"Learning, like living, is inherently social" - Cooperative Learning

I'm finding that if I constantly search for the on-liner in these articles that we have to read, week by week, I'm constantly looking for the hook - the phrase that will help me remember these theories long after I've completed the requirements of the course. I also like to think that I might have found the "thesis" of the articles. ;) But that is more likely wishful thinking.

I'm honestly going to have to refresh myself on the GD theory - because my brain seems to have collapsed much of CL & GD (I also like to come up with little acronyms because it helps me to type faster...) together. It's almost as if GD could be a component of CL, really. But enough of that... on to CL.

First and foremost, YAY for CL! I think I might have appreciate most the Johnson, Johnson, & Smith article surveying (or trumpeting/sounding the rallying call) CL theory, research and practice. I know I enjoyed their exposition on the theoretical side of things.

There's a line in the article - "Cooperative learners cognitively rehearse and restructure information to retain it in memory and incorporate it into existing cognitive structures." That's some sexy stuff right there - and I used to always talk about Piaget and Vygotsky with my middle school students... I just love brain research.

Back to CL. So, in sum, CL = Good. That's what all of the articles point to. And, here we're at another one of those Matthew moments when I'm realizing that someone did 90 years of research to find out that ... drum roll ... working together is better than working alone. (Simplified explanation of course - and all due respect to researchers for I aim to become one of them!) But hey, you have to laugh at yourself a bit.

There are a few things that I want to mention that stirred me a bit, however. One of the JJS (Johnson, Johnson, and Smith) points is that, "For a learning situation to be cooperative, students must believe that they sink or swim together." Now - I get the sentiment, I've heard the cliched phrase before and have probably used it before. What I want to point out is two-fold. One is that even in a team there is the implied other - other teams. I worry that some teachers use CL to get away from individualistic competition in the classroom... only to actually turn it into a macroscopic version of competition between teams. The second point, and this is part of a longer, larger tirade, is that there is inherent in the imagery and vocabulary of the phrase that implies that survival is somehow inextricably tied to completion of the CL activity. (See what I mean? I'm splitting hairs here - but we did just read three articles espousing on the philosophy of CL... I think it's a point worth exploring.)

Debunking for a minute. Survival not being connected to the successful completion of CL activity. While all teachers would like to believe that all students put their assignments and readings first, often this is not true. Thus, we try (using grades, threats, etc.) to get them to do what we want - which is complete our assignments to the best of their ability. But if they don't do the assignment (or do a poor job), and therefore get a "bad" grade, all is not lost. They won't end up homeless and ultimately reach the end of their lives if they do not successfully complete the assignment.

Now that that is out of the way there is a much larger fish to fry. Grades. Now - I realize I might make myself incredibly unpopular with this next bit, so just fast forward if you're worried.

I worked in an environment that gave no grades to children - none. We can discuss at a later date how we provided accurate feedback to students.

There's the section in the JJS article that talks about past studies. First thing on the top of the list that was studies was student achievement/academic success, which means grades. Grades that were, quite frankly, made up out of thin air. And as objective as we'd like to make these "grades" they're not. So it is incredibly frustrating for me to see reports based upon student grades. Especially with something as important as CL. How do you test self-esteem? I mean really - I know there are tests out there, but seriously. How do you quantify increased relationships between peers? "Members of cooperative groups also became more socially skilled than do students working competitively or individualistically." Um... no way. Really?

(Just so we're clear, I'm not trying to be critical in an angry or conflictual way - merely some healthy, academic critiquing.)

I appreciated the piece by the group of professors from NCSU. Have been reading a lot of literature lately, nice to see something from State... and about Engineering and CL (and, the authors are from differing departments! How nice to see!)

But my true shout out goes to the Millis article. Citation after citation I find myself trying to remember all of these important names - the big wigs of this theory and that - and for the first time in this article (M's) I knew two of them off the bat! (Citations that is.) One is Eric Jensen who did all of the brain research and wrote a couple of books about it and the other is Parker J. Palmer - a Quaker who also happens to be an author and professor of sociology/education. Go Millis! In fact, the title for this post comes from her article.

You should see my notes from reading her article... let's just say lots of "YES!" in the margins.

And "deep learning" - oooh, shivers down my spine! (Motivational context, Learner activity, interaction with others, well-structured knowledge base) LOVE IT.

Trying to bring this plane in for a landing soon. Online? Gee, I don't know. I was thinking about blogs first of all - but then about using GoogleWave because it could be more real-time. However, now that I think about it, you might be able to think through a lesson enough to use Elluminate. Have groups meet via Elluminate to work together.

I'm off to think about how to get deep learning via CL online. And read my peers' thoughts. Have a great week!