Resep Cerdas Kuasai Bahasa Inggris

2008-11-06T07:32:00.000+07:00

AN OVERVIEW OF COOPERATIVE LEARNING

by Sholihun

http://sholihun08.blogspot.com

E-mail: sholihun34@gmail.com

A. Background

Ability or skill of comprehending a message in the text is the goal of reading in a language instruction. However, comprehending a text message is not easy, especially in English. It can be seen from the students’ reading comprehension in MA Raudlatut Thalabah Kediri that is still far from what is being expected. There are many reasons underlying this problem. First, students’ vocabulary is not ample. Students are not able to understand texts when they encounter words that have actually been taught or told to them, not to mention if they find new words.

Second, teachers tend to emphasize more on students’ reading result, not on the learning process. Teachers usually do not pay attention to the learning process but the result of the learning. Third, the reading teaching and learning activities is more teacher-centered in a way that the reading instruction is based on what the teachers tell, and students are only required to answer questions, without any sharing ideas or discussions with their pairs or groups.

Fourth, the strategy the teachers employ is still conventional, meaning that students sometimes read text silently or aloud, and after that the teacher translates the text for students, and fifth, the reading teaching and learning process is sometimes boring, students are not motivated to do it and sometimes keep silent listening to what the teacher is reading. Finally, students are seldom engaged in cooperative and interesting work.

B. Definitions of Cooperative Learning

According to Jacobs (1997) cooperative learning is organised and managed group work in which students work cooperatively in small groups. Cooperation is not having students sit side by side at the same table to talk with each other as they do their individual assignments.

In cooperative learning, each student of different levels of ability, use a variety of learning activities to improve their understanding of a subject. Each member of a team is responsible not only for learning what is taught but also for helping teammates learn. Students work through the assignment until all group members successfully understand and complete it (Muir, 2006).

In short, cooperative learning is not having students do a task individually, but it is much more than being physically near other students, discussing material with other students, helping other students, or sharing material among students. Those activities are important in cooperative learning.

C. The Elements of Cooperative Learning

According to Johnson (1991) there are five essential elements cooperative learning, as follow:

Positive Interdependence.
Face-to-face interaction.
Individual accountability or personal responsibility.
Interpersonal and small group skills.
Group Processing.

1. Positive Interdependence

Positive interdependence exists when students perceive that they are linked with group mates in such a way that they cannot succeed unless their group mates do and they must coordinate their efforts with the efforts of their group mates to complete a task.

There are two ways of positive interdependence.

Positive Goal Interdependence. Students perceive that they can achieve their learning goals if and only if all the members of their group also attain their goals. To ensure that students believe they "sink or swim together" and care about how much each other learns, the teacher has to structure a clear group or mutual goal. The group goal always has to be a part of the lesson.

Positive Reward -- Celebrate Interdependence. Each group member receives the same reward when the group achieves its goals. To supplement goal interdependence, teachers may wish to add joint rewards.

2. Face-to-face Interaction

Face-to-face interaction may be defined as individuals encouraging and facilitating each other's efforts to achieve, complete tasks, and produce, in order to reach the group's goals. Face-to-face interaction is characterized by individuals providing each other with efficient and effective help and assistance.

In face to face interaction, students need resources, such as information and materials, and processing information, provide each other with feedback in order to improve their understanding, influence each other’s efforts to achieve the group's goals; act in trusting and trustworthy ways.

3. Individual Accountability or Personal Responsibility

"If you do not work, you do not eat." The third essential element of cooperative learning is individual accountability, which exists when the performance of individual students is assessed, the results are given back to the individual and the group, and the student is held responsible by group mates for contributing his or her fair share to the group’s success. It is important that group members know they cannot "hitchhike" on the work of others. When it is difficult to identify members' contributions, when members' contributions are redundant, and when members are not responsible for the final group outcome, they may be seeking a free ride.

The purpose of cooperative learning groups is to make each member a stronger individual in his or her own right. Individual accountability is the key to ensuring that all group members are, in fact, strengthened by learning cooperatively. After participating in a cooperative lesson, group members should be better prepared to complete similar tasks by themselves.

4. Interpersonal and Small Group Skills

The fourth essential element of cooperative learning is the appropriate use of interpersonal and small group skills. In order to coordinate efforts to achieve mutual goals, students must; get to know and trust each other, communicate accurately and unambiguously, accept and support each other, and resolve conflict constructively.

Interpersonal and small group skills do not magically appear when they are needed. Students must be taught the social skills required for high quality collaboration and be motivated to use them if cooperative groups are to be productive. The whole field of group dynamics is based on the premise that social skills are the key to group productivity.

5. Group Processing

Group processing may be defined as reflecting on a group session to; describe what member actions are helpful and unhelpful, and make decisions about what actions to continue or change. The purpose of group processing is to clarify and improve the effectiveness of the members in contributing to the collaborative efforts to achieve the group’s goals.

Groups need to describe what member actions are helpful and not helpful in completing the group's work and make decisions about what behaviors to continue or change. Such processing; enables learning groups to focus on maintaining good working relationships among members, facilitates the learning of cooperative skills, and provides the means to celebrate the success of the group and reinforce the positive behaviors of group members.

D. Advantages of Cooperative Learning

There are several advantages of cooperative learning.

When done properly, group work teaches individual responsibility for learning.
Groups can be more productive and efficient than individual learning for some tasks and for some students (e.g. extroverts).
Cooperative learning allows students to share information, strategies, and personal experiences.
Group work often enhances interest in a subject and motivation for learning a subject.
Group work often saves time compared to doing a task on one's own.
Group work often acts as a stress-release before an exam or major assignment.
Group work helps to divide large assignments into more manageable tasks.

E. Content Reading

In cooperative learning, there are some strategies that can be applied in teaching and learning process. Such as: Jigsaw, Study Groups, STAD, Think Pair Share, Teams Games Tournament, and Content Reading. Based on the background of this topic, so I will try to apply Content Reading strategy. This strategy is outlined by Mickel (1993).

Content Reading strategy is designed to be implemented by students. Depending on the length of the assigned readings, this activity could take one to several days to complete. It may be helpful to introduce the strategy section by section to allow for maximum comprehension of expectations.

The nine steps reading comprehension activity is described below.

Divide the class into groups of four students.
- If possible, each group should include one above average student, one below average student, and two average students.
- Assign each student an arbitrary number (1 through 4), regardless of ability.
Designate the pages in the text book to be used in the cooperative learning activity.
Assign vocabulary tasks.
- Assign student #1 of each group the task of introducing the new vocabulary words in the reading to other members of his or her group.
- Student #1 lists each new term and solicits definitions from other members of his/her group. If none are able to define the word correctly, that word is marked.
Assign reading tasks.

Assign student #2 of each group the task of reading the new material aloud to his/her group while the other members follow along.
Any student is free to emphasize important information during this process.

Assign questioning tasks.
- Assign student #3 of each group the task of asking the group questions based on the oral reading.
- Student #3 should keep track of his/her group's answers.
- If desired, the instructor may develop these questions ahead of time to insure that students cover the main points of the reading.
Assign follow up tasks.
- Assign student #4 of each group the task of directing a follow up activity that reinforces the general and specific concepts of the reading.
- Instructor guidance may be needed here as well.
Recombine the groups and conduct a review.
- Reassemble the class into one large group in order to review the results of each subgroup.
- Allow the students to assimilate their new knowledge.
- Students #1 present the words that their groups knew and did not know.
- Students #3 present their groups' answers to the review questions.
- Students #4 present their groups' follow-up results.
The instructor evaluates reading comprehension.
- The instructor may use an evaluative activity to assess the student's mastery of the new material.
- The instructor should also evaluate each individual's participation within his/her group.
Students evaluate the group activity.
- Each student evaluates the cooperative learning activity.

F. Conclusions

Cooperative learning offer alternatives to learning by the individual student. With these strategy, several students work together to complete a task. Each group operates as a team and the teammates are responsible for their own learning as well as that of their teammates. Everyone has a task and actively involved. Students must feel that they need each other in order to carry out the group's task.

There are five elements of cooperative learning; Positive Interdependence, Face-to-face interaction, Individual accountability or personal responsibility, Interpersonal and small group skills, and Group Processing. Understanding those elements is very important, because we are a teacher. We will manage the class effectively.

Relating to the reading comprehension, one of cooperative learning strategy that is Content Reading will make the class actively. Actually, I my self do not apply this strategy yet, but if I take a look at the steps of Content Reading strategy, I am sure this strategy will make students satisfy and gain good result.[]

Gasek, Nopember 4^th 2008

http://sholihun08.blogspot.com

E-mail: sholihun34@gmail.com

References

Jacobs, G. M., Lee, C, & Ng, M. 1997. Cooperative Learning in the Thinking Classroom. Paper presented at the International Conference on Thinking, Singapore.

Jacobs, G. M., Lee, C, & Ng, M. 1996. Cooperative Learning: A Sourcebook of Lesson Plans for Teacher Education of Cooperative Learning. SEAMEO. Singapore.

Johnson, David W and Roger, T. 1994. Creativity and Collaborative Learning; Brookes Press, Baltimore.

Muir, Mike. 2006. Research Brief. (Online). (http://www.principalspartnership.com). Accessed on September 23^rd 2008.

Shevin, Mara Sapon. Cooperative Learning and Inclusion. (Online). (http://sholihun08.blogspot.com). Accessed on October 27^th 2008.

Smith, K.A. 1996. Cooperative learning: Making "groupwork" work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

2008-11-01T14:06:00.000+07:00

Menggugat Paradigma Pendidikan Nasional
Kritik Terhadap “Kesesatan” Sistem Persekolahan *
Oleh: Agus Sunyoto**

I. Menggugat Doktrin Sekolah
Sejak kali pertama diterapkan di Nusantara pada tahun 1900 melalui kebijakan politik pemerintah kolonial Belanda yang disebut Etische Politiek, sistem persekolahan (schooling system) diasumsikan sebagai sistem pendidikan elit Barat yang berhubungan dengan modernitas, transformasi ilmu pengetahuan dan teknologi, intelektualitas, kemajuan, kesuksesan, status sosial dan ekonomi, ketersediaan lapangan kerja, perubahan, dan kemapanan। Seiring dengan semakin banyaknya anak-anak pribumi dibentuk di berbagai lembaga pendidikan yang menerapkan sistem persekolahan, semakin kuat dan semakin mengakar asumsi tentang sekolah sebagai sistem pendidikan elit Barat sampai terbentuk paradigma berpikir hegemonik, yang tidak saja melestarikan superioritas Barat di satu pihak dan inferioritas pribumi di pihak lain, melainkan pula telah menimbulkan pemberhalaan terhadap sistem tersebut. Fakta menunjukkan – bagian terbesar bangsa Nusantara yang rata-rata lulusan sekolah – mensyaratkan bersekolah sebagai bagian dari proses pendewasaan dan pembudayaan yang wajib dilalui setiap anak sebelum memasuki kehidupan riil.
Ditinjau dari satu sisi, sebenarnya sistem persekolahan bukanlah sekedar sistem belajar-mengajar dalam kaitan dengan proses transformasi ilmu pengetahuan dan teknologi, melainkan lebih dari itu sistem persekolahan meliputi pula proses penciptaan ilusi-ilusi, asumsi-asumsi, gambaran-gambaran, gagasan-gagasan, konsep-konsep, nilai-nilai, ide-ide, doktrin-doktrin, dan impian-impian yang mengarahkan dan memberikan pengertian tentang kontinuitas dan tujuan untuk apa sistem itu dibentuk. Menurut Neil Postman (1995) sekolah, dalam pengertian yang terkandung dalam kata yang digunakan, adalah sebuah narasi besar yang memiliki kredibilitas, kompleksitas, kekuatan, dan hegemoni simbolik yang mampu mengatur dan mengarahkan orang-orang yang terproses di dalamnya. Selanjutnya Neil Postman menggambarkan sekolah sebagai agama baru dengan pengkhotbah-pengkhotbah utama seperti Descartes, Bacon, Galileo,. Kepler, Newton, Darwin, Hawking, Spencer, dsb.
Kuat dan mengakarnya doktrin persekolahan di kalangan pribumi Nusantara yang terdidik di sekolah, sedikitnya terbukti dengan dibakukannya tafsir tunggal bahwa sistem persekolahan adalah sama dan identik dengan sistem pendidikan nasional, di mana dalam UUD 1945 Pasal 31 ayat 3 yang berbunyi “pemerintah mengusahakan dan menyelenggarakan satu sistem pendidikan nasional” ditafsirkan sebagai pengabsahan penyelenggaraan sekolah sebagai satu-satunya sistem pendidikan nasional. Mengasumsikan sekolah sama dan identik dengan pendidikan, pada dasarnya adalah kesesatan fundamental dalam pemaknaan seperti kesesatan memaknai belajar sama dan identik dengan bersekolah. Dan kesesatan itu makin tak sesat ketika kalangan pendidik di lingkungan sekolah formal dan masyarakat memaknai program wajib belajar yang dicanangkan rezim Orde Baru sebagai program wajib bersekolah. Ini kesesatan paradigmatik yang berdampak luas pada pemaknaan pendidikan selanjutnya.
Selama seabad sejak sistem persekolahan dikenalkan di Nusantara oleh pemerintah kolonial Belanda, banyak hal yang terkait dengan persekolahan telah menjadi sesuatu yang biasa dan dianggap sebagai keniscayaan aksiomatik. Hampir tidak ada seorang pun yang menggugat keabsahan struktur sistem persekolahan, filsafat positivisme yang mendasari sistem persekolahan, relevansi jenjang-jenjang persekolahan dan gelar kesarjanaannya dengan realitas kebutuhan riil, dampak buruk pendekatan pedagogi, signifikansi kurikulum formal dengan kebutuhan riil, sistem seleksi, dogmatika sertifikasi, ketiadaan etika belajar-mengajar, otoritas guru, dsb. Sekolah benar-benar sudah diidentikkan dengan pendidikan, di mana hanya mereka yang bersekolah saja yang disebut sebagai orang berpendidikan sehingga orang-orang yang tidak pernah terproses di sekolah dianggap sebagai orang-orang yang tidak berpendidikan. Bahkan akibat kuatnya hegemoni doktrin persekolahan dalam wacana penalaran masyarakat Nusantara, hampir semua orang memandang bahwa sistem persekolahan itulah satu-satunya sistem pendidikan yang ada di dunia.
Dewasa ini, sekolah sebagai satu-satunya wahana pendidikan yang wajib dimasuki setiap warganegara dalam usaha mencapai kedewasaan untuk bisa hidup di dunia riil telah jauh dari harapan। Sekolah telah kehilangan makna sebagai wahana pendidikan yang dibutuhkan masyarakat. Berbagai problem krusial yang meletup di tengah masyarakat seperti urbanisasi, pengangguran, white collar crime, kekerasan, anarkisme, dekadensi moral, sadisme, bahkan disintegrasi bangsa seolah mengalir dari lembaga-lembaga pendidikan yang menerapkan sistem persekolahan. Apakah sesungguhnya yang telah terjadi dengan dunia pendidikan nasional kita yang menerapkan sistem persekolahan? Kenapa pakar pendidikan seperti Ivan Illich meluncurkan buku berjudul Deschooling Society, Everett Reimer meluncurkan buku berjudul The End of School, Paulo Freire meluncurkan buku berjudul Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Neil Postman meluncurkan buku berjudul The End of Education, yang semuanya dengan sinis mengkritik praktek-praktek pendidikan yang menganut sistem persekolahan yang tidak manusiawi?

II. Mengungkap Kesesatan Sistem Persekolahan
Penilaian berlebihan terhadap paradigma sistem persekolahan, telah membutakan masyarakat dari realitas obyektif dalam memandang sesuatu. Masyarakat yang terhegemoni doktrin persekolahan memandang realitas sekolah sebagai sebuah sistem yang sempurna tanpa celah, sehingga dari waktu ke waktu sistem persekolahan dijadikan wahana satu-satunya dalam penyelenggaraan pendidikan. Padahal, ditinjau dari pandangan yang obyektif dan realistis, sistem persekolahan dalam penyelenggaraannya menunjukkan kelemahan-kelemahan dan kecenderungan-kecenderungan menyesatkan yang merugikan mereka yang terproses di dalamnya. Beberapa kelemahan dan kecenderungan menyesatkan dari sistem persekolahan, dapat dikemukakan sebagai berikut:

II.1. Penopang Hegemoni Barat .
Sekolah sebagai sebuah sistem warisan kolonial, meminjam pandangan Ashis Nandy dalam The Intimate Enemy (1983) dapat dimaknai sebagai wahana penaklukan pikiran dan budaya oleh penjajah terhadap masyarakat terjajah. Menurut Nandy, ketika Eropa mendakwahkan ide-ide pencerahan, liberalisme, dan modernitas ke wilayah jajahannya, pada saat yang sama mereka memperkukuh genggaman kuasanya melalui ide-ide mencerahkan. Fakta di negara-negara dunia ketiga termasuk Nusantara menunjuk, pembentukan mentalitas dan nalar berpikir elit terjajah yang berlangsung selama mereka dididik di sekolah-sekolah yang disediakan penjajah, selain transfer ilmu pengetahuan dan teknologi juga ideologi yang mengacu pada superioritas Barat, yang membentuk konstruksi pengetahuan dan kesadaran berfikir para lulusan sekolah dengan nalar akademis modern yang menempatkan Barat di posisi atas dari struktur sosio-kultural-ekonomi dan terutama teknologi. Melalui sekolah-sekolah warisan kolonial itulah, Barat menghegemoni kerangka pandang masyarakat di negara-negara bekas jajahan seperti Indonesia, di mana berbagai pandangan, ideal, gagasan, konsep, dan nilai-nilai yang difahami kalangan elit lulusan sekolah nyaris dimaknai seutuhnya dengan sudut pandang Barat. Barat seolah menjadi kiblat percontohan yang paling sempurna, sehingga segala sesuatu yang tidak sesuai dengan parameter Barat dianggap tidak beradab, otoriter, tradisional, tidak demokratis, tidak ilmiah, tidak rasional, despotik, tiranik, dsb.
Penaklukan pikiran dan budaya yang dilakukan pihak penjajah terhadap pihak yang dijajah yang disebarkan lewat sekolah-sekolah, terbukti masih mengukuhkan struktur masyarakat kolonial yang menempatkan masyarakat kulit putih di atas struktur, timur asing di tengah dan pribumi di bawah. Ini tidak saja membawa akibat tetap lestarinya inferioritas inlander, melainkan telah menciptakan pula ketidak-mampuan pribumi untuk membangun wacana independen yang mandiri, di mana hal itu menjadikan pribumi hanya mampu meniru (mimicry) segala sesuatu yang dicontohkan penjajahnya (Bhabha, 1997). Ini berarti, semakin banyak pribumi terjajah mengikuti proses belajar-mengajar di sekolah, semakin kuat mereka melestarikan sistem nalar dan sistem sosial budaya kolonial, yang membawa akibat terperangkapnya alumnus sekolah ke dalam mentalitas inlander yang diwariskan penjajah.
Salah satu konsekuensi logis dari penyelenggaraan sekolah, selain transformasi sistem pengetahuan juga transformasi sistem budaya Barat. Fakta menunjuk bahwa akibat proses penerapan sistem persekolahan dalam pendidikan nasional, lahirlah produk-produk budaya baru yang berciri khas Barat yang menjadi unsur utama bagi tegaknya bangunan sistem kehidupan bangsa Indonesia. Dari sekolahlah bangsa Indonesia mengenal dan mengikuti sistem baku komunikasi Barat (aksara, angka, bahasa), sistem pendidikan (schooling system), sistem sosial (Barat, Timur Asing, Inlander), sistem pengukur waktu (kalender Barat), sistem pengukur satuan benda (berat, isi, jenis, bentuk, satuan versi Barat), sistem pengukur tanah (panjang, lebar, luas versi Barat), sistem alat tukar (mata uang Barat), sistem administratif kewilayahan (versi kolonial Barat), sistem etika pergaulan (system diskriminan Barat), sistem baku hukum positif (KUHP, administrasi hukum Barat), filsafat Barat, sistem religi Barat, sistem tatanegara Barat, Gaya Hidup Barat, dsb. Kalangan elit terdidik Indonesia hasil didikan sekolah, tidak sedikit pun memiliki sikap kritis terhadap Barat dalam konteks tersebut. Sebaliknya, mereka menjadi subordinat dari budaya Barat sehingga tidak memiliki kemandirian dan otentisitas dalam membangun wacana dan gerakan budaya. Sebagai akibat dari proses pem-Barat-an ini, bangsa Indonesia dewasa ini mengalami apa yang disebut Durkheim sebagai anomie.

II.2. Filsafat Positivisme dan Dampaknya
Filsafat positivisme rintisan Auguste Comte yang dijadikan landasan pendidikan yang mentransfer ilmu pengetahuan dan teknologi di sekolah, tegak di atas landasan sekulerisme, empirisme, materialisme, rasionalisme. Sebagaimana filsafat positivisme, sekolah yang tegak di atas landasan tersebut memandang perkembangan pengetahuan manusia melewati tiga tahapan evolutif sebagai keniscayaan. Pertama, tahap teologis di mana manusia percaya bahwa di belakang gejala alam terdapat kuasa-kuasa adikodrati yang mengatur fungsi dan gerak gejala tersebut. Tahap teologis ini dibagi atas tiga periode, yaitu periode animisme, politeisme dan monoteisme. Kedua, tahap metafisika di mana kuasa-kuasa adikodrati diganti dengan konsep-konsep dan prinsip-prinsip abstrak seperti, misal, kodrat, takdir, penyebab. Metafisika dijunjung tinggi pada tahap ini. Ketiga, tahap positif di mana manusia tidak lagi mencari sesuatu di balik fakta. Atas dasar observasi dan penggunaan rasio manusia berusaha menetapkan relasi-relasi persamaan yang terdapat antar fakta-fakta.
Bertolak dari batasan definitif pengetahuan faktual sebagaimana dikemukakan Auguste Comte yang menjadi landasan utama dogma pengetahuan ilmiah yang berlaku di dalam sistem persekolahan, dapat dikata bahwa harapan untuk menjadikan sistem persekolahan sebagai Sistem Pendidikan Nasional yang bisa meningkatkan keimanan dan ketakwaan serta akhlak mulia dalam rangka mencerdaskan kehidupan bangsa, sebagaimana amanat UUD 1945 hasil amandemen Pasal 31 ayat 3 akan menjadi sia-sia. Hal itu berkaitan langsung dengan kenyataan, bahwa keimanan dan ketaqwaan serta akhlak mulia adalah produk dari pembelajaran yang bersifat normatif yang bersumber dari nilai-nilai agama. Sementara dogmatika pengetahuan ilmiah yang diajarkan di sekolah menganut prinsip dogmatika obyektif imparsial dan netralitas etik, yang menurut Hidayat Nataarmadja dalam Ilmu Humanika (1984) adalah prinsip dogmatika yang akan membawa manusia modern ke arah krisis moral dan krisis tanggung jawab. Sejarah membuktikan, bagaimana dari lembaga pendidikan yang menerapkan sistem persekolahan tidak saja telah melahirkan aliran-aliran pemikiran sekuler seperti ateisme, nihilisme, pragmatisme, humanisme, liberalisme yang bertentangan dengan agama, tetapi juga menimbulkan krisis moral dan krisis tanggung jawab di kalangan masyarakat yang terproses di dalam sistem persekolahan.

II.3. Struktur Piramida Sekolah dan Dampaknya
Struktur sistem persekolahan yang berjenjang membentuk piramida, ternyata potensial membentuk tatanan bersifat formal yang cenderung sulit dibedakan dengan tananan riil kalau tidak malah berjalin-berlindan dengan realita. Struktur paling rendah dari sistem persekolahan yang diisi oleh strata masyarakat lulusan sekolah dasar, dalam asumsi persekolahan akan diikuti oleh lapisan strata yang lebih tinggi yaitu sekolah lanjutan pertama disusul sekolah lanjutan atas sampai yang tertinggi lapisan masyarakat bergelar doktor dan profesor. Masyarakat yang tidak bisa membedakan aspek formal dan aspek riil, cenderung menerima begitu saja struktur piramida sekolah sebagai keniscayaan. Kenyataan ini mendorong masyarakat untuk berlomba mendaki jenjang demi jenjang piramida sekolah, dengan harapan dapat mencapai puncak piramida yang diasumsikan sebagai tempat “dewa-dewa” pemilik kebenaran.
Bagi mereka yang mampu memilahkan dengan tegas antara aspek formal dan aspek riil dari sistem yang dibentuk sekolah, akan segera mendapati kenyataan bahwa semakin lama orang terproses di dalam sistem persekolahan yang berarti semakin tinggi orang seorang mendaki piramida sekolah, semakin butalah orang tersebut terhadap realitas. Fakta menunjuk, para profesor dan doktor yang menempati puncak piramida sekolah, ternyata tidak pernah menunjukkan bukti kemampuan yang tinggi ketika dituntut bersaing dalam segala hal di dalam kehidupan riil.

II.4. Pendidikan Kolektif Pencetak Kawanan
Salah satu ciri pendidikan bersistem persekolahan adalah terjadinya usaha-usaha penyeragaman yang menjadikan peserta didik terbentuk dengan mentalitas kawanan. Hal itu ditunjang pula oleh struktur piramida berjenjang sekolah yang harus dilewati oleh para peserta didik secara bersama-sama. Proses pendidikan anak-anak berdasar kelompok usia yang sama di bawah bimbingan guru untuk mempelajari kurikulum berjenjang, mensyaratkan adanya keseragaman waktu dan tempat serta pikiran dalam menyelesaikan tiap jenjang kurikulum. Tanpa mempertimbangkan potensi kecerdasan maupun kekurang-cerdasan peserta didik, syarat mutlak yang harus dipenuhi adalah rentang waktu yang ditetapkan untuk menyelesaikan tiap jenjang. Peserta didik yang ingin naik jenjang – sekalipun cerdas melebihi teman-temannya – wajib menunggu waktu satu tahun.
Penyeragaman penampilan fisik peserta didik yang terjadi sejak tingkat dasar (celana, baju, topi, sepatu, kaos kaki, badge), berjalan seiring dengan penyeragaman paradigma, dogma, doktrin, dan mitos atas semua mata pelajaran yang disampaikan di sekolah. Proses penyeragaman ini, menjadikan peserta didik seperti masuk ke dalam kamp konsentrasi untuk diindoktrinasi dengan pandangan-pandangan menyesatkan tanpa diberi kesempatan mengkritik, sehingga selama pelajaran berlangsung peserta didik kehilangan cakrawala optik alternatif, karena sudut pandangnya diarahkan kepada fokus seperti kuda diberi penutup mata. Keadaan ini memberikan dampak serius bagi melemahnya daya kreatif peserta didik, karena guru yang berperan seperti sipir penjara akan marah jika dikritik, menolak jika ada usulan, membentak dan bahkan memukul jika peserta didik dianggap melakukan kesalahan.
Penyeragaman yang lebih parah terjadi pada saat diselenggarakan ujian nasional, di mana jawaban-jawaban atas soal-soal yang diujikan harus sama jawabannya secara nasional. Ini memberi pengaruh bagi terbentuknya peserta didik yang berpikir linier dan cenderung textbook thinking serta buta terhadap realitas. Keadaan itu menunjuk pada kecenderungan sistem persekolahan untuk mencetak lulusan bermental ambigu, di satu sisi menjadi orang yang bermental kawanan dengan kemampuan seragam tetapi di sisi lain sangat individualistik jika berkaitan dengan kepentingan pribadi masing-masing lulusan. Seluruh lulusan sekolah, misal, secara seragam akan berbaris menuju ke lembaga-lembaga pemerintah dan swasta untuk mengikuti seleksi penerimaan tenaga kerja. Selama berbaris menunggu seleksi itu, masing-masing pribadi lulusan sekolah akan berusaha untuk lulus seleksi dengan berbagai macam cara untuk mengalahkan pesaingnya. Demikianlah, lulusan sekolah yang dididik sebagai kawanan tetapi individualis itu, tidak memiliki cakrawala optik alternatif selepas lulus sekolah selain berbaris mengantri untuk bisa masuk ke dalam lembaga-lembaga yang membutuhkan pekerja.

II.5. Pedagogi dan dampaknya
Dengan semakin kuatnya pendekatan pedagogi diterapkan di dalam sistem persekolahan, akan lahir lulusan-lulusan yang tidak mampu mengatasi tantangan secara dewasa. Sebab lulusan-lulusan itu tidak mampu menghadapi tantangan hidup di dunia riil. Mereka seperti kera-kera yang selama bertahun-tahun dididik di lingkungan sirkus, akan menjadi kebingungan dan tak berdaya ketika dilepas ke tengah hutan untuk menghadapi habitat riilnya yang sebenarnya. Demikianlah, semakin tinggi orang seorang melampaui jenjang struktur piramida persekolahan, akan semakin jauh orang tersebut dari kenyataan kehidupan riil. Dan hanya karena kebijakan politis pemerintah saja yang memungkinkan orang tersebut dapat menduduki posisi tinggi di dalam struktur formal tatanan yang dibentuk pemerintah
Pendekatan pedagogi yang bermakna ilmu mengasuh anak yang diterapkan di dalam sistem persekolahan, dalam perkembangannya telah menciptakan lulusan-lulusan yang kekanak-kanakan, permisif, bersudut pandang monolitik, bermental kacung, tidak mampu membangun wacana independen yang mandiri, selalu membutuhkan bantuan orang lain dalam menghadapi tantangan. Dengan pendekatan pedagogi, para guru, dosen, guru besar di tiap jenjang struktur sekolah akan memperlakukan peserta didik seperti anak-anak. Mereka menuntut kepatuhan mutlak peserta didik atas semua pelajaran yang mereka indoktrinasikan. Hasilnya, makin tinggi jenjang yang dinaiki peserta didik, maka akan semakin permisif sifatnya dan terfokus cakrawala optiknya pada bidang ilmu yang ditekuninya sampai tidak mengetahui kenyataan yang terdapat di dunia riil yang melingkunginya.

II.6. Educationomic Sebagai Dampak Negatif Doktrin Sekolah
Semakin kuatnya masyarakat tercekam oleh doktrin persekolahan yang sudah memberhala, ternyata membawa dampak yang sangat merugikan masyarakat sebagai pengguna jasa sekolah. Pada saat masyarakat meyakini bahwa bersekolah adalah syarat utama untuk bisa hidup layak di dunia modern, para penyelenggara sekolah memanfaatkan keyakinan membuta itu untuk mengeruk keuntungan pribadi sebesar-besarnya. Sekolah yang semula dimaksudkan untuk mencerdaskan kehidupan bangsa, berangsur-angsur bergeser menjadi alat untuk mengeksploitasi masyarakat pengguna jasa sekolah. Berbagai aspek yang berhubungan dengan sekolah, diformat sedemikian rupa untuk bisa dijadikan komoditi yang bisa memberikan nilai tambah ekonomi.
Sampai saat ini, semua orang – terutama praktisi pendidikan yang terlibat dalam penyelengaraan pendidikan bersistem persekolahan – belum ada yang secara serius menggugat keberadaan dunia pendidikan yang bergeser menjadi dunia bisnis karena landasan edukasi yang bergeser maknanya menjadi educationomic (educatio = pendidikan; nemein = distribusi), yang bermakna pendidikan yang didistribusikan sebagai komoditi. Masyarakat pengguna jasa sekolah hanya faham bahwa biaya sekolah makin lama makin tinggi tak terjangkau. Dan biaya sekolah makin menguras habis uang masyarakat ketika semua elemen penyelenggara sekolah beramai-ramai ikut berpartisipasi memanfaatkan sekolah untuk menambah keuntungan pribadi masing-masing. Kegiatan educationomic itu terlihat dari aktivitas dagang buku pelajaran, dagang LKS, program karya wisata, daftar ulang pada kenaikan kelas, pungutan uang gedung dalam pendaftaran sekolah, program mandiri dalam seleksi penerimaan siswa baru, program setia kawan, yang semuanya membutuhkan dana yang dipungut dari masyarakat pengguna jasa sekolah. Tetapi sebesar dan setinggi apa pun biaya sekolah dengan tambahan bermacam-macam pungutan itu dilakukan penyelenggara sekolah, masyarakat tidak mampu berbuat apa-apa. Masyarakat dengan terpaksa tetap menggunakan jasa sekolah karena tidak memiliki alternatif lain dan akibat keyakinan mereka terhadap doktrin persekolahan sudah terlalu kuat mencekam jiwa.

III. Fenomena Global
Globalisasi pada dasawarsa awal tahun 2000 adalah sebuah realitas, di mana kita sekarang ikut menghirup keberadaannya, merasakan konsekuensinya, dan tentu merasakan dampaknya, karena pemerintah RI yang menjadi menjadi tuan rumah KTT APEC di Bogor pada 1994, telah menerima jadwal AFTA 2003 dan APEC 2010. Hal itu mengandung makna, pemerintah Indonesia telah committed mendukung globalisasi tingkat ASEAN (AFTA) pada 2003 dan globalisasi tingkat Asia Pasific (APEC) pada 2010. Dengan penuh keyakinan, pemerintah Orde Baru saat itu menegaskan bahwa,”siap tidak siap, suka tidak suka, kita harus ikut globalisasi karena kita sudah berada di dalamnya.”
George Soros dalam On Soros: Staying Ahead of the Curve (1995) menyebutkan bahwa seiring meredanya ketegangan perang dingin (cold war) antara Barat dengan Timur yang ditandai runtuhnya komunisme, terjadi fenomena global tentang bakal lahirnya tatanan baru yang disebut a global open society, yakni tatanan baru masyarakat dunia yang dibangun di atas empat ciri utama: (1) effective competition, yaitu bentuk persaingan di mana situasi nilai dan peluang-peluang selalu berubah; (2) memaksimalkan kebebasan individual dengan membiarkan orang memasuki berbagai pilihan alternatif yang tersedia secara global; (3) hubungan sosial berdasar kontrak sosial di mana individu sebagai nucleus dari struktur masyarakat mengambang secara global tanpa perlu akar tempat berpijak yang mengikat; (4) nilai-nilai hanyalah masalah pilihan seperti orang memilih di tempat mana mau berinvestasi atau berspekulasi.
Alan Touraine dalam Two Interpretation of Social Change (1992) memprediksi bahwa di dalam dunia global, akan terjadi perubahan besar di bidang sosial dan ekonomi, di mana dalam konteks sosial konsep-konsep kehidupan sosial seperti integrasi, kesatuan, persatuan, nasionalisme dan solidaritas akan tenggelam dalam realita sosial dan sekedar menjadi mitos, karena kehidupan sosial menjadi tak lebih dari sebuah arus perubahan terus-menerus yang di dalamnya aktor-aktor individu maupun kolektif tidak lagi bertindak sesuai dengan nilai-nilai dan norma-norma sosial, akan tetapi mengikuti strategi masing-masing yang berperan di dalam proses perubahan (kapitalisme global), serta tidak dapat lagi sepenuhnya dikontrol oleh kekuasaan Negara. Jean Baudrillard (1983) memaparkan bahwa di dalam konteks ekonomi yang mengarah ke pasar bebas – sebagaimana diprediksi Alan Touraine -- akan terjadi keterbukaan dan transparansi di mana setiap individu memiliki hak untuk berspekulasi dan mencari keuntungan di dalam ekonomi, di mana jaringan ekonomi global dapat dimasuki oleh apa saja, siapa saja, di mana saja dan kapan saja bahkan oleh berbagai lapisan masyarakat global yang anonym dan invisible, yang dapat berbuat apa pun sesuai keinginan mereka.
Berdasar paparan di muka, jelaslah bahwa fenomena globalisasi – yang diterima penjadualannya oleh Pemerintah Indonesia pada tahun 1994 -- tidak akan dapat diantisipasi secara baik oleh bagian terbesar anak-anak bangsa Indonesia lulusan sekolah formal, karena mereka umumnya belum sadar akan kenyataan yang terpampang di depan mereka. Ibarat air bah yang membanjir akibat bendungan jebol, bagian terbesar masyarakat Indonesia hanya berdiam diri seolah menunggu ditenggelamkan air bah globalisasi karena tidak mampu memberi kontribusi apa-apa terhadap warganegara yang hidup terombang-ambing tanpa daya di tengah keganasan fenomena pasar bebas yang menganut prinsip freefight liberalism dengan sebagaimana disebut Soros a global open society.
Dalam keadaan tidak berdaya menghadapi dan mengatasi arus globalisasi, masyarakat Indonesia dipaksa oleh keharusan fundamental untuk memilih dua alternatif pilihan sebagaimana ditengarai Hasyim Wahid (2000) dalam ungkapan : either you swim or you sink (berenang atau tenggelam). Pilihan itulah yang dalam termonologi Darwinisme disebut dengan istilah: survival of the fittest. Siapkah bangsa kita melakukan survival of the fittest di tengah air bah globalisasi yang ditandai mengalirnya arus barang-barang dan produk-produk yang di dalamnya mengandung energi-energi nafsu duniawiah, keterpesonaan, kesenangan, kegairahan, keterbiusan, dan impian-impian duniawi yang menyesatkan?
Persoalan menghadapi air bah globalisasi bukanlah sekedar persoalan memilih berenang atau tenggelam, melainkan yang paling fundamental adalah apakah sistem pendidikan yang digunakan untuk mendidik, mengajar dan melatih anak-anak bangsa untuk mampu berenang mengarungi gelombang globalisasi sudah sesuai dengan kebutuhan tuntutan global. Dalam konteks ini, pelajaran dan pelatihan berenang hanya mungkin diwujudkan dalam bentuk konsep pendidikan yang tepat untuk mengatasi masalah globalisasi beserta ekses-eksesnya. Sebab pendidikan pada dasarnya adalah usaha sadar dari orang-orang untuk mewariskan kebudayaan yang dimilikinya kepada generasi penerus. Hal itu bermakna, pendidikan merupakan proses penanaman ideal-ideal, gagasan-gagasan, konsep-konsep, pandangan-pandangan, dan nilai-nilai. Bahkan di dalam proses pendidikan, berlangsung proses yang disebut ideologisasi di mana individu-individu dibentuk dalam suatu orientasi sosial agar individu-individu tersebut dapat bertindak struktur yang selaras dengan ideologinya. Menurut Nicos Hadjinocolou dalam Art History and Class Struggle (1978) ideologi tidak saja melingkupi bidang-bidang pengetahuan dan gagasan, melainkan mencakup pula simbol-bimbol, mitos, selera, gaya, fashion, iklan, televisi, media massa, interior rumah, mobil, dan seluruh cara hidup suatu masyarakat.

IV. Masyarakat Tidak Butuh Sistem Persekolahan di era Global
Berdasar paparan di atas yang di satu pihak menjelaskan kecenderungan-kecenderungan menyesatkan dari sistem persekolahan (schooling system) yang diterapkan dalam pendidikan nasional dan di pihak lain realitas globalisasi dengan tantangan-tantangan riilnya, dapat disimpulkan bahwa para lulusan sekolah formal dipastikan tidak akan mampu menghadapi tantangan riil globalisasi. Sebab untuk menghadapi arus deras globalisasi yang membanjir di seluruh aspek kehidupan riil Bangsa Indonesia, dibutuhkan pribadi-pribadi tangguh yang berani dan bermental mandiri yang ditandai keimanan, ketaqwaan, akhlaq mulia, pengetahuan luas, berpikir realistis, berwawasan global, kreatif, inovatif, berkeahlian, berketrampilan, dan berkemampuan adaptasi dengan realitas. Dan pastinya, kriteria pribadi-pribadi semacam itu mustahil bisa dicetak di lembaga pendidikan yang menerapkan sistem persekolahan yang belakangan makin carut-marut.
Akhirnya, di tengah carut-marutnya pendidikan nasional yang menganut sistem persekolahan (schooling system) yang ditopang filsafat positivisme yang sekuler – empirik – materialistik yang biayanya semakin tak terjangkau masyarakat – yang makin lama makin kehilangan kepercayaan masyarakat yang ditandai munculnya fenomena home-schooling dan menjamurnya berbagai jenis pendidikan non-formal – dibutuhkan sebuah konsep pendidikan yang bertujuan menyadarkan masyarakat akan jati dirinya sebagai bangsa berbudaya, yakni sistem pendidikan yang mencetak lulusan-lulusan yang beriman, bertaqwa, berbudi luhur, berpengetahuan luas, berwawasan global, berkeahlian, berketrampilan, dengan citra diri manusia Indonesia, mandiri, kreatif, trampil, tangguh, pantang menyerah dalam menghadapi tantangan riil dalam kehidupan di era global. Dan sistem pendidikan ideal itu, pastinya bukan sistem persekolahan (schooling system) yang sudah terbukti telah membawa Bangsa Nusantara ini ke dalam krisis multidimensi.

· Tulisan ini dipresentasikan pada acara Seminar Nasional dengan Tema: QUO VADIS PENDIDIKAN NASIONAL yang diselenggarakan oleh Ikatan Sarjana Nahdlatul Ulama (ISNU) Cabang Kabupaten Kediri, di Aula STAIN Kediri, hari Ahad, tanggal 24 Agustus 2008
· (Dosen Filsafat, Ilmu Logika & Sejarah pemikiran modern di Unibraw, Penulis, peneliti dan konseptor Sistem Pesantren Global)

Daftar Pustaka
Baudrillard, J., In The Shadow of the Silent Majorities, New York: Semiotext (e), 1983.
Bhabha, H., „Of Mimicry and Man: The Ambivalence of Colonial Discourse“ dalam Frederick
Cooper and Ann Laura Stoler (eds.), Tensions of Empire: Colonial Cultures in a
Bourgeois World, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997.
Chomsky, N., Hegemony or Survival: America’s Quest for Global Dominance, Crows Nest
NSW: Allen & Unwin, 2004
Hadjinicolaou, N., Art History & Class Struggle, London: PlutoPress, 1978.
Hull, T.D., “World-Systems Analysis: A Small Sample from a Large Universe” dalam
Thomas D. Hull (ed.), A World Systems Reader: New Perspective on Gender, Urbanism,
Cultures, Indigenous Peoples, and Ecology, 2000.
Nandy, A., The Intimate Enemy: Loss and Recovery of Self under Colonialism, Delhi:
Oxford University Pre3ss, 1983.
Postman, N., The End of Education : Redefining The Value of School, New York:
Vintage Book, 1995.
Ritzer, G., Sociological Theory, New York: McGraw Hill Company, 1996.
Sartre, J. P., Existensialism and Human Emotion, New York: Philosophical Library, 1964.
Soros, G., On Soros : Staying Ahead of The Curve, New York: John Willey & Sons, 1995.
Tuathail, G. O. & Simon Dalby, Rethinking Geopolitics, 1998.
Wahid, H., Telikungan Kapitalisme Global Dalam Sejarah Kebangsaan Indonesia, Yogyakarta:
LKiS, 1999.
.

2008-10-28T08:22:00.000+07:00

TESTING LISTENING COMPREHENSION

(Group 4: Budi S., Isa A., M. Zaini M., Sholihun, Yadhi N.A.)

Listening Skill

Listening is one of four language skills that enables a language user to understand oral language. This skill is very important to master because we often use oral communication in daily life. Without good listening skill, there will be misunderstanding in communication. Therefore, we cannot ignore this skill in language teaching, mainly if its purpose is mastering language skills completely. Compared to speaking and writing skills that are active-productive skills, listening skill, as well as reading one, is a passive-receptive skill. Nevertheless, listening, in terms of hearing and understanding others’ utterances, is not completely passive. The hearers can completely understand the others’ utterances if they actively proceed what they hear. So, the difference between listening as receptive skill and speaking as productive one lies on starting effort to use language in communication. In this case, listening activity is mainly to understand oral language use, focusing on passive-receptive listening.

The Examples of Listening Test

The listening test is taken by letting testee listen to oral text either directly conveyed by native speaker or the record of discourse from native speaker. The test is completed by tasks to do, or questions to answer. The followings are the examples of a listening test.

Answering questions (the statement is in the form of phrase)

Instruction: Listen to each phrase and the followed questions cautiously. Write the answers briefly!

Example: [temperature below zero] How is the weather?

Answer: Cold.

Answering questions (the statement is in the form of sentence)

Instruction: Listen to each sentence and the followed questions cautiously. Write the answers briefly!

Example: [It’s going to rain.] What should you take?

Answer: an umbrella

Concluding the core of passage/text

Instruction: Listen to the passage carefully, and then conclude the core of the passage briefly!

Example: People need water. People cannot live without water. They need it for their daily life.

Core : Water is very important for our daily life.

Answering question of passage/text

Instruction: Listen to the text carefully and then answer the questions based on the text!

Example: A newspaper recently printed an article about family in the state of Wisconsin, United States. The family’s name is La Chapella. The interesting thing about the family is that it has its own constitution. Young Tim La Chapella suggested writing it. He is one of six children.

Questions:

Where does La Chapella family live?

Answer: in the state of Wisconsin, United State.

How many members does La Chapella family have?

Answer: Eight members (six children, a father, and a mother)

Retelling

Instruction: Listen to the text carefully! Retell the text with your own sentences!

Example:

Text: John was ten years old, and he was a very lazy boy. He had to go to school of course, but he was bored there and tried to do as little work as possible. His father and mother were both doctors and they hoped that he would become one, too, when he grew up, but one day John said to his mother, “When I finish school, I want to become a garbage collector.”

“A garbage collector?” his mother asked. She was very surprised.

“That’s not a very pleasant job. Why do you want to be a garbage collector?”

“Because then I’d only have to work one day a week”, John answered.

“Only one day a week?” his mother said. “What do you mean?”

“Well,” John answered, “I know that the ones who come to our house only work on Wednesday, because I see them only on that day.”

Answer: John was a lazy boy. He did not like to go to school. He did not want to become a doctor like his father and mother. He wanted to be a garbage collector because he thought that a garbage collector only had to work once a week.

The Categories of Listening Test

There are two broad categories of tests that incorporate the listening skill. One group of these aural tests simply uses listening as a tool to evaluate something else. For instance, in the limited response section, we learned how beginners' word mastery could be checked by having them listen and respond to some simply commands such as "Hand me the chalk." Listening was also used as a means of evaluating low-level proficiency in grammar and pronunciation. But we have also seen listening used to evaluate more advanced integrative skills—by means of a dictation. And in the following chapter on tests of oral production, we will see listening incorporated as an integral part of speaking evaluation.

1. Aural Test

A. Limited Response

There are three simple yet effective ways to test the listening skill of beginning adults or children. One involves listening and native-language responses. Another uses listening and picture cues. The last involves listening plus simple task responses.

Native-Language Responses

There is an interesting little quiz that can be used with beginners during their first days of instruction.

Examples:

Horses can fly. T *F

Houses are bigger than people. *T F

Picture Cues

Visuals of various kinds have long been used to test listening comprehension. Although the technique is not limited to beginning students, it is especially useful with beginners: Students do not need to be literate in their second language in order to be tested.

Examples:

"Although their bikes are clean, the two boys are dirty." (students would select picture number two).

Task Responses

As we have seen in earlier chapters, task or activity responses can be handled individually or in a group. When testing individually, you can have students do various things to show how well they understand. For example, tell the students the following:

"Stand up, please. And then walk to the door. After you do this, turn on the light. Then before you sit down, put the small book here on the top shelf."

You could give these commands one or two at a time so that the student's memory would not be overloaded. Small children can be asked to play a game, by arranging objects as you tell them to:

"Put the ball in the box. Put the storybook on top of the box. Then make a circle around the box with the beads …"

Alternate Forms of Limited Response

Choosing the best statement. This time students look at one picture, but they hear three statements. They choose the one that best matches the picture. For example, look again at the picture of the countryside (simple item 7.5). students would hear the following:

(Choose the letter of the sentence that matches the picture).

Several people were chased away from the campground last night.
We're glad it didn't start raining at the campground like you said it would.

*C. Even when camping, there's cleaning and cooking to do.

2. Choosing the best figure. In addition to pictures, simple charts or geometric figures can be used to test listening comprehension of young people and adults. Secondary school students who know what a magnet is could be given an item like this:

(They hear:) "Circle the letter of the picture that illustrates this situation: You have a box with two small balls in it. One ball is made of wood, and the other is made of iron. A powerful magnet is put on top of the box."

Advantages of Limited Response

This is suitable for persons not able to read and write in the target language.
This involves flexible techniques: Some are interesting to children, and several techniques are useful for young people and adults with intermediate to advanced skills.
The questions are generally quite easy to prepare.
Limited-response items are generally rather objective as well as quick and easy to score.

Limitations of Limited Response

Native-language responses are limited to classes with bilingual teachers and students with the same language background.
Native-language responses are neither needed nor preferred by intermediate to advanced students.
Suitable pictures for picture-cue items are not always easy to find.
Equipment (such as a Xerox or other copy machine) is usually needed to reproduce drawings for certain task-response and picture cue items.

B. Multiple-Choice Appropriate Response

There are three guidelines to keep in mind when preparing multiple-choice appropriate-response items to test listening comprehension: Focus on meaning; keep on the options simple; and learn to adjust the difficulty of the items.

Focus on meaning. When writing multiple-choice appropriate-response items, use vocabulary and grammar that your students already know. The object is to measure only the students' understanding of a particular sentence or short dialog. Look at the following example (the part in parentheses is heard but not read; the three options are read only):

(When Jack leaves, they'll hire you, won't they?)

Yes, you will
Yes, he's leaving

*C. Yes, they will.

Keep the options simple.
Learn to adjust the difficulty of the items.

Alternative Forms of Multiple-Choice Appropriate Response

There are at least three additional ways to use multiple-choice questions in testing short conversational utterances. None of these uses the appropriate-response technique.

One of these is the added comment:

(Marie isn't coming).

A. But, she has *B. But, she should C. But, she does.

Another is the paraphrase:

(Bill isn't any heavier than George). A. Bill is heavier B. George is heavier *C. They weigh about the same.

And the third form is the question on the dialog:

"Should I fill it?"

"Yes. And would you also check the oil?"

"OK. I'll see if the tires are up, too."

(Where are these people?) *A. At a gas station B. At a police station C. At department store.

Advantages of Multiple-Choice Appropriate Response

It is fast and easy to correct.
It can be scored consistently and reliably.
It is an integrative, communicative measure of listening.

Limitations of Multiple-Choice Appropriate Response

It is more difficult to prepare than tests for beginners.
Cheating is fairly easy, unless alternate forms are used.
Since the reading of multiple-choice options is required, students need to be literate in English.

2. Listening test integrated with speaking

Testing Extended Communication

Short Lecture Contexts

Social/Business Contexts

Alternate Forms of Extended-Communication Tests

Examiner voice.
Sentence Completion.
Open-ended responses

Advantages of Extended-Communication Tests

These closely approximate real-life communication.
These are fast and easy to correct.
These can be scored consistently and reliably.

Limitations of Extended-Communication Tests

There is a need for students to be able to read English.
It is rather difficult to find or prepare natural-sounding listening passages.
There is a possibility of students cheating on these tests.

Testing Listening Comprehension

Testing extensive listening skill

The main objective of a listening test is to evaluate the student's comprehension. His degree of comprehension will depend on his ability to discriminate phonemes, to recognize stress and intonation patterns, and to retain what he has heard. It was thought that, if a learner was tested in phoneme discrimination, stress and intonation, the sum of the 'discrete' sub-tests would be equivalent to his proficiency in listening comprehension.

a. Multiple-choice questions

The use of this technique in the assessment of reading is a clear that the disadvantages of employing the technique far outweigh any advantages it might have. These advantages are equally applicable for using this format in the testing listening.

Because of the problems associated with the serial nature of the listening process there are additional difficulties in employing this technique as a measure of listening ability.

b. Short answer questions (SAQs)

The advantage is that this technique, that is, it can be a realistic activity for testing listening comprehension, for example, if one wishes to stimulate real life activities where notes are taken as somebody communicates a spoken message. With sufficient care the responses can be limited and so the danger of the writing process interfering with the measurement of listening is largely avoided. In contrast to the multiple-choice or the true-false formats employed in some examination, one can be more certain that correct answers have not been arrived at by chance.

The disadvantages of this technique, that is, if the candidate has to write an answer at the same time as listening to continuous discourse there are obvious problems. An unnecessary load might be placed on the memory and vital information in the ongoing discourse might be missed while the answer to a previous question is being recorded.

c. Information transfer techniques

This technique can be used in testing both reading and listening comprehension we have referred to the problem of the measurement being 'muddied' by having to employ writing to record answer.

A particular advantage for using this technique in testing listening is that the student does not have to process written questions while trying to make sense of the spoken input. The disadvantage of using this technique is that it is often very difficult to find spoken texts which lend themselves to a non-verbal format.

Limitation on the testing of extensive listening

It is important to note that, if one wishes to make test tasks more like those in real life, the serial nature of extended spoken discourse and the greater processing problems associated with understanding spoken English preclude items which focus on the more specifically linguistics skill such as working out the meaning of words from context or recognizing the meaning value of specific features of stress or intonation.

Testing intensive listening skill

Reference was made above to the difficulty of focusing on specific listening points while candidates are exposed to ongoing discourse. Given the need to enhance the reliability of our test batteries it is often advisable to include a more discrete format with the possibility this gives of including a greater number of specific items.

a. Dictation

For dictation, this involves them listening to dictated material which incorporates oral messages typical of those they might encounter in the target situation.

The advantages of dictation are it can be provide the reliability through the large number of items that can be generated as well as being valid for specific situations where dictation might feature as a target group activity; there is a lot of evidence which shows dictation correlating highly with a great variety of other tests, particularly with other integrative tests such as cloze and it is often employed as a useful measure of general proficiency; criticisms of dictation in the past stemmed from a viewpoint heavily influenced by structural linguistics; and the new interest in dictation reflected the paradigm shift in testing values and objectives referred to above.

The disadvantages of dictation are the evidence concerning dictation is inconclusive and that it is useful only as part of a battery of listening tests rather than a single solution; dictation will be trivial unless the short term memory of the students is challenged; marking may well be problematic if one wishes to take into account seriousness of error or if one wishes to adopt a more communicatively oriented marking scheme; if the dictation is not recorded on tape, the test will be less reliable, as there will be differences in; and the exercise can be unrealistic if the texts used have been previously created to be read rather than heard.

b. Listening recall

In listening recall tests. The student is given printed copy of a passage from which certain content words have been omitted.

The advantages of listening recall, those are; it can be administrated rapidly and scored objectively and it allows the tester to focus on items which are deemed to be important (as in selective deletion gap filling); high correlations have been reported with other more direct tests of listening and with test totals for listening batteries; in large scale testing operations in that it is easy to construct, administer and mark.

The disadvantages of this technique are the difficulty in this technique lies in stating what is that is being tested; it is unauthentic task and involves reading ability as well as listening; problems may occur in the marking if consideration is given to anything other than exact spelling.

Finally, possible listening tests should include and authentic performance task. An attempt should be made to incorporate information transfer techniques where appropriate. We might usefully include short answer questions and consideration could be given to dictation.

References

Djiwandono, M. S. 2008. Test Bahasa: Pegangan Bagi Pengajar Bahasa. Jakarta: PT Indeks.

Heaton, J.B. 1990. Classroom Testing. New York: Longman.

Madsen, H.S. 1983. Techniques in Testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Weir, C. J. 1990. Communicative Language Testing. New York: Prentice Hall International.

TESTING LISTENING COMPREHENSION

YADHI NUR AMIN

NIM 607653553558

Instructor

Prof. Ali Saukah, M.A., Ph.D

STATE UNIVERSITY OF MALANG

GRADUATE PROGRAM IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION

OCTOBER 2008

2008-10-26T18:01:00.001+07:00

COOPERATIVE LEARNING

Johnson, D.W., Johnson

How students perceive each other and interact with one another is a neglected aspect of instruction. Much training time is devoted to helping teachers arrange appropriate interactions between students and materials (i.e., textbooks, curriculum programs) and some time is spent on how teachers should interact with students, but how students should interact with one another is relatively ignored. It should not be. How teachers structure student-student interaction patterns has a lot to say about how well students learn, how they feel about school and the teacher, how they feel about each other, and how much self-esteem they have.

There are three basic ways students can interact with each other as they learn. They can compete to see who is "best," they can work individualistically toward a goal without paying attention to other students, or they can work cooperatively with a vested interest in each other's learning as well as their own. Of the three interaction patterns, competition is presently the most dominant. Research indicates that a vast majority of students in the United States view school as a competitive enterprise where one tries to do better than other students. This competitive expectation is already widespread when students enter school and grows stronger as they progress through school (Johnson & R. Johnson, 1991). Cooperation among students-who celebrate each other’s successes, encourage each other to do homework, and learn to work together regardless of ethnic backgrounds or whether they are male or female, bright or struggling, disabled or not, is still rare.

BASIC DEFINITIONS

Even though these three interaction patterns are not equally effective in helping students learn concepts and skills, it is important that students learn to interact effectively in each of these ways. Students will face situations in which all three interaction patterns are operating and they will need to be able to be effective in each. They also should be able to select the appropriate interaction pattern suited to the situation. An interpersonal, competitive situation is characterized by negative goal interdependence where, when one person wins, the others lose; for example, spelling bees or races against other students to get the correct answers to a math problem on the blackboard.

In individualistic learning situations, students are independent of one another and are working toward a set criteria where their success depends on their own performance in relation to an established criteria. The success or failure of other students does not affect their score. For example, in spelling, with all students working on their own, any student who correctly spells 90% or more words passes. In a cooperative learning situation, interaction is characterized by positive goal interdependence with individual accountability.

Positive goal interdependence requires acceptance by a group that they "sink or swim together." A cooperative spelling class is one where students are working together in small groups to help each other learn the words in order to take the spelling test individually on another day. Each student’s score on the test is increased by bonus points if the group is successful (i.e., the group totals meet specified criteria). In a cooperative learning situation, a student needs to be concerned with how he or she spells and how well the other students in his or her group spell. This cooperative umbrella can also be extended over the entire class if bonus points are awarded to each student when the class can spell more words than a reasonable, but demanding, criteria set by the teacher.

There is a difference between simply having students work in a group and structuring groups of students to work cooperatively. A group of students sitting at the same table doing their own work, but free to talk with each other as they work, is not structured to be a cooperative group, as there is no positive interdependence. Perhaps it could be called individualistic learning with talking.

For this to be a cooperative learning situation, there needs to be an accepted common goal on which the group is rewarded for its efforts. If a group of students has been assigned to do a report, but only one student does all the work and the others go along for a free ride, it is not a cooperative group. A cooperative group has a sense of individual accountability that means that all students need to know the material or spell well for the whole group to be successful. Putting students into groups does not necessarily gain a cooperative relationship; it has to be structured and managed by the teacher or professor.

ELEMENTS OF COOPERATIVE LEARNING

It is only under certain conditions that cooperative efforts may be expected to be more productive than competitive and individualistic efforts. Those conditions are:

Clearly perceived positive interdependence
Considerable promotive (face-to-face) interaction
Clearly perceived individual accountability and personal responsibility to achieve the group’s goals
Frequent use of the relevant interpersonal and small-group skills
Frequent and regular group processing of current functioning to improve the group’s future effectiveness

All healthy cooperative relationships have these five basic elements present. This is true of peer tutoring, partner learning, peer mediation, adult work groups, families, and other cooperative relationships. This conceptual "yardstick" should define any cooperative relationship.

Positive Interdependence

The first requirement for an effectively structured cooperative lesson is that students believe that they "sink or swim together." Within cooperative learning situations, students have two responsibilities: 1) learn the assigned material, and 2) ensure that all members of the group learn the assigned material. The technical term for that dual responsibility is positive interdependence. Positive interdependence exists when students perceive that they are linked with group mates in such a way that they cannot succeed unless their group mates do (and vice versa) and/or that they must coordinate their efforts with the efforts of their group mates to complete a task. Positive interdependence promotes a situation in which students: 1) see that their work benefits group mates and their group mates' work benefits them, and 2) work together in small groups to maximize the learning of all members by sharing their resources to provide mutual support and encouragement and to celebrate their joint success. When positive interdependence is clearly understood, it establishes that:

Each group member's efforts are required and indispensable for group success (i.e., there can be no "free-riders").
Each group member has a unique contribution to make to the joint effort because of his or her resources and/or role and task responsibilities.
There are a number of ways of structuring positive interdependence within a learning group.

Positive Goal Interdependence Students perceive that they can achieve their learning goals if’ and only if all the members of their group also attain their goals. The group is united around a common goal -- a concrete reason for being. To ensure that students believe they "sink or swim together" and care about how much each other learns, the teacher has to structure a clear group or mutual goal, such as "learn the assigned material and make sure that all members of the group learn the assigned material." The group goal always has to be a part of the lesson.

Positive Reward -- Celebrate Interdependence Each group member receives the same reward when the group achieves its goals. To supplement goal interdependence, teachers may wish to add joint rewards (e.g., if all members of the group score 90% correct or better on the test, each receives 5 bonus points). Sometimes teachers give students: 1) a group grade for the overall production of their group, 2) an individual grade resulting from tests, and 3) bonus points if all members of the group achieve the criterion on tests. Regular celebrations of group efforts and success enhance the quality of cooperation.

Positive Resource Interdependence Each group member has only a portion of the resources, information, or materials necessary for the task to be completed; the members’ resources have to be combined for the group to achieve its goals. Teachers may wish to highlight the cooperative relationships by giving students limited resources that must be shared (one copy of the problem or task per group) or giving each student part of the required resources that the group must then fit together (the Jigsaw procedure).

Positive Role Interdependence Each member is assigned complementary and interconnected roles that specify responsibilities that the group needs in order to complete the joint task. Teachers create role interdependence among students when they assign them complementary roles such as reader, recorder, checker of understanding, encourager of participation, and elaborator of knowledge. Such roles are vital to high-quality learning. The role of checker, for example, focuses on periodically asking each group mate to explain what is being learned. Rosenshine and Stevens (1986) reviewed a large body of well-controlled research on teaching effectiveness at the pre-collegiate level and found "checking for comprehension" to be one specific teaching behavior that was significantly associated with higher levels of student learning and achievement. Although the teacher cannot continually check the understanding of every student, the teacher can engineer such checking by having students work in cooperative groups and assigning one member the role of checker.

There are other types of positive interdependence. Positive task interdependence exists when a division of labor is created so that the actions of one group member have to be completed if the next member is to complete his or her responsibility. Positive identity interdependence exists when a mutual identity is established through a name or motto. Outside threat interdependence exists when groups are placed in competition with each other. Fantasy interdependence exists when a task is given that requires group members to imagine that they are in a hypothetical situation.

We have conducted a series of studies investigating the nature of positive interdependence and the relative power of the different types of positive interdependence (Hwong, Caswell, Johnson, & Johnson, 1993; Johnson, Johnson, Ortiz, & Starme, 1991; Johnson, Johnson, Stanne, & Garibaldi, 1990; Low, Mesch, Johnson, & Johnson, 1986a, 1986b; Mesch, Johnson, & Johnson, 1988; Mesch, Lew, Johnson, & Johnson, 1986). Our research indicates that positive interdependence provides the context within which promotive interaction takes place. Group membership and interpersonal interaction among students do not produce higher achievement unless positive interdependence is clearly structured. The combination of goal and reward interdependence increases achievement over goal interdependence alone and resource interdependence does not increase achievement unless goal interdependence is present also.

Face-to-Face Promotive Interaction

Positive interdependence results in promotive interaction. Promotive interaction may be defined as individuals encouraging and facilitating each other's efforts to achieve, complete tasks, and produce in order to reach the group's goals. Although positive interdependence in and of itself may have some effect on outcomes, it is the face-to-face promotive interaction among individuals fostered by the positive inter-relationships, and psychological adjustment and social competence.

Promotive interaction is characterized by individuals providing each other with efficient and effective help and assistance; exchanging needed resources, such as information and materials, and processing information more efficiently and effectively; providing each other with feedback in order to improve their subsequent performance; challenging each other's conclusions and reasoning in order to promote higher quality decision making and greater insight into the problems being considered; advocating the exertion of effort to achieve mutual goals; influencing each other’s efforts to achieve the group's goals; acting in trusting and trustworthy ways; being motivated to strive for mutual benefit; and maintaining a moderate level of arousal characterized by low anxiety and stress.

Individual Accountability/Personal Responsibility

Among the early settlers of Massachusetts there was a saying, "If you do not work, you do not eat." Everyone had to do their fair share of the work. The third essential element of cooperative learning is individual accountability, which exists when the performance of individual students is assessed, the results are given back to the individual and the group, and the student is held responsible by group mates for contributing his or her fair share to the group’s success. It is important that the group-knows who needs more assistance, support, and encouragement in completing the assignment. It is also important that group members know they cannot "hitchhike" on the work of others. When it is difficult to identify members' contributions, when members' contributions are redundant, and when members are not responsible for the final group outcome, they may be seeking a free ride (Harkins & Petty, 1982; Ingham, Levinger, Graves, & Peckham, 1974; Kerr & Bruun, 1981; Latane, Williams, & Harkins, 1979; Moede, 1927; Petty, 1-larkins, Williams, & Latane, 1977; Williams, 1981; Williams, Harkins, & Latane, 1981). This is called social loafing.

To ensure that each student is individually accountable to do his or her fair share of the group’s work, teachers need to assess how much effort each member is contributing to the group’s work, provide feedback to groups and individual students, help groups avoid redundant efforts by members, and ensure that every member is responsible for the final outcome. Common ways to structure individual accountability include:

Keeping the size of the group small. The smaller the size of the group, the greater the individual accountability may be.

Giving an individual test to each student.

Randomly examining students orally by calling on one student to present his or her group's work to the teacher (in the presence of the group) or to the entire class.

Observing each group and recording the frequency with which each member-contributes to the group's work.

Assigning one student in each group the role of checker. The checker asks other group members to explain the reasoning and rationale underlying group answers.

Having students teach what they learned to someone else. When all students do this, it is called simultaneous explaining.

There is a pattern to classroom learning. First, students learn knowledge, skills, strategies, or procedures in a cooperative group. Second, students apply the knowledge or perform the skill, strategy, or procedure alone to demonstrate their personal mastery of the material. Students learn it together and then perform it alone.

Interpersonal and Small-Group Skills

I will pay more for the ability to deal with people than any other ability under the sun.

(John D. Rockefeller)

The fourth essential element of cooperative learning is the appropriate use of interpersonal and small-group skills. In order to coordinate efforts to achieve mutual goals, students must: 1) get to know and trust each other, 2) communicate accurately and unambiguously, 3) accept and support each other, and 4) resolve conflict constructively (Johnson, 1990, 1991; Johnson & F. Johnson, 1991). Placing socially unskilled students in a group and telling them to cooperate does not guarantee that they have the ability to do so effectively. We are not born instinctively knowing how to interact effectively with others. Interpersonal and small-group skills do not magically appear when they are needed. Students must be taught the social skills required for high quality collaboration and be motivated to use them if cooperative groups are to be productive. The whole field of group dynamics is based on the premise that social skills are the key to group productivity (Johnson & F. Johnson, 1991).

The more socially skillful students are and the more attention teachers pay-to teaching and rewarding the use of social skills, the higher the achievement that can be expected within cooperative learning groups. In their studies on the long-term implementation of cooperative learning, Lew and Mesch (Lew et al., 1986a, 1986b; Mesch et al., 1988; Mesch et al., 1986) investigated the impact of a reward contingency for using social skills as well as positive interdependence and a contingency for academic achievement on performance within cooperative learning groups. In the cooperative skills conditions, students were trained weekly in four social skills and each member of a cooperative group was given two bonus points toward the quiz grade if all group members were observed by the teacher to demonstrate three out of four cooperative skills. The results indicated that the combination of positive interdependence, an academic contingency for high performance by all group members, and a social skills contingency promoted the highest achievement.

Group Processing

Take care of each other. Share your energies with the group. No one must feel alone, cut off, for that is when you do not make it.

(Willi Unsoeld, Renowned Mountain Climber)

The fifth essential component of cooperative learning is group processing. Effective group work is influenced by whether or not groups reflect on (i.e., process) how well they are functioning. A process is an identifiable sequence of events taking place over time, and process goals refer to the sequence of events instrumental in achieving outcome goals (Johnson & F. Johnson, 1991). Group processing may be defined as reflecting on a group session to: 1) describe what member actions were helpful and unhelpful, and 2) make decisions about what actions to continue or change. The purpose of group processing is to clarify and improve the effectiveness of the members in contributing to the collaborative efforts to achieve the group’s goals.

While the teacher systematically observes the cooperative learning groups, he or she attains a "window" into what students do and do not understand as they explain to each other how to complete the assignment. Listening in on the students' explanations provides valuable information about bow well the students understand the instructions, the major concepts and strategies being learned, and the basic elements of cooperative learning.

There are two levels of processing -- small group and whole class. In order to ensure that small-group processing takes place, teachers allocate some time at the end of each class session for each cooperative group to process how effectively members worked together. Groups need to describe what member actions were helpful and not helpful in completing the group's work and make decisions about what behaviors to continue or change. Such processing: 1) enables learning groups to focus on maintaining good working relationships among members, 2) facilitates the learning of cooperative skills, 3) ensures that members receive feedback on their participation, 4) ensures that students think on the metacognitive as well as the cognitive level, and 5) provides the means to celebrate the success of the group and reinforce the positive behaviors of group members. Some of the keys to successful small-group processing are allowing sufficient time for it to take place, providing a structure for processing (e.g., "List three things your group is doing well today and one thing you could improve."), emphasizing positive feedback, making the processing specific rather than general, maintaining student involvement in processing, reminding students to use their cooperative skills while they process, and communicating clear expectations as to the purpose of processing.

In addition to small-group processing, the teacher should periodically engage in whole-class processing. When cooperative learning groups are used, the teacher observes the groups, analyzes the problems they have working together, and gives feedback to each group on how well they are working together. The teacher systematically moves from group to group and observes them at work. A formal observation sheet may be used to gather specific data on each group. At the end of the class period the teacher can then conduct a whole-class processing session by sharing with the class the results of his or her observations. If each group has a peer observer, the results of their observations may be added together to get overall class data.

An important aspect of both small-group and whole-class processing is group and class celebrations. It is feeling successful, appreciated, and respected that builds commitment to learning, enthusiasm about working in cooperative groups, and a sense of self-efficacy in terms of subject-matter mastery and working cooperatively with classmates.

RESEARCH RATIONALE

Working together to get the job done can have profound effects on students and staff members. A great son & It. Johnson, 1974, 1978, 1983, 1989a; Johnson, Johnson, & Maruyama, 1983; Johnson, Maruyama, Johnson, Nelson, & Skon, 1981; Pepitone, 1980; Sharan, 1980; Slavin, 1983). These research studies began in the late 1890s when Triplett (1898) in the United States and Mayer (1903) in Germany conducted a series on the factors associated with competitive performance. The amount of research that has been conducted since then is staggering. During the past 90 years, more than 600 studies have been conducted by a wide variety of researchers in different decades with different age subjects, in different subject areas, and in different environments. We know far more about the efficacy of cooperative learning than we know about lecturing, age grouping, beginning reading instruction at age 6, departmentalization, or almost any other facet of education.

Building on the theorizing of Kurt Lewin (1935) and Morton Deutsch (1949), the premise may be made that the type of interdependence structured among students determines how they interact with each other, which in turn largely determines instructional outcomes. The quality of peer relationships, furthermore, has widespread and powerful impact on individuals' cognitive and social development.

Cooperative Efforts and Achievement/Productivity

The highest and best form of efficiency is the spontaneous cooperation of a free people.

(Woodrow Wilson)

How successful competitive, individualistic, and cooperative efforts are in promoting productivity and achievement is the first question pragmatists ask about social interdependence. More than 875 studies have been conducted during the past 90 years to give an answer (Johnson & R. Johnson, 1989a). When all of the studies were included in the analysis, the average cooperator performed at about two thirds a standard deviation above average student learning within a competitive (effect size = 0.66) or individualistic situation (effect size 0.63). When only the high-quality studies were included in the analysis, the effect sizes are 0.86 and 0.59 respectively. Cooperative learning, furthermore, resulted in more higher level reasoning, more frequent generation of new ideas and solutions (i.e., process gain), and greater transfer of what is learned within one situation to another (i.e., group-to-individual transfer) than did competitive or individualistic learning.

The fad that working together to achieve a common goal produces higher achievement and greater productivity than does working alone is so well confirmed by so much research that it stands as one of the strongest principles of social and organizational psychology. Cooperative learning is indicated whenever learning goals are highly important, mastery and retention are important, a task is complex or conceptual, problem solving is desired, divergent thinking or creativity is desired, quality of performance is expected, and higher-level reasoning strategies and critical thinking are needed.

Participants in the research have varied widely as to economic class, age, sex, and cultural background. A variety of tasks and measures of the dependent variables have been studied. Studies have been conducted by many different researchers with markedly different orientations working in different environments and in different decades. This means that the overall body of research on social interdependence has considerable generalizability, as shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Social interdependence: Weighted findings (note: ^an = number of studies in sample)
	Mean	Standard deviation	n^a
Achievement
Cooperative vs. competitive	0.66	0.94	128
Cooperative vs. individualistic	0.63	0.81	182
Competitive vs. individualistic	0.30	0.76	39
Interpersonal attraction
Cooperative vs. competitive	0.65	0.47	88
Cooperative vs. individualistic	0.62	0.59	59
Competitive vs. individualistic	0.08	0.70	15
Social support
Cooperative vs. competitive	0.59	0.39	75
Cooperative vs. individualistic	0.71	0.45	70
Competitive vs. individualistic	-0.12	0.37	18
Self-esteem
Cooperative vs. competitive	0.60	0.57	55
Cooperative vs. individualistic	0.44	0.40	37
Competitive vs. individualistic	-0.19	0.40	18

Interpersonal Relationships and Acceptance of Differences

One of the most important and long-standing goals of American education is to promote constructive relationships and positive attitudes among heterogeneous students. Almost every school district has acceptance of differences as one of their stated goals for students. Legislation exists that proclaims it is unlawful to segregate any student for educational purposes unless it is absolutely necessary. Ethnic minorities, students with disabilities, non—English-speaking students, and even females interested in science and math are examples of areas of students who need to be integrated with a wide variety of peers. Acceptance of differences is a central issue for all students.

Cooperative learning experiences, compared with competitive, individualistic, and "traditional" instruction, promote considerably more liking among students (effect sizes = 0.65 and 0.62 respectively) (Johnson & R. Johnson, 1989a; Johnson et al., 1983). This is true regardless of differences in ability level, sex, disability, ethnic membership, social class differences, or task orientation, Students who collaborate on their studies develop considerable commitment and caring for each other no matter what their initial impressions of and attitudes toward each other were when they started. They also like the teacher more and perceive the teacher as being more supportive and accepting academically and personally.

It is when students with disabilities are liked, accepted, and chosen as friends that inclusion becomes a positive influence on the lives of students with and without disabilities. Thus, any definition of inclusion that does not recognize the importance of relationships among students with and without disabilities is incomplete. It is peers without disabilities who provide students with disabilities entry into the typical life experiences of their age groups, such as going to dances, taking buses, going to movies, shopping, knowing what is "cool" and what is not, and dating. Constructive peer relationships are not only an absolute necessity for maximal achievement and healthy social and cognitive development, they may be the primary relationship within which development and socialization take place. Students with disabilities especially need access to peers who are highly motivated and behave appropriately. Placing students with disabilities in the corner of a classroom and providing individualistic learning experiences is not effective inclusion.

Inclusion is not something teachers do for a few students. It is something teachers do for every student in their class. The instructional procedures needed for the constructive inclusion of students with disabilities also benefit the shy student sitting over by the window, the over-aggressive student who seeks acceptance through negative behaviors, the bright but stereotyped student sitting in the front row, and the average student in the center of the classroom who needs very little help and is often neglected. All students need to be accepted and benefit from a classroom where it is acceptable to be different. We have also found in our research that when students without disabilities collaborate with their peers with disabilities on instructional tasks, the result is increased empathy, altruism, and an ability to view situations from a variety of perspectives. Even the most well-adjusted and hard-working students benefit from the instructional techniques associated with inclusion when it is structured effectively.

Accuracy of Perspective Taking

Social perspective taking is the ability to understand how a situation appears to another person and how that person is reacting cognitively and emotionally to the situation. The opposite of perspective taking is egocentrism, the embedded ness in one’s own viewpoint to the extent that one is unaware of other points of view and of the limitations of one's perspectives. Cooperative learning experiences tend to promote greater cognitive and affective perspective taking than do competitive or individualistic learning experiences (Johnson & R. Johnson, 1989a).

Creativity

Cooperative learning promotes creative thinking by increasing the number of ideas, quality of ideas, feelings of stimulation and enjoyment, and originality of expression in creative problem solving (Bahn, 1964; Bolen & ‘Thrrance, 1976; Dunnette, Campbell, & Jaastad, 1963; Ehlk & Johnson, 1977; Peters & ‘Ibrrance, 1972; Thrrance, 1970, 1971, 1973; Triandis, Bass, Ewen, & Mikesell, 1963). It is not surprising that students are "triggered" by the ideas of others and that different perspectives cause group members to consider a larger number of alternatives. The cooperative relationship also provides a context to consider and appreciate other group members’ ideas instead of ignoring (individualistic) or trying to come up with a better one (competition).

Self-Esteem

Te data in Table 1 indicate that cooperation produced higher levels of self-esteem than did competitive and individualistic efforts (effect sizes of 0.58 and 0.44 respectively) with regard to self-esteem. Individuals with low self-esteem tend to (Johnson & R. Johnson, 1989a):

Have low productivity due to setting low goals for themselves, lacking confidence in their ability, and assuming that they will fail no matter how hard they try.

Are critical of others as well as themselves by looking for flaws in others and trying to "tear them down."

Withdraw socially due to feeling awkward, self-conscious, and vulnerable to rejection.

Are conforming, agreeable, highly persuadable, and highly influenced by criticism.

Develop psychological problems such as anxiety, nervousness, insomnia, depression, and psychosomatic symptoms.

Within competitive situations, self-esteem tends to be based on the contingent view of one’s competence that, "If I win, then I have worth as a person, but if I lose, then I have no worth." Winners attribute their success to superior ability and attribute the failure of others to lack of ability, both of which contribute to self-aggrandizement. Losers, who are the vast majority, defensively tend to be self-disparaging, apprehensive about evaluation, and tend to withdraw psychologically and physically. Within individualistic situations, students are isolated from one another, receive little direct comparison with or feedback from peers, and perceive evaluations as inaccurate and unrealistic. A defensive avoidance, evaluation apprehension, and distrust of peers results. Within cooperative situations, individuals tend to interact, promote each other’s success, form multidimensional and realistic impressions of each other’s competencies, and give accurate feedback. Such interaction tends to promote a basic acceptance of oneself as a competent person.

Understanding Interdependence

Cooperative learning simultaneously models interdependence and provides students with the experiences they need to understand the nature of cooperation (Johnson-& Johnson, 1989a). The future of the world depends on the constructive and competent management of world interdependence as well as interdependence in family, work, community, and societal environments. Students who have had 12-20 years of cooperative learning and who have had opportunities to work cooperatively with students who vary in ability, ethnicity, gender, and so forth will be better able to build positively interdependent relationships than will students who have had 12-20 years of competitive and individualistic learning.

Figure 1. Outcomes of cooperation

RELATIONSHIPS AMONG OUTCOMES

There are bi-directional relationships, as shown in Figure 1, among achievement, quality of interpersonal relationships, and psychological health (Johnson & Johnson, 1989b). Each influences the others. Caring and committed friendships come from a sense of mutual accomplishment, mutual pride in joint work, and the bonding that results from joint efforts.

The more students care about each other, the harder they will work to achieve mutual learning goals. Long-term and persistent efforts to achieve do not come from the head; they come from the heart (Johnson & Johnson, 1989b). Individuals seek out opportunities to work with those they care about. As caring increases, so do feelings of personal responsibility to do one's share of the work, a willingness to take on difficult tasks, motivation and persistence in working toward goal achievement, and a willing-ness to endure pain and frustration on behalf of the group. All these contribute to group productivity.

In addition, the joint success experienced in working together to get the job done enhances social competencies, self-esteem, and general psychological health. The more psychologically healthy individuals are, the better able they are to work with others to achieve mutual goals. Joint efforts require coordination, effective communication, leadership, and conflict management. States of depression, anxiety, guilt, shame, and anger decrease the energy available to contribute to a cooperative effort.

Finally, the more positive interpersonal relationships are, the greater the psychological health of the individuals involved- Through the internalization of positive relationships, direct social support, shared intimacy, and expressions of caring, psychological health and the ability to cope with stress are built. Destructive relationships and the absence of caring and committed relationships tend to increase psychological pathology, Moreover, depression, anxiety, guilt, shame, and anger decrease an individual’s ability to build and maintain caring and committed relationships. The more psychologically healthy individuals are, the more they can build and maintain meaningful and caring relationships.

With the amount of research evidence available, it is surprising that classroom practice is so oriented toward individualistic and competitive learning and schools are so dominated by a competitive/individualistic structure. It is time for the discrepancy to be reduced between what research indicates is effective in teaching and what teachers actually do.

BACK TO THE BASICS

Our research and the research of many others dating back to the late 1800s has established that having students work together cooperatively is a powerful way for them to learn and has positive effects on the classroom and school climate This has been verified by teachers in classrooms from preschool through graduate school. However, the importance of emphasizing cooperative learning in classrooms goes beyond just achievement, positive relationships, and psychological health.

The ability of all students to learn to work cooperatively with others is the keystone to building and maintaining stable marriages, families, careers, and friendships. Being able to perform technical skills, such as reading, speaking, listening, writing, computing, and problem solving, are valuable but of little use if the person cannot apply those skills in cooperative interaction with other people in career, family, and community environments. The most logical way to emphasize the use of students' knowledge and skills within a cooperative framework, such as they will meet as members of society, is to spend much of the time learning those skills in cooperative relationships with each other. We need to get back to the basics, reconcile school practices with current research, and encourage that a healthy portion of instruction is cooperative.

* Taken from Roger T. and David W. Johnson

REFERENCES

Bahn, C. (1964). The interaction of creativity and social facilitation in creative problem solving. Doctoral dissertation. Columbia University, Ann Arbor, MI. (University Microfilms No- 65-7499)

Bolen, L., & Torrance, E. (1976, April). An experimental study of the influence of locus of control, dyadic interaction, and sex on creative thinking. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.

Deutach, M. (1949). A theory of cooperation and competition. Human Relations, 2,129-152.

Dunnette, M~, Campbell, J., & Jaastad, K. (1963). The effect of group participation on brainstorming effectiveness of two industrial samples. Journal of Applied Psychology, 47, 30-87.

Falk, ID., & Johnson, D.W. (1977). The effects of perspective-taking and ego-centrism on problem solving in heterogeneous and homogeneous groups. Journal of Social Psychology, 102, 63-72.

Harkins, S., & Petty, H. (1982). The effects of task difficulty and task uniqueness on social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43,1214-1229.

Hwong, N., Caswell, A., Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, H. (1993). Effects of cooperative and individualistic learning on prospective elementary teachers’ music achievement and attitudes. Journal of Social Psychology, 133(1), 58-64.

lngham, A., Levinger, C., Craves, A., & Peckham, V. (1974). The Ringelmann effect: Studies of group size and group performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10, 371- 384.

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. (1991). Joining together: Group theory and group skills (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R. (1974). Instructional goal structure: Cooperative, competitive, or individualistic. Review of Educational Research, 44,213-240.

Johnson, 11W., & Johnson, R. (1978). Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning Journal of Research and Development in Education, 12, 8 -15.

Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, H. (1983). The socialization and achievement crisis: Are cooperative learning experiences the solution In L. Hickman (Ed.), Applied social psychology annual 4 (pp. 119-164). Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

Johnson DXV., & Johnson, R. (1989a). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina, MN: interaction Book Company.

Johnson, DXV., & Johnson, H. (1989b). Leading the cooperative school. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.

Johnson, D.W., & Johnson H. (1991). Learning together and alone: Cooperation, competition, and individualization (3rd ed.). Engkwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Johnson, D.W., Johnson, H., & Maruyama, ( (1983). Interdependence and interpersonal attraction among heterogeneous and homogeneous individuals: A theoretical formulation and a meta-analysis of the research. Review of Educational Research, 53, 5-54.

Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R., Ortiz, A., & Stanne, M. (1991). Impact of positive goal and resource interdependence on achievement, interaction, and attitudes. Journal of General Psychology, 118(4), 341-347.

Johnson, UW., Johnson, H., Stanne, M,, & Garibaldi, A. (1990). Impact of group processing on achievement in cooperative groups. Journal of Social Psychology, 130, 507-516.

Johnson, D.W., Maruyama, C., Johnson, R., Nelson, D., & Skon, L. (1981). Effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures on achievement: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 89, 47-62.

Kerr, N., & Bruon, 5. (1931). Ringelmann revisited: Alternative explanations for the social loafing effect. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7, 224-281.

Latane, B,, Williams, K., & 1-larkins, S. (1979). Many hands make light work: The causes and consequences of social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 822-882.

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

Lewin, K. (1935). A dynamic theory of personality. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Mayer, A. (1908). Uber einzel und gesamtleistung des schul kindes. [About individual and overall achievement of school children]. Arc/tic for die Gesamte Psychologie, 1, 276-418

Mesch, U., Johnson, D,W., & Johnson, R. (1988). Impact of positive interdependence and academic group contingencies on achievement. Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 845-852.

Meach, U., Lew, M., Johnson, 11W., & Johnson H. (1986). Isolated teenagers, cooperative learning and the training of social skills. Journal of Psychology, 120, 328-334.

Moede, W. (1927). Die richtlinien der leistungs psychologie (Guidelines for the psychology of performance]. lad ustrielle Psychotechnik, 4, 198-207.

Montagu, A. (1965). The human revolution. New York: World Pub Co.

Pepitone, E. (1980). Children in cooperation and competition. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Peters, H., & Thrrance, E. (1972). Dyadic interaction of preschool children and performance on a construction task. Psychological Reports, 30,747-750.

Petty, H., Harkins, S., Williams, K., & Latane, B. (1977). The effects of group size on cognitive effort and evaluation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 3, 575-578.

Rosenshine, B., & Stevens, B. (1986). Teaching functions. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.) (pp. 376-391). New York: Macmillan.

Sharan, S. (1980). Cooperative learning in teams: Recent methods and effects on achievement, attitudes, and ethnic relations. Review of Educational Research, 50, 241-272.

Slavin, R. (1988). Cooperative learning. New York: Longraan.

Thrrance, E. (1970). Influence of dyadic interaction on creative functioning. Psychological Reports,26, 891-394.

Torrance, E. (1971). Stimulation, enjoyment and originality in dyadic creativity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 62, 45-48.

‘Ibrrance, E. (1978, February). Dyadic interaction in creative thinking and problem solving. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association annual meeting, New Orleans.

Triandis, H., Bass, A., Ewen, H., & Mikesell, E. (1963). ‘Teaching creativity as a function of the creativity of the members. Journal of Applied Psychology, 47, 104-110.

Triplett, N. (1898). The dynamogenic factors in peacemaking and competition. American Journal of Psychology, 9, 507-533.

Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Williams, K. (1981). The effects of group cohesiveness on social loafing. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Detroit.

Williams, K., Harkins, S., & Latane, B. (1981). Identifiability as a deterrent to social loafing:

Two cheering experiments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 303-311.

Cooperative Learning and Inclusion

Mara Sapon-Shevin, Barbara J. Ayres, and Janet Duncan

As schools move closer to the goal of providing education for all children within inclusive classrooms and schools, increasing amounts of attention and energy are being devoted to developing pedagogical approaches that are appropriate in heterogeneous classrooms. It has become clear that physical inclusion of students with disabilities in the classroom is not sufficient to ensure they will develop meaningful relationships with others. Teachers must structure the educational and social environment so that students develop the skills and attitudes required to interact across perceived differences and disabilities. Teachers who are working in inclusive classrooms are eager to develop modes of instruction that do not isolate and stigmatize learners with different needs: "Everyone write your book reports, and Michael, come over here and draw a picture" is an approach that not only separates children unnecessarily, but also denies all children the opportunity to learn and interact with others in ways that will enhance their academic and social growth. The realization that complete individualization is not a practical or even desirable solution to meeting the diverse needs of children within a single classroom has led many inclusion advocates to promote cooperative learning as the pedagogy of choice.

One of the principles of cooperative learning is the principle of heterogeneous grouping. Cooperative learning advocates support the idea that diversity is something to be worked with, not negotiated around, and that the richness of the educational experience is improved for all students when they are active participants in a mutually supportive environment.

Cooperative learning has been used extensively within "regular education" classrooms and "special education" classrooms, but because "inclusive classrooms" are a relatively recent phenomenon, there has not been extensive documentation of the use of cooperative learning strategies within classrooms that serve a range of students within the same environment. Many of those who teach about and promote cooperative learning are also products of and still work within an educational system that segregates and tracks students by ability and prepares teachers for this dual system; therefore, they may still identify themselves as "regular education teachers" or "special education teachers."

Putting the principles of cooperative learning together with the principles of inclusion involves extending the concept of heterogeneous grouping beyond more common notions of children who read at different levels or are at different math skill levels to thinking about and planning for students whose disabilities are more extensive (Sapon-Shevin, 1990, 1991). This chapter addresses the principles of planning for, implementing, and evaluating cooperative learning within inclusive classrooms that serve all students within a common framework. Sharing students' labels does little to help us plan for them educationally; educational programming is maximized by looking at students' abilities and gifts and by describing their educational needs in descriptive rather than evaluative ways. However, because many children are currently labeled (e.g., "severely handicapped," "cognitively delayed," "physically handicapped") and we do believe that children with labels should be and can be included in cooperative learning activities, we identify children’s specific educational and physical limitations and needs so that it is clear to the reader that we are, in fact, talking about all children.

This chapter begins with the presentation of three beliefs about cooperative learning. We then explore some principles of cooperative learning that must be implemented in order to maximize academic and social goals for all students. Finally, we discuss the application of cooperative learning beliefs and principles.

In keeping with the content and philosophy of this book, this chapter was written cooperatively by the three authors, who combined their knowledge and energy to produce something better than any one could have accomplished alone.

A special thank you is extended to the teachers who participated in the summer course in language arts held at Acadia University, Wolfville, Nova Scotia, during July and August 1992.

RELIEFS ABOUT COOPERATIVE LEARNING

In writing this chapter we were guided by three beliefs about the importance of cooperative learning and inclusion: 1) it benefits all students, 2) it is an integral part of current school reform efforts, and 3) it promotes collaboration between educators who have traditionally worked in isolation from others.

Cooperative Learning Is Good for All Students

Cooperative learning makes sense in inclusive classrooms because it builds upon heterogeneity and formalizes and encourages peer support and connection. However, cooperative learning is not of value only to children with disabilities. Cooperative learning is of value for all students including those who have been identified as "at risk," "bilingual," "gifted," and "normal." All students need to learn and work in environments where their individual strengths are recognized and individual needs are addressed. All students need to learn within a supportive community in order to feel safe enough to take risks.

Some educators have challenged the use of cooperative learning in classrooms with students who are identified as "gifted," claiming that gifted students become permanent tutors and are resentful of having to work with students of differing abilities (Matthews, 1992). Such arguments must be examined critically; we must ask ourselves what we want students to learn in school. Beyond academic subjects, don't we want all students to be comfortable with and accepting of individual differences (their own and others) Don't we want all students to have sophisticated social skills that will enable them to work with people they perceive as "different" or even "difficult"? Furthermore, don't we want to model inclusion and community and demonstrate in the microcosm of the classroom what a society in which all people are valued would look like?

One student we know who was initially resistant to group work commented "What I like best about this class is that everyone cooperates and shares" (Ayres, O'Brien, & Rogers, 1992, p. 26). Surely this is an important lesson for all students to learn, not just students with disabilities. Another student said, "Sometimes I can't understand Jingyu -- it's kind of hard to understand him but he can read pretty good. He, urn, like on math problems", people say, "Why don't you help Jingyu?", but sometimes he helps us. He is good at his math" (Ayres & Carnicelli, in preparation). Thoughtfully implemented cooperative learning disrupts typical hierarchies of who is "smart" and who is not, and allows all students to work together, each student experiencing the role of teacher and of learner.

If teachers or students are uncomfortable with cooperative learning, it is often because they have adopted a technique without a firm understanding of the underlying principles and without sufficient support to implement creative, multilevel cooperative learning activities. Teachers must be encouraged to be thoughtful about all aspects of cooperative learning (Sapon-Shevin & Schniedewind, 1989/1990) and to garner enough support for themselves so that they are not isolated and overwhelmed by the truly complex task of meeting the needs of many different children within the same environment.

Cooperative Learning Is Part of Comprehensive School Reform

Teachers are confronted on a regular basis with educational innovations that must be incorporated into their teaching: whole language, critical thinking, authentic assessment, and so forth. Some teachers (and administrators) hope they can ignore these "fads" in education, and, by waiting for them to pass and be replaced by "the next thing," save themselves the time and energy needed to learn about and implement new practices. Yet, not only is cooperative learning supported by a compelling research base, it is also fully compatible with other "best practices" currently being promoted.

Whole language, which involves having students read literature and write stories, has been implemented very successfully in cooperative groups, and many of the practices promoted by whole language experts are inherently cooperative (e.g., editing conferences, book sharing, collaborative writing). One teacher, for example, had

lug each student in the class write an "I like" book; some of the students wrote long narratives—"l like walking in the rain in my new boots"—whereas others cut out pictures of things they liked and pasted them in the book. Every child was able to complete a book, engaging in the literacy activity. Every child was able to partner with another and share his or her book by "reading" it to an attentive listener. In contrast to grouping children into homogeneous reading groups by skill, this activity was structured in heterogeneous cooperative groups so that all children could succeed at their own level.

Important skills such as critical thinking, creative problem solving, and the synthesis of knowledge can easily be accomplished through cooperative group activities in inclusive classrooms. In addition, authentic assessment (anecdotal reporting, portfolio assessment, and observational recording) is fully compatible with cooperative learning and inclusion.

Teachers need not envision cooperative learning as "one more thing" they need to do, but rather as an organizing value and principle for all the instruction in their classroom. Building a cooperative, inclusive classroom community can be the framework within which other teaching strategies and practices are woven.

Cooperative Learning Means Teachers Cooperating

In order for cooperative learning to be successful in inclusive classrooms; teachers who have traditionally worked in isolation will need to find new ways of collaborating and sharing their expertise. This kind of collaboration can be challenging because it involves sharing responsibilities and communicating with others, but it can also be exciting and rewarding. One teacher commented that planning cooperative learning lessons was stimulating: "For us, it really gets the creative juices flowing." Another teacher said, "It's fun, there are no two ways about it, it's fun. How can it not be fun? Plus [the students] get to know each other’s abilities and they can get excited about each other's growth, even though it’s not the same as theirs" (Ares et al., 1992, pp. 25, 26).

Not only can students get to know each other's abilities within a cooperative process, but teachers can as well. A general education teacher and a special education teacher planning together often find that they have unique skills and ideas to contribute to the process. The general education teacher may have a broader perspective on the curriculum and on curriculum integration, whereas the special education teacher may have special skills in modifying instruction and developing adaptations that benefit many children. General education teachers who are used to working with larger groups of children often can contribute important classroom management and organizational strategies to balance some of the individualized approaches proposed by the special education teacher.

It is often acknowledged that when students are learning to work in groups they need support and encouragement to get them over the rough spots. "I don't want to work with Pam," or "Danny's taking over the whole project" are indications that time and attention must be devoted to developing appropriate social skills for negotiating conflict and moving toward consensus. Similarly, teachers learning to work together may encounter struggles over turf, expertise, ownership, and responsibility—these also need to be negotiated. Teachers must find ways to support one another as they learn to be cooperative, inclusive educators at the same time they support their students in this goal. Learning how to use the expertise of the speech therapist or physical therapist, for example, or how to balance a child's individualized education program (IEP) objectives with broader classroom objectives requires time for teachers to meet, talk, listen, plan, and develop a trusting working relationship. Implementing cooperative learning in inclusive classrooms can benefit not only the students, but also provide an important opportunity for educators to develop their own teaching skills. Supportive administrators have found creative ways of providing teachers with adequate planning and preparation time so that inclusion becomes an opportunity for better teaching rather than an imposed burden.

PRINCIPLES OF INCLUSIVE COOPERATIVE LEARNING

Once teachers have decided that they will begin to implement formal cooperative group lessons in their classrooms, there are many decisions that must be made. Teachers must decide how they will incorporate cooperative learning lessons within their classroom structure, how they will decide the content to be taught using cooperative learning, how they will form groups, how they will ensure active participation for all students, and how they will evaluate students' learning. On the following pages we explore some principles of inclusive cooperative learning that must be taken into consideration for successful implementation.

Cooperative Learning Means

Establishing a Cooperative Classroom Ethic

For cooperative learning to be maximally effective, it must take place within an overall context of cooperation and peer support. Attempts to implement cooperative learning activities when the classroom norms are those of isolation, competition, or interpersonal indifference are apt to result in contradictory messages to students and have limited positive impact on the goal of creating a safe, inclusive community.

Creating a safe, caring community for all students within which cooperative learning is simply the formalized expression of classroom values and orientations involves attention to overall community and connections, open communication about differences and classroom practices, and helping.

Overall Community and Connections Cooperative learning should not be something that is done on Tuesdays and Thursdays from 9 to 10, nor should it be something we do only when we have children with disabilities included. For example, in one school, a sign on a wall announced "Cooperative Learning, May 14th." When a visitor inquired about the sign, she was told, "That's the day the trainable mentally retarded students go into the third grade classroom to work."

A feeling of cooperation, community, and connection should be part of everything that happens in the classroom. For example, hanging up for display only those papers graded with "A"s communicates to students that not everyone’s work is valued. Teachers might instead want to hang up a "proud paper" from every student or let students decide what they would like to display. Having students line up for music and gym in a girls’ line and a boys' line communicates that gender divisions are important ones (and pity the boy who accidentally gets in the girls' line). There are an infinite number of other ways to line students up that encourage them to interact with a variety of their classmates across boundaries of race, gender, and ability. Behavior management strategies that single students out for praise or punishment (names on the board, statements such as "I like the way Nicole is sitting") must be challenged with reference to how such practices affect the way students look at one another and their differences. Classroom holiday celebrations, posters on the wall, and the racial and ethnic representation of the books in the classroom library all affect the school community and the extent to which students feel that they are (or are not) a valued part of the classroom. Teachers must be encouraged to think about all aspects of their classroom practice in reference to questions such as the following:

Will this practice contribute to or detract from a sense of classroom community? Will what I say or do in this situation encourage students to see each other positively or negatively?

Open Communication About Differences and Classroom Practices Ct-eating a classroom community in which all students feel comfortable and supported in their learning requires that teachers deal directly with issues that affect the classroom. When a child in the classroom is displaying some challenging behavior, for example, other students are generally aware of this. Not talking about the situation and exploring various solutions with students may leave them frightened or disenfranchised, wondering why something so obvious is not being discussed and what their role in the classroom should be. Teachers certainly need to be thoughtful about how and when they talk to students about Mark's biting or the fact that LeAnn is being teased on the playground because she smells. However, ignoring such issues in the hope that they will "work themselves out" often results not only in escalation of the problem but a classroom atmosphere in which students do not feel empowered to talk about what is happening or to explore their role in generating and implementing solutions.

In Johnson City, New York (Salisbury, Palombaro, & Hollowood, 1993), students and teachers employ a collaborative problem-solving process in which they identify issues, generate possible solutions, screen solutions for feasibility, choose a solution to implement, and then evaluate it. Teachers have used this system to address barriers to inclusion at multiple levels: physical (How can Marie be involved in the puppet show her group has written when she cannot stand up and hold her puppet at the same time?), social (What might Taylor be trying to communicate when he pulls hair?), and instructional (What are some ways we can help Luis, who has a hearing impairment, learn to count?). Including children in identifying problems and generating and implementing solutions sends the clear message that we can talk about what is happening in our classroom, and, as a group, we can figure out ways to do things so that everyone is included.

Similarly, teachers who implement more formal cooperative learning strategies should also talk to students about why they are doing so, what they hope to accomplish, and what some of the barriers might be. Students who are involved in the process of cooperative learning, as opposed to those who are simply doing what the teacher told them to, are far more likely to take ownership of cooperative activities and generalize them to other areas of classroom and home life.

Helping Establishing norms about when, how, and why we help others is critical to the full implementation of cooperative learning. Because many teachers and students have received cultural messages that say that "needing help is bad or shameful" and "offering help to others will embarrass them," it is important to establish new classroom norms. Two of the most critical values are: 1) Everyone is good at something and can help others, and 2) Everyone is entitled to and can benefit from help and support from others. Teachers may want to help students structure a "Classroom Classifieds" in which students identify their own strengths and skills and name these as "Help Offered" (can help with multiplication, good at jumping rope, can teach sign language, know a lot about frogs). Concurrently, they can identify their needs and learning goals and identify these as "Help Wanted" (want to learn to make friendship bracelets, need help with spelling, want to learn how to play ball games at recess). It is important that such activities be structured so that every child is both a teacher and a learner, as a way of challenging rigid notions that there are some people who give help and some people who need help. It is important to create a classroom space for people to proudly claim what they are good at and safely ask for the help and support they need without fear or embarrassment, humiliation, or isolation. When fourth grade teacher Cathleen Corrigan implemented this activity in her inclusive fourth grade class, she found that many of the students had difficulty identifying something they were good at. She observed that when students announced that "they weren’t good at anything," other students jumped in to remind them about their strengths ("You're really good at the computer," "You're a good artist.").

Cooperative Learning Facilitates Teaching Meaningful Content

Unfortunately, neither deciding to have an inclusive classroom nor implementing cooperative learning guarantees that the curriculum will be creative or meaningful. Teachers who feel constrained by or limited to a fixed curriculum or set of materials often try to "bend" the child to fit the curriculum, and we have seen cooperative learning used to encourage children to complete unimaginative worksheets and dittos.

Including a child with a significant disability in an activity and structuring that activity cooperatively gives us an opportunity (and sometimes forces us) to examine the curriculum critically and unleash our creative pedagogical and curricular inventiveness. Not only is memorizing the states and their capitals an inappropriate curriculum objective for Manuel, but neither is it the best way to teach map skills and geography to other students. Combining a commitment to inclusion with an orientation toward cooperative learning can be a catalyst for thinking carefully about the following questions; What is really important for students to learn? How can I make learning meaningful and functional for all students?

One of the often unexpected but welcome benefits of including children with

specific behavioral and educational challenges in the classroom is that teachers are encouraged to rethink previous beliefs and practices related to the curriculum and pedagogy. The teacher who decides to use manipulatives for math (instead of worksheets) because one child quite clearly requires that approach often finds that many other students also benefit from this hands-on, participatory approach. Teachers who move away from text-based question-and-answer approaches to teaching in order to accommodate students who require more active involvement in the curriculum are generally pleased to find that such an orientation is of benefit to all students.

Cooperative learning in inclusive classrooms will be more effective when it is multilevel, multimodal, and integrated across subject areas. Multilevel teaching involves students working on similar objectives or with the same material, but at different levels. All students may be using the telephone book, for example, but some students might be learning to dial 911 in case of an emergency while others learn to compute and compare long distance charges and optimum calling times. Or, all students may be working on map skills, but at different levels. Perhaps Maria is learning about lines of latitude and longitude while Robin is learning the directions "up" and "down," "left" and "right."

Multimodality teaching involves moving away from pencil and paper tasks to other forms of active involvement. Writing and performing a puppet show, for example, might involve writing, reading, building a set, singing, cutting, talking, dancing, and so forth. An activity like a puppet show or a unit on space can also be used to integrate curriculum across subject matter. When one class studied the moon, for example, they incorporated science (facts about the moon and astronomy), creative writing (poems and stories about the moon), social studies (cross-cultural beliefs and traditions around the moon), math (computing distance, density, air pressure), and much more. Broadening the curriculum in these ways provides many opportunities both to include students who work at significantly different levels and to design cooperative learning activities in which students can help and support one another in their learning while still maintaining a common theme and a sense of community.

Cooperative Learning Depends

on Supportive Heterogeneous Groups

In classrooms where teachers are working to communicate norms of cooperation, students can work together in a number of different ways. In many cooperative classrooms, students sit in heterogeneous base groups so that teachers can structure both informal and formal opportunities for cooperation between students throughout the day. For example, students can start their day with an informal group activity at their desk clusters; complete class jobs with a partner from their group; and engage in formal, structured cooperative learning activities with group members. In most classrooms, teachers leave cooperative learning groups together for 1 month or 6 weeks so that students have an opportunity to get to know and work together with group members, but then also have an opportunity to learn to work with other classmates throughout the year. The goal is for students to have worked in cooperative groups with all their classmates by the end of the year.

One important aspect of creating cooperative learning groups is maximizing the heterogeneity of the students within the small groups. Students should be placed in groups that are mixed by academic skills, social skills, personality, race, and sex. It is often helpful for teachers to work with others who are familiar with their students when groups are being formed. With all of the different aspects of student diversity that need to be taken into consideration, forming groups can seem like an onerous task that will be too difficult for any one person.

Many teachers structure cooperative groups very deliberately. In classrooms where students are functioning at different levels in regard to academic and social abilities, it is important that the teacher structures the groups to ensure heterogeneity, particularly in the beginning of the year or when new students enter.

Two first grade teachers who team teach in a classroom that includes the full range of learners work together to plan cooperative learning groups. They begin the process by identifying one aspect of student diversity and placing one student with this quality in each group. For example, they start with academic diversity and place one student in each group who is able to read. Next they look at the students who are nonreaders and place them into groups. As they place this second student they always consider how this student and the first student match up in regard to supporting one another socially. For the third student in each group they also consider social aspects—they look for a student who can complement the other two students and help pull the group together. One day their discussion when forming groups went as follows:

This is a nice combination but Katie and Andrew are both quiet. I was thinking about

Rachel and Katie because of Rachel's style--she may be more assertive with Katie to

help stimulate her involvement. (Ayres et al., 1992, p. 6)

What about Doug and Brent? I'm thinking of this because of Doug’s abilities. In many ways Brent is similar but it may build some self-esteem for Brent in that setting. He can really do things but he doesn’t think he can do as much as he can. (p. 6)

Maybe Madeline should be with Brad because she is so strong in everything—and in that group it is going to take a little more work from two people instead of three Plus, she is comfortable with Brad and I think she will come up with strategies to involve him -- she is real bright and she is good at modifying things. This group is going to have to be able to change and not have to be doing exactly what every other group is doing, and not get upset about it. (p. 6)

The comments made by these teachers illustrate the level of complexity of thought that goes into structuring supportive heterogeneous groups. Through careful planning, students have a greater opportunity to receive the social support that is important for establishing a sense of belonging and group membership in the classroom.

In forming groups, some teachers focus on student choice, asking students who they would like to work with. Although it makes sense for teachers to provide students with multiple opportunities to choose within the school day, student choice may not be the best way to form groups. When students choose their own groups and work only with others they already know, the groups often tend to be same gender, race, and ability. These more homogeneous groups work against the broader goals of cooperative learning in which teachers are striving to help the students learn to value the diversity that exists in the classroom and in society.

There are ways, however, that teachers can incorporate some aspects of student choice into group formation. For example, Deborah Quick, a fourth grade teacher, forms new groups periodically throughout the year and asks each student to respond (privately) to a number of questions including: "Who are two people you think you could work well with?", "Who are two people you don't know well and would like to know?" By asking students these questions, she is allowing them to participate in group formation, but also emphasizing that although it is important to work with students they already know, it is also important to learn to accept, value, and work with others they do not know well yet. Once students have learned to work with many others, allowing more choice in group formation may ho appropriate.

Cooperative Learning Requires Structures

that Ensure the Active Participation of All Students

Equally important to establishing supportive heterogeneous groups is ensuring the active participation of all students within inclusive cooperative learning lessons. All too often students are placed into groups and given a task to complete without the provision of structures that will promote the active, equitable participation of all members. Key components of participation include the division of labor and materials, flexible interpretation of roles, and individualized student responsibilities.

Division of Labor and Materials The participation of all group members is more likely when teachers carefully structure the cooperative group task. Through the division of labor and materials, the students are given a clear message that each student has an important contribution to make toward the completion of the group’s task. In the beginning, or when new groups have formed, it is important that teachers structure this interdependence among the group members. Planning for equitable participation becomes especially important in inclusive classrooms where the participation of some students may be dependent on the structure that is provided. For example, with a student who is reserved and responds more slowly than her classmates due to a physical disability, if labor and materials are not divided it is possible that group members will do the task for her. As was mentioned previously in this chapter, it is also important for teachers to talk with students about the goals of working together and the importance of everyone contributing In one classroom, the teacher talked to individual groups and asked the students how they were going to make sure that all group members were given a turn.

Flexible Interpretation of Roles lb promote active, equitable participation within groups, roles must be interpreted flexibly. Instead of creating static roles for students, flexible roles allow for the individualization that will ensure that all group members are able to assume each role at some point in time. For example, in one classroom, the roles remained the same across time (e.g., writer, reader/questioner, checker), but the responsibilities of the roles changed depending on the task and the students who would be given the role on that particular day (Ayres et al., 1992). Through these flexible roles, a student who is unable to write the letters of the alphabet could be the writer when the task is designed so that the writers are gluing something instead of writing words. Another aspect of individualizing roles occurs when teachers think of creative ways for students to fulfill the role responsibilities. Teachers might ask themselves, "What are the different ways that students could encourage group members for this lesson?" or "flow could Rachel, who doesn’t speak, encourage others?" When teachers work to broaden their thinking about the equitable participation of students, they can come up with many different ways for students to be active contributors (e.g., encourage others by giving a "high five," passing a card with a positive statement or a smiley face written on it to a group member).

Individualized Student Responsibilities Adaptations can be made within groups to promote the active, equitable participation of all members. Sometimes adaptations are necessary to promote the participation of an individual student. For example, in Mary Rita Carnicelli's classroom, heterogeneous cooperative learning groups worked together on math story problems. One student, Kris, whose goals for math included writing numbers from 1 to 50 and using a calculator to compute problems, was given the role of writer/checker within her group. The other students in the group determined what mathematical function to use for the problem, helped Kris write down the problem on the worksheet by dictating the numbers, solved the problem, and dictated to Kris the numbers to write down for the answer. Kris was then responsible for checking the group's response on her calculator. In another classroom, Brad was a first grade student whose educational objectives include grasping and holding objects and indicating his preference by choosing between two objects. During a lesson on community helpers, Brad's group was given the role of a doctor to study so that he would be able to use a play doctor's kit to learn about medic-al instruments. The addition of the hands-on materials provided an opportunity to address his educational objectives of grasping objects and indicating preference (Ayres et a]., 1992).

When students are placed in supportive heterogeneous groups and issues of active, equitable participation are addressed by teachers, all students can benefit from the use of cooperative learning in the classroom. Through these considerations and individualized adaptations, all students are seen as important group members in the eyes of their peers. Although these components initially require more thought and time on the part of teachers, they will reap the rewards as students begin to support and expect the maximum involvement of all group members.

Cooperative Learning Provides Opportunities for Ongoing Evaluation

One important and often complex aspect of instruction with cooperative learning is evaluation. How can educators be certain that students are attaining their educational goals within cooperative groups? How should students be evaluated and how should that evaluation be communicated? How can an evaluation system help modify and refine cooperative learning instructional programs? These questions can guide educators as they work to design appropriate evaluation methods for cooperative learning activities. Effective evaluation of cooperative learning in inclusive classrooms must focus on both the content and the process of the group experience.

The issue of grading in inclusive cooperative classrooms is difficult. Educators who are concerned about the self-esteem of all learners reject the use of practices that promote competition between students. Group grades or group rankings work against encouraging cooperation among students and may make group members less willing to support a classmate with a disability. Evaluation should not be structured so that one student’s difficulty becomes a group's liability or the cause (real or perceived) of group failure. It is imperative to avoid situations in which students can accurately report that "Tyrone brought our grade down." Teachers must be careful that the structure of group evaluation accounts for differing abilities.

In inclusive cooperative classrooms, teacher-made tests of subject matter or standardized tests with norm-referenced criteria may not be sufficient or appropriate for assessing achievement. The students who have IEPs may be working at different levels than their peers, a modification we wish to encourage, rather than discourage, through excessive standardization. Separating students into fixed ability groups that are evaluated through a variety of criterion-referenced tests is not the solution either, particularly as such a process tends to isolate and stigmatize individuals ("You’re only on the red book.").

Teachers must find ways to assess students who are engaging in significantly different activities within a common structure and begin to describe and evaluate what students have learned and how they are working with their peers. Cooperative learning provides an opportunity for students to complete an activity with an emphasis on group dynamics and interpersonal skills as well as the academic goals of the lesson. Cooperative learning also allows for ongoing evaluation on the part of students and teachers, both during and after group activities.

If we intend to evaluate students on their group process and product, it is crucial that cooperative learning lessons are designed to be just that—cooperative. This can be accomplished through the creation of activities that incorporate many of the principles presented in this chapter, including teaching meaningful content, creating supportive heterogeneous groups, and using structures that ensure the active -participation of all students. Many different types of activities are appropriate for the evaluation of students who are working in cooperative groups. Dippong (1992) advocates for evaluation through activities such as group reports, problem solving, seminars and debates, and simulations and role-plays.

In inclusive cooperative classrooms, teachers may want to assess individual as well as group effort and, perhaps, grade students on individual goals and/or on the basis of improvement. Individual goals can be both academically oriented and social skill related. For example, one of Martin's objectives might be to say encouraging things to his classmates during the group lesson; Kara's objectives might relate to her writing skills or organizational leadership.

During cooperative learning activities both teachers and students can assume responsibility for evaluating the skills and contributions of group members. While students are engaging in group activities, educators often collect and share information on how groups are functioning in regard to the academic and social aspects of the lesson. This information is shared with groups both during and after the lesson. Direct observation is a valuable tool for teachers who are concerned about a student's performance in a specific area. For example, do all group members have a chance to talk, including the child who uses an alternative communication device? If not, equitable participation can be addressed with this group at the time they most need the feedback -- when they are working together to complete a task. In addition, as part of cooperative learning lessons, students are often asked to discuss bow they worked together to accomplish the task. This information is shared within small groups and then with the entire class. An important part of cooperative learning includes the instruction of students in how to observe, evaluate, and provide feedback to group members in positive ways. Peer evaluation affords students a chance to appreciate and critique the efforts of their peers with the group project in mind. Self-evaluation can also be a part of cooperative learning activities in which students set their own goals and share them with group members.

There are several strategies that can be used to provide a more comprehensive examination of progress within cooperative learning activities (see CulIen & Pratt, 1992). The following methods are more qualitative in nature and provide rich information about students that could not be ascertained as readily through traditional testing. For example, some teachers use a cumulative record file review system that outlines teachers’ comments in subject areas, patterns of strengths as well as areas that need improvement, and affective observations. This information includes observations of students in cooperative learning groups and comments about their growth in academic and social skills. Other teachers collect both individual and group work in portfolios that can be reviewed by teachers, parents, and students on a periodic basis. The student—teacher interview is another option. Through interviews the teacher can glean much information about students' interests, motivation, knowledge, and perspectives on their contribution to the group. All of these approaches are compatible with cooperative learning and the use of authentic assessment, which is gaining attention as an important approach to determining whether students have acquired skills to select and use important concepts in authentic open-ended situations (Hibbard, 1992).

Cooperative learning activities provide a unique opportunity to evaluate important collaborative outcomes, such as interactive communication, active listening, taking the perspective of others, acceptance and accommodation of individual differences, and the evaluation of a final product developed through group effort.

APPLYING COOPERATIVE LEARNING BELIEFS AND PRINCIPLES

Knowing where to begin the process of developing cooperative learning lessons for heterogenous groups may seem daunting. There is not one "right way" to do it; one simply must jump in—with the help of some colleagues (see Villa & Thousand, chap. 6, this volume, for collaborative learning strategies for designing and implementing cooperative group lessons).

Some teachers begin by designing lessons for their whole class and then later create individualized adaptations for specific students. Others prefer to begin with one student’s interests and needs and then expand the teaching concept for the whole group. Regardless of the process, the goal is to meet learning goals for individual students within a heterogeneous, cooperative learning lesson (Duncan et al, 1991).

Recently, educators attending a university course in language arts curricula development designed several cooperative learning units for their classes so that students with specific disabilities could be equal members of groups and meet their IEP goals. To guide their planning, the teachers reflected on the five elements of cooperative learning by Johnson, Johnson, Holubec, and Roy (1984): 1) face-to-face interactions, 2) positive interdependence, 3) individual accountability, 4) interpersonal and small-group skills, and 5) group processing. These elements formed the cornerstones of the lessons.

The first step teachers took was to select a grade level and a topic of interest. Working in small groups of three and four, the teachers generated ideas for the topic that could be developed into a unit of study. The five most frequently named concepts were chosen as the focal point for the unit. Once the basic lessons were sketched out, attention was turned to making adaptations for students with disabilities. Each student was described in terms of his or her learning style, interests, talents, and areas in need of support. Teaching strategies for the student were written in terms that teachers found useful; JEP goals were articulated in familiar, everyday phrases. The teachers then answered the following questions: What would be the best student composition of the groups? How would the student be best supported in a group? How would the student offer his or her talents to the group? Finally, effective evaluation strategies for the class were determined. (See Udvari-Solner, chap. 5, this volume, for specific strategies for adapting curriculum in the context of cooperative groups to accommodate students with educational and other challenges.)

One lesson developed for second grade students focuses on "dinosaurs." All aspects of the curriculum (i.e., mathematics, reading, science, social studies) are included in the unit. Students brainstorm research questions about different dinosaurs and transfer their information to a poster with illustrations. For a student with difficulty printing and recording information, coloring the illustrations with jumbo crayons is an appropriate adaptation.

Another lesson concerns "aspects of flight and flying things" for fifth grade students. Propulsion is the topic to be explored, with balloons as the primary too] in the experiment. A series of instructions are given and a lab report is the final product. For a student with difficulty reading and staying on task, instructions are provided to his or her group in a pictorial format accompanied by words. To record the results of the experiment, the student dictates his or her responses to a partner.

These two examples, as well as those detailed in the Creative Cooperative Group Lesson Plans following Section 1, this volume, illustrate how students with disabilities may be meaningfully and effectively included in cooperative learning lessons. Through the consideration of the beliefs and principles articulated in this chapter, teachers can structure cooperative learning lessons that ensure active participation in learning for all students.

CONCLUSION

In this chapter, we suggest that cooperative learning is good for all students and that it is part of comprehensive school reform efforts. To achieve this reform, teachers must work together to build networks within their school community. Teachers must also establish a cooperative classroom ethic that emphasizes overall community building, open communication about differences and classroom practices, and reciprocal helping relationships. Meaningful content in cooperative lessons is critical for the success of all students. For students to succeed within their groups, careful consideration regarding group heterogeneity must be given in conjunction with roles that ensure active, equal participation by all students. Creative assessment practices must be developed to document achievement of meaningful outcomes for students. All of these considerations require planning and structure in order for the teaching to be successful.

Some of the early literature on mainstreaming assumed that children with special education needs could be considered eligible for participation in the general education classroom when they were able to compete successfully with other children. This orientation implies that the burden of change is on the child and that the general education classroom is a fixed, immutable environment in which some practices, such as competition, are unamenable to change or modification. A more exciting and far-reaching way of thinking about inclusion and cooperation is based on the belief that all children belong in the general education classroom. By creating a community that is cooperative and inclusive, children's acceptance and success in the general education environment will be greatly enhanced. All students and all teachers have much to gain by structuring the classroom and school environment so that it provides generous support for learning, connecting, and caring.

REFERENCES

Ares, B., & Carnicelli, MR. (in preparation). Third grade students' perspecttves on cooperative learning.

Ares, B., O'Brien, L., & Rogers. T. (1992). Working together, sharing, and helping each other: Cooperative learning inc first grade classroom that in-chides students with disabilities. Syracuse, NY: Inclusive Education Project, Syracuse University.

Cullen, B., & Pratt, T. (1992). Measuring and reporting student progress. In S. Stainback & W. Stainback (Eds.), Curriculum considerations In inclusive classrooms: Facilitating learning for all students (pp. 175—196). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

Dippong, J. (1992). Two large questions in assessing and evaluating CL: Thacher challenges and appropriate student tasks. Cooperative Learn-trig, 13(1), 6-8.

Duncan, J., Hedeen, D., Henneberry, MB., Kraus, J., Weber, C., Jackson, L., Trubisky, M., & Seymour, A. (1991). Cooperative learning lessons which promote full inclusion of students with disabilities. Syracuse, NY: Teacher Leadership In-service Project, Syracuse University.

Hibbard, KM. (1992). Bringing authentic performance assessment to life with cooperative learning. Cooperative Learning, 13(1), 30-32.

Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., Holubec, Ed., & Roy, P. (1984). Circles of learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Matthews, M. (1992). Gifted students talk about cooperative learning. Educational Leadership,50(2), 48-50.

Salisbury, C., Palombaro, MM., & Hollowood, TM. (1993). On the nature and change of an inclusive elementary school. Journal of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 18(2), 75-84.

Sapon-Shevin, M. (1990). Student support through cooperative learning. In W. Stainback & S. Stain-back (Eds.), Support networks for inclusive schooling: Interdependent integrated education (pp. 65-79). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

Sapon-Shevin, M. (1991). Cooperative learning in inclusive classrooms: Learning to become a community. Cooperative Learning, 12(1), 8-11.

Sapon-Shevin, M., & Schniedewind, N. (198911990). Selling cooperative learning without selling it short. Educational Leadership, 47(4), 63-65.

2008-10-26T11:25:00.000+07:00

KETIKA KEPRIBADIAN GURU TERBELAH
oleh Yuyun Zunairoh
Dosen STAIN Kediri
e-mail: nawa_najih@yahoo.com

Citra guru belakangan kian terpuruk। Mengapa? Karena guru tidak dapat menjadi teladan yang baik bagi siswanya. Contohnya, seorang guru melakukan adegan mesum, sehingga dinonaktifkan. Aspek keteladanan dewasa ini menjadi penting, tidak hanya guru, tapi juga para pemimpin kita. Jika guru tidak dapat menjadi teladan, maka guru tidak lagi dianggap sebagai panutan.
Berbeda dengan zaman dahulu, guru sekarang hanya mengajar dan bukan mendidik. Dulu, mereka lebih menekankan aspek mendidik daripada mengajar. Bagi mereka mendidik lebih sulit daripada mengajar, karena mendidik membutuhkan keteladanan dari guru, sehingga keluarlah sebutan guru patut digugu dan ditiru.
Ketika aspek pengajaran mendominasi, jangan salahkan siswanya. Mengapa siswa sekarang nilai akademisnya banyak yang menurun, sedangkan nakalnya bertambah? Pertanyaan ini sering mengemuka ketika akan menaikkan siswa dalam setiap tahunnya. Juga, banyak orang tua mengeluh melihat anak-anak mereka kurang santun dalam bersikap terhadap orang lain, terutama terhadap orang tua. Oleh karena itu, sudah seharusnya, pertanyaan tersebut dijawab dengan pertanyaan pula. Bagaimana guru mendidik mereka?
Dalam banyak hal, pendidikan kita masih menekankan aspek pengetahuan (kognitif). Ketika memberi kata pengantar pada buku Menebus Pendidikan yangTergadai, (2002), karya St Kartono, Dr Paul Suparno dari Universitas Sanata Dharma, mengatakan bahwa sudah seharusnya pendidikan generasi muda sekarang menyangkut seluruh aspek kemanusiaan, seperti aspek pengetahuan, sosial, moral, religius, emosi, dan juga hati.
Ketika aspek kognitif menjadi dominan, bahaya akan mengancam. Menurut Romo Paul, cukup banyak orang yang pandai secara kognitif, tetapi karena hati, emosi, dan juga kepribadiannya tidak tertata, menjadi gagal dalam hidup. Cukup banyak orang yang pandai dalam pengetahuan, tetapi hidupnya merusak orang lain bahkan merusak masyarakat dengan tindakannya yang amoral dan tidak adil seperti korupsi, penyalahgunaan kekuasaan.

Makna ”klasik” guru
Dalam kamus Bahasa Indonesia, kata guru mempunyai arti orang yang mengajar. Dalam bahasa Inggris, dijumpai kata teacher yang berarti pengajar. Pengajar di rumah sebagai guru pribadi disebut tutor. Pengajaran dan pembelajaran di rumah ini dalam UU Sisdiknas disebut Home Schooling. Meski istilah ini meluas menjadi sekolah alternatif, sekolah dolan atau sekolah alam.
Dalam bahasa Arab istilah yang mengacu pada pengertian guru lebih banyak lagi. Seperti al-alim (jamaknya ulama) atau al-mu’allim, yang berarti orang yang mengetahui dan banyak digunakan para ulama atau ahli pendidikan untuk menunjuk pada hati guru. Sebagian ulama menggunakan istilah al-mudarris untuk arti orang yang mengajar atau orang yang memberi pelajaran. Terdapat pula istilah al-muaddib yang merujuk kepada guru yang secara khusus mengajar di istana.
Istilah pendidikan berasal dari kata murabbi sebagai akar dari kata tarbiyah. Para ahli menggunakannya sebagai istilah pendidikan. Istilah ini berarti doa seorang anak kepada kedua orang tuanya yang telah mendidiknya di waktu kecil.
Sebutan diatas, membuat tugas guru sangat mulia. Karena tugas pokok seorang guru adalah mendidik dan mengajar. Keduanya harus seiring sejalan, tidak boleh dipisahkan. Mendidik tentunya tidak semudah mengajar. Dalam mendidik, seorang guru tidak hanya menguasai materi yang akan diajarkan, tapi juga harus tahu nilai-nilai apa yang dapat disentuh dari materi yang disampaikannya.
Guru harus tahu sifat kepribadian siswa. Guru harus memberi rangsangan pada pertumbuhan siswa melalui materi pelajaran yang diajarkan. Guru harus mengarahkan dan membimbing siswanya agar meningkat pengetahuannya, semakin mahir ketrampilannya, dan semakin berkembang potensinya.
Sebagian ahli mengatakan bahwa guru yang baik adalah guru yang mampu melaksanankan inspiring teaching, yaitu guru yang melalui kegiatan mengajarnya mampu mengilhami siswanya. Melalui kegiatan mengajar yang dilakukan seorang guru mampu mendorong para siswa agar mampu mngemukakan gagasan-gagasan yang besar dari siswa-siswanya.
Guru sebagai pengajar, fungsi guru cenderung hanya menjadi transfer of knowledge. Guru sebagai pembentuk jiwa dan watak peserta didik. Tanggung jawab guru lebih banyak kearah pembentukan visi atau wawasan manusia yang beradab. Begitu pentingnya profesi guru bagi pembangunan jiwa manusia, sehingga guru pada akhirnya sebagai pembentuk jiwa bangsa.
Dalam melaksanakan tugas pokok seorang guru harus tampil sebagai seorang yang profesional yang oleh Abuddin Nata (2001) dicirikan pertama, mengandung unsur pengabdian. Kedua, mengandung unsur Idealisme dan ketiga mengandung unsur pengembangan.
Menurut Undang-undang Guru dan Dosen (UUGD), guru profesional adalah guru yang mempunyai kualifikasi akademik, kompetensi, sertifikat pendidik, sehat jasmani dan rohani, serta memiliki kemampuan untuk mewujudkan tujuan pendidikan nasional. Guru yang profesional adalah guru yang bisa "diharapkan" baik dari sudut pandang siswa, orang-tua, masyarakat dan budaya.
Dalam pandangan siswa dan orang tua, guru diharapkan mampu tampil menjadi sosok sumber motivasi belajar yang menyenangkan. Orang tua berharap, siswa dan guru mampu menjadi mitra pendidik bagi anak-anak yang dititipkan untuk dididik.
Harapan dari masyarakat, guru pada hakekatnya adalah wakil masyarakat di lembaga pendidikan, dan wakil lembaga pendidikan di masyarakat, sehingga diharapkan mampu menyiapkan anggota masyarakatnya dengan sebaik-baiknya. Dan dari sudut pandang budaya, guru sangat berperan dalam proses pelestarian pewarisan budaya dari generasi ke generasi berikutnya.
Namun demikian, kondisi kepribadian guru sering terbelah (split personality). Satu sisi, guru ingin mendidik dan mengajar secara profesional. Sisi lain, guru dihadapkan pada persoalan kesejahteraan yang masih mengganggu profesionalitasnya. Hal ini sudah barang tentu berpengaruh kepada kinerja para guru dalam melaksanaknan tugasnya, sebagai pemegang ujung tombak pendidikan.
Mengapa demikian? Soedijarto (2004) dalam sebuah dialognya di majalah Gerbang, mengatakan kinerja guru di Indonesia tidak seperti kinerja guru di Jepang, Jerman dan Inggris adalah disebabkan karena guru di Indonesia masih takut tidak makan dan takut sakit karena tidak ada asuransi.
Banyak guru di Indonesia yang memenuhi kebutuhan makan sehari-hari dengan mengajar di berbagai sekolah, dan memberikan les tambahan atau bimbingan belajar di luar sekolah. Hal inilah pada akhirnya pikiran guru tidak fokus untuk pelajaran di sekolah saja, sehingga berpengaruh pada hasil pendidikan.
Ketika membuka mata akan tuntutan guru ideal di abad informasi seperti diatas, tentunya tidak bisa mengabaikan faktor gaji guru. Ada realitas bahwa sebagian besar guru tidak mampu berlangganan koran untuk mendapatkan informasi mutakhir, meskipun berlangganan koran bukan satu-satunya cara memperoleh informasi. Kesenjangan antara status sosial ekonomi guru dengan tuntutan masyarakat yang semakin besar ini menempatkan guru dalam posisi terjepit. Faktor gaji yang memadai ini sangat berkait erat dengan tingkat profesionalitas seorang guru.
Kisah pilu dapat dilihat pada sosok Theresia Esi Samkakai (Kompas, 6/9/07), seorang guru yang hidup empat zaman di Merauke, Papua. Dia bertanya bahwa kenapa mutu pendidikan tidak bisa diandalkan dalam kondisi yang justru serba maju ini. Dia mengatakan bahwa hal itu disebabkan karena perhatian pemerintah terhadap guru sangatlah rendah yang mengakibatkan rendahnya pula tanggung jawab guru terhadap pekerjaannya. Bukan karena apa, hanya karena guru juga mempunyai keluarga yang merekapun wajib menghidupi keluarganya.
Menurutnya, nasib guru di jaman Belanda jauh lebih mulia dibanding dengan jaman sekarang. Oleh karena Belanda menciptakan masyarakat yang "menghargai" guru. Pemerintah Belanda pada waktu itu membantu mencitrakan guru pada strata atas, memberi gaji yang berkecukupan tiap bulannya, menyuruh masyarakat membuatkan rumah-rumah untuk para guru, dan menempatkan guru tidak hanya sebagai guru sekolah tetapi juga sebagai guru masyarakat.
Semua pasti tahu, imbal jasa bagi guru di negara-negara maju memang cukup memadai. Misalnya rata-rata imbal jasa para guru di AS adalah 1,7 kali pendapatan perkapita negara itu, atau Jepang rata-rata 2,4 kali pendapatan perkapita. Ini berarti penghasilan guru-guru di sana sudah menutup semua kebutuhan hidup dasar dan masih ditambah 20% untuk menabung. Sementara di Indonesia? Imbal jasa yang diberikan sungguh ironis.
Di samping itu, guru di abad informasi adalah guru yang tidak berhenti belajar, mengingat ilmu pengetahuan dan informasi demikian cepat perkembangannya. Ia tidak mesti ahli atau menguasai seluruh cabang ilmu pengetahuan, tetapi minimal ia harus mengetahui informasi dimana ilmu-ilmu yang diperlukan itu ada.
Seorang guru di abad ini adalah guru yang dapat memanfaatkan berbagai sumber. Misalnya, sumber dari buku, majalah, surat kabar, televisi, radio dan internet yang dapat digunakan untuk kepentingan pendiddikan. Di samping itu, Guru tidak lagi dapat mengandalkan bahan bacaan yang ada ditangannya, tapi juga harus memanfaatkan informasi yang ada di lingkungan sosial yang lebih luas.
Perkembangan teknologi yang canggih memberikan kemanfaatan yang lebih dari sekedar pengetahuan yang diberikan oleh guru yang serba terbatas secara waktu maupun kemampuan. Siswa bebas melakukan akses yang diperlukan tanpa harus datang ke sekolah. Mereka juga bebas memilih waktu yang mereka inginkan, bahkan tawaran informasi yang selayaknya mereka ketahui atau tidak, bisa didapatkan dari sana.
Bagaimanapun, dampak internet atau media informasi lainnya sangat berpengaruh terhadap dunia pendidikan. Disinilah eksistensi seorang guru mulai tergeser di tengah masyarakat. Masyarakat mulai menafikan arti penting kehadiran guru, meskipun diantaranya masih memandang bahwa guru tetap ’diperlukan’. Dalam hal ini guru bukanlah yang digugu dan ditiru lagi tapi beralih fungsi menjadi fasilitator atau sekedar mediator dalam dunia pendidikan.
Pada kenyataannya, keberhasilan agenda reformasi pendidikan tetap ditentukan oleh guru dan tenaga kependidikan lainnya. Sebaik apapun program pendidikan dan sebaik apapun sarana pendidikan, keberhasilannya sangat tergantung pada pelaksana yaitu guru. Apakah hak-hak asasi guru sebagai pribadi, pemangku profesi keguruan, anggota masyarakat, dan warga negara yang selama ini terabaikan, telah mendapat prioritas dalam reformasi?
Sebenarnya para guru siap untuk mensukseskan segala upaya perbaikan pendidikan, tetapi seyogyanya mulailah dengan pendekatan yang berawal dari suara guru; ”accept me, understand me, and talk with me,” (terimalah aku, pahami aku, dan bicaralah denganku”) merupakan pendekatan yang lebih efektif karena dimulai dengan menyentuh hak dan martabat para guru. Dengan cara demikian para guru sebagai pelaku terdepan pendidikan akan merasa diikut-sertakan sebagai subyek, bukan sebagai obyek pelengkap penderita.
Dengan cara demikian, profesi guru masih menjadi pilihan. Tapi kapan? Tampaknya profesi masih dianggap sebagai jalan sunyi. Seringkali guru ditampilkan tidak sesuai dengan karakter guru yang sebenarnya. Cobalah melihat tayangan sinetron di televisi, guru hanya dijadikan pelengkap cerita. Tak jarang guru ditampilkan dengan blo’on, bengis atau dijadikan bahan olok-olok siswanya.[] bagaimana menurut Anda? Give comment!!!

2008-10-26T11:20:00.000+07:00

Cooperative Learning and Inclusion

Mara Sapon-Shevin, Barbara J. Ayres, and Janet Duncan

A special thank you is extended to the teachers who participated in the summer course in language arts held at Acadia University, Wolfville, Nova Scotia, during July and August 1992.

RELIEFS ABOUT COOPERATIVE LEARNING

Cooperative Learning Is Good for All Students

Cooperative Learning Is Part of Comprehensive School Reform

Cooperative Learning Means Teachers Cooperating

PRINCIPLES OF INCLUSIVE COOPERATIVE LEARNING

Cooperative Learning Means

Establishing a Cooperative Classroom Ethic

Overall Community and Connections Cooperative learning should not be something that is done on Tuesdays and Thursdays from 9 to 10, nor should it be something we do only when we have children with disabilities included. For example, in one school, a sign on a wall announced "Cooperative Learning, May 14th." When a visitor inquired about the sign, she was told, "That's the day the trainable mentally retarded students go into the third grade classroom to work."

Will this practice contribute to or detract from a sense of classroom community? Will what I say or do in this situation encourage students to see each other positively or negatively?

Open Communication About Differences and Classroom Practices Ct-eating a classroom community in which all students feel comfortable and supported in their learning requires that teachers deal directly with issues that affect the classroom. When a child in the classroom is displaying some challenging behavior, for example, other students are generally aware of this. Not talking about the situation and exploring various solutions with students may leave them frightened or disenfranchised, wondering why something so obvious is not being discussed and what their role in the classroom should be. Teachers certainly need to be thoughtful about how and when they talk to students about Mark's biting or the fact that LeAnn is being teased on the playground because she smells. However, ignoring such issues in the hope that they will "work themselves out" often results not only in escalation of the problem but a classroom atmosphere in which students do not feel empowered to talk about what is happening or to explore their role in generating and implementing solutions.

Helping Establishing norms about when, how, and why we help others is critical to the full implementation of cooperative learning. Because many teachers and students have received cultural messages that say that "needing help is bad or shameful" and "offering help to others will embarrass them," it is important to establish new classroom norms. Two of the most critical values are: 1) Everyone is good at something and can help others, and 2) Everyone is entitled to and can benefit from help and support from others. Teachers may want to help students structure a "Classroom Classifieds" in which students identify their own strengths and skills and name these as "Help Offered" (can help with multiplication, good at jumping rope, can teach sign language, know a lot about frogs). Concurrently, they can identify their needs and learning goals and identify these as "Help Wanted" (want to learn to make friendship bracelets, need help with spelling, want to learn how to play ball games at recess). It is important that such activities be structured so that every child is both a teacher and a learner, as a way of challenging rigid notions that there are some people who give help and some people who need help. It is important to create a classroom space for people to proudly claim what they are good at and safely ask for the help and support they need without fear or embarrassment, humiliation, or isolation. When fourth grade teacher Cathleen Corrigan implemented this activity in her inclusive fourth grade class, she found that many of the students had difficulty identifying something they were good at. She observed that when students announced that "they weren’t good at anything," other students jumped in to remind them about their strengths ("You're really good at the computer," "You're a good artist.").

Cooperative Learning Facilitates Teaching Meaningful Content

One of the often unexpected but welcome benefits of including children with

Cooperative Learning Depends

on Supportive Heterogeneous Groups

This is a nice combination but Katie and Andrew are both quiet. I was thinking about

Rachel and Katie because of Rachel's style--she may be more assertive with Katie to

help stimulate her involvement. (Ayres et al., 1992, p. 6)

Cooperative Learning Requires Structures

that Ensure the Active Participation of All Students

Division of Labor and Materials The participation of all group members is more likely when teachers carefully structure the cooperative group task. Through the division of labor and materials, the students are given a clear message that each student has an important contribution to make toward the completion of the group’s task. In the beginning, or when new groups have formed, it is important that teachers structure this interdependence among the group members. Planning for equitable participation becomes especially important in inclusive classrooms where the participation of some students may be dependent on the structure that is provided. For example, with a student who is reserved and responds more slowly than her classmates due to a physical disability, if labor and materials are not divided it is possible that group members will do the task for her. As was mentioned previously in this chapter, it is also important for teachers to talk with students about the goals of working together and the importance of everyone contributing In one classroom, the teacher talked to individual groups and asked the students how they were going to make sure that all group members were given a turn.

Flexible Interpretation of Roles lb promote active, equitable participation within groups, roles must be interpreted flexibly. Instead of creating static roles for students, flexible roles allow for the individualization that will ensure that all group members are able to assume each role at some point in time. For example, in one classroom, the roles remained the same across time (e.g., writer, reader/questioner, checker), but the responsibilities of the roles changed depending on the task and the students who would be given the role on that particular day (Ayres et al., 1992). Through these flexible roles, a student who is unable to write the letters of the alphabet could be the writer when the task is designed so that the writers are gluing something instead of writing words. Another aspect of individualizing roles occurs when teachers think of creative ways for students to fulfill the role responsibilities. Teachers might ask themselves, "What are the different ways that students could encourage group members for this lesson?" or "flow could Rachel, who doesn’t speak, encourage others?" When teachers work to broaden their thinking about the equitable participation of students, they can come up with many different ways for students to be active contributors (e.g., encourage others by giving a "high five," passing a card with a positive statement or a smiley face written on it to a group member).

Individualized Student Responsibilities Adaptations can be made within groups to promote the active, equitable participation of all members. Sometimes adaptations are necessary to promote the participation of an individual student. For example, in Mary Rita Carnicelli's classroom, heterogeneous cooperative learning groups worked together on math story problems. One student, Kris, whose goals for math included writing numbers from 1 to 50 and using a calculator to compute problems, was given the role of writer/checker within her group. The other students in the group determined what mathematical function to use for the problem, helped Kris write down the problem on the worksheet by dictating the numbers, solved the problem, and dictated to Kris the numbers to write down for the answer. Kris was then responsible for checking the group's response on her calculator. In another classroom, Brad was a first grade student whose educational objectives include grasping and holding objects and indicating his preference by choosing between two objects. During a lesson on community helpers, Brad's group was given the role of a doctor to study so that he would be able to use a play doctor's kit to learn about medic-al instruments. The addition of the hands-on materials provided an opportunity to address his educational objectives of grasping objects and indicating preference (Ayres et a]., 1992).

Cooperative Learning Provides Opportunities for Ongoing Evaluation

APPLYING COOPERATIVE LEARNING BELIEFS AND PRINCIPLES

CONCLUSION

REFERENCES