A 

Abortion
Accounting
Advertising
Africa
African-American Studies
Aging
Agriculture
American Indian Studies
Anthropology
Archaeology
Architecture
Argumentative
Art: Artists (Alphabetized)
Art: General
Become an Affiliate and Earn $$$
Biographies (Alphabetized)
Book Reviews (Non-Fiction) (Alphabetized)
Business: Companies (Alphabetized)
Business: General
Business: Industries (Alphabetized)
Business: International
Business: Small
California
Canada
Caribbean
Child Abuse
China
Communication: Journalism
Communication: Language & Speech
Communication: Media
Communication: Non-Verbal
Communication: Television
Communication: Television & Children
Communism
Computer Science
Consumerism
Criminal Justice: General
Criminal Justice: Juvenile Delinquency
Criminal Justice: Police Science
Criminal Justice: Prisons
Cuba
Death & Dying: Euthanasia
Death & Dying: General
Death & Dying: Suicide
Drama: American
Drama: English
Drama: World
Drugs: Alcohol
Drugs: General
Economics: Banking
Economics: Economists (Alphabetized)
Economics: General
Economics: Inflation
Economics: International Trade
Economics: Macroeconomics
Economics: Microeconomics
Economics: Taxation
Education: Administration
Education: Curriculum
Education: General
Education: Higher
Education: Physical
Education: Psychology
Education: Reading
Education: Special
Education: Teaching Methods
Education: Theory
Energy: General
Energy: Nuclear
Energy: Solar
Environmental Studies
Evolution
Family & Marriage
Films: Artists (Alphabetized)
Films: General
Finance: Companies (Alphabetized)
Finance: General
Former Soviet Union: Post-1990
France
Gender & Sexuality
Geography
Germany
History: Ancient Greek & Roman
History: European
History: Great Britain
History: U.S. (After 1865)
History: U.S. (Before 1865)
History: U.S. Presidency
History: U.S. Presidents (Alphabetized)
Homosexuality
Immigration
India
Indonesia
International Relations: Arms Control
International Relations: Cold War
International Relations: Non-U.S.
International Relations: U.S.
Japan
Jewish Studies
Korea
Labor
Latin America
Law: Business
Law: Capital Punishment
Law: General
Law: International & Non-U.S.
Law: Supreme Court
Leadership
Literature, American: Authors (Alphabetized)
Literature, American: Faulkner
Literature, American: Fitzgerald
Literature, American: General
Literature, American: Hawthorne
Literature, American: Hemingway
Literature, American: Melville
Literature, American: Poe
Literature, American: Steinbeck
Literature, American: Twain
Literature, English: Authors (Alphabetized)
Literature, English: Chaucer
Literature, English: Conrad
Literature, English: Dickens
Literature, English: General
Literature, English: Joyce
Literature, English: Lawrence
Literature, English: Shakespeare
Literature, English: Swift
Literature, General: Children
Literature, General: Classic (Greek & Roman)
Literature, General: Russian
Literature, General: World
Management: General
Management: Japanese
Management: Motivation
Management: Theory
Management: Women
Marketing: Companies (Alphabetized)
Marketing: General
Marketing: Plans
Mathematics
Medical: Aids
Medical: Dentistry
Medical: Diseases & Disorders (Alphabetized)
Medical: General
Medical: Nursing
Mexican-American Studies
Mexico
Middle East: Egypt
Middle East: General
Middle East: O.P.E.C.
Military
Music: Classical
Music: General
Mythology
Nutrition
Parapsychology/Occult
Philosophy: Ancient Greek
Philosophy: Descartes
Philosophy: Eastern
Philosophy: General
Philosophy: Kant
Philosophy: Sartre
Poetry: American
Poetry: English
Poetry: Milton
Poetry: World
Political Science: Elections & Campaigns
Political Science: Foreign
Political Science: Lobbyists & Pressure Groups
Political Science: Machiavelli
Political Science: Mill
Political Science: Political Theory
Political Science: U.S.
Psychology: Behaviorism
Psychology: Child & Adolescent
Psychology: Disorders
Psychology: Dreams
Psychology: Experimental
Psychology: Freud
Psychology: General
Psychology: Jung
Psychology: Physiology
Psychology: Piaget
Psychology: Rogers
Psychology: Social
Psychology: Testing
Psychology: Therapies
Public Administration: General
Public Administration: Government Agencies (Alphabetized)
Racism
Real Estate
Recreation & Leisure
Religion: Eastern
Religion: General
Religion: Islam
Religion: The Bible
Research: Completed Studies (With Statistics & Results)
Research: Designs & Proposals
Research: Statistics & Methodology
Russia: Pre-1917 Revolution
Science: Astronomy
Science: Biology
Science: General
Science: Genetics
Sociology: Durkheim
Sociology: General
Sociology: Marx
Sociology: Social Problems
Sociology: Social Theory
Sociology: Social Welfare
Sociology: Weber
Soviet Union: 1917-1990
Sports: Drugs
Sports: General
Technology
Transportation: Automotive
Transportation: Aviation
Transportation: General
Transportation: Railroads
Urban Studies
Vietnam
Women Studies
 

COOPERATIVE LEARNING.   Term Paper ID:29826 Click to get this paper

Essay Subject: Compares approaches to whole class instruction.... More...

9 Pages / 2025 Words 6 sources, 20 Citations, APA Format $36.00 Return to List of Papers

Paper Abstract: Compares approaches to whole class instruction. Defines cooperative learning. Describes two methods of cooperative learning as a method of classroom instruction. JIGSAW approach and STAD approach. Compares the two with whole class learning. Differences including physical makeup of classroom and interaction among students. Discusses whether JIGSAW and STAD methods produce superior learning outcomes. Paper Introduction: STAD AND JIGSAW: A COMPARISON OF THESE COOPERATIVE LEARNING APPROACHES TO WHOLE CLASS INSTRUCTION Introduction The purpose of this paper is to describe two methods of Cooperative Learning as a method of classroom instruction and to then compare these to the whole class method. The paper begins with a brief description of cooperative learning. This is followed by descriptions of both the JIGSAW and STAD methods of cooperative learning. The final section of the paper compares JIGSAW and STAD to the whole class learning method through a general description of differences and a review of comparative research. Cooperative Learning According to Slavin (1999), cooperative learning refers to a met Text of the Paper: The entire text of the paper is shown below. However, the text is somewhat scrambled. We want to give you as much information as we possibly can about our papers and essays, but we cannot give them away for free. In the text below you will find that while disordered, many of the phrases are essentially intact. From this text you will be able to get a solid sense of the writing style, the concepts addressed, and the sources used in the research paper. Taking these differences into account, it can be noted that thewhole class method is a far more formal, serious and competitive learningenvironment than the environment in classes using JIGSAW or STAD. Moreover, students in these classrooms have also been found toexpress greater satisfaction with the general experience of learning and agreater positive attitude toward the subject matter. Also,Stahl notes that placing students in groups and expecting them to useappropriate social and group skills is insufficient for the promotion ofpositive social interaction behaviors and attitudes. Within these expert groups, students discuss variousstrategies that will help teach the material to fellow team members withinthe original six-member group. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Stahl, R. Commonly, the whole class method involves students sitting inrows of desks facing the front of the room where stands the teacherdelivering instruction. Scoring is done by teams, and the teamswith the highest scores are recognized in a weekly class newsletter. Moreover,the two methods both allow teachers more individual socializing withstudents which, in turn, creates more positive bonds between teachers andstudents than the whole class approach. The Teacher's desk isoften located in the corner of the room or even in the back of the room. In terms of instruction, Kagan et al also notethat because teachers are circulating about the classroom when using theSTAD or the JIGSAW approach, they are often in a better position to spotlearning style differences among students. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service NO. ED 426 418. For example, after each member reads his/hersection, these members join with other members who have the same assignmentto form expert groups. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Communication Association (84th, New York, NY, November 19-24). (1994). Other studies, Roland (1997) reports, show that when the STAD approachis compared with the whole class method, students generally evidencegreater development of both oral interaction skills and social interactionskills. Assigned grouptasks must be aligned with targeted objectives, such as comprehending,translating, making connections, assigning meanings, organizing the data,and assessing the relevancy and uses of the information they study.Finally, in terms of individual responsibility, Stahl (1994) states thatteachers use cooperative learning so all students can achieve higheracademic success individually than were they to study alone. ReferencesKagan, L., Kagan, M. (1997). The entire classroom has a stronger student-centered feelingthan the whole class method which is teacher-centered.. (1997). First, it is note that in thewhole classroom method, the environment and seating arrangements are quitedifferent. The authors note that whatcommonly occurs in the JIGSAW groups is that students are concentratingsteadily on their learning task are therefore far less likely to bedistracted by any disruptive behavior occurring in another group. Educational psychology: Theory and practice. Both methods are described below. Finally, the comparative research was examined to determinewhether JIGSAW and STAD were associated with superior learning outcomeswhen compared to the whole class method. Consequently,each student must be held individually responsible and accountable fordoing his or her own share of the work and for learning what has beentargeted to be learned. JIGSAW Thompson and Pledger (1998) have noted that the JIGSAW approach tocooperative learning involves dividing students into six-member teams..Each team member is given a particular section out of text or some otherpiece of academic unit. To be successful in setting up and having students complete grouptasks within a cooperative learning framework, a number of essentialelements in cooperative learning must be employed. There is lots of discussion and interaction with the teacherworking merely to encourage and facilitate students toward learning goals. This improved bonding, in turn,increases the probability that students will discuss whatever learningproblems they are having with the teacher. (1998). ED 4 8 57 ).Roland, L. (1997). STAD AND JIGSAW: A COMPARISON OF THESE COOPERATIVE LEARNING APPROACHES TO WHOLE CLASS INSTRUCTION Introduction The purpose of this paper is to describe two methods of CooperativeLearning as a method of classroom instruction and to then compare these tothe whole class method. This report focuses on two ofthese approaches, namely JIGSAW and STAD. Still another advantage of both STAD and JIGSAW, according to Roland(1997) is that several comparative studies have shown that thesecooperative learning approaches operate to increase student retention.Specifically, Roland states that studies have shown that: Students who are actively involved in the learning process are much more likely to become interested in learning and make more of an effort to attend school...A class where students interact fosters an environment conducive to high student motivation and participation and student attendance. (1999). In addition to the foregoing, Roland (1997), states that researchclearly shows that STAD and JIGSAW are both more likely to developstudents' problem-solving skills than is whole class instruction. STAD Slavin (1999) describes Student Teams-Achievement Divisions (STAD) asa cooperative learning method in which students with widely varyingacademic abilities are assigned to four_ or five-member teams. Unlike the wholeclass method, in JIGSAW or STAD classrooms, talk between students isencouraged. Comparison Research Do the JIGSAW and STAD methods produce superior learning outcomes whencompared to the whole class method? This is followed by descriptions of both the JIGSAWand STAD methods of cooperative learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. Discussion is not encouraged andmost if not all of the classroom time is spent with the teacher doing thetalking. Further, it is noted that opportunities to complete requiredinformation tasks are very important to student success. Comparison of JIGSAW and STAD with Whole Class Learning Description of Differences Lee (1997) describes a number of differences between STAD and JIGSAWand the whole classroom method of learning. However, in cooperative learningclassrooms using JIGSAW or STAD, students sit in groups and interact withone another. & Kagan, S. Benefits of collaborative learning. al (1997) also note that cooperative learning groups alsoare far superior in terms of generating less disruptive student behavior.For example, students who disrupt the class by always seeking attentionsimply have a much more difficult time of getting the whole classes'attention in a cooperative grouping situation. According to Slavin,JIGSAW and STAD both get children involved in active learning andsimultaneously builds both a team approach and yet a sense of individualresponsibility in students. The essential elements of cooperative learning in the classroom. Slavin (1999) also points out that students in a STAD group might usea variety of methods to master the material, such as quizzing each other,worksheets, and/or manipulatives. Inaddition to the usual learning goals, the cooperative methods includes thegoal of establishing a collaborative/helping relationship amongparticipants. Cooperative learning versus traditional lecture format: A preliminary study. In his discussion of comparative research involving JIGSAW and/or STADapproaches, Slavin (1999) notes a number of additional benefits of thecooperative method over the whole class approach. An extensive review of thecomparative research on cooperative learning methods and the whole classmethod was compiled by Roland (1997) who noted 45 advantages of methodssuch as STAD, JIGSAW and other cooperative techniques in comparison to thewhole class approach, only one of which is that academic achievement andperformance are higher for both STAD and JIGSAW in comparison to the wholeclass method. & Pledger, L. Capistrano, CA: Kagan Cooperative Learning.Lee, C. It was noted that thecooperative learning method had several elements and dimensions whichclearly differentiated it from the more traditional whole class method.Each of these differences was discussed, and the two cooperative techniqueswere described in terms of how they were similar and how they differed fromone another. Cooperative learning in the thinking classroom: Research and theoretical perspectives. ED 37 881).Thompson, M. This research can be said to havefairly well established that both JIGSAW and STAD provide superior learningoutcomes than the whole class method. Summary This paper presented a description of cooperative learning in generaland the methods of JIGSAW and STAD in particular. Similar findings have been reported for JIGSAW as well. (Roland, 1997, p. Cooperative learning structures for teambuilding. Rather, teachers inthe cooperative learning situation must describe the expected socialinteraction behaviors and attitudes of students and assign particularstudents specific roles to ensure that they consciously work on thesebehaviors in their groups. 2) Roland (1977) also notes that research indicates that the competitiveenvironment of the whole class approach can actually operate to depressstudents' level of self-esteem if they do not do well on assignments. Talking between students in the whole class environment is oftenfrowned upon and considered misbehavior. Thus,STAD requires students within teams to work together to master thematerial. Most cooperative learningmethods make students responsible for learning the material and view theteacher as a facilitator of the group process. Onthe other hand, JIGSAW has been found to increase student self-esteembecause students do not have such a strong sense of being in a "win-lose"situation. They can then address thesedifferences directly and immediately. Regarding face-to-face interaction, Stahl (1994) states that groupsare arranged, positioned and postured for direct eye-to-eye contact. The essential elementsare positive interdependence, face-to-face promotive interaction,individual accountability, interpersonal and social skills, and groupprocessing. ERIC Digest. Kagan, Kagan and Kagan (1997) report that there are many differenttypes of cooperative learning methods within the cooperative modelincluding student teams-achievement divisions (STAD), team-games tournament(TGT), JIGSAW, and "Learning Together" Model. In this regard,Slavin reports that comparative research indicates that because of thediscussion and sometimes debating that goes on in groups, students are ledto a deeper level of thought which in turn, makes the discussion and debateeven more sophisticated as students think about what was said and learn tocritical appraise various statements they receive from other group members. However, in the JIGSAW and STAD approaches,students sit at clusters of desks facing one another. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. However, it is noted that individuallearning is still expected, often by taking a test at the end of the teamstudy period. In other words, students mustdepend upon one another for their personal, teammates' and group's successin completing the assigned tasks and mastering the targeted content andskills. Kagan et. The study ofnew material in a group is not finished until all members of the group aresure they understand the material. J. Further, interms of social interaction, studies are said to show that research intothe effect of using JIGSAW and/or STAD with students of varied racial orethnic backgrounds has shown that because students are actively involved inexploring issues and interacting with each other on a regular basis in aguided fashion, they are able to better understand any racial/ethnicdifferences and learn how to resolve social problems which may arise.Roland speculates that cooperative methods may actually provide some formof conflict resolution training. Document available: www.wou.edu/las/natsci_math/math/ class/cooplist.html.Slavin, R.E. Stahl (1994) offers a brief summary of each of these elements.According to Stahl, in order to create positive interdependence, teachersstructure learning tasks so that students have a sense that each membermust be contributive for them to succeed. Cooperative Learning According to Slavin (1999), cooperative learning refers to a method oflearning in which students work together to achieve a common goal. In addition, Lee (1997) points out that the entire class is composedof one big group in the whole class method with students expected to dotheir individual and to work quietly while sitting in their own seats withno peer-to-peer social interaction. Slavin further reports that commonly cooperative learninggroups consist of small, mixed ability groupings. The method is said to strongly motivatestudents to listen to peer teachers because the only way they have accessto the information is through the peer. Still other learning outcomes that are stronger in JIGSAW and/or STADclasses than they are in whole class situations are, according to Kagan et.al (1997), the building of empathy, the establishment of a strong socialsupport system among peers, and a generally more positive attitude towardschool, and toward teachers. The final section of the papercompares JIGSAW and STAD to the whole class learning method through ageneral description of differences and a review of comparative research. Kagan, Kagan and Kagan (1997) report that comparative researchcomparing JIGSAW to the whole class method has shown that students usingthis cooperative learning technique are often superior to whole classstudents in terms of: (1) learning how to build better peer relationships;(2) developing the ability to nurture other students' learning; (3) actingas models for other student learning; (4) developing the ability tocriticize work and not other students; (5)setting reasonable personallearning goals and expectations for themselves; and (6) developing theability to concentrate on learning tasks for longer and longer periods. The paper begins with a brief description ofcooperative learning. He also says that the two approaches are muchbetter in promoting critical thinking skills in students. If this paper is not what you are looking for, you can search again: Search for: or Click here to request an essay written just for you.