It was categorically stated by Smith (1981) that right in the heart of the cooperative learning model lies the social interdependence theory. In 1981, Smith, Johnson, and Johnson, employed the social interdependence theory into the engineering education community. The researchers employed and elaborated on two types of social interdependence theory constructs, which are positive and negative interdependence as posited by Deutsch in both 1949 and 1962. Based on Deutsch’s previous findings, Smith et al. (1981) further elaborate that positive interdependence exists when there is a positive correlation among individuals’ goal attainments; individuals perceive that they can attain their goals if, and only if, the other individuals with whom they are cooperatively linked attain their goals. Negative interdependence exists when there is a negative correlation among individuals’ goal achievements; when individuals are of the firm belief that their own objectives can be obtained only when those they are competing with fail in achieving their own goals. No interdependence or individualistic efforts exist when there is no correlation among individuals’ goal achievements; individuals perceive that the achievement of their goals is unrelated to the goal achievement of others. Johnson and Johnson (1989) summarise the core of the social interdependence theory by postulating that “Social interdependence exists when the
outcomes of individuals are affected by their own and others’ actions.” It can be
64
teaching learning approach where the teacher was the only one active in the process and every individuals’ aim was to outdo the others, which brought hostilities and a higher amount of unhealthy competition among learners, a situation that cooperative learning when applied appropriately will correct.
Emanating from this view and in tracing studies conducted on the social interdependence theory (SIT) and its effectiveness, Stanne, Johnson, and Johnson, (1999: 133-154) are quoted below:
Social interdependence theory is a classic example of the interaction among theory, research, and practice. The premise of the theory is that the way in which goals are structured determines how individuals interact, which in turn creates outcomes. These studies have validated, modified, refined, and extended the theory. Social interdependence theory has been widely applied, especially in education.
Considering the core ideals of the social interdependence theory makes it clear there is cooperation among students, especially where there is a correlation between what group members do in a team. To expatiate, Stanne et al. (1999: 133-154) provide enough grounds that the theory imbibes in learners a higher sense of achieving, more positive relationships, and greater psychological health than the theories that are based on competition or individualism. Stanne et al’s work helps in establishing what was earlier opined by Smith that the S.I Theory is the heart of cooperative learning because learners learn together and build good relationships as they learn. Stanne et al. further add that the cooperation remains a powerful tool as long as there is presence of a clear and positive interdependence that will lead to promotive interaction, through the use of social skills and group processing. From the write up, enough evidence has been provided so far as confirmation that the social interdependence theory is a strong foundation upon which cooperative learning can be built on and a sure consideration for effective and successful teaching and learning.
The researcher asserts that the social interdependence theory can provide many insights into preparing English FAL learners in the school /classroom when working with
65
fellow classmates/ others to synthesize common group outcomes/ goals and then attain common purposes to achieve higher academic performances and learn social skills such as respect and dignity, which are essential for developing collaborative advantage and navigating complexity amongst themselves. This comes about as a result of both gifted and weak English FAL learners /students coming together to tackle a common language writing/essay problem, bringing together individual (synergic effort) and group effort all in a bid to achieve the maximum best for the group, hence making the social interdependence theory a sure strategy in effective teaching and learning.
At the centre of the modern teaching learning process is the learner, a case very typical with the various South African curricula; hence the very tenets of the S.I theory have been used variously in establishing it as a theory underpinning the cooperative learning approach and most especially with regards to this study. First of all, individual and group accountability are enforced, where each individual is made accountable for a specific task or topic assigned to the group and other group members. This to a large extent helps students to see the need to work individually and in a group in order to achieve the ultimate goal of the group. When this stage is successfully passed, rivalry and competition (negative interdependence) gets out of the equation; making way for the principle of positive interdependence. Positive interdependence naturally emanates from the need, on the part of group members, to work on the task that has been assigned them and the quest to ensure that the group is successful. At this stage, group members tend to appreciate what has come to be termed “sink or swim together”, which in turn helps them appreciate that the entire team benefits when all individual team member’s performance is high and is also held accountable when one or more members do not perform well.
After members of a group, individually and collectively, come to terms with the idea of swim or sink and put in all effort to ensure that the group swims instead of sinking, the next stage that follows is group processing. Oliver (1999) explains that in group processing, students are coached on group process skills-supporting differences,
66
listening, providing feedback, gatekeeping to ensure all participate, coaching others, reaching consensus. Once students assimilated these skills, teacher [facilitator in a typical cooperative learning situation] will then make all efforts to channel students attention to the group processes outlined by Oliver in order to ensure that the S.I theory is employed to the fullest in establishing it as the heart of all theories that underpin cooperative learning and also an effective way of ensuring cooperative learning in the classroom.
3.2.2 Social Constructivism
According to Derry (1999) and McMahon (1997), the emphasis of social constructivism is on the importance of culture and context in understanding what occurs in society and construction of knowledge based on this understanding. Shunk (2000) cited in Kim (2001) notes that this perspective is closely associated with many contemporary theories. Shunk’s statement gives the scope of theories that are associated with the social constructivist theory. Amongst the most prominent theories he noted are; the developmental theories of Vygotsky and Bruner, and Bandura's social cognitive theory which all emphasise group work, which for this research is cooperative learning.
It is noted firstly that reality, knowledge and learning are the specific assumptions upon which social constructivism is based. For a clearer understanding and application of the perspectives of this theory, it is necessary to understand the premise or assumptions earlier noted. An explanation of the three specific assumptions is done presently. Social constructivists believe that reality is constructed through human activity in that members of a society [group] together invent the properties of the world (Kukla, 2000). For the social constructivist, reality cannot be discovered: it does not exist prior to its social invention. In short, reality is a social construct and names are only assigned to what is seen out there by human beings. It therefore behooves on teachers in the cooperative learning environment to help learners learn cooperatively in order to make use of what is inherent (skills, knowledge and experience) in them.
67
Several research studies have revealed that social constructivists, posit that knowledge is a human product, which is constructed according to our social and cultural orientation (Prawatt & Floden, 1994; Gredler, 1997 and Ernest, 1999). An explanation to this assertion is that meaning is created by individuals as they interact with others and the environment in which they live. In the nutshell, knowledge as a social construct is gained as one becomes more and more familiar with the environment and also with others.
In the words of McMahon (1997), learning is viewed as a social process by social constructivists. It is further explained that learning does not take place only within an individual, nor is it a passive development of behaviours that are shaped by external forces. In essence, meaningful learning results from engagement in group activity, which is the main pillar of cooperative learning. With this said, effective learning can fully take place when the teacher puts learners in the centre of learning and makes the classroom more activity based rather than making learners passive recipients of knowledge.
Another important element of the social constructivist theory is intersubjectivity, which Rogoff (1990) explained as “a shared understanding among individuals whose interaction is based on common interests and assumptions that form the ground for their communication.” Being a teacher for over ten years, I know the content to be taught to learners is tailored to suit their needs and therefore most of the students will have an interest of what is being taught and will serve as premise for learners to share their knowledge with one another. Based on the content that serves as a common ground for learners, Ernest (1999) buttress Rogoff’s assertion that communications and interactions among group members entail socially agreed-upon ideas of the world and the social patterns and rules of language use. To bring cooperative learning into the picture, it has been established that social meanings and knowledge are shaped and evolve through negotiation within the communicating groups (Gredler, 1997; Prawat & Floden, 1994). This is in view of the fact that through interaction among learners, some
68
will soften their stands on issues, some will change their minds entirely and some will unlearn, learn and relearn through the negotiations that go on as they negotiate.
To establish reason for which social constructivist theory is being discussed as a theory for cooperative learning, Rogoff (1990) and Vygotsky (1987) in Kim (2001) touch on intersubjectivity and posit that not only does social constructivist theory serve as a premise for communication to take place but it also serves as a support system for people to extend their understanding of the information they have newly acquired the and activities among task members. From the ongoing, it is agreed that through intersubjectivity, positive interaction can take place which will in turn help in building knowledge due to the cooperative nature of groups at work (Prawat & Floden, 1994; McMahon, 1997; Gredler, 1997 and Shunk, 2000). It can be concluded that when members of a community become aware of their intersubjective meanings, it becomes easier for them to understand new information and activities that arise in the community. This goes a long way in establishing that when task-members work in unison, taking into consideration the principle of intersubjectivity, success rate in teaching and learning will be higher compared to individual work and work done in the face of competition.