Richard D. Solomon, Ph.D. (rds@umd.edu) serves as an adjunct professor at Baltimore Hebrew University and Gratz College, teaching graduate courses in supervision and staff development, instruction and classroom management. His most recent book, Toolbox for Teachers and Mentors: Moving Madrichim to Mentor Teachers and Beyond will be published in 2009. Neil Davidson is Professor Emeritus of Curriculum and Instruction, University of Maryland, co-founder of Academy for Excellence in Teaching and Learning, and a consultant on cooperative learning. His most recently edited books include Cooperative Learning in Mathematics: A Handbook for Teachers and Enhancing Thinking Through Cooperative Learning (with Toni Worsham). This article provides an introduction to the concept of active learning, reviews some of the research related to its success, and suggests thirteen active learning strategies, with specific suggestions for Jewish education.
Active learning describes a category of instructional strategies (i.e. cooperative learning, collaborative learning, problem-based learning, inquiry-based learning, service learning, and other approaches) designed to highly engage students in the construction of knowledge and the creation of meaning.
As an instructional strategy active learning assumes different roles for the teacher and the student. With active learning the teacher facilitates learning activities during which students are invited to construct knowledge and create personal meaning. This type of teaching is termed constructivist teaching. On the other hand, with passive learning the teacher is primarily responsible for transmitting knowledge to students. Hence with passive learning, the role of the student is to serve as a knowledge receptor or vessel. This type of teaching is called transmissional teaching.
Active Learning vs. Passive Learning
With active learning/constructivist teaching these characteristics apply (Brooks and Brooks, 1993):
- the teacher structures many opportunities for students to talk.
- the teacher invites student questions and responses to drive instruction.
- the students create and construct knowledge.
- the teacher provides students with many highly engaging activities in which to interact with other students in order to learn.
- there are many teachers and learners in the room.
With passive learning/transmissional teaching these characteristics apply:
- the teacher does the preponderance of talking.
- the teacher’s knowledge base and lesson plans drive instruction.
- the teacher transmits knowledge which the students passively receive.
- the teacher believes students must be still and fully focused on the teacher in order to learn.
- there is one teacher in the room, and many learners.
Cooperative Learning – survey
While cooperation in education may appear to be a twentieth-century development, it has long-standing roots in many societies. Indeed, an ancient Jewish tradition of having a partner (hevruta) with whom to study the Talmud is referenced as early as the Babylonian Talmud (Shabbat 63a). R. Abba said in the name of R. Simeon b. Lakish: When two disciples form an assembly in halakhah, the Holy One, blessed be He, loves them. Yet not until the twentieth century has there been systematic and wide-ranging international research on the key concepts and methods of cooperation in education.
The field of cooperative and collaborative learning is not monolithic. Indeed there are many methods of cooperative and collaborative learning. For an elaboration on the various approaches to implementing cooperative learning see the Handbook of Cooperative Learning Methods by Shlomo Sharan (1993). What all these approaches share is that students work together cooperatively in small groups of 2-5 members in order to accomplish an academic task in a positive and mutually supportive manner. In a theoretical synthesis of varied cooperative and collaborative learning approaches, Davidson (1994, 2002) has identified five attributes that are common to all the approaches. These are:
- A common task or learning activity suitable for group work
- Small-group interaction focused on the learning activity
- Cooperative, mutually helpful behavior among students
- Interdependence in working together
- Individual accountability and responsibility
In addition to these common attributes, there are nine other attributes which vary among the approaches to cooperative and collaborative learning. Examples of these are how groups are formed, how or whether to teach interpersonal skills, the structure of the group, and the role of the teacher. For further details, see Davidson (1994, 2002). For syntheses of this research see the extensive reviews by Johnson and Johnson (1989), Slavin (1990), Sharan (1980, 1990), and Newmann and Thompson (1987) at the high school level. Additional reviews have focused on conditions for productive group work (Cohen, 1994), task-related group interaction in mathematics groups (Webb, 1991), and cooperative learning with post-secondary students in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology (Springer et al, 1999).
Research conducted in many different subject areas and various age groups of students has shown positive effects favoring cooperative learning in academic achievement, development of higher order thinking skills (both critical and creative), self esteem and self confidence as learners, intergroup relations including friendship across racial and ethical boundaries, social acceptance of mainstreamed students labeled as handicapped or disabled, development of interpersonal skills, and the ability to take the perspective of another person.
Thirteen Cooperative Learning Procedures and Sample Applications
Below are the names of thirteen cooperative learning procedures with an explanation of their rules of engagement and content applications for the classroom (Solomon and Solomon, 2009).The later items on this list are more sophisticated, and thus are more challenging to implement. Note:A quad is a team of four members. A dyad is a pair. Procedures with an asterisk (*) were originally created and published by Kagan (1992).
1. Think-Pair-Share (Lyman, 1981): This is a three-step paired cooperative procedure. During step one, each member individually and silently thinks about a question posed by the teacher. During the second step, two members are paired to exchange and discuss their responses. During step three, each member may share his response, his partner’s response, a synthesis or something new with the quad, another quad, or the entire class. Participants always retain the right to pass or not share information. There are many variations including: Think-Write-Pair and Share and Think-Web, Pair-Web and Share.
Sample Application: Instead of posing a question to the class, the teacher uses Think-Pair-Share.
Sample Application: Think of your favorite biblical hero or heroine; Pair (discuss) with your partner; Share your answer with the class. For additional application to Jewish studies see Melamed-Turkish (2007)
2. Pairs: Students are placed in dyads. Here are the two steps in Pairs: (1) the teacher assigns a task for each learning pair. (2) each learning pair works on the task; the teacher monitors progress.
Sample Application: Create a list of the blessings that you find in the siddur.
3. Paired or Two-Step Interview: The teacher poses a question and invites students to form a learning pair; one partner is A and the other is B. A answers the question during a time specified by the teacher. When A is answering the question, B must listen, may ask clarifying or probing questions, but may not interrupt A or share his or her opinion. Then the process reverses with B speaking and A listening or asking questions.
Sample Application: How does your family usually celebrate Shabbat?
4. *Rally Round (Kagan, 1992): This is a paired cooperative procedure in four stages.
a. Individuals brainstorm and record answers to a problem posed by the teacher or a student.
b. Pairs take turns sharing answers. A states an answer from her list and B listens. If B has that answer on his list, he places a check next to his answer. If B does not have that answer on his list, he adds it to his list.
c. Then B gives a new answer, and A listens and records new information on her list. Note: A and B do not discuss their answers until the time limit has elapsed.
d. A and B discuss their answers.
Sample Application. Generate a list of Hebrew words that begin with the letter ____.
5. Round Robin Brainstorming: The teacher or a student poses a question that has multiple answers. Students, in quads, verbally share one new idea in round robin fashion with their quad members. Then students share answers with the entire class. The rules for brainstorming include:
a. say anything that comes to mind during the time limit.
b. you may repeat, modify or piggyback upon the ideas previously presented.
c. do not discuss, praise, criticize or reject any ideas presented.
d. select someone to record the ideas.
e. evaluate the ideas after brainstorming is completed.
Sample Application: How many Jewish holidays can you name?
6. *Round Table: Each quad is given one sheet of paper on which to record different responses to a question posed by the teacher. Each quad member is invited to write one new response to the teacher’s question on the quad’s paper. The paper is then passed around the quad in clock-wise or counter-clock-wise fashion. A student who does not have a novel response says, “I pass” and then gives the paper to the next student. The paper may be passed around the quad several times. A more sophisticated form of Round Table has students passing around four sheets of paper with each paper posing a different question.
Sample Application: Generate a list of prophets in the Tanakh.
7. *Numbered Heads Together: The students in each quad are given or choose a number: 1, 2, 3 or 4. When the teacher poses a question and says, “Numbered Heads Together,” quad members get together and discuss the question making certain that all members can answer the question posed. After a specified period of time, the teacher restates the question and announces a number, i.e. 1, 2, 3 or 4. Students having that number in all the different quads are invited to state an answer to the question. The teacher then calls a second number and the procedure continues.
Sample Application: What are the names of the Hebrew months in consecutive order?
8. *Corners: The teacher or a student raises a question that has multiple answers. After several responses are generated, students are invited to join a common interest group where they can discuss their views. These common interest groups gather in different parts (corners) of the room.
Sample Application: What is your favorite Jewish holiday?
9. *Team Question and Answer: This is a review cooperative learning procedure. A student may pose a question to the teacher or the class only when the members of her quad do not know the answer or have different answers to that question. The teacher can add the following rule: A student may ask the teacher a question (a) when her team mates do not agree upon an answer and (b) after consulting with another quad.
Sample Application: Use this as a review for a test or quiz in any Judaic subject.
10. Reciprocal Teaching: This is an excellent reading comprehension and discussion cooperative procedure. Students form learning pairs and do the following:
a. silently read the same passage at the same time.
b. together, verbally summarize the reading.
c. ask each other questions about the reading.
d. clarify and explain what the reading means.
e. predict the contents of the next passage.
Sample Application: Read a passage from any of the Five Books of Moses and follow the procedure of reciprocal teaching.
11. Simple Jigsaw (Aronson et al, 1978): The teacher divides an assignment into four parts and each quad member is responsible for learning and teaching one-fourth of the assignment to his or her teammates. Students may be pre and post tested on their mastery of the material. More Complex Alternative:
a. Each quad mate is given some content to learn, a problem to solve or a skill to perform.
b. Each quad mate plans how to teach the material or skill to the other members of the quad/team. This includes developing a means of checking for understanding to determine whether the other quad members have really learned the information or skill presented.
c. Each quad mate teaches the material or skill to the other members of the quad. This includes checking for understanding.
Sample Application: Each person in the quad is assigned a city in Israel to study. After studying that city, she must report on its population, economy, location and major attractions to the other members of the quad.
12. Expert Jigsaw: This is a more complex cooperative procedure that includes the following four steps:
a. A task or set of materials is divided into several component parts or topics.
b. Each quad member is given a topic on which to become an expert.
c. Members who have the same topics meet in expert groups to discuss their topics, analyze the data, and plan how to present their findings to their team mates.
d. Members return to their original quads and teach what they have learned to the members of their original group.
Sample Application: Divide the class into quads. Divide a topic like (Jewish leaders) into four component parts: 1. Moses, 2. Queen Esther, 3. David Ben-Gurion, and 4. Golda Meir. Give each quad member a number from 1 to 4. Thus number 1 is responsible for studying the life of Moses, number 2 learns about Queen Esther, etc. All class members with the number one form an expert group on Moses, and answer a set of questions. All class members with the number two form an expert group to study Queen Esther, etc. At a designated time determined by the teacher, the experts return to their original quad and report their findings to their original team members.
13. Team Webbing: Each quad is assigned one fact or concept which is written on a sheet of paper. With pen, pencil or marker in hand, each quad member silently and simultaneously records a related fact or concept, or writes a question on the paper. Each quad thus creates a team web of questions and answers which can serve as a springboard for future class discussion or inquiry.
Sample Application: When beginning a new unit, a team web can be used to determine what students know about a given topic, and what they would like to learn. Example: Places to visit in Israel.
Summary
Active learning is a generic term which describes an array of instructional strategies that highly engage students in the construction of knowledge and the creation of meaning. Cooperative learning is a specific type of active learning in which students work together on academic tasks in small teams to help themselves and their team mates learn together.
The research on cooperative learning is extensive and compelling. When compared with other instructional approaches, such as individualized instruction and the lecture method, cooperative learning is positively correlated with a number of significant learning variables learning.
References
Aronson, E., Blaney, N. Stephan, C., Sikes, J. & Snapp, M. (1978) The Jigsaw Classroom. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Brooks, J.G. & Brooks, M.G. (1993). In Search of Understanding: The Case for Constructivist Classrooms. Alexandria VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 27.
Cohen, Elizabeth (1986, second edition 1994). Designing Group Work: Strategies for the Heterogeneous Classroom. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University.
Davidson, Neil & Worsham, Toni (Eds.) (1992). Enhancing Thinking Through Cooperative Learning. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University.
Davidson, Neil (1994, second edition 2002). Cooperative and Collaborative Learning: An Integrative Perspective. In Thousand, J. Villa, R. & Nevin, A. (Eds). Creativity and Collaborative Learning: A Practical Guide for Empowering Teachers and Students. Baltimore, MD. Brookes Publishing, 13-30.
Johnson, David & Johnson, Roger. (1989). Cooperation and Competition: Theory and Research. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
Kagan, Spencer. (1992). Cooperative Learning. San Clemente, CA: Kagan Publishing.
Lyman, F. (1981). The Responsive Classroom Discussion: The Inclusion of All Students. Mainstreaming Digest. University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland.
Melamed-Turkish, M. (Summer, 2007). Mitzvot pairs. Jewish Education News. NY: Coalition for the Advancement of Jewish Education. 28 (2).
Newmann, F. & Thompson, J. (1987). Effects of Cooperative Learning on Achievement in Secondary Schools: A Summary of Research. Madison, WI: National Center on Effective Secondary Schools.
Schmuck, Richard & Schmuck, Patricia. (2000, Eighth edition). Group Processes in the Classroom. Madison, WI: Brown and Benchmark Publishers.
Sharan, S. (1980). Cooperative Learning in Small Groups: Recent Methods and Effects on Achievement, Attitudes, and Ethnic Relations. Review of Educational Research. 241-271.
Sharan, S. (1990). Cooperative Learning: Theory and Research. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
Sharan, S. (Ed.) (1993). Handbook of Cooperative Learning Methods. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Slavin, Robert. (1990). Cooperative Learning: Theory, Research, and Practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Solomon, R. & Solomon, E. (2009). Toolbox for Teachers and Mentors: Moving Madrichim to Mentor Teachers and Beyond. Tucson, AZ: Wheatmark Publishers.
Springer, Leonard, Stanne, Mary Elizabeth & Donovan, Samuel S.. (1999). Effects of Small-Group Learning on Undergraduates in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology: A Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research. (69), 21-51.
Webb, Noreen (1991). Task-Related Verbal Interaction and Mathematics Learning in Small Groups. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. 22(5), 366-389.