Research in language classes suggested cooperative learning was better than whole-class instruction for language skills and produced more student turns than teacher-centered classes¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · review r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 1999 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Evidence quality · No study behind this claim is a peer-reviewed article with a DOI: it rests on an ERIC document (a report, conference paper or thesis). It is kept because 4 design pages cite it; treat it as a lead to check, not an established finding.

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Cooperative learning was better than whole class instruction for developing integrative and discrete language skills (Bejarano, 1987). → Kluge 1999 q2 i? Students took more turns in cooperative learning groups than in a teacher-centered class, leading to more language production practice (Deen, 1991). → Kluge 1999 (2)

Evidence¶

Kluge 1999¶

Kluge, David. (1999). A Brief Introduction to Cooperative Learning. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED437840

q2 · i? · review · r1

The chapter reports, citing Bejarano (1987), that cooperative learning in language classes "was better than whole class instruction for developing integrativeand dis- crete language skills." No effect size or sample details are printed.

"In language classes, research on cooperative learning has suggestedthat it: o was better than whole class instruction for developing integrativeand dis- crete language skills (Bejarano, 1987)"

Kluge 1999 (2)¶

Kluge, David. (1999). A Brief Introduction to Cooperative Learning. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED437840

q2 · i? · review · r1

The chapter reports, citing Deen (1991), that cooperative learning "encouraged students to take more turns in cooperativelearning groups com- pared to a teacher-centered class," yielding more language production practice. No statistics are printed.

"oencouraged students to take more turns in cooperativelearning groups com- pared to a teacher-centered class, thus leading to morepractice in language production (Deen, 1991)."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Collaboration — outcome: instruction changes it
• Oral Language — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• Cooperative Learning Improves Achievement — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it
• Small-group learning improves undergraduate STEM achievement — a broader claim this one bears on
• The number of conversational turns is more closely associated with children's language skills and language-related brain function than the raw number of words heard, regardless of family income or education. — related
• After the IDEAS academy, both studied teachers' classrooms moved toward more student-centered methods, with inquiry and collaborative learning emerging — related
• Comprehensible input alone is insufficient for acquisition of high levels of grammatical proficiency — related
• Learner-centeredness is a universal theme across SLA theories and language teaching methods — related
• Teachers dedicating more time to whole-class instruction is associated with increased student math achievement — reports the opposite
• Among language-only interventions, instructional practices and one-on-one or small-group delivery produced significantly larger language gains than curricula and large-group or whole-class delivery — related