equally, though attending the same class, maybe it will be clear that access is a crucial point. The issue of access cannot be bound to diligence, even in this example. In a situation where structurally and habitually only one or two participants can communicate with the teacher organising learning, the other participants cannot take part in communication from the start; it does not matter whether they send text messages or pay attention to the lesson.

By the fact that the participants think, learn and work together with their peers in small groups, each group increases its chance for participation, access and progress at individual pace in obtaining knowledge. The opportunity for direct access to knowledge is bigger for everyone, especially if equal participation is structurally granted within the micro-group as well.

One of the most simple structures or techniques is Rally robin or Round Robin: members of the micro-group speak one after the other. For example, if they collect terms individually, they present the results in Rally Robin; each of them only one at a time. Usually the presentation is weighted, that is, if others has the same item, they tell each other about that. This way they always can know how many people have collected the same item in the group.

If structural guarantees are built for equal participation and access, students with less developed personal, social or cognitive skills receive help and behaviour models to the development of their individual ways of acquiring knowledge from more their experienced peers directly and personally. They can experience self-confidence, strength and real improvement, making them equivalent members of the group. Continuous collective responsibility inspires conscientious and hard work. They will recognise the fact that the skills most necessary for learning, creation and working can be improved, thus they are equal partners.

On the other hand, students with more developed personal, social or cognitive skills obtain even more deeply ingrained and thorough knowledge by teaching their peers, they will obtain extended knowledge in proportion with their competence, thanks to the creativity and flexibility of co-operative learning. They will have especially well-developed social and organising skills. Their way of thinking becomes multi-faceted by continuously paying attention to others’ questions and ideas. They will be able to observe events from several points of view, they will be more tolerant and co-operative. They realise that their high-level skills can be manifested, shown and utilised for the benefit of others primarily in a co-operative framework.

Access and participation go together

So co-operative learning creates ways of structuring learning for the sake of access to knowledge which make it possible for everyone to accomplish the pursuit of knowledge according to their own demands and needs. Let us see an example. We could say that everybody can buy and read textbooks, so their guilt be on their own heads if they do not do it. It only would be right if everyone was able to study from books. A number of studies in applied linguistics have pointed out the differences of socialisation in oral cultures and the school, built on a world of books. The communicative competence expected in schools presumes a kind of family socialisation based on books. In addition, the traditional forms of education are unable to represent any different competencies within their system, nor they are able to have the forms not practised at home acquired or be transformed into competency. After all, in order to be able to digest texts, we need to practise this activity in various forms of learning. In the frontal classwork, so commonplace in Hungary, very few children ask questions, stand their mistakes, argue for their opinion or outline their – maybe wrong – strategies for solution. However, everyone must go through forms of learning involving the most cognitive schemes possible in order to be not only able to read but also to comprehend a text. Not any one student’s opportunity for practising could depend on the fact whether the student is able to join the process of frontal education or not. Frontal teaching – regardless of the teachers’ good will; from structural reasons – does not provide opportunity for activating each student’s diverse cognitive skills.

Research into micro-group structuring of learning have proved that by means of co-operative learning, 90-95% of children take part in every offered form of learning and thinking individually and personally, in contrast to a significantly lower figure in case of frontal teaching. When we make comparisons of how many children take part in taking notes individually, reading, collective interpretation, drafting and individual presentation during a lesson, then co-operative learning bears the palm.

If every child can practise all the time, in more versatile learning forms than passive listening, which activate various cognitive schemes, then sooner or later – as it has been proved by research – we can talk about truly equal participation in the process of knowledge acquisition, regardless of social background. This does not mean that everyone contributes the same thing to the collective knowledge, but that everyone contributes to it with an equal opportunity, according to their own skills, their competency level, their place in the process of acquiring knowledge.

Thus, we must endeavour to ensure that everyone’s knowledge plays a part (equal participation), and everyone has an equal opportunity to access knowledge, that is, in accordance with their actual knowledge, competence, demands, expectations, recognised needs (equal access). No one should trudge, but those who need more time also have to get the opportunity!

Providing equal opportunities in practice

Not knowing contributes to the manifestation and unfolding of knowledge to the same degree as comprehension. The questions arising from not knowing are the ones that may make knowledge comprehensible.

In Platonic dialogues, the question-and-answer series of Socratic questions or catechisms know this nature of learning well. Knowledge unfolds in unique constructions for every cognising and asking individual – in the dialogues and interactions of knowing and not knowing, not comprehending and comprehending. Knowledge is the way itself, not a constant set of information.

At the same time, by recognising not knowing, we have taken the first step towards knowing. According to Socrates, the love of wisdom, that is, philosophy, arises from the fact that we recognise that we do not know anything. Therefore we turn towards wisdom for teachings.

Co-operative learning

This principle is emphasised in Aronson’s jigsaw method. Its main point is that each student works on an individual segment of the lesson, which they present to the others during the learning process, thus every participant contributes to the collective knowledge of the group with their own little jigsaw pieces. The colour, shape and size of pieces may differ, but their equivalence is ensured by the fact that each of them is equally essential to complete the picture.

Assigning co-operative roles can be helpful as well. Co-operative roles are conceived in order to improve behaviour models and competencies related to the functioning of the micro-group. One pupil can be appointed as the ‘Encourager’. His responsibility will be to provide equal access to participation in collective learning activities, and to ensure that everyone does take part in learning. In the group everyone is equal, that is, there is no ‘boss’, everyone has a different role. If someone has acquired the appropriate co-operative behaviour models by acting out the part successfully in the areas involved by the role, they can take up another role. The earlier part is taken by another member, to whim he or she will be able to help in person so that the peer can act out his or her earlier role as efficiently as possible. It can be seen that we can grant that everyone practises each learning from by these roles.

About the principle in short

The co-operative principle of participation draws attention to the importance of providing equal access to knowledge and equal participation in learning processes. It can be achieved with the help of personalised interactive structuring of learning. If not each child has access to the collective knowledge and/or takes part in learning directly, we cannot speak of co-operative learning.

1.7. Personal responsibility and individual accountability

Personal presence in responsibility
The role of the individual is crucial in co-operative learning.

This is because co-operative teachers start at the individual’s actual knowledge, skills, demands, needs and expectations when planning the learning process. They try to satisfy everyone’s – children’s and teacher’s – individual needs and demands during learning together. Students work in personal interaction, in micro-groups, so that they can continuously put their questions, needs and ideas into words, give an account for their knowledge, ask for help, and in all these they would not depend on the teacher.

That is to say, the group needs to be developed until it becomes natural for participants to express their spontaneous, even emotional reactions concerning learning, and until they master communication regarding both the subject and following interest. This continuous self-articulation makes it possible for the participants to be present in learning interactions more and more personally and that their personality can unfold in more and more dimensions during learning. This also means that they will increasingly be able to take personal responsibility for individual and collective activities.

At the same time, a continuous reflexive publicity develops in co-operative micro-groups, in which the participants’ activities and communication is interpreted. Constant peer feedback also proceed towards personal responsibility.

In co-operative systems each member of the micro-groups has a role within the group in order to promote this process of development. These roles, as we mentioned before, are partnership behaviour models contributing to learning together. They are made-up dramatic tools and group-roles that are, based on the revealed needs and demands of teachers and children alike, necessary for efficient, effective and equitable group-work.

For example, if the students cannot handle learning time, they will need a “Timemaster” who schedules their available time with his partners and monitors it. They also need an “Encourager”, if not everyone takes part equally in the work. He or she is the one that encourages participation, for instance by taking care of the similar number of times when members speak up. The most important thing is that everybody needs a role in the group.

All students in a class receive attention, not only the “bright students”, those who are on “weekly duty” or those who are responsible for the labs. Everyone has the opportunity to develop in a role or to act hiding behind one, or even to refuse it. Thus the activities connected to the role or happening during playing the roles get into the centre of attention, and feedback also relates to the roles. By means of these roles everyone has the chance to take part in the group processes: taking up one, everyone can decide, volunteer, present or ask for an account. Because each member of the micro-group will know exactly what his role and task is, what he has taken upon and accomplished, how well-prepared he has been.

Roles also help in the sense that individual development plans can be lined around them with the participants. That is to say, individual responsibility also leads to personalised education, since participants are able to take part in the process following their individual undertakings. It is another issue that by means of positive interdependence we connect these individual plans and ways to the others, thus they cannot but choose to co-operate and their common goal is the promotion of each other’s individual success.

As it can be seen, co-operative does not implement differentiation in homogenous groups, but in heterogeneous micro-groups planned at the level of the individual. It does not differentiate but individualise. It does not distinguish but opens each participant individually, and allows and enables them to make decisions on their own, thus making the pedagogical process versatile and manifold. Individual development plans can be defined by competency groups and topics both. This way distinct plans are made in co-operative learning at the level of each individual participant, for example the below ones:

Nevertheless, it is important to note that individual development plans must be created within an authentic feedback process, in a form that is equally comprehensible for every participant (students, parents, teacher) who also can express their own needs, concepts and undertakings in connection with learning – this is personal responsibility. Getting to know and understanding each other (student-teacher-parent), and conceptualising individual and collective goals, activities and tasks are crucial aspects. Within these agreements, actual goals, concepts, activities and provided services are conceived in a personalised way, that is, not in charts full of technical terms, but in a common reminder having been elaborated eventually to actual pedagogical activities.

In certain practices contracts are made in connection with individual development plans, in which the teacher, the child and the parents alike undertake clear, comprehensible and accountable tasks.

An important aspect of individual development is that the individuals are able to take responsibility for their own learning and they develop autonomy and self-reliance in learning. If they themselves are unable to realise the weight, framework and forms of their own development and learning, then they will have much lower chance to acquire knowledge and develop their skills that enable them to get along later in their lives freely and autonomously.

Some educators happen to teach children who are less able to see the importance of their education in their later lives. The majority of children with poor and uneducated backgrounds are like that. It is especially important for them to realise their opportunities of the school in their own personal lives.

For teachers, responsibility often concerns responsibility for the task, that is, to the fact whether the students have completed the exercise – e.g. the homework the teacher has handed out. However, learning is basically not a matter of responsibility; interest, autonomy, curiosity, supply and flexibility have much more importance. At the same time, awareness of tasks, the conscientious completion of them also can be a goal in development, since if someone is not able to perform tasks purposively, then the teacher builds the whole learning process on individual tasks (studying at home, homework) in vain. Psychology has proved that mainly those adults have the ability of purposive and self-controlled behaviour who had the opportunity to decide in their childhood, as well as to understand opposing interests in conflicts. In other words, instead of punishment and rewarding, they were involved in decisions and actions by using e.g. parental conversations, self-expression and comprehending attention and collectively established decisions and rules. One of the important stages in the development of responsibility is when individuals have the chance to decide, and then directly bear the consequences of their own decisions.

In a Freinet nursery school, after breakfast, children marked in a five-branched board what they wanted to do that day. The five circles meant five centres of activities in five different corners of the school. At one place, they could draw, paint and do crafts; thumb magazines and books, play logic games, play with building blocks or build a zoo on the carpet at another one; at yet another one they could play with puppets or don costumes and masks; and the room also had a sand-and-water table. Children could mark more than one activities by hanging their individual symbols on the desires branches. Each activity site had their own home rules (e.g. how many children there could be at the same time; how the tools could be used; where the completed creations had to be placed; how they needed to tidy the place after playing; etc.). Children decided on who would do what and when on their own; except for the morning and afternoon conversation circles, mealtimes and the time to be spent outdoors. Teachers and assistants only acted as facilitators. At the end of the day, in the closing conversation circle, they reported what they had done and whether their morning plans were realised. Teachers did not give any assessment, they just made it possible for all children to give an account of what they had done that day. In the mixed group, the works of the youngest ones were shown by the teacher. However, all the older children wanted to give an account of what they had accomplished, what they succeeded or failed at, and they would make up for the delays, on their own. Teachers did not ask them to give an account, they only provided them opportunity for expressing themselves and their opinions, as well as for decision and free choice. For me, the most interesting point in this practice is that the development of autonomy and responsibility at the age of 4-5 can be a natural pedagogical goal in the nursery school. While, at the same time, most teachers working at primary or secondary schools are reluctant to grant older children or young people autonomy and spontaneity.

In summary, personal responsibility can develop when individuals can enter the learning process with their complete personalities; if they can participate actively in the decisions and undertakings concerning learning. It is important that the teacher should be able to offer a wide range of activities for the participants.

Individual accountability is important in responsibility

No person will accomplish a task just because we have assigned it. They will do it because they are already personally motivated (they are interested; they want it; they can do it), or because they are able for task-oriented behaviour, or because we check on them. To put it in exact terms, reporting on the undertaken tasks is the thing that is realised by each participant (teacher and students alike) in co-operative learning. This is what proceeds towards individual responsibility and conscientiousness.

If we look upon working together as social influence, we may well progress only until “compliance” by the means of co-operative learning. Since others rely on other members’ individual work, they like it or not, sooner or later they all must set to work. When they have experienced success and have learnt something from each other, then everybody starts feeling as one of them, they identify with their groups and team spirit also motivates them. Later participants recognise how their individual learning is contributed by learning together with the others in co-operation. This internalisation makes co-operation an internal need, beyond influence and emotional identification.

Publicness in the micro-group, ensuring involvement, is the factor that will enable individuals to progress to internalisation through the stage of identification. To the stage where they are able to achieve their own goals in co-ordination with others’.

Successful individual responsibility and checking is granted by organising learning processes in a way in which everyone will have their own personalised, clearly put tasks making the conditions of accomplishing and the aspects of assessment public, and for which tasks they can and must take personal responsibility. This responsibility develops publicly within the micro-group, in the eye of all members.

Individual responsibility is not unknown in individual and competitive-gradative systems either. Individuals are responsible for their own achievements as well. However, co-operative learning does not only make participants responsible for their own learning, but it places them into situations of free choice and it also provides them with the necessary tools for accomplishing the tasks they have undertaken and for giving account of their progress continuously and individually.

Such tools include the above mentioned co-operative roles that show what behaviour models and related co-operative tools enable the participants to learn together successfully.

The already mentioned Encourager is such a practical helper whose task is to make sure that everyone take spart in the work equally. The Encourager can use e.g. the structure Rally Robin. In short, as we have already mentioned, its point is that each member of a micro-group can express their opinions on a given subject or can add their individual collection to the whole one by one, taking turns. When the Encourager is able to apply Rally Robin on its won, then he can promote the development of equal participation, thus playing his part responsibly.

Differentiated, personalised and jigsaw-like built exercises contribute to the development of personal responsibility in the same way, for which co-operative learning teaches learning forms, also with the help of the roles.

Staying on task can be promoted by the application of the role of the Taskmaster. The Taskmaster’s task is to ensure that members interpret the exercise together with the help of a chart with points aimed at facilitating interpretation.

These roles go around among group members. This way everyone has the chance to acquire all the necessary tools and behaviour models that help them carry out their individual tasks in a responsible way, and then report on the accomplished tasks. Continuous publicness in the micro-group strengthens individual accountability. When group members work together, peers continuously monitor individual performance.

When I work together with my peers continuously, then at least my groupmates – two or three peers learning with me – will be aware of the fact how I can accomplish the tasks I have undertaken or I have been assigned.

However, individual accountability also have some very simple structural means.

For example I can assign a certain task to the Encouragers of each groups, then I will know who I will have to check on that task in each group.

I can assign marker colours to group roles; that is, I appoint a certain colour for each role, and the representatives of that role can only work with pens, pencils or markers of that colour. This way I am able to monitor or check any one person’s individual written work or contribution.

In case of jigsaw work – where each group elaborates on a different segment of the lesson and teaches them to the others, I can know exactly who is responsible for certain segments in a group.

In short about the principle

The essence of the co-operative principle of responsibility is that structuring learning must create situations of personal responsibility in which the participants can undertake personalised and clearly defined tasks individually and personally (with the help of roles and co-operative methods). This also involves a situation of accountability and development in which participants continuously demonstrate their development and personally undertaken tasks in the publicness of the micro-group, since they correlate with the groupmates’ tasks in positive interdependence.

1.8. Critical and reflective publicity provided step by step

Learning-centred publicity of attainments

If we observe the role of publicity in connection with the individual responsibility of students, we will see that a way of monitoring and assessing students’ progress is publicising their attainments. In traditional structuring of learning the publicity of students’ attainment is linked to the teacher’s presence. When student take written or oral tests, answer questions and do homework, it is public and available only for the teacher. In addition, direct and personal feedback to a student can only be given by the pedagogist only once or twice a month, even if we assume 3-4 oral test takers per class; that is, students rarely have the chance to make their attainments public within traditional frameworks of learning.

That is why in learning-centred co-operative learning the publicity of learning is structured. Any kind of feedback is of great help for the person wanting – or even not wanting – to learn. Peer feedback can be of as much help as authentic teacher feedback.

Students are supposed to open more easily in front of their peers, they express their feelings concerning the lesson and ask their questions more openly.

Those who comprehend the lesson will try to explain it. If they do not succeed, it is a kind of feedback, too: they will need to deepen their understanding. Those who do not understand it will help in collective comprehension with their questions, since conceiving the answers for them increasingly accurately, the micro-group will summarise everything they need to know about the subject.

I do not say here that the teacher cannot explain well enough, but that it is impossible to engage in direct and personal interaction with 25-30 children at the same time. Experience of frontal classes also shows this fact: 8-10 active participants counts as successful; however, the other ones still remain passive.

In co-operative micro-groups it is revealed publicly, step by step, whether a person has managed to learn the lesson or not, and what questions or solutions the group has concerning the problems that have emerged. Another kind of publicness is present here, too: the active support of the access to knowledge. The teacher provides micro-groups with tools suitable for free orientation and activities (books, CDs, videos, websites, stationery, crafting tools, etc.), as well as offering structured forms of co-operation, games, working structures, later developing the groups in reaction to these. This is how the teacher promotes the development of the tools necessary for self-reflection, analysis and self-improvement. This activity opens a wide range of sources of knowledge for the participants of learning together. Instead publicity based on the teacher’s presence, it is much more efficient if each participant can work continuously in public. This is only feasible in the publicity of micro-groups.

The publicity of micro-groups: developing responsibility

The teacher delegates responsibility to micro-groups by building the continuous activities off monitoring and assessment on the publicness of micro-groups learning together. At the same time, teachers do not have to forsake their own means of assessment – like tests or presentations –, but they do not need to use them for motivation any more, because the publicity of micro-groups gives space for feedback.

Group members continuously see to what degree their peers have attained the lessons; if they are well-prepared and can be relied on, or whether they need further help.

Let us imagine that in a game of Rally Robin each member has to name an artyodactil. It is revealed instantly who is able to accomplish the task. If there are members who do not succeed in it, their peers can help them understand by examples and explanations. The exercise only goes on when every member is able to solve the problem.

Teachers who facilitate children’s learning together in small co-operative groups have an enormous advantage over their fellows using other forms of learning, since, they have the opportunity to observe children – any one or even all of them during only one period – in various learning forms, in the publicity of micro-groups.

For example in Aronson’s jigsaw, when each children works on different segments of a lesson, what motivates them is the fact that they will have to publicise their attainment, because their peers will get acquainted with the given segment through them.

At first, they work (read, write, take notes, collect, etc.) individually. It is important to note that tools and sources need to be provided for everyone at the beginning. After finishing individual work, they check, interpret and analyse their understanding together with members of other micro-groups. Then they prepare a clear and comprehensible draft of the interpreted subject together, and with the help of this draft they also check if they have memorised every important part. They go back to their groups only then, and the members teach each other their topics one by one. Their attainment in any of the topics can be checked by the teacher, even by means of written tests. Since all this takes place publicly within the micro-groups, it is also available for the teacher. Thus he or she can observe the students in learning situations which reveal much more about the real knowledge, competence, approaches, inhibitions, self-awareness of the children – due to their versatility and multiple approaches – than, let’s say, an oral test in front of the whole class.

There is no co-operative publicity without open, non-aggressive and supportive communication! In order for the micro-group publicity to function, we must learn to talk to each other and learn together. This requires the improvement of our competencies that are usually called personal (self-consciousness, self-control, motivation) and social (empathy and social skills) competencies.

Among others, Rogers{10} and Gordon{11} developed the basics of the communicative and supporting attitudes that makes the publicness of the micro-group efficient (instead of fighting). We also recommend their guidance, since their books are widely available in the Hungarian book market.

One of their fundamental approaches is that children follow a self-actualisation tendency – this is Rogers’ term – which means that they search for the way how they would be able to be much more present in their own lives. This idea is taken further by Gordon, Rogers’ student, who says that children are competent in solving their own problems. They think in a whole, complete world, too, in which they wish to feel more consistent. That is why they need to be helped to express their feelings and thoughts as much as possible, and their acts to follow and express what they feel and know. This way they will be increasingly able to conceive the questions, fears and desires that are important for them, not only to their peers and teachers, but to themselves as well.

As soon as they are faced with their real – and probably hitherto hidden – problems concerning learning, the self-actualising tendency will lead them towards solution.

A simple example is when a 16-.year old teenager wants to see the one he loves (essential problem), but he cannot speak about it at home (lack of congruence), and he is grounded, but sooner or later he finds out how he can sneak out, totally evading the publicity of the punishing-nurturing aimed at protecting him. That is, the less opportunity there is for the expression and representation of interests and emotions, the less chance there is for co-operative publicity.

By ‘congruence’, Rogers mean when the emotions, the related conscious contents and the activities manifesting the former ones are consistent. Some mean sincerity by this term, but it is more than that. When an angry person is shouting, we feel it sincere. However, a congruent person knows that anger is a secondary emotion, behind which there always must be another emotion (anxiety, worrying, jealousy, lack of confidence, etc.), therefore he will focus on this other emotion inciting anger instead of (or after) shouting.

Co-operative publicity provides continuous spontaneous reflection for the child’s competencies. Peers hold a good enough mirror up to students so that they will be able to recognise their sides to be yet developed with the help of their peers’ feedback. In addition, the continuous co-operative group evaluation, in which members evaluate the co-operation within the group and the role of the members in it, helps to formulate these messages consciously, from time to time. Groups check their co-operation from time to time – even at every time, they set down what has worked and what has not, and who needs to improve what in which ways.

Ensuring publicity of learning by documentation

Co-operative publicness is also manifested in the continuous documentation of attainment. In co-operative learning the process of acquisition is documented step by step.

The works of micro-groups are put on the groups’ desks, the group collections, placards (large collective written works) onto the walls around the room, at least until they finish with the current topic. The visual representation of the collectively attained and processed knowledge also helps in orientation, repetition and imprinting for participants or inquirers, since if someone enters the room during a break, they can see exactly what they have learnt about in the past two periods. If we enter a traditional classroom, we have no idea what they talked about 20 minutes earlier. We only can find it out if we ask somebody. Collective knowledge is manifested publicly in co-operative systems, and thereby it becomes available for any literate person.

Co-operative pedagogical practice has developed several usable co-operative structures/tools in order to create step-by-step publicity. Window is such one. The first step in window is individual work: collecting items (definitions, questions, solutions, formulae, dates, etc.) on a sheet of paper, with an individual colour marker. In the second step, they draw a “window” divided into as many parts as the number of the micro-group members. Everyone can use only their own colours, but every colour has to appear on the sheet. The sections of the window are numbered, beginning with 1. Students put down the collected items one by one, as in Rally Robin, taking turns in presenting their items. At each presentation they find out how many people have collected the current item, and they write it in the section with the same number. I. e. if only one person, than to section 1, and so on. Thus each item is discussed, regardless of the fact whether it is correct. The aim of the window is to provide publicity, that is, to make it clear for everyone what they know about the given subject. The purpose is not to create flawless windows, but to articulate the momentary state of knowledge of the participant, and to record it, so that it can be reflected upon. The correctness of the collected items is not decided by the principle of majority (i. e. not the number of their collectors) but by the teacher or other sources, e.g. course books or other professional aspects given by the peers, etc.

The example of the window clearly shows that the level of individual work is also documented in a way (in individual colours, with markers, in capitals) that even the monitoring teacher can obtain a picture of individual progress.

The collective drawing of the picture brings the group having been working individually together again: they put their heads together, discuss the task (who will draw what), they create something at the same time (because every colour is needed), on a sheet they share (that is, interdependently). After that, documentation takes place in steps, which, because of collecting identical items, forces participants to engage in dialogues, at least about who has and has not collected the given item. The goal is, of course, to interpret and clarify each item, if necessary. It provides a great opportunity for that when someone has written something similar, because they necessarily will discuss whether they mean the same thing. After the interpretation of the first few shared items it will be natural for them to ask about every collected item, thus contributing to their own understanding and unfolding real publicity, in which the children cannot hide behind formulae and dates, because they must be able to explain them in order to check if they mean the same.

Thus, collective and public documentation is not optional in co-operative learning, but a comprehensive means of equal access to knowledge. The outside form of collective knowledge unfolding during learning together is documentation. Teachers only make documentation when they take a digital photo of the products of projects, or make up a thematic folder from the numerous sheets of paper and they hand them out to small groups to computerise them or to glue them into the thematic book of the class from which they will be able to complete their individual notes even later.

Another function of micro-group publicity is to leave space for spontaneity, since this is how participants really can put their needs, questions, doubts, etc. into words. That is to say, micro-group publicity always must be interactive, it does not only mean that everyone gives a presentation on their own sections while the others listen, and that is it. It has to be organised so that listeners need to interact with the presenters, e. g., if they have any questions, they should ask them, if they do not, let us give them questions with which they can check their understanding.

It is a frequent misconception in traditional group-work that the micro-groups, after having finished with their tasks within their group, present their work frontally, thus “conveying” their work to the audience. The disadvantage of this structure not based on parallel interaction is that the knowledge of the micro-groups will not be available to the others, since what they have discussed, worked through and elaborated on together, the others will have to understand from a lecture. It is clear, that what is missing for co-operative publicity is the interactivity of the publicity between groups.

In short about the principle

Publicity present in micro-groups does not necessitate co-operative in itself, therefore this principle states the following:

1.9. Consciously improved personal and social competencies

The role of competency-based development

The Johnson brothers highlight the conscious development of interpersonal and group skills{12}, and they also regard it as an elementary and basic principle of co-operative learning. In their interpretation it means that the conscious development – and the participants also need to be aware of it – of children’s personal and social skills related to themselves and their peers must be an important part of the consciously planned educational process and of the means of the applied system of learning and teaching for the teacher.

For example, when a fierce debate starts in a small group (with everyone shouting, arguing and quarrelling around the group table), Rally Robin can be suggested so that everyone can present their opinions, one by one. If they work in the form of round table, they also can write down the different arguments, if they write them on small pieces of paper, the arguments can be categorised, e.g. as for or against. The huge number of opportunities – and huge amount of work – usually smoothes down the quarrel enough for the children to quickly have their say and continue working. However, if the debate is more serious, they themselves decide to write or even to categorise the arguments in order to ensure decision and progress. Anyway, while they progress in learning, they also learn how to use a debate constructively for progress in a way in which everyone can express themselves, and this will be a key to the solution. We learn to apply co-operative structures instead of power structures.

Competency-based development is another attitude which is essential in the efficient manifestation of co-operative learning. Competency-based development, as in the above example, leads children and adults to applicable knowledge, information, practice and attitudes that can be adapted in other situations, and by which they can be successful in professional and career situations, as well as in interpersonal relationships.

Competency-based education or training does not take away from traditional education but complement it with indeed relevant aspects and efficient and effective practice. Concerning development, it does not only focus on attainments and experience but it utterly pays attention to the conscious development of skills and competency fields, and to the acquisition of best practice and models. For this, it clarifies and helps interiorise the attitudes that are important for practical applications and to the establishment of best practice.

It has been raised in the discourse about co-operative learning that another area of developing competencies – besides knowledge and attainment, skills and practice, and attitudes and values – is the development of so-called meta-competencies, that is, of such competencies that will help students as future citizens place themselves in the Big picture, in other words, by keeping a distance, to see their own behaviour, actions and social activities from a societal perspective.

In the above example about debates the conscious development of personal and social skills can be seen: in case of arguments, throw in a game of Rally Robin, that is, let’s give a chance for everyone to express themselves; if necessary, let’s write a list in a round table, even on pre-planned pieces of paper with colour markers, and then let’s see what happens. This means that during collective activities children get and learn models for the co-operative solution of vexed situations, thus realising not only how they can utilise the power of a debate constructively, but the fact that it is worth to apply constructive models for the sake of efficient, effective and equitable work. They also will understand that the structures acquired during learning can be used in any other interpersonal and group situation, such as debating.

Competency-based development in co-operative learning assumes that everyone has several skills, attainments and attitudes, and these are not at the same stage of development in and various learners, or even in one learner. Therefore, based on the state of the competency of the individual, it must be checked by the perception and assessment of the development of skills, knowledge and attitudes whether the pedagogical processes structured by us even have any kind of influence on the fields to be developed. The approach of competency-based development, which is becoming more and more widespread recently in Hungary, maybe will help to banish the stereotypical dichotomic view that describes the condition of the skills of the participants in the dichotomy of “bright student” vs. “dull student”. Competency lists published today in every kind of charts only can help teachers in acquiring a more stratified knowledge of the competencies of the participants in comparison with the stereotypical approaches. The layered, versatile knowledge and understanding may lead them on the path on which they will realise that a deeper understanding of students opens up a wide range of tools and means for them. However, in pedagogical terms, the point is not in the competency lists but the consciously efficient, effective and equitable improvement of recognised developmental needs in pedagogical practice!

Conscious development of competencies

Not only co-operation, but efficient learning also requires that learners are aware of themselves, their emotions, their responses to these emotions, their values, strengths and weaknesses, that they are able to express and manage their emotions and thoughts, trust themselves and by this, become trustworthy, conscientious, etc. – we could list the personal competencies included in Goleman’s list ad infinitum. Co-operative learning does not only build on these personal competencies but it explicitly helps to recognise their status, conceptualise the necessary actions, and it provides learners with particular development tools and functioning co-operative structures.

For example, as children sum up their individual collections in the form of a “window” – in case of a group of four, a rectangle divided into four parts – they continuously confirm each one’s individual work, at each individual stage of learning.

They put individually collected items in the window – let us say, they are supposed to collect five domesticated animals individually – by taking turns. The first one names an animal (e.g. goose; they check how many people in the group have written the same item – for instance, two – and they write the name of the animal to the section which corresponds to the number of people – in our example, in segment nr. 2. The next individually collected animal is announced by the next child, and so on, until all the animals have been put down.

They all get personal feedback. On the one hand, everyone can say an animal, on the other, hand, even if somebody else says it, he can indicate that he also has it in his collection. (Of course, the results are checked in a later step – e.g. if goose counts as a domestic animal, but this is not the point here). So the window shows all the collected animals, and also the number of people that have collected each.

Every student, regardless of the fact whether they have solved the problem correctly, can explain their solution individually, they can compare it to the others’, and each one is recorded as well. It conveys the message that their work is important and always worth attention. Not only when the solution is correct! This promotes admitting strengths and weaknesses. This collective recording – in the window – is the one thing that makes it instantly obvious, at least for the peers, how I, as a member can contribute in a subject. Thus the members of my group are able to give me feedback, helping my self-evaluation concerning learning. For example when checking the results recorded in the window collectively, we discuss what the problem has been with my collection, and we find out together what we could do so that the solution becomes clear for me. This continuous group-reflecting publicity is one of the most efficient means of developing personal and social competencies.

Small groups are also very suitable for developing social skills such as empathy (recognising others’ emotions, understanding other people, sympathy, etc.) or social skills (communication, improving others, skills necessary for co-operation in a micro-group, team spirit, etc). If we think about the above example of the window technique from the aspects of co-operative and communication skills, we will see that the continuous publicity, evaluation and feedback within the group extends not only to personal skills but to the social competencies affecting the functioning of the group. Thus the small group as a co-operative learning structure provides scope for the reflective and conscious development of the above competencies as well.

In short about the principle

Micro-group structures based on fundamental co-operative principles provide a good framework for the development and improvement of personal and social competencies, however, it is important to highlight that this development needs to be consciously planned both by the organisers and the participants of learning, and it must include the levels of the individual, the micro-group and the large group alike.

1.10. Conscious development of cognitive and academic competencies; setting academic goals

More effective development of cognitive-academic competencies

One of the most general limiting prejudices against co-operative learning – the Johnsons also refuted it in their fundamental work in 1984{13} – is that co-operative learning was conceived for the sake of developing personal and social skills. It is true that these competencies are developed efficiently and consciously in co-operative learning situations. However, its focus is the efficient, effective and equitable practice of the acquisition of knowledge. The recognition of the fact that collectively acquired knowledge results in more efficient learning at the level of the individual as well, The co-operative means of collective acquisition make it possible to integrate the developments of personal and social competencies in the tools of thematic learning activities. In Hungarian educational practice – for us, incomprehensibly – usually separate processes are planned for developing personal and social skills and for developing learning competencies.

When in the above example children collect domestic animals into windows, they not simply learn but, in accordance with the tool of co-operative data collection, they learn to pay attention to each other; they exercise patience and understanding during the learning process, etc.

We can see now that the focus of co-operative learning processes is learning. Therefore, the third development area of competency-based development in learning together is the development of cognitive and academic skills. In traditional schools children are expected to practise their learning-related skills such as individual reading and reading comprehension, note-taking, interpretation and analysis, collective interpretation, etc. on their own, by themselves, merely because of their diligence, and on subjects they are not really interested in.

In contrast, co-operative learning doe not make it dependent on the studiousness of the children whether they read, take notes or interpret a problem. The co-operative teacher organises processes in such a way that the students can learn following their interests, but they only can learn effectively if they co-operate with each other. Thus, the community expects everyone’s work. One may not be interested in anything yet, but he must do his job for the sake of the others, because their knowledge and work depends on his. Due to micro-group publicity and positive interdependence everyone takes part in the collective work individually, because the others will want to use the materials processed by him during the next step. In co-operative learning, the individual learning activities are built on each other in a way that makes everyone aware of the fact that the community relies on them, too. This way everybody takes part increasingly consciously in learning together.

It is immediately revealed within the continuous micro-group publicity when someone gets stuck and cannot perform well. These are the situations when the conscious development of academic skills come in handy. When the children can see what kind of skills they need to have (for example, because the roles distributed to them are about these), then, learning together with their peers, continuously watching them, they can observe these competencies all the time, what is more, directly in operation – by watching their peers! If they also get feedback and help from their peers, then we can set actual goals of developing academic and cognitive competencies without fear.

Thanks to co-operative learning, 90-95 percent of students work actively during the learning period, as we have already mentioned (they take notes, read, analyse, ask questions, etc.). The teacher builds on that when planning what competencies to develop by what kind of tasks in the group (e.g. note-taking, highlighting key points, etc.).

However, it is important to note that this activity becomes empty and schematic if it does not integrate the spontaneous and conscious needs, expectations, development ideas and needs of the participants, that is, if it is not flexible and open enough to participants (see the first principle).

It frequently happens in case of beginners’ co-operative lessons that the teacher does not involve children in fact, because she does not build consciously on their interests, spontaneous and conscious feedback. Unfortunately, on-going work becomes boring very soon these times.

If the teacher continues to “think instead children”, micro-groups sooner or later will get bored of having to assist at the teacher’s “lecture” with continuous work. In these cases ‘co-operative learning’ will be a swear word in students1 language.

The significance of co-operative roles in conscious competency development

We assign roles in the group, like in a dramatic play. Everybody has a role; each person a different one. Roles are grasped through the competencies to be developed.

For example, if I want to improve co-operation of all the social competencies, then there certainly will be en Encourager in the group, who will control the window. If I want to improve focussing and staying on task, then there will be a Taskmaster, whose will have to keep the group on task. For them, I can even prepare a task draft on the wall, written in large letters: their first task will be to copy it. Later, when they have already written down a few drafts like this with the others – either copying my drafts, or in different ways – they themselves can prepare it. Thus I will not only help the development of focussing but preparation for it, etc.

Individual development plans can be integrated in the roles as well. That bright but very quiet girl will be the Encourager: her role requires her to talk to everyone in her group, I will provide her with tools for communication as well.

If the Encourager sees that someone has not commented on the subject to be discussed yet, she needs to stop the conversation and say: “Every opinion is very important, so let’s hear ... (their peer), too!” It will be strange for her at the beginning, obviously – like when an actor first savours her role – but it can be of great help for a child who does not usually starts conversations. The point is that the helping attitude must be actually there, outspoken and giving opportunity for speaking, not only in phrases.

I would give the role of the Reader to the student who everybody likes, because he is a good talker, but they are many in the family in a small home, they do not have books, ha cannot study at home, therefore reading is difficult for him yet. If only he can read out the texts to the other, it will be in their interest to help him improve his reading skills, otherwise their own attainments will be lumbered as well. If only those ones read every time who do it perfectly, when would our talkative friend learn to read?

Academic goals in every dimension of competency

Besides conscious goals of developing competencies, the Johnson brothers also highlight the necessity of setting academic goals.{14} Academic goals are related to requirement levels.

The organiser of a co-operative lesson must define:

The co-operative teacher structures lessons with a view to academic goals, taking personal and social competencies into account as well during planning.

We are practising basic arithmetics with numbers above 10, the groups are new yet, some children often are left out of discussions. Only a few ones have sufficient experience in the topic. I have two goals in this lesson. On the one hand, to provide opportunity for the ones already understanding the issue to teach the others how it works (with the help of previously prepared cards) – this is the academic goal. I also will try to make them practise equal participation by the structures of pairwork, pairing pairs, and jigsaw groups – social-co-operative goal. I put up the two main goals of the lesson on the wall at the beginning (Passing 10; Equal Participation), and we collect the products of the practice under these headlines, while we reflect on both targets in case of each collected item. How many students understand now passing 10, what questions have been asked, what the results are like, etc. Under equal participation we reflect on facts like what has facilitated everyone to speak, what has caused that now more people know what ‘passing 10’ means, what advantages have resulted from co-operation, what rules they would define in connection with their experience, etc. We would consciously stick to and analyse these two goals all through the lesson so that children could understand the role of following a topic, and of co-operation based on equal participation.

The role of co-operative learning in developing thinking

From the aspect of brain functions, dialogue-based co-operative learning activates neural cells in the most wide range possible. This criterion – utilising a wider range of cognitive skills during learning – has been set as a condition of high-quality learning by other researchers as well. That is to say, children will show spectacular development of their thinking and communication skills in those schools where they make use of a wide range of cognitive and communication competencies instead of passive listening in class.

In case of the much-discussed simple window (weighted summary and documentation of individual collections), it is clear even at first sight that the children have utilised significantly more of their cognitive and communicative skills during the 10-12 minutes of the window activity than in a lesson based on the teacher’s presentation. At first, they had to utilise their memory and/or problem solving skills to collect items – since they knew that their peers would ask what they had collected (positive interdependence!); then to grasp it in concepts and record it in writing. During collective work they needed to present their collections, interpret them for the others, analyse them logically, whether they meant the same as the items others have written, etc.

Of course, depending on the topic, these cognitive tasks can be either deeper or more simple on the basis of the progression of the groups, but their cognitive and communication skills will be utilised anyway, thus each individual learner can practise them – and that is the recommendation. Co-operative learning structure itself organises learning in a “brain-friendly” way: the structural framework itself contributes significantly to the development of cognitive and academic competencies. Where it has been introduced, each child’s average achievement has grown significantly, regardless of social background. The academic gap between children with different social backgrounds have been reduced radically, moreover, disadvantaged ones performed even better, thus catching up with their peers – learning more effectively together. Children learning this way obtain more deeply imprinted, applicable and adaptive knowledge, they are able to establish good working relationships with ease, thus receiving more efficient education in terms of career and work.

Development of cognitive and learning competencies must be paid attention consciously so that children would be able to take part in their own learning practice. Development of thinking or cognitive competencies are promoted by co-operative learning itself, which grants via structural means that every child takes part in development at school and has access to development and improvement. On the other hand, learning-methodological or thinking-development models can be applied as well; such practical models that can be easily used at the given age. Introducing and practising such models within the co-operative framework means that in contrast with traditional development at school, we can promote the efficient, effective and equitable cognitive development and academic achievement of every single child by means of two additional dimensions (co-operative learning; competency-based development).

In short about the principle

In summary, micro-group structures based on co-operative principles can provide a good framework for development of academic and cognitive competencies, however, this development must be the result of a carefully planned process by both the organisers and participants of learning, and it must involve individual, micro-group and large group levels alike.

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

3 ARONSON, Elliot (2007): The Social Animal. (Tenth, revised edition) New York: Worth Publishers.

4 JOHNSON, Roger T. – JOHSON, David W. (1999): Learning Together and Alone. Allyn and Bacon, Massachusetts.

5 ARATÓ, F. (2013): Towards a Complex Model of Cooperative Learning. Da Investigação às Práticas, 3(1), 57-79.

6 See the chapter on attitudes

7 It is worth to read Kagan’s revised 2009 edition, because in this Kagan reconsidered his own framework at several points, exactly in the directions that previously were missing from his system (e.g. the identical effects of reward and punishment in education).

8 Hans Georg Gadamer outlines the way to reasonable dialogue and understanding as a ’fusion of horizons’ in his book Truth and Method (Gondolat. Budapest, 1989)

9 Aronson, E. – Blaney, N. – Stephan, C. – Sikes, J.– Snapp, M.: The jigsaw classroom. (Sage Publications, 1978.)

10 ROGERS, C. (1995): On becaming a Person (A Therapist’s View of Psychotherapy). 2^nd ed. Boston, New-York: Houghton Mifflin Company

11 GORDON, Thomas (1989): Teaching children self-discipline. Crown Publishing Group, New York.

12 To be accurate, they speak of the development of “interpersonal and small group skills”, that is, such skills, that are necessary for building personal relationships and to co-operate well in small groups. (Johnson, D. W. – Johnson, R.T. – Holubec, Ed. – Roy, P.: Circles of learning. Alexandria, 1984.)

13 They dedicate a whole chapter to rebut the myths around co-operative learning. The above misbelief is also included in that chapter. (Johnson, D. W. – Johnson, R.T. – Holubec, Ed. – Roy, P. i. m.)

14 Roger T. Johnson – David W. Johnson: Creative Controversy – Intellectual challenge in the classroom. Interaction Book Company. Minnesota, 1992.