A Teacher Fosters Social Competence with Cooperative Learning

To cite this article Magnesio, S. & B. Davis. A instructor Fosters neighborly Competence With Cooperative Learning. San Clemente, CA Kagan Publishing. Kagan Online Magazine, F all(prenominal)/Winter 2010. www. KaganOnline. com cast Mag, do we hold up to build in groups? Miss Mag, I tail endt snuff it with him. Miss Mag, can I work exclusively? Dodgeball tacticsduck, dart, and fleeseemed to be the game plan in my classroom whenever I wanted my pupils to work in groups. Just try to work together I would say again and again. As a bare-assed tutorer, I was shocked to find that most of my learners didnt know how to work in a group.Many of my 4th-grade students had been together since kindergarten, yet they interacted as strangers. They struggled to observe their heads above water when it came to affectionate skills and group work. And I was drowning, trecital back and forth, student to student, trying to keep up. Week after week, I found myself consumption more time talking about creation team players and on the job(p) together than I spent teaching multiplication strategies and committal to writing intimately-be realised leads. My soapbox was becoming old and worn, and I was overwhelmed and tired.Week after week, I found myself spending more time talking about being team players and working together than I spent teachingmultiplication strategies and writing unafraid leads. My soapbox was becoming old and worn, and I was overwhelmed and tired. Many teachers experience challenges when they assign students in a group and expect them to cooperate. As Johnson and Johnson (1990) point out, only placing students in groups and telling them to work together does not, in and of itself, produce cooperation (p. 29). seek to get students to work jointly was one(a) of the most frustrating aspects of my world-class two years of teaching.The easy solution would arrest been to throw my turn over up and say, These kids just cant work together I could have given in and assigned individual projects and allowed the students to work unaccompanied and be done with it. However, I was instruction about reconciling tuition structures (Kagan & Kagan, 2009) in a graduate mentoring and induction program for outgrowth teachers, and I wondered if these structures would work in my classroom. This wondering became the focus of a classroom-based search project I conducted as part of the graduate program.I hoped this larn would foster my students build positive social skills and become successful working together. In particular, I wanted them to listen to each other, to solve problems collaboratively, and to teach one another. I focused my inquiry project on the next questions 1) How does a structural approach to accommodative erudition influence the social skills of 4th graders? 2) How do conjunct encyclopedism structures influence awareness of others feelings and supercharge appropriate choices in social settings? , an d 3) What influence do student reflections have on social interactions?Related Literature Cooperative breeding has been define as groups of students working together to complete a common labor movement (Johnson, Johnson, & Holubec, 2002). legion(predicate) studies have measured the success of conjunctive reading as an instructional method regarding social skills development and student acquirement across all takes, from primary grades finished college. The general consensus is that conjunct learning can, and usually does, result in positive student outcomes in all areas (Johnson & Johnson, 1990 Kagan & Kagan, 2009 Marzano, Pickering, & Pollock, 2001 Slavin, 1996).Social interaction theory (Piaget, 1970 Vygotsky, 1978) and motivational theory (Maslow, 1954) both booster explain the effectiveness of cooperative learning. Social interaction theory views learning as a social action in which people learn by listening and talking to others. As Kauchak and Eggen (200 7) explain Piaget views this social interaction as a catalyst for students to valuate their own beliefs about the world Vygotsky sees social interaction as a vehicle for more knowledgeable people to share their expertise with others.In both instances, students learn by listening and talking. (pp. 305-306) In his theory of motivation, Maslow (1954) depict a hierarchy of postulate that moves from lower needs (e. g. , hunger, safety) to higher needs (e. g. , esteem, belonging). He argued that people strive to meet their lower needs sooner attempting to meet the higher needs. In Kagan Cooperative Learning, Kagan and Kagan (2009) explain the relationship in the midst of Maslows motivation theory and the effectiveness of cooperative learningIf students do not feel safe and included, their cipher is directed to meeting those privation needs and is not free to meet the need to know and understand. . . . When we lay cooperative learning in place the need for safety is comfortable th rough social norms (no put downs disagreeing politely). The need for inclusion is satisfied through teambuilding and classbuilding. . . . With the needs of safety and security satisfied, the students have more free energy to move up the hierarchy, striving for esteem and knowledge. (p. 4. 13)Moreover, in many classrooms, the bulk of interactions are teacher-student, which can create a competitive surround as students vie for the teachers approval. Cooperative learning helps balance this environment by encouraging students to work together to achieve learning goals. As Kagan and Kagan (2009) point out, We live in an interdependent world in which, passably paradoxically, the ability to compete depends on the ability to cooperate (p. 1. 18). Several large(p) researchers have developed various models of cooperative learning.For example, two brothers, David and Roger Johnson, created the Learning together and pupil Controversy models (Johnson, Johnson, & Holubec, 2002) Robert Slav in (1996) developed the Jigsaw II and Student Teams-Achievement Division models and Spencer Kagan (1994) developed the Structural accession to cooperative learning. Although different, these models each block four defining elements of effective group interactions 1) positive interdependence, 2) individual accountability, 3) capable participation, and 4) simultaneous interaction.Johnson, Johnson, and Holubec (2002) include a fifth elementgroup processing. Numerous practitioner studies have examined the impact of cooperative learning on student achievement and social skills development. For example, Nesbit and Rogers (1997) describe the benefits of integrating cooperative learning with science, reading, and writing instruction. Using several of the different cooperative learning models, the authors found that each method was successful in helping students work together in science to solve problems while using the tools of reading and writing.They suggested, however, that teachers b egin with the Kagan structural approach before attempting the more complicated models of cooperative learning. Similarly, Muth (1997) found that cooperative learning could be used effectively during mathsematics instruction to ontogenesis student comprehension of word problems, as well as to help them develop problem-solving skills. In the article Using Cooperative Learning To change Reading and Writing in Mathematical Problem Solving, she provides examples of how to implement cooperative learning in the mathematics classroom.Based on her experiences, Muth concludes that cooperative learning can improve reading and writing, as well as interpersonal skills, during mathematics instruction, particularly when students are working on problem-solving strategies. Bromley and Modlo (1997) found that cooperative learning helped maximize student learning in language liberal arts instruction. A descriptive study of four teachers who implemented the Kagan Structural Approach during reading a nd writing instruction demonstrated the following benefits 1) higher level thinking, 2) fracture communication between students, and 3) positive social relations.More recently, righteousness (2008) conducted two separate experimental studies on the effects of cooperative learning on 2nd-graders motivation and comprehension of text. In the first study, students in cooperative learning groups (n = 160) were compared with their counterparts in traditional instruction groups (n = 107). The results showed a significant variety between the two groups, with more favorable perceptions of teachers instructional practices and better reading comprehension in the experimental groups than in the control groups.In the import study, 51 second-graders participated in the instructional intervention program (cooperative learning). The results showed that students positive cooperative behavior and attitudes were related to their motivation and reading comprehension. When students perceived that th eir peers were willing to help each other and were committed to the group, they tended to be more motivated and performed better in reading comprehension. Numerous school-based studies in various grade levels have investigated the effects of using the Kagan Structural Approach to cooperative learning (Cline, 2007 Dotson, 2001 Howard, 2006 Murie, 2004).Consistently, these studies have shown positive effects on student achievement, attitudes, and engagement. Cline, for example, investigated the effects of using Kagan cooperative learning structures in her 5th-grade classes. During the 16-week study, she implemented the structures (e. g. , RallyCoach, RoundTable) during guided practice in one math class in a comparison group, she used a more traditional method of instruction (e. g. , students working alone). Data collected from pre- and posttests revealed that the experimental group outperformed the comparison group on all measures of math achievement.Several studies have focused on t he role of the teacher in implementing cooperative learning (Ding, Li, Piccolo, & Kulm, 2007 Leonard & McElroy, 2000 Lotan, 2003 Siegel, 2005). These studies concluded that the teachers decisions about how group tasks are set up, as well as his or her interventions during the group processing, are crucial to the success of cooperative learning in the classroom. In summary, findings from numerous studies demonstrate the positive outcomes of using cooperative learning throughout the curriculum. These benefits include improved academic performance, as well as enhanced social skills development.