Cultural Mismatch
Recently, a study was published in the journal "Cognition and Instruction" that found that fourth and fifth grade Black students performed better in cooperative settings. Researchers assigned fourth and fifth grade students to three different learning conditions:
- The first group was a communal learning environment where students were encouraged to work together to solve problems.
- The second group was told they would earn an award if their combined performance exceeded group expectations.
- The third group was a competitive condition and students were told that those individuals who performed best would be rewarded.
The study found that Black students performed better in the cooperative and communal condition and worst in the competitive treatment. The authors raise the question of whether the gap in our Nation's test scores between the races could be diminished by changing the way we teach in schools.
Our answer: 
This research is in a long tradition of theory and research that falls under the umbrella of “culturally compatible instruction,” or “culturally responsive teaching.” The basic premise is that instruction must be adapted to a particular learning group. The achievement gap between majority and minority groups is a function of the mismatch between competitive schooling practices and the more cooperative and communal minority cultures, in this case African Americans. The same argument has also been made for the underachievement of Mexican Americans and Native Americans. There is a structural bias in education that favors some cultures and disfavors others.
 This particular research also raises a troubling social and academic issue: White students had the opposite results; they performed best in the competitive structure and worst in the communal one. So, there appears to be a dichotomy: Do we teach using cooperative/communal strategies that increase achievement for minority groups to the detriment of majority groups or do we stick with traditional competitive structures that result in the familiar achievement gap? The apparent dichotomy is a false one. We can teach to accelerate achievement for all student populations.
While in no way would we ever argue against understanding, respecting, and validating students' backgrounds, we do acknowledge that there are other important considerations when engineering student learning. Universal learning theories suggest there are some processes, instructional practices, and principles that have the capacity to improve learning for all. Brain science and its application to education, brain-based learning, corroborate this idea that some ways of teaching and learning are better for everyone despite individual and cultural variances. Brain experts are fond of saying that every student has a designer brain. However, most brain experts agree on universal learning principles. Many of these principles favor cooperation, interaction, and engagement. For example: The brain is a social organ; complex learning is inhibited by perceived threat (competition); brains construct meaning through active processing.
There’s an abundance of research that show cooperative learning results in achievement gains for all groups of students, at all ages, and in all subject areas (see research section of the Kagan Web site and Chapter 3 of the Kagan Cooperative Learning book). The gains of the minority student are not bought at the expense of the majority students.
This new study compares a communal group, to a nominal group, to competitive learning. The results are not surprising at all given the context. Without putting effective learning principles in place, the cultural compatibility argument may hold true. Students with a more cooperative orientation may do better in group learning, and students with a more competitive orientation may do better with traditional competitive learning. It almost sounds obvious when we frame it that way.
But the research on cooperation and competition consistently finds students in cooperative learning outperform traditional competitive learning structures. Here's the reason: If we merely put students in groups and tell them to work together, or only create a group reward structure, this “unstructured group work” may or may not outperform traditional learning. However, if we put students in groups and appropriately modify the task structure so that learning incorporates positive interdependence, individual accountability, equal participation, and simultaneous interaction, all students will do better. Skin color and cultural backgrounds fall away to effective instruction. True, structured cooperative learning, as opposed to merely group work or communal groups, has the power to lift all students' academic performance.
Kagan Cooperative Learning is aligned with both lines of research. Cooperative learning is compatible with the cooperative social orientation of minority groups, but perhaps more importantly, it operationalizes learning principles proven to boost achievement for all students.
Unstructured group work is hit or miss. In their research, it was a hit with Black students and a miss with White students. It would be nice if we could bridge the achievement gap by simply saying, “work together in groups.” But to reap the benefits of true cooperative learning for all students, we need to carefully structure learning to include the principles that make the difference. That’s why we emphasize PIES so much in our workshops. And that’s why we love structures—because they integrate PIES in a very teacher-friendly fashion. If you look at the internal dynamics of an unstructured group review session versus a Kagan Structure such as Numbered Heads Together, the difference is obvious. Group work encourages students to work together while the Kagan Structure makes real engagement and cooperation a reality.
Let Kagan help you take advantage of cooperative instructional strategies to create greater and success for all students!
Miguel Kagan, Editor
Kagan Online Magazine
Kagan Publishing & Professional Development |
