1. Improves student engagement with the task Rather than students who listen passively to explanations by the teacher, the learning process is inclined to be much more heavily committed to by those students that work together on new material. Previous literature outlines that the most effective form of interaction is when students work in groups of two or three, followed by groups consisting of three of four members (Schwatrz and Reisberg, 1991). When a group of students work together to investigate a question, all members of the group have the opportunity to advance their problem-solving skills by thinking about their ideas, explaining them to others, hearing feedback straight away and replying to comments from other members of their group (Johnson, 1973). This interaction is continuous and ensures that all students are engaged in the session and is outlined by Slavin in saying who had been taught “…students cooperatively were significantly higher than control students on measures of supportive, friendly, and prosocial behaviour; were better at resolving conflicts; and expressed more support for democratic values”(Slavin, 1991, p.81) (03:11): The main motivation would have been the kind of social pressure that you’d have to go off on your own to really try to understand what the question was asking you, so you’d kind of have some sort of idea what you were talking about and not look like an idiot in front of the rest of the group. (06:30): With the PBL, we were part of a team so we had to work together. One person would go away and find out answers to one part of the problem and the others would do the same. If one person didn’t bother doing their job, they would be letting the rest of the group down. 2. Builds self-esteem in students In many classroom or lecture settings, individual competitive systems promote a lose situation and in this case, it is the higher mathematics attainers who will realise all the benefits and acknowledgement whilst the lower attainers can often be left behind (Slavin, 1990). On the other hand, in a collaborative setting a supportive community is built where
1. Improves student engagement with the task Rather than students who listen passively to explanations by the teacher, the learning process is inclined to be much more heavily committed to by those students that work together on new material. Previous literature outlines that the most effective form of interaction is when students work in groups of two or three, followed by groups consisting of three of four members (Schwatrz and Reisberg, 1991). When a group of students work together to investigate a question, all members of the group have the opportunity to advance their problem-solving skills by thinking about their ideas, explaining them to others, hearing feedback straight away and replying to comments from other members of their group (Johnson, 1973). This interaction is continuous and ensures that all students are engaged in the session and is outlined by Slavin in saying “…students who had been taught cooperatively were significantly higher than control students on measures of supportive, friendly, and prosocial behaviour; were better at resolving conflicts; and expressed more support for democratic values”(Slavin, 1991, p.81) (03:11): The main motivation would have been the kind of social pressure that you’d have to go off on your own to really try to understand what the question was asking you, so you’d kind of have some sort of idea what you were talking about and not look like an idiot in front of the rest of the group. (06:30): With the PBL, we were part of a team so we had to work together. One person would go away and find out answers to one part of the problem and the others would do the same. If one person didn’t bother doing their job, they would be letting the rest of the group down. 2. Builds self-esteem in students In many classroom or lecture settings, individual competitive systems promote a situation and in this case, it is the higher mathematics attainers who will realise all the benefits and acknowledgement whilst the lower attainers can often be left behind (Slavin, 1990). On the other hand, in a collaborative setting a supportive community is built where lose
EdD%20Thesis1.docx