- Email: [email protected]
Research on Cooperative Learning and Achievement: Comments on Slavin
JOBNAME: Vol 21#1 PAGE: 1 SESS: 21 OUTPUT: Sat Apr 27 17:20:34 1996 /xypage/worksmart/tsp000/66511f/6
CONTEMPORARY EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY ARTICLE NO. 0005
21, 70–79 (1996)
Research on Cooperative Learning and Achievement: Comments on Slavin PHILIP C. ABRAMI
AND
BETTE CHAMBERS
Centre for the Study of Classroom Processes, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada Slavin (1996) reconciles apparently conflicting theoretical perspectives on cooperative learning and achievement and describes areas in need of additional research. We critique Slavin’s position on the underlying mechanisms of cooperative learning and raise three questions: What affects motivation and learning in cooperative groups? Is there (cooperative) life after group rewards? When are teacher-imposed structures necessary? We expand on several areas for future research raised by Slavin (1996) and ask five questions: What happens when groups fail? How should students be grouped for cooperative learning? Why do teachers use cooperative learning? How should curriculum materials be designed for cooperative learning? How widely can cooperative learning be applied? © 1996 Academic Press, Inc.
Slavin (1996) provides a provocative and insightful summary of research on cooperative learning and student achievement that serves two broad purposes. First, he reconciles apparently conflicting theoretical perspectives on cooperative learning and achievement. Second, he describes areas in need of additional research. As invited commentators on Slavin (1996), we offer further comments on the state of the field and some reflections on both aspects of his paper. MOTIVATIONAL AND LEARNING PROCESSES IN COOPERATIVE LEARNING Slavin (1996) describes four major theoretical perspectives on cooperative learning and achievement: (extrinsic) motivational, social cohesion, developmental, and cognitive elaboration. From an (extrinsic) motivational perspective, cooperative learning enhances achievement through the use of reward structures, which create situations where group members attain their personal goals only when the group is successful. From a social cohesion perspective, cooperative learning enhances achievement through the use of teambuilding and group selfevaluation, which create a positive climate such that students care about one another and want each other to succeed. From a developmental perspective, This paper was prepared with the support of grants from the Ministry of Education, Province of Quebec and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, Government of Canada. The opinions expressed represent those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the granting agencies. Address reprint requests and inquiries to either author at Centre for the Study of Classroom Processes, LB-581, Concordia University, 1455 DeMaisonneuve Blvd. W., Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3G IM8. 70 0361-476X/96 $18.00 Copyright © 1996 by Academic Press, Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
JOBNAME: Vol 21#1 PAGE: 2 SESS: 18 OUTPUT: Sat Apr 27 17:20:34 1996 /xypage/worksmart/tsp000/66511f/6
COOPERATIVE LEARNINGS
71
cooperative learning enhances achievement through peer interaction around appropriate tasks where, for example, more capable peers provide stepping stones or scaffolds in the development of other students’ thinking. Finally, from a cognitive elaboration perspective, cooperative learning enhances achievement through structured activities in which students elaborate their understanding of the material by explaining it to someone else. Slavin (1996) reconciles these four perspectives by arguing that they are complementary, not contradictory. His representation of this complementarity suggests a classic division of learning outcomes as affected by two broad processes—motivational and learning—which we (Abrami et al., 1995) also used to synthesize these four perspectives and others. Motivational determinants of cooperative learning include those factors that affect students’ drive or desire to learn with others, or more simply, represent why students should learn cooperatively. When positive interdependence or cooperation among group members exists, students work together to learn. When students actively collaborate, they are motivated to help one another and themselves to achieve. In contrast, learning determinants of cooperative learning include those factors that directly affect students’ knowledge acquisition, representation, and retrieval, or more simply, represent how students learn cooperatively. What affects motivation and learning in cooperative groups? In dividing the four perspectives and others into motivational and learning processes, Abrami et al. (1995) recognized that student learning is unlikely to occur if students lack interest or reason for learning and that there are several potential sources of motivation to learn when students are grouped together to learn cooperatively. These motivational influences include outcome motives, means motives, and interpersonal motives. Outcome motives encourage learning together through rewards, recognition, and goal achievement. These processes have an impact on feelings of selfactualization, personal efficacy, and expectations of success. They also affect beliefs about effort-outcome covariation. Means motives encourage learning together through task attractiveness (e.g., intrinsic interest), task novelty (e.g., curiosity), and task structure (e.g., scope, complexity, resources, and division). Interpersonal motives encourage learning together through peer support (e.g., help receiving), prosocial tendencies (e.g., help giving), and affiliative need (e.g., belonging). Learning through cooperative group work can be explained by the activation of one or more global learning processes: cognitive elaborations, promotive interactions, and cognitive-developmental, practice, time-on-task, and enhanced classroom organization explanations. Learning outcomes can also be viewed from a behavioral, cognitive, developmental, or humanistic approach. Behaviorists would explain learning in interaction with others through the immediate feedback students receive from their peers and through the benefits of increased practice. Cognitivists would stress the importance of students elaborating and
JOBNAME: Vol 21#1 PAGE: 3 SESS: 18 OUTPUT: Sat Apr 27 17:20:34 1996 /xypage/worksmart/tsp000/66511f/6
72
ABRAMI AND CHAMBERS
verbalizing their understanding. Developmentalists would emphasize the process of peer modeling. Humanists would suggest that learning is enhanced by responding to students’ natural curiosity. Is there (cooperative) life after group rewards? Slavin draws on considerable empirical research to support his claim that cooperative learning works best when students are provided with group rewards for learning, especially when combined with individual accountability. “In other words, rewarding groups based on group performance (or the sum of individual performances) creates an interpersonal reward structure in which group members will give or withhold social reinforcers (e.g., praise, encouragement) in response to groupmates’ task-related efforts” (Slavin, 1996). Nowhere, however, does he claim that other motivational influences are not possible; indeed, each has some degree of supporting evidence. Furthermore, Slavin (1996) describes three circumstances when group rewards and individual accountability are clearly not necessary: for controversial tasks without single answers, for voluntary study groups, and for structured dyadic tasks. In addition, he notes that cooperative learning practice has shifted toward project-based or active learning, which can be more effective than traditional instruction. Finally, he notes that “most teachers using cooperative learning do not provide group rewards based on the individual learning of all group members, and feel that it is unnecessary and cumbersome to do so” (Slavin, 1996). There may be other motivational explanations for why learning takes place in these situations despite the lack of group rewards and individual accountability. For controversial tasks without single answers, the challenge of finding acceptable answers emphasizes goal interdependence. For voluntary study groups, the external threat of not succeeding at the rigorous assessments found in medical and law school emphasizes outside force interdependence. For structured dyadic tasks, clearly defined responsibilities for completing the activity emphasize role interdependence. Finally, for project-based learning, students may be motivated, in part, by their intrinsic interest in the task and the necessity of each student to complete some part of the project, emphasizing task interdependence. Further, Slavin (1996) argues that while group goals and individual accountability may not always be necessary, neither are they likely to inhibit the modeling of higher-level thinking and would likely promote peer teaching and elaborated explanations. More research, that explicitly compares the effects of working in groups that have individual accountability and group rewards with groups that do not, is required to support Slavin’s position. While the Stevens, Slavin, and Farnish (1991) study employed a cooperative learning condition with group rewards and individual accountability, the two other conditions did not use group learning of any sort. The importance of interpersonal motives in explaining academic achievement has, until very recently, received little attention. Many theories of motivation and
JOBNAME: Vol 21#1 PAGE: 4 SESS: 18 OUTPUT: Sat Apr 27 17:20:34 1996 /xypage/worksmart/tsp000/66511f/6
COOPERATIVE LEARNINGS
73
individual achievement have focused on two particular types of achievement goals: task goals and ability goals. Urdan and Maehr (1995) argue for the importance of social goals—defined as perceived social purposes for academic achievement—as reasons for engaging in academic work. In Slavin’s model of cooperative learning, group goals serve: to motivate students to learn, to encourage groupmates to learn, and to help groupmates to learn. We suggest that group goals are affected by one or more sources— outcome motives, means motives, and interpersonal motives—not only group rewards. Thus, we expect that future research will lead to the elaboration and refinement of fairly complex and inclusive models of cooperative learning based on multiple determinants of student motivation to learn with others. We believe three kinds of additional research are necessary. First, quantitative reviews (Johnson & Johnson, 1989; Qin, Johnson & Johnson, 1995; Slavin, 1989) have reached different conclusions about the effects of different cooperative learning methods on student achievement. Another review exploring the effects of outcome motives, means motives, and interpersonal motives along with learning processes may help clarify the cause of these differences and lead to increased understanding of what underlies effective cooperative learning techniques. Second, additional primary studies are necessary to explore further the effectiveness of different incentive structures, especially in long-term implementations. These longitudinal studies should include implementation checks, which will allow researchers to explore differences between classes and within groups in the fidelity of the treatment. Third, educational researchers should direct their energies toward developing and testing means for practitioners to better use a more complete range of motivational tools in cooperative classrooms. When are teacher-imposed structures necessary? For classroom practice, another issue is the extent teachers impose outcome, means, or interpersonal motives through structured cooperative learning activities. For example, in Slavin’s (1995) Student Team Learning methods, outcome motives are affected when students anticipate symbolic recognition for their collective efforts to learn, usually in the form of a reward certificate for team success. In Johnson and Johnson’s (Johnson, Johnson, & Johnson-Holubec; 1993) Learning Together method, means motives are affected when students are asked to perform particular roles in their groups such as recorder, checker, summarizer, and encourager. In Kagan’s (1992) Co-op Co-op method, interpersonal motives are affected when students regularly engage in teambuilding and cooperative skill training exercises. Underlying each of these teacher-imposed structures is the assumption that without the structure, students will not be motivated to work together to learn. Abrami et al. (1995) described a developmental progression where teacherimposed structures lead to student perceptions of the necessity of collaboration, which, in turn, encourages students to behave cooperatively, which, eventually, leads students to internalize the values of cooperation.
JOBNAME: Vol 21#1 PAGE: 5 SESS: 18 OUTPUT: Sat Apr 27 17:20:34 1996 /xypage/worksmart/tsp000/66511f/6
74
ABRAMI AND CHAMBERS
Consequently, future research should explore the circumstances under which students require a teacher-imposed structure in order to learn cooperatively, especially over the long term, as cooperative learning methods are widely and repeatedly used. For example, are symbolic rewards necessary when students are already sufficiently interested in the task and are experienced in working together? The literature on classroom uses of extrinsic rewards (Cameron & Pierce, 1994) suggests that incentives are unnecessary when interest is already high. Behavior modification techniques suggest shaping behavior with continuous reinforcement and maintaining it with partial reinforcement. Second, future research should explore student perceptions of the teacherimposed structures as important to their learning cooperatively. For example, for extrinsic rewards to operate as incentives for learning they must be valued by each member of the team. Furthermore, Cameron and Pierce (1994) noted that student perceptions of the purpose of rewards was important. Rewards perceived by students as designed by the teacher to control their behavior can have negative consequences. Rewards perceived by students as designed to provide information on their behavior can have positive consequences. Third, future research should explore the congruence between a teacher’s educational philosophy and their use of cooperative learning techniques. For example, a teacher who believes that students should be intrinsically motivated to engage in an academic task may resist implementing a strategy that calls for systematic use of extrinsic rewards for group success. OTHER AREAS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH Slavin (1996) calls for additional research in several areas including group outcome, group composition, professional development, curriculum design, and the application of cooperative learning in new areas. We expand upon his concerns and introduce some additional avenues for investigation. What happens when groups fail? Quantitative reviews of cooperative learning (Johnson & Johnson, 1989; Qin, Johnson, & Johnson, 1995; Slavin, 1989) suggest that students are more likely to be successful learners when they actively collaborate with others than when they do not. However, using cooperative learning is not a guarantee of success; student teams do not always function they way they ought to. According to Ames (1981), “Cooperative settings that end in group failure have substantial negative consequences for children’s self-adaptive and interpersonal behavior” (p. 286). Attributional explanations of achievement motivation (Weiner, 1986) focus on the relationship between task outcome (success, failure) and subjective expectations of future success. Expectations of success and the achievement strivings of students can be moderated by their beliefs about the causes of task outcomes. In particular, beliefs that higher effort leads to success are desirable for educators to encourage. Chambers and Abrami (1991) found that attributions to effort were the high-
JOBNAME: Vol 21#1 PAGE: 6 SESS: 18 OUTPUT: Sat Apr 27 17:20:34 1996 /xypage/worksmart/tsp000/66511f/6
COOPERATIVE LEARNINGS
75
est-rated cause, regardless of whether teams succeeded or failed. However, there were significant relationships between team outcome and the importance of uncontrollable casual factors—ability and luck. Consequently, we raised the concern that after students have multiple success and failure experiences learning in teams, they may come to see their success as increasingly uncontrollable. Future research should explore the effects of long-term implementations of cooperative learning on student casual beliefs when students experience a range of group outcomes. How should students be grouped for cooperative learning? Slavin (1996) briefly mentions the influence that group composition may have on the effectiveness of learning cooperatively. While heterogeneous ability grouping is usually recommended by cooperative learning proponents (e.g., Slavin, 1987), some (e.g., Robinson, 1990) have speculated that high-ability students might feel exploited when placed in heterogeneous groups. Empirical support for heterogeneous cooperative groups comes from studies comparing whole-class instruction with small group learning. Collectively, these studies show positive effects for heterogeneous ability groups (Lou et al., 1996b). In contrast, findings from studies that directly compared the effect of homogeneous ability grouping versus heterogeneous ability grouping appear varied. A meta-analysis by Lou et al. (1996a, 1996b) aggregated 20 independent effect sizes from 12 studies, which directly compared homogeneous within-class grouping with heterogeneous within-class grouping. They considered three key questions: (1) Is placing students in small heterogeneous ability groups within class superior to the use of small homogeneous ability groups? (2) Does the effect of group composition depend on the ability level of students? and (3) Does cooperative learning improve the learning of all students placed in heterogeneous groups? The results revealed a small, significant advantage (d+ 4 +.12) of homogeneous ability groups over heterogeneous ability groups in small group learning. However, the superiority of homogeneous ability grouping over heterogeneous ability grouping was not uniform across findings. While low-ability students learned significantly more in heterogeneous ability groups than in homogeneous ability groups, medium ability students benefited significantly more in homogeneous ability groups than in heterogeneous ability groups. For high-ability students, group ability composition produced no significant difference. Finally, the findings indicated that using cooperative learning, not simply groupwork, modified neither the superior effects of heterogeneous grouping for low-ability students nor the inferior effects for medium ability students. The disadvantage that low-ability students experience when placed in homogeneous groups may be due to their collective inability to complete the learning task. Further research may reveal whether the adaptation of instruction and learning materials to meet the needs and abilities of homogeneous groups ameliorates this disadvantage or whether the provision of adapted materials creates
JOBNAME: Vol 21#1 PAGE: 7 SESS: 18 OUTPUT: Sat Apr 27 17:20:34 1996 /xypage/worksmart/tsp000/66511f/6
76
ABRAMI AND CHAMBERS
lowered teacher and student expectations for success. According to Webb (1989), learning in small groups depends on giving and receiving explanations. In heterogeneous groups, medium-ability students may act as neither tutor nor tutee and, therefore, neither give nor receive explanations. Consequently, further research should identify ways to modify the roles and tasks of medium-ability students in heterogeneous groups. Finally, research is needed on ways to overcome the resistance of high-ability students to working with less able peers. Why do teachers use cooperative learning? We agree with Slavin (1996) that there is a need for effective strategies for professional development in cooperative learning. While the use of simulations is “obviously effective,” the problems that teachers encounter in implementing cooperative learning effectively with their classes indicates that there is room for improvement in the training and follow-up that they experience. In particular, research is needed to investigate what motivates teachers to adopt cooperative learning methods, use them effectively, and persist with implementation. Building on Shepperd’s (1993) motivational analysis of productivity loss in groups, we (and our colleague Catherine Poulsen) are applying expectancy theory to construct a model of the variables that influence a teacher’s decision to implement and persist in the use of educational innovations such as cooperative learning. We predict that teachers will implement a teaching strategy if they value the strategy or the outcomes it produces, if they expect to be successful in implementing it, and if the physical or psychological costs associated with implementing it are not prohibitive. How should curriculum materials be designed for cooperative learning? Slavin (1996) notes that there is the need for both research and development at the intersection of curriculum and cooperative learning. While some cooperative learning methods incorporate specially designed curricular materials (e.g., Cohen, 1994; Stevens et al., 1987), most only provide general guidance on how to adapt cooperative learning to different subjects and grade levels. We believe there is much to be gained from examining effective curricular material using, for example, Steiner’s (1972) typology of tasks. This typology examines how task structure and demands influence cooperative learning on five different dimensions: basis of assessment, collective versus co-active tasks, source of control, and social combination rules. Abrami et al. (1995) suggested that each dimension relates to a question curriculum designers and teachers might ask about tasks assigned to groups: (1) Can the task be broken down into subcomponents or is the division of the task inappropriate? (task divisibility); (2) Which is more important, quantity produced or quality of performance? (basis of assessment); (3) Is there a single product or are the members concerned with individual products? (collective vs co-active tasks); (4) Can team members decide how to contribute or are the rules set? (source of control); and (5) How are individual inputs related to the group product? (social combination rules).
JOBNAME: Vol 21#1 PAGE: 8 SESS: 18 OUTPUT: Sat Apr 27 17:20:34 1996 /xypage/worksmart/tsp000/66511f/6
COOPERATIVE LEARNINGS
77
How widely can cooperative learning be applied? Slavin (1996) calls for research that extends the knowledge of cooperative learning to younger and older students than have traditionally been researched. While Chambers (1993) found that kindergarten children were more capable of engaging in cooperative learning than was previously believed, much research remains to be done on the optimal level of structure for cooperative learning activities in the early childhood curriculum. Group size is another area that need investigation. Given young children’s limited abilities to take others’ perspectives, it seems reasonable that it would be easier for them to work in very small groups (pairs or triads), but this has not been empirically verified. For postsecondary instruction, attention needs to be directed toward understanding recalcitrant students, at the problems inherent in applying a novel instructional strategy with limited contact time, and at ways to overcome difficulties encountered by students undertaking group projects outside of class time. Another area for research is computer-supported collaborative learning. Savard, Mitchell, Abrami, and Corso (1995) suggested that there may be two interrelated features of distance education that alter the effectiveness of cooperative learning: communication effectiveness and social loafing. For example, the time and effort required of written communication may not suit many learning tasks as well as the efficiency and immediacy of oral communication. A second distinguishing feature of distance education is the relative anonymity of each partner’s learning effort. Several factors appear to contribute to the tendency for individuals to minimize their efforts on a collaborative task: equality of efforts, personal responsibility, and involvement (Shepperd, 1993). In particular, Harkins (1987) showed that individual efforts decreased when others could not readily identify the individual contributions. CONCLUSION As a field of inquiry matures and as applications to practice grow, refinements in thinking occur. Slavin (1996) contributed to this evolution by attempting to reconcile apparently conflicting theoretical positions on cooperative learning and achievement and to call for additional research in areas worthy of further exploration. For our part, we sought to add further to this evolution by critically commenting on Slavin’s model and showing ways that it may be further developed and expanded. We saw the underlying processes of cooperative learning as divisible into motivational and learning mechanisms. Furthermore, we suggested that group goals are affected by one or more sources—outcome motives, means motives, and interpersonal motives. Slavin (1996) called for additional research in several areas including group outcome, group composition, professional development, curriculum design, and the application of cooperative learning in new areas. We expanded upon his concerns and introduced some additional avenues for investigation. Thus, we
JOBNAME: Vol 21#1 PAGE: 9 SESS: 20 OUTPUT: Sat Apr 27 17:20:34 1996 /xypage/worksmart/tsp000/66511f/6
78
ABRAMI AND CHAMBERS
hope our ideas promote constructive controversy among researchers and practitioners in the area. REFERENCES ABRAMI, P. C., CHAMBERS, B., D’APPOLONIA, S., FARRELL, M., & De SIMONE, C. (1992). Group outcome: The relationship between group learning outcome, attributional style, academic achievement, and self-concept. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 17, 201–210. ABRAMI, P. C., CHAMBERS, B., POULSEN, C., De SIMONE, C., D’APPOLLONIA, S., & HOWDEN, J. (1995). Classroom connections: Understanding and using cooperative learning, Toronto, ON: Harcourt Brace. AMES, C. (1981). Competitive versus cooperative reward structures: The influence of individual and group performance factors on achievement attributions and affect. American Educational Research Journal, 18, 273–287. CAMERON, J., & PIERCE, W. D. (1994) Reinforcement, reward, and intrinsic motivation: A metaanalysis. Review of Educational Research, 64, 363–423. CHAMBERS, B. (1993). Cooperative learning in kindergarten. International Journal of Early Childhood, 25, 31–36. CHAMBERS, B., & ABRAMI, P. C. (1991). The relationship between student team learning outcomes and achievement, causal attributions, and affect. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 140– 146. COHEN, E. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64, 1–35. HARKINS, S. G. (1987). Social loafing and social facilitation. Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology, 23, 1–18. JOHNSON, D. W., & JOHNSON, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research, Edina, MN: Interaction Book. JOHNSON, D. W., JOHNSON, R. T., & JOHNSON-HOLUBEC, E. J. (1993). Cooperation in the classroom (6th ed.). Edina, MN: Interaction Book. KAGAN, S. (1992). Cooperative learning: Resources for teachers. San Juan Capistrano, CA: Resources for Teachers. LOU, Y., ABRAMI, P. C., SPENCE, J. C., D’APOLLONIA, S., CHAMBERS, B., & POULSEN, C. (1996a, April). A meta-analysis of the effects of homogeneous versus heterogeneous group ability composition on student achievement: Looking at the “best” evidence. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York. LOU, Y., ABRAMI, P. C., SPENCE, J., POULSEN, C., CHAMBERS, B., & D’APOLLONIA, S. (1996b). Within-class grouping. Manuscript submitted for publication. LOU, Y., ABRAMI, P. C., SPENCE, J. C., POULSEN, C., CHAMBERS, B., & D’APOLLONIA, S. (1995, April). To group or not to group? A meta-analysis of the effects of within-class grouping on student achievement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. QIN, Z., JOHNSON, D. W., & JOHNSON, R. T. (1995). Cooperative versus competitive efforts and problem solving. Review of Educational Research, 65, 129–144. ROBINSON, A. (1990). Cooperation or exploitation? The argument against cooperative learning for talented students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 14, 9–27. SAVARD, M., MITCHELL, S. N., ABRAMI, P. C., & CORSO, M. (1995). Learning together at a distance. Canadian Journal of Educational Communication, 24, 115–128. SHEPPERD, J. A. (1993). Productivity loss in performance groups: A motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 67–81. SLAVIN, R. E. (1987). Ability grouping and student achievement in elementary schools: a bestevidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 57, 293–336.
JOBNAME: Vol 21#1 PAGE: 10 SESS: 21 OUTPUT: Sat Apr 27 17:20:34 1996 /xypage/worksmart/tsp000/66511f/6
COOPERATIVE LEARNINGS
79
SLAVIN, R. E. (1989). Cooperative learning and student achievement. In R. E. SLAVIN, (Ed.), School and classroom organization (pp. 129–156). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. SLAVIN, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. SLAVIN, R. E. (1996). Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What we know, what we need to know. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 43–69. STEINER, I. D. (1972). Group processes and productivity. New York: Academic Press. STEVENS, R. J., MADDEN, N. A., SLAVIN, R. E., & FARNISH, A. M. (1987). Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition: Two field experiments. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 433–454. STEVENS, R. J., SLAVIN, R. E., & FARNISH, A. M. (1991). The effects of cooperative learning and direct instruction in reading comprehension strategies on main idea identification. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 8–16. URDAN, T. C., & MAEHR, M. L. (1995). Beyond a two-goal theory of motivation and achievement: A case for social goals. Review of Educational Research, 65, 213–243. WEBB, N. M. (1989). Peer interaction and learning in small groups. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 21–39. WEINER, B. (1986). An attribution theory of motivation and emotion. New York: Springer-Verlag.
CONTEMPORARY EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY ARTICLE NO. 0005
21, 70–79 (1996)
Research on Cooperative Learning and Achievement: Comments on Slavin PHILIP C. ABRAMI
AND
BETTE CHAMBERS
Centre for the Study of Classroom Processes, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada Slavin (1996) reconciles apparently conflicting theoretical perspectives on cooperative learning and achievement and describes areas in need of additional research. We critique Slavin’s position on the underlying mechanisms of cooperative learning and raise three questions: What affects motivation and learning in cooperative groups? Is there (cooperative) life after group rewards? When are teacher-imposed structures necessary? We expand on several areas for future research raised by Slavin (1996) and ask five questions: What happens when groups fail? How should students be grouped for cooperative learning? Why do teachers use cooperative learning? How should curriculum materials be designed for cooperative learning? How widely can cooperative learning be applied? © 1996 Academic Press, Inc.
Slavin (1996) provides a provocative and insightful summary of research on cooperative learning and student achievement that serves two broad purposes. First, he reconciles apparently conflicting theoretical perspectives on cooperative learning and achievement. Second, he describes areas in need of additional research. As invited commentators on Slavin (1996), we offer further comments on the state of the field and some reflections on both aspects of his paper. MOTIVATIONAL AND LEARNING PROCESSES IN COOPERATIVE LEARNING Slavin (1996) describes four major theoretical perspectives on cooperative learning and achievement: (extrinsic) motivational, social cohesion, developmental, and cognitive elaboration. From an (extrinsic) motivational perspective, cooperative learning enhances achievement through the use of reward structures, which create situations where group members attain their personal goals only when the group is successful. From a social cohesion perspective, cooperative learning enhances achievement through the use of teambuilding and group selfevaluation, which create a positive climate such that students care about one another and want each other to succeed. From a developmental perspective, This paper was prepared with the support of grants from the Ministry of Education, Province of Quebec and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, Government of Canada. The opinions expressed represent those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the granting agencies. Address reprint requests and inquiries to either author at Centre for the Study of Classroom Processes, LB-581, Concordia University, 1455 DeMaisonneuve Blvd. W., Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3G IM8. 70 0361-476X/96 $18.00 Copyright © 1996 by Academic Press, Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
JOBNAME: Vol 21#1 PAGE: 2 SESS: 18 OUTPUT: Sat Apr 27 17:20:34 1996 /xypage/worksmart/tsp000/66511f/6
COOPERATIVE LEARNINGS
71
cooperative learning enhances achievement through peer interaction around appropriate tasks where, for example, more capable peers provide stepping stones or scaffolds in the development of other students’ thinking. Finally, from a cognitive elaboration perspective, cooperative learning enhances achievement through structured activities in which students elaborate their understanding of the material by explaining it to someone else. Slavin (1996) reconciles these four perspectives by arguing that they are complementary, not contradictory. His representation of this complementarity suggests a classic division of learning outcomes as affected by two broad processes—motivational and learning—which we (Abrami et al., 1995) also used to synthesize these four perspectives and others. Motivational determinants of cooperative learning include those factors that affect students’ drive or desire to learn with others, or more simply, represent why students should learn cooperatively. When positive interdependence or cooperation among group members exists, students work together to learn. When students actively collaborate, they are motivated to help one another and themselves to achieve. In contrast, learning determinants of cooperative learning include those factors that directly affect students’ knowledge acquisition, representation, and retrieval, or more simply, represent how students learn cooperatively. What affects motivation and learning in cooperative groups? In dividing the four perspectives and others into motivational and learning processes, Abrami et al. (1995) recognized that student learning is unlikely to occur if students lack interest or reason for learning and that there are several potential sources of motivation to learn when students are grouped together to learn cooperatively. These motivational influences include outcome motives, means motives, and interpersonal motives. Outcome motives encourage learning together through rewards, recognition, and goal achievement. These processes have an impact on feelings of selfactualization, personal efficacy, and expectations of success. They also affect beliefs about effort-outcome covariation. Means motives encourage learning together through task attractiveness (e.g., intrinsic interest), task novelty (e.g., curiosity), and task structure (e.g., scope, complexity, resources, and division). Interpersonal motives encourage learning together through peer support (e.g., help receiving), prosocial tendencies (e.g., help giving), and affiliative need (e.g., belonging). Learning through cooperative group work can be explained by the activation of one or more global learning processes: cognitive elaborations, promotive interactions, and cognitive-developmental, practice, time-on-task, and enhanced classroom organization explanations. Learning outcomes can also be viewed from a behavioral, cognitive, developmental, or humanistic approach. Behaviorists would explain learning in interaction with others through the immediate feedback students receive from their peers and through the benefits of increased practice. Cognitivists would stress the importance of students elaborating and
JOBNAME: Vol 21#1 PAGE: 3 SESS: 18 OUTPUT: Sat Apr 27 17:20:34 1996 /xypage/worksmart/tsp000/66511f/6
72
ABRAMI AND CHAMBERS
verbalizing their understanding. Developmentalists would emphasize the process of peer modeling. Humanists would suggest that learning is enhanced by responding to students’ natural curiosity. Is there (cooperative) life after group rewards? Slavin draws on considerable empirical research to support his claim that cooperative learning works best when students are provided with group rewards for learning, especially when combined with individual accountability. “In other words, rewarding groups based on group performance (or the sum of individual performances) creates an interpersonal reward structure in which group members will give or withhold social reinforcers (e.g., praise, encouragement) in response to groupmates’ task-related efforts” (Slavin, 1996). Nowhere, however, does he claim that other motivational influences are not possible; indeed, each has some degree of supporting evidence. Furthermore, Slavin (1996) describes three circumstances when group rewards and individual accountability are clearly not necessary: for controversial tasks without single answers, for voluntary study groups, and for structured dyadic tasks. In addition, he notes that cooperative learning practice has shifted toward project-based or active learning, which can be more effective than traditional instruction. Finally, he notes that “most teachers using cooperative learning do not provide group rewards based on the individual learning of all group members, and feel that it is unnecessary and cumbersome to do so” (Slavin, 1996). There may be other motivational explanations for why learning takes place in these situations despite the lack of group rewards and individual accountability. For controversial tasks without single answers, the challenge of finding acceptable answers emphasizes goal interdependence. For voluntary study groups, the external threat of not succeeding at the rigorous assessments found in medical and law school emphasizes outside force interdependence. For structured dyadic tasks, clearly defined responsibilities for completing the activity emphasize role interdependence. Finally, for project-based learning, students may be motivated, in part, by their intrinsic interest in the task and the necessity of each student to complete some part of the project, emphasizing task interdependence. Further, Slavin (1996) argues that while group goals and individual accountability may not always be necessary, neither are they likely to inhibit the modeling of higher-level thinking and would likely promote peer teaching and elaborated explanations. More research, that explicitly compares the effects of working in groups that have individual accountability and group rewards with groups that do not, is required to support Slavin’s position. While the Stevens, Slavin, and Farnish (1991) study employed a cooperative learning condition with group rewards and individual accountability, the two other conditions did not use group learning of any sort. The importance of interpersonal motives in explaining academic achievement has, until very recently, received little attention. Many theories of motivation and
JOBNAME: Vol 21#1 PAGE: 4 SESS: 18 OUTPUT: Sat Apr 27 17:20:34 1996 /xypage/worksmart/tsp000/66511f/6
COOPERATIVE LEARNINGS
73
individual achievement have focused on two particular types of achievement goals: task goals and ability goals. Urdan and Maehr (1995) argue for the importance of social goals—defined as perceived social purposes for academic achievement—as reasons for engaging in academic work. In Slavin’s model of cooperative learning, group goals serve: to motivate students to learn, to encourage groupmates to learn, and to help groupmates to learn. We suggest that group goals are affected by one or more sources— outcome motives, means motives, and interpersonal motives—not only group rewards. Thus, we expect that future research will lead to the elaboration and refinement of fairly complex and inclusive models of cooperative learning based on multiple determinants of student motivation to learn with others. We believe three kinds of additional research are necessary. First, quantitative reviews (Johnson & Johnson, 1989; Qin, Johnson & Johnson, 1995; Slavin, 1989) have reached different conclusions about the effects of different cooperative learning methods on student achievement. Another review exploring the effects of outcome motives, means motives, and interpersonal motives along with learning processes may help clarify the cause of these differences and lead to increased understanding of what underlies effective cooperative learning techniques. Second, additional primary studies are necessary to explore further the effectiveness of different incentive structures, especially in long-term implementations. These longitudinal studies should include implementation checks, which will allow researchers to explore differences between classes and within groups in the fidelity of the treatment. Third, educational researchers should direct their energies toward developing and testing means for practitioners to better use a more complete range of motivational tools in cooperative classrooms. When are teacher-imposed structures necessary? For classroom practice, another issue is the extent teachers impose outcome, means, or interpersonal motives through structured cooperative learning activities. For example, in Slavin’s (1995) Student Team Learning methods, outcome motives are affected when students anticipate symbolic recognition for their collective efforts to learn, usually in the form of a reward certificate for team success. In Johnson and Johnson’s (Johnson, Johnson, & Johnson-Holubec; 1993) Learning Together method, means motives are affected when students are asked to perform particular roles in their groups such as recorder, checker, summarizer, and encourager. In Kagan’s (1992) Co-op Co-op method, interpersonal motives are affected when students regularly engage in teambuilding and cooperative skill training exercises. Underlying each of these teacher-imposed structures is the assumption that without the structure, students will not be motivated to work together to learn. Abrami et al. (1995) described a developmental progression where teacherimposed structures lead to student perceptions of the necessity of collaboration, which, in turn, encourages students to behave cooperatively, which, eventually, leads students to internalize the values of cooperation.
JOBNAME: Vol 21#1 PAGE: 5 SESS: 18 OUTPUT: Sat Apr 27 17:20:34 1996 /xypage/worksmart/tsp000/66511f/6
74
ABRAMI AND CHAMBERS
Consequently, future research should explore the circumstances under which students require a teacher-imposed structure in order to learn cooperatively, especially over the long term, as cooperative learning methods are widely and repeatedly used. For example, are symbolic rewards necessary when students are already sufficiently interested in the task and are experienced in working together? The literature on classroom uses of extrinsic rewards (Cameron & Pierce, 1994) suggests that incentives are unnecessary when interest is already high. Behavior modification techniques suggest shaping behavior with continuous reinforcement and maintaining it with partial reinforcement. Second, future research should explore student perceptions of the teacherimposed structures as important to their learning cooperatively. For example, for extrinsic rewards to operate as incentives for learning they must be valued by each member of the team. Furthermore, Cameron and Pierce (1994) noted that student perceptions of the purpose of rewards was important. Rewards perceived by students as designed by the teacher to control their behavior can have negative consequences. Rewards perceived by students as designed to provide information on their behavior can have positive consequences. Third, future research should explore the congruence between a teacher’s educational philosophy and their use of cooperative learning techniques. For example, a teacher who believes that students should be intrinsically motivated to engage in an academic task may resist implementing a strategy that calls for systematic use of extrinsic rewards for group success. OTHER AREAS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH Slavin (1996) calls for additional research in several areas including group outcome, group composition, professional development, curriculum design, and the application of cooperative learning in new areas. We expand upon his concerns and introduce some additional avenues for investigation. What happens when groups fail? Quantitative reviews of cooperative learning (Johnson & Johnson, 1989; Qin, Johnson, & Johnson, 1995; Slavin, 1989) suggest that students are more likely to be successful learners when they actively collaborate with others than when they do not. However, using cooperative learning is not a guarantee of success; student teams do not always function they way they ought to. According to Ames (1981), “Cooperative settings that end in group failure have substantial negative consequences for children’s self-adaptive and interpersonal behavior” (p. 286). Attributional explanations of achievement motivation (Weiner, 1986) focus on the relationship between task outcome (success, failure) and subjective expectations of future success. Expectations of success and the achievement strivings of students can be moderated by their beliefs about the causes of task outcomes. In particular, beliefs that higher effort leads to success are desirable for educators to encourage. Chambers and Abrami (1991) found that attributions to effort were the high-
JOBNAME: Vol 21#1 PAGE: 6 SESS: 18 OUTPUT: Sat Apr 27 17:20:34 1996 /xypage/worksmart/tsp000/66511f/6
COOPERATIVE LEARNINGS
75
est-rated cause, regardless of whether teams succeeded or failed. However, there were significant relationships between team outcome and the importance of uncontrollable casual factors—ability and luck. Consequently, we raised the concern that after students have multiple success and failure experiences learning in teams, they may come to see their success as increasingly uncontrollable. Future research should explore the effects of long-term implementations of cooperative learning on student casual beliefs when students experience a range of group outcomes. How should students be grouped for cooperative learning? Slavin (1996) briefly mentions the influence that group composition may have on the effectiveness of learning cooperatively. While heterogeneous ability grouping is usually recommended by cooperative learning proponents (e.g., Slavin, 1987), some (e.g., Robinson, 1990) have speculated that high-ability students might feel exploited when placed in heterogeneous groups. Empirical support for heterogeneous cooperative groups comes from studies comparing whole-class instruction with small group learning. Collectively, these studies show positive effects for heterogeneous ability groups (Lou et al., 1996b). In contrast, findings from studies that directly compared the effect of homogeneous ability grouping versus heterogeneous ability grouping appear varied. A meta-analysis by Lou et al. (1996a, 1996b) aggregated 20 independent effect sizes from 12 studies, which directly compared homogeneous within-class grouping with heterogeneous within-class grouping. They considered three key questions: (1) Is placing students in small heterogeneous ability groups within class superior to the use of small homogeneous ability groups? (2) Does the effect of group composition depend on the ability level of students? and (3) Does cooperative learning improve the learning of all students placed in heterogeneous groups? The results revealed a small, significant advantage (d+ 4 +.12) of homogeneous ability groups over heterogeneous ability groups in small group learning. However, the superiority of homogeneous ability grouping over heterogeneous ability grouping was not uniform across findings. While low-ability students learned significantly more in heterogeneous ability groups than in homogeneous ability groups, medium ability students benefited significantly more in homogeneous ability groups than in heterogeneous ability groups. For high-ability students, group ability composition produced no significant difference. Finally, the findings indicated that using cooperative learning, not simply groupwork, modified neither the superior effects of heterogeneous grouping for low-ability students nor the inferior effects for medium ability students. The disadvantage that low-ability students experience when placed in homogeneous groups may be due to their collective inability to complete the learning task. Further research may reveal whether the adaptation of instruction and learning materials to meet the needs and abilities of homogeneous groups ameliorates this disadvantage or whether the provision of adapted materials creates
JOBNAME: Vol 21#1 PAGE: 7 SESS: 18 OUTPUT: Sat Apr 27 17:20:34 1996 /xypage/worksmart/tsp000/66511f/6
76
ABRAMI AND CHAMBERS
lowered teacher and student expectations for success. According to Webb (1989), learning in small groups depends on giving and receiving explanations. In heterogeneous groups, medium-ability students may act as neither tutor nor tutee and, therefore, neither give nor receive explanations. Consequently, further research should identify ways to modify the roles and tasks of medium-ability students in heterogeneous groups. Finally, research is needed on ways to overcome the resistance of high-ability students to working with less able peers. Why do teachers use cooperative learning? We agree with Slavin (1996) that there is a need for effective strategies for professional development in cooperative learning. While the use of simulations is “obviously effective,” the problems that teachers encounter in implementing cooperative learning effectively with their classes indicates that there is room for improvement in the training and follow-up that they experience. In particular, research is needed to investigate what motivates teachers to adopt cooperative learning methods, use them effectively, and persist with implementation. Building on Shepperd’s (1993) motivational analysis of productivity loss in groups, we (and our colleague Catherine Poulsen) are applying expectancy theory to construct a model of the variables that influence a teacher’s decision to implement and persist in the use of educational innovations such as cooperative learning. We predict that teachers will implement a teaching strategy if they value the strategy or the outcomes it produces, if they expect to be successful in implementing it, and if the physical or psychological costs associated with implementing it are not prohibitive. How should curriculum materials be designed for cooperative learning? Slavin (1996) notes that there is the need for both research and development at the intersection of curriculum and cooperative learning. While some cooperative learning methods incorporate specially designed curricular materials (e.g., Cohen, 1994; Stevens et al., 1987), most only provide general guidance on how to adapt cooperative learning to different subjects and grade levels. We believe there is much to be gained from examining effective curricular material using, for example, Steiner’s (1972) typology of tasks. This typology examines how task structure and demands influence cooperative learning on five different dimensions: basis of assessment, collective versus co-active tasks, source of control, and social combination rules. Abrami et al. (1995) suggested that each dimension relates to a question curriculum designers and teachers might ask about tasks assigned to groups: (1) Can the task be broken down into subcomponents or is the division of the task inappropriate? (task divisibility); (2) Which is more important, quantity produced or quality of performance? (basis of assessment); (3) Is there a single product or are the members concerned with individual products? (collective vs co-active tasks); (4) Can team members decide how to contribute or are the rules set? (source of control); and (5) How are individual inputs related to the group product? (social combination rules).
JOBNAME: Vol 21#1 PAGE: 8 SESS: 18 OUTPUT: Sat Apr 27 17:20:34 1996 /xypage/worksmart/tsp000/66511f/6
COOPERATIVE LEARNINGS
77
How widely can cooperative learning be applied? Slavin (1996) calls for research that extends the knowledge of cooperative learning to younger and older students than have traditionally been researched. While Chambers (1993) found that kindergarten children were more capable of engaging in cooperative learning than was previously believed, much research remains to be done on the optimal level of structure for cooperative learning activities in the early childhood curriculum. Group size is another area that need investigation. Given young children’s limited abilities to take others’ perspectives, it seems reasonable that it would be easier for them to work in very small groups (pairs or triads), but this has not been empirically verified. For postsecondary instruction, attention needs to be directed toward understanding recalcitrant students, at the problems inherent in applying a novel instructional strategy with limited contact time, and at ways to overcome difficulties encountered by students undertaking group projects outside of class time. Another area for research is computer-supported collaborative learning. Savard, Mitchell, Abrami, and Corso (1995) suggested that there may be two interrelated features of distance education that alter the effectiveness of cooperative learning: communication effectiveness and social loafing. For example, the time and effort required of written communication may not suit many learning tasks as well as the efficiency and immediacy of oral communication. A second distinguishing feature of distance education is the relative anonymity of each partner’s learning effort. Several factors appear to contribute to the tendency for individuals to minimize their efforts on a collaborative task: equality of efforts, personal responsibility, and involvement (Shepperd, 1993). In particular, Harkins (1987) showed that individual efforts decreased when others could not readily identify the individual contributions. CONCLUSION As a field of inquiry matures and as applications to practice grow, refinements in thinking occur. Slavin (1996) contributed to this evolution by attempting to reconcile apparently conflicting theoretical positions on cooperative learning and achievement and to call for additional research in areas worthy of further exploration. For our part, we sought to add further to this evolution by critically commenting on Slavin’s model and showing ways that it may be further developed and expanded. We saw the underlying processes of cooperative learning as divisible into motivational and learning mechanisms. Furthermore, we suggested that group goals are affected by one or more sources—outcome motives, means motives, and interpersonal motives. Slavin (1996) called for additional research in several areas including group outcome, group composition, professional development, curriculum design, and the application of cooperative learning in new areas. We expanded upon his concerns and introduced some additional avenues for investigation. Thus, we
JOBNAME: Vol 21#1 PAGE: 9 SESS: 20 OUTPUT: Sat Apr 27 17:20:34 1996 /xypage/worksmart/tsp000/66511f/6
78
ABRAMI AND CHAMBERS
hope our ideas promote constructive controversy among researchers and practitioners in the area. REFERENCES ABRAMI, P. C., CHAMBERS, B., D’APPOLONIA, S., FARRELL, M., & De SIMONE, C. (1992). Group outcome: The relationship between group learning outcome, attributional style, academic achievement, and self-concept. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 17, 201–210. ABRAMI, P. C., CHAMBERS, B., POULSEN, C., De SIMONE, C., D’APPOLLONIA, S., & HOWDEN, J. (1995). Classroom connections: Understanding and using cooperative learning, Toronto, ON: Harcourt Brace. AMES, C. (1981). Competitive versus cooperative reward structures: The influence of individual and group performance factors on achievement attributions and affect. American Educational Research Journal, 18, 273–287. CAMERON, J., & PIERCE, W. D. (1994) Reinforcement, reward, and intrinsic motivation: A metaanalysis. Review of Educational Research, 64, 363–423. CHAMBERS, B. (1993). Cooperative learning in kindergarten. International Journal of Early Childhood, 25, 31–36. CHAMBERS, B., & ABRAMI, P. C. (1991). The relationship between student team learning outcomes and achievement, causal attributions, and affect. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 140– 146. COHEN, E. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64, 1–35. HARKINS, S. G. (1987). Social loafing and social facilitation. Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology, 23, 1–18. JOHNSON, D. W., & JOHNSON, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research, Edina, MN: Interaction Book. JOHNSON, D. W., JOHNSON, R. T., & JOHNSON-HOLUBEC, E. J. (1993). Cooperation in the classroom (6th ed.). Edina, MN: Interaction Book. KAGAN, S. (1992). Cooperative learning: Resources for teachers. San Juan Capistrano, CA: Resources for Teachers. LOU, Y., ABRAMI, P. C., SPENCE, J. C., D’APOLLONIA, S., CHAMBERS, B., & POULSEN, C. (1996a, April). A meta-analysis of the effects of homogeneous versus heterogeneous group ability composition on student achievement: Looking at the “best” evidence. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York. LOU, Y., ABRAMI, P. C., SPENCE, J., POULSEN, C., CHAMBERS, B., & D’APOLLONIA, S. (1996b). Within-class grouping. Manuscript submitted for publication. LOU, Y., ABRAMI, P. C., SPENCE, J. C., POULSEN, C., CHAMBERS, B., & D’APOLLONIA, S. (1995, April). To group or not to group? A meta-analysis of the effects of within-class grouping on student achievement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. QIN, Z., JOHNSON, D. W., & JOHNSON, R. T. (1995). Cooperative versus competitive efforts and problem solving. Review of Educational Research, 65, 129–144. ROBINSON, A. (1990). Cooperation or exploitation? The argument against cooperative learning for talented students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 14, 9–27. SAVARD, M., MITCHELL, S. N., ABRAMI, P. C., & CORSO, M. (1995). Learning together at a distance. Canadian Journal of Educational Communication, 24, 115–128. SHEPPERD, J. A. (1993). Productivity loss in performance groups: A motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 67–81. SLAVIN, R. E. (1987). Ability grouping and student achievement in elementary schools: a bestevidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 57, 293–336.
JOBNAME: Vol 21#1 PAGE: 10 SESS: 21 OUTPUT: Sat Apr 27 17:20:34 1996 /xypage/worksmart/tsp000/66511f/6
COOPERATIVE LEARNINGS
79
SLAVIN, R. E. (1989). Cooperative learning and student achievement. In R. E. SLAVIN, (Ed.), School and classroom organization (pp. 129–156). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. SLAVIN, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. SLAVIN, R. E. (1996). Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What we know, what we need to know. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 43–69. STEINER, I. D. (1972). Group processes and productivity. New York: Academic Press. STEVENS, R. J., MADDEN, N. A., SLAVIN, R. E., & FARNISH, A. M. (1987). Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition: Two field experiments. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 433–454. STEVENS, R. J., SLAVIN, R. E., & FARNISH, A. M. (1991). The effects of cooperative learning and direct instruction in reading comprehension strategies on main idea identification. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 8–16. URDAN, T. C., & MAEHR, M. L. (1995). Beyond a two-goal theory of motivation and achievement: A case for social goals. Review of Educational Research, 65, 213–243. WEBB, N. M. (1989). Peer interaction and learning in small groups. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 21–39. WEINER, B. (1986). An attribution theory of motivation and emotion. New York: Springer-Verlag.