One of social psychology's great success stories is the widespread use of cooperative learning. From being virtually unknown 30 years ago, cooperative learning is now a standard educational practice in almost every elementary and secondary school and many colleges and universities in the United States, Canada and a variety of other countries. To understand how social psychological theory and research has revolutionized teaching practices, it is first necessary to understand what cooperative learning is.

Cooperative learning exists when students work together to achieve joint learning groups (Johnson, Johnson, & Holubec, 1992, 1993). Any assignment in any curriculum for any age student can be done cooperatively. There are three ways that cooperative learning may be used. Formal cooperative learning groups may last for one class period to several weeks to complete any course requirement (such as solving problems, reading complex text material, writing an essay or report, conducting a survey or experiment, learning vocabulary, or answering questions at the end of a chapter). The teacher introduces the lesson, assigns students to groups (two to five members), gives students the materials they need to complete the assignment, and assigns students roles. The teacher explains the task, teaches any concepts or procedures the students need in order to complete the assignment, and structures the cooperation among students. Students work on the assignment until all group members have successfully understood and completed it. While the students work together the teacher moves from group to group systematically monitoring their interaction. The teacher intervenes when students do not understand the academic task or when there are problems in working together. After the assignment is completed the teacher evaluates the academic success of each student and has the groups process how well they functioned as a team. In working cooperatively, students realize they (a) are mutually responsible for each other's learning and (b) have a stake in each other's success.

Informal cooperative learning groups are temporary, ad-hoc groups that last from a few minutes to one class period that are used during a lecture, demonstration, or film to focus student attention on the material to be learned, set a mood conducive to learning, help set expectations as to what will be covered in a class session, ensure that students cognitively process the material being taught, and provide closure to an instructional session. Cooperative base groups are long-term cooperative learning groups (lasting for one semester or year) with stable membership that give each member the support, help, encouragement, and assistance he or she needs to make academic progress (attend class, complete all assignments, learn) and develop cognitively and socially in healthy ways.

What makes cooperative learning different from most instructional methods is that it is based on social interdependence theory and the related research. Social interdependence theory provides educators with a conceptual framework for understanding how cooperative learning may be (a) most fruitfully structured, (b) adapted to a wide variety of instructional situations, and (c) applied to a wide range of issues (such as achievement, ethnic integration, and prevention of drug abuse). In this chapter we shall review the theory of social interdependence, the research that has been conducted on social interdependence, the conditions under which the theory is valid, and the variables that enhance its effectiveness. We will then return to its relevance and application to education.

There are at least three general theoretical perspectives that have guided research on cooperation--cognitive-developmental, behavioral, and social interdependence. The cognitive developmental perspective is largely based on the theories of Piaget and Vygotsky. The work of Piaget and related theorists is based on the premise that when individuals co-operate on the environment, socio-cognitive conflict occurs that creates cognitive disequilibrium, which in turn stimulates perspective-taking ability and cognitive development. The work of Vygotsky and related theorists is based on the premise that knowledge is social, constructed from cooperative efforts to learn, understand, and solve problems. The behavioral theory perspective focuses on the impact of group reinforcers and rewards on learning. Skinner focused on group contingencies, Bandura focused on imitation, and Homans as well as Thibaut and Kelley focused on the balance of rewards and costs in social exchange among interdependent individuals. While the cognitive-developmental and behavioral theoretical orientations have their followings, by far the most important theory dealing with cooperation is social interdependence theory.

Theorizing on social interdependence began in the early 1900s, when one of the founders of the Gestalt School of Psychology, Kurt Koffka, proposed that groups were dynamic wholes in which the interdependence among members could vary. One of his colleagues, Kurt Lewin refined Koffka's notions in the 1920s and 1930s while stating that (a) the essence of a group is the interdependence among members (created by common goals) which results in the group being a "dynamic whole" so that a change in the state of any member or subgroup changes the state of any other member or subgroup, and (b) an intrinsic state of tension within group members motivates movement toward the accomplishment of the desired common goals. Lewin's students and colleagues, such as Ovisankian, Lissner, Mahler, and Lewis, contributed further research indicating that it is the drive for goal accomplishment that motivates cooperative and competitive behavior.

In the late 1940s, one of Lewin's graduate students, Morton Deutsch, extended Lewin's reasoning about social interdependence and formulated a theory of cooperation and competition (Deutsch, 1949, 1962). Deutsch's theory has served as a major conceptual structure for this area of inquiry for the past 45 years. Deutsch's theory was extended and applied to education by the authors at the University of Minnesota (Johnson, 1970, Johnson & Johnson, 1974, 1989). Our work has been extended and applied to business and industry (Tjosvold, 1986).

Social interdependence exists when individuals share common goals and each individual's outcomes are affected by the actions of the others (Deutsch, 1949, 1962; Johnson & Johnson, 1989). It may be differentiated from social dependence (i.e., the outcomes of one person are affected by the actions of a second person but not vice versa) and social independence (i.e., individuals' outcomes are unaffected by each other's actions). There are two types of social interdependence: cooperative and competitive. The absence of social interdependence and dependence results in individualistic efforts.

When individuals take action there are three ways what they do may be related to the actions of others. One's actions may promote the success of others, obstruct the success of others, or not have any effect at all on the success or failure of others. In other words, individuals may be (Deutsch, 1949, 1962; Johnson & Johnson, 1989):

1. Working together cooperatively to accomplish shared learning goals. When a situation is structured cooperatively, individuals' goal achievements are positively correlated; individuals perceive that they can reach their goals if and only if the others in the group also reach their goals. Thus, individuals seek outcomes that are beneficial to all those with whom they are cooperatively linked.

2. Working against each other to achieve a goal that only one or a few can attain. When a situation is structured competitively, individuals work against each other to achieve a goal that only one or a few can attain. Individuals' goal achievements are negatively correlated; each individual perceives that when one person achieves his or her goal, all others with whom he or she is competitively linked fail to achieve their goals. Thus, individuals seek an outcome that is personally beneficial but detrimental to all others in the situation.

3. Working by oneself to accomplish goals unrelated to the goals of others. When a situation is structured individualistically, there is no correlation among participants' goal attainments. Each individual perceives that he or she can reach his or her goal regardless of whether other individuals attain or do not attain their goals. Thus, individuals seek an outcome that is personally beneficial without concern for the outcomes of others.

The basic premise of social interdependence theory is that the type of interdependence structured in a situation determines how individuals interact with each other which, in turn, determines outcomes (see Table 1). Positive interdependence tends to result in promotive interaction, negative interdependence tends to result in oppositional or contrient interaction, and no interdependence results in an absence of interaction. Depending on whether individuals promote or obstruct each other's goal accomplishments, there is substitutability (i.e., the actions of one person substitute for the actions of another), cathexis (i.e., the investment of psychological energy in objects and events outside of oneself), and inducibility (i.e., openness to influence). Essentially, in cooperative situations the actions of participants substitute for each other, participants positively cathect to each other's effective actions, and there is high inducibility among participants. In competitive situations the actions of participants do not substitute for each other, participants negatively cathect to each other's effective actions, and inducibility is low. When there is no interaction, there is no substitutability, cathexis, or inducibility. The relationship between the type of social interdependence and the interaction pattern it elicits is assumed to be bidirectional. Each may cause the other.

Promotive interaction tends to result in a wide variety of outcomes that may be subsumed into the categories of high effort to achieve, positive relationships, and psychological health. Oppositional interaction tends to result in low effort to achieve by most students, negative relationships, and low psychological health and no interaction ends to result in low effort to achieve, an absence of relationships, and psychological pathology.

Table 1 Social Interdependence Theory

Process Cooperative Competitive Individualistic

Interdependence	Positive	Negative	None
Interaction Pattern	Promotive	Oppositional	None
Outcome 1	High Effort To Achieve	Low Effort To Achieve	Low Effort To Achieve
Outcome 2	Positive Relationships	Negative Relationships	No Relationships
Outcome 3	Psychological Health	Psychological Illness	Psychological Pathology

Between 1898 and 1989, over 575 experimental and 100 correlational studies were conducted by a wide variety of researchers in different decades with different age subjects, in different subject areas, and in different settings (see Johnson & Johnson, 1989 for a complete listing of these studies). One of the issues addressed by this research is the type of interaction patterns found within cooperative, competitive, and individualistic situations.

Positive interdependence creates promotive interaction. Promotive interaction occurs as individuals encourage and facilitate each other's efforts to reach the group's goals (such as maximizing each member's learning). Group members promote each other's success by (Johnson & Johnson, 1989):

1. Giving and receiving help and assistance (both task-related and personal).

2. Exchanging resources and information. Group members seek information and other resources from each other, comprehend information accurately and without bias, and make optimal use of the information provided. There are a number of beneficial results from (a) orally explaining, elaborating, and summarizing information and (b) teaching one's knowledge to others. Explaining and teaching increase the degree to which group members cognitively process and organize information, engage in higher-level reasoning, attain insights, and become personally committed to achieving. Listening critically to the explanations of groupmates provides the opportunity to utilize other's resources.

3. Giving and receiving feedback on taskwork and teamwork behaviors. In cooperative groups, members monitor each other's efforts, give immediate feedback on performance, and, when needed, give each other help and assistance.

4. Challenging each other's reasoning. Intellectual controversy promotes curiosity, motivation to learn, reconceptualization of what one's knows, higher quality decision making, greater insight into the problem being considered, and many other important benefits (Johnson & Johnson, 1979, 1995b).

5. Advocating increased efforts to achieve. Encouraging others to achieve increases one's own commitment to do so.

6. Mutually influencing each other's reasoning and behavior. Group members actively seek to influence and be influenced by each other. If a member has a better way to complete the task, groupmates usually quickly adopt it.

7. Engaging in the interpersonal and small group skills needed for effective teamwork.

8. Processing how effectively group members are working together and how the group's effectiveness can be continuously improved.

Negative interdependence typically results in oppositional interaction. Oppositional interaction occurs as individuals discourage and obstruct each other's efforts to achieve. Individuals focus both on increasing their own success and on preventing any one else from being more successful than they are. No interaction exists when individuals work independently without any interaction or interchange with each other. Individuals focus only on increasing their own success and ignore as irrelevant the efforts of others. Each of these interaction patterns creates different outcomes.

Social interdependence is a generic human phenomenon that has impact on many different outcomes simultaneously. Over the past 95 years, researchers have focused on such diverse dependent variables as individual achievement and retention, group and organizational productivity, higher-level reasoning, moral reasoning, achievement motivation, intrinsic motivation, transfer of training and learning, job satisfaction, interpersonal attraction, social support, interpersonal affection and love, attitudes toward diversity, prejudice, self-esteem, personal causation and locus of control, attributions concerning success and failure, psychological health, social competencies, and many others. These numerous outcomes may be subsumed within three broad categories (Johnson & Johnson, 1989): (1) effort to achieve, (2) positive relationships, and (3) psychological health (see Figure 1).

If research is to have impact on theory and practice, it must be summarized and communicated in a complete, objective, impartial, and unbiased way. In an age of information explosion, there is considerable danger that theories will be formulated on small and nonrepresentative samples of available knowledge, thereby resulting in fallacious conclusions that in turn lead to mistaken practices. A quantitative reviewing procedure, such as meta-analysis, allows for more definitive and robust conclusions. A meta-analysis is a method of statistically combining the results of a set of independent studies that test the same hypothesis and using inferential statistics to draw conclusions about the overall result of the studies. The essential purpose of a meta-analysis is to summarize a set of related research studies, so that the size of the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable is known.

Effort to Achieve

To ensure that the graduates from our school system perform as well or better than any 18-year-old student in the world, schools must continuously improve the instructional program, so that students are knowledgeable (especially in math and science), have the ability to think critically and use higher-level reasoning, and are committed to life-long learning. The research comparing the impact of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic efforts on achievement and productivity provides educators with a direction on how to do so.

The investigation of the relative impact of the three types of social interdependence on achievement is the longest standing research tradition within American social psychology. Between 1898 and 1989, researchers conducted over 375 experimental studies with over 1,700 findings on social interdependence and productivity and achievement (Johnson & Johnson, 1989). And that does not count the research on social facilitation and other related areas where implicit competition may be found. Since research participants have varied widely as to sex, economic class, age, and cultural background, since a wide variety of research tasks and measures of the dependent variables have been used, and since the research has been conducted by many different researchers with markedly different orientations working in different settings and in different decades, the overall body of research on social interdependence has considerable generalizability.

A meta-analysis of all studies (Johnson & Johnson, 1989) found that the average person cooperating performed at about 2/3 a standard deviation above the average person learning within a competitive (effect size = 0.67) or individualistic situation (effect size = 0.64) (see Table 2). Not all the research, however, has been carefully conducted. The methodological shortcomings found within many research studies may significantly reduce the certainty of the conclusion that cooperative efforts produce higher achievement than do competitive or individualistic efforts. When only studies with high internal validity were included in the analysis, the effect sizes were 0.88 and 0.61, respectively. Further analyses revealed that the results held constant when group measures of productivity were included as well as individual measures, for short-term as well as long-term studies, and when symbolic as well as tangible rewards were used.

Table 2

Mean Effect Sizes For Impact Of Social Interdependence On Dependent Variables

Conditions	Achievement	Interpersonal Attraction	Social Support	Self-Esteem
Total Studies
Coop vs. Comp	0.67	0.67	0.62	0.58
Coop vs. Ind	0.64	0.60	0.70	0.44
Comp vs. Ind	0.30	0.08	-0.13	-0.23
High Quality Studies
Coop vs. Comp	0.88	0.82	0.83	0.67
Coop vs. Ind	0.61	0.62	0.72	0.45
Comp vs. Ind	0.07	0.27	-0.13	-0.25
Mixed Operationalizations
Coop vs. Comp	0.40	0.46	0.45	0.33
Coop vs. Ind	0.42	0.36	0.02	0.22
Pure Operationalizations
Coop vs. Comp	0.71	0.79	0.73	0.74
Coop vs. Ind	0.65	0.66	0.77	0.51

A number of the studies conducted operationally defined cooperation in a way that included elements of competition and individualistic work. The original jigsaw studies, for example, operationalized cooperative learning as a combination of positive resource interdependence and an individualistic reward structure (Aronson, 1978). Teams-Games-Tournaments (TGT; DeVries & Edwards, 1974) and Student-Team-Achievement-Divisions (STAD; Slavin, 1986) operationalized cooperative learning as a combination of ingroup cooperation and intergroup competition, and Team-Assisted-Individualization (TAI; Slavin, 1986) is a mixture of cooperative and individualistic learning. When such "mixed" operationalizations were compared with "pure" operationalizations, the effect-sizes for the cooperative vs. competitive comparison were 0.45 and 0.74 respectively, t(37) = 1.60, p < 0.06 (Johnson & Johnson, 1989). The effect-sizes for the cooperative vs. individualistic comparisons were 0.13 and 0.61 respectively, t(10) = 1.64, p < 0.07.

Achievement in cooperative learning groups involves more than the level of learning of its members. It is also important to understand (a) the extent to which members of cooperative learning groups influence each otherís achievement and (b) the direction of the influence (students could uniformly achieve higher or lower within a learning group). If group members do influence each other's achievement, their test scores should be quite similar. If little influence occurs, the level of achievement among group members could be dissimilar due to some members doing all the work while other members loaf. Few studies have examined this issue. The current evidence implies that even when students are quite diverse with one member of each group being academically gifted and at least one member of each group being academic handicapped, (a) academic ability is a better predictor of achievement in individualistic than in cooperative learning situations, (b) within cooperative learning groups members influence each other's learning to such an extent that initial differences in achievement level (whether a student is a low, medium, or high achiever) do not determine what the student learns, and (c) since achievement was significantly higher in the cooperative than in the individualistic condition, it may be assumed that members influence each other in ways that raise achievement (Archer-Kath, Johnson, & Johnson, 1994; Smith, Johnson, & Johnson, 1981).

Besides higher achievement and greater retention, cooperation, compared with competitive or individualistic efforts, tends to result in more (Johnson & Johnson, 1989):

1. Willingness to take on difficult tasks and persist, despite difficulties, in working toward goal accomplishment. In addition, there is intrinsic motivation, high expectations for success, high incentive to achieve based on mutual benefit, high epistemic curiosity and continuing interest in learning, and high commitment to achieve.

2. Long-term retention of what is learned.

3. Higher-level reasoning, critical thinking, and meta-cognitive thought. The aims of education includes developing individuals "who can sort sense from nonsense," or who have the critical thinking abilities of grasping information, examining it, evaluating it for soundness, and applying it appropriately. Cooperative learning promotes a greater use of higher level reasoning strategies and critical thinking than do competitive or individualistic learning strategies. Cooperative learning experiences promote more frequent insight into and use of higher-level cognitive and moral reasoning strategies than do competitive or individualistic learning experiences (effect sizes = 0.93 and 0.97 respectively). Even on writing assignments, students working cooperatively show more higher-level thought.

4. Creative thinking (process gain). Process gain occurs when new ideas, solutions, or efforts are generated through group interaction that are not generated when persons work individually. In cooperative groups, members more frequently generate new ideas, strategies, and solutions that they would think of on their own.

5. Transfer of learning from one situation to another (group to individual transfer). Group-to-individual transfer occurs when individuals who learned within a cooperative group demonstrate mastery on a subsequent test taken individually. What individuals learn in a group today, they are able to do alone tomorrow.

6. Positive attitudes toward the tasks being completed. Cooperative efforts result in more positive attitudes toward the tasks being completed and greater continuing motivation to complete them. The positive attitudes extend to the work experience and the organization as a whole.

7. Time on task. Over 30 studies did in fact measure time on task. They found that cooperators spent more time on task than did competitors (effect size = 0.76) or students working individualistically (effect size = 1.17). Competitors spent more time on task than did students working individualistically (effect size = 0.64). These effect sizes are quite large, indicating that members of cooperative learning groups do seem to spend considerable more time on task than do students working competitively or individualistically.

Since the most credible studies (due to their high-quality methodologically) and the "pure" operationalizations of cooperative learning produced stronger effects, considerable confidence can be placed in the conclusion that cooperative efforts promote more positive cross-ethnic relationships than do competitive or individualistic efforts.

Kurt Lewin often stated, "I always found myself unable to think as a single person." Most efforts to achieve are a personal but social process that requires individuals to cooperate and to construct shared understandings and knowledge. Both competitive and individualistic structures, by isolating individuals from each other, tend to depress achievement.

Positive Interpersonal Relationships

Ecclesiastics 6:14

The second set of issues facing schools involves relationships among students. Schools increasingly have students who are isolated and unattached to family or peers and students from a variety of ethic, historical, and cultural backgrounds. In response schools have to focus on building (a) a learning community, (b) positive relationships among heterogeneous students, and (c) positive relationships between classmates and lonely, isolated, alienated, at-risk students. There is considerable evidence comparing the impact of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic efforts on interpersonal attraction and social support.

Since 1940, over 180 studies have compared the impact of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic efforts on interpersonal attraction (Johnson & Johnson, 1989). Cooperative efforts, compared with competitive and individualistic experiences, promoted considerable more liking among individuals (effect sizes = 0.66 and 0.62 respectively) (see Table 2). The effects sizes were higher for (a) high quality studies and (b) the studies using pure operationalizations of cooperative learning than for studies using mixed operationalizations. The weighted effect sizes for cooperation versus competition and cooperation versus individualistic efforts are 0.65 and 0.64, respectively. When only the methodologically high quality studies are examined, the effect sizes go up to 0.77 and 0.67. "Pure" cooperation results in greater effects than do mixtures of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic efforts (cooperative vs. competitive, pure = 0.75 and mixed = 0.48; cooperative vs. individualistic, pure = 0.67 and mixed = 0.36).

Much of the research on interpersonal relationships has been conducted on relationships between white and minority students and between nonhandicapped and handicapped students (Johnson & Johnson, 1989). There have been over 40 experimental studies comparing some combination of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic experiences on cross-ethnic relationships and over 40 similar studies on mainstreaming of handicapped students (Johnson & Johnson, 1989). Their results are consistent. Working cooperatively creates far more positive relationships among diverse and heterogeneous students than does learning competitively or individualistically.

An extension of social interdependence theory is social judgment theory which focuses on relationships among diverse individuals (Johnson & Johnson, 1989). The social judgments individuals make about each other increase or decrease the liking they feel towards each other. Such social judgments are the result of either a process of acceptance or a process of rejection (Johnson & Johnson, 1989). The process of acceptance is based on the individuals promoting mutual goal accomplishment as a result of their perceived positive interdependence. The promotive interaction tends to result in frequent, accurate, and open communication; accurate understanding of each other's perspective; inducibility; differentiated, dynamic, and realistic views of each other; high self-esteem; success and productivity; and expectations for positive and productive future interaction. The process of rejection results from oppositional or no interaction based on perceptions of negative or no interdependence. Both lead to no or inaccurate communication; egocentrism; resistance to influence; monopolistic, stereotyped, and static views of others; low self-esteem; failure; and expectations of distasteful and unpleasant interaction with others. The processes of acceptance and rejection are self-perpetuating. Any part of the process tends to elicit all the other parts of the process.

The positive relationships among members promoted by cooperative efforts have considerable impact on a wide variety of variables. Generally, the more positive the relationships among group members (i.e., the more cohesive the group), the lower the absenteeism, the fewer the members who drop out of the group, and the more likely students will commit effort to achieve educational goals, feel personally responsibility for learning, take on difficult tasks, be motivated to learn, persist in working toward goal achievement, have high morale, be willing to endure pain and frustration on behalf of learning, listen to and be influenced by classmates and teachers, commit to each other's learning and success, and achieve and produce (Johnson & F. Johnson, 1997).

Positive peer relationships influence the social and cognitive development of students and such attitudes and behaviors as educational aspirations and staying in school (Johnson & Johnson, 1989). Relationships with peers influence what attitudes and values students adopt, whether students become prosocial or antisocial oriented, whether students learn to see situations from a variety of perspectives, the development of autonomy, aspirations for post-secondary education, and whether students learn how to cope with adversity and stress.

Besides liking each other, cooperators give and receive considerable social support, both personally and academically (Johnson & Johnson, 1989). Since the 1940s, over 106 studies comparing the relative impact of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic efforts on social support have been conducted. Social support may be aimed at enhancing another person's success (task-related social support) or at providing support on a more personal level (personal social support). Cooperative experience promoted greater task-oriented and personal social support than did competitive (effect size = 0.62) or individualistic (effect size = 0.70) experiences. Social support tends to promote achievement and productivity, physical health, psychological health, and successful coping with stress and adversity.

Interpersonal relationships are at the heart of communities of practice. Learning communities, for example, are based as much on relationships as they are on intellectual discourse. The more students care about each other and the more committed they are to each other's success, the harder each student will work and the more productive students will be.

Psychological Health

The third set of educational issues involve promoting studentsí psychological health, self-esteem, and social competencies. Psychological health is the ability to develop, maintain, and appropriately modify interdependent relationships with others to succeed in achieving goals (Johnson & Johnson, 1989). To manage social interdependence, individuals must correctly perceive whether interdependence exists and whether it is positive or negative, be motivated accordingly, and act in ways consistent with normative expectations for appropriate behavior within the situation. Four studies have directly measured the relationship between social interdependence and psychological health. The samples studied included suburban high-school seniors (Johnson & Norem-Heibeisen, 1977), juvenile and adult prisoners (N. James & Johnson, 1983), step-couples (S. James & Johnson, 1988), and Olympic hockey players (Johnson, Johnson, & Krotee, 1986). The results indicated that (a) working cooperatively with peers and valuing cooperation result in greater psychological health than does competing with peers or working independently and (b) cooperative attitudes are highly correlated with a wide variety of indices of psychological health, competitiveness was in some cases positively and in some cases negatively related to psychological health, and individualistic attitudes were negative related to a wide variety of indices of psychological health. Cooperativeness is positively related to a number of indices of psychological health, such as emotional maturity, well-adjusted social relations, strong personal identity, ability to cope with adversity, social competencies, and basic trust in and optimism about people. Personal ego-strength, self-confidence, independence, and autonomy are all promoted by being involved in cooperative efforts. Individualistic attitudes tend to be related to a number of indices of psychological pathology, such as emotional immaturity, social maladjustment, delinquency, self-alienation, and self-rejection. Competitiveness is related to a mixture of healthy and unhealthy characteristics. Whereas inappropriate competitive and individualistic attitudes and efforts have resulted in alienating individuals from others, healthy and therapeutic growth depends on increasing individualsí understanding of how to cooperate more effectively with others. Cooperative experiences are not a luxury. They are absolutely necessary for healthy development.

Social interdependence theory has been extended to self-esteem. A process of self-acceptance is posited to be based on (a) internalizing perceptions that one is known, accepted, and liked as one is, (b) internalizing mutual success, and (c) evaluating oneself favorably in comparison with peers. A process of self-rejection may occur from (a) not wanting to be known, (b) low performance, (c) overgeneralization of self-evaluations, and (d) the disapproval of others. Since the 1950s, there have been over 80 studies comparing the relative impact of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic experiences on self-esteem (Johnson & Johnson, 1989). Cooperative experiences promote higher self-esteem than do competitive (effect size = 0.58) or individualistic (effect-size = 0.44) experiences. Our research demonstrated that cooperative experiences tend to be related to beliefs that one is intrinsically worthwhile, others see one in positive ways, one's attributes compare favorably with those of one's peers, and one is a capable, competent, and successful person. In cooperative efforts, students (a) realize that they are accurately known, accepted, and liked by one's peers, (b) know that they have contributed to own, others, and group success, and (c) perceive themselves and others in a differentiated and realistic way that allows for multidimensional comparisons based on complementarity of own and others' abilities. Competitive experiences tend to be related to conditional self-esteem based on whether one wins or loses. Individualistic experiences tend to be related to basic self-rejection.

A number of studies have related cooperative, competitive, and individualistic experiences to perspective-taking ability (the ability to understand how a situation appears to other people) (Johnson & Johnson, 1989). Cooperative experiences tend to increase perspective-taking ability while competitive and individualistic experiences tend to promote egocentrism (being unaware of other perspectives other than your own) (effect sizes of 0.61 and 0.44 respectively). Individuals, furthermore, who are part of a cooperative effort learn more social skills and become more socially competent than do persons competing or working individualistically. Finally, it is through cooperative efforts that many of the attitudes and values essential to psychological health (such as self-efficacy) and learned and adopted.

An important aspect of psychological health is social competence. Social skills and competencies tend to increase more within cooperative than in competitive or individualistic situations (Johnson & Johnson, 1989). Working together to get the job done increases students' abilities to provide leadership, build and maintain trust, communicate effectively, and manage conflicts constructively. Employability and career success depend largely on such social skills. Most modern work occurs within teams. Intelligence and technical expertise are of no use if individuals are not skillful group members. The social skills learned within cooperative learning groups, furthermore, provide the basis for building and maintaining life-long friendships, loving and caring families, and cohesive neighborhoods.

When children, adolescents, and young adults are graduated from school, they need enough psychological stability to build and maintain career, family, and community relationships, to establish a basic and meaningful interdependence with other people, and to participate effectively within their society and world. States of depression, anxiety, and anger, furthermore, interfere with classroom functioning.

Reciprocal Relationships Among The Three Outcomes

David Joyner

Each of the outcomes of cooperative efforts (effort to achieve, quality of relationships, and psychological health) influences the others and, therefore, they are likely to be found together (Johnson & Johnson, 1989). First, caring and committed friendships come from a sense of mutual accomplishment, mutual pride in joint work, and the bonding that results from joint efforts. The more individuals care about each other, on the other hand, the harder they will work to achieve mutual goals. Second, joint efforts to achieve mutual goals promote higher self-esteem, self-efficacy, personal control, and confidence in one's competencies. The healthier psychologically individuals are, on the other hand, the better able they are to work with others to achieve mutual goals. Third, psychological health is built on the internalization of the caring and respect received from loved-ones. Friendships are developmental advantages that promote self-esteem, self-efficacy, and general psychological adjustment. The healthier people are psychologically (i.e., free of psychological pathology such as depression, paranoia, anxiety, fear of failure, repressed anger, hopelessness, and meaninglessness), on the other hand, the more caring and committed their relationships. Since each outcome can induce the others, you are likely to find them together. They are a package with each outcome a door into all three. Together they induce positive interdependence and promotive interaction.

Competitive And Individualistic Efforts

The basic social psychological query is, "Under what conditions are cooperative, competitive, and individualistic efforts effective?" The hundreds of studies that have been conducted to try to answer this question indicated that under most conditions, cooperation has more powerful effects on the variables studied than do competitive or individualistic efforts. Under most conditions, cooperative efforts are more effective than are competitive and individualistic efforts. There is some evidence that on very simple, overlearned, repetitive motor tasks, competition may produce higher achievement than does cooperation (Johnson & Johnson, 1989). It is unclear whether individualistic efforts have any advantage over cooperative efforts. There is considerable more research needed to clarify the conditions under which competitive or individualistic efforts may have more powerful effects than cooperation.

The truly committed cooperative learning group is probably the most productive tool humans have. Creating and maintaining truly committed cooperative groups, however, are far from easy. In most situations cooperative groups are rare, perhaps because many individuals (a) are confused about what is (and is not) a cooperative group and (b) lack the discipline required to implement the basics of cooperative efforts in a rigorous way in every lesson.

Potential Group Performance

Not all groups are cooperative groups (Johnson & F. Johnson, 1997). Placing people in the same room, seating them together, telling them they are a cooperative group, and advising them to "cooperate," does not make them a cooperative group. Study groups, project groups, lab groups, committees, task forces, departments, and councils are groups, but they are not necessarily cooperative. Groups may be classified into at least four categories (Johnson & F. Johnson, 1997):

Not every group is effective. Almost everyone has been part of a group that wasted time, was inefficient, and generally produced poor work. Pseudo and traditional groups are characterized by a number of dynamics that impair their effectiveness (Johnson & F. Johnson, 1997), such as group immaturity, uncritically and quickly accepting members' dominant response, social loafing, free-riding, and group-think. Such hindering factors are eliminated by carefully structuring into the group five basic elements of cooperation.

The Basic Elements Of Cooperation

Individuals fool themselves if they think well-meaning directives to "work together," "cooperate," and "be a team," will be enough to create cooperative efforts among members. There is a discipline to creating cooperation. Making teams work is like being on a diet. It does no good to diet one or two days a week. If you wish to lose weight, you have to control what you eat every day. Similarly, it does no good to structure a team carefully every fourth or fifth meeting. The basic elements are a regimen that, if followed rigorously, will produce the conditions for effective cooperation. The basic components of effective cooperative efforts are positive interdependence, face-to-face promotive interaction, individual and group accountability, appropriate use of social skills, and group processing.

Positive Interdependence: We Instead Of Me

Alexandre Dumas

Within a football game, the quarterback who throws the pass and the receiver who catches the pass are positively interdependent. The success of one depends on the success of the other. It takes two to complete a pass. One player cannot succeed without the other. Both have to perform competently to assure their mutual success. If one fails, they both fail.

Positive interdependence exists when one perceives that one is linked with others in a way so that one cannot succeed unless they do (and vice versa) and/or that one must coordinate one's efforts with the efforts of others to complete a task (Johnson & Johnson, 1989). The discipline of using cooperative groups begins with structuring positive interdependence. Group members have to know that they "sink or swim together," that is, they have two responsibilities: to maximize their own productivity and to maximize the productivity of all other group members. There are two major categories of interdependence: outcome interdependence and means interdependence (Johnson & Johnson, 1989). When persons are in a cooperative or competitive situation, they are oriented toward a desired outcome, end state, goal, or reward. If there is no outcome interdependence (goal and reward interdependence), there is no cooperation or competition. In addition, the means through which the mutual goals or rewards are to be accomplish specify the actions required on the part of group members. Means interdependence includes resource, role, and task interdependence (which are overlapping and not independent from each other).

Positive interdependence has numerous effects on individuals' motivation and productivity, not the least of which is to highlight the fact that the efforts of all group members are needed for group success. When members of a group see their efforts as dispensable for the group's success, they may reduce their efforts (Kerr, 1983; Kerr & Bruun, 1983; Sweeney, 1973). When group members perceive their potential contribution to the group as being unique, they increase their efforts (Harkins & Petty, 1982). When goal, task, resource, and role interdependence are clearly understood, individuals realize that their efforts are required in order for the group to succeed (i.e., there can be no "free-riders") and that their contributions are often unique. In addition, reward interdependence needs to be structured to ensure that one member's efforts do not make the efforts of other members unnecessary. If the highest score in the group determined the group grade, for example, low-ability members might see their efforts as unnecessary and contribute minimally, and high ability members might feel exploited and become demoralized and, therefore, decrease their efforts so as not to provide undeserved rewards for irresponsible and ungrateful "free-riders" (Kerr, 1983).

A series of research studies was conducted to clarify the impact of positive interdependence on achievement. The results indicated the following:

1. Group membership in and of itself does not seem sufficient to produce higher achievement and productivity--positive interdependence is also required (Hwong, Casswell, Johnson, & Johnson, 1993). Knowing that one's performance affects the success of groupmates seems to create "responsibility forces" that increase one's efforts to achieve.

2. Interpersonal interaction is insufficient to increase productivity--positive interdependence is also required (Lew, Mesch, Johnson, & Johnson, 1986a, 1986b; Mesch, Johnson, & Johnson, 1988; Mesch, Lew, Johnson, & Johnson, 1986). Individuals achieved higher under positive goal interdependence than when they worked individualistically but had the opportunity to interact with classmates.

3. Goal and reward interdependence seem to be additive (Lew, Mesch, Johnson, & Johnson, 1986a, 1986b; Mesch, Johnson, & Johnson, 1988; Mesch, Lew, Johnson, & Johnson, 1986). While positive goal interdependence is sufficient to produce higher achievement and productivity than do individualistic efforts, the combination of goal and reward interdependence is even more effective.

4. Both working to achieve a reward and working to avoid the loss of a reward produced higher achievement than did individualistic efforts (Frank, 1984). There is no significant difference between the working to achieve a reward and working to avoid a loss.

5. Goal interdependence promotes higher achievement and greater productivity than does resource interdependence (Johnson, Johnson, Ortiz, & Stanne, 1991).

6. Resource interdependence by itself may decrease achievement and productivity compared with individualistic efforts (Johnson, Johnson, Stanne, & Garibaldi, 1990; Ortiz, Johnson, & Johnson, 1995).

7. The combination of goal and resource interdependence increased achievement than goal interdependence alone or individualistic efforts (Johnson, Johnson, Stanne, & Garibaldi, 1990; Ortiz, Johnson, & Johnson, 1995).

8. Positive interdependence does more than simply motivate individuals to try harder, it facilitates the development of new insights and discoveries through promotive interaction (Gabbert, Johnson, & Johnson, 1986; D. Johnson & Johnson, 1981; D. Johnson, Skon, & Johnson, 1980; Skon, Johnson, & Johnson, 1981). Members of cooperative groups use higher level reasoning strategies more frequently than do individuals working individualistically or competitively.

9. The more complex the procedures involved in interdependence, the longer it will take group members to reach their full levels of productivity (Ortiz, Johnson, & Johnson, 1995). The more complex the teamwork procedures, the more members have to attend to teamwork and the less time they have to attend to taskwork. Once the teamwork procedures are mastered, however, members concentrate on taskwork and outperform individuals working alone.

The constructive effects positive interdependence contribute to cooperative efforts does not mean that it is always advantageous. There are conditions under which positive interdependence may have negative effects on cooperation. Further research is needed to clarify the conditions under which positive interdependence does and does not contribute to cooperation's effectiveness.

Individual Accountability / Personal Responsibility

After positive interdependence, a key variable mediating the effectiveness of cooperation is a sense of personal responsibility for contributing one's efforts to accomplish the group's goals. This involves being responsible for (1) completing one's share of the work and (2) facilitating the work of other group members and minimally hindering their efforts. Personal responsibility is promoted by individual accountability. Certainly lack of individual accountability reduces feelings of personal responsibility. Members will reduce their contributions to goal achievement when the group works on tasks where it is difficult to identify members' contributions, when there is an increased likelihood of redundant efforts, when there is a lack of group cohesiveness, and when there is lessened responsibility for the final outcome (Harkins & Petty, 1982; Ingham, Levinger, Graves, & Peckham, 1974; Kerr & Bruun, 1981; Latane, Williams & Harkins, 1979; Moede, 1927; Petty, Harkins, Williams, & Lantane, 1977; Williams, 1981; Williams, Harkins, & Latane, 1981). If, however, there is high individual accountability and it is clear how much effort each member is contributing, if redundant efforts are avoided, if every member is responsible for the final outcome, and if the group is cohesive, then the social loafing effect vanishes. The smaller the size of the group, in addition, the greater the individual accountability may be (Messich & Brewer, 1983).

Archer-Kath, Johnson, and Johnson (1994) investigated was whether or not positive interdependence and individual accountability are two separate and independent dimensions. They compared the impact of feedback to the learning group as a whole with the individual feedback to each member on achievement, attitudes, and behavior in cooperative learning groups. Students received either individual or group feedback in written graph/chart form only on how frequently members engaged in the targeted behaviors. If individual accountability and positive interdependence are unrelated, no differences should be found in perceived positive interdependence between conditions. If they are related, students in the individual feedback condition should perceive more positive interdependence than students in the group feedback condition. Individual feedback resulted in greater perceptions of cooperation, goal interdependence, and resource interdependence than did group feedback, indicating that positive interdependence and individual accountability are related and by increasing individual accountability perceived interdependence among group members may also be increased.

The results of these studies indicated that individual accountability does increase the effectiveness of a group in ensuring that all members achieve and contribute to the achievement of their groupmates.

Promotive (Face-To-Face) Interaction

Promotive interaction may be defined as individuals encouraging and facilitating each other's efforts to complete tasks and achieve in order to reach the group's goals. Promotive interaction is characterized by students (a) providing other with efficient and effective help and assistance, (b) exchanging needed resources such as information and materials and processing information more efficiently and effectively, (c) providing each other with feedback in order to improve their subsequent performance on assigned tasks and responsibilities, (d) challenging each other's conclusions and reasoning in order to promote higher quality decision making and greater insight into the problems being considered, (e) advocating exerting efforts to achieve mutual goals, (f) influencing each other's efforts to achieve mutual goals, (g) acting in trusting and trustworthy ways, (h) being motivated to strive for mutual benefit, and (i) feeling less anxiety and stress (Johnson & Johnson, 1989). The amount of research documenting the impact of promotive interaction on achievement is too voluminous to review here. Interested readers are referred to Johnson and Johnson (1989).

Social Skills

Placing socially unskilled students in a learning group and telling them to cooperate will obviously not be successful. Students must be taught the interpersonal and small group skills needed for high quality cooperation, and be motivated to use them. To coordinate efforts to achieve mutual goals students must (1) get to know and trust each other, (2) communicate accurately and unambiguously, (3) accept and support each other, and (4) resolve conflicts constructively (Johnson, 1997; Johnson & F. Johnson, 1997). Interpersonal and small group skills form the basic nexus among individuals, and if individuals are to work together productively and cope with the stresses and strains of doing so, they must have a modicum of these skills. Students need to master and use interpersonal and small group skills to capitalize on the opportunities presented by a cooperative learning situation. Especially when learning groups function on a long-term basis and engage in complex, free exploratory activities over a prolonged period, the interpersonal and small group skills of the members may determine the level of membersí achievement and productivity.

In their studies on the long-term implementation of cooperation learning, Marvin Lew and Debra Mesch (Lew, Mesch, Johnson, & Johnson, 1986a, 1986b; Mesch, Johnson, & Johnson, 1993; Mesch, Lew, Johnson, & Johnson, 1986) investigated the impact of a reward contingency for using social skills as well as positive interdependence and a contingency for academic achievement on performance within cooperative learning groups. In the cooperative skills conditions students were trained weekly in four social skills and each member of a cooperative group was given two bonus points toward the quiz grade if all group members were observed by the teacher to demonstrate three out of four cooperative skills. The results indicated that the combination of positive goal interdependence, an academic contingency for high performance by all group members, and a social skills contingency, promoted the highest achievement. Archer-Kath, Johnson, and Johnson (1994) trained students in the social skills of praising, supporting, asking for information, giving information, asking for help, and giving help. Students received either individual or group feedback in written graph/chart form on how frequently members engaged in the targeted behaviors. The researchers found that giving students individual feedback on how frequently they engaged in targeted social skills was more effective in increasing studentsí achievement than was group feedback. The more socially skillful students are, the more attention teachers pay to teaching and rewarding the use of social skills, and the more individual feedback students receive on their use of the skills, the higher the achievement that can be expected within cooperative learning groups.

Not only do social skills promote higher achievement, they contribute to building more positive relationships among group members. Putnam, Rynders, Johnson, and Johnson (1989) demonstrated that, when students were taught social skills, observed by the teacher, and given individual feedback as to how frequently they engaged in the skills, their relationships became more positive.

Group Processing

In order to achieve, students in cooperative learning groups have to work together effectively. Effective group work is influenced by whether or not groups periodically reflect on how well they are functioning and plan how to improve their work processes. A process is an identifiable sequence of events taking place over time, and process goals refer to the sequence of events instrumental in achieving outcome goals. Group processing may be defined as reflecting on a group session to (a) describe what member actions were helpful and unhelpful and (b) make decisions about what actions to continue or change. The purpose of group processing is to clarify and improve the effectiveness of the members in contributing to the joint efforts to achieve the group's goals.

Yager, Johnson, and Johnson (1985) examined the impact on achievement of (a) cooperative learning in which members discussed how well their group was functioning and how they could improve its effectiveness, (b) cooperative learning without any group processing, and (c) individualistic learning. The results indicate that the high-, medium-, and low-achieving students in the cooperation with group processing condition achieved higher on daily achievement, post-instructional achievement, and retention measures than did the students in the other two conditions. Students in the cooperation without group processing condition, furthermore, achieved higher on all three measures than did the students in the individualistic condition.

Putnam, Rynders, Johnson, and Johnson (1989) conducted a study in which there were two conditions: cooperative learning with social skills training and group processing and cooperative learning without social skills training and group processing. Forty-eight fifth-grade students (32 nonhandicapped and 16 students with IQ's ranging from 35 to 52 students) participated in the study. In the cooperative learning with social skills training condition the teacher gave students examples of specific cooperative behaviors to engage in, observed how frequently students engaged in the skills, gave students feedback as to how well they worked together, and had students discuss for five minutes how to use the skills more effectively in the future. In the uninstructed cooperative groups condition students were placed in cooperative groups and worked together for the same period of time with the same amount of teacher intervention (aimed at the academic lesson and unrelated to working together skillfully). Both nonhandicapped and handicapped students were randomly assigned to each condition. They found more positive relationships developed between handicapped and nonhandicapped students in the cooperative skills condition and that these positive relationships carried over to post-instructional free-time situations.

Johnson, Johnson, Stanne, and Garibaldi (1990) conducted a study comparing cooperative learning with no processing, cooperative learning with teacher processing (teacher specified cooperative skills to use, observed, and gave whole class feedback as to how well students were using the skills), cooperative learning with teacher and student processing (the teacher specified cooperative skills to use, observed, gave whole class feedback as to how well students were using the skills, and had learning groups discuss how well they interacted as a group), and individualistic learning. Forty-nine high ability high Black American school seniors and entering college freshmen at Xavier University participated in the study. A complex computer-assisted problem-solving assignment was given to all students. All three cooperative conditions performed higher than did the individualistic condition. The combination of teacher and student processing resulted in greater problem solving success than did the other cooperative conditions.

Archer-Kath, Johnson, and Johnson (1994) provided learning groups with either individual or group feedback on how frequently members had engaged in targeted social skills. Each group had five minutes at the beginning of each session to discuss how well the group was functioning and what could be done to improve the groupís effectiveness. Group processing with individual feedback was more effective than was group processing with whole group feedback in increasing students' (a) achievement motivation, actual achievement, uniformity of achievement among group members, and influence toward higher achievement within cooperative learning groups, (b) positive relationships among group members and between students and the teacher, and (c) self-esteem and positive attitudes toward the subject area.

The results of these studies indicated that engaging in group processing clarifies and improves the effectiveness of the members in contributing to the joint efforts to achieve the group's goals, especially when specific social skills are targeted and students receive individual feedback as to how frequently and how well they engaged in the skills.

Summary

There is nothing magical about telling individuals to work together as a team. The basic elements that both (a) create cooperative efforts and (b) mediate the relationship between cooperation and outcomes must be vigilantly structured into every group session. The basic elements are positive interdependence, individual accountability, promotive interaction, appropriate use of social skills, and group processing. These elements are a regimen that, if followed rigorously, will produce the conditions for effective cooperation.

During the 1950s and 1960s, Deutsch (1962, 1973) researched two aspects of the internal dynamics of cooperative groups that potentially enhanced outcomes: trust and conflict. His research was continued by the authors in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. The greater the trust among group members, the more effective their cooperative efforts tend to be (Deutsch, 1962; Johnson, 1997; Johnson & Noonan, 1972).

Conflict within cooperative groups, when managed constructively, enhances the effectiveness of cooperative efforts. There are two types of conflict that occur frequently and regularly within cooperative groups--controversy and conflicts of interests (Johnson & Johnson, 1995a, 1995b). Both controversies and conflicts of interests are inevitable results of the committed participation of members of cooperative learning groups. Controversy exists when group members have different information, perceptions, opinions, reasoning processes, theories, and conclusions, and they must reach agreement (Johnson & Johnson, 1995b). Compared with concurrence-seeking, debate, and individualistic efforts, controversy results in greater mastery and retention of the subject matter, higher quality problem solving, greater creativity in thinking, greater motivation to learn more about the topic, more productive exchange of expertise among group members, greater task involvement, more positive relationships among group members, more accurate perspective taking, and higher self-esteem. In addition, students enjoy it more. Controversies tend to be constructive when the situational context is cooperative, group members are heterogeneous, information and expertise is distributed within the group, members have the necessary conflict skills, and the canons of rational argumentation are followed.

A conflict of interests occurs when the actions of one person striving to achieve his or her goal interfere with and obstruct the actions of another person striving to achieve his or her goal (Johnson & Johnson, 1995a, 1995c). Cooperative efforts tend to be more effective when group members (a) negotiate integrative agreements to resolve their conflicts of interests and (b) mediate the conflicts among their groupmates. What results is more constructive resolution of conflicts, fewer discipline problems, less teacher and administrator time spent in arbitrating student conflicts, and higher academic achievement. By teaching students integrative negotiation and peer mediation procedures, schools may not only enhance the quality and effectiveness of cooperative efforts, they also create a schoolwide discipline program based on empowering students to regulate their own behavior.

Casey Stengel

Educators are faced with a number of issues that concern ensuring that schools are "world-class" in terms of achievement and higher-level reasoning, creating positive relationships among diverse students, and promoting studentsí psychological well being and development. Because of its effectiveness in dealing with these issues, cooperative learning has surfaced as one of the most important educational practices. The popularity and wide spread use of cooperative learning may be largely due to its being based on a theory validated by a great deal of research.

The application of social interdependence theory and research to education is one of the most successful and widespread applications of social psychology to practice. The theory provides a conceptual framework from which practical procedures that teachers may use to promote learning (cooperative learning) and improve instruction (teaching teams) may be developed. From the conceptual framework educators may do such things as (a) define cooperative, competitive, and individualistic efforts, (b) define the teacherís role in conducting cooperative lessons, (c) use the five basic elements that guide the teacherís development and planning of lessons, and (d) use the five basic elements as a tool set to intervene in cooperative groups to solve problems students have in working together (Johnson, Johnson, & Holubec, 1992, 1993).

On the basis of social interdependence theory and the validating research a number of conclusions about cooperative learning can be made. Cooperation is a generic human endeavor that effects many different instructional outcomes simultaneously. Over the past 100 years researchers have focused on such diverse outcomes as achievement, higher-level reasoning, retention, achievement motivation, intrinsic motivation, transfer of learning, interpersonal attraction, social support, friendships, prejudice, valuing differences, self-esteem, social competencies, psychological health, moral reasoning, and many others. These numerous outcomes may be subsumed within three broad categories: effort to achieve, positive interpersonal relationships, and psychological health. Cooperative efforts, compared with competitive and individualistic ones, tend to result in higher levels of these outcomes, especially when five mediating variables (positive interdependence, individual accountability, promotive interaction, social skills, and group processing) and two enhancing variables (trust and conflict) are present.

The research on social interdependence has an external validity and a generalizability rarely found in the social sciences. The more variations in places, people, and procedures the research can withstand and still yield the same findings, the more externally valid the conclusions. The research has been conducted in ten different historical decades. Research subjects have varied as to age, sex, economic class, nationality, and cultural background. A wide variety of research tasks, ways of structuring the types of social interdependence, and measures of the dependent variables have been used. The research has been conducted by many different researchers with markedly different theoretical and practical orientations working in different settings and even in different countries. The diversity of subjects, settings, age levels, and operationalizations of social interdependence and the dependent variables give this work wide generalizability and considerable external validity.

Clear and specific operationalizations of cooperative learning have been made based on understanding social interdependence theory and the variables that mediate and enhance cooperationís effectiveness. The more educators understand the five basic elements and the two enhancing variables, the greater their ability to (a) structure formal and informal cooperative learning and cooperative base groups, (b) diagnosis problems students have in working together, (c) adapt cooperative learning to different student populations and subject areas, and (d) use cooperative learning for years with high fidelity and appropriate flexibility.

Cooperative learning can be used with some confidence at every grade level, in every subject area, and with any task. Research participants have varied as to economic class, age, sex, nationality, and cultural background. A wide variety of research tasks, ways of structuring cooperation, and measures of the dependent variables have been used. The research has been conducted by many different researchers with markedly different orientations working in different settings, countries, and decades. The research on cooperative learning has a validity and a generalizability rarely found in the educational literature.

Cooperative learning should ideally be used the majority of the school day. In order to do so, teachers must know how to structure cooperative learning to include the five basic elements that mediate its effectiveness.

Cooperative learning is here to stay. Because it is based on a profound and strategic theory and there is substantial research validating its effectiveness, there probably will never be a time in the future when cooperative learning is not used extensively within educational programs.

Navigation

Home

Cooperative Learning Q&A

Essays (on home page)

About the center (on home page)

Newsletters (on home page)

Books and supplies

Contacting us (by email and otherwise)

The U of M College of Education and Human Development

The University of Minnesota

Etc.

Except as noted, the contents of this site are copyright © David and Roger Johnson. About reproduction.