Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Effects of Small-Group Learning on Transfer: a Meta-Analysis

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Educational Psychology Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study investigated the potential benefit of small-group learning on transfer performance using the method of meta-analysis. Results showed positive support for the hypothesis that small-group learning can increase students’ transfer performance (average effect size of 0.30). Unlike reviews of effects of cooperation on learning, this review of effects on transfer found no greater benefit of structured small-groups compared to unstructured. This finding, in conjunction with the significant variability found across effect sizes, suggests that further investigation into features of effective unstructured small-group tasks might yield heuristics that teachers could eventually use to make decisions about when collaboration would be most useful. Although some of the reviewed studies were published decades ago, the vast majority were published within the last few years, suggesting a growing area of research interest.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Although transfer can have different conceptualizations and operationalizations (e.g., near vs. far; direct application vs. dynamic transfer, Schwartz et al. 2008), there is broad consensus that transfer involves the generalization of prior knowledge, and this is the broad sense of the term that is meant here.

References

References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the meta-analysis

  • Andersson, J., & Rönnberg, J. (1995). Recall suffers from collaboration: joint recall effects of friendship and task complexity. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9(3), 199–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aronson, E. N. (2002). The jigsaw classroom. In E. N. Aronson (Ed.), Improving academic achievement: impact of psychological factors on education (pp. 215–219). San Diego: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aronson, E., Blaney, N., Stephan, C., Sikes, J., & Snapp, M. (1978). The jigsaw classroom. Beverly Hills: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashman, A. F., & Gillies, R. M. (1997). Children’s cooperative behavior and interaction in trained and untrained work groups in regular classrooms. J Sch Psychol, 35(3), 261–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Barab, S. A., Scott, B., Siyahhan, S., Goldstone, R., Ingram-Goble, A., Zuiker, S. J., & Warren, S. (2009). Transformational play as a curricular scaffold: using video games to support science education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(4), 305–320.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, S. M., & Ceci, S. (2002). When and where do we apply what we learn? Psychol Bull, 128, 612–637.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Barron, B. (2000). Problem solving in video-based microworlds: Collaborative and individual outcomes of high-achieving sixth-grade students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(2), 391–398.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biederman, I., & Shiffrar, M. M. (1987). Sexing day-old chicks: a case study and expert systems analysis of a difficult perceptual-learning task. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn, 13(4), 640–645.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Soloway, E., & Krajcik, J. (1996). Learning with peers: from small group cooperation to collaborative communities. Educational Researcher, 25(8), 37–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. West Sussex: Wiley.

  • *Brand, S., Reimer, T., & Opwis, K. (2003). Effects of metacognitive thinking and knowledge acquisition in dyads on individual problem solving and transfer performance. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 62(4), 251–261.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bransford, J. D., & Schwartz, D. L. (1999). Rethinking transfer: a simple proposal with multiple implications. Review of Research in Education, 24, 61–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: braIn, mind, experience, and school. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

  • *Brodbeck, F.C., & Greitemeyer, T. (2000). Effects of individual versus mixed individual and group experience in rule induction on group member learning and group performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36(6), 621–648.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A. L. (1989). Analogical learning and transfer: what develops? In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and Analogical reasoning (pp. 369–412). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bruffee, K. A. (1995). Sharing our toys: cooperative learning versus collaborative learning. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 27, 12–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H., De Leeuw, N., Chiu, M., & Lavancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognit Sci, 18, 439–477.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognit Sci, 5(2), 121–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H., & VanLehn, K. A. (2012). Seeing deep structure from the interactions of surface features. Educational Psychologist, 47(3), 177–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64, 1–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, E. G., Lotan, R. A., Scarloss, B. A., & Arellano, A. R. (1999). Complex instruction: equity in cooperative learning classrooms. Theory into Practice, 38, 80–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, E. B. (1998). Using explanatory knowledge during collaborative problem solving in science. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3–4), 387–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Corliss, S.B. (2005). The effects of reflective prompts and collaborative learning in hypermedia problem-based learning environments on problem solving and metacognitive skills. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Texas at Austin, TX.

  • *Cuneo, A. (2007). Examining the effects of collaborative learning on performance in undergraduate mathematics. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Capella University, MN.

  • Detterman, D. K. (1993). The case for the prosecution: transfer as an epiphenomenon. In D. K. Detterman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Transfer on trial: intelligence, cognition, and instruction (pp. 1–24). Norwood: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by collaborative learning? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative-learning: cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 1–19). Oxford: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1980). Analogical problem solving. Cogn Psychol, 12(3), 306–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cogn Psychol, 15(1), 1–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillies, R. (2004). The effects of cooperative learning on junior high school students during small group learning. Learning and Instruction, 14(2), 197–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical model of meta-analysis. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hedges, L. V., & Vevea, J. L. (1998). Fixed- and random-effects models in meta-analysis. Psychol Methods, 3(4), 486–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, J., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003). Measuring inconsistency in meta-analysis. Br Med J, 327, 557–560. doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Hudgins, B.B. (1960). Effects of group experience on individual problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 51(1), 37-42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1996). Cooperation and the use of technology. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 1017–1044). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Making cooperative learning work. Theory into Practice, 3(2), 67–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An educational psychology success story: social interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational Researcher, 38(5), 365–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1998). Cooperative learning returns to college: what evidence is there that it works? Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 30(4), 26–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Stanne, M. B. (2000). Cooperative learning methods: a meta-analysis. Retrieved June 20, 2012, http://www.ccsstl.com/sites/default/files/Cooperative%20Learning%20Research%20.pdf

  • 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. Psychol Bull, 89(1), 47–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Kapur, M. (2010). Productive failure in mathematical problem solving. Instructional Science, 38(6), 523–550.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Kirschner, F., Paas, F., & Kirschner, P. (2009). Individual and group-based learning from complex cognitive tasks: Effects on retention and transfer efficiency. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 306–314.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Kirschner, F., Paas, F., Kirschner, P., & Janssen, J. (2011). Differential effects of problem-solving demands on individual and collaborative learning outcomes. Learning and Instruction, 21, 587–599.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Kramarski, B., & Mevarech, Z.R. (2003). Enhancing mathematical reasoning in the classroom: the effects of cooperative learning and metacognitive training. American Educational Research Journal, 40(1), 281–310.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Krause, U-M, & Stark, R. (2010). Reflection in example- and problem-based learning: effects of reflection prompts, feedback and cooperative learning. Evaluation & Research in Education, 23(4), 255–272.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Lambiotte, J.G., Dansereau, D.F., Rocklin, T.R., Fletcher, B., Hythecker, V.I., Larson, C.O., & O’Donnell, A.M. (1987). Cooperative learning and test taking: transfer of skill. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 12(1), 52–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lamm, H., & Trommsdorff, G. (1973). Group versus individual performance on tasks requiring ideational proficiency (brainstorming): a review. European Journal of Social Psychology, 3(4), 361–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latané, B., Williams, K., & Harkins, S. (1979). Many hands make light the work: the causes and consequences of social loafing. J Pers Soc Psychol, 37(6), 822–832.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Laughlin, P.R., Carey, H.R., & Kerr, N.L. (2008). Group-to-individual problem-solving transfer. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 11(3), 319–330.

    Google Scholar 

  • Light, R. J., & Pillemer, D. B. (1984). Summing up: the science of reviewing research. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lobato, J. (2006). Alternative perspectives on the transfer of learning: history, issues, and challenges for future research. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(4), 431–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lou, Y., Abrami, P. C., & D’Apollonia, S. (2001). Small group and individual learning with technology: a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 71(3), 449–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manion, V., & Alexander, J. M. (1997). The benefits of peer collaboration on strategy use, metacognitive causal attribution, and recall. J Exp Child Psychol, 67, 268–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marton, F. (2006). Sameness and difference in transfer. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(4), 499–535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, R. S., Cooper, J. L., Davidson, N., & Hawkes, P. (1995). Building bridges between cooperative and collaborative learning. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 27(4), 34–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *McDonald, B.A., Larson, C.O., Dansereau, D.F., & Spurlin, J.E. (1985). Cooperative dyads: Impact on text learning and transfer. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 10(4), 369–377.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michaelsen, L. K., Fink, L. D., & Knight, A. (1997). Designing effective group activities: lessons for classroom teaching and faculty development. In D. DeZure (Ed.), To Improve the Academy (Vol. 16, pp. 373–398). Stillwater: New Forums Press and the Professional ad Organizational Development Network in Higher Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mondoux, J., Auderset, P-B, & Dillenbourg, P. (2004). Abstraction and transfer in collaborative learning. Proceedings of the ICLS ‘04: The 6th international conference on learning sciences (pp. 358–363). International Society of the Learning Sciences.

  • Moreland, R. L. (2010). Are dyads really groups? Small Group Research, 41, 251–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Moreno, R. (2009). Constructing knowledge with an agent-based instructional program: A comparison of cooperative and individual meaning making. Learning and Instruction, 19(5), 433–444.

    Google Scholar 

  • Needham, D. R., & Begg, L. M. (1991). Problem-oriented training promotes spontaneous analogical transfer: memory-oriented training promotes memory for training. Mem Cognit, 19, 543–557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Novick, L. R. (1988). Analogical transfer, problem similarity, and expertise. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn, 14, 510–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Donnell, A. M. (1999). Structuring dyadic interaction through scripted cooperation. In A. M. O’Donnell & A. King (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on peer learning (pp. 179–196). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Donnell, A. M. (2006). The role of peers and group learning. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 781–802). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Donnell, A. M., Dansereau, D. F., Hall, R. H., & Rocklin, T. R. (1987). Cognitive, social/affective, and metacognitive outcomes of scripted cooperative learning. J Educ Psychol, 79(4), 431–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *O’Donnell, A.M., Dansereau, D.F., Rocklin, T., Lambiotte, J.G., Hythecker, V.I., & Larson, C.O. (1985). Cooperative writing direct effects and transfer. Written Communication, 2, 307–315.

    Google Scholar 

  • *O’Donnell, A.M., Larson, C.O., Dansereau, D.F., & Rocklin, T.R. (1986). Effects of cooperation and editing on instruction writing performance. Journal of Experimental Education, 54(4), 207–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Okita, S. Y., & Schwartz, D. L. (2013). Learning by teaching human pupils and teachable agents: the importance of recursive feedback. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 22(3), 375–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Olivera, F., & Straus, S. (2004). Group-to-individual transfer of learning. Small Group Research, 35(4), 440–465.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Panitz, T. (1999). Collaborative versus cooperative learning: A comparison of the two concepts which will help us understand the underlying nature of interactive learning. Retrieved April 8, 2013, from http://home.capecod.net/~tpanitz/tedsarticles/coopdefinition.htm

  • Perkins, D. N., & Salomon, G. (1992). Transfer of learning. In T. Husén & T. N. Postlethwait (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (2nd ed., Vol. 11, pp. 6452–6457). Oxford, England: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perkins, D. N., & Salomon, G. (2012). Knowledge to go: a motivational and dispositional view of transfer. Educational Psychologist, 47(3), 248–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phelps, E., & Damon, W. (1989). Problem solving with equals: peer collaboration as a context for learning mathematics and spatial concepts. J Educ Psychol, 81, 639–646.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rau, W., & Heyl, B. S. (1990). Humanizing the college classroom: collaborative learning and social organization among students. Teaching Sociology, 18(2), 141–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Rebetez, C., Bétrancourt, M., Sangin, M., & Dillenbourg, P. (2010). Learning from animation enabled by collaboration. Instructional Science, 38(5), 471–485.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roscoe, R. D., & Chi, M. T. H. (2008). Tutor learning: the role of explaining and responding to questions. Instructional Science, 36(4), 321–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. N. (1989). Rocky roads to transfer: rethinking mechanisms of a neglected phenomenon. Educational Psychologist, 24(2), 113–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, D. L. (1995). The emergence of abstract representations in dyad problem solving. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(3), 321–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, D. L., & Bransford, J. D. (1998). A time for telling. Cognition and Instruction, 16(4), 475–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, D. L., Bransford, J. D., & Sears, D. A. (2005). Efficiency and innovation in transfer. In J. Mestre (Ed.), Transfer of learning from a modern multidisciplinary perspective (pp. 1–51). CT: Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, D. L., Varma, S., & Martin, L. (2008). Dynamic transfer and innovation. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), Handbook of conceptual change (pp. 479–506). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Sears, D.A., Packer, E., Hoffa, E., Min, J.W., Sasser, H., & Simison, J. (2011). Collaborating to transfer: are collaboration and transfer synergistic partners? Roundtable presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), New Orleans, LA.

  • *Sears, D. A., & Pai, H-. H. (2012). Effects of cooperative versus individual study on learning and intrinsic motivation under conditions of reward and reward-removal. Journal of Experimental Education, 80, 246–262.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sears, D. A., & Reagin, J. M. (2013). Individual versus collaborative problem solving: divergent outcomes for accelerated versus traditional students. Instructional Science, 41, 1153–1172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharan, Y., & Sharan, S. (1992). Expanding cooperative learning through group investigation. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singley, K., & Anderson, J. R. (1989). The transfer of cognitive skill. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slavin, R. E. (1977). Classroom reward structure: an analytical and practical review. Review of Educational Research, 47, 633–650.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slavin, R. E. (1983). When does cooperative learning increase student achievement? Psychol Bull, 94(3), 429–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning: theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slavin, R. E. (1996). Research on cooperative learning and achievement: what we know, what we need to know. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21(1), 43–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slavin, R. E., & Cooper, R. (1999). Improving intergroup relations: lessons learned from cooperative learning programs. Journal of Social Issues, 55(4), 647–663.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Souvignier, E., & Kronenberger, J. (2007). Cooperative learning in third graders’ jigsaw groups for mathematics and science with and without questioning training. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(4), 755–771.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N. M. (1982). Student interaction and learning in small groups. Review of Educational Research, 52(3), 421–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, K. D. (2010). Dyads can be groups (and often are). Small Group Research, 41, 268–274.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Wirkala, C., & Kuhn, D. (2011). Problem-based learning in K–12 education: is it effective and how does it achieve its effects? American Educational Research Journal, 48(5), 1157–1186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, J. A. (2008). Methodology for dealing with duplicate study effects in a meta-analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 11(1), 79–95. doi:10.1177/1094428106296638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Dr. Helen Patrick, Dr. Victoria Walker, Dr. Scott Schaffer, and anonymous reviewers for feedback on earlier versions of this work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Beering Hall of Liberal Arts and Education, Purdue University, Room 5123, 100 N. University Street, West Lafayette, IN, 47907-2067, USA

    Hui-Hua Pai

  2. Beering Hall of Liberal Arts and Education, Purdue University, Room 5130, 100 N. University Street, West Lafayette, IN, 47907-2067, USA

    David A. Sears

  3. Beering Hall of Liberal Arts and Education, Purdue University, Room 5152, 100 N. University Street, West Lafayette, IN, 47907-2067, USA

    Yukiko Maeda

  4. Purdue University, BRNG 5130, 100 N. University Ave, West Lafayette, IN, 47907, USA

    Hui-Hua Pai & David A. Sears

Authors
  1. Hui-Hua Pai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David A. Sears
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yukiko Maeda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David A. Sears.

Additional information

Dr. Pai and Dr. Sears contributed equally to this manuscript

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pai, HH., Sears, D.A. & Maeda, Y. Effects of Small-Group Learning on Transfer: a Meta-Analysis. Educ Psychol Rev 27, 79–102 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014-9260-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014-9260-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation