Synthesis of Research on Cooperative Learning.

T here was once a time when it was taken for granted that a quiet class was a learning class, when principals walked down the hall expecting to be able to hear a pin drop. Today, however, many schools are using programs that foster the hum of voices in classrcxims. These programs, called cooperative learn ing, encourage students to discuss, debate, disagree, and ultimately to teach one another Cooperative learning has been sug gested as ihe solution for an astonish ing array of educational problems: it is often cited as a means of emphasizing thinking skills and increasing higherorder learning, as an alternative to ability grouping, remediation, or spe cial education; as a means of improv ing race relations and acceptance of mainstreamed students; and as a way to prepare students for an increasingly collaborative work force How many of these claims are justified? What ef fects do the various cooperative learn ing methods have on student achieve ment and other outcomes? Which forms of ccx>perative learning are most effective, and what components must be in place for cooperative learn ing to work? To answer these questions, I've syn thesized in this article the findings of studies of cooperative learning in ele mentary and secondary schools that have compared ccx>perative learning to traditionally taught control groups studying the same objectives over a peritxj of at least four weeks (and up to a full school year or more) Here I present a brief summary of the effects of cxxjperative learning on achieve ment and noncognitive outcomes; for a more extensive review, see Cooper-