Cooperatif L

This article was downloaded by: [Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris]
On: 24 October 2012, At: 02:18

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Irish Educational Studies

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ries20
Celebrating diversity through cooperative learning and

social skills
Treasa Kirk
Version of record first published: 18 Jul 2008.
To cite this article: Treasa Kirk (1999): Celebrating diversity through cooperative learning and social skills, Irish Educational
Studies, 18:1, 75-90
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0332331990180110
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to
anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should
be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,
proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in
connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Irish Educational Studies, Vol.18, Spring 1999 75
CELEBRATING DIVERSITY THROUGH

COOPERATIVE LEARNING AND SOCIAL SKILLS
Downloaded by [Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris] at 02:18 24 October 2012
Treasa Kirk
Introduction
It is in schools that diversity among individuals is most often faced

and eventually valued. The diversity of students is increasing in most
schools each year. Students can be from many cultures, ethnic
groups, religions, language groups as well as from different social
classes and ability levels. When diverse students are brought together
in the same school, the diversity may result in positive outcomes
(Johnson & Johnson, 1989) or negative outcomes, depending largely
on whether learning situations are structured competitively,
individualistically or cooperatively. This paper outlines the value of
cooperative learning in celebrating the diversity within classrooms
under the following headings:
• Definition of Cooperative Learning
• The stages in developing a 'Learning Together' cooperative

classroom
• The results of a classroom-based action research study in a

primary classroom, with disadvantaged status, in Ireland.
Definition of Cooperative Learning
Cooperative learning is the instructional use of small groups so that

students work together to maximise their own and each other's
learning (Johnson, Johnson & Holubec, 1993b). Within cooperative
learning groups, students are given two responsibilities: To learn the
76 Irish Educational Studies, Vol.18, Spring 1999
assigned material and to make sure that all other members of their
group do likewise (Johnson & Johnson, 1998). A number of
researchers have taken the heterogeneity of teams as a defining
characteristic of cooperative learning. Sharan & Sharan (1992) see the
different backgrounds, values and abilities of group members as a
group's greatest assets. Students discuss the material, share ideas and
perspectives, listen and consider the ideas of others and encourage each
other to work hard to achieve. Cooperative learning interventions can
be implemented successfully in any subject area, with any task and
from the primary grades (Yackel, Cobb & Wood, 1991) to college
level (Dees, 1991).
We may characterise the differences between cooperative

learning groups and small group activities as follows:
Co-operative Learning Small Group Activities

Mixed Ability Group Homogeneous group
Positive Interdependence No Interdependence
Common group goal Individual goals
Carefully structured Lacking structure, often

incidental
Individual Accountability Accountability may be haphazard
Face-to-Face Interaction and Social Skills not explicitly taught

Social Skills
Group Processing (Reflection No Group Processing,

Feedback and Goal Setting) Feedback or Goal Setting
Shared leadership One appointed leader

These differences highlight the fact that cooperative learning

involves more than assigning students to groups and instructing them
to work together.
The "Learning Together" Model of Cooperative Learning

There are two features of Johnson & Johnson's (1978) "Learning

Together" that distinguish this cooperative approach from others:
(1) It involves the explicit teaching of social skills necessary for

group functioning and emphasises team-building activities
before students begin working together;
(2) During a cooperative learning activity, each working group

pools its resources and only one completed activity sheet is
submitted from the group.
The Johnsons et al (1984) believe that a well-structured cooperative

learning group should contain the following five essential elements:
(i) Positive Interdependence -

is the perception that you are linked with others in such a way that
you cannot succeed unless they do (and vice versa). Students must
believe that they sink or swim together. Positive interdependence must
be strengthened in a number of ways. It involves many team-building
exercises as well as the giving of a clear task and group goal so that
students work together to maximise the learning of all group members
(their mutual goal). It entails sharing resources, having complimentary
roles (e.g. reader, explainer, encourager, checker), creating team
identity (e.g. unique cooperative team names, team logos, team flags,
team mobiles), providing mutual support (encouraging and praising
each other) and celebrating joint successes (e.g. through rewards based
on improved academic scores). For a learning situation to be
cooperative students must perceive that they are positively
interdependent with other members of their group.
(ii) Individual and group accountability

It is important that group members know who needs more assistance,
support and encouragement in completing the task and that they
cannot hitchhike on the work of others. Common ways to structure
accountability include:
(a) keeping the cooperative group size small e.g. three students;
(b) giving a weekly individual test to each student;
(c) randomly selecting students while cooperative group work is in

progress to explain the concept or problem being investigated;
(d) by rotating student responsibilities (roles), thus having each

student verbally explain the problem to their cooperative group
members;
(e) by using Slavin's (1991) improvement scoring system, when the

improved performance, of each individual student in the
cooperative group is totalled in order to form a group score. The
amount each student contributes to his/her team is determined by
the amount the student's individual score exceeds his/her past
individual score.
(Hi) Face to face promotive interaction -

which occurs as individuals encourage and facilitate each other's
efforts to reach the group goals. It is through face-to-face interaction
that personal relationships are formed that are essential for
developing diverse attitudes and values in a positive manner. To
obtain meaningful face-to-face interaction, the size of groups needs to
be small with two to four members (Johnson & Johnson, 1998).
(iv) Teaching students the required interpersonal and small group

social skills
Students need to learn the skills necessary to be successful in
interacting independently within their cooperative learning groups
and in the class. Placing socially unskilled individuals in a group and
telling them to cooperate does not guarantee that they will be able to
do so effectively. Social skills are classified by Johnson, Johnson &
Holubec (1994) into forming, functioning, formulating and
fermenting roles. Social skills taught include explaining, checking for
understanding, encouraging, using appropriate body language and
good eye-to-eye contact
(v) Group processing -

which requires the students to discuss at the end of each lesson how
well they have achieved their goals, maintained effective working
relationships and set goals for improvement. Groups need to describe
what actions were helpful and unhelpful and make decisions about
what behaviours to continue or change.
The study
The study examined the effects of cooperative learning on the

development of social interpersonal skills, self-esteem, academic
self-image, friendship patterns, helpful working relationships,
academic achievement in Maths and Spelling and student views and
attitudes. The purpose of this investigation was to make new
contributions in the area of cooperative learning.
All of the literature reviewed was based on studies in the U.S.

due to the lack of any Irish or U.K. research into the area.
Research design of the study
This experimental study was conducted over two years in an Irish

primary school in an urban disadvantaged setting, with two different
classes of Sixth Grade students aged eleven to thirteen years. The
research design was a pretest-posttest control group design. The
intervention strategy involved cooperative learning techniques based
mainly on the principles of the Johnson & Johnson's "Learning
Together" model modified by using a reward structure based on
Slavin's (1990, 1991) work. Unlike Slavin (1991), who used rewards
for cooperative groups on the basis of achievement only, the
investigator issued Certificates to the cooperative groups for
improvement in social skills only. In order to prevent any feelings of
bias towards the cooperative groups, certificates were awarded to the
control group on the basis of competitive academic achievement.
In Year One, the experimental research study compared, over

three weeks, a group of sixteen Sixth Class girls who had the
intervention incorporated into their daily fifty minute Maths class as
against sixteen girls who did not have the intervention incorporated
into their schedule.
FIGURE 1 - An overall plan of the Co-operative Learning

Experiment - Year One
STAGE 1 - MATHEMATICS
STAGE 2-SPELLINGS
In Year One, the students were equally divided on the basis of

achievement, as measured by the combined results of the Sigma-T
Standardised Irish Graded Mathematics Attainment Test and the
Schonell Graded Spelling Test. The sixteen participants in the
experimental group were subdivided into four cooperative learning
teams with three members each and one team of four members, while
the control or comparison group remained intact, with all sixteen
participants working individually. These students were taught in the

same classroom by the same teacher/researcher with the same
independent observer present. The observer's role was to tally and
record the frequencies of specific social skills practiced by the
students working cooperatively. Structured observation forms were
used for this purpose. In order to assess the longer-term effects of
cooperative learning as a classroom management strategy, follow-up
interviews were conducted, by an independent interviewer, twelve
months after the original intervention with the thirty two participants
of Year One, all of whom were attending a range of Second Level
schools at this stage of the research.
Care was taken to ensure that there was a high, middle and low
achiever in each cooperative learning team. The pretest results of the
sixteen students in the control group and the sixteen students in the
cooperative groups were also compared using the SPSS computer
package and as the 2-tail significance score of 0.768 was >0.05 there
was no significant difference between the two groups. A reversal of
the classroom arrangement was undertaken, in Spelling, during the
following three weeks in order to alleviate any feeling of isolation
which would be felt by the control group participants in the Maths
experiment.
In Year Two a replication study was conducted over a period of

three weeks in the subject area of Mathematics.
FIGURE 2- An Overall Plan of the Co-operative Learning

Experiment - Year Two
Sbrth Class (Year 2)

28
Students
STAGE 3 - MATHEMATICS
New Class
3 Weeks 3 Weeks
Y Y
"1" T
12 12
months months
later later
STAGE 4 - FOIIOTV Up Interne-srs

Arising Frew Stajt 1 ind Stage 2 of Year 1
The principal reason the experiment was repeated was to

investigate if similar results would be obtained with a different group
at the same class level and in the same subject area and specific topic
of area and perimeter. A new group of twenty eight Sixth Class
students was divided in a similar manner, but only on the basis of
Mathematical achievement using the results of the Sigma-T
Standardised Mathematics Attainment Test, into two main groups,
the control group (fifteen students) and five cooperative learning

teams of three members each. As in Year One, when the raw scores
were examined using SPSS, the 2-tail significance score of 0.77
showed that there was no significant difference between the
cooperative and control groups in Year Two. The Spelling
experiment was not repeated in Year Two, due to the fact that the
control group in the Spelling experiment had completed three weeks
working cooperatively in Maths resulting in possible interference in
the results obtained during the Spelling experiment, particularly in
the area of self-esteem. The pretest/posttest control group design was
again used.
Classroom arrangement
Following the advice of Johnson, Johnson & Holubec (1994) the

classroom was arranged so that the students within the cooperative
learning groups were in close contact and facing each other, sitting on
the same level eye-to-eye and knee-to-knee reducing possible
distractions. The teacher's role was one of a facilitator or "guide on
the side" rather than a "sage on the stage."
Instrumentation
FIGURE 3- Classroom Layout During Co-operative Learning

Experiment
Chalkboard
Control Group
Cooperative
Nature
Table Storage C'osets/Bookshelves
The following instruments, aptitude measures and data collection

strategies were used in this study:
• An Academic Self-image Scale developed by Joan Barker-Lunn

(1970) consisting of nine items.
A Self-Esteem Inventory developed by Coopersmith (1967)

containing twenty five statements.
• A Sociometric device developed by the teacher researcher to

investigate the friendship patterns and helpful working relationship
choices within each cooperative group.
• A twenty question Mathematics Achievement Test on area and

perimeter, developed by the teacher researcher.
• A fifty word Parallel Spellings Achievement Test developed by

D. Young (1983).
• A twenty eight item questionnaire for the cooperative learning

group developed by the teacher researcher.
• A ten item questionnaire for the control group developed by the

teacher researcher.
• A variety of group processing checklists and a Weekly Group

Performance Chart adapted from Johnson, Johnson & Holubec
(1993, 1994).
• A structured observation form developed by the teacher

researcher.
• A twenty two item follow-up interview questionnaire developed

by the teacher researcher.
Results
The results of this study showed:
(1) There was no statistically significant difference in achievement

levels in Maths between the cooperative and control groups in
terms of pretest and posttest scores either in year one or year two.
(2) Following an analysis of the pretest posttest scores, it emerged

that there was an increase in the academic self-image scores of all
ability levels in each year. In year one the mean score of the
cooperative group rose by ten per cent in Maths and twenty nine
per cent in spelling, while in year two the mean score of the
cooperative group rose by eleven per cent in Maths. The control
group mean score increased by seven per cent in year one Maths
and declined in year one spelling and in year two maths.
(3) An increase in self-esteem levels was evident for each year,

particularly among middle and low achievers. In year one the
overall mean for the cooperative learning groups increased by
thirteen per cent in Maths and twelve per cent in spelling, while
in year two there was an increase of fourteen per cent in Maths.
The control group in year one Maths showed an increase of
seven per cent and a drop of one per cent in spelling. In year
two the control group increased by two per cent (percentages
have been rounded).
(4) (a) Friendship patterns within the cooperative groups of year

two showed no major development following three weeks of
cooperative learning, similar to year one. However, whereas in
year one, the high achiever was chosen as the person with
whom most members wanted to be friendly, this trend was not
repeated in year two.
(b) There were greater changes in the helpful working

relationship patterns than in the friendship choices within the
cooperative learning groups, which were more apparent in year
one than in year two. In order to assess any changes in friendship
patterns and helpful working relationships from pretest to posttest,
students were requested to choose confidentially, in order of
preference, three students whom they would like to have for a
friend and three student whom they found especially helpful. This
can be accounted for by the fact that three groups in year one
displayed no choices in the pretest, unlike year two, where all
groups indicated at least one choice in the pretest, thus increasing
the possible level of change in year one. It was also apparent that
the level of social adjustment among the year two participants was
higher at the start of the experiment in comparison to the

participants of year one, a factor also noted by the independent
observer.
(5) Considerable improvement was noted in the participants'

awareness of social skills. In both year one and year two of the
action research, the investigator, her teacher colleagues, the
independent classroom observer, the independent interviewer
and the participants' comments in the questionnaires all
highlighted a greater awareness of social skills amongst the
participants who were involved in the experiments. This
awareness resulted in a greater frequency in the use of social
behaviours such as listening to others, appropriate reactions to
other's comments, appropriate body language, more responsible
behaviour and more positive attitudes displayed towards work
and towards others. The social skill of encouraging was
nominated most frequently as the social skill most helped by
cooperative learning in the follow-up interviews. Other social
skills which had benefited from cooperative learning, according
to the students were eye contact, listening, helping and
explaining.
(6) There was almost total unanimity among students of all ability
levels in their preference for working cooperatively rather than
individually or competitively.
(7) There were many positive longer term effects of cooperative

learning which were evidenced in the interviews undertaken in
year two. As a result of cooperative learning the majority of
interviewees believed that they had an improved attitude to
school, to various subject areas and they learned more about
each other. The interviewees also highlighted a need for more
use of cooperative learning in schools at both primary and
second level. Students of all ability levels emphasised the value
of rewards and group processing during cooperative learning.
Taken together, these results show a strong positive pattern

of behaviours, feelings and abilities, which can be attributed to a
cooperative classroom.
Conclusion
This study has implications for educational practice in Ireland with

regard to teaching mixed ability groups and classes. The action
research highlights that cooperative learning as an educational
strategy and classroom management technique is applicable to all
cultures. Even if achievement gains do not increase significantly, the
social and character development goals are sufficiently important to
justify pursuit in their own right. As a sixth class student in year one
wrote, three weeks after experiencing cooperative learning:
"Although our group didn't score the highest marks, cooperative
learning helped us realise that this was insignificant. It was our
feelings of success or failure that really mattered."
The function of schools and the roles of teachers are changing.

Besides the development of literacy, the main task of schools is to
prepare students for life-long learning. The process of learning
cooperatively can be a meaningful experience through which students
come to appreciate their diverse peers. As students regulate their
own behaviour, cooperative learning has the capacity to promote
consideration of and sensitivity to the views of others and cultivate
such social values as respect for and enthusiasm to help others.
Cooperative learning would not only help reduce prejudice towards
other ethnic groups and avoid maginalisation of children (Slavin,
1990; O'Leary, Wilson & Okey, 1994), but would also do justice to
each child's individual capacities and learning needs, thus respecting
their diversity. Interaction with other people improves both the
quality and enjoyment of learning (Johnson & Johnson, 1994). Such
a flexible and student-centred approach to teaching and learning
would enable schools to consider the heterogeneity of classes as an
enrichment and a resource for learning rather than as a problem.
REFERENCES
Barker-Lunn, J.C. (1970)

Streaming in the Primary School, Slough: NFER.
Coopersmith, S. (1967)
The Antecedents of Self-Esteem, San Francisco: W.H. Freeman.

Dees, R.L. (1991)
"The Role of Cooperative Learning in Increasing Problem-
Solving Ability in a College Remedial Course," in Journal For
Research in Mathematics Education, 22, pp.409-421.
Johnson, D.W. and Johnson R. (1978)
"Cooperative, Competitive and Individualistic Learning," in
Journal of Research and Development in Education, 12, pp.3-15.
Johnson, D.W. and Johnson, R.T. (1989)
Co-operation and Competition: Theory and Research,
Minnesota: Interaction Book Company.
Johnson, D.W. and Johnson, F.P. (1994)
Joining Together: Group Theory and Group Skills (5th edition),
London: Allyn & Bacon.
Leading The Cooperative School, Minnesota: Interaction Book
Company.
Cooperative Learning, Values And Culturally Plural Classrooms,
in Leicester, M., Modgill, C. & Modgil, S. (1998) Values, the
Classroom and Cultural Diversity, London: Cassell.
Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., Holubec, E.J. and Roy, P. (1984)
Circles of Learning: Co-operation in the Classroom,
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., and Holubec, E. (1989, 1993)
Structuring Cooperative Learning: Lesson Plans For Teachers,
Minnesota: Interaction Book Company.
Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T. and Holubec, E. (1993b)
Co-operation in the Classroom (revised ed.), Minnesota:
Interaction Book Company.
Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T. and Holubec, E. (1994)
The Nuts and Bolts of Cooperative Learning, Minnesota:
Interaction Book Company.
O' Leary, P., Wilson and Okey, T. (1994)

"Reinforcing Change Through Cooperative Learning," in
Cooperative Learning, Vol. 14, No.4., Montreal: IASCE.
Sharan, S. and Sharan, Y. (1992)
Expanding Cooperative Learning through Group Investigation,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Slavin, R.E. (1990)
Cooperative Learning: Theory, Research and Practice,

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Slavin, R.E. (1991)
Student Team Learning: A Practical Guide To Cooperative
Learning (3rd ed.), Washington, DC: National Education
Association.
Yackel, E., Cobb, P. and Wood, T. (1991)
"Small Group Interactions as a Source of Learning
Opportunities in Second Grade Mathematics," in Journal For
Research in Mathematics Education, 22, pp.390-408.
Young, D. (1983)
Parallel Spelling Tests (Seventh Impression), London: Hodder
& Stoughton.

Cooperatif L

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cooperatif L

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cooperatif L

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris]

On: 24 October 2012, At: 02:18

Irish Educational Studies

Celebrating diversity through cooperative learning and

Version of record first published: 18 Jul 2008.

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0332331990180110

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

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

CELEBRATING DIVERSITY THROUGH

It is in schools that diversity among individuals is most often faced

• Definition of Cooperative Learning

• The stages in developing a 'Learning Together' cooperative

• The results of a classroom-based action research study in a

Definition of Cooperative Learning

Cooperative learning is the instructional use of small groups so that

We may characterise the differences between cooperative

Co-operative Learning Small Group Activities

Positive Interdependence No Interdependence

Common group goal Individual goals

Carefully structured Lacking structure, often

Individual Accountability Accountability may be haphazard

Face-to-Face Interaction and Social Skills not explicitly taught

Group Processing (Reflection No Group Processing,

Shared leadership One appointed leader

These differences highlight the fact that cooperative learning

The "Learning Together" Model of Cooperative Learning

There are two features of Johnson & Johnson's (1978) "Learning

(1) It involves the explicit teaching of social skills necessary for

(2) During a cooperative learning activity, each working group

The Johnsons et al (1984) believe that a well-structured cooperative

(i) Positive Interdependence -

(ii) Individual and group accountability

(b) giving a weekly individual test to each student;

(c) randomly selecting students while cooperative group work is in

(d) by rotating student responsibilities (roles), thus having each

(e) by using Slavin's (1991) improvement scoring system, when the

(Hi) Face to face promotive interaction -

(iv) Teaching students the required interpersonal and small group

(v) Group processing -

The study examined the effects of cooperative learning on the

All of the literature reviewed was based on studies in the U.S.

Research design of the study

This experimental study was conducted over two years in an Irish

In Year One, the experimental research study compared, over

FIGURE 1 - An overall plan of the Co-operative Learning

In Year One, the students were equally divided on the basis of

participants working individually. These students were taught in the

In Year Two a replication study was conducted over a period of

FIGURE 2- An Overall Plan of the Co-operative Learning

Sbrth Class (Year 2)

STAGE 4 - FOIIOTV Up Interne-srs

The principal reason the experiment was repeated was to

the control group (fifteen students) and five cooperative learning

Following the advice of Johnson, Johnson & Holubec (1994) the

FIGURE 3- Classroom Layout During Co-operative Learning

The following instruments, aptitude measures and data collection

• An Academic Self-image Scale developed by Joan Barker-Lunn

A Self-Esteem Inventory developed by Coopersmith (1967)

• A Sociometric device developed by the teacher researcher to

• A twenty question Mathematics Achievement Test on area and