University of Groningen
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.
1
Introduction
In recent decades a considerable amount of research has been conducted on the effects of cooperative learning on student achievement, including a number of meta-analyses (Kyndt, Raes, Lismont, Timmers, Cascallar, & Dochy, 2013; Lou, Abrami, Spence, Poulsen, Chambers, & d’Apollonia, 1996). These studies provide convincing evidence that cooperative learning can lead to improvement of students’ cognitive achievement, amounting up to medium sized effects. Through cooperative learning teachers promote active learning by interaction between students. Therefore, cooperative learning also gives the opportunity to develop students’ social skills because of the need and opportunity to work with others to learn (Lou et al., 1996).
Although investigated to a lesser extent than cognitive effects, it has been shown that social skills can be facilitated by cooperative learning (Slavin, Hurley, & Chamberlain, 2003). For example, the meta-analysis of Roseth, Johnson, and Johnson (2008) showed that cooperative learning positively impacts peer relationships of early adolescents. The study of Tolmie et al. (2010) showed similar social benefits of cooperative learning in primary education classrooms. Students’ group work skills and peer relationships improved by means of a cooperative learning intervention.
Despite its potential for cognitive as well as social goals, it seems that cooperative learning has limited use in practice (Baines, Blatchford, & Kutnick, 2003; Buchs, Filippou, Pulfrey, & Volpé, 2017; Veenman, Kenter, & Post, 2000). It has been found that when cooperative learning is implemented it is often ad hoc and unstructured (Gillies & Boyle, 2011). Several studies (e.g., Buchs, Filippou, Pulfrey, & Volpé, 2017; Ruys, van Keer, & Aelterman, 2014; Gillies & Boyle, 2011) indicated that teachers have difficulties implementing cooperative learning. For instance, in the study of Gillies and Boyle (2010), teachers reported issues with group composition and problems with preparing students to work together. Overall, the amount of preparation and effort required of teachers to implement cooperative learning should not be underestimated (Blatchford, Baines, Rubie-Davies, Bassett, & Chowne, 2006; Kutnick, Ota, & Berdondini, 2008).
Cooperative learning implementation may be particularly challenging in the lower grades of primary education as more teacher guidance is needed (Battistich & Watson, 2003). As also noted by Kutnick et al. (2008), most studies were focused on older students and only a few studies included students in the first grades of primary education. This might be because it is often suggested that young students are not able to work and learn together, but
CHAPTER 1
10
this idea contradicts research findings on cooperative learning in the early grades. There is some evidence that young students are well able to participate in teacher guided cooperative learning activities (Kutnick & Berdondini, 2009; Kutnick et al., 2008).
The few studies on cooperative learning that included children who are in the first grades of primary education showed that young students’ behavior within the classroom can be improved by cooperative learning (Kutnick & Berdondini, 2009; Kutnick et al., 2008). More research is needed to investigate whether cooperative learning can improve young students’ social behavior outside the classroom setting, because this would mean that the improved social skills are transferable to other activities and settings. A dual impact of cooperative learning, i.e., improvement of social skills alongside cognitive achievement, would make cooperative learning of even greater practical significance.
This dissertation investigates 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 contributes in particular to the existing literature on cooperative learning because of its focus on (a) social outcomes rather than cognitive achievement, and (b) the young age of students (ranging from six years to nine years old).
Cooperative learning
Cooperative learning refers to the instructional use of small groups in which students work together to maximize students’ learning (Johnson & Johnson, 1999; Slavin, Madden, Chambers, & Haxby, 2009), which might involve students’ cognitive as well as social emotional learning. In meta-analyses (Kyndt et al., 2013; Lou et al., 1996), which provided convincing evidence that cooperative learning can lead to improvement of cognitive student achievement, cooperative learning was compared to class instruction and/or individualistic learning. In whole-class instruction students are taught as a large single group. The teacher explains the material in detail to the class, possibly followed by students’ individual work. In these studies this was opposed to cooperative learning where the teacher especially promotes active learning by interaction between students.
Five elements are considered essential to structure cooperative learning activities (Johnson & Johnson, 1999, 2009), as simply placing students in groups together does not in and of itself produce a cooperative effort. The first element is establishing a state of positive interdependence. Positive interdependence exists when students perceive that they are linked together in a way they cannot succeed unless they all do. It promotes a situation in which students work together
to maximize the learning of all members, provide mutual support, share their resources, and celebrate their joint success. The second element is individual accountability. Students are held individually accountable to do their part of the work to make sure each student is an active member. The third element is promotive interaction, which occurs as individuals promote each other’s success by helping, supporting, and encouraging each other’s efforts to achieve. Contributing to the success of a cooperative effort requires the appropriate use of interpersonal or social skills, which is the fourth element. Group processing, the fifth and last element, involves reflecting on a group session to evaluate which actions were helpful, and which were unhelpful, to make decisions about actions to improve the members effectiveness in contributing to the joint efforts to achieve the groups’ goals.
While sometimes the terms cooperative learning and collaborative learning are used interchangeably, some authors distinguish between the two terms. According to Bruffee (1995), for example, cooperative and collaborative learning were originally developed for educating people of different ages and experiences. In this respect, cooperative learning is used with children, while collaborative learning is rather targeted to students in higher education. In line with this, cooperative learning is more appropriate for knowledge that is foundational, such as spelling and grammar, while collaborative learning is seen as being better suited for learning non-foundational or higher-order knowledge, that is knowledge which is derived through reasoning and questioning and requires a critical approach to learning. It follows that, in this regard, in collaborative learning the responsibility mostly belongs to the learners. The differences described by Bruffee (1995) are in line with the differences between cooperative and collaborative learning indicated by Davidson and Major (2014). Among these differences
are the degree of teacher guidance and whether there is instruction insocial skills. Davidson
and Major (2014) point out that, in general, the degree of teacher or instructor guidance is higher in cooperative than in collaborative learning. Furthermore, in collaborative learning social skills are not taught, while this is part of most cooperative learning approaches.
Besides attempts to distinguish the terms, it is also often stressed (e.g., Bruffee, 1995; Davidson & Major, 2014; Tolmie et al., 2010), that cooperative and collaborative learning are the subjects of similar claims regarding their benefits across the range from primary to higher education, and have more similarities than differences. Essentially, cooperative learning and collaborative learning have in common that students need to work together in interaction with each other in order to promote active learning. Therefore, although distinguishing the terms can be helpful because finding a common language benefits research and practice, we think
CHAPTER 1
12
that it is more important to investigate how active learning in groups is shaped in order to best facilitate the benefits than discuss whether the term cooperative learning or collaborative learning should be used.
Nonetheless, we deliberately chose to consistently use the term cooperative learning in the current dissertation. In line with the above described distinctions between these two terms, cooperative learning is regarded as the most suitable term for the approach used in the specific context of this dissertation. The cooperative learning approach was implemented in the context of the Success for All program which primarily targets on language and reading development, which is foundational knowledge. In this dissertation the focus is on young children who are in the first grades of primary education. Furthermore, the implemented cooperative learning approach is deemed to be a structural approach with highly structured goals and activities including a high degree of teacher guidance and instruction in social skills.
Social emotional learning
Social emotional learning is defined as the process through which students acquire and effectively apply the knowledge, attitudes and skills necessary to recognize and manage emotions, set and achieve positive goals, solve problems effectively, and establish positive relationships with others (CASEL, 2005). Thus, it is the process through which social emotional competencies develop (Domitrovich, Durlak, Staley, & Weissberg, 2017). These increased social emotional competencies, in turn, should lead to, among other things, more positive behaviors (Greenberg et al., 2003).
Social emotional competencies can be framed into two domains (e.g., Domitrovich et al., 2017). First, the domain of intrapersonal skills, such as self-control and emotion regulation, globally includes skills that are needed for effective functioning as an individual. Second, the domain of interpersonal or social skills, which captures skills needed to interact successfully with others. In the current dissertation, the focus is on outcomes of the second domain. These social skills are reflected in social behaviors, i.e., getting along with others (Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor, & Schellinger, 2011). Desired social outcomes can be both an increase of positive or prosocial behavior, e.g., behaviors intended to help other people, as well as a reduction or prevention of negative or antisocial behavior, for instance, disruptive behaviors (Sklad, Diekstra, Ritter, Ben, & Gravesteijn, 2012).
Social emotional learning at school may be especially important for children from less advantaged backgrounds (Nix, Bierman, Heinrichs, Gest, Welsh, & Domitrovich, 2016;
OECD, 2015). Children from disadvantaged backgrounds may have less resources in many domains in their home and family situations, and therefore, may be in greater need for social emotional learning at school (Nix et al., 2016; OECD, 2015). Nonetheless, it has been found that social emotional learning at school is promising to enhance success at school and in life of all students from different backgrounds (Taylor, Oberle, Durlak, & Weissberg, 2017).
Impact of cooperative learning in SfA on students’ social behavior
Success for All (SfA) is a comprehensive school reform program with a strong emphasis on cooperative learning that aims to improve student outcomes. SfA is especially directed at schools serving large numbers of disadvantaged students, with a relentless investment in several improvements to ensure success for all students (Slavin & Madden, 2013). The program has been shown to be effective in increasing student achievement in the United States (US) and the United Kingdom (UK) (Borman, Slavin, Cheung, Chamberlain, Madden, & Chambers, 2007; Tracey, Chambers, Slavin, Hanley, & Cheung, 2014), and is currently being adapted for Dutch educational practice. Besides cooperative learning, an engaging reading and language curriculum, tutoring, and parental involvement are core components of the program. The SfA program is described in more detail in Slavin, Madden, Chambers, and Haxby (2009).
Instruction in the daily ninety-minutes SfA lessons, targeted on language and reading, is characterized by scripted lesson plans that make extensive use of cooperative learning. Cooperative learning is used to promote the active involvement of all students, for which rapid pacing and celebration of success are important features. In SfA lessons, students work together in pairs or groups of preferably four children. The cooperative learning activities are aimed to adhere to the five essential elements as described above. Various cooperative learning techniques are involved in the SfA lessons, such as “Think-Pair-Share” (see Kagan, 1989). Teachers in the SfA program are taught strategies and given tools to help their students work cooperatively and use their social skills, including modeling for students the kinds of behaviors and questions that lead to effective teamwork. As part of the cooperative learning approach in SfA lessons teachers give explicit instruction in the required cooperative behaviors, such as “everyone participates” and “help each other”. Cooperative learning activities are evaluated and effective teamwork is rewarded with a points system and certificates, and successes are celebrated with cheers. Sometimes the teacher calls on a student at random to represent his or her team. Therefore, to maximize their team points, students must first discuss the work together to make sure that all their team members understand it (see also e.g., Quint, Zhu,
CHAPTER 1
14
Balu, Rappaport, & DeLaurentis, 2015).
SfA’s first goal of the cooperative learning approach is to promote students’ cognitive learning, but a second goal is maximizing students’ social emotional learning (e.g., Slavin et al., 2009). Several studies showed that teachers experienced improvement of students’ behavior since they introduced SfA lessons in their classrooms (Harris, Hopkins, Youngman, & Wordsworth, 2001; Hopkins, Youngman, Harris, & Wordsworth, 1999; Tracey et al., 2014; Quint et al., 2015). The behavioral changes inside the classroom setting were mostly attributed to the rapid pace, classroom management routines, and, in particular to cooperative learning. Teachers noted that cooperative learning in SfA keeps students engaged and makes them responsible for each other. In several studies it was observed that students’ engagement was high during SfA lessons (Datnow & Castellano, 2000; Ross & Smith, 1995). Teachers also felt SfA contributed to more social behavior outside the classroom and they attributed this as well to cooperative learning (Skindrud & Gersten, 2006; Harris et al., 2001). In sum, there is some evidence that students’ behavior in the classroom can be improved by the SfA program, and as reported by teachers, students’ social behavior can also improve in settings outside the classroom due to cooperative learning.
Aims and outline of this dissertation
In the current dissertation, it is investigated whether young students’ social behavior during group work and beyond group work, both in outside classroom settings, improved by cooperative learning in the context of the Dutch SfA program. At the moment of the conducted studies, the Dutch SfA program was in an early development phase, and the program was implemented in six schools. As we measured students’ social behavior not during cooperative learning in the classroom setting, we refer to it as social outcomes. Observations of interactions during cooperative learning activities in SfA classrooms are rather a measure of implementation than an outcome (see also Slavin & Cooper, 1999). Improvement in students’ social behavior outside the classroom setting would mean that developed social skills are transferable to other settings than only during cooperative learning activities in SfA lessons.
The overarching goal of this dissertation is to gain more insight in whether cooperative learning in the context of the SfA program improved social outcomes in the first grades of primary education. 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, is to investigate the impact of cooperative learning on social outcomes
during group work. The last aim, addressed in Part 3 of the dissertation, is to investigate the impact of cooperative learning on social outcomes beyond group work. The following research question is central for this dissertation:
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?
The dissertation consists of five interconnected studies, which are briefly described below. Table 1.1 at the end of this first chapter presents an overview of all studies, including research questions, descriptions of samples, moments of data collection, and outcomes of interests for each study. For each outcome of interest, it is also described on which level information was observed or gathered: the level of teachers, students, small groups, peers, or the classroom. It should be noted that the chapters can be read independently. For this reason some overlap in theoretical background and description of the SfA program was deliberately built in.
Chapter 2 describes a study investigating differences between teachers classified as
high-performing in their implementation of cooperative learning in their classrooms and teachers who were less successful in this respect. Teachers were selected based on a rating of their level of implementation of cooperative learning in videotaped lessons. In semi-structured interviews, the selected teachers were asked to reflect on their experiences with the implementation of cooperative learning and how they felt their attitudes and beliefs may have changed. An integrated model on professional development and teacher change is used to interpret the results of differences in cooperative learning implementation between teachers.
Chapters 3 and 4 describe studies examining whether cooperative learning in SfA lessons
impacts students’ behavior during group work outside a classroom setting. Both studies used a quasi-experimental design with a treatment and a control group. Grade 1 students (6- and 7-year-old children) executed 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 for a whole school year.
Chapter 3 focuses on whether students achieved high-level talk during group work.
High-level talk during group work involves expressing more, and more extended, elaborations of propositions, ask more open elaboration or group process questions and express more, and more extended, elaborations about the group process. In total, 160 students (in 40 groups) participated. Data was gathered at the end of school year 2015-2016. Student’s talk during
CHAPTER 1
16
group work was compared between the SfA and control group.
In the study of Chapter 4, Grade 1 students participated in the group task at the end
of school year 2015-2016 and school year 2017-2018. A total of 78 groups of four students were included. Positive and negative group work behavior was observed, taking into account socioemotional ethos, group participation, and type of dialogue. Longitudinal multilevel analysis was used to model the sequence of observed 20-s time intervals during the group task. The main research question in the study was whether cooperative learning leads to improved group work behavior, i.e., more positive group work behavior and less negative group work behavior. It was also explored how students’ group work behavior developed over time of the group task, and whether this differed between the SfA and the control condition.
Chapter 5 describes a study examining whether SfA led to improved students’ social
behavior in Grade 1, Grade 2, and Grade 3 of primary education. Peer sociometric data was collected for 974 students aged six to nine. Using multivariate multilevel analyses the effect of SfA on students’ pro- and antisocial behavior over time was studied. Furthermore, in this study it was explored whether there was a differential intervention effect for children from disadvantaged backgrounds.
In Chapter 6, the effect of cooperative learning was explored on positive peer relationships
in the classroom, i.e., whether students like to work together. A social network approach was followed, because the aim was to get more insight in the patterns or structures of peer relationships on a classroom level. It was hypothesized that SfA classrooms compared to control classrooms would have a higher number of positive peer relationships, a greater openness of the network, and a greater diversity of relationships with regard to gender, socio-economic background, and academic performance. In total, the study involved 32 classrooms including 791 students: 16 SfA classrooms were compared with 16 control classrooms.
In Chapter 7, the main findings of the studies are summarized and discussed. In this final
chapter, findings are integrated, limitations and methodological considerations are discussed, and recommendations for practice and future research are described.
Table 1.1.
Overview of the studies of the dissertation
Chapter Title Main r esear ch question Sample Data collection Outcome of inter est 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? 8 interviewed teachers (selection from 26 observed teachers)
Grade 1 and Grade 2 school year 2016-2017
Differences
in
teachers’
implementation of cooperative learning (teacher level)
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?
160 Grade 1 students
Grade 1 school year 2015-2016
Students’
talk during
group work (student level)
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? 78 groups of four students (including 312 Grade 1 students) Grade 1 school year 2015-2016 and Grade 1 school year 2017-2018 Positive and negative group work behavior (group level)
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? 327 Grade 1 students 333 Grade 2 students 314 Grade 3 students Grade 1 and Grade 2 school year 2016-2017 and Grade 3 school year 2017-2018
Students’
pro- and
antisocial behavior based on peer sociometric data (peer level)
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? 494 Grade 1 students 297 Grade 2 students Grade 1 and Grade 2 school year 2016-2017 Positive peer relationships, i.e., liking
to
work
together
in classroom networks (classr
