JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING VOL. 30, NO. 7, PP. 697-707 (1993)

The Effects of Cooperative Learning in a Physical Science Course for Elementary/Middle Level Preservice Teachers

Bruce Burron

NSF Pre-Service Elementary MathematicslScience Project, University of Northern Colorado, Greeley, Colorado 80639

M. Lynn James*

Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Northern Colorado, Greeley, Colorado 80639

Anthony L. Ambrosio

Division of Research, Evaluation, and Development, University of Northern Colorado, Greeley, Colorado 80639

Abstract

Although many studies have shown the effectiveness of cooperative learning in a variety of settings in grades K- 12, relatively few have focused on higher education. This study compared two physical science laboratory sections in a course for elementary/middle level preservice teachers. One section was taught in the traditional method, and the other was instructed using the Learning Together technique of cooperative learning. Comparisons between the two laboratory sections assessed any differences in student achieve- ment and collaborative skills. In addition, the cooperative learning group completed a questionnaire that assessed their perception of the effectiveness of cooperative learning compared to more traditional methods of instruction, and their attitudes toward the laboratory section. Although no significant differences were observed in achievement, the cooperative learning group exhibited significant gains in collaborative skills. By the end of the course, cooperative learning students indicated a high comfort level for the laboratory.

Johnson and Johnson (1984) outline three types of classroom goal structures-individualis- tic, competitive, and cooperative. In an individualistic setting, students typically work alone with limited interaction in achieving individual goals. In a competitively structured classroom, students essentially work against each other (Johnson, Johnson, & Holubec, 1991). Tradi- tionally, teachers have, for the most part, structured their classrooms individualistically or competitively. Cooperative learning is a way to structure classroom learning so students work together to achieve common goals while being held individually accountable for the knowl- edge/skills being taught.

* To whom correspondence should be addressed.

0 1993 by the National Association for Research in Science Teaching Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. CCC 0022-4308/93/070697-11

698 BURRON, JAMES, AND AMBROSIO

Cooperative learning research has documented many desirable outcomes. Among these are academic achievement, social and affective development, and improved ethnic relations. Slav- in’s (1983) review of studies on the effect of cooperative learning on achievement in elementary and secondary school classrooms revealed that 63% showed cooperative learning to be superior, 33% showed no difference, and 4% showed higher achievement for traditional comparison groups. Kagan (1989) reported similar results from a meta-analysis of cooperative learning studies. He summarized results of the meta-analysis this way: “Cooperative learning promotes higher achievement than either competitive or individualistic learning structures across all age levels, subject areas, and almost all tasks” (Kagan, 1989, p. 24). Kagan also found that lower- achieving and minority students usually benefited most, and that the benefits did not come at the expense of higher-achieving students. Cooperative learning also promotes more social skill development than traditional learning structures (Johnson 8: Johnson, 1983, 1985; Kagan, Zahn, Widaman, Schwarzwald, & Tyrell, 1985; Slavin, 1983). Still another outcome claimed for cooperative learning is improved cross-ethnic relationships (Kagan et al., 1985; Slavin, 1979, 1983). Students in cooperative structures also show positive gains in the areas of self- esteem, greater intrinsic motivation, liking for the subject matter, and the ability to take the role of others (Kagan, 1989). Cooperative learning has been reported to have a strong effect in cultivating favorable student attitudes toward laboratory work, which is crucial at a time when interest in science is declining and the role of technology in society is increasing (Okebukola, 1986).

Despite the large body of research on cooperative learning, few studies have addressed the impact of this strategy in higher education. This research has focused on academic achievement (Ney, 1989) and information retention (Dansereau, 1983). Research has excluded examination of the effect of cooperative learning on the development of collaborative skills. Furthermore, the significance of individual accountability (when group members individually contribute to the success of the group) and positive interdependence (when group reinforcement is dependent on successful group interaction)-two factors found to be important to achievement in cooperative learning at the K-12 level (Slavin, 1989)-have not been established for collegiate level subjects.

This study’s first goal was to determine any differences between a cooperative learning technique and a traditional learning technique at the college level with regard to student achieve- ment and development of collaborative skills. The second purpose was to examine the effect of cooperative learning on students’ attitude toward a physical science course. We hypothesized that (a) cooperative learning strategies will increase academic achievement of college students compared with a traditional method of instruction, (b) cooperative learning strategies will improve collaborative skills of college students compared with more traditional methods of instruction, and (c) students in a cooperative learning course will indicate a positive attitude toward the course and a favorable attitude toward the cooperative learning experience.

Method

Subjects

Subjects were 43 female and 8 male undergraduate students attending the University of Northern Colorado. Subjects were enrolled in a 16-week course titled “Physical Science Con- cepts for Elementary Teachers” and participated in the study as a normal part of their course work.

COOPERATIVE LEARNING 699

Procedure

The physical science course included a lecture and a laboratory component. All subjects participated in the same three weekly lecture sessions, but were divided into two separate weekly laboratory sessions. The course content dealt with physics and chemistry. The physics portion included a study of speed, velocity, and acceleration; frictional, gravitational, electrical, magnetic, and buoyant forces; Newton’s laws of motion; work, kinetic energy, potential energy, and power; and the law of conservation of energy. The chemistry portion dealt with the atomic nature of matter, including atoms; atomic and molecular masses; elements, compounds, and mixtures; atomic structure; antimatter; states of matter; and changes in state.

The Learning Together cooperative learning technique (Johnson & Johnson, 1984) was employed in one laboratory section, and traditional instruction was employed in the other. Subjects preregistered for either section assuming the two options were identical. The laborato- ries differed only in the learning technique employed. The same laboratory instructor was responsible for delivery of course content for both laboratory sections.

Twenty-four subjects in the cooperative learning laboratory were divided into six groups consisting of four members. To ensure heterogeneous groups, membership in each group was based on pretest results on the National Assessment of Education Progress-Science Test (NAEP-Science) (Educational Testing Service, 1986), year in school, ethnicity, and gender. For example, a typical group would include a student who scored high on the NAEP-Science, one who scored low, and two who had average scores. In addition, attempts were made to include at least one member of an ethnic minority and one male as part of the four-member group. Because the majority of students were Anglo female, it was not possible to include a minority or male in each group.

Rewards in the form of class recognition were given each week for individual and group performance of collaborative skills. In addition, group members received weekly written feed- back from the researcher reflecting a summary of the students’ previous week’s assessment of their use of collaborative skills. This feedback was coupled with the researcher’s observations and his comments relating to the use of these skills.

The cooperative learning laboratory began with direct instruction and reinforcement of cooperative skills through discussion and modeling. Specific skills included (a) use of names when addressing group members, (b) contribution of ideas and suggestions, (c) encouragement of contributions of others verbally and nonverbally, (d) checking understanding of others, (e) keeping the group on task, ( f ) active listening skills, (8) summarizing, (h) paraphrasing, (i) group decision making, (j) acknowledging contributions verbally and nonverbally, and (k) use of group roles. A collaborative skill would be identified by the researcher. Selection of collab- orative skills was deliberately sequenced from simple, such as addressing each other by name, to complex, such as summarizing material. In this way, students met with successful implemen- tation of collaborative skills from the first laboratory session and understood the strategies necessary in order to master increasingly difficult skills for subsequent laboratory sessions. Then a discussion would ensue regarding what behaviors were associated with the skill. Next, the researcher would model the skill. Finally, the students would work on the skill that day and in subsequent laboratory periods. Students in the cooperative laboratory group were also peri- odically asked to identify a specific skill upon which they needed to improve. They were then given an opportunity to practice this skill during the session. TQ structure individual accountabil- ity, each member of the group was assigned a specific role to perform. The roles were modeled by the researcher and role cards with directions were given to each student. Roles were rotated on a biweekly basis to ensure that each member was able to practice each role and all group

700 BURRON, JAMES, AND AMBROSIO

members participated equally. The group roles were (a) reader -reads instructions for perform- ing the activity to the group; (b) checker-makes certain all group members understand roles, instructions, and work; (c) questioner-asks the instructor questions that are posed by the group; (d) gatekeeper-makes sure that everyone participates in the activity; (e) good listener (group role)-gives verbal and nonverbal acknowledgment of contributions of others; (f) name reminder-helps members to remember to address each other by name; (8) summarizer- periodically summarizes the material so that group members can check it; and (h) prober- prevents members from superficially answering problems posed by the lab.

By contrast, the 27 subjects in the traditional laboratory were allowed to develop their own method of operation, including any assignments of roles and responsibilities within the group.

Laboratory observations were conducted by two researchers. One 7-min and one 4-min observation was made of each laboratory group weekly. Researchers used a checklist procedure to classify observed behaviors according to the aforementioned categories.

Materials

The Johnson and Johnson (1984) Learning Together technique was used for the cooperative learning treatment. Using this technique, students work in small groups to complete assign- ments. There is no competition between groups. This method relies on teacher praise and student interest in cooperation, rather than on awarding points or grades based on group performance. The technique was chosen for several reasons. First, lecture sections were shared by both laboratory groups and thus rewards for cooperative behaviors could not be given in the form of grades or points. This eliminated the use of other cooperative learning techniques that require use of such reinforcement. Second, the Learning Together technique easily fit into the design of the course. That is, the laboratory setting automatically grouped students into appro- priately sized groups, and members were seated around a table for each activity. Third, the cooperative learning materials and procedures were piloted and revised during the previous two semesters.

Measures

Subjects’ academic achievement was measured using selected items from the 12th-grade NAEP-Science test and a content-based final laboratory examination designed by the instructor. Selected items from the NAEP-Science test measure general knowledge about physics and chemistry. Twenty-eight items were selected based on their relevance to concepts presented in class. The NAEP-Science test was given as a pre- and posttest. The laboratory final consisted of 13 essay items based on principal concepts addressed during lab activities.

Subjects’ collaborative skills were assessed by observation. Both laboratory sections were observed for individual contributions of ideas and suggestions, encouragement of participation, checking for understanding of others, on-task behavior, active listening, summarizing mate- rialdideas, paraphrasing, group decision making, acknowledgment of others’ contributions, and use of group roles. Examples of an individual’s collaborative behavior to reflect the degree of participation by each group member are as follows.

1 .

2.

Statement related to completing the task-“First we need to weigh each of the objects.” Exchange of information-“The force acting upon the object was . . .”

COOPERATIVE LEARNING 70 1

3.

4.

5 . 6. 7 . 8.

9.

Exchange of ideas-“What if we determined the volume of the sphere before we immersed it in the ice water?’ Paraphrasing a concept-“When the air moves faster over the top of the wing it reduces the pressure, resulting in a greater pressure and lift from below.” Summarizing a concept-“The faster the flow, the lower the pressure.” Responding to ideas-“That’s interesting” or “Thanks for the suggestion.” Seeking information to clarify meaning-“How does this relate to centripedal force?’ Seeking opinions related to completion of the task-“Do you think dropping the object is what is meant here?’ Explaining the task, procedure, or concept-“We also need to use three wires to complete the circuit.”

Examples of an individual’s collaborative behavior to reflect group members checking each others’ understanding of concepts and procedures are as follows.

1. 2.

3.

4.

5 .

6. 7 .

Asking if someone/everyone understands-“What does acceleration mean?’ Asking if someone/everyone understands the concept/procedure-“Mike, what do we do first?’ Asking if someone/everyone needs assistance-“May I help you determine the mass?” Asking if it is all right to move on with the activity-‘% everyone ready to go on to the next step?’ Asking for questions pertaining to the concept/procedure-“What don’t you under- stand about . . . ?’ Asking for a restatement of concepts/procedures-“Sue, can you summarize . . . ?” Asking someone to explain the concept/procedure-“Bill, can you explain what Sue is doing?’

Finally, students in the cooperative learning laboratory completed the Instructional Strate- gies Evaluation (ISE). The ISE, developed by Prescott (1989), measures student perceptions of the relative strengths and weaknesses of cooperative learning. Coefficient alpha was calculated at .71 for the ISE. The ISE has high content validity in that items clearly assess factors relevant to course effectiveness. For example, students are asked to rate how effective their cooperative learning experience was in promoting academic achievement, increasing time on task, increas- ing the likelihood of attending class, and raising subject interest.

Results

An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was performed on NAEP-Science posttest scores with the NAEP-Science pretest scores as the covariate. Results indicated no significant differ- ences between the cooperative learning and traditional laboratory groups, F( 1,35) = .lo, p>.05. NAEP-Science pretest and posttest means are presented in Table 1. Participants in the cooperative learning laboratory did not significantly increase their academic achievement scores, as measured by the NAEP-Science, over participants in the traditional laboratory.

A t test revealed no significant difference between the cooperative learning (M = 11.58) and traditional laboratory groups (M = 11.12) on laboratory final examination scores, t(50) = .42, p > .05. Participants in the cooperative learning laboratory did not significantly increase their academic achievement, as measured by the laboratory final, over participants in the traditional laboratory.

Interobserver reliability for the observation of collaborative skills was calculated by using

702 BURRON, JAMES, AND AMBROSIO

Table 1 MAEP-Science Pretest and Pasttest Scares

Cooperative lab Traditional lab

Pretest M 13.40 14.52 SD 2.83 2.91 n 25 27

M 16.88 17.70 SD 2.39 2.77 n 16 23

Posttest

the Spearman correlation procedure. Interobserver reliability for collaborative behaviors was .83.

t tests were conducted to determine any differences between the cooperative learning laboratory and the traditional laboratory with respect to collaborative skills. These results are presented in Table 2. Results indicate that, with the exception of summarization skills, students in the cooperative learning section engaged in significantly more collaborative behaviors than did students in the traditional laboratory section.

Table 2 t tests between Cooperative Learning and Traditional Learning Groups on Collaborative Skills

Skill Group n Mean SD t

Contribution of ideas coop 22 8.00 4.90 2.47**

Encouragement of contributions coop 22 2.41 1.53 3.06*

Checking for understanding coop 22 1 .OO 0.17 2.05*

Time on task coop 22 1.36 0.49 3.85***

Trad 25 5.00 3.40

Trad 27 1.26 1.10

Trad 27 0.56 0.13

Trad 27 1 .OO 0.00

Trad 25 0.52 0.51

Trad 26 0.15 0.46

Trad 27 0.00 0.00

Trad 27 0.15 0.36

Trad 27 0.00 0.00

Active listening coop 22 1.23 0.87 3.34* **

Summarizing coop 24 0.36 0.50 1.63

Paraphrasing COOP 24 0.33 0.57 2.89***

Group decision making COOP 22 2.00 0.58 12.80* **

Use of group roles COOP 22 1.27 1.12 5.92* * *

h i e . The behaviors of paraphrasing and use of group roles were not displayed in the traditional learning group. Separate variance estimates were used fort tests on these variables. The n's vary due to fluctuations in attendance during observational periods. * p < .05. * * p < .02. *** p < .01.

COOPERATIVE LEARNING 703

Table 3 Mean Responses to the Instructional Strategies Evaluation (ISE)a

Item Mean responseb

General academic achievement Higher-level thinking skills Interest in subject matter Likelihood of attending class Frequency and quality of contact with instructor Percentage of class time on task Ability to diagnose own knowledge of course

Frequency and quality of interactions with

Amount of time necessary to reach mastery of

General class morale Rapport with teacher

subject matter

classmates

a concept

4.36 4.50 4.18 4.59 4.41 4.41 3.95

4.95

4.05

4.41 4.59

Note. The ISE uses a 1-5 Likert scale. Higher averages indicate a belief that cooperative learning is significantly more effective than traditional forms of in- struction for the item topic. a Responses for cooperative learning group only, because the control group (tradi- tional instruction) was not instructed on cooperative learning. n = 22.

Finally, a descriptive analysis was conducted on responses from cooperative learning group students on the ISE. Table 3 presents a breakdown of responses. Below are typical individual responses to an open-ended question on the ISE, which assesses a student’s overall impression of the effectiveness of cooperative learning.

I . With cooperative learning it was easier to understand a concept. If you didn’t under- stand a concept, the discussion between the group members often helped to under- stand the material. The cooperative learning groups created a friendship and it made it easier to talk and ask questions in the group and in class. Our group often joked around and made it a lot more fun to come to class. Where in the lab with the cooperative groups I never missed a class, in the regular lecture I often skipped. At first I didn’t really like the cooperative learning very much. I thought it seemed like a waste of time, and a joke. However, as time progressed I began to have a good rapport with the members of my group. We worked well together (and had fun too- something I thought impossible to have in a science class). It seemed as if when one person didn’t understand, there was usually someone who did. We helped each other. I now think cooperative learning is an effective method of learning. Before I attended this cooperative lab, I was in a different lab that wasn’t a coopera- tive learning lab and it was hard to keep everyone focused and harder to learn. When I switched I could tell a big difference. I didn’t hear as much arguing. I heard more encouragement. It was a group effort, not an individual effort. I think that it helps form new ideas and explain ideas. I wish that all classes had cooperative learning. I feel that if it was individualized, I would fail and I wouldn’t learn anything. I would keep to my ideas and not really look in depth into other solutions. I feel comfortable in class because I know my group members better. It’s nice to know that you’re not the only one that doesn’t understand something. We’re all in the same boat.

2.

3.

4.

704 BURRON, JAMES, AND AMBROSIO

5 . I feel that being in a cooperative learning class really helped me have a better learning experience. I came into this class with many concerns and apprehensions, and work- ing cooperatively with three other people allowed me the freedom to discuss my uncertainties without feeling stupid. I honestly feel that if 1 had been in a general lab section, my enthusiasm and my understanding both would have been less.

The open-ended ISE was qualitatively analyzed by the researchers. Responses were cate- gorized based on similarity. The two major categories discovered were effectiveness of coopera- tive learning instruction and course desirability. Of the 22 students who completed the open- ended ISE item, 17 (77%) mentioned that the laboratory was an effective learning experience. In addition, 11 (50%) mentioned that they felt enthusiastic/comfortable with the laboratory or that they liked coming to the laboratory. No subject mentioned that the cooperative learning labora- tory was ineffective or led to a poorer understanding of the material; nor did any subject say that he or she disliked the experience.

Discussion

The results of this study do not support either the motivational or the cognitive theory of cooperative learning outlined by Slavin (1990). Slavin identified a motivational and a cognitive theory to explain the effectiveness of cooperative learning. Under the motivational theory, cooperative learning students outperform traditional students because of the cooperative goal structure. Individual goals cannot be met unless group goals are met. The cooperative goal structure did not affect academic achievement in this study. The cognitive theory states that elaboration of material from intergroup tutoring aids in the cognitive restructuring of informa- tion. This aids memory and results in higher achievement scores. This notion was also not supported by data obtained in this study. These findings are consistent with those of another study that focused on a similar college population (Rice & Gabel, 1990).

It also seems that the results are somewhat consistent with existing research findings at the elementary and high school levels. Although we found no significant differences between the two sections in achievement, both sections exhibited marked achievement based on pre- and posttest NAEP-Science scores. Therefore, cooperative learning for this college course did not prove detrimental to student achievement. Perhaps the lack of gains in achievement were due to the reduced amount of time students had to complete the laboratory activities. Due to coopera- tive learning instruction, students were not always able to complete the laboratory activities during the allotted time. The traditional laboratory section had approximately 15-30 min longer to complete laboratory activities than the cooperative learning section. Indeed, the affective and social benefits gained justify the use of this strategy as a viable means of instruction for higher education. These benefits are commensurate with those discovered by previous studies and meta-analyses of cooperative learning strategies done at the elementary and high school levels (Johnson & Johnson, 1983, 1985; Kagan, 1989; Kagan et al., 1985).

We believe the results have significance for several reasons. In 1988, the American Society for Training and Development and the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, identified seven skills that employers want from their employees. They were (a) learning to learn; (b) listening and oral communication; (c) competence in reading, writing, and computation; (d) adaptability-creative thinking and problem solving; (e) personal manage- ment-self-esteem, goal settinglmotivation, and personal/career development; (f) group effectiveness-interpersonal skills, negotiation, and teamwork; and (g) organizational effective- ness and leadership. With the exception of competency in reading, writing, and computation, all

COOPERATIVE LEARNING 705

of these skills have been identified as social/collaborative skills (Cartledge & Milburn, 1986; Stephens, 1978). As a part of the cooperative learning strategy we implemented direct instruc- tion in listening and oral communication, problem solving, group effectiveness (interpersonal skills, negotiation, and teamwork), and organizational effectiveness and leadership. Cooperative learning leads to an increased ability and competency in these areas. Therefore, students exposed to this method of instruction should be better teachers. Also, as prospective teachers, students that have been exposed to a proven method of instruction, such as cooperative learning through participation and modeling, may view it as a viable means of instruction in their own future classrooms. From the experience in this course students have begun to develop the skills necessary to accomplish effective collaborative work.

Cooperative learning encourages discussing with and teaching others. Science laboratory settings are ideal for this experiential learning. The increased participation by students in the cooperative learning section ensured that all members have that experiential opportunity to manipulate equipment, take an active role in problem solving, and achieve a sense of self-worth by knowing that their contributions were meaningful and appreciated by others. This was also evidenced by high student ratings on the “frequency and quality of interactions with classmates” item on the ISE. Students were not isolated from each other as in the traditional laboratory section, where the silent-partner syndrome was observed.

The frequent checking of understanding of all group members also served to ensure that all members were viewed as part of a team. All students were held responsible for scribing the correct answer and for understanding how the group arrived at that answer. They knew they were responsible for bringing everyone along and often felt they gained an even greater under- standing by explaining a concept or principle to others. This seemed to raise the comfort level of individuals. They knew that they would not be abandoned if they did not learn as quickly.

Whether or not students’ attitudes toward science became increasingly positive as a result of cooperative learning was more difficult to ascertain. However, an attitudinal component ap- peared to emerge from the open-ended item on the ISE. Comments made on the open-ended question of the ISE suggested that students in the cooperative learning laboratory (a) enjoyed coming to the laboratory, (b) felt less frustrated, (c) felt a greater understanding of the material after finishing a laboratory activity, and (d) felt the laboratory was an effective learning experi- ence. These types of comments lead us to conclude that, for this particular course, positive attitudes toward science did increase. This serves as a means to pass on to their future students an enthusiasm for science. In this case, cooperative learning may serve as the vehicle to achieve these ends.

Several limitations of this study must be noted. First, cooperative behaviors were judged by observers. Although efforts were taken to train observers, observational data is extremely sensitive to problems of reliability. Second, students knew they were being taught cooperative skills. The degree to which this affected their behaviors during periods of observation is unknown.

Future research should focus on examining the effects of tying individual rewards directly to student grades. Techniques such as Student Teams Achievement Divisions (Slavin, 1980) and Teams-Games-Tournament (Slavin, 1980) may be more effective than Learning Together for this purpose.

Future research could explore structuring the course differently. For example, both labora- tory and lecture sessions could include cooperative learning strategies, rather than just imple- menting cooperative strategies in the laboratory, which constituted only 40% of instructional time.

We would suggest that direct instruction and modeling skills be an integral part of any

706 BURRON, JAMES, A N D AMBROSIO

cooperative learning implementation. Collaborative skills must be taught directly for improve- ment of those skills to take place. Only after practice do students realize the value of the skill for effective interpersonal collaboration and use it regularly.

We would also stress the importance of allowing groups time to assess and evaluate their use of collaborative skills (group processing) and provide them with feedback on the use of and ways to improve collaborative skill development. Without group processing and specific feed- back, misconceptions regarding the effectiveness of the group may arise.

Finally, we would encourage some type of longitudinal study, tracking students into their first years of employment, to determine the effectiveness of cooperative learning on interperson- al relationships with peers and administrators or managers. Part of this study could also focus on job productivity of those who had and had not been exposed to cooperative learning strategies in their undergraduate experiences.

We would like to acknowledge the assistance of Matt Kepplinger in the development of cooperative learning materials, and Larry Spohn in data collection.

References

Cartledge, G., & Milburn, J.F. (1986). Selecting social skills. In G . Cartledge & J.F. Milburn (Eds .), Teaching social skills to children: Innovative approaches (2nd ed.) (pp. 7-28). Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press.

Dansereau, D.F. (1983). Cooperative learning: Impact on acquisition of knowledge and skills (Tech. Rep. No. 586). Fort Worth, TX: Texas Christian University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 243 088)

Educational Testing Service. ( 1986). National assessment of educational progress. Prince- ton, NJ: Author.

Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1983). Social interdependence and perceived academic and personal support in the classroom. Journal of Sociul Psychology, 120, 77-82.

Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1984). Circles of learning: Cooperation in the class- room. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1985). The internal dynamics of cooperative learning groups. In R. Slavin, S. Shlomo, K. Spencer, R. Hertz-Lazarowitz, C. Webb, & R. Schmuck (Eds.), Learning to Cooperate, cooperating to learn (pp. 103- 124). New York: Plenum.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R.T., & Holubec, E.J. (1991). Cooperation in the classroom (rev. ed.). Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.

Kagan, S . (1989). Cooperative learning resources for teachers. San Juan Capristrano, CA: Resources for Teachers.

Kagan, S . , Zahn, G.L., Widaman, K.F., Schwarzwald, K.F., & Tyrell, G . (1985). Class- room structural bias: Impact of cooperative and competitive classroom structures on cooperative and competitive individuals and groups. In R. Slavin, S. Shlomo, K. Spencer, R. Hertz- Lazarowitz, C. Webb, & R. Schmuck (Eds.), Learning to cooperate, cooperating to learn (pp. 277-312). New York: Plenum.

Ney, J. W. (1989). Teacher-student cooperative learning in a freshman writing course, (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 312 152)

Okebukola, P.A. ( 1986). Cooperative learning and students’ attitudes to laboratory work. School Science and Mathemutics, 86, 582-590.

Prescott, S . (1989, March). The use of cooperative learning as a teaching strategy in

COOPERATIVE LEARNING 707

teacher education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

Rice, D.C., & Gabel, D.L. (1990). Cooperative learning in a college science course for preservice elementary teachers. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 320 773)

Slavin, R.E. (1979). Effects of biracial learning teams on cross-racial friendships. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 38 1-387.

Slavin, R.E. (1980). Using student team learning. Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University, Center for Social Organization of Schools.

Slavin, R.E. ( 1983). When does cooperative learning increase student achievement? Psy- chological Bulletin, 94, 429-445.

Slavin, R.E. (1989). Research on cooperative learning: Consensus and controversy. Educa- tional Leadership, 47, 52-54.

Slavin, R.E. (1990). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Stephens, T.M. (1978). Social skills in the classroom. Columbus, OH: Cedars Press.

Manuscript accepted July 13, 1992.