research topics about cooperative learning

An Introduction to Cooperative Learning Research

Cite this chapter.

• Robert E. Slavin 8  

485 Accesses

38 Citations

Why have we humans been so successful as a species? We are not strong like tigers, big like elephants, protectively colored like lizards, or swift like gazelles. We are intelligent, but an intelligent human alone in the forest would not survive for long. What has really made us such successful animals is our ability to apply our intelligence to cooperating with others to accomplish group goals. From the primitive hunting group to the corporate boardroom, it is those of us who can solve problems while working with others who succeed. In fact, in modern society, cooperation in face-to-face groups is increasingly important. A successful scientist must be able to cooperate effectively with other scientists, with technicians, and with students. An executive must cooperate with other executives, salespersons, suppliers, and superiors. Of course, each of those relationships also has competitive elements, but in all of them, if the participants cannot cooperate to achieve a common goal, all lose out. It is difficult to think of very many adult activities in which the ability to cooperate with others is not important. Human society is composed of overlapping cooperative groups: families, neighborhoods, work groups, political parties, clubs, teams.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Unable to display preview.  Download preview PDF.

Allport, G. The nature of prejudice . Cambridge, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1954.

Google Scholar  

Ames, C., Ames, R., & Felker, D. Effects of competitive reward structures and valence of outcome on children’s achievement attributions. Journal of Educational Psychology , 1977, 69 , 1–8.

Article   Google Scholar  

Armstrong, B., Johnson, D. W., & Balow, B. Effects of cooperative vs. individualistic learning experiences on interpersonal attraction between learning-disabled and normal-progress elementary school students. Contemporary Educational Psychology , 1981, 6 , 102–109.

Aronson, E. The Jigsaw classroom . Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1978.

Ballard, M., Corman, L., Gottlieb, J., & Kaufman, M. Improving the social status of mainstreamed retarded children. Journal of Educational Psychology , 1977, 69 , 605–611.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Cooper, L., Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R., & Wilderson, F. Effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic experiences on interpersonal attraction among heterogeneous peers. Journal of Social Psychology , 1980, 111 , 243–252.

Gerard, H. B., & Miller, N. School desegregation: A long-term study . New York: Plenum Press, 1975.

Book   Google Scholar  

Gottlieb, J., & Leyser, Y. Friendship between mentally retarded and nonretarded children. In S. Asher & J. Gottman (Eds.), The development of children’s friendships . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981.

Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., Sharan, S., & Steinberg, R. Classroom learning styles and cooperative behavior of elementary school children. Journal of Educational Psychology , 1980, 72 , 99–106.

Janke, R. The Teams-Games-Tournament (TGT) method and the behavioral adjustment and academic achievement of emotionally impaired adolescents . Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American Educational Research Association, Toronto, 1977.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. Instructional goal structure: Cooperative, competitive, or individualistic. Review of Educational Research , 1974, 44 , 213–240.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. Learning together and alone . Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1975.

Kukla, A. Foundations of an attributional theory of performance. Psychological Review , 1972, 79 , 454–470.

Lucker, G. W., Rosenfield, D., Sikes, J., & Aronson, E. Performance in the interdependent classroom: A field study. American Educational Research Journal , 1976, 13 , 115–123.

Madden, N. A., & Slavin, R. E. Cooperative learning and social acceptance of main-streamed academically handicapped students. Journal of Special Education , 1983, 17 , 171–182.

Sharan, S. Cooperative learning in small groups: Recent methods and effects on achievement, attitudes, and ethnic relations. Review of Educational Research , 1980, 50, 241–271.

Sharan, S., & Sharan, Y. Small-group teaching . Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Educational Technology Publications, 1976.

Sharan, S., Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., & Ackerman, Z. Academic achievement of elementary school children in small-group versus whole class instruction. Journal of Experimental Education , 1980, 48 , 125–129.

Slavin, R. E. Classroom reward structure: An analytic and practical review. Review of Educational Research , 1977, 47 (4), 633–650. (a)

Slavin, R. E. A student team approach to teaching adolescents with special emotional and behavioral needs. Psychology in the Schools , 1977, 14 (1), 77–84. (b)

Slavin, R. E. Effects of biracial learning teams on cross-racial friendships. Journal of Educational Psychology , 1979, 71 , 381–387.

Slavin, R. E. Using student team learning (rev. ed.) . Baltimore, Md.: Center for Social Organization of Schools, Johns Hopkins University, 1980.

Slavin, R. E. Cooperative learning . New York: Longman, 1983. (a)

Slavin, R. E. When does cooperative learning increase student achievement? Psychological Bulletin , 1983, 94 , 429–445. (b)

Slavin, R. E., & Hansell, S. Cooperative learning and intergroup relations: Contact theory in the classroom. In J. Epstein & N. Karweit (Eds.), Friends in school . New York: Academic Press, 1983.

Slavin, R. E., & Oickle, E. Effects of cooperative learning teams on student achievement and race relations: Treatment by race interactions. Sociology of Education , 1981, 54 , 174–180.

Wheeler, R. Predisposition toward cooperation and competition: Cooperative and competitive classroom effects . Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco, 1977.

Ziegler, S. The effectiveness of cooperative learning teams for increasing cross-ethnic friendship: Additional evidence. Human Organization , 1981, 40 , 264–268.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Center for Social Organization of Schools, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, 21218, USA

Robert E. Slavin

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Center for Social Organization of Schools, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA

Robert Slavin

Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel

Shlomo Sharan

University of California, Riverside, California, USA

Spencer Kagan

Haifa University, Haifa, Israel

Rachel Hertz-Lazarowitz

Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, USA

University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon, USA

Richard Schmuck

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1985 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Slavin, R.E. (1985). An Introduction to Cooperative Learning Research. In: Slavin, R., Sharan, S., Kagan, S., Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., Webb, C., Schmuck, R. (eds) Learning to Cooperate, Cooperating to Learn. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-3650-9_1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-3650-9_1

Publisher Name : Springer, Boston, MA

Print ISBN : 978-1-4899-3652-3

Online ISBN : 978-1-4899-3650-9

eBook Packages : Springer Book Archive

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

A cooperative learning intervention to promote social inclusion in heterogeneous classrooms.

• 1 Department of Education, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
• 2 Department of Special Education, Faculty of Social Sciences, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
• 3 Association of Cooperative Learning for Teachers, Stockholm, Sweden

Concerning challenges with the social inclusion of children with special educational needs (SEN), it is imperative to evaluate teacher interventions that promote social inclusion. This study aimed to investigate the effects of cooperative learning (CL) intervention on social inclusion. In addition, it was investigated to what degree CL implementation affected the outcomes. Fifty-six teachers of 958 fifth-grade children were randomly selected to intervention and control groups upon recruitment to the study. The intervention teachers received training and coaching in CL and implemented this approach three to four times a week for 15 weeks. The results showed a significant but small effect of CL on children’s social acceptance, but no significant effect on children’s friendships and perceptions of classroom relationships. The degree of CL implementation had effect on children’s social acceptance, but the effect was not consistent across social acceptance measures as a friend or a groupmate. Thus, it can be concluded that CL, conducted with the length and intensity of this study, may not lead to substantial changes in the social inclusion of children with SEN. In future studies, more focus needs to be devoted to teacher implementation of the CL approach.

Introduction

While educational policies around the world have become more inclusive ( Ramberg and Watkins, 2020 ), the social inclusion of children with special educational needs (SEN) still constitutes an area of concern. This concern has been expressed in a number of studies showing that children with SEN are less accepted by their peers and have fewer friends than their non-SEN peers ( Pijl et al., 2010 ; Nepi et al., 2015 ; Schwab, 2015 ; Avramidis et al., 2018 ; Banks et al., 2018 ). Moreover, children with SEN have fewer interactions with classmates ( Koster et al., 2010 ) and spend less time with peers during school breaks than their non-SEN peers ( Schwab, 2015 ). They express lower self-concept and self-perception of social integration than their non-SEN peers ( Pijl et al., 2010 ; Schwab, 2015 ). It is alarming that these patterns of exclusion seem to persist over time, as children’s friendships tend to remain stable over time ( Frederickson and Furnham, 2001 ; Frostad et al., 2011 ; Schwab, 2019 ). Thus, although children with SEN are educated alongside their peers, there seem to be few opportunities for social inclusion.

The explanations for the challenges of social inclusion may be related to individual and contextual factors. Based on an individual perspective, it is the lack of the necessary social interaction skills that may be the reason for exclusion. For example, aggressive behavior and difficulties with social skills have been identified as predictors of peer rejection ( Cillessen and Mayeux, 2004 ; de Boer et al., 2013 ; Schwab et al., 2015 ). Based on a contextual perspective, it is the factors in students’ environments that may explain exclusion or inclusion. Such factors include peer attitudes ( de Boer et al., 2013 ), classroom norms ( Gasser et al., 2017 , 2018 ), and lack of teacher support ( Mikami et al., 2013 ). From this perspective, it is important to provide opportunities for meaningful peer contacts ( Grütter et al., 2018 ; Pinto et al., 2019 ). Moreover, teachers may need to address peer attitudes and friendships by creating inclusive classroom norms, modeling positive peer relationships, and giving children positive feedback ( Mikami et al., 2013 ; Huber et al., 2018 ). In light of the contextual perspective on inclusion, this study contributes to previous research by evaluating a cooperative learning (CL) intervention aiming to promote social inclusion in classrooms with SEN children.

Cooperative Learning Approach

In the CL approach, children work in small heterogeneous groups structured to enhance the learning of all group members ( Slavin, 2014 ; Gillies, 2016 ). Several CL methods vary with regard to their theoretical underpinnings and specific elements, such as reward or task structures (for a review, see Slavin, 1996 ). An approach that has gained popularity in recent years is Learning Together ( Johnson et al., 1993 , 2009 ). This approach aims to promote group cohesion by structuring group work according to five principles based on social interdependence theory. The first principle, positive interdependence, ensures that all group members are aware that they are dependent on each other’s efforts in completing a task–a single member of a group cannot achieve anything unless all its members do. The second principle, individual accountability, means that all the group members feel responsible for completing their share of the group work. Promotive interaction, the third principle, implies that children are given possibilities to interact to promote group work by giving each other help, support, and feedback. The fourth principle, social skills, entails explicitly teaching social skills and motivating children to use them in group work sessions. The final principle, group processing, involves reflecting on the group work to plan future group activities. The teacher’s task in the CL approach is to structure classroom activities regarding the five principles of CL, introduce the activities, and monitor and intervene in the group work when needed ( Johnson and Johnson, 2008 ; Gillies, 2016 ).

Reviews of the CL approach consistently show that it is a promising instructional method. CL approach has yielded higher results on children’s achievement across a wide range of school subjects ( Johnson and Johnson, 2002 ; Roseth et al., 2008 ; Kyndt et al., 2013 ). It has led to positive changes in children’s perceptions of peer support, interpersonal attraction and liking, and children’s prosocial behavior ( Gillies and Ashman, 1997 , 2000 ; Slavin and Cooper, 1999 ; Johnson and Johnson, 2002 ; Roseth et al., 2008 ). However, the CL approach for the social inclusion of children with SEN is less researched. In a recent review of the effects of CL on the social inclusion of children with SEN, Garrote et al. (2017) identified six studies that included both CL and group activities in general, such as peer tutoring or support groups. According to the authors, the number of methodologically sound studies is still too small to conclude the effectiveness of group activities in promoting the inclusion of children with SEN.

CL Approach and Social Inclusion of Children With SEN

The limited number of studies that have evaluated the effect of the CL approach on social inclusion of children with SEN show that this approach leads to increases in social acceptance and prosocial group behaviors ( Putnam et al., 1996 ; Gillies and Ashman, 1997 , 2000 ; Jacques et al., 1998 ; André et al., 2011 ; Capodieci et al., 2019 ). The interventions in these studies varied in length, from 12 h to 7 months, and in intensity, from 90 to 180 min per week. Thus, there is evidence for the benefits of the CL approach for children with SEN, even in short duration interventions. However, none of the studies evaluated children’s perceptions of their classroom relationships due to instruction according to the CL approach. In this study, the effects of the CL approach are evaluated on peer acceptance, friendships, and children’s own perceptions of their classroom relationships.

While there is evidence on the effect of the CL approach on inclusion, less is known of the conditions under which this approach has the intended effect. The social interdependence theory, a premise of the CL approach, posits that structuring tasks for positive interdependence among group members gives rise to psychological processes of caring for one’s group members and readiness to invest energy into others than oneself ( Johnson and Johnson, 2009 ). However, this assumption was challenged by Slavin (2014) , who pointed out that it may be a necessary but not sufficient condition for cooperation. Slavin (2014) proposed that group members may need additional motivational incentives to cooperate effectively, and that change as a result of such an intervention may take time.

Research on social inclusion may also add important explanations to the complexity of the relationship between the CL approach and social inclusion. In children’s decisions of whom to include, they appear to be balancing concerns of group functioning and moral issues of fairness and justice ( Gasser et al., 2014 ). Peer group norms may influence these decisions. For example, under competitive classroom norms, group functioning concerns may weigh more, and peers may justify excluding a child with learning or behavior difficulties based on concerns of their group’s functioning ( Gasser et al., 2017 ). The question is whether these processes take place in studies of the CL approach in heterogeneous groups, in which differences in academic status among members have led to problems with the participation of low-performing children ( Cohen, 1994 ; Mulryan, 1995 ). If so, teachers may need to pay specific attention to creating inclusive classroom norms when using the CL approach.

Specific arrangements to promote group cooperation have been described in the CL approach studies and social inclusion. Different parts of a task were assigned to individual group members, or complementary roles were introduced ( Jacques et al., 1998 ; André et al., 2011 ). For example, in a study by André et al. (2011) on CL’s use in physical education, goal interdependence was ensured by aggregating team results by adding up each team member’s score.

In addition to creating tasks conducive to cooperation, separate training in social and group work skills has proved to be important ( Gillies and Ashman, 1997 , 2000 ; Baines et al., 2015 ; Capodieci et al., 2019 ). In a series of studies, Gillies and Ashman (1997 , 2000) had compared gains in children’s cooperative behaviors in two groups–children who participated in group work and children who, before the group work, participated in two training sessions with a focus on group work skills. As a result, the children in cooperative groups with additional training in group work skills showed more cooperative behavior and were more responsive to children who needed help. However, these benefits were not evident for children with learning difficulties, who improved only in on-task behavior. To conclude, merely assigning students to groups may not lead to social inclusion. Instead, it requires effort from the teacher to promote social skills and positive interdependence among group members.

Implementing the CL Approach–Teachers’ Role

Teachers may find it challenging to implement the CL approach in their everyday instruction. In a survey by Abrami et al. (2004) , 61% of teachers reported that they used CL, but a closer look into the teacher-reported practices revealed a gap between the recommendations and the actual classroom practices. Only half of the teachers in the study reported structuring group activities with principles of CL in mind. In a study by Lopata et al. (2003) , professional development in CL was only associated with an increase in practices to support individual accountability, but not positive interdependence. The authors pointed to a need for greater attention to the elements that promote cooperation, such as positive interdependence, promotive interaction, and group processing. Difficulties in teacher implementation of CL have been confirmed in recent studies. Gillies and Boyle (2010) found that, although teachers had positive experiences of CL, they also experienced difficulties in responding to children socializing and not working, in managing the time effectively, and setting aside time for preparation. Buchs et al. (2017) reported that teachers perceived implementing CL as difficult, especially with regard to assessing children’s work and embedding CL within the curriculum. CL, as a practice, requires a profound change in teacher practices from teacher-led to child-centered pedagogy ( Hennessey and Dionigi, 2013 ; Ghaith, 2018 ). Some researchers propose that to promote student cooperation, teachers need to cooperate with their colleagues, thus arguing for whole-school approaches in the implementation of CL ( Sharan, 2010 ; Jolliffe, 2015 ).

The teacher’s role in the CL approach is central but intricate. Training in CL renders changes in the teacher’s role from modeling and providing direct instruction to one of monitoring and scaffolding group work ( Blatchford et al., 2006 ; Gillies, 2016 ). It is generally acknowledged that less teacher involvement in group work is associated with greater autonomy ( Lin et al., 2015 ). However, the teacher plays a profound role in framing the expectations of standard rules and norms in the classroom group work ( Baker et al., 2017 ). These expectations may be communicated by asking and responding to questions or giving explanations ( Webb et al., 2006 ). Furthermore, teacher guidance for group work may include prompting, modeling, and praising successful group processes ( Lin et al., 2015 ). Thus, the teacher’s role includes the a priori structuring of group work for cooperation; following up on the social rules for interaction, and intervening when groups encounter problems. Regarding the reported challenges in implementing the CL approach, the teachers’ role in implementing the CL deserves careful attention in discerning the effects of this approach for the social inclusion of children with SEN.

The Present Study

Concerning the need to study interventions that may promote social inclusion for children with SEN ( Garrote et al., 2017 ), this study aims to contribute to previous research by investigating the effect of CL on social inclusion in classrooms in which children with SEN are educated alongside with their peers. Following a view of social inclusion as a multidimensional construct ( Koster et al., 2009 ), the study focuses on three aspects of inclusion, peer acceptance, friendships, and children’s perceptions of classroom relationships. Also, concerning challenges in implementing the CL approach ( Gillies and Boyle, 2010 ; Buchs et al., 2017 ), a special focus is devoted to the teacher implementation of the CL approach. The research questions are:

(a) What is the effect of CL approach and the effect of degree of CL implementation on children’s perceptions of classroom relationships?

(b) What is the effect of CL approach and the effect of degree of CL implementation on children’s social acceptance and friendships?

Materials and Methods

A cluster-randomized experimental design was used to investigate the effects of CL on children’s social inclusion. The study was conducted per the guidelines for good research practices stipulated in the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity ( All European Academies [ALLEA], 2017 ). Before starting the study, ethical approval (Dnr 2017/372) was obtained from the Swedish National Ethical Committee.

Participants

The study’s participants were 56 teachers of 958 fifth graders, aged 11 (498 boys and 460 girls). After recruitment and the submittal of informed consent by the teachers, the children, and their parents, the teachers and their classes were randomly assigned to intervention and control groups. Furthermore, to ensure equal prerequisites in the intervention and control groups, before the randomization, the teachers were divided into three groups based on their reports of previous knowledge and experience of CL. These groups were: (a) having knowledge and experience of CL, (b) having some knowledge or experience of CL, and (c) having no knowledge or experience of CL. The randomization was conducted within each group. Teachers working at the same school were randomized to the same group. As seen in Table 1 , an approximately equal proportion of teachers in the intervention and control groups had knowledge and experience of CL.

Table 1. Background characteristics of classes and teachers in intervention and control groups.

Further, as seen in Table 1 , the average class size was 27 children, and in 75% of classes, the proportion of children with SEN was 33–36%. In Sweden, the identification of special needs is not dependent on a medical diagnosis. Instead, it is up to the teachers and school welfare teams to determine which children are entitled to special support ( Swedish National Educational Agency [SNAE], 2014 ). Children can receive two types of special support: extra adaptations and special support, documented in an individual educational plan (IEP). Thus, the proportion of children with SEN include those in need of extra adaptations and those who received support. Owing to regulations on the protection of individuals ( SFS 2009:400, 2009 ), the information on children’s need for special support or type of special needs on an individual or school level is not accessible to researchers. Therefore, a special letter of consent was sent to children’s parents, asking them to approve teachers’ providing the researchers with information on their child’s need for special support. As the parents of only 12 students gave their approval for this, information on special support was retrieved through teacher reports on the class level.

Power analyses showed a need to recruit 51 classes and 1,020 children, based on an expected effect size of 0.30 and power of 80%, with an expected amount of 20 children per class and an intraclass correlation of 0.10. Therefore, 56 teachers, responsible for 1,169 fifth graders in 52 classes at 28 schools, were recruited. However, informed consent was obtained from the parents of only 958 children (463 in the intervention group and 495 in the control group). Furthermore, the attrition rate for pre- and post-measurement was 35% for perceptions of classroom relationships, so that 624 children were included in the analyses upon listwise deletion. For measures of peer acceptance and friendships, the attrition was 28%, resulting in analyses of data from 689 children. The reasons for attrition were teacher dropout from the study due to sick leave and personal circumstances (five teachers in the intervention group and two teachers in the control group). In addition, some teachers did not send the questionnaires to the researchers as intended, and some children were absent on the day of data collection.

In Appendix Tables A1 , A2 , the groups of children with missing values at pre- and post-measurement are compared with the children who participated in the study at both pre- and post-measurement. Comparisons between the groups were made using independent samples T -tests. Analyses revealed some degree of attrition bias. For children’s perceptions of classroom relationships, the children with missing values at pre- or post-measurement rated academic and personal support from their classmates and cohesion in a class lower than did the children who participated in both pre- and post-measurement. Regarding social acceptance, children in the control group who dropped out of the study at post-measurement, received more most liked nominations than the children who did not drop out. For friendships, significant differences between the groups were found in the intervention group. Children with missing values at pre- and post-measurement had significantly fewer reciprocated nominations than the children in the study.

Intervention

Teachers in the intervention group received 5 days of training in the CL approach, divided into three phases. In the first phase, a 2-day training focused on the five principles of the CL approach, the creation of heterogeneous groups, and group-building activities. The participating teachers created lesson plans for activities that embedded the five principles of CL. The first phase of training lasted for 7 weeks. This phase also included a classroom visit for each teacher, during which researchers observed one lesson and provided feedback. During the school visit, the data on the quality of implementation of CL were collected.

The second phase of the training focused on embedding the CL principles in mathematics and literacy curriculum activities during 2 days of training. The researchers elaborated scripts of activities in mathematical problem-solving and reading comprehension, incorporating the five principles of CL. The second phase lasted for 6 weeks and included a classroom visit and personal feedback to each teacher, which also served as a data collection point. The third phase encompassed 1 day of training, scheduled 2 weeks before the end of the study. The training was based on the classrooms’ observations and focused on the CL approach’s theoretical foundations and additional activities to promote student interaction in groups.

In all the phases, in accordance with previous research on the implementation of CL ( Jolliffe, 2015 ), the teachers were invited to participate in the activities they were to conduct with their children. The teachers were supported with training materials describing the theory behind CL, and activities and strategies aligned with its five principles, positive interdependence, individual accountability, promotive interaction, teaching social skills, and group processing ( Klang et al., 2018 ). Based on the Learning Together approach ( Johnson et al., 1993 , 2009 ), the training materials were developed in cooperation with four teachers and 90 children who were not participants in the study.

The five principles of cooperation were ensured in all the activities. To promote positive interdependence, the teachers devoted time to group-building activities. After the teachers formed the groups, the children created a name and logo for them. The teachers introduced each lesson with their group’s common goal and emphasized group performance rather than individual performance. Tasks were structured to ensure that the children would be dependent on each other’s information or knowledge. For individual accountability, the tasks were introduced by emphasizing that each group member is responsible for the group’s work. At the end of each lesson, the children were asked to report on a task’s results. They did this either individually or rotated between different groups where a group member reported the results of their group’s work to the other groups. For promotive interaction, the teachers ensured that the children were seated near each other and shared the task’s materials.

To promote social skills, the teachers introduced one or two social skills per lesson. The same social skill was focused on for 1 or 2 weeks. The social skill was visible on the whiteboard, and activities to practice it were conducted. The teachers encouraged the children to practice their social skills and praised them when they did. For group processing, the teachers allowed time to evaluate the groups’ collaboration and decide on future strategies at the end of each lesson. The teachers worked on CL 3 to 4 days a week for 15 weeks. The groups were heterogeneous in terms of academic and social abilities, and the group composition alternated every 4 weeks.

Implementation of the CL Approach

Data on the fidelity of implementation included both adherence and dosage, in accordance with standards for evidence-based practices ( Council for Exceptional Children, 2014 ). Data on implementation related to dosage was collected through teacher self-reports. Five times during the intervention period, the teachers were asked to provide information on the amount of time they devoted to CL over 2 weeks. Data on the quantity of implementation showed that in 21 of the 27 classes, the teachers reported having applied CL at least three to four times a week and in two classes in less than three to four lessons; no information was provided for the remaining four classes. Data on adherence were collected through observations using an observation protocol based on the principles of CL ( Johnson et al., 2009 ). The observations revealed that most teachers implemented the CL intervention consistently through the intervention period, although the degree of implementation varied (see “Measures” section).

Control Condition

Teachers in the control condition were instructed to teach as usual. Due to a lack of time and resources, the observations in the control condition could not be conducted. To ensure that the teachers were interested in participating in the project, they received two lectures on mathematical problem-solving and reading comprehension despite being part of the control group. No cooperative activities were held.

According to a broad definition of social inclusion ( Koster et al., 2009 ), data on children’s social acceptance and friendships were collected through peer nominations. The children’s perception of classroom relationships was measured using the Classroom Life Instrument ( Johnson and Johnson, 1983 ). Data on teacher implementation of the CL approach were gathered through lesson observations during school visits.

Perceived Classroom Relationships

The Classroom Life Instrument ( Johnson and Johnson, 1983 ) consists of 16 separate scales aiming to explore children’s perceptions of classroom relationships. The instrument has shown acceptable reliability and validity ( Johnson et al., 1983 ; Bertucci et al., 2016 ). Four scales from the instrument were used in this study. Two scales, Peer Personal Support (four items) and Peer Academic Support (five items), were used to measure children’s perceptions of peer support. Two indicators of overall classroom climate, related to inclusion, were added: Class cohesion (five items) and Valuing heterogeneity (four items). A five-step Likert scale was used, ranging from 1 (“Completely false”) to 5 (“Completely true”). The Student Academic Support scale includes four items focusing on children’s perceptions of peer support and how much peers care about their classmates’ learning, schoolwork, and school attendance. The Cronbach’s alpha value for this scale was 0.748. The Student Personal Support scale includes five items encompassing children’s perceptions of appreciation, friendship, and care from peers. The Cronbach’s alpha value for this scale was 0.841. The Class Cohesion scale includes five items on whether all children in the class are friends and know each other well, and a reversed question on feelings of loneliness. The Cronbach’s alpha value for this scale was 0.678. The Valuing Heterogeneity scale includes four questions on whether children appreciate learning from children who are different and if they perceive it as fun to work with and learn from them. The Cronbach’s alpha value for this scale was 0.739. The items in the four scales were translated and back-translated by two researchers following guidelines for cultural translation and adaptation ( Brislin, 1970 ). The scales were pilot-tested with four teachers and 90 children in fifth grade prior to their use in the study. The pilot study showed that all the items in the scales were easy for the children to understand and respond to.

Peer Acceptance and Friendships

Peer social acceptance was investigated through most liked peer nominations, and peer friendships were calculated through reciprocal nominations. Negative nominations were avoided due to ethical considerations as well as the teachers’ and parents’ concerns regarding the effect of negative nominations on the children’s relationships ( Child and Nind, 2013 ). Furthermore, the nominations were not limited to a certain number of children in a class, as unlimited nominations have higher ecological validity ( Avramidis et al., 2017 ; Cillessen and Marks, 2017 ). Therefore, all children in a class could be selected, in accordance with the method used by Roistacher (1974) . A matrix with two columns (“Who would you like to be friends with?” and “Who would you like to work in a group with?”) and rows representing the names of all the children in the class was used. The data for the students without parental consent were not included in the analyses. However, nominations from all submitted questionnaires in the classroom were included, when counting the nominations’ proportion for the students with parental consent. Proportion scores, calculated by dividing the number of nominations by the number of nominators, were used in the analyses ( Velásquez et al., 2013 ).

Degree of CL Implementation

During the first school visit, the main author and a research assistant conducted observations in 14 classes. Inter-rater reliability, counted by dividing the number of agreements by the total number of ratings, was 76%. The observation protocol included eight domains, including the introduction of knowledge and social goals, ensuring the five principles of cooperation, and seating arrangements (see Table 2 ). As seen in the table, the observations were rated using a three-step scale: 0 (“Not present”), 1 (“Minimal requirements for implementation fulfilled–partial implementation”), and 2 (“All the requirements for implementation are fulfilled–full implementation”). The definitions of the three steps are presented in Table 2 .

Table 2. Data on implementation adherence.

A rating of 1 was assigned when the dimension was present at the beginning of the lesson, while a rating of 2 was assigned when the dimension was focused from beginning to the end of the lesson. For example, concerning the dimension of social skills, a rating of 1 was assigned to lessons in which the teacher introduced a social skill at the beginning of the lesson. A rating of 2 was assigned to lessons in which the teacher introduced the skills, explicitly accentuated the social skills during the lesson or provided praise for using them. As seen in the table, most of the teachers implemented six of the eight dimensions at least at a minimal level throughout the intervention period. It is also important to note that the lessons varied in the implementation of the dimensions, and there were no lessons in which all dimensions were not fully implemented.

As seen in Table 2 , two dimensions–individual accountability and group processing–were not fully implemented by the teachers. For individual accountability, a higher number of teachers implemented this dimension during the second school visit. For group processing, the number of teachers who implemented this dimension was relatively low during the whole intervention period. In addition, as seen in the table, fewer teachers fully implemented all the dimensions, indicating that they introduced the dimensions but did not follow up and use them throughout the lesson. The data on implementation were aggregated to investigate the effect of the degree of teacher implementation of CL on children’s outcomes. The classes in which the aggregated ratings for the eight dimensions were lower than 16 for two observations were assigned the category “partially implemented,” while the classes in which the aggregated ratings exceeded 16 were assigned category “fully implemented.” These categories were further used in quantitative analyses of the effect of CL on children’s ratings of classroom relationships, social acceptance, and friendships.

Statistical Analyses

Multiple multilevel regression analyses with a two-level structure were conducted ( Twisk, 2006 ). Multilevel regression analyses allowed to account for the nested structure of the data, in which students’ responses were nested within their classrooms. The analyses were performed in R software, lme4 package, and children’s classrooms were considered a level 2 variable. The assumptions of normality of residuals, controlled by visual inspection of quantile-quantile plots, were met for all the variables. The number of outliers, which had a studentized residual value greater than ±3 varied from 0 to 15. In a case-by-case inspection, outliers with a value of Cook’s distance larger than 1 were deleted. Regression analyses were run on data, including and excluding outliers. As the results of the analyses did not differ, the decision was made to keep the outliers. The assumption of multicollinearity was met as variance inflation factors (VIF) were not greater than 10. The missing data were handled by listwise deletion, in which all the cases with missing values at pre- or post-measurement were deleted prior to the analyses.

Two multilevel models were used in the analyses. In the first model, students’ ratings of perceived classroom relationships as well as scores on social acceptance and friendships were studied as a function of time (pre- and post-measurement) and group belonging (intervention and control group), including an interaction between time and group. To account for variation in children’s pre-test scores within classrooms and individuals, two random intercepts were included, varying by class and individuals’ identification codes. When a random slope was added to the model, the random effects parameters could not be estimated, owing to a limited number of cases. Therefore, a decision was made to report the results of a model with two random intercepts, accounting for variation in students’ pre-test scores across classrooms. The second model was similar to the first model, except that the group belonging variable had three levels (control, CL partially implemented, and CL fully implemented). This was done to investigate the effect of the degree of implementation on children’s outcomes.

What Is the Effect of the CL Approach and the CL Degree of Implementation on Children’s Perceptions of Classroom Relationships?

The results of multiple multilevel regression for children’s ratings of perceived classroom relationships are presented in Table 3 . As seen in Table 3 , in the first regression model, including the CL group and control group, the regression analyses’ results are not significant. Thus, it is not possible to conclude that being part of an intervention group using CL could be associated with higher ratings in children’s classroom relationship perceptions. In addition, Table 3 reports the results of the second regression model, including the control group and CL approach, partially and fully implemented. As seen in the table, the results are not significant, which indicates that the degree of implementation did not affect children’s perception of classroom relationships. Overall, the results show that the CL approach did not affect children’s perceptions of classroom relationships, regardless of whether the CL approach was fully implemented.

Table 3. Mean scores (standard deviation in parentheses), unstandardized multilevel regression estimates, and intraclass correlation coefficients for children’s ratings of perceived classroom relationships.

What Is the Effect of CL Approach and CL Degree of Implementation on Children’s Social Acceptance and Friendships?

The results of the two regression models for children’s social acceptance, studied by most liked nominations of their classmates as friends or groupmates, and children’s friendships, examined by reciprocated nominations, are presented in Table 4 . As seen in the table, the CL approach had a significant effect on children’s social acceptance. However, the magnitude of regression coefficients is small, indicating that being part of a CL group could only lead to a small increase in most liked nominations. Furthermore, the results are significant in the second model, differentiating full and partial implementation of the CL approach from the control group. For most liked nominations as a friend, the effect is significant for the partially implemented CL approach compared to the control group. For most liked nominations as a groupmate, the effect is significant for a fully implemented CL approach. Thus, the second model results indicate that the degree of implementation might be important, but the results are not consistent across the two variables. For children’s friendships, measured through reciprocal nominations, there was no significant effect of the CL approach over the control group or significant effect of full or partial implementation of the CL approach compared with the control group.

Table 4. Mean scores (standard deviations in parentheses), unstandardized multilevel regression estimates and intraclass correlation coefficients for children’s social acceptance and friendships.

Having friends and positive relationships with peers is an important part of children’s school experiences, but research shows that it is not always the case for children with SEN ( Pijl et al., 2010 ; Nepi et al., 2015 ; Schwab, 2015 ). Therefore, there is a need for research on interventions that promote social inclusion. This study, guided by research on the importance of contextual factors for inclusion ( de Boer et al., 2013 ; Gasser et al., 2017 ), investigated the effects of the CL approach on social inclusion. While the CL approach is effective in whole-class approaches ( Johnson and Johnson, 2002 ; Roseth et al., 2008 ), fewer studies have been conducted on its benefits for children with SEN ( Garrote et al., 2017 ).

The study results showed that the CL approach had a small but significant effect on children’s social acceptance, but not on children’s friendships and perceptions of classroom relationships. Thus, the results corroborate previous findings on the effect of CL on social acceptance ( Putnam et al., 1996 ; Jacques et al., 1998 ; André et al., 2011 ; Capodieci et al., 2019 ). Longitudinal studies reveal that patterns of friendships of children with SEN tend to remain stable over time ( Frederickson and Furnham, 2001 ; Frostad et al., 2011 ; Schwab, 2019 ) and thus may be resistant to change. The CL intervention in this study lasted for 15 weeks. Hence, more time may be required to influence children’s friendships. Future studies are needed to extend CL interventions over longer periods of time.

The study results indicate that the CL approach, implemented with the duration and intensity of this specific study, does not lead to social inclusion. In previous research, unequal participation patterns were observed in heterogeneous groups ( Cohen, 1994 ; Mulryan, 1995 ). These patterns may be exposed during group formation when roles and norms are established in cooperative groups. Children with SEN may be particularly vulnerable in these situations. Children’s inclusion decisions are complex, and they may be influenced by considerations of their group’s functioning and norms ( Gasser et al., 2014 , 2017 ). Thus, teachers may need to consider the classroom norms when using the CL approach and accentuate inclusive classroom norms, valuing diversity and equal participation.

The CL approach assumes that children develop positive experiences of group work through a feeling of interdependence, created through the five principles of the approach, including positive interdependence, individual accountability, promotive interaction, explicit instruction in social skills, and group processing ( Johnson and Johnson, 2009 ). Studies of CL, focusing on social inclusion of children with SEN, reported on the need for additional training in social skills ( Gillies and Ashman, 1997 , 2000 ; Baines et al., 2015 ; Capodieci et al., 2019 ). Moreover, specific procedures to ensure positive interdependence were used by aggregating team results on individual scores ( André et al., 2011 ). In this study, the implementation of the five CL principles was assured through activities and materials. Based on the lack of a significant effect on social inclusion, future studies of the CL approach may be necessary to further accentuate training in social skills and to promote positive interdependence among group members.

As highlighted above, implementing a CL approach appears to be a formidable task for teachers. Therefore, it is important to explore how the CL approach can be incorporated into the teachers’ everyday practices. In this study, the degree of CL implementation did not affect children’s perceptions of their classroom relationships or friendships. It had, though, a significant effect on children’s social acceptance as a groupmate. However, the observational data on implementation revealed that not all teachers fully implemented the CL approach in their classes. The dimensions of CL that were not sufficiently implemented were individual accountability and group processing. While individual accountability had been implemented by most teachers by the end of the intervention, not all the teachers in the intervention group devoted time to group processing. The groups need to evaluate their work and plan future actions to function well ( Johnson et al., 1993 , 2009 ). Given the importance of group processing, it is troubling that this element was not consistently used in the intervention. Teachers may struggle with the time needed to prepare lessons and fit the CL approach into the classroom curriculum ( Gillies and Boyle, 2010 ; Buchs et al., 2017 ). Future studies should focus on how the CL approach can be fully implemented concerning teachers’ everyday practices.

Another aspect of the implementation of CL concerns the teacher’s role in CL. In this study, as seen from the observations of the teachers’ practices, they successfully introduced the principles of CL at the beginning of the lesson, but these principles were seldom followed up throughout the lesson. Previous research has emphasized the importance of teacher framing expectations for social rules and norms in group work ( Webb et al., 2006 ; Baker et al., 2017 ). As the teacher’s role shifts from that of providing direct instruction to one of scaffolding group work, teacher guidance of group work through prompting, praising successful group processes, or modeling is essential ( Blatchford et al., 2006 ; Lin et al., 2015 ). The identified challenges in CL implementation in this study suggest a need for further research on the teacher’s role in CL, including video observations of teaching and interviews with both teachers and children.

Previous studies have emphasized CL’s complexity, as it is not simply a technique but requires a shift from a teacher-led to a child-focused pedagogy ( Hennessey and Dionigi, 2013 ; Ghaith, 2018 ). Thus, an intervention of 15 weeks may have been insufficient to give rise to these profound changes in teacher practices. Some researchers advocate whole-school approaches in the implementation of CL ( Sharan, 2010 ; Jolliffe, 2015 ), arguing that to change the cooperation climate in the classroom, teachers need to change the way they cooperate with colleagues. In this study, individual teachers rather than schools were recruited for participation. Further studies on the implementation of CL may need to consider the importance of teacher teams in the implementation.

Limitations

The present study has several limitations. Firstly, due to regulations concerning the protection of individuals in Sweden ( SFS 2009:400, 2009 ), the data on individual children’s need for special support could not be disclosed without the children’s legal guardians’ permission. Upon the sending of an additional letter of consent, data on individual children’s need for special support was retrieved for only 12 children, thus leaving no space for meaningful investigation of the benefits of CL for these children. However, based on the teachers’ reports, 75% of the classes in the study had 33–36% children with SEN. So, although it is not possible to draw conclusions about the benefits of CL for individual children with SEN, the study contributes to research on the use of CL in classes with SEN children.

The second limitation concerns the teachers in the study. Upon recruitment, it was clear that the teachers were interested in using the CL approach for inclusion. Teachers in both the intervention and the control group had some knowledge and experience of CL. Although the teachers in the control group were not encouraged to use CL, their teaching may have contained elements of it. Due to a lack of time and resources, data on teaching in the control group were not collected, thus constituting a threat to the study’s internal validity.

The third limitation concerns attrition bias in the study, which may also have influenced its internal validity. Analyses revealed significant differences between the groups of children with missing values and the groups of children who participated from the beginning to the end of the study: those who dropped out of the study rated their classroom relationships lower and had fewer friendships. Attrition bias may indicate that introducing CL in classes characterized by lower cohesion, less positively perceived classroom relationships, and fewer friendships at the start may be more difficult and lead to participant dropout.

Finally, the conclusions from the study may be limited due to the choice of outcome measures. In this study, only three of four dimensions of social inclusion ( Koster et al., 2009 ) were investigated: peer social acceptance, friendships, and perceptions of children’s classroom relationships. Data on peer interaction dimension were not collected. Observations of interactions among the children in the classrooms and during breaks might have rendered more accurate and ecologically valid measures.

Implications

Despite reforms to ensure access to mainstream schools for children with SEN, social inclusion remains a challenge. This study focused on CL as an intervention to improve social inclusion in classrooms with students with SEN. It was assumed that this method could alternate the patterns of peer relationships in the classrooms by engaging children in heterogeneous groups in which the work was structured following the principles of productive collaboration. Although the study results showed small to non-significant effects of the CL approach on social inclusion, they may–with reservations regarding the study’s limitations–offer important insight into when an intervention to support inclusion is not sufficient. The results indicate that, merely using CL approach may not lead to profound changes in social inclusion. In order for CL to be an effective practice, there is a need to look into teachers’ everyday practices of CL in classrooms to understand how and why CL may promote social inclusion. In this regard, it is especially important to study how teachers can create optimal conditions for cooperation in heterogeneous groups.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors.

Ethics Statement

The project was approved by Uppsala Ethical Regional Committee, Dnr. 2017/372. Written informed consent to participate in this study was provided by the participants’ legal guardian/next of kin.

Author Contributions

NK and GL has participated in data collection, data analysis, and data interpretation. IO and JW has participated in data analysis and data interpretation. NF has participated in data collection, in the design of the intervention study, and in data interpretation. CN has participated in the design of the project and in data interpretation. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

This work was supported by the Swedish Research Council under Grant 2016-04679.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

We would like to express our gratitude to Maj Stoddard, a teacher, who contributed to the project with her great knowledge and experience of CL approach.

Abrami, P. C., Poulsen, C., and Chambers, B. (2004). Teacher motivation to implement an educational innovation: factors differentiating users and non-users of cooperative learning. Educat. Psychol. 24, 201–216. doi: 10.1080/0144341032000160146

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

All European Academies (ALLEA) (2017). The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (Revised Edition). Berlin: Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities.

Google Scholar

André, A., Deneuve, P., and Louvet, B. (2011). Cooperative learning in physical education and acceptance of children with learning disabilities. J. Appl. Sport Psychol. 23, 474–485. doi: 10.1080/10413200.2011.580826

Avramidis, E., Avgeri, G., and Strogilos, V. (2018). Social participation and friendship quality of children with special educational needs in regular Greek primary schools. Eur. J. Spec. Needs Educat. 33, 221–234. doi: 10.1080/08856257.2018.1424779

Avramidis, E., Strogilos, V., Aroni, K., and Kantaraki, C. T. (2017). Using sociometric techniques to assess the social impacts of inclusion: some methodological considerations. Educ. Res. Rev. 20, 68–80. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2016.11.004

Baines, E., Blatchford, P., and Webster, R. (2015). The challenges of implementing group work in primary school classrooms and including pupils with special educational needs. Education 3-13 43, 15–29. doi: 10.1080/03004279.2015.961689

Baker, A. R., Lin, T., Chen, J., Paul, N., Anderson, R. C., and Nguyen-Jahiel, K. (2017). Effects of teacher framing on student engagement during collaborative reasoning discussions. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 51, 253–266. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2017.08.007

Banks, J., McCoy, S., and Frawley, D. (2018). One of the gang? peer relations among children with special educational needs in Irish mainstream primary schools. Eur. J. Spec. Needs Educ. 33, 396–411. doi: 10.1080/08856257.2017.1327397

Bertucci, A., Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., and Conte, S. (2016). Effect of task and goal interdependence on achievement, cooperation, and support among elementary school children. Int. J. Educ. Res. 79, 97–105. doi: 10.1016/j.ijer.2016.06.011

Blatchford, P., Baines, E., Rubie-Davies, C., Bassett, P., and Chowne, A. (2006). The effect of a new approach to group work on pupil-pupil and teacher-pupil interactions. J. Educ. Psychol. 98, 750–765. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.98.4.750

Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 1, 185–216. doi: 10.1177/135910457000100301

Buchs, C., Filippou, D., Pulfrey, C., and Volpé, Y. (2017). Challenges for cooperative learning implementation: reports from elementary school teachers. J. Educ. Teach. 43, 296–306. doi: 10.1080/02607476.2017.1321673

Capodieci, A., Rivetti, T., and Cornoldi, C. (2019). A cooperative learning classroom intervention for increasing peer’s acceptance of children with ADHD. J. Attent. Disord. 23, 282–292. doi: 10.1177/1087054716666952

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Child, S., and Nind, M. (2013). Sociometric methods and difference: a force for good – or yet more harm. Disabil. Soc. 28, 1012–1023. doi: 10.1080/09687599.2012.741517

Cillessen, A. H. N., and Marks, P. E. L. (2017). “Methodological choices in peer nomination research,” in New Directions in Peer Nomination Methodology , Vol. 157, eds P. E. L. Marks and A. H. N. Cillessen (New York, NY: New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development), 21–44. doi: 10.1002/cad.20206

Cillessen, A. H. N., and Mayeux, L. (2004). “Sociometric status and peer group behavior: previous findings and current directions,” in Children’s Peer Relations: From Development to Intervention , eds J. B. Kupersmidt and K. A. Dodge (Washington, DC: American Psychological Association).

Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: conditions for productive small groups. Rev. Educ. Res. 64, 1–35. doi: 10.3102/00346543064001001

Council for Exceptional Children (2014). Standards for Evidence-Based Practices in Special Education. Available online at: https://www.cec.sped.org/~/media/Images/Standards/CEC%20EBP%20Standards%20cover/CECs%20Evidence%20Based%20Practice%20Standards.pdf on the 6 th of July, 2020 (accessed July 6, 2020).

de Boer, A., Pijl, S. J., Post, W., and Minnaert, A. (2013). Peer acceptance and friendships of children with disabilities in general education: the role of child, peer, and classroom variables. Soc. Dev. 22, 831–844. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9507.2012.00670.x

Frederickson, N. L., and Furnham, A. F. (2001). The long-term stability of sociometric status classification: a longitudinal study of included pupils who have moderate learning difficulties and their mainstream peers. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 42, 581–592. doi: 10.1017/S0021963001007260

Frostad, P., Mjaavatn, P. E., and Pijl, S. J. (2011). The stability of social relations among adolescents with special educational needs (SEN) in regular schools in norway. Lond. Rev. Educ. 9, 83–94. doi: 10.1080/14748460.2011.550438

Garrote, A., Sermier Dessemontet, R., and Moser Opitz, E. (2017). Facilitating the social participation of pupils with special educational needs in mainstream schools: a review of school-based interventions. Educ. Res. Rev. 20, 12–23. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2016.11.00

Gasser, L., Grütter, J., and Torchetti, L. (2018). Inclusive classroom norms, children’s sympathy, and intended inclusion toward children with hyperactive behavior. J. Sch. Psychol. 71, 72–84. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2018.10.005

Gasser, L., Grütter, J., Torchetti, L., and Buholzer, A. (2017). Competitive classroom norms and exclusion of children with academic and behavior difficulties. J. Appl. Dev. Psychol. 49, 1–11. doi: 10.1016/j.appdev.2016.12.002

Gasser, L., Malti, T., and Buholzer, A. (2014). Swiss children’s moral and psychological judgments about inclusion and exclusion of children with disabilities. Child Dev. 85, 532–548. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12124

Ghaith, G. M. (2018). Teacher perceptions of the challenges of implementing concrete and conceptual cooperative learning. Issues Educ. Res. 28, 385–404.

Gillies, R. M. (2016). Cooperative learning: review of research and practice. Austr. J. Teach. Educ. 41, 39–54. doi: 10.14221/ajte.2016v41n3.3

Gillies, R. M., and Ashman, A. F. (1997). The effects of training in cooperative learning on differential student behavior and achievement. J. Classroom Interact. 32, 1–10.

Gillies, R. M., and Ashman, A. F. (2000). The effects of cooperative learning on children with learning difficulties in the lower elementary school. J. Spec. Educat. 34, 19–27. doi: 10.1177/002246690003400102

Gillies, R. M., and Boyle, M. (2010). Teachers’ reflections on cooperative learning: issues of implementation. Teach. Teacher Educ. 26, 933–940. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2009.10.034

Grütter, J., Gasser, L., Zuffianò, A., and Meyer, B. (2018). Promoting inclusion via Cross−Group friendship: the mediating role of change in trust and sympathy. Child Dev. 89, e414–e430. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12883

Hennessey, A., and Dionigi, R. A. (2013). Implementing cooperative learning in Australian primary schools: generalist teachers’ perspectives. Issues Educ. Res. 23, 52–68.

Huber, C., Gerullis, A., Gebhardt, M., and Schwab, S. (2018). The impact of social referencing on social acceptance of children with disabilities and migrant background: an experimental study in primary school settings. Eur. J. Spec. Needs Educat. 33, 269–285. doi: 10.1080/08856257.2018.1424778

Jacques, N., Wilton, K., and Townsend, M. (1998). Cooperative learning and social acceptance of children with mild intellectual disability. J. Intel. Disab. Res. 42, 29–36. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2788.1998.00098.x

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R., and Anderson, D. (1983). Social interdependence and classroom climate. J. Psychol. 114, 135–142. doi: 10.1080/00223980.1983.9915406

Johnson, D. W., and Johnson, R. T. (1983). Social interdependence and perceived academic and personal support in the classroom. J. Soc. Psychol. 120, 77–82. doi: 10.1080/00224545.1983.9712012

Johnson, D. W., and Johnson, R. T. (2002). Learning together and alone: overview and meta-analysis. Asia Pacific J. Educ. 22, 95–105. doi: 10.1080/0218879020220110

Johnson, D. W., and Johnson, R. T. (2008). “Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning: the teacher’s role,” in The Teacher’s Role in Implementing Cooperative Learning in the Classroom , eds R. M. Gillies, A. F. Ashman, and J. Terwel (Boston, MA: Springer).

Johnson, D. W., and Johnson, R. T. (2009). An educational psychology success story: social interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educ. Res. 38, 365–379. doi: 10.3102/0013189x09339057

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., and Johnson, H. E. (1993). Cooperation in the Classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., and Johnson, H. E. (2009). Circle of Learning: Cooperation in the Classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.

Jolliffe, W. (2015). Bridging the gap: teachers cooperating together to implement cooperative learning. Education 3-13 43, 70–82. doi: 10.1080/03004279.2015.961719

Klang, N., Fohlin, N., and Stoddard, M. (2018). Inclusion Through Learning in Group: Cooperative Learning [Inkludering Genom Lärande i Grupp: Kooperativt Lärande]. Uppsala: Uppsala University.

Koster, M., Nakken, H., Pijl, S. J., and van Houten, E. (2009). Being part of the peer group: a literature study focusing on the social dimension of inclusion in education. Int. J. Inclus. Educ. 13, 117–140. doi: 10.1080/13603110701284680

Koster, M., Pijl, S. J., Nakken, H., and Van Houten, E. (2010). Social participation of children with special needs in regular primary education in the Netherlands. Int. J. Disab. Dev. Educ. 57, 59–75. doi: 10.1080/10349120903537905

Kyndt, E., Raes, E., Lismont, B., Timmers, F., Cascallar, E., and Dochy, F. (2013). A meta-analysis of the effects of face-to-face cooperative learning. do recent studies falsify or verify earlier findings? Educ. Res. Rev. 10, 133–149. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2013.02.002

Lin, T., Jadallah, M., Anderson, R. C., Baker, A. R., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., Kim, I., et al. (2015). Less is more: teachers’ influence during peer collaboration. J. Educ. Psychol. 107, 609–629. doi: 10.1037/a0037758

Lopata, C., Miller, K. A., and Miller, R. H. (2003). Survey of actual and preferred use of cooperative learning among exemplar teachers. J. Educ. Res. 96, 232–239. doi: 10.1080/00220670309598812

Mikami, A. Y., Griggs, M. S., Lerner, M. D., Emeh, C. C., Reuland, M. M., Jack, A., et al. (2013). A randomized trial of a classroom intervention to increase peers’ social inclusion of children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 81, 100–112. doi: 10.1037/a0029654

Mulryan, C. M. (1995). Fifth and sixth graders’ involvement and participation in cooperative small groups in mathematics. Elemen. Sch. J. 95, 297–310. doi: 10.1086/461804

Nepi, L. D., Fioravanti, J., Nannini, P., and Peru, A. (2015). Social acceptance and the choosing of favourite classmates: a comparison between children with special educational needs and typically developing children in a context of full inclusion: social acceptance. Br. J. Spec. Educ. 42, 319–337. doi: 10.1111/1467-8578.12096

Pijl, S. J., Skaalvik, E. M., and Skaalvik, S. (2010). Children with special needs and the composition of their peer group. Irish Educ. Stud. 29, 57–70. doi: 10.1080/03323310903522693

Pinto, C., Baines, E., and Bakopoulou, I. (2019). The peer relations of pupils with special educational needs in mainstream primary schools: the importance of meaningful contact and interaction with peers. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 89, 818–837. doi: 10.1111/bjep.12262

Putnam, J., Markovchick, K., Johnson, D. W., and Johnson, R. T. (1996). Cooperative learning and peer acceptance of children with learning disabilities. J. Soc. Psychol. 136, 741–752. doi: 10.1080/00224545.1996.9712250

Ramberg, J., and Watkins, A. (2020). Exploring inclusive education across Europe: some insights from the European agency statistics on inclusive education. FIRE 6, 85–101.

Roistacher, R. C. (1974). A microeconomic model of sociometric choice. Sociometry 37, 219–238. doi: 10.2307/2786377

Roseth, C. J., Johnson, D. W., and Johnson, R. T. (2008). Promoting early adolescents’ achievement and peer relationships: the effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures. Psychol. Bull. 134, 223–246. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.134.2.223

Schwab, S. (2015). Social dimensions of inclusion in education of 4th and 7th grade pupils in inclusive and regular classes: outcomes from Austria. Res. Dev. Disabil. 4, 72–79. doi: 10.1016/j.ridd.2015.06.005

Schwab, S. (2019). Friendship stability among students with and without special educational needs. Educ. Stud. 45, 390–401. doi: 10.1080/03055698.2018.1509774

Schwab, S., Gebhardt, M., Krammer, M., and Gasteiger-Klicpera, B. (2015). Linking self-rated social inclusion to social behaviour. an empirical study of children with and without special education needs in secondary schools. Eur. J. Spec. Needs Educ. 30, 1–14. doi: 10.1080/08856257.2014.933550

SFS 2009:400 (2009). Offentlighets- Och Sekretesslag. [Law on Publicity and Confidentiality]. Available online at: https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningssamling/offentlighets–och-sekretesslag-2009400_sfs-2009-400 on the 14th of October (accessed October 14, 2009).

Sharan, Y. (2010). Cooperative learning for academic and social gains: valued pedagogy, problematic practice. Eur. J. Educ. 45, 300–313. doi: 10.1111/j.1465-3435.2010.01430.x

Slavin, R. E. (1996). Research on cooperative learning and achievement: what we know, what we need to know. Contem. Educ. Psychol. 21, 43–69. doi: 10.1006/ceps.1996.0004

Slavin, R. E. (2014). Cooperative learning and academic achievement: why does groupwork work? [Aprendizaje cooperativo y rendimiento académico: ¿por qué funciona el trabajo en grupo?]. Anal. Psicol. 30, 785–791. doi: 10.6018/analesps.30.3.201201

Slavin, R. E., and Cooper, R. (1999). Improving intergroup relations: lessons learned from cooperative learning programs. J. Soc. Issues 55, 647–663. doi: 10.1111/0022-4537.00140

Swedish National Educational Agency [SNAE] (2014). Support Measures in Education – On Leadership and Incentives, Extra Adaptations and Special Support [Stödinsatser i Utbildningen – Om Ledning och Stimulans, Extraanpassningar Och Särskilt Stöd]. Stockholm: Swedish National Agency of Education.

Twisk, J. W. R. (2006). Applied Multilevel Analysis: A Practical Guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Velásquez, A. M., Bukowski, W. M., and Saldarriaga, L. M. (2013). Adjusting for group size effects in peer nomination data: adjusting for group size effects. Soc. Dev. 22, 845–863. doi: 10.1111/sode.12029

Webb, N. M., Nemer, K. M., and Ing, M. (2006). Small-group reflections: parallels between teacher discourse and student behavior in peer-directed groups. J. Learn. Sci. 15, 63–119. doi: 10.1207/s15327809jls1501_8

TABLE A1. Students ratings of perceived classroom relationships in questionnaire Classroom Life Instrument, reported separately for those with missing values at pre-measurement, post-measurement and remaining participants.

TABLE A2. Students’ peer nominations, reported separately for those with missing values at pre-measurement, post-measurement, and remaining participants.

Keywords : inclusion, cooperative learning, teachers, children with special needs, intervention

Citation: Klang N, Olsson I, Wilder J, Lindqvist G, Fohlin N and Nilholm C (2020) A Cooperative Learning Intervention to Promote Social Inclusion in Heterogeneous Classrooms. Front. Psychol. 11:586489. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.586489

Received: 23 July 2020; Accepted: 17 November 2020; Published: 22 December 2020.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2020 Klang, Olsson, Wilder, Lindqvist, Fohlin and Nilholm. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Nina Klang, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Front Psychol
• PMC10713848

Focusing on the value of cooperative learning in physical education: a bibliometric analysis

1 Department of Physical Education, College of Education, Korea University, Seoul, Republic of Korea

2 Department of Education, Kyungil University, Gyeongsan, Republic of Korea

3 Department of International Culture Education, Chodang University, Muan-gun, Republic of Korea

The shift toward cooperative learning has highlighted the growing advantages of individual learning modes during the transition. Nevertheless, a systematic compilation of the precise classification and developmental dynamics of cooperative learning in PE has been absent. This study aimed to organize the existing progress and significance of collaborative learning. The study entailed a meticulous systematic review process, examining 169 articles in this domain with the aid of visualization software. The results of the study indicate that the overall use of cooperative learning in physical education is on the rise and will reach its highest level in 2021; Second, the keywords, major core scholars, journals, countries, and major research topics; the visual knowledge map reveals the major research topics of intrinsic motivation, cooperative learning, motor skills, self-learning, written expression, and pedagogical models. The research primarily centers on primary and secondary education, followed by teacher training and higher education. At the primary and secondary school levels, there is a specific focus on aspects such as motivation, teacher-student relationships, and the group atmosphere. This research also explores sustainable development and training for PE teachers, model integration, and its influence on students’ intrinsic motivation; and finally, the future directions of cooperative learning in PEare summarized. This study provides meaningful and valuable information on how cooperative learning models can be used and developed in various teaching and learning environments, physical education teacher education, and overall student development.

1. Introduction

Cooperative learning (CL) has been a topic of interest in the field of education, particularly in physical education (PE) ( Dyson and Casey, 2016 ; Casey and Quennerstedt, 2020 ; Rivera-Pérez et al., 2021 ). With the advancement of the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) ( Oke and Fernandes, 2020 ) in the education sector, artificial intelligence presents an undeniable challenge. Along with this, there is a more sophisticated social division of work ( Janoski, 2015 ), team collaboration, and collaborative learning ( Peduzzi et al., 2020 ) in teaching and training, also known as cooperative learning. Stanne et al. (1999) found that cooperative learning is more effective in promoting learners’ movement skill levels (with an effect size of 0.53) than individual effort or competition (with only 0.36) in a meta-analysis of 64 studies. Moreover, PE has been seeking education methods suitable for both social development and student needs in its development over the years. From its development in the 1980s to the present, the 21st-century cooperative learning model has been widely applied and promoted in the education field. It contains five key factors: positive interdependence, individual accountability, group processing, active interaction, and social skills ( Johnson and Johnson, 2014 ). Studies have shown that in PE, CL mainly focuses on the interactions between students and between students and teachers ( Metzler, 2017 ).

CL emphasizes the development of students, including physical, cognitive, social, and emotional aspects, which has been fully reflected in PE. According to Casey and Goodyear’s (2015) systematic analysis based on a qualitative review of 14 articles, quantitative analysis of 11 articles, and mixed-method analysis of 2 articles, CL can promote students’ positivity, listening skills, understanding and encouragement of others, and the ability to build respect, understanding, mutual encouragement, and complete learning tasks together in PE classrooms ( Silva et al., 2021a ). Most importantly, CL is implemented in a student-centered learning mode, which emphasizes students’ subjectivity ( Li and Lam, 2013 ).

On the other hand, CL in PE can enhance students’ teamwork abilities ( Dunn and Wilson, 1991 ). For example, Sánchez-Hernández et al. (2018) intervened with CL in soccer games, allowing male and female students to participate together by grouping them into teams. This reduced gender discrimination and provided more opportunities for female students to participate. Peer support and collaboration improved physical fitness and reduced gender bias. Furthermore, CL, as an intervention method, can reduce gender differences in the acquisition of motor ( Ortíz et al., 2023 ). The research also reveals that CL can effectively diminish the impacts of gender disparities and inequalities. It promotes the principles and capabilities of sustainable development education among group members, particularly in addressing fairness and inclusivity concerns in early childhood and primary education ( Cañabate et al., 2021 ). In terms of enhancing students’ cognitive and emotional development, CLnot only cultivates students’ level of sports skills but also enables them to identify their weaknesses and learn better by observing others ( Barrett, 2005 ). Through the process of promoting interaction and communication among students, CL also helps to foster good friendships and establish positive relationships among students ( Polvi and Telama, 2000 ).

From the perspective of teachers, CL shifts some of the power from the teacher to the student-centered approach ( Silva et al., 2021b ). This shift in focus poses a challenge for both pre-service and in-service teachers, breaking the traditional model of PE instruction ( Casey et al., 2009 ). Under this teaching model, there are many uncertain factors and challenges in the implementation of CL ( Casey et al., 2015 ). Therefore, in the process of sustainable professional development for PE teachers, it is important to consider how to implement CL, as well as classroom responses during the implementation process ( Casey et al., 2015 ). For future PE teachers, pre-employment teacher training is needed to enhance the effectiveness of CL implementation ( Silva et al., 2021a ).

This study offers a comprehensive overview of the development of CL in PE, with a focus on the physical and mental growth of students and the professional competencies of PE teachers. It aims to provide insights into the current research findings and trends in CL through a bibliometric visual analysis, and it is the first bibliometric visual analysis of CL in PE that complements the literature review. By utilizing CiteSpace and VOSviewer visualization software, this research analyzes the knowledge map based on relevant research in the field of CL, to provide some valuable information on the use of CL in physical education and on the professional development of PE teachers.

2. Literature review

2.1. cl model.

CLis a beneficial teaching model that helps to avoid negative competition among individuals. Individualistic learning constantly faces challenges, and therefore, peer-assisted learning and socialization relationships have gradually gained importance in the learning process ( Hartup, 1976 ). In the process of promoting comprehensive student development, physical, cognitive, social, and emotional learning problems become crucial issues that need to be effectively solved in PE ( Metzler, 2017 ). In the teaching and learning process, the aim is to achieve classroom learning goals, and in an ideal classroom, all students can learn how to collaborate with others and how to compete for fun and enjoyment, striving to achieve common learning goals ( Johnson et al., 2014 ). Therefore, in CL, individuals seek to achieve favorable outcomes for themselves or the whole group while improving their own efficiency and that of others, resulting in a situation of mutual assistance and win-win outcomes. This situation is also a way to promote cooperation and create a better future in the 21st century.

2.2. Application of CL

The development of PE has often emphasized sports, performance, and achievements, while neglecting other factors and the true needs of students ( Bailey et al., 2009 ). Research shows that CL research is more concentrated in secondary education, for primary and secondary schools to carry out CL in the student motivation, the group is divided into and teacher-student interaction can better promote the learning effect of primary and secondary school students ( Bores-Garcia et al., 2021 ). CL can effectively enhance children’s or adolescents’ participation, socialization with peers, and meet their physical and psychological needs ( Jung and Choi, 2016 ). By encouraging mutual dependence and support among students, they can collectively achieve team honor and academic success ( Er and AtaÇ, 2014 ), leading to improved academic performance ( Da Luz, 2015 ). In such a CL environment, a safe and motivating atmosphere can be created for students. Particularly in PE, the CL is especially important as it helps students avoid being passive observers, which can often occur in PE classes divided into practice and theory units.

Currently, CL has a positive impact on students’ behavioral motivation, from elementary to high school and university sports cooperation courses, and affects students’ cognitive, physical, and emotional performance ( Liu and Lipowski, 2021 ; Rivera-Pérez et al., 2021 ). In addition, using CL can improve teachers’ satisfaction with the classroom ( Gil-Arias et al., 2022 ), enhance teaching quality, evaluation ( Lopez et al., 2008 ), and promote curriculum reform and optimization under the background of technology and information ( Fernández Río, 2017 ; Kang and Kang, 2019 ), the multimodal approaches to math and PE within CL is beneficial in fostering the academic and social attitudes of pre-service teachers ( Bassachs et al., 2022 ), and promote sustainable professional development of PE teachers ( Goodyear, 2017 ). Especially with the development of intelligent systems ( Yoda, 2017 ), networks, and modern scientific and technological advances ( Jastrow et al., 2022 ), CL can be combined ingeniously, adapting to different situations and promoting the comprehensive development of students.

2.3. Value of bibliometrics

The application of bibliometrics in scientific research has been widely recognized, as it provides a useful tool for scholars to gain insights into current research topics and expand their knowledge base ( Hood and Wilson, 2001 ). With the ability to quickly sift through and cluster large volumes of literature, bibliometric tools such as CiteSpace and VOSviewer not only accelerate the production and dissemination of information, but also improve the utilization and visualization of information ( Chen et al., 2017 ). Bibliometric analysis can help researchers by providing a quantitative approach and can review the existing literature in a particular field, helping researchers to systematically understand the current state of the field and future trends ( Zhou et al., 2023a ). Bibliometrics is widely used in independent fields and also in cross-disciplinary fields, contributing to the development of multidisciplinary intersections ( Song and Wang, 2020 ). In addition, based on the development of modern computer technology, the results of this research field are presented visually with graphical and visual results that can further complement the literature analysis ( Donthu et al., 2021 ). Bibliometrics can be valuable for educational purposes as it offers learners intuitive and visual information about research in a specific field. It assists learners in locating key literature more efficiently and comprehending important information about a particular field or themes ( Huang et al., 2020 ). Additionally, bibliometrics can enhance the quality and speed of scientific research.

Additionally, these tools, in combination with computer program processing capabilities, can assist scholars in organizing, summarizing, and analyzing specific research topics. Through knowledge maps, detailed information about publications, keywords, authors, countries, institutions, journals, and even co-citation relationships can be intuitively presented. As of March 2023, bibliometrics has been widely applied in fields such as environment ( Mao et al., 2018 ), chemistry ( Shen et al., 2022 ), education and intelligent learning ( Chen et al., 2021 ), mental health ( Akintunde et al., 2021 ), and sports medicine ( Chen and Shin, 2021 ). However, there has been limited application of bibliometrics in sports education, and no scholars have conducted a visual analysis of CL.

Therefore, this study aims to conduct a bibliometric analysis of the development of cooperative learning in sports education. The objectives of this study are:

• 1) To determine the extent of publications, primary literature, research topics, keywords, authors, and journals in the field.
• 2) To identify collaborative networks and partnerships among authors and countries.
• 3) To analyze the information presented in the visual knowledge map.
• 4) To comprehend the progress of CL in PE and offer future prospects.

3.1. Database search

This section consists of three main steps, namely establishing a database of total records, analyzing the organized data using visualization software to create a knowledge map and evolution analysis. Following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Summaries and Meta-Analyses) flow chart paradigm for literature filtering, the next step was data cleaning ( Page et al., 2021 ). To achieve this goal, four main steps were followed ( Figure 1 ).

Main steps of the study process. Adapted from Leal et al. (2022) .

The first step involved clarifying the research purpose, which is to introduce the research achievements of cooperative learning in the field of physical education using bibliometric analysis.

The second step involved selecting the literature database. Web of Science (WOS) Core Collection was chosen as the main literature retrieval database for bibliometric analysis due to its high-quality research data, large audience, and long history ( Mongeon and Paul-Hus, 2016 ). The advanced search function of WOSCC was used to conduct a search with the following keywords: TS = ((“Cooperative Learning” AND “Physical education”) OR (“Collaborative Learning” AND “Physical Education”)) ( Bores-Garcia et al., 2021 ). To avoid omissions, a time span was not selected, and instead, the time period was set to end in 2023. The complete records and all relevant information related to the articles cited in the database were then exported. CiteSpace and VOSviewer were used as visualization software to conduct bibliometric analysis. These two software packages can complement each other, thus improving the quality of the visualization knowledge map ( Zhou, 2023 ).

The third step involved data cleaning of the obtained literature. Only articles were selected, duplicates were removed, and withdrawn papers were excluded. Additionally, papers that contained irrelevant titles, abstracts, and keywords were also removed. Based on previous studies, VOSviewer version 1.6.16 was used to generate the results. After the final filtering and screening, a total of 167 paper documents related to cooperative learning in physical education were included in the WOS Core Collection database. These papers were published in 69 publications, originating from 36 countries and 185 institutions, and authored by 380 authors. The literature sources were mainly from education, sports, and information technology.

3.2. Data analysis

Bibliometric analysis covers many factors such as structural presentation, dynamic changes, evaluation, prediction, and scientific measurement in the current field, and the methods adopted are more systematic. In addition, both CiteSpace ( Chen, 2006 ) and VOSviewer ( Van Eck and Waltman, 2010 ) were used in the third step as commonly used software tools for creating literature networks (such as keyword cluster analysis, author analysis, and country analysis) and shared citation information among literature (such as shared cited authors and shared cited literature).

Finally, all the results, including keywords, authors, countries, and publications, were presented in tables and visualization knowledge maps through data analysis.

4.1. Dynamic trends in CL

From Figure 2 it can be seen that CL has been applied in the field of education for a long time, but it was not until 1997 that it began to be used inPE. The previous literature search found that it was about social and moral education for high-risk children, that is, moral education in the process of human development ( Miller et al., 1997 ), and it was an empirical study. From 1997 to 2023, the trend showed a slow increase to rapid growth. Spain has the highest number of publications on cooperative learning in physical education, with 71 papers cited up to 404 times, indicating a significant amount of research in this area. The second highest is the UK, with 21 papers published and cited up to 1,842 times, mostly empirical studies that explore current teaching methods. The USA has published 20 papers and cited up to 928 times, also mostly empirical studies. China and France had 13 and 8 publications, respectively ( Table 1 ).

Trends in annual publication volume of CL in the field of PE.

Status of publication volume in the 10 most relevant countries.

In the research findings, it was observed that among the literature primarily centered on students, studies utilizing Collaborative Learning (CL) were conducted with children ( N  = 4, 3.1%), at the elementary school level ( N  = 35, 26.7%), middle school level ( N  = 20, 15.3%), high school level ( N  = 10, 7.6%), and university level ( N  = 18, 13.7%). Literature primarily focused on teachers as the subjects of research accounted for 44 articles, representing 33.6% of the total. In terms of the application of CL in PE, there is a greater concentration of research aimed at primary and secondary education, as well as teacher-centered studies ( Figure 3 ).

Research levels of CL in PE.

4.2. Keyword knowledge graph analysis

Using CiteSpace to perform cluster analysis and centrality calculation of keywords in the current field ( Figure 4 ), we can see that the clustering is mainly cantered around “physical education” and “cooperative learning,” The size of the circles represents the frequency of appearance of the keywords, and the outermost circle color represents frequent appearance in recent years. In terms of the application of CL in PE, it is mostly carried out through the relationship between teachers and students. Therefore, the centrality of “teacher” and “student” as keywords reaches 0.03 and 0.25, respectively, and the centrality of “student” is 0.22 higher than that of “teacher,” which is consistent with the goal of CL mainly targeting students for teaching ( Li and Lam, 2013 ). Moreover, as a model, CLis also constantly exploring the factors that may affect it. Therefore, the centrality of “model” and “educational model” as keywords is 0.04 and 0.05, respectively.

Keyword visualization analysis.

In Figure 5 , six cluster themes related to research are identified, which include intrinsic motivation, cooperative learning, motor skills, self-learning, written expression, and educational models. The explosive period of keywords in the application of CL in PE was visually analyzed, and it was found that the keyword “implementation” had a relatively long duration from 2013 to 2019, lasting for 6 years, which was a breakthrough in empirical research on the application of CL in the 21st century. Its impact strength value was 4.08, and it has had a significant amount of research on the roles and influences of students and teachers, which has continued from 2020 to 2023. “Motivation” had a strength value of 2.96 and has positive implications for intrinsic motivation, behavioral motivation, and student behavior in the classroom. “Teacher” had a strength value of 2.7, and “intervention” had a strength value of 1.96. These four main keywords have continued research possibilities in 2023, and they are related to COVID-19, different PE teaching modes ( Colao et al., 2020 ), online CL ( Ivone et al., 2020 ), blended education ( Hamzah et al., 2022 ), etc. in Figure 6 . The use of CL in different scenarios is a challenge and discovery that needs to be continuously explored in the future.

Keyword clustering knowledge graph.

Visual analysis of key outbreak words.

4.3. Author knowledge graph analysis

Table 2 provides an analysis of the authors, focusing on the top five authors in terms of publication volume and relevance to the main topics. It was found that three of the authors are affiliated with institutions in Spain, with publication volumes of 19, 14, and 5, and average citation rates of 11.0, 68.9, and 5.0, respectively. Spanish scholars are leading the way in research related to CL inPE, with Goodyear, Victoria A. having published 7 articles with an average citation rate of 74.1. Dyson, Ben from the United States has published 5 articles with an average citation rate of 21.6. This is consistent with the country ranking in Table 1 , where Spanish scholars account for about half of the total publications. Spanish scholars have conducted a lot of empirical research in this field. It was found that their research has a significant impact on students’ classroom satisfaction with teacher CL training and attitudes ( Martínez Benito and Sánchez Sánchez, 2020 ). They have also explored to varying degrees the integration of CL with other sports models, such as PE and game-based learning models ( Chiva-Bartoll et al., 2018 ; Evangelio et al., 2021 ).

Analysis of the top 5 authors by number of published articles.

4.4. Visualization analysis of literature and journals

Through the visualization analysis of the knowledge graph of literature ( Figure 7 ), the size of the circle represents the frequency of citation of the literature, and the color change indicates the publication year. Ntoumanis (2001) has the highest citation frequency for a single paper, which empirically analyzes the perception of movement ability and the mobilization of students’ intrinsic motivation, emphasizing their importance in PE classes. According to Dyson et al. (2004) , who are the second most cited literature, they have provided a deeper understanding of the model of PE. They emphasize that teaching should be student-centered in various PE scenarios, rather than being focused on the teacher. This is also a focus of CL, to empower students to take the lead and improve their self-directed learning abilities while engaged in cooperative learning.

Visual knowledge map of the main literature.

As shown in Figure 8 , the number of articles on CL in PE is mainly concentrated in Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy , with 17 articles published, cited 695 times, and an average citation frequency of 40.9 times, indicating the high quality of the articles. The analysis found that all of them were empirical analyzes, which studied the positive effects of CL on enhancing students’ social skills ( Silva et al., 2021a ), improving their participation in class, and promoting the formation of lifelong values while enhancing their sense of personal responsibility ( Luo et al., 2020 ). Moreover, it has a positive impact on the use of teaching methods by PE teachers and the sustainable development of their profession ( Guzmán and Payá, 2020 ).

Visual knowledge map of major journals.

Figure 9 shows that the Journal of Teaching in Physical Education is the most cited journal source, with a citation frequency of 454 and a connection strength of 8,673. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy is the second most cited, with a frequency of 264 and a connection strength of 6,097. This is followed by Sport, Education and Society , Quest , and European Physical Education , with citation frequencies of 187, 147, and 143, and connection strengths of 4,192, 3,598, and 3,389, respectively. The connection strength can help analyze the degree of closeness of the journal to this topic.

Author collaboration visual knowledge graph analysis.

4.5. Visualization analysis of author and country cooperation

A visualization analysis was conducted on authors who have published 2 or more articles together, as shown in Figure 10 . It can be observed that there are roughly 4 clusters with 5 different colors, and the thickness of the lines represents the strength of the connection between authors. The larger the circle, the stronger the author’s core leadership ability in collaborative research, and the collaboration is mainly led by scholars from Spain.

Visual knowledge map of country cooperation.

Visual analysis of collaboration between countries reveals that there is no clear clustering due to lack of collaboration between countries. The top-ranked country in terms of publication output, Spain, has closer collaboration with Portugal, the United Kingdom, and the United States, but collaborations with other countries in this field are relatively scarce. Therefore, future research should expand the scope of collaboration among countries.

4.6. Timeline graph

In visualization software, a timeline chart ( Figure 11 ) provides a clearer and more concise understanding of the main research topics in a specific field during a certain time period. Cluster 0 includes key themes such as intrinsic motivation, sports, action, and self-directed learning, which have been continuously researched from 1997 to the present. In sports teaching, student motivation, whether intrinsic or extrinsic ( Fernandez-Rio et al., 2017 ), is influenced by factors such as teachers, methods, and models. Cluster 1 mainly focuses on cooperative learning models (CL), Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) ( Gil-Arias et al., 2020 ), Jigsaw and Team Games Tournament (TGT) ( Garcia, 2021 ), PE models, and the development of theories in mixed or individual models. Cluster 2 is mainly about sports skills, PE, achievement, and peer-assisted learning. CL has been found to have a positive impact on students’ skill development and correction, academic achievement ( Ghaith, 2002 ), and learning in different projects. Cluster 3 is about self-directed learning, which is related to the individual development of students in CL. In order to help the team achieve better results, students will make their best efforts to complete their assigned tasks, ultimately resulting in better team performance. Cluster 5 is similar to Cluster 2, both exploring teaching models in the field. Cluster 6 mainly focuses on the positive effects of CL classrooms on students after empirical interventions. The socialization of students, communication and cooperation between individuals, and the promotion of personal responsibility all contribute to the development of their moral level ( Yunanda et al., 2018 ). In addition, new keywords that emerge from the combination of CL with digital information technology and artificial intelligence are worth exploring. In summary, these major clusters are all based on the expansion and exploration of “cooperative learning” and “physical education.”

Timeline of keywords for CL in PE.

5. Discussion

The purpose of this study is to use bibliometric methods to analyze the knowledge structure of CL in the field of PE. Through bibliometric analysis, a total of 167 literature references were identified in this field, coming from 69 publications, 185 institutions in 36 countries, and 380 authors. Bibliometrics, as a quantitative tool and analysis method, greatly reduces the subjectivity in information indexing and retrieval, especially when combined with visualization analysis. This can facilitate the identification of potential collaborators for scholars or countries in the field of CL. The application of CL in PE has evolved from simply adapting models to diverse development, demonstrating the superiority of CL in PE.

5.1. Dynamic trends in CL

According to the results analysis, there are four main parts. Firstly, in the field, the first three periods (1997–2013) were in the initial growth stage, during which CL was just beginning to gain attention. From 2014 to 2018, CL showed significant growth in PE, attracting scholars’ attention and being mainly empirical research to verify the learning environment for students ( Chiva-Bartoll et al., 2018 ) and explore the impact of CL on PE ( Huang et al., 2017 ; Sánchez-Hernández et al., 2018 ). The reason for this growth is mainly related to the popularity of social media and online collaboration tools, which enable multiple people to collaborate on tasks and facilitate interest and research in CL. In 2016, there were only three papers published, which may not be the peak period for CL research in PE, leading to relatively few researchers publishing relevant papers.

From 2019 to 2023, there is a rapid growth period mainly related to online education and distance learning. With the outbreak of COVID-19, many schools or institutions were forced to switch to online education, promoting research and exploration of online learning and cooperation ( Yoo et al., 2021 ). At the same time, the development and breakthrough of emerging scientific technologies and new methods and tools continue to emerge, stimulating more research interests. For example, exploring teaching using different factors and combining computer information and communication technology such as artificial intelligence ( Zhou et al., 2023b ).

5.2. Information on the value of CL

Perform visual clustering on the second set of keywords, focusing on six clustered topics related to intrinsic motivation, cooperative learning, motor, self-directed learning, influence, and educational models.

In PE teaching environment, students’ intrinsic motivation is influenced more by teachers and peers. CL can help students improve their learning enthusiasm, establish a good sports atmosphere, and actively participate in activities ( Liu and Lipowski, 2021 ). CL is also key to building good friendships among peers. Facing current issues such as depression and social isolation among students, strengthening communication and cooperation among students is crucial ( Polvi and Telama, 2000 ). A study investigating the impact of an ongoing CL intervention on student motivation has found that CL can enhance students’ intrinsic motivation. Additionally, it also confirmed that students hold positive perceptions of the classroom atmosphere created by CL ( Fernandez-Rio et al., 2017 ).

From the beginning, CL was intended to promote students’ learning of motor ( Altınkök, 2017 ), and to promote students’ physical and cognitive development. In the use of CL for teaching basketball classes, it was observed that students’ basketball skills improved, and students were able to establish positive interpersonal relationships. This study emphasizes the importance of employing suitable grouping methods based on the teaching objectives ( Yang et al., 2021 ). Through peer collaboration, mutual supervision, correction, and learning, cognitive development has also been enhanced, and the keywords are mostly centered around this topic.

Regarding self-directed learning, students are grouped in CL, with each person having different tasks. To complete the tasks, each person needs to independently complete a portion of the task ( Janoski, 2015 ). Through a controlled group experiment involving 96 students in a handball teaching unit, it was confirmed that the mixed model of CL and TGfU significantly impacts the motivational atmosphere among students compared to traditional teaching methods ( Chiva-Bartoll et al., 2018 ). There were also notable differences in students’ autonomous participation. This promotes the development of self-directed learning, focusing on influencing self-development, independent learning, and other related topics.

The exploration and influence of teaching models are also mostly explored through empirical research, with the integration and exploration of different PE models such as physical education model, teaching games of understanding model, and teaching personal and social responsibility model all recognized through teaching experiments ( Kirk, 2013 ; Kipp and Bolter, 2020 ; Anggreni et al., 2022 ). In the blend of the teaching models for PE and CL, teachers found that after 24 sessions of continuous implementation, they fostered a conducive learning environment, leading to comprehensive student development across various domains ( Gil-Arias et al., 2022 ). However, in the application of the model, it is emphasized that to ensure the authenticity and effectiveness of data within the implementation of CL, it is essential to integrate CL scenarios to secure the authenticity of the implementation ( Casey et al., 2015 ). In addition, it is clear from the keyword explosion chart and the timeline of keywords that current research is mainly focused on teachers, motivation, influence, as well as current digital communication and artificial intelligence.

Specifically, the research findings indicate that CL is more commonly employed in education focused on elementary and middle school levels with students as the subjects of study. Notably, at the elementary and middle school levels, there is a stronger emphasis on student motivation, creating a motivating atmosphere, and promoting teacher-student interactions, consistent with previous research findings ( Bores-Garcia et al., 2021 ). Approximately 44 studies (33.6%) primarily center around teachers as the subjects of research. In research centered around teachers, the primary focus lies on assessing teachers’ pedagogical competence and the utilization of instructional methods. Through a study of multiple cases, it has been observed that the implementation of CL in diverse cultural settings can result in disparate effects, posing a challenge for educators in terms of instructional strategies ( Karmina et al., 2021 ). Hence, to better facilitate the training of PE teachers in implementing CL within intricate settings, it is imperative to address challenges that may emerge during the process. These challenges encompass effective time management, fostering student motivation, and ensuring active participation in physical activities within designated areas. Additionally, research emphasizes the necessity of a strong integration of collaboration within the sports domain ( Hortigüela-Alcalá et al., 2020 ). In addition, studies involving college students primarily concentrate on whether CL can effectively improve learning outcomes, foster students’ intrinsic motivation, increase their level of engagement, and enhance satisfaction. One study has indicated that while CL is successful in boosting social and interpersonal skills, it may not be the most efficient method for enhancing learning outcomes, and it does not show any significant gender differences ( Baena-Morales et al., 2020 ). However, CL does appear to encourage greater participation of female students in sports activities ( Goodyear et al., 2014 ).

On the other hand, CL has shown significant benefits for the psychological and communication development of children ( N  = 4, 3.1%). CL can effectively improve children’s negative emotions ( Jiao et al., 2021 ). Specifically, CL can aid children, including those with autism, in increasing their interaction frequency with peers in physical education and free play environments, reducing instances of inappropriate interactions ( Lee et al., 2022 ).

In the context of authorship in Spain, visual information analysis shows that Spanish scholars have conducted research mainly on the evaluation of teachers’ activities in CL in PE ( Bermejo et al., 2020 ) conducted an empirical study on students’ satisfaction, performance, participation, and teacher evaluation diaries in the classroom through CL and found that students submitted very satisfied scores, with scores above 8 out of 10. This also proves that CL as a teaching model should not only be a method. Spain has small-scale contacts with countries such as the United Kingdom, the United States, and China, and in the future, it is necessary to continue to expand contacts between countries and scholars worldwide. Through literature analysis, American scholars have conducted empirical research on PE classes in primary and secondary schools, while China has continued research on PE classes for college students. The United Kingdom has examined CL, aiming to understand the potential and challenges of CL, improve the sustainable development of teachers’ professions, avoid structural constraints on teaching, and actively participate in CL cases. The adaptability of CL in different national backgrounds will also be further expanded.

Finally, a visualization analysis was conducted on the journals and literature sources related to CL in PE. It was found that the journals focusing on PE were the main sources of research on CL in this field. The top-ranked journal was Journal of Teaching in Physical Education , with 454 citations and a connection strength of 8,673. The second-ranked journal was Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy , with 264 citations and a connection strength of 6,097. Following these were Sport, Education and Society , Quest , and European Physical Education .

6. Conclusion and limitation

In this study, a systematic review and visual analysis of 169 documents on CL in PE from the WOS database was conducted. The specific status of CL in PE was examined using bibliometrics and following the specific processes of systematic review and meta-analysis, and the visual analysis software CiteSpace and VOSviewer were used to construct a knowledge map. The individual learning model has important research implications for the development of both learners’ and educators’ competencies in the process of changing to CL ( Liu and Lipowski, 2021 ). It is important for the development of intrinsic motivation of learners, increasing classroom participation, and improving teachers’ ability to use flexible teaching methods. Furthermore, we observed that the application of CL in PE is primarily concentrated in primary and secondary education and teacher training, with a secondary focus on university-level education. In primary and secondary education, the emphasis is primarily on student motivation, teacher-student interaction, group dynamics, and social learning. In college, the focus shifts toward enhancing students’ physical skills, learning efficiency, and participation, particularly among female students. Concerning teacher training, there is a stronger inclination toward fostering teaching methods and technological proficiency among educators. The promotion of the overall development of learners (motor, cognitive, social and affective) and the teaching ability of educators, as well as the adaptation for different teaching environments and the integration of different teaching methods still need to be further improved ( Evangelio et al., 2021 ). In the future, for the application of CL in PE, it is not only necessary to focus on combining with the current teaching techniques, but also to continue to pay attention to the development of learners’ and educators’ abilities.

This study also has some limitations, firstly, this study only describes the current dynamic trends of CL in PE from the perspective of systematic review, and does not provide a specific review through quantitative methods; secondly, the data cleaning process of the literature, in order to improve the quality of the articles reviewed, we removed the articles from conferences, posters, books, and other languages, and in the future, we should expand the scope of the literature data; Finally, the diversity of visualization and analysis software in bibliometrics, only two of them were used in this paper for the analysis, every research method has its limitations, and future studies will further conduct a specific examination and categorization of the effects of CL on educational outcomes to make the research information more clear in the future. Through this study, we hope that it can help learners and educators to provide a lot of useful and valuable information for the development and research of CL in PE.

Author contributions

TZ: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. HW: Visualization, Validation. DL: Writing – review & editing.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the researchers and study participants for their contributions.

Funding Statement

The author(s) declare financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Funding for this research was covered by the author(s) of the article.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

• Akintunde T. Y., Musa T. H., Musa H. H., Musa I. H., Chen S., Ibrahim E., et al.. (2021). Bibliometric analysis of global scientific literature on effects of COVID-19 pandemic on mental health . Asian J. Psychiatr. 63 :102753. doi: 10.1016/j.ajp.2021.102753, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Altınkök M. (2017). The effect of movement education based on cooperative learning method on the development of basic motor skills of primary school 1st grade learners . J. Balt. Sci. Educ. 16 , 241–249. doi: 10.33225/jbse/17.16.241 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Anggreni N. P., Repiyasa I. W., Dewi K. A. K. (2022). The effect of jigsaw cooperative learning model on learning outcomes of dribbling and passing using the back of the foot football game in class VII students of SMP . J. Coach. Educ. Sports 3 , 179–188. doi: 10.31599/jces.v3i2.1549 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Baena-Morales S., Jerez-Mayorga D., Fernández-González F. T., López-Morales J. (2020). The use of a cooperative-learning activity with university students: A gender experience . Sustainability 12 :9292. doi: 10.3390/su12219292 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bailey R., Armour K., Kirk D., Jess M., Pickup I., Sandford R., et al.. (2009). The educational benefits claimed for physical education and school sport: an academic review . Res. Pap. Educ. 24 , 1–27. doi: 10.1080/02671520701809817 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barrett T. (2005). Effects of cooperative learning on performance of sixth-grade physical education students . J. Teach. Phys. Educ. 24 , 88–102. doi: 10.1123/jtpe.24.1.88 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bassachs M., Serra T., Bubnys R., Cañabate D., Colomer J. (2022). Multimodal approaches to math and physical education within cooperative learning to enhance social attitudes . Sustainability 14 :16961. doi: 10.3390/su142416961 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bermejo J., Pulido D., Galmés A., Serra P., Vidal J., Ponseti F. (2020). Physical education and university: Evaluation of a teaching experience through cooperative learning . Retos 2041 , 90–97. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bores-Garcia D., Hortigüela-Alcalá D., Fernandez-Rio F. J., Gonzalez-Calvo G., Barba-Martin R. (2021). Research on cooperative learning in physical education: Systematic review of the last five years . Res. Q. Exerc. Sport 92 , 146–155. doi: 10.1080/02701367.2020.1719276, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cañabate D., Bubnys R., Nogué L., Martínez-Mínguez L., Nieva C., Colomer J. (2021). Cooperative learning to reduce inequalities: instructional approaches and dimensions . Sustainability 13 :10234. doi: 10.3390/su131810234 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Casey A., Dyson B., Campbell A. (2009). Action research in physical education: Focusing beyond myself through cooperative learning . Educ. Action Res. 17 , 407–423. doi: 10.1080/09650790903093508 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Casey A., Goodyear V. A., Dyson B. P. (2015). Model fidelity and students’ responses to an authenticated unit of cooperative learning . J. Teach. Phys. Educ. 34 , 642–660. doi: 10.1123/jtpe.2013-0227 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Casey A., Quennerstedt M. (2020). Cooperative learning in physical education encountering Dewey’s educational theory . Eur. Phys. Educ. Rev. 26 , 1023–1037. doi: 10.1177/1356336X20904075 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Casey A., Goodyear V. A. (2015). Can cooperative learning achieve the four learning outcomes of physical education? A review of literature . Quest. 67 , 56–72. doi: 10.1080/00336297.2014.984733 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen C. (2006). CiteSpace II: Detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature . J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 57 , 359–377. doi: 10.1002/asi.20317 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen W., Liu W., Geng Y., Brown M. T., Gao C., Wu R. (2017). Recent progress on emergy research: A bibliometric analysis . Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 73 , 1051–1060. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2017.02.041 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen B., Shin S. (2021). Bibliometric analysis on research trend of accidental falls in older adults by using Citespace—focused on web of science core collection (2010–2020) . Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 18 :1663. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18041663 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen X., Zou D., Xie H., Wang F. L. (2021). Past, present, and future of smart learning: a topic-based bibliometric analysis . Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ. 18 , 1–29. doi: 10.1186/s41239-020-00239-6 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chiva-Bartoll Ó., Salvador-García C., Jesús Ruiz-Montero P. (2018). Teaching games for understanding and cooperative learning: Can their hybridization increase motivational climate among physical education students? Croat. J. Educ. 20 , 561–584. doi: 10.15516/cje.v20i2.2827 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Colao A., Piscitelli P., Pulimeno M., Colazzo S., Miani A., Giannini S. (2020). Rethinking the role of the school after COVID-19 . Lancet Public Health 5 :e370. doi: 10.1016/S2468-2667(20)30124-9, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Da Luz F. S. D. R. (2015). The relationship between teachers and students in the classroom: communicative language teaching approach and cooperative learning strategy to improve learning . In: BSU Master’s Theses and Projects . Item 22. Available at: https://vc.bridgew.edu/theses/22 .
• Donthu N., Kumar S., Mukherjee D., Pandey N., Lim W. M. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines . J. Bus. Res. 133 , 285–296. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dunn S. E., Wilson R. (1991). Cooperative learning in the physical education classroom . J. Phys. Educ. Recreat. Dance 62 , 22–28. doi: 10.1080/07303084.1991.10609885 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dyson B., Casey A. Cooperative learning in physical education and physical activity: A practical introduction ; Routledge: London, (2016). [ Google Scholar ]
• Dyson B., Griffin L. L., Hastie P. (2004). Sport education, tactical games, and cooperative learning: Theoretical and pedagogical considerations . Quest 56 , 226–240. doi: 10.1080/00336297.2004.10491823 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Er S., AtaÇ B. A. (2014). Cooperative learning in ELT classes: The attitudes of students towards cooperative learning in ELT classes . Int. Online J. Educ. Teach. 1 , 109–122. Available at: http://iojet.org/index.php/IOJET/article/view/28/49 . [ Google Scholar ]
• Evangelio C., Fernández-Rio J., Peiró-Velert C., González-Víllora S. (2021). Sport education, cooperative learning and health-based physical education: another step in pedagogical models’ hybridization . J. Phys. Educ. Recreat. Dance 92 , 24–32. doi: 10.1080/07303084.2021.1977739 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fernández Río F. J. (2017). “ Quality physical education through models-based practice ” in Proceedings of the 8th International Scientific Conference On Kinesiology , 186–190.
• Fernandez-Rio J., Sanz N., Fernandez-Cando J., Santos L. (2017). Impact of a sustained Cooperative Learning intervention on student motivation . Phys. Educ. Sport Pedagog. 22 , 89–105. doi: 10.1080/17408989.2015.1123238 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Garcia M. B. (2021). Cooperative learning in computer programming: A quasi-experimental evaluation of Jigsaw teaching strategy with novice programmers . Educ. Inf. Technol. 26 , 4839–4856. doi: 10.1007/s10639-021-10502-6 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ghaith G. M. (2002). The relationship between cooperative learning, perception of social support, and academic achievement . System 30 , 263–273. doi: 10.1016/S0346-251X(02)00014-3 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gil-Arias A., Claver F., Práxedes A., Villar F. D., Harvey S. (2020). Autonomy support, motivational climate, enjoyment and perceived competence in physical education: Impact of a hybrid teaching games for understanding/sport education unit . Eur. Phys. Educ. Rev. 26 , 36–53. doi: 10.1177/1356336X18816997 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gil-Arias A., Harvey S., Morante Ó. M., Claver F., Fernández-Río J. (2022). Teacher and student’s perspectives on their experiences within hybrid sport education-cooperative learning pedagogical model units in elementary physical education . J. Teach. Phys. Educ. 1 , 1–9. doi: 10.1123/jtpe.2021-0304 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Goodyear V. A. (2017). Sustained professional development on cooperative learning: Impact on six teachers' practices and students' learning . Res. Q. Exerc. Sport 88 , 83–94. doi: 10.1080/02701367.2016.1263381, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Goodyear V. A., Casey A., Kirk D. (2014). Hiding behind the camera: Social learning within the cooperative learning model to engage girls in physical education . Sport Educ. Soc. 19 , 712–734. doi: 10.1080/13573322.2012.707124 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Guzmán J. F., Payá E. (2020). Direct instruction vs. cooperative learning in physical education: Effects on student learning, behaviors, and subjective experience . Sustainability 12 :4893. doi: 10.3390/su12124893 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hamzah H., Khairiah K., Tambak S., Hamzah M. L., Purwati A. A. (2022). Implementation of Jigsaw type cooperative learning method to increase student learning activity in Fiqh learning during COVID-19 . Int. J. Health Sci. , 4438–4446. doi: 10.53730/ijhs.v6nS1.5914 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hartup W. W. Peer interaction and the behavioral development of the individual child ; Springer; Boston, MA, (1976); pp. 203–218. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hood W., Wilson C. (2001). The literature of bibliometrics, scientometrics, and informetrics . Scientometrics 52 , 291–314. doi: 10.1023/a:1017919924342 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hortigüela-Alcalá D., Hernando-Garijo A., González-Víllora S., Pastor-Vicedo J. C., Baena-Extremera A. (2020). “Cooperative learning does not work for me”: analysis of its implementation in future physical education teachers . Front. Psychol. 11 :1539. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01539, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Huang M.-Y., Tu H.-Y., Wang W.-Y., Chen J.-F., Yu Y.-T., Chou C.-C. (2017). Effects of cooperative learning and concept mapping intervention on critical thinking and basketball skills in elementary school . Think. Skills Creat. 23 , 207–216. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2017.01.002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Huang C., Yang C., Wang S., Wu W., Su J., Liang C. (2020). Evolution of topics in education research: A systematic review using bibliometric analysis . Educ. Rev. 72 , 281–297. doi: 10.1080/00131911.2019.1566212 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ivone F. M., Jacobs G. M., Renandya W. A. (2020). Far apart, yet close together: Cooperative learning in online education . Stud. English Lang. Educ. 7 , 271–289. doi: 10.24815/siele.v7i2.17285 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Janoski T. (2015). The new division of labor as lean production . Int. J. Sociol. 45 , 85–94. doi: 10.1080/00207659.2015.1061848 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jastrow F., Greve S., Thumel M., Diekhoff H., Süßenbach J. (2022). Digital technology in physical education: A systematic review of research from 2009 to 2020 . Ger. J. Exerc. Sport Res. 52 , 504–528. doi: 10.1007/s12662-022-00848-5 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jiao W., Xue Z., Wang L. (2021). Improvement of children’s negative psychology based on cooperative learning . Revista de Psicología del Deporte 30 :63. Available at: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/es/ . [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson D. W., Johnson R. T. (2014). Cooperative learning in 21st century. [Aprendizaje cooperativo en el siglo XXI] . Ann. Psychol. 30 , 841–851. doi: 10.6018/analesps.30.3.201241 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson D. W., Johnson R. T., Smith K. A. (2014). Cooperative learning: Improving university instruction by basing practice on validated theory . J. Excellence Univ. Teach. 25 , 1–26. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jung H., Choi E. (2016). The importance of indirect teaching behaviour and its educational effects in physical education . Phys. Educ. Sport Pedagog. 21 , 121–136. doi: 10.1080/17408989.2014.923990 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kang S., Kang S. (2019). Development of curriculum model using ICT content . Proceedings of the Information Science and Applications: ICISA 2020 , 701–705. [ Google Scholar ]
• Karmina S., Dyson B., Watson P. W. S. J., Philpot R. (2021). Teacher implementation of cooperative learning in Indonesia: A multiple case study . Edu. Sci. 11 :218. doi: 10.3390/educsci11050218 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kipp L. E., Bolter N. D. (2020). Motivational climate, psychological needs, and personal and social responsibility in youth soccer: Comparisons by age group and competitive level . Psychol. Sport Exerc. 51 :101756. doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2020.101756 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kirk D. (2013). Educational value and models-based practice in physical education . Educ. Philos. Theory 45 , 973–986. doi: 10.1080/00131857.2013.785352 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Leal K. B., Robaina L. E. D. S., De Lima A. D. S. (2022). Coastal impacts of storm surges on a changing climate: a global bibliometric analysis . Nat. Hazards 114 , 1455–1476. doi: 10.1007/s11069-022-05432-6 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee G. T., He L., Xu S. (2022). Using cooperative physical activities in inclusive settings to enhance social interactions for preschoolers with autism spectrum disorder in China . J. Posit. Behav. Interv. 24 , 236–249. doi: 10.1177/10983007211035135 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Li M., Lam B. H. (2013). Cooperative learning , vol. 1 The Hong Kong Institute of Education, 33. [ Google Scholar ]
• Liu T., Lipowski M. (2021). Influence of cooperative learning intervention on the intrinsic motivation of physical education students—a meta-analysis within a limited range . Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 18 :2989. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18062989, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lopez V. M., Monjas R., Manrique J.-C., Barba J. J., Gonzalez M. (2008). Assessment implications in cooperative physical education approaches: The role of formative and shared assessment in the necessary search for coherence . Cult. Educ. 20 , 457–477. doi: 10.1174/113564008786542208 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Luo Y.-J., Lin M.-L., Hsu C.-H., Liao C.-C., Kao C.-C. (2020). The effects of team-game-tournaments application towards learning motivation and motor skills in college physical education . Sustainability 12 :6147. doi: 10.3390/su12156147 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mao G., Huang N., Chen L., Wang H. (2018). Research on biomass energy and environment from the past to the future: A bibliometric analysis . Sci. Total Environ. 635 , 1081–1090. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.04.173 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Martínez Benito R., Sánchez Sánchez G. (2020). Cooperative learning in physical education: initial challenges and developmental proposals . Rev. Educ. 44 , 19–29. doi: 10.15517/revedu.v44i1.35617 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Metzler M. (2017). Instructional models in physical education . New York: Taylor & Francis. [ Google Scholar ]
• Miller S. C., Bredemeier B. J., Shields D. L. (1997). Sociomoral education through physical education with at-risk children . Quest 49 , 114–129. doi: 10.1080/00336297.1997.10484227 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mongeon P., Paul-Hus A. (2016). The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a comparative analysis . Scientometrics 106 , 213–228. doi: 10.1007/s11192-015-1765-5 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ntoumanis N. (2001). A self-determination approach to the understanding of motivation in physical education . Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 71 , 225–242. doi: 10.1348/000709901158497 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Oke A., Fernandes F. A. P. (2020). Innovations in teaching and learning: Exploring the perceptions of the education sector on the 4th industrial revolution (4IR) . J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 6 :31. doi: 10.3390/joitmc6020031 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ortíz D. C., Gras M. E., Pinsach L., Cachón J., Colomer J. (2023). Promoting cooperative and competitive physical education methodologies for improving the launch's ability and reducing gender differences . J. Sport Health Res. 15 :15. doi: 10.58727/jshr.94911 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Page M. J., McKenzie J. E., Bossuyt P. M., Boutron I., Hoffmann T. C., Mulrow C. D., et al.. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews . Int. J. Surg. 88 :105906. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2021.105906, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Peduzzi M., Agreli H. L. F., Silva J. A. M. D., Souza H. S. D. (2020). Teamwork: revisiting the concept and its developments in inter-professional work . Trabalho, Educação e Saúde 18 :e0024678. doi: 10.1590/1981-7746-sol00246 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Polvi S., Telama R. (2000). The use of cooperative learning as a social enhancer in physical education . Scand. J. Educ. Res. 44 , 105–115. doi: 10.1080/713696660 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rivera-Pérez S., Fernandez-Rio J., Iglesias Gallego D. (2021). Effects of an 8-week cooperative learning intervention on physical education students’ task and self-approach goals, and emotional intelligence . Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 18 :61. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18010061 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sánchez-Hernández N., Martos-García D., Soler S., Flintoff A. (2018). Challenging gender relations in PE through cooperative learning and critical reflection . Sport Educ. Soc. 23 , 812–823. doi: 10.1080/13573322.2018.1487836 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shen Y., Mao S., Chen F., Zhao S., Su W., Fu L., et al.. (2022). Electrochemical detection of Sudan red series azo dyes: Bibliometrics based analysis . Food Chem. Toxicol. 163 :112960. doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2022.112960, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Silva R., Farias C., Mesquita I. (2021a). Cooperative learning contribution to student social learning and active role in the class . Sustainability 13 :8644. doi: 10.3390/su13158644 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Silva R., Farias C., Mesquita I. (2021b). Challenges faced by preservice and novice teachers in implementing student-centred models: A systematic review . Eur. Phys. Educ. Rev. 27 , 798–816. doi: 10.1177/1356336X21995216 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Song P., Wang X. (2020). A bibliometric analysis of worldwide educational artificial intelligence research development in recent twenty years . Asia Pac. Educ. Rev. 21 , 473–486. doi: 10.1007/s12564-020-09640-2 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stanne M. B., Johnson D. W., Johnson R. T. (1999). Does competition enhance or inhibit motor performance: a meta-analysis . Psychol. Bull. 125 , 133–154. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.125.1.133 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Van Eck N., Waltman L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping . Scientometrics 84 , 523–538. doi: 10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yang C., Chen R., Chen X., Lu K.-H. (2021). The efficiency of cooperative learning in physical education on the learning of action skills and learning motivation . Front. Psychol. 12 :717528. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.717528, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yoda I. The development of cooperative learning model based on local wisdom of Bali for physical education, sport and health subject in junior high school . In: Proceedings of the IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering , (2017); p. 012166.
• Yoo J.-I., Han J.-K., Youn H.-S., Jung J.-H. (2021). Comparison of health awareness in South Korean middle school students according to type of online physical education classes during the COVID-19 pandemic . Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 18 :7937. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18157937, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yunanda H., Advinda L., Sumarmin R. (2018). Effects of cooperative learning model type games teams tournament (TGT) and entry behavior student to learning competence class XI IPA senior high school 1 Lengayang . Int. J. Progress. Sci. Technol. 24 , 1333–1348. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2007.10.003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhou T. (2023). Bibliometric analysis and visualization of online education in sports . Cogent Soc. Sci. 9 :2167625. doi: 10.1080/23311886.2023.2167625 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhou T., Su Y., Huang Y., Liu K. (2023a). “ Development review: 2012–2022 physical training visualization ” in Proceedings of the 2023 4th International Conference on Education, Knowledge and Information Management (ICEKIM 2023) , 1665–1675.
• Zhou T., Wu X., Wang Y., Wang Y., Zhang S. (2023b). Application of artificial intelligence in physical education: a systematic review . Educ. Inf. Technol. , 1–18. doi: 10.1007/s10639-023-12128-2 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

• Our Mission

Research Supports Collaborative Learning

Collaborative math and discussion-based English help to promote deeper learning, critical thinking, and community at The College Preparatory School in Oakland, California.

The College Preparatory School (College Prep) in Oakland, California, is among the top 20 best prep schools in the country according to a 2010 Forbes magazine report. Over the past ten years, 100 percent of students have graduated and matriculated into college, and their average SAT scores have consistently ranked in the top tenth percentile for Math, Critical Reading, and Writing. In addition, more than one-third of students have taken Advanced Placement exams, with at least 95 percent receiving a score of three or higher. While resources at this elite independent school clearly offer advantages, the innovative and effective collaborative learning techniques used in all English and math classes also support students in reaching top national levels. This article discusses the following practices at College Prep:

• Cooperative, problem-based math

Discussion-based English

Cooperative, Problem-Based Math

In nearly every math class at College Prep, students spend almost the entire time working collaboratively in groups of four to answer problem sets from a worksheet. Four times a year, the groups work on worksheets with problem sets that require the same algorithmic thinking to solve, but each student's problem set has different numbers, so students cannot simply copy the answers from each other. For example, when solving for y, one student may have the problem 4y+3x=6, whereas another student may have 2y+5x=7.

College Prep math teacher Betsy Thomas gives her students a group test prior to the individual test for each unit during the year. The group test's questions are intentionally much more challenging than the individual test's questions to promote collaboration. The teacher randomly selects one student's work from each group and grades it as representative of the whole group, so that the entire group receives the same grade. Thus, in order for the group to succeed, all members must understand the material.

For students who know the material, formulating explanations to help their peers helps to strengthen their understanding (Webb, Farivar, and Mastergeorge, 2002). However, even when none of the group members knows the correct answer, activating one's peers as instructional resources in solving a problem has been shown to increase learning and correct responses (Smith et al., 2009).

When compared to more traditional methods where students passively receive information from a teacher, cooperative, problem-based learning has been shown to improve student engagement and retention of classroom material (Prince, 2004). More than 1200 studies comparing cooperative, competitive, and individualistic efforts have found that cooperative learning methods improve students' time on tasks and intrinsic motivation to learn, as well as students' interpersonal relationships and expectations for success (Johnson & Johnson, 2009). A meta-analysis comparing small-group work to individual work in K-12 and college classrooms also found that students working in small groups achieved significantly more than students working individually, and optimal groups for learning tended to be three- to four-member teams with lower-ability students working best in mixed groups and medium-ability students doing best in homogeneous groups. For higher-ability students, group ability levels made no difference (Lou et al., 1996).

According to more than 40 studies of elementary, middle, and high school English classrooms, discussion-based practices improve comprehension of the text and critical-thinking skills for students across ethnic backgrounds and socioeconomic contexts (Murphy, Wilkinson, Soter, Hennessey, & Alexander, 2009; Applebee, Langer, Nystrand, Gamoran, 2003). Even discussions lasting as briefly as ten minutes with three participants have been shown to improve understanding of key story events and characters (Fall, Webb, & Chudowsky, 1997).

In English classes at College Prep, as many as 16 students and a teacher sit around a large, oval-shaped table. According to Julie Anderson, an English teacher at College Prep, the oval seating arrangement allows students to see each other. "For a conversation and discussion to work, all the students need to be able to see each other and make good eye contact," she explains. Studies also find that circular or semicircular arrangements produce more on-task comments, more questions, and fewer indications of withdrawal from the class activity, as compared to seating students in rows and columns (Marx, Fuhrer, & Hartig, 1999; Rosenfield, Lambert, and Black, 1985). Researchers speculate that eye contact and social interaction can promote attention and facilitate discussion by reducing the need for hand-raising to speak (Marx et al., 1999; Rosenfield et al., 1985).

In line with research-based best practices for improving text comprehension and critical thinking, College Prep uses a student-directed discussion approach, which emphasizes using evidence from the text and questions that support multiple interpretations. The College Prep English department uses a variety of practices to promote discussion-based teaching, including the Harkness Method , in which the role of the teacher in facilitating discussion is to serve "mostly as an observer," and act as little as possible. The Harkness method at College Prep also supports text comprehension and critical thinking by emphasizing (1) using evidence from the text, (2) asking questions with multiple answers, (3) building off of others' comments, and (4) creating a nonthreatening environment.

According to a meta-analysis of the research, the discussion practices that have the greatest effects on improving students' text comprehension are (Murphy et al., 2009; Goldenberg, 1993)

• Including a thematic focus (e.g., friendship);
• Connecting the theme to background knowledge (e.g., using the text or personal experience);
• Direct teaching of skills or concepts if necessary;
• Using elicitation techniques to promote complex expression and understanding (e.g., "Tell me more. What do you mean by ___?");
• Asking students to provide support for interpretations (e.g., "How do you know? Show me where it says that. What makes you think that?");
• Asking questions with multiple answers and fewer questions with known answers;
• Communicating with connected discourse , in which teachers and students make comments that build off of what others have said;
• Fostering a nonthreatening environment and encouraging all to participate;
• Allowing student-directed discourse, in which the teacher does not hold exclusive control over who talks; instead, students volunteer or select others to speak.

To help prepare students for using the textual evidence to support their views in discussion, students at College Prep are taught how to annotate their readings during their freshman year . All discussions require that students arrive having read the text and with questions and annotations to share. Online discussions are also used to prepare for class, and Anderson's discussion guidelines require that juniors and seniors in her seminars refer to the text often to back up what they say. Students are also required to ask questions that invite debate and multiple interpretations of the text . Questions with multiple possible correct answers encourage students to participate and to negotiate and derive their own meanings from the text.

Providing students with opportunities to ask questions that examine multiple interpretations of a text has been shown to strengthen critical-thinking and reasoning skills (Murphy et al., 2009). For example, in a discussion approach called Collaborative Reasoning , the teacher poses a question likely to incite different points of view, and students provide reasons to support their positions. Collaborative reasoning aims to "encourage students to use reasoned discourse as a means for choosing among alternative perspectives on an issue" while drawing on personal experiences, background knowledge, and text for interpretive support (Murphy et al., 2009). This approach has been shown to improve argumentation and students' use of the text to defend arguments, while decreasing teacher talk and control of the topic (Murphy et al., 2009).

In accord with research-based best practices for improving text-comprehension and reasoning skills, College Prep's discussion practices emphasize acquiring and retrieving multiple meanings from the text, finding the appropriate evidence to support that point of view, and letting students steer the discussion. Most teachers at College Prep also consider student participation and collaboration when assigning the final course grade, and some research has suggested that providing students with participation credit can improve participation (Foster et al., 2009).

In both English and math classes at College Prep, students typically drive the discussion. By focusing on discussion and collaborative learning, College Prep encourages a culture where students learn the content material, as well as how to think critically and to work in teams.

Applebee, A.N., Langer, J.A., Nystrand, M., & Gamoran, A. (2003). Discussion-Based Approaches to Developing Understanding: Classroom Instruction and Student Performance in Middle and High School English . American Educational Research Journal, 40 (3), 685-730.

Fall, R., Webb, N. & Chudowsky, N. (1997). Group Discussion and Large-Scale Language Arts Assessment: Effects on Students' Comprehension. American Educational Research Journal, 37 (4), 911-942.

Foster, L. N, Krohn, K. R., McCleary, D. F., Aspiranti, K. B., Nalls, M., L., Quillivan, C. C., Taylor, C. M., & Williams, R. L. (2009). Increasing Low-Responding Students' Participation in Class Discussion . Journal of Behavioral Education, 18 (2), 173-188.

Goldenberg, C. (1993). Instructional Conversations: Promoting Comprehension through Discussion. The Reading Teacher, 46 (4), 316-326. Preview available here.

Johnson, D.W. & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An Educational Psychology Success Story: Social Interdependence Theory and Cooperative Learning . Educational Researcher, 38 (5), 365-379.

Lou, Y., Abrami, P.C., Spence, J. C., Poulsen, C., Chambers, B., & d'Apollonia, S. (1996). Within-Class Grouping: A Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66 (4), 423-458.

Marx, A., Fuhrer, U., & Hartig, T. (1999). Effects of Classroom Seating Arrangements on Children's Question-Asking . Learning Environments Research, 2 (3), 249-263.

Murphy, P. K., Wilkinson, I. A. G., Soter, A.O., Hennessey, M. N., & Alexander, J. F. (2009). Examining the Effects of Classroom Discussion on Students' High-Level Comprehension of Text: A Meta-Analysis . Journal of Educational Psychology, 101 (3), 740-764.

Prince, M. (2004). Does Active Learning Work? A Review of the Research . Journal of Engineering Education, 93 (3), 223-231.

Rosenfield, P., Lambert, N.M., & Black, A. (1985). Desk Arrangement Effects on Pupil Classroom Behavior . Journal of Educational Psychology, 77 (1), 101-108.

Smith, M. K., Wood, W. B., Adams, W. K., Wieman, C., Knight, J. K., Guild, N., et al. (2009). Why Peer Discussion Improves Student Performance on In-Class Concept Questions . Science, 323 (5910), 122-124.

Webb, N. M., Farivar, S. H., & Mastergeorge, A. M. (2002). Productive Helping in Cooperative Groups . Theory Into Practice, 41 (1), 13-20.

The College Preparatory School

Per pupil expenditures, demographics:.

23% Financial Aid or Scholarship

Search Utah State University:

Collaborative learning.

Collaborative learning is a broad strategy that can range from students working in pairs to working in groups of various sizes. The concept is based in sociocultural learning theory and constructivism and focuses on how people learn within social interactions by respecting knowledge held within the group (Ertmer & Newby, 2018; Panitz, 1999; Yang, 2023). Students can use the perspectives of other students and the shared experience of learning together to improve critical thinking skills (Kaddoura, 2013), experience deeper learning (Sembert et al., 2021), and connecting by negotiating boundaries of knowledge with peers (Yang, 2023).

On This Page

Alternative Plans

Collaborative problem solving, think-pair-share, considerations.

The purpose of collaborative learning is to allow students to:

• build knowledge within social groups through activities, 
• test out that understanding with the whole class as groups share what they have learned with each other, 
• then confirm the accuracy of their knowledge against the broader knowledge of the field by getting feedback from the instructor. (Bruffee, 1995)

Collaborative learning is not just for task division or coming to agreement, but enables students to “develop, compare, and understand multiple perspectives on an issue” (Karagiorgi & Symeou, 2011, p. 21). The classroom culture should enable groups to develop theories and refine these theories together.

Individual performance can put a lot of undo pressure on students, which is not helpful to maximize learning potential. By focusing on achieving a common goal, students are able to participate in socialization (McKeachie & Svinicki, 2006, p. 78). Students are more likely to communicate a lack of understanding to a peer than to an instructor (McKeachie & Svinicki, 2006).

In collaborative learning “group rewards (instead of individual rewards) and individual accountability (achieved by task specialization and division of labor) are critical to improving students’ achievement.” (Slavin, 1983 as referenced in Yang, 2023, p. 723)

There is distinction made in the literature between the processes of collaborative learning and cooperative learning (Bruffee, 1995; Panitz, 1999; Yang, 2023) that discusses the purpose of the interaction and distinguishes the process of learning from the product created because of working with members of a group. However, the terms have more similarities than differences. For brevity, the two terms are used interchangeably here.

Types of Collaborative Learning Activities

As previously mentioned, Collaborative Learning is a broad strategy that has a broad range of implementation strategies. Below explain some of these strategies.

Good collaborative learning tasks encourage individuals within groups to bring compelling ideas to the group to help other members of the group think about the task differently. For example, the task might be to come up with three alternative plans, pick the best, and describe the reasoning behind why the selection is preferable within the defined context. (Bruffee, 1995)

With this method the instructor provides a loosly structured problem to the student groups and the students decide how they are going to proceed in solving the problem. The following criteria must be present:

• a novel problem to be solved (i.e., as opposed to completing a routine task)
• objective accountability(i.e., the quality of the solution is visible to team members),
• differentiation of roles (i.e., team members complete different tasks), and 
• interdependency (i.e., a single person cannot solve the problem alone) (Graesser et al., 2018, p. 60)

These requirements can quite easily be met for various disciplines and skill levels.

Another well documented strategy Think-Pair-Share was developed by Dr. Frank Lyman in 1981. The strategy is to have students 1) reflect on a question or idea presented in class, 2) discuss their ideas with someone else in the class, then 3) share their own —more refined— thoughts or their peer’s thoughts with the rest of the class. In Sembert et al. (2021) Dr. Lyman provides insight into how he came up with the idea when observing a student teacher. The student teacher was having problems with the class participation with the model where only one person could talk at a time. Lyman connected the need for students to have a pause to collect their thoughts before sharing with a need for more students to be able to participate. So, he grouped the students together to share with each other before sharing their thoughts with the whole class. The Think-Pair-Share method was born.

Teaching Format Modifications

At Utah State University, courses can be taught in one of five different delivery formats, each having their own unique challenges and benefits. Below expounds on how to modify Collaborative Learning Techniques for some of those teaching formats that might not already be explicitly obvious.

Collaborative learning activities are possible in Connect and Online courses, but they require some technological mediation. For the Think-Pair-Share method, that might look something like the following:

Assign students to work with a buddy for the semester. Pairing each student with someone who is different from them can make it possible for the pair to have varying perspectives for discussion. When students work with the same partner for the duration of the course it gives them a chance to get to know each other. Allow them to pick with their partner what format of communication will work best for them (i.e. phone call, text messaging, instant messaging app, etc.). In each class period, provide at least one opportunity for students to stop and think, then connect with their buddy, then share their group perspectives with the class.

Sembert et al. (2021) used the Think-Pair-Share approach in a virtual course with live instruction via online video conferencing. Students were assigned a buddy based on their answers to a pre-course “All About Me” survey to maximize diversity, where possible. Buddies reported sharing insights with each other, asking for clarification, or getting professional support. Two of the students shared their experience in the class by noting feelings of socialization, camaraderie, and safety within the virtual environment. One of the students expressed a desire to have all his instructors use the Think-Pair-Share or buddy system.

Working in collaborative groups introduces the possibilities that students might not manage time efficiently and get off task, some students in the group may choose not participate fully or may not be able to do so for various reasons (a.k.a. “social loafing”), and lack of social skills might result in conflict or disruption to group productivity (Graesser et al., 2018, p. 62). Some structural or task ground rules and instructor coaching can help to alleviate these issues.

Collaborative inhibition is when the group that has collaborated doesn’t do as well on a recall task as a group who hasn’t worked together. Graesser et al. (2018) referenced a couple of studies (Andersson, Hitch, & Meudell, 2006; Weldon & Bellinger, 1997) which have identified this effect.

Ideas for additional collaborative learning activities can be found on the USU Teach website:

• Think-Pair-Share (Kaddoura, 2013; Sembert et al., 2021)
• Three-Step Interview (Yang, 2023)
• Case Study (Cornell University Center for Teaching Innovation, 2024)
• Team-Based Learning (Cornell University Center for Teaching Innovation, 2024)
• Jigsaw (strategy first developed by Elliot Aronson (McKeachie & Svinicki, 2006)
• Fishbowl Debate (Cornell University Center for Teaching Innovation, 2024)

Bruffee, K. A. (1995). Sharing Our Toys: Cooperative Learning Versus Collaborative Learning. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 27(1), 12–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.1995.9937722

Cornell University Center for Teaching Innovation. (2024). Examples of Collaborative Learning or Group Work Activities. https://teaching.cornell.edu/resource/examples-collaborative-learning-or-group-work-activities

Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. (2018). Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism: Comparing Critical Features From an Instructional Design Perspective. In R. E. West (Ed.), Foundations of Learning and Instructional Design Technology (1st ed.). Available at https://edtechbooks.org/lidtfoundations

Graesser, A. C., Fiore, S. M., Greiff, S., Andrews-Todd, J., Foltz, P. W., & Hesse, F. W. (2018). Advancing the Science of Collaborative Problem Solving. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 19(2), 59–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100618808244

Kaddoura, M. (2013). Think pair share: A teaching learning strategy to enhance students’ critical thinking. Educational Research Quarterly, 36(4), 3–24.

Karagiorgi, Y., & Symeou, L. (2011). Translating Constructivism into Instructional Design: Potential and Limitations.

McKeachie, W. J., & Svinicki, M. (2006). McKeachie’s Teaching Tips: Strategies, Research, and Theory for College and University Teachers (Twelfth Edition). Houghton Mifflin Company.

Panitz, T. (1999, December). Collaborative versus Cooperative Learning. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED448443

Sembert, P. J., Vermette, P. J., Lyman, F., Bardsley, M. E., & Snell, C. (2021). Think-Pair-Share as a Springboard for Study Buddies in a Virtual Environment. Excelsior: Leadership in Teaching and Learning, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.14305/jn.19440413.2021.14.1.04

Yang, X. (2023). A Historical Review of Collaborative Learning and Cooperative Learning. TechTrends, 67(4), 718–728. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-022-00823-9

Register your child for In-person Robotics Workshop on 25th May at AMN, Round Rock, TX. Reserve a Seat today!

[email protected].

+1 (855) 550-0571

Robotics Advanced Math

Please enter name

Please enter email

---Select Child Age--- 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Above 15 Years

Existing knowledge in programming/robotics

No/Little Knowledge Fair Knowledge

*No credit card required.

Schedule a Free Class

Session Date* April 5th, 2021 April 13th, 2021 April 19th, 2021 April 27th, 2021

Please select date

Session Time*

Please select time

Collaborative Learning vs Cooperative Learning: Which Works Best for You?

• Updated: May 21, 2024
• Category: Education

Are you familiar with cooperative and collaborative learning? They’re like the rockstars of teamwork. It’s all about students teaming up to crush a shared goal. The catch? They’re not identical twins but more like cool cousins with different styles. Get this:

Let’s dig in deeper. 

In collaborative learning, students take charge. They are divided into groups. It’s a bit of a free-for-all where they pick what to learn and how to do it. Think teamwork, problem-solving, or just tossing fun ideas around. The best part? No one-size-fits-all solution!

Recommended Reading: 10 ways how to raise a problem-solver kid and teach problem-solving skills

Cooperative learning is like a well-organized team game. Students get specific tasks to ensure everything gets done together. It’s like setting targets—finishing a task or crafting a report. Here’s the twist: everyone’s got their role, all geared towards hitting those specific goals.

Research on Collaborative and Cooperative Learning:

There’s a ton of research showing that both collaborative and cooperative learning work wonders for student learning. However, there’s some buzz suggesting that cooperative learning might be more effective for certain types of learning tasks, especially those needing a deep understanding of complex concepts.

For instance, a study by Johnson, Johnson, and Stanne (1985) found that cooperative learning groups outshined traditional competitive learning groups on various measures—think academic achievement, critical thinking skills, and positive vibes about learning.

Another study by Slavin (1995) found that cooperative learning rocked, especially for students from low-income and minority backgrounds. In this study, cooperative learning students outperformed traditional competitive learning groups in academic achievement, self-esteem, and social skills.

So, while both methods are champs, it seems like cooperative learning shines a bit brighter in certain scenarios. It’s like the MVP for those deeper, complex concepts.

So, which way to go?

The answer depends on what you enjoy the most. Consider your teaching style, what you’re teaching, and what your students need. That’s the secret sauce to pick the best strategy for you.

Consider these factors:

1. Your teaching style

Do you prefer guiding students or letting them learn at their own pace? For more control, try cooperative learning; for student independence, go for collaborative learning.

2. Subject matter

Some subjects vibe better with group learning, like cultural studies, while co-curricular learning suits specialized knowledge or skills.

3. Kids’ needs

Not all students groove the same way. Some shine in groups, while others like flying solo. Think about their styles and preferences.

Certainly, here’s a table summarizing the key differences between collaborative and Cooperative Learning:

Here are some examples of these learning exercises:, for collaborative learning, there are a few paths to explore:.

• Problem-based learning: Students team up to solve real-world challenges.
• Project-based learning: They collaborate on projects like building a robot or delivering a speech.
• Jigsaw learning: Students split into groups, each learning different aspects, then share their knowledge with the class.

Cooperative learning can be spiced up with methods like: 

• Think-pair-share: Students discuss with a partner and present their thoughts to the class.
• Roundtable discussions: Students circle up, taking turns discussing topics and sharing viewpoints.
• Group projects: They team up to nail tasks like presentations or reports, fostering teamwork and shared success.

The perks of these strategies for students include:

• Better academic performance: Students using these strategies tend to ace it academically.
• Higher motivation and engagement: Working together keeps students more pumped up and engaged.
• Improved social skills: Engaging in these activities helps students develop key social skills like problem-solving and communication.

The selection of a successful cooperative and collaborative learning strategy is determined by a variety of factors, including the subject, the type of teaching style employed, and the needs of the students. These strategies are designed to assist students in developing essential life skills and in achieving academic success.

Moonpreneur is on a mission to educate and ignite the flames of entrepreneurship through our holistically created online STEM programs, which will help kids master the futuristic sciences such as Robotics , Game Development , App Development , Advanced Math , Math-Quiz to test your kids knowledge and much more!! 

Register for a free 60-minute robotics workshop today!

Moonpreneur

RELATED ARTICLES

• Bedtime Bliss: Story For Kids To Sleep

University of Southern California (USC): Majors, Acceptance Rate & Rankings

You may also like, explore by category, most popular.

10 Latest Developments in Artificial Intelligence

How To Get Into The Ivy League School [2023 Guide]

Best Laptops for Online Classes Your Kid Should Have

Tips to Prevent Gaming Addiction In Young Children in 2023

10 of the Best Education Blogs You Should Be Reading

GIVE A GIFT OF $10 MINECRAFT GIFT TO YOUR CHILD

Select Session Date* April 5th, 2021 April 13th, 2021 April 19th, 2021 April 27th, 2021

Select Session Time*

SELECT THE TOPIC

• Mother's Day Gift Ideas: Celebrate with Thoughtfulness and Love
• Fun Vocabulary Games For Kids
• 50 Open-Ended Questions To Ask Teens And Get Them Talking
• Co-Parenting Counseling
• Permissive Parenting
• Authoritarian Parenting
• Veterans Day Books
• Sensory Play for Kids
• Parenting Hacks for a Stress-Free Morning Routine For Kids
• Thanksgiving Gifts
• Private and Public Schools
• Tips to Prevent Gaming Addiction In Children

FREE EBOOK AND STORYBOOK

Download "Treasure Hunt" - A Robotics Workbook for Kids (8-15 YEARS) Download Now

Robotics Ebook And 3-Part Video Series Download Now

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

You Need New Skills to Make a Career Pivot. Here’s How to Find the Time to Build Them.

• Elizabeth Grace Saunders

Even when you have a full-time job.

With any significant change in your career comes the need for new skills. But that’s even more true when you want a radical career change. In these situations, it’s going to take more than listening to a few webinars to build the knowledge you need get to where you want to go. You must set aside a significant amount of time for self-directed learning, formal training, or even a second job to gain the skills for the big leap.

There are a few strategies to be effective for consistently making time for acquiring new career skills. First, accept the time commitment; you may need to scale back on nonessential activities. Second, research what’s required for your new field, whether it’s formal licensing, independent working, or side hustle work. Third, layer in learning onto activities you’re already doing throughout your day. Fourth, designate specific times you’ll dedicate to skill-building — and stick to it. Finally, modify your work schedule, if needed.

Sometimes you don’t just want a new job, you want a radical career change . Perhaps you’ve been in finance and now want to be an acupuncturist, you’re a marketer eager to lead a startup, or you’re an educator looking to shift into catering and event planning.

• ES Elizabeth Grace Saunders is a time management coach and the founder of Real Life E Time Coaching & Speaking . She is the author of How to Invest Your Time Like Money and Divine Time Management . Find out more at RealLifeE.com .

Partner Center