The goal of this study is to identify learners who are most likely to benefit from a small group cooperative learning strategy, which includes tasks involving movement activities. The study comprised 158 learners from five second and third grade classes learning about angles. The research tools included structured observation of each learner and pre- and post-tests. The analysis identified three behavioural clusters: ‘active’, ‘social’ and ‘passive’. The results suggest that students who are physically active while seeking knowledge and/or solutions are more successful than their peers who are more socially active, even if initially they were lower achievers. Passive students demonstrated the lowest academic achievements. This study points to a possible solution for the problems that cooperative group learning, based mainly on verbal interaction, often encounter at the primary education level.
Amir, Y. ( 1969). Contact Hypothesis in ethnic relations. Psychology Bulletin, 71, 319-334.
2.
Ben-Ari, R. ( 2002). Mindful movement: Toward enhanced intergroup relations in heterogeneous classrooms. Curriculum and Teaching, 17(2), 19-36.
3.
Ben-Ari, R., & Kedem-Friedrich, P. (2000). Restructuring heterogeneous classes for cognitive development: Social interactive perspective. Instructional Science, 28, 153-167.
4.
Cohen, E.G. ( 1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64, 1-35.
5.
Deering, P., & Meloth, M. ( 1993). A descriptive study of naturally occurring discussion in cooperative learning groups. Journal of Classroom Interaction , 28, 7-11.
6.
Dillenbourg, P., Baker, M., Blaye, A., & ÒMalley, C. (1996). The evolution of research on collaborative learning. In E. Spada & P. Reiman (Eds.), Learning in humans and machine: Towards an interdisciplinary learning science (pp. 189-211). Oxford: Elsevier.
7.
Gillies, R.M. ( 2000). The maintenance of cooperative and helping behaviours in cooperative groups. British Journal of Educational Psychology , 70(1), 97-111.
8.
Gillies, M.R. ( 2008). The effects of cooperative learning on junior high school students’ behaviours, discourse and learning during a science-based learning activity. School Psychology International, 29(3), 328-347.
9.
Gisbert, D.D., & Font, M.C. ( 2008). The impact of peer tutoring on the improvement of linguistic competence, self-concept as a writer and pedagogical satisfaction. School Psychology International, 29(4), 481-499.
10.
Hellison, D. ( 1995). Teaching responsibility through physical activity. CanadaHuman Kinetics.
11.
Hopper, S., & Hannafin, M.J. (1988). Cooperative CBI: The effects of heterogeneous vs. homogeneous grouping on the learning of progressively complex concepts. Journal of Educational Computing Research , 4, 413-424.
12.
Horst, J.S., Finney, J.S., & Barron, E.K. ( 2007). Moving beyond academic achievement goal measures: A study of social achievement goals. Contemporary Educational Psychology , 32, 667-698.
13.
Humphrey, J.H., & Humphrey, J.N. (1991). Developing elementary school science concepts through active games. Springfield, MA : Charles C. Thomas.
14.
Kuutti, K. ( 1996). Activity theroy as a potential framework for human-computer interactionresearch. In B. A. Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness (pp. 17-44). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
15.
Leechor, C. ( 1988). How high- and low-achieving students differentially benefit from working together in cooperative small groups. Stanford, CA: Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford.
16.
Merrill, M.D. ( 2002). Instructional strategies and learning styles: Which takes precedence? In J. V. Dempsey & R. A. Reiser (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (pp. 99-106). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
17.
Nattiv, A. ( 1994). Helping behaviors and math achievement gain of students using cooperative learning. The Elementary School Journal , 94(3), 285-297.
18.
Roberts, R.D., Stankov, L., Pallier, G., & Dolph, B. ( 1997). Charting the cognitive sphere: Tactile-Kinesthetic performance within the structure of intelligence. Intelligence, 25(2), 111-148.
19.
Russel, R.D. ( 2004). Looking beyond the interface: Activity theory and distributed learning. In H. Daniels & A. Edwards (Eds.), Reader in psychology of education (pp. 307-326). London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
20.
Shamir, D., Tzuriel, D., & Rozen, M. ( 2006). Peer mediation: The effects of program intervention, maths level, and verbal ability on mediation style and improvement in maths problem solving. School Psychology International, 27(2), 209-231.
21.
Shoval, E. ( 2006). Activity-enhance learning-physical movement and its contribution to academic learning. Israel: Ach. [in Hebrew].
22.
Shoval, E., Talmor, R., & Garmise, M. ( 2006). A curriculum that includes physical activity for dealing with difficult problems in school: An analysis of coherent fundamentals. Curriculum and Teaching, 21, 41-60.
23.
Slavin, R.E., Hurley, E.A., & Chamberlain, A. (2003). Cooperative learning and achievement: Theory and research. In W. M. Reynolds & C. E. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Educational psychology Vol. 7 (pp. 177-198). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
24.
Slavin, R.E., Lake, C., & Groff, C. ( 2007). Effective programs for middle and high school mathematics: A best evidence synthesis. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Center for Data-driven Reform in Education, www.bestevidence.org.
25.
Souvignier, E., & Kronenberger, J. (2007). Cooperative learning in third graders’ Jigsaw groups for mathematics and science with and without questioning training. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(4), 755-771.
26.
Tomlinson, P. ( 2008). Psychological theory and pedagogical effectiveness: The learning promotion potential framework. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(4), 507-526.
27.
Tudge, J. ( 1990). Vygotsky: The zone of proximal development and peer collaboration: Implications for classroom practice. In L. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and applications of sociohistorical psychology. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
28.
Van Boxtel, C., Van der Linden, J., & Kanselaar, G. ( 2000). Collaborative learning tasks and the elaboration of conceptual knowledge. Learning and Instruction, 10, 311-330.
29.
Webb, M.N. ( 1991). Task-related verbal interaction and mathematics learning in small groups. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education , 22, 366-389.
30.
Webb, M.N., & Matergeorge, A. (2003). Promoting effective helping behaviour in peer-directed groups. International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 73-97.
