The Impact of Size of Cooperative Group on Achievement, Social Support, and Self-Esteem

Abstract

The effect of cooperative learning in pairs and groups of 4 and in individualistic learning were compared on achievement, social support, and self-esteem. Sixty-two Italian 7th-grade students with no previous experience with cooperative learning were assigned to conditions on a stratified random basis controlling for ability, gender, and self-esteem. Students participated in 1 instructional unit for 90 min for 6 instructional days during a period of about 6 weeks. The results indicate that cooperative learning in pairs and 4s promoted higher achievement and greater academic support from peers than did individualistic learning. Students working in pairs developed a higher level of social self-esteem than did students learning in the other conditions.

Effects of Cooperative Learning on Students at An Giang University in Vietnam

“…These findings clearly support several previous studies which show that CL groups result in positive relationships among participants (Vaughan, 2002;Johnson & Johnson, 2005), and enhance learning skills and self-esteem (Lampe, Rooze & Tallent-Runnels, 1996;Johnson, 2009;Bertucci et al, 2010). These positive outcomes occurred in the cooperative group because students were given opportunities to develop social skills (Bertucci et al, 2010), experience various solutions for different ideas (Abrami & Chambers, 1996), and experience achievement in learning (Kilic, 2008). In summary, students had positive attitudes toward their learning since they were socially, academically and psychologically successful (Johnson & Johnson, 2008).…”

“…These findings validate the extensive review of 323 studies yielding 1,691 findings conducted by Johnson & Johnson (2002), which reported that students in cooperative situations academically outperformed students in individualistic settings (effect-size = 0.75). Similar findings have also been noted in recent studies (Yamarik, 2007;Kilic, 2008;Doymus, 2008a&b;Adeyemi, 2008;Sahin, 2010;Doymus, Karacop & Simsek, 2010;Bertucci, Conte, Johnson, & Johnson, 2010;Slavin, 2011) which report that students in CL groups have higher adjusted posttest mean scores than those in conventional lecture groups. The findings of the above research studies have led to strong arguments by various authors that CL is an effective teaching pedagogy for schools.…”

“…The results of some recent studies (Johnson & Johnson, 2005;Johnson & Johnson 2006;Bertucci et al, 2010) show that in cooperative learning situations students displayed a higher perception of social support, both personally and academically, than students in competitive (effect size = 0.62) or individualistic (effect size = 0.70) situations. Social support has been showed to promote achievement, productivity and retention (Johnson & Johnson 2006).…”

“…1;February 2012ISSN 1913-9020 E-ISSN 1913 88 individualistic learning environments (effect size = 0.44) (Johnson & Johnson, 2005). In some studies (Kilic, 2008;Bertucci et al, 2010) students' self-esteem increased in cooperative situations because students were involved in cooperative efforts. The findings reported above validate the results of other studies (Mulryan, 1994;Whicker & Nunnery, 1997;Nhu-Le, 1999;Vaughan, 2002;Gillies, 2006;Zain, Subramaniam, Rashid & Ghani, 2009;Kose, Sahin, Ergun & Gezer, 2010;Thanh-Pham, 2011) which report that CL promotes more use of higher-level learning skills, more positive cohesion among participants, higher self-esteem in learning and more positive feelings toward the learning task.…”

The Effects of Jigsaw Learning on Students’ Attitudes in A Vietnamese Higher Education Classroom

“…The results of several recent studies (Johnson & Johnson, 2005;Johnson & Johnson 2006;Bertucci, Conte, Johnson, & Johnson, 2010) show that in cooperative learning situations, students provide more social support, both personally and academically, than students in competitive (effect size = 0.62) or individualistic (effect size = 0.70) situations. Social support has been shown to promote more positive relationships among participants than does either a competitive learning environment (effect size = 0.67) or individualistic learning (effect size = 0.60) (Johnson & Johnson, 2005).…”