ARTICLE IN PRESS

Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 13331348 www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

Teachers discourse during cooperative learning and their perceptions of this pedagogical practice
Robyn M. Gillies, Michael Boyle
School of Education, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland 4072, Australia Received 6 April 2007; received in revised form 26 August 2007; accepted 25 October 2007

Abstract This article describes the types of discourse seven high school teachers used during cooperative leaning. One classroom lesson where students worked in cooperating groups was audiotaped and fully transcribed for each teacher and a vignette of two of the teachers and one of the groups in his or her room are also provided. The data from the audiotapes showed that the teachers used a range of mediated-learning behaviours that included challenging students perspectives, asking cognitive and metacognitive questions, and scaffolding students learning. In turn, the students used many of the discourses they heard their teachers use in their interactions with each other. Follow-up interviews of teachers perceptions of cooperative learning as a pedagogical practice that had efcacy revealed that they believed it was important to structure the groups (i.e., tasks, composition), teach the appropriate social skills, and present tasks that encouraged students to think critically and reectively about their learning. r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Cooperative learning; Pedagogy; Discourse; Teachers perceptions

1. Introduction There is no doubt that children benet from social interaction with others. Moreover, there is an extensive volume of research that documents these benets, including the benets derived from structured dialogues such as reciprocal teaching (Brown & Palincsar, 1988), scripted cooperation (ODonnell, 1999), and the Ask to Think-Tel Why model of peer tutoring (King, 1997, 2002), all designed to help students ask and answer questions when working in cooperating groups. Additionally, there are the
Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 7 3365 6541; fax: +61 7 3365 7199. E-mail address: r.gillies@uq.edu.au (R.M. Gillies).

benets derived from unstructured dialogues such as those involving students use of exploratory talk where ground rules are established to promote student discussion (Mercer, 1996; Mercer, Wegerif, & Dawes, 1999) and the more generic approach for dialoguing in groups that emphasize the importance of using appropriate interpersonal and small group skills (see Johnson & Johnson, 1990). All are designed to either explicitly or implicitly facilitate student interaction. Interestingly, although the benets students derive from social interaction are well documented, the role the teacher plays in facilitating the learning that occurs has been somewhat neglected (Gillies, 2004a). This may have happened because teachers have traditionally been encouraged to adopt a

0742-051X/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2007.10.003

ARTICLE IN PRESS
1334 R.M. Gillies, M. Boyle / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 13331348

non-interventionist approach and act as the guide on the side to encourage children to use each other as a resource rather than rely on a transmission model of learning. This approach may have been further reinforced by the extensive volume of research that has documented the benets that accrue to children from interacting with others (King, 2002; ODonnell, 1999; Slavin, 1995; Webb, 1992; Webb & Farivar, 1994). There is no denying that social interaction plays a major role in how children learn; however, the key role teachers play is less well understood and warrants further investigation, especially given that it is often the teacher who models how to engage in specic questioning techniques, scripted dialogues, reciprocal teaching, and exploratory talk, strategies that are used to help children talk and reason effectively together (Mercer et al., 1999; ODonnell, Dansereau, & Rocklin, 1987; Palincsar & Herrenkohl, 1999; Webb, Nemer, Kersting, Ing, & Forrest, 2004). 2. Teachers discourse during cooperative learning While there is a paucity of research that focuses specically on teachers discourse during cooperative learning, an early study by Hertz-Lazarowitz and Shachar (1990) provided insights into the differences in discourses teachers use when they implement whole-class instruction or cooperative learning. The study involved 27 elementary teachers in grades 16 who were trained to embed cooperative learning pedagogical practices into their classroom curriculum. The training in cooperative learning pedagogy was quite extensive as it consisted of a full weeks induction and on-going fortnightly seminars after school for a full school year for the participating teachers. The results showed that when the teachers implemented whole-class instruction, they spent more time directing, lecturing, questioning, and disciplining students and their language was more authoritarian and impersonal. In contrast, during cooperative learning, their discourse was more helpful, supportive, and encouraging of students endeavours and their language was more friendly and personal. In fact, during whole-class instruction, 71.5% of teachers total interactions involved those more formal speech events of directing lecturing, questioning, and disciplining while during cooperative learning 74% of their total interactions involved those more informal speech events of helping,

supporting, and encouraging student learning. The authors attributed the change in discourse to the change in organizational structure in the classroom and proposed that when teachers have to contend with small groups, rather than one large group, they become involved in a complex process of linguistic change as well so their language is more facilitative and intimate as they reach out to their students. This attribution has enormous implications for how teachers teach because with it the authors provided evidence, for the rst time, that if teachers are taught how to establish and use cooperative learning in their classrooms, it affects how they interact with their students, and, given that students respond positively to teachers who present as warm, caring, and personal in their interactions, it has the potential to inuence how students respond and learn. In a study that built on the ndings of HertzLazarowitz and Shachar (1990), Gillies (2006) investigated whether there were differences in the interactional styles of high school teachers who implemented cooperative learning as opposed to those who implemented small-group work only, that is, the groups were not structured for cooperative learning. The study involved 26 middle-year teachers from four high schools in Brisbane, Australia, who incorporated cooperative learning pedagogy into a unit of work (46-week period) once a term for three school terms (NB: all teachers had participated in a 2-day workshop on how to embed cooperative learning into their classroom curricula). The six categories of teachers verbal interactions that were coded were originally identied by HertzLazarowitz and Shachar (1990) and included teacher control (i.e., instructing, lecturing, directing); questions (i.e., short questions and questions designed to elicit expected responses characterized as initiationresponsefeedback [IRF] exchanges (Rojas-Drummond & Mercer, 2003)); discipline (i.e., reprimands directed at students); mediates (i.e., prompts, paraphrases to clarify understandings, challenges to thinking, scaffolds to link information); encourages (i.e., praises students efforts, encourages interactions among students); and maintenance interactions (i.e., deals with technical issues in carrying out the task). The results showed that of the teachers who implemented cooperative learning, 18.2% of the total interactions involved mediated-learning behaviours or behaviours designed to promote thinking

ARTICLE IN PRESS
R.M. Gillies, M. Boyle / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 13331348 1335

and foster learning, 20.5% of their total interactions involved questioning behaviours (i.e., open and closed questions), and 6.3% involved disciplinary comments (i.e., behaviours designed to caution students to behave appropriately). This was in contrast to the teachers who implemented smallgroup work only where 12.5% of their total interactions involved mediated-learning behaviours, 13.7% questioning behaviours, and 12.9% disciplinary comments. These results showed that the teachers who implemented cooperative learning engaged in nearly 50% more mediated-learning behaviours (effect size 0.52, or more than half a standard deviation in difference which is considered to be a moderately effective improvement (Gay & Airasian, 2003)) than the teachers who implemented small-group work only. They also recorded fewer than half of the disciplinary comments of their small-group work only peers. Given that Gillies (2006) and Hertz-Lazarowitz and Shachar (1990) were able to demonstrate that when teachers embed cooperative learning pedagogy into their classroom curricula, they engage in more facilitative verbal interactions than teachers who implement whole-class instruction or smallgroups only, the purpose of the study reported here is to provide a detailed analysis of the discourse teachers use when they implement cooperative learning. Understanding the types of discourse that the teachers used is important because Gillies (2006) demonstrated that students discourse is affected by the types of group experiences they have. For example, the students in the classrooms where their teachers implemented cooperative learning provided nearly twice as many elaborative responses, short responses, and directions as their peers in the group-work only groups. Moreover, these students were more verbally active recording nearly twice as many task-related interactions (i.e., all interactions excluding interruptions) as the students in the small-groups only groups, interactions that have been shown to contribute to learning (Cohen, 1994; Cohen, Lotan, Abram, Scarloss, & Schultz, 2002). This article also reports on the teachers perceptions of cooperative learning, aspects that need to be considered if this pedagogical approach to teaching and learning is to be used more widely in classrooms in junior high school. Understanding teachers perceptions of its efcacy as a pedagogical practice will help to determine how it can be effectively implemented in classrooms. This is particularly

important given that Baines, Blatchford, and Kutnick (2003) found that by secondary school students were more likely to work in dyads or in groups of 11 or more members where teachers determined the size of the group, the working interaction type, and the learning tasks to be undertaken. In most cases, Baines et al. proposed, grouping practices were aimed at maintaining control by the teacher; an approach to group work that is contrary to developing group autonomy and responsibility advocated by proponents of cooperative learning (e.g., Johnson & Johnson, 1990; Slavin, 1995). 3. Method 3.1. Participants Seven teachers, chosen randomly from the 13 teachers in the cooperative condition in the Gillies (2006) study, participated in this study. Two of the teachers were male and ve were female and all taught English or arts and technology courses for students in junior high school. All the teachers had more than 5 years of experience as teachers and all were highly regarded as competent professionals by their respective school principals. 3.2. Procedure 3.2.1. Audiotapes All the teachers were audiotaped twice during lessons in which they had agreed to embed cooperative learning activities and the audiotaping occurred towards the end of the rst and nal units of work in which they used cooperative learning pedagogy. The teachers wore an audio-microphone and they were taped for the full 45 min class period in which the students worked in their small-group activities. These audiotapes provided data that enabled the mediated-learning behaviours to be identied and coded according to prescribed categories discussed below. Samples of the students language from two small groups in each classroom were also collected by placing the audiocassette on the desk for the duration of the small-group activity. In addition, an observer sat discreetly at the back of each classroom and completed a classroom observation schedule on the implementation of cooperative learning during the audiotaped lessons.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
1336 R.M. Gillies, M. Boyle / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 13331348

3.2.2. Classroom observation schedule This schedule of the teachers application of a cooperative learning framework was developed by Gillies (2004a) and informed by the key elements of cooperative learning proposed by Johnson and Johnson (1990). It consisted of the following ve dimensions: (a) uses a range of cooperative learning activities and orchestrates their use according to the stage of curriculum development; (b) uses language that reects the fact that cooperative learning strategies are being employed (e.g., roles, family group); (c) facilitates the students use of cooperative learning (e.g., reduces explicit teaching and encourages students to work together); (d) reinforces the students use of learning strategies (e.g., uses encouragement, reection sheets); and (e) develops interdependence in the students (e.g., assigns work so that students have specic roles and responsibilities connected to their tasks). Three research assistants who had been trained specically in the behaviours to observe rated each dimension using a Likert scale, with 1 indicating if the behaviour had not been observed at all through to 5 indicating that it was almost always observed. Finally an overall judgement was made on the implementation of the ve dimensions of cooperative learning (outlined above) into the lesson that was observed. All seven teachers in the study reported obtained an overall rating of 45, indicating that they had systematically implemented cooperative learning pedagogy with a high degree of integrity into the lesson that was observed (i.e., they used a range of cooperative learning activities; they used language that encouraged students to work together; they reduced explicit teaching; reinforced student learning; and they established interdependence in the students). 3.2.3. Interviews Semi-structured interviews were conducted individually with teachers at the end of the year to gauge their perceptions of their experiences with embedding cooperative learning into their curricula as well as their perceptions of their students responses to this approach to learning. The following are examples of the types of open-ended questions that were used to stimulate discussion: Tell me about the types of issues youve had to contend with when youve introduced cooperative learning in your classroom; How does cooperative learning t in with what youre teaching in your classroom?; What are the sorts of issues you

consider when you are forming groups?; How do you deal with students with diverse needs? (see Appendix A for the list of open questions used to stimulate discussion). Each interview lasted approximately 1 h and all were fully transcribed so that teachers responses were clearly identied. 3.3. Coding 3.3.1. Teachers discourse Teachers discourse was coded by categories originally developed by Hertz-Lazarowitz and Shachar (1990) and modied by Gillies (2004a). Although the Gillies (2006) study, from which these data are derived, found that both mediated-learning and questioning behaviours were signicant, this article focuses on the mediated-learning behaviours rather than on the questioning behaviours. This is because many of the questions the teachers used only required short, unelaborated answers, and hence their contribution to scaffolding students learning is less clear and therefore not examined in this article. The mediated-learning behaviours from the teachers transcripts were initially coded and they included the following behaviours: challenging basic information, using cognitive and metacognitive reasoning, prompting, focusing on issues, asking open questions (i.e., questions that required students to generate an elaborated response), and validating and acknowledging students efforts. 3.3.2. Interviews Both authors coded and recoded the transcripts of the teachers interviews to check for recurring regularities (Guba, 1978) until there was 100% agreement that all the themes and categories in the interview data had been identied (see Table 1). The eight categories of teachers perceptions of cooperative learning that emerged are grouped under three themes that have been identied in the literature: group structure (Johnson & Johnson, 1990; Slavin, 1995), behaviour and social skills (Johnson & Johnson, 1990), and learning and thinking (King, 2002; Mercer et al., 1999). 4. Results and discussion 4.1. Types of mediated-learning behaviours Types and examples of the mediated-learning behaviours that the teachers demonstrated during

ARTICLE IN PRESS
R.M. Gillies, M. Boyle / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 13331348 Table 1 Types and examples of mediated-learning behaviour
Mediated-learning behaviours Challenges Teacher 4 (The Grade 10 students were deconstructing an advertisement for a car with a model lying across the bonnet in a tightly tted, sexually appealing red dress) Cognitive (reasons are required) Teacher 3 (The teacher directs the students to discuss the elements that are crucial to a good story are found in this onethe story the students have just read) Teacher 6 (Grade 8 students are sharing ideas on the re ant menace in preparation to writing a group essay on this topic) Metacognitive (thinking about thinking) Teacher 5 (Grade 9 students have been discussing issues of racism and prejudice) Prompts Teacher 2 (Grade 8 students have been discussing different characters in a novel they have read) Focuses on issues Teacher 1 (This is an art lesson on the different techniques that can be used to design a picturecolour, texture, presentation) Asking open questions Teacher 7 Validating and acknowledging students efforts Teacher 7 (This is an art and technology class where the students are designing either barbecue tongs or candle holders as a cooperative team) Examples

1337

What was the piece of vocabulary youd associate with red? (red hot sexually) Why was that? (J.S.) Im going to ask you (group) to tell us why youve weighted the elements (of good story writing) the way you have and give us a justication of why you have. (V.C.) Fire ants can be a real menace. What does menace mean? How are they going to be a menace? (S.B.) Think about this picture. This nice looking lady holding the babyy(shes dressed in the KKK clan regalia). What do you think this picture is saying? (K.S.) What kinds of characteristics do you think this person (character in the novel) has? (S.K.) Amy, would you like to choose another colour paper and well do this one as well? (focusing students attention on completing the design) (C.B.) What was the technique I wanted you to use with the tin-snips? Who can tell us about it? (G.K.) Lets have a look. Looks good. (G.K.)

Tim, your teams working a lot better todayyyoure showing other people and giving everyone a hand (G.K.)

their lessons are outlined in Table 1. These included behaviours that challenged students to think about their actions through to asking cognitive and metacognitive questions that required students to provide reasons or reect on their thinking. The teachers also used prompts to scaffold students learning and questions to get them to focus on specic issues while simultaneously validating and acknowledging their efforts with the task at hand. To elucidate the types of mediated-learning behaviours used, a vignette is provided of the discourse of two teachers (chosen at random) as they interacted with their students during their small-group activities. The vignettes are followed by an extract of the students dialogue in a group from each teachers classroom. In the rst vignette, Jennifer, the teacher (T.4), is helping her Grade 10 English students to decon-

struct a picture of an advertisement that the group are reviewing by using different discourses such as gender, class, and technology to unpack the messages that are communicated by the advertisers. The signiers that the students are focusing on are colour, gesture, culture, and specic words in the written text that will help them to identify the discourses that are being used. The students have been asked to read the text both literally and inferentially to identify the discourses. In the vignette below the students are deconstructing a picture of an advertisement for perfume involving a young woman holding a clear and sleek bottle of perfume with a red plunger in it while a young man looks longingly into her eyes. The teacher begins by briey illustrating examples of the terms signier, connotation (denotation had been discussed previously), and discourseterms the students need to

ARTICLE IN PRESS
1338 R.M. Gillies, M. Boyle / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 13331348

be familiar with if they are to successfully deconstruct the advertisement and identify the message or messages it conveys. The purpose of this activity is to understand the subtleties of the message in the advertisement the students are learning to critique.
First teacher vignette Teachers question Students response Teacher mediatedlearning behaviours Teacher prompts students to identify the type of discourse in the advertisement.

Teacher acknowledges and validates students response. 4. Whats the 5. Bottle. Teacher rst signier? prompts What do you see students to rst of all? direct their attention to the advertisement and identify what attracts their attention. 6. Whats its 7. A container. Teacher checks denotation? understanding of a key term. 8. And its 9. In this Teacher connotation is? particular case it prompts holds a quality students to think perfume. more carefully about the concept. 10. Look at the 11. About what? Teacher subtext here. Its shape or prompts Look at the re what? students to focus and ice and the on part of the text and we can bottle to identify go back to the a signier. bottle. What do you notice about

1. If youre 2. Gender? looking at stove, thats the signier but the connotation is that the womans in the kitchen so the discourse is gender? 3. Is that right? Students agree. You got it.

this part of the bottle? 12. Its shape, its 13. Its clear. Its Teacher colour. What do white. challenges you think its students to think telling us? about the subtleties of the message. 14. Yes, its 15. Fire and ice. Teacher clear. Its white. Fire will melt it. scaffolds OK, so its going The connotation students to t with the would be understanding ice. OK?...Here opposites to help them youve got the attract. 16. connect the clear white Opposites signiers. bottle just like contrast? ice with a red plunger just like re. Youve got two signiers working here. Whats the connotation of that? 17. So whats 18. Gender? Its Teacher your discourse? perfume being challenges the sold so were students to think trying to attract about the the opposite sex. discourse the advertisement is using. 19. Yes, its Teacher gender slash sex. acknowledges You need to students mention the suggestion. discourse by looking at the signiersyYes, in this case, it holds a quality perfume.

In the vignette above, the teacher provides the students with examples of a signier and a connotation (Turn 1). It is important that the students can distinguish between these two terms because they need to be able to use them to deconstruct the message that the advertisement conveys. When a student responds that the discourse is gender and the other students concur, she acknowledges and validates their response (Turn 3). This is then followed by a prompt (Turn 4) to focus their attention on the rst signier

ARTICLE IN PRESS
R.M. Gillies, M. Boyle / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 13331348 1339

that attracts their attention. This is followed by questions (Turns 6 and 8) to check students understanding of key terms, denotation (Turn 6) and connotation (Turn 8), understandings that are needed to help them deconstruct the advertisement. The remainder of the interaction with the students involves the teacher prompting, challenging, and checking to ensure that the students have a clearer understanding of the messages that are being transmitted (Turns 12 and 17) and ways they can build connections between the subtleties expressed (Turns 14 and 19). It should be noted that the teacher had very good rapport with her students because her interactions were positive and she made every effort to ensure that the students understood the task at hand. In turn, the students were open to including her in their group discussions as she moved around the room and monitored their work, intervening when she believed it was appropriate to do so. In order to understand what the students were doing in their small groups, the following vignette is presented of one small groups discussion of the advertisement they are deconstructing. This vignette was chosen at random from one of two groups that were audiotaped during the above lesson. The discussion occurred after the teachers interaction, reported above, with another group. In this vignette, the students began by examining an advertisement for a new car with a model leaning across the bonnet (different advertisement to the one the teacher discussed with the group above). Their discussion focused on the key signiers such as colour, alcohol, and the representation of different facial features on the model. The students task was to try and deconstruct this advertisement using different discourses such as gender, class, and technology dominance to determine the subtle messages conveyed in the advertisement. The students begin by brainstorming different messages such as connotations and discourses that they believe the advertisement conveys. First student vignette 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. S: S: S: S: S: S: S: S: Its sex. Female sex. Seduction? Female dominance? What about you Damian? (S. seeks ideas) Male submission, I think? Jewellery. OK! Whats that meanHands on boob? Sexy

9. S: OK! What else has that got? (S. challenges others to further examine the sexy connotation) 10. S: Male sex, female sex 11. S: Gender bitch 12. S: Gender discourse? 13. S: The colours redemphasizes sex. 14. S: What else does that tell us? What do you think? (S. seeks additional information and ideas from others) 15. S: Technology. We use technology to get our messages across. Look at the light and the colours in the picture. (S. provides explanation for the discourse hes suggested) 16. S: Maybe its class because shes gotten dressed up? (S. suggests class as another discourse and provides an explanation for that suggestion) 17. S: Gender game. The discourse is gender. (S. suggests another type of discourse the advertisement conveys) 18. S: So what do we have? Gender dominance? Class? (S. challenges others to identify the discourses that are relevant) 19. S: What about the colour? What does that signify? (S. asks, challenges others to elaborate on their understanding of the colour in the advertisement) 20. S: Red is a warm colour. Comfort? 21. S: It also signies shes a red hot bitch. 22. S: More sexy. 23. S: Cosmetics. Look at what shes wearing. 24. S: Class (dominance) because its (alcohol) in a glass and not a bottle. Its sophisticated. Its aimed at middle to working class. 25. S: Yep! Thats part of the message. (S. acknowledges and validates students response) 26. S: Gender? 27. S: Does this picture reinforce the notion as women as objects of beauty? (S. challenges others to afrm or disafrm her proposition) 28. S: Whys she looking at him and hes looking at her? Isnt that because of the boobs? 29. S: Yes. Look at the hair. 30. S: Is that a denotation? (S. seeks clarication on a denotation from others) At this point, the teacher wanders over to the group and makes the following comment: 31. T: Denotation...youre not going to refer specically to a denotation in your essay. You could talk about the hair being long, straight, shiny, and hanging across the eyes but all that comes into connotations doesnt it?

ARTICLE IN PRESS
1340 R.M. Gillies, M. Boyle / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 13331348

In the vignette above, the students used some of the mediated-learning behaviours they heard their teacher model. These included soliciting ideas from others (Turns 4 and 14), challenging others opinions or ideas (Turns 9, 18, 19, and 27), clarifying understandings (Turn 30), and acknowledging and validating others efforts (Turn 25). Given that these students were never taught to specically focus on using these types of mediatedlearning behaviours to interrogate the messages in the advertisement, it could be that they had either been exposed to this type of discourse previously or they may have appropriated them from their teacher as she interacted with the groups in their classroom. In the second teacher vignette, Strachan, the teacher (T.2), is working with one of the small groups in his Grade 8 English class to help them identify and represent the characteristics of one of the characters from a novel they have been reading. Each small group in the class has been assigned a character and their task is to try and represent his or her characteristics, literally, symbolically, inferentially, and affectively on their groups work sheet. Additionally, the teacher has asked each group to try and deduce, on the basis of their knowledge of their character, what he or she would look like if they met him or her in the street. In the vignette below, Tony Boy is the character the teacher is discussing with the students. Tony Boy is a welldeveloped 14-year-old orphan left to ght lifes challenges.

can identify this symbol?

McDonalds M sign. 5. Nike. 6. Coke. 8. A signature? Teacher challenges students to dene symbol.

7. OK! Using those symbols McDonalds, Nike and Coke are more known around the world than most religious symbols. So using those as examples, who can give me a denition of a symbol? 9. Tell me 10. Its a visual more. symbol. People know what it means.

Second teacher vignette Teachers question Students response Teacher mediatedlearning behaviours

1. What symbol or symbols represent this character? What do we mean by symbol? 3. What do I mean by symbol? Who

2. Pictures and Teacher probes things. students understanding of this key term.

4. McDonalds. Teacher prompts students by pointing to a

Teacher prompts student for additional information. 12. Good Teacher thinking. acknowledges students thinking. Teacher 14. His hair. 13. Think scaffolds Its long and about what brushed to one students to think symbol about how they side. represents can make a Tony Boy. If connection you can choose between their one symbol understanding of that best what a symbol is represents him and how it can and be be used to prepared to represent their state your character, Tony reasons why Boy. you chose that symbol. What is Tony Boy best known for? What about his appearance? 15. What does 16. Strength, Teacher probes students that represent hes cool. He for you? has a go when comments about the symbolism others wont.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
R.M. Gillies, M. Boyle / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 13331348 1341

they attached to Tony Boys hair. 18. How did you arrive at that? What made you decide that? 17. Hes brave. 19. What he did at the church. He ran in and saved everyone (rescued others in the re). Teacher asks student to identify his reason for thinking Tony Boy is brave.

In the vignette above, the teacher probes and prompts the students understanding of a symbol (Turns 1 and 3) and challenges them to dene the term (Turn 7). When a student responds that it is a signature, the teacher then probes for additional information (Turn 9), which prompts the student to provide a more elaborate description (Turn 10). The teacher acknowledges his good thinking (Turn 12) and then helps the students to use this information to scaffold how they can connect this new understanding to a symbol for Tony Boy. This is followed by the teacher probing (Turn 15) and challenging (Turn 18) the students reasons for the symbol they have chosen. It is clear that Strachan, the teacher, is using this exchange to encourage the students to engage more fully with the task, to think more cognitively and strategically about the character of Tony Boy, and how they can link information they are reading about to information that they have acquired in other settings. It is this ability to connect information from other learning experiences that is critical if students are to be able to think more metacognitively about their learning (King, 1999). In the vignette that follows, the students (a different group) are brainstorming some of the characteristics of Tony Boy and trying to think how they can represent their ideas on their groups work sheet. This interaction occurred while Strachan was interacting with the group above.

Second student vignette 1. S: OK, lets think of some ideas. What are some things about Tony Boy that we can write down? (S. seeks ideas and information from others) 2. S: He likes Cherie He smiles. 3. S: We think hes a major character. 4. S: Why do you think that? (S. probes reason) 5. S: He has a strong personality.

6. S: Hes Johnnys best friend (Johnny is another character in the novel). 7. S: Hes the youngest in the family; youngest in the game. His mum and dad died. 8. S: What did they die fromya car accident or something? (S. seeks information) 9. S: Hes acts tough but hes inuenced by the situation. 10. S: Hes got long black hair, sloped back like this (student rubs hands across his head). 11. S: Hes fourteen but he looks sixteen. Hes old for his years. 12. S: OK. Any more ideas? (S. seeks additional information) 13. S: Hes average build. 14. S: Hes the main character in the story. 15. S: Tony Boy is pretty easy. Hes smart. 16. S: How do you know that? (S. challenges students statement) 17. S: But if you think back, they do explain these things (referring to previous passages in the novel). 18. S: He likes Cherie (another character in the novel). 19. S: He got his name from his long hair. It looks like a pony tail. 20. S: Where did it tell you that? (S. challenges student to provide information) 21. S: He was actually christened Tony Boy. 22. S: What else can we think of about him? (S. challenges group for other thoughts) 23. S: Hes witty. Where you put smart put witty. 24. S: Hes outgoing. 25. S: He acts tough but hes inuenced by the situation. 26. S: Hes athletica fast runner. 27. S: Hes the youngest in the game (i.e., looking after himself). 28. S: He appreciates what he has even though its not much. He doesnt want money. 29. S: Yes he does. He says when they were making records they want to be make money. 30. S: What symbols represent this character? What exactly is this symbol? (S. challenges group to identify symbols that represent Tony Boy) 31. S: We need to talk about the symbols. Find the symbols and put them on the piece of paper (students pasting symbols of character on the paper along with listed attributes). 32. S: Would that symbol represent him? (S. challenges groups to identify a symbol)

ARTICLE IN PRESS
1342 R.M. Gillies, M. Boyle / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 13331348

33. S: Integrity? 34. S: OK, integrity. 35. S: Lets stick them all over the place (referring to the symbols). 36. S: Hes a dude. 37. S: No, whats that one that always wears jeans? We could do that. 38. S: Weve got to have like ve (symbols). 39. S: OK, Lets think of the others we want. What else can we have? (S. challenges others to think of additional ideas) 40. S: We can have this cause hes brave. (S. suggests symbol and provides reason) 41. S: Hes smart. He can fend for himself and hes looked after himself since his family died. In the vignette above, the students once again used some of the mediated-learning behaviours they heard their teacher use as he interacted with groups in the classroom. These include soliciting ideas (Turns 4, 8, and 12) and challenging others ideas (Turns 16, 22, 30, 32, and 39). Additionally, the vignette is replete with examples of how the students have represented the characteristics of Tony Boy, literally, symbolically, inferentially, and affectively, in their discussions with each other. While the initial examples that the teacher used to prompt students thinking with this task are not repeated here, examples of how the students addressed these facets of Tony Boys character included such literal interpretations as He smiles (Turn 2); He has a strong personality (Turn 5); Hes average build (Turn 13); Hes witty (Turn 23); and Hes athletic: (Turn 26). The symbolic interpretations included Hes got long black hair, sloped back like this (Turn 10); and Hes fourteen but looks sixteen (Turn 11), while the inferential ones

included: He acts tough but hes inuenced by the situation (Turn 9) and He appreciates what he has even though its not much (Turn 28). The discussion that occurred was task-oriented, synergetic, and productive, and demonstrates how the students used some of the types of mediatedlearning behaviours that their teacher has modelled to provide additional insights into Tony Boys character. Table 2 shows the types of mediated-learning behaviours (expressed in percentages) that the teachers used in their interactions with their students and, although no teacher used all seven, the teachers used four or more of these types of behaviours during the lesson that was analysed. Interestingly, all the teachers used prompts to scaffold the students thinking about issues, possibly as a precursor to helping them to think more cognitively and metacognitively about the task at hand. When students are challenged in this way, they learn to review their own thinking, clarify their understandings, and provide more detailed and thoughtful responses. In short, through social interaction, they learn to construct new ways of thinking and reasoning (Rojas-Drummond & Mercer, 2003; Webb & Farivar, 1999). 4.2. Teachers perceptions of cooperative learning The teachers perceptions of cooperative learning emerged from end-of-year interviews conducted with the seven teachers included in this study (see Appendix A for a list of questions asked during the interviews). By coding and re-coding the data, we were able to identify eight categories that emerged which have been identied in the research on cooperative learning: team work and

Table 2 Types of mediated-learning behaviours (expressed in percentages) used by each teacher Mediated-learning behaviours Teacher 1 Challenges Cognitive Metacognitive Prompts Focuses on issues Open questions Validates and acknowledges Total 2 5.0 9.5 19.0 33.3 14.2 19.0 100 100 3 33.4 16.6 27.7 22.3 4 8.6 13.1 21.7 17.5 17.4 21.7 100 5 6 7

34.4 10.4 31.0 24.2 100

15.4 15.4 15.4 19.2 19.2 15.4 100

20.0 30.0 25.0 15.0 10.0 100

31.2 31.2 37.6 100

ARTICLE IN PRESS
R.M. Gillies, M. Boyle / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 13331348 1343

interdependence, group composition, structure, selfefcacy, social skills, learning outcomes, thinking skills, and helping behaviours. 4.2.1. Team work Many teachers recognized the importance of building teams because of the support students can provide to each other as they work together. Comments such as four heads are better than one, working well in teams is increasingly valued, and I operate in a team and if I didnt have the support of the teaching staffywe wouldnt have successful outcomes for the kids, illustrate the value these teachers placed on teamwork. The following comment by another teacher demonstrates how she used the power of persuasion to encourage students to work together: I suppose youd call it positive pressure in the sense that Im all for kind of team work, and I make it quite plain to them that we just need one, you knowyAnd that kind of positive, Come on, because were relying on you and youre very important, and if you dont do this, then its going to affect everybody. That positive pressure tends to work quite well, so rather than me rant and rave and say, Oh, you havent done enough. Its ridiculous. You should have 43 things, I think you should let them go. (T.2) The benets derived from working together are clearly illustrated from a further teachers comments: Well I think theyve bounced off each other a lot and discussed ideas, and some kids Ive noticed who havent been particularly condent have sort of, you know, been lifted up a bit by the condence of other kids in the groupy. (T.1) Research indicates that students do perceive that they benet from working cooperatively. Mulryan (1994) investigated fth- and sixth-grade students perceptions of cooperative group work and compared them to their teachers perceptions. Interestingly, the perceptions of both the students and the teachers were fairly well aligned with both perceiving effective small groups as providing opportunities for students to cooperate, give and receive help, and share ideas, opinions, and information. Similarly, Gillies (2004b) found that when high school students worked in groups where they were required to work together, they were more likely to listen to each other, ask each other to elaborate on

information, share ideas, and help each other than students who worked in unstructured groups, or groups where the requirement to work together was less clear. In short, when students perceive that they are part of a team, they are more likely to contribute to their own and each others learning than students who work in groups where there is less of a sense of unanimity of purpose. 4.2.2. Group composition Teachers were aware of the importance of group composition and issues they raised included randomly assigning students to groups, letting students work in friendship groups if they were committed to working, having mixed gender groups, limiting group size to four members, and establishing mixed-ability groups so students with learning difculties were supported by more capable peers. One teacher in commenting on mixed-ability groups remarked that ythere were kids who picked up on the visuals and the humour much faster than others, and not necessarily the brightest kids either. (T.3) Interestingly, the less capable students are not the only ones who benet from mixed-ability groups as is demonstrated by the following comment: I know initially I had students who were very bright students who didnt like the idea of sharing, and I think they actually became more used to the idea and in fact found it more productive, because I was interested to see in some of the feedback sheets how initially they reacted and then how theyI think they did change. (T.3) The research on group composition addresses many of the issues the teachers also raised. For example, in a meta-analysis of 66 studies that investigated the effects of group work on students learning, Lou et al. (1996) reported that students learned better in small groups of three to four members, low-ability students learned signicantly more in mixed-ability groups, medium-ability students appeared to do slightly better in same-ability groups, and high-ability students learned equally well in either grouping arrangement. In a study of 21 eight-grade science classrooms, Webb, Nemer, Chizhik, and Sugrue (1998) found that low-ability students showed higher achievement when they worked with higher-achieving students, and highability students were not disadvantaged by working with mixed-ability groups.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
1344 R.M. Gillies, M. Boyle / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 13331348

The research on gender composition of groups is less clear, although Webb (1991) argued that it was the composition of the group, rather than gender per se, that affected the interactions that members had with each other. In groups where there were more boys than girls, Webb found that boys tended to interact with each other and ignore the girl. In contrast, in groups where there were more girls than boys, the girls spent more time trying to involve the boy in the discussions to the detriment of interacting with each other. In both these groups, boys outperformed girls even though boys and girls did not differ in ability. However, when groups were gender-balanced, boys and girls were equally interactive and the differences in achievement that occurred in the gender-imbalanced groups did not occur in these groups. Although these ndings need further investigation, it is clear that teachers need to give careful thought to the gender composition of students work groups. 4.2.3. Structure Four of the seven teachers commented on the importance of structuring groups. This included ensuring that students understood that they were to contribute, everyone had a role to play, and if they accepted responsibility for the tasks they were assigned, they would share the benets. Structuring groups so members understand that they are expected to contribute is critical to the success of cooperative learning (Johnson & Johnson, 1990). Ensuring that students are interdependently linked together so that in order for the group to attain its goal or complete its task, all members must complete their goals or tasks too (Johnson & Johnson, 1990; Slavin, 1995). When the students are not interdependently linked together, they do not develop unanimity of purpose and essentially often operate as individual members within their groups (Gillies & Ashman, 1998), achieving their own personal goals at the expense of the groups (Johnson, D. & Johnson, F., 2003). 4.2.4. Self-efcacy There is no doubt that students sense of achievement is affected by the learning environment, and in particular how teachers communicate their success or otherwise to their students (Patrick, Anderman, Ryan, Edelin, & Midgley, 2001). When teachers emphasize the meaningfulness of learning, the importance of personal achievement rather than competition, use language that expresses strong positive affect about learning, and convey positive

expectations to their students (i.e., teachers used highly motivational language), students understand that learning is valued and success is accompanied by effort and indicated by personal improvement, as opposed to comparison with others (Turner et al., 2002). Certainly the teachers in this study recognized the importance of afrming students efforts with their work. Comments such as: Youre doing a good job there BenyYoure on a roll, John (T.6), Oh, thats a great idea. Write that one down because that leads us on to this point (T.2), and OK, thats good. Looks good (T.7) are example of the types of afrmations teachers reported using. Students too play an important role in afrming their peers efforts and this was recognized by the teachers who commented on the condence the students obtained from working together, bouncing ideas off each other, and receiving positive verbal feedback. When students work cooperatively together, they learn to listen to what others have to say, share ideas and perspectives, seek ways to resolve differences, and actively work to construct new understandings and learning. It is the sense of group cohesion that develops from these experiences that enhances students motivation to achieve both their own and the groups goals (Johnson, D. & Johnson, R., 2003). 4.2.5. Interpersonal skills All the teachers recognized the importance of teaching students the interpersonal skills needed to work together effectively. The following comment encapsulates the essence of what many teachers said: I think you need to really spend a lot more time on those social behavioursywhats appropriate, that they need to think about each other, that they need to allow each other to participate and not dominate (T.2) Johnson and Johnson (1990) emphasized the importance of teaching these behaviours to students and Gillies (2003, 2004b) was able to demonstrate that students were more cooperative, had a greater sense of enjoyment of their cooperative learning experiences, and obtained higher learning outcomes when they had been trained in the small-group and interpersonal skills that promote effective cooperation. 4.2.6. Helping behaviours Four of the teachers commented on the benets students derive from helping one another. T.1 commented One kid might be struggling with someone and another kid whos quite procient at

ARTICLE IN PRESS
R.M. Gillies, M. Boyle / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 13331348 1345

something will just help them along, and I think thats, you know, really lovely to see happening rather than getting me to sort of help them through things. Similarly, T.7 observed that yon the plus side, that kid is put in the role of ysort of explaining, a helping process. That would be a plus there. When students work cooperatively, they learn to listen to what others have to say and contribute to the discussion because they know that their opinions and ideas will be valued and respected (Gillies & Ashman, 1996). Moreover, as students work closely together they often develop an intuitive sense of what others do not understand and will provide help when they perceive it is necessary (Gillies & Ashman, 1998). As T.2 commented, They explain it on a simple level and when it is still not understood ythey go back over it and over it until they do. Webb and Farivar (1994) observed that because students in groups may all be learning the material for the rst time, they may be more aware than their teachers of what their peers do not understand and, consequently, often provide explanations that focus better on their fellow students misconceptions. 4.2.7. Learning outcomes It was clear from the teachers comments that the benets of cooperative learning lie in helping students to see the value of the process, learning to develop authentic learning rather than repetition, and achieve quality outcomes. Achieve more than you think is possible. I think group learning allows kids to do that when theyre part of a group (T.2) was a comment made by one of the teachers. Another teacher (T.1) referred to the ythe level of competence and just creativity and are that was a result of all the kids experimenting and, you know, communication about different ideas and just being really imaginative that was evident in the groups while another commented yI see it as a very productive time because I can see what theyre getting out of it by visiting the groups and sitting and listening. (T.3). The teachers saw group work as benecial to students as it enabled them to socially construct new ways of thinking and reasoning that were evident both in the process of learning and in the outcomes achieved. There is no doubt that language functions as a powerful tool to facilitate reasoning in social contexts (RojasDrummond, Perez, Velez, Gomez, & Mendoza, 2003) that can improve learning (Wegerif, Mercer, & Dawes, 1999).

4.2.8. Thinking skills All the teachers acknowledged the benets students derived from being able to develop critical thinking skills and reect on their thinking. Some of the teachers indicated that they encouraged their students to give explanations or detailed reasons as a means of encouraging their higher-level thinking while others provided structured activities that challenged their thinking and reasoning skills. The teachers reported perceptions of cooperative learning are consistent with their recorded mediatedlearning behaviours where they actively challenged students cognitive and metacognitive thinking so they were required to make their reasons explicit. When this happens, it has been argued that students learn to contribute to the development of their own and each others understanding and learning (Rojas-Drummond & Mercer, 2003). 5. Summary and conclusion This study had two purposes. First, it describes the types of mediated-learning behaviours seven high school teachers demonstrated when they were trained to embed cooperative learning pedagogy into their curriculum. Second, it describes the teachers perceptions of the efcacy of cooperative learning as a pedagogical practice that can be implemented in classrooms. The eight categories of teachers perceptions of cooperative learning that emerged from the interviews are grouped under three themes that are widely discussed in the literature: group structure, behaviour and social skills, and learning and thinking. Audiotapes of the teachers revealed that they used a number of different mediated-learning behaviours from challenging students perspectives to asking for more cognitive and metacognitive explanations and reasons for their thinking. In follow-up interviews, teachers discussed their perceptions of cooperative learning. These included implementing practices that promoted team work and interdependence, including structuring both the groups and the task and teaching the social skills and helping behaviours required to manage the processes of learning. Teachers also discussed how they used cooperative learning to promote learning and thinking among students. The mediated-learning behaviours the teachers used were designed to challenge students understanding and encourage them to think more deeply and reectively about the issues under discussion.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
1346 R.M. Gillies, M. Boyle / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 13331348

They did this by asking more cognitive and metacognitive questions where students were expected to provide reasons for their answers, connect their ideas to previous learning, and justify their conclusions. King, Staferi, and Adelgais (1998) demonstrated that students engage in higher-order thinking and learning when they are trained to ask cognitive and metacognitive questions that challenge their partners to think about the information they are learning and connect new information to something already known. Similarly, Palincsar and Herrenkohl (2002) found that students engage more effectively in scientic argumentation when they are taught how to think about the material presented, relate it to theories and predictions, and pose questions that challenge others perspectives of the information presented. In short, both King et al. and Palincsar and Herrenkohl demonstrated that students learn more when they relate new information to prior knowledge and understanding. The teachers in this study modelled how to think about the information under discussion through the mediated-learning behaviours they demonstrated as they interacted with students in their groups. These behaviours included not only challenging students perspectives and asking cognitive and metacognitive questions but also using other supportive discourse patterns that reect scaffolding and acknowledge students efforts at learning, discourses that Turner et al. (2002) maintain build students sense of competence and help them to accept more responsibility to learn. Moreover, by encouraging students to share their ideas with their peers, clarify their misconceptions, and work together to construct new understandings, the teachers provided opportunities for students to use the mediated-learning behaviours they had demonstrated. Teachers perceptions of the pedagogical practices that were efcacious in cooperative learning involved structuring groups so students worked interdependently together as a team, tasks were well designed, and groups were composed of students with diverse abilities and needs (Lou et al., 1996). In order to ensure that groups worked well together, teachers recognized the importance of teaching students the appropriate interpersonal and helping skills that promote socialization and learning (Gillies & Ashman, 1996, 1998; Johnson & Johnson, 1990). They also recognized the importance of providing students with tasks and learning experiences that encourage students to think deeply and critically about their learning (King, 1999;

Palincsar & Herrenkohl, 1999). In short, they were very aware of the pedagogical practices that are important for successful cooperative learning (Lopata, Miller, & Miller, 2003; Gillies, 2003). This study makes a contribution to previous research in three important ways. First, it provides an overview of the mediated-learning behaviours seven high school teachers used when they established cooperative learning in their classrooms. While social constructivism (Vygotsky, 1978) emphasizes the importance of scaffolding students learning (Rogoff, 1990; Palincsar, 1998), nding specic examples of how more competent peers or adults do this are often more difcult to nd (Webb et al., 2004). Similarly, teachers are also encouraged to challenge, confront, probe, and question students thinking (Hogan & Pressley, 1997; King, 2002; Mercer et al., 1999), but examples of how this is done are often not provided. This study does both. Second, the study provides examples of how students may use some of the mediated-learning behaviours their teachers used to scaffold learning and challenge each others thinking. This was particularly interesting, given that the students had not been trained to use these specic verbal behaviours so it can only be assumed that they had either learned these behaviours previously or they relied on the context of the cooperative environment and their teachers discourse to determine the relevance of these mediated-learning behaviours to their needs. Finally, the study provides insights into teachers perceptions of cooperative learning as a pedagogical practice that was implemented in their classrooms. Understanding what teachers think of the worthwhileness of this approach to teaching and learning and the issues they confront in embedding it into their curriculum are particularly important if it is to be implemented effectively in classrooms (Blatchford, Kutnick, Baines, & Galton, 2003; Mulryan, 1994). There are four limitations to this study. First, the study focused on the discourse of a small sample of high school teachers who implemented cooperative learning into a unit of work in one curriculum area only so no information is available on how they used the mediated-learning behaviours reported in this study in other classroom contexts. Second, no pre-treatment data were collected on the discourse of the teachers in the study to determine how frequently they may have used the mediatedlearning behaviours in their classrooms prior to training. Third, there were no pre-treatment data

ARTICLE IN PRESS
R.M. Gillies, M. Boyle / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 13331348 1347

collected on the students use of mediated-learning behaviours, making it difcult to determine the extent to which the students may or may not have used these behaviours in their discourse prior to the commencement of the study. Fourth, interviews were only conducted with a sample of teachers who were trained to embed cooperative learning into their curriculum to ascertain their perceptions of the efcacy of this pedagogical practice. It may well be that teachers who do not use this pedagogical practice on a regular basis may have developed some strong perceptions about its limitations that were not gathered in this study. 5.1. Implications for training teachers in cooperative learning methods The study has implications for training teachers in cooperative learning methods. First, it illustrates the importance of training teachers in the types of mediated-learning behaviours that challenge students thinking and scaffold their learning. Teachers are expected to promote higher-order thinking and reasoning among their students to enhance learning (Kuhn, Shaw, & Felton, 1997; Rojas-Drummond et al., 2003), but they are rarely provided with examples of the types of discourses they can use to achieve this objective (Webb, Nemer, & Ing, 2006). Second, the study provides examples of how students may use some of the mediated-learning behaviours they hear their teachers model in their interactions with group members. Given that students are often more aware of what their peers do not understand and can often provide help to clarify their peers misconceptions (Webb & Farivar, 1999), training teachers to use good communication skills is critically important, if students, in turn, are to use effective helping behaviours when they work in cooperating groups. Finally, the interviews with the teachers revealed that the teachers gave considerable thought to how they established cooperative learning in their classrooms with all concurring that it required careful planning, monitoring, and evaluating. Appendix A Interview questions 1. Tell me about the types of issues youve had to contend with when youve introduced cooperative learning in your classroom. What are some of the issues for you?

2. What are the sorts of issues that you consider when youre getting the students ready to do group work? 3. What are the sorts of behaviours youd be looking for during group work? 4. How do you deal with students with diverse needs (i.e., linguistic, cultural, social, and behavioural)? 5. How do you set up tasks for students? 6. How do you help students to become aware of the processes of learning? What sorts of things might you do? 7. What sorts of strategies do you like to use? 8. What sorts of experiences have you had with cooperative learning? 9. What are your thoughts on how students respond to working in small groups? 10. Can you tell me about your beliefs, your philosophies (about teaching), and how these translate to what your goals are for students over the course of the year?

References
Baines, E., Blatchford, P., & Kutnick, P. (2003). Changes in grouping practices over primary and secondary school. International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 934. Blatchford, P., Kutnick, P., Baines, E., & Galton, M. (2003). Towards a social pedagogy of classroom group work. International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 153172. Brown, A., & Palincsar, A. (1988). Guided, cooperative learning and individual knowledge acquisition. In L. Resnick (Ed.), Cognition and instruction: Issues and agendas. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Cohen, E. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64, 135. Cohen, E., Lotan, R., Abram, P., Scarloss, B., & Schultz, S. (2002). Can groups learn? Teachers College Record, 104, 10451068. Gay, L., & Airasian, P. (2003). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and applications (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill. Gillies, R. (2003). The behaviours, interactions, and perceptions of junior high school students during small-group learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 137147. Gillies, R. (2004a). The effects of communication training on teachers and students verbal behaviours during cooperative learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 41, 257279. Gillies, R. (2004b). The effects of cooperative learning on junior high school students during small group learning. Learning and Instruction, 14, 197213. Gillies, R. (2006). Teachers and students verbal behaviours during cooperative and small-group learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 271287.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
1348 R.M. Gillies, M. Boyle / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 13331348 Palincsar, A. (1998). Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. Annual Review of Psychology, 45, 345375. Palincsar, A., & Herrenkohl, L. (1999). Designing collaborative contexts: Lessons from three research programs. In A. ODonnell, & A. King (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on peer learning (pp. 151177). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Palincsar, A., & Herrenkohl, L. (2002). Designing collaborative contexts. Theory into Practice, 41, 2635. Patrick, H., Anderman, L., Ryan, A., Edelin, K., & Midgley, C. (2001). Teachers communication of goal orientation in four fth-grade classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 102, 3558. Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford University Press. Rojas-Drummond, S., & Mercer, N. (2003). Scaffolding the development of effective collaboration and learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 99111. Rojas-Drummond, S., Perez, V., Velez, M., Gomez, L., & Mendoza, A. (2003). Talking for reasoning among Mexican primary school children. Learning and Instruction, 13, 653670. Slavin, R. (1995). Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Turner, J., Midgley, C., Meyer, D., Gheen, M., Anderman, E., & Kang, Y. (2002). The classroom environment and students reports of avoidance strategies in mathematics: A multimethod study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 88106. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Webb, N. (1991). Task-related verbal interaction and mathematics learning in small groups. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22, 366389. Webb, N. (1992). Testing a theoretical model of student interaction and learning in small groups. In R. HertzLazarowitz, & N. Miller (Eds.), Interaction in cooperative groups (pp. 102119). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Webb, N., & Farivar, S. (1994). Promoting helping behaviour in cooperative small groups in middle school mathematics. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 369395. Webb, N., & Farivar, S. (1999). Developing productive group interaction in middle school mathematics. In A. ODonnell, & A. King (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on peer learning (pp. 117150). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Webb, N., Nemer, K., Chizhik, A., & Sugrue, B. (1998). Equity issues in collaborative group assessment: Group composition and performance. American Educational Research Journal, 35, 607651. Webb, N., Nemer, K., & Ing, M. (2006). Small-group reections: Parallels between teacher discourse and student behaviour in peer-directed groups. The Journal of Learning Sciences, 15, 63119. Webb, N., Nemer, K., Kersting, N., Ing, M., & Forrest, J., 2004. The effects of teacher discourse on student behaviour and learning in peer-directed groups. Centre for the Study of Evaluation report 627. Los Angeles: University of California. Wegerif, R., Mercer, N., & Dawes, L. (1999). From social interaction to individual reasoning: An empirical investigation of a possible socio-cultural model of cognitive development. Learning and Instruction, 9, 493516. Gillies, R., & Ashman, A. (1996). Teaching collaborative skills to primary school children in classroom-based work groups. Learning and Instruction, 6, 187200. Gillies, R., & Ashman, A. (1998). Behavior and interactions of children in cooperative groups in lower and middle elementary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 746757. Guba, E. (1978). Towards a methodology of naturalistic inquiry in educational evaluation (CSC Monograph Series in Evaluation, No. 8). Los Angeles: Centre for the Study of Evaluation. Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., & Shachar, H. (1990). Teachers verbal behaviour in cooperative and whole-class instruction. In S. Sharan (Ed.), Cooperative learning: Theory and research (pp. 7794). New York: Praeger. Hogan, K., & Pressley, M. (1997). Scaffolded scientic competencies within classroom communities of inquiry. In K. Hogan, & M. Pressley (Eds.), Scaffolding student learning (pp. 74107). Cambridge, MA: Brookline. Johnson, D., & Johnson, F. (2003). Joining together: Group theory and group skills (8th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1990). Cooperative learning and achievement. In S. Sharan (Ed.), Cooperative learning: Theory and research (pp. 2337). New York: Praeger. Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (2003). Student motivation in cooperative groups: Social interdependence theory. In R. Gillies, & A. Ashman (Eds.), Cooperative learning: The social and intellectual outcomes of learning in groups (pp. 136176). London: RoutledgeFalmer. King, A. (1997). Ask to think-tel why: A model of transactive peer tutoring for scaffolding higher level complex learning. Educational Psychologist, 32, 221235. King, A. (1999). Discourse patterns for mediating peer learning. In A. ODonnell, & A. King (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on peer learning (pp. 87116). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. King, A. (2002). Structuring peer interaction to promote highlevel cognitive processing. Theory into Practice, 41, 3340. King, A., Staferi, A., & Adelgais, A. (1998). Mutual peer tutoring: Effects of structuring tutorial interaction to scaffold peer learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 134152. Kuhn, D., Shaw, V., & Felton, M. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentative reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 15, 287315. Lopata, C., Miller, K., & Miller, R. (2003). Survey of actual and preferred use of cooperative learning among exemplar teachers. Journal of Educational Research, 96, 232241. Lou, Y., Abrami, P., Spence, J., Poulsen, C., Chambers, B., & dApollonia, S. (1996). Within-class grouping: A metaanalysis. Review of Educational Research, 66, 423458. Mercer, N. (1996). The quality of talk in childrens collaborative activity in the classroom. Learning and Instruction, 6, 359377. Mercer, N., Wegerif, R., & Dawes, L. (1999). Childrens talk and the development of reasoning in the classroom. British Educational Research Journal, 25, 95111. Mulryan, C. (1994). Perceptions of intermediate students cooperative small-group work in mathematics. Journal of Educational Research, 87, 280291. ODonnell, A. (1999). Structuring dyadic interaction through scripted cooperation. In A. ODonnell, & A. King (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on peer learning (pp. 179196). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. ODonnell, A., Dansereau, D., & Rocklin, T. (1987). Cognitive, social/affective, and metacognitive outcomes of scripted cooperative learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 431437.