SE
O T N I O
NA
E
D C U T C I A
N M A E R T I C L E S
FIRST IS TO DEAL
WITH STUDENTS’
LEARNING STYLES.
Collaborative Learning refers that an instruction method
in which students work in groups toward a common aca-
demic goal, while critical-thinking means that involve anal-
ysis, synthesis, and evaluation of the concepts. According to
Johnson and Johnson, cooperative learning not only increase
interest among the participants but also give students an
opportunity to engage in discussion. Compared to individu-
als who learn quietly, the shared learning can make students
retain longer information, take responsibility for their own
learning and achieve higher levels of thought. Similar notion
as Bruner (1985) claims is that students also improve prob-
lem-solving strategies as confronting with different given
situation through cooperative learning methods. In spite
that every theory implies the benefits of cooperative learn-
ing, in which way does cooperative learning enhance criti-
cal thinking in students?
One of the biggest factors is the characteristics of students’
learning styles. Students with shy personalities may not be
familiar with working together in small groups, while stu-
dents with outgoing personality more prefer active learning.
Different students have their own personalities and learning
styles, and different personalities will affect their learning
styles. Yet once you fail to fulfill every student’s need, edu-
cation become less effective. Take one class I had partici-
pated for example, teacher teach fifth grade students social
science in the class of 30. Among them, some are slow
thinkers who has autism or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity
Disorder(ADHD). Nonetheless, when teacher assign the
same tasks for everyone through cooperative learning, some
students are so gifted that they get bored working with slower
students, and hate to waste time explaining the material to
others. Even worse, some students are too competitive that
they might blame others if they lose the game, and poor
readers or slow thinkers often become the victim of coop-
erative learning for they have trouble creating a good report
for their group and others might put blame on them because
they are the culprit for losing the game.
4 0 JULIE
U N I V LIN
E R S 林佳璉
AL MAGAZINE
MARCH 2011
Conformity is another severe problem when it comes to
cooperative learning. As I mentioned before, dominant
students often talk too much and control the whole group,
while shy students become silent like an invisible person.
More often, even though shy students have different opin-
ions, they tend to keep the attitude to themselves for the
fear of separation or isolation those around them, which
is known as Spiral of silence theory. Take Six Thinking
Hats for example, a powerful technique which came from
Edward De Bono. In the theory the participants will deal
with the same problem from different perspectives and
make sure everyone are in the same thinking mode. Yet
through the class I often see students are confused by the
functions of those hats without knowing the difference
among them. One reason for that might result from the
blurred notion of the different hats; that is, the idea of six
thinking hats is too abstract for primary school students,
such as the function of yellow hat, which asks the par-
ticipants to stand in others’ shoes and think in a positive
way, might not work so effectively for youngsters who are
just begin to think abstractly based on Piaget’s cognitive
development.
Moreover, I often saw teachers who only pick active stu-
dents without giving the opportunity to other shy students.
What’s worse, some are so innocent that they even believe
they promote critical thinking among students just because
the lesson includes brainstorming or mind-mapping. The
misunderstanding of those concepts can often be found
in the school and be applied in a wrong way. Through the
theories, brainstorming should include active exchange of
ideas within small groups in a limited time, which is the
means to enhance the fluency and flexibility in students.
Yet when students expand their idea as far as possible,
there are teachers who are always too eager to put their
judgment on students and become “creativity killers.” Or
they forget to set a timing for the activity which functions
as the “pressure” and destroy the whole process. Another
example for the misuse of mind mapping is a study con-
ducted by Dr. Teresa, who contended mind mapping should