Effects of Cooperative Learning on Students’ Academic Achievement

Research on cooperative learning was scarce before 1970's, however since this date the amount and the
quality of research on cooperative learning has greatly accelerated given its great appraisal and positive
effects on education (Slavin, 1996). Numerous studies have stressed the positive effects that cooperative
learning has on academic achievement (Jensen et al., 2002; Johnson et al., 1988; Gillies & Ashman, 1996;
Rojas-Drummond, Hernandez, Velez, & Villagran, 1998; Ferguson-Patrick, 2007) and social interaction
(Jordan & Le Métais,1997; Vasileiadou, 2009; Choi, Johnson, & Johnson, 2011) among other outcomes.
Cooperative learning has become such a widely used instructional procedure in all educational contexts
that it is even difficult to find instructional material that does not refer to this methodology (Johnson,
Johnson & Stanne, 2000). As of 2009 more than 1,200 research studies had been conducted on
cooperative learning, and a significant amount of those studies focused on the effects of cooperative
learning on achievement in comparisons to more traditional, individualistic or competitive instructional
methods (Johnson & Johnson, 2009). However, even though a vast amount of studies have corroborated
the positive effects of cooperative interventions, there have also been studies (Galton, Simon & Croll,
1980; Baines, Blatchford, & Kutnick, 2003; Veenman, Van Benthum, Bootsma, Van Dieren, & Van der
Kemp, 2002) which have diminished the positive appraisal of cooperative interventions, arguing that
pupils often sit in small groups but are rarely assigned to real collaborative tasks. Individual studies on
cooperative learning have provided relevant and sometimes contradictory information about its
effectiveness. Petticrew and Roberts (2006) have pointed out that individual studies in a given domain
often contradict among each other; consequently, it is better to understand a problem by examining and
comparing data from different sources in the same domain. Literature reviews, systematic reviews, and
meta-analysis are research methods that allow researchers to critically appraise the individual
contributions of different studies in order to allow a better understanding of a problem (Petticrew &
Roberts, 2006). Literature reviews and meta-analysis conducted on cooperative learning have provided
relevant information about the effectiveness of different cooperative learning methods (Johnson,
Johnson, & Stanne, 2000), the effects of cooperative learning on the academic achievement of students
with learning disabilities (Nyman & Fuchs, 2002), the effects of cooperative learning on achievement in
comparison to competitive and individualistic methods (Johnson, Maruyama, Johnson, Nelson, & Skon,
1981), and the effects of cooperative learning on specific subjects in higher education (Bowen, 2000).
These reviews Effects of cooperative learning on academic achievement of primary pupils: A systematic
review. 5 have appraised the individual contributions of studies and have increased the knowledge that
investigators and educators have about the overall effectiveness of cooperative and collaborative
interventions. However, despite their relevance, no literature or systematic reviews that exclusively
analyze the effects of cooperative or collaborative interventions on primary pupil’s achievement were
found in a literature review conducted within the last decade. The absence of reviews triggers questions
about the effectiveness of cooperative learning on primary education, where students may or may not
have developed group-work skills. Consequently, in an attempt to provide some explanations on this
topic, the present master thesis analyzes the effects of cooperative learning on the academic
achievement of primary pupils, by appraising the contribution of individual studies conducted in the last
decade in this domain. Cooperative learning Cooperative learning has been defined by Johnson and
Johnson (1994) as a situation in which there is a positive interdependence among student’s goal
attainment; therefore, students perceive that they can only reach their learning goals if all the members
of the group achieve the learning goals as well. Cooperative learning is an instructional methodology
which splits class members into small groups in order for them to learn assigned material and make sure
that all members of the group master the assignment (Johnson & Johnson, 1994). According to Johnson
and Johnson (2009) cooperative learning is more than just asking students to sit and work together.
Research has identified some components that mediate the effectiveness of cooperative learning, such
as: (a) positive interdependence, which allows students to perceive that they are linked with each other
in such a way that one cannot succeed unless everyone succeeds, (b) individual accountability, which
gives each member of the group a sense of personal responsibility toward goal achievement, (c)
promotive interaction, which takes place when students facilitatte each other’s efforts to learn through
exchanging resources, help, motivation, and points of view, (d) interpersonal and smallgroup skills,
which means that students must be taught social skills for high quality cooperation, and (e) group
processing, which exists when group members discuss how well they are achieving their goals and
maintaining their working relationships (Johnson & Johnson, 2009). Cooperative learning has also been
closely related to concepts such as collaborative learning or group learning. The broadest definition of
collaborative learning is that it is a situation in which two or more people learn something together
(Dillenbourg, 1999). Similarly group learning has been defined as the physical placement of students into
groups and the usage of specific instructional strategies for the purpose of learning (Lou et al., 1996).
For the purpose of this review, cooperative learning is defined as: Effects of cooperative learning on
academic achievement of primary pupils: A systematic review. 6 students working together in small
groups which allow everyone to participate in group tasks that have been clearly structured and defined,
this definition is broad and encompasses the concepts of collaborative as well as group learning (Cohen,
1994). Cooperative learning differs from traditional whole-class instructions in which students are taught
as a single large group by a teacher (Lou et al., 1996). According to the author, traditional whole-class
encourage teacher explanations over peer interactions, and encompass benefits such as uniformity of
instruction, since students are exposed to the same type of information and learning methodology (Lou
et al., 1996). Cooperative learning in contrast favors the division of whole classes into small group work,
in order for students to challenge their individual knowledge and skills by developing structured group
tasks. Research on cooperative learning has paid special attention to the effects of cooperative learning
in comparison to traditional teacher center instruction (Johnson & Johnson, 1994) Outcomes of
cooperative learning Past research on cooperative learning has focused on a wide variety of outcomes
that such an instructional method may enhance, such as: academic achievement, motivation, social
development, moral reasoning, social support, self-esteem, friendship and attitudes towards a task,
among other outcomes (Johnson, Johnson & Stanne, 2000). However, special attention has been given
to the effects of cooperative learning interventions on academic achievement, as this instructional
methodology is considered to enhance learning gains and higher order thinking due to the substantive
conversations and active learning that it promotes (Cohen, 1994). Moreover, cooperative learning gives
learners the opportunity to verbalize their individual knowledge, which may lead to higher cognitive
elaboration, deeper reflections, awareness of individual knowledge and misconceptions, and expansion
of knowledge (Van Boxtel, 2000). Various studies have analyzed the effectiveness of cooperative
learning on achievement in different educational levels and subjects areas. For example, Jensen,
Johnson, and Johnson (2002), examined the effects of cooperative learning on students’ attainment of
physics in higher education, finding significant positive effects of cooperative learning interventions.
Similarly, Doymus (2008) examined the effectiveness of the jigsaw cooperative learning method in
teaching chemistry in a university context and found out that the students in the jigsaw group were
more successful than those who received traditional instruction. Meanwhile, Smialek and Boburka
(2006) investigated the effectiveness of cooperative learning on college students’ development of
musical skills and found that cooperative interventions proved to be more effective than traditional
lectures or occasional group work. Gilles and Ashman (1996) investigated the effects of cooperative
learning on primary pupils’ behavioral Effects of cooperative learning on academic achievement of
primary pupils: A systematic review. 7 interactions and academic achievement (verbal comprehension,
verbal reasoning, quantitative reasoning and figural reasoning) and found that children in the
intervention group showed more autonomy and significantly higher academic achievement after the
intervention. Despite the positive effects of cooperative interventions on academic achievement in a
variety of educational levels and academic subjects, Galton, Simon, and Croll, (1980) found that primary
classrooms teachers often place children in groups, but children do not necessarily develop collaborative
work. As previously mentioned, simply placing students together does not have to have positive effects
on academic achievement. In order for cooperative learning interventions to be effective teachers need
to structure tasks which promote positive interdependence, individual accountability, promotive
interaction, interpersonal and small-group skills and group processing (Johnson & Johnson, 1994).
Baines, Blatchford, and Chowne (2007) have indicated that teachers often lack the proper training to
implement cooperative learning interventions that encompass all the components that enhance
effective interventions. The aforementioned critics toward cooperative learning raise questions
regarding the real effectiveness of cooperative learning on primary education exclusively. Additionally
Kutnick, Ota, and Berdondini (2006) have indicated that many studies which analyze the effects of
cooperative interventions have been conducted in the higher range of primary and secondary
education. This is perhaps because it is believed that younger children have difficulties showing the
required social and communicative skills required for cooperative or collaborative learning. These
arguments call attention to the need to better understand the effects of cooperative learning exclusively
on primary education. Meta-analysis, Literature, and Systematic Reviews on Cooperative Learning and
Achievement In an early attempt to analyze the effects of cooperative learning on academic
achievement, Johnson et al. (1981) reviewed 122 studies and analyzed the effect of learning goal
structures of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning on students’ academic achievements.
Results of the meta-analysis showed that cooperative learning promoted higher achievement than
competitive and individualistic learning (Johnson et al, 1981). Similarly, Johnson, Johnson, and Stanne
(2000), conducted a meta-analysis studying the effectiveness of cooperative methods on students’
achievement. Even though cooperative learning has been defined by the aforementioned authors as a
generic term that describes a way of perceiving instruction and can be adopted by any teacher, diverse
research on cooperative learning has developed specific cooperative learning methods, such as:
Complex Instruction, Constructive Controversy, Effects of cooperative learning on academic
achievement of primary pupils: A systematic review. 8 Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition,
Cooperative Structures, Group Investigation, Jigsaw, Learning Together, Student Teams Achievement
Divisions, Teams-Games-Tournaments, and Team Assisted Individualization. Results of the meta-analysis
showed that all cooperative learning methods analyzed, improved student’s achievement in comparison
to competitive and individualistic method. Furthermore, Learning Together, Constructive Controversy,
Teams-Games- Tournaments, and Group Investigation methods showed higher positive effects on
achievement. In 1996 Lou et al. conducted a meta-analysis to analyze the effects of small group learning
on students’ achievement, attitude toward subjects and self-conceptions. Results showed the positive
effects of placing students in small learning groups; however, the magnitude of the intervention’s effects
showed variations across findings. Lou et al. (1996) found that different instructional treatments
enhanced variability in the results. Both learning goals interdependence and teacher training in
cooperative learning seem to positively affect the outcomes of the interventions. Effects of group
learning were also larger in math and science than in other subjects, such as language. The researchers
attribute this result to the complex nature of the tasks involved in math and science, which may favor
peer assistance and group collaboration. In a 2002 literature review Nyman and Fuchs investigated the
effects of cooperative learning on the achievement of students with learning disabilities. They analyzed
fifteen studies and found mixedachievement outcomes; only 6 of the 15 studies reported statistically
significant effects favoring cooperative learning. Additionally, they found that individual accountability
and group rewards were important factors in improving achievements of students with disabilities. In a
review of the effects of cooperative learning on academic achievement of primary and secondary
student, Slavin (1983) found that cooperative incentive structures (rewards that groups receive for
working cooperatively) defined the extent of the cooperative interventions efficacy. These findings
suggest that cooperative learning has positive effects on student’s achievement, when students perceive
or obtain a reward from the fact of working together, consequently the reward mediates the instruction
level of effectiveness. Targeting a different age range, Bowen (2000) conducted a meta-analysis to
assess whether cooperative learning was more effective than traditional instruction at enhancing
academic achievement, persistence, and attitudes among undergraduate students in the subject areas
of science, mathematics, engineering, and technology courses. In the meta-analysis 37 research studies
were reviewed with results indicating that cooperative learning had a significant and positive effect on
achievement of college students in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology. Effects of
cooperative learning on academic achievement of primary pupils: A systematic review. 9 The
aforementioned reviews provide relevant appraisals of the effects of cooperative learning on academic
achievement in different educational levels and academic subjects. However, in the literature search
conducted, no literature or systematic reviews that exclusively analyze the effects of cooperative
learning on primary education were found. Such a literature or systematic review is highly relevant, as
some research (e.g. Kutnick, Ota, & Berdondini, 2006) has pointed out that primary pupils may not have
enough competencies to take full advantage of cooperative learning interventions. Consequently, it is
important to understand the extent to which cooperative interventions may or may not have positive
impact on primary pupils’ achievement. Given this gap in the literature, the present master thesis
conducts a systematic review to appraise the effects of cooperative learning on primary pupils’
achievement. Systematic reviews have been defined by Petticrew and Roberts (2006) as literature
reviews that adhere closely to a set of scientific methods in order to identify, appraise, and synthesize
relevant studies that may answer research questions. Systematic reviews are research methods that
critically appraise and summarize the available information in a domain in order to prevent individual
studies from remaining detached from each other, thus hindering more far-reaching, powerful
conclusions (Petticrew & Roberts, 2006). The present systematic review has the primary aim to appraise
the effectiveness of cooperative interventions on primary education. Additionally it has the aim to
appraise the effectiveness of cooperative learning on different subjects in primary education and the
effectiveness of teacher training on cooperative learning on primary pupil’s academic achievement. 1.
What are the effects of cooperative learning interventions on academic achievement of primary pupils,
in comparison to teacher-centered instructional methods? 2. What are the effects of cooperative
learning interventions conducted in different subject on primary education? 3. What are the effects of
different teacher training programs on cooperative learning on primary pupils’ academic achievement?

Major aim of teaching learning process is achievement in terms of grades, as it is sole measure of
learning in many cases. To achieve this target teachers use diverse teaching methods, including lecture,
discussion and demonstration. Among all these most widely accepted and practiced is lecture method
(Harman & Nguyen, 2010). Albeit of its popularity, it also faces criticism by many researchers stating
leading towards assumption that it do not help in deep understanding of the concepts. This has resulted
in more emphasis on teaching through diverse methods in order to improve learning and understanding.
One of these is cooperative learning method, which presumes that team effort of students towards
single goal of learning a particular aspect result in more understanding than solo efforts. This method,
although have many salient features for improving teaching-learning process, however, is not practiced
normally due to many reasons including time and energy required to manage its activities. In addition to
this, previous research studies that have tried to prove its significance in terms of learning had chosen
the field of science and relevant areas. In the field of arts, humanities and social sciences it has not
gained much popularity. Following study has aimed to explore effect of cooperative learning activities on
academic performance of students in the subject of “Education”. This study is significant in local context,
as previous studies carried out in this aspect either deal with population of schools with science subjects
or prospective teachers, while this study is an effort to prove that same phenomenon when applied at
higher secondary level in the subject of Education, is fruitful too. In fact, it is general perception about
theoretical subjects like “education” that it can better be taught by given lectures or in worst cases just
by book reading (as experienced, observed and investigate by the researcher herself in colleges). So this
study is an effort to give new dimension by providing positive results of cooperative learning activities
on performance of students. This study will provide an insight to teacher educators, who can use its
results to develop attitude towards using cooperative learning methods in prospective teachers.
Cooperative learning can be defined as a teaching method that involves students in learning process in
order to understand and learn content of the subject (Slavin, 2011). Traditional class activities create a
win-win situation, where one can only succeed if other loose, while cooperative learning is direct
opposite to it, here conquest of all is success of all. Cooperative learning has edge over other teaching
methods in terms of its effectiveness for improved cognition, social skills and motivation. Two major
attributes that have distinguished cooperative learning from traditional learning include
interdependence (positive) as well as accountability as each member of group is important for success
(Slavin, 1990). Its competence in terms of augmenting academic achievement has been proved many
research studies (McMaster & Fuchs, 2002; Johnson, Johnson & Stanne, 2000, Nichols, 2002, Winston,
2002). Cooperative learning also improve positive attitude towards learning (Johnson & Johnson, 2008),
improved social relations (Johnson & Johnson, 2005), in addition to high self-esteem and cohesiveness
(Sahin, 2010). Cooperative learning can be also stated in terms of instructional strategy in which
students work together to achieve learning target (Abrami, Poulsen & Chambers, 2004). It is also
presented by Polloway, Patton and Serna (2001) that the cooperative learning method when used as a
teaching activity, improves motivation, class participation and academic achievement of students.
Cooperative learning has been used many researchers as instruction strategy with positive and
improved results. A few studies have been carried out in local context also, for example Iqbal (2004)
conducted a study the examine the effect of cooperative learning on academic achievement on
secondary school students in the subject of mathematics, he reports that there was a significant
difference between the achievement scores of the students taught by the cooperative and traditional
method. The students who were taught by the cooperative method show high scores. Similarly Bibi
(2002) and Siddiqui (2003) has carried out their research by using cooperative learning for improving
performance of ESL learners, the results were positive. Similarly, study carried out by Arbab (2003) for
two weeks on general science students also proved that students taught with cooperative learning
method has improved results than control group. Additionally Kousar and Perveen has presented in two
separate studies on 7th and 8th graders in 2003 that students who were taught social studies with
cooperative learning method have scored high grades than others. It is clear from above citation that
research on cooperative learning in local context had been carried out either in science subject, English
language learners or on school students, this study is different in both aspects; one it has dared to chose
subject of “education” which is considered an arts subject and is taught generally through lecture
method, two the participants of the study is college students, who are usually not taken as sample due
to multiple reasons, including burden of course work and short time. There are dozens of strategies that
can be used by the teachers under umbrella of cooperative learning process, some of them have gained
more popularity than others, including; Student Teach Achievement Division (STAD), Jigsaw II and
Teams-Games-Tournaments (TGT). Essence of all cooperative learning activities is that in each case the
students are divided in heterogeneous groups 248 Effects of Cooperative Learning on Students’
Academic Achievement based on their learning capability, where they support each other for learning
(Slavin, 2010). A brief description of activities along with evidences from research about their
effectiveness is given below; Jigsaw II It is a team activity, where one type of the members are
responsible for mastering their own part of material, while experts are responsible for teaching their
material to other members of the group. Only difference between Jigsaw I and II is that the expert takes
test before returning to home group (Şahin, 2010). After this the scores of each member are produced
on the basis of tests, and then accumulative score of whole team is calculated with reference of
individual scores. The research has also supported usefulness of Jigsaw II method for improving
academic performance of EFL learners (Gomleksz, 2007). STAD This can be termed as most simple form
of cooperative learning, where teacher give material to students and they learn it as group. The groups
are test and scored individually and collectively, the team securing high scores is termed as winning one
(Arends, 1997). One strategy adopted during cooperative learning as instruction approach is STAD. The
research studies carried out by Jolliffe (2005) reported its effectiveness for improving academic
achievement and social skills. Similar results have been reported by Vaughan 2002, Jacobs et al. 2003
and van Wyk 2010 TGT The students are divided in heterogeneous groups, where they play multiple
games based on given instructional materials. The scores are given individually and collectively as well,
however, only team scores are considered basis for winning and losing (DeVries, Edwards & Wells,
1974).