Course Design: Ideas for Graduate Student Instructors

Basic Coopertive Learning Structures
by Barbara J. Millis, US Air Force Academy

A cooperative, group oriented classroom is predicated on an underlying belief in the potential of all students to succeed. It also operates on the assumption that such success is fostered by student-to-student interactions in carefully monitored permanent or semi-permanent student learning teams. Day-to-day classroom functions, however, are carried out or operationalized by specific structures. Structures are essentially content-free procedures, such as a brainstorming technique called Roundtable, which can be used in virtually any discipline for a variety of purposes. When content is added to a structure it becomes a specific classroom activity. When a series of activities are linked, they become a lesson or unit plan.

Some of the most commonly used structures in higher education are discussed in this section. These structures need to be carefully planned and executed, but they don’t require the presence of permanently formed groups in your class. The activities involve student interactions and active learning, thus promoting deep learning, but they can be organized quickly.

Three-Step Interview

Common as an ice-breaker or a team-building exercise, this structure, developed by Kagan (1989) , also helps students reinforce and internalize important concept-related information based on lectures or textbook material. Some faculty have used it successfully as a modified role-playing activity, having students interview one another while assuming the roles of historical characters, such as President Harry S. Truman or Major General Laurence S. Kuter. The interview questions, focused on content material and having no right or wrong solutions, are usually posed by the instructor, as in the Think-Pair Share examples. In a Three-Step Interview, one student interviews another within specified time limits (Step one). The two then reverse roles and conduct the interview again (Step two). In a learning team composed of two pairs, the students then share the highlights of the information or insights gleaned from the paired interview (Step three). This structure also results in the formation of new learning quads which may then move on to other team-related activities. An extra question can be added for pairs working more rapidly than others, an "extension" or "sponge" recommended for many cooperative learning activities. This structure reinforces listening and probing skills, helps students process and rehearse information, and results in shared insights. Used at the beginning of a class period, the readings-based questions give students immediate feedback under low-risk conditions on their understanding of the assigned material. As you monitor the interviews, you can also determine how well the students have responded to the readings and possibly incorporate some of their ideas in your follow-on lecture/discussion.

Roundtable

Roundtable, a cooperative learning structure useful for brainstorming, reviewing, or practicing a skill, uses a single sheet of paper and pen for each cooperative learning group. Students in the group respond in turn to a question or problem by stating their ideas aloud as they write them on the paper. It is important that the ideas be vocalized for several reasons: (a) silence in a setting like this is boring, rather than golden; (b) other team members need to be reflecting on the proffered thoughts; (c) variety results because teammates learn immediately that someone has come up with an idea they know now not to repeat; and (d) hearing the responses said aloud means that students do not have to waste valuable brainstorming time by reading the previous ideas on the page.

Team members are encouraged not to skip turns, but if their thoughts are at a standstill, they are allowed to say "Pass" rather than to turn the brainstorm into a brain drizzle. Thus, there is almost universal participation in Roundtable.

Roundtable is most effective when used in a carefully sequenced series of activities. The brainstorming can reinforce ideas from the readings or can be used to set the stage for upcoming discussions. Students, for example, could identify the characteristics of an effective leader or the attributes of terrorism before these topics are formally introduced. Comparing a student-generated list with those of the “experts,” creates interest. Many creative uses can be made of the ideas generated, depending on their nature.

In Roundtable, the multiple answers encourage creativity and deeper thinking. This activity builds positive interdependence among team members because of the shared writing surface, but more importantly, it builds team cohesion and reinforces the power of teamwork because students see in action the value of multiple viewpoints and ideas.

Structured Problem Solving

Members of learning teams, usually composed of four individuals, count off: 1, 2, 3, and 4. The teacher poses a question or problem requiring higher order thinking skills. Students discuss the question or solve the problem, making certain that every group member can summarize the group's discussion or can explain the problem. Sponges or extensions with additional content-related problems or activities are particularly important here for teams working faster than others. The instructor calls a specific number and the designated team members (1, 2, 3, or 4) respond as group spokespersons. To avoid repetition, faculty members will usually ask for responses from only three to six groups. The desired learning will already have occurred.

In this activity, students benefit from the verbalization, from the opportunity to exchange differing perspectives, and from the peer coaching that helps high and low achievers, alike. Less class time is wasted on inappropriate responses, and the principle of simultaneity is operative because at any given time 25% of the students are vocal within their groups. Students become actively involved with the material and, since no one knows which number the teacher will call, each has a vested interest in being able to articulate the appropriate response. Those chosen randomly as spokespersons—often students who do not volunteer during a whole-class discussion—feel far less threatened giving a team, rather than an individual, answer. Some faculty members prefer the use of playing cards because the teams then have an immediate identity (Aces, Jacks, etc.) and the individual members are numbered/identified by the suit of the cards (hearts, clubs, diamonds, and spades).

Think-Pair-Share

In this activity, developed by Frank Lyman (1981) , the instructor poses a question, preferably one demanding analysis, evaluation, or synthesis, and gives students thirty seconds or more to think through an appropriate response (Think). This time can also be spent writing the response. After this “wait time,” students then turn to partners and share their responses, thus allowing time for both rehearsal and immediate feedback on their ideas (Pair). During the third and last stage, student responses can be shared within learning teams, with larger groups, or with the entire class during a follow-up discussion (Share). The caliber of discussion is enhanced by this technique since, too often, the extroverts with the quickest hand reflexes are called on when an instructor poses a question to the entire class. In addition, all students have an opportunity to learn by reflection and by verbalization. Think-Pair-Share, like most other cooperative learning structures, capitalizes on the principle of simultaneity (Kagan, 1992, p. 4:5-7 ). Many students (50% in Think-Pair-Share) are actively vocalizing ideas at a given moment, whereas in a more traditional classroom, only the lecturer is active or the one student at a time who is responding to his or her questions.

Visible Quiz

Students in groups discuss the appropriate response to quiz questions, ones typically displayed on an overhead projector. The answers can be multiple choice (A, B, C, or D) or True (T) and False (F). Each team has a set of large cards with the four letters and the T and F, all sets composed with letters in the same colors (All A's would be red, for example, and all T's, yellow). At a given signal, one person from each team displays the team's choice. The instructor can quickly survey the room to determine how well students understood the question. She then gives the correct answer, going into a mini-lecture if a minority of students gave inappropriate responses. She can also call on groups to explain the rationale for their selection, sometimes uncovering genuine misconceptions and sometimes uncovering poorly constructed, ambiguous wording in the questions. This technique gives both students and teachers immediate feedback on learning. Peer coaching also goes on when the teams discuss each question.

Bringing Closure: Some Report-out Methods

As indicated earlier, closure is critically important to learning. Students must feel that their discussion and group activities have added to their knowledge, skills, and abilities. Often your summarizing mini-lecture will do the trick, particularly if you weave into it the comments, products, and ideas generated by the students in their small groups. At other times, however, you may wish to rely on a report-out by the students. It is important to recall, however, that whole-class reports can be both time-sinks and repetitious. They should be used with care. Often you can take up materials generated through in-class group activities and either compile a summary for the next class period or comment—very quickly!—on individual or team products.

The report-out methods that follow offer rapid alternatives to the traditional whole-class report approach where a spokesperson from each group summarizes their work. Such traditional reports are always time-consuming, are usually uneven, are often tedious and repetitious, and sometimes provoke intense anxiety for the speaker.

Stand Up and Share

This report-out method should be rapid and energetic. It works best when students have completed an activity, such as Roundtable, that lends itself to single statement summaries. It relies on students having an easily designated identity within each team so that you can call on the “Number Twos” or the “Hearts” to serve as spokespersons. These designated students then rise, prepared to respond on behalf of the group. Each team responds in turn, giving only one response, in rapid round robin fashion. Depending on the number of answers and the number of teams involved, you may want to go through another rotation, calling on another group member to share one group idea (the “Number Fours” or the “Clubs” this time).

All students must attend to the sharing because they may serve as the next spokesperson. No ideas should be repeated. If student spokespersons find that all the topics on the team’s list have been covered, they merely sit down and the rotation continues. Besides allowing for rapid exchanges (Sometimes this activity becomes a “Stand Up and Shout”), the value of positive interdependence (team work) is emphasized.

Three-Stay One-Stray

Like “Stay Up and Share,” this structure requires the easy identification of a team member who will become the group’s spokesperson. It too builds on another structure, such as Structured Problem Solving, but in this case the topics can be far more complex. After the problem solving discussions are complete and all team members indicate that they can give the team’s report, you designate the student from each team who will “stray.” That is, one student from each group (such as the “Number One” or the “Diamond”) leaves it and rotates to an adjoining team to give the report. In large classes it is essential that the order of rotation is clear. Playing cards work particularly well because the “Aces” know to rotate to the “Two’s,” the “Jacks” to the Queens,” and so forth.

The designated student, who is welcomed as a visitor, shares with this new team the results of his original group’s discussion, giving proposed solutions to problems or summarizing discussions. A second rotation may be desirable if the topic prompted divergent thinking and solutions.

Three-Stay One-Stray offers a low-threat forum where students can exchange ideas and build social skills such as asking probing questions. It also offers students the opportunity to learn by teaching. Placing the report-out responsibility on the students reinforces the valuable conception that knowledge resides within the learning community, not just with the “authority-figure” instructor. Perhaps its greatest value lies in its efficiency. Instead of, for example, ten sequenced five-minute reports to the entire class (fifty minutes, plus transition time), individual students are simultaneously giving five-minute reports throughout the room.

Gallery Walk

A Gallery Walk requires a report-out that can be visually depicted, preferably on butcher paper. It can be an outline, a concept or mind map, or any other written product. In this case a designated student stays by the desk or table or next to the butcher paper if it is taped to the wall and serves as the group spokesperson. The other students rotate around the room examining the products of other teams’ thinking, asking question of the designated spokesperson. (The spokesperson role should be rotated so that no one is left without the stimulation of exploring the different student creations.)

This structure is also efficient and engenders a sense of team cohesion as each group displays the product of their “group think.” The variety of the end products emphasizes the value of critical/creative thinking.

You can use a variation of “Gallery Walk” when you have required individual or team long-term products. Rather than having time-consuming report-puts, each student circulates to classmates a summary of his or her project. Each product, such as a term paper or student portfolio, is assigned to specific work area, as in a conference poster session. Then a class period can be spent with students examining one another’s work. To provide an opportunity for feedback, each student leaves a comment sheet next to the product, and browsers write a brief response.

REFERENCES

Kagan, S. (1989). Cooperative Learning. San Juan Capistrano, CA: Resources for Teachers.

Kagan, S. (1992). Cooperative Learning. San Juan Capistrano, CA: Resources for Teachers.

Lyman, F. (1981). The responsive classroom discussion. In A.S. Anderson (Ed.) Mainstreaming digest. College Park, MD: University of Maryland College of Education.