Appendix 2

The Differences Between Traditional Group Learning and Cooperative Learning
An excerpt from Johnson and Johnson (1984, 9-11)

   There are a number of differences between the typical use of classroom learning groups and cooperative learning groups.  These differences (summarized in Figure 1) are:

1. Cooperative learning groups are based on  positive interdependence   among group members, where goals are structured so that students need to be concerned about performance of  all group members as well as their own.
   
   
2. In cooperative learning groups, there is a clear individual accountability where every student's mastery of the assigned material is assessed, each student is given feedback on his or her progress, and the group is given feedback on how each member is progressing so that the other groups' members know who to help and encourage.  In traditional learning groups, individual students are not often held individually accountable for providing their share of the group's work and, occasionally, students will "hitchhike" on the work of others.
   
   
3. In cooperative learning groups, the membership is typically heterogeneous in ability and personal characteristics, while traditional learning groups are often homogeneous in membership.
   
   
4. In cooperative learning groups, all members share responsibility for performing leadership actions in the group.  In traditional learning groups, a leader is often appointed and put in charge of the group.
   
   
5. In cooperative learning groups, responsibility for each other's learning is shared.   Group members are expected to provide help and encouragement to each other in order to ensure that all members do the assigned work.  In traditional learning groups, members are held responsible for each other's learning.
   
   
6. In cooperative learning groups, the goals focus on bringing each member's learning to the maximum and on maintaining good working relationships among members.  In traditional classroom learning groups, students most often focus only on completing the assignment.
   
   
7. In cooperative learning groups, the social skills students need in order to work collaboratively (such as leadership, ability to communicate, to trust one another, and to manage conflict) are directly taught.  In traditional classroom learning groups, interpersonal and small-group skills are assumed--most often mistakenly.
   
   
8. When cooperative learning groups are used, the teacher observes the groups, analyzes the problems they have working together, and gives feedback to each group on how well they are managing the group task.  Teacher observation and intervention seldom take place in traditional learning groups.
   
   
9. In cooperative learning, the teacher structures procedures for groups to "process" how effectively they are working, while no attention is given, in traditional group learning situations, to the way the group is working--or not working.
   

Conclusion

   There is much that is disturbing in our society and, while we cannot redress all the negatives that affect our students, we can see to it that the schools do not exacerbate their problems.

    We believe that the extensive and inappropriate overuse of competitive and individualistic instructional methods in our schools probably does reinforce some difficulties students encounter outside of school.  Further, we believe that such practices do not adequately prepare students for the kinds of cooperative efforts that will be expected of them in their future work and home lives.   The time has come to structure life in schools in ways that are:  (1) congruent with the future lives of our students, and (2) congruent with research on instructional methods.

    The set of strategies we support is more than simply a better way to work with students in a classroom.  Whether students work together or alone in schools is more serious than that.  We cannot, as a country, afford to have a significant number of students who are alienated, left out, disconnected from their peers.   We cannot afford to graduate large numbers of students with little or no ability to interact effectively with others--a prime requisite in the world of work.  And we cannot afford to teach students in an environment where they will not learn as much as they could.

    Despite the importance we and others attach to cooperative learning experiences, there are critics who challenge its use, who question the validity of the claims of advocates.  In the next chapter, therefore, we shall review the research that supports cooperative learning and we shall indicate briefly some of the problem areas in our society--and in education--where we believe cooperative learning would be an appropriate remedy.

Team Learning versus Lecture Learning

May 22, 2010 message from J. S. Gangolly [gangolly@CSC.ALBANY.EDU]

Bob,

Team-based learning is an alternative to lecturing.
However, the students are tested individually as well as teams. 
As I understand, each session starts with an individual quizz and 
then the team discussion of problems (usually cases) and their solution.

Some references:

http://ctl.stanford.edu/Tomprof/postings/750.html 

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1546479 

http://www.cshe.unimelb.edu.au/pdfs/Team_problem.pdf 

http://www.ecampus.com/bk_searchresult.asp?qtype=ISBN&qsearch=9781579220860 

Jagdish

Question
What if students teach the class and set the assignments?

"Peer-Driven Learning: Success!" by Lee Bessette, Inside Higher Ed, December 8, 2011 ---
http://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/college-ready-writing/peer-driven-learning-success 

Jensen Comment
This type of course requires great flexibility in the curriculum plan since it is not always clear ahead of time where students will steer the learning. I don't think I would recommend a peer-driven pedagogy for most accounting courses where learning objectives are usually more specific. For example, if there's only one governmental accounting course in the curriculum, most colleges would not like to have students ace the course and still be unable to solve those big governmental accounting problems that often appear on CPA examinations.

There may be some opportunity in an accounting curriculum such as when there are separate courses for accounting ethics. These days, however, ethics modules are often spread among other accounting courses.

Where I might like to see peer-driven learning gain traction is in accounting doctoral programs in courses where there are enough students to make it interesting.

Lee Bessette maintains a blog on Inside Higher Ed ---
http://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/college-ready-writing

I see some analogy here with what happens on our AECM. A scholar posts an article that is sometimes accompanied by a short commentary. This becomes analogous to a "peer assignment" to other scholars who then seek out references and quotations that get into the pros and cons of the initial posted article. Thus happens on the AECM, and this is what makes the AECM rich and rewarding to me!