Improving the Effectiveness of Collaborative Group Work at KS2: Effects on Pupil Attainment, Classroom Behaviour and Attitudes

  • Peter Kutnick
  • Peter Blatchford
Part of the Professional Learning and Development in Schools and Higher Education book series (PROD, volume 8)


This chapter presents the key results from the main evaluation of the implementation of SPRinG at KS2 (pupils aged 7–11 years). It describes the background and methods used to establish whether SPRinG affected pupil progress in science, on the basis of both macro and micro assessments; whether it affected pupil-pupil interactions and teacher-pupil interactions, as measured by systematic on-the-spot observations in classrooms and analyses of videotapes of groups working on specially designed tasks work; and whether it affected pupil self completed measures of motivation and attitudes to group work. With regard to attainment, we found that KS2 aged pupils showed much more progress over the school year than Control pupils on the overall ‘macro’ and ‘micro’ sub tests, indicating the experience of high quality group work led to better progress in science understanding and knowledge. On-the-spot and video based systematic observations showed more active, sustained co-operative engagement, more connectedness and more collaborative higher order inferential joint reasoning within SPRinG groups than in control comparisons. Results of the effect of SPRinG involvement on motivation/attitudinal dimensions were less clear cut but we did find that KS2 involvement in SPRinG arrested deteriorating attitudes to mathematics and science found in the Control group.


Control Class Classroom Behaviour SPRinG Group Procedural Talk Sustained Interaction 
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.


  1. Adey, P., & Shayer, M. (1994). Really raising standards: Cognitive intervention and academic achievement. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Baines, E. (1996). Discourse topic management and discussion skills of 4-, 6- and 9-year-olds. Unpublished PhD Thesis. University of Strathclyde.Google Scholar
  3. Baines, E., Blatchford, P., & Chowne, A. (2007). Improving the effectiveness of collaborative group work in primary schools: Effects on Science attainment. British Education Research Journal, 33(5), 663–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baines, E., Blatchford, P., Kutnick, P., Chowne, A., Ota, C., & Berdondini, L. (2009). Promoting effective group work in primary schools. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(3), 307–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blatchford, P., Baines, E., Rubie-Davies, C., Bassett, P., & Chowne, A. (2006). The effect of a new approach to group-work on pupil-pupil and teacher-pupil interactions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 750–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blatchford, P., Galton, M., Kutnick, P., & Baines, E. (2005). Improving the effectiveness of pupil groups in classrooms. Final Report to ESRC, held at British Library.Google Scholar
  8. Bloom, B., Englehart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwell, D. R. (1956) (Eds.). Taxonomy of educational objectives: Handbook 1: Cognitive domain. New York: McKay.Google Scholar
  9. Cohen, E. G., & De Avila, E. (1983). Learning to think in math and science: Improving local education for minority children. (Final report to the Johnson Foundation). Stanford University, School of Education.Google Scholar
  10. Damon, W., & Phelps, E. (1989). Critical distinctions among three approaches to peer education. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 9–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Davidson, N., & Worsham, T. (1992). Enhancing thinking through co-operative learning. London: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  12. Department for Education and Employment (DfEE). (1999). The national curriculum for England: Science. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  13. Dorval, B., & Eckerman, C. O. (1984). Developmental trends in the quality of conversation achieved by small groups of acquainted peers. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 49(2), 206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ellis, S., & Rogoff, B. (1982). The strategies and efficacy of child versus adult teachers. Child Development, 53, 730–735.Google Scholar
  15. Galton, M., Gray. J., & Ruddock, J. (2003). Transfer an transitions in the middle years of schooling (7–14): Continuities and discontinuities in learning. Research Report RR443. London: DfES.Google Scholar
  16. Galton, M. J., Hargreaves, L., Comber, C., Wall, D., & Pell, A. (1999). Inside the primary classroom: 20 years on. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Galton, M. J., & Williamson, J. (1992). Group-work in the primary classroom. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Gillies, R., & Kahn, A. (2009). Promoting reasoned argumentation, problem-solving and learning during small-group work. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39, 7–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Goldstein, H. (1995). Multilevel statistical models. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
  20. Howe, C., Duchak-Tanner, V., & Tolmie, A. (2000). Coordinating support for conceptual and procedural learning in science. In R. Joiner, K. Littleton, D. Faulkner & D. Miell (Eds.), Rethinking collaborative learning (pp. 81–100). London: Free Association Books.Google Scholar
  21. Howe, C., & McWilliam, D. (2001). Peer argument in educational settings: variations due to socioeconomic status, gender, and activity context. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 20, 61–80.Google Scholar
  22. Howe, C., McWilliam, D., & Cross, G. (2005). Chance favours only the prepared mind: Incubation and the delayed effects of peer collaboration. British Journal of Psychology, 96(1), 67–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Latane, B., Williams, K., & Harkins, S. (1979). Many hands make light the work: The causes and consequences of social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 822–832.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and development in children’s thinking—a socio-cultural approach. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Millar, R. H., Leach, J., Osborne, J. F., & Ratcliffe, M. (2000). Evidence-based practice in science education (EPSE): A new research network. Education in Science, 190, 12–13.Google Scholar
  26. O’Donnell, A. M., & King, A. (1999) (Eds). Cognitive perspectives on peer learning. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  27. Osborne, J. F., Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Monk, M. (2001). Enhancing the quality of argument in school science. School Science Review, 82, 63–70.Google Scholar
  28. Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Palincsar, A., & Herrenkohl, L. (1999). Designing collaborative contexts: Lessons from three research programmes. In A. M., O’Donnell, & A. King (Eds.) (1999). Cognitive perspectives on peer learning. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  30. Pell, T., Galton, M., Steward, S., Page, C., & Hargreaves, L. (2007). Promoting group work at Key stage 3: Solving an attitudinal crisis among adolescents. Research Papers in Education, 22(3), 309–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Perret-Clermont, A.-N. (1980). Social interaction and cognitive development in children. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  32. Rogoff, B. (1998). Cognition as a collaborative process. In W. Damon (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 2: Cognition, perception and language (pp. 679–744). Hoboken: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  33. Russell, T., & Osborne, J. F. (1993). Constructivist research, curriculum development and practice in primary classrooms: Reflections on five years of activity in the Science Processes and Concept Exploration (SPACE) project. In J. Novak (Ed.), Third international seminar on misconceptions in the learning of science and mathematics, cornell university. Ithaca: Cornell University.Google Scholar
  34. Slavin, R., Hurley, E. A., & Chamberlain, A. (2003). Cooperative learning and achievement: Theory and research. In W. M. Reynolds & G. E. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Educational psychology (Vol. 7, pp. 177–198). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  35. Tolmie, A., Howe, C. J., Mackenzie, M., & Greer, K. (1993). Task design as an influence on dialogue and learning: Primary school group work with object flotation. Social Development, 2, 183–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tolmie, A., Thomson, J., Foot, H., Whelan, K., Morrison, S., & McLaren, B. (2005). The effects of adult guidance and peer discussion on the development of children’s representations: Evidence from the training of pedestrian skills. British Journal of Psychology, 96, 181–204.Google Scholar
  37. Webb, N. M., & Palincsar, A. S. (1996). Group processes in the classroom. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 841–873). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  38. Webb, N., Franke, M. L., Tondra, D., Chan, A., Freund, D., Shein, P., & Melkonian, D. (2009). Explain to your partner: Teacher instructional practices and students’ dialogue in small groups. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39(1), 49–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wegerif, R., Mercer, N., & Dawes, L. (1999). From social interaction to individual reasoning: An empirical investigation of a possible socio-cultural model and cognitive development. Learning and Instruction, 9, 493–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Yager, S., Johnson, D., Johnson, R., & Snider, B. (1986). The impact of group processing on achievement in cooperative learning groups. Journal of Social Psychology, 126, 389–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of EducationUniversity of Hong KongHong KongHong Kong SAR
  2. 2.The Department of Psychology and Human Development Institute of EducationUniversity of LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations