Better together
Veldman, Marij Alrieke
DOI:10.33612/diss.173117741
IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from it. Please check the document version below.
Document Version
Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record
Publication date: 2021
Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database
Citation for published version (APA):
Veldman, M. A. (2021). Better together: social outcomes of cooperative learning in the first grades of primary education. University of Groningen. https://doi.org/10.33612/diss.173117741
Copyright
Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).
Take-down policy
If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.
Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.
7
7
General conclusion and discussion
Main aims
This dissertation investigated the impact of cooperative learning as part of the Dutch Success for All program in the first grades of primary education (Grade 1 – Grade 3) on social outcomes. First, it was aimed to give more insight in teachers’ implementation of cooperative learning, which is addressed in Part 1 of this dissertation. The second aim, addressed in Part 2, was to investigate the impact of cooperative learning on social outcomes during group work. The last aim, addressed in Part 3, was to investigate the impact of cooperative learning on social outcomes in settings beyond group work. In this final chapter, we analyze and discuss the findings of the five interconnected studies of this dissertation, thereby answering our main research question:
To what extent does cooperative learning, in the context of the Dutch Success for All program, improve social outcomes in the first grades of primary education?
First the main findings of the dissertation will be summarized and integrated. Subsequently, the main limitations and methodological considerations are described followed by recommendations for practice and main directions for future research. Table 1.1 (see Chapter 1, p. 17) provided an overview of the included studies of this dissertation. Table 7.1 (p. 143) in the current chapter shows a modified version of this table and includes an overview of the highlights of the five studies.
Main findings
The first part of the dissertation, which includes Chapter 2, focused on teachers’ implementation
of cooperative learning. Differences between teachers classified as high-performing in their implementation of cooperative learning (high-performing CL teachers) and teachers who were less successful in implementing cooperative learning (low-performing CL teachers) were investigated. The levels of implementation of cooperative learning differed significantly between teachers, especially in teaching students the required cooperative behaviors. It was found that low-performing CL teachers struggle more with student behavior during cooperative learning, while high-performing CL teachers feel more able to regulate student behavior. We concluded that teachers who differed in their cooperative learning implementation also differed in their
attitudes and beliefs about this approach. An integrated model on professional development and teacher change was proposed to interpret the results of differences in implementation between teachers. The model shows that positive attitudes and beliefs before implementation, but also experiencing positive student outcomes (including positive student behavior) during implementation, are important factors in making cooperative learning successful in practice. We suggested that teachers should be prevented from entering a negative spiral in which they experience student behavior during cooperative learning only as difficult and, therefore, do not succeed in improving students’ cognitive and behavioral outcomes.
In the second part of the dissertation, including Chapter 3 and Chapter 4, the impact of
cooperative learning on students’ talk and behavior during group work in an outside classroom setting were investigated. In both studies a quasi-experimental design was used. Grade 1 students (6- and 7-year-old children) of both the intervention and the control group performed a group task in small groups of four students at the end of the school year. At that moment, SfA students had experienced cooperative learning within SfA lessons on a daily basis for a whole school year.
In the second study of this dissertation, described in Chapter 3, it was examined whether
students achieved high-level talk during group work. In total, 160 students participated in this study. Differences between students’ talk during group work in the SfA group and control group were examined. Compared to the control group, SfA students showed more high-level talk: SfA students expressed more extended elaborations of propositions, talked more about the group process using extended elaborations, and asked more open elaboration questions. Hence, the results of this study suggest that cooperative learning activities within SfA lessons contributed to students’ level of talk during group work.
In the study of Chapter 4, a total of 78 groups of four students participated in the
group task. Positive and negative group work behavior was observed, taking into account socioemotional ethos, group participation, and type of dialogue between students. Longitudinal multilevel analysis was used to model the sequence of observed 20-s time intervals during the group task. The main research question of the study was whether cooperative learning led to improved group work behavior, i.e., more positive group work behavior and less negative group work behavior. Furthermore, it was explored how students’ group work behavior developed over time during the group task, and whether this differed between the SfA and the control condition. SfA groups showed more positive and less negative group work behavior compared to control groups, whilst controlling for several group characteristics. It was also found that
7
negative group work behavior increased gradually during the whole task in control groups, while in SfA groups it increased only towards the end of the task. The findings of the study indicate that cooperative learning may lead to improved group work behavior of students of 6 to 7 years old.
In the third part of this dissertation, it was investigated whether cooperative learning impacts social outcomes beyond group work. This would mean that students’ improved social skills were transferable to other contexts than group work settings. For both studies in this part of the dissertation, a peer sociometric questionnaire was administered two times per school
year. In Chapter 5, students’ social behavior was studied, and in Chapter 6, positive peer
relationships in classroom networks were investigated.
The study described in Chapter 5 focused on whether SfA led to improved students’
social behavior in Grade 1, Grade 2, and Grade 3 of primary education. Peer sociometric data were collected for 974 students. Peer nomination measures of prosocial behavior were obtained using the questions: “Who says and does friendly things?” and “Who helps other children?”. Measures of antisocial behavior were obtained using the questions: “Who says and does
mean things?” and “Who quarrels a lot?”. The effect of SfA on students’ pro- and antisocial
behavior was studied using multivariate multilevel analyses. Taking into account measures of students’ social behavior at the beginning of the school year, no significant effect of SfA on students’ pro- and antisocial behavior was found at the end of the school year. It was also explored whether there was a differential intervention effect for children from disadvantaged backgrounds. In Grade 2, a significant interaction effect was found showing that antisocial behavior of students from disadvantaged backgrounds in the intervention condition decreased. This is a promising finding given that the SfA program was especially developed for schools serving large numbers of students from disadvantaged backgrounds. The effect for students from disadvantaged backgrounds was not found in Grade 1 or Grade 3.
In the last study of this dissertation, described in Chapter 6, the impact of cooperative
learning on positive peer relationships in the classroom, i.e., whether students like to work together, was investigated. In total, the study involved 32 classrooms including 791 students: 16 SfA classrooms were compared with 16 control classrooms. The number of positive peer relationships per student in SfA classrooms was compared to control classrooms using a two-level linear mixed effects model. Further, stochastic actor-oriented models for network dynamics were applied for each classroom network. Subsequently, the parameters of the SfA classrooms were compared to those of the control classrooms in a meta-analysis. We did not
find more positive peer relationships in SfA classrooms compared to control classrooms. We also did not find greater diversity of peer relationships in SfA classrooms, i.e., stronger tendencies for selecting dissimilar peers with regard to gender, socio-economic background, or academic performance. Results showed support for greater openness of the networks in SfA classrooms, indicated by weaker tendencies of reciprocity and transitivity of relationships in SfA classrooms. This means that in SfA classrooms, compared to control classrooms, there was a smaller tendency to fixed structures of small groups or clusters in the classroom network. Structures and patterns of relationships only become visible by taking a social network approach. To our knowledge, this study was the first to investigate the impact of cooperative learning on peer relationships using longitudinal social network analyses, so further research is needed to reveal whether our results can be confirmed.
7
Table 7.1.
Overview of the studies of the dissertation including highlighted results
Chapter Title Main r esear ch question Highlighted r esults Part 1: T eachers’
cooperative learning implementation
2
The proof of the pudding is in the eating? Implementation of cooperative learning: differences in teachers’
attitudes
and beliefs
To what extent do high-performing and low-performing CL
teachers
differ in their cooperative learning practices, their attitudes and beliefs about cooperative learning, and the extent to which they experience change in student outcomes because of their cooperative learning practices?
▪
T
eachers differed significantly in their cooperative learning implementation
▪
T
eachers were selected for an interview based on their cooperative learning implementation
▪
Low-performing CL
teachers struggle more with student behavior during cooperative learning
▪
High-performing CL
teachers feel more able to regulate student behavior during cooperative
learning
▪
High-performing CL
teachers experience more positive changes in student outcomes
Part 2: Impact of cooperative learning on students’
behavior during group work
3
Enhancing young students’
high-level talk by using cooperative learning within Success for All lessons What is the impact of cooperative learning in SfA
on students’
talk during
a group task outside the classroom setting without teacher guidance?
▪
Cooperative learning in SfA
lessons involves instruction in explaining ideas and asking
questions
▪
Students’
talk during a group task outside the classroom setting was analyzed
▪
SfA
students showed more high-level talk during group work compared to control students
▪
SfA
students expressed more propositions with extended elaborations, more talk about the
group process with extended elaborations, and more open elaboration questions
4
Young children working together
.
Cooperative learning effects on group work of children in Grade 1 of primary education What is the impact of cooperative learning in SfA
on group work
behavior during a group task outside the classroom setting without teacher guidance?
▪
Cooperative learning can lead to improved group work behavior of young students
▪
Socioemotional ethos, participation and dialogue during a group task were observed
▪
Intervention groups showed more positive and less negative group work behavior
▪
Developments of group work behavior over time of the group task execution were explored
▪
Positive behavior decreased over time of task execution, without evidence for an effect of SfA
▪
Negative behavior increased gradually during the whole task in control groups, while in SfA groups it increased only towards the end of the task
Part 3: Impact of cooperative learning on students’
behavior beyond group work
5
Promoting students’ social behavior in primary education through Success for All lessons
What is the impact of the SfA
program
on pro- and antisocial behavior of students in the early grades of primary education?
▪
The effect of SfA
lessons on students’
pro- and antisocial behavior was investigated
▪
Social emotional learning strategies are embedded in SfA
lessons
▪
Peer nomination data were used to assess pro- and antisocial behavior
▪
No general effect of SfA
on social behavior of Grade 1–3 students was found
▪
In Grade 2, SfA
decreased antisocial behavior of students from disadvantaged backgrounds
6
Exploring the role of cooperative learning in forming positive peer relationships in primary school classrooms: a social network approach What is the impact of cooperative learning as part of the SfA
program
on positive peer relationships (liking to work together) in primary school classrooms?
▪
Cooperative learning effects on peer relations were explored following a social network approach
▪
Positive peer relationships (whether students like to work together) in SfA
classrooms were
compared to control classrooms
▪
Results showed greater openness of networks in SfA
classrooms
▪
A
greater diversity in peer relationships in SfA
classrooms was not found
▪
A
higher number of positive peer relationships in SfA
Integrative findings
Integrating the findings of the five interconnected studies conducted in this dissertation, we conclude that implementing cooperative learning can lead to improvement of social outcomes, specifically to an improvement of students’ talk and behavior during group work. We did not take into account implementation measures in the analyses of the effect studies (Chapter 3 – 6). Hence, we cannot relate the level of cooperative learning implementation to changes in the studied outcomes. However, we can still conclude that although there were differences between teachers’ cooperative learning implementation (Chapter 2), positive effects during and beyond group work can be indicated (Chapter 3 – Chapter 6). The results of Chapter 3 and Chapter 4 indicate that the hoped-for benefits of the cooperative learning approach on students’ talk and group work behavior can transfer to a group work setting outside the classroom. Results of the studies of Chapter 5 and 6 partially supported that cooperative learning in the context of the SfA program improves social outcomes in settings beyond group work. We emphasize here that the non-significant general intervention effects on pro- and antisocial behavior of the study described in Chapter 5 are not contrasting the positive results of cooperative learning implementation. It shows that at least in our specific context, the SfA program did not generally lead to observable changes in pro- and antisocial behavior in the way we measured it. Moreover, in the study a differential intervention effect was found; antisocial behavior of students from disadvantaged backgrounds in the SfA condition decreased in Grade 2. In the study of Chapter 6, results showed greater openness of networks in SfA classrooms. This means that there was less tendency for the formation of small groups or clusters in the classroom network. However, the hypotheses of a higher number of positive peer relationships or more diversity in peer relationships the SfA classrooms were not supported. Summarizing, the studies included in this dissertation show that cooperative learning can be implemented on a daily basis in the first grades of primary education which can lead to some desirable social effects.
Limitations and methodological considerations
In each chapter the limitations of the respective study were discussed. Here, we describe some methodological considerations and main limitations to the dissertation as a whole. The first limitation we address here is that the conducted effect studies, Chapter 3 – Chapter 6 of this dissertation, followed a quasi-experimental design. Schools were assigned to the intervention condition based on agreements between the SfA research and development team, the school boards, and the municipality. Control schools were recruited in the same neighborhoods as
7
the intervention schools.In addition to the nonrandom assignment of schools to conditions,
the effect studies of Chapter 3 and 4 lack a pretest. In the studies described in Chapter 5 and 6, measurements at the beginning of the school year were taken into account to measure improvements over the time of a school year. However, only in Grade 1 these measurements were an actual pretest, as in Grade 2 and Grade 3 the children already had been following SfA lessons for one or two school years. This lack of solid pretests causes lack of knowledge about selection bias (Shadish, Campbell, & Cook, 2002). Thus, in the effect studies selection bias is not eliminated. However, SfA schools and control schools were situated in the same neighborhoods and no significant differences were found between school characteristics, for instance on the percentage of students from disadvantaged backgrounds. This suggests comparability of conditions. Moreover, we controlled for several variables in the effect studies. Preferably, more information would have been available about what happened in control schools and classrooms. Monitoring comparison groups provides a more accurate view of the value of an intervention (Durlak & DuPre, 2008). Research on the SfA program conducted in the US (Quint et al., 2015) indicated that what most distinguished SfA schools from control schools was the instructional core, i.e., what happens in the SfA lessons that includes cooperative learning. In our impression, this also holds for the comparison of SfA and control schools in the Dutch context. Based on several observations of lessons, it was confirmed that SfA lessons differed significantly from language and reading lessons in control schools with regard to cooperative learning (Mullender-Wijnsma, Veldman, De Boer, Van Kuijk, & Bosker, 2020). Based on this, it can be assumed that cooperative learning, as implemented on a daily basis in the SfA lessons, was not taking place in control schools.
Furthermore, the Dutch SfA program was in an early development phase during this project, and therefore, the elements of the language and reading curriculum (see Quint et al., 2015), including the daily SfA lessons, were developed per grade. The program was first implemented in Grade 1 and the aim was to expand every year by one grade. As a consequence, cross-grade ability grouping, that is placing students in different groups during SfA lessons based on their reading and language performance, was not yet possible. In the Dutch program students received SfA instruction in their homeroom classes. Another difference with the American program was the lack in the Dutch program of a stand-alone version of the Getting Along Together (GAT) program. In the US program, GAT involves introductory lessons in the first weeks of the school year targeting on social emotional skills. In the Dutch SfA program some assignments based on the GAT program were integrated in the SfA lessons throughout
the school year. From a methodological perspective, the difference with the American program that cross-grade ability grouping was not yet implemented in the Dutch SfA schools can be regarded as an advantage for the studies in this dissertation. It means that it was particularly the cooperative learning component implemented in the daily SfA lessons that was expected to impact social outcomes. In this way, the studies of the current dissertation contribute to research into the effects of selected elements of the program.
It should be noted that the SfA program is a complex intervention to implement in practice, as it involves substantial change in many aspects of curriculum and instruction (Slavin & Madden, 2013). In general, such comprehensive school reform processes are known to be challenging and take multiple years (Desimone, 2002; Fullan, 2000). During the project of the current dissertation, some schools decided to not expand the implementation to the third grade in the school year as it was planned. Those schools decided to first refine the implementation of the program in the lower grades, i.e., Grade 1 and Grade 2, in which the SfA lessons were already implemented at that time (see Chapter 5). Later, some schools decided to stop implementing the program. Those decisions of the schools reflect that the implementation of the SfA program is very demanding. The effort required of teachers to implement cooperative learning on a daily basis should also not be underestimated; the complexity of it is reflected in the findings of the study described in Chapter 2.
The variability in implementation is noted here as another limitation of the dissertation. The implementation of the SfA program differed between schools (Mullender-Wijnsma et al., 2020) and the implementation of cooperative learning differed between teachers (Chapter 2). Lack of standardized implementation is commonly thought to decrease effect sizes (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002). Of course, developing an intervention is only the first step; the program should also be well implemented (Durlak & DuPre, 2008). On the other hand, it is recognized that day to day consistency of interventions is unrealistic in contexts of real schools and classrooms. There is always variability in implementation in practice (Durlak & DuPre, 2008; Harn, Parisi, & Stoolmiller, 2013). In this way, the situations in the schools and classrooms were supposed to mirror the diversity that is found in reality, making our research ecologically valid. As such, the levels of implementation were allowed to vary. However, it was not investigated in the effect studies conducted in this dissertation whether and how the varying levels of implementation were related to changes in outcomes. Nonetheless, even
7
though implementation levels varied, it appeared that in all Dutch SfA schools8, SfA lessons
including cooperative learning were given on a daily basis (Mullender-Wijnsma et al., 2020). It was found that the highly specified implementation guidelines and materials were conducive
for implementation of the lessons. Altogether, teachers implemented cooperative learningon a
daily basis throughout the school year in the grades that were studied in the current dissertation. The last limitation of this dissertation described here concerns the limited sample sizes of the studies involved. The study described in Chapter 2 included a selection of eight teachers who were interviewed, based on lesson observations of a total of 26 teachers. Although the sample size was limited, all teachers who were teaching SfA lessons at the moment of the study were observed, with the exception of teachers who taught only one day a week. Moreover, the purpose of the qualitative study of Chapter 2 was to gain insight into the challenges teachers are confronted with when implementing cooperative learning and to investigate differences between teachers’ cooperative learning implementation. Through the interviews with high- and low-performing CL teachers, the study provides a qualitative view on cooperative learning implementation on a daily basis. As such, it yielded rich information for implications for practice and how to support teachers in their cooperative learning implementation. The sample sizes of the conducted effect studies included at least 18 classes: 18 classes in the study of Chapter 3 (n = 160 students), 33 classes in the study of Chapter 4 (n = 78 groups of four students), 43 classes in the study of Chapter 5 (n = 974 students), and 32 classes in the study of Chapter
6 (n = 32 classroom networks including 791 students).Preferably, more classes should have
been included to improve the power of analyses in the effect studies. However, the sample sizes can be regarded as justifiable since it is known to be difficult to conduct large-scale intervention studies in practice.
Implications for practice
Based on our findings, we have several suggestions for educational practice. First of all, the findings of this dissertation confirm results of other studies (e.g., Kutnick & Berdondini, 2009; Kutnick et al., 2008) showing that young children are capable of participating in cooperative learning activities. Our findings revealed that cooperative learning implementation in the first grades of primary education can have an impact on social outcomes, specifically on students’ behavior during group work (Chapter 3 and 4) and possibly on social outcomes that go beyond
8 Of course with the exception of the schools that stopped implementing the SfA program, but those schools were
still implementing the SfA program including cooperative learning in the grades studied at the moment the studies in the current dissertation were conducted.
group work (Chapter 5 and 6). The dual impact of cooperative learning, i.e., improvement of cognitive and social outcomes, shows the considerable practical significance. Therefore, the common practice in primary education classrooms in which students mostly work in groups, but not as groups should be questioned (Baines et al., 2008; Galton & Hargreaves, 2009; Veenman et al., 2000). We recommend consistent and structured use of cooperative learning, also with young students who are in the first grades of primary education. The lessons learned in this dissertation can be used to increase and improve teachers’ cooperative learning implementation, and related to that, teachers’ professional development, both for the specific context of the SfA program as well as other contexts in which teachers are willing to implement cooperative learning.
For teachers, we emphasize that instruction in social skills as part of cooperative learning as well as preparation of students to work together is essential. This is in line with other studies (e.g., Blatchford et al., 2006; Kutnick, Ota, & Berdondini, 2008). In the study described in Chapter 2, we found notable differences between teachers in the extent to which they give instruction in the needed cooperative behaviors. This instruction seems to be of great importance to improve students’ behavior and other outcomes. In the context of the Dutch SfA program, this leads to the suggestion for teachers to focus on instruction in social skills as part of cooperative learning throughout the school year, but also to implement a program to improve students’ social emotional development, such as a stand-alone version of GAT, at the beginning of the school year. While doing so, a clear connection between instruction in social skills in such a program and during cooperative learning seems of importance.
Furthermore, we recommend to implement cooperative learning step by step, for instance, by first implementing activities for pairs and later extend the activities to groups of four students. Based on the findings of Chapter 4, we suggested that cooperative learning may have learned students tools to avoid negative group work behavior, but that this is only effective for a limited period of time. This confirms a step by step approach of implementing cooperative learning; students should first be introduced to the cooperative learning activities in restricted periods of time, which can be gradually increased under guidance of the teacher. By doing this, both students and teachers can build experiences of success with the use of cooperative learning, which is crucial to make cooperative learning effective (Chapter 2).
In professional development, we think that paying careful attention to all elements of the proposed model in Chapter 2 (Figure 2.1, p. 34), which is used to interpret differences in teachers’ levels of cooperative learning implementation, might contribute to improving
7
implementation. One important aspect is that professional development could help teachers to determine what the intended student behaviors and other student outcomes of cooperative learning are, so that they can focus on teaching these intended outcomes explicitly. Moreover, if changes in teachers’ attitudes and beliefs occurred only before the implementation of cooperative learning, the quality of the initial training would be crucial. But since such changes also occur during implementation, continued support following initial training is of even greater importance. Here, coaching based on observed classroom practices might be helpful. In the context of the SfA program, it is the SfA facilitator who has a crucial role in doing this to support teachers in their cooperative learning implementation (Mullender-Wijnsma et al., 2020). Teachers should be prevented from entering a negative spiral in which they experience student behavior during cooperative learning only as difficult and do not succeed in improving students’ behavioral and academic outcomes.
Overall, it is recognized that implementing cooperative learning is highly complex for teachers. Sharan (2010) described that there might be a tendency to view cooperative learning as a matter of importing it as a finished end product to classrooms expecting instant success. The specific focus on the outcomes of cooperative learning in this dissertation should not lead to this misinterpretation. We cannot emphasize enough that the amount of preparation and effort required of teachers to implement cooperative learning should not be underestimated, and therefore, professional development to support teachers in their cooperative learning implementation is important. Cooperative learning such as in the SfA lessons requires persistence and everyday efforts of teachers. While doing so, teachers should not overlook the need for gradual and appropriate preparation of themselves and their students.
Directions for future research
Considering the findings and limitations of the current dissertation, we suggest some main directions for future research. First, it is important to emphasize that in this dissertation, in which the impact of cooperative learning on social outcomes is evaluated, we made choices on which social outcomes to measure and how. Altogether, more insights were created in the social outcomes of cooperative learning, because we investigated them from several perspectives using several methodologies, e.g., studying students’ social behavior based on peer sociometric scores investigated with multilevel analyses or investigating patterns of peer relationships in classroom networks using social network analyses. However, the range of possible social outcomes that could have been measured is broad, and other choices regarding
the methodologies also could have been made. In future research other social outcomes of cooperative learning in the first grades of primary education can be investigated. For example, the solution obtained for a social problem in a group task, such as in the group task of Chapter 3 and 4, can be investigated to get a better grasp on students’ social problem solving in groups. Moreover, only few studies on cooperative learning included young children who are in the first grades of primary education. Students’ behavior during cooperative learning activities in the classroom in this age group also has not been extensively studied. Therefore, more research is still needed to investigate whether cooperative learning leads to improved social skills of students in the first grades of primary education, both during cooperative learning activities inside classrooms as well as in outside classroom settings.
Further research is also needed on the implementation of the SfA program, including the implementation of cooperative learning. In general, the level of implementation achieved is an important determinant of program outcomes (Durlak & DuPre, 2008), also in the context of the SfA program (Hopkins et al., 1999; Miller, Biggart, Sloan, & O’Hare, 2017; Quint et al., 2015). Further efforts should be made to measure varying levels of implementation of several components of the SfA program and relate this to changes in outcomes. Specifically for the implementation of cooperative learning, more research is needed on how teachers can be supported for improvement of sustained use of cooperative learning. In the current dissertation, large differences between teachers’ level of cooperative learning implementation were found. The SfA lessons, including the use of cooperative learning, are highly specified and comprehensive with respect to implementation guidelines and materials for students and teachers (Datnow & Catellano, 2000; Fullan, 2000; Mullender-Wijnsma et al., 2020). Although this prescriptiveness is found to be conducive to implementation fidelity (Desimone, 2002; Fullan, 2000), it also has been evaluated as suppressing teachers’ creativity and autonomy (Datnow & Castellano, 2000). It is possible that whereas some teachers benefit from prescriptive guidelines, there are others, maybe especially the excellent teachers, who might need more autonomy to thrive (Desimone, 2002). More research is needed into how teachers can be supported best to maximize cooperative learning implementation. For the best possible intervention results, we follow Durlak and DuPre (2008) in their conclusion that in educational practice the prime focus should be on finding the right mix of fidelity and adaptation. Some level of adaptation is inevitable and even necessary to improve outcomes (Durlak & DuPre, 2008; Meyers, Durlak, & Wandersman, 2012). It follows, that in research, efforts should be made to carefully measuring what is happening during implementation.
7
Finally, we emphasize that future research should not only examine social outcomes of the SfA program and cooperative learning, but that this should be combined with the investigation of other outcomes. One of the reasons is that research shows that social emotional learning can also improve academic achievement (Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor, & Schellinger, 2011). In the current dissertation, the focus was exclusively on social outcomes. However, the primary goal of the SfA program, including cooperative learning, is to improve students’ language and reading development. In the US and the UK context, SfA has been shown to be effective in increasing student achievement, especially reading performance (Borman et al., 2007; Tracey et al., 2014; Quint et al., 2015). In the Dutch context, a small effect on students’ text reading skills in Grade 1 was found. This positive effect was not replicated in Grade 2 or Grade 3. No positive effects were found for reading comprehension (Mullender-Wijnsma et al., 2020), except for the subgroup of students at risk of reading problems in Grade 1 in school year 2016-2017 (Hingstman, Warrens, Doolaard, & Bosker, 2020). As the development and the implementation of the program were still in an early phase, more research on the effects of the Dutch SfA program on students’ language and reading development is needed. Especially given the targeted population of the SfA program, the challenges that students face in attaining success at school are both academic as well as social and emotional. Through extra investment in education for students from disadvantaged backgrounds, schools can sometimes compensate for what students lack in their home situations. Results presented in Chapter 5 of this dissertation indicate that more research is needed in the specific effects of the SfA program for students from disadvantaged backgrounds. Continuous improvement and a relentless investment to ensure success for all children are key in the SfA program. Established with continuous research, in the future the SfA program might make even a bigger difference for improvement in cognitive as well as social emotional learning for more students.
Concluding remarks
This dissertation concerned an investigation of the impact of cooperative learning as part of the Dutch Success for All program in the first grades of primary education (Grade 1 – Grade 3) on social outcomes. The dissertation contributed in particular to the existing research literature on cooperative learning because of its focus on (a) social outcomes rather than students’ cognitive achievement, and (b) the young age of students (ranging from six years to maximum nine years old). In general, it has shown promising results for the implementation of cooperative learning in the first grades of primary education. Students’ talk and behavior, specifically during
group work, can be improved by the implementation of cooperative learning. Therefore, it is recommended to implement cooperative learning in the first grades of primary education. Taken together, the studies yielded valuable findings on the implementation and social outcomes of cooperative learning and offered several suggestions for improving educational practice.
