Cooperative Learning

This article presents an overview of cooperative learning, an instructional technique developed to enhance academic achievement through social and interpersonal skill development. The central tenet of cooperative learning is that through interaction and dialogue with others around a topic of study, student achievement increases, attitudes toward learning improve, and students learn and retain more information than through other, more intrapersonal, instructional methodologies (i.e., teacher directed/lecture style formats). Research points to all these positive effects as well as improved intergroup, interethnic and gender cooperation as well as increased self-esteem and confidence for all student populations including special needs, gifted and mainstream students. Although there are many cooperative learning strategies in K-12 education, the most common include STAD (Student Teams-Achievement Divisions), TGT (Teams-Games-Tournament), Jigsaw, Group Investigation, Know-Want to Know-Do-Learn K-W-D-L, CIRC (Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition), Learning Together, and Literature Circles.

Keywords Cooperative Integrated Reading & Composition (CIRC); Differentiated Instruction; Group Investigation; Heterogeneous Grouping; Homogeneous Grouping; Jigsaw; Know-Want to Know-Do-Learn (K-W-D-L); Learning Together; Literature Circles; Positive Interdependence; Random Grouping; Rubrics; Student Teams-Achievement Divisions (STAD); Teams-Games-Tournament (TGT)

Overview

Cooperative learning is an instructional strategy that emphasizes the importance of positive social interactions among students working in small groups on a given task or assignment related to a unit of study. The effects of cooperation and group interaction have been studied since the 1920s. However, it was not until fifty years later and the contributions of independent researchers, most notably David Johnson, Roger Johnson, and Robert Slavin, that cooperative learning started to become a common instructional methodology in K-12 classrooms. The methodology can be employed in a wide range of classrooms, both K-12 and higher education, as well as in a wide range of subject specific disciplines. Research indicates that cooperative learning has a direct impact on academic achievement, self-esteem, confidence, interethnic relationships, and overall attitudes toward the learning process. Cooperative learning theory draws extensively on research by Piaget, Vygotsky, and Carroll.

The five essential elements of cooperative learning include positive interdependence, face-to-face interactions, individual and group accountability, interpersonal skills, and opportunities for group processing. Positive interdependence requires students to depend on one another to complete a given task or assignment. A teacher can create positive interdependence by ensuring that all students are assigned roles, materials are shared among members, the task requires students to agree on strategies used and a final product, and group rewards are used to praise students.

The second element required for cooperative learning to be successful is face-to-face interactions. Teachers must create space in a classroom environment for teams to meet with each other and have opportunities to share ideas, dialogue about possible solutions, resolve conflicts, and come to a consensus. Teachers must also provide, through modeling, proper ways to solve disagreements and interact positively when in a group setting. The overall outcome of face-to-face interactions is that students are provided with a structured environment in which they help, encourage, and support each other in pursuit of a common goal or objective.

Individual and group accountability refers to the actual assessment of group interactions and the final product, as well as the ways in which targeted feedback is provided to both the individual and the group as a whole. The trick to ensuring success is to connect and bridge the gap between individual and group feedback. The group must understand that each individual plays a vital role in the success of the entire group and, therefore, must know ways in which each individual can improve as well as how the group can improve overall. Through motivating rewards and feedback, students hold each other accountable and thereby expect individuals to interact well with each other, come prepared to the group meeting, remain on task, and successfully complete the given assignment.

Cooperative learning capitalizes on social interaction and peer relationships. Therefore, positive interpersonal skills are necessary for success. Students must understand, and sometimes be explicitly taught, the social skills necessary to navigate through the group learning process. Through assigned roles, students learn the social skills required to lead a group, keep a group on task, encourage a group to continue when stumbled, etc. Archer-Kath et al. (1994) state "for cooperative learning groups to be productive, members must ask each other for information, give each other information, ask for and give each other help when they need it, and support and praise each other's efforts to learn" (p. 6). Additionally, as noted above, students often need direct modeling regarding how to handle conflict or disagreements in a group setting.

The final component, group processing, plays a crucial role in cooperative learning situations. It is essential for individual students and groups to be self-reflective, to think about what went well and ways to improve. It is important that students reflect on what each individual student did well and what each student can do to make the process better in the future. Equally as important is for the group to reflect on overall group dynamics and how positive or negative interactions affected the overall performance of the group.

Slavin (1995) proposed slightly different criteria for cooperative learning situations including group goals, individual accountability, equal opportunities for success, team competition, task specialization, and adaptation to individual needs. Although mildly different, this format for the development of cooperative learning opportunities also emphasizes individual and group effort/accountability, social interactions among group members, and the critical importance of feedback and rewards for individuals and groups.

One of the main objectives of our education system is to prepare our students to interact in an ever more diverse society, to learn to work with a variety of individual strengths and weaknesses, to respect differences, and to embrace multiculturalism. Across many parts of the world, the student population is becoming increasingly diverse, bringing to classrooms divergent racial, ethnic, cultural, and socioeconomic experiences. Cooperative learning aims to create situations within the classroom in which students apply the social skills necessary to successfully interact and contribute to future society. Siciliano (2001) states that teams are becoming an ever more popular form of job design. This paradigm shift represents a significant change in organizational management and clearly identifies for K-12 education the critical importance of instructional design that includes ample opportunities for cooperative learning.

Applications

Cooperative Learning Applied in the K-12 Classroom

Heterogeneous, Homogeneous & Random Grouping

Heterogeneous, homogeneous, and random grouping strategies are used to develop cooperative learning teams. When creating heterogeneous groups, teachers may look to develop teams with students of different ability levels, interests, learning styles, races, language proficiencies, personalities, or other characteristics. The main objective behind heterogeneous groups is to develop a team of students who bring different skill sets, backgrounds, or perspectives to foster meaningful dialogue and interactions. Homogeneous groups, in contrast, are created with students of the same ability, interests, learning styles, races, language proficiencies, personalities or characteristics. Certain curriculum objectives lend themselves more easily to students of similar aptitudes or characteristics working together to achieve a common goal. The development of both heterogeneous and homogeneous groups requires pre-planning on behalf of the classroom teacher. Should such pre-planning not be required for a particular curriculum objective, teachers may opt to develop cooperative learning teams through random grouping strategies. For example, teachers may randomly pull student names out of a hat, have students count-off from one to five, or even allow students to choose their own groups.

Research has tended to indicate that heterogeneous groups are the most beneficial for cooperative learning situations because they represent a range of varied abilities, ethnicities, backgrounds, interests, and other characteristics. If we expect our students to be able to thrive in a demanding society where they need to fully appreciate and understand how to work with and get along with individuals who differ, educators need to provide students with ample opportunities to interact in heterogeneous groups. Although heterogeneous groups are ideal for cooperative learning situations, teachers may find that a particular learning objective can best be achieved by students in a homogeneous or randomly assigned group. Simply because a group is not heterogeneous does not imply that it does not qualify as a cooperative learning situation.

Common Cooperative Learning Models (K-12)

One of the most commonly used forms of cooperative learning in the classroom setting is STAD - Student Teams-Achievement Divisions. Using this methodology, teachers present a concept to the entire class and then develop heterogeneous groups of four to five students who then work on concept-specific worksheets as a team. Groups are evaluated on individual score improvements on quizzes as compared to past performance. An alternative application, TGT - Teams-Games-Tournaments utilizes the same structure as STAD, but replaces individual quizzes with game-like tournaments to increase student engagement. Again, individual performance is benchmarked against past performance to assess achievement gains.

Jigsaw is another popular methodology employed in classroom settings across grade levels and disciplines. In the Jigsaw method, heterogeneous base groups are developed, and each student is expected to become an "expert" on a certain amount of content specific material. To facilitate meaningful discussion, the original base groups are broken into "expert" teams comprising one individual from each base group. Students in the newly made up "expert" teams all receive the same information and work together to brainstorm the best possible ways to teach the information to their original base group. The experts then return to their original group and teach the information to their group mates. Each individual student is quizzed and either receives an individual grade or contributes to an overall group score.

Group Investigation is yet another popular methodology employed in a variety of classroom settings. When using this application, teachers allow students to choose their own two to six member groups. Students are provided with the freedom to choose from among a variety of subtopics within a unit of study and are then given the autonomy to break down the sub-topic into individual tasks to be carried out by individual group members to prepare and present a final group report to the entire class (Slavin, 1999). This particular methodology creates ample opportunity for student autonomy and requires much responsibility on behalf of students, thus making it a strong choice for cooperative learning opportunities in upper elementary, junior high and high school classes.

Know-Want to Know-Do-Learn is a closely aligned technique to the K-W-L method developed by Ogle. Shaw, et al. (1997) provides a comprehensive overview of how this particular cooperative learning methodology was employed in two fourth grade math classes in Mississippi. K-W-D-L requires students to discuss what they already know about a given topic or problem, what information they are being asked to "find out," what they actually did to solve the given mathematical problem, and what they learned as a result of the process. When applying K-W-D-L, students interact with each other, discuss possible solutions, engage in discourse, grapple with different strategies, and ultimately transform the mathematical learning process from an individual one to a group process.

David & Roger Johnson (1994) developed the Learning Together model as yet another cooperative learning methodology for use in a variety of grade levels and disciplines. Students work in heterogeneous teams of four to five members on specific assignment sheets. Rather than each individual student "handing in" their assignment sheet, the group hands in one sheet and receives feedback on the group's final product. This methodology encourages team building, working together to achieve a final product, consistent discussions and cooperation, and ongoing assessment of how well group members work together (Slavin, 1996).

CIRC (Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition) technique is used for reading and writing instruction in grades 3-7. The CIRC model integrates teamwork, partner work, team assessments and rewards for language arts instruction. Teams work with one another on tasks related to reading comprehension, spelling, decoding, vocabulary, written responses, revision and editing techniques, etc.

In the early twenty-first century, Differentiated Instruction received quite a bit of attention in schools across the country as teachers, more and more, understand individual learning differences in the classroom setting and work to develop lessons that are commensurate with individual ability levels, learning styles, intelligences, and interests. To encourage successful implementation, education and professional development for teachers must be ongoing and deep. That being the case, the differentiated classroom lends itself beautifully to opportunities for cooperative learning. Literature Circles are a prime example of a specific methodology used for reading instruction. When participating in literature circles, groups of four to five students, all reading the same book, are assigned different roles (i.e., Discussion Director, Illustrator, Vocabulary Wiz, Passage King/Queen, etc.) and meet on a regular basis to share and discuss their work. Groups are evaluated on both individual products and overall group performance.

Assigning Roles in Cooperative Learning Groups

When creating cooperative groups in any grade level or discipline, teachers find that it is beneficial to assign roles to students. This practice ensures that each student is held accountable for a specific component of a group project and/or plays an integral role in ensuring the success of the group endeavor. Mastropieri et al. (2007) indicate that "giving a specific role to each student in a group can promote cooperation and group efficiency" (p.7). Roles may include, but are not limited to, leader, recorder, questioner, timekeeper, reporter, and checker. Different roles can be developed depending on the grade level and discipline being taught.

Assessment of Cooperative Learning Outcomes

When employing cooperative learning groups in a classroom setting, teachers often grapple with how to assess the final product as well as group vs. individual effort. Some cooperative learning methods lend themselves easily to a mix between group evaluation for group effort, individual evaluation for individual effort and group evaluation for individual effort. Researchers generally agree that teachers should rarely, if ever, assign one grade to a group for a final product. The main objective is for teachers to hold entire groups accountable for the final product and ensure that all students participate equally in the process. Mastropieri et al. (2007) indicate that "each student should be evaluated on the group product and on their own learning, as well as their contribution to the final product and the group dynamic" (p. 10).

Teachers, at all levels, often use rubrics as one form of assessment to evaluate both group and individual work components in a cooperative learning setting. A grading rubric, complete with main assessment components, evaluation criteria, and varying levels of competency, help teachers to efficiently and accurately assess both individuals and groups.

Student Engagement, Achievement, & Interpersonal Relationships in Cooperative Learning Situations

Numerous studies indicate that student engagement and attitudes toward learning increase significantly in cooperative learning situations. When comparing academic achievement, student engagement, and enthusiasm for learning between classrooms that employ cooperative learning and those that do not, findings indicate positive outcomes for those classrooms employing the instructional methodology. Murlyan (1992) found that students in small cooperative learning groups were more involved with subject matter and with one another than they were in large group mathematics classes. Huss (2006) provides great insight into the findings of Johnson, Johnson and Smith, noting generally that cooperative learning results in higher level reasoning, an increased generation of new ideas, strategies, and solutions as well as an increased potential for the transfer of skills and knowledge from one situation to another. Additionally, Johnson & Johnson (1989) indicate that cooperative learning also advances academic achievement, increases retention, and greatly improves self-esteem and communication among students.

Lee & Robert (1993) state that cooperative learning has direct effects on interpersonal and multicultural relationships. Slavin and Cooper (1999) further highlight the fact that "because cooperative learning groups encourage positive social interaction among students of diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds, they have great potential to facilitate the building of cross-ethnic friendships and to reduce racial stereotyping, discrimination, and prejudice" (p. 648). Additionally, research indicates that cooperative learning situations improve culturally diverse learners' self-esteem, cultural identities, feelings of self-worth, and overall academic achievement. Because of these findings, it was critical during the COVID-19 pandemic to employ cooperative learning tactics in the online learning environment to engage and motivate students.

Literature points to the fact that some groups of students, especially students of color, prefer cooperative learning situations mostly due to different cultural orientations, values, and behaviors. In order for classrooms to be responsive to different learning styles and cultural backgrounds, cooperative learning proves a beneficial instructional strategy to help boost student engagement and achievement among a culturally diverse population. For example, according to a study conducted by Wilson-Jones and Caston (2004), researchers concluded that cooperative learning was the preferred method of learning for young African American males. This methodology seemed to be most conducive for improving academic achievement among this particular group of students.

Viewpoints

As cooperative learning becomes a more integral part of teaching methodologies across grade levels, different viewpoints regarding heterogeneous grouping practices have emerged. Specifically, opponents of heterogeneous grouping indicate that there may be some negative effects on gifted students as well as students with special needs.

One main issue occurs when a student of high ability or talent feels as if they must complete a majority of the work within the group to achieve a high grade. Therefore, teachers often grapple with whether gifted children should be teamed in heterogeneous or homogeneous groups. Although research indicates that cooperative learning boosts student achievement, self-esteem and confidence, some students may feel a loss of individual control over a final outcome and, therefore, may be "turned off" completely from a cooperative learning situation. Melser (1999) asserts that teachers need to be adept at applying flexible grouping practices (using both homogeneous and heterogeneous groups) to achieve maximum results when applying cooperative learning methodologies in the classroom. Huss (2006) further highlights that teachers should limit the use of heterogeneous groups when the objective is to learn rote skills and reserve the methodology for tasks that are challenging, open-ended, and require higher order thinking skills.

Conversely, when researching the effects of cooperative learning on students with special needs, some argue that these students may experience difficulty participating effectively in heterogeneous groups and may experience an effect on self-esteem and confidence in these settings. However, the preponderance of researchers, such as Stevens & Slavin (1990), indicate that "when cooperative learning instructional processes include individual accountability and group rewards, they are likely to have a positive effect on the achievement of students both with and without disabilities" (p. 11).

Terms & Concepts

Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition (CIRC): CIRC is a technique used for reading and writing instruction in grades 3-7. The model integrates teamwork, partner work, team assessments and rewards for language arts instruction.

Differentiated Instruction: An instructional ideology in which teachers develop curriculum that is responsive to individual differences, ability levels, learning styles and interests.

Group Investigation: When using this methodology, teachers allow students to choose their own two to six member groups. Students are provided with the freedom to choose from among a variety of subtopics within a unit of study and are then given the autonomy to break down the subtopic into individual tasks to be carried out by individual group members to prepare and present a final group report to the entire class.

Heterogeneous Grouping: When creating heterogeneous groups, teachers develop teams with students of different ability levels, interests, learning styles, races, language proficiencies, personalities and/or other characteristics.

Homogeneous Grouping: Created with students of the same ability, interests, learning styles, races, language proficiencies, personalities, and/or characteristics.

Jigsaw: In this method, each student in a heterogeneous group is expected to become an "expert" on a certain amount of content specific material. Students are broken into "expert" teams and all students receive the same information to work together to brainstorm the best possible ways to teach the information to their original group. The "experts" return to their original group and teach the information to their group mates. Each individual student is quizzed and either receives an individual grade or contributes to an overall group score.

Know-Want to Know-Do-Learn (K-W-D-L): A variation of the K-W-L method, K-W-D-L requires students to discuss what they already know about a given topic or problem, what information they are being asked to "find out," what they actually did to solve the given problem, and what they learned as a result of the process.

Learning Together: Students work in heterogeneous teams of four to five members on specific assignment sheets. Rather than each individual student "handing in" their assignment sheet, the group hands in one sheet and receives feedback on the group's final product.

Literature Circles: When participating in literature circles, groups of four to five students, all reading the same book, are assigned different roles (i.e., Discussion Director, Illustrator, Vocabulary Wiz, Passage King/Queen, etc.) and meet on a regular basis to share and discuss their work. The student ownership and peer interaction in literature circles are critical in enhancing children’s literacy development and helping them cultivate the skills to become lifelong readers. Groups are evaluated on both individual products and overall group performance.

Positive Interdependence: Requires students to depend on each other to complete a given task or assignment. A teacher can create positive interdependence by ensuring that all students are assigned roles, materials are shared among members, students are required to agree on strategies used and a final product, and group rewards are used to praise students.

Random Grouping: When pre-planning is not required for a particular curriculum objective, teachers may opt to develop cooperative learning teams through random grouping strategies. For example, teachers may randomly pull student names out of a hat, have students count-off from one to five, or even allow students to choose their own groups.

Rubrics: A form of assessment used by teachers to evaluate individual and group assignments and/or projects. Rubrics usually include a scale from 1-3 (1 being "less than satisfactory" and 3 being "proficient"). Within each category of evaluation, depending on the actual project/assignment objective, teachers list specific criteria necessary to meet the requirements at each level.

Student Teams-Achievement Divisions (STAD): Using this methodology, teachers present a concept to the entire class and then develop heterogeneous groups of four to five students who work on concept specific worksheets as a team. Groups are evaluated on individual score improvements on quizzes as compared to past performance.

Teams-Games-Tournaments (TGT): TGT utilizes the same structure as STAD but replaces individual quizzes with game-like tournaments to increase student engagement. Again, individual performance is benchmarked against past performance to assess achievement gains.

Bibliography

Aronson, E., Blaney, N., Stephan, C., Sikes, J., & Snapp, M. (1978). The jigsaw classroom. Sage Publications.

Archer-Kath, J., Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1994, Oct.). Individual versus group feedback in cooperative groups. The Journal of Social Psychology, 134, 681-694. Retrieved May 11, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete.

Brame, J. & Biel, R. (2015). Setting up and facilitating group work: Using cooperative learning groups effectively. Vanderbilt University Center for Teaching. Retrieved June 25, 2023, from http://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/setting-up-and-facilitating-group-work-using-cooperative-learning-groups-effectively

Huss, J. (2006). Gifted education and cooperative learning: a miss or a match? Gifted Child Today, 29, 19-23. Retrieved May 11, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete.

Johnson, D., Johnson, R. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Interaction Book Company.

Johnson, D., Johnson, R., & Holubec, E. (1990). Circles of learning: Cooperation in the classroom. Interaction Book.

Johnson, D., Johnson, R. (1994). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualist learning(4th ed.). Prentice Hall.

Lee, M., & Lucking, R. (1993, Sept.-Oct.). Cooperative learning and multicultural classrooms. The Clearing House, 67, 12-16. Retrieved May 11, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete.

Liebtag, E. (2013). Moving forward with Common Core State Standards implementation: Possibilities and potential problems. Journal of Curriculum & Instruction, 7, 56-70. Retrieved December 11, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Source Complete.

Marchiando, K. (2013). Creating lifelong readers: Student ownership and peer interaction in literature circles. Illinois Reading Council Journal, 41, 13-21. Retrieved December 16, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Source Complete.

Mastropieri, M., Scruggs, T., Berkeley, S. (2007, Feb.). Peers helping peers. Educational Leadership, 64, 7-10. Retrieved May 11, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete.

Melser, N. (1999, May-Jun.). Gifted students and cooperative learning: A study of grouping strategies. Roeper Review, 21, 315-316. Retrieved May 11, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete.

Murlyan, C. (1992, Jun.). Student passivity during small groups in mathematics. Journal of Educational Research, 85(5), 261-273. doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1992.9941126

Ogle, Donna. (1986, Feb.). K-W-L: A teaching model that develops active reading of expository text. Reading Teacher, 39, 564-570. http://dx.doi.org/10.1598/RT.39.6.11

Peshkam, Annie. "What Your Pre-COVID Course Design Was Missing: 8 Cooperative Learning Practices to Enrich Your Online or Hybrid Classroom." Harvard Business Publishing, 19 June 2020, hbsp.harvard.edu/inspiring-minds/cooperative-learning-practices. Accessed 24 July 2024.

Shaw, J., Chambless, M., Chessin, D., Price, V., Beardain, G. (1997, May). Cooperative problem solving: Using K-W-D-L as an organizational technique. Teaching Children Mathematics, 3, 482-486. Retrieved May 11, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete.

Silalahi, T. F., & Hutauruk, A. F. (2020). The application of cooperative learning model during online learning in the pandemic period. Budapest International Research and Critics Institute-Journal (BIRCI-Journal), 3(3), 1683-1691.

Slavin, R. & Stevens, R. (1990, Dec.-Jan.). When cooperative learning improves the achievement of students with mild disabilities: a response to Tateyama Sniezek. Exceptional Children, 57(3), 276–280. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440299105700311

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

Slavin, R. (1996, Mar.-Apr.). Cooperative learning in middle and secondary schools. The Clearing House, 69, 200-204. Retrieved May 11, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete.

Slavin, R., & Cooper, R. (1999). Improving intergroup relations: lessons learned from cooperative learning programs. Journal of Social Issues, 55, 647-663. (4), 647–663. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00140

Siciliano, J. (2001, Feb.). How to incorporate cooperative learning principles in the classroom: It's more than just putting students in teams. Journal of Management Education, 25(1), 8–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/105256290102500103

Stevens, R., Madden, N., Slavin, R., Farnish, A. (1987). Cooperative integrated reading and composition: Two field experiments. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 433-454. Retrieved May 11, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete.

Wilson-Jones, L., & Caston, M. (2004, Dec.). Cooperative learning on academic achievement in elementary African American males. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 31, 280-283. Retrieved May 11, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete.

Suggested Reading

Emmer, E., Gerwels, M. (2002, Sept.). Cooperative learning in elementary classrooms: teaching practices and lesson characteristics. The Elementary School Journal, 103, 75-91. Retrieved May 11, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete.

Fore III, C., Riser, S., Boon, R. (2006). Implications of cooperative learning and educational reform for students with mild disabilities. Reading Improvement, 43, 3-12. Retrieved May 11, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete.

Hendricks, J. (1999, Sept.-Oct.). Connecting cooperative learning and social studies. The Clearing House, 73, 57-60. Retrieved May 11, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete.

Jenkins, J., Antil, L., Wayne, S., Vaclasy, P. (2003). How cooperative learning works for special education and remedial students. Exceptional Children, 69, 279-292. Retrieved May 11, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete.

Johnson, D., Johnson, R. (1981). Effectiveness of cooperative and individualistic learning experiences on inter ethnic interaction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 444-449.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Stevahn, L. (2011). Social interdependence and program evaluation. In M. M. Mark, S. I. Donaldson, & B. Campbell (Eds.), Social psychology and evaluation (pp. 286–319). The Guilford Press.

Johnson D., Johnson, R. (1986). Mainstreaming and cooperative learning strategies. Exceptional Children, 52, 553-561. Retrieved May 11, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete.

Lin, E. (2006). Cooperative learning in the science classroom. The Science Teacher, 73, 34-38.

Lopata, C., Miller, K., Miller, R. (2003, Mar.-Apr.). Survey of actual and preferred use of cooperative learning among exemplar teachers. The Journal of Educational Research, 96, 232-240. Retrieved May 11, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete.

Mills, C., & Keddie, A. (2012). “Fixing” student deficit in contexts of diversity: Another cautionary tale for pre-service teacher education. International Journal of Pedagogies & Learning, 7, 9-19. Retrieved December 11, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Source Complete.

Mueller, A., Fleming, T. (2001, May-Jun.). Cooperative learning: listening to how children work at school. The Journal of Educational Research, 94, 259-265. Retrieved May 11, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete.

Siegel, C. (2005, Jul.-Aug.). Implementing a research-based model of cooperative learning. The Journal of Educational Research, 98, 339-349. Retrieved May 11, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete.

Slavin, R. (1983). Cooperative learning. Longman.

Slavin, R. (1991). Synthesis of research on cooperative learning. Educational Leadership, 48, 71-82. Retrieved May 11, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete.

Slavin, R. (1999). Comprehensive approaches to cooperative learning. Theory into Practice, 38. Retrieved May 11, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete.

Strother, D. (1990, Oct.). Cooperative learning: fad or foundation for learning? Phi Delta Kappan, 72, 158-162. Retrieved May 11, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete.

Vaughan, W. (2002, Jul.-Aug.). Effects of cooperative learning on achievement and attitude among students of color. Journal of Educational Research, 95, 359-365. Retrieved May 11, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete.

Williams, K. (1996). Cooperative learning: a new direction. Education, 117, 39-43. Retrieved May 11, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete.