Behavior and interactions of children in cooperative groups in lower and middle elementary grades.

Abstract

The study investigated the behaviors and interactions of children in structured and unstructured groups as they worked together on a 6-week social studies activity each term for 3 school terms. Two hundred and twelve children in Grade 1 and 184 children in Grade 3 participated in the study. Stratified random assignment occurred so that each gender-balanced group consisted of 1 high-, 2 medium-, and 1 low-ability student. The results show that the children in the structured groups were consistently more cooperative and they provided more elaborated and nonelaborated help than did their peers in the unstructured groups. The children in the structured groups in Grade 3 obtained higher reading and learning outcome scores than their peers in the unstructured groups.Research in recent years has shown that it is no longer necessary to defend cooperative learning as an instructional strategy that promotes learning (Cohen, 1994). Cooperative learning has been used successfully to promote learning achievements across a range of curriculum areas, from narrative writing in small groups (Zammuner, 1995), to problem solving in mathematical tasks (Webb & Farivar, 1994), to conceptual understanding in physics (Howe, Tolmie, Greer, & McKenzie, 1995). In the affective area, it influences the development of positive student attitudes toward other group members (Bennett, 1991;Shachar & Sharan, 1994) and motivation to learn (Sharan & Shaulov, 1990). In effect, cooperative learning has helped to enhance the achievement of a range of cognitive and affective goals (Bossert, 1988;Ross & Raphael, 1990). However, although support for cooperative learning is unequivocal, only a few studies have attempted to identify the variables that mediate the relationship between cooperative group experiences and learning outcomes (Knight & Bohlmeyer, 1990). Identifying these variables is crucial to understanding not only which ones influence learning in cooperative groups but also how they influence it. Whereas numerous studies have suggested potential mediating variables (see Cohen, 1994;Johnson & Johnson, 1989, this study focuses specifically on student interactions (Webb, 1985(Webb, , 1992 in groups in which the small-group procedures and the type of task have been structured to promote cooperation. Student InteractionsIn a series of studies that examined children's verbal interactions as they worked together in groups, Webb (1982,

Ideas and Identities: Supporting Equity in Cooperative Mathematics Learning

“…An alternative to roles and scripts is to teach effective cooperative learning techniques before beginning group work (see, e.g., Gillies & Ashman, 1998). This approach has had mixed results.…”

“…Collaboration is learned, and is situated in the practices of a particular community (Barron et al, 2007). The training studies, as well as studies of how status shifts over time, emphasize the fact that group processes change over time (Gillies, 2000;Gillies & Ashman, 1998). Students with more experience in group work tend to benefit more from it (Veenman, Denessen, van den Akker, & van der Rijt, 2005).…”

Structured cooperative learning as a means for improving average achievers' mathematical learning in fractions

“…Working cooperatively with other peers, students have to verbalize and make visible their knowledge and their reasoning (Mercer, Wegerif, & Dawes , 1999). Based on this, peers are likely to detect what is not understood by their partners and to give understandable explanations (Gillies & Ashman, 1998) that are positively related to gain in sciences understanding (Howe et al, 2007) and performance in mathematics (Webb, 1991). ; Argumentation permits students to reach a shared understanding and favors emergent learning during argumentative talk as well as learning following argumentative interactions (Schwartz, 2009).…”

Ten Australian Elementary Teachers' Discourse and Reported Pedagogical Practices during Cooperative Learning

“…When children work cooperatively, they learn to give and receive help, share ideas, clarify differences, and construct new understandings and learning from actively engaging in discussion with each other Webb, Troper, & Fall, 1995). The dialogues that occur are multidirectional as students learn to respond to explicit and implicit requests for help and to scaffold their responses to facilitate peers' learning (Gillies & Ashman, 1998). The result is that children who work cooperatively tend to perform better academically (Shachar & Fischer, 2004;Stevens, 2003;Terwel, 2003) and are more motivated to achieve than their peers who do not have these experiences (Johnson & Johnson, 2003).…”