2002 by 2000: Recent Research on Cooperative Learning
Shlomo Sharan

In the last decade of the 20^th century literally hundreds of articles on cooperative learning were published. A computer search of ERIC yielded 2002 items. It was not possible to read more than short abstracts of the majority of these items. Consequently I cannot testify as to the quality of the cooperative learning described or studied in most of these publications. In light of the magnitude of the number of publications I chose to focus on studies of cooperative learning in elementary and secondary classrooms, and on the preparation of teachers for the practice of cooperative learning. I am painfully aware of the limited scope of the research selected for review here. Authors whose works are not reviewed will hopefully forgive the omission.

The ERIC search also revealed the expansion of C-L into many professional fields, such as medical education, engineering, business administration, public administration, art education, education of chemists and pharmacists, neuroscience, distance education at the college level, the training of librarians, and many more. These fields, as well as studies at the college or university level, are not included in this review. (For a book review on the latter topic see vol. 17, no. 3, July 1998, of this Newsletter. Editor's note).

The proportion of research studies among the more than a thousand publications is, of course, quite small. Many "studies" are of the anecdotal type, often about the conduct of a special study project on an unusual topic. Such studies are too numerous and too specific to be reviewed here. Anyone seeking information about the implementation of cooperative learning in specific settings, or with specific subject matter, has a vast pool of publications to choose from, all listed in ERIC. The problem is what to select from so many riches.

Reviewing Research on Cooperative Learning: Some Major Problems
Most of the publications offer at least partial support for cooperative learning. A few are critical of cooperative learning, or report findings that fail to substantiate claims regarding its superior effectiveness compared to other methods of teaching and learning. For example David and Roger Johnson(1989) assert that heterogeneous grouping, including high, medium and low achieving students, does not impede the academic progress of gifted children. A different view is expressed by Marian Matthews (1992), who claims that learning in heterogeneous groups promotes arrogance, lack of trust in classmates, a tendency to dominate the group, and ignorance about working with other students. (See also Feldhusen & Moon, 1992.)

These mixed reports highlight the problems encountered when reviewing research on cooperative learning. First, the use of that term must be accompanied by specification of what methods or procedures were employed and how they were implemented. "Cooperative learning" has become an umbrella term that frequently disguises as much as it reveals because it means so many different things to different people. Do the authors who express their reservations about the effects of "learning together" on gifted children or on mathematical problem solving take into consideration other methods of cooperative learning? Do they consider the use of open-ended tasks that allow students to use a wide range of skills and concepts? On what basis could investigators apply their comments to Complex Instruction (Cohen, 1994a) or to Group Investigation (Sharan & Sharan, 1992)? Finally, were the teachers novices or experts in implementing cooperative learning?