Purpose and State of Research

COoperative Open Learning (COOL) is a progressive model of teaching that was introduced in Austria in 1996 by a small team of teachers, who struggled with heterogeneity in their commercial college-classrooms. COOL gained nation-wide attention and soon spread over Austria. At the moment over 100 Austrian commercial colleges are “COOL-certified” (cooltrainers 2011).

However, there have been hardly any attempts to analyze the effects of this specific instructional design so far. A few cross-sectional studies give insight into the state of selected teaching- and learning-related dimensions such as classroom climate (Eder 1999; Helm 2011), self regulated learning (Neubauer 2010), self concept (Eder 1999; Sturm et al. 2009), social competence (Raabe 2008; Helm 2009), commercial mathematics performance (Aff & Rechberger 2008; Altrichter, Helm & Kallinger 2010). However, the results are inconsistent and do not allow to draw causal inference, due to the design of these studies. The main purpose of the presented dissertation project is to remedy this research desideratum. 

Research questions concerning the extent of external guidance in learning processes lead to a paradigm controversy that has lasted for 30 years (Meyer 2004) and ended in the rationale, that there is no single instructional design that serves all goals and solves all problems of institutional education (Weinert 1998). The present study aims to replicate those empirical findings on high school/college level (e.g. for subject-specific knowledge guided instruction seems to be more effective, whereas for key competences open learning environments seem to be slightly more effective; Hedges & Giaconia 1981). 

Theoretical Framework & Impact Theory

To overcome the above-mentioned heterogeneity the cool-teachers decided to implement the basic principles of the Education On The Dalton Plan (by Helen Parkhurst 1921): freedom, cooperation and budgeting time. Additionally, a few further innovations were established: 

• Teamteaching
• Working on assignments: Students decide on their own, when, where and how they work on their assignments.
• Teachers are coaches who focus on going into the special needs of the individual student and on promoting them purposefully.
• In regularly performed class councils students discuss their concerns and problems and practise conversation and moderation techniques.
• Parents are involved more strongly in school issues and the learning processes of their children.

From a theoretical point of view (Offer and Use Model, Helmke 2009) one could argue that students within the COOL-model compared to traditionally taught students face a learning environment of higher quality, due to: more individualization and student-centred instruction, more motivation and collaboration as well as advanced education among COOL-teachers... Furthermore, the above-mentioned elements should force teachers to act in a way that leads to higher motivation and self-regulated learning among COOL-students, driven primarily by higher autonomy, competence and relatedness (Reeve, Ryan, Deci & Jang 2008). Learning in such an environment should also foster abilities of self-regulated learning (Zimmerman 2006). That is why one could also argue that COOL-students benefit more from school activities and thus total learning time should increase with the COOL-model or respectively should be used more effectively by the students.

Altrichter, H., Helm, C. & Kallinger, B. (2010): Umsetzungsanalyse des Konzeptes HAS NEU Bregenz – eine Schule mit ganztägigem Unterricht. Projektbericht. Linz: Abteilung für Pädagogik und Pädagogische Psychologie. Johannes Kepler Universität. cooltrainers (2011): Offizielle Website des Impulszentrums für COOL. Online im Internet unter: www.cooltrainers.at (03.05.2011). Eder, F. (1999): Offenes Lernen am BG Dornbirn. Evaluationsbericht. Linz: Institut für Pädagogik und Psychologie. Giaconia, R.M. & Hedges, L.V. (1981): Identifying Features of Effective Open Education Programs. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (Los Angeles, CA, April 13-17, 1981). Online im Internet unter: http://eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED208513.pdf (03.05.2011). Helm, C. (2009): Wie moralisch ist COOL? Welchen Beitrag leistet COoperatives Offenes Lernen zur Entwicklung moralischer Urteilsfähigkeit? Diplomarbeit. Abteilung für Pädagogik und Pädagogische Psychologie, Linz: Johannes Kepler Universität. Helm, C. (2011): Lernförderlicheres Klima im/durch geöffneten Unterricht? In: wissenplus, 5-10/11, 50-54. Meyer, H. (2004): Was ist guter Unterricht? Berlin: Cornelsen Scriptor. Neubauer, M. (2010): Cooperatives Offenes Lernen an Handelsschulen eine empirische Studie der Auswirkungen auf Selbstwirksamkeitserwartungen, Lernstrategien und Einstellungen zur Teamarbeit von Schüler/innen. Dissertation. Wien: Wirtschaftsuniversität. Neuhauser, G. (2005): Soziales Lernen ist COOL. Ein reformpädagogisch inspirierter Schulentwicklungsprozess an der BHAK/BHAS Steyr. In: Erziehung & Unterricht, 155(3-4), 238-249. Raabe, I. (2008): COoperatives, Offenes Lernen (COOL) als Unterrichtskonzept im Fach: Betriebswirtschaftslehre. Effekte auf die Kooperationsfähigkeit. Diplomarbeit. Karlsruhe: Lehrstuhl für Wirtschaftspädagogik. Sturm, T., Hanfstingl, B. & Andreitz, I. (2009): Evaluation des COOL-Unterrichts unterbesonderer Berücksichtigung des Umgangs mit Heterogenität durch Differenzierung. Unveröffentlichter Projektbericht. Klagenfurt: Alpen-Adria-Universität. Weinert, F.E. (1998): Neue Unterrichtskonzepte zwischen gesellschaftlichen Visionen und psychologischen Möglichkeiten. In: Bayerisches Staatsministerium für Unterricht, Kultur, Wissenschaft und Kunst (Hrsg.): Wissen und Werte für die Welt von Morgen. München, S. 101-125.