CHAPTER 2

PEER INTERACTION AND LEARNING

IN SMALL GROUPS

NOREEN M. WEBB

University of California, Los Angeles

Abstract

This chapter discusses the kinds of peer interaction that influence learning in small groups and
describes the characteristics of students, groups and tasks that predict different patterns of peer
interaction. Based on previous empirical research, critical features of peer interaction include
the level of elaboration of help given and received, and the appropriateness of responses to
requests for help. Predictors of peer interaction in small groups include student ability, gender,
and personality, and group composition on ability and gender. Hypotheses about important,
but neglected, aspects of peer interaction that may predict learning are discussed.

Introduction

The opportunity for students to learn by interacting with each other, rather than only with
the teacher, is a topic of much interest to educational researchers and practitioners. In
particular, many teachers in the U.S. and abroad use cooperative small group problem-
solving in their classrooms to improve student learning, student motivation, and as a tool
to help manage large numbers of students (Slavin, 1983). While peer-directed small group
learning has a long history in the classroom (Wagner, 1982), only during the past decade
have researchers systematically examined the interaction among students that facilitates
or inhibits learning and the factors that lead to different patterns of interaction (see Webb,
1982~). This paper discusses the kinds of peer interaction that may influence student
learning in small groups and describes the characteristics of students, groups, and tasks
that predict different patterns of peer interaction. Where relationships among peer
interaction, learning outcomes, and student and group characteristics have not been
investigated empirically, hypotheses are generated and discussed.
This chapter focuses on small groups of students who are given material to learn, or a
problem or set of problems to solve. All students in the group are expected to master the

Correspondence should be addressed to Noreen Webb, Graduate School of Education, UCLA, Los Angeles,
California 90024, U.S.A.

21

Webb, N. M. (1989). Peer interaction and learning in small groups.

International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 21-40.
22 NOREEN M. WEBB

material. Students are expected (and usually instructed) to help each other learn the
material or solve the problem. Although students may have different abilities and
background experiences, they are not given specific roles, such as the tutors and tutees in
peer tutoring, nor are students given information not shared by their team-mates, such as
in some cooperative learning methods (e.g., Jigsaw, Aronson, 1978). Finally, all students
in the group are expected to master the material and know that they will take an
achievement test on the material. This contrasts with small group methods that require a
group product (e.g., a group report) but do not necessarily test students individually on
their mastery of the material (e.g., Group Investigation, Sharan & Sharan, 1976).
Although the relationships among variables described here may apply equally well to these
other small group methods, no empirical evidence is available to test them in these
alternative settings.

Peer Interaction and Learning in Small Groups

Putterns of Relationships

Figure 2. I presents a model of peer interaction and learning in small groups. It shows the
possible experiences that an individual student may have in a peer-directed small group
engaged in solving a problem. Each path through the model corresponds to a student’s
experiences on one part of a problem. Students may take different paths through the
model for different parts of a problem, with correspondingly different achievement
results. The model is derived from a combination of empirical results and hypothesis.
The far right side of the model shows the achievement outcomes for a part of a problem

Level or No

No Feedback

Figure 2. I Model of peer interaction and learning in small groups.

 Peer Interaction, Problem-Solving, and Cognition 23

or task that the group is working on. A student can show understanding of the material on
the achievement test (indicated by a + or ++) or can show incomplete or no
understanding of it (indicated by a -). The remainder of the model shows the experiences
of students that lead to those achievement outcomes.
The model has three starting points: (1) showing substantial difficulty in solving the
problem - making an error or asking how to solve the problem, (2) asking for specific
information (less than an explanation), and (3) giving no indication of difficulty - making
no error and asking no question. The effectiveness of the group’s response to questions
and errors depends both on the need for help indicated and on the level of elaboration
received. For students indicating substantial difficulty, the minimum response from the
group that can lead to successful problem-solving during group work and on the test is
high-level elaboration (explanations that describe in some detail how to solve the problem
or part of it). For students asking for specific information, receiving low-level elaboration
(the answer to a problem or other information that does not include an explanation) may
lead to successful problem-solving. Answering one’s own question or correcting one’s own
error leads to solving the problem correctly during group work and on the achievement
test.
Students do not necessarily make errors or ask questions about the task. Some of them
subsequently solve the problem correctly; others do not. Specific sequences of behavior
are described later in this chapter.
Finally, students who do learn the material sometimes give high-level elaboration to
their team-mates and sometimes do not. Those who do give high-level elaboration show
higher achievement than those who do not.

Description of Empirical Studies

Evidence about the relationships shown in Figure 2.1 come from 19 published studies on
learning mathematics and computer science in small groups in which specific kinds of
verbal behavior was linked to student achievement. In a typical study, the teacher gave a
brief introduction to the material to the whole class and then students worked on specific
problems in small groups (usually four students each). In some studies the teacher’s
introduction occurred at the beginning of the curriculum unit; in others the teacher gave
introductory remarks at the beginning of each class period. In small groups, students were
instructed to help each other and to ask questions of each other before consulting the
teacher. The instructions stressed the importance of each student learning the material.
Students turned in their own work each day and were expected to take an achievement test
at the end of the curriculum unit (typically, two weeks) without help from anyone. Most
studies audiotaped or videotaped group work and calculated frequencies of student
behavior from the tapes or transcipts of them. These frequencies were then related to
scores on the achievement test.
The 19 studies mentioned here (see Table 2.1) investigated students’ learning of many
mathematics topics, including time and money, division, fractions, geometry, algebra,
consumer mathematics, scientific notation, the metric system, area and perimeter,
probability, and computer programming, including Logo and Basic. Sample sizes ranged
form 24 to 105.
Most studies calculated partial correlations between behavior and achievement,
24 NOREEN M. WEBB

Table 2.1
Studies Linking Peer Interaction and Achievement in Small Groups

Study Grade level

Mathematics
1. Lindow, Wilkinson, & Peterson (1985) 2,3
2. Swing & Peterson (1982) 5
3. Peterson & Janicki (1979) 4,596
4. Peterson, Janicki, & Swing (1981) 4,5
5. Peterson & Swing (1985) 2,3
6. Peterson, Wilkinson, Spinelli, & Swing (1984) 2,3
7. Webb (1980a) 11
8. Webb (1980b) 11
9. Webb (1982a) 7.879
10. Webb (1982b) 738
11. Webb (1984~) 7-8
12. Webb (1984b) 7. 8
13. Webb & Cullian (1983) 738
14. Webb & Kenderski (1984) 7,8
15. Webb & Kenderski (1985) 9
16. Wilkinson, Lindow, & Chiang (1985) 2,3
17. Wilkinson & Spinelli (1983) 2.3

Computer Programming
18. Webb (1984a) 7,8,9
19. Webb, Ender, & Lewis (1986) 7,8,9

controlling for ability. Significant partial correlations help support the interpretation that
behavior influences learning, rather than the counter-interpretation that behavior is a
function of achievement level. It should be noted that these studies did not use infallible
measures of ability; that is, they did not take into account measurement error. The
resulting partial correlations may, as a result, overestimate or underestimate the true
relationships between behavior and achievement (for further discussion, see Anderson et
al., 1988).

Conditions for Help Received to be Effective

Whether help received is effective likely depends on many factors. One is whether the
student receiving help needs it. Students who already understand the material are not
likely to benefit from receiving help. When a student does need help, the effectiveness of
help received may depend on the following conditions: (I) the help must be relevant to the
particular misunderstanding or lack of understanding of the target student, (2) it must be
at a level of elaboration that corresponds to the level of help needed, (3) it must be given
in close proximity in time to the target student’s error or question, (4) the target student
must understand the explanation, (5) the target student must have an opportunity to use
the explanation to solve the problem (Vedder, 1985), and (6) the target student must use
that opportunity.
If the help is not relevant to the student’s need for help (typically indicated by a question
or error) or is at too low a level of elaboration (e.g., the answer instead of an explanation),
the target student will not be able to correct his or her difficulty. If the help received is
 Peer Interaction, Problem-Solving, and Cognition 25

relevant to the student’s difficulty and is at a sufficiently high level of elaboration, but the
target student does not understand it, or it is offered much later when the target student
no longer remembers what processes led to the error or question, it will not be of much use.
Even if the target student understands the help, it will be beneficial only if the target
student actually uses the explanation to solve the problem correctly. Applying the help
received will help the student to internalize it.
Students working in small groups are well-equipped to satisfy at least some of the
conditions just described for giving effective help. In particular, they have the potential for
giving understandable, timely explanations. Because they are working on the same
problems at the same time, they are “well tuned into” each others’ problem-solving
processes in a way that a teacher may not be (Vedder, 1985) and so can understand where
team-mates go wrong and what they do not understand. Students also share similar
language and can translate difficult vocabulary and expressions for each other (Noddings,
1985).
But giving timely, understandable explanations is not sufficient. There is anecdotal
evidence (see Shavelson et al., 1988) that when one student is perceived to have difficulty,
other students interrupt the first student’s work with continuous suggestions and
corrections. This behavior violates one of Vedder’s (1985, p. 37) conditions for good
teaching: giving students opportunities to try to solve problems themselves. Although
preventing students from solving problems on their own, without interruption, is not
unique to small groups, and has been observed among expert teachers and tutors
(Shavelson et al., 1988), it may be very detrimental for the target student’s learning. This
behavior may also prevent the group from assessing whether a student really understands
the explanations. Student may say they understand but not be able to solve the problem.
The most accurate indication of students’ understanding is their ability to solve the
problem on their own. For this reason, the model of peer interaction and learning
presented in Figure 2.1 explicitly includes the behaviors “correct problem-solving (aloud
or silently)” and “incomplete or no problem-solving”.

Level of Elaboration of Help Received: Empirical Results

Global Results

Few studies have examined the conditions of effective helping described above. In fact,
most studies distinguished between different kinds of help but did not link them to the
need for help. Table 2.2 shows the results concerning the relationship between receiving
different kinds of help and achievement. High-level elaboration consisted of explanations,
typically descriptions of how to solve the problem or part of it. Low-level elaboration
included the answer to a problem, giving nonelaborated information (“a nonelaborated
response which consisted of the explainer providing a simple but appropriate response to
a content-related question”, Peterson, Wilkinson, Spinelli, & Swing, 1984, p. I31),
procedural information (e.g., the location of the problems in the book), and managerial
information about nonacademic content. These categories are for correct help only. Too
few studies have looked at the relationship between receiving incorrect help and
achievement to report the results.
26 NOREEN M. WEBB

Table 2.2
Partial Correlations Between Receiving Help and Achievement

Study Nonelaborative Procedural Managerial

(see Table 2.1) Explanation information information information Answer

2” -0.01 0.06 -0.38s

0.06 0.03 -0.0’)
0.01 -0.02 -0.21
3 n.s.
4” n.s.
n.s.
9 0.62* 0.22 0.1x 0.42
6 -0.13 -0.08 -0.35** -0.09 -0.50**
8 0.63*
10 0.21* -0.06 -0.29*
-0.39**
12‘ -0.01,0.12 -0.33**.0.10
14 -0.01 -0.33** -0.26*
-0.26*
15 -0.03 0.10
18 0.34*, -0.21d 0.04
19” 0.45** 0.44**
-0.23 0.08
0.29 0.43**
-0.03 0.12

d Multiple tests administered: Study 1: division, fractions, retention; Study 4: post-test, retention; Study 19:
command knowledge, syntax, interpreting programs, generating programs.
h Higher-order and nonelaborative explanations combined.
’ Two studies conducted three months apart.
d First correlation: makes error and receives explanation; second correlation: asks for and receives
explanation.
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.

Receiving high-level elaboration shows a few significant positive relationships with

achievement. Most of the partial correlations, however, are not significantly different
from zero. Receiving nonelaborated information is sometimes significantly related to
achievement, but most correlations are not statistically significant. Nearly all of the
correlations for receiving the correct answer are negative and most are statistically
significant.
These results suggest that the effectiveness of help received may constitute a continuum.
Receiving explanations is sometimes helpful, receiving information has mixed effects (or
no effect), and receiving only the answer is harmful. However, because these results do not
take into account whether the help received satisfied the necessary conditions of
effectiveness described previously, they are ambiguous. Without knowing students’ need
for help, the relevance and adequacy of the help given, and whether the target student
could understand the help received, it is difficult to interpret the correlations. In studies
reporting significant positive correlations, the help received may have satisfied the
necessary conditions, whereas the help received in studies reporting nonsignificant or
negative correlations may not have.
 Peer Interaction, Problem-Solving, and Cognition 27

Responses to Requests for Help

Although no study has examined all of the necessary conditions for effective help, some
studies have systematically examined whether the level of elaboration of help received
corresponded to a student’s request for help. The results in Table 2.3 show the
relationships between help received and achievement for different indications of need:
requests for explanations, requests for information, and errors (assumed to indicate need
for an explanation).

Table 2.3
Partial Correlations Between Feedback to Questions and Errors and Achievement

Sequence of interaction Study Partial correlation

Asks for explanation

Receivcsexplanation 10 0.17
14 -0.02
15 0.03
1x -0.21
Receives answer without explanation 10 -0.39**
14 -0.26*
Receives no reply IO -0.43**
14 -0.40**
18 -0.26
Receives answer or no reply 15 -0.08

Asks for information

Receives information 10 -0.06
12 -0.33**,0.10”
15 0.25**
19 0.44**, 0.08.0.43*“, o.12h
Receives no reply 10 -0.40**
14 -0.49**
15 0.08
18 -O.42**

Asks for explanation, information

Receives no reply 9 -0.39**
13 -0.41***

Makes error
Receives explanation IO 0.17
14 0.03
18 0.34*
Receives answer without explanation 10 -0.27*
14 -0.26*
Is not corrected 10 -0.29*
14 -0.37**
18 -0.28

” Two studies conducted three months apart

h Multiple tests administered.
*p<o.05; **p<o.ot; ***p<o.o01.

Table 2.3 shows, first, that responses that exhibit lower levels of elaboration than
requested are uniformly negatively related to achievement. A student who makes an error
28 NOREEN M. WEBB

or asks a question about how to solve the problem clearly has a difficulty, whether a
misunderstanding or lack of understanding. It seems reasonable, then, that receiving less
than an explanation is not sufficient for learning. For example, it may be impossible for
most students to locate their error or to figure out how to solve the problem from only the
correct answer. Receiving no response at all allows even less chance to determine how to
solve the problem. Similarly, a student who asks only for information would not benefit
from receiving no reply. Not only would we expect these responses to have no benefit,
motivational implications may account for the observed negative relationships. Receiving
less help than needed may negatively reinforce asking for help. Receiving inadequate help
may raise students’ level of frustration and, consequently, may lead them to expend less
effort on the task.
Second, even receiving help at what appears to be a sufficiently high level of elaboration
is not often sufficient for high achievement. Receiving explanations after asking for them,
or making errors, was not related to achievement. Student interaction would have to be
examined more closely to determine whether the explanations were relevant, understood,
and applied and internalized by the target student. Failure to meet any of these conditions
could account for the nonsignificant results.
Receiving information in response to requests for it did show some positive correlations
with achievement (Table 2.3). When the request is for information, rather than high-level
elaboration, it may be easier to tailor a response that is appropriate to the question. Under
these conditions, an informational response may be more likely than an explanation to be
understood and internalized.
These results show that the effectiveness of the level of elaboration of the response
depends on the kind of question asked. Informational feedback (e.g., the answer) may
sometimes be adequate for a request for information, but it is not adequate to help
students develop understanding when they ask for high-level elaboration.

Answering One’s Own Question

Rarely addressed are the consequences of answering one’s own question or correcting
one’s own error. One study (Webb, 198Oa) found that both of these behaviors invariably
led to correct problem-solving, both during group work and on the achievement test. In
many cases, students used the written materials available, typically comparing their
solution to descriptions in the written materials, to obtain the necessary information to
answer their question or to correct their errors. For students who have such information
available and who can understand it, this may be an effective strategy. Other students
answered their own questions and errors without consulting any materials. In these cases,
one must question whether their questions and errors really reflected difficulty. The
questions may have been thinking aloud, rather than requests for help, and the errors may
have been careless, rather than truly indicating misunderstanding. Distinguishing between
true calls for help and thinking aloud that is not necessarily directed at others will help
resolve this issue.

Level of Elaboration of Help-Giving

Table 2.4 shows the relationship between giving different kinds of help and
 Peer Interaction, Problem-Solving, and Cognition 29

achievement. Most studies have found that giving elaborated explanations was positively
related to achievement, but giving low-level help was not. A number of processes may
account for these results. In explaining to someone else, the helper must clarify, organize,
and possibly reorganize the material (see Bargh & Schul, 1980). In the process of clarifying
and reorganizing the material, the helper may discover gaps in his or her own
understanding or discrepancies with others’ work or previous work. To resolve these
discrepancies, the helper may search for new information and subsequently resolve those
inconsistencies, thereby learning the material better than before.

Table 2.4
Partial Correlations Between Giving Help and Achievement

Study Nonelaborative Procedural Managerial

(seeTable2.1) Explanation information information information Answer

2” 0.07 -0.08 0.03

0.21 0.03 -0.01
0.24* -0.02 -0.05
3 0.29*
4a 0.24*
0.27*
5b 0.53’ 0.16 0.03 0.22
6 0.11 -0.21 0.07 0.12 -0.06
8 0.39*
0.37*
10 0.22* 0.11 -0.15 0.03
12d 0.47**,0.27** 0.07,0.18*
14 0.47** -0.02 -0.12 0.02
15 0.24* 0.24*
18 0.15 0.04
19” 0.33’
-0.30
0.52%’
0.19

a Multiple tests administered: Study 1: division, fractions, retention; Study 4: post-test, retention; Study 19:
command knowledge, syntax, interpreting programs, generating programs.
b Higher-order and nonelaborative explanations combined.
‘p < 0.10 with the group as the unit of analysis.
d Two studies conducted three months apart.
* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.

Furthermore, when an explanation given to a team-mate is not successful (the team-

mate does not understand it or does not use it to solve the problem correctly), the helper
is forced to try to formulate the explanation in new or different ways. This may include
using different language, such as translating unusual or unfamiliar language into familiar
language (Noddings, 1985); generating new or different examples; linking examples to the
target student’s prior knowledge or work completed previously; using alternative symbolic
representations of the same material (e.g., pictures vs. diagrams vs. words vs. numbers vs.
symbols); and translating among different representations of the same material (see
Shavelson, Webb, Stasz, & McArthur, 1988). All of these activities will likely expand and
solidify the helper’s understanding of the material. Giving only the answer or other low-
30 NOREEN M. WEBB

level information, on the other hand, would be less likely to cause the helper to clarify or
reorganize his or her own thinking.
Alternatively it is possible that students who gave explanations showed high
achievement because they were more able or knowledgeable to begin with, rather than
their achievement being influenced by giving high-level elaboration. Although the partial
correlations help control for ability, the positive relationship between ability and giving
explanations (see next section) makes it unwise to dismiss this possibility entirely. Both
mechanisms may be operating simultaneously: more-able students may be most likely to
give high-level elaboration and doing so may improve their understanding of the material.
What needs to be investigated is whether having lower-ability students give explanations
would improve their understanding of the material.

Student Makes No Error and Asks No Question

Nearly all of the empirical evidence concerns help giving and receiving. Much less well
understood are students’ experiences when they do not ask questions or make errors. This
section describes some speculations about different sequences of behavior: being able to
use group interaction to learn, being unable to use group interaction to learn, and not
attempting to use group interaction.
Some students who do not ask questions or make errors may still learn from group
interaction. A student will likely learn from group interaction when other group members
describe or show their work explicitly and correctly, when the student understands the
work being described, when the student’s work is synchronized in time with the rest of the
group (not far behind or far ahead), and when the student has not already mastered the
material being discussed.
Students may learn from each other in a variety of ways: by internalizing problem-
solving strategies that others use, or internalizing material they did not know previously
(Damon, 19X4; Forman Kr Cazden, 1985; Gall & Gall. 1976; Heap. 1986; Rubin, lYX3;
Slavin, IY77; Vygotsky, 1981: Wertsch, 1979; see also the chapters by Damon & Phelps,
and Forman, this issue), noticing a discrepancy with others’ work and searching for new
information to resolve the inconsistencies (Johnson & Johnson. 1979; Mugny & Doisc.
lY7X: Perret-Clermont, 19X0; Weinstein & Bearison, l985), and by building on the work
or ideas of others (e.g., synthesizing several steps in others’ work to generate new
material, Riel, lY83; Palincsar. lY86; Palincsar & Brown, 1984; see also the chapter by
Palincsar, this issue).
Other students may not be able to use group interaction to learn how to solve the
problem. Group members may not describe their work in sufficient detail, a student may
not understand the descriptions that are given, or a student’s progress through the problem
or material may not be synchronized with that of other students. When these students have
difficulty, why do they not ask for help’ ! Nelson-LeGall (1981) has proposed a
comprehensive model of children’s help-seeking that may explain these students’
behaviour (Nelson-LeGall, Gumerman, & Scott-Jones, 1983). First, students may not
recognize that they cannot solve the problem. This may occur frequently among students
who watch others solve the problem, think they understand how to solve it, but do not try
to solve it themselves. Second, even when students do recognize that they cannot solve the
problem, they may not ask for help if they fear appearing incompetent, believe that asking
 Peer Interaction, Problem-Solving, and Cognition 31

for help is not allowed or sanctioned, have experienced negative reinforcement of previous
questions (receiving no response or inadequate ones), believe that no-one else in the group
has sufficient skills to help, or lack motivation to solve the problem. Interviewing students
who do not ask questions and exhibit low achievement about whether they recognized
their own difficulty or why they did not ask for help (perhaps through introspective or
stimulated recall) will surely provide rich information about such students’ experiences in
the group and, consequently, how to enable them to take better advantage of the group’s
resources.
Finally, some students probably do not attempt to use group interaction to learn the
material, but work by themselves. Some will be able to solve the problem on their own.
Those who cannot solve it on their own and do not ask for help will not learn how to solve
it.

Factors Influencing Students’ Behavior

The model in Figure 2.1 has several critical branching points: whether a student who
makes an error or asks a question receives help at a high or low level of elaboration,
whether a student who can solve the problem gives high-level elaboration, and whether a
student who exhibits no difficulty (i.e., makes no error and asks no question) is able to
solve the problem correctly. Another critical branching point - whether a student
receiving help learns how to solve the problem -has been discussed previously.
Students’ experiences at each branching point in the model are important for predicting
their learning outcomes. Predictors of a student’s experience include characteristics of the
individual (e.g., ability, personality, gender, ethnic background), group composition, task
structure, reward structure, and preceding student behavior. Some of these variables have
been investigated empirically; others have not.

Responses to Errors and Questions

Level of Elaboration of Feedback

Results from research show that the factors predicting the level of elaboration of
feedback to students’ questions and errors include the target student’s ability and
personality, the composition of the group, the gender of the students involved in
interchanges, and the type of questions asked. The studies comparing the effects of
different group compositions on peer interaction suggest that a complex combination of
group composition and student ability governs each student’s experience in the group, so
that student ability and group composition cannot be considered separately.
In particular, medium-ability students are more likely to receive high-level elaboration
in response to a request for it or an error in homogeneous groups or heterogeneous groups
with a narrow range of ability (high-medium or medium-low) than in heterogeneous
groups with a wide range of ability (high-medium-low; Webb, 1980a, 1982b). In wide-
range heterogeneous groups, the highs and lows tend to form a “teacher-learner”
relationship while ignoring the needs of some of the medium-ability students. The results
of another study suggest that high-ability and low-ability students, on the other hand, may
32 NOREEN M. WEBB

be more successful in obtaining the level of help they need in heterogeneous groups than
in homogeneous groups (Webb, 1980a). Because the experience of a student of a
particular ability level depends on the composition of the group, it is not surprising that
most studies have found no relationship between student ability and the kinds of feedback
they receive (see Webb, 1982c, 1985).
Only a few studies have examined other factors predicting the kind of feedback a student
will receive. In two consistent results, extroverted students were more likely than
introverted students to receive high-level elaboration in response to errors and requests
for explanation (Webb, 1982b). while introverts were more likely than extroverts to have
their question ignored (Webb, 1982a). One study investigating the impact of gender on
receiving help found that asking a female student for help was more likely to elicit high-
level elaboration than asking a male student (Webb, 1984a). The gender of the student
asking the question was not a factor. Finally, one study found that the type of question
predicted what the kind of response received: questions phrased directly and asking for
specific information tended to elicit more elaborated responses than questions phrased in
general terms or indirectly (Webb & Kenderski, 1985; see also Wilkinson, Lindow, &
Chiang, 198.5; Wilkinson & Spinelli, 1983; Peterson. Wilkinson, Spinelli, & Swing, 1984;
Wilkinson & Calculator, 1982a,b).
A large array of additional factors may be very important, but have not been
systematically analyzed. First is the group’s perception about the locus of control of the
student needing help may influence their response. If group members perceive that a
student’s question or error arises from lack of effort, they may be less likely to be
responsive than if they perceive that the student’s difficulty arises out of lack of ability (for
further discussion, see the chapter by Salomon and Globerson, this issue).
A second factor is the size of the group. The only study in which questions were always
answered and requests for explanations were granted consistently involved pairs of
students (Webb, Ender, & Lewis, 1986) rather than groups of size three or four. Larger
groups may allow students to shirk responsibility for helping others: Students can assume
that a question is directed at someone else or is someone else’s responsibility. In a pair,
ignoring questions would be rude. Interestingly, larger groups may unwittingly reinforce
ignoring questions. Studies of bystander behavior in social psychology suggest that people
show less of a tendency to help when others are present and therefore do not help (Hare,
1972). Similar processes may occur in groups of students working together.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, may be the reward structure. In a group (or
cooperative) reward structure, students are rewarded on the basis of the achievement of
all members of the group. Slavin (1977, 1980,1983), for example, has suggested that group
rewards motivate students to make sure that everyone understands the material. (But see
the chapter by Damon and Phelps, this issue, for possible detrimental motivating effects
of extrinsic group rewards.) Individual-competitive rewards (where students compete for
rewards) may discourage giving responsive feedback because helping others understand
the material reduces one’s own chance of receiving a good reward or grade. Individualistic
reward structures (where individuals are rewarded only on the basis of their performance
without comparison to others) may discourage giving responsive feedback because it
reduces the time available to do one’s own work (see especially Johnson &Johnson, 1975).
Whereas group rewards have been shown to promote more peer interaction and general
kinds of helping behavior than other kinds of reward structures (Johnson, Johnson, &
Stanne, 1985, 1986; Sharan, 1980; Slavin. 1977, 1980, 1983), no study has explored
 Peer Interaction, Problem-Solving, and Cognition 33

whether group rewards improve the quality of students’ responses to need for help or raise
the level of elaboration (see also Slavin, 1987). Furthermore, no study has examined
whether the kind of reward (e.g., recognition in class newsletter vs. grades) influences
group interaction. Exploring the effects of the reward structure on peer interaction
promises to have very interesting, if not powerful, results.

Corrects or Answers Self

Students sometimes answer their own questions and correct their own errors, but no-
one has examined which students are most likely to do so, nor when. Some hypotheses to
be tested are the following. These students likely have relatively high ability; they must
have the knowledge and skills to be able to determine when their work is wrong and how
to locate information they need to correct their errors. Their motivation to do the work is
probably high; they do not rely on others to help them. Students may also tend to answer
their own questions if they perceive that their team-mates cannot do so (perceived lack of
ability) or will not do so (perceived lack of motivation). Previous failures to respond to
either that student’s or any student’s questions and errors would also reinforce this
behavior.

Gives High-Level Elaboration

Significant predictors of giving explanations include student ability, gender, and gender
composition of the group. Among the eight studies examining the relationship between
ability and giving explanations (Studies 3, 4, 8, 10, 12, 14, 18, 19 in Table 2.1), six have
reported statistically significant correlations (in the range of 0.23, p < 0.05 to 0.78, p <
0.001). Interestingly, one study (Webb & Kenderski, 1984) found a significant relationship
between giving explanations and relative ability within the group, suggesting that the most
able student in the group may take a teaching role even if he or she does not have high
ability on an absolute scale.
Giving high-level elaboration also seems to depend on the composition of the group,
particularly for medium-ability students. Compared to mediums in wide-range
heterogeneous groups (high-medium-low), mediums in homogeneous groups or narrow-
range heterogeneous groups (high-medium or medium-low) gave more explanations
(Webb, 1980a; Webb & Kenderski, 1984).
Two studies examined the role of student gender and the mixture of gender in the group
(Webb, 1984 a, b, c; Webb & Kenderski, 1985). The first study compared three group
compositions: two females and two males; three females and one male; and three males
and one female. Both females and males give more explanations in majority-female and
majority-male groups than in equal-ratio groups. Interestingly, in both majority-female
and majority-male groups, females directed most of their explanations to males. In
majority-male groups, males directed most of their explanations to other males, often
ignoring the female. These effects appeared only in classes of above-average,
predominantly white and Asian students. They did not occur in below-average classes with
many Black and Hispanic students.
34 NOREEN M. WEBB

Personality factors may also predict giving high-level elaboration. Contrary to

expectation, however, four studies administering Eysenck’s introversion-extroversion
scale (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1968) failed to find any significant correlation with giving high-
level elaboration (Webb, 1982a, b; Webb & Cullian. 1983; Webb & Kenderski. 1984).
Perhaps group orientation or predisposition to working cooperatively (Knight & Kagan.
1977) or dominance (found in nonacademic settings to predict leadership roles in the
group: Bass, Wurster, Doll, 6i Clair. 1953; Bass, McGehee, Hawkins, Young, & Gebel.
19.53; Grosz & Wagoner, 1971) may have stronger effects.
Giving students direct instruction or training in giving high-level elaboration to team-
mates may be effective. Swing and Peterson (1982) used a combination of direct
instruction, role play, practice, and feedback to promote helping behavior in small groups.
Students who participated in this training program gave more explanations than students
in a control group.
Arranging the task structure so that it explicitly requires students to give explanations
may also produce more high-level elaboration. One example is assigning students to
“expert” roles in which they receive unique information to share with others in their group.
The Jigsaw method of cooperative learning (Aronson, 1978) does just this. Academic
material is broken down into sections and each member of a team learns one section and
discusses it in “expert groups”. Students then return to their teams to teach the material
to their team-mates. A variation of this approach consists of cooperative scripts in which
members of a dyad teach each other portions of text material (Lambiotte, Dansereau,
O’Donnell, Young, Skaggs, Hall, & Rocklin, 1987). Such task structures should promote
explaining, although systematic observations have not been reported.
Finally, the behavior of team-mates may influence giving high-level elaboration. A
group with frequent questions and errors is likely to elicit more explaining than groups
with few questions or errors. On the other hand, students who are “too” quiet may elicit
helping behavior if their silence is interpreted as inability. Students who are challenged or
contradicted may be likely to give high-level elaboration as justification of their work.
Students who receive positive reinforcement for their explanations from their team-mates
are likely to continue this behavior. Finally, students who perceive that other students are
expending effort to solve the problem will be more likely to give explanations than
students who perceive that others are along for a “free ride” (Salomon’s term, this issue).
All of these potential predictors need to be tested empirically.

Working Alone

Some students choose not to interact with the group. The students who work by
themselves may be introverted, they may ignore or disbelieve instructions to work with
others, or they may perceive an individualistic or competitive reward structure. Among
these students, only those who have the necessary ability and skills will be able to learn the
material or solve the problem correctly.

Conclusions

This paper proposed a model of peer interaction and learning showing that the
 Peer Interaction. Problem-Solving, and Cognition 35

sequences of students’ experiences in group work may have direct effects on their learning
and achievement. It also described a number of factors that predict students’ behavior in
group work, including student characteristics, group composition, the structure of the
task, and the reward structure. Some of these relationships have been investigated
empirically, but many have not. This section focuses on the unanswered questions and the
implications for future research and practice.
The level of elaboration of students’ interaction with other students is related to
achievement: Giving high-level elaboration to other members of the group is positively
related to achievement, receiving high-level elaboration in response to errors and requests
for explanations is not consistently related to achievement, and receiving a lower level of
elaboration than requested (e.g., receiving only the answer in response to an error or
request for an explanation, or receiving no reply to a request for information) is negatively
related to achievement.
Analyzing only the level of elaboration, however, is not sufficient to understand
students’ experiences in the group that lead to increased understanding and higher
achievement. To fully understand whether a particular response to a student’s need for
help is effective, it is necessary to know (1) the specific need of the student asking for help
or making an error (the need may not correspond to the question asked), (2) whether the
response is appropriate (relevant, correct, complete) to the student’s need, (3) whether
the student can understand the response, and (4) whether the student can and does
internalize it. Furthermore, understanding students’ goals of group work may help place
in context students’ questions and the group’s responses. Groups with the goal of
completing problems as quickly as possible may interact very differently from those who
strive to understand the solution process.
Analyzing students’ questions, errors, and responses in more detail may help illuminate
the nature of effective responses, not only the necessary level of elaboration. Observations
of expert teachers, expert tutors, and expert “student” teachers in small groups (Shavelson
et al., 1988; see also Noddings, 1985; Vedder, 1985) suggest that effective explanations
might include relating new material to what students already know, using multiple
representations to explain a concept, showing how to translate among multiple
representations, providing detailed justification of each step in the problem-solving
process, using specific examples, and translating unfamiliar vocabulary into familiar
terms. Still to be investigated are whether these strategies would produce effective
explanations and whether students in small groups can be encouraged or trained to use
them.
This chapter also presented evidence about the factors that predict the frequency of
different kinds of interaction in small groups. Most of the available evidence concerns
student ability, group composition, and the complex interactions among them. Some
group compositions seem to benefit some students whereas other group compositions
benefit other students. Much less evidence concerns the effects on peer interaction of
personality and gender of the student and the group compositions on these characteristics.
And two factors that may have powerful effects on the incidence of high-level and low-
level elaboration in small groups, the structure of the task and the reward structure, have
not been investigated at all. Regardless of the effects of any one of these factors, it is clear
that peer interaction is likely determined by a complex interaction among them.
While we know quite a bit about the experiences of students who have difficulty and the
kinds of responses they receive that will help or not help them, we know less about the
experiences of students who do not clearly exhibit difficulty, in particular those who do not
ask questions or make errors. Little is known about how or whether they use group
interaction to learn the material. Several promising directions are the work on scaffolding.
reciprocal teaching, conflict resolution, and modeling. All of these areas suggest ways in
which these students may learn from group interaction without directly receiving help. In
scaffolding, a teacher ot- more capable person may guide students through a task until they
can do it on their own (Forman & Cazden. IY,YS:Palincsar, 1986: Palincsar Kr Brown, IY84:
Wood, Bruncr. 6i Ross, lY76). In reciprocal teaching. a student engages in activities a
teacher might use, includin,g asking questions, summarizing content. discussing and
clarifying difficult material, and making predictions (Palincsar, 1986: Palincsar CycBrown,
1YM). In conflict resolution, students resolve disagreements among themselves (Smith,
Johnson. & Johnson. IYXI). Finally, students may serve as models for each other (Schunk.
lY87).
We also know littlc about students who cannot use group interaction to learn how to
solve the problem, or choose not to interact with the group. who continue to have difficulty
but do not ask their team-mate for help. The hcst way to learn about thcce students’
experiences and the reasons for them is to ask them. through introspective or stimulated
recall or other interview techniques. As mentioned earlier, Nelson-LeGall’s (lY81. 1981)
Irrodel of help-seeking behavior provides the basis for questions to ask students, including
whether they recognized their difficulty and reasons why they did not ask for help.
In interpreting the relationships described in this chapter, the stage of group
development must be considered. In most of the research linking peer interaction and
learning, students had been working in small groups for relatively short period5 of time
before they were observed. \‘et. as the large literature on group dynamics suggests, group
process and the role of individuals In the group may change over time as group members
become familiar with each other and with working in groups (e.g., Bales. l(M); Bennis Kr
Shepard, 1056; Tuckman. 1965). The two studies that examined the stability of student
interaction and learning over time do not agree on whether individual students’ roles
change over time. One (Webb & Cullian. lY83) found that student behavior tended to
remain fairly stable over time; the other (Webb, lY84b) did not. Both studies did,
however, find that the refutionships between peer interaction and achievement remained
stable over time even if individual student behavior did not. Whether the behavior of
group members changes systematically over time has important implications for
understanding and modifying group process and needs to be examined more closely.
Regardless of the number of facets of small group interaction that have yet to bc
investigated, several conclusions are clear. First, student’s learning cannot be understood
in isolation from the group context. The same student may have different experiences in
different groups, with consequent effects for his or her learning. Second. student behavior
cannot be understood in isolation from the sequence of interaction in the group. In many
cases, the group’s response to a student’s behavior is the most critical predictor of his or her
learning.
Finally, and very importantly, the patterns of relationships described here may well
apply to instructional settings other than small groups. Students may benefit from giving
high-level explanations in large groups as well as small groups. The importance of the level
of responses to questions and errors probably applies to students in most, if not all,
instructional settings in the classroom. And understanding the experiences of students
 Peer Interaction, Problem-Solving, and Cognition 37

who do not ask questions and what may be important for their learning will enrich our
understanding of such students in any setting.

Acknowledgements-Preparation of this paper was supported in part by a grant from the Academic Senate
Committee on Research, Los Angeles Division, University of California. I would like to thank Alan Schoenfeld
for his thoughtful review of a previous version of this paper.

References

Anderson, R. C., Wilkinson, I., Mason, J. M., Shirey, L., & Wilson, P. T. (1988). Do errors on classroom
reading tasks slow growth in reading? The Elementary School Journal, 88, 267-280.
Aronson, E. (1978). TheJigsaw Classroom. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Bales, R. F. (1950). Interaction process and analysis: A method for the study of small groups. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Bargh, J. A., & Schul, Y. (1980). On the cognitive benefits of teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72,
593-604.
Bass, B. M., McGehee, C. R., Hawkins, W. C., Young, P. C., & Gebel, A. S. (1953). Personality variables
related to leaderless group discussion behavior. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 48, 120-129.
Bass, B. M., Wurster, C. R., Doll, P. A., & Clair, D. J. (1953). Situational and personality factors in leadership
among sorority women. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 67, l-23.
Bennis. W. G., & Shepard, H. (1956). A theory of group development. Human Relations, 9,415-437.
Damon, W. (1984). Peer education: the untapped potential. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 5
(4) 331-343.
Forman, E., & Cazden, C. (1985). Exploring Vygotskian perspectives in education: the cognitive value of peer
interaction. In J. Wertsch (Ed.), Culture, communication, and cognition: Vygofskian perspectives (pp. 32s
347). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gall, M. D., & Gall, J. P. (1976). The discussion method. In N. L. Gage (Ed.), The psychology of teaching
methods (pp. 166-216). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Grosz, H. J., & Wagoner, R. (1971). MMPI and IPPS profiles of high and low verbal interactors in therapy
groups. Psychological Reports, Z&951-955.
Hare, A. P. (1976). Handbook ofsmall group research. New York: Macmillan.
Heap, J. L. (1986, April). Collaborative practices during computer writing in a first grade classroom. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1975). Learning together and alone: Cooperation, competition, and
individualization. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1979). Conflict in the classroom: Controversy and learning. Review of
Educational Research, 49,51-70.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1985). Classroom conflict: controversy versus debate in learning groups.
American Educational Research Journal, 22(2), 237-256.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson R. T., & Stanne, M. B. (1986). Comparison of computer-assisted cooperative,
competitive, and individualistic learning. American Educational Research Journal, 23.383-392.
Johnson, R. T., Johnson, D. W., & Stanne, M. B. (1985). Effectsofcooperative, competitive, and individualistic
goal structures on computer-assisted instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(6), 668-678.
Knight, G. P., & Kagan, S. (1977). Development of prosocial and competitive behaviors in Anglo-American
children. Child Development, 48, 1385-1394.
Lambiotte, J. G., Dansereau, D. F., O’Donnell, A. M., Young, M. D., Skaggs, L. P., Hall, R. H., & Rocklin,
T. R. (1987). Manipulating cooperative scripts for teaching and learning. Journal of Educational Psychology,
79,424-430.
Lindow, J. A., Wilkinson, L. C., & Peterson, P. L. (1985). Antecedents and consequences of verbal
disagreements during small-group learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77,658-667.
Mugny, G., SLDoise, W. (1978). Socio-cognitive conflict and structure of individual and collective performances.
European Journal of Social Psychology, 8,181-192.
Nelson-Le Gall, S. (1981). Help-seeking: An understudied problem-solving skill in children. Developmental
Review, 1,22&246.
Nelson-Le Gall, S., Gumerman, R. A., & Scott-Jones, D. (1983). Instrumental help-seeking and evervdav
problem-solving: A developmental perspective. New Directions in Helping, 2,265-282. - . _
Noddings, N. (1985). Small groups as a setting for research on mathematical problem solving. In E. A. Silver
(Ed.), Teaching and learning mathematical problem solving (pp. 345-359). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Palincsar, A. S. (1986). The role of dialogue in providing scaffolded instruction. Educational Psychologisr, 21,
73-98.
3X NOREEN M. WEBB

Palincsar, A. S., 6i Brown, A. L. (19X4). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-

monitoring activities. Cognifion and Instrucfion, 1, I17-17.5.
Peterson, P. L... & Janicki. T. C. (lY7Y). Individual characteristics and children’s learning in large-group and
small-group approaches. Journal of EducationalP~sychology. 71, 677-687.
Peterson, P. L., Janicki. 1‘. C., Br Swing, S. R. (19X1). Ability x treatment interaction effects on children’s
learning in large-group and small-group approaches. Americat~ Educational Research Jourrzal, 18,453%473.
Peterson. P. L.. & Swing, S. R. (1985). Students’ cognitions as mediators of the cffectivcness of small-group
Icarning. Journal of Educatiorml P.sychology, 77, 2YY-3 13.
Peterson. P. L., Wilkinson. I,. C.. Spinclli. F., & Swing. S. R. (lYX4). Merging the process-product and the
sociolinguistic paradigms: rcscarch on small-group proceascs. In P. L. Peterson, I.. C. Wilkinson, & M.
Hallinan (Eds.), 77rr socicrl ~OIIIYXIofirzslruction (pp. 126152). Orlando: Academic Press.
Pet-ret-Clermont. A.-N. (1980). Social interactiotl and cogniri~v development in children. New York: Academic
Press (Euru[?cun Monographs in Social P.wchology, No. 19. Series Editor: H. Tajfel).
Riel, M. (lYX.1). Education and ecstasy: Computer chronicles of students writing together. 77re C)~~Nr/er/~
Newsletter of the Laboratory of ComparativeHumur~ Cognition. 5. SO-67.
Rubin. A. (19X3). The computer confronts language arts: <‘am and shoulds for education. In A. C. Wilkinson
(Ed.), Classroom computers atzd cogniri\v science (pp. 201~217). New York: Academic Prcsa.
Schunk, D. H. (lY87). Peer models and children’\ behavioral change KcI.I’~M’ofErllrcc2riorlcrl Ruearch. 57. 14Y-
174.
Sharan, S.. & Sharan. Y. (1076). SmaU-group tcachitz~. 1:nglewood Cliffs, NJ: E<ducational ‘l‘cchnolopy
Publications.
Slavin. R. E. (19X7). Developmental and motivational pcrspectivcs on cooperative Icarning: A reconciliatmn.
Child Development, 58. 1161~1 167.
Slavin. R. E. (1977). Classroom reward structure: An analytical and practical revtew. Ker?en, o/. fduc~rrtiotud
Research, 47. 6336SO.
Slavin, R. E. (19X.1). C‘ooperativc Iearning. New York: l~ongman.
Smith, K. A., Johnson. 1). W.. 6i Johnson, R. T. (19X1). Can conflict bc constructive? C‘ontrovcrsy vcrsu,
concurrence seeking in learning groups. Journal of Educariotral P.s~chology. 73, 65 146.1.
Swing, S. R., & Peterson, P. L. (19X2). The relationship of student abrlity and small-group interaction to student
achievement. Americun Educational Researciz Journal, 19, 2.50-274.
Tuckman, B. W. (lY65). Developmental sequence in small groups. f’sychok~gicrrl Rulletirr. 63, 3X4~3YY.
Vcdder, P. (IYXS). C‘ooperaiive /earning: a sfudy WI proc~essc~.vand effect.s of cooperationhefwcv~ primury .whoo/
children. Westerhaven Groningen. Netherlands: Ri,jkuniversitcit Groningcn.
Vygotsky, L. S. (19X1). The genesis of higher mental tuntioning. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), 7&e c’orrc’c’/~lo/‘acfil,ir!,
in Soviet psychology. Armonk. NY: Sharpe.
Wagner, L. (lYX2). Peer teaching: Historicalpc,rs~~e~rivc,v. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Webb. N. M. (198Oa). A process+mtcomc analysis of learning in group and individual settings. Educuriotrtrl
Psychologist, 15. 69-83.
Webb. N. M. (1YXOb). An analysis of group Interaction and mathematical errors in heterogeneous ability groups.
British Journul of Educational Psychology, 50. 266-276.
Webb, N. M. (IYXZa). Group composition, group interaction and achievement in cooperative small groups.
Journal of Educational Psychology. 74,4754X4.
Webb, N. M. (1982b). Peer interaction and learning in cooperative small groups. Journal o/ Edaca/iona/
Psychology, 74,642+,55.
Webb. N. M. (lY82c). Student interaction and lcarningin small groups. Revie~ofEdrr~ationrrlRc.~ectrc~/~.52.42iL
44s.
Webb, N. M. (lYX4a). Microcomputer learning in small groups: Cognitive requirements and group processes.
Journalof Educational P.cychology. 76, 1076-1088.
Webb, N. M. (1984b). Sex differences in interactron and achievement in cooperative small groups. Journal of
Educational Psychology. 76.33-34.
Webb, N. M. (1984~). Stability of small group interaction and achicvcment over time. Journul of Educurional
Psychology, 76,21 l-224.
Webb, N. M.. & Cullian, L. K. (lYX3). Group interaction as a mediator between student and group
characteristics and achievement: Stability over time. American Educarional Research Journal. 20,411324.
Webb, N. M.. Ender, P., & Lewis, S. (1986). Problem-solving strategies and group processes in small groups
learning computer programming. American Educational Research Journal, 23.
Webb, N. M., & Kenderski. C. M. (1984). Student interaction and learning in small group and whole class
settings. In P. L. Peterson, L. C. Wilkinson & M. Hallinan (Eds.). The social contex/ ofins~ucrion: Group
orgatzizarion and group processes (pp. 15-L170). New York: Academic Press.
Webb, N. M., & Kenderski, C. M. (1985). Gender differences in small-group interaction and achievement in
high- and low-achieving classes. In L. C. Wilkinson & C. B. Marrett (Eds.), Gen&r difference.\ in classroom
interaction (pp. 209-236). New York: Academic Press.
 Peer Interaction, Problem-Solving, and Cognition 39

Weinstein, B. D., & Bearison, D. J. (1985). S ocial interaction, social observation, and cognitive development
in young children. European Journal ofSocial Psychology, 15,333-343.
Wertsch, J. V. (1979). From social interaction to higher psychological processes. Human Developmenf, 22,1-22.
Wilkinson, I., Wardrop, J. L., & Anderson, R. C. (in press). Silent reading reconsidered: Reinterpreting
. - reading
instruction and its effects. American Educational Research Journal. -
Wilkinson, L. C.. Lindow, J.. & Chiang, C-P. (1985). Sex differences and sex segregation in students’ small-
group communication. In L. C. Wilkinson & 6. B. k4arrett (Eds.), Gender in&ekes in classroom interaction
(pp. 185-207). New York: Academic Press.
Wilkinson, L. C., & Spinelli, F. (1983). Using requests effectively in peer-directed instructional groups.
American Educational Research Journal, 20,479-502.
Wilkinson. L. C.. & Calculator, S. (1982a). Effective speakers: Students’ use of language to request and obtain
information and action in the classroom. In L. C. Wilkinson (Ed.). Communicating in the classroom. New
York: Academic Press.
Wilkinson, L. C., & Calculator, S. (1982b). Requests and responses in peer-directed reading groups. American
Educational Research Journal, 19, 107-120.
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology
Psychiatry, 17,89-100.

Biography

Noreen Webb is Professor of Research Methodology and Educational Psychology in the

Graduate School of Education at UCLA. She received her Ph.D. from the Stanford
University School of Education. She has presented and published numerous empirical and
theoretical papers on small group interaction and learning. She received the 1987
Raymond B. Cattell Early Career Award for Programmatic Research from the American
Educational Research Association for her work on peer interaction and learning in the
classroom.