Below are the abstracts for the articles and the email addresses of the authors. An asterisk indicates that the abstract did not appear with the article.

* This study involved 595 fifth-grade students from two primary schools in Singapore, 293 in the experimental group and 302 in the control group. The experimental treatment consisted of the use of cooperative learning as one aspect of participants’ social studies instruction, while participants in the control group received instruction consisting largely of the traditional whole-class mode. Dependent variables were achievement in social studies, classroom climate, and attitude toward social studies. The results of the study indicate an overall positive effect for cooperative learning.

Teachers remark that during cooperative learning the academic nature of group discussions and resulting group products can be disappointing. Often, this may be due to a lack of understanding on the students’ part as to the elements that make up an exemplary product. This study examined whether clearly articulated evaluation criteria (EC’s) would alter the nature of the group’s discussion and, subsequently, improve student learning. Groups using evaluation criteria spent more time evaluating their products, discussing the content of their unit, and discussing their task than students not using evaluation criteria. Evaluative and task-focused talk, at the group level, were modestly, yet significantly correlated with individual scores on an essay test following the unit. These findings suggest that the presence of clear and accessible criteria for evaluation can improve the academic nature of group discussions and individual learning gains. The findings provide a practical way to apply current assessment practices to classrooms using cooperative learning strategies.

Gillies, R. M. (r.gillies@mailbox.uq.edu.au) (2002). The long-term effects of cooperative learning on children’s behaviour and interactions. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 22, 28-37.

This study investigated the long-term effects of training in small-group and interpersonal behaviours on children’s behaviours and interactions as they worked in small groups two years after they were initially trained. Forty-eight, third grade children who had been trained two years previously in cooperative group behaviours, were assigned to the trained condition and 44, third grade children who had not previously been trained were assigned to the untrained condition. The children in the trained and untrained groups were reconstituted from the pool of students who had participated previously in either trained or untrained group activities. The results showed that there was a long-term training effect with the children in the trained groups demonstrating more cooperative behaviour and providing more explanations in response to requests for help than their untrained peers.

Eighty-seven high school students participated in the study in one of four conditions: 1) Visual Organizer/Cooperative Learning; 2) Cooperative Learning only; 3) Visual Organizer only; and 4) Teacher Directed. Students were taught how to use mole maps to assist them in solving single-quantity and multiple-quantity mole problems. A mole problem involves converting quantities of chemicals to moles, a unit of measurement used in chemistry. Students took tests immediately after instruction and then took midterm examinations that included mole problems. Repeated measures analyses with post-instruction test scores and the midterm scores for single and multiple-quantity mole problems showed that student performance was significantly better immediately after instruction for both kinds of problems. Students who used visual organizers and cooperative learning outperformed students who experienced teacher-directed instruction on single-quantity mole problems and also on the immediate post-instruction test of multiple-quantity mole problems. Cooperative learning resulted in less decay in performance over time.

Structural equation modeling was used in this study to examine interrelationships among change management functions, teacher orientations, and implementation of cooperative learning which were assessed in terms of four latent variables based on teacher self-reports of knowledge, perceived benefits, amount of professional development, and frequency of use. After preliminary modifications, the final structural model suggested four major influences on implementation. First, lower levels of pupil control ideology of the teacher lead to more self-reported knowledge of cooperative learning methods. Pupil control ideology is a measure of how school personnel view their students with regard to control. The higher the pupil control ideology, the more controlled the classroom. Second, higher levels of shared vision and lower levels of pupil control ideology lead to stronger teacher perceptions of the benefits of using cooperative learning. Third, higher levels of principal and resource support -- but lower levels of teacher participation in decision making -- lead to more professional development experiences.

Sharan, Y. (yaels@gezernet.co.il) (2002). Essential features of a teacher education program for cooperative learning. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 22, 68-74.

What are the main features of a successful program for preparing teachers to use cooperative learning methods in their classrooms? In seeking an answer to this question, many researchers and educators focus on cooperation as the primary concept.

1. Cooperation among faculty members in university or college teacher education programs to ensure consistency, continuity and a common set of goals for pre-service teacher education. Some programs have begun to emphasize the acquisition of competence in the use of cooperative learning methods.
2. Cooperation between universities and schools to enable novice and experienced teachers to practice cooperative learning in the classroom.
3. Cooperation among teachers in given schools to provide mutual support and assistance to maintain the long-term use of cooperative learning. Various programs and projects reported in the relevant literature that have implemented these ideas are surveyed and discussed in this paper.

Gan, T. H. (esgan@tm.net.my), & Raja, M. (mgraja@pc.jaring.my) (2002). Exploring the potential of collaboration on cooperative learning between educators from different institutions in Sarawak, Malaysia. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 22, 75-81.

This article reports on a year-long project involving the voluntary participation of 26 mathematics and English teachers from 14 primary schools in Sarawak, Malaysia. The project had the objective of introducing participants to three important concepts in education: cooperative learning among students, cooperation among teachers, and action research by teachers. Components of the ten sessions during which participants met with the project managers were input on cooperative learning and action research, sharing by participants of what they had tried in the classroom, small-group reflection, and planning for future lessons. Data are reported on participants’ responses to the project and on their use of cooperative learning.

Sahlberg, P. (pasi.sahlberg@kolumbus.fi). & Berry, J. (J.Berry@plymouth.ac.uk) (2002). One and one is sometimes three in small group mathematics learning. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 22, 82-94.

In recent years, mathematics teaching has been confronted by demands for higher standards and better pupil achievement in several parts of the world. Researchers have suggested the shift from teacher-centred instruction towards more active participatory learning methods as one way to improve the quality of the teaching and learning process. The tension between whole-class teaching versus small group learning in mathematics has been particularly apparent in many education systems. This article analyses the development of mathematics teaching by asking whether small group learning is an effective arrangement in teaching school mathematics. We conclude that although there is not unanimity about the affects of small group learning on student achievement in school mathematics, it seems that it produces at least equal academic outcomes among all students compared to more traditional methods of instruction, that working in pairs is a particularly effective form of learning mathematics, and that small groups are beneficial for developing mathematical problem solving skills. We also conclude that the present educational policies and increased quality assurance structures in many countries conflict, or are not consistent with scientific-professional thinking and research on the teaching of mathematics.

* This article provides an overview of the Learning Together and Alone method of cooperative learning, including historical notes, basic elements (positive interdependence, individual accountability, face-to-face promotive interaction, social skills, and group processing), and types of cooperative learning (formal, informal, and base groups). Next is a meta-analysis of results of 117 studies on the Learning Together and Alone method conducted over 30 years. Variables considered are achievement, interpersonal attraction, social support, self-esteem, and perspective-taking.

The various cooperative learning methods overlap but are not equivalent in terms of their theory, procedures and goals. In light of their unique characteristics, they will not necessarily lead to the same goals typically achieved by other methods. Means-ends relationships are neglected too often in educational practice and research, with the result that methods of teaching are applied for purposes which they cannot possibly achieve, or they accomplish only a fraction of what was anticipated. An extensive study of some children’s attitudes toward cooperative learning is analyzed here as an example of the inappropriate application of certain cooperative learning methods to the teaching of special groups of students for whom these methods were never intended. Finally, a tentative taxonomy of the chief characteristics, theoretical bases and modes of operation of six cooperative learning methods is presented. Some inferences are drawn from the taxonomy to provide a basis for differentiating the various methods in terms of their means-ends relationships.