Program Profile: Cooperative Learning

This is a group-based learning approach that seeks to enhance peer relations by increasing opportunities for positive social integration between adolescents. The program is rated Promising. Students in intervention schools reported they were less willing to use alcohol, had fewer deviant peer affiliations, lower perceived student stress and emotional problems, and had higher academic engagement, compared with students in control schools. These differences were statistically significant.

A Promising rating implies that implementing the program may result in the intended outcome(s).

This program's rating is based on evidence that includes at least one high-quality randomized controlled trial.

Program Goals/Target Population

Cooperative Learning (CL) is a group-based instructional approach commonly used as a school-based intervention program for adolescents, who are vulnerable to peer influence (Van Ryzin and Roseth 2020; Kelly et al. 2012).This approach is designed to disrupt deviant peer clustering (i.e., when at-risk youth self-aggregate with one another, reinforcing delinquent behavior through modeling, facilitation, and expressions of support) and promote opportunities for at-risk students to establish social interactions with low-risk, prosocial students. The goal of CL is to promote positive social integration through learning activities that influence at-risk students’ attitudes, beliefs, and resistance skills.

Program Components

CL is an umbrella term that consists of reciprocal teaching, peer tutoring, and other group-based activities in which peers work together to maximize each other’s learning (Johnson et al. 2013). Using this approach, teachers emphasize and base group learning activities on the following five elements: 1) positive interdependence (to ensure that students are motivated and rewarded for supporting one another), 2) individual accountability (to ensure that each student contributes to the outcome), 3) explicit coaching in collaborative skills (to support a smoothly functioning group), 4) a high degree of face-to-face interaction (giving the group time to get to know one another), and 5) guided processing of group performance and group celebration (to ensure that students improve their group skills over time and provide positive feedback to one another). By incorporating these five elements, teachers are then able to create positive social and academic experiences for students. In addition, because no specific curriculum is offered, the CL framework can be integrated into any subject across the school day, at any grade, and to a degree that suits the individual teacher.

CL provides many ways in which a teacher may create positive interdependence in small learning groups of two to four students. In these smaller groups, the teacher could require students to work collaboratively on a single deliverable for the group (goal interdependence) and may offer a reward to the group if everyone achieves above a certain threshold, such as on an end-of-unit quiz or test (reward interdependence). In addition, using a CL lesson plan, the teacher may require each member of the group to be issued different materials that they must share, to complete the lesson (resource interdependence). A CL lesson plan may also include having each member of the team play a different role (e.g., reader, note-taker) or having students take turns performing an activity (role interdependence). The group may have their own name (identity interdependence), and each group member may have a unique task that must be completed sequentially, as in an assembly line, in order for the lesson to be completed successfully (task interdependence). These varied forms of positive interdependence can be layered upon one another in a single lesson, increasing the incentive for students to collaborate.

With regard to the second element, individual accountability, teachers could choose to 1) administer an end-of-unit test to students individually, while reminding them about the potential for group rewards (as discussed above); or 2) quiz students orally and at random during the group work time. For this second option, the teacher should inform students that if a randomly chosen member of the group can summarize their work or present their project status, then the group earns credit toward their grade in the lesson or the class (or potentially other rewards, such as snacks, special privileges, etc.).

To incorporate the three other elements of CL, teachers need to explicitly coach students in collaborative social skills (e.g., checking for understanding among group members, encouraging others to participate, summarizing the group’s thinking); promote a high degree of social interaction (either in person or online while students are learning at home); and provide a guided processing of the group’s performance (e.g., discussing what the group did well and identifying areas for improvement).

Program Theory

The CL approach is built on establishing social conditions that reduce biases and prejudices among students who belong to different social groups (i.e., Contact Theory; Pettigrew and Tropp 2008). When these conditions exist, intergroup contact may lead to reduced prejudice and to individuals developing more favorable opinions of members of other groups. When these conditions do not exist, however, intergroup contact may increase, rather than reduce, intergroup tensions. Research has found that when a learning activity is structured through intergroup contact, students will more likely interact in ways that promote goal attainment of others in the group (Johnson et al. 1983). This can then create a “benign spiral” that further increases positive social interactions and promotes positive peer relations and academic achievement (Deutsch 1949; Roseth et al. 2008).

Study

Van Ryzin and Roseth (2018a) conducted a cluster randomized controlled trial, using 15 rural middle schools located in the Pacific Northwest. The study evaluated Johnson and colleagues’ (2013) version of the Cooperative Learning (CL) approach in mediating alcohol and tobacco use among at-risk seventh grade students. Schools were matched based upon school demographics (i.e., size, free/reduced lunch percentage) and randomized to the intervention (n = 7) or control condition (n = 8). All seventh-grade students from the participating middle schools were invited to participate in the study (n = 1,750). Staff from schools receiving the CL intervention received training and implemented reciprocal teaching, peer tutoring, jigsaw, collaborative reading, and other methods through which peers help each other learn in small groups under conditions of positive interdependence. Staff from schools in the control group did not receive any type of training.

Of the 1,750 seventh-grade students enrolled in the fall of 2016, 1,460 students agreed to participate and were included in the overall study sample (intervention schools = 792 students; control schools = 668 students). About half (48.2 percent) of the total sample was female. Of this sample, 76.4 percent were White, 14.3 percent were Hispanic/Latino , 3.5 percent were American Indian/Alaska Native , 4.2 percent were multi-racial, and less than 1 percent were African American and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander. At baseline, there were no statistically significant differences between students in intervention and control schools in baseline characteristics.

Using an online survey, student data were collected at baseline in the fall (September/October 2016) and at the follow up in the spring (March 2017). Outcomes of interest included alcohol use in the last month, tobacco use in the last month, alcohol use among friendship networks, and tobacco use among friendship networks. Alcohol and tobacco use in the last month was measured through students’ self-reports on a 5-point scale [“no use” = 1; “occasionally” (1–3 times)” = 2; “fairly often” (4–6 times) = 3 ; “regularly” (7–9 times) = 4; and “all the time” (10+ times) = 5]. To measure alcohol and tobacco use among friendship networks, students first selected the names of up to six “close friends” from a list of all eligible students in their grade. The study researchers then calculated the average of reported alcohol and tobacco use (separately) for each student’s friendship network; with higher numbers indicating more alcohol and tobacco use among friends, which represented a stronger degree of social influence in favor of alcohol and tobacco use.

A nested random coefficients analysis was used to test the direct effects of Cooperative Learning on alcohol and tobacco use between students in intervention and control schools. This analytical approach allocates variance either “within” or “between” groups, accounting for statistical dependencies that can occur because of the multilevel nature of the data included in the study (i.e., student data on alcohol and tobacco use and peer influences) and school data (i.e., intervention/control conditions), respectively. The study authors did not conduct subgroup analyses.

Study

Van Ryzin and Roseth (2018b) used the same study sample as in Study 1 (Van Ryzin and Roseth 2018a), to further examine the use of the CL on alcohol use and deviant peer affiliation. This study examined student data that was collected in the fall of 2016 (baseline) and in the spring of 2017 (follow up) from the same 15 rural middle schools (intervention = 7; control = 8), located in the Pacific Northwest.

As in Study 1, the total sample consisted of 1,460 students, with 792 students in intervention schools and 668 students in control schools. Student demographics (i.e., race/ethnicity, gender) were also the same as in Study 1. There were no statistically significant between-group differences in levels of deviant peer affiliation or alcohol use at baseline. However, students in intervention schools did show less willingness to use alcohol. Because this difference was statistically significant, adjustments were made that controlled for baseline measures and student demographics.

Outcomes of interest were willingness to use alcohol and deviant peer affiliation. Willingness to use alcohol was defined by a student’s willingness to use alcohol in the company of friends (i.e., “Suppose you were with a group of friends and there was some alcohol that you could have if you wanted. How willing would you be to have one drink?”), which was measured through student’s self-report on a scale from 1 to 4 (1 = “not at all willing”; 2 = “a little willing”; 3 = “pretty willing”; and 4 = “very willing”). Deviant peer affiliation was measured by the frequency within the last month with which students associated with other youth who engaged in delinquent activities. Delinquent activities were defined by 4 items, including 1) “get in trouble a lot,” 2) “fight a lot,” 3) “take things that don’t belong to them,” and 4) “skipping school.”

A nested random coefficients analysis was used to determine intervention effects on willingness to use alcohol and deviant peer affiliation between students in intervention and control schools. The study authors did not conduct subgroup analyses.

Study

Van Ryzin and Roseth (2020a) conducted a cluster randomized controlled trial to evaluate the impact of the CL intervention on negative peer interactions, which influence adolescent behavior and mental health (i.e. perceived stress, emotional problems), in 15 schools in the Pacific Northwest.

The sample for this study included 1,890 seventh graders enrolled during the 2016–2017 school year, who were followed through the 2017–2018 school year as eighth graders (intervention schools = 875 students; control schools = 1,015 students). During the 2016–2017 school year, the study sample comprised of the same students as in the two previous studies (Study 1 and Study 2); however, additional students were included in this study sample during the 2017–2018 school year. These students were now eighth graders, but had not been included previously because of having been absent or new to the school during the 2016–2017 school year. Overall, students in the study were 47.1 percent female, 75.2 percent White, 3.1 percent American Indian/Alaska Native, 5.3 percent multiracial, and 13.2 percent other (including Hispanic/Latino ethnic groups). Less than 1 percent of the students were Asian, African American, and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander. At baseline, there were no statistically significant differences between students in intervention and control schools, except intervention schools had lower emotional problems.

Data were collected across a 2-year period, at four waves: Wave 1 (fall of 2016), Wave 2 (spring of 2017), and Wave 3 (fall of 2017), and Wave 4 (spring of 2018). Outcomes of interest were emotional problems, academic engagement, and students’ perceived stress. Emotional problems were measured using 3 items from the Emotional Problems subscale of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire, which included items such as “ I worry a lot.” and “I am often unhappy, depressed, or tearful.” Students responded on a 3-point scale from 1 (“not true”) to 3 (“certainly true”). Academic engagement was measured using 4 items from the Behavioral Engagement subscale of the Engagement versus Disaffection with Learning Scale, which included items such as “I try hard to focus in class.” and “In class, I do just enough to get by.” Students responded on 4-point scale from 1 (“not at all true”) to 3 (“very true”). Students’ perceived stress was measured using 4 items from the Perceived Stress Scale, which included items such as “In the last month, how often have you been upset because of something that happened unexpectedly?” and “In the last month, how often have you felt that things were going your way?” Responses on a 5-point scale ranged from 0 (“never”) to 4 (“very often”).

A latent growth curves model was used to determine direct and indirect effects of CL between students in intervention and control schools at the 2-year follow up (Wave 4). The study authors did not conduct subgroup analyses.

To implement the Cooperative Learning (CL) approach, school staff received training conducted by the intervention developers and study authors (Van Ryzin and Roseth 2018a). Because schools were dispersed in various geographical locations, the schools received training one at a time according to their own schedule for professional development. Training included 3 half-day, in-person trainings; periodic coaching/check-ins via videoconference; and access to resources (such as newsletters and FAQs). For the in-person trainings, each school staff member received a copy of a training manual, Cooperation in the Classroom, Ninth Edition (Johnson et al. 2013. Typically, CL training begins in the fall and continues throughout the school year. For schools implementing the program for longer than 1 school year (Van Ryzin and Roseth 2020a), a 1-day administrator training and a half-day follow-up training for teachers was conducted during the summer of 2017.

Additional information on Cooperative Learning, including purchasing the training manual, is available at http://www.co-operation.org/what-is-cooperative-learning/. Information on software support for CL is available at https://www.peerlearning.net/.

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

These sources were used in the development of the program profile: