Cooperative Learning and Achievement: Theory and Research

Abstract

Slavin, Hurley, and Chamberlain present a historical review of cooperative learning. Four theoretical perspectives on cooperative learning and achievement are presented: Motivational, Social Cohesion, Cognitive Developmental, and Cognitive Elaboration Perspectives. In subsequent sections, critical philosophical differences are presented, particularly about where to locate motivation for learning behaviors, how to structure interactions among students, and how incentive and task structures impact forms of cooperative learning. In the final section, prospective areas for research are presented, and include a unified theoretical model that can guide future research efforts, inform educational practice, and foster the design of effective professional training and development.

Teaching methods for modelling problems and students’ task-specific enjoyment, value, interest and self-efficacy expectations

“…These results correspond to findings of previous studies that investigated student-oriented and teacher-oriented forms of teaching and learning. Cooperative learning environments, like the "operative-strategic" one applied in this study, have often had a positive influence on students' affect (Slavin et al, 2003;Webb & Palincsar, 1996). Significant advantages of the "operative-strategic" teaching method were found especially regarding interest and enjoyment in modelling problems.…”

“…On the other hand, student-oriented learning environments providing possibilities for cooperative exchange seem to create more favourable pre-requisites for positive developments in the affective domain (see Gläser-Zikuda et al, 2005;Hänze & Berger, 2007;Hattie, Biggs, & Purdie, 1996). Reviews of studies on the impact of cooperative learning environments as compared to "traditional" or individual approaches show the benefits of cooperative learning for students' affective dimensions (Slavin, Hurley, & Chamberlain, 2003;Webb & Palincsar, 1996). These positive effects of cooperative group work on the motivation of students can be explained by the increased possibilities to set individual goals, which is an important part of self-regulated learning (Schunk & Zimmerman, 2003); this aspect also plays a prominent role in motivational theories such as self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000).…”

Effects of prompting multiple solutions for modelling problems on students’ performance

“…Indeed, there is some empirical evidence for the better development of motivational variables in student-centred teaching in which cooperative learning environments are typically used than in teacher-centred methods of instruction (Slavin, Hurley, & Chamberlain, 2003;Webb & Palincsar, 1996). showed that a student-oriented teaching method of modelling problems tended to have stronger effects on students' enjoyment, value, interest, and self-efficacy than Bdirectivet eaching.…”

Implementing Effective Group Work for Mathematical Achievement in Primary School Classrooms in Hong Kong

“…Within the naturalistic approach, there is little evidence that teachers design tasks that allow/encourage pupils to act interdependently or that pupils have the desire or skills to communicate with and support one another (Mercer & Littleton, 2007;Stein et al, 1996;Webb et al, 2014). Theoretically based group work emphasizes inclusiveness (Roseth et al, 2006;Slavin, 2013), stressing that heterogeneous small groups can overcome status and stereotypical preferences to result in some form of cooperation or collaboration. Historically, theoretical approaches draw on developmental (from Piaget, 1971;Vygotsky, 1978) or social (Deutsch, 1949) psychological theory.…”

“…At the same time, however, HK has implemented a range of curriculum reforms designed to discourage traditional didactic teaching and enhance pupils' learning engagement through peer-based discussions as part of classroom group work (Curriculum Development Council HK (CDCHK), 2001). Underlying these reforms is the expectation that group work allows pupils to take collaborative responsibility for learning tasks (Howe, 2010;Slavin, 2013), which draw on elaborated explanations to enhance their understanding and correct misconceptions (Webb, Franke, Ing, Wong, Fernandez, Shin & Turrou, 2014). The inclusion of group work and collaborative discussion in the HK curriculum mirrors Western curriculum reforms in which innovative pedagogies such as cooperative and collaborative learning are used to encourage pupils' mathematical engagement (Slavin & Lake, 2008; Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF), 2009; Department for Education (DfE), 2013).…”