Group Investigation Effects on Achievement, Motivation, and Perceptions of Students in

Singapore
Author(s): Ivy Geok Chin Tan, Shlomo Sharan and Christine Kim Eng Lee
Source: The Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 100, No. 3 (Jan. - Feb., 2007), pp. 142-154
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/27548173
Accessed: 16-08-2018 06:37 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
The Journal of Educational Research

This content downloaded from 101.203.171.2 on Thu, 16 Aug 2018 06:37:59 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Group Investigation Effects on
Achievement, Motivation, and
Perceptions of Students in Singapore
IVY GEOK CHIN TAN
National Institute of Education,
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
SHLOMO SHARAN
Tel-Aviv University, Israel
ABSTRACT In an experiment conducted in 7 eighth-grade
(Ages 13-14) classes in Singapore, the authors evaluated the
effects of the group investigation method of cooperative
learning versus the effects of the traditional whole*class
method of instruction on students' academic achievement
and on their motivation to learn. The authors also investi
gated students' perceptions of group investigation. Students
in group investigation and in whole-class instruction
advanced to the same extent over the course of the experi
ment. Neither method was more effective academically than
the other method. As expected, the high-achieving students
had significantly higher academic achievement than did the
low-achieving students. The group investigation method did
not have differential effects on the 2 groups of high and low
achievers. Group investigation affected high achievers' moti
vation to learn on the Criteria subscale only.
Key words: achievement, motivation, and perceptions;
cooperative learning; group investigation
This experimental study took place at the begin
ning of a new century, when Singapore was
changing its education system to ensure econom
ic success in the new globalized and knowledge-based econ
omy. In 1996, the Ministry of Education commissioned an
external review team to examine the prevailing school cur
riculum and to make recommendations for education
reform in the light of future economic, technological, and
social changes. In the review report, the external review
team stated that,
[Singapore] students must be Learners, Creators and Com
municators to meet the demands of the next century?
Learners in the sense that they must view education as a life
long process and develop a passion for continuous learning;
Creators who not only have the measure of discipline found
in our current workforce but display independent and inno
vative thinking; and Communicators who are effective team
players, able to articulate their ideas confidently. (Ministry
of Education, 1998)
One of the recommendations of the review team was
that all students should experience self-directed learning.
142
This content downloaded from 101.203.171.2 on Thu, 16 Aug 2018 06:37:59 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
CHRISTINE KIM ENG LEE
National Institute of Education
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
That experience could take the form of project work or
open-ended assignments requiring independent study and
an oral project report (Ministry of Education, 1998).
Another recommendation was that teachers should reduce
highly structured and teacher-centered teaching by 20% to
provide more time for learner-centered activities that
involve interaction between students and teachers and
with other students in cooperative efforts. Project Work
has been implemented in schools in Singapore since 1999
and became an entrance requirement to local universities
in 2005. Given the present scenario in Singapore schools
in the era of education reform, our goal was to assess the
effects of classroom organization on the basis of coopera
tive-learning groups in Singapore's cultural and education
al environment.
Cooperative learning is a general title for a set of classroom
teaching methods in which students work in small groups
to help one another study academic subject matter (Slavin,
1991). The need to cooperate as members in a small group
is the cornerstone of cooperative learning. Researchers
have documented the positive effects of cooperative learn
ing; various cooperative-learning methods overlap, but
they are not equivalent in terms of theory, procedures, and
goals (Sharan, 2002). Several researchers have noted dif
ferences between some of the methods (Brody & Davidson,
1998; Kagan, 1985; Sharan, 1980, 2002; Slavin, 1990,
1991; Tan, 2004).
Extensive reviews and meta-analyses of research have
demonstrated that cooperative learning leads to higher
achievement at various grade levels and in different subject
areas than the traditional form of whole-class teaching
(Johnson & Johnson, 1985; Johnson, Johnson, & Maruya
ma, 1983; Johnson, Maruyama, Johnson, Nelson, & Skon,
1981; Qin, Johnson, 6k Johnson, 1995; Slavin, 1980, 1983,
Address correspondence to Ivy Geok Chin Tan, National Institute
of Education, Singapore. (E-mail: ivy.tan@nie.edu.sg)
Copyright ? 2007 I.G.C.Tan,S. Sharan, andC.K.E. Lee
January/February 2007 [Vol. 100 (No. 3)] 143
1991). Studies also show that cooperative learning exerts
positive effects on a wide range of social-affective out
comes, including improved peer and cross-ethnic relations,
increased self-esteem, improved attitudes toward school,
and subject matter and learning (Johnson et al., 1981;
Johnson ck Johnson, 2002; Nastasi ck Clements, 1991;
Shachar ck Sharan, 1994; Sharan, 1980; Sharan ?k
Shachar, 1988; Slavin, 1991, 1995). However, few
researchers have used empirical studies to assess directly the
effects of cooperative learning on motivation to learn.
Enhanced motivation was usually deduced indirectly from
students' improved achievement scores (Slavin, 1983,
1991, 1995; Sharan ck Shaulov, 1990).
In addition to the dependent variables discussed in the
previous paragraph, another topic has caught the attention
of some researchers, namely, how students perceive and
evaluate cooperative learning. What do students think
about these alternative ways of teaching and learning, and
what do they have to say about it? The researchers fre
quently gathered information from students after the con
clusion of an experiment or intervention that lasted for 2
or 4 weeks, or sometimes as long as 2 or 3 months.
Researchers interviewed students (Ahuja, 1994; Jackson,
1994; Mulryan, 1994), asked them to respond to question
naires (McManus & Gettinger, 1996; Slesinski, 1998;
Whicker, Bol, ck Nunnery, 1997), or asked them to write
open-ended comments or self-evaluations about the expe
riences that they had while participating in cooperative
learning activities (Mueller ck Fleming, 2001).
Most of the research on the effectiveness of cooperative
learning involved the use of cooperative methods that help
students master well-defined skills or information (Slavin,
1995). Researchers need to assess the effectiveness of pro
ject-based cooperative-learning methods such as group
investigation (Sharan & Sharan, 1992) and complex
instruction (Cohen, 1994), which involve distinct changes
in the entire approach to instruction compared with the
whole-class method. Much work has yet to be done before
researchers understand the conditions necessary for success
in project-based cooperative learning (Slavin, 1995).
We evaluated the effects of a relatively complex, project
based form of cooperative learning, namely, group investi
gation, and its implementation at the secondary school
level (Grade 8, Ages 13-14). Our main objective was to
determine whether the use of group investigation, com
pared with whole-class instruction, would result in higher
levels of academic achievement and intrinsic motivation to
learn for Singapore students. Group investigation includes
a large measure of self-directed learning and emphasizes
intrinsic motivation, so it was appropriate that we assessed
its effects on students' motivation to learn. We also assessed
students' perceptions of the new method of learning.
Specifically, we posed the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1: The group investigation method will
have a more positive effect on students' academic
This content downloaded from 101.203.171.2 on Thu, 16 Aug 2018 06:37:59 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
achievement than does the traditional whole-class
method of instruction.
Hypothesis 2: The group investigation method will have
a more positive effect on the success of lower achieving
students than of higher achieving students as compared
with the traditional whole-class method of instruction.
Hypothesis 3: The group investigation method will exert
a more positive effect on students' intrinsic motivation to
learn as compared with the traditional whole-class method
of instruction.
Hypothesis 4: The group investigation method will exert
a more positive effect on the intrinsic motivation of lower
achieving students than of higher achieving students.
Hypothesis 5: Students will express a more positive per
ception of group investigation as an instructional strategy
than they will of the whole-class method of instruction.
Group Investigation
Group investigation (Sharan & Sharan, 1992, 1999)
requires students to form small interest groups, plan and
implement their investigation, synthesize the findings of
group members, and present their findings to the class. The
teacher uses minimal direct instruction to introduce the
general topic of study and to provide a variety of resources
to help students conduct their investigations. With group
investigation, external rewards are deemphasized and stu
dents are responsible for their own learning. Students are
also fully involved so that they experience a great deal of
intrinsic motivation to pursue their study. Implementation
of group investigation proceeds through a sequence of six
stages, or phases, that serve as general guidelines for teach
ers to manage the process (Sharan & Sharan, 1992).
Stage I?The teachers present a multifaceted problem to the
whole class. The problem is often derived from the curricu
lum. Presentation of the problem that will be investigated
can be supported by a display of various resource materials
like books, pictures, videos, and newspapers to arouse stu
dents' curiosity and stimulate their interest in inquiry. Stu
dents then generate questions on the basis of the general
problem. The questions are categorized into subtopics that
can be investigated by separate groups. The students then
sign up to be members of the small groups that will investi
gate the subtopic in which they are interested.
Stage 2?Groups plan their investigations. Students in their
respective research groups cooperatively plan their investi
gations. From the list of questions generated by the class,
they choose those questions that are related to the subtopic
and add a few more questions for their investigations.
Group members determine the resources that they need,
and, depending on the nature of the topic, they may divide
the study tasks among themselves. They also may set out a
work plan to direct their activities over a period of time.
Stage 3?Groups carry out their investigations. Students
implement their plan by locating information from a vari

ety of sources, organizing and recording data, then report
ing their findings to their group mates. Together they dis
cuss, analyze, interpret, and integrate their findings in
preparation for creating a product that will reflect their
efforts.
Stage 4?Groups plan their presentations. Groups plan
the way that they will present to, or teach, their class
mates the information that they have learned from their
investigations. The groups decide which of their findings
they will share with the class and how best to present
them. The emphasis is on students presenting their main
ideas and on the conclusion of their investigations. The
presentation can assume many forms, such as an exhibit,
skit, role play, construction of a model, demonstration
experiment, written report, posters, or even a PowerPoint
slide production. Innumerable possibilities extend beyond
students giving a verbal presentation to the class, which
would likely be far less interesting than such a presenta
tion by the teacher.
Stage 5?Groups make their presentations. Each group pre
sents one aspect of the general problem that they have
investigated. Each group learns about different facets of the
same problem from the other groups.
Stage 6?Teachers and students evaluate the projects. The
students and teachers evaluate each group's contribution
during the presentation. The evaluation takes into consid
eration (a) the final product of the group, (b) the knowl
edge that the students acquired during the course of the
investigation, (c) how well the investigation process was
carried out by the group, and (d) the experiences of the stu
dents during the process.
Method
Participants
We conducted the experiment in 7 eighth-grade (Ages
13-14) geography classes in two schools in Singapore. The
schools were comparable in terms of their being co-educa
tional and having the high-achieving stream and low
achieving stream within a school. All the secondary stu
dents in Singapore were streamed into either the
high-achieving or low-achieving streams on the basis of a
Ministry of Education examination at the end of sixth
grade (Ages 11-12). The participants included 241 stu
dents who were taught in either the traditional whole-class
method (n = 103) or the group investigation method (n =
138). Students in all seven classes studied two curricular
units on environmental issues in geography (pollution and
climate change) over 6 weeks.
Three geography teachers from the two schools partici
pated in the experiment. The teachers were accustomed to
the regular whole-class method of teaching and had only
limited exposure to cooperative learning. The teachers par
ticipated in six 3-hr workshops devoted to group investiga
tion 4 months before the implementation of the experiment.
This content downloaded from 101.203.171.2 on Thu, 16 Aug 2018 06:37:59 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
144 The Journal of Educational Research
The workshops were conducted by Dr. Hanna Shachar, who
has published several research studies on group investigation
and has many years of experience with the workshops.
Independent and Dependent Variables
The two independent variables in the study were (a)
group investigation and whole-class instruction and (b)
students' academic status (high achievers vs. low achiev
ers). The dependent variables were (a) academic achieve
ment, (b) intrinsic motivation to learn, and (c) student
perception.
We measured student academic achievement by two tests,
one on pollution and the other on climate change, given at
the end of each curricular unit in the experiment. Each
achievement test consisted of three free-response essay ques
tions that were not the regular factual-level, multiple-choice,
or short-structured questions used frequently in student
assessments. The first question tested students' comprehen
sion of certain concepts, and the next two open-ended ques
tions required students to apply their knowledge and under
standing. Both achievement tests had a maximum of 20
marks. We consulted four judges from the National Institute
of Education and Queensland Technological University to
establish the content validity of the items on the achieve
ment test. The team of judges had 100% agreement on the
content validity of the two achievement tests.
The first author designed the criteria for scoring and the
marking scheme in consultation with a geography educa
tor from the National Institute of Education and the
senior geography teacher. The tests were scored by two
geography teachers who were not directly involved in the
study and were not informed of the nature of the study.
The first author and the scorers discussed the scoring cri
teria, as well as the importance of interrater reliability.
Both scorers believed that they would have greater inter
rater reliability if they marked the tests separately, then
met to reach agreement on a common score in cases in
which their marks differed.
We assessed the pre- and posttests of students' intrinsic
motivation to learn with the scale of intrinsic versus extrin
sic orientation in the classroom (Harter, 1980, 1981). The
following five subscales, each with six items, are defined by
an intrinsic and an extrinsic pole.
Challenge: preference for challenge versus preference for
easy work;
Mastery: independent mastery attempts versus depen
dence on the teacher;
Curiosity: curiosity or interest versus teacher approval;
Judgment: independent judgment versus reliance on
teacher judgment; and
Criteria: internal versus external criteria for success or
failure.
We implemented the first pilot test in a secondary school
to ensure that the words in the questionnaire were appro
January/February 2007 [Vol. 100 (No. 3)] 145

priate for the students in Singapore. As a result, we modi
fied words that were used infrequently in the local context.
For example, we removed the word "pretty" (pretty hard
and pretty easy) in three of the statements and changed
"turn in assignment" to "hand in assignment."
In the second pilot test, we analyzed the reliability of the
instrument. Those participants included 113 students from
3 eighth-grade (Ages 13-14) classes from another school.
The second pilot test resulted in our removing one item
from each subscale that had a low correlation with the
other items of the scale. As a result, each subscale had five
items. Table 1 shows a summary of the number of items and
the Cronbach alpha coefficients for the five subscales of the
motivation questionnaire.
We performed a correlational analysis to determine the
degree to which the items in the intrinsic motivation ques
tionnaire were related. Table 2 shows the Pearson correla
tions between the subscales of the intrinsic motivation
questionnaire. Moderately high correlations indicated a
distinct relationship between the scales, demonstrating
that they all related to a common domain of information.
At the end of the experimental period, the students
completed a questionnaire that consisted of an open-ended
question asking students to write about their experiences
and feelings toward the group investigation method. The
written statements reflected the students' own impressions.
The teachers did not express their views to the students
about group investigation or the whole-class approach to
teaching and learning.
TABLE 1. Number of Items and Cronbach Alpha
Coefficient of the Subscales of the Intrinsic Motivation
Questionnaire
Subscale Number of items a
Challenge 5 .76
Mastery 5 .67
Curiosity 5 .65
Judgment 5 .58
Criteria 5 .74
Total intrinsic motivation 25 .82
The written statements yielded large quantities of
mation. We performed data reduction, the process of sel
focusing, and simplifying the raw data (Bak
Gottman, 1986; Miles & Huberman, 1984, 1994). Th
author and another university lecturer independently
fied key words and phrases in the written statement
al key words and phrases occurred frequently; these w
tered together to form a category. The first author
university lecturer reached 913% agreement after ext
the key words, phrases, and statements from a sampl
dent responses. The first author computed the reliabi
degree of agreement by dividing the number of agreem
total number of agreements plus disagreements (Bak
Gottman; Miles & Huberman, 1984, 1994).
Procedure
We designed six workshops to train 16 humanities teach
ers from the two schools to develop skills for small-group
cooperative learning through group investigation. The
teachers acquired the skills to manage and conduct small
group learning through experiential education (Kolb & Fry,
1975; Sharan & Sharan, 1992) and received first-hand
experience working and learning in small groups. At the
end of each session, the teachers reflected on the process
and product of the groups, as well as on the nature of the
interaction and behavior within and between groups.
After the workshops, the first author worked closely with
the 3 secondary geography teachers who were directly
involved in the experiment. The teachers helped to make
decisions regarding the selection of the geography topic for
group investigations. They chose "Humans' Negative Impact
on the Environment" because it was an extensive topic that
the students in both schools planned to study for 6 weeks.
Furthermore, the topic could be taught as two separate units:
pollution and climate change. Two rounds of shorter investi
gations enabled the students to experience group investiga
tion twice to affect their learning. The teachers held addi
tional discussions on the curriculum to reach an agreement
on the content coverage and resources for each unit. The
discussions were essential to ensure that the control and
experimental classes studied the same curriculum within the
same duration of time with comparable resources.

TABLE 2. Pearson Correlations Between Subscales of the Intrinsic Motivation Questionnaire

Subscale Mastery Curiosity Judgment Criteria

Challenge .43** .50** .18 .24*

Mastery .32** .26** .20*
Curiosity .22* .30*'
Judgment .16
*p< .05. **p< .01.

This content downloaded from 101.203.171.2 on Thu, 16 Aug 2018 06:37:59 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 146 The Journal of Educational Research

In the experimental classes, the teachers implemented
the six steps of group investigation; each pupil was a mem
ber of a 4- to 5-person group. The students composed the
groups according to interests and friendships. The control
classes studied the same subject matter as the experimental
classes, but in a traditional whole-class instructional set
ting. The teachers taught by using the whole-class method,
which was the regular presentation-recitation approach in
which all students received similar information and study
tasks. The teachers taught the two units with the available
textbook and workbook. The main interaction in the con
trol classes was mainly teacher talk, and, occasionally,
bilateral communication between the teacher and students.
Classroom observations confirmed that the implementa
tion was carried out according to plan.
Results
Achievement
Table 3 shows the means and standard deviations of the
achievement tests by method and achievement level For
the analysis of achievement data, we performed a two-way
analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the summative
scores of two class tests before the experiment as a covari
ate. (See ANCOVA results in Table 4.)
Comparison of the means with ANCOVA showed a sig
nificant main effect for achievement level, F(l, 237) =
23.85, p < .001; the high-achieving groups scored signifi
cantly higher than did the low-achieving groups. There was
no significant effect for method and no significant Method
x Achievement Level interaction effect. That finding is not
consistent with Hypotheses 1 and 2; group investigation was
not more effective than was the whole-class method. Both
instructional methods produced student achievement
results at almost the same level, indicating that, despite the
fact that group investigation was a completely new and rad
ically different approach to teaching and learning, the
method did not yield significantly lower scores than did the
well-practiced and well-known whole-class method.
Intrinsic Motivation
Table 5 shows the data that we obtained with intrinsic
motivation by method and achievement level and com
pared by ANCOVA. Table 6 shows ANCOVA results of
the posttest intrinsic motivation scores with pretest scores
as the covariate.
We found no significant main effects for method or
achievement level for any of the five subscales or for the
total intrinsic motivation score. There were no significant
differences in intrinsic motivation scores between students
in the two instructional methods and two achievement lev
els. However, we found a significant Method x Achievement
Level interaction effect for the Criteria subscale for intrinsic

TABLE 3. Means and Standard Deviations of Achievement Test Scores, by Method and
Achievement

Group investigation Whole-class instruction

Low- High Low High

achieving achieving Total achieving achieving Total
Test score (n = 60) (n = 78) (n = 138) (n = 64) (n = 39) (n = 103)

Total achievement
(max 40 marks)
M 13.82 19.94 17.28 16.20 21.49 18.20
SD 4.65 4.54 5.49 6.70 4.83 6.56

TABLE 4. Analysis of Covariance (2 X 2?Methods X Achievement Levels) of Students'

Achievement Scores, With the Pretest Class Score as Covariate

Source df MS

Method 1 63.01 2.65 .105

Achievement Level 1 567.64 23.85 .000*'
Method x
Achievement Level 1 3.56 0.15 .699
Error 236 23.80
Total 241

"*p< .001.

This content downloaded from 101.203.171.2 on Thu, 16 Aug 2018 06:37:59 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
January/February 2007 [Vol. 100 (No. 3)]

TABLE 5. Means and Standard Deviations of Students* Scores on Five Subscales of Motivation

Group investigation Whole-class instruction

Low- High- Low- High

achieving achieving Total achieving achieving Total
Motivation score (n = 60) (n = 78) (n = 138) (n = 64) (n = 39) (n = 103)

Challenge
Pretest
M 12.48 13.42 13.01 12.95 13.64 13.21
SD 2.83 2.81 2.85 2.45 3.02 2.69
Posttest
M 12.47 13.72 13.17 12.95 13.05 12.99
SD 3.18 3.01 3.14 2.07 3.07 2.48
Mastery
Pretest
M 13.02 14.05 13.60 13.00 14.00 13.38
SD 2.63 2.16 2.42 2.48 2.33 2.46
Posttest
M 12.83 14.05 13.52 13.38 13.87 13.56
SD 2.73 2.35 2.58 2.13 2.13 2.13
Curiosity
Pretest
M 13.25 13.18 13.21 13.03 12.97 13.01
SD 2.10 2.37 2.25 2.16 2.38 2.23
Posttest
M 13.52 13.23 13.36 12.95 13.31 13.09
SD 2.43 2.62 2.54 1.90 2.82 2.28
Judgment
Pretest
M 13.10 13.91 13.56 12.94 14.08 13.37
SD 2.44 1.89 2.18 2.54 2.25 2.49
Posttest
M 12.80 14.04 13.50 13.34 13.87 13.54
SD 2.75 2.59 2.72 2.50 2.36 2.45
Criteria
Pretest
M 11.98 13.45 12.81 12.83 13.26 12.99
SD 3.47 2.79 3.18 3.19 2.92 3.08
Posttest
M 11.80 13.87 12.97 13.06 13.03 13.05
SD 3.90 3.10 3.61 3.24 3.05 3.15
Total
Pretest
M 63.83 68.01 66.20 64.75 67.95 65.96
SD 7.48 7.87 7.95 7.42 6.53 7.23
Posttest
M 63.42 68.91 66.52 65.69 67.13 66.23
SD 9.75 9.10 9.74 6.46 8.78 7.41

motivation, F(l, 237) = 4.00, p > .05. The high-achieving
students in the experimental group experienced an increase
in the criteria score, whereas their peers in the control group
recorded a decline (see Figure 1). The reverse occurred for
the low-achieving group: students in the experimental group
registered a decline in the criteria score, whereas the score
for the control group increased. A high score in the Criteria
subscale indicated that a student knew when he or she had
succeeded or failed without the need for the teacher's feed
back, grades, or marks. A low score on the Criteria subscale
indicated that the student was dependent on external
sources of evaluation of success or failure from the teacher.
Figure 1 shows that scores on the Criteria subscale rose
slightly for low-achieving students in the traditional classes
from pre- to posttest and declined slightly for low-achieving
students in the group investigation classes. For low-achiev
ing students in group investigation classes, therefore, crite
ria for judging their success or failure became more depen
dent on external information, and they were less able to
make that judgement.
We found opposite results for high-achieving students,
however. Their scores in the group investigation classes rose
significantly, whereas the scores for high-achieving students
in the traditional classes declined only slightly. Conse
quently, group investigation helped high-achieving students
make more independent judgments of their success or fail
ure over the course of this experiment, whereas students'
feeling about their ability to make such judgments declined

This content downloaded from 101.203.171.2 on Thu, 16 Aug 2018 06:37:59 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
148 The Journal of Educational Research

TABLE 6. Analysis of Covariance (2 x 2?Methods x Achievement Levels) of Intrinsic

Motivation Scores, With Pretest Intrinsic Motivation Scores as Covariate

Source df MS

Challenge
Method 6.27 1.45 .229
Achievement Level 0.53 0.12 .725
Method X
Achievement Level 13.42 3.11 .079
Error 236
Total 24
Mastery
Method 2.15 0.46 .497
Achievement Level 10.55 2.28 .133
Method X
Achievement Level 7.06 1.52 .218
Error 236
Total 24
Curiosity
Method 1.12 0.23 .629
Achievement Level 0.24 0.05 .823
Method X
Achievement Level 1.19 .276
Error 236
Total 24
Judgment
Method 1.99 0.38 .540
Achievement Level 7.98 1.51 .220
Method X
Achievement Level 10.91 2.06 .152
Error 236
Total 24
Criteria
Method 0.00 0.00 .985
Achievement Level 10.41 1.38 .242
Method x
Achievement Level 30.32 4.00 .047*
Error 236
Total 24
Total intrinsic motivation
Method 0.24 0.01 .942
Achievement Level 33.54 .75 .389
Method x
Achievement Level 157.68 3.50 .062
Error 236
Total 24

*p < .05.

over time in the traditional classes. Hence, an interaction
occurred between method and achievement level.
To summarize, the results do not support Hypothesis 3
because the group investigation method did not exert a more
positive effect on students' intrinsic motivation to learn as
compared with the whole-class method. Also, results do not
support Hypothesis 4 because group investigation did not
exert a more positive effect on low-achieving students as
compared with high-achieving students. An unanticipated
finding was that group investigation did exert a more posi
tive effect on high-achieving students than on low-achiev
ing students on the Criteria subscale of intrinsic motivation.
Perceptions
The students wrote 955 statements providing informa
tion from which we generated the data in Table 7; 68.2% of
the statements were positive, and 31.8% were negative.
High-achieving students wrote an average 8.1 statements
per student (total of 651 statements), of which 69.1% were

This content downloaded from 101.203.171.2 on Thu, 16 Aug 2018 06:37:59 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
January/February 2007 [Vol. 100 (No. 3)]
Group Investigation
Whole Class
14.5-p
14.0 ?
13.5 ?
13.0
3 12-5-1
12.0 ?
11.5 ?
11.0
10.5
Pretest Posttest
Low Achieving
FIGURE 1. Two-way interaction on the Criteria subscale between method and achievement
level.
positive and 30.9% were negative. Low-achieving students
averaged 4.9 statements per student (total of 304 state
ments), of which 66.5% were positive and 33.5% were neg
ative. Most important, the high-achieving and low-achiev
ing students made twice as many positive statements as
negative statements. A detailed description follows of the
categories of students' positive, as well as negative, percep
tions of the group investigation method.
Positive Statements About Group Investigation
For the students' positive responses to group investiga
tion, four main categories emerged as significant: (a) direct
positive evaluations of group investigation; (b) positive
perceptions of the extent of achievement regarding
increased knowledge, understanding, and learning; (c) pos
itive perceptions of social relationships; and (d) positive
perceptions of learning skills and ability to pursue knowl
edge stemming from group investigation.
The first category that emerged consisted of key words
and statements that expressed students' direct positive
evaluations of group investigation. Students described the
method as "fun," "interesting," "good," or "effective." Sev
eral students stated that they liked and enjoyed the new
method of learning and that it was "much more effective
than the traditional way of teaching." That category
formed the largest percentage of statements made by high
achieving students (21.2% of total number) and low
achieving students (23.4% of total number).
A second category that surfaced from the students' per
ceptions concerned the positive effects of group investiga
tion on their academic achievement and learning. High
This content downloaded from 101.203.171.2 on Thu, 16 Aug 2018 06:37:59 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
149
Pretest Posttest
High Achieving
achieving students (11.2% of total statements) and low
achieving students (10.9% of total statements) stated that
the group investigation method enabled them to "learn
better" and to "learn new things." A typical example made
by a student was that "... we learn more and deeply into
the topic as we find the information ourselves, and of
course after reading and understanding, we present it to the
class." The students reported that group investigation
helped them to increase their understanding and to expand
their knowledge.
Both groups of students indicated that group investiga
tion promoted better social relationships and friendship
ties. They wrote that they learned more about cooperation
and the spirit of teamwork. Teamwork and working as a
team were among the terms that the students used fre
quently when asked about group investigation. One stu
dent commented that "... Teamwork is important in order
to establish a good relationship between group members
and to have satisfying results at the end of the investiga
tion." Students' responses such as "helping each other,"
working together," "increase friendship ties," and "learned
to cooperate" were all included in the positive aspects of
group investigation. The low-achieving students (16.8% of
total statements) highlighted the benefits derived from
their experiences with group investigation more than did
the high-achieving students (11.2% of total statements).
The students also repeatedly mentioned acquiring learn
ing skills during the investigation. Many students drew
attention to their experience of independent learning
(developing a sense of independence, investigating the
topic), process of presentation (reviewing presentation
skills, gaining presentation), and information gathering
 150 The Journal of Educational Research

TABLE 7. Statements of High- and Low-Achieving Students About the Group Investigation
Method

High-achieving Low-achieving
students students

Key words/statements n % n %

Positive statements
1. Direct positive evaluations of group
investigation (interesting, fun, good, ef
2. Achievement (increased knowledge and
understanding) 73 11.2 33 10.9
3. Social relations (teamwork, friendship,
cooperation) 73 11.2 51 16.8
4. Learning skills (independent learning,
presentation) 143 22.0 33 10.8
5. Others 23 3.5 14 4.6
Negative statements
1. Direct negative evaluations of group
investigation (not a good method, difficult,
causes confusion) 23 3.5 20 6.6
2. Want a teacher or a normal lesson (need
teacher to explain, prefer normal les
3. Concern with examinations/syllabus/textbook
(demands of examinations, syllabus cove
4. Time consuming (insufficient time, less time
for study) 20 3.1 8 2.6
5. Achievement (cannot learn much, only know
one topic) 38 5.8 10 3.3
6. Social relations (arguments, lack of cooperation) 10 1
7. Learning skills (presentation problems,
research problems) 43 6.7 12 3.9
8. Others 4 0.6 ?
Positive statements 450 69.1 202 66.5
Negative statements 201 30.9 102 33.5
Total 651 100 304 100

(finding information and retrieving it from the Internet
and other sources). A student commented that,
From my own group, we have gathered information on our
chosen topic on the Internet as well as other references such
as books and encyclopedias. We had even made up an exper
iment to show how smoke contributes to acid rain but the
experiment failed. From this, we learn from our mistakes and
we went to search for the correct answers.
More high-achieving students (22.0% of total statements)
made positive statements about group investigation than
did low achievers (10.8% of total statements).
Negative Statements About Group Investigation
Both groups of students also expressed negative percep
tions of the new method of learning. Although only one
third of statements (304 of 955) made by the students were
negative, they provide insights into the students' psychology
of classroom learning. High- and low-achieving students did
not differ significantly regarding the percentages of negative
statements (high achievers, 30.9%; low achievers, 33.5%).
Some students stated that the group investigation
method was not good or that it was less effective or benefi
cial to their studies than other methods because they had
to "study hard on our own," or "revise their work at home."
Some students stated that they were confused and that it
was difficult or troublesome to study. Some of the low
achieving students commented that they were "uncomfort
able to study like this" and did not like the method; low
achieving students expressed a higher percentage of
statements in this category. For the low-achieving students,
6.6% of their statements reflected negative statements
about group investigation, whereas 3.5% of the high
achieving students made similar comments. One student
reported that "To me, this method is not good for the stu
dents. It will not benefit the students as the students would
not pay attention when the other classmates present the
work. As a result, they will not learn anything."
The students also expressed their preference for "nor
mal" lessons or for their teachers to teach (i.e., instead of
students investigating a topic). High- and low-achieving

This content downloaded from 101.203.171.2 on Thu, 16 Aug 2018 06:37:59 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
January/February 2007 [Vol. 100 (No. 3)] 151
students (5.5% and 5.9% of respective statements) provid
ed insights into the reasons for their preference for the
"teacher teaching in class" or that they preferred the tradi
tional method. The students perceived that they learned
more from teachers and that teacher notes were better than
their notes. The students also said that they did not trust
their peers to teach them because they perceived that their
peers gave plain and stupid answers. In short, the students
stated that group investigation was not better than teacher
instruction. According to the students, teachers are more
knowledgeable than they are, and teachers should teach
first, then revise and summarize. They stated that only the
teacher's instruction can raise their grades.
A category of statements emerged that reflected the stu
dents' concern for covering the syllabus, textbook, and
examinations. The students expressed their need to manage
other subjects, and their lack of concentration when prepar
ing for upcoming examinations. Some students reported
that group investigation was unsuitable for studying for
examinations because they had to reread the textbook and
had less time to prepare. The high-achieving students made
27 (4.2%) of the statements in this category, and the low
achieving students made 8 (2.6%) of the statements in the
category. A typical statement in this category was,
I think this method could be used as a source for learning
something extra about the topic but not suitable for a
method to be used for studying and then go for the school
exams. I could say that this method of learning may not
work well for those who have the mentality of doing it for
the sake of doing or for the marks. In conclusion, I would say
that I would do it as an extra source of method to get some
extra information, but not for studying to sit for the exam.
The students (3.1% of high-achievers' statements and
2.6% of low-achievers' statements) emphasized that the
new learning method was time-consuming because it was
difficult finding time for students to get together and they
had less time to study on their own.
In terms of negative effects on academic achievement,
38 (5.8%) of the high-achieving students said that they
were not able to learn with the group investigation
method. Several high-achieving students stated that they
were not able to absorb the information presented by other
groups of students and that they could understand only the
topic that they were presenting. Some low-achieving stu
dents (3.3% of their statements) commented that they did
not learn much because they did not understand some of
the presentations made by their peers. Several students
expressed a lack of security when they researched only one
subtopic and had to depend on other groups of students for
information on other topics.
Another category of statements related to students'
social interaction with their peers while working in coop
erative groups. Low-achieving students in particular noted
that they had difficulty working in groups. Those students
reported 8.6% of their total statements in this category,
which included statements implying that they quarrelled or
This content downloaded from 101.203.171.2 on Thu, 16 Aug 2018 06:37:59 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
argued with group mates. For example, one student said,
"But one thing I don't like about this is when there are
some lazy people in the group who do not cooperate with
us." Only 1.5% of the statements of the high-achieving stu
dents emphasized that type of response.
Students from high-achieving groups (6.7% of their total
statements) and low-achieving groups (3.9% of their total
statements) identified problems that they encountered
while doing their research and about the presentations they
made. Some students had difficulty finding information
because they did not know what to find or what to discuss.
Other students commented on the students' presentations.
They said that some presentations were too long or
detailed, lacked information, or were unclear. The students
complained that they could not obtain satisfactory answers
from those students who were making the presentations.
To summarize, students had positive and negative per
ceptions of the group investigation method; they reported
twice as many positive statements as negative statements.
The high-achieving students and the low-achieving stu
dents gave the same proportion of positive and negative
statements?two thirds positive and one third negative.
However, there was likely a slight difference between the
perceptions of the two groups of students. The high-achiev
ing students were more concerned than were the low
achieving students with the learning skills involved in
group investigation (i.e., the positive or negative sense).
The low-achieving students were more concerned about
social relations than were the high-achieving students.
Discussion
We used three sets of data in this experiment regarding
students' (a) academic achievement, (b) intrinsic versus
extrinsic motivation to learn, and (c) perceptions of the
group investigation method. Our primary goals in this sec
tion were to assess and explain the meaning of the results
that we obtained, as well as to relate them to one another.
We divided the explanations of the results into three per
spectives: (a) students' learning characteristics, (b) extent
of students' exposure to group investigation, and (c) school
and classroom organizational norms.
Student Learning Characteristics
The data regarding student achievement showed that
the group investigation method was not more effective
than the whole-class method. However, group investiga
tion did not yield significantly lower scores than did the
familiar whole-class method. Most of the earlier studies on
group investigation (Lazarowitz & Karsenty, 1990; Shachar
ck Sharan, 1994; Sharan ck Hertz-Lazarowitz, 1980; Sharan
ck Shachar, 1988; Sharan ck Shaulov, 1990; Sharan et al.,
1985) yielded significant differences between the two
methods of classroom instructions. Although Sherman
(1988) reported that the group investigation class and the

control class obtained significantly higher posttest achieve
ment scores, he found no significant difference between the
two groups in academic achievement. Similarly, the
absence of such differences in the present study raises the
question of why the anticipated results were not obtained
here in contrast with most of the research reported earlier.
As expected, students in the high-achieving classes
received significantly higher achievement scores than did
those in the low-achieving classes, regardless of whether
they were in whole-class or group investigation classes.
What did not emerge that would have been consistent with
the hypotheses was an effect for students' exposure to group
investigation in the data gathered from either low- or high
achieving students.
The first factor that we examined here was the relevant
features or characteristics of the students, which could have
affected their approach to learning and their academic
achievement in group investigation classes. The statements
written by the students regarding group investigation pro
vide some insights into their learning characteristics.
Students were accustomed to learning passively from
teachers, taking notes, and preparing for tests and exami
nations. They were not accustomed to investigating a
topic, acquiring information by themselves or from their
peers, or learning in groups. Students wanted teachers to
present the academic material to them instead of being
asked to search for information. They commented that
group investigation required more of their time than did
traditional whole-class instruction. Students were con
cerned that they had insufficient time to study for their
other class tests and to revise for the forthcoming examina
tions. Group investigation students were apprehensive
about not being as prepared for their examination as they
were in the traditional classroom. They also said that they
had difficulty learning about other topics that they did not
investigate. We especially noted that concern because
group investigation required the students in different
groups (division of labor) to investigate one facet of the
topic. The students also encountered difficulty researching
topics because previously they did not have to conduct
research, but only record the material that teachers pre
sented (prepackaged knowledge).
Data regarding students' motivation revealed no signifi
cant changes during the experiment except on the Criteria
subscale of the questionnaire, which assessed the degree of
students' internal versus external criteria for success or fail
ure (locus of control in earlier research). The high-achiev
ing students in group investigation classes increased their
Criteria scores, whereas their peers in the whole-class groups
experienced a decline in their scores. Conversely, the low
achieving students in group investigation classes experi
enced a decline in scores on the Criteria scale, whereas their
peers in the control group increased their scores.
The high-achieving students in group investigation
classes relied more on internal criteria for success or fail
ure after studying with that method than did their peers
This content downloaded from 101.203.171.2 on Thu, 16 Aug 2018 06:37:59 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
152 The Journal of Educational Research
who studied in classes taught with the whole-class
method. Group investigation offered students a signifi
cant degree of control over the method and goals of their
study. They planned what they wanted to achieve with
their study project and how they intended to implement
it. Group investigation involved students in assessing
their work in terms of the criteria that they determined,
so their responses to the Criteria scale on the motivation
questionnaire were consistent with the nature of the study
process that they used with group investigation. However,
that result occurred only for the high-achieving students.
The low-achieving group investigation students reported
that their motivation to learn declined, the opposite of
the findings from the high-achieving students. Group
investigation might pose difficulties for low-achieving
students until they achieve a sense of familiarity with that
approach to classroom learning. Those students might
also require a more structured and teacher-directed form
of instruction to progress confidently in their studies. The
low-achieving students were also less able to make judg
ments and were more dependent on their teachers' evalu
ation for assessing their success or failure than were the
high-achieving students.
Exposure to Group Investigation
The data from this study regarding motivation also high
light a factor that may have influenced students' motiva
tion to learn. The 6-week duration of the experiment could
have been a plausible reason why only one subscale on
motivation registered a significant difference. Because stu
dents' history of exposure to teaching and learning in
school was highly uniform and they were accustomed
exclusively to the whole-class method, 6 weeks may have
been insufficient for group investigation to influence their
motivation to learn. Students were exposed to group inves
tigation only in geography. According to the mandated
curriculum in both schools, geography was taught only in
the second semester for 15 weeks before the start of final
examinations. Hence, students' experience in group inves
tigation was a mere "injection" of a new and different
teaching method into a traditional classroom environment
that remained unchanged in all areas except geography.
The time constraint imposed by the schools on this exper
iment diluted the potential impact of group investigation
on students' motivation to learn. The fact that students'
motivation did not change could also be a reason that con
tributes to the explanation of why student achievement did
not improve in the group investigation classes.
Researchers have recognized that the amount of time
devoted to the implementation of independent variables in
an experiment affects students' cognitive and social-affec
tive functioning (Bossert, 1988; Nastasi & Clements, 1991;
Sharan, 2002; Slavin, 1995). However, the optimum dura
tion is not known for measuring the effects of group inves
tigation or other methods of classroom teaching and learn
January/February 2007 [Vol. 100 (No. 3)] 153
ing on students' cognitive and social-affective outcomes.
Experiments with various methods of cooperative learning
yielded positive results in terms of students' academic
achievement after implementation for a few days to 2 or
more weeks (Johnson ck Johnson, 1985; Qin, Johnson, ck
Johnson, 1995; Sharan, 1980; Slavin, 1980, 1983, 1995).
Slavin (1995) stated that for cooperative learning to be
effective, the duration of a study must be at least 4 weeks.
Therefore, a clear empirical basis existed for planning the
present study for a period of 6 weeks. The students in this
study needed more time to adjust to the new method of
learning cooperatively because they were entrenched in
the prevailing norms of teacher-centered teaching and
individualistic learning.
Participants also had to adjust to a completely different
set of conditions in terms of their psychological involve
ment in the learning process. They expressed their prefer
ence for direct instruction by the teachers who would pro
vide them with the facts and notes. The students were not
prepared for a more encompassing emotional and intellec
tual involvement in the learning process.
Assessment of the value of an instructional method is
affected by the social-psychological condition of the stu
dents. The lack of positive findings about the effects of group
investigation on students' achievement and motivation in
this study might be the result of insufficient time that the
students had to adjust to this new form of classroom learning.
School and Classroom Organizational Norms
A third set of factors involves the social and organiza
tional features of the school and the school system that
directly and indirectly affect student learning in the class
room (Schmuck 6k Runkel, 1985; Schmuck 6k Schmuck,
2001; Sharan, Shachar, 6k Levine, 1999). A study of the
effects of a new teaching method on students is influenced
by several schoolwide factors and prevailing schoolwide
and classroom norms. That is particularly true when the
method being assessed is not part of the teachers' tradi
tional instructional repertoire. Hence, an interpretation of
the findings reported here requires some discussion of the
complex issue of school organization and change (Elmore,
1987; Fullan ck Stiegelbauer, 1991; Goodlad, 1984; Sara
son, 1990, 1996), even though the focus of this study was
the assessment of classroom teaching methods.
The behavior of teachers and students is often affected
by organizational and political factors operating in schools.
Factors that exert powerful effects on the behavior of
teachers and students include the broad schoolwide and
even nationwide norms governing (a) the organization of
classrooms, (b) assignment of students to classes, (c) sched
ules and frequency of examinations, (d) quantity of curric
ular material, and (e) students' long-standing attitudes and
expectations developed through years of exposure to tradi
tional forms of schooling (Sarason, 1983, 1990, 1996;
Schmuck ck Runkel, 1985).
This content downloaded from 101.203.171.2 on Thu, 16 Aug 2018 06:37:59 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
One major impediment to the effective implementation
of group investigation is that our results could not change
the prevailing norms regarding the schools' expectations of
students' academic behavior. Group investigation requires
a set of norms and expectations for which the teachers and
students in this study were completely unaccustomed.
Many of the students' written evaluations of group investi
gation reflected their years of exposure to the traditional
norms of school behavior. Schools must convey to the stu
dents a new set of academic norms that requires students to
seek information that the teachers do not provide. Some
students in this study were confused by the new method of
learning. The students who took geography classes taught
with group investigation also took subjects taught with the
traditional whole-class, presentation-recitation method.
The students were still entrenched in the traditional school
and classroom norms. Those norms could be changed only
by a relatively extensive school-change project.
Elements of the instructional process in schools are con
nected and affect one another. For example, the norms of
evaluation in classes and schools affect many aspects of
classroom teaching and learning. While the students in the
present experiment were conducting their investigation of
their chosen topics, they were also mindful of the tests and
examinations for which they had to prepare. Those con
flicting issues were reflected in the students' written state
ments at the end of the experiment.
By examining a synthesis of achievement and motiva
tion data in this study, as well as student evaluations, we
concluded that attempts to improve student achievement
and motivation by implementing a new method of instruc
tion will not likely succeed because limited changes are
made to existing norms and behavioral regularities of the
class. If the regularities of classroom teaching and learning
typical of whole-class instruction remain unchanged and
are not adapted to the essential characteristics of group
investigation, little improvement will occur (Sarason,
1990).
Despite the inconsistency between group investigation
and traditional organization, expectations, and norms in
the classroom environment, the students expressed positive
attitudes about their experience with group investigation.
Their positive evaluations provide evidence that the stu
dents enjoyed the learning process, built stronger team spir
its, acquired research skills, and had a deeper understand
ing of the topic with group investigation.
Researchers should examine the impact exerted by group
investigation and by other methods of cooperative learning
on students and consider the new method of instruction as
part of a planned educational change effort in the school.
A primary change that researchers must consider is the
norms that exert a significant effect on teacher and student
attitudes and behavior toward teaching and learning. If
new instructional methods such as group investigation are
to be studied systematically, norms of classroom organiza
tion and especially student evaluation must be changed.

REFERENCES
Ahuja, A. (1994). The effects of cooperative learning instructional strategy on
the academic achievement, attitudes toward science class and process skills of
middle school science students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The
Ohio State University, Columbus.
Bakeman, R., & Gottman, J. M. (1986). Observing interaction: An intro
duction to sequential analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bossert, S. T. (1988). Cooperative activities in the classroom. Review of
Research in Education, 15, 225-250.
Brody, C, & Davidson, N. ( 1998). Introduction. In C. Brody & N. David
son (Eds.), Professional development for cooperative learning. Albany:
State University of New York Press.
Cohen, E. (1994). Designing groupwork: Strategies for the heterogeneous
classroom (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
Elmore, R. (1987). Reform and the culture of authority in schools. Educa
tional Administration Quarterly, 23, 60-78.
Fullan, M., & Stiegelbauer, S. (1991). The new meaning of educational
change. New York: Teachers College Press.
Goodlad, J. (1984). A place called school. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Harter, S. (1980). A scale of intrinsic versus extrinsic orientation in the class
room. Unpublished manuscript, University of Denver.
Harter, S. (1981). A new self-report scale of intrinsic versus extrinsic ori
entation in the classroom: Motivational and informational compo
nents. Developmental Psychology, 17, 300-312.
Jackson, B. (1994). Cooperative learning: A case study of a university
course in system analysis. Educational and Training Technology Interna
tional, 31, 166-179.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T (1985). The internal dynamics of coop
erative learning groups. In R. Slavin, S. Sharan, S. Kagan, R. Hertz
Lazarowitz, C. Webb, & R. Schmuck (Eds.), Learning to cooperate, coop
erating to learn (pp. 103-124). New York: Plenum.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2002). Learning together and alone:
Overview and meta-analysis. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 22,
95-105.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R., & Maruyama, G. (1983). Interdependence
and interpersonal attraction among heterogeneous and homogeneous
individuals: A theoretical formulation and a meta-analysis of the
research. Review of Educational Research, 53, 5-54
Johnson, D., Maruyama, G., Johnson, R., Nelson, D., & Skon, L. (1981).
Effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures
on achievement: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 89, 47-62.
Kagan, S. (1985). Dimensions of cooperative structures. In R. Slavin, S.
Sharan, S. Kagan, R. Hertz-lazarowitz, C, Webb, & R. Schmuck (Eds.),
Learning to cooperate, cooperating to learn (pp. 67-96). New York:
Plenum.
Kolb, D., & Fry, R. (1975). Towards an applied theory of experiential
learning. In C. Cooper (Ed.), Theories of group processes (pp. 33-57).
London: Wiley.
Lazarowitz, R., & Karsenty, G. (1990). Cooperative learning and students'
academic achievement, process skills, learning environment, and self
esteem in tenth-grade biology classrooms. In S. Sharan (Ed.), Coopera
tive learning: Theory and research (pp. 123-149). New York: Praeger.
McManus, S. M., & Gettinger, M. (1996). Teacher and student evalua
tions of cooperative learning and observed interactive behaviors. The
Journal of Educational Research, 90, 13-22.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: A
sourcebook of new methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An
expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ministry of Education. (1998). Curriculum review report. Singapore: Min
istry of Education.
Mueller, A., & Fleming, T (2001). Cooperative learning: Listening to
how children work at school. The Journal of Educational Research, 94,
259-265.
Mulryan, C. M. (1994). Perceptions of intermediate students' cooperative
small-group work in mathematics. The Journal of Educational Research,
87, 280-291.
This content downloaded from 101.203.171.2 on Thu, 16 Aug 2018 06:37:59 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
154 The Journal of Educational Research
Nastasi, B. K., <k Clements, D. H. (1991). Research on cooperative learn
ing: Implications for practice. School Psychology Review, 20( 1 ), 110-131.
Qin, Z., Johnson, D. W, & Johnson, R. T. (1995). Cooperative versus
competitive efforts and problem solving. Review of Educational Research,
65, 129-143.
Sarason, S. (1983). Schooling in America: Scapegoat and salvation. New
York: Free Press.
Sarason, S. (1990). The predictable failure of educational reform. San Fran
cisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sarason, S. (1996). Revisiting "The culture of the school and the problem of
change." New York: Teachers' College Press.
Schmuck, R., & Runkel, P. (1985). The handbook of organization develop
ment in schools and colleges (3rd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield.
Schmuck, R. A., & Schmuck, P A. (2001). Group processes in the classroom
(8th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Shachar, H., & Sharan, S. (1994). Talking, relating, achieving: Effects of
cooperative learning and whole-class instruction. Cognition and Instruc
tion, 12,313-353.
Sharan, S. (1980). Cooperative learning in small groups: Recent methods
and effects on achievement, attitudes and ethnic relations. Review of
Educational Research, 50, 241-271.
Sharan, S. (2002). Differentiating methods of cooperative learning in
research and practice. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 22(1), 106-116.
Sharan, S., & Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (1980). A group investigation method
of cooperative learning in the classroom. In S. Sharan, P. Hare, C.
Webb, R. Hertz-Lazarowitz (Eds.), Cooperation in education (pp. 14-46).
Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Press.
Sharan, S., Kussell, P., Bejarano, Y., Raviv, S., Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., &
Sharan, Y. (1985). Cooperative learning effects on ethnic relations and
achievement in Israeli junior high-school classrooms. In R. Slavin, S.
Sharan, S. Kagan, C. Webb, R. Hertz-Lazarowitz, & R. Schmuck (Eds.),
Learning to cooperate, cooperating to learn (pp. 313-344). New York:
Plenum Press.
Sharan. S., & Shachar, H. (1988). Language and learning in the cooperative
classroom. New York: Springer Verlag.
Sharan, S., Shachar, H., & Levine, T. (1999). The innovative school: Orga
nization and instruction. Westport, CT: Bergin 6k Garvey.
Sharan, Y., & Sharan, S. (1992). Expanding cooperative learning through
group investigation. New York: Teachers' College Press.
Sharan, Y., & Sharan, S. (1999). Group investigation in the cooperative
classroom. In S. Sharan (Ed.), Handbook of cooperative learning methods
(2nd ed., pp. 97-114). Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Sharan, S., & Shaulov, A. (1990). Cooperative learning, motivation to
learn and academic achievement. In S. Sharan (Ed.), Cooperative learn
ing: Theory and research (pp. 173-202). New York: Praeger.
Sherman, L. W (1988). A comparative study of cooperative and compet
itive achievement in two secondary biology classrooms: The group
investigation model versus an individually competitive goal structure.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26, 55-64.
Slavin, R. E. (1980). Cooperative learning. Review of Educational Research,
50(2), 315-342.
Slavin, R. E. (1983). Cooperative learning. New York: Longman.
Slavin, R. E. (1990). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Slavin, R. E. (1991). Synthesis of research on cooperative learning. Edu
cational Leadership, 48, 71-82.
Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice
(2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Slesinski, C. (1998). The role of concepts, plans and enactment when cooper
ative learning is implemented for purpose of school reform. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Albany, State University of New
York.
Tan, C. G. I. (2004). Effects of cooperative learning with group investigation
on secondary students' achievement, motivation and perceptions. Unpub
lished doctoral thesis, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.
Whicker, K. M., Bol, L. & Nunnery, J. A. (1997). Cooperative learning in
the secondary mathematics classroom. The Journal of Educational
Research, 91, 42-48.