Preservice Teacher Experiences in Formal and Informal Co-Operative Learning Groups in a Mathematics Course

Abstract

Co-operative group learning is known to be an effective instructional practice, especially for mathematics. While group work can be incorporated into the classroom in multiple ways, not every group is a co-operative learning community. In the current study, class observations and preservice teacher interviews were used to compare experiences during formal and informal group work. The findings indicate that formal co-operative learning groups, or prolonged interaction with the same group of people, develops a sense of strong community within the classroom, thereby providing a safe space and facilitating discussions. Preservice teachers involved in formal co-operative learning reported they learned better, gained confidence in the subject, and associated positively to using group work in their future classroom. However, preservice teachers involved in informal co-operative learning had neutral perceptions about group work. We suggest that prolonged interactions among the group members is required to establish effective co-operative learning groups.

Effects of a successful mathematics classroom framework on students’ mathematics self-efficacy, motivation, and achievement: a case study with freshmen students at a university foundation programme in Kuwait

“…Group work is a major approach of the (SMC) framework. Previous research reported a positive impact on students' learning, understanding, and motivation (Steinberg &Vinjamuri, 2014;Martin & Towers, 2015;Wegerif et al, 2017), and a positive influence on their self-efficacy (Wyatt, 2010;Mitcham et al, 2012;Chiriac, Rosander, & Frykedal, 2019;Kopparla & Goldsby, 2019), especially when students learn how to work and think together as a group (Wegerif et al, 2017). Chambers and Timlin (2013) provided some detail about…”

“…This has also been confirmed by this study, as the following interview extract shows. (Steinberg &Vinjamuri, 2014;Martin & Towers, 2015;Wegerif et al, 2017), but also improved their self-efficacy as well (Chiriac, Rosander, & Frykedal, 2019;Kopparla & Goldsby, 2019). Group work was involved while playing the puzzle sheets, answering the revision notes, and while using different teacher's teaching methodologies.…”

E-Magazine Development with Social Emotional Learning Approach on Colloid Material in Context of Local Wisdom

“…In a meta-analysis of SEL programs, Durlak et al, (2011) found that students who participated in SEL programs significantly to improve their academic performance, attitude, and behavior. This program also can improve students' knowledge and skills (Fernandez-Rio et al, 2017;Kopparla & Goldsby, 2019;Oberle et al, 2016;Yoder & Nolan, 2018). It further stimulates students' curiosity, responsibility, selfreflection, and development of their competency (Gul & Shehzad, 2012;Hammond et al, 2020;O'Dwyer et al, 2015;Patil et al, 2014;Yoder & Nolan, 2018).…”

The Perceived Efficacy of Cooperative Group Learning in a Graduate Program

“…More recently, studies on cooperative learning in undergraduate programs have also shown a positive impact (e.g., Dyson & Casey, 2012;Hmelo-Silver et al, 2013;Kopparla & Goldby, 2019). Peters et al (2020) reported that in their study of students working collaboratively in small groups (Team-based Learning) in large-enrolment undergraduate calculus classes, they found "…many positive benefits for students…including ...larger gains on the Calculous Concept Inventory than non-TBL sections" (p. 211).…”

“…Both notions of cooperative and collaborative groups are aligned with what Tinto (1998), Price (2006), and Rausch and Crawford (2012) refer to as "learning communities" and "communities of inquiry." However, Kopparla and Goldby (2019) quite righty point out "…not every group is a cooperative learning community" (p. 51). And, Johnson et al (as cited in Raush & Crawford, 2012) warned that "simply asking students to work in groups does not necessarily constitute cooperative learning" (p. 318).…”