Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
V O L . 40
SECONDARY
SCHOOLS AND
COOPERATIVE
LEARNING
This page intentionally left blank
SECONDARY
SCHOOLS AND
COOPERATIVE
LEARNING
Theories, Models,
and Strategies
edited by
Jon E. Pedersen
Annette D. Digby
First published 1995 by Garland Publishing, Inc.
CHAPTER 1
Cooperative Learning and Individual Student Achievement
in Secondary Schools
David W. Johnson, Roger T. Johnson, Karl A. Smith 3
CHAPTER 2
Cooperative Learning and Critical Thinking
Patrick Ferguson 55
CHAPTER 3
Cooperative Learning and Nonacademic Outcomes of
Schooling: The Other Side of the Report Card
David W. Johnson and Roger T. Johnson 81
PART II
COOPERATIVE LEARNING AND CONTENT AREAS:
THEORY AND RESEARCH
CHAPTER 4
Cooperative Learning in Secondary Mathematics: Research
and Theory
John E. Owens 153
CHAPTER 5
Learning Science in Cooperative Modes in Junior- and Senior-
High Schools: Cognitive and Affective Outcomes
Reuven Lazarowitz 185
vi Contents
CHAPTER 6
Cooperative Learning in Secondary English: Research and
Theory
Annette Digby 229
CHAPTER 7
Group Investigation: Theoretical Foundations
Shlomo Sharan 251
PART III
APPLYING COOPERATIVE LEARNING IN SECONDARY CLASSROOMS
CHAPTER 8
Cooperative Group Learning in the Secondary Mathematics
Classroom
Tommy Smith, Susan Williams, and Norma Wynn 281
CHAPTER 9
Putting the Pieces Together—Together
Jan L. Hintz 303
CHAPTER 10
Music of Many Voices: Group Investigation in a Cooperative
High School Classroom
Yael Sharan 313
CHAPTER 11
Learning Biology in Cooperative Investigative Groups
Reuven Lazarowitz 341
CHAPTER 12
Making Cooperative Learning(s) Long Lasting: Integrating
Cooperative Process and Content
in the Secondary School
Nancy Schniedewind, Lucio Costanza, Florence Monàry,
Claudia Travers, and Diane Wikstrom 365
CHAPTER 13
Jigsaw Synthesis: A Method for Incorporating a Study of Social
Issues into the Extant Curriculum
Samuel Totten 389
CHAPTER 14
Student Teams-Achievement Divisions
in the Secondary Classroom
Robert E. Slavin 425
Contents vu
CHAPTER 15
Selected Annotated Bibliography
Annette Digby, Beth Hurst, and Mary Straub 447
List of Contributors 457
Author Index 459
Subject Index 469
This page intentionally left blank
Preface
For the past several decades, cooperative learning has
come to the forefront of education as an effective strategy for
teaching. Research dating back to the 1800s supports its use and
shows its potential benefits. Many educators have jumped on the
"cooperative learning bandwagon" without really completely
understanding what this means. Cooperative learning has been
used by many educators as a "catch-all" phrase for group
learning or grouping. This misunderstanding of cooperative
learning is amplified by the lack of information available on
cooperative learning in secondary classrooms. Not until recently
has cooperative learning been explored in any great detail in
secondary classrooms (grades 9-12). The main emphasis of this
book is to promote the understanding and use of cooperative
learning in secondary classrooms. It is to give the reader a fuller
and deeper understanding of the complexity of cooperative
learning. Secondary Schools and Cooperative Learning: Theories,
Models, and Strategies provides up-to-date, cutting-edge research
on cooperative learning in secondary schools and offers practical
ideas for implementing cooperative learning strategies in the
secondary setting.
The book, organized into three sections, is arranged so that
the reader proceeds from a discussion of achievement-related
and affective outcomes of cooperative learning to a discussion of
research and theory as applied to secondary classrooms and
concludes with a discussion of cooperative learning strategies in
selected content areas. All three sections are valuable in
providing for the reader a richer understanding of cooperative
learning.
xx
X Preface
David W. Johnson
Roger T. Johnson
Karl A. Smith
Two are better than one, because they have a good reward
for toil. For if they fall, one will lift up his fellow; but woe
to him who is alone when he falls and has not another to
lift him u p . . . . And though a man might prevail against
one who is alone, two will withstand him. A threefold
cord is not quickly broken.
(Ecclesiastes 4:9-12)
3
4 David W. Johnson, Roger T. Johnson, Karl A. Smith
Related Research
Table 2
Interdependence
Characteristic Positive Negative None
Interaction Patterns
Peer Feedback
Mutual Influence
During the information-exchange process individuals
share ideas and information and utilize each other's resources in
order to maximize their productivity and achievement. This
entails mutual influence in which cooperators consider each
other's ideas and conclusions and coordinate their efforts.
Participants must be open to influence attempts aimed at
facilitating the accomplishment of shared goals, must trust each
other not to use the resources being shared in detrimental ways,
and must form emotional bonds that result in commitment to
each other's welfare and success. There are three ways in which
influence takes place within social situations: direct influence,
social modeling, and situational norms. Students will be
receptive to the direct influence attempts of others to the extent
that they perceive a cooperative relationship among goal
attainments. In cooperative situations, students benefit from
groupmates' modeling effective and committed behaviors, skills,
and attitudes. Visible and credible models who demonstrate the
recommended attitudes and behavior patterns and who directly
discuss their importance are powerful influences. Finally,
achievement is influenced by whether or not group norms favor
high performance. Within cooperative situations everyone
benefits from the efforts of cooperators. Since it is in each
student's best interests to encourage the productivity of
collaborators, group norms support efforts to achieve. There is
evidence, furthermore, that in the generally competitive climate
of most schools, success at academic tasks has little value for
many individuals and may even be a deterrent to popularity
with peers (see Johnson & Johnson, 1989a).
Achievement Motivation
Achievement is a we thing, not a me thing, always the
product of many heads and hands.
(J. W. Atkinson)
18 David W. Johnson, Roger T. Johnson, Karl A. Smith
Interpersonal Trust
To disclose one's reasoning and information, one must
trust the other individuals involved in the situation to listen with
respect. Trust is a central dynamic of promotive interaction.
Trust tends to be developed and maintained in cooperative
situations and it tends to be absent and destroyed in competitive
and individualistic situations (Deutsch, 1958, 1960, 1962;
Johnson, 1971a, 1973, 1974; Johnson & Noonan, 1972). Trust
includes the following elements (Deutsch, 1962):
1. Risk—the anticipation of beneficial or harmful
consequences.
2. Realization that others have the power to determine the
consequences of one's actions.
3. Expectation that the harmful consequences are more
serious than are the beneficial consequences.
4. Confidence that the others will behave in ways that
ensure beneficial consequences for oneself.
Interpersonal trust is built through placing one's
consequences in the control of others and having one's
confidence in the others confirmed. Interpersonal trust is
destroyed through placing one's consequences in the hands of
others and having one's confidence in the others disconfirmed
t h r o u g h their behaving in ways that ensure harmful
consequences for oneself. Thus, trust is composed of two sets of
20 David W. Johnson, Roger T. Johnson, Karl A. Smith
Achievement
Time on Task
One explanation for why cooperation promoted greater
productivity than did competitive or individualistic efforts is
that members of cooperative groups may have spent more time
30 David W. Johnson, Roger T. Johnson, Karl A. Smith
What Mediates?
On the basis of the research conducted to date (which is
considerable), it may be concluded that generally achievement is
higher in cooperative situations than in competitive or
individualistic ones, and that cooperative efforts result in more
frequent use of higher-level reasoning strategies, more frequent
process gain, and higher performance on subsequent tests taken
individually (group-to-individual transfer) than do competitive
or individualistic efforts. These results lead us to ask the
question, "Why does cooperation result in higher achievement—
what mediates?"
The critical issue in understanding the relationship
between cooperation and achievement is specifying the variables
that mediate the relationship. Simply placing students in groups
and telling them to work together does not in and of itself
promote higher achievement. There are many ways in which
group efforts may go wrong. Less able members sometimes
"leave it to George" to complete the group's tasks, thus creating
a. free rider effect (Kerr & Bruun, 1983) whereby group members
expend decreasing amounts of effort and just go through the
team-work motions. At the same time, the more able group
member may expend less effort to avoid the sucker effect of doing
all the work (Kerr, 1983). High ability group members may be
deferred to and may take over the important leadership roles in
ways that benefit them at the expense of the other group
members (the rich-get-richer effect). In a learning group, for
example, the more able group member may give all the
explanations of what is being learned. Since the amount of time
Cooperative Learning and Individual Student Achievement 31
Positive Interdependence
The first step in promoting cooperation among students is
to structure positive interdependence within the learning
situation. Positive interdependence exists when one perceives that
one is linked with others in a way so that one cannot succeed
unless they do (and vice versa) a n d / o r that one must coordinate
one's efforts with the efforts of others to complete a task
(Johnson & Johnson, 1990). Positive interdependence is the most
important factor in structuring learning situations cooperatively.
If students do not believe that they "sink or swim together," then
the lesson is not cooperative. When students are placed in
learning groups but no positive interdependence is structured,
the learning situation is not cooperative, it is either competitive
32 David W. Johnson, Roger T. Johnson, Karl A. Smith
Social Skills
given two bonus points toward the quiz grade if all group
members were observed by the teacher to demonstrate three out
of four cooperative skills. The results indicated that the
combination of positive interdependence, an academic
contingency for high performance by all group members, and a
social skills contingency, promoted the highest achievement. The
more socially skillful students are, and the more attention
teachers pay to teaching and rewarding the use of social skills,
the higher the achievement that can be expected within
cooperative learning groups.
There is only so much that structure can do. Students need
to master and use interpersonal and small group skills to
capitalize on the opportunities presented by a cooperative
learning situation. Especially when learning groups function on
a long-term basis and engage in complex, free exploratory
activities over a prolonged basis, the interpersonal and small
group skills of the members may determine the level of student
achievement.
Group Processing
In order to achieve, students in cooperative learning
groups have to work together effectively. Effective group work is
influenced by whether or not groups reflect on (i.e., process) how
well they are functioning. A process is an identifiable sequence of
events taking place over time, and process goals refer to the
sequence of events instrumental in achieving outcome goals.
Group processing may be defined as reflecting on a group session
to (a) describe what member actions were helpful and unhelpful
and (b) make decisions about what actions to continue or
change. The purpose of group processing is to clarify and
improve the effectiveness of the members in contributing to the
collaborative efforts to achieve the group's goals.
No direct evidence of the impact of group processing on
achievement was available until a study was recently conducted
by Stuart Yager (Yager, Johnson, & Johnson, 1985). He examined
the impact on achievement of (a) cooperative learning in which
members discussed how well their group was functioning and
how they could improve its effectiveness, (b) cooperative
Cooperative Learning and Individual Student Achievement 39
Summary
The strength of the research evidence indicating that
cooperative learning promotes higher achievement than do
competitive or individualistic learning indicates that secondary
school teachers should use cooperative learning the majority of
the school day. In order to do so, teachers must know how to
structure cooperative learning to include the five basic elements
that mediate its effectiveness. Understanding the theory and
research, however, does not guarantee effective implementation.
Secondary teachers must know the types of cooperative learning
40 David W. Johnson, Roger T. Johnson, Karl A. Smith
• Teacher's Role •
FORMAL GROUPS INFORMAL GROUPS BASE GROUPS
•Instructional •Introductory •Long Term
Objectives Discussions •Permanent
• Preinstructional •Interspersed Membership
Decisions Discussions •Support
•Explain Task and •Closure Discussion Assistance
Cooperation •Ensure Members
•Monitoring and Academic
Intervening Progress
•Evaluating and
Processing:
TEACHER-PLANNED
SPECIFIC COOPERATIVE LEARNING LESSONS
Integrated Use
An example of the integrated use of the different types of
cooperative learning is as follows. The week begins with a base
group meeting. Members welcome each other, complete a self-
disclosure task such as "what is each member's favorite
Cooperative Learning and Individual Student Achievement 45
may not be until there is a shift from the old to the new
paradigm of teaching that cooperative learning dominates
secondary schools.
The theoretical premise underlying the use of cooperative
learning is that the type of interdependence structured among
students determines how they interact with each other which, in
turn, largely determines instructional outcomes. Positive,
negative, and no interdependence may be structured among
students' learning goals. Positive interdependence results in
promotive interaction, which is characterized by individuals
providing each other with efficient and effective help and
assistance, exchanging needed resources such as information and
materials and processing information more efficiently and
effectively, providing each other with feedback in order to
improve their subsequent performance of their assigned tasks
and responsibilities, challenging each other's conclusions and
reasoning in order to promote higher quality decision making
and greater insight into the problems being considered,
advocating the exertion of effort to achieve mutual goals,
influencing each other's efforts to achieve the group's goals,
acting in trusting and trustworthy ways, being motivated to
strive for mutual benefit, and a moderate level of arousal
characterized by low anxiety and stress. Oppositional and no
interaction results in the opposite pattern of interaction.
The numerous outcomes of cooperative efforts may be
subsumed within three broad categories: effort to achieve,
positive interpersonal relationships, and psychological
adjustment. This chapter focuses on achievement. On the basis of
the current research, it may be concluded that achievement is
generally higher in cooperative situations than in competitive or
individualistic ones and that cooperative efforts result in more
frequent use of higher-level reasoning strategies, more frequent
process gain and collective induction, and higher performance
on subsequent tests taken individually (group-to-individual
transfer) than do competitive or individualistic efforts. Within
cooperative learning groups there is a process of interpersonal
exchange that promotes the use of higher-level thinking
strategies, higher-level reasoning, and metacognitive strategies.
Students working together cooperatively expect to teach what
Cooperative Learning and Individual Student Achievement 47
Refer en c es
Larson, C., Dansereau, D., O'Donnell, A., Hythecker, V., Lambiotte, J., &
Rocklin, T. (1984). Verbal ability and cooperative learning:
Transfer of effects. Journal of Reading Behavior, 16(4), 289-96.
Latane, B., Williams, K., & Harkins, S. (1979). Many hands make light
the work: The causes and consequences of social loafing. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 37,822-832.
Laughlin, P. (1965). Selection strategies in concept attainment as a
function of number of persons and stimulus display. Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 70(3), 323-327.
Laughlin, P., & Jaccard, J. (1975). Social facilitation and observational
learning of individuals and cooperative pairs. Journal o f
Personality Social Psychology, 32(5), 873-879.
Laughlin, P., McGlynn, R., Anderson, J., & Jacobsen, E. (1968). Concept
attainment by individuals versus cooperative pairs as a function
of memory, sex, and concept rule. Journal o f Experimental
Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 3 , 246-254.
Levin, H., Glass, G., & Meister, G. (1984). Cost-effectiveness of Educational
Interventions. Stanford, California: Institute for Research on
Educational Finance and Governance.
Lew, M., Mesch, D., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1986a). Positive
interdependence, academic and collaborative—skills group
contingencies and isolated students. American Educational
Research Journal, 23, pp. 476-488.
Lew, M., Mesch, D., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1986b). Components
of cooperative learning: Effects of collaborative skills and
academic group contingencies on achievem ent and
mainstreaming. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 11, pp. 229
239.
Light, R. J. (1990). The Harvard Assessment Seminars. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University.
Mackworth, J. (1970). Vigilance and habituation. Harmondsworth,
England: Penguin.
McGlynn, R. (1972). Four-person group concept attainment as a function
of interaction format. Journal of Social Psychology, 86,89-94.
McKeachie, W. (1988). Teaching thinking. Update, 2 (1), 1.
McKeachie, W., Pintrich, P., Yi-Guang, L., & Smith, D. (1986). Teaching
and Learning in the College Classroom: A Review o f the Research
Literature. Ann Arbor, MI: The Regents of the University of
Michigan.
Cooperative Learning and Individual Student Achievement 53
Patrick Ferguson
55
56 Patrick Ferguson
The ViewfromPhilosophy
A third set of competing definitions emerges from the field
of philosophy. Two main schools of thought are evident. The
first believes that critical thinking is developed through the
formal study of logic and the verification of assertions. The
elements of critical thinking to be mastered are a list of reasoning
60 Patrick Ferguson
Other Studies
A number of other studies have been conducted on the
subject. Haukoos and Penick (1983) found that in junior college
science classrooms characterized by a cooperative approach to
inquiry learning, students demonstrated higher levels of
achievement and better inquiry skills than pupils in other
classrooms. A study by Bridgeman (1981) provides some
empirical verification that changes in perspective taking and
problem solving behavior occur when students participate in
cooperative learning. Phelps and Damon (1989) found that peer
collaboration (working in pairs) is effective for math tasks that
require reasoning and problem solving but not for tasks that
require rote learning. The authors conclude that in equal ability
and cooperative peer interaction s t u d e n t s ' higher-order
66 Patrick Ferguson
Reading Comprehension
Many educators are of the opinion that the mastery of
critical reading skills is necessary to the development of critical
thinking. The theory and research on the use of cooperative
learning to teach reading comprehension typically involves two
types of studies: basal reading investigations involving the
teaching of "higher-order skills" through direct instruction and
Cooperative Learning and Critical Thinking 67
Needed Research
REFERENCES
David W. Johnson
Roger T. Johnson
In the secondary schools of the 18th and 19th centuries, the focus
was on (a) building students' character so they could be future
civic leaders and (b) inculcating a commitment to providing
practical service to a democratic society. In the early 20th century
these goals were abandoned as secondary students became
viewed as "little college students" and secondary schools
become mass production factories in which each student is
passed from work station to work station (English, math, science,
foreign language) to have academic content poured into his or
her head and eventually turned out as a finished product. As the
emphasis has switched from mass production to quality, such a
school structure is outdated. Perhaps the leading historical figure
in the quality movement is W. Edwards Deming. The second of
W. Edwards Deming's fourteen points on quality is, "Adopt a
SI
82 David W. Johnson, Roger T. Johnson
new philosophy." For secondary schools, the advice might be,
"Return to the old philosophies." The goals of personal
character, civic duty, leadership, and making practical
contributions to a democratic society seem to be relevant again.
Secondary schools need to become concerned with promoting
students' psychological health, self-esteem, social competencies,
and life-long attitudinal and behavioral patterns.
Deming recommends that schools focus on cooperative
efforts to optimize the quality of learning and teaching.
Secondary schools need a different organizational structure in
which students and staff work in teams to accomplish
meaningful goals (rather than higher scores on standardized
tests). This allows them to be learning communities
characterized by:
1. The use of cooperative learning the majority of time in
classes.
2. Teachers participating in collégial support groups.
3. Teachers participating in site-based decision making.
4. Students being required to make a contribution to the
overall quality of life within the school.
5. Long-term teacher-student relationships.
6. An emphasis on continuous improvement in quality of
learning and instruction.
Learning Community
Cooperative Learning
success of each student and has the groups process how well
they functioned as a team. In working cooperatively, students
realize they have a stake in each other's success. They become
mutually responsible for each other's learning. Informal
cooperative learning groups are temporary, ad hoc groups used as
part of lecturing and direct teaching to focus student attention on
the material to be learned, create an expectation set and mood
conducive to learning, ensure that students cognitively process
the material being taught, and provide closure to an instructional
session. Finally, cooperative base groups are long-term groups
(lasting for one semester or year) with stable membership whose
primary responsibility is to give each member the support,
encouragement, and assistance he or she needs to make
academic progress.
Two are better than one, because they have a good reward
for toil. For if they fall, one will lift up his fellow; but woe
to him who is alone when he falls and has not another to
lift him up . . . And though a man might prevail against
one who is alone, two will withstand him. A threefold
cord is not quickly broken.
(Ecclesiastes 4:9-12)
Interaction Patterns
Two heads are better than one.
(Heywood)
complete the group's tasks, thus creating a. free rider effect (Kerr
& Bruun, 1983) whereby group members expend decreasing
amounts of effort and just go through the team-work motions. At
the same time, the more able group members may expend less
effort to avoid the sucker effect of doing all the work (Kerr, 1983).
High ability group members may be deferred to and may take
over the important leadership roles in ways that benefit them at
the expense of the other group members (the rich-get-richer
effect). In a learning group, for example, the more able group
member may give all the explanations of what is being learned.
Since the amount of time spent explaining correlates highly with
the amount learned, the more able member learns a great deal
while the less able members flounder as a captive audience. The
time spent listening in group brainstorming can reduce the
amount of time any individual can state their ideas (Hill, 1982;
Lamm & Trommsdorff, 1973). Group efforts can be characterized
by self-induced helplessness (Langer & Benevento, 1978),
diffusion of responsibility, and social loafing (Latane, Williams,
& Harkin, 1979), ganging up against a task, reactance (Salomon,
1981), dysfunctional divisions of labor ("I'm the thinkist and
you're the typist") (Sheingold, Hawkins, & Char, 1984),
inappropriate dependence on authority (Webb, Ender, & Lewis,
1986), destructive conflict (Collins, 1970; Johnson & Johnson,
1979), member ineptness caused by a lack of social skills, failure
to learn from mistakes, and other patterns of behavior that
debilitate group performance.
Teachers need to master the essential elements of
cooperation for at least two reasons. First, teachers need to tailor
cooperative learning to their unique instructional needs,
circumstances, curricula, subject areas, and students. Second,
teachers need to diagnose the problems some students may have
in working together and intervene to increase the effectiveness of
the student learning groups. The essential elements of
cooperation need to be understood if teachers are to be trained to
implement cooperative learning successfully. Teachers need
enough training and practice in the essential elements of cooperation to
become educational engineers who can take their existing lessons,
curricula, and courses and structure them cooperatively.
Cooperative Learning and Nonacademic Outcomes of Schooling 93
and the more committed they are to each other's success, the
harder each student will work and the more productive students
will be. Individuals work harder and sustain their efforts longer
when they are part of a team effort with others whom they care
for. As relationships become more positive, absenteeism and
dropping out of school decreases, student commitment to
educational goals increases, feelings of personal responsibility to
the school increase, willingness to take on difficult tasks
increases, motivation and persistence in working toward goal
achievement increase, satisfaction and morale increase,
willingness to endure pain and frustration on behalf of learning
increases, willingness to listen to and be influenced by
classmates and teachers increases, commitment to each other's
learning and success increases, and productivity increases
(Johnson & F. Johnson, 1991; Johnson & Johnson, 1989a).
The degree of emotional bonding that exists among
students has a profound effect on the quality of the work that is
performed. While evidence from a variety of fields links caring
relationships and productivity, one of the most dramatic
examples comes from the sport of sled-dog racing. The most
grueling and longest sled race in the world is the Alaskan
Iditarod, a 1,500 mile race from Anchorage to Nome that winds
its way across frozen mountain paths and cuts across long, open
stretches of land subject to blinding snow storms. The race was
won by a woman in 1985, 1986, 1987, and 1990. When asked if
they had any special advantage over men in this race, the
winning women said that they developed a closer bond with
their dogs and, consequently, their dogs worked harder. A
second example may be found in the world of business. When
asked about their success, the chief executives of the companies
that have the best track records in North America state that they
have been successful because they are able to create teams in
which members care about each other on a personal as well as a
professional level (Kouzes & Posner, 1987). The successful chief
executives create a "family" within which members care deeply
about each other and the mutual goals they are striving to
achieve. Secondary schools should do likewise.
For students to develop socially in healthy ways and to be
psychologically healthy, caring and committed relationships are
Cooperative Learning and Nonacademic Outcomes of Schooling 99
Table l
Social Support
A friend is one to whom one may pour out all the contents
of one's heart, chaff and grain together knowing that the
gentlest of hands will take and sift it, keep what is worth
keeping and with a breath of kindness blow the rest away.
(Arabian Proverb)
experience and the better able they are to manage the stresses
involved in their lives. Whenever pressure is placed on
individuals to achieve higher and challenge their intellectual
capacities, considerable social support should be provided to
buffer the individuals from the stress inherent in the situation
and to help individuals cope constructively with the stress. Not
only will cooperative learning experiences promote high levels
of social support, they will also tend to enhance individuals'
achievement (Johnson & Johnson, 1987; Johnson, Maruyama,
Johnson, Nelson & Skon, 1981). Thus, educators do not have to
choose between a support classroom environment or mastery of
subject matter. Both may be achieved simultaneously.
Psychological Health
four correctional facilities (two for juveniles and two for adults)
in Minnesota. Sixty-two juveniles and 61 adults participated in
the study. James found that the more positive the juvenile and
adult inmates' attitudes were toward cooperating with others,
and the better socially adjusted they were, the less they tended to
have value systems reflective of the lower class, the more they
saw reality clearly without distorting it according to their own
desires and needs, and the more trustful and involved they were
with authority figures and others. For the juvenile and maximal
security subjects, cooperativeness tended to be related to
emotional maturity and feeling able to influence social forces
and institutions. For the minimal security subjects, positive
attitudes toward cooperation also tended to be related to being
satisfied with oneself and one's relations with others, controlling
one's anger and frustration and expressing them appropriately,
being aware of one's feelings, taking into account social customs
and rules in resolving interpersonal and personal problems,
being willing to acknowledge unpleasant events or conditions
encountered in daily living, basic thinking on reality and
keeping thinking organized and free from confusion and
hallucinations, high self-esteem, and identifying with the
dominant value system.
In her dissertation, Suzanne James (James, 1985; James &
Johnson, 1988) conducted a study on the factors that influence
step-couple marital adjustment and psychological health. She
found that wives' attitudes toward cooperation tended to be
quite negatively related to two of the Minnesota Multiphasic
Personality Inventory (MMPI) psychological pathology scales.
She also found that the more cooperatively oriented the wives,
the more positively they view the marriage, the greater their
overall satisfaction with their marriage, the more satisfied they
are with the affection and understanding expressed by their
spouse, the greater their common interests and quality and
quantity of leisure time together, and the less the conflict with
their spouse over the children, and the more satisfied they are
with their children. The more cooperatively oriented the
husbands, the more positively they viewed the marriage, the
greater their overall satisfaction with their marriage, the more
satisfied they were with the affection and understanding
114 David W. Johnson, Roger T. Johnson
Summary
Basically, a strong relationship has been found between
cooperativeness and psychological health; a mixed picture has
been found with competitiveness and psychological health; and
a strong relationship has been found between an individualistic
orientation and psychological pathology. The most surprising
findings were for competition. An explanation is that
competition takes place within relationships with other people
and, therefore, it may not be as negative an influence on
psychological well-being as has been commonly assumed by
psychologists.
In addition to the direct relationship between cooperation
and psychological health, participating in cooperative learning
Cooperative Learning and Nonacademic Outcomes of Schooling 119
Self-Esteem
Social Skills
Sogin & Van Zante, 1974; Wicklund & Brehm, 1976). When
individuals "take a stand" on an issue by committing themselves
publicly to an attitude position, the attitude position and the
implications of the position may become more salient and less
easily denied or forgotten in subsequent situations. Individuals
who are more publicly committed to their positions are more
susceptible to s u b s e q u e n t consonant c o m m u n i c a t i o n s
advocating an even stronger position, are more resistant to an
attack on their position, and are more likely to comply with a
subsequent request for additional attitude-related behavior than
are individuals only privately committed to their position
(Halverson & Pallak, 1978; Pallak, Mueller, Dollar & Pallak, 1972;
Sullivan & Pallak, 1976).
The classic studies by Le win (1943) and his associates
(Radke & Klisurich, 1947; Radke & Caso, 1948) on persuading
Americans to eat foods they did not ordinarily consume indicate
that if you wish to change people's attitudes and behavior:
1. They should be involved in group discussions that lead
to public commitment to the new attitudes and
behaviors.
2. They should perceive that all members of the group
support the new attitudes and behaviors.
The influence of public commitment on attitudes and
behavior patterns is strengthened considerably when group
members hold individuals accountable for fulfilling their
commitments. There is considerable evidence that many basic
attitudes and values are influenced more by peers than by any
other set of people (Johnson, 1981). When groups of peers
require public commitments from each other, and then hold each
other accountable to fulfill their commitments to the group,
considerable behavioral change takes place (Johnson & Johnson,
1983).
Social Models
Watson & Johnson, 1972). People are most likely to accept new
attitudes and behaviors when they come into contact with others
who have successfully adopted them (Aronson & O'Leary, 1982-
83; Goldman, 1940; Nisbett, Borgida, Crandall & Reed, 1976;
Rogers & Shoemaker, 1977). Visible and credible models and
discussion with others who have already adopted the new
attitudes and behaviors may be important aspects of education.
Continuing Motivation
In most subject areas, what is important is not the
memorization of current facts but rather the building of an
interest in, and commitment to, continually acquiring
knowledge. Continuing motivation is motivation to seek further
information about the topic being studied in the future.
Individuals must continually revise their knowledge as new
information becomes available.
Continuous Improvement
Summary
REFERENCES
Slavin, R. (1977). Student learning teams and scores adjusted for past
achievement: A summary of field experiments. Johns Hopkins
University, Center for Social Organization of Schools, Report
#227.
Slavin, R. (1986). Using Student Team Learning. Baltimore, MD: Center for
Research on Elementary & Middle Schools, Johns Hopkins
University.
Sullivan, J., & Pallak, M. (1976). The effect of commitment and reactance
on action-taking. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2, 179-
182.
Taylor, S., & Thompson, S. (1982). Stalking the elusive "vividness"
effect. Psychological Review, 89,155-181.
Tyack, D. and Hansot, E. (1982). Hard times, hard choices: the case for
coherence in public. Phi Delta Kappan, 63(8), 511-15.
Tyler, R. W. (1930). The relation between the frequency and the
universality of teaching activities. Journal of Educational Research,
22, 130-132.
Tyler, R. W. (1934). Constructing Achievement Tests. Columbus: Bureau of
Educational Research, Ohio State University.
Van Den Heuvel, K. (1982). Teaching strategies in preschool nutrition
education. MS thesis, The Pennsylvania State University,
University Park, PA.
Ward, A., & Davis, R. (1938). Individual differences in retention of
general science subject matter in the case of three measurable
objectives. Journal of Experimental Education, 7,116-125.
Watson, G., & Johnson, D. W. (1972). Social Psychology: Issues and
Insights. Philadelphia: Lippincott.
Webb, H. (1969). Professionalization of attitudes toward play among
adolescents. In G. S. Kenyon (Ed.), Aspects of Contemporary Sport
Sociology. Chicago: The Athletic Institute.
Webb, N., Ender, P., & Lewis, S. (1986). Problem-solving strategies and
group processes in small group learning computer programming.
American Educational Research Journal, 23 (2), 243-261.
Wheeler, R., & Ryan, F. (1973). Effects of cooperative and competitive
classroom environments on the attitudes and achievement of
elementary school students engaged in social studies inquiry
activities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 65 (3), 402-407.
Wicklund, R., & Brehm, J. (1976). Perspectives in Cognitive Dissonance.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
150 David W. Johnson, Roger T. Johnson
Cooperative Learning
and Content Areas:
Theory and Research
This page intentionally left blank
CHAPTER 4
Cooperative Learning
in Secondary Mathematics
Research and Theory
John E. Owens
153
154 John E. Owens
Current Practice
Cognitive Research
There is a great deal of research indicating that if student-
s t u d e n t i n t e r d e p e n d e n c e is s t r u c t u r e d carefully a n d
appropriately, students will achieve at a higher level, use higher
level reasoning strategies more frequently, have higher levels of
achievement motivation, be more intrinsically motivated,
develop more positive interpersonal relationships with each
other, value the subject area being studied more, and be more
skilled interpersonally. (Johnson & Johnson, 1991) While the
claim of "a great deal of research" may seem overly optimistic
when applied to secondary mathematics, Johnson & Johnson's
work has served to highlight the need for research into the
nature of student-student interactions.
Johnson & Johnson (1990) stressed five aspects (previously
listed) of cooperative learning that must be present for effective
cooperative learning to take place. Their findings are consistent
with Slavin's (1990) on the effectiveness of group rewards and
individual accountability; differences exist in the emphasis on
the level of learning (conceptual, problem-solving vs. skill-based)
and on the necessity for investigating the nature and quality of
interactions among students. Recent studies in mathematics
education have attempted to investigate these interactions.
Epilogue
REFERENCES
Introduction
185
186 Reuven Lazarowitz
Biology
Tingle & Good, 1990 Chemistry High School Solving problems in Academic achievement: No significant differences
Stoichiometric age 14.7-19 groups (SPG) versus in academic achievement between SPG and SPI.
problems N=178 solving problems Solving problems in groups induces creation
The mole concept grades 10 to individually (SPI) of a supportive climate in learning, organization
Empirical equations 12 and division of work. Every individual developed
responsibility.
Table 1 (continued)
Authors Topics Learned Grades: N Methods of Instruction Results
Watson, 1991 Biology High School 1. Group education Academic achievement: GEM + traditional >
Age 14-17 modules (GEM) learning material organized in a traditional
n=715 (similar to Jigsaw) way + traditional learning
2. Learning Together Cooperative learning > traditional
(Johnson and Johnson) learning.
3. Traditional learning
Lazarowitz & Galon, Biology, 9th Jigsaw Investigative JIG students' mean scores on achievement
1990 Mitosis & N=201 Group (JIG) versus were significantly higher. No difference in
Meosis Traditional classroom achievement by gender within each
laboratory group but between groups. Interaction
between academic achievement and
students' cognitive stages and methods. More
positive classroom learning environment in
the JIG.
Baird, Lazarowitz Geology 10-12th Group Mastery Learning Students' academic achievements in
& Hertz-Lazarowitz, Energy N=73 (GML) versus GML were significantly higher.
1990 Individual Mastery I In GML academic and social gains were
Learning (IML) similar for leaders, regular, and action
students compared with their pre-test
mean scores, although action students did
poorly. Significant differences on all three
measures of the open essay test. "Number
of friends" varied significantly among the
status sub-groups.
Lazarowitz, 1991 Biology Junior High Peer tutoring in 1. Academic achievement: PTSIG >
Mitosis and 9th grade small investigative FCI
Meiosis N=201 groups (PTSIG) versus Girls > boys in PTSIG
frontal classroom 2. Concrete operational stage students in
instruction (FCI) PTSIG, obtained significant mean scores over
their counterparts in the FCI mode.
3. Classroom learning environment: PTSIG > FCI
on the following factors: satisfaction, cohesiveness,
the learning material was perceived as easier, less
competitiveness.
Scott & Physics High school Jigsaw and group 1. Jigsaw activities were useful in structuring
Heller, 1992 candle-in Emphasis on work positive interdependence and individual
water minorities and accountability.
demonstration females who 2. Effective strategy for reinforcing reading
leam science material, preparing research projects, making
presentations and reviewing for tests.
3. Help students to acquire active listening and
check for understanding skills.
4. Females and minorities were encouraged to
exchange ideas and their points of view and to
have a stand on them.
Lazarowitz & Biology 9th grade Jigsaw Investigative Students' academic achievement in GML
Galon, 1990 mitosis & N=201 Group (JIG) versus were significantly higher. In GML
traditional classroom academic and social gains were similar for
laboratory leaders regular, and action students compared
with their pre-test mean scores, although action
students did poorly. Significant differences on all
three measures of the open essay test. "Number
of friends" varied significantly among the
status sub-groups.
Table 1 (continued)
Authors Topics Learned Grades: N Methods of Instruction Results
Rogg & Kahle, Evolution 9th grade Phase 1. 1. Students were on-task engaged
1992 biology Conditional random 49 percent to 100 percent with a
Taxonomy of 2 classes assignment to groups sample mean of 84 percent.
organisms N=44 of 4 or 5. 2. Mean frequency of on-task
(22 girls, Phase 2. interactions was 0.230 per minute.
22 boys) Students' assignment 3. Only 4.4 percent of all interactions
to groups based on were classified as higher-cognitive
scores from the four level which occurred with a mean
subscales of the frequency of 0.012 per minute.
MBTL 4.23 percent of the interactions were
Based on MBTI scores, classified as "helping."
groups formed on a 66 percent of the interactions were found
continuum of to be student-student.
homogeneous to 23 percent of the interactions were found
heterogeneous groups. to be student-group. 10 percent of the
The cooperative method interactions were found to be student-teacher.
method used-Learning
Together
Learning Science in Cooperative Modes 203
The units for the study were "You and the Cell" and the
"Living Plant." Teachers used the same learning materials for
both instructional methods. The studies compared academic
achievements, as measured by mastering goals of the units and
mean tests scores. Affective measures included self-esteem and
classroom learning environment measures. Inquiry skills of
students were also compared, because laboratory work was
integrated. Pre- and post-comparisons showed differential
academic outcomes according to the unit. Overall academic
gains of the two groups were not significantly different.
However, when a more sensitive analysis was conducted where
students were divided into "high" and "low" groups according
to their scores on the General Aptitude Test Battery (GATB
1975), more gains were found for both types of students, high
and low GATB, in the cooperative mode of the JCI. Low students
gained in JCI in the Cell unit 10 points more than the low
students in the IML method. This pioneer study is of special
interest in documenting that cooperative learning is capable of
enhancing achievements of low students without holding back
the stronger students. Sharan, Ackerman, and Hertz-Lazarowitz
(1980) found similar results with social studies classes in Israel.
Social-affective outcomes were consistent with the
academic outcomes and were in favor of the JCI. Students in the
cooperative classroom gained in self-esteem, and they perceived
their classroom as a more positive learning environment. Their
attitudes toward biology were also more positive. From open
writing in working logs that each student kept, we learned that
the students had a very hard time adjusting to the cooperative
methods, and the positive feelings toward the JCI grew slowly.
The researchers collected students' open responses to the
JCI method, and the writings of 200 students were content
analyzed and categorized. Overall, students had positive
perceptions of cooperative learning. Students highlighted both
positive social aspects (42 percent) and the enhancement of
learning and cognitive aspects (41 percent). Students listed
increasing friendships, helping, and cooperating as the most
positive social aspects and division of work and mutual
exchange of ideas as the most important cognitive aspects. Thus,
they reflected on the very same concepts that the theory of
204 Reuven Lazarowüz
Geology
Earth Science
Chemistry
Two studies in chemistry performed by Zadock (1983) and
Cohen (1982) used a new strategy called inquiry group. Zadock
(1983) investigated the teaching of a chemical energy topic with
385 eleventh-grade students in two learning settings: inquiry
group activities versus frontal classroom approach. The results
showed that in academic achievement, no significant mean
differences were found between methods of learning. But when
Learning Science in Cooperative Modes 211
Physics
On-Task Behavior
In studies in which "Jigsaw Investigation" (Lazarowitz et
al., 1988) and "Learning Together" (Rogg & Kahle, 1992) were
used, it was found that these modes of instruction drove
students to a higher "on-task" behavior during their learning.
More studies on this particular aspect of the learning process are
needed to be performed with different cooperative methods and
topics in order to assure more reliability to the findings reported
in the literature. It is of interest to find out if "on-task" behavior
lasts for longer periods of time after the end of the studies.
Benefits to Students
Like scientists who do research or develop technologies
and work in teams, so students who learn in cooperative groups
can help each other and share their ideas and opinions. In group
learning, students can compare perceptions and ideas, suggest
and share solutions to problems posed and develop skills of
responsibility, leadership, and teamwork. Researchers indicated
that low-ability students as well as high academic achievers may
improve their learning, and the interaction between these two
groups of students does not have a negative impact. The learning
interaction among different types of students helps all of them to
improve their academic achievement, do better on retention tests
and acquired learning and reasoning strategies. Other skills
mastered are skills of leadership, communication, decision,
sharing, and management. These skills may help the learners
later as citizens in their family life and society (BSCS, 1989).
Seven features of the "learning together" model developed
by Johnson and Johnson (1975) were identified by BSCS (189):
1. Cooperative learning induces students to positive
interdependence,
2. Cooperative learning helps students to develop social
skills,
3. Cooperative learning enhances students' individual
accountability,
4. Cooperative learning relates to students' heterogeneity
in terms of ability, sex, ethnicity, and other personal
characteristics,
5. Cooperative learning educates students for leadership,
6. Cooperative learning helps students to develop
partnerships,
7. Cooperative learning enhances teachers' role as a
consultant for students.
topic, so that it will fit their personality, students' needs, and the
nature of the topic taught.
Student teachers, as well as in-service teachers, should
learn about cooperative methods in order to be able to identify
what science topics in different subject areas can be used for this
mode of instruction. We found in the studies reviewed that not
every science topic can be used in a cooperative mode of
instruction. These limitations and the fact that pre-packaged
learning materials in this mode of instruction are not available
require science teachers to prepare their own learning units.
Only when student teachers receive appropriate training on one
hand and have access to commercial teaching materials on the
other will one expect to find a wide use of the cooperative
approach in secondary school science. This could explain why
until now the cooperative method of instruction is used only in
those schools where science educators are investigating the
cooperative aspects of the method or a graduate student in
science education is involved.
Another factor which should be considered in the
implementation of the cooperative learning approach relates to
the philosophical education background of the teachers and
schools. Today, our science classrooms are highly heterogeneous
in terms of students' cognitive development, abilities, interests,
needs, and motivations. Are we interested in providing this
heterogeneous student population with a classroom learning
environment in which every individual will be able to cope with
it and have a successful learning experience in science? We can
see that teachers who want to use cooperative modes of
instructions in their classrooms should master what Shulman
(1987) mentioned: a pedagogical knowledge in a variety of
teaching strategies strongly bound to the knowledge of their
specific science content. This combination of the science content
and teaching strategies should be related to the characteristics of
the students, in terms of their abilities, styles of learning, needs,
interest, and cognitive development.
The teachers have to have the learning material ready.
They have to prepare it in advance of the time they will want to
teach and implement the method. During the instructional and
learning process, their roles change. When all teacher-student
222 Reuven Lazarowitz
NOTES
REFERENCES
Scott, L. W., & Heller, R. (1991). Team work strategies for integrating
women and minorities into the physical sciences. The Science
Teacher, 58 (1), 24-28.
Sharan, S. (1980). Cooperative learning in small groups: Recent methods
and effects on achievements, attitudes and ethnic relations.
Review of Educational Research, 50 (2), 241-271.
Sharan, S., Hare, P., Webb, C , & Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (Eds.), (1980).
Cooperation in Education. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University
Press.
Sharan, S., Ackerman, Z., & Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (1980). Academic
achievement of elementary school children in small group vs.
whole class instruction. Journal of Experimental Education, 48 (2),
125-129.
Sharan, S., Raviv, S., Kussel, P., & Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (1984).
Cooperative and competitive behavior. In S. Sharan (Ed.),
Cooperative Learning in Classrooms: Research in Desegregated Schools
(pp. 73-106). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Sherman, L. W. (1988). A comparative study of cooperative and
competitive achievement in two secondary biology classrooms.
The group investigative model versus an individually
competitive goal structure. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
26 (1), 55-64.
Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new
reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57 (1), 1-22.
Slavin, R. E. (1978). Student teams and achievement divisions. Journal of
Research and Development in Education, 12, 39-49.
Slavin, R. E., Leavey, M., & Madden, N. (1982). Effects of student teams
and individualized instruction on student mathematics
achievements, attitudes and behaviors. Paper presented at the
American Educational Research Association Conference. New
York.
Slavin, R. E. (1980). Cooperative learning. Review of Educational Research,
50, (2), 315-342.
Slavin, R. E. (1990). Cooperative Learning: Theory, Research and Practice.
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Tingle, J. B., & Good, R. (1990). Effects of cooperative grouping on
stoichiometric problem solving in high school chemistry. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 27, (7), 671-683.
Learning Science in Cooperative Modes 227
Tobin, K. G. (1990). Social constructivist perspectives on the information
of science education. Australian Science Teachers journal, 36, (4),
29-35.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher
Psychological Process. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Walberg, H. J., & Anderson, G. (1968). Classroom climate and individual
learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 59, 414-419.
Walters, J. (1988). Teaching biological systems. Journal of Biological
Education, 22 (2), 87.
Watson, S. B. (1991). Cooperative learning and group educational
modules: Effects on cognitive achievement of high school biology
students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28 (2), 141-146.
Webb, N. M. (1982). Student interaction and learning in small groups.
Review of Educational Research, 53 (3), 421-445.
Zadock, N. (1983). The learning of the concept "Chemical energy" in
inquiry groups: Evaluation of effectiveness, (in Hebrew). Thesis
for the degree of Master of Science. The Weizman Institute of
Science, Rehovot, Israel.
This page intentionally left blank
CHAPTER 6
Cooperative Learning
in Secondary English
Research and Theory
Annette Digby
229
230 Annette Digby
social, that are necessary for "survival in the real world;" and (3)
promote the concept of inquiry and lifelong learning.
During the early and mid-1900s, social scientists became
interested in the effects that various types of situations,
specifically individualistic, competitive, and cooperative, have
upon human behavior (Mailer, 1929; Deutsch, 1949). Building
upon the theoretical bases provided by Mailer and Deutsch,
researchers began investigating and comparing the effects of
individualistic, competitive, and cooperative instructional
strategies upon the cognitive and affective development of
students in a variety of classroom settings. Since the 1970s,
numerous studies have shown that cooperative conditions
enhance the learning process and cooperative learning strategies
are effective and appropriate for all curriculum areas (Joyce,
Showers, Rolheiser-Bennet, 1987; Slavin, 1990).
The purpose of this chapter is to review selected findings
related to cooperative learning and secondary school English.
The first section of the chapter presents the theoretical
foundation that supports the use of cooperative learning
strategies in the English classroom; the second presents specific
cooperative learning strategies appropriate for use in the
secondary English classroom as validated by research studies;
and the third section offers recommendations for future research
in the area of cooperative learning and secondary English.
Group Investigation
Based upon the Deweyan philosophy of inquiry, Group
Investigation was developed by Sharan and Sharan (1976).
Participants in Group Investigation work in small groups to
inquire, question, discuss, plan, and present projects. Even
though the Group Investigation method is especially appropriate
for literary topics that students want to explore more in-depth,
limited research has been conducted in literature classrooms,
especially at the secondary level.
Kuhtala (1991) recently completed a study of tenth-grade
English students who participated in a Group Investigation
project on the Middle East. Students became immersed in a
project that interested them and for which they saw relevance.
That sense of ownership is perhaps one reason that they made
significant gains in achievement as well as in affective and social
skills after having participated in the project (Kuhtala).
In a study conducted in an Israeli junior high school, the
Group Investigation method, when compared with Student
Teams-Achievement Divisions and whole-class instruction,
enhanced students' ability to respond to higher-level questions
(Sharan, Kussell, Hertz-Lazarowitz, Bejarano, Raviv, & Sharan,
1985). Involving fifteen literature teachers who had received
training in the development and implementation of Group
Investigation methodology, the study centered on the mastery of
specific literary content that heterogeneously grouped students
had studied for more than four months and had been
administered both a pre- and post-test. Even though individual
teacher preference prevented all students from studying the
same works of literature throughout the treatment period, the
results of the study were significant in favor of Group
Investigation.
Students in the Israel school also participated in a study
designed to test the effectiveness of Group Investigation in the
mastery of selected language arts skills, namely listening,
reading, cloze, and asking questions. This study involved
eighteen English teachers whose students were ability grouped.
Students who participated in Group Investigation activities
scored higher than those in the whole-class setting; their scores,
236 Annette Digby
Jigsaw
Learning Together
Teams-Games-Tournaments
Teams-Games-Tournaments (TGT) involves the same
procedures as does Student Teams-Achievement Divisions. The
major difference is that students play academic games to
demonstrate mastery of material (Slavin, 1991).
Overwhelmingly, research supports the use of TGT; however,
most of the studies involving secondary school students have
240 Annette Digby
Additional Results
Much of the literature presents findings of studies that
investigate the effectiveness of cooperative conditions without
identifying a specific strategy used in the treatment. Below are
selected examples of those findings, most of which are based
upon qualitative data:
• Because students in cooperative settings assist each other
with the learning process and form support groups,
retention rates and academic achievement scores are
higher for those students than for students in other
settings (Simmons, 1991).
• Cooperative learning promotes improved relations
among ethnic groups and between students with special
needs and other students (Balkcom, 1992).
• Cooperative learning structures help to alleviate the
heavy paperwork load that most English teachers have
(Jobe, 1991).
• Students in cooperative settings develop better recall
skills (Nystrand, et al, 1992).
• The greater degree of student autonomy within groups,
the greater the production of knowledge and the
likelihood that increased achievement would result
(Nystrand, 1992).
• Although one experimental group of ninth-graders
s h o w e d the greatest gain in m e m o r i z a t i o n of
prepositions, the gain was not significant (Ward, 1991).
Cooperative Learning in Secondary English 241
Summary
Researchers whose studies have been mentioned in the
previous sections are certainly to be commended for their
contributions to the literature. Thanks to their efforts, the
existing body of research on cooperative learning in secondary
English classrooms provides a reliable foundation for advocating
242 Annette Digby
Future Directions
Achievement
• What is the effect of cooperative learning upon academic
achievement of students in secondary school English
classrooms?
This one research question can evolve into a multitude of
other questions by substituting names of specific learning
strategies for cooperative learning in the original questions and by
substituting specific concepts in the study of English for academic
achievement. For example, one question may be, "What is the
effect of Student-Teams-Achievement Divisions upon students'
mastery of verb usage?" Another question may be, "What is the
effect of Jigsaw I upon the students' mastery of story story
elements?"
• What aspects of cooperative learning enhance students'
academic performance in secondary school English?
Cooperative Learning in Secondary English 243
Group Processing
• What is the role and importance o f group processing in
cooperatively structured activities?
• Do the nature and extent o f group processing activities
contribute to better group performance on the next cooperative
task?
Interaction Patterns
• What impact do cooperative activities have upon the nature o f
student-student interaction? Student-teacher interaction?
Locus of Control
• How is locus of control shifted from teacher to student? What
conditions expedite this shift?
244 Annette Digby
Perceptions
• How do teachers perceive their roles in a cooperatively
structured classroom?
• How do students perceive their roles in a cooperatively
structured classroom?
• How do parents perceive cooperative learning?
• How do parents view their roles in a cooperatively structured
environment?
• How do principals (and other administrators) view their roles
in a cooperatively structured environment?
• How do roles o f participants change in a cooperatively
structured environment as compared to a "traditional "
environment?
• What impact do perceptions [of each of the above stakeholders]
have upon the cooperative process?
• What impact do cooperative activities have upon self
perceptions of students?
• What impact do cooperative activities have upon attitudes o f
students toward English? literature?
Roles of participants in cooperatively structured settings
are different from those in "traditional" classrooms. Numerous
questions need to be answered in this area if change processes
are to occur naturally and effectively.
Problems/Concerns
• What are the best ways to deal with problems such as
absenteeism, apathetic students, non-contributors, and control
seekers?
Rewards/Grades
• What types of reward are the best motivators for students in a
cooperative setting?
• What is the comparison between group and individual grading
systems upon achievement and motivation o f students?
Cooperative Learning in Secondary English 245
Social Skills
• What is the effect of cooperative learning upon students'
development of social skills?
Again, the possibilities for studies are numerous, bound
only by the number of cooperative learning strategies, the
number of social skills that can be measured, and the types of
social settings.
• What aspects of cooperative learning enhance students' social
development?
• What aspects of cooperative learning hinder students' social
development?
• What aspects of cooperative learning enhance/hinder ESL and
LEP students' social skill development?
For example, does the assignment/selection of roles
enhance or hinder student achievement? Is the effect the same
for all cooperative learning strategies, or does the effect vary
depending upon the strategy used or task completed?
• What impact does group composition have upon students'
social development?
Teacher Training
• How much and what type of teacher training is necessary for
proper development and implementation of cooperative
learning strategies?
Writing Process
• What impact do cooperative structures have upon the writing
process?
• What strategy is most appropriate for use in a writing
workshop?
246 Annette Digby
Final Observation
REFERENCES
Aronson, E., Blaney, N., Step han, C, Sikes, J., & Snapp, M. (1978). The
Jigsaw Classroom. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Balkcom, S. (1992). Cooperative learning. Education Research Consumer
Guide, 1.
Brooks, F. B. (1992). Spanish III learners talking to one another through a
jigsaw task. Canadian Modern Language Review, 48 (4), 696-717.
Bruffee, K. A. (1984). Collaborative learning and the "Conversation of
Mankind." College English, 46 (7), 635-53.
Calderón, M. (1989). Cooperative learning for LEP students. Intercultural
Development Research Association Newsletter, 16 (9), 1-7.
Coelho, E. (1988). Creating jigsaw units for the ESL classroom. How to
develop instructional units for co-operative group learning in the
communicative curriculum. TESL-Talk, 18 (1), 69-81.
Coffey, K. (1989). Playing the accordion and framing the research
question. English Journal, 78 (5), 45.
Cohen, E. G. (1986). Designing Groupwork. New York: Teachers College
Press.
Cromwell, C, & Sasser, L. (1987, March). Putting the shoe on the other
foot: A jigsaw lesson in point of view. Paper presented at the
Cooperative Learning in Secondary English 247
Group Investigation
Theoretical Foundations
Shlomo Sharon
Introduction
251
252 Shlomo Sharan
Investigation
This first of the four components of Group Investigation is
its primary distinguishing characteristic. It refers to the general
orientation toward learning adopted by the teacher for the entire
classroom. An orientation toward learning as investigation
254 Shlomo Sharon
Interaction
Interaction is the component that Group Investigation
shares with other approaches to cooperative learning. All
cooperative learning methods provide for give-and-take and
mutual assistance among students in various ways. However,
not all types of peer interaction mentioned here would
necessarily appear in a class conducted with each and every
cooperative learning method. As yet, there is no taxonomy of
student interactions that typify one or the other method.
Implementation of Group Investigation typically requires
students to cooperate with one another in planning their work
together. They examine a variety of sources of information
individually or in collaboration with others, exchange ideas and
information, help each other, discuss topics together, and, when
the task requires, prepare a group product together which they
may present to their class.
Group Investigation derives its inspiration from Dewey's
conception of school learning as problem solving in a social
context through cooperation with peers (Archambault, 1964). Of
course, individuals can conduct investigations w i t h o u t
cooperating with other classmates. However, as we noted, the
unique character of Group Investigation lies in the combination
Group Investigation 257
Experiential Learning
We do not intend to sanctify activity per se as the
prerequisite for learning. Activity, by individuals or groups, can
be mindless and aimless. With this in mind Kurt Lewin
developed a model of "experiential learning" whose first
component is that the group carries out an activity, then reflects
on the nature of that activity, to analyze what happened.
Reflection has two foci: 1) the content of the group's work,
including what it did to obtain information or to carry out a
specific task, as well as how it went about its task; 2) the nature
of the interaction between the group members during their
activity. Reviewing the nature of the interaction within the group
increases students' awareness of their behavior with others and
of ways of working together effectively (Kolb & Fry, 1975).
Graves & Graves (1990) suggest that group reflection
includes four components: Identifying what happened during
the group's activity; analyzing why things happened the way
they did and how the group might do things differently the next
time; generalizing how skills learned during this activity can be
helpful in future work; setting goals for the group's procedures
in the future so it can function better.
Processing groups' activities in this fashion helps to ensure
that they will gradually develop the ability to engage
productively in investigating study topics. The productivity of
the group has a significant and positive effect on the satisfaction
that group members derive from their participation in the group.
It also increases students' desire to continue to pursue their
studies in groups, and enhances their positive attitudes toward
school learning (Ross & Raphael, 1990; Sharan, 1990; Slavin,
1990; Steiner, 1972; Zander, 1979).
A group learning activity is thus the basis for an entire
series of learning events, not the sum total of its work in the
pursuit of knowledge. Obviously, experience without analysis
and increased understanding does not lead to significant
learning. The Group Investigation method provides for group
experiences concerned with learning accompanied by the needed
planning, analysis and decision making on the part of the
students (Sharan & Sharan, 1992).
262 Shlomo Sharon
Interpretation
Investigation potentially offers students the opportunity
for intellectual and social experiences associated with the
interpretation of information, not only with its systematic
acquisition. Interpretation first and foremost promotes students'
opportunity to think for themselves, instead of having the ideas
presented to them pre-formulated that they are asked to
memorize or write in notebooks. Interpretation of information
and experiences offers students the opportunity to proceed with
learning at a pace commensurate with their understanding; to
perceive the connections between events, facts, experiences and
feelings; and to mold their own meaning out of these
experiences. The pace of instruction and the ideas to be acquired
are not determined in advance by the teacher, so that those who
cannot conform to the teacher's criteria are subject to failure.
Group Investigation 263
Intrinsic Motivation
Motivation is a psychological construct, not a description
of students' overt behavior in the classroom. The expectation is
that intrinsic motivation will emerge from the implementation of
the other three components of the Group Investigation method.
Hence, intrinsic motivation is on a somewhat different level than
the other components that refer to organizational or behavioral
features of the method. Intrinsic motivation is included as one of
the four major components of this approach to classroom
instruction because of its central significance for meaningful
learning. Intrinsic motivation should be e n h a n c e d by
implementing the first three components of the G r o u p
Investigation method. By and large, it appears to be a relatively
neglected feature of educational practice.
Astute observers and students of contemporary public
education have noted that traditional forms of instruction too
often stifle motivation to learn, and that an inordinate number of
students are patently bored with the routine of daily learning in
schools (Goodlad, 1984; Sarason, 1983). The potentially positive
effect of cooperative learning on students' motivation to learn
has been emphasized by several of the prominent authors and
investigators of cooperative learning (Johnson & Johnson, 1985;
Slavin, 1987a). There is some controversy over the question of
how motivation to learn can be fostered and sustained in
cooperative classrooms, whether extrinsic motivating conditions
are necessary, such as rewards of various kinds; or whether an
effective level of motivation is possible under conditions of
intrinsic motivation (Slavin, 1987a). It may be true that schools
cannot maintain students' intrinsic motivation to learn all of the
time and in respect to all learning tasks and conditions (Slavin,
1987b). The question is, to what extent do students experience
internal motivation to learn; what portion of their school studies
generates a genuine interest in the topic and in the pursuit of
learning free from the promise, or threat, of external rewards?
The fact that most school learning today is externally motivated
only begs the question.
In Group Investigation there is no planned use of extrinsic
motivators to arouse students' interest in learning or to maintain
266 Shlomo Sharan
REFERENCES
Johnson, D., Johnson, R., & Smith, K. (1986). Academic conflict among
students: Controversy and learning. In R. Feldman (Ed.), The
Social Psychology of Education (pp. 199-231). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press,
Joyce, B., Hersh, R., & McKibbon, M. (1983). The Structure of School
Improvement. New York: Longman.
Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1988). Student Achievement through Staff
Development. New York: Longman.
Kagan, S. (1985). Dimensions of cooperative classroom structures. In R.
Slavin et al. (Eds.), Learning to Cooperate, Cooperating to Learn (pp.
67-96). New York: Plenum.
Knight, G., & Bohlmeyer, E. (1990). Cooperative learning and
achievement: methods for assessing causal mechanisms. In S.
Sharan (Ed.), Cooperative Learning: Theory and Research (pp. 1-22).
New York: Praeger.
Knapp, C , Swan, M., Vogl, S., & Vogl, R. (1986). Using the outdoors to
teach social studies. Las Cruces, New Mexico: New Mexico State
University, ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small
Schools.
Kolb, D., & Fry, R. (1975). Towards an applied theory of experiential
learning. In C. Cooper (Ed.), Theories of Group Processes (33-57).
New York: Wiley.
Lazarowitz, R., & Karsenty, G. (1990). Cooperative learning and
s t u d e n t s ' academic achievement, process skills, learning
environment, and self-esteem in tenth-grade biology classrooms.
In S. Sharan (Ed.), Cooperative Learning: Theory and Research (pp.
123-149). New York: Praeger.
Lepper, M., & Greene, D. (Eds.). (1978). The Hidden Costs of Reward.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
McClure, L., Cook, S. & Thompson, V. (1977). Experience Based Learning:
How to Make the Community Your Classroom. Portland, Oregon:
Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.
Miller, N., & Harrington, H. (1990). A situational identity perspective on
cultural diversity and teamwork in the classroom. In S. Sharan
(Ed.), Cooperative Learning: Theory and Research (pp. 39-75). New
York: Praeger.
Miller, S., & Morgan, R. (1983). An Introduction to the Social Psychology of
Education: Implications for Learning and Instruction. Cambridge,
MA: Schenkman.
Group Investigation 275
Slavin, R., Sharan, S., Kagan, S., Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., Webb, C , &
Schmuck, R. (Eds.). (1985). Learning to Cooperate, Cooperating to
Learn. New York: Plenum.
Steiner, I. (1972). Group Processes and Productivity. New York: Academic
Press.
Stivers, E., & Wheelan, S. (Eds.). (1986). The Lewin Legacy. New York:
Springer.
Thelen, H. (1954). The Dynamics of Groups at Work. Chicago: Phoenix
Books, University of Chicago Press.
Thelen, H. (1981). The Classroom Society. New York: John Wiley.
Weisz, J., & Cameron, A. (1985). Individual differences in the student's
sense of control. In C. Ames and R. Ames (Eds.), Research on
Motivation in Education. Vol. 2. The Classroom Milieu (pp. 93-140).
Orlando: Academic Press.
Zander, A. (1979). Groups at Work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
This page intentionally left blank
PART III
Applying Cooperative
Learning in Secondary Classrooms
This page intentionally left blank
CHAPTER 8
Tommy Smith
Susan Williams
Norma Wynn
Introduction
281
282 Tommy Smith, Susan Williams, Norma Wynn
Introduction of Topic
The teacher will discuss what is meant by unit price:
1. the teacher will discuss what is meant by a unit such as
quarts, ounces, etc.;
2. the teacher demonstrates the relationship between the
unit and the price; for example, one three-ounce box of
jello at $0.48;
3. the teacher will explain how the unit price is calculated
(dividing the cost by the number of units); for example,
the unit price of the jello would be obtained by dividing
The Secondary Mathematics Classroom 285
The teacher will discuss how to find the most economical buy:
1. The teacher will stress the need of expressing the items
in common units before trying to compare the unit
prices; for example, one would not compare buying
three apples for $1.50 to buying a three-pound bag of
apples for $2.50 until both items have been expressed in
ounces. To compare these, one should weigh the loose
apples (24 ounces) and change all the units to ounces.
2. After the two items being compared are in the same
units, the unit price of each should be determined; in our
example, the unit cost of the loose apples is $0.06 per
ounce ($1.50/24 oz) and the unit cost of the bagged
apples is $0.05 per ounce ($2.50/48 oz);
3. Comparing the unit price, students can determine the
most economical buy; in our example, the bagged apples
are the most economical buy.
Team Members:
The Secondary Mathematics Classroom 287
Directions: Complete the table for each item listed. Use the
information in the table to answer the questions on the following
page.
Unit #of Item Unit
Item Type Units Cost Price
lg. Hunt's $.48
sm. Hunt's $.29
lg. Oats $2.95
sm. Oats $1.55
Diamond foil $1.55
Reyn's foil $.79
Cocoa-canist $3.65
Cocoa-box $1.78
large Pepsi $.99
can of Coke $.50
Tide $2.67
Bold $2.78
Class behavior:
Time on task:
Your reactions:
Students' reactions:
Team Members:
Directions: Complete the table for each item listed. Use the
information in the table to answer the questions on the following
page.
Models in Practice
Subject: Geometry
Topic: The Euler-Descartes Formula for Convex Polyhedra
Cognitive Objectives: Students will discover the
Euler-Descartes Formula: v - e + f = 2.
Social Skills Practiced: everybody helping, listening, staying on
task, using quiet voices, encouraging, praising, asking questions,
solving problems cooperatively.
Materials Needed: Models of polyhedra, tag board and other
materials to construct polyhedra, or a commercial construction
kit such as the Stella Octangula Manipulative Kit distributed by
Key Curriculum Press.
Procedures: Students will be divided into groups of four. Each
group will be given a collection of five regular polyhedra (the
Platonic solids-tetrahedron, cube, octahedron, dodecahedron,
and icosahedron) and one non-regular convex polyhedron. The
teacher should state the problem as follows: "Your team should try
to find a formula which expresses a relationship between the number of
vertices, edges, and faces of a polyhedron." The teacher can assign
294 Tommy Smith, Susan Williams, Norma Wynn
each member of the group one of four tasks, or the students can
draw numbers to randomly assign the tasks. One person will
count the number of vertices of each polyhedron. A second
person will count the number of edges of each polyhedron. A
third student will count the number of faces of each polyhedron.
The fourth student will act as a recorder for the data collected by
the team. Based on prior experiences of this kind, the students
should organize the data in a table format for analysis. If they
have not had prior experiences of this kind, the teacher may
suggest they collect their data in a table and perhaps provide a
model of such a table (see the example which follows this plan).
Once the data has been collected and recorded, the students
should work as a team to solve the problem. There should be a
collaborative discussion with input from all team members. It is
during this time that the following social skills will be practiced:
everybody helping, listening, staying on task, using quiet voices,
encouraging, praising, asking questions, and others.
The teacher should monitor the students' work toward the
desired objective and also their degree of attainment of the
desired social skills. During this time, the teacher should make
brief notes or use a coding system to record group and
individual efforts at achieving these outcomes. The teacher
might use the Teacher Observation Form from Lesson Plan 1
shown earlier. The suggestions by Michael Serra (1990)
mentioned earlier may also be useful. In his method, the teacher
would have a seating diagram with each group of students
represented. The teacher would then indicate when individual
students made contributions to their groups by encoding on the
chart such as the following: Q for asking questions, E for
encouraging, etc. Each teacher should have a predetermined
coding system.
Another task that the teacher may have to do is
intervention. If the teacher notes a lack of progress toward the
cognitive objective or a breakdown in either group processes or
social skills, the teacher may need to intervene. However, this
should only be after it is apparent that the group is unable to
resolve these problems. Even then, the teacher should give
encouragement to the group to redouble their efforts and
maintain the norms of group interaction. Leading questions may
The Secondary Mathematics Classroom 295
Group Members:
The Secondary Mathematics Classroom 297
Conclusions
from each other, and their interactions with their teacher take on
a more personal touch. The students gain new acceptance and
understanding of their peers. Cooperative learning appears to
have a positive effect on students' academic achievement, and
their improved attitudes toward school and each other are
rewards in and of themselves.
Two major issues that seem to be of concern to teachers
when beginning the cooperative learning approach are
classroom management and student evaluations. Though
management is somewhat different in this approach, the basic
strategies that an effective teacher applies in any approach still
apply. For example, setting and enforcing rules for acceptable
classroom behavior are very important. In the cooperative
approach, some rules such as talking in class may be altered to
specify quiet talking within a small group. Similarly, other rules
may be adapted to the cooperative setting. Management tasks
such as distributing and collecting papers may actually become
more efficient in the cooperative setting. Students take on
responsibilities for helping within their groups. As for
evaluating students, the cooperative learning approach provides
the teacher with as much or more information about individual
students than a traditional setting. The teacher still gets
information from homework, quizzes, and test, but also gains
insight into students' abilities to function as a part of a group
and their abilities to communicate mathematically with others.
Thus, a broader variety of sources can be used for evaluating
students. This is in line with new recommendations for student
assessment such as those by the NCTM (1989).
Finally, cooperative learning must be considered an
effective and workable teaching strategy for the mathematics
classroom. Used in combination with other methods by a well-
prepared, enthusiastic teacher, students will benefit greatly and
learn to enjoy and appreciate the power of mathematics.
The Secondary Mathematics Classroom 301
REFERENCES
Jan L. Hintz
303
304 Jan L. Hintz
piece of the puzzle or part in the play so that the entire task may
be completed with greater ease, less frustration, and more
understanding.
The key to jigsawing is one of the most important
characteristics of cooperative learning and helps distinguish it
from traditional small groups—positive interdependence, the
feeling of being a group and not just a few individuals who
happen to be sitting in close proximity. Johnson, Johnson, &
Holubec (1986) describe positive interdependence as realizing
that "we sink or swim together" in cooperative learning. The
failure of small-group activities and the negative feelings people
often have for small-groups can usually be attributed to a lack of
positive interdependence within traditional small groups.
Positive interdependence is achieved in jigsawed activities
because the basic principle is that each member of the group is
given a different piece of the whole. Each member is expected to
contribute his/her part to the group effort, and the task cannot
be completed successfully if this is not done. Dividing the five
hundred pieces of the jigsaw puzzle among four people and
having them each contribute to the completion of the whole
picture is an example. Positive interdependence can also be
found in a group play reading. Each actor/reader's role is
essential to the story, so each must read his/her part in order for
the play to be complete.
The Model
Conclusions
R eferen ces
313
314 Yael Sharan
Teacher Preparation
Group Investigation
As I elaborate on the procedures for each stage, I add
examples from the experience of two high school teachers who
designed and carried out a Group Investigation project.
Ms. LaSalle, a tenth-grade chemistry teacher, and Mr.
Webb, a social studies teacher in the same school, attended a
summer workshop on how to help high school students explore
environmental problems in their communities. They were eager
to implement what they had learned for a number of reasons.
Environmental problems received a great deal of attention in the
local newspapers at the time, and promised to present their
students with a wide range of challenging issues to investigate.
Their students would also have an opportunity to integrate what
they had learned in science and social studies classrooms in the
previous year. The teachers were confident that they could
recommend many organizations that could provide material and
Music of Many Voices 323
Teacher's role
The teacher circulates among the groups and offers help to
those who need it. One group may be unhappy with its original
plan. Instead of insisting that they stick to a plan that has proven
uninteresting to them, the teacher discusses alternatives with
them and helps them redirect their goal. Another problem may
be that the group planned to tackle too many questions. Again,
the teacher helps them formulate more realistic plans.
Not all groups will need the same amount of help. Some
may need only occasional encouragement to pursue their chosen
line of inquiry, whereas others may need more direct
intervention. One group, for example, may have a particularly
shy member or a member for whom English is a second
language. The teacher may have to spend some time drawing
out the shy student and should be ready to offer materials on an
appropriate level for the student who has difficulty reading
English (W-B Olsen, 1992).
Based on the teacher's advance preparation, he or she can
help groups choose a variety of relevant resource materials. The
teacher can suggest that a group interview someone who can
offer information or guidance not available in books. Naturally,
the students are encouraged to discover for themselves any
appropriate resource material.
328 Yael Sharan
Students' roles
As the planning discussions proceed students determine
what each one considers worth investigating, and how their
varied personal interests fit in with the group's joint subtopic.
Together they decide where they can get information and how to
carry out their plans. They talk to one another, listen to each
other's views, seek connections among their respective ideas and
interests, and bear in mind what each one can contribute to the
group's common goal.
Groups find it helpful to have one member serve as
resource person to coordinate the search and acquisition of
material. Another member serves as recorder and writes down
the group's plans on a planning form, which is then "hung u p "
in the display area. The recorder also reminds group members
what the deadline is for reporting back to the group. The
chairperson serves as leader of group discussions at each stage
and encourages everyone to participate and contribute to the
group's effort.
Ongoing evaluation
Throughout the investigation students discuss their work
among themselves and with the teacher, thus making their grasp
of their topic highly visible. As the teacher circulates among the
groups, he or she has ample opportunities to form reliable
judgements about the extent to which students understand and
utilize the various resource materials they gather. Neither
teacher nor students have to wait until after the investigation in
order to find out how well it's going and what problems they
may have. The teacher is always there to answer questions, to
help out when necessary, and to acknowledge and encourage the
students' efforts. In this way the teacher contributes to the
maintenance of the students' motivation to carry out their plans.
Reflective evaluation
While circulating among groups, the teacher can also ask
the students how they feel about what they're learning and
about the way they're learning. By drawing the students out, the
teacher helps them articulate the personal significance of the
investigation's content and process. The teacher may ask
individual students questions such as:
• What material was most interesting to you?
• How do you feel about the conclusions this author cites?
• What did you learn that was new or surprising?
Other questions may be put to the group:
• Is everyone participating?
• Are you having any difficulties working together?
• In what way are you working together better than you
did in the last investigation project?
Questions like these are based on the norm of reflection
that is an integral part of cooperative learning. Students are
Music of Many Voices 335
REFERENCES
Learning Biology in
Cooperative Investigative Groups
Reuven Lazarowitz
341
342 Reuven Lazarowitz
topic, they teach it to the rest of the class. Thus, in the group
investigation, the students cooperatively plan their inquiry,
collect data, prepare a report, and teach the topic to the entire
class.
Mitosis, grade 9
The five sub-units were:
1. Interphase—cell growth and development; D N A
synthesis.
2. Prophase—structure of the nucleus.
3. Metaphase—chromosomes and their structure.
4. Anaphase—chromosome movement toward the cell
poles.
346 Reuven Lazarozvitz
Meiosis, grade 9
The five sub-units were:
1. The importance of the meiosis process.
2. The similarity and diversity between mitosis and
meiosis.
3. The first prophase.
4. The first metaphase, anaphase and telophase.
5. The characteristics of the meiosis process, second
division.
Rationale/Description of Sub-units
As can be seen with the mitosis, the second and fourth
sub-units are easier than the other three; with the meiosis, the
first sub-unit is an easy one, while sub-units 3 and 4 are
repetitious of what was learned in mitosis; and sub-units 2 and 4
are more difficult.
With regard to photosynthesis, sub-units 1 and 2 are much
easier than the other three. They require mastery of concepts and
principles in biology, chemistry, and physics to understand the
structures of the molecules involved in exchanges of gas and the
light and dark parts of the photosynthesis process. This,
therefore, gives teachers an opportunity to offer the appropriate
sub-units to the jigsaw group members according to their
abilities, thus answering one of the problems of heterogeneous
groups. Selecting a topic which can be divided into five sub-units
as described above and seeing to it that these sub-units are of
different levels of difficulty may lead to the formation of, and
answer the needs of, the heterogeneous groups.
Another problem that derives from the above is that while
the jigsaw group is heterogeneous and the sub-units are of
different difficulty levels and sophistication, the countergroups,
which are formed on the basis of the same sub-learning unit,
tend to be homogeneous in terms of students' abilities. This is
Learning Biology in Cooperative Investigative Groups 347
Results/Analyses/Conclusions
Teacher Preparation
The teachers of the experimental groups in both studies
were trained in a one-day workshop to apply the cooperative
method. The workshop activities were the following:
1. A two-hour lecture on the history and philosophy of the
method with examples of studies where the cooperative method was
implemented and its results.
2. Practice of the jigsaw method by using the booklet "Jigsawing
the Jigsaw" (Hertz-Lazarowitz & Lazarowitz, 1985), by performing all
the work required from the jigsaw group, the counterpart group, and
back to teach in the jigsaw group.
3. Practice of all the games and activities suggested by Aronson et
al. (1978), aimed at improving social skills, such as sharing, the right of
speech, helping, listening, and cooperative behaviors.
• "What is my responsibility?"
Other teachers were more explicit:
• "Paid more? I have to run from one group to another."
• "Material should be prepared in the summer."
• "Can I encompass so many individuals in this class?"
• "Can the teacher prepare this kind of learning material?"
• "Can I 'cover' all the learning material?"
• "I have a feeling this method is time consuming."
Some teachers mentioned also that students started
reporting when group members missed classes and expressed
their concern about who would teach the sub-unit of their absent
friends. At the beginning of the study, students used to ask what
kind of notes to take. They were obviously not used to deciding
that for themselves and were unsure of how to study.
A specific question was raised by other teachers regarding
their school time-table. According to the cooperative methods,
there is sometimes a need for two consecutive periods in one
day, due to the complexity of the learning task. The sequence of
the learning activities in the classroom must also be planned well
in advance in order to have the laboratory available and perform
the experiments and practical work in time. Teachers who are
willing to implement this method must coordinate well in
advance the school timetable and the sequence of the
classroom/laboratory schedule with the respective people in
charge.
In this method, teachers should be prepared and ready to
answer questions in all the five sub-units studied by the
students. They should not prepare and stay ahead of students by
one lesson, as is often the case in the frontal classroom teaching
approach. Teachers should be prepared for teaching the entire
chapter and be ready to consult several students simultaneously
on all the biological content of the topic.
These issues require a program for in-service science
teachers' training in the cooperative method as well as a support
system for teachers who implement the method, so that they
could have someone to consult about daily problems. The
support system helps teachers to find out what learning
354 Reuven Lazarowüz
REFERENCES
Aronson, E., Stephan, C, Sikes, J., Blaney, N., & Snapp, M. (1978). The
Jigsaw Classroom. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
De Vries, D. L., & Slavin, R. E. (1978). Teams-Games-Tournament (TGT):
Review of ten classroom experiments. Journal of Research and
Development in Education, 12, 28-38.
Dewey, J. (1970). Experience and Education. New York: Collier.
Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., & Lazarowitz, R. (1985). Jigsawing the jigsaw: A
workshop for teachers in the jigsaw methods. Department of
Education in Technology and Science, Technion—Israel Institute
of Technology, Haifa, Israel.
Hofsten, A., & Lazarowitz, R. (1986). A comparison of the actual and
preferred classroom learning environment in biology and
chemistry as perceived by high school students. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 23 (3), 189-199.
358 Reuven Lazarowitz
Appendix
Structure of a Sub-Topic
a. A d d r e s s i n g the s t u d y - g r o u p .
b. S h o r t i n t r o d u c t i o n of t h e specific s u b j e c t w h i c h
constitutes the link b e t w e e n the v a r i o u s sub-topics.
360 Reuven Lazarozvitz
Introduction
365
366 Nancy Schniedewind, et al
Rationale
Process Content
Cooperatively-Structured Learning Teaching about Cooperation as aaldea and Value
increased
Curricylum Classroom Discussion
academic Social Student analysis of Student analysis of cooperation
achievemen skills cooperation and and competition in their
competition in learning experiences and inter
curricular content personal interactions
Affective sensitivities
e.g. understanding of, Consciousness
and helpfulness toward of cooperation and competition
others as ideas and values
I
Analysis
of the benefits and prices of
cooperation and competition
in various situations
Perceiving Alternatives
Understanding cooperative alternatives
to normative competitive situations
Classroom Discussion
Students can study cooperation as an idea and value
through classroom discussions in which they analyze their daily
lives, their learning experiences in the classroom, interpersonal
interactions, and the norms and practices of their school. For
example, teachers can provide opportunities for students to
reflect on the benefits and prices of learning in a cooperatively
structured situation compared to a competitive one. Or teachers
can provide time for students to discuss competitive practices in
their schools—from intergroup hostilities to awards nights—and
brainstorm cooperative alternatives.
A combination of teaching cooperative content and
cooperative process empowers students to make choices. From
the process of cooperatively structured learning, students gain
increased academic competencies, social skills and affective
sensitivities. From the study of cooperation as an idea and value,
they develop consciousness of how cooperation and competition
affect themselves and society, and are aware of cooperative
alternatives to competition. This integration of process and
consciousness allows them to transfer their learning beyond the
classroom.
Consider the following examples. The students and faculty
in science classes discuss the benefits and prices of participating
in the annual science fair. In the past students displayed science
projects and the winner represented the school in the county-
wide science competition. Among the student-identified benefits
might be: feeling challenged to win; for the winner, pride at
being best and meeting students from other schools. They might
identify prices, such as the discouragement of students who
worked hard but didn't win, resentment and jealousy between
students, and the probability that many students w o n ' t
participate in the science fair again. In brainstorming ways to
make the science fair more cooperative, students might propose,
for example, that students work together in cooperative groups
to develop projects that would contribute toward the solution of
a student-selected community problem. Projects would be
370 Nancy Schniedewind, et al.
Curriculum
Teachers can help students examine cooperation in a wide
variety of curriculum areas. Such study inevitably raises issues
about the normative nature of competition in their lives and in
our society. For example, examination of a workers' self-
managed company in an economics course raises issues about
competitively structured businesses that predominate in our
society. Students can analyze the benefits and prices of each type
of workplace and then make reasoned judgments about their
value and effectiveness. Without exposure to cooperatively
structured workplaces, students are again fish, unaware of the
influence of competition on their assumptions about work.
Within the standard curriculum students can analyze the
cooperative or competitive values underlying the content. For
example, a teacher who traditionally asked students to read a
biography of any famous New Yorker revised her assignment by
having students choose a person who had worked with others
toward goals that would benefit many people. When doing
cooperatively structured research and reporting, students
focused on the specific ways in which the person had cooperated
Making Cooperative Learning(s) Long Lasting 371
separate sheet of paper and handed in. The teachers then took all
comments, typed them and handed them to each student to read.
Students were then given time in an open forum to comment on
the comments others had written. Sometimes this was an
explanation or clarification. No comments were identified by
student name.
This segment completed, the teachers asked students to
reflect upon the process. Two things were evident. Students
commented that they learned much more about the famous
French people and that they liked reading other reports. The
reports served as different models of how material could be
presented. They also realized that length was not necessarily a
criteria for an interesting, informative report. The other comment
made by students was that they needed to get better at writing
comments.
What was evident to us was that, even though we model a
cooperatively structured classroom and even though the
students are involved in cooperatively structured activities,
teachers need to help students think about the competitive or
cooperative bases of various forms of evaluation and to reflect
upon why cooperative learning may be more compatible with
cooperative forms of evaluations. Until students are helped to
analyze competition and cooperation in their own learning
experience, they will invariably revert back to what they have
learned, experienced or have been told is good and motivating.
We also need to continually look at our criteria for evaluation
and decide if, in fact, these evaluations are compatible with the
goals of our lessons. Once this is done, we need to sensitize
students to alternative means of evaluation that may be more
meaningful, more motivating and less competitive.
course load typically has included students from all grade levels
and all ability levels. The student journal entries were taken from
skills classes (i.e. classes with skill deficiencies in mathematics,
honors classes and average classes.) Even my "average"
Sequential II class, a course designed for tenth graders, had six
freshmen, two seniors and five juniors along with thirteen
sophomores. I used the journals approximately once a week as a
vehicle to help them reflect on competition and cooperation as
ideas and values. After working in cooperative groups for
several months, I explored with students their feelings about
competition in typical learning environments. In addition, I have
had students experience a competitive tournament in which only
the "best team" gets rewarded for their efforts, a situation in
which there are winners and losers. This has been another source
of reflection about competition and cooperation.
Initially, I asked students to reflect on how they feel about
competition in any classroom. After taking a unit exam, I asked
students to get their journals (which are kept in the classroom)
and to respond to the question, "Do you see competition as
important or necessary in your classroom?" Many students saw
the stress factor as being a destructive force. One senior girl
wrote, "I think sometimes competition helps but not in a
classroom. Because with grades at stake some people get really
nervous. When this happens, they can't perform at their true
potential. The best people at the competition may not be the
smartest, but the people who can handle the pressure better."
I wrote back to her in her journal reminding her of the
1992 Winter Olympics and the ice skating events. Under
pressure many of the best skaters fell and made serious errors;
and yet these same skaters gave flawless performances when
they skated for the entertainment of the crowds and when no
judging was taking place. We talked about it further in class; this
helped the class to understand the pressure aspect of competing.
One boy expressed the opinion of many when he wrote to
me, " . . . competition is important in the classroom because we
will be with it the rest of our lives and we might as well get used
to is now." In his journal, I asked him if we really need a
classroom to get "used to it." Isn't there enough competition
around us? Does learning have to also focus on competition?
Making Cooperative Learning(s) Long Lasting 379
Work Interview
Next, I asked students to reflect on the nature of work by
interviewing working people. I gave directions as follows:
Choose two or three people to interview. They may be people
who are successful in your opinion or not. Ask them to complete
the questionnaire and then review the questionnaire to see if you
have to ask the person to elaborate. Make notes.
QUESTIONNAIRE—WORK EXPERIENCES
NAME OF INTERVIEWER:
NAME OF INTERVIEWEE:
DATE:
1. What is your work experience like?
2. What would you like your work experience to be?
3. Whom do you work with?
4. Describe how you work with that person or those
people.
5. Whom would you like to work with?
6. Describe what you wish it were like.
7. How are decisions made in your work place?
8. How would you like decisions to be made in your work
place?
9. What is the impact of your work?
10. What would you like the impact of your work to be?
11. Who helps you at work and how?
12. Whom would you like to help and how?
13. What do you contribute to the organization you work
for?
14. What would you like to contribute to the organization
you work for?
15. What do you learn through your work?
16. What would you like to learn or what skills would you
like to master in your work?
17. What bad experiences have you had at work?
384 Nancy Schniedewind, et al.
Group Analysis
When the interviews were completed, students reported
their findings to their groups. There were four students in each
group, so the class had five or six groups. Each student reported
on her/his questionnaire results to the group. The group then
put together its findings. The students' feelings were included in
the group's findings as well. In particular, students were asked
to compare and contrast the responses to the questions and draw
generalizations where possible. Students were told that each of
them should be ready to explain his/her group's findings about
any question. Discussion followed, and I called on any group
member for a response. Then I had students discuss key
elements of competition and those of cooperation. I then asked
them to individually analyze their questionnaires to find how
competition and cooperation are reflected in various responses
in their questionnaires. After making notes, they each, in turn,
shared their findings with the groups. They drew generalizations
where appropriate. I then called on one person from each group
to report on how people's work experiences—or desired
experiences—reflected competition or cooperation. For example,
we considered:
• How did interviewees envision their ideal work? Was it
more competitive or cooperative?
• To what extent did people want decision making at
work to be more cooperative?
• To what extent was competition at the base of
interviewees bad experiences?
Making Cooperative Learning(s) Long Lasting 385
Death of a Salesman
Students worked in groups for discussion of this excellent
play. Throughout the discussion, the students' values, the
questionnaire findings and Kohn's myths were related to the
play. There are issues other than competition-cooperation in this
386 Nancy Schniedewind, et al.
rich play, but that is a major one and was the center of both class
and group discussion.
The following questions framed the discussion. Students
worked in groups first. Then in the discussion individuals were
asked to share their responses, their group's response, including
different points of view.
• How does competition-cooperation apply to Willy
(father) and his two sons (Biff and Happy)?
• How do Kohn's myths affect these three characters?
• How, exactly, is their behavior related to the myths?
• Consider the class discussion, the questionnaires and the
myths. What connections can you make between these
things as background to the behavior of the characters?
• Consider carefully the decisions they make as well as
their ultimate fate in the play. What do you notice? What
connections can you make?
• What have you learned about competition a n d
cooperation that applies to these characters? Could they
have made other decisions? What might the new
consequences have been?
• How does belief in the "American dream" affect the
characters?
• What if workplaces and our society were structured
cooperatively so it was possible for everyone to achieve
the "American dream"?
• How would these characters' lives and relationships be
different?
In this way I have used the curriculum as a vehicle to help
students analyze the effects of competition and cooperation on
people's lives and our society. My hypothesis is that this will
enable them to think more critically and have a broader
framework from which to make choices.
Conclusion
there have been some projects that have taken seriously the
implications of teaching about cooperation, they are few. The
Child Development Project in California helps students
understand and act on prosocial values, such as caring and
collaboration (Schaps, Soloman, & Watson, 1985/86). Canadian
educators have developed some curricula that focus on
cooperation as an idea and value, such as Cooperative Outlooks
(Larson, 1983). Much more work in this area is needed.
What is most important is for educators themselves to start
becoming more conscious about the effects of competition and
cooperation on their lives, their schools, curricula and society
and to start discussing their reflections with their colleagues and
students. We should think about our approach to cooperative
learning. Approaches that include teaching collaborative skills
and processing the group experience assist students to transfer
their skills and understandings about cooperation to other
situations. When teachers value cooperative learning for a
variety of goals (academic, affective and social) students too will
value cooperative learning as a way to learn and live together
rather than merely as a vehicle for academic advancement.
Staff development in cooperative learning that integrates
cooperative process and content provides teachers pedagogical
skills for implementing cooperative learning, as well as
opportunities to reflect upon cooperation as ideas and values. In
the Shoreham-Wading River School district, for example teachers
discuss Alfie Kohn's provocative book No Contest: the Case
Against Competition, which raises compelling issues about the
role of cooperation and competition in our lives and society.
Subsequently, we examine the goals of school-based situations
that are typically structured competitively and develop
cooperative approaches to meet the same goals.
It is through many of us working collectively to follow u p
on ideas presented in this chapter that cooperative learning can
reach its potential, contributing toward building a more
cooperative society and peaceful world.
388 Nancy Schniedewind, et al.
REFERENCES
Jigsaw Synthesis
A Method for Incorporating a Study of
Social Issues into the Extant Curriculum
Samuel Totten
Introduction
389
390 Samuel Totten
similar way. In fact, all but one group that semester chose to go
that route. The result was absolutely astounding.
The groups used elaborate and creative skits, role-playing
sessions, games, highly engaging analogies, metaphors, and
mnemonic devices with which to teach their b o d y of
information. The upshot of the work of the various expert
groups was one of the most creative sessions I've ever
experienced in a classroom. It was the epitome of students
working together in a creative fashion to assist one another with
their learning. In fact, the subsequent quiz was, to say the least,
anti-climactic.
As a result of the aforementioned experience, I now
require that the experts groups do the following: (1) develop a
group method for presenting the information to the entire class,
(2) conduct the presentation as a group, and (3) develop a
method that each individual expert group member will use in
his/her home group for the purpose of reviewing the material
presented in the expert group. These three components, I have
found, bring about the following: (1) more creativity in the
expert groups and, (2) a much greater emphasis on analysis and
synthesis in the expert group. In fact, the greatest amount of
learning gained by each class member seems to be during the
phase where the expert groups are wrestling with the ways they
are going to graphically illustrate and teach, both as a group and
as an individual, the concepts/ideas/points in the body of
material they are responsible for; (3) greater engagement by the
entire class for the presentations are often thought-provoking,
enjoyable and hands-on; and (4) a much more thorough review
in the home group. The reviews in the home group simply serve
as a means to solidify and deepen the understanding of what the
home group members have just learned during the group
presentations. As a rule, I have found that these reviews are
much more engaging and thought-provoking than the "teaching
sessions" that are a standard part of Jigsaw I and Jigsaw II. This
seems to be due to the fact that the expert group member is no
longer the only person with any knowledge about the
information being discussed. Some may claim that this
undermines the intent of the original Jigsaw strategies, but I
don't think so. In fact, I would argue that it strengthens the
Jigsaw Synthesis 411
entire strategy and makes it more likely that all the students will
truly learn the material. That said, back in the home groups the
students need to recognize that the expert is still the expert. That
is, it is h i s / h e r job to facilitate the discussion, to assist in
deepening the understanding of the individual group members,
and to focus on those points that either are not clearly, or only
hazily, understood.
On another note, it is imperative that the teacher strongly
impress upon the students (and this is true whether they are
e l e m e n t a r y , m i d d l e level, junior high, h i g h school,
undergraduates or graduate students) that the presentations are
"serious business" and not fun and games. Accordingly, the
presenters need to be told that they need to go into depth,
address the most salient points and concepts, and engage the rest
of the students in a thought-provoking session that will
c h a l l e n g e t h e m a n d assist t h e m in l e a r n i n g t h e
information/concepts at hand. If a teacher neglects to drive this
point home (granted sometimes it feels as if one is being
condescending in doing so), the results could be less than
satisfactory. Suffice it to say that I speak from experience.
Once the work in the expert groups is completed, the
students go back to their home groups and follow direction
number four.
Assessment
Extension Projects
Conclusion
NOTES
REFERENCES
Totten, S., Sills, T., Digby, A., & Russ, P. (1991). Cooperative Learning: A
Guide to Research. New York: Garland.
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Hampton, H., & Fayer, S. (1990). Voices of Freedom: An Oral History of the
Civil Rights Movement from the 1950s through the 1980s. New
York: Bantam.
A companion piece to the acclaimed television series Eyes on
the Prize, this book is packed with highly engaging information
and personal stories about various aspects of the civil rights
movement.
Mellon, J. (Ed.) (1988). Bullwhip Days: The Slaves Remember. New York:
Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
A collection of powerful oral histories by former slaves.
Molander, R., & Nichols, R. (1985). Who Will Stop the Bomb: Primer on
Nuclear Proliferation. New York: Facts on File.
An interesting, easy-to-understand discussion concerning the
issue of horizontal nuclear proliferation. Addresses such issues
as what it takes to build an atomic bomb, the so-called "nuclear
club members," (United States, Soviet Union, Britain, France,
and China), defacto nuclear club members (India, Israel, South
Africa, and Pakistan), and prospective nuclear club members
(Argentina, Brazil, Iraq, Libya, South Korea, and Taiwan). It
also discusses ways that the U.S. government as well as
individuals can confront and address this issue.
Rothchild, S. (Ed.) (1981). Voices from the Holocaust. New York: New
American Library.
Jigsaw Synthesis 421
A collection of oral histories by survivors of the Holocaust. The
survivors recall their lives before, during, and after the
Holocaust.
Joyce, B., Weil, M., & Showers, B. 1992). Models of Teaching. [Fourth
Edition.] Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Includes a detailed description and schema of numerous
teaching strategies that are ideal for studying social issues, e.g.
dyads, group investigation, the jurisprudential inquiry model,
role playing, and inquiry training.
Oliver, D. W., & Shaver, J. P. (1966). Teaching Public Issues in the High
School. Logan, UT: Utah State University Press.
Jigsaw Synthesis 423
A classic in the field, the work focuses on the jurisprudential
model to involve students in thinking and analyzing public
issues in a thorough and "critical" fashion.
Introduction
425
426 Robert E. Slavin
team's work is not done until all team members have mastered
the material being studied.
There are three concepts that are central to all Student
Team Learning methods: team rewards, individual
accountability, and equal opportunities for success. In all of these
methods, teams may earn certificates or other rewards if they
achieve above a designated criterion. Note that the teams are not
in competition; all (or none) of the teams may achieve the
criterion in a given week. Individual accountability refers to the
fact that in all Student Team Learning methods, the team's
success depends on the individual learning of all team members.
This focuses the activity of the team members on tutoring one
another and making sure that everyone on the team is ready for
a quiz or other assessment that students will take without
teammate help. Equal opportunities for success means that what
students contribute to their teams is based on their improvement
over their own past performance. This ensures that high,
average, and low achievers are equally challenged to do their
best, and the contributions of all team members will be valued.
Research on cooperative learning methods (Slavin, 1990)
has indicated that team rewards and individual accountability
are essential elements for effects of cooperation on basic skills
achievement. It is not enough to simply tell students to work
together. Further, there is good reason to believe that if students
are rewarded for doing better than they have in the past, then
they will be more motivated to achieve than if they are rewarded
based on their performance in comparison to others, because
rewards for improvement make success neither too difficult not
too easy for students to achieve.
Research on STAD
Overview
STAD is made up of five major components: class
presentations, teams, quizzes, individual improvement scores,
and team recognition. These components are described below.
Class Presentations. Material in STAD is initially introduced
in a class presentation. This is most often a lecture-discussion
conducted by the teacher, but could include audio-visual
presentations. Class presentations in STAD differ from usual
teaching only in that they must be clearly focused on the STAD
unit. In this way, students realize that they must pay careful
attention during the class presentation, because doing so will
help them to do well on the quizzes, and their quiz scores
determine their team scores.
Teams. Teams are composed of four or five students who
represent a cross-section of the class in academic performance,
sex, and race or ethnicity. The major function of the team is to
prepare its members to do well on the quizzes. After the teacher
presents the material, the team meets to study worksheets or
other material. The worksheets may be materials obtained from
the Johns Hopkins Team Learning Project (see "Resources,"
Student Teams-Achievement Divisions 431
Figure 1
Team Name
Logo
Team Summary Sheet
Rank Team
Order Name
1 A
2 B
3 C
4 D
5 E
6 F
7 G
8 H
9 H
10 G
11 F
12 E
13 D
14 C
15 B
16 A
17
18
19 A
20 B
21 C
22 D
23 E
24 F
25 G
26 H
27 H
28 G
29 F
30 E
31 D
32 C
33 B
34 A
Getting Started
• Teach your first lesson (1-2 periods)
• Announce team assignments and have students move
their desks together to make team tables. Tell students
that they will be working in teams for several weeks and
may earn certificates or other rewards based on their
team's total performance. Allow students ten minutes to
decide on a team name.
• Let students study worksheets in their teams (1-2
periods)
• Give the first quiz
The first week of STAD is the hardest, but most students
will settle into the pattern by the second week. Some students
may complain about the teams to which they were assigned, but
almost all students find a way to get along with their teammates
by the second week. Do not change team assignments after you
have announced them except under extreme circumstances,
because it is partly students' realization that they will be in their
team for several weeks that gets them to work on getting along
with their teammates instead of complaining about them.
Schedule of Activities
STAD consists of a regular cycle of instructional activities,
as follows:
• Teach—Present the lesson,
• Team Study—Students work on worksheets in their
teams to master the material,
• Test—Students take individual quizzes,
• Team Recognition—Team scores are computed based
on team members' improvement scores, and certificates
or other recognition are given to high-scoring teams.
These activities are described in detail below.
Student Teams-Achievement Divisions 437
Teach
Time: 1-2 class periods
Main Idea: Present the lesson
Materials needed: Your lesson plan
Each lesson in STAD begins with a class presentation. In
your lesson, stress the following (adapted from Good, Grouws,
& Ebmeier, 1983):
• Tell students what they are about to learn and why it is
important. Arouse student curiosity with a puzzling
demonstration, real-life problem, or other means.
• Briefly review any prerequisite skills or information.
• Stick close to the objectives that you will test.
• Focus on meaning, not memorization.
• Actively demonstrate concepts or skills, using visual
aids, manipulatives, and many examples.
• Frequently assess student comprehension by asking
many questions.
• Have all students work problems or examples or prepare
answers to your questions.
• Call on students at random so that they will never know
who you might ask a question—this makes all students
prepare themselves to answer.
• Do not give long class assignments at this point—have
students work on one or two problems or examples or
prepare one or two answers, then give them feedback.
• Always explain why an answer is correct or incorrect
unless it is obvious.
• Move rapidly from concept to concept as soon as
students have grasped the main idea.
• Maintain momentum by eliminating interruptions,
asking many questions, and moving rapidly through the
lesson.
Team Study
Time: 1-2 class periods
Main idea: Students study worksheets in their teams
438 Robert E. Slavin
Materials needed:
• two worksheets for every team,
• two answer sheets for every team.
During team study, the team members' tasks are to master
the material you presented in your lesson and to help their
teammates master the material. Students have worksheets and
answer sheets they can use to practice the skill being taught and
to assess themselves and their teammates. Only two copies of the
worksheets and answer sheets are given to each team, to force
teammates to work together, but if some students prefer to work
alone or want their own copies, you may make additional copies
available. During team study, stress the following:
• Have teammates move their desks together or move to
team tables.
• Hand out worksheets and answer sheets (two of each
per team) with a minimum of fuss.
• Tell students to work together in pairs or threes. If they
are working problems, each student in a pair or three
should work the problem, and then check with his or her
partner(s). If anyone missed a question, his or her
teammates have a responsibility to explain it. If students
are working on short-answer questions, they may quiz
each other, with partners taking turns holding the
answer sheet or attempting to answer the questions.
• Emphasize to students that they are not finished
studying until they are sure their teammates will make
100% on the quiz.
• Make sure that students understand that the worksheets
are for studying—not for filling out and handing in. That
is why it is important for students to have the answer
sheets to check themselves and their teammates as they
study.
• Have students explain answers to one another instead of
just checking each other against the answer sheet.
• When students have questions, have them ask a
teammate before asking you.
Student Teams-Achievement Divisions 439
Quiz
Time: 1/2 -1 class period
Main idea: Individual quiz
Material needed: One quiz per student
• Distribute the quiz and give students adequate time to
complete it. Do not let students work together on the
quiz; at this point students must show what they have
learned as individuals. Have students move their desks
apart if this is possible.
• Either allow students to exchange papers with members
of other teams, or collect the quizzes to score after class.
Have the quizzes scored and team scores figured in time
for the next class if at all possible.
Team Recognition
Main Idea: Figure individual improvement scores and
team scores, and award certificates or other
team rewards.
Note that all teams can achieve the awards; teams are not
in competition with one another.
You should provide some sort of recognition or reward for
achieving at the "Greatteam" or "Superteam" level. Attractive
certificates to each team member may be used, with a large,
Figure 3.
Figure 4.
Student Base Quiz Improvement Base Quiz Improvement Base Quiz Improvement
Sara A. 90 100 30
Tom B. 90 100 30
Ursula C. 90 100 30
Danielle D. 85 74 0
Eddie E. 85 98 30
Natasha F. 85 82 10
Travis G. 80 67 0
Tammy H. 80 91 30
Edgar I. 75 79 20
Andv f. 75 76 20
MarvK. 70 91 30
StanL. 65 82 30
AlvinM. 65 70 20
Carol N. 60 62 20
Harold S. 55 46 10
lackE. 55 40 0
Student Teams-Achievement Divisions 443
Figure 5.
Team Summary Sheet
T E A M MEMBERS i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Sara A. 30
Eddie E. 30
Edearl. 20
Carol N. 20
SCORE
TEAM AVERAGE 25
TEAM AWARD
Changing Teams
After five or six weeks of STAD, reassign students to new
teams. This gives students who were on low-scoring teams a
new chance, allows students to work with other classmates, and
keeps the program fresh.
Grading
When it comes time to give students report card grades,
the grades should be based on the students' actual quiz scores,
not their improvement points or team scores. If you wish, you
might make the students' team scores a part of their grades (for
example, you might award up to 5 bonus points for being on a
Superteam). If your school gives separate grades for effort, you
might use team a n d / o r improvement scores to determine the
effort grades.
NOTES
REFERENCES
Allen, W. H., & Van Sickle, R. L. (1984). Learning teams and low
achievers. Social Education, 60-64.
Good, T., Grouws, D., and Ebmeier, H. (1983). Active Mathematics
Teaching. New York: Longman, Inc.
Okebukola, P. A. (1985). The relative effectiveness of cooperative and
competitive interaction techniques in strengthening students'
performance in science classes. Science Education, 69,501-509.
Perrault, R. (1982). An experimental comparison of cooperative learning
to noncooperative learning and their effects on cognitive
446 Robert E. Slavin
447
448 Annette Digby, Beth Hurst, Mary Straub
Ennis, R. H. (1989). Critical thinking and subject specificity: Clarification
Needed Research. Educational Researcher, 18 (3), 4-10.
Discusses (1) subject specificity and (2) selected distinctions,
including distinctions among domain, epistemological, and
conceptual subject specificity.
Paul, R. W., & Binker, A. J. A. (Eds.) (1990). Critical Thinking: What Every
Person Needs to Survive in a Rapidly Changing World. Rohnert
Park, CA: Sonoma State University.
A collection of essays that presents an argument for the
necessity of teaching critical thinking skills. Addresses three
basic issues: (1) What is critical thinking? (2) How to teach it.
(3) Grasping connections—seeing contrasts.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1992). What to say to advocates for the
gifted. Educational Leadership, 50 (2), 44-47.
450 Annette Digby, Beth Hurst, Mary Straub
Sellin, D., & Peterson, M. (Eds.) (1989). What others say about the gifted.
Journal for the Education of the Gifted. 13 (1), 105-108.
Includes a useful bibliography of ten references on gifted
education. Emphasis is upon articles and books dealing with
mathematical problem solving, creativity, moral reasoning, test
scores, and effects of cooperative learning strategies upon the
achievement and attitudes of gifted students.
Smutny, J. F. (Ed.) (1992). Special Issue of the Illinois Council for the
Gifted Journal, 11.
Includes 20 articles on issues related to gifted/talented
students. Included are several references to the effects of
cooperative learning strategies upon higher achieving
students.
Hechinger, F. M. (1992). Fateful choices: Healthy Youth for the 21st Century.
New York: Hill and Wang.
Focuses upon the importance of cooperative learning activities
for young adolescents. Includes an extensive list of references
with emphasis upon middle level learners.
454 Annette Digby, Beth Hurst, Mary Straub
Hurlbert, C. M., & Totten, S. (Eds.). (1992). Social Issues in the English
Classroom. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Suggests effective, practical ways for teaching about social
issues.
457
458 List of Contributors
459
460 Author Index
Brownell, C , 66 Dabbs,J.,132
Bruffee, K. A., 233 Damon, W., 65
Bruun, S., 30,33, 37,92 Dansereau, 26
Bryant, B., 48,132 Davidson, E., 371
Bryant, B., 115 Davidson, N., 56,59,69,155,
Burnett, F. H., 82 163,283
Davis, R. G., 128,167
Calderón, M., 241 DeCharms, R., 266
Cantrell, Y., 102 Deci, E., 266
Carpenter, T. P., 172 Deckner, C , 131
Carroll, 271 Deming, W. E., 81,134
Chamberlain, D., 324 DeSilva, B., 403
Chang, G. L. M., 231 Deutsch, M , 3,11,19, 32-33,
Char, 31, 92 35, 84-85, 88-89,107,123,
Charles, R., 55 133,185,189,230
Clement, J., 172 DeVries, D. L., 23,88, 99,132-
Cobb, P., 169,171 133,162,209,240,342
Cocking, R., 263 DeWeerdt, N., 101
Coelho, 237 Dewey, J., 87-88,255-256,263,
Coffey, K., 241 266,269
Cohen, E. J., 65,232,251, 258, DeZure, D., 237
318 Dittes, J., 131
Cohen, I., 210-211 Dodge, D., 102
Cohen, S., 271 Dodge, K., 102
Coie,J.,102 Dollar, K., 126-127
Cole, N. S., 175 Dossey, J. A., 156
Coleman, J., 166 Drachman, R., 132
Collins, A., 171 Driver, R. G., 191-192
Collins, B., 31, 92 Dugluid, P., 171
Condry, J., 71 Duin, A. H., 241
Cook, S„ 271 Durden, W. G., 409
Cook, T., 129
Coughlin, E., 271,321 Ebmeier, 437
Crandall,J.,114 Edelbrock, C , 102
Crandall, R., 128 Edwards, E. L., 155
Crombag, H. F., 123 Edwards, K., 23,99,132,133
Cromwell, C , 237 Edwards, S., 192
Eikenberry, D. H., 128
D'Angelo, E., 72 Ender, P., 31,92
Author Index 461
469
470 Subject Index