Social Structures in Academic Spaces
Cooperative learning environments that encourage students to work together in understanding content were initially not a space that I was extremely familiar with. As a student, most of the instruction I received was direct from the teacher with a few instances of collaboration with peers in projects or group assignments. I found myself very unsure of how to foster a positive learning space that promoted frequent student interaction as the method of instruction. In a chapter of the 2001 book reporting classroom-tested strategies of theory and research, Robert Marzano, Debra Pickering, and Jane Pollock discusses the implications of incorporating cooperative learning in the classroom.
These authors discuss three main components to keep in mind when implementing a cooperative learning model in the classroom: group organization criteria, group sizes, and intentionality behind group learning. In order for my inquiry to positively impact my students’ learning, if at all, I would need to ground my exploration in these major components. Heterogeneous groupings are suggested by Marzano, Pickering, and Pollock in order to have the most optimal collaboration: “To maximize students' experience, it is probably a good idea to use a variety of criteria [in groupings], as well as to adhere to the tenets of cooperative learning, to make the experience successful” (p. 89). Not only should ability, gender, race, and even interests be considered when grouping students, but this chapter also suggests ensuring all groupings are a manageable size for the teacher. That specific size may vary from teacher to teacher, but in all cases the sizes should be suited to the activity and the skills students have to complete the task (p. 91).
The final generalization discussed in this chapter is the intentionality teachers should use when incorporating cooperative learning in the classroom. This strategy is utilized in the classroom most optimally when applied with a specific purpose. Marzano discusses psychologists warning of the overuse of cooperative learning in classrooms:
[Cooperative learning] is misused when the tasks given to cooperative groups are not well
structured; it is overused when it is implemented to such an extent that students have an
insufficient amount of time to practice independently the skills and processes that they must
master (p. 88-89).
In an environment that values collaboration amongst students, it may be difficult to remember the value that comes with independent learning and understanding. There is such a thing as “too much” collaboration, according to Marzano, Pickering, and Pollock, and this must be kept in mind when fostering a positive social learning environment. This generalization of cooperative learning shed some light as to why I may have seen some instances of disengagement by students. While some students might be able to easily learn in conjunction with other student voices and ideas, another group may exist who values the time to independently test out and work through a skill or concept before consulting in others. As I designed and incorporated collaborative tasks for my students to perform in the various seating arrangements, it was important for me to make space for both cooperative and independent learning and understanding in the classroom.
These authors discuss three main components to keep in mind when implementing a cooperative learning model in the classroom: group organization criteria, group sizes, and intentionality behind group learning. In order for my inquiry to positively impact my students’ learning, if at all, I would need to ground my exploration in these major components. Heterogeneous groupings are suggested by Marzano, Pickering, and Pollock in order to have the most optimal collaboration: “To maximize students' experience, it is probably a good idea to use a variety of criteria [in groupings], as well as to adhere to the tenets of cooperative learning, to make the experience successful” (p. 89). Not only should ability, gender, race, and even interests be considered when grouping students, but this chapter also suggests ensuring all groupings are a manageable size for the teacher. That specific size may vary from teacher to teacher, but in all cases the sizes should be suited to the activity and the skills students have to complete the task (p. 91).
The final generalization discussed in this chapter is the intentionality teachers should use when incorporating cooperative learning in the classroom. This strategy is utilized in the classroom most optimally when applied with a specific purpose. Marzano discusses psychologists warning of the overuse of cooperative learning in classrooms:
[Cooperative learning] is misused when the tasks given to cooperative groups are not well
structured; it is overused when it is implemented to such an extent that students have an
insufficient amount of time to practice independently the skills and processes that they must
master (p. 88-89).
In an environment that values collaboration amongst students, it may be difficult to remember the value that comes with independent learning and understanding. There is such a thing as “too much” collaboration, according to Marzano, Pickering, and Pollock, and this must be kept in mind when fostering a positive social learning environment. This generalization of cooperative learning shed some light as to why I may have seen some instances of disengagement by students. While some students might be able to easily learn in conjunction with other student voices and ideas, another group may exist who values the time to independently test out and work through a skill or concept before consulting in others. As I designed and incorporated collaborative tasks for my students to perform in the various seating arrangements, it was important for me to make space for both cooperative and independent learning and understanding in the classroom.