Cited by 2,120Innovative Teaching and Learning MethodsProblem and Project Based LearningVisual and Cognitive Learning Processes

Restructuring the Classroom: Conditions for Productive Small Groups

Cohen, Elizabeth G.·1994·Review of Educational Research

Abstract

Moving beyond the general question of effectiveness of small group learning, this conceptual review proposes conditions under which the use of small groups in classrooms can be productive. Included in the review is recent research that manipulates various features of cooperative learning as well as studies of the relationship of interaction in small groups to outcomes. The analysis develops propositions concerning the kinds of discourse that are productive of different types of learning as well as propositions concerning how desirable kinds of interaction may be fostered. Whereas limited exchange of information and explanation are adequate for routine learning in collaborative seatwork, more open exchange and elaborated discussion are necessary for conceptual learning with group tasks and ill-structured problems. Moreover, task instructions, student preparation, and the nature of the teacher role that are eminently suitable for supporting interaction in more routine learning tasks may result in unduly constraining the discussion in less structured tasks where the objective is conceptual learning. The research reviewed also suggests that it is necessary to treat problems of status within small groups engaged in group tasks with ill-structured problems. With a focus on task and interaction, the analysis attempts to move away from the debates about intrinsic and extrinsic rewards and goal and resource interdependence that have characterized research in cooperative learning.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3102/00346543064001001

Cites

78 of 78 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
Cohen, E. G.
Affiliations
Stanford University
Venue
Review of Educational Research
Published
1994-03
Volume
64
Issue
1
Pages
1-35
ISSN
  • 0034-6543 (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-1046
OpenAlex
W2106990392
Cited by
2,120
References
77
Citations by year
2026: 30 · 2025: 38 · 2024: 46 · 2023: 56 · 2022: 58 · 2021: 70 · 2020: 98 · 2019: 95 · 2018: 49 · 2017: 68 · 2016: 101 · 2015: 82 · 2014: 105 · 2013: 98 · 2012: 112
FWCI
54.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Review of Educational Research (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
  • Social Sciences › Education › Problem and Project Based Learning
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
Keywords
small group learning, cooperative learning, group interaction, conceptual learning, ill-structured problems, group tasks, teacher role, task instructions, student preparation, intrinsic and extrinsic rewards

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