Why Cooperative Learning in Science?

Roger and David Johnson (1991) answer this question by pointing out that a quick look
through the table of contents of scientific journals will illustrate the cooperative nature of
scientific inquiry if the reader focuses on the nuber of authors of ost journal articles!
"n addition# observation in science classes in which hands$on activities are taking place
will usually reveal students working in pairs or sall groups! %riting in &cience for 'll
'ericans# Rutherford and 'hlgren (199() 1*9) in their discussion of effective teaching
and learning of science# atheatics and technology say)
+he collaborative nature of scientific and technological work should be strongly
reinforced by frequent group activity in the classroo! &cientists and engineers work
ostly in groups and less often as isolated investigators! &iilarly# students should gain
e,perience sharing responsibility for learning with each other! "n the process of coing to
coon understandings# students in a group ust frequently infor each other about
procedures and eanings# argue over findings# and assess how the task is progressing! "n
the conte,t of tea responsibility# feedback and counication becoe ore realistic
and of a character very different fro the usual individualistic te,tbook$hoework$
recitation approach!
Johnson and Johnson consider the priary responsibilities of education to be learning and
sociali-ation# both of which are social processes (19*.) /9)! 0owever# 1lasser says that#
in today2s typical classroo# students work alone and are frequently reinded not to talk
and to keep their eyes on their own work (1ough# 19*.) /39)!
&tudents need to be actively involved in their own learning# even at the college level!
'bout five percent of tie in college classes is spent in active participation! 4ore than
one$half of college students coute to class daily! 4ore than 5(6 are enrolled part$
tie! +he aount of student learning and personal developent that occurs is directly
proportional to the quality and quantity of student involveent in the educational
progra (7ooper and 8rescott# 19*9)!
7oon approaches to instruction are copetition# cooperation# and individual work! "t
is not the purpose of this bulletin to advocate that cooperative learning displace the other
two fors of instruction! Johnson and Johnson (19*.) /.) contend 9!!!+here is clear
evidence that 'erican students see school as a copetitive e,perience where it is vital
to be at the top of your class and beat ost of the other students!!!9 Johnson and Johnson
further hypothesi-e# based on their research and that of other individuals# that if the
copetitive and individualistic goal structures of 'erican education were to be less
doinant and if cooperative learning were used ore widely and ore often# students
would learn ore science and atheatics# like these subjects to a greater degree than
they now do# coe to feel better about theselves as science (or atheatics) students#
and to have a ore healthy attitude toward the acceptance of differences in their
classates (19*.) /*)!
Johnson and Johnson also assert that the research data on cooperative learning show that
its use leads to students learning ore aterial# feeling ore confident and otivated to
learn# e,hibiting higher achieveent# having greater copetence in critical thinking#
possessing ore positive attitudes toward the subject studied# e,hibiting greater
copetence in collaborative activities# having greater psychological health# and accepting
differences aong their peers (19*5# 19*.)! +hey point out that patterns of student
interactions in classes and the effects of these interactions on learning are relatively
ignored in preservice and inservice education# and are vastly underestiated as a factor in
learning (19*.) 5/)!
Some Characteristics of Cooperative Learning
David and Roger Johnson and Robert :! &lavin have published nuerous articles and
books on cooperative learning! +he Johnsons (19*5) have identified four basic eleents
in cooperative learning) (1) interdependence aong students seeking utual goals
through cobined efforts# (;) face$to$face interaction aong students# (<) individual
accountability for astery of the aterial covered# and (5) appropriate use of
interpersonal and sall$group skills by students! +he Johnsons say that effective
ipleentation of cooperative learning involves specifying instructional objectives=
placing students in appropriate learning groups= e,plaining to students the acadeic tasks
and cooperative ethods to be used in achieving these tasks= onitoring the progress of
the groups and# when necessary# intervening to provide assistance= and evaluating student
achieveents with student input!
&lavin (19*9) cautions that# in recent years# cooperative learning has been proposed as a
solution to any probles in education! &lavin thinks that under certain circustances#
the use of cooperative learning can help educators achieve any of their goals! 0e points
out# however# that all fors of cooperative learning are not equally effective for all goals!
>ecause achieveent is a frequently desired goal# &lavin stresses that two conditions
ust be present if achieveent effects are to be produced) (1) a group goal that is
iportant to the group ust be present and (;) individual accountability ust be
necessary$the success of the group ust depend on the individual learning of all group
ebers! "f one condition is present# but not the other# the ethod is less effective in
&lavin2s opinion (19*9) <1)!
&lavin is concerned that teachers do not really understand what is involved in cooperative
learning! "n his opinion# possibilities e,ist to oversell cooperative learning as well as to
undertrain teachers in its use (199() <)! +he Johnsons agree with &lavin2s contention that
training takes ore than one three$hour inservice session! +hey say that teachers need to
use cooperative learning procedures regularly for several years to becoe proficient and
that teachers need to be given classroo assistance as they attept ipleentation
(19*5) 5)!
+o review# cooperative learning involves)
positive interdependence
face$to$face interaction aong students
individual accountability for astering the assigned aterial
appropriate use of interpersonal and sall$group skills!
?or those readers who are still saying# 9>ut " do that all the tie!!!#9 ?igure 1 provides a
coparison of cooperative learning and sall group activities!
Cooperative Groups Small Groups
Positive interdepence. No interdependence. Students work
Students sink or swim together. on their own, often or occasion-
Face-to-face oral interaction. ally checking their answers with
other students.
ndividual accounta!ility" each #itchhiking" some students let
pupil must master the material. others do most or all of the
work, then copy.
$eachers teach social skills Social skills are not system-
needed for successfil group work ically taught.
$eacher monitors students% $eacher does not directly o!serve
!ehavior. !ehavior, often works with a few
students or works on other tasks
&grades papers, prepares ne't
lesson, etc.(.
Feed!ack and discussion of No discussion of how well students
students% !ehavior is an integral worked together, other than
part of ending the activity !efore general comments such as )Nice
moving on. *o!) or )Ne't time, try to work
more +uietly.)
&adapted from ,llis and -halen, .//0" .1(
Figure 1
Some Varieties of Cooperative Learning
+his inforation bulletin is not sufficiently long enough to accoodate detailed
discussions of the ore coon varieties of cooperative learning! Readers who wish to
learn ore are advised to consult one or ore of the publications listed in the references
and to conduct their own searches of the :R"7 database for additional references and
inforation!
Circles of Learning
"n early publications of David and Roger Johnson referred to as 9@earning +ogether!9
@ater# they published a book entitled 7ircles of @earning# (19*5) which appears to
provide a ore recent title for this ethod! "ts ipleentation involves 1* steps) (1)
clearly specify instructional objectives= (;) liit group si-e to no ore than si,= (<)
structure groups for heterogeneity relative to ability# se,# ethnicity= (5) arrange groups in
circles to facilitate counication= (3) use instructional aterials to proote
interdependence aong students= (/) assign roles to ensure interdependence= (.) e,plain
the acadeic task= (*) structure positive goal interdependence= (9) structure individual
accountability for learning so that all group ebers ust contribute= (1() structure inter
group cooperation= (11) e,plain criteria for success= (1;) specify desired behaviors= (1<)
onitor students2 behavior continually for probles with the task or with collaborative
efforts= (15) provide task assistance= (13) intervene to teach collaborative skills# if
necessary= (1/) provide closure to lesson with suaries by students and teacher= (1.)
evaluate the students2 work= and (1*) assess group functioning through ongoing
observation during lessons and discussion of group process after the lesson or unit is
copleted (Johnson et al!# 19*5) ;/$5()!
Jigsaw
+his cooperative learning ethod was developed by 'ronson (+he Jigsaw 7lassroo#
19.*)! (+here are now two additional versions) Jigsaw "" and Jigsaw """)! "n 'ronson2s
ethod# each student in a five$eber group is given inforation that coprises only
one part of the lesson! :ach student in the group has a different piece of inforation! 'll
students need to know all inforation to be successful! &tudents leave their original
group and for an 9e,pert group9# in which all persons with the sae piece of
inforation get together# study it# and decide how best to teach it to their peers in the
original group! 'fter this is accoplished# students return to their original groups# and
each teaches hisAher portion of the lesson to the others in the group! &tudents work
cooperatively in two different groups# their group and the e,pert group! 1rades are based
on individual e,aination perforance! +here is no specific reward for achieveent or
for the use of cooperative skills (Bnight C >ohleyer in &haran# 199() <)!
Jigsaw II
+his odification was developed by Robert &lavin! "n it# copetition occurs between
learning teas who copete for specific group rewards# which are based on individual
perforance! 8oints are earned for the tea by each student iproving hisAher
perforance relative to hisAher perforance on previous qui--es (Bnight C >ohleyer in
&haran# 199() 5)! 'lso# all students read a coon narrative and then each is assigned a
topic upon which to becoe an e,pert! +his version saves the teacher fro having to
prepare different sets of reading aterials!
Jigsaw III
+his ethod# developed by &pencer Bagan# is for use in bilingual classroos!
7ooperative groups consist of one :nglish speaker# one non$:nglish speaker# and one
bilingual student! 'll aterials are bilingual (Bnight C >ohleyer in &haran# 199() 5)!
Student Teams-chievement !ivisions "ST!#
+his ethod# developed by &lavin# involves copetition aong groups! &tudents are
grouped heterogeneously by ability# gender# race# ethnicity! &tudents learn aterials in
teas and take qui--es as individuals! "ndividual scores contribute to a group score! +he
points contributed to the group are based on a student2s iproveent over previous qui-
perforance! &lavin considers this ethod appropriate for a variety of subjects# including
science# if the focus is on aterial with single right answers (&lavin# 19**) 9)!
Teams-$ames-Tournaments "T$T#
Developed by DeDries and &lavin# this ethod involves the sae use of heterogeneous
teas# instructional forat# and worksheets# as does &+'D# for the learning of
inforation! ?or the tournaent# students fro different teas are placed in groups of
three students of coparable ability! "n +1+ the acadeic gae replaces qui--es!
'lthough study teas stay together for si, weeks# tournaent table coposition changes
weekly!
&lavin advises teachers against using tournaent scores for individual qui- grades and
suggests that qui--es be used as well as idter and final e,ainations! 0e suggests that
+1+ can be used two to three days a week in science to learn basic concepts# with
laboratory activities taking place on the other two days! "t is also possible to alternate
+1+ with &+'D on a weekly basis! &tudents appear to enjoy the challenge of the
tournaents and# because they copete with others of coparable ability# the
copetition is fair (&lavin# 19**) 19)!
$roup Investigation
+his ethod# developed by &haran and others# ephasi-es ore student choice and
control than do other cooperative ethods! &tudents are involved in planning what to
study and how to investigate!
7ooperative groups are fored on the basis of coon interest in a particular aspect of a
general topic! 'll group ebers help plan how they will research the topic and divide
the work aong theselves! +hen each carries out hisAher part of the investigation! +he
group synthesi-es and suari-es the work and presents their findings to the class
(&haran and &haran# 199() 1.)!
+his ethod is an attept to cobine deocratic process and acadeic inquiry! +he
teacher needs to adopt an indirect style of leadership# acting as a resource person while
providing direction and clarification as needed! +he teacher2s task is to create a
stiulating work environent!
+here are si, specific stages involved in 1roup "nvestigation! "n the first# the teacher
identifies the general topic and helps the students# through discussion# to identify
subtopics! &tudents work in groups of two to si,! &tudents identify iportant points to
investigate and how to organi-e for group study! +hey also need to decide how ebers
are going to e,change inforation! +he teacher ay begin this stage by asking the class
9%hat would you like to know about!!!E9 ' short lecture ight be used to stiulate
interest! ' variety of relevant aterials ight be available for students to e,aine!
&tudents can then raise questions# which are listed on the chalkboard# or they can eet in
bu-- groups to generate questions prior to this listing!
"n the second stage# students work together to plan how they will carry out the
investigation of their subtopic or set of questions! "n addition to generating a listing of
who will investigate what and deciding how to proceed# the groups ay identify the
resources they will need!
+he third stage is probably the longest in this ethod! During this tie# students work on
their investigations! +he teacher# in addition to helping students locate resources# needs to
review with each group the activities that are planned for a particular class period!
"n the fourth stage# students work together in their groups# analy-ing and evaluating the
inforation they have obtained! &tudents need to decide what are the essential parts of
their investigation and plan how to present this inforation to the rest of the class! "n
addition to integrating the inforation# they have to decide how best to teach it! +o
facilitate the presentations which take place in a later stage# the teacher fors a steering
coittee ade up of a representative fro each group! +his steering coittee then
coordinates the presentations and use of aterials and provides recoendations to
ake certain the content of each presentation is eaningful and interesting!
"n the fifth stage# each group presents a suary of the results of its investigation so that
all students gain a broad perspective of the general topic! +his will involve several class
periods!
+he si,th stage involves the evaluation of reports and presentations as well as individual
learning! &tudents provide feedback to groups! "n addition# each group subits a nuber
of questions to the teacher to be used on the final e,aination! +hey also provide the
correct answers or criteria for judging the adequacy of a response! %hen the e,aination
is given# they answer all questions e,cept those their group subitted! +he teacher needs
to solicit student feedback about the topic# the process# and suggestions for increasing
students2 effectiveness as investigators (&haran and &haran# 199() 1.$;(= Bnight C
>ohleyer in &haran# ed!# 199() /$.)!
1roup "nvestigation gives students control over their learning# allows the to work
together collaboratively# and to study what interests the! "t appears to proote student
responsibility for learning while ephasi-ing collaborative skills!
Bagan# in an article in :ducational @eadership (Dec! *9AJan 199() 1;$13)# discusses
structures for cooperative learning! Bagan considers 9structures9 to be content$free ways
of organi-ing social interaction in classroos! +hese structures involve a series of steps
and do not have content$bound objectives! Bagan classified these structures according to
ajor instructional focus) tea building# class building# counication building#
astery# concept developent# and ultifunctional! &tructures ay have acadeic andAor
social functions! Bagan believes that it is coparatively easy for teachers to aster one
structure at a tie# whereas astering cooperative learning ethods ay be
overwheling (199() 13)! Bagan contends that structures ay be used with alost any
subject atter# at a wide range of grade levels# and at various points in a lesson plan!
&tructures ay be cobined to for ultistructural lessons in which each structure
serves as a building block# providing a learning e,perience upon which subsequent
structures can e,pand (199() 1;)!
"n this sae issue of :ducational @eadership# +otten and &ills identify and briefly
describe 1( publications they consider to be seinal works offering the reader a
coprehensive discussion of cooperative ethods (199() //)!
%esearch on Cooperative Learning
Johnson and Johnson have e,tensively reviewed the literature on cooperative learning
identifying a study that dates back to 1*9. (>randt# 19*.)1/)! +hey identify a variety of
outcoes of cooperative learning! 'chieveent increases for all ability levels (high#
ediu# low)= higher$level thinking processes can result= a deeper level of understanding
is possible= critical thinking is prooted= ore positive peer relationships result= students
e,hibit better social skills and provide ore social support for their peers= and a higher
level of self estee can result (>randt# 19*.)1.)! "n addition# there is a fringe benefit) as
teachers teach their students how to be a part of a productive group and anage conflict#
teachers also learn those social skills and can use the with their colleagues (>randt#
19*.)1*$19)! Johnson and Johnson cite 19 studies which provide evidence that
cooperative learning prootes higher achieveent than do copetitive or individual
learning e,periences (in 7hapagne and 0ornig# 19*.).<)! +hey also report a eta$
analysis of 1;; studies of cooperative learning done between 19;5 and 19*1! +he ;*/
findings were analy-ed using three different ethods) voting# effect si-e# and - score! 'll
ethods of analysis resulted in the sae finding) cooperative learning tends to proote
higher achieveent than does copetition or individual work# with this finding holding
for all age levels# all subject areas# and a variety of tasks (Johnson et al# 19*5)13)!
Johnson and Johnson also conducted a eta$analysis of 9* studies focused on the relative
ipact of cooperation# copetition# and individual work on interpersonal attraction
aong hoogeneous and heterogeneous saples of students! +hese studies were
published between 1955 and 19*; and resulted in ;31 findings! 7ooperative learning
appeared to proote greater interpersonal attraction aong hoogeneous groups of
students# students fro different ethnic groups# handicapped and non handicapped
students (19*5);()! 'gain# the three ethods of analysis were used in this study and the
results did not differ with the ethod!
&lavin is critical of any research reports on cooperative learning that do not last at least
four weeks or ore! &lavin identified .( studies that evaluated various cooperative
learning ethods for periods of four weeks or longer= /. involved easureent of effects
on student achieveent! 'll copared the effects of cooperative learning to traditionally
taught control groups# with teachers and classes either randoly assigned to cooperative
or control groups or atched on pretest achieveent level and other factors! %hen these
/. studies were reviewed# 51 (/16) had significantly greater achieveent in cooperative
classes! Fo differences were found in ;3 studies (<.6)! "n only one study did the control
group outperfor the cooperative group (1991) .3$./)! &lavin aintains that if
cooperative learning is to be effective# both group goals and individual accountability
ust be present! "n the 55 studies in which these conditions were et# <. studies (*56)
contained reports of significant positive achieveent effects! +here were ;< studies in
which group goals and individual accountability were lacking! Gnly four of these studies
(1.6) reported positive effects on student achieveent# and two of these four studies
involved the use of 1roup "nvestigation (1991) ./$..)!
&lavin reported that# in his review# achieveent effects of cooperative learning were
found to be about the sae degree at all grade levels (;$1;)= in all ajor subjects= and in
urban# rural# and suburban schools! :ffects were equally positive for high# average# and
low achievers! 8ositive effects were found for outcoes such as self$estee# inter group
relations# acceptance of acadeically handicapped students# and ability to work
cooperatively (1991) .1)!
Fewann and +hopson (19*.) reviewed ;. reports of 9high quality9 research on
cooperative learning at the secondary level! +hey chose to prepare this review because
uch cooperative learning research involves eleentary pupils! >ecause of the
differences between secondary and eleentary education and students they wished to see
if effects on achieveent were different! "n addition# they were looking for alternatives to
9frontal teaching9! +he studies they reviewed involved five ajor cooperative learning
techniques) &tudent +eas$'chieveent Divisions (&+'D)# +eas$1aes$+ournaents
(+1+)# Jigsaw# @earning +ogether# and 1roup "nvestigation!
+he ;. studies yielded <. coparisons of cooperative learning versus
conventionalAcontrol (frontal teaching) groups! 7ooperative learning was favored at the !
(3 level of significance for ;3 coparisons (/*6)! +wenty$eight coparisons were used
to copute effect si-es that ranged fro !*. to 3!13! 'lthough ost studies involved
grade .# the greatest success with cooperative learning was in grades * and 9! &cience
was the subject involved in ost studies! 0owever# studies involving atheatics or
language arts had the highest success rates! +he ost consistently successful ethod was
&+'D# and the least successful# Jigsaw!
Fewann and +hopson suggest that ore research on the use of cooperative learning
with secondary students is needed# and that researchers should investigate the interaction
of ethod# level of thought# student background characteristics# and student status within
the group! +hey also encourage investigators to e,aine the specific types of verbal
interaction within groups that are ost likely to boost achieveent (19*.)/)! +hey agree
with &lavin that group reward and individual accountability and cooperative task
structure are needed for effective cooperative learning! +hey speculate that lack of these
eleents ay be why Jigsaw is less successful than other ethods!
Fewann and +hopson reported that the fewest studies (si,) involved grades 1($1;!
+he success rate for these studies was <<6! +he authors think that teachers perceive high
school students as not being interested in cooperative learning or that teachers consider
they have too uch inforation to cover in a liited tie with students! "n their opinion#
this is an area in need of staff developent# as well as further research!
Cooperative Learning in Science Classrooms
Fot all of the studies reported in this section are reports of research# but research studies
do constitute the ajority of the literature reviewed! 'll reports deal with science teachers
and students! &tudies are presented by increasing grade level of the students involved!
Jones and &teinbrink (19*9# 1991) have developed a cooperative learning approach that
they call 0oe +eas$:,pert 1roups! +heir ethod is a odification of Jigsaw ""# using
task groups with science te,tbooks! +hey justify their approach by saying that teachers
spend ore tie with te,tbooks than they do with laboratory equipent and other
science aterials! Research on the 0oe +eas$:,pert 1roups approach appears to
consist of aster2s projects and soe course assignents! 4ost of the results favor this
approach to cooperative learning! 'verage students have aintained or slightly iproved
their perforance on unit tests while lower ability students have ade 9draatic
iproveent9 (1991)1<3)! +he students involved in ost studies were eleentary and
interediate pupils! Gne researcher has speculated that the iportant factor in student
test score iproveent is the use of focused study ites (these appear to be parallel
fors of test ites# as shown in ?igure ; (p!353) of the 19*9 article)!
7ohen (1991) reported on the use of a ethod called ?inding GutADescubriiento in an
interactive# ultiability atheaticsAscience curriculu designed to foster the
developent of thinking skills in children in grades ;$3! Data collected on student
perforance on the 7oprehensive +est of >asic &kills show highly significant gains in
language arts# reading# and atheatics subtests# and in science when this subtest was
included in 19*<$*5 (1991)<1)!
Jones (199() worked with teachers and students in grades <# 5# and 3 in two rural
eleentary schools to copare the effectiveness of cooperative learning (versus
traditional work of pairs of pupils) in oving students through isconceptions about
teperature! &tudents were pretested# participated in a cognitive conflict activity# and
posttested at the end of instruction! 'lthough conflict training did result in changes in
students2 concepts of teperature# the cooperative learning approach was no ore
effective than the control!
Rosebery (1991) studied students who were using 7heche Bonnen (0aitian 7reole for
9&earch for Bnowledge9) as a part of collaborative scientific inquiry! 's part of their
investigation of student taste preferences for water fro first# second and third floor
drinking fountains in their school# the seventh and eight grade students studied water
acidity# salinity# and purity and learned cheistry# biology# and hydrogeology! 's students
investigated# they learned science content# iproved their atheatics skills# scientific
reasoning skills# and language and literacy (1991);9)!
7onwell et al! (19**) interviewed ;* students who worked in cooperative learning groups
in interediate science classroos in an urban syste! +he researchers reported several
findings! &tudents perceived their science achieveent positively! Fearly two thirds rated
their level of self$estee as high! %hite students# particularly white feales# felt positive
about theselves when working in groups! 4ore than three fourths of the students
interviewed enjoyed working with everyone in their group! &tudents had no preferences
based on race or se, for tea ates! 0owever# the overall response of black students to
group work was not so positive as that of white students! %hite feales# regardless of
achieveent level# felt better about theselves when working in a group# copared to
working alone in science (19**);/)!
Binney (19*9) studied the effects of cooperative learning on the achieveent of ninth$
grade students in a ulticultural general biology class! Binney2s cooperative learning
odel involved two days of specifically designed cooperative learning activities followed
by an individual chapter test on the third day! Day one involved the use of &+'D! Gn day
two# students were given their graded tests and worksheets for 1( to 13 inutes of study
and then played +eas$1aes$+ournaents (+1+) for the rest of the period! @aboratory
activities took place between the three$day cycles! >lack students of both se,es showed
significant increase in achieveent over their counterparts in the control group for short
ter effects (19*9)3)! >oth black and white students in the e,periental group had a
significant increase on chapter test scores!
Gkebukola (19*/) investigated the effect of cooperative work on student attitudes toward
the science laboratory! Finth grade biology students in two schools participated in the
study! 'ttitudes were easured using the 'ttitude +oward @aboratory %ork &cale# with
references to 9cheistry9 in the instruent being changed to 9biology!9 +he scale was
adinistered as both a pretest and a posttest! 8osttest results indicated that students in the
e,periental treatent held significantly ore favorable attitudes toward laboratory
work than did students in the control group! 'ttitudes of ale students were ore
favorable than those of feales in the e,periental group# but# regardless of se,# attitudes
of students in the e,periental group were still ore positive than those of control group
students!
@a-arowit- et al! (19**) used a odified Jigsaw ethod with 1roup "nvestigation to
teach two biology units (the cell# plants) to tenth grade students! ?our general biology
classes were used# with two classes randoly selected to serve as the e,periental group!
Different teachers and aides worked with the e,periental and control classes! &tudents
in the e,periental group participated in three days of tea$building activities before the
first unit was introduced! &tudents in the control classes studied the sae units but
worked individually!
'ides were asked to observe and record on$task behavior# observing each student for <(
seconds at a tie# three ties during a class period! +he two units involved seven weeks
of classes! 'ides reported that students in the e,periental group e,hibited a greater
aount of on$task behavior both during and after the e,perient than did those in the
control group!
%hen achieveent was easured# students in the e,periental classes had higher scores
on the cell unit# but those in the control classes had higher scores on the plant unit
(19**)5*<)! +he researchers speculated that the cell unit involved ore investigation and
required ore inquiry and high$level thinking than did the plant unit# which contained
ore inforation gathering and observation activities! +hey inferred that differences in
the aterials and nature of the tasks ay have influenced achieveent results
(19**)5*3)!
@a-arowit- (1991) also reported another study in which the sae cobination of
cooperative ethods was used with ninth grade general biology students! &i, teachers
and ;(1 students studied cell division! Fo significant differences between groups were
found on pretest scores! Gn the posttest the e,periental group scored significantly
higher on all coparisons! "n the cooperative group girls scored higher than boys
(1991);()! 't the end of the study# all students took the @earning :nvironent "nventory
(@:")! &tudents in the cooperative group perceived their science classroos as having a
ore benign atosphere than did those in the control group (1991);1)!
&heran (19*9) conducted a seven$week study involving two high school biology classes
of appro,iately equal abilities! &tudents in the e,periental class used 1roup
"nvestigation while those in the control group worked independently as individuals! 'll
students were told that ;36 of their grade for that arking period would be based on a
report of ajor bioes of the world! "n the e,periental class# each heterogeneous
cooperative group was assigned a ajor bioe! &tudents within each group were allowed
to select one of the required ajor subtopics to investigate for the group report (which
was both written and oral)! 'll in the group would receive the sae grade for the report!
&tudents in the control class were allowed to choose a ajor bioe (with the sae five
subtopics) to study individually!
&tudents were pre$ and posttested with a 5($ite ultiple choice test! %hile posttest
scores were significantly higher for both groups# there were no significant differences on
pre or posttest scores between treatent groups! &heran concluded that both ethods
were effective# but neither was superior! 0e speculated that lack of difference between
groups ight have been due to length of tie involved or to the fact that the treatent
cae in the final ten weeks of the school year when friendships and working alliances
aong students were too fi,ed to be aenable to change (19*9) 39)!
Roblee (1991) used group work with an unruly# late$afternoon high school cheistry
class! &tudents were placed in groups of four# coposed of people who did not ordinarily
work together# and were assigned roles in a hypothetical copany! +hey were then
presented with a proble to solve in which they had to use their cheistry knowledge to
analy-e and interpret inforation! 's students becae ore confident in their proble
solving skills# both participation and level of otivation increased (1991) ;<)!
&cott and 0eller (1991) advocate the use of group work in science to encourage feale
and inority students! +heir arguent is that traditional classroo copetition inhibits
learning by pupils who lack confidence in their abilities to be successful in a subject!
+hey contend that cooperative group work benefits all students# and provide soe
suggestions for cooperative activities in physics! +hey advocate the use of the Jigsaw
ethod for reinforcing difficult reading aterial# preparing research projects and
deonstrations# and reviewing for a test (1991) ;*)!
>asili and &anford (1991) conducted an investigation of the use of conceptual change
strategies in sall cooperative group settings in counity college cheistry classes#
using a pretest$posttest control$group e,periental design! ?our intact sections of
introductory cheistry at a suburban counity college were involved! 'll sections had
the sae course content# identical hoework probles# and e,ainations! &tudents in the
e,periental group were taught to ake concept aps! +he e,periental group had five
3($inute lectureAdiscussion classes and a si,th class period in which they worked in
groups of five! 1roup work involved e,plaining responses to questions assigned in
advance of the group session and the construction of a concept ap (that all agreed to) to
hand in!
'udio tapes of student interaction in the four sections were analy-ed as part of the data!
Hpon analysis of the tapes# researchers found a significantly lower proportion of
isconceptions for four of the five concepts on the posttest for the e,periental group!
'nalysis of individual verbal behavior during the sall$group work indicated that soe
group tasks encouraged students to interact in ways supportive of conceptual change
(1991) ;9*$;99)! 0owever# it also revealed that poor group leaders prevented effective
discussion by rushing through questions and iposing their views of the purpose of the
task (1991) <(;)!
Rice and 1abel (199() worked with preservice eleentary teachers enrolled in college
cheistry! +wo instructors taught four sections of cheistry# with each instructor having
one e,periental group and one control group! &tudents were assigned to do laboratory
work in heterogeneous groups based on grade point averages! &lavin2s odel of a tea
report and bonus point syste involving si, qui--es was used! "n the conventional
classes# students perfored the laboratory work in pairs of their own choosing and
subitted individual reports!
+he researchers were interested in the effects of cooperative work on achieveent#
developent of laboratory skills# developent of specific science concepts# student
attitude toward science and science teaching as related to level of reasoning ability#
different learning preferences# and cofort level with science! %hen data were analy-ed#
students in the control classes outperfored those in the e,periental classes on the /(
coparisons involved in the study (199() 1;)!
Some &uestions and Controversies %elated to Cooperative Learning
Cooperative Learning and the $ifted
8arents soeties object to having their gifted children involved in cooperative work#
claiing that it e,ploits the child2s abilities and cuts down on individual e,ploration!
&lavin counters this arguent by saying that research on ability grouping in eleentary
and secondary schools finds no achieveent benefits of between$class grouping (e!g!
high# iddle# and low fourth grades or advanced# general# and basic tracks)! +his 9no
difference9 finding is the sae for high# average# and low achievers! ?or the gifted# the
top <$36# the research is ore urky# but ost reviewers conclude that there is support
for acceleration progras# but not for enrichent progras (1991);;$;<)! 0e adits that
there is 9! ! ! no long$ter research on the effects of garden variety cooperative learning
on the gifted9 (1991) ;<)! Fevertheless# &lavin thinks that cooperative learning is good
for gifted students because they are ost likely to be able to provide elaborated
e,planations (a behavior closely associated with learning gains)!
Johnson and Johnson (1991) say that gifted students# and high achievers# should
soeties work alone# should soeties copete# and should soeties work in
cooperative groups! +hey have conducted nine studies# over a 13$year period# of high$
ability and gifted students in cooperative learning! +hey have found astery and retention
of assigned aterial higher in cooperative work than in copetitive and individual
learning! %hen these students were given a task to be solved that could involve higher$
level or lower$level reasoning strategies# they ore frequently used higher$level
strategies when working cooperatively than when working copetitively or individually
(1991) ;3)! +hey cite a study involving physics students in which gifted students used
e,pert reasoning strategies when working in cooperative groups but used novice
strategies when working alone!
Johnson and Johnson believe there are five benefits for gifted students who work
cooperatively) (1) learning with e,pectation of teaching to others results in learning at
higher cognitive levels than learning to pass a test= (;) e,plaining increases the level of
cognitive reasoning# retention# and achieveent= (<) checking e,planations of others
increases achieveent= (5) cognitive growth requires social interaction and intellectual
arguents= (3) viewing issues fro a variety of perspectives prootes higher$level
reasoning and cognitive growth (1991) ;3)!
%hen gifted students work with peers of lower ability# they are involved in cognitive
restructuring and practice with the inforation being studied! +he Johnsons do not
believe that an all$gifted group has any advantages over heterogeneous groups! +hey
advocate that# if teachers separate out their gifted students for enrichent# they should
also involve the in cooperative work in heterogeneous groups! 1ifted students should
be helped to focus on the desire to tackle difficult tasks# not on winning over others
(1991) ;.)!
The 'se of $roup %ewards
&lavin and Bohn have polar positions on the use of group rewards in cooperative learning
(1raves# 1991) ..)! &lavin is concerned with iproving student achieveent and believes
that group rewards# based on the individual achieveent of each group eber# are
iportant Bohn (1991) thinks rewards underine intrinsic otivation and considers
group rewards to be 9group grade grubbing!9 Bohn advocates that teachers look at the
curriculu and ask if it has intrinsic appeal and autonoy (lets students ake choices)#
and if it fosters the creation of a counity within the classroo! Bohn is in favor of the
use of 1roup "nvestigation because it does allow students to have control over what they
will study and how they will gather inforation!
Bohn believes that a carefully structured cooperative environent that offers challenging
learning tasks# that allows students to ake key decisions about how they will perfor
these tasks# and that ephasi-es the value (and skills) of helping each other learn is a
sufficient alternative to e,trinsic otivators (1991) */)!
1raves (1991) suggests that teachers ask theselves three questions) (1) 're there fors
of group rewards that inii-e the possible negative effects on intrinsic otivationE (;)
Hnder what conditions will reliance on intrinsic otivation be ost likely to achieve
acadeic goalsE and (<) Hnder what conditions ay e,trinsic group rewards continue to
be necessary and usefulE 1raves considers e,trinsic rewards to be daaging when (1)
students would do the work without the# (;) students see the as an attept to control
and anipulate! 0e believes e,trinsic rewards are least daaging when (1) the tasks are
ones students are unwilling to do on their own# (;) the rewards are largely sybolic in
for rather than being 9payent#9 (<) the rewards are social rather than tangible# or (5)
they are unanticipated (1991) .*)!
Cooperative Learning( )enefits %evisited
7ooperative learning prepares students for today2s society! "t prootes active learning$
students learn ore when they talk and work together than when they listen passively! "t
otivates# leads to acadeic gains# fosters respect for diversity# and advances language
skills (4ergendollar and 8acker# 19*9)! "t breaks down stereotypes and leads to an
increase in self$estee (Hscher# 19*/)! "t builds cooperative skills# such as
counication# interaction# cooperative planning# sharing of ideas# decision aking#
listening# taking turns# and e,changing and synthesi-ing ideas (&haran and &haran# 19*.)
;5)! "t is a ethod of prooting acadeic achieveent that is not e,pensive to
ipleent (@yan and ?oyle# 19**)!
Staff !evelopment and Cooperative Learning
'lthough cooperative learning is ine,pensive to ipleent# it takes tie and practice for
teachers to becoe skilled in its use! :dwards and &tout (199() ephasi-e the
iportance of not neglecting the direct teaching of social skills for cooperation before
beginning acadeic assignents! +hese social skills include staying with the group#
using quiet voices# giving direction to the group2s work# encouraging participation#
e,plaining answers# relating present learning to past learning# critici-ing ideas without
critici-ing people# asking probing questions# and requesting further rationale (Johnson C
Johnson# 199() <1)! 'lso# when in doubt about group si-e# start sall (two to three
people)!
:dwards and &tout say that cooperative learning is useful when students are practicing a
new concept# when discussion and higher order thinking skills are required# or when
sall group brainstoring is needed! +hey advise teachers wishing to try this ethod to
enlist colleagues in trying it in their classroos so that a support group can develop
(199() 5()!
%eferences
'ronson# :! et al! (19.*)! The Jigsaw Classroom! >everly 0ills# 7') &age 8ublications!
>asili# 8! '!# C &anford# J! 8! (1991)! 7onceptual change strategies and cooperative group
work in cheistry! Journal of Research in Science Teaching# 28(5)# ;9<$<(5!
>randt# R! (19*.# Foveber)! Gn cooperation in schools) ' conversation with David and
Roger Johnson! Educational Leadership# 45(<)# 15$19!
7hapagne# '! >!# C 0ornig# @! :! (:ds!)! (19*.)! Students and Science Learning!
%ashington# D7) 'erican 'ssociation for the 'dvanceent of &cience!
7ohen# :! 1! (1991# 'pril)! ?inding outAdescubriiento) 7ople, instruction in science!
Cooperative Learning# (<)) <($<1!
7onwell# 7! R! et al! (19**# Foveber)! Students! perceptions when wor"ing in
cooperative pro#lem solving groups! 8aper presented at the Forth 7arolina &cience
+eachers 'ssociation 7onvention! (:R"7 Docuent Reproduction &ervice Fo! :D <1<
533)
7ooper# J!# C 8rescott# &! (19*9# 4arch)! Cooperative learning$ %ids helping "ids&
teachers helping teachers! 4aterials packet for 0igher :ducation coponent of ''7+:
&yposiu! (:R"7 Docuent Reproduction &ervice Fo! :D <1( (/.)
:dwards# 7!# C &tout# J! (19*9# Deceber$199(# January)! 7ooperative learning) +he first
year! Educational Leadership# 4'(5)# <*$51!
:llis# &! &!# C %halen# &! ?! (199()! Cooperative learning getting started! Few Iork)
&cholastic 8ress!
1ough# 8! >! (19*.# 4ay)! +he key to iproving schools) 'n interview with %illia
1lasser! (hi )elta %appan# *8(9)# /3/$//;!
1raves# +! (1991# 'pril)! +he controversy over group rewards in cooperative classroos!
Educational Leadership# 48 (.)# ..$.9!
Johnson# D! %! et al! (19*5)! Circles of learning& cooperation in the classroom!
'le,andria# D') 'ssociation for &upervision and 7urriculu Developent!
Johnson# D! %!# C Johnson# R! +! (19*9# Deceber$199(# January)! &ocial skills for
successful group work! Educational Leadership# 4'(5)# ;9$<<!
Johnson# D! %!# C Johnson# R! +! (1991# 'pril)! %hat cooperative learning has to offer
the gifted! Cooperative Learning# (<)# ;5$;.!
Johnson# R! +!# C Johnson# D! %! (19*.a)! 7ooperative learning and the achieveent and
sociali-ation crises in science and atheatics classroos! "n 7hapagne and 0ornig
(:ds!)# Students and science learning (pp! /.$9<)!
Johnson# R! +!# C Johnson# D! %! (19*.b# &epteber)! 0ow can we put cooperative
learning into practiceE The Science Teacher# 54(/)# 5/$3(!
Johnson# R! +!# C Johnson# D! %! (1991# 'pril)! &o what2s new about cooperative learning
in scienceE Cooperative Learning# (<)) ;$<!
Jones# 1! (199()! Cognitive conflict and cooperative learning! 8aper presented at the
annual eeting of the Fational 'ssociation for Research in &cience +eaching! (:R"7
Docuent Reproduction &ervice Fo! :D <19 39*)
Jones# R! 4!# C &teinbrink# J! :! (1991# 'pril)! 0oe teas) cooperative learning in
eleentary science! School Science and +athematics# ,(5)# 1<9$15<!
Jones# R! 4!# C &teinbrink# J! :! (19*9# Foveber)! Hsing cooperative groups in science
teaching! School Science and +athematics# 8,(.)) 351$331!
Bagan# &! (19*9# Deceber$199(# January)! +he structural approach to cooperative
learning! Educational Leadership# 4'(5)# 1;$13!
Binney# J! 0! (19*9# 4ay)! - stud. of the effects of a cooperative learning program on
the achievement of ,th grade multi/cultural general #iolog. classes! (:R"7 Docuent
Reproduction &ervice Fo! :D <(9 (9/)
Bohn# '! (1991# ?ebruary)! 1roup grade grubbing versus cooperative learning!
Educational Leadership# 48(3)# *<$*.!
Bnight# 1! 8!# C >ohleyer# :! 4! (199()! 7ooperative learning and achieveent)
4ethods for assessing causal echaniss! "n &! &haran# (:d!)# Cooperative learning$
Theor. and research (pp! 1$;;)! Few Iork) 8raeger 8ublishers!
@a-arowit-# R! et al! (19**)! 'cadeic achieveent and on$task behavior of high school
biology students instructed in a cooperative sall investigative group! Science Education#
'2(5)# 5.3$5*.!
@a-arowit-# R! (1991# 'pril)! @earning biology cooperatively) 'n "sraeli junior high
school study! Cooperative Learning# (<)# 19$;1!
@yan# @!# C ?oyle# 0! 7! (19**)! Cooperative learning strategies and children! (:R"7
Docuent Reproduction &ervice Fo! :D <(/ ((<)
4ergendollar# J!# C 8acker# 4! J! (19*9)! Cooperative learning in the classroom$ -
"nowledge #rief on effective teaching! (:R"7 Docuent Reproduction &ervice Fo! :D
<;; 15/)
Fewann# ?! 4!# C +hopson# J! '! (19*.# &epteber)! Effects of cooperative learning
on achievement in secondar. schools$ - summar. of research! (:R"7 Docuent
Reproduction &ervice Fo! :D ;** *3<)
Gkebukola# 8! '! (19*/)! 7ooperative learning and students2 attitudes to laboratory work!
School Science and +athematics# 8*(.)# 3*;$39(!
Rice# D! 7!# C 1abel# D! @! (199()! Cooperative learning in a college science course for
preservice elementar. teachers! (:R"7 Docuent Reproduction &ervice Fo! :D <;(
..<)
Robblee# B! 4! (1991# January)! 7ooperative 7heistry! The Science Teacher# 58(1)# ;($
;<!
Rosebery# '! &! et al! (1991# 'pril)! 7heche konnen) 7ollaborative scientific inquiry in
language inority classroos! Cooperative Learning# (<) ;*$;(!
Rutherford# ?! J!# C 'hlgren# '! (199()! Science for all -mericans! Few Iork) G,ford
Hniversity 8ress!
&cott# @! H!# C 0eller# 8! (1991# January)! +ea work works! The Science Teacher# 58(1)#
;5$;*!
&haran# &! (:d!)! (199()! Cooperative learning$ Theor. and research! Few Iork) 8raeger
8ublishers!
&haran# I!# C &haran# &! (19*9# Deceber$199(# January)! 1roup investigation e,pands
cooperative learning! Educational Leadership# 4'(5)# 1.$19!
&haran# I!# C &haran# &! (Foveber# 19*.)! +raining teachers for cooperative learning!
Educational Leadership# 45(<)# ;($;3!
&heran# @! %! (19*9# January)! ' coparative study of cooperation and copetitive
achieveent in two secondary biology classroos) +he group investigation odel versus
an individually copetitive goal structure! Journal of Research in Science Teaching#
2*(1)# 33$/5!
&lavin# R! :! (19**a# Gctober)! 7ooperative learning and student achieveent!
Educational Leadership# 4*(;)) <1$<<!
&lavin# R! :! (1991# ?ebruary)! 1roup rewards ake group work work# response to Bohn!
Educational Leadership# 48(3)# *9$91!
&lavin# R! :! (19*9# Deceber$199(# January)! 0ere to stay$or gone toorrowE
Educational Leadership# 4'(5)# <!
&lavin# R! :! (19*9# Deceber$199(# January)! Research on cooperative learning)
7onsensus and controversy! Educational Leadership# 4'(5))3;$35!
&lavin# R! :! (19**b# June)! Student team learning$ -n overview and practical guide!
%ashington# D7) Fational :ducation 'ssociation!
&lavin# R! :! (1991# ?ebruary)! &ynthesis of research on cooperative learning!
Educational Leadership# 48(3)) .1$*;!
&lavin# R! :! (1991# 'pril)! %hat cooperative learning has to offer the gifted!
Cooperative Learning# (<)) ;;$;<!
+otten# &!# C &ills# +! 4! (19*9# Deceber$199(# January)! &elected resources for using
cooperative learning! Educational Leadership# 4'(5)# //!
Hscher# 7! (19*/# 'ugust)! Cooperative learning in the ur#an classroom! (:R"7
Docuent Reproduction &ervice Fo! ;.< .1.)
%ooley# &! ?! et al! (1991# 'pril)! +he >&7& eleentary science progra) ' cooperative
learning approach! Cooperative Learning# 012$<;$<<!