A Teacher Fosters Social Competence with Cooperative Learning

To summons this article Magnesio, S. & B. Davis. A T for from all(prenominal) one oneer Fosters affable Competence With accommodating Learning. San Clemente, CA Kagan Publishing. Kagan Online Magazine, excrete/Winter 2010. www. KaganOnline. com drop Mag, do we beat to rifle in sorts? Miss Mag, I shadowert realize with him. Miss Mag, can I change state only? Dodgeball tacticsduck, dart, and fleeseemed to be the enlivened plan in my partroom whenever I wanted my savants to give way in congregations. retributive try to work unitedly I would say again and again. As a new t severallyer, I was shocked to play that most of my savants didnt know how to work in a group.Many of my 4th- course of study students had been unitedly since kindergarten, yet they interacted as strangers. They struggled to agree their heads preceding(prenominal) water when it came to affectionate skills and group work. And I was dr throwing, t teaching back and forth, student to student , trying to keep up. workweek after week, I represent myself consumption more(prenominal)(prenominal) time public lecture nearly being team players and workings unitedly than I spent principle multiplication strategies and writing technical leads. My stump was becoming old and worn, and I was overwhelmed and tired.Week after week, I gear up myself spending more time talking just about being team players and working together than I spent teachingmultiplication strategies and writing good leads. My soapbox was becoming old and worn, and I was overwhelmed and tired. Many teachers experience challenges when they place students in a group and expect them to cooperate. As Johnson and Johnson (1990) come in out, Simply placing students in groups and heavy them to work together does not, in and of itself, turn cooperation (p. 29). Trying to get students to work conjunctively was one of the most frustrating aspects of my offshoot two years of teaching.The easy reply woul d contain been to throw my hands up and say, These kids just cant work together I could hold up given(p) in and assigned individual projects and allowed the students to work alone and be done with it. However, I was larn about reconciling erudition structures (Kagan & Kagan, 2009) in a graduate mentoring and generalisation program for beginning teachers, and I wondered if these structures would work in my classroom. This wondering became the focus of a classroom-based research project I conducted as part of the graduate program.I hoped this discover would help my students build positively charged brotherly skills and become achieverful working together. In particular, I wanted them to listen to each other, to solve problems collaboratively, and to teach one another. I foc apply my inquiry project on the following questions 1) How does a structural go about to accommodative information influence the loving skills of 4th graders? 2) How do co-op get winding structur es influence awareness of others feelings and encourage arrogate choices in brotherly settings? , and 3) What influence do student reflections have on amicable fundamental interactions?Related Literature Cooperative attainment has been defined as groups of students working together to complete a common assess (Johnson, Johnson, & Holubec, 2002). Numerous studies have measured the success of cooperative cultivation as an argumental manner regarding sociable skills make growment and student achievement across all levels, from master(a) grades by college. The general consensus is that cooperative attainment can, and usually does, result in positive student outcomes in all areas (Johnson & Johnson, 1990 Kagan & Kagan, 2009 Marzano, Pickering, & Pollock, 2001 Slavin, 1996). genial interaction conjecture (Piaget, 1970 Vygotsky, 1978) and motivational speculation (Maslow, 1954) both help explain the authorisation of cooperative larn. Social interaction supposition views eru dition as a social activity in which people learn by listening and talking to others. As Kauchak and Eggen (2007) explain Piaget views this social interaction as a catalyst for students to reevaluate their own beliefs about the gentleman Vygotsky sees social interaction as a vehicle for more knowledgeable people to share their expertness with others.In both instances, students learn by listening and talking. (pp. 305-306) In his theory of motivation, Maslow (1954) describe a hierarchy of regardfully that affects from demoralise needs (e. g. , hunger, guard) to higher(prenominal) needs (e. g. , esteem, belonging). He argued that people strive to meet their scorn needs in advance attempting to meet the higher needs. In Kagan Cooperative Learning, Kagan and Kagan (2009) explain the affinity amidst Maslows motivation theory and the impressiveness of cooperative attainmentIf students do not feel safe and included, their zippo is directed to meeting those deficiency needs and is not free to meet the need to know and understand. . . . When we adjust cooperative learning in place the need for safety is satisfied through 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 majority of interactions are teacher-student, which can create a competitive surroundings as students vie for the teachers approval. Cooperative learning helps balance this purlieu 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, somewhat paradoxically, the ability to cope depends on the ability to cooperate (p. 1. 18). several(prenominal) prominent researchers have positive unlike models of cooperative learning.For exam ple, two brothers, David and Roger Johnson, created the Learning unitedly and Student Controversy models (Johnson, Johnson, & Holubec, 2002) Robert Slavin (1996) developed the reciprocating saw II and Student Teams-Achievement Division models and Spencer Kagan (1994) developed the morphological set out to cooperative learning. Although different, these models each contain four defining elements of effective group interactions 1) positive interdependence, 2) individual accountability, 3) equal participation, and 4) simultaneous interaction.Johnson, Johnson, and Holubec (2002) include a twenty percent 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 knowledge, instruction, and writing instruction. Using several of the different cooperative learning models, the authors f ound that each method was successful in share students work together in science to solve problems while using the tools of instruction and writing.They suggested, however, that teachers begin with the Kagan structural approach before attempting the more complicated models of cooperative learning. Similarly, Muth (1997) found that cooperative learning could be apply effectively during maths instruction to summation student intuition of word problems, as well as to help them develop problem-solving skills. In the article Using Cooperative Learning To Improve Reading and written material in Mathematical Problem Solving, she provides examples of how to follow up cooperative learning in the math 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 coopera tive learning helped maximize student learning in lyric poem arts instruction. A descriptive piece of work of four teachers who implemented the Kagan Structural Approach during reading and writing instruction present the following benefits 1) higher level thinking, 2) get out communication between students, and 3) positive social relations.More recently, Law (2008) conducted two class 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 difference between the two groups, with more favorable perceptions of teachers instructional habituates and better reading comprehension in the experimental groups than in the control groups.In the second study, 51 second-graders participated in the instructional intervention program (cooperative learni ng). The results showed that students positive cooperative behavior and attitudes were related to their motivation and reading comprehension. When students perceived that their 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 c omposed from pre- and posttests revealed that the experimental group outperformed the comparison group on all measures of math achievement. some(prenominal) studies have focused on the intention 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 amend academic performance, as well as enhanced social skills development.