kaganstructuresonlineenvironment

Adapting Kagan Cooperative Learning Structures

To Asynchronous Online Learning Communities

by

Diana F. Dell

PhD Student in the School of Education at Capella University

Specialization in Teaching and Training Online

A Paper Presented in Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements of

ED7692 Strategies for Building Online Learning Communities

June, 2003

Address: 331 Fairview Drive

City, State, Zip: Union, Missouri 63084Phone: 636-583-3315E-mail: [email protected]: Elizabeth Bruch

Abstract

Cooperative learning has been shown to expand a student’s range of experience, foster skills of

communication, promote higher-level thinking, and increase social interaction. Additional

benefits included acceptance of diversity in students, and improved attitudes for school and

learning. Kagan cooperative learning structures have been used successfully in traditional

classrooms for nearly three decades. To transfer the benefits of cooperative learning to the

virtual course room, these structures were analyzed as to their adaptability for use in

asynchronous online learning communities. Suggestions have been made to facilitate the

integration of these structures in distance learning situations. The integration of cooperative

structures in asynchronous electronic learning environments can serve to eliminate feelings of

isolation and increase the socialization of distance learning students.

ii

Table of Contents

Table of Contents ii

List of Tables 2

Introduction 3

Cooperative Learning Defined 4

A Brief History of Cooperative Learning 5

Models of Cooperative Learning 5

Types of Cooperative Structures 8

Structures that Adapt to the Asynchronous Online Environments 9

Classbuilding Structures Transformed 11

Teambuilding Structures Transformed 12

Thinking Skills Transformed 12

Communications Skills Transformed 13

Mastery Structures Transformed 14

Information Sharing Structures Transformed 14

Strategies for the Successful Implementation and Management of Cooperative Learningin Electronic Learning Communities 14

Conclusion 16

Adapting Cooperative Learning Structures to Asynchronous Learning Communities

List of Tables

Table 1: The Johnson and Johnson Model of Cooperative Learning 6

Table 2: The Six Key Concepts of Cooperative Learning as Identified by Kagan 7

Table 3: Kagan Principles of Cooperative Learning 8

Table 4: Kagan Structure Categories 9

Table 5: Adaptable Kagan Structures in Each Category 10

- 2 -


Introduction

Today, more than ever, educators are called upon to re-evaluate our educational

institutions and instructional practices. Changes in the global economy and demographics

demand that we engage in a re-analysis of the traditional roles of our schools. We must produce

learners who are prepared for full participation in the “rapidly changing, information-based, high

technology and interdependent” global economy and society. (Kagan, 1994, p. 2:1) Therefore

schools, both traditional brick and mortar and online institutions, must “produce students capable

of higher-level thinking skills, communication skills, and social skills” (Kagan, 1994, p. 2:1).

Many traditional educators look to cooperative learning as a way to meet the demands of

preparing students for the new society. Cooperative learning can indeed expand a student’s

range of experience and thus foster skills of communication, higher-level thinking, and social

interaction. There is also confirmation that cooperative learning has a positive impact on

classroom environments, self confidence among students, internal focus of control, role taking

abilities, time on task, attendance, acceptance of diversity in students, and improved attitudes for

school and learning (Kagan, 1994).

Educators who practice their craft in virtual learning environments share the same

demands as traditional educators in regard to preparing student for the new society. In addition,

they face the added challenge of building a learning community through an electronic medium.

The lack of social interaction in computer-based learning environments has been a predominant

concern for quite some time (Baker 1985; Cuban 1986). One problem frequently reported by

distance learning students if that of the feeling of alienation and isolation from other group

members since they are only connected through their use of technology (Tiffin & Rajasingham

- 3 -


1995). These students want to be part of a community of learners, and not merely a member of a

distance education course.

Recent research has focused on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL)

with the goal of exploring the ways technology can facilitate social interaction (Lehtinen,

Hakkarainen, Lipponen, Rahikainen, and Muukkonen, 1998). Cooperative learning strategies

combined with CSCL technologies can be of benefit to both teachers and learners in virtual

schools. Cooperative learning is possible and desirable in distance learning. It may take some

additional effort by the instructor, but it can be done successfully (Felder and Brent, 2001). This

paper looks at the adaptability of cooperative learning structures for use in online learning

communities and offers strategies for the successful implementation and management of virtual

group work of a cooperative nature.

Cooperative Learning Defined

Cooperative learning is instruction that involves students working in groups to achieve a

shared goal of maximizing their own and each other’s learning. In the context of cooperative

situations, individuals seek outcomes that are both beneficial to themselves and to the other

group members. (Johnson, Johnson, and Holubec,1998).

The terms “group learning” and “cooperative learning” are frequently used as if they as

synonyms. In effect, group work means several students working together, but it is important to

note that working together doesn't automatically involve cooperation. "Cooperative learning is an

arrangement in which students work in mixed ability groups and are rewarded on the basis of the

success of the group" (Woolfolk, 2001, p.340). Therefore, putting students into groups to learn is

not the same thing as structuring cooperation among students.

- 4 -


Cooperative learning consists of patterns for student interaction called structures. To

qualify as a cooperative learning structure the organizational pattern or instructional techniques

must require positive interdependence between learners in order for learning to occur. The

structures typically entail a sequence of steps, with controlled behavior at each step. (On Purpose

Associates) “Simply giving a task to a group with no structuring or roles is group work, not

cooperative learning” (Kagan, 1994).

A Brief History of Cooperative Learning

By far the most notable names associated with cooperative learning are the Johnsons and

the Kagans. Roger T. Johnson and David W. Johnson are brothers who are on faculty at the

College of Education, University of Minnesota. Their research regarding cooperative learning

initiated in the 1960’s as they began investigating cooperation and competition in learning

situations (Johnson, et al., 1998).

In 1985, Dr. Spencer Kagan introduced the structural approach to cooperative learning,

which is now used worldwide in classrooms at all grade levels. His wife, Laurie Kagan, former

Director of Elementary Education for the state of Nevada, develops all Kagan training materials.

Rather than stressing complex cooperative learning lessons, theme units, projects, and centers,

the Kagan structural approach makes cooperative learning part of any lesson through the addition

of cooperative structures. (About Kagan Publishing and Professional Development, 2003)

Models of Cooperative Learning

Both the Johnson and the Kagans have developed criteria and principles for cooperative

learning. The Johnson and Johnson model (1999) identifies five criteria that delineate true

cooperative learning groups. They specify the decisive factors for cooperative learning as

- 5 -


positive interdependence, individual accountability, engaging interaction, group processing, and

development of small- group interpersonal skills. Emphasis is placed on group processing, or

reflection of the team’s ability to function, and the development of small-group interpersonal

skills. Table 1 provides an explanation of the criteria of cooperative learning set forth by Johnson

and Johnson (1999).

Table 1: The Johnson and Johnson Model of Cooperative Learning

Criteria Explanation

Positive interdependence

Team members understand that must rely on one another to accomplish the assigned goal. The learners need each other for support, clarification, and guidance. If any team members fail to do their part, everyone will experience the consequences.

Individual accountability

The performance of each group member is evaluated. Therefore, each member is responsible for doing his or her share of the work, achieving the group goals, and mastering of all of the material to be learned.

Engaging interaction Although some of the group’s work may be divided among members and done individually, a large portion must be done interactively. This interaction provides opportunity for learners to both challenge each other's conclusions and reasoning, and teach and encourage one another.

Group processing Groups are required to periodically assess and reflect on their ability to function as a team and identify changes they will make to operate more effectively in the future.

Development of small- group interpersonal skills

Skills that are necessary for effective group functioning are taught and practiced. These interpersonal skills include giving constructive feedback, reaching consensus, involving every member, making decisions, communicating, and managing conflict.

Kagan (1994) identifies six key concepts of cooperative learning. Those concepts

include teams, cooperative management, will to cooperate, skill to cooperate, basic principles,

and structures. He notes that, “Not all cooperative learning lessons implement all six concepts,

and some aspects of cooperative learning may include none. Competence in following the six

- 6 -


key areas define a teacher’s ability to successfully implement cooperative learning” (Kagan,

1994, p.4:1). The important points of each concept are detailed in Table 2 below.

Table 2: The Six Key Concepts of Cooperative Learning as Identified by Kagan

Key Concept Important points

Teams Cooperative learning teams have a strong identity, ideally consist of four members, endure over time, and are heterogeneous in nature.

Cooperative management

The environment is arranged so that each student has equal and easy access to all teammates. Class rules and norms determine the responsibilities of the team and the individual.

Will to cooperate The will or desire to cooperate is fostered and sustained through the use of team-building, class-building, and task and reward structures.

Skill to cooperate Modeling, reinforcement, role assignment, structuring and reflection will foster the development of social skills needed in cooperative learning.

Basic principles The four basic principles are positive interdependence, individual accountability, equal participation, and simultaneous interaction. See table # for additional information on the basic principles.

Structures The cooperative structures are categorized by their principal purpose and are labeled as classbuilding, teambuilding, communication skills, thinking skills, information sharing, and mastery. Different structures are practical and helpful for meeting diverse objectives. See table # for additional information on structures.

The four Kagan basic principles share common themes with the Johnson and Johnson

model and can be identified with the acronym “PIES.” PIES stands for Positive

Interdependence, Individual Accountability, Equal Participation, and Simultaneous Interaction.

Kagan stresses that although not every key concept be a part of every cooperative learning

lesson, that all of these basic principles must be implemented in order to label group learning as

effective and “cooperative.” (Kagan. 1994) Understanding these basic principles is

- 7 -


fundamental to understanding the nature of cooperative learning. Table 3 provides an

explanation of the principles of cooperative learning identified by Spencer Kagan (1994).

Table 3: Kagan Principles of Cooperative Learning

Principle Explanation

P

Positive Interdependence

Occurs when gains of individual students are associated gains for other students or the team. The strongest forms of positive interdependence take place when the achievement of the team is not possible without the success and contribution of each team member.

IIndividual Accountability

Holding each member accountable for his/her contribution adds up to academic gains for each student as will as for the team or group. Evaluation occurs at the individual level as well as at the team level.

E

Equal Participation

Students learn by interacting with content therefore equal participation is an essential ingredient for the success of all students. Turn allocation or the division of labor contributes to creating equal participation.

SSimultaneous Interaction

Interaction between and among learners occurs concurrently. This is an advantage over traditional teaching practices in which the teacher does eighty percent of the talking.

Types of Cooperative Structures

Building on the basic principles and key concepts of cooperative learning, Spencer Kagan

(1994) has developed six categories of cooperative structures. These structures provide a

content-free organizational method for promoting interaction among students in learning

environments. They describe the social organization among individuals by providing a series of

steps or elements that characterize the patterns of interaction. The cooperative structures are

categorized by their principle purpose and are labeled as classbuilding, teambuilding,

communication skills, thinking skills, information sharing, and mastery. Different structures are

- 8 -


practical and helpful for meeting diverse objectives. Many structures cross category lines.

Kagan’s description of each structure category and the benefits to the community of learners is

summarized in the Table 4.

Structures that Adapt to the Asynchronous Online Environments

Using my knowledge of cooperative learning, electronic learning communities, and my

experience as a distance learning student and teacher, I analyzed the Kagan structures for

adaptability to online learning communities. I identified two structures in each category that can

be incorporated and carried out in asynchronous learning environments. Table 5 describes the

Table 4: Kagan Structure Categories

Structure Category

Description Benefit to community of learners

Classbuilding

These structures provide networking among all of the students in a class and create a positive context within which teams can learn.

Improved class climate and greater student empowerment and ownership, which coincides with the resultant feeling that this is “our class.”

Teambuilding

These structures are best used at the time that teams are formed.

Creates enthusiasm, trust, and support which leads to more efficient academic work

Communication Skills

These structures equalize communication and promote positive communication patterns

Improved communication among members of the community.

Thinking Skills

These structures have students to create and exchange novel, unique, and set-breaking ideas.

Fosters an environment in which students question, reflect, evaluate, and apply information.

Information Sharing

These structures allow for the sharing of information and ideas among teams or the class as a whole.

Engages the community in higher level thinking and understanding multiple points of view.

Mastery

These structures are effective for dealing with knowledge and comprehension for a broad range of content areas. They include peer support and tutoring with frequent correction opportunities.

Produces a high level of mastery of academic content and basic skills.

- 9 -


structures as they are implemented in traditional classrooms. Following the table are my

recommendations for adapting these structures in online learning communities.

Table 5: Adaptable Kagan Structures in Each CategoryStructure Description

Classb

uild

ing

Find-Someone-Who Students answer questions about themselves (i.e., state of residence, hobbies, profession) then search for a classmate who shares the same characteristics. The information is recorded on a worksheet.

Fact Bingo A bingo type card is made with little known facts about students filling the cells. Students circulate and try to get bingo by locating classmates who fit the description.

Team

bu

ildin

g

Send-A-Problem Each student on a team writes a question and the team agrees on the correct response. All questions are compiled and sent to another team. The receiving team confers and responds with written answers. The sending team verifies the accuracy of the responses and has an opportunity to discuss and clarify any questions that may have arisen.

Team Interview A teammate is interviewed in turn for a predetermined time. The interviewer then reports to the team the information gained during the interview.

Th

ink

ing S

kills

Blooming Worksheets

A group worksheet that fosters higher-level thinking due to the nature of its construction. The principles for construction include clarity, group language, difficulty ordering, open-ended questions, format for thought, and incorporating Bloom’s taxonomy.

Team Statements Each person makes an individual statement about a topic. The team must reach “consensus on one statement that captures the essence from which the individual statements sprang.”

Com

mu

niation

S

kills

Paraphrase Passport A discussion structure with the following rule: “After someone has contributed an idea, another person must correctly restate that idea before contributing his/her own.”

Consensus Seeking A decision making structure in which students are instructed to find the best solution to which they can all agree and live with.

Mastery

Rotating Review Topics are written on chart papers and posted, about the room. Teams rotate and write as many facts as they can on the topic sheet. They can put a question mark next to items to which they disagree.

Roundtable The teacher poses a question with many possible answers. Each teammate answers and passes the paper to the next teammate.

- 10 -


Inform

ation

Sh

aring

Carbon Sharing While teams record their answers, they are producing two or more copies via carbon paper. These copies are given to other teams to examine and comment on.

Galley Tour Student learning products are displayed and teams of students move about the room providing feedback regarding the products.

The structures above can be transformed to fit asynchronous learning environments.

Many of the structures involve a time period. Eliminating or adjusting the time limits to that of

the virtual world and using group discussion areas is all that is need to transform many structures

for use in online course rooms.

Classbuilding Structures Transformed

Adapting the Find-Someone-Who Structure: The Find-Someone-Who structure is carried out

using the student profiles or introduction section and email. It serves as a getting-to-know-you

or icebreaking activity. It is classified as a classbuilding structure and would be best utilized

during the first week of the course. Students download an instructor-created electronic document

with questions geared at seeking commonalities among students. Students would first answer

questions about themselves (i.e., state of residence, hobbies, profession) then search for a

classmate who shares the same characteristics by exploring the student profiles. If students are

unable to locate a classmate with common characteristics simply by reading the profile, an email

could be sent to those whose profile indicates a possible common characteristic. The

information is then entered on the electronic document and uploaded to a common course area

for additional whole-class processing.

Adapting the Fact Bingo Structure: The Fact Bingo structure is also categorized as classbuilding

and ice-breaking and therefore provides the most benefit in the early stages of a course. The

- 11 -


instructor directs each student to privately email a little known fact about his or herself. The

instructor then creates a bingo type card and enters the little known facts about the students in the

cells. Students then download the card and utilize the student profile area and email to try to get

“bingo” by locating classmates who fit the description. Once a student has “bingo” the card is be

uploaded to a common course area for whole class comment.

Teambuilding Structures Transformed

Adapting the Send a Problem Structure: Within a group discussion area, each student on a team

posts a question relating to a specified topic and through discussion the team agrees on the

correct response. All questions are compiled and sent to another predetermined team. The

receiving team confers within the team’s group area and responds with written answers. The

sending team verifies the accuracy of the responses and has an opportunity to discuss and clarify

any questions that may have arisen. The final responses are posted in the common course area

for further discussion.

Adapting the Team Interview Structure: A pair of teammates interviews each other using a

thread of their group area. The topic of the interview may be of a biographical nature or make

seek the point-of –view regarding a content specific issue. To initiate the interview process, the

instructor may prepare a set of questions that must be answered in the interview. The

interviewers then compose a short summary of the interviewee’s comments based on the

information gained during the interview. The summaries are posted on the team discussion

board and compiled before being posted on the discussion board in the common course area

where the summaries are further processed.

- 12 -


Thinking Skills Transformed

Adapting the Blooming Worksheets Structure: A series of questions designed to foster the higher-

level thinking skills of Bloom’s taxonomy are complete through the process of discussion via the

group area. These questions should be open ended with more than one correct answer. Each

teammate is responsible for facilitating the discussion of a specified question. Completed

questions are complied and posted to the main discussion board for a comparison to other team

responses and further discussion.

Adapting the Team Statements Structure: On the team discussion board, each person makes an

individual statement about a topic posted by the instructor. Through discussion, the team must

confer and produce one statement that encapsulates the spirit from which the individual

statements were derived. The instructor may choose to take this one step farther and have the

class as a whole reach consensus as they combine the team statements into a class statement.

Communications Skills Transformed

Adapting the Paraphrase Passport Structure: An oral discussion structure with the following

rule: “After someone has contributed an idea, another person must correctly restate that idea

before contributing his/her own.” The only modification needed to this structure is to change the

nature of the discussion from oral to written.

Adapting the Consensus Seeking Structure: A decision making structure in which students are

instructed to find the best solution to which they can all agree and live with. This structure

- 13 -


should be initiated and practiced with teams in the group area before attempting to have the

entire class reach a solution to a problem.

Mastery Structures Transformed

Adapting the Rotating Review Structure: Topics are posted in the team areas. Team members

write as many facts as they can in each discussion thread. They can indicate the items posted by

teammates to which they disagree. Discussion will produce a set of facts for each topic to which

all team members agree. The team set of facts is then posted to the whole class discussion area

and the process continues.

Adapting the Roundtable Structure: The teacher posts a question with many possible answers on

either a team or whole group discussion board. Each teammate then answers the question without

duplicating any previously given answer.

Information Sharing Structures Transformed

Adapting the Carbon Sharing Structure: Carbon paper is not needed in the electronic

environment. Teams record their answers to instructor posed questions on the group discussion

board. The answers are compiled and emailed to designated teams to examine and comment on.

Adapting the Galley Tour Structure: Student learning products are displayed in discussion

thread via attachment or hyperlinks on team or whole class discussion boards. Students view the

products and provide evaluative feedback.

Strategies for the Successful Implementation and Managementof Cooperative Learning in Electronic Learning Communities

- 14 -


Many references provide guidance on how to meet the criteria for cooperative learning in

traditional and distance learning settings. The following suggestions are a compilation drawn

from the works of the Johnsons (1999), the Kagans (1994), Felder and Brent (2001), Millis

(2003), Bailey and Luetkehans (1998), Ko and Rossen (2001) and of my experience as a

distance learning student and teacher. These suggestions are of significant relevance for

cooperative learning in distance education situations.

Explain to the students the importance of cooperative group work. Make it a requirement

and not an option. Many distance-learning students tend to prefer to work alone, but allowing

them to do so reduces the likelihood of a meaningful distance learning experience.

Form teams that are heterogeneous with respect to gender, age, ethnicity, learning styles,

abilities, and experiences. Teams of 2 - 4 learners are best. Instructors should consider the

purpose of the team and the cooperative structures that will be used as they determine the

number of team members.

Allow time for icebreaking and team-building activities. Icebreaking and team-building

activities allow learners to begin to form a sense of community. The activity may be a team-

building structure or may simply encourage students to introduce themselves to the group.

Give clear instructions and guidelines about not only the assignment, but about the

method and tools of communication that will be used. Start simple to give students time to

understand the structures and methods of communication.

Set reasonable goals and provide a place for the team to interact. Many course

management systems provide areas intended solely for this purpose. The tools available,

- 15 -


such as group asynchronous discussion boards, live chat, and interactive whiteboards, vary

with the system chosen.

Supervise the team progress and be available to prompt or assist groups that are having

difficulty. Your “presence” will help to ensure participation by all members. Be prepared to

intervene and mediate conflicts of an interpersonal nature without taking sides. Suggest that

the group explore alternates and reach consensus.

Design assessment criteria to include peer evaluation. This rewards extraordinary team

members while at the same time penalizes non-contributing members. Cooperation among

learners is greater when peer evaluation techniques are used.

Provide a place for teams to share their work and learning products with the larger

learning community. Many projects can be posted on a web site or added as an attachment to

a discussion thread. This results in classbuilding as students provide feedback on the work

completed by groups.

Conclusion

Asynchronous electronic learning environments are often utilized in ways that only

partially take advantage of the possibilities of student interactivity and cooperative learning

opportunities. Much of a distance learning student’s time is spent working in isolation and

responding to instructor-created questions via a discussion board. The integration of cooperative

structures in asynchronous electronic learning environments can serve to eliminate this isolation.

In addition, when the principles of cooperative learning are applied to the online learning

- 16 -


environment, one can expect to reap the same benefits that cooperative learning produces in

brick and mortar classrooms.

References

Baker, C. (1985). The microcomputer and the curriculum. A critique. Journal of Curriculum

Studies, 17, 449-451.

Bailey, M.L. and Luetkehans, L. Ten Great Tips for Facilitating Virtual Learning Teams,

Distance Learning ’98: Proceedings of the Annual Conference on Distance

Teaching and Learning, Madison, WI, August 5–7, 1998. ERIC Document ED-422838.

Cooperative Learning. Retrieved Jun. 10, 2003, from On Purpose Associates:

http://www.funderstanding.com/cooperative_learning.cfm

Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines. New York: Teachers College Press.

Felder, Richard M., Brent, Rebecca R. (2001). FAQs. III. Groupwork in Distance Learning.

Chem. Engr. Education, 35 (2), 102-103. Retrieved June 9 2003, from

http://www.ncsu.edu/felder-public/Columns/FAQs-3.html

Johnson, R. and D (1988). Cooperative Learning- Two Heads are Better Than One. In Context,

34. Retrieved June 9, 2003, from http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC18/Johnson.htm

Johnson, D., Johnson, R.& Holubec, E. (1998). Cooperation in the classroom. Boston: Allyn and

Bacon.

Johnson, D., Johnson, R. (1999). Learning together and alone: cooperative, competitive, and

individualistic learning. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Kagan, S. (1994). Cooperative Learning. San Clemente, CA: Resources for Teachers, Inc.

Ko, S., & Rossen, S. (2001). Teaching Online- A Practical Guide. New York: Houghton Mifflin.

- 17 -

http://www.ncsu.edu/felder-public/Columns/FAQs-3.html

http://www.funderstanding.com/cooperative_learning.cfm


Lehtinen, E., Hakkarainen, K., Lipponen, L., Rahikainen, M. and Muukkonen, H. (1998).

Computer supported collaborative learning: A review of research and development. CL-

Net. A report for European Commission.

Millis, B.J. Managing—and Motivating!—Distance Learning Group Activities. Retrieved Jun. 9,

2003: http://www.tltgroup.org/gilbert/millis.htm

Tiffin, J. & Rajasingham, L. (1995). In Search of the Virtual Class, London: Routledge.

Woolfolk, A. (2001). Educational psychology. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

(2003). About Kagan Publishing and Professional Development . Retrieved Jun. 09, 2003, from

Kagan Publishing and Professional Development:

http://www.kaganonline.com/AboutKaganFrame.html

- 18 -

http://www.cooperativelearning.com/AboutKaganFrame.html



http://www.tltgroup.org/gilbert/millis.htm

kaganstructuresonlineenvironment

Documents