Learning together ... or not?

OREM — In school during the 1980s and 1990s, teachers broke us into groups, and I always ended up with Pat, the foul-mouthed, bra strap-snapping bully with little interest in the task.

I and a few other members of the group did all the work, while Pat busied himself with a diversion, usually getting into some kind of trouble.

Education researchers would call Pat a "free rider." So did I.

Professors who research "cooperative learning" — education parlance to describe "group work" — have borrowed other commonplace expressions, such as "sink or swim together," "division of labor," and "if you don't work, you don't eat."

"Many teachers say they're (doing) cooperative learning when in fact, they're throwing kids in groups and saying, 'They're learning together,' which isn't very effective," said David Johnson, an education psychology professor at the University of Minnesota.

David Johnson and his brother, Roger Johnson, are directors of the Cooperative Learning Center at the university in Minneapolis, which researches cooperative learning among students and provides educators training on effective ways to break students into groups.

The Johnsons categorize student learning into competitive learning, individualistic learning and cooperative learning.

In competitive learning, one student "wins" by the others "losing" — think of a spelling bee. In individualistic learning, students learn by themselves and their success and failure is independent of other students' success and failure.

In cooperative learning, students have a feeling that they will "sink or swim together" — not only must they learn the material, but they must ensure other members of the group learn the material, too.

The social skills gleaned from cooperative learning are seen as essential for students to grow up into productive adults.

"The premise behind cooperative learning is more to prepare students for the future as it relates to their social interaction," said Janet Losser, a professor at Brigham Young University McKay School of Education.

"Competitors are unemployable," David Johnson said.

The Johnsons also contend that students learn more in groups after analyzing about 90 years of research, about 875 studies.

Cooperative learning — when done right — results in a higher level of reasoning, more creative ideas and solutions, and an easier ability for students to transfer what they've learned to new situations than competitive or individualist learning.

Teachers have to organize the group work to ensure all students contribute. That's best accomplished though "division of labor."