Cooperative Learning Groups in Online Courses Linda...
Transcript of Cooperative Learning Groups in Online Courses Linda...
Use of group learning may be traced back to Greek and Roman times in the
writings of Aristotle, Plato, Marcus Aurelius, and Thomas Aquinas (Hooper, 1992; Joyce
& Weil, 2000). In the development of American schools, Horace Mann and Henry
Barnard called for cooperative schools.
Cooperative learning also fits in well with constructivist and social learning
theories. Constructivists theorize that learners create their own knowledge based upon
their prior experiences (Gredler, 1997; Schrunk, 1996). In cooperative learning models,
students share learning and the group energy (synergy) produces a knowledge and
experience greater than the sum of each individual. Students encounter new ideas,
perspectives, and experiences with their peers. The group process is reflective of
Vygotsky’s (1930/1978, as cited in Gredler, 1997) zone of proximal development that is
defined as the difference between the developmental level of an individual versus the
level achieved with the guidance of an adult or in cooperation with peers.
Social theorists believe the “central role of education is to prepare citizens to
generate integrative democratic behavior, both to enhance personal and social life and to
ensure a productive democratic social order. They believe that cooperative enterprise
inherently enhances our quality of life, bringing joy and a sense of verve and bonhomie to
us and reducing alienation and unproductive social conflict” (Joyce & Weil, 2000, pp.
29). Dewey (1916) proposed that schools should be set up in the form of a democracy
and students should have the opportunity to practice the skills needed to live in a
democratic society. Thelen (1960) suggested that classroom activities should incorporate
the democratic process.
Cooperative Learning Groups in Online Courses 2
Cooperative learning may be defined as a compliment of methods and techniques
that require students to work together and support each other toward a common goal and
discouraging competition (Johnson & Johnson, 1985, as cited in Singhanayak & Hooper,
1998; Johnson & Johnson, 1993; Johnson & Johnson, 1999; Slavin, 1996, as cited in
Locatis, 2000; Johnson & Johnson, 1992, as cited in Locatis, 2000). Johnson and
Johnson (1993, 1999) listed five elements required for effective cooperative learning:
1. Positive interdependence – Positive interdependence is a feeling or perception
that everybody’s work is linked together and dependent upon each other.
Positive interdependence is established through mutual learning goals and
strengthened by joint rewards, divided resources, and complementary roles.
2. Individual accountability – The purpose of cooperative learning is to make
individuals stronger by making them accountable for doing their share of the
work. Common ways to structure individual accountability are (a) test each
student, (b) randomly select one student to respond for the group, or (c) have
one student summarize for another student.
3. Promotive interaction – Members promote success by helping, assisting,
supporting, encouraging, and praising each other. Helping each other learn
also promotes interpersonal dynamics and cognitive processes through
explaining problems, discussing concepts, teaching each other, and connecting
existing knowledge with new knowledge.
4. Social skills – Students need interpersonal and small group skills to succeed in
cooperative learning. It may be necessary to teach leadership, decision-
making, trust-building, communication and conflict-management skills.
Cooperative Learning Groups in Online Courses 3
5. Group processing – Students need to discuss actions that help or hinder the
group and how to continue or change.
Locatis identified four representative models for cooperative learning (Slavin,
1995, as cited in Locatis, 2000; King, 1993; Millis, 1990, as cited in Locatis, 2000):
Student team-achievement divisions (STAD). Students are assigned to
four-member teams that are mixed on the basis of gender, ethnicity, and
performance level. Lessons are presented in a traditional manner, but students
work together to ensure that all team members master the materials. Students are
tested individually and each individual student’s score is compared to his or her
past average. Team points are awarded based on the degree to which members
exceed their earlier performance.
Teams-games-tournaments (TGT). TGT approach is identical to STAD,
except students compete with those in other teams who are at the same
performance level. Low and high achievers from each team compete with their
counterparts, and the top scorers in these “tiered” tournaments win points for their
teams.
Jigsaw II. The Jigsaw approach is like STAD except that each student is
assigned expository material and each team member is randomly assigned to
become expert in some aspect of the assignment. If the topic is a country, for
example, one member might specialize in history, another in geography, another
in economics, and so on. Students interact with members of other teams who
have the same specialization and then return to impart the content that they have
gathered to their teammates.
Cooperative Learning Groups in Online Courses 4
Team accelerated instruction (TAI). Students study individually but are
assigned to teams whose members check and help each other. Students are tested
individually, but team rewards are given based on the number of individual
assignments and tests that members complete. The method is useful in highly
structured subjects where success depends on mastering pre-requisites.
Advantages and Disadvantages
Researchers have identified instructional and affective benefits of cooperative
learning groups.
Instructional Benefits
Academic Achievement. Studies of cooperative learning techniques have
repeatedly shown increased academic performance (Chang & Mao, 1999; Duren &
Cherrington, 1992; Hertz-Lazarowitz, Sharan, & Steinberg, 1980; Hudgins, 1960;
Madden & Slavin, 1983; McClintock & Sonquist, 1976; Okebukola & Ogunniyi, 1984;
Potthast, 1999; Sharan, Hertz-Lazarowitz, & Ackerman, 1979-80; Sherman & Thomas,
1986; Slavin & Karweit, 1984); these results carried across subject areas and grade
levels.
In a meta-analysis conducted by Johnson, Maruyama, Johnson, Nelson and Skon
(1981), 122 studies compared for the effectiveness of cooperation versus individualistic
or competitive learning situations. The definition of the three learning situations is taken
from Deutsch's work (1949, 1962 as cited in Johnson, Maruyama, et al., 1981, p. 47) on
social situations and goals structures.
Deutsch defined a cooperative social situation as one in which the goals of the
separate individuals are so linked together that there is a positive correlation
Cooperative Learning Groups in Online Courses 5
among their goal attainment. An individual can attain his or her goal if and only
if the other participants can attain their goals. Thus a person seeks an outcome
that is beneficial to all those with whom he or she is cooperatively linked. A
competitive social situation is one in which the goals of the separate participants
are so linked that there is a negative correlation among their goal attainments. An
individual can attain his or her goal if and only if the other participants cannot
attain their goals. Thus a person seeks an outcome that is personally beneficial
but is detrimental to the others with whom he or she is competitively linked.
Finally, in an individualistic situation, there is no correlation among the goal
attainments of the partic ipants. Whether an individual accomplishes his or her
goals has no influence on whether other individuals achieve their goals. Thus a
person seeks an outcome that is personally beneficial, ignoring as irrelevant the
goal achievement efforts of other participants in the situation.
The meta-analysis showed cooperative learning situations were superior to both
competitive and individualistic. "All three meta-analyses indicated that cooperation
promotes higher achievement and productivity than individualistic efforts. The results
hold for all subject areas and age groups” (Johnson, Maruyama, et al., p. 57). The
comparison with competition showed "cooperation is superior . . . in promoting
achievement and productivity" (Johnson, Maruyama, et al., p. 56).
In 1960, Hudgins found that fifth grade students working in groups made higher
scores on math tests than students who worked individually. Whicker, Bol and Nunnery
studied secondary precalculus classes and concluded “cooperative learning promotes
mathematics achievement” (1997, p. 48). In undergraduate college statistics classes,
Cooperative Learning Groups in Online Courses 6
groups using cooperative learning techniques scored higher on tests (Potthast, 1999).
McClintock and Sonquist (1976) studied undergraduate college sociology students and
found students participating in cooperative groups received higher than average grades on
term papers than working individually. They also concluded, "group performance was
often better than what could have been expected of the best student in the group" (1976,
p. 595). Lazarowitz, Hertz-Lazarowitz, and Baird reported “significantly higher gains in
both normative and criterion measures of academic testing” for students in cooperative
learning groups (1994, p. 1128). In other studies, cooperative- learning strategies were
found to improve student performance (Chang and Mao, 1999) and cognitive
achievement (Okebukola & Ogunniyi, 1984) in science classes. Augustine, Gruber, and
Hanson (1989-90) report higher achievement resulting from cooperative groups in a wide
variety of subject areas including spelling, social studies, health, and language.
Studies also reported students in cooperative learning groups were able to master
and retain information better than students in individual or competitive situations
(Humphreys, Johnson, & Johnson, 1992). Duren and Cherrington (1992) observed
significant improvements in long-term retention of problem-solving strategies of students
participating in cooperative learning groups. They reported students in cooperative
groups were more willing to tackle a problem longer, made qualitative verbalization of
problem solving strategies, justified solutions, were more open to alternative strategies
and corrective feedback, and attempted to use learned strategies 7% more often than
independent practice classes.
Johnson, Maruyama, et. al. (1981) hypothesized that the effects of cooperation
would increase the more students worked together, encouraged and tutored each other,
Cooperative Learning Groups in Online Courses 7
and rehearsed materials being learned. Whicker et al. (1997) came to a similar
conclusion but felt it might take some time for the benefits of cooperative learning to
become apparent. They reported, "although there were increasing group differences on
the second chapter test administered after four weeks, the groups did not significantly
differ until the scores on the third chapter test were compared, 6 weeks after the
cooperative learning technique was initiated" (1997, p. 48).
Studies have also shown cooperative techniques are more effective with higher
levels of learning on Bloom's taxonomy (Good, Reys, Grouws, & Mulryan, 1989-90;
Johnson, Maruyama, et al., 1981; Mevarech, 1999; Sharan et al., 1979-80). According to
Sharan et al., the "fundamental goals of cooperative learning . . . are to promote processes
of learning which are intellectually more complex and richer than the presentation-
recitation model" (1979-80, p. 129). Their study showed little difference between
traditional classroom and small-group learning for lower levels of Bloom's taxonomy.
However, the small groups "were able to build more high level concepts on the basis of
low level information . . . than were peers in the classrooms" (p. 129). Mevarech (1999)
showed more pronounced differences in performance at higher cognitive levels while
Chang and Mao (1999) found that cooperative learning was more effective at enhancing
the higher- level cognitive domain. Mevarech (1999) also found that heterogeneous
groups of students could solve complex cognitive tasks without lowering the progress of
high-achieving students. Augustine et al. (1989-90) reported heterogeneous groups
generally improved performance for both low-achieving and high-achieving students and
groups promoted critical thinking.
Cooperative Learning Groups in Online Courses 8
Although the reasons for improved cognitive abilities resulting from cooperative
learning are not totally understood, Hooper (1992) proposed the following: individuals
received more attention from group members than a teacher can provide; process of
generating explanations required deeper processing of information (Webb, 1988, as cited
in Hooper, 1992); and group discussions helped students construct new knowledge
(Vygotsky, 1978 as cited in Hooper, 1992).
Affective Benefits
Cooperative learning also produced a number of affective skills such as positive
feelings toward other students, increased self-esteem, ability to work together, and
improved social skills. According to Joyce (1999), the goal of cooperative learning is not
only to increase academic performance, but also to develop the student's group
processing and social skills.
Good et al. reported "enhanced motivation and enthusiasm, positive peer
interaction, and advanced mathematical thinking" (1989-90, p. 56) as potential benefits of
cooperative learning groups. Participation in groups also required students to develop the
ability to work together, capitalize on strengths, and become more sensitive to each other.
A study by Blaney, Stephan, Rosenfield, Aronson, and Sikes showed "strong,
positive pattern of behavior and feelings which can be attributed to the . . . groups" (1977,
p 127). Students in cooperative groups felt they could learn from each other, increased
self-esteem, and liking for groupmates carried over to the other students in the class.
Another study also showed increased self-esteem and number of friends for students in
cooperative groups (Lazarowitz et al., 1994). Johnson, Johnson, Johnson and Anderson
reported, "students felt more accepted and supported by their teachers and peers" (1976,
Cooperative Learning Groups in Online Courses 9
p. 450). In addition, they found evidence that cooperative learning strategies promoted
an intrinsic motivation to learn.
In a study of students from third to seventh grade, Hertz-Lazarowitz et al.
observed students in "cooperative small groups were more cooperative" (1980, p. 104)
than students in the standard presentation-recitation classrooms. In one group
experiment, students in a cooperative group created more words, announced them to the
group, helped each other, accepted new ideas, and generally enhanced productivity as
compared to their non-group counterparts. In addition, Johnson et al. (1976) found
students interacting in cooperative groups displayed more altruistic behavior.
The findings of Johnson and Johnson provided "behavioral evidence that the
cross-ethnic relationships created in cooperative learning groups do generalize to free-
time, free-choice situations" (1981, p. 448). The attitudinal measures indicated "students
perceived the interaction to be supportive and encouraging of both academic work and
friendships" (1981, p. 448). The results of the study indicated student interaction in
cooperative learning was characterized by a perception of receiving more help (between
minority and majority students), stronger beliefs that students encourage and support each
other, feelings of getting to know each other and creating new friendships, thinking
through rationale for answers, applying skills and knowledge in new situations, and
greater cooperation with each other. Madden and Slavin (1983) obtained similar results
by placing handicapped students in cooperative learning groups with normal-progress
peers. The normal-progress peers showed a decrease in rejection of students with mild
academic handicaps.
Cooperative Learning Groups in Online Courses 10
Students also liked working in cooperative groups. McClintock and Sonquist
(1976) reported that group members were satisfied with their groups, regardless of their
own or the group's performance, and preferred to work in groups on subsequent tasks.
Whicker et al. (1997) surveyed student attitudes toward groups. Overwhelmingly, they
found students liked receiving help from each other. Other student comments were (1) it
is easier to work on complex or difficult problems together, (2) liked the opportunity to
discuss and share ideas, (3) learned more in cooperative groups, and (4) needed
suggestions and advice on how to work out problems. However, students consistently
recommended rotation of group membership.
Problem Areas
Most of the problem areas identified with cooperative learning dealt with
individual participation in the group. Good et al. (1989-90) reported that some groups
required a lot of time to bond, which impedes initial progress. Also, there were subsets
of students who remained passive and allowed others to do the work. Joyce (1999)
studied the problem of group members who do not participate, the free-rider effect.
Joyce allowed group members to penalize participants for failing to contribute by rotating
them to a different group. Olson (1965; as cited in Hooper, 1992) determined that
making individual effort more noticeable could eliminate the free-rider effect.
King (1993) reported a similar problem where high achievers tended to dominate
the group and low achievers remained passive. In another study, Hudgins (1960)
observed two types of group interactions that tended to negate group process. In the first
type of interaction, there was a tendency for one student to determine the answer to math
problems. If the student had high social status, the answer was accepted without
Cooperative Learning Groups in Online Courses 11
question. However, students with lower social status had to prove the correctness of their
answer. In the second type of group interaction, students independently solved the
problems and then compared answers. If answers did not match, one person tended to
assume initiative and demonstrate a solution.
Another problem reported by Good et al. (1989-90) was inadequate curriculum
materials for small groups forcing teachers to adapt materials designed for the individual
work. As a result, there was a loss of continuity in content (within a class and between
grades), tasks that were not group dependent, and inadequate pacing (not enough time for
group process or too much time). Steiner, Stromwall, Brzuzy and Gerdes (1999) reported
that poor implementation, poorly planned activities, unmonitored progress, and
ineffective group incentives inhibit cooperative learning strategies. Another challenge
was cooperative learning strategies often take more time and require a reduction in the
amount of content covered.
The student surveys by Whicker et al. (1997) identified some problems as well.
Uncooperative group members were seen as a disadvantage and some students felt left
behind. Also, some students resisted cooperative learning strategies due to prior
negative experiences or fear of trying something new (Steiner et al., 1999).
Cooperative Learning and Technology
Technology comes in a variety of forms from overhead slides to complex
computer simulations. Computer-assisted instruction has been incorporated with
cooperative learning techniques by grouping two or more students with one computer or
having students use computers while they collaborate.
Cooperative Learning Groups in Online Courses 12
Research conducted on the integration of computer-assisted instruction and
cooperative-learning techniques has followed the same methods and procedures as
research on cooperative learning groups. Brush (1997) reported that both computer-
assisted learning and cooperative learning could be successfully integrated, that student
achievement increased, students stayed on task longer, and attitudes toward learning and
each other improved. Dalton, Hannafin, and Hooper (1989) reported that the
conversations among group members increased the amount of content learned. As a
result of having to pace their work with each other, students mastered the content better
and stayed on task. Also, the researchers noted that both high-achievers and low-
achievers benefited from cooperative learning groups.
In a much earlier experiment, Amaria, Biran, and Leith (1968) paired cooperative
learning techniques with programmed instruction and showed higher academic results
than individualistic learning situations. In addition, the researchers reported that
heterogeneous groups, on the average, worked better than homogeneous groups. They
hypothesized that intelligent children frequently made intuitive leaps to solutions.
However, in later learning, intelligent children frequently had to clarify the principles
skipped in earlier leaps. Less bright children, on the other hand, needed help with
conceptual structures. It appeared that forcing bright students to organize their concepts
in order to explain them to the less bright students benefited both parties.
Cooperative Learning in Online Courses
Through the use of synchronous and asynchronous computer-mediated
communication tools, the use of cooperative learning strategies is now possible in online
Cooperative Learning Groups in Online Courses 13
courses. Little research has been done to date in regard to online courses and cooperative
learning.
According to Locatis (2000, pp. 7), “online learning environments may have more
direct impact on the way interaction is structured, including the kinds of information
accessed, the amount of learner control, the mode of interaction, and the immediacy of
interaction. The online utilities available, the ones teachers choose to employ, and the
ways teachers choose to employ them can directly affect the structure of interaction and
consequently, learning outcomes.”
Undoubtedly, new dynamics will come into play with the movement of
cooperative learning techniques to an online environment. Some issues to consider are:
1. Technical difficulties are inevitable. Berge (1995) recommended adequate
infrastructure to support online courses and high-quality technical support for
faculty and students. Also training may be required for both students and
faculty members. Based on personal experience in online courses, Stone
(1996) said that technology was initially an issue. However, she soon found
herself immersed in the class.
2. Communication in an online environment also changes. Locatis (2000, p. 7)
believes “computer mediated online environment acts to constrain and
structure interaction . . . and may have an effect on the enjoyment and benefit
learners derive from interacting.” Communication moves from verbal to
written and visual clues are no longer ava ilable. “On the other hand,
…technologies may encourage more equal levels of participation
(Scardamalia, et al., 1994, as cited in Locatis, 2000, p. 7) and more critical
Cooperative Learning Groups in Online Courses 14
thinking” (Newman et al., 1997, as cited in Locatis, 2000, p. 7). McGarth
(1997-98, p. 293) found “talk is a familiar tool for teaching . . . but in the
traditional class, . . . often only one answer is heard, and the same students
tend to volunteer.” In computer-mediated communication, she said “many
answers to any one question may be offered . . . and considered, (and)
weighted by all.” For McGarth, “conference has all the advantages of small
group student-centered activity, plus the added advantage that the number of
peers each student is interacting with is enlarged.” Stone (1996) found
webchats were useful for real time communication to discuss the course and
get acquainted but limited for purposes of discussion. She also found that
communication online required “being concise and clear.” Due to the absence
of non-verbal clues, misunderstandings were more likely and required
suspension of judgment and requests for clarification. Stone also
recommended alternative ways to express emotion such as emoticons.
3. Motivation may be another problem for students online. Stone (1996) found
that interaction with other participants was necessary for her motivation. “I
have learned a great deal . . . from the postings of others, and their replies to
my postings have often forced me to critically examine my own assumptions”
(p. 5). Another aspect of motivation is not to overwhelm students with
information overload. Too much information may result in social loafing and
sucker effect. In both instances, students stopped participating because they
perceived it was no longer required either because of the size of the group or
because others are not participating (Hooper, 1992). In both instances, the
Cooperative Learning Groups in Online Courses 15
size of the group must be closely monitored to insure involvement of all
members.
Computer-mediated communication has the potential to expand cooperative
learning techniques to distance education and also expand communication options in
traditional classes. However, the dynamics of these new technologies must be researched
to determine the best procedures to enhance cooperative learning.
Cooperative Learning Groups in Online Courses 16
References
Amaria, R. P., Biran, L. A., & Leith, G. O. M. (1968). Individual versus
cooperative learning. Educational Research, 11, 95-103.
Augustine, D. K., Gruber, K. D., & Hanson, L. R. (1989-90). Cooperation
Works! Educational Leadership, 47, 4-7.
Berge, Z. L. (1995). Facilitating computer conferencing: Recommendations
from the field. Educational Technology, 35 (1), 22-30.
Blaney, N. T., Stephan, C., Rosenfield, D., Aronson, E., & Sikes, J. (1977).
Interdependence in the classroom: A field study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69,
121-128.
Brush, T. (1997). The effects on student achievement and attitudes when using
integrated learning systems with cooperative pairs. Educational Technology Research
and Development, 45 (1), 51-64.
Chang, C. Y., & Mao, S. L. (1999). The effects on students' cognitive
achievement when using the cooperative learning method in earth science classrooms.
School Science & Mathematics, 99, 374-380. Retrieved March 23, 2000 from EBSOhost
online database.
Dalton, D., Hanafin, M., & Hooper, S. (1989). Effects of individual and
cooperative computer-assisted instruction on student performance and attitudes.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 37 (2), 15-24.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and Education. New York: Macmillan.
Duren, P. E., & Cherrington, A. (1992). The effects of cooperative group work
versus independent practice on the learning of some problem-solving strategies. School
Cooperative Learning Groups in Online Courses 17
Science and Mathematics, 92, 80-83.
Good, T. L., Reys, B. J., Grouws, D. A., & Mulryan, C. M. (1989-90). Using
work-groups in mathematics instruction. Educational Leadership, 47, (4) 56-60.
Gredler, M. E. (1997). Learning and Instruction Theory into Practice. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., Sharan, S., & Steinberg, R. (1980). Classroom learning
style and cooperative behavior of elementary school children. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 72, 99-106.
Hooper, S. (1992.) Cooperative learning and computer-based instruction.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 40 (3), 21-38.
Hudgins, B. B. (1960). Effects of group experience on individual problem
solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 51, 37-42.
Humphreys, B., Johnson, R. T., & Johnson, D. W. (1992). Effects of
cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning on students’ achievement in science
class. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 19, 351-356.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1981). Effects of cooperative and
individualistic learning experiences on interethnic interaction. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 73, 444-449.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1993). Implementing cooperative learning.
Education Digest, 58 (8), 62-66. Retrieved November 20, 2000 from EBSCOhost online
database.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Making cooperative learning work.
Theory into Practice, 38, (2), 67-73. Retrieved March 23, 2000 from EBSCOhost online
Cooperative Learning Groups in Online Courses 18
database.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., Johnson, J., and Anderson, D. (1976) Effects of
cooperative versus individualized instruction on student prosocial behavior, attitudes
toward learning, and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 446-452.
Johnson, D. W., Maruyama, G., Johnson, R., Nelson, D., & Skon, L. (1981).
Effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures on achievement:
A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 89, 47-62.
Joyce, B., & Weil, M. (2000.) Models of Teaching. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Joyce, W. B. (1999). On the free-rider problem in cooperative learning. Journal
of Education for Business, 74, 271-274. Retrieved March 23, 2000 from EBSCOhost
online database.
King, L. H. (1993). High and low achievers' perceptions and cooperative
learning in two small groups. The Elementary School Journal, 93, 399-416.
Lazarowitz, R., Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., & Baird, J. H. (1994). Learning science in
a cooperative setting: Academic achievement and affective outcomes. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 31, 1121-1131.
Locatis, C. (2000). Cooperative learning and distance education online.
[Online]. Available:
http://tlc.nlm.nih.gov/resources/publications/sourcebook/cooperativelearning.html
Madden, N. A., & Slavin, R. E. (1983). Effects of cooperative learning on the
social acceptance of mainstreamed academically handicapped students. The Journal of
Special Education, 17, 171-182.
McClintock, E., & Sonquist, J. A. (1976). Coopertive task-oriented groups in a
Cooperative Learning Groups in Online Courses 19
college classroom: A field application. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 588-596.
McGrath, C. (1997-98). A new voice on interchange: Is it talking or writing?
Implications for the teaching of literature. Journal of Educational Technology Systems,
26, 291-297.
Mevarech, Z. R. (1999). Effects of metacognitive training embedded in
cooperative settings on mathematical problem solving. Journal of Educational Research,
92, 195-205. Retrieved March 23, 2000 from EBSCOhost online database.
Okebukola, P. A., & Ogunniyi, M. B. (1984). Cooperative, competitive, and
individualistic science laboratory interaction patterns - Effects on students' achievement
and acquisition of practical skills. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21, 875-884.
Potthast, M. J. (1999). Outcomes of using small-group cooperative learning
experiences in introductory statistics courses. College Student Journal, 33, 34-42.
Retrieved March 23, 2000 from EBSCOhost online database.
Schunk, D. H. (1996). Learning Theories. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
Sharan, S., Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., & Ackerman, Z. (1979-80). Academic
achievement of elementary school children in small-group versus whole-class instruction.
The Journal of Experimental Education, 48, 125-129.
Sherman, G. P., & Klein, J. D. (1995). The effects of cued interaction and ability
grouping during cooperative computer-based science instruction. Educational
Technology Research and Development, 43 (4), 5-24.
Sherman, L. W., & Thomas, M. (1986). Mathematics achievement in
cooperative versus individualistic goal-structured high school classrooms. Journal of
Educationa l Research, 79, 169-172.
Cooperative Learning Groups in Online Courses 20
Singhanayak, C., & Hooper, S. (1998). The effects of cooperative learning and
learner control on students’ achievement, option selections, and attitudes. Educational
Technology Research and Development, 40, (3), 21-38.
Slavin, R. E., & Karweit, N. L. (1984). Mastery learning and student teams: A
factorial experiment in urban general mathematics classes. American Educational
Research Journal, 21, 725-736.
Steiner, S., Stromwall, L. K., Brzuzy, S., & Gerdes, K. (1999). Using
cooperative learning strategies in social work education. Journal of Social Work
Education, 35, 235-264.
Stone, K. (1996). Learning online. Bulla Gymnasia Virtuales Online All the
Time Bi-Monthly E-mail Newsletter, 01 (3), 1-13. [Online] Availiable at:
http://www.cybercorp.net//gymv/bulla/b_v01n03.html
Thelen, H. (1960). Education and the human quest. New York: Harper and
Row.
Whicker, K. M., Bol, L., & Nunnery, J. A. (1997). Cooperative learning in the
secondary mathematics classroom. Journal of Educational Research, 91, 42-48.
Retrieved March 23, 2000 from EBSOhost online database.