Journal of Behavioral Education, Vol. 4, No. 1, 1994, pp. 41-48

Cooperative Learning Revisited

Saul Axelrod, Ph.D. , 1,3 and R. D o u g l a s Greer , Ph.D. 2

The endeavor to teach academic skills known as cooperative learning/s of interest to behavioral educators due to its record of effectiveness, its use of behavioral procedures, and its relatively widespread adoption by regular educators. All forms o f cooperative learning emphasize operations that encourage students to work together to achieve commonly held goals rather than competing with or ignoring the efforts of others. Despite the apparent soundness of the approach, the present commentary raises several issues. First, it states that some cooperative learning proponents fail to describe the behavioral processes underlying the approach. Second, it is pointed out that it is unclear whether cooperative learning is an independent or dependent variable. Given that cooperative learning applies group contingencies to academic behavior, the question is raised as to whether group contingencies do, in fact, produce desirable social interactions, and whether group contingencies are appropriate for academic behaviors. A concern is also raised as to whether the spontaneous peer tutoring generated by cooperative learning compares favorably with planned peer tutoring. Finally, it is claimed that the minor variations from academic group contingencies that cooperative learning proponents have introduced do not require identifying a new process.

KEY WORDS: cooperative learning; group contingencies; peer tutoring; academic behaviors; social interaction.

The failure of American schools to effectively educate a large portion of their youth, particularly those in living in poverty, has been thoroughly documented (e.g., Engelmann, 1992; National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983). This exists despite numerous demonstrations by be-

1Professor, Department of Psychological Studies in Education, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

ZProfessor, Department of Special Education, Columbia University, Teacher's College, New York.

3Correspondence should be directed to Saul Axelrod, Special Education Program, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA 19122.

41

1053-0819/94t~300-0041507.00/0 �9 1994 Human Sciences Press, Inc.

42 Axelrod and Greer

havioral educators that all children, regardless of unfavorable sociological conditions, can develop proficiency in literacy and numeracy (Gersten, Carnine, & White, 1984; Johnson & Laying, 1992). Several behavioral edu- cators have described their frustration at convincing the regular educational establishment to use these effective behavioral strategies (Axelrod, Moyer, & Berry, 1990; Greer, 1982, 1983; Pumroy, 1984).

The approach to teaching children known as cooperative learning is of interest to behavioral educators for several reasons. First, unlike behavioral approaches such as Direct Instruction (Engelmann, 1991) and Classwide Peer Tutoring (Greenwood, Carta, Kamps, & Hall, 1988), co- operative learning has enjoyed relatively large adoption by regular edu- cators. Johnson and Johnson (1983), for example, est imated that cooperative learning was employed in between 7% to 20% of American classrooms. Second, cooperative learning procedures have an impressive record of effectiveness. This was demonstrated in a meta-analysis of 122 studies from 1924 to 1981 that indicated that students in cooperative learning programs performed in the 80th percentile academically com- pared to children in traditional academic situations (Johnson, Maruyama, Johnson, Nelson, & Skon, 1981). Further, cooperative learning propo- nents (with varying degrees of explicitness) employ commonly-used be- havioral approaches including group contingencies, individual contingencies, and peer tutoring.

Slavin (1991) delineates several forms of cooperative learning. All types of cooperative learning stress the importance of students working to- gether in small groups to help each other on academic tasks. They differ, however, in the degree to which they motivate students to behave in this manner. Thus, some variations of cooperative learning provide antecedents in the form of structured tasks that are intended to produce cooperative endeavors, but do not provide consequent incentives to encourage such an outcome. Other approaches to cooperative learning provide certificates (Slavin, 1986) or grades (Johnson & Johnson, 1987) for products that de- pend on group efforts. Some cooperative learning programs reinforce group scores that reach a certain criterion; others require that all students' scores reach a specified level; still others specify individualized tasks that each student must complete for group rewards (Aronson, Blaney, Stephan, Sikes, & Snapp, 1978). Salend (1990) describes the essence of cooperative learn- ing as a means of organizing the learning process so that youngsters work together to achieve common academic goals rather than competing with or working in isolation of each other. In the process, students are held accountable for their own performance, as well as the performance of other members of their group.

Cooperative Learning 43

Despite the apparent soundness of the cooperative learning approach, its considerable dissemination, and the success it has achieved, the practice of cooperative learning and its philosophical basis raise some questions.

USE OF PRECISE BEHAVIOR ANALYTIC LANGUAGE

Given that cooperative learning makes use of behavior analytic prin- ciples such as positive reinforcement and individual and group contingen- cies, to what extent have researchers in this area used precise, behavioral terms to describe the procedures they are employing? The answer to this question seems to depend on who is conducting the research. Slavin (1991) is forthright in acknowledging the role behavioral principles play in the cooperative learning process and his article contains many citations to be- haviorally based peer-tutoring programs. Johnson and Johnson (1986), on the other hand, avoid the above terms. Instead, they use the terms, bonus points, rewards, individual accountability, interdependence, and intergroup co- operation. The authors also fail to cite the considerable behavior analysis literature on peer tutoring, despite the substantial reliance of cooperative learning on peer tutoring to produce academic gains. Cosden and Haring (1992) also note the imprecise or omissive language practices of some co- operative learning proponents. Presumably, this is done to make the prac- tices more palatable to traditional educators who have historically rejected behavioral approaches (Greer, 1982; 1983).

COOPERATIVE LEARNING: AN INDEPENDENT OR DEPENDENT VARIABLE?

Is cooperative learning a set of procedures that produces an educa- tional outcome, or is it an outcome produced by a set of educational pro- cedures? Is it both a set of procedures and an outcome? The answer to these questions is not obvious from reading the cooperative learning lit- erature. What appears to be the case is that cooperative learning consists of academic group contingencies that encourage students to work together in order to achieve commonly held reinforcers. The form of the social in- teraction often consists of peer tutoring. If this interpretation is correct, certain issues must be addressed.

The first is whether cooperative learning does in fact produce desir- able social interactions. Some studies have demonstrated, for example, that group contingencies can lead to undesirable social interactions (Axelrod, 1973). More critical is the fact that achieving desirable social interaction

44 Axelrod and Greer

has been assumed by cooperative learning proponents; it has not been quantitatively assessed (Cosden & Haring, 1992).

The second issue is the appropriateness of using group contingencies to increase academic achievement. It is one matter to use group contin- gencies to deal with classroom disruptions (Gallagher, Sulzbacher, & Shores, 1967; Sulzbacher & Houser, 1968). In such cases the problem is motivational, not due to a skill deficit, and can be remediated through con- sequences alone. It is another matter to apply group contingencies to aca- demic behaviors where students lack the skills to perform the necessary behaviors. In such cases, an instructional process in addition to effective consequences is necessary to achieve educational goals. This has clearly been demonstrated by the most effective behavioral, educational systems

Direct Instruction, Programmed Instruction, Comprehensive Application of Behavior Analysis to Schooling, Precision Teaching, Personalized System of Instruction, Classwide Peer Tutoring, and the plethora of strategies and tactics in the education literature of applied behavior analysis (Sulzer-Az- aroff & Mayer, 1986). Also, given that cooperative learning stresses group cohesiveness, it is likely that the failure of individuals to meet their personal goals would be disruptive to social interactions.

A third issue is that the instructional process upon which cooperative learning is based is spontaneous, untrained peer tutoring. As a pedagogical tactic, cooperative learning is probably less powerful than carefully crafted peer tutoring (Greenwood et al., 1988). Some of the literature suggests that teaching and monitoring tutors in the use of behavioral tactics is a necessary component to the effectiveness of tutoring (Greer & Polirstok, 1982; Polir- stok & Greer, 1986). Thus, given the more powerful and stronger data- based procedures for training individual students, a wise teacher would probably opt for trained tutoring.

Models of cooperative learning that use peer tutoring include the Co- operative Integrated Reading and Composition (CIRC) model (Madden, Slavin, & Stevens. 1986), and the model described by Maheady, Harper, Sacca, and Malette (1991). In the CIRC model, students work in pairs within groups using peer tutoring operations, while in the Maheady et al. approach, the Classwide Peer Tutoring model is combined with a group contingency. The questions for these approaches become: (a) does the use of the group contingency increase the appropriately consequated response opportunities or learn units (Albers & Greer, 1991), and (b) does the group contingency add or detract from the social interaction between students? It is likely that a robust predictor of learning is the number of appropri- ately-consequated-response opportunities or learn units (Albers & Greer, 1991; Greer, in press-a). Currently, the best predictor is engaged academic time as specified in the Code for Instructional Structure (Greenwood &

Cooperative Learning 45

Carta, 1988). Thus, the questions become: (a) are there any differences between learn units (correct and incorrect rates) or engaged academic time under group-contingency peer tutoring (cooperative learning), carefully programmed individualized learning, or trained peer tutoring using ade- quate monitoring of tutors, and (b) do any of these instructional operations affect peer interactions outside the instructional settings?

One of the arguments for cooperative learning is that teachers find it easy to use. However, it is likely no easier to use than the class-wide peer tutoring approach without group contingencies. Some would argue (Greer, 1991) that ease of use by the teacher is less critical than the ef- fectiveness of innovations. Certainly, mastery of the operations used in Di- rect Instruction curricula are not easily applied without appropriate training.

Still another issue associated with the cooperative learning model con- cerns the curriculum itself. Have the component parts been task analyzed and subjected to an analysis of sequence (i.e., are they programmed)? Both the Direct Instruction model and the Comprehensive Application of Be- havior Analysis to Schooling incorporate scripted, programmed, and tested curricula with behaviorally-derived pedagogy.

When we compare procedures, it is not enough to compare scores of students vis-a-vis course measures. It is necessary to compare time or en- gaged time and learn units or instructional time to mastery. If we want maintenance, we must not only compare the operations relative to mastery, but we must also incorporate fluency or measures of rapid correct respond- ing (Johnson & Laying, 1992).

Perhaps the issues of mastery, fluency, curricular validity, and in- trasession learning are ones that need to be applied to all pedagogical re- search and classroom practice, not just cooperative learning. However, unless the research literature uses precise and scientifically derived vocabu- laries to describe interventions and baselines, little can be learned that is of long-term benefit to a science of schooling.

WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COOPERATIVE LEARNING AND GROUP CONTINGENCIES?

Given the apparent similarity between cooperative learning and group contingencies, one may wonder what the difference is between the two op- erations. One possible difference is that cooperative learning requires in- dividual accountability (i.e., individual contingencies), whereas group contingencies do not (Cosden & Haring, 1992; Slavin, 1983; 1991). This is necessary to prevent the more capable members of the group from corn-

4 6 Axelrod and Greer

pensating for the weak efforts of some group members to produce an ac- ceptable group outcome and from having the stronger students giving the weaker students the answers (Cosden & Hating, 1992). Indeed, a summary of the effects of cooperative learning procedures (Slavin, 1991) indicates that the combination of group and individual contingencies is superior to group contingencies alone or to individual contingencies alone. Yet this does not require an entirely new process (i.e., cooperative learning). One need only modify existing group contingencies to bring about the same re- sult. In fact, interdependent group contingencies as defined by Litow and Pumroy (1975) already come close to describing the operations in coop- erative learning.

A second proposed difference between the operations is that coop- erative learning has both motivational and cognitive components, whereas group contingencies are strictly motivational (Slavin, 1989). This departure from behavior analysis constructs seems unnecessary. If there are cognitive components to cooperative learning, what are the operations that ensure them and what advantages do they provide? Is there any possibility that the spontaneous peer tutoring generated by cooperative learning is based on the theories of Piaget or Vygotsky? For the sakes of parsimony (Marx & Hillix, 1963) and being conceptually systematic (Baer, Wolf, & Risley, 1968), it appears that one process- -group contingencies--is sufficient. Adding minor modifications to group contingencies does not require the naming of a new process (i.e., cooperative learning).

CONCLUDING COMMENTS

Cooperative learning is an increasingly popular and somewhat suc- cessful means of enhancing academic skill development. This is done through vaguely defined, loosely constructed group contingencies that en- courage extemporaneous peer tutoring. Cooperative learning proponents stress the importance of mutually beneficial social interaction among stu- dents, but have failed to provide quantitative evidence of such an outcome.

Cooperative learning propon.ents underscore the importance of coop- erative interaction among students. Cooperative repertoires, however, are not of the same urgency or priority as the three major curricular endeavors needed in our schools. What are needed are graduates who have (a) aca- demic literacy, (b) contingency and time management skills (e.g., self-man- agement), and (c) problem solving repertoires that coordinate literacy and self-management usually through verbal mediation (Greer, in press-b; Mithaug, Martin, Agran, & Rusch, 1988).

Cooperative Learning 47

As a pedagogical technique, cooperative learning is probably weaker than the previously mentioned behavior analysis approaches. Meanwhile cooperative learning has taken on a life of its own with workshops, manuals, and videos asserting its value. The good news is that the supporters have helped to disseminate fairly effective educational strategies. The bad news is that they have not advanced the science of education.

REFERENCES

Albers, A.E., & Greer, R.D. (1991). Is the three term contingency trial a predictor of effective schools? Journal of Behavioral Education, 1, 337-354.

Aronson, E., Blaney, N., Stephan, C., Sikes, J., & Snapp, M. (1978). The jigsaw classroom. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Axelrod, S. (1973). Comparison of individual and group contingencies in two special classes. Behavior Therapy, 4, 83-90.

Axelrod, S., Moyer, L., & Berry, B. (1990). Why teachers do not use behavior modification procedures. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 1, 309-320.

Baer, D. M., Wolf, M. M., & Risley, T. R. (1968). Some current dimensions of applied behavior analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 91-97.

Cosden, M. A., & Haring, J. G. (1992). Cooperative learning in the classroom: Contingencies, group interactions, and students with special needs. Journal of Behavioral Education, 2, 53-71.

Englemann, S. (1991). Change schools through revolution, not evolution. Journal of Behavioral Education, 1, 295-304.

Englemann, S. (1992). War against the schools' academic chiM abuse. Portland, OR: Halcyon. Gallagher, P., Sulzbacher, S. I., & Shores, R. E. (1967, March). A group contingency for

classroom management of emotionally disturbed children. Paper presented at the meeting of the Kansas Chapter of the Council of Exceptional Children, Wichita, KS.

Gersten, R., Carnine, D., & White, W. A. T. (1984). The pursuit of clarity: Direct instruction and behavior analysis. In W. L. Heward, T. E. Heron, D. S. Hill, & J. Trap-Porter (Eds.), Focus on behavior analysis in education (pp. 38-57). Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.

Greenwood, C. R., & Carta, J. J. (1988). An ecobehavioral interaction analysis of instruction within special education. In E. L. Meyer, G. A. Vergason, & R. J. Wheelan (Eds.), Effective instructional strategies for exceptional children (pp. 505-521). Denver, CO: Love.

Greenwood, C. R., Carta, J. J., Kamps, D., & Hall, R. V. (1988). The use of tutoring strategies in classroom management and educational instruction. School Psychology Review, 17, 258-275.

Greer, R. D. (1982). Counter controls for the American Educational Research Association. The Behavior Analyst, 5, 65-76.

Greer, R. D. (1991). Teaching practices to save America's schools: The legacy of B. F. Skinner. Journal of Behavioral Education, 1, 159-164.

Greer , R. D. (1993). Contingencies of the science and technology of teaching and prebehavioristic research practices in education. Educational Researcher, 12, 3-9.

Greer, R. D. (in press-a). A science of teaching for all students: Learner-driven professional expertise for superior schools. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Greer, R. D. (in press-b). The measure of a teacher. In R. Garner, III, D. M. Sainato, J. O. Cooper, T. E. Heron, W. R. Heward, & J. W. Escleman (Eds.), Behavior analysis in education: Focus on measurably superior instruction. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks-Cole.

Greet, R. D., & Polirstok, S. R. (1982). Collateral gains and short-term maintenance in reading and on-task by inner-city adolescents as a function of their use of social reinforcement while tutoring. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 15, 123-139.

48 Axelrod and Greer

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1983). The socialization and achievement crisis: Are cooperative learning experiences the solution? In L. Bickman (Ed.), Applied social psychology annual 4 (pp. 119-164). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1986). Mainstreaming and cooperative learning strategies. Exceptional Children, 52, 553-561.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1987). Learning together and alone (2nd Ed.). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Johnson, K. R., & Laying, T. V. (1992, November). Breaking the structuralist barrier: Literacy and numeracy with fluency. American Psychologist, 47, 1475-1490.

Johnson, D., Maruyama, G., Johnson, R., Nelson, C., & Skon, L. (1981). The effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures on achievement: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 89, 47-62.

Litow, L., & Pumroy, D. K. (1975). A brief review of classroom group-oriented contingencies. Journal of Applied Behavior Ana~sis, 8, 341-347.

Madden, N. H., Slavin, R. E., & Stevens, R. J. (1986). Comparative integrated reading and composition: Teachers" manual. Fredonia, NY: State University of New York College at Fredonia.

Maheady, L., Harper, G. F., Sacca, M. K., Mallet, B. (1991). Classwide student tutoring teams: Teachers" manual- Fredonia, NY: State University of New York College at Fredonia.

Marx, M. H,, & Hillix, W. A. (1963). Systems and theories in psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Mithaug, D. E., Martin, J. E., Agran, M., & Rusch, F. R. (1988). Why special education graduates fail Colorado Springs, CO: Ascent.

National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Polirstok, S. R., & Greer, R. D. (1986). A replication of collateral effects and a component analysis of a successful tutoring package for inner-city adolescents. Education and Treatment of Children, 9, 101-121.

Pumroy, D. K. (1984, April). Why is it taking so long for behavior modification to be used in public schools~or am I being too impatient? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association of School Psychologists, Philadelphia, PA.

Salend, S. J. (1990). Effective mainstreaming. New York: MacMillan. Slavin, R. (1983). When does cooperative learning increase student achievement? Psychological

Bulletin, 94, 429-445. Slavin, R. E. (1986). Educational psychology: Theory into practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice-Hall. Slavin, R. E. (1989). Cooperative learning and student achievement: Six theoretical

perspectives. In M. L. Maehr & C. Ames (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement: Vol. 6 (pp. 161-178). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

. . . . . . Rl~'ain, R. tlOOl~, . . . . , . . . . C',~,-,,,,.,-,t;,,,.r . . . . . . . learning and group contingencies. Journal of ~~ Education, 1, 105-115.

Sulzbacher, S. I., & Houser, J. E. (1968), A tactic to eliminate disruptive behavior in the classroom: Group contingent consequence. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 73, 88-90.

Sulzer-Azaroff, B., & Mayer, G. R. (1986). Achieving educational excellence. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.