THE ROLE OF COOPERATIVE LEARNING IN EDUCATION
STEFAN SIKONE
This article is summarized from: Cooperative Learning Methods: A Meta-Analysis by David W. Johnson, Roger T. Johnson, and Mary Beth Stanne
Cooperative learning is one of the most remarkable areas of theory. Cooperative learning exists when students work together to accomplish shared learning goals (Johnson & Johnson, 1999). Each student can then achieve his or her learning goal if and only if the other group members achieve theirs (Deutsch, 1962).
Cooperative learning has become a widely used instructional procedure in preschool through graduate school levels, in all subject areas, in all aspects of instruction and learning, in nontraditional as well as traditional learning situations, and even in after-school and non-school educational programs. There is broad dissemination of cooperative learning through teacher preparation programs, in-service professional development, and practitioner publications. The use of cooperative learning so pervades education that it is difficult to find textbooks on instructional methods, teachers' journals, or instructional materials that do not mention and utilize it. While a variety of different ways of operationalizing cooperative learning have been implemented in schools and colleges, there has been no comprehensive review of the research evidence validating the cooperative learning methods. The purpose of article is to to discuss why cooperative learning is so widely used.
The widespread use of cooperative learning is due to multiple factors. Three of the most important are that cooperative learning is clearly based on theory, validated by research, and operationalized into clear procedures educators can use. First, cooperative learning is based solidly on a variety of theories in anthropology (Mead, 1936) , sociology (Coleman, 1961), economics (Von Mises, 1949), political science (Smith, 1759), psychology, and other social sciences. In psychology, where cooperation has received the most intense study, cooperative learning has its roots in social interdependence (Deutsch, 1949, 1962; Johnson & Johnson, 1989), cognitive-developmental (Johnson & Johnson, 1979; Piaget, 1950; Vygotsky, 1978), and behavioral learning theories (Bandura, 1977; Skinner, 1968). It is rare that an instructional procedure is central to such a wide range of social science theories.
Second, the amount, generalizability, breath, and applicability of the research on cooperative, competitive, and individualistic efforts provides considerable validation of the use of cooperative learning, perhaps more than most other instructional methods (Cohen, 1994a; Johnson, 1970; Johnson & Johnson, 1974, 1978, 1989, 1999a; Kohn, 1992; Sharan, 1980; Slavin, 1977, 1991). There are over 900 research studies validating the effectiveness of cooperative over competitive and individualistic efforts. This body of research has considerable generalizability since the research has been conducted by many different researchers with markedly different orientations working in different settings and countries and in eleven different decades, since research participants have varied widely as to cultural background, economic class, age, and gender, and since a wide variety of research tasks and measures of the dependent variables have been used.
The research on cooperative efforts, furthermore, has unusual breath, that is, it has focused on a wide variety of diverse outcomes. Over the past 100 years researchers have focused on such diverse outcomes as achievement, higher-level reasoning, retention, time on task, transfer of learning, achievement motivation, intrinsic motivation, continuing motivation, social and cognitive development, moral reasoning, perspective-taking, interpersonal attraction, social support, friendships, reduction of stereotypes and prejudice, valuing differences, psychological health, self-esteem, social competencies, internalization of values, the quality of the learning environment, and many other outcomes. There may be no other instructional strategy that simultaneously achieves such diverse outcomes.
The diverse and positive outcomes that simultaneously result from cooperative efforts have sparked numerous research studies on cooperative learning focused on preventing and treating a wide variety of social problems such as diversity (racism, sexism, inclusion of handicapped), antisocial behavior (delinquency, drug abuse, bullying, violence, incivility), lack of prosocial values and egocentrism, alienation and loneliness, psychological pathology, low self-esteem, and many more (see reviews by Cohen, 1994a; Johnson & Johnson, 1974, 1989, 1999a; Johnson, Johnson, & Maruyama, 1983; Kohn, 1992; Sharan, 1980; Slavin, 1991). For preventing and alleviating many of the social problems related to children, adolescents, and young adults, cooperative learning is the instructional method of choice.
The third factor contributing to the widespread use of cooperative learning is the variety of cooperative learning methods available for teacher use, ranging from very concrete and prescribed to very conceptual and flexible. Cooperative learning is actually a generic term that refers to numerous methods for organizing and conducting classroom instruction. Almost any teacher can find a way to use cooperative learning that is congruent with his or her philosophies and practices. So many teachers use cooperative learning in so many different ways that the operationalizations cannot all be listed here. In assessing the effectiveness of specific cooperative learning methods, however, there are a number of "researcher-developers" who have developed cooperative learning procedures, conducted programs of research and evaluation of their method, and then involved themselves in teacher-training programs that are commonly credited as the creators of modern-day cooperative learning.
This combination of theory, research, and practice makes cooperative learning a powerful learning procedure. Knowing that cooperative learning can have powerful effects when properly implemented does not mean, however, that all operationalizations of cooperative learning will be effective or equally effective in maximizing achievement. While many different cooperative learning methods are being advocated and used, educators have very little guidance as to which specific cooperative learning methods will be most effective in their situation. The purpose of this review, therefore, is to examine the empirical support validating the effectiveness of the different methods of cooperative learning in maximizing achievement. More specifically, four issues will be investigated.
Cooperative learning is compared with competitive or individualistic learning. Competition was operationally defined as the presence of negative goal or reward interdependence. Participants worked alone or with a minimum of interaction and rewards were given on a norm-referenced basis or by ranking participants from best to worst. All studies in this analysis focused on competition among group members, not competition between groups. Individualistic efforts were operationally defined as the lack of social interdependence between participants. Participants worked alone or with a minimum of interaction and rewards were given according to set criteria so there was little opportunity for social comparison. When the control condition was labeled as traditional instruction, the condition was coded as either competitive or individualistic depending on the description of the condition.
Cooperative learning has been around a long time (Johnson, 1970; Johnson & Johnson, 1989, 1999). It will probably never go away due to its rich history of theory, research, and actual use in the classroom. Markedly different theoretical perspectives (social interdependence, cognitive-developmental, and behavioral learning) provide a clear rationale as to why cooperative efforts are essential for maximizing learning and ensuring healthy cognitive and social development as well as many other important instructional outcomes. Hundreds of research studies demonstrate that cooperative efforts result in higher individual achievement than do competitive or individualistic efforts. Educators use cooperative learning throughout North America, Europe, and many other parts of the world. This combination of theory, research, and practice makes cooperative learning one of the most distinguished of all instructional practices.
Knowing that cooperative learning can significantly increase student achievement (compared with competitive and individualistic learning) when properly implemented does not mean, however, that all operationalizations of cooperative learning will be effective or that all operationalizations will be equally effective. Without reviewing the research on the different cooperative learning methods, it is difficult to recommend specific cooperative learning procedures to educators.
It seems reasonable to hypothesize that the effectiveness of a cooperative learning method will tend to increase the more that cooperation is the foundation on which classroom and school life is based. If cooperative learning is used within a primarily competitive or individualistic school, for example, its effectiveness may be dampened by the overall culture of the school. Two of the cooperative learning methods have been extended to the overall organizational structure of the school. The Learning Together method has been adapted to include faculty interactions as well as student interactions and is known as the Cooperative School (Johnson & Johnson, 1994). School leaders are trained to implement a cooperative structure in colleagial teaching teams, faculty study groups, task forces, site-based decision making, and cooperative faculty meetings. The procedures have been used in elementary, middle, secondary schools and institutions of higher education. The Johns Hopkins cooperative learning methods have been extended into a schoolwide program for elementary schools known as Success For All (Slavin, et al., 1996). The extension of cooperation to the overall school structure is a promising area for future research.
There is no reason to expect the different methods of cooperative learning to be contradictory. All the methods may be used in the same classroom and school. A teacher, for example, may use TAI in math, Learning Together in science and language arts, and Group Investigation in social studies and expect that the different methods will enhance and enrich each other's effectiveness. There is currently, however, no research on the ways in which the different methods of cooperative learning may enhance or interfere with each other's effectiveness.
The current research findings present a promise that if cooperative learning is implemented effectively, the likelihood of positive results is quite high. Results, however, are not guaranteed. The results of this meta-analysis provide evidence that considerable research has been conducted on cooperative learning methods, that eight diverse methods have been researched, all methods have produced higher achievement than competitive and individualistic learning, and the more conceptual approaches to cooperative learning may produce higher achievement than the direct methods. These conclusions are all the stronger due to the diversity of the research on which they are based, ranging from controlled field experimental studies to evaluational case studies.
Despite the amount and diversity of the research, several conclusions about the effectiveness of the cooperative learning methods may be made. First, while future research is needed, conducting research to compare directly the effectiveness of different cooperative learning methods is not very helpful. Studies in which two or more methods of cooperative learning are directly compared are difficult to interpret, especially if they are conducted by a researcher-developer who has a vested interest in one of the methods. It is virtually impossible to implement different methods at exactly the same strength. If one method is strongly implemented and another method is weakly implemented the resulting differences would be due to the strength of the implementation, not the differences between the methods.
Second, the differences in effect sizes for the different cooperative learning methods should be interpreted cautiously. The measures of academic achievement in various studies may not be equivalent. Lower effect sizes, for example, would be expected on standardized tests than on nonstandardized tests. Methods of cooperative learning aimed at lower-level tasks may produce high effect sizes on simple recognition level tests than methods of cooperative learning aimed at higher-level reasoning and critical thinking. Thus, a lower effect size may be due to the type of measure of academic achievement or the match between the method and the dependent measure, not the overall effectiveness of the method.
Third, more research is needed on the various methods. The more studies conducted on a method, the more accurate the effect size may be. Conclusions about methods that have only a few validating studies could be misleading.
Fourth, most of the validating studies on methods of cooperative learning have been conducted by the researcher-developer who originated the method. This introduces potential bias into the results. Ancient Romans advised individuals to ask, "cui bono" (who benefits) and the researcher-developer often has interests at stake that may bias his or her results toward confirming the effectiveness of his or her program. More studies conducted by independent investigators are needed.
Finally, many of the studies conducted on the impact of cooperative learning methods on achievement have methodological shortcomings and, therefore, any differences found could be the result of methodological flaws rather than the cooperative learning method. In the future, researchers should concentrate on conducting highly controlled studies that add to the confidence with which their conclusions will be received.
