Towards more cooperative classrooms

Towards More Cooperative Classrooms
Aylin Köyalan
İzmir University, Department of English Language Teaching, İzmir, Turkey
[email protected]
Abstract
Action research is an effective way of exploring the problems, challenges and
obstacles that prevent teachers from providing a classroom atmosphere
conducive to solving these problems. This way of looking into what is happening
in the classroom can enable a teacher to build a more sincere relationship with
students who, as a result, feel valued and appreciate the teacher more. The focus
of this study is a very common classroom management issue: the creation of
positive classroom dynamics through the use of team building activities. The
results of the qualitative and quantitative data show that the students enjoy such
activities, and consider them very helpful in providing a more positive
relationship with peers. The students report that such tasks are not only very
informative, but also entertaining.
Keywords: Action research, classroom management, group work, team building
activities, cooperative learning.
1. Introduction
Action research is defined as ‘the study of a social situation with a view to improving the
quality of action within it’ (Elliott, 1991, 69). Improving the quality of teaching and learning
is an essential goal of conducting action research. In this study, the overall aim is to improve
the quality of the teaching-learning experience. For most teachers, ideal classrooms are those
in which students are homogeneous (Richards & Renandya, 2002). However, instead of such
classes, we often see less student centeredness and less cooperation. Research shows the
value of learners’ working in groups as it improves the task quality in the classroom. It is a
common belief that ‘cooperative learning can lead to a more dynamic classroom interaction
that promotes more learning’ (Richards & Renandya, 2002, 49). Through cooperative
learning, students develop self-esteem and motivation, and their level of anxiety is lowered.
In order to provide ‘cognitive and affective learning, we need to enhance interaction among
students and research made it clear that this can be achieved through group work and peer
interaction’ (Christie, Tolmie, Thurston, Howe & Topping, 2009, 141). When working in pairs
or groups, learners help each other and thus learn more effectively. In order to achieve goals,
they have to work together as a successful team (Brown, 2002).
Furthermore, Jones and Jones (1990, 230) believe that students will be less egocentric
and more social and ‘successful mastery, retention, and transfer of concepts, rules, and
principles is higher in cooperatively structured learning than in competitive or
29
2014, Dil ve Edebiyat Eğitimi Dergisi, 9, 29-38.
2014, Journal of Language and Literature Education, 9, 29-38.
individualistic learning.’ Johnson (1979) believes that in cooperative learning, students have
more respect for teachers, perceiving them as more supportive and understanding. In the
present study, the aim is to increase the level of positive group dynamics and provide an
environment that better facilitates learning, both for the instructor and the learners.
2. Literature Review
The literature contains much research on the advantages of encouraging students to work
cooperatively and the value of group work. The research conducted by Krečič and Grmek
(2008) is a good example of the importance of collaborative learning and team culture in
schools. With the help of the reforms in elementary school, teachers were able to develop
professionally through projects and training. As a result, teachers seemed to value group
work more and became aware of the importance of collaborative learning and team work. In
another study, Christie et al. (2009) focus on the benefits of group work, which ‘was
essentially an organized device (and) allowed appropriate differentiation of ability levels in
classroom activities’ (143). While not denying the existence of group work, they argue that it
is (often) not planned effectively and that by improving the quality of group work, it is
possible to provide better learning environments and create students who are ‘effective
contributors and responsible citizens’ (155). Dinc Artut’s (2009) study proved the benefits of
cooperative learning at kindergarten level. One of the aims of her study was to investigate
the effects of cooperative learning on the mathematics ability of kindergarten children. The
results showed that cooperative learning has positive effects on the improvement of
mathematics abilities. In a similar study, Candas Karababa (2009) looked at the correlation
between cooperative learning and the achievement of 80 (40 in experimental, 40 in control
group) Turkish elementary school prospective teachers’ learning of the Turkish language
and the social interaction among the students. In terms of academic achievement, no
correlation was found, however, positive and supportive relationships improved among the
participants in the experimental group. Bölükbaş, Keskin and Polat (2011) also studied the
effects of cooperative learning on the reading skills of students of Turkish as a second
language at İstanbul University Language Center. 40 students (20 in each group) took part in
this experimental study and the cooperative learning techniques were compared with the
traditional ones. The results showed that the former improved the learners’ reading skills.
Some researchers highlight the difference between group work and cooperative
learning. Gillies (2006, 271) mentions that ‘teachers who implement cooperative learning in
their classrooms engage in more mediated-learning interactions and make fewer disciplinary
comments than teachers who implement group work only. Furthermore, the students model
many of these interactions in their groups.’ Cooperative learning has benefits for culturallydiverse groups as well. Baker and Clark (2010) examined experiences with cooperative
learning in multilingual groups in New Zealand. The findings showed that cooperative
learning was beneficial, and that lecturers and students were positive about its social
benefits.
‘Without cooperation ... it is extremely difficult to satisfy the cognitive requirements’
(Bennett & Dunne, 1992 in Russell, 2010, 208) and ‘quality conversation is essential if the
group is to work effectively’ (Kutnick, 1994 in Russell, 2010, 208). In Russell’s study, 94% of
Biology students expressed the belief that working with the right students in class was very
important. As one student stated, ‘people work best when they are comfortable’ with the
30
2014, Dil ve Edebiyat Eğitimi Dergisi, 9, 29-38.
2014, Journal of Language and Literature Education, 9, 29-38.
others in the group (Russell, 2010, 215). Students should therefore be encouraged to talk
about their worries, problems, ideas and solutions concerning working in groups, and
teachers should provide a supportive atmosphere and a sense of belonging in the classroom
(McKinney, McKinney, Franiuk & Schweitzer, 2006 in Shimazoe & Aldrich, 2010, 56).
In another piece of research conducted by Yamarik (2007, 259) on ‘the effect of smallgroup learning on student learning outcomes in economic instruction’, the researcher found
that ‘students taught by cooperative learning achieved greater academic performance in the
form of higher exam scores.’ Ghaith (2003, 456, 460)’s study ‘investigated the effects of the
Learning Together Cooperative Learning model in promoting learners’ achievement,
enhancing their academic self-esteem, and decreasing their feelings of school alienation.’
Although no statistically significant differences were found between the groups, it was
concluded that, when compared to traditional textbook instruction, the Learning Together
Cooperative Learning Model was more effective in improving the English as a Foreign
Language reading achievement of high school students.
3. Context
The study was conducted at a university in Turkey with twenty-two freshman students from
the Department of English Language Teaching (ELT). It came out as a result of a series of
circumstances. In the fourth week of the first semester, the researcher took over the
‘Introduction to Educational Sciences’ course from a colleague. The classroom contained
students from two departments, ELT and American Culture and Literature (ACL). The
researcher immediately noticed that the students from two different departments were not
integrating and were reluctant to cooperate in group work. The negative atmosphere caused
by a disagreement at the beginning of the course could still be sensed when the researcher
met them, causing a prolonged negative effect on group dynamics.
The instructor tried different techniques, ranging from lecturing, power point
presentations, cooperative learning and discussions, to various individual and group work
tasks. It was decided that cooperative learning tasks were one of the priorities because they
allow students to teach each other, which was an important potential benefit for these trainee
teachers.
The use of cooperative learning tasks such as working in groups and trying to solve
discipline problems that teachers are faced with, and jigsaw reading passages, can help
students experience the techniques they will be expected to apply in their own teaching. In
addition, as many researchers mention, cooperative learning helps develop a sense of
positive interdependence and responsibility (Kelly & Fetherston, 2008, 104), both of which
are essential for prospective English language teachers. As the classroom teacher and the
researcher believed that it was necessary for students to feel responsible for the learning of
their peers, and later, for that of their own students.
Similar to the aims of Doveston and Keenaghan (2006, 5)’s action research, to show
teachers and students how to create an ‘effective and satisfying interpersonal relationship in
the classroom,’ this study’s aim was to create a shift in practice through action research, the
‘action’ being the aim to improve both relationships among students and the atmosphere in
the classroom. As there were only ten weeks to the end of the semester, time was a crucial
factor in developing the interpersonal relationships.
31
2014, Dil ve Edebiyat Eğitimi Dergisi, 9, 29-38.
2014, Journal of Language and Literature Education, 9, 29-38.
In order to solve the problem, a seminar was designed with the help of a colleague
with expertise in Human Resources Management. The involvement of an outsider is
suggested by some experts in action research (Bassey, 1986; Doveston & Keenaghan, 2006).
However, in contrast to Doveston and Keenaghan (2006), in the present study, an expert was
invited to help implement team building activities rather than perform the research itself. A
specially-designed three hour workshop was organised, in which the students were actively
involved in various team building activities.
3.1 Brief summary of the activities
Warm Up The students were asked to imagine they were teachers, and explain the areas in
which they thought they needed to improve. Answers were elicited and written on the board
and the points were then, discussed one by one.
Activity 1 The students were asked how they felt during pair and group work activities they
had experienced up until then. They posted on the board their negative and positive feelings
on blue and yellow post-its respectively. All the students participated in this activity and
they discussed each point separately. Later, the students were provided with some
theoretical information on team work. In the next step, the students learned the meaning of
‘being proficient’.
Activity 2 In this team activity, all the groups were active and in order for each group to be
successful, all members had to complete different tasks. Each group of four to six was given
a long string with as many knots as the number of students in the group, e.g. six knots for a
group of six. The aim was to untie all knots as quickly as possible. The second student was
not allowed to start until the first had finished. Another rule was that the string had to be
held with the left hand, and the untying done with the right hand only.
In the next stage of the seminar, more theory was given about the barriers which
decrease the quality of team work in business life. The presenter talked about three types of
theory: organizational (such as a sense of belonging, mission and vision of the company,
motivation, and hierarchy); administrative (such as administrative skills, leadership, and
feedback); and personal (such as self-confidence, interpersonal communication skills,
professional background, prejudices, beliefs, habits, responsibilities, and team work skills).
Activity 3 In this part of the seminar, different groups were given different types of activities
according to their interests. While some groups decided to draw a world map, another
played with lego bricks and another with play doh. In each group, a leader was chosen, and
given directions on how to lead their team to success in the given tasks.
3.2 Research Questions
The present study tried to answer the following research questions: (1) How can we improve
the relationships among students and have a better atmosphere in the classroom? (2) Are
cooperative learning and team building activities effective in establishing a better classroom
atmosphere?
4. Methodology
32
2014, Dil ve Edebiyat Eğitimi Dergisi, 9, 29-38.
2014, Journal of Language and Literature Education, 9, 29-38.
At the end of the three-hour seminar, the students were given a questionnaire with ten
questions; the first six questions were 5-point scale likert type, 1- Completely disagree, 5Completely agree, questions 7-9 were open-ended and the last one was a Yes-No question.
Moreover, after completing the questionnaires, the twenty-two participating students were
also asked to write a paragraph explaining their feelings about the seminar.
5. Results
5.1 Results of the quantitative data
Question 1
Table 1. Frequencies
I found the seminar interesting
1
2
3
4
5
-
-
18%
18%
64%
As can be seen from the table, approximately 82 %, i.e., 18 students out of 22 found the
seminar interesting.
Question 2
Table 2. Frequencies
1
I found the materials and visuals used in the
seminar effective
9%
2
3
4
5
-
9%
28%
54%
Table 2 shows that 82 % of the students thought that the materials and visuals used in the
seminar were effective.
Question 3
Table 3. Frequencies
The seminar conveyed important messages to me
1
5%
2
-
3
23%
4
18%
5
54%
We can understand from the above table that 72 % of the students thought that the messages
the seminar intended to convey were important.
Question 4
Table 4. Frequencies
1
33
2
3
4
5
2014, Dil ve Edebiyat Eğitimi Dergisi, 9, 29-38.
2014, Journal of Language and Literature Education, 9, 29-38.
The seminar was boring
72%
14%
5%
9%
-
It can be seen that very few students, only 14 %, found the seminar boring.
Question 5
Table 5. Frequencies
1
5%
I appreciated the trainer’s performance
2
-
3
5%
4
18%
5
72%
It is clear from Table 5 that 90 % of students, almost all, appreciated the performance of the
trainer.
Question 6
Table 6. Frequencies
The seminar was just theory, with no application
1
71%
2
14%
3
5%
4
5%
5
5%
As can be seen from the table, 85 % of the students disagreed with the statement that the
seminar was only theory, showing that it provided them with practice as well.
Question 7
This question was an open-ended one: ‘I was active in the seminar because ...’
19 out of 22 students reported that they were active. Some reasons were as follows:
I like group work.
I had previous knowledge and it’s a topic I’m interested in.
They were interesting.
I believe they were useful
Instructions were clear (two students),
We knew what we were expected to do.
They were easy.
Interesting, these exercises relax our minds, I’m happy.
They were fun, I did them with pleasure.
Question 8
This question was an open-ended one as well: ‘I was not active in the seminar because...’
3 students stated they were not active for the following reasons:
It’s difficult to put things to practice.
I’m not good at drawing.
Some exercises were difficult.
34
2014, Dil ve Edebiyat Eğitimi Dergisi, 9, 29-38.
2014, Journal of Language and Literature Education, 9, 29-38.
Question 9
The question was designed to discover the topics the students needed more practice on. The
topics were as follows:
How to teach in an effective way
Effective listening
How to speak in front of others
Stress management
Gain skills in teaching
Time management
Student psychology
Team work
Group work (3 students)
Motivation
Question 10
The last question was a Yes-No Question
Table 7. Number of students
Yes
21
I want to have more seminars like this
No
1
All students except one requested similar seminars.
5.2 Results of the qualitative data
Twenty paragraphs (two students did not submit feedback paragraphs) were collected, all of
which contained positive comments. Two colleagues were asked to analyse the papers. They
were instructors working at the School of Foreign Languages, giving the ‘Academic Writing’
course. They volunteered to take part in the evaluation and they agreed on the following
three main topics:
Table 8. Common topics taken from feedback forms
The
seminar
informative
6
was The
seminar
entertaining
6
was Both
informative
entertaining
8
&
Some comments were:
I understood the benefits of group work.
This was real team work.
I understood that working in groups makes us more creative.
We are convinced about the benefits of group work.
I think today the interpersonal relations got better; we can communicate with each other.
I had some doubts about being a teacher but after this lesson, I feel that I’ve made the right decision.
I am going to use these activities when I become a teacher.
Today we did things in harmony; we should always do such things.
6. Conclusion
35
2014, Dil ve Edebiyat Eğitimi Dergisi, 9, 29-38.
2014, Journal of Language and Literature Education, 9, 29-38.
‘A plethora of research studies has found cooperative learning to be effective in promoting
positive academic atmosphere with students of all ages. It has been suggested that key
elements of cooperative learning are individual accountability and positive interdependence’
(Hornby, 2009, 161). Although the term ‘cooperative learning’ has been used to cover a wide
range of different strategies and approaches, the following main characteristics are included
in all: positive relationships, individual and group accountability, and motivation through
group collaboration. Johnson and Johnson (1991), Kagan (1990) and Slavin (1999) all consider
cooperative learning in terms which go beyond mere contact and sharing in small groups.
They insist that the term cooperative learning can only be applied to activities where there is
individual accountability and positive interdependence linked to group rewards or goals.
Such positive interdependence enables the establishment of a positive atmosphere. This
study demonstrates that when teachers apply cooperative learning in the classroom, they
provide an atmosphere which is more supportive of learning. Moreover, greater cooperation
allows easier classroom management. Another conclusion from this research is the
awareness given to students that similar activities used in their own teaching in the future
will foster a more positive atmosphere. Gillies (2006)
also mentions that such
implementations can help the participating students model the interactions experienced
during cooperative learning activities for others. If contact is maintained with these students
as they begin their careers, it might be possible to assess the extent to which they apply what
they have learned at university, and how successful they are in modelling their experiences
in their classrooms.
Acknowledgements I would like to express my deepest gratitude to Zeynep Çiftçioğlu, who,
with her high level of expertise, helped me with the project, and also my dear freshman
students who I believe will be great teachers in the future.
References
Artut Dinç, P. (2009). Experimental evaluation of the effects of cooperative learning on
kindergarten children’s mathematics ability. International Journal of Educational Research,
48, 370–380.
Baker, T. & Clark, J. (2010). Cooperative learning - a double-edged sword: a cooperative
learning model for use with diverse student groups. Intercultural Education, 21 (3), 257268.
Bennett, N. & Dunne, E. (1992). Managing classroom groups. Hemel Hempstead: Simon and
Schuster Education.
Bölükbaş, F., Keskin, F. & Polat, M. (2011). The effectiveness of cooperative learning on the
reading comprehension skills in Turkish as a foreign language. TOJET: The Turkish
Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10, 4, 330-335.
Brown, H. D. (2002). Teaching by principles – an interactive approach to language pedagogy. (2nd
Ed.) San Francisco: Longman.
36
2014, Dil ve Edebiyat Eğitimi Dergisi, 9, 29-38.
2014, Journal of Language and Literature Education, 9, 29-38.
Candas Karababa, Z. C. (2009). Effects of cooperative learning on prospective teachers’
achievement and social interactions. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 36, 32-40.
Christie, D., Tolmie, A., Thurston, A., Howe, C. and Topping, K. (2009). Supporting group
work in Scottish primary classrooms: improving the quality of collaborative dialogue.
Cambridge Journal of Education, 39 (1), 141-156.
Doveston, M. & Keenaghan, M. (2006). Improving classroom dynamics to support students’
learning and social inclusion: a collaborative approach. Support for Learning, 21 (1), 5-11.
Elliott, T. J. (1991). Action research for educational change. Milton Keynes: Open University
Press.
Ghaith, G. (2003). Effects of the learning together model of cooperative learning on English
as a foreign language reading achievement, academic self-esteem, and feelings of
school alienation. Bilingual Research Journal, 27 (3), 451-474.
Gillies, R. M. (2006). Teachers’ and students’ verbal behaviours during cooperative and
small-group learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 271-287.
Hornby, G. (2009). The effectiveness of cooperative learning with trainee teachers. Journal of
Education for Teaching, 35 (2), 161-168.
Johnson, D. (1979). Educational psychology. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall.
Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R. T. (1991). Learning together and alone. (3rd Ed.) Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Jones, V. F. & Jones, L. S. (1990). Comprehensive classroom management – motivating and
managing students. (3rd Ed.) Allyn and Bacon.
Kagan, S. (1990). The structural approach to cooperative learning. Educational Leadership, 47
(4), 12-15.
Kelly, R. & Fetherston, B. (2008). Productive contradictions: dissonance, resistance and
change in an experiment with cooperative learning. Journal of Peace Education, 5 (1), 97111.
Krečič, M. S. & Grmek, M. I. (2008). Cooperative learning and team culture in schools:
Conditions for teachers’ professional development. Teacher and Teacher Education, 24,
59-68.
Kutnick, P. (1994). Use and effectiveness of groups in classrooms: towards a pedagogy. In
Kutnick, P. & Rogers, C. (Eds.) Groups in schools. New York: Cassell Education.
37
2014, Dil ve Edebiyat Eğitimi Dergisi, 9, 29-38.
2014, Journal of Language and Literature Education, 9, 29-38.
McKinney, J. P., McKinney, K. G., Franiuk, R., & Schweitzer, J. (2006). The college classroom
as a community. College Teaching, 54 (3), 281-94.
Richards, J. C. & Renandya, W. A. (Eds.) (2002). Methodology in language teaching – an
anthology of current practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Russell, M. (2010). The formation of effective work groups within an FE classroom. Research
in Post-Compulsory Education, 15 (2), 205-221.
Shimazoe, J. & Aldrich, H. (2010). Group work can be gratifying: understanding &
overcoming resistance to cooperative learning. College Teaching, 58, 52-57.
Slavin, R. E. (1999). Comprehensive approaches to cooperative learning. Theory into Practice,
38 (2), 74-80.
Yamarik, S. (2007). Does cooperative learning improve student learning outcomes? The
Journal of Economic Education, 38 (3), 259-277.
38

Download Report