No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Behavioural interactions of children in classroom-based work groups
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 12 February 2016
Extract
This paper discusses the results of a study which was conducted in 11 classes across three year levels (Years 2, 4, and 6) in four schools in suburban Brisbane. The study had two foci. It was designed firstly, to determine if there were differences between the cooperative behaviours, interactions, and types of language used by the children in the Structured and Unstructured groups; and secondly, to investigate whether there were differences across the year levels in the helping behaviours and interactions of the children in the two conditions. The study showed that when children work in Structured rather than Unstructured groups there are observable differences in the behaviours, interactions and language. The children in the Structured groups were consistently more cooperative and helpful to each other as they tried to involve each other in the learning task. They gave more explanations to assist each other's learning and they used more inclusive language (e.g. frequent use of “we” or “us”). Furthermore, these behaviours were exhibited by the children in the Structured groups across the three year levels. Group condition (Structured or Unstructured) was a significant predictor of group behaviours and interactions, and the type of language used.
- Type
- Research papers
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995
References
Bennett, N. (1991). Cooperative learning in classrooms: Process and outcomes. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 32, 581–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boggs, S. (1990). The role of routines in the evolution of children's talk. In Dorval, B. (Ed.), Conversational organisation and its development (pp. 101–130). Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex.Google Scholar
de Lemos, M. (1982). ACER Intermediate Test F. Hawthorn: The Australian Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar
Deutsch, M. (1949). A theory of cooperation and competition. Human Relations, 2, 129–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fantuzzo, J., King, A., & Heller, L. (1992). Effects of reciprocal peer tutoring on mathematics and school adjustment: A component analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 331–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foot, H.C., Morgan, M.J., & Shute, R.H. (1990). Children's helping relationships: An overview. In Foot, H.C., Morgan, M.J, & Shute, R.H. (Eds), Children helping children (pp.3–17). Chichester: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Fuchs, L., Fuchs, D., Bentz, J., Phillips, N., & Hamlett, C. (1994). The nature of student interactions during peer tutoring with and without prior training and experience. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 75–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gillies, R., & Ashman, A. (1994). The effects of structured cooperative learning. In Foot, H., Howe, C., Anderson, A., Tolmie, A., & Warden, D. (Eds), Group and interactive learning (pp.423–428). Southampton: Computational Mechanics.Google Scholar
Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (1989). Cooperation and helping in the classroom: A contextual approach. International Journal of Research in Education, 13, 113–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., Fuchs, I., Sharabany, R., & Eisenberg, N. (1989). Students' interactive and non-interactive behaviors in the classroom: A comparison between two types of classroom in the city and in the kibbutz in Israel. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 14, 22–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1990). Cooperative learning and achievement. In Sharan, S. (Ed.), Cooperative learning: Theory and research (pp.23–37). New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Kalkowski, P. (1988). Communication in cooperative learning groups. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.Google Scholar
King, A. (1990). Enhancing peer interaction and learning in the classroom through reciprocal questioning. American Educational Research Journal, 27, 664–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knight, G., & Bohlmeyer, E. (1990). Cooperative learning and achievement: Methods for assessing causal mechanisms. In Sharan, S. (Ed.), Cooperative learning theory and research (pp. 1–22). New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Otis, A., & Lennon, R. (1989). Otis-Lennon School Ability Test (6th Ed.). Marrickville: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
Sharan, S., & Shachar, H. (1988). Language and learning in the cooperative classroom. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharan, S., & Shaulov, A. (1990). Cooperative learning, motivation to learn, and academic achievement. In Sharan, S. (Ed.), Cooperative learning theory and research (pp. 173–202). New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Slavin, R. (1987). Developmental and motivational perspectives on cooperative learning: A reconciliation. Child Development, 58, 1161–1167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webb, N. (1985). Student interaction and learning in small groups: A research summary. In Slavin, R., Sharon, S., Kagan, S., Hertz-Larowitz, R., Webb, C., & Schmuck, R. (Eds), Learning to cooperate, cooperating to learn (pp. 5–15). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
Webb, N., & Cullinan, L. (1983). Group interactions and achievement in small groups: Stability over time. American Educational Research Journal, 20, 411–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webb, N., Ender, P., & Lewis, S. (1986). Problem-solving strategies and group processes in small groups learning computer programming. American Educational Research Journal, 23, 243–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yager, S., Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1986). Oral discussion, group to individual transfer in cooperative learning groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 60–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar