Effects of Workgroup Structure and Size on Student Productivity during Collaborative Work on Complex Tasks

By Lynn S. Fuchs, Douglas Fuchs, Sarah Kazdan, K. Karns, M. Calhoon, C. Hamlett, Sally Hewlett. The Elementary school journal, 2000

88 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Developmental and Educational Psychology, Education, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/895f3e9404caefb5386b95ddd1c7c7dc63a3fed7

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

In Education

In Social Psychology

Citations in the corpus

Collaborative Learning in Engineering Students: Gender and Achievement (2011, unknown): “Earlier research examined influences such as ability level (Webb, Nemer, Chizhik, & Sugrue, 1998; Webb & Palinscar, 1996), gender (Gillies & Ashman, 1995; Savicki, Kelley, & Lingenfelter, 1996; Webb, 1989; Wood, 1987), and number of collaborators (Fuchs et al., 2000; O’Donnell & O’Kelly, 1994).”
Designing for interaction: Six steps to designing computer-supported group-based learning (2004, background): “Fuchs et al. (2000) compared dyadic and four-member groups and observed that four-member group compositions elicited more cognitive conflict (disagreement and negotiation) than dyads, and appeared better suited for average and high-achieving students.”
Changes in grouping practices over primary and secondary school (2003, background): “While at the primary school level, pairs and triads were proportionally more often (though rarely used overall) engaged in peer interaction, as may be appropriate to their conversational skills (Baines, 1996; Fuchs et al., 2000; Smith, 1994), at the secondary stage peer interaction was most associat”
The Interpersonal Dynamics of Collaborative Reasoning in Peer Interactive Dyads (2003, methodology): “Instructional conditions shaping the nature of peer collaboration, interaction, and learning have been found in the nature of the activity setting designed for collaborative activity as well as in group composition features (Cohen, 1994; Fuchs et al., 2000; O’Donnell & Dansereau, 1992; Sharan, Shach”
The Collaboration of Mathematically Gifted Students on Challenging Tasks (2001, background): “However, it has been acknowledged that insufficient is known about the nature of collaboration on complex tasks (Fuchs et al., 2000) and that menial tasks provide little incentive for students to collaborate (Blumenfeld, Marx, Soloway, & Krajcik, 1996).”
Explaining the dialogic processes of teaching and learning: The value and potential of sociocultural theory (2012, background): “These variables included the size of the group (e.g. Fuchs & Fuchs, 2000), group composition, with respect to, for example, gender and ability, (e.g. Barbieri & Light, 1992; Howe, 1997; Webb, 1989; see also Wilkinson & Fung, 2002 for a review of work in this field) and the nature of the task (e.g.…”