Student+Centered+Classroom

Website:[|__http://cnx.org/content/m19566/latest/grouping_References.pdf__] References Baker, D.R. (1985). Predictive value of attitude, cognitive ability, and personality to science achievement in the middle school. //Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22//(2), 103- 113.
 * I numbered the articles, sources, and bibliographies so you can differentiate one from the next. Each one offers different information or provides sources to refer to about the topic.**
 * 1) **Bibliography of sources related to Student Centered classroom specifically related to collaborative learning, and cooperative learning.**

Blaylock, B.K. (1983). Teamwork in a simulated production environment. //Research in// //Psychological Type, 6//, 58-67.

Blumenfeld, P.C., Marx, R.W., Soloway, E., & Krajcik, J. (1996). Learning with peers: From small group cooperation to collaborative communities. //Educational Researcher, 25//(8), 37-40.

Bradley, J.H., & Hebert, F.J. (1997). The effect of personality type on team performance. //Journal of Management Development, 16//(5), 337-353 . Brightman, H.J. (1984). Improving principals' performance through training in the decision sciences. //Educational Leadership, 41//(5), 50-56.

Browning, G. (2006). //Emergenetics: Tap into the new science of success//. New York: Harper- Collins Publishers.

Bruffee, K.A. (1995). Sharing our toys: Cooperative learning versus collaborative learning. //Change, 27//(1), 12-18.

Brush, T.A. (1997). The effects of group composition on achievement and time. //Journal of// //Research on Computing in Education, 30//(1), 2-17.

Burns, J.M. (1978). //Leadership//. New York: Harper & Row.

Cano, J., Garton, B.L., & Raven, M.R. (1992). Learning styles, teaching styles and personality styles of preservice teachers of agricultural education. //Journal of Agricultural Education,// //33//(1), 46-52.

Caplow, J., & Kardash, C. (1995). Collaborative learning activities in graduate courses. //Innovative Higher Education, 19//(3), 207-221.

Chen, Z., & Lawson, R.B. (1996). Groupthink: Deciding with the leader and the devil. //Psychological Record, 46//(4), 581-590.

Clinebell, S., & Stecher, M. (2003). Teaching teams to be teams: An exercise using the Myers- Briggs® type indicator and the five-factor personality traits. //Journal of Management// //Education 27//(3), 362-383.

Cohen, B.P., & Cohen, E.G. (1991). From groupwork among children to r & d teams: Interdependence, interaction, and productivity. In E.J. Lawler (Ed.), //Advances in group// //processes// (Vol. 8, pp. 205-226). Greenwich, CN: JAI Press.

Cohen, E.G. (1986). //Designing group work: Strategies for the heterogeneous classroom//. New York: Teachers College Press.

Connor, B. (2001). The Catholic school secondary teacher: A relationship study of personality, gender, and moral orientation. //Dissertation Abstracts International Section A:// //Humanities and Social Sciences, 61//(10-A), 3873.

Conwell, C.R., Helgeson, S.L., & Wachowiak, D.G. (1987). The effect of matching and mismatching cognitive style and science instruction. //Journal of Research in Science// //Teaching, 24//(8), 713-722.

Culp, G., & Smith, A. (2001). Understanding psychological type to improve project team performance. //Journal of Management in Engineering, 17//(1), 24-33.

Dillenbourg, P., Baker, M., Blaye, A., & O'Malley, C. (1996). The evolution of research on collaborative learning. In E. Spada & P. Reiman (Eds.), //Learning in humans and// //machine: Towards an interdisciplinary learning science// (pp. 189-211). Oxford: Elsevier.

Dilworth, L., & Richter, K. (1995). Qfd and personality type: The key to team energy and effectiveness. //Industrial Engineering, 27//(2), 57-61.

Duemer, L.S., Christopher, M., Hardin, F., Olibas, L., Rodgers, T., & Spiller, K. (2004). Case study of characteristics of effective leadership in graduate student collaborative work. //Education, 124//(4), 721-726.

Farivar, S.H., & Webb, N.M. (1994). Helping and getting help: Essential skills for effective group problem solving. //Arithmetic Teacher, 41//, 521-525.

Fisher, D.L., & Kent, H.B. (1998). Associations between teacher personality and classroom environment. //Journal of Classroom Interaction, 33//(1), 5-13.

Fleenor, J.W., & Mastrangelo, P.M. (2005). Review of the Myers-Briggs type indicator Form M. In R.A. Spies & B.S. Plake (Eds.), //The sixteenth mental measurements yearbook// Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.

French, D.C., Waas, G.A., Stright, A.L., & Baker, J.A. (1986). Leadership asymmetries in mixed-age children's groups. //Child Development, 57//(5), 1277-1283.

Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C.L., & Karns, K. (1998). High achieving students' interactions and performance on complex mathematical tasks as a function of homogeneous and heterogeneous pairings. //American Educational Research Journal, 35//, 227-267.

Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Karns, K., Hamlett, C.L., Dutka, S., & Katzaroff, M. (1996). The relation between student ability and the quality and effectiveness of explanations. //American// //Educational Research Journal, 33//, 631-664.

Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Kazdan, S.A., Karns, K., Calhoon, M.B., Hamlett, C.L., et al. (2000). Effects of workgroup structure and size on student productivity during collaborative work on complex tasks. //Elementary School Journal, 100//(3), 183-212.

Gnagey, W.J. (1979). Peer leadership of small research teams in two introductory psychology classes. //Teaching of Psychology, 6//(2), 80-82.

Gordon, H.R.D., & Yocke, R. (1999). Relationship between personality characteristics and observable teaching effectiveness of selected beginning career and technical education teachers. //Journal of Vocational and Technical Education, 16//(1), 47-66.

Hawkins, J. (1997). Giftedness and psychological type. //Journal of Secondary Gifted Education,// //9//(2), 57-67.

Holliday, W.G. (2000). Fads versus reality: Knowing your students. //Science Scope, 23//(7), 46-48. Humes, C.W. (1992). Career planning implications for learning disabled high school students using the mbti and sds-e. //School Counselor, 39//(5), 362-368.

Johnson, D.W. (1990). //Reaching out: Interpersonal effectiveness and self-actualization// (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Johnson, D.W. (1991). //Human relations and your career// (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, F. (2000). //Joining together: Group theory and group skills// (7th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1999). Making cooperative learning work. //Theory Into// //Practice, 38//(2), 67-73.

Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (2002). Cooperative learning and social interdependence theory. In R.S. Tindale (Ed.), //Theory and research on small groups [electronic resource]// (pp. 9- 36). New York: Kluwer Academic Publishing.

Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., & Holubec, E.J. (1994). The new circles of learning: Cooperation in the classroom and school. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Johnson, R.T., & Johnson, D.W. (1994). An overview of cooperative learning: A practical guide to empowering students and teachers. In J.S. Thousand, R.A. Villa & A.I. Nevin (Eds.), //Creativity and collaborative learning// (pp. 31-44). Baltimore: P. H. Brookes Publishing Co.

Johnson, R.T., Johnson, D.W., Scott, L.E., & Ramolae, B.A. (1985). Effects of single-sex and mixed-sex cooperative interaction on science achievement and attitudes and crosshandicap and cross-sex relationships. //Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22//, 207- 220.

Kagan, S. (1989). The structural approach to cooperative learning. //Educational Leadership,// //47//(4), 12-15.

Klimoski, R., & Jones, R.G. (1995). Staffing for effective decision making: Key issues in matching people and teams. In R.A. Guzzo & E. Salas (Eds.), //Team effectiveness and// //decision making in organizations//. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kolb, J.A. (1998). The relationship between self-monitoring and leadership in student project groups. //Journal of Business Communication, 35//(2), 264-282.

Kotter, J.P. (2001). Management and leadership. In W.E. Natemeyer & J.T. McMahon (Eds.), //Classics of organizational behavior// (3rd ed., pp. 335-348). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, Inc.

Kuhn, D. (1972). Mechanisms of change in the development of cognitive structures. //Child// //Development, 43//, 833-844.

Lee, M. (1993). Gender, group composition and peer interaction in computer-based cooperative learning. //Journal of Educational Computing Research, 9//, 549-577.

Lew, M., Mesch, D., Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R. (1986a). Components of cooperative learning: Effects of collaborative skills and academic group contingencies on achievement and mainstreaming. //Contemporary Educational Psychology, 11//, 229-239.

Lew, M., Mesch, D., Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R. (1986b). Positive interdependence academic and collaborative-skills group contingencies and isolated students. //American Educational// //Research Journal, 23//, 476-488.

Lou, Y., Abrami, P., & Spence, J. (2000). Effects of within-class grouping on student achievement: An exploratory model. //The Journal of Educational Research, 94//(2), 101- 112.

Marta, S., Leritz, L.E., & Mumford, M.D. (2005). Leadership skills and the group performance: Situational demands, behavioral requirements, and planning. //Leadership Quarterly,// //16//(1), 97-120.

McCaulley, M.H. (1990). The Myers-Briggs type indicator: A measure for individuals and groups. //Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 22//(4), 181-195.

McNamara, D.R., & Waugh, D.G. (1993). Classroom organization: A discussion of grouping strategies in the light of the "Three wise men's" Report. //School Organization, 13//(1), 41- 50. Mesch, D., Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R. (1988). Impact of positive interdependence and academic group contingencies on achievement. //Journal of Social Psychology, 128//, 345- 352. Mesch, D., Lew, M., Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R. (1986). Isolated teenagers, cooperative learning, and the training of social skills. //Journal of Psychology, 120//, 323-334.

Moody, R. (1988). Personality preferences and foreign language learning. //Modern Language// //Journal, 72//(4), 389-401.

Muchinsky, P.M., & Monanhan, C.J. (1987). What is person-environment congruence? Supplementary versus complementary model of fit. //Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31//, 268-277.

Mueller, A., & Fleming, T. (2001). Cooperative learning: Listening to how children work at school. //Journal of Educational Research, 94//(5), 259-265.

Myers, I.B., McCauley, M.H., Quenk, N.L., & Hammer, A.L. (1998). //MBTIi manual: A guide to// //the development and use of the Myers-Briggs type indicator// (3rd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.

Myers, M.R., & Slavin, M.J. (1990). Emergence and maintenance of leadership among gifted students in group problem solving. //Roeper Review, 12//(4), 256-261.

Nastasi, B.K., & Clements, D.H. (1991). Research on cooperative learning: Implications for practice. //School Psychology Review, 20//(1), 110-131.

Neuman, G.A., Wagner, S.H., & Christiansen, N.D. (1999). The relationship between work-team personality composition and the job performance of teams. //Group & Organization// //Management, 24//(1), 28-45.

Panitz, T. (1997). Collaborative versus cooperative learning: A comparison of the two concepts which will help us understand the underlying nature of interactive learning. //Cooperative// //Learning and College Teaching, 8//(2), 5-7.

Panitz, T., & Panitz, P. (1998). Ways to encourage collaborative teaching in higher education. In J.J. Forest (Ed.), //University teaching: International perspectives// (pp. 161-202). New York: Garland Publishing.

Pinkney, J.W. (1983). The Myers-Briggs type indicator as an alternative in career counseling. //Personnel and Guidance Journal, 62//(3), 173-177.

Reigstad, T. (1991). Teaching basic writers: The personality factor. //Research & Teaching in// //Developmental Education, 8//(1), 57-64.

Renegar, S.L., & Haertling, V. (1993). Cooperative learning in seventh-grade literature groups. //Clearing House, 66//(4), 218-222.

Rojewski, J.W., & Holder, B.H. (1990). Personality type profiles of students in vocational education teacher preparation programs. //Journal of Vocational Education Research,// //15//(2), 77-91.

Rollins, T.J. (1990). Analysis of theoretical relationships between learning styles of students and their preferences for learning activities. //Journal of Agricultural Education, 31//(1), 64-70.

Routh, L.A., Chretien, C., & Rakes, T.D. (1995). Career centers and work study employment. //Journal of Career Development, 22//(2), 125-133.

Rubin, R.S., Bartels, L.K., & Bommer, W.H. (2002). Are leaders smarter or do they just seem that way? Exploring perceived intellectual competence and leadership emergence. //Social// //Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, 30//(2), 105-118.

Sears, S.J., Kennedy, J.J., & Kaye, G.L. (1997). Myers-Briggs personality profiles of prospective educators. //Journal of Educational Research, 90//(4), 195-202.

Slavin, R.E. (1983). //Cooperative learning//. New York: Longman.

Slavin, R.E. (1991). Synthesis of research on cooperative learning. //Educational Leadership,// //48//(5), 71-82.

Slavin, R.E. (1995). //Cooperative learning : Theory, research, and practice// (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Slavin, R.E. (1996). Cooperative learning in middle and secondary schools. //Clearing House,// //69//(4), 200-204.

Slavin, R.E., & Hansell, S. (1983). Cooperative learning and inergroup relations: Contact theory in the classroom. In J.L. Epstein & N.L. Karweit (Eds.), //Friends in school: Patterns of// //selection and influence in secondary schools// (pp. 93-114). New York: Academic Press.

Slavin, R.E., & Oickle, E. (1981). Effects of cooperative learning teams on student achievement and race relations: Treatment by race interactions. //Sociology of Education, 54//(3), 174- 180.

Smith, B.L., & MacGregor, J.T. (1992). What is collaborative learning? In A.S. Goodsell, M.R. Maher & V. Tinto (Eds.), //Collaborative learning: A sourcebook for higher education// (pp. 9-22). University Park, PA: National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, and Assessment.

Smith, B.L., Munday, R., & Windham, R. (1995). Prediction of teachers' use of technology based on personality type. //Journal of Instructional Psychology, 22//(3), 281-285.

Thatcher, A., & De la Cour, A. (2003). Small group decision-making in face-to-face and computer-mediated environments: The role of personality. //Behaviour & Information// //Technology, 22//(3), 203-218.

The Browning Group International Inc. (2004). //Interpreting your emergenetics results// //[brochure]//. Castle Rock, CO: Author.

The Browning Group International Inc. (n.d.). //The step program: Helping students make positive// //changes with the student/teacher emergenetics profile [brochure]//. Castle Rock, CO: Author.

Varvel, T., Adams, S.G., Pridie, S.J., & Ruiz Ulloa, B.C. (2004). Team effectiveness and individual Myers-Briggs personality dimensions. //Journal of Management in Engineering,// //20//(4), 141-146.

Vygotsky, L. (1962). //Thought and language//. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.

Webb, N.M. (1991). Task-related verbal interaction and mathematics learning in small groups. //Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22//, 366-389.

Webb, N.M., Farivar, S.H., & Mastergeorge, A.M. (2002). Productive helping in cooperative groups. //Theory into Practice, 41//(1), 13-20.

Wendel, F.C., Kilgore, A.M., & Spurzem, C.W. (1991). Are administrators' personalities related to their job skills? //NASSP Bulletin, 75//(539), 14-20.

Wethayanugoon, A. (1994). The use of the Myers-Briggs type indicator for team building in schools. //Education, 115//(2), 258-259.

Wilkinson, I.A.G., & Fung, I.Y.Y. (2002). Small-group composition and peer effects. //International Journal of Educational Research, 37//, 425-447.

Wilkinson, L.C. (1985). Communication in all-student mathematics groups. //Theory into// //Practice, 24//(1), 8-13.

Yager, S., Johnson, R.T., Johnson, D.W., & Snider, B. (1986). The impact of group processing on achievement in cooperative learning groups. //The Journal of Social Psychology, 126//, 389-397.

Yamaguchi, R. (2001). Children's learning groups: A study of emergent leadership, dominance, and group effectiveness. //Small Group Research, 32//(6), 671-697.

Yamaguchi, R., & Maehr, M.L. (2004). Children's emergent leadership: The relationships with group characteristics and outcomes. //Small Group Research, 35//(4), 388-406 Web site: [|__www.lwionline.org/publications/documents2002/02inglehart.doc__] **Cooperative and Collaborative Learning Made Simple** Kathleen Dillon Narko, Elizabeth L. Inglehart, & Clifford S. Zimmerman Northwestern University School of Law 2002 LWI Conference **Bibliography**
 * 1) **Another bibliography of sources. This one specifically relates to comparing cooperative and collaborative learning and divides sources by issues.**


 * Legal Education - U.S.**

Paul Bateman, //Toward Diversity in Teaching Methods in Law Schools: Five Suggestions From the Back Row//, 17 QLR 397 (1997) (generally addressing alternatives or complementary teaching methods to Socratic method).

Barbara Busharis & Suzanne E. Rowe, Editors, Collaboration & Cooperation, 15 The Second Draft 1-16 (June 2001).

David F. Chavkin, Matchmaker, Matchmaker: Student Collaboration In Clinical Programs, 1 Clin. L. Rev. 199 (1994).

Leslie Larkin Cooney & Judith Karp, //Ten Magic Tricks for an Interactive Classroom//, 8 Perspectives: Teaching Legal Research and Writing 1 (Fall 1999).

John Delaney, //Demystifying Legal Pedagogy: Performance-Centered Classroom Teaching at the City University of New York Law School//, 22 Seton Hall L. Rev. 1332 (1992).

David Dominguez, Principle 2: Good Practice Encourages Cooperation Among Students, 49 J. Leg. Educ. 386 (1999).

David Dominguez, Laurie Zimet, Fran Ansley, Charles Daye, & Rod Fong, //Inclusive Teaching Methods Across The Curriculum: Academic Resource and Law Teachers Tie A Knot At The AALS//, 31 U.S.F. L. Rev. 875 (1997).

Jo Anne Durako, //Brutal Choices in Curricular Design. . . Peer Editing: It's Worth the Effort//, 7 Perspectives: Teaching Legal Research and Writing 73 (Winter 1999).

Steven I. Friedland, //How We Teach: A Survey of Teaching Techniques in American Law Schools//, 20 Seattle U. L. Rev. 1 (1996).

Terri LeClercq, Editor, Collaboration, 8 The Second Draft 6 (April 1993).

Thomas Michael McDonnell, //Joining Hands and Smarts: Teaching Manual Legal Research Through Collaborative Learning Groups//, 40 J. Leg. Educ. 363 (1990).

Catherine Gage O'Grady, Preparing Students for the Profession: Clinical Education, Collaborative Pedagogy, and the Realities of Practice for the New Lawyer, 4 Clin. L. Rev. 485 (1998).

Vernellia R. Randall, Increasing Retention and Improving Performance: Practical Advice on Using Cooperative Learning in Law Schools, 16 Thomas M. Cooley L. Rev. 201 (1999).

Nim Razook, Some Order and Some Law: Cooperative Norms, Free Riders, and Bridge Burners In Student Teams, 47 J. Leg. Educ. 260 (1997).

Roark Reed, Group Learning in Law School, 34 J. Leg. Educ. 674 (1984).

Elizabeth A. Reilly, //Deposing The "Tyranny Of Extroverts": Collaborative Learning In the Traditional Classroom Format//, 50 J. Leg. Educ. 593 (2000).

Judith Rosenbaum, Brutal Choices in Curricular Design. . . Using Read-Aloud Protocols As a Method of Instruction, 7 Perspectives: Teaching Legal Research and Writing 105 (1999).

Judith Rosenbaum & Clifford Zimmerman, //Fostering Teamwork Through Cooperative and Collaborative Assignments//, 15 The Second Draft 7 (June 2001).

Melissa Shafer, Shakespeare in Law: How the Theater Department Can Enhance Lawyering Skills Instruction, 8 Perspectives: Teaching Legal Research and Writing 108 (Spring 2000).

George W. Spiro, //Collaborative Learning and The Study Of The Legal Environment//, 10 J. Leg. Stud. Educ. 55 (1992).

Cliff Zimmerman, In-Class Editing Sessions, 13 The Second Draft 7 (May 1999).

Clifford S. Zimmerman, "Thinking Beyond My Own Interpretation:" Reflections on Collaborative and Cooperative Learning Theory in the Law School Curriculum, 31 Ariz. St. L.J. 957 (1999).


 * Legal Education - Other Common Law Countries**

Christine Bell & Damien Keaney, Teaching Justice? An Experiment In Group Work and Peer Assessment, 17 Liverpool L. Rev. 47 (1995) (group project and peer assessment in jurisprudence course).

Helen Brown, //The Cult Of Individualism In Law School: Moving From Survival Of The Fittest To Collaborative Learning//, 25 Alt. L.J. 279 (2000).

B. Dick, L. Godden, K. Healy, M. J. Le Brun, G. Airo-Farulla, & D. Lamb, //A Case Study Of The "Offices" Project (Teacher-Less, Cooperative Learning Groups) At Griffith University: Implementing Educational Theory//, 4 Leg. Educ. Rev. 273 (1993).

Alison Greig, //Student-Led Classes and Group Work: A Methodology for Developing Generic Skills//, 11 Leg. Educ. Rev. 81 (2000).

Mary Jane Mossman, //Gender Issues In Teaching Methods: Reflections On Shifting The Paradigm//, 6 Leg. Educ. Rev. 129 (1995).

Caron Rollins, //Legal Research Skills and Collaborative Learning//, 18 Canadian L. Libraries 56 (1993).


 * Other Graduate or Undergraduate Education**

Robert S. Adler & Ed Neal, //Cooperative Learning Groups In Undergraduate and Graduate Contexts//, 9 J. Leg. Stud. Educ. 427 (1991).

Lisa Ede & Andrea Lunsford, //Let Them Write--Together//, 18 English Q. 119 (Winter 1985).

Susan S. Hill, //Cooperative Learning: A Catalyst for Change in the College Classroom// (ERIC Doc. No. 413946 1993).

David W. Johnson, Roger T. Johnson & Edythe J. Holubec, //Cooperative Learning in the Classroom// (1994).

David W. Johnson, Roger T. Johnson & Karl A. Smith, //Cooperative Learning: Increasing College Faculty Instructional Productivity// (1991).

John Magney, //Teamwork and The Need For Cooperative Learning//, 47 Lab. L.J. 564 (1996).

Barbara J. Millis & Philip G. Cottell, Jr., Cooperative Learning for Higher Education Faculty (1998).

Ira Shor, Empowering Education: Critical Teaching for Social Change (1992).


 * Elementary and Secondary Education**

Philip C. Abrami, Bette Chambers, Catherine Poulsen, Christina De Simone, Sylvia D'Apollonia & James Howden, //Classroom Connections: Understanding and Using Cooperative Learning// (1995).

Dennis M. Adams & Mary E. Hamm, //Cooperative Learning: Critical Thinking and Collaboration Across the Curriculum// (1990).

//Handbook of Cooperative Learning Methods// (Shlomo Sharan ed., 1994).

Susan Hill & Tim Hill, //The Collaborative Classroom: A Guide to Co-operative Learning// (1990).

Evelyn Jacob, //Cooperative Learning in Context: An Educational Innovation in Everyday Classrooms// (1999).


 * General Education Theory**

Kenneth Bruffee, //Sharing Our Toys: Cooperative Learning Versus Collaborative Learning//, 27 Change 12 (Jan 1995).

Kenneth A. Bruffee, //Collaborative Learning: Higher Education, Interdependence, and the Authority of Knowledge// (2nd ed. ERIC Accession No: ED430508).

Kenneth A. Bruffee, //On Not Listening in Order to Hear: Collaborative Learning and the Rewards of Classroom Research//, 7 J. Basic Writing 3 (Spring 1988).

Kenneth A. Bruffee, //The Art of Collaborative Learning: Making the Most of Knowledgeable Peers//, 19 Change 42 (Mar-Apr 1987).

Kenneth A. Bruffee, //Collaborative Learning and the "Conversation of Mankind,"// 46 Coll. Eng. 635 (1984).

//Enhancing Thinking Through Cooperative Learning// (Neil Davidson & Toni Worsham eds., 1992).

//Interactive in Cooperative Groups: The Theoretical Anatomy of Group Learning// (Rachel Hertz-Lazarowitz & Norman Miller eds. 1992).

David W. Johnson & Roger T. Johnson, //Learning Together and Alone: Cooperative, Competitive, and Individualistic Learning// (4th ed. 1994).

David W. Johnson & Roger T. Johnson, //Making Cooperative Learning Work//, 38 Theory Into Practice 67 (Spring 1999).

David W. Johnson, Roger T. Johnson, & Karl A. Smith, //Maximizing Instruction Through Cooperative Learning//, 7 ASEE Prism 24-9 (Feb. 1998).

//Learning to Cooperate, Cooperating to Learn// (Robert Slavin, Shlomo Sharan, Spencer Kagan, Rachel Hertz-Lazarowitz, Clark Webb, & Richard Schmuck eds., 1985).

Andrea Lunsford & Lisa Ede, Why Write...Together: A Research Update, 5 Rhetoric Rev. 71 (Fall 1986).

Andrea A. Lunsford & Lisa Ede, //Collaborative Authorship and The Teaching Of Writing//, 10 Cardozo Arts & Ent. L.J. 681 (1992).

//Professional Development for Cooperative Learning: Issues and Approaches// (Celeste M. Brody & Neil Davidson eds. 1998).

Robert E. Slavin, //Cooperative Learning: Theory, Research, and Practice// (2d ed. 1995). **Web site:** [|__**http://www.aea267.k12.ia.us/icc/files/CEI/StudCentClass_LitReview.pdf**__]
 * 1) **This is a literature review of sources related to a student centered classroom.**

__[|**http://www.slideshare.net/tmvcr/collaborative-versus-cooperative-learning-3314777**]__
 * 1) **This is a web site of a power point featuring the ideas of Ted Panitz (who is mentioned often) about comparing collaborative learning with cooperative learning.**
 * Web site:**

**Web Site:** [|__**http://home.capecod.net/~tpanitz/tedsarticles/coopdefinition.htm**__] By Ted Panitz I have been searching for many years for the Holy Grail of interactive learning, a distinction between collaborative and cooperative learning definitions. I am getting closer to my elusive goal all the time. I believe confusion arises when people look at processes associated with each concept and see a certain amount of overlap or inter-concept usage. I will clarify the definitions of collaborative and cooperative learning first by presenting my definitions of the two terms and reviewing those of other authors who have helped clarify my thinking and second by presenting and analyzing the educational benefits of collaborative/cooperative learning techniques. The underlying premise for collaborative and cooperative learning is founded in constructivist epistemology. Johnson, Johnson & Smith (1991) have summarized these principles in their definition of a new paradigm of teaching. " First, knowledge is constructed, discovered, and transformed by students. Faculty create the conditions within which students can construct meaning from the material studied by processing it through existing cognitive structures and then retaining it in long-term memory where it remains open to further processing and possible reconstruction. Second, students actively construct their own knowledge. Learning is conceived of as something a learner does, not something that is done to the learner. Students do not passively accept knowledge from the teacher or curriculum. Students activate their existing cognitive structures or construct new ones to subsume the new input. Third, faculty effort is aimed at developing students' competencies and talents. Fourth, education is a personal transaction among students and between the faculty and students as they work together. Fifth, all of the above can only take place within a cooperative context. Sixth, teaching is assumed to be a complex application of theory and research that requires considerable teacher training and continuous refinement of skills and procedures" (p1:6) The following will serve as a starting point for this discussion. A basic definition of the terms collaborative and cooperative, reduced to their simplest terms, is presented: Collaboration is a philosophy of interaction and personal lifestyle where individuals are responsible for their actions, including learning and respect the abilities and contributions of their peers; Cooperation is a structure of interaction designed to facilitate the accomplishment of a specific end product or goal through people working together in groups. Before we proceed with the theoretical underpinning of each method it would be helpful to describe the differences between
 * 1) **Article by Ted Panitz about how collaborative and cooperative learning differs. I included the article and the website.**
 * “COLLABORATIVE VERSUS COOPERATIVE LEARNING- A COMPARISON OF THE TWO CONCEPTS WHICH WILL HELP US UNDERSTAND THE UNDERLYING NATURE OF INTERACTIVE LEARNING”**

the two paradigms in terms of an actual class. In the cooperative model the teacher maintains complete control of the class, even though the students work in groups to accomplish a goal of a course. The cooperative teacher asks a specific question such as, “What were the five causes of the start of World War II?” The teacher provides additional articles for the students to read and analyze, beyond the text, and then asks the students to work in groups to answer the question. The groups then present their results to the whole class and discuss their reasoning. A follow up question may then be posed to the groups to analyze the United Nations to determine if this has been an effective organization to prevent world wars and to make recommendations on possible changes needed to make the UN more effective. The teacher might use specific structures, such as a Jig Saw model, to help facilitate the group interactions. He/she might require a specific product such as a term paper or report, class presentations, and an exam at the end of the topic. The students do the work necessary to consider the material being covered but the teacher maintains control of the process at each stage. In the collaborative model groups would assume almost total responsibility for answering the question. The students determine if they had enough information to answer the question. If not they identify other sources, such as journals, books, videos, the internet, to name a few. The work of obtaining the extra source material would be distributed among the group members by the group members. The group would decide how many reasons they could identify. The collaborative teacher would not specify a number, but would assess the progress of each group and provide suggestions about each group’s approach and the data generated. It might also occur to the students to list the reasons in order of priority. The teacher would be available for consultations and would facilitate the process by asking for frequent progress reports from the groups, facilitate group discussions about group dynamics, help with conflict resolution, etc. The final product is determined by each group, after consultation with the teacher. The means of assessment of the group’s performance would also be negotiated by each group with the teacher. Some groups might decide to analyze the UN, as the cooperative group was directed to do, or they might try to come up with a completely new organization. They might go back through history to determine how other periods of peace were created. The process is very open ended while it maintains a focus on the overall goal. The students develop a very strong ownership for the process and respond very positively to the fact that they are given almost complete responsibility to deal with the problem posed to them and they have significant input into their assessment. The underlying premise for both collaborative and cooperative learning is founded in constructivist theory. Knowledge is discovered by students and transformed into concepts students can relate to. It is then reconstructed and expanded through new learning experiences. Learning consists of active participation by the student versus passive acceptance of information presented by an expert lecturer. Learning comes about through transactions and dialogue among students and between faculty and students, in a social setting. Students learn to understand and appreciate different perspectives through a dialogue with their peers. A dialogue with the teacher helps students learn the vocabulary and social structures which govern the groups students wish to join, such as historian, mathematician, writer, actor, etc. Ken Bruffee (1995) identifies two causes for the differences between the two approaches. He states: "First, collaborative and cooperative learning were developed originally for educating people of different ages, experience and levels of mastery of the craft of interdependence. Second, when using one method or the other method, teachers tend to make different assumptions about the nature and authority of knowledge." (p12) These different assumptions will be explored throughout the paper. The age or education levels as a distinction have become blurred over time as practitioners at all levels mix the two approaches. However, what determines which approach is used does depend upon the sophistication level of the students involved, with collaborative requiring more advanced student preparation working in groups. Other determining factors are the philosophy and preparation of the teacher. Brufee sees education as a reacculturation process through constructive conversation. Students learn about the culture of the society they wish to join by developing the appropriate vocabulary of that society and by exploring that society's culture and norms (i.e. that of mathematician, historian, journalist, etc.). Brufee identifies two types of knowledge as a basis for choosing an approach. Foundational knowledge is the basic knowledge represented by socially justified beliefs we all agree on. Correct spelling and grammar, mathematics procedures, history facts, a knowledge of the contents of the constitution, etc., would represent types of foundational knowledge. Brufee contends that these are best learned using cooperative learning structures in the early grades. He states: "The main purpose of primary school education is to help children renegotiate their membership in the local culture of family life and help them join some of the established knowledge communities available to them and encompassing the culture we hold in common. An important purpose of college or university education is to help adolescents and adults join some more of the established knowledge communities available to them. But another, and perhaps more important pirpose of college or university education is to help students renogotiate their membership in the encompassing common culture that until then has circumscribed their lives." (p15) Brufee defines nonfoundational knowledge as that which is derived through reasoning and questioning versus rote memory. He writes: "It is more likely to address questions with dubious or ambiguous answers, answers that require well-developed judgment to arrive at, judgment that learning to answer such a question tends, in turn, to devlop." (p15) The other way in which nonfoundational education differs from foundational is that it encourages students not to take their teacher's authority for granted. Students should doubt answers and methods for arriving at answers provided by their professors, and perhaps more importantly they need to be helped to come to terms with their doubts by participating actively in the learning and inquiry process. Out of this process knew knowledge is often created, something not likely to occur when dealing with the facts and information associated with foundational knowledge. Collaborative learning shifts the responsibility for learning away from the teacher as expert to the student, and perhaps teacher, as learner. Brufee sees the two approaches as somewhat linear with collaborative learning being designed to pick up where cooperative learning leaves off. In effect, students learn basic information and processes for interacting socially in the primary grades and then extend their critical thinking and reasoning skills and understanding of social interactions as they become more involved and take control of the learning process through collaborative activities. This writer believes that the transition is better viewed as a continuim from a closely controlled, teacher-centered system to a student-centered system where the teacher and students share authority and control of learning. Collaborative learning (CL) is a personal philosophy, not just a classroom technique. In all situations where people come together in groups, it suggests a way of dealing with people which respects and highlights individual group members' abilities and contributions. There is a sharing of authority and acceptance of responsibility among group members for the groups actions. The underlying premise of collaborative learning is based upon consensus building through cooperation by group members, in contrast to competition in which individuals best other group members. CL practitioners apply this philosophy in the classroom, at committee meetings, with community groups, within their families and generally as a way of living with and dealing with other people. Cooperative learning is defined by a set of processes which help people interact together in order to accomplish a specific goal or develop an end product which is usually content specific. It is more directive than a collaborative system of governance and closely controlled by the teacher. While there are many mechanisms for group analysis and introspection the fundamental approach is teacher centered whereas collaborative learning is more student centered. Spencer Kagan (1989) provides an excellent definition of cooperative learning by looking at general structures which can be applied to any situation. His definition provides an umbrella for the work cooperative learning specialists including the Johnsons, Slavin, Cooper, Graves and Graves, Millis, etc. It follows: "The structural approach to cooperative learning is based on the creation, analysis and systematic application of structures, or content-free ways of organizing social interaction in the classroom. Structures usually involve a series of steps, with proscribed behavior at each step. An important cornerstone of the approach is the distinction between "structures" and "activities". To illustrate, teachers can design many excellent cooperative activities, such as making a team mural or a quilt. Such activities almost always have a specific content-bound objective and thus cannot be used to deliver a range of academic content. Structures may be used repeatedly with almost any subject matter, at a wide range of grade levels and at various points in a lesson plan." John Myers points out that the dictionary definitions of "collaboration", derived from its Latin root, focus on the process of working together; the root word for "cooperation" stresses the product of such work. Co-operative learning has largely American roots from the philosophical writings of John Dewey stressing the social nature of learning and the work on group dynamics by Kurt Lewin. Collaborative learning has British roots, based on the work of English teachers exploring ways to help students respond to literature by taking a more active role in their own learning. The cooperative learning tradition tends to use quantitative methods which look at achievement: i.e., the product of learning. The collaborative tradition takes a more qualitative approach, analyzing student talk in response to a piece of literature or a primary source in history. Myers points out some differences between the two concepts: "Supporters of co-operative learning tend to be more teacher-centered, for example when forming heterogeneous groups, structuring positive inter-dependence, and teaching co-operative skills. Collaborative learning advocates distrust structure and allow students more say if forming friendship and interest groups. Student talk is stressed as a means for working things out. Discovery and contextual approaches are used to teach interpersonal skills. Such differences can lead to disagreements.... I contend the dispute is not about research, but more about the morality of what should happen in the schools. Beliefs as to what should happen in the schools can be viewed as a continuum of orientations toward curriculum from "transmission" to "transaction" to "transmission". At one end is the transmission position. As the name suggests, the aim of this orientation is to transmit knowledge to students in the form of facts, skills and values. The transformation position at the other end of the continuum stresses personal and social change in which the person is said to be interrelated with the environment rather than having control over it. The aim of this orientation is self-actualization, personal or organizational change." Rocky Rockwood describes the differences by acknowledging the parallels they both have in that they both use groups, both assign specific tasks, and both have the groups share and compare their procedures and conclusions in plenary class sessions. The major difference lies in the fact that cooperative deals exclusively with traditional (canonical) knowledge while collaborative ties into the social constructivist movement, asserting that both knowledge and authority of knowledge have changed dramatically in the last century. Rockwood states: "In the ideal collaborative environment, the authority for testing and determining the appropriateness of the group product rests with, first, the small group, second, the plenary group (the whole class) and finally (but always understood to be subject to challenge and revision) the requisite knowledge community (i.e. the discipline: geography, history, biology etc.) The concept of non-foundational knowledge challenges not only the product acquired, but also the process employed in the acquisition of foundational knowledge. Most importantly, in cooperative, the authority remains with the instructor, who retains ownership of the task, which involves either a closed or a closable (that is to say foundational) problem ( the instructor knows or can predict the answer). In collaborative, the instructor--once the task is set-- transfers all authority to the group. In the ideal, the group's task is always open ended. Seen from this perspective, cooperative does not empower students. It employs them to serve the instructor's ends and produces a "right" or acceptable answer. Collaborative does truly empower and braves all the risks of empowerment (for example, having the group or class agree to an embarrassingly simplistic or unconvincing position or produce a solution in conflict with the instructor's). Every person, Brufee (1995) holds, belongs to several "interpretative or knowledge communities" that share vocabularies, points of view, histories, values, conventions and interests. The job of the instructor is to help students learn to negotiate the boundaries between the communities they already belong to and the community represented by the teacher's academic discipline, which the students want to join. Every knowledge community has a core of foundational knowledge that its members consider as given (but not necessarily absolute). To function independently within a knowledge community, the fledgling scholar must master enough material to become conversant with the community." Rockwood concludes: "In my teaching experience, cooperative represents the best means to approach mastery of foundational knowledge. Once students become reasonably conversant, they are ready for collaborative, ready to discuss and assess,...." Myers suggests use of the "transaction" orientation as a compromise between taking hard positions advocating either methodology. "This orientation views education as a dialogue between the student and the curriculum. Students are viewed as problem solvers. Problem solving and inquiry approaches stressing cognitive skills and the ideas of Vygotsky, Piaget, Kohlberg and Bruner are linked to transaction. This perspective views teaching as a "conversation" in which teachers and students learn together through a process of negotiation with the curriculum to develop a shared view of the world." Brody and Davidson (1998) look at the differences between the two paradigms epistomologicly. In the early1970s some educators were formulating methods based upon studies of human social interaction and group learning. These studies lead to cooperative learning strategies based upon social interdependence theory, cognitive-developmental theory and the behavioral learning theory. Another group of educators based their framework for group work on theories derived from studies about the social nature of human knowledge. The different roots of constructivism formed the basis of collaborative learning. Johnson, Johnson, and Smith (1998) clarify the differences between the cooperative learning strategies. "Social interdependence theory assumes that cooperative efforts are based on intrinsic motivation generated by interpersonal factors and a joint aspiration to achieve a significant goal. Behavioral learning theory assumes that cooperative efforts are powered by extrinsic motivation to achieve rewards. Social interdependence theory focuses on relational concepts dealing with what happens among individuals (for example cooperation is something that exists only among individuals not within them), whereas the cognitive-development perspective focuses on what happens within a single person (for example, the disequilibrium, cognitive reorganization). The differences across these theoretical assumptions have yet to be fully explored or solved." (p29) Brody and Davidson (1998) identify a series of questions for teaching and learning in the classroom which help distinguish between the approaches. (p8) 1. How do we teach social skills? 2. How can we develop self-esteem, responsibility, and respect for others? 3. How does social status effect learning in small groups? 4. How do you promote problem solving and manage conflict? 5. Are extrinsic or intrinsic rewards more effective? 6. How can we prove that cooperative learning increases academic achievement? 7. How do we teach children to take on various roles? 8. How do we structure cooperative activities? 1. What is the purpose of the activity? 2. What is the importance of talk in learning? 3. To what extant is getting off topic a valuable learning experience? 4. How can we empower children to become autonomous learners? 5. What is the difference between using language to learn and learning to use language? 6. How can we negotiate relevant learning experiences with children? 7. How do we interact with students in such a way that we ask only real questions rather than those for which we already know the answers? 8. How can we use our awareness of the social nature of learning to create effective small group learning environments?" Johnson, Johnson & Holubec (1991) have established a definition of cooperative learning which identifies five basic elements necessary for a procedure to be considered cooperative. They also define structures and evaluation procedures within which any content may be taught, rather than defining procedures based upon specific curriculum. They have developed an extensive set of worksheets for teachers and students to use in establishing the five elements. The Johnson's five items are as follows. "Positive Interdependence- Students perceive that
 * "Questions teachers ask from the cooperative learning perspective**
 * Questions teachers ask from a collaborative perspective**

they need each other to complete the group's task

("sink or swim together"). Teachers may structure

positive interdependence by establishing mutual

goals (learn and make sure all other group members

learn), joint rewards (if all group members achieve

above criteria, each will receive bonus points),

shared resources (one paper for each group or each

member receives part of the information), and

assigned roles (summarizer, encourager of

participation, recorder, time keeper etc.).

Face-to- Face Promotive Interaction- Students

promote each other's learning by helping, sharing,

and encouraging efforts to learn. Students explain,

discuss, and teach what they know to classmates.

Teachers structure the groups so that students sit

knee to knee and talk through each aspect of the

assignment. Individual Accountability- Each student's performance

is frequently assessed and the results are given to the

group and the individual. Teachers may structure

individual accountability by giving an individual test

to each student or randomly selecting one member

of the group to give the answer. Interpersonal And Small group Skills- Groups cannot

function effectively if students do not have and use the

needed social skills. Teachers teach these skills as

purposefully and precisely as academic skills. Collaborative

skills include leadership, decision making, trust building,

communication, and conflict-management skills. Group Processing- Groups need specific time to discuss

how well they are achieving their goals and maintaining

effective working relationships among members. Teachers

structure group processing by assigning such tasks as

(a) list at least three member actions which helped the group

be successful and (b) list one action that could be added to

make the group more successful tomorrow. Teachers also

monitor the groups and give feedback on how well the

groups are working together and the class as a whole. (p1:33) The National Council of Teachers of Math (NCTM) has a similar definition as presented by Alice Artzt and Claire Newman (1990) in their book "How to use cooperative learning in a math class. "Cooperative learning involves a small group of learners, who work together as a team to solve a problem, complete a task, or accomplish a common goal. There are many different cooperative learning techniques; however, all of them have certain elements in common. These elements are the ingredients necessary to insure that when students do work in groups, they work cooperatively. First, the members of a group muct perceive that they are part of a team and that they all have a common goal. Second, group members must realize that the problem they are to solve is a group problem and that the success or failure of the group will be shared by all members of the group. Third, to accomplish the group's goal, all students must talk with one another- to engage in discussion of all problems. Finally, it must be clear to all that each member's individual work has a direct effect on the group's success. Teamwork is of utmost importance." Many of the elements of cooperative learning may be used in collaborative situations. For example students work in pairs together in a Think-Pair-Share procedure, where students consider a question individually, discuss their ideas with another student to form a consensus answer, and then share their results with the entire class. The use of pairs can be introduced at any time during a class to address questions or solve problems or to create variety in a class presentation. The Jig Saw method (Aronson 1978) is a good example. Students become "experts" on a concept and are responsible for teaching it to the other group members. Groups subdivide a topic and members work together with those from other groups who have the same topic. They then return to their original groups and explain their topic. Slavin developed the STAD method (Student Teams-Achievement-Divisions) where the teacher presents a lesson, and then the students meet in teams of four or five members to complete a set of worksheets on the lesson. Each student then takes a quiz on the material, and the scores the students contribute to their teams are beased upon the degree to which they have improved their individual past averages. The highest scoring teams are recognized in a weekly class newsletter. In another method developed by Slavin- TGT (Teams-Games-Tournaments) instead of taking quizzes the students play academic games as representatives of their teams. They compete with students having similar achievement levels and coach each other prior to the games to insure all group members are competent in the subject matter. Other structures include: Co-op, Co-op (Kagan), CIRC- Cooperative Integrated Reading and Comparison (Madden, Slavin, Stevens), Group Investigation (Sharan, Aharan), Issues Controversy, Learning Together (Johnson, Johnson), Jigsaw II (Slavin), TAI-Team Assisted Individualization (Slavin, Leavy, Madden), Structured Controversy (Johnson, Johnson). OPTIONS IN COOPERATIVE LEARNING (Lee 1997)

There are many ways that cooperative learning can be implemented. An educator's philosophy plays a key role in determining how cooperative learning is used. The table below displays a number of issues in education. Following the table, implications of various choices are discussed. Please bear in mind that the choices in the table are not either-or choices. Instead, they represent continua, and the views of educators lie at many different points along these continua. Further, a given educator's views are affected by the students the are currently teaching. 1. student-centered--teacher-centered 2. intrinsic motivation extrinsic motivation 3. knowledge construction-knowledge transmission 4. loose, trusting students to do--- structured, it right social engineering Issue 1. Student centered -- Teacher-centered The issue here is the role of students in shaping the classroom. Student-centered, also called learner-centered, means that students provide input into what the class does and how it does it. This includes decisions about what to study, how to study it (e.g., by reading, field trips, discussion, lecture), choice of group mates, how often to use groups, which group activities to do, how assessment is conducted, and what rewards and punishments - if any - are given. In a teacher-centered situation the above decisions are made exclusively by the teacher. Teachers are the bosses, leaders, and creators, while students are the employees, followers, and users. The what and how of learning are preplanned by the teacher. When students are in groups, they are studying material chosen by the teacher. The teacher decides who is in which group, gives groups time limits for finishing their tasks, and does all the assessment. Issue 2. Intrinsic motivation - Extrinsic motivation The issue here is how students become motivated to learn and cooperate. Intrinsic motivation comes from within students. For example, they want to learn for the joy of learning, because they are very interested in the topic, or to improve themselves. Helping other students flows from the desire to be altruistic and the enjoyment of collective effort. Students learn together without the use of grades, team award certificates, and other rewards or punishments to encourage them. On the other hand, extrinsic motivation comes from outside the students. For example, they learn in order to receive praise, grades or other rewards from teachers, parents, classmates, and others. They may not help one another learn if there are no outside incentives. When rewards or threats of punishment are not there, students may be less eager to learn and to help one another. Issue 3. Knowledge construction - Knowledge transmission This issue involves the process by which students learn. Knowledge construction, a concept from cognitive psychology, is the idea that learners construct their own networks of knowledge by connecting new information with their past knowledge and interests. Each person is different; we each will come away from the same lesson with different constructions of the ideas presented. Teachers can facilitate this construction work, but the key is what happens in each individual's mind. The use of open-ended questions is consistent with knowledge construction. In this view, collaborative interaction in groups provides students with many opportunities to build and try out their developing knowledge. Knowledge transmission, a concept from behaviorist psychology, sees knowledge flowing directly from the teacher to the student, just like the teacher is pouring knowledge into the students' heads. What the teacher teaches should go into each learner's head without being filtered by what is already there. Close-ended questions tend to predominate in this type of instruction. The main role of groups from this perspective is to make sure group members master the material transmitted by the teacher. Issue 4. Loose -- Structured This issue refers to the extent which teachers believe groups of students will work together well without teacher intervention. Teachers may start by using more structure and as students become familiar with the group process and proficient at working together they eventually, may be looser about structuring group activities and teaching collaborative skills in order to encourage effective group interaction. On the other hand, other teachers feel that they need to be like social engineers, structuring group interaction, or else students will not reap the benefits of working together. The issues discussed above are also heard when some people contrast the terms "collaborative learning" and "cooperative learning". At the same time, it should be pointed out that other educators use the two terms interchangeably. Collaborative Learning (Orr 1997) Frequently, when students or teachers hear the phrase collaborative learning, they automatically assume a work group context, harken back to their own unpleasant experiences with work or study groups, and dismiss the notion of collaboration as an unworkable approach that attempts to transfer the burden of teaching from teacher to student. Such anxiety is worth noting because it represents an acute misunderstanding of what has become a most viable approach to teaching and learning. Collaborative learning is based upon the following principles: 1. Working together results in a greater understanding than would likely have occurred if one had worked independently. 2. Spoken and written interactions contribute to this increased understanding. 3. Opportunity exists to become aware, through classroom experiences,of relationships between social interactions and increasedunderstanding. 4. Some elements of this increased understanding are idiosyncratic and unpredictable. 5. Participation is voluntary and must be freely entered into. Cooperative Learning is very similar except that it introduces a more structured setting with the teacher in total control of the learning environment. Interactive learning relies on the application of computer technology as the collaborative medium between student and teacher. But all three learning approaches recognize that learning is indeed a two-way street with teaching and learning being two components of the same educational system. The approaches diverge in the amount of freedom allowed the participants; collaborative learning strategies are the most open. In my classes, I view student-teacher and student-student collaboration as essential to successful learning. Thus, I will seek every opportunity to encourage collaborative experiences. This does not imply that there will be no traditional lecture formats. Some lecturing is necessary either to clarify complex informational ideas or to present material not readily available. But students will experience a variety of instructional methods and they will be actively involved in the learning experience REFERENCES Artzt, A.F., Newman, C.M., (1990) How To Use Cooperative learning in the Mathematics Class, National Council of Teachers of mathematics: Reston, VA Brody, C.M., (1995), "Collaboration or cooperative learning? Complimentary practices for instructional reform", The Journal of Staff, Program & Organizational Development v12, n3, Winter 1995, p133-143 Brody, C.M., & Davidson, N., (1998), "Introduction: Professional development and Cooperative learning" in Brody and Davidson (Eds.), Professional Development for Cooperative Learning- Issues and Approaches, State University of NY Press; Albany NY Bruffee, K., (1995), "Sharing our toys- Cooperative learning versus collaborative learning". Change, Jan/Feb, 1995 pp12-18 Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., Holubec, E.J., Cooperation in The Classroom, (1991), Interaction Book Co: Edina, MN Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., Smith, K.A., (1998), Change, July/August p27-35 _____, (1991), Active Learning: Cooperation in the College Classroom, Interaction Book Co.: Edina, MN Kagan, S., Educational Leadership (Dec/Jan 1989/1990) Lee, G.S., Internet communication, Institute for Distance Education Universiti Pertanian Malaysia Myers, M, (1991), Cooperative Learning vol 11 #4, July Orr R., Internet communication, IUPUI Professor of Computer Technology Rockwood, R., National Teaching and Learning Forum vol 4 #6, 1995 part 1 Web site: [|__http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/Papers/Kaufmanpap.pdf__] Deborah B. Kaufman and Richard M. Felder Department of Chemical Engineering Hugh Fuller College of Engineering North Carolina State University An “autorating” (peer rating) system designed to account for individual performance in team projects was used in two sophomore-level chemical engineering courses in which the students did their homework in cooperative learning teams. Team members confidentially rated how well they and each of their teammates fulfilled their responsibilities, the ratings were converted to individual weighting factors, and individual project grades were computed as the product of the team project grade and the weighting factor. Correlations were computed between ratings and grades, self-ratings and ratings from teammates, and ratings received and given by men and women and by ethnic minorities and non-minorities. Incidences of “hitchhikers” (students whose performance was considered less than satisfactory by their teammates), “tutors” (students who received top ratings from all of their teammates), dysfunctional teams, and teams agreeing on a common rating were also determined. The results suggest that the autorating system works exceptionally well as a rule, and the benefits it provides more than compensate for the relatively infrequent problems that may occur in its use. Teaching Language Arts: A Student-Centered Classroom / Edition 6 **by** [|__**Carole Cox**__] July 2007 Allyn & Bacon, Inc. Series: [|__Alternative eText Formats Series__] ISBN-13: 9780205542604 ISBN: 0205542603 Renowned for its authoritative, comprehensive coverage of the contemporary language arts classroom, the sixth edition of Teaching Language Arts provides a balance of student-centered and teacher-directed instruction that includes many examples from today's classrooms. Carole Cox, Ph.D., teaches at California State University, Long Beach where she was named the Outstanding Professor in 2001. She taught elementary school in Los Angeles and Madison, Wisconsin. Students she taught in 3rd-5th grades in the 1960's and 70's and others who participated in a Shakespeare for Children summer program she created in Madison held a reunion for her in 2005 and the Mayor of Madison declared July 2, 2005 Carole Cox Day. Her publications include a textbook //Teaching language arts: A student-centered classroom,// 6th ed. (Pearson Teacher Education and Development, 2008), and a new book with co-presenter Paul Boyd-Batstone, //Engaging English learners: Exploring literature, developing// //literacy, and differentiating instruction// (Pearson Teacher Education and Development, 2009), among others. Her research has focused on children's stance towards literature from a reader-response perspective. Website: [|__http://cmcd.coe.uh.edu/coejci/index.html__] “Student-Centered and Teacher-Centered Classroom Management: A Case Study of Three Elementary Teachers” By: Tracey Garrett Journal of Classroom Interaction, v43 n1 p34-47 2008 University of Houston Abstract: The major purpose of this case study was to document the classroom management beliefs and practices of three teachers reputed to implement student-centered instruction and to examine the relationship between their instructional and managerial approaches. More specifically, do teachers who use student-centered instruction also implement student-centered management? Results indicate that, although all three teachers used an eclectic approach, two teachers tended to be more student-centered while one was more teacher-centered with respect to classroom management. All three teachers' approaches also reflected the principles of "good classroom management" derived from studies conducted in the 1960's and 1970's in traditional transmission classrooms. Results also indicate that the teachers did think about the relationship between instruction and classroom management, but not in terms of using student-centered management to support their student-centered instruction. Rather, they thought about what management strategies were necessary to successfully implement a particular lesson. (Contains 2 tables.) //Teaching with Technology: Creating Student-Centered Classrooms//. By: [|Sandholtz, Judith Haymore] Teachers College Press, 1997. 211 pages
 * 1) **Article about using cooperative learning in a college science class. I included the abstract.**
 * ACCOUNTING FOR INDIVIDUAL EFFORT**
 * IN COOPERATIVE LEARNING TEAMS**
 * ABSTRACT**
 * 1) **Carole Cox seems to be a prominent authority figure in the field of student centered language arts classroom. Here is the name of one of her books. I included her biography.**
 * 1) **This is an abstract for a case study looking at whether three teachers who have a student centered classroom also have a student centered class management.**
 * 1) **Here is the name of a book on a ten year study about using technology to create student centered classroom. They worked with Apple. It includes 127 references.**



Abstract: Teachers are responsible for juggling knowledge of where students are and where they need to go; having insights into students' special needs and progress; choices of curricular activities and materials; rules that govern children's participation; expectations from parents and communities; and the norms and rules that govern them as teachers. The addition of technology further complicates the equation and presents many new questions. This book provides information based on 10 years of data gathered from the Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow (ACOT) project. Started in 1985, ACOT is a research collaboration between universities, public schools, and Apple Computer, Inc. to investigate the results of teachers and children routinely using technology for learning. The book includes case studies and teachers' personal perspectives from experiences in ACOT classrooms. The chapters are: (1) "From Instruction to Construction"; (2) "The Challenge of Instructional Change: Two Teachers' Stories"; (3) "The Evolution of Instruction in Technology-Rich Classrooms"; (4) "Managing a Technology-Rich Classroom"; (5) "Redefining Student and Teacher Roles"; (6) "Maintaining Student Engagement"; (7) "Enhancing Innovation and Promoting Collegial Sharing: A Reciprocal Relationship"; (8) "Integrating Technology into the Curriculum: An Exemplary Unit of Practice"; (9) "Creating an Alternative Context for Teacher Learning"; (10) "Back to the Real World: Opportunities and Obstacles in Staff Development"; and (11) "Technology: One Tool Among Many." A methodological appendix and index are also included. (Contains 127 references.)