Cooperative Learning: We Instead of Me
1
Running Head: COOPERATIVE LEARNING—LEARNING TOGETHER
Cooperative Learning: We Instead of Me
Caryn Asherson
California State University, Northridge
Cooperative Learning: We Instead of Me
2
ABSTRACT
Many students enter school without a caring support system. This study aimed to build small
learning communities in the classroom in order to provide learners with nurturing, positive
relationships with other students. It was theorized that beneficial interpersonal connections and a
sense of belonging would help motivate students to put forth additional effort. Moreover, it was
presumed that if classmate’s success was tied together, group members would feel an obligation
to do their best for the sake of the team. Ninety-two 6th grade science students at a public school
in the Beverly Hills Unified School district were observed in cooperative learning groups to
examine whether working in teams had any effect on achievement, motivation to learn, and
interpersonal relationships. Students were grouped by academic ability, gender, personality,
perseverance, ability to stay on task, and previous success at team learning. Students were
instructed using the Student-Teams Achievement-Divisions (STAD) method. This method
began with information being presented to students in a lecture format. Next, students worked in
groups to master the material. Subsequently, they were given individual quizzes. Teams were
recognized by earning improvement points on successive quizzes. The study did not find
statistically significant improvement in achievement scores. However, the research did uncover
that cooperative learning can lead to improvements in motivation and interpersonal relationships
among students.
Cooperative Learning: We Instead of Me
3
Chapter 1 – Introduction
“Can we work on this with a partner?” There is not a week that goes by in which a
student does not chime in with the aforementioned question. Undoubtedly, students yearn for
opportunities to connect with their classmates. This can be especially true for middle school
students given that early adolescence can be a time when children struggle to fit in. Without a
solid support system, feelings of loneliness and isolation can escalate. Therefore, by
constructing learning groups in which students can collaborate, schools can ensure that every
student is engaged in positive and caring alliances with peers. When implemented properly,
cooperative learning can provide an ideal way to cultivate supportive relationships between
students. At the same time, learning in teams can help equip pupils with the necessary critical
thinking skills that will prepare them to enter today’s workforce.
Traditionally, students have been taught in whole groups where the teacher talks 70% of
the time (Goodlad, 1984; Cuban, 1988; Sirotnick, 1983). Students have been expected to sit and
listen passively, without talking or engaging with their classmates. Yet, studies have shown that
students’ attention decreases as lectures progress (Stuart and Rutherford, 1978). Consequently,
cooperative learning has changed classrooms from being “teacher-centered,” where the focus is
on the teacher imparting knowledge to the pupils, to “student centered,” where the students are
expected to take a more active part in their own learning. In cooperative classrooms, students
remain in charge of their own discoveries and can become truly excited about the learning
process. When there is a shift to student-centered learning, “teacher talk” is reduced by 50%,
Cooperative Learning: We Instead of Me
4
and that time can be spent praising and aiding students in their exchange of ideas (Vermette,
1998).
Purpose Statement
The purpose of this study was to explore the effects of cooperative learning on
achievement, motivation, and interpersonal relationships in my 6th grade science classroom.
Even though I had implemented team learning in my classroom before, I had never been satisfied
with the results. I had struggled to get students to feel like their success was mutually tied
together. However, it always appeared that one or two students in the group frequently did most
of the work, or else students worked separately. Most students seemed to prefer working
collaboratively; yet I often questioned whether they were actually achieving a great deal of
learning in their groups.
One of the key reasons I chose to study team learning was because I needed practice
applying this instructional method successfully in my classroom. I knew that, if executed
effectively, collaborative teams could bring about a learning community in which all students felt
acknowledged and accepted. At the same time it could promote the use of higher level thinking
skills and active, meaningful learning. Moreover, I knew that listening to students working in
groups could provide me with a greater insight into how well key concepts were being
understood.
I hypothesized that underachieving students would be more motivated to learn when their
peers depended on them for team success. In turn, I believed that high-achieving students would
help their low-performing partners process abstract information by simplifying the language of
Cooperative Learning: We Instead of Me
5
the text. All in all, the ultimate goal was to empower students to reach their full potential and be
the best they could be.
The specific research questions are:
1. What are the effects of cooperative learning on student achievement?
2. Does working in cooperative groups increase motivation and interpersonal relations
between students?
Importance of the Study
In today’s workforce, people are expected to work collaboratively, as well as to possess
problem solving skills and analytic abilities. Cooperative learning prepares students for the
realities that they will be facing when they enter the existing job market. Working in teams will
refine students’ abilities to reason, as well as increase their understanding of complex ideas and
content knowledge (Johnson & Johnson, 1994).
Furthermore, scores of young people have become very individualistic. Personal gains
and their own self importance have taken precedence over the commitment to helping others.
Conger (1998) points out, “Each person tends to focus on gratifying his or her own ends without
concern for others. Physical, psychological and material self-indulgence has become a primary
concern” (p. 58). As a result, today’s youth do not feel connected to the hardships of other
individuals. Yet, self fulfillment does not develop from operating in isolation. True meaning
and purpose come from contributing to the welfare of others.
Cooperative Learning: We Instead of Me
6
Additionally, what makes cooperative learning even more urgent is the fact that many
students feel alienated during their time in middle and high school. Although it remains easy for
some students to make friends, other students have trouble building supportive relationships with
other students. Johnson and Johnson (1989) concur, “Scores of students start school without a
concrete support system. It is not uncommon for students to go to classes without ever talking to
other students” (p. 63). Therefore, it is the responsibility of the schools to make sure that all
students are engaged in empowering, interdependent relationships with other students.
Cooperative groups are an ideal way to accomplish this.
Cooperative Learning: We Instead of Me
7
Chapter 2 – Literature Review
Cooperative learning consists of five main components: positive interdependence,
individual accountability, face-to face interaction, interpersonal and small group skills, and group
processing (Johnson & Johnson, 1994).
Positive Interdependence
One of the essential elements of cooperative learning is the notion that student
accomplishments are tied together. The success of one group member is connected with the
success of the others on the team. Johnson and Johnson (1999) identify this feature of
collaborative group work as positive interdependence. The authors contend, “It is positive
interdependence that creates the realization that group members have two responsibilities: to
learn the assigned material and to ensure that all members of their group learn the assigned
material” (Johnson &Johnson, 1999, p.75). As a result of positive interdependence, one student
is not left doing all the work, while others coast by. Assignments are designed in a way that
makes it difficult for students to work independently.
Face-to-Face Interaction
Another significant aspect of cooperative learning includes face-to-face interaction. This
constituent insists that a substantial amount of time is arranged when students can meet with
each other in person. Johnson and Johnson (1999) advise, “The discipline of using cooperative
groups includes ensuring that group members meet face to face to work together to complete
assignments and promote each other’s success” (p.82). The researchers reveal that it is the
Cooperative Learning: We Instead of Me
8
combination of both positive interdependence and face-to-face interaction which produce the
most powerful allegiances between learners, as well as the greatest commitment to each other’s
success (Johnson & Johnson, 1989).
Interpersonal and Small Group Skills
Positioning students in small groups and insisting that they work together effectively is a
recipe for failure. Students do not come to class routinely prepared to work successfully with
other students. They need to be trained to work collectively with their peers if they are to thrive
within their groups. Johnson and Johnson (1997) maintain, “Students must be taught the social
skills required for high-quality collaboration and be motivated to use them if cooperative groups
are to be successful” (p.83). Therefore, students must be given regular instruction on appropriate
social behaviors to be used while working cooperatively.
Group Processing
Lastly, it is important for students to reflect on what went well in their groups, as well as
what could be improved upon during future collaborative work. Johnson and Johnson (1999)
define group processing as, “a) Reflecting on a group session to describe what member actions
were helpful and unhelpful and b) making decisions about what actions to continue or change”
(p.85). It is presumed that mulling over what worked and what did not work will help guide
groups to being increasingly productive. Hence, the rationale behind group processing is to
improve the group’s ability to efficiently reach their goals.
Cooperative Learning: We Instead of Me
9
Achievement
There is a great deal of evidence that upholds the idea that cooperative learning can lead
to an increase in student achievement. In a study by Nichols and Miller (1994), students were
divided into two groups: one that learned through the use of cooperative learning and one that
was taught using the conventional lecture method. Two outcomes emerged: student achievement
improved when children worked in teams and students enjoyed learning more when they worked
in groups (Nichols and Miller, 1994). This study corroborates the idea that team learning can
promote enhanced academic success.
In addition, research by Mesch, Johnson, and Johnson (1987) confirmed that learning in
teams boosted achievement gains. The study lasted for six months using two groups of tenth
grade students. One group was taught using cooperative group methods; whereas the other
group was taught using individualized instruction. The collaborative teams scored much higher
on the tests generated by their teachers. Moreover, the investigators found that constructing
teams of students with diverse backgrounds and various achievement levels did not negatively
affect the academic advantage that cooperative groups provided. As a result, the study not only
supported the idea that cooperative learning could enhance achievement; it also substantiated the
use of mixed, heterogeneous grouping.
Next, Sharan, Ackerman, and Hertz-Lazarowitz (1980) proved that small-group
instruction led to higher order learning. Two-hundred and seventeen students in the second
through sixth grades were involved in a study in which large group discussion was compared
with learning in small groups. The evidence from the study found that the students who learned
Cooperative Learning: We Instead of Me
10
in the small groups were more creative and benefited academically from collaborating with each
other. Their cognitive reasoning abilities and critical thinking skills improved.
Moreover, Humphreys, Johnson, and Johnson (1982) found that cooperative learning
resulted in increased comprehension, recall, and transfer of knowledge. The researchers
instigated a six week study involving 44 ninth graders. Students were taught under one of three
circumstances: cooperatively, competitively, and individualistically. One week after all of the
units, students took a retention test to evaluate the long standing effects of the teaching
strategies. The authors stated, “In all aspects, members of the cooperative team scored higher;
they liked their classes better, they learned more, and they remembered more for a longer amount
of time” (p.355). Thus, cooperative learning can increase the enjoyment of learning, advance
academic achievement, and improve student retention rates. This outcome provided a significant
rationale for the implementation of group learning.
These are just several of the overwhelming number of studies that demonstrated the
academic benefits that cooperative learning might foster. These reports influenced my research
in that they reinforced my confidence that applying cooperative learning practices in my
classroom could lead to positive academic growth for my students. I employed several of the
same tactics to implement my research to see if my results would yield similar findings to the
studies mentioned above.
Cooperative Learning: We Instead of Me
11
Motivation
Research showed that when students worked in groups, they were more enthusiastic
about taking responsibility for their own learning. Jeanne Gibbs claimed (2006), “The power of
being included and valued by peers motivates students to actively participate in their own
learning” (p.10). Therefore, when instruction becomes student-centered, students have an
increased incentive to partake in schoolwork and they put more effort into their learning. By
providing students with positive connections to other learners, teachers can inspire students to
become increasingly involved in their own education.
Working together in teams was a positive motivating experience in a study conducted by
Slavin and Karweit (1981). In this investigation, 456 fourth and fifth graders were assigned to
two groups. In one group, students were taught using individualistic teaching methods. The
second group was taught using cooperative learning methods. The students were surveyed after
one semester and the results determined an increase in motivation to learn and in self esteem.
The researchers concluded that “teamed students are more likely to succeed in schoolwork and
therefore feel more motivated to learn in this way” (p.34). Slavin and Karweit speculated that
working in groups resulted in students’ academic success which, accordingly, made the learners
feel good. This, in turn, elevated student motivation to learn.
When team members like each other and have positive feelings toward their group they
will be more likely to put forth their best effort (Johnson &Johnson, 1999). When instruction is
organized in a way that enables groups to be successful, students will work hard for the welfare
of their team. Johnson and Johnson (1999) suggest that “the greater the likelihood of success,
Cooperative Learning: We Instead of Me
12
the higher the motivation” (p.200). Thus, when students are striving for group success, they are
encouraged to want to help each other do well. Students will bond with each other and become
committed to each other’s well-being. Ultimately, this will lead to the intrinsic motivation to
achieve.
These studies influenced my research in that they demonstrated how beneficial
cooperative learning could be in influencing pupils’ motivation to learn if student relationships
were nurtured and strengthened. When designing my research, these studies helped me to realize
the importance of team building and developing connections between students. In order to
promote a learning community in my classroom, I couldn’t just throw students together and
expect them to work cooperatively. I knew that I had to enrich their bonds with each other so
that they would feel committed to each other’s learning.
Interpersonal Relations
Several studies suggested that cooperative learning could lead to improved interpersonal
relationships between students. For instance, Blaney, Stephan, Rosenfield, and Sikes (1977)
found that cooperative learning fostered positive interactions with students whom others were
not previously fond of. The authors asserted, “Results showed a great increase in liking and
friendliness toward those who had not been liked before” (p. 125). This study verified that
learning collaboratively can promote caring relationships between students. These friendships
can help encourage students to enjoy coming to school, and therefore, improve regular
attendance and reduce the overall dropout rate.
Cooperative Learning: We Instead of Me
13
Another study found that attitudes toward the content being taught and toward other
students were improved when students worked collaboratively. Johnson, Johnson, Scott, and
Ramolae (1985) discovered that after working together in collaborative teams, students
“significantly increased their friendships and contacts both outside of the team and outside of the
school” (p. 217). Therefore, cooperative learning can offer the potential to increase positive
connections between students. Moreover, it can encourage improved student-teacher
relationships since students feel validated and part of a trusting, caring classroom culture.
These studies influenced my research because they verified the importance of teaching
students how to communicate when working together. During my investigation, students needed
to be instructed on how to take turns, resolve conflicts, and how to correspond appropriately.
Even though these skills may seem second nature to adults, it could not be assumed that students
were equipped with the same abilities to communicate. Time needed to spent at the beginning
and end of each class reviewing positive ways for learners to collaborate and share ideas, as well
as reflecting on what went well in the group and what could be improved upon for next time.
In conclusion, as teachers we use many different strategies to try to reach students of
different abilities and learning styles. Cooperative learning provides a method that achieves this
goal, while at the same time promoting active learning and a supportive learning community.
Learning collaboratively can be applied in various ways, thus ensuring success for scores of
students. Although it may take time to master the proper implementation of successful
cooperative learning groups, it remains a valuable teaching practice that should not be easily
overlooked.
Cooperative Learning: We Instead of Me
14
Chapter 3 - Methodology
Participants
This study examined four groups of approximately 25 sixth graders during earth science
class over the course of one semester. The analysis took place from September, 2007 to
February, 2008. The research occurred at Beverly Vista School in the Beverly Hills Unified
School District. Beverly Vista serves students in grades K-8 and is considered a neighborhood
school. According to the most recent accountability report, about 13.9% of the students enrolled
receive special education services and nearly 9.4% qualify for English Language Learner
support.
Procedure
Building Teams
Teams were designed thoughtfully and were blended to maximize strengths. Students
were placed into groups of four. This decision was made based on research that suggested that
groups larger than four presented problems, such as making it easier for an unenthusiastic
student to play a smaller part in group activities. Conversely, while working in pairs can make
students more involved, it can also limit the amount of insights the group could reach with more
members (Vermette, 1998). Furthermore, Vermette found (p.73), “Teachers report using teams
of four more often than anything else because it allows a full mix of ideas, sufficient
opportunities for sharing, plenty of diversity, and room for consensus to be found on different
items among the different membership (1998).” Therefore, groups of four were created in order
Cooperative Learning: We Instead of Me
15
to promote a balance of interests and personalities, as well as to provide adequate opportunities
for sharing. However, if there were an odd number of students in a particular class, one or more
groups of three or five were used as an alternative. Group membership remained unchanged for
the duration of the topic being taught. This was done in order to encourage team commitment. At
the end of each unit, students were reassigned to new teams. This gave learners a chance to work
with other classmates and gave students who were on low scoring teams an opportunity to start
fresh.
The groups were formed with regard to several student characteristics. These included
academic aptitude, gender, personality, perseverance, ability to stay on task, and previous
success at team learning. Prior to the formation of the groups, students were asked to write down
the names of three students they would like to work with. The purpose of this was to identify
potential outcasts. Subsequently, teams were arranged in a manner that would balance academic
ability among group members. According to the Johnsons (1994), low achievers working in
mixed ability cooperative groups gained immense positive benefits, and Slavin’s (1991) research
explicitly affirmed that high-ability students were not damaged by working in heterogeneous
groups. Furthermore, the research says, that when implemented properly, cooperative learning
can have significant benefits regarding the conceptual development of high achievers (Bennett
and Cass, 1988; Vermette, 1998). Thus, each group consisted of a mix of high- and low-ability
students with average ability students.
Additionally, the teams were built with attention paid to gender. Deborah Tannen, an
expert on communication patterns between males and females, found that men and women use
Cooperative Learning: We Instead of Me
16
talk for different reasons. She maintained, “Men use talk to solve problems, build hierarchies,
and maintain power, whereas women used it to build communities, forge connections, and
simply for venting (p.84, Tannen).” As a result, the teams were constructed using a 50-50 gender
split. The expectation was that this group arrangement would increase the likelihood of a
combination of positive group qualities including, a strong focus on completing the task at hand,
willingness to act as a leader, a comfort with interacting with new people, and responsiveness to
other people’s feelings and outlooks (Vermette, 1998). These factors seemed to play a
significant part in generating a dynamic and productive team. In fact, several research studies
have substantiated the claim that the use of a 50-50 gender split generated more positive benefits
than would have occurred in single-sex teams (Warring, Johnson, Maruyama, & Johnson, 1985;
Johnson, Johnson, Scott, & Ramolae, 1985). Thus, gender balanced teams seemed like the best
way to promote a constructive exchange of ideas
Moreover, evidence from several of Noreen Webb’s studies performed at UCLA asserted
that female students were at risk in cooperative learning classrooms. Her research implied that,
“Girls in female-majority groups spend their time making sure that the boy of the group learns
the material, is attended to, and enjoys himself” (1984, p. 40).” Hence, extensive
accommodations were made for the male in the group when he was in the minority. Even worse,
there is evidence that boys will discount girls when other males are around (Webb, 1982;
Sadker& Sadker, 1994). This indicates that, in a cooperative setting, females are vulnerable to
being overlooked and are susceptible to a disproportionate number of opportunities to learn. For
this reason, it was made certain that if it was not possible to include two boys and two girls in a
team, then the group would consist of all females and no groups had a solitary female.
Cooperative Learning: We Instead of Me
17
Lastly, a great deal of effort was taken to balance ability with other characteristics
like determination and ambition. Vermette argues, “Every group needs someone to push them, to
remind them of their task, and to motivate them (p. 81, 1998).” This type of enthusiasm does not
always come from the most intelligent student in the group. Very often it may come from a
“C+” average student with a strong desire to learn. Accordingly, teams were balanced with
students of varying aspirations and perseverance.
Interpersonal and Small Group Skills
As indicated by Johnson and Johnson, students cannot simply be placed in groups and be
told to cooperate. They need to be coached in using interpersonal skills (1999). Hence, when
beginning to work in groups, students were taught about the importance of teamwork and trained
to use the appropriate social skills needed to work effectively with each other. The skills taught
included how to communicate efficiently, how to assist each other in understanding the material,
and how to settle conflicts constructively. These skills were reinforced weekly to promote
positive connections between students so that they felt valued and supported by their peers. As
maintained by Dweck, “Trusting relationships are at the heart of keeping adolescent learners
engaged at school (p.289, 1985).” Thus, to further build trust and to get to know each other,
students participated regularly in team-building activities. The objective was to establish a low
stress environment in which learners supported each other’s efforts and felt safe to express a mix
of opinions.
Cooperative Learning: We Instead of Me
18
Group Processing
Johnson and Johnson’s research (1999) emphasized that an important part of cooperative
learning involves reflection on how the group is functioning. They identified this kind of
thinking as group processing. Group processing is defined as, “reflecting on a group session to
describe what member actions were helpful or unhelpful, and make decisions about what actions
to continue or change” (Johnson & Johnson, p. 85, 1999). As a result, time was allocated at the
end of each class for learners to evaluate how efficiently they worked with their group mates. In
addition, teams filled out weekly reflection forms depicting how well they worked together and
their goals for improvement (See Appendix B). The intent was to enhance group members’
collaborative success and to increase positive behaviors.
STAD
The instructional method used for this study was one of the long-standing and most
highly researched types of cooperative learning. The approach is called Student Teams –
Achievement Divisions, also known as STAD (Slavin, 1995). This strategy was chosen based on
the recommendation of expert, Robert Slavin. His research suggested that this is one of the
easiest forms of cooperative learning to implement and he believes it is a good model for
teachers who are just starting to experiment with cooperative learning in their classrooms.
STAD is made up of five different parts. As indicated by Slavin, these include, “class
presentations, teams, quizzes, individual improvement scores, and team recognition (p. 71,
1995).”
Cooperative Learning: We Instead of Me
19
Class Presentations and Teams
During this study, information was first presented to the students in the form of a lecture.
The lessons lasted one to two class periods and incorporated visuals and various forms of
multimedia. Next, students worked in teams for one to two class sessions to ensure that all group
members had mastered the material. They worked collectively to complete review worksheets.
Then they discussed answers to questions in their workbooks and addressed each others’
misunderstandings.
Quizzes
Afterward, to assess the outcome of learning, students were evaluated independently.
Even though student achievement was measured individually in this study, students had to
believe that their individual success depended on the accomplishment of the entire group. The
idea of teamwork is the main aspect of STAD. As maintained by Johnson and Johnson (1999),
each and every team member must be required to grasp the key ideas in order for the whole
group to thrive. According to Slavin (1993), group goals and individual accountability are
important in giving students an incentive to help each other succeed and exert their greatest
effort. In his review of over seventy-seven studies on cooperative learning, he found that 78% of
studies on cooperative learning in which group goals and accountability were used resulted in
positive outcomes and there were no major negative effects. In studies that did not include these
methods, only 37% found considerable positive effects, and 14% found substantial negative
effects (Slavin, 1995). Therefore, to ensure positive interdependence, individual quizzes were
given after one to two periods of the teacher presenting the material and one to two periods of the
Cooperative Learning: We Instead of Me
20
students practicing in teams. Group members were not allowed to help each other during the
quizzes. As a result, students were personally responsible for understanding the material.
Individual Improvement
To further guarantee positive interdependence, students earned points for their teams
based on individual improvement in performance. New scores were compared to achievement
on previous quizzes. The goal behind this was to encourage learners to work harder and improve
on past performance. First, a base score was determined for each student by averaging the last
three quiz scores earned prior to the start of the research. Students earned points based on the
amount that their new quiz scores surpassed their base scores. Following the completion of a unit
(about every 4 weeks), students’ base scores were reconfigured by averaging individual
achievement on the most up-to-date quizzes.
In order to measure whether cooperative learning methods genuinely did affect
achievement outcomes, collaborative learning practices were alternated with individualistic
learning techniques. Results were calculated from five units of study: Plate Tectonics,
Earthquakes, Volcanoes, Rocks and Minerals, and Erosion. One unit was taught using
cooperative learning and the subsequent unit was taught using individualistic learning
techniques. Quiz scores received after the cooperative learning occurred were compared with
quiz scores collected after the individual learning took place.
Cooperative Learning: We Instead of Me
21
Team Recognition
Slavin emphasizes that team recognition is an important part of STAD. He believes that
recognizing high achievement motivates students to do their best (1995). As a result, award
certificates were granted to the highest scoring teams. Three levels of awards were given: (15
point team average) GOOD TEAM, (20 point team average) GREAT TEAM, (25 point team
average) SUPER TEAM (Slavin, 1995). Teams were not in competition, thus any team could
win an award as long as they met the criteria. Students were only competing with themselves,
trying to improve their past scores, regardless of how the rest of the class performed.
Collecting and Analyzing Data
Lastly, to facilitate understanding of the overall findings, students completed surveys
regarding their thoughts on cooperative learning. They were also interviewed and asked
questions about their instruction preferences and their outlook on collaborative work. The idea
was to determine how team learning influenced motivation. Moreover, field notes were recorded
during class sessions to document achievement outcomes that might not show up on the quiz
results. The aim at this point was to identify variations in achievement that might not translate
during the analysis of test scores.
Cooperative Learning: We Instead of Me
22
Chapter 4 - Findings
Pre Survey
Students were administered a pre-survey to evaluate their learning preferences regarding
cooperative learning versus learning individually. The results revealed the evidence of students’
desire to connect with others and their need to work together on tasks.
Pre Survey
If I Had a Choice I Would Work
90
80
78
Learning Preferences
70
60
50
40
30
20
13
10
0
With a Group
Alone
Number of Students
Out of the 91 students surveyed, 78 students suggested that they would prefer to work in a group;
whereas 13 favored working alone. When asked why they would prefer to work in a group,
these were the most common responses:
Response
Number of Student Responses
Cooperative Learning: We Instead of Me
23
Because it’s more fun and you have someone
to keep you company.
20
Two heads are better than one/ It cuts down on
the work you have to do and makes it easier.
31
Because if I don’t understand something, my
partner can help me/We can incorporate each
other’s ideas and hear other opinions.
22
The most common responses to preferring to work alone included:
Response
Number of Student Responses
I like to work alone because that way I can do
things how I want to/ I like to be in control.
7
I can accomplish more by myself/It’s less of a
hassle.
4
It is less distracting/ I don’t have to keep
telling my partners to pay attention.
5
I don’t want my partners to do something
wrong.
2
What are the effects of cooperative learning on student achievement?
The first topic studied in groups was plate tectonics. Information was first presented to the
students in the form of a lecture. The lessons lasted one to two class periods and incorporated
visuals and various forms of multimedia. Next, students worked in teams for one to two class
sessions to ensure that all group members had mastered the material. They worked collectively to
complete review worksheets. Then they discussed answers to questions in their workbooks and
addressed each others’ misunderstandings. Individual tests were given after the teacher presented
Cooperative Learning: We Instead of Me
24
the material and one to two periods of the students practicing in teams. Group members were not
allowed to help each other during the tests.
Chapter 1 Test - Cooperative Groups
Period 1
F
12%
D
16%
A
40%
A
B
C
D
F
C
0%
B
32%
The first test revealed relatively positive results, with 72% of the class receiving A’s or B’s. Of
the four students who received D’s, one was an English Language Learner (ELL) and another
was a special needs student with autism. Additionally, one of the students had a 61% grade point
average in the class. One of the students who earned an F on the test was a resource student with
an IEP and the other student had a 58% average in the class. These low scores were not atypical
of these students. The overall class average was 78.3%.
The next topic covered was volcanoes. Students worked on various tasks in groups including
testing the thickness of liquids and relating viscosity to the explosivity of volcanic eruptions.
Cooperative Learning: We Instead of Me
25
They examined the textures of different volcanic rocks, as well as mapped the location patterns
of volcanoes around the world. At the close of the unit, students practiced for the test with their
teams for several days.
Chapter 3 Test- Cooperative Groups
Period 1
A
8%
F
40%
B
24%
A
B
C
D
F
C
4%
D
24%
The mean score was 64.5 % which was 13.8% lower than the average from the original test.
There were twice as many D’s and F’s compared to the previous exam. It is possible that
students did exceptionally well on the first test because it was the first time they got the chance
to work together as a team. The novelty of the experience might have been very motivating for
students. However, it might be more likely that the reason for the increased failure rate was that
less time was spent reviewing how to work cooperatively during this unit. Because students had
done so well during the first chapter, it was mistakenly assumed that less time had to be spent
Cooperative Learning: We Instead of Me
26
modeling how to communicate efficiently and how to settle conflicts constructively. As a result,
it is likely that students were not as focused in their groups as they were during the first unit.
Students might not have been used to the freedom that working collaboratively provided. One
student alleged, “I like working groups, but I usually get in trouble for laughing too much. My
partners are really funny and they make me laugh. I start to laugh easily, so by myself I work
better and I get better scores too.” I don’t believe that this was a result of the ineffectiveness of
cooperative learning. Rather, I think this outcome was a consequence of unsuccessful grouping
and not enough time spent on training students in interpersonal and small group skills.
Chapter 5 Test - Cooperative Learning
Period 1
F
33%
A
33%
A
B
C
D
F
B
8%
D
13%
C
13%
The class average for the Chapter 5 test was 70%. The students performed slightly better than on
the previous test, however I believe they needed a great deal more practice working in teams
Cooperative Learning: We Instead of Me
27
before statistically significant improvements could have developed. In addition, more time
needed to be spent on group processing. Very often, time was limited, so group processing did
not occur as frequently as originally intended. More time needed to be allocated at the end of
class for students to reflect on what went well in their groups and what could be improved for
future group learning activities.
Chapter 2 Test Grades - Individual Learning
Period 1
F
15%
A
26%
D
7%
A
B
C
D
F
C
22%
B
30%
Cooperative Learning: We Instead of Me
28
Chapter 4 Test - Individual Learning
Period 1
F
17%
D
8%
A
41%
A
B
C
D
F
C
21%
B
13%
Students performed significantly better on the tests taken after individual learning. On the first
test 78% of the students received A’s, B’s, or C’s. On the second test, 75% of students earned
A’s, B’s, or C’s. The material was first communicated to students in the form of a presentation.
Next, they were given time to study during class, as well as time to study at home. It is probable
that many of the students were more productive during individual learning because the class was
quiet and it was easier to concentrate. One student commented, “I like doing it individually
because I can hear myself think for once.” Thus, in order for collaborative learning to have a
more positive influence on achievement, I need to work on fostering greater communication
skills and positive interdependence. Students need to feel like their success is tied directly with
the success of their team members.
Cooperative Learning: We Instead of Me
29
Chapter 1 Test - Cooperative Learning
Period 4
F
11%
D
4%
C
0%
A
B
C
D
F
B
19%
A
66%
For period 4, the overall class average for the first test taken after learning in groups was
83.2%. Three students received D’s and one student received an F. The pupils who earned
these grades were resource students with IEPs and science was the one mainstream class they
attended each day.
Cooperative Learning: We Instead of Me
30
Chapter 3 Test - Cooperative Learning
Period 4
F
32%
A
36%
A
B
C
D
F
D
4%
C
12%
B
16%
The mean score for the Chapter 3 test was 73.1%. This 10% drop in overall scores is
consistent with the decrease in scores for period 1. It is possible that the information on this
test was more challenging than on the first test. As a result, the increased test difficulty may
be the reason for the lower scores. Measuring the results of a pretest compared to a post test
may have yielded more accurate results than comparing the outcome from two different
exams.
Cooperative Learning: We Instead of Me
31
Chapter 5 Test - Cooperative Learning
Period 4
A
29%
F
30%
A
B
C
D
F
D
4%
B
11%
C
26%
The results from the Chapter 5 test do not show any statistically significant increases in
academic achievement. The data from these last two tests is almost the same. However, the
amount of students who earned C’s more than doubled and the number of students receiving A’s
and B’s decreased by onethird.
Cooperative Learning: We Instead of Me
32
Chapter 2 Test - Individual Learning
Period 4
F
8%
D
8%
A
46%
C
21%
B
17%
A
B
C
D
F
Cooperative Learning: We Instead of Me
33
Chapter 4 Test - Individual Learning
Period 4
F
8%
D
12%
C
4%
A
44%
A
B
C
D
F
B
32%
The mean score for the Chapter 2 test was 79.2%. For the Chapter 4 test it was 80.3%. This was
about 10% higher than the average scores for the exams taken after learning in groups.
Approximately 80% of the students received A’s, B’s, or C’s on both tests. One of the students
that received a failing score was an ELL student. Two students, one who earned a D and one,
who earned an F, are in the resource program.
Cooperative Learning: We Instead of Me
34
Chapter 1 Test - Cooperative Learning
Period 5
D
4%
F
7%
C
7%
A
B
C
D
F
B
18%
A
64%
The mean score for the first test was 86.1%. Period 5 is the honors class and cooperative
learning seemed to work the best in this class. The two students who failed the test were ELL
students. One of them just moved to the country two weeks prior to the test and did not speak
much English. The student who received a D was a special education student and science was
his only core class. He obtained individualized instruction from the special education teacher for
his other core subjects.
Cooperative Learning: We Instead of Me
35
Chapter 3 Test- Cooperative Learning
Period 5
F
18%
A
31%
D
4%
A
B
C
D
F
C
18%
B
29%
The class average dropped about 10% to 75.7% which remains consistent with the other classes.
Not only was this test more difficult than the previous test, there were also more questions than
on previous tests. This could have been a factor in the decreased overall performance. The
number of A’s earned dropped in half and the amount of F’s doubled.
Cooperative Learning: We Instead of Me
36
Chapter 5 Test - Cooperative Learning
Period 5
F
13%
D
17%
A
46%
A
B
C
D
F
C
17%
B
7%
The mean score for the Chapter 5 test was 80% which is about 5% higher than the previous test,
but not as high as the first test taken after group learning. One note worth mentioning is that the
ELL student who received an F on the first test, getting only one question correct, increased his
score to a 32% on the second test. On the third test, his score more than doubled to a 69%. I
believe this is due to the fact that there were some girls in his group that spoke his native
language and they helped translate the information for him. The number of students earning A’s
increased by one-third. However, the amount of students receiving F’s increased by one-third.
Cooperative Learning: We Instead of Me
37
Chapter 2 Test - Individual Learning
Period 5
F
7%
D
14%
C
4%
A
57%
B
18%
A
B
C
D
F
Cooperative Learning: We Instead of Me
38
Chapter 4 Test - Individual Learning
Period 5
F
10%
D
10%
A
42%
C
17%
A
B
C
D
F
B
21%
The class average for the Chapter 2 test was 82% and for Chapter 4 it was 80%. This is very
similar to the outcomes for the tests taken after working in collaborative groups. However, the
number of A’s received decreased by about 20%, whereas the quantity of C’s earned quadrupled.
Cooperative Learning: We Instead of Me
39
Chapter 1 Test - Cooperative Learning
Period 7
F
11%
D
7%
A
43%
A
B
C
D
F
C
25%
B
14%
The mean score was 78.6%, with 82% of students receiving A’s B’s, or C’s. It is possible that
students did the best on the Chapter 1 test because it was the first test of the new school year.
Students are often more motivated in the beginning of the year and they have not yet become
overwhelmed by the workload. They are also trying hard to impress their teachers and get off on
the right foot.
Cooperative Learning: We Instead of Me
40
Chapter 3 Test - Cooperative Learning
Period 7
A
7%
F
26%
B
15%
A
B
C
D
F
D
19%
C
33%
The class average for the Chapter 3 test was 70.1% which is about 8% lower than Chapter 1.
The amount of students earning A’s dropped from 43% to 7%. The number of D’s and F’s
doubled. This could be due to the fact that this test was more difficult. Moreover, period 7 is the
last class of the day and students are coming in after P.E. This might have affected the outcome
of the scores. Very often during period 7, students trickled in late because they were getting a
drink of water or they were late getting dressed. As a result, class frequently started a few
minutes late. It is possible that these students didn’t have as much time to study as the other
classes did. Furthermore, because it was the last class of the day, they were itching to go home
and were possibly not as focused as they would have been earlier in the day.
Cooperative Learning: We Instead of Me
41
Chapter 5 Test - Cooperative Learning
Period 7
F
7%
D
14%
A
30%
A
B
C
D
F
C
28%
B
21%
The mean score for the Chapter 5 test was 77.7%. This is a similar result to the first test taken
after studying cooperatively. Seventy-nine percent of the students received A’s, B’s, or C’s as
compared to 82% from the first test.
Cooperative Learning: We Instead of Me
42
Chapter 2 Test - Individual Learning
Period 7
F
11%
D
0%
C
11%
A
49%
B
29%
A
B
C
D
F
Cooperative Learning: We Instead of Me
43
Chapter 4 Test - Individual Learning
Period 7
F
8%
A
42%
D
27%
A
B
C
D
F
C
8%
B
15%
The mean score for the Chapter 2 test was 82.1% and for Chapter 4 it was 78.9%. There was no
statistically significant difference between the scores earned working in groups as compared to
the scores earned when working alone.
Average Test Scores – Cooperative Learning
Period 1
Chapter 1 Test
Chapter 3 Test
Chapter 5 Test
Cooperative
Learning
Cooperative
Learning
Cooperative
Learning
72%
64.5%
70%
Cooperative Learning: We Instead of Me
44
Period 4
83.2%
73.1%
78.2%
Period 5
86.1%
75.7%
80%
Period 7
78.6%
70.1%
77.7%
Table 1
Average Test Scores – Individual Learning
Chapter 2 Test
Chapter 4 Test
Individual Learning
Individual Learning
Period 1
74.4%
75.5%
Period 4
79.2%
80.3%
Period 5
82%
80%
Period 7
82.1%
78.9%
Table 2
In this study, cooperative learning did not affect academic achievement with any statistical
significance. However, this may be less because of the futility of team learning and more
because of my unfamiliarity with implementing collaborative groups. There is a great deal of
trial and error when it comes to teaching. Johnson and Johnson admit, it takes up to 27 times of
putting a teaching strategy into practice before an approach becomes second nature and can
Cooperative Learning: We Instead of Me
45
applied in any situation (Johnson & Johnson, 1999). Although overall improvement did not
occur, I noticed that, on the whole, the lowest performing students’ test scores were improved
after working in groups. For example, one student who is repeating the 6th grade, and is also in
the special education program, received a 91% on one of his tests after working in his
cooperative group. I witnessed groups band together to assist a non-English speaking student in
learning the material. I saw students teaching each other learning strategies and correcting each
others’ misunderstandings. Even though the test scores did not reveal the potential that
cooperative learning can have towards improved academic achievement, I believe that with
continued practice positive results will begin to show.
Cooperative Learning: We Instead of Me
46
Does working in cooperative groups increase motivation and
interpersonal relations between students?
Students were given an attitude survey after each cooperative unit. Many had mixed
reactions to working together. Grouping had a major influence on students’ outlook towards
working in teams. Their attitudes about group work would change based on whether they were
in a functional team versus a disfunctional team.
I Found Working in a Group Very Motivating
40
35
Number of Students
30
25
Chapter 1
Chapter 3
Chapter 5
20
15
10
5
0
1 = Strongly Agree
2 = Agree
3 = Disagree
4 = Strongly Disagree
Likert Scale
Students were split on whether they were more motivated to work in groups or more
motivated to work alone. Over time, the number of students who found group work very
motivating increased. The amount of learners that strongly disagreed that group work was
motivating decreased significantly; however, the students who disagreed that group work was
Cooperative Learning: We Instead of Me
47
motivating decreased minimally. Some students craved discussion with their peers. One student
declared, “I love groups because there are so many other people. I love to debate people.” This
proved the power that groups had to motivate students to actively participate in their own
learning. Furthermore, it was very important for students to feel included and valued by their
peers and working in teams seemed to provide this sense of belonging.
Working in a Group Helped Me Learn the Topic Better
45
40
Number of Students
35
30
25
Chapter 1
Chapter 3
Chapter 5
20
15
10
5
0
1 = Strongly Agree
2 = Agree
3 = Disagree
4 = Strongly Disagree
Likert Scale
Students were candid in their responses to this question. Many admitted that if they were
not given the time to study in a group at school, they probably would not have studied at all.
One student testified, “To tell you the truth, if we don’t study here and we have to study at home,
I really don’t have any time. Like let’s say last night…I went to a party until 12 at night, so I had
Cooperative Learning: We Instead of Me
48
no time to study. But if we did it in class I would be studying. I can’t study at home because it’s
loud.” Another student affirmed, “Working in groups is better because at home you have a
tendency to be like…oh, let’s watch TV or let’s do this, let’s do that.” Many students do not
have the self discipline required to study alone. There are so many distractions at home that
learning often is not the priority and gets easily overlooked.
Students gave the impression that working in groups helped them learn more with each
consecutive test. This may be because students’ communication skills improved each time they
worked collaboratively. It may also have been because the groups were arranged more
successfully. The students that disagreed that working in the group helped them learn the topic
better tended to be high achieving students. One student uttered, “Working in groups is an insult
to smart people!” This verifies that students have become accustomed to competition. They do
not see the value in collaboration because they feel like they can do the work better and faster on
their own. Yet, although high achieving students may do well on their own, working in teams
can provide them with good relationship skills and tolerance for individuals who are different
from themselves. These are very important skills in today’s workforce.
Cooperative Learning: We Instead of Me
49
My Group Communicated Well With Each Other
45
40
Number of Students
35
30
25
Chapter 1
Chapter 3
Chapter 5
20
15
10
5
0
1 = Strongly Agree
2 = Agree
3 = Disagree
4 = Strongly Disagree
Likert Scale
Team communication improved over time. While observing the groups, it was clear that
the focus had shifted from the teacher to the students. The students took a greater responsibility
for their own learning. One student explained how her group would guide each other to correct
their misunderstandings. “Sometimes we’d tell each other like…we would say something like
this is the answer. Then someone else would say…no it’s this. Then we’d look in the textbook
and point something out…so that worked out good.” They were no longer expecting the teacher
to provide all of the answers, instead they were taking the initiative to actively learn and resolve
conflicts on their own.
Cooperative Learning: We Instead of Me
50
My Group Taught Me Some Things I Would Not Have Learned on My
Own
35
30
Number of Students
25
20
Chapter 1
Chapter 3
Chapter 5
15
10
5
0
1 = Strongly Agree
2 = Agree
3 = Disagree
4 = Strongly Disagree
Likert Scale
There were no statistically significant changes in students’ convictions that the group
taught them more things than they would have learned on their own. The students who disagreed
that their group taught them some things that they would not have learned on their own were
usually high achieving students. While some high achieving students felt empowered by helping
other team members master the material, others felt frustrated by the slower pace and were
impatient when it came to assisting their teammates. Still, others appreciated the extra help that
their partners provided. One student remarked, “I like working in a group because if you get
stuck on a problem you can ask your friend to help you understand.” This was a common
statement from many students. Students can help simplify complicated ideas for their peers.
They can take abstract concepts and translate them into kid language. Furthermore, kids can be
Cooperative Learning: We Instead of Me
51
very inventive in their approach to learning. Time and again, students would think up original
techniques to help them retain content knowledge. One student affirmed, “I like working in a
group because some people don’t think the way other people think and if you don’t know an
answer to a question, they can tell you strategies.” Another student agreed, “It was definitely a
lot easier because some people had tricks for learning things.” Thus, when students discuss
material with each other, they encourage each other to work hard, while at the same time
providing each other with academic assistance.
My Group Was Able to Work Together Effectively
40
35
Number of Students
30
25
Chapter 1
Chapter 3
Chapter 5
20
15
10
5
0
1 = Strongly Agree
2 = Agree
3 = Disagree
4 = Strongly Disagree
Likert Scale
Groups seemed to work together more effectively over time. Most students declared that
they liked working in groups, but they confessed that they were not always productive. One
student asserted, “I was more motivated to study when I was in the group, but I didn’t get much
Cooperative Learning: We Instead of Me
52
done.” Thus, it remains very important that students feel like their success is connected.
Without developing positive interdependence, students will not be driven to thoroughly invest in
the work. They need to understand that they are not benefiting from competing for the correct
answer, and that they are gaining when they share their ideas.
Some groups were very effective at devising strategies that would help solve their
disagreements. For example, one student described how he did not always have all the answers
and how his group was instrumental in helping him clarify his understandings. “Every once in a
while I’d think something was right, so then we’d look back in the book if I had a strong opinion
on it. Sometimes I found out I was right and sometimes I found out that I was wrong.” This
illustrates that during collaborative group work, students learned critical thinking skills and
academic content, while at the same time learning social skills.
Cooperative Learning: We Instead of Me
53
Our Group Completed All Tasks and Finished On Time
40
35
Number of Students
30
25
Chapter 1
Chapter 3
Chapter 5
20
15
10
5
0
1 = Strongly Agree
2 = Agree
3 = Disagree
4 = Strongly Disagree
Likert Scale
Most students were able to complete all of the tasks in the given class period and they got
better at time management over the period of the study. However, they did not always manage
their time well. I noticed that students would initially waste time and then panic and work
quickly to finish the assignment by the end of class. Furthermore, the students who struggled to
stay on task needed consistent monitoring and teacher guidance. One student commented, “My
group was pretty smart so we were able to get through our work quickly so we weren’t
struggling to finish it on time and that was good.” Others admitted to veering off task. For
example, one student acknowledged that his group tended to veer off topic. He said, “We kind
of got distracted and started talking about random things.” Another student concurred,
“Sometimes we’d stay on track, but sometimes we would change the subject.” Therefore, it is
Cooperative Learning: We Instead of Me
54
important for the teacher to closely monitor student performance and encourage on task
behavior. Moreover, teachers need to make time for group reflection so that teams know where
they need to improve.
Students Took Turns and Respected Each Other's Ideas
60
Number of Students
50
40
Chapter 1
Chapter 3
Chapter 5
30
20
10
0
1 = Strongly Agree
2 = Agree
3 = Disagree
4 = Strongly Disagree
Likert Scale
According to the survey, most students took turns and respected each other’s ideas, while
a few had some difficulties. One student expressed her frustration at not being able to hold the
attention of her group mates. She stated, “Sometimes they listened for a nanosecond and it was
really good…for a second.” This emphasizes the idea that students need a great deal of
instruction in interpersonal and small group skills. However, I was pleasantly surprised by
students’ innovative ways to solve conflicts. In one group, students took an ordinary object and
turned it into a tool for organizing group communication. When interviewed, this student
Cooperative Learning: We Instead of Me
55
explained, “Well, what we did…Victoria said, whoever has the pen gets to talk out because we
didn’t want it to get too loud.” Students in this group established a rational method for keeping
order in the group and enabling each person’s ideas to be spotlighted, ensuring that a mix of
ideas could be articulated.
My Group All Contributed Equally
45
40
Number of Students
35
30
25
Chapter 1
Chapter 3
Chapter 5
20
15
10
5
0
1 = Strongly Agree
2 = Agree
3 = Disagree
4 = Strongly Disagree
Likert Scale
Students had mixed feelings about how much their team members contributed while
working as a group. The following student relayed a common attitude toward working in groups.
She abandoned the idea of trying to get the group to cooperate because it was easier to avoid the
conflict and do the work on her own. “It’s hard to make everyone do the exact same amount of
work so that it’s equal. I don’t really mind it because I can work on my own. It doesn’t matter.”
This is a result of a failure to organize the teams in a way so that students felt their success was
Cooperative Learning: We Instead of Me
56
tied together. The assignment was not designed in a way that would make it difficult for students
to complete alone.
I Would Like to Work With This Group Again
40
35
Number of Students
30
25
Chapter 1
Chapter 3
Chapter 5
20
15
10
5
0
1 = Strongly Agree
2 = Agree
3 = Disagree
4 = Strongly Disagree
Likert Scale
Once again, students were divided on whether they wanted to work with the same people
again. Even though students disliked some of their teammates, I felt it was important that they
figure out how to solve their conflicts constructively. One student who did not want to work
with the same group again was one of the top students. He was placed in a group with two
average students and one low achiever. He was upset because he felt like the lower students
slowed him down. He claimed, “I think my group kind of drags me behind. We have to wait for
them and it kind of gets annoying. So sometimes we’d go way ahead of them and they’d ask us
to help them, but we didn’t really feel like doing it.” This demonstrates how important it is that
Cooperative Learning: We Instead of Me
57
when assigning work to cooperative groups, the assignments should not be able to be done alone
easily. Tasks need to be designed in a way that all team members are held accountable. The
teacher must make a concerted effort to motivate every member of the various teams and they
must closely observe teams that are having problems working together.
On the other hand, many students understood the value of working in a group. Several
individuals viewed diversity as a strength. One student indicated, “I definitely want people who
are smarter than me because then it’s more of a challenge, but I kind of do want to help people
who don’t understand because if they understand better, it helps you understand better.” This
student appreciated the differences in her group and related them to her own success. If students
want to succeed as a team, they will encourage their teammates to do well and they will help
them in doing so.
Cooperative Learning: We Instead of Me
58
Chapter 5 – Discussion
Overview of the Study
At the beginning of this research, my aim was to create learning communities that
worked efficiently and persuaded students to work together to improve each other’s proficiency
in mastering complex concepts. Up until this time, students were required to work together in
my classroom, yet this did not happen frequently. When students did work in teams, they still
managed to work separately. Essentially, they were sitting at the same table; however, they were
not working in a unified way. Just being in groups together was not enough. Students seemed
unconcerned with the success of their group mates and they were only interested in their own
achievement. There was not much incentive for them to aid their partners in learning the
material and I was not satisfied with the results.
Consequently, my goal became to learn how to implement collaborative learning
successfully, rather than just putting students together and expecting them to learn. During this
study, information was first presented to the students in the form of a lecture. The lessons lasted
one to two class periods and incorporated visuals and various forms of multimedia. Next,
students worked in teams for one to two class sessions to ensure that all group members had
mastered the material. They worked collectively to complete review worksheets. Then they
discussed answers to questions in their workbooks and addressed each others’
misunderstandings. Afterward, to assess the outcome of learning, students were evaluated
independently through tests. The results from these tests were compared to the findings from
tests taken after studying independently.
Cooperative Learning: We Instead of Me
59
Summary of Findings
When given a choice, most students preferred to work in a group. Yet, there continued to
remain a small group of students who preferred to work alone. The results of the study were
inconclusive when it came to cooperative learning’s effect on achievement. However, I can say
with confidence that the positives outweighed the negatives. Intragroup relations improved and
students’ ability to resolve conflicts was boosted. Students benefited from the opportunity to
discuss their ideas with their classmates and solid relationships were forged. One student put it
succinctly, “We made decisions. We had fun doing it. We liked to laugh. We had good times.”
The ultimate goal here was to foster caring relationships and to offer students a community of
supportive peers in hopes that it would encourage learners to excel and reach their full potential.
In the end, I believe that cooperative learning had a great positive impact on the interpersonal
relationships between students and I will continue to employ team learning to promote valuable
connections between learners.
Conclusions and Recommendations
On the whole, the research undoubtedly supports cooperative groups, but it is not an
infallible system of teaching. Teachers cannot just oblige students to work together and assume
that they will learn. For lessons to be valuable, teachers must methodically plan their instruction
so that learners are involved in face-to-face interactions. It remains essential that teachers
provide the foundation necessary for achievement. Overall, the research showed that cooperative
learning bolstered student productivity, as well as increased self esteem and positive
Cooperative Learning: We Instead of Me
60
interpersonal relationships. Learning in groups improved students’ abilities to comprehend and
retain abstract information.
Cooperative learning enables teachers to get through to students with different learning
strengths. Group learning is more student-centered and engages students in active learning. As a
result, it prepares learners to enter the modern workforce, where people are expected to be able
to solve problems effectively and work collaboratively with others. In conclusion, cooperative
learning should be put into practice across all student populations, grades, and subject areas.
Limitations of the Study
One of the limitations of this study involved the cooperative learning technique used to
teach students. The method itself was not the problem. It was that it was the only strategy used
to investigate the effects of collaboration in the classroom. Using a variety of cooperative
learning methods might have yielded more precise results. The Student Teams – Achievement
Divisions (STAD) procedure was chosen as the main approach to assess how team learning
affected conceptual understanding, as well as how it influenced interpersonal relationships
between students. Even though it was a good place to start, a combination of several different
group learning strategies might have generated different results.
Moreover, only after the results of the test scores were calculated was it realized that
some of the exams were more challenging than others. This imbalance made it difficult to
measure achievement gains. A more accurate way to measure growth in achievement would
have been to give students a pre-test and then a post-test on each unit of study. This would have
generated a more specific measurement of progress toward advancement.
Cooperative Learning: We Instead of Me
61
Furthermore, the unit tests were alternated. First, students took a test after learning in
cooperative groups, and then they were tested after working individually. The time in between
tests may have reduced the momentum generated by working in groups. Greater success might
have been achieved if the cooperative learning units were taught one after the other.
Another problem encountered was the amount of “social loafing” that took place. The
group certificates received after team improvement points were tallied were not enough to ensure
positive interdependence. Although students were motivated momentarily by the suggestion of
earning a “SUPER TEAM” award, it was not enough to persuade students to participate
consistently. Very often, one person was doing all of the work, or students were working
separately. Students did not sense that their individual success was connected to the
accomplishments of the others on their team. The assignments needed to be designed in a way
that made it difficult for students to complete them alone. When interviewed, one of students’
foremost requests was to have teammates who would do their share of the work. Students did
not want to get placed with group members who would not do their part or learners who would
not accept help when it was needed. One possible solution would be to establish more incentive
by awarding students bonus points for achieving a certain level of success on their tests. For
example, if everyone in the group achieved a certain score on an exam, then each team member
would be granted a predetermined number of additional points.
In addition, it was a mistake to think that putting a bright student in each group would
push the group and keep them on task. I realized that this type of leadership does not always
come from the brightest students. More care should have been taken to motivate every member
Cooperative Learning: We Instead of Me
62
of the various groups, and they should have been closely monitored for success. Each team
should have been given regular feedback from the teacher on their participation in order to
facilitate the learning of cooperative skills.
Next, not enough time was spent teaching students how to work together and learn from
one another. More time could have been allocated toward teambuilding to create an improved
sense of community and group skills. Increased time should have been spent by the teacher to
point out positive interactions between teammates. Additional time needed to be spent on group
reflection and processing. Students ought to have spent more time thinking about what went
well in their groups and what did not go well. They needed to make decisions about what
actions were helpful and what needed to be done differently the next time they worked
collaboratively. This could have been done by giving students a checklist to be marked off when
they engaged in targeted social skills.
Further Research
In future studies, results from cooperative learning will be compared over a longer period
of time. Additional cooperative strategies and their impacts on learning will be explored.
Furthermore, future research will include whether cooperative learning influences the rate of
retention in the subject of science. Also, team learning will be examined to see if it increases
students’ level of engagement and attentiveness. Ultimately, I hope to present my findings to my
colleagues and demonstrate how collaborative learning can be implemented across the subject
areas and grade levels. Concisely, I will continue to refine my skills in implementing
Cooperative Learning: We Instead of Me
63
cooperative learning in my classroom. With enough practice, I hope that those who initially
preferred to work alone may change their mind about their preference.
Cooperative Learning: We Instead of Me
64
References
1.
Bennett, N., & Cass, A. (1988). The effects of group composition on group interactive processes
and pupil understanding. British Educational Research Journal, 15, 19-32.
2.
Blaney, N.T., Stephan, C., Rosenfield, D., Aronson, E., & Sikes, J. (1977). Interdependence in the
classroom: A field study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69 (2), 121-128.
3.
Conger, J. (1988). Hostages to fortune: Youth, values, and the public interest. American
Psychologist, 43, 291-300.
4.
Cuban, L. (1983). Persistence of the inevitable: The teacher-centered classroom. Education and
Urban Society, 15, 26-41.
5.
Dweck, C.S. (1985). Intrinsic motivation, perceived control, and self-evaluation maintenance: An
achievement goal analysis. Research on Motivation in Education, (pp.289-302). Orlando, FL:
Academic Press.
6.
Gibbs, J. (2006). Reaching All by Creating Tribes Learning Communities. Center Source
Systems. Windsor, CA.
7.
Goodlad, J. (1984). A place called school. New York: McGraw-Hill.
8.
Humphreys, B. Johnson, R.T., & Johnson, D.W. (1982). Effects of cooperative, competitive and
individualistic learning on students’ achievement in science class. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 19, 351-356.
9.
Johnson, D., & Johnson, R.T. (1994). The New Circles of Learning: Cooperation in the
Classroom and School. ASCD. Alexandria, VA.
Cooperative Learning: We Instead of Me
65
10.
Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., & Holubec, E.J. (1994). The Nuts and Bolts of Cooperative
Learning. Interaction Book Company. Edina, MN.
11.
Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., Holubec, E.J. (1994). Cooperative Learning in the Classroom.
ASCD. Alexandria, VA.
12.
Johnson, R.T., Johnson, D.W., Scott, L.E., & Ramolae, B. (1985). Effects of single-sex and
mixed-sex cooperative interaction on science achievement and attitudes and cross-handicap and
cross-sex relationships. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22(3), 207-220.
13.
Mesch, D., Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1987). Impact of positive interdependence and
academic group contingencies on achievement. Journal of Social Psychology, 128, 345-352.
14.
Nichols, J.D., & Miller, R.B. (1994). Cooperative learning and student motivation.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 167-178.
15.
Sadker, M., & Sadker, D. (1994). Failing at Fairness. New York: Macmillan Publishing.
16.
Sharan, S. Ackerman, Z., & Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (1980). Academic achievement of elementary
school children in small-group versus whole-class instruction. Journal of Experimental
Education, 48, 125-129.
17.
Sirotnick, K. (1983). What you see is what you get—consistency, persistency, and mediocrity in
classrooms. Harvard Educational Review, 53, 16-29.
18.
Slavin, R.E. (1991). Are cooperative learning and untracking harmful to the gifted? Educational
Leadership, 48, 68-71.
Cooperative Learning: We Instead of Me
66
19.
Slavin, R.E. (1995). Cooperative Learning: Theory, Research, and Practice. Allyn and Bacon,
MA.
20.
Slavin, R.E., & Karweit, N.L. (1981). Cognitive and affective outcomes of an intensive student
team learning experience. Journal of Experimental Education, 50, 29-35.
21.
Stuart, J. & Rutherford, R. (1978). Medical students’ concentration during lectures. The Lancet,
2, 514-516.
22.
Tannen, D.T. (1990). You Just Don’t Understand; Women and Men in Conversation. New York:
Balantine Books.
23.
Vermette, P.J. (1998). Making Cooperative Learning Work: Student Teams in K-12 Classrooms.
Prentice Hall, NJ.
24.
Warring, D., Johnson, D.W., Maruyama, G., & Johnson, R. (1985). Impact of different types of
cooperative learning on cross-ethnic and cross-sex relations. Journal of Educational Psychology,
77, 53-59.
25.
Webb, N.M. (1982). Peer interaction and learning in cooperative small groups. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 74, 642-655.
26.
Webb, N.M. (1984). Sex differences in interaction and achievement in cooperative small groups.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 33-44.