Cooperative learning:

Cooperative learning is a widely recognised teaching approach in which students work

together in deliberately designed small groups to accomplish shared academic as well as
social goals (Johnson, Johnson, & Holubec, 2002). It is widely recognised as a teaching
strategy that promotes socialisation and learning among students from pre-primary through
university and across different subject areas (Cohen, 1994). Cooperative learning differs
largely from a traditional groupwork in terms that it is not only carefully prepared, planned
and monitored (Jacobs, 1997; Johanson and Johnson, 1994) but makes each group member to
individually accountable for their learning and for contributing to the groups learning.
Imporatnce of Cooperative learning
Cooperative learning is one of the most commodiously researched educational novelities
of all time. Numerous research studies have measured the effectiveness of cooperative
learning as an instructional method that promotes reading and writing achievement among
middle school students (Stevens, 2003), understanding in high school science classes (Foley
& ODonnell, 2002), and problem solving in mathematics (Sahlberg & Berry, 2002). The
general consensus is that this approach not only works well with students with diverse
learning and adjustment needs (Mcmaster & Fuchs, 2002) but with culturally and ethnically
different backgrounds by enhancing intergroup relations (Slavin & Cooper, 1999).
Cooperative learning promotes the construction of ideas when students make personal sense
of their ideas by explaining them to others. It is in accordance with an earliest approach
whoever teaches, learns.
Paradigms of Cooperative learning
A plethora of research has been done in recent years to develop and assess cooperative
learning designs. There are more than 20 cooperative learning models (Myers, 1991). Some
of the widely used models are Learning Together and Student Controversy model (Johnson,
Johnson, & Holubec, 2002), Jigsaw II and Student Teams-Achievement Division models
(Slavin, 1996), The Structural Approach to cooperative learning (Kagan, 1994) and so forth.
Kagans Structural Approach to Cooperative learning
One of the most popular cooperative models is the Kagans Structural Approach.
Kagans model comprises of over 200 structures, some of which are competitive whilst the
others are cooperative. Yet all the structures in cooperative model essentially involve positive

interdependence and individual accountability. Distinctive structures are associated with

distinctive cognitive, academic and social outcomes. A variety of structures, each selected for
the outcome it best achieves, can be included within a single lesson (Kagan, 1989; Olsen-Bell
& Kagan, 1992; Kagan, 1994, as cited in Vermette, 1998).
Kagan and Kagan (2009) define structures as content free, repeatable instruction
sequences that organise the interaction of students to implement the basic principles of
cooperative learning (p.5.3). According to these authors, cooperative learning can be
achieved in bite- sized pieces- a structure at a time (p.xii). Kagans Structural Approach
(1994) is underpinned by six key elements.
These are:
1) structures and related constructs
2) basic principles positive interdependence; individual accountability; equal participation
and simultaneous interaction usually acronymed as PIES
3) team building and class building
4) team selection and formation
5) management of the classroom
6) development of social skills.

Unlike other approaches administering to cooperative learning, structures in this model

are not lesson based; these structures require no planning or special designs while execution.
Structure + Content = Activity
Structures in Kagans model vary from as simple as that of Think- Pair- Share, which takes a
few minutes to carry out three steps, to complex structures such as Co-op Co-op, which may
take a full semester to complete all the ten steps. Other Kagans structures include Timed Pair
Share, Folded Value Line, Corners, Team State Mats, Draw a gambit, Rally Robin, Rally
Coach, Quiz-Quiz Trade, PlaceMats, Pairs View, Numbered Heads Together, Team Web,
Carousel sharing. These are just a few examples of over 200 structures in Kagans model.
A number of school- based studies in various year levels have examined the effects of
utilising the Kagans Structural Approach (Cline, 2007; Dotson, 2001; Howard, 2006; Murie,

2004). Persistently, the results of these studies indicated to have profound effects on the
achievement, attitude and engagement of students. Cline (2007), in her 16 week study,
examined the effects of Kagans structures in her 5th grade math class. She implemented the
structures like Rally Coach and Round Table to one class and used traditional method with
the other class. The result indicated that the experimental group surpassed the comparison on
all measures of achievement in mathematics. An another study on grade 7 mathematic class
by Altamira (2007) indicated the raised level of confidence in students abilities and better
involvement in learning. During her study, she implemented Kagans structural approach to
47 students grouped together in heterogenous teams of mixed abilities for six weeks and
came up with promising results with better grades than the students started at.
Bromley and Modlo (1997) in their descriptive study implemented the Kagans
Structural approach during readind and writing instructions and found this approach
associated with higher level thinking, better communication and positive socail relations
among students. Magnesio and Davis (2010) also reported to have positive effects of Kagans
Structures (RoundRobin, Rally Coach and Quiz- Quiz- Trade) on 4th grade students in
improving their social skills. Similar results were discovered by Nebesniak (2007) in her
study on 73 eighth grade students. The study found 69% students with enhanced confidence
level in problem solving and more involvement in their learning.
Limitations
Despite appearing advantageous and idealistic, there are some risks with Kagans
structures which teachers should be careful to avert and plan for.
1. Takes time and patience to be consistent
2. Danger of low achievers to be abased by high achievers
3. Chances of student dependency on group work
4. Frustration and hostility from students
5. Lack of social skills in students may result in social conflicts
6. Fear of failure may prevent some students from participation in group tasks.

Conclusion
Cooperative learning is a useful strategy worthy of canniness and mindful
implementation by educators. Various studies have pointed towards the role of the teacher in
implementing cooperative learning (Ding, Li, Piccolo, & KuIm, 2007; Siegel, 2005). These
studies held teachers role crucial to the success of cooperative learning in the classroom in
terms of decision making about setting up group tasks and their interventions during the
group processing.
References :

Altamira, B. (2013). Report on impact of cooperative learning on grade 7 mathematics class:

Prepared for Department of Education, Region IV-A, Division of Quezon. Retrieved
from
http://www.academia.edu/4621530/IMPACT_OF_COOPERATIVE_LEARNING_ON_GRA
DE_7_MATHEMATICS_CLASS- 28- July-2014.pdf.
Bromley, K., & Modlo, M. (1997). Using cooperative learning to improve reading and
writing in language arts. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 13, 21-36.
Cohen, E. (1994). Preparing students for cooperation. In E. Cohen (ed.), Designing
Groupwork: Strategies for the Heterogeneous Classroom (2nd ed., pp. 39-61). New
York: Teachers College Press.
Cline, L. (2007). Impacts of Kagan cooperative learning structures on fifth-graders'
mathematical achievement. Kagan Online Magazine. San Clemente, CA: Kagan
Publishing. Retrieved on August 12, 2014.
Ding, M., Li, X., Piccolo, D., & KuIm, G. (2007). Teacher interventions in cooperativelearning mathematics classes. Journal of Educational Research, 100(3), 162-175.
Dotson, J. M. (2001). Cooperative learning structures can increase student achievement.
Kagan Online Magazine. San Clemente, CA: Kagan Publishing. Retrieved on August 12,
2014.
Foley, K., & ODonnell, A. (2002). Cooperative learning and visual organisers: Effects on
solving mole problems in high school chemistry. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 22,
38-50.
Howard, B. (2006). Cooperative learning structures improve performance and attitudes of
high school journalism students. Kagan Online Magazine. San Clemente, CA: Kagan
Publishing. Retrieved on August 12, 2014.
Jacobs, G.M. (1997) Cooperative learning or just grouping students: The difference
makes a difference, Paper presented at the RELC Seminar, Singapore.

Johnson, D. & Johnson, R. (1994). In R. Stahl (Ed.), Co-operative learning in social studies:
A handbook for teachers. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Holubec, E. (2002). Circles of learning (5th ed.). Edina,
MN: Interaction Book Company.
Kagan, S. (1994). Cooperative learning. San Clemente, CA: Resources for Teachers.
Kagan, S., & Kagan, M. (2009). Kagan cooperative learning. San Clemente, CA: Kagan
Publishing.
MacMaster, K., & Fuchs, D. (2002). Effects of cooperative learning on the academic
achievement of students with learning disabilities: An update on Tateyama- Sniezeks
review. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 17, 107-117.
Magnesio, S., & Davis, B. H. (2010). A novice teacher fosters social competence with
cooperative learning. Childhood Education International, 86(4), 216-223. Retrieved
from
http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.library.uwa.edu.au/docview/669860949?accountid=1468
1
Murie, C. (2004). Effects of communication on student learning. Kagan Online Magazine.
San demente, CA: Kagan Publishing. Retrieved on August 12, 2014.
Myers, J. (1991). Co-operative learning in history and social sciences: An idea whose time
has come. Canadian Social Studies, 26(2), 60-64.
Nebesniak, A. (2007). Using cooperative learning to promote a problem- solving classroom.
Prepared in partial fulfillment of the MA degree for Department of Teaching, Learning
and Teacher Education, University of Nebraska- Lincoln. Retrieved from..
Siegel, C. (2005). Implementing a research-based model of cooperative learning. The Journal
of Educational Research, 98(6), 339-349.
Slavin, R. E. (1996). Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What we know,
what we need to know. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21(1), 43-69.
Slavin, R., & Cooper, R. (1999). Improving intergroup relations: Lesson learned from
cooperative programs. Journal of Special Issues, 55, 647-663.
Stevens, R. (2003). Student team reading and writing: A cooperative learning approach to
middle school literacy instruction. Education Research and Evaluation, 9, 137-160.
Sahlberg, P., & Berry, J. (2002). One and one is sometimes three in small group mathematics
learning. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 22, 82-94.
Vermette, P. J. (1998). Making cooperative learning work: Students teams in K-12
classrooms. Prentice-Hall/Merrill, Upper Saddle River: New Jersey.