Variations on this structure have been contributed by many teachers. David Carroll's (1986) study is an example used in undergraduate psychology classrooms. Robert Slavin (1986) has used a version entitled Jigsaw II in which a handicapping scheme is applied to students of differing abilities. Sometimes bonus points are given to groups who perform better than others, (cooperation with inter- group competition.)
Aronson, E., Blaney, N., Sikes, J., Stephan, G., & Snapp, M. (1978). The Jigsaw Classroom. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publication.
This highly structured cooperative technique requires pair partners to exchange multiple oral summaries of 1 to 2 pages of text material. Partners are trained by example and practice to elaborate on each other's summaries. With regard to metacognitive abilities, partners are taught to detect and correct errors and omissions and to judge the importance of the ideas presented. This involves creating images, making analogies, and personalizing the information to make it more understandable and memorable. A typical set of instructions follows (from Larson & Dansereau, 1986):
INTRODUCTION. Two heads are better than one for learning complex textbook material. In this strategy, both you and your partner study approximately 2 pages of textbook (if one finishes first s/he should go back over the material until the other one finishes.) Then, one of you (called the "recaller") helps correct, amplify, and memorize the summarized material to the other (called the "listener"). After this is done, you both read the next 2 pages and the process is repeated with the 2 of you switching roles (ie., the recaller on the previous summary becomes the listener on the next one, and vice versa. Roles should be switched for each summary. This process is repeated until the entire chapter or unit has been completely studied. Your goal is to help each other maximize the learning of the material.
DETAILS ON THE TECHNIQUE: Study 2 pages using your normal methods (feel free to take notes). The one who finishes first should review the 2 pages until the other person is finished. Then do the following:
1. The recaller puts the material out of sight while the listener keeps the passage available.
2. The recaller summarizes out loud what has been read as completely as possible without looking at notes or the passage. Do the summary as rapidly as you can. Try to include all the important ideas and facts. Use note paper to draw or chart information while making the summary. The more you can represent the ideas visually to your partner the better. Put the whole summary in your own words, not the author's. (if necessary, the listener should interrupt the recaller to make important corrections).
3. After the recaller has completed the summary, the listener should do the following while looking at the passage.
a. to improve your and your partner's understanding, correct your partner's summary by discussing any important information left out and indicating ideas or facts that were summarized incorrectly. Use drawings and images (mental pictures) whenever possible.
b. help both of you remember the material better by coming up with clever ways to amplify and memorize the important ideas or facts. One way is to relate the information to earlier material in the chapter and to other things you know. You also can use drawings and mental pictures to aid memory.
4. The recaller should help the listener correct, amplify, and memorize the summary.
5. If you complete the chapter early, go back over it using the same approach.
This entire process should be active and intense. Debates and arguments should be resolved as quickly as possible. It is very important to keep the process moving along and still do good summaries. Don't get sidetracked by trivia and irrelevancies. Remember, you should switch recaller and listener roles for each summary. (Flip a coin to determine who should be the first recaller). After you and your partner have completed studying for the day, it is important for you to discuss what strategies and skills you have learned from each other and how you can improve your cooperative interaction in the future.
The above directions are those used in a cooperative learning situation. A "Cooperative learning script" which is often supplied to both members of the dyad is as follows:
Horn, E. M., Collier, W. G., Oxford, J. A. Bond, Jr., C. F. and Dansereau, D. F. (1998). Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(1), 153-161.
O'Donnel, A. M., and Dansereau, D. F. (1992). Scripted cooperation in student dyads: A method for analyzing and enhancing academic learning and performance. In R. Hertz-Lazarowitz and N. Miller (Eds.), Interaction in cooperative groups: The theoretical anatomy of group learning (pp. 120-141). London: Cambridge University Press.
This strategy is designed to promote mutual tutoring. The RPT procedure requires participants to assume both tutor and student roles. Students are randomly paired with a partner throughout a semester course of study. Before every class unit exam, each partner creates a 10-question multiple-choice test based on assigned readings and lecture material for that unit. They also provide a 3 x 5 index card for each question. The card contains the correct answer to the question and a reference to the section of the book or lecture where the information was presented. For the tutoring sessions, students administer their written exams to one another under test-like conditions. After completing the exam, subjects switch tests and score their partner's exam. Then they alternately provide one another with explanations for questions answered incorrectly. Students turn in their corrected tests and answer cards before every course unit exam. The RPT technique has been found to have higher posttest exam scores than two comparative conditions, and it also significantly reduces distress and increases student satisfaction in undergraduate Abnormal Psychology classes (Fantuzzo, Dimeff, Fox, 1989; Fantuzzo, Riggio, Connelly, Dimeff, 1989).
Fantuzzo, J. W., Dimeff, L. A., & Fox, S. L. (1989). Reciprocal peer tutoring: A multimodal assessment of effectiveness with college students. Teaching of Psychology, 16(3), 133-135.
Fantuzzo, J. W., Riggio, R. E., Connelly, S., & Dimeff, L. A. (1989). Effects of reciprocal peer tutoring on academic achievement and psychological adjustment: A component analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology. 81(2), 173-177.
The Johnson's model focuses on the positive influences of planned and structured controversy upon achievement and social relationships. This technique uses four primary steps including:
1) Choose a discussion topic. Primary consideration here is that the topic have at least two well-documented positions.
2) Prepare instructional materials including:
a. clear description of a group's task
b. description of the phases of the controversy procedure and the collaborative skills to be used during each phase (see discussion rules below).
c. definition of the position to be advocated with a summary of the key arguments supporting the position.
d. provide materials (including a bibliography) that support and elaborate upon the arguments for the position to be advocated.
3) Structure the controversy:
a. assign students to groups of four
b. divide each group into two pairs (dyads) who are assigned opposing positions on the topic to be discussed
c. require each group to reach a consensus on the issue and turn in a group report on which all members will be evaluated.
4) Conduct the controversy.
a. plan positions.
b. present positions.
c. argue the issue
d. practice perspective reversal
e. reach a decision
DISCUSSION RULES TO FOLLOW DURING CONTROVERSY:
This technique is a "multi-mode" strategy developed to encourage student participation in theclassroom. Students are taught to use a new response cycle in answering questions. The technique is simple to learn and is applicable across all grade levels, disciplines and group sizes. In some cases (K-12) students can facilitate the process themselves. The components of Think-pair-share are as follows:
1. Students listen while a teacher poses a question. 2. Students are given time in which to think of a response. 3. Students are then cued to pair with a neighbor and discuss their responses. 4. Finally, students are invited to share their responses with the whole group. A time limit is set for each step in the process. Many teachers use curing devices such as bells, pointers, hand signals, or cubes to move students through the cycle. Students may be asked to write or diagram their responses while in the think and/or pair mode(s).
BENEFITS TO STUDENTS. Students have time to at least think through their own answers to questions before the questions are answered and the discussion moves on. They rehearse responses mentally, and sometimes verbally with another student, before being asked to share publicly. All students have an opportunity to share their thinking with at least one other student, thereby increasing their sense of involvement. Think-Pair-Share is a Cooperative Learning strategy, and as such has advantages for students in the areas of acceptance, peer support, achievement, self-esteem, liking of other students, and liking of school. Cooperative Learning also has positive effects on mainstreaming and relationships between handicapped and nonhandicapped students.
BENEFITS TO TEACHERS. Students have been found to spend more time on task and to listen to each other more when engaged in Think- Pair-Share activities. Many more students raise their hands to respond after rehearsing in pairs. Students may have better recall due to increased "wait time," and the quality of responses may be better. Like students, teachers also have more time to think when using Think-Pair-Share. They can concentrate on asking higher-order questions, observing student reactions, and listening to student responses. Class discussion can be a much more relaxing experience for teachers and students.
Developed by Dr. Frank Lyman, Howard County Public Schools and the Southern Teacher Education Center, University of Maryland.
Roundtable is a technique that can be used for brainstorming, reviewing, or
practicing a skill. Used in a contest fashion (inter-group
competition), it can also be an excellent teambuilding technique.
ROUNDTABLE ensures that all members of a group are involved.
Roundtable requires groups of 3 or more seated around a common writing
surface. Participants need a pencil or pen, and one piece of paper to
be shared by the group. The leader should announce the question or
problem. Groups should be told that their job is to brainstorm as
many answers as they can to the question or problem. They must follow
certain rules in answering:
SIMULTANEOUS ROUNDTABLE. When the answers are long, groups are
larger, or production of ideas is more important, send more pieces of
paper around at the same time. Example 1: Have each participant begin
to brainstorm answers to a question. Then have each pass his/her
sheet to the left. Participants read and respond to the sheets they
receive, then pass them on. Work continues until the papers have been
passed completely around the table. Example 2: Give each participant
in a group a different category for a response. For instance, if
working on a school climate plan, categories might be speakers,
topics, sources of funds, and incentives for participating.
Participants write one idea on their sheet, and then pass them to the
left. They will have a new category to respond to as they receive
each new sheet. Work continues until the papers have been passed
around the group several times.
Ellen Stine-Miller & Karen Spencer. Cooperative Structures for Administrators
and Supervisors.
TheGroup-Investigation (G-I) model is conceived as progressing through a
sequence of six steps:
The four critical components of Group investigation are:
1) Selection by group members of specific subtopics within a
general problem area usually delineated by the instructor.
Group members organize into small (2-6) member task oriented
and heterogeneous groups. Students scan sources, propose questions,
and sort them into categories. The categories become subtopics.
Students join the group studying the subtopic of their choice
(Key component here is INTRINSIC MOTIVATION).
2) Cooperative planning by students and instructor of
specific learning procedures, tasks, and goals consistent
with the subtopics of the problem selected in Step 1.
Group members plan their investigation cooperatively; they decide
what they will investigate, how they will go about it and how they will
divide the work among themselves
3) Group members carry out their plan formulated in Step 2.
Learning should involve a wide variety of activities and
skills, and should lead students to different kinds of
sources both inside and outside the school. Instructors
closely follow the progess of each group and offer
assistance when needed. Group members gather, organize, and analyze
information from several sources. They pool their findings and form
conclusions. Group members discuss their work in progress in order to
exchange ideas and information and to expand, clarify, and integrate
them.
4) Pupils analyze and evaluate information obtained during
Step 3, and plan how it can be summarized in some
interesting fashion for possible display or presentation to
the rest of the class.
5. Some or all of the groups in a class then give a
presentation of the topics studied in order to get their
classroom peers involved in each other's work, and to
achieve a broad perspective on the topic. The instructor
coordinates the group presentations. Presentations are made to
the class in a variety of forms. The audience evaluates
the clarity and appeal of each presentation, as well as the
professional quality of the presentation.
6) Evaluation by classroom peers and instructor of each
group's contribution to the work of the class as a whole, in
cases where groups pursued different aspects of the same
topic. Evaluation can include either individual or group
assessment, or both. Evaluation includes assessment of higher
level thinking processes.
Sharan, S. (1980). Cooperative learning in small groups: recent
methods and effects on achievement, attitudes, and ethnic relations. Review of Educational Research,
50, 241-258.
Sharan, Y. and Sharan, S.(1992). Expanding cooperative learning through group
investigation. New York: Teachers College Press.
Sharan, S. (Editor), (1994). Handbook of cooperative learning methods.
Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press.
This is a year-long public service project carried out by small groups
(4-6 member teams) of graduate students. It is an integral part of
the first year experience of the Institute of Environmental Studies
(IES) program and stresses:
This dyadic technique uses short essay writing experiences which are assigned
throughout a semester-long course focused on psychological theories. The
content of these essays is based on two
sources: 1) a textbook chapter which discusses a specific theory of
(eg., Piaget), and 2) a primary source reading (eg.,
an essay by Jean Piaget). At regularly scheduled times each student
has to compose an essay question, as well as a brief model of the type
of answer which they would find acceptable. Students are instructed
that their questions should be comparative in nature and, as the class
progresses, earlier material and chapter content (other theories)
should be integrated into either the questions or answers. The
questions should require some thought and not be trivial in the sense
that one could construct an objective multiple choice format with
highly convergent answers. Students prepare two sheets to bring to
class: one containing both the question as well as their prepared
answer, and the other one containing only the question. The later
sheets are randomly distributed to the members of the class who are
given approximately 25 minutes to write an answer to someone else's
question. This is an "open book" essay experience and the textbook
and related materials are freely available to the class when they
write their essay answers. After writing their answer, they then must
confront the person who posed the question, read their answer, and
then discuss the points of convergence and divergence among each
other. Reciprocal peer evaluations are also incorporated into this
experience. On a 0 (poor) to 4 (excellent) scale, students rate each
others questions and answers within the frame work of five dimensions
including 1) general impressions, 2) importance, 3) clarity, 4)
integration , and 5) creativity. The instructor also rates all
questions and answers in a similar manner. The sum of all these
ratings is computed and then a percentage score (out of 120 total
possible points) is computed. This technique is positively accepted
by post-graduate students who find it challenging and satisfying. It
is based on postmodern thought, higher level thinking processes and
the introduction of conceptual conflict, arousal and motivation
through integrating the writing process into the psychology
curriculum.
Sherman, L. W.
(1995). A Postmodern, Constructivist Pedagogy For Teaching Educational
Psychology, Assisted by Computer Mediated Communications. A paper presentation
to the CSCL95' Conference, Bloomington,Indiana, 17-20 October, 1995.
Millis, B. J., Sherman, L. W., & Cottell, P. G. (1993). Stacking the DEC to
promote critical thinking: Applications in three disciplines. Cooperative
Learning and College Teaching. 3(3), 12-14.ROUNDTABLE [Ellen Stine Miller & Karen Spencer].
The key to Roundtable is the question or problem. It must be one with
multiple answers and one which offers a high probability of success to
all participants. You should relate the question to the purpose of
the class, but keep it very simple so that all participants can
contribute and experience working productively as a group. When time
is called, results will be handled according to your objective. If
the objective was teambuilding, each team should score its own answer
sheet and count the number of correct answers. The leader should
reward the groups with the most answers and ask them to describe their
methods. (Alternatively you can reward the most unusual or creative
answers.) If your objective was simple to brainstorm a variety of
answers, a simultaneous sharing technique such as "Stand and Share"
would be appropriate.THE GROUP-INVESTIGATION MODEL (G-I) [Sharan, 1980].
All four of these critical components interact with each other, too!THE STUDENT TEAM PROJECT (STP) [Sherman & Woy-Hazleton, 1988]
Groups are assigned to solve a particular problem of a real community
institution: eg., city council, a rural electric cooperative, a local
recycling agency, etc. The STP technique makes use of a problem-
solving algorithm based on the thoughts of Lippitt et al's (1958)
descriptions of planned change. The 10-stage cycle is as follows:
Sherman, L. W. & Woy-Hazelton, S. (1988). The student team project: A long-term cooperative strategy in graduate environmental studies. Paper presentation
to the Fourth Convention of the International Association for the Study of Cooperation in
Education. Kibbutz Shefayim, Israel, July 5-8, 1988. ERIC DOCUMENT, ED 299-872. DYADIC ESSAY CONFRONTATIONS (DEC) [Sherman, 1988]
.
I. To be accomplished outside of class.
1. Text Reading. Entire class reads the exact
same two pieces of literature:
A. A chapter of text focusing on a
specific developmental theory: eg, Erik
Erikson's Psycho-Social Theory of
Personality Development).
B. A primary source "reading" handed out
by the instructor: eg., an article
written by Erik Erikson.
2. Question Writing. Each student writes a
question attempting to integrate or link issues
which they perceive to be important in both
reading assignments.
3. Answer Writing. Each student then writes a
model answer to their own question - a brief essay
which is not more than one page, single-spaced.
4. Before coming to class each student reproduces
a single copy of their question (their answer not
included).
II. To be accomplished in class.
5. Question Exchange. Students exchange
copies of their questions with each
other.
6. Writing. Students spend approximately
25 minutes writing answers to each
others' questions.
7. While students are writing answers to
each others' questions, the instructor
makes copies of all the questions for
later distribution to the entire class.
8. Reading. Students read each others'
answers. The original poser of the
question reads a peers' answer while
that peer reads the originator's answer.
This is not always a reciprocal exchange
and therefore usually involves three
people: eg., B writes an answer to A's
question and C answers B's question,
therefore B must interact with both A
and C.
9. Confrontation. Both students then
engage in dialogue over convergent and
divergent ideas which they have
encountered in each others' essays.
10. Class Discussion. A general discussion
follows the passing out of copies of all
the questions (see #7 above) submitted
for that day.
11. Peer Evaluation. Students evaluate each
other's questions and answers on the
basis of five attributes: 1) an overall
General Impression, 2) Importance, 3)
Clarity, 4) Integration, and 5)
Creativity. A 5-point scale ranging
from 0 (poor) to 4 (excellent) is used
to rate each of the five attributes.
12. Instructor Evaluation. The instructor
then evaluates the question and both
answers along the same dimensions as in
#11 above. All rating points are summed
for a total possible score of 120 (4
possible points for each of the five
attributes as rated by the instructor
and a peer evaluator).
See an example of the DEC process here!
Sherman, L. W. (1988). A Pedagogical strategy for teaching human development:
Dyadic essay confrontations through writing and discussion.
Paper presentation to the 8th Annual Lilly Conference on College Teaching.
Oxford, Ohio, November, 1988. ERIC DOCUMENT ED 305-629, and
ERIC DOCUMENT ED 321-721.
