Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2004). Persistently, the results of these studies indicated to have profound effects on the
achievement, attitude and engagement of students. Cline (2007), in her 16 week study,
examined the effects of Kagans structures in her 5th grade math class. She implemented the
structures like Rally Coach and Round Table to one class and used traditional method with
the other class. The result indicated that the experimental group surpassed the comparison on
all measures of achievement in mathematics. An another study on grade 7 mathematic class
by Altamira (2007) indicated the raised level of confidence in students abilities and better
involvement in learning. During her study, she implemented Kagans structural approach to
47 students grouped together in heterogenous teams of mixed abilities for six weeks and
came up with promising results with better grades than the students started at.
Bromley and Modlo (1997) in their descriptive study implemented the Kagans
Structural approach during readind and writing instructions and found this approach
associated with higher level thinking, better communication and positive socail relations
among students. Magnesio and Davis (2010) also reported to have positive effects of Kagans
Structures (RoundRobin, Rally Coach and Quiz- Quiz- Trade) on 4th grade students in
improving their social skills. Similar results were discovered by Nebesniak (2007) in her
study on 73 eighth grade students. The study found 69% students with enhanced confidence
level in problem solving and more involvement in their learning.
Limitations
Despite appearing advantageous and idealistic, there are some risks with Kagans
structures which teachers should be careful to avert and plan for.
1. Takes time and patience to be consistent
2. Danger of low achievers to be abased by high achievers
3. Chances of student dependency on group work
4. Frustration and hostility from students
5. Lack of social skills in students may result in social conflicts
6. Fear of failure may prevent some students from participation in group tasks.
Conclusion
Cooperative learning is a useful strategy worthy of canniness and mindful
implementation by educators. Various studies have pointed towards the role of the teacher in
implementing cooperative learning (Ding, Li, Piccolo, & KuIm, 2007; Siegel, 2005). These
studies held teachers role crucial to the success of cooperative learning in the classroom in
terms of decision making about setting up group tasks and their interventions during the
group processing.
References :
Johnson, D. & Johnson, R. (1994). In R. Stahl (Ed.), Co-operative learning in social studies:
A handbook for teachers. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Holubec, E. (2002). Circles of learning (5th ed.). Edina,
MN: Interaction Book Company.
Kagan, S. (1994). Cooperative learning. San Clemente, CA: Resources for Teachers.
Kagan, S., & Kagan, M. (2009). Kagan cooperative learning. San Clemente, CA: Kagan
Publishing.
MacMaster, K., & Fuchs, D. (2002). Effects of cooperative learning on the academic
achievement of students with learning disabilities: An update on Tateyama- Sniezeks
review. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 17, 107-117.
Magnesio, S., & Davis, B. H. (2010). A novice teacher fosters social competence with
cooperative learning. Childhood Education International, 86(4), 216-223. Retrieved
from
http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.library.uwa.edu.au/docview/669860949?accountid=1468
1
Murie, C. (2004). Effects of communication on student learning. Kagan Online Magazine.
San demente, CA: Kagan Publishing. Retrieved on August 12, 2014.
Myers, J. (1991). Co-operative learning in history and social sciences: An idea whose time
has come. Canadian Social Studies, 26(2), 60-64.
Nebesniak, A. (2007). Using cooperative learning to promote a problem- solving classroom.
Prepared in partial fulfillment of the MA degree for Department of Teaching, Learning
and Teacher Education, University of Nebraska- Lincoln. Retrieved from..
Siegel, C. (2005). Implementing a research-based model of cooperative learning. The Journal
of Educational Research, 98(6), 339-349.
Slavin, R. E. (1996). Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What we know,
what we need to know. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21(1), 43-69.
Slavin, R., & Cooper, R. (1999). Improving intergroup relations: Lesson learned from
cooperative programs. Journal of Special Issues, 55, 647-663.
Stevens, R. (2003). Student team reading and writing: A cooperative learning approach to
middle school literacy instruction. Education Research and Evaluation, 9, 137-160.
Sahlberg, P., & Berry, J. (2002). One and one is sometimes three in small group mathematics
learning. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 22, 82-94.
Vermette, P. J. (1998). Making cooperative learning work: Students teams in K-12
classrooms. Prentice-Hall/Merrill, Upper Saddle River: New Jersey.