Chapter 12 cooperative and collaborative

There is strong evidence that students working in small groups outperform students working individually in several key areas, including knowledge development, critical thinking skills, s

Chapter 12:

Cooperative and Collaborative Learning: Getting the Best of Both Words Jeremy Sawyer and Rita Obeid1

The Graduate Center and College of Staten Island, City University of New York

Abstract

Learning in small groups plays an increasing role in modern pedagogy There is strong evidence that students working in small groups outperform students working individually in several key areas,

including knowledge development, critical thinking skills, social skills, and course satisfaction This chapter compares the theory behind cooperative and collaborative learning techniques, and

demonstrates both approaches in practice Such active, student-centered pedagogical approaches have been popular in K-12 schools for years, but have only recently come to be valued in higher education

We describe how we have applied these two approaches in teaching undergraduate developmental psychology, using examples of collaborative student oral presentations, cooperative use of the CRAAP test to build information literacy, and combining cooperative learning with multimedia to teach

psychological concepts We also provide an illustration of our methods for assessing student motivation and learning outcomes Benefits of cooperative, collaborative, and hybrid approaches are discussed

Introduction

Learning in small groups plays an increasing role in modern pedagogy, from K-12 to higher education There is strong evidence that students working in small groups outperform students working individually

in several key areas, including knowledge development, thinking skills, social skills, and course

satisfaction (Barkley, Major, and Cross, 2014; Johnson & Johnson, 1994; Stroebel & Van Barneveld, 2009) A myriad of terms have been used to describe such learning in the past four decades, but most commonly these group-based processes are called cooperative or collaborative learning These

approaches are built on developmental and educational theory, suggesting that learning is

fundamentally a cooperative, collaborative process of socially constructing knowledge (Bruffee, 1986; Driver, Asoko, Leach, Scott, & Mortimer, 1994; Slavich & Zimbardo, 2012) While cooperative and collaborative approaches share a great deal in common, this chapter will help to clarify and disentangle the unique features of each We will then share ways that we have implemented hybrids of cooperative-collaborative methods in teaching an undergraduate developmental psychology course

1Correspondence to: Jeremy Sawyer, Psychology Department, The Graduate Center, CUNY,

365 5th Ave., New York, NY 10016, jsawyer@gradcenter.cuny.edu

Acknowledgements: We thank the fellow graduate student instructors who collaborated with us on mass prep for the Developmental Psychology course, in addition to designing and implementing the developmental modules project: Dennis Bublitz, Anna Schwartz,

Zach Mason, Emily Hotez, Christina Shane-Simpson, and Danielle DeNigris

Both cooperative and collaborative learning have roots in social constructivism, and the cognitive developmental theories of Vygotsky (1934/1986; 1978) and Piaget (1951) These developmental

theorists suggest that when students work together, socio-cognitive conflict promotes deeper

reasoning Vygotsky further argued that all learning and development is socially constructed, arising on the social level before the individual level Both Piaget and Vygotsky see the learner as an active agent,

but Vygotskian theory emphasizes that learning is not an individual construction, but rather social co-construction of knowledge, taking place within ever-changing historical and cultural contexts The etymological roots of “cooperate” are in the Latin verb cooperari (co- “together” + operari “to work”),

meaning to work together or operate in conjunction with others (“Cooperate,” 2017; Davidson & Major,

2014) Similarly, the origin of “collaborate” is the Latin verb collaborare (col- “together” + “laborare “to

work”) which entered into English via modern French in the 19th century, meaning to work in

conjunction with others (“Collaborate,” 2017) Cooperative and collaborative learning are both active methods, in contrast to individualized, “transmission” or “banking” models of education (Freire, 1970),

in which students passively absorb and reproduce an inert body of knowledge

While both approaches share a great deal in common, there are important and discernible differences Although there are no completely agreed upon definitions of either term, in practice, cooperative learning generally focuses on working in an interdependent fashion, where each member of the group is often responsible for a “piece” of the final product (Johnson & Johnson, 2009) The division of labor is typically more systematically structured in cooperative learning, with clear, accountable roles assigned

to each member of the group By contrast, collaborative learning tends to feature more fluid, shifting roles, with group members crossing boundaries between different areas of work, or co-deciding the best ways to collaborate on their joint project (Dillenbourg, 1999; Bereiter & Scardamalia, 2006) Goals and tasks may be more open-ended, and collaborative groups are generally more “self-managed” in terms of setting goals and establishing styles of interaction In cooperative learning, instructors may also play a greater role in scaffolding activities by creating intentional groupings of students, or randomly assigning students to groups Further scaffolds may also be necessary to ensure successful cooperation between group members, such as directly teaching group interaction skills and reflection on those skills This intentional grouping reflects the influence of the civil rights movement on cooperative learning, and the desire to integrate racially diverse groups of students working toward common goals, thus reducing prejudice (Aronson & Bridgeman, 1979) The “jigsaw” technique is a prototypical cooperative learning activity developed in the wake of the civil rights movement, with the goal of transforming individual competitive tendencies into cooperative ones (https://www.jigsaw.org/) Jigsaw involves creating groups of 5-6 students in which every student is assigned to become an “expert” by studying a portion

of the overall topic (e.g., Piaget’s four cognitive stages, plus a biography of Piaget) Experts temporarily form groups with other experts in the class who have been given the same portion of the topic (e.g., Piaget’s formal operations stage), to exchange ideas and deepen their expertise Students then rejoin their original group, where they present their piece of the intellectual “puzzle.” By comparison,

instructors often take a more “hands off” approach in collaborative learning, allowing students to form groups based on friendships or common interests (Davidson & Major, 2014)

Research in different subject areas and with students of various ages has demonstrated positive effects

of cooperative learning on academic achievement and the development of higher-order thinking skills (Davidson & Major, 2014) At the postsecondary level, a meta-analysis by Springer and colleagues (1999) found that college students participating in cooperative learning in science, technology, engineering,

and math (STEM) courses demonstrated greater achievement, persistence, and more positive academic

attitudes than peers in non-cooperative approaches Cooperative techniques have also been found to

facilitate learning of psychological concepts (e.g., Perkins & Saris, 2001; Tomcho, Wolfe, & Foels, 2006)

It has been proposed that these beneficial effects of cooperative learning are due to the socio-cognitive conflict that arises when engaging with a partner’s ideas and perspectives, which in turn promotes deeper reasoning (Piaget, 1951; Vygotsky, 1978) Interactions often take the form of joint dialogues that build upon and respond to the partner’s contributions of relevant information and challenging

questions, thereby increasing the conceptual understanding of the cooperating individuals (Chi, 2009) Meanwhile, the literature on collaborative learning has reported success in allowing small groups of students to pursue shared goals and develop solutions to complex, open-ended problems (Bruffee, 1995; Hmelo-Silver, 2004) Collaborative learning heavily emphasizes students’ interpretations of texts and critical thinking, drawing upon multidisciplinary skills Thus, collaborative learning is thought to be ideally suited for scientific inquiry and research applications (Brown & Campione, 1994) Through collaboration with peers and instructor facilitation, students can engage in inquiry-driven problem solving and become part of a community of learners and thinkers within the classroom (Brown & Campione, 2002; Rogoff, 1994)

One such collaborative method is problem-based learning (PBL), in which students attempt to solve a complex problem that does not have a single correct answer (Hmelo-Silver, 2004) Students work in collaborative groups to first identify what new information they need to learn to solve the problem Students then engage in self-directed learning, applying their new knowledge to the problem and reflecting on what they learned and the effectiveness of their strategies The teacher only acts to facilitate students’ self-directed processes, or to model certain reasoning processes, rather than to directly provide knowledge or information The goals of PBL are to help students develop flexible knowledge, effective problem-solving skills, self-directed learning skills, collaboration skills, and intrinsic motivation. In both cooperative and collaborative approaches, working together in small groups

provides opportunities for students to develop social and communication skills (Johnson & Johnson, 2009; Shimazoe & Aldrich, 2010), and often has the added benefit of being more motivating and

enjoyable for students than independent work (Slavin, Hurley, & Chamberlain, 2003)

For Vygotsky and later cultural-historical activity (CHAT) theorists, collective activity creates a zone of

proximal development (ZPD) for individual learning and social transformation This means that

instructors can facilitate cooperative activities and collaborative projects among peers of various skill levels, engaging students’ proximal, “ripening” abilities, which they could not develop effectively in isolation In this spirit, we will share cooperative and collaborative learning activities that we have incorporated into our mid- to large-size undergraduate classes at a diverse, urban public university These group activities were often a hybrid of cooperative and collaborative approaches, as we sought to combine the best aspects of each method Efforts to assess learning and motivational outcomes

generated by these techniques will also be discussed These case examples also align with the APA guidelines for undergraduate psychology coursework (APA 2013; Dunn et al., 2007) It is our hope that providing detailed examples of these active, group-based forms of instruction will be useful to inform the pedagogy of new and seasoned instructors alike

Collaborative Learning through Oral Presentations

Public speaking and communication of ideas to a live audience are important skills in a variety of

professional and academic settings Oral presentations have a long and venerable history in education, and can provide an optimal collaborative learning experience for small groups of students Both authors have facilitated collaborative group research projects in their developmental psychology classes over a period of several weeks, with these projects culminating in oral presentations to the class The goal was

to have groups of four students (give or take one student) deliver 10 to 20-minute presentations,

followed by a five-minute question-and-answer period, on developmental topics of interest to them Prior to forming groups, instructors discussed the importance of developing public speaking and

presentation skills, highlighting how practicing collaboration will enhance their ability to be “team players” in future professional endeavors Instructors then apprised students that the objective for each group was to present a scientific debate in developmental psychology, and to present different theories

or points of view within that debate Students were encouraged to formulate their research topics as unanswered questions that we would like to answer For instance, if the question were formulated as,

"How do Humans Acquire Language?" the group could present the behaviorist, nativist, and social constructivist theories of language acquisition, along with the evidence supporting each view If the topic were, "What is the best method of child discipline?" the group might present arguments for and against spanking, as well as cognitive, behaviorist, or cognitive-behavioral approaches to child discipline Students were given the following further instructions about the project:

We are presenting a "debate" between different scientific points of view Each viewpoint should be presented with supporting evidence from psychological research to make a convincing case for that point

of view This scientific controversy should make the topic exciting and memorable, and we will learn about ongoing investigation of unanswered questions in human development

This activity was predominantly collaborative in form, and students were expected to benefit from several collaborative elements of the project First, group members were encouraged to communicate with each other to establish what roles they would play, as specific group roles were not assigned This meant that students were free to “cross boundaries” between roles and tasks, and to decide the best ways for their groups to collaborate The instructor merely provided guidelines for the final presentation that required groups to present multiple viewpoints on their question, a brief history of how

psychological research into this question developed, and an accompanying multimedia (e.g.,

PowerPoint, short video) presentation Otherwise, however, the format of the presentation and the process of developing it were relatively open-ended Some groups embraced this challenge by

presenting their debates as “presidential debates” with opening statements, rebuttals, and moderators Others staged them as mock “boxing matches” where fighters for each theory exchanged scientific jabs, supporting their arguments with empirical research While many groups enacted fluid and shifting roles, other groups established clear divisions of labor from the beginning This sometimes took the form of two students presenting opposing viewpoints, one student giving the topic’s history, and one student responsible for the multimedia presentation The instructor “checked in” with each group to answer questions and facilitate interactions, but specific social skills were not modeled, and group interactions were not directly scaffolded That is, groups were relatively “self-managed” in terms of their timetables and styles of interaction Allowing group processes to emerge in this way seemed to promote forms of critical thinking that are necessary to conduct research on the evidence behind different theories, and to critically evaluate their merits

Another collaborative aspect of these projects was that students were permitted to form groups based

on common interests Early in the semester, students were asked to begin brainstorming and to be on the lookout for topics on development that interested them About a month later, students shared the ideas they had generated with their classmates, and the instructor compiled a live document listing the potential topics Students were then given a week or two to perform cursory searches of popular or academic sources to determine which topics were both interesting and had sufficient research to form a presentation Students generated their top three to four choices for topics, and in the next class the instructor facilitated the formation of groups based on common interests If there was a topic in which only one or two people were interested, these students joined other groups, typically with topics that were still among their top choices During certain semesters, one of us (Sawyer) has implemented a variation on this process by providing students with a list of possible topics ahead of time (but still allowing freedom to choose a topic not listed), and this has also worked well There tended to be a wider, more creative range of topics when students generated them on their own, though sometimes these topics required some shaping to connect them more directly with developmental psychology Student-generated questions for these projects have included how we develop our gender identity and sexual orientation, how racial bias may develop in children, the effect of pets and animal therapy on human development, how friendship contributes to development, and how social deprivation impacts development All of these topics made for highly interesting and effective presentations

Before the research process got underway, the instructor employed an element from cooperative learning by scaffolding student skills in searching for psychology articles in online media, and pointing students to popular psychology blogs and scientific websites The instructor also provided tutorials on using Google Scholar and university databases (e.g., EBSCO) to search for relevant articles and book chapters As for presentations, students were advised that PowerPoint slides should be light on text (e.g., using bullet points), incorporating substantial use of pictures and images to help communicate the message Additional tips on speaking slowly, maintaining eye contact with the audience, and rehearsing presentations to make them smoother were also shared Subsequently, students with diverse skill levels

in research tutored each other in their respective areas of strength, which benefitted the student teaching the skill as well as the one learning it As a practical matter, many students at our campuses work and commute long distances to campus, and thus have difficulty finding time to meet up with classmates for group work Thus, students were given time to work together in class during at least three different weeks This especially helped with refining topics, researching the topic, and making plans for a division of labor which could be carried out at home What students did not complete in class they accomplished by Skype, sharing materials online, or physical meetups on campus As students explored their topics together, they exchanged ideas, posed half-formed thoughts, and constructively disagreed about their topics This seemed to spur students to delve more deeply into their topics, and to sharpen the debates that emerged in each presentation Working together toward the same goal seemed to build camaraderie among classmates, as we noticed more students socializing with each other during class breaks, and some students shared with us that they developed ongoing friendships with group members through this process

The activity of collaboration in pursuit of intellectually engaging questions seemed to create a friendly and open community of learners One of the students in Sawyer’s class, to his delight, described this classroom atmosphere as an “intellectual playground.” Because students co-constructed the content and style of their presentations, they felt that they were not merely summarizing (as happens with many

presentations), but actively contributing to knowledge and stimulating debate among classmates about important psychological ideas

PRESENTERS: _TOPIC: _

The importance of the

topic was communicated

to the audience (1-5)

A debate or controversy in development was presented (1-5)

Slides and other visuals have appropriate content (1-5)

Content is organized with

a well-defined topic (1-5)

Speakers were easy to

understand, good

speaking voices (1-5)

A useful history of the debate or controversy was presented (1-5)

Slides/visuals are easy to

Write ONE thing that you learned from this lesson—a particularly strong aspect:

Write ONE thing that could be improved, with advice for future presentations:

Please grade your peers on their presentations Keep in mind the following points:

- Slides are clear / Easy to read

- Made eye contact

- Elaborated on slides (didn’t just read them)

Presentation Topic:

Score:

1 — 5 (1 being POOR, 5 being Excellent)

Notes/Comments:

1

2

*the average of the peer group score will be added to each group’s presentation grade

Figure 1 Two examples of audience feedback forms for oral presenters

To encourage maximum audience engagement and constructive feedback, the instructor distributed peer review forms to audience members before each presentation We used different peer review forms

in each class, and forms varied in terms of how they structured student feedback Examples of these forms are provided in Figure 1 The process of peer review allowed students to provide written feedback

on what they learned and enjoyed from each presentation Students shared feedback on what they saw

as strengths of the presentation, as well as tips for improving the content and style of future

presentations

Instructors collected these forms, and selected the best, most constructive feedback to pass along to presenters Audience feedback helped the instructor to remember salient aspects of each presentation, and to see it from the students’ point of view This eased the process of grading and allowed targeted instructor feedback to each group Alternatively, one could incorporate audience grading of

presentations into students’ final presentation grades Telling students that their grading plays a role in their peers’ grades (e.g., 20% of the presentation grade) holds students accountable to make their feedback constructive By presenting to the class, and giving and receiving feedback, students reported gaining confidence in their oral presentation skills and their ability to plan and create presentations Presentations were typically made the last few weeks of the semester, which allowed for a lively way to wrap up the course Based on student ratings of the class, audience feedback on peer review forms, and engaged audience questions during the question-and-answer periods, this activity was highly motivating and enjoyable for students As a result, we have used this activity in multiple semesters and plan to continue doing so

Using the CRAAP Test Collaboratively

The results of psychological studies, not to mention their “pop” distortions, are frequently (mis)reported

in the mainstream media These often-questionable interpretations and uses of psychology are the way

in which many students first encounter the work of psychologists Rather than ignoring how psychology

is represented in the media and larger world, collaborative activities around media literacy can provide excellent opportunities for students to exercise and build critical thinking faculties In order to foster media literacy in our students, we have utilized the CRAAP test (also called CAARP test; Fisher, Buckner, Hunter, & Nolan, 2016; also see Fisher, Hunter, Nolan, & Buckner, this volume for a discussion of the CRAAP test) as an efficient way of bringing the larger world into the classroom This activity works by engaging students in evaluating source materials (e.g., blogs websites, articles) using several criteria (Currency, Relevance Authority, Accuracy, and the author’s Purpose in writing the material) During this activity, students typically select an online news article online that is relevant to the psychological concept that we are discussing in class (e.g., attachment styles), and they then evaluate the article based

on the previously mentioned CRAAP criteria We have both used the CRAAP test in our teaching and have found it to be a fun and efficient tool to promote information literacy, which involves the ability to critically evaluate news and information sources We believe that teaching students about information literacy and connecting our classrooms to the “offline” world promotes genuine interest in real-world applications of psychology among our students This approach also equips them with the tools needed

to process and critically evaluate sources that they are exposed to daily through news, blogs, and social media This activity allows us to think about research in every class session, by discussing reliable and unreliable sources of information about various developmental topics There are many online templates that guide instructors on how to incorporate the CRAAP test into their courses (for example:

http://legacy.juniata.edu/services/library/instruction/handouts/craap_worksheet.pdf or

The CRAAP test typically does not feature a built-in collaborative or cooperative component, but we have incorporated cooperative learning into this method We pair this activity with student interaction and discussion First, groups of 2-3 students choose an article about a relevant topic, and then they read the article and think about it individually The group then reassembles and discusses the article in light

of the CRAAP criteria Students discuss whether the source they found is a relevant and reliable one or if

it did not pass the CRAAP criteria We then hold full-class discussions about the articles, and whether or not they pass the CRAAP test This activity merges both the CRAAP test and the think-pair-share method that we will discuss in the next section Think-pair-share (Lyman, 1992) is a well-known cooperative learning technique in which students think about and discuss a question in pairs, and then share their ideas with the larger class We feel that the benefits of the CRAAP test can be maximized using

cooperative approaches This not only teaches students about information literacy, but also allows students to exchange views while interacting and learning from other students’ perspectives on

different articles When we use this activity, the CRAAP test itself provides the structure for group interaction, and the aim is to foster critical thinking and negotiation skills between students (see

used handouts)

Cooperative Learning with Multimedia

When integrating cooperative and collaborative learning approaches into classroom lessons, the

question arises as to the modality in which to present lesson content The use of multimedia-driven instruction (e.g., projected text and images, video, computer animations) in college courses is an ever-growing practice designed to facilitate student learning and motivation (Bartlett & Strough, 2003) Theory suggests that multimedia facilitates learning because students process audio and visual

information simultaneously, and this multimodal processing leading to better retention (Mayer & Moreno, 2003), in accordance with Paivio’s dual-coding theory (Clark & Paivio, 1991) The ongoing infusion of digital tools into higher education has increased interest in multimedia-supported and web-enhanced collaborative learning (Resta & Laferrière, 2007; Shane-Simpson, Brooks, Hotez, Sawyer &

Dow, 2015)

In our developmental psychology classes, we experimented with cooperative learning activities

featuring video as a multimedia tool for learning psychological concepts When used effectively, videos can help to make abstract ideas concrete and memorable (Thompson & Fisher-Thompson, 2013) Videos can also provide vivid examples of psychological concepts as the basis for discussion and application of course content (Simpson, 2008) However, potential pitfalls are that the “activity” of watching a video may encourage passive learning unless it is specifically designed to engage students The literature recommends that multimedia be used in an active and guided manner (Lawson, Bodle, Houlette & Haubner, 2006), with direct application of course concepts to the video (Kreiner, 1997)

With these caveats in mind, we set out to build a series of lessons around cooperative discussion of videos portraying classic developmental experiments and situations We collaborated with three other graduate student developmental instructors (also GSTA members) to develop PowerPoint lesson

modules with embedded videos to teach core developmental concepts (e.g., object permanence, joint attention, attachment, egocentrism) This was greatly facilitated by the fact that we had created a

collaborative course prep for Human Development in which we shared instructional materials among several GSTA instructors on different campuses within our university system (for more information about developing collaborative course preps see Schwartz, Powers, Galazyn, & Brooks, this volume) Each module featured a pair of videos carefully selected from YouTube that depicted a developmental experiment or situation in which one child displayed more advanced development and another child displayed less advanced development For example, the egocentrism video pair featured a child passing Piaget’s Three Mountains Problem (Piaget & Inhelder, 1956), and a slightly younger child attempting the same task unsuccessfully (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OinqFgsIbh0) We then designed three questions prompts for each module to scaffold students’ understanding of the experiment For the egocentrism modules, the questions were:

1) What differences did you observe in the behavior of the two children in the Three Mountains Problem?

2) What can you infer about the children’s cognitive egocentrism from these behavioral

differences?

3) What might be some consequences if a child does not develop perspective taking, and instead remains at the egocentric stage of mental representation?

A traditional lecture format might present the lesson about the Three Mountains Problem through text-based description If augmented with low-stakes writing prompts, the instructor might invite students to individually write answers to the questions above, in order to reinforce key terms However, this

approach would not benefit from the social construction of knowledge inherent in cooperative

interactions, nor would it take advantage of the unique affordances of multimedia Cooperative learning with multimedia, in contrast, would invite students to watch the video comparison of children’s

responses to the Three Mountains Problem, discuss the question prompts using think-pair-share

methodology, and then conclude the lesson with a whole-class discussion Think-pair-share is

considered a cooperative technique because the structure of discussion and interaction is largely

defined by the instructor’s choice of questions and allocation of groups Partners are either assigned by instructors, or are “random” in the sense that students turn to talk with the student who happens to be sitting next to them Partners are interdependent and accountable to each other, both being required to take an active role in the interaction

While think-pair-share is substantially structured in the manner of cooperative learning, there are elements of collaborative learning at play as well Although the instructor selects the discussion

questions, students have leeway in how they conduct the discussion Students decide who speaks first, and whether each partner will speak uninterrupted for a few minutes, or whether the discussion will take a more conversational, back-and-forth pattern In addition, there are no roles in this interaction per

se, but rather each partner contributes their own thoughts in whatever way they see fit Thus,

boundaries between ideas are fluid, and it is hoped that each member of the pair will build upon and respond to the other’s ideas Students inevitably offer different viewpoints, which may encourage their classmates to consider alternative perspectives Conflicting perspectives may spur students to

cognitively elaborate the reasons for their opinion Students may persuade their partner, or be

persuaded to see things in a different light We further scaffolded the activity by giving instructions to students beforehand about allowing equal time for each partner to share their ideas, and modeling how

to engage in active listening and dialogue with one’s partner Having students discuss key questions for a

few minutes in pairs provides an effective bridge into class-wide discussion, as students get a chance to practice expressing their ideas to one partner before sharing with the rest of their classmates The paired discussion allows students to clarify their ideas and raise their confidence, making them more likely to participate in the subsequent, full-class discussion

To compare traditional cooperative learning and multimedia cooperative learning to traditional

instruction, as well as examine the benefits of individual multimedia and cooperative components, the instructors taught pairs of modules to their respective classes in the three counterbalanced conditions shown in Table 1 At the end of each module, students completed the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI, Ryan, 1982) to rate their enjoyment and effort on each module, and took a six-question quiz assessing learning of the module content and concepts

Table 1 Three instructional conditions

Multimedia Cooperative Learning Video of experiment, think-pair-share, and

whole-class discussion

Traditional Cooperative Learning Textual description of experiment, think-pair-share,

and whole-class discussion

Traditional Instruction Textual description of experiment, individual writing

about prompts, and defining key terms

Four instructors each taught their own section of the course at the same college, collectively enrolling

165 undergraduate students The students (69% female and 31% male) were a diverse sample, with ages

ranging from 17 to 57 years (M = 22.53 years, SD = 6.51 years), and ethnicities were self-reported as 42%

Caucasian/White, 17% Asian/Asian-American, 14% Latino, 13% Black/African American, 8% Middle Easterner, 1% Pacific Islander, and 5% Other After controlling for instructor effects and module

difficulty, the results of our assessment indicated that students scored significantly higher on module

quizzes in the multimedia cooperative learning condition than they did with traditional instruction (p = 02) Students also scored marginally higher in the text-based cooperative learning condition than with traditional instruction (p = 06) The adjusted means for quiz scores in each condition are shown in

Figure 2