Category: Focus on How We Teach (Fall 2004)

Introduction

Jewish Day Schools are increasingly drawing a varied population in terms of socioeconomic background, cultural background and academic ability. As the Head of Jewish Studies of a Jewish high school in the United Kingdom, I experienced the challenges that this trend presents to teachers. In an attempt to help the teachers deal effectively with the reality of heterogeneous classes, I explored the application of cooperative learning strategies to the Jewish studies classroom. Cooperative learning refers to a method of teaching which primarily focuses on increasing achievement through changing the way the students interact in the classroom. Brody and Davidson (1998:9) identify some of the key components of cooperative learning, noting the attributes that are common to all of the models:

A common task or learning activity suitable for group work.
Small group student interaction focused on the learning activity.
Cooperative, mutually helpful behavior among students.
Interdependence in working together.
Individual accountability and responsibility for group work outcomes.

Although a wealth of research has been conducted on the positive impact of cooperative learning strategies in general education, practically no research has been done on its impact in Jewish studies. I was thus motivated to conduct my own research on the subject.

The Goal of the Research

The main purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of cooperative learning on academic achievement and attitudes in Bible studies in Jewish schools in the UK. While empirical evidence supports the use of cooperative learning with a variety of subject areas and age groups, the extent to which these methods are beneficial in Bible education in such schools is unknown. Without empirical evidence to support the effectiveness of cooperative education in Bible studies, it is likely to be ignored as an instructional methodology by Bible study educators. Given that there has been a perceptible increase in the number and variety of cooperative learning models in the last three decades, I was particularly interested in trying to replicate the results of other research in a number of classes in the school. Although there are many recognized models of cooperative learning (Sharan, 2002), only the STAD and Jigsaw models were used in this study.[1] For a description of these two methods, see the previous article by Shlomo Sharan.

Why cooperative learning?

Research studies have shown that cooperative learning methods are beneficial for no less than 67 educational parameters (Panitz, 1997a). Panitz groups these benefits into four main categories. A number of examples are brought to demonstrate some of these documented benefits.

Academic benefits: Cooperative learning promotes critical thinking skills, involves students actively in the learning process, improves classroom results, models appropriate student problem solving techniques, personalises instruction, and motivates students in specific curriculum. Basing himself on work done by Goodlad (1984), Kagan explains that in the traditional classroom, teachers do almost 80% of the talking. This leaves only 20 seconds per student in a class of 30 students in a 50 minute lesson! In cooperative learning where there is simultaneous interaction, even if the teacher still only allowed the same ten minutes for pupil talk, each pupil would talk for 5 minutes which is 15 times as much language production as in the traditional classroom.” (p.4:6). This is significant in the views of Piaget and Vygotsky that emphasize the pivotal contribution of social interaction to cognitive development.

Social benefits: Cooperative learning develops a social support system for students, builds an understanding of diversity among students, establishes a positive atmosphere for modeling and practicing cooperation, and develops learning communities. The reality of life after school is that there are compelling reasons for teaching group skills whilst the young citizens and future workforce are still in a school setting. Hyatt and Gottlieb (1987: cited in Roy, 1994:19) in their book “When Smart People Fail” identify the nine most common reasons why people lose their jobs. The number one reason was “poor interpersonal skills.” Kagan comments: “Given the reality of the job-world, it is incumbent on schools to provide cooperative experiences in order to provide students with the interpersonal skills they will need for positive participation in economic life.” (p. 1:1).

Psychological benefits: Student centered instruction increases students’ self-esteem, cooperation reduces anxiety, and cooperative learning develops positive attitudes towards teachers. Participation in traditional classes tends to be very unequal. A whole class question and answer session “involves the participation of the high achieving and extroverted students almost exclusively. What about the timid students? Low achievers? Introverts? The traditional structure of calling on students who raise their hands results in our calling most on those who least need to be called on!” (Kagan, p.4:10). Since participation is highly correlated with success, students who participate are more likely to enjoy the process and to learn.

It is important to note that cooperative learning should not be confused with group work. Instead, it offers ways to organise group work to enhance learning and increase academic achievement. Cooperative learning is carefully structured so that each learner interacts with others and all learners are motivated to increase each other’s learning (Olsen and Kagan, 1992).

STAD is an acronym for Students Teams Achievement Divisions. Classes using STAD five periods a week follow a schedule of direct teaching (40 minutes), team practice (40 minutes) and quiz (20 minutes). This schedule is repeated twice a week. The test looks to examine knowledge and skills gained in the class presentation and during team practice. Students are not assigned roles as tutors or tutees, although such roles may emerge during the team sessions.

STAD is considered most appropriate for “teaching well-defined objectives with single right answers.” (Slavin, 1991: 73). Therefore, I used it for teaching bekiut, comprehension and translation. This model was used in the first experiment which lasted eight weeks. Two of the four weekly Chumash lessons were taught cooperatively.

Before starting the project, the rationale behind cooperative learning was presented to the class by the teacher/researcher, and was introduced to the parents in a letter. STAD [2] is the simplest of the cooperative learning models. As described by Sharan in the previous article, it consists of five interlocking components: direct instruction, teams, tests, individual progress scores, and team recognition. It is important to note that there is no reason to expect the students to learn cooperatively if they have no training in cooperative skills. For this reason a number of team-building exercises were used at the beginning of each of the first cooperative learning lessons. The Broken Squares game (Bavelas, 1973) was used and proved to be quite popular.

The following is a description of the implementation of the STAD approach in our research:

Stage One – Direct Instruction

The STAD presentation differs from traditional teaching only in that it focuses on the STAD unit to be drilled later on (p.95). In this way, the students realize that they must pay careful attention because it will help them to do well in the individual tests, which in turn helps to determine their team score. In our case, the teacher introduced STAD material in a class presentation. The STAD units focused on three skills, two basic ones and one more advanced: 1) comprehension; 2) translation and vocabulary; and 3) recognition of the seven literary characteristics that determine the make-up of a Biblical story.

The schedule of ‘teach lesson, team practice and test’ (p.104) was followed throughout the experiment. Each lesson lasted for 35 minutes.[3] The number of lessons given over to the teacher presentation depended on the nature of the material of the particular unit.

The team practice took place on each occasion in the predetermined teams (see next section). The team practice sessions appeared to work well, both in terms of classroom organization and in terms of student interaction in preparation for the test that took place at the beginning of the next lesson. Worksheets were given out to help the students focus on the material. A homework assignment was always given between the team practice and the test in order to review for the test. Often this was done by pairs from within the teams getting together after school to go over the material.

Stage Two- The Teams

Slavin indicates that groups should be formed heterogeneously based on prior achievement. He makes note, however, of the possibility that while this may produce equally balanced teams on paper, it does not take into account “the maturity of the teammates or poor combinations." For this reason, he suggests that the teacher may wish to make minor variations in the assignments.” (p.100). In our case, the winter 2001 exam results were used to form five groups of four students and two groups of three students according to the method outlined by Slavin (p.99). A number of adjustments were made based on prior knowledge of the students and their academic ability. For instance, two excellent students underperformed in the winter exam. Their class position for the team formation was given a higher weighting than if the winter exam results alone had been used. Each team was examined by the teacher/researcher to try and ensure that the teams were fair in every way.

Stage 3 – The Tests

The tests were taken individually. No problems were encountered. Slavin suggests that the tests can be marked by the students themselves. In this study, all the tests were marked by the teacher/researcher.

Stage Four - Individual Progress Scores

In STAD, individual students contribute to the group by improving on their base score. A student’s “base score” is the average score obtained prior to this test on similar quizzes. Slavin clearly states that for motivational purposes the base scores should be set about 5 points below the score that the students are actually expected to achieve (p.100). Using Slavin’s table of base scores, a base score was calculated for each student. While all of the students seemed genuinely happy with the change in learning style, many felt (especially the brighter students) that there was no challenge with target scores so obviously below their capabilities. The first test, focusing on the translation of a Bible text and comprehension, was given to the students with the original base scores and indeed they scored well above their base scores.

For many students there was no feeling of elation. Some scored as much as 11 points above their base score and in a way they felt cheated. It was necessary to recalculate base scores using the higher figures which Slavin presents in the appendix of his article. This was considered to be the better option than making the tests more difficult, which may have adversely affected the good feeling and increased motivation now felt by the low achieving students.

The following points should be noted:

Only one student did not reach her target.
In time, the differences between the expected test result and the individual target became smaller as the targets was readjusted based on the actual test scores.
On the whole, the weaker students from both sets achieved the biggest differences between their target and actual scores.
Letters were sent home to all the parents indicating target scores, actual scores and points contributed to team.

In the STAD process, after two tests using the same targets, the targets are recalculated based on the actual test scores (p.98). If a student starts performing better, he can be challenged to improve further. If the base score was set too high, it can be adjusted to a more realistic level. An unexplainable surprise happened when this was done using the STAD tables. The STAD tables and the targets set by it tend to be conservative. For instance, a student who had a target of 24 and achieved 26 in the two subsequent quizzes, is to be set a new base of only 22! No explanation is to be found in the STAD literature as to why this is the case. It could be that the ‘lowering’ of the target is to allow the student to contribute more points to his team and thereby motivate him to carry on learning. In our case it was felt that in such circumstances the new target had to be raised even if only very slightly, particularly since base scores and actual scores were shared with the parents. From a parent’s point of view if their child was given a target and surpassed it and is then set a new target that is lower, this would be nonsensical and unacceptable. As a result the new targets were raised by at least one point.

Stage Five - Team Recognition

Recognition to the winning teams and to individuals who have achieved maximum points in their tests was achieved in two ways. Firstly, in the class assembly, the wining team was mentioned and its members were given a small prize. Secondly, and from the students’ point of view more importantly, letters were sent home to inform their parents of the progress being made.

Implementation of the Jigsaw Approach

The Jigsaw method, described in the previous article by Sharan, was utilized following the implementation of the STAD model. Jigsaw II, a variation of Jigsaw devised by Slavin, was adopted. In terms of its structure, it follows the principles of Jigsaw. However, in Jigsaw II the final step in the process is for team members to take an individual quiz or test on the material they have taught each other (Slavin, 1980b). Points are awarded in the same way as STAD, and are added together to make a team score. This method was selected because of its consistency with the STAD approach that was utilized previously with the same students.[4] Jigsaw was considered particularly useful for the teaching of Bible studies, particularly iyun (in depth) study, because of its focus on different groups studying different topics. Much of Bible study involves the studying of the opinions of various medieval commentators with regard to the Biblical narrative. Knowledge of the text is merely the beginning of a deeper and more meaningful analysis of the behaviours and intentions of the characters involved in any Biblical story. The Midrash (Bamidbar Rabba 13) says that there are seventy ways to understand everything in the Bible. In the Jigsaw lessons, we endeavored to study four of them. Furthermore, the jigsaw model is more appropriate for higher level thinking, with group members pooling their knowledge and resources. Under these conditions it becomes feasible to develop more challenging and advanced activities than would otherwise be possible if students were required to work alone or even if using STAD.

Having introduced the subject of the lesson and the nature of the problem under discussion (to which four explanations/solutions are to be presented to the class), the home groups were split up and worked as expert groups. With regard to the expert groups, there are different ways of constructing them. One way is to randomly assign the students so that on each occasion different students work together. Another way is to split them up homogeneously so that the brighter students meet together to work on the harder material which they in turn will have to simplify to make it understandable for all members of the group (Vansickle, 1994; Lazarowitz, 2002). An advantage of working like this is it allows the brighter students to work on material which is at their level and the weaker students to work on material at their level. On different occasions different methods were chosen, depending on the nature of the material being studied. When the material was gradable, the expert groups were formed according to ability. When the material involved four approaches with the same level of difficulty, the expert groups were heterogeneous. The division of the groups was always pre-assigned by the teacher/ researcher. The students did not seem to mind how they were divided up. In contrast to the STAD lessons where very little teacher assistance was required, the Jigsaw lessons required the teacher/researcher to spend far more time going around the expert groups helping them work through the material.

The following short section demonstrates a sample Jigsaw Bible lesson. The question that had been put to the class was: why did Joseph never make contact with his father Jacob for all the time that he was in Egypt (22 years)? This question was put to the whole class in a frontal presentation by the teacher/researcher. The moral dilemma was expanded upon and possible explanations for Joseph’s behaviour were put forward by the students in a brainstorming session. The class, in this particular unit, was then split up into predetermined expert groups according to ability level in order to study one of four possible answers to the question, since the answers provided by the selected commentators differed in their level of difficulty. After twenty minutes, having discussed in the expert groups the content of their particular answer, the class reformed in their home groups to learn three other possible answers.

Results: The Impact of Cooperative Learning[5] on Academic Achievement and Student Attitudes in Bible Studies

In general the academic progress of the students in their Bible studies was impressive. Of particular note were the achievements of the students who had, until this intervention, learned in the lower set. In many cases they surpassed their friends who had been learning in the top set. This section presents the results of the research. Changes in academic achievement were measured by noting the difference between the winter and summer exam results. The summer exam results also highlighted the more summative effects of some of the cooperative learning intervention. Attitudes were measured by the use of a two-part questionnaire.

Twenty-six students were exposed to cooperative learning for two school terms in Bible studies. The first research aim wished to identify whether there were any significant differences in achievement levels in Bible studies between cooperative and control groups from pre-testing to post-testing over the experimental period.

Absolute Scores Analysis

Table 1 [6]: Absolute Scores Analysis of Bible Studies showing the change in the mean results of students in Years 8, 9 and 10

Bible Studies

	Experimental group Year 9 (n-25)	Control group
		Year 8 (n=25)	Year 10 (n=17)
Pre-test Mean (Winter exam Dec. 2001)	60	66	80
Post-test Mean (Summer exam July 2002)	70	60	80
% change	+16%	-10%	0%
SD (pre-test)	25.939	18.030	11.106
SD (post-test)	15.820	18.003	6.340

Discussion: Absolute Scores

The results indicate that there is a significant increase in the grades in Bible Studies over time when compared with the control groups. The participants in the experimental group did better in the post-test summer exams {Mean = 70, SD=16.011} in absolute terms compared with the pre-test {Mean = 60, SD = 25.939}. A dependent t-test revealed that if the hypothesis was true (that there is no difference over time) such a result would be highly unlikely to have occurred by chance {t=-2.298, df=23, p<0.05}.

2. Triangulation within the Experimental Group Only

The results in Table 2 highlight the fact that ONLY in Bible studies where the class was taught as one heterogeneous class, did the mean results increase significantly. In all the other core subjects the students continued to be taught as two sets in the traditional manner. In Chemistry there was a positive change in the mean, which rose from 68 to 70. In Bible studies the mean rose from 60 to 70.

Table 2: Table showing the overall changes in the Winter and Summer exam results of Year Nine School A in core subjects.[7]

Year nine (n=26)	Maths	Science			Bible Studies
Year nine (n=26)	Maths	Biology	Chem.	Physics	Bible Studies
Pre-test Mean (Winter 2001)	66	74	68	70	60
Post-test Mean (Summer 2002)	51	65	70	61	70
% change	-23%	-14%	+3%	-14%	+12%
SD Winter 2001	20.4839	13.1960	16.2611	13.4501	25.9385
SD Summer 2002	18.0273	13.3781	14.8106	15.9581	15.8202

It could be argued that the use of core subjects such as Math and Science for purposes of comparison is an unfair one for two reasons. Firstly, in these subjects the students are streamed. Secondly, Bible Studies is more of an Arts subject. For this reason statistical analysis was also performed on the results of two Arts subjects - History and Music – where the class is taught as one group. Table 3 shows the absolute change in the results of the students in these two subjects. Due to the small number of students it was deemed not practical to use tests of significance.

Table 3: Table showing the overall changes in the Winter and Summer exam results of Year Nine School A in History Music

	Top third			Middle third			Bottom third
	Year 9	Year 8	Year 10	Year 9	Year 8	Year 10	Year 9	Year 8	Year 10
Winter exam Dec. 2001	86	81	90	59	64	79	33	49	68
Summer exam July 2002	84	74	86	73	60	80	53	48	73
% change	-1.5%	-9%	-2%	+23%	-2.6%	-1%	+23.7%	-1%	+13%

Summary

The implication of these results and tables is that the academic achievement of Year 9 in Bible studies improved during the intervention period. This was not the case for the control groups. The statistical analysis confirmed this. In other subjects there were no comparable positive changes. The students who had studied in set two made particularly good academic progress in Bible studies. One area of concern is the fact that the more advanced students in the cooperative learning group showed a small decline in achievement. The size of the sample and the amount of decline are not statistically significant. These results, however, do raise the often-asked question as to whether the cooperative learning methods are beneficial for the more advanced students in Bible Studies. It would be worthwhile to conduct further research on this issue.

4. Attitudes toward Bible Studies

This study wished to investigate the effect of the intervention on the attitudes of the experimental group towards Bible studies. In particular the study wishes to ensure that there is no negative effect.

Table 5: The mean overall attitude of the experimental class before, during and after the intervention

Group	January 2002	April 2002	July 2002
Year 9 (exp.)	2.6275 (sd.=.3490)	2.7951 (sd.=.4262)	2.8521 (sd.=.4227)

Table 5 indicates a gentle rise in the attitudes of the experimental group towards Bible studies throughout the period of the intervention. This positive enhancement is most welcome.

Table 6: The overall change in mean of attitudes towards Bible studies, English and Maths of Year Nine

Group	January 2002	April 2002	July 2002
Bible Studies	2.6275 (sd.=.3490)	2.7951 (sd.=.4262)	2.8521 (sd.=.4227)
English	2.6433 (sd.=.4312)	2.7345 (sd.=.4658)	2.7572 (sd.=.4529)
Maths	2.6855 (sd.=.4506)	2.7422 (sd.=.4924)	2.6865 (sd.=.4805)

Table 6 shows the change of attitude in other subjects where there was no intervention. In English the overall class attitude did rise but less so than in Bible studies. Of interest is that at the beginning of the experiment the class’s overall attitude to English was very slightly more positive than it was towards Bible studies. This had changed by the end of the intervention period. In Math there was no change.

Conclusion

My initial research indicates that cooperative learning strategies are applicable to Bible studies and that they have the potential to yield positive results, as they do in many areas of general studies. Although our sample was limited, the data obtained showed advances in both academic progress and attitudes toward Bible studies. The advances among second and third level students was particularly encouraging. It is my hope that this research will inspire teachers of Jewish studies to familiarize themselves with and utilize cooperative learning strategies in their classrooms, and will serve as catalyst for others to conduct further research in this area.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bavelas, A. (1973) The five squares problem: an instructional aid in group cooperation. Studies in Personnel Psychology, 5, pp. 29–38 in Aronson E. and Goode E. (1979) Training Teachers to Implement JIGSAW learning: A Manual for Teachers

Brody, C. and Davidson, N. (1998) Professional Development for Cooperative Learning: issues and approaches. New York: SUNY

Goodlad, J. (1984) A Place Called School New York: McGraw Hill Book Company in Kagan S. (1999) Cooperative Learning. California: Kagan Cooperative Learning

Kagan, S. (1999) Cooperative Learning. California: Kagan Cooperative Learning

Lazarowitz, R. (2002) Academic Achievement and the Classroom Learning Environment of High School Students who Studied Evolution in a Cooperative Learning Mode. Paper presented at the IASCE International Conference, Manchester, UK, June 2002

Olsen, R. and Kagan, S. (1992) About Cooperative Learning New Jersey: Prentice Hall

Panitz, T. (1997a) The Benefits of Cooperative Learning. URL: http://home.capecod.net/~tpanitz/tedsarticles/coopbenefits.htm [1 July 2003]

Panitz, T. (1997b) The Case For Student Centered Instruction Via Collaborative Learning Paradigms. URL: www.home.capecod.net/~tpanitz/tedsarticles/coopdefinition.htm [22 November 2002]

Roy, P. (1994) Cultivating Cooperative Group Process Skills Within the Social Studies Classroom in Stahl, R. (1994a) Cooperative Learning in Social Studies: A Handbook for Teachers. Menlo Park: Addison-Wesley

Sharan S. (2002) Differentiating Methods of Cooperative Learning in Research and Practice. Asia Pacific Journal of Education 22, (1)

Sharan, S., Hare, P., Webb, C. and Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (1979) Cooperation in Education. (Based on the proceedings of the first International Conference on Cooperation in Education) Tel Aviv, Israel, Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press

Slavin, R. (1991) Synthesis of Research on Cooperative Learning, Educational Leadership, 48(5) pp. 71-82.

Slavin, R. (1980b) Using Student Team Learning Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University in Cuseo J. Cooperative/Collaborative Structures Designed to Promote Positive Interdependence Among Group Members URL: http://www.cat.ilstu.edu/teaching_tips/handouts/cooperative.html [15 October 2002]

Vansickle, R. (1994) JIGSAW II: Cooperative Learning with “Expert Group” Specialisation in Stahl R. (1994a) Cooperative Learning in Social Studies: A Handbook for Teachers Menlo Park: Addison-Wesley

[1] Some of the factors supporting the selection of these models include: 1) They are manageable by the classroom teacher without changing the structure or organization of the school; 2) They do not require extensive teacher training; 3) They can be implemented in a shorter time frame than some of the other methods; and 4) They can be implemented with teacher-made materials and do not require the purchase of outside materials.

[2] This section is adapted from “How to use STAD” (pp.95-107) in Sharan’s Cooperation in Education (1979). All page references refer to this source.

[3] Prior to the experiment the class timetable was that each set had four Bible studies lessons per week. During the experiment, set one continued to study Bible studies as a set for two lessons only. The same was true for set two. The material studied in these two lessons was different from the material studied in cooperative learning format when the whole class studied together.

[4] In a second school, the regular Jigsaw strategy, which does not require testing at the end of each unit, was used without being combined with the STAD approach. This model was deemed appropriate for this school because the class being studied was a weaker, homogeneously grouped class. In addition to not requiring additional testing, the original Jigsaw strategy does not focus as much as the STAD model on heterogeneous grouping. Individual accountability was achieved by the very fact that each student was going to have to return to his/her home group and tell his/her fellow group members about his/her part of the ‘jigsaw puzzle’. In this school, even though Jigsaw was used systematically, the academic performance of the students fell, a result that is inconsistent with the literature on Jigsaw. These results suggest that in low ability homogeneous classes, Jigsaw may not be an appropriate model to use if an immediate increase in academic achievement is sought. Nevertheless, the attitude questionnaire indicated that for this experimental group, attitudes to Bible studies actually became more positive even though their mean achievements fell. This is in itself an achievement, and suggests that the approach may have yielded positive academic results in the long term.

[5] When discussing the impact of ‘cooperative learning’ in this chapter on achievement, it refers specifically to the two models of cooperative learning that were used in the research. This clarification is important to avoid the criticim of using “cooperative learning” as an umbrella term when it has a more specific context.

[6] For this table only the results of the control groups are presented separately. This is to show how each class performed individually. For all subsequent statistical analysis the control groups will be considered as a single entity.

[7] There are no comparisons in English because the English department decided not to test in the Summer since the students had taken their SATS exam only a month beforehand.