Implementing cooperative learning in a Networked Learning Community

This article was downloaded by: [The University of Manchester Library]On: 15 October 2014, At: 14:26Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Education 3-13: International Journalof Primary, Elementary and Early YearsEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rett20

Implementing cooperative learning in aNetworked Learning CommunityWendy Jolliffe a & Hazel Hutchinson ba Centre for Educational Studies , University of Hull , UKb Kingswood College of Arts , Hull , UKPublished online: 08 Jan 2007.

To cite this article: Wendy Jolliffe & Hazel Hutchinson (2007) Implementing cooperative learning ina Networked Learning Community, Education 3-13: International Journal of Primary, Elementary andEarly Years Education, 35:1, 5-16, DOI: 10.1080/03004270600898695

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03004270600898695

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rett20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/03004270600898695

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03004270600898695

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Implementing cooperative learning in a

Networked Learning Community

Wendy Jolliffea* and Hazel Hutchinsonb

aCentre for Educational Studies, University of Hull, UK; bKingswood College of Arts,

Hull, UK

This article presents research findings of work undertaken by a Networked Learning Community in

the north of England on implementing cooperative learning in primary and secondary schools. In

twelve primary and two secondary schools, in a social and economically deprived area, cooperative

learning is becoming embedded. How this has been supported by sharing good practice and

working collaboratively between primary and secondary schools and with a higher education

institution is examined. A crucial feature emerging from this is the role of a dedicated member of

staff, as facilitator, to support and monitor the use of cooperative learning.

Introduction

The skills of cooperating and working with others can be argued to be central to human

existence (Argyle, 1991). It is ironic, therefore, that historically schools have encouraged

uncooperative and individualistic behaviour amongst pupils. Two factors have begun to

impact on this trend during the past three decades. First, a wealth of research originating

from the work of Dewey (1924) and Deutsch (1949, 1960) has spawned a growing

interest in cooperative learning, in which pupils support each other. Secondly, the

increased prominence of socio-cultural theories of learning, emanating from the work of

Vygotsky (1978), has transformed views of the learner from the ‘lone scientist’ to the

‘social being’. As a government-instigated report into ‘learning to learn’ by DEMOS

(2005, p. 17) states, ‘Students do not learn in isolation’, and it recommends that a

‘Commission on Learning’ should be set up. The time is ripe for change.

This article analyses a method of ensuring that pupils do not learn in isolation:

cooperative learning. It begins by summarizing the key features and different formats

of cooperative learning and then examines the crucial issue of how to implement it in

the classroom. It describes the context for research into its implementation and

summarizes the key ingredients that support its use across the curriculum. It also

provides a brief action research study showing how work in a secondary school

exemplifies important factors in implementation.

*Corresponding author. Centre for Educational Studies, University of Hull, Hull HU6 7RX, UK.

Email: [email protected]

Education 3–13

Vol. 35, No. 1, February 2007, pp. 5 – 16

ISSN 0300-4279 (print)/ISSN 1475-7575 (online)/07/010005–12

ª 2007 ASPE

DOI: 10.1080/03004270600898695

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

4:26

15

Oct

ober

201

4

What does cooperative learning involve?

Cooperative learning (CL) is the umbrella term for ‘a variety of educational

approaches involving joint intellectual effort by students, or students and teachers

together’ (Smith & MacGregor, 1992, p. 10). It requires a small number of pupils to

work together on a common task, supporting and encouraging each other to improve

their learning. It has an extensive history of research emanating from the work of

Deutsch (1949), across a range of cultures (North America, Canada and Mexico,

Japan, Australia and New Zealand, Israel, Nigeria and South Africa, and Europe).

Findings have consistently shown positive effects on pupils’ learning. How this can be

put into practice in the classroom forms the focus for this research.

Types of CL vary, with an intriguing array of names such as STAD, Jigsaw, Group

Investigation and Structural Approach. Student Team Achievement Division (STAD)

(Slavin, 1983) is where pupils work in teams to ensure that all members have

mastered an objective. Pupils then take individual tests on the material and scores are

averaged for teams, introducing an element of competition between teams. Another

form, Group Investigation, is a problem-solving approach which has four elements:

investigation, interaction, interpretation and intrinsic motivation (Sharan, 1994).

Jigsaw (Aronson et al., 1978) involves each member of a group learning an essential

part of a whole topic by working with a focus group and then helping the home group

to combine the knowledge to complete the task. The Structural Approach (Kagan,

1994) consists of structures, or social interaction sequences, which enable the teacher

to transform existing lessons into a cooperative format by using simple strategies.

These strategies are content-free mechanisms and are widely transferable across the

curriculum. An example is ‘think-pair-share’, where pupils are asked a question and

given time to think, then discuss it with a partner before sharing their answer with the

class.

Regardless of the specific format, researchers generally agree on two features

essential to cooperative learning: positive interdependence and individual account-

ability (Cooper & Mueck, 1992; Cottell & Millis, 1992; Slavin, 1992; Smith et al.,

1992). Positive interdependence consists of ensuring that the group can only succeed

if every member helps and supports each other to fulfil the task. In other words they

‘sink or swim together’. Integral to this is the notion of individual accountability,

where each person in a team must be accountable for his or her share of the work.

As Johnson and Johnson succinctly point out: ‘Simply placing students near each

other and allowing interaction to take place does not mean that learning will be

maximised’ (1999, p. 196). Successful interaction requires teachers first to ensure

that an ethos of trust is established and secondly, that the skills to cooperate are

explicitly taught. This level of sophisticated group work takes time to be effective, but

results show the gains far outweigh the effort involved (Brown, 1992).

The aim of this research was to elicit key factors in the effective implementation of

CL, as well as to gain an accurate picture of the extent of use. Extensive research

exists into the benefits of CL (Johnson & Johnson, 1989; Slavin, 1995, 1996). Results

of these have shown three main categories of advantages: achievement, interpersonal

6 W. Jolliffe and H. Hutchinson

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

4:26

15

Oct

ober

201

4

relationships, and psychological health and social competence. Research into how to

put CL into practice is more limited, however, as Bennett notes:

Although co-operative grouping has a respectable theoretical pedigree, the effectiveness of

which is backed up by the systematic research, very few studies have considered how best

to put it into practice in classrooms. (Bennett, 1994, p. 60)

Bennett and Dunne’s research (1992) emphasized three factors that impact on

implementation: first designing suitable tasks, secondly enabling the teacher to

successfully manage group work, and thirdly providing training for pupils in group

work skills. More recently, work by Blatchford et al. (2003) on the Social Pedagogic

Research into Grouping (SPRinG) project looked at an approach to group work that

could be used in primary and secondary schools. This year-long collaboration set up a

framework that incorporated four key dimensions:

1. Classroom context, including pupil seating, group size, number, composition

and stability of groups.

2. Pupil interactions, which involved developing social and group work skills.

3. Teacher’s role, with support in the changing role of the teacher.

4. Tasks, including planning lessons with group work activities across the

curriculum.

Other research in Australia by Robyn Gillies (2003) has also examined factors that

impact on implementation and particularly the importance of structuring small-group

work and providing training in the social skills necessary.

The research set out in this article aimed to build on the findings of Blatchford et al.

(2003) to analyse the most effective support for a network of schools to implement

CL in the classroom in the UK.

Context of the research

The two secondary and twelve primary schools involved in this research all came

from an area of high social and economic deprivation in an inner-city area of the

north of England. They had previously been part of an Education Action Zone,

which was set up with a clear aim of raising standards and providing additional

support. The necessity to look for innovative approaches had led schools to

experiment with cooperative learning. The Education Action Zone later evolved into

a Networked Learning Community. What was particularly apparent were the strong

links that were established across the schools with a clear ethos of sharing good

practice.

The use of CL began with four primary schools in 2000, as part of the Success for All

strategy for the teaching of literacy, based on Slavin’s model of team incentives.

Following this some staff began to research the use of cooperative learning, and

further training, led by Don Brown and Charlotte Thomson from New Zealand,

Implementing cooperative learning 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

4:26

15

Oct

ober

201

4

fuelled a desire to extend its use across the curriculum. Training in the rest of the

primary and secondary schools began in 2002–2003 and consisted of an initial two

days of whole-school training led by staff from a local university and from the Edu-

cation Action Zone/Networked Learning Community. The model of CL incorpo-

rated Johnson and Johnson’s five principles (1987), known by the acronym ‘PIGSF’:

. Positive interdependence

. Individual accountability

. Group reflection

. Small-group skills

. Face-to-face interaction.

Training involved a range of teaching ‘structures’ or techniques derived from

Kagan (1994), which were modelled together with methods of teaching small-group

skills, such as ‘active listening’ and ‘helping and supporting each other’. Following

externally delivered training, all of these schools appointed a dedicated facilitator to

support the use of CL. Facilitators from the different schools and the university met

regularly to share progress and provide mutual support. Several facilitators carried

out action research projects in their schools. The results of one of these projects are

incorporated in this article.

Methodology

In order to ascertain which aspects of the implementation had been particularly

successful and the extent of use of CL, questionnaires were sent to all head teachers

and facilitators at each of the twelve primary and two secondary schools. The survey

received 21 responses, one from each of the schools, although not all schools returned

separate responses from head teachers and facilitators. These were analysed using

Excel to record data and provide a range of graphical comparative data, and the

Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) to determine frequencies and valid

percentages. Analysis was conducted to focus on the following aspects:

1. Length of time the school has used CL strategies.

2. Extent to which the school is positive about the benefits.

3. Extent of the training received.

4. Extent and frequency of use of CL.

5. Most effective type of professional development.

6. Further support needed.

In addition, semi-structured interviews were held with headteachers and/or

facilitators to probe in further depth the school’s use of CL, and these were analysed

using a conceptual framework. As a further example of methods of implementation, a

detailed case study of one secondary school was carried out in the form of action

research by the facilitator to explore features of successful practice.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

4:26

15

Oct

ober

201

4

Results

Table 1 summarizes responses from the questionnaires using the six aspects set out

above.

Semi-structured interviews with head teachers and facilitators provided supporting

information and were analysed as follows according to the following key aspects.

1. Views on the success of CL

Schools had paired work embedded and needed to move to implementing effective

group work more consistently. Schools were making links with other initiatives such

as supporting effective speaking and listening and were seeing benefits in children’s

confidence and oral skills.

2. Factors viewed as helping in successful implementation

A mixture of monitoring and support was seen as helpful, and all schools verified the

key importance of the role of the facilitator in this respect. Schools that had been

Table 1. Summary of questionnaire responses

Aspect of CL use Questionnaire responses, by percentage

1. Length of time the 1–2 years 2–3 years Over 3 years

school has used CL

strategies

42.9% 21.4% 28.6%

2. Extent to which the Disagree Agree Strongly agree

school agrees that CL

enhances academic

and social skills

0% 42.9% 57.1%

3. Extent of the training

received

1 full day 1 dayþ1 twilight

2 full days More than

2 days

7.1% 35.7% 14.3% 28.6%

4. Extent and frequency

of use of CL

In most lessons

across most

subjects

In over half

of lessons

across a range

of subjects

Once per week

in one subject

28.6% 57.1% 14.3%

5. Most effective type of

professional

Peer support Facilitator

support

School-based

support

Other

development 21.4% 21.4% 7.1% 7.2%

6. Further support

needed

External training

and support

In-house

facilitator

training and

support

Classroom-based

peer support

Other

21.4% 39.3% 35.7% 3.6%


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

4:26

15

Oct

ober

201

4

particularly effective had members of staff who had become very knowledgeable about

CL through action research. Also seen as helpful was a sensitive mix of monitoring

and support to staff, with one school using a positive and helpful observation pro

forma for peer observation.

The clear identification of skills and staged implementation through the school

development plan and within medium-term plans showed a positive impact. Involv-

ing pupils in identifying skills and setting targets had also been advantageous. Support

to facilitators proved particularly beneficial, with a number or schools finding meet-

ings for facilitators to share good practice and offer support helpful. Schools using the

Success for All strategy also found external monitoring useful.

3. Factors hindering successful implementation

These centred around the role of the facilitator, and where insufficient time had

been provided to release the facilitator because of cost, this had impacted on the

level of use. The constant need to update and train due to staff turnover was an

issue.

4. Most effective professional development

The importance of making training meet the school’s needs was particularly noted

by some schools, although many found that initial external training was useful

followed by in-house support. All schools reported that in-house support had been

the most effective form of professional development, showing the vital role of the

facilitator.

5. Future training needs

Future training needs involved some additional external training, particularly to

support facilitators to embed CL throughout the curriculum. This needed to be

followed by in-house support.

Discussion

Analysis of these data aimed to answer the following questions.

Does the length of time that a school has used CL affect the extent of use?

No consistent pattern was shown and the four schools that had used CL the longest

(as part of the Success for All strategy) all reported a variation in use, with one

reporting use in most lessons across the curriculum, another recording use in over

half of lessons and the remaining two stating on average about once each day. It

can be therefore concluded that length of time is not a significant factor in the use

of CL.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

4:26

15

Oct

ober

201

4

Does the extent of training received affect the extent of use?

Analysis then looked at whether training was a significant factor in successful

implementation. First the length and type of training was examined, as compared to

the frequency of use in lessons. This showed no significant pattern. The schools that

had received the longest training reported different use, ranging from about once per

day to most lessons across the curriculum. One school reported an equal amount of

training and extent of use. It would appear that there is no direct correlation between

the amount of training and the extent of use of CL in schools.

Significant findings

Although the above analysis had no significant findings that could have a more

general application, the following were recurrent themes which can have a wider

applicability:

1. The vital role of a key member of staff (facilitator), provided with time to support,

train and monitor the use of CL.

2. Useful support to facilitators from the network provided through cluster meetings

to share progress and resources.

3. Facilitator expertise and action research impacted on effective implementation.

4. The effectiveness of providing a mixture of external training and support, in

initial stages, followed by in-house support through the facilitator as well as peer

support.

5. Training that incorporated explicit modelling of strategies was more effective.

6. Identification of skills for CL and phased implementation through the school

development plan and medium-term plans supported its use.

7. Involvement of pupils in target setting for CL skills using assessment for learning

principles.

8. Peer coaching following training, using clear guidance pro formas.

The next section of this article summarizes the findings from an action research

study conducted by a facilitator in implementing cooperative learning in a

secondary school. It also exemplifies the strong links across the Networked

Learning Community. In particular it answers the question of how Year 7 teachers

build on students’ previous experience of cooperative learning at key stage 2–3

transfer.

The action research study

This research was undertaken in order to examine the way that CL has been

implemented at key stage 2–3 transfer in one secondary school. It investigated the

impact of students’ previous experience of CL through Success for All, and compared

the response of students in different attainment groups.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

4:26

15

Oct

ober

201

4

The secondary school in the study had been reopened in 1999 under the

government’s ‘Fresh Start’ initiative after several years of being placed in ‘special

measures’. Many students entering the school have lower than average basic

skills. In September 2000, the school responded to the low levels of literacy of its

students by introducing an accelerated learning programme. This incorporated

the methodology of CL. At the same time, Success for All, which incorporates

cooperative learning, was being introduced into a number of the partner primary

schools.

Specific lessons within Personal Social and Health Education (PSHE) explored

the role of learning partners, and developed skills such as active listening. Specific

CL strategies were taught and applied such as ‘think-pair-share’ and the use of

roles in groups such as scribe, reporter, timekeeper and resources manager (gofer).

The use of learning partners and small-group work were all planned into the

lessons with the support of the facilitator.

For the purposes of this study, four classes from Year 7 were chosen: two middle-

attaining groups and two lower-attaining groups. By comparing classes in this way, it

was intended to examine the extent to which students’ response to CL was affected by

their previous experience of the methodology, by the prior attainment of the group

and by the strategies employed by the teacher. To this end, a range of research

methods was used: analysis of existing attainment data, student questionnaires,

teacher interviews and classroom observations.

It was necessary to identify the number of students in each class with previous

experience of Success for All (SFA), which uses cooperative learning. This information

was derived from the school’s existing records about students’ previous schools, but

was supplemented by a questionnaire to find out students’ perceptions of their

previous experience of CL methods. Four types of CL activity formed the basis of the

questionnaire:

. Active listening

. Learning partners

. Think-pair-share

. Cooperative group work using specific roles.

The same questionnaire was also used to find out how students perceived the

use of CL methods during their first half-term at the school. This survey was

conducted at the beginning of November, after the half-term holiday. Its findings

suggest that students from non-SFA schools were more aware of the use of

active listening in Year 7, possibly because it was new to them. Other results

were not always consistent, possibly because students’ responses reflected their

experience of several teachers and subjects, not just the core lessons with their

class teacher.

All classes, however, reported Year 7 experience of active listening, learning

partners and think-pair-share. Significantly, students in the very lowest-attaining

class reported no use of group work in Year 7, compared with their experience in


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

4:26

15

Oct

ober

201

4

mixed-ability primary school classes. All the points arising from the survey were

picked up in interviews with the class teacher. The four class teachers were then

interviewed to find out how they had introduced CL methods during the first half of

the autumn term and how students had responded.

The teachers’ responses shaped the observations which followed. Observations of

each of the four classes were carried out during the spring term in order to see CL in

practice with each group. They demonstrated that all the teachers were committed to

using CL in the classroom, although some had been more successful and consistent

in using these methods. This was reflected in the way that students responded. All the

classes observed appeared to enjoy using CL techniques and were able to make more

progress in lessons as a result of collaboration. This progress was most evident

where formal structures were in place; for example, seating was organized so that

everyone had a learning partner, or had a specific role within group work. Instructions

were also specific; for example: ‘Now turn to your learning partner and find out what

they think’.

When introduced to CL at the beginning of Year 7, the response of students

reflected their previous experience of the methods. Students from SFA schools

tended to respond more quickly and willingly, acting as role models for other

students. Their success in continuing to use CL, however, depended more on the

practices they experienced in Year 7. Consistency of approach by both the class

teacher and teachers in other subjects was paramount.

Prior attainment of students may influence the methods used by teachers to teach

and reinforce skills, but is not necessarily reflected in students’ ability to use CL.

Students in the two lower-attaining classes were able to demonstrate skills that they

had acquired as a result of constant reinforcement and practice. The teacher’s

willingness and persistence in using paired or group activities would appear to be the

main factor in their success.

Lack of skill in controlling speaking and listening were evident amongst some

students, whilst a few lacked the skills or inclination to share ideas or work co-

operatively. This reinforces the need to teach explicitly the skills and behaviour

required in order to succeed in pair and group work. Practice and familiarity with

methods enable students to use them more effectively. Rewarding students for

demonstrating cooperative skills has proved beneficial.

The school found that it was important for teachers to share experiences and

good practice in order to manage pair and group work more efficiently and to

overcome some of the problems which can emerge. They needed to build on the

experiences of colleagues and to feel able to try new methods without fear of

failure. This required teachers to be mutually supportive and positive in observing

one another. Teachers need to develop confidence to use methods that may not

be initially successful, depending as they do on familiarity and the establishment of

routines.

CL was seen as a key aspect of the whole-school learning policy at the secondary

school in the study. However, success required it to be translated into practical

classroom strategies and underpinned by understanding of why it works.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

4:26

15

Oct

ober

201

4

Conclusion

This case study highlights many of the factors identified across the 12 primary schools

and two secondary schools studied. These revolve around the support to staff through

the work of the facilitator as well as peer coaching; the importance in training in group

work skills; and a clearly structured implementation plan. This provides strong indi-

cators regarding successful continuing professional development, which centre on the

following themes.

Ownership

The schools had a strong sense that although they had received whole-school external

training, they were developing CL in different ways according to their own needs.

The facilitator in each school was crucial in supporting teachers, individually or in

groups.

Peer coaching/support

All the schools had separately undergone training in peer coaching and this, alongside

the support of the facilitator, was found to be mutually beneficial. Research on peer

coaching has found that ‘coaching, following initial training, would result in much

greater transfer than would training alone’ (Joyce & Showers, 1996, p. 12).

Networking

The schools had close links stemming from originally being part of an Education

Action Zone and later a Networked Learning Community. They had for over two

years employed an administrator, part-time, to support this network and organize

regular meetings, including meetings of facilitators. This has enabled the sharing of

good practice and developed a system of mutual support.

This research showed clearly the importance of a dedicated member of staff to

support and monitor the school’s evolution of a radically different pedagogy. In essence,

the effective implementation of CL requires the empowerment of the facilitator.

This article has briefly summarized what cooperative learning involves, its benefits

and issues in its implementation. Research in the schools studied has shown that CL

takes time to develop, because ‘We are not born cooperative. We have to be taught

the skills of working together’ (Brown & Thomson, 2000, p. 73). The strategies of

developing in-house expertise to support this have been shown to be effective. It also

requires commitment by the whole school and setting up a community of learners

through a network of schools. Such commitment holds at its heart understanding

about learning and the belief that:

Learning is something students do, not something that is done to students. Learning

is not a spectator sport. It requires students’ direct and active involvement and


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

4:26

15

Oct

ober

201

4

participation. Like mountain climbers, students most easily scale the heights of learning

when they are part of a cooperative team. (Johnson et al., 1994, p. 4)

The author is currently involved in further support work in extending the use of

cooperative learning with these schools.

Notes on contributors

Wendy Jolliffe is a Lecturer in Primary Education at the University of Hull with a

particular responsibility for literacy and early years. She was previously a deputy

head teacher of a primary school in Hull and an advisory teacher in literacy. Her

research interests centre around cooperative learning, in addition to effective

literacy teaching.

Hazel Hutchinson is Assistant Head Teacher and Facilitator for Cooperative

Learning at Kingswood College of Arts in Hull. She was previously an advisory

teacher in literacy.

References

Argyle, M. (1991) Co-operation: the basis of sociability (London, Routledge).

Aronson, E., Blaney, N., Stephen, C., Sikes, J. & Snapp, M. (1978) The Jigsaw classroom (Beverley

Hills, CA, Sage Publications).

Bennett, N. (1994) Cooperative learning, in: P. Kutnick & D. Rogers (Eds) Groups in schools

(London, Cassell), 50–65.

Bennett, N. & Dunne, N. (1992) Managing classroom groups (London, Simon & Schuster).

Blatchford, P., Kutnick, P., Baines, E. & Galton, M. (2003) Toward a social pedagogy of classroom

group work, International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 153–172.

Brown, D. (1992) The development of strategic classrooms in two secondary schools (Waikanae, NZ,

Wordsmiths).

Brown, D. & Thomson, C. (2000) Cooperative learning in New Zealand schools (Palmerston North,

NZ, Dunmore Press).

Cooper, J. & Mueck, R. (1992) Student involvement in learning: cooperative learning and college

instruction, in: A. Goodsell, M. Maher & V. Tinto (Eds) Collaborative learning: a sourcebook for

higher education (University Park, PA, National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning

and Assessment), 68–74.

Cottell Jr., P. G. & Millis, B. J. (1992) Cooperative learning in accounting, Journal of Accounting

Education, Spring, 95–111.

DEMOS (2005) About learning: a report of the Learning Working Group. Report for the Minister for

School Standards. Available online at: http://www.demos.co.uk (accessed 22 August 2005).

Deutsch, M. (1949) A theory of cooperation and competition, Human Relations, 2,

129–152.

Deutsch, M. (1960) The effects of motivational orientation upon trust and suspicion, Human

Relations, 13, 123–139.

Dewey, J. (1924) The school and society (Chicago, University of Chicago Press).

Gillies, R. M. (2003) Structuring cooperative group work in classrooms, International Journal of

Educational Research, 39, 35–49.

Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. (1987) Research shows the benefits of adult cooperation, Educational

Leadership, 3, 27–30.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

4:26

15

Oct

ober

201

4

Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. (1989) Cooperation and competition: theory and research (Edina, MN,

Interaction Book Company).

Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. (1999) Learning together and alone: cooperative, competitive and

individualistic learning (5th edn) (Boston, Allyn & Bacon).

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. & Holubec, E. J. (1994) Cooperative learning in the classroom

(Alexandria, VA, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development).

Joyce, B. & Showers, B. (1996) The evolution of peer coaching, Educational Leadership, 53(6),

12–17.

Kagan, S. (1994) Cooperative learning (San Juan, Capistrano).

Sharan, S. (Ed.) (1994) Handbook of cooperative learning methods (Westport, CT, Greenwood Press).

Slavin, R. E. (1983) Cooperative learning (New York, Longman).

Slavin, R. E. (1992) Research on cooperative learning: consensus and controversy, in: A. Goodsell,

M. Maher & V. Tinto (Eds) Collaborative learning: a sourcebook for higher education (University

Park, PA, National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning and Assessment), 97–99.

Slavin, R. E. (1995) A model of effective instruction, Educational Forum, 59, 166–176.

Slavin, R. E. (1996) Education for all (Lisse, The Netherlands, Swets & Zeitlinger).

Smith, B. L. & MacGregor, J. T. (1992) What is collaborative learning?, in: A. Goodsell,

M. Maher & V. Tinto (Eds) Collaborative learning: a sourcebook for higher education (University

Park, PA, National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning and Assessment), 9–22.

Smith, K. A., Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (1992) Cooperative learning and positive change

in higher education, in: A. Goodsell, M. Maher & V. Tinto (Eds) Collaborative learning: a

sourcebook for higher education (University Park, PA, National Center on Postsecondary

Teaching, Learning and Assessment), 34–36.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978) Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes (Cambridge,

MA, Harvard University Press).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

4:26

15

Oct

ober

201

4

Documents

Implementing cooperative learning in a Networked Learning Community