This article was downloaded by: [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] On: 10 December 2013, At: 07:12 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK The Journal of Educational Research Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjer20 Teacher and Student Evaluations of Cooperative Learning and Observed Interactive Behaviors Susan M. McManus a & Maribeth Gettinger a a University of Wisconsin , Madison Published online: 15 Jul 2010. To cite this article: Susan M. McManus & Maribeth Gettinger (1996) Teacher and Student Evaluations of Cooperative Learning and Observed Interactive Behaviors, The Journal of Educational Research, 90:1, 13-22, DOI: 10.1080/00220671.1996.9944439 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1996.9944439 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Transcript
This article was downloaded by: [Moskow State Univ Bibliote]On: 10 December 2013, At: 07:12Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
The Journal of Educational ResearchPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjer20
Teacher and Student Evaluations of CooperativeLearning and Observed Interactive BehaviorsSusan M. McManus a & Maribeth Gettinger aa University of Wisconsin , MadisonPublished online: 15 Jul 2010.
To cite this article: Susan M. McManus & Maribeth Gettinger (1996) Teacher and Student Evaluations of Cooperative Learningand Observed Interactive Behaviors, The Journal of Educational Research, 90:1, 13-22, DOI: 10.1080/00220671.1996.9944439
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1996.9944439
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in thepublications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representationsor warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not theviews of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses,actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoevercaused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Teacher and Student Evaluations of Cooperative Learning and Observed Interactive Behaviors SUSAN M. McMANUS MARIBETH GETTINGER University of Wisconsin-Madison
ABSTRACT Teachers’ use and evaluation of cooperative group learning were examined in this study, along with stu- dents’ reactions to working in groups and their verbal interac- tive behaviors during group activities. Teachers and students reported that cooperative learning occurs in their classrooms almost every day, with many positive academic, social, and at- titude outcomes. No evidence was found to link evaluations of cooperative learqing to overall effectiveness of implementa- tion. Observations showed that the majority of student inter- actions were directly related to teaching and learning. Behav- iors such as listening to another student or watching a student demonstrate how to complete a task occurred most frequently during group activities.
ooperative learning (CL) is a process by which stu- C dents work together in groups to “master material ini- tially presented by the teacher” (Slavin, 1990, p. 2). Accord- ing to Slavin (1990), the goal of CL is for students to help each other succeed academically. To be successful, all members in a group must achieve mastery of the material or contribute to the completion of a group assignment. Theo- retically, CL fosters a cooperative atmosphere in class- rooms, rather than a competitive one, because students are invested in each other’s learning, not just their own (Slavin, 1990). Furthermore, CL is believed to enhance cognitive skills to the extent that students share ideas and explain their thinking as they work together (Meloth, 1991).
Several goals of cooperative group learning have been identified in the literature. Two primary goals for all stu- dents are (a) to assume leadership responsibilities in the group, and (b) to participate equally and actively in the group process (Dishon & O’Leary, 1984). Additional goals of CL include fostering academic cooperation among stu- dents (Hilke, 1990; Slavin, 1983a), encouraging positive group interactions (Hilke, 1990; Johnson & Johnson, 1985), increasing academic achievement (Hilke, 1990; Johnson & Johnson, 1985; Slavin, 1983, 1991), and developing self-es- teem (Hilke, 1990; Slavin, 1991).
Specific characteristics of cooperative groups have been shown to maximize the extent to which these goals are achieved. One characteristic linked to the effectiveness of CL is heterogeneity of group members (Dishon & O’Leary, 1984; Hilke, 1990; Johnson & Johnson, 1985; Slavin, 1991). Research has shown that effective CL groups include relatively equal proportions of males and females, students with diverse socioeconomic backgrounds and academic skills, and students who represent both majority and minor- ity ethnic groups. For example, Larson and others (1984) found that students who worked on reading assignments in heterogeneous ability groups scored significantly higher on measures of main-idea recall than did students in homoge- neous groups. Larson and others (1984) concluded that working in heterogeneous groups may benefit low-ability students because they are able to observe strategies of high- ability students. Similarly, high-ability students may learn new strategies by teaching other students in the group. In a study examining helping behavior, Webb (1991) also found that groups with equal numbers of boys and girls promoted more explaining between students than did same-sex groups.
A second feature of CL related to effectiveness is reward structure. According to Slavin (1983), the success of CL is highly dependent on the underlying incentive or reward structure. There are three general types of reward structures. Students may receive (a) individual rewards for individual achievement, (b) group rewards for group achievement, or (c) group rewards for individual achievement. The third type, which is called an interdependent reward structure, has proven to be most effective (Slavin, 1983). When stu- dents’ success as individuals is dependent on the success of other group members, students are more likely to work to ensure that peers learn the material.
The use of an interdependent reward structure circum- vents many problems inherent in alternate reward struc-
Address correspondence to Susan M. McManus, 19 Olympus Drive, #3B, Naperville, IL 60S40.
13
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mos
kow
Sta
te U
niv
Bib
liote
] at
07:
12 1
0 D
ecem
ber
2013
14 The Journal of Educational Research
tures. For example, when students receive group rewards for the completion of a group product, there is no way of en- suring that all group members have learned the material. The academically strongest students may tend to take over the project to obtain a good grade. Similarly, when students are rewarded individually, they have no incentive to help other group members learn the material because their grade is not affected by anyone else’s performance. According to Johnson and Johnson (1989, “under purely cooperative conditions, an individual can attain his or her goal if and only if the other participants can attain their goals” (p. 104).
A final characteristic of CL is task structure. Two types of task structure can be incorporated into CL. Students may either participate in group study or be assigned specialized individual tasks (task specialization). With a group-study task structure, all group members work cooperatively to learn material, solve problems, or find answers to questions. In contrast, when students are given specialized tasks, they are responsible for learning a particular section of material independently and then teaching it to the rest of their group. Both task structures have been more effective than competi- tive or individualistic methods, although there is little evi- dence to suggest that one type of task structure is more ben- eficial than the other (Johnson & Johnson, 1985). Research concerning the differential effectiveness of task structures remains inconclusive because most researchers have inves- tigated only group study, not both group study and task spe- cialization. Furthermore, task structure is typically em- bedded in an interdependent reward structure. Thus, reward structure may account for positive outcomes more than task structure does.
In addition to identifying effective features of CL, re- searchers studying elementary children have documented several academic and social benefits that result from imple- menting CL techniques (Dishon & O’Leary, 1984; Hilke, 1990; Johnson & Johnson, 1985; Slavin, 1983, 1991). Al- though these researchers have focused primarily on acade- mic achievement, there is growing evidence that CL pro- motes positive affective and social outcomes as well. In their review of research, for example, Johnson and Johnson reported that for 35 out of 37 studies comparing cooperative with competitive and individualistic learning, CL promoted the most positive interpersonal relationships among stu- dents. Students specifically reported feeling liked and sup- ported by other students in their group. Johnson and John- son also found that CL promotes positive attitudes toward the subject matter and toward school in general.
According to Dishon and O’Leary (1984), another bene- fit of CL is improvement in students’ social skills, such as initiating interactions, sharing information and ideas, ask- ing questions, following directions, and staying on task. When students engage in appropriate social behaviors, they feel better about themselves and about others in their group, enjoy time spent together, and produce high-quality work. Dishon and O’Leary cautioned, however, that such benefits do not happen coincidentally. Classroom teachers must
assume primary responsibility, at least initially, to teach, ob- serve, and reinforce students for using appropriate social skills in groups. Finally, according to Slavin (1983 1990), feeling liked by peers and feeling academically competent contribute to positive self-esteem among students. Thus, the academic and social benefits of CL are likely to lead to higher self-esteem among students as well.
Despite research documenting both academic and social benefits of CL, few researchers have examined the nature of student interactions during cooperative group experiences that may contribute to these outcomes (Davidson & Kroll, 1991; Deering & Meloth, 1993). Researchers have hypothe- sized that certain interactive processes are likely to occur dur- ing CL; however, the identification of specific behaviors is often based on anecdotal data and narrative reports, rather than on systematic observations. As a result, we have little knowledge concerning verbal interactions that actually occur when CL is implemented in naturalistic classroom contexts.
Many experts have maintained that CL encourages stu- dents to engage in verbal learning behaviors, thus enhanc- ing their achievement (e.g., Webb, 1985). For example, be- cause students are required to discuss class material, oral rehearsal of information often occurs during CL. Further- more, group members facilitate learning by providing sup- port, feedback, and encouragement to one another (Johnson & Johnson, 1985). Webb (1991) examined specific task- related verbal interactions that occur during small-group ac- tivities. Two verbal processes were observed-giving help and receiving help. Giving help ranged from offering de- tailed elaborations to simply providing the answer to a problem. Webb found that when students did not understand a teacher’s explanation, peers were often able to provide ex- planations in words that were more easily understood. Webb also found, however, that the effectiveness of receiv- ing explanations from peers depended on several factors, in- cluding the relevance of the explanation given, whether the explanation was understood, and whether students had an opportunity to apply the explanation to their work.
Finally, Hythecker, Dansereau, and Rocklin ( I 988) found that CL “provides an opportunity for observational learning of reading and thinking activities, which generally are not public” (p. 3 1). Specifically, in cooperative groups, students are able to observe and model learning strategies, such as summarizing information and monitoring errors. Hythecker and others theorized that peer modeling that occurs during CL influences metacognitive skills as well as motivation.
In sum, CL is a potentially effective instructiona! ap- proach that leads to documented academic and social bene- fits. There are several combinations of structural features that teachers may use to design their cooperative groups. Specifically, groups may vary on task structure, reward structure, and heterogeneity of group members. According to Slavin ( 1 983), cooperative groups associated with the greatest benefits feature group study and an interdependent reward structure. Heterogeneity of group members has also been shown to be a characteristic of effective cooperative
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mos
kow
Sta
te U
niv
Bib
liote
] at
07:
12 1
0 D
ecem
ber
2013
SeptembedOctober 19% [Vol. WNo. l)] 15
groups (Dishon & O’Leary, 1984; Hilke, 1990; Johnson & Johnson, 1985; Larson et al., 1984; Slavin, 1991; Webb, 1991).
Although researchers have examined many aspects of CL, several questions remain unanswered about the imple- mentation of CL in schools. The first question is whether classroom teachers design their cooperative group activities in ways that promote positive outcomes. There are limited data concerning the degree to which teachers implement what Slavin (1983) and others have identified as the most effective features of cooperative groups. Second, there is limited information regarding both teachers’ and students’ perceptions of CL as an effective method of learning. De- spite its widespread use, we know surprisingly little about how teachers and students view CL in their classrooms. Theoretically, the degree to which teachers and students perceive cooperative groups to be beneficial may be related to how CL is implemented in classrooms (Elliott, 1988). Third, although researchers have acknowledged the need to examine interactive processes that may be linked to positive outcomes, there are few observational data concerning the nature and frequency of interactive behaviors among chil- dren during CL (Davidson & Kroll, 1991; Hythecker et al., 1988; Johnson & Johnson, 1985). Because the success of CL, theoretically, is dependent on the nature and quality of students’ verbal interactions, observational data that de- scribe verbal behaviors are needed. Finally, few researchers have empirically examined differences between cooperative groups that implement research-supported egective features and groups that do not implement such features in terms of (a) the frequency and types of observed interactive behav- iors among students and (b) teacher and student evaluations of CL.
We designed the present study to address these four is- sues. Our primary goal was to obtain information from teachers concerning their use and evaluation of CL and from students about their reactions to working in coopera- tive groups. Our second goal in the present study was to ex- amine through direct observation the interactive behaviors that occur among students during CL activities. Finally, we examined differences between classrooms in which effec- tive CL features are implemented and classrooms in which these features are not consistently used. Based on previous research findings (Johnson & Johnson, 1985; Slavin, 1983), we predicted that teachers who reported that they incorpo- rate interdependent reward structures and heterogeneous grouping would offer high evaluations of effectiveness and outcomes of CL.
Method
Participants
There were two participant samples in this study. The first included 26 third-grade teachers from one school dis- trict in a suburban, midwestem community that serves a di- verse population in terms of both cultural background and
socioeconomic status. All teachers reported that they used CL in their classrooms, and the majority (88%) indicated that they had received specialized training in the use of CL. On average, teachers rated the frequency with which they used CL between 2 (afew times a week) and 3 (every day) (M = 2.5; SD = 0.6). Additional characteristics of the teach- er sample are characterized in Table 1.
The second sample included 38 third-grade students (20 boys, 18 girls) enrolled in classrooms of 2 teachers selected from the 26 teacher participants. The average age of stu- dents was 8.34 (SD = 0.48). Each class had 20 students. Due to absences, however, only 19 students from each class par- ticipated in the survey phase of the study. The number of students participating in the observational phase also varied across sessions, depending on absences.
Measures
We used three measures across three phases of the study. In Phase 1, a questionnaire entitled Teacher Perceptions of Group Learning was given to teachers to solicit information regarding their use and evaluation of CL procedures. In Phase 2, a questionnaire called How I Feel About Working in Groups at School was given to students to solicit informa- tion regarding their reactions to working in groups. Finally, in Phase 3, we used an observational system to code student behaviors that occurred during videotaped CL activities.
Teacher survey. We developed the Teacher Perceptions of Group Learning survey for this study to gather information concerning teachers’ use and evaluation of CL procedures. There were five sections in this survey. The first section asked teachers to provide general background information including (a) number of years teaching, (b) whether they had received training in cooperative group learning, (c) number of students in their class, (d) number of students with exceptional needs in their class, (e) ethnicity of stu- dents, and (f) socioeconomic status of students. The pur-
Table l.-Characteristics of Teacher Sample
Teacher characteristic M SD
Number of years teaching 12.40 8.53 Number of students in class
Boys 10.16 2.49 Girls 11.08 2.71
Number of EEN studentsa 1.72 1.79 Race/ethnicity of students
White 14.84 5.12 African-American 3.48 2.87 Hispanic 1.04 0.96 Other 1.73 2.20
Upper 3.79 6.01 Middle 10.83 6.81 Lower 6.21 4.95
Socioeconomic status of students
Note. N = 26 for teacher sample. ‘EEN = exceptional student needs.
I
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mos
kow
Sta
te U
niv
Bib
liote
] at
07:
12 1
0 D
ecem
ber
2013
16 The Journal of Educational Research
pose of gathering this information was to characterize popu- lations to which results may be generalized.
The second part of the survey requested information regarding teachers’ use of CL including (a) frequency with which they used cooperative groups, (b) content areas for which cooperative groups were implemented, and (c) spe- cific types of tasks or activities for which cooperative groups were used.
The third part asked teachers to evaluate possible out- comes related to cooperative group work. We developed items in this section based on previous research that identi- fied academic and social outcomes of CL, including higher achievement (Johnson & Johnson, 1985; Slavin, 1983, 1991), improved social skills (Dishon & O’Leary, 1984; Hilke, 1990), greater interpersonal attraction (Johnson & Johnson), more positive attitude toward the content area (Johnson & Johnson, ), and improved self-esteem (Hilke, 1990; Slavin, 1991). Teachers were asked to rate 12 out- comes on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (declines greatly) to 5 (improves greatly). We grouped outcomes into three broad categories: (a) Academic outcomes included items re- lated to academic performance, such as task completion; (b) social outcomes included items related to students’ peer in- teractions, such as cooperation with other students; and (c) attitude outcomes included items related to students’ atti- tude toward school, such as motivation to learn. In the de- velopment of this section of the teacher survey, two raters independently grouped the 12 outcomes into one of three categories. This sorting procedure provided support for the existence of the three subscales. Specifically, raters had 100% agreement on the placement of 10 items within cate- gories. There was insufficient agreement on the categoriza- tion of two outcomes, self-esteem and teacher involvement; these were retained as separate items. In this section of the survey, teachers were also asked to rate the effectiveness of CL for their students overall and for particular types of learners (e.g., low achieving, high achieving). Responses to these items ranged from 1 (not at all effective) to 4 (very effective).
The fourth part of the survey asked teachers to indicate how often they implemented structural features during CL, including task and reward structures and grouping methods. Teachers responded to each item on a 4-point scale ranging from 1 (never) to 4 (very often). Two items in this section addressed task structure, specifically the degree to which teachers implemented group study or task specialization. Three items related to reward structure. Specifically, teach- ers rated the degree to which they used (a) individual rewards for individual performance, (b) group rewards for group performance, or (c) group rewards based on perfor- mance of each individual in the group. Finally, teachers rated the degree to which they used heterogeneous or homo- geneous grouping of students. Ratings for two items in this section (use of interdependent reward structure and hetero- geneous grouping) were averaged to create a composite strategy-use score (range = 1 to 4), reflecting the degree to
which teachers use research-supported effective features of CL (Larson et al., 1984; Slavin, 1983).’
The final part of the survey consisted of one open-ended question. Teachers were asked to describe activities for which they prefer students to work together in groups and activities for which they prefer them to work individually.
Student survey. We developed the How I Feel About Working in Groups at School survey to gather information concerning students’ preferences for learning in groups. The first part solicited general information including age, sex, and self-rating of achievement. The second part asked students to rate how often they worked in groups from 1 (never), 2 (once in a while), to 3 (every day). Next, students were asked to rate both positive and negative aspects about working in groups on a 4-point scale. Ratings indicated how true each statement was for them, ranging from I (never true for me) to 4 (always truefor me). We developed items in this section to examine students’ reactions to potential positive and negative outcomes of CL identified in previous research and to gauge their perceptions of interactive proc- esses that may occur within groups. For example, students’ responses to “I like the other members in my group” provid- ed information regarding interpersonal attraction toward group members, a social outcome hypothesized by Johnson and Johnson (1 985).
In a manner similar to the categorization of teacher-sur- vey outcomes, we grouped 14 outcomes into three broad categories: (a) Academic outcomes included items re- flecting students’ perceptions of their academic perform- ance as a result of working in CL groups, such as getting better grades; (b) social outcomes included items reflecting students’ perceptions of social relationships in CL groups, such as getting to know others better, and (c) attitude out- comes included items reflecting students’ attitude toward working in CL groups, such as having fun. As it had in the development of the teacher survey, sorting of items into cat- egories by independent raters provided support for the ex- istence of three subscales. Items were either positive aspects of CL (e.g., “It’s fun to work in groups”) or negative aspects ( e g , “Other kids don’t listen to me”). Items reflecting neg- ative outcomes were reverse scored.
Finally, the third part of the survey contained open-ended questions about students’ overall impression of a group learning experience. Students were asked to describe (a) the best thing about working in groups, (b) the worst thing about working in groups, (c) whether they would rather work in groups or independently, and (d) why they prefer working in groups or independently.
Direct observation. We examined interactive behaviors during CL via an analysis of videotaped cooperative group activities. Group activities were videotaped in two class- rooms over a 6-week period to obtain a sample of students’ observable interactions and behaviors over time. Coders used an interval recording method to note the occurrence of I4 specific behaviors. Each observation session consisted of either 20 or 24 I-min intervals, depending on time con-
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mos
kow
Sta
te U
niv
Bib
liote
] at
07:
12 1
0 D
ecem
ber
2013
SeptemberKktober 1996 [Vol. 9O(No. l)] 17
straints within the classrooms. There were nine observation sessions for each classroom across 6 consecutive weeks, re- sulting in 180 to 216 total min of observation for each class.
We initially used a theoretical rationale to derive the ob- servation code. The behaviors targeted for observation re- flected processes that theoretically occur during CL activi- ties, including oral rehearsing, resolving conflict, and giving peer praise/encouragement (Johnson & Johnson, 1985); peer tutoring (giving help; Webb, 1991); and demon- strating (modeling; Hythecker et al., 1988). We conducted pilot observations during CL activities in a different third- grade classroom to refine behavior definitions and to add or delete behaviors in the coding system. The pilot study re- sulted in the inclusion of 14 distinct interactive behaviors in the final observation system. We grouped behaviors into five categories: (a) teachingflearning, (b) positive social in- teraction, (c) noninteractive behavior, (d) negative social interaction, and (e) teacher interaction. Tho independent raters had 100% agreement on the grouping of behaviors in categories.
Procedure
We included in the study three sequential measurement phases. All phases were completed within a 4-month period.
Phuse 1: Teacher survey. We sent letters to all 26 elemen- tary school principals in one participating school district. The principals were asked to return a stamped postcard indicating whether or not they chose to participate. Princi- pals who agreed to participate distributed letters and ques- tionnaires to third-grade teachers in their school. Each ques- tionnaire was accompanied by a self-addressed stamped envelope. Teachers who chose to complete the survey were also asked if they would be willing to participate in subse- quent phases of the study. Follow-up letters were sent to principals who did not return the postcard requesting, again, that questionnaires be distributed to third-grade teachers in their school. A total of 26 completed teacher questionnaires were returned from 14 schools (54%). Nine teachers (35%) agreed to participate in subsequent phases of the study.
Phase 2: Student survey. We chose two of the nine teach- ers who agreed to participate in Phases 2 and 3. Our goal was to select one classroom in which research-supported effective featuFes of CL were implemented frequently and one class- room in which these same features were not used very often. We selected the classrooms for Phases 2 and 3 based on teachers’ responses to two items asking how often they (a) used group rewards for individual learning and (b) assigned children to heterogeneous groups (see Footnote 1). Of the nine teachers who agreed to participate further, we selected the teacher with the highest average rating on these two items and the teacher with the lowest rating on these two items.
All students in the two classrooms for Phases 2 and 3 (n = 40) received parent permission to complete the student survey. The first author administered the surveys, one class- room at a time, before beginning the videotaped sessions.
She explained that the purpose of the survey was to deter- mine what third-grade students think about working in groups. To ensure that students understood the questions, the investigator presented all directions orally and in writ- ing to the children. In addition, she explained the rating sys- tem and meaning of each response choice.
Phase 3: Observations. During CL activities, each class- room was divided into four groups of four or five students. In each classroom, the video camera focused on each of the four cooperative groups for five or six nonconsecutive 1- min intervals. The length of each videotaped session was either 20 or 24 min, depending on the time constraints with- in the classroom and length of assignments. The order in which groups were observed was counterbalanced across groups over a 6-week period.
Eight graduate students in educational psychology ob- served videotapes and recorded the frequency with which each targeted behavior occurred during the group activities. The coding procedure included five or six 1-min intervals per group each day, with a total of nine sessions per class- room. For each 1-min interval, observers recorded the oc- currence of 14 behaviors. All observers received training that included a review of the operational definitions for each behavior and practice using the coding procedure with a training videotape. Interrater reliability was calculated based on independent ratings of 22% of the videotaped ses- sions selected at random. Percentage agreement was calcu- lated according to the number of intervals for which raters agreed on the occurrence or nonoccurrence of each behav- ior. The average percentage agreement was 86%.
At the end of every session, observers also provided global ratings for each group based on their observations of three dimensions: (a) success in achieving the goal or com- pleting the assignment, (b) degree to which group members had equal opportunity for leadership, and (c) degree of group autonomy (minimal teacher involvement). The aver- age rating of overall group success was 3.56 (range = 1, not at all efective, to 4, very efective). The purpose of this rat- ing was to gauge how effective group strategies and interac- tions were in terms of achieving the goal of the group as- signment. The average rating of opportunity to display leadership or responsibility was 2.79 (range = 1, no leaders, to 4, leadership shared equally). Finally, the average rating for the degree to which each group appeared to be self-suf- ficient or autonomous was 1 S O (range = 1, completely QU-
tonomous, to 4, completely dependent). We included the last two ratings because researchers have identified equal op- portunity for leadership and group autonomy as important goals of CL groups (Dishon & O’Leary, 1984). The ob- tained ratings lend support for the integrity with which CL was implemented in each classroom.
Results
This study yielded three sets of data including (a) teach- ers’ responses to the Teacher Perceptions of Group Learn-
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mos
kow
Sta
te U
niv
Bib
liote
] at
07:
12 1
0 D
ecem
ber
2013
18 The Journal of Educational Research
ing measure (Phase I ) , (b) students’ responses to the How I Feel About Working in Groups measure (Phase 2), and (c) frequency of occurrence of observed interactions and be- haviors during cooperative group activities (Phase 3). We summarize the data from each phase and present the results of two group comparisons. First, between-group compari- sons revealed differences between students in the two classrooms on (a) interactive behaviors observed during cooperative group activities and (b) evaluations of the ef- fectiveness of CL. Second, between-group comparisons re- vealed differences in survey results between teachers (n = 9) who self-reported frequent implementation of two effective CL features and teachers ( n = 7) who reported less frequent use of these features.
Teachers’ Use of Cooperative Learning
Teachers and students both reported that CL was used al- most every day in their classrooms. Reading was the con- tent area for which CL was used most frequently by this sample of teachers; 92% (n = 24) reported they used CL for reading activities. Educational games were the most com- mon type of activities for which CL was used (89%; n = 23). The least common content area for CL was spelling; less than half of the teachers (46%; n = 12) indicated they use CL for spelling. The least common activity was com- pleting projects (31%; n = 8).
Table 2 contains a summary of teachers’ ratings of the frequency with which they incorporate three structural fea- tures of CL. Researchers have identified two features that contribute to the effectiveness of CL, specifically, an inter- dependent reward structure and heterogeneous grouping (Larson et al., 1984; Slavin, 1983). The average ratings for use of interdependent reward structure and heterogeneous groups were 2.19 and 3.81, respectively. Of the three types of reward structures, an interdependent reward structure re- ceived the lowest rating compared with individual rewards for individual performance and group rewards for group performance (see Table 2). Finally, in terms of task struc- ture, group study ( M = 3.62) was used more frequently than task specialization.
Teacher Evaluations of Outcomes and EfSectiveness
Teachers rated the degree to which each aspect of student performance improved, stayed the same, or declined when students worked cooperatively in groups. A clear majority of teachers believed that academic behavior (83%), social behavior (91 %), and attitudes (86%) improved as a result of having children work in groups (see Table 3). In addition, 96% of teachers believed that self-esteem improved. Of the 12 outcomes listed in Table 3, 10 outcomes received mean ratings between 4 (improves somewhat) and 5 (improves greatly). Only 2 outcomes, on-task behavior ( M = 3.62) and individualized teacher instruction ( M = 3.3 l), received mean ratings less than 4. Four teachers (15%) rated these
Table 2.-Teachers’ Ratings of Frequency of Structural Fea- tures of Cooperative Learning
Structural features M SD
Task structure Group study Specialization
3.62 0.64 2.46 0.90
Reward structure Individual rewards for individual performance 2.38 0.85 Group rewards for group product 2.73 0.92 Group rewards for individual contributions 2.19 0.85 (Interdependent)a
latter 2 outcomes as declining when students worked in groups.
Table 3 also contains the outcome ratings for two sub- groups of teachers. Subgroups were determined on the basis of the degree to which teachers incorporated interdependent reward structures and heterogeneous grouping. Teachers whose average rating on the two effective features of CL was 2.5 or below were characterized as low in the use of these strategies (n = 7); teachers whose average rating was 3.5 or above were considered high in strategy use (n = 9). Be- tween-group analyses compared evaluations of CL between high and low strategy users. Results of Mann-Whitney com- parisons indicated no differences between subgroups. That is, teachers who incorporated research-supported effective features did not offer significantly higher ratings of out- comes of CL than did teachers who did not incorporate these features.
Teachers also rated the effectiveness of CL with various types of students; the ratings ranged from 1 (not at all efec- tive) to 4 (very efective). The mean rating of overall effec- tiveness for students was 3.64, indicating that teachers viewed CL as an effective classroom procedure. Ratings of effectiveness for specific groups of students were compara- ble, ranging from 3.23 for high-achieving students to 3.38 for low-achieving students. These ratings confirm that CL techniques are effective for students with diverse needs and abilities.
Student Evaluations
Table 4 contains the student ratings for CL outcomes av- eraged across all students in the two classrooms that partici- pated in Phase 2 and separately by classroom. For the total sample, attitude (M = 3.14) and academic benefits (M = 3.13) received similar ratings. Contrary to teacher ratings, students rated social benefits lower than the other CL out- comes ( M = 2.89). There were no significant differences
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mos
kow
Sta
te U
niv
Bib
liote
] at
07:
12 1
0 D
ecem
ber
2013
SeptembedOctober 1996 [Vol. 9ooyo. l)]
Table 3.-Teacher Ratings of Cooperative Learning Outcomes
19
~ ~~
Effect Ratinga
Improves No effect Declines Total Highb Lowc Outcome (86) (8) (8) (n =26) (n = 9) (n =7)
Note. Numbers in parentheses are standard deviations. ‘Ratings ranged from 1 = (declines greatly) to 5 (improves greatly). bTeachm whose average rating on interdependence and heterogeneity was 3.5 or higher. Teachers whose average rating on interdependence and heterogeneity was 2.5 or lower..
Table 4.Student Ratings of Cooperative Learning Outcomes
Classroom’
Outcome Class A Class B Total
M SD M SD M SD
Academic 3.29 0.51 2.96 0.66 3.13 0.60 Get better grades 2.47 1.07 2.63 1.01 2.55 1.03 Harder for me to learnb 3.84 0.37 3.22 1.00 3.54 0.80 Don’t know what to do in groupsb 3.63 0.68 3.37 0.83 3.50 0.76
Takes longer to get work doneb 3.37 0.83 2.78 1.22 3.08 1.06 Social 2.92 0.55 2.85 0.55 2.89 0.54
Easier to talk to kids 2.58 1.02 2.21 0.85 2.39 0.95 Like other kids in group 3.11 0.66 2.89 0.81 3.00 0.74 Like to help other kids 3.16 0.96 3.21 0.85 3.18 0.90 Get to know other kids better 3.16 1.17 2.89 0.90 3.03 1.04 Other kids don’t listen to meb 2.79 0.71 3.22 0.55 3.00 0.67 Kids don’t get alongb 2.74 0.87 2.84 1.01 2.79 0.93
Attitude 3.19 0.79 3.09 0.86 3.14 0.81 Fun to work with other kids 3.05 1.03 3.00 1.00 3.03 1.00 Like to hear what others think 2.95 1.13 3.17 0.92 3.05 1.03 It’s boring to work in groupsb 3.58 0.77 3.05 1.22 3.32 1.04
T l a s s m m A represents high reported use of effective features of CL. Classroom B represents low reported use of effective CL features. bReversed scored items.
Don’t learn as well in groupb 3.24 1.15 2.88 1.17 3.06 1.15
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mos
kow
Sta
te U
niv
Bib
liote
] at
07:
12 1
0 D
ecem
ber
2013
20 The Journal of Educational Research
between classrooms in student evaluations of working in groups.
In response to an open-ended question, 58% of all stu- dents indicated a preference for completing assignments in a group, whereas 42% preferred to work alone. Students were also asked to identify what they thought were the best and worst things about working in groups. Thirty-seven percent of the responses identified as “the best thing” some type of learning benefit including “hearing ideas,” “getting the work done faster,” and “getting help.” The second most frequent response type (2 1 %) reflected a social benefit, such as being able to work with friends. Regarding the worst aspect of group work, the most common responses (45%) related to the occurrence of social conflict such as “arguing,” “people get mad,” and “some people don’t listen.”
Observed Behaviors
Table 5 contains the average frequency of occurrence for 14 behaviors observed during nine periods of CL in two classrooms. Averaged across classrooms, the most frequent- ly occurring category of behavior was teachingnearning be- havior (37%), followed by positive social interaction (25%), noninteractive ( 19%), and negative social interactions (5%).
In terms of specific behaviors, listening/watching was observed most frequently in both classrooms, occurring during 68% of the intervals. This behavior was coded when one or more group members were listening to another stu- dent presenting information or following another student’s
task directions. The second most frequent behavior was task-related positive social interaction, occurring, on aver- age, 57% of the time. This behavior was coded when stu- dents were interacting with each other about the task, such as assigning responsibilities to group members, planning what to do, and discussing information relative to their proj- ect. Specific teaching behaviors, such as showing examples from a book, demonstrating how to do something, giving answers, or offering ideas or strategies, were the third most frequently observed behaviors (45%).
Conflicts, although they occurred only 10% of the time, were consistently task related (e.g., arguing about the assign- ment, “bossing” other group members to do a particular task) and often remained unresolved (3 1 %) or negatively resolved (22%). Non-task-related conflicts, such as arguing about something unrelated to the task, did not occur during the observation intervals. Finally, teacher interaction or assistance occurred only 9% of the time.
Results of Mann-Whitney comparisons indicated no sig- nificant differences between the two classes in terms of the frequency of occurrence of specific behaviors. Regardless of whether the most effective features of CL were imple- mented in their classrooms, students demonstrated similar behaviors during cooperative group work.
Discussion
Although the effectiveness of CL has been supported by previous research, there is little documentation of teachers’ and students’ evaluations of CL. Such information is impor-
~~ ~~
Table 5.4requencies and Rankings of Behavior Occurring in Cooperative Learning Outcomes
’Classroom A represents high reported use of effective features of CL. Classroom B represents low reported use of effective CL features.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mos
kow
Sta
te U
niv
Bib
liote
] at
07:
12 1
0 D
ecem
ber
2013
SeptemberKktober 1996 [Vol. !W(No. l)]
tant because the success of any instructional method will likely be influenced by teachers’ perceptions of its effec- tiveness (Elliott, 1988). Likewise, students may be more likely to engage in and benefit from instructional methods that they perceive as resulting in personal, academic, and social gains. In the present study, both teachers and students attributed academic and social benefits to working in groups. They also reported positive change in attitudes toward school. In addition, teachers identified an increase in self-esteem among students as a positive outcome of having children work in groups.
Of the three outcome domains (academic, social, atti- tude), students rated academic benefits highest, whereas teachers rated social benefits highest. This difference be- tween teachers’ and students’ ratings of outcomes may indi- cate that social outcomes of classroom tasks are not as sa- lient for third-grade students as the academic or learning outcomes. Whereas teachers may understand that social benefits derive from learning activities as much as academ- ic benefits, third-grade children may not attribute social benefits to classroom tasks as readily as learning benefits. This explanation is supported, in part, by a parallel finding that 37% of the student responses to the best thing about working in groups reflected some type of learning benefit. Fewer student responses to this item reflected social bene- fits (21%). In general, teacher and student perceptions in the present study accord well with previous research document- ing positive outcomes of CL and lend support for the grow- ing popularity of CL approaches in elementary classrooms.
Despite the overall positive ratings of CL by teachers and students, both samples identified some negative aspects of group work. Some teachers, for example, indicated that on- task behavior among students actually declined when stu- dents worked in groups. The most frequent disadvantage described by students was the Occurrence of conflicts, such as arguing among group members and being frustrated when group members do not listen to each other. Students who work in cooperative groups may require training and direct instruction on conflict resolution techniques. Work- ing in groups naturally provides opportunities for disagree- ment and conflict. Students who are able to deal with such conflict during CL activities will likely maximize their aca- demic and social gains.
Certain structural features, including an interdependent reward structure and heterogeneous grouping, have been linked to the effectiveness of CL. It is not clear from current literature, however, the extent to which teachers actually implement these particular features. In the present study, teachers reported using heterogeneous grouping very often, but they rarely incorporated an interdependent reward struc- ture. Teachers indicated that they were more likely to ad- minister rewards to students for their individual contribu- tions or to whole groups based on a group product. A drawback of the latter two types of reward structure is that they may not give students an incentive to help each other (Slavin, 1983). When rewards are given to individuals, stu-
21
dents may not be invested in each group member’s acquisi- tion of knowledge. If group rewards are based only on a group product, then low-achieving students may not get a chance to participate because the academically strongest students may assume control of the group. When students are rewarded based on the performance of each member in their group, they are more inclined to help each other and to ensure that everyone knows the information or that every- one has contributed to the group product. This type of inter- dependent reward structure theoretically fosters greater co- operation among group members. In addition, CL groups that incorporate an interdependent reward structure have been shown to result in greater academic benefits for ele- mentary-school-aged children (Slavin, 1983).
Although the nature of this study was primarily descrip- tive, we hypothesized at the outset that teachers’ percep- tions of the effectiveness of CL would be related to the strategies they used when implementing cooperative group activities. Specifically, we predicted that teachers who reported frequent use of interdependent reward structures and heterogeneous grouping would offer more positive out- come ratings than would teachers who reported less fre- quent use of these two features. Nine teachers (35%) met the criterion for the high-strategy-use group; seven teachers (27%) constituted the low-strategy-use group. The results of this study reveal no significant differences in evaluations of CL outcomes between the two groups of teachers. This finding may be attributed, in part, to the limited number of teachers in each group. Furthermore, a 4-point rating of fre- quency of use of each feature may not have permitted a clear distinction between teachers who often used effective features of CL and those who never or rarely used such fea- tures. Finally, Graybeal and Stodolsky (1985) found that, in practice, cooperative group learning may assume many dif- ferent variations among individual teachers in addition to, or possibly in lieu of, standard CL approaches. A limitation of the present study is the reliance on teachers’ self-report concerning their use of research-based effective CL meth- ods. In future research, teachers’ self-reports should be con- firmed through direct observation of precisely how they im- plement CL in their classrooms.
As researchers have pointed out, there is a continuing need to examine interactive verbal behaviors that Occur among students during CL activities. Researchers have gen- erally assumed that CL is beneficial because of the nature and content of student interactions that occur during CL, such as sharing ideas, providing help to peers, or listening to others’ explanations. Only a few researchers, however, have incorporated direct observations of students’ interac- tions during cooperative group activities (Deering & Meloth, 1993). In the present study we identified four broad categories of interactive behavior that occurred during CL activities. Consistent with earlier assumptions, listening to and watching other students as they explained material and engaged in task-related verbal interactions occurred during 68% and 57% of the observed intervals, respectively. Thus,
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mos
kow
Sta
te U
niv
Bib
liote
] at
07:
12 1
0 D
ecem
ber
2013
22 The Journal of Educational Research
the cooperative group activities observed in this study could be characterized as primarily academic in focus, with only minimal negative interactions and conflicts. Although the relatively high proportion of task-related verbal interaction is promising, it is important to caution that reactivity effects may have decreased the overall rate of off-task behavior. The presence of the video camera may have spurred higher task engagement among students than what typically occurs during group activities. Focusing on groups in counterbal- anced order and videotaping over the course of 6 weeks were intended to minimize reactivity. Nonetheless, on-task behavior rates may have been inflated with the presence of the camera.
Despite this limitation, the findings based on observed group activities accord well with a recent study that exam- ined the specific content of student discussions under two different CL conditions (Meloth & Deering, 1994). Using a coding procedure that included detailed transcriptions and categorization of all verbal exchanges, Meloth and Deering (1994) found that task-related talk, which involved the exchange of explanations or elaborations between students, constituted a major proportion of all interactions. They also found, however, that the cognitive level of these peer dis- cussions and the average length of student utterances were generally low. In future studies, examining the content of student talk in greater detail will provide insight into how peer groups function.
Most CL methods emphasize the importance of estab- lishing group interdependence, based on the assumption that doing so encourages students to help each other learn. Furthermore, an incentive structure that delivers group rewards based on individual performance, theoretically, is considered the best reward system to foster interdependence and peer teaching (Gettinger, 1992). Although intuitively appealing, these assumptions have rarely been tested direct- ly. In the present study, we found no differences in the fre- quency of group teaching and learning behaviors between classrooms differentiated, in part, on the basis of teacher- reported use of interdependent reward structures. Further- more, Meloth and Deering (1994) found that an interdepen- dent reward condition had only a moderate impact on peer communication. Their results showed that encouraging ef- fective peer interactions through interdependent rewards was not necessarily more effective than simply directing students to verbalize and share their learning strategies with one another. Therefore those researching CL in the future should explore further the precise role of interdependent re- ward structures in obtaining academic, social, and attitude
benefits for students. Encouraging group interdependence through rewards may not be the only method that leads to cooperative, teaching-learning interactive behaviors.
NOTE
I . Task structure was not included in the composite strategy-use score because research is not conclusive regarding the differential benefit of one structure (group study, task specialization) over another.
REFERENCES
Davidson, N., & Kroll, D. L. (1991). An overview of research on coopera- tive learning related to mathematics. Journal of Research in Mathemat- ics Education, 22, 362-365.
Deering, P. D., & Meloth, M. S. (1993). A descriptive study of naturally occurring discussion in cooperative learning groups. Journal of Class- room Interaction, 28(2), 7-13.
Dishon, D., & O’Leary, P. W. (1984). A guidebook for cooperative learn- ing: A techniquefor creating more effective schools. Holmes Beach, FL: Learning Publications.
Elliott, S. N. (1988). Acceptability of behavioral treatments in educational settings. In J. C. Witt, S. N. Elliott, & F. M. Gresham (Eds.), Handbook ofbehavior therapy in education (pp. 121-150). New York: Plenum.
Gettinger, M. (1992). Application of social psychology to learning and in- struction. In F. J. Medway & T. P. Cafferty (Eds.), School psychology: A social psychological perspective (pp. 305-332). Hillsdale, NJ: Erl- baum.
Graybeal, S. S., & Stodolsky, S. S. (1985). Peer work groups in elementary schools. American Educational Research Journal, 93, 409428.
Hilke, V. E. (1990). Cooperative learning. Bloomington, I N Phi Delta Kappa.
Hythecker, V., Dansereau, D. F., & Rocklin, T. R. (1988). An analysis of the processes influencing the structured dyadic learning environment. Educational Psychologist, 23, 23-31.
Johnson, D. W., &Johnson, R. T. (1985). The internal dynamics of coop- erative learning groups. In R. Slavin, s. Sharan, s. Kagan, R. H. Laza- rowitz, C. Webb, & R. Schmuck (Eds.), Learning to cooperate, cooper- ating to learn (pp. 103-124). New York: Plenum.
Larson, C. O., Dansereau, D. F., O’Donnell, A,, Hythecker, V., Lambiotte, J. G., & Rocklin, T. R. (1984). Verbal ability and cooperative learning. Journal of Reading Behaviol; 16, 289-295.
Meloth, M. (1991). Enhancing literacy through cooperative learning. In E. Hiebert (Ed.), Literacy for a diverse society: Perspectives, practices and policies (pp. 172-183). New York: Teachers College Press.
Meloth, M. S., & Deering, P. D. (1994). Task talk and task awareness under different cooperative learning conditions. American Educational Re- search Journal, 31, 138-165.
Slavin, R. E. (1983). Cooperative learning. New York: Longman. Slavin, R. E. (1984). When does cooperative learning increase student
achievement? Psychological Bulletin, 94, 429445. Slavin, R. E. (1990). Cooperative learning. Theory, research, and practice.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Slavin, R. E. (1991). Synthesis of research on cooperative learning. Educa-
tional Leadership, 48(5), 71-82. Webb, N. M. (1985). Student interaction and learning in small groups: A
research summary. In R. Slavin, S. Sharan, S. Kagan, R. H. Lazarowitz, C. Webb, & R. Schmuck (Eds.), Learning to cooperate, cooperating to learn (pp. 147-172). New York: Plenum.
Webb, N. M. (1991). Task-related verbal interaction and mathematics learning in small groups. Journal of Research in Mathematics Educa- tion, 22, 366389.
