RESEARCH RATIONALE

RESEARCH RATIONALE

Working together to get the job done can have profound effects on students and staff members. A great son & It. Johnson, 1974, 1978, 1983, 1989a; Johnson, Johnson, & Maruyama, 1983; Johnson, Maruyama, Johnson, Nelson, & Skon, 1981; Pepitone, 1980; Sharan, 1980; Slavin, 1983). These research studies began in the late 1890s when Triplett (1898) in the United States and Mayer (1903) in Germany conducted a series on the factors associated with competitive performance. The amount of research that has been conducted since then is staggering. During the past 90 years, more than 600 studies have been conducted by a wide variety of researchers in different decades with different age subjects, in different subject areas, and in different environments. We know far more about the efficacy of cooperative learning than we know about lecturing, age grouping, beginning reading instruction at age 6, departmentalization, or almost any other facet of education.

Building on the theorizing of Kurt Lewin (1935) and Morton Deutsch (1949), the premise may be made that the type of interdependence structured among students determines how they interact with each other, which in turn largely determines instructional outcomes. The quality of peer relationships, furthermore, has widespread and powerful impact on individuals' cognitive and social development.

Cooperative Efforts and Achievement/Productivity

The highest and best form of efficiency is the spontaneous cooperation of a free people.

(Woodrow Wilson)

How successful competitive, individualistic, and cooperative efforts are in promoting productivity and achievement is the first question pragmatists ask about social interdependence. More than 875 studies have been conducted during the past 90 years to give an answer (Johnson & R. Johnson, 1989a). When all of the studies were included in the analysis, the average cooperator performed at about two thirds a standard deviation above average student learning within a competitive (effect size = 0.66) or individualistic situation (effect size 0.63). When only the high-quality studies were included in the analysis, the effect sizes are 0.86 and 0.59 respectively. Cooperative learning, furthermore, resulted in more higher level reasoning, more frequent generation of new ideas and solutions (i.e., process gain), and greater transfer of what is learned within one situation to another (i.e., group-to-individual transfer) than did competitive or individualistic learning.

The fad that working together to achieve a common goal produces higher achievement and greater productivity than does working alone is so well confirmed by so much research that it stands as one of the strongest principles of social and organizational psychology. Cooperative learning is indicated whenever learning goals are highly important, mastery and retention are important, a task is complex or conceptual, problem solving is desired, divergent thinking or creativity is desired, quality of performance is expected, and higher-level reasoning strategies and critical thinking are needed.

Participants in the research have varied widely as to economic class, age, sex, and cultural background. A variety of tasks and measures of the dependent variables have been studied. Studies have been conducted by many different researchers with markedly different orientations working in different environments and in different decades. This means that the overall body of research on social interdependence has considerable generalizability, as shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Social interdependence: Weighted findings
	Mean	Standard deviation	na
Achievement
Cooperative vs. competitive	0.66	0.94	128
Cooperative vs. individualistic	0.63	0.81	182
Competitive vs. individualistic	0.30	0.76	39
Interpersonal attraction
Cooperative vs. competitive	0.65	0.47	88
Cooperative vs. individualistic	0.62	0.59	59
Competitive vs. individualistic	0.08	0.70	15
Social support
Cooperative vs. competitive	0.59	0.39	75
Cooperative vs. individualistic	0.71	0.45	70
Competitive vs. individualistic	-0.12	0.37	18
Self-esteem
Cooperative vs. competitive	0.60	0.57	55
Cooperative vs. individualistic	0.44	0.40	37
Competitive vs. individualistic	-0.19	0.40	18

^an = number of studies in sample

Interpersonal Relationships and Acceptance of Differences

One of the most important and long-standing goals of American education is to promote constructive relationships and positive attitudes among heterogeneous students. Almost every school district has acceptance of differences as one of their stated goals for students. Legislation exists that proclaims it is unlawful to segregate any student for educational purposes unless it is absolutely necessary. Ethnic minorities, students with disabilities, non—English-speaking students, and even females interested in science and math are examples of areas of students who need to be integrated with a wide variety of peers. Acceptance of differences is a central issue for all students.

Cooperative learning experiences, compared with competitive, individualistic, and "traditional" instruction, promote considerably more liking among students (effect sizes = 0.65 and 0.62 respectively) (Johnson & R. Johnson, 1989a; Johnson et al., 1983). This is true regardless of differences in ability level, sex, disability, ethnic membership, social class differences, or task orientation, Students who collaborate on their studies develop considerable commitment and caring for each other no matter what their initial impressions of and attitudes toward each other were when they started. They also like the teacher more and perceive the teacher as being more supportive and accepting academically and personally.

It is when students with disabilities are liked, accepted, and chosen as friends that inclusion becomes a positive influence on the lives of students with and without disabilities. Thus, any definition of inclusion that does not recognize the importance of relationships among students with and without disabilities is incomplete. It is peers without disabilities who provide students with disabilities entry into the typical life experiences of their age groups, such as going to dances, taking buses, going to movies, shopping, knowing what is "cool" and what is not, and dating. Constructive peer relationships are not only an absolute necessity for maximal achievement and healthy social and cognitive development, they may be the primary relationship within which development and socialization take place. Students with disabilities especially need access to peers who are highly motivated and behave appropriately. Placing students with disabilities in the corner of a classroom and providing individualistic learning experiences is not effective inclusion.

Inclusion is not something teachers do for a few students. It is something teachers do for every student in their class. The instructional procedures needed for the constructive inclusion of students with disabilities also benefit the shy student sitting over by the window, the over-aggressive student who seeks acceptance through negative behaviors, the bright but stereotyped student sitting in the front row, and the average student in the center of the classroom who needs very little help and is often neglected. All students need to be accepted and benefit from a classroom where it is acceptable to be different. We have also found in our research that when students without disabilities collaborate with their peers with disabilities on instructional tasks, the result is increased empathy, altruism, and an ability to view situations from a variety of perspectives. Even the most well-adjusted and hard-working students benefit from the instructional techniques associated with inclusion when it is structured effectively.

Accuracy of Perspective Taking

Social perspective taking is the ability to understand how a situation appears to another person and how that person is reacting cognitively and emotionally to the situation. The opposite of perspective taking is egocentrism, the embedded ness in one’s own viewpoint to the extent that one is unaware of other points of view and of the limitations of one's perspectives. Cooperative learning experiences tend to promote greater cognitive and affective perspective taking than do competitive or individualistic learning experiences (Johnson & R. Johnson, 1989a).

Creativity

Cooperative learning promotes creative thinking by increasing the number of ideas, quality of ideas, feelings of stimulation and enjoyment, and originality of expression in creative problem solving (Bahn, 1964; Bolen & ‘Thrrance, 1976; Dunnette, Campbell, & Jaastad, 1963; Ehlk & Johnson, 1977; Peters & ‘Ibrrance, 1972; Thrrance, 1970, 1971, 1973; Triandis, Bass, Ewen, & Mikesell, 1963). It is not surprising that students are "triggered" by the ideas of others and that different perspectives cause group members to consider a larger number of alternatives. The cooperative relationship also provides a context to consider and appreciate other group members’ ideas instead of ignoring (individualistic) or trying to come up with a better one (competition).

Self-Esteem

The data in Table 1 indicate that cooperation produced higher levels of self-esteem than did competitive and individualistic efforts (effect sizes of 0.58 and 0.44 respectively) with regard to self-esteem. Individuals with low self-esteem tend to (Johnson & R. Johnson, 1989a):

1.     Have low productivity due to setting low goals for themselves, lacking confidence in their ability, and assuming that they will fail no matter how hard they try.

2.     Are critical of others as well as themselves by looking for flaws in others and trying to "tear them down."

3.     Withdraw socially due to feeling awkward, self-conscious, and vulnerable to rejection.

4.     Are conforming, agreeable, highly persuadable, and highly influenced by criticism.

5.     Develop psychological problems such as anxiety, nervousness, insomnia, depression, and psychosomatic symptoms.

Within competitive situations, self-esteem tends to be based on the contingent view of one’s competence that, "If I win, then I have worth as a person, but if I lose, then I have no worth." Winners attribute their success to superior ability and attribute the failure of others to lack of ability, both of which contribute to self-aggrandizement. Losers, who are the vast majority, defensively tend to be self-disparaging, apprehensive about evaluation, and tend to withdraw psychologically and physically. Within individualistic situations, students are isolated from one another, receive little direct comparison with or feedback from peers, and perceive evaluations as inaccurate and unrealistic. A defensive avoidance, evaluation apprehension, and distrust of peers results. Within cooperative situations, individuals tend to interact, promote each other’s success, form multidimensional and realistic impressions of each other’s competencies, and give accurate feedback. Such interaction tends to promote a basic acceptance of oneself as a competent person.

Understanding Interdependence

Cooperative learning simultaneously models interdependence and provides students with the experiences they need to understand the nature of cooperation (Johnson-& Johnson, 1989a). The future of the world depends on the constructive and competent management of world interdependence as well as interdependence in family, work, community, and societal environments. Students who have had 12-20 years of cooperative learning and who have had opportunities to work cooperatively with students who vary in ability, ethnicity, gender, and so forth will be better able to build positively interdependent relationships than will students who have had 12-20 years of competitive and individualistic learning.

RELATIONSHIPS AMONG OUTCOMES

There are bi-directional relationships, as shown in Figure 1, among achievement, quality of interpersonal relationships, and psychological health (Johnson & Johnson, 1989b). Each influences the others. Caring and committed friendships come from a sense of mutual accomplishment, mutual pride in joint work, and the bonding that results from joint efforts.

The more students care about each other, the harder they will work to achieve mutual learning goals. Long-term and persistent efforts to achieve do not come from the head; they come from the heart (Johnson & Johnson, 1989b). Individuals seek out opportunities to work with those they care about. As caring increases, so do feelings of personal responsibility to do one's share of the work, a willingness to take on difficult tasks, motivation and persistence in working toward goal achievement, and a willing-ness to endure pain and frustration on behalf of the group. All these contribute to group productivity.

In addition, the joint success experienced in working together to get the job done enhances social competencies, self-esteem, and general psychological health. The more psychologically healthy individuals are, the better able they are to work with others to achieve mutual goals. Joint efforts require coordination, effective communication, leadership, and conflict management. States of depression, anxiety, guilt, shame, and anger decrease the energy available to contribute to a cooperative effort.

Finally, the more positive interpersonal relationships are, the greater the psychological health of the individuals involved- Through the internalization of positive relationships, direct social support, shared intimacy, and expressionsof caring, psychological health and the ability to cope with stress are built. Destructive relationships and the absence of caring and committed relationships tend to increase psychological pathology, Moreover, depression, anxiety, guilt, shame, and anger decrease an individual’s ability to build and maintain caring and committed relationships. The more psychologically healthy individuals are, the more they can build and maintain meaningful and caring relationships.

With the amount of research evidence available, it is surprising that classroom practice is so oriented toward individualistic and competitive learning and schools are so dominated by a competitive/individualistic structure. It is time for the discrepancy to be reduced between what research indicates is effective in teaching and what teachers actually do.

BACK TO THE BASICS

Our research and the research of many others dating back to the late 1800s has established that having students work together cooperatively is a powerful way for them to learn and has positive effects on the classroom and school climate This has been verified by teachers in classrooms from preschool through graduate school. However, the importance of emphasizing cooperative learning in classrooms goes beyond just achievement, positive relationships, and psychological health.

The ability of all students to learn to work cooperatively with others is the keystone to building and maintaining stable marriages, families, careers, and friendships. Being able to perform technical skills, such as reading, speaking, listening, writing, computing, and problem solving, are valuable but of little use if the person cannot apply those skills in cooperative interaction with other people in career, family, and community environments. The most logical way to emphasize the use of students' knowledge and skills within a cooperative framework, such as they will meet as members of society, is to spend much of the time learning those skills in cooperative relationships with each other. We need to get back to the basics, reconcile school practices with current research, and encourage that a healthy portion of instruction is cooperative.

ELEMENTS OF COOPERATIVE LEARNING

ELEMENTS OF COOPERATIVE LEARNING

It is only under certain conditions that cooperative efforts may be expected to be more productive than competitive and individualistic efforts. Those conditions are:

1.     Clearly perceived positive interdependence

2.     Considerable promotive (face-to-face) interaction

3.     Clearly perceived individual accountability and personal responsibility to achieve the group’s goals

4.     Frequent use of the relevant interpersonal and small-group skills

5.     Frequent and regular group processing of current functioning to improve the group’s future effectiveness

All healthy cooperative relationships have these five basic elements present. This is true of peer tutoring, partner learning, peer mediation, adult work groups, families, and other cooperative relationships. This conceptual "yardstick" should define any cooperative relationship.

Positive Interdependence

The first requirement for an effectively structured cooperative lesson is that students believe that they "sink or swim together." Within cooperative learning situations, students have two responsibilities: 1) learn the assigned material, and 2) ensure that all members of the group learn the assigned material. The technical term for that dual responsibility is positive interdependence. Positive interdependence exists when students perceive that they are linked with group mates in such a way that they cannot succeed unless their group mates do (and vice versa) and/or that they must coordinate their efforts with the efforts of their group mates to complete a task. Positive interdependence promotes a situation in which students: 1) see that their work benefits group mates and their group mates' work benefits them, and 2) work together in small groups to maximize the learning of all members by sharing their resources to provide mutual support and encouragement and to celebrate their joint success. When positive interdependence is clearly understood, it establishes that:

1.     Each group member's efforts are required and indispensable for group success (i.e., there can be no "free-riders").

2.     Each group member has a unique contribution to make to the joint effort because of his or her resources and/or role and task responsibilities.

There are a number of ways of structuring positive interdependence within a learning group.

Positive Goal Interdependence Students perceive that they can achieve their learning goals if’ and only if all the members of their group also attain their goals. The group is united around a common goal -- a concrete reason for being. To ensure that students believe they "sink or swim together" and care about how much each other learns, the teacher has to structure a clear group or mutual goal, such as "learn the assigned material and make sure that all members of the group learn the assigned material." The group goal always has to be a part of the lesson.

Positive Reward -- Celebrate Interdependence Each group member receives the same reward when the group achieves its goals. To supplement goal interdependence, teachers may wish to add joint rewards (e.g., if all members of the group score 90% correct or better on the test, each receives 5 bonus points). Sometimes teachers give students: 1) a group grade for the overall production of their group, 2) an individual grade resulting from tests, and 3) bonus points if all members of the group achieve the criterion on tests. Regular celebrations of group efforts and success enhance the quality of cooperation.

Positive Resource Interdependence Each group member has only a portion of the resources, information, or materials necessary for the task to be completed; the members’ resources have to be combined for the group to achieve its goals. Teachers may wish to highlight the cooperative relationships by giving students limited resources that must be shared (one copy of the problem or task per group) or giving each student part of the required resources that the group must then fit together (the Jigsaw procedure).

Positive Role Interdependence Each member is assigned complementary and interconnected roles that specify responsibilities that the group needs in order to complete the joint task. Teachers create role interdependence among students when they assign them complementary roles such as reader, recorder, checker of understanding, encourager of participation, and elaborator of knowledge. Such roles are vital to high-quality learning. The role of checker, for example, focuses on periodically asking each group mate to explain what is being learned. Rosenshine and Stevens (1986) reviewed a large body of well-controlled research on teaching effectiveness at the pre-collegiate level and found "checking for comprehension" to be one specific teaching behavior that was significantly associated with higher levels of student learning and achievement. Although the teacher cannot continually check the understanding of every student, the teacher can engineer such checking by having students work in cooperative groups and assigning one member the role of checker.

There are other types of positive interdependence. Positive task interdependence exists when a division of labor is created so that the actions of one group member have to be completed if the next member is to complete his or her responsibility. Positive identity interdependence exists when a mutual identity is established through a name or motto. Outside threat interdependence exists when groups are placed in competition with each other. Fantasy interdependence exists when a task is given that requires group members to imagine that they are in a hypothetical situation.

We have conducted a series of studies investigating the nature of positive interdependence and the relative power of the different types of positive interdependence (Hwong, Caswell, Johnson, & Johnson, 1993; Johnson, Johnson, Ortiz, & Starme, 1991; Johnson, Johnson, Stanne, & Garibaldi, 1990; Low, Mesch, Johnson, & Johnson, 1986a, 1986b; Mesch, Johnson, & Johnson, 1988; Mesch, Lew, Johnson, & Johnson, 1986). Our research indicates that positive interdependence provides the context within which promotive interaction takes place. Group membership and interpersonal interaction among students do not produce higher achievement unless positive interdependence is clearly structured. The combination of goal and reward interdependence increases achievement over goal interdependence alone and resource interdependence does not increase achievement unless goal interdependence is present also.

2. Face-to-Face Promotive Interaction

In an industrial organization, it's the group effort that counts. There's really no room for stars in an industrial organization. You need talented people, but they can't do it alone. They have to have help.

(John F. Donnelly, President, Donnelly Mirrors)

Positive interdependence results in promotive interaction. Promotive interaction may be defined as individuals encouraging and facilitating each other's efforts to achieve, complete tasks, and produce in order to reach the group's goals. Although positive interdependence in and of itself may have some effect on outcomes, it is the face-to-face promotive interaction among individuals fostered by the positive inter-relationships, and psychological adjustment and social competence. Promotive interaction is characterized by individuals providing each other with efficient and effective help and assistance; exchanging needed resources, such as information and materials, and processing information more efficiently and effectively; providing each other with feedback in order to improve their subsequent performance; challenging each other's conclusions and reasoning in order to promote higher quality decision making and greater insight into the problems being considered; advocating the exertion of effort to achieve mutual goals; influencing each other’s efforts to achieve the group's goals; acting in trusting and trustworthy ways; being motivated to strive for mutual benefit; and maintaining a moderate level of arousal characterized by low anxiety and stress.

3. Individual Accountability/Personal Responsibility

What children can do together today, they can do alone tomorrow.

(Let Vygotsky, 1962)

Among the early settlers of Massachusetts there was a saying, "If you do not work, you do not eat." Everyone had to do their fair share of the work. The third essential element of cooperative learning is individual accountability, which exists when the performance of individual students is assessed, the results are given back to the individual and the group, and the student is held responsible by group mates for contributing his or her fair share to the group’s success. It is important that the group-knows who needs more assistance, support, and encouragement in completing the assignment. It is also important that group members know they cannot "hitchhike" on the work of others. When it is difficult to identify members' contributions, when members' contributions are redundant, and when members are not responsible for the final group outcome, they may be seeking a free ride (Harkins & Petty, 1982; Ingham, Levinger, Graves, & Peckham, 1974; Kerr & Bruun, 1981; Latane, Williams, & Harkins, 1979; Moede, 1927; Petty, 1-larkins, Williams, & Latane, 1977; Williams, 1981; Williams, Harkins, & Latane, 1981). This is called social loafing.

The purpose of cooperative learning groups is to make each member a stronger individual in his or her own right. Individual accountability is the key to ensuring that all group members are, in fact, strengthened by learning cooperatively. After participating in a cooperative lesson, group members should be better prepared to complete similar tasks by themselves.

To ensure that each student is individually accountable to do his or her fair share of the group’s work, teachers need to assess how much effort each member is contributing to the group’s work, provide feedback to groups and individual students, help groups avoid redundant efforts by members, and ensure that every member is responsible for the final outcome. Common ways to structure individual accountability include:

1.     Keeping the size of the group small. The smaller the size of the group, the greater the individual accountability may be.

2.     Giving an individual test to each student.

3.     Randomly examining students orally by calling on one student to present his or her group's work to the teacher (in the presence of the group) or to the entire class.

4.     Observing each group and recording the frequency with which each member-contributes to the group's work.

5.     Assigning one student in each group the role of checker. The checker asks other group members to explain the reasoning and rationale underlying group answers.

6.     Having students teach what they learned to someone else. When all students do this, it is called simultaneous explaining.

There is a pattern to classroom learning. First, students learn knowledge, skills, strategies, or procedures in a cooperative group. Second, students apply the knowledge or perform the skill, strategy, or procedure alone to demonstrate their personal mastery of the material. Students learn it together and then perform it alone.

4. Interpersonal and Small-Group Skills

I will pay more for the ability to deal with people than any other ability under the sun.

(John D. Rockefeller)

The fourth essential element of cooperative learning is the appropriate use of interpersonal and small-group skills. In order to coordinate efforts to achieve mutual goals, students must: 1) get to know and trust each other, 2) communicate accurately and unambiguously, 3) accept and support each other, and 4) resolve conflict constructively (Johnson, 1990, 1991; Johnson & F. Johnson, 1991). Placing socially unskilled students in a group and telling them to cooperate does not guarantee that they have the ability to do so effectively. We are not born instinctively knowing how to interact effectively with others. Interpersonal and small-group skills do not magically appear when they are needed. Students must be taught the social skills required for high quality collaboration and be motivated to use them if cooperative groups are to be productive. The whole field of group dynamics is based on the premise that social skills are the key to group productivity (Johnson & F. Johnson, 1991).

The more socially skillful students are and the more attention teachers pay-to teaching and rewarding the use of social skills, the higher the achievement that can be expected within cooperative learning groups. In their studies on the long-term implementation of cooperative learning, Lew and Mesch (Lew et al., 1986a, 1986b; Mesch et al., 1988; Mesch et al., 1986) investigated the impact of a reward contingency for using social skills as well as positive interdependence and a contingency for academic achievement on performance within cooperative learning groups. In the cooperative skills conditions, students were trained weekly in four social skills and each member of a cooperative group was given two bonus points toward the quiz grade if all group members were observed by the teacher to demonstrate three out of four cooperative skills. The results indicated that the combination of positive interdependence, an academic contingency for high performance by all group members, and a social skills contingency promoted the highest achievement.

5. Group Processing

Take care of each other. Share your energies with the group. No one must feel alone, cut off, for that is when you do not make it.

(Willi Unsoeld, Renowned Mountain Climber)

The fifth essential component of cooperative learning is group processing. Effective group work is influenced by whether or not groups reflect on (i.e., process) how well they are functioning. A process is an identifiable sequence of events taking place over time, and process goals refer to the sequence of events instrumental in achieving outcome goals (Johnson & F. Johnson, 1991). Group processing may be defined as reflecting on a group session to: 1) describe what member actions were helpful and unhelpful, and 2) make decisions about what actions to continue or change. The purpose of group processing is to clarify and improve the effectiveness of the members in contributing to the collaborative efforts to achieve the group’s goals.

While the teacher systematically observes the cooperative learning groups, he or she attains a "window" into what students do and do not understand as they explain to each other how to complete the assignment. Listening in on the students' explanations provides valuable information about bow well the students understand the instructions, the major concepts and strategies being learned, and the basic elements of cooperative learning.

There are two levels of processing -- small group and whole class. In order to ensure that small-group processing takes place, teachers allocate some time at the end of each class session for each cooperative group to process how effectively members worked together. Groups need to describe what member actions were helpful and not helpful in completing the group's work and make decisions about what behaviors to continue or change. Such processing: 1) enables learning groups to focus on maintaining good working relationships among members, 2) facilitates the learning of cooperative skills, 3) ensures that members receive feedback on their participation, 4) ensures that students think on the metacognitive as well as the cognitive level, and 5) provides the means to celebrate the success of the group and reinforce the positive behaviors of group members. Some of the keys to successful small-group processing are allowing sufficient time for it to take place, providing a structure for processing (e.g., "List three things your group is doing well today and one thing you could improve."), emphasizing positive feedback, making the processing specific rather than general, maintaining student involvement in processing, reminding students to use their cooperative skills while they process, and communicating clear expectations as to the purpose of processing.

In addition to small-group processing, the teacher should periodically engage in whole-class processing. When cooperative learning groups are used, the teacher observes the groups, analyzes the problems they have working together, and gives feedback to each group on how well they are working together. The teacher systematically moves from group to group and observes them at work. A formal observation sheet may be used to gather specific data on each group. At the end of the class period the teacher can then conduct a whole-class processing session by sharing with the class the results of his or her observations. If each group has a peer observer, the results of their observations may be added together to get overall class data.

An important aspect of both small-group and whole-class processing is group and class celebrations. It is feeling successful, appreciated, and respected that builds commitment to learning, enthusiasm about working in cooperative groups, and a sense of self-efficacy in terms of subject-matter mastery and working cooperatively with classmates.

REFERENCES

REFERENCES

Bahn, C. (1964). The interaction of creativity and social facilitation in creative problem solving. Doctoral dissertation. Columbia University, Ann Arbor, MI. (University Microfilms No- 65-7499)

Bolen, L., & Torrance, E. (1976, April). An experimental study of the influence of locus of control, dyadic interaction, and sex on creative thinking. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.

Deutach, M. (1949). A theory of cooperation and competition. Human Relations, 2,129-152.

Dunnette, M~, Campbell, J., & Jaastad, K. (1963). The effect of group participation on brainstorming effectiveness of two industrial samples. Journal of Applied Psychology, 47, 30-87.

Falk, ID., & Johnson, D.W. (1977). The effects of perspective-taking and ego-centrism on problem solving in heterogeneous and homogeneous groups. Journal of Social Psychology, 102, 63-72.

Harkins, S., & Petty, H. (1982). The effects of task difficulty and task uniqueness on social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43,1214-1229.

Hwong, N., Caswell, A., Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, H. (1993). Effects of cooperative and individualistic learning on prospective elementary teachers’ music achievement and attitudes. Journal of Social Psychology, 133(1), 58-64.

lngham, A., Levinger, C., Craves, A., & Peckham, V. (1974). The Ringelmann effect: Studies of group size and group performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10, 371- 384.

Johnson, D.W. (1990). Reaching out: Interpersonal effectiveness and self- actualization (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Johnson, D.W. (1991). Human relations and your career (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, F. (1991). Joining together: Group theory and group skills (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R. (1974). Instructional goal structure: Cooperative, competitive, or individualistic. Review of Educational Research, 44,213-240.

Johnson, 11W., & Johnson, R. (1978). Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning Journal of Research and Development in Education, 12, 8 -15.

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

Johnson DXV., & Johnson, R. (1989a). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina, MN: interaction Book Company.

Johnson, DXV., & Johnson, H. (1989b). Leading the cooperative school. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.

Johnson, D.W., & Johnson H. (1991). Learning together and alone: Cooperation, competition, and individualization (3rd ed.). Engkwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Johnson, D.W., Johnson, H., & Maruyama, ( (1983). Interdependence and interpersonal attraction among heterogeneous and homogeneous individuals: A theoretical formulation and a meta-analysis of the research. Review of Educational Research, 53, 5-54.

Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R., Ortiz, A., & Stanne, M. (1991). Impact of positive goal and resource interdependence on achievement, interaction, and attitudes. Journal of General Psychology, 118(4), 341-347.

Johnson, UW., Johnson, H., Stanne, M,, & Garibaldi, A. (1990). Impact of group processing on achievement in cooperative groups. Journal of Social Psychology, 130, 507-516.

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

Kerr, N., & Bruon, 5. (1931). Ringelmann revisited: Alternative explanations for the social loafing effect. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7, 224-281.

Latane, B,, Williams, K., & 1-larkins, S. (1979). Many hands make light work: The causes and consequences of social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 822-882.

Lew, M., Mesch, ID., Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, H. (1986a). Components of cooperative learning: Effects of collaborative skills and academic group contingencies on achievement and mainstreaming. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 11, 229-239.

Lew, M., Mesch, U., Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, H. (1986b). Positive interdependence, academic and collaborative-skills group contingencies and isolated students. American Educational Research Journal, 23, 476-488.

Lewin, K. (1935). A dynamic theory of personality. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Mayer, A. (1908). Uber einzel und gesamtleistung des schul kindes. [About individual and overall achievement of school children]. Arc/tic for die Gesamte Psychologie, 1, 276-418

Mesch, U., Johnson, D,W., & Johnson, R. (1988). Impact of positive interdependence and academic group contingencies on achievement. Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 845-852.

Meach, U., Lew, M., Johnson, 11W., & Johnson H. (1986). Isolated teenagers, cooperative learning and the training of social skills. Journal of Psychology, 120, 328-334.

Moede, W. (1927). Die richtlinien der leistungs psychologie (Guidelines for the psychology of performance]. lad ustrielle Psychotechnik, 4, 198-207.

Montagu, A. (1965). The human revolution. New York: World Pub Co.

Pepitone, E. (1980). Children in cooperation and competition. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Peters, H., & Thrrance, E. (1972). Dyadic interaction of preschool children and performance on a construction task. Psychological Reports, 30,747-750.

Petty, H., Harkins, S., Williams, K., & Latane, B. (1977). The effects of group size on cognitive effort and evaluation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 3, 575-578.

Rosenshine, B., & Stevens, B. (1986). Teaching functions. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.) (pp. 376-391). New York: Macmillan.

Sharan, S. (1980). Cooperative learning in teams: Recent methods and effects on achievement, attitudes, and ethnic relations. Review of Educational Research, 50, 241-272.

Slavin, R. (1988). Cooperative learning. New York: Longraan.

Thrrance, E. (1970). Influence of dyadic interaction on creative functioning. Psychological Reports,26, 891-394.

Torrance, E. (1971). Stimulation, enjoyment and originality in dyadic creativity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 62, 45-48.

‘Ibrrance, E. (1978, February). Dyadic interaction in creative thinking and problem solving. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association annual meeting, New Orleans.

Triandis, H., Bass, A., Ewen, H., & Mikesell, E. (1963). ‘Teaching creativity as a function of the creativity of the members. Journal of Applied Psychology, 47, 104-110.

Triplett, N. (1898). The dynamogenic factors in peacemaking and competition. American Journal of Psychology, 9, 507-533.

Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Williams, K. (1981). The effects of group cohesiveness on social loafing. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Detroit.

Williams, K., Harkins, S., & Latane, B. (1981). Identifiability as a deterrent to social loafing:

Two cheering experiments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 303-311.