The Teacher’s Role In Implementing Cooperative Learning

The Teacher’s Role in Implementing Cooperative
Learning in the Classroom

COMPUTER-SUPPORTED COLLABORATIVE LEARNING

VOLUME 7

Series Editor:

Pierre Dillenbourg, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Lausanne, Switzerland

Editorial Board:

Michael Baker, CNRS & Université Lumière Lyon, France
Carl Bereiter, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, Canada
Yrjö Engeström, University of Helsinki, Finland
Gerhard Fischer, University of Colorado, U.S.A.
H. Ulrich Hoppe, University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany
Timothy Koschmann, Southern Illinois University, U.S.A.
Naomi Miyake, Chukyo University, Japan
Claire O’Malley, University of Nottingham, U.K.
Roy Pea, SRI International, U.S.A.
Clotilde Pontecorovo, University ‘La Sapienza’, Italy
Jeremy Roschelle, SRI International, U.S.A.
Daniel Suthers, University of Hawaii, U.S.A.

The Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Book Series is for people working in the CSCL
ﬁeld. The scope of the series extends to ‘collaborative learning’ in its broadest sense; the term is used
for situations ranging from two individuals performing a task together, during a short period of time,
to groups of 200 students following the same course and interacting via electronic mail. This variety
also concerns the computational tools used in learning: elaborated graphical whiteboards support peer
interaction, while more rudimentary text-based discussion forums are used for large group interaction.
The series will integrate issues related to CSCL such as collaborative problem solving, collaborative
learning without computers, negotiation patterns outside collaborative tasks, and many other relevant
topics. It will also cover computational issues such as models, algorithms or architectures which sup-
port innovative functions relevant to CSCL systems.

The edited volumes and monographs to be published in this series offer authors who have carried out
interesting research work the opportunity to integrate various pieces of their recent work into a larger
framework.

The titles published in this series are listed at the end of this volume.

R. M. Gillies • A. F. Ashman • J. Terwel
(Editors)

The Teacher’s Role in
Implementing Cooperative

Robyn M. Gillies Adrian F. Ashman
University of Queensland University of Queensland
Brisbane, Qld 4072 Brisbane, Qld 4072
Australia Australia
r.gillies@uq.edu.au adrian.ashman@uq.edu.au

Jan Terwel
Vrije University
1081 BT Amsterdam
the Netherlands
j.terwel@psy.vu.nl

Series Editor:
Pierre Dillenbourg
Swiss Federal Institute of Technology
Lausanne, CH-1015
Switzerland

ISBN 978-0-387-70891-1 e-ISBN 978-0-387-70892-8

Library of Congress Control Number: 2007920037

© 2008 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
All rights reserved. This work may not be translated or copied in whole or in part without the written
permission of the publisher (Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, 233 Spring Street, New York,
NY 10013, USA), except for brief excerpts in connection with reviews or scholarly analysis.
Use in connection with any form of information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer
software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed is forbidden.
The use in this publication of trade names, trademarks, service marks, and similar terms, even if they
are not identiﬁed as such, is not to be taken as an expression of opinion as to whether or not they are
subject to proprietary rights.

Printed on acid-free paper.

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

springer.com

Contents

The Teacher’s Role in Implementing Cooperative Learning
in the Classroom: An Introduction .......................................................... 1
Robyn M. Gillies, Adrian F. Ashman, and Jan Terwel

Chapter 1 Social Interdependence Theory and Cooperative
Learning: The Teacher’s Role.............................................. 9
David W. Johnson and Roger T. Johnson

Chapter 2 Beyond the Classroom and into the Community:
The Role of the Teacher in Expanding the Pedagogy
of Cooperation ....................................................................... 38
Rachel Hertz-Lazarowitz

Chapter 3 Pupil Grouping for Learning: Developing
a Social Pedagogy of the Classroom .................................... 56
Ed Baines, Peter Blatchford,
and Peter Kutnick

Chapter 4 Structuring Peer Interaction to Promote
Higher-Order Thinking and Complex Learning
in Cooperating Groups ......................................................... 73
Alison King

Chapter 5 Cooperative Learning and Literacy Instruction
in Middle Level Education ................................................... 92
Robert J. Stevens

Chapter 6 Structuring Group Interaction to Promote
Thinking and Learning During Small Group
Learning in High School Settings ........................................ 110
Günter L. Huber and Anne A. Huber

vi Contents

Chapter 7 Feedback and Reﬂection to Promote Student
Participation in Computer Supported
Collaborative Learning: A Multiple Case Study ............. 132
Fleur Prinsen, Jan Terwel, Monique Volman,
and Marieke Fakkert

Chapter 8 School and Inclusive Practices ........................................... 163
Adrian F. Ashman

Chapter 9 Developing Language and Mastering Content
in Heterogeneous Classrooms ............................................ 184
Rachel A. Lotan

Chapter 10 Teacher Practices and Small-Group
Dynamics in Cooperative Learning Classrooms .............. 201
Noreen M. Webb

Chapter 11 Explanation Giving and Receiving
in Cooperative Learning Groups....................................... 222
John A. Ross

Chapter 12 Teachers’ and Students’ Verbal Behaviours
During Cooperative Learning............................................ 238
Robyn M. Gillies

Concluding Remarks ................................................................................ 258

Index ............................................................................................................ 263

Contributors

Adrian F. Ashman is a professor of special education in the School of Education
at The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. He has a 30-year history of
publication in the education, psychology, and disability field and is known interna-
tionally for his work in the application of cognitive psychology to regular and
special education contexts. He is a Fellow of the American Psychological
Association and of the International Association for the Scientific Study of
Intellectual Disability. He has published 20 books and major monographs and
more than 150 research articles and book chapters, many on cooperative learning.
In 2003, he co-edited with Gillies Cooperative learning: The Social and Intellectual
Outcomes of Learning in Groups (RoutledgeFalmer). Contact: adrian.ashman@
uq.edu.au
Ed Baines is a researcher based in the School of Psychology and Human
Development at the Institute of Education, University of London. His main research
interest is in children’s interactions with peers in the classroom and in informal
contexts such as at break time and outside school. Contact: E.Baines@ioe.ac.uk
Peter Blatchford is professor in psychology and education in the School of
Psychology and Human Development at the Institute of Education, University of
London. His research interests include social developmental processes in school
settings, educational effects of class size differences and pupil adult ratios,
improving the effectiveness of pupil groups in classrooms, grouping practices in
primary and secondary schools, and peer relations and friendships and playground
games and activities. He has published widely in such leading international jour-
nals as The American Educational Research Journal, Learning and Instruction,
The International Journal of Educational Research, The British Journal of
Educational Research, and The British Journal of Educational Psychology.
Contact: P.Blatchford@ioe.ac.uk
Marieke Fakkert received her master’s degree in educational pedagogy at the
Vrije University Amsterdam, The Netherlands. She followed an internship within
the PhD project of Fleur Prinsen and looked at the learning processes of the students
in that particular CSCL setting. The outcomes resulted in her master thesis and
a contribution to the chapter described in this handbook. She currently works

viii Contributors

as a curriculum designer at the Dutch National Police Academy. Contact:
mcfakkert@gmail.com.
Robyn M. Gillies is an associate professor in the School of Education at the
University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. She has worked extensively in
schools to help teachers establish cooperative learning experiences in their class-
rooms. The results of this research have been published in many leading interna-
tional journals including The Journal of Educational Psychology, The Journal of
Special Education, The International Journal of Educational Research, Learning
and Instruction, The British Journal of Educational Psychology, and in 2003 she
co-edited Cooperative learning: The Social and Intellectual Outcomes of Learning
in Groups (RoutledgeFalmer). Contact: r.gillies@uq.edu.au
Rachel Hertz-Lazarowitz is a professor in the Faculty of Education at Haifa
University, Israel. Her research interests include classroom instruction and inter-
action, school-wide change, school–family–community partnerships, friendship
development, and Arab and Jews coexistence. She has published widely in such
leading international journals as The Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,
The Elementary School Journal, Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, Psychology in the
Schools, Contemporary Educational Psychology, International Journal of
Behavioral Development, and The Journal of Educational Psychology. In 1992,
she co-edited Interaction in Cooperative Groups: The Theoretical Anatomy of
Group Learning. New York and London: Cambridge University Press. Contact:
rachelhl@construct.haifa.ac.il
Anne A. Huber is an assistant professor at the University of Education at
Weingarten. Her research subjects are the development, implementation, and
evaluation of cooperative learning methods. Her particular interests are in how to
support cooperative learning processes effectively and in how to implement coop-
erative learning in school and adult education. Contact: huber.anne@web.de
Günter L. Huber is a retired professor of educational psychology at the University
of Tübingen, Germany, and was chair of the Department of Educational Psychology
at the Institute of Educational Science. Among his publications are books and
training materials on cooperative learning and teaching/learning problems, inter-
individual differences, and software for the analysis of qualitative data. Contact:
huber.paedpsy@uni-tuebingen.de
David W. Johnson is arguably one of the leading international scholars and
researchers on cooperative learning. He and his brother, Roger Johnson, are the
proponents of the working together approach to using cooperative learning in
schools. They are prolific writers and, over the last 30 years, have published several
hundred articles and numerous books and book chapters on their approach to
cooperative learning. Contact: johns009@tc.umn.edu
Roger T. Johnson is a professor in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction
with an emphasis in Science Education at the University of Minnesota. He is an
authority on inquiry teaching and has worked at the national level in science

Contributors ix

education in the USA and the UK. Together with David W. Johnson, he is the
co-director of the Cooperative Learning Center at the University of Minnesota
which conducts research and training nationally and internationally on changing
the structure of classrooms and schools to a more cooperative environment at the
University of Minnesota. Contact: johns009@tc.umn.edu
Alison King is professor emerita of educational psychology, California State
University San Marcos and visiting professor of University of California Irvine.
Her research has a dual focus: self-regulated learning (Cognitive Strategies and
Metacognition) and socio-cognitive learning (Socio-Cognitive Learning Strategies,
Peer-Mediated Learning, Peer Tutoring, Questioning and Answering Processes in
Thinking and Problem Solving). In particular she is interested in processes
involved in mediation of children’s thinking and learning by teacher/caregivers,
peers, and parents or other significant adult family members. Contact: aking@
csusm.edu
Peter Kutnick is a professor of psychology and education at King’s College
London (University of London), United Kingdom. His research interests include
understanding social pedagogy in classroom group work, grouping practices in
pre-schools, primary and secondary schools, and peer relationships and friend-
ships. He has published widely in such leading international journals as The
International Journal of Educational Research, The British Educational Research
Journal, Educational Research, The British Journal of Educational Psychology,
and The Social Psychology of Education. He has also written and edited a number
of books concerning children’s social development and schooling. Contact: Peter.
Kutnick@kcl.ac.uk
Rachel A. Lotan is an associate professor in the School of Education at Stanford
University, California where she is involved in researching issues in Access and
Equity, Bilingual Education/ESL, Small Group Instruction and Interaction,
Sociology of Education, Sociology of the Classroom, and Teacher Education and
Certification. Contact: rlotan@stanford.edu
Fleur Prinsen is a researcher at the Department of Education at the Vrije
University Amsterdam in the Netherlands. She is currently conducting research
on computer supported collaborative learning (CSCSL) for her doctoral degree.
She received a masters degree in educational psychology at the University of
Leiden with her thesis on learning styles and text comprehension. She has also
taught several master classes at the University of Leiden and an online master’s
course on CSCL, as visiting lecturer at the University of Oulu, Finland. After her
PhD, she intends to pursue a research career studying inclusion of all students in
computer-supported collaborative learning. Contact: fr.prinsen@psy.vu.nl or
frprinsen@gmail.com
John A. Ross is professor of curriculum, teaching, and learning at the Ontario
Institute for Studies in Education at the University of Toronto. He has worked with
teachers in one of OISE/UT’s field centers for thirty years, designing, implementing,

x Contributors

and evaluating curriculum, as well as teaching in the graduate studies program.
His research focuses on student assessment, especially in cooperative learning
contexts, school improvement, and program evaluation. Contact: jross@oise.
utoronto.ca
Robert J. Stevens is an associate professor of educational psychology at
Pennsylvania State University. He has written extensively on cooperative learn-
ing and its affect on children’s literacy during the elementary and middle-years of
schooling. His work has been published in such a leading international journals at
The American Educational Research Journal, The Elementary School Journal,
The Journal of Educational Psychology, Reading Research Quarterly, and
Teaching and Teacher Education. Contact: rjs15@psu.edu
Jan Terwel is professor emeritus of education at the Vrije University Amsterdam
in the Netherlands. His main contributions have been to curriculum studies,
grouping in education, learning in cooperative groups and individual differences,
especially in primary and secondary mathematics education. He is the author of
numerous articles and book chapters, and co-editor with Decker Walker from
Stanford University of Curriculum as a Shaping Force (2004). Until February
2006, he chaired the Department of Education in the Faculty of Psychology and
Education and was director of the research program “Strategic Learning in the
Curriculum.” He was visiting professor at the School of Education, Stanford
University, California in the US and visiting professor at the School of Education,
University of Queensland, Australia. He currently participates in several PhD
research projects as supervisor at the Department of Education of the Vrije
University Amsterdam. Contact: J.Terwel@psy.vu.nl
Monique Volman is a professor of education in the Institute for Teacher Education
and the Department of Education, in the Faculty of Education and Psychology at
the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. She has published many articles in interna-
tional journals and is the author of several books. Her areas of specialization are
educational technology, social competence, and social and cultural differences
between students. Contact: mll.volman@psy.vu.nl
Noreen M. Webb is a professor of social research methodology in the Graduate
School of Education and Information Studies at the University of California, Los
Angeles. Her research interests include classroom processes related to learning
outcomes, small-group problem solving, achievement testing in mathematics and
science, aptitude-treatment interaction research, and generalizability theory. She
has published widely in many leading international journals including Learning
and Cognition, The Journal of Educational Psychology, The International Journal
of Educational Research, The American Educational Research Journal, and
Applied Measurement in Education. Contact: webb@ucla.edu

The Teacher’s Role in Implementing
Cooperative Learning in the Classroom:
An Introduction


Peer-mediated learning is well recognised as a pedagogical practice that promotes
learning, higher level thinking, and prosocial behaviour in students from pre-school
to college. Children and adolescents learn from each other in a vast range of formal
and informal settings. These include casual social meetings with friends, at skate-
board parks, and even on the beach or ski slope. In formal settings, young people are
often required to work and learn together and, indeed, small and large group sessions
are common in all educational environments from preschool to tertiary education.
Peer-mediation has been the cornerstone of a range of instructional technologies
that includes cooperative learning, peer collaboration, and peer-tutoring known
under several labels (e.g., Classwide Peer-tutoring, Peer-Assisted Learning
Strategies). The developers and advocates of these and many other peer-mediated
learning programs argued that by working together, students have many opportunities
to learn and develop a greater understanding of others with diverse social, interper-
sonal, adjustment, and learning needs (Shachar, 2003; Stevahn & King 2005).
This book is predominantly about cooperative learning that was developed by
many scholars and researchers in the past four decades. Among the most important
researchers we mention, David Johnson and Roger Johnson, Robert Slavin,
Elizabeth Cohen and Noreen Webb. It is the apparent success of this approach (see
Johnson & Johnson 1989) that led Slavin (1999) to suggest that it is one of the
greatest educational innovations of recent times.
The most successful and influential approaches are not simply techniques to
present the same old content in a different manner but have their roots in one of the
Grand Theories on human development, teaching, and learning. The Johnsons
explicitly mention Deutsch as a great inspiration in formulating their interdependence
theory on cooperative learning. Cohen’s work is firmly rooted in sociological
theories and especially focused on social status. The work of Webb has been
inspired by socio-cognitive theories on interaction and learning, originally
developed by Piaget and Vygotsky while the research conducted by Slavin has been
inspired by motivational theories, which apparently have their roots in behaviour-
ism and management theories.
All authors of the subsequent chapters in this book are directly or more indirectly
inspired by these Grand Theories or Schools for Thought (Bruer 1993) and stand
on the shoulders of the already mentioned initiators of the cooperative learning

2 R. M. Gillies et al.

movement in the last four decades. However, recent developments in social and
cognitive theories, for example, socio-constructivism, on how knowledge is collab-
oratively constructed and the revolution in information technology have largely
influenced theory and practice of cooperative learning as can be seen in, for example,
computer supported collaborative learning (CSCL).
Although initial research on cooperative learning focused on the social and
educational benefits, research over the last two decades has examined the factors that
mediate and moderate learning that occurs when students participate in small groups.
Included in this research are studies that have examined the role that students play in
mediating each other’s learning through to those that examine the types of help they
provide, the quality of that help (see Ross & Cousins 1995; Terwel et al. 2001; Webb
1992), and the conditions required for successful helping to occur (Webb &
Mastergeorge 2003). Other studies have examined how teachers can train students to
use specific cognitive and metacognitive questioning strategies to facilitate discussion,
thinking, and learning during cooperative group work (see King 1997; O’Donnell
1999; Palincsar & Herrenkohl 1999). More recently, the focus has moved to the role
of teachers’ discourse during cooperative learning and its affect on the quality of
group discussions and the learning achieved (see Gillies 2004; Hertz-Lazarowitz &
Shachar 1990) and meta-analytic studies that have examined collections of studies to
gauge the extent of the effects of cooperative versus other teaching-learning configu-
rations (see e.g., Johnson & Johnson 2002; Neber et al. 2001).
Despite the well-documented benefits of cooperative learning, implementing
this pedagogical practice in classrooms, or indeed any of the structured peer-mediation
programs, is a challenge that many teachers find difficult to accomplish (Cohen,
1994). Difficulties may occur because teachers often do not have a clear under-
standing about how to establish effective cooperative groups, the research and theo-
retical perspectives that have informed this approach, and how they can translate this
information into practical classrooms applications.
Teachers’ reluctance to embrace cooperative learning may also be due to the lack
of time to learn about peer-mediated approaches, because of the challenge they per-
ceive it might poses to their control of the learning process, the demands it places on
classroom organisational changes, or the professional commitments that is required
to sustain their efforts (Cohen et al. 2004). There is no doubt that getting cooperative
learning up and running in a classroom requires a commitment to embedding the
procedures into the curricula and in implementing, monitoring, and evaluating it.
The teacher’s role in implementing cooperative learning in the classroom provides
a comprehensive overview of these issues. In many chapters there are clear guide-
lines and discussion about how cooperative learning practices can be embedded
into classroom curricula. This volume also provides an overview of the major
research and theoretical perspectives that underpin the development of cooperative
learning, outlines how specific small group experiences can promote interaction,
thinking and learning, discusses key roles teachers play in promoting student discourse,
and demonstrates how interaction style among students and teachers is crucial in
facilitating discussion, problem-solving, and learning.

An Introduction 3

An Overview of the Chapters

The book is organised into three sections with the first section (Chap. 1–3) presenting
both the research and theoretical perspectives that underpin successful small group
work, including examples of how class teachers can implement cooperative learning.
The second section (Chap. 4–9) highlights different ways in which teachers can
structure group interactions among students to promote discourse and learning. The
final section (Chap. 10–12) focuses on how students can be taught different cogni-
tive and metacognitive skills to enhance discussions in small groups. The key roles
teachers play in implementing this pedagogical practice and in promoting thinking
and learning is a theme that is highlighted throughout the book.
In the Chapter 1, Social Interdependence Theory and Cooperative Learning:
The Teacher’s Role, Johnson and Johnson draw on their extensive experience in
both the research and practical aspects of cooperative learning to draw out the factors
that lead to success in academic tasks. They first provide a brief historical overview
of the theoretical underpinnings of cooperative learning and then highlight the key
role social interdependence plays in establishing a group structure that motivates
group members to work together, build quality relationships, and actively support
each other’s learning. The outcomes of successful cooperative experiences lead to
higher level reasoning and problem-solving, greater effort to achieve, enhanced
relationships among group members, and improved psychological health.
In Chapter 2, Beyond the classroom and into the community: The role of the
teacher in expanding the pedagogy of cooperation, Hertz-Lazarowitz argues that
cooperative learning now has the potential to change teachers from conducting
‘a set of cooperative learning methods’ to implementing a ‘cooperative learning
critical pedagogy’ that is part of the critical pedagogies that aim to change the
nature of schooling and society. Based on research and theorizing since 1979 up
until the present, this chapter presents four developmental elements that have
contributed to a cooperative learning critical pedagogy. These involve: first, teachers’
thinking on cooperative learning as a set of methods; second, teachers’ perceptions
and attitudes related to this approach to teaching and learning; third, teachers’
instructional behaviours in the cooperative classroom and beyond, and finally, the
restructuring of cooperative learning as a critical pedagogy. Hertz-Lazarowitz proposes
that more theory on ‘cooperative learning pedagogy’ is needed so teachers can be
empowered to use it effectively to create an impact on teaching and society.
The following chapter by Baines, Blatchford and Kutnick reviews the research
on grouping students, the central premise being that all children in classrooms will
be seated in some form of group. The authors argue, however, that this is only the
starting point for a social pedagogic understanding of how classroom contexts may
promote or inhibit learning. There is substantial evidence that seating pupils in
groups is unlikely to relate to the learning purpose or intention of many lessons.
The first challenge, the authors propose, is for teachers and researchers to understand
how student groups are currently used in primary and secondary schools and how
the use of groups may relate to classroom learning. The authors discuss two studies


that they undertook that map group size and composition found in classrooms
against intended learning tasks, patterns of group interaction and the role of the
teacher. Findings of their research using Social Pedagogic Research into Groupwork
(SPRinG) show that learning within groups is often limited due to their composi-
tion and that learning potential is often mismatched with pedagogic intent. The
second challenge is determining how group work can be made more effective in
classrooms. Here the chapter draws upon another study that shows how a relational
approach to training for group working and committed teachers can support
advanced cognitive knowledge, motivation and social development in children.
Social pedagogic implications are drawn from these studies, noting the need for
group training and involvement of teachers.
King in her chapter, Structuring peer interaction to promote higher-order thinking
and complex learning in cooperating groups, argues that a major challenge in
implementing cooperative learning approaches is to stimulate higher-level thinking
and learning. She argues that higher-level learning requires learners to go beyond
mere review of information or retrieval of previously-acquired knowledge to engage
in thinking analytically about that knowledge, relating it to what they already know,
and using that knowledge to construct new knowledge, solve new problems, and
address new issues. A number of research studies have documented a direct relation-
ship between the level of the verbal interaction within cooperating groups and the
level of thinking and achievement of group members. Examination of the verbal
interaction within these groups reveals specific ways in which learning is mediated
by that interaction itself. Based on these findings King developed a form of
cooperative learning called Guided Reciprocal Peer Questioning to structure group
interaction to promote higher-order thinking and learning. The approach is inquiry-
based and is characterized by sequenced question-asking and answering with a direct
focus on metacognition and the roles of mediation and modelling. It has been used
effectively with groups in a number of classroom contexts ranging from fourth
graders to graduate students in a variety of subject areas. The theoretical underpinnings
of this approach are also presented as are research findings from several studies.
In Chapter 5, Cooperative learning and literacy instruction in middle level
education, Stevens argues that early adolescence is a time of important develop-
mental changes as students become more capable of handling complex tasks, develop
more independence, and become increasingly peer focused. Despite this, typical
middle level instruction does not adequately match the developmental growth of the
students, often focusing on didactic instruction and low-level skills. Research has
documented the impact of this developmental mismatch contributing to a decline in
student achievement and motivation resulting in lower attendance, achievement, and
attachment. This chapter describes a cooperative learning approach based upon a
teaching-learning approach that emphasizes Tasks, Autonomy, Recognition, Resources,
Grouping, Evaluation, and Time (called the TARRGET model). Stevens describes
the implementation of the model in a Student Team Reading and Writing Program
that guided teachers in the redevelopment of their literacy program to be more
developmentally responsive to the needs and abilities of early adolescents in urban
middle schools. To address some of the structural and curricular issues described
above, the teachers implemented a cooperative learning approach to an integrated

An Introduction 5

reading and language arts program. The instructional elements the teachers used
included: cooperative learning classroom processes; high interest reading materials;
explicit instruction in reading comprehension strategies; integrated reading, writing,
and language arts instruction; and a writing process approach to language arts.
The chapter describes the teachers’ implementation of these instructional methods
with students in a large urban school district and the impact it had on students’
discourse and achievement. The chapter highlights the potential teachers have to
use cooperative learning to increase student learning by making instruction more
engaging and responsive to the nature of early adolescence.
In the following chapter, Huber and Huber discuss structuring group interaction
to promote thinking and learning during small group discussions among high
school students. The authors argue that teaching and learning in the upper grades
of high school often presents contradictory classroom experiences to students. On
the one hand students have learned to adapt to traditional teacher-centered learning
while on the other, they are expected to self-regulate their learning processes.
Along with these experiences different preferences for learning situations and indi-
vidual roles in these situations develop. Indicators for these effects of classroom
experiences are those episodes in small group interactions in classrooms, which are
characterized by activities of mutual teaching and learning.
This chapter describes typical findings from recent studies in Jigsaw groups that
show that ‘experts’ for a specific part of the common learning content achieve
significantly more in their domain of expertise than teammates who are supposed
to learn from them. In expert groups the discussions usually promote cognitive
elaboration, while in many Jigsaw groups the authors observed less discussions,
questions, and explanations, but expert-centered teaching.
Structuring group interaction by learning scripts and integrating small group
discussions in a ‘sandwich’ style of teacher-centered activities, group discussions,
and individual learning has shown to counter-balance dysfunctional distributions of
roles in classroom processes. A sandwich model of cooperative teaching/learning
in the upper grades of high school is described and results from two evaluation
studies are presented and discussed. The chapter concludes with a summary of the
findings and makes recommendations both for teachers and researchers who study
group processes in classrooms.
In Chapter 7, Feedback and reflection to promote student participation in computer
supported collaborative learning: A multiple case study, Prinsen, Terwel, Volman,
and Fakkert review and examine what is known in the literature about differences
in participation and learning outcomes of students differing in gender, ability,
pre-knowledge and social-ethnic background when working in a CSCL environment.
The authors argue that if there are differences between these student categories and
their participation in CSCL environments then more attention should be paid to
ways of including these students that lead to enhanced learning outcomes. This
chapter also offers a critique on the way researchers report on the design of learning
environments in their research. In order to address this concern, that authors
approach CSCL as an ICT-application, in which the computer is used for commu-
nicative and collaborative ends. The chapter begins with a short summary of
research into the differences in ICT and computer mediated communication. In the


following sections the differences in participation, in the quality of participation,
and in the outcomes of CSCL are discussed. The chapter concludes with a look into
the future in which some possible avenues for research on CSCL are explored.
In his chapter, School and inclusive practices, Ashman, looks at some of the impli-
cations of peer support for students with diverse learning needs. Ashman takes a broad
view of peer-mediated teaching and learning approaches as most forms (e.g., coopera-
tive learning, peer-tutoring, peer-assisted learning strategies) have been used in special
education and inclusive education settings. He draws attention to nexus between
inclusive education and peer-mediated learning approaches where both are directed
toward pedagogical efficiencies aimed at improving the learning of all students.
While there is a large research database relating to peer-mediated approaches for
students with diverse learning needs, the literature is far from conclusive about
their successes. Ashman reviews studies that have focused on students with intel-
lectual disabilities, behavioural and social-emotional difficulties, and also gifted
and high-achieving students.
In Developing language and mastering content in heterogeneous classrooms,
Lotan describes the classroom conditions that support development in English as well
as mastery of social studies content in mainstream, academically and linguistically
heterogeneous middle schools. Lotan reports on a study where she found that the
language designations attributed to transitional students by the school underestimated
their linguistic and academic capacities as indicated by their performances in the
classroom. Students from different language proficiency levels benefited similarly
from the intellectually rigorous curriculum and from the quality of interactions with
peers during cooperative group work. Lotan proposes that teachers need to rethink
linguistic segregation and ensure access to challenging and grade-appropriate curricula
and instruction for all students. These findings make theoretical, methodological, and
practical contributions to the field of teaching and learning in heterogeneous class-
rooms where teachers need to accommodate children with diverse needs.
Theoretically, the emphasis on the linguistically rich and academically rigorous
social context that leads students to use English to interact in the classroom and to
demonstrate subject matter knowledge adds to a greater understanding of second
language acquisition at the secondary level. Methodologically, exploring the quality
and quantity of interaction at the cooperative, small group level and its relationship
to second language growth and mastery of content by individual students reflects
the theoretical stance while practically, from the findings, Lotan presents teachers
with a model of effective research-based practice that expands their repertoire of
strategies for teaching in heterogeneous classrooms.
In the following chapter, Teacher Practices and Small-Group Dynamics in
Cooperative Learning Classrooms, Webb draws attention to the role collaborative
peer learning environments have received due to the potential they hold for improving
learning and achievement. Webb notes that students can learn from each other in many
ways, for example, by giving and receiving help, sharing knowledge, building on each
others’ ideas, recognizing and resolving contradictions between their own and other
students’ perspectives, observing others’ strategies, and internalizing problem-solving
processes and strategies that emerge during group discussions. This chapter focuses

An Introduction 7

on students’ helping behaviour within small groups, specifically the exchanging of
explanations about the content being learned. The purpose of the chapter is to sum-
marize research about the helping processes that have been found to predict learning
outcomes in peer-directed small groups and the classroom conditions that bring about
effective helping behaviour.
The chapter is organized in four parts. The first part briefly reviews the theoretical
bases underlying the benefits of different kinds of help. These include perspectives of
Piaget, Vygotsky, and motivational theories. The second part reviews the kinds of help-
ing processes found to predict student learning outcomes. These include help-seeking
and help-giving behaviour of students within groups. The third part explores how the
evolution of dynamics in groups may promote or hinder productive helping processes,
with special attention given to the roles and responsibilities of students in help-seeking
or help-giving roles. The fourth part describes features of the classroom context that
influence group dynamics in classrooms. These features include teacher behaviour,
task structure and content, and classroom reward and recognition structure.
In Chapter 11, Explanation Giving and Receiving in Cooperative Learning
Groups, Ross proposes that students who more frequently give explanations to their
peers are more likely to learn from small group discussions than students who offer
explanations less frequently. Ross argues that the effect of explanation giving on
learning is more powerful than other types of information exchange. This finding has
been consistently demonstrated in observations of naturally occurring groups as well
as in studies of formally structured cooperative learning groups. The instructional
challenges posed by these research findings are: explanation giving is rare even when
teachers ask students to explain their solutions; usually only upper ability students
offer explanations of their thinking, meaning that the students who could most benefit
from this powerful learning strategy are least likely to engage in it; asking for an
explanation usually does not contribute to the learning of the explanation seeker; and
the quality of explanations provided by even the most able students tends to be poor.
Ross describes practical classroom strategies for improving the quality and
frequency of explanations in cooperative learning groups. These strategies have been
assessed in observational studies that link student behaviour to achievement out-
comes. The most promising instructional techniques involve teaching students how to
generate explanations within the context of specific subjects, such as mathematics.
In the final chapter, Teachers’ and students’ verbal behaviours during cooperative
learning, Gillies proposes that teachers play a critical role in promoting interactions
among students and involving them in the learning process. Yet, while much is known
about how teachers can promote discourse among students and how students, in turn,
help each other, little is know about teachers’ verbal behaviours during cooperative
learning. This chapter builds on research undertaken by Hertz-Lazarowitz and Shachar
that identified the differences in teachers’ verbal behaviours during cooperative and
whole-class instruction. It does this by discussing two studies undertaken by the author
that examined the difference in teachers’ verbal behaviours during cooperative and
small-group instruction in high school classes and the additive benefits derived from
training teachers to use specific communication skills to enhance children’s thinking
and learning during cooperative learning in elementary classes.


The chapter also discusses how students model many of the verbal behaviours
their teachers use in their own discourse with each other and how this promotes
students’ verbal reasoning and learning. Finally, the theoretical implications of the
role teachers play in the social construction of knowledge, both at the interpersonal
and personal level, are discussed with particular emphasis on specific strategies
teachers use to scaffold and challenge students’ learning.

References

Bruer, J. T. (1993). Schools for Thought: A Science of Learning in the Classroom. Cambridge,
Mass: MIT Press.
Cohen, E. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review
of Educational Research, 64, 1–35.
Cohen, E. G., Brody, C. M., & Sapon-Shevin, M. (2004). Teaching Cooperative Learning. The
Challenge for Teacher Education. New York: State University of New York.
Gillies, R. (2004). The effects of communication training on teachers’ and students’ verbal behaviours
during cooperative learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 41, 257–279.
Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. & Shachar, H. (1990). Teachers’ verbal behaviour in cooperative and whole-
class instruction. In S. Sharan (Ed.), Cooperative Learning: Theory and Research (pp. 77–94).
New York: Praeger.
Johnson, D. & Johnson, R. (1989). Cooperation and Competition: Theory and Research. Edina,
Minnesota: Interaction Book Company.
Johnson, D. & Johnson, R. (2002). Learning together and alone: Overview and meta-analysis.
Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 22, 95–105.
King, A. (1997). Ask to think-tel why: A model of transactive peer tutoring for scaffolding higher
level complex learning. Educational Psychologist, 32, 221–235.
Neber, H., Finsterwalk, M., & Urban, N. (2001). Cooperative learning with gifted and high-achieving
students: A review and meta-analyses of 12 studies. High Ability Studies, 12, 199–214.
O’Donnell, A. (1999). Structuring dyadic interaction through scripted cooperation. In A. O’Donnell
& A. King (Eds.), Cognitive Perspectives on Peer Learning (pp. 179–196). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Palincsar, A. & Herrenkohl, L. (1999). Designing collaborative contexts: lessons from three
research programs. In A. O’Donnell & A. King (Eds.), Cognitive Perspectives on Peer
Learning (pp. 151–177). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ross, J. & Cousins, J. (1995). Giving and receiving explanations in cooperative learning groups.
The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 41, 103–121.
Shachar, H. (2003). Who gains what from cooperative learning: An overview of eight studies. In
R. Gillies & A. Ashman (Eds.), Cooperative Learning: The Social and Intellectual Outcomes
of Learning in Groups (pp. 103–118). London: Routledge.
Slavin, R. (1999). Comprehensive approaches to cooperative learning. Theory into Practice, 38, 74–79.
Stevahn, L. & King, J. (2005). Managing conflict constructively. Evaluation: The International
Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, 11, 415–427.
Terwel, J., Gillies, R., van den Eden, P., & Hoek, D. (2001). Cooperative learning processes
of students: A longitudinal multilevel perspective. British Journal of Educational Psychology,
71, 619–645.
Webb, N. (1992). Testing a theoretical model of student interaction and learning in small groups.
In R. Hertz-Lazarowitz & N. Miller (Eds.), Interaction in Cooperative Groups (pp. 102–119).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Webb, N. & Mastergeorge, A. (2003). Promoting effective helping in peer-directed groups.
International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 73–97.

Chapter 1
Social Interdependence Theory and Cooperative
Learning: The Teacher’s Role

David W. Johnson and Roger T. Johnson

1.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 10
1.2 Social Interdependence Theory ........................................................................................ 11
1.2.1 Psychological Processes ....................................................................................... 12
1.2.2 Interaction Patterns ............................................................................................... 12
1.3 The Validating Research ................................................................................................... 13
1.3.1 Amount and Characteristics of Research .............................................................. 13
1.3.2 Effort to Achieve ................................................................................................... 15
1.3.3 Quality of Relationships ....................................................................................... 16
1.3.4 Psychological Health ............................................................................................ 18
1.4 The Basic Elements .......................................................................................................... 19
1.4.1 Positive Interdependence ...................................................................................... 19
1.4.2 Individual Accountability and Personal Responsibility........................................ 22
1.4.3 Promotive Interaction............................................................................................ 23
1.4.4 Appropriate Use of Social Skills .......................................................................... 24
1.4.5 Group Processing .................................................................................................. 25
1.5 Teacher’s Role in Cooperative Learning ........................................................................... 26
1.5.1 Formal Cooperative Learning ............................................................................... 26
1.5.2 Informal Cooperative Learning............................................................................. 29
1.5.3 Cooperative Base Groups ..................................................................................... 31
1.5.4 Integrated Use of All Three Types of Cooperative Learning................................ 32
1.6 Conclusions and Summary ............................................................................................... 32
References .................................................................................................................................. 33

Abstract Teachers who wish to use cooperative learning effectively will wish to
base their classroom practices on theory validated by research. To do so, they must
first understand the nature of social interdependence (that is, cooperative, competi-
tive, and individualistic efforts). Second, teachers need to understand that social
interdependence theory is validated by hundreds of research studies indicating that
cooperation, compared to competitive and individualistic efforts, tends to result in
greater achievement, more positive relationships, and greater psychological health.
Third, teachers need to understand the five basic elements that make cooperation
work: positive interdependence, individual accountability, promotive interaction,
appropriate use of social skills, and group processing. Finally, teachers need to
understand the flexibility and many faces of cooperative learning, such as formal
cooperative learning, informal cooperative learning, and cooperative base groups.

10 D. W. Johnson and R. T. Johnson

1.1 Introduction

In the mid-1960s, cooperative learning was relatively unknown and largely ignored
by educators. Elementary, secondary, and university teaching was dominated by
competitive and individualistic learning. Cultural resistance to cooperative learning
was based on social Darwinism, with its premise that students must be taught to
survive in a “dog-eat-dog” world, and the myth of “rugged individualism” underlying
the use of individualistic learning. While competition dominated educational
thought, it was being challenged by individualistic learning largely based on
B. F. Skinner’s work on programmed learning and behavioral modification.
Educational practices and thought, however, have changed. Cooperative learning is
now an accepted and often the preferred instructional procedure at all levels of
education. Cooperative learning is presently used in schools and universities in
every part of the world, in every subject area, and with every age student. It is
difficult to find a text on instructional methods, a teacher’s journal, or instructional
materials that do not discuss cooperative learning. Materials on cooperative learning
have been translated into dozens of languages. Cooperative learning is one of the
success stories of both psychology and education.
One of the most distinctive characteristics of cooperative learning is the close
relationship among theory, research, and practice. The relationship between theory
and research is as follows (Johnson 2003). Theory identifies, clarifies, and defines
the phenomena of interest and their relationships with each other. Research vali-
dates or disconfirms the theory, that is, theory specifies the conditions under which
the theory is valid. Practice is guided by the validated theory, that is, the theory is
operationalized into practical procedures. The implementation of the procedures
reveals shortcomings of the theory, thus leading to a revised theory, a new set of
validating studies, and more refined practical procedures. This interaction among
theory, research, and practice is not only necessary for scientific progress, but also
for more effective behavior in applied situations.
Social interdependence theory underlies some of the most widely used cooperative
learning procedures (Johnson & Johnson 2002). Social interdependence theory has
been validated by hundreds of research studies (Johnson & Johnson 1974, 1989,
2005), a significant proportion of which has focused on the conditions under which
cooperation may be effectively implemented. (commonly referred to as “the five
basic elements” of cooperation). Practical procedures have been operationalized from
social interdependence theory at the classroom (i.e., the teacher’s role in structuring
cooperative learning) and school (i.e., leading the cooperative school) levels (Johnson
& Johnson 1999, 1994). This relationship among theory, research, and practice makes
cooperative learning somewhat unique. In this chapter, these connections will be
delineated. First, social interdependence theory will be reviewed. Second, the research
validating the theory will be summarized. Third, the five basic elements needed to
understand the dynamics of cooperation and operationalize the teacher’s role will be
discussed. Finally, the three types of cooperative learning and the ways the five basic
elements are structured in cooperative situations will be presented.

1 Social Interdependence Theory and Cooperative Learning: The Teacher’s Role 11

1.2 Social Interdependence Theory

Achievement is a we thing, not a me thing,
always the product of many heads and hands.
J. W. Atkinson (1964)

In the 1930s and 1940s Lewin (1935, 1948) proposed that a person’s behavior is
motivated by states of tension that arise as desired goals are perceived and that it is
this tension that motivates actions aimed at achieving the desired goals. One of
Lewin’s students, Deutsch (1949a, 1962) extended Lewin’s notions to the relation-
ship among the goals of two or more individuals. In doing so, he developed social
interdependence theory.
Social interdependence exists when the accomplishment of each individual’s
goals is affected by the actions of others (Deutsch 1949a, 1962; Johnson 1970,
2003; Johnson & Johnson 1989, 2005) (see Fig. 1.1). There are two types of social
interdependence, positive (cooperation) and negative (competition). Positive inter-
dependence exists when individuals perceive that they can reach their goals if and
only if the other individuals with whom they are cooperatively linked also reach
their goals. They therefore promote each other’s efforts to achieve the goals.
Negative interdependence exists when individuals perceive that they can obtain

Social Interdependence
Positive Negative No Interdependence
Interdependence Interdependence

Interaction Patterns
Promotive Contrient None

Psychological Processes

Positive Cathexis Negative Cathexis None
Substitutability Non-Substitutability
Inducibility Resistance

Outcomes
Effort To Achieve Quality Of Relationships Psychological Health

Fig. 1.1 Overview of social interdependence theory


their goals if and only if the other individuals with whom they are competitively
linked fail to obtain their goals. They therefore obstruct each other’s efforts to
achieve the goals. No interdependence results in a situation in which individuals
perceive that they can reach their goal regardless of whether other individuals in the
situation attain or do not attain their goals. Each type of interdependence results in
certain psychological processes.

1.2.1 Psychological Processes

The psychological processes created by positive interdependence include substitut-
ability (i.e., the degree to which actions of one person substitute for the actions of
another person), inducibility (i.e., openness to being influenced and to influencing
others), and positive cathexis (i.e., investment of positive psychological energy in
objects outside of oneself) (Deutsch 1949a, 1962). These processes explain how
self-interest is expanded to joint interest and how new goals and motives are created
in cooperative situations. Self-interest becomes expanded to mutual interest
through: (a) other people’s actions substituting for one’s own; (b) an emotional
investment in achieving goals that benefit others as well as oneself and generalizes
to caring and committed relationships with those who are working for the same
purposes and goals, and; (c) an openness to being influenced by and influencing
others so that joint efforts are more effective. Demonstrating the transition from
self-interest to mutual interest is perhaps one of the most important aspects of social
interdependence theory.
Negative interdependence creates the psychological processes of nonsubstituta-
bility (i.e., the actions of one person do not substitute for the actions of another
person), negative cathexis (i.e., investment of negative psychological energy in
objects outside of oneself), and resistance to being influenced by others. Thus, self-
interest is strengthened and the motives to win and avoid losing are strengthened.
No interdependence detaches a person from others, thereby creating nonsubsti-
tutability, cathexis only to one’s own actions, and no inducibility or resistance.
Thus, self-interest and the motive to succeed are maintained.

1.2.2 Interaction Patterns

The basic premise of social interdependence theory is that the way in which inter-
dependence is structured determines how individuals interact and the interaction
pattern determines the outcomes of the situation (Deutsch 1949a, 1962; Johnson
1970, 2003; Johnson & Johnson 1974, 1989, 2005). Positive interdependence
results in promotive interaction, negative interdependence results in oppositional or
contrient interaction, and no interdependence results in the absence of interaction.
Promotive interaction may be defined as individuals encouraging and facilitating


each other’s efforts to complete tasks, achieve, or produce in order to reach the
group’s goals. It consists of a number of variables, including mutual help and
assistance, exchange of needed resources, effective communication, mutual
influence, trust, and constructive management of conflict. Oppositional interaction
may be defined as individuals discouraging and obstructing each other’s efforts to
complete tasks, achieve, or produce in order to reach their goals; individuals focus
both on increasing their own productivity and on preventing any other person
from producing more than they do. It consists of such variables as obstruction of
each other’s goal achievement efforts, tactics of threat and coercion, ineffective
and misleading communication, distrust, and striving to win in conflicts. No inter-
action may be defined as individuals acting independently without any interchange
with each other while they work to achieve their goals; individuals focus only on
increasing their own productivity and achievement and ignore as irrelevant the
efforts of others.

1.3 The Validating Research

1.3.1 Amount and Characteristics of Research

The study of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic efforts is commonly
recognized as one of the oldest fields of research in social psychology. In the late
1800s Triplett (1898) in the United States, Turner (1889, cited in Trippett, 1898) in
England, and Mayer (1903) in Germany conducted a series of studies on the factors
associated with competitive performance. Since then over 750 studies have been
conducted on the relative merits of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic
efforts and the conditions under which each is appropriate. This is one of the largest
bodies of research within psychology and education and it provides sufficient
empirical research to test social interdependence theory’s propositions.
An extensive literature search was conducted aimed at identifying all the available
studies from published and nonpublished sources. Seven-hundred-fifty-four studies
contained enough data to compute an effect size (there are many studies from which
an effect size could not be computed). The characteristics of the studies are as
follows (see Table 1.1). Many of the research studies have high internal validity,
being carefully conducted by skilled investigators under highly controlled laboratory
(31%) and field (65%) settings. When rated on the variables of random assignment
to conditions, clarity of control conditions, control of the experimenter effect,
control of the curriculum effect (same materials used in all conditions), and verifi-
cation of the successful implementation of the independent variable, 51% of the
studies met these criteria.
The research on social interdependence has an external validity and a generaliz-
ability rarely found in the social sciences. The more variations in places, people,
and procedures the research can withstand and still yield the same findings, the


Table 1.1 General characteristics of studies
Characteristic Number Percent
Unknown 3 0.4
1900–1909 0 0
1910–1919 1 0.1
1920–1929 7 0.9
1930–1939 6 0.8
1940–1949 5 0.7
1950–1959 25 3.3
1960–1969 80 10.6
1970–1979 183 24.3
1980–1989 285 37.8
1990–1999 138 18.3
2000–2009 21 2.8
Unknown 4 0.5
No random assignment 280 37.1
Randomly assigned subjects 328 43.5
Randomly assigned groups, subject unit of analysis 98 13.0
Randomly assigned groups, group unit of analysis 44 5.8
Unknown 4 0.5
Ages 3–4 8 1.1
Ages 5–9 85 11.2
Ages 10–12 182 24.1
Ages 13–15 106 14.1
Ages 16–18 55 7.3
Ages 19–22 278 36.9
Ages 23+ 34 4.5
Unknown 4 0.5
Journal article 578 76.7
Book 5 0.7
M.A. theses 11 1.5
Ph.D. dissertations 75 9.9
Technical report 59 7.8
Unpublished 22 2.9
Unknown 27 3.6
Laboratory 234 31.0
Field 490 65.0
Clinical 3 0.4
Unknown 46 6.1
1 session 216 28.6
2–9 sessions 150 19.9
10–19 sessions 98 13.0
20–29 sessions 57 7.6
30–39 sessions 53 7.0
40–49 sessions 44 5.8
50–59 sessions 18 2.4
60–69 sessions 18 2.4
70–79 sessions 6 0.8
(continued)


Table 1.1 (continued)
Characteristic Number Percent
80–89 sessions 8 1.1
90–99 sessions 37 4.9
100+ sessions 3 0.4
Unknown 27 5
Homogeneous 145 21
Mixed gender groups 552 74
Total 754 100
Only studies giving enough data so that effect sizes could be computed are
included in this table
Source: Johnson & Johnson (2003). Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic
efforts: An update of the research. Research Report, Cooperative Learning Center,
University of Minnesota. Reprinted with permission.

more externally valid the conclusions. The research has been conducted over
12 decades by many different researchers with markedly different theoretical and
practical orientations working in different settings. A wide variety of research tasks,
ways of structuring social interdependence, and measures of the dependent variables
have been used. Participants in the studies varied from ages three to post-college
adults and have come from different economic classes and cultural backgrounds.
The studies were conducted with different durations, lasting from one session to
100 sessions or more. Research on social interdependence has been conducted
in numerous cultures in North America (with Caucasian, Black-American,
Native-American, and Hispanic populations) and countries from North, Central,
and South America, Europe, the Middle East, Asia, the Pacific Rim, and Africa. The
research on social interdependence includes both theoretical and demonstration
studies conducted in educational, business, and social service organizations. The
diversity of these studies gives social interdependence theory wide generalizability
and considerable external validity.
Promotive, oppositional, and no interaction have differential effects on the out-
comes of the situation (see Johnson & Johnson 1989, 1999, 2005). The research has
focused on numerous outcomes, which may be subsumed within the broad and
interrelated categories of effort to achieve, quality of relationships, and psychological
health (Johnson 2003; Johnson & Johnson 1989, 2005) (see Table 1.2 and Fig. 1.2).
Figure 1.2 shows the relationships among the outcomes.

1.3.2 Effort to Achieve

From Table 1.2 it may be seen that cooperation promotes considerable greater effort
to achieve than do competitive or individualistic efforts. Effort exerted to achieve
includes such variables as achievement and productivity, long-term retention, on-task
behavior, use of higher-level reasoning strategies, generation of new ideas and solu-
tions, transfer of what is learned within one situation to another, intrinsic motiva-


Table 1.2 Mean effect sizes for impact of social interdependence on dependent variables
Dependent Cooperative vs. Cooperative vs. Competitive vs.
variable competitive individualistic individualistic
Achievement 0.67 0.64 0.30
Interpersonal attraction 0.67 0.60 0.08
Social support 0.62 0.70 −0.13
Self-esteem 0.58 0.44 −0.23
Time on task 0.76 1.17 0.64
Attitudes toward task 0.57 0.42 0.15
Quality of reasoning 0.93 0.97 0.13
Perspective-taking 0.61 0.44 −0.13
High Quality Studies
Achievement 0.88 0.61 0.07
Interpersonal attraction 0.82 0.62 0.27
Social support 0.83 0.72 −0.13
Self-esteem 0.67 0.45 −0.25
Source: Johnson & Johnson (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research.
Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company. Reprinted with permission.

tion, achievement motivation, continuing motivation to learn, and positive attitudes
toward learning and school. Overall, cooperation tends to promote higher achieve-
ment than competitive or individualistic efforts (effect-sizes = 0.67 and 0.64 respec-
tively). The impact of cooperative learning on achievement means that if schools wish
to prepare students to take proficiency tests to meet local and state standards, the use
of cooperative learning should dominate instructional practice.
An important aspect of school life is engagement in learning. One indication of
engagement in learning is time on task. Cooperators spent considerably more time
on task than did competitors (effect size = 0.76) or students working individualisti-
cally (effect size = 1.17). In addition, students working cooperatively tended to be
more involved in activities and tasks, attach greater importance to success, and
engage in more on-task behavior and less apathetic, off-task, disruptive behaviors.
Finally, cooperative experiences, compared with competitive and individualistic
ones, have been found to promote more positive attitudes toward the task and the
experience of working on the task (effect-sizes = 0.57 and 0.42 respectively).

1.3.3 Quality of Relationships

Quality of relationships includes such variables as interpersonal attraction, liking,
cohesion, esprit-de-corps, and social support. The degree of emotional bonding that
exists among students has a profound effect on students’ behavior. The more posi-
tive the relationships among students and between students and faculty, the lower
the absenteeism and dropout rates and the greater the commitment to group goals,
feelings of personal responsibility to the group, willingness to take on difficult


E PO
C OT IVE INTERAC SI
EN OM TIO TI
D PR N V
N E
P E

IN
E
D

T
E
R

R
TE

DE
IN

PE
EFFORT POSITIVE
IVE

ND
POSIT

to RELATIONSHIPS

ENCE
PROMO
ACHIEVE

TIVE
N
TIO

PSYCHOLOGICAL

IN
AC

TE
ADJUSTMENT

RA
ER T

C
SOCIAL COMPETENCE
IN

T
IO
E N
IV
T
O
OM P
PR O
SI
TI
VE
CE INT
ERDEPENDEN

Fig. 1.2 Outcomes of cooperative learning
Source: Johnson & Johnson (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina,
MN: Interaction Book Company. Reprinted with permission.

tasks, motivation and persistence in working toward goal achievement, satisfaction
and morale, willingness to endure pain and frustration on behalf of the group, will-
ingness to defend the group against external criticism or attack, willingness to listen
to and be influenced by colleagues, commitment to each other’s professional
growth and success, and productivity (Johnson & Johnson 2006).
There are over 175 studies that have investigated the relative impact of coopera-
tive, competitive, and individualistic efforts on quality of relationships and another
106 studies on social support (Johnson 2003; Johnson & Johnson 1989, 2005). As
Table 1.2 shows, cooperation generally promotes greater interpersonal attraction
among individuals than does competitive or individualistic efforts (effect sizes =
0.67 and 0.60 respectively). Cooperative experiences tend to promote greater social
support than does competitive (effect-size = 0.62) or individualistic (effect-size =
0.70) efforts. Stronger effects are found for peer support than for superior (teacher)
support. The high-quality studies tend to have even more powerful effects.


It is difficult to overemphasize the importance of these research results. Friends
are a developmental advantage (see Johnson 2003; Johnson & Johnson 1989,
2005). There is a close association between antisocial behavior and rejection by
the normal peer group. Rejected children tend to be deficient in a number of
social-cognitive skills, including peer group entry, perception of peer group norms,
response to provocation, and interpretation of prosocial interactions. Among
children referred to child guidance clinics, 30–75% (depending on age) are reported
by their parents to experience peer difficulties. Moreover, children referred for
psychological treatment have fewer friends and less contact with them than non-
referred children, their friendships are significantly less stable over time, and their
understanding of the reciprocities and intimacies involved in friendships is less
mature. Peer group acceptance and friendships may be built through the extensive
use of cooperative learning.

1.3.4 Psychological Health

Montagu (1966) was fond of saying that with few exceptions the solitary animal in
any species is an abnormal creature. Similarly, Horney (1937) stated that the neurotic
individual is someone who is inappropriately competitive and, therefore, unable to
cooperate with others. Montagu and Horney recognized that the essence of psycho-
logical health is the ability to develop and maintain cooperative relationships. More
specifically, psychological health is the ability (cognitive capacities, motivational
orientations, and social skills) to build, maintain, and appropriately modify interde-
pendent relationships with others to succeed in achieving goals (Johnson 2003;
Johnson & Johnson 1989, 2005). People who are unable to do so often: (a) become
depressed, anxious, frustrated, and lonely; (b) tend to feel afraid, inadequate, help-
less, hopeless, and isolated; and (c) rigidly cling to unproductive and ineffective
ways of coping with adversity.
With our students and colleagues, we have conducted a series of studies relating
cooperative, competitive, and individualistic efforts and attitudes to various indices
of psychological health (see Johnson 2003; Johnson & Johnson 1989, 2005). The
samples studied included middle-class junior-high students, middle-class high
school seniors, high-school age juvenile prisoners, adult prisoners, Olympic ice-
hockey players, adult step-couples, and business executives in China. The diversity
of the samples studied and the variety of measures of psychological health provide
considerable generalizability of the results of the studies. A strong relationship was
found between cooperativeness and psychological health, a mixed picture was found
with competitiveness and psychological health, and a strong relationship was
found between an individualistic orientation and psychological pathology.
Finally, there is evidence that cooperation promotes more frequent use of higher
level reasoning strategies than do competitive (effect size = 0.93) or individualistic
(effect size = 0.97) efforts. Similarly, cooperation tends to promote more accurate
perspective taking than do competitive (effect size = 0.61) or individualistic (effect


size = 0.44) efforts. Thus, the more cooperative learning experiences students are
involved in, the more mature their cognitive and moral decision making and the
more they will tend to take other people’s perspectives in account when making
decisions.

1.4 The Basic Elements

Social interdependence theory provides a foundation for cooperative learning.
In operationalizing the teacher’s role, however, the variables mediating the effec-
tiveness of cooperative learning needed some clarification. This led to the expansion
of positive interdependence to include individual and group accountability. It also
lead to the expansion of promotive interaction into actions that facilitate goal
accomplishment, appropriate use of social skills, and group processing. Thus, in
creating cooperative learning lessons, the teacher has to structure positive interde-
pendence, individual accountability, promotive interaction, the appropriate use of
social skills, and group processing. In this section each of these basic elements of
cooperation will be discussed. In the following section, the way they are operation-
alized into the teacher’s role will be explained.

1.4.1 Positive Interdependence

Positive and negative interdependence were defined by Lewin and Deutsch as
resulting from mutual goals. A number of researchers demonstrated, however, that
positive and negative interdependence may be structured through complementary
roles (Thomas 1957), group contingencies (Skinner 1968), and dividing information
into separate pieces (Aronson et al. 1978). Various researchers and practitioners
have structured interdependence in other ways, such as divisions of labor, mutual
identity, in environmental spaces, and simulations involving fantasy situations
(Johnson & Johnson 1992). Given the different ways in which positive and negative
interdependence may be structured, Johnson & Johnson (1989, 2005) divided them
into three categories: outcome, means, and boundary (see Fig. 1.3). First, when
persons are in a cooperative or competitive situation, they are oriented toward a
desired outcome, that is, a goal or reward. Goals can be real or imaginary (such as
surviving on a desert island). Second, the means through which the mutual
outcomes are to be accomplished specify the actions required on the part of group
members. Means interdependence includes resource, role, and task interdependence
(which are overlapping and not independent from each other). Third, the boundaries
existing among individuals and groups can define who is interdependent with
whom. Koffka (1935) pointed out that abrupt discontinuity produces segregating
forces between the parts of a visual field that it separates, as well as unifying forces
within the separated parts. Based on this principle of perceptual organization

20

Positive
Interdependence
⇔ Promotive Interaction ⇔ Outcomes

Outcome Interdependence Enhancing Other’s Success Effort To Achieve
Goal Providing Mutual Help and Assistance Achievement
Reward / Celebration Exchanging Needed Resources Long -Term Retention
Fantasy Giving Accurate Mutual Feedback Higher -Level Reasoning
Means Interdependence Challenging Each Other’s Conclusions Intrinsic Motivation
Role Advocating Effort To Achieve On -Task Behavior
Resource Engaging in Mutual Influence Positive Relationships
Task Engaging in Trusting And Trustworthy Behavior Cohesion
Boundary Interdependence Being Motivated for Mutual Benefit Liking For Each Other
Environmental Having a Moderate Level of Arousal Heterogeneity
Identity Engaging in More Accurate Perspective Taking Academic Support
Outside Enemy Exploring Different Points Of View Personal Support
Psychological Health
Accountability Teamwork And Taskwork Skills Psychological Adjustment
Group Social Competencies
Individual Processing: Individual, Group Self -Esteem
Shared Identity
Coping With Stress

Fig. 1.3 Social interdependence theory
D. W. Johnson and R. T. Johnson


(Koffka 1935; Wertheimer 1923), boundary interdependence may exist based on
abrupt discontinuities among individuals that segregate individuals into separate
groups. The discontinuity may be created by environmental factors (different parts
of the room or different rooms), similarity (all seated together or wearing the same
color shirt), proximity (seated together), past history together, expectations of being
grouped together, and differentiation from other competing groups. Boundary inter-
dependence thus includes outside enemy (i.e., negative interdependence with
another group), identity (which binds them together as an entity), and environmental
(such as a specific work area) interdependence (which are overlapping and not
independent from each other).
A series of research studies was conducted to clarify the impact of positive inter-
dependence on productivity and achievement. First, it is necessary to demonstrate
that positive interdependence has effects greater than group membership or inter-
personal interaction. There is evidence that group membership in and of itself does
not seem sufficient to produce higher achievement and productivity–positive inter-
dependence is also required (Hwong et al. 1993). Knowing that one’s performance
affects the success of groupmates seems to create “responsibility forces” that
increase one’s efforts to achieve. There is also evidence that interpersonal interaction
is insufficient to increase productivity–positive interdependence is also required
(Lew et al. 1986a, 1986b; Mesch et al. 1986, 1988). Individuals achieved higher
under positive goal interdependence than when they worked individualistically but
had the opportunity to interact with classmates. When positive interdependence is
clearly perceived, individuals realize that their efforts are required in order for the
group to succeed so that it is not possible to get a “free-ride” (Kerr 1983) and they
have a unique contribution to make to the group’s efforts. When members of a
group see their efforts as dispensable for the group’s success, they may reduce their
efforts (Kerr 1983; Kerr & Bruun 1983; Sweeney 1973); when group members
perceive their potential contribution to the group as being unique, they increase
their efforts (Harkins & Petty 1982).
Given the impact of positive interdependence above and beyond group member-
ship and interpersonal interaction, a number of studies have been conducted
contrasting the impact of various ways of inducing positive interdependence. The
studies have found:
1. Positive goal interdependence promotes higher achievement and greater produc-
tivity than does resource interdependence (Johnson et al. 1991).
2. Positive goal and reward interdependence tend to be additive; while positive
goal interdependence is sufficient to produce higher achievement and productivity
than do individualistic efforts, the combination of goal and reward interdepend-
ence tends to increase achievement more than goal interdependence alone or
individualistic efforts (Johnson et al. 1990; Lew et al. 1986a, b; Mesch et al.
1986, 1988; Ortiz et al. 1996).
3. Resource interdependence by itself may decrease achievement and productivity
compared with individualistic efforts (Johnson et al. 1990; Ortiz et al. 1996).
That is, when individuals need the resources of other group members but do not


share common goals, the emphasis tends to be on obtaining resources from others
without sharing one’s own resources with them. The result tends to be an inter-
ference with each other’s productivity.
4. Both working to achieve a reward and working to avoid the loss of a reward
produced higher achievement than did individualistic efforts (Frank 1984).
There is no significant difference between the working to achieve a reward and
working to avoid a loss.
5. Positive interdependence does more than simply motivate individuals to try
harder, it facilitates the development of new insights and discoveries through
promotive interaction (Gabbert et al. 1986; Johnson & Johnson 1981; Johnson
et al. 1980; Skon et al. 1981). Members of cooperative groups use higher level
reasoning strategies more frequently than do individuals working individualistically
or competitively.
6. The more complex the procedures involved in interdependence, the longer it will
take group members to reach their full levels of productivity (Ortiz et al. 1996).
The more complex the teamwork procedures, the more members have to attend
to teamwork and the less time they have to attend to taskwork. Once the team-
work procedures are mastered, however, members concentrate on taskwork and
outperform individuals working alone.
7. Studies on identity interdependence involving social dilemmas have found that
when individuals define themselves in terms of their group membership, they are
more willing to take less from common resources and to contribute more toward
the public good (Brewer & Kramer 1986; De Cremer & Van Kijk, in press; De
Cremer & Van Vjugt 1999; Kramer & Brewer 1984).

1.4.2 Individual Accountability and Personal Responsibility

Positive interdependence is posited to create “responsibility forces” that increase
group members’ feelings of responsibility and accountability for: (a) completing
one’s share of the work and; (b) facilitating the work of other group members.
When a person’s performance affects the outcomes of collaborators, the person
feels responsible for their welfare as well as his or her own (Matsui et al. 1987).
Failing oneself is bad, but failing others as well as oneself is worse. The shared
responsibility created by positive interdependence adds the concept of “ought” to
group members’ motivation—one ought to do one’s part, pull one’s weight, contribute,
and satisfy peer norms (Johnson 2003; Johnson & Johnson 1989, 2005). Such
feelings of responsibility increase a person’s motivation to perform well.
Responsibility forces are increased when there is group and individual account-
ability. Group accountability exists when the overall performance of the group is
assessed and the results are given back to all group members to compare against a
standard of performance. Individual accountability exists when the performance of
each individual member is assessed, the results given back to the individual and the


group to compare against a standard of performance, and the member is held
responsible by groupmates for contributing his or her fair share to the group’s
success. Hooper et al. (1989) found that cooperation resulted in higher achievement
when individual accountability was structured than when it was not. Archer-Kath
et al. (1994) found that by increasing individual accountability perceived interde-
pendence among group members may also be increased.
The lack of individual accountability may reduce feelings of personal respon-
sibility. Members may reduce their contributions to goal achievement when the
group works on tasks where it is difficult to identify members’ contributions,
when there is an increased likelihood of redundant efforts, when there is a lack of
group cohesiveness, and when there is lessened responsibility for the final out-
come (Harkins & Petty 1982; Ingham et al. 1974; Kerr & Bruun 1981; Latane
et al. 1979; Moede 1927; Petty et al. 1977; Williams 1981; Williams et al. 1981).
If, however, there is high individual accountability and it is clear how much effort
each member is contributing, if redundant efforts are avoided, if every member is
responsible for the final outcome, and if the group is cohesive, then the social
loafing effect vanishes.
Generally, as the group gets larger and larger, members are less likely to see
their own personal contribution to the group as being important to the group’s
chances of success (Kerr 1989; Olson 1965). Social loafing, therefore, increases
as the size of the group increases. The smaller the size of the group, furthermore,
the greater the individual accountability (Messick & Brewer 1983). Morgan et al.
(1970) found that team performance actually improved when one team member
was missing from five-person teams, perhaps because members believed that
their contributions were more necessary. As group size increases, individual team
members tend to communicate less frequently, which may reduce the amount of
information utilized in arriving at a decision (Gerard et al. 1965; Indik 1965). As
group size increases so does the likelihood individuals may alter their statements
to conform to the perceived beliefs of the overall team (Gerard et al. 1965;
Rosenberg 1961). Finally, Morgan et al. (1970) found that team performance
actually improved when one team member was missing from five-person teams,
perhaps because members believed that their contributions were more
necessary.

1.4.3 Promotive Interaction

Positive interdependence results in individuals promoting each other’s productivity
and achievement. Promotive interaction occurs as individuals encourage and
facilitate each other’s efforts to accomplish the group’s goals. While positive
interdependence directly affects outcomes, its main influence may be fostering
promotive interaction among individuals that in turn influences outcomes.
Individuals focus both on being productive and on promoting the productivity of


their groupmates. Promotive interaction is characterized by individuals (Johnson
& Johnson 1999):
1. Providing each other with efficient and effective help and assistance (e.g.,
Johnson & Johnson 1981, 1982, 1984; Rosenbaum et al. 1980; Webb & Cullian
1983).
2. Exchanging needed resources such as information and materials and process-
ing information more efficiently and effectively (e.g., Crawford & Haaland
1972; Johnson 1974; Laughlin & McGlynn 1967).
3. Providing each other with feedback in order to improve the subsequent perform-
ance of their assigned tasks and responsibilities (Pittman et al. 1980; Ryan
1982).
4. Challenging each other’s conclusions and reasoning in order to promote higher
quality decision making and greater insight into the problems being considered
(e.g., Johnson & Johnson 1979, 2007).
5. Advocating the exertion of effort to achieve mutual goals (e.g., Wicklund &
Brehm 1976).
6. Influencing each other’s efforts to achieve the group’s goals (e.g., Crombag
1966; Deutsch 1949b; Johnson et al. 1985; Raven & Eachus 1963).
7. Acting in trusting and trustworthy ways (e.g., Deutsch 1958, 1960, 1962;
Johnson 1974; Johnson & Noonan 1972).
8. Being motivated to strive for mutual benefit (Deutsch 1949b; Johnson 2003;
Johnson & Johnson 1989, 2005).
9. Having a moderate level of arousal characterized by low anxiety and stress
(e.g., Blau 1954; Haines & McKeachie 1967; Naught & Newman 1966).
10. Taking the perspectives of others more accurately than individuals engaged in
competitive or individualistic efforts (effect sizes of 0.61 and 0.44 respectively,
[see Table 1.2]) and thus able to explore different points of view (Johnson &
Johnson 1989).

1.4.4 Appropriate Use of Social Skills

Interpersonal and small group skills form the basic nexus among individuals, and
if individuals are to work together productively and cope with the stresses and
strains of doing so, they must have a modicum of these skills. Group members must
have or be taught the interpersonal and small group skills needed for high quality
cooperation and be motivated to use them. To coordinate efforts to achieve mutual
goals participants must: (a) get to know and trust each other; (b) communicate
accurately and unambiguously; (c) accept and support each other; and (d) resolve
conflicts constructively (Johnson 2006; Johnson & Johnson 2006). Especially when
groups function on a long-term basis and engage in complex, free exploratory
activities over a prolonged period, the interpersonal and small group skills of the mem-
bers may greatly influence the level of members’ achievement and productivity.
In their studies on the long-term implementation of cooperative teams, Lew and
Mesch (Lew et al. 1986a, b; Mesch et al. 1986, 1993) found that the combination


of positive goal interdependence, a contingency for high performance by all group
members, and a social skills contingency, promoted the highest achievement and
productivity. Archer-Kath et al. (1994) found that giving participants individual
feedback on how frequently they engaged in targeted social skills was more effec-
tive in increasing participants’ achievement than was group feedback. Thus, the
more socially skillful participants are, the more social skills are taught and
rewarded, and the more individual feedback participants receive on their use of
the skills, the higher tends to be the achievement and productivity in coopera-
tive groups.
Not only do social skills promote higher achievement, they contribute to
building more positive relationships among group members. Putnam et al. (1989)
demonstrated that, when participants were taught social skills, observed, and given
individual feedback as to how frequently they engaged in the skills, their relationships
became more positive.

1.4.5 Group Processing

Promotive interaction may be enhanced by group members periodically reflecting
on how well they are functioning and planning how to improve their work
processes. A process is an identifiable sequence of events taking place over time,
and process goals refer to the desired sequence of events instrumental in achieving
outcome goals. Group processing may be defined as reflecting on a group session
to: (a) describe what member actions were helpful and unhelpful and (b) make deci-
sions about what actions to continue or change. The purpose of group processing is
to clarify and improve the effectiveness of the members in contributing to the joint
efforts to achieve the group’s goals.
Yager et al. (1986) examined the impact on achievement of: (a) cooperation in
which members discussed how well their group was functioning and how they
could improve its effectiveness; (b) cooperation without any group processing; and
(c) individualistic efforts. The results indicate that the high-, medium-, and low-
achieving participants in the cooperation with group processing condition achieved
higher on daily achievement, post-instructional achievement, and retention
measures than did the participants in the other two conditions. Participants in the
cooperation without group processing condition, furthermore, achieved higher on
all three measures than did the participants in the individualistic condition.
Putnam et al. (1989) conducted a study in which there were two conditions:
cooperation with social skills training and group processing and cooperation without
social skills training and group processing. They found more positive relationships
developed between handicapped and nonhandicapped participants in the cooperative
skills and group processing condition and that these positive relationships carried
over to post-instructional free-time situations.
Johnson et al. (1990) conducted a study comparing cooperation with no processing,
cooperation with instructor processing (instructor specified cooperative skills to
use, observed, and gave whole class feedback as to how well participants were


using the skills), cooperation with instructor and participant processing (the instructor
specified cooperative skills to use, observed, gave whole class feedback as to how
well participants were using the skills, and had groups discuss how well they
interacted as a group), and individualistic efforts. All three cooperative conditions
performed higher than did the individualistic condition. The combination of
instructor and participant processing resulted in greater problem solving success
than did the other cooperative conditions.
Finally, Archer-Kath et al. (1994) found that group processing with individual
feedback was more effective than was group processing with whole group feedback
in increasing participants’: (a) achievement motivation, actual achievement,
uniformity of achievement among group members, and influence toward higher
achievement within cooperative groups; (b) positive relationships among group
members and between participants and the teacher, and; (c) self-esteem and positive
attitudes toward the subject area.

1.5 Teacher’s Role in Cooperative Learning

Ideally, teachers are trained to take their existing lessons and restructure them to be
cooperative. Cooperative learning is the instructional use of small groups so that
students work together to maximize their own and each other’s learning (Johnson
et al. 1998a, b, 2002). Any lesson in any subject area for any age student can be
done cooperatively. There are three types of cooperative learning—formal,
informal, and cooperative base groups.

1.5.1 Formal Cooperative Learning

Formal cooperative learning consists of students working together, for one class
period to several weeks, to achieve shared learning goals and complete jointly specific
tasks and assignments (Johnson et al. 1998a, b, 2002). In formal cooperative learning
groups the teachers’ role includes (see Fig. 1.4):
1. Making preinstructional decisions. Teachers: (a) formulate both academic and
social skills objectives; (b) decide on the size of groups; (c) choose a method for
assigning students to groups; (d) decide which roles to assign group members;
(e) arrange the room; and (f) arrange the materials students need to complete the
assignment. In these preinstructional decisions, the social skills objectives specify
the interpersonal and small group skills students are to learn. By assigning
students roles, role interdependence is established. The way in which materials
are distributed can create resource interdependence. The arrangement of the
room can create environmental interdependence and provide the teacher with
easy access to observe each group, which increases individual accountability
and provides data for group processing.


Grade level: _______________ Subject Area: _______________ Date: ____________________
Lesson:
____________________________________________________________________________

Objectives

Academic:
____________________________________________________________________________

Social Skills:
____________________________________________________________________________
Preonstructional Decisions

Group Size: _________________ Method of Assiging Students: __________________________

Roles:
____________________________________________________________________________

Room Arrangement:
____________________________________________________________________________

Materials:
____________________________________________________________________________

◊ One Copy Per Group ◊ One Copy Per Group
◊ Jigsaw ◊ Tournament
◊ Other:
______________________________________________________________________________

Explain Task And Cooperative Goal Structure

1. Task:
____________________________________________________________________________

2. Criteria For Success:
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________

3. Positive Interdependence:
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________

4. Individual Accountability:
____________________________________________________________________________

5. Intergroup Cooperation:
____________________________________________________________________________
6. Expected Behaviours:
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
Monitoring And Intervening
1. Observation Procedure: ______________ Formal _________________ Informal
2. Observation By: _________ Teacher __________ Students _________Vistors

Fig. 1.4 (continued)


3. Intervening For Task Assistance:
____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________

4. Intervening For Teamwork Assistance:
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________

5. Other:
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________

Evaluating And Processing

1. Assessment Of Members’ Individual Learning:______________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________

2. Assessment Of Group Productivity:
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________

3. Small Group Processing:
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________

4. Whole Class Processing:
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________

5. Charts And Graphs Used:
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________

6. Positive Feedback To Each Student:
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________

7. Goal Setting For Improvement:
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________

8. Celebration:
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________

9. Other:
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________

Fig. 1.4 Cooperative lesson planning form


2. Explaining the instructional task and cooperative structure. Teachers: (a) explain
the academic assignment to students; (b) explain the criteria for success;
(c) structure positive interdependence; (d) structure individual accountability;
(e) explain the behaviors (i.e., social skills) students are expected to use; and
(f) emphasize intergroup cooperation (this eliminates the possibility of competition
among students and extends positive goal interdependence to the class as a
whole). Teachers may also teach the concepts and strategies required to complete
the assignment. By explaining the social skills emphasized in the lesson, teachers
operationalize: (a) the social skill objectives of the lesson and (b) the interaction
patterns (such as oral rehearsal and jointly building conceptual frameworks)
teachers wish to create.
3. Monitoring students’ learning and intervening to provide assistance in:
(a) completing the task successfully or; (b) using the targeted interpersonal and
group skills effectively. While conducting the lesson, teachers monitor each
learning group and intervene when needed to improve taskwork and teamwork.
Monitoring the learning groups creates individual accountability; whenever a
teacher observes a group, members tend to feel accountable to be constructive
members. In addition, teachers collect specific data on promotive interaction, the
use of targeted social skills, and the engagement in the desired interaction patterns.
This data is used to intervene in groups and to guide group processing.
4. Assessing students’ learning and helping students process how well their groups
functioned. Teachers: (a) bring closure to the lesson; (b) assess and evaluate the
quality and quantity of student achievement; (c) ensure students carefully discuss
how effectively they worked together (i.e., process the effectiveness of their
learning groups); (d) have students make a plan for improvement; and (e) have
students celebrate the hard work of group members. The assessment of student
achievement highlights individual and group accountability (i.e., how well each
student performed) and indicates whether the group achieved its goals (i.e.,
focusing on positive goal interdependence). The group celebration is a form of
reward interdependence. The feedback received during group processing is
aimed at improving the use of social skills and is a form of individual accounta-
bility. Discussing the processes the group used to function, furthermore, empha-
sizes the continuous improvement of promotive interaction and the patterns of
interaction need to maximize student learning and retention.

1.5.2 Informal Cooperative Learning

Informal cooperative learning consists of having students work together to achieve
a joint learning goal in temporary, ad-hoc groups that last from a few minutes to
one class period (Johnson et al. 1998b, 2002). During a lecture, demonstration, or
film, informal cooperative learning can be used to focus student attention on the
material to be learned, set a mood conducive to learning, help set expectations as to
what will be covered in a class session, ensure that students cognitively process and


rehearse the material being taught, summarize what was learned and pre-cue the
next session, and provide closure to an instructional session. The teacher’s role for
using informal cooperative learning to keep students more actively engaged intel-
lectually entails having focused discussions before and after the lesson (i.e.,
bookends) and interspersing pair discussions throughout the lesson. Two important
aspects of using informal cooperative learning groups are to: (a) make the task and
the instructions explicit and precise, and; (b) require the groups to produce a specific
product (such as a written answer). The procedure is as follows.
1. Introductory Focused Discussion: Teachers assign students to pairs or triads and
explain: (a) the task of answering the questions in a 4–5-min time period and
(b) the positive goal interdependence of reaching consensus. The discussion task
is aimed at promoting advance organizing of what the students know about the
topic to be presented and establishing expectations about what the lecture will
cover. Individual accountability is ensured by the small size of the group. A basic
interaction pattern of eliciting oral rehearsal, higher-level reasoning, and consensus
building is required.
2. Intermittent Focused Discussions: Teachers divide the lecture into 10–15-min
segments. This is about the length of time a motivated adult can concentrate
on information being presented. After each segment, students are asked to
turn to the person next to them and work cooperatively in answering a
question (specific enough so that students can answer it in about three minutes)
that requires students to cognitively process the material just presented. The
procedure is:
(a) Each student formulates his or her answer.
(b) Students share their answer with their partner.
(c) Students listen carefully to their partner’s answer.
(d) The pairs create a new answer that is superior to each member’s initial
formulation by integrating the two answers, building on each other’s
thoughts, and synthesizing.
The question may require students to:
(a) Summarize the material just presented.
(b) Give a reaction to the theory, concepts, or information presented.
(c) Predict what is going to be presented next; hypothesize.
(d) Solve a problem.
(e) Relate material to past learning and integrate it into conceptual frameworks.
(f) Resolve conceptual conflict created by presentation.
Teachers should ensure that students are seeking to reach an agreement on the
answers to the questions (i.e., ensure positive goal interdependence is estab-
lished), not just share their ideas with each other. Randomly choose two or three
students to give 30-s summaries of their discussions. Such individual accounta-
bility ensures that the pairs take the tasks seriously and check each other to
ensure that both are prepared to answer. Periodically, the teacher should structure


a discussion of how effectively the pairs are working together (i.e., group
processing). Group celebrations add reward interdependence to the pairs.
3. Closure Focused Discussion: Teachers give students an ending discussion
task lasting 4–5 min. The task requires students to summarize what they have
learned from the lecture and integrate it into existing conceptual frameworks.
The task may also point students toward what the homework will cover
or what will be presented in the next class session. This provides closure
to the lecture.
Informal cooperative learning ensures students are actively involved in understanding
what is being presented. It also provides time for teachers to move around the class
listening to what students are saying. Listening to student discussions can give
instructors direction and insight into how well students understand the concepts and
material being as well as increase the individual accountability of participating in
the discussions.

1.5.3 Cooperative Base Groups

Cooperative base groups are long-term, heterogeneous cooperative learning groups
with stable membership (Johnson et al. 1998b, 2002). Members’ primary responsi-
bilities are to: (a) ensure all members are making good academic progress
(i.e., positive goal interdependence); (b) hold each other accountable for striving
to learn (i.e., individual accountability); and (c) provide each other with support,
encouragement, and assistance in completing assignments (i.e., promotive interaction).
In order to ensure the base groups function effectively, periodically teachers should
teach needed social skills and have the groups process how effectively they are
functioning. Typically, cooperative base groups are heterogeneous in membership
(especially in terms of achievement motivation and task orientation), meet regularly
(for example, daily or biweekly), and last for the duration of the class (a semester
or year) or preferably for several years. The agenda of the base group can include
academic support tasks (such as ensuring all members have completed their home-
work and understand it or editing each other’s essays), personal support tasks (such
as getting to know each other and helping each other solve nonacademic problems),
routine tasks (such as taking attendance), and assessment tasks (such as checking
each other’s understanding of the answers to test questions when the test is first
taken individually and then retaken in the base group).
The teacher’s role in using cooperative base groups is to: (a) form heterogeneous
groups of four (or three); (b) schedule a time when they will regularly meet (such
as beginning and end of each class session or the beginning and end of each week);
(c) create specific agendas with concrete tasks that provide a routine for base
groups to follow when they meet; (d) ensure the five basic elements of effective
cooperative groups are implemented; and (e) have students periodically process
the effectiveness of their base groups.


The longer a cooperative group exists, the more caring their relationships will
tend to be, the greater the social support they will provide for each other, the more
committed they will be to each other’s success, and the more influence members
will have over each other. Permanent cooperative base groups provide the arena in
which caring and committed relationships can be created that provide the social
support needed to improve attendance, personalize the educational experience,
increase achievement, and improve the quality of school life.

1.5.4 Integrated Use of All Three Types of Cooperative Learning

These three types of cooperative learning may be used together (Johnson & Johnson
1999). A typical class session may begin with a base group meeting, which is
followed by a short lecture in which informal cooperative learning is used. The lec-
ture is followed by a formal cooperative learning lesson. Near the end of the class
session another short lecture may be delivered with the use of informal cooperative
learning. The class ends with a base group meeting.

1.6 Conclusions and Summary

Teachers who wish to use cooperative learning should ideally base their classroom
practices on theory validated by research. The closer classroom practices are to
validated theory, the more likely they will be effective. When more directly practice
is connected to theory, furthermore, the more likely practice will be refined,
upgraded, and improved over the years. There are, however, few classroom practices
that are directly based on validated theory. The close relationship between theory,
research, and practice makes cooperative learning somewhat unique. It also creates
a set of issues for teachers using cooperative learning.
The first issue is understanding the nature of social interdependence. Social
interdependence is created when goals are structured so that the accomplishment of
a person’s goal is affected by others’ actions. The interdependence may be positive
(which results in individuals working cooperatively to achieve their mutual goals)
or negative (which results in individuals competing to see who will achieve the
goal). The absence of interdependence indicates no connection between people’s
attempts to achieve their goals. In cooperative situations, students’ actions substitute
for each other, students are inducible, and a positive cathexis is created toward other’s
actions. In competitive situations, the opposite psychological processes may be
found. The fundamental premise of social interdependence theory is that the way
in which goals are structured determines how individuals interact, and those inter-
action patterns create outcomes. Positive goal interdependence tends to result in
promotive interaction, negative goal interdependence tends to result in oppositional
interaction, and no interdependence tends to result in no interaction.


The second issue is understanding the research validating social interdependence
theory. There are hundreds of studies indicating that cooperation, compared to
competitive and individualistic efforts, tends to result in greater effort to achieve,
more positive relationships, and greater psychological health. The diversity of this
research provides considerable generalizabiity to the findings.
The third issue is to understand the five basic elements that make cooperation
work. There is nothing magical about putting students in groups. Students can
compete with groupmates, students can work individualistically while ignoring
groupmates, or students can work cooperatively with groupmates. In order
to structure cooperative learning effectively, teachers need to understand how to
structure positive interdependence, individual accountability, promotive interaction,
appropriate use of social skills, and group processing into learning situations.
The fourth issue is to understand the diversity of cooperative learning. When the
five basic elements may be effectively implemented in formal cooperative learning
situations (formal cooperative learning may be used to structure most learning situa-
tions), informal cooperative learning situations (informal cooperative learning may
be used to make didactic lessons cooperative), and cooperative base groups (which
are used to personalize a class and the school). Together they provide an integrated
system for instructional organization and design (as well as classroom management).
When utilizing these three types of cooperative learning, any learning situations in
any subject area with any age students and with any curriculum can be structured
cooperatively.

References

Archer-Kath, J., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1994). Individual versus group feedback in
cooperative groups. Journal of Social Psychology, 134, 681–694.
Aronson, E., Blaney, N., Stephan, C., Sikes, J., & Snapp, M. (1978). The jigsaw classroom.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Blau, P. (1954). Co-operation and competition in a bureaucracy. American Journal of Sociology,
59, 530–535.
Brewer, M., & Kramer, R. (1986). Choice behavior in social dilemmas: effects of social identity,
group size, and decision framing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50,
543–549.
Crawford, J., & Haaland, G. (1972). Predecisional information seeking and subsequent conformity
in the social influence process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 23, 112–119.
Crombag, H. (1966). Cooperation and competition in means interdependent triads: A replication.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 692–695.
De Cremer, D., & Van Kijk, E. (in press). Reactions to group success and failure as a function of
group identification: A test of the goal transformation hypothesis in social dilemmas. Journal
of Experimental Social Psychology.
De Cremer, D., & Van Vjugt, M. (1999). Social identification effects in social dilemmas: A trans-
formation of motives. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 871–893.
Deutsch, M. (1949a). A theory of cooperation and competition. Human Relations, 2, 129–152.
Deutsch, M. (1949b). An experimental study of the effects of cooperation and competition upon
group process. Human Relations, 2, 199–231.
Deutsch, M. (1958). Trust and suspicion. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2, 265–279.


Deutsch, M. (1960). The effects of motivational orientation upon trust and suspicion. Human
Relations, 13, 123–139.
Deutsch, M. (1962). Cooperation and trust: Some theoretical notes. In M. Jones (Ed.), Nebraska
symposium on motivation (pp. 275–319). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Frank, M. (1984). A comparison between an individual and group goal structure contingency that
differed in the behavioral contingency and performance-outcome components. Unpublished
doctoral thesis, University of Minnesota.
Gabbert, B., Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1986). Cooperative learning, group-to-individual transfer,
process gain and the acquisition of cognitive reasoning strategies. Journal of Psychology,
120(3), 265–278.
Gerard, H., Wilhelmy, R., & Conolley, E. (1965). Conformity and group size. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 79–82.
Haines, D., & McKeachie, W. (1967). Cooperative versus competitive discussion methods in
teaching introductory psychology. Journal of Educational Psychology, 58(6), 386–390.
Harkins, S., & Petty, R. (1982). The effects of task difficulty and task uniqueness on social loafing.
Hooper, S., Ward, T., Hannafin, M., & Clark, H. (1989). The effects of aptitude composition
on achievement during small group learning. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction,
16, 102–109.
Horney, K. (1937). The neurotic personality of our time. New York: Norton.
Hwong, N., Caswell, A., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1993). Effects of cooperative and
individualistic on prospective elementary teachers’ music achievements and attitudes. Journal
of Social Psychology, 133(1), 53–64.
Indik, B. P. (1965). Organization size and member participation: Some empirical tests of alternate
explanations. Human Relations, 15, 339–350.
Ingham, A., Levinger, G., Graves, J., & Peckham, V. (1974). The Ringelmann effect: Studies
of group size and group performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
10, 371–384.
Johnson, D. W. (1970). The social psychology of education. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Johnson, D. W. (1974). Communication and the inducement of cooperative behavior in conflicts:
A critical review. Speech Monographs, 41, 64–78.
Johnson, D. W. (2003). Social interdependence: The interrelationships among theory, research,
and practice. American Psychologist, 58(11), 931–945.
Johnson, D. W. (2006). Reaching out: Interpersonal effectiveness and self-actualization (9th edn).
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, F. (2006). Joining together: Group theory and research (9th edn).
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. (1974). Instructional goal structure: Cooperative, competitive, or
individualistic. Review of Educational Research, 44, 213–240.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1979). Conflict in the classroom: Controversy and learning.
Review of Educational Research, 49, 51–70.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1981). Effects of cooperative and individualistic learning
experiences on interethnic interaction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73(3), 454–459.
Johnson, R., & Johnson, D. W. (1982). Effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic
learning experiences on cross-ethnic interaction and friendships. Journal of Social Psychology,
118, 47–58.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1984). The effects of intergroup cooperation and intergroup
competition on ingroup and outgroup cross-handicap relationships. The Journal of Social
Psychology, 124, 85–94.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research.
Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1992). Positive interdependence: Activity manual and guide.


Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1994). Leading the cooperative school (2nd edn). Edina, MN:
Interaction Book Company.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1999). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive,
and individualistic learning (5th edn). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (2002). Cooperative learning methods: A meta-analysis. Journal
of Research in Education, 12(1), 5–14.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (2005). New developments in social interdependence theory.
Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 131(4), 285–358.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (2007). Creative controversy: Academic conflict in the classroom
(4th edn). Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R., & Holubec, E. (1998a). Cooperation in the classroom (6th edn).
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R., & Holubec, E. (1998b). Advanced cooperative learning (3rd edn).
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R., & Holubec, E. (2002). Circles of learning (5th edn). Edina, MN:
Interaction Book Company.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R., Ortiz, A., & Stanne, M. (1991). Impact of positive goal and resource
interdependence on achievement, interaction, and attitudes. Journal of General Psychology,
118(4), 341–347.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R., Roy, P., & Zaidman, B. (1985). Oral interaction in cooperative learn-
ing groups: Speaking, listening, and the nature of statements made by high-, medium, and
low-achieving students. Journal of Psychology, 119, 303–321.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R., Stanne, M., & Garibaldi, A. (1990). The impact of leader and
member group processing on achievement in cooperative groups. Journal of Social Psychology,
130, 507–516.
Johnson, D. W., & Noonan, P. (1972). Effects of acceptance and reciprocation of self-disclosures
on the development of trust. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 19(5), 411–416.
Johnson, D. W., Skon, L., & Johnson, R. (1980). Effects of cooperative, competitive, and individu-
alistic conditions on children’s problem-solving performance. American Educational Research
Journal, 17(1), 83–94.
Kerr, N. (1983). The dispensability of member effort and group motivation losses: Free-rider
effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 78–94.
Kerr, N. (1989). Illusions of efficacy: The effects of group size on perceived efficacy in social
dilemmas. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 297–313.
Kerr, N., & Bruun, S. (1981). Ringelmann revisited: Alternative explanations for the social loafing
effect. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7, 224–231.
Kerr, N., & Bruun, S. (1983). The dispensability of member effort and group motivation losses:
Free-rider effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 78–94.
Koffka, K. (1935). Principles of gestalt psychology. New York: Harcourt, Brace.
Kramer, R., & Brewer, M. (1984). Effects of group identity on resource use in a simulated
commons dilemma. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 1044–1057.
Latane, B., Williams, K., & Harkins, S. (1979). Many hands make light the work: The causes and
consequences of social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 822–832.
Laughlin, P., & McGlynn, R. (1967). Cooperative versus competitive concept attainment as a func-
tion of sex and stimulus display. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 7(4), 398–402.
Lew, M., Mesch, D., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1986a). Positive interdependence, academic
and collaborative-skills group contingencies and isolated students. American Educational
Research Journal, 23, 476–488.
Lew, M., Mesch, D., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1986b). Components of cooperative learning:
Effects of collaborative skills and academic group contingencies on achievement and
mainstreaming. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 11, 229–239.
Lewin, K. (1935). A dynamic theory of personality. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lewin, K. (1948). Resolving social conflicts. New York: Harper.


Matsui, T., Kakuyama, T., & Onglatco, M. (1987). Effects of goals and feedback on performance
in groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 407–415.
Mayer, A. (1903). Uber einzel-und gesamtleistung des scholkindes. Archiv fur die Gesamte
Psychologie, 1, 276–416.
Mesch, D., Lew, M., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1986). Isolated teenagers, cooperative learning
and the training of social skills. Journal of Psychology, 120, 323–334.
Mesch, D., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1988). Impact of positive interdependence and academic
group contingencies on achievement. Journal of Social Psychology, 128, 345–352.
Messick, D., & Brewer, M. (1983). Solving social dilemmas: A review. Review of Personality and
Social Psychology, 4, 11–44.
Moede, W. (1927). Die richtlinien der leistungs-psycholgie. Industrielle Psychotechnik, 4, 193–207.
Morgan, B., Coates, G., & Rebbin, T. (1970). The effects of Phlebotomus fever on sustained
performance and muscular output. Tech. Rep. No. ITR-70-14. Louisville, KY: University of
Louisville, Performance Research Laboratory-36697.
Montagu, A. (1966). On being human. New York: Hawthorn.
Naught, G., & Newman, S. (1966). The effect of anxiety on motor steadiness in competitive and
non-competitive conditions. Psychonomic Science, 6, 519–520.
Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Ortiz, A., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1996). The effect of positive goal and resource interde-
pendence on individual performance. Journal of Social Psychology, 136(2), 243–249.
Petty, R., Harkins, S., Williams, K., & Latane, B. (1977). The effects of group size on cognitive
effort and evaluation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 3, 575–578.
Pittman, T., Davey, M., Alafat, K., Wetherill, K., & Kramer, N. (1980). Informational versus
controlling verbal rewards. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 6, 228–233.
Putnam, J., Rynders, J., Johnson, R., & Johnson, D. W. (1989). Collaborative skills instruction for
promoting positive interactions between mentally handicapped and nonhandicapped children.
Exceptional Children, 55, 550–557.
Raven, B., & Eachus, H. (1963). Cooperation and competition in means-interdependent triads.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 307–316.
Rosenbaum, M., Moore, D., Cotton, J., Cook, M., Hieser, R., Shovar, N., & Gray, M. (1980).
Group productivity and process: Pure and mixed reward structures and task interdependence.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(4), 626–642.
Rosenberg, L. (1961). Group size, prior experience, and conformity. Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology, 63, 436–437.
Ryan, R. (1982). Control and information in the intrapersonal sphere: An extension of cognitive
evaluation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 450–461.
Skinner, B. (1968). The technology of teaching. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Skon, L., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1981). Cooperative peer interaction versus individual
competition and individualistic efforts: Effects on the acquisition of cognitive reasoning
strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 83–92.
Sweeney, J. (1973). An experimental investigation of the free-rider problem. Social Science
Research, 2, 277–292.
Thomas, D. (1957). Effects of facilitative role interdependence on group functioning. Human
Relations, 10, 347–366.
Triplett, N. (1898). The dynamogenic factors in pacemaking and competition. American Journal
of Psychology, 9, 507–533.
Turner, E. B. (1889). A three-year study of the physiology of pacing and waiting races. Cited in
N. Triplett (1898), The dynamogenic factors in pacemaking and competition. American
Journal of Psychology, 9, 507–533.
Webb, N., & Cullian, L. (1983). Group interaction and achievement in small groups: Stability over
time. American Education Research Journal, 20(3), 411–423.
Wertheimer, M. (1923). Untersuchungen zur Lehre von der Gestalt: II. Psychologische Forschung,
4, 301–350.


Wicklund, R., & Brehm, J. (1976). Perspectives on cognitive dissonance. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Williams, K. (1981). The effects of group cohesiveness on social loafing. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Detroit.
Williams, K., Harkins, S., & Latane, B. (1981). Identifiability as a deterrent to social loafing: Two
cheering experiments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 303–311.
Yager, S., Johnson, R., Johnson, D. W., & Snider, B. (1986). The impact of group processing on
achievement in cooperative learning groups. Journal of Social Psychology, 126, 389–397.

Chapter 2
Beyond the Classroom and into the Community:
The Role of the Teacher in Expanding
the Pedagogy of Cooperation

Rachel Hertz-Lazarowitz

2.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 39
2.2 The Technological Innovative (TI) Group Investigation Model ....................................... 40
2.2.1 Teachers as Peer Learners ..................................................................................... 40
2.2.2 The GI Model........................................................................................................ 41
2.2.3 Curriculum of the TPLC ....................................................................................... 42
2.2.4 Steps of GI in Teachers Peer Learning Professional
Development Curriculum...................................................................................... 42
2.3 The Six Mirrors of the Classroom: Into the Future Classroom ........................................ 44
2.3.1 Mirror One: The Physical Organization of the Learning
and Teaching Space .............................................................................................. 45
2.3.2 Mirror Two: Learning Tasks – Using Peers and Computers as
Thinking and Investigation Resources .................................................................. 46
2.3.3 Mirrors Three and Four: Teachers as Initiators, Producers,
and Communicators of Learning .......................................................................... 46
2.3.4 Mirrors Five and Six: Academic and Social Communication
and Behaviors ....................................................................................................... 47
2.4 Into the Community: Teachers’ Role in School-Family Partnership ................................ 48
2.4.1 SFP Workshop Activities ...................................................................................... 48
2.5 Teachers and Principals Transform CL to a Critical Pedagogy for Civil Action.............. 50
2.6 Future Prospects ................................................................................................................ 51
References .................................................................................................................................. 53

Abstract The chapter presents four systemic cooperative learning (CL) long-term
programs conducted in northern Israel, with Arabs and Jewish schools in mixed
cities or neighboring communities. In each of those programs the teachers-educators
expanded their roles implementing reforms based on cooperation. The first program
extended the classic method of Group Investigation (GI) to Innovative Technology
(IT) sites of learning. The second program expanded the “face to face” model of
“The Six Mirrors of the Classroom” to classrooms using complex investigations in
the open spaces and the highway of technology. The third broadened the role of
teachers to become facilitators of a CL school-family partnership within the school
and across schools. The fourth, formed a principals community of leaders, who
based on cooperation transformed their vision, skills and knowledge to generate a
vision of critical cooperative pedagogy aimed to empower and bring equality to the
schools and the community at large.

2 The Role of the Teacher in Expanding the Pedagogy of Cooperation 39

2.1 Introduction

This chapter presents the position that teachers roles can be expanded to realize
broader visions of bringing Cooperative Learning (CL) into the future. The work
was conducted in northern Israel, where Arabs and Jews live in geographical proxi-
mity to one another in either mixed cities or neighboring communities. Many teachers
and principals were highly motivated to make a critical change in their schools and
beyond. They had a vision and a mission to make a difference in their deprived
communities and to use CL as a vehicle for empowerment and greater equality
(Hertz-Lazarowitz 1999, 2005).
Four paths are suggested for restructuring CL into new challenges. The first is
extending the classic method of Group Investigation (GI) to Innovative Technology
(IT) sites of learning, where the teachers and their students are the designers of the
future GI classrooms and the IT curricula for computer-supported cooperative learn-
ing. The second path is expanding the “face to face” model of “The Six Mirrors of
the Classroom” to include learning at the open spaces and the highway of technology,
using cooperative learning. The third path is broadening the role of teachers to
become agents of a school-family partnership within the school and across schools,
thereby reducing national/religious segregation and creating a mixed community.
The fourth path – and the most challenging one – is principals’ commitment to use
the vision, skills and knowledge of CL to become agents of critical cooperative ped-
agogy aimed at decreasing injustice in schools and in society at large. These four
paths were systemic-and holistic reforms, based on cooperation, positive interde-
pendence and a community approach. Each of the four paths described in the chapter
demonstrate how CL can inspire and revolutionize educators’ roles.
From the basic Group Investigation (GI) practiced by individual teachers in CL
classrooms, teachers in their peer learning communities (TPLC) moved to design
the method (GI) based on the “six mirrors of the classroom model” to the class-
rooms of the future using complex technology as additional source for investigation.
Then the teachers and the principals moved beyond the classroom to School-Family
Partnerships to include families of the children in all the schools in the community
in large. Finally the same systemic holistic approach based on cooperation, created
a community of principals leadership that transformed the educational vision of
the system.
During 1993–2004, the implementation of Cooperative Learning was intensively
applied and researched in Arab and Jewish schools in Acre, a mixed Arab-Jewish
city, as well as in other cities in northern Israel. The methods integrated elements of
Group Investigation into Slavin’s method of Success for All (SFA) and into the Israeli
program for literacy development (ALASH) (Hertz-Lazarowitz 2001; Hertz-Lazarowitz
& Schaedel 2003). During these years, the working models expanded the scope of
CL beyond the classroom and the school, empowering teachers and principals to
transform their knowledge and vision of cooperation to their own communities.
Innovative methods of GI and complex classroom contexts were introduced in many
Arab and Jewish schools on all grade levels and in various subjects.

40 R. Hertz-Lazarowitz

2.2 The Technological Innovative (TI)
Group Investigation Model

Group Investigation (GI) was a milestone for CL in Israel and was considered a
revolution because it went against the traditional teaching methods that were rooted
in the national ideology of creating a new nation of Israeli-Jews in the homeland
(Hertz-Lazarowitz & Zelniker 1995). The former methods were not sensitive to the
diverse ethnic groups within the Israeli-Jewish student population and were unjust
to the Arab citizens of Israel (Al-Haj 1998; Azaiza et al, in press).
Values of cooperative investigation are deeply rooted in the cultures of both Jews
and Arabs. For the Jews, the old Talmudic saying of “Chavruta or Mituta” translated
to “learning with a partner or death.” The Arab culture is also based on collectivism,
closeness, and cooperation (Dwairy 2004). GI is ideologically different from the
CL methods developed in the USA (Lazarowitz & Hertz-Lazarowitz 1998; Sharan
& Sharan 1992), which were based on behaviorist approaches, packaged curricula,
external rewards, and competition between groups (Johnson et al. 2000; Kagan
2001; Slavin et al. 2003).

2.2.1 Teachers as Peer Learners

Group Investigation was a major source of influence on working with Teachers as
Peer Learners with Computers (TPLC) in their professional development. In GI
teachers are perceived as facilitators of intellectual and social development of the
students (Almog & Hertz-Lazarowitz 1999; Gillies & Ashman 2003; Gillies &
Boyle 2005). The goal of TPLC was to create a curriculum for GI in the new
complex learning environment. The Group Investigation process was restructured
into six stages and revitalized as a main model in the cooperative learning move-
ment in many cultures (Hertz-Lazarowitz & Zelniker 1995; Joyce & Weil 1986).
Four major features characterize GI: investigation, interaction, interpretation, and
intrinsic motivation. The unique character of GI lies in the integration of these four
basic features within the meaningful context of an issue worthy of investigation
(Sharan & Sharan 1992).
Investigation refers to the general orientation toward learning adopted by the
teacher and student. When a group of learners is carrying out a group investigation
project, it becomes an inquiry community with a common purpose, and each
participant serves as an investigator who coordinates his/her inquiry with other
members of the group. Thus, in Thelen’s (1960) words, the class is both an inquiry
community and a community of inquirers.
Interaction is essential to the successful use of group investigation. Students and
teachers need to learn and practice effective interaction as they work in groups. Peer
learning in GI is the vehicle by which students and teachers encourage one another,
elaborate on each others ideas, help each other to focus on the task, and confront


one anothers ideas with opposing points of view. Intellectual and social interactions
are the means by which learners rework their personal knowledge in light of the
new knowledge gathered by the group in the course of the investigation.
Interpretation of the combined findings is a process of negotiation between
personal knowledge and new knowledge, and between ideas and information
contributed by other members of the group. Facilitating the process of interpretation
through group interaction is consistent with Dewey’s view (1927) of education, as
well as with the constructionist approach to cognition (Vygotsky 1978). Group
Investigation provides learners with the opportunity to interact with others who
have investigated different aspects of the same general topic and who have contrib-
uted different perspectives on that topic. Within this context, interpretation is a
social, cognitive, and intellectual process par excellence.
Intrinsic motivation in GI refers to the way that GI motivates learners to take an
active role in determining what and how they will learn. It motivates students and
teachers to choose investigation issues that are connected to their own needs, experi-
ences, feelings, and values that are relevant to the general community. The decision
of the topic for GI is a social act that can empower thinking and critical perspectives
among the GI participants. A meaningful investigation is an expression of a choice.

2.2.2 The GI Model

The classical GI method, as proposed in Israel in the late seventies, was imple-
mented at all levels of schooling in Israel. Research on GI indicated positive out-
comes in general in academic, cognitive, social, and emotional aspects as compared
to other methods (Hertz-Lazarowitz 1992; Hertz-Lazarowitz & Schaedel 2003;
Lazarowitz, 2007; Sharan & Hertz-Lazarowitz 1981; Sharan et al. 1984).
In the new learning environment, investigation can occur over a wide range of
topics by using advanced technology, promoting peer interaction, constructing
interpretation, and bringing social and moral perspectives to the learning environ-
ment. However, the process of GI needs to be updated for use in the future, with its
complexity of technological developments and multi-faceted environments and
communities. Still, we shall argue that its six-stage model is generic enough to
guide the process of social investigation in the TPLC and in the classrooms.

2.2.2.1 The Six Stages of the GI Model

Stage 1: Class determines sub-topics and organizes into research groups.
Stage 2: Groups plan their investigation.
Stage 3: Groups carry out their investigation.
Stage 4: Groups plan their presentation/feedback.
Stage 5: Groups make their presentation.
Stage 6: Teacher and students evaluate their project.


2.2.3 Curriculum of the TPLC

The intent of the TPLC curriculum was to help teachers prepare for the classroom
of the future. In the project (Almog & Hertz-Lazarowitz 1999; Salomon 2002), the
investigation topic chosen was Planning the City of the Future. The investigation of
this topic had two phases: studying an existing city – in our case, Haifa – wherein
most of the participants lived, and then, based on this phase of the investigation,
planning the city of the future.
Teachers in the TPLC program shared motivation to implement this educational
innovation (Abrami et al. 2004). The teachers participated in 11 sessions in which
they researched and learned new, complex interdisciplinary topics using advanced
technology (word processor, multi-media software, and data banks) and worked in
cooperative and collaborative investigative working teams. A typical session usually
lasted 3–4 h and can be described according to the following four areas: cognitive,
social, technological, and curricular. (1) the cognitive area, which included generating
questions, clarifying concepts, and working on research; (2) the social area, which
included helping by mutual explanation, talking and reflecting with peers about
mistakes, and taking roles to facilitate group work; (3) the technological area,
which included defining key terms for searching databases, revising a written text
with a word processor, and preparing a multimedia product; and (4) the curricular
area, which included deciding on resources, learning diverse content related to
urban life, and planning an interdisciplinary unit.
The goal of the TLPC was to give the teachers the knowledge in the mode that
will afford their experiential learning as teachers and as students of GI.

2.2.4 Steps of GI in Teachers Peer Learning Professional
Development Curriculum

The 11 steps presented in the paragraph are corresponding to the six stages of the
GI method.
Step 1 and step 2 are introductory practices related to the organization of the
classroom, the practice of the social-academic skill needed to start CL, and intro-
duction to the use of advanced technology.
1. Cooperative learning: Ways of dividing the class into learning groups; obtain-
ing skills in cooperation and in prosocial behavior such as: information
exchange, active thinking by exchanging ideas, effective communication, toler-
ance, openness, sensitivity, and the ability to admit mistakes.
2. The Use of advanced technology: Learning to use the computer, work with
multi-media software and data banks (local and abroad).
3. Formulating the topic for investigation and dividing it into sub-topics: Brain-
storming; discussing ways of dividing complex subjects into sub-topics; and
defining methods of organizing topics and sub-topics hierarchically.


4. Raising questions for investigation and problem solving: Arranging the questions
hierarchically and, according to related topics, exchanging questions with
peers and discussing ways of obtaining answers.
Step 3 and step 4 begins the GI method – It corresponds to the first stage of GI
“Class determined sub units and organize into research group.”
5. Creating and planning a work program: Discussing decisions related to
scheduling; dividing tasks; and assigning authority, responsibility, and
roles to team members.
6. Gathering information with advanced computer-network technology:
Conducting academic investigation using various resources and computerized
data banks; making judgments about the information; and expanding and
reducing the information.
7. Dealing with nontextual information: Working with maps, tables, graphs, and
photographs.
8. Analysis and comprehension of texts: Working on academic and scientific literacy;
discussing a variety of text structures; strategic reading aimed at formulating
questions; abstracting; distinguishing main issues; and identifying key terms as
a guide for further research.
Steps 5, 6,7, and step 8, correspond to the third stage of GI: “Group carry out their
investigation”. This stage is the heart of the GI method and is done in the topic that
the interest groups chose. Technology was one of the tools the students used.
9. The writing process: Approaching writing as a process, including drafting,
reviewing, editing, peer reviewing, and publishing. The final product should be
a multimedia and written professional product.
Steps 9 correspond to the fourth stage of GI: “Groups plan their presentation/
feedback”
10. Preparing and presenting an oral report: Working on the structure of the report
for the TPLC and examining in what ways it differs from a traditional written
presentation; skill-building for a multimedia presentation, emphasizing the
rhetoric of presentations and the use of audio-visual devices.
Step 10 correspond the stage 5 of the GI; “Groups make their presentation”
11. Evaluation: Developing criteria for creating a variety of ways to evaluate each
teams multimedia products and sub-products. The evaluations take place
within groups, between groups, and with experts in the community.
Step 11 corresponds to the sixth stage of the GI method: Teacher and student
evaluate their project. The project is a group cooperative outcome.
The TLPC workshop was a year-long process, while the teachers served in two
roles – the first as a community of peers and the second as implementers of the TI
Group Investigation in their classrooms at the junior high school level in northern
Israel. This inquiry project followed former models of teachers as a community of


peers that were developed in elementary schools (Hertz-Lazarowitz & Calderon
1994; Sharan et al. 1984; Slavin & Calderon 2001). Those models showed positive
outcomes for teachers and students.

2.3 The Six Mirrors of the Classroom: Into the Future
Classroom

The work with teachers and students in the transition from the traditional classroom
to the GI classroom in Israel demanded contact and ongoing observation and
conceptualization of the dynamic between teachers and students in the classroom.
During this process, a long-term plan of observational-process studies was
conducted to describe the six-mirror model of the classroom (Hertz-Lazarowitz
1992). The model consists of six “mirrors,” a term chosen to portray the view that
the dimensions which characterize the classroom are interrelated and reflected in
one another: Structure and activities in one dimension have implications for what
is possible in another dimension.
In the model, harmony among the mirrors and the levels within each mirror posi-
tively affect the social and cognitive development of the students. For example, if
the teacher maintains central control of the classroom (mirror three, level one), and
asks her students to work cooperatively (mirror six, level three) on a given learning
task, this creates a disharmony between the mirrors and will be reflected in stu-
dents’ behavior, as the students will be unable to engage in multilateral investiga-
tion. However, if the learning task is designed to bring together the parts of a
horizontal work division and then to find a creative solution for the problem – such
as in the planning of a future city – while the teacher aims her instructional behavior
at supporting and helping different groups, then there is harmony between the
mirrors and the learners will be engaged and observed in performing a high level
of academic and social behavior (mirrors five and six)
The model has served as a conceptual framework enabling teachers to analyze
the mirrors and to be trained to gradually design their classrooms to become a CL
and a GI learning environment. The development of innovative technology has
made attainable what was once merely a dream – the use of the computer as a personal
tool, much like a notebook and pen (Hertz-Lazarowitz & Bar Natan 2002). Likewise,
every new technological development can be expected to interact with and change
some basic features in the learning environment. Technological development, with
scaffolding cognitive aspects of students thinking, has the potential to eventually
revolutionize the classroom (Lockhorst 2004; O’Donnell & King 1999; Resta et. al.
1999). However, this revolution for future learning/teaching environment has to
take place with an integrative understanding of the interdependence of the different
mirrors, and specially to work on the advancement of students’ academic-social
skill in CL. The design of the learning task will be mostly affected by technology
(Ronen et al. 2006). However, the parallels of discourse between the mirrors of
teachers’ instruction and students’ behavior, will continue to be a significant factor
in the future classroom (Webb et al. 2006).


Fig. 2.1 Six mirrors of the classroom (Hertz-Lazarowitz 1992)

2.3.1 Mirror One: The Physical Organization of the Learning
and Teaching Space

The future classroom, with advanced technologies and collaborative teams, should
be organized in a flexible manner in order to meet both the traditional and innova-
tive organization of learning teams. The physical setting of the classroom will have
to accommodate human engineering aspects, peer learning, and computer demands.
The classroom will have to become a flexible place for teachers and students to
work. In the future, teachers may also give instructions via their computer network,
and communication will flow from the teacher’s computer to the students’ personal
computers and vice versa. The classroom will become a decentralized organization,
with many smaller units (groups or teams) operating simultaneously. This organiza-
tion of “group of groups” fits group learning and the high-technology environment.


The possibility of turning a classroom into a community of peers and computers
will allow a dynamic presentation of information and products involved in learning
projects. The change in instruction and learning will have to be followed by
changes in the design and architecture of other rooms and spaces in the school, such
as teachers’ rooms, laboratories, and libraries.

2.3.2 Mirror Two: Learning Tasks – Using Peers and Computers
as Thinking and Investigation Resources

Teachers, alongside their students, and sometimes following them, are learning to
use the computer as a tool to develop skills in thinking and reflection. The computer
can help to organize and carry out efforts of high-level learning and teaching and
can engage students and teachers in challenging tasks. The computer’s power lies
in the access to rich and complex bodies of information that can be used to construct
meaningful knowledge by investigation. Peers working together with computers
interweave interpersonal and task-related learning, which facilitates the exchange
of information through communication with other learning teams and with experts
beyond the school walls.
The claim that “learning tasks vary in levels of complexity determined by the
pattern of division of the tasks and integration of the learning products” (Hertz-
Lazarowitz 1992; p. 76) is still relevant. The creation and design of the learning
task was and still is the most significant role of the teacher in the “face to face”
cooperative learning process (Gillies & Ashman 2003), and will be even more so in
the future learning spaces with computer technology. The primary role and respon-
sibility of teachers remains that of facilitating and supervising the quality of
students’ learning, as reflected in the processes and products derived from the tasks
assigned to them.

2.3.3 Mirrors Three and Four: Teachers as Initiators, Producers,
and Communicators of Learning

The role of the teacher is presently undergoing major changes. Whereas teachers’
roles were traditionally based on historical definitions, such as “the sage or the stage,”
they are gradually becoming partners in a community of teachers and are increasingly
immersed with students as partners in learning – the “guide on the side”. The role
of teachers as active initiators and actors in the “show of learning and teaching” will
be influenced by the metaphor of theater production and interpretation (Schonmann
2006). Teachers will become producers of new classroom curricula and programs,
in which new technology and sophisticated teaching materials play an ongoing part.
Multidisciplinary teaching, in addition to mono-disciplinary teaching, will become
a central part of learning in schools, which in turn will require the establishment
and cooperation of multidisciplinary teaching teams.


2.3.4 Mirrors Five and Six: Academic
and Social Communication and Behaviors

Open electronic communication with the outside world will expose teachers and
students to peers from other schools and cultures. Through computer-mediated
communication on the information highway, every classroom can become a real-
time, on-line information center. Schools will familiarize their students and
teachers with the many services of social institutions, such as research centers,
laboratories, banks, newspapers, stock market information, and various resource
centers. The small team within the classroom will become the primary social unit
of learning. Students will be able to interact with on-line information and to share
and discuss ideas and thoughts with a broad community. Examples are: in
economics classes, to analyze the latest foreign currency data; in citizenship
classes, to review last night’s public opinion surveys; in sports, to follow the
results of the latest games in various states. In these interactive knowledge-seeking
contexts, students will master the most significant academic and social skills
needed for citizens in the next century: working with people and on-line information
in order to cooperate and collaborate with other people for actual learning,
analyzing, and decision making.
The teacher in this classroom will need to be a skilled computer user and well
versed in complex and varied information networks. This teacher will also need to
be able to guide students to use technology in an enlightened way. Transforming
information into knowledge in a context of moral and ethical dilemmas previously
unknown to the teacher can be eased by working in teams and communities of
teachers and by establishing such communities in the classroom. Writing is the
powerful force for students and teachers working as communities through the use
of telecommunication and intensive peer interaction (Morton 1996).
Many of the CL and IT innovations might fail because teachers make sporadic
and partial changes. The model gives teachers a deep understanding of the whole
learning environment and enables them to apply the principles of designing the
mirrors so that they can create a powerful learning context. We found that this
holistic perception transforms teachers’ actions and positively affects students’
development. Teachers in various educational settings have reported that the model
created a multidimensional vision of their work and made them think and work
simultaneously on the six-mirror dimensions.
Since the summary of research (Hertz-Lazarowitz 1992), the two models; the GI
model and the six mirrors of the classroom model were combined in our field work.
It has been used in Computer Mediated Instruction in junior high school social studies
curricula (Almog & Hertz-Lazarowitz 1999; Salomon 2002); in cooperative meth-
ods of writing and literacy development (Hertz-Lazarowitz 2001; Hertz-Lazarowitz
& Bar-Natan 2002; Hertz-Lazarowitz & Schadeal 2003). CL based on GI was
implemented in science education at the secondary level of schooling (Lazarowitz
& Hertz-Lazarowitz 1998). For example: Science-Technology-Environment and Peace
Society (STEPS) was studied by Khalil & Lazarowitz, (2002) with ninth grade
Arab and Jewish students in neighboring communities in the Galilee. Salit Ron


used the Jigsaw-GI combined method with 11th and 12th grade students to study the
complex subject of evolution (Ron & Lazarowitz 1995). The field work and research
using GI in biology at the secondary level are summarized by Lazarowitz 2007.
Recently a new computerized system Collaborative e Learning Structures
(CeLS) was developed in Israel, (Ronen et al. 2006). CeLS is a web-based system
designed to create and reuse collaborative instruction by creating and conducting
structured asynchronous collaborative activities and incorporate them in the existing
instructional setting for all subjects and levels.
CeLS is currently under experimental implementation with communities of
teachers, that search for existing activities, or create new collaborative structures
using basic building blocks to suit their specific needs and instructional goals.

2.4 Into the Community: Teachers’ Role
in School-Family Partnership

Teachers in Israel extend their roles into the community. In 1998–2000, a two-year
School-Family Partnership (SFP) program was implemented in Acre, a mixed
Jewish-Arab city in Israel, to promote parents’ role as the facilitators of their
children’s literacy development and to advance coexistence between Arab and
Jewish parents. The SFP program was part of a five-year (1995–2000) holistic
project designed to bring about a systemic change in Acre (Hertz-Lazarowitz 1999;
Zelniker & Hertz-Lazarowitz 2005).
Two studies were conducted within the SFP program. In the first (1999), 174
Arab parents and 111 Jewish parents of first-grade children responded to a 31-item
Parents’ Literacy Questionnaire. In addition, interviews were conducted with
mothers, teachers, and children. The questionnaire (Hertz-Lazarowitz & Horovitz
2002), yielded seven factors related to parents’ perceptions and attitudes:
(a) encouraging reading; (b) school assistance; (c) enriching the home literacy
environment; (d) keeping the School-Family Partnership; (e) teachers’ providing of
support for their child; (f) parent-child interaction; and (g) knowing the CL method
used in school for reading and writing.
In the second study (2000), 120 Arab parents and 30 Jewish parents responded
to an Inter-group Coexistence Questionnaire. The 34 items related to five domains:
parents’ exposure to media in Hebrew and Arabic; parents’ acceptance of Arab
definitions of identity; readiness for relations; contact; and equality demands.

2.4.1 SFP Workshop Activities

Epstein’s model of School-Family Partnership (Epstein & Sanders 2006) served
as the basis for the program. A novel element of coexistence was introduced by
the teachers and the principals in Acre by bringing together Jewish and Arab
parents and teachers across schools for a year of structured workshops on themes


of literacy development and inter-group contact. The coexistence component was
suggested by the principals and teachers of several schools, as it was necessary
and critical for advancing inter-group relations and equality in Acre’s educational
system. In order to achieve this purpose, the work was planned and implemented
jointly by Arab and Jewish participants in cross-school and cross-national
workshops focusing on literacy development and coexistence issues. Workshops
conducted during the two-year period were documented as written protocols, as
well as less formal reports including written and oral feedback provided by
participating parents and teachers.
Literacy-Related Activities: Literacy-related activities took place within the
SFP program as well as in the classroom. There were two main settings for train-
ing parents of first graders: one consisted of bi-weekly meetings of parents and
teachers in each school, which served to strengthen the contact between the
classroom teachers and the parents as well as to inform parents about the SFA
program and its various components. The second setting consisted of monthly
workshops in which parents and teachers across schools practiced and discussed
literacy-related activities in the two cultures.
Within the literacy-related workshops, parents were encouraged to advance
literacy at home by assembling a small library with books recommended by the
teachers and by reading stories to the children on a daily basis. In addition, parents
were encouraged to get involved with and help their children with their homework
and to initiate discussion of various topics, such as cultural events and holidays and
stories about the city. Parents were also encouraged to learn about the SFA program
by visiting the classroom and joining a group of volunteer teacher’s helpers in the
class. Parents and teachers exchanged written communication by means of infor-
mation and feedback sheets.
Once a month, there was an open day when teachers presented parents with
activities related to the curriculum, such as parent-child cooperative writing of a
family story. Other activities practiced and/or discussed on the open days and at the
workshops included reading and writing with the children in their first language,
discussing literature from each culture, meeting authors of Jewish and Arab literary
works, listening to storytellers from each culture, telling about their group’s history
in Acre, and bringing more technology to the classroom.
Coexistence-related activities: Coexistence-related activities in the parents’
workshop included the use of expressive means to increase personal closeness and
mutual acceptance, such as singing, dancing, telling personal stories about their
own and their children’s education, sharing memories, sharing past and present
experiences of coexistence in Acre, and building shared visions for the future of
inter-group relations and education in Acre. In the workshops, parents discussed
municipal resource allocation and policies of equality and discrimination. Parents
formulated the construction of joint educational task forces and education-related
plans for Acre, such as getting more instructional help for Jewish and Arab at-risk
children and adding a wing to the Arab school building. Parents were interested
in advancing positive inter-group relations and were encouraged to engage in
joint civic activism to benefit both Arab and Jewish children in Acre.


In addition to the workshops, there were numerous open days when parents
came to school, participated in classes with their children, and took part in activities
shared with their children and the teachers. According to the teachers, the parents’
participation and involvement was greater than in the period preceding the SFP
program. As stated by one of the teachers, Miri Yunger, “Since the implementation
of the School-Family Partnership program, the parents have become more involved.
Many parents have become aware of the importance of literacy at home and the
encouragement of literacy development at home.”
Overall, the findings indicated that the Arab parents perceived themselves as
learning to become more effective facilitators of literacy development for their
children than the Jewish parents, as well as more effective facilitators of coexist-
ence than the Jewish parents. The teachers in Acre expanded their role and added
the mission of working with parents in their school and across segregated schools
throughout the country. The School-Family Partnership positively affected the home
literacy of the parents and created a bond between parents-teachers and the
children, and a peaceful community of Arab and Jewish parents (Hertz-Lazarowitz
2004; Zelniker & Hertz-Lazarowitz 2005).

2.5 Teachers and Principals Transform CL to a Critical
Pedagogy for Civil Action

In the work in Acre (1995–2000), a city-wide plan was developed in which differ-
ent Investigative Task Forums (ITFs) were created to increase the participation of
all members of the community. Each ITF was based on the GI structures: The group
in the ITF had to engage a community-related problem, brain storm, investigate,
discuss, suggest solution and present plans for change by action. The ITF repre-
sented the highly diverse groups within this mixed city – Arabs and Jews, religious
and secular, public and private schools (Hertz-Lazarowitz 1999).
Among the ITFs created were a forum of principals and a forum of teachers-
leaders, which were the most active of all the bodies that were established in the
city. Those two forums, mainly the principals’ forum, were analyzed (Eden &
Hertz-Lazarowitz 2002) for their potential of becoming a critical force for change
in the city. The holistic project and the CL program (SFA and ALASH) were imple-
mented in Acre for one purpose, namely, professional growth that would advance
the children and the city (Gordon 1996). The teachers and mainly the principals
perceived the ITF as an opportunity to become organized and to establish several
forums to advance their own purposes of achieving educational-political power in
order to generate social change in the city. In so doing, they were transformed from
professional leaders with rational-technical skills to avant-garde intellectual agents
for change in the community.
One of their main goals was to change the nature of their dependence on the
municipality against which they acted. The internal factors that helped them to
attain their goals were the ability of the teachers and principals to organize due to


their vision, skill, and level of education. In the process of their struggle, the mem-
bers became aware of the political nature of their work. As a result, they redefined
their role and degree of commitment from one of “narrow egoism,” serving their
own schools and causing them to compete with each other, to a “wide [holistic]
outlook” of commitment to the entire educational system. By cooperating in this
way, they brought the whole system under their aegis and thus gathered strength.
For the first time, they were able to act according to their belief that “if there is no
progress in education, there is no progress and prosperity in the city.”
The principals and the teachers gathered to create a professional body with the
aim of improving their function. Dialectically, they evolved from a body aiming to
improve its professional-objective performance to one of intellectual change agents
who understand that their work is not only pedagogical, but rather dependent on a
wider social context requiring their acting as a local political leadership group
aimed at improving the entire community (Giroux 1988). They showed that from a
system in deep crisis, which was blamed for the poor academic achievements of
students, the principals and teachers could come forward, assume leadership, and
transform not only the educational system but the entire community, thus changing
patterns of relations between bodies within the educational system and with other
societal institutions.
The principals saw their greatest achievements in the following areas: collecting
debts which had accumulated over eight years and had not been paid by the
municipality; openly obtaining information about their financial situation from
the municipality for the first time, allowing them to plan maintenance and renovation
work within the framework of the budget; supporting individual schools with their
unique problems, such as in the case of an affirmative-action strike in an Arab high
school; mediating between disputing principals in order to positively impact the
culture of work relations; allocating resources for the schools to provide for greater
equality, especially for the Arab schools and the ultra-Orthodox Jewish schools
(partially State-run schools) that had been discriminated against for many years; and
supporting city-wide processes of evaluation so that information about each school’s
academic outcomes will be open to the community (Eden & Hertz-Lazarowitz
2002; Hertz-Lazarowitz 2004).

2.6 Future Prospects

In its essence, CL is a critical pedagogy because it raises basic questions regarding
our nature as social beings. CL is based on perceiving the human being as a positive
social being that is driven by cooperation and pro-social and humanistic motives
(Deutsch 1973). According to this pedagogy, every child and every teacher has a
voice and a contribution to make and can fulfill their potential within pro-social and
caring schools (Aronson 2000; Kohn 2000).
The Cooperative Learning reform in Israel was the first critical pedagogy to be
implemented in the State schools and was successful in changing two major injus-


tices within the Israeli educational system. First, CL advanced social and academic
integration and greater equality in the educational experience and outcomes for the
different Jewish ethnic groups. Second, CL decreased the full segregation between
the Arab sector and the Jewish sector in many communities due to the collaborative
efforts of Arab and Jewish educators (Azaiza et al, in press; Hertz-Lazarowitz &
Schaedel 2003).
GI work began with a commitment to apply the method in the classroom through
complex models, and it was transformed to a vision of creating a critical pedagogy
of cooperation in schools, cities, and regions that will make a difference. The teach-
ers and the principals contributed to the growing awareness of multiculturalism due
to the fact that CL was the first pedagogy to be implemented and researched in the
Arab schools alongside the Jewish schools in northern Israel. Turning CL into a
vision of a critical pedagogy may be the result of the unique structure and charac-
teristics of Israel. The country is small, young, and has a highly diverse population,
with multiple religions and multiple cultures living in an intractable state of conflict
and war, but still looking for coexistence (Al-Haj 1988; Hertz-Lazarowitz et al, 2004).
The expansion of the roles of teachers in Israel is derived from genuine profes-
sional and personal contact between communities of Arab and Jewish educators,
many of them women who were influenced to become a political-educational force
that can make a difference in their various communities (Oplatka & Hertz
Lazarowitz 2006). They perceive cooperation from a broader perspective as a lever
and a vision of greater commitment, recognition, sensitivity, and concern for
minorities and different cultural and religious groups in Israel (Azaiza et al, in press).
Five years of continuous work and research validated the positive impact of the
work that the teachers invested in students’ academic outcomes. A high quality of
implementation of the cooperative learning methods resulted in higher academic
achievements among the students (Hertz-Lazarowitz 2001, 2004; Zelniker &
Hertz-Lazarowitz 2005, 2006). Our follow-up studies indicated that in about half
of the CL schools, the teachers and principals continue to work with parents, with
teachers across schools, and with the community at large, as it has become part of
their professional roles. The principal forum is still active as change agents.
The principals and teachers in northern Israel have shown that educators can free
themselves from technical-objective thinking and can view education as a political
matter related to the power structure of society. But their liberation is not complete.
It will only be so when the relationship moves beyond functional cooperation and
is transformed so that all people are emancipated from boundaries that cause hostility
and are truly treated as part of the community. Power is a requisite for social
change, but cooperation and emancipation means a different view of human relations,
which many principals and teachers have yet to attain.

Acknowledgments The author wishes to thank the many children, teachers, principals, parents,
trainers, administrators, and University students that worked to transform the Arab and Jewish
schools in the northern region of Israel to become places of greater cooperation, justice and
equality. Special thanks are due to Dr. Bruria Schaedel for her leadership of the field work in
many schools and to Mohammed Ali-Said, a writer, a teacher and a trainer, for his contribution
to applying CL in the Arab schools. Appreciation is also extended to my coauthors in previous


publications, Tamar Almog, Margarita Calderon, Devorah Eden, Reuven Lazarowitz, Bruria
Schaedel, and Tamar Zelniker, for their contribution to this chapter.
I thank Bat Sheva Vitner- Simon for her help in finalizing this paper.

References

Abrami, P. C., Poulsen, C. & Chambers, B. (2004). Teacher motivation to implement an edu-
cational innovation: Factors differentiating users and non-users of cooperative learning.
Educational Psychology, 24 (2), 201–216.
Al-Haj, M. (1998). Education, Empowerment and Control: The Case of the Arabs in Israel.
Albany: SUNY Press.
Almog, T. & Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (1999). Teachers as peer learners: Investigation in an advanced
technological learning environment. In A. M. O’Donnell & A. King (Eds.), Cognitive
Perspectives on Peer Learning (pp. 285–313). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Aronson, E.(2000). Nobody Left to Hate. New York: W.H. Freeman and company.
Azaiza, F., Mor-Sommerfeld, A., Zelniker, T. & Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (in press). A critical
multicultural perspective: The segregated educational saga of the State of Israel 1948–2006.
The Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies (JCEPS).
Deutsch, M. (1973). The Resolution of Conflict. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Dewey, J. (1927). The School and Society. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Dwairy, M. (2004). Culturally sensitive education: Adapting self-oriented assertiveness training to
collective minorities. Journal of Social Issues, 60 (2), 423–436.
Eden, D. & Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (2002). The political power of school principals in Israel: A case
study. Journal of Educational Administration. 40 (3), 211–230.
Epstein, J. L. & Sanders, M.G. (2006). Prospects for change: Preparing educators for school,
family, and community partnerships. Peabody Journal of Education, 81 (2), 81–120.
Gillies, R. M. & Ashman, A. F. (Eds.). (2003). Co-Operative Learning: The Social and Intellectual
Outcomes of Learning in Groups. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Gillies, R. M. & Boyle, M. (2005). Teachers’ scaffolding behaviours during cooperative learning.
Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 33 (3), 243–259.
Giroux, H. (1988). Teachers as Intellectuals. New York: Bergin & Garvey.
Gordon, D. (1996). Restructuring and holism as principles of systemic change: The case of the 36-
community project in Israel, Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports, Jerusalem (Hebrew).
Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (1992). Understanding students’ interactive behavior: Looking at six mirrors
of the classroom. In R. Hertz-Lazarowitz & N. Miller (Eds.), Interaction in Cooperative
Groups (pp. 71–102). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (1999). Cooperative learning and group investigation in Israel’s Jewish-Arab
schools: A community approach. Theory into Practice 38 (2), 105–113.
Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (2001). Success for all (SFA) in Israel: A community research and evaluation
model. In R. E. Slavin & N. A. Madden (Eds.), Success for All: Research and Reform in
Elementary Education (pp.149–177). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (2004). Existence and Co-existence in Acre: The Power of Educational
Activism. Journal of Social Issues, 60 (2), 357–373. http://construct.haifa.ac.il/∼rachelhl/
index.htm.
Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (2005).Cooperative Learning in Israel. IASCE Newsletters. http://www.
iasce.net.
Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. & Bar Natan, I. (2002). Writing development of Arab and Jewish students
using cooperative learning (CL) and computer mediating communication (CMC). Computers
and Education, 39, 19–36.
Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. & Calderon, M. (1994). Implementing cooperative learning in the elementary
schools: The facilitative voice for collaborative power. In: Sharan, S. (Ed.). Handbook of
Cooperative Learning Methods (pp. 300–318). New York: Greenwood.


Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. & Horovitz, H. (2002). The impact of School-Family Partnership (SFP) on
parents’ attitudes and children reading and writing in first grade. Paper presented at the 11th
International Roundtable on School, Family and Community Partnerships (in cooperation with
AERA). New Orleans, LA.
Hertz-Lazarowitz,R. & Schaedel, B. (2003). Literacy Development and Cooperative Learning:
Research and Development in Arab and Jewish Schools. Haifa: Ach Publishers (Hebrew).
Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. & Zelniker, T. (1995). Cooperative learning in the Israeli context: Historical,
educational and cultural perspectives. International Journal of Educational Research, 23,
267–285.
Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., Zelniker. T., White-Stephan, C. & Stephan, W. G. (2004.). (Eds.). Arab-Jewish
coexistence programs. Journal of Social Issues, 60 (2), 237–452.
Johnson, R. T., Johnson D. W. & Stanne, M. B. (2000). Cooperative Learning Methods: A Meta-
Analysis. University of Minnesota. http://www.co-operation.org/pages/cl-methods.html
Joyce, B. & Weil, M. (1986). Models of teaching. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice Hall.
Kagan, S. (2001). Teaching for Character and Community, Educational Leadership, 59 (2), 50–55.
Khalil, M. & Lazarowitz, R. (2002). Developing a learning unit on the science-technology-envi-
ronment-peace-society mode. Students’ cognitive achievements and attitudes toward peace.
The Annual Meeting of The National Association of Research in Science Teaching, (NARST).
New Orleans, 7–10 April.
Kohn, A. (2000). The schools our children deserve: Moving beyond Traditional Classrooms and
“Tougher Standards”, Boston: Houghton Mifflin. http://books.google.com/books?id
= NXead57GHSwC&dq = Kohn + a.&psp = 9
Lazarowitz, R. & Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (1998). Cooperative learning in science curriculum. In
B.J. Fraser & K.G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 449–471).
Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Lazarowitz, R.G. (2007). High School Biology Curricula Development: Implementation, Teaching
and Evaluation. From the 20th to 21st Century. In: Sandra K. Abell & Norman G. Lederman
(Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education (pp. 561–598). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lockhorst, D. (2004). Design Principles for a CSCL Environment in Teacher Training. Proefschrift
Universiteit Utrecht, Nederlands. http://elearning.surf.nl/docs/e-learning/proefschrift_
lockhorst.pdf.
Morton, C. (1996). The modern land of Laputa. Phi Delta Kappan, 77(6), 416–419.
O’Donnell, A.M. & King, A. (Eds.). (1999). Cognitive Perspectives on Peer Learning. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Oplatka, I. & Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (Eds.). (2006). Women principals in a multicultural society:
New insights into feminist educational leadership. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense
Publishers.
Resta, P., Christal, M., Ferneding, K. & Kennedy Puthoff, A. (1999). CSCL as a Catalyst for
Changing Teacher Practice. Computer Support for Collaborative Learning.http://sll.stanford.
edu/projects/CSCL99/papers/wednesday/Paul_Resta_488.pdf#search = %22role%20of%20
teacher%20in%20cscl%22.
Ron, S. & Lazarowitz, R. (1995).Learning Environment and Academic Achievement of High
School Students Who Learned Evolution in a Cooperative Mode. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST),
San Francisco, CA., April 22–25.
Ronen, M., Kohen-Vacs, D. & Raz-Fogel, N. (2006). Adopt & Adapt: Structuring, Sharing and
Reusing Asynchronous Collaborative Pedagogy. International Conference of the Learning
Sciences, ICLS 2006 Indiana University, Bloomington.
Salomon, G. (2002). Technology and pedagogy: Why don’t we see the promised revolution?
Educational Technology, 42 (2), 71–75.
Schonmann, S. (2006). Theatrical representations of teaching as performance. In J. Brophy
& S. Pinnegar (Eds.). Learning from Research on Teaching: Perspective, Methodology, and
Representation: Advances in Research Theory, Volume 11, (pp. 287–316), Oxford: Elsevier.


Sharan, S. & Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (1981). Changing schools: The Small Group Teaching (SGT)
Project in Israel. Tel Aviv: Ramot Publishing, Tel Aviv University, Second Edition: 1984.
(Hebrew).
Sharan, S., Kussel, P., Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., Raviv, S., Bejerano, Y. & Sharan, Y. (1984).
Cooperative Learning in the Classroom: Research in Desegregated Schools. Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Sharan, S. & Sharan Y.(1992). Expanding Cooperative Learning through Group-Investigation.
New York: Teacher College, Columbia University.
Slavin, R.E. & Calderon, M. (2001).(Eds.). Effective programs for Latino students.
Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Slavin, R.E., Hurley, E. & Chamberlain, A. (2003). Cooperative learning and achievement: Theory
and research. In W. Reynolds & G. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of Psychology. Vol 7 (pp. 177–198).
New York: Wiley & Sons.
Thelen, H. (1960). Education and the human quest. New York: Harper and Row.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. In
M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Webb, N., Nemer, K. M. & Ing, M. (2006). Small-Group Reflections: Parallels Between Teacher
Discourse and Student Behavior in Peer-Directed Groups, Journal of the Learning Sciences,
2006, 15, 63–119.
Zelniker, T. & Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (2005). School-family partnership for coexistence in the city
of acre; promoting Arab and Jewish parents’ role as facilitators of children’s literacy development
and as agents of coexistence. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 18 (1), 114–138.
Zelniker, T. & Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (2006). Long Term effects of Community Empowerment and
Leadership Building in An Arab-Jewish City in Israel. Paper presented in the International
Society for the Study of Organization Behavior and Work Values (ISSOW), Tallinn, Estonia,
June 25–29.

Chapter 3
Pupil Grouping for Learning: Developing
a Social Pedagogy of the Classroom

Ed Baines, Peter Blatchford, and Peter Kutnick

3.1 The Grouping of Pupils in Classrooms ............................................................................. 57
3.2 Social Pedagogic Research into Group Work ................................................................... 61
3.2.1 A Relational Approach ......................................................................................... 62
3.2.2 Preparation of the Classroom Context for Group Work ....................................... 62
3.2.3 Involvement of Teachers in the Support of Group Work ...................................... 63
3.3 Implementation and Evaluation of the SPRinG Program ................................................. 63
3.4 Results from the Evaluation of SPRinG ........................................................................... 64
3.5 Attainment Differences ..................................................................................................... 64
3.5.1 Macro Attainment at the Beginning and End of the School Year......................... 64
3.5.2 Micro Science Attainment: Evaporation and Forces ............................................ 66
3.6 Observation Measures ....................................................................................................... 66
3.6.1 On the Spot Observations ..................................................................................... 66
3.6.2 Video Observation Analysis ................................................................................. 67
3.6.3 Attitudes and Motivation ...................................................................................... 68
3.7 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 68
References .................................................................................................................................. 70

Abstract Studies of grouping practices in everyday classrooms in England show
that the potential of group work as a pedagogic approach, that can enhance learning
and active engagement among pupils, is not being realised. Three main principles
for the effective use of group work in schools are highlighted. These are that teacher
practices should focus on enhancing pupils’ relational skills, carefully structuring
the classroom and group context and on providing structure and support to group
interactions. These principles and their associated practices form the core of a
recent UK group work program for teachers. Results from a year long evaluation of
this program show that pupils made greater progress in general and specific meas-
ures of attainment and were more likely to show behaviours indicative of effective
group interactions than pupils in a comparison group. Findings emphasise the need
for educators to implement a social pedagogic approach, rather than individualised
approaches, to teaching and learning in classrooms.

In this chapter we broaden consideration of the role and purposes of putting
children in groups for learning. Our central premise is that children are always
found seated or working in some form of grouping in their classrooms, but many of

3 Pupil Grouping for Learning: Developing a Social Pedagogy of the Classroom 57

these groupings actually inhibit learning and the motivation to learn. This chapter
will consider the use of pupil groups within the natural classroom context to help
to understand why they may not be effective in promoting learning, and how they
may be changed to support learning.
Our view of effective group work in classrooms moves away from examining
group work in terms of a short-term (often experimental) approach in which group
working skills are de-contextualised from the general classroom context. The chapter
will focus largely on research related to elementary/primary schools and will
provide a review of current grouping practices in classrooms, particularly in
England. The chapter has four main sections: first, there is a review of research on
group work in schools drawing on what we know from naturalistic studies of class-
rooms; second, we consider how this review has informed the key principles of a
recent UK group work program; third, the results of a large scale quasi-experimental
evaluation of this program will be presented; and fourth, we conclude points with
implications for everyday practice and policy in schools.

3.1 The Grouping of Pupils in Classrooms

Since children have been formally educated in schools and classrooms, they have
been placed in various forms of groupings including individuals, dyads, groups and
whole class groups (see Baines et al. 2003). Over the last century, many studies
have been undertaken to assess whether learning within these groupings is more
effective in particular forms (see, e.g., Pepitone 1980; the Plowden Report 1967;
Slavin 1995). While it has been commonly thought that learning and social benefits
accrue from effective group work, there has not been common agreement over what
group work is, and how it can be made effective. Many of the literature reviews over
the last 20 years lead to a range of conclusions (see e.g., Kutnick et al. 2005; Lou
et al. 1996; O’Donnell & King 1999; Slavin et al. 2003; Webb & Palincsar 1996).
These conclusions include the following points: that children work more effectively
in smaller than larger groups; the co-operative and collaborative approaches to
group work are, generally more effective than individualistic and competitive
approaches; there are modest academic gains; and pro-social and pro-school atti-
tudes improve significantly in co-operative/collaborative groups.
The main theories underlying group working in classrooms are psychological
(derived from behavioural, developmental, social, and humanistic psychology) and
sociological (concerned with social justice and inclusion). Psychological theory
focuses on individual and social processes while sociological theory places emphasis
on the social context of cooperation and group work. Psychological theories con-
cerning group work have been dominated by behavioural, cognitive, and relational
theories (see discussions by Damon & Phelps 1989; Littleton et al. 2005) and have
been associated with two distinct outcomes, learning/school achievement and social/
pro-school attitudes. Only lately have reviewers differentiated these outcomes (see
especially Gillies & Ashman 2003; and for a fuller description of the relationship

58 E. Baines et al.

between these theories and outcomes, Kutnick et al. 2005). Sociological studies tend
to describe group activities (e.g., Cohen 1994) and evaluate tasks and group structures
associated with classroom groups that work more or less effectively.
Studies concerning group work in classrooms can be divided into two broad
categories, representing naturalistic descriptions and experimental change (some
are based upon preliminary naturalistic study) of classroom activity (Kutnick et al.
2002). This division provides a useful starting point for this chapter. Whereas many
chapters in this volume provide reviews of experimental approaches for the use of
cooperative learning in classrooms, we refer only briefly to experimental studies
and, instead, concentrate on naturalistic studies, notably those undertaken in England,
as these studies provide the basis for the development (with teachers) of a program
to enhance the cognitive and social effects of group work in classrooms.
Experimental studies tend to arise from, or can be associated with, theoretical
orientations that are predominantly psychological. Theories underlying cooperative
learning (Johnson & Johnson 2003; Slavin 1995) have described their roots in
social psychological theories of Deutsch (1949) and Lippitt and White (1943) that
stress the advantages of interdependence within (heterogeneous) groups and
Allport’s (1954) operationalisation of contact theory. When the social psychological
focus on interdependence is applied to classroom studies, especially in comparisons
of co-operative learning to traditional learning, findings show consistent enhanced
relational and pro-school attitude development among pupils, and moderate learning
gains. Experimentally-based, collaborative approaches in classrooms acknowledge
the importance of interpersonal relations for the sharing and co-construction of
knowledge. They often focus on the role of classroom talk and these can be
reviewed through the extensive range of studies by Webb and her colleagues and by
Mercer and colleagues (e.g., Mercer 2000; Webb & Mastergeorge 2003). These
studies have explored interpersonal language that supports group work in class-
rooms and have developed effective programs to enhance child talk/knowledge
within particular curricular areas. While these studies are insightful in identifying
where groups are ineffective and for recommending particular interpersonal and
communicative methods to enhance group work, few consider the whole classroom
context within which group work takes place.
Naturalistic studies generally take into account the whole classroom context,
often including a number of sociological concerns such as social inclusion and
participation of all children within the classroom. For convenience here, we divide
naturalistic studies into two phases: studies between 1980 and 2000 that have
identified a range of problems associated with classroom group work, and recent
studies that see classrooms as a social pedagogic context within which pupil groups
may promote or inhibit classroom learning and motivation.
From the first phase of naturalistic studies, three dominant themes arise. First,
while children experience classroom activity in groups, these groups may vary in
size and phase of lesson. Second, children often do not work productively in
groups. Finally, teachers are not confident in their use and support of group work.
Descriptions of elementary/primary classrooms (see Galton et al. 1980, 1999)
show that the term, pupil group, can relate to a range of sizes and purposes.


Children may be found in large groups (such as the whole class), in small groups
(usually about four to six children, seated around a classroom table), and in pairs
or triads (sometimes sharing a table with other pairs). Additionally, pupils may be
found working as individuals, often sharing table space with others. These different
group sizes are often associated with phases of a lesson – with large groups/whole
class coming together at the beginning and end of a lesson and with smaller groups
being used in the middle of a lesson.
Pedagogically, group size may relate to the variety of learning tasks that charac-
terise a lesson; broad categories of learning task include new/cognitive knowledge,
extension of existing knowledge and practice/revision of knowledge (from Norman
1978; and used in Bennett et al. 1984; Edwards 1994). These studies can be integrated
to show a relationship between group size and learning task described more fully
in Kutnick (1994). For practice tasks, children work better as individuals than in
any larger group that may distract the child (Jackson & Kutnick 1996). For cognitive
tasks, pairs of pupils or pupil-tutor dyads are more effective in promoting under-
standing than individuals or larger groups (see Kutnick & Thomas 1990; Littleton
et al. 2004; Perret-Clermont 1980). For extension of understanding, small groups
are recommended, especially in cooperative learning studies (see Johnson &
Johnson 1994; Slavin 1995). Finally, the whole class is best used for presentation
of new tasks that allow for teacher-child (dyadic) follow-ups.
While all task types are found in elementary/primary schools (Baines et al. 2003;
Bennett et al. 1984) children’s seating is most likely to be in small groups around
small tables. Hence, studies such as Galton et al. (1980) and Galton et al. (1999)
have identified a number of disparities. For example, children are most often found
seated in small groups for up to 80% of their classroom time while being assigned
individual tasks. The quality of talk within small groups is also likely to be at a low
cognitive level. Other disparities can also be detected in this first phase of naturalistic
studies such as the assignment to, and use of, small groups based on distribution of
furniture in the classroom (Dreeben 1984); differentiation of pupils by ability-based
seating (Ireson & Hallam 2001); teacher difficulties in the selection and design of
tasks that legitimise group interaction (Bennett & Dunne 1992; Harwood 1995); and
the resistence by teachers to move tables to accommodate individual, paired, small
or large group seating for specific learning tasks (Hastings & Chantry 2002).
Many children, as well as their teachers, do not like working in groups (Cowie &
Rudduck 1988). Galton (1990), for example, found that children often feel insecure and
threatened when told to work in groups and pupils responded to this threat by with-
drawal from participation or looking to the teacher to give legitimacy to their responses
within groups. Teachers have expressed particular concern about loss of classroom
control, increased disruption and off-task behaviour (Cohen & Intilli 1981; see Cohen
1994), children having difficulty learning from one another (Lewis & Cowie 1993), the
time consuming nature of group work, the assessment of children when working in
interactive groups (Plummer & Dudley 1993), and the limitation of positive outcomes
to the more academically able students. Teachers have also expressed the view that
pupils, particularly boys, will misbehave during group work and that discussion within
group work may cause conflict between pupils (Cowie 1994).

60 E. Baines et al.

Findings from this first phase of naturalistic studies often make depressing reading
for those who are aware of the success of experimentally oriented studies. In spite
of this, research on the first phase has identified where problems exist in the imple-
mentation of effective group work in classrooms. The overall problem is the lack of
coordination between the size of pupil groupings, their composition, pedagogic
purpose of learning task and interactions among group members. In short, there is
little awareness of social pedagogical relationships in the classroom. It is little
surprise, therefore, that pupils and their teachers do not express confidence or liking
of group work, and both feel threatened by group work.
In the second phase of naturalistic studies, a clearer understanding of the
bases for success and failure of group work in the classroom is established. The
social pedagogic approach drawn upon by the authors focuses on relationships
between pupil groups (their size and composition), learning tasks, supportive
interactions with peers and teachers, and whether pupils have received training
for effective group working (see Blatchford et al. 2003). Evidence referred to in
this phase arises mainly from mapping classrooms while pupils engage in learning
tasks and from interviews with teachers. For a more extensive discussion of
mapping as a systematic, multi-dimensional description of grouping practices
and more on data reported below see Baines et al. (2003), Blatchford et al.
(1999), and Kutnick et al. (2002).
Studies on mapping in elementary/primary schools generally show that the
majority of pupils are seated in small groups (50% of mapping exercises), with
whole class groupings accounted for a further 20%. In only 2% of observations
were individuals seated alone. Larger groups, as might be expected by their size,
were mixes of boys and girls and mixed-ability. Smaller groups tend to be single-sex,
single-ability, and friendship based. The predominant learning task type used in
classrooms was practice tasks and the least likely task was new knowledge/cognition.
While virtually all children were found seated in pairs or larger groupings, over
60% of the assigned tasks required children to work individually. Teachers and
other adults in the classroom were only able to work with approximately one-third
of the pupil groups in their classrooms at one time.
While most of the observations found children seated in pairs or larger groups,
only a quarter of the nearly 200 teachers participating in the study stated that they
prepared their classes for group working. The majority of these teachers cited
‘circletime’ as their only form of group work preparation. Other social pedagogic
concerns about group work included the following:
1. The small groups that dominated classroom experience were likely to be
composed of same-sex and same-ability pupils, providing contexts of social
exclusion rather than inclusion in the classroom. This was especially true of low-
attaining boys who were mainly assigned individual tasks where they were not
asked to interact or discuss the task with others, and high-attaining girls.
2. In findings similar to the first phase of naturalistic research results, but more
extensively explored, there was no clear relationship between the size of groups
and the learning tasks/interaction assigned. Most pupil groups were assigned
practice tasks that required children to work alone.


3. Adults in the classrooms tended to work with the whole class, large groups, or
with individuals, leaving most of the small groups to work autonomously from
teacher or adult support.
4. Adults were present in virtually all of the observations within which new
knowledge/cognition was presented restricting opportunities for pupils to
co-construct and develop their own new knowledge further.
As a result of this systematic description of the range and use of pupil groupings in
authentic elementary/primary school classrooms, three main concerns are identified
that underpin the SPRinG (Social Pedagogic Research into Group-work) project.
These concerns form the basis for the remainder of the chapter and are listed
below.
1. Relationships are fundamental for effective group working. As identified in the
description of the first phase of naturalistic studies, pupils often feel threatened
and do not understand how to work in a group with their peers. We found that
teachers had not overcome this lack of group work skills in their classrooms.
Conversely, we also found that most teachers and pupils appreciated that
supportive relationships are essential for the promotion of learning, that is,
relationships that build upon trust between peers and children with teachers, and
the ability to communicate effectively and jointly resolve problems with partners
(Hall 1994; Kutnick et al. 2005).
2. Effective group work involves an effective classroom context. If group work is to
be effective, pupils must be able to work in a socially inclusive manner with all
other members of their class and not be dominated by same-gender and friend-
ship preference groups as noted in Kutnick & Kington (2005), and Kutnick et al.
(2005). For pupils to draw upon supportive relationships and be less dependent
on their teachers in their learning, the physical layout (e.g., seating and furniture),
and the curriculum and interactional contexts of the classroom (e.g., group
composition and size) must be co-ordinated to support group work.
3. Adults need to structure and support group work experiences. Teachers are
essential for the organisation of the learning experience of their pupils, but as
described above they rarely draw upon social pedagogic principles that would
relate pupil group size and composition to learning task and interaction and
which would promote group working among the children.

3.2 Social Pedagogic Research into Group Work

The main impetus for the Social Pedagogic Research into Group Work project
(SPRinG) was to address the three concerns listed immediately above. To do this
successfully suggested a new approach to conceptualising classroom group work,
an approach that would ground itself in the reality of everyday school life and the
concerns of teachers and pupils, and integrate group work into the fabric of
the school day. This is not so much an alternative pedagogy but a realisation
and application of social pedagogy. We were interested in an inclusive view of

62 E. Baines et al.

classroom groups that sought to integrate findings from previous research into a
more general application. The project reported here took place from 2001 to 2005.
In collaboration with teachers over the course of the second year of the project
we developed approaches and materials at three sites – KS1 (5–7 years) at the
University of Brighton, KS2 (7–11 years) at the Institute of Education, University
of London, and KS3 (11–14 years) at the University of Cambridge. This paper is
concerned with KS1 and KS2, which covers the primary school stage in England.
The SPRinG approach was based on three key principles in line with the three
concerns above.

3.2.1 A Relational Approach

A key feature of the SPRinG program is that group work skills have to be developed
(Cohen 1994; Webb & Farivar 1994). It is well known (see Gillies 2003) that pupils
need to have the skills to communicate effectively through listening, explaining,
and sharing ideas. But effective group work also depends on pupils learning to trust
and respect each other (Galton 1990) and having skills to plan and organise their
group work, make considered group decisions, reach a compromise and avoid petty
disputes. The approach is based on a naturalistic study of close social relationships
(Kutnick & Manson 1998) and has been devised to overcome problems associated
with social skills training programs. Ogilvy (1994) suggested that pupils’ group
work skills are unlikely to be long lasting if they are approached in isolation and
specific just to group work. Such a relational approach to group working skills will
benefit from integration into more general rules and ways of behaving in the class.
Indeed, integration can create classroom norms for social inclusion. One message
that has emerged strongly from our work is the importance of not allowing person-
ality types or group conflict to dictate the success, or failure, of groups. If not
addressed directly then difficulties between pupils may lie below the surface and
inhibit classroom learning.

3.2.2 Preparation of the Classroom Context for Group Work

The SPRinG approach also rests on the view that group work has to be considered
strategically in the wider context of the whole classroom. This includes three main
dimensions: (a) classroom level factors such as classroom layout, furniture, and
seating arrangements and class size; (b) characteristics of groups such as their size
and number, their composition and their stability; and (c) group work tasks and
the way these are integrated into, and used to support learning within, a lesson and
the curriculum. The aim is to integrate group-work into all class and curricular
activities. A fundamental proposition is that effective group work can be facilitated
by structuring the group work context in a number of key ways. For instance, by


organising classroom seating arrangements and increasing the proximity of pupils
to reduce noise and encourage group interaction, by ensuring group size (usually
2–4 pupils) is appropriate to the experience of pupils and the task at hand, and
where possible maintaining stable groups as they can reduce insecurities and conflict.
One common assumption, which can hinder the development of group work, is
the view that curriculum demands leave no time for group work. It is important that
we do not examine small group learning independently of the curriculum and the
culture of the classroom (Slavin et al. 2003; Webb & Palincsar 1996). While much
research on group work has tended to be rather curriculum specific, or extra-curricular,
our aim was to encourage the development of group work skills that are both
generic and also applicable to specific curriculum areas. Previous research would
suggest that if effective learning is to take place the relationship between the task
and the quality of group interaction is important (Bossert et al. 1985). It is impor-
tant that learning tasks are set up in a way that is conducive to working together and
not independent work.

3.2.3 Involvement of Teachers in the Support of Group Work

A major part of the program was devoted to the development of classroom and inter-
active strategies to assist teachers to promote and support high quality group processes.
We suggest several ways of conceiving how teachers can make group work productive.
One way is by lowering the risk for pupils (Doyle 1986) while ensuring the challenge
remains high through scaffolding of the task, and arranging the group context and
interactions. When it comes to supporting group work, scaffolding has not been fully
researched but will involve adapting and structuring the group work context and the
task (see Palincsar & Herrenkohl 1999; Tolmie et al. 2005). The teacher will need to
structure lessons carefully to facilitate learning in groups and encourage reflection on
group processes. It is important for the teacher to replace some direct teaching with
time for monitoring pupil behaviour and interaction in groups.

3.3 Implementation and Evaluation of the SPRinG Program

The SPRinG program was based on the three key principles described above and
involved a set of lesson plans to help teachers develop pupils’ social, communication,
advanced group work skills, and integrate group work into the curriculum. The
development phase was followed by an evaluation phase that extended over a further
school year, a far longer time frame than many studies. Involvement required
attendance at regular half-day meetings over the course of the year and a willingness
and commitment to implement the SPRinG program. Meetings involved presenting
the SPRinG ideas and practices, discussions of these ideas and sharing of further
practices and other aspects related to the evaluation of the program. Teachers

64 E. Baines et al.

were given a handbook that was designed in the previous year on the basis of a
collaboration between the research team and a different group of teachers. The
Handbook was based on research evidence as far as possible but also teachers’
experiences during the development phase. Teachers were also visited through the
year; during these visits observations could be made and teachers could discuss
their group working practices.

3.4 Results from the Evaluation of SPRinG

In this section we give a brief overview of results from the extensive evaluation of
SPRinG. More complete results can be found in Baines et al. (in press), Blatchford et
al. (2006), Blatchford et al. (2005), and Kutnick et al. (in press). The main research
questions asked whether the group-work program led to increases in learning/attainment,
behavioural and dialogue patterns supportive of learning, and favourable motivational
patterns and attitudes to learning. The exact designs, as well as samples and measures,
varied between the two sites, but at each there was an experimental group involved in
the SPRinG program, extending over one year, and a control group of teachers and
classes equally committed but who pursued their normal classroom activities and did
not work on the principles and activities in the SPRinG program. No attempt was
made to alter the style of teaching in the control group. Some teachers may have used
group work as part of their normal approach to teaching but they predominantly used
whole class teaching and individual work. To address the research questions, pupils
in experimental and control classes were assessed on three outcome measures: attain-
ment/learning, classroom behaviour and motivation/attitudes. At KS1 (4–7 years)
there were 19 classes and 474 pupils in the experimental group and 18 classes and
506 pupils in the control group. At KS2 (7–11 years) there were 32 classes and 849
pupils in the experimental group and 40 classes and 1,027 pupils in the control group.
In SPRinG classes, teachers were asked to do a minimum of three group work activities
per week. These were initially separate from the curriculum but gradually integrated
into normal curricular teaching.

3.5 Attainment Differences

3.5.1 Macro Attainment at the Beginning
and End of the School Year

Attainment test scores were collected for KS1 using measures developed by the
Performance Indicators in Primary Schools project of the Curriculum Evaluation
and Management Centre at the University of Durham. They were conducted at the
beginning and the end of the school year and covered curriculum-related areas of
reading/literacy and mathematics.


Macro attainment measures in science were collected at the beginning and end
of the school year at KS2. Science tests did not exist for Years 3–5 and so three
specially designed tests were constructed. These were based on items drawn from
government devised national tests. All items related to the themes of physical proc-
esses and materials and their properties. The tests were designed to cover all types
of knowledge and required interpretation of diagrams, tables and graphs.
Statistical analysis for both KS1 and KS2 was undertaken using multilevel modelling
that standardised attainment outcome scores by year in school and modelled effects
of experimental versus control main effects, controlling for pre-test scores. A number
of other variables were also factored into the model (e.g., pupil gender, initial attain-
ment level, and year group) to examine main independent effects on outcomes and
possible interactions with condition (experimental vs. control), for example, to see if
the effect of SPRinG varied by gender or initial attainment level.
Results showed significant differences in favour of the SPRinG classes (see Table
3.1). As regression coefficients are standardised they can be interpreted as effect
sizes in standard deviation units. It can be seen that at KS1 in reading/literacy children
in the experimental condition improved more than those in the control group (effect
size = 0.23). In mathematics, children in the experimental classes improved more
than control children, with a large effect size (0.71), though this related only to the
Year 2 children. No significant interactions were found between SPRinG versus

Table 3.1 The effect of SPRinG vs. Control and other explanatory variables
on attainment results at KS1 and KS2
Outcome variable Coefficient (SE) p-value
Key stage 1
Reading/literacy
Group (SPRinG vs. control) 0.23 (0.10) < 0.05
Sex (males vs. females) −0.10 (0.05) < 0.05
Mathematics
Year 1 group (SPRinG vs. control) 0.0 (0.13) 0.99
Year 2 group (SPRinG vs. control) 0.71 (0.13) < 0.001
Key stage 2
Macro science test
Group (SPRinG vs. control) 0.208 (0.083) 0.01
Evaporation items on science macro test
% pupils eligible for FSM −0.111 (0.022) < 0.001
Forces items on science macro test
% pupils eligible for FSM −0.074 (0.021) < 0.001
Evaporation micro test
% pupils with EAL −0.076 (0.025) 0.002
Macro science test with evaporation
and forces items omitted
Only one control school was able to take on the forces unit, and so results
were not analysed

66 E. Baines et al.

control and other factors (e.g., sex and initial attainment of children) indicating that
SPRinG benefited all pupils in these classes. Table 3.1 also shows that at KS2
SPRinG pupils showed modest progress over the school year than the control group
on the overall macro science test, and the two macro sub-tests covering the areas of
evaporation/condensation and forces (effect sizes of 0.21, 0.43 and 0.29 respec-
tively). No interaction effects were found, again indicating that all groups of children
in the SPRinG classes benefited (see Baines et al., in press).

3.5.2 Micro Science Attainment: Evaporation and Forces

For the purposes of the evaluation at KS2, activities and teachers’ notes and micro
tests were also specially constructed for the science topics of evaporation/condensa-
tion and forces. The two sets of group work activities extended over at least two and
a half hour long lessons and were completed in the Spring and Summer terms respec-
tively. These micro assessments more closely connected learning and attainment to
particular instances of the use of group work for learning a particular topic. If we
found effects of SPRinG on attainment at both micro and macro levels there would
be a strong case for concluding that these effects were due to the group work interven-
tion. Micro tests were based on Government curriculum guidance and consistent with
expected coverage of these topics, but gave a central place to group work activities.
The activities covered higher order problem solving skills (e.g., that involved thinking
about and discussing particular scientific concepts, planning controlled science
experiments). For both SPRinG and control samples, pretests were built into the start
of the lessons and we asked for posttests to be conducted two weeks after the activi-
ties were completed. Teachers in control classes covered similar science topics to
those in the SPRinG group, including evaporation and forces (because they follow
Government schemes of work), but the main difference was that the same topics were
taught in a different way to that used in SPRinG classrooms, and the control pupils
had not experienced group work skills training. Group work may have been used but
probably not as extensively as in the SPRinG sample.
Results for evaporation micro tests are again shown in Table 3.1. Pupils in the
SPRinG group had scores that were over 0.58 standard deviations greater than
pupils in the control group (see Baines et al., in press).

3.6 Observation Measures

3.6.1 On the Spot Observations

Systematic on-the-spot (OTS) observations of pupil behaviour and interactions
were undertaken in each experimental and control class at the beginning and end of
the school year. The OTS method recorded behaviour during normal classroom


activities, so tested whether involvement in group-work transferred to usual
classroom activities. Researchers focussed on six target children (balanced for sex
and ability) selected randomly from each class. The schedule was similar to that
used in Blatchford et al. (2005) and involved a 10-s time sampling technique with
categories describing time spent in different work settings, school subject, and a
description of how children behaved when in three social modes: with their teachers,
with other children, and when not interacting. Each of these three modes contained
mutually exclusive categories that covered engagement in work, procedural, social
and off-task activity.
Multi-level logistic regression analyses at KS1 and KS2 showed clear differences
between the SPRinG and control pupils on the key observation measures and their
behaviour changed in predicted ways over the school year (for further details see
Blatchford et al. 2006; Kutnick et al., in press):
1. SPRinG classes dramatically increased the amount of group work and this was
at the expense of individual work. Control classes maintained individual and
whole class settings.
2. In SPRinG classes pupils engaged in more task-related interactions with each
other. Conversely, control pupils spent more time in off-task interactions.
3. SPRinG pupils’ interactions were far more likely to be high (cognitive) level and
this increased over the year.
4. SPRinG pupils engaged in more sustained interactions (and increasingly over
the year) and made more substantial contributions, while control children’s
interactions were more commonly coded as intermittent.
5. SPRinG teachers were more likely to monitor interactions and less likely to
directly teach pupils. The SPRinG program affected the behaviour of all ability
levels and year groups equally.

3.6.2 Video Observation Analysis

At KS1, analysis of videotapes of micro testing focused on pairs of children design-
ing concept maps (23 pairs: 11 experimental, 12 control) and were analysed with
Fogel’s (1993) relational coding system for interpersonal activity that noted time
on/off-task, whether speech was reciprocated (co-regulated) or controlled by one
individual, and whether partners did/did not work with each other (disengaged).
Paired work was undertaken as a classroom activity and one randomly selected pair
of children in each class was recorded on this activity during the spring and on a
similar activity in the summer term. Over these two terms SPRinG pupils engaged
in significantly more on-task conversation and more co-regulated speech than con-
trol pupils who showed more disengaged behaviour than SPRinG pupils.
At KS2, detailed analysis of pupil talk and involvement in group-work was
conducted on videotapes of researcher-designed group-work activities. These were
filmed in the summer term and involved groups of usually four pupils working on

68 E. Baines et al.

the group-work activity within their usual classroom context. The video analysis
tested whether SPRinG and control pupils differed in predicted ways when involved
in the same selected group-work task. It allowed a more fine-grained description of
classroom talk and group-working. The tasks were specially designed non-curricular
tasks. One concerned ‘Who should get the pay rise?’ and the other ‘Who should be
the class representative.’ The activity involved a short piece of background, a
description of several people who were possible contenders, and the task was to
discuss and agree on who should be chosen and why. The activity took about 20 min.
A total of 31 SPRinG and 29 control groups were filmed. Observation categories
related to groups and covered: (a) the degree to which all participated within the
group and are engaged on-task, (b) socio-emotional (group maintenance vs. blocking),
(c) sustained topic focus versus changeable topic focus, and (d) pupil-pupil interaction/
dialogue in terms of collaborative discussion (inferential talk vs. text based talk),
meta-group talk, sharing information, disputational talk, procedural, reading out
task, off-task. The videotaped interaction was coded every 20 s. Results showed
significant effects in favour of SPRinG groups. In SPRinG groups there was more
involvement of all group members, more instances of a sustained topic focus, more
higher order inferential talk, while in control classes there was more off-task talk,
more group blocking, more changeability in topic focus, and more procedural
talk than in the control condition (see Blatchford et al. 2006).

3.6.3 Attitudes and Motivation

Measures were derived from pupil self-completed questionnaires. The question-
naires formed scales including: Attitudes to Group working (liking group work,
effective group working, cooperative learning); Personality (confident/assertive
v. timid/passive); and Peer relations (truculent, activator). Results were less clear cut
than those on attainment and behaviour although at KS1, pupils showed developing
preferences for paired and small group work over individual work, and at KS2
involvement in SPRinG arrested deteriorating attitudes to science and to working
well as a group that were evident in the control group. There was also a significant
gain in mastery motivation for the SPRinG sample only.

3.7 Conclusion

In this paper we started by arguing that although research shows that group work
can be a productive part of classroom activity, naturalistic observational studies of
classrooms show little group work taking place and few opportunities for the
development of relational/group working skills. Group work is, therefore, not
legitimised in classrooms and pupils are left dependent on the teacher for cognitive
information, and procedural and behavioural support. In parallel work (Blatchford


et al. 2004) we have found that teachers in English schools have a strong belief in
the value of addressing the individual needs of pupils. This lack of group working
and the individual focus combine with perceived pressures arising from the
curriculum and the classroom context (especially when they have large numbers of
children in their class) and result in traditional, didactic views of pedagogy.
Teachers feel forced to lead activities and engage in more whole class teaching
sessions than they might like. In consequence pupils can become passive in their
learning, spending much time listening to the teacher. Although some teachers are
aware that all is not well, it is difficult for them to develop alternative pedagogic
approaches, like group work, especially when this could mean introducing practices
in opposition to the rest of the school. Moreover, in the UK at least, group work
does not figure significantly in current educational policy and advice or, at most,
has a very minor role. When group work is mentioned, it is in effect a teacher
or adult led context, little different pedagogically from whole class teaching, or
individual work when seated in groups.
Results from the large scale evaluation of the SPRinG program show that group
work does not, as some teachers feared, get in the way of progress in mainstream
curriculum areas or exacerbate conflict between pupils. Indeed, group work has a
significant effect in terms of pupils’ measured progress. The effect sizes associated
with the difference between the SPRinG and control groups are equivalent to an
average pupil moving up into the top third of the class. The SPRinG programme
also has positive effects on interactive and behavioral processes. It was instrumental
in affecting three key aspects of group-work: more active, sustained engagement in
group activities; more connectedness within the group; and more higher order,
inferential forms of reasoning.
We suggest, therefore, that teachers and schools could help themselves by
making more use of group work as a way of facilitating pupil involvement – it
offers learning possibilities for pupils not provided by either teacher led situations
or individual work, and is more in keeping with current learning and developmental
theories based on social construction (Blatchford et al. 2003). Readers of this
chapter need to remember that the development of an effective social pedagogy of
group working cannot be undertaken as a quick fix to current problems in the
classroom. With regard to our three principles: effective group working is based on
effective and supportive relationships between children, and between teachers with
pupils and will take time to develop. The classroom context must be changed to
support group working by co-ordinating furniture arrangements, group sizes and
composition, and learning tasks. Finally, teachers need to legitimise, support and
integrate group working practices into their classrooms and curriculum.
It seems to us that we need to rethink both informal and formal pedagogical
theories to allow group work a much more central role in educational policy and
school practice. This is not just the responsibility of teachers and will need to
involve school leaders and policy makers. The SPRinG study has provided a
number of useful insights into the ways in which teachers can integrate effective
group working into classrooms. Teachers must move away from sole reliance on an
individualised pedagogy, and they should consider the role of social pedagogy

70 E. Baines et al.

within their classes that can lead to an understanding that it is the social context
within their classroom that can promote or inhibit learning. To successfully
implement this social pedagogic approach, teachers need to plan for, and integrate,
a relational approach to support pupils’ group working. They need to create teaching
and learning strategies that make use of various group sizes and structures and
ensure that they legitimise the use of groups in their classrooms.

Acknowledgements This research was funded by the Economic and Social Research Council
(ESRC) of the UK under its Teaching and Learning Research Programme. Thanks are due to the
ESRC for their support, and to the teachers, head-teachers and pupils from the participating
schools for their assistance and commitment to the project.

References

Allport, G. (1954). The Nature of Prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison Welsley.
Baines, E., Blatchford, P., & Chowne, A. (in press). Improving the effectiveness of collaborative
group work in primary schools: effects on Science attainment. British Education Research
Journal.
Baines, E., Blatchford, P., & Kutnick, P. (2003). Changes in grouping practice over primary and
secondary school. International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 9–34.
Bennett, N., & Dunne, E. (1992). Managing Classroom Groups. Hemel Hempstead: Simon &
Schuster Education.
Bennett, N., Desforge, C., Cockburn, A., & Wilkinson, B. (1984). The quality of pupil learning
experiences. London: LEA.
Blatchford, P., Baines, E., Rubie-Davies, C., Bassett, P., & Chowne, A. (2006). The effect of a
new approach to group-work on pupil-pupil and teacher-pupil interactions. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 98, 750–765.
Blatchford, P., Bassett, P., & Brown, P. (2005). Teachers’ and pupils’ behaviour in large and small
classes: a systematic observation study of pupils aged 10/11 years. Journal of Educational
Blatchford, P., Galton, M., Kutnick, P., & Baines, E. (2005). Improving the Effectiveness of Pupils
Groups in Classrooms. ESRC/TLRP final report.
Blatchford, P., Kutnick, P., & Baines, E. (1999). The Nature and Use of Classroom Groups in
Primary Schools. Final report to ESRC, held at British Library.
Blatchford, P., Kutnick, P., Baines, E., & Galton, M. (2003). Toward a social pedagogy of class-
room group work. International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 153–72.
Blatchford, P., Russell, A., Bassett, P., Brown, P., & Martin, C. (2004). The Effects and Role of
Teaching Assistants in English Primary Schools (Years 4 to 6) 2000–2003. Results from the
Class Size and Pupil-Adult Ratios (CSPAR) Project. Final Report. (Research Report 605 ISBN
1 84478 373 1) DfES (http://www.dfes.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/RR605.pdf).
Bossert, S., Barnett, B., & Filby, N. (1985). Grouping and instructional organisation. In
P. Peterson, L. Wilkinson & M. Hallinan (Eds.), The Social Context of Instruction (pp. 39–51).
Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Cohen, E. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: conditions for productive small groups. Review of
Educational Research, 64, 1–35.
Cohen, E.G., & Intilli, J.K. (1981). Interdependence and Management in Bilingual Classrooms.
Final Report No. NIE-G-80-0217. Stanford University, School of Education.
Cowie, H. (1994). Co-operative group work: a perspective from the U.K. International Journal
of Educational Research (special issue on co-operative learning in social contexts).


Cowie, H., & Rudduck, J. (1988). Learning together – Working together. In Vol. 1: Cooperative
Group Work – An Overview and Vol. 2: School and Classroom Studies. London: BP
Educational Service.
Damon, W., & Phelps, E. (1989). Critical distinctions among three approaches to peer education.
Deutsch, M. (1949). A theory of cooperation and competition. Human Relations, 2, 129–52.
Doyle, W. (1986). Classroom organization and management. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.) Handbook
of Research on Teaching, 3rd edn (pp. 392–431). New York: Macmillan.
Dreeben, R. (1984). First-grade reading groups: their formation and change. In P. Peterson,
L. Wilkinson & M. Hallinan (Eds.) The Social Context of Instruction (pp. 69–84). Orlando, FL:
Academic Press.
Edwards, A. (1994). The curricular applications of classroom groups. In P. Kutnick & C. Rogers
(Eds.), Groups in Schools (pp. 177–194). London: Cassell.
Fogel, A. (1993). Developing through relationships; Origins of Communication, Self, and Culture.
Harlow: Prentice-Hall.
Galton, M. (1990). Grouping and groupwork. In C. Rogers & P. Kutnick (Eds.) The Social
Psychology of the Primary School (pp. 11–30). London: Routledge.
Galton, M.J., Hargreaves, L., Comber, C., Wall, D., & Pell, A. (1999). Inside the Primary
Classroom: 20 Years On. London: Routledge.
Galton, M.J., Simon, B., & Croll, P. (1980). Inside the Primary Classroom. London: Routledge
& Kegan Paul.
Gillies, R. (2003). Structuring cooperative group work in classrooms. International Journal of
Gillies, R., & Ashman, A. (2003). A historical review of the use of groups to promote socialization
and learning. In R. Gillies & A. Ashman (Eds.), Co-Operative Learning (pp. 1–18). London:
Routledge Falmer.
Hall, E. (1994). The social relational approach. In P. Kutnick & C. Rogers (Eds.), Groups in
Schools (pp. 129–142). London: Cassell.
Harwood, D. (1995). The pedagogy of the world studies 8–13 project: the influence of the presence/
absence of the teacher upon primary children’s collaborative group work. British Educational
Hastings, N., & Chantry, K. (2002). Reorganising Primary Classroom Learning. Buckingham:
Open University Press.
Ireson, J., & Hallam, S. (2001). Ability Grouping in Education. London: Sage.
Jackson, A., & Kutnick, P. (1996). Group work and computers: the effects of type of task on
children’s performance. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 12, 162–71.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R.T. (1994). Collaborative learning and argumentation. In P. Kutnick
& C. Rogers (Eds.), Groups in Schools. London: Cassell.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, F. (2003). Joining Together: Group Theory and Research. Boston,
MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Kutnick, P. (1994). Use and effectiveness of groups in classrooms. In P. Kutnick & C. Rogers
(Eds.), Groups in Schools (pp. 13–33). London: Cassell.
Kutnick, P., Blatchford, P., & Baines, E. (2002). Pupil groupings in primary school classrooms:
sites for learning and social pedagogy. British Educational Research Journal, 28 (2), 189–208.
Kutnick, P., Blatchford, P., & Baines, E. (2005). Grouping of Pupils in Secondary School Classrooms:
possible links between pedagogy and learning. Social Psychology of Education, 8, 1–26.
Kutnick, P., & Kington, A. (2005). Children’s friendships and learning in school; cognitive
enhancement through social interaction? British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 1–19.
Kutnick, P., & Manson, I. (1998). Social life in the classroom: towards a relational concept of
social skills for use in the classroom. In A. Campbell & S. Muncer (Eds.), The Social Child
(pp. 165–188). Hove: The Psychology Press.
Kutnick, P., Ota, C., & Berdondini (in press). Improving the effects of groupworking in class-
rooms with young school-aged children; facilitating attainment, interaction and classroom
activity. Learning and Instruction.

72 E. Baines et al.

Kutnick, P., Sebba, J., Blatchford, P., Galton, M., & Thorp, J., with Ota, C., Berdonini, L., &
MacIntyre, H. (2005). An Extended Review of Pupil Grouping in Schools. London: DfES.
Kutnick, P., & Thomas, M. (1990). Dyadic pairings for the enhancement of cognitive development
in the school curriculum; some preliminary results on science tasks. British Educational
Lewis, J. & Cowie, H. (1993). Cooperative group work: Promises and limitations a study of teachers’
values. Education Section Review, 17, 77–84.
Lippitt, R. & White, R.R. (1943). The social climate of children’s groups. In R.G. Barker, J.S.
Kounin & H.F. Wright (Eds.), Child Behaviour and Development. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Littleton, K., Meill, D., & Faulkner, D. (2004). Learning to Collaborate/Collaborating to Learn.
New York: Nova Scene.
Littleton, K., Mercer, N., Dawes, L., Wegerif, R., Rowe, D., & Sams, C. (2005). Talking and thinking
together at Key Stage 1. Early Years, 25, 167–182.
Lou, Y., Abrami, P.C., Spence, J.C., Poulsen, C., Chambers, B., & d’Apollonia, S. (1996). Within-class
grouping: a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66, 423–458.
Mercer, N. (2000). Words and Minds: How We Use Language to Think Together. London:
Routledge.
Norman, D. A. (1978). Notes towards a complex theory of learning. In A. M. Lesgold (Ed.),
Cognitive Psychology and Instruction. (pp. 39–48). New York: Plenum.
O’Donnell, A. M., & King, A. (Eds.) (1999). Cognitive Perspectives on Peer Learning. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ogilvy, C.M. (1994). Social skills training with children and adolescents: A review of the evidence
on effectiveness. Educational Psychology, 14, 73–83.
Palincsar, A., & Herrenkohl, L. (1999). Designing collaborative contexts: lessons from three
research programs. In A. M. O’Donnell & A. King (Eds.), Cognitive Perspectives on Peer
Learning (pp. 151–177). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Pepitone, E. (1980). Children in Co-Operation and Competition. Lexington, MA: Lexington
Books.
Perret-Clermont, A.-N. (1980). Social Interaction and Cognitive Development in Children.
London: Academic Press.
Plowden Report (1967). Children and Their Primary School. London: HMSO.
Plummer, G., & Dudley P. (1993). Assessing Children Learning Collaboratively. Chelmsford:
Essex Development Advisory Service.
Slavin, R. (1995). Cooperative Learning (2nd edn). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Slavin, R., Hurley, E. A., & Chamberlain, A. (2003). Cooperative learning and achievement: theory
and research. In W.M. Reynolds & G.E. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of Psychology: Educational
Psychology (Vol.7, pp.177–198) New York: Wiley.
Tolmie, A., Thomson, J., Foot, H., Whelan, K., Morrison, S., & McLaren, B. (2005). The effects
of adult guidance and peer discussion on the development of children’s representations:
Evidence from the training of pedestrian skills. British Journal of Psychology, 96, 181–204.
Webb, N., & Farivar, S. (1994). Promoting helping behavior in cooperative small groups in middle
school mathematics. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 369–395.
Webb, N. & Mastergeorge, A. (2003). Promoting effective helping behaviour in peer directed
groups. International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 73–97.
Webb, N. M., & Palincsar, A. S. (1996). Group processes in the classroom. In D. C. Berliner &
R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 841–873). New York:
Macmillan.

Chapter 4
Structuring Peer Interaction to Promote
Higher-Order Thinking and Complex
Learning in Cooperating Groups

Alison King

4.1 Group Interaction and Learning ........................................................................................ 74
4.2 Effective Cognitive Activities for Complex Learning in Groups ..................................... 75
4.3 Guided Reciprocal Peer Questioning ................................................................................ 78
4.3.1 The Strategy .......................................................................................................... 79
4.3.2 Teaching Guided Reciprocal Peer Questioning .................................................... 81
4.4 Effectiveness of Guided Reciprocal Peer Questioning ..................................................... 85
4.4.1 Role of the Question Starters ................................................................................ 85
4.4.2 The Role of Metacognition ................................................................................... 87
4.4.3 The Role of Learner Control................................................................................. 88
4.5 Guided Reciprocal Peer Questioning and Self-Regulated Learning................................. 89
References .................................................................................................................................. 90

Abstract A major challenge for teachers who implement cooperative learning
tasks that have cognitively advanced goals is how to promote the kind of group
interaction required to achieve those goals. Such complex learning requires learners
to go beyond mere review of information or retrieval of previously-acquired knowledge
to engage in thinking analytically about that knowledge, relating it to what they
already know, and using that knowledge to construct new knowledge, solve new
problems, and address new issues. This chapter presents Guided Reciprocal Peer
Questioning, a strategy that structures the interaction within a cooperating group
to stimulate the cognitive and metacognitive processing appropriate to complex
learning tasks. Guided Reciprocal Peer Questioning has been found to be effective
in promoting complex learning in a number of classroom contexts for groups of
learners ranging from fourth graders to graduate students in a variety of subject
areas. The teacher’s role in implementing this strategy is described along with the
theoretical and research bases for the strategy’s effectiveness.

Many classroom cooperative learning tasks involve learners working together to
complete a particular assignment or solve a specific, clear-cut problem; while other
tasks entail learners reviewing and retelling material already read or covered in class
with the twin goals of achieving a basic understanding of concepts and procedures,

74 A. King

and then committing that material to memory. In contrast, still other cooperative
learning tasks have more cognitively advanced goals that call for learners to achieve
a deeper comprehension of material, construct new knowledge, solve problems that
have more than one possible answer, create something original, or make sophisti-
cated decisions. These learning tasks require different interactions among learners.
The former tasks, being primarily based on memorization and reproduction of
information, call for interaction focused largely on exchanging factual material,
while the latter tasks require interaction that induces higher-order thinking and
results in complex learning.
Guided Reciprocal Peer Questioning is a cooperative learning strategy that
has been developed for structuring the kinds of group interaction that promote
higher-order thinking and complex learning (e.g., King 1989, 1990, 1994, 2006;
King et al. 1998). The effectiveness of the strategy has been demonstrated in a
number of controlled research studies conducted in classroom settings.
The remainder of this chapter consists of several sections, the first of which
presents a brief analysis of how interaction and activity in groups affects learning
with emphasis on five cognitive activities that promote complex learning. The next
section describes the Guided Reciprocal Peer Questioning strategy and delineates
the teacher’s role in implementing the strategy. The following section explains why
and how the strategy is effective, including the cognitive and metacognitive
processes induced in learners while using the strategy, and incorporates findings
from a set of research studies. The concluding section briefly discusses how
this cooperative group strategy can promote self-regulated learning by individual
learners when working on their own.

4.1 Group Interaction and Learning

Learning is generally defined as cognitive change, that is, some addition to a learner’s
knowledge structures or reorganization and reconstruction of that learner’s exist-
ing knowledge. This change occurs as connections are made between new material
and prior knowledge and then integrated into the learner’s existing knowledge
base. The more complex the learning, the more complex those cognitive changes are.
According to socio-cognitive learning theory (e.g., Mugny & Doise 1978, Vygotsky
1978), cognitive change is strongly influenced by interaction and activity with others.
Several lines of research have demonstrated that different interactions promote dif-
ferent kinds of learning (e.g., Chan et al. 1992; King 1994; Webb & Palincsar 1996)
and are, therefore, conducive to different cooperative learning tasks. For example, fac-
tual questioning and responding are highly effective for knowledge retelling tasks that
call for interaction that consists merely of requesting and providing information
because fact questions tend to elicit facts. However, such fact-based interaction is
ineffective for complex learning tasks, which involve analyzing and integrating ideas,
constructing new knowledge, and solving novel problems, because fact questions
seldom elicit responses that are sufficiently thoughtful (Cohen 1994; King 1994).

4 Structuring Peer Interaction to Promote Thinking and Learning 75

It is rare for collaborating learners to engage spontaneously in effective interaction
or match their type of interaction to the task at hand without some form of explicit
prompting or other guidance by their teachers (Bell 2004; Britton et al. 1990; Cohen
1994; King 1994; King & Rosenshine 1993; Kuhn 1991). In fact, research has shown
that, even when given instructions to work collaboratively on a task, learners gener-
ally tend to interact with each other at a concrete level in a specific step-by-step man-
ner rather than at an abstract, planful level unless the teacher intercedes with explicit
guidance in how to interact (Vedder 1985; Webb et al. 1986). Learners also do not
consistently activate and use their relevant prior knowledge without specific prompt-
ing (see Pressley et al. 1987). For this reason, classroom teachers and researchers
have developed various ways to structure and regulate the interaction within collabo-
rating groups so that learners are required to interact in ways that induce the cognitive
processes appropriate to the learning task. Depending on the task at hand, those struc-
tures require learners to assume designated roles, follow a prescribed sequence of
activities, or sometimes even engage in a particular pattern of dialogue (e.g.,
Dansereau 1988; King 1997; Palincsar & Brown 1984).
For simple review and work-completion cooperative tasks, teachers often structure
group interaction by assigning teacher-learner roles such as teller and listener or
summarizer and checker, setting out certain steps to be followed, or distributing
work roles such as recorder, clarifier, group facilitator, or consensus checker.
However, for complex learning tasks learners need to engage more deeply with new
material, that is, they need to think about the knowledge they have already acquired
and actively make connections between that new material and their relevant prior
knowledge. This calls for interaction that induces in learners sophisticated cognitive
processes such as inferencing, speculating, comparing and contrasting, justifying,
explaining, questioning, hypothesizing, evaluating, integrating ideas, logical
reasoning, and evidence-based argumentation. According to Graesser’s construc-
tionist theory of comprehension (Graesser et al. 1994), this kind of cognitive
processing is essential to constructing understanding and according to Kintsch’s
(1988) construction-integration theory, such cognitive processing promotes building
coherent highly-integrated mental representations.

4.2 Effective Cognitive Activities for Complex
Learning in Groups

Effective group cognitive activities induce cognitive processes in group members,
which then results in complex learning. An important distinction is being made
here between cognitive activities and cognitive processes. Cognitive activities are
observable by others (and generally involve verbalizations) while cognitive processes
take place within the individual. When a learner is engaged in cognitive activity,
that cognitive activity induces cognitive processing in the learner.
Several group activities that have been found to induce higher-order cognitive
processes include: explaining concepts and processes (e.g., Chi et al. 1994); asking

76 A. King

thought-provoking questions (e.g., King 1994); elaborating on content (e.g., Webb
1989); argumentation (e.g., Kuhn 1991); and modeling of cognition (e.g., Dansereau
1988; King 1994, 2006). All of these activities can be orchestrated by structuring the
interaction within a cooperating group. Guided Reciprocal Peer Questioning struc-
tures group interaction so that these activities are engaged in as needed.
In interaction and activity individual learners continually use each other’s ideas,
reasoning, explanations, and argumentation to modify their own thinking and
restructure their own knowledge. Moreover, during interaction that involves acti-
vity such as explaining concepts, asking questions, elaborating on ideas, and
argumentation, learning is enhanced even more for the individual learner who is
generating the explanation, creating the question, formulating the elaboration, and
constructing the argument. This occurs because such extensive cognitive processing
involved causes that individual to reconceptualize the material and alter that indi-
vidual’s own knowledge structures. Each of the five cognitive activities listed above
induces specific cognitive processes in the learner.
Explaining. Explaining something to someone else is a cognitive activity – a
high-level one because it requires going beyond simply describing something or
summarizing a previously memorized explanation: an explanation focuses on why
and how. High-level explaining to others induces a number of cognitive processes
in the explainers:
● accessing their existing knowledge about the topic;
● clarifying their understanding of the phenomenon;
● thinking about and presenting the material in new ways (such as relating it to
the other’s prior knowledge or experience, translating it into terms familiar to the
other);
● generating new examples;
● evaluating their existing knowledge for accuracy and gaps;
● thinking analytically about the material to make connections between the
phenomenon being explained and the other’s prior knowledge; and
● integrating and reorganizing knowledge (Bargh & Schul 1980; Brown &
Campione 1986).
Again, one of the reasons that explaining is such a powerful learning activity
is that the explainer is the one engaged in doing all of that cognitive processing
involved in explaining (see also Webb, this volume). Of course, receiving
explanations helps others in the group to fill in gaps in understanding, clarify and
reorganize existing knowledge, and in general reconceptualize material
explained.
Asking thought-provoking questions. Although factual questions and comprehen-
sion questions play an important role in learning as their responses can demonstrate
whether certain information has been acquired and the extent of understanding
achieved, neither of these types of question require much cognitive effort either to
formulate or to answer. Both merely call for the restatement of knowledge already
acquired, either verbatim retelling of it or a reconstructed version paraphrased
to show understanding. In contrast, thought-provoking questions are more likely to


induce high-level cognitive processing in both the questioner and responder. Thought-
provoking questions go beyond asking for reproduction of the presented material or
reconstruction of it. That is, the answer to the question must not have been given in
the materials provided. Rather, those materials provide the information needed to
think about the stated issue, idea, process. Responding to a thought-provoking ques-
tion calls for higher-level cognitive processing. To answer such questions one must
make inferences, generate relationships among ideas, draw conclusions, develop
elaborated rationales or justifications, formulate hypotheses and seek evidence to
support or reject them, analyze ideas for their significance, determine their
implications, or evaluate strengths and weaknesses and possible outcomes.
Simply posing a thought-provoking question is an activity that triggers higher-
level cognitive processes in individuals (see King 1989, self-questioning). In generating
such questions the questioner must identify the main ideas and think about how
those ideas relate to each other and to their own prior knowledge and experience.
Generating questions (even without answers) requires cognitive processing that can
help the questioner to build an extensive cognitive representation of the material.
Such questioning can be a valuable learning activity in a collaborative learning
context and results of several research programs have confirmed that asking and
answering thought-provoking questions promotes complex learning (e.g., Graesser
1992; King 1989, 1994, 2006; Lepper et al. 1990).
Elaborating. Elaborating on an issue, topic, or idea is another activity that induces
cognitive processing such as adding details, giving examples, generating images, and
in general relating the new material to what is already known. When elaborations are
made by a learner, those elaborations are incorporated into learners’ existing knowl-
edge; and, as a consequence, their mental representations are reorganized and
increased in complexity, thus improving understanding and recall (e.g., Dansereau
1988). A number of researchers have demonstrated the effectiveness of elaboration
as a method for learning new material (e.g., O’Donnell & Dansereau 1992; Pressley
et al. 1987; Webb 1989). Both the elaborator and others in the group learn through
elaboration, but again, the one doing the elaborating tends to learn most.
Argumentation. During reasoned argument adequate and convincing evidence or
reasoning is given to support claims, statements and other assertions (Kuhn et al.
1997). Although a primary purpose of argument is to convince others of a belief or
claim, argumentation also functions to clarify thinking, explore an issue, and arrive
at a deeper understanding of that issue (Wright 1995). During collaboration when a
learner makes an assertion, such as arriving at a conclusion, a statement of cause and
effect, an hypothesis to account for some phenomenon, an explanation, a theory of
how things are, that assertion induces evidence-based thinking in others, that is, that
assertion elicits evidence or reasoning that supports it (Kuhn et al. 1997). Any col-
laborative activity provides a setting for learners to develop and practice argumenta-
tion skills because interaction within a group often reveals inconsistencies between
learners’ notions of a topic. Individual learners discover that their own understand-
ing of an aspect of the content, their opinions about an issue, their perceptions,
assumptions, values or even their basic factual information about the material may
not be shared by others in the group and may even differ to a great extent from

78 A. King

others. When such cognitive discrepancies arise learners have opportunities to
generate, compare and evaluate multiple conclusions, theories, counter theories,
counter arguments, and rebuttals along with any supporting evidence provided. In
fact, during this verbal interaction, learners are not just exchanging theories and
rebuttals; they are negotiating meaning and arriving at re-conceptualized and deeper
understanding about the topic or issue being argued. Engaging in such cognitive
processing induced by constructive argumentation can promote complex learning
(Kuhn et al. 1997). Furthermore, jointly constructed meanings can be internalized by
individuals as their own revised mental representations of the topic or issue.
However, even adults rarely engage in reasoned argumentation without specific
guidance and scaffolding. For example, most adults have been found to make asser-
tions that they are unable to support with evidence or logical reasoning even when
prompted (Kuhn 1991). Interaction during collaborative learning can be structured
to guide and support learners’ reasoned argumentation during complex learning
tasks (Kuhn 1991)
Modeling of cognition. Modeling of cognition is a general phenomenon of learn-
ing through interaction. Although not usually an intentional activity, modeling of
cognitive processes is a very powerful way of learning during interaction. In contrast
to behavioral modeling (observational learning) that occurs when we observe
other’s actions and then imitate them, cognitive modeling is modeling of various
cognitive processes. Unlike actions, cognitive processes are internal to the individual
and are only made observable to others through thinking aloud.
Making thinking explicit by thinking aloud in a collaborative group context
provides opportunities for group members to learn new ways of thinking, refine
their existing strategies, and develop other cognitive processes through modeling.
Individuals may notice ways in which others use language, strategies, skills, and
patterns of argument and imitate them. When individual learners observe and
imitate their peers’ use of cognitive processes, they modify and refine their own
processing by modeling their own reasoning, argumentation style, questioning and
problem-solving strategies on those of other group members. Of course, before any
of this cognition can be modeled during interaction, it first must occur, either
spontaneously or through some form of prompting.
Metacognition in cooperating groups. Metacognitive processes can play a major
role during collaborative learning. Monitoring and regulating learning during
collaboration induce corresponding metacognitive processes in individual learners,
and cooperating learners can mutually regulate their joint learning. Metacognitive
processing can also be modeled during interactions.

4.3 Guided Reciprocal Peer Questioning

Guided Reciprocal Peer Questioning is a strategy for structuring interaction in
groups. It has been found to promote learning that is based on, but goes beyond,
material read or presented in class (e.g., King 1989, 1994; King & Rosenshine


1993). Learners from elementary grades to university have used Guided Reciprocal
Peer Questioning successfully in a variety of subject areas. The Guided Reciprocal Peer
Questioning strategy is designed to engage learners in activities that induce
complex cognitive processing. The strategy functions by guiding learners’ discus-
sions of the material so that thinking and learning moves to progressively more
complex levels.

4.3.1 The Strategy

In Guided Reciprocal Peer Questioning learner questioning and responding is
guided so as to activate prior knowledge of the topic to be discussed first, then
consolidate understanding, and consequently elicit inferencing, explanation,
integration of ideas, and connections among ideas and information within the
presented material and between that material and relevant prior knowledge. Simply
put, group members learn how to:
● ask questions that elicit explanations and inferences;
● answer questions with relevant thoughtful responses (e.g., explanations
& inferences);
● build on each other’s responses; and
● assess and monitor each other’s understanding.
During cooperative learning sessions they use these skills by asking and answer-
ing questions in a reciprocal manner. The strategy is most often used as a way of
processing, integrating, and extending material presented by the teacher or covered
in assigned readings. (ASK to THINK-TEL WHY®©,1 King (in press) is a more
complex version of Guided Reciprocal Peer Questioning used for peer tutoring.)
After a teacher presentation on a topic and/or after reading material on the topic,
learners create questions related to the material covered. The teacher provides a set
of general question starters that the learners use as a model to guide them in writing
their own questions, which are specific to the material presented or read. Two kinds
of question starters are provided: comprehension ones (e.g., “What does _____
mean?” and “Summarize _____ in your own words.”) and thought-provoking ones
(such as “How is _____ similar to _____?” and “Explain why _____”). Figure 4.1
shows a list of sample guiding question starters. These general questions are
content free so they can be used with any subject matter. To create their own

1
Materials for training and/or use of “ASK to THINK –TEL WHY©® are copyrighted and are
available only with the author’s written permission. ”ASK to THINK –TEL WHY© ® is
a registered trademark and the learning procedure itself is copyrighted by Alison King, 1994a,
1997, 1998 and 1999. Neither the names ASK to THINK –TEL WHY©® or ASK to THINK nor
the particular learning procedure known by that name and described herein may be used for any
commercial, teaching, or training purpose or any other purpose whatsoever without prior written
permission from Alison King.

80 A. King

Comprehension Review Questions
What does … mean?
What caused …?
Describe … in your own words.
Summarize … in your own words
Thought-Provoking Questions
Explain why . . . .
(Explain how . . . .)
How would you use . . . to . . . ?
What is the significance of …?
What is the difference between . . . and . . . ?
How are . . . and . . . similar?
What is a new example of . . . ?
What do you think would happen if . . . ?
What conclusions can you draw about . . .?
Compare . . . and . . . with regard to . . ..
What do you think causes . . .? Why?
How might . . . affect . . . ?
What are the strengths and weaknesses of…?
Which … do you think is best and why?
How is …related to… that we studied earlier?
Do you agree or disagree with this statement: …?
What evidence is there to support your answer?

Fig. 4.1 Sample comprehension and thought-provoking question starters for use in Guided
Reciprocal Peer Questioning

content-specific questions, learners select several of these content-free question
starters and then complete the starters by filling in the blanks with relevant content
from the presentation or readings (e.g., “How is the human process of digestion
similar to the process of photosynthesis that we studied last month?” and “Explain
why the storm is relevant to the theme of this story?”) Then they engage in peer
questioning, taking turns to pose questions to their group and answering each
other’s questions in a reciprocal manner. In this way student discussion and
processing of the new material is heavily influenced by the nature of the questions
they themselves generate.
To guide their responding, learners are taught a procedure (“TEL WHY”, King
1994) for explaining, elaborating, and inferencing so that their answers to the
thought-provoking questions are more likely to be correspondingly thoughtful.
Figure 4.2 shows the acronym for the TEL WHY procedure along with reminders
for learners regarding what each letter refers to and how this component of the
strategy is used. TEL WHY is intended to emphasize the self-explanation aspect of
the strategy and prompt learners to tell how and why, using their own words to do
so, and connecting the idea being explained to something already known. The acro-
nym is also expected to keep learners’ attention focused on these characteristics of
effective explanations, elaboration, and inferences.


The TEL_WHY Procedure in Guided Reciprocal Peer Questioning
T Tell---what you know to your group
E Explain -- the why and the how about something -don’t just tell
what it is or describe it or summarize it
L Link -- connect what you are telling about to something your partner
already knows about so they’ll be sure to understand.
Connect two things or ideas or link together a procedure and an idea
W tell Why
H tell How
Y use Your own words

Fig. 4.2 TEL WHY Explanation Guide adapted from King (1994)

Learners also learn to sequence their questioning and responding from compre-
hension to thinking. This questioning sequence is intended to move discussion from
review and consolidation of already-learned material to higher-level thinking about
that material and this results in complex learning.

4.3.2 Teaching Guided Reciprocal Peer Questioning

This strategy has been implemented successfully by classroom teachers with
collaborative learning groups at university level, high school, middle school, and as
young as fourth grade. However, for successful use of the strategy teachers must
provide extensive training, modeling, guidance, and application practice in skills of
question asking, question sequencing, explaining, and inferencing. A useful way to
begin teaching this strategy is to inform students that making up their own ques-
tions and answering their own and each other’s questions will help them to learn.
Teaching questioning. First, the two kinds of questions should be introduced and
differentiated. For younger children it is generally useful to label the comprehension
questions “memory questions” or “review questions” and to refer to the thought-
provoking questions as “thinking questions” as these terms capture their essential
difference. Memory/review questions require learners only to remember and repeat
material memorized from the lesson or readings, while thinking questions require
learners to not only to remember information presented but also think about that
information in some way, such as linking two ideas from the presentation together
or connecting the lesson material to prior knowledge. In essence, a memory question
is one where the answer is clearly stated in the material read or presented.
A thought-provoking question is one whose answer is not explicitly stated in the
provided material but must be inferred (by “reading between the lines”) or generated
by the learner in some other way.
The teacher needs to make clear the difference between writing memory/review
questions and writing thinking. The teacher can use the question starters in Fig. 4.1

82 A. King

for examples and as a guide for practice in generating the two kinds of questions.
Memory/review questions check how well the material is understood, ask for defini-
tions and summaries in the learner’s own words, or ask for retelling about something
learned – but in the learner’s own words, not the teacher’s words, for example, “What
does circulatory system mean?” and “Describe in your own words how the circula-
tory system works.” Teachers need to provide time for learners to practice making up
a few of their own memory questions using the starters in Fig. 4.1. Questions can be
based on the content of a previous lesson or reading assignment. The teacher may
need to demonstrate how to do so using the question starters as a guide.
Generating thinking questions can be presented as linking two ideas from the les-
son together (e.g., “What is the difference between arteries and veins?” and “Explain
how what happens in the heart affects what happens in the arteries.”). Thought-
provoking questions require going beyond the material presented to think about that
material; that is (again), the “answer” to the question must not have been given in the
lesson or reading materials provided. Instead, those materials provide the information
needed to think about the stated concept, issue, entity, experience, procedure, or proc-
ess to generate relationships among ideas, make inferences, draw conclusions,
develop elaborated rationales or justifications, generate hypotheses and seek evidence
to support or reject them, analyze them for their significance, determine their implica-
tions, evaluate strengths and weaknesses and possible outcomes. Thought-provoking
questions induce thinking and can stimulate a sustained discussion; therefore, teach-
ers must emphasize that no thought provoking question can be answered by either
“Yes” or “No” or by something already stated in the materials read.
Teachers can distribute copies of the question starters shown in Fig. 4.1 (or a subset
of those) on index cards to be distributed so that each student has one, or display
them to the class on a chart or overhead projector. Using material from a recent
lesson, the teacher should model for students how to generate thinking questions
using the question starters as a guide. Examples and modeling should be provided
for each generic question starter. Then students can write their own questions using the
question starters, again, based on content already covered in class. Teachers must
provide sufficient coaching, practice and feedback and this takes time, but the
dividends are well-developed questioning skills. An example of teacher cognitive
modeling of generating thinking questions follows. After a presentation on migration,
teacher says:
“Let’s see, I guess I’ll start by listing some of the things covered in the lesson. Of course
one thing was migration – and that whales and birds and some butterflies migrate; and so
do some people. A question might be “What animals migrate?”, but that’s too easy. And
it’s just a memory question. We covered that in class. I want to make up thoughtful
questions – like “Explain why Monarch butterflies migrate.” That’s a good one because
I want to be sure that I really understand that (more fully than it was explained in the lesson)
first – before I go any further. Now I’ll look at the question starters again for ideas about
another question. What I still wonder about, and we didn’t already cover this, is what
happens to the land and the animals in the areas where the birds migrate to –they must have
some effect on it in terms of the ecology –for example, some effect on the insects and other
food that they eat. And also when they leave an area it must change the ecology of that area
too. So my next question will be “How does migration affect the ecology of the area left
and the area migrated to?”


Although some teachers may feel uncomfortable thinking aloud, it can be a very power-
ful way to reveal the internal process of making up thought-provoking questions.
It is effective to emphasize that some thinking questions link ideas from the
presentation with ideas outside of the presentation; that is, things already known
about (prior knowledge or experience). Examples of these kinds of thinking ques-
tions are “Explain how the circulatory system is similar to a tree.” “What do you
think would happen if our hearts were smaller?” “How is the circulatory system
related to the other systems of the body we’ve already studied?” Again, teachers
must provide modeling, coaching, and practice in how to generate those kinds of
questions.
Teaching the TEL WHY procedure. Although the TEL WHY procedure depicted
in Fig. 4.2 is self-explanatory, it can be effective to use an example to show learners
the difference between a response that is merely a description and one that shows
elaboration, explanation, and inference. Below is an example that shows the differ-
ence between a description of the circulatory system and an elaborated explanation
showing the why and how of the circulatory system. This example was used in a
study with fourth-graders using Guided Reciprocal Peer Questioning.
Comparing a description of the circulatory system and an elaborated explanation showing
the why and how of the circulatory system.
Description of the circulatory system
The circulatory system is made up of the heart, veins, arteries and blood. Some of the arteries
and veins are small and some are large. The heart pumps blood through the arteries and
veins
The Why and How of the Circulatory System
We need a circulatory system in our bodies to move the blood around to all parts of the
body because the blood carries oxygen, which is food for the cells of the body. All parts of
the body need the oxygen in order to grow and function. The circulatory system is just a
way of getting that oxygen moved around. The tubes the blood moves in are the arteries
and veins. The arteries and veins are all connected, like highways and roads, so they can
transport blood to any place in the body. Near the heart the arteries and veins are large
because they have a lot of blood to carry, and as they get closer to one part of the body or
to a cell they become much smaller (like freeways, highways, streets, roads, and dirt paths)
because they have less blood to carry. They can also be seen as being like branches of a
tree that get smaller as they get closer to the leaves because they don’t have so much to
carry to only one leaf. The heart is a pump and it pushes the blood so that it keeps moving
around in the network of arteries and veins. The heart pumps by squeezing in and then
releasing over and over and over (like making a fist and relaxing it).

It is helpful to point out to learners that good explanations make use of explaining links,
connections that are captured by such words such as “because,” “therefore,” “conse-
quently,” and “in order to” that tie phrases together and make it clear that a relationship
exists and what the nature of the relationship is (e.g., causal, comparative).
Teaching question sequencing. Teachers can generally best teach question
sequencing while learners are actually using the strategy. Essentially, questions are
sequenced from review questions to thinking questions so that students establish a
shared understanding of known material before asking each other to think about
that material. Below is an example of a short sequence of questions taken from a
transcript from a high school tutoring project.

84 A. King

Review Question How does increase in carbon dioxide affect the earth’s atmosphere?
Review Question What does “greenhouse effect” mean?
Thinking Question How are the terms “greenhouse effect” and “global warming” similar
and different?
Thinking Question What do you think would happen to the people in our community if
the temperature of the atmosphere increased a great deal?

If group members cannot answer a question or if an answer is incorrect, they
need to be taught to ask a related review question and then build up to ask the
incorrectly-answered question once more. If an answer is not complete, the others
in a group can ask probing questions.
Learners will need practice using their questioning and responding skills in a
group setting by discussing presented materials using the list of question starters
and TEL WHY as guides and prompts. Additional teacher modeling and scaffolding
may be needed.
Putting it all together. After training and practice in the questioning, respond-
ing and question sequencing, learners are ready to implement the Guided
Reciprocal Peer Questioning strategy. Following a teacher’s presentation or read-
ing assignment, students choose several appropriate questions to use as a guide to
create their own specific questions on the material presented. In this question-
generation step of the strategy, learners work independently. Memory/review
questions are not difficult to pose and can be created “on the fly” but thought-
provoking questions take time to generate, so learners need time to individually
write out two or three thoughtful questions on material from the presentation.
Then they work cooperatively in pairs or small groups to take turns asking and
answering each other’s questions in a reciprocal manner. Thus, group discussion
and processing of the new material is guided by the questions they themselves
generate. If learners follow the form of the general thought-provoking questions,
their specific questions will be thought-provoking; therefore, their discussion is
almost guaranteed to be thoughtful.
It is important that students not use the Guided Reciprocal Peer Questioning
strategy in a rote learning manner but in a meaningful way. For example, learners
need to be reminded not just to ask and answer their questions in a rigid turn-taking
manner, but by engaging in a full discussion. In this way, group members contribute
multiple responses to one question, each response building on the previous ones,
before going on to another question. In some cases within one 10-min discussion
session only one question gets discussed because the discussion that ensues from
that question is so extensive. An effective way to get learners to extend discussion
of a particular point is to teach them to ask probing or follow-up questions such as:
“Can you expand on that?” “I don’t understand. What do you mean by that?” “Can
you give an example of what you mean?” “Tell me more about that.” Another rote
use of the strategy occurs when learners simply use the first two question starters
on the list to generate questions rather than thoughtfully choosing question starters
that are most suited to their learning needs.


4.4 Effectiveness of Guided Reciprocal Peer Questioning

There are a number of distinct components and aspects of the Guided Reciprocal
Peer Questioning strategy: thought-provoking questioning, TEL WHY, peer mode-
ling of cognition, the metacognitive emphasis, structured sequence of questioning,
and learner choice. Results of controlled componential analysis studies on the
contributions of these various components and aspects of the strategy have revealed
that all aspects play a vital role but it is the combination that makes the strategy
most effective. However, the component that could be singled out as making the
greatest contribution is the question starters, and it is likely that the strategy’s
effectiveness can be attributed primarily to the format of those guiding questions.

4.4.1 Role of the Question Starters

The Guided Reciprocal Peer Questioning strategy uses thought-provoking question
starters to induce cognitive processes in learners. Furthermore, different kinds of
thought-provoking question starters are used to induce a variety of cognitive proc-
esses. Specifically, the format of those question starters guide and support learners
to generate specific kinds of questions that prompt them to think about and discuss
the material in specific ways such as comparing and contrasting, inferring cause
and effect, noting strengths and weaknesses, evaluating ideas, explaining, and justify-
ing. Figure 4.3 shows a variety of question starters and the cognitive processes they
are designed to induce.
The resulting variety of specific questions is expected to prompt different ways of
thinking about the material by inducing a variety of cognitive processes in the learner.
As a result, during discussion learners are expected to make those same kinds of con-
nections among ideas. Presumably, the mental representations they construct reflect
those same explicit links between and among the ideas in that material and between
the material and learners’ prior knowledge. Thus, asking and answering thinking
questions is expected to not only increase the number of connections learners make
in their knowledge structures, but also create a variety of connections (e.g., compara-
tive connections, evaluative connections, explanatory connections). Such additional
and varied links result in elaborately connected and richly integrated complex mental
representations that are both stable over time and contain numerous and varied cues
for retrieval and provide a solid base for additional complex learning (see Kintsch
1988, Construction-Integration model of comprehension).
Guided Reciprocal Peer Questioning has been used by fourth and fifth graders
to help them learn material presented in science lessons (King 1994; King &
Rosenshine 1993), by ninth graders to learn from teacher presentations in history
classes (King 1991), and by university students to learn from lectures in psychology,
anthropology, political science, and education (e.g., King 1989, 1990, 1992, 1993).
Guided Reciprocal Peer Questioning has been compared to other learning
approaches at various grade levels. For example, results of research involving

86 A. King

Different types of questions are used to induce a variety of cognitive processes
Thought-provoking Question Starters Cognitive Processes
induced
What are the implications of ________ for ________? inferencing
What do you think causes ____? inferencing
How are _______ and _______ similar? comparing, contrasting,
inferencing
What is the difference between ___and ___in terms of ___? contrasting, applying
criteria
Why (How) is _______ significant to _______ ? inferencing, analysis
What evidence is there to support the contention that ____? evaluation, evidence-
based reasoning
How could ______ be useful in addressing the issue of ____? analysis, generating
applications
Which _______ is the best: _______ or ______? And why? evaluation with rationale
Why is _______ relevant to the issue (problem) of _____? inferencing, evaluation
What is a new example of ____? generating examples
How might the discrepancy between __ and __be explained? comparing, contrasting,
inferencing
What might be a counter-argument for ______? reasoning logically
What is another way to look at _________? assuming different
perspectives
What disadvantage might there be to using ____ with ____? speculating, inferencing
Is it possible that _______? Why or why not? evaluation with rationale
What do you think would happen if _______? Explain. inferencing,
predicting, hypothesizing
What is _______ analogous to? analogical/metaphorical
analysis
Why is _______ happening? inferencing, analysis
What are possible solutions to the problem of _______? synthesis of ideas
Do you agree or disagree with this statement:____? analysis, evaluation
Support your answer. justifying

Fig. 4.3 Questions to induce cognitive processes

university students using Guided Reciprocal Peer Questioning to study lectures
showed better understanding of content than did learners who studied the material
independently (King 1989) or engaged in small-group unstructured discussion of
the material (King 1989), generated summaries of the material (King 1992), studied
in small groups using student-generated questioning and answering without the
guidance of the question starters (King 1990), or used guided questioning and
answering with provided (but similar) thought-provoking questions (King 1993).
Furthermore, analyses of the verbal interaction, tape-recorded during learners’


questioning and answering sessions, showed that the questions used by students in
the Guided Reciprocal Peer Questioning conditions elicited inferences, explana-
tions, and other high-level thinking from others in their groups (King 1990, 1992,
1994; King & Rosenshine 1993).
The value of question sequencing, the TEL WHY component, and peer modeling
of cognitive processes have been shown throughout this chapter, and their contribu-
tion to the strategy’s effectiveness will be only briefly mentioned in this section.
Sequencing question-asking by asking review questions before thinking questions
helps learners to gain access to prior knowledge and establish a shared knowledge
base. It makes it more likely that the thinking questions will lead to more complex
learning because that learning will have been built on a more solid base. The TEL
WHY procedure centers on developing elaborated useful explanations and inferences.
TEL WHY guides and supports learners in generating cognitively sophisticated
responses to thinking questions. This is a key to reorganizing existing knowledge
structures and building new knowledge. According to theories of generative learning
(Wittrock 1990), learners own elaborations are personally significant to them and,
therefore, are more memorable. It should be noted that peer modeling of cognitive
processes goes on throughout any cooperative learning experience. Learners are
observing each other’s externalized cognitive processing (through thinking aloud)
whether it is effective cognition or not. Simple verbatim repetition of material is as
much a candidate for imitation as complex strategizing, hypothesizing, and justifying.
When skilled peers demonstrate accurate use of questioning, explaining, and elabo-
rating during Guided Reciprocal Peer Questioning, they become ideal models for
others to observe and imitate.

4.4.2 The Role of Metacognition

Metacognition includes monitoring, regulating, and evaluating one’s own thinking
and learning (see Hacker 1998). Like cognitive processes, metacognitive processes
take place within the individual. The Guided Peer Questioning strategy has a meta-
cognitive component built into it. When learners deliberately select particular question
starters to guide them in generating questions, they are using the strategy in
a metacognitive way. They are intentionally guiding their own cognitive processing
based on their perceived learning needs. In addition to guiding cognitive processes
in this way, the Guided Reciprocal Peer Questioning strategy functions in a second
metacognitive component. The strategy can be used for monitoring comprehension.
Asking and answering review and thinking questions functions as a self-testing
experience, giving students the chance to monitor and evaluate their understanding
of the material covered. If a learner is unable to answer a review question correctly,
this indicates a gap in understanding or even a misunderstanding and the learner can
proceed to regulate learning by asking for additional information, clarification,
explanation and such. Such awareness of what one knows and what one does
not know must precede regulation of learning. Furthermore, by assessing each

88 A. King

other’s memory for material and their understanding of it, questioners are also
monitoring their own comprehension and can attempt to regulate their own learning
by repairing gaps in their own knowledge base. When learners are unable to pose
thought-provoking questions, they probably do not understand the ideas pres-
ented Once learners have made themselves aware of their learning deficits, they
can look forremedies, such as filling in their gaps in information, and correcting
misunderstandings. In this way monitoring learning improves the accuracy of the
students’ mental representations of the presented material.
Like cognition, metacognition can be modeled. Externalizing thinking by thinking
aloud during cooperative learning exemplifies metacognition in action. When
learners observe their peers monitoring their own thinking and problem solving in
this manner it is likely that they will imitate these models of metacognition.

4.4.3 The Role of Learner Control

The degree of learner autonomy that Guided Reciprocal Peer Questioning affords
has been found to play an important role in the strategy’s effectiveness (King 1993).
Individuals using Guided Reciprocal Peer Questioning have a great deal of control
over both the questions that are asked and the answers that are generated. Although
they are guided by the general question starters, learners are free to choose which
of those question starters to use and free to create whatever specific questions they
wish to on whatever aspect of the content they choose.
Both motivational and cognitive rationales have been advanced to account for
the value of learner control in learning contexts. From a motivational perspective,
putting learners in control of their own learning may improve their subsequent
achievement, in part because it enhances their intrinsic motivation and sense of
autonomy (e.g., Reigeluth & Stein 1983). From a cognitive perspective, it has
also been argued that learners who control their own learning are likely to select,
encode, and store information based on their own knowledge structures, rather
than externally-imposed conceptual organizers, and this makes the information
more personally relevant and therefore more memorable. In this context, learners
(rather than their teachers) are making the decisions about what they already
understand, what they do not yet understand, and what they need to study further.
Because the individual learner is the one who is experiencing the gaps in knowl-
edge, it could be argued that it is the learner who is the one best suited to decide
how to fill in those gaps. Teacher-provided questions may or may not match that
particular individual’s learning needs; whereas a learner’s self-generated ques-
tions presumably are highly relevant to that student’s own learning. Similarly,
when learners generate their own explanations and other elaborations during
learning (rather than having them provided by the teacher, another learner, or the
text book), those self-generated responses are consistent with the individual’s
knowledge base and personal experience. Therefore they are more likely to be
remembered by that particular learner.


In a study to determine the role of learner control in the Guided Reciprocal
Peer Questioning strategy, university students in small groups used the strategy
to guide discussions of material presented in lectures (King 1993). Students in a
learner-control condition used thought-provoking general question starters to
guide them in generating discussion questions specific to the lecture, whereas
those in an experimenter-control condition were provided with similar lecture-
specific questions generated by students in the same course during the previous
semester using identical question starters. On tests of lecture comprehension stu-
dents who generated their own questions outperformed students provided with
others’ questions.

4.5 Guided Reciprocal Peer Questioning
and Self-Regulated Learning

Guided Reciprocal Peer Questioning appears on the surface to be antithetical to
self-regulated learning. However, according to Vygotskian thinking, any verbal
prompts provided externally can be internalized as inner speech by a learner. Those
prompts can then be used by the learner at a later time to self-prompt actions and
cognitions in similar situations (Rogoff 1990; Vygotsky 1978).
According to Vygotsky (1978), an adult (or more capable peer) can teach skills
and strategies for thinking during interaction with a child by providing prompting
and assistance. This process is referred to as guiding cognitive performance or
intellectual scaffolding. Over time, as the child uses thinking, problem-solving and
decision-making strategies through prompting and assistance, the child will gradu-
ally require less and less prompting and assistance, and eventually be able to do
the thinking independently without any guidance from another person. As the
child gains ability to perform the task, (or solve the problem or analyze the infor-
mation) that child is internalizing the thinking involved. In an adult-child interac-
tion the dialogue becomes an inner monologue for the child. The child internalizes
the guiding words and questions of the adult so that the child eventually uses these
same words and questions to generate independent thinking during the task. The
child is then thought to be self-regulated in the use of that (now internalized)
thinking process and can perform the task or solve the problem or analyze the
information independently of the adult. In Vygotsky’s terms, the thinking process
has moved from being other-regulated (by the parent, caregiver, or teacher) to
being self-regulated (by the child).
In Guided Reciprocal Peer Questioning, aspects of the actual dialogue used
during the interaction between learners (the actual questions asked and answers
generated as well as ways of strategizing and reasoning) can become internalized
by learners. For example, internalizing the actual dialogue as inner speech allows
learners to engage in self-talk (e.g., posing the questions to themselves, generating
self-explanations) to prompt cognitive and metacognitive processing in similar
situations later.

90 A. King

References

Bargh, J. A., & Shul, Y. (1980). On the cognitive benefits of teaching. Journal of Educational
Bell, P. (2004). Promoting students’ argument construction and collaborative debate in the
classroom. In M. C. Linn, E. A. Davis, and P. Bell (Eds.), Internet environments for science
education (pp. 114–144). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Biancarosa, G., & Snow, C. E. (2004). Reading next – A vision for action and research in middle
and high school literacy: A report from the Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington,
DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
Britton, B. K., Van Dusen, L., Glynn, S. M., & Hemphill, D. (1990). The impact of inferences on
instructional text. In A.C. Graesser & G.H. Bower (Eds.), Inferences and text comprehension
(pp. 53–87). San Diego: Academic Press.
Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1986). Psychological theory and the study of learning disabilities.
American Psychologist, 41, 1059–1068.
Chan, C. K. K., Burtis, P. J., Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1992). Constructive activity in learning
from text. American Educational Research Journal, 29, 97–118.
Chi, M. T. H., deLeeuw, N., Chiu, M. H., & LaVancher C. (1994). Eliciting self explanations
improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439–477.
Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom:Conditions for productive small groups. Review
Dansereau, D. F. (1988). Cooperative learning strategies. In C. E. Weinstein, E.T. Goetz, and P. A.
Alexander (Eds.), Learning and study strategies: Issues in assessment, instruction, and evaluation
(pp. 103–120). New York: Academic Press.
Graesser, A. C. (1992). Questioning mechanisms during complex learning. Technical report,
Cognitive Science Program, Office of Naval Research, Arlington.
Graesser, A., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text
comprehension. Psychological Review, 35, 371–395.
Hacker, D. (1998). Definitions and empirical foundations. In D. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. Graesser
(Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp 1–23). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
King, A. (1989). Effects of self-questioning training on college students’ comprehension of lectures.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 14, 1–16.
King, A. (1990). Enhancing peer interaction and learning in the classroom through reciprocal
questioning. American Educational Research Journal, 27, 664–687.
King, A. (1992). Comparison of self-questioning, summarizing, and notetaking-review as strategies
for learning from lectures. American Educational Research Journal, 29, 303–323.
King, A. (1993). Autonomy and question asking: The role of personal control in guided student-
generated questioning, invited article for Special Issue of Learning and Individual Differences:
Question Asking and Strategic Listening Processes: Individual Differences and Their
Consequences, 6, 162–185.
King, A. (1994). Guiding knowledge construction in the classroom: Effects of teaching children
how to question and how to explain. American Educational Research Journal, 30, 338–368.
King, A. (2007). Scripting collaborative learning processes: A cognitive perspective. In F. Fischer,
H. Mandl, J. Haake, & I. Kollar (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning:
Cognitive, computational, and educational Perspectives (pp. 13–37). New York: Springer.
King, A. (in press). Beyond literal comprehension: A strategy to promote deep understanding of
text. In D. S. McNamara (Ed.), Reading Comprehension Strategies: Theories, Interventions,
and Technologies, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
King, A., & Rosenshine, B. (1993). Effects of Guided Cooperative Questioning on children’s
knowledge construction. Journal of Experimental Education, 61, 127–148.
King, A., Staffieri, A., & Adelgais, A. (1998). Mutual peer tutoring: Effects of structuring tutorial
interaction to scaffold peer learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 134–152.
Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A constructive-integration
model. Psychological Review, 95, 163–182.


Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kuhn, D., Shaw, V., & Felton, M. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentative reasoning.
Cognition and Instruction, 15, 287–315.
Lepper, M. R., Aspinwall, L. G., Mumme, D. L., & Chabey, R. W. (1990). Self-Perception
and social perception processes in tutoring: Subtle social control strategies of expert tutors.
Self-inference processes: The Ontario Symposium (217–237). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Mugny, G., & Doise, W. (1978). Socio-cognitive conflict and the structure of individual and
collective performances. European Journal of Social Psychology, 8, 181–192.
O’Donnell, A. & Dansereau, D. (1992). Scripted cooperation in student dyads: A method for
analyzing and enhancing academic learning and performance. In Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. &
Miller, N. (Eds.), Interaction in cooperative groups: The theoretical anatomy of group learning
(pp. 120–141). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and
monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117–175.
Pressley, M., McDaniel, M. A., Turnure, J. E., Wood, E., & Ahmad, M. (1987). Generation and
precision of elaboration: Effects on intentional and incidental learning. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13, 291–300.
Reigeluth, C. M. & Stein, F. S. (1983). The elaboration theory of instruction. In C. M. Reigeluth
(Ed.), Instructional DesignTheories and Models: An Overview of Their Current Status
(pp. 335–381). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Rogoff, B. (1990) Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Vedder, P. (1985). Cooperative learning: A study on processes and effects of cooperation between
primary school children. Gronigen, The Netherlands: University of Gronigen.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Webb, N. M. (1989). Peer interaction and learning in small groups. International Journal
Webb, N., Ender, P., & Lewis, S. (1986). Problem solving strategies and group processes in small
group learning computer programming. American Educational Research Journal, 23, 243–251.
Webb, N. M., & Palincsar, A. S. (1996). Group processes in the classroom. In D. C. Berliner &
R. C. Cafree (Eds.) Handbook of Educational Psychology (pp. 841–873). New York: Simon &
Shuster Macmillan.
Wittrock, M. C. (1990). Generative processes of comprehension. Educational Psychologist,
24, 345–376.
Wright, L. (1995). Argument and deliberation: A plea for understanding. Journal of Philosophy,
92, 565–585.

Chapter 5
Cooperative Learning and Literacy Instruction
in Middle Level Education

Robert J. Stevens

5.1 Cooperative Learning and Literacy Instruction in Middle Level Education .................... 92
5.1.1 Changing Middle School Literacy Instruction...................................................... 94
5.2 Student Team Reading and Writing Program ................................................................... 97
5.2.1 Cooperative Learning Teams ................................................................................ 97
5.2.2 Reading Instruction ............................................................................................... 98
5.2.3 Writing Instruction................................................................................................ 100
5.2.4 The Impact of Student Team Reading and Writing
on Urban Middle School Students ........................................................................ 101
5.2.5 Traditional Reading and English Instruction in Comparison Classes .................. 103
5.2.6 Evaluation Results ................................................................................................ 104
5.3 Discussion ......................................................................................................................... 104
References .................................................................................................................................. 107

Abstract The goal of the middle school structure is to create a learning environment
that matches the developmental abilities and needs of adolescents. This research
attempts to operationalize that goal by integrating reading and English classes in
large urban middle schools. In the Student Team Reading and Writing (STRW)
program instruction was reconfigured to actively engage students in learning.
The program used cooperative learning processes to take advantage of the cogni-
tive, social, and motivational benefits of students working together on academic
content. Teachers provided explicit instruction and guided students’ interactions
during cooperative learning. After a year-long implementation, the research found
students in STRW performing significantly higher on reading comprehension,
reading vocabulary, and language expression achievement. The author discusses
the implications of this research for providing integrated and engaging instruction
in middle school.

5.1 Cooperative Learning and Literacy Instruction
in Middle Level Education

Discussions about how to best instruct young adolescents (ages 11–14 years) have
attempted to focus around matching instruction to the unique characteristics of students
in that age range. By early adolescence, students typically have developed a broad

5 Cooperative Learning and Literacy Instruction in Middle Level Education 93

knowledge in most academic subjects and have a well-developed foundation in
reading and writing skills. Cognitively, young adolescents are developing problem-
solving and critical thinking skills that are central to success in secondary and post-
secondary education. Yet recent reports suggest that more needs to be done to
develop students’ literacy skills in middle school and apply them in content areas
so the students will be prepared adequately for high school and beyond (Biancarosa
& Snow 2004). Other research suggests that the structural and instructional charac-
teristics of middle schools are unresponsive to the development and needs of
students, resulting in declining student achievement, attendance, and motivation
during early adolescence (Eccles & Midgley 1989; Oldfather 1995).
Cognitive mismatch. Descriptive research on middle level education in the United
States has documented that students spend much of their time in didactic instruction,
with a focus on factual learning (DiCintio & Stevens 1997; Feldlaufer et al. 1988).
During the middle school years students develop their ability to learn abstract
concepts and are consolidating their ability to consider options and weigh alternative
explanations. At this age they are engaging in metacognitive activities like planning,
monitoring, controlling, and evaluating their cognitive processes (Steinberg 1993).
The more factual, didactic instruction seems to be mismatched to the growing
cognitive skills and independent thinking that adolescents are developing.
Social mismatch. Adolescents are also going through significant social development
marked by increased desire for control and decision-making. Young adolescent
development is characterized by a striving for independence, greater peer orientation,
and self-consciousness than in earlier years. Yet middle level education often
emphasizes instruction where students are to focus on following directions and less
autonomy than what students may have had in the upper elementary grades
(Midgley & Feldlaufer 1987). There is also an increase in normative evaluation in
middle school, emphasizing social comparison and competition for grades
(Gullickson 1985). These social characteristics of middle school instruction run
counter to the students’ needs and developing abilities.
Typical middle level literacy instruction. Literacy instruction in middle schools
typically is departmentalized with students receiving literacy instruction in reading
and in English classes. For the most part, these two classes are taught separately
with little connection between reading instruction in reading class and the reading
of literature, and writing instruction in English class (Biancarosa & Snow 2004;
Irvin 1990). There is even less integration of reading instruction than in other content-
area classes despite a recognition of the importance of reading to learn in the
content areas and the need to focus on teaching students skills to read content-area
texts (Anderson et al. 1985; Biancarosa & Snow 2004; Irvin 1990). Studies of
instructional practices in developmental reading and remedial reading classes in
middle school have found little use of strategy instruction, no integration of reading
and writing instruction, and little application of reading strategies to expository
(factual) text (Irvin & Connors 1989). These findings from a national survey run
counter to the suggestions from research that focus on direct instruction in compre-
hension strategies, embedding comprehension instruction in content areas, and
integrating reading and writing instruction (Biancarosa & Snow 2004).

94 R. J. Stevens

Conceptualizing change in middle school literacy instruction. The middle school
literature offers a plethora of ideas for changing the nature of middle school literacy
instruction to match the skills and abilities of students in early adolescence.
For example, comments such as “instruction should be developmentally appropri-
ate” or “teachers should use a variety of instructional tasks” do little to clarify the
issue or provide substantive guidance to teachers.
Maehr & Anderman (1993) offered a conceptually based approach to considering
the redesign of instruction to make it more developmentally appropriate for early
adolescents. Their approach considers cognitive, social, and motivational character-
istics of the learner in developing the TARRGET model that looks at tasks, autonomy,
resources, recognition, grouping, evaluation, and time variables in redesigning
instruction (see Fig. 5.1). TARRGET focuses on alterable variables in an attempt to
help educators implement the concepts of developmentally-appropriate instruction in
middle school.

5.1.1 Changing Middle School Literacy Instruction

The TARRGET model offers a way to consider restructuring middle school literacy
instruction in a way that could address the cognitive and social mismatching
frequently observed in middle school instruction and provide a positive motiva-
tional approach to schooling at a time when students tend to be less motivated than
in previous grades. The resulting restructuring would integrate literacy instruction
across at least parts of the curricula, provide more meaningful reading materials
and instructional tasks, focus reading instruction on comprehension strategies, and
focus language arts instruction on writing skills. These became the goals of the
research on restructuring middle school literacy instruction.
Integration of reading and English classes. It is well recognized that there is a great
deal of overlap between what is taught in reading and English, and we currently

Tasks The tasks should be challenging, interesting, and meaningful.
Autonomy Students should develop more autonomy and control of their learning.
Recognition Students need recognition of their academic successes and improvement.
Resources Schools should invest resources in improving schools and instruction.
Grouping Various kinds of instructional grouping and student learning groups should
be used to promote learning
Evaluation Student evaluation should be based on mastery of the content, improvement,
and effort.
Time Larger blocks of time should be allocated to each class to permit more
extended and meaningful learning activities.

Fig. 5.1 The TARRGET model for redesigning instruction
Maehr, M. L., & Anderman, E. M. (1993). Reinventing the middle school for early adolescents:
Emphasizing tasks goals. Elementary School Journal, 93, 593–601


conceptualize the two as teaching parts of what are a continuum of literacy skills
including learning to read, developing comprehension, reading to learn information,
and writing to convey information. To take advantage of the inherent connections
between reading and English instruction and to facilitate students’ ability to transfer
what they learn, it is important to have one teacher teach both areas preferably in
one class. In this way a teacher could teach learning to read, reading to learn, and
writing to express what one learns in an integrated fashion. By integrating the two
subjects, it is conceivable to have a double period of time for literacy instruction
(for example, instead of a 45-minute period for reading and for English, it could be
restructured as a 90-minute block of time for Literacy). A longer class would prove
valuable in literacy instruction as it would offer teachers more flexibility to change
their instructional activities and, most importantly, allow students to engage in
extended writing activities without interruption.
Literature as a basis for reading instruction. An important way to develop adolescent
students’ motivation for reading is to give them interesting, high-quality reading
material (Paris et al. 1991; Wigfield 2004). By integrating reading and English
classes this is solved by using good literature, like that normally read in English class,
as the basis for vocabulary and reading comprehension instruction. Through the use of
literature, students can learn about different genres of writing and can become
familiar with famous, well-published authors that they could choose to read more
extensively on their own. At the same time, literature can provide very valuable writ-
ing models that teachers can use in writing instruction. Students can read and
observe the effect of things like the rich descriptions, plot development, and figurative
language of good authors in the literature reading, which the teacher could then
refer to when they are teaching those elements in the writing portion of their literacy
instruction. As such, the writing of famous authors may become both the model and
the motivation for students in the writing process.
Meaningful instructional tasks. The use of follow-up activities after traditional
reading instruction can be a problem as they often bear little or no relationship to
what the students have read. As a result, students might not see these instructional
tasks as useful or important (Beck et al. 1979; Ivey & Broaddus 2001; Osborn
1984). This is unfortunate because well-designed follow-up activities can further
students’ understanding of what they have read and help them develop comprehension
skills that are useful in all of their reading.
Explicit instruction on text comprehension strategies. A rich body of research has
developed over the past 25 years on comprehension strategies that are effective in
significantly improving students’ reading performance (National Reading Panel
2000). Most of that research emphasizes the importance of explicit instruction on
comprehension strategies and applying those strategies to content-area reading
(Biancarosa & Snow 2004). Yet, it is surprising how little explicit instruction on
comprehension strategies middle school students receive (Irvin 1990; Pressley
2000). Comprehension strategies help students comprehend what they are reading
and have the potential to be generalized to reading across content areas with
appropriate instruction. During upper elementary and middle school, students are
transitioning from learning to read to reading to learn (Anderson & Armbruster

96 R. J. Stevens

1984). Much of what students learn in school from upper elementary school is
presented in text, so it is important for literacy instruction to teach students
strategies for identifying, organizing, and learning information that is presented in
text (Paris et al. 1991; Pressley 2000). These comprehension skills should not only
be taught, but also applied in content area reading to facilitate students’ ability to
generalize them to new content and different tasks.
Writing as the focus for language arts instruction. Writing has become much more
of a focus in language arts instruction over the past 20 years. Instruction has moved
away from a focus on mechanics and grammar skills to developing students’ ability
to express their ideas in writing (Bridge & Hiebert 1985; Strickland et al. 2001).
With this focus on writing and the use of writing process models of instruction,
language arts instruction becomes more useful and practical. Embedding mechanics
and usage skill instruction in the context of writing provides a direct application
and meaningful purpose for skill instruction (Flowers & Hayes 1980; Graham et al.
2005; Graves 1978). Thus, the skills are not an abstraction but become significant
because students are more likely to see the usefulness of the instruction for improving
their expression of ideas. Students are also motivated by the act of expressing their
own ideas as well as sharing their writing with their peers (Flowers & Hayes 1980;
Graves 1978).
Using cooperative learning to promote learning and more positive peer relations.
The TARRGET model suggests that middle school classrooms should be restruc-
tured to promote both learning and positive peer relations. This is particularly
important for early adolescents because peer relations take center stage during this
period and research suggests that a student’s relations with his or her peers play an
important role in the student’s attachment to school (Parker & Asher 1987).
Students who do not develop positive peer relations at this time are much more
likely to drop out of school. Yet, students often perceive little support for peer
relations in the middle school and often more negative peer relations leading to less
attachment to school during these years (Seidman et al. 1994).
Cooperative learning is an alternative classroom structure that has been shown
to facilitate academic learning, positive peer relations, and positive attitudes toward
school (Johnson & Johnson 1989; Slavin 1990). Typically cooperative learning
uses group goals, where for one member of the group to succeed all of the members
of the group must succeed. As a result, positive interdependence develops within
the group – the peers support and motivate one another, leading to more positive
peer relations and more social acceptance of one another. At the same time, the
individual accountability promotes each individual’s learning, resulting in greater
achievement. In essence, cooperative learning uses peers as both an instructional
and motivational resource, taking advantage of students’ increasing sense of
independence and stronger peer orientation during adolescence.
Using cooperative learning to influence student motivation. Cooperative learning
also results in important changes in the evaluation processes in the classroom that
mesh nicely with the developmental trends of early adolescence. A large portion of
the recognition in cooperative learning classrooms depends on the whole groups’
success on the task, rather than one student outperforming others. This causes


students in cooperative learning to develop mastery goals rather than performance
goals (Guthrie & Davis 2003; Nichols 1994). When students have mastery goals,
they are more oriented on mastering the content and learning from the instructional
tasks, which results in more intrinsic motivation. Conversely, students who have
performance goals are less concerned about learning or mastery and more concerned
about looking good when compared with others. There are important advantages
when students adopt mastery goals. Typically, students with mastery goals develop
a deep understanding of what is taught (Meece et al. 1988; Nolen 1988) and are
likely to focus on effort as a means of attaining success (Pintrich & Schunk 1996).
Students with this type of motivation tend to persevere with learning tasks and
develop positive attitudes and attachment to school (Maehr & Anderman 1993).

5.2 Student Team Reading and Writing Program

The Student Team Reading and Writing (STRW) Program was an attempt to use
the TARRGET model, as operationalized through the above goals, to design a
middle school literacy program that was responsive to the cognitive, social, and
motivational needs of early adolescents. The reading part of the program consisted
of three principal elements: Literature-related activities, direct instruction in reading
comprehension strategies, and selection-related writing. Students work in hetero-
geneous learning teams to complete all of the instructional tasks. The activities
followed a regular cycle that involved teacher presentation, team practice, inde-
pendent practice, peer preassessment, and individual accountability. The approach
is described in some detail below.

5.2.1 Cooperative Learning Teams

Cooperative learning teams were used as a vehicle to get students to engage in academic
interactions that would further their understanding of what had been taught
(National Reading Panel 2000) and to take advantage of the strong peer orientation
of early adolescents. This created a change in the instructional activity in the class-
room by giving students more responsibility for their work. It also provided a social
and engaging academic environment, rather than the common didactic instruction
in middle schools (Epstein & Mac Iver 1992).
Students were assigned to teams of heterogeneous ability. Within the teams
students were assigned a partner with whom they worked when they completed
their activities. Students’ scores on the individual accountability activities (e.g.,
quizzes) contributed to form a team score. Teams were recognized for their success
in attaining prespecified levels of performance on the accountability measures
based upon the average score of the team members. Cooperative learning researchers
have found that this sort of recognition based on the individual performance of all

98 R. J. Stevens

of the team members develops interdependence on the part of team members and
typically is related to positive effects on students’ academic performance (Slavin
1983; 1990).
Teacher-led instruction. The teacher has an important role in any effective class-
room instruction (Rosenshine & Stevens 1986). In STRW the teacher was the
instructional leader in the classroom. All instruction was initiated by a teacher
presentation followed by the teacher guiding students’ initial practice and providing
corrective feedback. During cooperative learning activities, the teacher circulated
among the students listening and providing further feedback as needed. This gave
the teacher an opportunity to provide students in need with remedial instruction to
increase their potential for mastering the content. Similarly, it provided the teacher
with an opportunity to assess informally the progress of the students and the
adequacy of the initial instruction. Most teachers also found this to be a good
opportunity to provide encouragement and praise to motivate students regarding
their academic work.

5.2.2 Reading Instruction

Literature-related activities. The students used an American literature anthology as
the source for the reading selections. The anthology provided high quality literature
written by well-known authors like O. Henry, Langston Hughes, Pearl Buck, and
Isaac Asimov. Teachers set the purpose for reading, introduced new vocabulary,
reviewed old vocabulary words, and discussed the selection after students have read
it. After the students read the literature selection they completed a series of follow-up
activities that were specifically related to what they had read. The activities included
partner reading, text comprehension, word mastery, main idea summarization,
story-related writing, and comprehension strategy activities.
Partner reading. Students read the selection silently then read it orally with their
partner. During oral reading the students took turns reading, alternating after each
paragraph. The listener followed along and corrected any errors the reader made.
This type of repeated reading gave the students a great deal of practice reading
orally and has been found to contribute significantly to students reading fluency on
the target passage and transfers to increased reading fluency on future reading tasks
(National Reading Panel 2000; Stevens & Pipich 2002). Increasing reading fluency
is an important skill as it not only helps in word recognition, but also seems to help
improve reading comprehension (Faulkner & Levy 1999; Thurlow & van den
Broek 1997).
Comprehension of the selection. The students were given written activities that
focused on comprehension of the structure and content of the literature selection.
The goal of these activities was to enable the students to move beyond factual under-
standing to deeper comprehension of the passages. Halfway through the selection
they stopped reading to do half of their comprehension activities. The partners
discussed and wrote answers to questions asking them to describe the characters,


setting, and problem in the story and predict how the problem in the story might be
resolved. They might also discuss questions related to the author’s purpose or style,
and the interpretation of figurative language or literary techniques used. After com-
pleting the first half of the story and comprehension activities, the students read the
second half of the story and completed the comprehension activities related to it.
Research in reading comprehension has found that understanding story structures
is important for students’ comprehension (Fitzgerald & Spiegel 1983; National
Reading Panel 2000) and that discussing predictions and summaries of stories can
increase students’ comprehension (Palincsar & Brown 1984). The comprehension
activities related to the literature selections used both in an attempt to give students
practice and feedback on generalizable skills in comprehension.
Teachers engaged students in daily discussions about the selection they were
reading. In part the discussion would check their comprehension of the story. In
part, the teacher would ask questions about the story to extend students’ compre-
hension and understanding of the selection. For example, the teacher would discuss
the use of figurative language and what it meant in the context of the selection or
discuss the author’s purpose of describing events or characters and how that related
to the plot of the story.
Word mastery activities. Much research has shown that development of vocabu-
lary skills in students is an important part of improving their reading skills.
Vocabulary instruction prior to reading can improve comprehension of current
reading material (Brett et al. 1996; Tomeson & Aarnoutse 1998), increase reading
achievement (Brett et al. 1996; Eldredge 1990), and improve students’ abilities to
see causal connections in what they have read (Medo & Ryder 1993). As students
move into middle school there is more emphasis on reading to learn (Stevens et al.
1991). Since vocabulary knowledge is a fundamental building block of those
comprehension and learning processes, vocabulary instruction must be a funda-
mental part of literacy instruction.
The teacher in the STRW projects taught new or difficult words that were related
to the selection prior to the students reading the selection. The students learned the
meaning of the new words through practice focused on writing meaningful sen-
tences with the vocabulary. A meaningful sentence was one that told what the word
meant in the context of the sentence, (i.e., “The gigantic pumpkin was so large it
had to be lifted by a crane” and not “That pumpkin is gigantic”).
Summarizing the main points of the selection. In previous research, summarizing
what has been read in one’s own words has been found to be a very effective way
to enhance the reader’s comprehension and retention of what has been read
(Doctorow et al. 1978; Paris et al. 1991; Weinstein 1982) and has been found to be
an effective way to remediate poor readers’ comprehension problems (Jenkins et al.
1987). After reading and discussing the selection, students in the STRW program
summarized the main points of the story to their partner. The partner then checked
the summary in terms of the adequacy of its completeness and detail.
Selection-related writing. Part of the purpose of the writing activity was to further
students’ comprehension and understanding of the selection by writing an extended
response to the story or a part of the story (Wittrock 1986). The activity also helped

100 R. J. Stevens

to increase the connection between reading literature and writing by having students
transfer the skills and strategies that they learned in writing to constructing good
responses for the reading activities.
For each selection the students were given an open-ended writing assignment where
they were asked to write in response to a topic related to the selection. For example, the
students might have been asked to use their predictions and write a new end to
the selection, or compare and contrast characters from the selection or from two
different literature selections. Students used a simplified writing process in writing
their response to the prompt, in which they discussed their ideas with their partner,
drafted a version of the response, revised their writing based upon their partner’s
feedback, edited their writing, and created a final copy.
Reading comprehension strategy instruction. The STRW teacher gave the students
direct instruction on reading comprehension strategies and study strategies on a
regular basis. The comprehension strategy instruction applied of a large body of
research that has shown that students’ reading comprehension can be significantly
improved through instruction and practice in specific reading comprehension strategies
(e.g., Palincsar & Brown 1984; Pressley 2000; Stevens 1988). Previous research has
shown the efficacy of instruction on strategies for identifying main ideas, drawing
conclusions, and interpreting figurative language (National Reading Panel 2000).
Students were taught when and how to use the strategy and they were taught
comprehension monitoring strategies so they could check their appropriate use of
the strategies.
The teacher also taught the students study strategies to help them locate, organize,
and retain important information that was presented in text. Teaching students
strategies for reading and remembering information from text can greatly increase
their ability to learn the content because students become actively engaged in
understanding and organizing the information they are reading (Anderson &
Armbruster 1984; Pressley 2000).

5.2.3 Writing Instruction

The writing part of the program used a writing process approach that focused
language arts instruction on improving students’ writing. In this way the teacher
taught grammar, expression, and mechanics in a more meaningful way to the student
because the skills can be understood in the context of the concrete activity of writing
(Bridge & Hiebert 1985; Strickland et al. 2001). Also, because learning these skills
was contextualized, it was more likely that the skills would be retained. The teacher
encouraged the students to use the new skills actively in their writing, further
increasing their processing of the information and improving their understanding of
the skills.
Writing concept lessons. Once students learned to use all of the steps in the writing
process, the teacher provided instruction and models on styles and techniques of
writing. The lessons included topics such as improving descriptions, organizing


ideas, and getting your audience’s attention. There were also lessons on specific
styles of writing like explanatory writing, persuasive writing, and writing personal
and business letters. The STRW program provided a set of writing concept lessons,
but teachers were also encouraged to develop their own lessons based upon students’
needs and interests. Often teachers used books by authors that the class was already
reading in the literature anthology as models for specific types of writing. An
advantage of this instructional strategy was further strengthening of connections
between reading and writing.
Integrated language arts lessons. Teachers periodically taught lessons on language
mechanics and language usage lessons from a set of materials provided by the STRW
program. Teachers were told to select language arts lessons that were appropriate for
the students’ needs as identified in the teacher’s evaluations of the students’ writing. The
goal of the lessons was to give students skills that would help improve their writing.
Each lesson included specific writing-related activities to increase the likelihood that
students would transfer what they learned to their own writing. Students were also
taught how to edit for the types of errors that were relevant to the newly acquired skill.
In subsequent writing process activities the new language mechanics skills were
added to the editing checklist so students would apply what they learned in writing
and in editing their own work and the writing of their classmates.

5.2.4 The Impact of Student Team Reading and Writing
on Urban Middle School Students

The STRW model has been evaluated as a means of restructuring urban middle
school literacy instruction in a study involving five middle schools in an urban
school district in the eastern United States (Stevens 2003). The schools were config-
ured to include 6th through 8th grades (ages 11 through 14 years). The schools were
large, typically drawing students from many elementary schools, and had student
enrollments that averaged around 260 students per grade level. The students were
predominantly from minority groups and were drawn from the urban core of the city
(see demographics in Table 5.1 below). The majority of the students were from
lower socio-economic families, as can be see by the percent of the students identified
as disadvantaged by guidelines for free or reduced lunch programs. Because of
previous low student achievement, relatively high absentee rates, and their large
disadvantaged population, all of these schools were considered “at-risk schools” and
were eligible for specially funded educational programs. For the evaluation the two
schools using STRW were matched based on district-administered achievement test
scores to three comparison schools of with similar student populations.
The faculty in each of the schools was diverse in years of teaching experience
and averaged 12.7 years of experience, which suggests that these were largely veteran
teachers with a few newer teacher sprinkled across the schools (each school had
at least one teacher with less than five years of experience). The English and reading
teachers had from 2 to 23 years of classroom experience.

102 R. J. Stevens

Table 5.1 Student demographics
N Minority (%) Disadvantaged (%)
Experimental schools (combined) 1798 80.2 69.1
School 1 893 98.0 73.1
School 2 905 62.6 62.5
Comparison schools (combined) 2118 82.1 70.8
School 3 592 58.4 61.9
School 4 413 76.3 71.4
School 5 1113 97.1 75.4

Training in Student Team Reading and Writing. Teachers in the two schools using
STRW were trained during the summer prior to beginning implementation in Sep-
tember. The training was conducted on 5 half-days (3 h) during one week. During
the training the author described the instructional processes and the theoretical
rationale for them. The author also described the research supporting the processes
and how they relate to effective instruction. There was an emphasis on the goals of
improving students reading fluency, reading comprehension, and ability to express
themselves in writing. The teachers were given a detailed explanation of what to do
in the classroom, as well as a detailed teacher’s manual for the program. The author
also modeled the instructional processes in a simulated lesson where the author
(trainer) acted as the teacher and the teachers (trainees) acted as students would in
a STRW classroom. The simulation provided both a model for the teacher so they
could watch what they were expected to do, but also gave them an understanding
of what was expected of their students in the program. On the last day of training
the teachers were given the books (literature anthologies) and all of the materials
they needed to implement STRW. At that time, the author guided the teachers
through the materials, so they would know what each piece was and its role in
the program.
Implementation of STRW. Teachers began their implementation of STRW during
the first day of school. The district restructured the daily schedule so the teachers
had a double period of 90 minutes (combining the time typically allotted to reading
and English classes) as opposed to the typical 45, during which they taught reading,
language arts, and English using the STRW program. During the first months of the
school year, the project staff observed the teachers at least three times a week and
acted as coaches to help them improve the quality of their implementation. The
author also met with the teachers after school to answer their questions about
the program and discuss ways to accommodate the needs of their classes and students
in them. These discussions often helped the teachers improve their implementation
of STRW. As teachers became more proficient in STRW, the classroom observations
became less frequent.
In January and February (the second semester) the project staff observed the
participating classes to assess teachers’ level of implementation of STRW to determine
the treatment fidelity. The project staff had an implementation measure listing
desired behaviors that was used to assess the level of implementation in the class
that included assessments of both student and teacher behaviors. Each teacher


was observed on three randomly selected days for 30 minutes and each observation
was unannounced. The project staff had observed the classes regularly during the
first semester, so their appearance in the classroom was not unusual and the obser-
vations were unobtrusive. Since the STRW instructional activities change from day
to day in a five-day cycle, only those behaviors expected for that part of the instruc-
tional sequence were rated on each particular observation. The project staff
attempted to rate each teacher on different days in order to get a broad sample of
their behavior on which to assess their quality of implementation.
Quality of implementation scores were computed for each teacher based upon
the percent of expected behaviors that were observed, averaged across the three
observations. All of the teachers averaged 83% implementation or higher, with an
average level of implementation across all teachers of 91%. This was considered a
very high level implementation, and we observed no systematic differences in
STRW implementation related to variables like the teacher’s years of experience.

5.2.5 Traditional Reading and English Instruction
in Comparison Classes

Students in traditional reading and English classes in matched middle schools were
used as the comparison group in the evaluation. The traditional structure had
departmentalized instruction, with reading and English as two separate classes
taught by different teachers. None of the teachers in the comparison group used
cooperative learning processes.
Reading. Reading instruction used a basal reading series that students typically read
silently followed by completing assignments from the workbook or worksheets
provided by the series. These activities may or may not have been related to the
theme of the story. There were comprehension skill lessons imbedded in the work-
books, but there was little systematic instruction and intensive practice on any of
those skills. Comprehension skills were also taught in isolation, and not integrated
with what students read in the reading book.
English. English instruction had three components: literature, grammar, and writing.
Teachers would block out a period of time each quarter to read a piece of literature,
during which time all instruction in class would be about literature. In the literature
component, students read extended pieces of literature from an anthology. Often
students read sections of the literature silently and then discussed them in a whole
class discussion. Teachers often followed the discussion with questions about the
piece that were intended to extend students’ comprehension of what they had read.
The rest of the instruction during each quarter was focused on grammar and writing.
Typically grammar instruction occurred for three or four days a week, and used
lessons from a grammar textbook. The approach to grammar instruction was fairly
traditional, focusing on identification of parts of speech, and learning to use them
correctly in writing sentences and paragraphs. Writing activities typically occurred
once a week at most. Students usually were given a topic and asked to write a draft

104 R. J. Stevens

about it. Students were given feedback either from the teacher, who collected and
read the drafts, or from other students after having the draft read to them. Some
teachers provided students with opportunities to revise their drafts, but this was not
consistently used in all classes.

5.2.6 Evaluation Results

This evaluation used a multiple choice format standardized achievement test to
evaluate the effects of the STRW program as compared to more traditional middle
school reading and English instruction. The school district administered the
California Achievement Test (CTB/McGraw-Hill 1986), a nationally-normed test
commonly used in schools that measured student’s performance on reading vocabulary,
reading comprehension, language expression, and language mechanics (as well
as math, social studies, and science). Based upon data from the previous year (used as
a pretest) the students in the STRW schools had similar performance to those in the
comparison schools, suggesting that the schools were comparable on initial
achievement.
When evaluating this program near the end of the school year, we administered a
different form of the California Achievement Test in May. The evaluation revealed
that students across the three grade levels benefited from the STRW program and
that there were no differential effects based upon grade level (Stevens 2003).
Students in the STRW program have significantly higher achievement on measures
of reading vocabulary, reading comprehension, and language expression than those
who did not participate. There were no differences on measures of language mechanics.
In the three areas of significant effects, students in STRW outperformed students in
traditional instruction by fairly substantial amounts, scoring a third of a standard
deviation higher in reading vocabulary (effect size = +0.33), a quarter standard devi-
ation higher in reading comprehension (effect size = +0.25), and more than a third
standard deviation in language expression (effect size = +0.38) (Stevens 2003).

5.3 Discussion

This project used the theory-based TARRGET model to develop an instructional
program for middle level students that was developmentally appropriate, instruc-
tionally engaging, and motivationally stimulating. At its core, the Student Team
Reading and Writing program uses research-based instructional practices, teacher-
directed instruction, good literature as a basis for instruction, cooperative learning
processes, and integrated reading and English instruction. The combination of these
components resulted in a program that when implemented for the entire school year
yielded significantly higher student achievement in vocabulary, comprehension,
and language expression than achieved before. These findings are important given


recent research and reviews suggesting that in the United States there is a critical
need to extend our research in effective literacy instruction into the middle grades,
and integrate literacy instruction into content areas to make it more relevant and
valuable for the students as they are pushed to apply their reading and writing skills
(Biancarosa & Snow 2004).
The STRW program reconceptualized the tasks, autonomy, recognition,
resources, grouping, evaluation, and time in a typical middle school. The tasks were
developed to engage the students in relevant activities by using good literature as a
basis for reading instruction. Follow-up activities in reading were related to and
expanded on the literature students had just read, with a goal of increasing their
comprehension of the literature. There was also a focus on writing to develop
students’ abilities to express their ideas, rather than grammar skills. By doing so, the
program’s intent was to both motivate students and increase students’ learning and
retention of what was taught through the focus on meaningful learning tasks.
Student autonomy was also increased in STRW through the use of cooperative
learning structures where peers are used as an instructional resource in the class-
room. Cooperative learning give students more responsibility for their own learning
and the learning of others (their teammates). As a result, students developed an
interdependence that promoted positive social relations in the class and established
a climate where students help one another learn. Research by Webb (1985) has
shown that when students explain content or skills to one another, both learners
benefit in terms of improved performance. The student responsibility for learning
in cooperative learning also taps into adolescents drive toward more independence
and self-determination, but does so in a way that promotes learning and positive
attitudes toward school and academic tasks. When students are given more autonomy
and responsibility they are more likely to develop ownership of what they are doing
(Maehr & Anderman 1993). Accountability for completion of and performance on
those tasks maintains a level of quality in what students do.
Teacher recognition of students’ effort and improvement is imbedded in the
evaluation methods of the cooperative learning processes. This is an important
motivational element, particularly for adolescents. By early adolescence, students
have developed a history of success or failure in academic subjects and it has a
major influence in their motivation toward and effort in future learning. Those who
succeed are motivated and effortful in learning activities, and those who have not
succeeded tend to be less motivated and give less effort. In STRW the recognition
of improvement, typically resulting from a student’s effort, not only changes the
goal structure in the classroom, but may affect the goal orientation of the students.
Students may begin to recognize that the do not need to be the best in the class.
Instead they need to be better than they were before to get recognition. The motiva-
tional focus becomes more internal on the part of the students where they look more
to master the content than to outperform others. This means that every student has
equal potential for recognition and as such all students are more willing to put in
the effort to learn. Restructuring the goal structure of the class around recognition
for improvement profoundly influences students’ motivation and learning behaviors
(Maehr & Pintrich 1991).

106 R. J. Stevens

This project did provide additional resources to the participating schools in part
through new materials and in part through staff development for the teachers. For
any kind of substantive school reform effort such as this providing adequate
resources for teachers as they learn and implement the reform is necessary. Perhaps
the most significant of these resource investments was the staff development. In the
STRW program staff development for the reading and English teachers was focused
and intensive, and directed toward learning and mastery of the instructional processes
in the model. For teachers to significantly change their teaching behaviors requires
intensity and focus on specific changes with follow-up and coaching them toward
mastery. This approach made it clear what the goal of the staff development activity
was and provided adequate support for teachers to reach that goal. Of the 20 teachers
in the STRW program, all were implementing the program elements at higher than
80%, and they averaged 91% implementation. This high level suggests significant
changes in teacher behavior, which is more likely to happen as the result of putting
resources into focused and intensive staff development. A second aspect that is
likely to have facilitated staff development is that these cooperative learning
processes were specific (and specified) to reading and English instruction. They
required little interpretation on the part of teachers and resulted in little ambiguity
of what was expected. This specificity and clarity is likely to facilitate teachers who
attempt to make changes in their classroom practices and behaviors.
Evaluation is an important component of STRW and is central to cooperative
learning methods that improve student achievement (Slavin 1990). It gives students
the reason to learn. But, as described above, the STRW model in part focuses the
evaluation on student improvement as a means to increase motivation for all
students and to focus that motivation on effort. The evaluation essentially levels the
playing field for all students. Those with more previous success in reading and/or
writing have no major advantages in the evaluations.
Finally, STRW restructured the middle school schedule in a way to provide
larger blocks of time to allow for more extended learning activities and an integration
of reading and English. The double periods allowed teachers to engage students in
reading literature and follow-up activities that extended their comprehension of
what they read. The double periods also gave students more uninterrupted time to
engage in the writing process where they could potentially get feedback on a draft
and revise it during the same period. Teachers noted that the extended time also
gave them more opportunities to make connections between reading and writing
during their instruction.
In conclusion, the Student Team Reading and Writing model used in these middle
schools is a multifaceted program for restructuring literacy instruction. The results
of this evaluation provide evidence that STRW can be effective in increasing literacy
achievement in urban, high-poverty middle schools in high-fidelity and relatively
long term implementations. This program also provides evidence in support of the
efficacy of using cooperative learning as an instructional and motivational vehicle
for teaching early adolescents. Cooperative learning processes increase student
achievement through students interacting about the content in a social learning
environment. Cooperative learning processes also change the goal structures in the


classroom to focus on improvement, resulting in positive motivation for all students.
Finally, cooperative learning processes take advantage of the peer orientation
of adolescents by constructing a classroom structure where students encourage
and support one another in academic work, essentially making it “cool to be good
at school.”

References

Anderson, R. C., Hiebert, E. H., Scott, J. A., & Wilkinson, I. (1985). Becoming a nation of readers.
Washington, DC: National Institute of Education.
Anderson, T., & Armbruster, B. (1984). Studying. In P.D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of reading
research (pp. 657–680). New York: Longman.
Beck, I., McKeown, M., McCaslin, E., & Burkes, A. (1979). Instructional dimensions that may
affect reading comprehension: Examples from two commercial reading programs (Technical
Report No. 1979/20). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh, Learning Research and
Development Center.
Biancarosa, G., & Snow, C. E. (2004). Reading nest – A vision for action and research in middle
and high school literacy: A report from the Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington,
DC: Alliance for Excellent Education
Brett, A., Rothlein, L., & Hurley, M. (1996). Vocabulary acquisition from listening to stories and
explanations of target words. Elementary School Journal, 96, 415–422.
Bridge, C., & Hiebert, E. (1985). A comparison of classroom writing practices, teachers’ perceptions
of their writing instruction, and textbook recommendations on writing practices. Elementary
School Journal, 86, 155–172.
DiCintio, M. J., & Stevens, R. J. (1997). Student motivation and cognitive complexity of mathematics
instruction in six middle grades classrooms. Research in Middle Level Education Quarterly,
20, 27–42.
Doctorow, M., Wittrock, M., & Marks, C. (1978). Generative processes in reading comprehension.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 109–118.
Eccles, J. S., & Midgley, C. (1989). Stage-environment fit: Developmentally appropriate class-
rooms for young adolescents. In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education,
Vol. 3: Goals and cognitions (pp. 139–186). New York: Academic Press.
Eldredge, J. L. (1990). Increasing the performance of poor readers in the third grade with a group-
assisted strategy. Journal of Educational Research, 84, 69–77.
Epstein, J. L., & Mac Iver, D. J. (1992). Education in the middles grades: National practices and
trends. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.
Faulkner, H. J., & Levy, B. A. (1999). Fluent and nonfluent forms of transfer in reading: Words
and their message. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 6, 111–116.
Feldlaufer, H., Midgley, C., & Eccles, J. S. (1988). Student, teacher, and observer perceptions of
the classroom environment before and after the transition to junior high school. Journal of
Early Adolescence, 8, 133–156.
Fitzgerald, J., & Spiegel, D. (1983). Enhancing children’s reading comprehension through instruction
in narrative structures. Journal of Reading Behavior, 14, 1–18.
Flowers, L., & Hayes, J. (1980). The dynamics of composing: Making plans and juggling
constraints. In L. Gregg & E. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 31–50).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Graham, S., Harris, K., Mason, L. (2005). Improving the writing performance, knowledge, and
self-efficacy of struggling young writers: The effects of self-regulated strategy development.
Graves, D. (1978). Balance the basics: Let them write. New York: Ford Foundation.

108 R. J. Stevens

Gullickson, A. R. (1985). Student evaluation techniques and their relationship to grade and
curriculum. Journal of Educational Research, 79, 96–100.
Guthrie, J., & Davis, M. (2003). Motivating struggling readers in middle school through an
engagement model of classroom practice. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 19, 59–85.
Irvin, J. L. (1990). Reading and the middle school student: Strategies to enhance literacy.
Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Irvin, J. L., & Connors, N. A. (1989). Reading instruction in middle level schools: Results from a
US survey. Journal of Reading, 32, 306–311.
Ivey, G., & Broaddus, K. (2001). Just plain reading: A survey of what makes students want to read
in middle school classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 350–371.
Jenkins, J. R., Heliotis, J., Stein, M. L., & Haynes, M. (1987). Improving reading comprehension
by using paragraph restatements. Exceptional Children, 54, 54–59.
Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina,
MN: Interaction Books.
Maehr, M. L., & Anderman, E. M. (1993). Reinventing the middle schools for early adolescents:
Emphasizing task goals. Elementary School Journal, 93, 593–610.
Maehr, M. L., & Pintrich, P. R. (Eds.) (1991). Advances in motivation and achievement, Vol. 7.
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Medo, M. A., & Ryder, R. J. (1993). The effects of vocabulary instruction on readers’ ability to
make causal connections. Reading Research and Instruction, 33, 119–134.
Meece, J. L., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Hoyle, R. H. (1988). Students’ goal orientation and cognitive
engagement in classroom activities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 514–523.
Midgley, C., & Feldlaufer, H. (1987). Students and teachers’ decision-making fit before and after
the transition to junior high school. Journal of Early Adolescence, 7, 225–241.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment
of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction.
Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
Nichols, J. D. (1994). Cooperative learning and student motivation. Contemporary Educational
Nolen, S. (1988). Reasons for studying: Motivational orientation and study strategies. Cognition
and Instruction, 5, 269–287.
Oldfather, P. (1995). Commentary: What’s needed to maintain and extend motivation for literacy
in the middle grades. Journal of Reading, 38, 420–423.
Osborn, J. (1984). The purposes, uses, and contents of workbooks and guidelines for publishers.
In R. Anderson, J. Osborn, & R. Tierney (Eds.), Learning to read in American schools
(pp. 45–112). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and
monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117–175.
Paris, S., Wasik, B., & Turner, J. (1991). The development of strategic readers. In R. Barr, M. Kamil,
P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 609–640).
New York: Longman.
Parker, J. G., & Asher, S. R. (1987). Peer relations and later personal adjustment: Are low-accepted
children at risk? Psychological Bulletin, 102, 357–389.
Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (1996). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Pressley, M. (2000). What should comprehension instruction be instruction of? In M. Kamil,
P. Mosenthal, D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research. (Vol. 3, pp. 546–561).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Rosenshine, B. V., & Stevens, R. J. (1986). Teaching functions. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook
of research on teaching (pp. 376–391). New York: Macmillan.
Seidman, E., Allen, L., Aber, J. L., Mitchell, C., & Feinman, J. (1994). The impact of school
transition in early adolescence on the self-system and perceived social context of poor urban
youth. Child Development, 65, 507–522.
Slavin, R. (1983). Cooperative learning. New York: Longman.


Slavin, R. (1990). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Steinberg, L. (1993). Adolescence. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Stevens, R. J. (2003). Student team reading and writing: A cooperative learning approach to middle
school literacy instruction. Educational Research and Evaluation, 9, 137–160.
Stevens, R. J., & Pipich, S. B. (2002). Silent or oral reading: Where is time best spent?
Pennsylvania Education Leadership, 21, 34–40.
Stevens, R. J., Slavin, R. E., & Farnish, A. M. (1991). The effects of cooperative learning and
direct instruction in reading comprehension strategies on main idea identification. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 83, 8–16.
Strickland, D., Bodino, A., Buchan, K., Jones, K., Nelson, A., Rosen, M. (2001) Teaching writing
in a time of reform. Elementary School Journal, 101, 385–398.
Thurlow, R., & van den Broek, P. (1997). Automaticity and inference generation. Reading and
Writing Quarterly, 13, 165–184.
Tomeson, M., & Aarnoutse, C. (1998). Effects of an instructional programme for deriving word
meanings. Educational Studies, 24, 115–125.
Webb, N. (1985). Student interaction and learning in small groups. In R. Slavin et al. (Eds.),
Learning to cooperate, cooperating to learn (pp. 147–172). New York: Plenum Press.
Weinstein, C. (1982). Training students to use elaboration learning strategies. Contemporary
Wigfield, A. (2004). Motivation for reading during early adolescent and adolescent years. In
D. Stickland, & D. Alvermann (Eds.), Bridging the literacy achievement gap, grades 4–12.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Wittrock, M. C. (1986). Students’ thought processes. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of
research on teaching (pp. 297–314). New York: Macmillan.

Chapter 6
Structuring Group Interaction to Promote
Thinking and Learning During Small Group
Learning in High School Settings

Günter L. Huber and Anne A. Huber

6.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 111
6.2 Contradictory Reports About Learning in Small Groups ............................................... 111
6.3 External Organization of Learning in Small Groups ...................................................... 112
6.3.1 Problems of Task Specialization ......................................................................... 114
6.3.2 Alternative Approaches to External Organization .............................................. 114
6.4 Internal Organization of Learning in Small Groups ....................................................... 116
6.4.1 Approaches to Structuring Interactions .............................................................. 117
6.5 Individual Organization of Learning in Small Groups ................................................... 119
6.6 Structuring Interactions by Combining Methods of Teaching/Learning ........................ 122
6.6.1 The Sandwich Principle of Teaching .................................................................. 122
6.6.2 Self-Organized Learning (SOL) in Teams .......................................................... 122
6.7 Recommendations for Teachers and Researchers ........................................................... 126
References ................................................................................................................................ 128

Abstract Reports about success and flaws of cooperative learning in classrooms
lead to the conclusion that external structuring of teams and learning tasks is not
sufficient, because students often need additional structural support on a level of
internal organization of group processes and on the internal level of individual
learning orientations. As regards external structuring, the article describes the
wide-spread technique of task-specialization in models of cooperative learning
as well as its problems, and shows alternative approaches. Support for internal,
interactive processes may be achieved by prescribing social roles or even learning,
by training relevant competencies before small groups start learning together, by
reflecting and evaluating group activities during and after learning, and finally, by
modifying how the learners perceive their own and their team-mates’ competen-
cies. The optimal approach is to combine these structural supports for small group
learning and to complement it with phases of teacher-centered as well as individual
learning. Two combinatory models are described, which also have been shown to
reduce the uncertainties of small group learning for more certainty-oriented learn-
ers, who otherwise liked cooperation less and achieved less than their uncertainty
oriented class-mates. Final recommendations include a warning against the
exclusive role of individually centered assessment procedures apparently in coop-
erative environments of teaching and learning.

6 Structuring Group Interaction to Promote Thinking and Learning 111

6.1 Introduction

Social interaction in general is both an effective method and a highly evaluated goal
in classroom settings. Social skills are essential parts of self-regulated learning that
allow the individual to participate in learning activities in small groups, and to benefit
from the opportunities to learn from each other. However, to achieve this goal
students and teachers need a learning environment that promotes social-interactive
processes of learning, preferably from elementary school on. For example, the school
law of Baden-Württemberg (Schulgesetz für das Land Baden-Württemberg 2004)
demands that elementary schools support the development of those behaviors and
forms of social interaction that are necessary for children to live and learn
together, particularly to listen to each other, learn from each other, and interact as
partners. In his introduction to the Curriculum 2004 for Baden-Württemberg, von
Hentig (2004, p. 11) commented that students have to learn “to do their part in a
world characterized by collaboration” as well as learn “to participate actively first
in the processes of a smaller, then of the wider community.”
This chapter will describe how cooperative situations can be structured to support
students not only in their academic learning tasks, but also in acquiring those
competencies which they need for efficient social interaction in small groups and
for their personal development. Starting out from contradictory results we will
describe the necessity for supporting learning in small groups on the external level
of task organization, the internal level of structuring social interactions, and at the
individual level of learning orientations.

6.2 Contradictory Reports About Learning in Small Groups

Generally, there are positive reports about small group learning from psychological
laboratory settings as well as from existing classrooms. Slavin (1995a, b) characterized
the findings from numerous studies of cooperative learning as one of the greatest
success stories in the history of educational research. In a meta-analysis including
90 field studies comparing cooperative learning and traditional learning, Slavin
found that cooperative learning led to higher academic achievement in 64% of the
cases. Only in 5% of the cases did traditional learning result in better achievement
than cooperative learning, and there were no differences in 31% of the cases.
Cooperative learning also showed many positive effects in noncognitive areas,
although there were fewer studies that dealt with those effects.
There are, however, also numerous reports from disappointed teachers, who
started to implement cooperative learning in their classrooms with great expectations,
but gave up after only a short period because of unsettling experiences. Many of
their objections centered on three “detaining D’s”: delays, deficits (in achievement),
and disruptions. Therefore, despite theoretical interest in team learning and teachers’
generally high appreciation of this didactic arrangement, cooperative learning is a
rare event in the average classroom (see e.g., Rotering-Steinberg & von Kügelgen

112 G. L. Huber and A. A. Huber

1986; Rotering-Steinberg 2000). Everyday learning in school seems to be mainly
influenced by individualistic and competitive orientations. Teachers again and
again complain about negative experiences with learning in small groups.
A closer look at the specific conditions for learning determined by organiza-
tional models of group learning shows that beyond the external level of organizing
group size, group composition, and distribution of learning tasks two more levels
of organization should be taken into account. Depending on age and experience
students need support on a level of internal organization of group processes, that is,
social interaction between group members, and they need support on the individual
level to avoid adverse experiences when they are challenged with controversial
suggestions, ideas, and strategies in their learning teams.

6.3 External Organization of Learning in Small Groups

There are two options for organizing learning in small groups on an external level:
a product-orientated approach known as collaborative learning and a process-centered
approach known as cooperative learning. Both approaches are based on structuring
the learning tasks. While collaborating groups try to solve the learning task as a
whole, cooperating groups divide the common task into several sub-tasks and
merge their results later. Although many publications show that the terms collabo-
ration and cooperation are used synonymously, we want to elaborate on the distinc-
tive use of these terms because this sheds light on the important role of structuring
group interactions already on the external level of task organization. According to
Roschelle and Teasley (1995), collaborative learning demands joint efforts for
coordinated learning activities based on students understanding of collaboration as
“a coordinated, synchronous activity that is the result of a continued attempt to
construct and maintain a shared conception of a problem” (p. 70).
In this chapter we define Cooperative Learning as a form of interaction in which
at least two persons are mutually involved in trying to learn something; groups may
only comprise as many members as are still able to interact directly with each other;
and, there is no direct supervision by a teacher. The exchange of knowledge and
skills must be supported by one or more of the following measures: Task specialization,
support of task-specific interactions, support of group processes, and feedback or
reward for the learning of the group members (Huber et al. 2001).
Organizing learning in small groups does not necessarily imply that students
work together and support each other in mastering their learning tasks. On the
contrary, Aronson et al. (2004) noted that traditional learning groups offer opportu-
nities for, or are used by, students to compete with each other. Traditional group
work gathers four to six students around one table with a more or less complex task
to solve, but usually only with very general advice or rules providing guidance on
how they are supposed to interact. Thus, the students meet best conditions for
exciting or disappointing experiences in group dynamics, often interfering with
subject matter learning. Furthermore, students regularly start to break down their


task into less complex parts and to assign them individually to the group members.
With this strategy the team makes best use of every team member’s specific
resources (e.g., reading or arithmetic skills, specific knowledge) for solving the task
– but keeps its members from the challenge of learning to cope with less familiar
demands, thus enriching their individual resources by learning new skills.
Detrimental effects of learning in small groups are frequently reported when
social interaction and interdependency of students are focused on a joint group product,
for example, a poster presentation or a filled-in worksheet (see Renkl et al. 1995). In
these cases, the success of a team does not depend on the individual learning
processes and achievements of its members but on the quality of the one product the
team has to present at the end of a learning session. Notorious negative effects of this
kind of organization of team learning are “social loafing” (Latané et al. 1979: some
team members lean back and let others do the job) and the “sucker effect” (Kerr
1983: those students who believe that they are responsible for the group’s task and
do the job again and again, will probably experience a decline in motivation).
Illustrative examples of collaborative learning can be found in the literature on
joint text production or collaborative writing in classrooms (see Andriessen et al.
1996). A collaborative writing team has to come to a shared understanding of the task
and produce together one text as a final product. No doubt this situation offers ample
opportunities to learn a lot about the perspectives of other group members as well as
about their strategies and skills applied to approach the topic of the writing task,
however, not all the participants will necessarily profit from these opportunities.
If only the final product counts, that is, if only the quality of the text is evaluated in
the end and not the individual progress of each group member in learning to compose
a good text, at least some of the participants will soon discover that joint text produc-
tion leads to acceptable results without too much personal efforts and involvement.
In the context of learning, a conventional understanding of collaboration as
working together is highly misleading. The product of learning, that is, the solution
of a problem or the completion of a specific task, must not be an end in itself, but
just a means to stimulate learning processes. At the end we do not want to show off
group products – although joint comparisons and evaluations of these products also
offer important learning opportunities, particularly in regard to the promotion of
self-evaluation. We want instead to demonstrate that each team member has benefited
personally, has gained new experiences, knowledge, and skills as individual products
of his or her learning efforts, and is able to contribute individually to the socio-cultural
dimension of knowing.
Cooperation is usually defined as the activity of the members of a larger group
in which more encompassing task or a more complex problem is broken down into
parts, which can be mastered individually or in smaller teams. In the end, partial
solutions are exchanged and summarized to a final solution. Aronson’s et al. (1978)
jigsaw puzzle is a fine illustration of this approach to learning in teams. The principle
of task specialization in the jigsaw approach generates positive interdependence
between learners, who are required to exchange their knowledge and build common
understandings (Huber 2006). According to this principle, a more complex learning
task is divided optimally into four sub-tasks A, B, C, and D. So called “basic groups”


of four members each then decide who will become an expert for which sub-task.
Depending on their decision, the members leave their basic groups and form
“expert groups” A, B, C, and D, composed only of those class-mates who have
opted for the same sub-task. Once they have acquired expert knowledge, the stu-
dents meet again in their basic groups, to take turns in sharing their expertise with
each other. At the end, each team member should know everything about the original
learning task as a whole.

6.3.1 Problems of Task Specialization

The jigsaw approach to task specialization has benefits and limitations. Less
experienced groups need much support if they are to be prevented from ending up
as a pile of puzzle pieces rather than developing a shared understanding of the task
at hand. Various ways of providing structural support can be found on the external
level of organizing cooperative learning by combining whole class activities, small
group activities, and individual activities. In any case, task specialization without
other measures to support the interactions between learners is not a very effective
way of organizing learning in small groups.
In a meta-analysis of field studies on cooperative learning involving the jigsaw
method (i.e., a method of cooperative learning that uses task specialization),
Slavin (1995) found that the results were equivocal. Cooperative learning was
more effective than traditional learning in 27% of the cases, it was less effective
in the same percentage of cases, and in 46% of the cases there were no differ-
ences. However, when one takes a closer look at the studies on jigsaw learning,
one gets the impression that jigsaw learning is effective if learners are informed
about promising learning activities. Learners need at least some help to use effective
strategies such as which learning activities should be applied to acquire knowl-
edge, to teach each other, and deepen their individual understanding. Another
reason why jigsaw learning is often not as effective as it could be may be the
group size. In smaller groups, every member may be more active than in larger
groups. Also, loss of motivation should be less a problem in small groups and
coordination of activities easier.

6.3.2 Alternative Approaches to External Organization

Huber (2004a) developed the Partner-Puzzle method as a modification of the original
jigsaw method. In the Partner-Puzzle method, learners always work together in
pairs or dyads. In a first phase they learn a text in pairs. Then they work together
with another partner who learned a different text in a different dyad as they teach
each other their texts. In a third phase, they deepen their understanding by working


on various activities. In all three phases learners are supported by prescribed learning
activities. To learn the text in the first phase and to teach it to each other in the second
phase, they use index cards with key concepts and they answer questions. In the
third phase, they check all cards once more and then spread out their cards to
construct a conceptual structure and to cross-link their knowledge (Wahl 2005:
methods of card sorting and structuring).
In a study of 7th and 8th grade students studying biology, Huber (2006) demon-
strated that structuring the learning using the Partner-Puzzle method was more
effective than traditional learning in promoting academic achievement, intrinsic
motivation, perceived competence, and self-determination. Moreover, a comparison
of the Partner-Puzzle method with and without support of the described learning
activities showed that 8th grade students had academic achievement gains and
reported strong intrinsic motivation and perceived competence while 7th grade
students who received support were also better on some of the achievement meas-
ures than those without such support although they did not report better intrinsic
motivation or perceived competence. A possible explanation for these differences
could be that the 7th grade students whose intellectual abilities are less developed
had less cognitive capacity to use the supporting learning activities and, therefore,
experienced difficulties. This interpretation is backed by Hoek et al. (1999) who
found that low achieving students reach the limits of their cognitive capacity sooner
than their more able peers.
The Partner-Puzzle method is one of a number of WEchselseitiges Lehren und
Lernen (WELL) methods. WELL stands for Reciprocal Teaching and Learning.
WELL methods are based on the assumption that task specialization alone does not
guarantee efficient learning and that learners also have to be supported by guide-
lines or prescriptions of learning activities. We cannot expect that all learners,
particularly those who are younger and less experienced begin cooperative learning
with efficient strategies in how to acquire knowledge, how to teach each other, and
how to deepen their own understanding. For these three learning phases they need
support. The learning activities must be prescribed specifically for different goals
of cooperative learning, for the knowledge domain, and for learner’s competencies.
Other WELL methods are the Speed-Duet (Lerntempoduett, Wahl 2004a), the
Partner-, Group-or Multi-Interview (Wahl 2004b, c), and Structured Controversy
(Huber 2004b; Johnson & Johnson 1994a).
Another very successful way of motivating learners to support each other is to
implement group rewards based on the individual learning gains of the group members.
To be recognized as a successful group, members will do everything to help each
other to improve their academic achievement. This is a very effective strategy to
promote learning although it is often rejected because it implies competition
between groups, therefore, we will concentrate on task specialization.
Task specialization and feedback or reward for the learning of the group members
are part of the external organization of learning in small groups. These structural
supports focus the learners’ attention on learning processes instead of caring only
for the production of a group result.


6.4 Internal Organization of Learning in Small Groups

Additional support for the interaction of learners is a component of many models
or methods of cooperative learning on the level of internal organization. As Kagan
(1989) commented, internal structures of cooperative learning prescribe a series of
steps together with the appropriate learning behavior and they organize the stu-
dents’ social interaction almost independently of the specific content or domain of
subject matter. In addition, these internal structures of cooperation in learning
teams provide a divide between product-centered collaboration and process-based
cooperation. Kagan (1989/90) proposed that process structures may be applied in
various learning contexts, while product-oriented learning activities, such as
designing a team poster, always focus on content.
There are several ways to structure group interactions in cooperative teams.
One is to support the task-specific interactions and another to support social inter-
actions or group processes. In cases where the primary goal of cooperative
learning is to enhance social competencies, task specific interactions and social
interactions are identical.
There are four ways of structuring interactions. First, provide more or less
detailed activities for the students. For example, prescribing roles is a less detailed
support whereas learning scripts are often very detailed. Second, train students in
the relevant competencies before teams start learning together. Third, encourage
students to reflect on, and evaluate, learning activities during and after learning.
Fourth, help group members modify their perceptions of competence, both of them-
selves and others, to ensure that all participate equally in the learning process.
Structuring interactions in groups even seems to be helpful when group
rewards are applied that are based on criteria of individual learning. Although
studies show that group rewards are very effective on their own, there are indica-
tions that they could be even more effective if the organizational model provides
support for learning activities. It is of interest that Ross and Cousins (1999) found
that learning according to the cooperative model “Student-Teams-Achievement
Divisions” (Slavin 1986) and its group rewards did not promote the learners’
competence in giving each other adequate help. In this model students learn
cooperatively in teams composed heterogeneously according to individual
achievement levels, and the groups receive achievement feedback based on the
sum of individual gain scores of their members, that is, scores expressing the
difference between individual previous knowledge and actual knowledge after
cooperation. Theoretically, under these feedback conditions students should be
highly motivated to care about each others learning and achievement by asking
freely for assistance, giving detailed explanations, testing for understanding, and
monitoring each member’s learning progress. It is unlikely that groups use
elaborated task-specific interactions spontaneously. When teachers do not initiate
these kinds of interaction they risk letting learners interact on a rather superficial
level (Cohen 1994; Renkl 1997).


6.4.1 Approaches to Structuring Interactions

As already outlined, there are four ways of structuring interactions in small groups:
1. Providing guidelines for specific learning activities;
2. Training in the required competencies;
3. Reflecting on and evaluating available learning activities, and
4. Modifying students’ subjective perceptions of competence.
Interventions to support group interactions by implementing specific structures
may affect task-specific interactions and/or social interactions. If the members of
learning groups do not have a rich repertoire of social competencies at their dis-
posal, it is important to provide support for social interactions. However, smooth
social processes in learning groups alone do not guarantee that the team succeeds
in its task-specific learning goals. Therefore, we will describe not only ways to
structure interactions within small groups, but also outline, in the final section, two
models of teaching that combine cooperative learning with other approaches to
teaching and learning: the Sandwich approach and the Self-organized learning
(SOL) in teams approach.

Providing Guidelines for Learning Activities

These guidelines can be ordered along a dimension of openness versus strictness of
prescribing learning activities. A very detailed approach for structuring task-specific
interactions is, for example, “scripted cooperation” (O’Donnell & Dansereau 1992)
where learners work in dyads with a script on what activities to use at which point
of time for learning a text. The prototypical script is the MURDER script, which
prescribes activities like reading, summarizing, detecting mistakes and missing infor-
mation, elaborating, and reviewing the text. Studies show that cooperative learning
with this script is more effective than individual learning with and without such a
script (Hall et al. 1988, 1989; McDonald et al. 1985; O’Donnell et al. 1986).
However, there is only one study that compares cooperative learning with and with-
out a script (McDonald et al. 1985), and in that study, there was no advantage for
scripted cooperation (Huber 1999).
A less detailed approach to structuring interactions is built into the WELL methods.
WELL methods require task specialization and assume that students should be
supported in how to acquire knowledge, how to teach each other, and how to reach
deeper understanding of the subject matter. If these activities are not supported,
cooperative learning will not be very effective. Most problematic with this approach
is that students often assume that their role is finished once they have taught their
expert knowledge to the other team members. However, they have to initiate learning
activities after teaching so that other members, who are specialized in other aspects
of the team’s task, get a chance to become experts too.


A rather more open approach is prescribing particular group roles to individual
members, for instance, the role of the “listener” or of a “social facilitator.” This
approach is used within methods of “Learning Together” proposed by Johnson
and Johnson (1994b). However, group members’ abilities to fill these roles depend
on their available competencies or in being able to train them in the necessary
competencies before content learning starts.

Competence Training

Competence trainings may be conducted to promote social, methodological, or
personal competencies as prerequisites of subject matter learning. It may also be
useful to teach students how to implement prescribed learning activities when they
lack experience in how to do so.
A meta-analysis by Hattie et al. (1996) shows that strategy training is most effec-
tive when it includes reflections on how, when, where, and why to use different
strategies. Strategy training is also not very useful unless it is embedded in a real
learning context (Reusser 2001) otherwise learners will not apply these strategies
when it comes to difficult learning tasks. Cooperative learning methods that contain
prescribed learning activities offer relevant learning contexts in which to practice
learning strategies. The group members report that guidelines and prescriptions are
very useful, and other learners may model how to use the strategies.
Acquisition of knowledge is supported efficiently if learners have opportunities
to practice how to give elaborated explanations and how to ask high quality
questions. Various studies by King (1989, 1990, 1991) and King and Rosenshine
(1993) investigated the effectiveness of training students to ask high quality
questions. Learners who received training in how to ask elaborated questions were
more effective at asking such questions than control groups. Most important for
students’ achievement was the quality of the questions as well as the quality of the
answers (King 1990).
Within Structured Controversy (Huber 2004c; Johnson & Johnson 1994a) different
learning activities are prescribed, however, this may not be sufficient. If learners do
not know, for example, how to argue with each other, they need explanations,
demonstrations, and training in advance – and only afterwards can they apply this
form of activity successfully. Generally, it may be appropriate to train students in
the competencies necessary to apply specific learning activities. These competencies
then will be differentiated and consolidated by using the prescribed strategies
during cooperative learning. Further support comes from reflecting on and evaluating
how the learning activities were applied.

Reflection and Evaluation of Learning Activities

Cohen (1994) stated that reflecting on learning processes and the social or methodo-
logical competencies involved is highly important for the enhancement of academic
achievement. Learning journals or learning diaries, often combined with selected


examples of a student’s work in a portfolio style, are excellent ways of initiating
reflection on one’s personal process of learning. They may also lead to deeper
processing and longer lasting retention of the content of learning (Renkl et al. 2004).
Teachers receive diagnostic information about learning processes, difficulties, and
outcomes, which they can use again in their teaching (Uerdingen 2002). Learning
processes should not only be reflected individually, but should also be discussed in
learning dyads, small groups, and with the whole class to improve learning.
Beck et al. (1997) described an approach that contains different forms of reflec-
tion on an individual and a social level. Students first get the chance to observe a
model using the strategies that are to be learned. During learning the students write
down their reflections related to learning in their journals. They also discuss their
experiences in learning dyads and in the whole class. Another fast and easy method
is to use rating-scales on which learners assess how they worked together and what
they would like to change (Huber 1987). In groups that work together for a longer
time it is especially important to use some kind of evaluation to recognize problems
early and to support self-regulation of group processes. Reflection and evaluation
of learning activities are important components of structuring group interactions.
Additionally, these supportive approaches offer rich opportunities for teachers to
obtain insight into what is working well and what needs to be changed during learn-
ing in small groups.

Modification of Subjective Perceptions of Competence

In small group learning a problem occurs when learners with higher social status
participate more frequently in group activities and, thus, have more opportunities to
learn. Neglecting lower status members may curb not only their achievement but
also the achievement of all members because even potentially important contribu-
tions of members with lower status can be lost (Cohen 1993). Therefore, Cohen et al.
(1994) introduced exercises to modify perceived competencies by emphasizing that
a broad spectrum of competencies (i.e., the contribution of all group members) is
necessary to cope with a learning task. Cohen demonstrated that learners with high
and low status show comparable amounts of participation after such an interven-
tion, although learners with higher status still offer more help.

6.5 Individual Organization of Learning in Small Groups

Among the unexpected experiences of teachers who implemented cooperative
learning at various educational levels are disapproving reactions of at least some of
their students. Generally, these students want to know why the teacher does not
continue to provide them with the curricular contents but requires that they find out
about it in cooperation with some classmates on their own.
These reactions are surprising to many teachers because the organization of
learning and instruction is often based on the general hypothesis that all learners are


motivated to approach a task if it creates cognitive controversy and gets the learners
involved in a process of resolving uncertainties about their environment and/or
themselves. Therefore, learning teams should provide excellent conditions for
learning, especially if their members are grouped heterogeneously. Sorrentino and
Short (1986) showed in their work on uncertainty-versus certainty-orientation that
there are indeed persons who are highly motivated to learn from and incorporate
new information in situations where uncertainty about the environment and the self
is predominant. However, not everyone appreciates controversial social situations
as a challenge; there are people who try to avoid the uncertainties of interpersonal
controversy that might confront them with new or potentially inconsistent informa-
tion, even if it is focused on problems of subject matter (see Sorrentino & Hewitt
1984; Sorrentino & Short 1986).
What difference do these differing individual orientations make in cooperative
learning? Based on concepts of learning as a social-cognitive process we assume
that cooperation in small groups promotes active learning (Stern & Huber 1997)
because team members together create and share more ideas and have to consider
carefully their various opinions and suggestions to reach a group decision. The
greater variety of ideas and suggestions presented as compared to individual
learning offers more alternatives in processes of decision-making. Examples
include decisions as to what content should be analyzed, which suggested
solutions should be tested, or which learning strategies should be applied to solve
a given task. More alternatives will also accentuate the impact of individual
differences in tolerance of uncertainty on processes and results of learning.
Discussion, dispute, and argumentation on the one hand are necessary means of
coping with this situation, while on the other hand tolerance of ambiguity is
required from each of the members.
In a series of studies, we demonstrated that uncertainty-oriented students’ epis-
temic curiosity is aroused by ambiguous aspects (e.g., opportunities for discovering
something new, controversial discussion topics or differing points of view) of
instructional settings, while certainty-oriented students are not only not attracted by
learning arrangements of the “curiosity” or “debate” type, but also tend to prefer
clearly structured situations including guidance by teachers (Huber et al. 1992). Most
importantly, we also found that uncertainty-oriented students achieved more during
team interactions than their certainty-oriented classmates. Kempas (1994) reported
similar findings for teachers of adult learners in an in-service training. However, we
should keep in mind that individual uncertainty-versus certainty-orientation will
lead to differences in learning behavior and achievement only if the learning situation
is characterized by uncertainties.
Consequently, differences in individual orientation should not make a difference
in situations of individual learning but particularly in situations of cooperative
learning. This was shown clearly in a study (Huber et al. 1995) of 209 students of
all 8th grade classrooms in two high schools (Gymnasien). Individual uncertainty-
orientation versus certainty-orientation was assessed with a 15-item rating scale
(Dalbert 1992). Based on these results, we identified in each classroom three
clearly uncertainty-oriented students and three clearly certainty-oriented students.


They were confronted individually and in homogeneous groups of three others with
the task of preparing an oral presentation about “Our life in 10 years” (subject
matter area: German) – first individually, and then they had to compare their ideas
and prepare a group presentation. The students’ thinking aloud (individual situation)
and interactions (team situation) were videotaped and analyzed supported by the
software tool AQUAD (Huber & Gürtler 2004). There was no difference in ability
between uncertainty-and certainty-oriented students.
Categories of analysis were the numbers of suggested, corrected, repeated, ques-
tioned, and finally accepted (i.e., finally written down in a list of possible contents)
alternative topics for the oral presentation as well as the frequencies of positive and
negative evaluations of alternatives, and the justifications for accepted and rejected
alternatives presented. For the analysis of team situations the categories of evalua-
tion and justification were put together into two broader concepts of discussions in
favor of an alternative and discussions against an alternative.
The results showed that except for the number of justifications provided for
accepting an alternative there were no significant differences between uncertainty-
oriented and certainty-oriented students in the situation of individual learning.
However, as soon as the same students had to share their ideas and come to terms
with each other in cooperative teams, the picture changed dramatically. Groups of
uncertainty-oriented students produced on average 49 independent ideas while
groups of certainty-oriented students produced only about 31. Members of
uncertainty-oriented groups asked questions – which usually point out unclear or
ambiguous aspects in a discussion – about seven times more frequently (arithmetic
mean: 8.0 versus 1.2 questions) than members of certainty-oriented groups. In
groups composed of uncertainty-oriented members the final list of topics for the
presentation was much richer (27 versus 18 ideas) and based on more thorough
debates proposing (56 versus 32 arguments) and opposing (40 versus 17 arguments)
the suggested alternatives. All of these frequency differences yielded significant
Mann-Whitney’s U-test results.
In summary, the analysis of decision-making showed almost no differences
between uncertainty-oriented and certainty-oriented students when working
individually although there were very important differences when working cooper-
atively. Above all, the groups differed significantly in their discussions about those
ideas, which they finally decided to accept. The results show that uncertainty-
oriented students profit from opportunities to cooperate, while certainty-oriented
students seem to be disadvantaged.
It is of interest that the differences in decision-making between uncertainty-
oriented and certainty-oriented students faded with more structured learning tasks
– just as the theory of uncertainty tolerance suggests. Thus, we found the most
remarkable differences in the unstructured task in German (preparing for an
oral presentation) described above, only minor differences in more structured
tasks in Social Science, and no differences in highly structured mathematical
tasks. This finding suggests that structuring cooperative learning may promote
thinking and learning for all students, independent of their individual uncertainty-
or certainty-orientation.


6.6 Structuring Interactions by Combining
Methods of Teaching/Learning

6.6.1 The Sandwich Principle of Teaching

The Sandwich principle of teaching (Wahl 2005) provides systematically alternative
phases of teacher-centered and autonomous learning. During teacher-centered phases
teachers provide an overview on how the parts of a specific topic of subject matter
are interconnected. These phases are characterized by teacher input on a general
level. During the autonomous learning phases, learners get the chance to deal with
the learning subject on their own, in pairs or in small groups. The success of autonomous
learning phases depends on the mode and degree to which learning is structured.
The approaches to structuring learning must match the demands of the learning
goals and the knowledge domain as well as the learners’ available competencies.
For learners with low previous knowledge, low intellectual abilities, and low com-
petencies the Sandwich layers need to be thinner than for learners with more
prerequisites (Gerbig & Gerbig-Calcagni 1998), that is, there must be more and
shorter alternations of different phases. The Sandwich principle is a way of reconciling
the needs of learners for orientation and structure on the one hand and for active,
autonomous construction of their own system of knowledge on the other hand.
A detailed example of a Sandwich structure of teaching and learning is shown in
the following description of the “self-organized learning in teams.”

6.6.2 Self-Organized Learning (SOL) in Teams

Endeavors to promote not only academic learning, but also the development of key
qualifications in classrooms—like team competence, communication skills, and
personal initiative—have to cope with contradictions between prevailing procedures
within the majority of educational institutions on the one hand and the inherent logic
of social learning goals on the other. Many schools, particularly at the secondary
level “look at the world in ‘mono’cultural, egocentric and linear ways,” while the
social learning perspective in education builds upon “interaction, reciprocity, inter-
dependence, dialogue, and mutual responsibility” (Rey 1996, p. 5). Cooperative
learning promises to promote social learning without neglecting academic goals.
Herold and Landherr, at that time Gymnasium teachers in 1995, developed a
new organizational framework initially called the “fractal organization of teaching
and learning,” which promised to meet the demands of modern conceptions of
active learning (self-regulatory competencies; Stern & Huber 1997), demands of
employers (action competencies), and demands of an information society (media
competencies). A general aim was to design a model for implementation in the
gymnasiale Oberstufe (grades 11–13), but one that was useful also in vocational
schools and in adult education (Herold & Landherr 2001; Herold et al. 1997).


To implement this model all students of the same grade (in the case of our study,
grade 12) were assigned to three “learning islands.” These units contain those subject
matter areas, which offer optimal opportunities for creating linkages from the point
of view of a particular overlapping theme. In our study, the students learned for six
weeks about the topic of Energy on three learning islands for two weeks each under
the perspectives of natural sciences/mathematics, languages, and social sciences.
The students took turns as inhabitants of each of the learning islands. In a modi-
fied version of Jigsaw learning, each student had to complete the assignments of one
of the disciplines represented on the learning island; thus he or she became an expert
in this particular subject matter area. Other students on the same learning island
acquired expertise for the other subject matter areas. Later, back in their basic teams
they shared their expert knowledge, teaching each other and learning from each
other with increasing self-responsibility. The teachers were available during this
phase of learning as moderators of group dynamics or learning procedures and, if
necessary, as the real experts in their particular subject matter domain. This organi-
zational principle was realized on all levels of the teaching/learning system, from
structuring a school’s complete grade level according to learning islands, breaking
them down into expert groups, teams, and finally individual learners (see Fig. 6.1).
Activities in each of the three phases were structured identically: Teachers and
students prepared the organization of their activities, that is, students were assigned to
learning islands (basic groups) and subject matter domains (expert groups) for the next
10 days. The teachers then started to present an overview on the content of this phase.

Basic Expert Individual
Groups Topic A1 Groups
Work
Island A Topic A2

Math, Physics, Topic A3
Plenum Chemistry,
...

German,
English,
Advance ... Topic B1
Organizing
Island B Topic B2
Group
Assignment
Topic B3

Social Studies,
Geography,
...
Topic C1

Island C Topic C2

Topic C3

Fig. 6.1 Self-organized learning (SOL; Herold & Landherr 2001)


This introduction served as an advance organizer (Ausubel 1974) and accentuated
the linkages between formerly – according to the constraints of traditional teaching
and learning in schools – isolated subject matter areas. Afterwards the students met in
their expert groups to work together on their assignments and to become experts in
their particular field. Next day the students returned to their basic groups and shared
their newly acquired knowledge. They applied a variety of communicative tech-
niques to ensure that all group members really understood what they were supposed
to learn. This structure was repeated for the following two days with new content.
The sixth and seventh day were dedicated to discussion, enrichment and training of
what had been learned. The eighth day focused on repetition and clarification of
linkages between different aspects of the material and on the ninth day, all students
had to pass a test of all aspects and their interrelations learned during the last days.
The students and the teachers met the following day (the last of this learning phase)
in an “island coffee shop” to share their experiences, problems, achievements, and
success. This was an excellent occasion for presentations of all kinds.
For the second and third phase each student moved to another island to master
new aspects of the general topic related to other subject matter domains. Over the
time of the study, the teachers gave the students increasing degrees of freedom for
organizing their work and applying particular learning methods.
Observations during team work and interviews with selected teachers and students
as well as standardized self-report instruments show that the model was accepted
widely both by students and teachers. For the observation of classroom events
during activities in expert groups and base groups we applied a 210-item observation
protocol developed for a comparative study of active learning in eight OECD
countries (Stern & Huber 1997). Interestingly, the majority of students were enthu-
siastic about the possibilities of exchanging their ideas independently, mutually
tackling problems, and caring for each others’ learning. There were some students
and some teachers who seemed to be overwhelmed by the complexity of the new
learning/teaching situations. They expressed their wish to return to the traditional
ways of schooling as soon as possible either overtly by complaining or covertly by
not tuning into the needs of other students or teachers.
The approach worked well during the expert phases, that is, when the students
met in expert groups dedicated to mastering a particular assignment and working
together to become experts in their particular field. They readily gave explanations
to each other, and they freely expressed any misunderstandings and asked for more
explanations. However, later back in their base groups, students adopted familiar
roles – as experts in the teacher’s role as well as in the learners’ role. More precisely,
the experts tried to mediate their knowledge in the familiar style of teacher-
centered, frontal lessons, while the other students listened and took notes. Thus,
they had only a few chances to experience the challenge of coming to terms with
varying understandings and to gain from the opportunity to compare, question, and
integrate different perspectives, opinions, and solutions. The difference between
these two phases of learning may be due to the fact that the teachers more often
stimulated group activities within expert sessions than within base group sessions.
In addition, there was a difference in how the model was implemented in the three


participating schools. In one school students worked less cooperatively during the
base group sessions than students in the other two schools, where the teachers were
more in control in these schools.
An initial reaction was to supplement the model with additional layers to the
didactic sandwich, which gives more structure to processes of exchanging ideas and
sharing knowledge, above all in base groups. Therefore, the teachers received
advice on how to differentiate the activities according to different demands of sub-
ject matter. For instance, in math, they should take more responsibility for introduc-
ing a new topic, but they should delegate the responsibility for applying new
knowledge in phases of practice and problem-solving to student teams. Thus, ele-
ments of Slavin’s (1986) Student Teams – Achievement Divisions were integrated
into the current model. Analogically, features of group investigation (Sharan &
Sharan 1992) were combined to promote the language parts of the curriculum.
Most important, however, was better preparation of students for the challenges
waiting for them in the weeks of intervention. Therefore, the students participating
in the next school year received specific training in two areas: summarizing their
knowledge and presenting it in their own words to their team-mates to prevent tra-
ditional lecturing by experts in base groups, and formulating precise questions and
giving adequate answers while preventing traditional lecturing.
An evaluation five years later comparing 373 students from 6 schools, where in
two schools each teachers had five years of experience with the model, applied it
for the first time, or taught in the traditional manner, demonstrated both the advan-
tages over regular classrooms instruction and the importance of teacher experience.
As examples we quote here the effects of six weeks of active learning in the inter-
vention environment on availability of learning strategies (see Fig. 6.2) and on
achievement pressure (see Fig. 6.3), which the intervention students thought was
significantly reduced as compared to students in control schools.

Fig. 6.2 Availability of learning strategies


Fig. 6.3 Achievement pressures

Because of differences in the pre-tests we used residual gain scores resulting
from pre-to post-test regression analysis as indicators of changes over time. The
impact of teachers’ experience in structuring the SOL environment for their
students is obvious. While the model was a first for all students, the teachers at two
schools already had applied this cooperative learning arrangement for five years,
whereas the teachers at the other two schools had implemented the intervention for
the first time. In regard to the problems with students’ individual organization for
approaching/avoiding ambiguous situations we found that due to the sandwich
structure of the model, certainty-oriented students had ample opportunities to
prepare for cooperative interactions and there were no differences in results
between uncertainty-oriented and certainty-oriented students.

6.7 Recommendations for Teachers and Researchers

Although we still need to know a lot more about which type of didactical support
of learning in small groups is useful for which learning goal, knowledge domain,
and individual prerequisites of learners, it is obvious that external, task-centered
organization is a necessary, but by no means a sufficient condition for successful
cooperative learning. Distinguishing between cooperative and collaborative learn-
ing, that is, between breaking down a learning task into different parts for different
learners and putting the results together cooperatively versus working together at a
common task, may help to draw the attention to interaction processes in small
groups. Since differentiating between cooperation and collaboration is linked to
distinguishing partial- versus whole-tasks, the predominance of product criteria in
school settings may be reinforced.


Therefore, we strongly recommend the underlining of critical aspects of internal
organization and individual prerequisites when cooperative learning is implemented.
It should be apparent that if we want learners to interact effectively in small groups
it is necessary to prescribe appropriate learning activities and in many cases to train
students in advance in using those activities adequately. Also in the domain of
internal organization we should not debate the advantages of social organization
versus task organization or vice versa but conceive of both approaches to structuring
learning in small groups as mutually dependent.
If social conditions of learning are neglected, cooperative methods involving
task specialization in particular lead only to sub-optimal effects. Task specialization
should be complemented by supporting social interaction of group members by
prescribing interaction models, by training social interaction in advance, by reflecting
on interaction experiences during and/or after group sessions, or by modifying the
mutual social perception (in terms of social status, prestige, etc.) of group members.
The WELL methods of cooperative learning offer reliable and feasible examples of
how to structure group interactions for various situations of learning in small groups.
We want to highlight the importance of reflection processes for cooperative
learning. If we intend to find out how effective the learning activities are, it is
sensible to implement some routines of reflection and evaluation of these activities.
Learners may keep a learning journal or fill in rating-scales about their learning
experiences and discuss their opinions or experiences in dyads, small groups or
within the whole class. Reflection on individual learning processes takes some
time, but it is a very efficient way for teachers to get feedback on what to change
in their teaching – and it helps learners to establish competencies of self-regulation.
Formulated more concretely, promising environments for learning in small groups
should offer structures that not only promote knowledge acquisition but also foster
methodological, social, and personal competencies. They provide an environment
in which learners can fulfill their basic needs for competence, autonomy, and
relatedness (Deci & Ryan 1985, 2002) and lead to intrinsically motivated learning.
They allow participants to reduce their prejudices and build friendships across the
borders of gender and ethnicity.
These functions of feedback imply, however, that we rethink generally both the
role and procedures of assessment in schools, and particularly their impact on
cooperative learning environments. As long as the prevailing methods of assess-
ment are focused on cognitive achievements, and noncognitive goals like social,
methodological and personal competencies as well as process data about learning
are ignored, it seems unlikely that teachers and learners will change their habits of
teaching and learning.
Implementing learning in small groups needs careful consideration. Not only
must consideration be given to how to structure learning tasks but consideration
must also be given to how the conditions and processes that enhance social interac-
tion between team mates can be promoted. In addition, the role of the teachers in
general and specifically the optimal didactic placement of their activities has to be
reconsidered. The “didactical Sandwich” as realized in WELL approaches and the
model of teaching and learning appear as promising solutions of this problem.


Finally, the exclusive role of individually centered assessment procedures apparently
is obsolete in cooperative environments of teaching and learning. Implementing
cooperative learning means more than applying some methods of social interaction
in classrooms, but demands instead a comprehensive approach of restructuring
routines of teaching and learning in schools.

References

Andriessen, J. E. B., Coirier, P., Roos, L., Passerault, J. M., & Bert-Erboul, J. M. (1996). Thematic
and structural planning in constrained argumentative text production. In H. Van den Bergh,
G. Rijlaarsdam & M. Couzijn (Eds.), Theories, models and methodology in writing research
(pp. 237–251). Amsterdam: University Press.
Aronson, E., Blaney, N., Stephan, G., Sikes, J., & Snapp, M. (1978). The Jigsaw classroom.
Beverly Hills: Sage.
Aronson, E., Wilson, T. D., & Akert, R. M. (2004). Sozialpsychologie [Social psychology]
(4th revised edn.). München: Pearson Studium.
Ausubel, D. P. (1974). Psychologie des Unterrichts [Psychology of teaching]. Weinheim: Beltz.
Beck, E., Guldimann, T., & Zutavern, M. (1997). Eigenständiges Lernen verstehen und fördern
[Understanding and promoting self-regulated learning]. In K. Reusser & M. Reusser-Weyeneth
(Eds.), Verstehen: psychologischer Prozess und didaktische Aufgabe [Understanding:
psychological process and didactic task] (pp. 207–225). Bern: Huber.
Cohen, E. G. (1993). Bedingungen für kooperative Kleingruppen [Conditions for cooperating
small groups]. In G. L. Huber (Ed.), Neue Perspektiven der Kooperation [New perspectives of
cooperation] (S. 45–53). Hohengehren: Schneider Verlag.
Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review
Cohen, E. G., Lotan, R. A., Whitcomb, J. A., Balderrama, M. V., Cossey, R., & Swanson, P. E.
(1994). Complex instruction: Higher-order thinking in heterogeneous classrooms. In S. Sharan
(Ed.), Handbook of cooperative learning methods (pp. 82–96). Westport, CT: Greenwood
Press.
Dalbert, C. (1992). Der Glaube an die gerechte Welt: Differenzierung und Validierung eines
Konstrukts [The belief in a Just World: Differentiation and validation of a construct].
Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 23, 268–276.
Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior.
New York: Plenum Press.
Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M. (Eds.) (2002). Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 3–36).
Rochester: The University of Rochester Press.
Hall, R. H., Dansereau, D. F., O’Donnell, A. M., & Skaggs, L. P. (1989). The effect of textual
errors on dyadic and individual learning. Journal of Reading Behavior, 21, 127–140.
Hall, R. H., Rocklin, T. R., Dansereau, D. F., Skaggs, L. P., O’Donnell, A. M., Lambiotte, J. G.,
& Young, M. D. (1988). The role of individual differences in the learning of technical material.
Hattie, J., Biggs, J., & Purdie, N. (1996). Effects of learning skills interventions on student learning:
a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66, 99–136.
von Hentig, H. (2004). Einführung in den Bildungsplan 2004. [Introduction to the curriculum 2004]
Found on Sept. 08, 2005, under http://www.bildung-staerkt-menschen.de/service/downloads/
Sonstiges/Einfuehrung_BP.pdf.
Herold, M., & Landherr, B. (2001). SOL Selbstorganisiertes Lernen: ein systemischer Ansatz für
Unterricht [SOL Self-organized learning: a systematic approach for the classroom].
Baltmannsweiler: Schneider-Verlag Hohengehren.


Herold, M., Landherr, B., & Huber, G. L. (1997). Fraktale Lernorganisation in der gymnasialen
Oberstufe: Ergebnisse eines Schulversuchs [Fractal organisation of learning in the gymnasiale
Oberstufe: Results of a study in schools]. Presentation at the 6th conference of the Fachgruppe
Pädagogische Psychologie/Deutsche Gesellschaft für Psychologie, Frankfurt am Main.
Hoek, D., van den Eden, P., & Terwel, J. (1999). The effects of integrated social and cognitive
strategy instruction on the mathematics achievement in secondary education. Learning and
Instruction, 9, 427–448.
Huber, A. (1999). Bedingungen effektiven Lernens in Kleingruppen unter besonderer
Berücksichtigung der Rolle von Lernskripten [Conditions of effective learning in small groups
in particular consideration of learning scripts]. Schwangau: Ingeborg Huber Verlag.
Huber, A. A. (2004a). Die Partnerpuzzlemethode [The partner-puzzle method]. In A. A. Huber
(Hrsg.), Kooperatives Lernen – Kein Problem. Effektive Methoden der Partner-und
Gruppenarbeit [Cooperative learning – no problem. Effective methods of working in pairs and
groups] (S.39–48). Leipzig: Ernst Klett Schulbuchverlag.
Huber, A. A. (2004b). Die Strukturierte Kontroverse [The structured controversy]. In A. A. Huber
(Hrsg.), Kooperatives Lernen – kein Problem. Effektive Methoden der Partner-und
Gruppenarbeit [Cooperative learning – no problem. Effective methods of working in pairs and
groups] (S.80–85). Leipzig: Ernst Klett Schulbuchverlag.
Huber, A. A., Konrad, K., & Wahl, D. (2001). Lernen durch wechselseitiges Lehren [Learning by
mutual teaching]. Pädagogisches Handeln, 5 (2), 33–46.
Huber, A. A. (2006). Wechselseitiges Lehren und Lernen als spezielle Form Kooperativen Lernens
[Mutual teaching and learning as special version of cooperative learning]. Unpublished
Habilitation thesis. Weingarten: Educational University Weingarten.
Huber, G. L. (1987). Kooperatives Lernen: Theoretische und praktische Herausforderung für die
Pädagogische Psychologie [Cooperative learning: Theoretical and practical challenge for
Educational Psychology]. Zeitschrift für Entwicklungspsychologie und Pädagogische
Psychologie, 19, 340–362.
Huber, G. L. (2004). Die Praxis macht den Unterschied. Ergebnisse einer vergleichenden
Evaluation [Practice makes a difference. Results of a comparative evaluation]. Presentation in
a training course for SOL teachers, Berlin.
Huber, G. L., & Gürtler, L. (2004). Aquad Six: Manual for the analysis of qualitative data.
Tübingen: Ingeborg Huber Verlag.
Huber, G. L., Scholz, G., Kahlert, M., Schmidt, M., Standke, C., & Stauche, H. (1995).
Entscheidungsprozesse von Schülern in Lernsituationen [Decision processes of students in
learning situations]. Abschlußbericht für die Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft über das
Projekt Hu348-8/1 und Scho484-1/1. Universität Tübingen und Universität Jena.
Huber, G. L., Sorrentino, R. M., Davidson, M. A., Eppler, R., & Roth, J. W. H. (1992). Uncertainty
orientation and cooperative learning: Individual differences within and across cultures.
Learning and Individual Differences, 4, 1–24.
Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (1994b). Learning together. In S. Sharan (Ed.), Handbook of
cooperative learning methods (pp. 51–65). Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press.
Kagan, S. (1989/90). The structural approach to cooperative learning. Educational Leadership, 47,
12–15.
Kempas, G. (1994). Lehren lernen. Auswirkungen interpersoneller Differenzen auf die Lernprozesse
Lehrender [Learning how to teach. Effects of interpersonal differences on learning processes
of teachers]. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Tübingen.
King, A. (1989). Effects of self-questioning training on college students’ comprehension of
lectures. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 14, 366–381.
King, A. (1991). Improving lecture conprehension: Effects of a metacognitive stategy. Applied
Cognitive Psychology, 5, 331–346.
King, A., & Rosenshine, B. (1993). Effects of guided cooperative questioning on childrens knowledge
construction. Journal of Experimental Education, 61, 127–148.


McDonald, B. A., Larson, C. O., Dansereau, D. F., & Spurlin, J. E. (1985). Cooperative learning:
Impact on acquisition of knowledge and skills. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 10,
369–377.
O’Donnell, A. M. & Dansereau, D. F. (1992). Scripted cooperation in student dyads: A method
for analyzing and enhancing academic learning and performance. In R. Hertz-Lazarowitz &
N. Miller (Eds.), Interaction in cooperative groups: The theoretical anatomy of group learning
(pp. 120–141). New York: Cambridge University Press.
O’Donnell, A. M., Dansereau, D. F., Hythecker, V. I., Larson, C. O., Rocklin, T. R., Lambiotte, J. G.,
& Young, M. D. (1986). The effects of monitoring on cooperative learning. Journal of
Experimental Education, 54, 169–173.
Renkl, A., Nückles, M., Schwonke, R., Berthold, K., & Hauser, S. (2004). Lerntagebücher als
Medium selbstgesteuerten Lernens: Theoretischer Hintergrund, empirische Befunde,
praktische Entwicklungen [Learning diaries as a means of self-regulated learning: Theoretical
background, empirical findings, practical developments]. In M. Wosnitza, A. Frey & R. S.
Jäger (Eds.), Lernprozess, Lernumgebung und Lerndiagnostik. Wissenschaftliche Beiträge zum
Lernen im 21. Jahrhundert [Learning process, learning environment, and diagnostics of
learning. Scientific contributions to learning in the 21st century] (pp. 101–116). Landau:
Verlag Empirische Pädagogik.
Reusser, K. (2001). Unterricht zwischen Wissensvermittlung und Lernen lernen. Alte
Sackgassen und neue Wege in der Bearbeitung eines pädagogischen Jahrhundert problems
[Teaching between transmission of knowledge and learning to learn. Well-known dead ends
and new ways to elaborate on an educational problem of the century]. In C. Finkbeiner & G.
W. Schnaitmann (Eds.), Lehren und Lernen im Kontext empirischer Forschung und
Fachdidaktik [Teaching and learning in the context of empirical research and special didactics]
(pp. 106–140). Donauwörth: Auer Verlag.
Rey, M. (1996). Between memory and history. A word about intercultural education. The
European Journal of Intercultural Studies, 7, 3–10.
Roschelle, J. & Teasley, S. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem
solving. In O’Malley, C. E. (Ed.), Computer supported collaborative learning (pp. 69–97).
Heidelberg: Springer.
Rotering-Steinberg, S. & von Kügelgen, T. (1986). Ergebnisse einer schriftlichen Befragung zum
Gruppenunterricht [Results of a survey on group learning]. Erziehungswissenschaft -
Erziehungspraxis, 2, 26–91.
Rotering-Steinberg, S. (2000): Untersuchungen zum Sozialen Lernen in Schulen [Studies on
social learning in schools]. In C. Dalbert & E. J. Brunner, (Eds.): Handlungsleitende
Kognitionen in der Pädagogischen Praxis [Action-guiding cognitions in educational practice]
(pp. 119–137). Baltmannsweiler: Schneider-Verlag Hohengehren.
Schulgesetz für das Land Baden-Württemberg (Fassung vom 1.4.2004) [School law for the Land
Baden-Württemberg]. Found on Sept. 08, 2005, under http://www.leu.bw.schule.de/bild/SchG.
pdf
Sharan, Y. & Sharan S. (1992). Expanding cooperative learning through group investigation.
New York: Teachers’ College Press, Columbia University.
Slavin, R. E. (1986). Using student team learning (3rd edn.). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins
University.
Slavin, R.E. (1995a). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice (2nd edn.). Boston:
Allyn & Bacon.
Slavin, R. E. (1995b). Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What we know, what
we need to know? Baltimore: Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk,
Johns Hopkins University.
Sorrentino, R. M., & Hewitt, E. C. (1984). The uncertainty-reducing properties of achievement
tasks revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 884–899.
Sorrentino, R. M., & Short, J.-A. C. (1986). Uncertainty orientation, motivation, and cognition. In
R. M. Sorrentino, & E. C. Higgins (Eds.), The handbook of motivation and cognition:
Foundations of social behavior (pp. 379–403). New York: Guilford.


Uerdingen, M. (2002). Das Lerntagebuch. Ein Medium zur Begleitung und Unterstützung von
Lernprozessen [The learning diary. A medium to accompany and support learning processes].
Grundschule, 3, 43–44.
Wahl, D. (2004a). Das Lerntempoduett [The learning speed duet]. In A. A. Huber (Hrsg.),
Kooperatives Lernen—kein Problem. Effektive Methoden der Partner- und Gruppenarbeit
[Cooperative learning—no problem. Effective methods of working in pairs and groups]
(S. 58–68). Leipzig: Ernst Klett Schulbuchverlag.
Wahl, D. (2004b). Das Partner-und Gruppeninterview [The partner- and group-interview]. In
A. A. Huber (Hrsg.), Kooperatives Lernen – kein Problem. Effektive Methoden der Partner- und
Gruppenarbeit [Cooperative learning—no problem. Effective methods of working in pairs and
groups] (S. 69–75). Leipzig: Ernst Klett Schulbuchverlag.
Wahl, D. (2004c). Das Multiinterview als spezielle Variante des Partner-und Gruppen-interviews
[The multi-interview as specific variation of the partner- and group-interview]. In A. A. Huber
(Hrsg.), Kooperatives Lernen – kein Problem. Effektive Methoden der Partner-und
Gruppenarbeit [Cooperative learning—no problem. Effective methods of working in pairs and
groups] (S. 76–79). Leipzig: Ernst Klett Schulbuchverlag.
Wahl, D. (2005). Lernumgebungen erfolgreich gestalten. Wirksame Wege vom trägen Wissen zum
kompetenten Handeln in Erwachsenenbildung, Hochschuldidaktik und Unterricht [Designing
learning environments successfully. Effective ways from inert knowledge to competent action
in adult education, university didactics, and teaching]. Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt Verlag.

Chapter 7
Feedback and Reflection to Promote Student
Participation in Computer Supported
Collaborative Learning: A Multiple Case Study

Fleur Prinsen, Jan Terwel, Monique Volman, and Marieke Fakkert

7.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 133
7.2 Theoretical Background .................................................................................................. 134
7.3 Outline and Implementation of the Program .................................................................. 137
7.3.1 Outline ................................................................................................................ 137
7.3.2 Implementation ................................................................................................... 138
7.4 Research Design ............................................................................................................. 141
7.4.1 Instruments and Procedures ................................................................................ 141
7.4.2 Student Characteristics and Prerequisites ........................................................... 142
7.4.3 Teacher Feedback ............................................................................................... 142
7.4.4 Student Reflection............................................................................................... 143
7.4.5 Student Participation ........................................................................................... 143
7.4.6 Analysis .............................................................................................................. 144
7.5 Results (Group A) ........................................................................................................... 144
7.5.1 Description and Analysis of Group A................................................................. 144
7.5.2 Feedback and Reflection on Lesson 1: Group A ................................................ 145
7.5.3 Feedback and Reflection on Lesson 2: Group A ................................................ 147
7.5.4 Evaluation of Lesson 3: Group A ....................................................................... 149
7.5.5 Overall Developments in Participation and Elaboration in Group A ................. 150
7.6 Results (Group B) ........................................................................................................... 152
7.6.1 Description and Analysis of Group B ................................................................. 152
7.6.2 Feedback and Reflection Lesson 1: Group B ..................................................... 152
7.6.3 Feedback and Reflection Lesson 2: Group B ..................................................... 154
7.6.4 Evaluation for Lesson 3: Group B ...................................................................... 156
7.6.5 Overall Developments in Participation and Elaboration in Group B.................. 157
7.7 Results (Comparison Between Groups A and B) ........................................................... 158
7.8 Conclusion and Discussion ............................................................................................. 159
References ................................................................................................................................ 161

Abstract This chapter describes a multiple case study in Computer Supported
Collaborative Learning (CSCL). Feedback and reflection were components in a
program in which 5th grade students worked with CSCL in small groups. The
feedback and reflection was focused on improving the interaction processes of the
students, especially on supporting elaborative contributions in the groups. The inter-
action processes in two groups were closely followed and analysed, and portrayed
through examples. The main research question was: How do interaction processes

7 A Multiple Case Study 133

between students develop within a learning environment in which feedback by the
researcher/teacher on elaboration is provided and student reflection on elaboration
is encouraged? We expected that feedback and reflection about the quality of the
participation, elaboration in particular, would in the initial stages result in better
quality participation and more elaborated contributions of the students later on in
the process. Looking at the patterns in the interactions over the subsequent lessons,
we may conclude that our hypothesis was confirmed. However, the results show
significant differences in the quality of participation between individual students
and between the two case groups which appear to be related to students’ charac-
teristics and group composition, that is, ability and sociocultural background. The
implications for teaching are discussed.

7.1 Introduction

Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) is aimed at facilitating
knowledge sharing and at enhancing the interaction of students engaged in group
work. Research shows that CSCL is an activating and motivating arrangement for
learning, but an often-heard complaint is that the interactions of students working
in CSCL remain shallow (Fischer & Ostwald 2002; Stahl 1999).
In most CSCL designs the teacher plays a central role when it comes to shaping
the educational context. The teacher clarifies the learning goals, formulates the task
(or helps to formulate it), and suggests what resources can be used to complete the
task. The teacher also provides some form of feedback on the process or the completion
of the task. Although a great deal of research has focused on the interaction between
students, little is known about the effects of teachers’ feedback concerning the quality
of the interaction in cooperative learning environments (Ross & Rolheiser 2003).
Collaboration in itself is neither effective nor ineffective. It works under certain
conditions (Terwel 2003). Theoretical and empirical evidence concerning some of
these conditions has led us to design and investigate a learning environment from a
sociocultural perspective which will be described later in this chapter.
The main research question was: How do interaction processes between students
develop within a learning environment in which feedback by the researcher/teacher
is provided and student reflection is fostered? In answering this question we will
look, in particular, at the development of the participation of the group and the
individuals in the group with respect to:
1. their use of the participation-supporting features of the cscl program (program
affordances);
2. their active participation (amount of contributions and number of words per
message); and
3. their provision of elaborative contributions.
We will relate these participation measures to student characteristics, the feedback
provided, the students’ reflections on this feedback and the intentions they express
for improving their participation for the upcoming lesson.

134 F. Prinsen et al.

This chapter is structured as follows. Firstly, the theoretical background will be
described, resulting in the presentation of the basic model guiding the study.
Secondly, an outline of the educational program will be presented and the implementation
of the program will be described. Thirdly, a section will be devoted to the research
design and methods, reporting on the instruments used and the procedure followed.
In the results section of the chapter the feedback and interaction processes in the
student groups will be described and analysed. The chapter closes with conclusions,
discussions, and some suggestions for further research.

7.2 Theoretical Background

CSCL is based on a combination of theoretical notions and strategies developed in
the field of cooperative learning and the use of the computer as a medium for
supporting communication. Although CSCL may be regarded as a new approach,
it is important to recognise the theoretical roots of CSCL and to learn from the vast
body of knowledge from theories and research in the field of cooperative learning,
in particular, the teacher’s role in enhancing active participation of all students
(Ross & Rolheiser 2003).
Most cooperative learning theories emphasise the importance of active participation,
interdependence, verbalising thoughts, resource sharing, giving and receiving
high-level elaborations, and inducing socio-cognitive conflicts as the primary
mechanisms for learning and development. In stimulating these processes the role
of the teacher in cooperative learning is pivotal. Providing feedback to the students
is one of the essentials of cooperative learning and of CSCL. What do we know
from the field of cooperative learning about the role of the teacher and more
specific about monitoring, feedback, reflection and assessment? In the following
we will address four, partly overlapping, theoretical perspectives.
First, we mention the motivational theory of Slavin. In this theory two strategies
are central: individual accountability and group reward (Slavin 1995). If both
individual students and subgroups are assessed and rewarded, participation and
resource sharing within cooperative groups will be fostered and consequently learning
will occur. Slavin’s motivational theory leans heavily on theories of management
and direct instruction in which the reward structure plays a central role.
Second, the interdependence theory of Johnson and Johnson (1994) also contains
valuable information about the role of the teacher (see chapter 1). Effective coop-
erative learning arrangements should make students interdependent through, for
example, the provision of assignments and problems that can only be solved when
students work together. To reach a good result the students have to be aware that
they are dependent on each other. Group evaluation on common group goals can
aid the development of interdependence.
The teacher’s role in stimulating reflection is another aspect of this theory that
warrants attention. Reflection functions to review how well group members are
functioning and how to improve the work processes. Only a small number of


research studies have been undertaken to examine the importance of the regulation
of group processes during group work (Johnson et al. 1990; Yager et al. 1996) and
most were conducted in face-to-face contexts. We found two studies only, one by
Ulicsak (2004) and one by Dewiyanti (2005), which investigated the issue of
regulation within a CSCL environment. There are, however, various researchers
who have stressed the importance of reflection in learning processes (Bull et al.
2002; Dillenbourg & Self 1995). Reflection can be described as members’ actions
that are helpful or unhelpful in making decisions about what actions must be taken
to reach the group’s goals. These goals may be made explicit or remain implicit in
the categories of evaluation.
Third, Cohen’s sociological expectation states theory may be mentioned as one
theory in which the role of the teacher in enhancing participation of all students is
highlighted (Cohen et al. 2004; Cohen & Lotan 1995). This theory explains why
some students will dominate group activities and why others are ignored even if
their contribution is of value to the group. Central in this theory is the notion of
status within the group. Status characteristics can be related to ability, gender, or
ethnicity. High-status students will dominate the discussions and teachers can make
a difference to group performance by assigning status to students who tend to be
ignored and by designing assignments that require multiple abilities. Both strategies
can be applied to stimulate participation of all students.
Both Cohen’s and Slavin’s theories address the important role of the teacher
respectively by using a reward structure and by providing feedback on the
social processes within the cooperating group. While both theories reveal important
social aspects of fostering participation and learning in cooperative groups, they
hardly address the question of how the teacher can monitor group discussions
strategically aimed at collaborative knowledge building and individual learning.
We now turn to a fourth category of perspectives which may be captured under
the term cognitive elaboration. In this category, special attention is given to the role
of the teacher in monitoring and scaffolding the cognitive aspects of learning in
groups. To put it more specifically, how can the teacher support the construction of
concepts and strategies in small group discussions? Within this category of theories,
the work of Webb may be mentioned (Webb & Farivar 1999), which stresses the
importance of high level elaborations, such as giving and receiving explanations. In
addition, Webb investigated how teachers can influence these collaborative processes
in small groups.
The work of Brown and Palincsar (1989) must also be mentioned as an
important perspective on guided cooperative learning and individual knowledge
acquisition. The main concepts in their theory are elaboration in cooperative
groups and the guiding role of the teacher. Their theory was applied to their model
of reciprocal teaching. Under the heading of the role of conflict, Brown and
Palincsar gave attention to elaboration as one of the key processes in achieving
deeper understanding.
Conflict is another factor that can be seen as a catalyst of change, with explana-
tion, elaboration, justification, warrants, and backing being ingredients in the proc-
ess. The facilitating effect of cooperative learning depends on a number of key


factors: the initial competence of the student, the social status and serious opposi-
tion which raises questions about her own view. However, Brown and Palincsar
(1989) also mentioned that “Although conflict may be an essential trigger, it has
been argued that change is more readily the result of processes of co-elaboration
and co-construction”(p. 407).
Crook (1994) took a similar view and saw peer collaboration as having three
cognitive benefits: articulation, conflict, and co-construction. Through peer collaboration
students are challenged to make their ideas explicit and need to clearly articulate
them. When students disagree in their interpretations, conflicts may arise and the
students must mutually justify and defend their positions, reflecting on their own
(mis)conceptions. Crook’s concept of co-construction is based upon Vygotsky’s
(1978) belief that learning is the sharing of meaning in a social context. Students
build upon each others’ ideas and, thus, they co-construct (local) knowledge and a
shared understanding collaboratively.
The first three perspectives described above address the social participation
within cooperative groups, while the fourth category of perspectives focuses on the
cognitive (elaboration) aspects of collaboration in small groups. The fifth perspec-
tive integrates social and cognitive aspects into a sociocultural theory.
Sociocultural theorists have argued that knowledge construction can be
stimulated by offering opportunities to students in a relevant cultural practice. In our
sociocultural perspective the notion of guided co-construction has a central place
(Van Dijk et al. 2003a,b). From this perspective collaborative, reflective learning
under teacher guidance is a basic pattern for the organisation of learning processes.
The joint activity can be conceived of as a kind of guided co-construction or guided
reinvention in which each participant can profit from cultural resources offered
by the others and by materials used in the activity. These resources enable each
participant to accomplish more than they could do on their own. In this way,
participating in such endeavor can be seen as jointly constructing a zone of
proximal development (Van Dijk et al. 2003a,b). In this study co-construction
is guided by a teacher providing feedback on the way that students elaborate
their contributions.
The sociocultural perspective is the theoretical background for the main
concepts in our study: student characteristics, teacher feedback, student reflection,
and participation. These concepts and their mutual relationships may be
brought together in a model. Fig. 7.1, represents the conceptual model guiding
the present study. In this model Participation is taken as the dependent
variable.
Fig. 7.1 can be read as follows. Student participation is directly related to
students’ own resources such as ability level, sociocultural background, and prior
knowledge (see the horizontal arrow). However, participation is mediated by (a)
teacher’s feedback and (b) individual and group reflections on performance.
Teacher feedback is given on an individual and group level so that it will be
related to the development of the groups’ and the individual students’
participation.


Teacher
feedback

Individual Student
characteristics participation

Student
reflection

Fig. 7.1 Explanatory model for students’ development

7.3 Outline and Implementation of the Program

7.3.1 Outline

Building on this theoretical and empirical evidence for the conditions under which
collaboration works, we designed a specific learning environment, which will now
be outlined.
We designed an educational program about nutrition and health to be imple-
mented in a CSCL environment: the client version of Web Knowledge Forum
(WKF). WKF was developed by Scardamalia and Bereiter of the Ontario Institute
for Studies in Education at the University of Toronto. The WKF software provides
several facilities to enhance collaboration between the users. Among them, the
build-on facility (reacting to a previous note or question by building on it) and the
scaffolds (to be used as sentence openers to help students formulate their initial
contributions and reactions to each other) are the ones used in this implementation.
They help to engage learners in collaboration on one hand and to facilitate knowledge
construction on the other (see Fig. 7.2 for an example of how the discussion is
displayed on the screen).
While Knowledge Forum facilitated the program by the embedded facilities, the
specific curricular content, the guidance and the face-to-face interactions were also
essential elements as viewed from our theoretical perspective.
The curriculum content about nutrition and health was situated in a known cultural
practice: cooks collaborating in a kitchen to make decisions about what food to buy,
what dishes to prepare, and how to prepare the food in a healthy manner, all within
the context of a restaurant. The title of the program was “The smart chef.”
The researchers conducted all lessons. In doing so they combined the research-
er’s role with that of developer and teacher. Students in each participating class
were divided into heterogeneous groups of four, according to gender, ability, and
socio-ethnic background.


Fig. 7.2 Display of student’s contributions (in Dutch language)

The program for the students consisted of an introduction lesson, 3 lessons with
discussion questions and two intermediate feedback and reflection lessons. In
designing the program we used a combination of face-to-face and computer-
supported interaction. The reason for this, in line with the basic concept of guided
co-construction, is the importance of including reflection and feedback under the
guidance of the teacher that will result in a deeper understanding of the concepts,
structures and strategies at stake.

7.3.2 Implementation

The Introduction Lesson

After the teacher introduced the curriculum content and general aim of the lessons
to come, the students were given time to practice with the Knowledge Forum pro-
gram. After this practical introduction, the students received a hand-out with the
golden rules (see Table 7.1 below). The students received some time to read these
rules, whereupon the teacher explained that the way students react to each other’s
contributions in the Knowledge Forum is very important.
The golden rules were made to help the students find the answers to the discussion
questions together and in a constructive way. It was very important for the students


Table 7.1 The Golden rules
1 When you agree with someone, write down clearly what you agree on precisely
2 Provide clear answers (State why you think this or give a clarifying example)
3 Ask each other (clear) questions
4 Be sure to ask for clarification if you don’t understand what is said
5 When asked, provide an explanation and be sure it is helpful to the other
6 It is all right to disagree as long as you explain why you disagree

to be clear on what they were to say to each other (Rule 1 and 2). They were to use
as many words as they needed to be precise. Short messages can easily be misun-
derstood. The students had to make clear what part of the previous message they
were reacting to, for instance by repeating the part of the sentence they did not
understand (Rule 3). Instead of saying, “I don’t understand”, the student should
say: “I don’t understand what you mean by saturated fat.” The teacher told the
students that it is important to ask each other questions. The teacher stressed the
fact that there is no such thing as a stupid question and that it is very smart to ask
questions. In fact, the question is already half the answer (Rule 4). The students in
the groups were obliged to answer each others questions (Rule 5). They would be
evaluated on the help they gave each other. In CSCL environments it is important
that students react to each other in agreeable ways, but the teacher should point out
to the students that it is also important to disagree with each other sometimes (Rule 6).
This is not to be disagreeable, because in providing an explanation or an argument
why they disagree, the students can help clear up misunderstandings or even
remove incorrect understandings. This is part of learning together. To illustrate the
rules the students completed some easy assignments with examples of students
reacting to each other.
The teacher explained the function of the sentence openers in the Knowledge
Forum program. The ways of reacting to each other in a constructive (and elaborated)
manner were scaffolded by the following sentence openers: “I think …”; “My question
is …”; “That’s right, because …”; “Yes, but …”; “No because …”; “Remark:…”;
“Explanation:…” “What do you think?” and “An example:…”.
The sentence openers mirror the golden rules in students’ support for each other
by providing constructive and elaborated reactions to each other. For instance, the
sentence opener “No, because …” will remind students that disagreeing is okay as
long as you explain why you disagree with somebody else’s contribution. In the
introduction lesson the teacher also pointed out other procedural tasks that support
interactions, such as adding titles to the contributions that cover the domain specific
content of the contribution.

The Computer Supported Lesson

In the first lesson the students read a chapter of The Smart Chef. This textbook
covered some important ideas about nutrition and health. The students tried to
imagine that they were the cooks in a particular restaurant. They had to make


decisions about the purchase of ingredients, learn to read the labels, decide where
to store the food, to compose healthy menus, and to then prepare it in a hygienic
manner.
After the students had read a chapter (about six pages), the teacher handed out
the discussion questions on paper and the students were given time to prepare the
answers on their own. An example discussion question is shown below.

Example Discussion Question

You have read Chapter one of the textbook ‘The Smart Chef’. Now you can find
the possible answers to the question below. Fill out your answers on this sheet.
Make clear sentences and write down everything carefully. Make sure you don’t
forget anything. After you have found as many possible answers, you go and sit
down behind your computer and tell the people in your group what you’ve found.
Perhaps they found different answers to yours. Might they be right too?

Question: Mind the Sugar

Derreck is a new chef in our restaurant. He proposes to put a new recipe on the
menu. “Let’s make a chocolate pudding!” he says “and then we will add a sugar
coating and put a cookie on the top!” Another chef, Mary, says: “Yes, Derreck, that
sounds great but it is very unhealthy. There is far too much sugar in it and all sugar
is bad for you. Sugar is never good for you.” Is Mary right?
The teacher told the students in advance that it is important to first prepare the
answers to these questions individually, because it will make the following discus-
sion a lot easier when they come prepared. Before the students sat at their own
computers to start the group discussion in the Knowledge Forum, the teacher
stressed the point that the students first had to write down their own answers, before
reading and reacting to the ideas of the other students in their group. In this way a
diversity of ideas would be presented as a starting point for discussion. An average
group discussion behind the computer lasted 45 minutes. The students had to
discuss two discussion questions in one session.

The Feedback and Reflection Lesson

In the feedback and evaluation lesson the teacher started by reading out loud the
group evaluation forms in front of all the participating groups (see Table 7.2). This
enabled the teacher to stress the importance of the students performing as groups
and introduced a between-groups competition element. It was expected this would
support the group members in becoming a real group that would actively collaborate
in order to discuss in a constructive and rich manner.


Table 7.2 Group evaluation form
1. How was the display of the discussion organised on the screen?
2. How did the group members make use of the sentence openers?
3. Did the contributions concern the content of the assignment?
4. Did the participants give their own answers before reading and reacting to the others?
5. Were there clear titles to the messages?

After this teacher-led part of the evaluation, the students joined their group
members and each group received a print-out from their own previous week’s
discussion and a group evaluation form (See Table 7.2). On the discussion printout,
the teacher had marked her comments next to the printed contributions. These
comments were directed towards the extent to which the contributions were elabo-
rated. Understanding how to improve an interaction process and then applying it is
cognitively demanding; providing the feedback comments next to the students’ own
worked examples might help reduce the cognitive load by demonstrating the
principles of elaboration in a concrete and personally relevant way.
When the students had finished reading both the group evaluation form and the
discussion printout, the teacher handed out the group assignment. In this assign-
ment the students were asked as a group to think about the things they would like
to do differently next time. The answers given formed the group’s intentions for the
following lesson.

7.4 Research Design

Two cases taken from a more extensive case study (Fakkert 2006) will be presented.
The research design was a multiple case study including two collaborative groups
from a larger sample.
The educational program was implemented in grade 5 (students 7 years of age)
from four elementary schools. To investigate what the students had learned from
the group feedback and the individual feedback, two cooperative groups of four
students were selected. We chose two groups of students from different primary
schools and of different composition (e.g. ability level). Furthermore the two
groups showed interesting differences in the development of their participation. In
both groups we selected two students from a total of four to describe the individual
level in greater depth.

7.4.1 Instruments and Procedures

In this study a combination of quantitative and qualitative measures were used. The
interaction processes, in particular concerning teacher feedback, student participation
and student reflection, were described and analysed by video footages, observations,


interviews along with descriptions of student contributions and teacher’s guidance.
In Fig. 7.1 the main concepts are presented. Below the concept-related variables
and instruments will be described in the sequence of the model in Fig. 7.1.

7.4.2 Student Characteristics and Prerequisites

Five measures were used to describe the following student characteristics:
(a) gender, (b) socioeconomic (SES) background, (c) IQ percentile scores, (d)
reading comprehension, and (e) computer skills. These measures were included
because they can be regarded as characteristics and prerequisites that seem to be
related to the participation of the students (Prinsen et al. 2006).
Socioeconomic background was determined by using the scores from a National
SES scoring system (Esis, 2006).
The Standard Progressive Matrices test (Raven, 1976) was administered to
determine general ability (using IQ percentile scores). Scores on a national stand-
ardised reading comprehension test (CITO, 1998) were collected to determine student’s
achievement level in reading comprehension.
Before the lessons started, a questionnaire was administered to determine relevant
skills and attitudes. The Computer Skills Scale (CSS) was administered. General
computer skills were determined by providing the children with a list on which they
could indicate the computer skills they thought they possessed (25 items). A list of
general computer skills was taken from a Dutch monitor instrument (Gennip et al.
2002). All instruments proved sufficiently reliable with Cronbach’s alpha’s of 87
and higher.

7.4.3 Teacher Feedback

Teacher feedback to the group was collected from what the researcher/teacher had
written on the group-feedback sheet. This feedback was directed towards the
correct use of the participation-supporting features in the computer program (We
call these supportive features “participation-supporting” because their use is aimed
at improving participation. For instance, a clear organisation of display on the
screen makes it easier to follow the thread of the discussion; the use of the sentence
openers scaffolds the provision of elaborations; students providing their own
answers before reacting to the others, stimulates idea diversity and the provision of
clear titles enables fellow students to see at a glance the content of a particular
contribution). The group feedback also included an overall assessment of the group
being on- or off-topic.
Teacher feedback to the individual students was measured by counting the positive
and critical comments written by the researcher/teacher next to the contributions
which the students had made to the previous week’s lesson. To generate a percentage,


the number of comments was divided by the total number of contributions in that
particular lesson.

7.4.4 Student Reflection

To determine how the students, as a group and individually, had reflected on their
participation and the feedback they had received, a number of measures were used.
Firstly, we videotaped the groups in order to capture the reactions to the feed-
back the students had received both verbally and on paper and to capture how they
cooperatively formulated the group’s intentions for the following lesson.
Secondly, we collected and analysed the written responses of the students to the
feedback (one week after the first lesson and one week after the second lesson). The
group collectively distilled points of improvement or maintenance out of the feed-
back (intentions for the next lesson) and the group members wrote these down on
the assignment form. The extent to which the students wrote down their intentions
on the assignment sheet provided an indication of how actively involved the group
members were in completing this assignment.
Thirdly, a semi-structured interview was held with the chosen individuals per group
in which we asked them what they thought of the feedback and the reflection on it. Did
they find it useful and relevant? We also asked them what they would like to do
differently the next time you work with Knowledge Forum. Because the implementation
of this program was an innovation in the participating classrooms we wanted to know
how the students had experienced the lessons. Johnston (1997) has pointed out that
there is very little research informing us on how students view educational change,
because no one ever asks them. That is why we included some interview questions in
our research asking the students what they thought of the program. Because the project
included two group reflections, the chosen students were interviewed twice.

7.4.5 Student Participation

Student participation was measured in several ways in each lesson/discussion. The
first method involved an evaluation of the way in which the students made use of
the participation-supporting features. The evaluation of their correct use of these
features was recorded on the group-feedback sheets that were read and handed out
to the students for later feedback.
The students were also supposed to actively participate in the discussions.
Active participation was measured in two ways. First, we counted the number of
messages that every student had contributed. We also included another measure of
participation, namely the number of words per message. In this research it is
assumed that this measure provides an objective measure of determining how
elaborated the content of the messages was.


Finally, to determine if student contributions were sufficiently elaborated, we
counted the percentage of positive and critical feedback comments on elaboration
that the researcher/teacher has written down next to the students’ contributions.
This count gave us an indication of the quality of student participation.

7.4.6 Analysis

The development in the student participation was analysed in several ways. One way
was to examine whether the evaluations made by the researcher/teacher of how the
students made use of the participation-supporting features of the program changes
over the lessons.
We also considered the improvement in the quality of the messages by looking
at the increase in positive feedback comments by the researcher/teacher. These
feedback comments were used to evaluate whether the contributions were suffi-
ciently elaborate. The decrease in critical feedback comments was another indicator
of quality improvement.
Furthermore, we described how the students adopted the points of improvement
indicated in the teacher’s feedback and in their own reflections and if and how these
were reflected in subsequent actual improvements in their participation. In explaining the
changes we took all of the feedback into account as the group members had read both
the feedback intended for the whole group and their individual feedback. Furthermore,
the students shared their individual feedback with the other group members.
In the analysis we also included an evaluation of the performance in lesson three.
With these data, the developments between lessons 2 and 3 are included. However,
the evaluations of lesson three were not fed back to the students. Additionally, there
was no group reflection and there were no interviews after this third lesson.
Finally, we will relate the student characteristics of the individual cases to the
(development in the) different participation measures and we will make a comparison
between the two groups in their developments.

7.5 Results (Group A)

The results will be presented as follows. The results section is subdivided into three
parts: Description and analysis of group A; description and analysis of group B;
and, a comparison between groups A and B.

7.5.1 Description and Analysis of Group A

Group A, consisted of two boys and two girls: Tessa, Tufan, Tobias, and Manaar.
To obtain a more in-depth description and analysis of the interaction and responses


Table 7.3 Student characteristics for group A
Learner char- Socio-economic Reading compre- Computer
acteristics Gender background IQ percentile hension percentile skills
Tessa Girl 1.25 (lower socio- 50th 25% below the 33
economic) national
average
Tufan Boy 1.9 (foreign back- 50th 25% below the 33
ground) national
average
Tobias Boy 1.0 (average) 95th 25% highest scores 29
Manaar Girl 1.0 (average) 50th 25% below the 30
national
average

of the students, Tessa and Tufan were taken as examples. Table 7.3 contains the
initial student characteristics of the students in this group.
Table 7.3 shows some differences in student characteristics. Tessa and Tufan
differed in their social backgrounds but show the same IQ percentile level, the
same reading comprehension level, and the same level of computer skills.
Manaar and Tobias both come from a family with average social background.
Manaar’s IQ percentile as well as her reading level also matched those of Tessa
and Tufan. Only Tobias scored relatively high on general IQ and reading
comprehension.

7.5.2 Feedback and Reflection on Lesson 1: Group A

The group was criticised for the way they used the participation-supporting features
in the first lesson. The discussion layout on the screen was messy, they did not often
use the sentence openers, they strayed from the subject, and their titles were
unclear. The group received this critical feedback when the teacher read the evalua-
tion out loud to the class, mentioning the group members’ names. The one thing the
group had done correctly was provide their own answers to the question before
reading and reacting to the answers of the others.
When the group received the reflection task, requiring them to think about the
things they could do differently next time, they seemed to be conscious of the fact
that they had made incorrect use of the participation-supporting features. On their
assignment sheet they collaboratively wrote down that they could improve the
group discussion by sticking with the subject and by tidying up the layout of the
discussion on the screen.
On the video recording we see the two girls starting to read the comments
written next to the printed-out discussion while the boys started to reread the
group evaluation. Later on they switched roles. Tessa read the reflection task to
the group and wrote down the comments that the group members made. All the
members contributed at least one point to improve on, for instance, to remain
civil. Tessa contributed some of her own points. She wrote down that they had


to use the sentence openers more often and that they had to stay serious and
suggest normal titles. Tessa also wrote down on the sheet that they had to provide
explanations.

Feedback and Reflection: Tessa and Tufan

Tessa received positive comments from the teacher on the elaborations in her
messages. Even though she contributed the fewest number of messages to the
discussion, Tessa contributed positively to the group discussion. Tessa not only
expressed her agreement with others but also explained why. Another positive
aspect which was noted was that she answered all the questions directed to her and
she did not react to any contributions that were not serious. Tessa also received the
fewest critical comments from the teacher on her use of elaborations (one comment
on the fact that she did not explain to her group mate on what point she disagreed
with him).
The following excerpt shows a positive interaction in the group, demonstrating
Tessa’s ability to integrate two answers and her correct use of the sentence opener
“Yes, but…”. This was one of the few examples in the discussion where they all
used the sentence openers. The titles were unclear and not very serious. The feed-
back that was given is written next to the contributions.

Excerpt 1: An exemplary interaction with positive teacher comments:
Title: From?
By: Tobias
Yes, but… don’t you grow fat when you eat fat Good explanation, Tobias
and you don’t turn it over into energy?
Title: Not from???
By: Tufan
I think: you will become fat especially when you Right, Tufan
eat too much of it.
Title: blablablabla
By: Tessa
Yes, but… also when you eat too much fat Well done, putting the two
and you don’t do sports or other exercise. contributions together,
Tessa

The example above shows the only positive comment that Tufan received.
Twenty percent of his contributions received a critical comment, asking him to
elaborate on his thoughts. Even though he was the most active participant in his
group with 28 contributions, he did not seem to have taken the task too seriously.
The following excerpt shows how he did not provide an explanation when asked for
one by Manaar.


Excerpt 2: Failure to provide an explanation:
Title: answer to the second question
By: Tufan
I would choose this dessert because it tastes better. Which dessert, Tufan?
Title: for the answer to question 2?
By: Manaar
… yes but why!!!??? Good thing you are asking
for an explanation, Manaar.
Try to ask nicely.
Title: also for question 2
By: Tufan
I think: just because Tufan, you have to give an
explanation if somebody
asks you to explain.

When we asked Tessa what her personal intentions were for the next lesson she
commented that she would try to get the others to contribute in a more serious manner.
Even though she and the group received some critical comments on the (in) correct
use of the supporting features of the computer program and on the provision of
elaborations, she did not mention this fact. When asked about the comments she
received regarding her elaborations, she said she only remembered about three
comments, and that they were all positive. This means that she forgot about
the critical comment asking her to explain on what point exactly she disagreed
with one of her group mates.
When we asked Tufan what he thought of the feedback he had received he
said: “I think I was talking about other things most of the time … more so than
the other group members”. He compared his performance to the performance of
the other group members. By reading the feedback for the group members, he
said that he had learned that it was necessary to “stick to the subject.” He intended
to be more serious.

7.5.3 Feedback and Reflection on Lesson 2: Group A

The overall picture of how the group collaborated in the second lesson is not
completely positive. Even though they had written down all the points on which
they needed to improve in their reflection after lesson 1, in this particular lesson
they did not really improve. The students still did not make correct use of the
participation-supporting features of the program. The group seemed to use the
sentence openers a bit more often, but now they did not use the correct ones (i.e.,
the ones to fit with their contribution type). There were fewer distractions from the
discussion subject. They still did not always find the possible answers to the questions.


The group was encouraged, on the feedback sheet of the second lesson, to try and
find more answers next time. The students were also encouraged to provide more
explanations to each other, in particular Manaar, who did not perform as well in this
respect as she did in the first lesson.
The group did show improvement on the participation measures. On average, the
group members contributed fewer messages in comparison with lesson 1 (i.e.,
lesson 1: 23, lesson 2: 15), but the mean number of words per message was higher:
12 words per message in comparison with nine words before. This might mean that
the group sent more content-rich messages. Looking at the number of positive and
critical comments made about their elaborations, we see an improvement for the
group as a whole. This is encouraging and might also be due to the fact that they
tried to stick to the subject this time.
When the group received the reflection task, asking them to think about the
things they could do differently in lesson 3, they did not copy all the critical comments
they had received from the teacher as they had done in their reflection assignment
after the first lesson. Keeping the discussion layout clear and suggesting more suitable
titles did not seem to concern them. They did write down their intention to stick to
the subject of the lesson and that they would always use the sentence openers. They
also repeated their concern with providing explanations.

Feedback and Reflection: Tessa and Tufan

In line with the group’s participation in this lesson, Tessa also sent fewer messages, but
on average used more words per contribution (i.e., 13). She received a greater percentage
of positive comments on her elaborative behaviour than she did in lesson 1, but she
also slid back on one point. She did not provide explanations to others when she agreed
or disagreed with them, while this was marked as one of her strong points in lesson 1.
Tessa adhered to her intentions for this lesson by providing five comments regu-
lating the group. She told her group mates in these messages that they should stick
to the subject more often. She also maintained her positive behaviour of reacting
only to messages with serious knowledge and providing an answer for every question
directed at her. She did not improve on her use of the procedural aspects, such as
suggesting suitable titles and using the sentence openers.
Tufan shows a clear improvement in his participation in this lesson. He made
fewer contributions (i.e., 17), but his behaviour improved and he received more
positive feedback on his elaborative behaviour. The following excerpt is an example of
a clear elaboration Tufan had made. We can also see here that Tufan used the
“I think…” sentence opener, while he could more correctly have used “Yes, but …”.

Excerpt 3: Tufan making progress in elaborating his answers
Title: Was not read well
By: Tobias
Remark: after a week the food had gone bad


Title: For…
By: Tufan
I think: yes but she was talking to her friend Very good, Tufan. Could
for an hour and she was too late, she should you add why she should
have put it in the freezer before. have put it in the freezer
sooner?

Tufan still showed some diversion from the content of the discussion, even
though he intended to change this behaviour. He did start using more diverse
sentence openers.
In her reflection, Tessa noticed that there was more use of the sentence openers
in the second lesson and that more correct answers were given. Still she intended
to make sure that the group kept to the subject and kept using the sentence openers.
In the classroom feedback the teacher spent some time explaining the relevance of
the different sentence openers and their use in providing the correct type of reactions.
Again Tessa did not remember any of the specific feedback comments made next
to her contributions. In the interview Tufan, again, showed his intention to stick to
the subject next time.

7.5.4 Evaluation of Lesson 3: Group A

In the final lesson the group showed improvement on almost all of the feedback
categories, even though they had not shown concern for all of the categories in their
group reflection assignment. The group as a whole improved on keeping the discussion
display as clear as possible and they all improved on their provision of titles with
each contribution. Furthermore, they stuck with the subject this time. The interactions
were positive, showing questioning and rebutting of answers by using “Yes, but…”
sentences. It has to be noted that a lot of time was spent on contributing regulative
messages which were superfluous.

Evaluation of Lesson 3: Tessa and Tufan

Tessa contributed five regulative messages (out of her total of 14 sent messages)
telling her group members to use the sentence openers, as she had intended to do.
In this lesson, her messages contained more words (i.e., 15) than the averages of
her group mates (Table 7.4). She further showed improvement in the use of sentence
openers and titles. However, she still forgot to add an explanation when she agreed
or disagreed with someone. We found some additional information in the questionnaire
the students had filled out before the lessons that might explain the omission. In this
questionnaire Tessa reported that she did not like explaining things too much. Tessa
consistently reacted only to messages with serious content. This might be a reason
for the small number of contributions in the first lesson in comparison to that of her


group members. Here we see a sign of negative interdependence: how individual
progress can be negatively affected by other members of the group. In contrast,
when the discussions on the lessons became more serious, the participation of the
group members appeared to be more equitable.
Tufan showed a very positive attitude to the group members this time. He
contributed some regulative comments about sticking to the subject. He also asked
some clarification questions (“My question is: why did you choose that one,
Tobias?”) and he corrected Tessa on an important issue in a friendly manner
(“Remark: the chicken has to be cooked at 75 degrees, not at 40”). His participation
leveled off from 28 contributions in the first to 14 in the third lesson, but in this
case the quality of his interactions actually improved despite this decline (Table 7.5).
The feedback and group reflections appeared to have made a positive contribution
to Tufan’s development in this group.
Reflecting in her interview, Tessa told us that she experienced the feedback-
method as useful, because it showed her how she and her group members could
improve. Still, she showed more concern for the (mal-) adaptive behaviour of her
group members, than for her own points of improvement, however, this did not
prevent her from showing improvements. She did find it odd that some feedback
comments were repeated over and over again. Tessa showed a clear concern for the
functioning of the group and a concern for equal participation during the reflection
moments. This is a clear sign of positive interdependence.

7.5.5 Overall Developments in Participation and Elaboration
in Group A

We now turn to some general trends in the participation and elaboration from lesson
1 through 3 of group A. In the final lesson we can see a clear improvement in most
of the feedback categories compared to the earlier lessons. The group members’
improvements on elaborative behaviour (Table 7.4) are especially encouraging.
It seems that the students became more aware of the expectations and that they tried
to improve on several aspects, as they had intended.
The group means in Table 7.4 show that the average total of sent messages
declined, but in this last lesson the group averaged 13 words per message (this was
9 in lesson 1). As the group improved on most of the categories, it appears that the
decline in contributions does not affect the effectiveness of the collaboration. The
contributions made by the group showed improvement in content over the lessons.
Teacher feedback and student reflection clearly influenced the interaction pattern
from lesson 1 through 3, especially after the feedback on lesson 1.
With reference to the learning characteristics (i.e., their resources as presented
in Table 7.3), there are some differences and similarities between the two individual
cases. Tessa and Tufan are from different socioeconomic backgrounds (Tufan being
from an immigrant background), however, their IQ, reading comprehension score
and computer skills are the same. Tufan participates more actively in the first lesson


than Tessa but we know from the descriptions that the quality of his participation
was low in comparison. Both Tessa and Tufan make gains in the number of words
per message. They both contribute 14 messages in the last lesson, with Tessa writing
slightly longer messages. Since they are also equally active, it may be concluded
that their identical IQ scores, reading comprehension scores, and computer skills
have more influence on their active participation than their differences in gender
and socioeconomic backgrounds.
We now turn to some trends in the quality of participation and elaboration from
lesson 1 to lesson 3. Table 7.5, which concerns the feedback on student’s elaborative
behaviour, shows that all group members made gains in positive feedback (only
Manaar regressed in the second lesson). In the end, it was almost unnecessary to
make critical comments on their contributions. They all declined practically to zero
percent in the frequency of critical comments on their elaborative behaviour.
Table 7.4 Development of individuals and the group on active participation measures for group A
Lesson 1 counts of the Lesson 2 counts of the Lesson 3 counts of the
Name participation measures participation measures participation measures
Tessa 18 contributions 17 contributions 14 contributions
10 words/message 13 words/message 15 words/message
Tufan 28 contributions 17 contributions 14 contributions
Tobias 17 contributions 12 contributions 16 contributions
Manaar 30 contributions 13 contributions 10 contributions
Group mean 23 contributions 15 contributions 14 contributions

Table 7.5 Development of individuals and the group on elaboration feedback measures: Group
A (numerator = N-feedback; denominator = N-contributions)
Criterion Lesson 1 Lesson 2 Lesson 3
Positive feedback Positive feedback Positive feedback
Name comments on elaboration comments on elaboration comments on elaboration
Tessa 3/17 (18%) 4/17 (24%) 4/14 (28%)
Tufan 1/28 (4%) 2/17 (12%) 2/14 (14%)
Tobias 1/18 (6%) 2/12 (16%) 3/16 (21%)
Manaar 2/30 (7%) 0/13 (0%) 4/10 (40%)
Group 7/93 (8%) 6/59 (10%) 13/54 (24%)
Critical feedback Critical feedback Critical feedback
Tessa 1/17 (6%) 3/17 (18%) 1/14 (7%)
Tufan 5/28 (20%) 1/17 (6%) 0/14 (0%)
Tobias 6/18 (36%) 1/12 (8%) 0/16 (0%)
Manaar 3/30 (11%) 7/13 (56%) 0/10 (0%)
Group 15/93 (16%) 12/59 (20%) 1/54 (2%)


By relating Tessa and Tufans’ learning characteristics to their elaboration measures
in Table 7.5, we draw the following conclusions. Tessa and Tufan show similar
patterns in positive and negative comments from the teacher. Tessa starts off more
favorably, but they both show an increase in positive feedback and a substantial
decrease in critical feedback between lessons 2 and 3. Again we cannot pinpoint a
clear influence of the initial differences in socioeconomic background and gender
on this development. Teacher interventions, however, seem to be clearly reflected
in the developments in participation of all students from lesson 1 to 3.

7.6 Results (Group B)

7.6.1 Description and Analysis of Group B

This group consisted of two boys and two girls: Kristine, Rishi, Kevin, and Yit
Man. In the following, Kristine’s case is described in greater depth.

Table 7.6 Student characteristics of group B
Learner Socio-economic Reading compre-
characteristics Gender background IQ percentile hension level Computer skills
Kristine Girl 1.25 (lower socio- 25th 10% lowest scores 23/33
economic)
Rishi Boy 1.25 (lower socio- 25th 25% below the 33/33
economic) national average
Kevin Boy 1.25 (lower socio- 25th 15% well below 33/33
economic) national average
Yit Man Girl 1.25 (lower socio- 75th On the national 14/33
economic) average

Table 7.6 contains the initial student characteristics of the students in this group.
All students came from a lower socioeconomic background and Rishi’s and
Kristines’ parents were born outside the Netherlands. Except for Yit Man, who had
an above average IQ percentile score, the other group members had a below-average
score on the IQ test. Only Yit Man had an average score on the reading comprehension
test. The others scored below or well below the national average.
With regard to the students’ computer skills, Yit Man showed very few computer
skills. Rishi and Kevin appeared to be the most skilled users in the group, while
Kristine showed average scores on the scale.

7.6.2 Feedback and Reflection Lesson 1: Group B

The group evaluation on their use of the participation-supporting features after the
first lesson was not completely positive. The group members stuck to the subject,


providing their own answers before reacting to the others, but the discussion layout
was messy and the sentence openers were forgotten in most cases (especially by
Rishi). The titles did not refer to the subject of the message. The group interacted
in a positive way, and was also very active.
In the group reflection, almost all of the critical feedback that the group received
on their use of the participation-supporting features was translated by the group into
personal improvement points. They wrote the names of each group member
followed by a point to improve on. Kevin wrote: “we have to talk about the subject
and unravel the lines on the discussion layout.” There was no mention of making
better titles. Rishi intended to make better use of the sentence openers; a point
which was stressed on the group evaluation form.

Feedback and Reflection: Kristine and Rishi

Kristine received some positive feedback comments for contributing questions to
this discussion. She was an active participant, contributing 17 messages, almost all
of which were questions. Her questions were of good quality, asking for elaboration.
The way Kristine was participating is somewhat surprising, taking into account her
low computer skills and her low reading comprehension score. The next excerpt
provides an example. Kristine makes correct use of the sentence opener ‘My
question is…’.

Excerpt 4: A question asking for elaboration:
Title: answer
By: Rishi
I think: I agree with Derek because he chooses
the fruit dessert. Explain why you agree with
Derek, Rishi
Title: For Rishi
By: Kristine
My question is: but why? Good question! Kristine

Rishi did not answer Kristine’s questions and consequently received a critical
comment. The first answer that Kristine contributed to the second discussion was
elaborated well. The answer and what followed is shown in the next example:

Excerpt 5: A properly elaborated first answer:
Title: yoghurt dessert
By: Kristine
I think: that Mary is right because she says Good explanation, Kristine!
that there is also a lot of sugar (calories) in
fruit, in fruit there are fruit sugars and sugar
makes you grow fat and it’s bad for your teeth.


Title: you can become ill
By: Rishi
Remark: you can become ill What makes you ill, Rishi?
You are not being clear
Title: illness
By: Kristine
My question is: but how can you become ill? Good question! Kristine

Kristine’s question shows that Rishi’s answer was not clearly elaborated. Rishi
received the most critical comments on his (non)elaborative behaviour. His messages
were on average only eight words long. Even though Rishi provided explanations
for most of the questions in the discussion, his answers were always short and he
never used the explanation sentence opener.
In her reflection Kristine wrote: I’m going to make better questions and I have
to give better answers. Rishi intended to make better use of the sentence openers.

7.6.3 Feedback and Reflection Lesson 2: Group B

The overall picture of how the group interacted in the second lesson is a positive
one, resulting in positive comments by the teacher. The group kept the layout of the
discussion clearer than previously and stuck to the lesson subject, as they had
intended. They could still improve on the use of sentence openers. Rishi still failed
to use them, even though he intended to do so. When the group evaluations were
read to the class, there was some extra attention paid to the subject of asking clear
questions. When asking“What do you mean?” it is better to ask “What do you mean
when you say…?’ (repeating the words in the message to which you are reacting).
This way there will be less misunderstanding.
The group was, again, actively involved in the lesson, contributing an average of
15 messages per person. For all the participants, the number of words per message
went down in comparison to lesson 1. Looking at the number of positive and critical
comments made about their elaborations we do not detect any serious improvements
either. As the reflection sheet shows, the group focused its attention primarily on
improving the procedural aspects of working with the program.
In their reflections it was acknowledged by the students that they did not make
correct use of the participation-supporting features of the program. During their
reflection on their performance the group was video-taped. The group members
first took turns in reading out loud, one by one, the contributions to the previous
week’s discussion. They also read out loud the feedback comments which were
written next to the contributions. Kevin appointed the reader and directed attention
to the feedback comments. After they had gone through the whole of the previous
week’s discussion, Kevin read the assignment to the group and Yit Man wrote down
the points of improvement on the sheet. Rishi asked Yit Man to write down “Use


more sentence openers.” Kevin added “to understand each other better” and “to
explain better” and “to give better answers”. Rishi said “to make better sentences,
to write the answer clearly” and “talk more about the subject.”

Feedback and Reflection: Kristine and Rishi

Kristine adhered to her intention to keep asking questions. Seventeen of her twenty-
three contributions were questions. It is not really clear if Kristine asked all these
questions to get her group members to elaborate or because she really did not
understand. Rishi did not make any progress toward contributing more elaborate
answers in this lesson. His word count went even further down, to six words per
message. He received many critical comments asking him to elaborate. The next
excerpt shows how Rishi provides a non-answer to a question which was not
directed at him in the first place. When Kristine asks him what he means, Rishi
loses track of the conversation completely.

Excerpt 6: Miscommunication
Title: good opinion
By: Kevin
That’s right, because… you need energy or Good explanation, Kevin
you’ll get weak.
Title: Kevin
By: Kristine
My question is: but why? Good that you ask, Kristine
Title: okay
By: Rishi… Just because ‘just because’ is not an
explanation, Rishi
Title: rishi
By: Kristine
My question is: what… just because?
Title: just because
By: Rishi
… Just because, what is the question?

Kristine’s original question is not answered. Rishi used many short answers in
this discussion. It shows a lack of interest in the discussion, even though his inclination
to provide answers generally looked positive. Surprisingly, at some points in the
discussion Rishi asks his group members to elaborate (“Remark: because, why?”
“just because what?”), even though he does not do it himself.
In the interview, Kristine looked back and told us she had misunderstood the first
question “I did not know what a ‘TV dinner’ was.” This might explain her short,
initial, answer. Kristine is weak at reading comprehension, so she might internalise


fewer answers from reading the text and might sometime not even understand the
question. She intended to ask questions in the next lesson. The attention paid to the
personal feedback comments on elaboration made Rishi aware of the fact that he had
to provide more and better explanations. He intended to do this.

7.6.4 Evaluation for Lesson 3: Group B

In the final lesson the group did not show any further improvements on the procedural
aspects, such as the use of sentence openers. The group received fewer positive
comments on their elaborative behaviour, but also showed a decline of critical com-
ments. Looking at the quality of the discussion we see the group members showing
concern for providing clear answers and understanding what the others are saying.
The discussion also showed some clear signs of promotive interaction. They started
to ask each other more clarification questions.

Evaluation for Lesson 3: Kristine and Rishi

Kristine contributed a very high number of messages in this lesson (41). Her word
count is the same as in the second lesson, with an average of 13 words per message
(Table 7.7). Kristine intended to provide good answers and to ask questions, and she
did. Sometimes her language use was unclear, but her group members made a point of
asking her what she meant to say. Kristine showed that she could ask clear questions
(e.g., “My question is: how long can the chicken be kept in the freezer?”).
When we look at Rishi’s participation in this lesson, not much seems to have changed.
One positive aspect is that the percentage of positive feedback comments he receives
increases (Table 7.8). In a couple of instances Rishi asked a clarification question in
which we see that he did not give up on receiving clarification from Kristine.

Excerpt 7: Rishi keeps asking for clarification
Title: (untitled)
By: Kristine
Yes, but… can you put that chicken on the pan in the right way?
Title: what
By: Rishi
… what do you mean?
Title: (untitled)
By: Kristine
Yes, but… I mean from the chicken
Title: chicken
By: Rishi
My question is; what do you mean by chicken?


Rishi also improved his question from asking simply “What do you mean?” to asking
more specifically: “My question is: what do you mean by chicken?” In his second
message he also made correct use of the sentence opener, “My question is…”.
Rishi enjoyed the evaluation lessons. The personal feedback made him realise
that he should provide ‘longer and better explanations’. The fact that he realised
what his personal points for improvement were did not always translate into a
change of behaviour. In the third lesson it seems as though he started to take his
responsibility within the group process more seriously.
In her reflection, Kristine told us that she thought the feedback comments were
good. She was not very good at formulating to us what exactly she had learned from
the evaluation lessons. This seems to be due to her limited language proficiency. All
in all we can say that Kristine was a very active participant who made a positive
contribution to the group process during the lessons.

7.6.5 Overall Developments in Participation and Elaboration
in Group B

The participation measures of group B are presented in Table 7.7.
Looking at the participation measures in Table 7.7, we see that the group is
increasingly active with an average of 22 messages per person in lesson 3, but that the
word count goes down from 22 words per message in the first lesson to 13 in lesson
3. Their active participation shows a different pattern to the one for group A.
Regarding learner characteristics (i.e., the resources as presented in Table 7.6),
there are some differences between the two individual cases. Kristine and Rishi are
both from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. Their IQ scores are below average,
as are their reading comprehension levels (with Kristine being in the lowest cate-
gory). However, it appears that the differences between Kirstine and Rishi cannot
be explained by their different characteristics as Kirstine does surprisingly well
given her scores.

Table 7.7 Development of individuals and the group on active participation measures: group B
Lesson 1 counts of the Lesson 2 counts of the Lesson 3 counts of the
Name participation measures participation measures participation measures
Kristine 17 contributions 23 contributions 41 contributions
Rishi 23 contributions 21 contributions 20 contributions
Kevin 11 contributions 7 contributions 8 contributions
Yit Man 2 contributions 8 contributions 19 contributions
Group mean 13 contributions 15 contributions 22 contributions


Table 7.8 Development of individuals and the group on elaboration feedback measures: group B
(numerator = N-feedback; denominator = N-contributions)
Positive feedback Positive feedback Positive feedback
Kristine 3/17 (18%) 5/23 (22%) 6/41 (15%)
Rishi 2/23 (9%) 2/21 (10%) 4/20 (20%)
Kevin 6/11 (55%) 4/7 (57%) 2/8 (25%)
Yit Man 1/2 (50%) 2/8 (25%) 4/19 (21%)
Group mean 12/53 (23%) 13/59 (22%) 16/88 (18%)
Critical feedback Critical feedback Critical feedback
comments on elaboration comments on elaboration comments on elaboration
Kristine 1/17 (6%) 2/23 (8%) 0/41 (0%)
Rishi 8/23 (35%) 8/21 (38%) 1/20 (5%)
Kevin 0/11 (0%) 0/7 (0%) 1/8 (13%)
Yit Man 1/2 (50%) 2/8 (25%) 1/19 (5%)

We now turn to the quality of the elaboration as was measured by positive and
negative feedback comments by the teacher on elaborations.
As shown in Table 7.8, the positive feedback comments on elaboration decrease
over the lessons, as does the number of words per message. There is, however, some
sign of improvement, since the percentage of critical comments decreases greatly
in the last lesson.

7.7 Results (Comparison Between Groups A and B)

In this final results section we bring together the group scores from Tables 7.4, 7.5,
7.7, and 7.8 to summarise and compare the patterns between the groups.
In the course of the lessons Group A showed a decline on the average number
of contributions, but the content of the contributions was increasingly elaborate as
shown by the increase in number of words per message. This was mirrored in the
increased positive feedback and the reduction in critical feedback on elaboration by
the teacher.
Group B started out with a higher number of words per message and more
positive feedback comments on elaboration than group A, but did not show a clear
pattern of improvement over the lessons. The mean number of contributions
increased from the first to the last lesson while the mean number of words per
message decreased. At the same time the group shows a reduction in positive
feedback on elaboration.
Even though both groups end up contributing an average of 13 words per mes-
sage and show a significant reduction in critical feedback in the third lesson, the
overall conclusion is that group A seems to outperform group B in their develop-


ment. We see some positive development in the case description of group B but the
differences between the patterns of development between the groups seem to reflect
the greater difference in student characteristics and the lower resource level of group
B as a whole. Except for one student, all group members of group B showed low
scores on general IQ and low to very low reading comprehension scores.

7.8 Conclusion and Discussion

In this chapter we described a program directed at improving the interactions
within groups of collaborating students in a CSCL environment. Developments
made by two groups of students in two 5th grade classes were described in
terms of improvements in their participation. The correct use of the participation-
supporting features, their active participation and their provision of elaborative
contributions were related to the provided feedback, the students’ reflections, students’
intentions to improve and student characteristics. In both groups, two case students
were followed in their learning processes in order to present examples of development
over the lessons.
The main research question was: How do interaction processes between students
develop within a CSCL learning environment in which feedback by the researcher/
teacher is provided and student reflection is stimulated? It was expected that feed-
back and reflection regarding the quality of the participation in the initial stages
will result in better quality participation and more elaborated contributions of the
students later on in the process. In answering this question we looked, in particular,
at the various contributions of the individual students and the groups in relation to
the feedback and reflection moments.
Our general conclusion is that the feedback by the researcher/teacher and the
reflection moments contributed to the development of the students in terms of par-
ticipation and elaboration. This positive contribution confirms our expectations.
However, it has to be noted that conclusions drawn on the basis of case studies are
bound to be tentative. In this exploration we did not compare the groups to groups
of students who did not receive feedback on their participation.
The exploration of the two group-cases and the two individual-sub cases show
differences between individual students and between groups. In most cases we were
able to trace these differences back to student characteristics or resources in the
cooperative group and researcher/teacher’s feedback and reflections by the students.
To substantiate our general conclusions some general patterns and more specific
findings, especially concerning the differences between the two case-groups, will
be summarised in the remainder of this section.
We detect some general patterns in the cases. The students did not automise the
operations of using the sentence openers and adding comprehensive titles to their
messages. Even though they keep mentioning this as a point of improvement in
their reflections, they did not consistently improve. Perhaps because they worked
in small groups and the contributions were read by most of the students anyway,


they did not see why adding a clear title matters. It might also be that the students
did not adopt the usability of the sentence openers because it seemed unnatural to
them and it hindered them in providing quick responses, or it may have been that
the students did not want to keep their group members waiting. Synchronous chat
programs have a fleeting character (Veerman & Veldhuis-Diermanse 2001).
Because students take numerous turns, the pressure to react quickly is high. It has
to be noted that multiple occasions were observed whereby students started their
sentences with, for instance “Yes but…”. Sentence openers might thus be seen as a
scaffold to be removed after the students have adopted its use.
A positive aspect was the improvement students showed when it came to sticking
to the subject of the lesson. It might be that the focus on providing elaborate
contributions helps the students focus on the lesson’s content. Again, we did not
compare the results with groups that did not focus on providing elaborate contributions.
There might therefore be other explanations.
We saw how the groups adopted the idea that they should be providing more
explanations to each other. In general, the percentage of critical comments of the
researcher/teacher on elaborative behaviour declined over the lessons. Even though
the number of critical comments increases slightly in lesson 2, they showed a sharp
decline in lesson 3.
The students started asking more clarification questions when the lessons
progressed. Clarity and clarifications seemed to have become part of students’
ideas of how to reach a positive and effective collaboration. We saw the groups
developing a sense of positive interdependence. They did not only focus on their
personal points for improvement but also paid attention to the feedback their group
members received and the feedback they received as a group. They not only realised
they were individually responsible for an effective collaboration but also took
responsibility for the achievements of their group mates. This sense of positive
interdependence is demonstrated in the regulative comments they made in the
different group discussions.
All in all, we believe the results are encouraging, given the short-term nature of
the intervention and the great number of matters to which the students had to pay
attention. Inconsistency in the progress made might be due to cognitive overload
(Bruggen van et al. 2002) in the sense that the students had to split their attention
with regard to different aspects of the task. The more limited resources of group B
in comparison to group A might explain the differences in their measures of
improvement. Additionally transfer from awareness of how a skill is used to the
actual use of that skill takes time.
Our method of giving feedback on the students’ contributions and encouraging
students to reflect on the received feedback appears to be appropriate in that it stimu-
lates both individual accountability in the students, and a sense of positive interde-
pendence within the group. The results of the study support the assumption that group
discussion processes can be improved by providing feedback on participation and
guiding students towards a more conscious use of the principle of elaboration.
In this study the researchers prepared the feedback. It would be interesting to
investigate whether the same results are achieved when the teachers themselves


apply this type of learning environment and feedback procedure, or when students
rate themselves. We hope to inspire teacher practices with the examples given,
while at the same time acknowledging that teachers will always, indeed have to,
attach their own interpretations to specific approaches (Leeman & Volman 2001).
We are aware that we have to be careful in generalising the results obtained,
given that the study was conducted with a limited population of students. Also, in
descriptive studies we have to be attentive to different interpretations. Any reported
relations between processes of feedback and reflection on the one hand and devel-
opments in student participation on the other have to be treated with care. Further
studies will have to substantiate (or reject) the preliminary conclusions from the
present study’s qualitative analyses.
Our focus was directed towards enhancing student participation. However par-
ticipation at school is not an end in itself. Schools and classrooms are for learning.
The assumption was that promoting participation stimulates learning: those who
participate will learn. In this qualitative study, the chain of reasoning, involving
student characteristics, student prerequisites, interaction processes, and learning
outcomes, is incomplete. This is a limitation that calls for further study into the
learning effects of enhancing participation in a CSCL learning environment.

References

Brown, A. L., & Palincsar, A. S. (1989). Guided, cooperative learning and individual knowledge
acquisition, In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, Learning and Instruction: Essays in Honor of
Robert Glaser (pp. 393–451). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bruggen van, J. M., Kirschner, P. A., & Jochems, W. (2002). External representations of argumen-
tation in CSCL and the management of cognitive load. Learning and Instruction, 12,
121–138.
Bull, S., Dimitrova, V., & Brna, P. (2002). Enhancing reflective modeling through communicative
interaction in learning environments. In P. Brna, M. Baker, K. Stenning, & A. Tiberghien
(Eds.), The Role of Communication in Learning to Model (pp. 183–211). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
CITO (1998). Toets Begrijpend Lezen (Comprehensive Reading Test), G. Staphorsius, & R. Krom,
Centraal Instituut voor Toetsontwikkeling (National Institute for Test Development), Arnhem,
The Netherlands.
Cohen, E. G., & Lotan, R. A. (1995). Producing equal-status interaction in the heterogeneous
classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 99–120.
Cohen, E. G., Brody, C. M., & Sapon-Shevin, M. (2004). Teaching Cooperative Learning. The
Challenge for Teacher Education. New York: State University of New York.
Crook, C. (1994). Computers and the Collaborative Experiences of Learning. London:
Routledge.
Dewiyanti, S. (2005). Learning together: A positive experience. The effect of reflection on group
process in an asynchronous computer-supported collaborative learning environment.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Open Universiteit, Maastricht, Nederland. http://www.ou.
nl/Docs/Expertise/OTEC/Publicaties/sylvia%20dewiyanti/Proefschrift-versie-final_2005.pdf
Dillenbourg, P., & Self, J. A. (1995). Designing human-computer collaborative learning. In C. E.
O’Malley (Ed.), Computer Supported Collaborative Learninig. Hamburg: Springer-Verlag.
Esis. (2006). Eniac School Informatie Systeem, versie 3.40. Rovict, Soest, The Netherlands.


Fakkert, M. C. (2006). Leerprocessen binnen samenwerkend leren in Knowledge Forum: Multiple
case studies naar de effectiviteit van tussentijdse feedback op het leerproces van individuen en de
samenwerkende groep. Unpublished Master of Education thesis, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam.
Fischer, G., & Ostwald J. (2002). Transcending the information given: Designing learning envi-
ronments for informed participation. Computers in Education, 1, 378–381.
Gennip, H., van Braam, H., & Poulisse, N. (2002). Ict-Onderwijsmonitor Basisonderwijs 2000–
2001. Nijmegen: ITS.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R.T. (1994). Learning Together and Alone: Cooperative, Competitive
and Individualistic Learning (4th ed). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., Stanne, M. B., & Garibaldi, A. (1990). Impact of group process-
ing on achievement in cooperative groups. The Journal of Social Psychology, 130, 507–516.
Johnston, L. D. (1997). Risking learning? A comparative study of the attitudes and behaviors of
some groups of second-year undergraduate students in Information Management seminars,
following the introduction of different technologies designed to enhance critical and creative
thinking. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Belfast, Northern Ireland.
Leeman, Y., & Volman, M. (2001). Inclusive education, recipe book or quest. On diversity in the
classroom and educational research. International Journal on Inclusive education, 5,
267–379.
Prinsen, F. R., Volman, M. L. L., & Terwel, J. (2006). The influence of learner characteristics on
degree and type of participation in a CSCL environment. British Journal of Educational
Technology (Online Early Articles). doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2006.00692.x
Raven, J. C. (1976). Standard Progressive Matrices. Sets A, B, C, D & E. (ISBN 1856390209).
Oxford, England: Oxford Psychologists Press.
Ross, J. A., & Rolheiser, C. (2003). Student assessment practices in cooperative learning, In R.
M. Gillies, & A. F. Ashman (Eds.), Cooperative Learning: The Social and Intellectual
Outcomes of Learning in Groups (pp. 54–68). London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Slavin, R. (1995). Cooperative Learning: Theory, Research and Practice (2nd ed). Boston: Allyn
and Bacon.
Stahl, G. (1999). Reflections on WebGuide. Seven issues for the next generation of collaborative
knowledge building environments, in Proceedings of CSCL 99: C. Hoadley (Ed.), The Third
International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (pp. 600–610).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Terwel, J. (2003). Cooperative learning in secondary education: A curriculum perspective. In
R.M. Gillies, & A. F. Ashman (Eds). Cooperative Learning: The social and Intellectual
Outcomes of Learning in Groups (pp. 54–68). London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Ulicsak, M.H. (2004). ‘How did it know we weren’t talking?’: An investigation into the impact of
self-assessments and feedback in a group activity. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20,
205–211.
Van Dijk, I. M. A. W., Van Oers, H. J. M., & Terwel, J. (2003a). Providing or designing?
Constructing models in primary maths education. Learning and Instruction, 13, 53–72.
Van Dijk, I. M. A. W., Van Oers, B.,Terwel, J., & Van den Eeden (2003b). Strategic learning in
primary mathematics education: Evaluation of a program in modelling. Educational Research
and Evaluation, 9, 161–187.
Veerman, A., & Veldhuis-Diermanse, E. (2001). Collaborative learning through computermedi-
ated communications in academic education. Proceedings of the International Conference
Euro-CSCL’01. The Netherlands.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society. London: Harvard University Press.
Webb, N. M., & Farivar, S. (1999). Developing productive group interaction in middle school. In
A. M. O’Donnell and A. King, eds, Cognitive Perspectives on Peer Learning pp. 117–149.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Yager, S., Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Snider, B. (1996). The impact of group processing
on achievement in cooperative learning groups. The Journal of Social Psychology, 126,
389–397.

Chapter 8
School and Inclusive Practices

Adrian F. Ashman

8.1 Overview ......................................................................................................................... 163
8.2 The Success of Inclusive Education Practices ................................................................ 165
8.3 Peers and Diverse Abilities ............................................................................................. 167
8.4 Mixed Educational Outcomes ......................................................................................... 169
8.4.1 Students with Learning Difficulties .................................................................... 170
8.4.2 Students with Emotional and Behavioral Disorders ........................................... 170
8.4.3 Students with Disabilities ................................................................................... 171
8.5 Students with Minority Group Background.................................................................... 173
8.5.1 Gifted and Talented Students .............................................................................. 175
8.6 The Future of Peer-Mediation and Inclusion .................................................................. 176
References ................................................................................................................................ 178

Abstract Over the past 20 years, there has been an imperative in most Western
countries to accommodate students with special learning needs in regular
education settings. Inclusion has become the catchword that epitomizes the notion
of equality and opportunity in social and scholarly domains. It would seem logical
that the adoption of inclusion as a systemic policy would lead to significant
changes in classroom teaching and learning practices but this does not appear
to be the case. The implementation of new teaching-learning technologies to
support inclusive education practices, including peer-mediation, has not kept pace
with the acceptance of the rhetoric. In this chapter, I draw a parallel between
the evidence supporting the benefits of inclusive education and the data that
confirm the value of peer-mediation with students with diverse learning needs.

8.1 Overview

It has been more than 50 years since the focus of attention in education broadened
to include students who have problems learning in regular school classrooms.
Before that, many of those students attended separate – or special – classes or
special schools with peers who had an intellectual disability or one or more other
cognitive, physical, or sense impairments. Many of the most impaired students who
resided in institutions for people with mental retardation received very little

164 A. F. Ashman

education, if any. In the 1960s, as a reaction to the lack of education apparently
being provided in special education settings, there evolved a movement toward
providing at least some students with special education needs access to regular
education settings (see Dunn 1968).
Mainstreaming, as this movement was called, became an administrative policy
that took many students with mild and moderate intellectual disability and many
with physical and sense impairments into regular education classes. At that time,
mainstreaming involved not much more than the formation of classes (see e.g.,
Warnock, 1978) that contained students with and without disabilities but there were
few adaptations made to either the curriculum or teaching practices that might have
produced educational benefits to mainstreamed students. Many teachers and par-
ents were quick to recognise that mainstreaming was little more than maindumping
(Chapman 1988; Elkins 1994; Mitler 1988) and there were cynical views expressed
that the primary motivation for mainstreaming was simply a cost-saving measure
through the reduction in government funding to the special education sector.
Over time, political pressures – largely from parents of students with special
learning needs – led to an increase in resources and professional development
for teachers aimed at enabling students to take advantage of both the social and
scholastic opportunities available in regular classes (see Darling-Hammond 1996).
With this development came the demise of the term, mainstreaming, and its
replacement by integration and later, by inclusion.
Along with political and administrative directions and mandates came many
recommendations for ways in which teaching and learning might occur across
education settings to benefit the largest number of students. Curriculum content and
classroom practices were scrutinised with a view toward accommodating diverse
student learning needs. Teachers were offered professional development opportuni-
ties designed to improve their knowledge and skills of disabling conditions and
introduce them to inclusive education practices although the requirement for such
professional development was voluntary. This meant that there were few significant
changes made to the nature of classroom teaching and learning or administrative
changes in the host school. Positive exemplars of integration came primarily from
highly committed teachers often working in isolation and without much support
from either school administration or the school system.
A 40-year history of research on inclusive education should be punctuated with
examples of innovative teaching strategies and approaches, such as peer-mediated
learning, that enhance the learning experiences of students regardless of ability or
impairment. And while any wide-ranging review of inclusive education literature
using “inclusive education” or “inclusion” in (for example) the ERIC database will
shows a huge range of such initiatives, the conclusion that one might reach is that
inclusive education generally has fallen well short of the target. At this point I will
make some general observations about the success of inclusion and then move to
consider the role of peer-mediated learning in education settings that contain
students with diverse learning needs.
In this chapter, I wish to draw a parallel between the histories of inclusive
education and peer-mediated learning. The ideals and initiatives associated with

8 School and Inclusive Practices 165

inclusion should lead to substantive innovations in teaching and learning practices
within regular classes that benefit all students. In similar way, peer-mediated
learning offers opportunities to include students with special learning needs in
most, if not all, classroom activities with positive outcomes in both social and
scholastic domains. The evidence of such effects is, however, far from obvious in
the professional literature. I will begin by considering the success of inclusive
education and then the outcomes of research relating to peer-mediated learning.

8.2 The Success of Inclusive Education Practices

The professional literature published during the early years of mainstreaming and
integration – the 1970s and 1980s – gives the impression of wide-ranging accept-
ance of the philosophy and subsequent systemic responses based on equity and
social justice arguments. Parents of students with special education needs and some
teachers applauded the opportunities available to children for increased social
engagement and the potential for improved learning outcomes. Reports of successful
integration were often limited to anecdotes with some writers drawing attention to
the limitations in school schedules, timetables, and teaching practices that restricted
opportunities for students to take full advantage of regular classroom activities.
While rarely reported in the professional literature, there was considerable
opposition to mainstreaming, integration, and inclusion. Teachers complained that
they were not trained to deal with low-functioning students or those presenting
very challenging behavior, or students with pronounced physical or sense impair-
ments. Many argued that regular classroom practices were unsuitable or inappropriate
and the presence of a student with demanding learning needs – when compared
with their peers – reduced the amount of one-to-one teaching contact that could be
given to each student in a class (see Nesbit 1994; Vlachou & Barton 1994). Parents
of students achieving according to age expectations complained that their children
were being disadvantaged educationally, while parents of students with special
learning needs also complained that their children were receiving significantly less
attention and fewer opportunities than were available in special education settings
(see Jenkinson 1997).
By the late 1990s, inclusion had become the accepted educational position with
associated rhetoric in most Western countries. Despite this, special education classes
and schools continued to exist. Those who more often than not attend regular classes
are students with learning difficulties, speech and language difficulties, vision impair-
ment, those thought to be gifted and talented, those with mild intellectual disability,
and those with uncomplicated medical conditions.
Over the past two decades a vast professional literature on inclusion has
emerged. There are substantial collections relating to the philosophy and values
implicit in inclusion. Several writers, for example, have argued that inclusion is a
moral imperative that does not require, and cannot wait for, empirical justification
(see Biklen 1985; Stainback et al. 1996) while others (e.g., Kauffman et al. 1988)

166 A. F. Ashman

warned about a rush headlong into inclusion because of the lack of support provided
by administrators and others responsible for its implementation. In addition to
debates about the ethics of inclusion, there are many papers devoted to descriptions
and explanations of inclusive processes and practices (see e.g., Baker & Zigmond
1995; Wedell 1995), and there is also a robust collection of commentaries on policy
and practice (see e.g., Bricker 1995; Kauffman & Hallahan 1995; Vlachou 2004).
It is curious that the number of empirical studies about the success of inclusive
education relative to the vastness of the literature is relatively small and of these, few
focus specifically on innovative teaching approaches (e.g., co-teaching, strategy
instruction, peer-mediated learning) aimed at improving academic outcomes. In this
regard, Mastropieri and Scruggs (2001) argued that highly successful inclusive
classrooms are characterized by the effective use of peers for supporting students with
special learning needs and reinforcing learning through one-on-one and small group
activities. In many cases, journal articles focus on practical issues related to the
implementation and structure of inclusive classrooms (see e.g., Forlin 2004). And
studies that deal with the success of inclusive practices often are based on small
samples, often one or a small number of classrooms. There are also reports of largely
unsuccessful attempts to integrate students with acute learning problems, often based
upon teacher reports and anecdotes.
Looking broadly at the literature, there is great variability in the results of studies
that have evaluated inclusive practices with only modest supporting evidence. Few
studies report substantial academic gains by included students and many of these are
anecdotal and often emphasise the social aspects of inclusive classrooms (see e.g.,
Kauffman et al. 1988). Hodges et al. (2006), for example, drew attention generally to
the lack of research on academic outcomes for students with special education needs.
While their work specifically targeted mathematics and students with emotional and
behavioral disorders, their conclusions reflect the general impression that achieve-
ment of included students is of modest interest to researchers. While only six of the
13 selected studies were undertaken in inclusive education settings, Hodges et al.
drew attention to the paucity of research on academic performance for this group of
students. They reported that little attention was given to the development of problem-
solving and higher-order thinking skills, suggesting that the lack of research may
reflect an emphasis on behavioral issues for this specific student group.
In contrast, there are many reports of positive attitude change toward included
children as a result of contact with, and proximity to, good behavior models and also
a small number of reports that are less optimistic. Prominent among these are studies
involving students with emotional and behavior difficulties who provide significant
challenges to classroom harmony. A study by Cook & Semmel (1999) is an excel-
lent example of the difficulties faced by teachers and researchers who aim to
improve the classroom social climate. Cook & Semmel reported a low level of social
acceptance of students with learning difficulties among their normally achieving
peers. They asked students to identify those with whom they would be willing to
work, willing to play, and with whom they would spend time in recreation or leisure
out of school as everyday playmates. Peer acceptance score for students with mild
and severe difficulties in each setting were uniformly low although students with


mild disabilities were better accepted in heterogeneous classrooms although they
remained low as desirable work mates. This outcome is confirmed by several reports
in the literature (see e.g., Pavri & Monda-Amaya 2001).
Gifted and talented students have also come to attention specifically in regard
to their involvement in regular education classrooms. Some writers have reported
positive outcomes for gifted and talented students in inclusive education settings,
especially gains in self-esteem. There are, however, also negative reports. These
include lack of flexibility in using the most effective teaching and learning strate-
gies with these students, limitations on the students’ curiosity and independent
learning. Some writers have claimed that gifted and talented students are readily
exploited in regular education classes because they are expected to take on the role
of “explainer” (see Braggett & Bailey 2005, for a general review).
I find it curious that there remains a political imperative for inclusive education
when the evidence for its success is as equivocal as it is. There is no question in my
mind that inclusive education is a prized ideal to which educators and education
systems might aspire. I am, however, not at all convinced that every student can
benefit from inclusion in a regular education classroom. Students who display
dangerous or aggressive behavior and those with a severe mental health condition
may put the safety of themselves or others at risk it there is not constant monitoring
in regular education classes. Similarly, students with life-threatening medical
condition (e.g., severe epilepsy) may also be at risk without regular scrutiny and
supervision, at this may be difficult to achieve in regular classes where there is one
teacher only. It is also questionable whether students with profound intellectual
disability or severe multiple disabilities can be provided with the care, attention,
and appropriate educational experiences in regular classes.
For the groups of students mentioned in the preceding paragraph, special schools
and special classes seem to be the most suitable education context. In such
specifically designed setting, services and resources can be concentrated, there is
clear staff commitment to providing the best opportunities for students with high
support needs, and there is an appropriate staff:student ratio that is difficult to
match in regular schools. This does not mean, of course, that these students should
be isolated from their nondisabled peers.
For all students with special education needs, there is an imperative that teaching-
learning practices match students’ characteristics. And among the repertoire of
educational technologies available to support inclusive education practices is peer-
mediated learning.

8.3 Peers and Diverse Abilities

The term, mediated learning, comes from the work of Vygotsky who emphasised the
role of social interaction in which an expert guides a novice through a task to ensure
that the learner acquires the higher-level skills desired. Vygotsky’s writings (e.g.,
Vygotsky 1962, 1978) have had a continuing impact upon the theory and practice

168 A. F. Ashman

of cognitive psychology and its applications to education. One of his primary
contentions was that education should be designed to accelerate children’s cognitive
development rather than provide experiences only at the individual’s current level of
cognitive maturity. Vygotsky argued that meaning is socially constructed and that
learning and cognitive development is affected by the interactions that an individual
has with others who are more skilled or knowledgeable.
Like the literature and the anecdotal reports that relate to many (if not most)
education innovations and technologies, the literature on peer-mediated learning
provides a revealing lesson in contradiction. When asked, many classroom teachers
at the elementary and secondary levels claim to use one or a range of peer-
mediated learning approaches in their classrooms but few claim that they adhere
to complete procedures for any of the well-documented peer-mediated learning
programs or conduct formal evaluations of their teaching effectiveness (see e.g.,
Antil et al. 1998).
In the professional education and psychology literatures one finds numerous
applications of peer-mediated learning practices, from preschool (see e.g., Robertson
et al. 2003) through elementary/primary (among them Emmer & Gerwels 2002;
Fuchs et al. 2002; McMaster et al. 2002), through the secondary education years,
(d’Arripe-Longueville et al. 2002; Wolford et al. 2001), into tertiary education
(e.g., Darnon et al. 2002; Yetter et al. 2006) and beyond (see e.g., Gardner et al.
2001; Hall et al. 1998; Lazerson 2005).
One might expect comprehensive support for peer-mediated programs and
practices thought to enhance the learning outcomes of students with special
learning needs, especially in the light of political and administrative mandates for
inclusive education. In reality, the literature provides mixed messages of success
clouded by an abundance of research methods in which small-group or small-
sample studies predominate (see e.g., Baker et al. 2004; Garrison-Harrell et al.
1997; Mortweet et al. 1999; Wolford et al. 2001).
Use of peer-mediated learning strategies has been a feature of formal and
informal acculturation processes arguably since before the beginning of recorded
history. In modern times, the use of peers to promote effective and efficient
learning seems widespread although the exact nature of what constitutes peer-
assisted learning varies considerably, ranging from unstructured group work to
systematic and structured work programs under various labels such as peer-tutoring
and cooperative learning. Many of the chapters in this volume provide strong
evidence for the success of cooperative learning approaches. Reviewers
of literature collections have claimed that teachers embrace peer-mediated learning
because it provides opportunities for feedback by peers to students – including
those with special learning needs – via student (rather than teacher) language,
because it reduces the demand on the teacher to work on a one-to-one basis with
included students during lessons, and because it is thought that there are important
gains in students’ self-management of learning and metacognitive awareness (see
e.g., Bryant & Bryan 1998; Jenkins et al. 2003; Topping 1998).
Advocates of specific peer-mediated learning approaches have amassed impres-
sive collections of support as can be seen in this volume and in some others,


demonstrating the effectiveness of a range of peer-mediated learning approaches
for students with and without learning difficulties. Some writers claim that their
favored approach is the most systematized and well researched (see e.g., Heron
et al. 2006) while a more comprehensive synthesis draws attention to the many
significant developments including the formulation of integrated theoretical models
and program supported by extensive reviews of published work documenting
academic and social-emotional gains. These include among many others Topping
(2005), a special issue of Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning
Difficulties (including contributions by Maheady et al. 2006; Morgan 2006),
Rohrbeck et al. (2003), and Topping and Ehly (1998).

8.4 Mixed Educational Outcomes

An examination of literature produced over the past 30 years with students with
special education needs will, however, reveal a relatively small number of peer-
mediated learning studies describing successful interventions in regular education
classes. Fuchs et al. (2002) is a good example. This team implemented a dyadic
peer-mediated program (Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies, PALS) in 20 class-
rooms with a focus on mathematics and reported that teachers were generally
supportive of PALS because the intervention benefited students with and without
learning disabilities. The same program has been applied to other curriculum areas
across the elementary/primary school years (see e.g., Calhoon 2005; Fuchs et al.
2001; McMaster et al. 2002) including considerable work on reading (see
e.g., Gardner et al. 2001; Mathes et al. 2003; McMaster et al. 2006; Sáenz et al.
2005; Topping 1998; Topping & Bryce 2004; Wright & Cleary 2006). Despite these
reports, there appears to have been relatively little research conducted in inclusive
education settings and this has prompted some reviewers to claim that successful
peer-mediated learning outcomes must be replicated in public school/general
education classrooms for there to be a claim that peer-mediation works successfully
in inclusive education settings (Mortweet et al. 1999; Sutherland et al. 2000)
Importantly in recent years, there has also been growth in the number of meta-
analytic studies that have sought substantive evidence of the success of various
peer-mediated programs and approaches within specific student populations. By
carefully selecting studies in which there are comprehensive descriptions of the
participants and procedures, meta-analyses have shown favorable peer-mediated
intervention outcomes. Rohrbeck et al. (2003), for example, examined 90 studies
undertaken with elementary/primary school students drawn from over 4,000 articles
and chapters identified in two major databases. Overall, they found statistically
significant effect sizes although certain student groups appeared to benefit more
than others. For example, students living in urban (rather than suburban or rural)
settings showed the greatest achievement gains and students from low-income
backgrounds and from minority groups gained more than peers from more favorable
socioeconomic backgrounds.

170 A. F. Ashman

There have, however, also been reviews of peer-mediated learning strategies that
have not been as generally supportive as Rohrbeck et al. (2003). Mastropieri and Scruggs
(2001), for example, reviewed studies employing peer-assisted learning in secondary
school curriculum areas such as Social Studies, English, and Algebra. They concluded
that results have been variable with some researchers reporting no statistically significant
differences between tutor-supported and independent study conditions. Mastropieri and
Scruggs suggested that the social climate of the classroom and various curriculum factors
are likely to play an important role in successful learning outcomes.
It would seem useful at this point to overview reports of peer-mediated interven-
tion outcomes for students with a range of specific learning needs. These include
students with learning difficulties, emotional and behavior problems, serious intel-
lectual disabilities, students with minority group backgrounds, and finally, gifted
and talented students.

8.4.1 Students with Learning Difficulties

Many studies have focused on the use of peer-mediated learning with students with
learning disabilities – as defined in the US – although the outcomes appear to have been
variable (see e.g., Fuchs et al. 1997; Kuntz et al. 2001). In the light of this, several review-
ers have examined collections of published work drawing attention to research methods
and analyses that complicate clear views about the success or otherwise of the interven-
tions (e.g., Erlbaum et al. 2000; Maheady et al. 2001; McMaster & Fuchs 2002).
McMaster and Fuchs, for example, reviewed research published between 1990 and 2000
and concluded that one of the major complications was researchers’ use of peer-mediated
learning as one aspect only of multi-component interventions thereby making it difficult
to separate the influence of peer mediation from other aspects of the intervention.
In a recent review McMaster et al. (2006) also discussed the limitations of the
often-reported successful PALS program. They stated that PALS seems to benefit
many students but approximately 20% of low-achieving nondisabled students do not
make adequate achievement gains following their involvement in PALS interven-
tions and more than 50% of students with disabilities fail to benefited when assessed
on reading achievement tests. They reported that these students generally have low
phonological competence, tend to come from low socio-economic areas, have
low cognitive competence, and present with attention and behavior difficulties. It is
to the credit of this team that they undertook to redress this apparent limitation of the
program in a follow-up study but these also proved less than successful.

8.4.2 Students with Emotional and Behavioral Disorders

Social skills and attitudinal outcomes have often been a target of many peer-
mediated learning programs. At times, the affective outcomes have been secondary


consequences of foci on academic skills, while at other times changes in social
interactions have been the researchers’ primary concern.
Ryan et al. (2004) examined the outcome of peer-mediated intervention studies
(classwide peer tutoring, cooperative learning) on academic achievement of students
with emotional and behavior disorders (EMB) based on 14 studies published between
1982 and 2000. They concluded that there were positive academic outcomes across
all forms of peer-mediated interventions and reported overall high consumer satisfac-
tion. They noted, however, that the settings in which data had been collected did not
reflect the actual placement of students with EMB (only eight studies were conducted
in general education classrooms). The reviewers’ conclusions do seem overly posi-
tive when one examines the summary table of findings for the 14 studies. Eight were
uniformly positive. In three studies there were mixed results (gains/no gains), and in
three there were marginal or no appreciable gains. Sutherland et al. (2000) reported
similar findings in respect of their review of eight cooperative learning studies.
Comparable results to those of Sutherland et al. (2000) were reported recently
by Spencer (2006). She reviewed 38 peer tutoring studies undertaken between 1972
and 2002 and considered results according to grade levels. Many of the studies
undertaken in elementary classroom showed positive outcomes for tutors and tutees
especially in reading, language, and mathematics. Perhaps surprisingly, Spencer
reported mixed findings on attitudinal measure although there appeared to be a
common increase in positive social interactions between students with and without
a disability. Studies undertaken in the middle years of schooling did not appear to
be as positive across academic or social-emotional areas as for students in the
elementary years and results for secondary school cohorts were mixed across
academic and social domains. Despite the variability of outcomes, Spencer still
concluded that there is an emerging body of evidence to suggest that students with
emotional or behavior disorders may benefit from peer tutoring.
Work by Hodges et al. (2006) might provide some explanation for the mixed
research results found with students with EMB. They stated that peer-mediated
instruction may yield positive social and academic outcomes for students with
EMB but because of the difficulties many of these students have in interpersonal
relationships, it would seem imperative that peer-mediated interventions include
specific training on interpersonal skills to enable the students with EMB to work
effectively in dyads or small groups. They cautioned that the lack of research
related to academic achievement would suggest that replication and systematic
collection of student performance data would be needed before the veracity of any
intervention could be assumed.

8.4.3 Students with Disabilities

Several research teams have studied the effects of peer-mediation with students
with intellectual disability, acquired brain injury, physical, and sense impairments
(see e.g., Liberman et al. 2000; McDonnell et al. 2001; Morgan et al. 1999; Ryan

172 A. F. Ashman

& Paterna 1997). Consistent with the findings reported in the previous section, not
all attempts to improve academic and social outcomes have been successful (see
e.g., Brinton et al. 1998, 2000). As has been the case with students with EMB,
many studies involving students with severe impairments or disability focus on
social-affective issues rather than academic performance.
Notwithstanding the fact that inclusive education policies and practices have been
in existence for many years, most studies of peer-mediated learning with students
with mental retardation have been conducted in self-contained or other special
education settings; few have been undertaken in general education classrooms
(Mortweet et al. 1999). In a small New Zealand study, Jacques et al. (1998) examined
the effects of interactions between 24 students with mild intellectual disability and
their nondisabled peers. All of the students were in regular education settings
although half had attended special education classes prior to the intervention. The
nondisabled students in the experimental condition demonstrated significant increases
in their social acceptance of the children with a disability immediately after the pro-
gram using a sociometric procedure. There were no changes in the social acceptance
of the nondisabled students in the control setting. Of some interest Jacques et al. noted
that the teachers ratings of social adjustment of the children in the experimental con-
dition were not significantly different to those of the control children immediately
after or at the 5-week follow up (although they indicated that it was close at follow
up, p < 0.07). They suggested that any effects of social learning through participation
in the program was likely more likely to be displayed in the children’s social behavior
in the longer-term than immediately after the intervention.
In a later study, Piercy et al. (2002) again implemented a cooperative learning
program to improve the social acceptance of children with moderate to severe intel-
lectual disabilities. The children interacted over 10 weeks in three experimental
conditions (cooperative learning, social-contact, and no classroom contact).
At the completion of the program, the students without a disability in the coopera-
tive learning groups rated the students with disability more positively on peer
acceptance, popularity, and social-distance than children who participated in the
two control group settings.
A number of studies have also been conducted on the effectiveness of peer-
mediated learning with students with autism. Commonly, the focus of attention has
also been either social acceptance by peers or the development of social, cooperative
behavior in the student with autism. Weiss and Harris (2001), for example, discussed
the importance of the placement of socially competent students with peers displaying
autistic behavior, the training of peers to manage autistic behavior, and the initiation
of interactions with autistic students. These and other skills such as answering ques-
tions, turn taking, and looking at others when they speak are basic skills necessary
for the success of cooperative learning activities.
In some studies, researchers have suggested that simply having normally achieving
students interact with autistic peers will positively affect both participant groups.
However, Weiss and Harris (2001) argued that proximity alone does not bring about
enduring social change or the generalisation of social skills beyond the training
context. Other writers have expressed similar views. Harrower and Dunlap (2001),


for example, drew attention to investigations in which classwide peer tutoring and
cooperative learning models were employed successfully. In these, they referred to
improvement in targeted academic skills and engagement. There were also increased
interactions between children with autism and their classmates who learned to cue
and prompt the autistic students successfully to facilitate achievement in the target
areas. While these approaches may seem to work effectively in inclusive classrooms,
Harrower and Dunlap cautioned that increasing the rate of social interaction among
children with disability through peer-mediation might not always lead to enduring
changes outside of the program settings (echoing Cook & Semmel 1999). And even
within the program itself there is a need to provide specialist support and training
in specific strategies such as self-management. A similar suggestion was made by
Downs and Smith (2004).

8.5 Students with Minority Group Background

How one learns about the world is influenced by how one is taught and by the
readiness to learn. Hence, teaching not only involves providing information but
also facilitating the learner’s thinking and learning skills and processes through
questioning, stimulation, modeling, and supporting the use of appropriate strategies –
all of which are common components of successful peer-mediated learning programs.
The process of acculturation, however, is not limited to what takes place inside
formal education institutions.
In many Indigenous cultures education is an all-of-life experience that is mediated
by relationships that exist within a community. In this context, mediation refers to
the need for someone other than the learner to translate social and cultural knowledge
so that it can be internalised by the learner, in other words, the individual’s
ownership of concepts and meaning are provided through instruction. Children must
comprehend meaning and integrate new knowledge into their own thinking. They
must transform external stimuli into internal codes that are consistent with their own
knowledge by changing and modifying the original ideas and applying their unique
cognitive character to them.
In schools in most Western countries there is an imperative to learn and to
demonstrate learning in a clearly hierarchical environment. In many Indigenous
communities, however, young people learn from the older members (often the
elders) who provide both educational opportunities and experiences and many
Indigenous students see no connection between the way in which learning is
presented in school and the way in which it occurs within their communities. As a
consequence, they often become passive, or even reluctant, learners and their
persistence with formal schooling and their level of success can be seriously com-
promised if judged by Western standards only.
The commitment to social connectedness (communalism) and cooperative learn-
ing are often listed among the learning styles that are characteristic of Indigenous
cultures, including the African American culture. While Watkins (2002) found that

174 A. F. Ashman

2–5-year olds in African American communities commonly approached teachers for
social help and peers for academic help, older children and youths are often more
successful in mediating learning for their peers than are adults. One important reason
for this is their use of language that expresses commonly held values, attitudes,
beliefs, and shared life experiences. Young people are also often observed to employ
a form of apprenticeship with each other that involves coaching, modeling, and
observational learning.
Unlike adult apprenticeships during vocational training, peer-mediation among
children and adolescents typically operates within a social – rather than instructional
– interaction and allows for study, practice, and reflection. Lee (1995) described a
learning apprenticeship model for teaching literacy interpretation skills to African
American high school students. Two learning environments were created. One
involved small work groups, scaffolded learning experiences based on the students’
own social discourse, African American literature, and the use of student’s social
knowledge. The other had a traditional white middle-class orientation typical of high
school teaching practices. Not surprisingly, students in the first setting made signifi-
cant improvements in their independent mastery of problem-solving strategies while
those in the traditional setting did not.
Given the background outlined earlier in this section, it is not surprising that
peer-mediated learning has been shown to be effective in a number of studies
involving minority group students. In their meta-analysis, Rohrbeck et al. (2003),
for example, reported that minority students benefited more the PAL interventions
in terms of academic outcomes than nonminority students. One explanation for
this finding is the establishment of some degree of continuity that PAL creates
between home and school. For vulnerable student, Rohrbeck et al. suggested that
the messages about academic achievement might be communicated across family,
school, and peer group boundaries. The one complication here is the degree to
which the results of collaboration endure beyond any intervention or experiment.
Samaha and De Lisi (2000) have provided a good example of this.
Samaha and De Lisi (2000) worked with 86 seventh-grade students, 78% of whom
were Hispanic and 10% African American. One group worked independently while
others worked in mixed- or same-sex small groups on nonverbal reasoning tasks
(similar to the Wechsler Nonverbal matrices) that required the students to select cor-
rect answers (make judgments) and generate explanation for their solutions.
The mixed-gender groups outperformed other groups although the performance of
students in all groups declined significantly at the posttest in terms of their judgments
when compared with their performance during the experimental phase. Samaha and
De Lisi concluded that peer interactions appeared to be beneficial at the time of the
collaboration although this did not make the participants more competent to respond
correctly to items on their own at a later time. The quality of explanations made by
the collaborating students remained high at the posttest and the authors were encour-
aged by the results of their work with educationally disadvantaged youth. They
cautioned, however, that their study was modest, involved only one class period, and
dealt with abstract problem-solving rather than typical curriculum tasks.


8.5.1 Gifted and Talented Students

Over a number of years there has been debate in the professional literature about
whether peer-mediated learning activities are advantageous or disadvantageous to
gifted and talented students. Some writers have argued that peer-mediated learning
fails to take the needs of gifted and talented students into consideration, especially
flexibility, variety, curiosity, and independent discovery learning (Gallagher &
Gallagher 1994; Robinson 1991). The results of several studies have shown mixed
outcome in terms of students’ achievement, attitudes toward the curriculum and
learning, self-efficacy, and learning style, (see e.g., Coleman & Gallagher 1995;
Neber et al. 2001; Robinson 2003). Robertson (2003), for example, viewed the role
often given to gifted students as the “explainer” and the teacher’s helper, and asserted
that such a responsibility constitutes exploitation of brighter students, echoing views
expressed by Ross and Smyth (1995).
Understandably, supporters of peer-mediated learning do not believe that the inter-
actions and experiences of the brighter students that occur in mixed ability groups are
exploitative and, even those who are critical of mixed ability grouping, express at
least some support for peer-mediated learning. Melser (1999), for example, found
that fourth and fifth grade gifted students gained in self-esteem in heterogeneous
groups and lost self-esteem in homogeneous groups although, in both contexts they
gained in the targeted academic area, reading. Contrary affective and academic
results were reported by Sheppard and Kavevsky (1999) and Ramsay and Richards
(1997) who claimed that gifted students were less positive about cooperative learning
than their average-ability peers although it appeared as though their attitude toward
school subjects was unaffected. More recently, Garduno (2001) found that seventh
and eighth grade gifted students made some limited academic gains within coopera-
tive learning settings but lost motivation when they were required to explain content
and process to their peers. Overall, participants had a more positive attitude toward
mathematics in whole-group, competitive settings than in cooperative settings.
Individual differences among students may account for equivocal results across
peer-mediation studies that involve gifted and high-achieving students. In their
cluster and factor analytic study, Feldhusen et al. (2000) differentiated students
into five relatively homogeneous groups. Some gifted students presented a desire
to outperform their peers while others viewed competition as an energizing agent
within the classroom learning context. Feldhusen et al. noted that gifted students
generally were not negative about competitive or cooperative learning conditions.
They were able to discriminate between situations in which each was an appropriate
learning context and self-aware of their own preferred learning style.
In their meta-analysis of cooperative learning studies involving gifted students,
Neber et al. (2001) concluded that cooperative learning approaches can result in
small to medium learning gains for gifted and high-achieving students, notably in the
low and middle grades. They claimed that there were few studies available that had
the methodological precision to enable more robust conclusions to be made about
peer-mediated learning, and cooperative learning in particular. Specifically, they

176 A. F. Ashman

stated that there are some studies in which gifted students have been advantaged in
mixed ability settings while other researchers have reported gains for these students
in homogeneous groups of gifted or high-achieving students only. One of the
complications it seems, is the lack of detail in the description of research methods
in terms of the accurate application of cooperative learning, and in particular the
explicit requirement for goal-interdependency among work group members.
More recently, Patrick et al. (2005) took a slightly different approach to the debate
about the efficacy of peer-mediated learning for gifted and talented students. They
claimed that the discussion about whether peer-mediation (cooperative learning in
this case) is beneficial to high-achieving students should concentrate on the process
of task-related interactions. Rather than viewing cooperative learning as a single
approach, there should be a more substantive analysis of the similarities and
differences in the nature and type of the dialogues that are promoted by different
cooperative learning approaches. They concluded that the types of task and the cogni-
tive and interactive processes are important. Formats that emphasize transmission of
factual information seem most likely to engender concerns when gifted students’ are
placed in mixed ability groups because of differences in learning speed between
average and gifted students. In contrast, there appear to be benefits for both average
and gifted students when higher order thinking and comprehension is required, when
students are expected to explain and justify their ideas and reasons.
At this point, it appears that there are situations in which the intellectual needs
of gifted students can be accommodated in peer-mediated learning. Patrick et al.
(2005), however, have warned that mixed ability grouping and collaborative learn-
ing approached do not inevitably benefit those students.

8.6 The Future of Peer-Mediation and Inclusion

In Ashman (2003) I posed the question: Has peer-mediated learning met researchers’
and practitioners’ expectations? In that context, I observed that we have had more
than twenty years of research on, and promotion of, peer-mediation. Moreover, most
teachers at the primary/elementary and secondary school levels are familiar with at
least the general concepts if not with specifics of any approach. In this chapter I have
restricted my review as much as possible to a synthesis of the literature paying partic-
ular attention to meta-analytic studies. I might have substantiated by comments by a
plethora of references but have included only those that I considered representative.
The evidence suggests that we have not advanced too much further over the last
four years to validate the claim that peer-mediated learning is successful in bringing
about academic gains and/or social benefits to students in special education or
inclusive education settings. Perhaps the best general conclusion would be an
adaptation of Patrick et al. (2005): that students with special learning needs might
benefit from peer-mediating learning experiences but it is not inevitable that they
will if placed in such a learning context and it is certain that peer mediation is not
necessarily the most efficient or effective learning strategy for all.


The lessons to be learned from the literature in regard to students with special
learning needs seem to be little different to those pertinent to general education
settings. There are some positive aspects. For example, there appears to be a leaning
toward the development of theories that relate to peer-mediated interventions (see
e.g., several chapters in this volume, and also Topping 2005) and fewer reports that
offer opinion-rather than empirically supported conclusions about academic and
behavior outcomes.
On the negative side of the ledger, while many teachers claim to use peer-mediation
as a teaching-learning strategy, they are often not implemented in the manner that
their developers and researchers suggest. Antil et al. (1998) conducted follow-up
interviews with 21 teachers involved in their study who reported using some form
of cooperative learning. Only one of those interviewed reported using the five funda-
mental components (i.e., positive interdependence, individual accountability,
promotive interaction, group processing, development of small group social skills). Five
others reported using positive interdependence and individual accountability.
Somewhat bluntly and perhaps over-critically, Walker et al. (1998) stated that
many teachers “seem to ignore the concept of best practice and rely upon a
hodgepodge of activities, unplanned curricula, and conceptually incompatible
interventions to accomplish teaching, learning, and management goals” (p. 8).
Rohrbeck et al. (2003) appear to have taken Walker et al. to heart when they
stated that at-risk students generally receive instruction marked by poor use of
instructional time, lower expectations, and less opportunity for learning and that
there is strong evidence for the effectiveness of PAL interventions with these
vulnerable students. They concluded that the use of PAL strategies would be a
welcome improvement to instructional practices with these students. The com-
ments by Walker et al. and Rohrbeck et al. could be taken in the context of one
of the more prominent criticisms of peer-mediated intervention is the failure to
apply any chosen approach in accordance with the developers’ guidelines.
And while one might pass judgment on teacher adaptations of well-researched
programs and approaches, the recommendations offered by researchers to guide
the implementation of peer-mediated strategies are often vague and unhelpful.
Mortweet et al. (1999), for example, suggested that successful inclusive environ-
ments for students with special learning needs should be designed to maximize
academic achievement through teacher-directed group activities, high levels of
student engagement, student-teacher interactions, appropriate pacing of lessons,
questioning and feedback, and the structured use of peers.
Englert et al. (2001) stressed the need for students to participate fully in activities
and that it is the teacher’s responsibility to ensure that opportunities are provided to
enable this to occur. They argued that collaborations must: bring students together in
ways that encourage them to learn about the thinking and problem-solving process;
encourage mediation so that students’ performances reflect the acquisition of skills and
lead toward independent learning and problem-solving; and facilitate cultural, histori-
cal, and dynamic aspects of the learning environment. These recommendations appear
to be slightly less than practical. Others, such as Bryant and Bryant (1998), stated that
adaptations are necessary to the teaching-learning environment because students with

178 A. F. Ashman

special education needs do not have the necessary skills to perform appropriately in
cooperative activities. These essential adaptations include changes to the teaching
procedure, classroom management practices, and the physical environment, plus adap-
tation of the curriculum and availability of appropriate materials and technology.
At the beginning of this chapter I devoted several pages to inclusive education.
In my mind, the histories of inclusive education and of peer-mediated learning have
followed parallel pathways. Strong arguments can be made for the promotion and
implementation of both notions in our education systems. For inclusion, there are
issues of equality of opportunity, for peer-mediated learning there are conceptual
bases that have their origins in Vygotsky’s writings and in ancient cultural tradi-
tions. Practically, both have struggled to find solid ground in regular education
classrooms, mainstream schools, and in education systems more generally despite
the sparkles of success that are reported in the professional literature.
We know that not all students are advantaged if placed in regular education
settings and that others are reluctant or ineffective participants in cooperative learning
situations. The academic benefits that might accrue from students’ involvement in
both contexts are unique to each individual. For students who are progressing
satisfactorily through school, the occasional unhelpful experience is unlikely to have
serious detrimental consequences. For students who are already disadvantaged by
virtue of an intellectual impairment or behavior difficulty, the result of imprudent
educational placement can compound their problems and lead to failure. For example,
it is likely to be inappropriate, even disadvantageous to involve some students in regu-
lar classrooms and in peer collaborations if they do not have the social skills to interact
successfully with others in those contexts. Sutherland et al. (2000) and Farrell (2000)
made a similar claim when they stated in respect of students with EMB that haphazard
placement of these students in groups and expecting them to perform socially and
academically is clearly not what cooperative learning advocates would encourage.
Over the years, I have been mindful of the many recommendations that have
been made about the importance of ensuring that appropriate preparation is
undertaken when students with special learning needs are to be enrolled into
regular education classroom. I hold the same views about the involvement of
students in peer-mediated learning activities. Most primary/elementary and many
secondary classroom teachers have a repertoire of teaching-learning strategies
that can accommodate the need for flexibility and facilitate students’ academic
and social development. It is counterproductive to assume that any approach can
satisfy the preferred learning styles and needs of every student.

References

Antil, L. R., Jenkins, J. R., Wayne, S. K., & Vadsy P. F. (1998). Cooperative learning: Prevalence,
conceptualizations, and the relation between research and practice. American Education
Ashman, A. F. (2003). Peer mediation and students with diverse learning needs. In R. M. Gillies
& A. F. Ashman (Eds.), Cooperating learning: The social and intellectual outcomes of
learning in groups (pp. 87–102). London: RoutledgeFalmer.


Baker, J. M. & Zigmond, N. (1995). The meaning and practice of inclusion for students with learning
disabilities: Themes and implications from five cases. Journal of Special Education, 29, 163–180.
Baker, S., Gersten, R., Dimino, J. A., & Griffiths, R. (2004). The sustained use of research-based
instructional practice: A case study of peer-assisted learning strategies in mathematics.
Remedial and Special Education: Special Issue on Sustainability, 25, 5–24.
Biklen, D. (Ed.). (1985). Achieving the complete school: Strategies for effective mainstreaming.
New York: Teacher’s College, Columbia University.
Braggett, E. & Bailey, S. (2005). Gifted and talented children and their education. In A. Ashman
and J. Elkins (Eds.), Educating children with diverse abilities (2nd edn.). Frenchs Forest,
NSW: Pearson Education.
Bricker, D. (1995). The challenge of inclusion. Journal of Early Intervention, 19, 179–194.
Brinton, B., Fujiki, M., & Higbee, L. M. (1998). Participation in cooperative learning activities by
children with specific language impairments. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing
Research, 41, 1193–1206.
Brinton, B., Fujiki, M., Montague, E. C., & Hanton, J. L. (2000). Children with language impairment
in cooperative work groups: A pilot study. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools.
Special Issue: Collaboration and inclusion: Multiple perspectives – one focus, 31, 252–264.
Bryant, D. P. & Bryant, B. R. (1998). Using assistive technology adaptations to include students
with learning disabilities in cooperative learning activities. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
31, 41–54.
Calhoon, M. B. (2005). Effects of a peer-mediated phonological skill and reading comprehension
program on reading skill acquisition for middle school students with reading disabilities.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 424–433.
Chapman, J. W. (1988). Special education in the least restrictive environment: Mainstreaming or
maindumping? Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disabilities, 14, 123–134.
Coleman, M. R. & Gallagher, J. J. (1995). The successful blending of gifted education with middle school
and cooperative learning: Two studies. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 18, 362–384.
Cook, B., & Semmel, M. I. (1999). Peer acceptance of included students with disabilities as a function
of severity of disability and classroom composition. Journal of Special Education, 33, 50–61.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1996). What matters most: A competent teacher for every child. Phi Delta
Kappan, 78, 193–200.
Darnon, C., Buchs, C., & Butera, F. (2002). Epistemic and relational conflicts in sharing identical
vs complementary information during cooperative learning. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 61,
139–151.
d’Arripe-Longueville, F., Gernigon, C., Huet, M-L., Cadopi, M., & Winnykamen, F. (2002). Peer
tutoring in a physical education setting: Influence of tutor skill level on novice learners’
motivation and performance. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 22, 105–123.
Downs, A. & Smith, T. (2004). Emotional understanding, cooperation, and social behavior in
high-functioning children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 34,
625–635.
Dunn, L. M. (1968). Special education for the mildly retarded: Is much of it justifiable?
Exceptional Children, 35, 5–22.
Elkins, J. 1994. The school context. In A. Ashman & J. Elkins (Eds.), Educating children with
special needs (pp. 71–104). New York: Prentice Hall.
Emmer, E. T. & Gerwels, M. C. (2002). Cooperative learning in elementary classrooms: Teaching
practices and lesson characteristics. Elementary School Journal, 103, 75–91.
Englert, C. S., Berry, R., & Dunsmore, K. (2001). A case study of the apprenticeship process:
Another perspective on the apprentice and the scaffolding metaphor. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 24,152–171.
Erlbaum, B., Vaughn, S., Hughes, M. T., Watson Moody, S., & Schumm, J. S. (2000). A meta-
analytic review of the effects of instructional grouping format on the reading outcomes of
students with disabilities. In R. Gersten, E. Schiller, J. S. Schumm, & S. Vaughn (Eds.), Issues
and research in special education (pp. 10–135). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Farrell, M. (2000). Educational inclusion and raising standards. British Journal of Special
Education, 27, 35–38.

180 A. F. Ashman

Feldhusen, J. F., Dai, D. Y., & Clinkenbeard, P. R. (2000). Dimensions of competitive and cooperative
learning among gifted learners. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 23, 328–342.
Forlin, C. (2004). Promoting inclusivity in Western Australian schools. International Journal of
Inclusive Education, 8, 185–202.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Mathes, P. G., & Simmons, D. C. (1997). Peer-assisted learning strategies:
Making classrooms more responsive to diversity. American Educational Research Journal,
34, 176–206.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Thompson, A., Svenson, E., Yen, L., Otaiba, S A., Yang, N., McMaster, K. N.,
Prentice, K., Kazdan, S., & Saenz. L. (2001). Peer-assisted learning strategies in reading: Extensions
for kindergarten, first grade, and high school. Remedial and Special Education, 22, 15–21.
Fuchs, L. S, Fuchs, D., Yazdian, L., & Powell, S. R. (2002). Enhancing first-grade children’s
mathematical development with peer-assisted learning strategies. School Psychology Review,
31, 569–583.
Gallagher, J. J., & Gallagher, S. A. (1994). Teaching the gifted child (4th edn.). Boston: Allyn &
Bacon.
Gardner, R., III, Cartledae, G., Seidl, B., Woolsey, M. L., Schiev, G. S., & Utley, C. (2001).
Remedial and Special Education, 22, 22–23.
Garduno, E. L. H. (2001). The influence of cooperative problem solving on gender differences in
achievement, self-efficacy, and attitudes toward mathematics in gifted students. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 45, 268–282.
Garrison-Harrell, L., Kamps, D., & Kravits, T. (1997). The effects of peer networks on social-
communicative behaviors for students with autism. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental
Disabilities, 12, 241–254.
Hall, S., Gay, B., & Topping, K. (1998). Peer-assisted learning beyond school. In K. Topping &
S. Ehly (Eds.), Peer-assisted learning (pp. 291–311). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associated Publishers.
Harrower, J. K. & Dunlap, G. (2001). Behavior Modification. Special Issue: Autism, Part 1, 25,
762–784.
Heron, T. E., Villareal, D. M., Yao, M., Christianson, R. J., & Heron, K. M. (2006). Peer tutoring
systems: Applications in classroom and specialized environments. Reading & Writing
Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 22, 27–45.
Hodges, J., Riccomini, P. J., Buford, R., & Herbst, M. H. (2006). A review of instructional interven-
tions in mathematics for students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Behavioral disorders,
31, 297–311.
Jacques, N., Wilton, K., & Townsend, M. (1998). Cooperative learning and social acceptance of
children with mild intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 42, 29–36.
Jenkins, J. R., Antil, L. R., Wayne, S. K., & Vadasy, P. F. (2003). How cooperative learning works
for special education and remedial students. Exceptional Children, 69, 279–292.
Jenkinson, J. C. (1997). Mainstream or special? Educating students with disabilities. London:
Routledge.
Kauffman, J. M., Gerber, M. M., & Semmel, M. I. (1988). Arguable assumptions underlying the
Regular Education Initiative. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 6–12.
Kauffman, J. M. & Hallahan, D. P. (Eds.) (1995). The illusion of full inclusion: A comprehensive
critique of a current special education bandwagon. Austin, TX: PRO-ED, Inc.
Kuntz, K. L., McLaughlin, T. F., & Howard, V. F. (2001). A comparison of cooperative learning
and small group individualized instruction for math in a self contained classroom for elemen-
tary students with disabilities. Educational Research Quarterly, 24, 41–56.
Lazerson, D. B. (2005). Detention home teens as tutors: A cooperative cross-age pilot project.
Emotional and Behavioral Difficulties, 10, 7–15.
Lee, C. D. (1995). A culturally based cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching African American high
school students skills in literary interpretation. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 608–630.
Liberman, L. J., Dunn, J. M., van der Mars, H., & McCubbin, J. (2000). Peer tutors’ effects on
activity levels of deaf students in inclusive elementary physical education. Adapted Physical
Activity Quarterly, 17, 20–39.


McDonnell, J., Mathot-Buckner, C., Thorson, N., & Fister, S. (2001). Supporting the inclusion of
students with moderate and severe disabilities in junior high school general education classes:
The effects of classwide peer tutoring, multi-element curriculum, and accommodations.
Education and Treatment of Children, 24, 141–160.
McMaster, K. N. & Fuchs, D. (2002). Effects of cooperative learning on the academic achieve-
ment of students with learning disabilities: An update of Tateyama-Sniezek’s review. Learning
Difficulties Research & Practice, 17, 107–117.
McMaster, K. N., Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2002). Using peer tutoring to present early reading
failure. In J. S. Thousand, F. A. Villa, & A. I. Nevin (Eds.), Creativity and collaborative
learning: The practical guide to empowering students, teachers, and families (2nd edn.)
(pp. 235–246). Baltimore, MD: Paul H Brookes Publishing.
McMaster, K. N., Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Research on peer-assisted learning strategies:
The promise and limitations of peer-mediated instruction. Reading and Writing Quarterly:
Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 22, 5–25.
Maheady, L., Mallette, B., & Harper, G. F. (2006). Four classwide peer tutoring models:
Similarities, differences, and implications for research and practice. Reading & Writing
Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 22, 65–89.
Mastropieri, M. A. & Scruggs, T. E. (2001). Promoting inclusion in secondary classrooms.
Learning Disability Quarterly, 24, 265–274.
Mathes, P. G., Torgesen, J. K., Clancy-Menchetti, J., Santi, K., Nicholsas, K., Robinson, C., &
Grek, M. (2003). A comparison of teacher-directed versus peer-assisted instruction to strug-
gling first-grade readers. Elementary School Journal, 103, 459–479.
Melser, N. A. (1999). Gifted students and cooperative learning: A study of grouping strategies.
Roeper Review, 21, 315.
Mitler, P. (1988, September). Intellectual trends in special education of persons with intellectual
disabilities. Paper presented at the 16th World Congress of Rehabilitation International,
Tokyo, Japan.
Morgan, S. A. (2006). Introduction: Four classwide peer tutoring programs-research, recommen-
dations for implementation, and future directions. Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming
Learning Difficulties, 22, 1–4.
Morgan, R. L., Whorton, J. E., & Turtle, L. B. (1999). Use of peer tutoring to improve speech
skills in a preschooler with a severe hearing impairment. Educational Research Quarterly, 23,
44–55.
Mortweet, S. L., Utley, C. A., Walker, D., Dawson, H. L., Delquardri, J. C., Reddy, S. S.,
Greenwood, C. R., Hamilton, S., & Ledford, D. (1999). Classwide peer tutoring: Teaching
students with mild mental retardation in inclusive classrooms. Exceptional Children, 65,
524–536.
Neber, H., Finsterwalk, M., & Urban, N. (2001). Cooperative learning with gifted and high-
achieving students: A review and meta-analyses of 12 studies. High Ability Studies, 12,
199–214.
Nesbit, W. (1994). Inclusive education: Views of a grammarian, not a poet. Canadian Journal of
Special Education, 9, 119–130.
Patrick, H., Bangel, N. J., Jeon, K-N., & Townsend, M. A. R. (2005). Reconsidering the issues of
cooperative learning with gifted students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 29, 90–110.
Pavri, S. & Monda-Amaya, L. (2001). Social support in inclusive schools: Student and teacher
perspectives. Exceptional Children, 67, 391–411.
Piercy, M., Wilton, K., & Townsend, M. (2002). Promoting the social acceptance of young
children with moderate-severe intellectual disabilities using cooperative-learning techniques.
American Journal on Mental Retardation, 107, 352–360.
Ramsay, S. G. & Richards H. C. (1997). Cooperative learning environments: Effects on academic
attitudes of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 41, 160–168.
Robertson, J., Green, K., Alper, S., Schloss, P. J., & Kohler, F. (2003). Using a peer-mediated
intervention to facilitate children’s participation in inclusive childcare activities. Education
and Treatment of Children, 26, 182–197.

182 A. F. Ashman

Robinson, A. (1991). Cooperation or exploitation? The argument against cooperative learning for
talented students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 14, 9–27.
Robinson, A. (2003). Cooperative learning and high ability students. In N. Colangelo & G. Davis
(Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd edn., pp. 282–292). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Rohrbeck, C. A., Ginsburg-Block, M. D., Fantuzzo, J. W., & Miller, T. R. (2003). Peer-assisted
learning interventions with elementary school students: A meta-analytic review. Journal of
Ross, J. A. & Smyth, E. (1995). Thinking skills for gifted students: The case for correlational
reasoning. Roeper Review, 17, 239–243.
Ryan, S. & Paterna, L. (1997). Junior high can be inclusive: Using natural supports and
cooperative learning. Teaching Exceptional Children, 30, 36–41.
Ryan, J. B., Reid, R., & Epstein, M. H. (2004). Peer-mediated intervention studies on academic
achievement for students with EBD. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 330–341.
Sáenz, L. M., Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2005). Peer-assisted learning strategies for English
language learners with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 71, 231–247.
Samaha, N. V. & De Lisi, R. (2000). Peer collaboration on a nonverbal reasoning task by urban,
minority students. Journal of Experimental Education, 69, 5–21.
Sheppard, S. & Kavevsky, L. S. (1999). Nurturing gifted students’ metacognitive awareness:
Effects of training in homogeneous and heterogeneous classes. Roeper Review, 21, 266–275.
Spencer, V. G. (2006). Peer tutoring and students with emotional or behavioral disorders:
A review of the literature. Behavior Disorders, 31, 204–222.
Stainback, S., Stainback, W., & Ayres, B. (1996). Schools as inclusive communities. In W. Stainback
& S. Stainback (Eds.), Controversial issues confronting special education: Divergent perspectives
(2nd edn., pp. 31–43). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Sutherland, K. S., Wehby, J. H., & Gunter, P. L. (2000). The effectiveness of cooperative learning
with students with emotional and behavioural disorders: A literature review. Behavior
Disorders, 25, 225–238.
Topping K. (1998). Paired learning in literacy. In K. Topping & S. Ehly (Eds.), Peer-assisted
learning (pp. 87–104). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associated Publishers.
Topping, K. J. (2005). Trends in peer learning. Educational Psychology. Special Issue:
Developments in educational psychology: How far have we come in 25 years? 25, 631–645.
Topping, K. T. & Bryce, A. (2004). Cross-age peer tutoring of reading and thinking: Influence on
thinking skills. Educational Psychology, 24, 595–621.
Topping, K. T. & Ehly, S. (Eds.) (1998). Peer-assisted learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associated Publishers.
Vlachou, A. (2004). Education and inclusive policy-making: Implications for research and
practice. International Journal on Inclusive Education, 8, 3–21.
Vlachou, A. & Barton, L. (1994). Inclusive education: Teachers and the changing culture of
schooling. British Journal of Special Education, 21, 105–107.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Walker, H. M., Forness, S. R. Kauffman, J. M., Epstein, M. H. Gresham, F. M., Nelson, C. M., &
Strain, P. S. (1998). Macro-social validation: Referencing outcomes in behavioral disorders to
societal issues and problems. Behavior Disorders, 24, 7–18.
Warnock, M. (1978). Special education needs. The report of the committee of enquiry into the
education of handicapped children and young people. London: HSMO.
Watkins, A. F. (2002). Learning styles of African American children: A developmental considera-
tion. Journal of Black Psychology, 28, 3–17.
Wedell, K. (1995). Making inclusive education ordinary. British Journal of Special Education, 22,
100–104.
Weiss, M. J. & Harris, S. L. (2001). Teaching social skills to people with autism. Behavior
Modification, 25, 785–802.


Wolford, P. L., Heward, W. L., & Alber, S. R. (2001). Teaching middle school students with
learning disabilities to recruit peer assistance during cooperative learning group activities.
Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16, 161–173.
Wright, J. & Cleary, K. S. (2006). Kids in the tutor seat: Building schools’ capacity to help struggling
readers through a cross-age peer-tutoring program. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 99–107.
Yetter, G., Gutkin, T. B., Saunders, A., Galloway, A. M., Sobansky, R. R., & Song, S. Y. (2006).
Unstructured collaboration versus individual practice for complex problem solving: A cautionary
tale. Journal of Experimental Education, 74, 137–159.

Chapter 9
Developing Language and Mastering Content
in Heterogeneous Classrooms

Rachel A. Lotan

9.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 184
9.2 Teaching and Learning in Heterogeneous Classrooms ................................................... 186
9.3 Language Acquisition in Linguistically Heterogeneous Classrooms ............................. 189
9.4 Acquiring Language and Mastering Content in Complex
Instruction Classrooms ................................................................................................... 193
9.4.1 Student Achievement Data ................................................................................. 195
9.4.2 Classroom Experiences ....................................................................................... 196
9.4.3 Major Findings.................................................................................................... 197
9.5 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 198
References ................................................................................................................................ 199

Abstract In this chapter, I describe what teachers need to do to set up classroom
conditions that support development in English, the language of instruction, as
well as mastery of subject matter content in academically and linguistically hetero-
geneous classrooms. To support my argument, I use data from a study conducted
in six diverse 7th grade social studies classrooms in California’s Central Valley
where teachers used complex instruction, a pedagogical approach that supports
teaching at a high intellectual level in classrooms with a wide range of previous
academic achievement and linguistic proficiency. Students from different language
proficiency levels benefited similarly from the intellectually rigorous curriculum
and from the quality of interactions with peers during group work. Based on this
study, we suggest that schools rethink linguistic segregation and ensure access to
challenging and grade-appropriate curricula and equitable instruction for all students.
Furthermore, I present to teachers a model of effective, research-based practice that
could expand their repertoire of strategies for heterogeneous classrooms.

9.1 Introduction

In many countries, significant proportions of school students are learners of a second,
and sometimes third, language. For many of these students, failure to acquire the
language of instruction leads to detrimental educational outcomes. This problem

9 Developing Language and Mastering Content in Heterogeneous Classrooms 185

turns acute in the middle grades when the development of academic language skills
becomes increasingly consequential and knowledge of subject matter content ever
more critical.
In the US, most middle school English learners can be found in one of three
contexts: newcomer programs, regular mainstream classes, and specially designed
programs that combine language and content instruction. Thus, newly-arrived
immigrants might be placed in special programs for newcomers only where they
receive intensive instruction in English as a Second Language for a semester or for
a whole academic year. During this period, they might or might not have access to
classes where subject matter is taught in their primary language. Some English
learners, though rarely beginners and more often only those who have successfully
passed a standardized English language placement test, are allowed to enroll in
mainstream classrooms where most students have native or native-like competence
in English. In a majority of school districts, however, secondary level English learners
are placed in programs that include two or three periods of intensive beginning,
intermediate, advanced or transitional ESL instruction, focusing mostly on vocabulary,
grammar, and communicative competence. Two or three additional periods are
devoted to sheltered subject matter courses. In these classes, instruction is designed
to provide English language support for the students as they acquire subject matter
content. Often, given that students in these classes have different language back-
grounds and different levels of oral and written English proficiency, language and
content are simplified, and the pace of instruction slowed down. Because many
students stay in this program for the whole period of their middle school and even
high school experience, they find themselves in a separate track, effectively a
linguistic ghetto (Valdes 1998).
In this chapter, I describe the conditions under which students who are learners of
English develop oral and written proficiency in the language and master challenging
subject matter content in their academically and linguistically heterogeneous class-
rooms. To illustrate the argument, I report findings from a study conducted in six 7th
grade social studies classrooms in California’s Central Valley.1
Although development of oral proficiency in second language acquisition is
essential for the development of literacy and vocabulary, particularly in the middle
grades, these students have few opportunities to interact with peers who are native
or native-like speakers of English. Furthermore, because the sheltered subject matter
courses include students from different grade levels, they have limited or no access
to grade-appropriate subject matter content and, therefore, are unable to complete
the course sequences required for graduation or for college entrance. This linguistic
tracking, confounded with the academic tracking of secondary students, presents an
almost insurmountable obstacle to the educational progress of English learners.

1
The study entitled “Language acquisition and mastery of content for English learners in hetero-
geneous classrooms” was conducted at the Program for Complex Instruction, Stanford University
School of Education. The study was funded by the Spencer Foundation whose generous support
is hereby acknowledged.

186 R. A. Lotan

When middle school administrators and teachers make a commitment to eliminate
such academic and linguistic tracking, the results are classrooms where students
function at different levels of English language proficiency and where they have a
wide range of previous academic achievement. Although educational reformers
have proposed cooperative learning as a solution to this instructional and curricular
challenge, important issues still remain to be addressed. In these classrooms, where
the academic performance and the linguistic proficiency of students might span
several grade levels, how can teachers maintain high quality instruction? How can
they respond to the pressures of parents who insist on academic rigor and high
educational standards for their children? How can students who read well below
grade level gain access to age-appropriate learning tasks and curricula? How can
students who are still in the process of acquiring the language comprehend and
contribute to the verbal interchanges between the teacher and other students in the
class, and to the discussions among the students? How can they demonstrate intel-
lectual competence and understanding of content? How can teachers prevent some
students from dominating and others from withdrawing from participation and
consequently from learning?
If teachers respond to academic and linguistic heterogeneity by watering down
the curriculum, then many students will have limited access to instructional experi-
ences that develop conceptual understanding in challenging academic subjects. If,
in contrast, teachers respond to diversity by teaching to the academically more
advanced students and ignore the needs of those who are not yet proficient in
English or those who score well below grade level, many students will fail. To
maintain a high level curriculum and to address the needs of a diverse population,
teachers must learn how to organize instruction so that students can serve as academic
and linguistic resources to one another as they work on intellectually demanding
learning tasks.
Providing second language learners in the middle grades with opportunities for
English language development and age-appropriate acquisition of content is the
topic of serious academic controversy and grave political debate. How do teachers
set the stage for creating classrooms that are language-rich and academically
vibrant environments, where all students use language actively to communicate
with peers and with adults? What kinds of learning tasks and classroom activities
are used to promote the development of linguistic proficiency and academic
achievement of English learners? How do students serve as linguistic resources for
one another and how does the teacher ensure equal participation of students with
varying linguistic skills and vastly different academic backgrounds?

9.2 Teaching and Learning in Heterogeneous Classrooms

In previous research, we applied sociological theories and methods to develop and
evaluate a set of instructional and curricular strategies intended to produce equitable
classrooms, where teachers taught at a high intellectual level while reaching students


with a range of previous academic achievement that spanned several grade levels.
We called this approach complex instruction. (For more information on the theo-
retical and empirical bases of complex instruction, see Cohen & Lotan 1997.) We
studied the implementation of complex instruction in elementary and middle school
classrooms with ethnically, racially, academically, and linguistically diverse student
populations. We found that in these classrooms, when teachers successfully delegated
authority to manage their groups, students talked and worked together in small
groups and served as resources for one another as they completed intellectually
challenging learning tasks. In the following, I describe the main features of
complex instruction.
Using specially designed activities called skill-builders (Cohen 1994), students
learned how to work collaboratively, how to describe and explain accurately, and
how to engage in substantive conversations. Students assumed specific procedural
roles in their small groups to manage the groups and themselves, taking over some
of the traditional responsibilities and duties of the teacher. For example, in each
group, the facilitator made sure that all members received a turn and understood the
instructions for the task. The reporter presented at the end of groupwork time what
the group had found out, introduced and described the group product, and evaluated
how the group had worked together. The materials manager collected the manipula-
tives, props, tools, and supplies needed for the activity and oversaw the clean-up.
These roles focused members on the procedural work of the group and did not lead
to a division of the intellectual labor of the group. All group members presented
their opinions, posed question, clarified their answers, or theorized about the
problems to be solved.
The learning tasks assigned to the groups were “group-worthy” tasks addressing
essential disciplinary content (Lotan 2003). Different learning tasks of a curricular
unit were organized around a central concept, an essential question, or a big idea of
the discipline. Successful completion of these tasks relied on creative problem-
solving, comprehensive analyses of texts and contexts, systematic interpretation of
primary sources, and resourceful argumentation. Tasks were multi-dimensional and
required the use of multiple intellectual abilities. Various resource materials such as
visuals, audio- or video-recordings, manipulatives, science equipment, costumes
and props, graphs, and diagrams served as alternative representations of informa-
tion and understandings in addition to and in support of textual sources. These
resource materials were an integral part of the task and were tightly connected to
the assignment posed to the students. By using these resources, students learned
how to analyze and extract meaning from visuals, musical compositions or paintings,
and how to understand their message thoroughly and deeply. In addition to reading
and writing (the traditional academic abilities and skills), students used a host of
intellectual abilities as they created three-dimensional models, designed and conducted
experiments, located, delved into, and interpreted information from different
sources, summarized their data and findings in diagrams, graphs, charts and tables,
and used different media to argue their positions persuasively. Through these activities,
students could understand what was required to complete the learning task, not only
through written or oral instructions, but also through representations and resources

188 R. A. Lotan

other than text. In creating varied and different group products, students benefited
from additional opportunities and venues to demonstrate their understanding of the
content as well as their intellectual competence.
The learning tasks were open-ended: for some there could be more than one
legitimate solution and for others there could be multiple ways of arriving to a solution.
As students worked on group-worthy tasks, teachers delegated intellectual authority
to the groups and to the individuals. Teachers could often be surprised by the answers
or the solutions proposed by the students. Often, they could neither anticipate nor
predict students’ answers nor could they, under any circumstances, provide scripted
responses. Such a situation presupposes deep knowledge of subject matter – a
prerequisite for the teacher’s ability to respond appropriately to the students’ ideas.
In completing the learning task, students were held accountable for their engage-
ment as members of a group and as individuals. Interdependence was strengthened
by the requirement for a group product (Johnson, Johnson & Holubek, 1991) and
individual accountability was ensured through an individual report to be completed
after each group task. Completing these individual reports, students summarized and
clarified to themselves what they had learned in their groups. Clear and specific
evaluation criteria were embedded both in the group products and in the individual
reports. These evaluation criteria provided specific guidelines as to what made for a
good product or an acceptable individual report clarifying for the students what they
would be evaluated on and how they should evaluate their own efforts. The use of
evaluation criteria implied a further transformation of the teacher’s traditional role
as sole evaluator of students’ classroom performances. By giving students the oppor-
tunity to evaluate their own performances and those of others, the teacher delegated
evaluation rights – formerly the purview of teachers only (Cohen et al. 2002). While
the group products and individual reports served as formative assessments of students’
knowledge of the content and competent use of language, students demonstrated
what they had learned in summative ways through multiple choice unit tests and
through writing final unit essays.
When students worked on group-worthy tasks and when the teachers success-
fully delegated authority for managing the groups, we found that the proportion of
students talking and working together was significantly positively related to the
average learning gains. At the individual level, we found that the higher the rate of
the students’ participation in small groups, the higher were their post-test scores
when controlling for pre-test scores (Cohen & Lotan 1997). Since rate of participation
was a predictor of learning gains, reducing the participation gap among students was
imperative. When teachers intervened to create equal-status interactions in small
groups, the gap between previously high- and low-achieving students decreased.
Cohen (1994) proposed specific interventions to equalize participation in small
groups: the multiple ability orientation and assigning competence to low status
students. The implementation of these interventions narrowed the participation gap
by eliminating students’ academic and social status as a predictor of participation
and thus of learning gains (see Cohen & Lotan 1995).
Clearly, none of the implementation of these different elements of complex
instruction was possible without the intensive use of language. Oral and written


language was constantly used by the students and by the teachers in the classrooms.
The structure of small groups and the use of resource-rich curricular materials
provided more students with opportunities for active participation, for producing
language in meaningful contexts, and for authentic communication with peers and
with the teacher. Native speakers and English learners were in classrooms that had
the following critical features: teachers organized the classroom to maximize student
interaction in small groups; they worked to equalize rates of participation of students
of different academic and social status; curricula were intellectually demanding and
rich in resources. Teachers delegated procedural authority to students to manage
their groups; they delegated intellectual authority by assigning group-worthy learning
tasks; and they delegated evaluation rights by empowering students to assess their
own and their peers’ engagement and performances. Data collected through class-
room observations confirmed the high quality of implementation of complex
instruction.

9.3 Language Acquisition in Linguistically
Heterogeneous Classrooms

How do aspects of complex instruction further the acquisition of English in academi-
cally and linguistically heterogeneous classrooms? To address this question, I will
briefly connect two fields of research: one on language acquisition and the other on
teaching and learning in heterogeneous classrooms discussed earlier.
Firth and Wagner (1997) argued that traditionally “the predominant view within
second language acquisition (SLA) research … is individualistic and mechanistic
and fails to account in a satisfactory way for interactional and socio-linguistic
dimensions of language” (p. 285). They called for an urgent reconceptualization of
SLA to enlarge the theoretical as well as methodological parameters of the field by
conducting classroom-based, socio-linguistic research with particular attention to
the interactions of second language learners. In the same issue of the journal, Hall
(1997) strengthened their argument and proposed to “reconfigure theoretical and
pedagogical concerns with language and language learning” (p. 301). She argued that
first, by adding a socio-linguistic dimension to the more prevalent psycho-linguistic
approach to the study of SLA, attention would be shifted from the traditionally
narrow view of language learning as an individual’s mastery of phonological, mor-
phological, syntactic, and pragmatic systems in largely context-free settings, to
language learning as a process of acquiring socially constituted communicative
practices of the target language community. Second, although currently infrequent
in SLA research, a careful examination of how second language is learned through
the learners’ active involvement in the communicative practices of the classroom
(i.e., their interactions with the teacher and with peers), might “lead us to contemplate
new issues, develop new questions, and thus engage in explorations of both theo-
retical and empirical regions that to date have gone largely unnoticed… in the SLA
field” (p. 306). This socio-linguistic perspective of language acquisition parallels

190 R. A. Lotan

a view of the classroom as a social system (Lotan 2006), where features of the
learning task, teacher’s delegation of authority and orchestration of participation
structures, patterns of interaction, and expectations for intellectual competence and
performance are conceptualized using central sociological principles.
Some researchers of SLA agree that second language learners must be exposed
to linguistically rich environments where they can engage in conversational exchanges
and negotiations that are the basis for second language acquisition (Ellis 1984;
Genesee et al. 2005; Long & Porter 1985). Learners must be exposed to linguistic
input from peers as well as from adults. Input refers to elements of the linguistic
environment from phonological and morphological features and syntactic structures
to correction and feedback that guide learners to more accurate production. Input
also includes elaborations, questions, and prompts to aid the learner’s comprehen-
sion, on one hand, and responses to requests from the learner for clarification,
reformulation, or further explanation, on the other. Researchers further differentiate
between situations that include input from native speakers as opposed to settings
where interaction is among nonnative speakers exclusively. In her work, Wong
Filmore (1985, 1989) emphasized the crucial importance of native language models
for nonnative speakers. In addition, Wong Filmore described how teachers affect
language learning by presenting their materials, by structuring their lessons to provide
opportunities for students to practice the target language, and by explicitly calling
attention to features and uses of the language. The quality and quantity of the input
and that of students’ intake can influence the kind of language acquired and the
speed with which it is acquired.
In addition to linguistic input and intake, language learners benefit from repeated
opportunities for important as well as linguistically accurate output, as they struggle
to produce understandable communication and demonstrate their knowledge and
understanding. Swain (1985) showed how lack of opportunities for interaction in a
classroom dominated by teacher lecturing prevented students from developing
strategies for getting meaning across successfully. Wong Filmore (1989) concluded
that one of the features of effective language instruction is supported practice in the
Vygotskyian sense; “It is when learners put what they have learned of the new
language to use in trying to communicate with others that they discover whether or
not it works, and what they have yet to learn. The best practice in the new language is
the supported production that learners get from speakers who know the language
better than they do and who can assist the learners by helping them go beyond their
productive means in the new language” (p. 137).
Student-student interaction is the cornerstone of complex instruction and the
main precursor of student learning. Through the teacher’s delegation of authority
and students’ increased level of participation, opportunities for linguistic input as
well as output are abundant. Furthermore, the emphasis on securing equal-status
interactions among native, native-like speakers and English learners increases the
probability of significant participation of all students in the learning process.
The structure of the learning task can support active negotiation and increase
both the quality and the quantity of children’s use of language. For example,
Cazden (2001) suggested that the optimal environment for language learning might


be one in which students engage in problem-solving, interdependent tasks, manipulate
objects and talk about them, and are exposed to clear referents for the nouns and
the verbs of the classroom discourse.
Brown (1991) distinguished between procedural and interpretive decision making
tasks. He found that interpretive tasks are cognitively more demanding and require
more intricate negotiating and more detailed deliberating. He proposed that the
more challenging the task, the more opportunities for students to develop their
linguistic competencies. Engaging in such tasks would result not only in language
practice but also in further language learning. Group-worthy tasks, as used in
complex instruction and as described above, are good examples of such tasks.
Thus, this literature on second language acquisition has clear implications for
the social context conducive to second language acquisition in schools. Classrooms
need to be language-rich environments where students can interact with adults and
with peers who include both native and nonnative speakers. Students need to use
language actively and frequently to communicate on consequential, interdependent
tasks embedded in the disciplines and that require the use of real objects, manipula-
tives, and varied representations of the information. When teachers pay particular
attention to the linguistic features of their talk, they are able to facilitate and scaffold
students’ comprehension. When they provide feedback to students’ output and
organize the classroom to foster student interaction, they create conditions that
support extensive and productive language use. Classrooms where complex instruc-
tion is used to promote talk are settings that incorporate these prerequisites for
language acquisition.
While the second language acquisition literature points us to some important
cognitive, linguistic, and social processes that contribute to language learning, it
does not distinguish between acquisition of basic communicative skills and the kind
of language or discourse necessary for successful academic functioning in main-
stream classrooms. Increasingly, researchers who study the schooling of second
language learners advocate developing competence in academic English, and
describe what such language might look or sound like.
In early conceptualizations, Cummins (1981, 1989) and others (Chamot &
O’Malley 1994; Collier 1987) described some differences between conversational
language (basic, interpersonal communication skills) and cognitive, academic language
proficiency. Cummins argued that while the former is context-embedded, allowing
learners to draw on paralinguistic clues and shared frames of references, the latter
is often less contextualized in classroom settings and therefore learners must rely
almost exclusively on language for comprehension. Although initially a useful
distinction, Cummins’ definition is too broad and focuses mainly on the learner’s
cognitive role in acquiring academic language, neglecting important socio-linguistic
aspects, such as register for example.
Valdes and Geoffrion-Vinci (1998) used the term register to refer to language
varieties associated with situational uses. Based on a relative distribution of particular
linguistic features, they describe a continuum of registers from very high levels
(such as those used in formal lectures) in academic articles, or arguments in court,
to mid-level (used in newspaper reports, popular novels, or interviews), and low-level

192 R. A. Lotan

registers (used in intimate and casual conversations). Furthermore, they argued that
because high status groups have access to language use in contexts (e.g., academic,
religious, administrative) where the high/formal varieties are used narrowly and in
strictly prescribed ways, these varieties come to characterize the written and, as a
reflection of their hyperliteracy, the oral language of high status groups as well. In
a parallel argument, Valdés and Geoffrion-Vinci (1998) posited that lower-ranked
groups with limited access to the same contexts, tend to develop repertoires that
include lower registers in both the oral and the written modes. Furthermore, high-
status, dominant groups use their high-level repertoire of linguistic markers to
deliberately distance themselves from lower-status groups in society, while mem-
bers of nonelite groups must consciously work to acquire ways of speaking that
characterize the high-status groups to which they aspire to belong. Based on their
research on the proficiency of Spanish by Chicano college students, the authors
concluded that students might benefit from classroom activities that expose them to
the high-level registers they would be expected to produce in authentic academic
contexts. This research implies that exposing second language learners to an aca-
demic register as early as possible could be of great benefit. Not only would they
acquire the language formally associated with the academic context, but also the
language associated with the academic content of a discipline, thereby gaining
greater access to such content.
Cognitive scientists are exploring learning and thinking in subject matter
domains, but little explicit attention is being paid to the implications of such learning
and thinking by second language learners. While knowledge structures and linguistic
practices of the various disciplines are different in many ways and similar in others,
appropriation of academic discourse and deep understanding of content are as
important for mathematics and for language arts, as they are for science and for
social studies. Language interactions such as questioning and explaining, deliberating
and justifying, discussing problematic situations and weighing possible solutions,
reasoning and analyzing, summarizing and interpreting – in short, negotiating
meaning, are indispensable for understanding complex subject matter content.
Spanos et al. (1988) described particular syntactic constructions, logical connectors,
and various semantic features associated with mathematics language. Furthermore,
Lemke (1990) identified the linguistic characteristics of classroom science talk and
writing, noting a heavy reliance on passive voice, technical vocabulary, and syntactic
ambiguity and Short (1994) investigated the nature of language in social studies
classrooms. The social studies register seems to reflect linguistic features similar to
those used in the humanities as well as nontechnical aspects of the language in
mathematics and science classrooms. The language functions and skills of the dis-
course in social studies classrooms are similar to the higher-literacy demands of
other content areas in terms of defining, describing, sequencing, giving examples,
explaining, justifying, comparing and contrasting, establishing cause and effect, or
evaluating. Thus, the mastery of such a register is important for the academic
achievement and success of second language learners.
Scholars of the development of students’ cognition seem to agree that learning
and thinking in the subject matter come about through socially situated negotiations


of meaning and active construction of knowledge. However, researchers such as
Heath (1983), Gee (1990), and Michaels (1981) have demonstrated that such nego-
tiations of meaning and construction of knowledge are influenced by the children’s
cultural backgrounds and their own forms of discourse and repertoire.
In addition to learning the general rules for acceptable classroom talk, the social
practices of how to discuss subject matter in routine, predictable ways are negotiated
with, and by, participants. For that purpose, students need to be exposed to, and
become familiar with, central concepts and epistemological queries of the discipline
and its linguistic genre. To develop such academic and linguistic competence, how-
ever, students need to understand the learning task and to be able to contribute to
the conversation about it in substantial ways.
Teachers play an important role in structuring opportunities for the development
of such discourse. First and foremost, they use academically challenging, rigorous,
and content-based curricula. Second, they model discipline-specific lexical items
and syntactic structures. Third, they monitor students’ oral and written output, and
provide specific feedback. In general, teachers orchestrate high-level classroom
discourse in whole class as well as in small group settings.
Arellano (2003) conducted a study investigating the processes by which bilingual
students acquired academic English and learned social studies content in a class-
room using complex instruction. She found that the students she observed showed
significant growth in two domains: (a) in the knowledge about social studies
content they studied as measured by gain scores on multiple choice unit tests; and
(b) in the oral and written language skills in English they needed to demonstrate
that knowledge. Arellano analyzed student talk during small group interactions and
found that over time, English learners increased the use of complex language func-
tions such as explanations and justification. As these students practiced making
presentations, they developed discourse strategies that made their language more
explicit and increasingly appropriate for formal audiences. In examining the students’
written products, Arellano found significant growth in their writing ability both as
they completed their individual reports and as they composed the final unit essays.
They focused on central ideas, included supporting details and evidence, and
showed development in their use of organizational patterns of the essays. In her
final discussion, Arellano emphasized the crucial role of the teacher in creating a
classroom environment where she was able to challenge her students cognitively
and linguistically.

9.4 Acquiring Language and Mastering Content
in Complex Instruction Classrooms

In this section, I report on a study conducted under the auspices of the Program for
Complex Instruction at the Stanford University School of Education. This study
documented how students who are intermediate English learners in mainstream
classrooms can achieve academically by both developing discipline-specific discourse

194 R. A. Lotan

in oral and written performance and achieving mastery in subject matter content.
As originally proposed, the study described and tested the classroom conditions
that support and enhance student growth and development in the language of
instruction as well as in knowledge of content. We argued that students in general
and English learners in particular strengthen their language skills and learn content
when they have opportunities to carry out intellectually challenging tasks and
actively use English to communicate in meaningful situations. Such opportunities
are available in classrooms where teachers use resource- and language-rich materials,
academically rigorous curricula, and instructional practices that maximize peer
interaction; where they model and monitor academic discourse and make explicit
strategies for learning language; and where they work to equalize participation
among students of different academic and social status. With complex instruction,
teachers create such opportunities for the students in their classrooms.
We collaborated with a team of teachers from Gerona Middle School in
California’s central valley and supported them in the use of complex instruction in
their linguistically and academically heterogeneous mainstream classrooms. We
chose to conduct our study in 7th grade middle school classrooms because this is
when the development and use of academic English and mastery of content knowl-
edge become particularly critical. Although Gerona was located in the midst of a
middle class neighborhood, at the time of this study, children from the newly built,
relatively large homes of the area were not attending this middle school but rather
where bussed to a newly-built school in a different part of town.
At the time of the study, 76% of the students at Gerona were designated as
English learners and 95% of those reported Spanish as their home language. Over
15% of English learners were in beginning and early intermediate level ESL
programs (transitional ESL programs, ESL 1, and ESL 2) as determined by testing
in the spring of their 6th grade. As a year-round school, Gerona Middle School was
divided into four tracks. Beginning and intermediate level (including transitional)
ESL students were grouped in one track and were taught using a combination of
English and Spanish instruction.
We began our study with an intervention following negotiations with the principal
of the school, district officials, the instructional resource team, and a team of teachers.
We requested that a significant proportion of students designated by the school as
“Transitional Limited English Proficient” be placed into mainstream social studies
classrooms where the teachers used strategies of complex instruction. As mentioned
above, in the past, these students had been separated from their mainstream peers
and placed in sheltered ESL content area classrooms. As our request was granted,
we further collaborated with the teachers and administrators at the school to ensure
that the classrooms included about 15–20% “Transitional” students, with the
remainder consisting of “English Only” students (those whose families reported
using no other language at home), “Fluent English Proficient” students (previously
labeled Limited English Proficient but now exited from all English language support),
and “Mainstream Limited English Proficient” students (still officially labeled as
Limited English Proficient, but deemed ready for mainstream classes). Students in
our sample were designated by the school as belonging to one of four language


proficiency groups: English Only (EO), Fluent English Proficient (FEP), Limited
English Proficient (Mainstream LEP), and Transitional (TR). Among the 214
students, a total of 63.6% were second language learners at various levels of
English proficiency: FEP: 17.2%; LEP: 26.1% and Transitional 18.2%. Despite
expressed doubts and hesitations by the principal and the teachers, we insisted that
the classrooms in our sample receive textbooks that included adequate curricular
resources and grade-appropriate academic language. These textbooks had been
deemed as too difficult in the past and had not been used at the school. Furthermore,
we conducted a week-long professional development institute, additional follow up
days during the academic year, and provided consistent feedback to the teachers on
their use of complex instruction strategies.
Ms. B. and Mr. E., two social studies teachers, taught in the classrooms included
in our study. Ms. B’s class was in the A Track (the track that included mostly students
in ESL) and Mr. E’s classes were on the C Track. Both teachers attempted to coor-
dinate their curriculum and instruction with the English Language Arts teachers in
their respective tracks. These teachers also used complex instruction strategies in their
courses. Students in Ms. B’s classroom were most evenly distributed among the
different language groups. This classroom was the only mainstream classroom
taught by this teacher during the academic year while her other classrooms were
sheltered social studies classrooms. Although she used the same curriculum and
instructional strategies as the classrooms included in our study (even with her 8th
grade classes), we did not collect data in her sheltered classrooms. The design of
this study required that we collect data in mainstream classrooms only. All of
Teacher E’s classrooms were considered mainstream classrooms.
In addition to the language proficiency designation, we recorded data on student
scores on the standardized SAT-9 tests (reading, language, mathematics, and spelling)
administered in 6th grade. On all four subscales about two thirds of the students
scored in the first and second quartiles; very few students (e.g., less than 1% reading
and just under 4% in mathematics) scored in the fourth quartile on these tests. The
average GPA for the 181 students in the sample who had recorded grades was 2.1
(SD = 1.1). A little over a tenth of the students (11.6% of the sample) had GPA of
4 and 31.5% had GPAs below 2. According to these measures, many students in our
sample were significantly underprepared academically. Many students also needed
significant language supports to access the curriculum. One of these supports was
the availability of curricular materials in Spanish. There were slightly more male
students than female students in the sample: 54.7% and 45.3%, respectively.

9.4.1 Student Achievement Data

We collected student achievement data in six social studies classrooms across four
thematic units that address the 7th grade social studies framework. The four units
used in the classrooms in order of implementation were: (1) Shaping the Mosaic
of Islam; (2) How do Historians know about the Crusades; (3) Taking your

196 R. A. Lotan

Proper Station: Life in Tokugawa Japan;(4) Challenging the Authority of Institutions:
The Reformation. For each of these four units, we administered a multiple choice
pretest before the introduction of the material related to the unit. At the conclusion
of each unit, students took a multiple-choice post-test and wrote a final unit essay.
For all four units, the post-test scores were statistically significantly higher for the
sample as a whole and for the students in all four language designation categories.
Furthermore, by the fourth and last unit, students designated as Transitional made
greater gains and scored on the average as high as students designated Limited
English Proficient, despite the fact that if we had not intervened, these students
would have been in segregated ESL classes.
For our more detailed analyses, we focused on the essay for the fourth unit,
implemented at the end of the academic year: Challenging the authority of institutions:
The Reformation. In addition to the multiple choice test, for the final assessment
of the unit, students were asked to write a persuasive essay calling their friends
and family members to join or not to join Martin Luther in his challenge to the
authority of the church. This essay reflects the big idea of the unit. Students were
prompted to state their argument or thesis (for or against joining Martin Luther),
state a counter-argument, and provide at least three items of evidence to support
their original argument.
We scored the essays in two phases. In the first phase, we were looking for ways
in which students used elements of the genre of a persuasive essay, how they organized
their essays, how they used linguistic features and writing conventions, and finally
how they used vocabulary related to the unit in particular and to social studies in
general. The quality and accuracy of the subject matter content were addressed in
the second phase.
Our analysis of the data from the initial phase showed that the first two categories
(Statement of Position and Support for Position) had minimal variation since a
significant majority of students across language groups received high scores on
these two categories. Although differences were small and all means for all categories
were still above 2.0 (range 1–3), there were significant differences among
Transitional and LEPs on three of the ten categories: Providing Evidence and
Reasons, Organization, and Vocabulary. Data analysis from the second phase
showed that on Understanding the Big Idea of the Unit, the mean score was 2.38
(SD = 0.59), with no difference among students from different language designations.
The mean number of Items of Content was 10.66 (SD = 3.78) and again, no statistically
significant differences among students from different language designation groups.

9.4.2 Classroom Experiences

At the end of each rotation in each of the four units, students were required to
complete individual reports. The average number of individual reports completed in
each classrooms was both an indicator of the quality of implementation of complex
instruction as well as a measure of accountability for the individual student. For the


Reformation Unit, the average number of IRs turned in was 3.14 (SD = 1.71) and
the range was from 0–5. Fifty-five percent of the students turned in 4 or 5 IRs,
while 22% did not turn in any or just one. We found that the number of Individual
Reports completed was a significant predictor of the achievement measures for
individual students.
To rate the quality of talk in the small groups, we recorded students as they
worked in their small groups. We scored a total of 93 tapes and captured student
talk in English and Spanish in the following categories: reading texts, interpreting
texts, defining and assigning terms, describing, justifying with reasons/evidence,
stating cause and effect, making connections to other activities, units or everyday
life, other content talk, talking about spelling and pronunciation, paraphrasing or
repeating, presentational talk, evaluative talk, facilitator talk, and off-task talk. In
additional analyses, we recorded the proportion of on-task talk for all students to
obtain a measure of their individual “air-time” within the small group. These tapes
are a rare and rich database for group interactions and individual talk in a real
classroom setting.

9.4.3 Major Findings

First, there were significant learning gains for students from all four language
groups in both content knowledge and use of English language for academic purposes
as measured by the different types of assessments. For all four units, the post-test
scores were significantly higher than the pre-test scores for the sample as a whole
and for the students in all four language designation categories. The analyses of the
final unit essays showed that students understood the big idea of the unit, had mastered
the content, and used persuasive strategies and the language of the discipline to
communicate in English about their academic tasks.
Second, the school’s designation of English learners as transitional underesti-
mated their linguistic and academic achievements as indicated by their performances
in the mainstream classroom. On the various outcome measures developed for
purposes of this study (a measure of academic oral proficiency; multiple choice unit
tests; final unit essay), on the average, students designated as Transitional English
Learners performed just as well as students designated as Limited English Proficient.
Transitional students, by making significant gains, were able to first narrow and then
close the achievement gap between them and the rest of the students in these
mainstream classes. These findings lead us to question the school’s designations as
well as the basis for these designations since they don’t seem to be sensitive enough
to capture the students’ academic performances and achievements in the main-
stream classroom.
Bunch (2006) conducted a study in the classrooms described here. He found that
students in these classrooms, while designated as being fluent in conversational
English, yet classified as lacking academic English, were able to participate fully in
challenging academic tasks in English. They engaged productively in the groupwork

198 R. A. Lotan

tasks, they were able to conduct multiple kinds of linguistic transactions, they
demonstrated awareness of varied audiences as they presented reports and they talked
about their ideas with great energy and enthusiasm.
Third, we were able to develop assessments sensitive enough to capture what
English learners know and are able to do regarding subject matter content
in English. A careful examination of student work allowed us to develop scoring
categories and scoring guides that reflect students’ use of oral and written language
for academic purposes. Focusing on language and content separately allowed us to
document students’ understanding of the big idea of the unit, their ability to explain
and to persuade orally and in writing, to talk and write about abstract concepts, and
to use different modes of communication and specific genre or register to address
different audiences for different tasks.
Fourth, the quality and the quantity of the interaction in small groups are related
to students’ performances in English at both the individual and the group levels.
Our data reflect significant and sustained interaction related to subject matter in
both English and Spanish. Students took advantage of opportunities to engage in
social studies talk in English, learned and used vocabulary and specific “terms of
art” related to the discipline, and rehearsed and practiced oral presentations by
using presentational language. The group interaction also served as the bridge from
oral to written language as students were preparing their individual reports as well
as their group presentations. For example, we found that the proportion of presen-
tational talk in the small group was a predictor of the student’s use of persuasive
strategies in their individual essays. Students used Spanish mostly to reinforce
meanings, negotiate procedures, to move the group along and to make sure that
everyone was on board.
Fifth, the quality of the implementation of complex instruction was related to
student outcomes. From previous research on complex instruction, we were assured
that to support positive learning gains, in addition to the rigorous curriculum and
the attention to equal participation, the interaction in the small groups needed to be
at a certain level. Our classroom observation measures reflect the fact that this
interaction level was maintained throughout the four units in all classrooms of the
study. Furthermore, the number of individual reports completed (an additional
measure of the quality of implementation), was related to all individual achieve-
ment measures. We also found that Mr. E, one of the teachers in our study, needed
significant assistance while implementing complex instruction in five classrooms
on a single day. The two research assistants present consistently helped the teachers
with both the logistics and the actual set up of the lessons.

9.5 Conclusion

Providing English learners with opportunities for language development and
age-appropriate acquisition of content is a primary concern for researchers, policy
makers and practitioners interested in equitable educational outcomes. How to
proceed is a timely and highly contested political issue.


The material presented in this chapter suggests that working with students who
are learning content while still developing proficiency in the language of instruction
requires a comprehensive approach to changing their educational experiences in
academically and linguistically heterogeneous classrooms. By using challenging
curricula and meaningful assessments, by strengthening the teacher’s instructional
practices to include strategies for supporting second language acquisition and for
treating problems of unequal participation in small groups, and by educating
students to serve as academic and linguistic resources for one another, we can assist
schools in effectively preparing diverse populations to meet high standards for
knowledge, skills, and productivity.

References

Arellano, A. D. (2003). Bilingual students’ acquisition of academic language: A study of the language
processes and products in a complex instruction classroom. Unpublished dissertation, Stanford
University.
Brown, R. (1991). Group work, task difference, and second language acquisition. Applied
Linguistics, 12 (1), 1–12.
Bunch, G. (2006). “Academic English” in the 7th grade: Broadening the lens, expanding access,
Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5, 284–301. doi:10.1016/j/jeap.2006.08.007.
Cazden, C. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
Chamot, A. U. & O’Malley, J. M. (1994). The CALLA handbook: Implementing the congnitive
academic language learning approach. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing.
Cohen, E. G. (1994). Designing groupwork: Strategies for the heterogeneous classroom. New York
and London: Teachers College Press.
Cohen, E. G. & Lotan, R. A. (1995). Producing Equal Status Interaction in Heterogeneous
Classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 99–120.
Cohen, E.G. & Lotan, R.A. (Eds.) (1997). Working for Equity in Heterogeneous Classrooms:
Sociological Theory in Action. New York: Teachers College Press.
Cohen, E. G., Lotan, R. A., Abram, P. L., Scarloss, B. A. & Schultz, S. E. (2002). Can groups
learn? Teacher’s College Record, 104, 1045–1068.
Collier, V. (1987). Age and rate of acquisition of second language for academic purposes. TESOL
Quarterly, 21, 617–641.
Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary language development in promoting educational success
for language minority students. Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical
framework. Los Angeles: California State University.
Cummins, J. (1989). Empowering minority students. Sacramento: CABE.
Ellis, R. (1984). Classroom second language development. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Gee, J. (1990). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideologies in discourses. London: Falmer.
Genesee, F., Lindholm-Leary, K., Saunders, W. & Christian, D. (2005). English language learners
in U.S. schools: An overview of research findings, Journal of Education for Students Placed
at Risk, 10, 363–385.
Hall, J. K. (1997). A consideration of SLA as a theory of practice: A response to Firth and Wagner.
The Modern Language Journal, 81, 301–306.
Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Johnson, D., Johnson, R. T., & Holubek, E. J. (1991). Cooperation in the classroom. Edina, MN:
Interaction Book.
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.

200 R. A. Lotan

Long, M. & Porter, P. (1985). Group work, interlanguage talk, and second language acquisition.
TESOL Quarterly, 19, 207–225.
Lotan, R. A. (2003). Group-worthy tasks. Educational Leadership, 6, 72–75.
Lotan, R. A. (2006). Managing groupwork. In C. Evertson & C. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of
Classroom Management: Research, Practice, and Contemporary Issues (pp. 525–539).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Michaels, S. (1981). “Sharing time”: Children’s narrative styles and differential access in literacy.
Language in Society, 10, 423–442.
Short, D. J. (1994). Expanding middle school horizons: Integrating language, culture, and social
studies. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 581–608.
Spanos, G., Rhodes, N., Dale, T. C. & Crandall, J. (1988). Linguistic features of mathematical
problem-solving: Insights and applications. In R. Cocking & J. Maestre (Eds.), Linguistic and
Cultural Influences on Mathematical Learning (pp. 221–240). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and compre-
hensible output in its development. In S. M. Gass & C.G. Madden (Eds.), Input in Second
Language Acquisition (pp. 235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers.
Valdés, G. (1998). The world outside and inside schools: Language and immigrant children.
Educational Researcher, 27, 4–18.
Valdés, G. & Geoffrion-Vinci, M. (1998). Chicano Spanish: The problem of the “underdeveloped”
code in bilingual repertoires. Modern Language Journal, 82, 473–501.
Wong Filmore, L. (1985). When does teacher talk work as input? In S. M. Gass & C. G. Madden
(Eds.), Input in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 17–50). Rowley, MA: Newbury House
Publishers.
Wong Filmore, L. (1989). Teaching English through content: Instructional reform in programs for
minority students. In J. Esling (Ed.) Multicultural Education and Policy: ESL in the 1990’s.
A Tribute to Mary Ashworth (pp. 125–143). Toronto, Ontario: Ontario Institute for Studies in
Education.

Chapter 10
Teacher Practices and Small-Group Dynamics
in Cooperative Learning Classrooms

Noreen M. Webb

10.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 202
10.2 Help-Related Behavior: Theoretical Perspectives
and Empirical Results ................................................................................................... 203
10.3 Small-Group Dynamics that Shape Help-Related Behavior ......................................... 204
10.3.1 The Relationship Between Help-Seeking Behavior
and Help Received .......................................................................................... 204
10.3.2 Relationship Between Help Received and Carrying out
Further Work ................................................................................................... 206
10.4 The Role of the Teacher: Two Studies .......................................................................... 207
10.4.1 Description of the Two Studies ....................................................................... 207
10.4.2 Student Behavior in the Two Studies .............................................................. 208
10.4.3 Promoting Active Help Seeking ..................................................................... 209
10.5 Promoting Explanation-Giving ..................................................................................... 210
10.5.1 Directing Students to Explain to each other ................................................... 210
10.5.2 Requesting Explanations................................................................................. 211
10.5.3 Responding to Student Explanations .............................................................. 212
10.5.4 Modeling Explanations in Other Ways ........................................................... 213
10.5.5 Exploring Students’ Conceptions
and Misconceptions ........................................................................................ 214
10.5.6 Encouraging Students’ Active Participation ................................................... 215
10.6 Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 216
References ................................................................................................................................ 218

Abstract Collaborative peer learning environments have received increasing
attention in classrooms due to the potential for improving learning and achieve-
ment. Prior research on small-group collaboration identifies several behaviors that
significantly predict student learning, such as exchanging explanations and apply-
ing help received. Less often studied are the effects that teacher practices have
on student interaction in collaborative groups, especially how teacher discourse
in the classroom influences the degree to which students carry out help-related
behavior when working with other students. This chapter reviews the functioning
and responsibilities of students as help-seekers and help-givers, and then contrasts
the results of two studies to investigate how teacher practices may influence help-
related behavior in collaborative groups. The findings suggest that productive group

202 N. M. Webb

collaboration—especially exchanging explanations—may follow from classroom
instruction in which teachers hold students accountable for playing an active role in
generating problem-solving approaches and for explaining their thinking.

10.1 Introduction

Due to the potential for collaborative peer learning environments to improve student
learning and achievement, school districts, state departments of education, national
research organizations, and curriculum specialists in the U.S. recommend, or even
mandate, the use of peer-based learning (California State Department of Education,
1985, 1992; National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1989, 1991; National
Research Council, 1989, 1995). A principal way in which students can learn from
collaborative work is to engage in help-related behavior, both giving help and receiv-
ing help. As discussed below, not every kind of help is equally beneficial for learn-
ing. Exchanging explanations is more productive than exchanging other kinds of
information, such as answers to problems.
Researchers have studied a wide range of activities designed to promote explaining
in collaborative groups, including:
(a) instruction in specific explaining skills (Fuchs et al. 1999; Gillies & Ashman
1996, 1998; Swing & Peterson 1982);
(b) assigning students to roles of summarizer (also called learning leader or
recaller) and listener – also called active listener, learning listener, or listener/
facilitator (Hythecker et al. 1988; O’Donnell 1999; Yager et al. 1985);
(c) requiring students to ask each other specific high-level questions about the
material (often called reciprocal questioning, Fantuzzo et al. 1989; King 1989,
1990, 1992, 1999);
(d) prompting students to give elaborated explanations, explain material in their
own words, and explain why they believe their answers are correct or incorrect
(Coleman 1998; Palincsar et al. 1993);
(e) instruction in giving conceptual rather than algorithmic explanations (Fuchs et al.
1997); and
(f) using specific metacognitive prompts to promote comprehension monitoring
and explanations of student reasoning (Mevarech & Kramarski 1997).
These approaches, which have proven to be successful in raising the level of
discourse in group discussions, focus on instructions and activities for students
and groups. Less often studied are the effects that teacher practices have on
student interaction in collaborative groups. In particular, little is known about
how teacher discourse in the classroom influences the degree to which students
carry out help-related behavior when working with other students. This paper,
then, reviews the functioning and responsibilities of students as help-seekers
and help-givers, and then investigates how teacher practices may influence
help-related behavior in collaborative groups.

10 Teacher Practices and Small-Group Dynamics 203

10.2 Help-Related Behavior: Theoretical Perspectives
and Empirical Results

From a theoretical perspective, both the help-giver and the help-receiver may benefit
from sharing information, especially explanations or detailed descriptions of how to
solve problems or carry out tasks. Giving explanations may help the explainer to
reorganize and clarify material, recognize misconceptions, fill in gaps in his or her
own understanding, internalize and acquire new strategies and knowledge, and
develop new perspectives and understanding (Bargh & Schul 1980; King 1992;
Peterson et al. 1981; Rogoff 1991; Saxe et al. 1993; Valsiner 1987; Webb 1991). In
the course of explaining, students think about the salient features of the problem and
develop a metacognitive awareness of what they do and do not understand (Cooper
1999). Receiving explanations may help students correct misconceptions, fill in gaps
in understanding, and strengthen connections between new information and knowl-
edge previously learned (Mayer 1984; Rogoff 1990; Sweller 1989; Wittrock 1990).
Exchanging help that involves less elaboration than explanations (e.g., answers or
calculations) may also have fewer benefits for learning because it may involve less
cognitive restructuring on the part of the help-giver and may not enable help-receivers
to correct their misconceptions or lack of understanding.
Many researchers have explored the power of giving and receiving explanations
in peer-directed small groups (Brown & Palincsar 1989; Fuchs et al. 1997; King
1992; Nattiv 1994; Peterson et al. 1981; Saxe et al. 1993; Slavin 1987; Webb 1991;
Yackel et al. 1990). Most researchers have found that giving explanations relates
positively to achievement (see Webb & Palincsar 1996). That is, when a student
gives an explanation in order to help someone else, this action also benefits her own
understanding and achievement.
Conversely, the empirical results on the relationship between receiving explana-
tions and learning outcomes are often weak or inconsistent (see Webb & Palincsar
1996). Previous research consistently shows that receiving no response to questions
negatively relates to achievement, as does receiving only the answer without an
explanation. However, receiving explanations does not usually significantly relate
to achievement (Hooper 1992; Nattiv 1994; Ross & Cousins 1995a; see also
reviews by Webb 1989, 1991; Webb & Palincsar 1996).
Effective explanations require several conditions. Explanations received must be
relevant to the target student’s need for help, timely, correct, sufficiently elaborated
to enable the target student to correct his or her misconception or lack of under-
standing, and comprehensible (Webb 1989). Even if explanations adequately meet
all of these dimensions, Vedder (1985) proposed that effective explanations require
two additional conditions. First, the student receiving help must have the opportu-
nity to use explanations to solve the problem or carry out the task for herself.
Second, the student must use that opportunity for practice by attempting to apply
the explanations received to the problem at hand. That is, the student must both
have and take advantage of the opportunity to apply the information contained in
the explanation.

204 N. M. Webb

Empirical work has confirmed Vedder’s (1985) predictions that students are
most likely to benefit from receiving explanations when they also attempt to apply
the explanations received to solve the problems at hand (Webb & Farivar 1999;
Webb et al. 1995). For example, Webb and Mastergeorge (2003a) found that 76%
of students who both received explanations after requesting help and applied the
explanations to solve groupwork problems by themselves without assistance from
their groupmates succeeded on analogous problems on the achievement posttest. Of
the students who engaged in one of the behaviors (receiving explanations or applying
explanations to the problem at hand) but not both, or who engaged in neither behavior,
none succeeded on the achievement posttest.
Whether students give explanations and whether students who seek help apply
it to the task at hand depends on a complex interplay of small-group and whole-
class dynamics. The remaining sections explore these dynamics, describing the
small-group interactions that may shape the behavior of help-seekers and help-
givers, and the variety of teacher practices that may influence how students interact
in collaborative groups.

10.3 Small-Group Dynamics that Shape
Help-Related Behavior

Not only are help-seeking and help-giving behaviors related to student learning, but
the behaviors relate to each other. This section explores how different kinds of help-
seeking behavior may lead to different kinds of help received, and how the nature
of help received may impact the subsequent behavior of help seekers.

10.3.1 The Relationship Between Help-Seeking Behavior
and Help Received

When students have trouble understanding the material or don’t know what to do,
they may ask for help in various ways. They may ask for the answer instead of an
explanation (“What did you get for number 3?”), may ask a specific question about
part of a problem (“Why did you have to subtract 1 from 30”?), or may ask a general,
unfocused question (“How do you do it?” or “I don’t understand it.”). Previous
research shows that specific questions targeting a particular aspect of the problem are
more likely to elicit explanations or in-depth procedural descriptions than other types
of questions (Webb et al. 1995; Webb & Mastergeorge 2003a; Webb et al. 2006). For
example, Webb et al. (2006) found that as many as 75% of students who asked specific
questions obtained high-level help (descriptions of the problem-solving procedures)
whereas no more than 44% of students who asked only general questions successfully
obtained high-level help. Students who only asked general questions or gave general
statements of confusion largely received low-level help, such as the answer or


calculations to write down, received offers to copy other students’ work, or were
completely ignored when they asked for help.
Several factors may account for the relative success of specific questions in eliciting
explanations. First, specific requests make it easier for groups to understand the
nature of a student’s confusion or uncertainty and to formulate an appropriate and
precise response (e.g., “Why did you move the decimal point two places?”).
Second, specific requests may signal to the group that the help seeker wants to
learn how to solve the problem, has sufficient understanding of the problem to be
able to pinpoint a specific area of uncertainty, and will profit from the explanations
provided. Groups’ attributions of students who ask specific questions as motivated
to learn may be strengthened by the fact that these help seekers frequently show
persistence in seeking help (e.g., repeating their questions) and make changes in
their questioning strategies, such as making their questions increasingly focused on
what they do not understand (e.g., “Why is it 6.4?”, “No, why is the decimal point
there?”). Groups’ perceptions of these help seekers’ level of understanding may be
accurate. One study showed that although students who asked specific questions
were not more knowledgeable about the content than students who asked only general
questions as indicated by pretest scores, they did show greater knowledge about the
task on the days they were observed to ask questions (Webb et al. 2006). Most of
the students who asked specific questions solved at least part of the problem
correctly before they asked questions or they exhibited some content knowledge
within the context of their questions. For example, some students correctly obtained
a common denominator for two fractions (e.g., 1/2 + 2/3) even though they did not
understand how to add the fractions otherwise (converting them to the equivalent
fractions 3/6 + 4/6: “For number 11, I got the bottom number but I don’t know how
to do it.”).
When students ask general questions or admit general confusion without identi-
fying a particular area of difficulty, in contrast, groups may not know where to
begin to formulate an explanation. Groups may also believe that students asking
general questions are too confused about the problem to benefit from explanations
and, consequently, may believe that the most efficient response is to provide or dictate
numerical procedures and answers. Confirming this perception, Webb et al. (2006)
found that students who asked only general questions were typically unable to solve
any part of the problem before they asked for help, and indicated major misunder-
standings or lack of understanding in the context of their questions (e.g., “Do you
just add the denominators?”). Even when students who asked only general questions
did receive explanations, they often gave evidence of not understanding the expla-
nations by admitting outright that “they didn’t get it,” by asking questions that
showed their continued confusion, or by echoing elements of explanations (e.g.,
repeating some numbers mentioned) without any apparent attempt to understand
the explanations received (Webb & Mastergeorge 2003a).
Groups may also be reluctant to provide detailed help in response to general
questions if they perceive these help seekers as trying to depend on others to do the
work. That is, other group members may view these help seekers as social loafers
or free riders (Kerr & Bruun 1983; Salomon & Globerson 1989). The tendency of

206 N. M. Webb

some students to immediately ask general questions before attempting any work on
a problem (Webb & Mastergeorge 2003b) could easily reinforce both perceptions.
Such students may not only be too confused or unmotivated to ask specific ques-
tions, they may also be afraid to attempt work on the problem and fail, at risk of
looking stupid and threatening their self worth (Butler & Neuman 1995; Covington
1984; Middleton & Midgley 1997; Newman 1991, 1994, 1998).
A further contributing factor to the relative failure of general questions to elicit
high-level explanations may be the negative socio-emotional behaviors sometimes
linked to asking general questions. First, Webb et al. (2006) found that students
who asked general questions—but not students who asked specific questions—
received negative socio-emotional responses that may have suppressed their further
attempts to seek help or actively work on problems. Some groups insulted students
when they asked for help (e.g., calling them stupid). Students outright dismissed
other general attempts to seek help (“Ask someone else”) or ignored them
completely. Students who received insults in response to their help seeking rarely
persisted in seeking help and often passively withdrew from group work. These
behaviors are consistent with previous research showing that rudeness reduces
participation in group discussions (Chiu & Khoo 2003; Mulryan 1992; Salomon &
Globerson 1989). Second, students who asked general questions—but not students
who asked specific questions—sometimes initiated negative socio-emotional
behavior such as insulting their teammates, which almost guaranteed that groups
would not respond when these students sought help (Webb et al. 2006). Engaging
in such behavior may serve to confirm groups’ perceptions that students who only
ask general questions (especially before attempting work on the problem) are unable
or unmotivated to do the work.

10.3.2 Relationship Between Help Received
and Carrying out Further Work

Several studies have shown that receiving explanations is more likely than receiving
low-level help (or receiving no help) to make it possible for help seekers to carry
out subsequent problem solving without assistance from others. Again, Webb et al.
(2006) found that as many as 50% of students who received high-level help
(descriptions of how to solve problems) went on to solve problems without assistance
whereas only 29% of students who received only low-level help (e.g., answers,
calculations) then solved problems without assistance. Even controlling for prior
achievement, receiving high-level help predicts students’ abilities to carry out
further work on problems (Webb & Farivar 1999). These findings suggest that students
learn more from receiving high-level help than from receiving low-level help such
as answers without supporting details.
The level of help received may also have motivational effects on help seekers.
Receiving high-level help may make students feel supported and encouraged by
their group and feel that their efforts are worthwhile. Receiving low-level or no


help, on the other hand, may discourage students from expending further effort.
Receiving low-level help may frustrate help seekers because they cannot use the
help to learn how to solve the problems or even to gain enough knowledge to phrase
specific questions. And low-level responses, even neutral responses such as “Let
me think about that for a moment,” may be interpreted as criticisms, which may
hinder further participation (Chiu 2000). In line with these expectations, Webb and
Mastergeorge (2003a) found that a number of students who received low-level or
no help seemed to give up trying to understand and resorted to copying or asking
for answers, or simply stopped working altogether.

10.4 The Role of the Teacher: Two Studies

The previous sections showed that students’ experiences in small groups shape their
interactions with teammates in complex, reciprocal ways. Adding to these peer
influences on group functioning are teacher practices. This section examines
teacher practices in two studies that showed quite different patterns of student
collaborative-group interactions. In Study 1, students rarely engaged in interaction
shown to be predictive of learning (especially engaging in high-level helping
behavior). In contrast, in Study 2 students frequently explained their problem-solving
strategies. The sections below describe in detail some of the differences in student
interaction between the two studies and highlight the role of the teacher in bringing
about such variation.

10.4.1 Description of the Two Studies

In Study 1, the researchers investigated student interaction and learning in a semester-
long cooperative learning program implemented in four 7th-grade mathematics
classrooms. The program used multiple sets of activities designed to develop students’
ability to work effectively in small groups, including activities to develop basic
communication skills, feelings of inclusiveness, helping skills, and the ability to
give explanations (see Farivar & Webb 1998, for details). During mathematics
instruction, teachers gave a whole-class introduction to the day’s material and then
students worked in heterogeneous groups on the assigned mathematics problems
for the rest of the class period. The teacher circulated among groups, watching
groups work and answering questions when necessary. Observers audiotaped all
classroom and small-group interaction during three curriculum units (decimal
operations, fractions, percentages). Because student and teacher behavior was
similar across the curriculum units and across teachers, findings described below are
averaged across both teachers and curriculum units (the findings described here
are drawn from data and results reported in Webb & Mastergeorge 2003a; Webb
et al. 2006; Webb et al. 2006).

208 N. M. Webb

In Study 2, researchers investigated student and teacher discourse and student
learning in three 2nd- and 3rd-grade classrooms whose teachers had participated in
a professional development program specifically designed to help them engage
their students in algebraic thinking (Carpenter et al. 2003; Jacobs et al. 2005).
Unlike Study 1, teachers in this study received instruction and practice in posing
mathematics problems designed to stimulate student thinking, asking questions to
elicit student descriptions of their thinking, and setting up whole-class and small-
group contexts in which students could converse with one another and with the
teacher about their thinking and in which teachers expected and encouraged
students to share answers, ideas and strategies. During each class, teachers introduced
a problem, asked pairs to work together to solve the problem and share their thinking,
and then brought the class together for selected students to share their answers and
strategies with the whole class (usually at the board). Observers videotaped or
audiotaped all whole-class interaction and more than half of the pairs in each
classroom as they solved problems on equality and relational thinking (e.g.,
10 + 10 −10 = 5 + __). As in Study 1, the findings are averaged across teachers
(the findings described here are drawn from data and results reported in Webb &
Ing 2006; see also Franke et al. 2006).

10.4.2 Student Behavior in the Two Studies

In Study 1, students engaged in mostly low-level help-seeking and help-giving
behavior. First, help seekers more often asked general questions than specific
questions: 80% of help-seeking questions were general. Second, students rarely
gave explanations: students gave high-level help on only 10% of groupwork problems.
The researchers in Study 1 defined high-level help as a procedural description of
how to solve a problem (or part of it) that included verbal labeling of at least
one quantity, as illustrated in the following explanation of how to add 2 + 3 (Webb
3 4
et al. 2006, p. 74):
You see how it has different denominators, so what you have to do is do the common mul-
tiples. Go, like, 4, then put 8 then 12 then 16. Then the same for 3, 6, 9, 12. When you do
that, the lowest one that you have in common is 12.

On the remaining 90% of group-work problems, students gave either answers
(“6.4%”) or unlabeled calculations (“It’s 4 times 12.”). Moreover, even when stu-
dents asked for assistance, they rarely received high-level help: only 25% of
requests for help elicited a high-level response. Third, when students did receive
help, they infrequently used it to solve problems unassisted. When help seekers
asked questions, they applied the help received to carry out unassisted work on only
37% of the problems. On the remaining problems, the help seekers acknowledged
the help received or claimed to understand how to solve the problem without pro-
viding any concrete evidence of understanding (“Oh, OK”, “OK. I get it.”), carried
out the calculations that other students had set up (“29 times 13?”), wrote work
6 7 11 18
down that other students dictated (“It equals 1 and 12 … 12 plus 12 , you get 12 . And


then you divide 12 into 18. [It’s] 6. You divide it by 2.”), or simply requested the
answer (“Just give me the answer, people.”).
The students in Study 2 gave explanations far more often than students in Study
1. In Study 2, students gave explanations on 50% of problems. For example, for the
problem “Is the number sentence 10 + 20 = 20 + 10 true or false?”, a student
explained: “I knew that 10 and 10 are the same, and I knew that 20 and 20 have to
be there. So it’s like a mirror. 10 and 10 are the same, and 20 and 20 are the same,
so they’re equal.” Not only did students often explain or describe their thinking, on
more than 40% of problems they engaged with their partner about the work, some-
times giving explanations to each other as in the following example for the problem
11 + 2 = 10 + __:
Student 1: I just added 11 plus 2, and then I…saw it was 13, huh. So then I added 10 plus
3, and I saw it was 13 too. So I pull down a number and I put 13, huh. And then suddenly
I, look at, they just did one up. Goes from 10, next is 11…it goes from 2, next is 3.
Student 2: Yeah. So you know why I put the lines? It’s ‘cause if this is a higher number
and this is a lower number, and the next one is 2 plus 3, this is 11. ‘Cause 11, this is higher,
this is lower, this is higher, this is lower. So 2…it doesn’t care if it’s switched. But 3 plus,
I put this ‘cause this number is lower and this number…is higher. And then I say that if
this is higher, the next one has to be lower. And if this is lower…
Student 1: 11 plus 2 equals 10 plus 3.
Student 2: And if this is lower, this had to be higher.
Student 1: …I saw that too. ‘Cause 11 is higher than 10…this one’s gotta be higher than
this one. So this one’s lower and this one’s higher. And this one’s lower and this one’s
higher. Get it?

The students in Study 2 more often responded to requests for help with explana-
tions than the students in Study 1: about half of questions in Study 2 elicited an
explanation. As in Study 1, however, Study 2 students did not often apply the expla-
nations they received to the problem at hand. Study 2 students applied the help they
received on 38% of the problems (e.g., carrying out the problem for themselves,
paraphrasing the explanation, disagreeing with the explanation). On the remaining
problems, Study 2 students echoed the numbers that other students dictated,
acknowledged the help without doing further work (“I got it”), or did not pay further
attention to the problem.
Not only did the students in the two studies interact quite differently, but the
teachers also behaved differently. The following sections describe differences in
teacher behavior between the two studies and how these differences may have
translated into differences in between-student interaction.

10.4.3 Promoting Active Help Seeking

Before students can be expected to pose specific questions to their groupmates,
they must feel that it is permissible to ask questions. In the two studies, teachers
differed in the extent to which they signaled the desirability of asking questions. In
Study 1, teachers gave mixed signals about the appropriateness of question asking.

210 N. M. Webb

On the one hand, teachers instructed students to ask questions of each other
during group work and encouraged them to ask each other before seeking out-
side assistance (“Did you ask your group first?”). Moreover, on the few occa-
sions in which teachers did respond to student questions during group work, they
helped quite willingly. On the other hand, during whole class instruction these
same Study 1 teachers rarely invited students to ask questions or seek help in any
way (or to contribute in ways other than providing calculations and answers to
problems), possibly undermining other messages about the propriety to student
questions.
Although Study 2 did not focus on student questioning, teachers showed a
receptiveness to help seeking in several ways. First, teachers responded positively
to students’ questions during small group work. Second, teachers sometimes
invited questions (“Does anybody else have a question about that?”, “Does eve-
ryone understand that?”, “So do you understand why [Student] thinks it’s false?”,
“Is there anyone who does not understand this problem?”) and reinforced student
questions (“So why did you do that? That’s what she’s asking.”). Furthermore,
teachers sometimes invited students to respond to other students’ suggestions
(“Do you agree with [Student]?”, “Is there anyone who disagrees with [Students’]
explanation on how they solved number one?”).

10.5 Promoting Explanation-Giving

10.5.1 Directing Students to Explain to each other

Teachers in Studies 1 and 2 reminded students of the importance of giving explana-
tions rather than answers (“If they explain it, that means don’t give them the
answer, right? Explain it”, Study 1), or asking students to share their thinking and
explain to each other (“Share with your table partner what you did. What kind of
thinking went on? How did you solve it?”, Study 2).
How teachers followed up on these general directives, however, varied. In
Study 1, when teachers visited small groups they asked students to help each
other on 3% to 20% of their visits, across the three curriculum units in the
study. In only a few cases did the teacher explicitly ask students to explain to
each other. Most of the time, they gave more general instructions about helping
(“You are supposed to help each other out here,” “You have to check with each
other,” “Show him what to do.”). In Study 2, in contrast, teachers reminded
students to explain to each other during nearly all group visits. Sometimes
teachers gave general reminders (“Did you explain to your partner what you
did?), while others targeted specific students (“Can you explain it to her
because she thinks it’s 12.”) or situations (“You think it’s false. She thinks it’s
true. So can you explain to him why you think it’s true? And then you explain
to her why you think it’s false.”).


10.5.2 Requesting Explanations

Teachers often encourage their students to give explanations by requesting them. In
Study 1, however, teachers generally asked low-level questions, such as asking students
to provide a single-word or single-number answer. Low-level questions represented
74% of teacher questions during whole-class instruction and 84% of teacher ques-
tions during visits with small groups. Most of the remaining teacher questions
requested student responses that contained somewhat more elaboration than a single
word or number, such as a calculation (“What do I subtract?”) or a description of a
procedure (“What is the first thing to do when we add fractions?”).
Only rarely did teachers in Study 1 ask students to explain how to solve a problem.
On average, they asked students to give an explanation (e.g., “If you have 67 cents,
you have the correct answer. Who would like to explain it?”) once only during
whole-class instruction (representing about 2% of teacher questions), and never
during interaction with small groups. Similarly, after students gave an answer, teachers
rarely asked them to explain how they obtained their answers, regardless of the answer’s
correctness. During whole-class instruction, on average, teachers asked students
to explain how they obtained their correct answer only once and asked students to
explain how they obtained their incorrect answer less than once. Of all student
answers suggested, teachers asked for an explanation on only about 3% of them.
The infrequency with which Study 1 teachers asked students to explain or describe
how they arrived at their answers was at odds with the primary focus of the coop-
erative learning program on giving explanations rather than answers. This likely
sent students a mixed message about the importance of giving elaborated responses
to each other.
In contrast, in Study 2 the teachers frequently asked students to give an explanation.
During whole-class instruction, teachers typically called students to the board to
explain how they solved the problem. Teachers requested both the answer and an
explanation as well as reminded students to explain if they didn’t immediately volunteer
an explanation (e.g., “You think 200. Why do you think that?”). After students gave
an explanation or described their strategy (or a portion of it), teachers very frequently
asked students to explain their thinking, as demonstrated in the following examples
of teacher questioning:
What has a partner? What are you talking about?
It doesn’t need to have a pattern? What do you mean?
OK, you are using the tally strategy. Why do you have 14 tallies?
How does it help you knowing that 14 divided by 2 is 7?
Why did you choose to write two times a number is 14?
Why did you minus 10? And where did you get that 10 from?
Why did you put take away zero?
What do you mean if it’s take away or plus?
During their interactions with groups, Study 2 teachers asked similar questions to
those asked during whole-class interactions, prompting students to explain how

212 N. M. Webb

they obtained both their correct answers (“Can you explain to me what you did
here?”, “Why do you think 25?”) and their incorrect answers (“No, don’t erase it.
Tell me what you are doing right here,” “Why do you think it’s 1?”).
Teachers in Study 2 encouraged students to give explanations in two additional
ways. First, Study 2 teachers asked for explanations of alternative strategies or
answers. When students voiced incorrect answers in Study 1, the teachers often
immediately called on other students to provide a different answer. In Study 2, in
contrast, the teachers invited additional explanations whether the students
provided correct suggestions (“Is there someone else who has a different way?”)
or incorrect suggestions (“Did someone else think differently?”). Second, Study
2 teachers provided positive reinforcement for students who struggled with
giving explanations. They did this by giving students ample time to explain their
thinking and called for the rest of the class to do the same (“I like how most of
us are patiently waiting for these two ladies to share with us what they are working
on,” “Let’s give him a minute, OK?”, “Thank you for giving her some think
time”). They also encouraged students who had difficulties (“Explain your thinking.
You’re on the right track.”).

10.5.3 Responding to Student Explanations

Teachers can reinforce student explanation giving in multiple ways, such as
explicitly calling to attention the fact that a student gave an explanation, asking
further questions about the explanation, repeating or rephrasing it, adding details
to it, or inviting other students to react to it. All of these behaviors highlight the
value of giving explanations. In Study 1, although teachers seldom asked students
to provide explanations, teachers did respond to the few explanations given, usually
by repeating them or paraphrasing them, and occasionally asking questions about
them. The following example shows a Study 1 teacher carrying out several of these
behaviors, including asking the student to clarify part of his description, to explain
why he chose that procedure, and summarizing and elaborating the student’s
explanation.
Teacher: We want to figure out how much a 4-minute phone call will cost. The first minute
is 19 cents. … and each additional minute is going to cost …12 cents. So how are we going
to figure out how much that costs?
Student: Add, ah, 19 and three twelve, and it’s 55.
Teacher: Ok, you said three twelve. What do you mean by three twelve?
Student: Three 12’s. Like three 12’s.
Teacher: Ok, so you are saying multiply 12 cents by three. Why’d you get that?
Student: Because 19 is one, and then there is … three more other ones.
Teacher: Ok, there are four minutes total. One of the minutes costs 19 cents, and the other
three cost 12 cents each. So we are going to multiply three times 12 to find how much those
three minutes cost.


In Study 2, because teachers frequently asked students to explain their thinking,
they had many opportunities to respond to students’ explanations. As described above,
teachers frequently asked students to provide further elaboration on or clarification
of their explanations. In addition, teachers revoiced students’ explanations by
repeating them, paraphrasing them, elaborating upon them, or summarizing them.
Sometimes teachers revoiced steps in students’ explanations (“So you’re telling me
thirty plus zero is thirty and thirty minus zero is thirty?”, “So he said 4 plus 9 is 13.
Five times 3 is 15. That’s not the same number, so it’s false. Okay, I can agree with
that”) or provided summaries of students’ explanations that served as conclusions
to a problem:
I see what you are saying. So the 200 and the 200 are partners, and the one and the one are
partners. …So it doesn’t matter which way. These ones are still partners. They are the
same. These 200’s are partners. They are still the same. So either way we do it, it’s still the
same on both sides.

In some cases, teachers’ responses served to highlight particular ideas in a student’s
explanation:
So what I see [Student] did here is she actually thought of 14 divided by two and for some
reason she made a connection to multiplication because she understands that division and
multiplication are opposites.
Ok, so [Student] was looking at a lower number on one side and a higher number and he
was trying to see where they met.

When teachers responded to students’ explanations, they reinforced the importance
of providing them, something that likely carried over into students’ group work.

10.5.4 Modeling Explanations in Other Ways

As explained above, Study 2 teachers often took advantage of students’ explanations
to further explain class content. In Study 1, because the students did not frequently
give explanations, the teachers did not have the same opportunities. However, Study 1
teachers had other opportunities to model giving explanations, such as explaining in
the context of their instruction or by responding to students’ answers with explana-
tions. However, these teacher behaviors rarely occurred. Only 11%, on average, of
Study 1 teachers’ instructional statements during whole-class instruction went beyond
answers and unlabeled descriptions of calculations; in teachers’ interaction with small
groups, only 10% of statements went beyond answers and numbers. Commonly,
teachers described calculations without explaining what the numbers referred to
(“Take away the first three, you have two left”) or answers without any calculations
(“If you know how to do it, you can just write 6 equals 2 ”).
9 3
Further, Study 1 teachers’ feedback to students’ suggested answers rarely
included explanations. During whole-class instruction, teachers gave justifications
of why a student’s response was correct less than 2% of the time (“77%. That

214 N. M. Webb

means you moved it [the decimal point] over once, you gained a dot, and you
moved it over again, you gained another dot, like that.”), and gave justification of
why a student’s response was incorrect less than 8% of the time (“You have to move
the decimal point two places to the right and stop.”). For the vast majority of student
suggestions, teachers confirmed or rejected the student’s response “Alright,” “No.
Can’t be.”), repeated their responses (“22 cents.”), or called on other students without
elaborating upon the student’s suggestion. During group work, teachers’ responded
similarly to students’ suggestions: no correct suggestion elicited a teacher explana-
tion, and less than 10% of incorrect suggestions elicited explanations.
The following example shows the teacher responding to a student’s incorrect
procedure with calculations. Here, the student proposed to reduce the fraction 16 8

by dividing the numerator by 2 twice and dividing the denominator by 2 once,
thereby obtaining 8 instead of 1 (Webb et al. 2006, p. 99). The teacher did not
2
2
explain the correct procedure for reducing fractions nor did she explain why the
student’s strategy was incorrect.
2
Student: Can I just go to 8 ?
Teacher: Ok, what did you divide by to get that?
Student: Huh?
Teacher: T: What did you divide? You had to divide by something. Did you divide by 4 and
4… Is 16 divided by 4…8? Huh-uh.
Student: What do you mean 16 divided by 4, oh, 2?
Teacher: You have to divide them both by the same number.
Student: Ok. But, is what I do, half of 8 is 4, then half of 4 is 2.
Teacher: Oh, but you can’t do that.
Student: I can’t?
Teacher: Well, why don’t you divide by 8? Does 8 go into 8? Does 8 go into 16?
Student: Yes.
Teacher: Ok, try that.

When teachers responded to students’ work with calculations and answers rather
than explanations, they provided an example that students were likely to follow in
group work. Moreover, teachers communicated that correcting students’ answers
was more important than helping students correct their misconceptions.

10.5.5 Exploring Students’ Conceptions and Misconceptions

To understand which type of help would most benefit students, teachers must under-
stand students’ conceptions (or misconceptions) about the problems they need to solve
(Carpenter et al. 1989). As described above, Study 1 teachers rarely asked students to
explain how they solved a problem. Only within small groups did teachers even try to
diagnose students’ errors, and these few attempts met with limited success. Typically,
Study 1 teachers asked a small number of questions (“How did you get this?”, “Where


did you get the 30, though?”) before giving up, proceeding to set up the problem for
the student, and leading the student through the problem step by step.
In Study 2, teachers more often pushed students to articulate their thinking until
their strategies (whether correct or incorrect) became clear. Study 2 teachers
engaged in repeated the questioning noted earlier in order to uncover details of correct
strategies (e.g., the precise computational strategy used to solve the number
sentence 11 + 2 = 10 + __) or incorrect strategies (e.g., proposing the answer 50 for
the number sentence 50 + 50 = 25 + __ + 50 in the belief that 50 must have an
identical partner on each side of the number sentence).

10.5.6 Encouraging Students’ Active Participation

The behaviors predictive of help seekers’ learning—asking specific rather than
general questions and applying help received to the problem at hand—portray the
help seeker as an active learner both when formulating questions and after receiving
help. How teachers engage with students during instruction conveys much informa-
tion to the students about whether teachers expect them, as learners, to play active
or passive roles. Study 1 teachers generally used a recitation style of instruction in
which they assumed responsibility for setting up the steps in the problem and asked
students to fill in the calculations:
1
Teacher: Number 3 is 6 plus 2 . We have to find the common denominator. For both frac-
3
tions. Does anyone have an idea what that common denominator would be?
Student: Six.
Teacher: Okay, how do we find out? Remember? You have to find the multiples? Least
common multiple? Name me the multiples of 6.
Student: Six, 12, 18, 24.
Teacher: Name three multiples of 3.
Student: Three, 6, 9.
Teacher: Does any one see a multiple that they have in common?
Student: Six.
Teacher: That’s going to be our common denominator. Ok?

In some cases, the teacher gave students more responsibility for identifying steps in
the problem, but still maintained control over guiding students through the
problem:
Teacher: 6 plus 2 , I see some trouble. What is it?
1
3
Student: The denominators are not the same.
Teacher: Alright, you’ve got [to find] the least common denominator. The least common
multiple, and what would the least common multiple be?
Student: Six.
Teacher: Six. Six goes into six and three goes into six. What do I have to do now?
Student: Three times 2 is 6. Now on top it will be 2 plus 2 equals 4.

216 N. M. Webb

Teacher: Alright, these are called equivalent fractions, don’t forget that. Alright this stays
the same. What do I do now? Now you add 4 plus 1.
Student: Five.
Teacher: Can I reduce that?
Student: No.

These patterns of interaction signaled that the “teacher” (help-giver) plays the
active role in problem solving and the “student” (help-seeker) carries out the steps
or calculations identified. Groups usually followed these roles, with help givers
doing most of the work and help receivers either carrying out calculations set up by
others or copying entire problems.
Study 2 teachers, in contrast, gave students complete control over solving the
problems:
Teacher: Do you want to come up and tell us how you solved number one? (14/2 =
(3* __) + 1)
Student: Because two….because 7 times 2 is 14, so if that [side] equals 7 this side has to
equal 7. So 3 times a number plus 1. So, 3 times 2 equals 6, plus 1 equals 7.

Sometimes, when students had trouble formulating an explanation, Study 2 teach-
ers prompted the students to go in a particular direction and provided hints to help
them explain how to solve the problem, for example:
But how does it help you knowing that 14 divided by 2 is 7? Now you solved the left hand
side of that problem. Now you know that the left side is 7. The answer to, the quotient, on
the left hand side is 7 and how does that help you with the right and side, with the missing
number that you are looking for?

In rare cases only did Study 2 teachers lead a student through the calculations in a
problem and this guidance occurred only after a student had explained his or her
strategy and the teacher had already uncovered a specific misconception. In con-
trast to the Study 1 teachers, Study 2 teachers’ step-by-step guidance came after
student proffered explanations and served the purpose of reviewing the problem
and helping the class solidify the correct approach (e.g., carrying out multiplication
before addition in a sequence of operations).

10.6 Conclusion

This paper showed that both help seekers and help givers play important roles in
collaborative learning. To maximize achievement, help seekers should ask specific,
rather than general, questions about what they do not understand and should
actively apply, rather than passively acknowledge, the help they receive. Help givers
should provide explanations rather than answers and should give help seekers
opportunities to carry out unassisted problem solving.
Our examination of student and teacher behavior in two studies of collaborative
learning suggests, further, that teacher practices in the classroom have an important
influence on students’ help-related behavior. Although teachers in both studies


provided general instructions for students to explain to each other, the teachers in
the two studies engaged in very different instructional practices. Study 1 teachers
assumed responsibility for setting up the steps in the problems and tended to lead
the whole class through the problems step by step. Most teacher questions required
the students to provide the answer to a calculation or offer the next step in the
problem. Rarely did Study 1 teachers ask students to explain or describe how they
arrived at their answers. When interacting with small groups, Study 1 teachers
sometimes asked students to describe the procedures they used for solving prob-
lems (especially when they offered incorrect answers), but these episodes occurred
infrequently. Through their practices, these teachers modeled the role of “teacher”
(help giver) as the active participant and the role of “student” (help seeker) as rela-
tively passive. In group work, Study 1 students tended to adopt these roles.
Typically, help givers solved problems and gave or dictated calculations or proce-
dures (but not explanations) to help seekers. Help seekers, in turn, accepted help
without testing their own understanding by attempting to solve the problems with-
out assistance.
Study 2 teachers held students responsible for explaining their thinking, or at
least describing the strategies they used for solving problems. Teachers rarely
accepted answers without requesting justifications. Moreover, Study 2 teachers fre-
quently asked questions about students’ explanations, requesting further clarifica-
tion of students’ procedures and reasons for using them. When students had
difficulty, teachers generally played the role of coach rather than taking over the
problem solving for the student. When interacting with small groups, Study 2
teachers frequently prompted students to explain to each other. Corresponding to
teachers’ emphasis on students explaining their thinking, when working in groups
Study 2 students tended to give each other more explanations than Study 1 students.
Overall, Study 2 students participated more actively in group collaboration.
These findings suggest that productive group collaboration—especially exchang-
ing explanations—may follow from classroom instruction in which teachers hold
students accountable for playing an active role and for explaining their thinking.
Study 2 teachers used practices found in other research to raise the level of dis-
course in classrooms, such as asking students to justify, clarify, and reflect on their
ideas (Hogan & Pressley 1997), use questions to elicit student thinking (Carpenter
et al. 1989; Carpenter et al. 1999; Carpenter et al. 1996), having students generate
their own problem-solving approaches, and listening to students without evaluating
their approaches (Wood et al. 1991, 1995; Yackel et al. 1991). Changing classroom
practices from the teacher-centered instruction seen in Study 1 to the more student-
centered instruction seen in Study 2 may require radical shifts in teachers’ beliefs
about teaching and learning (Franke et al. 1997) and may need to occur over a long
period of time (Wood et al. 1991). Meeting this challenge, however, will likely lead
to more effective group collaboration.

Acknowledgement This work was supported in part by a grant from the Academic Senate on
Research, Los Angeles Division, University of California; by grant number 1093264 from
WestED to the Center for the Study of Evaluation/CRESST (funding to WestED was provided by

218 N. M. Webb

grant number ESI-0119790 from the National Science Foundation; and by the National Science
Foundation under Grant No. ESI-0119732 to the Diversity in Mathematics Education Center for
Learning and Teaching. However, all opinions, findings, and conclusions and recommendations
are mine.
I would like to acknowledge the contributions of Megan Franke, Angela Chan, Dan Battey, Julie
Kern Schwerdtfeger, Deanna Freund, and John Iwanaga to the collection and coding of data for
Study 2, and the contributions of Marsha Ing to both Studies 1 and 2. I would also like to thank
Kariane Mari Nemer for her helpful suggestions on an earlier draft of this paper.

References

Bargh, J. A., & Schul, Y. (1980). On the cognitive benefit of teaching. Journal of Educational
Brown, A. L., & Palinscar, A. S. (1989). Guided, cooperative learning, and individual knowledge
acquisition. In L.B. Resnick (Ed.) Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of
Robert Glaser (pp. 393–451). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Butler, R., & Neuman, O. (1995). Effects of task and ego achievement goals on help-seeking
behaviors and attitudes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 261–271.
California State Department of Education. (1985). Mathematics framework for California public
schools, kindergarten through grade twelve. Sacramento, CA: California Department of
Education.
California State Department of Education. (1992). Mathematics framework for California public
schools, kindergarten through grade twelve. Sacramento, CA: California Department of
Education.
Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Franke, M. L., Levi, L., & Empson, S. B. (1999). Children’s mathematics:
Cognitively guided instruction. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Peterson, P. L., Chiang, C. P., & Loef, M. (1989). Using knowledge
of children’s mathematics thinking in classroom teaching: An experimental study. American
Educational Research Journal, 26, 499–531.
Carpenter, T. P., Franke, M. L., & Levi, L. (2003). Thinking mathematically: Integrating algebra
and arithmetic in elementary school. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Chiu, M. M. (2000). Group problem-solving processes: Social interactions and individual actions.
Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 30, 27–49.
Chiu, M. M., & Khoo, L. (2003). Rudeness and status effects during group problem solving:
Do they bias evaluations and reduce the likelihood of correct solutions? Journal of Educational
Coleman, E. B. (1998). Using explanatory knowledge during collaborative problem solving in
science. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7, 387–427.
Cooper, M. A. (1999). Classroom choices from a cognitive perspective on peer learning. In
A. M. O’Donnell & A. King (Eds.) Cognitive perspectives on peer learning (pp. 215–234).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Covington, M. V. (1984). The self-worth theory of achievement motivation: Findings and implications.
Elementary School Journal, 85, 5–20.
Fantuzzo, J. W., Riggio, R. E., Connelly, S., & Dimeff, L. A. (1989). Effects of reciprocal peer
tutoring on academic achievement and psychological adjustment: A component analysis.
Farivar, S., & Webb, N. M. (1998). Preparing teachers and students for cooperative work: Building
communication and helping skills. In C. M. Brody & N. Davidson (Eds.), Professional
development for cooperative learning: Issues and approaches (pp. 169–188). Albany, NY:
State University of New York.


Franke, M. L., Fennema, E., & Carpenter, T. (1997). Teachers creating change: Examining evolving
beliefs and classroom practice. In E. Fennema & B. S. Nelson (Eds.), Mathematics teachers in
transition (pp. 255–282). Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Franke, M. L., Freund, D., Iwanaga, J., & Schwerdtfeger, J. K. (2006). Exploring the impact
of large-scale professional development focused on children’s algebraic reasoning. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San
Francisco.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., Phillips, N. B., Karns, K., & Dutka, S. (1997). Enhancing
students’ helping behavior during peer-mediated instruction with conceptual mathematical
explanations. Elementary School Journal, 97, 223–249.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Kazdan, S., & Allen, S. (1999). Effects of peer-assisted learning strategies
in reading with and without training in elaborated help giving. Elementary School Journal,
99, 201–219.
Gillies, R. M., & Ashman, A. F. (1996). Teaching collaborative skills in primary school children
in classroom-based work groups. Learning and Instruction, 6, 187–200.
Gillies, R. M., & Ashman, A. F. (1998). Behavior and interactions of children in cooperative groups
in lower and middle elementary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 746–757.
Hooper, S. (1992). Effects of peer interaction during computer-based mathematics instruction.
Journal of Educational Research, 85, 180–189.
Hythecker, V. I., Dansereau, D. F., & Rocklin, T. R. (1988). An analysis of the processes influencing
the structured dyadic learning environment. Educational Psychologist, 23, 23–27.
Jacobs, V. R., Franke, M. L., Carpenter, T. P., Levi, L., Battey, D., & Chan, A. (2005). Exploring
the impact of large-scale professional development focused on children’s algebraic reasoning.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
Montreal.
Kerr, N. L., & Bruun, S. E. (1983). Dispensability of member effort and group motivation losses:
Free-rider effects. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 44, 78–94.
King, A. (1989). Effects of self-questioning training on college students’ comprehension of lectures.
King, A. (1992). Facilitating elaborative learning through guided student-generated questioning.
Educational Psychologist, 27, 111–126.
King, A. (1999). Discourse patterns for mediating peer learning. In A. M. O’Donnell & A. King
(Eds.) Cognitive perspectives on peer learning (pp. 87–116). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Mayer, R. E. (1984). Aids to prose comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 19, 30–42.
Mevarech, Z. R., & Kramarski, B. (1997). IMPROVE: A multidimensional method for teaching
mathematics in heterogeneous classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 34,
365–394.
Middleton, M. J., & Midgley, C. (1997). Avoiding the demonstration of lack of ability: An under-
explored aspect of goal theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 710–718.
Mulryan, C. M. (1992). Student passivity during cooperative small groups in mathematics.
Journal of Educational Research, 85, 261–273.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for
school mathematics. Reston, VA: The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1991). Professional Standards for Teaching
Mathematics. Reston, VA: The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
National Research Council. (1989). Everybody counts: A report to the nation of the future of
mathematics education. Mathematical Sciences Education Board, Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.
National Research Council. (1995). National science education standards. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.

220 N. M. Webb

Nattiv, A. (1994). Helping behaviors and math achievement gain of students using cooperative learn-
ing. Elementary School Journal, 94, 285–297.
Newman, R. S. (1991). Goals and self-regulated learning: What motivates children to seek academic
help? In M. L. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement.
(pp. 151–183). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Newman, R. S. (1994). Adaptive help seeking: A strategy of self-regulated learning. In D. H. Schunk
& B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational
applications. (pp. 283–301). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Newman, R. S. (1998). Students’ help seeking during problem solving: Influences of personal and
contextual achievement goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 644–658.
O’Donnell, A. M. (1999). Structuring dyadic interaction through scripted cooperation. In
A. M. O’Donnell & A. King (Eds.) Cognitive perspectives on peer learning (pp. 179–196).
Palincsar, A. S., Anderson, C., & David, Y. M. (1993). Pursuing scientific literacy in the middle
grades through collaborative problem solving. Elementary School Journal, 93, 643–658.
Peterson, P. L., Janicki, T. C., & Swing, S. R. (1981). Ability x treatment interaction effects on
children’s learning in large-group and small-group approaches. American Educational
Rogoff, B. (1991). Guidance and participation in spatial planning. In L. Resnick, J. Levine &
S. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 349–383). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Rogoff, N. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. Oxford,
UK: Oxford University Press.
Ross, J. A., & Cousins, J. B. (1995). Impact of explanation seeking on student achievement and
attitudes. Journal of Educational Research, 89, 109–117.
Salomon, G., & Globerson, T. (1989). When teams do not function the way they ought to.
Saxe, G. B., Gearhart, M., Note, M., & Paduano, P. (1993). Peer interaction and the development
of mathematical understanding. In H. Daniels (Ed.) Charting the agenda: Educational activity
after Vygotsky (pp. 107–144) ). London: Routledge.
Slavin, R.E. (1987). Ability grouping and student achievement in elementary schools: A best-
evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 57, 293–336.
Sweller, J. (1989). Cognitive technology: Some procedures for facilitating learning and problem
solving in mathematics and science. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 457–466.
Swing, S. R., & Peterson, P. L. (1982). The relationship of student ability and small-group interaction
to student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 259–274.
Valsiner, J. (1987). Culture and the development of children’s action. New York, NY: John Wiley.
Vedder, P. (1985). Cooperative learning. A study on processes and effects of cooperation between
primary school children. Westerhaven Groningen, Netherlands: Rijkuniversiteit Groningen.
Webb, N. M. (1989). Peer interaction and learning in small groups. International Journal of
Webb, N. M. (1991). Task-related verbal interaction and mathematics learning in small groups.
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22, 366–389.
Webb, N. M., &. Farivar, S. (1999). Developing productive group interaction in middle school
mathematics. In A. M. O’Donnell & A. King (Eds.) Cognitive perspectives on peer learning
(pp. 117–150). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Webb, N. M., & Ing, M. (2006). Student discourse and learning in elementary school mathematics
classrooms. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, San Francisco.
Webb, N. M., Ing, M., Nemer, K. M., & Kersting, N. (2006). Help seeking in cooperative learning
groups. In R. S. Newman & S. A. Karabenick (Eds.), Help Seeking in academic settings:
Goals, groups and contexts (pp. 45–88). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Webb, N. M., & Mastergeorge, A. M. (2003a). The development of students’ learning in
peer-directed small groups. Cognition and Instruction, 21, 361–428.


Webb, N. M., & Mastergeorge, A. M. (2003b). Promoting effective helping behavior in
peer-directed groups. International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 73–97.
Webb, N. M., Nemer, K. M., & Ing, M. (2006). Small-group reflections: Parallels between teacher
discourse and student behavior in peer-directed groups. Journal of the Learning Sciences,
15(1), 63–119.
Webb, N. M., & Palincsar, A. S. (1996). Group processes in the classroom. In D. Berliner &
R. Calfee (Eds.) Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 841–873). New York, NY: Macmillan.
Webb, N. M., Troper, J. D., & Fall, R. (1995). Constructive activity and learning in collaborative
small groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 406–423.
Wittrock, M. C. (1990). Generative processes of comprehension. Educational Psychologist,
24, 345–376.
Wood, T., Cobb, P., & Yackel. E. (1991). Change in teaching mathematics: A case study. American
Educational Research Journal, 28, 587–616.
Wood, T., Cobb, P., & Yackel, E. (1995). Reflections on learning and teaching mathematics in
elementary school. In L. P. Steffe & J. E. Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in education (pp. 401–422).
Yackel, E., Cobb, P., & Wood, T. (1991). Small-group interactions as a source of learning
opportunities in second-grade mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education, 22, 390–408.
Yackel, E., Cobb, P., Wood, T., Wheatley, G., & Merkel, G. (1990). The importance of
social interaction in children’s construction of mathematical knowledge. In T. J. Cooney
& C. R. Hirsch (Eds.), Teaching and learning mathematics in the 1990s (pp. 12–21).
Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Yager, S., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1985). Oral discussion, group-to-individual transfer, and
achievement in cooperative learning groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 60–66.

Chapter 11
Explanation Giving and Receiving
in Cooperative Learning Groups1

John A. Ross

11.1 Cooperative Learning Research: Practical Beneﬁts for Teachers ................................. 223
11.2 Instructional Challenges................................................................................................ 224
11.2.1 Infrequent Occurrence of the Most Beneficial Talk........................................ 224
11.2.2 Unequal Participation in Knowledge Construction ........................................ 224
11.2.3 Asking for Explanations May Not Contribute to Learning ............................ 224
11.2.4 The Quality of Explanations Given by Students Is Poor ................................ 225
11.3 Promising Instructional Strategies ................................................................................ 227
11.3.1 Improving the Social Climate of the Classroom ............................................. 230
11.3.2 Strengthen Teacher Interventions ................................................................... 231
11.3.3 Implement Reciprocal Roles ........................................................................... 233
11.4 Implications for Teachers .............................................................................................. 234
References ................................................................................................................................ 235

Abstract Students who give explanations to their peers learn more from small
group discussions than students who do not. In this chapter, I will identify four
instructional challenges posed by this finding: (a) explanation giving is rare;
(b) usually upper ability students only offer explanations of their thinking,
meaning that the students who could most benefit from this powerful learning
strategy are least likely to engage in it; (c) asking for an explanation may not
contribute to the learning of the explanation seeker; and (d) the quality of expla-
nations provided by even the most able students tends to be poor. In this chapter
I will describe four practical classroom strategies for improving the quality
and frequency of explanations in cooperative learning groups. These strategies
include direct teaching of help giving and help seeking, improving the social cli-
mate of the classroom, improving teacher interventions in small group activities,
and implementing reciprocal roles.

1
Send comments on the chapter to Dr. John A. Ross, Professor of Curriculum, Teaching and
Learning, University of Toronto, PO Box 719, 1994 Fisher Drive, Peterborough, ON K9J7A1
Canada. Preparation of the chapter was funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research
Council of Canada. The views expressed in the chapter do not necessarily represent the views of
the Council.

11 Explanation Giving and Receiving in Cooperative Learning Groups 223

11.1 Cooperative Learning Research:
Practical Benefits for Teachers

Two clusters of cooperative learning research have immediate practical value
to teachers. The first cluster consists of evaluations in which cooperative
learning is compared to credible alternatives, such as well-designed whole class
instruction. These studies demonstrate that cooperative instructional methods
lead to cognitive and affective gains for students from kindergarten to gradu-
ate school (e.g., Johnson et al. 2000). Equally important, they demonstrate to
teachers that specific structures have differential effects. For example, Group
Investigation (GI) is superior to Student Teams–Achievement Divisions
(STAD) in reaching high level language objectives (such as comprehension)
but GI is less effective than STAD in achieving recall type language objec-
tives (such as language conventions) (Sharan et al. 1985; Sharan & Shachar
1988). Teachers also find helpful the many studies in this cluster that identify
moderators, that is, factors that amplify or depress the effects of cooperative
learning, such as Terwel’s (2003) demonstration that low ability secondary
school students do not benefit from cooperative learning unless given special
training.
The second cluster of cooperative learning research useful to teachers
focuses on mediators, that is, mechanisms that explain why cooperative learn-
ing is effective. The most practical findings focus on what students say to
each other when working on joint tasks: their implicit and explicit requests
for help and the contributions, solicited or spontaneous, that students make to
the construction of a joint product or shared understanding. The key finding
is that all forms of help giving, especially giving explanations, contribute to
student learning (Nattiv 1994; Ross & Raphael 1990; Veenman et al. 2005;
Webb 1989; Webb et al. 1996, 2002, 2003; Webb & Farivar 1994; Webb & Ing
2006). A quality explanation is one that supplies sufficient guidance to enable
the recipient to generate a specific answer for the immediate task while pro-
viding the receiver of the help with procedural and/or conceptual knowledge
to solve future problems of a similar type on his or her own. In practice,
researchers code as explanations virtually any kind of elaboration that goes
beyond answer giving.
Explanations are more frequently given when students are in structured coop-
erative groups than when working in unstructured settings (Gillies 2004a, b;
Gillies & Ashman 1998). Explanation exchanges are more frequent in coopera-
tive learning classrooms because cooperative learning discourages students from
ridiculing others (a major impediment to help seeking), eliminates competitive
reward structures that penalize help givers, and establish norms of mutual shar-
ing. Even though adoption of the leading cooperative learning methods leads to
greater helpfulness, maximum benefits are likely to accrue only if teachers over-
come substantial instructional challenges.

224 J. A. Ross

11.2 Instructional Challenges

11.2.1 Infrequent Occurrence of the Most Beneficial Talk

The most powerful form of discourse, asking for an explanation and getting
one, seldom occurs. For example, Ross and Cousins (1995b) found that explanations
were infrequently requested and given even in a cooperative condition in which
explanation sharing was required. The typical grade 7–8 student asked for an explanation
once per 35-min period and received an explanation twice. Across three studies
involving grade 7–10 students who were working cooperatively on complex open
ended tasks, 64% never asked for an explanation, and of those that did, more than
half did not receive an explanation in response. The instructional challenge is
finding ways to increase the frequency of high quality explanations that students
give and receive.

11.2.2 Unequal Participation in Knowledge Construction

Instrumental or mastery-oriented help seeking is characterized by students alternating
between giving help and receiving it (Nelson-Le Gall 1992). But student conversa-
tions in naturally occurring and structured settings are more like tutoring sessions
than symmetrical information exchanges. Webb (1989) reported six studies in which
giving explanations correlated strongly with ability. The more able students explained
and the less able listened. Lower ability student passivity and upper ability student
dominance in student groups has been often observed (Good et al. 1992; Mulryan
1994, 1995), even in cooperative learning classrooms (King 1993). The dominance
of cooperative group work by more capable students is particularly strong when the
goal is required to produce a single product. Pressure from high-ability students to
complete tasks quickly creates a helper/helpee caste system that reduces participation
by the less able because they slow the group down. In these circumstances, students
who believe their offerings are of little value respond by withdrawing from the task
(Karau & Williams 1993). The instructional challenge here is how to ensure that
lower ability students give as well as receive explanations.

11.2.3 Asking for Explanations May Not Contribute to Learning

Asking for explanations might contribute to achievement in several ways. Asking
for an explanation and receiving one gives students the opportunity to observe and
model the understanding of more able group members. In addition, framing a
request may trigger self-appraisal and reorganization of current knowledge. Asking
for explanations may stimulate cognitive conflict with other students but such
interactions can also lead to cognitive restructuring as the help seeker recognize


gaps in his/her understanding and fills them with ideas provided by peers. Finally,
a request can be a strategy for sharing information processing demands that frees
mental space, enabling the help seeker to focus on the acquisition of new ideas.
Despite these potential benefits, the evidence in support of asking for explanations
is very mixed, with as many studies showing no effects as positive outcomes (see
e.g., Ross & Cousins 1995b).
Students have to be skillful to get good help. Effective requests are explicit,
focused, repeated and directed toward an individual who is willing and able to provide
the help (Wilkinson & Spinelli 1983). In addition, asking for help entails costs.
Excessive help seeking reduces peer esteem—such students are perceived to be
free-loaders rather than contributors to group efforts (Nelson-Le Gall & Glor-Scheib
1986). Ross and Cousins (1994) found that students who were more aware of the
costs of seeking help were less likely to seek it. The same study also found that
students who were most in need of help (based on teacher identified rank in class
and pretest scores) did not seek it because they were not able to employ their com-
petence on the task. Other studies have found that help seekers frequently utter
vague requests such as “What are you doing?” (Ross & Cousins 1995a, p. 110). The
instructional challenge for teachers is to ensure that students ask for help when they
need it and formulate their requests effectively.

11.2.4 The Quality of Explanations Given by Students Is Poor

The explanations that students give to each other are often far below the quality
needed to support knowledge construction. Consider this typical example pro-
vided by a high ability student in a grade 6 classroom in which students were
required to explain their solutions and help other group members understand
them (Ross 1995b).
When asked to calculate the number of rabbits in a store when there were 10
more legs than ears, Dave computed the answer out loud, but his words omitted
much of his thinking.
Dave: Okay, 2 ears to a rabbit. So 4, 8, 10, no, 4, 8, 12, and 16. That’s 4 rabbits. 2, 4, 6, 8;
5 times 4 is 20, so there’s 2, 4, 6, 8, 10. There’s 5 rabbits in the store.

Embedded in Dave’s brief explanation were four steps:
● He identified required knowledge not stated in the problem: Rabbits have two
ears (“2 ears to a rabbit”) and four legs (not spoken).
● Although he began by talking about ears, he first counted legs aloud (“4, 8, 10”),
making a self-corrected error (“no 4, 8, 12, and 16”). After calculating legs for
four rabbits he repeated the series for ears (“2, 4, 6, 8”).
● He intuited that the solution was five (not spoken immediately) and stated a par-
tial procedure: number of rabbits multiplied by four gives number of legs (“5
times 4 is 20”).
● He verified his solution by counting aloud the number of ears for five rabbits
(“so there’s 2, 4, 6, 8, 10”).

226 J. A. Ross

In describing his solution Dave moved rapidly between ears and legs with no
conversational markers to signify changes. Dave’s account of his solution gave
listeners an incomplete model of problem-solving. When prodded to explain, he
told how his answer met the conditions of the problem, but never described
how he came up with it. His explanation evoked confusion and Dave became
increasingly exasperated:
Dave: There’s 5 rabbits in the store. It’s so simple. There’s 5 rabbits times 4 legs equals 20
right?
Bobby: Wrong.
Dave: Unless you’re some kind of weirdo. And there’s 5 times 2 ears is 10. That’s 10 dif-
ference. Now was that hard?
Carole: Offer to explain to the rest of the group.
Dave: I did. I just did.
Donna: Ask for help.
Bobby: He said something about 5 times 4 and all this. And then 5 times 2 and then this
and that.
Dave: Well it can’t be 4 times 5 because there is not 5 legs on a rabbit. (Ross, 1995b, p. 413)

Other group members began to parrot Dave’s explanation, repeating it to each other
and to the teacher when she visited the group. In this study the same pattern of
justifying a solution rather than explaining how it was produced occurred in all
groups, as did repetition of answers generated by others.
Explanation givers in this study acted as mini-teachers: The student who solved
the problem earned the right to question others in the group, calling on each group
member to repeat the correct solution, rather than eliciting alternate solutions or
alternate explanations for a particular solution. There was no monitoring of the
accuracy of these recited solutions. If students said they did not understand the
solution, the explanation giver repeated it verbatim. Explanation exchanges were
contrived. There was routine compliance with the requirement to explain rather
than authentic dialogue. In these episodes, students were rehearsing content but not
constructing understanding.
Many student explanations, 30% in Ross and Cousins (1995a), contain errors
and misconceptions. In the following example, Nate explained how to distinguish
between a negative and a positive correlation between two variables in a scatterplot
graph. He shrouded the correct core of his explanation with additional thoughts that
were incorrect and confusing.
Nate: That’s positive [correlation]. You know you can tell? This way. As the graph goes
up, as these numbers go up, these numbers go up too [accurate description of a positive
correlation]. If it was going like this, as these numbers go up, these number would go
[down – accurate description of a negative correlation]. You know, how like, two positives
make a …
Valerie: Negative.
Nate: Yes.
Valerie: Two positives make a negative.
Nate: Yes.
Valerie: Two negatives make a positive.


Nate: And a positive plus a negative makes a negative … as you are going up this way,
both of these are going up, so it’s positive [accurate description of a positive correlation].
If you are going down that way, as this number goes up, this one would get lower, on
here [accurate description of a negative correlation]. See? So, a negative plus a positive
times a positive will make a negative.
Valerie: Oh (Ross & Cousins, 1995a, p. 111)

In addition to problems related to explanation quality, students rarely monitor the
effects of their explanations (Ross 1995b; Ross & Cousins 1995a; Ross et al. 1996;
Webb et al. 2006), even though explanation use is a strong predictor of student
learning (Webb & Mastergeorge 2003; Webb et al. 1995). The quality of help pro-
vided affects students’ willingness to seek it. For example, Ross and Cousins
(1995b) found that students who asked for and received an explanation became
more conscious of the cost of help seeking than students who asked for help but did
not receive an explanation. The instructional challenge for teachers is how to ensure
that students are able as well as willing to give high quality help.

11.3 Promising Instructional Strategies

Researchers and cooperative learning trainers have suggested a number of strategies
for improving the frequency and quality of high-level help given to students.
Although the techniques are well described in the literature and procedural manuals
such as Farivar and Webb (1991) are available, it is not always possible to disentangle
the effects of specific training from other cooperative learning elements. These
strategies can be organized in different ways, including the four categories
suggested below.
Direct Teaching of Help Seeking/Giving. Several studies have demonstrated that
teaching students how to ask for and give help has a positive effect on the frequency
and quality of help given and received. For example, Ross (1995a) examined the
effects of a treatment in which students were given feedback on their inter-group
communication and taught how to self-evaluate group processes. Grade 7 students
were given edited transcripts of their small group discussions of mathematics prob-
lems. Instances of help seeking, help giving, and on-task behaviour were coded. In
addition, students performed a brief skit (designed by Swing and Peterson 1982) to
distinguish high-level from low-level help. Students used the coded transcripts to
assign their group a score on each of the three categories. Feedback on their group
appraisals was provided. Students designed an improvement plan to increase the
frequency of the three categories. Student names were replaced with colours to
reduce the costs of social comparison. Students used a self-assessment target to
monitor their group processes one to two times per week for eight weeks. After four
weeks they received two new sets of coded transcripts in order to contrast the per-
formance before and after they began monitoring their communications. In these
transcripts requests for explanations and explanations were highlighted. Teacher
probes assisted interpretation of the transcripts. Group monitoring continued for
another four weeks.

228 J. A. Ross

Teaching students how to self-evaluate their group processes had significant
positive effects on help seeking. After training, lower ability students were more
willing to seek explanations, suggesting there was a change to group norms that
help should be sought and given when needed. There were fewer unnecessary
requests for help. Explanation seekers became more persistent and used better
request strategies. For example, when Sandi had difficulty drawing a geometric
figure her requests were more persistent and precise than they had been before the
training.
Sandi: Dominique, you know how to do this?
Dominique: [no response]
Sandi: You know how to do this thing?
Sandi: Do you change this to bigger?
Sandi: Do you make your compass bigger when you do the two little arches?
Dominique: [explains how to construct the figure] (Ross 1995a, p. 134)

There was greater student recognition that high-level help was more valuable than
giving low-level help. As one student stated: “I have to understand it. Not just say
the answer.” (Ross 1995a, p. 134).
The training also had significant positive effects on all types of help giving,
including giving of explanations. For example, a student who prior to the treatment
had explained on only one occasion (when the teacher explicitly asked him to
explain his solution) became eager to do so after the group began to monitor its
processes, saying “Do you notice I’m being a lot nicer?” (Ross 1995a, p. 134).
There was less exclusion of lower ability students who could not keep up. For
example, prior to the training Sharon was often left behind.
Sharon: Hey what about me?
Curtis: You’re not in it.
Sharon: Hey you guys, what about me? How come you guys won’t let me do none?
Gwen: Because you are not even here yet.
Sharon: I’m on number 15.
Gwen: Yeah, I know, but we’re on number 16.

After the training her group continued to treat her rather roughly but they now
acknowledged their obligation to help her.
Curtis: We have to wait for her. We have to wait for her.
Gwen: Come on, Sharon. You know we are waiting.
Sharon: You guys were going and you weren’t supposed to.
Gwen: I know; we won’t. We won’t do the answers.
Curtis: We won’t look at the answers. We’ll wait for you. (Ross 1995a, p. 135).

There was also evidence that after the training high ability students adjusted their
language to meet lower ability student needs (e.g., using “timesing” rather than
multiplication).


Finally, the self-assessment training had a positive effect on monitoring of
explanations. We found all types of monitoring increased after feedback: diagnostic
monitoring (i.e., students reviewing the written work of a peer to locate errors),
decomposing steps in a problem and checking for understanding of each step, and
explanation monitoring. In the weak form of the latter, a high ability student asked
a help seeker if they understood the solution or gave them a quick quiz that
required the rehearsal of a solution strategy. The more powerful form of explana-
tion monitoring was very rare. In the few instances observed (all were after the
training) the explainer asked the target student to do the next problem or solve one
of the same type out loud. However, the explainers did not give up control as they
continued to decompose the task into small components and prompt the help
recipient on each step.
Veenman et al. (2005) developed a treatment that combined direct teaching of a
model of help seeking, charting productive help giving behaviours (both from
Farivar & Webb 1998) and explanation prompts (from King 1994). The treatment
produced large effect sizes. Trained grade 6 students generated more high level
elaborations then either of two control groups: one control had experienced two
years of cooperative learning without helpfulness training; the other control had
experienced neither cooperative learning nor helpfulness training.
Webb and Farivar (1994) also generated positive results for a five-week initiative
that trained grade 7 students in help giving and receiving. The procedures (described
in Farivar & Webb, 1991) combined training in specific skills with self-assessment
of their use. Students in the experimental condition gave and received more elabo-
rated help than controls and had higher achievement. However, the findings were
significant for African-American and Hispanic students only. There were no effects
for white students. In addition, the effects were larger for one teacher than the other,
which the researchers attributed to the effect of teacher modeling. Finally, the treatment
contributed to achievement on complex outcomes, not on low-level tasks. Fuchs
et al. (1999) also reported effects for help giving training that were limited to a
particular group. The training increased the frequency of elaborated help given for
grade 4 students but grade 2–3 students did not benefit because they were not devel-
opmentally ready.
The limits of direct teaching of help seeking and help giving behaviours were
visible in a study that used strategies from several successful programs to train
grade 5 students. The training program (Ross et al. 1996) included the Swing &
Peterson (1982) skits, activities selected from Farivar & Webb (1991), activities in
which students generated strategies for giving help (based on examples from Ross
& Raphael, 1990 videotapes) and checklists in which students recorded instances
of effective helping (from Ross, 1995a). The treatment had a negligible effect on
student communication—explanations actually declined in one class, although the
frequency returned to original levels over time (Ross et al. 1996). The ineffective-
ness of the treatment was attributed to a program factor (the examples of good and
poor help were too subtle for the cognitive levels of the students), an implementation
factor (the instructional decisions made by the program conflicted with the preferred
teaching styles of the two teachers who enacted the treatment), and a research

230 J. A. Ross

partnership issue (the researchers failed to recognize early enough in the program
that the surface problems reported by teachers were symptomatic of fundamental
disagreements with program intentions).
These findings suggest that direct teaching of helpfulness is a fruitful strategy
for increasing explanation exchanges. But the mixed results suggest that the strategy
is a demanding one for both teachers and students. For students, the role of effective
help giver requires the adoption of sophisticated teaching skills that may not be
modeled in their classrooms. Students used a “teacher as teller” style of instruction
that consisted of repeating instructional explanations provided by teachers, even
when recipients of the explanation explicitly stated they did not understand the
teacher’s lesson (see for example, “Wanda” in Ross & Cousins, 1995b. p.112).
Students also repeated the I-R-E model (teacher initiates question, student responds,
teacher evaluates) which is a weak generator of knowledge construction. McMahon
& Goatley (1995) found that the I-R-E pattern persisted in student-led discussions,
even after attempts to introduce richer discourse patterns.

11.3.1 Improving the Social Climate of the Classroom

Several cooperative learning developers have argued that creating classroom struc-
tures that promote interdependence and provide explicit training in prosocial skills
is prerequisite to student willingness to help each other. This approach is especially
central to Group Investigation (Sharan & Sharan 1976) and Learning Together
(Johnson & Johnson 1987). Particular strategies for developing a positive climate
are described in Abrami et al. (1994), Cuseo (2006), Johnson and Johnson (1987),
and Kagan and Kagan (1994).
Although there is extensive evidence about the positive effects of cooperative
learning methods that include social climate development, there is little research
that focuses exclusively on the effects of climate building on students’ help seeking
and help giving behaviour. Gillies & Ashman (1996) produced very positive results
with two, short training sessions for grade 6 students. Students practiced small
group skills, such as listening to each other, giving constructive feedback on ideas,
sharing tasks fairly, clarifying differences of opinion, trying to understand perspec-
tives of others, and monitoring group progress. Student practice was supported with
recording sheets for each of the target behaviours. Gillies and Ashman found that
trained students scored higher than students in the control condition on interaction
patterns and on student achievement. The trained students were more responsive to
peers who asked for explanations; they gave more task-related help and used more
inclusive language. In addition, trained students perceived their groups differently:
they were more likely than control students to report that students in their group
expanded on points made by peers, shared ideas, were sensitive to others, made
joint decisions, and took responsibility for group management.
In a follow up study, Gillies & Ashman (1998) trained grade 1 and grade 3 students
in a simpler set of skills than was provided to grade 6 students. Training for these


younger students focused on social skills such as listening to each other, providing
constructive feedback, sharing tasks fairly, resolving differences amicably, trying to
understand another’s perspective, and monitoring progress. Gillies and Ashman
found that trained students in both grades provided more explanations than controls,
including complex elaborations such as explanations with evidence.
However, Webb & Farivar (1994) found that social skills training was more
effective when it was combined with helpfulness training. The social skills alone
condition in their study consisted of inclusion activities such as learning class-
mates’ names and interests and basic communication skills such as attentive listening,
no put downs, and equal participation. Webb and Farivar found that when helpfulness
training was added to the social skills approach, students gave and received more
elaborated help than students in the social skills alone condition.
Cohen & Lotan (1995) demonstrated that status-equalizing treatments could
increase participation by low status groups. Such treatments include setting
norms about asking for help, telling students that group tasks require multiple
abilities possessed by different group members, and assigning competence to low
status individuals (e.g., through public praise of low status students when they
demonstrate skills required by the task). However, research using Cohen’s
approach (Complex Instruction) has not addressed the effects on explanation
exchanges and challenges in implementing it have been reported (Cohen 1998;
Cohen et al. 1994).
In summary, support for social skills training has been widely advocated as a
technique for improving student helpfulness. There are persuasive theoretical
rationales behind the recommendation. Improving the social climate is likely to
reduce student fear of ridicule that impedes help seeking (Newman & Goldin 1990)
and students are more likely to help each other when they have strong feelings of
commitment to their peers. The evidence in support of social skills training on
explanation exchanges is consistently positive, although limited, and social skills
training is more likely to have positive effects when it is combined with direct
teaching of helpfulness skills.

11.3.2 Strengthen Teacher Interventions

Explanation exchanges are more likely to develop if teachers model the interaction
processes they want students to adopt. For example, a grade 7 mathematics teacher
used her visits to student groups to reinforce a model of explanation giving in which
the help seeker provided as much of the solution as she could. The teacher gave
feedback to the help seeker, shouldered some of the burden of the task (by filling
in missing steps and recording the help seeker’s thinking), developed a problem-
solving heuristic from the example, and assigned a practice task that required the
help seeker to recapitulate the steps (Ross 1995a). For example,
Heather: First, you have to find the common denominator.
Teacher: OK

232 J. A. Ross

Heather: And then you have to change it to an improper fraction. No, regroup first.
Teacher: Regroup. You don’t change to an improper fraction for subtraction or addition…
So there’s your common denominator, which is 15-8 over 12. Is that what you got? …
I don’t understand what you’ve done. Here, let me write it out for you…OK, so common
denominator is…right…now, Heather, where do you regroup from? …OK, what do we
have to do to the 6? …Good girl, that’s right.
Louise: What do you do with the 3 though?
Teacher: Well, what do you think you should do with the 3? …That’s right…yeah, you’re
OK. I think what you have to do with questions like that, is that you have to take it step by
step…you can’t jump…otherwise you’re going to get confused, and when you go back to
see what you did, you’re not going to know what you’ve done because you skipped a step…
Now you’re going to have to share your knowledge with these two because I don’t know it
they know (Ross 1995a, p. 137).

In contrast, Ross (1995b) found that teacher interventions conflicted with the direc-
tions given to groups. The teacher in this study, as in Ross (1995a), gave explicit
instructions that explanations should be sought and given and that the purpose of
the group activities was to understand mathematical ideas. She told students that
clues, rather than a complete solution, should be offered and that talk should focus
on strategies and not just calculations. But when the teacher visited groups she
accepted rapid-fire recitations that were justifications of why the final answer to
the problem was correct, instead of requiring explanations of how problems were
solved. In doing so, the teacher reinforced group practices in which requests for
explanation were monitoring moves made by group leaders. That is, the most
knowledgeable person in the group solved the problem and then called on others to
explain (recite) the solution that the original problem solver had devised. In this
study the teacher’s interventions conflicted with her espoused intentions. Students
imitated the teacher’s behaviour rather than her statement of task requirements.
Webb & Ing (2006) found substantial differences among three teachers when
they visited student pairs. Only one of the three teachers in the study engaged
students in discussions of mathematical ideas regardless of whether their work
was correct or incorrect. This teacher drew attention to discrepant answers given
by the pair and asked them to resolve discrepancies. Webb et al. (2006) found that
teacher interventions were generally ineffective in promoting explanation
exchanges because the model of explanation giving encouraged a focus on
procedural correctness rather than on understanding mathematical concepts.
They also found that in the few instances in which a teacher provided higher-level
help to a group, students raised the level of their help giving after the teacher left.
There was also evidence that teacher interventions depressed the depth of student
help if the teacher provided lower-level help than what the group had been
providing prior to her visit.
Much of the research on promoting student helpfulness has been conducted in
mathematics, in part because student exchanges of appropriate explanations are a
key component of the current wave of mathematics reform. But many of the studies
have focused on tasks that provide for a single correct solution to a routine problem.
In contrast, Brodie (2000) observed a grade 9 teacher intervening in small group
deliberations around a rich task (measuring the area of complex shapes represented
in a geoboard). Brodie demonstrated that this teacher’s interventions supported the


view that mathematical reasoning develops through conjectures, attempts at proof,
and refutations through counter examples. The teacher provided examples that
challenged the assumptions of the group, asked the group to be more precise about
their theory, record instances that supported and disconfirmed their theory, and fig-
ure out why their theory was only partially successful. She argued for a view of
mathematics as a dynamic rather than fixed body of knowledge and attended to
student motivation by getting students to realize that a failed strategy has value
when problem solvers recognize its limitations. At no point did the teacher provide
direct instruction on how to measure the area of complex shapes.
An important component of teacher interventions is modeling how to monitor
help use. Several studies (Ross 1995b; Webb & Mastergeorge 2003; Webb et al.
1995, 2006) have reported that students rarely monitor how their help is used. In
addition, students who receive help tend to be overly optimistic about their grasp of
it. Webb et al. (1995) found that constructive use of help on the same problem was
infrequent: in most cases students who were given help did no further work on that
problem or copied the answer they were given. However, the higher the use of the
help on a subsequent problem (e.g., working through the next problem independ-
ently as opposed to finishing calculations started by another student or doing no
work at all), the higher the achievement in the unit.
In summary, teacher interventions have an impact on student ability and will-
ingness to give high-level help. The most productive strategies for strengthening
the effects of teacher interventions are to model help giving and monitoring of
help use. Improving teacher interventions is, however, likely to be challenging.
They need to allocate their time among multiple groups, deciding which groups
they should spend more time with. They also need to balance between focusing
on the group’s process needs and their need for support on content issues. For
example, Chiu (2004) found greater content help depressed performance if the
group was on track but there was no negative effect if the group did not under-
stand the problem. A central challenge is that teachers may not be aware of key
events in the group’s deliberations that occurred when the teacher was not
present. Brodie (2004) suggested that for teachers to intervene effectively they
need to train students how to report their group’s progress so that teachers can
intervene knowledgeably.

11.3.3 Implement Reciprocal Roles

Advocated of cooperative learning models, especially Learning Together, have long
advocated the assignment of learning roles within groups. To be effective role
assignments need to meet certain conditions:
1 The roles need to be meaningful. Roles such as “summarizer” contribute more to
group knowledge construction than roles such as “source searcher” because the
former requires the synthesis of diverse ideas into a coherent structure (Schellens
et al. 2006a).

234 J. A. Ross

2 Student roles need to rotate to ensure that lower status students participate
equally in group deliberations, including giving explanations. Duran & Monereo
(2005) found that alternating from tutor to tutee reduced the dominance of high
ability students and increased participation by the less able.
3 Teachers need to support role implementation, especially of lower ability students.
King (1993) found that when low-ability students were assigned leadership
positions, more able group members usurped their roles. Teachers can give less
able students supplementary training in advance of group work to provide
prerequisite knowledge and/or special information not known to other group
members. The status equalizing strategies recommended by Cohen et al. (1994)
are also useful. In addition, teachers can alleviate some of the difficulty in providing
high level help by supplying detailed role directions, including generic prompts,
to elicit and structure explanations. For example, King (1994) demonstrated
positive effects on student discourse by giving students generic question stems
to produce their own elaborative questions for thinking skills (“Explain how…”),
applications (“How would you… to… ?”), develop examples (“What is a new
example of… ?”), analyze relationships (“How does… affect… ?”), make pre-
dictions (“What do you think would happen if… ?”), synthesize ideas (“What
are some possible solutions for the problem of… ?”) and evaluate (“Why is…
better than… ?”). Other successful strategies for supporting explanation
exchanges have been demonstrated for learner and teacher roles in paired reading
(O’Donnell & Dansereau 1992), for structured partnerships (Fuchs et al. 1999),
and for metacognitive prompts (Kramarski & Mevarech 2003).
4 The extent to which the teacher structures student interactions through role
assignments should be appropriate for the age of the students. Joung (2004)
found that high structure (students were required to identify the argumentation
categories enacted in their posts to an online group) contributed to higher inter-
action among university students. However, Ross & Raphael (1990) found that
grade 4 students were more likely to ask for and receive high-level help in a low
structure condition (i.e., simple roles developed by students) than in a high structure
condition (detailed roles assigned by the teacher).
5 The roles should be nonhierarchical. Roles such as “group leader” encourage
control of group deliberations through authority rather than on evidence based
argument.

11.4 Implications for Teachers

Research has much to offer teachers struggling with the four instructional challenges
of group work identified earlier in this chapter. Researchers have developed practical
classroom strategies, and persuasive evidence about their effectiveness, that increase
the frequency of high quality help giving, equalize student participation in group
deliberations, increase the likelihood that asking for explanations will be a functional
help seeking strategy, and improve the quality of student explanations. Adoption of


the strategies reviewed in this chapter (direct teaching of helpfulness, improving the
social climate of the classroom, strengthening teacher interventions, and implement-
ing reciprocal roles) will amplify the positive effects of cooperative learning.
But where to start? I suggest that teachers begin by rethinking how they use roles
in cooperative groups. This familiar strategy can be made more powerful by providing
greater support for the implementation of roles that generate high quality explana-
tions. The most accessible of methods for doing so is to provide students with
generic prompts (e.g., King 1994). These prompts force students to think of the
material to be learned in different ways. They provide a structure to guide deeper
processing that is more effective than nonelaborative questions like who, what,
where, and so on (King & Rosenshine 1993) and questions generated by students
without the guidance of elaborative prompts (King 1990). In addition to enhancing
student discourse in small groups, these prompts can be used to structure teacher
interventions in small group deliberations and to move whole class discussions to
deeper understanding.

References

Abrami, P., Chambers, B., Poulsen, C., & Kouros, C. (1994). Positive social interdependence and
classroom climate. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 120, 327–346.
Brodie, K. (2000). Teacher intervention in small-group work. For the Learning of Mathematics,
20(1), 9–16.
Chiu, M. M. (2004). Adapting teacher interventions to student needs during cooperative learning:
How to improve student problem solving and time on-task? American Educational Research
Journal, 41, 365–400.
Cohen, E. G. (1998, April). Beyond the buzzwords: Equity and cooperative learning. Paper presented
at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
Cohen, E. G., & Lotan, R. (1995). Producing equal-status interaction in the heterogeneous class-
room. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 99–120.
Cohen, E. G., Lotan, R., Whitcomb, J., Balderrama, M., Cossey, R., & Swanson, P. (1994). Complex
instruction: Higher order thinking in heterogeneous classrooms. In S. Sharan (Ed.), Handbook of
cooperative learning methods (pp. 82–96). Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press.
Cuseo, J. (2006). Cooperative collaborative structures explicitly designed to promote positive
interdependence among group members [Web Page]. URL http://www.cat.ilstu.edu/additional/
tips/coopStruct.php [2006, June 29].
Duran, D., & Monereo, C. (2005). Styles and sequences of cooperative interaction in fixed and
reciprocal peer tutoring. Learning and Instruction, 15, 179–199.
Farivar, S., & Webb, N. (1991). Helping behavior activities handbook. Los Angeles, CA:
University of California at Los Angeles.
Farivar, S., & Webb, N. (1998). Preparing teachers and students for cooperative work: Building
communication and helping skills. In C. M. Brody, & M. Davidson (Eds.), Professional development
for cooperative learning: Issues and approaches (pp. 169–187). Albany, NY: State University
of New York.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Kazdan, S., & Allen, S. (1999). Effects of peer-assisted learning strategies
in reading with and without training in elaborated help giving. Elementary School Journal, 99,
201–220.
Gillies, R. (2004a). The effects of cooperative learning on junior high school students during small
group learning. Learning and Instruction, 14, 197–213.

236 J. A. Ross

Gillies, R. (2004b, April). Teachers’ and students’ interactions during cooperative and small-group
learning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, San Diego, CA.
Gillies, R., & Ashman, A. (1996). Teaching collaborative skills to primary school children in
classroom-based work groups. Learning and Instruction, 6, 187–200.
Gillies, R., & Ashman, A. (1998). Behavior and interactions of children in cooperative groups in
lower and middle elementary. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 746–757.
Good, T., McCaslin, M., & Reys, B. (1992). Investigating work groups to promote problem solving
in mathematics. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in research on teaching, Vol. 3 (pp. 115–160).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1987). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and
individualistic learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson R. T., & Stanne, M. B. (2000). Cooperative Learning Methods: A Meta-
Analysis. [Web Page]. URL http://www.co-operation.org/pages/cl-methods.html [16 January
2006].
Joung, S. (2004, April). The effects of high-structure cooperative versus low-structure collaborative
design on online debates in terms of decision change, critical thinking, and interaction pattern.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San
Diego, CA.
Kagan, S., & Kagan, M. (1994). The structural approach: Six keys to cooperative learning. In
S. Sharan (Ed.), Handbook of cooperative learning methods (pp. 115–133). Westport, CN:
Greenwood Press.
Karau, S., & Williams, K. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration.
King, A. (1994). Guiding knowledge construction in the classroom: Effects of teaching children
how to question and how to explain. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 338–368.
King, A., & Rosenshine, B. (1993). Effects of guided cooperative questioning on children’s
knowledge construction. Journal of Experimental Education, 6, 127–148.
King, L. (1993). High and low achievers’ perceptions and cooperative learning in two small
groups. Elementary School Journal, 93, 399–416.
Kramarski, B., & Mevarech, Z. R. (2003). Enhancing mathematical reasoning in the classroom:
The effects of cooperative learning and metacognitive training. American Educational
McMahon, S., & Goatley, V. (1995). Fifth graders helping peers discuss texts in student-led
groups. Journal of Educational Research, 89, 23–34.
Mulryan, C. (1994). Perceptions of intermediate students’ cooperative small-group work in
mathematics. Journal of Educational Research, 87, 280–291.
Mulryan, C. (1995). Fifth and sixth graders’ involvement and participation in cooperative small
groups in mathematics. Elementary School Journal, 95, 297–310.
Nattiv, A. (1994). Helping behaviors and math achievement gain of students using cooperative
learning. Elementary School Journal, 94, 285–297.
Nelson-Le Gall, S. (1992). Children’s instrumental help-seeking: Its role in the social acquisition
and construction of knowledge. In R. Hertz-Lazarowitz & N. Miller (Eds.), Interaction in
cooperative groups: The theoretical anatomy of group learning (pp. 49–68). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Nelson-Le Gall, S., & Glor-Scheib, S. (1986). Academic help-seeking and peer relations in
school. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 11, 187–193.
O’Donnell, A., & Dansereau, D. (1992). Scripted cooperation in student dyads: A method for
analyzing and enhancing academic learning and performance. In R. Hertz-Lazarowitz &
N. Miller (Eds.), Interaction in cooperative groups: The theoretical anatomy of group learning
(pp. 120–141). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Ross, J. A. (1995a). Effects of feedback on student behavior in cooperative learning groups in a
grade 7 math class. Elementary School Journal, 96, 125–143.


Ross, J. A. (1995b). Students explaining solutions in student-directed groups: Cooperative learning
and reform in mathematics education. School Science and Mathematics, 95, 411–416.
Ross, J. A., & Cousins, J. B. (1994). Intentions to seek and give help and behavior in cooperative
learning groups. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 476–482.
Ross, J. A., & Cousins, J. B. (1995a). Giving and receiving explanations in cooperative learning
groups. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 41, 104–122.
Ross, J. A., & Cousins, J. B. (1995b). Impact of explanation seeking on student achievement and
attitudes. Journal of Educational Research, 89, 109–117.
Ross, J. A., Haimes, D., & Hogaboam-Gray, A. (1996). Improving student helpfulness in cooperative
learning groups. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 31(2), 13–24.
Ross, J. A., & Raphael, D. (1990). Communication and problem solving achievement in cooperative
learning groups. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 22, 149–164.
Schellens, T., Van Keer, H., De Wever, B., & Valcke, M. (2006a, April). Comparing knowledge
construction in two cohorts of asynchronous discussion groups with and without scripting.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San
Franciso.
Sharan, S., Kussell, P. H.-L. R., Bejarano, Y., Raviv, S., & Sharan, Y. (1985). Cooperative
learning effects on ethnic relations and achievement in Israeli junior-high school class-
rooms. In R. Slavin, S. Sharan, S. Kagan, R. Hertz-Lazarowitz, C. Webb, & R. Schmuck
(Eds.), Learning to cooperate, cooperating to learn (pp. 313–344). New York, NY:
Plenum Press.
Sharan, S., & Shachar, H. (1988). Language and learning in the cooperative classroom. New
York: Springer, Verlag.
Sharan, S., & Sharan, Y. (1976). Small group teaching. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational
Technology Publishers.
Swing, S., & Peterson, P. (1982). The relationship of student ability and small-group interaction
to student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 259–274.
Terwel, J. (2003). Co-operative learning in secondary education: A curriculum perspective. In
R. M. Gillies, & A. F. Ashman (Eds.), Co-operative learning: The social and intellectual out-
comes of learning in groups (pp. 54–68). London: Routledge/Farmer.
Veenman, S., Denesen, E., van den Akker, A., & van der Rijt, F. (2005). Effects of a cooperative
learning program on the elaborations of students during help seeking and help giving.
American Educational Research Journal, 42, 115–152.
Webb, N. M. (1989). Peer interaction and learning in small groups. International Journal of
Webb, N. M., Chizhik, A. W., Nemer, K. M., & Sugrue, B. (1996). Equity issues in collaborative
group assessment: Group composition and performance. Paper presented at the annual meet-
ing of the American Educational Research Association, New York.
Webb, N. M., & Farivar, S. (1994). Promoting helping behavior in cooperative small groups in
middle school mathematics. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 369–396.
Webb, N. M., & Ing, M. (2006, April). Student discourse and learning in elementary school math-
ematics classrooms. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, San Francisco.
Webb, N. M., Kersting, N., Ing, M., Nemer, K., & Forrest, J. (2003, April). The evolution of group
dynamics and learning in peer-directed groups. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
Webb, N. M., & Mastergeorge, A. (2003). Promoting effective helping behavior in peer-directed
groups. International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 73–97.
Webb, N. M., Nemer, K. M., & Ing, M. (2006). Small-group reflections: Parallels between teacher
discourse and student behavior in peer-directed groups. The Journal of the Learning Sciences,
15, 63–115.
Webb, N. M., Troper, J., & Fall, R. (1995). Constructive activity and learning in collaborative
small groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 406–423.
Wilkinson, L. C., & Spinelli, F. (1983). Using requests effectively in peer-directed instructional
groups. American Educational Research Journal, 20, 479–501.

Chapter 12
Teachers’ and Students’ Verbal Behaviours
During Cooperative Learning

Robyn M. Gillies

12.1 The Teacher’s Role in Promoting Students’ Discourse .............................................. 240
12.2 Using Cooperative Learning in Classrooms ............................................................... 241
12.3 Teachers’ Discourse During Cooperative Learning:
A Review of Two Studies ........................................................................................... 243
12.4 Study One: Discourses During Cooperative
and Small-Group Learning ......................................................................................... 243
12.5 Training in Cooperative Learning Pedagogy .............................................................. 244
12.6 Measures ..................................................................................................................... 245
12.7 Observation Schedule of the Teachers’ Application
of Cooperative Learning ............................................................................................. 245
12.8 Procedure .................................................................................................................... 246
12.9 Results ......................................................................................................................... 246
12.10 Discussion ................................................................................................................... 247
12.11 Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 248
12.12 Study Two: Teachers’ and Students’ Discourse During
Cooperative Learning.................................................................................................. 249
12.13 Training in Communication Skills. ............................................................................. 250
12.14 Procedure .................................................................................................................... 251
12.15 Results ......................................................................................................................... 251
12.16 Discussion ................................................................................................................... 252
12.17 Theoretical and Practical Implications ....................................................................... 254
References ................................................................................................................................ 255

Abstract While much is known about how teachers can promote discourse
among students and how students, in turn, help each other, little is know about how
teachers’ verbal behaviours affect students’ discourse and learning during coop-
erative learning. This chapter builds on research undertaken by Hertz-Lazarowitz
and Shachar (1990) that identified the differences in teachers’ verbal behaviours
during cooperative and whole-class instruction. Two studies undertaken by the
author are presented. The first study examines the difference in teachers’ verbal
behaviours during cooperative and small-group instruction while the second
study discusses the additive benefits derived from training teachers to use specific
communication skills to enhance students’ thinking and learning during coopera-
tive learning. The chapter also discusses how students model many of the verbal
behaviours their teachers use in their own discourse with their peers to promote
thinking and learning.

12 Teachers’ and Students’ Verbal Behaviours During Cooperative Learning 239

Cooperative learning is widely accepted as a pedagogical practice that can be
employed in classrooms to stimulate students’ interest in learning through involvement
with their peers. When children interact cooperatively they learn to listen to what
others have to say, give and receive information, discuss differing perspectives and,
in so doing, develop mutual understandings of the topic at hand. In fact, talk is so
important that it is now recognised as more than a means of sharing thoughts. It is
also a social mode of thinking and a tool for the joint construction of knowledge by
teachers and learners (Mercer 1996). Students who cooperate show increased
participation in group discussions, engage in more useful help-giving behaviours,
and demonstrate more sophisticated levels of discourse than students who do not
cooperate with their peers (Gillies and Ashman 1998; Shachar and Sharan 1994).
While cooperative learning provides opportunities for students to dialogue,
concern has been expressed about the quality of the discourse that often emerges
if children are left to engage in discussions without any training in how to interact
with others. Meloth and Deering (1999) found that task-related talk about facts,
concepts, strategies, and thinking is very important to students’ learning yet such
high-level cognitive talk only appear with low frequency when left to emerge as
a by-product of cooperative learning. In a study of the discourse structures of
fifth-grade students who worked on science experiments in small groups, Chinn
et al. (2000) reported that children used high quality discourse only when they
were required to discuss reasons for their solutions. Moreover, when they did, it
predicted the learning that occurred. Mercer et al. (1999) also maintained that
children need to be taught how to engage in group discussions if they are to use
language effectively to think and reason together. Similarly, Rojas-Drummond et al.
(2003) found that children do not initially use exploratory talk to think and reason
together but can be taught to do so. In short, Meloth and Deering, Chinn et al.,
Mercer et al., and Rojas-Drummond et al. believe that direct intervention by
teachers to facilitate discussions is warranted if children are to learn to dialogue
effectively with each other.
Teachers play a critical role in promoting interactions among students and coop-
erative learning provides opportunities for these interactions to be encouraged.
However, although much is known about how teachers can promote discourse
among students and how students, in turn, help each other, little is know about
teachers’ verbal behaviours during cooperative learning. This chapter builds on
research undertaken by Hertz-Lazarowitz and Shachar (1990) that identified the
differences in teachers’ verbal behaviours during cooperative and whole-class
instruction. It does this by discussing two studies undertaken by the author that
examined the difference in teachers’ verbal behaviours during cooperative and
small-group instruction in high schools and the additive benefits derived from train-
ing teachers to use specific communication skills to enhance children’s thinking
and learning during cooperative learning in elementary schools. The chapter will
also discuss how students model many of the verbal behaviours their teachers use
in their own discourse with others to promote thinking and learning. Finally, the
theoretical implications of the role teachers play in the social construction of
knowledge, both at the interpersonal (Vygotsky 1978) and intrapersonal levels

240 R. M. Gillies

(Piaget 1950), will be discussed with particular emphasis on specific strategies
teachers use to scaffold children’s learning. This is particularly important given that
both Vygotsky and Piaget acknowledge the importance of interactions with others
in the development of social reasoning and cognition.

12.1 The Teacher’s Role in Promoting Students’ Discourse

Teachers induct students into ways of thinking and learning by making explicit how
to express ideas, seek help, contest opposing positions, and reason cogently and, in
so doing, help them to generate new ways of thinking and doing (Meloth and
Deering 1999; Mercer et al. 1999). Students are sensitive to teachers’ discourse as
it affects how they react to learning and the perceptions they form of their learning
environment (Patrick et al. 2001).
In a study that investigated the relationship between learning environment and
students’ reported use of avoidance strategies during mathematics among sixth-
grade students, Turner et al. (2002) found that teachers who emphasised the relevance
of learning and encouraged students to be active learners, stressed mastery-goals
for personal competence, used language that expressed strong positive affect about
learning, and conveyed positive expectations to their students (i.e., teachers used
highly motivational language). Students in these classrooms understood that learning
was valued and success was accompanied by effort and indicated by personal
improvement as opposed to comparison with others.
In contrast, teachers who focused on directing and assessing students used
language that tended to be more directive and authoritarian which often limited
student opportunities to act autonomously (i.e., teachers stressed performance goals).
In these classrooms, students understood that learning is predominantly a means of
achieving recognition, and their success is gauged by outperforming others, surpassing
class or grade standards, or looking smart. Interestingly, Turner et al. (2002) found
that students in these latter classrooms had higher rates of cheating, disruptive behav-
iour, and self-handicapping and avoidance behaviours than students in classrooms
where teachers used supportive instructional and motivational discourse.
In a follow-up in-depth study that examined the classroom participation of two
students in mathematics lessons during sixth- and seventh-grades, Turner and
Patrick (2004) found that despite students’ achievement goals being consistent
across the two years, both students’ patterns of participation changed markedly
from one year to the next, depending on the encouragement and support they
received from their teachers. The authors concluded that teachers’ communicative
behaviours do affect students’ engagement behaviours and they can have measurable
effects on students’ work habits.
There is no doubt that patterns of classroom instruction are related to students’
achievement-related behaviours and affect. Teachers who are encouraging
and supportive of students’ endeavours are more likely to provide students with
opportunities to act autonomously as learners than teachers who are more focused
on performance outcomes and test results. It is interesting to note that although the


teachers in the Turner et al. (2002) and Turner and Patrick (2004) studies did not
specifically identify cooperative learning as a pedagogical practice in their class-
rooms, many of the activities the students undertook did involve students working
cooperatively on complex, open-ended problem-solving activities with other students.
This grouping arrangement is particularly interesting because Hertz-Lazarowitz
and Shachar (1990) found when they investigated the discourse of 27 elementary
teachers in Israel who alternatively implemented whole-class and small-group
instruction in their classrooms that their discourse was affected by the organisa-
tional structure of the classroom.
During whole-class instruction, Hertz-Lazarowitz and Shachar (1990) reported
that teachers’ discourse could be categorised as lecturing, giving instructions, using
short-answer questions, administering collective discipline, and giving general
praise. In contrast, during small-group learning (i.e., cooperative learning), teachers’
discourse could be categorised as encouraging students’ initiatives, helping students
with their learning, facilitating communication among students, providing feedback
on task performance, and praising individual student’s efforts. In fact, during whole
class instruction over 90% of teachers’ discourse involved the use of formal com-
munication categories that were highly structured and addressed a collective
audience, whereas during cooperative learning, 75% of their discourse involved
informal communication categories or ways of communicating that are seen as
more intimate, personal, and supportive of students’ endeavours. In effect, the study
demonstrated that when the teachers implemented cooperative learning, they
changed the way they taught and this affected the way they interacted with their
students. This finding was particularly interesting, given that the same teachers
taught whole-class and small-group instructional lessons interchangeably. Moreover,
all teachers had received extensive training over a full school year in how to implement
cooperative learning in their classrooms prior to the commencement of the study.

12.2 Using Cooperative Learning in Classrooms

Despite the benefits widely attributed to cooperative learning, teachers are often
reluctant to implement this pedagogical practice in their classrooms. In a study of
classroom grouping practices in the UK, Baines et al. (2003) reported that elementary
students rarely worked cooperatively in small groups, despite being seated in small
groups. Most children worked individually or under the direction of an adult
attached to their group. By secondary school, students either worked in dyads or in
groups of 11 or more members with little autonomy over the size of the group, the
task they were to complete, and how they were to interact. Grouping practices were
aimed at maintaining control, keeping students focused and on-task, and maximising
teacher-directed learning. In short, Baines et al. (2003) suggested that small group
work does not appear to be widely endorsed as a practice that promotes students’
interaction and learning.
In a study that examined the prevalence, conceptualisation, and form of cooperative
learning used by elementary teachers in the US, Antil et al. (1998), found that few

242 R. M. Gillies

teachers were employing recognised forms of cooperative learning in their classrooms
even though all had indicated they employed this pedagogical practice daily in
different subjects. Similar observations have been made by Gillies (2003a) about
teachers’ grouping practices in Australian schools.
A reluctance to embrace cooperative learning may be due, in part, to the challenge
it poses to teachers’ control of instruction, the demands it places on classroom organi-
sational changes, and the personal commitment teachers need to make to sustain their
efforts (Kohn 1992). It may also be due to a lack of understanding of how to embed
cooperative learning into the classroom curricula to foster open communication
and engagement between teachers and students, promote cooperative investigation
and problem-solving, and provide students with environments where they feel
supported and emotionally secure (Johnson and Johnson 2003; Sharan et al. 1999).
This dilemma was recognised by Blatchford et al. (2003) who argued strongly
for the development of a social pedagogical approach to implementing group work
in classrooms. This includes helping teachers to prepare the classrooms for group
work so that consideration is given to the size and composition of groups, seating
arrangements, and the number of groups and their stability over time. It also
includes ensuring that students are taught how to interact appropriately so they
learn to trust and respect each other as well as how to plan and organise their group
tasks. Additionally, the authors believed that teachers need to ensure that group work
is fun so that students do not feel threatened by it. Finally, teachers play a role in
adapting and structuring the group context and task and making sure that it is inte-
grated into the curricula (see Baines et al. (2003) in this volume for an elaborated
discussion on developing a social pedagogy of the classroom).
Ensuring that teachers structure group work experiences so that students will
derive maximum benefits from student interaction is crucial, given that teachers
have a propensity to talk and students to listen. In such instances, as Galton et al.
(1999) found, teachers’ talk in elementary classrooms consists mainly of teachers
making statements and asking factual or closed questions which require minimal
responses from students. In fact, Galton et al. observed that 75% of teachers’
interactions involve teachers telling students facts and ideas or giving them direc-
tions and this percentage held whether teachers were interacting with a class, a
group or an individual. Children are rarely asked cognitively challenging questions
where they are required to think about issues and justify their responses. Galton et
al. attributed this finding to the introduction of the National Curriculum that places
a heavy burden on teachers to cut down on students’ participation to get through the
content. In such classrooms, the channel of communication tends to be one-way as
teachers talk at students who are required to listen and respond, often reiterating
information provided earlier by the teacher.
There is no doubt that whole-class instruction affects the way teachers interact
with their students as Hertz-Lazarowitz and Shachar (1990) demonstrated in their
study of teachers who used both cooperative learning and whole-class instruction
interchangeably in their classrooms. During cooperative learning when teachers
interact with students in small groups, they use more pro-social and positive verbal
behaviours and interacted in a more informal and friendly manner than when they


use whole-class instruction. The change in teachers’ verbal behaviours was so
marked that Hertz-Lazarowitz and Shachar argue that “when teachers change their
instructional style to cooperative learning they become involved in a complex process
of linguistic change as well” (p. 89). Given this finding it is particularly important
that teachers’ discourse during small group activities is investigated to determine
not only what small grouping practices influence teachers’ discourse but also how
teachers’ discourse may enhance student discussion, social reasoning, and the con-
struction of knowledge. This is especially important given the key role teachers
play in promoting student interaction and engaging them in the learning process.

12.3 Teachers’ Discourse During Cooperative Learning:
A Review of Two Studies

In the first study, Gillies (2006) sought to determine if teachers who implement
cooperative learning in their classrooms engage in more facilitative, learning inter-
actions than teachers who implement group-work only and whether students, in
turn, model their teachers’ verbal behaviours and engage in more positive helping
interactions than their peers in the group-work only groups. This distinction
between cooperative groups and group-work only groups is necessary because
many teachers group students for convenience and do not ensure that the key
elements that identify cooperative learning are present (Johnson and Johnson
1990). Moreover, it has been argued that group-work only groups have many of the
characteristics of the traditional whole-class setting where groups are not estab-
lished so students are required to work together (i.e., no goal interdependence) and
children work individually on tasks for their own ends as they do when their
success is gauged by outperforming others (Turner et al. 2002). Consequently, there
is no motivation to act as a group or exercise joint efficacy to solve a problem or
accomplish a task (Johnson and Johnson 2003).
In the second study, Gillies (2004) sought to determine if teachers who imple-
ment cooperative learning can also be trained to use specific communication skills
to facilitate thinking and learning in their students during cooperative group work.
In this study, the teachers in both conditions were taught to embed cooperative
learning strategies into the classroom curricula, however, only one cohort of teachers
received additional training in the specific communication skills that are designed
to enhance teacher-student interactions during cooperative learning.

12.4 Study One: Discourses During Cooperative
and Small-Group Learning

Background to the study. This study (Gillies 2006) was implemented in four large
high schools in Brisbane, Australia. The study aimed to compare two types of
grouping practices that teachers commonly use in classrooms; cooperative learning

244 R. M. Gillies

and group-work only groups. In the cooperative learning groups (cooperative
condition) teachers systematically implemented the key elements of cooperative learning
as defined by Johnson and Johnson (1990) whereas in the group-work only groups
(small-group condition), there was no systematic implementation of these
elements.
Twenty-six teachers from grades 8 to 10 volunteered to participate in the study
and agreed to embed cooperative learning activities into a unit of work (4–6 weeks)
once a term for three terms. All the teachers were highly regarded by their respec-
tive principals for their commitment to enhancing their professional skills and their
willingness to implement new and innovative practices in their classrooms. Their
teaching experience ranged from 5–25 years; four teachers were male and 22 were
female which is roughly indicative of the ratio of male to female teachers in
Australian schools at that grade level. The teachers taught a range of subjects from
those in the core curriculum (e.g., mathematics, English, and science) to those with
a vocational orientation (i.e., manual arts and technology, hospitality, and art).
Two groups of students from each of the above teachers’ classrooms participated
in the audio-taping of the group discussions. While 208 students participated in these
groups, the final data set was 104 students because of teacher or student absences on
the day the research team visited the school. Although the attrition rate was some-
what disappointing, observations of the remaining students’ groups indicated that
the data obtained were reflective of the groups’ in the various classrooms.

12.5 Training in Cooperative Learning Pedagogy

All teachers participated in a two-day workshop to provide them with the background
knowledge and skills required to implement cooperative learning in their classrooms.
This included information on the key elements required to establish cooperative
learning proposed by Johnson and Johnson (1990) and included how to:
● establish positive task interdependence (regarded as critical for the activities the
students were to undertake);
● teach the small group and interpersonal skills (i.e., actively listening, considering
the perspective of others, stating ideas assertively but appropriately, resolving
conflicts, and democratic decision-making);
● ensure individual accountability (i.e., ensuring that all students contribute to the
group’s task and were accountable for their contributions);
● promote student interaction (i.e., students work in small groups with members
facing each other and all were expected to offer help to each other); and,
● provide opportunities for students to reflect on their group’s achievements (i.e.,
what has the group achieved and what do they still need to accomplish).
Additionally, the teachers were asked to ensure that they negotiated the following
ground rules with their students to encourage group discussion. These included
making sure that students understood that all information was to be shared, the


group was to work to reach agreement, reasons needed to be presented, challenges
were to be accepted, alternative ideas were to be discussed, and everyone was
encouraged to participate in the discussion (Wegerif et al. 1999).
As part of the process of embedding cooperative learning strategies into their
curriculum units, teachers were expected to also consider the following four
organisational dimensions of the classroom proposed by Blatchford et al. (2003,
p. 162): (a) the classroom context – preparing the classroom and the groups;
(b) interactions between children – preparing and developing pupil skills; (c) the
teacher’s role – preparing adults (i.e., the class teacher) for working with groups;
and (d) tasks – preparing the lessons and group activities.

12.6 Measures

Teachers’ verbal behaviours. The observation schedule that was used in this study
was originally developed by Hertz-Lazarowitz and Shachar (1990) but modified for
purposes of this study, based on trialling in classrooms where teachers used cooperative
learning. The six categories of verbal behaviours that were identified included:
Teacher control (i.e., broadly defined as teachers giving instructions); questions (i.e.,
questions where responses were pre-determined and based on information students
had previously learned); discipline (i.e., reprimanding students); mediated-learning
(i.e., scaffolds, prompts, and challenges students’ thinking); encourages (i.e., praises
students’ efforts); maintenance (i.e., language designed to help maintain the activity).
Teachers’ verbal behaviours were coded according to the frequency over each
observed lesson.
Students’ verbal behaviours. The students’ verbal behaviours were grouped
into six categories, based on observations of students’ verbal behaviours in class-
rooms where cooperative learning had been implemented. The categories of verbal
behaviour that were identified included: elaborations (i.e., provided detailed help);
questions (i.e., open and closed questions); short responses (i.e., responses that are
not elaborated); engages (i.e., statements or discussion that holds the attention of
other students); interrupts (i.e., negative disruption to the discussion); and directions
(i.e., instructs others). These verbal behaviours were coded according to frequency
across each observed lesson.

12.7 Observation Schedule of the Teachers’ Application
of Cooperative Learning

An observation schedule of the teachers’ application of a cooperative learning
approach was developed (i.e., after trialling) and the following five dimensions,
informed by the key elements of cooperative learning (Johnson and Johnson 1990),

246 R. M. Gillies

were observed: (a) uses a range of cooperative learning strategies, (b) uses lan-
guage that reflects the fact that cooperative learning strategies are being employed,
(c) facilitates the students use of cooperative learning, (d) reinforces students use
of learning strategies, and (e) develops interdependence in the students. Each
dimension was rated on a Likert scale from 1 to 5 to indicate whether the behav-
iour was not observed (1) to whether it was almost always observed (5). Finally,
an overall rating of 1–5 was made on the implementation of a cooperative learning
approach in the observed lessons. Teachers who obtained a rating of 4–5 were
observed to have implemented cooperative learning with high fidelity (cooperative
learning condition) whereas teachers who obtained a score of 1–3 were observed
to have implemented cooperative learning with low fidelity (small-group
condition).

12.8 Procedure

Teachers were audiotaped twice across the three units of work in which they used
cooperative, small group activities. This audio-taping usually occurred in the final
2 weeks of the 6 week work unit to give the students time to adjust to working
together on the task. Each teacher and two groups of students were taped simultane-
ously during the observed lessons.
During the audio-taping, teachers wore a microphone while an audiocassette
with a directional microphone was used to tape the students’ group discussions.
Additionally, an observer sat at the back of the classroom and completed an obser-
vational schedule on the application of the cooperative learning framework used
to identify the extent to which teachers had implemented the key components of
cooperative learning in the lesson that was observed.

12.9 Results

Teachers’ verbal behaviours. The data collected on the teachers’ verbal behaviours
were analysed to determine if there were differences between the teachers in the
cooperative and small-group conditions. Significant differences were found with
teachers in the cooperative condition asking more questions (effect size = + 0.26,
or more than a quarter of a standard deviation) and using more mediated-learning
behaviours (effect size = + 0.52, or more than half a standard deviation) than their
group-work only peers.
Students’ verbal behaviours. Similarly, data collected on the students’ verbal
behaviours were analysed to determine if there were differences between the two
conditions. Significant differences were found with students in the cooperative condi-
tion recording more elaborative responses (effect size = + 0.65 or nearly two-thirds
of a standard deviation), more short responses (effect size = + 0.34 or over a third of


a standard deviation), and more engaging behaviours (effect size = + 0.30 or over a
quarter of a standard deviation) than their group-work only peers.

12.10 Discussion

This study was designed to test the thesis proposed by Hertz-Lazarowitz and
Shachar (1990) that when teachers implement cooperative learning, as opposed to
whole-class teaching, the organisational structure of the classroom affects the way
teachers interact with students. It did this by investigating whether teachers who
implemented cooperative learning engage in more facilitative, learning interac-
tions than teachers who implement group work only. The study also sought to
determine if students in the cooperative groups model their teachers’ verbal behav-
iours and engage in more helping behaviours than their peers in the small-group
only groups.
The results show that teachers who implement cooperative learning asked more
questions and engaged in more mediated-learning behaviours than teachers who
implement group-work only. While the questions tended to follow the predicted
closed question format that Galton et al. (1999) identified as typical of the types of
questions teachers tend to ask that have the potential to limit learning, the mediated-
learning behaviours were, in contrast, designed to challenge children’s understanding
and thinking of the problem-solving activities the children were working on in
their groups.
The following examples are typical of the mediated-learning behaviours that the
teachers in the cooperative learning condition tended to ask: “Perhaps you could
consider using this … and seeing if it can be reconciled with what you have here
(information)?” (Tentative question designed to prompt students’ thinking); “I’m
not sure I understand what you’re trying to achieve. Perhaps you can clarify it for
me?” (Challenges students’ to justify their decision); and “I’d suggest that you try
and consider John’s perspective on this own because he seems to understand how
these elements can be synthesised” (Scaffolding learning by suggesting that the
group consider John’s response). There is no doubt that these types of verbal behav-
iours promote positive interactions among students as they listened intently to what
their teachers said and then responded to the challenges they posed.
An examination of the students’ verbal behaviours at the end of the study
showed that the children in the cooperative learning condition recorded nearly three
times as many elaborations, twice as many short responses, and half again as many
engagement behaviours as students in the group-work only groups. This is interest-
ing because Cohen (1994) and Cohen et al. (2002) argued it is the frequency of
task-related interactions that are important for group productivity and learning
and it was clear from the pattern of interactions that emerged that the students
in the cooperative groups engaged in more verbal behaviours that are regarded
as helpful and supportive of group endeavours than their peers in the group-work
only groups.

248 R. M. Gillies

It appeared that these verbal behaviours might have emerged, partially, from
the dialogic exchanges the students participated in with their teachers where they
were alternatively challenged and prompted to think more deeply and clearly
about the issues under discussion. Brown and Palincsar (1988) and Palincsar and
Herrenkohl (2002) proposed that when teachers use these strategies in very
explicit ways to enhance children’s comprehension of text, children begin to
anticipate what they may encounter, integrate the new information with prior
knowledge, and develop new understandings. The teachers’ mediated-learning
interactions may have triggered an expectation in the students that sensitised
them to the need to provide more explanations and detailed responses to other
students’ requests for help or perceived need for help.
The multidirectional dialogic exchanges that occurred in the cooperative groups
among the students and with their teachers may also have occurred because
students understood how they were to negotiate the group task. While the group
tasks tended to be open and discovery-based in both conditions, the students in the
cooperative groups had a clear understanding of the expectations that they were
required to exchange information and ideas and work constructively together to
find a solution to the problem at hand. In these groups, students demonstrated high
levels of participation as they interacted in an environment that encouraged their
contributions and validated their efforts (Gillies 2003b; Turner et al. 2002). In
contrast, expectations for the group task were not as clearly defined in the group-
work only groups where members often functioned independently of others
because their groups lacked the structure and direction of their cooperative
counterparts.
It is clear that when teachers establish cooperative learning in their classrooms
they create well-structured and self-directed groups and it is this organisational
feature that affects the way they interact with their students. In these groups,
students are task-focused so the interactions with their teachers are designed to
assist and promote their understanding of the task. This contrasts to the group-work
only condition where teachers may establish similar small groups but they appear
to lack the structure and direction of their cooperative counterparts. In these groups,
teachers and students do not engage as often in the reciprocal dialogues that are
evident in the cooperative groups and students are less interactive with each other
than their cooperative peers.

12.11 Conclusion

The study showed that teachers who establish cooperative learning in their class-
rooms engage in more mediated-learning behaviours than teachers who establish
small group-work only groups. Moreover, when students work in cooperative
groups where teachers use more facilitative, learning behaviours, they too are more
helpful and facilitative of each other’s learning than students who work in groups
where cooperative learning is not widely endorsed. The study provides strong


support for the thesis that the organisational structure of the classroom affects the
way teachers interact with their students.

12.12 Study Two: Teachers’ and Students’ Discourse During
Cooperative Learning

Background to the study. This study (Gillies 2004) built on earlier work by seeking
to determine if teachers who implemented cooperative learning could be trained to
use specific communication skills to facilitate teachers’ and students’ discourses
during cooperative learning. Although there is a wealth of research that demon-
strates that children can be taught various dialoguing scripts and questioning tech-
niques to promote thinking and understanding during peer learning (see Fuchs et al.
1997; King 1999; O’Donnell 1999; Palincsar 1999), there is less information
available on how these skills are employed by teachers during cooperative learning.
Moreover, although the role of high-quality interactions (i.e., giving explanations)
in enhancing learning in cooperative groups is widely acknowledged (Webb and
Farivar 1999; Webb and Mastergeorge 2003), documenting the role teachers play
in challenging children’s thinking and scaffolding their learning has been some-
what neglected. This is quite surprising given that Schulz et al. (2000) found that
when teachers were required to use specific evaluation criteria that specified how
students were to engage in subject matter investigations and integrate different
intellectual skills into the task, they focused on more academic-content talk, gave
more specific feedback, and were more likely to elicit more evaluative comments
from their students than teachers who were not given the evaluation criteria. In
short, the evaluation criteria changed the way teachers talked to their students
which, in turn, helped students to provide more well-reasoned responses.
Although this study did not investigate the effects of teacher talk on student
interactions or learning, it does provide some interesting insights into the potential for
teacher discourse to mediate students’ interactions during cooperative learning. Given
that more able others (i.e., children or adults) scaffold children’s learning through
social interaction (Vygotsky 1978), it seems logical to assume that teachers are also
likely to do so when they are involved in implementing cooperative learning where
they have been found to engage in more facilitative interactions with their students
than teachers in whole-class settings (Hertz-Lazarowitz and Shachar 1990).
This study aimed to compare teachers’ and students’ discourse in classrooms
where teachers had been trained to implement cooperative learning in addition to
specific communication strategies (cooperative-interactional condition) to class-
rooms where teachers had been trained to implement cooperative learning only
(cooperative condition). Eleven elementary schools in Brisbane, Australia, participated
in the study. All the schools had a similar socio-demographic profile so they were
randomly allocated to one of two conditions; the cooperative-interactional condition
(six schools) or the cooperative condition (five schools) so all teachers in the one
school were in the same condition.

250 R. M. Gillies

Thirty teachers from grades 4 to 6 in the above schools agreed to participate in
the study and to embed cooperative learning into one unit of their social science
curriculum (i.e., 4–6 weeks) once a term for two terms. All teachers were respected
and experienced by their colleagues for their classroom organisational skills, their
commitment to enhancing their professional skills, and their willingness to trial
new pedagogical practices in their classrooms. Both the cooperative-interactional
and the cooperative conditions had a similar mix of experienced and less experi-
enced teachers.
Two hundred and forty students from the above teachers’ classrooms agreed to
participate in the study and have their group discussions audiotaped. However,
because of absences on the day the research team visited the schools, the final data
set was 208 students. Stratified random assignment of students to groups within
classes was used ensure that all groups consisted on one high-ability student, two
medium-ability students, and one low-ability student. While there is evidence that
no one form of grouping is more advantageous than others, low-ability students do
benefit from interacting with higher ability children and high-ability students are
not disadvantaged by working in mixed-ability groups (Lou et al. 1996).

12.13 Training in Communication Skills

Although teachers in both the cooperative-interactional and cooperative conditions
received training in how to establish cooperative learning in their classrooms
(discussed previously in Study 1), only the teachers in the cooperative-interactional
condition received additional training in the communication skills designed to
challenge children’s thinking and promote learning. These included the skills of
reflecting meaning (e.g., “It sounds as if …”), validating efforts and focusing on key
issues (i.e., “You’ve worked well together. I wonder what you may need to do now
to find a solution?”), reframing statements to help students consider an alternative
perspective (i.e., “You’re saying that it’s far too difficult, yet I notice that you’ve
already recorded one possible solution”), and tentatively offering suggestions (i.e.,
“I wonder if you’ve considered … ?”). These skills, which are commonly used in
counselling, are designed to challenge students’ understandings and perspectives
with the intention of helping them to focus more clearly on the problem at hand
(Egan 2002). It has been argued that teachers need to model the use of questioning,
reasoning, and problem-solving strategies if students are to learn how to engage in
high-level discussions during small-group work (King 1999).
Teachers’ verbal behaviours. The observation schedule used in this study is
described previously in Study 1. Once again, teachers’ verbal behaviours were coded
according to frequency across each recorded class session which lasted 45 minutes.
Students’ verbal behaviours. The observation schedule used in this study is
described previously in Study 1. Verbal behaviours were coded according to
frequency across each observed lesson.
Learning outcomes questionnaire. The learning outcomes questionnaire enabled
teachers to gauge the extent to which the children were building understandings and


making connections between information discussed during their cooperative learning
experiences. It consisted of a set of generic questions stems, based on Bloom’s
(1956) taxonomy that was originally developed by King (1991) and modified by
Gillies and Ashman (1996, 1998). The questions stems were arranged according to
level of complexity from those that asked children to recall basic factual details
through to those that required children to analyse and integrate information or
propose solutions.
Questions that tapped basic recall of facts generally began with the following
sentence stems: “What is … ?” “How many … ?” In contrast, questions that were
highly complex and required students to evaluate multiple sources of information
usually began with the following sentence stems: “Discuss the pros and cons of …”
or “Select and justify ….” Students were assigned a learning outcomes score of
1–6 depending on the highest level of response they were able to successfully
complete.
The advantage of using this type of measure to tap children’s learning was that
it allowed teachers to construct a learning outcomes measure that was authentic and
relevant to the unit of work the children had completed. That is, the questionnaire
covered equivalent content and an appropriate range of material within the work
unit and it accurately reflected all six response levels.

12.14 Procedure

As with the first study described earlier, the teachers were audiotaped once during
each of the two social science curriculum units in which cooperative learning
strategies were embedded. Once again, the audiotaping occurred in the last 2
weeks of each unit of work and the teachers wore an audio-microphone and were
taped for the full class period. Two student groups were also identified and taped
during these class periods by placing a cassette player with a directional micro-
phone on the table to capture the students’ discussions. Additionally, ten learning
outcomes questionnaires were collected from each class at the completion of the
second work unit.

12.15 Results

Teachers’ verbal behaviours. The data collected on the teachers’ verbal behaviours
were analysed and significant differences were found with teachers in the cooperative-
interactional condition recording more questions (effect size = + 0.57) and
mediated-learning behaviours (effect size = + 0.50) than their cooperative peers. In
contrast, teachers in the cooperative condition recorded more of the following
behaviours: control behaviours (effect size = + 0.22), disciplinary comments (effect
size = 0.62), encouraging behaviours (effect size = + 0.16), and maintenance
behaviours (effect size = + 0.56).

252 R. M. Gillies

Students’ verbal behaviours. Similarly, data collected on the students’ verbal
behaviours were analysed and significant differences were found with children
in the cooperative-interactional condition recording more elaborations (effect
size = + 0.23), questions (effect size = + 0.23), and short answer responses
(effect size = + 0.69) than their peers in the cooperative condition. In contrast,
the children in the cooperative condition recorded more engaging behaviour
(effect size = + 0.65).
Learning outcomes questionnaire. The students’ scores on the learning outcome
questionnaire were analysed and while there were significant differences between
the two conditions, with children in the cooperative-interactional condition obtaining
higher learning outcomes, the effect size (+0.02) was very small, limiting the
educational significance of the result.

12.16 Discussion

This study sought to compare the effects of the two conditions on teachers’
verbal behaviours during cooperative learning. It also sought to compare the verbal
behaviours of the students in the two conditions. The study ran over two school
terms and teachers were required to embed cooperative learning into one unit
of work for each term. The results show that the teachers in the cooperative-
interactional condition who had been trained to implement specific communi-
cation strategies that were designed to challenge children’s thinking and
scaffold their learning asked more questions and used more mediated-learning
behaviours than their peers in the cooperative condition. In contrast, the teach-
ers in the cooperative condition engaged in more disciplinary comments and
used more maintenance language than the teachers in the cooperative-interac-
tional condition.
Although the teachers in the cooperative-interactional condition not only
asked more questions than their cooperative peers, they also increased their
questioning behaviour over the study which was somewhat surprising, given the
emphasis that had been placed on asking questions that probed and challenged
children’s thinking rather than those that elicited short and unelaborated
responses. However, Turner et al. (2002) argued that this type of verbal behav-
iour can be effective if used in combination with instructional scaffolding
such as occurred in this study when teachers engaged in mediated-learning
behaviours.
This type of questioning, in conjunction with instructional scaffolding, is dem-
onstrated in the following teacher-student dialogue where the teacher asked a
closed question (one that elicited a short answer response) that was followed by a
probe, designed to help the students focus more intently on the issue at hand:
1. Teacher: What have you got here? (referring to the work the students are
doing)
2. Students: Our diorama (short answer response)


3. Teacher: I wonder if you’ve considered including this information as part of
your presentation? (Teacher posing a tentative question to help students consider
additional information needed)
4. Student: We though of that and we were going to try and put it in here ‘cause we
though it would fit better. We think it’s better to show it here with this (pointing
to picture of graph) so people can understand what it means.
In the above dialogue, the teacher begins by asking a closed question (Turn 1) to
which the students respond with a short answer (Turn 2). The teacher then probes
the children’s thinking by asking a tentative question to see if they had considered
all the information (Turn 3). This question stimulates a detailed and well-reasoned
response that demonstrates that the students had considered alternative ways of
presenting the information.
It appeared that the mediated-learning behaviour that the teacher used helped to
set up a sequence of reciprocal interactions between the teacher and her students
that stimulated their thinking and problem-solving strategies. Interestingly, teachers
in the cooperative-interactional condition engaged in over 30% more interactions
with their student groups than the teachers in the cooperative condition. It may be
that training teachers to use specific communication skills heightened their sensitiv-
ity to the way they interacted with their students so they realised the importance of
probing, scaffolding, and challenging children’s thinking.
The frequency of the dialogic exchange that occurred between the teachers and
students in the cooperative-interactional condition appeared to make students
acutely perceptive of the importance of being more responsive to other group members
needs and, in so doing, they modelled many of the verbal behaviours they had heard
their teachers demonstrate in their interactions with them.
This modelling is illustrated in the following dialogue that is a small part of a
continuous discussion that occurred in one of the small groups in the cooperative-
interactional condition. In the exchange reported below, the students are discussing
an information report they are writing on king penguins:
Student 1: What do you think about this? I wrote down …
Student 2: That’s pretty good (Encouragement by student of another’s efforts). What are
you going to write down? (Challenge to another student to identify what he is going to
contribute)
Student 1: What are you doing? (Student challenges another student’s contribution to the
group)
Student 3: I found (king penguins) go further north – north of Antarctica. Enemies would
be? What do you reckon enemies would be? (Challenge to group’s thinking) (Response is
not clear)
Student 4: Yeah! That’s what I’m thinking (validation of idea). It has many enemies. Put
many enemies (All students engage in a vibrant discussion about predators)
Student 1: Was any other features? Yeah! Any other features? What do you reckon? (Seeks
group’s opinion on other information to be included)

In the above dialogue, the students used a number of verbal behaviours that their
teacher had demonstrated in her interactions with them. For example, they sought
each other’s opinion on ideas or information: What do you think about this? and

254 R. M. Gillies

encouraged each other: That’s pretty good; and challenged the group’s thinking:
What do you reckon enemies would be? These types of interactions occurred many
times over as the students challenged each others’ perspectives, validated and
acknowledged each other’s efforts, and actively sought the ideas of others – models
of interacting that their teachers had demonstrated with them.
It has been suggested that children probably learn new ways of thinking and
talking by listening to teachers’ model these types of verbal behaviours in their
interactions with students (Cohen et al. 2002). Moreover, when teachers are explicit
in the types of thinking they want children to engage in, it encourages students, in
turn, to be more explicit in the types of help they provide to each other during group
discussions. This is particularly important because it is the quality of the talk that
students generate that is a significant predictor of student learning (King 2002;
Webb and Farivar 1999). This certainly happened in this study with the students in
the cooperative-interactional condition obtaining higher learning outcome scores
than their peers in the cooperative condition, and although the small effect size
limits the interpretation placed on the result, the trend was positive.

12.17 Theoretical and Practical Implications

The major theoretical and practical implications that emerged from the two studies
were evident in the effect cooperative learning has on teachers’ and students’ discourse
and in the role that teachers play in the social construction of knowledge at both the
intra- and inter-personal level for the students they teach.
The first study demonstrated support for Hertz-Lazarowitz’s and Shachar’s
(1990) thesis that the organisational structure of the classroom affects the way
teachers interact with their students. This is not surprising given that those authors
argued that there are four inter-dependent dimensions in the classroom, the organi-
sational structure, the learning task, the students’ academic and social skills, and
the teacher’s instructional style, so that changes in one dimension are likely to
affect changes in other dimensions simultaneously. Hence, in classrooms where
cooperative learning is endorsed, students work in small groups on complex tasks
that require them to exchange ideas and share information and resources as they
work on solving the problem at hand. When this happens, the centrality of the
teacher is reduced as students become more personally active in their dialogic
exchanges which are more intimate, spontaneous, and creative as they work to
socially construct joint understandings and learning.
In this type of classroom, Hertz-Lazarowitz and Shachar (1990) found that
teachers act as facilitators of learning rather than dispensers of knowledge so when
they encounter small, cooperative groups rather than whole classes or large groups,
they radically increase their prosocial instructional behaviours and drastically
decrease their negative ones. Interestingly, Study 1 found that when teachers
engage in dialogic exchanges with students in cooperative groups, they engage in


more mediated-learning and questioning behaviours designed to challenge and
scaffold students’ thinking and learning and students, in turn, model many of these
behaviours in their interactions with each other, providing more elaborations, direc-
tions, and short answer responses, or verbal behaviours that are generally regarded
as more helpful and supportive of group endeavours.
There is no doubt that teachers play a key role in the social construction of
knowledge at both the inter-personal (Vygotsky 1978) and intra-personal level
(Piaget 1950) and while teachers did this in both studies reported here, it was more
apparent in the second study that had a learning outcomes measure. The mediated-
learning interactions that the teachers used were designed to not only scaffold
students’ learning but also to prompt meaningful cognitive and metacognitive
thinking about their problem-solving activities. Moreover, because the teachers
used language that was tentative and inviting, they were able to scaffold or mediate
potential learning while also challenging students’ thinking and encouraging them
to consider alternative perspectives (King 2002). When teachers interact in this
way, they not only introduce students to new patterns of thought but also new ways
of resolving perturbations and making decisions. It has been suggested that children
probably learn new ways of thinking and talking by listening to teachers model
these behaviours in their interactions with students (Cohen et al. 2002; see King, this
volume). Moreover, Rojas-Drummond et al. (2003) were able to demonstrate that
children obtain particular benefits in reasoning and learning from dialoguing when
there is careful integration of teacher-led discourse and peer interaction. Furthermore,
this is something teachers must be willing to do if they are to ensure that the social
pedagogic potential of classroom group work is to be fully realised (Blatchford
et al. 2003).
In summary, there is no doubt that cooperative learning positively affects how
teachers interact with their students and how students, in turn, interact with each
other. In such classrooms, teachers are more friendly and intimate and are more
likely to engage in mediated-learning and questioning behaviours than teachers
who work in classrooms where cooperative learning is not established. Furthermore,
teachers’ discourse is enhanced when they are taught specific communication skills
designed to scaffold and challenge students’ thinking and learning.

References

Antil, L., Jenkins, J., Wayne, S., & Vadasy, P. (1998). Cooperative learning: Prevalence, concep-
tualizations, and the relation between research and practice. American Educational Research
Journal, 35, 419–454.
Baines, E., Blatchford, P., & Kutnick, P. (2003). Changes in grouping practices over primary and
secondary school. International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 9–34.
Blatchford, P., Kutnick, P., & Galton, M. (2003). Towards a social pedagogy of classroom group.
Bloom, B., Engelhart, M., Furst, E., Hill, W., & Krathwohl, D. (1956). Taxonomy of educational
objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook 1: Cognitive domain. New
York: David Mckay.

256 R. M. Gillies

Brown, A., & Palincsar, A. (1988). Guided, cooperative learning and individual knowledge
acquisition. In L. Resnick (Ed.), Cognition and instruction: Issues and agendas. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cohen, E. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review
Cohen, E., Lotan, R., Abram, P., Scarloss, B., & Schultz, S. (2002). Can groups learn? Teachers
College Record, 104, 1045–1068.
Chinn, C., O’Donnell, A., & Jinks, T. (2000). The structure of discourse in collaborative learning.
The Journal of Experimental Education, 69, 77–89.
Egan, G. (2002). The skilled helper: A problem-management and opportunity-development
approach to helping (7th edn.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Fuchs, L., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C., Phillips, N., Karns, K., & Dutka, S. (1997). Enhancing students’
helping behavior with conceptual mathematical explanations. The Elementary School Journal,
97, 223–249.
Galton, M., Hargreves, L., Comber, C., Wall, D., & Pell, T. (1999). Changes in patterns of teacher
interaction in primary classrooms: 1976–1996. British Educational Research Journal, 25, 23–37.
Gillies, R. (2003a). Structuring cooperative group work in classrooms. International Journal of
Gillies, R. (2003b). The behaviours, interactions, and perceptions of junior high school students
during small-group learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 137–147.
Gillies, R. (2004). The effects of communication training on teachers’ and students’ verbal behaviours
during cooperative learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 41, 257–279.
Gillies, R. (2006). Teachers’ and students’ verbal behaviours during cooperative and small-group
learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 271–287.
Gillies, R., & Ashman, A. (1996). Teaching collaborative skills to primary school children in
classroom-based work groups. Learning and Instruction, 6, 187–200.
Gillies, R., & Ashman, A. (1998). Behavior and interactions of children in cooperative groups in
lower and middle elementary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 746–757.
Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., & Shachar, H. (1990). Teachers’ verbal behaviour in cooperative and
whole-class instruction. In S. Sharan (Ed.), Cooperative learning: Theory and research (pp.
77–94). New York: Praeger.
Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (2003). Student motivation in cooperative groups: Social interdependence
theory. In R. Gillies & A. Ashman (Eds.), Cooperative learning: The social and intellectual
outcomes of learning in groups (pp. 136–176). London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1990). Cooperative learning and achievement. In S. Sharan (Ed.),
Cooperative learning: Theory and research (pp. 23–37). New York: Praeger.
King, A. (1991). Improving lecture comprehension: Effects of a metacognitive strategy. Applied
Cognitive Psychology, 5, 331–346.
King, A. (1999). Discourse patterns for mediating peer learning. In A. O’Donnell & A. King (Eds.),
Cognitive perspectives on peer learning (pp. 87–115). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
King, A. (2002). Structuring peer interaction to promote high-level cognitive processing. Theory
into Practice, 41, 33–40.
Kohn, A. (1992). Resistance to cooperative learning: Making sense of its deletion and dilution.
Journal of Education, 174, 38–55.
Meloth, M., & Deering, P. (1999). The role of the teacher in promoting cognitive processing during
collaborative learning. In A. O’Donnell & A. King (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on peer
learning (pp. 235–255). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Mercer, N. (1996). The quality of talk in children’collaborative activity in the classroom. Learning
Mercer, N., Wegerif, R., & Dawes, L. (1999). Children’s talk and the development of reasoning
in the classroom. British Educational Research Journal, 25, 95–111.
Lou, Y., Abrami, P., Spence, J., Poulsen, C., Chambers, B., & d’Apollonia, S. (1996). Within-class
grouping: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66, 423–458.


O’Donnell, A. (1999). Structuring dyadic interaction through scripted cooperation. In A. O’Donnell
& A. King (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on peer learning (pp. 179–196). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Palincsar, A. (1999). Designing collaborative contexts: lessons from three research programs. In
A. O’Donnell & A. King (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on peer learning (pp. 151–177).
Palinscar, A., & Herrenkohl, L. (2002). Designing collaborative contexts. Theory into Practice,
41, 26–35.
Patrick, H., Anderman, L., Ryan, A., Edelin, K., & Midgley, C. (2001). Teachers’ communication of
goal orientation in four fifth-grade classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 102, 35–58.
Piaget, J. (1950). The psychology of intelligence. London: Routledge & Kegan.
Rojas-Drummond, S., Perez, V., Velez, M., Gomez, L., & Mendoza, A. (2003). Talking for reasoning
among Mexican primary school children. Learning and Instruction, 13, 653–670.
Schulz, S., Scarloss, B., Lotan, R., Abram, P., Cohen, E., & Holthuis, N. (2000). Let’s give ‘em
somethin’ to talk about: Teachers talk to students in open-ended group tasks. Paper presented
at AERA Annual Meeting, New Orleans, LA.
Shachar, H., & Sharan, S. (1994). Talking, relating, and achieving: Effects of cooperative learning
and whole-class instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 12, 313–353.
Sharan, S., Shachar, H., Levine, T. (1999). The innovative school: Organization and instruction.
Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.
Turner, J., Midgley, C., Meyer, D., Gheen, M., Anderman, E., & Kang, Y. (2002). The classroom
environment and students’ reports of avoidance strategies in mathematics: A multimethod
study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 88–106.
Turner, J., & Patrick, H. (2004). Motivational influences on student participation in classroom
learning activities. Teachers College record, 106, 1759–1785.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Webb, N., & Farivar, S. (1999). Developing productive group interaction in middle school mathematics.
In A. O’Donnell & A. King (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on peer learning (pp. 117–150).
Webb, N., & Mastergeorge, A. (2003). Promoting effective helping in peer-directed groups.
Wegerif, R., Mercer, N., & Dawes, L. (1999). From social interaction to individual reasoning: An
empirical investigation of a possible socio-cultural model of cognitive development. Learning

Concluding Remarks


There is a large body of research literature that provides substantial evidence of the
effectiveness of cooperative learning as a pedagogical practice that promotes
socialization and learning in students with diverse learning and adjustment needs
across different age levels. While much of the research has focused on the benefits
students derive from participating in cooperative activities, scant mention has been
made of the key role that teachers play in implementing cooperative pedagogy in
their classrooms. The purpose of the chapters in this volume has been to address
this omission by highlighting what teachers need to know and do to ensure that
cooperative learning is implemented effectively in their classrooms. The chapters
were grouped so that those which addressed theoretical perspectives of how
students learn in groups were presented first (Chap. 1–3) followed by those that
highlighted the different ways in which teachers can structure interactions among
group members (Chap. 4–9). Finally, the remaining chapters focused on the role
that teachers play in facilitating students’ interactions (Chap. 10–12).
Understanding the key role theory plays in helping to explain how and why
students cooperate in small groups is crucial for guiding research and practice. To
date, among the most prominent theoretical perspectives already mentioned in the
Introduction of this book and elaborated in subsequent chapters, Moreton Deutsch’s
Social Interdependence theory is significant (see chapter by Johnson & Johnson).
This theory not only offers explanations of why students are motivated to work
together but also identifies the benefits they derive from cooperative experiences,
including greater efforts to achieve, improved social relationships, and an enhanced
sense of competence.
Although Social Interdependence theory underpins much of the research on
cooperative learning, two other perspectives have been proposed in this volume that
contributes to our theoretical understanding of how students learn and construct
knowledge together. The first is the critical pedagogical perspective which Hertz-
Lazarowitz argues has the potential to change how teachers teach and children
learn. The second is the social pedagogic approach of Baines and colleagues that
examines the relationship among group size, composition, learning tasks, supportive
interactions with peers and teachers, and the training students undertake to work
effectively in groups. Understanding the contributions that these theoretical

Concluding Remarks 259

perspectives make are critical for helping to extend our knowledge of how classroom
social contexts may promote or inhibit social interaction and learning.
Having students work successfully in groups is also very dependent on how
teachers structure the interactions that occur within classrooms and in other teaching-
learning contexts. A number of chapters in this volume propose different ways in
which these interactions can be facilitated by providing children with examples of
questions that encourage them to probe and interrogate information, link previous
understandings to new information, and use these new understandings to co-
construct new knowledge and solve problems (see chapters by King, Webb, & Ross).
In other chapters, authors highlight how specific interrogation strategies can be
embedded in curriculum content to enhance students’ understanding and learning
(see chapters by Stevens, Huber & Huber, & Prinsen et al.). Emphasis is placed on
the role that teachers play in this process, including ways in which they can facilitate
learning through the provision of opportunities for students to work on complex,
relevant, open-ended tasks that promote discussion and challenge students’ thinking.
At this point, it is important to realize that curriculum domains (e.g., mathematics
or world orientation) have their own, unique possibilities for cooperative learning.
For instance, cooperative learning in mathematics provides new ways to adapt
teaching and learning to individual differences among students. The work of the
Dutch mathematician, Hans Freudenthal, inspired many researchers to design and
investigate cooperative learning in heterogeneous groups of four. His work is an
example of how to look at individual differences as a resource instead of a hin-
drance for teachers of mathematics (Gravemeijer & Terwel 2000; Terwel 1990,
2003). Hence, it is argued that cooperative learning approaches cannot simply be
applied in whatever domain of study. In designing cooperative learning environ-
ments the small group interaction needs always to be viewed in relation to the
curricular content and the specific classroom context. Attention is also directed at
the importance of ensuring that teachers provide engaging and responsive instruction
that addresses the personal and social needs of the students in their classrooms.
This is no more apparent than in the chapter by Ashman who recounts the diffi-
culties that students with high support needs often face when they are included in
regular classes where they are often provided with few supports to assist their learning.
Students with high support needs include those who have severe emotional or
behavioural difficulties, life-threatening medical conditions, and those with severe
and profound intellectual disabilities. Ashman argues that for these children, special
classes or special educational programs are often more appropriate for their specific
needs, given that the research on the achievements of children with high support
needs with peer-mediated learning experiences is equivocal.
Of particular note, teachers should be aware that the research on the effects of
peer-mediated learning on students with high support needs has been less extensive
than for normally achieving students and often investigators have employed small
samples. In addition, interventions have been relatively short. These factors often
contribute to perceptions of the limited educational significance and generalization
of peer-mediated interventions. Being aware of the limitations of the research on
peer-mediated learning, especially for students with high support needs, is important


when teachers are determining how and when these students can best be supported
in a range of teaching-learning environments.
Although there are limitations on the use of peer-mediated learning with some
groups of students with high support needs, this does not appear to be the case with
minority group students for whom English is a second language. Lotan clearly
demonstrated how students can develop oral and written proficiency in academic
and linguistically heterogeneous classrooms where they are able to interact with
others. She argues that exposing students to linguistically rich environments where
they can participate in discussions and negotiations with peers and teachers is critical
for developing language proficiency. Moreover, she argues that teachers need to
provide students with opportunities to use language actively and frequently as they
work interdependently on tasks with others. Furthermore, teachers must be mindful
of the importance of monitoring students’ discussions, facilitating and scaffolding
their learning. In effect, Lotan argues that the classroom social context is critically
important for promoting second language learning.
There is no doubt that students learn from interacting with their peers. Webb
drew attention to the need for students to understand not only how to provide quality
help but also ensure that it is provided it in a way that students perceive as being
relevant and timely. Research clearly indicates that the benefits of receiving help
are maximized when students requesting help receive explanations that are appro-
priately detailed, salient to the context, and applicable to the problems they are
confronting.
While learning to give explanations in response to requests for help is important
if learning is to occur, Ross argued that children rarely give explanations and when
they do, the quality of the explanation often does not contribute to the help seeker’s
learning. The challenge for teachers is to find ways of helping students to increase
the frequency of high quality explanations. Suggestions for how this can be
achieved are documented in his chapter.
Finally, Gillies reminds us of the important role that teachers play in the cooper-
ative learning process. While it has often been assumed that the teacher should
adopt a non-interventionist role, research reported in her chapter clearly demon-
strates that cooperative learning provides teachers with many opportunities to
model appropriate helping behaviors that students, in turn, will model and use in
their interactions with each other to facilitate discussion and learning.
While the contributors to this volume have provided some explanations on how
students learn when they cooperate and how teachers play a key role in promoting
this learning, there are still many unanswered questions that need further investigation
if these issues are to be fully explicated. This includes additional research on both
the critical and social pedagogical perspectives that are informing the development
of theory, ways in which cooperative learning can be designed for different curricula
content and classroom contexts, including how it can be used for students with high
support needs, and the issues teachers confront, both personally and pragmatically,
when they adopt a cooperative learning approach to meet the personal and social
needs of students in their classrooms. Such research will make invaluable contribu-
tions to informing teachers’ professional practices in schools.

Concluding Remarks 261

References

Gravemeijer, K. & Terwel, J. (2000) Hans Freudenthal: A mathematician on didactics and curriculum
theory. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32, 777–796.
Terwel, J. (1990). Real maths in cooperative groups in secondary education. In N. Davidson (Ed.),
Cooperative learning in mathematics (pp. 228–264). Menlo Park: Addison-Wesley.
Terwel, J. (2003). Cooperative learning in secondary education: A curriculum perspective. In
R. M. Gillies & A. F. Ashman (Eds.). Cooperative learning: The social and intellectual
outcomes of learning in groups (pp. 54–68). London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Index

A requesting for explanations, 211–212
African Americans and learning ability, 174 response to students, 212–213
ALASH. See Israeli program for literacy student behavior assessment, 208–209
development style of instruction, 215–216
ASK to THINK-TEL WHY®©, 79 theoretical perspectives, 203–204
Communication skills training, 250, 251
B Complex learning in groups cognitive activi-
Baden-Württemberg school law, 111 ties, 74–78
Bloom’s taxonomy, 251 Computer Skills Scale (CSS), 142
Brisbane, Australia high schools cooperative Computer Supported Collaborative Learning
and small-group learning study, (CSCL) program
243, 244 methodology
computer supported lessons, 139–140
C feedback and evaluation, 140–141
California Achievement Test, 104 lesson introduction, 138–139
California’s Central Valley, 185. See also outline of program, 137–138
Language acquisition, in complex program evaluation result
environment comparison of group scores, 158–159
Coexistence-related workshop, 49 description and analysis of group A,
Cognitive activities and processes, 75 144–152
Cognitive development, 192 description and analysis of group B,
Cognitive scientists, 192 152–158
Cohen’s sociological expectation states theory, research design
135 instruments and procedures, 141–142
Collaborative learning approach, 112 student characteristics and prerequi-
Collaborative peer learning environments sites, 142
group dynamics student opinion, 143
advantage of receiving explanations, student participation measures,
206–207 143–144
relationship between help-seeker and teacher feedback, 142–143
help receiver, 204–206 role of conﬂict, 135–136
teacher practices in, study theoretical framework, 134–136
background, 207–208 Control behaviours, 251
exploration of students’ conceptions Cooperative base groups, 31–32
and misconceptions, 214–215 Cooperative learning, 2, 10
giving out explanations, 210 in classrooms, 241–243
modeling of explanations, 213–214 groups
question-asking behavior, promotion beneﬁts for teachers, 223, 234–235
of, 209–210 instructional challenges

264 Index

Cooperative learning, 2, 10 (Continued) Group dynamics
lack of beneficial talks, 224 advantage of receiving explanations,
quality of student explanations, 206–207
225–227 relationship between help-seeker and help
requesting explanations, 224–225 receiver, 204–206
student abilities, 224 Group interaction and learning,
instructional strategies 74–75
assignment of learning roles within Group members cognitive processes, 75
groups, 233–234 Group processing, 25–26
direct teaching, of help seeking/giv- “Group-worthy” tasks, 187–188, 191
ing, 227–230 Guided Reciprocal Peer Questioning,
improved teacher interventions, 73–74, 78
231–233 effectiveness of, 84–85
improving classroom environment, learner control role, 88
230–231 metacognition role, 87–88
observation schedule of teachers’ applica- question starters role, 85–87
tion of, 245, 246 and self-regulated learning, 89
teacher role in, 26 strategies, 79–81
teachers’ discourse, 241–243 and teaching, 81–84
training in, 244–245
Cooperative lesson planning form, 28 H
Crook’s concept of co-construction, 136 Help-related behavior. See Collaborative peer
learning environments
D Hertz-Lazarowitz’s and Shachar’s thesis, 254
Direct teaching, of help seeking/giving Heterogeneous classrooms
I-R-E model, 230 language acquisition, 189–193
self-assessment training, 229 in complex environment, 193–198
Veenman’s model, 229 teaching and learning, 186–189
High school tutoring project, 83, 84
E High-status students, 135
Early intermediate level (ESL) programs, 194
Encouraging behaviours, 251 I
English language placement test, 185 Inclusive education practices
English second language, 185 benefits and disadvantages of, 177–178
importance of peer-mediated learning
F approaches, 167–169
Feedback and evaluation lesson, for collabora- learning outcomes
tive environment, 140–141 emotional and behavior disordered
Formal cooperative learning students, 170–171
instructional task and cooperative gifted and talented students,
structure, 29 175–176
teacher role in, 26 learning difficulties, students with, 170
minority students, 173–174
G other disabilities, students with,
GI method, 41 171–173
Golden rules for learning, 139 success of, 165–167
Graesser’s constructionist theory of Individual accountability, 22–23
comprehension, 75 Inducibility actions of person, 12
Group accountability, 22 Informal cooperative learning, 29–31
Group activities Interdependence theory, 134
argumentation and, 77–78 Investigative Task Forums (ITFs), 50
cognition modeling and metacognition, 78 Israeli program for literacy development, 39
concepts and processes explaination, 75, 76
issues elaboration, 77 K
thought-provoking questions and, 76, 77 Kintsch’s construction-integration theory, 75

Index 265

L School-family partnership teacher role, 48
Language acquisition School year macro attainment, 64–66
in complex environment, study report Secondary level English learners, 185
classroom experiences, 196–197 Second language acquisition (SLA) research,
ﬁndings, 197–198 189–190
student achievement data, 195–196 Self-organized learning (SOL) in teams,
in heterogenous classrooms, 189–193 122–126
Learning and teaching space physical Six mirrors of classroom model, 39, 44
organization, 45 academic and social communication and
Literacy-related behaviors, 47–48
workshop, 49 learning tasks, 46
Literature-related activities, 97 physical organization of learning and
teaching space, 45–46
M teachers role in, 46
Maintenance behaviours, 251 Skill-builders, 187
Memory/review questions, 81 Slavin’s motivational theory, 134
Metacognition, 87 Small group and interpersonal skills, 244
Micro science attainment, 66 Small groups learning
Middle level education cooperative learning external organization of, 112–114
and literacy instruction, 92–94 individual organization of, 119–121
middle school literacy instruction, 94–96 internal organization of, 116
Middle school english learners, 185 structuring interactions in, 116–119
task specialization and, 114
N Social interdependence theory, 10, 11
Negative interdependence, 11 interaction patterns, 12, 13
Newly-arrived immigrants, 185 psychological processes, 12
Social Pedagogic Research into Group Work
O project, 61
Oppositional interaction, 13 approaches of, 62
Oral proﬁciency, in second language, 185 classroom context for group work prepara-
tion, 62–63
P implementation and evaluation of, 63, 64
Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies ( PALS), teachers role in, 63
169–170 Social psychological validation research
Peer-based learning. See Collaborative peer characteristics of, 13–15
learning environments competitive/individualistic efforts study,
Peer-mediated learning, 1 13–15
Positive cathexis, actions of person, 12 psychological health, 18, 19
Positive interdependence, 11, 19, 21–22 relationships of students and students and
Positive task interdependence, 244 faculty, 16–18
Productivity-positive interdependence, 21 Social studies register, 192
Product-orientated approach, 112 Socio-cognitive learning theory, 74
Promotive interaction, 12–13, 23–24 Standard Progressive Matrices test, 142
Pupil behaviour and interactions STRW. See Student Team Reading and
attitudes and motivation, 68 Writing
on-the-spot (OTS) observations, 66–67 Student demographics, 102
video observation analysis, 67–68 Students’ verbal behaviours, 245
Pupils grouping in classrooms, 57–61 Student Team Reading and Writing, 97
cooperative learning teams, 97, 98
R evaluation results, 104
Reciprocal teaching, 135 reading instruction, 98–100
traditional reading and english instruction
S in, 103
Sandwich principle of teaching, 122 urban middle school students, 101–103
SAT-9 tests, 195 writing instruction, 100–101

266 Index

Student Teams–Achievement Divisions mediated-learning interactions, 248
(STAD), 223 in peer learning communities (TPLC), 39
Substitutability, actions of person, 12 and Principals, preparatory training, 50, 51
and researchers, recommendations for,
T 126–128
TARRGET model for redesigning instruction, and three detaining D’s, 111
94 verbal behaviours, 245
Task-speciﬁc interactions, 112 Teacher’s role in promoting students’ dis-
Teacher practices, in collaborative peer learn- course, 240–241
ing environments Teaching and learning, in heterogeneous class-
background, 207–208 rooms, 186–189
exploration of students’ conceptions and Technological Innovative (TI) Group Investi-
misconceptions, 214–215 gation Model
giving out explanations, 210 GI model, 41
modeling of explanations, 213–214 teachers as peer learners, 40, 41
question-asking behavior, promotion of, teachers, in GI peer learning professional
209–210 development curriculum steps of, 42, 43
requesting for explanations, 211–212 TPLC curriculum and, 42
response to students, 212–213 TEL WHY explanation Guide, 80–83, 87
student behavior assessment, 208–209 Typical middle level literacy instruction, 93
style of instruction, 215–216
Teachers W
audio-taping application in cooperative Web Knowledge Forum (WKF), 137
learning, 246 Writing concept lessons, 100–101

COMPUTER-SUPPORTED COLLABORATIVE LEARNING

1. Arguing to Learn
J. Andriessen, M. Baker, D. Suthers (eds.) ISBN HB 1-4020-1382-5
2. Designing for Change in Networked Learning Environment
B. Wasson, S. Ludvigsen, U. Hoppe (eds.) ISBN HB 1-4020-1383-3
3. What We Know About CSCL
J.-W. Strijbos, P.A. Kirschner, R.L. Martens (eds.) ISBN HB 1-4020-7779-3
4. Advances in Research on Networked Learning
P. Goodyear et al. (eds.) ISBN HB 1-4020-7841-2
5. Barriers and Biases in Computer-Mediated Knowledge
Communication: And How They May Be Overcome
R. Bromme, F.W. Hesse, H. Spada (eds.) ISBN HB 0-387-24317-8
6. Scripting Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning
F. Fischer, I. Kollar, H. Mandl, J.M. Haake ISBN HB 978-0-387-36947-1
7. Dialogic Education and Technology: Expanding
the Space of Learning
Rupert Wegerif ISBN HB 978-0-387-71140-9
8. The Teacher’s Role in Implementing Cooperative
R.M. Gillies, A.F. Ashman, J. Terwel ISBN HB 978-0-387-70891-1
9. The Role of Technology in CSCL: Studies in Technology
Enhanced Collaborative Learning
H.U. Hoppe, H. Ogata, and A. Soller ISBN HB 978-0-387-71135-5

The Teacher’s Role In Implementing Cooperative Learning

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (10)

Similar to The Teacher’s Role In Implementing Cooperative Learning (20)

More from lightblue2010 (18)

The Teacher’s Role In Implementing Cooperative Learning