7/5/2009
Cooperative Learning and
Classroom Management
EST 213
Lecture 19 & 20
Individualistic
 In individualistic goal structures, the student is
expected to do the very best that he or she can,
alone.
 Achieving individually does not interfere with the
achievement of others.
 Rewards are based on the extent to which a
student’s performance meets specified standards
not on how the student performs in comparison with
others
Cooperative
 Currently there is considerable interest in the use of
cooperative goal structures in which students work
together to achieve or complete shared or common
tasks.
 The success of group members depends on the
success of all members of the group: helping each
other in groups to achieve ensures both individual
and group rewards
Classroom Management
 Classroom Goal Structures
There is a growing interest in the educational benefits
of grouping children for learning
Classroom grouping is an important management
function which has implications for effective learning
and classroom management
Typically, classrooms and lessons can be structured in
one of three ways: individualistically, competitively or
cooperatively
Competitive
 When competitive goal structures are used,
success and reward structures are
determined by others’ ‘failure’, by ‘beating’
other students.
For there to be a winner (the scorer of the ‘A’
grade) there must also be a loser, or many
losers.
 Typically, teachers report that cooperative
group work is most effective when student
interaction will enhance learning such as
learning a complex conceptual material
 According to Cohen (1994) there is no
advantage for students in using
cooperative learning structures for
activities that involve just factual or
computational tasks where the fastest
worker or the one who knows the
answers will ‘share’ with the rest of the
group
1

 According Slavin (1990) this does not mean that
cooperative learning approaches are not effective
for lower-level tasks such as recall of factual
information, decoding and motor skills, because
they are.
 Probably of greater interest to us as educators is the
very strong research evidence that cooperative
efforts at higher level tasks such as problem solving
are superior to competitive ones for all individuals
of all ages (Quin,Johnson& Johnson, 1995)
If the goal is the development of harmonious
interpersonal interpersonal relationships,
especially of an intercultural nature, the
research evidence for the use of team-based
approaches (such as STAD, TGI, Jigsaw and
Group Investigation) also shows strong positive
effects (Slavin, 1990)
In addition low-achieving students find that
their achievement is enhanced because they
must seek to clarify any lack of understanding
in order to contribute to the group goal.
Planning to use cooperative learning in
the classroom
 If planning to use a cooperative learning ask the
following questions first:
- Can this work be done better in a group than
individually?
- That is will the mix of different abilities, view points
and creative talents be an advantage?
- Is the task so large or complex that only a group can
handle it?
- If the answers are ‘yes’ then you have a recipe for
success
7/5/2009
 Specifically for problems expressed in words,
such as discussion and essay questions;
Mathematical problems, figures, mazes and
puzzles; and creative problems requiring imagery
or novel representations, cooperative groups are
better able to find solutions than those who work
competitively alone
 Also, the low expectations held by low-status
are dissipated as group members discover
similarities other than academic ones, and
also find that the final product of
collaboration is far richer than any one
individual could produce.
 If you have answered ‘no’, then it is unlikely that
students will put a great deal of effort into a
group project in which they feel that they would
do better or enjoy independently (Abrami et al.
1995).
 Group tasks must be carefully planned and
structured by the teacher so that cooperative
interaction between students is required for
successful completion:
- Students must understand what the objectives
are, what their individual responsibilities are,
and how these are interrelated with those of
other team members.
2

 In fact, research has known that the
most effective cooperative learning
techniques incorporate both group
goals and individual accountability
(Abrami et al.1995)
 Students who are engaged
productively are unlikely to show
discipline problems and enable teacher
to spend more time giving direct
instruction to specific groups as
needed, as well as to act as a specific
consultant to all groups
Essentials of getting started with cooperative
learning in the classroom
For teachers:
- Planning well ahead: set realistic and attainable goals
for the activity and communicate to the students.
- Beginning with topics or groups with which you are
likely to be successful: don’t be too ambitious at the start.
- Using very small groups (pairs) at first and increasing size
to threes or fours later.
- Restricting the first cooperative activity to less than
- 15 minutes
Establishing cooperative
learning in the classroom
 Kagan (1994) recommends that rules for
cooperative behaviour, described best as ‘class
norms’ should be formed by the students where
appropriate rather than presented by teacher.
 One way of doing this to get students to reflection
how they feel when participating in group work.
- What feels good?
- What makes it work?
- What spoils it?
7/5/2009
 Implementation of cooperative learning strategies
would be demanding in terms of management until
students become accustomed to the skills required
in collaborative work.
 These problems will generally comprise of:
- Noise
- Seating arrangements
- Presenting students with direction
- Accessing materials for collaborative use
- Dealing with inappropriate behaviours that violate the
norms for cooperation –not helping others, putdowns,
arguments, bullying and loafing.
- Designing the activity to require group processes.
- Using a ‘quiet signal’ or ‘noise meter’ to help
students monitor and control noise levels.
- Reflecting on the outcomes of the group
collaboration in terms of your planning and your
learning objectives. Have the students do the same.
- Persisting with a variety of cooperative approaches:
it takes a lot of practice to master any teaching
approach. Students also need to learn how to work
collaboratively: it will come with time.
Benefits of cooperative group learning
 Improves academic achievement for students of a range
of ability levels at primary and secondary school level,
irrespective of subject area and type of school (Slavin,
1991)
 Particular achievement gains have been shown in
mathematics (Davidson, 1991), verbal skills in social
studies, reading, language arts and English
(Winistky,1991), and computer based learning (Rysavy&
Sales, 1991).
 As for non-cognitive abilities it produces positive
attitudes towards learning, raises self-concept and self-
esteem, improves relationships between students,
increases feelings of social support, and enhances
acceptance of ‘difference’ such as minority group
membership, gender or disability.
3

Why does cooperative learning work?
 There are two broad theoretical perspectives on why
cooperative learning works:
- - Cognitive and motivational
Johnson and Johnson (1992, 1994) gives the
following reasons:
- Rehearsal
- Mixed Groups
- Varied perspectives
- Feedback
- Conflict
 Learning together (Johnson & Johnson)
 According to Johnson and Johnson for a
lesson to be described as truly ‘cooperative’,
there are certain criteria that apply.
 positive interdependence;
 Face-to-face interaction;
 Individual accountability;
 Collaborative skills;
 Group processing.
 It is important that tasks be set that require group
members to have face-to face interaction rather than
allowing for independent completion of discrete
components which are merely combined as separate
pieces at the end. The must encourage and support each
other’s efforts to learn.
 Cooperative learning strategies vary in the extent to
which they use rewards based on group performance.
 In some group rewards are given only when all members
of the group achieve their individual learning goals. In
other methods, rewards are given on the basis of a
single group product.
7/5/2009
Four General Approaches to
Learning in Cooperative Groups
 1) Learning together (Johnson & Johnson);
 2) Student team learning (Slavin);
 3) Structures (Kagan);
 4) Group Investigation (Sharan&Sharan).
 Positive interdependence means that student
must function as a group with a shared goal; one
that ‘sinks or swims together’. No individual (more
able or assertive) should dominate the group.
 Such interdependence maybe expressed in a
face
variety of ways: a common product or goal;
assignment of unique roles (task specializations) interaction
that combine to form a whole; shared resources;
and shared rewards for a group effort (the
motivational perspective) which provide incentives
for all members to help each other.
 Collaborative Skills are crucial to effective
cooperative learning. Students need to develop the
skills required for working cooperatively.
 Not all students know how to work and to learn
collaboratively. Increasingly employers are looking
for individuals who can work as a team.
 Students need to be trained in the necessary social
skills of listening, asking and answering questions,
giving and receiving explanations, sharing, helping
and treating all group members with respect.
4

Group processing
 Groups need to evaluate how well they are
achieving their goals, how their group is performing,
and how best to maintain productive working
relationships between all members of the group.
 Time must be available for group processing or
reflection to occur and assistance should be given
by the teacher, initially, in suggesting ways of giving
constructive feedback to group members on their
participation.
 Individual students should also evaluate their
personal achievement and contribution.
 These competitions take the form of ‘tournaments’ at
which three students of similar previous
performance sit at tables and attempt to gain the
most points for their group by answering as many
questions as they can from the teacher prepared
handout.
 Each tournament winner brings the same number of
points (six) back to his or her team irrespective of
initial level of ability.
 Thus, each members have equal chance of success
and of a boost in self-esteem when they contribute
to the group total.
Jigsaw
 One of the earliest approaches to cooperative
learning was Jigsaw, developed by Aronson and his
colleagues (1978). In this method, students are
assigned to six-member teams of mixed ability,
gender and ethnicity.
 The material to be learnt is divided between the
members of the team. Each team has the same
material to learn. Individuals with the same section
combine to form ‘expert’ groups who study their part
together. They then return to their original groups to
teach these parts in turns to other team members.
 Finally, all students are tested on the complete
material.
7/5/2009
Student team Learning (Slavin)
 Research focus of Robert Slavin has been in the
use of cooperative learning strategies for the
acquisition of basic skills. The following three types
of activity are characteristics of this approach.
1) In the Teams-Games-Tournament (TGT) the
teacher presents first to the whole class material
which heterogenous teams of four to five members
then proceed to help each other master during the
rest of the week, until they compete against other
teams on the last day of the week.
Student Teams-Achievement Divisions
(STAD)
 STAD is a simpler version of TGT that replaces the
tournaments between students with individual
quizzes.
 Individual quiz scores are compared with previous
averages and points are given based on how much a
student meets or improves on past performance.
 Thus, this method de-emphasizes competition
between classmates and focuses instead on self-
improvement.
 The sum of individual points is the team score, and
teams compete to gain the highest total, for which
they are rewarded by the teacher .
 Jigsaw II has been modified by Slavin, so that all
students read the entire assignment and are then
allocated particular topics on which to become
‘experts’.
 As with STAD, grades are awarded on the basis of
individual quizzes to assess individual improvement,
and then combined to give a team score.
5

The Structural Model (Kagan)
 Spencer Kagan’s (1994) structural approach
successfully incorporates positive interdependence
and individual accountability into practical lesson
plan formats for teachers.
 These allow the teacher freedom to use a variety of
content-free cooperative learning ‘structures’ with
any subject matter to help interaction between
students
 These include: Thinking skills, Communication skills,
Information sharing, Mastery, Class Building, Team
Building
2) Think-Pair-Share has been designed to encourage
the development of thinking skills. In this structure,
a problem is posed which students think about
alone, initially, for a specified period. They then pair
up with someone to discuss the question.
At this stage, careful listening to each other is
important as students maybe called on to explain
their partner’s answer during the final stage when all
pairs come together to share their answers with the
whole class.
One interesting variation is instead of reporting to the
whole class, join another pair to make a team which
can further students thinking and discussion
 Four critical components of group
investigation:
1) Investigation - This refers to the way that
classroom learning is organized to enable
inquiry based (project method) learning to
occur.
2) Interaction - Sitting students together in
small groups does not guarantee that
cooperative interaction will take place.
They need to be shown the ways in which
to talk about and work with teach other for
academic purposes.
7/5/2009
 Two Examples:
1) In Numbered Heads Together, students form
teams of four, each student with a separate
number. All team members work together to
answer the teacher’s questions, although only one
number will be called from each group to reply.
These students will represent their groups but are
individually accountable for their answers as there
is no prior warning as to which number will be
called. Such a structure can be used to check for
understanding of content and review of previously
learned material.
The Group Investigation Model (Sharan &
Sharan)
 A model derived from Jon Dewey’s view that
children should have some responsibility for
directing and influencing their learning, as well as a
sense of belonging to social groups (while retaining
their individuality)
 Cognitive development involves actively building
understanding from personal experience, not from
information being presented by external sources.
3) Interaction - Students will interpret both their
interpersonal relationships and the information they are
studying. There needs to be an opportunity for reflection
by students (individually and as a group) and by the
teacher.
4) Intrinsic motivation- This is an essential component of
effective group investigation as there are no extrinsic
rewards provided. Students need to be personally
interested in the topic and their part in its study.
Two to six students combine to choose a section of a topic
from a general unit of work being studied by the class.
They then break down this subtopic into individual
activities which the members set about completing. Then
present their final product to class contributing to a
broader understanding of the original unit.
6
 7/5/2009

 Teacher’s role is to guide and monitor through each

sage of the inquiry process. Evaluation at the end
 Source:
of project by both students and teacher is an
essential component of this approach McInerney, D.M. & McInerney, V. (1998).
Educational Psychology: Constructing Learning
(2nd). Prentice Hall
 This model is ideal if your aim is to develop student
inquiry and creative problem-solving skills while
exploring concepts. It is not effective for covering
specific curriculum content nor when students are
experienced in communication skills such as asking
questions and reaching consensus.