cooperative learning experience essay

• Our Mission

How Cooperative Learning Can Benefit Students This Year

Working on tasks that have been carefully designed to require collaboration helps students develop interpersonal skills.

As students have returned to the classroom this year, it’s important to reignite the power of cooperative learning. Valiant teachers worked to incorporate this invaluable tool in remote learning, but let’s remember its importance as the school year progresses. Cooperative learning skills are crucial for students especially as globalization and technological and communication advances continue to increase the quantity of accessible information and the need for collaboration.

Cooperative learning opportunities aren’t new learning tools, but they have never been more valuable than they are now. With less interpersonal contact and collaboration during remote learning, students spent more time in the digital world. The return to in-person classes gives us the chance for cooperative learning to guide their brains’ reconstruction and boost social and emotional cue awareness.

Common threats to students include making embarrassing mistakes in front of the whole class, being called on when they don’t know the answer, concerns about their mastery of English as a second language, and, for older children, fear of appearing too smart or not smart enough and risking ostracism by peers. These fears can be reduced by the interdependence and support of smaller group collaboration.

What Constitutes Cooperative Work?

To qualify as doing cooperative work, rather than individuals working in parallel in a group, students need each other to complete the task. Students are expected to participate in tasks that are clearly constructed and necessary for the group’s success. The learning objectives are clear and connect to their interests, and students have prerequisite knowledge and know how to seek help when they need it.

The inclusion of belonging to a group, where a student feels valued, builds resilience, social competence, empathy, and communication skills. The interactive and interdependent components of cooperative learning offer the emotional and interpersonal experiences that boost emotional awareness, judgment, critical analysis, flexible perspective taking, creative problem-solving, innovation, and goal-directed behavior.

Planning is essential for developing cooperative group activities, especially in stressful times. When you plan groups, make sure to weigh each member’s strengths so that each is important for the ultimate success of the group’s activity. This means designing groups where all participants have the prerequisite knowledge to participate in general as well as opportunities to enhance the group goal with contributions—from unique past experiences, talents, and cultural backgrounds. This planning can create a situation where individual learning strengths, skills, and talents are valued, and students shine in their forte and learn from each other in the areas where they are not as expert.

Consider these questions when planning:

• Is there more than one answer and more than one way to solve the problem or create the project?
• Is the goal intrinsically interesting, challenging, and rewarding?
• Will each group member be able to contribute in ways that will be valued and appreciated?
• Will each member have opportunities to participate through their strengths?
• Is participation by all members necessary for the group’s goal achievement?
• How will you monitor group and individual skills, learning, and progress?
• Is time planned throughout the experience, not just at the end, for metacognition and revision, regarding goal progress as well as the group’s interpersonal interactions?

Designated, rotating individual roles can promote successful participation by all. These can include recorder and participation monitor (who can act to decrease overly active participation and use strategies to increase participation in those who aren’t engaged). Other roles are creative director (if a physical product such as a poster or computer presentation is part of the project), materials director , accountant , and secretary as needed. When these roles are rotated in projects extending over days or weeks, students build communication and collaboration understanding and skills.

Participants can also periodically check in with each other during group time to answer collaboration questions during the activity, perhaps initially with a checklist. They can consider the following: Is everyone talking? Are we listening to each other? Are we giving reasons for our own ideas and for why we don’t agree with another member’s opinion or ideas? What can we do differently?

Examples of Collaboration in Different Content Areas

Math: Groups collaborate on open-ended problem-solving with members sharing different approaches, strategies, and solutions. Students expand their perspectives as they get to test one another’s conjectures and identify what seems valid or invalid. They are engaged as they discover techniques to test one another’s strategies.

Social studies: Students in groups use their individual skills and interests to put on a political campaign supporting Lincoln or Douglas through posters, political cartoons, oral debates, skits, and computer or video ads. In this small, safer place, they try out ideas as they work together to negotiate rules for campaigning, debating, and scoring the debates.

Reading: Pair-share with a partner. Reading or being read to becomes a learning experience as all students process the material with their partners. They can be guided on topics to discuss such things as big idea, predictions, personal connections with the material, or the literary style and tools used by the author.

Science: Students select a question that they want to evaluate about dinosaur extinction (e.g., asteroid impact, over-foraging). They join a group with their same favorite theory. All members read text or articles or view videos about their chosen dinosaur extinction theory. Then, through a strategy of tea party, card party, or jigsaw, the groups disperse, and members join new groups as the experts on their theories. They then build and carry out plans to evaluate which theory the group will support, why, and how they will represent the validity of their conclusion.

Outcomes of Cooperative Learning

As students have more positive experiences in their small groups, they become more comfortable with participation and academic risk taking (willingness to risk being wrong, offer suggestions, defend their opinions, etc.).

Since it is impossible for all students to have frequent one-on-one teacher experiences throughout the day, cooperative groups can reduce their dependence on their teachers for guidance, behavior management, and progress feedback.

The nature of cooperative group interdependence increases emotional sensitivity and communication skills. The planning of cooperative learning transfers the responsibility of decision-making and conflict resolution to the students. It’s reassuring in times of change and unpredictability to have the supportive and growth experiences of well-planned cooperative learning.

Cooperative Learning: Advantages and Limitations Essay

Introduction.

Collaborative learning arrangements are vital in teaching children, especially in early years settings. Without these skills, young learners can experience considerable problems in communicating and co-working with others both at the initial stages of education and at other levels. One of the most effective approaches to increase children’s collaborative abilities is cooperative learning. Pieces of evidence indicate that apart from numerous benefits for children, cooperative learning can pose threats for teachers (Johnson & Johnson, 1999; Le et al., 2018; Patterson, 2018). Particularly, including disabled children in the collaboration process may bring about difficulties for educators and young learners alike. The paper focuses on collaborative learning, its advantages and limitations, and recommendations on eliminating barriers.

Collaborative and Cooperative Learning

The chosen arrangement and its benefits.

Teachers utilize a variety of approaches to make the process of learning smooth and increase its availability to children. Collaborative learning is one of such methods, which is defined as “a set of teaching and learning strategies” aimed at improving children’s collaboration in small groups (Le et al., 2018, p. 103). Meanwhile, cooperation presupposes the mutual work of learners on the accomplishment of shared goals. Cooperative learning includes cooperation and collaboration, both of which concern several individuals interacting on the way to gaining a common purpose (Bullard & Bullock, 2004). The core components of cooperative learning are positive interdependence, individual responsibility, face-to-face conducive interaction, social skills, and group processing (Johnson & Johnson, 1999). What is most important, cooperative learning reduces prejudice among students and promotes respect toward one another (Grenier & Yeaton, 2019). Therefore, cooperative learning is a highly beneficial solution for teachers working in early years settings.

The most viable advantage of cooperative and collaborative learning is the possibility for children to learn through collaborating with peers. Collaborative learning enhances young children’s social and academic progress (Patterson, 2018). Cooperative learning is employed to endorse children’s information processing and bolster their academic progress (Johnson & Johnson, 1999). Finally, cooperative learning is a rather positive way of developing interpersonal relationships and boosting children’s self-esteem.

Implementing the Selected Approach in Early Years Settings and while Working with Disabled Students

Early childhood educators should help their students to work in cooperation with others by teaching them decision-making, problem-solving, and communication skills. One of the best approaches to achieving this goal is teaching children about active and reflective listening (Bullard & Bullock, 2004). This approach may be utilized in the process of collecting a puzzle when the learners knowing more about the game are leaders, and others listen to their recommendations until the latter understand how it works and can switch roles with the former. In teaching children with disabilities, such as autism spectrum disorder, cooperative learning is helpful due to its potential to minimize differences between children (André et al., 2011; Grenier & Yeaton, 2019). Such children should not be isolated, and their work can be promoted through positive feedback.

Recommendations

Along with evident benefits, cooperative learning poses some threats to educators. Children in early years settings are still only starting to learn about the world. Thus, every child has a different level of understanding, which can make it impossible to apply the rules of collaborative learning. Sometimes, cooperative learning may not fully assist children with disabilities to study, which may require the participation of a teacher assistant. For instance, children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder may lack the ability for effective collaboration, and their peers may be afraid of working with them.

To avoid these threats, teachers should guide children on cooperative learning. Specifically, educators can teach children to pay attention to the needs and opinions of their peers and not to reject these immediately (Le et al., 2018). An essential step at this point is for the teacher to make planning to promote children’s friendship and respect for peers. Another helpful option is teaching collaboration with the help of problem-solving (Patterson, 2018). The teacher’s task, in this case, is to explain that difficulties can be overcome together faster and more effectively than in isolation. It is crucial not to turn the attempt into pseudo learning, where children do not have a sincere interest in gaining mutual goals (Johnson & Johnson, 1999). Educators can also increase learners’ interpersonal and group skills by offering assistance, which will increase their social and cognitive skills. Finally, a regular assessment is needed to see how students progress and what help they might require on the way to boosting collaborative learning skills.

Collaborative learning is viewed as a highly positive approach to increasing young learners’ communication and integration skills. Collaboration is especially useful to employ with the aim of including disabled children in the learning process. Although it is not always easy to arrange the approach smoothly, so, a thorough plan and keen observation, as well as assistance from another teacher or specialist can be of great help. Once a teacher realizes how to avoid common mistakes in the implementation and practicing of collaborative learning, this approach will serve as an invaluable way of teaching all children, irrespective of their social or physical disability issues, to be attentive, helpful, and respectful toward one another.

André, A., Deneuve, P., & Louvet, B. (2011). Cooperative learning in physical education and acceptance of students with learning disabilities . Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 23 (4), 474-485.

Bullard, J., & Bullock, J. R. (2004). Building relationships through cooperative learning . Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 25 (1), 39-48.

Grenier, M., & Yeaton, P. (2019). Social thinking skills and cooperative learning for students with autism . Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 90 (3), 18-21.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Making cooperative learning work . Theory into Practice, 38 (2), 67-73.

Le, H., Janssen, J., & Wubbels, T. (2018). Collaborative learning practices: Teacher and student perceived obstacles to effective student collaboration . Cambridge Journal of Education, 48 (1), 103-122.

Patterson, E. W. (2018). Exploratory talk in the early years: Analysing exploratory talk in collaborative group activities involving younger learners . Education 3-13, 46 (3), 264-276.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2022, June 9). Cooperative Learning: Advantages and Limitations. https://ivypanda.com/essays/cooperative-learning-advantages-and-limitations/

"Cooperative Learning: Advantages and Limitations." IvyPanda , 9 June 2022, ivypanda.com/essays/cooperative-learning-advantages-and-limitations/.

IvyPanda . (2022) 'Cooperative Learning: Advantages and Limitations'. 9 June.

IvyPanda . 2022. "Cooperative Learning: Advantages and Limitations." June 9, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/cooperative-learning-advantages-and-limitations/.

1. IvyPanda . "Cooperative Learning: Advantages and Limitations." June 9, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/cooperative-learning-advantages-and-limitations/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Cooperative Learning: Advantages and Limitations." June 9, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/cooperative-learning-advantages-and-limitations/.

• Cooperative Learning Models
• Cooperative Learning Intervention and Implementation
• Social Constructivism in Cooperative and Distance Learning
• Cooperative Exporters: The Enhancement of the International Assistance
• Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition
• Cooperative Learning as a Research Based Instructional Strategy
• Computer-Aided Cooperative Learning
• Using of Collaborative Problem Solving Model
• Planning & Cooperative Learning in Primary School
• Cooperative Teaching as the Primary Model: Teaching Directed Reading
• Reflective Practice and Learning Logs
• Creationism and Evolution Theories
• Reading Levels Being a Concern in Vocational Education Areas
• Childhood Learning in a Digital World
• Mental Mathematic, Recall and Computation

K-12 Resources By Teachers, For Teachers Provided by the K-12 Teachers Alliance

• Teaching Strategies
• Classroom Activities
• Classroom Management
• Technology in the Classroom
• Professional Development
• Lesson Plans
• Writing Prompts
• Graduate Programs

Cooperative Learning and How to Use It in the Classroom

Charles b. foster.

• July 31, 2020

What is Cooperative Learning?

Cooperative learning is a classroom instruction presentation model that involves students working together to meet their learning goals in learning teams or groups. In the 1940s, education reformers like John Dewey began to analyze the benefits of students working together in the classroom. At that time, cooperative learning was considered cutting edge compared to the preferred format of individual student learning. In the one room schoolhouse of the 1800s and early 1900s, students of all ages worked on their own learning goals.

True cooperative learning involves more than just having students sit together in groups. When done well, cooperative learning involves planning with clear directions, student work roles, and outcomes and measures for learning goals. Teachers who use this method see the value in cooperation, teamwork, and collaboration as a major part of their classrooms. Students who learn how to collaborate through cooperative learning can become adults who work together more effectively in the work place.

In the classroom, a cooperative learning lesson involves students working in small groups to accomplish a learning task. The task is assigned by the teacher with clear directions. Students then work on the task together with defined roles (i.e. reporter, spokesperson, researcher, recorder). Teachers who are effective at evaluating the group together as one understand that each person in the group has a “shared” responsibility.

When the cooperative learning group completes the learning task, the teacher evaluates the results. That evaluation needs to include some type of format to determine if the student(s) accomplished their learning goals (i.e. rubric). If each student sitting in the group isn’t held responsible for helping complete their portion of the learning task, then it isn’t truly “cooperative learning”.

What are the Benefits of Cooperative Learning?

There are many benefits for classroom instruction when cooperative learning strategies are done correctly. There are several briefly discussed here including: promotion of social interaction, buildup of student self-confidence, improvement in collaborative skills of students, as well as the improvement in student decision-making skills. Cooperative learning-run classrooms can also assist teachers in working with students who have wider skill gaps.

Teachers with students who work in cooperative learning groups typically allow for more social interaction and can enhance students’ collaborative skills. Cooperative learning groups force students to interact socially and practice collaboration. Teacher lessons that include positive, active student collaboration are planned out with clear directions and expectations for students.

Many students are timid or shy and in a whole-group setting can often be leery of sharing their thoughts, questions, or answers. Students who participate in cooperative learning lessons have opportunities to build their self-confidence (again if planned efficiently and effectively by the teacher). Because of this, teachers have to work really hard to make sure that all students working in cooperative groups have a part in the task. They have to reassure them and hold them accountable. Does every student in the group have a role or responsibility? Is the teacher roaming the classroom during the lesson, asking key questions to check for student understanding and to make sure that they are hearing and seeing all students participate?

Cooperative learning lessons that are planned out efficiently can allow for growth in student decision-making. Students who work in groups and collaborate (talk, plan etc.) are more likely to build on their decision-making skills. Many modern workplaces call for employees who are capable of making decisions while working with “teams” vs. working in isolation. Group lessons that allow for students to collaborate and talk about the task can prompt students to share thoughts and thus build on decision-making skills. A quad, or student group of four, can allow for four different students, with four different thoughts, to build on decision-making skills while improving their socialization. Young people need the socialization, and cooperative learning lessons greatly enhance this.

Teachers who use cooperative learning groups also have some flexibility to pull small groups and work with individual students or small ability groups during the lesson time. This can arguably be a great advantage for a teacher with a classroom of 30 students. There may be a need to work more closely with the 4 or 5 students who have the highest learning gaps. Allowing students to independently work in small groups gives teachers the opportunity to work with those individuals on targeted gaps. Use of cooperative groups can allow for differentiation of instruction , depending on how the teacher decides to establish them.

Cooperative Learning Strategies to Use in the Classroom

There are so many best practice strategies to consider when using the cooperative learning approach in the classroom. Several strategies for teachers to use that involve cooperative or group learning include pair-share, small groups (quads), and mixed skill groupings.

One common strategy that teachers use is called pair-share. This can be easily adapted into most classrooms by asking students to collaborate with an “elbow” partner or person close by. Students can discuss a question or topic, and then share with the whole class. Teachers often refer to this strategy as “think-pair-share”.

Teachers who plan cooperative lessons often use small groups or quads (groups of 4). Students are assigned roles within the group so that they can divide and conquer the learning task at hand. For example, the reporter is responsible for sharing out the new learnings of the task. Often quads are divided into mixed skill groups. This can help students who struggle to have higher-level students mixed with lower-level students so that peer learning and coaching is incorporated. All of the mentioned techniques require planning and coordination on the part of the teacher.

When used in combination with individual learning assignments, cooperative learning can enhance classroom instruction and make learning more social and fun for students.

• #CooperativeLearning

More in Teaching Strategies

Helping Students Improve Their Handwriting

Despite the widespread use of technology in the classroom, handwriting remains an essential…

Unleashing the Learning Potential of Classroom Focus Walls

Focus walls have emerged as an effective tool in today’s classrooms, and for…

Getting Older Students Excited About Science Class

As students move into middle and high school, it becomes increasingly challenging for…

AI-Powered Lesson Planning: Revolutionizing the Way Teachers Create Content

Traditional teaching methods are evolving since technology has been integrated into classrooms across…

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
• CBE Life Sci Educ
• v.15(4); Winter 2016

Collaborative Learning in Higher Education: Evoking Positive Interdependence

Karin scager.

† Department of Social Sciences, Utrecht University, 3508 TC Utrecht, The Netherlands

Johannes Boonstra

‡ Department of Biology, Utrecht University, 3584 CH Utrecht, The Netherlands

Ton Peeters

Jonne vulperhorst, fred wiegant.

This study focuses on factors increasing the effectiveness of collaborative learning. Results show that challenging, open, and complex group tasks that required the students to create something new and original evoked effective collaboration.

Collaborative learning is a widely used instructional method, but the learning potential of this instructional method is often underused in practice. Therefore, the importance of various factors underlying effective collaborative learning should be determined. In the current study, five different life sciences undergraduate courses with successful collaborative-learning results were selected. This study focuses on factors that increased the effectiveness of collaboration in these courses, according to the students. Nine focus group interviews were conducted and analyzed. Results show that factors evoking effective collaboration were student autonomy and self-regulatory behavior, combined with a challenging, open, and complex group task that required the students to create something new and original. The design factors of these courses fostered a sense of responsibility and of shared ownership of both the collaborative process and the end product of the group assignment. In addition, students reported the absence of any free riders in these group assignments. Interestingly, it was observed that students seemed to value their sense of achievement, their learning processes, and the products they were working on more than their grades. It is concluded that collaborative learning in higher education should be designed using challenging and relevant tasks that build shared ownership with students.

INTRODUCTION

Students may learn a lot from working in groups, but the learning potential of collaboration is underused in practice ( Johnson et al ., 2007 ), particularly in science education ( Nokes-Malach and Richey, 2015 ). Collaborative, cooperative, and team-based learning are usually considered to represent the same concept, although they are sometimes defined differently ( Kirschner, 2001 ); we consider these concepts comparable and use the term “collaboration” throughout the paper. In collaborative learning, students participate in small-group activities in which they share their knowledge and expertise. In these student-driven activities, the teacher usually acts as a facilitator ( Kirschner, 2001 ).

Several decades of empirical research have demonstrated the positive relationship between collaborative learning and student achievement, effort, persistence, and motivation (for reviews, see Slavin, 1990 ; Webb and Palinscar, 1996 ; Barron, 2000 ; Johnson et al ., 2007 ). Collaborative learning potentially promotes deep learning, in which students engage in high-quality social interaction, such as discussing contradictory information ( Visschers-Pleijers et al ., 2006 ). In science education, a deep-learning approach is crucial for understanding concepts and complex processes ( Van Boxtel, 2000 ). Understanding of these concepts involves a process of conceptual change, a process particularly activated in collaborative learning, whereby students interact by explaining to and questioning one another critically ( Van Boxtel et al ., 2000 ; Linton et al ., 2014 ). In previous papers, we have explored and emphasized the relevance of collaborative learning in undergraduate biology courses ( Wiegant et al ., 2012 , 2014 ). By comparing university student achievement in a biology course in individual and group settings, Linton et al . (2014) found that students in group settings achieved significantly better with respect to conceptual understanding in comparison with students in courses with an individual setting. Besides these cognitive benefits, collaborative learning provides social skills needed for future professional work in the field of science.

Just forming groups, however, does not automatically result in better learning and motivation ( Salomon and Globerson, 1989 ; Gillies, 2004 ; Khosa and Volet, 2013 ). In their study of university students’ preferences for collaborative learning, Raidal and Volet (2009) found an overwhelming preference for individual forms of learning. Students are hesitant about group work because of the occurrence of “free riders,” logistical issues, or interpersonal conflicts ( Livingstone and Lynch, 2000 ; Aggarwal and O’Brien, 2008 ; Pauli et al ., 2008 ; Shimazou and Aldrich, 2010 ; Hall and Buzwell, 2012 ). As a result, students might opt for a strategic approach by dividing the work and merely using a stapler to “integrate” their work into a group paper. Johnson and Johnson (1999) refer to groups showing this kind of superficial behavior as “pseudo learning groups.” In turn, the resulting lack of synthesis can be disappointing for teachers. Dividing work also implies that students lose the potential learning effect of collaborating, since the extent to which students benefit from working with other students depends on the quality of their interactions ( Van Boxtel et al ., 2000 ; King, 2002 ; Palinscar and Herrenkohl, 2002 ; Volet et al ., 2009 ). Insight into factors that facilitate collaborative learning is critical for understanding how collaboration can be used effectively in higher education. Therefore, in the present study, we explore factors that optimize the quality of collaboration, using examples of effective group work in five different life sciences courses.

POTENTIAL FACTORS ENHANCING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF COLLABORATIVE LEARNING

Social interaction is crucial for effective collaboration ( Volet et al ., 2009 ). Learning outcomes of collaborative-learning groups have been found to depend on the quality of student discussions, including argumentation ( Teasley, 1995 ; Chinn et al ., 2000 ), explaining ideas to one another ( Veenman et al ., 2005 ), and incorporating and building on one another’s ideas ( Barron, 2003 ). These interactions with peers are assumed to promote students’ cognitive restructuring ( Webb, 2009 ). Explaining things to one another and discussing subject matter may lead to deeper understanding, to recognition of misconceptions, and to the strengthening of connections between new information and previously learned information ( Wittrock, 1990 ). The question of how to organize collaboration in a way that promotes these kinds of interactions is paramount.

Decades of research on group work have resulted in the identification of various factors that potentially enhance the effectiveness of collaboration. These factors can be differentiated as primary factors (design characteristics) and secondary or mediating factors (group-process characteristics). Regarding primary factors, groups need to be small (three to five students) to obtain meaningful interaction ( Lou et al ., 2001 ; Johnson et al ., 2007 ). With respect to group composition, mixed-ability groups have been found to increase performance for students of lower ability, but this composition does not necessarily benefit high-ability students ( Webb et al ., 2002 ). Equal participation, however, has been shown to be more important for students’ achievement than group composition, because students are more likely to use one another’s knowledge and skills fully when all students participate to the same extent ( Woolley et al ., 2015 ). Heterogeneity, with respect to diversity of perspectives and styles, has been found to increase learning, particularly in groups working on tasks that require creativity ( Kozhevnikov et al ., 2014 ). The nature of the task has been shown to be an important factor as well. Open and ill-structured tasks promote higher-level interaction and improve reasoning and applicative and evaluative thinking to a greater extent than closed tasks ( Gillies, 2014 ). In addition, complex tasks provoke deeper-level interactions than simple tasks ( Hertz-Lazarowitz, 1989 ).

Concerning secondary or intermediate factors affecting group work, positive interdependence theory is one of the best-founded theories explaining the quality of interaction in collaborative learning ( Slavin, 1990 ; Johnson and Johnson, 1999 , 2009 ; Gully et al ., 2002 ). According to this theory, collaboration is enhanced when positive interdependence exists among group members. This is achieved when students perceive the contribution of each individual to be essential for the group to succeed in completing the assigned activity ( Johnson and Johnson, 2009 ). Positive interdependence results in both individual accountability and promotive interaction. Individual accountability is defined as having feelings of responsibility for completing one’s own work and for facilitating the work of other group members. A sense of mutual accountability is necessary to avoid free riding ( Johnson and Johnson, 2009 ), which occurs when one or more group members are perceived by other members as failing to contribute their fair share to the group effort ( Aggarwal and O’Brien, 2008 ). Promotive interaction has been described as students encouraging and facilitating one another’s efforts to accomplish group goals, both with respect to group dynamics and the subject matter ( Johnson and Johnson, 2009 ).

Methods of inducing positive interdependence interaction are either reward or task based ( Johnson et al ., 2007 ). Reward-based interdependence structures the reward in such a way that students’ individual grades depend on the achievement of the whole team. According to Slavin (1991 , 1995 ), collaborative learning is rarely successful without group rewards. In higher education, however, findings on the effects of reward-based interdependence are inconclusive. The main concern is that rewards stimulate extrinsic motivation and may be detrimental to intrinsic motivation ( Parkinson and St. George, 2003 ). Intrinsically motivated students put effort into a task because they are interested in the task itself, while extrinsically motivated students are interested in the reward or grade ( Deci and Ryan, 2000 ). Strong incentives, such as grades, could steer student motivation toward the reward and subsequently reduce the task to being a means to an end. Serrano and Pons (2007) , however, found that using rewards (individual grades) created high positive interdependence in group work at a university level. They concluded that the reward structure did direct students’ motivation toward final grades, while the task still aroused the interest of the students. In contrast, Sears and Pai (2012) found that rewards were not crucial factors affecting group behavior. Their study showed that groups continued to work even after the reward was removed, whereas the efforts of students working individually decreased after the reward was removed.

In structured task-based interdependence, students are forced to exchange information; this can be achieved by assigning group members different roles, resources, or tasks (the “jigsaw” method) or by “scripting” the process, which involves giving students a set of instructions on how they should interact and collaborate ( Kagan, 1994 ; Dillenbourg, 2002 ). The effects of task structuring on collaborative learning are, however, not clear ( Fink, 2004 ; Hänze and Berger, 2007 ; Serrano and Pons, 2007 ). Hänze and Berger (2007) observed no differences in achievement between students who worked in jigsaw-structured groups and students who worked individually. In contrast, the observations of Brewer and Klein (2006) indicated that students in groups with given roles plus rewards interacted significantly more frequently than students in groups with given rewards only or in groups without structured interdependence factors. (Over)structuring interaction processes, on the other hand, could threaten intrinsic motivation and disturb natural interaction processes ( Dillenbourg, 2002 ). Although it is widely accepted that positive interdependence has been shown to be crucial in evoking social interaction, in practice, university students often tend to merely go through the motions and choose the solution requiring the least effort, which explains why positive interdependence often does not emerge ( Salomon and Globerson, 1989 ). Additional methods are necessary to encourage quality interactions that enhance learning. Moreover, the mixed results of university education studies concerning structuring interdependence—using either rewards or task structuring—do not solve the challenge of how to create interdependence without disturbing the intrinsic motivation of students. Forcing students to interact could endanger student autonomy and motivation, while merely putting students together has been shown to be ineffective.

THE CURRENT STUDY

Despite the considerable amount of research on collaborative learning, less is known about how to structure university-level group work in order to capitalize on the benefits of collaborative learning. The studies discussed earlier focused on primary and secondary education and are not fully applicable to higher education, because students in undergraduate classes may have different schedules and often have not met before. Moreover, group work of university students is mostly organized outside class hours in the absence of teachers. Furthermore, literature in this area may be limited in applicability, as many studies of factors affecting collaboration have used (quasi)experimental designs, in which outcomes of two or three designs were compared ( Johnson and Johnson, 2009 ). A restriction of this method is that only the hypothesized independent variables are studied, while other important factors contributing to effectiveness might be overlooked. In our study, we approached the theme retrospectively, investigating the learning of student groups known to have collaborated and achieved highly, according to their teachers. Rather than focusing on learning outcomes, we explored how group work in these courses was structured. Understanding the factors that facilitate students’ collaboration is critical to understanding how this approach to learning can be used more effectively in higher education. We explicitly focused on positive examples of effective collaborative learning, as best practices should be communicated to others ( Dewey, 1929 , p.11).

In the current study, we selected five different life sciences undergraduate courses that comprised successful group-work assignments. The specific question this study aimed to address was, according to the students, what factors increased collaboration in these courses? By uncovering the factors that make collaborative learning fruitful, we aim to provide useful guidelines for instructors implementing collaborative learning.

Participants

The present study involved focus group interviews with nine groups of second- and third-year students of five different undergraduate life sciences courses. We depended heavily on these focus group interviews to develop our understandings. They allowed us to gain insight into students’ perspectives, which is important because, to a large degree, students’ perspectives of instruction affect what they do and learn ( Shuell, 1996 ). Furthermore, the group exchanges of experiences and perspectives promoted breadth, as well as depth, in our understandings of the cognitive, behavioral, and situational factors contributing to the effectiveness of the collaboration. The particular courses were selected because they all implemented group work that, according to teacher assessments and student evaluations, was very effective. We approached the instructors of these courses with the request to ask their students to volunteer in focus group discussions. Students were willing to participate in these focus group discussions, although not all students were able to meet at the scheduled times. No specific reward was promised for participating in focus group discussions.

Between two and 10 students participated in each of the nine focus group interviews (see Table 1 ).

Course, number of focus group interviews, and students per interview

Course Descriptions

We focused on five courses that were all small-enrollment, upper-division courses in which 15–35 students participated per course. In all courses, collaborative activities occurred during class hours but also outside of class. In some courses, the out-of-class cooperative activities even exceeded the in-class activities.

Course A: The first course was part of a biology honors program. In this part of the program, groups of second-year bachelor’s students (12–19 students) were assigned the group task of writing a popular science book about a biology topic of their choice. Students had to perform all the activities necessary to produce the book. The project was strongly student-led, and students assigned themselves tasks necessary for finishing the project. The assignment comprised an entire academic year, starting in September and finishing in May/June as an extracurricular activity. More details of this course are described elsewhere ( Wiegant et al ., 2012 ).

Course B: Students in the immunology course, mostly third-year students, were assigned the task of writing, in groups of four, a short research project on an immunological topic. The assignment was structured in three parts: in part 1, groups designed a draft of their proposal; in part 2, the groups peer reviewed the draft of another group; and in part 3, the groups received the draft and comments of yet another group, which they had to finish and present. The assignment comprised approximately half of the course.

Course C: In the advanced cell biology course, three small teams of four or five students collaborated intensively during a semester of 15 weeks to formulate three PhD proposals within an overarching theme. Because the course was student-led, the teachers refrained from guiding the students in their decisions, instead taking a facilitating role by asking critical questions and providing feedback. As a result of the project, the teams presented and defended their research program and the three research proposals before a jury of experts. More details of this course are given elsewhere ( Wiegant et al ., 2011 , 2014 ; Scager et al ., 2014 ).

Course D: The objective of the molecular cell biology course was to learn to design a research project in groups of four. In this course, students were required to complete multiple assignments, such as reviewing a paper, developing a research proposal, designing experiments, and writing and defending their proposals. Groups met with their supervisor once a week and were supposed to keep the course coordinator informed on their progress. Final grades were based on individual (40%) and group (60%) components.

Course E: As a part of the pharmacy course, third-year students, in groups of four to six participants, were required to analyze the quality of a specific pharmacotherapy. The assignments were authentic and were provided by external commissioning companies. The group assignment counted for 70% of the final grade (50% group report and presentation; 20% individual reflection).

The interviews were semistructured and included two basic questions: 1) “What factors made group work effective in this course (as opposed to other experiences you have had)?” and 2) “What was the added value in this course of working in a group (as opposed to working individually)?” The addition of “as opposed to …” was aimed to encourage students’ thinking process; we did not ask students to elaborate on these opposing experiences. Interviewers stimulated and moderated discussions, ensuring depth as well as diversity. To focus and structure the interviews and to stimulate the sharing of discussion outcomes, we listed the answers to the two questions on a flip chart.

First, the intentions of the interview were clarified, followed by an explanation of the confidential nature of the interview. All students agreed and gave permission for the interviews to be audiotaped. All of the authors conducted one or more interviews, with the first author (K.S.) moderating them. The focus group interviews were held in or near the classroom associated with each of the specific courses. The interviews were ∼60 minutes each and were transcribed verbatim.

Detecting Factors That Facilitated Group Work.

Data were analyzed by the first and fourth authors (K.S. and J.V.) in three partially overlapping stages. Stage 1 comprised reading and rereading the transcripts to identify text units relevant to the subject of challenge. Given the aim of the focus group interviews, this meant ignoring small talk and sorting discussion units related to the two interview questions into focal issues. Stage 2 comprised identifying and coding themes related to the two main interview questions regarding 1) factors and 2) added value, using NVivo version 10 (a qualitative data-analysis computer software package). First, open coding was applied. The answers to both questions, however, evoked answers that pointed to intermediary variables affecting the outcomes of collaboration. For example, the question regarding factors brought forward the importance of the assignment being complex enough to make students feel mutually interdependent, while for the question regarding added value, students referred back to how the complexity of the assignment stimulated them to discuss, build on, and learn from one another’s ideas. The interactions provoked by the complexity of the task seemed to connect complexity with learning outcomes. Therefore, when axial coding was applied, we decided to develop three clusters of codes focused on the factors of effective collaboration, the mediating variables, and the added value of collaboration. Subsequently, selective coding was applied, wherein codes were clustered into larger sets informed by theory ( Braun and Clarke, 2006 ). Only factors that were mentioned in more than half of the focus groups were kept. This resulted in two sets of factors. The first set of factors related to the design of the group assignment (autonomy, group size, task design, and teacher expectations). The second set consisted of mediating variables related to the working processes of the groups (team and task regulation, promotive interaction, interdependence, responsibility, and mutual support and motivation).

Reliability and Validity.

Reliability is considered in terms of equivalence and internal consistency ( Sim and Wright, 2000 ). Reliability was ensured by intercoder consistency ( Burla et al ., 2008 ). Given the complexity and inhomogeneity of group discourse, agreement testing was constrained to core concepts or themes of substantive importance ( Kidd and Parshall, 2000 ). The equivalence of coding was addressed by selecting 20% of the data and comparing the coding of two secondary raters (10% each) for consistency, which yielded a kappa coefficient of 0.85. This strength of agreement is considered to be “nearly perfect” ( Everitt, 1996 ). Internal consistency was acquired by having one team member moderating all (but one) of the interviews ( Kidd and Parshall, 2000 ). The emergence of substantively similar viewpoints of the focus groups on the core issues across the five different courses supported content validity ( Kidd and Parshall, 2000 ). Furthermore, we assessed content validity by independent coding and by comparing this with theory in extant literature ( Morgan and Spanish, 1985 ; Torn and McNichol, 1998 ).

Factors That Contributed to the Effectiveness of the Collaboration

Eight factors were found to have a positive effect on the effectiveness of the collaboration. These factors are presented in Table 2 : 1) design factors: the design of the course and/or the assignment (the autonomy of the students, task characteristics, teacher expectations, and group size); and 2) process factors: the way students interacted and organized their work (team and task regulation, interdependence, promotive interaction, and mutual support and motivation).

Factors that contributed to the effectiveness of the collaboration

a “Source” refers to how many of the nine interviews the topic was discussed in; “reference” refers to the total number of times the topic was discussed.

Table 2 shows that autonomy and the density and complexity of the task were the factors most frequently mentioned by the students as contributing to the effectiveness of the collaboration. Team and task regulation, positive interdependence, and promotive interaction were perceived by students as the most important factors with respect to the way they processed the assignments. In the next section, we describe the results more elaborately, starting with the design features of these courses that are considered to enhance collaboration processes.

Design Factors

The autonomy the groups experienced was mentioned in all focus groups, indicating the importance of this factor to the effectiveness of collaboration. Autonomy was manifested in allowing student groups to choose their own topics (e.g., for their research plans) and giving them independence in organizing their processes. Statements such as “It was our own thing” occurred frequently in all nine focus group discussions. The references to “our thing” indicate that the students made choices as a group, which could have restricted individual feelings of autonomy. The students, however, did not seem to have experienced clear boundaries between individual and group autonomy. Even though their personal ideas may have been overruled by the team, they still felt autonomous, because they made decisions democratically. As one of the students said, “When you participate in the decision process it is easier to accept than when the decision is made by the teacher.”

Two features of the task were perceived as important contributors to the effectiveness of the group work. First, the density and complexity of the task was crucial. The group task needed to be extensive enough for the group members to really need one another’s contributions to finish in time and complex enough to require them to discuss their work and provide one another with feedback. Second, students perceived the relevance of the task at hand to be an important feature. The task relevance was found in different aspects, depending on the assignment. For the biology honors groups, for example, the process of writing a popular science book and getting it published increased their feelings of doing something significant. The cell biology and immunology groups emphasized the relevance of doing research, in terms of formulating a relevant proposal in the same way as it is done “in the real world.”

In terms of rewards , students emphasized that the inherent value of the end product, such as an article, a research proposal, or a book, stimulated them to achieve, which relates back to the perceived task relevance. As a student of the biology honors course said, “We have also had other group projects …, but that was taken less seriously, because you, well it was nice, but well, the result wouldn’t reach beyond the classroom, while in this project it will.” There were no grades involved in this particular course, which students appreciated, because they believed the end product to be more important than a grade. Also, in other groups, discussions about assessment were learning and/or reward oriented rather than grade oriented; for example, in one of the pharmacy groups it was said: “You are in a learning process, and I think sometimes that it is a shame that it should end in a grade—that creates a tension. And if things go wrong, that could be very beneficial for your learning, but it can also happen that you do not receive a high grade for it.”

In all of the interviews, students mentioned that it was crucial that the task was the core project in the course at that time, as students of the immunology course stated: “I think also because this is not something you do on the side, but this is the only thing we do at the moment, it is the main activity.” The fact that students’ final grades depended primarily on the group assignment was mentioned in some groups. Students emphasized that in previous experiences with group assignments they had not collaborated as intensively because their final grade did not depend largely on the team assignment.

Finally, group size was considered a factor stimulating collaboration in seven of the groups, specifically related to the level of responsibility students felt. Groups of three or four were believed to be optimal: “Otherwise, you get a sort of diffuse responsibility …, and with four you are clearly responsible for an important part of the process.”

Process Factors

The need for team and task regulation was mentioned most frequently in the focus group discussions as an important factor increasing the effectiveness of collaboration. Students divided tasks, appointed team leaders, and set their own deadlines. Organizing frequent face-to-face meetings was very helpful, according to students: “That we met each other physically, instead of doing everything by mail or chat, like in other projects. This works much better, if you can look each other in the eyes it is way faster and more efficient to manage and decide things …. It also increases the pressure, everybody prepares for a meeting.” The quote in Table 2 indicates the direct relation between the autonomy of the groups and their dedication to following their self-made group regulations.

As shown in Table 2 , students in all nine focus groups experienced a sense of positive interdependence in terms of needing one another in order to succeed and achieve their goal. The feeling of responsibility was discussed in six groups. The related issue of “uneven contribution” was discussed in all nine of the focus groups: students did experience differences in power and effort between team members. Interestingly, students did not perceive this as free riding. According to the students, some degree of uneven contribution is only natural; the students all did their best, but as the students said, “There weren’t students who contributed less; there were only students who contributed more.” According to the students, this uneven contribution was due to power differences, not to disinterest or laziness. Students showed empathy for their peers who contributed less: “The strong people might go too hard for the other people to be able to catch up.” This may have caused frustration in students who felt they were lagging behind, as one of them revealed: “You have that responsibility that drives you and then you feel the need to do more, but perhaps that is beyond your capabilities at that point.” Some of the groups discussed the issue of uneven contribution while working on their projects, but always, they stated, in an “understanding and respectful way.” Furthermore, students in all nine interviews mentioned the fact that the variety among students was useful and enhanced the discussions: “working in a group consisting of clones of yourself” would not be as interesting, one of the pharmacy groups stated.

All nine groups mentioned the need for promotive interaction several times, drawing attention to the need to discuss content to accomplish team goals. They mentioned several indicators of promotive interaction: discussions, exchange of information, and arguments, building on one another’s ideas, explaining to one another, providing and processing peer feedback, and asking one another critical questions. According to the students, these discussions enhanced their understanding, and they also learned how to discuss, voice their opinion, explain, listen to others, accept feedback, and reflect on their own work.

Last, but not least, students talked enthusiastically about the way they supported and motivated one another. There was explicit help and pep talks, and, perhaps even more importantly, implicit mutual inspiration effected by them perceiving the motivation of their peers.

Finally, we found one contextual factor (not included in Table 2 ) contributing to collaboration: the shared motivation of students to get the best out of the group assignment. Students mostly linked their having similar motivations to the fact that they were in their second or third year (four of the five courses were third-year courses). First, the students already knew one another: “When you are in your first year, you do not know each other, and some people are a bit insecure, so to say. But now we know each other, so we may scold each other all we can.” Furthermore, students suggested being equally motivated, because the unmotivated students had already left in previous years.

CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION

The purpose of the current study was to find factors that enhance student collaboration. The collaboration processes (task and team regulation, mutual support and motivation, positive interaction) used by these students were distinctly effective. During these processes, positive interdependence was clearly present, supporting the notion that positive interdependence is a crucial factor affecting the effectiveness of collaboration ( Johnson and Johnson, 2009 ). Although the interview data do not allow causal relations between design factors and collaboration processes to be inferred, it seems reasonable to assume that positive interdependence was evoked by a combination of the nature of the task (autonomous, relevant, dense and complex, group rewards), the prominent placement of the group assignment within the course, and the group size.

The results indicate that positive interdependence was an important factor contributing to the effectiveness of collaboration. The positive effect of interdependence on student achievement has already been well documented (for reviews, see Slavin, 1990 ; Webb and Palinscar, 1996 ; Johnson et al ., 2007 ). Although we disassembled the factors contributing to collaboration in the analysis , we assume interdependence does not consist of a single factor but rather is constructed through the interaction between motivated students and design factors (the nature of the task and student autonomy). Furthermore, the fact that the final grade depended primarily on the group assignment can be expected to have contributed to students’ interdependence, which would concur with the findings of Slavin (1991) . Interestingly, however, these students seemed to value the learning process and the products they were working on more than their grades. Our finding, that a sense of achievement rather than a grade was of greater importance in motivating interdependence, contradicts findings of Slavin (1991) and Tsay and Brady (2010) . Tsay and Brady (2010) found that the degree of active participation of university students in collaborative groups was affected by the importance they attached to grades: students who perceived grades as highly important were more active collaborators.

The enthusiasm of the students when speaking of the way they supported and motivated one another and regulated the team and task processes indeed indicates the occurrence of strong self-regulatory processes. Although some structure was provided beforehand in all five courses (e.g., final deadlines), students were perceived to be autonomous in the planning and regulation of their work, which they said added to their motivation to follow their own rules and planning. This direct relationship between perceived autonomy and self-regulatory behavior is aligned with self-determination theory ( Deci and Ryan, 2000 ). According to Deci and Ryan (2000) , when teachers are supportive of student autonomy, students are motivated to internalize the regulation of their learning activities, whereas when teachers are controlling, self-regulated motivation is undermined. The self-regulatory social processes of these students, encouraged by the autonomy they were provided, were the most important factors increasing the effectiveness of their collaboration in these five cases.

Individual accountability is an important aspect within the theory of positive interdependence. Interestingly, instead of accountability, students used the word “responsibility.” The difference between responsibility and accountability is meaningful, because accountability is focused on the end result, or being answerable for your actions to relevant others, while responsibility is related to the task. Responsibility is viewed as having a higher level of autonomy and involves the ability to self-regulate actions free of external motivational pressure. In contrast, the accountable actor is subject to external oversight, regulation, and mechanisms of punishment ( Bivins, 2006 ). The term “responsibility” more appropriately fits the collaboration in these cases, as one of our participants illustrates: “You feel the responsibility to other people in your group, because as soon as soon as you drop the ball, the rest have to work harder.” This student does not refer to consequences externally imposed on him, but he feels responsibility toward others. The effect this has may be the same as when students are forced to be accountable because of reward- or task-based structures, as suggested by Johnson and Johnson (2009) ; however, the nature of the motivation is more intrinsically than extrinsically induced.

Related to the issue of accountability or responsibility is the problem of free riding, which is one of the main problems of group work in higher education ( Livingstone and Lynch, 2000 ; Aggarwal and O’Brien, 2008 ; Pauli et al ., 2008 ; Shimazou and Aldrich, 2010 ). In the interviews in which the issue of free riding came up, however, groups did not seem to have experienced the phenomenon. A putative explanation for the lack of free-riding behavior is the incidence of accountability ( Slavin, 1991 ; Johnson and Johnson, 2009 ; Onwegbuezie et al ., 2009 ), as students definitely felt responsible for the end result. The way students spoke about their group members, however, was in terms of mutual trust rather than accountability. Students recognized differences in contribution but did not perceive this as problematic. They were empathic toward differences between students. If there were negative feelings at all, the low contributors were more apt to feel frustrated, indicating that the differences in contribution were, as Hall and Buzwell (2012) have suggested, involuntary and due to inadequacy rather than apathy or laziness.

In the five courses of this study, the combination of design factors seems to have prevented free riding. Although the causal nature of the relationship between design features of the group work and effective group processing cannot be claimed in the current study, the results indicate that, in particular, perceived autonomy and the challenging nature of the task evoked students’ motivation to make an effort. The relevance of the tasks, which required students to produce something new (to them) and something original and tangible, motivated students. The tasks were also open and complex, which are features that have already been found to promote deeper-level interactions than simple tasks ( Hertz-Lazarowitz, 1989 ; Cohen, 1994 ). Autonomy was a factor frequently mentioned as contributing to the effectiveness of the group work. Contradictory to Johnson and Johnson’s (2009) recommendation for teachers to structure processes, students of these courses designated the autonomy they had in choosing their topic and in organizing the process, as one of the factors increasing their motivation. Results from organizational research show that autonomy can, in fact, increase teamwork achievement, but only when positive interdependence is high ( Langfred, 2000 ). Autonomy combined with low interdependence decreases achievement, indicating that autonomy should be combined with challenging tasks. Although autonomy and level of challenge in a group assignment appears to be vital, instructors in different settings may need to use greater scaffolding.

Future Research and Concluding Remarks

It is important to keep in mind the small sample and restricted context when interpreting these findings. Although the results have been obtained in small-enrollment, upper-division courses, we think that our findings might also be transferable to large-enrollment courses, provided students will be working in self-directed small groups on substantial and relevant projects. As generalizability requires data on large populations, the findings of our five cases within a restricted context are not necessarily representative of the larger population. We believe, however, that there are strong reasons for our findings to be deemed “transferable” ( Lincoln and Guba, 1985 ) to comparable situations. While generalization is applied by researchers, transferability is a process performed by the readers of research ( Metcalfe, 2005 ). Unlike generalizability, transferability does not involve broad claims but invites readers of research to make connections between elements of a study and their own experiences ( Barnes et al ., 2012 ). According to Berliner (2002 , p. 19), implementing scientific findings is always difficult in education, “because humans in schools are embedded in complex and changing networks of social interaction.” Therefore, we do not claim to have produced broadly generalizable findings but instead invite the reader to identify how the findings can be transferred to his or her situation. Similar studies with data from other university contexts, such as other countries or other class settings, would help in understanding how the conditions that facilitate collaborative learning relate to different settings.

We assume, however, that the concept of evoking, rather than enforcing, positive interdependence by increasing autonomy and the challenge level of the task provides relevant insights for discourse on effective design of group work within life sciences education. Students in life sciences education, in general, are quite experienced in working in groups and in regulating their own work. Autonomy, combined with a challenging task, evoked interdependence and generated interaction as well as student motivation in these five cases. Structuring the process, for example by scripting, seems unnecessary for promoting student interaction. It was, in Dillenbourg’s (2002) words, not necessary to “didactisise” collaborative interactions or to disturb the autonomy and natural interactions of students. Moreover, structuring the process could have impeded the feeling of autonomy, which is crucial for student motivation (Deci and Ryan, 2000). Brewer and Klein (2006) came to a similar conclusion in their investigation of the influence of types of interdependence (roles, rewards, roles plus rewards, no structure) on student interaction. The groups with no structured interdependence had significantly more cognitive interactions involving content discussion than the other groups, indicating that structuring interdependence is not always necessary with university students. We suggest that collaborative learning with university students should be designed using challenging and relevant tasks that build shared ownership with students.

Acknowledgments

Drs. Kristin Denzer, Mario Stassen, and Fons Cremers are gratefully acknowledged for encouraging their students to participate in the interviews.

• Aggarwal P, O’Brien C. Social loafing on group projects: structural antecedents and effect on student satisfaction. J Market Educ. 2008; 30 :255–264. [ Google Scholar ]
• Barnes J, Conrad K, Demont-Heinrich C, Graziano M, Kowalski D, Neufeld J, Zamora J, Palmquist M. Generalizability and transferability. 2012. Writing@CSU, Colorado State University http://writing.colostate.edu/guides/guide.cfm?guideid=65 (accessed 14 November 2015).
• Barron B. Achieving coordination in collaborative problem-solving groups. J Learn Sci. 2000; 9 :403–436. [ Google Scholar ]
• Barron B. When smart groups fail. J Learn Sci. 2003; 12 :307–359. [ Google Scholar ]
• Berliner DC. Educational research: the hardest science of all. Educ Res. 2002; 31 :18–20. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bivins TH. Responsibility and accountability. In: Fitzpatrick K, Bronstein C, editors. Ethics in Public Relations: Responsible Advocacy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2006. pp. 19–38. [ Google Scholar ]
• Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006; 3 :77–101. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brewer S, Klein JD. Type of positive interdependence and affiliation motive in an asynchronous collaborative learning environment. Educ Technol Res Dev. 2006; 54 :331–354. [ Google Scholar ]
• Burla L, Knierim B, Barth KL, Duetz M, Abel T. From text to codings: intercoder reliability assessment in qualitative content analysis. Nurs Res. 2008; 57 :111–117. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chinn CA, O’Donnell AM, Jinks TS. The structure of discourse in collaborative learning. J Exp Educ. 2000; 69 :77–97. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cohen EG. Restructuring the classroom: conditions for productive small groups. Rev Educ Res. 1994; 64 :1–35. [ Google Scholar ]
• Deci EL, Ryan RM. The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychol Inq. 2000; 11 :227–268. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dewey J. The Sources of a Science of Education. New York: Liveright; 1929. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dillenbourg P. Over-scripting CSCL: the risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design. In: Kirschner PA, editor. Three Worlds of CSCL. Can We Support CSCL. Heerlen: Open University Nederland; 2002. pp. 61–91. [ Google Scholar ]
• Everitt B. Making Sense of Statistics in Psychology: A Second-Level Course. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 1996. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fink DL. Beyond small groups: harnessing the extraordinary power of learning teams. In: Michaelsen LK, Bauman Knight A, Fink LD, editors. Team-Based Learning: A Transformative Use of Small Groups in Teaching. Sterling, VA: Stylus; 2004. pp. 3–26. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gillies R. Cooperative learning: developments in research. Int J Educ Psychol. 2014; 3 :125–140. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gillies RM. The effects of cooperative learning on junior high school students during small group learning. Learn Instr. 2004; 14 :197–213. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gully S, Incalcaterra K, Joshi A, Beaubien J. A meta-analysis of team-efficacy, potency, and performance: interdependence and level of analysis as moderators of observed relationships. J Appl Psychol. 2002; 87 :819–832. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hall D, Buzwell S. The problem of free-riding in group projects: looking beyond social loafing as reason for non-contribution. Active Learn High Educ. 2012; 14 :37–49. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hänze M, Berger R. Cooperative learning, motivational effects, and student characteristics: an experimental study comparing cooperative learning and direct instruction in 12th grade physics classes. Learn Instr. 2007; 17 :29–41. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hertz-Lazarowitz R. Cooperation and helping in the classroom: a contextual approach. Int J Res Educ. 1989; 13 :113–119. [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson DW, Johnson RT. Making cooperative learning work. Theory Pract. 1999; 38 :67–73. [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson DW, Johnson RT. An educational psychology success story: social interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educ Res. 2009; 38 :365–379. [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson DW, Johnson RT, Smith K. The state of cooperative learning in postsecondary and professional settings. Educ Psychol Rev. 2007; 19 :15–29. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kagan S. Cooperative Learning, 2nd ed. San Clemente, CA: Kagan; 1994. [ Google Scholar ]
• Khosa DK, Volet SE. Promoting effective collaborative case-based learning at university: a metacognitive intervention. Stud High Educ. 2013; 38 :870–889. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kidd PS, Parshall MB. Getting the focus and the group: enhancing analytical rigor in focus group research. Qual Health Res. 2000; 10 :293–308. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• King A. Structuring peer interaction to promote high-level cognitive processing. Theory Pract. 2002; 41 :33–39. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kirschner PA. Using integrated electronic environments for collaborative teaching/learning. Res Dialogue Learn Instruction. 2001; 2 :1–9. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kozhevnikov M, Evans C, Kosslyn SM. Cognitive style as environmentally sensitive individual differences in cognition: a modern synthesis and applications in education, business and management. Psychol Sci. 2014; 15 :3–33. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Langfred CW. The paradox of self-management: individual and group autonomy in work groups. J Organ Behav. 2000; 21 :563–585. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lincoln YS, Guba EG. Naturalistic Inquiry. London: Sage; 1985. [ Google Scholar ]
• Linton DL, Farmer JK, Peterson E. Is peer interaction necessary for optimal active learning. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2014; 13 :243–252. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Livingstone D, Lynch K. Group project work and student-centred active learning: two different experiences. Stud High Educ. 2000; 25 :325–345. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lou Y, Abrami P, d’Apollonia S. Small group and individual learning with technology: a meta-analysis. Rev Educ Res. 2001; 71 :449–521. [ Google Scholar ]
• Metcalfe M. Generalisation: learning across epistemologies. Forum: Qualitative Social Research. 2005; 6 (1) www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/1-05/05-1-17-e.htm (accessed 5 January 2016) [ Google Scholar ]
• Morgan DL, Spanish MT. Social interaction and the cognitive organisation of health-relevant behavior. Sociol Health Illness. 1985; 7 :401–422. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nokes-Malach TJ, Richey JE. When is it better to learn together? Insights from research on collaborative learning. Educ Psychol Rev. 2015; 27 :645–656. [ Google Scholar ]
• Onwegbuezie AJ, Collins KMT, Jiao QG. Performance of cooperative learning groups in a postgraduate education methodology course. Active Learn High Educ. 2009; 10 :265–277. [ Google Scholar ]
• Palincsar AS, Herrenkohl LR. Promoting thinking through peer learning. Theory Pract. 2002; 41 :26–32. [ Google Scholar ]
• Parkinson TJ, St. George AM. Are the concepts of andragogy and pedagogy relevant to veterinary undergraduate teaching. J Vet Med Educ. 2003; 30 :247–253. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pauli R, Mohiyeddini C, Bray D, Michie F, Street B. Individual differences in negative group work experiences in collaborative student learning. Educ Psychol. 2008; 28 :47–58. [ Google Scholar ]
• Raidal SL, Volet SE. Preclinical students’ predispositions towards social forms of instruction and self-directed learning: a challenge for the development of autonomous and collaborative learners. High Educ. 2009; 57 :577–596. [ Google Scholar ]
• Salomon G, Globerson T. When teams do not function the way they ought to. Int J Educ Res. 1989; 13 :89–99. [ Google Scholar ]
• Scager K, Akkerman SF, Pilot A, Wubbels T. Challenging high ability students. Stud High Educ. 2014; 9 :659–680. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sears DA, Pai H-H. Effects of cooperative versus individual study on learning and motivation after reward-removal. J Exp Educ. 2012; 80 :246–262. [ Google Scholar ]
• Serrano JM, Pons RM. Cooperative learning: we can also do it without task structure. Intercultural Educ. 2007; 18 :215–230. [ Google Scholar ]
• Shimazou J, Aldrich H. Group work can be gratifying: understanding and overcoming resistance to cooperative learning. Coll Teach. 2010; 58 :52–57. [ Google Scholar ]
• Shuell TJ. Teaching and learning in a classroom context. In: Berliner DC, Calfee RC, editors. Handbook of Educational Psychology. New York: MacMillan; 1996. pp. 726–763. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sim C, Wright J. Research in Health Care: Concepts and Methods. Cheltenham, UK: Nelson Thomes; 2000. [ Google Scholar ]
• Slavin RE. Cooperative learning. Rev Educ Res. 1990; 50 :315–342. [ Google Scholar ]
• Slavin RE. Group rewards make groupwork work. Educ Leadership. 1991; 48 (5):89–91. [ Google Scholar ]
• Slavin RE. Cooperative Learning: Theory, Research, and Practice. Boston: Allyn Bacon; 1995. [ Google Scholar ]
• Teasley SD. The role of talk in children’s peer collaboration. Dev Psychol. 1995; 31 :207–220. [ Google Scholar ]
• Torn A, McNichol E. A qualitative study utilizing a focus group to explore the role and concept of the nurse practitioner. J Adv Nurs. 1998; 27 :1202–1211. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tsay M, Brady M. A case study of cooperative learning and communication pedagogy: does working in teams make a difference. J Scholarsh Teach Learn. 2010; 10 (2):78–89. [ Google Scholar ]
• Van Boxtel C. PhD Thesis. Utrecht, Netherlands: Utrecht University; 2000. Collaborative concept learning: collaborative learning tasks, student interaction and the learning of physics concepts. [ Google Scholar ]
• Van Boxtel C, Van Der Linden J, Kanselaar G. Collaborative learning tasks and the elaboration of conceptual knowledge. Learn Instr. 2000; 10 :311–330. [ Google Scholar ]
• Veenman S, Denessen E, Van den Akker A, Van der Rijt J. Effects of a cooperative learning program on the elaborations of students during help seeking and help giving. Am Educ Res J. 2005; 42 :114–151. [ Google Scholar ]
• Visschers-Pleijers AJSF, Dolmans DHJM, De Leng BA, Wolfhagen IHAP, Van Der Vleuten CPM. Analysis of verbal interactions in tutorial groups: a process study. Med Educ. 2006; 40 :129–137. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Volet SE, Summers M, Thurman J. High-level co-regulation in collaborative learning: how does it emerge and how is it sustained. Learn Instr. 2009; 19 :128–143. [ Google Scholar ]
• Webb NM. The teacher’s role in promoting collaborative dialogue in the classroom. Br J Educ Psychol. 2009; 79 :1–28. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Webb NM, Nemer KM, Zuniga S. Short circuits or superconductors? Effects of group composition on high-achieving students’ science assessment performance. Am Educ Res J. 2002; 39 :943–989. [ Google Scholar ]
• Webb NM, Palinscar AS. Group processes in the classroom. In: Berliner D, Calfee R, editors. Handbook of Educational Psychology. New York: Macmillan; 1996. pp. 841–873. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wiegant F, Boonstra J, Peeters A, Scager K. Team-based learning in honors science education: the benefit of complex writing assignments. J National Collegiate Honors Council. 2012; 13 :219–227. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wiegant F, Scager K, Boonstra J. An undergraduate course to bridge the gap between textbooks and scientific research. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2011; 10 :83–94. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wiegant FAC, Scager K, Peeters AJM, Boonstra J. The challenge of writing a PhD proposal in honors (undergraduate) education: a group project as significant learning experience. In: Wolfensberger MVC, Drayer L, Volker JJM, editors. Munster, Germany: Waxmann; 2014. pp. 77–84. Pursuit of Excellence in a Networked Society: Theoretical and Practical Approaches Coming from the Conference Excellence in Higher Education and Beyond. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wittrock MC. Generative processes of comprehension. Educ Psychol. 1990; 24 :345–376. [ Google Scholar ]
• Woolley AW, Aggarwal I, Malone TW. Collective intelligence and group performance. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2015; 24 :420–424. [ Google Scholar ]

A Historical Review of Collaborative Learning and Cooperative Learning

• Original Paper
• Published: 21 January 2023
• Volume 67 , pages 718–728, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

• Xigui Yang 1  

23k Accesses

9 Citations

5 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Collaborative learning and cooperative learning are two separate approaches developed independently by two groups of scholars around the same period of time in the 1960 and 1970 s. Due to their different origins and intertwined paths of development, they have their own distinct features while sharing many similarities. The relationship between collaborative learning and cooperative learning can be confusing. Therefore, this paper provides a brief historical review of collaborative learning and cooperative learning to identify the origins of each, where they diverge from each other, and where they are aligned. This paper examines the definitions of the two terms and compares their characteristics. This is followed by a discussion of their historical development in the last fifty years: early development between the 1960 and 1970 s; maturation in the 1980 and 1990 s; convergence in the mid-1990s; and the emergence of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) in the late 1980s. Finally, this paper summarizes the four paradigms of mainstream research on collaborative and cooperative learning, namely, the “effect” paradigm, the “conditions” paradigm, the “interaction” paradigm, and the “design” paradigm.

Similar content being viewed by others

Foundations, Processes, Technologies, and Methods: An Overview of CSCL Through Its Handbook

Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning: Mediated and Co-Present Forms of Learning Together

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Collaborative learning is now used as an umbrella term for various instructional approaches to small group learning, including but not limited to cooperative learning, team-based learning, peer tutoring, study groups, project-based learning, problem-based learning, and learning communities (Koschmann, 1996 ; Smith & MacGregor, 1992 ; Udvari-Solner, 2012a ). Notably, the relationship between collaborative learning and cooperative learning has been most confusing (Bruffee, 1999 ), “…more like an arbor of vines growing in parallel, crossing, or intertwining” (MacGregor, 1992 , p. 37), given the fact that they were developed around the same period of time. Some scholars use the two terms as synonyms, some consider cooperative learning a subcategory of collaborative learning, others treat them as two ends of a continuum, with cooperative learning being most structured and collaborative learning being least structured, and still, others draw a clear line between the two (Barkley et al., 2014 ). There is a theoretical rationale to discriminate the two terms, but in practice, it is difficult to separate them because collaboration and cooperation often co-exist in many group work processes (Jeong & Hmelo-Silver, 2016 ).

According to Bruffee ( 1999 ), collaborative and cooperative learning are complementary and supplementary, and their differences can be mainly attributed to their different origins:

Collaborative and cooperative learning were developed originally for educating people of different ages, experience, and levels of mastery of the craft of interdependence. So teachers devising methods in each case tended to make different assumptions about the nature of knowledge and the authority of knowledge. (p. 87)

Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to provide a brief historical review of collaborative learning and cooperative learning to identify their origins, where they diverge from each other, and where they are aligned.

This paper is organized into five parts. The first part examines the definitions of the two terms and compares their characteristics. The next three parts outline the historical development of collaborative learning and cooperative learning in the past five decades, which can be roughly divided into three phases: early development between the 1960 and 1970 s; maturation in the 1980 and 1990 s; convergence in the mid-1990s; and the emergence of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) in the late 1980s. A timeline of their history can be found in the Appendix Table 2 . The fifth part summarizes the four paradigms of research on collaborative and cooperative learning, namely, the “effect” paradigm, the “conditions” paradigm, the “interaction” paradigm (Dillenbourg et al., 1996 ), and the “design” paradigm.

Definitions and Characteristics

It is challenging to define collaborative learning or collaboration, and there is no universal definition (Dillenbourg, 1999 ; Koschmann, 1996 ; Whipple, 1987 ). To Bruffee ( 1999 ), the most prominent collaborative theorist, collaborative learning “creates conditions in which students can negotiate the boundaries between the knowledge communities they belong to and the one that the professor belongs to” (p. 144). In this philosophical view, the notions of power and authority are challenged, with the assumption that knowledge is not transmitted from the professors to the students but socially constructed among people of a community (Bruffee, 1984 , 1999 ). Thus education can be viewed as a conversation among people and a process of reacculturation (Bruffee, 1984 , 1999 ). In light of Bruffee’s conception, Panitz ( 1999 ) defined collaboration as “a philosophy of interaction and personal lifestyle where individuals are responsible for their actions, including learning and respecting the abilities and contributions of their peers (p. 3). Likewise, Oxford ( 1997 ) also acknowledged the philosophical orientation of collaborative learning. With a focus on the learning processes, Roschelle & Teasley ( 1995 ) defined collaboration as “the mutual engagement of participants in a coordinated effort to solve the problem together” (p. 70). Due to its philosophical orientation, collaborative learning tends not to impose too much structure on learning activities (Bruffee, 1995 , 1999 ), and the students “work together in small groups that are typically self-selected, self-managed, and loosely structured” (Davidson, 2021a , p. 12).

In contrast, the definitions of cooperative learning or cooperation are much less abstract. The most renowned cooperative theorists, Johnson & Johnson ( 1999 ), defined cooperative learning as “the instructional use of small groups so that students work together to maximize their own and each other’s learning” (p. 5). They emphasized interdependence in group work: students “can reach their learning goals if and only if the other students in the learning group also reach their goals” (Johnson & Johnson, 1999 , p. 5). Cooperation can be defined as “a structure of interaction designed to facilitate the accomplishment of a specific end product or goal through people working together in groups” (Panitz, 1999 , p. 3). Cooperation implies “the division of labour among participants, as an activity where each person is responsible for a portion of the problem solving” (Roschelle & Teasley, 1995 , p. 70). Compared to collaborative learning, cooperative learning has a more practical orientation as “a set of instructional methods in which students work in small, mixed-ability learning groups” (Slavin, 1987 , p. 3). Although with different goals and emphases, cooperative learning methods all tend to structure group interactions to ensure equal participation and individual accountability (Bruffee, 1995 , 1999 ; Oxford, 1997 ; Sharan & Sharan, 2021 ). Most well-known small group learning techniques, such as Jigsaw, Think-Pair-Share, Three-Step Interview, Teams-Games-Tournaments, and Group Investigation, were invented by cooperative learning researchers; conversely, very limited specific procures can be attributed to collaborative learning (Davidson, 2021a ).

Therefore, the key difference between the two approaches lies in that: “in nurturing educational rewards to be gained from self-governed student peer relations, [collaboration learning] sacrifices guaranteed accountability… in guaranteeing accountability, [cooperative learning] risks maintaining authority relations of traditional education both within each small working group and in the class as a whole” (Bruffee, 1999 , p. 92). Many scholars attempted to differentiate collaborative and cooperative learning (Bruffee, 1995 ; Davidson, 2021c ; Davidson & Major, 2014 ; Dillenbourg, 1999 ; Jacobs, 2015 ; Oxford, 1997 ; Panitz, 1999 ; Smith & MacGregor, 1992 ; Veldman & Kostons, 2019 ) (see Table  1 ). It is critical to note that these differences are generalizations of the two approaches, especially at their earlier stages. Both approaches can take varied forms, and many of the distinctions seem to be blurred after years of development.

To sum up, collaborative learning was founded by humanity educators in higher education, based on theories of constructivism (Piaget and Vygotsky) and critical pedagogy (Freire), with the goal of shifting the structure of authority in education. Collaborative learning research typically involves qualitative approaches, whereas the practice of collaborative learning is typically based on the design of open-ended tasks for students to work together to reach a consensus and typically does not intervene in group processes or teach team-building skills. In contrast, cooperative learning was established by social psychologists and STEM educators to improve K-12 education in a culture of competition and individualism, based on theories of social interdependence (Lewin and Deutsch), constructivism (Piaget and Vygotsky), and behaviorist learning theories (Skinner and Bandura). Cooperative learning researchers typically use quantitative approaches to test and validate their theories. The practice of cooperative learning has typically been based on many ready-to-use methods to promote positive intercedence among group members. How these distinctions come into being will be made more apparent as we review the historical development of collaborative and cooperative learning in the next section.

With these differences in mind, it is important to remember that collaborative and cooperative learning share more similarities than differences (Kreijns et al., 2003 ). They both harness “peer group influence to focus on intellectual and substantive concerns” (Bruffee, 1999 , p. 92) and are both student-centered pedagogies compared to traditional teacher-centered lectures. Fundamentally, they have some shared theoretical assumptions, such as: Learning is an active, constructive process; learning depends on rich contexts; learners are diverse; learning is inherently social; learning has affective and subjective dimensions (Smith & MacGregor, 1992 ).

Early Development in the 1960 and 1970s

Small group learning approaches such as collaborative learning and cooperative learning can be traced back to ancient times (Johnson & Johnson, 1999 , 2021 ). However, modern exploration of collaborative learning and cooperative learning began in the 1960s and emerged as fields of study in the 1970s. Around this period of time, there were probably many other educators who were practicing small group pedagogies without knowing or using the labels of collaborative or cooperative learning (Gamson, 1994 ).

Collaborative Learning with British Origins

Research on collaborative learning originated in Britain in the 1960s (Bruffee, 1984 ). At the college level, Abercrombie experimented with teaching medical students to make better diagnoses through collaborative learning at the University of London (Bruffee, 1973 , 1984 , 1999 ). For secondary education, the Curriculum Laboratory at the University of London Goldsmiths’ College worked closely with local school teachers to promote collaborative learning with a strong political endeavor to establish democracy and humanity in education (Bruffee, 1984 ). Mason ( 1970 ) summarized the innovative work he and his colleagues in the Curriculum Laboratory did in his book Collaborative Learning , which was the first time this term appeared in the literature. Mason ( 1970 ) proposed to design a new educational system that could foster “authenticity in knowledge and in relationships” and “dialogue between pupils and collaboration,” which he believed “can only happen if most work goes on in small groups, so conditions must also be sufficiently relaxed for teachers to allow groups to work much of the time without supervision” (p. 85). As a pioneer of collaborative learning, Mason ( 1970 ), however, deliberated not to give any definitions of collaborative learning, nor did he provide operational procedures for practicing collaborative learning.

In the early 1970s in the United States, a young American professor in English at Brooklyn College, Kenneth A. Bruffee, borrowed the term “collaborative learning” from Mason ( 1970 ), as he was trying to solve practical issues in his own teaching (Bruffee, 1984 , 1999 ). Years later, Bruffee furthered the theorization of collaborative learning and became the leading collaborative theorist. Bruffee ( 1973 ) described his earlier attempts at collaborative learning in his literature and composition classes in the article “Collaborative Learning: Some Practical Models” published in College English , which became a major platform for many of the early discussions of collaborative learning.

As Bruffee ( 1973 ) observed, college students participated in a wide range of collaborative activities such as academic study groups, hobby groups, and political activist societies outside the classroom, whereas they were expected to work individually inside the classroom and collaboration was discouraged. At that time, the open admissions policy in his institution brought about dramatic changes in the campus demographics with more minority students and students of low achievement (Bruffee, 1999 ). There was a need to bridge the achievement gap and racial differences, forcing him to rethink the nature of knowledge, authority, and education. Drawing inspirations from Dewey, Vygotsky, and Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed , Bruffee ( 1999 ) started to experiment with collaborative learning in his department around the idea of knowledge communities and reacculturation, but he had not yet fully uncovered the connections between these ideas and collaborative learning until the 1980s.

Cooperative Learning Without a Name

In the meantime, the pioneers of cooperative learning, including David W. Johnson and Roger T. Johnson, Elliot, Spencer Kagan, Richard Schmuck, Neil Davidson, Elizabeth G. Cohen, Robert E. Slavin, and Shlomo Sharan, started their research careers on cooperative learning in the 1960 and 1970 s (Davidson, 2021a ). The term “cooperative learning,” however, did not appear in literature until around 1980; alternative terms such as “small group learning” were used before that (Davidson, 2021a ). The recently published book Pioneering Perspectives in Cooperative Learning , edited by Davidson ( 2021b ), invited these leading scholars to share stories about how they developed their unique approaches to cooperative learning.

Like Bruffee, Aronson ( 2021 ) invented the now famous jigsaw method in the early 1970s in response to critical issues caused by the socio-cultural contexts, i.e., the desegregation in public schools in Texas. Aronson ( 2021 ) implemented the jigsaw method among fifth-grade students. It was a success as students learned to appreciate each other’s differences, became friendly to each other, and developed a positive attitude towards the school.

David and Roger Johnson from the University of Minnesota started to train teachers on cooperative learning in the mid-1960s during a time of competition and individualism within American society. In 1975, they published their masterpiece Learning Together and Alone (5th edition in 1999) (Johnson & Johnson, 1999 ). They grounded their research practices on social interdependence theory, cognitive developmental theory, and behavioral learning theories (Johnson & Johnson, 1999 , 2009 ). Social interdependence theory was developed by Morton Deutsch in the 1940s, which “grounds the entire field of cooperative learning” (Stevahn, 2021 , p. 17). Deutsch’s social intercedence theory was expanded by his student David Johnson (Johnson & Johnson, 1999 , 2009 , 2021 ).

Social interdependence theory distinguishes three types of social interaction: promotive interaction (cooperation) from positive interdependence of individuals in a group; oppositional interaction (competition) from negative interdependence of group members; and no interaction (individualist efforts) from independence or no interdependence within a group. Although cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning can all lead to constructive learning, the Johnsons argued that cooperative learning should be “the basic foundation of instruction, the underlying context on which all instruction rests” (Johnson & Johnson, 1999 , p. 11). The cognitive-developmental perspective of cooperative learning is rooted in Piaget’s “conceptual conflicts” and Vygotsky’s “Zone of Proximal Development” (Johnson & Johnson, 1999 ). The behavioral learning theories by Skinner and Bandura support the use of extrinsic motivation as incentives for students to learn together “since it is assumed that students will not intrinsically help their classmates or work toward a common goal” (Johnson & Johnson, 1999 , p. 186).

Further, Johnson and Johnson ( 1999 ; 2009 ; 2021 ) identified five core elements of productive cooperative learning: (1) positive interdependence (achieved by sharing goals, resources, roles, workload, and rewords); (2) individual accountability and personal responsibility; (3) promotive interaction; (4) appropriate use of social skills; and (5) group processing. Besides building a comprehensive theoretical framework and practical guidelines for cooperative learning, the Johnsons applied their cooperative learning methods in the classrooms and conducted empirical research to validate and refine their theory (Johnson & Johnson, 1999 , 2009 , 2021 ). Many other cooperative learning scholars also conduct quantitative research, as most of them are well-trained social psychologists (e.g., David Johnson, Slavin, Sharan, Aronson, Kagan, and Schmuck) or STEM educators (e.g., Roger Johnson and Davidson).

A community of cooperative learning scholars was formed in the late 1970s. Initiated by Shlomo Sharan, the First International Convention on Cooperation in Education took place in Israel in 1979, and the International Association for the Study of Cooperation in Education (IASCE) was founded. The IASCE was active for four decades until its closure amid the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020 (Davidson, 2021a ).

Coming of Age in the 1980 and 1990s

In the 1980 and 1990 s, both collaborative and cooperative learning witnessed substantive growth and gained wide recognition. However, they did not develop in the same fashion or at the same pace. Having established solid theoretical foundations in the 1970s, cooperative learning has flourished in research since then and was widely adopted at all educational levels by the 1990s. Theories of collaborative learning were not established until the early 1980s, and up to that point, research on collaborative learning was lacking (Bruffee, 1986 ; Smit, 1989 ). However, collaborative learning became “a conscious and well-developed set of practices carried out by a growing number of practitioners from many disciplines” in the 1990s (Gamson, 1994 ).

The paths of collaborative and cooperative learning started to cross around the mid-1990s as scholars attempted to differentiate the two approaches (Bruffee, 1995 ; Dillenbourg, 1999 ; Oxford, 1997 ; Panitz, 1999 ; Smith & MacGregor, 1992 ). In 1995, four scholars (two representing each approach) (Matthews et al., 1995 ) co-authored an article, “Building Bridges between Cooperative and Collaborative Learning,” published in Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning , emphasizing the similarities of the two approaches. This can be regarded as a critical moment for reconciling differences between the two approaches. Moreover, the field of instructional design and technology began to adopt collaborative learning as a research paradigm, using the term “collaborative learning” to broadly characterize all approaches (Koschmann, 1996 ).

Towards a Theory of Collaborative Learning

Bruffee first presented his theorization of collaborative learning in 1984 (Bruffee, 1984 ), with important extensions to the theory in 1986 (Bruffee, 1986 ), culminating in the publication of his book Collaborative Learning: Higher Education, Interdependence, and the Authority of Knowledge (first published in 1993; second edition in 1999) (Bruffee, 1999 ).

Bruffee ( 1986 ) introduced social constructionist theories and how they shaped his understanding of collaborative learning. Based on Vygotsky’s idea that learning happens when social interactions are reflected and internalized by the learner, Bruffee ( 1984 ) argued that our thought or knowledge is not a given attribute but a social artifact constructed in the process of social interaction among communities of knowledgeable peers. Collaborative learning reflects the process of socially justifying our beliefs as we learn: “…by challenging each other’s biases and presuppositions; by negotiating collectively toward new paradigms of perception, thought, feeling, and expression; and by joining larger, more experienced communities of knowledgeable peers through assenting to those communities’ interests, values, language, and paradigms of perception and thought” (Bruffee, 1984 , p. 646). In these knowledge communities, the teachers’ traditional role as the authority of knowledge was deconstructed, and a teacher’s responsibility was shifted to introduce the new members (students) to the community (Bruffee, 1984 , 1986 , 1999 ). In collaborative learning, authority is distributed among group members, fostering interdependence on each other (Bruffee, 1999 ). For the students, learning comes from joining a new community with a culture different from their own, which happens when they have conversations and negotiate the boundaries of different communities (Bruffee, 1999 ). Therefore, learning or education is a process of reacculturation, which is fundamentally collaborative (Bruffee, 1984 , 1986 , 1999 ).

Bruffee ( 1984 ) admitted that collaborative learning was challenging to implement and that there was no one approach or “recipe” to practicing it. But he believed collaboration was essential for students to engage in intellectual pursuit through social interaction (Bruffee, 1984 , 1999 ). Although there was no single approach, Bruffee ( 1999 ) gave examples of collaborative learning, such as consensus groups, peer tutoring, and collaborative writing. Additionally, Wiener ( 1986 ) proposed a series of elements for practitioners to consider when evaluating collaborative learning, e.g., task design, student behavior, teacher’s behavior, group formation and management, and final product. However, there was a lack of evidence-based research on collaborative learning (Smit, 1989 ). Instead, collaborative learning scholars had to draw upon evidence from cooperative learning (Bruffee, 1986 ). Udvari-Solner ( 2012b ) held a critical viewpoint that “[r]esearch regarding collaborative learning strategies is generally subsumed under broader investigations of collaborative learning. If collaborative learning strategies are held distinct from cooperative learning, it is difficult to find studies that have extensively investigated the use of one particular strategy.”

Cooperative Learning Flourishing with Research

Most prominent cooperative learning scholars are well-trained phycologists (e.g., David Johnson, Aronson, Kagan, Schmuck, Slavin, and Sharan) or have a background in STEM education (e.g., Roger Johnson and Davidson). They conducted much quantitative research on the effect of cooperative learning in the 1980 and 1990 s. Johnson & Johnson ( 1999 ) asserted that “Cooperative learning can be used with some confidence at every grade level, in every subject area, and with any task…. The research on cooperative learning has a validity and a generalizability rarely found in the educational literature” (p. 192).

With a massive body of empirical research, meta-analytical studies were conducted to examine the overall effect of cooperative learning and identify conditions for successful cooperation (Johnson & Johnson, 1981 , 1983 ; Slavin, 1983 , 1999 ). According to Johnson & Johnson ( 1999 ), compared to competitive learning and individualist learning, cooperative learning can enhance student achievement, promote critical thinking, foster positive attitudes towards the subject area, increase interpersonal skills, decrease attrition rates, and improve students’ self-esteem. Slavin ( 1983 ) focused on incentive structure and task structure, and his review of the literature revealed that group rewards (instead of individual rewards) and individual accountability (achieved by task specialization and division of labor) are critical to improving students’ achievement. Although there are conflicting results in the research, Slavin ( 1990 ) summarized what was in agreement:

There is agreement that—at least in elementary and middle/junior high schools and with basic skill objectives—cooperative methods that incorporate group goals and individual accountability accelerate student learning considerably. Further, there is agreement that these methods have positive effects on a wide array of affective outcomes, such as intergroup relationships, acceptance of mainstreamed students, and self-esteem. (p. 544)

Technology and Collaborative/Cooperative Learning

With the development of personal computers and the Internet, interest in supporting collaborative and cooperative learning with technology has been growing since the 1980s. The Johnsons and colleagues conducted several studies on computer-assisted cooperative learning in the late1980s (Johnson & Johnson, 1993 ) confirmed the media myth (i.e., technology is only a vehicle of delivery and what matters is the instruction strategy). They suggested that developers need to have a good understanding of the five elements of cooperative learning to create effective cooperative learning experiences. Likewise, Bruffee ( 1999 ) pointed out that software developers and educators should collaborate to design “genuinely interactive” software, which might be particularly useful for distance learning by offering online learners similar experiences to residential college students.

Collaborative learning/cooperative learning was neglected by instructional technology for over two decades until the emergence of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) (Dillenbourg et al., 1996 ). In 1989, the first workshop on CSCL, sponsored by NATO, took place in Italy, marking the beginning of CSCL as a field of research in instructional design and technology (Koschmann, 1996 ). It is self-evident from its name that the underlining model of CSCL is collaborative learning, but the term is used as a global description for various small group approaches (Koschmann, 1996 ). Furthermore, CSCL researchers learned to incorporate the strength of cooperative learning because they recognized the importance of structure (scripting) in the complex interplay of technology and collaboration and tried to strike a balance between scripting and over-scripting (Dillenbourg et al., 2009 ). In this sense, I argue, CSCL is where collaborative learning and cooperative become reconciled.

The first International Conference on CSCL was held at the University of Indiana in 1995 (Koschmann, 1996 ) and has been held biannually ever since. One of the earliest technological tools developed for collaborative learning is the Computer-Supported Intentional Learning Environments (CSILE) or Knowledge Forum (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2006 , 2010 ). CSILE was created for a university course in 1983, then implemented at all levels of education. It later evolved to become Knowledge Forum, a widely used web-based tool to support asynchronous discussion using multiple representations of understanding such as texts and graphical notes (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2006 , 2010 ).

The Evolution of CSCL in the 21st Century

In 2006, the International Society of the Learning Sciences (ISLS) founded the International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (ijCSCL), which has become a significant forum for the research community of CSCL and contributed to the establishment of CSCL’s “centrality to education for the future” (Stahl, 2015 , p. 339). After over 30 years of development, CSCL “reached its adolescence” (Wise & Schwarz, 2017 , p. 424) but has not become a mature research field because the CSCL community has not agreed upon a theory or framework to guide the research in CSCL (Wise & Schwarz, 2017 ). CSCL scholars (Dillenbourg et al., 2009 ; Stahl, 2015 ; Wise & Schwarz, 2017 ) have discussed trends in CSCL research as the field has evolved. Among these trends, there is one prominent continuing thread of CSCL research, namely collaboration scripts, which are structured scaffolding strategies or mechanisms to engage students in productive interactions (Fischer et al., 2007 ). Research has shown that collaboration scripts can promote knowledge gain and acquisition of collaboration skills (Radkowitsch et al., 2020 ; Vogel et al., 2017 ). A possible explanation was that “collaboration scripts or prompts facilitated elaboration, elicitation, and knowledge externalization, and sustained in-depth discussion, which in turn promoted high-level thinking and knowledge acquisition” (Chen et al., 2018 , p. 831).

As a relatively newly-established area, the CSCL community has endeavored to demonstrate the effectiveness of CSCL. Numerous studies have been devoted to this end, but results have not always been positive, perhaps due to all of the complexities of CSCL. In response, some scholars have conducted meta-analyses to examine the overall effectiveness of CSCL in different dimensions (Jeong et al., 2019 ; Radkowitsch et al., 2020 ; Sung et al., 2017 ; Vogel et al., 2017 ). For example, Chen et al. ( 2018 ) conducted a comprehensive meta-analysis, covering 356 peer-reviewed CSCL articles published between 2000 and 2016. They examined the effectiveness of three features of CSCL (collaboration, computer use, and supporting tools and strategies) on five types of learning outcomes: domain-specific knowledge, higher-order thinking skills, students’ perceived satisfaction, group task performance, and social interaction. Their meta-analysis (Chen et al., 2018 ) showed an overall positive effect of CSCL on all types of learning outcomes. Group awareness tools stood out as the most valuable in all learning outcomes and collaboration scripts were frequently used as an instruction and guidance strategy. Despite the overall encouraging findings, Chen et al. ( 2018 ) warned that CSCL was not a “panacea” and that the design of CSCL environments should be aligned with learning objectives, learning needs, and learning activities. Careful design of CSCL environments is needed to support positive interactions (Roschelle & Teasley, 1995 ), for example, by scaffolding students to construct shared knowledge and by structuring collaborative learning activities (Dillenbourg et al., 2009 ).

Four Research Paradigms

In the past five decades, there has been a proliferation of research on collaborative learning and cooperative learning. Dillenbourg et al. ( 1996 ) outlined the evolution of research on collaborative learning, which was used as an umbrella term, and proposed three paradigms to categorize different research orientations: the “effect” paradigm, the “conditions” paradigm, and the “interaction paradigm.” Each has roots from different theoretical perspectives of collaborative learning. Building upon their taxonomy, I introduce another term—the “design” paradigm to describe the design-based research in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) that has emerged in the last twenty years. Thus, together there are four paradigms of research on collaborative/cooperative learning. To follow suit with Dillenbourg et al. ( 1996 ), the term “collaborative learning” is used to cover both collaborative and cooperative learning in this section. Dillenbourg et al. ( 1996 ) cautioned that this classification does not mean one paradigm is better than the other because all research paradigms are needed. However, it is important to note that there is not a clear line distinguishing one paradigm from another, given their shared theoretical underpinnings.

The “Effect” Paradigm

This paradigm seeks to answer whether collaborative learning is more efficient than learning alone Dillenbourg et al. ( 1996 ). Researchers usually conduct experiments with control groups (working alone) and condition groups (working collaboratively) in the classrooms or laboratories to test their hypotheses. The dependent variables are usually individual learning outcomes, such as achievement, critical thinking, attitudes towards subject area, social support, self-esteem, and social skills (Johnson & Johnson, 1999 , 2009 ). While there are mixed results in this type of research, meta-analytic studies have demonstrated an overall positive effect of collaborative learning (Johnson et al., 2000 ; Slavin, 1980 ). However, Dillenbourg et al. ( 1996 ) argued that negative results or even results showing no differences should not be neglected entirely because “[s]ome negative effects are stable and well documented, for instance, the fact that low achievers progressively become passive when collaborating with high achievers” (p. 8). Furthermore, collaborative learning should not be treated as a “black box” because collaboration does not happen just by putting students into small groups (Dillenbourg et al., 1996 . Collaborative learning per se does not enhance or inhibit learning achievement (Slavin, 1983 ). The better question to ask is perhaps what conditions make collaborative learning more efficient than working alone, which is the focus of the next paradigm.

The “Conditions” Paradigm

This research paradigm looks into the specific conditions that might promote collaborative learning. The research methods are similar to the first paradigm; however, researchers systematically investigate a wide range of variables, including group formation, type of tasks, communication medium, and collaboration contexts (Dillenbourg et al., 1996 ). For example, heterogeneous groups with varied expertise levels are generally more productive than homogeneous groups, but they have different effects on high- and low-achievers Dillenbourg et al. ( 1996 ). A meta-analysis by Slavin ( 1983 ) focused on incentive structure and task structure. Results showed that in K-12 settings, 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 ). The “conditions” paradigm helps researchers and educators better understand the mechanism of collaborative learning compared to the first paradigm. Nonetheless, in natural classroom learning environments, the condition variables inevitably interact with other variables to impact the dependent variable, resulting in contradicting research findings (Dillenbourg et al., 2009 ). Some researchers explained the inconsistencies in terms of different researchers using different cooperative learning techniques, learning settings, experimental designs, learner attributes, and subject matter. However, interaction among these attributes was seldom considered (Webb, 1982 ). Effective collaborative learning comes from productive group interactions, and thus research should focus more on “the more microgenetic features of the interaction” (Dillenbourg et al., 1996 , p. 12). Hence the third paradigm is the “interaction” paradigm.

The “Interaction” Paradigm

This paradigm divides research questions stemming from the “conditions” paradigm into two sub-questions: what conditions trigger what interactions and what effects do these interactions entail (Dillenbourg et al., 1996 ). The key to these questions is to identify “variables that describe the interactions and that can be empirically and theoretically related to the conditions of learning and to learning outcomes” (Dillenbourg et al., 1996 , p. 12). Consequently, research becomes more process-oriented, and as a result, many researchers turn to qualitative methods such as discourse analysis and conversation analysis to identify moments of collaboration with the group as the unit of analysis (Stahl, 2006 ). The most studied interaction variables are explanation, argumentation or negotiation, and regulation (Dillenbourg et al., 2009 ). For example, Webb ( 1982 ) revealed that giving and receiving elaborate explanations (instead of simply the correct answers) were positively correlated with individual learning gains and that off-task and passive behaviors had a negative correlation with learning outcomes. On the other hand, many process-oriented studies in the “interaction” paradigm seem to answer only one of the two sub-questions (Dillenbourg et al., 1996 ). In other words, the relationship between conditions of learning and learning outcomes is not always made clear by researchers. One of the challenges of the interaction paradigm is the difficulty in data analysis and interpretation because there is a lack of theoretical frameworks to analyze interactions “due to the fact that the Piagetian and Vygotskian perspectives … are simply too global to allow proper explanation” (Dillenbourg et al., 1996 , p. 17).

The “Design” Paradigm

I offered “design” as a fourth paradigm to describe a unique strand of CSCL research that focuses on the design and development of “conditions in which effective group interactions are expected to occur (Dillenbourg et al., 2009 , p. 6). It is easy to identify the three previous paradigms within CSCL literature (Chen et al., 2018 ; Radkowitsch et al., 2020 ). However, the CSCL community has a tradition of conducting design-based research (DBR). Researchers and practitioners collaborate to study educational phenomena in authentic educational contexts by testing and refining design principles through iterative design (Stahl & Hakkarainen, 2020 ). DBR is theory-driven and practice-oriented because it aims to bridge the gap between theory, research, and practice (Wang & Hannafin, 2005 ). A successful DBR project is the already mentioned Computer-Supported Intentional Learning Environments (CSILE) (later known as Knowledge Forum) (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2006 , 2010 ). Through the iterative design efforts to innovate means to support collaborative construction of community knowledge, they refined the technology, pedagogy, and theory of “Knowledge Building” (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2006 , 2010 ). The Knowledge Forum project and related research demonstrate the huge potential of the “design” research paradigm in CSCL. However, DBR is not free of challenges. First and foremost, there is still a lack of agreement in the field of DBR in terms of its definition, terminologies, features, and procedures (Christensen & West, 2018 ). This inconsistency makes it a challenge to conceptualize and implement DBR (Christensen & West, 2018 ). DBR projects are usually situated in specific educational contexts and it might be difficult to expand the interventions to larger contexts (Anderson & Shattuck, 2012 ). On the other hand, some scholars caution that focusing on scalability and generalizability might sabotage “the designerly nature of DBR” (Svihla, 2014 , p. 35). It seems to be challenging to strike a balance. On the practical level, multiple iterations of a DBR project might present challenges of time constraints (Anderson & Shattuck, 2012 ).

This paper provides a historical review of collaborative and cooperative learning, beginning with their definitions and characteristics. The practice of group-based learning can be traced back to ancient times (Johnson & Johnson, 1999 , 2021 ). However, modern practices of collaborative learning and cooperative learning simultaneously and independently emerged in the 1960s, launched in the 1970s, and thrived in the 1980 and 1990 s as two separate methodologies. Not until the mid-1990s did the two camps start acknowledging each other’s work and bridging their differences. In the context of instructional design and technology, the two seem to be less differentiated. CSCL emerged in 1989 and witnessed rapid advancement in the last two decades. The knowledge of the historical development of collaborative learning and cooperative learning can help us understand the similarities and differences between the two and help practitioners make informed decisions about which term most applies to a given learning situation and what pedagogical strategies are best to apply. Research on collaborative learning can be described within four paradigms: the “effects” paradigm, the “conditions” paradigm, the “interaction” paradigm (Dillenbourg et al., 1996 ), and the “design” paradigm. While all research paradigms are important and necessary (Dillenbourg et al., 1996 ), some researchers have called for more research on the “interaction” paradigm (Dillenbourg et al., 1996 , 2009 ) and the “design” paradigm in the future (Stahl, 2015 ; Wise & Schwarz, 2017 ).

Anderson, T., & Shattuck, J. (2012). Design-based research: a decade of progress in education research? Educational Researcher, 41 (1), 16–25.

Article   Google Scholar  

Aronson, E. (2021). The jigsaw classroom: a personal odyssey into a systemic national problem. In D. Neil (Ed.), Pioneering perspectives in Cooperative Learning: theory, research, and classroom practice for diverse approaches to CL (pp. 146–164). Routledge.

Barkley, E. F., Cross, K. P., & Major, C. H. (2014). Collaborative learning techniques: a handbook for college faculty (2nd ed.). Wiley

Bruffee, K. A. (1973). Collaborative learning: some practical models. College English, 34 (5), 634–643.

Bruffee, K. A. (1984). Collaborative learning and the “conversation of mankind. College English, 46 (7), 635–652.

Bruffee, K. A. (1986). Social construction, language, and the authority of knowledge: a bibliographical essay. College English, 48 (8), 773–790.

Bruffee, K. A. (1995). Sharing our toys: Cooperative learning versus collaborative learning. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 27 (1), 12–18.

Bruffee, K. A. (1999). Collaborative learning: higher education, interdependence, and the authority of knowledge (2nd ed.). ERIC.

Chen, J., Wang, M., Kirschner, P. A., & Tsai, C. (2018). The role of collaboration, computer use, learning environments, and supporting strategies in CSCL: a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 88 (6), 799–843. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654318791584

Christensen, K. D. N. & West, R. E. (2018). The Development of Design-Based Research. In R. E. West, Foundations of Learning and Instructional Design Technology: The Past, Present, and Future of Learning and Instructional Design Technology . EdTech Books. Retrieved from https://edtechbooks.org/lidtfoundations/development_of_design-based_research

Davidson, N. (2021a). Introduction to pioneering perspectives in Cooperative Learning. In N. Davidson (Ed.), Pioneering perspectives in Cooperative Learning: theory, research, and classroom practice for diverse approaches to CL (pp. 1–16). Routledge.

Davidson, N. (2021b). Pioneering perspectives in Cooperative Learning: theory, research, and classroom practice for diverse approaches to CL . Routledge.

Davidson, N. (2021c). Synthesis of CL approaches and a multi-faceted rationale for CL: past, present, and future. In N. Davidson (Ed.), Pioneering perspectives in Cooperative Learning: theory, research, and classroom practice for diverse approaches to CL (pp. 234–255). Routledge.

Davidson, N., & Major, C. H. (2014). Boundary crossings: Cooperative learning, collaborative learning, and problem-based learning. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 25 (3/4), 7–55.

Google Scholar  

Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by collaborative learning?. In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative learning: cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 1–19). Elsevier.

Dillenbourg, P., Baker, M., Blaye, A., & O’Malley, C. E. (1996). The evolution of research on collaborative learning. In E. Spada, & P. Reiman (Eds.), Learning in humans and machine: towards an interdisciplinary learning science (pp. 189–211). Elsevier.

Dillenbourg, P., Järvelä, S., & Fischer, F. (2009). The evolution of research on computer-supported collaborative learning. In N. Balacheff, S. Ludvigsen, T. d. Jong, A. Lazonder, & S. Barnes (Eds.), Technology-enhanced learning (pp. 3–19). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9827-7_1

Fischer, F., Kollar, I., Haake, J. M., & Mandl, H. (2007). Perspectives on collaboration scripts. In F. Fischer, I. Kollar, H. Mandl, & J. M. Haake (Eds.), Scripting Computer-Supported collaborative learning: cognitive, computational, and educational perspectives (pp. 1–10). Springer.

Gamson, Z. F. (1994). Collaborative learning comes of age. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 26 (5), 44–49.

Jacobs, G. M. (2015). Collaborative learning or cooperative learning? The name is not important; flexibility is. Beyond Words, 3 (1), 32–52.

Jeong, H., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2016). Seven affordances of computer-supported collaborative learning: how to support collaborative learning? How can technologies help? Educational Psychologist, 51 (2), 247–265. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1158654

Jeong, H., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Jo, K. (2019). Ten years of computer-supported collaborative learning: a meta-analysis of CSCL in STEM education during 2005–2014. Educational Research Review, 28 , 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2019.100284

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1981). Effects of cooperative and individualistic learning experiences on interethnic interaction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73 (3), 444.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1983). The socialization and achievement crisis: Are cooperative learning experiences the solution? Applied Social Psychology Annual, 4 , 119–164.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1993). Cooperative learning and feedback in technology-based instruction. In J. V. Dempsey, & G. C. Sales (Eds.), Interactive instruction and feedback (pp. 133–157). Educational Technology Publications.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning (5th ed.). Allyn and Bacon.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An educational psychology success story: Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational Researcher, 38 (5), 365–379.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2021). Learning together and alone: the history of our involvement in cooperative learning. In N. Davidson (Ed.), Pioneering perspectives in Cooperative Learning: theory, research, and classroom practice for diverse approaches to CL (pp. 44–62). Routledge.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Stanne, M. B. (2000). Cooperative learning methods: a meta-analysis . Minneapolis University of Minnesota.

Koschmann, T. (1996). Paradigm shifts and instructional technology: an introduction. In T. Koschmann (Ed.), CSCL: theory and practice of an emerging paradigm (pp. 1–23). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A., & Jochems, W. (2003). Identifying the pitfalls for social interaction in computer-supported collaborative learning environments: a review of the research. Computers in Human Behavior, 19 (3), 335–353.

MacGregor, J. (1992). Collaborative learning: reframing the classroom. In A. S. Goodsell, M. R. Maher, V. Tinto, B. L. Smith, & J. MacGregor (Eds.), Collaborative learning: a sourcebook for higher education (pp. 37–40). National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, and Assessment.

Mason, E. (1970). Collaborative learning . Ward Look Educational.

Matthews, R. S., Cooper, J. L., Davidson, N., & Hawkes, P. (1995). Building bridges between cooperative and collaborative learning. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 27 (4), 35–40.

Oxford, R. L. (1997). Cooperative learning, collaborative learning, and interaction: three communicative strands in the language classroom. The modern language journal, 81 (4), 443–456.

Panitz, T. (1999). Collaborative versus cooperative learning: A comparison of the two concepts which will help us understand the underlying nature of interactive learning. Retrieved 12-22-2022 from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED448443.pdf

Radkowitsch, A., Vogel, F., & Fischer, F. (2020). Good for learning, bad for motivation? A meta-analysis on the effects of computer-supported collaboration scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 15 (1), 5–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-020-09316-4

Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. D. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In C. E. O’Malley (Ed.), Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (pp.69–97). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-85098-1_5

Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: theory, pedagogy, and technology. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 97–118). Cambridge University Press.

Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2010). A brief history of knowledge building. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 36 (1), 1–16.

Sharan, Y., & Sharan, S. (2021). Design for change: a teacher education project for cooperative learning and group investigation in Israel. In N. Davidson (Ed.), Pioneering perspectives in Cooperative Learning: theory, research, and classroom practice for diverse approaches to CL (pp. 165–182). Routledge.

Slavin, R. E. (1980). Cooperative learning. Review of Educational Research, 50 (2), 315–342.

Slavin, R. E. (1983). When does cooperative learning increase student achievement? Psychological bulletin, 94 (3), 429.

Slavin, R. E. (1987). Cooperative learning and the cooperative school. Educational Leadership, 45 (3), 7–13.

Slavin, R. E. (1990). Research on cooperative learning: Consensus and controversy. Educational Leadership, 47 (4), 52–54.

Slavin, R. E. (1999). Comprehensive approaches to cooperative learning. Theory into Practice, 38 (2), 74–79.

Smit, D. W. (1989). Some difficulties with collaborative learning. Journal of Advanced Composition, 9 (1/2), 45–58.

Smith, B. L., & MacGregor, J. (1992). What is collaborative learning. In A. S. Goodsell, M. R. Maher, V. Tinto, B. L. Smith, & J. MacGregor (Eds.), Collaborative learning: A sourcebook for higher education (pp.9–22). National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, and Assessment.

Stahl, G. (2006). Group cognition: computer support for building collaborative knowledge (acting with technology) . The MIT Press.

Stahl, G. (2015). A decade of CSCL. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 10 (4), 337–344. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-015-9222-2

Stahl, G., & Hakkarainen, K. (2020). Theories of CSCL. International handbook of computer-supported collaborative learning. Springer.

Stevahn, L. (2021). The legacy of Morton Deutsch: theories of cooperation, conflict, and justice. In N. Davidson (Ed.), Pioneering perspectives in Cooperative Learning: theory, research, and classroom practice for diverse approaches to CL (pp. 17–43). Routledge.

Sung, Y. T., Yang, J. M., & Lee, H. Y. (2017). The effects of mobile computer-supported collaborative learning: Meta-analysis and critical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 87 (4), 768–805. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654317704307

Svihla, V. (2014). Advances in design-based research. Frontline Learning Research, 2 (4), 35–45.

Udvari-Solner, A. (2012a). Collaborative Learning. In N. M. Seel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning (pp.631–634). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6_817

Udvari-Solner, A. (2012b). Collaborative Learning Strategies. In N. M. Seel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning (pp.636–639). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6_818

Veldman, M., & Kostons, D. (2019). Cooperative and collaborative learning: considering four dimensions of learning in groups. Pedagogische Studien, 96 (2), 76–81.

Vogel, F., Wecker, C., Kollar, I., & Fischer, F. (2017). Socio-cognitive scaffolding with computer-supported collaboration scripts: a meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 29 (3), 477–511. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-016-9361-7

Wang, F., & Hannafin, M. J. (2005). Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53 (4), 5–23.

Webb, N. M. (1982). Student interaction and learning in small groups. Review of Educational Research, 52 (3), 421–445.

Whipple, W. R. (1987). Collaborative learning: recognizing it when we see it. AAHE bulletin, 4 , 3–5.

Wiener, H. S. (1986). Collaborative learning in the classroom: a guide to evaluation. College English, 48 (1), 52–61.

Wise, A. F., & Schwarz, B. B. (2017). Visions of CSCL: eight provocations for the future of the field. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning , (12), 423–467. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-017-9267-5

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

College of Education, University of Georgia, River’s Crossing, 850 College Station Rd, Athens, GA, 30605, USA

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xigui Yang .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The author declares that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

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

Download citation

Accepted : 15 December 2022

Published : 21 January 2023

Issue Date : July 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-022-00823-9

Share this article

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

• Collaborative learning
• Cooperative learning
• Historical review
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Cooperative Learning Essay

Cooperative Learning: The Benefits Of Cooperative Learning

Cooperative Learning is a term generally used to explain an educational approach which aims to categorize classroom activities into academic and social learning experience. It is important to the pupils that cooperative learning could be one way to improve the intellectual ability of students. Cooperative learning is an instructional method in which pupils work together as a team to achieve a specific goal or objective. There are many studies that have been conducted that is out lined the value

Cooperative Learning Method : Cooperative

Cooperative Learning Method 1 Running Head: COOPERATIVE LEARNING METHOD Cooperative Learning Method Büşra Seher Koç Research Project Erciyes University-Kayseri Cooperative Learning Method 2 Introduction Cooperative learning is part of a group of teaching/learning techniques where students interact with each other to acquire and practice the elements of a subject matter and to meet common learning goals (Macpherson, 2000, p.1). In other words, it is a learning method that consists of groups

Cooperative Learning

COOPERATIVE LEARNING IN THE EFL CLASSROOM Plan of the lecture: 1. What is cooperative learning? 2. Assumptions about cooperative learning 3. Strategies for group dynamics 4. Steps in teaching cooperative skills 5. Levels of cooperative skills 6. Benefits from using cooperative techniques What is cooperative learning? Cooperative learning can be characterized in the following Chinese proverb: Tell me, and I’ll forget Show me, and I’ll remember Involve

Cooperative Learning And Cooperative Learning

shouldn’t restrict yourself to teaching in just one way either. It is imperative that you approach a concept in various ways and give the learner several opportunities to explore the concept. I believe that the student should take ownership in the learning process and the teacher should be a facilitator of knowledge in the classroom. Therefore, the teacher should assist the learner to their highest potential and encourage them along the way and give them prompt feedback. Learners should collaborate

Cooperative Learning: The Key Elements Of Cooperative Learning

Cooperative learning is known as small group learning. It is an instructional strategy in which small heterogeneous group of learners work together on a common academic goal or task given to them by teachers. By interacting with one another learners can improve their acquisition of academic knowledge and skills. Such interaction amongst learners based on equal partnership in the learning experience, is termed as cooperative learning. With cooperative situations, learners seek outcomes that are beneficial

Cooperative Learning: The Positive Effects Of Cooperative Learning

this experiment?". Unfortunately as children grow, their passion for learning seems to diminish and also becomes associated with drudgery’’ (Quinn, 2006, page 8) Cooperative learning helps students who face with the lack of motivation to maintain high expectations for success, even when they face with repeated failures. In addition to the effects mentioned above, one more thing that students can be impressed by cooperative learning is developing their self-confidence. When a student experiences group

The Importance Of Cooperative Learning And Learning

Introduction Great facilitators’ implement effective learning by introducing and perfecting different instructional lessons to meet the emotional, social, and academic needs of all their students. Research into teaching practices allows educators to customize learning for every one of their students. Today’s classrooms, students work both independently and in groups to demonstrate what they have learned. Learners now have choices over how they summarize their understanding of the lesson material

Impact of Cooperative Learning

IMPACT OF COOPERATIVE LEARNING ON GRADE 7 MATHEMATICS CLASS (Strand: Pedagogy, Strategies) Bernardo Cristino P. Altamira Department of Education Region IV-A Division of Quezon A report on an action research August 2013 ABSTRACT The Department of Education points to K to 12 Enhanced Basic Education program to address one of the main weaknesses of the Philippine educational system—the congested curriculum. Students are hardpressed to learn in 10 years a curriculum that is actually

Essay On Cooperative Learning

Cooperative learning is “now the most recognized instructional models in education worldwide”(Metzler 228). Cooperative learning is basically having students learn with, by and for each other which is the major theme of Cooperative Learning. In this model, Student Team Learning (STL) states how there are three main concepts to focus on. The three are: team rewards, individual accountability, and equal opportunities. In Cooperative Learning there are six major elements that take part. The six are

Reflection Of Cooperative Learning

more in-depth knowledge about students working with others within a concept called cooperative learning. Cooperative learning is one of three goal structures associated with motivation. The three structures are cooperative, competitive, and individualistic. Though all three are used to motivate students to achieve goals, I believe cooperative is the most ideal goal structure for student development. Cooperative learning involves putting student in groups for a lesson and requiring all students to succeed

Popular Topics

• Essay on Copyright
• Coquette Essay
• Coral Reefs Essay
• Corinthians Essay
• Cormac Mccarthy Essay
• Coronary Heart Disease Essay
• Corporal Punishment Essay
• Corporate Social Responsibility Essay

What Is Cooperative Learning?

Teaching Students to Collaborate Effectively

Hero Images / Getty Images

• An Introduction to Teaching
• Tips & Strategies
• Policies & Discipline
• Community Involvement
• School Administration
• Technology in the Classroom
• Teaching Adult Learners
• Issues In Education
• Teaching Resources
• Becoming A Teacher
• Assessments & Tests
• Elementary Education
• Secondary Education
• Special Education
• Homeschooling
• B.A., Sociology, University of California Los Angeles

Cooperative learning is an instructional strategy that enables small groups of students to work together on a common assignment. The parameters often vary, as students can work collaboratively on a variety of problems, ranging from simple math problems to large assignments such as proposing environmental solutions on a national level. Students are sometimes individually responsible for their part or role in the assignment, and sometimes they are held accountable as an entire group.

Cooperative learning has received a lot of attention and praise—especially since the 1990s when Johnson and Johnson outlined the five basic elements that allowed successful small-group learning:

• Positive interdependence : Students feel responsible for their own and the group's effort.
• Face-to-face interaction : Students encourage and support one another; the environment encourages discussion and eye contact.
• Individual and group accountability : Each student is responsible for doing their part; the group is accountable for meeting its goal.
• Social Skills : Group members gain direct instruction in the interpersonal, social, and collaborative skills needed to work with others.
• Group processing : Group members analyze their own and the group's ability to work together.

At the same time, the following characteristics need to be present:

• When designing cooperative learning activities, teachers need to clearly identify to students their individual responsibility and accountability to the group.
• Each member must have a task they are responsible for and that cannot be completed by other members.

Side-note: This article uses the terms "cooperative" and "collaborative" interchangeably. However, certain researchers distinguish between these two types of learning, outlining the key difference being that collaborative learning focuses mainly on deeper learning.

Teachers make frequent use of group work, and thus cooperative learning, for a number of reasons:

• Change Things Up. It is beneficial to have a variety in your instruction; it keeps students engaged and enables you to reach a larger number of learners. Cooperative learning also changes students' and teachers' roles as teachers become facilitators of learning, guides on the side if you will, and students take on more responsibility for their own learning.
• Life Skills. Cooperation and collaboration are crucial skills that students will continue using far beyond their schooling years. One of the key elements in a workplace is collaboration, and we need to get our students ready to cooperate, to be responsible and accountable, and to possess other interpersonal skills for effective professional lives. Cooperative learning is also proven to foster students’ self-esteem, motivation, and empathy.
• Deeper Learning. Collaborating with others has a potent and positive effect on students’ thinking and learning—through well-executed cooperative learning tasks, students often deepen their understanding of the assigned content. Students engage in thoughtful discourse, examine different perspectives, and learn how to disagree productively.

Challenges and Solutions

Despite cooperative or collaborative learning being ingrained in teaching practices for decades now, it has also been demonstrated that small group activities aren’t always very efficient. Some of the main challenges turn out to be students' free-riding (the lack of participation on behalf of some students), their focus on individual academic goals while neglecting collaborative goals, and teachers’ difficulties in accurately assessing students’ participation.

Some specific recommendations resulting from the above-mentioned challenges are that teachers should focus on:

• Defining specific collaborative goals (in addition to the academic content goals)
• Training students in social interactions for productive collaboration
• Monitoring and supporting student interactions
• Assessing the collaborative process—productivity and the learning process of individuals and the whole group (thanks to increased professional development)
• Applying the findings into future cooperative learning tasks

Effective Cooperative Learning

Ideally, cooperative or collaborative learning activities would invite students to be more active participants in their own learning, to share and discuss their ideas, to engage in argumentation and debate , to play varying roles within the group, and to internalize their learning.

A 2017 research paper by Rudnitsky et al. introduced features of good discourse and collaboration, also influenced by the Association for Middle-Level Education:

"What we as teachers want from our students when they engage in any academic talk is what some call Exploratory talk—a talk "when learners can try out ideas, be hesitant, be tentative, relate new ideas to experiences, and develop a new, shared understanding." Out of this need for new ways of teaching students how to be good intellectual partners, Rudnitsky et al. came up with the acronym Be BRAVE."

BRAVE Workshop

If you are planning on including small group activities as a part of your instruction, and want to avoid common complications outlined above, it is a good idea to devote a few lessons at the beginning of your course to coaching your students. In order to set yourself and your students up for success, try the BRAVE Workshop.

Length-wise, the workshop is designed to fit into a span of one week or five classes. Some of the useful materials include: multiple post-its per student, large poster papers, a slideshow depicting successful group collaboration (pictures of current prominent teams such as Facebook , NASA, etc.), a short documentary video that shows important features of good collaboration, three or more challenging problems that students won’t be able to solve alone, and a few short videos depicting students like yours collaborating together.

Day 1: Good Talk Workshop

Silent discussion about the workshop’s two central questions:

• Why collaborate?
• What makes for a good collaboration?
• Each student collects their thoughts and writes them on a large post-it note
• Everyone places their notes on a large poster paper in the front of the classroom
• Students are encouraged to look at others’ thoughts and build on them with subsequent posts
• Throughout the length of the workshop, students can refer back to their post-its and add additional notes to the conversation.
• Provide students with a difficult problem that they should solve individually (and that they won’t be able to solve alone right away and will revisit at the end of the workshop)

Day 2: Introducing Ideas About Collaboration

• Watch a slideshow depicting successful group collaboration
• All kinds of images: from sports teams to NASA  
• As a class, discuss why and how collaboration might contribute to the success of such endeavors
• If possible, watch a short documentary video that shows important features of good collaboration
• Students take notes on the group process and discuss the important features 
• Teacher leads the discussion who points out important features related to BRAVE (encourage wild ideas, build on others’ ideas)

Day 3: Introducing the BRAVE Framework

• Introduce the BRAVE poster that will stay up in the classroom
• Tell students BRAVE summarizes much of what researchers and professionals (like people at Google ) do to collaborate successfully
• If possible, show a number of short videos depicting students like yours collaborating together. It doesn’t have to be perfect but can serve as an opener for a discussion about important aspects of BRAVE.
• Watch first time
• Watch second time to take notes—one column for a video, one column for BRAVE qualities
• Discuss the BRAVE qualities and other things students noticed

Day 4: Using BRAVE Analytically

• Present students with a problem (like the Worm Journey for middle schoolers or others more appropriate for your students’ level)
• Students are not allowed to speak, only communicate through post-its or drawing or writing.
• Tell students that the point is to slow talk down so that they can concentrate on the qualities of good collaboration
• After working on the problem, the class comes together to discuss what they learned about good collaboration

Day 5: Using BRAVE to Engage in Group Work

• Each student writes down which BRAVE quality they want to work on
• Split students into groups of four and have them read each other’s choice of BRAVE quality
• Let students work on the problem from Day 1 together
• Let them know that everyone should be able to explain the group’s thinking.
• When they think they have the correct answer, they have to explain their reasoning to the teacher who will choose the reporting student.
• If correct, the group will receive another problem. If incorrect, the group continues to work on the same problem.
• Rudnitsky, Al, et al. “What Students Need to Know about Good Talk: Be BRAVE.”   Middle School Journal , vol. 48, no. 3, Oct. 2017, pp. 3–14.
• Le, Ha, et al. “Collaborative Learning Practices: Teacher and Student Perceived Obstacles to Effective Student Collaboration.”   Cambridge Journal of Education , vol. 48, no. 1, 2017, pp. 103–122.
• Benefits of Cooperative Learning
• Cooperative Learning Tips and Techniques
• Effective Cooperative Learning Strategies
• Teaching Strategies to Promote Student Equity and Engagement
• How to Set Up Classroom Learning Centers
• Methods for Presenting Subject Matter
• Project Based Learning for Special Education and Inclusion
• Whole Group Discussion Pros and Cons
• Group Project Grading Tip: Students Determine Fair Grade
• 6 Teaching Strategies to Differentiate Instruction
• Top 17 Exposures to Learn New Words
• What You Will Find in the Ideal Classroom
• Differentiating Instruction for Success in Special Education
• The Whys and How-tos for Group Writing in All Content Areas
• 10 Ways to Keep Your Class Interesting
• 4 Principles of Classroom Management and Social Emotional Learning

Center for Teaching

Group work: using cooperative learning groups effectively.

Many instructors from disciplines across the university use group work to enhance their students’ learning. Whether the goal is to increase student understanding of content, to build particular transferable skills, or some combination of the two, instructors often turn to small group work to capitalize on the benefits of peer-to-peer instruction. This type of group work is formally termed cooperative learning, and is defined as the instructional use of small groups to promote students working together to maximize their own and each other’s learning (Johnson, et al., 2008).

Cooperative learning is characterized by positive interdependence, where students perceive that better performance by individuals produces better performance by the entire group (Johnson, et al., 2014). It can be formal or informal, but often involves specific instructor intervention to maximize student interaction and learning. It is infinitely adaptable, working in small and large classes and across disciplines, and can be one of the most effective teaching approaches available to college instructors.

What can it look like?

What’s the theoretical underpinning, is there evidence that it works.

• What are approaches that can help make it effective?

Informal cooperative learning groups In informal cooperative learning, small, temporary, ad-hoc groups of two to four students work together for brief periods in a class, typically up to one class period, to answer questions or respond to prompts posed by the instructor.

Additional examples of ways to structure informal group work

Think-pair-share

The instructor asks a discussion question. Students are instructed to think or write about an answer to the question before turning to a peer to discuss their responses. Groups then share their responses with the class.

Peer Instruction

This modification of the think-pair-share involves personal responses devices (e.g. clickers). The question posted is typically a conceptually based multiple-choice question. Students think about their answer and vote on a response before turning to a neighbor to discuss. Students can change their answers after discussion, and “sharing” is accomplished by the instructor revealing the graph of student response and using this as a stimulus for large class discussion. This approach is particularly well-adapted for large classes.

In this approach, groups of students work in a team of four to become experts on one segment of new material, while other “expert teams” in the class work on other segments of new material. The class then rearranges, forming new groups that have one member from each expert team. The members of the new team then take turns teaching each other the material on which they are experts.

Formal cooperative learning groups

In formal cooperative learning students work together for one or more class periods to complete a joint task or assignment (Johnson et al., 2014). There are several features that can help these groups work well:

• The instructor defines the learning objectives for the activity and assigns students to groups.
• The groups are typically heterogeneous, with particular attention to the skills that are needed for success in the task.
• Within the groups, students may be assigned specific roles, with the instructor communicating the criteria for success and the types of social skills that will be needed.
• Importantly, the instructor continues to play an active role during the groups’ work, monitoring the work and evaluating group and individual performance.
• Instructors also encourage groups to reflect on their interactions to identify potential improvements for future group work.

This video shows an example of formal cooperative learning groups in David Matthes’ class at the University of Minnesota:

There are many more specific types of group work that fall under the general descriptions given here, including team-based learning , problem-based learning , and process-oriented guided inquiry learning .

The use of cooperative learning groups in instruction is based on the principle of constructivism, with particular attention to the contribution that social interaction can make. In essence, constructivism rests on the idea that individuals learn through building their own knowledge, connecting new ideas and experiences to existing knowledge and experiences to form new or enhanced understanding (Bransford, et al., 1999). The consideration of the role that groups can play in this process is based in social interdependence theory, which grew out of Kurt Koffka’s and Kurt Lewin’s identification of groups as dynamic entities that could exhibit varied interdependence among members, with group members motivated to achieve common goals. Morton Deutsch conceptualized varied types of interdependence, with positive correlation among group members’ goal achievements promoting cooperation.

Lev Vygotsky extended this work by examining the relationship between cognitive processes and social activities, developing the sociocultural theory of development. The sociocultural theory of development suggests that learning takes place when students solve problems beyond their current developmental level with the support of their instructor or their peers. Thus both the idea of a zone of proximal development, supported by positive group interdependence, is the basis of cooperative learning (Davidson and Major, 2014; Johnson, et al., 2014).

Cooperative learning follows this idea as groups work together to learn or solve a problem, with each individual responsible for understanding all aspects. The small groups are essential to this process because students are able to both be heard and to hear their peers, while in a traditional classroom setting students may spend more time listening to what the instructor says.

Cooperative learning uses both goal interdependence and resource interdependence to ensure interaction and communication among group members. Changing the role of the instructor from lecturing to facilitating the groups helps foster this social environment for students to learn through interaction.

David Johnson, Roger Johnson, and Karl Smith performed a meta-analysis of 168 studies comparing cooperative learning to competitive learning and individualistic learning in college students (Johnson et al., 2006). They found that cooperative learning produced greater academic achievement than both competitive learning and individualistic learning across the studies, exhibiting a mean weighted effect size of 0.54 when comparing cooperation and competition and 0.51 when comparing cooperation and individualistic learning. In essence, these results indicate that cooperative learning increases student academic performance by approximately one-half of a standard deviation when compared to non-cooperative learning models, an effect that is considered moderate. Importantly, the academic achievement measures were defined in each study, and ranged from lower-level cognitive tasks (e.g., knowledge acquisition and retention) to higher level cognitive activity (e.g., creative problem solving), and from verbal tasks to mathematical tasks to procedural tasks. The meta-analysis also showed substantial effects on other metrics, including self-esteem and positive attitudes about learning. George Kuh and colleagues also conclude that cooperative group learning promotes student engagement and academic performance (Kuh et al., 2007).

Springer, Stanne, and Donovan (1999) confirmed these results in their meta-analysis of 39 studies in university STEM classrooms. They found that students who participated in various types of small-group learning, ranging from extended formal interactions to brief informal interactions, had greater academic achievement, exhibited more favorable attitudes towards learning, and had increased persistence through STEM courses than students who did not participate in STEM small-group learning.

The box below summarizes three individual studies examining the effects of cooperative learning groups.

What are approaches that can help make group work effective?

Preparation

Articulate your goals for the group work, including both the academic objectives you want the students to achieve and the social skills you want them to develop.

Determine the group conformation that will help meet your goals.

• In informal group learning, groups often form ad hoc from near neighbors in a class.
• In formal group learning, it is helpful for the instructor to form groups that are heterogeneous with regard to particular skills or abilities relevant to group tasks. For example, groups may be heterogeneous with regard to academic skill in the discipline or with regard to other skills related to the group task (e.g., design capabilities, programming skills, writing skills, organizational skills) (Johnson et al, 2006).
• Groups from 2-6 are generally recommended, with groups that consist of three members exhibiting the best performance in some problem-solving tasks (Johnson et al., 2006; Heller and Hollabaugh, 1992).
• To avoid common problems in group work, such as dominance by a single student or conflict avoidance, it can be useful to assign roles to group members (e.g., manager, skeptic, educator, conciliator) and to rotate them on a regular basis (Heller and Hollabaugh, 1992). Assigning these roles is not necessary in well-functioning groups, but can be useful for students who are unfamiliar with or unskilled at group work.

Choose an assessment method that will promote positive group interdependence as well as individual accountability.

• In team-based learning, two approaches promote positive interdependence and individual accountability. First, students take an individual readiness assessment test, and then immediately take the same test again as a group. Their grade is a composite of the two scores. Second, students complete a group project together, and receive a group score on the project. They also, however, distribute points among their group partners, allowing student assessment of members’ contributions to contribute to the final score.
• Heller and Hollabaugh (1992) describe an approach in which they incorporated group problem-solving into a class. Students regularly solved problems in small groups, turning in a single solution. In addition, tests were structured such that 25% of the points derived from a group problem, where only those individuals who attended the group problem-solving sessions could participate in the group test problem.  This approach can help prevent the “free rider” problem that can plague group work.
• The University of New South Wales describes a variety of ways to assess group work , ranging from shared group grades, to grades that are averages of individual grades, to strictly individual grades, to a combination of these. They also suggest ways to assess not only the product of the group work but also the process.  Again, having a portion of a grade that derives from individual contribution helps combat the free rider problem.

Helping groups get started

Explain the group’s task, including your goals for their academic achievement and social interaction.

Explain how the task involves both positive interdependence and individual accountability, and how you will be assessing each.

Assign group roles or give groups prompts to help them articulate effective ways for interaction. The University of New South Wales provides a valuable set of tools to help groups establish good practices when first meeting. The site also provides some exercises for building group dynamics; these may be particularly valuable for groups that will be working on larger projects.

Monitoring group work

Regularly observe group interactions and progress , either by circulating during group work, collecting in-process documents, or both. When you observe problems, intervene to help students move forward on the task and work together effectively. The University of New South Wales provides handouts that instructors can use to promote effective group interactions, such as a handout to help students listen reflectively or give constructive feedback , or to help groups identify particular problems that they may be encountering.

Assessing and reflecting

In addition to providing feedback on group and individual performance (link to preparation section above), it is also useful to provide a structure for groups to reflect on what worked well in their group and what could be improved. Graham Gibbs (1994) suggests using the checklists shown below.

The University of New South Wales provides other reflective activities that may help students identify effective group practices and avoid ineffective practices in future cooperative learning experiences.

Bransford, J.D., Brown, A.L., and Cocking, R.R. (Eds.) (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school . Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Bruffee, K. A. (1993). Collaborative learning: Higher education, interdependence, and the authority of knowledge. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Cabrera, A. F., Crissman, J. L., Bernal, E. M., Nora, A., Terenzini, P. T., & Pascarella, E. T. (2002). Collaborative learning: Its impact on college students’ development and diversity. Journal of College Student Development, 43 (1), 20-34.

Davidson, N., & Major, C. H. (2014). Boundary crossing: Cooperative learning, collaborative learning, and problem-based learning. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 25 (3&4), 7-55.

Dees, R. L. (1991). The role of cooperative leaning in increasing problem-solving ability in a college remedial course. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22 (5), 409-21.

Gokhale, A. A. (1995). Collaborative Learning enhances critical thinking. Journal of Technology Education, 7 (1).

Heller, P., and Hollabaugh, M. (1992) Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part 2: Designing problems and structuring groups. American Journal of Physics 60, 637-644.

Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., and Smith, K.A. (2006). Active learning: Cooperation in the university classroom (3 rd edition). Edina, MN: Interaction.

Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., and Holubec, E.J. (2008). Cooperation in the classroom (8 th edition). Edina, MN: Interaction.

Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., and Smith, K.A. (2014). Cooperative learning: Improving university instruction by basing practice on validated theory. Journl on Excellence in College Teaching 25, 85-118.

Jones, D. J., & Brickner, D. (1996). Implementation of cooperative learning in a large-enrollment basic mechanics course. American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference Proceedings.

Kuh, G.D., Kinzie, J., Buckley, J., Bridges, B., and Hayek, J.C. (2007). Piecing together the student success puzzle: Research, propositions, and recommendations (ASHE Higher Education Report, No. 32). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Love, A. G., Dietrich, A., Fitzgerald, J., & Gordon, D. (2014). Integrating collaborative learning inside and outside the classroom. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 25 (3&4), 177-196.

Smith, M. E., Hinckley, C. C., & Volk, G. L. (1991). Cooperative learning in the undergraduate laboratory. Journal of Chemical Education 68 (5), 413-415.

Springer, L., Stanne, M. E., & Donovan, S. S. (1999). Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 96 (1), 21-51.

Uribe, D., Klein, J. D., & Sullivan, H. (2003). The effect of computer-mediated collaborative learning on solving ill-defined problems. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51 (1), 5-19.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Teaching Guides

• Online Course Development Resources
• Principles & Frameworks
• Pedagogies & Strategies
• Reflecting & Assessing
• Challenges & Opportunities
• Populations & Contexts

Quick Links

• Services for Departments and Schools
• Examples of Online Instructional Modules

Subscribe to the PwC Newsletter

Join the community, edit social preview.

Add a new code entry for this paper

Remove a code repository from this paper, mark the official implementation from paper authors, add a new evaluation result row, remove a task, add a method, remove a method, edit datasets, rethinking teacher-student curriculum learning through the cooperative mechanics of experience.

3 Apr 2024  ·  Manfred Diaz , Liam Paull , Andrea Tacchetti · Edit social preview

Teacher-Student Curriculum Learning (TSCL) is a curriculum learning framework that draws inspiration from human cultural transmission and learning. It involves a teacher algorithm shaping the learning process of a learner algorithm by exposing it to controlled experiences. Despite its success, understanding the conditions under which TSCL is effective remains challenging. In this paper, we propose a data-centric perspective to analyze the underlying mechanics of the teacher-student interactions in TSCL. We leverage cooperative game theory to describe how the composition of the set of experiences presented by the teacher to the learner, as well as their order, influences the performance of the curriculum that is found by TSCL approaches. To do so, we demonstrate that for every TSCL problem, there exists an equivalent cooperative game, and several key components of the TSCL framework can be reinterpreted using game-theoretic principles. Through experiments covering supervised learning, reinforcement learning, and classical games, we estimate the cooperative values of experiences and use value-proportional curriculum mechanisms to construct curricula, even in cases where TSCL struggles. The framework and experimental setup we present in this work represent a novel foundation for a deeper exploration of TSCL, shedding light on its underlying mechanisms and providing insights into its broader applicability in machine learning.

Code Edit Add Remove Mark official

Tasks edit add remove, datasets edit.

Results from the Paper Edit

Methods edit add remove.

Cooperative Learning

Ivan Andreev

Demand Generation & Capture Strategist

ivan.andreev@valamis.com

August 11, 2020 · updated April 3, 2024

11 minute read

Ever wondered if and how cooperative learning can influence an employee’s behavior in a corporate environment?

This guide gives you a clear understanding of cooperative learning and how the elements of this educational approach heavily contribute to team development in the workplace.

Most successful employees and entrepreneurs can work cooperatively with others. It does not matter the kind of work you do; whether you are a factory worker, doctor, news reporter, etc., you have to work with others to succeed.

What is cooperative learning?

Types of cooperative learning, purpose of cooperative learning, benefits of cooperative learning, 5 key elements of cooperative learning, cooperative learning strategies.

Cooperative learning is a strategy used within groups of learners and aims to improve their learning experience and understanding of a learning subject.

This type of learning strategy uses small group tasks and activities as a learning experience. Each member is responsible for learning new information and skills, and at the same time, assisting teammates in learning.

Cooperation among coworkers in an organization will rarely occur naturally. It is up to employers to make an effort by taking steps that bring employees together.

Cooperative learning is divided into three types, with a different implementation of each.

1. Formal cooperative learning

It involves the assignment of tasks and projects to a team by an employer. The team members have a clear structure of what is to be done and stay together until the project is complete. It can range from a few hours to several weeks.

2. Informal cooperative learning

This type of learning involves quickly forming teams for short periods to complete a small task at hand. They require no prior planning and have very little structure. They can help bring closure to a day’s work or a small project.

3. Group-based learning

It is the most common type of cooperative learning implemented in organizations. It involves long-term groups that can last up to a year or more with members giving each other support, encouragement, and assistance.

Some good examples are the different departments in an organization, each with a group of people expected to make productive progress. It also works in long-term organizational projects.

Develop and maintain a strategy-driven learning culture

Upgrade your organization’s learning culture with clear, actionable strategies to address the challenges.

The more employees continue to work cooperatively, the more their corporate environment becomes productively beneficial. The following are some of the primary purposes of implementing cooperative learning culture in an organization:

• Development and acquisition of necessary life skills
• Sharing of information
• Building a team that cooperates
• Increases tolerance and acceptance of diversity
• Improving output by employees

Cooperative learning has a massive positive impact on employees and their working environment. It enhances productivity and improves employee knowledge.

Below are the benefits of cooperative learning:

1. Gaining leadership and decision-making skills

For a team to succeed, the individuals in that group need to show some leadership abilities.

In every organization, several tasks need someone to be in charge to run smoothly. Some of them are:

• Delegating and organizing work
• Ensuring the company’s set targets are met
• Supporting team members

Some people may turn out to be natural leaders but are not inclined to lead. The employer can assign leadership roles to different members of the group.

In a corporate setting, there are many decisions to be made among team members. A decision-making process should involve every member airing out their opinion on the matter, but the final say lies with the leader.

2. Acquiring conflict management skills

Conflict management focuses on positive results while minimizing negative ones. This process, by which disputes are solved, can impact an organization positively when done correctly.

There are five conflict management styles that can be applied in every specific situation.

How members of a team handle conflicts remain embedded in their minds. They can implement any of the above styles in another similar situation in the future.

3. Increases employee work engagement

Employees become more satisfied as they continue to get the opportunity to learn new skills. They will become eager to continue learning and growing.

A growth in productive engagement is evident in work hence an increase in efficiency and output.

4. Enhancing communication skills

Members in a cooperative learning group need to learn how to speak productively with one another. Ethical commitment and communication keep the members on track and enhances efficient teamwork.

5. Personal responsibility

Cooperative learning increases individual responsibility in employees. They know that they have a specific task they should perform for the entire team to succeed.

They also gain accountability as they are aware of a backlash from team members if they fail to play their part.

6. Gaining confidence

Some employees find it more comfortable to speak up in small groups. They can express their ideas and ask questions, which enables them to gain confidence. This confidence improves from addressing a few people to a large crowd.

7. Positive attitude towards colleagues

In every organization, there are those few employees that grow a dislike towards each other with or without reason. Cooperative learning creates a more positive attitude towards workmates as they continue working together within a group.

Five fundamental elements distinguish cooperative learning from other forms of group learning.

When all these elements are present in a learning situation, the result is a cooperative learning group.

1. Positive interdependence

A group achieves this element when all members of a team understand that they sink or swim together. There are various ways in which you can achieve positive interdependence:

• Division of labor
• Sharing materials
• Allocating leadership roles

You should also ensure that each member’s part determines the performance of the entire team. The contribution of a member not only benefits the individual but also all the members of the group.

2. Individual and group accountability

Each team member is accountable for a fair share amount of work towards achieving the group goal.

There is an assessment of every individual performance, and the group receives feedback.

The group also is accountable for achieving the targets set by an organization.

3. Interpersonal and small group skills

In a team working to achieve a specific goal, there are complex but necessary skills all team members need to produce. Some of these are:

• Decision-making
• Conflict management
• Leadership qualities
• Responsibility
• Effective communication
• Trust building

As a team continues to develop these skills, processes between them become smoother and more efficient.

4. Face-to-face interaction

Face to face is an intermediate way of learning.

It reduces the distance or ranks in an organization between team members as they come together to promote one another through support, praise, encouragement, and helping out each other.

It includes oral explanations on how to solve problems and challenges to achieve a common goal.

5. Group processing

Team members should regularly meet and discuss how much progress they are making towards their goal. They should also discuss how to maintain effective working relationships.

There is a need for each member to communicate freely and express concerns as well as compliment achievements.

It also helps members make decisions on issues that need an opinion from a team player.

If you are trying to use the same cooperative learning strategies repeatedly with no results, try some of these with clear examples of how you can implement them:

1. Forced debate

This strategy works by having two parties go head-to-head in a debate. During a meeting, an employee can introduce a proposition by writing it on the board or through PowerPoint presentations.

The members form two groups with one opposing and the other one supporting the proposition. The groups are forced to debate by justifying reasons as to why the proposition should be implemented or not.

The employees get to apply critical thinking skills, talking speed, fluency, language, and clarity.

As the saying goes, “a problem solved is a problem halved.” The members are forced to think about the proposition as a group rather than an individual. The proposition can be a current challenge or a new idea.

2. Writearound

This strategy involves groups of 3-5 discussing a topic that each employee has had access to, maybe through watching a video, listening to a speaker during a meeting or reading a memo. This information is made available to every member before going into groups.

All members participate where a paper with the topic written on it goes around to everyone in the group.

Each member gets some time to write a comment before passing on the paper. This process is repeated so that every member gets to read what the other writes. The points indicated by the members are then discussed among the group.

This strategy mainly focuses on topics or issues that can be solved through multiple solutions. It also gives an employer a chance to detect any misunderstandings among employees.

This strategy can be used to bring in new ideas and efficiently solve ongoing challenges in an organization. These include salary, coordination of duties, security issues, etc., and how to make the necessary improvements.

3. Build a cooperative community

An organization should provide many opportunities for employees to teach and learn from. A cooperative community creates an environment that enhances working together to solve problems.

Employees are interested in platforms that see their ideas listened to in open communication.

A cooperative community will have three to five individuals, goals, and flexible rules each member should adhere to.

Some tasks in an organization may require several bright minds to work together to solve complex challenges such as networking, system security, training, etc.

Other tasks may require a combination of manual laborers for quick completion. A cooperative community gets such jobs done in a short time and effectively.

4. Solve problems across teams

Having a cooperative community enables you to bring a few employees together and provide them with a problem to solve.

You can get a few teams and give each a challenge as to what changes are best for an existing project.

Each team comes up with suggestions for the most suitable solutions in maybe a few days or a week. They provide just reasons for their choices and a plan to implement the change.

As the teams present their ideas, the employer critiques the suggestions brought forward and makes both positive or negative comments.

The changes may be updating existing software, developing features for new products, or implementing a new training program.

5. Share concepts between departments

Every department contains a team that works on different tasks that entirely affect the organization.

The departments should each create a presentation for a question and answer session with other departments to solve ongoing challenges.

Moreover, the different departments can also share some of their concepts, ideas, and best practices with other departments so others can adopt different methods that are already working.

This can be anything from software, to ways of working, and collaborations.

It enables employees to understand how the organization works as a whole and a chance to contribute to changes or upgrades they feel necessary.

The IT department may be working on something that interrupts the finance department. Sharing concepts gives the IT team a chance to explain how their activities affect other departments and how long it will take.

It enables the departments to understand each other and work cooperatively despite the challenges.

6. Encourage informal social events

In informal surroundings, team members can get to know each other personally and build relationships. They can form bonds that will carry over to the office and work better as a team.

For examples, colleagues across the same or different departments can come together and attend corporate events, sports activities, company competitions and so on.

During unfortunate times such as Covid-19, such events may be unavailable. Thus, many people have begun to hand out and have coffee breaks over a video call with their colleagues.

Such events will not only create long-lasting friendships in and out of work, but also bring the people that work together towards a company goal even closer.

This will make their time at work significantly more enjoyable.

You might be interested in

Enterprise Learning Platform

Discover what an enterprise learning platform is and why you need a new learning solution. Discover the main features every enterprise LMS should have.

Learning Record Store (LRS)

Learn what Learning Record (LRS) is and what it enables. Discover 4 key steps on how to implement it and how to choose the right vendor.

Skills-based talent management 

Discover what a skills-based approach in talent hiring and management is. Learn the key 5 steps on how to implement it in your organization.

Intelligent insights & conversations with global power industry professionals

The Energy Collective Group

This group brings together the best thinkers on energy and climate. Join us for smart, insightful posts and conversations about where the energy industry is and where it is going.

X-Energy Signs on to DOE ARDP for $80M in Initial Funding

Publisher of NeutronBytes, a blog about nuclear energy online since 2007.  Consultant and project manager for technology innovation processes and new product / program development for commercial...

• Member since 2018
• 1,696 items added with 1,412,473 views
• Comment (3)
• Mar 7, 2021 Mar 7, 2021 6:34 pm GMT

X-Energy Signs on for ARDP and $80M in Initial Funding

• China  Five-Year-Plan Includes Proposals For Up to 20 New Reactors

China Commits to the ACP100 Small Modular Reactor

Tvel / russian company starts fuel facility for china’s cfr-600 fast neutron reactor, dutch consortium plans work on molten salt reactors, swedish companies seek financial support for lead cooled smr development.

The advanced nuclear energy reactor developer  X-Energy  announced this week that it has signed the Department of Energy’s (DOE)  Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program  (ARDP) Cooperative Agreement, officially marking the beginning of the company’s participation in ARDP’s ~$2.5 billion program.

DOE is providing $80M in the first phase of the cost shared funding plan. DOE will invest approximately $1.23 billion in X-energy’s project over the seven-year period for this demonstration project.

X-Energy Xe-100 Profile: Chart: IAEA

This project will enable X-energy to build the world’s first commercial scale advanced nuclear reactor with Energy Northwest at a site in Washington state.

The Xe-100 is an 80 MWe (scalable to a 320 MWe four-pack) high temperature gas-cooled reactor (HTGR).  (Image right is a conceptual view of the design. Image: X-Energy)

It uses TRi-structural ISOtropic particle fuel (TRISO),  manufactured by X-energy , that can integrate into large, regional electricity systems as a base and load-following source of carbon-free power.

According to X-Energy the reactor as designed is expected to optimize grid use of low-emission, intermittent renewables and other clean energy resources.

The reactor is also ideal for project sites and other power applications, including as a source for industrial process heat.

As part of the Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program, X-energy and its supply chain partners will deliver a commercial four-unit nuclear power plant of its Xe-100 reactor design and a commercial scale TRISO fuel fabrication facility.

About the ARDP Program

ARDP is designed to help domestic private industry demonstrate advanced nuclear reactors in the United States. DOE expects to invest approximately $600 million over seven years with industry partners providing at least 20% in matching funds.

The Department of Energy ARDP program has three elements.

• Advanced reactor demonstrations, which are expected to result in a fully functional advanced nuclear reactor within 7 years of the award.
• Risk reduction for future demonstrations, which will support up to five additional teams resolving technical, operational, and regulatory challenges to prepare for future demonstration opportunities.
• Advanced reactor concepts 2020 (ARC 20), which will support innovative and diverse designs with potential to commercialize in the mid-2030s.

The National Reactor Innovation Center (NRIC) accelerates the demonstration and deployment of advanced nuclear energy. NRIC is is a national Department of Energy program led by Idaho National Laboratory, working with collaborators to demonstrate advanced reactors by the end of 2025.

Risk Reduction for Future Demonstration Projects

Last October DOE awarded TerraPower LLC (Bellevue, WA) and X-energy (Rockville, MD) $80 million each in initial funding to build two advanced nuclear reactors that can be operational within seven years.

See prior coverage on this blog  –  DOE Awards $80M each to TerraPower, X-Energy for ARDP

The awards are cost-shared partnerships with industry that will deliver two first-of-a-kind advanced reactors to be licensed for commercial operations. The Department will invest a total of $3.2 billion over seven years, subject to the availability of future appropriations. The firms participating in the project will be providing matching funds.

TerraPower Role in ARDP

TerraPower , which is the other firm receiving the DOE funding, will demonstrate the Natrium reactor, a sodium cooled fast reactor that leverages of decades of development and design undertaken by TerraPower and its partner, GE Hitachi.

GE Hitachi will be leveraging the design work it has done on the  PRISM reactor  which in turn has its legacy in the design of the  Integral Fast Reactor  at the Argonne West site in Idaho.

The high-operating temperature of the Natrium reactor, coupled with thermal energy storage, will allow the plant to provide flexible electricity output that complements variable renewable generation such as wind a solar. In addition, this project will establish a new metal fuel fabrication facility that is scaled to meet the needs of this demonstration program.

DOE said that both projects incorporate a range of design features that will not only enhance safety, but make them affordable to construct and operate, paving the way for the United States to deploy highly competitive advanced reactors domestically and globally.

China / Five-Year-Plan Includes Proposals For Up to 20 New Reactors

( Nucnet )  China is backing the further development of commercial nuclear power as a key tool in its drive to cut carbon emissions, according to the 2021-2025 five-year plan presented on Friday to China’s annual National People’s Congress.

Beijing said it aims to have 70 GW of installed nuclear capacity by 2025 from about 50 GW at the end of 2019. That would equate to about 20 new reactors, 2021-2025, although China already has 12 under construction.

China originally aimed to bring its nuclear installed capacity to 58 GW by 2020, but didn’t meet the target following a moratorium on new projects following the March 2011 Fukushima-Daiichi accident and delays at a number of Generation III plants that were under construction.

According to the  World Nuclear Association January 2021 assessment  of China’s nuclear energy program, these are the project ( Table ) which are getting underway in the near term.

According to several reports by World Nuclear New, two demonstration multi-purpose modular ACP100 ‘Linglong One’ units will be built at Changjiang. This will be China Guodian’s first mainland domestic nuclear power venture, with CNNC holding 51% of CNNC New Energy Corporation (CNNC-CNEC).

The ACP100 units are integral PWRs, 125 MWe, with passive cooling for decay heat removal. CNNC said that the units could provide electricity, heat and desalination. Construction time is expected to be 65 months.

The ACP100 was identified as a ‘key project’ in China’s 12th Five-Year Plan, and is developed from the larger ACP1000 PWR. The design, which has 57 fuel assemblies and integral steam generators, incorporates passive safety features and will be installed underground.  

ACP100 Technical Profile – Chart: IAEA

In 2016, China announced plans to build a demonstration floating nuclear power plant based on the ACP100S variant of the CNNC design. The use of the floating SMRs is targeted at providing power to artificial islands in the South China Sea for military bases there intended to project geopolitical influence in the region.

See prior coverage on this blog  —  China to deploy floating nuclear power plants to support geopolitical goals in S. E. Asia

The new mainland project involves a joint venture of three companies for the demonstration plant: CNNC as owner and operator, the Nuclear Power Institute of China as the reactor designer and China Nuclear Engineering Group being responsible for plan. Construction is expected to take 65 months, with the 125 MWe unit to start up by May 2025, subject to relevant governmental approvals.

China Slated to Become World Leader in Commercial Nuclear Power

China will have the world’s largest nuclear power fleet within a decade, an International Energy Agency official said during a session at the High-Level Workshop on Nuclear Power in Clean Energy Transitions according to  World Nuclear News  . The workshop was held jointly by the IEA and the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The IEA official, Brent Wanner, head of Power Sector Modelling & Analysis for the agency’s World Energy Outlook publication, said that as nuclear fleets in the United States, Canada, and Japan reach their original design lifetimes, the contribution of nuclear power could decline substantially in those countries while China’s reactor building program will boost it into first place.

   Map of Current and Planned Nuclear Power Plants in China. Ma: World Nuclear Assoc

China already has 50 nuclear reactors in commercial operation, the third highest number behind the US (94) and France (56). In 2019, nuclear energy accounted for 4.9% of the country’s electricity production share, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency.

( Nucnet ) Russian nuclear fuel manufacturer Tvel has started a production facility which will fabricate fuel for China’s  CFR-600  fast neutron reactor under construction under construction in Xiapu County, Fujian province, China, on  Changbiao Island , a coastal site 650 km south of Shanghai.. It is a generation IV demonstration project by the China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC). The project is also known as Xiapu fast reactor pilot project.

Tvel said in a statement that the facility is part of the Elemash Machine-Building Plant, a Tvel plant in Elektrostal, near Moscow.

The CFR-600 is a 600-MW sodium-cooled pool-type fast reactor and is expected to begin commercial operation by 2023. The plant will be able to operate on both mixed oxide (MOX) and uranium dioxide (UO2) fuel types. It is expected to have a design life of 60 years.

Tvel said the new production facility in Elektrostal is a result of a contract signed as a part of a 2018 nuclear cooperation deal between Russia and China, which included the joint construction and operation of the CFR-600 plant.

According to Tvel, the fuel contract covers initial loading of nuclear fuel into the CFR-600 and a number of subsequent refuels covering the first seven years of the unit’s operation. It isn’t clear what the duration is for each fuel cycle.

Tvel said the new fuel fabrication facility will be used to produce fuel not only for the Chinese CFR-600 and CEFR fast reactors, but also for the Russian BN-600 fast reactor at the Beloyarsk nuclear power station.

See prior coverage on this blog  —  Russia’s BN-800 Reactor Enters Commercial Operation

Profile of the CFR600

The CFR600 (China Fast Reactor-600) nuclear reactor pilot project represents the second step in fast reactor development in China following the success of the  China Experimental Fast Reactor  (CEFR), which was connected to the grid in July 2010.

Designed by China Institute of Atomic Energy, the CFR600 is a prototype sodium-cooled pool-type fast reactor capable of generating 1,500MW of thermal power and 600MW of electric power. The reactor design aims at achieving a thermal efficiency of 40%. The medium-sized fourth-generation advanced nuclear reactor will feature two coolant loops and is designed to operate at 380°C and 550°C of inlet and outlet core temperatures, respectively.

Scheduled for commissioning in 2023, the CFR-600 pilot project is  expected to pave the way  for the development and commercialization of much larger CFR-1000 reactors in China by 2030.

The CFR-600 nuclear reactor will also feature design flexibility to use two fuel types. The reactor will be first loaded with uranium oxide (UO2) and then converted to run on mixed oxide (MOX) fuel.

The  Nuclear Research and Consultancy Group  (NRG) in the Netherlands said this month that it had set up a consortium to work on development of  Molten Salt Reactors . The focus of the joint effort will be design and testing of important processes and materials needed to build them. A key emphasis is expected to be on the use of thorium as a fuel type.

 Conceptual image of a molten salt reactor:  Image: Wikipedia

Members of the consortium include TU Delft,  DIFFER , and reactor developer Thorizon. According to press releases,  TU Delft  has been involved in  research into the thorium MSR  for a number of years, and NRG in Petten has research facilities including the High Flux (research) Reactor.

The consortium members said they are making plans to have a first of a kind reactor built by 2035. This will be fueled with thorium with the objective of demonstrating the use of this fuel in MSRs.

NRG said said that it will carry out irradiations of materials intended to be used in MSRs. It will also work on testing and qualification of fuels for MSRs.

This is the second step of three in the development and commercialization of a new type of reactor in Sweden during the 2030s.

The application is based on the project “ Sunrise ” which the Foundation for Strategic Research supported with SEK50 million ($6M) to develop design, material technology and safety analysis for an advanced  lead-cooled research and demonstration reactor . Sunrise includes KTH, Luleå University and Uppsala University. An  detailed workplan , in English, is posted at the project website.

Conceptual image of a lead cooled reactor; Image:  Gen IV

If funding is available, the next step will be to build an electrically powered non-nuclear prototype for testing and verifying materials and technology in an environment of molten lead at high temperatures. The prototype, which will be operated for five years starting in 2024, is planned to be built on OKG’s area at Simpevarp outside Oskarshamn.

Johan Svenningsson, CEO Uniper Sweden, said in a press statement, “We see a clear role for nuclear power in the energy system of the future, and we therefore invest in developing the nuclear power of the future in collaboration with the company Blykalla, which has patents on design and materials for a small modular reactor with lead cooling and passive safety.”

Nuclear Energy’s Role in Sweden

The path for advanced nuclear reactor technology in Sweden may face some stiff headwinds. In recent years Sweden has shut down four older nuclear reactors which led to the restart of fossil fuel power plants. The country’s political leadership has been ambivalent about challenging the influence of green parties who want to do away with all nuclear energy use in the country.

According to the  World Nuclear Association , Sweden’s nuclear power reactors provide about 40% of its electricity.

The country’s 1997 energy policy allowed 10 reactors to operate longer than envisaged by the 1980 phase-out policy, but also resulted in the premature closure of a two-unit plant (1200 MWe).

Some 1600 MWe was subsequently added in uprates to the remaining ten reactors. In 2015 decisions were made to close four older reactors by 2020, removing 2.7 GWe. Nuclear power plants are heavily taxed by the government despite their role in abating further releases of greenhouse gases.

• nuclear-generation

Discussions

Sign in to participate.

What would be the unique proposition of lead cooled SMRs as opposed to the ones already in development? 

• Sign in or Register to post comments

Lead is normally proposed as a coolant for "fast reactors".  Like sodium cooled fast reactors (e.g. CFR-600 or Natrium/GE Prism), they can be used to efficiently consume plutonium removed from dismantled weapons or plutonium and other trans-uranics from spent nuclear fuel from other reactors.

Fast reactors (at least in larger sizes) can usual operate as breeders, or near break-even.  That means that they are so fuel efficient, that they can provide inexhaustible clean energy from Earth's enormous uranium reserves (even low-grade ores, which would not be cost effective for LWRs).

Lead-cooled reactors may* have an advantage over sodium-cooled types since the boiling point of lead is higher than that of sodium, which means that they should be able to operate at a higher temperature.  Specifically, they should be able to match the operating temperature of a coal-fired power plant; so coal-to-nuclear plant conversions could be feasible.  The higher temperature may also enable lead-cooled reactors to use passive cooling at higher power levels than sodium-cooled units.  (*lead-coolant also involves greater challenges managing corrosion, however).

That ACP100 Chinese SMR is also big news.  125 MW is too small for the gargantuan 2000 GW Chinese power grid; that reactor is designed for export.

If anyone can make SMRs cheap, it's the Chinese.

• Oklo Signs $25M Deal for Data Center Power
• Constellation Saves Millions Using Blue Wave AI Tools
• Holtec’s Audacious Plan to Reopen Palisades Pays Off
• Startup Offers AI Tool to Access NRC’s ADAMS Library

Get Published - Build a Following

The Energy Central Power Industry Network® is based on one core idea - power industry professionals helping each other and advancing the industry by sharing and learning from each other.

If you have an experience or insight to share or have learned something from a conference or seminar, your peers and colleagues on Energy Central want to hear about it. It's also easy to share a link to an article you've liked or an industry resource that you think would be helpful.

Start a Post »                  Learn more about posting on Energy Central »

• Start a Post

Analyst, Wholesale Energy Services, Mid-Continent Customized Energy Solutions Mid-Continent States, Remote

Chief Executive Officer Baldwin EMC Summerdale, Alabama

Director of Strategy and Performance Management Long Island Power Authority Uniondale, New York

Director of Grants Management Long Island Power Authority Uniondale, New York

Hydro Plant Compliance Electrical Engineer (III, Senior I, Senior II, Senior III) Chelan Public Utility District Wenatchee, Washington

Power Systems Analyst (Power Scheduling, Contracts and Regulatory Reporting) City of Glendale Water & Power Glendale, California

Lakeland Electric Compliance Engineer City of Lakeland Lakeland, Florida

Chief Financial Officer Commonwealth Utilities Corporation Saipan, Northern Mariana Islands

Chief Engineer, P.E. Commonwealth Utilities Corporation Saipan, Northern Mariana Islands

Director of Customer Experience Long Island Power Authority Uniondale, New York

Finance and Treasury Analyst Long Island Power Authority Uniondale, New York

Sponsors & Partners

First refuelling for Russia’s Akademik Lomonosov floating NPP

!{Model.Description}

The FNPP includes two KLT-40S reactor units. In such reactors, nuclear fuel is not replaced in the same way as in standard NPPs – partial replacement of fuel once every 12-18 months. Instead, once every few years the entire reactor core is replaced with and a full load of fresh fuel.

The KLT-40S reactor cores have a number of advantages compared with standard NPPs. For the first time, a cassette core was used, which made it possible to increase the fuel cycle to 3-3.5 years before refuelling, and also reduce by one and a half times the fuel component in the cost of the electricity produced. The operating experience of the FNPP provided the basis for the design of the new series of nuclear icebreaker reactors (series 22220). Currently, three such icebreakers have been launched.

The Akademik Lomonosov was connected to the power grid in December 2019, and put into commercial operation in May 2020.

Electricity generation from the FNPP at the end of 2023 amounted to 194 GWh. The population of Pevek is just over 4,000 people. However, the plant can potentially provide electricity to a city with a population of up to 100,000. The FNPP solved two problems. Firstly, it replaced the retiring capacities of the Bilibino Nuclear Power Plant, which has been operating since 1974, as well as the Chaunskaya Thermal Power Plant, which is more than 70 years old. It also supplies power to the main mining enterprises located in western Chukotka. In September, a 490 km 110 kilovolt power transmission line was put into operation connecting Pevek and Bilibino.

Image courtesy of TVEL

• Terms and conditions
• Privacy Policy
• Newsletter sign up
• Digital Edition
• Editorial Standards

Turn Your Curiosity Into Discovery

Latest facts.

The Best AI Photo Editor of 2024 A Comprehensive Review

6 Facts You Didnt Know About Ecommerce Call Center Outsourcing

40 facts about elektrostal.

Written by Lanette Mayes

Modified & Updated: 02 Mar 2024

Reviewed by Jessica Corbett

Elektrostal is a vibrant city located in the Moscow Oblast region of Russia. With a rich history, stunning architecture, and a thriving community, Elektrostal is a city that has much to offer. Whether you are a history buff, nature enthusiast, or simply curious about different cultures, Elektrostal is sure to captivate you.

This article will provide you with 40 fascinating facts about Elektrostal, giving you a better understanding of why this city is worth exploring. From its origins as an industrial hub to its modern-day charm, we will delve into the various aspects that make Elektrostal a unique and must-visit destination.

So, join us as we uncover the hidden treasures of Elektrostal and discover what makes this city a true gem in the heart of Russia.

Key Takeaways:

• Elektrostal, known as the “Motor City of Russia,” is a vibrant and growing city with a rich industrial history, offering diverse cultural experiences and a strong commitment to environmental sustainability.
• With its convenient location near Moscow, Elektrostal provides a picturesque landscape, vibrant nightlife, and a range of recreational activities, making it an ideal destination for residents and visitors alike.

Known as the “Motor City of Russia.”

Elektrostal, a city located in the Moscow Oblast region of Russia, earned the nickname “Motor City” due to its significant involvement in the automotive industry.

Home to the Elektrostal Metallurgical Plant.

Elektrostal is renowned for its metallurgical plant, which has been producing high-quality steel and alloys since its establishment in 1916.

Boasts a rich industrial heritage.

Elektrostal has a long history of industrial development, contributing to the growth and progress of the region.

Founded in 1916.

The city of Elektrostal was founded in 1916 as a result of the construction of the Elektrostal Metallurgical Plant.

Located approximately 50 kilometers east of Moscow.

Elektrostal is situated in close proximity to the Russian capital, making it easily accessible for both residents and visitors.

Known for its vibrant cultural scene.

Elektrostal is home to several cultural institutions, including museums, theaters, and art galleries that showcase the city’s rich artistic heritage.

A popular destination for nature lovers.

Surrounded by picturesque landscapes and forests, Elektrostal offers ample opportunities for outdoor activities such as hiking, camping, and birdwatching.

Hosts the annual Elektrostal City Day celebrations.

Every year, Elektrostal organizes festive events and activities to celebrate its founding, bringing together residents and visitors in a spirit of unity and joy.

Has a population of approximately 160,000 people.

Elektrostal is home to a diverse and vibrant community of around 160,000 residents, contributing to its dynamic atmosphere.

Boasts excellent education facilities.

The city is known for its well-established educational institutions, providing quality education to students of all ages.

A center for scientific research and innovation.

Elektrostal serves as an important hub for scientific research, particularly in the fields of metallurgy, materials science, and engineering.

Surrounded by picturesque lakes.

The city is blessed with numerous beautiful lakes, offering scenic views and recreational opportunities for locals and visitors alike.

Well-connected transportation system.

Elektrostal benefits from an efficient transportation network, including highways, railways, and public transportation options, ensuring convenient travel within and beyond the city.

Famous for its traditional Russian cuisine.

Food enthusiasts can indulge in authentic Russian dishes at numerous restaurants and cafes scattered throughout Elektrostal.

Home to notable architectural landmarks.

Elektrostal boasts impressive architecture, including the Church of the Transfiguration of the Lord and the Elektrostal Palace of Culture.

Offers a wide range of recreational facilities.

Residents and visitors can enjoy various recreational activities, such as sports complexes, swimming pools, and fitness centers, enhancing the overall quality of life.

Provides a high standard of healthcare.

Elektrostal is equipped with modern medical facilities, ensuring residents have access to quality healthcare services.

Home to the Elektrostal History Museum.

The Elektrostal History Museum showcases the city’s fascinating past through exhibitions and displays.

A hub for sports enthusiasts.

Elektrostal is passionate about sports, with numerous stadiums, arenas, and sports clubs offering opportunities for athletes and spectators.

Celebrates diverse cultural festivals.

Throughout the year, Elektrostal hosts a variety of cultural festivals, celebrating different ethnicities, traditions, and art forms.

Electric power played a significant role in its early development.

Elektrostal owes its name and initial growth to the establishment of electric power stations and the utilization of electricity in the industrial sector.

Boasts a thriving economy.

The city’s strong industrial base, coupled with its strategic location near Moscow, has contributed to Elektrostal’s prosperous economic status.

Houses the Elektrostal Drama Theater.

The Elektrostal Drama Theater is a cultural centerpiece, attracting theater enthusiasts from far and wide.

Popular destination for winter sports.

Elektrostal’s proximity to ski resorts and winter sport facilities makes it a favorite destination for skiing, snowboarding, and other winter activities.

Promotes environmental sustainability.

Elektrostal prioritizes environmental protection and sustainability, implementing initiatives to reduce pollution and preserve natural resources.

Home to renowned educational institutions.

Elektrostal is known for its prestigious schools and universities, offering a wide range of academic programs to students.

Committed to cultural preservation.

The city values its cultural heritage and takes active steps to preserve and promote traditional customs, crafts, and arts.

Hosts an annual International Film Festival.

The Elektrostal International Film Festival attracts filmmakers and cinema enthusiasts from around the world, showcasing a diverse range of films.

Encourages entrepreneurship and innovation.

Elektrostal supports aspiring entrepreneurs and fosters a culture of innovation, providing opportunities for startups and business development.

Offers a range of housing options.

Elektrostal provides diverse housing options, including apartments, houses, and residential complexes, catering to different lifestyles and budgets.

Home to notable sports teams.

Elektrostal is proud of its sports legacy, with several successful sports teams competing at regional and national levels.

Boasts a vibrant nightlife scene.

Residents and visitors can enjoy a lively nightlife in Elektrostal, with numerous bars, clubs, and entertainment venues.

Promotes cultural exchange and international relations.

Elektrostal actively engages in international partnerships, cultural exchanges, and diplomatic collaborations to foster global connections.

Surrounded by beautiful nature reserves.

Nearby nature reserves, such as the Barybino Forest and Luchinskoye Lake, offer opportunities for nature enthusiasts to explore and appreciate the region’s biodiversity.

Commemorates historical events.

The city pays tribute to significant historical events through memorials, monuments, and exhibitions, ensuring the preservation of collective memory.

Promotes sports and youth development.

Elektrostal invests in sports infrastructure and programs to encourage youth participation, health, and physical fitness.

Hosts annual cultural and artistic festivals.

Throughout the year, Elektrostal celebrates its cultural diversity through festivals dedicated to music, dance, art, and theater.

Provides a picturesque landscape for photography enthusiasts.

The city’s scenic beauty, architectural landmarks, and natural surroundings make it a paradise for photographers.

Connects to Moscow via a direct train line.

The convenient train connection between Elektrostal and Moscow makes commuting between the two cities effortless.

A city with a bright future.

Elektrostal continues to grow and develop, aiming to become a model city in terms of infrastructure, sustainability, and quality of life for its residents.

In conclusion, Elektrostal is a fascinating city with a rich history and a vibrant present. From its origins as a center of steel production to its modern-day status as a hub for education and industry, Elektrostal has plenty to offer both residents and visitors. With its beautiful parks, cultural attractions, and proximity to Moscow, there is no shortage of things to see and do in this dynamic city. Whether you’re interested in exploring its historical landmarks, enjoying outdoor activities, or immersing yourself in the local culture, Elektrostal has something for everyone. So, next time you find yourself in the Moscow region, don’t miss the opportunity to discover the hidden gems of Elektrostal.

Q: What is the population of Elektrostal?

A: As of the latest data, the population of Elektrostal is approximately XXXX.

Q: How far is Elektrostal from Moscow?

A: Elektrostal is located approximately XX kilometers away from Moscow.

Q: Are there any famous landmarks in Elektrostal?

A: Yes, Elektrostal is home to several notable landmarks, including XXXX and XXXX.

Q: What industries are prominent in Elektrostal?

A: Elektrostal is known for its steel production industry and is also a center for engineering and manufacturing.

Q: Are there any universities or educational institutions in Elektrostal?

A: Yes, Elektrostal is home to XXXX University and several other educational institutions.

Q: What are some popular outdoor activities in Elektrostal?

A: Elektrostal offers several outdoor activities, such as hiking, cycling, and picnicking in its beautiful parks.

Q: Is Elektrostal well-connected in terms of transportation?

A: Yes, Elektrostal has good transportation links, including trains and buses, making it easily accessible from nearby cities.

Q: Are there any annual events or festivals in Elektrostal?

A: Yes, Elektrostal hosts various events and festivals throughout the year, including XXXX and XXXX.

Was this page helpful?

Our commitment to delivering trustworthy and engaging content is at the heart of what we do. Each fact on our site is contributed by real users like you, bringing a wealth of diverse insights and information. To ensure the highest standards of accuracy and reliability, our dedicated editors meticulously review each submission. This process guarantees that the facts we share are not only fascinating but also credible. Trust in our commitment to quality and authenticity as you explore and learn with us.

Share this Fact: