Cooperative Learning: Promoting Learning Through Student-Student Interaction

1. Cooperative Learning:Promoting Learning Through Student-Student Interaction Karl A. Smith Engineering Education – Purdue University Civil Engineering - University of Minnesota ksmith@umn.edu http://www.ce.umn.edu/~smith Teaching Assistant Workshop University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign August 2007

2. Session Goals & Agenda • Goals & Desired Outcomes • Describe key features of cooperative learning approach for engaging students • Apply cooperative learning to classroom practice • Make connections between cooperative learning and desired outcomes of courses and programs • Knowledge • Skills • Perspective • Agenda • Review/Introduce Cooperative Learning (CL) • Key concepts of CL • Approaches for implementing CL 2

3. Promoting Learning Through Student-Student Interaction • Please reflect on when and how to promote learning through student-student interaction • Jot down some of your ideas • Turn to the person next to you • Introduce yourself • Share thoughts on promoting learning through student-student interaction 3

4. Collaboration Collaboration is a purposive relationship. At the heart of collaboration is a desire or need to solve a problem, create, or discover somethingWithin a set of constraints, including expertise, time, money, competition, and conventional wisdom (p. 36)Michael Schrage. 1991. Shared minds: The new technologies of collaboration. 4

5. Pedagogies of Engagement 5

6. Pedagogies of Engagement: Classroom-Based Practices http://www.asee.org/about/publications/jee/upload/2005jee_sample.htm 6

7. “Throughout the whole enterprise, the core issue, in my view, is the mode of teaching and learning that is practiced. Learning ‘about’ things does not enable students to acquire the abilities and understanding they will need for the twenty-first century. We need new pedagogies of engagement that will turn out the kinds of resourceful, engaged workers and citizens that America now requires.” Russ Edgerton (reflecting on higher education projects funded by the Pew Memorial Trust) 7

8. Lila M. Smith

9. Pedago-pathologies Amnesia Fantasia Inertia Lee Shulman – MSU Med School – PBL Approach (late 60s – early 70s), Currently President of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of College Teaching Shulman, Lee S. 1999. Taking learning seriously. Change, 31 (4), 11-17.

10. What do we do about these pathologies? – Lee Shulman Activity Reflection Collaboration Passion Combined with generative content and the creation of powerful learning communities Shulman, Lee S. 1999. Taking learning seriously. Change, 31 (4), 11-17. 10

11. Lila M. Smith

12. Foundations forPedagogies of Engagement • Learning is a social activity (John Dewey) • Innovative learning requires ambiguity (Stuart Pugh) • All learning requires un-learning (John Seely Brown) • Learning is situated (Jean Lave) 12

13. Cooperative Learning • Theory – Social Interdependence – Lewin – Deutsch – Johnson & Johnson • Research – Randomized Design Field Experiments • Practice – Formal Teams/Professor’s Role Theory Research Practice 13

14. Cooperative Learning •Positive Interdependence •Individual and Group Accountability •Face-to-Face Promotive Interaction •Teamwork Skills •Group Processing 14

15. Cooperative Learning: Key Concepts •Positive Interdependence •Individual and Group Accountability •Face-to-Face Promotive Interaction •Teamwork Skills •Group Processing 15

16. Cooperative Learning Research Support Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., & Smith, K.A. 1998. Cooperative learning returns to college: What evidence is there that it works? Change, 30 (4), 26-35. • Over 300 Experimental Studies • First study conducted in 1924 • High Generalizability • Multiple Outcomes Outcomes 1. Achievement and retention 2. Critical thinking and higher-level reasoning 3. Differentiated views of others 4. Accurate understanding of others' perspectives 5. Liking for classmates and teacher 6. Liking for subject areas 7. Teamwork skills

17. Small-Group Learning: Meta-analysis Springer, L., Stanne, M. E., & Donovan, S. 1999. Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 69(1), 21-52. Small-group (predominantly cooperative) learning in postsecondary science, mathematics, engineering, and technology (SMET). 383 reports from 1980 or later, 39 of which met the rigorous inclusion criteria for meta-analysis. The main effect of small-group learning on achievement, persistence, and attitudes among undergraduates in SMET was significant and positive. Mean effect sizes for achievement, persistence, and attitudes were 0.51, 0.46, and 0.55, respectively.

18. Strategies for Energizing Large Classes: From Small Groups to Learning Communities: Jean MacGregor, James Cooper, Karl Smith, Pamela Robinson New Directions for Teaching and Learning, No. 81, 2000. Jossey- Bass

19. The Harvard Assessment Seminars B Richard J. Light All the specific findings point to, and illustrate, one main idea. It is that students who get the most out of college, who grow the most academically, and who are the happiest, organize their time to include interpersonal activities with faculty members, or with fellow students, built around substantive, academic work. Environmental Factors That Enhance Students= Academic and Personal Development and Satisfaction Alexander Astin in What matters in college: Four critical years revisited. Jossey-Bass, 1993. Student-student interaction Student-faculty interaction A faculty that is very student-oriented Discussing racial/ethnic issues with other students Hours devoted to studying B Time on task Tutoring other students Socializing with students of different race/ethnicity A student body that has high socioeconomic status An institutional emphasis on diversity A faculty that is positive about the general education program A student body that values altruism and social activism 19

20. Active Learning: Cooperation in the College Classroom • Informal Cooperative Learning Groups • Formal Cooperative Learning Groups • Cooperative Base Groups See Cooperative Learning Handout (CL College-804.doc) 20

21. Book Ends on a Class Session 21

22. Book Ends on a Class Session • Advance Organizer • Formulate-Share-Listen-Create (Turn-to-your-neighbor) -- repeated every 10-12 minutes • Session Summary (Minute Paper) • What was the most useful or meaningful thing you learned during this session? • What question(s) remain uppermost in your mind as we end this session? • What was the “muddiest” point in this session?

23. Advance Organizer “The most important single factor influencing learning is what the learner already knows. Ascertain this and teach him accordingly.@ David Ausubel - Educational psychology: A cognitive approach, 1968. 23

24. Quick Thinks • Reorder the steps • Paraphrase the idea • Correct the error • Support a statement • Select the response • Johnston, S. & Cooper,J. 1997. Quick thinks: Active- thinking in lecture classes and televised instruction. Cooperative learning and college teaching, 8(1), 2-7. 24

25. Formulate-Share-Listen-Create • Informal Cooperative Learning Group • Introductory Pair Discussion of a • FOCUS QUESTION • Formulate your response to the question individually • Share your answer with a partner • Listen carefully to your partner's answer • Work together to Create a new answer through discussion 25

26. Minute Paper • What was the most useful or meaningful thing you learned during this session? • What question(s) remain uppermost in your mind as we end this session? • What was the “muddiest” point in this session? • Give an example or application • Explain in your own words . . . Angelo, T.A. & Cross, K.P. 1993. Classroom assessment techniques: A handbook for college teachers. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. 26

27. Session Summary • (Minute Paper) • Reflect on the session: • 1. Most interesting, valuable, useful thing you learned. • 2. Question/Topic/Issue you would like to have addressed. • 3. Comments, suggestions, etc • Pace: Too slow 1 . . . . 5 Too fast • Relevance: Little 1 . . . 5 Lots • Format: Ugh 1 . . . 5 Ah 27

28. MOT 8221 – Spring 2007 – Session 1 Q4 – Pace: Too slow 1 . . . . 5 Too fast Q5 – Relevance: Little 1 . . . 5 Lots Q6 – Format: Ugh 1 . . . 5 Ah 28

29. Session 1 Comments • Most interesting – 1st class where we broke up into new groups and worked on a fun and engaging project. It’s a completely new format of class for me • Relevance of PM/KM across a wide range of businesses, exposure to PM literature and resources • Group project – short project highlighted interesting group dynamics .. Most interesting as it provided hands on experience [mentioned by many] • Relate project management concepts to everyday tasks. Engineering project and relating it to PM • Intro to KM. KM concepts and knowing that we will be looking at what these concepts are [mentioned by many] • Interactive learning is useful. I like the active interaction • Where to find out more information about PM. Learning more about PM. Overview of the books and their relevance [mentioned by many] • The pain curve • The scope of the course helped • That you can’t expect to get all 3 (cost, time & performance) • Other aspects exist for PM. Different schools of thoughts on PM • Distributed intelligence concepts • The volume of material is probably not going to allow as much in depth detail into certain areas • Not addressed/ Questions – project management modeling techniques • Relate resource management to project management when resources are shared • Looking forward to further dialogue, especially concerning adaptive and extreme project mgmt. More input on extreme PM. [mentioned by many] • I would suggest a better lead into the group project. Discuss the skills, then practice in group • Like to see best practice to handle different situations in the project management life cycle • History of PM • To understand PM/KM in more depth. More on KM. More PM info. • No questions yet, looking forward to next class • Virtual team management, Technical project vs non-technical PM • There seems to be many forms/templates that are in the book. But they don’t say why or what value they serve after the project is over or later on in the project • Papers and course expectations seem complex • Understand some of the problems that occur during project planning • A comparison of the various types of projects, e.g., construction, engineering, software • More info on R&D/innovation mgmt. • More detail around resource conflicts • Other comments – went a bit fast – probably due to the complexity & content (amount), regarding course assignment overview • Great deal of literature listed in syllabus – maybe too much • I enjoyed it. Great start. Good starting class. Refreshing class structure. I liked the exercise. Liked the hands-on exercise • PERT/CPM example to be included? • Print out of slides helpful but would like online before class [slides were posted about 2 days prior] • Will we learn about specification writing • We could use some real world PM case studies • The quote “tomorrow’s corp. is a collection of projects” seems, in my long experience, very inaccurate • More background on BR & IPP would be helpful • Felt some reading rehashed some points • It was a very useful session – learned about basic concepts of PM from the “tower” exercise • I can grasp the concepts easily • More hands on and group work • Scope seems too broad as indicated by readings (lots) and comments of skimming or skipping portions 29

30. Informal Cooperative Learning Groups Can be used at any time Can be short term and ad hoc May be used to break up a long lecture Provides an opportunity for students to process material they have been listening to (Cognitive Rehearsal) Are especially effective in large lectures Include "book ends" procedure Are not as effective as Formal Cooperative Learning or Cooperative Base Groups

31. Formal Cooperative Learning Task Groups

32. Engineering Total Design – 36% Computer applications – 31% Management – 29% Civil/Architectural Management – 45% Design – 39% Computer applications – 20% Top Three Main Engineering Work Activities Burton, L., Parker, L, & LeBold, W. 1998. U.S. engineering career trends. ASEE Prism, 7(9), 18-21. 32

33. Teamwork 33

34. Characteristics of Effective Teams • ? • ? 34

35. A team is a small number of people with complementary skills who are committed to a common purpose, performance goals, and approach for which they hold themselves mutually accountable • SMALL NUMBER • COMPLEMENTARY SKILLS • COMMON PURPOSE & PERFORMANCE GOALS • COMMON APPROACH • MUTUAL ACCOUNTABILITY --Katzenbach & Smith (1993) The Wisdom of Teams

36. 36

37. Cooperative Learning is instruction that involves people working in teams to accomplish a common goal, under conditions that involve both positive interdependence (all members must cooperate to complete the task) and individual and group accountability (each member is accountable for the complete final outcome). Key Concepts •Positive Interdependence •Individual and Group Accountability •Face-to-Face Promotive Interaction •Teamwork Skills •Group Processing

38. 38

39. Teamwork Skills • Communication • Listening and Persuading • Decision Making • Conflict Management • Leadership 39

40. Group Processing Plus/Delta Format Delta (∆) Things Group Could Improve Plus (+) Things That Group Did Well

41. Professor's Role in • Formal Cooperative Learning • Specifying Objectives • Making Decisions • Explaining Task, Positive Interdependence, and Individual Accountability • Monitoring and Intervening to Teach Skills • Evaluating Students' Achievement and Group Effectiveness 41

42. Decisions,Decisions Group size? Group selection? Group member roles? How long to leave groups together? Arranging the room? Providing materials? Time allocation? 42

43. Formal Cooperative Learning Task Groups Perkins, David. 2003. King Arthur's Round Table: How collaborative conversations create smart organizations. NY: Wiley.

44. Formal Cooperative Learning – Types of Tasks • Jigsaw – Learning new conceptual/procedural material • 2. Peer Composition or Editing • 3. Reading Comprehension/Interpretation • 4. Problem Solving, Project, or Presentation • 5. Review/Correct Homework • 6. Constructive Academic Controversy • 7. Group Tests

45. Challenged-Based Learning • Problem-based learning • Case-based learning • Project-based learning • Learning by design • Inquiry learning • Anchored instruction John Bransford, Nancy Vye and Helen Bateman. Creating High-Quality Learning Environments: Guidelines from Research on How People Learn 45

46. Problem Based Cooperative Learning Format TASK: Solve the problem(s) or Complete the project. INDIVIDUAL: Estimate answer. Note strategy. COOPERATIVE: One set of answers from the group, strive for agreement, make sure everyone is able to explain the strategies used to solve each problem. EXPECTED CRITERIA FOR SUCCESS: Everyone must be able to explain the strategies used to solve each problem. EVALUATION: Best answer within available resources or constraints. INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNTABILITY: One member from your group may be randomly chosen to explain (a) the answer and (b) how to solve each problem. EXPECTED BEHAVIORS: Active participating, checking, encouraging, and elaborating by all members. INTERGROUP COOPERATION: Whenever it is helpful, check procedures, answers, and strategies with another group. 46

47. It could well be that faculty members of the twenty-first century college or university will find it necessary to set aside their roles as teachers and instead become designers of learning experiences, processes, and environments. James Duderstadt, 1999 We never educate directly, but indirectly by means of the environment. Whether we permit chance environments to do the work, or whether we design environments for the purpose makes a great difference. John Dewey, 1906 47

48. Team Charter • Team name, membership, and roles • Team Mission Statement • Anticipated results (goals) • Specific tactical objectives • Ground rules/Guiding principles for team participation • Shared expectations/aspirations

49. Code of Cooperation •EVERY member is responsible for the team’s progress and success. •Attend all team meetings and be on time. •Come prepared. •Carry out assignments on schedule. •Listen to and show respect for the contributions of other members; be an active listener. •CONSTRUCTIVELY criticize ideas, not persons. •Resolve conflicts constructively, •Pay attention, avoid disruptive behavior. •Avoid disruptive side conversations. •Only one person speaks at a time. •Everyone participates, no one dominates. •Be succinct, avoid long anecdotes and examples. •No rank in the room. •Respect those not present. •Ask questions when you do not understand. •Attend to your personal comfort needs at any time but minimize team disruption. •HAVE FUN!! •? Adapted from Boeing Aircraft Group Team Member Training Manual

50. Ten Commandments: An Affective Code of Cooperation • Help each other be right, not wrong. • Look for ways to make new ideas work, not for reasons they won't. • If in doubt, check it out! Don't make negative assumptions about each other. • Help each other win, and take pride in each other's victories. • Speak positively about each other and about your organization at every opportunity. • Maintain a positive mental attitude no matter what the circumstances. • Act with initiative and courage, as if it all depends on you. • Do everything with enthusiasm; it's contagious. • Whatever you want; give it away. • Don't lose faith. • Have fun Ford Motor Company 50