Cooperative learning methods: A meta-analysis.

By David W. Johnson, Roger T. Johnson, M. Stanne, Minnesota Cooperative. 2012

1,025 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/93e997fd0e883cf7cceb3b1b612096c27aa40f90

How researchers see this paper

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

Citations in the corpus

Road Maps for Learning: A Guide to the Navigation of Learning Progressions (2011, background): “A similar message emerges in respect to peer-group work: A metaanalysis by Johnson, Johnson, and Stanne (2000) shows that collaborative groups produce significant learning gains, whereas where there is intra-group competition, group work produces no advantage over individual learning.”
The Cooperative Learning Effects on English Reading Comprehension and Learning Motivation of EFL Freshmen. (2013, methodology): “Cooperative learning was one of the most popular methods, and has been shown to have positive effects on various outcomes (Johnson & Johnson, 2002).”
Collaboration and psychological ownership: how does the tension between the two influence perceived learning? (2011, background): “Both ownership (Biggs 1999; Gross 1997; Jonassen 1999) and collaboration ( Johnson et al. 1998, 2000 ) may be advantageous for learning, but when they are in conflict, they may have trade-off relationships.”
Efficacy of the Cooperative Learning Method on Mathematics Achievement and Attitude: A Meta-Analysis Research. (2015, background): “Johnson, Johnson, and Stanne (2000) compiled 164 research findings which compared the eight cooperative learning techniques used mostly in meta-analysis studies (team-game-tournament, jigsaw, cooperation integrated reading, shared reading, student groups achievement parts, group assisted…”
The impact of cooperative learning on student engagement: Results from an intervention (2013, background): “Jigsaw and think-pair-share (Johnson et al., 2000) are some examples of cooperative learning structures; however, any form of peer interaction can be cooperative if it adheres to two basic principles: positive interdependence and individual accountability (Millis and Cottel, 1998; Slavin, 1996).”
The Effects of Jigsaw Learning on Students' Attitudes in a Vietnamese Higher Education Classroom. (2012, background): “When groups are small, group members tend to communicate more frequently, which increases the amount of information utilized in arriving at a decision (Johnson & Johnson, 2002).”
The National Effective Teaching Institute: Assessment of Impact and Implications for Faculty Development (2010, background): “…students to work in teams under conditions that assure individual accountability and meet the other defining criteria of cooperative learning (Johnson, Johnson, and Stanne, 2000), we infer that the NETI-motivated adoption or increased use of these teaching strategies by the nearly 1000 NETI…”
The Flipped Classroom: A Survey of the Research (2013, background): “[41] provide the most detail, ranking specific cooperative learning methods by effectiveness.”
THE EFFECT OF COOPERATIVE LEARNING STRATEGIES ON ELEMENTARY STUDENTS’ SCIENCE ACHIEVEMENT AND SOCIAL SKILLS IN KUWAIT (2011, background): “Johnson, Johnson & Stanne (2000) argued that cooperative learning can significantly increase student achievement (compared with teachercentered methods) when properly implemented; however, this does not mean that all operationalizations of cooperative learning will be equally effective.”
The flipped classroom and cooperative learning: Evidence from a randomised experiment (2016, background): “Email: njal.foldnes@bi.no persons involved in cooperative learning show a greater effort to achieve than persons involved in learning on their own, that is, when not learning in a group/as part of a team (Hassanien, 2007; Johnson et al., 2000; Roseth et al., 2008; Springer et al., 1999).”
A Meta-Analytic Review of Studies of the Effectiveness of Small-Group Learning Methods on Statistics Achievement (2014, background): “…by the teacher to establish individual accountability and personal responsibility, (d) development of interpersonal and small-group dynamic process skills, and (e) self-assessment of group functioning (Johnson and Johnson 2009; Johnson, Johnson, and Smith 1998; Johnson, Johnson, and Stanne 2000).”