Cooperative Learning and Academic Achievement: Why Does Groupwork Work?. [Aprendizaje cooperativo y rendimiento académico: ¿por qué funciona el trabajo en grupo?]

Abstract

Título: Aprendizaje Cooperativo y rendimiento académico: ¿Por qué funciona el trabajo grupal? Resumen: El aprendizaje cooperativo hace referencia a los métodos de enseñanza en los que los estudiantes trabajan en pequeños grupos para ayudarse a aprender. En este artículo se revisan cuatro de las principales perspectivas teóricas sobre los efectos del aprendizaje cooperativo en el rendimiento: motivacional, cohesión social, evolutiva y elaboración cognitiva. La evidencia de la investigación práctica en el aula apoya, fundamentalmente, la perspectiva motivacional, que destaca el uso de los objetivos del grupo y la responsabilidad individual para el éxito del grupo. Sin embargo, hay condiciones en las que los métodos, derivados de las cuatro perspectivas teóricas, contribuyen al aumento del rendimiento. En este artículo se reconcilian estas cuatro perspectivas en una teoría unificada de los efectos de aprendizaje cooperativo. Palabras clave: Aprendizaje cooperativo; rendimiento; cooperación; motivación, desarrollo Abstract: Cooperative learning refers to instructional methods in which students work in small groups to help each other learn. Four major theoretical perspectives on achievement effects of cooperative learning are reviewed: Motivational, social cohesion, developmental, and cognitive elaboration. Evidence from practical classroom research primarily supports the motivational perspective, which emphasizes the use of group goals and individual accountability for group success. However, there are conditions under which methods derived from all four theoretical perspectives contribute to achievement gain. This chapter reconciles these perspectives in a unified theory of cooperative learning effects.

Diseño y validación de un cuestionario de medición del aprendizaje cooperativo en contextos educativos

“…We must clarify that these 4 perspectives are not exclusive. On the contrary, they complement each other (Slavin, 2014).…”

“…There exits many definitions on cooperative learning, but it could be briefly defined as small groups where students work together to maximize their own and others' learning through common goals, depending on each other to achieve them (Johnson, Johnson & Holubec, 2013;Sharan, 2014). Several research works have showed the benefits of this framework to achieve different positive outcomes: performance, motivation and social skills (Gillies, 2014;Kyndt et al 2013;Slavin, 2014), in subjects as different as Maths (Pons, Prieto, Lomeli, Bermejo & Bulut, 2014), science (Howe, 2013), or physical education (Fernandez-Rio, Sanz, Fernandez-Cando & Santos, 2017). Based on these findings, cooperative learning is considered a methodological tool that can help solve XXI st century students' needs (Johnson & Johnson, 2014).…”

“…Four theoretical perspectives on cooperative learning have been highlighted (Slavin, 2014): (1) Motivational: it focuses on the goal structure developed by the teachers in the different tasks, because it can motivate students towards learning (Johnson & Johnson, 2009); (2) Social cohesion: the relations created among group members force students to help each other to learn (Cohen, 1994); (3) Cognitive: to learn, students must go through a cognitive restructuring of the new contents, and cooperative learning helps this reelaboration (Schunk, 2012); finally (4) Development: the interaction between students with different levels of developmental deeply stimulates the students' capacities than when the act individually (Damon, 1984). We must clarify that these 4 perspectives are not exclusive.…”

From Cognitive Load Theory to Collaborative Cognitive Load Theory

“…As such, it attempts to help solve the conundrum of why collaborative learning in general, and computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) specifically, sometimes works while at other times fails. At best, one can say that its purported benefits are not always consistent (Kester and Paas 2005;Kirschner et al 2009a;Slavin 2014). This variation could be because research has paid little attention to the human cognitive architecture that underlies group processes, the prior group experience, and the information distribution among collaborators.…”

Working with Group-Tasks and Group Cohesiveness

“…All the four important things should be a mutually reinforcing cohesion when learning takes place. In the first aspect, in view of Slavin (2014), motivationalist found a group bonding will help achieve the group's performance and ultimately success will be the success of the group together and motivate learners to be more persistent again in optimizing their performance in the group. Thus the motivation is always important affiliated with a joint work in study groups.…”