*   Indicates that the abstract was specially written for this compilation
** Indicates that the abstract is from ERIC – askeric.org

 Sluijsmans, D. M. A., Brand-Gruwel, S., van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Bastiaens, T. J. (2003). The training of peer assessment skills to promote the development of reflection skills in teacher education. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 29, 23-42.

The main purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of a training in assessment skills. 110 student teachers were trained in peer assessment skills within three courses on mathematics. After each course, students wrote a reflection paper, which was assessed by a peer. Students were allowed to improve their first reflection paper after the second and third course, based on peer feedback. The teacher assessed the final paper two weeks after the third course. Based on analysis of the written assessments and grades of the reflection papers, it appeared that the training led to a progress in students’ skill to assess and an increase of the quality of the reflection papers. The results of a questionnaire show that students’ views on assessment changed positively.

 Shumway, S., Saunders, W., Stewardson, G. & Reeve, E. (2001). A comparison of classroom interpersonal goal structures and their effect on group problem-solving performance and student attitudes toward their learning environment. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 38(3), 6-24.

 ** High school technology education students were assigned to groups with either a cooperative-competitive (n=65) or cooperative-cooperative (n=64) goal structure. All cooperative-cooperative groups had to achieve a certain level for groups to get a top score. Students in the cooperative-cooperative environment had more positive attitudes and performed as well as, but did not outperform, the cooperative-competitive groups.

 Emmer, E. T., & Gerwels, M. C. (2002). Cooperative learning in elementary classrooms: Teaching practices and lesson characteristics. Elementary School Journal, 103(1), 75-91.

** Investigated characteristics of cooperative learning (CL) lessons among experienced elementary school teachers. Found considerable variation in the extent to which lessons incorporated major features of CL. Lesson success based on student engagement, performance, and cooperation was associated with higher levels of individual or group accountability, teacher monitoring, feedback, and the use of manipulative materials in group work.

 Piercy, M., Wilton, K, & Townsend, M. (2002). Promoting the social acceptance of young children with moderate-severe intellectual disabilities using cooperative-learning techniques. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 107, 352-60.

 ** The effects of a cooperative learning program on the social acceptance of 51 children (ages 6-7) with moderate to severe mental retardation by children without disabilities were examined. Children without disabilities in the cooperative learning program gave the children with disabilities higher peer acceptance ratings, greater popularity indices, and lower social distance ratings.

 Kramarski, B., Mevarech, Z. R., & Lieberman, A. (2001). Effects of multilevel versus unilevel metacognitive training on mathematical reasoning. Journal of Educational Research, 94, 292-300.

 ** Investigated the effects, on 7th graders' mathematical reasoning, of: cooperative learning embedded within multilevel metacognitive training (MMT), cooperative learning embedded within unilevel metacognitive training (UMT), and whole-class learning with no metacognitive training. Students exposed to MMT significantly outperformed students exposed to UMT, who significantly outperformed controls. Effects of MMT were observed as students solved mathematical problems.

 Tsai, M-J. (2002). Do male students often perform better than female students when learning computers? A study of Taiwanese eighth graders' computer  education through strategic and cooperative learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 26, 67-85.

 ** This study of Taiwanese eight graders investigated the impacts of strategic learning, cooperative learning, and their combination on junior high school students' computer achievement, attitudes, and anxiety. Highlights include the interaction between gender and learning context; higher computer anxiety among boys; and the role of the culture of socialization involving computers.

 McMaster, K. N., & Fuchs, D. (2002). Effects of cooperative learning on the academic achievement of students with learning disabilities: An update of Tateyama-Sniezek's review. Learning Disabilities: Research & Practice, 17(2), 107-117.

 ** This article reviews 15 research studies published from 1990 to 2000 examining effects of cooperative learning strategies on the academic achievement of students with learning disabilities. Despite design problems, the review finds that cooperative learning strategies that incorporate individual accountability and group rewards are likely to improve achievement.

 Mueller, A., & Fleming, T. (2001). Cooperative learning: Listening to how children work at school. Journal of Educational Research, 94(5) 259-265.

 ** Examined the effectiveness of 6th and 7th graders' cooperative learning groups, recording student work sessions and conducting student interviews and self-evaluations. When working cooperatively, students required some unstructured time to organize themselves and learn to work together toward a mutual goal. Students liked this type of learning more than textbooks and worksheets. All groups successfully completed their projects.

 Alley, L. R., & Jansak, K. E. (2001). The ten keys to quality assurance and assessment in online learning. Journal of Interactive Instruction Development, 13(3), 3-18.

 ** Describes how the core principles of learning science lead to associated best practices in instructional design and how to translate those into practical applications in Web-based online courses. Topics include knowledge construction; student motivation; higher order learning; learning styles; experiential learning; cooperative and collaborative learning; prior learning; and spiral learning.

 Sonnier-York, C., & Stanford, P. (2002). Learning to cooperate: A teacher's perspective. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 34(6), 40-44.

 ** Discussion of applying strategies of cooperative learning offers five principles and reflections of one teacher. The principles are: (1) teach what you preach; (2) accountability counts; (3) mediation versus aggravation; (4) publish or perish; and (5) create or satiate. Suggestions for evaluation include encouraging student feedback and moving toward integrating cooperative learning across the curriculum.

 Siciliano, J. I. (2001). How to incorporate cooperative learning principles in the classroom: It's more than just putting students in teams. Journal of Management Education, 25(1), 8-20.

 ** Presents a technique for structuring cooperative learning that enables teams to work together meaningfully on in-class exercises. Includes incentives for students to assist one another, team role survey, skills and duties of team members, and a description of the exercises and the cooperative learning principles they are designed to develop.

 van Oers, B., & Hannikainen, M. Some thoughts about togetherness: An introduction. International Journal of Early Years Education, 9(2), 101-108.

 ** Discusses the need to study the social interactive dimension of learning, attempting to formulate a definition of togetherness on a theoretical basis. Explores processes in early childhood that relate to understanding how children learn to maintain togetherness in their group activities, and how a strategy for togetherness may prepare children for later collaborative learning. [Part of a special issue on Togetherness and Play]

 Jensen, M., Moore, R., & Hatch, J. (2002). Cooperative learning--Part I: Cooperative quizzes. American Biology Teacher, 64(1), 29-34.

 ** Lists and discusses the functions that cooperative quizzes can serve if structured correctly. The quizzes can facilitate a greater understanding of the subject, promote better test-taking skills, and be used as a mechanism to foster cooperative groups.

 Yu, F-Y. (2001). Competition within computer-assisted cooperative learning environments: Cognitive, affective, and social outcomes. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 24(2), 99-117.

 ** Examines the effects and implications of embedding the element of competition in computer-assisted cooperative learning situations on student cognitive, affective, and social outcomes. Results of statistical analyses of Taiwanese fifth graders show that cooperation without inter-group competition engendered better attitudes and promoted more positive inter-personal relationships.

 Cox, A. J., & Junkin, W. F., III. (2002). Enhanced student learning in the introductory physics laboratory. Physics Education, 37(1), 37-44.

 ** Describes taking laboratory experiments, modifying them to include aspects of peer instruction and collaborative learning, and using pre- and post-tests to measure student learning gains in two of these labs. Data indicates that this modification substantially increases student learning-it increases the average student learning gain from pre- to post-test by 50-100%.

 Quarstein, V. A.; & Peterson, P. A. (2001). Assessment of cooperative learning: A goal-criterion approach. Innovative Higher Education, 26(1), 59-77.

 ** Developed and evaluated a model to assess group learning; the model required balanced representation among multiple learning criteria arranged in six goal-criterion sets drawn from the literature on group learning. Administered a test instrument to students and found imbalances among criteria in the six sets which helped identify and correct weaknesses in course design and methods of instruction.

 Speece, M. (2002). Experiential learning methods in Asian cultures: A Singapore Case study. Business Communication Quarterly, 65(3), 106-121.

 ** Describes the implementation of an experiential learning approach in Singapore. Notes that individual-based discussion in Singapore rarely works well. Focuses on small groups as the basis for case discussion and small projects. Concludes that the objectives of experiential learning were accomplished through the small group format to make the methodology fit better with the cultural and educational system.

 Strom, P. S. & Strom, R. D. (2002). Overcoming limitations of cooperative learning among community college students. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 26, 315-331.

 ** Analyzes two limitations associated with cooperative learning: how to evaluate the teamwork skills that students demonstrate during group work, and how to provide tasks that enable students to practice these teamwork skills. Discusses a new model of learning and instruction called Collaboration-Integration Theory (CIT), which ensures that students move from a passive to an active role.

Cracolice, M. S., & Deming, J. C. (2001). Peer-led team learning. Science Teacher, 68(1), 20-24.

 ** Introduces the Peer-Led Team Learning (PLTL) model as an alternative to traditional cooperative learning. Discusses the difficulties of PLTL based curriculum which include finding the peer leaders, selecting the right materials for implementation, and training techniques for peer leaders.

 Krank, H. M., & Moon, C. E. (2001). Can a combined mastery/cooperative learning environment positively impact undergraduate academic and affective outcomes? Journal of College Reading and Learning, 31(2), 195-208.

 ** Applies instructional strategies derived from the concept of mastery learning and cooperative learning to 104 undergraduate social science students enrolled in three sections of a required course. Finds significant effects for the combined mastery/cooperative learning condition, showing greater change in self-concept and higher achievement compared to either mastery learning alone or cooperative learning alone.

 Gilbert, N. J. & Driscoll, M. P. (2002). Collaborative knowledge building: A case study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(1), 59-79.

 ** Investigates collaborative knowledge building in a graduate level course designed to incorporate specific constructivist learning principles. Results indicated the instructional strategies promoted collaborative knowledge building and the acquisition of key concepts through self-directed learning strategies. Results also indicated types of technological support required to implement a community of learners.

 Nath, L. R., & Ross, S. M. (2001). The influence of a peer-tutoring training model for implementing cooperative groupings with elementary students. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(2), 41-56.

 ** Examines the effects of peer-tutoring training on elementary school student communication and collaboration skills when used in conjunction with cooperative learning. Within six classes in an inner-city school, cooperative learning pairs were randomly assigned to two groups (control and training). Findings showed that, in general, the training group surpassed the control group in both communication and collaboration skills.

 Wallace, J., & Chou, C-Y. (2001). Similarity and difference: Student cooperation in Taiwanese and Australian science classrooms. Science Education, 85, 694-711.

 ** Examines the way in which students cooperate in Taiwanese and Australian science classrooms. Concludes that students from Taiwan and Australia have a range of understandings and interpretations about what it means to cooperate in science classrooms. There are complex connections between cooperative behavior, student academic ability, sex, and nationality which are best understood in socio-cultural terms.

 Gut, D. M., & Safran, S. P. (2002). Cooperative learning and social stories: Effective social skills strategies for reading teachers. Reading and Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 18(1), 87-91.

 ** Suggests that few teachers understand the debilitating effect that social skill deficits have on a child's daily life. Notes that instructional strategies such as cooperative learning groups and social stories can help children improve their social behavior. Encourages all educators not only to emphasize academics, but also to seize any opportunity to help develop social skills.

 Dyson, B., & Grineski, S. (2001). Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 72(2), 28-31.

 ** Research has determined that cooperative learning has positive effects in physical education. This article presents five important components of cooperative learning to help physical educators maximize learning (team formation, positive interdependence, individual accountability, positive social interaction, and group processing), describing five cooperative learning structures: think-share-perform; pairs-check-perform; jigsaw perform; co-op play; and learning teams.

Fetsch, R. J. [Email: fetsch@CAHS.Colostate.edu], & Yang, R. K. (2002, June). The effect of competitive and cooperative learning preferences on children's self-perceptions: A comparison of 4-H and non-4-H members. Journal of Extension, 40(3). Available at http://www.joe.org/joe/2002june/a5.html.

 ** A study of third- through fifth-graders (n=1,253, 53% 4-H members) indicated a preference for both cooperation and competition; members and nonmembers had similar scores on unconditional parental support and cooperative learning orientation; nonmembers scored higher on competitive learning. Children who preferred cooperative learning scored higher on behavioral conduct, physical appearance, scholastic competence, athletic competence, and social acceptance.

 Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., & Bar-Natan, I. (2002). Writing development of Arab and Jewish students using cooperative learning (CL) and computer-mediated communication (CMC). Computers & Education, 39(1), 19-36.

 ** Investigated Israeli Jewish and Arab fifth- and sixth-grade student perceptions of and attitudes to writing in three learning environments: cooperative learning, computer-mediated communication (CMC), and a combination of the two. Concludes that the power of peer interaction in cooperative learning with CMC was greater than each learning environment by itself.

 Kramarski, B., Mevarech, Z. R., & Arami, M. (2002). The effects of metacognitive instruction on solving mathematical authentic tasks. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 49(2), 225-250.

 ** Investigates the differential effects of cooperative learning with or without metacognitive instruction on lower and higher achievers' solutions of mathematical authentic tasks. Results indicate that students exposed to metacognitive instruction within cooperative learning (COOP+META) significantly outperformed their counterparts exposed to cooperative learning with no metacognitive instruction (COOP). The positive effects of COOP+META were observed on both authentic and standard tasks.

 Phipps, M., Phipps, C., Kask, S., & Higgins, S. (2001). University students' perceptions of cooperative learning: Implications for administrators and instructors. Journal of Experiential Education, 24(1), 14-21.

 ** A study examining student perceptions of cooperative learning surveyed 210 college students. Results were contradictory, with positive evaluations of some specific techniques and less than positive evaluations of cooperative learning in general. Less than half perceived it to affect motivation positively. Colleges should promote a shift in student expectations of college learning by encouraging active learning techniques.

 Trempy, J. E., Skinner, M. M., & Siebold, W. A. (2002). Learning microbiology through cooperation: Designing cooperative learning activities that promote interdependence, interaction, and accountability. Microbiology Education, 3(1), 26-36.

 ** Describes the course "The World According to Microbes" which puts science, mathematics, engineering, and technology majors into teams of students charged with problem solving activities that are microbial in origin. Describes the development of learning activities that utilize key components of cooperative learning including positive interdependence, promotive interaction, individual accountability, teamwork skills, and group processing.

 Vaughan, W. (2002). Effects of cooperative learning on achievement and attitude among students of color. Journal of Educational Research, 95, 359-364.

 ** Investigated the effects of cooperative learning on achievement in and attitudes toward mathematics among fifth graders of color in a culture different from that of the United States (Bermuda). Participants completed parts of the California Achievement Test and Penelope Peterson's Attitude Toward Mathematics Scale. Pre-test and post-test data indicated that participants made positive gains in mathematics attitudes and achievement.

 Jensen, M., Moore, R., & Hatch, J. (2002). Cooperative learning-Part II. Cooperative group activities for the first week of class: Setting the tone with group web pages. American Biology Teacher, 64(2). 118-120.

** Presents three science activities for the first week of class that use the cooperative learning approach and computers. Requires students to create a web page to introduce group members.

 Kagan, S., & High, J. (2002, Jul-Aug). Kagan structures for English language learners. ESL Magazine, 5(4), 10-12.

 ** Highlights Kagan Structures, easy-to-learn, easy-to-use cooperative learning instructional strategies that promote second language learning. In classrooms where these strategies are used, students for whom English is a second language learn both English and academic content far more quickly and thoroughly than when traditional strategies are used. Discusses the advantages of using Kagan Structures for teaching English language learners, and adapting Kagan Structures for levels of language development.

 Bassano, S. (2003). Helping ESL students remember to speak English during group work. TESOL Journal, 12 (1), 35-36.

* This article presents ideas for encouraging students to, when appropriate, use their second language (target language or L2) rather than their native language (mother tongue) when working in groups. To prepare students their L2 in groups, teachers need to:

1. consider if students have sufficient language skills to do the task at hand
2. model and explain the task
3. help student know the roles they are to play in their groups
4. inform students of the criteria for successful work
5. help students know how to work together
6. provide topics that are relevant, personalized, and meaningful.

With that preparation in place, strategies suggested by the author for promoting L2 use in the groups include:

1. appoint a group member to monitor L2 use
2. give students tickets – when students use the L1, take back tickets – give rewards for groups with the most remaining tickets
3. distribute play money to students who use the L2
4. write contracts for L2 use and encourage students to sign the contracts
5. allow students to use the L1 in a designated corner of the classroom
6. seek student suggestions on how best to remind them to use their L2.

Sotillo, S. M. (2002). Constructivist and collaborative learning in a wireless environment. TESOL Journal, 11(3), 16-20.

* This article describes and discusses a wireless learning environment designed by the author for use by five English as a Second Language graduate students at a U.S. university. Limitations included the time needed to learn to use the hardware and software and the limits to the number of students who could use the environment at the same time due to scheduling conflicts and software capabilities. Advantages included more authentic communication, the ability to interact face-to-face and online, increased critical thinking, and greater productivity due to ubiquitous access to the Internet provided by the wireless technology.

Ma, R. (2003). A review of research on cooperative learning. Teaching English in China, 26, 24-26, 12.

Cooperative learning methodology has been seldom employed by English teachers in China. This paper reviews the research on cooperative learning in various areas, including three cooperative learning techniques, task-based interaction in cooperative learning and characteristics of cooperative learning. This paper argues that the essence of cooperative learning is that it can achieve task-based interactions favourable for Second Language Acquisition. In addition, cooperative learning has a positive effect of student achievement. Accordingly, it is hoped that cooperative learning methodology will be widely applied in China.

Liang, X. [xliang@csulb.edu], & Mohan, B. (2003). Dilemmas of cooperative learning and academic proficiency in two languages. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2, 35–51.

This study examines cooperative learning in relation to goals for L2 development, L1 maintenance, and content learning. It investigates how Chinese immigrant students perceive these goals, and how they use L1 and L2 to acquire content knowledge during cooperative learning activities. An analysis of interviews with the students indicates that they had contradictory feelings about cooperative learning goals, in particular the goals of L1 maintenance and L2 development. A functional analysis of the students’ interaction during cooperative learning sessions reveals differences between the L1 and L2 discourse they produced. Taken together, these findings indicate that the ideal goals that are claimed for cooperative learning may involve dilemmas between L1 maintenance and L2 development, between the use of L1 and L2 in academic discourse, and between the use of the L1 and L2 for the learning of content. Bilingual academic language proficiency is also shown to be a complex matter, involving the translation of meaning systems, not just labels.

Bunch, G., Lotan, R. A., & Valdes, G. (2001). Beyond sheltered instruction. TESOL Journal, 10(2/3), 28-33.

This article describes the efforts of one university-sponsored project in process in which researchers, teacher educators, classroom teachers, and other school personnel worked together to reform mainstream middle school social studies classrooms to meet the needs of transitional English language learners.  The authors place the project in the context of ongoing discussions among educators as to conditions under which linguistically diverse students can develop the language necessary for academic success.  Four conditions are proposed: (1) appropriate preparation and support for teachers, (2) learning tasks which promote using language to negotiate a rigorous, grade-appropriate curriculum, (3) equal status participation in small groups, with opportunities for English learners to have access to mainstream peers who can serve as linguistic and academic resources, and (4) an explicit focus on academic language development.  The authors discuss the ways in which the project is seeking to meet these conditions, including examples from the curriculum, which centered on four Complex Instruction units.

Henderson, T. L., & Martin, K. J. (2002). Cooperative learning as one approach to teaching family law. Family Relations, 51, 351-360.

We identified appropriate family law content and a pedagogical vehicle to support instructors interested in teaching family law to students of family studies and human development programs. Additionally, we provide instructors with an overview of a family law course, a detailed model syllabus, strategies, and model assignments for using cooperative learning as the core pedagogy. We review the pedagogical value of cooperative learning in general and give specific cooperative assignments for our readers. The course model is designed to improve students' critical thinking, team building, and problem-solving skills toward understanding the intersection of families and the law.

Donohue, K. M. [Email: kathdonohue@aol.com], Perry, K. E., & Weinstein, R. S. (2003). Teachers' classroom practices and children's rejection by their peers. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 24(1), 91-118.

Using a classroom-level, prospective design, we examined the role of classroom context in children's peer relationships, specifically, whether learner-centered practices used by teachers predicted less peer rejection by children, as well as more positive attitudes and behaviors hypothesized to lead to rejection. Learner-centered practices involve individualization of instruction, encouragement of child autonomy, and focus on positive relationships in the classroom. Observers, teachers, and children reported on learner-centered qualities of the instructional environment in 14 first-grade classrooms. After controlling for between-classroom differences in children's interpersonal behavior problems at school entry, greater use of learner-centered practices was predictive of (1) children's report of less anger and more empathy toward a hypothetical disruptive peer, (2) fewer children with interpersonal behavior problems in the spring, and (3) lower classroom rates of peer rejection in the spring. Further, children's behavior problems in the spring partially mediated the relationship between observed teacher practices in the fall and rejection by peers in the spring.

Jacobs, G. M. (2003). Cooperative learning to promote human rights. Human Rights Education in Asian Schools, 6, 119-129. Available online at http://www.hurights.or.jp/hreas/index.html.

* To successfully teach human rights, the medium must match the message, i.e., the way we teach should be consistent with the ideas of human rights that we are teaching as content. Many human rights friendly teaching methods exist. This article describes one of them: cooperative learning. First, an overview of cooperative learning will be presented including history, research support, and theoretical foundations. Then, in the main part of the article, principles of cooperative learning will be explained, with examples of how these principles can be enacted in the classroom, and with connections between the principles and key concepts in human rights.