How cooperative learning theory was transformed into practice in the Project For the Implementation of Cooperative Learning (PFICL): A qualitative case study.

摘要

This document describes a qualitative case study of how cooperative-learning theory may be transformed into practice. I examined this process with respect to the cooperative learning used in the Project For the Implementation of Cooperative Learning (PFICL) in Cedar City,* which originally followed the "Learning Together" and "Complex Instruction" or "Finding Out/Descubrimiento" models of classroom instruction. By combining the results of observations of staff development activities; observations of classroom lessons; document analyses and interviews of staff developers, teachers and students; I determined transformations that were made in the practice of cooperative learning at PFICL and determined key factors in the PFICL innovation process that may have influenced these transformations. I observed seven types of transformations: (1) an expanding transformation, in which cooperative learning came to be seen as more than an educational strategy, (2) a grafting transformation, in which strategies not intended for combined use were used that way, (3) a reducing transformation, in which a strategy was abandoned by staff developers and teachers, (4) a uniqueness transformation, in which unjustified claims of site-specific strategy uniqueness were made, (5) a limiting transformation, in which limited-effectiveness strategies of implementing a cooperative-learning component were used more than higher-effectiveness strategies, (6) a softening transformation, in which important, possibly harsh-seeming, features of cooperative learning were not implemented, and (7) a skipping transformation, in which teachers followed cooperative-learning authors' guidelines and "skipped" recommendations of staff developers to the contrary. I determined that components of cooperative-learning strategies could be identified as "robust" or "vulnerable." Robust components were implemented even when staff developers discouraged them, and were reported by students even when teachers overlooked them. Vulnerable components were forgotten or ignored by teachers and/or students despite heavy emphasis by staff developers and/or teachers, respectively. These terms provide a framework for more detailed future scrutiny of implementation issues in all fields and suggest that cooperative-learning authors, staff developers and teachers consider initiating more careful communications with, and adaptations to, one another.