Cited by 474Innovative Teaching and Learning MethodsMathematics Education and PedagogyMathematics Education and Teaching Techniques

Constructive activity and learning in collaborative small groups.

Webb, Noreen M., Troper, Jonathan D., Fall, Randy·1995·Journal of Educational Psychology

Abstract

This study identified student behaviors that best predicted mathematics learning in peerdirected small groups among students who needed help. Two behaviors were hypothesized to predict achievement: receiving explanations instead of only the right answer and subsequently carrying out constructive activity (solving or explaining how to solve problems using concepts stated or implied in the explanations received). Six classes of 7th graders participated in 2 sequential instructional units. Students in 4 classes worked in heterogeneous small groups throughout a 3-week unit on operations with decimal numbers (Unit 1); students in all 6 classes worked in groups throughout a 4-week unit on operations with fractions (Unit 2). Analyses of the transcripts of tape recordings of students' verbal interaction confirmed the hypotheses. Level of constructive activity was the strongest predictor of achievement. The level of help that students received predicted level of constructive activity but did not predict achievement directly. One of the most pervasive changes in education in the past 20 years has been the increasing use of peer-directed small groups. School districts, state departments of education, national research organizations, and curriculum specialists have started to recommend or even mandate the use of collaborative and cooperative learning methods of instruction on a large scale (e.g., California State Department of Education, 1985, 1992; Mathematical Sciences Education Board, National Research Council, 1989; National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1980, 1989). A primary motivation for putting students into groups is the opportunity for students to help each other learn. Students can learn from other students by giving and receiving help; by recognizing contradictions between their own and other students' perspectives, seeking new knowledge to resolve those contradictions, and constructing new understandings from them; and by internalizing problem-solving processes and strategies that other students use or that are created jointly with others (Bearison, Magzamen, & Filardo, 1986;

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0022-0663.87.3.406

Cites

55 of 55 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Webb, N. M., Troper, J. D., & Fall, R.
Affiliations
University of California, Los Angeles (US)
Venue
Journal of Educational Psychology
Published
1995-09
Volume
87
Issue
3
Pages
406-423
ISSN
  • 0022-0663 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2176
OpenAlex
W1993559702
Cited by
474
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 20 · 2012: 19
FWCI
9.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Educational Psychology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Applied Mathematics › Mathematics Education and Pedagogy
  • Social Sciences › Education › Mathematics Education and Teaching Techniques
Keywords
cooperative learning, mathematics learning, constructive activity, student help-seeking, verbal interaction, heterogeneous groups, fraction arithmetic, seventh grade students, achievement prediction

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review