<h3>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</h3> <h3>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.</h3><h3><br></h3><h3>Kagan Structures Are Not Traditional Instruction</h3><h3>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! </h3><h3><br></h3><h3>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!</h3><h3><br></h3><h3>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.</h3><h3><br></h3><h3>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).</h3> <h3>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:</h3> <h3>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. </h3><h3><br></h3><h3>Kagan Structures Are Not Group Work</h3><h3>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.</h3><h3><br></h3><h3>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.</h3><h3><br></h3><h3>Kagan Structures Are Not Cooperative Learning Lessons</h3><h3>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.</h3> <h3>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.</h3><h3>
Reference
Kagan, S. & M. Kagan. Kagan Cooperative Learning. San Clemente, CA: Kagan Publishing, 2009.<br></h3> <h3>Kagan合作組織促進(jìn)語(yǔ)言習(xí)得</h3><h3>
引用本文： Kagan，S。Kagan合作組織促進(jìn)語(yǔ)言習(xí)得。加利福尼亞州圣克萊門特：卡根出版社。Kagan在線雜志， 2013年夏季。www.KaganOnline.com
簡(jiǎn)單的合作學(xué)習(xí)結(jié)構(gòu)（稱為Kagan結(jié)構(gòu)）被用作任何課程的一部分，以極大地增加語(yǔ)言習(xí)得。Kagan結(jié)構(gòu)不同于傳統(tǒng)的教學(xué)，小組作業(yè)或合作學(xué)習(xí)課程。這些結(jié)構(gòu)避免了所有這三種教學(xué)方法的陷阱，但享有巨大的好處。當(dāng)我們檢查Kagan結(jié)構(gòu)與傳統(tǒng)的教學(xué)，小組合作和合作學(xué)習(xí)課程有何不同時(shí)，我們會(huì)看到這些結(jié)構(gòu)如何從根本上改善語(yǔ)言學(xué)習(xí)。
Kagan結(jié)構(gòu)不是傳統(tǒng)教學(xué)
我在30多個(gè)國(guó)家/地區(qū)培訓(xùn)了老師，并觀察了課堂教學(xué)。最常見(jiàn)的教學(xué)策略是，老師一次召集一名學(xué)生來(lái)回答老師提出的問(wèn)題。使用這種方法來(lái)促進(jìn)語(yǔ)言學(xué)習(xí)非常低效。例如，如果一位老師希望班級(jí)中的每個(gè)學(xué)生都有一分鐘的口語(yǔ)輸出，那么在一個(gè)三十名學(xué)生的班級(jí)中，如果老師使用傳統(tǒng)的順序結(jié)構(gòu)，一個(gè)接一個(gè)地呼喚一個(gè)學(xué)生，則需要一個(gè)多小時(shí)。回答老師提出的問(wèn)題。老師首先招呼學(xué)生，然后學(xué)生回答，最后老師通過(guò)給出更正，對(duì)語(yǔ)言的正確使用進(jìn)行建?；蚍Q贊學(xué)生來(lái)回答答案。使用這種傳統(tǒng)的互動(dòng)方式，每個(gè)學(xué)生大約需要兩分鐘。學(xué)生如何度過(guò)時(shí)間？一分鐘的口頭語(yǔ)言表達(dá)和59分鐘的輪流等待！
可以爭(zhēng)辯說(shuō)，老師不會(huì)直接花費(fèi)一個(gè)小時(shí)的老師提問(wèn)，學(xué)生回答。這是真的。使用這種傳統(tǒng)結(jié)構(gòu)，老師在課堂上可能只花10分鐘，而在課堂結(jié)束時(shí)只花5分鐘。但是，該過(guò)程會(huì)在第二天和第二天重復(fù)進(jìn)行，因此在一周的時(shí)間里，老師已經(jīng)用完了寶貴的上課時(shí)間，使每個(gè)學(xué)生只有一分鐘的口頭表達(dá)能力。因此，這種傳統(tǒng)的教學(xué)方法經(jīng)過(guò)精心設(shè)計(jì)，可以防止語(yǔ)言習(xí)得！
傳統(tǒng)方法的另一個(gè)主要問(wèn)題是，教師通常會(huì)允許學(xué)生自愿參加。高成就者或流利的學(xué)生舉手。因此，老師最終要求的是那些最不需要練習(xí)的人，而最不需要那些最需要練習(xí)的人。
相比之下，使用Kagan Structures只需幾分鐘即可讓每個(gè)學(xué)生獲得一分鐘的口頭語(yǔ)言表達(dá)，并且參與是平等的。Kagan結(jié)構(gòu)經(jīng)過(guò)精心設(shè)計(jì)，可以最大程度地實(shí)現(xiàn)同時(shí)互動(dòng)和平等參與。舉例來(lái)說(shuō)，如果學(xué)生是四人一組，則老師可能會(huì)讓學(xué)生進(jìn)行四分鐘的定時(shí)循環(huán)，因此班上的每個(gè)學(xué)生都有自己的口語(yǔ)輸出記錄。這樣，教師完成大約四分鐘即可完成傳統(tǒng)教師一個(gè)小時(shí)完成的工作。這個(gè)奇跡是如何實(shí)現(xiàn)的？通過(guò)同步互動(dòng)。每個(gè)小組中的一個(gè)學(xué)生正在講話，而不是一次一個(gè)學(xué)生講話。應(yīng)用同時(shí)性原則，我們可以更加高效！如果每四個(gè)學(xué)生以四人一組的形式互動(dòng)，則需要四分鐘的時(shí)間。如果使用成對(duì)的結(jié)構(gòu)，例如定時(shí)配對(duì)共享（每對(duì)學(xué)生輪流，每人共享一分鐘，而對(duì)方聽(tīng)對(duì)方則共享一分鐘）或RallyRobin（每對(duì)學(xué)生，則只有兩分鐘）輪流給出答案）。
注意，Kagan Structures具有不同的功能：RallyRobin可用于創(chuàng)建口頭清單，例如當(dāng)學(xué)生命名動(dòng)物或衣服時(shí)；當(dāng)學(xué)生描述他們的周末或分享他們的觀點(diǎn)時(shí)，定時(shí)配對(duì)共享對(duì)于詳盡的演講很有用。實(shí)際上有數(shù)百個(gè)Kagan結(jié)構(gòu)，每個(gè)Kagan結(jié)構(gòu)都具有不同的功能，但是所有Kagan結(jié)構(gòu)都是經(jīng)過(guò)精心設(shè)計(jì)的，以實(shí)現(xiàn)合作學(xué)習(xí)的四個(gè)關(guān)鍵原則。i我們使用首字母縮寫PIES來(lái)象征合作學(xué)習(xí)的四個(gè)基本原則：<br></h3> <h3>老師一次召集一名學(xué)生參加的傳統(tǒng)教學(xué)無(wú)法實(shí)現(xiàn)所有四個(gè)原則：學(xué)生不在同一邊，不需要一起工作；他們可以不舉手就選擇不表演；高成就者更多地參與；一次只能參加一個(gè)學(xué)生。
<b>Kagan結(jié)構(gòu)不是集體工作</b></h3><h3>
許多老師認(rèn)為僅在進(jìn)行小組學(xué)習(xí)時(shí)便正在實(shí)施合作學(xué)習(xí)。小組工作并不能始終為所有學(xué)生帶來(lái)學(xué)術(shù)和語(yǔ)言上的收獲。有什么區(qū)別？小組工作是非結(jié)構(gòu)化的互動(dòng)。例如，一位老師讓學(xué)生成對(duì)出現(xiàn)，并要求他們“ 討論 ” ?；蛘咭晃焕蠋熥寣W(xué)生分成四人一組，并要求他們“與您的團(tuán)隊(duì)討論”?；蛘?，一位老師有一個(gè)工作表或任務(wù)學(xué)生要在小組中完成，并說(shuō)：“作為一個(gè)小組一起完成任務(wù)?！? 在所有這些情況下，老師都告訴學(xué)生該怎么做，但是并沒(méi)有組織他們?nèi)绾稳プ?。。老師沒(méi)有為PIES安排課程。結(jié)果是可以預(yù)見(jiàn)的，對(duì)許多學(xué)生來(lái)說(shuō)往往不是積極的。想象一對(duì)學(xué)生。一個(gè)學(xué)生能說(shuō)流利的目標(biāo)語(yǔ)言，而另一個(gè)學(xué)生是早期語(yǔ)言學(xué)習(xí)者，或者說(shuō)的流利程度較低。誰(shuí)會(huì)做最多甚至所有的談話？最流利的學(xué)生會(huì)獲得大部分甚至全部的語(yǔ)言練習(xí)。無(wú)意間，對(duì)于教室中的每對(duì)老師，老師對(duì)最需要練習(xí)的學(xué)生呼吁最多，而對(duì)最需要練習(xí)的學(xué)生呼吁最少。在項(xiàng)目上進(jìn)行小組合作的結(jié)果是相同的：越是高級(jí)的學(xué)生將接手并獲得實(shí)踐的最大份額，因此，在高成就者和低成就者之間在語(yǔ)言學(xué)習(xí)上的差距就越大。散亂的小組工作會(huì)導(dǎo)致參與者的參與非常不平等，從而導(dǎo)致語(yǔ)言發(fā)展不均。
我們說(shuō)，只要老師沒(méi)有構(gòu)建學(xué)生之間的互動(dòng)關(guān)系，那么PIES的所有四項(xiàng)原則都將建立在他們互動(dòng)的方式中，那么老師就是在進(jìn)行小組學(xué)習(xí)，而不是真正的合作學(xué)習(xí)。
Kagan結(jié)構(gòu)不是合作學(xué)習(xí)課程
合作學(xué)習(xí)有許多不同的模型。除Kagan結(jié)構(gòu)外，幾乎所有經(jīng)過(guò)深入研究的合作學(xué)習(xí)模型都是基于課程的。也就是說(shuō)，他們告訴老師如何進(jìn)行合作學(xué)習(xí)課程。盡管精心設(shè)計(jì)了這些合作學(xué)習(xí)課程以實(shí)施合作學(xué)習(xí)的基本原理，但它們并不能持續(xù)產(chǎn)生收益。與小組工作不同，問(wèn)題不在于缺乏基本原則的結(jié)構(gòu)化。相反，問(wèn)題在于這些合作學(xué)習(xí)課程太復(fù)雜和/或乏味。老師覺(jué)得他們太難了。在最初的熱情消退之后，教師發(fā)現(xiàn)每天晚上花太多時(shí)間計(jì)劃下一次合作學(xué)習(xí)課程，或者發(fā)現(xiàn)評(píng)分和評(píng)分太費(fèi)時(shí)了，這太困難了。我曾與數(shù)百名接受過(guò)各種合作學(xué)習(xí)課程培訓(xùn)的老師交談，并成功完成了一段時(shí)間，但后來(lái)又放棄了他們，發(fā)現(xiàn)計(jì)劃太困難或發(fā)現(xiàn)以相同的方式講課太無(wú)聊的慣例為他們的學(xué)生和自己。問(wèn)題不是課程在實(shí)施時(shí)是否有效，問(wèn)題在于它們不會(huì)導(dǎo)致持續(xù)的實(shí)施。
Kagan結(jié)構(gòu)非常容易實(shí)現(xiàn)。它們不需要特殊的材料，計(jì)劃或準(zhǔn)備，也不需要繁瑣的評(píng)分系統(tǒng)。例如，一旦教師掌握了RallyRobin或“ 定時(shí)對(duì)共享”的步驟，則教師可以在任何課程中立即使用這些強(qiáng)大的結(jié)構(gòu)，而無(wú)需進(jìn)行特殊準(zhǔn)備。要求學(xué)生求助于伙伴并進(jìn)行RallyRobin變得很自動(dòng)，因?yàn)槔蠋熆梢哉賳景嗌系囊幻麑W(xué)生做出回應(yīng)。畢竟，如果以語(yǔ)言發(fā)展為目標(biāo)，為什么我們要召集一個(gè)學(xué)生，讓一個(gè)學(xué)生發(fā)言，而同時(shí)讓每個(gè)學(xué)生都這樣講呢？
Kagan結(jié)構(gòu)易于實(shí)施，但經(jīng)過(guò)精心設(shè)計(jì)以確保收益
Kagan Structures避免了傳統(tǒng)教學(xué)的主要陷阱，傳統(tǒng)教學(xué)的主要陷阱是每小時(shí)大約一分鐘的口頭語(yǔ)言制作，從而導(dǎo)致非常不平等的參與和收獲。它與小組工作不同，小組工作未能執(zhí)行合作學(xué)習(xí)的基本原則，并且像傳統(tǒng)教學(xué)一樣，導(dǎo)致了非常不平等的參與。它也不同于合作學(xué)習(xí)課程，后者涉及過(guò)多的準(zhǔn)備和/或記錄保存，從而導(dǎo)致工作倦怠和執(zhí)行不力。像小組工作一樣，Kagan Structures易于實(shí)施，并且像合作學(xué)習(xí)課程一樣，它們執(zhí)行合作學(xué)習(xí)的基本原理，以確保成功。
Kagan結(jié)構(gòu)對(duì)于促進(jìn)語(yǔ)言學(xué)習(xí)具有強(qiáng)大的作用。輸入，輸出和上下文這三個(gè)變量有助于獲得第二種語(yǔ)言。當(dāng)我們接觸到可理解的輸入時(shí)，我們就會(huì)學(xué)習(xí)一種語(yǔ)言。Kagan結(jié)構(gòu)增加了可理解的輸入量。因?yàn)閷W(xué)生需要知道他們的伴侶或隊(duì)友在說(shuō)什么，所以他們會(huì)調(diào)整語(yǔ)言以確保獲得可理解的輸入。產(chǎn)量急劇增加。為了給每位學(xué)生提供一分鐘的語(yǔ)言練習(xí)，需要以傳統(tǒng)的順序上課的方式進(jìn)行一小時(shí)的上課時(shí)間。使用結(jié)對(duì)結(jié)構(gòu)，大約兩分鐘即可達(dá)到目標(biāo)！最后，由于積極的相互依存關(guān)系，卡根結(jié)構(gòu)為語(yǔ)言學(xué)習(xí)創(chuàng)造了相互支持的環(huán)境。學(xué)生感覺(jué)自己站在同一側(cè)，在合作伙伴和隊(duì)友的支持下。在這種情況下，他們不怕嘗試不熟悉的語(yǔ)言。永遠(yuǎn)不會(huì)舉手與全班同學(xué)交談的學(xué)生，很容易與支持性伴侶或隊(duì)友交談。PIES對(duì)于成功的合作學(xué)習(xí)至關(guān)重要。它們對(duì)于語(yǔ)言學(xué)習(xí)也至關(guān)重要。</h3><h3>
參考
Kagan，S。和M. Kagan?？ǜ献鲗W(xué)習(xí)。加利福尼亞州圣克萊門特市：卡根出版社，2009年。<br></h3>