Could cooperative learning structures encourage students to be more engaged, active and independent in their learning? Rebecca Harle and Hugh Dunford wanted to find out...
The Duchess’s Community High School is a successful 13-18 mixed fully comprehensive specialist school situated in Alnwick, Northumberland, which has 1,150 students on roll. Ofsted described the school as ‘good and improving with outstanding features’. Attainment on entry for the Year 9 cohort indicates that our students arrive with above-average numeracy skills but with only average literacy skills. Boys in particular seem to have lower than average scores in writing.
As a school we have participated in various action research projects. The growth of learning and teaching action research activities across the school has focused on the ‘classroom experience’ and ‘school experience’. We are currently involved in Phase 4 of the Campaign for Learning’s Learning to Learn in Schools project, which has involved three years of action research undertaken by several members of staff across different subject areas.
During the first two years of the project we focused on developing cooperative learning strategies, which we hoped would encourage greater reflection, resourcefulness and increased social interaction during lessons (for more information see Maitland and Murphy, 2009). We found that for group work to be truly cooperative and collaborative it was important that students were actively involved in the learning process, ie collaboration not just co-location.
In year three we were interested in developing this further, but this time specifically looking at the impact that collaborative group work and developing independence can have on the sixth form. We wanted to challenge perceived notions of sixth form teaching and learning and did not want students to be passive recipients but actively engaged in their learning. We also wanted to further develop our roles as teachers. We did not want to be didactic in our approach, but instead wanted to facilitate the learning process, encouraging students to be metacognitively aware and learn from one another. The 14-19 agenda reinforces this and personal learning and thinking skills (PLTS) and the 5Rs (for more information see issue 29 of Learning and Teaching Update) highlight that we need to focus on developing transferable skills. All of these skills are needed for the success of post-16 study.
What we wanted to discover through our action research project was whether using a range of cooperative learning structures and a detailed course overview would encourage our students to be more engaged, active and independent in their learning.
The project:
We selected two Year 13 classes: one law and one English literature. We chose these for a number of reasons. Firstly they would follow on from the first two years of research; also, there was a concern that sixth formers expected – and often received – largely didactic rather than enquiry-based or student-centred teaching; and finally we felt that our separate classes would respond positively to the research.
What we did:
Ground rules for talk:
We both introduced our groups to talk rules. These consisted of a range of sentence starters designed to improve students’ range of social graces and engagement during paired or group work: how to build on someone’s point; giving reasons for answers; summative skills; involving the less confident and so on. Talk rules were introduced and revisited three or four times over the course of the year. Students were given A4 sheets with sentence starters and asked in groups to consider their relevance and use. For example: ‘I think… because… What do we think we’ve agreed…? Does anyone want to add anything…? What are your reasons?’ In subsequent group work these sentence starters were either displayed on the whiteboard or issued as hard copies to the students. They were encouraged to use them to improve the quality of their discussion. (For more on ground rules for talk see Thomas, 2010.)
Kagan structures:
We used a range of Kagan structures with a view to varying lessons: group interview, opinion line, round robin, jigsaw, sage and scribe, stand up/sit down, give one/get one, travelling heads together, envoys. These structures were used to vary the group work, engage the students and encourage collaborative learning. For example, the group interview was a regular feature as the course was framed around students researching and then reporting back and discussing findings. Others, such as sage and scribe, were also used to similar effect. The kinaesthetic aspects of changing groups, standing, sitting, coming back to conference mode, all contributed to the students’ engagement as nothing stayed sedentary or fixed for too long. (For more information on Kagan structures see Thomas, 2009.)
Big picture work:
We also used our own versions of big picture work to offer students more responsibility for their work and enable them to chart their progress through the course. This big picture work was encouraged by the two teachers in the following ways:
•The law class used a series of course booklets which the class teacher devised in an attempt to support students to become independent enquirers and also to help them make the most of their non-contact time. The booklets were designed to support students’ learning outside the classroom and help to reinforce the big picture. Students could work through the booklets’ notes, tasks and research, ensuring that they had the relevant knowledge required for their exams. Students were given details of all assessments, homework and research tasks for a module of work in advance, allowing them to demonstrate that they were responsible enough to manage their time. They could fit their work around other commitments.
•The English class used the English department course booklet and PowerPoint presentations. The booklet was a summary of the course: AOs deadlines, exam dates, course overview, advice on approaches to A2, key vocabulary, etc.
•The PowerPoint presentations formed the basis of each lesson but were also handed out as a hard copy (three-slides-per-page format) so that the students could annotate/comment on the phases of the lessons. This was designed to include and engage students as well as acting as a cumulative record of their progress through the course – giving them an overview by reflecting back and looking forward. It also meant that absentees were able to access what they had missed.
Managing group work
In the law class the students were put into ‘law firms’ to work. The law firms were organised in terms of learning preference and ability. Each law firm was asked to develop a group identity with each having to name their law firm. During every lesson collaborative work was undertaken in the same groups. This helped the students to develop relationships and after a time, the students became more confident. They trusted one another and were able to support each other in their work. Each law firm was joined in a common goal: after each activity a degree of challenge was added and points could be collected. At the end of the module of work, the winning law firm was taken out to lunch.
In the English class, the furniture was rearranged to seat all 13 students around one set of tables. Lessons began and ended like this, allowing for introductions and plenaries. It also allowed a range of working combinations for students: whole-class, three groupings of fours and shoulder or face pairings. The conference seating plan was varied by the teacher (named places), allowing for a changing mix of abilities and personalities and avoiding habitual learning/social ruts.
After the starter/introduction of the lesson, students would divide into teams of four. These were selected by the teacher to include a range of abilities and personalities and were fixed throughout the year to encourage commitment and teamwork.
These satellite groupings were required to feed back on individually chosen pieces of research. Groups were required to listen, maintain eye contact and ask questions. The speaker then distributed notes on what had just been explained and the rest of the group highlighted two or three key points to remember.
At the end of this process groups changed to pairs to report back and extend their range of points. Then the groups returned to conference mode to share one key point with the whole class. This way the exchange of views and information was maximised.
Student voice
In order to find out what the students thought about the group work and activities, we devised a questionnaire which included four main sections for students to comment on: the range of groups and pairs; the range of Kagan structures; the big picture and making lesson sequence explicit; and talk rules. Each of these sections was subdivided into three separate areas: ‘This engages me in my learning’; ‘This enables me to actively participate in my learning’; ‘Explain your choice and give examples.’ There was an extra section at the end of the form to provide us with feedback/pupil voice: ‘Are there any other ways we could design and manage our lessons to help you feel more engaged and more actively participating in your learning?’ We also gave the students a PMI (plus, minus, interesting) form to fill in.
It was clear from all the feedback that we received that A-level students from both groups valued the interplay of security from clear targets and feedback and the challenge of interesting and varied learning opportunities. What is particularly relevant, given the focus on talk rules and new structures for interaction in the classroom, is the value that student place on positive relationships, both with their peers and the teacher.
What will we do next time?
Based on our experiences over the last year and the results of the feedback from the students we will:
•use group work again, starting earlier and with more regular and explicit reference to talk rules. Continue to select student groups with an eye to ability and dynamics but also change groups each term. We will provide explicit reasons for group work as opposed to a didactic approach by the teacher
•use a wider range of Kagan structures right from the beginning of the year to embed the approach and avoid students feeling awkward about kinaesthetic styles of learning.
•make big picture a more regular, explicit feature throughout the year, manifested in different ways (eg placemat, front of files, need to know lists). Develop the use of specific words/phrases from AOs for students to include in their responses and include this to inform student talk, making it specific to the topic
•make talk rules part of the induction for the Year 12 course and review it in Year 13. Develop subject-specific talk rules and sentence starters on cards available on tables/smartboard for students to refer to and incorporate in their discussions. We will provide more opportunities for students to reflect on successes and areas for improvement and create specific roles for group members – particularly to observe group talk dynamics and comment on these.
References
Gill Maitland and Diane Murphy (2009) ‘Learning to Cooperate’, Learning and Teaching Update, Issue 22
Maurice Galton (2008) ‘Working in Groups: An Underused Strategy’, Learning and Teaching Update, Issue 11
Ulrike Thomas (2010) ‘Ground Rules for Talk’, Learning and Teaching Update, Issue 37
Ulrike Thomas (2009) ‘Kagan Structures in cooperative learning’, Learning and Teaching Update, Issue 26
