Structuring cooperative group work in classrooms

ARTICLE IN PRESS International Journal of Educational Research 39 (2003) 35–49 Chapter 2 Structuring cooperative group work in classrooms Robyn M. Gillies School of Education, The University of Queensland, Brisbane 4072, Australia Abstract Cooperative, small-group learning is widely recognised as a pedagogical practice that promotes learning and socialisation across a range of curriculum areas from primary school through to high school and college. When children work cooperatively together, they learn to give and receive help, share their ideas and listen to other students’ perspectives, seek new ways of clarifying differences, resolving problems, and constructing new understandings and knowledge. The result is that students attain higher academic outcomes and are more motivated to achieve than they would be if they worked alone. This paper provides an overview of five different studies that the author has conducted that demonstrate clearly the importance of explicitly structuring cooperative small-group work in classrooms if children are to derive the benefits widely attributed to this pedagogical practice. r 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction Numerous studies have been published over the past three decades that demonstrate the benefits of cooperative learning. These benefits include academic gains across different curriculum domains (Calderon, Hertz-Lazarowitz, & Slavin, 1998; Fall & Webb, 2000; Johnson & Johnson, 1999; Leikin & Zaslavsky, 1997), improved participation in school-based learning (Stevens & Slavin, 1995) and enhanced socialisation among peers (Johnson & Johnson, 1989; Jordan & LeMetais, 1997; Slavin; 1995), including more cross-ethnic and cross-sex relationships (Sharan, 1990; Warring, Johnson, Maruyama, & Johnson, 1985). Children with multiple and severe disabilities have also benefited through acquiring enhanced communication and motor skills (Hunt, Staub, Alwell, & Goetz, 1994) while there have been more E-mail address: r.gillies@mailbox.uq.edu.au (R.M. Gillies). 0883-0355/$ - see front matter r 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/S0883-0355(03)00072-7 ARTICLE IN PRESS 36 R.M. Gillies / Int. J. Educ. Res. 39 (2003) 35–49 positive changes in group members’ perceptions of their peers with learning disabilities (Putnam, Markovchick, Johnson, & Johnson, 1996). Furthermore, cooperative learning has been used successfully to help delinquent youth develop social communication skills, achievement and enhanced self-esteem (Rutherford, Mathur, & Quinn, 1998; Ragan, 1993). In fact, Johnson, Johnson, and Stanne (2001) argue that there may be no other pedagogical practice that simultaneously achieves such diverse outcomes. While the benefits of cooperative learning are unequivocal (Cohen, 1994), it is clear that placing students in groups and telling them to work together will not necessarily promote cooperation and learning. It is only when groups are structured so that students understand how they are expected to work together that the potential for cooperation and learning is maximised (Johnson & Johnson, 1990; Slavin, 1995). This happens when students realise they are linked together in such a way that no one can succeed unless they all do and they must actively coordinate their efforts to facilitate each other’s learning (Johnson & Johnson, 1990). In doing so, they develop a sense of psychological interdependence and group identification which creates a feeling of personal responsibility to contribute to the group (Deutsch, 1949). In fact, Johnson and Johnson (1990) argue that once these conditions exist, the free-loading effect vanishes. While structuring the cooperative learning experience is important for successful small-group work, cooperative learning is enhanced when students are taught the social skills needed to promote a sharing and caring attitude towards others (Battistich, Solomon, & Delucchi, 1993; Johnson & Johnson, 1987). Moreover, not only must students be taught these skills, they must also be given the opportunity to use them if they are to perceive they are personally liked, supported, and accepted by others, and, in turn, perceive that others care about how much they learn (Johnson & Johnson, 1989). In a study of 48 fifth-grade students (including 16 students with an intellectual disability) who worked cooperatively in two conditions either with or without social skills training, Putnam, Rynders, Johnson, and Johnson (1989), found that more positive relationships developed between disabled and non-disabled students in the groups that had received social skills training than in those that were untrained. Furthermore, these positive relationships generalised to post-instructional, free-time situations. Gillies and Ashman (1996), in a study of 192 Grade 6 children who worked in trained (i.e., received social skills training) and untrained cooperative groups, found that not only were the children in the trained groups more cooperative and helpful to each other, but they, also, differed significantly in their perception of the group as one in which they could participate, share ideas, and make joint decisions. The social skills that have been identified that facilitate communication include: listening to each other during group discussions; acknowledging others’ ideas and considering their perspective on issues; stating ideas freely; resolving conflicts democratically; sharing tasks equitably; and allocating resources fairly among group members (Egan, 1997; Johnson, Johnson, Dudley, Mitchell, & Fredrickson, 1997). In fact, Johnson, Johnson and Holubec (1993) argue that students must have a modicum of these skills if they are to work together productively. ARTICLE IN PRESS R.M. Gillies / Int. J. Educ. Res. 39 (2003) 35–49 37 Explicitly structuring positive goal interdependence in groups and ensuring that students are trained in the social skills required to promote group interaction appears to be critical for successful cooperative learning. Battistich et al. (1993), in an observational study of the frequency and quality of cooperative learning activities in 18, fourth- to sixth-grade classrooms, found that the effects of cooperative learning depended on the quality and not the frequency of group interaction. Furthermore, student achievement was higher in groups when there was high-quality group interaction, that is, when students were friendly, helpful, and cooperative. Melroth and Deering (1994) focused on scripting interactions among grade 4 and 5 students as they worked in cooperative groups so they talked about the task content in a manner that helped them to learn (strategic condition). The results showed that the children in the strategic condition discussed more substantive task content and developed better metacognitive awareness than students in the reward condition who did not use scripted interactions. In essence, both Battistich et al. and Melroth and Deering highlight the importance of training students in the skills needed to promote interactions and facilitate learning in cooperative groups. The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of five studies the author has conducted that have focussed on structuring cooperative learning in small groups in primary and high school settings to facilitate interactions among group members and promote learning. 2. Australian perspective Cooperative learning as a pedagogical practice is strongly supported by many state Departments of Education in Australia because of the well-documented benefits that accrue to children who experience cooperative learning. However, discussions with teachers and students reveal that its use is often minimised with few schools being prepared to embed it systematically in their teaching practices. This may be due to the challenges it poses to teachers’ control of the learning process, the demands it places on social, rather than traditional academic goals, and the emphasis on collective as opposed to individual effort (Kohn, 1992). It may also be due to an unwillingness on the part of schools to address organisational issues such as more open communication among teachers and students, more teacher collaboration in developing teaching practices, the demands of curriculum change, and the role of student-directed learning in the construction of knowledge (Sharan, Shachar, & Levine, 1999). In essence, cooperative learning requires schools to embrace change in not only how they teach, but, also, in how they organise to teach and this may be something many are unwilling to do in any systematic way at present. 3. Theoretical and empirical overview The research on cooperative learning has been informed from a number of theoretical perspectives on how children learn and under what conditions they learn. One of the most influential perspectives was developed by Vygotsky (1978) who ARTICLE IN PRESS 38 R.M. Gillies / Int. J. Educ. Res. 39 (2003) 35–49 proposed that children’s knowledge, ideas, attitudes, and values develop through interactions with others. In fact, when children interact with adults or more able peers, children’s learning is mediated or scaffolded so that they can often complete tasks that they would not be able to do by themselves (Bruner, 1973; Day, 1983). The area where the child cannot solve a problem alone but can be successful under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers is called the ‘‘zone of proximal development’’ (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86). When children work together in cooperative groups, members often provide information, prompts and cues, reminders, and encouragement in response to other children’s requests for help or their perceived need for help. In fact, Webb and Farivar (1994) suggested that children are often more aware than their teachers of what other children do not understand, can direct their peer’s focus to the relevant features of the problem, and can often explain it to them in a way that can be readily understood. However, explicit explanation and demonstration is not the only way children learn. Help is often provided in the form of ‘‘proleptic instruction’’ (Forman, 1989, p.57) where listeners are required to actively construct understanding for themselves of the helper’s implicit instructional messages (Stone, 1985). Effective proleptic instruction is based on the background knowledge that children bring to the task and the shared understandings that they develop over time. Hence, the learning that occurs is more informal and implicit and the knowledge that is internalised during proleptic instruction is tacit (Forman, 1989). In fact, Ellis and Rogoff (1986) argue that proleptic instruction may be the preferred instructional format in cooperative learning because peers are likely to be less skilled than adults in providing explicit explanation and demonstration. Certainly, proleptic instruction does occur and tacit understandings do develop among members as a result of their group involvement. Gillies and Ashman (1996, 1998) noted that when children had been trained to work together they not only provided more help and assistance than their untrained peers, but they also developed an implicit understanding of each other’s needs and provided help and assistance when it was not explicitly requested. Implicit instruction occurs when a more capable student perceives another student is ready to learn and will develop competence when help is provided (Rosenshine & Meister, 1994). While children learn through explicit and implicit instruction from their peers, the conditions under which they learn are also important and affect the learning that occurs. In a meta-analysis of 66 studies on cooperative, small-group learning, Lou et al. (1996) not only found that children achieve more when they work together in small groups than they do in whole class groups, but they, also, found that these benefits were contingent on group size and composition, type of small group instruction, and training teachers received to implement small group work. Optimal group size was three to four members because the group was too small for any members not to participate. However, the results of group ability composition were less clear. Low ability students learned significantly more in heterogeneous ability groups than in homogeneous groups while medium ability students benefited significantly more in homogeneous groups. In contrast, high-ability students learned equally well in either types of group (Lou et al., 1996). ARTICLE IN PRESS R.M. Gillies / Int. J. Educ. Res. 39 (2003) 35–49 39 Differential instructional treatments were found to have a significant effect on small group learning. Achievement was higher when instructional materials were varied for different groups than when teachers used the same set of materials for all. Varying the instructional material allowed teachers to exercise greater flexibility in adjusting the learning objectives and pace of instruction to meet students diverse needs. Furthermore, small groups learned more when they were required to produce a group product or accomplish a group goal (Lou et al., 1996). Finally, the extent of training given to teachers to implement small group work in their classrooms can significantly moderate the effect of small group learning. Lou et al. (1996) found when teachers were trained to implement small group learning, students obtained higher learning outcomes than students who worked in groups where teachers were untrained. In summary, Vygotsky (1978) recognised that children’s learning is mediated by adults and more capable peers who teach the knowledge and skills of their culture. This process of mediation or scaffolding, enables children to complete tasks they would not be able to do by themselves. When children work cooperatively together, the group creates a zone of proximal development enabling members to be successful at tasks that they would be unable to do alone. Instruction within the group is both explicit and implicit, enabling children to engage in more opportunities for developing understanding and meaning. Lou et al. (1996) found that cooperative learning can be enhanced when group size does not exceed four members, instruction is adapted to the needs of the group, and teachers are trained to implement small group work in their classroom. 4. Description of the studies The studies presented in Table 1 were conducted by the author as part of her ongoing research into the effects of small group learning on students behaviours, interactions, and learning. This section of the paper focuses on providing a synthesis of the research findings with the purpose of identifying those behaviours and interactions that are important in promoting student learning. All the studies in Table 1 were field-based, intervention studies with a comparison group of same age-peers. They included children ranging from Grade 1 to 8, the Table 1 Summary details of studies reviewed Study Gillies Gillies Gillies Gillies Gillies and Ashman (1996) and Ashman (1998) and Ashman (1998) (1999) (2003) Grade N Duration Subject 6 1 3 4 8 192 212 184 168 220 12 weeks 9 months 9 months 9 months 9 months Social studies Social studies Social studies Social studies Mathematics, science, English ARTICLE IN PRESS 40 R.M. Gillies / Int. J. Educ. Res. 39 (2003) 35–49 duration of the studies ranged from 12 weeks to 9 months, and covered different subject areas. Before each study began, the author met with participating schools to discuss the preliminary assignment of students to groups, the procedures for establishing smallgroup work in classrooms, including training students in the interpersonal and smallgroup skills needed for successful group work, the topics to be covered, the resources available, and the data collection procedures. All the studies used basically the same procedure for establishing group work. The teachers who participated were either trained directly by the author or had participated in extensive professional development in their own schools on cooperative small group learning. The teachers, in turn, then established structured, cooperative learning in their classrooms. This involved ensuring that the following key elements, as described by Johnson and Johnson (1990), were included. They were: (a) task interdependence which was established in the groups so that each member had to contribute to the group task; (b) individual accountability was established so that all members understood they were required to report on their own contributions; (c) students actively promoted each other’s learning; (d) students were trained in the interpersonal and small-group skills needed to facilitate group work. These skills included: actively listening to each other, providing constructive feedback to each other on suggestions and ideas; encouraging everyone to contribute to the group effort; sharing tasks and resources fairly; trying to understand the other person’s perspective; and, monitoring and evaluating the group’s progress. While the children in the lower primary grades engaged in role-playing activities to understand how these skills could be used in their groups, the children in the upper grades and the junior high school students developed their own guidelines for group behaviour through group discussion with each other and the teacher. The expectation in all instances though was that the members of the group were to help each other, promote each other’s learning, accept responsibility for the task they were working on together, and seek help from other group members before seeking help from the teacher. The students worked in mixed-ability and gender-balanced groups of 3–4 members. Gabbert, Johnson, and Johnson (1986) found that high-, medium-, and low-ability children students benefit academically from participating in mixedability, gender-balanced cooperative groups. A synthesis of best evidence by Cohen (1994) and a meta-analysis by Lou et al. (1996) found that low-ability students learn significantly more in mixed-ability groups than in same-ability groups, high-ability students learn equally well in mixed- or same-ability groups, and medium-ability students benefit significantly more in same-ability groups. It is thought that lowability students benefit from receiving more detailed explanations from their highability peers, and high-ability peers, in turn, often benefit from having to reorganise their own knowledge and understandings to explain it to their less-able peers. Wittrock (1990) suggested that giving help often helps the person doing the explaining to understand the material better, develop new perspectives on the problem, and construct more elaborate cognitive understandings. ARTICLE IN PRESS R.M. Gillies / Int. J. Educ. Res. 39 (2003) 35–49 41 The gender composition of a group affects group interactions and learning. Webb (1984) found that in groups in which gender and ability were balanced, the males and females had similar interaction patterns. However, in gender-imbalanced groups, the females’ experiences were detrimental to their achievement because in majority-male groups, the females tended to be ignored as males focused their attention on other males. In majority-female groups, the females gave more help to the males than they gave to other females. In both majority-male and majority-female groups, boys obtained higher learning outcomes than the girls even though they were of similar ability. In essence, students worked in mixed ability and gender-balanced groups because the research (as outlined) indicated that this group composition was more likely to promote interaction and learning than any other group composition. Students participated in small-group activities as they worked on a unit of work from a specific subject area (see Table 1) for a period of approximately 6 weeks. All groups were videotaped in the final 2 weeks of each unit of work and videotapes were coded for student behaviour states (i.e., cooperation, non-cooperation, individual task-orientated, or individual off-task behaviour), verbal interactions (i.e., solicited explanations, unsolicited explanations, directions, interruptions) and, in some studies, the quality of the cognitive language strategies used. The coding schedules for the behaviour states and the cognitive language strategies were modified from previous schedules developed by Sharan and Shachar (1988) while the coding schedules used for the verbal interactions were adapted from Webb (1985). During the videotaping sessions, all students worked on problem-solving activities either developed by the class teacher or the author. All problem-solving activities were based on Bloom’s (1956) taxonomy of educational objectives and were designed to focus the children’s attention on different ways of thinking about a problem. Each group was videotaped for 10–15 min as they worked on a problemsolving activity. Two weeks after the completion of the unit of work, the children completed a learning outcomes questionnaire individually, based on the problem-solving activities they had undertaken during their small-group experiences. A set of question stems, adapted from a set of generic questions developed by King (1990, 1991, 1994) were used to assess how the children used different problem-solving skills to build understandings and make connections between information presented during their small group activities. Children were assigned a learning outcomes score, ranging from 1 (basic recall of facts) to 6 (complex, evaluative response), depending on the highest-level response they were able to generate that was correct. 5. Results 5.1. Behaviours Table 2 presents a summary of the F -test results for the changes in behaviour in the studies reported. Cooperative behaviour was broadly defined as all positive social activity such as task-orientated behaviour, socially orientated behaviour and active ARTICLE IN PRESS R.M. Gillies / Int. J. Educ. Res. 39 (2003) 35–49 42 Table 2 Summary of univariate F-test results for changes in behaviour states between structured and unstructured groups over time in the studies reported Study Gillies Gillies Gillies Gillies Gillies a and Ashman (1996) and Ashman (1998)b and Ashman (1998)c (1999)d (2003)e Cooperation Non-cooperation Independence Non-task 2.16 3.10 11.40 8.40 1.10 3.33 8.30 12.50 6.90 11.40 4.14 2.32 1.50 3.10 2.07 2.96 0.87 5.00 0.001 2.33 po0:05: po0:01: po0:001: a df 36/534. Grade 1, df 8/300. c Grade 3, df 8/300. d df 2/284. e df 2/532. b listening. Non-cooperative behaviour was broadly defined as negative social behaviour such as competition, opposition, and criticism. Individual task-oriented behaviour was defined as working alone on the task and individual non-task behaviour was defined as not participating in group activities and not working individually. There were significant differences in cooperative behaviour in four of the five studies and significant differences in non-cooperative behaviour in all of the studies. A clear pattern emerged in the results from these studies which showed that as the children in the structured groups (i.e., groups in which there was task interdependence and the children had been trained to cooperate) had more time to work together, they exhibited more cooperative behaviour and less non-cooperative behaviour. This was in marked contrast to their peers who worked in unstructured groups (i.e., groups in which there was no task interdependence and the children had not been trained to cooperate). Furthermore, the children in the structured groups were less likely to work independently of the group (i.e., task orientated but working individually) than their peers in the unstructured groups. In effect, the children in the structured groups demonstrated more of those behaviours that have been identified as promoting a willingness to work together, to listen to each other, and to accomplish a shared purpose. These are behaviours which groups exhibit when members perceive themselves to be interdependent and pursuing the same goals (Johnson & Johnson, 1999). 6. Verbal interactions Table 3 presents a summary of the F -test results for the changes in verbal interactions in the studies reported. Only the F -test results for solicited and ARTICLE IN PRESS R.M. Gillies / Int. J. Educ. Res. 39 (2003) 35–49 43 Table 3 Summary of univariate F-test results for changes in verbal interactions between structured and unstructured groups over time in the studies reported Study Gillies Gillies Gillies Gillies Gillies a and Ashman (1996) and Ashman (1998)b and Ashman (1998)c (1999)d (2003)e Solicited explanation Unsolicited explanation 0.86 4.39 0.82 2.35 5.45 0.20 1.45 5.22 26.70 11.78 NB. Gillies and Ashman (1998)b,c used the group as the unit of analysis. po:05: po0:01: po0:001: a df 36/534. b Grade 1, df 2/72. c Grade 3, df 2/72. d df 2/284. e df 2/522. unsolicited explanations have been reported because Webb (1985, 1991, 1992) argued that it is the explanations that children give each other that affects the learning that occurs. However, Webb, Troper, and Fall (1995) argue that for students to benefit from receiving explanations, they need to be sufficiently detailed to enable them to correct their misunderstandings and timely so that are able to use the help. Certainly, this argument explains the worthwhileness of explanations that have been solicited, however, Gillies and Ashman (1998) found that when children work cooperatively together, group members will often pre-empt other students’ need for help and provide unsolicited explanations when they perceive they are needed. The argument, then, is, are these explanations helpful? An examination of Table 3 shows that in three of the studies reported, giving unsolicited explanations increased significantly over time in the structured groups. In fact, children in these groups were more likely to give unsolicited explanations than solicited ones. One explanation for this maybe that when children work closely together in small groups, they are more likely to be tuned-in to each other’s need for help and will provide assistance without it being explicitly requested. This willingness to respond to others’ perceived needs for assistance is an example of proleptic instruction which occurs when children perceive another child is ready to learn and will benefit from the help they provide (Rosenshine & Meister, 1994). Another explanation for children’s willingness to help each other might be attributed to the structure of the task the children were given. Cohen (1994) argues when students engage in tasks which are more open and discovery-based where there are no correct answers, group members show high levels of cooperation as they share ideas and information and discuss how they will work together as a group. With this type of task, productivity depends on the task-related interaction that occurs. In fact, Cohen and her colleagues (Cohen, Lotan, & Leechor, 1989) have consistently found ARTICLE IN PRESS R.M. Gillies / Int. J. Educ. Res. 39 (2003) 35–49 44 that it is the frequency of the task-related interactions among group members that are related to follow-up gains on content referenced tests and conceptual development in mathematical and computational tasks. Certainly, giving unsolicited explanations contributed to the task-related interactions in the studies reported because the children were engaged in tasks that were primarily open and discoverybased. Thus, while it is not possible to identify the specific interaction variables that affected learning, it can be reported that the children in the structured groups provided more solicited and unsolicited explanations and it is frequency of these types of interactions (with these types of tasks) that have been shown to positively affect the learning that occurs (Cohen, 1994). 7. Learning Table 4 presents a summary of the F -test results for the learning outcome measures and effect sizes in the studies reported. The learning outcome measures were based on a set of generic questions developed by King (1991, 1994) that were used to assess how the children used different problem-solving skills to make connections between information presented during their small-group activities. Effect sizes were calculated using the difference between the experimental and control means divided by the pooled standard deviation (the weighted average of the Table 4 Summary of significant F value for the learning outcomes measure in the following studies Study Gillies Gillies Gillies Gillies Gillies Gillies Gillies a and Ashman (1996) and Ashman (1998)b and Ashman (1998)c (1999)d (2003)e (2003)f (2003)g F value Subject area Effect sizes 29.21 Social studies Social studies Social studies Social studies Mathematics Science English 0.60 NA 2.72 0.88 -0.05 0.68 0.38 NA 4.99 14.10 0.12 22.10 5.48 NB: Effect sizes were calculated by dividing the differences between experimental and control means by the pooled standard deviation (Glass, McGaw, & Smith, 1981). NB: Gillies (2003) reports learning outcome measures separately for mathematics, science, and English. NA=not available. po:05: po0:01: po0:001: a df 1/118. b Grade 1, NA. c Grade 3, df 1/58. d df 1/86. e df 1/156. f df 1/175. g df 1/149. ARTICLE IN PRESS R.M. Gillies / Int. J. Educ. Res. 39 (2003) 35–49 45 two group standard deviations) (Glass, McGaw, & Smith, 1981). Positive effect sizes are ones that favoured the structured groups, whereas negative effect sizes indicated higher means in the control group. The group activities were generally based on Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives (1956) and were designed to encourage the children to think more critically about problem tasks they were trying to solve. For example, children were not only required to recall, comprehend, and apply information but also to analyse, synthesize, and evaluate it and present their findings. In so doing, the children were encouraged to: challenge each other, present new and different perspectives on issues, listen to what others had to say, and try and reconcile conflicting views to arrive at an agreed position. Through this process of social engagement, disputation, and dialogue, children learn to develop new understanding and construct new knowledge which helps them to gain a better understanding of the problem they are trying to solve (Gabbert et al., 1986; Mugny, & Doise, 1978; Johnson & Johnson, 1994; Vygotsky, 1978). An analysis of the cognitive language strategies used by children in two of the studies reported (see: Gillies & Ashman, 1998; Gillies, 1999) showed that the children in the structured groups used a wider range of these strategies (e.g., used more concrete ideas to help make an idea more explicit or provided more explanations with detailed evidence) than their peers in the unstructured groups. In addition, the children in the structured groups were more interactive and engaged in more helping behaviours such as providing directions through to detailed explanations. Since previous research (Cohen, 1994; King, 1991, 1994) suggests that verbal interactions mediate achievement, it was not surprising to find that students in the structured groups obtained higher learning outcomes than their peers in the unstructured groups. This result was consistent across all the studies where a learning outcome measure was reported. 8. Discussion The five studies reviewed here demonstrate the importance of structuring small group work to promote learning. This includes ensuring that the following key elements are evident: task interdependence, individual accountability, promotive interaction, and training in the social skills required to facilitate group interaction (Johnson & Johnson, 1990, 1999). However, the benefits of small group work are enhanced when groups do not exceed four members, groups are gender-balanced and, generally, of mixed ability, instruction is tailored to the needs of the group, and teachers are trained to implement small group work in their classrooms (Lou et al., 1996). The studies showed that when these conditions were met, the children in the structured groups demonstrated more cooperative and less non-cooperative behaviours than their peers in the unstructured groups. Furthermore, the more opportunities the children had to work together on structured task activities, the more cohesive the groups became as members strove to facilitate each other’s ARTICLE IN PRESS 46 R.M. Gillies / Int. J. Educ. Res. 39 (2003) 35–49 learning by responding to requests for help and offering help when it was not explicitly requested. An examination of the cognitive language strategies used by the children during these interactions showed that the children in the structured groups used more sophisticated language strategies and discussed more relevant task content as they shared, debated, and clarified information and developed new understandings and knowledge. It was this constructive interaction that undoubtedly contributed to the higher learning outcome scores they obtained on follow-up, individually administered tests. Shachar and Sharan (1994) found that increased participation in cooperative small-group discussion resulted in more frequent use of cognitive strategies and greater ownership of the material being discussed and it was these conditions that contributed to the higher levels of achievement obtained. Melroth and Deering (1994) found that structuring cooperative interactions led to discussion of more substantive task content and higher achievement outcomes. Furthermore, because the group activities were also designed to encourage the children to think more deeply about problems they were trying to solve, the children may have been challenged to engage in more meaningful interactions with each other and it is these interactions that, in turn, contributed to the learning gains obtained. Certainly, Rosenshine, Meister, and Chapman (1996) found that when children were taught to use generic questions or question stems to improve their comprehension of reading activities they were working on together, they obtained significantly higher comprehension scores on follow-up achievement tests than their peers in control groups. While it is not possible to say in the studies reported here, whether it was the group interactions or the group activities that led the children to think more deeply about the problem-solving tasks they were working on, it was the children in the structured groups who provided more help and assistance to each other, engaged in more content-related talk, and achieved higher learning outcomes than their peers in the unstructured groups and these outcomes were consistent across most of the studies. When children work cooperatively together, group members often act as mediators of learning by explaining ideas and information, drawing each other’s attention to aspects of interest, and encouraging each other to investigate new perspectives. Comments such as: ‘‘Look at this (pointing to information). Maybe we could see if we can find out more on this (information needed). It looks like it could tell us more about it (problem they are trying to solve).’’; ‘‘That’s just what we want ‘cause it’s got that pointy part (pointing to picture) that’s like the one we want. Don’t you think it’s like what we need (pointing to significant aspects of the picture)?’’ are examples of the mediated interactions that occurred. The conversations the children generated were multi-directional as they served to mediate each other’s learning by giving explanations, focusing attention on key features of a problem, and challenging each other’s perspectives on important issues (Kozulin & Presseisen, 1995). This interactional process was critical to the success of the groups because it involved the children in reciprocal interactions that served to mediate and scaffold their learning. It was interesting to note that as this process continued, children of all ability levels learned to contribute their ideas and knowledge to the learning environment ARTICLE IN PRESS R.M. Gillies / Int. J. Educ. Res. 39 (2003) 35–49 47 and, in turn, learned to appropriate what they needed. This process of mutual appropriation was ongoing as the children discussed issues, asked questions, requested help, and generally sought to negotiate meaning around the group task (Brown et al., 1993; Palinscar, 1998). In effect, the teaching and learning that occurred was both explicit and implicit enabling children to develop shared understandings and create new knowledge as they worked together in their groups (Mercer, 1994). In conclusion, this paper has provided an overview of five different studies that the author has conducted that demonstrate the link between explicitly structuring cooperative small-group learning and higher levels of cooperation, group interactions, and learning for children in primary and junior high school settings. Research demonstrates that the benefits of cooperative learning are enhanced when groups do not exceed four members, are gender-balanced and of mixed-ability, instruction is designed to meet the group needs, and teachers have been trained in how to implement this pedagogical strategy. When these conditions are met, children in structured groups give more detailed and explanatory help to each other, ask deeper and more comprehensive questions, and achieve higher learning outcomes. References Battistich, V., Solomon, D., & Delucchi, K. (1993). Interaction processes and student outcomes in cooperative learning groups. The Elementary School Journal, 94, 19–32. Bloom, B. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives handbook 1: Cognitive domain. London: Longman. Brown, A., Ash, D., Rutherford, M., Nakagawa, K., Gordon, A., & Campione, J. (1993). Distributed expertise in the classroom. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 188–229). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University press. Bruner, J. (1973). Beyond the information given: Studies in the psychology of knowing. New York: Norton. Calderon, M., Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., & Slavin, R. (1998). Effects of bilingual cooperative integrated reading and composition on students making the transition from Spanish to English reading. The Elementary School Journal, 99, 153–165. Cohen, E. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64, 1–35. Cohen, E., Lotan, R., & Leechor, C. (1989). Can classrooms learn? Sociology of Education, 62, 75–94. Day, J. (1983). The zone of proximal development. In M. Pressley, & J. Levin (Eds.), Cognitive strategy research: Psychological foundations. New York: Springer. Deutsch, M. (1949). A theory of cooperation and competition. Human Relations, 2, 129–12152. Egan, G. (1997). The skilled helper: A systematic approach to effective helping (6th ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. Ellis, S., & Rogoff, B. (1986). Problem solving in children’s management of instruction. In E. Mueller, & C. Cooper (Eds.), Process and outcome in peer relationships (pp. 301–325). New York: Academic Press. Fall, R., & Webb, N. (2000). Group discussion and large-scale language arts assessment: Effects on students’ comprehension. American Educational Research Journal, 37, 911–941. Forman, E. (1989). The role of peer interaction in the social construction of mathematical knowledge. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 55–69. Gabbert, B., Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1986). Cooperative learning, group to individual transfer, process gain, and the acquisition of cognitive reasoning strategies. Journal of Psychology, 120, 265–278. Gillies, R. (1999). Maintenance of cooperative and helping behaviors in reconstituted groups. The Journal of Educational Research, 92, 357–363. ARTICLE IN PRESS 48 R.M. Gillies / Int. J. Educ. Res. 39 (2003) 35–49 Gillies, R. (2003). The behaviors, interactions, and perceptions of junior high school students during smallgroup learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 137–147. Gillies, R., & Ashman, A. (1996). Teaching collaborative skills to primary school children in classroombased work groups. Learning and Instruction, 6, 187–200. Gillies, R., & Ashman, A. (1998). Behavior and interactions of children in cooperative groups in lower and middle elementary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 746–757. Glass, G. V., McGaw, B., & Smith, M. L. (1981). Meta-analysis in social research. Beverly Hills: Sage. Hunt, P., Staub, D., Alwell, M., & Goetz, L. (1994). Achievement by all students within the context of cooperative learning groups. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 19, 290–301. Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1987). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1989). Cooperation and competition: theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1990). Cooperative learning and achievement. In S. Sharan (Ed.), Cooperative learning: Theory and research (pp. 173–202). New York: Praeger. Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1994). Constructive conflict in schools. Journal of Social Issues, 50, 117–137. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Making cooperative learning work. Theory into Practice, 38(2), 67–74. Jordan, D., & Le Metaias, J. (1997). Social skilling through cooperative learning. Educational Research, 39, 3–21. Johnson, D., Johnson, R., Dudley, B., Mitchell, J., & Fredrickson, J. (1997). The impact of conflict resolution training on middle school students. The Journal of Social Psychology, 137, 11–21. Johnson, D., Johnson, D., & Holubec, E. (1993). Circles of learning. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company. Johnson, D.W., Johnson, F.P., & Stanne, M. (2001). Cooperative learning methods: A meta-analysis. http://www.clcrc.com/pages/cl-methods.html. King, A. (1990). Enhancing peer interaction and learning in the classroom through reciprocal questioning. American Educational Research Journal, 27, 664–687. King, A. (1991). Improving lecture comprehension: Effects of a metacognitive strategy. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 5, 331–346. King, A. (1994). Guided knowledge construction in the classroom: Effects of teaching children how to question and how to explain. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 338–368. Kohn, A. (1992). Resistance to cooperative learning: Making sense of its deletion and dilution. Journal of Education, 174, 38–55. Kozulin, A., & Presseisen, B. (1995). Mediated learning experience and psychological tools: Vygotsky’s and feuerstein’s perspectives in a study of student learning. Educational Psychologist, 30, 67–75. Leikin, R., & Zaslavsky, O. (1997). Facilitating student interactions in mathematics in cooperative learning settings. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 28, 331–354. Lou, Y., Abrami, P., Spence, J., Poulsen, C., Chambers, B., & d’Apollonia, S. (1996). Within-class grouping: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66, 423–458. Melroth, M., & Deering, P. (1994). Task talk and task awareness under different cooperative learning conditions. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 138–165. Mercer, N. (1994). The quality of talk in children’s joint activity at the computer. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 10, 24–32. Mugny, G., & Doise, W. (1978). Socio-cultural conflict and structuration of individual and collective performances. European Journal of Social Psychology, 8, 181–192. Palinscar, A. S. (1998). Keeping the metaphor of scaffolding fresh–A response to C. Addison Stone’s ‘‘The metaphor of scaffolding: Its utility for the field of learning disabilities’’. Journal of learning Disabilities, 31, 370–373. Putnam, J., Markovchick, K., Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1996). Cooperative learning and peer acceptance of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Social Psychology, 136, 741–752. ARTICLE IN PRESS R.M. Gillies / Int. J. Educ. Res. 39 (2003) 35–49 49 Putnam, J., Rynders, J., Johnson, R., & Johnson, D. (1989). Collaborative skills instruction for promoting positive interactions between mentally handicapped and nonhandicapped children. Exceptional Children, 55, 550–557. Ragan, P. (1993). Cooperative learning can work in residential settings. Teaching Exceptional Children, 25(2), 48–51. Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1994). Reciprocal teaching: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 64, 479–530. Rosenshine, B., Meister, C., & Chapman, S. (1996). Teaching students to generate questions: A review of intervention studies. Review of Educational Research, 66, 181–221. Rutherford, R., Mathur, S., & Quinn, M. (1998). Promoting social communication skills through cooperative learning and direct instruction. Education and Treatment of Children, 21, 354–355. Shachar, H., & Sharan, S. (1994). Talking, relating, and achieving: Effects of cooperative learning and whole-class instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 12, 313–353. Sharan, S. (1990). Cooperative learning and helping behaviour in the multi-ethnic classroom (pp. 151–175). In: S. Sharan (Ed.), Cooperative learning theory and research (pp. 173–202). New York: Praeger. Sharan, S., & Shachar, H. (1988). Language and learning in the cooperative classroom. New York: Springer. Sharan, S., Shachar, H., & Levine, T. (1999). The innovative school: Organization and instruction. Westport, Connecticut: Bergin & Garvey. Slavin, R. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Stevens, R., & Slavin, R. (1995). The cooperative elementary school. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 321–351. Stone, C. (1985). Vygotsky’s developmental model and the concept of proleptic instruction: Some implications for theory and research in the field of learning disabilities. Research Communications in Psychology, Psychiatry and Behavior, 10(1,2), 129–152. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Warring, D., Johnson, D., Maruyama, G., & Johnson, R. (1985). Impact of different types of cooperative learning on cross-ethnic and cross-sex relationships. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 53–59. Webb, N. (1984). Sex differences in interaction and achievement in cooperative small groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 33–44. Webb, N. (1985). Student interaction and learning in small groups: A research summary. In R. Slavin, S. Sharon, S. Kagan, R. Hertz-Larowitz, C. Webb, & R. Schmuck (Eds.), Learning to cooperate, cooperating to learn (pp. 5–15). New York: Plenum. Webb, N. (1991). Task-related verbal interaction and mathematical learning in small groups. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 22, 366–389. Webb, N. (1992). Testing a theoretical model of student interaction and learning in small groups. In R. Hertz-Lazarowitz, & N. Miller (Eds.), Interaction in cooperative groups (pp. 102–119). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Webb, N., & Farivar, S. (1994). Promoting helping behavior in cooperative small groups in middle school mathematics. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 369–395. Webb, N., Troper, J., & Fall, R. (1995). Constructive activity and learning in collaborative small groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 406–423. Wittrock, M. (1990). Generative processes of comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 24, 345–376.