COOPERATIVE LEARNING IN KINDERGARTEN :CAN IT ENHANCE STUDENTS' PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOUR?

Bette ChambersCentre for the Study of Classroom Processes

Department of EducationConcordia University, Montreal,

Quebec, Canada.

*******This research was supported by grants to the author from the Ministry of &aK:ation. Province of Quebec. canada and from

the Social Sciences and Humanities Research COUncil, Government of Canada. Requests for reprints should be addf"essed to

the author.

Une etude quasi expertrnentale a ete conduite pendant 6 semaines avec des enfants dejardins d'enfants impliques dans un programme de type soit traditionnel, soit cooperatlf,Les observations qualitatives et quantitatives indiquent que les enfants engages dans desactlvltes d'apprentissage cooperatlf manifestent plus souvent un comportement socialiseque ceux de I'autre programme. Ceci pourrait indiquer que les jeunes enfants peuventbeneficier, davantage qu'on ne Ie supposait, d'acltlvltes de collaboration. Apres examendes recherches recentes, on s'interroge sur leurs implications pour la formation initiale etcontinue des maitres ainsi que pour Ie materiel destine au prescolalre.

nUn estudio cuasr-expertmental se hizo durante 6 semanas con ntnos de preescolartrabajando dentro de un programma tradicional 0 cooperativo. las observacionescualitativas y cuantitativas indican que los ninos implicados en actividades de aprendisajecooperative manifiestan mas a menudo un comportamiento socializado que los ninos delotro programa. Esto podria indicar que los pequenos ninos pueden beneficiar mas de 10 quese suponla, cuando estan metidos en actividades de celaboracion. Despues de examinarrecientes investigaciones, se reflexiona sobre las implicaciones para la formacion inicial ycontinua de los maestros asi como sobre el material para el preescolar.

********INTRODUCTION.

Changes in family life in North Americaare altering children's lives. Couples arehaving fewer children, which reduces theamount of sibling interaction. Morefamilies have both parents working,reducing the amount of parent-childinteraction. Families are more transient,reducing extended family and neigh­bourhood support systems. Children who inthe past would have learned com­munication, negotiation and cooperationskills at home from family members nolonger have as much opportunity to do so.This means that more of the responsibilityfor teaching interpersonal skills falls today care centres and schools, whereopportunities for learning social skillsexist. This research studies the influencethat engaging in cooperative activities hasupon young children's prosocial behaviour.

This research builds on the developmentalwork in the Piagetian tradition. Piaget'swork on egocentrism has influenced North

31

American research and educationconsiderably in the past two decades.While he believed that young childrenbecome less egocentric throughinteraction with others, he also felt thatthey could not decentre adequately tocollaborate with one another (Piaget,1932). Thus most of the cooperativelearning strategies that have beendeveloped, have been designed for use ingrades three and above. Recent researchthat has addressed children's perspective­taking ability calls into question thePiagetian stance on this issue (Abrahams,1979; Hughes & Donaldson, 1983) findingthat young' children possess superiorperspective-taking skills than werepreviously believed.

Possessing a particular ability does notguarantee that an individual will employthat ability in one's daily interactions. Thetranslation of the ability to take another'sperspective into positive social behaviour

depends on many antecedents, such asmotivations, capabilities and contexts. Onemust perceive another's need, interpretthose needs accurately, recognise that theother can be helped, feel capable ofproviding assistance and lastly perceivethat any cost or risk involved will not beprohibitive (Mussen & Eisenberg-Berg,1977). There are many methods ofassessing prosocial tendencies; someexperimental (Denham, 1986; Mussen &Eisenberg-Berg, 1977); some naturalisticobservations (Zahn-Waxler, Iannotti, &Chapman, 1982). This research employs anaturalistic observational method ofobserving children's free-play behaviour.

In a classroom that is structured such thatstudents are busily engaged in their ownindividual tasks, there will be littleopportunity for children to practise theiremerging social abilities. However, in aclassroom where there are frequent tasksthat require student collaboration, theopportunities for demonstrating role-takingskills are increased. The coordination ofactivities with peers requires children tothink about their cognitive and socialprocesses (Musatti, 1986). Investigatorsfrom the Child Development Project (CDP)have designed a longitudinal program toenhance the prosocial behaviour ofchildren from elementary schools inCalifornia (Solomon, Schaps & Battistich,1988).

Some research has shown higher levels ofprosocial behaviour when participating incooperative activities. When childrenparticipate in collaborative studies theydemonstrate increased altruism (Hertz­Lazarowitz, Sharan & Steinberg, 1980).Orlick (1981b) found that kindergartenchildren were more apt to share candiesthat they had received in class withchildren from another class after they hadparticipated in a cooperative gamesprogram than children who participated ina traditional games program.

Why have the developers of the structuredcooperative instructional strategies takenthe Piagetian perspective and developedcooperative instructional techniques forchildren above the age of eight. whenrecent research on perspective takingshows that younger children do possessrole-taking abilities? Cline (1979) states

32

that it is very difficult to developreasonable measures for implementation innursery schools because prosocialbehaviours occur so rarely. Is this due tothe inability of preschoolers to interactpositively or is it a reflection of the waythe classes are structured? . In ourendeavour to develop the child'sindependence, we structure preschoolclasses so that most of the activities areindividualised. The few times during theday when children are grouped together, itis the teacher who is the focus ofattention. The interaction that takes placeis mostly teacher-child interaction and isqualitatively different than interactionbetween peers (Goodlad 1984).

Even early investigations of Parten (1932)with 2 to 4 yearolds, demonstrated thatyoung children were capable ofcollaboration, she had two categories ofbehaviour which involved cooperation­associative play and cooperative play.Interaction with another provides feedbackto the individual about one's behaviourwhich enables one to reflect upon this andmodify future behaviour (Forman 1981). Ifperspective-taking ability develops earlierthan was previously believed thencooperative learning strategies could beemployed with younger children.

A study by DeBellefeuille (1988) of twokindergarten classes showed only twocooperative activities during one month ofobservations. A few researchers and earlychildhood educators have designed somecooperative activities appropriate for earlychildhood settings (Chambers 1990);Hendrickson & Freedman 1980; Cooper1986; Hill & Reed 1990), but very littleresearch has been conducted on the useof cooperative learning below the 2ndgrade, therefore the effects that it hasupon young children is impossible todetermine (Slavin 1987). This researchbegins to fill the void.

Throughout this study a strict definition ofcooperative learning was employed,namely a learning activity that requiredthe interaction of two or more children tobe completed. While this may seem quiterestrictive, the reason for it is that thereare many opportunities for children tointeract in typical kindergartenclassrooms, but not all children take

advantage of these opportunities. It maywell be that the children who most needpractice in social skills are the ones whoremain isolated. Other research hasdemonstrated this same phenomenon inkindergarten and grade two (Cooper,Marquis & Ayers-Lopez 1982)

This study assessed the effects ofengaging in cooperative activities uponkindergarten children's prosocial be­haviour. The specific hypothesis was thatthere would be a greater increase in theinstances of prosocial behaviour, frombefore to after the intervention, displayedin the cooperatively structured classesthan in the traditionally structured ones.

METHOD.

Subjects. 80 children in 4 kindergartenclasses participated in this research. Therewere 2 teachers who each taught 2 half­day classes. The schools were in themiddle-class suburban area of Montreal,Canada.

Procedure. The researcher, researchassistants and the two teachers designedtwo sets of activities (one individualistic,the other cooperative) on themes that aretypically covered during the spring (e.g.Growth, Easter). The researcher alsohelped prepare some of the curricularmaterials necessary for some of theactivities.

The teachers and observers were told thatthe research would examine the effects ofcooperatively and individualistically struc­tured activities upon children's socialdevelopment. They were not howeverinformed about what particular variableswere being assessed or what the particularhypotheses were.

For six weeks one teacher taught both ofher classes cooperatively, the otherteacher taught one of her two classescooperatively and the other class in atraditional teacher-centred manner, wheremost activities were either individualisticor whole ciass. None of the classesfunctioned totally cooperatively norindividualistically, but in the cooperativeprogram, there were more cooperativeactivities and in the traditional program,individualistic activities were the norm.

33

For a period of two weeks prior and twoweeks following the treatment, the fourclasses were observed three times a weekby the researcher or two researchassistants, using a focal-child obser­vational procedure. Each day in arandomly assigned order, the childrenwere individually observed for a fiveminute period. After intervening for sixweeks, the children were observed againin the same manner.

A pilot study was conducted to identifycategories of prosocial behaviours. Thesewere: sharing, dramatic play, affection,helping, cooperating, taking turns,consideration, giving and positiveinteraction. Whenever a prosocial be­haviour was observed the category, thetype of activity and the other childreninvolved were noted.

The observers were trained usingvideotapes from the pilot study. One thirdof the observations were conducted bytwo observers and they obtained an inter­rater agreement of 89% (Bakeman &Gottman 1986). In order to be coded asprosocial a behaviour had to :

a) be demonstrated by the focal child,b) be clear to the observer that the

intent of the child was prosocial,c) be unprompted by the teacher or

other adult,d) be unrelated to a teacher-directed

activity.The observers also made more qualitativeanecdotal observations before and afterthe quantitative observations each day.

Design. This study had a nonequivalentpretest-posttest control group design. A 2(group structure) by 4 (class) analysis ofcovariance on the post-treatment in­stances of prosocial behaviour with thepre-treatment instances of prosocialbehaviour as covariate. The StatisticalPackage for the Social Sciences (SPSS-X)analysis of covariance program was usedto conduct the statistical procedures(SPSS Inc. 1986).

RESULTS.

Except for turn-taking and helping, all ofthe behaviours increased from pre- topost-intervention. (See table 1 forfrequencies of the various prosocial

The hypothesis that there would be agreater increase in the instances ofprosocial behaviour in the cooperativelystructured classes than in the traditionallystructured ones was supported. An analysisof the covariance on instances ofprosocial behaviour showed significantdifferences between coopertative and

There were no pretreatment differences inthe instances of prosocial behaviourbetween classes F (3,77) = 2.58, p>.05nor between teachers F (1,79) = 2.67, p>.05; therfore further analyses on thisdependent measure were computed usingtreatment as the independent variable.Instances of pretreatment prosocialbehaviour were used as the covariate tocontrol for within-group variance.

behaviours that were identified during theobservations). It is not clear why helpingdecreased from 11 to 6 instances. It couldbe that 6 weeks later in the year, thestudents were a bit more confident andsure of the routines requiring less helpthan before the study. Do the types ofprosocial behaviour vary over the courseof the school year? It is interesting thatsharing was the most frequently observedprosocial behaviour and giving the leastnoted, yet these behaviours are closelyrelated. Sharing was defined as giving orlending part of one's toys or materialswhile giving was presenting as in a gift.Sometimes it was impossible to put aspecific label on a behaviour that wasdefinitely perceived as prosocial. Thesebehaviours were coded under the category'positive interaction'.

Sharing 15Dramatic Play 7Affection 10Helping 11Cooperating 7Turn Taking 5Consideration 0Giving 0Positive Interaction 6Total 61

This study demonstrates that not only arekindergarten students capable of engagingin cooperative activities, but that in doingso, their prosocial behaviour increases.The observers noticed a general increasein the number of social interactions in thecooperatively taught classes. The focal-child observations supported theseanecdotal impressions. There weresignificant increases in the instances ofprosocial behaviour in general and thenumber of prosocial behaviours increasedin seven of the nine specific categories.While one might suspect that maturationwould account for some of this increase,the fact that the cooperative groupexperienced a significantly greater in­crease than the traditional group appearsto indicate that engaging in cooperativeactivity can enhance prosocial behaviour.

TABLE 2

Means & standard deviations on pre-- andposttreatment prosocial behaviour.

Group Structure ScoreCooperative Traditional

M SD M SDProsocial pre 0.88 0.80 0.43 0.73Behaviour post 1.26 0.93 0.30 0.56Note: **p < .001

DISCUSSION.

traditional groups F (1,78) = 16.38, p<.001. After the intervention thecooperative classes exhibited significantlymore prosocial behaviour than thetraditional class.

The increase in prosocial behaviour mayreflect, at least in part, a general increasein all types of interaction, and not onlyprosocial interaction. However, as onlyprosocial behaviour was examined in thisstudy, it is impossible to tell if there wasan overall increase in interaction. Otherresearch indicates that this might be thecase, as cooperative situations have beenfound to produce more interaction thancompetitive situations (Pepitone 1985).

Differences other than group structuremay have existed which could explain thevariance that occurred between theindividualistic and cooperative groups.There is the possibility that the teachersinteracted differently with each of their

199

1269461

1985

prosocial

Posttreatment

observed

Pretreatment

of

TABLE 1

Behaviour

Frequenciesbehaviours.

34

classes on a dimension unrelated to thegroup structure. As only one of theteachers taught each of her classes in adifferent manner, one cannot tell if aninteraction of this sort happened. As thestudy took place in the middle of theschool year, teachers' manners ofinteracting with their classes were likelyto have been well established, so thepretreatment measures probably wouldhave picked up initial differences betweenthe classes had that existed.

One goal of this study was to determine ifit .was possible to put into use theperspective-taking skills that recentresearch indicates that young childrenpossess. The teachers involved in thestudy reported much success in using thecooperative activities with their students.In fact, one teacher decided to implementthe cooperative program with both of herclasses. If the students had been unable tocomplete the tasks, the teachers are likelynot to have been so enthusiastic aboutusing them.

Cooper, Marquis & Ayers-Lopez (1982)found a wide range in the degree andquality of peer interactions. In their studychildren turned to their socially competentpeers not only to ask advice from them,but also to share information with them.Future studies should examine the use ofcooperative learning to facilitate thedevelopment of social skills in sociallyinept preschoolers. If children are exposedto situations where they must cooperatewith others when they are young, perhapsthey will learn appropriate ways ofinteracting, which might avert socialproblems in later childhood andadolescence.

Implications. The results of this study andother recent research have significantimplications for curriculum and instructionin early childhood education. Recognisingthat young children have the ability toparticipate In cooperative activities andthat doing so may increase their ability toengage in prosocial behaviour, earlychildhood program developers may designappropriate curriculum materials andinstructional units (Rubin & Everett 1982;Ditchburn 1988). Rubin and Everett (1982)call for increased peer interaction topromote perspective-taking skills.

35

Activities that require the interaction oftwo or more children should become morecommon in early childhood classrooms. Intheir efforts to provide cognitivestimulation for young children, teachersmust be aware of the need to createsocial stimulation as well.

Of course, having curriculum materialsand quldes that promote cooperativelearning will not guarantee that teacherswill use them, or use them appropriately.Teachers who are only comfortableexerting a high degree of control in theirclasses would not be likely to beinterested in employing cooperativelearning activities, no matter how readilyavailable such materials were. However,such materials would make it easier forteachers who are open to progressiveways of conducting their classes.

There are many activities and materialsalready available that can be adapted to acooperative curriculum. However, it takesan imaginative teacher to think about howtraditional material could be usedcooperatively. Unless teachers in sufficientnumbers request cooperatively structuredmaterials, manufacturers will continue todesign materials individualistically andcompetitively.

This research also has implications for thetraining of early childhood educators. Bothpreservice and inservice teacher trainingprograms and textbook writers must adviseteachers about appropriate practices withyoung children. Teacher educationmaterials must be updated to includerecent research findings which modifyearlier beliefs about the limitedperspective-taking abilities of youngchildren.

In summary, knowledge of the influence ofengaging in cooperative learning activitieson children's prosocial behaviourcontributes to our understanding of humansocial development and of cooperativeinstructional strategies. Engaging incollaborative learning provides exposure tothe perspectives of others and oftenrequires one to adapt one's own view toaccomplish the task. This interactiveprocess is crucial to a person' socialdevelopment.

REFERENCES.Abrahams, B. (1979) An interactive approach to the study

of the development of perspective-taking abilities.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford CA,

Stanford University.

Chambers, B. (1990) Cooperative learning for young

children. Cooperative Classroom, 5 1-4.

Cline, M.G. (1979) On the development of social

competence. (NO PS 011257) Washington D.C.:

National Institute of Education.

Cooper, C.R., (1986). Development of collaborative

problem solving among preschool children. American

Educational Research Journal. 433-441

DeBeliefeullle, B. (1988, June) The effects of

cooperative prosocial behaviour of kindergarten s

tuoeots. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the

Canadian Society for StUdies In Education, Windsor,

Canada.

Denham, S.A.. (1986). Social cognition, prosoclal

behaviour and emotion In preschoolers: Contextual

validation. Child Development, 56. 1204-1213.

Dltchburn, S.J., (1988). Conflict mamagement in young

children's play. International Journal of Early Childhood.

Vol 20, 62-70.

Forman, E.A. (1981) The role of collaboration In problem

solving In children. Unpublished doctoral thesis,

Cambridge, MA Harvard University.

Goodfad, J.1. (1984). A place called school. New York:

McGraw-Hili

Hendrickson, J.M. & Freedman, J. (1980) Peer tutoring of

conversational skills: A mini-facilitation In the

preschool classroom. Paper presented to the Mid

Western Association of Applied Behavioural Analysis.

Nashville.

Hertz-lazarowltz, R., Sharan, S. & Steinberg, R. (1980).

Classroom learning styles and cooperative behaviour of

elementary school children. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 72. 99-106.

HIli, T. & Reed, K. (1990). Promoting social competence

at preschool: The implementation of a cooperative

games program. Early Child Development and Care, 59,

11 -20.

36

Hughes, M. & Donaldson. M. (1983) The use of hiding

games for studying coordination of viewpoints. In M.

Donaldson, R Grieve & C. Pratt (eds) Early childhood

development and education: Readings In Psychology.

(pp. 245-253). New York: Basil Blackwell.

Musatti, T. (1986) Early peer relations: The perspectives

of Plaget and Vygotsky. In E.C.Mueller & C.R.coooper

(Eds) Process and outcome in peer relations. New

York: Academic Press.

Mussen, P. & Eisenberg-Berg, N. (1977). Roots of caring,

sharing and helping.San Francisco: W.H.Freeman.

Orlick, T. (1981a). Cooperative play socialisation among

preschool children. Journal of Individual Psychology,

37 54-63.

Orlick, T. (1981 b). Positive socialisation via coopertalve

games. Developmental Psychology, 17426-429.

Parten, M.B. (1932). Social particIpation among children.

Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 27. 243>

Pepitone, E.A. (1985). Children in cooperation and

competition: Antecedents and consequences of self­

orientation. In R. Slavin, S. Sharan, S. Kagan, R

Hertz-lararowltz, C. Webb & R. Schmuk (Eds)

Learning to cooperate, cooperating to learn. (pp 17­

66). New York: Plenum Press.

Plaget, J. (1932) Judgement and Reasoning In the Child.

New York: Harcourt, Brace.

Rubin, K.H. & Everett, B. (1982). Social perspectlve­

taking In young children. In S.G.Moore & C.R. Cooper

(Eds), The young child: Reviews of research. (vol 3)

N.A.E.Y.C. Publications.

SlaVin, R.E. (1987). Developmental and motivational

perspectives on cooperative learning: A reconciliation

Child Development, 58 1161-1167.

Solomon, D., scnaps. E. & Battistlch, V. (1988)

cooperative learning as a part of a comprehensive

classroom program designed to promote prosociel

development. Paper presented at the triennial

meeting of the International Association for the

Study of Cooperation in Education, Tel Aviv.

Zahn-Waxler, C., Iannotti, R. & Chapman, M. (1982).

Peers and prosoclal development. In K. Rubin & H.

Ross (Eds). Peer relations and social skills in

childhood. New York: Springer Verlag

*******