نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسنده

عضو هیئت‌علمی دانشگاه بوعلی سینا، همدان، ایران.

چکیده

پژوهش حاضر به بررسی و تحلیل تجربه­ای از به‌کارگیری یادگیری مشارکتی در آموزش عالی ایران پرداخته است. به این منظور، مطالعه­ای طولی به روش اقدام پژوهی در دو نیمسال تحصیلی در یکی از دانشگاه‌های کشور و در رشته علوم تربیتی صورت گرفته است. مشارکت­کنندگان پژوهش را دانشجویان دوره کارشناسی رشته علوم تربیتی تشکیل داده­اند. داده­های این پژوهش، از طریق پرسشنامه بسته و باز پاسخ، مصاحبه فردی و گروهی، مشاهده مشارکتی از کلاس درس و یادداشت­های خود شرح‌حال‌نویسی استاد جمع­آوری شده است. داده‌های کمّی با روش آمار توصیفی و داده­های کیفی از طریق کدگذاری و مقوله­بندی تحلیل شده­اند. تلفیق تحلیل کمّی و کیفی نشانگر وجود دو نوع مقوله «فرایند» و «برآیند» در تبیین تجربه مذکور بود. مقوله فرایند، خود شامل زیرمقوله­های «گروه­بندی»، «روش کار»، «تکالیف»، «روابط و تعاملات»، «احساس مسئولیت» و «جدی گرفتن فرایند یادگیری مشارکتی» بود. مقوله­ی برآیند نیز خود شامل زیرمقوله‌های «مهارت­ها» و «نگرش» بود. درنهایت، پیشنهاد‌هایی نیز برای بهبود عمل از تحلیل داده­ها استخراج شد که بر اساس آن­ها مدل بهبود یافته­ای برای عمل در آینده حاصل شد که خود، مقدمه اجرای پژوهش دیگری را فراهم می‌کند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

An analysis of experience of applying "cooperative learning" in higher education

نویسنده [English]

  • Azimehsadat Khakbaz

Associate Professor, Department of Educational Sciences, Bu-Ali Sina University, Hamedan, Iran

چکیده [English]

This research studied and analyzed an experience of applying cooperative learning in Iranian higher education. To this aim, a longitude study was done through action research in two academic semesters in one of the universities in educational science discipline. Participants of this research were bachelor students in educational science discipline. Data of this research were gathered by open and close response questionnaires, individual and group interviews, cooperative observation of classes and autobiographies of the professor. Quantitative data were analyzed by descriptive statistics and qualitative data were analyzed by coding and making themes. Integrating quantitative and qualitative analysis revealed two themes in this experience: "process" and "outcome". Process itself composed of subthemes named "grouping", "method", "assignments", "relations and interactions", "responsibility" and "get serious process of cooperative learning". Outcome also includes subthemes named "skills" and "attitudes". Finally, some recommendations were extracted from data analysis to betterment the practice upon which another improved model was obtained for future that provides the preparations of another research.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Higher Education
  • action research
  • Cooperative learning
  • collaborative learning

Brown Fiechtner, S., & Actis Davis, E. (1992). Why some groups fail: A survey of students' experiences with learning groups. In A. S. Goodsell, & Others, Collaborative learning: A sourcebook for higher education (pp. 86-100). National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, and Assessment (NCTLA).

Davidson, N. (1995). International perspectivesS on cooperative and collaborative learning: An overview. International Journal of Educational Research, 23(3), 197-200.

Hamer, L. O., & O’Keefe, R. D. (2013). Achieving change in students’ attitudes toward group projects by teaching group skills. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 13(2), 25-33.

Herrmann, K. J. (2013). The impact of cooperative learning on student engagement: Results from an intervention. Active Learning in Higher Education, 14(3), 175-187.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An educational psychology success story: Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational Researcher, 37(5), 365–79.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. (2007). The state of cooperative learning in postsecondary and professional settings. Educational Psychology Review, 19(1), 15-29.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1991). Cooperative learning: Increasing college faculty instructional productivity. Washington, DC: George Washington University.

Jones, K. A., & Jones, J. L. (2008). Making cooperative learning work in the college classroom: An application of the ‘Five Pillars’ of cooperative learning to post-secondary instruction. The Journal of Effective Teaching, 8(2), 61-76.

Keramati, E., Mahram, B., Shabani Varaki, B., & Mehrmohammadi, M. (2013). Game of Knowledge: Grounded theory of hidden curricula in Iranian higher education. Journal of Higher Education Curriculum, 4 (7), 85-109. [Persian]

Leigh Smith, B., & MacGregor, J. T. (1992). What is collaborative learning? In A. S. Goodsell, & Others, Collaborative learning: A sourcebook for higher education (pp. 10-30). National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, and Assessment (NCTLA).

MacGregor, J. (1992). Collaborative learning: Reframing the classroom. In A. S. Goodsell, & Others, Collaborative learning: A sourcebook for higher education (pp. 51-56). National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, and Assessment (NCTLA).

Naykki, P., Jarvela, S., Kirschner, P. A., & Jarvenoja, H. (2014). Socio-emotional conflict in collaborative learning—A process-oriented case study in a higher education context. International Journal of Educational Research, 68, 1-14.

Oxford, R. L. (1997). Cooperative learning, collaborative learning, and interaction: Three communicative strands in the language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 81(4), 443-456.

Smith, K. A., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1992). Cooperative Learning and Positive Chang. in Higher EducationKarl. In A. S. Goodsell, & Others, Collaborative learning: A sourcebook for higher education (pp. 46-56). National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, and Assessment (NCTLA).

Stockdale, S. L., & Williams, R. L. (2004). Cooperative learning groups at the college level: Differential effects on high, average, and low exam performers. Journal of Behavioral Education, 13(1), 37-50.

Sweet, M., & Svinicki, M. (2007). Why a special issue on collaborative learning in postsecondary and professional settings? Educational Psychology Review, 19, 13-14.