Innovative Higher Education

, Volume 16, Issue 1, pp 27–38 | Cite as

Cooperative learning: A successful college teaching strategy

  • Lenora Cook
Article

Abstract

Based on a review of the literature, cooperative learning strategies seem to be effective in raising the level of university student achievement and attitude. The few studies on commitment and retention show positive anecdotal evidence of the importance of small group structures with those undergraduates surveyed. Six features were found to be present in effective cooperative learning methodology: positive interdependence, individual accountability, a rationale for grouping, structured student interaction, instructor facilitation, and attention to social skills. Further study and review of the attitudinal and achievement potential of cooperative learning structures compared to traditional teaching methodologies seems indicated.

Keywords

Social Skill Learning Strategy Student Achievement Teaching Strategy Anecdotal Evidence 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abercrombie, MN. L. J. (1970).Aims and techniques of group teaching. Guildford: SRHE.Google Scholar
  2. Billson, J. M. (1986). The college classroom as a small group: Some implications for teaching and learning.Teaching Sociology, 14, 143–151.Google Scholar
  3. Bishop, W. (1988). Helping peer writing groups succeed.Teaching English in the two year colleges,15 (2).Google Scholar
  4. Boud, D. J. & Prosser, M. T. (1980).Self assessment in professional education. University of New South Wales, Sydney: T.E.R.C.Google Scholar
  5. Bouton, D. & Garth, R. Y. (1983) Editor notes. In C. Bouton, and R. Y. Garth, (Eds.). (1983).Learning in groups. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 1–5.Google Scholar
  6. Bouton, C. & Rice B. (1983). Developing student skills and abilities. In C. Bouton, and R. Y. Garth, (Eds.). (1983).Learning in groups. San Francisco CA: Jossey-Bass. 31–40.Google Scholar
  7. Boyer, E. L. (1987).College: The undergraduate experience in America. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers.Google Scholar
  8. Bruffee, K. A. (1978). The Brooklyn plan: Attaining intellectual growth through peer group tutoring.Liberal Education, 64. 447–69.Google Scholar
  9. Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. (1973).Priorities for action. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.Google Scholar
  10. Chambers, P. (1979). The six college project. In G. Collier (Ed.). (1983). The management of peer-group learning:Syndicate methods in higher education. Great Britain: The Society for Research into Higher Education, At the University, Guildford, Surrey, England. 77–86.Google Scholar
  11. Cook, L. G. (1989). The impact of cooperative learning strategies on professional and graduate education students at California State University Dominguez Hills. (Doctoral dissertation, Pepperdine University, 1989/90).Dissertation Abstracts International (in press).Google Scholar
  12. Dansereau, D. F. (1983).Cooperative learning: Impact on acquisition of knowledge and skills (Technical Report No. 586). Alexandria, VA: Army Research Institution for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.Google Scholar
  13. Darling-Hammond, L. (1987). Schools for tomorrow's teachers. In J.F. Soltis (Ed.),Reforming teacher education. New York: Teachers College Press. 44–48.Google Scholar
  14. DiPardo, A., & Freedman, S. (1988). Peer response groups in the writing classroom: Theoretic foundations and new directions.Review of Educational Research, 58, 119–149.Google Scholar
  15. Duin, A. H. (1984, May).Implementing cooperative learning groups in the writing curriculum: What research shows and what you can do. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Minnesota Council of Teachers of English, Mankato, MN.Google Scholar
  16. Feichtner, S. B., & Michaelsen, L. K. (1984). Giving students a part in the process: An innovative approach to team learning.College Student Journal, 18, 35–344.Google Scholar
  17. Finkel, D. & Monk, G. S. (1983) Learning through conversation: Dissolution of the atlas complex. In C. Bouton & R. Y. Garth, (Eds.). (1983).Learning in groups. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 83–89.Google Scholar
  18. Fraser, S. C., Diener, E., Beaman, A. L. & Kelem, R. T. (1977). Two, three, or four heads are better than one: Modification of college performance by peer monitoring.Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 101–108.Google Scholar
  19. Frierson, H. T. (1986). Two intervention methods: Effects on groups of predominantly black nursing students' board scores.Journal of Research and Development in Education, 19, 18–23.Google Scholar
  20. Goldman, M. (1965). A comparison of individual and group performance for varying combinations of individual ability.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1. 210–216.Google Scholar
  21. Holmes Group. (1986).Tomorrow's teachers. East Lansing MI: The Holmes Group, Inc.Google Scholar
  22. Jackson, M. W., & Prosser, M. T. (1985) A case study of the implementation of small group teaching.Higher Education, 14. 651–663.Google Scholar
  23. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1974). Instructional goal structure: Cooperative, competitive, or individualistic.Review of Educational Research, 44. 213–240.Google Scholar
  24. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1975).Learning together and alone. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  25. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1985). Student-student interaction: Ignored but powerful.Journal of Teacher Education, 36. (4). 22–26.Google Scholar
  26. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1986).Circles of learning: Cooperation in the classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  27. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1986). Academic conflict among students: controversy and learning. In R.S. Feldman (Ed.),The social psychology of education: Current research and theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Johnson, D., Maruyama, G., Johnson, R., Nelson, D., and Skon, L. (1981). The effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures on achievement: A meta-analysis.Psychological Bulletin, 89. 47–62.Google Scholar
  29. Kagan, S. (1986). Interview with J. Cooper. Videotaped at CSU, Dominguez Hills.Google Scholar
  30. Krayer, K. J. (1986). Implementing team learning through participative methods in the classroom.College Student Journal, 20, 157–161.Google Scholar
  31. 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 skills.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 12. 52–61.Google Scholar
  32. Madden-Simpson, J. (1989). A collaborative approach to the research paper.Teaching English in the Two Year Colleges, 16 (2), 113–15.Google Scholar
  33. Magrid, A. (1988, April).Cooperative communication: A study of group interaction. Paper presented at the Annual Symposium on Developmental/Remedial Education of the New York College Learning Skills Association, Catskills, NY.Google Scholar
  34. Manera, E. S., & Glockhamer, H. (1989). Cooperative learning: Do students “own” the content?Action in Teacher Education, X (4), 53–6.Google Scholar
  35. McDougall, K., & Gimple, D. (1985).Cooperative learning strategies for teaching small group communication. Research and application. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Speech Communication Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 271 800).Google Scholar
  36. Michaelsen, L. K. (1983). Team learning in large classes. In C. Bouton, and R. Y. Garth, (1983).Learning in groups. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 13–22.Google Scholar
  37. Moss, G. D., McMillen, D. (1980). A strategy for developing problem-solving skills in large undergraduate classes.Studies in Higher Education, 5 (2), 161–171.Google Scholar
  38. Page, J., Page, F. M. Jr. (1988). Collegiate instruction some differences among faculty members based on rank, years of teaching experience and school affiliation.College Student Journal, 22, 249–55.Google Scholar
  39. Powell, J. P. (1973). Small group teaching methods in higher education.Educational Research 16: 163–171.Google Scholar
  40. Prosser, M. T., & Thorley, N. R. (1981). Towards student self-direction in a first-year undergraduate physics course.European Journal of Science Education 3 (4): 413–421.Google Scholar
  41. Radebaugh, M. R., & Kazemek, F. E. (1989). Cooperative learning in college reading and study skills classes.Journal of Reading, 32 (5), 414–418.Google Scholar
  42. Slavin, R. E. (1983).Cooperative learning. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  43. Slavin, R. E. (1983). Cooperative learning: Can students help students learn?Instructor, 96, 74–6.Google Scholar
  44. Smith, K. A. (1987). Educational engineering: Heuristics for improving learning effectiveness and efficiency.Engineering Education, 74, 274–279.Google Scholar
  45. Smith, K. A., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1981). Structuring learning goals to meet the goals of engineering education.Engineering Education, 72, 221–226.Google Scholar
  46. Smith, K.A., Johnson, D.W., and Johnson, R. T. (1984). Effects of controversy on learning in cooperative groups.Journal of Social Psychology, 122, 199–209.Google Scholar
  47. Tebo-Messina, M. (1989). Authority and models of the writing workshop: all collaborative learning is not equal.Writing Instructor, 8 (2), 86–92.Google Scholar
  48. Tjosvold, D., & Field, R. H. G. (1984). Effect of concurrence, controversy and consensus on group decision making.The Journal of Social Psychology, 125, 335–363.Google Scholar
  49. Treisman, U. (1985). A study of the mathematics performance of black students at the University of California, Berkeley (Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley 1985).Dissertation Abstracts International, 47 1641-A.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Human Sciences Press, Inc. 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lenora Cook
    • 1
  1. 1.California State University

Personalised recommendations