Talking and Working Together

Conditions for Learning in Complex Instruction
  • Elizabeth G. Cohen
  • Rachel A. Lotan
  • Nicole Holthuis


Psychologists, curriculum developers, and reformers of mathematics and science education recommend active learning in which students in small groups talk and work together. Small groups provide an opportunity for students to construct their own knowledge in a way that develops conceptual learning and higher-order thinking skills. Noddings (1989) sees this latter school of thought as originating in the work of Dewey and the social constructivism of Vygotsky (1978). Educators and researchers belonging to the “constructivist” school of thought assume that suitable discourse or conversation within the small groups and/or a process of discovery is a prerequisite for conceptual learning.


Cooperative Learning Group Task Conceptual Learning Direct Instruction Direct Supervision 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Cohen, B. P., Arechavala-Vargas, R. (1987). Interdependence, interaction and productivity. Working Paper 87–3. Stanford University, Stanford, CA: Center for Sociological Research.Google Scholar
  2. Cohen, B. P., Cohen, E. G. (1991). From groupwork among children to RD teams: Interdependence, interaction and productivity. Advances in Group Processes, Vol. 8, pp. 205–226. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  3. Cohen, E. G. (1984). Talking and working together: Status interaction and learning. In P. Peterson, L. C. Wilkinson, M. Hallinan (Eds.), Instructional groups in the classroom: Organization and processes (pp. 171–188 ). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  4. Cohen, E. G., Lotan, R., Leechor, C. (1989). Can classrooms learn? Sociology of Education, 62, 75–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cohen, E. G., Lotan, R., Morphew, C. (forthcoming). Beyond the workshop: Evidence from complex instruction. In C. Brody, N. Davidson, C. Cooper (Eds.), Professional development for cooperative learning. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  6. Comstock, D. E., Scott, W. R. (1977). Technology and the structure of subunits: Distinguishing individual and work group effects. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, 177–202.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Harwood, D. (1989). The nature of teacher—pupil interaction in the active tutorial work approach: Using interaction analysis to evaluate student-centered approaches. British Educational Research Journal, 15, 177–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Leechor, C. (1988). How high achieving and low achieving students differentially benefit from working together in cooperative small groups. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  9. Noddings, N. (1989). Theoretical and practical concerns about small groups in mathematics. Elementary School Journal, 89, 607–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Perrow, C. (1967). A framework for the comparative analysis of organizations. American Sociological Review, 32, 194–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Webb, N. (1983). Predicting learning from student interaction: Defining the interaction variable. Educational Psychologist, 18, 33–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Webb, N. (1991). Task-related verbal interaction and mathematics learning in small groups. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 22, 366–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elizabeth G. Cohen
    • 1
  • Rachel A. Lotan
    • 1
  • Nicole Holthuis
    • 1
  1. 1.School of EducationStanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations