Cooperative Learning

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 es@ma 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 37 R.M. Gillies / Int. J. Educ. Res. 39 (2003) 35–49

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 38 R.M. Gillies / Int. J. Educ. Res. 39 (2003) 35–49

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 39 R.M. Gillies / Int. J. Educ. Res. 39 (2003) 35–49

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 40 R.M. Gillies / Int. J. Educ. Res. 39 (2003) 35–49

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 41 R.M. Gillies / Int. J. Educ. Res. 39 (2003) 35–49

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 42 R.M. Gillies / Int. J. Educ. Res. 39 (2003) 35–49

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 43 R.M. Gillies / Int. J. Educ. Res. 39 (2003) 35–49

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 44 R.M. Gillies / Int. J. Educ. Res. 39 (2003) 35–49

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 45 R.M. Gillies / Int. J. Educ. Res. 39 (2003) 35–49

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 46 R.M. Gillies / Int. J. Educ. Res. 39 (2003) 35–49

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 47 R.M. Gillies / Int. J. Educ. Res. 39 (2003) 35–49

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 48 R.M. Gillies / Int. J. Educ. Res. 39 (2003) 35–49

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.

ARTICL IN PR SS 49 R.M. Gillies / Int. J. Educ. Res. 39 (2003) 35–49

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.