HW. 2 Cooperative LearningReadings and Handouts· Johnson, D. W.

HW. 2 Cooperative Learning
Readings and Handouts:
· Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Holubec, E. J. (1994).
Cooperative learning in the classroom. Association for
Supervision and Curriculum.
· Gillies, R. (2003). Structuring cooperative group work in
classrooms. International Journal of Educational Research,
39(1),35-49.
· Mirrored Tiles Lesson Plan, Handout & Answers
Videos
· Incorporating Cooperative Learning Effectively (7:39 mins.)
Social Studies Clips
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PquzYeaex4
· Where Cooperative Learning Works: Increasing Classroom
Interaction and Integrating Skills (ESL Lesson 43:46 mins.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIiENACsEwo
Respond to Questions:
(1) Based on the Cooperative Learning Reading by Johnson,
Johnson and Holubec (1994). Respond to the following:
(a) Why use cooperative learning? What is different between
formal cooperative learning and informal?
(b) What are 5 essential elements of cooperative learning?
Discuss what each means in your own words and why it is
important.
(c) What do teachers need to know about monitoring and
intervening when students are working in cooperative groups?
(2) Based on Gillies (2003) article on Structuring cooperative

group work in classrooms, respond to the following:
(a) What are key research findings about cooperative learning?
To what extent are these findings important for teachers,
including yourself? Explain why.
(b) What theoretical perspective(s) inform cooperative learning
research and practice?
(c) To what extent are findings in the reading similar to those
reported in the short Video—Incorporating Cooperative
Learning Effectively.
(3) Read the Mirrored Tiles Lesson Plan and provide specific
examples to explain in what ways each of the five key elements
of cooperative learning are evidenced (or not) in the lesson
plan. If any of the five elements are not addressed, point those
out and explain your observation; then suggest a way that it
might be addressed in the lesson plan.
(4) Watch the Video Lesson—Where Cooperative Learning
Works. Provide specific examples to explain in what ways each
of the key five elements for cooperative learning are evidenced
(or not) in the lesson. If any of the five elements are not
addressed, point those out and explain your observation; then
suggest a way that it might be addressed in the lesson. (As you
observe the video, watch for teacher interactions with the
groups (e.g., How does the teacher promote group interactions?
Some teachers exchange communications with individual
students (as if it was an individual task) rather than addressing
the entire group when a member asks a question or when the
teacher has a question or comment. This does not model
cooperation in the group to the students.)
(5) What questions or concerns do you still have about using
cooperative learning through the implementation of the 5 key
elements that other classmates may respond to?
Rai2

Unit 2 Discussion Board Post: The Progressive Era
To prepare for this discussion board post, please read Chapter
21 in your textbook, watch the lecture videos
"Progressive Era Definition Video Lecture
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGpHC2SpGdU&ab_channel
=SarabethReed
," "Progressive Focus Video Lecture,"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zHWsnok9ac&feature=yout
u.be&ab_channel=SarabethReed
"Roosevelt and Progressive Era Video Lecture,"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Zft0dgjP_Y&feature=youtu
.be
Sources
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9LmBgY-
F5A&ab_channel=HISTORY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWiHtUymEhw&ab_cha nne
l=NBCNewsLearn
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vjdvDsEw0I&ab_channel=
NBCNewsLearn
Once you have reviewed the sources, please answer the
following question: Can there be social reform without
government (federal, state, and/or local)? Explain your
position, and be sure to cite at least three historical examples
from the Progressive Era as evidence.
To receive full credit for this assignment your post must address
the questions asked in the prompt in at least 200 words. You do
need to cite your sources.

Sources
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9LmBgY-
F5A&ab_channel=HISTORY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWiHtUymEhw&ab_channe
l=NBCNewsLearn
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vjdvDsEw0I&ab_channel=
NBCNewsLearn
1
Maria Lorelei Fernandez, Ph.D.
Florida International University
[email protected]
Adapted from M. L. Fernández & C. Anhalt, “Transition Toward
Algebra,”
Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, vol. 7 no. 4.
Mirrored Tiles Lesson Plan
Grade(s): 6-8 Algebra
Overarching (Long-term) Affective and Practice/Process
Goal(s):
• Students will construct viable arguments using inductive

and/or deductive reasoning to
discover and defend algebraic relationships.
(CCSS.Math.Practice.MP3)
• Students will create and use representations to organize,
record, and communicate
mathematical ideas.
• Students will apply and adapt a variety of appropriate
strategies to make sense of and solve
a mathematical problem.
Florida (or other State) Standards for Mathematics and Lesson
Objectives:
•MAFS.6.EE.3.9 Use variables to represent two quantities in a
real-world problem that
change in relationship to one another; write an equation to
express one quantity, thought of as
the dependent variable, in terms of the other quantity, thought
of as the independent variable.
Analyze the relationship between the dependent and
independent variables using graphs and
tables, and relate these to the equation.
or
•MAFS.7.EE.2.4 Use variables to represent quantities in a real -

world or mathematical
problem, and construct simple equations and inequalities to
solve problems by reasoning
about the quantities.
or
• MAFS.8.F.1.2 Compare properties of two functions each
represented in a different way
(algebraically, graphically, numerically in tables, or by verbal
descriptions).
Approx. Time: One block period (1hr 20 mins)
Materials
Colored Tiles, Mirrored Tiles Worksheet, graph paper, tools to
randomly select group
members during whole class discussion (numbered tiles, dice,
etc.)
Procedures
Motivation/Launch: Introduce mirrored tiles problem and ask
participants to predict which
type of tile (2 beveled edges, 1 beveled edge, 0 beveled edges)
M&M Designs should make

the most of. Record guesses on board.
1. Have participants get into groups of 3. Inform them that
they are to work together and one
member will be selected at random to present group findings
during the whole class
discussion. Assign group numbers and numbers for individuals
in each group (i.e., 1, 2, or 3).
2. Distribute the Mirrored Tiles Worksheet. Role die to select
one group member or ask
groups to send a member to get the materials for the problem
solving. Ask groups to discuss
strategies for solving the problem for 5 minutes, helping each
group member become
prepared to share ideas with class.
3. Randomly select participants, one at a time, to share one
strategy for solving the problem.
Open up to class for additional strategies.
2

[email protected]
Algebra,”
4. Students will be asked to work in groups creating different
sized mirrors, gathering data
about the numbers of different types of tiles in each mirror,
developing tables for the data,
and looking for patterns in the data.
Teacher will walk around observing group interactions,
responding to questions asked, and
asking questions or providing hints for groups having difficulty
with gathering data.
Possible questions/hints: What is your group doing to solve the
problem? How is it helping
you solve the problem? How is your group using the color tiles?
How does making a table of
values help?
Possible student responses: We are creating the mirrors from the

tiles, starting with a 3x3.
We are using different colored tiles for the inside the edges and
the corners. We are making a
table for the numbers of different types of mirrored tiles.
5. Students working in groups will look for patterns in the data
and/or in the mirrors created
with the tiles to construct algebraic formulas for the
relationships representing number of tiles
with 2 beveled edges, 1 beveled edge, and 0 beveled edges (see
possible answers attached).
Students will use inductive reasoning to construct relationships
from the data and deductive
reasoning to explain and defend the algebraic formulas for the
relationships.
Teacher continues walking around observing and interacting
with groups as deemed needed.
Possible questions/hint: What relationships did your group
construct? How did your group
use the table of values? How did your group use the ti led
mirrors to create or defend the
relationships? How many sides on a square? How does number
of sides relate to the algebraic

equation for tiles with 1 beveled edge? Etc.
Possible student Responses: The number of 2 beveled edge tiles
for any mirror is always four
tiles, the corner tiles. The number of one beveled edge tiles is
growing by 4 tiles as the size
of the square mirror grows by one each way. If we look at the
drawing of the squares, for the
one beveled edge tiles, for any side length, subtract 2 from the
side length and multiply by
four since a square has 4 sides.
6. Bring class together for whole class discussion. Use students’
suggestions to set-up a table
on the board (or overhead) to be filled as a whole class to
determine the general formula
(table column headers may include: side length (dimension of
square), 2 beveled edges, 1
beveled edge, 0 beveled edges).
7. Randomly select participants, one at a time, to come to board
(or overhead) and fill one
table column (2 beveled edges, 1 beveled edge or 0 beveled
edges) and explain patterns

observed and relationships/formulas for their column. Select
one individual to fill 2 beveled
edges, another from a different group to fill 1 beveled edge, and
another for 0 beveled edges.
(see possible relationships/formulas attached). After each
column is filled, open discussion
for other groups to add their algebraic formulas for the
relationships or other observations.
Teacher orchestrates discussion of data gathered and algebraic
formulas discovered.
8. Randomly select students, one at a time, to verify the
algebraic formulas for the
relationships deductively through the use of the tiles for a partly
visual argument. (See the
handout attached for possible explanations.) Open discussion
for other groups to discuss how
they verified their algebraic formulas.
3

[email protected]
Algebra,”
Teacher orchestrates discussion to verify algebraic formulas
through deductive reasoning
using the tiles for a partly visual argument. Possible questions:
How many 2 beveled edge
tiles are needed for each square mirror? How did you use the
concrete tiles to defend the
relationships? How many sides on a square? How does the
number of sides relate to the
algebraic equation for tiles with 1 beveled edge or 0 beveled
edges? Etc.
9. Ask the students to explain which amount of each tile is
growing the fastest as the size of
the square mirror is increasing. How do they know?
Possible student response: The no beveled edge tile is growing
the fastest because they are in
the middle of the mirror so the bigger the mirror, the more

space in the middle.
10. Engage the students in graphing the relationships on graph
paper and/or graphing
calculators. Discuss observations about the graphs of the
different types of tiles. How are the
graphs related to the tables of values? Discuss the change in
values for the constant (2
beveled edges), linear (1 beveled edge), and quadratic (0
beveled edges) relationships. What
do the points of intersection represent?
11. Bring class together for whole class discussion. Randomly
select students to explain their
graphs and observations about the graphs. Ask students to use
the graphs to discuss which
amount of tile (2, 1, or 0 beveled edges) is growing the fastest.
Teacher orchestrates discussion of graphs. Possible questions:
What observations can be
made about all of the graphs and the pattern of growth for the
amounts of each type of tile?
For which type of tile is the amount growing fastest as square
mirrors increase in size? When

do the graphs of the relationships intersect? What do the
intersections represent? What
observations can be made about those intersections?
Possible student observations: The number of 2-beveled edge
tiles is constant, always 4
(implies linear relationship with slope of 0); the number of 1-
beveled edge tiles is growing at
a constant rate (implies linear relationship with positive slope);
and the number of 0-beveled
edge tiles is growing at a rate that is increasing by a constant
amount (implies quadratic
relationship). Students can observe and discuss the graphical
shapes of these different
relationships. Students can discuss the intersection of the
number of 1-beveled edge tiles and
the number of 0-beveled edge tiles occurring when the mirror is
6x6. Students can discuss
which tiles M&M Designs should make the most of. Have
students defend their positions
using the mathematics they have explored. Their arguments
might include issues of what
size mirrors customers may tend to make most often.

Extensions
Ask participants to create other patterns that can be explored
with the colored tiles and
develop relationships for these patterns.
Assessment
Informal observations of participants working in groups and
observations of responses made
by random group members. Collect written work (e.g., graphs of
relationships with
interpretations about the graphs and explanation of which types
of tiles the M&M Design
company should make most of).
Accommodations
4
[email protected]
Algebra,”

The use of small groups will provide support for students with
special needs such as second
language learners and special education students. Place students
in groups as needed to
benefit the learning of all students. The use of multiple
representations also provides support
for learners with different needs and approaches to developing
their understanding of the
mathematics.
Handout
Mirror Tiles Problem handout (attached)
Bibliography
Created by Maria Lorelei Fernandez and presented in M. L.
Fernández & C. Anhalt,
“Transition Toward Algebra,” Mathematics Teaching in the
Middle School, vol. 7 no. 4.

5
[email protected]
Algebra,”
Mirrored Tiles Problem
M&M Designs is making mirrored tiles that can be used to tile
walls (like tiles on floors).
There are 3 types of square one foot tiles: plain (0 beveled
edges), one beveled edge, and 2
beveled edges for corners. The outer tiles of any tiling will
have beveled edges for safety.
Sizes for square mirrors include 2’x2’, 3’x3’, 4’x4’, 5’x5’ and
so on. Your task is to
determine the number of mirrors for each of the 3 types needed
to make any square mirror
out of the mirrored tiles.

A. How many tiles of each type do you need for a 10’x10‘
square mirror (side length 10
feet)? Explain.
B. Develop a general formula for the number of each type of
tiles needed to make any square
mirror of whole length sides if you know the length of a side of
the mirror. Defend your
formulas.
C. Which type of tile should M&M Designs make most of?
Explain your reasoning.
D. Graph all of your information on the same coordinate axes.
What observations can you
make about the relationships? Use this information to discuss
part C.
2 Beveled Edges
Corner Tile
1 Beveled Edge
Outer Tile
0 Beveled Edges

Inner Tile

6
[email protected]
Algebra,”
Mirrored Tiles Problem Possible Answers
The Many Mirrors Design Company is making mirrored tiles
that can be used to tile walls
(like tiles on floors). There are 3 types of square one foot tiles:
plain (0 beveled edges), one
beveled edge, and 2 beveled edges for corners. The outer edge
of any square tiling will have

beveled edges for safety. Sizes for square mirrors include 2’x2’,
3’x3’, 4’x4’, 5’x5’ and so
on. Your task is to determine the number of mirrors for each of
the 3 types needed to make a
square mirror of any size out of the mirrored tiles.
2 Beveled Edges
Corner Tile
1 Beveled Edge
Outer Tile
0 Beveled Edges
Inner Tile

Examples:
2’ x 2’ 3’ x 3’
Randomly select participants (e.g., draw numbers from cup or
roll dice), one at a time, to
come to board (or overhead) and fill one table column (2

beveled edges, 1 beveled edge or 0
beveled edges) and explain any observed patterns, relationships
and formulas for their
column. Select one individual to fill 2 beveled edges, another
from a different group to fill 1
Beveled edge, and another for 0 Beveled edges. After each
column is filled, open discussion
for other groups to add their observations and formulas for the
relationships.
Possible observations and inductive reasoning to generate
formulas:
For 2 beveled edges, always 4.
For 1 beveled edge, growing by 4 tiles each time (recursive
formula); for any side length,
subtract 2 from the side length and multiply by four (explicit
formula); explicit formulas in
algebraic symbols, #Tiles = 4(x-2) or #Tiles = 4x-8.
For 3 beveled edges, growing by ascending odd numbers (1, 3,
5, 7, etc.) (recursive
formula); for any side length, subtract 2 and square the value
(e.g., for side length of 5, (5 –
2) squared) (explicit formula).

Call on participants to verify their formulas or algebraic
relationships deductively through
the use of the tiles for a partly visual argument. Select one
individual to discuss their
justifications for 2 beveled edges, another from a different
group to fill 1 beveled edge, and
another for 0 beveled edges. Open discussion for other groups
to discuss how they verified
their algebraic relationships.
7
[email protected]
Algebra,”
Possible deductive explanations (partly visual argument):
2 Beveled Edges
4: One on each corner of any square mirror, so always has 4
corners.

1 Beveled Edge
4(n – 2): n – 2 on each edge of the square, which has 4 edges; n
– 2 on each edge because we
need to subtract the two corner tiles along each edge. In the 3 ×
3 example below, the number
of one-beveled-edge tiles is 3 – 2 corner tiles along each edge,
so the number of one-beveled-
edge tiles is 4(1) = 4.
0 Beveled Edges
(n – 2)
2
: (n – 2)
2
because we need to subtract two rows of tiles along opposing
edges to
determine the length of each dimension of the square with zero
beveled edges found in the
center of each mirror. In the 4 × 4 example below, the
dimension of the inner square mirror is
(4 – 2) along each dimension of the square; thus, the number of
tiles with zero beveled edges
is 2 × 2.

ARTICL IN PR SS
Internat onal Journal of
Educat onal Research 39 (2003) 35–49
Chapter 2
Structur ng cooperat ve group work
n classrooms
Robyn M. G ll es
School of Education, The University of Queensland, Brisbane
4072, Australia
Abstra t
Cooperat ve, small-group learn ng s w dely recogn sed as a
pedagog cal pract ce that
promotes learn ng and soc al sat on across a range of curr culum
areas from pr mary school
through to h gh school and college. When ch ldren work
cooperat vely together, they learn to
g ve and rece ve help, share the r deas and l sten to other
students’ perspect ves, seek new ways
of clar fy ng d fferences, resolv ng problems, and construct ng
new understand ngs and

knowledge. The result s that students atta n h gher academ c
outcomes and are more
mot vated to ach eve than they would be f they worked alone.
Th s paper prov des an
overv ew of five d fferent stud es that the author has conducted
that demonstrate clearly the
mportance of expl c tly structur ng cooperat ve small-group
work n classrooms f ch ldren are
to der ve the benefits w dely attr buted to th s pedagog cal pract
ce.
r 2003 Elsev er Ltd. All r ghts reserved.
1. Introdu tion
Numerous stud es have been publ shed over the past three
decades that
demonstrate the benefits of cooperat ve learn ng. These benefits
nclude academ c
ga ns across d fferent curr culum doma ns (Calderon, Hertz-
Lazarow tz, & Slav n,
1998; Fall & Webb, 2000; Johnson & Johnson, 1999; Le k n &
Zaslavsky, 1997),
mproved part c pat on n school-based learn ng (Stevens & Slav
n, 1995) and
enhanced soc al sat on among peers (Johnson & Johnson, 1989;
Jordan & LeMeta s,
1997; Slav n; 1995), nclud ng more cross-ethn c and cross-sex
relat onsh ps (Sharan,
1990; Warr ng, Johnson, Maruyama, & Johnson, 1985). Ch ldren
w th mult ple and
severe d sab l t es have also benefited through acqu r ng
enhanced commun cat on
and motor sk lls (Hunt, Staub, Alwell, & Goetz, 1994) wh le
there have been more
E-mail a ress: r.g ll [email protected] lbox.uq.edu.au (R.M. G ll

es).
0883-0355/$ - see front matter r 2003 Elsev er Ltd. All r ghts
reserved.
do :10.1016/S0883-0355(03)00072-7
ARTICL IN PR SS
36 R.M. Gillies / Int. J. Educ. Res. 39 (2003) 35–49
pos t ve changes n group members’ percept ons of the r peers w
th learn ng
d sab l t es (Putnam, Markovch ck, Johnson, & Johnson, 1996).
Furthermore,
cooperat ve learn ng has been used successfully to help del
nquent youth develop
soc al commun cat on sk lls, ach evement and enhanced self-
esteem (Rutherford,
Mathur, & Qu nn, 1998; Ragan, 1993). In fact, Johnson,
Johnson, and Stanne (2001)
argue that there may be no other pedagog cal pract ce that s
multaneously ach eves
such d verse outcomes.
Wh le the benefits of cooperat ve learn ng are unequ vocal
(Cohen, 1994), t s
clear that plac ng students n groups and tell ng them to work
together w ll not
necessar ly promote cooperat on and learn ng. It s only when
groups are structured
so that students understand how they are expected to work
together that the
potent al for cooperat on and learn ng s max m sed (Johnson &
Johnson, 1990;
Slav n, 1995). Th s happens when students real se they are l

nked together n such a
way that no one can succeed unless they all do and they must
act vely coord nate
the r efforts to fac l tate each other’s learn ng (Johnson &
Johnson, 1990). In do ng
so, they develop a sense of psycholog cal nterdependence and
group dent ficat on
wh ch creates a feel ng of personal respons b l ty to contr bute
to the group
(Deutsch, 1949). In fact, Johnson and Johnson (1990) argue that
once these
cond t ons ex st, the free-load ng effect van shes.
Wh le structur ng the cooperat ve learn ng exper ence s
mportant for successful
small-group work, cooperat ve learn ng s enhanced when
students are taught the
soc al sk lls needed to promote a shar ng and car ng att tude
towards others
(Batt st ch, Solomon, & Delucch , 1993; Johnson & Johnson,
1987). Moreover, not
only must students be taught these sk lls, they must also be g
ven the opportun ty to
use them f they are to perce ve they are personally l ked,
supported, and accepted by
others, and, n turn, perce ve that others care about how much
they learn (Johnson &
Johnson, 1989). In a study of 48 fifth-grade students ( nclud ng
16 students w th an
ntellectual d sab l ty) who worked cooperat vely n two cond t
ons e ther w th or
w thout soc al sk lls tra n ng, Putnam, Rynders, Johnson, and
Johnson (1989), found
that more pos t ve relat onsh ps developed between d sabled and
non-d sabled
students n the groups that had rece ved soc al sk lls tra n ng

than n those that were
untra ned. Furthermore, these pos t ve relat onsh ps general sed
to post- nstruc-
t onal, free-t me s tuat ons. G ll es and Ashman (1996), n a
study of 192 Grade 6
ch ldren who worked n tra ned ( .e., rece ved soc al sk lls tra n
ng) and untra ned
cooperat ve groups, found that not only were the ch ldren n the
tra ned groups more
cooperat ve and helpful to each other, but they, also, d ffered s
gn ficantly n the r
percept on of the group as one n wh ch they could part c pate,
share deas, and make
jo nt dec s ons.
The soc al sk lls that have been dent fied that fac l tate commun
cat on nclude:
l sten ng to each other dur ng group d scuss ons; acknowledg ng
others’ deas and
cons der ng the r perspect ve on ssues; stat ng deas freely;
resolv ng confl cts
democrat cally; shar ng tasks equ tably; and allocat ng resources
fa rly among group
members (Egan, 1997; Johnson, Johnson, Dudley, M tchell, &
Fredr ckson, 1997).
In fact, Johnson, Johnson and Holubec (1993) argue that
students must have a
mod cum of these sk lls f they are to work together product
vely.
ARTICL IN PR SS
Expl c tly structur ng pos t ve goal nterdependence n groups

and ensur ng that
students are tra ned n the soc al sk lls requ red to promote
group nteract on
appears to be cr t cal for successful cooperat ve learn ng. Batt st
ch et al. (1993), n
an observat onal study of the frequency and qual ty of cooperat
ve learn ng act v t es
n 18, fourth- to s xth-grade classrooms, found that the effects
of cooperat ve
learn ng depended on the qual ty and not the frequency of group
nteract on.
Furthermore, student ach evement was h gher n groups when
there was h gh-qual ty
group nteract on, that s, when students were fr endly, helpful,
and cooperat ve.
Melroth and Deer ng (1994) focused on scr pt ng nteract ons
among grade 4 and 5
students as they worked n cooperat ve groups so they talked
about the task content
n a manner that helped them to learn (strateg c cond t on). The
results showed that
the ch ldren n the strateg c cond t on d scussed more substant
ve task content and
developed better metacogn t ve awareness than students n the
reward cond t on who
d d not use scr pted nteract ons. In essence, both Batt st ch et
al. and Melroth and
Deer ng h ghl ght the mportance of tra n ng students n the sk
lls needed to promote
nteract ons and fac l tate learn ng n cooperat ve groups. The
purpose of th s paper
s to prov de an overv ew of five stud es the author has
conducted that have focussed
on structur ng cooperat ve learn ng n small groups n pr mary
and h gh school
sett ngs to fac l tate nteract ons among group members and

promote learn ng.
2. Australian perspe tive
Cooperat ve learn ng as a pedagog cal pract ce s strongly
supported by many
state Departments of Educat on n Austral a because of the well -
documented
benefits that accrue to ch ldren who exper ence cooperat ve
learn ng. However,
d scuss ons w th teachers and students reveal that ts use s
often m n m sed w th few
schools be ng prepared to embed t systemat cally n the r teach
ng pract ces. Th s
may be due to the challenges t poses to teachers’ control of the
learn ng process, the
demands t places on soc al, rather than trad t onal academ c
goals, and the emphas s
on collect ve as opposed to nd v dual effort (Kohn, 1992). It
may also be due to an
unw ll ngness on the part of schools to address organ sat onal
ssues such as more
open commun cat on among teachers and students, more teacher
collaborat on n
develop ng teach ng pract ces, the demands of curr culum
change, and the role of
student-d rected learn ng n the construct on of knowledge
(Sharan, Shachar, &
Lev ne, 1999). In essence, cooperat ve learn ng requ res schools
to embrace change n
not only how they teach, but, also, n how they organ se to teach
and th s may be
someth ng many are unw ll ng to do n any systemat c way at
present.
3. Theoreti al and empiri al overview

The research on cooperat ve learn ng has been nformed from a
number of
theoret cal perspect ves on how ch ldren learn and under what
cond t ons they learn.
One of the most nfluent al perspect ves was developed by
Vygotsky (1978) who
ARTICL IN PR SS
proposed that ch ldren’s knowledge, deas, att tudes, and values
develop through
nteract ons w th others. In fact, when ch ldren nteract w th
adults or more able
peers, ch ldren’s learn ng s med ated or scaffolded so that they
can often complete
tasks that they would not be able to do by themselves (Bruner,
1973; Day, 1983). The
area where the ch ld cannot solve a problem alone but can be
successful under adult
gu dance or n collaborat on w th more capable peers s called
the ‘‘zone of prox mal
development’’ (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86). When ch ldren work
together n cooperat ve
groups, members often prov de nformat on, prompts and cues,
rem nders, and
encouragement n response to other ch ldren’s requests for help
or the r perce ved
need for help. In fact, Webb and Far var (1994) suggested that
ch ldren are often
more aware than the r teachers of what other ch ldren do not
understand, can d rect
the r peer’s focus to the relevant features of the problem, and

can often expla n t to
them n a way that can be read ly understood.
However, expl c t explanat on and demonstrat on s not the only
way ch ldren
learn. Help s often prov ded n the form of ‘‘prolept c nstruct
on’’ (Forman, 1989,
p.57) where l steners are requ red to act vely construct
understand ng for themselves
of the helper’s mpl c t nstruct onal messages (Stone, 1985).
Effect ve prolept c
nstruct on s based on the background knowledge that ch ldren
br ng to the task and
the shared understand ngs that they develop over t me. Hence,
the learn ng that
occurs s more nformal and mpl c t and the knowledge that s
nternal sed dur ng
prolept c nstruct on s tac t (Forman, 1989). In fact, Ell s and
Rogoff (1986) argue
that prolept c nstruct on may be the preferred nstruct onal
format n cooperat ve
learn ng because peers are l kely to be less sk lled than adults n
prov d ng expl c t
explanat on and demonstrat on.
Certa nly, prolept c nstruct on does occur and tac t understand
ngs do develop
among members as a result of the r group nvolvement. G ll es
and Ashman (1996,
1998) noted that when ch ldren had been tra ned to work
together they not only
prov ded more help and ass stance than the r untra ned peers,
but they also
developed an mpl c t understand ng of each other’s needs and
prov ded help and
ass stance when t was not expl c tly requested. Impl c t nstruct

on occurs when a
more capable student perce ves another student s ready to learn
and w ll develop
competence when help s prov ded (Rosensh ne & Me ster,
1994).
Wh le ch ldren learn through expl c t and mpl c t nstruct on
from the r peers, the
cond t ons under wh ch they learn are also mportant and affect
the learn ng that
occurs. In a meta-analys s of 66 stud es on cooperat ve, small-
group learn ng, Lou
et al. (1996) not only found that ch ldren ach eve more when
they work together n
small groups than they do n whole class groups, but they, also,
found that these
benefits were cont ngent on group s ze and compos t on, type of
small group
nstruct on, and tra n ng teachers rece ved to mplement small
group work.
Opt mal group s ze was three to four members because the
group was too small for
any members not to part c pate. However, the results of group
ab l ty compos t on
were less clear. Low ab l ty students learned s gn ficantly more
n heterogeneous
ab l ty groups than n homogeneous groups wh le med um ab l ty
students benefited
s gn ficantly more n homogeneous groups. In contrast, h gh-ab
l ty students learned
equally well n e ther types of group (Lou et al., 1996).
ARTICL IN PR SS

D fferent al nstruct onal treatments were found to have a s gn
ficant effect on
small group learn ng. Ach evement was h gher when nstruct
onal mater als were
var ed for d fferent groups than when teachers used the same set
of mater als for all.
Vary ng the nstruct onal mater al allowed teachers to exerc se
greater flex b l ty n
adjust ng the learn ng object ves and pace of nstruct on to meet
students d verse
needs. Furthermore, small groups learned more when they were
requ red to produce
a group product or accompl sh a group goal (Lou et al., 1996).
F nally, the extent of tra n ng g ven to teachers to mplement
small group work n
the r classrooms can s gn ficantly moderate the effect of small
group learn ng. Lou
et al. (1996) found when teachers were tra ned to mplement
small group learn ng,
students obta ned h gher learn ng outcomes than students who
worked n groups
where teachers were untra ned.
In summary, Vygotsky (1978) recogn sed that ch ldren’s learn
ng s med ated by
adults and more capable peers who teach the knowledge and sk
lls of the r culture.
Th s process of med at on or scaffold ng, enables ch ldren to
complete tasks they
would not be able to do by themselves. When ch ldren work
cooperat vely together,
the group creates a zone of prox mal development enabl ng
members to be successful

at tasks that they would be unable to do alone. Instruct on w th
n the group s both
expl c t and mpl c t, enabl ng ch ldren to engage n more
opportun t es for
develop ng understand ng and mean ng. Lou et al. (1996) found
that cooperat ve
learn ng can be enhanced when group s ze does not exceed four
members, nstruct on
s adapted to the needs of the group, and teachers are tra ned to
mplement small
group work n the r classroom.
4. Des ription of the studies
The stud es presented n Table 1 were conducted by the author
as part of her
ongo ng research nto the effects of small group learn ng on
students behav ours,
nteract ons, and learn ng. Th s sect on of the paper focuses on
prov d ng a synthes s
of the research find ngs w th the purpose of dent fy ng those
behav ours and
nteract ons that are mportant n promot ng student learn ng.
All the stud es n Table 1 were field-based, ntervent on stud es
w th a compar son
group of same age-peers. They ncluded ch ldren rang ng from
Grade 1 to 8, the
Table 1
Summary deta ls of stud es rev ewed
Study Grade N Durat on Subject
G ll es
G ll es

G ll es
G ll es
G ll es
and Ashman
and Ashman
and Ashman
(1999)
(2003)
(1996)
(1998)
(1998)
6
1
3
4
8
192
212
184
168
220
12 weeks
9 months
9 months
9 months
9 months
Soc al stud es
Soc al stud es
Soc al stud es
Soc al stud es

Mathemat cs, sc ence, Engl sh
ARTICL IN PR SS
durat on of the stud es ranged from 12 weeks to 9 months, and
covered d fferent
subject areas.
Before each study began, the author met w th part c pat ng
schools to d scuss the
prel m nary ass gnment of students to groups, the procedures for
establ sh ng small-
group work n classrooms, nclud ng tra n ng students n the
nterpersonal and small-
group sk lls needed for successful group work, the top cs to be
covered, the resources
ava lable, and the data collect on procedures.
All the stud es used bas cally the same procedure for establ sh
ng group work. The
teachers who part c pated were e ther tra ned d rectly by the
author or had
part c pated n extens ve profess onal development n the r own
schools on
cooperat ve small group learn ng. The teachers, n turn, then
establ shed structured,
cooperat ve learn ng n the r classrooms. Th s nvolved ensur ng
that the follow ng
key elements, as descr bed by Johnson and Johnson (1990),
were ncluded. They
were: (a) task nterdependence wh ch was establ shed n the
groups so that each
member had to contr bute to the group task; (b) nd v dual

accountab l ty was
establ shed so that all members understood they were requ red
to report on the r own
contr but ons; (c) students act vely promoted each other’s learn
ng; (d) students
were tra ned n the nterpersonal and small-group sk lls needed
to fac l tate
group work. These sk lls ncluded: act vely l sten ng to each
other, prov d ng
construct ve feedback to each other on suggest ons and deas;
encourag ng everyone
to contr bute to the group effort; shar ng tasks and resources fa
rly; try ng to
understand the other person’s perspect ve; and, mon tor ng and
evaluat ng the
group’s progress.
Wh le the ch ldren n the lower pr mary grades engaged n role-
play ng act v t es to
understand how these sk lls could be used n the r groups, the ch
ldren n the upper
grades and the jun or h gh school students developed the r own
gu del nes for group
behav our through group d scuss on w th each other and the
teacher. The
expectat on n all nstances though was that the members of the
group were to
help each other, promote each other’s learn ng, accept respons b
l ty for the task they
were work ng on together, and seek help from other group
members before seek ng
help from the teacher.
The students worked n m xed-ab l ty and gender-balanced
groups of 3–4
members. Gabbert, Johnson, and Johnson (1986) found that h

gh-, med um-, and
low-ab l ty ch ldren students benefit academ cally from part c
pat ng n m xed-
ab l ty, gender-balanced cooperat ve groups. A synthes s of best
ev dence by Cohen
(1994) and a meta-analys s by Lou et al. (1996) found that low-
ab l ty students learn
s gn ficantly more n m xed-ab l ty groups than n same-ab l ty
groups, h gh-ab l ty
students learn equally well n m xed- or same-ab l ty groups,
and med um-ab l ty
students benefit s gn ficantly more n same-ab l ty groups. It s
thought that low-
ab l ty students benefit from rece v ng more deta led explanat
ons from the r h gh-
ab l ty peers, and h gh-ab l ty peers, n turn, often benefit from
hav ng to reorgan se
the r own knowledge and understand ngs to expla n t to the r
less-able peers.
W ttrock (1990) suggested that g v ng help often helps the
person do ng the
expla n ng to understand the mater al better, develop new
perspect ves on the
problem, and construct more elaborate cogn t ve understand ngs.
ARTICL IN PR SS
The gender compos t on of a group affects group nteract ons
and learn ng. Webb
(1984) found that n groups n wh ch gender and ab l ty were
balanced, the males and
females had s m lar nteract on patterns. However, n gender -
mbalanced groups, the

females’ exper ences were detr mental to the r ach evement
because n major ty-male
groups, the females tended to be gnored as males focused the r
attent on on other
males. In major ty-female groups, the females gave more help to
the males than they
gave to other females. In both major ty-male and major ty-
female groups, boys
obta ned h gher learn ng outcomes than the g rls even though
they were of s m lar
ab l ty. In essence, students worked n m xed ab l ty and gender -
balanced groups
because the research (as outl ned) nd cated that th s group
compos t on was more
l kely to promote nteract on and learn ng than any other group
compos t on.
Students part c pated n small-group act v t es as they worked
on a un t of work
from a spec fic subject area (see Table 1) for a per od of approx
mately 6 weeks. All
groups were v deotaped n the final 2 weeks of each un t of
work and v deotapes were
coded for student behav our states ( .e., cooperat on, non-
cooperat on, nd v dual
task-or entated, or nd v dual off-task behav our), verbal nteract
ons ( .e., sol c ted
explanat ons, unsol c ted explanat ons, d rect ons, nterrupt ons)
and, n some
stud es, the qual ty of the cogn t ve language strateg es used.
The cod ng schedules for the behav our states and the cogn t ve
language strateg es
were mod fied from prev ous schedules developed by Sharan
and Shachar (1988)
wh le the cod ng schedules used for the verbal nteract ons were

adapted from Webb
(1985). Dur ng the v deotap ng sess ons, all students worked on
problem-solv ng
act v t es e ther developed by the class teacher or the author. All
problem-solv ng
act v t es were based on Bloom’s (1956) taxonomy of educat
onal object ves and were
des gned to focus the ch ldren’s attent on on d fferent ways of
th nk ng about a
problem. Each group was v deotaped for 10–15 m n as they
worked on a problem-
solv ng act v ty.
Two weeks after the complet on of the un t of work, the ch ldren
completed a
learn ng outcomes quest onna re nd v dually, based on the
problem-solv ng
act v t es they had undertaken dur ng the r small-group exper
ences. A set of
quest on stems, adapted from a set of gener c quest ons
developed by K ng (1990,
1991, 1994) were used to assess how the ch ldren used d fferent
problem-solv ng sk lls
to bu ld understand ngs and make connect ons between nformat
on presented
dur ng the r small group act v t es. Ch ldren were ass gned a
learn ng outcomes
score, rang ng from 1 (bas c recall of facts) to 6 (complex,
evaluat ve response),
depend ng on the h ghest-level response they were able to
generate that was correct.
5. Results
5.1. Behaviours

Table 2 presents a summary of the F -test results for the
changes n behav our n
the stud es reported. Cooperat ve behav our was broadly defined
as all pos t ve soc al
act v ty such as task-or entated behav our, soc ally or entated
behav our and act ve
ARTICL IN PR SS
Table 2
Summary of un var ate F-test results for changes n behav our
states between structured and unstructured
groups over t me n the stud es reported
Study Cooperat on Non-cooperat on Independence Non-task
� �
G ll es and Ashman (1996)a 2.16 3.33 4.14 2.32
G ll es and Ashman (1998)b 3.10� 8.30�� 0.87 1.50
��
G ll es and Ashman (1998)c 11.40 12.50 5.00 3.10
��
G ll es (1999)d 8.40 6.90 0.001 2.07
��
G ll es (2003)e 1.10 11.40 2.33 2.96
�
po0:05:
��

po0:01:
��
po0:001:
a
df 36/534.
b
Grade 1, df 8/300.
c
Grade 3, df 8/300.
d
df 2/284.
e
df 2/532.
l sten ng. Non-cooperat ve behav our was broadly defined as
negat ve soc al
behav our such as compet t on, oppos t on, and cr t c sm. Ind v
dual task-or ented
behav our was defined as work ng alone on the task and nd v
dual non-task
behav our was defined as not part c pat ng n group act v t es
and not work ng
nd v dually. There were s gn ficant d fferences n cooperat ve
behav our n four of
the five stud es and s gn ficant d fferences n non-cooperat ve
behav our n all of the
stud es.
A clear pattern emerged n the results from these stud es wh ch
showed that as the

ch ldren n the structured groups ( .e., groups n wh ch there was
task
nterdependence and the ch ldren had been tra ned to cooperate)
had more t me to
work together, they exh b ted more cooperat ve behav our and
less non-cooperat ve
behav our. Th s was n marked contrast to the r peers who
worked n unstructured
groups ( .e., groups n wh ch there was no task nterdependence
and the ch ldren had
not been tra ned to cooperate). Furthermore, the ch ldren n the
structured groups
were less l kely to work ndependently of the group ( .e., task or
entated but work ng
nd v dually) than the r peers n the unstructured groups. In
effect, the ch ldren n the
structured groups demonstrated more of those behav ours that
have been dent fied
as promot ng a w ll ngness to work together, to l sten to each
other, and to
accompl sh a shared purpose. These are behav ours wh ch
groups exh b t when
members perce ve themselves to be nterdependent and pursu ng
the same goals
(Johnson & Johnson, 1999).
6. Verbal intera tions
Table 3 presents a summary of the F -test results for the
changes n verbal
nteract ons n the stud es reported. Only the F -test results for
sol c ted and
ARTICL IN PR SS

Table 3
Summary of un var ate F-test results for changes n verbal
nteract ons between structured and
unstructured groups over t me n the stud es reported
Study Sol c ted explanat on Unsol c ted explanat on
G ll es and Ashman (1996)a 0.86 0.20
G ll es and Ashman (1998)b 4.39� 1.45
��
G ll es and Ashman (1998)c 0.82 5.22
G ll es (1999)d 2.35 26.70��
��
G ll es (2003)e 5.45 11.78
NB. G ll es and Ashman (1998)b,c used the group as the un t of
analys s.
�
po:05:
��
po0:01:
��
po0:001:
a
df 36/534.
b
Grade 1, df 2/72.

c
Grade 3, df 2/72.
d
df 2/284.
e
df 2/522.
unsol c ted explanat ons have been reported because Webb
(1985, 1991, 1992) argued
that t s the explanat ons that ch ldren g ve each other that
affects the learn ng that
occurs. However, Webb, Troper, and Fall (1995) argue that for
students to benefit
from rece v ng explanat ons, they need to be suffic ently deta
led to enable them to
correct the r m sunderstand ngs and t mely so that are able to
use the help. Certa nly,
th s argument expla ns the worthwh leness of explanat ons that
have been sol c ted,
however, G ll es and Ashman (1998) found that when ch ldren
work cooperat vely
together, group members w ll often pre-empt other students’
need for help and
prov de unsol c ted explanat ons when they perce ve they are
needed. The argument,
then, s, are these explanat ons helpful?
An exam nat on of Table 3 shows that n three of the stud es
reported, g v ng
unsol c ted explanat ons ncreased s gn ficantly over t me n the
structured groups. In
fact, ch ldren n these groups were more l kely to g ve unsol c
ted explanat ons than
sol c ted ones. One explanat on for th s maybe that when ch

ldren work closely
together n small groups, they are more l kely to be tuned- n to
each other’s need for
help and w ll prov de ass stance w thout t be ng expl c tly
requested. Th s w ll ngness
to respond to others’ perce ved needs for ass stance s an
example of prolept c
nstruct on wh ch occurs when ch ldren perce ve another ch ld s
ready to learn and
w ll benefit from the help they prov de (Rosensh ne & Me ster,
1994).
Another explanat on for ch ldren’s w ll ngness to help each
other m ght be
attr buted to the structure of the task the ch ldren were g ven.
Cohen (1994) argues
when students engage n tasks wh ch are more open and d
scovery-based where there
are no correct answers, group members show h gh levels of
cooperat on as they share
deas and nformat on and d scuss how they w ll work together
as a group. W th th s
type of task, product v ty depends on the task-related nteract on
that occurs. In fact,
Cohen and her colleagues (Cohen, Lotan, & Leechor, 1989)
have cons stently found
ARTICL IN PR SS
that t s the frequency of the task-related nteract ons among
group members that
are related to follow-up ga ns on content referenced tests and
conceptual

development n mathemat cal and computat onal tasks. Certa
nly, g v ng unsol c ted
explanat ons contr buted to the task-related nteract ons n the
stud es reported
because the ch ldren were engaged n tasks that were pr mar ly
open and d scovery-
based. Thus, wh le t s not poss ble to dent fy the spec fic
nteract on var ables that
affected learn ng, t can be reported that the ch ldren n the
structured groups
prov ded more sol c ted and unsol c ted explanat ons and t s
frequency of these
types of nteract ons (w th these types of tasks) that have been
shown to pos t vely
affect the learn ng that occurs (Cohen, 1994).
7. Learning
Table 4 presents a summary of the F -test results for the learn
ng outcome
measures and effect s zes n the stud es reported. The learn ng
outcome measures
were based on a set of gener c quest ons developed by K ng
(1991, 1994) that were
used to assess how the ch ldren used d fferent problem-solv ng
sk lls to make
connect ons between nformat on presented dur ng the r small-
group act v t es.
Effect s zes were calculated us ng the d fference between the
exper mental and
control means d v ded by the pooled standard dev at on (the we
ghted average of the
Table 4
Summary of s gn ficant F value for the learn ng outcomes
measure n the follow ng stud es

Study F value Subject area Effect s zes
G ll es and Ashman (1996)a
G ll es and Ashman (1998)b
G ll es and Ashman (1998)c
G ll es (1999)d
G ll es (2003)e
G ll es (2003)f
G ll es (2003)g
��
29.21
NA
��
4.99
��
14.10
0.12
��
22.10
�
5.48

Soc al stud es
Soc al stud es
Soc al stud es
Soc al stud es
Mathemat cs
Sc ence
Engl sh
0.60
NA
2.72
0.88
-0.05
0.68
0.38
NB: Effect s zes were calculated by d v d ng the d fferences
between exper mental and control means by
the pooled standard dev at on (Glass, McGaw, & Sm th, 1981).
NB: G ll es (2003) reports learn ng outcome measures
separately for mathemat cs, sc ence, and Engl sh.
NA=not ava lable.
�
po:05:
��
po0:01:
��
po0:001:
a
df 1/118.
b

Grade 1, NA.
c
Grade 3, df 1/58.
d
df 1/86.
e
df 1/156.
f
df 1/175.
g
df 1/149.
ARTICL IN PR SS
two group standard dev at ons) (Glass, McGaw, & Sm th, 1981).
Pos t ve effect s zes
are ones that favoured the structured groups, whereas negat ve
effect s zes nd cated
h gher means n the control group.
The group act v t es were generally based on Bloom’s taxonomy
of educat onal
object ves (1956) and were des gned to encourage the ch ldren
to th nk more
cr t cally about problem tasks they were try ng to solve. For
example, ch ldren were
not only requ red to recall, comprehend, and apply nformat on
but also to analyse,

synthes ze, and evaluate t and present the r find ngs. In so do
ng, the ch ldren were
encouraged to: challenge each other, present new and d fferent
perspect ves on
ssues, l sten to what others had to say, and try and reconc le
confl ct ng v ews to
arr ve at an agreed pos t on. Through th s process of soc al
engagement, d sputat on,
and d alogue, ch ldren learn to develop new understand ng and
construct new
knowledge wh ch helps them to ga n a better understand ng of
the problem they are
try ng to solve (Gabbert et al., 1986; Mugny, & Do se, 1978;
Johnson & Johnson,
1994; Vygotsky, 1978).
An analys s of the cogn t ve language strateg es used by ch
ldren n two of the
stud es reported (see: G ll es & Ashman, 1998; G ll es, 1999)
showed that the ch ldren
n the structured groups used a w der range of these strateg es
(e.g., used more
concrete deas to help make an dea more expl c t or prov ded
more explanat ons
w th deta led ev dence) than the r peers n the unstructured
groups. In add t on, the
ch ldren n the structured groups were more nteract ve and
engaged n more help ng
behav ours such as prov d ng d rect ons through to deta led
explanat ons. S nce
prev ous research (Cohen, 1994; K ng, 1991, 1994) suggests
that verbal nteract ons
med ate ach evement, t was not surpr s ng to find that students
n the structured
groups obta ned h gher learn ng outcomes than the r peers n the
unstructured

groups. Th s result was cons stent across all the stud es where a
learn ng outcome
measure was reported.
8. Dis ussion
The five stud es rev ewed here demonstrate the mportance of
structur ng small
group work to promote learn ng. Th s ncludes ensur ng that the
follow ng key
elements are ev dent: task nterdependence, nd v dual
accountab l ty, promot ve
nteract on, and tra n ng n the soc al sk lls requ red to fac l tate
group nteract on
(Johnson & Johnson, 1990, 1999). However, the benefits of
small group work are
enhanced when groups do not exceed four members, groups are
gender-balanced
and, generally, of m xed ab l ty, nstruct on s ta lored to the
needs of the group, and
teachers are tra ned to mplement small group work n the r
classrooms (Lou et al.,
1996). The stud es showed that when these cond t ons were met,
the ch ldren n the
structured groups demonstrated more cooperat ve and less non-
cooperat ve
behav ours than the r peers n the unstructured groups.
Furthermore, the more
opportun t es the ch ldren had to work together on structured
task act v t es, the
more cohes ve the groups became as members strove to fac l
tate each other’s
ARTICL IN PR SS

learn ng by respond ng to requests for help and offer ng help
when t was not
expl c tly requested.
An exam nat on of the cogn t ve language strateg es used by the
ch ldren dur ng
these nteract ons showed that the ch ldren n the structured
groups used more
soph st cated language strateg es and d scussed more relevant
task content as they
shared, debated, and clar fied nformat on and developed new
understand ngs and
knowledge. It was th s construct ve nteract on that undoubtedly
contr buted to the
h gher learn ng outcome scores they obta ned on follow -up, nd
v dually adm n s-
tered tests. Shachar and Sharan (1994) found that ncreased part
c pat on n
cooperat ve small-group d scuss on resulted n more frequent
use of cogn t ve
strateg es and greater ownersh p of the mater al be ng d scussed
and t was these
cond t ons that contr buted to the h gher levels of ach evement
obta ned. Melroth
and Deer ng (1994) found that structur ng cooperat ve nteract
ons led to d scuss on
of more substant ve task content and h gher ach evement
outcomes. Furthermore,
because the group act v t es were also des gned to encourage the
ch ldren to th nk
more deeply about problems they were try ng to solve, the ch
ldren may have been
challenged to engage n more mean ngful nteract ons w th each
other and t s these

nteract ons that, n turn, contr buted to the learn ng ga ns obta
ned. Certa nly,
Rosensh ne, Me ster, and Chapman (1996) found that when ch
ldren were taught to
use gener c quest ons or quest on stems to mprove the r
comprehens on of read ng
act v t es they were work ng on together, they obta ned s gn
ficantly h gher
comprehens on scores on follow-up ach evement tests than the r
peers n control
groups.
Wh le t s not poss ble to say n the stud es reported here,
whether t was the group
nteract ons or the group act v t es that led the ch ldren to th nk
more deeply about
the problem-solv ng tasks they were work ng on, t was the ch
ldren n the structured
groups who prov ded more help and ass stance to each other,
engaged n more
content-related talk, and ach eved h gher learn ng outcomes than
the r peers n the
unstructured groups and these outcomes were cons stent across
most of the stud es.
When ch ldren work cooperat vely together, group members
often act as
med ators of learn ng by expla n ng deas and nformat on, draw
ng each other’s
attent on to aspects of nterest, and encourag ng each other to
nvest gate new
perspect ves. Comments such as: ‘‘Look at th s (po nt ng to
nformat on). Maybe we
could see f we can find out more on th s ( nformat on needed).
It looks l ke t could
tell us more about t (problem they are try ng to solve).’’;

‘‘That’s just what we want
‘cause t’s got that po nty part (po nt ng to p cture) that’s l ke
the one we want. Don’t
you th nk t’s l ke what we need (po nt ng to s gn ficant aspects
of the p cture)?’’ are
examples of the med ated nteract ons that occurred. The
conversat ons the ch ldren
generated were mult -d rect onal as they served to med ate each
other’s learn ng by
g v ng explanat ons, focus ng attent on on key features of a
problem, and challeng ng
each other’s perspect ves on mportant ssues (Kozul n & Presse
sen, 1995). Th s
nteract onal process was cr t cal to the success of the groups
because t nvolved the
ch ldren n rec procal nteract ons that served to med ate and
scaffold the r learn ng.
It was nterest ng to note that as th s process cont nued, ch ldren
of all ab l ty
levels learned to contr bute the r deas and knowledge to the
learn ng env ronment
ARTICL IN PR SS
and, n turn, learned to appropr ate what they needed. Th s
process of mutual
appropr at on was ongo ng as the ch ldren d scussed ssues,
asked quest ons,
requested help, and generally sought to negot ate mean ng
around the group task
(Brown et al., 1993; Pal nscar, 1998). In effect, the teach ng and
learn ng that

occurred was both expl c t and mpl c t enabl ng ch ldren to
develop shared
understand ngs and create new knowledge as they worked
together n the r groups
(Mercer, 1994).
In conclus on, th s paper has prov ded an overv ew of five d
fferent stud es that the
author has conducted that demonstrate the l nk between expl c
tly structur ng
cooperat ve small-group learn ng and h gher levels of cooperat
on, group nterac-
t ons, and learn ng for ch ldren n pr mary and jun or h gh
school sett ngs. Research
demonstrates that the benefits of cooperat ve learn ng are
enhanced when groups do
not exceed four members, are gender-balanced and of m xed-ab
l ty, nstruct on s
des gned to meet the group needs, and teachers have been tra
ned n how to
mplement th s pedagog cal strategy. When these cond t ons are
met, ch ldren n
structured groups g ve more deta led and explanatory help to
each other, ask deeper
and more comprehens ve quest ons, and ach eve h gher learn ng
outcomes.
Referen es
Batt st ch, V., Solomon, D., & Delucch , K. (1993). Interact on
processes and student outcomes n
cooperat ve learn ng groups. The Elementary School Journal,
94, 19–32.
Bloom, B. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives
handbook 1: Cognitive domain. London: Longman.

Brown, A., Ash, D., Rutherford, M., Nakagawa, K., Gordon, A.,
& Camp one, J. (1993). D str buted
expert se n the classroom. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed
cognitions: Psychological and educational
considerations (pp. 188–229). Cambr dge, MA: Harvard Un vers
ty press.
Bruner, J. (1973). Beyond the information given: Studies in the
psychology of knowing. New York: Norton.
Calderon, M., Hertz-Lazarow tz, R., & Slav n, R. (1998).
Effects of b l ngual cooperat ve ntegrated
read ng and compos t on on students mak ng the trans t on from
Span sh to Engl sh read ng. The
Elementary School Journal, 99, 153–165.
Cohen, E. (1994). Restructur ng the classroom: Cond t ons for
product ve small groups. Review of
Educational Research, 64, 1–35.
Cohen, E., Lotan, R., & Leechor, C. (1989). Can classrooms
learn? Sociology of Education, 62, 75–94.
Day, J. (1983). The zone of prox mal development. In M.
Pressley, & J. Lev n (Eds.), Cognitive strategy
research: Psychological foundations. New York: Spr nger.
Deutsch, M. (1949). A theory of cooperat on and compet t on.
Human Relations, 2, 129–12152.
Egan, G. (1997). The skilled helper: A systematic approach to
effective helping (6th ed.). Pac fic Grove, CA:
Brooks/Cole.
Ell s, S., & Rogoff, B. (1986). Problem solv ng n ch ldren’s
management of nstruct on. In E. Mueller, &

C. Cooper (Eds.), Process and outcome in peer relationships
(pp. 301–325). New York: Academ c Press.
Fall, R., & Webb, N. (2000). Group d scuss on and large-scale
language arts assessment: Effects on
students’ comprehens on. American Educational Research
Journal, 37, 911–941.
Forman, E. (1989). The role of peer nteract on n the soc al
construct on of mathemat cal knowledge.
International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 55–69.
Gabbert, B., Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1986). Cooperat ve
learn ng, group to nd v dual transfer,
process ga n, and the acqu s t on of cogn t ve reason ng strateg
es. Journal of Psychology, 120, 265–278.
G ll es, R. (1999). Ma ntenance of cooperat ve and help ng
behav ors n reconst tuted groups. The Journal
of Educational Research, 92, 357–363.
ARTICL IN PR SS
G ll es, R. (2003). The behav ors, nteract ons, and percept ons
of jun or h gh school students dur ng small-
group learn ng. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 137–
147.
G ll es, R., & Ashman, A. (1996). Teach ng collaborat ve sk lls
to pr mary school ch ldren n classroom-
based work groups. Learning and Instruction, 6, 187–200.
G ll es, R., & Ashman, A. (1998). Behav or and nteract ons of

ch ldren n cooperat ve groups n lower and
m ddle elementary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology,
90, 746–757.
Glass, G. V., McGaw, B., & Sm th, M. L. (1981). Meta-analysis
in social research. Beverly H lls: Sage.
Hunt, P., Staub, D., Alwell, M., & Goetz, L. (1994). Ach
evement by all students w th n the context of
cooperat ve learn ng groups. Journal of the Association for
Persons with Severe Handicaps, 19,
290–301.
Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1987). Learning together and
alone: Cooperative, competitive, and
individualistic learning (2nd ed.). Englewood Cl ffs, NJ: Prent
ce-Hall.
Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1989). Cooperation and
competition: theory and research. Ed na, MN:
Interact on Book Company.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1990). Cooperat ve learn ng
and ach evement. In S. Sharan (Ed.),
Cooperative learning: Theory and research (pp. 173–202). New
York: Praeger.
Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1994). Construct ve confl ct n
schools. Journal of Social Issues, 50,
117–137.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Mak ng cooperat ve
learn ng work. Theory into Practice, 38(2),
67–74.
Jordan, D., & Le Meta as, J. (1997). Soc al sk ll ng through

cooperat ve learn ng. Educational Research,
39, 3–21.
Johnson, D., Johnson, R., Dudley, B., M tchell, J., & Fredr
ckson, J. (1997). The mpact of confl ct
resolut on tra n ng on m ddle school students. The Journal of
Social Psychology, 137, 11–21.
Johnson, D., Johnson, D., & Holubec, E. (1993). Circles of
learning. Ed na, MN: Interact on Book
Company.
Johnson, D.W., Johnson, F.P., & Stanne, M. (2001).
Cooperative learning methods: A meta-analysis.
http://www.clcrc.com/pages/cl-methods.html.
K ng, A. (1990). Enhanc ng peer nteract on and learn ng n the
classroom through rec procal quest on ng.
American Educational Research Journal, 27, 664–687.
K ng, A. (1991). Improv ng lecture comprehens on: Effects of a
metacogn t ve strategy. Applied Cognitive
Psychology, 5, 331–346.
K ng, A. (1994). Gu ded knowledge construct on n the
classroom: Effects of teach ng ch ldren how to
quest on and how to expla n. American Educational Research
Journal, 31, 338–368.
Kohn, A. (1992). Res stance to cooperat ve learn ng: Mak ng
sense of ts delet on and d lut on. Journal of
Education, 174, 38–55.
Kozul n, A., & Presse sen, B. (1995). Med ated learn ng exper
ence and psycholog cal tools: Vygotsky’s
and feuerste n’s perspect ves n a study of student learn ng.

Educational Psychologist, 30, 67–75.
Le k n, R., & Zaslavsky, O. (1997). Fac l tat ng student nteract
ons n mathemat cs n cooperat ve
learn ng sett ngs. Journal of Research in Mathematics
Education, 28, 331–354.
Lou, Y., Abram , P., Spence, J., Poulsen, C., Chambers, B., &
d’Apollon a, S. (1996). W th n-class
group ng: A meta-analys s. Review of Educational Research, 66,
423–458.
Melroth, M., & Deer ng, P. (1994). Task talk and task
awareness under d fferent cooperat ve learn ng
cond t ons. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 138–
165.
Mercer, N. (1994). The qual ty of talk n ch ldren’s jo nt act v
ty at the computer. Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning, 10, 24–32.
Mugny, G., & Do se, W. (1978). Soc o-cultural confl ct and
structurat on of nd v dual and collect ve
performances. European Journal of Social Psychology, 8, 181–
192.
Pal nscar, A. S. (1998). Keep ng the metaphor of scaffold ng
fresh–A response to C. Add son Stone’s ‘‘The
metaphor of scaffold ng: Its ut l ty for the field of learn ng d
sab l t es’’. Journal of learning Disabilities,
31, 370–373.
Putnam, J., Markovch ck, K., Johnson, D., & Johnson, R.
(1996). Cooperat ve learn ng and peer
acceptance of students w th learn ng d sab l t es. Journal of
Social Psychology, 136, 741–752.

http://www.clcrc.com/pages/cl-methods.html
ARTICL IN PR SS
Putnam, J., Rynders, J., Johnson, R., & Johnson, D. (1989).
Collaborat ve sk lls nstruct on for promot ng
pos t ve nteract ons between mentally hand capped and
nonhand capped ch ldren. Exceptional
Children, 55, 550–557.
Ragan, P. (1993). Cooperat ve learn ng can work n res dent al
sett ngs. Teaching Exceptional Children,
25(2), 48–51.
Rosensh ne, B., & Me ster, C. (1994). Rec procal teach ng: A
rev ew of the research. Review of Educational
Research, 64, 479–530.
Rosensh ne, B., Me ster, C., & Chapman, S. (1996). Teach ng
students to generate quest ons: A rev ew of
ntervent on stud es. Review of Educational Research, 66, 181–
221.
Rutherford, R., Mathur, S., & Qu nn, M. (1998). Promot ng soc
al commun cat on sk lls through
cooperat ve learn ng and d rect nstruct on. Education and
Treatment of Children, 21, 354–355.
Shachar, H., & Sharan, S. (1994). Talk ng, relat ng, and ach ev
ng: Effects of cooperat ve learn ng and
whole-class nstruct on. Cognition and Instruction, 12, 313–353.
Sharan, S. (1990). Cooperat ve learn ng and help ng behav our

n the mult -ethn c classroom
(pp. 151–175). In: S. Sharan (Ed.), Cooperative learning theory
and research (pp. 173–202). New
York: Praeger.
Sharan, S., & Shachar, H. (1988). Language and learning in the
cooperative classroom. New York: Spr nger.
Sharan, S., Shachar, H., & Lev ne, T. (1999). The innovative
school: Organization and instruction.
Westport, Connect cut: Berg n & Garvey.
Slav n, R. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and
practice (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Stevens, R., & Slav n, R. (1995). The cooperat ve elementary
school. American Educational Research
Journal, 32, 321–351.
Stone, C. (1985). Vygotsky’s developmental model and the
concept of prolept c nstruct on: Some
mpl cat ons for theory and research n the field of learn ng d
sab l t es. Research Communications in
Psychology, Psychiatry and Behavior, 10(1,2), 129–152.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of
higher psychological processes. Cambr dge, MA:
Harvard Un vers ty Press.
Warr ng, D., Johnson, D., Maruyama, G., & Johnson, R. (1985).
Impact of d fferent types of cooperat ve
learn ng on cross-ethn c and cross-sex relat onsh ps. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 77, 53–59.
Webb, N. (1984). Sex d fferences n nteract on and ach evement
n cooperat ve small groups. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 75, 33–44.

Webb, N. (1985). Student nteract on and learn ng n small
groups: A research summary. In R. Slav n,
S. Sharon, S. Kagan, R. Hertz-Larow tz, C. Webb, & R.
Schmuck (Eds.), Learning to cooperate,
cooperating to learn (pp. 5–15). New York: Plenum.
Webb, N. (1991). Task-related verbal nteract on and mathemat
cal learn ng n small groups. Journal of
Research in Mathematics Education, 22, 366–389.
Webb, N. (1992). Test ng a theoret cal model of student nteract
on and learn ng n small groups. In
R. Hertz-Lazarow tz, & N. M ller (Eds.), Interaction in
cooperative groups (pp. 102–119). Cambr dge,
UK: Cambr dge Un vers ty Press.
Webb, N., & Far var, S. (1994). Promot ng help ng behav or n
cooperat ve small groups n m ddle school
mathemat cs. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 369–
395.
Webb, N., Troper, J., & Fall, R. (1995). Construct ve act v ty
and learn ng n collaborat ve small groups.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 406–423.
W ttrock, M. (1990). Generat ve processes of comprehens on.
Educational Psychologist, 24, 345–376.
Structuring cooperative group work in
classroomsIntroductionAustralian perspectiveTheoretical and
empirical overviewDescription of the
studiesResultsBehavioursVerbal
interactionsLearningDiscussionReferences

Cqc~r-;)-t.i~c.c..e~rY't'l~vi t~e .<;to.s:.sro'?:~i. -
,, t>. ~/J~5sz~;,~4~Jck1s0v1~E. ~. ·Hchib~~
s I.Are.v-yls iiM'l a.n d.
t-.l?lrr-,c.wl;h(_•,fn
Understanding Cooperative
Learning
Sa11dyKoufnxWUS (Jill! of.I ho groalusl pildwrs ill lhc
hisluryof hasRlmll.
1 lu wus 1rnlmallylaluntml and uuusually wull lrni11mlaml
disdpli11rnl.
I lo was porhaps lhu only major leaguo pildwr whosn fosthall
l:uuld lH!
heard humming. Opposing butlers, insteml of lalki11gand
joki11gllflJU11tl
in the dugout. would sit quietly antl lislen for Koul'ax's fosllmll
lo Imm.
When ii was their tum lo 1ml, they were already
i11li111idutml.There was
only rnm wny lo wipo oul Kou fax's g,mius 011 llrn
dim110111I:Muku Uavid
Imm of tho r:o-authors of I his book) his catdmr.
Tu Im grnal, a pilt:lmr numls m1outslumli11gi:aldmr
(1<011111:<'sgnml
parlill!r was l11l11111y 1111skill1:cl.1:ull:horRm;ulmrn).
David is :md1 :UI I
Kou lax wimltl lmvu had ltJ havu thrown llrn hall
111111:h.111111:hslowur l11r
Uavitl lo 1:~1h.:ltii. This wuuh] have tloprivud Kuufox of his
greatesl
wuapo11. Plad11g Roger mid tdytlrn (tho otliur lwo authors ur

this book)
al kuy dufonsivo posiliu11s i11the infield or outlioltl wuultl
have furlhor
li111itudKoufux's success. Clearly, Koufox was not a great
pilc.:hor on his
own. Only as purl uf a team coultl he have ad1i1,wed sud1
greatness.
l~xlrnordinary m;hievemeul in the classroom, like on lhe
buselmll
l'iold.rm1uirus a cuopornlivu offurt, nol the indivilhrnlislic
orcu111potitin1
ulforls urisolated individuals. ·
.,
COOPERATIVELEARNINGIN THE CLASSROOM
What Is Cooperative Learning?
Learning is something students do, not something that is done to
students. Learning is not a spectator sport. It requires students'
direct
and active involvement and participation. Like mountain
climbers,
students most easily scale the heights of learning when they are
part of
a cooperative team.
Cooperation is working together to accomplish shared goals.
Within
cooperative situations, individuals seek outcomes beneficial to
them-
selves and all other group members. Cooperative learning is the

instruc-
tional use of small groups through which students work together
to
maximize their own and each other's learning. It may be
contrasted with
competitive learning in which students work against each other
to
achieve an academic goal such as a grade of "A" that only one
or a few
students can attain and individualistic learning in which
students work
by themselves to accomplish learning goals unrelated to those
of the
other students. In cooperative and individualistic learning,
teachers
evaluate student efforts on a criteria-referenced basis, but in
competitive
learning, students are graded on a norm-referenced basis.
Though there
are limitations on when and where you can use competitive and
indi-
vidualistic learning appropriately, you may structure any
learning task
in any subject area: with any curriculum cooperatively.
Cooperative learning relies on three types of cooperative
learning
groups. Formal cooperative learning groups last from one class
period
to several weeks. Formal cooperative learning is students
working to-
~ether to achieve shared learning goals by ensuring that they
and their
~roupmates successfully complete the learning task assigned.
Any learn-
ing task in any subject area with any curriculum can be

structured
~ooperatively. Any course requirement or assignment may by
reformu-
ated for formal cooperative learning. When working with formal
coop-
~rative learning groups, you must (a) specify the objectives for
the lesson,
b) make a number of pre-instructional decisions, (c) explain the
task and
he positive interdependence to students, (d) monitor students'
learning
md intervene in the groups to provide task assistance or to
increase
tudents' interpersonal and group skills, and (e) evaluate
students'
earning and help students process how well their groups
functioned.
'ormal cooperative learning groups ensure that students are
actively
nvolved in the intellectual work of organizing material,
explaining it,
ummarizing it, ~nd integrating it into existing conceptual
structures.
UNDERSTANDINGCOOPERATIVELEARNING
Informal cooperative learning groups are ad-hoc groups that last
from
a few minutes to one class period. You can use them during
direct
teaching (lectures, demonstrations, films, and videos) to focus
student
attention on particular material, set a mood conducive to
learning, help
set expectations about what the lesson will cover, ensure that
students

cognitively process the material you are teaching, and provide
closure
to an instructional session. Informal cooperative learning
groups are
often organized so that students engage in three- to five-minute
focused
discussion before and after a lecture and two- to three-minute
turn-to-
your-partner discussions throughout a lecture. Like formal
cooperative
learning groups, informal cooperative learning groups help you
ensure
that students do the intellectual work of organizing, explaining,
summa-
rizing, and integrating material into existing conceptual
structures dur-
ing direct teaching.
Cooperative base groups are long term (lasting for at least a
year),
heterogeneous cooperative learning groups with stable
membership
whose primary purpose is to allow members to give each other
the
support, help, encouragement, and assistance each needs, to
succeed
academically. Base groups provide students with long-term,
committed
relationships that allow group members to give each other the
support,
help, encouragement, and assistance needed to consistently
work hard
in school, make academic progress (attend class, complete all
assign-
ments, learn), and develop in cognitively and socially healthy
ways

Uohnson, Johnson, and Holubec 1992; Johnson, Johnson, and
Smith
1991).
In addition to these three types of cooperative learning groups,
cooperative learning scripts are used to structure repetitive
classroom
routines and recurring lessons, which, once structured
cooperatively,
provide a cooperative learning foundation for your classes.
Cooperative
learning scripts are standard cooperative procedures for
conducting
generic, repetitive lessons (such as writing reports or giving
presenta-
tions) and managing classroom routines (such as checking
homework or
reviewing a test). Once planned and conducted several times,
they
become automatic activities in the classroom and make building
a
cooperative classroom easier.
When you use formal, informal. and cooperative base groups
repeat-
edly, you will gain a routine level of expertise, that is, you will
be able
to structure cooperative learning situations automatically
without con-
scious thought or planning. You can then use cooperative
learning with
fidelity for the rest of your teaching career.
{r

" '
How Do You Know a Group Is Cotlpera.HvP
in ;;r.,,.nP
- ............. .,,._ nJUJ.c"sLt.'.·?" H 1 ht lltCren~~f-:
uf ,;r, the classroom. Other types hinde1 student learning ,mct
create dis.harmony and dissatisfaction in the classroom. To use
learning ·
groups effectively, you must know what is and is not a
cooperative group.
Cooperative learning groups are just one of many types of
groups that
can be used in the classroom. When you use instructional
groups, ask
yourself, "What type of group am I using?" The following list of
types of
groups might help you answer that question.
1. The Pseudo-Learning Group: Students are assigned to work
to-
gether, but they have no interest in doing so. They believe they
will be
evaluated by being ranked on individual performance. While on
the
surface students talk to each other, under the surface they are
competing.
They see each other as rivals who must be defeated, so they
block or
interfere with each other's learning, hide information from each
other,
attempt to mislead and confuse each other, and distrust each
other. As a
result, the sum of the whole is less than the potential of the

individual
members. Students would work better individually.
2. The Traditional Classroom Learning Group: Students are
assigned
to work together and accept that they have to do so, but
assignments are
structured so that very little joint work is required. Students
believe that
they will be evaluated and rewarded as individuals, not as
members of
the group. They interact primarily to clarify how assignments
are to be
done. They seek each other's information, but have no
motivation to
teach what they know to their groupmates. Helping and sharing
is
minimized. Some students loaf, seeking a free ride on the
efforts of their
more conscientious groupmates. Conscientious members feel
exploited
and put forth less than their usual effort. The result is that the
sum of
the whole is more than the potential of some of the members,
but harder
working, more conscientious students would be better off
working alone.
3. The Cooperative Learning Group: Students are assigned to
work
together and are happy to do so. They know that their success
depends
on the efforts of all group members. Such groups have five
defining
characteristics. First, the group goal of maximizing all
members' learning

motivates members to roll up their sleeves and accomplish
something
beyond their individual abilities. Members believe that they
sink or
swim together, and if one fails, they all fail. Second, group
members hold
themselves and each other accountable for doing high-quality
work to
n1exni~:.1f~'!:.1rK 0 -·i8.-t:.
sha.ring, ant1 t;i., ..
n pwvide both academic and personal ~u,: bused :).a
a 1.:ommitrnent to and concern for each other. Fourth, group
members are
taught social skills and ~e expected to use them to coordinate
their
efforts and achieve their goals. Taskwork and teamwork skills
are em•
phasized, and all members accept responsibility for providing
leader•
ship. Finally, groups analyze how effectively they a.re
achieving the~
goals and how well members are working together to ensure
continuous
improvement of the quality of their learning and teamwork
processes,.
As a result, the group is more than the sum of its parts, and all
students
perform better academically than they would if they worked
alone.
4. The High-Performance Cooperative Learning Group: This is·
a
group that meets all the criteria for being a cooperative learning

group
and outperforms all reasonable expectations. What differentiates
. the
high-performance group from the cooperative learning group is
the level
of commitment members have to each other and the group's
success.
Jennifer Futemick, who is part of a high-performing,
rapicbesponse team
at McKinsey & Company, calls the emotion binding her
teammates
together a form of love (Katzenbach and Smith 1993). Ken
Hoepner of
the Burlington Northern Intermodal Team (also described by
Katzenbach
and Smith 1993) stated: "Not only did we trust each other, not
only did
we respect each other, but we gave a damn about the rest of the
people
on this team. If we saw somebody vulnerable, we were there to
help."
Members' mutual concern for each other's personal growth
enables
high-performance cooperative groups to exceed expectations,
and also
have fun. Unfortunately, but understandably, high-performance
coop-
erative groups a.re rare because most groups never achieve this
level of
development.
To use cooperative learning effectively, you must realize that
not all
groups are cooperative groups. The learning group performance
curve
illustrates that how well any small group performs depends on

how it is
structured (see Figure 1.1 )(Katzenbach and Smith 1993 ).
Placing people
in the same room and calling them a cooperative group does not
make
them one. Study groups, project groups, lab groups, homerooms,
and
reading groups are groups, but they are not necessarily
cooperative. Even
with the best of intentions, you can end up with traditional
classroom
learning groups rather than cooperatiye learning groups. One of
the
major parts of your job is to form students into learning groups,
diagnose
https://n1exni~:.1f
FIGURE 1.1
The Leaming Group Performance Curve
High-performing
Cooperative Learning
-I
w
Gi
-I
w
(.)
z
<
::E
a:

f2
a:
w
C.
Individual
Members
D
Dx---------------
D
D
k' ~•
,:._.-,'
Gro
I
I
Cooperative
v , ~ Learning
Group
Traditional
Classroom
Group
GROUP EFFECTIVENESS
c· •••• ::~. ------------,.,
Pseudo-g·-- --

l:~
.
.
: ;
.
ti·
-I'
f
f
1•.
.
1I -
t
J
•
J
f
I
~
I
t
t
t
f
I
f
~

where on the performance curve the groups are, strengthen the
basic
elements of cooperation, and move the groups up the
performance curve
until they are truly cooperative learning groups.
How Can You Make Cooperation Work?
Together we stand, divided we fall.
-Watchword of the American Revolution
To structure lessons so students do in fact work cooperatively
with
each other, you must understand the basic elements that make
coopera-
tion work. Mastering the basic elements of cooperation allows
you to:
1. Take your existing lessons, curriculums, and courses and
structure
them cooperatively.
2. Tailor cooperative learning lessons to your uniqu.e
instructional
needs, circumstances, curriculums, subject areas, and students.
3. Diagnose the problems some students may have in working
to-
gether and intervene to increase learning groups' effectivenfSS.
For cooperation to work well, you must explicitly structure five
essential elements in each lesson (see Figure 1.2).
The first and most important element of cooperative learning is

positive interdependence. You must provide a clear task and a
group
goal so that students know they sink or swim together. Group
members
must realize that each person's efforts benefit not only that
individual.
but all other group members as well. Such positive
interdependence
creates a commitment to other people's success as well as one's
own,
which is the heart of cooperative learning. Without positive
interdepen-
dence, there is no cooperation.
The second essential element of cooperative learning is
individual
and group accountability. The group must be accountable for
achieving
its goals, and each member must be accountable for contributing
a fair
share of the work. No one can "hitchhike" on the worlc of
others. The
group has to be clear about its goals and be able to measure (a)
its progress
toward achieving them and (b) the individual efforts of each
member.
Individual accountability exists when the performance of each
individ-
ual student is assessed and the results are given back to the
group and
the individual so they can ascertain who needs more assistance,
support,
and encouragement in completing the assignment. The purpose
of coop-
erative learning groups is to make each member a stronger
individual,

. I
t'··•
~
FIGURE 1.2
Essential Components of Cooperative Leaming
Face-to-Face
Positive
Interdependence
Promotive
Interaction

_)
Individual
InterpersonalAccountability/
Personal and Small-Group /
SkillsResponsibility
i
Group Processing

that is, students learn together so that they can subsequently
perform
better as individuals.
The third essential element of cooperative learning is promotive
interaction, preferably face-to-face. Students need to do real
work to-
gether in which they promote each other's success by sharing
resources
and helping, supporting, encouraging, and praising each other's
efforts
to learn. Cooperative learning groups are both an academic
support
system and a personal support system. Some important
cognitive activi-
ties and interpersonal dynamics occur only when students
promote each
other's learning by orally explaining bow to solve problems,
discussing
the nature of the concepts being learned, teaching one's
knowledge to
classmates, and connecting present and past learning. Through
promot-
ing each other's learning face-to-face, members become
personally com-,
mitted to each other as well as to their mutual goals.
The fourth essential element of cooperative learning is teaching
students some necessary interpersonal and small-group skills.
Coopera-
tive learning is inherently more complex than competitive or
individu-
alistic learning because it requires students to learn academic
subject
matter (taskwork) as well as the interpersonal and small-group

skills
required to function as part ofa group (teamwork). Group
members must
know how to provide effective leadership, make decisions, build
trust,
communicate, and manage conflict, and be motivated to do so.
You must
teach teamwork skills just as purposefully and precisely as
academic
skills. Because cooperation and conflict are interrelated (see
Johnson and
Johnson 1991, 1992), the procedures and skills for managing
conflicts
• constructively are especially important for the long-term
success of
learning groups. (Procedures and strategies for teaching
students social,
skills can be found in Johnson [1991, 1993] and Johnson and F.
Johnson
[1994].)
The fifth essential component of cooperative learning isgroup
pro-
cessing. Group processing exists when group members discuss
how well .
they are achieving their goals and maintaining effective
working rela-
tionships. Groups need to describe what member actions are
helpful and
unhelpful and make decisions about what behaviors to continue
or
change. Continuous improvement of the learning process results
from
the careful analysis of how members are working together and
how group

effectiveness can be enhanced. '
Using cooperative learning requires disciplined action on your
part.
The five basic elements are not jl!st characteristics of good
cooperative
learning groups. They are a discipline that must be rigorously
applied
to produce the conditions for effective cooperative action.
WhyUse Cooperative Learning?
A conviction to use cooperative learning results from knowing
the
research. Since the first research study in 1898, nearly
6O0experimental
and over 100 correlational studies have been conducted on
cooperative,
competitive, and individualistic efforts to learn (see Johnson
and
Johnson 1989 for a complete review of these studies). The
multiple
outcomes studied can be classified into three major categories
(see Figure
1.3): efforts to achieve, positive relationships. and
psychological health.
From the research, we know that cooperation, compared with
com-
petitive and individualistic efforts, typically results in:
1. Greater Efforts to Achieve: This includes higher achievement
and
greater productivity by all students (high-, medium-, and low-
achievers),
long-term retention, intrinsic motivation, achievement

motivation, time
on task, higher-level reasoning, and critical thinking.
,~f•
2. More Positive Relationships Among Students: This includes
in-
creases in esprit de corps, caring and committed relationships,
personal
and academic support, valuing of diversity, and cohesion.
3. Greater Psychological Health: This includes general
psychological
adjustment, ego strength, social development, social
competencies, self-
esteem, self-identity, and ability to cope with adversity and
stress.
The powerful effects that cooperation has on so many important
outcomes separate cooperative learning from other instructional
meth-
ods and make it one of the most important tools for ensuring
student
success.
FIGURE
Outcomes of Cooperation
1.3
f
i
[
!

I, .
¥
r.
' ~
The Underlying Organizational Structure
The issue of cooperation among students is part of a larger issue
of
the organizational structure of schools (Johnson and F. Johnson
1994).,
W.Edwards Deming, J. Juran, and other founders of the quality
move-
ment have stated that more than 85 percent of the behavior of
members
of an organization is directly attributable to the organization's
structure,
not to the nature of the individuals involved. Your classroom is
no
exception. If competitive or individualistic learning dominates
your
classroom, your students will behave accordingly, even if you
temporar-
ily put them in cooperative groups. If cooperative learning
dominates
your classrooll)., your students will behave accordingly, and a
true
learning community will result
For decades schools have functioned as mass-production
organiza-
tions that divide work into component parts (l_st grade, 2nd
grade,
English, social studies, science) performed by teachers isolated
from
their colleagues, working alone in their own rooms, with their

own
students and their own curriculum materials. Such a system
views
students as interchangeable parts in the education machine, tyho
can be
assigned to any teacher. Using cooperative learning the majority
of the
time allows you to change your classroom from this mass-
production
model to a team-based, high-performance model. In other
words, coop-
eration is more than an instructional procedure. It's a basic shift
in
organizational structure that affects all aspects of classroom
life.
How Can You Gain Expertise in
Cooperative Learning?
Expertise is reflected in a person's proficiency, adroitness,
compe-
tence, and skill in doing something. Gaining expertise in using
coopera-
tive learning is not a quick process. Natural talent alone is not
enough
to make a great teacher. Being well trained in how to use
cooperative
learning and unusually well disciplined in structuring the five
basic
elements in every lesson are also necessary. Expertise in
structuring
cooperative efforts is reflected in your ability to:
1. Take any lesson in any subject area with any level student
and
structure it cooperatively.

2. Use cooperative learning (at a routine-use -level)60 to 80
percent
of the time. ·
_....,...,. t..>HHOYL lo.Ll"';"l .. 11"1'.J ll"'I fMt
...Ll':t:)KlJ.JM
3. Describe precisely what you are doing and why to
communicate
to others the nature and advantages of cooperative learning and
teach
colleagues how to implement cooperative learning.
4. Apply the principles of cooperation to other settings, such as
collegial relationships and faculty meetings.
Such expertise is gained through a progressive-refinement
procedure
of (a) teaching a cooperative lesson, (b) assessing how well it
went,
(c) reflecting on how cooperation could have been better
structured,
(d) teaching an improved cooperative lesson, (e) assessing how
well it
went, and so forth. Thus, you gain experience in an incremental,
step-
by-step manner.
As you progressively refine your ability to use cooperative
learning
effectively, seek the help of colleagues and help them as well.
We know
that to learn a moderately difficult teaching strategy might

require
teachers to participate in between 20 and 30 hours of instruction
in its
theory, 15 to 20 demonstrations using it with different students
and
subjects, and an additional 10 to 15 coaching sessions to attain
higher-
level skills. Expertise in a more difficult teaching strategy, like
coopera-
tive learning, might require several years of training and
practice.
Transfer (trying out cooperative learning in your classroom) and
main-
tenance (long-term use of cooperative learning) are important
keys to
gaining expertise. As Aristotle said, "For things we have to
learn before
we can do them, we learn by doing them." You have to do
cooperative
learning for some time before you begin to gain real expertise.
,
10
Monitoring Students' Behavior
Five-Minute Walk
1. Select social skill(s) to observe.
2. Construct observation sheet.
3. Plan route through the classroom.
4. Gather data on every group.
5. Provide the data to the groups or to the class as a whole.

6. Chart/graph the results.
Youxjob begins in earnest when cooperative learning groups
start
working. While students are working together, you must move
from
group to group systematically monitoring the interaction among
group
members to assess students' academic progress and IJSe of
interpersonal
and small-group skills. You're responsible for listening to each
group
and coUecting data on the interaction among group members.
You can
also ask individual students to act as observers along with you.
Based
on these observations, you can intervene to improve students'
academic
learning and group skills.
MONITORING STUDENTS' ISEHAVIOR
Monitoring has four stages:
1. Preparing to observe the learning groups by deciding who, if
anyone, might help you observe and which observation forms to
use.
2. Observing to assess the quality of cooperative efforts in the
learn-
ing groups.
3. Intervening when necessary to improve a group's taskw ork or
teamwork.
4. Having students assess the quality of their own individual

partici!
pation in the learning groups to encourage self-monitoring.
Preparing to. Observe
You must decide whether you will ask individual students to
help
you observe (you, of course, are always an observer) and choose
the
observation forms and procedures you will use.
Student Observers and Sampling Plans
As students become experienced working in cooperatf ve
learning
groups, they should be trained to be observers. Observation is
aimed at
recording and describing members' behavior within a group to
provide
objective data about the interaction among group members. The
goal is
to give students feedback about their participation in the group
and help
them to analyze the group's effectiveness. Students can be
roving ob-
servers who circulate throughout the classroom and monitor all
learning
,, groups or they can observe their own groups (one observer per
group).
When observing their own groups, student observers should
remain
close enough to see and hear the interaction among group
members but
should not participate in the academic task. Student observers
shouldn't

comment or intervene until the time set aside near the end of the
class
period for the learning groups to review their work. The role of
observer
should rotate so that each group member is an observer an equal
amount
of time.
You and student roving observers need a sampling plan to
ensure
that all groups are observed for approximately equal amounts of
time.
Simply decide before a lesson begins how much time you will
spend
observing each learning group (this is a sampling plan). You
can observe
one learning group for the entire class period, collecting
information on
every member, or you may decide to observe ei3.ch group an
equal portion
of the class period. You might also choose to observe each
group for two
)
' "
FIGURE 10.1
Structured Observation Form
Observer: Date:
Action Yvette Keith Dale Total

Contributes
Ideas
Encourages
Participation
Checks for
Understanding
Gives Group
Direction
Other
Total:
:• MONITORING STUDENTS' BEHAVIOR
minutes at a time and rotate through all the groups several times
during
a class period. You will need to interrupt the sampling plan if
you decide
you should intervene in one group.
Academic and social skills objectives demand assessment of
academic and teamwork efforts.
Academic
Teamwork
Observation Procedures
Observation procedures may be structured (using an observation
schedule on which frequencies are tallied) or unstructured

(making
informal descriptions of students' statements and actions). In
both
structured and unstructured observation, it's important not to
confuse
observation with inference and interpretation. Observation is
descrip-
tive; inferences are interpretative. Observation involves
recording what
students do while they work together to complete a task.
Inferences and
interpretations about how well students are cooperating are
made based
on the observation data.
To make structured observations, you:
1. Decide which teamwork and taskwork skills you will observe.
2. Construct an observation form to record the frequencies of
targeted
actions. (If students are going to be observers, the form must be
appro-
priate for their age group.)
3. Observe each group and record how often each student
performs
the specified behaviors.
4. Summarize your observations in a clear and useful manJJ.er
and
present them to the groups as feedback.
5. Help group members analyze the observation data and infer
how
effectively the group is functioning and how well each group

member is
engaging in the targeted skills.
Observation Forms
Structured.Several types of observation forms can be used.
These
are useful tools for gathering and sharing specific information
on how
group members work together while completing an assignment.
Figure 10.1 is a simple observation form you can use.
.,
1. Using one observation sheet per group, write each group
member's
name across the top of the columns, placing one name above
each
column (reserving the first column for the targeted skills and
.the last
column for the row totals).
https://manJJ.er
FIGURE 10.2
Checklist
~
Behavior Yes No Comments
1. Do students understand the
task? .
2. Have students accepted the

positive interdependence and
the individual accountability?
3. Are students working toward
the criteria, and are those
criteria for success appropriate?
4. Are students practicing the
specifiedbehaviors?
·• •-••~ ••tt. -~A.J...!J1
2. Write each targeted skill on a separate row in the first
column.
3. Place a tally mark in the appropriate row and column when a
student engages in one of the targeted actions. Don't worry
about record-
ing everything, but observe as accurately and rapidly as
possible.
4. Make notes on the back of the observation form about actions
that
take place but do not fit into the actions being observed.
5. Write down specific positive contributions by each group
member
to ensure that every member receives positive feedback.
6. Look for patterns of behavior in the group.
7. After the work session is over, total the columns and rows.
8. Show the observation form to the group. Ask the group
members
what they conclude about:

a. Their own participation in the group.
b. The group functioning in general.
9. After the discussion, help the group set a growth goal. Ask,
"What
could you add to be even a better group tomorrow than you were
today?"
This emphasizes the importance of continuous improvement in
group
effectiveness.
10. Transfer the totals to long-term record sheets and the
appropriate
charts or graphs.
A variety of observation instruments and procedures are
described
in Johnson and R. Johnson (1993).
Unstructured.You make unstructured (or anecdotal)
observations by
"eavesdropping" on each group and making specific
observations that
are (a) brief enough to write down quickly, (b) capture an
important
aspect of the behavior of one or more students, and (cJ help
answer
questions about the successful implementation of cooperative
learning.
Be sure to write positive incidents on cards and file them in the
student's
personal file after they have been used to give the student
feedback.
These can be used during parent conferences as examples of the
student's
competencies and positive qualities.

HW. 2 Cooperative LearningReadings and Handouts· Johnson, D. W.

HW. 2 Cooperative LearningReadings and Handouts· Johnson, D. W.

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to HW. 2 Cooperative LearningReadings and Handouts· Johnson, D. W.

Similar to HW. 2 Cooperative LearningReadings and Handouts· Johnson, D. W. (20)

More from NarcisaBrandenburg70

More from NarcisaBrandenburg70 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

HW. 2 Cooperative LearningReadings and Handouts· Johnson, D. W.