………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Proponents of cooperative learning argue that working together provides students with
more opportunities to talk about mathematics, to learn from others, and to learn through
teaching (see, for example, Brown & Palincsar, 1989; Farivar & Webb, 1994; Nattiv,
1994; Stevens & Slavin, 1995).
Still, when not implemented carefully, using group work may exacerbate equity issues
in the classroom by supporting students who are already successful, while leaving less
successful students behind (Cohen, Lotan, Scarloss, & Arellano, 1999; Weissglass,
2000)
The equitable implementation of cooperative learning in mathematics classrooms
depends not just on what teachers do; students’ learning depends on how they interact
with one another. How do students go about learning together in groups? How can we
encourage more productive and equitable interactions? As I will show, we cannot
answer these questions simply by outlining how a teacher might structure the perfectly
equitable activity. A single cooperative activity structure may be taken up in multiple
ways in the classroom, and issues of equity are complex enough that some aspects of
an activity might support equity, while other aspects detract from it. Therefore, in order
to better understand issues of equity, we must examine this uptake process – within
particular activities, how do students interact and what are the consequences for their
learning? To this end, I present an analysis of two different activity structures adopted in
high school mathematics classes. The focus of this paper is how particular activities, set
in classroom contexts, afford particular kinds of engagement from cooperative groups. I
study groups’ uptake of the two activity structures and how this uptake affected the
distribution of opportunities to learn in the group.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Students in the cooperative learning group had increasingly higher test scores than
students in the comparison group and significantly outscored the comparison group on
the 3rd chapter test. Survey results revealed primarily favorable responses toward the
cooperative learning procedure. Most students indicated that they liked working in
groups and appreciated getting help from other students, especially for learning difficult
concepts. Some students disliked having groups preassigned and permanent, and they
suggested alternating group membership.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
The integration of the cooperative learning supported by the multiple intelligence theory
(CLMI) into the mathematics teaching may facilitate the access to students with different
intelligence areas. With this integration, the content can be made meaningful for all
students
The CLMI is one of these methods. By this way, students learn the topic of the day in
cooperative learning teams, by reading, writing, calculating, solving problems in
collaboration, acting, building, singing in rhythm and in different forms of the arts.
Cooperative learning technique was implemented in the CLMI method used in this
study.
One of these methods is cooperative learning (CL), which complies with students’
development activities such as smooth transition from concrete to abstract concepts
and a cooperative learning atmosphere (Bulut and Koc 2006).
When the techniques in the scope of CL are analyzed, it can be seen that many
techniques (brainstorming, roundrobin, numbered heads together, send a problem,
formation, mix-freeze-group, pairs check, mix-pair-discuss, team stand-n-share, etc.)
are appropriate for the MI theory.
Regarding the activities and techniques utilized, CL method can be regarded as a way
of implementing MI principles into the educational environments. Because of that this
specific research has focused on the cooperative learning method and MI which was
proposed by Gardner (1983) and its implications for future research have been offered
by Leazar (1999), Armstrong (2000), Campbell et al. (1992); Gardner and Hatch (1989).
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Mathematics are as follows: (1) learning to communicate (mathematical
communication); (2) learning to bemalar (mathematical reasoning); (3) learning to solve
problems (mathematical problem solving); (4) learning to link ideas (mathematical
connection); (5) learning to present ideas (mathematical representation)