COOPERATIVE LEARNING (Edited excerpt from Slavin, R. (1992). Cooperative Learning. In Gall, Joyce, P., Gall, M. D.

, Borg, Walter R. (1999). Applying Educational Research: A Practical Guide. (4th ed.). pp. 114-118. New York, NY: Longman. Cooperative learning refers to instructional methods in which students of all levels of performance work together in small groups, usually toward a group goal. The many cooperative learning methods differ considerably from one another. The most extensively researched are described. COOPERATIVE LEARNING METHODS Student Teams-Achievement Divisions (STAD). In STAD (Slavin, 1986), students are assigned to four-member learning teams that are mixed in performance level, gender, and ethnicity. The teacher presents a lesson, and then students work within their teams to make sure that all team members have mastered the lesson. Finally, all students take individual quizzes on the material, at which time they may not help one another. Students' quiz scores are compared to their own past averages, and points based on the degree to which students can meet or exceed their own earlier performance are awarded. These points are then summed to form team scores, and teams that meet certain criteria earn certificates or other rewards. The whole cycle of activities-from teacher presentation to team practice to quiz-usually takes 3-5 class periods. The STAD method has been used in most subjects, from mathematics to language arts to social studies, and has been

used from Grade 2 through college. It is most appropriate for teaching welldefined objectives with single right answers, such as mathematical computations and applications, language usage and mechanics, geography and map skills, and science facts and concepts. Teams-Games-Toumament (TGT). The TGT method (DeVries & Slavin, 1978; Slavin, 1986) uses the same teacher presentations and team work as in STAD but replaces the quizzes with weekly tournaments, in which students compete with members of other teams to contribute points to their team scores. Students compete at three- person-tournament tables against others with similar past records in mathematics. A bumping procedure keeps the competition fair by changing assignments to tournament tables each week based on student performance. As in STAD, high-performing teams earn certificates or other forms of team rewards. Team Assisted Individualization (TAI). The TAI method (Slavin, 1985a; Slavin, Leavey, & Madden, 1986) shares with STAD and TGT the use of fourmember, mixed ability learning teams and certificates for high-performing teams. But whereas STAD and TGT use a single pace of instruction for the class, TAI combines cooperative learning with individualized instruction. The TAI method is designed specifically to teach mathematics to students in Grades 3-6 (or older students not ready for a full algebra course). In TAI, students enter an individualized sequence according to a placement test and then proceed at their own rates. In general, team members work on different units. Teammates check each others' work against answer sheets and help each other with any problems. Final unit tests are taken without teammate help and

are scored by student monitors. Each week, teachers total the number of units completed by all team members and give certificates or other team rewards to teams that exceed a criterion score based on the number of final tests passed, with extra points for perfect papers and completed homework. Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition (CIRC). In CIRC (Stevens, Madden, Slavin, & Farnish, 1987), teachers use basal readers and reading groups, much as in traditional reading programs. However, students are assigned to teams composed of pairs of students from two different reading groups. While the teacher is working with one reading group, Students in the other groups are working in their pairs on a series of cognitively engaging activities, including reading to one another, making predictions about how narrative stories come out, summarizing stories to one another, writing responses to stories, and practicing spelling, decoding, and vocabulary. Students work in teams to master main idea and other comprehension skills. During language arts periods, students write drafts, revise and edit one another's work, and prepare for "publication" of team books. Jigsaw. In the original jigsaw method (Aronson, Blaney, Stephan, Sikes, & Snapp, 1978), students are assigned to sixmember teams to work on academic material that has been broken into sections. For example, a biography might be later divided into early life, first accomplishments, major setbacks, later life, and impact on history. Each team member reads a section. Next, members of different teams who have studied the same sections meet in "expert groups" to discuss their sections. Then the students return to their teams and take turns teaching their teammates about their sections. Because the only way that students can learn sections other than their

own is to listen carefully their teammates, they are motivated to support and show interest in one another's work. Several modifications of jigsaw have also been designed (Slavin, 1986; Kagan, 1989). Learning Together. The learning together model of cooperative learning (Johnson &Johnson, 1987) was developed at the University of Minnesota. The methods that they researched involve students working in four- or five- member heterogeneous groups on assignment sheets. The groups hand in a single sheet, and receive praise and rewards based on the group product. Group Investigation. Developed at the University of Tel-Aviv (Sharan & Shachar, 1988), group investigation is a general classroom organization plan in which students work in small groups using cooperative inquiry, group discussion, and cooperative planning and projects. Students form their own two- to six-member groups. After choosing subtopics from a unit being studied by the entire class, the groups further break their subtopics into individual tasks and carry out the activities necessary to prepare group reports. Each group then makes a presentation or display to communicate its findings to the entire class. RESEARCH ON COOPERATIVE LEARNING More than 70 high-quality studies have evaluated various cooperative learning methods over periods of at least 4 weeks in regular elementary and secondary schools; 60 of these have measured effects on student achievement (Slavin, 1990). These studies compared effects of cooperative learning to those of traditionally taught control groups on measures the same objectives pursued in all classes, Teachers and classes were

randomly assigned to cooperative, or control conditions, or they were matched on pretest achievement level and other factors. Academic Achievement. Overall-of 68 experimental-control comparison studies of the achievement effects of cooperative learning in 60 different studies--42 (62%) found significantly greater achievement in cooperative than in control classes. Twenty-three (34%) found no differences, and in only three studies did a control group outperform the experimental group. However, the effects of cooperative learning vary considerably according to the particular methods used. Two elements must be present if cooperative learning is to be effective: group goals and individual accountability (Davidson, 1985; Newmann & Thompson, 1987; Slavin, 1990). That is, groups must be working to achieve some goal or earn rewards or recognition, and the success of the group must depend on the individual learning of every group member. In studies of methods of this kind (e.g., STAD, TGT, TAI, and CIRC), effects on achievement have been consistently positive; 32 of 40 such studies (80%) found significantly positive achievement effects with a median effect size of +30 (Slavin, 1990).b In contrast, only 10 of 28 studies (36%) lacking group goals and individual accountability found positive effects on student achievement, and only 3 studies (I I %) found effects favoring control groups, with a median effect size of only +.06. Research on behaviors within groups that contribute to learning gains has found that students who provide and receive elaborated explanations are those who gain the most from the activities (Webb, 1985). Successful forms of cooperative learning have generally been equally effective with high-, average-, and low-achieving students (Slavin, 1990).

Intergroup Relations. Social scientists have long advocated interethnic cooperation as a means of ensuring positive intergroup relations in desegregated settings. The famous social science statement submitted as part of the Brown v. Board of Education school desegregation decision strongly emphasized that positive intergroup relations would rise from school desegregation if and only if students were involved in cooperative equal-status Interaction sanctioned by the school (Slavin, 1985b, 1990). Research has borne out this expectation. Positive effects on intergroup relations have been found for the STAID, TGT, TAI, jigsaw, learning together, and group investigation models (Slavin, 1985b). Two of these studies, one on STAID and one on jigsaw II included follow-ups of intergroup friendships several months after the end of the studies. Both found that students who had been in cooperative learning classes still named significantly more friends outside their own ethnic groups than did students who had been in control classes. Two studies of the group investigation method found that students' improved attitudes and behaviors toward classmates of different ethnic backgrounds extended to classmates who had never been in the same groups. Mainstreaming. The research on cooperative learn mainstreaming has focused on the academically handicapped child. In one study, STAID was used to attempt to integrate students performing two years or more below the level of their peers into the social structure of the classroom. The use of STAID significantly reduced the degree to which the normal-progress students rejected their mainstreamed classmates and increased the academic achievement and selfesteem of all students-mainstreamed and normal progress. Similar effects have been found for TAI, and other research

using cooperative teams has also shown significant improvements in relationships between maintreamed academically handicapped students and their normal-progress peers (see Madden & Slavin, 1983). Self-Esteem. Several researchers working on cooperative learning techniques found that use of teams increases students' self-esteem. Students in cooperative learning classes have more positive feelings about themselves than do students in traditional classes. These improvements in self-esteem have been found for TGT, STAID, and jigsaw, for the three methods combined, and for TAI (Slavin, 1990). Other Outcomes. In addition to effects on achievement, positive intergroup relations, greater acceptance of maintreamed students, and self-esteem effects of cooperative learning have been found on a variety of other important educational outcomes. These effects include liking of school, development of peer norms in favor of doing well academically, feelings of individual control over the student's own fate in school, time on task, and cooperativeness and altruism (Slavin, 1990). Current Research. Research on cooperative learning is proceeding in several directions. One involves research on schoolwide applications of cooperative learning principles, including peer coaching, mainstreaming, and teacher collaboration, as well as widespread use of cooperative learning methods (Madden, Slavin, Karweit, & Livermon, 1989; Slavin, 1987). Another involves continuing research on the cognitive and motivational bases for the achievement effects of cooperative learning (Dansereau, 1988). Applications of cooperative learning to the education of

Hispanic and Native American children are being studied. Some of the many topics in need of further study include methods for training, maintenance, and institutionalization of cooperative learning in schools and why cooperative learning increases student achievement and critical elements contributing to this effect. Further applications of cooperative learning to complex problem solving and to senior high schools are needed. CONCLUSION The positive effects of cooperative learning methods on a variety of student outcomes are not found in every study or for every method. The overall conclusion to be drawn from this research, however, is that when the classroom is structured to allow students to work cooperatively on learning tasks, Students benefit academically as well as socially. Robert E. Slavin See also Deinstitutionalization and Mainstreaming, Exceptional Children; Grouping Students for Instruction; Minorities, Education of; Peer and Cross-Age Tutoring; School Desegregation. References Aronson, E., Blaney, N., Stephan, C., Sikes, J., & Snapp, M. (1978). The jigsaw classroom. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Dansereau, D. (1988). Cooperative learning strategies. In C. E. Weinstein, E. T. Goetz, & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Learning and study strategies: Issues in assessment instruction, and evaluation (pp. 103-120). New York, NY: Academic Press.

Davidson, N. (1985). Small-group learning and teaching in mathematics: A selective review of the research. In R. E. Slavin, S. Sharan, R. Hertz-Lazarowitz, C. Webb, & R. Schmuck (Eds.), Learning to cooperate, cooperating to /earn (pp. 211-230). New York, NY: Plenum. DeVries, D. L., & Slavin, R. E. (1978). Teams-Games-Tournament (TGT): Review of ten classroom experiments. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 12,28-38. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1987). Learning together and alone (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Kagan, S. (1989). Cooperative learning resources for teachers. San Juan Capistrano, CA: Resources for Teachers. Madden, N. A., & Slavin, R. E. (1983). Mainstreaming students dents with mild academic handicaps: Academic an social outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 5 519-569. Madden, N. A., Slavin, R. E., Karweit, N. L., & Livermon, B. J. (1989). Restructuring the urban elementary school. Educational Leadership, 46(5), 14-18. Newmann, F. M., & Thompson, J. (1987 ). Effects of co cooperative learning on achievement in secondary schools: summary of research. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin, National Center on Effective Secondary Schools. Sharan, S., & Shachar, C. (1988). Language and learning the cooperative classroom. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

Slavin, R. E. (1985a). Team Assisted Individualization. In R. E. Slavin, S. Sharan, S. Kagan, R. Hertz-Lazarowitz, C. Webb, & R. Schmuck (Eds.), Learning to cooperate, cooperating to team (pp. 77-209). New York, NY: Plenum. Slavin, R. E. (1985b). Cooperative learning: Applying contact theory in desegregated schools. Journal of Social Issues, 41, 45-62. Slavin, R. E. (1986). Using student team learning (3rd ed.). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University, Center for Research on Elementary and Middle Schools. Slavin, R. E. ( 1987). Cooperative learning and the cooperative school. Educational Leadership, 45(3), 7-13. Slavin, R. E. (1990). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Slavin, R. E., Leavey, M. B., & Madden, N. A. (1986). Team, Accelerated Instruction- Mathematics. Watertown, MA. Charlesbridge. Stevens, R. J., Madden, N. A., Slavin, R. E., & Farnish, A. M. (1987). Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition: Two field experiments. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 433-454. Webb, N. (1985). Student interaction and learning in small groups: A research summary. In R. E. Slavin, S. Sharan, S. Kagan, R. Hertz- Lazarowitz, C. Webb, & R. Schmuck (Eds.), Learning to cooperate, cooperating to learn (pp. 148-172). New York: Plenum.