Advertisement

Teacher Practices and Small-Group Dynamics in Cooperative Learning Classrooms

  • Noreen M. Webb
Part of the Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning book series (CULS, volume 8)

Collaborative peer learning environments have received increasing attention in classrooms due to the potential for improving learning and achievement. Prior research on small-group collaboration identifies several behaviors that significantly predict student learning, such as exchanging explanations and applying help received. Less often studied are the effects that teacher practices have on student interaction in collaborative groups, especially how teacher discourse in the classroom influences the degree to which students carry out help-related behavior when working with other students. This chapter reviews the functioning and responsibilities of students as help-seekers and help-givers, and then contrasts the results of two studies to investigate how teacher practices may influence helprelated behavior in collaborative groups. The findings suggest that productive group collaboration—especially exchanging explanations—may follow from classroom instruction in which teachers hold students accountable for playing an active role in generating problem-solving approaches and for explaining their thinking.

Keywords

Educational Psychology General Question Teacher Practice American Educational Research Association American Educational Research Journal 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bargh, J. A., & Schul, Y. (1980). On the cognitive benefit of teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 593–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brown, A. L., & Palinscar, A. S. (1989). Guided, cooperative learning, and individual knowledge acquisition. In L.B. Resnick (Ed.) Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 393–451). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  3. Butler, R., & Neuman, O. (1995). Effects of task and ego achievement goals on help-seeking behaviors and attitudes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 261–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. California State Department of Education. (1985). Mathematics framework for California public schools, kindergarten through grade twelve. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education.Google Scholar
  5. California State Department of Education. (1992). Mathematics framework for California public schools, kindergarten through grade twelve. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education.Google Scholar
  6. Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Franke, M. L., Levi, L., & Empson, S. B. (1999). Children’s mathematics: Cognitively guided instruction. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  7. Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Peterson, P. L., Chiang, C. P., & Loef, M. (1989). Using knowledge of children’s mathematics thinking in classroom teaching: An experimental study. American Educational Research Journal, 26, 499–531.Google Scholar
  8. Carpenter, T. P., Franke, M. L., & Levi, L. (2003). Thinking mathematically: Integrating algebra and arithmetic in elementary school. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  9. Chiu, M. M. (2000). Group problem-solving processes: Social interactions and individual actions. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 30, 27–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chiu, M. M., & Khoo, L. (2003). Rudeness and status effects during group problem solving: Do they bias evaluations and reduce the likelihood of correct solutions? Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 506–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Coleman, E. B. (1998). Using explanatory knowledge during collaborative problem solving in science. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7, 387–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cooper, M. A. (1999). Classroom choices from a cognitive perspective on peer learning. In A. M. O’Donnell & A. King (Eds.) Cognitive perspectives on peer learning (pp. 215–234). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  13. Covington, M. V. (1984). The self-worth theory of achievement motivation: Findings and implications. Elementary School Journal, 85, 5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fantuzzo, J. W., Riggio, R. E., Connelly, S., & Dimeff, L. A. (1989). Effects of reciprocal peer tutoring on academic achievement and psychological adjustment: A component analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 173–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Farivar, S., & Webb, N. M. (1998). Preparing teachers and students for cooperative work: Building communication and helping skills. In C. M. Brody & N. Davidson (Eds.), Professional development for cooperative learning: Issues and approaches (pp. 169–188). Albany, NY: State University of New York.Google Scholar
  16. Franke, M. L., Fennema, E., & Carpenter, T. (1997). Teachers creating change: Examining evolving beliefs and classroom practice. In E. Fennema & B. S. Nelson (Eds.), Mathematics teachers in transition (pp. 255–282). Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  17. Franke, M. L., Freund, D., Iwanaga, J., & Schwerdtfeger, J. K. (2006). Exploring the impact of large-scale professional development focused on children’s algebraic reasoning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  18. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., Phillips, N. B., Karns, K., & Dutka, S. (1997). Enhancing students’ helping behavior during peer-mediated instruction with conceptual mathematical explanations. Elementary School Journal, 97, 223–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Kazdan, S., & Allen, S. (1999). Effects of peer-assisted learning strategies in reading with and without training in elaborated help giving. Elementary School Journal, 99, 201–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gillies, R. M., & Ashman, A. F. (1996). Teaching collaborative skills in primary school children in classroom-based work groups. Learning and Instruction, 6, 187–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gillies, R. M., & Ashman, A. F. (1998). Behavior and interactions of children in cooperative groups in lower and middle elementary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 746–757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hooper, S. (1992). Effects of peer interaction during computer-based mathematics instruction. Journal of Educational Research, 85, 180–189.Google Scholar
  23. Hythecker, V. I., Dansereau, D. F., & Rocklin, T. R. (1988). An analysis of the processes influencing the structured dyadic learning environment. Educational Psychologist, 23, 23–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jacobs, V. R., Franke, M. L., Carpenter, T. P., Levi, L., Battey, D., & Chan, A. (2005). Exploring the impact of large-scale professional development focused on children’s algebraic reasoning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal.Google Scholar
  25. Kerr, N. L., & Bruun, S. E. (1983). Dispensability of member effort and group motivation losses: Free-rider effects. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 44, 78–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. King, A. (1989). Effects of self-questioning training on college students’ comprehension of lectures. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 14, 366–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. King, A. (1990). Enhancing peer interaction and learning in the classroom through reciprocal questioning. American Educational Research Journal, 27, 664–687.Google Scholar
  28. King, A. (1992). Facilitating elaborative learning through guided student-generated questioning. Educational Psychologist, 27, 111–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. King, A. (1999). Discourse patterns for mediating peer learning. In A. M. O’Donnell & A. King (Eds.) Cognitive perspectives on peer learning (pp. 87–116). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  30. Mayer, R. E. (1984). Aids to prose comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 19, 30–42.Google Scholar
  31. Mevarech, Z. R., & Kramarski, B. (1997). IMPROVE: A multidimensional method for teaching mathematics in heterogeneous classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 365–394.Google Scholar
  32. Middleton, M. J., & Midgley, C. (1997). Avoiding the demonstration of lack of ability: An underexplored aspect of goal theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 710–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mulryan, C. M. (1992). Student passivity during cooperative small groups in mathematics. Journal of Educational Research, 85, 261–273.Google Scholar
  34. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  35. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1991). Professional Standards for Teaching Mathematics. Reston, VA: The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  36. National Research Council. (1989). Everybody counts: A report to the nation of the future of mathematics education. Mathematical Sciences Education Board, Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  37. National Research Council. (1995). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  38. Nattiv, A. (1994). Helping behaviors and math achievement gain of students using cooperative learning. Elementary School Journal, 94, 285–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Newman, R. S. (1991). Goals and self-regulated learning: What motivates children to seek academic help? In M. L. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement. (pp. 151–183). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  40. Newman, R. S. (1994). Adaptive help seeking: A strategy of self-regulated learning. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational applications. (pp. 283–301). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  41. Newman, R. S. (1998). Students’ help seeking during problem solving: Influences of personal and contextual achievement goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 644–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. O’Donnell, A. M. (1999). Structuring dyadic interaction through scripted cooperation. In A. M. O’Donnell & A. King (Eds.) Cognitive perspectives on peer learning (pp. 179–196). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  43. Palincsar, A. S., Anderson, C., & David, Y. M. (1993). Pursuing scientific literacy in the middle grades through collaborative problem solving. Elementary School Journal, 93, 643–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Peterson, P. L., Janicki, T. C., & Swing, S. R. (1981). Ability x treatment interaction effects on children’s learning in large-group and small-group approaches. American Educational Research Journal, 18, 453–473.Google Scholar
  45. Rogoff, B. (1991). Guidance and participation in spatial planning. In L. Resnick, J. Levine & S. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 349–383). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rogoff, N. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Ross, J. A., & Cousins, J. B. (1995). Impact of explanation seeking on student achievement and attitudes. Journal of Educational Research, 89, 109–117.Google Scholar
  48. Salomon, G., & Globerson, T. (1989). When teams do not function the way they ought to. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 89–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Saxe, G. B., Gearhart, M., Note, M., & Paduano, P. (1993). Peer interaction and the development of mathematical understanding. In H. Daniels (Ed.) Charting the agenda: Educational activity after Vygotsky (pp. 107–144) ). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  50. Slavin, R.E. (1987). Ability grouping and student achievement in elementary schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 57, 293–336.Google Scholar
  51. Sweller, J. (1989). Cognitive technology: Some procedures for facilitating learning and problem solving in mathematics and science. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 457–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Swing, S. R., & Peterson, P. L. (1982). The relationship of student ability and small-group interaction to student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 259–274.Google Scholar
  53. Valsiner, J. (1987). Culture and the development of children’s action. New York, NY: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  54. Vedder, P. (1985). Cooperative learning. A study on processes and effects of cooperation between primary school children. Westerhaven Groningen, Netherlands: Rijkuniversiteit Groningen.Google Scholar
  55. Webb, N. M. (1989). Peer interaction and learning in small groups. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 21–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Webb, N. M. (1991). Task-related verbal interaction and mathematics learning in small groups. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22, 366–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Webb, N. M., &. Farivar, S. (1999). Developing productive group interaction in middle school mathematics. In A. M. O’Donnell & A. King (Eds.) Cognitive perspectives on peer learning (pp. 117–150). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  58. Webb, N. M., & Ing, M. (2006). Student discourse and learning in elementary school mathematics classrooms. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  59. Webb, N. M., Ing, M., Nemer, K. M., & Kersting, N. (2006). Help seeking in cooperative learning groups. In R. S. Newman & S. A. Karabenick (Eds.), Help Seeking in academic settings: Goals, groups and contexts (pp. 45–88). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  60. Webb, N. M., & Mastergeorge, A. M. (2003a). The development of students’ learning in peer-directed small groups. Cognition and Instruction, 21, 361–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Webb, N. M., & Mastergeorge, A. M. (2003b). Promoting effective helping behavior in peer-directed groups. International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 73–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Webb, N. M., Nemer, K. M., & Ing, M. (2006). Small-group reflections: Parallels between teacher discourse and student behavior in peer-directed groups. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 63–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Webb, N. M., & Palincsar, A. S. (1996). Group processes in the classroom. In D. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.) Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 841–873). New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  64. Webb, N. M., Troper, J. D., & Fall, R. (1995). Constructive activity and learning in collaborative small groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 406–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wittrock, M. C. (1990). Generative processes of comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 24, 345–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wood, T., Cobb, P., & Yackel. E. (1991). Change in teaching mathematics: A case study. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 587–616.Google Scholar
  67. Wood, T., Cobb, P., & Yackel, E. (1995). Reflections on learning and teaching mathematics in elementary school. In L. P. Steffe & J. E. Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in education (pp. 401–422). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  68. Yackel, E., Cobb, P., & Wood, T. (1991). Small-group interactions as a source of learning opportunities in second-grade mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22, 390–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Yackel, E., Cobb, P., Wood, T., Wheatley, G., & Merkel, G. (1990). The importance of social interaction in children’s construction of mathematical knowledge. In T. J. Cooney & C. R. Hirsch (Eds.), Teaching and learning mathematics in the 1990s (pp. 12–21). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  70. Yager, S., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1985). Oral discussion, group-to-individual transfer, and achievement in cooperative learning groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 60–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Noreen M. Webb
    • 1
  1. 1.University of CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations