cooperative learning in teams: state of the art
TRANSCRIPT
This article was downloaded by: [Towson University]On: 13 November 2014, At: 15:48Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Educational PsychologistPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hedp20
Cooperative learning in teams: State of the artRobert E. Slavin aa Center for Social Organization of Schools , Johns Hopkins Universityhns Hopkins University ,Baltimore, MD, 21218Published online: 01 Oct 2009.
To cite this article: Robert E. Slavin (1980) Cooperative learning in teams: State of the art, Educational Psychologist, 15:2,93-111, DOI: 10.1080/00461528009529219
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00461528009529219
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in thepublications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representationsor warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not theviews of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses,actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoevercaused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Educational Psychologist1980, Vol. 15. No. 2,93—111
Cooperative Learning in Teams:State of the Art
Robert E. SlavinCenter for Social Organization of Schools
Johns Hopkins University
This article reviews classroom research on cooperative-learningtechniques. These are instructional methods in which students work in4-6 member, heterogeneous teams to master prescribed academicmaterial or to carry out a group project or discussion. The review isfocused on the four cooperative-learning techniques in widest use inclassrooms, although less widely used methods are also discussed. Onlystudies which took place over a period of at least two weeks arereviewed. It is concluded that', (a)'Cooperative learning methods aregenerally more effective than control methods in increasing studentachievement, but the effects arc not consistent. Some evidence suggeststhat highly structured cooperative methods are best for basic skills,while more open-ended methods are best for higher-order skills, (b)Cooperative learning methods have generally positive effects on studentinter-ethnic relations, mutual concern, self-esteem, liking of school,and other variables.
Once upon a time there was a junior-high-school student named Sam. Sam was anaverage student, although he was a little morereflective than most.
One day, Sam went to his gym class, whichwas involved in intramural baseball. Sam wasjust an average baseball player, but he lovedbaseball. On this particular day, his teammatescrowded around him to ask him where he hadbeen the last couple of days (Sam had been outwith the flu). They had missed him becausethey had needed him at second base.
When the game started, Sam was up first.He got a hit, and his teammates shouted theirapproval. In a later inning he struck out, andhis teammates consoled him and subjectedhim to some good-natured teasing. By the endof the game, even though Sam's team lost, theteammates went to the showers together,talking and laughing about the game.
The next period was English. Mr. Chaucerwas teaching a unit on noun plurals. Sam hadstudied his list of noun plurals especially well,
This article is based on an invited address to Division ISpresented at the annual meeting of the AmericanPsychological Association, New York, September, 1979and on a longer review in the Review of EducationalResearch (Slavin, in press-a).
The address of Robert E. Slavin is Center for SocialOrganization of Schools; Johns Hopkins University;Baltimore, MD 21218.
so he raised his hand frequently when Mr.Chaucer asked for answers. Once, after Samhad corrected a mistake made by anotherstudent, Mr. Chaucer turned to writesomething on the blackboard, and someonethrew a spitbali at Sam. Later, Mr. Chaucerasked Sam for the plural of' 'ox.' ' "Oxes,' ' he
! said. The class burst out laughing. Sam turnedred with embarrassment. The rest of the periodhe kept his hand down, and tried (as did mostof his classmates) to be as inconspicuous aspossible so that Mr. Chaucer would not call onhim.
On the bus on the way home, Sam reflectedon what had happened to him that day. Hewondered why his peers supported his successesand consoled his setbacks in the baseball gamewhile they resented his successes andridiculed his setbacks in English class. Hewondered why his teammates missed himwhen he was out, but his classmates did not,and why baseball seemed to develop a sense ofcomradcric and support, while in English class,the only time students felt the same sort ofgroup feeling was when they were alliedagainst the teacher.
Sam decided he would like to become aprofessional baseball player, which is too badbecause with the kinds of questions he wasasking he would have made a pretty good
Copyright 1980 by Division 15 of the American Psychological Association, Inc.
93
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tow
son
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
5:48
13
Nov
embe
r 20
14
94 ROBERT E.SLAVIN
social psychologist. In this case, however, socialpsychology has long had the answer to Sam'squestions. On the playing field, Sam was animportant person to his teammates. Theyrelied on him, and he on them, to do well inthe games. Even though doing well in anintramural baseball game is hardly a matter oflife or death, Sam felt that he counted and thathe was encouraged by his peers to do his best.This is an old finding in social psychology:When individuals are rewarded as a groupbased on their group performance, theysupport one another's efforts and expressnorms in favor of performance of activities thathelp the group to be successful (Deutsch,1949). Thomas (1958) calls these norms"responsibility forces." The comraderie andgood feelings among teammates in thebaseball team are also familiar to socialpsychology. A great deal of research hasestablished that when individuals work towarda common goal, they come to like one another(Haines & McKeachie, 1967; Julian & Perry,1967; Phillips & D'Amico, 1956), probablybecause people like others who bring themrewards (Berkowitz & Daniels, 1963).
Sam's negative classroom experience is theobverse of his positive sports experience. Hisclassmates do not support his academic efforts.While in the baseball game Sam's effortshelped the team to be rewarded, in theclassroom Sam succeeds at the expense of hisclassmates. This is true because the baseballteam has a cooperative reward structure, whereindividuals are in positive interdependence forrewards, while the classroom is characterizedby individual competition, where students arein negative interdependence for rewards. Inthe classroom it is in the students' interests totry to socialize Sam to do as little work aspossible, to keep his mouth shut and his handdown, and to join the group in resisting theteacher's efforts to get the class to do the worknecessary for learning.
So, the obvious question is how to bring thepositive aspects of the social structure of theplaying field into the very different setting ofthe classroom. Such authors as Coleman(1961), Bronfenbrenner (1970), and Spilerman(1971) have suggested that this be done.Suggestions such as these are very useful, butthey are like the famous agreement among themice that someone really ought to put a bell onthe cat. like belling the cat, actual research onpractical programs using cooperative learning
in classrooms is difficult and dangerous to do,much as the need for it is obvious andcompelling.
This paper is about the classroom researchthat has been conducted over the past nineyean to evaluate various means of using smalllearning teams in classrooms. Only studies thatreally aim at evaluating alternative classroommethods in elementary and secondary schoolswill be reported, as opposed to laboratorystudies in which there is typically no effort torelate the experimental treatments to practicalprograms for classrooms. That is, the studies tobe reviewed all took place over a period of atleast two weeks, and usually much longer, andused methods that clearly could be (andusually have been) used over extended periodsas alternatives to traditional instructionalmethods. This excludes a large number ofstudies designed to investigate some interestingissues in social psychology rather than toevaluate a new form of instruction. For reviewsof these laboratory-like studies, see Johnsonand Johnson (1974) or Slavin (1977a).
Basic Features of Cooperative Learning
There are many cooperative learningstrategies now in use or in the literature. Theyvary enormously in their details, philosophies,and applications, but almost all share thesecharacteristics:
1. Students work in small (4-6 member)learning teams that remain stable in compos-ition for many weeks.
2. Students are "encouraged to help oneanother to learn academic material or toperform a group task.
3. In most techniques, students are givenrewards based on their group performance.These rewards may range from recognition totokens to grades.
In essence, get students to cooperate inteams on learning tasks, and you have acooperative learning technique. In theirimportant particulars, cooperative learningmethods vary widely. In most, students areassigned by the teacher to teams that areheterogeneous in sex, race, academic perfor-mance, and other dimensions, while in othersstudents choose their own teams. In some, thegroup reward is explicit; in others, students aresimply asked to do their best as a group. Withsome techniques, students are clearly account-able on an individual basis for their
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tow
son
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
5:48
13
Nov
embe
r 20
14
COOPERATIVE LEARNING IN TEAMS 95
contributions to their teams; with others, thereis a group product in which individualcontributions are hard to quantify. Sometechniques allow students considerable auton-omy within their teams, leaving to the teamssuch decisions as what they will study, howthey will study it, and what they will produceat the end. Most, however, provide at least awell-structured set of learning objectives andactivities, within which the team may stillorganize its efforts. These differences amongthe various cooperative-learning methodsappear to be important determinants of theeffectiveness of the strategies, but we are farfrom a science of classroom structuring foroptimizing cooperative learning.
Classroom CooperativeLearning Techniques
The bulk of the research on practicalcooperative-learning techniques has focused onfour major models: Teams-Games-Tournament(DeVries & Slavin, 1978) Student Teams-Achievement Divisions (Slavin, 1978a), Jigsaw(Aronson, 1978), and Group-Investigation(Sharan & Sharan, 1976). I will emphasizethese techniques both because they have beenwell researched in field settings and becausethey are well-defined teaching strategies thatare in use in many classrooms. All four havebooks or manuals written about them so thatteachers can easily implement them. I will alsoreview other classroom research involving lesswidely used cooperative techniques.
Teams-Games-Tournament. Teams-Games-Tournament (TGT) is built around two majorcomponents: (a) 4-5 member student teams,and (b) instructional tournaments. The teamsare the cooperative element of TGT. Studentsare assigned to teams according to a procedurethat maximizes heterogeneity of ability levels,sex, and race. The primary function of theteam is to prepare its members to do well inthe tournament. Following an initial classpresentation by the teacher, the teams arcgiven worksheets covering academic materialsimilar to that to be included in thetournament. Teammates study together andquiz each other to be sure that all teammembers are prepared.
After the team practice session, teammembers must demonstrate their learning in
the tournament, which is usually held onceeach week. For the tournament, students arcassigned to three person "tournament tables."The assignment is done so that competition ateach table will be fair — the highest threestudents in past performance arc assigned to
i Table 1, the next three to Table 2, and so on.At the tables, the students compete on simpleacademic games covering content that has beenpresented in class by the teacher and on theworksheets. The games consist of a set of itemsand a deck of numbered cards: Students taketurns picking cards and answering thecorresponding items; other students maychallenge their answers. Students at thetournament tables are competing as repre-sentatives of their teams, and the score eachstudent earns at his or her tournament table isadded into an overall team score. Becausestudents arc assigned to ability-homogeneoustournament tables, each student has an equalchance of contributing a maximum score to hisor her team, as the first place scorer at everytable brings the same number of points to theteam. Following the tournament, the teacherprepares a newsletter which recognizes success-ful teams and first place scorers. While teamassignments always remain the same, tourna-ment table assignments are changed for everytournament according to a system thatmaintains equality of past performance at eachtable. For .a complete description of Teams-Games-Tournamcnt, sec Slavin (1978b).
Student Teams - Achievement Divisions.Student Teams - Achievement Divisions(STAD) uses the same 4-5 member hetero-geneous teams used in TGT but replaces thegames and tournaments^ with simple, 15-minutc quizzes, which students take afterstudying in their teams. The quiz scores arctranslated into team scores using a systemcalled "achievement divisions." The quizscores of the highest six students in pastperformance are compared, and the top scorerin this group (the achievement division) earnseight points for his or her team, the secondscorer earns six points, and so forth. Then thequiz scores of the next highest six students inpast performance arc compared, and. so on. Inthis way, student scores arc compared onlywith those of an ability-homogeneous refer-ence group instead of the entire class. A"bumping" procedure changes division as-
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tow
son
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
5:48
13
Nov
embe
r 20
14
96 ROBERT E. SLAVIN
signments from week to week to maintainequality. Students know only their owndivision assignments; they do not interact inany way with the other members of theirdivision. The achievement division featuremaintains the equality of opportunity forcontributions to the team score as in TGT. Acomplete description of STAD appears inSlavin (1978b).
Jigsaw. In Jigsaw, students are assigned tosmall heterogeneous teams, as in TGT andSTAD. Academic material is broken into asmany sections as there are team members. Forexample, a biography might be broken into"early years," "schooling," "first accomplish-ments," and so forth. The students study theirsections with members of other teams whohave the same sections. Then, they return totheir teams and teach their sections to theother team members. Finally, all teammembers are quizzed on the entire unit. Thequiz scores contribute to individual grades, notto a team score as in TGT and STAD. In thissense, the Jigsaw technique may be seen ashigh in task interdependence but low inreward interdependence, as individual perfor-mances do not contribute directly to a groupgoal. In the Jigsaw technique, individualperformances contribute only to the individualgoals of other students; since the group is notrewarded as a group, there in no formal groupgoal. However, because the positive behaviorof each team member (learning the sections)helps the other group members to be rewarded(because they need each others' information),the essential dynamics of the cooperativereward structure are present.
Slavin (1978b) constructed a modification ofJigsaw called Jigsaw II. In Jigsaw II, students allread the same material but focus on separatetopics. Students from different teams whohave the same topics meet to discuss theirtopics, and then return to teach them to theirteammates. The team members then take aquiz, and the quiz scores are used to formteam scores as in STAD. Thus, Jigsaw IIinvolves less task interdependence and morereward interdependence than Jigsaw.
Group-Investigation. Group-Investigation isa general classroom organizational plan inwhich students work in small groups usingcooperative inquiry, discussion, and coopera-
tive planning and projects. In Group-Investigation, students form their own 2-6member teams. The teams choose subtopicsfrom a unit being studied by the entire class,further break their subtopics into individualtasks, and carry out the activities needed toachieve their group goal. The group thenmakes a presentation or display to com-municate its findings to the class. InGroup-Investigation, cooperative rewards arenot well specified; students are simply asked towork together to achieve group goals. For acomplete description of Group-Investigation,see Sharan and Sharan (1976).
Other Classroom Studies. In addition to thefour major techniques, there have been severalstudies of cooperative learning that contributeto an understanding of their effects. Theydiffer from the four techniques describedabove primarily in that they have been usedalmost exclusively in research and are net inwide classroom use.
Three of these studies (Johnson, Johnson,Johnson, & Anderson, 1976; Johnson, Johnson& Scott, 1978; Cooper, Johnson, Johnson &Wilderson, Note 1) used a simple cooperativetechnique in which students were assigned tosmall groups and instructed to work togetheron academic tasks and to hand in a singleassignment as a group. The teachers praisedthe group as a whole, but no formal grouprewards were given. This cooperative techniqueresembles practical techniques presented inJohnson and Johnson's 1975 book LearningTogether and Alone, but according to theauthors the techniques are not similar enoughfor the studies to constitute an evaluation ofthe strategies outlined in the book.
Two studies (Wheeler & Ryan, 1973;Wheeler, Note 2) used a cooperative techniquelike that used by the Johnsons but withconsiderably more structure. Students wereassigned specific roles within cooperativegroups and worked on social-studies inquiryactivities to produce a single workbook. Thegroup making the best workbook received aprize.
Weigel, Wiser, and Cook (1975) used acombination of cooperative techniques over along period of time (in their junior-high-school sample, an entire school year). Thesetechniques involved various small-group activ-ities, with information-gathering, discussion,and interpretation conducted by the student
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tow
son
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
5:48
13
Nov
embe
r 20
14
COOPERATIVE LEARNING IN TEAMS 97
group. Prizes were given to winning groupsbased on the quality of the group product.
Hamblin, Hathaway, and Wodarski (1971)used a group contingency for academicperformance, in which students earned rewardsbased on cither (a) the lowest three quiz scores'in the group, (b) die highest three scores, or (c)the average group score. Students wereencouraged to work together to improve theirscores.
The Research
Research on the various cooperative-learningtechniques has been conducted in fieldexperiments, in which the cooperative tech-niques were compared to control classes and, inthe TGT and STAD studies, to modificationsor components of the techniques. The studiesvary widely in terms of designs, measures,populations, and other features, which makesit difficult to compare results from study tostudy or, more importantly, from technique totechnique. It is possible to get a general idea ofpatterns of outcomes, but as is always the case,drawing conclusions from diverse studies is aninexact science at best.
Table 1 summarizes many of the character-istics and outcomes of research on cooperativelearning. Before discussing the outcomes,however, it is important to understand some ofthe methodological differences between thestudies.
Control groups. Perhaps the most important(but often ignored) feature of a fieldexperiment is the nature of the control group.The control group varied widely across thedifferent cooperative learning studies.
The five STAD studies used the moststringent control groups. These classes studiedexactly the same curriculum materials as thosestudied in the experimental groups, on exactlythe same schedule. The only differencebetween the experimental and control groupswas that the STAD students did their classworkin teams and received team as well asindividual feedback on their quizzes, while thecontrol students worked individually andreceived only individual feedback on theirquizzes. Most of the control groups in the TGT
studies resembled the STAD control groups,except that they did not always follow the exactschedule used in the experimental group, andthey did not always experience the worksheetand game items (although they usually had theworksheets available). One exception was thelargest TGT study (DcVries, Lucasse, &Shackman, Note 3), in which the controlgroup was an individualized instructionprogram.
In the one Jigsaw study that measuredachievement (Blaney, Stephan, Rosenficld,Aronson, & Sikes, 1977), the control groupstudied exactly the same material as theexperimental group except that the Jigsawgroup's materials were divided into topics, asrequired by the treatment. Control groups inall five Jigsaw studies (Blaney ct al., 1977;Bridgeman, 1977; Geffner, 1978; Luckcr,Rosenfield, Sikes & Aronson, 1976; Gonzales,Note 4) used traditional lecture-discussionmethods to present the material.
In the Combined Program, in whichexperimental students simultaneously learnedtheir mathematics using TGT, their languagearts using STAD, and their social studies usingJigsaw II, the control students were taughtusing traditional lecture-discussion-practicemethods. Because the instructional content inthe experimental and control classes was notmatched, the achievement assessment wasmade by means of a standardized test only.
In the Group-Investigation study (Sharan,Lazarowitz, & Ackcrman, in press), experi-mental and control teachers agreed oncurriculum units and had access to the samematerials. The control teachers used traditionallecture-discussion-practice methods. TheJohnson studies (Johnson et al., 1976; Johnsonet al., 1978; Cooper et al., Note 1) all usedcompetitive and individualistic control groups,where all three groups studied the samecurriculum materials. Weigcl et al. (1975)made no attempt to match the curriculum intheir experimental and control groups, buttheir control groups used traditional lecture-discussion methods. Wheeler and Ryan (1973)and Wheeler (Note 2) used competitive controlgroups that studied the same materials as thecooperative experimental groups. In theHamblin ct al. (1973) study, students served astheir own controls, and the relevant controltreatment was a behavior-modification con-tingency in which students received individualrewards based on their own test scores.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tow
son
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
5:48
13
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Table 1Characteristics and Outcomes of Cooperative Learning Studies
00
MajorReports
Characteristics Outcomes
AchievementNumber Curriculum
of Grade Duration Subject Specific Standardized Race MutualStudents Level (Weeks) Area Test Test Relations Concern
TGT
1. Edward, etal.(1972).
2. DeVries, &Edwards, (1973)
3. Edwards &DeVries(Note 12)
4. Hulten & DeVries(Note 6)
110
128
299
12
10
Math
Math
Math
SocialJtudies
Math
+
0
o
5
5. DeVries etal.(Note 13) 191 10-12 12
SocialStudies
6. DeVries & Mescon(Note 14) 60
LanguageArts
7. DeVries etal.(Note 7) 53
LanguageArts
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tow
son
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
5:48
13
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Table 1Characteristics and Outcomes of Cooperative Learning Studies (continued)
MajorReports
Characteristics
Numberof
StudentsGradeLevel
Duration(Weeks)
SubjectArea
Outcomes
AchievementCurriculum
SpecificTest
StandardizedTest
RaceRelations
MutualConcern
8. DeVriesetal..(Note 15)
9. DeVriesetal.(Note 3)
10. Slavin (1977b)
STAD
11. Slavin, (1978a)
12. Slavin (1977c)
13. Slavin(in prcss-b)
14. Slavin (1979
53
1742
57
7-8
7-9
205
62
424
7
7
4
10.
10
ReadingVocabulary
Verbal_Analogies
LanguageArts
SocialStudies
420 7-8
10
10
12
12
LanguageArts
LanguageArts
LanguageArts
LanguageArts
0
0
8o
>
a2
SO
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tow
son
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
5:48
13
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Table 1Characteristics and Outcomes of Cooperative Learning Studies (continued)
oo
MajorReports
Characteristics Outcomes
AchievementNumber Curriculum
of Grade Duration Subject Specific Standardized Race MutualStudents Level (Weeks) Area Test Test " ' 'Relations Concern
15. Slavin& Oickle(Note 9) 175 6-8 12
LanguageArts
JIGSAW
16. Blaneyetal.(1977)
17. Luckeretal.(1976)
18. Gonzales (Note 4)
Combined ProgramTGT, STAD,JIGSAW U\
304
303
326*
5-6
5-6
9-12
6
2
10
SocialStudies
SocialStudies
SocialStudies
19. Slavin & Karweit(Note 5) 559 4-5 16
Math (TGT)LanguageArts (STAD)SocialStudies(JIGSAW II)Reading (STADor JIGSAW II)
8en&-im
IZ
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tow
son
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
5:48
13
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Table 1Characteristics and Outcomes of Cooperative Learning Studies (continued)
MajorReports
Characteristics Outcomes
Numberof Grade Duration
Students Level (Weeks)
AchievementCurriculum
Subject Specific Standardized Race MutualArea -jest Test Relations Concern
Group-Investigation
20. Sharanetal.(in press)
Other Studies
21. Johnsonet al. (1976)
22. Johnson, etal.(1978)
217
30
30 5-6
SocialStudies
10
LanguageArts
Math
0+0
8o3
2
23. Cooper(Note 1) 60
ScienceGeographyEnglish
24. Wheeler &Ryan (1975) 58 5-6
SocialStudies
25. Wheeler(Note 2) 40 5-6
SocialStudies
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tow
son
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
5:48
13
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Table 1Characteristics and Outcomes of Cooperative Learning Studies (continued) o
MajorReports
Characteristics Outcomes
Numberof Grade
Students Level
Achievement
Duration(Weeks)
SubjectArea
CurriculumSpecific
Test
StandardizedTest
Race MutualRelations Concern
26. Weigeletal.(1975)
27. Hamblinetal.(1971)
fio (Gr. 7)324 7-10 |_20(Gr. 10) English
Spelling38 4 3 Math
Reading!O
@Hm
Key: + Experimental group exceeded control( + ) Experimental group marginally exceeded control (p-=.10)0 No difference between experimental and control groups— Control group exceeded experimental
Note: See text for explanations and qualifications of results.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tow
son
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
5:48
13
Nov
embe
r 20
14
COOPERATIVE LEARNING IN TEAMS 103
Randomization. Only the TGT and STADstudies used random assignment of teachers toexperimental and control treatments, althoughWheeler and Ryan (1973), Wheeler (Note 2)and Hamblin ct al. (1973) had teachers serve astheir own controls. In the Johnson studies,students but not teachers were randomlyassigned to treatments. No random assignmentat all was used in the Jigsaw and Group-Investigation studies, or in the CombinedProgram. Because all of the studies used eitheranalysis of covariancc or similar techniques tocontrol for pretest differences, or usedindividual random assignment, the studentassignment problem is probably not serious,and is at least unbiased. However, this is nottrue of the teacher assignment problem.Teachers who sign up to do an experimentaltechnique arc likely to be quite different fromand probably better than other teachers. Thisis a particularly important problem in theGroup-Investigation study (Sharan et al., inpress), where the experimental teachers hadbeen learning and using the experimentalmethods for more than a year. Teachers whowould choose to stay with the programs forsuch a long time are likely to be at least some-what extraordinary.
Other methodological issues. In addition todifferences in control groups and in randomi-zation, the various cooperative learning studiesvaried widely in other dimensions. One wasduration, which varied from two weeks to anentire school year (sec Table 1). The effects ofduration on project outcomes is hard toanticipate in advance. It could be argued thatif"a project can show positive effects in twoshort weeks, the effect would be stronger thelonger it continued. On the other hand, ashort intervention is likely to profit far morefrom any Hawthorne effect than would a longstudy, and teachers may be able to performoutstandingly for a short period but not keep itup over the long run. Because the onlyrelevance of instructional innovations is overthe long run, a short intervention has muchless external validity than would a long one.
Similarly, sample size varies widely, rangingfrom thirty students to more than seventeenhundred. Statistics conspire against significantfindings in small studies, yet the much greatercontrol over the implementation of theexperimental procedures possible in a small
study may outweigh the statistical dis-advantage. A large study is likely to be higherin external validity and lower in internalvalidity than a smaller one because of theprobability that there will be less experimenterinvolvement with each teacher in a large study.Finally, the studies vary widely in grade levels(2-12), subject matters, characteristics andlocations of settings, and measures. All ofthese can have effects on project outcomes aswell as generalizability of findings.
These differences in so many dimensions ofexperimental designs and settings makedrawing conclusions from the cooperative-learning research difficult and frustrating, butstill possible. Luckily, the studies reviewed inthis paper that had the most stringent and leastbiased designs tended to have the strongestpositive effects as well (sec below). Had it been
| otherwise, it would have been impossible toseparate experimental rigor from projecteffectiveness. What follows is a discussion andcomparison of outcomes for the variouscooperative learning methods.
Outcomes
There are two major categories of outcomesthat have been measured most frequently instudies of cooperative learning methods. One,of course, is academic achievement. Thesecond is a set of variables relating to socialoutcomes. These include liking and respectamong students and a special application ofinterpersonal attraction, race relations indesegregated schools. Because of considerableinterest in the past few years in improving racerelations in desegregated schools, this variablehas become one of the most researched andvalued of the outcomes of cooperativelearning. While most research has focused onachievement, mutual concern, and racerelations, I will also mention some effects ofother outcomes.
Table 1 summarizes the major features ofthe studies of cooperative learning and theoutcomes of those studies. In Table 1, a " + "indicates a statistically significant effect uscompared to control, a " 0 " ' indicates nodifference, and a " - " indicates an effect infavor of the control group. A blank indicatesthat the variable was not measured.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tow
son
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
5:48
13
Nov
embe
r 20
14
104 ROBERT E.SLAVIN
Academic Achievement
Because achievement is the primary outcomeof interest to schools, almost all of the studiesof cooperative learning have measured it. TheJohns Hopkins research on TGT and STADtypically has used both a curriculum-specifictest, consisting of items taken from thecurriculum materials themselves, and astandardized test such as the ComprehensiveTest of Basic Skills, the Stanford AchievementTest, and the Hoyum-Sandcrs English Test.The other studies all used curriculum-specifictests only.
The four major cooperative learning meth-ods, TGT, STAD, Jigsaw, and Group-Investigation, have all documented signi-ficantly positive effects on academic achieve-ment, as compared to control conditions,although this has not occurred in every study.Within methods, there are few consistent pat-terns of findings of significant gains in somestudies and not in others, except that TGTappears to be more successful in math,language, and reading than in social studies.Across methods, TGT appears to be mostconsistent in showing effects on achievement,and this is the technique that has beenresearched in the largest number of studies.STAD, Jigsaw, and Group-Investigation eachproduced significantly greater gains thancontrol in about half of the studies in whichthey were evaluated, although as noted above,the research design used in the STAD studieswas more stringent than those used in theJigsaw and Group-Investigation studies.
It is interesting to note that in only onestudy (Johnson et al., 1976) has a controlgroup exceeded an experimental group inachievement. One puzzling set of results wasobtained in two very similar studies. Wheelerand Ryan (1973) found no difference betweencooperative and competitive instructionalarrangements, yet Wheeler (Note 2), usingalmost identical procedures, did find signifi-cant achievement differences in favor of thecooperative group. Hamblin et al. (1971)found greater math achievement for acooperative contingency in which studentsearned rewards based on the lowest scores intheir groups than in an individual rewardcontingency, but there were no differenceswhen the rewards were based on the groupaverage.
There is no discernible relationship betweenmethodological features and outcomes. TGTstudies No. 2, 3, 6, 7 and 8 (see Table 1) allused relatively small samples and randomassignment at the student level, as did theJohnson studies, yet the TGT studies hadmuch more positive effects on achievement.Other characteristics of teacher assignment,duration, measures, and control groups do notsystematically correlate with the outcomes.One possible exception is the finding of fewerachievement effects for STAD than for thesimilar TGT program. The STAD studies usedsomewhat more rigorous designs, as controlstudents studied exactly the same curriculummaterials day by day as did the experimentalstudents, while there were some differences inschedules and/or curriculum between theexperimental and control classes in most of theTGT studies. However, this is likely to make adifference only in curriculum specific tests, notin standardized ones.
Looking further into the data, there is aninteresting pattern that emerges. This patternis best illustrated by the findings of the Group-Investigation study (Sharan et al., in press).The significantly positive effects reported bySharan et al. arc effects on what they call"high cognitive-level" items. On "lower-level" items there were few differences. Incontrast, TGT and STAD effects are strongestwhen the subject matter is focused on thelower-level skills, such as mathematics compu-tations, language mechanics, vocabulary, andso on, and weakest in such areas as socialstudies. In the combined study (Slavin &Karweit, Note 5) where TGT, STAD, andJigsaw II were used with the same students,there were positive effects of the cooperativemethods on reading vocabulary, languagemechanics, and language expression, allrelatively basic skills, but not on moreconceptually complex skills such as readingcomprehension, math concepts, and socialstudies.
Because of other differences, among thedifferent studies, this pattern is far fromconclusive, but it reflects the differencesbetween the Group-Investigation model andthe TGT-STAD model. Group-Investigationemphasizes creativity, inquiry, and complexthinking. In addition, students' tasks in thismethod are relatively open-ended; it is hard tospecify in advance exactly what students will
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tow
son
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
5:48
13
Nov
embe
r 20
14
COOPERATIVE LEARNING IN TEAMS 105
learn. Much of the instructional organization isleft up to the students.
In contrast, TGT and STAD are what I call"Group Mastery" methods. They are mostuseful when there is a particular body ofinformation to be mastered, where the crucialtask is to get students motivated to drill oneanother, to practice and assess one anotheruntil everyone feels confident that they havemastered the material at hand. Almost all ofmathematics, and most of language arts,reading, science, and even such areas of socialstudies as geography consist of objectives thatmust be learned by students, and it is in theseareas that "Group Mastery" methods are mostwidely used and most consistently effective.The subjects that require divergent thinking,especially most of social studies, literature, andrelated subjects, may be most appropriate formethods resembling Group-Investigation, al-though at present there is only the one study(Sharan et al., in press) to suggest this.
Whether the methods arc Group Mastery orGroup-Investigation oriented, there is anotherfactor that appears to explain1 both thedifferences between methods in effects onacademic achievement and possibly the originof these effects in the first place. This is theissue of structure. TGT and STAD areparticular examples of very carefully and firmlystructured techniques. They use a schedule ofteaching, worksheet work in teams, andassessment-feedback that repeats itself inweekly (or even more frequent) cycles. Onestudy I did with STAD (Slavin, in prcss-b)showed fairly convincingly that it was thisstructure by itself that accounted for most, butnot all, of the effectiveness of this technique.The addition of teams still made a significantlypositive impact on achievement, but the size ofthis effect was smaller than that between thestructured schedule of instruction withoutteam and an untreated control group.
In addition to TGT and STAD, the moststructured techniques have tended to be themost successful in increasing academic achieve-ment. Jigsaw and the Hamblin et al. (1971)methods are very highly structured. The leaststructured methods, as far as can bedetermined from their reports, are the Johnsontechniques, in which students are asked towork together, but no formal rewards arc givenfor doing so. There is little individual account-ability for individual contributionsto a groupproduct, and there is no schedule for teaching-
practice-assessment. The Johnson techniqueshave documented effects on non-cognitiveoutcomes such as positive race relations andfriendships between mainstreamed and non-mainstreamed children, but not on academicachievement.
In the course of the research on TGT andSTAD there have been several studies directedat finding out which components of thesetechniques produce the effects on academicachievement. One of the most interestingresults of these component analyses is thatapparently the opportunity for peer tutoringwithin teams is not a major explanation of theeffects of cooperative learning on achievement.In one TGT study (Hulten & DeVries, Note 6)and one STAD study (Slavin, in press-b), theopportunity to peer tutor in teams waswithheld from some groups. This change madeno difference in the achievement effects. Onthe other hand, when the team reward wasremoved and students were allowed to peertutor but were not assigned to teams, academicperformance dropped significantly. This find-ing was quite unexpected, as most authors inthis area have assumed that the peer tutoring isan important component of team effective-ness; I would not believe it myself if it had notbeen replicated in two different studies usingdifferent team techniques. What it suggests isthat it is the change in norms concerningacademic performance that produce themotivation to do more work and to succeedacademically. To go back to our friend Sam, hemay have done his best in baseball not becausehis teammates helped him with battingpractice, but because he was motivated by theirsupport and encouragement to give his all.
Many of the TGT and STAD studies haveassessed possible sex X treatment and ability Xtreatment interactions. Despite an earlyexpectation that team learning would espe-cially benefit low achievers, such an interactionwas found in only one study (DeVries, Mescon,& Shackman, Note 7), but the oppositepattern was found in another (DeVries &Edwards, 1973). Several additional studiesfound no ability X treatment effects, and nostudy as of yet has found any differentialeffects due to sex. Similarly, there is no patternof effects with regard to student age; TGT andSTAD, at least, seem to be equally effective atgrade levels from three to nine.
One especially fascinating interaction isreported by Wheeler (Note 2). He found that
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tow
son
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
5:48
13
Nov
embe
r 20
14
106 ROBERT E. SLAVIN
students who were predisposed to becooperative did best in a cooperative treat-ment, while those who were predisposed to becompetitive had higher achievement in acompetitive treatment. This interaction hasparticular relevance for the education of suchgroups as Mexican-Americans and Native-Americans, who are know to be much morecooperatively predisposed than Anglos.
There is one interaction effect that isinteresting, but it may not be reliable. Luckcret al. (1976) found that Jigsaw increased socialstudies achievement for Blacks and Chicanos,but not Anglos. Slavin (1977b) and Slavin andOickle (Note 9) also found a substantiallygreater effect of STAD on black than on whiteachievement. However, Slavin (1979) foundno race X treatment interaction, nor anytendency in that direction; so the jury on thisissue is still out.
In summary, the various cooperative-learning techniques tend to have positiveeffects on student achievement, but theseeffects do not appear in every study. Of 33separate experimental-control comparisons in26 studies, the experimental group exceededthe control group on a curriculum-specificand/or a standardized test in 22 studies, therewere no differences in 10 studies, and thecontrol group exceeded the experimentalgroup in 1 study. While none of the individualstudies are conclusive in themselves, theseresults taken as a whole provide positiveevidence for effects of cooperative learning onachievement that are about as reliable as ispossible for field research in schools.
Social Outcomes
Race relations. The effect of cooperative-learning strategies on race relations indesegregated schools is an outstanding case ofsocial psychology in action. Anyone who visitshis or her local junior-high school at lunchtime can sec that while we have gotten black,white, and Hispanic students into the sameschool buildings, we have a long way to gobefore they form friendships and interact on anequal and amicable basis. Numerous socio-metric studies (e.g., Gerard & Miller, 1975)have confirmed this observation; studentsmake few friendship choices outside of theirown racial or ethnic groups, and this situationdoes not improve over time of its own accord.
Cooperative-learning techniques place stu-dents of different races or ethnicities intocooperative groups where each group memberis given an equal role in helping the groupachieve its goals. These are the conditions ofAllport's (1954) Contact Theory of InterracialRelations: Equal-status, cooperative interac-tion. Put another way, it seems logical that ifwe assign students to work together on acommon task toward a common goal, whereeach individual can make a substantialcontribution to the mutually desired goal, thestudents will learn to like and respect oneanother.
The results of the cooperative-learningstudies tend to support this expectation, butthere arc some surprises. The strongest andmost consistent effects on race relations, asmeasured by the number of cross-race choicesmade on a sociometric instrument and thepercentage of all such choices that arc acrossrace lines, have been found in the three STADstudies that took place in integrated schools. Inone study (Slavin, 1979). a nine-monthfollowup found that even in the next schoolyear, assigned to different classes and differentteachers, students who had been in theexperimental group still named more friendsof the other race than did students who hadbeen in the control groups.
Of the four TGT studies in desegregatedschools, three found positive effects on thenumber of friends named of the other race.However, none of them found significanteffects on the percentage of cross-racial choicesover all friendship choices.
Cooper et al. (Note 1) found positive effectsof cooperative learning as compared toindividualized learning on cross-racial friend-ships, but they also found positive effects onthe same variable in a competitive treatment.Their competitive students were assigned togroups similar to those used in the cooperativetreatment, except that the competitivestudents were told to try to beat their group-mates. This study suggests that simplyassigning student to regularly constitutedgroups, not anything about "commongoals,'' is the key to improving race relations indesegregated schools, but the Cooper et al.study would have to be replicated with a largersample to substantiate this conclusion.
One of the largest and longest studies ofcooperative learning was conducted' by Weigclet al. (1975) in tri-ethnic (Chicano, Anglo,
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tow
son
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
5:48
13
Nov
embe
r 20
14
COOPERATIVE tEARNING IN TEAMS 107
Black) classrooms. They found positive effectsof cooperative learning on white attitudestoward Mexican-Americans, but not onwhite-black, black-white, black-Chicano,Chicano-black, or Chicano-White attitudes.They also found positive effects of cooperativelearning on teachers' reports of less inter-ethnic conflict. There is no way at present todocument this, but it is my guess that hadWeigel et al. (1975) measured sociometricchanges instead of attitudes, they would havefound more consistent positive effects, associometric patterns seem to me moreresponsive to environmental manipulation andfar more reliable than ethnic attitudes.
One well-known study evaluated the effectsof Jigsaw on race relations (Blaney et al.,1977). Unfortunately, the authors used an oddmeasure of race relations. The Jigsaw treatmentinvolves assignment of students to six-memberteams that are heterogeneous on sex, ethnicity,and academic ability. Blaney et al. comparedstudent ratings of their teammates to theirratings of their non-teammate classmates, andinterpreted the higher ratings of teammates asan indication of inter-ethnic attraction, eventhough the non-teammate classmates were ofabout the same ethnic composition as theteammates. This is an indirect measure at best,and thus the effects of Jigsaw on intcrethnicattraction in this case are uncertain. However,in a recent study in mixed Mexican-American-Anglo-Asian classrooms, Gonzales (Note 4)found more positive attitudes toward Mexican-Americans in Jigsaw than in" control classes,although no effects were found on attitudestoward whites or Asians.
One of the STAD studies (Slavin, 1979) wasrecently reanalyzed by Hansell & Slavin (Note8) to determine why STAD affects racerelations. The results were quite interesting. Inthat study, the effects of the treatment oncross-racial friendship choices made ' andreceived did not differ by race, by sex, or byacademic ability of the chooser or receiver.That is, the treatment effects were essentiallyacross-the-board increases for all students inthe number of cross-racial choices made andreceived. An examination of the order ofchoices made showed that the treatment effectswere strongest for choices high in eachstudent's list of friends, and examination ofreciprocated versus unreciprocated choicesshowed that the treatment worked because itincreased mutual, reciprocated choices, which
tend to be the stronger, more long-lastingchoices. In other words, the Hansell and Slavinfindings confirm that the effects of STAD onrace relations are not artifactual or limited toone or another segment of the studentpopulation, but that they are strong,meaningful, and general.
In summary, cooperative-learning methodstaken together appear to have relativelyconsistent positive effects on student racerelations, especially when the measure of racerelations is a sociometric one. The research onSTAD demonstrates that these effects can bestrong and long lasting.
Mutual Concern. Mutual concern has beenmeasured in a variety of ways in differentstudies. In the TGT and STAD studies mutualconcern has been measured cither by means ofsociometric instruments, where the dependentvariable is the number of friendship choicesmade, or by means of questionnaire scalestapping students' liking of their classmates andtheir feelings of being liked by them. TheJohnson studies operationalized mutual con-cern as students' ratings of their classmates.
Mutual concern was measured in 13 of theTGT-STAD studies, including the CombinedProgram. Nine of these studies found positiveeffects on mutual-concern variables, and theother four found no differences. In the case ofthe two TGT studies that failed to find positiveeffects on mutual concern, both took place inthird grades where students expressed con-siderable liking for one another on thepretests, leaving little room for growth. Thiswas not the case, however, with the two STADstudies in which no differences were found.
Johnson et al. (1976) and Cooper ct al.(Note 1) both found that their methodsincreased student ratings of their classmatesmore than individualized instruction. Wheeler(Note 2) similarly found more positiveattitudes toward classmates in cooperative thanin competitive conditions.
The effects of Jigsaw on mutual concern arcunclear. Blaney ct al. (1977) found nodifference between the experimental andcontrol groups in overall ratings of classmates,but they found an effect favoring the controlgroup in students' feelings of being liked, amost unusual finding in research on coopera-tive groups. On the other hand, liking amonggroupmatcs increased in the Jigsaw classes.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tow
son
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
5:48
13
Nov
embe
r 20
14
108 ROBERT E. SLAVIN
This set of findings is definitely in need ofreplication before conclusions can be drawn.
Self-Esteem. Several of the cooperative -learning studies have included measures ofstudent self-esteem. Self-esteem has beenanticipated as an outcome of cooperativelearning both because students in cooperativegroups feel more liked by their classmates(which they usually arc) and because they arelikely to feel more successful academically(which they also usually are).
The technique whose structure is mostdirectly targeted to improving student self-esteem is Jigsaw, in which students are eachgiven special information that makes themindispensable to their groups. Positive effectson self-esteem have been found in two studies(Blaney et al., 1977; Geffncr, 1978), but notin a third (Gonzales, Note 4).
TGT and STAD have each documentedeffects on student self-esteem (DeVries,Lucasse, & Shackman, Note 3; Slavin &Oickle, Note 9). Also, the Combined Program(Slavin & Karweit, Note 5) showed positiveeffects on this variable.
Liking of School. Anyone walking into aclass using any cooperative-learning strategycan see that the great majority of studentsenjoy working in groups. I am unaware of acase where — when students who worked ingroups were asked whether they would preferto go back to traditional methods — thestudents did not overwhelmingly prefer to stayin groups. In general the data on measures ofsatisfaction or liking of school support thisimpression, but there are many exceptions.
For TGT, satisfaction was measured in ninestudies, and positive effects were found infour. No differences were found in the otherfive. These instances of no differences weresurprising given that of all the techniques,TGT seems most exciting to students since ituses frequent, active, academic games. Inmany cases, the failure to find these effectswere due to ceiling effects, where studentsalready expressed positive attitudes towardschool on the pretest. Ceiling effects were alsoa problem in the STAD research, in whichpositive effects on satisfaction were found in
two of five studies. The Combined Programalso showed positive effects on student likingof school. Blaney et al. (1977) found a positiveeffect on Jigsaw for lilting of school, butGonzales (Note 4) did not replicate this effect.Wheeler and Ryan (1973) found thatcooperatively taught students liked schoolmore than competitively taught ones.
Other Outcomes
In addition to the outcomes discussedabove, several researchers have investigatedeffects of cooperative learning on othervariables. One of the most exciting newapplications of cooperative-learning methods isto the social integration of mainstreamedlearning-disabled or EMR students with theirnormal peers. Using the Johnson techniques,Armstrong, Balow, and Johnson (Note 10)found greater acceptance of learning-disabledchildren by their normal classmates following acooperative-learning intervention. Ballard,Corman, Gottlieb, and Kaufman (1977) alsofound marked improvement in friendshipsbetween EMR and non-EMR students follow-ing a cooperative method. Slavin (1977b) usedTGT in classes for emotionally disturbedstudents and found that the experimentalstudents increased in appropriate interaction.This increase was still present in a five-monthfollowup. In addition, the TGT studentsnamed more of their classmates as friends thandid control students.
Gonzales (Note 4) showed that Jigsawstudents increased in internal locus of controlmore than control students, and Bridgeman(1977) found that participation in Jigsawincreased students' abilities to take theperspective of others, an important Piagctianmeasure of social development. Lazarowitz,Sharan, and Steinberg (Note 11) found thatstudents who had experienced Group Investi-gation were more cooperative, more altruistic,less competitive, and less vengeful than controlstudents on a reward-allocation task.
Using behavioral observation in classrooms,STAD students were found to be on-task morethan control students in three studies (Slavin,1978a; Slavin, in press-b; Slavin, 1979), butnot in a fourth (Slavin & Oickle, Note 9).Slavin (1977b) also found that TGT studentswere on-task more than control students in aschool for emotionally disturbed adolescents.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tow
son
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
5:48
13
Nov
embe
r 20
14
COOPERATIVE LEARNING IN TEAMS 109
Conclusions
Academic Achievement. Cooperative-learn-ing methods, taken as a whole, appear to bemore effective than various control methods.However, the effects of cooperative learning onachievement are not consistent across methodsor across studies within methods. Thesedifferences do not appear to be related in anyconsistent way to methodological differencesbetween studies.
There is some suggestive evidence that thekinds of achievement outcomes found forcooperative-learning methods vary dependingon whether the method is Group-Masteryoriented (students work toward specificlearning goals) or Group-Investigation orient-ed (students explore subject areas freely).Group-Mastery methods may be more effectivefor low-level learning outcomes, such as.knowledge, calculation, reading, and applica-tion of skills, while Group-Investigationmethods may be more effective for higher-order skills, such as identifying concepts,analyzing problems, and making judmentsand evaluations.
The most successful methods for increasingstudent achievement have been characterizedby several features, including a high degree ofstructure, a regular schedule of learningactivities and well-specified learning objectives,clear individual accountability for performanceamong team members, and a well-definedgroup reward system, including rewards orrecognition for successful groups. However,the fact that the most successful techniqueshave these characteristics does not conclusivelydemonstrate that they account for the successesobserved, as the techniques and theirevaluations vary on other dimensions as well.
Race Relations. It is clear that cooperativelearning methods have relatively strong andconsistent positive effects on relationshipsbetween black, white, and Mexican-Americanstudents. These effects are much moreconsistent for the highly structured TGT andSTAD methods than for less structuredtechniques.
Other Outcomes. Cooperative-learning tech-niques have fairly consistent positive effects onmutual concern among students, self-esteem,
liking of school, and other variables. There isnot yet enough evidence to indicate whichtechniques or components of techniques aremost conducive to these effects, although theJigsaw method appears to be especiallyeffective in increasing student self-esteem.
These results indicate that overall, coopera-tive-learning methods appear to be animprovement over traditional instruction.However, there is much to be discovered aboutwhen and how they have positive effects onvarious student outcomes. Comparisons ofdifferent studies is of limited use in drawingthese conclusions. For example, the Wheelerand Ryan (1973) and Wheeler (Note 2) studiesused almost identical procedures, yet onefound positive effects on achievement and theother did not. Was this difference due to thedifferent populations (suburban MinneapolisvSi small-town Virginia)? To different teachers?Different content? Even two such similarstudies cannot be compared conclusively. Tothen compare research done by Sharan et al.(in press) with Israeli elementary-schoolstudents using a highly complex Group-Investigation program in social studies withresearch done in the United States withinner-city junior-high school students studyinglanguage arts using STAD (Slavin, 1979) isasking a great deal of the data. I have tried inthis review to draw broad conclusions fromadmittedly murky evidence, but only withfactorial studies that involve comparisons ofcomponents or models of cooperative learningcan we make substantial headway in under-standing their effects.
Some of the issues that need to be resolvedconcern the importance of various componentsof cooperative-learning methods. For example,how important for various student outcomes isthe group competition used in TGT and STADbut not in Jigsaw, Group-Investigation, andother techniques? How important is it to trainteachers and students extensively in groupprocessing skills, as is done in Jigsaw andGroup-Investigation? How important is in-dividual accountability for achievement out-comes? What arc the important components ofcooperative learning for race relations, self-esteem, and mutual concern?
Other unresolved issues involve furtherexplication of the effects of cooperativelearning. For example, what are the long-termeffects of cooperative learning on racerelations, and how much do the effects extend
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tow
son
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
5:48
13
Nov
embe
r 20
14
110 ROBERT E. SLAVIN
outside of the classroom? What are the effectsof the methods on teachers?
Finally, the positive effects of cooperative-learning methods are well enough establishedto begin to evaluate extensions or adaptationsof the methods to new uses, such as to facilitatemainstreaming, bilingual education, andremedial or special education, or to combinecooperative-learning methods with otherinstructional methods such as individualiza-tion and mastery learning.
Of course, there are many other issues, boththeoretical and applied, that should beaddressed. Cooperative learning represents asubstantial change in the technology ofclassroom instruction. It usually involvessimultaneous changes in the reward, task, andauthority structures of the classroom. Expli-cating the consequences of these changes, aswell as interactions of the changes with subjectand setting characteristics, will be an enormousjob, but the results that have been obtained todate indicate that it is a job well worth doing.
Research on cooperative-learning techniquesrepresents an unusual event in the history ofeducational research. The techniques arose outof social-psychological theory; they have beenevaluated in numerous field experiments thatwere generally high in both internal andexternal validity; and they are in use inhundreds of classrooms across the country andin Israel. As in any program of research, thereis a need for further investigations ofinteractions, limitations, and extensions offindings, but the basic model has beenvalidated in classroom settings. Hopefully, theSams of the world will someday find that theirclassrooms are as exciting, motivating, andsupportive as their baseball teams.
Reference Notes
1. Cooper, L., Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R., &Wilderson, F. The effects of cooperation, competi-tion, and individualization on cross-ethnic, cross-sex,and cross-ability attitudes and achievement. Unpub-lished manuscript. University of Minnesota, 1977.(Paper available from the authors. Department ofPsychology, University of Minnesota, Mineapolis,MN 55455).
2. Wheeler, R. Predisposition toward cooperation andcompetition: Cooperative and competitive classroom
effects. Paper presented at the meeting of theAmerican Psychological Association, San Francisco,1977.
3. DeVrics, D. Lucasse, P., & Shackman, S. Small groupversus individualized instruction: A field test of theirrelative effectiveness. Paper presented at the meetingof the American Psychological Association, NewYork, 1979.
4. Gonzales, A. Classroom cooperation and ethnicbalance. Paper presented at the meeting of theAmerican Psychological Association, New York, 1979.
5. Slavin, R., & Karweit, N. An extended cooperativelearning experience in elementary school. Paperpresented at the meeting of the AmericanPsychological Association, New York, 1979.
6. Hulten, B.H., & DeVries, D.L. Team competitionand group practice: Effects on student achievementand attitudes. (Center Report No. 212) Center forSocial Organization of Schools, The Johns HopkinsUniversity, 1976.
7. DeVries, D.L., Mescon, I.T., & Shackman, S.L.Teams-Games-Tournament in the elementary class-room: A replication. (Center Report No. 190) Centerfor Social Organization of Schools, The Johns HopkinsUniversity, 1975.
8. Hansell, S., & Slavin, R. Cooperative learning andinterracial friendships. Paper presented at the meetingof the American Psychological Association, NewYork, 1979.
9. Slavin, R.E., & Oickle. E. Effects of student teamsand individual learning expectations on race relationsand achievement in a rural school. Paper presented atthe meeting of the American Educational ResearchAssociation, Boston, 1980.
10. Armstrong, B., Balow, B., & Johnson, D.W.Cooperative goal structures as a means of integratinglearning-disabled with normal progress elementaryschool pupils. Unpublished manuscript, University ofMinnesota, 1977. (Paper available from the authors.Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota,Mineapolis, MN 55455).
11. Lazarowitz, R., Sharan, S., & Steinberg, R. Classroomlearning style and cooperative behavior of elementaryschool children. Unpublished manuscript, HaifaUniversity (Israel), 1978.
12. Edwards, K.J., & DeVrics, D.L. The effects of Teams-Games-Tournament and two structural variations onclassroom process, student attitudes, and studentachievement. (Center Report No. 172) Center forSocial Organization of Schools, The Johns HopkinsUniversity, 1974.
13. DeVries, D.L., Edwards, K.J.. & Wells, E.H. Teams-Games-Tournament in the social studies classroom:Effects on academic achievement, student attitudes,cognitive beliefs, and classroom climate. (CenterReport No. 173) Center for Social Organization ofSchools, The Johns Hopkins University, 1974.
14. DeVries, D.L. & Mescon, I.T. Teams-Games-Tournament: An effective task and reward structure inelementary grades. (Center Report No. 189) Centerfor Social Organization of Schools, The Johns HopkinsUniversity, 1975.
15. DeVries, D.L., Meson, I.T., & Shackman, S.L.Teams-Games-Tournament [TGT] effects on readingskills in the elementary grades. (Center Report No.200) Center for Social Organization of Schools, TheJohns Hopkins University, 1975.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tow
son
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
5:48
13
Nov
embe
r 20
14
COOPERATIVE LEARNING IN TEAMS 111
References
Allport, G. The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, Mass.:Addison-Wesley, 1954.
Aronson, E. The Jigsaw classroom. Beverly Hills, Calif.:Sage Publications, 1978.
Ballard, M., Corman, L., Gottlieb, J., & Kaufman, M.Improving the social status of mainsticamed retardedchildren. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1977, 69,605-611.
Berkowitz, L., & Daniels, L.R. Responsibility anddependency. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,1963, 66, 429-436.
Blaney, N.T., Stephan, S., Rosenfield, D., Aronson, E.,&Sikes, J. Interdependence in the classroom: A fieldstudy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1977, 69,121-128.
Bridgeman, D. The influence of cooperative, inter-dependent learning on role taking and moral reasoning:A theoretical and empirical field study with fifth gradestudents. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Universityof California, Santa Cruz, 1977.
Bronfenbrenner, U. Two worlds of childhood. New York:Russell Sage Foundation, 1970.
Coleman, J.S. The adolescent society. New York: The FreePress of Glencoe, 1961.
Deutsch, M. A theory of cooperation and competition.Human Relations, 1949, 2, 129-152.
DeVries, D.L., & Edwards, K.J. Learning games andstudent teams: Their effects on classroom process.American Educational Research Journal, 1973, 10,307-318.
DeVries, D.L., & Slavin, R.E. Teams-Games-Tournament(TGT): Review of ten classroom experiments. Journal ofResearch and Development in Education, 1978, 12,28-38.
Edwards, K.J., DeVries, D.L., & Snyder, J.P. Games andteams: A winning combination. Simulation and Games,1972, 3, 247-269.
Geffner, R. The effects of interdependent learning on self-esteem, interethnic relations, and intra-ethnic attitudesof elementary school children: A field experiment.Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University ofCalifornia, Santa Cruz, 1978.
Gerrard, H.B., & Miller, N. School desegregation: A long-range study. New York: Plenum Press, 1975.
Haines, D.B., & McKeachie, W.J. Cooperation versuscompetitive discussion methods in teaching introductorypsychology. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1967, 58,386-390.
Hamblin, R.L., Hathaway, C., & Wodarski, J.S. Groupcontingencies, peer tutoring, and accelerating academicachievement. In E. Ramp and W. Hopkins (Eds.), A newdirection for education: Behavior analysis. Lawrence,Kansas: The University of Kansas: The University ofKansas, Department of Human Development, 1971.
Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. Instructional goalstructure: Cooperative competitive or individualistic.Review of Education Research, 1974, 44, 213-240.
Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. Learning together andalone. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1975.
Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R., Johnson, J., & Anderson, D.The effects of cooperative vs. individualized instructionon student prosocial behavior, attitudes toward learning,
and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology,1976, 68, 446-452.
Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R., & Scott, L. The effects ofcooperative and individualized instruction on studentattitudes and achievement. Journal of Social Psychology,1978, 104, 207-216.
Julian, J.W., & Perry, F.A. Cooperation contrasted withintra-group and inter-group competition. Sociometry,1967, 30, 79-90.
Lucker, G.W., Rosenfield, D., Sikes, J., & Aronson, E.Performance in the interdependent classroom: A fieldstudy. American Educational Research Journal, 1976, 13,115-123.
Phillips, B., & D'Amico, L.A. Effects of cooperation andcompetition on the cohesiveness of small face-to-facegroups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1956, 47,65-70.
Sharan, S., Lazarowitz, R., & Ackerman, Z. Learning incooperative small groups and academic achievement ofelementary school children. Journal of ExperimentalEducation, in press.
Sharan, S., & Sharan, Y. Small-group teaching.Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Educational Technology Publica-tions, 1976.
Slavin, R.E. Cooperative reward structure: An analytic andpractical review. Review of Educational Research, 1977,47, 633-650. (a)
Slavin, R.E. A student team approach to teachingadolescents with special emotional and behavioral needs.Psychology in the Schools, 1977, 14(1), 77-84. (b)
Slavin, R.E. How student learning teams can integrate thedesegregated classroom. Integrated Education, 1977,15(6), 56-58. (c)
Slavin, R.E. Student teams and achievement divisions.Journal of Research and Development in Education,1978, 12, 39-49. (a)
Slavin, R.E. Using student team learning. Baltimore, Md:Center for Social Organization of Schools, The JohnsHopkins University, 1978. (b)
Slavin, R.E. Student teams and comparison among equals:Effects on academic performance and student attitudes.Journal of Educational Psychology, 1978, 70, 532-538. (c)
Slavin, R.E. Effects of biracial learning teams oncross-racial friendships. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 1979, 71, 381-387.
Slavin, R.E. Cooperative learning. Review of EducationalResearch, in press. (a)
Slavin, R.E. Effects of student teams and peer tutoring onacademic achievement and time on-task. Journal ofExperimental Education, in press, (b)
Spilerman. S. Raising academic motivation in lower classadolescents: A convergence of two research traditions.Sociology of Education, 1971, 44, 103-118.
Thomas, EJ. Effects of facilitative role interdependenceon group functioning. Human Relations, 1957, 10,347-366.
Weigel, R.H., Wiser, P.L., & Cook, S.W. Impact ofcooperative learning experiences on cross-ethnic relationsand attitudes. Journal of Social Issues, 1975, 31, 219-245.
Wheeler, R., & Ryan, F.L. Effects of cooperative andcompetitive classroom environments on the attitudes andachievement of elementary school students engaged insocial studies inquiry activities. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 1973, 65, 402-407.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tow
son
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
5:48
13
Nov
embe
r 20
14