Short circuits or superconductors? Effects of group composition on high-achieving students' science assessment performance

American Educational Research Journal

Volumn 39, Issue 4, 2002, Pages 943-989

  Webb, Noreen M ^a   Mari Nemer, Kariane ^a   Zuniga, Stephen ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Collaborative assessment; Group problem solving; Learning

Indexed keywords

EID: 0037005079     PISSN: 00028312     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3102/00028312039004943     Document Type: Review

References (81)

1. Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261-271.
2. Armstrong, N. A. (1994). The effects of cooperative learning on gifted students in heterogeneous and homogeneous groups (ability grouping). Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ball State University.
3. Awbrey, M. (1992, September). History-Social Science Group Assessment in California (High School Level). Paper presented at the National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing's conference "What Works in Performance Assessment," University of California, Los Angeles.
4. Azmitia, M. (1988). Peer interaction and problem solving: When are two heads better than one? Child Development, 59, 87-96.
5. Bargh, J. A., & Schul, Y. (1980). On the cognitive benefit of teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 593-604.
6. Baron, J. B. (1994, April). Using multi-dimensionality to capture verisimilitude: Criterion-referenced performance-based assessments and the ooze factor. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.
7. Bartlett, L. D. (1992). Students successfully grapple with lessons of history in innovative group performance tasks. Social Education, 56, 101-102.
8. Bentler, P. (1989). EQS Version 6 for Windows, Beta Version. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software, Inc.
9. Benware, C. A., & Deci, E. L. (1984). Quality of learning with an active versus passive motivational set. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 755-765.
10. Brennan, R. L. (1992). Elements of generalizability theory (rev. ed.) Iowa City, IA: American College Testing.
11. Brown, A. L., & Palincsar, A. S. (1989). Guided, cooperative learning and individual knowledge acquisition. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 393-451). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
12. Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. (Advanced Quantitative Techniques in the Social Sciences Series). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
13. Buros, O. K. (1974). Tests in print II. Highland Park, NJ: Gryphon Press.
14. California State Department of Education. (1985). Mathematics framework for California public schools, kindergarten through grade twelve. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education.
15. California State Department of Education. (1992). Mathematics framework for California public schools, kindergarten through grade twelve. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education.
16. Carter, G, & Jones, M. G. (1994). Relationship between ability-paired interactions and the development of fifth graders' concepts of balance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 847-856.
17. Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64, 1-36.
18. Connecticut State Board of Education. (1987). Common core of learning. Hartford, CN: Connecticut State Board of Education.
19. Connecticut State Board of Education. (1996). Connecticut Academic Performance Test. Hartford, CT: Connecticut State Board of Education.
20. Damon, W., & Phelps, E. (1989). Critical distinctions among three methods of peer education, International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 9-19.
21. Deering, P. (1989). An ethnographic approach for examining participants' construction of a cooperative learning classroom culture. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Anthropological Association, Washington, DC.
22. Dembo, M. H., & McAuliffe, T. J. (1987). Effects of perceived ability and grade status on social interaction and influence in cooperative groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 415-423.
23. Deutsch, M. (1949). An experimental study of the effects of cooperation and competition upon group process. Human Relations, 2, 199-231.
24. Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040-1048.
25. Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256-273.
26. Fall, J. R., Webb, N. M., & Chudowsky, N. (2000) Group discussion and large-scale language arts assessment: Effects on students' comprehension. American Educational Research Journal, 37, 911-942.
27. Forman, E. A., & Cazden, C. B. (1985). Exploring Vygotskian perspectives in education: The cognitive value of peer interaction. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), Culture, communication, and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives (pp. 323-347). New York: Cambridge University Press.
28. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., & Karns, K. (1998). High-achieving students' interactions and performance on complex mathematical tasks as a function of homogeneous and heterogeneous pairings. American Educational Research Journal, 35, 227-267.
29. Good, T. L., Mulryan, C., & McCaslin, M. (1992). Grouping for instruction in mathematics: A call for programmatic research on small-group processes. In D.A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 165-196). New York: Macmillan.
30. Hooper, S. (1992). Effects of peer interaction during computer-based mathematics instruction. Journal of Educational Research, 85, 180-189.
31. Hooper, S., & Hannafin, M. J. (1988). Cooperative CBI: The effects of heterogeneous versus homogeneous grouping on the learning of progressively complex concepts. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 4, 413-424.
32. Hooper, S., & Hannafin, M. J. (1991). The effects of group composition on achievement, interaction, and learning efficiency during computer-based cooperative instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 39, 27-40.
33. Hooper, S., Ward, T. J., Hannafin, M. J., & Clark, H. T. (1989). The effects of aptitude composition on achievement during small group learning. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 16, 102-109.
34. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1979). Conflict in the classroom: Controversy and learning. Review of Educational Research, 49, 51-70.
35. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1985). The internal dynamics of cooperative learning groups. In R. Slavin, S. Sharan, S. Kagan, R. Hertz-Lazarowitz, C. Webb, & R. Schmuck (Eds.), Learning to cooperate, cooperating to learn (pp. 103-124). New York: Plenum Press.
36. Jones, M. G., Carter, G., & Rua, M. (1998, April). The effects of partner's ability on the achievement and conceptual organization of high achieving fifth grade students. Paper presented at the National Association of Research in Science Teaching Conference.
37. Kansas State Board of Education. (1993). Kansas Curricular Standards for Science. Topeka, KS: Kansas State Board of Education.
38. Kerr, N. L. (1983). Motivation losses in small groups: A social dilemma analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 819-828.
39. Kerr, N. L., & Bruun, S. E. (1983). Dispensability of member effort and group motivation losses: Free-rider effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 78-94.
40. Knupfer, N. N. (1993). Logo and transfer of geometry knowledge: Evaluating the effects of student ability grouping. School Science and Mathematics, 93, 360-368.
41. Kreft, I., & De Leeuw, J. (1998). Introducing multilevel modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
42. Latane, B., Williams, K., & Harkins, S. (1979). Many hands make light work: The causes and consequences of social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 822-832.
43. Lawrenz, F., & Munch, T. W. (1985). Aptitude treatment effects of laboratory grouping method for students of differing reasoning ability. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22, 279-287.
44. Linn, R. L. (1993). Educational assessment: Expanded expectations and challenges. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15, 1-16.
45. Lomask, M., Baron, J., Greigh, J., & Harrison, C. (1992, March). ConnMap: Connecticut's use of concept mapping to assess the structure of students' knowledge of science. A symposium presented at the annual meeting of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching, Cambridge, MA.
46. Maryland State Department of Education. (1994). Maryland School Performance Assessment Program: Public release tasks. Baltimore, MD: Maryland State Department of Education.
47. Mathematical Sciences Education Board, National Research Council. (1989). Everybody counts: A report to the nation on the future of mathematics education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
48. Mathematical Sciences Education Board, National Research Council. (1993). Measuring up: Prototypes for mathematics assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
49. Mayer, R. E. (1984). Aids to prose comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 19, 30-42.
50. Melser, N. A. (1999). Gifted students and cooperative learning: A study of grouping strategies. Roeper Review, 21, 315.
51. Mulryan, C. M. (1995). Fifth and sixth graders' involvement and participation in cooperative small groups in mathematics. The Elementary School Journal, 95, 297-310.
52. Nattiv, A. (1994). Helping behaviors and math achievement gain of students using cooperative learning. Elementary School Journal, 94, 285-297.
53. Neuberger, W. (1993, September). Making group assessments fair measures of students' abilities. Paper presented at the National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing's conference "Assessment Questions: Equity Answers," UCLA, Los Angeles, CA.
54. Noddings, N. (1985). Small groups as a setting for research on mathematical problem solving. In E. A. Silver (Ed.), Teaching and learning mathematical problem solving. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
55. Pandey, T. (1991). A sampler of mathematics assessment. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education.
56. Pomplun, M. (1996). Cooperative groups: Alternative assessment for students with disabilities? The Journal of Special Education, 30, 1-17.
57. Ross, T. A., & Cousins, J. B. (1995). Impact of explanation seeking on student achievement and attitudes. Journal of Educational Research, 89, 109-117.
58. Saner, H., McCaffrey, D., Stecher, B., Klein, S., & Bell, R. (1994). The effects of working in pairs in science performance assessments. Educational Assessment, 2, 325-338.
59. Saxe, G. B. (1992). Studying children's learning in context: Problems and prospects. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 215-234.
60. Shavelson, R. J., & Webb, N. M. (1991). Generalizability theory: A primer. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
61. Shepperd, J. A. (1993). Productivity loss in performance groups: A motivation analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 67-81.
62. Sherman, G. P., & Klein, J. D. (1995). The effects of cued interaction and ability grouping during cooperative computer-based science instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 43, 5-24.
63. Shipman, V. C. (1985). The New Jersey test of reasoning skills. Totowa, NJ: Totowa Board of Education.
64. Skon, L., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1981). Cooperative peer interaction versus individual competition and individualistic efforts: Effects on the acquisition of cognitive reasoning strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 83-92.
65. Slavin, R. E. (1990). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
66. Swing, S. R., & Peterson, P. L. (1982). The relationship of student ability and small-group interaction to student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 259-274.
67. Troper, J. (1997). The effects of small-group discussion on students' learning and transfer of ideas in science. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
68. Tudge, J., & Rogoff, B. (1989). Peer influences on cognitive development: Piagetian and Vygotskian perspectives. In M. H. Bornstein & J. S. Bruner (Eds.), Interaction in human development (pp. 17-40). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
69. Vedder, P. (1985). Cooperative learning: A study on processes and effects of cooperation between primary school children. Westerhaven Groningen, Netherlands: Rijkuniversiteit Groningen.
70. Vygotsky, L. S. (1981). The genesis of higher mental functioning. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology (pp. 144-188). Armonk, NY: Sharpe.
71. Webb, N. M. (1980). A process-outcome analysis of learning in group and individual settings. Educational Psychologist, 15, 69-83.
72. Webb, N. M. (1989). Peer interaction and learning in small groups. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 21-40.
73. Webb, N. M. (1991). Task-related verbal interaction and mathematics learning in small groups. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22, 366-389.
74. Webb, N. M. (1995). Group collaboration in assessment: Multiple objectives, processes, and outcomes. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 17, 239-261.
75. Webb, N. M., Nemer, K. M., Chizhik, A., & Sugrue, B. (1998). Equity issues in collaborative group assessment: Group composition and performance. American Educational Research Journal, 35, 607-651.
76. Webb, N. M., & Palincsar, A. S. (1996). Group processes in the classroom. In D. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 841-873). New York: Macmillan.
77. Webb, N. M., Troper, J. D., & Fall, R. (1995). Constructive activity and learning in collaborative small groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87. 406-423.
78. Wise, N., & Behuniak, P. (1993, April). Collaboration in student assessment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA.
79. Wittrock, M. C. (1990). Generative processes of comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 24, 345-376.
80. Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89-100.
81. Yackel, E., Cobb, P., & Wood, T. (1991). Small-group interactions as a source of learning opportunities in second-grade mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22, 390-408.