Cooperative Learning Groups in Online Courses Linda...

Cooperative Learning Groups in Online Courses

Linda S. Futch

Use of group learning may be traced back to Greek and Roman times in the

writings of Aristotle, Plato, Marcus Aurelius, and Thomas Aquinas (Hooper, 1992; Joyce

& Weil, 2000). In the development of American schools, Horace Mann and Henry

Barnard called for cooperative schools.

Cooperative learning also fits in well with constructivist and social learning

theories. Constructivists theorize that learners create their own knowledge based upon

their prior experiences (Gredler, 1997; Schrunk, 1996). In cooperative learning models,

students share learning and the group energy (synergy) produces a knowledge and

experience greater than the sum of each individual. Students encounter new ideas,

perspectives, and experiences with their peers. The group process is reflective of

Vygotsky’s (1930/1978, as cited in Gredler, 1997) zone of proximal development that is

defined as the difference between the developmental level of an individual versus the

level achieved with the guidance of an adult or in cooperation with peers.

Social theorists believe the “central role of education is to prepare citizens to

generate integrative democratic behavior, both to enhance personal and social life and to

ensure a productive democratic social order. They believe that cooperative enterprise

inherently enhances our quality of life, bringing joy and a sense of verve and bonhomie to

us and reducing alienation and unproductive social conflict” (Joyce & Weil, 2000, pp.

29). Dewey (1916) proposed that schools should be set up in the form of a democracy

and students should have the opportunity to practice the skills needed to live in a

democratic society. Thelen (1960) suggested that classroom activities should incorporate

the democratic process.

Cooperative Learning Groups in Online Courses 2

Cooperative learning may be defined as a compliment of methods and techniques

that require students to work together and support each other toward a common goal and

discouraging competition (Johnson & Johnson, 1985, as cited in Singhanayak & Hooper,

1998; Johnson & Johnson, 1993; Johnson & Johnson, 1999; Slavin, 1996, as cited in

Locatis, 2000; Johnson & Johnson, 1992, as cited in Locatis, 2000). Johnson and

Johnson (1993, 1999) listed five elements required for effective cooperative learning:

1. Positive interdependence – Positive interdependence is a feeling or perception

that everybody’s work is linked together and dependent upon each other.

Positive interdependence is established through mutual learning goals and

strengthened by joint rewards, divided resources, and complementary roles.

2. Individual accountability – The purpose of cooperative learning is to make

individuals stronger by making them accountable for doing their share of the

work. Common ways to structure individual accountability are (a) test each

student, (b) randomly select one student to respond for the group, or (c) have

one student summarize for another student.

3. Promotive interaction – Members promote success by helping, assisting,

supporting, encouraging, and praising each other. Helping each other learn

also promotes interpersonal dynamics and cognitive processes through

explaining problems, discussing concepts, teaching each other, and connecting

existing knowledge with new knowledge.

4. Social skills – Students need interpersonal and small group skills to succeed in

cooperative learning. It may be necessary to teach leadership, decision-

making, trust-building, communication and conflict-management skills.


5. Group processing – Students need to discuss actions that help or hinder the

group and how to continue or change.

Locatis identified four representative models for cooperative learning (Slavin,

1995, as cited in Locatis, 2000; King, 1993; Millis, 1990, as cited in Locatis, 2000):

Student team-achievement divisions (STAD). Students are assigned to

four-member teams that are mixed on the basis of gender, ethnicity, and

performance level. Lessons are presented in a traditional manner, but students

work together to ensure that all team members master the materials. Students are

tested individually and each individual student’s score is compared to his or her

past average. Team points are awarded based on the degree to which members

exceed their earlier performance.

Teams-games-tournaments (TGT). TGT approach is identical to STAD,

except students compete with those in other teams who are at the same

performance level. Low and high achievers from each team compete with their

counterparts, and the top scorers in these “tiered” tournaments win points for their

teams.

Jigsaw II. The Jigsaw approach is like STAD except that each student is

assigned expository material and each team member is randomly assigned to

become expert in some aspect of the assignment. If the topic is a country, for

example, one member might specialize in history, another in geography, another

in economics, and so on. Students interact with members of other teams who

have the same specialization and then return to impart the content that they have

gathered to their teammates.


Team accelerated instruction (TAI). Students study individually but are

assigned to teams whose members check and help each other. Students are tested

individually, but team rewards are given based on the number of individual

assignments and tests that members complete. The method is useful in highly

structured subjects where success depends on mastering pre-requisites.

Advantages and Disadvantages

Researchers have identified instructional and affective benefits of cooperative

learning groups.

Instructional Benefits

Academic Achievement. Studies of cooperative learning techniques have

repeatedly shown increased academic performance (Chang & Mao, 1999; Duren &

Cherrington, 1992; Hertz-Lazarowitz, Sharan, & Steinberg, 1980; Hudgins, 1960;

Madden & Slavin, 1983; McClintock & Sonquist, 1976; Okebukola & Ogunniyi, 1984;

Potthast, 1999; Sharan, Hertz-Lazarowitz, & Ackerman, 1979-80; Sherman & Thomas,

1986; Slavin & Karweit, 1984); these results carried across subject areas and grade

levels.

In a meta-analysis conducted by Johnson, Maruyama, Johnson, Nelson and Skon

(1981), 122 studies compared for the effectiveness of cooperation versus individualistic

or competitive learning situations. The definition of the three learning situations is taken

from Deutsch's work (1949, 1962 as cited in Johnson, Maruyama, et al., 1981, p. 47) on

social situations and goals structures.

Deutsch defined a cooperative social situation as one in which the goals of the

separate individuals are so linked together that there is a positive correlation


among their goal attainment. An individual can attain his or her goal if and only

if the other participants can attain their goals. Thus a person seeks an outcome

that is beneficial to all those with whom he or she is cooperatively linked. A

competitive social situation is one in which the goals of the separate participants

are so linked that there is a negative correlation among their goal attainments. An

individual can attain his or her goal if and only if the other participants cannot

attain their goals. Thus a person seeks an outcome that is personally beneficial

but is detrimental to the others with whom he or she is competitively linked.

Finally, in an individualistic situation, there is no correlation among the goal

attainments of the partic ipants. Whether an individual accomplishes his or her

goals has no influence on whether other individuals achieve their goals. Thus a

person seeks an outcome that is personally beneficial, ignoring as irrelevant the

goal achievement efforts of other participants in the situation.

The meta-analysis showed cooperative learning situations were superior to both

competitive and individualistic. "All three meta-analyses indicated that cooperation

promotes higher achievement and productivity than individualistic efforts. The results

hold for all subject areas and age groups” (Johnson, Maruyama, et al., p. 57). The

comparison with competition showed "cooperation is superior . . . in promoting

achievement and productivity" (Johnson, Maruyama, et al., p. 56).

In 1960, Hudgins found that fifth grade students working in groups made higher

scores on math tests than students who worked individually. Whicker, Bol and Nunnery

studied secondary precalculus classes and concluded “cooperative learning promotes

mathematics achievement” (1997, p. 48). In undergraduate college statistics classes,


groups using cooperative learning techniques scored higher on tests (Potthast, 1999).

McClintock and Sonquist (1976) studied undergraduate college sociology students and

found students participating in cooperative groups received higher than average grades on

term papers than working individually. They also concluded, "group performance was

often better than what could have been expected of the best student in the group" (1976,

p. 595). Lazarowitz, Hertz-Lazarowitz, and Baird reported “significantly higher gains in

both normative and criterion measures of academic testing” for students in cooperative

learning groups (1994, p. 1128). In other studies, cooperativelearning strategies were

found to improve student performance (Chang and Mao, 1999) and cognitive

achievement (Okebukola & Ogunniyi, 1984) in science classes. Augustine, Gruber, and

Hanson (1989-90) report higher achievement resulting from cooperative groups in a wide

variety of subject areas including spelling, social studies, health, and language.

Studies also reported students in cooperative learning groups were able to master

and retain information better than students in individual or competitive situations

(Humphreys, Johnson, & Johnson, 1992). Duren and Cherrington (1992) observed

significant improvements in long-term retention of problem-solving strategies of students

participating in cooperative learning groups. They reported students in cooperative

groups were more willing to tackle a problem longer, made qualitative verbalization of

problem solving strategies, justified solutions, were more open to alternative strategies

and corrective feedback, and attempted to use learned strategies 7% more often than

independent practice classes.

Johnson, Maruyama, et. al. (1981) hypothesized that the effects of cooperation

would increase the more students worked together, encouraged and tutored each other,


and rehearsed materials being learned. Whicker et al. (1997) came to a similar

conclusion but felt it might take some time for the benefits of cooperative learning to

become apparent. They reported, "although there were increasing group differences on

the second chapter test administered after four weeks, the groups did not significantly

differ until the scores on the third chapter test were compared, 6 weeks after the

cooperative learning technique was initiated" (1997, p. 48).

Studies have also shown cooperative techniques are more effective with higher

levels of learning on Bloom's taxonomy (Good, Reys, Grouws, & Mulryan, 1989-90;

Johnson, Maruyama, et al., 1981; Mevarech, 1999; Sharan et al., 1979-80). According to

Sharan et al., the "fundamental goals of cooperative learning . . . are to promote processes

of learning which are intellectually more complex and richer than the presentation-

recitation model" (1979-80, p. 129). Their study showed little difference between

traditional classroom and small-group learning for lower levels of Bloom's taxonomy.

However, the small groups "were able to build more high level concepts on the basis of

low level information . . . than were peers in the classrooms" (p. 129). Mevarech (1999)

showed more pronounced differences in performance at higher cognitive levels while

Chang and Mao (1999) found that cooperative learning was more effective at enhancing

the higher- level cognitive domain. Mevarech (1999) also found that heterogeneous

groups of students could solve complex cognitive tasks without lowering the progress of

high-achieving students. Augustine et al. (1989-90) reported heterogeneous groups

generally improved performance for both low-achieving and high-achieving students and

groups promoted critical thinking.


Although the reasons for improved cognitive abilities resulting from cooperative

learning are not totally understood, Hooper (1992) proposed the following: individuals

received more attention from group members than a teacher can provide; process of

generating explanations required deeper processing of information (Webb, 1988, as cited

in Hooper, 1992); and group discussions helped students construct new knowledge

(Vygotsky, 1978 as cited in Hooper, 1992).

Affective Benefits

Cooperative learning also produced a number of affective skills such as positive

feelings toward other students, increased self-esteem, ability to work together, and

improved social skills. According to Joyce (1999), the goal of cooperative learning is not

only to increase academic performance, but also to develop the student's group

processing and social skills.

Good et al. reported "enhanced motivation and enthusiasm, positive peer

interaction, and advanced mathematical thinking" (1989-90, p. 56) as potential benefits of

cooperative learning groups. Participation in groups also required students to develop the

ability to work together, capitalize on strengths, and become more sensitive to each other.

A study by Blaney, Stephan, Rosenfield, Aronson, and Sikes showed "strong,

positive pattern of behavior and feelings which can be attributed to the . . . groups" (1977,

p 127). Students in cooperative groups felt they could learn from each other, increased

self-esteem, and liking for groupmates carried over to the other students in the class.

Another study also showed increased self-esteem and number of friends for students in

cooperative groups (Lazarowitz et al., 1994). Johnson, Johnson, Johnson and Anderson

reported, "students felt more accepted and supported by their teachers and peers" (1976,


p. 450). In addition, they found evidence that cooperative learning strategies promoted

an intrinsic motivation to learn.

In a study of students from third to seventh grade, Hertz-Lazarowitz et al.

observed students in "cooperative small groups were more cooperative" (1980, p. 104)

than students in the standard presentation-recitation classrooms. In one group

experiment, students in a cooperative group created more words, announced them to the

group, helped each other, accepted new ideas, and generally enhanced productivity as

compared to their non-group counterparts. In addition, Johnson et al. (1976) found

students interacting in cooperative groups displayed more altruistic behavior.

The findings of Johnson and Johnson provided "behavioral evidence that the

cross-ethnic relationships created in cooperative learning groups do generalize to free-

time, free-choice situations" (1981, p. 448). The attitudinal measures indicated "students

perceived the interaction to be supportive and encouraging of both academic work and

friendships" (1981, p. 448). The results of the study indicated student interaction in

cooperative learning was characterized by a perception of receiving more help (between

minority and majority students), stronger beliefs that students encourage and support each

other, feelings of getting to know each other and creating new friendships, thinking

through rationale for answers, applying skills and knowledge in new situations, and

greater cooperation with each other. Madden and Slavin (1983) obtained similar results

by placing handicapped students in cooperative learning groups with normal-progress

peers. The normal-progress peers showed a decrease in rejection of students with mild

academic handicaps.


Students also liked working in cooperative groups. McClintock and Sonquist

(1976) reported that group members were satisfied with their groups, regardless of their

own or the group's performance, and preferred to work in groups on subsequent tasks.

Whicker et al. (1997) surveyed student attitudes toward groups. Overwhelmingly, they

found students liked receiving help from each other. Other student comments were (1) it

is easier to work on complex or difficult problems together, (2) liked the opportunity to

discuss and share ideas, (3) learned more in cooperative groups, and (4) needed

suggestions and advice on how to work out problems. However, students consistently

recommended rotation of group membership.

Problem Areas

Most of the problem areas identified with cooperative learning dealt with

individual participation in the group. Good et al. (1989-90) reported that some groups

required a lot of time to bond, which impedes initial progress. Also, there were subsets

of students who remained passive and allowed others to do the work. Joyce (1999)

studied the problem of group members who do not participate, the free-rider effect.

Joyce allowed group members to penalize participants for failing to contribute by rotating

them to a different group. Olson (1965; as cited in Hooper, 1992) determined that

making individual effort more noticeable could eliminate the free-rider effect.

King (1993) reported a similar problem where high achievers tended to dominate

the group and low achievers remained passive. In another study, Hudgins (1960)

observed two types of group interactions that tended to negate group process. In the first

type of interaction, there was a tendency for one student to determine the answer to math

problems. If the student had high social status, the answer was accepted without


question. However, students with lower social status had to prove the correctness of their

answer. In the second type of group interaction, students independently solved the

problems and then compared answers. If answers did not match, one person tended to

assume initiative and demonstrate a solution.

Another problem reported by Good et al. (1989-90) was inadequate curriculum

materials for small groups forcing teachers to adapt materials designed for the individual

work. As a result, there was a loss of continuity in content (within a class and between

grades), tasks that were not group dependent, and inadequate pacing (not enough time for

group process or too much time). Steiner, Stromwall, Brzuzy and Gerdes (1999) reported

that poor implementation, poorly planned activities, unmonitored progress, and

ineffective group incentives inhibit cooperative learning strategies. Another challenge

was cooperative learning strategies often take more time and require a reduction in the

amount of content covered.

The student surveys by Whicker et al. (1997) identified some problems as well.

Uncooperative group members were seen as a disadvantage and some students felt left

behind. Also, some students resisted cooperative learning strategies due to prior

negative experiences or fear of trying something new (Steiner et al., 1999).

Cooperative Learning and Technology

Technology comes in a variety of forms from overhead slides to complex

computer simulations. Computer-assisted instruction has been incorporated with

cooperative learning techniques by grouping two or more students with one computer or

having students use computers while they collaborate.


Research conducted on the integration of computer-assisted instruction and

cooperative-learning techniques has followed the same methods and procedures as

research on cooperative learning groups. Brush (1997) reported that both computer-

assisted learning and cooperative learning could be successfully integrated, that student

achievement increased, students stayed on task longer, and attitudes toward learning and

each other improved. Dalton, Hannafin, and Hooper (1989) reported that the

conversations among group members increased the amount of content learned. As a

result of having to pace their work with each other, students mastered the content better

and stayed on task. Also, the researchers noted that both high-achievers and low-

achievers benefited from cooperative learning groups.

In a much earlier experiment, Amaria, Biran, and Leith (1968) paired cooperative

learning techniques with programmed instruction and showed higher academic results

than individualistic learning situations. In addition, the researchers reported that

heterogeneous groups, on the average, worked better than homogeneous groups. They

hypothesized that intelligent children frequently made intuitive leaps to solutions.

However, in later learning, intelligent children frequently had to clarify the principles

skipped in earlier leaps. Less bright children, on the other hand, needed help with

conceptual structures. It appeared that forcing bright students to organize their concepts

in order to explain them to the less bright students benefited both parties.

Cooperative Learning in Online Courses

Through the use of synchronous and asynchronous computer-mediated

communication tools, the use of cooperative learning strategies is now possible in online


courses. Little research has been done to date in regard to online courses and cooperative

learning.

According to Locatis (2000, pp. 7), “online learning environments may have more

direct impact on the way interaction is structured, including the kinds of information

accessed, the amount of learner control, the mode of interaction, and the immediacy of

interaction. The online utilities available, the ones teachers choose to employ, and the

ways teachers choose to employ them can directly affect the structure of interaction and

consequently, learning outcomes.”

Undoubtedly, new dynamics will come into play with the movement of

cooperative learning techniques to an online environment. Some issues to consider are:

1. Technical difficulties are inevitable. Berge (1995) recommended adequate

infrastructure to support online courses and high-quality technical support for

faculty and students. Also training may be required for both students and

faculty members. Based on personal experience in online courses, Stone

(1996) said that technology was initially an issue. However, she soon found

herself immersed in the class.

2. Communication in an online environment also changes. Locatis (2000, p. 7)

believes “computer mediated online environment acts to constrain and

structure interaction . . . and may have an effect on the enjoyment and benefit

learners derive from interacting.” Communication moves from verbal to

written and visual clues are no longer ava ilable. “On the other hand,

…technologies may encourage more equal levels of participation

(Scardamalia, et al., 1994, as cited in Locatis, 2000, p. 7) and more critical


thinking” (Newman et al., 1997, as cited in Locatis, 2000, p. 7). McGarth

(1997-98, p. 293) found “talk is a familiar tool for teaching . . . but in the

traditional class, . . . often only one answer is heard, and the same students

tend to volunteer.” In computer-mediated communication, she said “many

answers to any one question may be offered . . . and considered, (and)

weighted by all.” For McGarth, “conference has all the advantages of small

group student-centered activity, plus the added advantage that the number of

peers each student is interacting with is enlarged.” Stone (1996) found

webchats were useful for real time communication to discuss the course and

get acquainted but limited for purposes of discussion. She also found that

communication online required “being concise and clear.” Due to the absence

of non-verbal clues, misunderstandings were more likely and required

suspension of judgment and requests for clarification. Stone also

recommended alternative ways to express emotion such as emoticons.

3. Motivation may be another problem for students online. Stone (1996) found

that interaction with other participants was necessary for her motivation. “I

have learned a great deal . . . from the postings of others, and their replies to

my postings have often forced me to critically examine my own assumptions”

(p. 5). Another aspect of motivation is not to overwhelm students with

information overload. Too much information may result in social loafing and

sucker effect. In both instances, students stopped participating because they

perceived it was no longer required either because of the size of the group or

because others are not participating (Hooper, 1992). In both instances, the


size of the group must be closely monitored to insure involvement of all

members.

Computer-mediated communication has the potential to expand cooperative

learning techniques to distance education and also expand communication options in

traditional classes. However, the dynamics of these new technologies must be researched

to determine the best procedures to enhance cooperative learning.


References

Amaria, R. P., Biran, L. A., & Leith, G. O. M. (1968). Individual versus

cooperative learning. Educational Research, 11, 95-103.

Augustine, D. K., Gruber, K. D., & Hanson, L. R. (1989-90). Cooperation

Works! Educational Leadership, 47, 4-7.

Berge, Z. L. (1995). Facilitating computer conferencing: Recommendations

from the field. Educational Technology, 35 (1), 22-30.

Blaney, N. T., Stephan, C., Rosenfield, D., Aronson, E., & Sikes, J. (1977).

Interdependence in the classroom: A field study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69,

121-128.

Brush, T. (1997). The effects on student achievement and attitudes when using

integrated learning systems with cooperative pairs. Educational Technology Research

and Development, 45 (1), 51-64.

Chang, C. Y., & Mao, S. L. (1999). The effects on students' cognitive

achievement when using the cooperative learning method in earth science classrooms.

School Science & Mathematics, 99, 374-380. Retrieved March 23, 2000 from EBSOhost

online database.

Dalton, D., Hanafin, M., & Hooper, S. (1989). Effects of individual and

cooperative computer-assisted instruction on student performance and attitudes.

Educational Technology Research and Development, 37 (2), 15-24.

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and Education. New York: Macmillan.

Duren, P. E., & Cherrington, A. (1992). The effects of cooperative group work

versus independent practice on the learning of some problem-solving strategies. School


Science and Mathematics, 92, 80-83.

Good, T. L., Reys, B. J., Grouws, D. A., & Mulryan, C. M. (1989-90). Using

work-groups in mathematics instruction. Educational Leadership, 47, (4) 56-60.

Gredler, M. E. (1997). Learning and Instruction Theory into Practice. Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., Sharan, S., & Steinberg, R. (1980). Classroom learning

style and cooperative behavior of elementary school children. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 72, 99-106.

Hooper, S. (1992.) Cooperative learning and computer-based instruction.

Educational Technology Research and Development, 40 (3), 21-38.

Hudgins, B. B. (1960). Effects of group experience on individual problem

solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 51, 37-42.

Humphreys, B., Johnson, R. T., & Johnson, D. W. (1992). Effects of

cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning on students’ achievement in science

class. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 19, 351-356.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1981). Effects of cooperative and

individualistic learning experiences on interethnic interaction. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 73, 444-449.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1993). Implementing cooperative learning.

Education Digest, 58 (8), 62-66. Retrieved November 20, 2000 from EBSCOhost online

database.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Making cooperative learning work.

Theory into Practice, 38, (2), 67-73. Retrieved March 23, 2000 from EBSCOhost online


database.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., Johnson, J., and Anderson, D. (1976) Effects of

cooperative versus individualized instruction on student prosocial behavior, attitudes

toward learning, and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 446-452.

Johnson, D. W., Maruyama, G., Johnson, R., Nelson, D., & Skon, L. (1981).

Effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures on achievement:

A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 89, 47-62.

Joyce, B., & Weil, M. (2000.) Models of Teaching. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Joyce, W. B. (1999). On the free-rider problem in cooperative learning. Journal

of Education for Business, 74, 271-274. Retrieved March 23, 2000 from EBSCOhost

online database.

King, L. H. (1993). High and low achievers' perceptions and cooperative

learning in two small groups. The Elementary School Journal, 93, 399-416.

Lazarowitz, R., Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., & Baird, J. H. (1994). Learning science in

a cooperative setting: Academic achievement and affective outcomes. Journal of

Research in Science Teaching, 31, 1121-1131.

Locatis, C. (2000). Cooperative learning and distance education online.

[Online]. Available:

http://tlc.nlm.nih.gov/resources/publications/sourcebook/cooperativelearning.html

Madden, N. A., & Slavin, R. E. (1983). Effects of cooperative learning on the

social acceptance of mainstreamed academically handicapped students. The Journal of

Special Education, 17, 171-182.

McClintock, E., & Sonquist, J. A. (1976). Coopertive task-oriented groups in a


college classroom: A field application. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 588-596.

McGrath, C. (1997-98). A new voice on interchange: Is it talking or writing?

Implications for the teaching of literature. Journal of Educational Technology Systems,

26, 291-297.

Mevarech, Z. R. (1999). Effects of metacognitive training embedded in

cooperative settings on mathematical problem solving. Journal of Educational Research,

92, 195-205. Retrieved March 23, 2000 from EBSCOhost online database.

Okebukola, P. A., & Ogunniyi, M. B. (1984). Cooperative, competitive, and

individualistic science laboratory interaction patterns - Effects on students' achievement

and acquisition of practical skills. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21, 875-884.

Potthast, M. J. (1999). Outcomes of using small-group cooperative learning

experiences in introductory statistics courses. College Student Journal, 33, 34-42.

Retrieved March 23, 2000 from EBSCOhost online database.

Schunk, D. H. (1996). Learning Theories. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

Sharan, S., Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., & Ackerman, Z. (1979-80). Academic

achievement of elementary school children in small-group versus whole-class instruction.

The Journal of Experimental Education, 48, 125-129.

Sherman, G. P., & Klein, J. D. (1995). The effects of cued interaction and ability

grouping during cooperative computer-based science instruction. Educational

Technology Research and Development, 43 (4), 5-24.

Sherman, L. W., & Thomas, M. (1986). Mathematics achievement in

cooperative versus individualistic goal-structured high school classrooms. Journal of

Educationa l Research, 79, 169-172.


Singhanayak, C., & Hooper, S. (1998). The effects of cooperative learning and

learner control on students’ achievement, option selections, and attitudes. Educational

Technology Research and Development, 40, (3), 21-38.

Slavin, R. E., & Karweit, N. L. (1984). Mastery learning and student teams: A

factorial experiment in urban general mathematics classes. American Educational

Research Journal, 21, 725-736.

Steiner, S., Stromwall, L. K., Brzuzy, S., & Gerdes, K. (1999). Using

cooperative learning strategies in social work education. Journal of Social Work

Education, 35, 235-264.

Stone, K. (1996). Learning online. Bulla Gymnasia Virtuales Online All the

Time Bi-Monthly E-mail Newsletter, 01 (3), 1-13. [Online] Availiable at:

http://www.cybercorp.net//gymv/bulla/b_v01n03.html

Thelen, H. (1960). Education and the human quest. New York: Harper and

Row.

Whicker, K. M., Bol, L., & Nunnery, J. A. (1997). Cooperative learning in the

secondary mathematics classroom. Journal of Educational Research, 91, 42-48.

Retrieved March 23, 2000 from EBSOhost online database.

Cooperative Learning Groups in Online Courses Linda...

Documents

Transcript of Cooperative Learning Groups in Online Courses Linda...