+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Here is my original posting to a variety of discussion groups followed
by the responses I received.
“When is cooperative learning not appropriate?”
My knee jerk reaction was to think, “It is always appropriate!”
Then I started to think carefully and it occurred to me that most
cooperative learning approaches call for a component to address
individual student accountability. This might take the form of an exam
at the end of a lesson, a report, an essay, a project presentation, etc.
Under these circumstances I would say that CL techniques would not
apply. They could be used to help students prepare for tests or peer
edit papers but the final activity should be carried out by each student
individually.
Can anyone else think of other educational objectives where CL would
not be appropriate?
If you would like to add two
2-cents to the discussion please continue to
e-mail me and I will add your
response to the others below.
visit my web site at:
http://_tedscooppage.homestead.com/index.html
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
University of Alaska Fairbanks
This isn't a direct answer to your question but a variation.
I work entirely with distance students.Most are physically isolated
from all of the other students in the class.While I agree with the
benefits of CL, implementation under these circumstances is more
difficult.Students can not travel to some central location
periodically.Course delivery occurs via audio conference bridging using
an 800 number.Adding CL audio conferencing would add a rather
significant monetary cost to the courses that f2f courses don't
encounter.Internet access is minimal at this time and will remain so
for the next few years.I would appreciate any suggestions that you or
others might have that might address this issue.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Al Roy <aroy@bristol.mass.edu>
It would probably not be appropriate to ask students to cooperate in the
reading of a novel by having every person in the group read a different
chapter of the book.
Just KiddingKeep The Faith
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Marie Miller-Whitehead marie@TVEE.ORG
http://www.tvee.org/
Having worked with assessment of both individual and cooperative learning it
would appear that CL does have fairly clear limitations depending upon the
goals of the particular project.Let me say that CL is particularly
appropriate for non-graded activities, adult learners working on project teams
or doing problem solving activities.CL may not allow the individual student
the opportunity to demonstrate creativity, it may not allow those who evaluate
and assess the project or product to definitively identify the unique
contribution of each of the members of the CL group; thus when it is desirable
to grade an individual's knowledge, product, or behavior (in some cases) CL
may not be the most appropriate method.That said, it IS entirely possible to
do all of the above using CL techniques and methods although it is a more
complex and time consuming approach than is assigning a score to the work of
an individual student.As you so succinctly point out CL is always appropriate
to the truly dedicated advocate of CL...without CL how would we do "team
problem solving" ....also, how does one draw the line anymore when we make
more and more use of ad hoc "virtual work teams" in the workplace?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Allen Wilkinson <aw@STRATOS.NET>
As a farm boy by heritage and watching professional scientists as an
adult, I believe that some people are most creative in solving problems
in the solitude of their own musings. So I would argue there are
learning styles best fostered by the opposite of cooperative learning.
Any co-believers out there.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Connie Hudgeons <connie@HANDYWERKS.COM>
As a long time user of CL,I've been reading this conversation with interest.
I have to agree with both sides of the issue.CL is, in my personal opinion,
very overused.I think that the underlying purpose of CL at all times is to
teach its name - cooperation.
I often combine that very independent work with CL -- requiring everyone to do
all the work on "pieces of the puzzle" so to speak, and then come together in
cooperative groups to do a large culminating activity that requires all the
parts.
PBL (problem based learning) often requires this type of structure.
I think there are lots of time when cooperative learning is appropriate -- say
reviewing for tests, or reviewing lecture notes -- and times when it is not
appropriate -- say introducing new concepts or strategies that have to
be mastered to move forward in content progression.As a teacher, I use
CL -- say fish bowling -- as a means of evaluating all that independent stuff.
So, Allen, I agree with you.Solitude is a great motivator of creativity and is
just as needed as CL.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
tony <A.H.Wright@MASSEY.AC.NZ>
I think it depends on the level of focus you are taking. Very often there
is an important place for individual effort within a cooperative task. For
example, when writing a report, it is often best if one person goes off and
writes the first draft that is then edited by the group. An exam is a
similar example. The co-operative task can lead up to the examination which
is individual.
I guess what I am saying is that co-operative learning probably has a role
in most learning situations, but everything doesn't have to be done
co-operatively.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jan Shetzlerjshetz@UDel.Edu
I think maybe CL is not appropriate when the task or problem to solve is not
challenging enough.There are times when the assignment given to students
is something they can do alone and giving it as a group assignment will only
reinforce the idea that each person should do just part of the assignment
and then copy each other's answers or when one person does the work and
others freeload.I think it is important for the task to be difficult
enough that students need each other.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Lauren Eve Pomerantzlauren@teachspace.org
Let me preface my statement by admitting that I am not a schoolteacher.My
paid position is as a technical writer and software trainer.As the
Programs Coordinator for the CSSC I develop and give presentations with
various levels of student interaction.However, I am a perpetual student,
taking seminars at local colleges regularly.I am now working on a degree
in Telecommunications Management.
I also apologize because this is a long post.I have strong feelings on the
subject.
Cooperative Learning works when the students are of similar abilities, level
of interest, and devotion to their education.It helps if the students
like, or at least respect each other.I despise cooperative learning.I am
intelligent, I write and organize information well, I like research, and I
am a disgusting perfectionist.I was (and still am) the student who regards
a B as a personal failure.When assigned a term paper, I do the research
the first weekend and write the paper the second.I turn things in early.
Other students hated me, and frankly, I don't blame them a bit.
In middle and upper school, in project after project, I was taken advantage
of by students who worked more slowly than I did, who were sloppy with their
work, and who would be satisfied to get a B or a C on a project.In
college, when I learned to refuse to be taken advantage of, I dreaded these
projects.I would have my work done a month before the due date and would
experience growing levels of frustration and resentment as that date
approached and my teammates pulled all nighters to meet it.
I would bet that if you allowed students to comment anonymously on their
experiences, you would find students who shared my frustrations and who
despised such projects as much as I do.
In my current program of studies, cooperative learning in required in some
courses.My experience is that in the labs, this is fun.When learning new
skills like punching telephone blocks, the lab turns into a social, where we
gab, joke, and critique each other's technique.
On the other hand, a recent history class required cooperation on a
presentation.My partner contributed absolutely nothing, and I did all of
the work.What can you do?If a project gets a C, it isn't divided into an
A for those who slaved and an F for those who worked.If your partner is
doing C or F work and you want an A, you have to make up the difference.In
a class with limited grading opportunities (two tests, two presentations,
and a final) every grade is critical.Had I received a C on that project,
it would have brought my overall grade down from an A to a B.
One teacher had an interesting approach.In a business class, we divided
into groups and worked all trimester on a business plan.At the end of the
class, our teacher asked us to comment on what we had learned about
ourselves and teamwork through the project.Then he asked how much people
had worked on the project, from most to least.It was last summer, I was in
the middle of Y2K conversions, and I had to admit that I had worked the
least.Everyone else got variations of A, depending on where they ended up
in vote.I got a B.This, I think, requires a level of honesty that most
middle and upper school students wouldn't have.I didn't have it then.
Cooperative learning is a nice concept, but it doesn't match the real world.
In the real world, you must take your own grades home to your parents.Your
parents do not care if the average grade in your team is better or worse
than last semester.The improvement or decline in your teammates' grades do
not count on your report card.They do not count on your college
application.They do not count on your thesis.They do not count at your
job interview.They do not count at your performance evaluation.In the
real world, you live and die by your own deeds.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Lillian Seese" <lseese@stlcc.cc.mo.us>
I've followed this discussion - and your web site - for a long time.I tend
to think that whenever CL is not appropriate, "group work" is.
This, of course, opens up the question of "what's the difference?"I feel
that CL always involves students learning new stuff, where as group work
often only involves practicing skills.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
SALLY MCCOMBS <mccombs1@EMAIL.MSN.COM>
Of course, you're right that there are times that it's better to let
kids work individually, if only because there are kids who really do better
when allowed to work alone.I think the old "variety is the spice of life"
applies here.
However, I must mention that it is possible to use CL when testing,
also.I've used the following technique and it's been successful.First,
each student must complete the test individually.Then they get into their
group with another blank copy of the test.They discuss their individual
answers and must agree on a final answer that they put on the "group" test.
Finally, they turn in all the tests.As far as grading goes, of course it's
up to the teacher.You can either count just the group test or you can give
a group grade and an individual one.
I don't use this for all my tests, but it does have some advantages for
occasional use.The students I teach (middle schoolers who have been
retained at least once) are notoriously bad at taking tests.This method
helps them get over the anxiety and get in the habit of reading and
analyzing test questions instead of skimming and guessing.
Now, time to go to work. (sigh)Our kids are gone, so it's just the
mopping up. (G)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Wes Clarkson <wpclarks@episd.org>
The individual assessment component of cooperative learning, along with components such as jig
sawing, rely on individual learning, but they are, never-the-less, integral parts of the CL process.
CL is not always "group learning," but rather a cooperative effort where students take individual
responsibilities for specific tasks and activities, which they tne use to help each other learn all the
material in question.
I've used CL extensively in the classroom, as a staff developer, and as a math facilitator for over
ten years.
My response to the idea that CL is not always appropriate, is that cooperative learning, properly
designed and supported with appropriate materials, can be used effectively to teach any class, any
group of students, any time any where.The difficulty is that it requires more planning and more
physical effort on the part of the teacher than a direct teaching or lecture style of presentation.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
jim borgford-parnellbparnell@u.washington.edu
As to your question, "When is cooperative learning not appropriate?"If I
had to choose only one learning format in my teaching I would choose
cooperative learning.However, I don't have to choose only one and my
experience and training has shown me that too much of anything is never an
appropriate choice.
This discussion of cooperative learning has me thinking about how odd our
educational system is, in that we gather our learners together into small
spaces and then treat them as if each person is alone in the room.One
would imagine that concepts such as cooperative learning, group discussion,
socially shared cognition, active learning, and others, would be the driving
forces behind this system in which people are intended to learn in groups.
Instead, the underlying concept seems to be economy; it is more economical
to teach individuals if they are all gathered shoulder-to-shoulder and
listening to one teacher.
Learning theories and practice models that foreground groups and social
situations are alien to this system, and are usually compromised by the
grading systems, competition, individualistic ethos, and lack of pedagogical
preparation.Experiential learning and situated cognition are radical and
expensive notions that are out of place in our classrooms.At the same
time, we expend enormous time and effort creating elaborate systems to force
people to learn on their own, to not look over their neighbor's shoulder, to
not talk in class, and to separate their sense-making from everyone except
the teacher and the disembodied voices in the text.Our educational system,
reminds me more of Hollywood's version of the Roman gladiatorial games, in
which it was every man for himself and the last one standing was the winner.
Well one thing is for sure, there is no lack need for instructional
consultants in this system.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Karen Fredericksonkf6@post.queensu.ca
I always enjoy your postings and really like your website.This aspect of
appropriateness seems to be more related to a philosophical perspective
rather than "appropriateness."If teachers are plugging coop learning into
the traditional teaching and learning perspective, then problems arise.
What do you think?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Beverly K. Maddoxbmaddox@mail.snider.net
Ted, I've read with interest your posts and responses concerning cooperative learning.I've not
much to add except for two strategies concerning assessment/grades.A friend of mine who
teaches high school English in Fairfax county, VA, devised a strategy to help with grades when she
uses groups for projects--She doesn't claim it as a fully original idea, but she's incredibly modest
(also retiring in the fall, to education's great loss).I'm patching in the handout I use in workshops
rather than adding an attachment:
++++++++++++++++++++
GROUP SELF EVALUATION
Each kid gets an index card, records own name and names of other members, and
assigns points to each member. Total points possible for group must equal
number of members times 25. If a kid decides to reduce someone’s grade by a
certain number of points, s/he must give those points to another kid. Here’s an
example of how the individual kids in a 4-person group might grade each other
and how to figure their grades for group work.
KidsA’s assignedB’s assignedC’s assignedD’s assignedTOTAL
Scoresscoresscoresscores
A27262527105%
B2225232293%
C24252626100%
D26242626102%
Total scores100100100100
Kid A gets 103 % of group’s grade. Say group’s grade is 89, then A gets 103% of 89, or 92.
Kid B gets 93 % of 89, or 83. Of course, the teacher has to do a little more complicated math if
there are 3-person or 5-person groups, but calculators make that pretty easy and foolproof.
KidsA’s assignedB’s assignedC’s assignedD’s assignedTOTAL
Scoresscoresscoresscores
A272725105%
B22202184%
C262829110%
Total757575
If group’s grade is 89, A gets 105 %, or 93; B gets 84 %, or 75; C gets 110%, or 98.
Keep cards confidential to allow teacher to compensate for any vendettas. If a kid has been
absent for most of the group’s work, provide alternative assignment and tell the group not to
include him or her in the scoring.
Idea credited to Ann Teague, English teacher at Fairfax
High School, Fairfax, VA
One of my strategies that turns a testing session into a learning session is to administer a test
individually, then, after everyone is finished, distribute the test to groups and allow the group to
"retake" the test.the Group submits one answer sheet with everyone's name on it.I grade
individual tests and the group tests, averaging each individual grade with the group's grade.A
professor of mine in graduate school years ago used this strategy and I thought it was the best
teaching strategy in my graduate program; I learned so much from those heated debates in my
groups.I've always felt the most learning I did in that class took place in my test groups.This
works best in a 90 minute "block" class, but I've occasionally modified it by administering the
group test the next day or giving everyone a take-home copy and allowing them to "research"
before the group test.There are other modifications I occasionally use, too, such as requiring that the handwriting vary.Of course, the majority of the points come from application, synthesis, and evaluation type questions.Grading is a bear, but I don't do this with every test--only ones that count for many points.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
LegendRNM@AOL.COM
Hi to all, I just wanted to respond on two points raised by Ted re: coop
learning.First, in response to the accountability issue, I disagree that
the groups can only be used for practice or studying and not for carrying out
the final project or presentation, etc.Think of Slavin's STAD technique--
it provides both for group and individualcontribution to a final grade--
it's a perfect method of doing authentic assessment.
Second, I agree that my knee-jerk reaction is that coop learning is always
possible (and necessary!!).However, many school use homogeneous whole class
grouping ( a sort of tracking at the elementary level).Within these classes
teachers would have a tremendous responsibility to see that students remain
on task, maintain roles, etc.The whole idea of ZPD is incorporated into
coop learning, so if students are all at a low level, real progress may be
slow or impossible.Behavioral issues may also arise.Also, teachers who
have heterogeneously grouped whole classes may still choose to group students
according to achievement level (sometimes called "ability level" !! LOL)I
understand that grouping this way allows the teacher to better focus their
energies and materials, but then the ZPD issues enters, as well as
expectations and non-challenging tasks.Anyway, my two cents, for what it's
worth, Peace, R. Caporrimo
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
dennis roberts <dmr@EMAIL.PSU.EDU>
it is important in this discussion to make sure of whether we are
discussing the learning OF a task/skill ... or the performance OF that
task/skill
in some sense, you could argue that cl is always present ... since, it is
very difficult to think of any task/skill that one learns ... where he/she
learns it alone ... in isolation from people ... resources ...
if that is the conception of cl ... then there is nothing to debate
but, of course, if that is the case ... cl as a separate notion to argue
for ... lacks merit
fundamentally, one has to look at the task ... and ask: does it have to be
performed alone ... and if the answer is yes (like a kids first piano solo
recital) ... then even if one gets help along the way in learning the task
... should we put it in the category of cl?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
John Baughman <jbaughman@EVERETT.WEDNET.EDU>
In my experience at the elementary level, regardless of whether or not
teachers are cognizant of Slavin's "STAD" model, the issue of individual
accountability is more often than not neglected.
By neglecting it, we delude ourselves into the idea that "all" are
learning to standard- not just the competent ones.
Second, it is my NOTION that paired cooperation is all that some groups of
kids can handle because of the behavioral chemistry of the group.I made
the make mistake of assuming
otherwise.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
KGarc@AOL.COM
In a message dated 6/14/00 9:55:48 AM Pacific Daylight
Time,
jbaughman@EVERETT.WEDNET.EDU writes:
<< Second, it is my NOTION that paired cooperation
is all that some groups of
kids can handle
because of the behavioral chemistry of the group.I
made
the make mistake
of assuming
otherwise.
>>
You're right...in this case, there needs to be a strong
connection to the end
result, to get them to encourage each other through
the process. For example,
one cooperative learning project I use involves thekids
being travel
agents, using all their school subjects. In one part
they need to research a
geographic area, determine what there is to see and
do there, understand
political aspects and write a travel itinerary to
sell their travel package
to customers. They KNOW this needs to get done collaboratively
in order to be
ready for "Travel Day" where the customers come in
and look at all the teams'
travel packages. Teams that have difficulty need to
get through the process
so they have something to sell. Teams with trouble
are closely facilitated by
the instructor BUT they also have a lot of momentum
and commitment from
within the group to succeed in their interpersonal
negotiations because of
the culminating sales activity. So I guess my point
is that behavioral
chemistry can be overcome through a strong motivator
which includes a fun
culminating activity.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Catherine Scott <c.scott@UWS.EDU.AU>
In response to Dennis's point that isn't all learning co-operative learning
because there are always people around when we learn, (I hope this does not
bowdlerise Dennis's argument).
>in some sense, you could argue that cl is always present ... since, it is
very difficult to think of any task/skill that one learns ... where
he/shelearns it alone ... in isolation from people ... resources ...
My take on it would be that an essential aspect of CL is that it avoids
competition between students, and using competitivenessas a 'motivator'.
Thus having people around falls way short of a sufficient condition for the
prescence of CL.
Sorry if this is less than articulate - I am typing and talking on the
phone at the same time.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Linda <metzkel@together.net>
Linda Metzke, Lyndon State College, Lyndonville, VT
I actually use cooperative learning for exams sometimes
because I teach
future teachers and sometimes the accountability issue
is the ability to
work together! But, sometimes one must give students
information that is
not readily available and then cooperative learning
is not the best
format.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Paul Hertzel <hertzpau@niacc.cc.ia.us>
Jim Borgford-Parnell wrote,
At the same time, we expend
enormous time and effort
creating elaborate systems
to force people to learn on
their own, to not look over
their neighbor's shoulder,
to not talk in class. .
.
In the colleges I have taught, the above words would be interpreted
as confusing "learning" with "testing". We expend enormous
time
and effort to make sure students test on their own, do not look over
their neighbor's shoulder during tests, do not talk during testing
. . .
But we make no such efforts during learning. Studying together
is
encouraged, looking sideways during class to see how others have
interpreted activities, and asking questions is encouraged. I
have
never been to a college where it was otherwise.
The important distinction, I think, is that the learning (and therefore
the testing of it) really is a personal, individual thing that takes
place
inside one's mind, but cooperative methods are encouraged as useful
means
toward achieving it.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Larry D. Spence" <lds7@psu.edu>
Paul Hertzel wrote:
>The important distinction, I think, is that the learning (and therefore
>the testing of it) really is a personal, individual thing that takes
place
>inside one's mind, but cooperative methods are encouraged as useful
means
>toward achieving it.
I disagree and many others would too. Learning is fundamentally
social. It takes place in social settings by communities of
practitioners. It is tested by whether or not it improves practices
and
ultimately the quality of human life. That is why testing procedures
that
merely attempt to audit individual brain contents ultimately encourage
rote
memorization and frustrate meaningful learning.
What is at stake here are some widely different theories of learning.
If
you start with the associationist assumptions that Hertel does then
collaborative and cooperative techniques in the classroom are likely
to be
more costly in time and effort with little impact on learning.
That's one
reason why students resist the techniques. In my experience,
changing
techniques without changing assumptions is a waste.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Paul Hertzel <hertzpau@niacc.cc.ia.us>
Larry Spence wrote,
>I disagree and many others would too. Learning is fundamentally
>social. . .
If you can learn independently of a social setting, then for sure
learning is not fundamentally social. Learning often happens
in a
social setting, but it is not fundamentally social any more than
forgetting is fundamentally social.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Bonnie Mullinix <bmullini@monmouth.edu>
Paul Hertzel wrote:
> regarding what Larry Spence wrote,
>
> >I disagree and many others would too. Learning is fundamentally
> >social. . .
>
> Paul Hertzel: If you can learn independently of a social setting,
> then for sure learning is not fundamentally social. Learning
often happens in a
> social setting, but it is not fundamentally social any more than
forgetting is fundamentally social.
Just to break this either/or cycle up a bit, I would venture the safe
guess that many people would agree that not only are we not sure
precisely how learning happens, but we maintain very different views
of
this process. We do know that questioning our understanding of
the
learning process helps to inform our practice as facilitators of
learning. The best models of learning (in my opinion) are those
that
both recognize that learning happens in many different ways and settings
(by addressing learning styles and opportunities for individual
reflection as well as interaction with others and the environment using
a variety of techniques/approaches). They further recognize that
while
everyone may have a preferred learning mode (which may well be
discipline-linked), the more we can learn to function in other
modes/settings/situations and expand our learning repertoire, the better
off we are as learners. So I guess I would be disappointed in
any
learning environment that did not recognize that learning is not
either/or (not that you actually said it was by the way). Rather,
effective learning environments would strive to offer such strategic
variety as can help learners to push beyond their little bubble and
expand their comfort levels to encompass a broader and more dynamic
range of learning styles and modes.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"jim borgford-parnell" <bparnell@u.washington.edu>
Paul Hertzel wrote:
In the colleges I have taught, the above words would be interpreted
as confusing "learning" with "testing".
I must say that in my own teaching practice it has been a long time
since I
have separated learning from the assessment of learning. I suppose
that if
you subscribe to their separation, my words might sound confusing.
In that
light, I can also see how interaction between students is only viewed
as a
study convenience rather than an important aspect of learning (you
will
notice I didn't say "all" learning), and as such should not be dismissed
in
the assessment of learning.
I am also very happy to hear that you only teach on enlightened campuses,
where chairs aren't bolted to the floor, where too many people aren't
crammed into rooms too small to enable intelligible discussions, where
faculty know how to lead discussions and create learning activities
that
take advantage of the student resources in each class. I have
to wonder
however, how it is that you know how everyone on your campus teaches.
Having the autonomy to teach collaboratively and cooperatively isn't
the
same as doing it, or knowing how to do it.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Louis_Schmier <lschmier@valdosta.edu>
Interesting question. Speaking as a reformed "talkohoic," I'm
not sure
there is a time when collaborative, cooperative, team, or whatever
the
going term is out of line. I am lucky in that I can move chairs
around,
but that makes it easier. I'm not sure bolted chairs are really
the
obstacle people use as an excuse. What that saying about where
there is a
will, there is......?
Normally when I am confronted with a student who doesn't "want to depend
on anyone" for his or her grade, I tell that student to go out and
find
one professional, just one, who isn't dependent on someone else for
his or
her success. If one could be found, I would teach that student
personally
in any manner he or she wishes. Hasn't happened yet. I
had a student
challenge the triad arrangement of the class, and I asked her what
her
parents did for a living. Her father was a surgeon and her mother
was an
accountant. I told her to talk to them about not depending on
others.
She quietly came into the next class and joined her triad.,
You know, one of my childhood heroes is gone. The Lone Ranger,
alias
Clayton Moore, died recently at the age of 85. I used to stay
glued to
the radio and then the television listening and watching. I'd
go to the
Saturday movies to see the Masked Man do in the crooks. The William
Tell
Overture, his theme, was my first introduction to classical music.
I used
to run down to the corner newstand each Thursday to get the latest
comic
book. I ate Cheerios because I knew he did. I sent away
for silver
bullets, black masks, and goodness knows what. I wore costumes.
When we
played cowboys and indians, someone always wanted to sing out:
"Hi-yo
Silverrrrrrrr, Awayyyyyy"
The lone hero, the single trail blazer is the idol in our
American society. It's that individual thing. We place the goals
of the
individual ahead of the group. Community harmony is not a particular
cardinal value. It's a socialist thing.
If the truth be told, political and social philosophy not withstanding,
even if you are accustomed to working alone in a competitive rather
cooperative environment, you can learn the advantages
of teamwork, of people skills, of communication skills.
I have to do it myself and I can't do it alone. Need to support
each
other, to encourage each other, to help each other. You need
to be
willing to ask for help which is difficult for some intellectual macho
types as well as some shy types. But, when people work together,
they get
that help. It wields a team. Three people cooperating on
a project
allows them to reach much higher than they expected they would ever
be
able to do.
A close-knit team, drawing on particular strength, talents, abilities,
skills, of each member. What one person lacks can be made up
by another
member; one person's talent and abilities is shared by all.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Louis_Schmier <lschmier@valdosta.edu>
Interesting question. Speaking as a reformed "talkohoic," I'm
not sure
there is a time when collaborative, cooperative, team, or whatever
the
going term is out of line. I am lucky in that I can move chairs
around,
but that makes it easier. I'm not sure bolted chairs are really
the
obstacle people use as an excuse. What that saying about where
there is a
will, there is......?
Normally when I am confronted with a student who doesn't "want to depend
on anyone" for his or her grade, I tell that student to go out and
find
one professional, just one, who isn't dependent on someone else for
his or
her success. If one could be found, I would teach that student
personally
in any manner he or she wishes. Hasn't happened yet. I
had a student
challenge the triad arrangement of the class, and I asked her what
her
parents did for a living. Her father was a surgeon and her mother
was an
accountant. I told her to talk to them about not depending on
others.
She quietly came into the next class and joined her triad.,
You know, one of my childhood heroes is gone. The Lone Ranger,
alias
Clayton Moore, died recently at the age of 85. I used to stay
glued to
the radio and then the television listening and watching. I'd
go to the
Saturday movies to see the Masked Man do in the crooks. The William
Tell
Overture, his theme, was my first introduction to classical music.
I used
to run down to the corner newstand each Thursday to get the latest
comic
book. I ate Cheerios because I knew he did. I sent away
for silver
bullets, black masks, and goodness knows what. I wore costumes.
When we
played cowboys and indians, someone always wanted to sing out:
"Hi-yo
Silverrrrrrrr, Awayyyyyy"
The lone hero, the single trail blazer is the idol in our
American society. It's that individual thing. We place the goals
of the
individual ahead of the group. Community harmony is not a particular
cardinal value. It's a socialist thing.
If the truth be told, political and social philosophy not withstanding,
even if you are accustomed to working alone in a competitive rather
cooperative environment, you can learn the advantages
of teamwork, of people skills, of communication skills.
I have to do it myself and I can't do it alone. Need to support
each
other, to encourage each other, to help each other. You need
to be
willing to ask for help which is difficult for some intellectual macho
types as well as some shy types. But, when people work together,
they get
that help. It wields a team. Three people cooperating on
a project
allows them to reach much higher than they expected they would ever
be
able to do.
A close-knit team, drawing on particular strength, talents, abilities,
skills, of each member. What one person lacks can be made up
by another
member; one person's talent and abilities is shared by all.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"jim borgford-parnell" <bparnell@u.washington.edu>
Louis:
I'm in complete agreement with your points. Chairs bolted to
the floor are
often a real nuisance, but they are not the real problem. The
real problem
(from my perspective) is that these physical limitations, which are
institutionally built-in, are illustrations of, metaphors for, and
often
concrete evidence of, very limited considerations of a wide range of
appropriate pedagogies. No, it is not the chairs, it is the intransigent
mind that is bolted to one way to teach and one way to learn. I also
agree
that cooperative(esque) learning just makes sense, although I can well
imagine learning goals and content that call for more individual efforts.
A major theme in the discussions this past week has been the social
aspects
of learning. Part of the debate has degenerated into an either/or
argument,
which is fine if contained on the theoretical level, but on a practical
level this either/or stance is troubling and problematic. I think
it is
often (not always) the case that junior faculty members and TAs are
at a
developmental level that requires them to narrowly focus their personal
working theories of teaching and learning. They need that steady
anchor in
the rough seas of pedagogy. However, at some point, when they've
grown
accustomed to the water, they need to free themselves from that anchor
and
take advantage of the current, the tides, and different locales.
As faculty
developers, we often provide some of the anchors, but we also need
to
provide the means for cutting the ropes. We can't do that if
our own
beliefs act as blinders to other possibilities. Bonnie Mullinex said
it well
in an earlier Email:
"I would be disappointed in any learning environment that did
not recognize
that learning is not either/or (not that you actually said it was by
the
way). Rather, effective learning environments would strive to
offer such
strategic variety as can help learners to push beyond their little
bubble
and expand their comfort levels to encompass a broader and more dynamic
range of learning styles and modes."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Theall, Michael" <Theall.Michael@uis.edu>
CL is appropriate when it is the most potentially productive method
available to meet instructional (teacher and learner) needs.
It's less
appropriate when other methods offer greater potential or when its
effects
may be dfferential. It's inappropriate when it might interfere
with
learning for individuals or groups. In other words, I am
not comfortable
with judging any technique in a binary way because the range of
possibilities is too broad and there are always alternatives to consider.
Likewise, judging out of context is not a good idea. Like anything
else
instructional, CL's effectiveness depends on a complex mix of elements,
and
it's a big task to pre-specify the full set of situations in all three
categories above. The best we can do is to know what are the
intended
outcomes, to know the learners, to know the available resources, and
to know
the technique well enough to adjust it to fit the needs of the situation.
There's that old joke, "A camel is a horse designed by a committee",
but the
truth is that for its environment, the camel is much better designed
than
the horse. We can acknowledge the value of both species
in their own
environments without having to list one as superior to the other in
general.
I suspect that in general, CL's merits outweigh its limitations and
that
they do so pretty consistently except in cases where the use of the
technique is foolish (as in the example about having students each
read one
chapter in a book), or when idiosyncratic personal issues conflict
with the
process and its intents (as in the egotistical view of the person who
can't stand
for others to get credit for "HIS" work). While I do agree that
sometimes individual
reflection is important, I also think the case of the "farm boy" solving
problems is more
infrequent than the writer imagines it to be, and/or that the farm
boy might
have solved the problem faster or more efficiently if he had had someone
else to work with. The American icon is the clever, capable.
intelligent-but-not-necessarily-educated, individualistic, independent,
enterpreneurial type who defies the dull thinking of the "crowd", beats
the
odds, and alone produces some brilliant solution resulting in fame
and
fortune. We cling to that notion and attend to the pronouncements
of those
few lucky individuals who have succeeded (e.g., Ted Turner ... "I didn't
fail Princeton, Princeton failed me") while ignoring the fact that
they
probably couldn't get along well enough with others to work productively
in
any other mode except alone. For every Turner, though, I would
hazard the
guess that there are thousands who profit from the well-structured
exchange
of ideas and the feedback of a peer or similar group. Despite
the "I work
alone!" cries of the few, the reality is that the current workplace
reflects
CL much more than it does the ivory tower individual.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++