Topping 2011

This article was downloaded by: [Heriot-Watt University]On: 04 January 2015, At: 10:59Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Research in Science & TechnologicalEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/crst20

Cooperative learning in science:intervention in the secondary schoolK.J. Topping a , A. Thurston b , A. Tolmie c , D. Christie d , P.Murray a & E. Karagiannidou da School of Education , University of Dundee , Dundee, UKb Institute of Education , University of York , York, UKc Institute of Education , University of London , London, UKd Faculty of Education , University of Strathclyde , Strathclyde,UKPublished online: 11 Mar 2011.

To cite this article: K.J. Topping , A. Thurston , A. Tolmie , D. Christie , P. Murray & E.Karagiannidou (2011) Cooperative learning in science: intervention in the secondary school,Research in Science & Technological Education, 29:1, 91-106, DOI: 10.1080/02635143.2010.539972

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2010.539972

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (theContent) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [H

eriot-

Watt

Univ

ersity

] at 1

0:59 0

4 Jan

uary

2015

Research in Science & Technological EducationVol. 29, No. 1, April 2011, 91106

ISSN 0263-5143 print/ISSN 1470-1138 online 2011 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/02635143.2010.539972http://www.informaworld.com

Cooperative learning in science: intervention in the secondary school

K.J. Toppinga*, A. Thurstonb, A. Tolmiec, D. Christied, P. Murraya and E. Karagiannidoud

aSchool of Education, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK; bInstitute of Education, University of York, York, UK; cInstitute of Education, University of London, London, UK; dFaculty of Education, University of Strathclyde, Strathclyde, UKTaylor and FrancisCRST_A_539972.sgm10.1080/02635143.2010.539972Research in Science & Technological Education0263-5143 (print)/1470-1138 (online)Original Article2011Taylor & Francis291000000April 2011Professor [email protected]

The use of cooperative learning in secondary school is reported an area ofconsiderable concern given attempts to make secondary schools more interactiveand gain higher recruitment to university science courses. In this study theintervention group was 259 pupils aged 1214 years in nine secondary schools,taught by 12 self-selected teachers. Comparison pupils came from bothintervention and comparison schools (n = 385). Intervention teachers attendedthree continuing professional development days, in which they receivedinformation, engaged with resource packs and involved themselves in cooperativelearning. Measures included both general and specific tests of science, attitudes toscience, sociometry, self-esteem, attitudes to cooperative learning and transferableskills (all for pupils) and observation of implementation fidelity. There wereincreases during cooperative learning in pupil formulation of propositions,explanations and disagreements. Intervened pupils gained in attainment, butcomparison pupils gained even more. Pupils who had experienced cooperativelearning in primary school had higher pre-test scores in secondary educationirrespective of being in the intervention or comparison group. On sociometry,comparison pupils showed greater affiliation to science work groups for work, butintervention pupils greater affiliation to these groups at break and out of school.Other measures were not significant. The results are discussed in relation topractice and policy implications.

Keywords: cooperative learning; group work; science; secondary; high;attainment; implementation fidelity; implementation integrity; self-esteem; social

Cooperative learning is a generic term. It has been defined as small groups in whichstudents have to jointly organize their time and resources to work toward somespecific goal (Topping and Ehly 1998). In the context here, it involved groups of fourpupils of heterogeneous ability in secondary schools who engaged in general socialawareness raising activities and then worked on specifically structured interactivescience activities. Pupils remained in the same groups throughout.

This research, based in Scotland, builds on a previous project (ScotSPRinG) thatfound significant gains in science attainment and social connectedness between pupilsinvolved in collaborative learning in science in 24 primary schools (Howe et al. 2007;Tolmie et al. 2010). The follow-up project was to see if these techniques could beutilised as effectively in secondary school settings.

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

Dow

nloa

ded

by [H

eriot-

Watt

Univ

ersity

] at 1

0:59 0

4 Jan

uary

2015

92 K.J. Topping et al.

A previous Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) Teaching and LearningResearch Project (TLRP) involved the Universities of London (Institute of Education),Cambridge, and Brighton. It sought to establish the conditions necessary for coopera-tive learning to produce measurable educational benefits in learning and quality ofclassroom relationships, and to design ways of helping teachers to introduce effectivecooperative learning into their classes (the SPRinG project www.tlrp.org/proj/phase11/phase2a.html). The ScotSPRinG project was a development of this (alsoESRC TLRP funded). The project extended cooperative learning support to scienceteaching with 10- to 12-year-olds in four types of primary school in Scotland (web siteswww.tlrp.org/proj/phase111/Scot_extb.html and www.groupworkscotland.org). In theScotSPRinG project intervened pupils gained in science tests significantly more thancomparison pupils. In the social domain, pupils showed gains in the number of peerrelationships reported single-age classes showed gains in in-class relationships, whilerural classes showed gains in out-of-class relationships.

The present study sought to investigate how cooperative learning might be imple-mented in the secondary school context with 12- to 14-year-olds (as opposed toprimary), and whether such implementation had consequences in the cognitive, socialand affective domains. Secondary schools are very different organisational environ-ments than primary schools, teachers might behave in rather different ways, and thepupils are older and arguably more mature. Finding gains in primary schools certainlydoes not mean gains will ensue in secondary. The previous literature is relevant here.

Background

Low attainment and motivation in science in secondary schools has been a cause forconcern for some time, especially in the first two years of secondary school (see ScottishExecutive 2000; Galton, Gray, and Rudduck 2003). Within this overall picture, femalesused to and ethnic minorities still do present special difficulties (Brown 2001). Small-group discussions have been advocated in secondary school science for a number ofyears as a way of developing peer discourse and interaction rather than teacher-directedinstruction. However, a systematic review (Bennett et al. 2004) found that whether andhow such discussions were structured was crucial for effectiveness. Cooperative learn-ing goes beyond such discussions in suggesting the nature of interaction and roles, andhas been advanced as a pedagogical method that might overcome the decline in attain-ment and motivation in secondary science. Secondary school organisation might typi-cally militate against cross-age cooperative learning, so where joint activity does occurit may be same-age, as indeed in the present project.

Many individual studies in the literature report gains from cooperative learning inscience compared to traditional instruction (see Acer and Tarhan 2008; Balfakih 2003;Chang and Mao 1999; Rothenberg, McDermott, and Martin 1998; Lumpe and Staver1995; Winther and Volk 1994; Lazarowitz, Hertz-Lazarowitz, and Baird 1994;Lonning 1993; Johnson, Johnson, and Taylor 1993), with fewer studies failing to findgains (e.g., Hanze and Berger 2007; Faro and Swan 2006; Snyder and Sullivan 1995;Chang and Lederman 1994). However, not all these studies espoused exactly the sameconstruction of cooperative learning as the present study.

There is evidence that structured cooperative groups work better than unstructuredgroups. When peer group roles are not assigned, spontaneously occurring rolesfluctuate (Lumpe and Staver 1995). These authors found both consonant (agreeing)and dissonant (disagreeing) peer interaction enhanced concept development. They

Dow

nloa

ded

by [H

eriot-

Watt

Univ

ersity

] at 1

0:59 0

4 Jan

uary

2015

Research in Science & Technological Education 93

suggested that more cognitive group roles be used (specifying the nature of the think-ing task involved), as opposed to traditional managerial group roles (specifying thenature of procedures). Webb et al. (1998) found that structured heterogeneous groupsprovided more benefit for below-average students than detriment for high-abilitystudents. In structured online cooperative learning, students with low science processskills likewise made the greatest gains (Hsu 2004); heterogeneous grouping in groupsof five increased weak learners motivation and participation.

Gillies (2003, 2008) also investigated structured groups and found not only gainsin learning but also changes in behaviour and quality of discourse and interaction. Doriand Herscovitz (1999) investigated question-posing capabilities among tenth gradecooperative learners studying air quality, finding that high and low ability participantsdeveloped differently in terms of number and complexity of questions. Argumentationwas proposed as a feature of cooperative learning which maximizes gains (Cross et al.2008). Argumentation might also connect to the development of metacognitive insights(Mercer, Wegerif, and Dawes 1999). Eighth grade students were found to gain in abilityto articulate their collaborative reasoning processes and metacognitive knowledgewhen compared to students in control classrooms (Hogan 1999).

Developments in self-confidence or self-esteem have also been studied. Coopera-tive learners felt more competent than traditional learners, particularly those with apreviously low self-concept (Hanze and Berger 2007). Lazarowitz et al. (1994) foundcooperative learning students scored higher on self-esteem, number of friends, andinvolvement in the classroom, but not on social cohesiveness or cooperation. High-ability students in the cooperative condition were found to demonstrate higheracademic self-esteem and greater social cohesion (Johnson, Johnson, and Taylor1993). Ding and Harskamp (2006) found that female students in a single-gendercondition solved physics problems more effectively than those in a mixed-gendercondition, while the same was not the case for male students.

In the present study question-posing capacity and quality of argumentation wasexpected to increase for learners of all abilities. Gains in self-esteem and number offriends were anticipated. Few of the previous studies systematically considered therelationship between academic gains and implementation fidelity (the extent to whichimplementation conformed to training and implementation protocols given), and thiswas a principal component of the current study.

Research questions

The research questions were:

(1) Will the cooperative learning intervention in science in secondary schoolshave significant effects in the cognitive, affective and social domains?

(2) Will any significant effects in the cognitive, affective and social domains bepositively related to evidence of fidelity of implementation?

Method

Sampling

All secondary schools receiving a significant number of transferring ScotSPRinGproject pupils from the primary schools were the focus for the project (any schools

Dow

nloa

ded

by [H

eriot-

Watt

Univ

ersity

] at 1

0:59 0

4 Jan

uary

2015


receiving fewer than five follow-up pupils were discarded as impractical for follow-up). Ten secondary schools were identified in the West of Scotland and 11 in the East.These 21 schools then self-selected as to whether they intended to be interventionschools, comparison schools, or not to participate. Intervention schools self-selectedas to whether they would implement the intervention with one class or more. Someintervention schools also self-selected to conduct assessment in comparison classes.

Key science teachers were identified by the senior management team in eachschool as leaders in the development of cooperative learning methods in their schools.Most of these teachers then implemented cooperative learning in one or two classes offirst and/or second year pupils aged 1214 years they already taught. These classes(and indeed some comparison classes) contained a small number of pupils who hadexperience of structured cooperative learning in the ScotSPRinG project, but the mainpurpose of this study was not to follow-up these pupils. Most of the pupils had no suchprior experience. Comparison classes were identified who did not participate in thecollaborative learning activities but undertook the same range of tests. Comparisonclasses were taught by teachers not involved in the experiment; their pupils wereunlikely to be affected by intervention variables. Intervention and comparison schoolsand classes were recruited as shown in Table 1.

Although all schools were invited, the form of participation (or otherwise) wasdecided by the school, and this places constraints on the generalisation of the findings.Were self-selected intervention schools more enthusiastic and thus more likely todemonstrate attainment gains than comparison schools, or were those schools whochose to be comparison schools or not to participate more likely to be satisfied withtheir current science teaching?

Data were collected from 644 pupils 259 intervention (127 male and 132 female)and 385 comparison (181 male and 203 female). The comparison group had 2% fewermales. The intervention group had 67 first years and 187 second years, while thecomparison group had 166 first years and 218 second years. The intervention grouphad 26% first years while the comparison group had 43% first years. Second year pupilswere more likely to have more developed scientific knowledge and consequently highertest scores at pre- and post-test.

Nature of the intervention

When planning, teachers considered a combination of individual work, paired work,group work and whole class work all might be necessary to address a topic. Thesewould be sequenced strategically, with more individual and paired work in the earlystages. Teachers considered class seating arrangements, group size, the number ofgroups, group composition and group stability. For group work, a group of fourfivepupils assembled around one table. No free choice was allowed in group composition,since this could reinforce social divisions. Friends were balanced with non-friends. Interms of ability, complete heterogeneity in ability was avoided and group formationof high + middle ability together and low + middle ability together was made, basedon teacher judgement. Gender was balanced, as were personalities and working styles,as far as possible. Those with special educational needs or English as an additionallanguage were included.

Group work skills to be focused on by teachers and imparted to the pupilsincluded: planning, decision-making, compromising and reaching consensus, manag-ing interruptions and conflict, and staying on topic and on task. Communication skills

Dow

nloa

ded

by [H

eriot-

Watt

Univ

ersity

] at 1

0:59 0

4 Jan

uary

2015


Tabl

e 1.

Sam

plin

g st

ruct

ure.

Fol

low

-up

scho

ols

Exp

erim

enta

l sc

hool

sE

xper

imen

tal

teac

hers

Exp

erim

enta

l cl

asse

s

Com

pari

son

clas

ses

in e

xper

imen

tal

scho

ols

Com

pari

son

scho

ols

Com

pari

son

clas

ses

in

com

pari

son

scho

ols

Dec

line

d to

pa

rtic

ipat

e

Eas

t11

46

94

23

3W

est

105

66

95

Tot

al21

912

1511

23

8

Dow

nloa

ded

by [H

eriot-

Watt

Univ

ersity

] at 1

0:59 0

4 Jan

uary

2015


included: taking turns at talk, active listening, asking and answering questions,making and asking for suggestions, expressing and requesting ideas and opinions,brainstorming suggestions, ideas and opinions, giving and asking for help, giving andasking for explanations, explaining and evaluating ideas, arguing and counter arguing,persuasive talk and summarising conversations. Organisational group work skillsincluded the ability to work out the time scale, decide if an activity or thinking priorto group-working is needed, and deciding about roles or job division in the group.Potential problems were: free rider behaviour (one lets others do all the work), diffu-sion of responsibility (no one feels responsible) and dominance (one directing others/doing it for them). Group stability was characterized by forming, storming, normingand performing becoming introduced to the group, beginning to test out conflicts,developing an agreed consensus, and finally focusing totally on the task.

Teachers were encouraged to brief pupils before a session, focusing on reflection(discuss a particular skill with groups identify what needs to be improved or reflectback to the previous lesson) and anticipation (how strategies identify how you willovercome this problem in practice what you will do?). After the cooperative learn-ing, teachers were encouraged to debrief the pupils, focusing on evaluation (how welldid we do?; what do we need to change to improve?) and adaptation (how theirgroup work could be improved in the future, avoiding children being overly personalor critical). If debriefing was omitted owing to lack of time, the following session wasintended to start with it. During sessions, teachers would focus on specified skills andremind pupils about necessary behaviours (for example by posting on the board WhatIm looking for WILF).

The teachers role was to be a guide on the side not a sage on the stage givingverbal reminders throughout the lesson, fostering self-reliance and pupil problem-solving, circulating and monitoring groups rather than working with one particulargroup, guiding groups when they encountered difficulties, modelling and reinforcinggood social and conversation skills, coaching individual children and groups in co-operation skills, listening and intervening only if essential, offering suggestions,explanations, and open ended questions, demonstrating talk strategies that are positiveand inclusive, offering constructive feedback and suggesting how skills could bedeveloped.

Task design was of course considered; the task should: encourage/require allmembers to talk and work together, have a single joint output, give time and space forplanning, require pupils to think for themselves, be somewhat ambiguous with differentpathways, and be open-ended with more than one right answer. Structuring activityincluded splitting the task into sub-activities, giving pupils different roles/jobs andgiving time deadlines for steps. Examples of roles would be: scribe, collator, chairpersonand spokesperson.

An example of a generic (non-science-specific) cooperative learning task (Bigturtle) is included here. It operates with larger groups of eight pupils, and is timed at10 minutes. The learning objectives are to develop an understanding of mutual helpand support and to develop a sense of group responsibility. Each group get on theirhands and knees under a large turtle shell and try to make the turtle move in onedirection. A gym mat works well as a shell, but other materials can be used such ascardboard or a sheet. The teacher could devise an obstacle course for the turtle to tryand clamber over without losing its shell. Briefing states that the whole group mustwork together to solve the problem. What are you going to have to think and planbefore making your first move? What logic or reasoning will aid cooperation?

Dow

nloa

ded

by [H

eriot-

Watt

Univ

ersity

] at 1

0:59 0

4 Jan

uary

2015


Debriefing explores how did the pupils help each other? At what point in the task wascooperation most difficult? At what point in the task did cooperation become easier?What have you learnt from this exercise? Evaluation explores how the children copedwith this task. What problems arose and what do they need to do next? Were childrencooperative? Did they help each other? Would better briefing facilitate a moresuccessful outcome?

Intervention procedure

The intervention teachers attended a total of three continuing professional develop-ment days. Content was developed and delivered by staff from the Universities ofDundee and Strathclyde and involved:

(1) General cooperative learning strategies and activities, pupil training in theskills necessary for effective cooperative learning, with emphasis on social andcommunication skills mainly didactic.

(2) Specific and structured cooperative learning in science in the topics ofMaterials and Earth in space wholly interactive.

(3) A final debriefing and evaluation session wholly interactive.

The first of these CPD days was in the autumn term (October), the second at thebeginning of the spring term (January), and the last midway through the summer term(May). During the first two days the teachers heard presentations about the project andits methods, received resource materials and engaged with some of them, and experi-enced cooperative learning themselves using the materials. The plan was that teacherswould introduce pupils to generic cooperation activities in November/December, andin January would start on the science-related topic activities. In the last CPD session,teachers took part in a brief interview and completed a questionnaire concerning theirexperiences and perceptions of the initiative or any further issues they felt were rele-vant. Support from colleagues and the senior management team meant that in generalteachers were able to attend the days as planned.

For CPD day 1, the SPRinG generic resources (Baines, Blatchford, and Kutnick2008) concerning subject-nonspecific social and communication skills involved incooperative learning were felt to be too large and too generic. Consequently selectionsof activities were made which were not so far away from the intended focus on scienceand which were relevant to the secondary population. Observation did not occur untilFebruary, but there was anecdotal reportage by teachers of these being used. For CPDDay 2 two new sets of resources were devised, akin to the ScotSPRinG specificscience materials and incorporating similar principles of cooperative learning, but ata higher level and focused on new areas in science: Science Topic 1 Earth and spaceand Science Topic 2 Materials. Whilst there was overlap between the materials topicand the primary school topic states of matter, the overlap was limited in nature. Inboth cases the science activities were closely interlinked with specified structuredcooperative learning, in which emphasis was placed on the allocation of group roles.

Measures

A battery of assessments was adapted or developed for the testing of cognitive, affec-tive and social domains. A criterion-referenced assessment in general science was

Dow

nloa

ded

by [H

eriot-

Watt

Univ

ersity

] at 1

0:59 0

4 Jan

uary

2015


derived from the full standard 2002 Assessment of Achievement Programme (AAP)test (Scottish Executive Education Department 2005) to measure any general transferof learning to the wider science curriculum. The test covered general science, butexcluded items that were connected to the two topics covered by the ScotSPRinGproject in primary school science (forces and materials) and the items covered in thetwo science topics to be taught in the project. Nine items asked questions aboutliving things and the processes of life (five multiple choice and four sentencecompletion), five items were on energy (three multiple choice and two sentencecompletion), five items were on chemical changes (two multiple choice and threesentence completion) and two items were about the Earth in space (one multiplechoice and one true/false). The test was reported to have Cronbachs alpha values ofbetween 0.7 and 0.8 when used with 1306 12- and 13-year-old pupils in Scottishschools during the AAP testing phase of 2002 (Scottish Executive EducationDepartment 2005).

Two further criterion-referenced tests were developed to measure specific cognitivegains in science related to the cooperative learning activities undertaken. A 30-minuteEarth and space test of 30 multiple-choice five-option items was scored out of 30 (afteran example). It was adapted from tests previously reported by Trumper (2001) andThurston, Grant and Topping (2006). Three items posed the question graphically. Fourquestions addressed night and day, three timing of planetary movement, three seasonsand periods of daylight, four issues of light transmission and shadow, and three obser-vation of the moon. Question 18 concerned the flight of a water-powered rocket, thenext the tilt of the Earths axis, and the next light transmission through a lens. The nextthree questions concerned vocabulary related to gravity, orbit and reflection. The lastseven questions concerned the structure of the solar system. Cronbachs alpha was0.831 (214 pupils).

A 30-minute Materials test of 30 multiple-choice five-option items was scored outof 30 (after an example). It was developed from an instrument reported by Thurston(2006). Seven items posed the question graphically. The first 10 questions concernedevaporation and condensation. The next three questions concerned melting ice andparticle bonding, the next three gases produced in boiling and burning, and the nexttwo distillation and scent transmission. Two questions on particle bonding followed.Three questions about chemical reactions under different conditions were followed bythree questions about catalysts and chemical changes. Two questions about candlesburning in restricted oxygen were followed by two final questions about chemicalreactions. Cronbachs alpha was 0.847 (215 pupils).

A 21-item questionnaire was used to explore pupils attitudes towards the schoolsubject of science (Pell and Jarvis 2001). Items were slightly modified from the whatI think of science scale. This scale was reported by Pell and Jarvis to have goodreliability and validity (Cronbachs alpha 0.74 with a group of 116 11-year-oldpupils). Each of 21 items was scored on a five-point rating scale with only the polesmarked as agree and disagree. Half of the items were worded such that the polarity ofthe response was reversed.

A measure of social relations was employed to investigate pupils social relation-ships and patterns of interaction both inside and outside school. This was similar toone used in the ScotSPRinG project, where the instrument showed reasonable reliabil-ity when used with 575 10- to 12-year-old pupils (Cronbachs alpha 0.69). People inyour class was presented in the form of a matrix and asked respondents to considerfour key context questions (columns) regarding their relationships with all other

Dow

nloa

ded

by [H

eriot-

Watt

Univ

ersity

] at 1

0:59 0

4 Jan

uary

2015


members of their science class (already printed in rows on the instrument). People inyour group asked the pupils to undertake the same task, but only for the science workgroup (with the names of those in their science work group already printed on theinstrument). Both instruments asked the pupils to mark all those pupils in their class/group that they: worked with regularly in their class/group, liked working with inscience, liked spending time with at break time and liked seeing out of school.

A modified version of Harters (1985) self-esteem measure Self-PerceptionProfile for Children was used the What I am like questionnaire, which containeda total of 20 items designed to assess global self-worth as well as three domain-specificjudgements of competence or adequacy (scholastic competence, social acceptance, andclose friendships).

A measure of attitudes to cooperative learning (My Feelings About Group Work MFAGW) included six questions (e.g., I get more work done when in a group,When working in a group we always get on well together) with a five-point ratingscale from strongly agree to strongly disagree.

Observational data were also taken within the cooperative learning classes.Researchers visited schools at two intermediate points during the main interventionto offer consultative support and assess the implementation quality of cooperativelearning. This involved direct observation in classrooms, using an adaptation of theobservation schedule utilised in the ScotSPRinG project. The nature and role of chil-drens interactions in group and class learning contexts was recorded. Aspects oflanguage were classified under two headings, collaborative and tutoring. Collabora-tive codes assessed the co-construction of learning and were divided into these eightcategories:

Proposition: child suggests an idea or course of action (whether low or highlevel), or otherwise makes some form of statement that someone else coulddisagree with.

Disagreement: child explicitly disagrees with a suggestion or explanationoffered by another.

Explanation: child offers an explanation of a proposition. Reference back/continuation: child explicitly refers back to a previous sugges-

tion or explanation, irrespective of originator (i.e., they must refer to the contentof the previous statement and point to the fact that this is something that hasbeen said before saying, e.g., I think the same is not sufficient).

Resolution/compromise: child acknowledges previous statement of other andadjusts own to include content (i.e., there must be some explicit fusion of ideas).

Continuation of themes: child replicates or extends or builds upon previousstatement of another.

Tutoring codes assessed to what extent learning was led and managed by onemember of the group:

Instruction: child tells someone to say something or carry out some action. Question: child asks open-ended question (or gives other form of prompt) that

directs attention to something not yet considered (e.g., What about keepingweight the same? Do you think it would make any difference if we used some-thing solid?); the key marker here is that this is a question that the asker doesnot want to know the answer to (they already know it).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [H

eriot-

Watt

Univ

ersity

] at 1

0:59 0

4 Jan

uary

2015


The role of pupil explanations, questioning and responding was of particular interest.The S-TOP Index (Kutnick, Blatchford, and Galton 2005) was used to assess the

wider, class-level measures of the quality of group activity and its management by teach-ers and pupils. It was derived from the original primary school project measure (SPRinG Teaching Observation Protocol) (indicating differences in suitability of learningcontext, activities undertaken, teacher role, and level of group skills displayed).

Measurement procedure

Direct observation of implementation integrity was on two occasions during the springterm (JanuaryMarch, during the specific skills intervention). For each of these, teach-ers were asked to provide an ordinary lesson (not cooperative learning) that had aproblem-solving aspect for the first group observations. Six children were randomlyidentified from the class list. Observations were based on a 40-second window 12seconds to focus in, 16 to observe, 12 to record. For the first of the pre-selected targetchildren, eight successive windows were observed and recorded. The second childobserved similarly was of the opposite gender. Then the third child was targeted.Scores were the total observed behaviour in each category (min = 0, max = 8). Thesame six children were observed during the second observation session, which tookplace during one of the cooperative learning science lessons which were part of theintervention. Multiple codes were used where appropriate for all dialogue elementsfalling within the same observation period. For example, if the target child gave aninstruction and then asked an open-ended question, both were recorded.

All other tests and measures were administered on a pre-post basis by the tworesearch assistants, at two main points linked to the timing of the CPD days: themiddle of autumn term (October/November, before the general skills training) and endof spring term (April, after the specific skills intervention). Each researcher worked toa pre-determined administration protocol within schools in a defined geographicalarea centred around one of two major cities. They gave similar instructions and exam-ples of how to complete responses to items and allowed a set time for completion.Tests were marked according to predefined marking templates and any anomalousanswers discussed within the group for consistency of decision making. Eachresearcher collated data onto a pre-defined data handling template and the two datafiles were merged after completion.

Analysis

Descriptive statistics are supplemented with the inferential statistical test of analysisof variance (ANOVA) and analysis of covariance (ANCOVA which takes accountof inequality between groups in pre-test scores). Some of these are one-way (a singlecomparison), while others are two way or multiple (involving simultaneous compari-sons between more than one variable). Numbers in cells were too small to permitmultilevel analyses.

Results

Observations and S-TOP

There were few differences between the first and second observation (Time 1 andTime 2), but there were differences between the average number of times a

Dow

nloa

ded

by [H

eriot-

Watt

Univ

ersity

] at 1

0:59 0

4 Jan

uary

2015


communication behaviour was observed per observation window during the wholeclass and group observations. This indicated that when the class were meant to bedoing cooperative learning, they were actually doing so. An increase in dialogueindicated that the project was having an impact on the teaching strategies that theteachers utilised. The following types of dialogue were observed with significantlygreater frequency during cooperative learning as compared to class work: proposi-tions (p < .001), explanations (p < .001), disagreements (p = .001) and continua-tions of theme (p = .001) (see Table 2).

Only the number of times a pupil was observed per window referring back to some-thing another pupil had said earlier in the learning experience increased significantlyfrom Time 1 to Time 2, suggesting there was limited discussion taking place duringcooperative learning in the classroom. Differences in the S-TOP measures (assessingwider, class-level measures of the quality of group activity and its management byteachers and pupils) were all statistically insignificant.

The observations indicated evidence that the groups were working at cooperativelearning. However, the impression is that neither science activity generated the samequantity of discussion as it did at primary level. Dialogue, particularly at Time 2, hadpositive effects on post-test attitudes to science and scores on both science topics. Theoverall impression was that the same basic processes were at work as in the primaryscience project, but that there was less difference between cooperative and non-coop-erative sessions than seen in the primary project.

Test results

Test results were based on those pupils for whom data were available at both pre-testand post-test. On the general science test, intervention pupils started with higherscores than the comparison group and improved significantly in their scores during theproject. However, the comparison group improved more from a lower baseline, andthe interventioncomparison difference was statistically significant. ANCOVAconfirmed that pre-test scores had a significant influence and that the comparisongroup had significantly larger scores (p < .034). Effect size for intervention pupils was0.39 and for comparison 0.53.

On the materials test, ANCOVA indicated that while pre-test scores had a signifi-cant impact, the groups were not significantly different (p = .838). Effect size for inter-vention pupils was 0.31 and for comparison 0.11. However, there was some evidenceof an intervention effect attributable to pupils who had experienced cooperative learn-ing in primary school showing an effect in cooperative learning in the secondaryschool, while non-follow-up pupils remained static (p < 0.05).

Table 2. Types of dialogue observed with significantly greater frequency.

Variable F d.f. p

Propositions per window (cooperative learning vs. class work) 82.94 1,145


In Earth and space pre-test scores had a significant impact and the interventiongroup again did not show statistically significantly greater improvement than thecomparison group (p = .264). Effect size for intervention pupils was 0.36 and forcomparison 0.09. Again what improvement there was could be attributed to follow-uppupils. Details are in Table 3.

Attitudes to science and self-esteem showed no significant differences from pre-test to post-test. For attitudes to cooperative learning, ANCOVA confirmed that theintervention group did not show statistically significantly greater improvement thanthe comparison group, pre-test scores having a significant impact (p = .744). Againthe influence of follow-up pupils was evident (three-way ANOVA, p = .026).

On the relational measures, for the intervention group the percentage of the classthe pupil liked working with in science, the percentage of the class the pupil likedspending time with at break and the percentage of the class the pupil class liked spend-ing time with out of school yielded no statistically significant differences from pre topost. However, some significant results were obtained when comparing interventionand comparison groups (one-way ANOVA) (see Table 4):

percentage of pupils reporting that they liked working with other pupils in thecooperative work group in science showed comparison group greater than inter-vention group (p = .005); but

percentage pupils reporting that they liked spending time with other pupils atbreak showed intervention greater than comparison (p = .016); as did

percentage pupils reporting that they liked spending time with other pupils outof school (p = .011).

There was some indication at pre-test that the follow-up pupils tended to focusupon cooperative group relations rather than relations with the whole class. By post-test, the non-follow-up pupils also tended to have shifted in the same direction. Over-all, significant positive increases in attainment and social measures were reported foronly two intervention schools. Any positive findings at the level of the individual classwere almost equally balanced by negative findings, explaining the failure to find anoverall significant improvement in attainment. Otherwise it was difficult to see anyconsistent pattern.

Discussion and conclusion

This project resulted in a gain in science attainment for intervention pupils, but thecomparison pupils gained as much as the intervention pupils. In the promotion ofattainment, the collaborative learning strategies in this study proved no more effectivethan methods already employed by the teachers in the comparison classes. Of coursethis raises the question of what was occurring in the comparison classes, but theresearch cast no light on this. Comparison schools were self-selected, and appeared inretrospect to be schools offering a science curriculum of equal effectiveness. Nonethe-less, on the specific science topics, effect sizes for comparison classes were lower thanfor intervention classes, so there is some evidence here of some impact. Despite this,effect sizes for both intervention and comparison classes were modest.

Despite the failure to find evidence of relative impact on outcomes, dialogue waspositively associated with scores on science topics, which was a positive indicator forthe intervention. Dialogue also had positive effects on post-test attitudes to science,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [H

eriot-

Watt

Univ

ersity

] at 1

0:59 0

4 Jan

uary

2015


Tabl

e 3.

Sco

res

and

anal

yses

in

gene

ral

scie

nce,

Ear

th a

nd s

pace

and

Mat

eria

ls.

Exp

erim

enta

lco

mpa

riso

n di

ffer

ence

AN

CO

VA

Tes

tC

ondi

tion

nM

ean

Sta

ndar

d de

viat

ion

Gai

nE

ffec

t si

zeF

dfp

Pre

-tes

t

gene

ral

scie

nce

(AA

P):

Sco

re o

ut o

f 61

Exp

erim

enta

l22

029

.30

9.35

Com

pari

son

351

26.3

510

.18

4.54

1,35

80.

034

Pos

t-te

st

gen

eral

sci

ence

(A

AP

): S

core

out

of

61E

xper

imen

tal

190

32.9

58.

693.

650.

39C

ompa

riso

n22

231

.73

10.0

45.

380.

53

Pre

-tes

t

Spe

cifi

c S

cien

ce T

opic

1:

Sco

re o

ut o

f 30

Exp

erim

enta

l21

810

.94

4.48

0.04

21,

351

0.83

8C

ompa

riso

n26

810

.72

5.50

Pos

t-te

st

Spe

cifi

c S

cien

ce T

opic

1:

Sco

re o

ut o

f 30

Exp

erim

enta

l22

612

.35

5.55

1.41

0.31

Com

pari

son

213

11.3

55.

360.

630.

11

Pre

-tes

t

Spe

cifi

c S

cien

ce T

opic

2:

Sco

re o

ut o

f 30

Exp

erim

enta

l22

212

.44

5.43

1.25

21,

299

0.26

4C

ompa

riso

n23

513

.03

5.42

Pos

t-te

st

Spe

cifi

c S

cien

ce T

opic

2:

Sco

re o

ut o

f 30

Exp

erim

enta

l18

914

.38

6.05

1.94

0.36

Com

pari

son

221

12.8

36.

200

.20

0.09

Dow

nloa

ded

by [H

eriot-

Watt

Univ

ersity

] at 1

0:59 0

4 Jan

uary

2015


again a positive indicator. This is helpful in aligning aspects of implementation qualitywith outcomes of cooperative learning in secondary school. Propositions, explana-tions, disagreements and continuations of theme seem to be key aspects of interactionsin cooperative learning, and as such should be emphasised in any training on the topic.In this study it appears that the appropriate processes were operating but not at thelevel required to yield gains relative to the comparison group. Neither science activitygenerated the same quantity of discussion as it did at primary level, and this couldpossibly be a reason for the lack of effects.

There were no gains in attitudes to science, attitudes to cooperative learning or inself-esteem. There was one significant gain on relational measures for the comparisongroup (within work group) and two for the intervention group (in class and out ofschool). This is also somewhat positive for the intervention, in that cooperative learn-ing appears to enhance friendships beyond the work group (although the failure to findpositive differences within the work group is surprising).

The overall impression is that the same basic processes were at work as in theprimary science project, but that improvements in science achievement were modest,there was less difference between intervention and comparison groups, and thecomparison group also made substantial gains.

Anecdotal evidence in this project did not correspond with the results. The impres-sions of the teachers concerned were that in many cases significant progress had beenmade. However, these expectations were not supported by the data. A key feature mighthave been the self-selection of the comparison schools, rather than random or matchedsampling. Also, where comparison classes were in the same school as interventionclasses, there may have been some contamination from intervention to comparison.This study is among the minority of studies which have not shown cooperative learningin science to be effective (cf. Hanze and Berger 2007; Faro and Swan 2006; Snyderand Sullivan 1995; Chang and Lederman 1994).

A cooperative learning project that works well in primary schools may not provereplicable satisfactorily in secondary schools. However, the primary and secondaryprojects here were not identical, since the amount of generic cooperative learningskills training carried out at the beginning and the extent to which cooperative learningstrategies were integrated across the curriculum were greater in the primary schools.The primary teachers had more time to undertake the intervention, while the second-ary teachers had little time and perceived little opportunity to do it. Perhaps these arekey elements in the success of such a programme considerable generic cooperative

Table 4. Attitudes to science and relational measures.

Variable F df. p

Attitude to cooperative learning 0.11 1,256 0.744Influence of follow-up pupils on attitudes 5.00 1,348 0.026Percentage of the cooperative work group the pupils reported

they liked working with: comparison group larger7.94 1,277 0.005

Percentage of the cooperative work group the pupils reported they liked spending time with at break: intervention group larger

5.89 1,277 0.016

Percentage of the cooperative work group the pupils reported they liked spending time with out of school: intervention group larger

6.63 1,276 0.011

Dow

nloa

ded

by [H

eriot-

Watt

Univ

ersity

] at 1

0:59 0

4 Jan

uary

2015


learning skills training for pupils at the outset, the availability of time for teachers toconduct the study well, and the fuller integration of the strategies across the curricu-lum (which is inherently more difficult in a secondary school).

However, all of these would have increased the investment of time for teachers andpupils, and in a crowded curriculum such time is often unavailable. Even had suchmeasures been specially permitted, the extent to which they could continue after theend of the research project would be doubtful, and issues of sustainability would arise.The message from this study is that cooperative learning may be no more successfulthan regular teaching unless considerable time is devoted to implementing it whichof course raises questions of cost-effectiveness.

AcknowledgementThis project was co-funded by the ESRC and the Scottish Government.

ReferencesAcar, B., and L. Tarhan. 2008. Effects of cooperative learning on students understanding of

metallic bonding. Research in Science Education 38, no. 4: 40120.Baines, E., P. Blatchford, and P. Kutnick. 2008. Promoting effective group work in the class-

room: A handbook for teachers and practitioners. London: Routledge.Balfakih, N.M.A. 2003. The effectiveness of Student Team-Achievement Division (STAD)

for teaching high school chemistry in the United Arab Emirates. International Journal ofScience Education 25, no. 5: 60524.

Bennett, J., F. Lubben, S. Hogarth, and B. Campbell. 2004. A systematic review of the use ofsmall-group discussions in science teaching with students aged 1118, and their effects onstudents understanding in science or attitude to science. Research Evidence in EducationLibrary. London: EPPI Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education.

Brown, B.L. 2001. Women and minorities in high-tech careers. ERIC Digest No. 226. ERICDocument Reproduction Number ED452367.

Chang, C.Y., and S.L. Mao. 1999. Comparison of Taiwan science students outcomes withinquiry-group versus traditional instruction. Journal of Educational Research 92, no. 6:3406.

Chang, H.P., and N.G. Lederman. 1994. The effects of levels of cooperation within physicalscience laboratory groups on physical science achievement. Journal of Research inScience Teaching 31, no. 2: 16781.

Cross, D., G. Taasoobshirazi, S. Hendricks, and D.T. Hickey. 2008. Argumentation: A strat-egy for improving achievement and revealing scientific identities. International Journal ofScience Education 30, no. 6: 83761.

Ding, N., and E. Harskamp. 2006. How partner gender influences female students problemsolving in physics education. Journal of Science Education and Technology 15, no. 5/6:33143.

Dori, Y.J., and O. Herscovitz. 1999. Question-posing capability as an alternative evaluationmethod: Analysis of an environmental case study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching36, no. 4: 41130.

Faro, S., and K. Swan. 2006. An investigation into the efficacy of the studio model at the highschool level. Journal of Educational Computing Research 35, no. 1: 4559.

Galton, G., J. Gray, and J. Rudduck. 2003. Transfer and transitions in the middle years ofschooling (714): Continuities and discontinuities in learning. London: DfES ResearchReport 443. http://www.dfes.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/RR443.pdf

Gillies, R.M. 2003. The behaviors, interactions, and perceptions of junior high school studentsduring small-group learning. Journal of Educational Psychology 95, no. 1: 13747.

Gillies, R.M. 2008. The effects of cooperative learning on junior high school students behav-iours, discourse and learning during a science-based learning activity. School PsychologyInternational 29, no. 3: 32847.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [H

eriot-

Watt

Univ

ersity

] at 1

0:59 0

4 Jan

uary

2015


Hanze, M., and R. Berger. 2007. Cooperative learning, motivational effects, and student char-acteristics: An experimental study comparing cooperative learning and direct instructionin 12th grade physics classes. Learning and Instruction 17, no. 1: 2941.

Harter, S. 1985. Manual for the self-perception profile for children. Denver, CO: Universityof Denver.

Hogan, K. 1999. Thinking aloud together: A test of an intervention to foster students collab-orative scientific reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 36, no. 10: 1085109.

Howe, C., A. Tolmie, A. Thurston, K.J. Topping, D. Christie, K. Livingston, E. Jessiman, andC. Donaldson. 2007. Group work in elementary science: Organisational principles forclassroom teaching. Learning and Instruction 17, no. 5: 54963.

Hsu, Y.S. 2004. Using the internet to develop students capacity for scientific inquiry. Journalof Educational Computing Research 31, no. 2: 13761.

Johnson, D.W., R.T. Johnson, and B. Taylor. 1993. Impact of cooperative and individualisticlearning on high-ability students achievement, self-esteem, and social acceptance. Jour-nal of Social Psychology 133, no. 6: 83944.

Kutnick, P., P. Blatchford, and M. Galton. 2005. S-TOP: SPRinG teaching observationprotocol. Brighton: University of Brighton.

Lazarowitz, R., R. Hertz-Lazarowitz, and J.H. Baird. 1994. Learning science in a cooperativesetting: Academic achievement and affective outcomes. Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching 31, no. 10: 112131.

Lonning, R.A. 1993. Effect of cooperative learning strategies on student verbal interactionsand achievement during conceptual change instruction in 10th grade general science.Journal of Research in Science Teaching 30, no. 9: 1087101.

Lumpe, A.T., and J.R. Staver. 1995. Peer collaboration and concept development learningabout photosynthesis. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 32, no. 1: 7198.

Mercer, N., R. Wegerif, and L. Dawes. 1999. Childrens talk and the development of reason-ing in the classroom. British Educational Research Journal 25: 95111.

Pell, T., and T. Jarvis. 2001. Developing attitude to science scales for use with children of agesfrom five to eleven years. International Journal of Science Education 23, no. 8: 84762.

Rothenberg, J.J., P. McDermott, and G. Martin. 1998. Changes in pedagogy: A qualitative resultof teaching heterogeneous classes. Teaching and Teacher Education 14, no. 6: 63342.

Scottish Executive. 2000. Room for improvement in pupils attainment in science. NewsRelease: SE3070/2000. www.scotland.gov.uk/news/2000/11/se3070.asp

Scottish Executive Education Department. 2005. Assessment of achievement programme:Sixth survey of science 2003. Edinburgh: SEED.

Snyder, T., and H. Sullivan. 1995. Cooperative and individual learning and student miscon-ceptions in science. Contemporary Educational Psychology 20, no. 2: 2305.

Thurston, A. 2006. Effects on attainment of group work in primary school geography.Karlsruhe Padagogische Studien 7: 5789.

Thurston, A., G. Grant, and K.J. Topping. 2006. Constructing understanding in primaryscience: An exploration of process and outcomes. Revista de Investigacion Psicoeducativa4, no. 1: 118.

Tolmie, A., K.J. Topping, D. Christie, C. Donaldson, C. Howe, E. Jessiman, K. Livingston, andA. Thurston. 2010. Social effects of collaborative learning in primary schools. Learningand Instruction 20, no. 3: 17791.

Topping, K.J., and S. Ehly. 1998. Peer-assisted learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Trumper, R. 2001. A cross-age study of junior high school students conceptions of basic

astronomy concepts. International Journal of Science Education 23, no. 11: 111123.Webb, N.M., K.M. Nemer, A.W. Chizhik, and B. Sugrue. 1998. Equity issues in collaborative

group assessment: Group composition and performance. American Educational ResearchJournal 35, no. 4: 60761.

Winther, A.A., and T.L. Volk. 1994. Comparing achievement of inner-city high school studentsin traditional versus STS-based chemistry courses. Journal of Chemical Education 71,no. 6: 5015.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [H

eriot-

Watt

Univ

ersity

] at 1

0:59 0

4 Jan

uary

2015

Documents

Topping 2011