Anonymous

Group Work - Research Summary: Difference between revisions

From OER in Education
no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 6: Line 6:


'''Some basics'''
'''Some basics'''
 
<section begin=What/>
<onlyinclude>{{#ifeq:{{{transcludesection|What}}}|What|
 
Collaborative work in small groups is designed to develop ‘higher order’ skills. The key elements are the talking and associated thinking that take place between group members. However, putting pupils in groups is no guarantee that they work as groups (Bennett 1976), so much deliberate work needs to be done to make group work productive.
Collaborative work in small groups is designed to develop ‘higher order’ skills. The key elements are the talking and associated thinking that take place between group members. However, putting pupils in groups is no guarantee that they work as groups (Bennett 1976), so much deliberate work needs to be done to make group work productive.


Line 17: Line 15:
*interpersonal and small-group skills – communication, trust, leadership, decision making and conflict resolution;
*interpersonal and small-group skills – communication, trust, leadership, decision making and conflict resolution;
*group processing – the group reflecting on its performance and functioning and on how to improve.
*group processing – the group reflecting on its performance and functioning and on how to improve.
 
<section end=What/>
    }}</onlyinclude>  


'''Collaborative small-group work'''
'''Collaborative small-group work'''
<onlyinclude>{{#ifeq:{{{transcludesection|Why}}}|Why|
<section begin=Why/>
An alternative approach to individual practice is the use of cooperative small-group work during the review and practice part of the lesson. This method has gained in popularity in recent years, and has attracted a lot of research interest in a number of countries, such as the United States (Slavin 1996). In other countries such as the United Kingdom this method is still underused, however. In a recent study in primary schools Muijs and Reynolds (2001) found that less than 10% of lesson time was spent doing group work.
An alternative approach to individual practice is the use of cooperative small-group work during the review and practice part of the lesson. This method has gained in popularity in recent years, and has attracted a lot of research interest in a number of countries, such as the United States (Slavin 1996). In other countries such as the United Kingdom this method is still underused, however. In a recent study in primary schools Muijs and Reynolds (2001) found that less than 10% of lesson time was spent doing group work.


Line 27: Line 24:


Students can also provide each other with scaffolding in the same way the teacher can during questioning. The total knowledge available in a group is likely to be larger than that available to individual students, which can enable more powerful problem solving and can therefore allow the teacher to give students more difficult problems than s/he could give to individual students.
Students can also provide each other with scaffolding in the same way the teacher can during questioning. The total knowledge available in a group is likely to be larger than that available to individual students, which can enable more powerful problem solving and can therefore allow the teacher to give students more difficult problems than s/he could give to individual students.
<section end=Why/>


    }}</onlyinclude>  
<section begin=WhatDetail/>
 
<onlyinclude>{{#ifeq:{{{transcludesection|WhatDetail}}}|WhatDetail|
 
The main elements of collaborative group work identified as crucial by research are<nowiki>:</nowiki>
The main elements of collaborative group work identified as crucial by research are<nowiki>:</nowiki>


Line 67: Line 62:
Research has shown that cooperative groups should be somewhat, but not too, heterogeneous with respect to student ability. Groups composed of high and medium, or medium and low, ability students gave and received more explanations than students in high-medium-low ability groups. Less heterogeneous groupings were especially advantageous for medium-ability students. When students of the same ability are grouped together, it has been found that high-ability students thought it unnecessary to help one another while low-ability students were less able to do so (Webb 1991; Askew and Wiliam 1995).
Research has shown that cooperative groups should be somewhat, but not too, heterogeneous with respect to student ability. Groups composed of high and medium, or medium and low, ability students gave and received more explanations than students in high-medium-low ability groups. Less heterogeneous groupings were especially advantageous for medium-ability students. When students of the same ability are grouped together, it has been found that high-ability students thought it unnecessary to help one another while low-ability students were less able to do so (Webb 1991; Askew and Wiliam 1995).


}}</onlyinclude>
<section end=WhatDetail/>


In this unit we have treated collaborative small-group work as a potential alternative to individual practice. However, many educators consider small-group work to be so advantageous that they have advocated structuring the whole lesson around the cooperative small-group work (e.g. Slavin 1996).
In this unit we have treated collaborative small-group work as a potential alternative to individual practice. However, many educators consider small-group work to be so advantageous that they have advocated structuring the whole lesson around the cooperative small-group work (e.g. Slavin 1996).