University Students' Perceptions of Cooperative Learning: Implications for Administrators and Instructors

Abstract

This study looked at college students' perceptions of cooperative learning techniques and their perceptions of cooperative learning as a motivator to studying and whether it was effective for their learning. The purpose was to investigate how the students view the method and techniques as a way for faculty to learn what may be more motivating. It was also to determine if the students reported studying more, if they were more motivated to study, and whether they found cooperative learning to be effective. Results were contradictory with positive evaluations of specific techniques and less than positive evaluations of cooperative learning in general. This suggests that universities and colleges might need to enable a paradigm shift in student expectations of college learning if active learning techniques are to be encouraged, rather than the traditional passive learning often associated with the college classroom.

Students’ likes and dislikes regarding student-activating and lecture-based educational settings: Consequences for students’ perceptions of the learning environment, student learning and performance

“…Although results of research generally do not reveal differences in performance, cooperative methods when compared to teacher-centred teaching are usually better liked by students; being conducive for their learning (Anderson & Lawton, 1991;Burron, James, & Ambrosio, 1993;Richardson & Birge, 1995;Yuen & Hau, 2006). On the other hand, the results of Phipps, Phipps, Kask, and Higgins (2001) on student perceptions of collaborative learning are ambiguous and contradictory, with positive evaluations of some specific techniques and less than positive evaluations of cooperative learning in general. Less than half perceived the teamwork format of learning to affect motivation positively.…”

Students’ Perceptions of Long-Functioning Cooperative Teams in Accelerated Adult Degree Programs

“…Cooperative learning can enhance learning and teamwork skills, teach students how to work with others and consider issues from different perspectives, foster relationships with classmates, and promote higher individual academic achievement and more positive attitudes toward learning (Chen et.al., 2004;Gottschall & Garcia-Bayonas, 2008;Johnson et al, 1998;McCorkle et al, 1999;Phipps, Phipps, Kask, & Higgins, 2001;Sweeney, Weaven, & Herington, 2008). On the other hand, however, numerous roadblocks and challenges can inhibit positive outcomes and may prevent students from mastering the very skills that cooperative learning is designed to promote.…”

“…On the other hand, however, numerous roadblocks and challenges can inhibit positive outcomes and may prevent students from mastering the very skills that cooperative learning is designed to promote. Freeriders, unequal distribution of the workload, conflicting grade aspirations, and students' negative attitudes toward team work, in particular, often inhibit the acquisition of intended teamwork skills (Gottschall & Garcia-Bayonas, 2008;Kapp, 2009;Pfaff & Huddleston, 2003;Phipps et al, 2001, Sweeney et al, 2008.…”

“…A misalignment of performance expectations within teams can also cause problems (Gottschall & Garcia-Bayonas, 2008;Phipps et al, 2001). Having different grade expectations within teams can influence perceptions of free riding and unequal workload distribution as conscientious students who aspire to earn "As" on group projects are typically inclined to pick up the slack for students who are content with "Bs" or even "Cs."…”

Cooperative learning in postgraduate lectures: possibilities and challenges

“…According to Garrett (1998, 241) 'the principles of cooperative learning work very well in both undergraduate and foundation research classes'. Even though cooperative learning has been shown to enhance learning, on a higher education level it is often meet with apprehension (Phipps, Phipps, Kask and Higgins 2001). In terms of methods authors such as Slavin (1991), Johnson et al (2000), Killen (2000) and Marr (1997) provide an overview.…”