students interactions with one another looking in classrooms good & brophy, 2000 chapter 7 luz...
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: STUDENTS INTERACTIONS WITH ONE ANOTHER LOOKING IN CLASSROOMS GOOD & BROPHY, 2000 CHAPTER 7 LUZ CARIME BERSH, Ph. D. National-Louis University](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070401/56649f1e5503460f94c357e8/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
STUDENTS INTERACTIONS WITH ONE ANOTHER
LOOKING IN CLASSROOMSGOOD & BROPHY, 2000
CHAPTER 7
LUZ CARIME BERSH, Ph. D.National-Louis University
![Page 2: STUDENTS INTERACTIONS WITH ONE ANOTHER LOOKING IN CLASSROOMS GOOD & BROPHY, 2000 CHAPTER 7 LUZ CARIME BERSH, Ph. D. National-Louis University](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070401/56649f1e5503460f94c357e8/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
CONTENTS
Introduction. Inclusion of students with special
needs. Between class grouping: Tracking. Cooperative Learning. Other student interaction learning
structures.
![Page 3: STUDENTS INTERACTIONS WITH ONE ANOTHER LOOKING IN CLASSROOMS GOOD & BROPHY, 2000 CHAPTER 7 LUZ CARIME BERSH, Ph. D. National-Louis University](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070401/56649f1e5503460f94c357e8/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
EXCELLENCE VS. EQUITY IN EDUCATION
Homogeneous grouping of students concentrate on cognitive rather than affective/social objectives.
Educational focus is based on success in maximizing achievement test scores.
Heterogeneous grouping of students focus on educational quality based on equity regardless of gender, race, ethnicity or socioeconomic status.
![Page 4: STUDENTS INTERACTIONS WITH ONE ANOTHER LOOKING IN CLASSROOMS GOOD & BROPHY, 2000 CHAPTER 7 LUZ CARIME BERSH, Ph. D. National-Louis University](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070401/56649f1e5503460f94c357e8/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
INCLUSION OF STUDENTS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS
Public Law 94-142 directs public schools to enroll handicapped students and educate them in the least restrictive environment.
![Page 5: STUDENTS INTERACTIONS WITH ONE ANOTHER LOOKING IN CLASSROOMS GOOD & BROPHY, 2000 CHAPTER 7 LUZ CARIME BERSH, Ph. D. National-Louis University](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070401/56649f1e5503460f94c357e8/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
From most to least restrictive- Reynolds,1978
Full time residential school Full time special school Full time special class Regular class plus part-time special class Regular class plus resource room help Regular class with assistance by itinerant specialists Regular class with consultive assistance Regular class only
![Page 6: STUDENTS INTERACTIONS WITH ONE ANOTHER LOOKING IN CLASSROOMS GOOD & BROPHY, 2000 CHAPTER 7 LUZ CARIME BERSH, Ph. D. National-Louis University](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070401/56649f1e5503460f94c357e8/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Mainstreamed or inclusion students are likely to adjust well to regular classrooms if they perceive acceptance and support both from teachers and peers.
![Page 8: STUDENTS INTERACTIONS WITH ONE ANOTHER LOOKING IN CLASSROOMS GOOD & BROPHY, 2000 CHAPTER 7 LUZ CARIME BERSH, Ph. D. National-Louis University](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070401/56649f1e5503460f94c357e8/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
BETWEEN CLASS GROUPING: TRACKING
Homogeneous grouping by ability or achievement.
It is more common in Elementary schools.
Grouping by curriculum (Tracking) is more common in Junior and Senior High schools.
![Page 9: STUDENTS INTERACTIONS WITH ONE ANOTHER LOOKING IN CLASSROOMS GOOD & BROPHY, 2000 CHAPTER 7 LUZ CARIME BERSH, Ph. D. National-Louis University](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070401/56649f1e5503460f94c357e8/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
AFFECTIVE AND SOCIAL EFFECTS OF TRACKING
- Social labeling and teacher attitude and expectation effects.
- Undesirable peer structures.
- Assignment to tracks tend to become permanent.
- Tracking minimizes contact between students with differing achievement. Another form of segregation?
![Page 10: STUDENTS INTERACTIONS WITH ONE ANOTHER LOOKING IN CLASSROOMS GOOD & BROPHY, 2000 CHAPTER 7 LUZ CARIME BERSH, Ph. D. National-Louis University](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070401/56649f1e5503460f94c357e8/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
THE JOPLIN PLAN
Students attend heterogeneous classes for most of the day but are
regrouped for reading instruction across grades.
![Page 11: STUDENTS INTERACTIONS WITH ONE ANOTHER LOOKING IN CLASSROOMS GOOD & BROPHY, 2000 CHAPTER 7 LUZ CARIME BERSH, Ph. D. National-Louis University](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070401/56649f1e5503460f94c357e8/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
WITHIN CLASS ABILITY GROUPING:Small Homogeneous Grouping
STRUCTURAL APPROACH
Students are divided into groups based on their previous year’s performance.
SITUATIONAL APPROACH
Students groups are changed based on their needs during or after class activities.
![Page 12: STUDENTS INTERACTIONS WITH ONE ANOTHER LOOKING IN CLASSROOMS GOOD & BROPHY, 2000 CHAPTER 7 LUZ CARIME BERSH, Ph. D. National-Louis University](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070401/56649f1e5503460f94c357e8/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
COOPERATIVE LEARNING
![Page 13: STUDENTS INTERACTIONS WITH ONE ANOTHER LOOKING IN CLASSROOMS GOOD & BROPHY, 2000 CHAPTER 7 LUZ CARIME BERSH, Ph. D. National-Louis University](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070401/56649f1e5503460f94c357e8/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Cooperative learning provides a real-life model for real-life situations in
society.
Educational trends call for active construction of knowledge engaging students in meaningful and authentic tasks in a social setting.
Students groups work effectively for practice, learning facts/concepts, discussion and problem-solving.
![Page 14: STUDENTS INTERACTIONS WITH ONE ANOTHER LOOKING IN CLASSROOMS GOOD & BROPHY, 2000 CHAPTER 7 LUZ CARIME BERSH, Ph. D. National-Louis University](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070401/56649f1e5503460f94c357e8/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Task structures in cooperative learning
IN D IV ID U A L C O O P E R A TIV E C O M P E TITIV E
TA S K S TR U C TU R E
![Page 15: STUDENTS INTERACTIONS WITH ONE ANOTHER LOOKING IN CLASSROOMS GOOD & BROPHY, 2000 CHAPTER 7 LUZ CARIME BERSH, Ph. D. National-Louis University](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070401/56649f1e5503460f94c357e8/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
INCENTIVE STRUCTURES
Cooperative incentive structures Competitive incentive structures
![Page 16: STUDENTS INTERACTIONS WITH ONE ANOTHER LOOKING IN CLASSROOMS GOOD & BROPHY, 2000 CHAPTER 7 LUZ CARIME BERSH, Ph. D. National-Louis University](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070401/56649f1e5503460f94c357e8/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
WELL KNOWN COOPERATIVE LEARNING
PROGRAMS
LEARNING TOGETHER. (Johnson & Johnson,1994)
The main interest is getting students differing in achievement, race, ethnicity or gender working together in one task.
![Page 17: STUDENTS INTERACTIONS WITH ONE ANOTHER LOOKING IN CLASSROOMS GOOD & BROPHY, 2000 CHAPTER 7 LUZ CARIME BERSH, Ph. D. National-Louis University](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070401/56649f1e5503460f94c357e8/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Main Elements:
1- POSITIVE INTERDEPENDENCE
2- FACE-TO FACE INTERACTION
3- INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNTABILITY
4- INSTRUCTING STUDENTS IN INTERPERSONAL AND GROUP SKILLS
5- POSITIVE CONFLICT AND CONTROVERSY
![Page 18: STUDENTS INTERACTIONS WITH ONE ANOTHER LOOKING IN CLASSROOMS GOOD & BROPHY, 2000 CHAPTER 7 LUZ CARIME BERSH, Ph. D. National-Louis University](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070401/56649f1e5503460f94c357e8/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Value of respect toward peers from different cultures, races, and gender result from constructive controversy
![Page 19: STUDENTS INTERACTIONS WITH ONE ANOTHER LOOKING IN CLASSROOMS GOOD & BROPHY, 2000 CHAPTER 7 LUZ CARIME BERSH, Ph. D. National-Louis University](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070401/56649f1e5503460f94c357e8/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
OTHER COOPERATIVE LEARNING PROGRAMS:
GROUP INVESTIGATION (Sharan& Sharan,1992)
JIGSAW APPROACH (Aronson,et al,1980)
JIGSAW II (Slavin,1980) TEAMS-GAMES-TOURNAMENT/
STUDENT TEAMS-ACHIEVEMENT DIVISIONS
![Page 20: STUDENTS INTERACTIONS WITH ONE ANOTHER LOOKING IN CLASSROOMS GOOD & BROPHY, 2000 CHAPTER 7 LUZ CARIME BERSH, Ph. D. National-Louis University](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070401/56649f1e5503460f94c357e8/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Brief, informal cooperative learning structures
Think/pair share method
Numbered heads together
Pens in the middle
Group interviews
![Page 21: STUDENTS INTERACTIONS WITH ONE ANOTHER LOOKING IN CLASSROOMS GOOD & BROPHY, 2000 CHAPTER 7 LUZ CARIME BERSH, Ph. D. National-Louis University](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070401/56649f1e5503460f94c357e8/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
LEARNING PROCESSES IN COOPERATIVE LEARNING
Giving explanations to other group members is positively correlated with achievement, both for the student explaining and the student receiving the explanation.
Interaction during small group activities have shown that students spend more time on task.
![Page 22: STUDENTS INTERACTIONS WITH ONE ANOTHER LOOKING IN CLASSROOMS GOOD & BROPHY, 2000 CHAPTER 7 LUZ CARIME BERSH, Ph. D. National-Louis University](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070401/56649f1e5503460f94c357e8/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Potential Advantages
- Subject matter knowledge is increased- Students value shared academic work- Students regulate their own resources- Students learn to manage others’ resources- Students develop dispositions toward challenging work- School tasks are similar to those outside of school- Group members serve as models for one another- Students develop further understanding/acceptanceof self and others.
![Page 23: STUDENTS INTERACTIONS WITH ONE ANOTHER LOOKING IN CLASSROOMS GOOD & BROPHY, 2000 CHAPTER 7 LUZ CARIME BERSH, Ph. D. National-Louis University](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070401/56649f1e5503460f94c357e8/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Potential Disadvantages
- Students misconceptions can be reinforced- Students shift dependency from teacher to peers- Students value more product more than process - Students receive differential attention and status- Some students may feel unable to contribute- Some students may feel they don’t need to contribute- Information may be held back to avoid “labeling”
![Page 24: STUDENTS INTERACTIONS WITH ONE ANOTHER LOOKING IN CLASSROOMS GOOD & BROPHY, 2000 CHAPTER 7 LUZ CARIME BERSH, Ph. D. National-Louis University](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070401/56649f1e5503460f94c357e8/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Other interesting research-supported data on
Cooperative Learning
Cooperative learning methods seem to work better in upper levels,(4th and up)
Emphasis should be placed in cooperation while minimizing competition
Problem-solving problems may be high risk situations leading toanger/frustration
Some subject-areas (math) don’t work with Coop. Learning
Cooperative working skills need to be taught
![Page 25: STUDENTS INTERACTIONS WITH ONE ANOTHER LOOKING IN CLASSROOMS GOOD & BROPHY, 2000 CHAPTER 7 LUZ CARIME BERSH, Ph. D. National-Louis University](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070401/56649f1e5503460f94c357e8/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
OTHER STUDENT INTERACTION LEARNING STRUCTURES
Cross-age tutoring
Peer tutoring
Learning in Dyads
![Page 26: STUDENTS INTERACTIONS WITH ONE ANOTHER LOOKING IN CLASSROOMS GOOD & BROPHY, 2000 CHAPTER 7 LUZ CARIME BERSH, Ph. D. National-Louis University](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070401/56649f1e5503460f94c357e8/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
CHECK THESE LINKS:
Creating Original Opera
Alternatives to Tracking
Alternatives to Ability grouping
Grouping practices