Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

When Is It Better to Learn Together? Insights from Research on Collaborative Learning

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

Abstract

Although collaboration is often considered a beneficial learning strategy, research examining the claim suggests a much more complex picture. Critically, the question is not whether collaboration is beneficial to learning, but instead how and when collaboration improves outcomes. In this paper, we first discuss the mechanisms hypothesized to support and hinder group learning. We then review insights and illustrative findings from research in cognitive, social, and educational psychology. We conclude by proposing areas for future research to expand theories of collaboration while identifying important features for educators to consider when deciding when and how to include collaboration in instructional activities.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Arthur, W., Jr., Day, E. A., Bennett, W., Jr., McNelly, T. L., & Jordan, J. A. (1997). Dyadic versus individual training protocols: loss and reacquisition of a complex skill. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(5), 783–791.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azmitia, M. (1988). Peer interaction and problem solving: when are two heads better than one? Child Development, 59(1), 87–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barber, S. J., Rajaram, S., & Fox, E. B. (2012). Learning and remembering with others: the key role of retrieval in shaping group recall and collective memory. Social Cognition, 30(1), 121–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(3), 307–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Basden, B. H., Basden, D. R., Bryner, S., & Thomas, R. L. (1997). A comparison of group and individual remembering: does collaboration disrupt retrieval strategies? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23(5), 1176–1191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Basden, B. H., Basden, D. R., & Henry, S. (2000). Costs and benefits of collaborative remembering. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14, 497–507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beers, P. J., Boshuizen, H. P. A., Kirschner, P. A., & Gijselaers, W. H. (2005). Computer support for knowledge construction in collaborative learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 623–643.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloodgood, J. W. (2002). Quintilian: a classic educator speaks to the writing process. Reading, Research and Instruction, 42(1), 30–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bossert, S. T. (1988/1989). Cooperative activities in the classroom. Review of Research in Education, 15, 225–250.

  • Chi, M. T. H. (2009). Active-constructive-interactive: a conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(1), 73–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H., & Wiley, R. (2014). The ICAP framework: linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 49(4), 219–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collaros, P. A., & Anderson, L. R. (1969). Effect of perceived expertness upon creativity of members of brainstorming groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53(2), 159–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Congleton, A. R., & Rajaram, S. (2011). The influence of learning methods on collaboration: prior repeated retrieval enhances retrieval organization, abolishes collaborative inhibition, and promotes post-collaborative memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140(4), 535–551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Craig, S. D., Chi, M. T. H., & VanLehn, K. (2009). Improving classroom learning by collaboratively observing human tutoring videos while problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(4), 779–789.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crooks, S. M., Klein, J. D., Savenye, W., & Leader, L. (1998). Effects of cooperative and individual learning during learner-controlled computer-based instruction. The Journal of Experimental Education, 66(3), 223–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1987). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: toward the solution of a riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 497–509.

    Article  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 

  • Dillenbourg, P., Baker, M., Blaye, A., & O’Malley, C. (1996). The evolution of research on collaborative learning. In E. Spada & P. Reiman (Eds.), Learning in humans and machine: Towards an interdisciplinary learning science (pp. 189–211). Oxford: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engle, R. A. (2012). The productive disciplinary engagement framework: Origins, key concepts, and developments. In D. Y. Dai (Ed.), Design research on learning and thinking in educational settings (pp. 161–200). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finlay, F., Hitch, G. J., & Meudell, P. R. (2000). Mutual inhibition in collaborative recall: evidence for a retrieval-based account. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(6), 1556–1567.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gadgil, S., & Nokes-Malach, T. J. (2012). Collaborative facilitation through error-detection: a classroom experiment. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26(3), 410–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gholson, B., & Craig, S. D. (2006). Promoting constructive activities that support vicarious learning during computer-based instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 18, 119–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, C. B., Keil, P. G., Sutton, J., Barnier, A. J., & McIlwain, D. J. F. (2011). We remember, we forget: collaborative remembering in older couples. Discourse Processes, 48, 267–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, C. B., Barnier, A. J., & Sutton, J. (2013). Shared encoding and the costs and benefits of collaborative recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39(1), 183–195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, G. W. (1982). Group versus individual performance: are n + 1 heads better than one. Psychological Bulletin, 91(3), 517–539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johansson, N. O., Andersson, J., & Rönnberg, J. (2005). Compensating strategies in collaborative remembering in very old couples. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 46, 349–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1985). The internal dynamics of cooperative learning groups. In R. Slavin, S. Sharan, S. Kagan, R. Hertz-Lazarowitz, C. Webb, & R. Schmuck (Eds.), Learning to cooperate, cooperating to learn (pp. 103–124). New York: Plenum Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina: Interaction Book Company.

    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., & Stanne, M. B. (2000). Cooperative learning methods: a meta-analysis. Retrieved April 14, 2015 from www.tablelearning.com/uploads/File/EXHIBIT-B.pdf.

  • Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. (2007). The state of cooperative learning in postsecondary and professional settings. Educational Psychology Review, 19(1), 15–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing: a meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(4), 681–706.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karpicke, J. D., & Blunt, J. R. (2011). Retrieval practice produces more learning than elaborative studying with concept mapping. Science, 331, 772–775.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, M. R., & Wright, D. B. (2010). Obtaining representative nominal groups. Behavior Research Methods, 42(1), 36–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, N. L., & Tindale, R. S. (2004). Group performance and decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 55(1), 623–655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirschner, F., Paas, F., & Kirschner, P. A. (2009a). A cognitive load approach to collaborative learning: united brains for complex tasks. Educational Psychology Review, 21(1), 31–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirschner, F., Paas, F., & Kirschner, P. A. (2011). Task complexity as a driver for collaborative learning efficiency: the collective working-memory effect. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25(4), 615–624.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kollias, V., Mamalougos, N., Vamvakoussi, X., Lakkala, M., & Vosniadou, S. (2005). Teachers’ attitudes to and beliefs about web-based collaborative learning environments in the context of an international implementation. Computers in Education, 45(3), 295–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D., & Crowell, A. (2011). Dialogic argumentation as a vehicle for developing young adolescents? Thinking. Psychological Science, 22, 545–552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latane, B., Williams, K., & Harkins, S. (1979). Many hands make light work: the causes and consequences of social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 822–832.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laughlin, P. R., Hatch, E. C., Silver, J. S., & Boh, L. (2006). Groups perform better than the best individuals on letters-to-numbers problems: effects of group size. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(4), 644–651.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leidner, D. E., & Fuller, M. (1997). Improving student learning of conceptual information: GSS supported collaborative learning vs. individual constructive learning. Decision Support Systems, 20(2), 149–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lorge, I., Fox, D., Davitz, J., & Brenner, M. (1958). A survey of studies contrasting the quality of group performance and individual performance. Psychological Bulletin, 55, 337–372.

    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 

  • Meade, M. L., Nokes, T. J., & Morrow, D. G. (2009). Expertise promotes facilitation on a collaborative memory task. Memory, 17(1), 39–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meudell, P. R., Hitch, G. J., & Boyle, M. M. (1995). Collaboration in recall: do pairs of people cross-cue each other to produce new memories? The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48, 141–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mullen, B. (1983). Operationalizing the effect of the group on the individual: a self-attention perspective. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19(4), 295–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mullen, B. (1987). Self-attention theory. In B. Mullen & G. R. Goethals (Eds.), Theories of group behaviour (pp. 125–146). New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Nokes-Malach, T. J., Meade, M. L., & Morrow, D. G. (2012). The effect of expertise on collaborative problem solving. Thinking and Reasoning, 18(1), 32–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Okada, T., & Simon, H. A. (1997). Collaborative discovery in a scientific domain. Cognitive Science, 21(2), 109–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paulus, P. B., & Yang, H. C. (2000). Idea generation in groups: a basis for creativity in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82, 76–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rajaram, S., & Pereira-Pasarin, L. P. (2010). Collaborative memory: cognitive research and theory. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(6), 649–663.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). The power of testing memory: basic research and implications for educational practice. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 181–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. D. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In C. O’Mally (Ed.), Computer supported collaborative learning (pp. 69–97). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ross, M., Spencer, S. J., Linardatos, L., Lam, K. C. H., & Perunovic, M. (2004). Going shopping and identifying landmarks: does collaboration improve older people’s memory? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18(6), 683–696.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, D. L. (1999). The productive agency that drives collaborative learning. In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 197–218). Oxford: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slavin, R. E. (1980). Cooperative learning. Review of Educational Research, 50(2), 315–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Slavin, R. E. (2014). Making cooperative learning powerful. Educational Leadership, 72(2), 22–26.

  • Springer, L., Stanne, M. E., & Donovan, S. S. (1999). Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 69(1), 21–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steiner, I. D. (1966). Models for inferring the relationships between group size and potential group productivity. Behavioral Science, 11, 273–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steiner, I. D. (1972). Group processes and productivity. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teasley, S. D. (1995). The role of talk in children’s peer collaborations. Developmental Psychology, 31(2), 207–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thorley, C., & Dewhurst, S. A. (2009). False and veridical collaborative recognition. Memory, 17, 17–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tudge, J. (1989). When collaboration leads to regression: some negative consequences of socio-cognitive conflict. European Journal of Social Psychology, 19(2), 123–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voiklis, J., & Corter, J. E. (2012). Conventional wisdom: negotiating conventions of reference enhances category learning. Cognitive Science, 36(4), 607–634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N. M., Troper, J. D., & Fall, R. (1995). Constructive activity and learning in collaborative small groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 406–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weldon, M. S., & Bellinger, K. D. (1997). Collective memory: collaborative and individual processes in remembering. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23(5), 1160–1175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, D. B. (2007). Calculating nominal group statistics in collaboration studies. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 460–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by Grant SBE0836012 from the National Science Foundation, Pittsburgh Science of Learning Center (http://www.learnlab.org). No endorsement should be inferred. We thank members of Cognitive Science Learning Laboratory, Andrew Butler, Shana Carpenter, and two anonymous reviewers for their many helpful comments and suggestions on the paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Learning Research and Development Center, University of Pittsburgh, 3939 O’Hara Street, Pittsburgh, PA, 15260, USA

    Timothy J. Nokes-Malach, J. Elizabeth Richey & Soniya Gadgil

Authors
  1. Timothy J. Nokes-Malach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. Elizabeth Richey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Soniya Gadgil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Timothy J. Nokes-Malach.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nokes-Malach, T.J., Richey, J.E. & Gadgil, S. When Is It Better to Learn Together? Insights from Research on Collaborative Learning. Educ Psychol Rev 27, 645–656 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9312-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9312-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation