Chapter 12:

Cooperative and Collaborative Learning: Getting the Best of Both Words

Jeremy Sawyer and Rita Obeid 1

The Graduate Center and College of Staten Island, City University of New York

Abstract
Learning in small groups plays an increasing role in modern pedagogy. There is strong evidence that
students working in small groups outperform students working individually in several key areas,
including knowledge development, critical thinking skills, social skills, and course satisfaction. This
chapter compares the theory behind cooperative and collaborative learning techniques, and
demonstrates both approaches in practice. Such active, student-centered pedagogical approaches have
been popular in K-12 schools for years, but have only recently come to be valued in higher education.
We describe how we have applied these two approaches in teaching undergraduate developmental
psychology, using examples of collaborative student oral presentations, cooperative use of the CRAAP
test to build information literacy, and combining cooperative learning with multimedia to teach
psychological concepts. We also provide an illustration of our methods for assessing student motivation
and learning outcomes. Benefits of cooperative, collaborative, and hybrid approaches are discussed.

Introduction
Learning in small groups plays an increasing role in modern pedagogy, from K-12 to higher education.
There is strong evidence that students working in small groups outperform students working individually
in several key areas, including knowledge development, thinking skills, social skills, and course
satisfaction (Barkley, Major, and Cross, 2014; Johnson & Johnson, 1994; Stroebel & Van Barneveld,
2009). A myriad of terms have been used to describe such learning in the past four decades, but most
commonly these group-based processes are called cooperative or collaborative learning. These
approaches are built on developmental and educational theory, suggesting that learning is
fundamentally a cooperative, collaborative process of socially constructing knowledge (Bruffee, 1986;
Driver, Asoko, Leach, Scott, & Mortimer, 1994; Slavich & Zimbardo, 2012). While cooperative and
collaborative approaches share a great deal in common, this chapter will help to clarify and disentangle
the unique features of each. We will then share ways that we have implemented hybrids of cooperative-
collaborative methods in teaching an undergraduate developmental psychology course.

Correspondence to: Jeremy Sawyer, Psychology Department, The Graduate Center, CUNY,
1

365 5th Ave., New York, NY 10016, jsawyer@gradcenter.cuny.edu

Acknowledgements: We thank the fellow graduate student instructors who collaborated

with us on mass prep for the Developmental Psychology course, in addition to designing
and implementing the developmental modules project: Dennis Bublitz, Anna Schwartz,
Zach Mason, Emily Hotez, Christina Shane-Simpson, and Danielle DeNigris.
Both cooperative and collaborative learning have roots in social constructivism, and the cognitive
developmental theories of Vygotsky (1934/1986; 1978) and Piaget (1951). These developmental
theorists suggest that when students work together, socio-cognitive conflict promotes deeper
reasoning. Vygotsky further argued that all learning and development is socially constructed, arising on
the social level before the individual level. Both Piaget and Vygotsky see the learner as an active agent,
but Vygotskian theory emphasizes that learning is not an individual construction, but rather social co-
construction of knowledge, taking place within ever-changing historical and cultural contexts. The
etymological roots of “cooperate” are in the Latin verb cooperari (co- “together” + operari “to work”),
meaning to work together or operate in conjunction with others (“Cooperate,” 2017; Davidson & Major,
2014). Similarly, the origin of “collaborate” is the Latin verb collaborare (col- “together” + “laborare “to
work”) which entered into English via modern French in the 19th century, meaning to work in
conjunction with others (“Collaborate,” 2017). Cooperative and collaborative learning are both active
methods, in contrast to individualized, “transmission” or “banking” models of education (Freire, 1970),
in which students passively absorb and reproduce an inert body of knowledge.

While both approaches share a great deal in common, there are important and discernible differences.
Although there are no completely agreed upon definitions of either term, in practice, cooperative
learning generally focuses on working in an interdependent fashion, where each member of the group is
often responsible for a “piece” of the final product (Johnson & Johnson, 2009). The division of labor is
typically more systematically structured in cooperative learning, with clear, accountable roles assigned
to each member of the group. By contrast, collaborative learning tends to feature more fluid, shifting
roles, with group members crossing boundaries between different areas of work, or co-deciding the best
ways to collaborate on their joint project (Dillenbourg, 1999; Bereiter & Scardamalia, 2006). Goals and
tasks may be more open-ended, and collaborative groups are generally more “self-managed” in terms of
setting goals and establishing styles of interaction. In cooperative learning, instructors may also play a
greater role in scaffolding activities by creating intentional groupings of students, or randomly assigning
students to groups. Further scaffolds may also be necessary to ensure successful cooperation between
group members, such as directly teaching group interaction skills and reflection on those skills. This
intentional grouping reflects the influence of the civil rights movement on cooperative learning, and the
desire to integrate racially diverse groups of students working toward common goals, thus reducing
prejudice (Aronson & Bridgeman, 1979). The “jigsaw” technique is a prototypical cooperative learning
activity developed in the wake of the civil rights movement, with the goal of transforming individual
competitive tendencies into cooperative ones (https://www.jigsaw.org/). Jigsaw involves creating
groups of 5-6 students in which every student is assigned to become an “expert” by studying a portion
of the overall topic (e.g., Piaget’s four cognitive stages, plus a biography of Piaget). Experts temporarily
form groups with other experts in the class who have been given the same portion of the topic (e.g.,
Piaget’s formal operations stage), to exchange ideas and deepen their expertise. Students then rejoin
their original group, where they present their piece of the intellectual “puzzle.” By comparison,
instructors often take a more “hands off” approach in collaborative learning, allowing students to form
groups based on friendships or common interests (Davidson & Major, 2014).

Research in different subject areas and with students of various ages has demonstrated positive effects
of cooperative learning on academic achievement and the development of higher-order thinking skills
(Davidson & Major, 2014). At the postsecondary level, a meta-analysis by Springer and colleagues (1999)
found that college students participating in cooperative learning in science, technology, engineering,
and math (STEM) courses demonstrated greater achievement, persistence, and more positive academic
attitudes than peers in non-cooperative approaches. Cooperative techniques have also been found to
facilitate learning of psychological concepts (e.g., Perkins & Saris, 2001; Tomcho, Wolfe, & Foels, 2006).
It has been proposed that these beneficial effects of cooperative learning are due to the socio-cognitive
conflict that arises when engaging with a partner’s ideas and perspectives, which in turn promotes
deeper reasoning (Piaget, 1951; Vygotsky, 1978). Interactions often take the form of joint dialogues that
build upon and respond to the partner’s contributions of relevant information and challenging
questions, thereby increasing the conceptual understanding of the cooperating individuals (Chi, 2009).

Meanwhile, the literature on collaborative learning has reported success in allowing small groups of
students to pursue shared goals and develop solutions to complex, open-ended problems (Bruffee,
1995; Hmelo-Silver, 2004). Collaborative learning heavily emphasizes students’ interpretations of texts
and critical thinking, drawing upon multidisciplinary skills. Thus, collaborative learning is thought to be
ideally suited for scientific inquiry and research applications (Brown & Campione, 1994). Through
collaboration with peers and instructor facilitation, students can engage in inquiry-driven problem
solving and become part of a community of learners and thinkers within the classroom (Brown &
Campione, 2002; Rogoff, 1994).

One such collaborative method is problem-based learning (PBL), in which students attempt to solve a
complex problem that does not have a single correct answer (Hmelo-Silver, 2004). Students work in
collaborative groups to first identify what new information they need to learn to solve the problem.
Students then engage in self-directed learning, applying their new knowledge to the problem and
reflecting on what they learned and the effectiveness of their strategies. The teacher only acts to
facilitate students’ self-directed processes, or to model certain reasoning processes, rather than to
directly provide knowledge or information. The goals of PBL are to help students develop flexible
knowledge, effective problem-solving skills, self-directed learning skills, collaboration skills, and intrinsic
motivation. In both cooperative and collaborative approaches, working together in small groups
provides opportunities for students to develop social and communication skills (Johnson & Johnson,
2009; Shimazoe & Aldrich, 2010), and often has the added benefit of being more motivating and
enjoyable for students than independent work (Slavin, Hurley, & Chamberlain, 2003).

For Vygotsky and later cultural-historical activity (CHAT) theorists, collective activity creates a zone of
proximal development (ZPD) for individual learning and social transformation. This means that
instructors can facilitate cooperative activities and collaborative projects among peers of various skill
levels, engaging students’ proximal, “ripening” abilities, which they could not develop effectively in
isolation. In this spirit, we will share cooperative and collaborative learning activities that we have
incorporated into our mid- to large-size undergraduate classes at a diverse, urban public university.
These group activities were often a hybrid of cooperative and collaborative approaches, as we sought to
combine the best aspects of each method. Efforts to assess learning and motivational outcomes
generated by these techniques will also be discussed. These case examples also align with the APA
guidelines for undergraduate psychology coursework (APA 2013; Dunn et al., 2007). It is our hope that
providing detailed examples of these active, group-based forms of instruction will be useful to inform
the pedagogy of new and seasoned instructors alike.
Collaborative Learning through Oral Presentations
Public speaking and communication of ideas to a live audience are important skills in a variety of
professional and academic settings. Oral presentations have a long and venerable history in education,
and can provide an optimal collaborative learning experience for small groups of students. Both authors
have facilitated collaborative group research projects in their developmental psychology classes over a
period of several weeks, with these projects culminating in oral presentations to the class. The goal was
to have groups of four students (give or take one student) deliver 10 to 20-minute presentations,
followed by a five-minute question-and-answer period, on developmental topics of interest to them.
Prior to forming groups, instructors discussed the importance of developing public speaking and
presentation skills, highlighting how practicing collaboration will enhance their ability to be “team
players” in future professional endeavors. Instructors then apprised students that the objective for each
group was to present a scientific debate in developmental psychology, and to present different theories
or points of view within that debate. Students were encouraged to formulate their research topics as
unanswered questions that we would like to answer. For instance, if the question were formulated as,
"How do Humans Acquire Language?" the group could present the behaviorist, nativist, and social
constructivist theories of language acquisition, along with the evidence supporting each view. If the
topic were, "What is the best method of child discipline?" the group might present arguments for and
against spanking, as well as cognitive, behaviorist, or cognitive-behavioral approaches to child discipline.
Students were given the following further instructions about the project:

We are presenting a "debate" between different scientific points of view. Each viewpoint should be
presented with supporting evidence from psychological research to make a convincing case for that point
of view. This scientific controversy should make the topic exciting and memorable, and we will learn
about ongoing investigation of unanswered questions in human development.

This activity was predominantly collaborative in form, and students were expected to benefit from
several collaborative elements of the project. First, group members were encouraged to communicate
with each other to establish what roles they would play, as specific group roles were not assigned. This
meant that students were free to “cross boundaries” between roles and tasks, and to decide the best
ways for their groups to collaborate. The instructor merely provided guidelines for the final presentation
that required groups to present multiple viewpoints on their question, a brief history of how
psychological research into this question developed, and an accompanying multimedia (e.g.,
PowerPoint, short video) presentation. Otherwise, however, the format of the presentation and the
process of developing it were relatively open-ended. Some groups embraced this challenge by
presenting their debates as “presidential debates” with opening statements, rebuttals, and moderators.
Others staged them as mock “boxing matches” where fighters for each theory exchanged scientific jabs,
supporting their arguments with empirical research. While many groups enacted fluid and shifting roles,
other groups established clear divisions of labor from the beginning. This sometimes took the form of
two students presenting opposing viewpoints, one student giving the topic’s history, and one student
responsible for the multimedia presentation. The instructor “checked in” with each group to answer
questions and facilitate interactions, but specific social skills were not modeled, and group interactions
were not directly scaffolded. That is, groups were relatively “self-managed” in terms of their timetables
and styles of interaction. Allowing group processes to emerge in this way seemed to promote forms of
critical thinking that are necessary to conduct research on the evidence behind different theories, and to
critically evaluate their merits.
Another collaborative aspect of these projects was that students were permitted to form groups based
on common interests. Early in the semester, students were asked to begin brainstorming and to be on
the lookout for topics on development that interested them. About a month later, students shared the
ideas they had generated with their classmates, and the instructor compiled a live document listing the
potential topics. Students were then given a week or two to perform cursory searches of popular or
academic sources to determine which topics were both interesting and had sufficient research to form a
presentation. Students generated their top three to four choices for topics, and in the next class the
instructor facilitated the formation of groups based on common interests. If there was a topic in which
only one or two people were interested, these students joined other groups, typically with topics that
were still among their top choices. During certain semesters, one of us (Sawyer) has implemented a
variation on this process by providing students with a list of possible topics ahead of time (but still
allowing freedom to choose a topic not listed), and this has also worked well. There tended to be a
wider, more creative range of topics when students generated them on their own, though sometimes
these topics required some shaping to connect them more directly with developmental psychology.
Student-generated questions for these projects have included how we develop our gender identity and
sexual orientation, how racial bias may develop in children, the effect of pets and animal therapy on
human development, how friendship contributes to development, and how social deprivation impacts
development. All of these topics made for highly interesting and effective presentations.

Before the research process got underway, the instructor employed an element from cooperative
learning by scaffolding student skills in searching for psychology articles in online media, and pointing
students to popular psychology blogs and scientific websites. The instructor also provided tutorials on
using Google Scholar and university databases (e.g., EBSCO) to search for relevant articles and book
chapters. As for presentations, students were advised that PowerPoint slides should be light on text
(e.g., using bullet points), incorporating substantial use of pictures and images to help communicate the
message. Additional tips on speaking slowly, maintaining eye contact with the audience, and rehearsing
presentations to make them smoother were also shared. Subsequently, students with diverse skill levels
in research tutored each other in their respective areas of strength, which benefitted the student
teaching the skill as well as the one learning it. As a practical matter, many students at our campuses
work and commute long distances to campus, and thus have difficulty finding time to meet up with
classmates for group work. Thus, students were given time to work together in class during at least
three different weeks. This especially helped with refining topics, researching the topic, and making
plans for a division of labor which could be carried out at home. What students did not complete in class
they accomplished by Skype, sharing materials online, or physical meetups on campus. As students
explored their topics together, they exchanged ideas, posed half-formed thoughts, and constructively
disagreed about their topics. This seemed to spur students to delve more deeply into their topics, and to
sharpen the debates that emerged in each presentation. Working together toward the same goal
seemed to build camaraderie among classmates, as we noticed more students socializing with each
other during class breaks, and some students shared with us that they developed ongoing friendships
with group members through this process.

The activity of collaboration in pursuit of intellectually engaging questions seemed to create a friendly
and open community of learners. One of the students in Sawyer’s class, to his delight, described this
classroom atmosphere as an “intellectual playground.” Because students co-constructed the content
and style of their presentations, they felt that they were not merely summarizing (as happens with many
presentations), but actively contributing to knowledge and stimulating debate among classmates about
important psychological ideas.

PRESENTERS: _________________________TOPIC: _____________________________

The importance of the A debate or Slides and other visuals Content is organized with
topic was communicated controversy in have appropriate content a well-defined topic (1-5)
to the audience (1-5) development was (1-5)
presented (1-5)

Speakers were easy to A useful history of the Slides/visuals are easy to Interaction with students
understand, good debate or controversy read/see (1-5) is effective (1-5)
speaking voices (1-5) was presented (1-5)

Write ONE thing that you learned from this lesson—a particularly strong aspect:
____________________________________________________________________________

Write ONE thing that could be improved, with advice for future presentations:
____________________________________________________________________________

Please grade your peers on their presentations. Keep in mind the following points:
- Slides are clear / Easy to read
- Made eye contact
- Elaborated on slides (didn’t just read them)

Score:

1—5
Presentation Topic: Notes/Comments:
(1 being POOR, 5 being
Excellent)

1.

2.

*the average of the peer group score will be added to each group’s presentation grade.

Figure 1. Two examples of audience feedback forms for oral presenters

To encourage maximum audience engagement and constructive feedback, the instructor distributed
peer review forms to audience members before each presentation. We used different peer review forms
in each class, and forms varied in terms of how they structured student feedback. Examples of these
forms are provided in Figure 1. The process of peer review allowed students to provide written feedback
on what they learned and enjoyed from each presentation. Students shared feedback on what they saw
as strengths of the presentation, as well as tips for improving the content and style of future
presentations.

Instructors collected these forms, and selected the best, most constructive feedback to pass along to
presenters. Audience feedback helped the instructor to remember salient aspects of each presentation,
and to see it from the students’ point of view. This eased the process of grading and allowed targeted
instructor feedback to each group. Alternatively, one could incorporate audience grading of
presentations into students’ final presentation grades. Telling students that their grading plays a role in
their peers’ grades (e.g., 20% of the presentation grade) holds students accountable to make their
feedback constructive. By presenting to the class, and giving and receiving feedback, students reported
gaining confidence in their oral presentation skills and their ability to plan and create presentations.
Presentations were typically made the last few weeks of the semester, which allowed for a lively way to
wrap up the course. Based on student ratings of the class, audience feedback on peer review forms, and
engaged audience questions during the question-and-answer periods, this activity was highly motivating
and enjoyable for students. As a result, we have used this activity in multiple semesters and plan to
continue doing so.

Using the CRAAP Test Collaboratively

The results of psychological studies, not to mention their “pop” distortions, are frequently (mis)reported
in the mainstream media. These often-questionable interpretations and uses of psychology are the way
in which many students first encounter the work of psychologists. Rather than ignoring how psychology
is represented in the media and larger world, collaborative activities around media literacy can provide
excellent opportunities for students to exercise and build critical thinking faculties. In order to foster
media literacy in our students, we have utilized the CRAAP test (also called CAARP test; Fisher, Buckner,
Hunter, & Nolan, 2016; also see Fisher, Hunter, Nolan, & Buckner, this volume for a discussion of the
CRAAP test) as an efficient way of bringing the larger world into the classroom. This activity works by
engaging students in evaluating source materials (e.g., blogs websites, articles) using several criteria
(Currency, Relevance Authority, Accuracy, and the author’s Purpose in writing the material). During this
activity, students typically select an online news article online that is relevant to the psychological
concept that we are discussing in class (e.g., attachment styles), and they then evaluate the article based
on the previously mentioned CRAAP criteria. We have both used the CRAAP test in our teaching and
have found it to be a fun and efficient tool to promote information literacy, which involves the ability to
critically evaluate news and information sources. We believe that teaching students about information
literacy and connecting our classrooms to the “offline” world promotes genuine interest in real-world
applications of psychology among our students. This approach also equips them with the tools needed
to process and critically evaluate sources that they are exposed to daily through news, blogs, and social
media. This activity allows us to think about research in every class session, by discussing reliable and
unreliable sources of information about various developmental topics. There are many online templates
that guide instructors on how to incorporate the CRAAP test into their courses (for example:
http://legacy.juniata.edu/services/library/instruction/handouts/craap_worksheet.pdf or
https://libraries.mercer.edu/research-tools-help/citation-tools-help/images/PrintableCRAPtest.pdf).

The CRAAP test typically does not feature a built-in collaborative or cooperative component, but we
have incorporated cooperative learning into this method. We pair this activity with student interaction
and discussion. First, groups of 2-3 students choose an article about a relevant topic, and then they read
the article and think about it individually. The group then reassembles and discusses the article in light
of the CRAAP criteria. Students discuss whether the source they found is a relevant and reliable one or if
it did not pass the CRAAP criteria. We then hold full-class discussions about the articles, and whether or
not they pass the CRAAP test. This activity merges both the CRAAP test and the think-pair-share method
that we will discuss in the next section. Think-pair-share (Lyman, 1992) is a well-known cooperative
learning technique in which students think about and discuss a question in pairs, and then share their
ideas with the larger class. We feel that the benefits of the CRAAP test can be maximized using
cooperative approaches. This not only teaches students about information literacy, but also allows
students to exchange views while interacting and learning from other students’ perspectives on
different articles. When we use this activity, the CRAAP test itself provides the structure for group
interaction, and the aim is to foster critical thinking and negotiation skills between students (see
http://nova.campusguides.com/evaluate for further information about CRAAP criteria and commonly
used handouts).

Cooperative Learning with Multimedia

When integrating cooperative and collaborative learning approaches into classroom lessons, the
question arises as to the modality in which to present lesson content. The use of multimedia-driven
instruction (e.g., projected text and images, video, computer animations) in college courses is an ever-
growing practice designed to facilitate student learning and motivation (Bartlett & Strough, 2003).
Theory suggests that multimedia facilitates learning because students process audio and visual
information simultaneously, and this multimodal processing leading to better retention (Mayer &
Moreno, 2003), in accordance with Paivio’s dual-coding theory (Clark & Paivio, 1991). The ongoing
infusion of digital tools into higher education has increased interest in multimedia-supported and web-
enhanced collaborative learning (Resta & Laferrière, 2007; Shane-Simpson, Brooks, Hotez, Sawyer &
Dow, 2015).

In our developmental psychology classes, we experimented with cooperative learning activities

featuring video as a multimedia tool for learning psychological concepts. When used effectively, videos
can help to make abstract ideas concrete and memorable (Thompson & Fisher-Thompson, 2013). Videos
can also provide vivid examples of psychological concepts as the basis for discussion and application of
course content (Simpson, 2008). However, potential pitfalls are that the “activity” of watching a video
may encourage passive learning unless it is specifically designed to engage students. The literature
recommends that multimedia be used in an active and guided manner (Lawson, Bodle, Houlette &
Haubner, 2006), with direct application of course concepts to the video (Kreiner, 1997).

With these caveats in mind, we set out to build a series of lessons around cooperative discussion of
videos portraying classic developmental experiments and situations. We collaborated with three other
graduate student developmental instructors (also GSTA members) to develop PowerPoint lesson
modules with embedded videos to teach core developmental concepts (e.g., object permanence, joint
attention, attachment, egocentrism). This was greatly facilitated by the fact that we had created a
collaborative course prep for Human Development in which we shared instructional materials among
several GSTA instructors on different campuses within our university system (for more information
about developing collaborative course preps see Schwartz, Powers, Galazyn, & Brooks, this volume).
Each module featured a pair of videos carefully selected from YouTube that depicted a developmental
experiment or situation in which one child displayed more advanced development and another child
displayed less advanced development. For example, the egocentrism video pair featured a child passing
Piaget’s Three Mountains Problem (Piaget & Inhelder, 1956), and a slightly younger child attempting the
same task unsuccessfully (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OinqFgsIbh0). We then designed three
questions prompts for each module to scaffold students’ understanding of the experiment. For the
egocentrism modules, the questions were:

1) What differences did you observe in the behavior of the two children in the Three Mountains
Problem?

2) What can you infer about the children’s cognitive egocentrism from these behavioral
differences?

3) What might be some consequences if a child does not develop perspective taking, and instead
remains at the egocentric stage of mental representation?

A traditional lecture format might present the lesson about the Three Mountains Problem through text-
based description. If augmented with low-stakes writing prompts, the instructor might invite students to
individually write answers to the questions above, in order to reinforce key terms. However, this
approach would not benefit from the social construction of knowledge inherent in cooperative
interactions, nor would it take advantage of the unique affordances of multimedia. Cooperative learning
with multimedia, in contrast, would invite students to watch the video comparison of children’s
responses to the Three Mountains Problem, discuss the question prompts using think-pair-share
methodology, and then conclude the lesson with a whole-class discussion. Think-pair-share is
considered a cooperative technique because the structure of discussion and interaction is largely
defined by the instructor’s choice of questions and allocation of groups. Partners are either assigned by
instructors, or are “random” in the sense that students turn to talk with the student who happens to be
sitting next to them. Partners are interdependent and accountable to each other, both being required to
take an active role in the interaction.

While think-pair-share is substantially structured in the manner of cooperative learning, there are
elements of collaborative learning at play as well. Although the instructor selects the discussion
questions, students have leeway in how they conduct the discussion. Students decide who speaks first,
and whether each partner will speak uninterrupted for a few minutes, or whether the discussion will
take a more conversational, back-and-forth pattern. In addition, there are no roles in this interaction per
se, but rather each partner contributes their own thoughts in whatever way they see fit. Thus,
boundaries between ideas are fluid, and it is hoped that each member of the pair will build upon and
respond to the other’s ideas. Students inevitably offer different viewpoints, which may encourage their
classmates to consider alternative perspectives. Conflicting perspectives may spur students to
cognitively elaborate the reasons for their opinion. Students may persuade their partner, or be
persuaded to see things in a different light. We further scaffolded the activity by giving instructions to
students beforehand about allowing equal time for each partner to share their ideas, and modeling how
to engage in active listening and dialogue with one’s partner. Having students discuss key questions for a
few minutes in pairs provides an effective bridge into class-wide discussion, as students get a chance to
practice expressing their ideas to one partner before sharing with the rest of their classmates. The
paired discussion allows students to clarify their ideas and raise their confidence, making them more
likely to participate in the subsequent, full-class discussion.

To compare traditional cooperative learning and multimedia cooperative learning to traditional

instruction, as well as examine the benefits of individual multimedia and cooperative components, the
instructors taught pairs of modules to their respective classes in the three counterbalanced conditions
shown in Table 1. At the end of each module, students completed the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory
(IMI, Ryan, 1982) to rate their enjoyment and effort on each module, and took a six-question quiz
assessing learning of the module content and concepts.

Table 1. Three instructional conditions

Condition Description

Multimedia Cooperative Learning Video of experiment, think-pair-share, and whole-

class discussion

Traditional Cooperative Learning Textual description of experiment, think-pair-share,

and whole-class discussion

Traditional Instruction Textual description of experiment, individual writing

about prompts, and defining key terms

Four instructors each taught their own section of the course at the same college, collectively enrolling
165 undergraduate students. The students (69% female and 31% male) were a diverse sample, with ages
ranging from 17 to 57 years (M = 22.53 years, SD = 6.51 years), and ethnicities were self-reported as 42%
Caucasian/White, 17% Asian/Asian-American, 14% Latino, 13% Black/African American, 8% Middle
Easterner, 1% Pacific Islander, and 5% Other. After controlling for instructor effects and module
difficulty, the results of our assessment indicated that students scored significantly higher on module
quizzes in the multimedia cooperative learning condition than they did with traditional instruction (p =
.02). Students also scored marginally higher in the text-based cooperative learning condition than with
traditional instruction (p = .06). The adjusted means for quiz scores in each condition are shown in
Figure 2.
 80%
78%
76%
74%
72%
70%
68%
Traditional Traditional Multimedia
Instruction CL CL

Figure 2. Percentage of quiz questions answered correctly by instructional condition.

Note: CL = Cooperative learning

At the end of each module, students rated their intrinsic motivation level on the IMI, which included
items such as, “I enjoyed doing this activity very much,” and “I put a lot of effort into this.” After
adjusting for instructor effects, students reported higher intrinsic motivation levels with multimedia
cooperative learning than traditional cooperative learning (p = .02). The adjusted means for motivation
in each condition are shown in Figure 3.

5.4

5.3

5.2

5.1
IMI

4.9

4.8
Traditional Traditional Multimedia
Instruction CL CL

Figure 3. Student self-rated intrinsic motivation (IMI) by instructional condition.

Note: CL = Cooperative learning

Overall, our results indicated that adding cooperative learning to a traditional, text-based lesson
marginally increased student learning, but that adding multimedia video and cooperative learning
elements significantly increased learning. The combination of multimedia and cooperative learning also
resulted in higher student motivation than adding only cooperative learning to traditional text-based
lessons. It seems that promoting student engagement with multimedia in an active, cooperative manner
allowed beneficial discussion and exchange of ideas between students. The socio-cognitive conflict
engendered by these discussions likely allowed students to co-construct richer representations of
developmental concepts, and to process these ideas more deeply and meaningfully. Scaffolding think-
pair-share interactions with question prompts that helped to guide student discussion also likely
contributed to the beneficial effects of the cooperative multimedia instructional technique.

Conclusions
In this chapter, we have highlighted the advantages of applying cooperative learning, collaborative
learning, and cooperative-collaborative hybrids in the teaching of psychology. We described examples of
how we have incorporated these techniques into our classrooms, and provided some anecdotes and
data to illustrate how these methods can enhance student learning and motivation. Of course, there are
multiple ways to adapt your current course assignments to take advantage of group-based learning, and
we encourage you to experiment with these cooperative and collaborative approaches in your own
classrooms.

While approaches derived from Piagetian and Vygotskian theory are especially apropos for a
developmental course, they can be applied to virtually any course in psychology or other subjects. In
addition to promoting key student skills such as critical thinking and communication, students find
cooperative and collaborative work highly motivating. When students find pleasure in learning, it
improves their classroom experience and the relationships they form with fellow students. This
increases the likelihood that they will transfer these new skills and these developing abilities to future
collaborative projects and endeavors. Finally, students were not the only ones in our classes who reaped
the benefits of cooperation. In the course of collaboratively designing our course preparation, we shared
materials and insights with other instructors and advising faculty. Part of fully committing to cooperative
and collaborative approaches is realizing that no teacher is an island, and that we all have a lot to learn
from each other by working together.

References
American Psychological Association. (2013). APA guidelines for the undergraduate psychology major.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Aronson, E., & Bridgeman, D. (1979). Jigsaw groups and the desegregated classroom: In pursuit of
common goals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 5, 438-446.
doi:10.1177/014616727900500405

Barkley, E. F., Major, C. H., & Cross, K. P. (2014). Collaborative learning techniques: A resource for college
faculty, 2nd Edition. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bartlett, R. M., & Strough, J. (2003). Multimedia versus traditional course instruction in introductory
social psychology. Teaching of Psychology, 30(4), 335-338. doi:10.1207/S15328023TOP3004_07
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (2006). Education for the knowledge age: Design-centered models of
teaching and instruction. In P.A. Alexander (Ed.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 695 -
713). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1994). Guided discovery in a community of learners. Massachusetts: The
MIT Press.

Brown, A., & Campione, J. (2002). Communities of learning and thinking, or context by any other name.
In P. Woods (Ed.), Contemporary issues in teaching and learning (pp. 120 –126). New York, NY:
Routledge.

Bruffee, K. A. (1986). Social construction, language, and the authority of knowledge: A bibliographical
essay. College English, 48(8), 773-790. doi:10.2307/376723

Bruffee, K. A. (1995). Sharing our toys: Cooperative learning versus collaborative learning. Change: The
Magazine of Higher Learning, 27(1), 12-18. doi: 10.1080/00091383.1995.9937722

Chi, M. T. (2009). Active‐constructive‐interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning

activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(1), 73-105. doi:10.1111/j.1756-8765.2008.01005.x

Clark, J. M., & Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory and education. Educational Psychology Review, 3(3),
149-210. doi:10.1007/BF01320076

Collaborate. v. (2017). In Oxford English Dictionary Online. Oxford University Press. Retrieved from
http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/36195?redirectedFrom=collaborate (accessed January 12,
2017).

Cooperate. v. (2017). In Oxford English Dictionary Online. Oxford University Press. Retrieved from
http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/41036?rskey=5eByTb&result=2&isAdvanced=false#eid
(accessed February 3, 2017).

Davidson, N., Major, C. H., & Michaelsen, L. K. (2014). Small-group learning in higher education—
cooperative, collaborative, problem-based, and team-based learning: an introduction by the
guest editors. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 25(3&4), 1-6.

Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by ‘collaborative learning’? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.),

Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and computational approaches. (pp.1-19). Oxford: Elsevier.

Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Scott, P., & Mortimer, E. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the
classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5-12. doi:10.3102/0013189X023007005

Dunn, D. S., McCarthy, M. A., Baker, S., Halonen, J. S., & Hill IV, G. W. (2007). Quality benchmarks in
undergraduate psychology programs. American Psychologist, 62(7), 650. doi:10.1037/0003-
066X.62.7.650

Fisher, P. H., Buckner, J. P., Hunter, A. S., & Nolan, S. A. (2016, October). Beyond “I know it when I see it.”
Developing Concrete examples of critical thinking in psychology classrooms. Workshop
presented at the 7th Annual Pedagogy Day Conference, the Graduate Center, CUNY, New York:
NY.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed, trans. Myra Bergman Ramos. New York, NY: Continuum.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational
Psychology Review, 16(3), 235-266. doi:10.1023/B:EDPR.0000034022.16470.f3

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1994). Learning together. In. S.E. Sharan (Ed.), Handbook of
cooperative learning methods. Connecticut: Greenwood Press.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An educational psychology success story: Social
interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational Researcher, 38(5), 365-379.
doi:10.3102/0013189X09339057

Kreiner, D. S. (1997). Guided notes and interactive methods for teaching with videotapes. Teaching of
Psychology, 24(3), 183-185. doi:10.1207/s15328023top2403_6

Lawson, T. J., Bodle, J. H., Houlette, M. A., & Haubner, R. R. (2006). Guiding questions enhance student
learning from educational videos. Teaching of Psychology, 33(1), 31-33.
doi:10.1207/s15328023top3301_7

Lyman, F. (1992). Think-pair-share, thinktrix, thinklinks, and weird facts: An interactive system for
cooperative thinking. In: N. Davidson, T. Worsham (Eds.), Enhancing thinking through
cooperative learning (pp. 169-181). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia
learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43-52. doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3801_6

Perkins, D. V., & Saris, R. N. (2001). A" jigsaw classroom" technique for undergraduate statistics
courses. Teaching of Psychology, 28(2), 111-113. doi:10.1207/S15328023TOP2802_09

Piaget, J. (1951). The child's conception of the world (No. 213). London, England: Rowman & Littlefield.

Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1956). The child’s conception of space. London, England: Routledge and Kegan
Paul, Ltd.

Resta, P., & Laferrière, T. (2007). Technology in support of collaborative learning. Educational Psychology
Review, 19(1), 65-83. doi:10.1007/s10648-007-9042-7

Rogoff, B. (1994). Developing understanding of the idea of communities of learners. Mind, Culture, and
Activity, 1(4), 209-229.

Ryan, R. M. (1982). Control and information in the intrapersonal sphere: An extension of cognitive
evaluation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 450–461. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.43.3.450

Shane-Simpson, C., Brooks, P. J., Hotez, E., Sawyer, J. & Dow, E. A. (2015). Web-enhanced collaborative
learning in undergraduate psychology courses: Examples using the ASD Video Glossary, CHILDES,
and Wikipedia. In Roberta V. Nata (Ed.), Progress in Education, Vol. 36 (pp. 25-47). NOVA Science
Publishers, e-book.

Shimazoe, J., & Aldrich, H. (2010). Group work can be gratifying: Understanding & overcoming resistance
to cooperative learning. College Teaching, 58(2), 52-57. doi:10.1080/87567550903418594
Simpson, K. E. (2008). Classic and modern propaganda in documentary film: Teaching the psychology of
persuasion. Teaching of Psychology, 35(2), 103-108. doi:10.1080/00986280802004602

Slavich, G. M., & Zimbardo, P. G. (2012). Transformational teaching: Theoretical underpinnings, basic
principles, and core methods. Educational Psychology Review, 24(4), 569-608.
doi:10.1007/s10648-012-9199-6

Slavin, R. E., Hurley, E. A., & Chamberlain, A. (2003). Cooperative learning and achievement: Theory and
research. Handbook of Psychology, 3(9). 177–198. doi:10.1002/0471264385.wei0709

Springer, L., Stanne, M. E., & Donovan, S. S. (1999). Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in
science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational
Research, 69(1), 21-51. doi:10.3102/00346543069001021

Strobel, J., & Van Barneveld, A. (2009). When is PBL more effective? A meta-synthesis of meta-analyses
comparing PBL to conventional classrooms. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based
Learning, 3(1), 44-58. doi: 10.7771/1541-5015.1046

Thompson, W. B., & Fisher-Thompson, D. (2013). Analyzing data from studies depicted on video: An
activity for statistics and research courses. Teaching of Psychology, 40(2), 139-142.
doi:10.1177/0098628312475035

Tomcho, T. J., Wolfe, W. L., & Foels, R. (2006). Teaching about psychological disorders: Using a group
interviewing and diagnostic approach. Teaching of Psychology, 33(3), 184-188.
doi:10.1207/s15328023top3303_6

Vygotsky, L. S. (1934/1986). Thought and language, Revised edition. (A. Kozulin, Ed.). Boston, MA: The
MIT Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, V.
John-Steiner, S. Scribner & E. Souberman, Eds, 14th ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.