Co-operative learning processes of students: a longitudinal multilevel perspective.

Background: This article describes the outcomes of a longitudinal, multilevel observational study in which the relationship between the processes of co-operation and giving explanations was compared between classes trained in communication skills and classes that were untrained.

Aims: This study examined the effects of training in basic communication skills on the processes of co-operation and giving explanation in co-operative groups. In particular, the study investigated: (a) How the processes of co-operation and giving explanations develop over time; (b) How the underlying processes of co-operation and giving explanations are related; (c) Which factors at the student and class level facilitate or hinder these processes.

Sample: The study involved 192, Year 6 primary school children (mean age = 134.3 months) who worked in four-person, mixed ability, gender-balanced groups on a social studies unit of work for 12 weeks.

Results: The students in the trained classes were more co-operative and gave more explanations to each other than their peers in the untrained classes. Giving solicited explanations could be traced back to co-operation and this process was enhanced by ability. In other words, the higher the individual ability levels of the students, the more co-operation was transformed into giving solicited explanations. Furthermore, over and above the effects of student ability, the higher the class' ability level, the more explanations the students gave.

Conclusion: The results of this study are useful in explaining why high-ability students benefit more from co-operative learning than low-ability students and why solicited explanations are more effective than unsolicited explanations. By opening the black box of co-operative learning, our analysis enables us to attribute the effects of co-operative learning to peer interactions with more able peers and this is promoted by class ability level. These factors have been mentioned in the literature as a possible explanation of 'contextual effects' but not investigated empirically.