Undoubtedly, the most common instructional strategy used in higher education is the traditional lecture. A traditional lecture is a highly efficient means of presenting a large amount of information to a large number of people. However, simple presentation of information does not constitute transfer of information from the instructor to the student. Furthermore, information that is transferred will be of no use to a student if it is not retained. And, finally, if the goal of an instructor is to have students generalize that information to new problems, that information also needs to be integrated and transformed into knowledge. Thorndike (1912) long ago recognized the limitations of the lecture model, "The commonest error of the gifted scholar, inexperienced in teaching, is to expect pupils to know what they have been told. But telling is not teaching."
A number of alternative instructional strategies are currently being practiced and promoted in higher education as a means of overcoming this limitation. These include (but are not limited to) cooperative learning (Johnson, Johnson, & Smith 1991a, 1991b; Millis & Cottell, 1998), case teaching (Christensen & Hansen, 1987), classroom assessment (Angelo & Cross, 1990), and writing across the curriculum/writing to learn (Young & Fulwiler, 1986). These strategies fall under the general rubric of active learning. Bonwell and Eison (1991) note that while definitions of the term "active learning" vary, most agree that, when actively engaged, "Students are involved in more than listening."
Cooperative learning, a particular type of active learning, is a formal instructional approach in which students work together in small teams to accomplish a common learning goal. It is important to understand that cooperative learning is fundamentally different than simply asking students to work together to complete a task. The first difference is that, in cooperative learning, students are working in teams, not groups. A team is "a small number of people with complementary skills who are committed to a common purpose, performance goals, and approach for which they hold themselves mutually accountable" (Katzenbach & Smith, 1993). In the cooperative learning classroom, the instructor is responsible for forming teams and providing those teambuilding activities that are needed to ensure that the teams have the skills to work together effectively. (The section of this CD/website titled Preparing Your Students for Teamwork is devoted to teaming; you will find more in-depth information on teams and teambuilding there.)
The second is that the task they are assigned is a learning task (which may or may not involve a formal product), and that task has been carefully designed by the faculty member to be suitable for teamwork. At the heart of this design are positive interdependence and individual accountability. Positive interdependence means that the successes of team members are linked: if one succeeds, all succeed, and if one fails, all fail. Unfortunately, many faculties develop interdependence only by the use of a common grade for a single team product, whereas experienced practitioners of CL focus more on learning goals. They stress that all team members are responsible for helping each other learn. Positive interdependence must be balanced by individual accountability. In a cooperative learning activity, the faculty member puts in place mechanisms by which individual team members may be held accountable for contributing and for learning. These may include simple strategies like calling randomly on students to explain their team's answer to a problem, or more complex strategies involving peer assessment and feedback. (The sections of this CD/website titled Planning Cooperative Learning Lessons and Implementing Cooperative Learning cover planning and implementing cooperative learning lessons in depth).
There are many different models of cooperative learning. The one most commonly used in engineering education is that developed by David and Roger Johnson and extended by Karl Smith, Professor of Civil Engineering at the University of Minnesota. Many engineers across the country have been introduced to cooperative learning by attending one of Karl’s excellent workshops.
Click here for Karl Smith's distinction between cooperative learning and traditional group work.
Other faculty we interviewed were inspired to begin using active and cooperative learning through the work of Richard Felder, Professor Emeritus of Chemical Engineering at North Carolina State University. Rich has trained countless faculty in the use of active and cooperative learning.
Click here for Felder's comments on the distinction between active and cooperative learning.
While many engineers begin with the Johnson and Johnson model of cooperative learning (usually as adapted by Smith or Felder) it is important to note that most incorporate ideas and strategies from many other practitioners, such as Frank Lyman's Think Pair Share or Elliot Aronson's Jigsaw . The teaming and teambuilding strategies that faculty employ often come from research in social psychology or business. Our experienced practitioners adopt, adapt and create in order to develop their own approaches to active and cooperative learning-approaches that best fit their content, their students and their own teaching style.
Posted by
, Published at
2:53 PM
and have
0
comments
Tidak ada komentar :
Posting Komentar