• The "BIGs" Program
• Cases
• Cooperative Learning
  • Benefits of cooperative learning or teaming
  • Creating a climate for cooperative learning
  • Diversity issues
  • Forming small groups
  • Assessing small group cooperative learning
• Building Community
• Assessment
• Resources

BIGs Insights > Cooperative Learning > Creating a climate for cooperative learning

Creating a Climate for Cooperative Learning

Most of the previous BIGs faculty spent some time in the beginning of their courses discussing small group cooperative learning and teamwork, to greater or lesser degrees. In some cases, information was provided about the benefits of working in small groups. One of the BIGs faculty commented:

“[I] felt there was no reason not to share the information that the faculty had read about these topics; information which had got them excited about teaching in this format in the first place." -Tony Ives

In his BIG offered in the fall of 2002, Tony Ives gave his class a paper entitled “Cooperative Learning Returns to College: What evidence is there that it works?” (ref Resources: p.70) about which he “quizzed” them briefly the following session. In this way, Tony was able to expose the students to current literature regarding best practices in college teaching and begin a dialogue about cooperative learning. This allowed students to realize the expectations of them as members of small learning groups and to understand that faculty believed strongly that this was an important aspect of the BIGs experience.

In some of the BIGs classes, instructors conducted a learning styles inventory. For example, in the BIGs offered by Gary Diffee and Kreg Gruben, results showed that the students tested out as a different category of learner than the faculty did. This information provided helpful insight; not only, it appeared, did it show that students learn differently from faculty, but they demonstrated their own inherent learning styles differences. One of the faculty members commented that the “learning styles inventory was a valuable tool if only for the entertainment value”. Sharing and openly discussing these differences can promote stronger teamwork by emphasizing the importance of individuals bringing different perspectives to the group.

Information was disseminated regarding the structuring of small groups and the roles that each individual could play in the group. Groups were encouraged and guided by faculty, in some cases, to set down some rules for the group. These rules may be recorded in the form of a document, such as a “Code of Cooperation” (Imbrie et al., 2001, UW workshop) for that team to refer to throughout the semester. Thus, a “Code of Cooperation” outlines agreed upon rules that govern the behavior of the team members.

The instructor might facilitate this process by:

• Communicating clear expectations orally on the first day of class, and communicate those expectations in writing, for example, as part of the course syllabus.

• On the first or second day of class providing an engaging, easily accomplished cooperative learning activity – as an icebreaker.

• Instructing the students to establish a set of rules/expectations of each of the learners within the group – rules should be formulated by the members of each group. For example, pose the question, “What can I reasonably expect from the members of my small group as we work together throughout this semester?" Some of the “typical” or “expected” rules might include:
• Show up to class and to group meetings outside of class.
• Let someone in the group, or the course instructor, know if you will be absent.
• Come to class prepared – with tasks completed, literature read, prepared to participate fully.
• Show respect to everyone in your group.
• Be able to give and take constructive criticism of ideas, critique ideas not people.
• Give everyone an opportunity to become engaged.
• Establish and work toward well-defined goals/objectives.
• Share equally in the work load.
• Recognize and take advantage of people’s strengths.
• Be open to receiving and expressing concern if problems arise in the group.
• Be prepared to improve or modify team rules as necessary.

The need for establishing rules, either through a written document, or simply by discussion, that govern the groups’ behavior is illustrated by the following quote:

“A team of students had four members called Everybody, Somebody, Anybody and Nobody. There was an important job to be done. Everybody was sure that Somebody would do it. Anybody could have done it, but Nobody did it. Somebody got angry about that because it was Everybody’s job. Everybody thought Anybody could do it but Nobody realized that Everybody wouldn’t do it. It ended up that Everybody blamed Somebody when Nobody did what Anybody could have done (Gibbs, 1995).”

While comical, it does accurately reflect that groups can become dysfunctional if not given the opportunity to...

Team building activities:

Team building activities can be a fun and engaging way to set the tone for a cooperative learning environment early. A number of examples of “introduction to teaming”, “developing team ground rules” and “team building activities” templates are found at the following link and may be helpful:
http://clte.asu.edu/active/lessteam.htm

In one of the 2004 BIGs lead by Beth Meyerand and Alan McMillan, they began the course by forming small groups, which were to remain the same for the entire semester. They then “set the climate” for cooperative learning by challenging the students with a team-building exercise. The student teams were given the task of building a tower from commonplace items and the goal was to build the tallest (or longest) tower. Several handicaps were imposed on the groups (such as the designated group leader was unable to speak, etc.) to enhance the challenge. Beth Meyerand indicated that this exercise was very effective at creating “openness in the first class”. It really helped the students “form initial bonds and got the whole class off on the right foot.” Beth felt the team-building exercise was essential in her class because the teams in her BIGs would remain together for the whole course.

Lessons from workshops

In a workshop, entitled “Teaming in the College Classroom and Beyond the Basics” offered in 2001, P.K. Imbrie, C. Malave and J. Morgan identified five elements of cooperative learning in the classroom:

Positive interdependence: small group members must rely on each other to accomplish goals. Tasks should be designed in such a way that individual team members functioning independently from other team members, or competing with them will lead to suboptimal outcomes for themselves and the entire team.

Individual accountability: members are held accountable for doing their share of the work, as well as mastering all material. Tasks should be designed in such a way that individual members of the team can be randomly called upon to explain the team’s solution/work. Provide time in class for quizzes to assess an individuals understanding of course concepts.

Group processing: teams periodically reflect on what they do well as a team, what they could improve and what they should do differently. Time is allowed for giving students feedback on their participation in the group, by the instructor and by other members of the group.

Social skills: team members practice and receive instruction in leadership, decision making, trust-building, and communication skills and conflict management. Be aware that students have probably never worked in cooperative learning situations and therefore, lack the necessary social skills for doing so.

Face-to-face interaction: some or all work should be done by members working together (in close proximity). Tasks should be designed so that members of the group need to discuss the material and make decisions about how to proceed in- person with one another.

How are these teamwork skills implemented in the BIGs classroom?

By incorporating activities and different forms of assessment into cases some of these elements of cooperative learning will evolve naturally. To promote positive interdependence and individual accountability in small group cooperative learning a number of strategies can be used. One strategy that worked well was implemented by Kreg Gruben and Gary Diffee for the Biosphere 3 case. This case required an understanding and working knowledge of Excel and resulted in a numerical solution. It was clear from the beginning of this case, that some members in each group were very uncomfortable with this situation, while others had a lot of experience with Excel and felt comfortable generating a numerical solution. As such, the instructors realized that this could lead to a situation where some members of the groups would sit back and allow the “experts” to generate the numbers and provide the answer. Likewise, the “experts” might feel that they should take the lead in order to ensure a successful outcome for the case. Either way, some members will ultimately be left behind, and not gain an understanding of the problem, how to approach it, or the final solution. Recall, according to P.K. Imbrie et al., it is important for every member of the group to participate fully and to master the material. Therefore, Gary and Kreg decided that in order to assess this case, each group would give an oral presentation (power point presentation). However, only one member of the group would present and would therefore represent the whole group and this member would not be chosen until 15 minutes prior to the oral presentation. This forced all the members of the groups to be responsible for understanding the problem and its solution and to be able to effectively present and defend the solution. Since the group grade was dependent on the performance of a single member of the group, it was up to everyone in the group to work together to ensure that all members could represent the group well. Those in the group who understood Excel and the math took on the responsibility of teaching those who were less skilled. Those members who were not strong in the use of Excel and the math needed to solve the problem took on the responsibility of putting forth a huge effort to learn what was necessary to keep up with group.

“So this was a mechanism whereby it forced everyone to become engaged and understand the work and be able ultimately to talk about it. So it ended up being a pretty successful way of getting the most out of each member of the group.” -Gary Diffee

In choosing the member of the group who would present, the instructors decided to call on whom they perceived as the “weakest” members of each group, or the member who seemed least engaged. In this way, they hoped that everyone in the group would understand their responsibility to the group, and that they were going to be held accountable because they could be chosen to present for the group. Some of the faculty felt that this approach was flawed because it is based on the instructor’s perception of the student, which may not be accurate. For example, if a student is particularly shy and withdrawn but is contributing to the group in ways that are not readily apparent, that student may be unwittingly “picked on”. A random approach is recommended by P.K.Imbrie. He suggests informing the students that individuals will be chosen at random to represent the group – who woke the earliest that day, who has the closest birthday, who picks the high card off the top of the deck, etc.