Why group work matters: what the research says

The short answer: when group work is structured, students tend to learn more than when they work alone or compete. The benefit is real but conditional. It depends on a shared goal and on every student being accountable for their own part. Unstructured "go and work in groups" often fails.

What the evidence shows

• Achievement. A meta-analysis of 65 studies from 1995 onwards (Kyndt and colleagues, 2013), conducted in real classrooms from primary school to university, found a positive effect of cooperative learning on achievement, reported at an average of about 0.5 standard deviations, and a smaller positive effect on attitudes. The effect was larger in some subjects than others, and was reported as particularly strong in science and mathematics.
• Science, mathematics, engineering and technology. A review of undergraduate studies since 1980 (Springer, Stanne and Donovan, 1999) found that small-group learning was linked to higher achievement, more positive attitudes and greater persistence in these courses. Effect sizes were around half a standard deviation.
• A practical summary. The Education Endowment Foundation's Teaching and Learning Toolkit rates collaborative learning as a moderate impact for very low cost, about five months of additional progress on average, and stresses that it describes structured collaboration, not unstructured group work.
• Longstanding syntheses. The large body of work by David and Roger Johnson on cooperative, competitive and individual learning, and Robert Slavin's reviews of cooperative learning, are consistent: gains are most reliable when the approach has certain features.

Evidence note. These averages combine studies of different sizes, subjects and quality, and many measure short periods. They support using structured group work. They do not guarantee a result in your class.

Why it works

Researchers describe several reasons. They overlap, and different ones matter for different tasks:

1. Explaining helps the explainer. Students who give a clear explanation, with reasons, learn more from it. Receiving an explanation helps mainly when the receiver understands and can use it (Webb's work on peer interaction in mathematics).
2. Elaboration. Putting ideas into words, hearing other ideas and reconciling them builds understanding.
3. Motivation. When the group succeeds only if every member learns, students have a reason to help each other (Slavin's motivational perspective).
4. Social cohesion. Students who know and like each other work together better, and mixed groups can improve how students see each other.

The two conditions that matter most

Slavin's reviews, and Johnson and Johnson's five elements of cooperative learning, point to the same pair:

• A shared goal (positive interdependence). The group needs each member. This can be one product, one score from combined work, or each student holding a necessary piece, as in a jigsaw.
• Individual accountability. Each student's learning is checked, so no one can ride on the others. This can be a quick individual quiz, a random member explaining the group's answer, or a recording sheet with each student's initials.

Johnson and Johnson's complete list also includes promotive interaction (students helping and encouraging each other), social skills, and group processing (a short reflection on how the group worked).

What goes wrong

What this means for planning a lesson

1. Choose a task that benefits from more than one head.
2. Make the group's product need everyone.
3. Check each student individually at the end.
4. Keep groups small enough for everyone to talk.
5. Change groups often so students work with many classmates.

Try it with ClassMixer

ClassMixer puts these structures a tap away: think-pair-share, discussion groups with rotating roles, jigsaw with expert and home groups, and stations. Roles rotate fairly and partners change, so the structure is easy to repeat.

References

• Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 1–35.
• Education Endowment Foundation. Teaching and Learning Toolkit: Collaborative learning approaches. educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk.
• Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An educational psychology success story: Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational Researcher, 38(5), 365–379.
• Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(4), 681–706.
• Kyndt, E., Raes, E., Lismont, B., Timmers, F., Cascallar, E., & Dochy, F. (2013). A meta-analysis of the effects of face-to-face cooperative learning. Do recent studies falsify or verify earlier findings? Educational Research Review, 10, 133–149.
• Slavin, R. E. (1996). Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What we know, what we need to know. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21(1), 43–69.
• Springer, L., Stanne, M. E., & Donovan, S. S. (1999). Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 69(1), 21–51.
• Webb, N. M. (1989). Peer interaction and learning in small groups. International Journal of Educational Research, 13(1), 21–39.