Cooperative+Learning+Strategy+(practica)

Type
SOCIAL

Description
Cooperative Learning //Numbered Heads Together//

Acknowledging Vygotsky's research and the ideas of sociocultural theory, cooperative learning is an approach to instruction that recognizes the important role that social relationships have in the production of knowledge. Cooperative learning strategies are designed to use group dynamics to facilitate the construction of meaning; many kinds and versions can be found that will meet a range of desired types of applications and situations. I have used the strategy known as Numbered Heads Together (NHT), a grouping and learning strategy based on the work of Spencer Kagan. In NHT, a single group of students is divided into groups of 4. The students in those groups are then assigned numbers, either by themselves or by their teacher. The teacher then presents a question or problem to the entire group, being sure to make the point that accountability for a thoughtful response should be equally shared. The teacher also announces that each student with the same assigned number will be responsible for reporting their thoughtful responses to the problem. That number will be disclosed only after the entire group has had enough time to consider the problem.

I was eager to try this strategy because I needed an idea that would improve student engagement in my classroom. I had already divided each of my two class groups into sub-groups of three. In fact, I had spent considerable time working out a floor plan for eight 3-table sets (one of them sometimes a 4-table set) that would have reasonably minor visibility issues during those times when I would be screen projecting. I was certain that I wanted students to be working in groups of three, but merely being in a group doesn't mean that achieving the benefits of social learning are sure to follow. My objectives here were to (1) to increase the quality of mathematics conversation at the table groups, that is, to encourage more focus on the subject at hand and (2) to bring more students into those conversations and to foster in them a sense of accountability for their work.

I allowed students to sit wherever they wanted. I refer to this as //open seating//, which is when my elaborate, pin-board Table Planner is not on display, signaling that I have not assigned seats for that meeting. I had prepared a set of playing cards equal to the number of students in attendance and which were divided equally among the four suits. I went quickly among the tables dealing one card from my shuffled deck to each student. I explained that the problems about to be presented on the screen (about the geometry of some paths in Boston Commons) would be answered by those four students holding cards in the same suit as a card that I would pick at random from those in my hand (one of each suit). I revealed the first problem, waited a few minutes, then picked my card and identified the four students whose cards were the same suit as mine. I asked each student a question based on the assigned problem, sometimes asking other students in that suit-group to verify or expand upon a statement, sometimes asking table-mates to assist a student in that suit-group who was struggling to respond. After each student in the four-person suit-group had had an opportunity to speak, and after we had thoroughly handled the problem and its connected questions, I moved on to the next problem. For this lesson, I had five problems prepared, but we only had time for four, which was enough to support every student's participation.

I like this strategy a lot. When I announce ahead of time that each student will be responsible for sound thinking and reporting, I am setting the //rules// for our game. Students may shy away from the attention, but I am not breaking any rules when I directly ask them questions. I can do this; they //have// been put on alert: Be Prepared!

The strategy emphasizes personal accountability but never in a way that isolates anyone. I especially like that feature as it plays out on a class that has been grouped //in layers//. I emphasize that thinking should be collaborative in each student's 3-person table grouping layer, while the suit-grouping provides a second layer in which the effectiveness of that collaboration is tested. Support is available from two sources: if a student is unable to make a contribution to the problem-solving or question-answering conversation, that //should// indicate that the whole table-group is in the same boat. Regardless, the reporting student can yet find assistance from within the suit-group. And of course, anyone from the rest of the class can always make a contribution, but I think I like staying //local// as much as possible as a way of focusing students' attention on seeing their own thinking as a living resource—a process— rather than always seeing other students' thinking as just an answer—a product. Another advantage of NHT is the differentiation it affords. I can present questions and problems within an NHT activity that carry opportunities to think about different aspects of the key concept(s) in play. That way, I'm able to scaffold secondary questions on individual bases. Everyone plays.