Kagan专著阅读4：合作组织促进语言习得 Kagan ，Cooperative Structures ，Promote Language ，Acquisition

海南白驹学校教育集团宣传部

To cite this article: Kagan, S. Kagan Cooperative Structures Promote Language Acquisition. San Clemente, CA: Kagan Publishing. Kagan Online Magazine, Summer 2013. www.KaganOnline.com

Simple cooperative learning structures, called Kagan Structures, are used as part of any lesson to dramatically increase language acquisition. Kagan Structures are unlike traditional instruction, group work, or cooperative learning lessons. The structures avoid the pitfalls of all three of these approaches to instruction, but enjoy dramatic benefits. As we examine how Kagan Structures differ from traditional instruction, group work, and cooperative learning lessons, we see how the structures radically improve language learning.

Kagan Structures Are Not Traditional Instruction

I have trained teachers and observed classroom instruction in over thirty countries. The most common instructional strategy is for the teacher to call on one student at a time to respond to a question posed by the teacher. Using this approach to promote language learning is extraordinarily inefficient. For example, if a teacher wants each student in the class to have one minute of oral language output, in a class of thirty students it would take well over an hour if the teacher uses the traditional sequential structure of calling on one student after another to answer questions posed by the teacher. The teacher first calls on a student, the student then answers, finally the teacher responds to the answer by giving a correction, modeling proper use of the language, or praising the student. It takes about two minutes per student using this traditional way of structuring the interaction. How have the students spent their time? One minute of oral language production and 59 minutes of waiting their turn!

It could be argued that a teacher does not spend a straight hour of teacher-question, student-answer. This is true. The teacher may spend only ten minutes in the middle of the class and only five minutes at the end of class using that traditional structure. The process is repeated, however, the next day and the next, so over the week the teacher has used up a valuable hour of class time to give each student only one minute of oral language production. Thus, this traditional approach to instruction is well designed to prevent language acquisition!

An additional major problem with the traditional approach is that teachers usually allow students to volunteer to be called on. It is the high achievers or more fluent students who raise their hands. Thus, the teacher ends up calling most on those who least need the practice and least on those who most need the practice.

In contrast, using Kagan Structures it takes only a few minutes to have each student receive a minute of oral language production, and the participation is equal. The Kagan Structures are carefully designed to maximize simultaneous interaction and equal participation. For example, if students are in groups of four the teacher might have students do a four-minute Timed RoundRobin, so each student in the class has their minute of oral language output. Thus, the teacher accomplishes in about four minutes what it takes the traditional teacher an hour to accomplish. How is this miracle accomplished? Through simultaneous interaction. Instead of one student at a time talking, one student in each group is talking. Applying the simultaneity principle, we can be even more efficient! It takes four minutes to give each student a minute if they interact in groups of four; it takes only two minutes to give each student a minute if they are in pairs, using a pair structure like Timed Pair Share (in each pair students take turns, each sharing for a minute while the other listens) or RallyRobin (in each pair students take turns giving answers).

Notice that Kagan Structures have different functions: RallyRobin is useful for creating an oral list as when students name animals or articles of clothing; Timed Pair Share is useful for elaborated speech as when students describe their weekend or share their opinions. There are literally hundreds of Kagan Structures, each with different functions, but all of the Kagan Structures are carefully designed to implement the four critical principles of cooperative learning.i We use the acronym PIES to symbolize the four basic principles of cooperative learning:

Traditional instruction in which the teacher calls on one student at a time to participate fails to implement all four principles: Students are not on the same side and do not need to work together; they can choose not to perform by simply not raising their hand; the high achievers participate more; and only one student at a time participates.

Kagan Structures Are Not Group Work

Many teachers think they are implementing cooperative learning when they are merely doing group work. And group work does not consistently produce academic and linguistic gains for all students. What is the difference? Group work is unstructured interaction. For examples, a teacher has students in pairs and asks them to “Talk it over.” Or a teacher has students in groups of four and asks them to “Discuss it in your groups.” Or perhaps a teacher has a worksheet or task for students to complete in their groups and says, “Work together as a group to complete the task.” In all of these situations the teacher has told the students what to do, but has not structured how they will do it. The teacher has not structured for PIES. The result is predictable, and often not positive for many students. Imagine a pair of students. One student is fluent in the target language and another student is an early language learner, or just less fluent. Who will do most, or even all of the talking? The most fluent student gets most or even all of the language practice. Inadvertently, for each pair in the classroom the teacher has called most on the student who least needs the practice and least on the student who most needs the practice. The results of group work on projects are the same: The more advanced students take over and get the lion’s share of the practice so the gap in language learning between high and low achievers is increased. Unstructured group work results in very unequal participation with consequent unequal language development.

We say that whenever the teacher has not structured the interaction among students so all four of the PIES principles are built-into the way they will interact, the teacher is doing group work, not true cooperative learning.

Kagan Structures Are Not Cooperative Learning Lessons

There are many different models of cooperative learning. Almost all well-researched models of cooperative learning, other than the Kagan Structures, are lesson based. That is they tell teachers how to do cooperative learning lessons. Although these cooperative learning lessons are carefully designed to implement the basic principles of cooperative learning, they fail to consistently produce gains. Unlike group work, the problem is not a lack of structuring for the basic principles. Rather, the problem is that these cooperative learning lessons are too complex and/or tedious. Teachers find them too difficult. After the initial enthusiasm dies down, teachers find it too hard to spend each night planning their next cooperative learning lesson, or find the scoring and grading too time consuming. I have talked with hundreds of teachers who were trained in various types of cooperative learning lessons and who did them for awhile with success, but who later abandoned them, finding the planning too difficult or finding the routine of teaching each lesson the same way too boring for their students and themselves. The problem is not whether the lessons work when implemented, the problem is that they do not lead to sustained implementation.

Kagan Structures are very much easier to implement. They do not involve special materials, planning, or preparation and do not require tedious scoring systems. For example, once a teacher masters the steps of RallyRobin or Timed Pair Share, the teacher can use those powerful structures immediately in any lesson with no special preparation. It becomes as automatic to ask students to turn to a partner and do a RallyRobin as it is for teachers to call on one student in the class to respond. After all, if language development is the goal, why would we want to call on one, to have just one student speaking, when at the same time we can have every student speaking about equally?

Kagan Structures are Easy to Implement Yet Carefully Designed to Insure Gains
Kagan Structures avoid the primary pitfalls of traditional instruction, which allows about one minute an hour of oral language production and which results in very unequal participation and gains. It is unlike group work, which fails to implement the basic principles of cooperative learning and, like traditional instruction, results in very unequal participation. It differs also from cooperative learning lessons, which involve too much preparation and/or record keeping, which in turn leads to burn out and spotty implementation. Like group work, Kagan Structures are easy to implement, and like cooperative learning lessons, they implement the basic principles of cooperative learning, assuring success.

Kagan Structures are powerful for promoting language learning. Acquiring a second language is facilitated by three variables, , Output, and Context. We learn a language when we are exposed to comprehensible . The Kagan Structures increase the amount of comprehensible . Because students need to know what their partners or teammates are saying, they adjust their language to ensure comprehensible . Output is increased dramatically. In order to offer a minute of language practice for each student it takes an hour of class time in the sequential, call-on-one-at-a-time, traditional format. Using pair structures the objective is reached in about two minutes! Finally, because of positive interdependence, Kagan Structures create a mutually supportive context for language learning. Students feel themselves on the same side, supported by their partners and teammates. In that context they are not afraid to try on unfamiliar language. Students, who would never raise their hand to speak with the whole class listening, readily speak to a supportive partner or teammates. PIES are critical for successful cooperative learning; they are critical also for language learning.

Reference
Kagan, S. & M. Kagan. Kagan Cooperative Learning. San Clemente, CA: Kagan Publishing, 2009.

Kagan合作组织促进语言习得

引用本文： Kagan，S。Kagan合作组织促进语言习得。加利福尼亚州圣克莱门特：卡根出版社。Kagan在线杂志， 2013年夏季。www.KaganOnline.com

简单的合作学习结构（称为Kagan结构）被用作任何课程的一部分，以极大地增加语言习得。Kagan结构不同于传统的教学，小组作业或合作学习课程。这些结构避免了所有这三种教学方法的陷阱，但享有巨大的好处。当我们检查Kagan结构与传统的教学，小组合作和合作学习课程有何不同时，我们会看到这些结构如何从根本上改善语言学习。

Kagan结构不是传统教学
我在30多个国家/地区培训了老师，并观察了课堂教学。最常见的教学策略是，老师一次召集一名学生来回答老师提出的问题。使用这种方法来促进语言学习非常低效。例如，如果一位老师希望班级中的每个学生都有一分钟的口语输出，那么在一个三十名学生的班级中，如果老师使用传统的顺序结构，一个接一个地呼唤一个学生，则需要一个多小时。回答老师提出的问题。老师首先招呼学生，然后学生回答，最后老师通过给出更正，对语言的正确使用进行建模或称赞学生来回答答案。使用这种传统的互动方式，每个学生大约需要两分钟。学生如何度过时间？一分钟的口头语言表达和59分钟的轮流等待！

可以争辩说，老师不会直接花费一个小时的老师提问，学生回答。这是真的。使用这种传统结构，老师在课堂上可能只花10分钟，而在课堂结束时只花5分钟。但是，该过程会在第二天和第二天重复进行，因此在一周的时间里，老师已经用完了宝贵的上课时间，使每个学生只有一分钟的口头表达能力。因此，这种传统的教学方法经过精心设计，可以防止语言习得！

传统方法的另一个主要问题是，教师通常会允许学生自愿参加。高成就者或流利的学生举手。因此，老师最终要求的是那些最不需要练习的人，而最不需要那些最需要练习的人。

相比之下，使用Kagan Structures只需几分钟即可让每个学生获得一分钟的口头语言表达，并且参与是平等的。Kagan结构经过精心设计，可以最大程度地实现同时互动和平等参与。举例来说，如果学生是四人一组，则老师可能会让学生进行四分钟的定时循环，因此班上的每个学生都有自己的口语输出记录。这样，教师完成大约四分钟即可完成传统教师一个小时完成的工作。这个奇迹是如何实现的？通过同步互动。每个小组中的一个学生正在讲话，而不是一次一个学生讲话。应用同时性原则，我们可以更加高效！如果每四个学生以四人一组的形式互动，则需要四分钟的时间。如果使用成对的结构，例如定时配对共享（每对学生轮流，每人共享一分钟，而对方听对方则共享一分钟）或RallyRobin（每对学生，则只有两分钟）轮流给出答案）。

注意，Kagan Structures具有不同的功能：RallyRobin可用于创建口头清单，例如当学生命名动物或衣服时；当学生描述他们的周末或分享他们的观点时，定时配对共享对于详尽的演讲很有用。实际上有数百个Kagan结构，每个Kagan结构都具有不同的功能，但是所有Kagan结构都是经过精心设计的，以实现合作学习的四个关键原则。i我们使用首字母缩写PIES来象征合作学习的四个基本原则：

老师一次召集一名学生参加的传统教学无法实现所有四个原则：学生不在同一边，不需要一起工作；他们可以不举手就选择不表演；高成就者更多地参与；一次只能参加一个学生。

Kagan结构不是集体工作

许多老师认为仅在进行小组学习时便正在实施合作学习。小组工作并不能始终为所有学生带来学术和语言上的收获。有什么区别？小组工作是非结构化的互动。例如，一位老师让学生成对出现，并要求他们“ 讨论 ” 。或者一位老师让学生分成四人一组，并要求他们“与您的团队讨论”。或者，一位老师有一个工作表或任务学生要在小组中完成，并说：“作为一个小组一起完成任务。” 在所有这些情况下，老师都告诉学生该怎么做，但是并没有组织他们如何去做。。老师没有为PIES安排课程。结果是可以预见的，对许多学生来说往往不是积极的。想象一对学生。一个学生能说流利的目标语言，而另一个学生是早期语言学习者，或者说的流利程度较低。谁会做最多甚至所有的谈话？最流利的学生会获得大部分甚至全部的语言练习。无意间，对于教室中的每对老师，老师对最需要练习的学生呼吁最多，而对最需要练习的学生呼吁最少。在项目上进行小组合作的结果是相同的：越是高级的学生将接手并获得实践的最大份额，因此，在高成就者和低成就者之间在语言学习上的差距就越大。散乱的小组工作会导致参与者的参与非常不平等，从而导致语言发展不均。

我们说，只要老师没有构建学生之间的互动关系，那么PIES的所有四项原则都将建立在他们互动的方式中，那么老师就是在进行小组学习，而不是真正的合作学习。

Kagan结构不是合作学习课程
合作学习有许多不同的模型。除Kagan结构外，几乎所有经过深入研究的合作学习模型都是基于课程的。也就是说，他们告诉老师如何进行合作学习课程。尽管精心设计了这些合作学习课程以实施合作学习的基本原理，但它们并不能持续产生收益。与小组工作不同，问题不在于缺乏基本原则的结构化。相反，问题在于这些合作学习课程太复杂和/或乏味。老师觉得他们太难了。在最初的热情消退之后，教师发现每天晚上花太多时间计划下一次合作学习课程，或者发现评分和评分太费时了，这太困难了。我曾与数百名接受过各种合作学习课程培训的老师交谈，并成功完成了一段时间，但后来又放弃了他们，发现计划太困难或发现以相同的方式讲课太无聊的惯例为他们的学生和自己。问题不是课程在实施时是否有效，问题在于它们不会导致持续的实施。


Kagan结构非常容易实现。它们不需要特殊的材料，计划或准备，也不需要繁琐的评分系统。例如，一旦教师掌握了RallyRobin或“ 定时对共享”的步骤，则教师可以在任何课程中立即使用这些强大的结构，而无需进行特殊准备。要求学生求助于伙伴并进行RallyRobin变得很自动，因为老师可以召唤班上的一名学生做出回应。毕竟，如果以语言发展为目标，为什么我们要召集一个学生，让一个学生发言，而同时让每个学生都这样讲呢？

Kagan结构易于实施，但经过精心设计以确保收益
Kagan Structures避免了传统教学的主要陷阱，传统教学的主要陷阱是每小时大约一分钟的口头语言制作，从而导致非常不平等的参与和收获。它与小组工作不同，小组工作未能执行合作学习的基本原则，并且像传统教学一样，导致了非常不平等的参与。它也不同于合作学习课程，后者涉及过多的准备和/或记录保存，从而导致工作倦怠和执行不力。像小组工作一样，Kagan Structures易于实施，并且像合作学习课程一样，它们执行合作学习的基本原理，以确保成功。

Kagan结构对于促进语言学习具有强大的作用。输入，输出和上下文这三个变量有助于获得第二种语言。当我们接触到可理解的输入时，我们就会学习一种语言。Kagan结构增加了可理解的输入量。因为学生需要知道他们的伴侣或队友在说什么，所以他们会调整语言以确保获得可理解的输入。产量急剧增加。为了给每位学生提供一分钟的语言练习，需要以传统的顺序上课的方式进行一小时的上课时间。使用结对结构，大约两分钟即可达到目标！最后，由于积极的相互依存关系，卡根结构为语言学习创造了相互支持的环境。学生感觉自己站在同一侧，在合作伙伴和队友的支持下。在这种情况下，他们不怕尝试不熟悉的语言。永远不会举手与全班同学交谈的学生，很容易与支持性伴侣或队友交谈。PIES对于成功的合作学习至关重要。它们对于语言学习也至关重要。

参考
Kagan，S。和M. Kagan。卡根合作学习。加利福尼亚州圣克莱门特市：卡根出版社，2009年。