Sie sind auf Seite 1von 11

Amber Dale Elizabeth Littleton

Action Research Project

November 10, 2013

The Question:
Does the use of cooperative learning structures/strategies aid in comprehension and greater academic performance of average to lowlevel students in the areas of Reading and Math?

Amber Dale Elizabeth Littleton

Action Research Project

November 10, 2013

Introduction
Our research concentrated on the effects of cooperative learning structures and strategies and their impact on comprehension and academic performance of average to low-level students in Reading and Math. Our decision to explore this topic was prompted due to the results of the Measures of Academic Progress, or MAP, test scores acquired at the beginning of the school year, and assignment grades that were substantially lower in comparison to that of their peers in these areas. In our classroom observations, we also noticed that these students have difficulty staying engaged and on task during whole group instruction. For this reason, their inability to focus on the lesson often required us to provide additional instruction or re-teach key aspects of the lesson individually to these students. Regardless of this supplemental support, this practice did not appear to improve the students understanding of the materials. We were previously aware of research that suggests cooperative learning structures, such as Kagan grouping and partner work, increases the active engagement, participation, comprehension and retention of information by students, especially those struggling in the subjects of Reading and Math. After reviewing literature and multiple resources to better educate ourselves on the proper and most effective implantation of cooperative learning structures, we began our action research to evaluate the results with students we had identified as falling within the parameters of our focus groups.

Amber Dale Elizabeth Littleton

Action Research Project

November 10, 2013

Literature Review
The Cooperative Elementary School: Effects on Students' Achievement, Attitudes, and Social Relations. Robert J. Stevens and Robert E. Slavin American Educational Research Journal , Vol. 32, No. 2 (Summer, 1995), pp. 321-351 Johnson, D. R. (2012). Cooperative Learning and Conflict Resolution. Retrieved November 2013, from John Hopkins School of Education: New Horizons for Learning: http://education.jhu.edu/PD/newhorizons/str ategies/topics/Cooperative

This article states the results of a 2-year study of the cooperative elementary school model that used cooperation as the philosophy to change the instructional processes of the school. The purpose of the study was to uncover the effects of cooperative learning by tracking students grades as well as their attitudes on their perceived ability of various subjects. After the first year of implementation, students in cooperative elementary schools had significantly higher achievement in reading vocabulary and after the second year, students had significantly higher achievement in reading vocabulary, reading comprehension and mathematics than their peers in traditional schools. The study made note that the students achievement increased over time. There was also a measure of the students attitudes and perceived ability across subject areas. There was a small, insignificant increase in perceived ability upon the conclusion of the 2year study.

This article provides a brief overview of cooperative learning, its applications, prvious research results and implications for its implementation throughout schools in the future. It describes cooperative learning as, the instructional use of small groups so that students work together to achieve shared goals. Over 550 studeis indicate that using these structures and strategies, opposed to competitive or individualistic learning often seen in traditional classrooms, improves achievement and retention, builds interpersonal relationships, and promotes students self-esteem and confidence. With proper training, teachers can structure their classrooms cooperatively to work in learning groups in order to teach any content area subject. Furthermore, according to Drs. Roger and David Johnson, the future of cooperative learning will extend beyond that of individual teachers and classrooms, to the development of Cooperative Learning Schools.

Amber Dale Elizabeth Littleton

Action Research Project

November 10, 2013

Methodology
Cockrell Elementary is fairly new school in Prosper Independent School District. AEIS reports that Prosper ISDs ethnic distribution is predominately white with 71.2% Caucasian. Hispanic students represent 14.3% of the districts population, African Americans represent 8.2%, and the remaining 6.3% are comprised of other nonspecific ethnicities. Students that come from economically disadvantaged families make up the minority of students in Prosper ISD, with only 13.2% of the total student population being classified as lower SES. Other statistics show that only 4.8% of the students are limited English proficient (LEP) and 19.5% are deemed to be academically atrisk. Over the course of the semester we have been able to observe our classrooms and found these statistics to be accurate. Our focus groups for this research were comprised of both male and female 4th graders. They fall with the range of lower-middle to upper-middle socioeconomic status (SES) represented by multiple ethnicities. At this grade level, students rotate between two classes during the day: one for Math and Science, and the other for Reading, Writing and Social Studies. Although our research was executed in separate classrooms, both had similar arrangements, with students seated at individual desks in groups of two to four. Students for this research were selected based upon two factors: their individual MAP test scores for Reading and Math, as well as their grades on daily assignments and tests in these subjects. In beginning our selection of individuals for the study, we found that that those students who performed well in Reading, received low scores in Math, and vice versa. For this reason, we decided to focus our attention on separate groups of students based upon their individual areas of need.

Amber Dale Elizabeth Littleton

Action Research Project

November 10, 2013

In order to effectively monitor the results, we chose to concentrate on four students for each subject. We determined that this method would most effectively allow us to evaluate performance and provide us the ability to apply both the Kagan grouping structure, made up of four students, and the pairing strategy, involving two students. Prior to execution of these cooperative learning structures and strategies with the students, we observed and recorded their learning behaviors, as well as their academic performance for one week. We evaluated the results of pretests administered at the beginning of the unit, scores on daily assignments given throughout the week, and posttests delivered at the end of the unit of study. The following week we followed the same procedures, administering pre and posttests to be completed independently by the students, however, making adjustments to the structure of the lesson presentation and configuration of cooperative learning strategies for completion of daily assignments. For this, students were paired with another student relatively close, slightly lower or higher, to their own academic level. With a partner, they participated in Think, Pair, Share activities, in which they discussed and defended their answers to either reading comprehension questions or math problems. In Kagan groups, they participated in Round Robin activities in which they read passages or analyzed math problems, took turns sharing their ideas regarding each, prior to answering the questions on the daily assignments. Throughout this process, we observed their participation and took notes on their attitudes towards these structures. Upon the completion of the research, the scores from both preimplementation and post-implementation unit pretests, daily assignments and unit posttests, were compared and evaluated to determine the effectiveness of these cooperative-learning strategies.

Amber Dale Elizabeth Littleton

Action Research Project

November 10, 2013

Amber Dale Elizabeth Littleton

Action Research Project

November 10, 2013

Amber Dale Elizabeth Littleton

Action Research Project

November 10, 2013

Amber Dale Elizabeth Littleton

Action Research Project

November 10, 2013

Amber Dale Elizabeth Littleton

Action Research Project

November 10, 2013

Implications
When students assist and encourage one another to learn new material, share ideas, and solve problems, they are a part of a cooperative learning group. While the results of our research were inconclusive, we still look to the overwhelming evidence found in literature and past studies to indicate the methods implications for success and positive benefits for students academic and psychological development in the future. If collaborative learning strategies are properly implemented, there are a number of advantages for students and teachers. The foundation of cooperative learning lies within four key aspects: personal interdependence, individual accountability, equal participation and simultaneous interaction. When working in a collaborative group, students are challenged to think analytically about the problem, explain and justify their answer, and evaluate their solution. This requires the students to take on the role of both the student and the teacher, using higher order thinking skills and greater cognitive processes, ultimately leading to increased retention of the information. Since they are working together as a unit, they also develop and practice social skills, such as communication and conflict resolution. Students are able to view themselves as a valuable member of their group, which promotes self-esteem. Since students are actively engaged, this provides the teacher more freedom to monitor students understanding and work with small groups, providing additional support and differentiation when needed.

Amber Dale Elizabeth Littleton

Action Research Project

November 10, 2013

Conclusion
The post implementation scores from our research did not show a substantial increase or decrease in academic performance in either Reading or Math. Furthermore, due to the variation in the content taught for each phase of the research, it is difficult to accurately evaluate the results. Although the students grades did not improve, they also did not drastically decline. For these reasons we determined our results to be inconclusive. However, from our student observations and literature reviews, we ascertain that in order to see the positive benefits of cooperative learning strategies and structures, research should be implemented in the form of a longitudinal study over several months or years, as found in multiple reports. Additionally, we feel it is valuable to note that during the implementation phase of our research, the students remained actively engaged and fully participated in both discussions and learning activities. They interacted within their group or with their partner to pose questions, explain their thinking and problem-solve as a unit. The cooperative learning group structures allowed us, as teachers, to monitor the understanding of all of the students, rather than focusing a majority of attention on answering questions and re-teaching a select few.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen