Copyright The British Psychological Society

Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society

271

The
British
Psychological
British Journal of Educational Psychology (2006), 76, 271287
q 2006 The British Psychological Society
Society

www.bpsjournals.co.uk

Teachers and students verbal behaviours during

cooperative and small-group learning

Robyn M. Gillies*
School of Education, University of Queensland, Australia

Background. Teachers play a critical role in promoting interactions between

students and engaging them in the learning process. This study builds on a study by
Hertz-Lazarowitz and Shachar (1990) who found that during cooperative learning
teachers verbal behaviours were more helpful to and encouraging of their students
efforts while during whole-class instruction, their verbal behaviours tended to be more
authoritarian, rigid, and impersonal.
Aim. This study seeks to determine if teachers who implement cooperative learning
engage in more facilitative learning interactions with their students than teachers who
implement group work only. The study also seeks to determine if students in the
cooperative groups model their teachers behaviours and engage in more positive
helping interactions with each other than their peers in the group work groups.
Samples. The study involved 26 teachers and 303 students in Grades 8 to10 from 4
large high schools in Brisbane, Australia.
Methods. All teachers agreed to establish cooperative, small-group activities in their
classrooms for a unit of work (4 to 6 weeks) once a term for 3 school terms.
The teachers were audiotaped twice during these lessons and samples of the students
language, as they worked in their groups, were also collected at the same time.
Results. The results show that teachers who implement cooperative learning in their
classrooms engage in more mediated-learning interactions and make fewer disciplinary
comments than teachers who implement group work only. Furthermore, the students
model many of these interactions in their groups.
Conclusions. The study shows that when teachers implement cooperative learning,
their verbal behaviour is affected by the organizational structure of the classroom.

Cooperative learning is now accepted as an important teaching-learning strategy that

promotes positive learning outcomes for all students, including students with a range of
diverse learning and adjustment needs (Johnson & Johnson, 2002; Slavin, 1995). When
children work cooperatively together, they show increased participation in group
discussions, demonstrate a more sophisticated level of discourse, engage in fewer

* Correspondence should be addressed to Robyn M. Gillies, School of Education, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD
4072, Australia (e-mail: r.gillies@uq.edu.au).

DOI:10.1348/000709905X52337
 Copyright The British Psychological Society
Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society

272 Robyn M. Gillies

interruptions when others speak, and provide more intellectually valuable contri-
butions to those discussions (Shachar & Sharan, 1994; Webb & Farivar, 1999).
Dialogues in cooperative groups are multidirectional rather than bidirectional, as
normally occurs in traditional classrooms, or unidirectional, as can occur in peer
tutoring dyads (Cohen, 1994; Damon & Phelps, 1989). From a Vygotskian (1978)
perspective that emphasizes the importance of verbal interaction as a catalyst for
promoting thinking, one could expect that such dialogic exchanges would enhance
students cognitive development (King, 1999; Palincsar & Brown, 1988). The open
discussion that occurs in cooperative groups enables participants to clarify ideas and
perspectives in a context that is free of the perpetual scrutiny of the teacher and the
wider class group (Howe, 1990).
In cooperative classrooms, teachers move among the groups to monitor progress
and provide specific assistance. In this role, the teacher is the guide on the side, not the
sage on the stage (Hertz-Lazarowitz, 1992, p. 77) and the language used is more caring
and personal as they work more closely with small groups. Furthermore, their language
is often more spontaneous, varied, and creative as teachers communicate more positive
affective messages to their students (Hertz-Lazarowitz & Shachar, 1990). This is in
contrast to traditional classrooms (i.e. whole-class instruction) where teachers language
is often regarded as authoritarian, rigid, and critical, where teachers are often perceived
as distant or impersonal (Bosworth, 1995). In such classrooms, teachers often direct the
learning while students are expected to be passive and respond only when required to
do so. Interactions with teachers are usually reserved to responding to questions such as
occurs in initiation-response-feedback (IRF) exchanges while interactions with other
students are often discouraged (Rojas-Drummond & Mercer, 2003). Students are
expected to work individually on their assigned tasks and not to interrupt others.
In effect, the opportunity to work cooperatively is minimal as students focus on
completing ascribed tasks by themselves (Sharan, Shachar, & Levine, 1999).
When students have the opportunity of working jointly together to construct new
understandings, they develop an understanding of the unanimity of purpose of the
group and the need to help and support each others learning (Gillies & Ashman, 1998;
Johnson & Johnson, 1990). In so doing, they often provide information, prompts,
reminders, and encouragement to others requests for help or perceived need for help.
Peers are often more aware than their teachers of what other children do not
understand, are able to focus the other students attention to the relevant features of the
problem, and provide explanations in a way that can be readily understood (Webb &
Farivar, 1994). The interactions that result not only benefit the recipient, but also the
helper. Recipients benefit because they have learnt new ways of thinking about issues
that they previously may not have considered, while helpers benefit because when they
have to justify or explain their ideas to others, they are forced to reorganize their
understandings and, in so doing, often obtain a clearer perspective on the problem than
before, which has a positive effect on their learning performance (King, 1999; Webb &
Farivar, 1999).

Student discourse in small groups

Although the importance of student interactions in small groups is widely acknowl-
edged, the quality of the discourse that occurs is critical if it is to enhance problem
solving and learning (Deering & Meloth, 1993; Shachar & Sharan, 1994). In fact, Mercer
(1996) argues that, Talk is now recognized as more than a means of sharing thoughts:
 Copyright The British Psychological Society
Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society

Teachers verbal interactions 273

it is a social mode of thinking, a tool for the joint construction of knowledge by teachers
and learners (p. 374). However, it is argued that the specific types who talk in groups
are required to promote student learning and cognition. For example, Wegerif, Mercer,
and Dawes (1999) and Mercer, Wegerif, and Dawes (1999) found that when children
were taught how to engage in exploratory talk or talk where partners engage critically
but constructively with each others ideas, the use of such talk can improve group
reasoning and childrens scores on follow-up measures of individual reasoning. Similarly,
in a study that examined the quality of argumentation (reasons and evidence for
supporting a position) that fifth grade students advanced in science to support their
findings, Chinn, ODonnell, and Jinks (2000) found that when children were required to
discuss reasons for their conclusions in small groups, they used higher quality discourse
and obtained higher scores on their post-discussion learning activity than their peers
who did not engage in argumentative discourse. Hron, Hesse, Cress, and Giovis (2000)
examined the use of implicit and explicit dialogue structuring in virtual learning groups
in a university setting and found that when students were provided with explicit rules
for engaging in argumentative discourse where they had to justify and explain their
positions and alternative viewpoints had to be considered and clarified, they showed
greater coherence in subject matter discussions and a greater tendency for coordination
of these discussions than students who worked in the implicit dialogue structuring
groups. In essence, Wegerif et al. (1999), Mercer et al. (1999), Chinn et al. (2000), and
Hron et al. (2000) demonstrate the importance of training students to engage critically
and constructively in dialogues with each other if their social reasoning abilities are to
be enhanced.

Teachers role in promoting discourse in small groups

Despite the benefits widely attributed to cooperative, small group learning, teachers are
often reluctant to embrace this approach to teaching in a study that investigated changes
in grouping practices over primary and secondary school in the UK, Baines, Blatchford,
and Kutnick (2003) reported that primary school children rarely worked together in
small groups although they were seated in small groups. Most children worked alone or
with the support of an adult attached to their group. By secondary school, students were
more likely to work in dyads or groups of 11 or more members, however, teachers
determined the size of the groups, working interaction type, and learning task to be
undertaken. In most instances, grouping practices were aimed at maintaining control,
on-task attention, and maximizing individual and teacher-directed learning. Further-
more, in both primary and secondary schools, groups were more likely to consist of
students of similar ability. In essence, small group work does not appear to be widely
endorsed as a practice that promotes learning. This may be due, in part, to the challenge
it poses to teachers control of the learning process, the demands it places on classroom
organizational changes, and the personal commitment they need to make to sustain
their efforts (Kohn, 1992). Creating effective group working tasks and conditions is
harder and more time consuming than a traditional didactic and independent learning
approach (Baines et al., p. 31).
A reluctance to embrace small group work may also be due to lack of understanding
of how to embed cooperative learning strategies into the curricula to foster open
communication and engagement between teachers and students, promote cooperative
investigation and problem solving, and provide students with emotionally and
intellectually stimulating learning environments (Sharon, Shachar, & Levine, 1999).
 Copyright The British Psychological Society
Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society

274 Robyn M. Gillies

Certainly, Blatchford, Kutnick, and Galton (2003) recognize this conundrum and argue
strongly for the development of a social pedagogical approach to using group work in
classrooms, which includes helping teachers to prepare the classroom and the groups,
including the development of students interaction skills, the tasks to be undertaken,
and the teachers role in facilitating group interactions and learning. This appears to be
critical because, unfortunately, there is still a propensity for teachers to talk and students
to listen in primary school classrooms. In such instances, as Galton, Hargreaves,
Comber, Wall, and Pell (1999) found in a study of changing patterns of teacher
interaction in primary classrooms from 1976 to 1996, teachers talk tends to consist
mainly of teachers making statements (i.e. utterances that do not require an answer) and
asking factual or closed questions. In fact, the authors observed that teachers currently
spend approximately 75% of their time telling students facts and ideas or giving them
directions, an increase of nearly 20% over the two decades under review. They
attributed this finding to a shift to more whole-class teaching as a consequence of the
demands of the new national curriculum where teachers appear to have cut down on
the amount of student participation in order to get through the content.
Certainly, whole-class teaching does appear to affect the way teachers interact with
children in their classrooms. In a study of the verbal behaviours of 27 Israeli elementary
teachers as they implemented whole-class instruction and small-group learning
(i.e. cooperative learning) methods, Hertz-Lazarowitz and Shachar (1990) found that
during whole-class instruction, teachers tended to use verbal behaviours that could be
categorized as lecturing, giving instructions, asking short-answer questions, providing
collective discipline, and giving general praise. In contrast, during small-group
learning, teachers verbal behaviours could be categorized as encouraging student
initiatives, helping students with their learning task, facilitating communication among
students, giving feedback on task performance, and praising individual students efforts.
In fact, during whole-class instruction, 90% of teachers verbal behaviour involved the
use of formal communication categories where their behaviours were highly structured
and addressed a collective audience, whereas, during small-group learning, 75% of the
teachers verbal behaviours involved informal communication categories or those ways
of communicating that are seen as more intimate, personal, and supportive of students
endeavours. Because the same teachers taught whole-class and small-group learning
lessons interchangeably and all teachers had been trained over a full year in how to
change their approach to teaching from a traditional, whole-class method to a
cooperative type, the authors argued that it was the organizational structure of the
classroom that affected the teachers verbal behaviours. In effect, when the teachers
implemented cooperative learning, they changed the way they taught and this affected
the way they interacted with their students.
The present study builds on the research of Hertz-Lazarowitz and Shachar (1990) and
seeks to determine if teachers who implement cooperative learning (cooperative
condition) in their classrooms engage in more facilitative, learning interactions than
teachers who implement group work only (group work condition). In order to gain a
more complete understanding of the dynamics of the classroom, the study also
investigates the interactions of children in cooperative learning groups to see if they
model their teachers verbal behaviours and engage in more positive helping
interactions than their peers in the group work-only groups. The specific questions
this study sought to answer were: (a) Do teachers who implement cooperative learning
in their classrooms engage in more facilitative, learning interactions than teachers who
 Copyright The British Psychological Society
Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society

Teachers verbal interactions 275

only implement group work? (b) Do children in the cooperative learning groups engage
in more positive helping behaviours than their peers in the group work-only groups?
The current study differs from the Hertz-Lazarowitz and Shachar study in that it looks
at teachers verbal behaviours in two different group settings (cooperative and group
work only) and it investigates the interactions of children as they work in their groups
aspects that have not previously been investigated. Furthermore, while previous
research has focused on teachers verbal behaviours in primary schools, there are no
studies that have examined the verbal behaviours of their counterparts in secondary
schools as they work in cooperative- or group work-only settings.

Method
Design
This is a comparative study of teachers and students verbal behaviours in classes where
teachers systematically implement cooperative learning (cooperative condition) or non-
systematically implement cooperative learning (group work condition) in their
classroom curriculums. Identification of the cooperative and group work-only
conditions is based on observations that used the teacher application of a cooperative
learning framework observation schedule (discussed below).

Teachers
The teacher sample consisted of 26 teachers from four large high schools in Brisbane,
Australia. The teachers who volunteered to participate in the study all indicated that
they were prepared to implement cooperative learning in their classrooms (discussed
below). All participating teachers were highly regarded by their respective school
principals for their classroom management skills, their commitment to professional
development, and their willingness to implement new and innovative approaches to
teaching. However, although 26 teachers participated in the study, complete data were
only available on 24 of these teachers (cooperative condition, N 13; group work
condition, N 11) because of teacher absence on the day the research team visited the
school (i.e. the data on the teachers verbal behaviours were only included if they had
been present at both Times 1 and 2.). Teacher absence also affected the audiotaping that
occurred in classrooms so that students groups were not audiotaped when their
teachers were absent from their lessons. Data on students verbal behaviours were also
only included when groups were present at both Times 1 and 2. (These groups were in
the same classrooms as the teachers who were audiotaped).
All the teachers had 5 to 25 years teaching experience and 4 of the teachers were
male and 22 were female. This broadly represents the ratio of male to female (1:4)
teachers in Australian schools. The participating teachers taught a range of subjects from
those in the core curriculum areas (i.e. language, mathematics, science) to those that
had a vocational orientation (i.e. manual arts, hospitality, art).
Before the study began, all the teachers were asked to complete an 8-item
questionnaire that focused on their beliefs about teaching. Each item started with the
stem: I believe students learn best when they: : : and was followed by a statement such
as: plan their own work; work in groups; are given homework as a follow-up to their
class work, and when they are able to negotiate what they will do and when it will be
submitted. The questionnaire tapped a number of core beliefs that teachers hold about
how students learn from exercising more control and independence over their own
 Copyright The British Psychological Society
Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society

276 Robyn M. Gillies

learning through to being more reliant on teachers directions and was partly informed
by the National Competency Framework for Beginning Teachers (Australian Teaching
Council, 1996). The questionnaire was also partly developed from interviews that the
researcher conducted with six experienced teachers (i.e. 5 years or more teaching
experience who were not involved in this study) on their beliefs about how students
learn best. Themes that emerged from these interviews were identified and verified by
the teachers. Questions were then developed from these themes and given to these
teachers to review to determine if they were a valid reflection of the ideas they had
expressed in the interviews. All concurred that they were. In essence, the teachers
responses provided face validity to the questionnaire (Anderson, 1990). Teachers who
participated in the study were then given the questionnaire and asked to rate their
responses from 1 (almost never) to 5 (almost always) to each of the statements on how
they believe students learn best (Cronbachs a .65). A MANOVA of the results
indicated there were no significant differences between the teachers in the cooperative
and group work-only conditions (discussed below) on how they believe students learn
best, T 2 1.15, F(8, 20) 1.88, p . .05. Table 1 presents the means and standard
deviations of teachers responses to this questionnaire.
Students. In the student sample, there were 302 participants from the above
teachers classes in Grades 8 to 10 (male 177, female 126; mean age: 13.19 years,
SD 8.19 months). However, complete data were only expected on 208 children
because only 8 children from each classroom (2 groups of 4 students) were to be
audiotaped. The final data set for this latter group was 104 students (26 groups).
The incomplete data set for some students were due to absence from school either by
the students or their teacher on the day the research team visited the school. Two
groups were initially chosen randomly from each classroom to participate in the study,
and these same groups were audiotaped at the second data collection point unless, as
discussed previously, affected by absence.
Three of the schools in the study had a similar socio-demographic profile (i.e. 1040%
of the children came from a different ethnic background, 1020% of the children came
from single-parent families, and more than 70% of the parents were employed). In the one

Table 1. Means and standard deviations of the teachers responses to the teachers beliefs about
teaching questionnaire in the cooperative and group work conditions

Cooperative Group work

condition condition
(N 10) (N 12)

Variable M SD M SD

1. Learn best when working with a partner 3.50 0.52 3.75 0.75
2. Learn best when working in groups 3.50 0.97 3.40 0.79
3. Learn best when they plan their own work 3.80 0.78 3.33 0.98
4. Learn best when working on activities they enjoy 4.30 0.94 4.75 0.62
5. Learn best when teachers have high expectations 4.50 0.52 4.16 0.71
6. Expectations are clear and grading known 4.30 1.05 4.25 0.86
7. Work with others to produce a group product 3.90 0.56 3.33 0.65
8. Students able to negotiate what they will do 4.20 0.42 3.41 0.79
and when it will be submitted

Note. Ratings ranged from 1 almost never to 5 almost always.

 Copyright The British Psychological Society
Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society

Teachers verbal interactions 277

school that had a different socio-economic and demographic profile, 2030% of the
children came from single-parent families and 510% of the children were transient and
changed school each year. However, there were no differences in the childrens
performance on the ACER Intermediate Test F (de Lemos, 1982) for the children in the
cooperative and group-work-only conditions, F(1, 193) 1.91, p . .05. The ACER
Intermediate Test F is designed to assess the general reasoning ability of students between
the ages of 10 and 15 years. It consists of a series of items assessing verbal and numerical
reasoning abilities, which are independent of specific learning in specific subjects.
Stratified random assignment of students occurred within each class on the basis of
their performance on the Intermediate Test F result so that each group consisted of four
students: one high-achieving student, two average-achieving students, and one low-
achieving student. Previous research has shown that while there is no evidence that one
form of grouping is superior, low-ability children do benefit from interacting with
higher-ability children and children of higher ability are not disadvantaged by working in
mixed-ability groups (Lou et al., 1996). However, teachers also used their discretion
about assigning students to specific groups if a clash of personalities among group
members was probable. In these cases, teachers reassigned the students to other groups
or they established different arrangements (i.e. 2-member groups) if it was deemed
necessary. However, for the purposes of this study, audiotaping of students verbal
behaviours did not occur in 2-person groups.

Cooperative learning and group work conditions

All teachers who participated in the study were volunteers and all indicated that they
were prepared to establish cooperative, small-group learning activities in their
classrooms during a unit of work (4 to 6-week period) once a term for 3 terms. All the
teachers (i.e. teachers in both the cooperative and group work conditions) participated
in a 2-day workshop prior to the commencement of the study to introduce them to the
key elements of cooperative learning (i.e. task interdependence, promotive interaction,
individual responsibility, interpersonal and small-group skills, and group processing),
the processes involved in embedding this pedagogical practice into their teaching
(i.e. practice in embedding the key elements into lesson plans and work units), and ways
in which teachers could scaffold learning and help students to develop small-group
working skills (Blatchford et al., 2003; Johnson & Johnson, 1990).
In order to introduce cooperative learning into their classrooms, the teachers were
introduced to, and were expected to address, four organizational dimensions.
They dimensions were: (1) The classroom context: preparing the classroom and the
groups; (2) Interactions between children: preparing and developing pupil skills;
(3) The teachers role: preparing adults (i.e. the class teacher) for working with groups;
(4) Tasks: preparing the lessons and group activities (Blatchford et al., 2003, p. 162).
The workshop was experientially based to enable the teachers to develop new
insights into how cooperative learning could be implemented in their curricula,
including developing a conceptual understanding of the theoretical foundations on
which it was based so they could use it thoughtfully and effectively (Meloth & Deering,
1999). The workshop provided them with the opportunity to reflect on the various
benefits of cooperative learning and receive support from their colleagues as they looked
at how they may embed these ideas into their teaching practices (Desjean-Perrotta &
Buehler, 2002; Shachar & Shmuelevitz, 1997). The teachers reported that cooperative
learning was not used regularly in any of their classrooms and when it was, it tended to be
for a specific lesson rather than part of their pedagogical practice.
 Copyright The British Psychological Society
Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society

278 Robyn M. Gillies

In introducing cooperative learning to their classes, the participating teachers were

asked to follow the format advocated by Wegerif et al. (1999) for establishing ground rules
for exploratory talk in groups. These are: (1) All information is shared; (2) The group seeks
to reach agreement; (3) The group takes responsibility for decisions; (4) Reasons are
expected; (5) Challenges are expected; (6) Alternatives are discussed before a decision is
taken; and (7) All in the group are encouraged to speak by other group members (p. 495).
In addition, teachers were asked to ensure that students understood that they were to
seek help from each other before requesting help from their teacher. The teachers role
was to act as a facilitator and guide during the cooperative learning activities. Teachers
were asked to discuss these ground rules with their classes to clarify any concerns the
students may have.
In order to focus the childrens attention as they worked together in their groups, the
teachers were asked to develop a variety of small-group, problem-solving activities from
the subject curriculum. These activities were based on Blooms taxonomy of educational
objectives (1956) and were designed to assist the children to think critically about the
problem tasks they were trying to solve. These tasks were open or discovery-based tasks
where there were no set answers, so the students were required to interact with each
other in order to find an agreed upon way to solve the problem (Cohen, 1994; Cohen,
Lotan, Abram, Scarloss, & Schultz, 2002).
Cooperative learning involved the students working on a group task that required
contributions from all members of the group (i.e. positive interdependence); the students
were expected to help each other as they worked on this task (i.e. use appropriate
interpersonal and small-group skills to facilitate learning), all members were entitled to
express their opinions and ideas, decisions were made by the group in a democratic
manner, and they were expected to be accountable for their own individual contributions
to the group (Johnson & Johnson, 1990; Wegerif et al., 1999). In essence, the key
elements of cooperative learning were evident and the groups were well structured.
These groups were referred to as the cooperative condition. In contrast, the group work
condition involved students working in small groups where there was more of an ad hoc
approach to group work. That is, the key elements of cooperative learning were not as
evident and the groups were not well structured (see Teacher application of a
cooperative learning framework for information on the identification of the cooperative
and group work conditions).

Measures
Teachers verbal behaviours
The observation schedule of the teachers verbal interactions was originally
developed by Hertz-Lazarowitz and Shachar (1990) and was modified for the
purposes of this study based on preliminary trialling of the categories in classrooms
where teachers used cooperative learning. The original 20 types of teachers verbal
behaviours identified by Hertz-Lazarowitz and Shachar were extended to include
open questions and language that was required to maintain the activity (e.g. pass the
book). These 22 verbal behaviours were then collapsed into six categories of
teachers verbal interactions, 5 of which Hertz-Lazarowitz et al. had identified as the
types of language behaviours teachers use during cooperative learning. The sixth
category, mediates, was originally recognized as a verbal behaviour that teachers use
when they try to mediate learning between students. However, for the purposes of
this study, this definition needed to be broadened to encompass a wider range of
 Copyright The British Psychological Society
Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society

Teachers verbal interactions 279

mediating behaviours (discussed below). The six categories of teacher verbal

behaviours included: Teacher control (i.e. instructing, lecturing, providing
mechanical reinforcement to students, and reinforcement expressing comparisons
between the childrens performances, initiative, or behaviours); questions (i.e. short
questions and open questions designed to elicit expected information such as a short,
unelaborated response); discipline (i.e. discipline comments directed at individual
students, groups, or the whole class); mediates (i.e. paraphrases to assist
understanding, prompts, uses open questions in a tentative manner to promote
thought about an issue the student is focused on, mediates learning between students
to encourage engagement about an issue); encourages (i.e. praises students, groups,
and class efforts, encourages interactions among students and expresses spontaneous
emotion); and maintenance interactions (i.e. helps the student during learning, refers
to the problem task without punishing, refers to technical problems in carrying out
the task, and language needed to maintain the activity). Teachers verbal behaviours
were coded according to frequency across each recorded class session and represent
100% of teacher talk during that class period. A total of 36 hours of teachers verbal
behaviours (i.e. 24 teachers were taped twice for a period of 45 minutes) across the
two time periods was collected. Three raters, blind to the purposes of the study,
coded a common three hours of audiotape and inter-observer reliability ranged from
95% to 100% for the categories coded.

Students verbal behaviours

The observation schedule for the students verbal behaviours was based on a schedule
originally developed by Webb (1985, 1992) and modified by Gillies (2003) for the
purposes of this study to gather information on the types of verbal behaviours that the
students used during the recorded group sessions. There were 13 verbal behaviours that
were grouped into six categories: elaborations (i.e. provides solicited and unsolicited
explanations, extends another students response, provides detailed help); questions
(i.e. open and closed); short responses (i.e. provides solicited and unsolicited short
responses); engages (i.e. affirms another students response, makes a statement on the
topic to extend discussion, and engages in sustained exchanges on the topic); interrupts
(attempts to butt-in and interrupt the speaker in a forceful manner, negative
interruptions); and directs (i.e. gives direction, disciplines another student to focus
attention). Student verbal behaviours were coded according to frequency across the
recorded group session. Once again, the same three raters coded three hours of the
students interactions and inter-observer reliability ranged from 90% to 100% for
the categories coded.

Teacher application of a cooperative learning framework observation schedule

The observation schedule for the teachers application of a cooperative learning
framework was developed specifically for this study but was informed by the key
elements of cooperative learning (Johnson & Johnson, 1990) discussed above. The
five dimensions that were observed were: (a) uses a range of cooperative learning
strategies and orchestrates their use according to the stage of curriculum
development; (b) uses language that reflects the fact that cooperative learning
strategies are being employed (i.e. family group, expert group, roles); (c) facilitates
the students use of cooperative learning (i.e. encourages students to work together,
 Copyright The British Psychological Society
Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society

280 Robyn M. Gillies

reduces explicit teaching); (d) reinforces the students use of learning strategies (e.g.
use of encouragement, use of praise, reflection sheets); and (e) develops
interdependence in the students (e.g. shared response, group chart to share group
response, attention to grouping students).
Three research assistants (all teachers who had been trained specifically in the
behaviours to observe) rated each dimension using a Likert scale from 1 to 5 to
indicate whether the behaviour was not observed at all (1) to whether it was
observed almost always (5). Finally, an overall rating of 1 to 5 was made on the
implementation of a cooperative learning approach in the lesson being observed.
Teachers who obtained an overall score of 4 to 5 (cooperative learning condition;
N 13 teachers) were observed to have systematically implemented the cooperative
learning framework whereas teachers who obtained a score of 1 to 3 were not
observed to have systematically implemented the cooperative framework into their
small-group teaching (group work condition; N 11 teachers; Gillies & Ashman,
1996, 1998). (Interestingly, the teachers who systematically implemented cooperative
learning at Time 1 were also observed to have implemented it systematically at Time
2, whereas teachers who did not implement cooperative learning systematically at
Time 1 were also observed not to have implemented it systematically at Time 2.). The
three observers each observed the same two lessons so that a total of six lessons
were observed and inter-observer reliability on the application of the cooperative
learning framework was 100%.

Procedure
The researcher discussed the preliminary testing and the assignment of students to
groups, and the data collection process with the teachers prior to the commencement
of the study. During the 2-day workshop (discussed above), the teachers received
additional information on the background to the research and the procedures for
establishing cooperative learning in their classrooms.
The teachers were audiotaped twice during lessons in which they used cooperative
learning activities and in each instance, the audiotaping occurred towards the end of the
first and final unit of work in which they used cooperative learning strategies.
The teachers wore an microphone and they were taped for the full class period in which
the students worked on their small-group activities. This covered a period of 45 minutes.
Samples of the students language from two of the small groups, chosen randomly
initially from the groups in each classroom (same groups were audiotaped at both taping
session), were collected during these taping sessions by placing a cassette recorder on
the table for the duration of the small-group activity. In addition, an observer sat
discreetly at the back of each classroom and completed an observation schedule on the
implementation of the cooperative learning framework each time a lesson was observed
(i.e. at both observation points).

Results
A MANOVA was conducted at Time 1 to determine if there were significant differences
in the verbal behaviours of the teachers in the cooperative and group work conditions.
Assumptions of normality and homogeneity of variance underpinning the use of
MANOVA were investigated. Normality was assessed by examining the variables for
skewness and kurtosis and while a few of the variables were . 1, the majority of
 Copyright The British Psychological Society
Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society

Teachers verbal interactions 281

variables met the normality requirement. Homogeneity of variance was assessed using
Boxs M test, which was not found to be significant ( p . .001).
The MANOVA was not significant, T 2 0.26, F(6, 22) .74, p . .05, so the
univariate results not were examined. (See Table 2 for the means and standard
deviations for frequency of teachers verbal behaviours in the cooperative and group
work conditions at Time 1).
In order to determine if there were differences in the verbal behaviours of the
teachers in the cooperative and group work conditions, a multivariate analysis of
covariance (MANCOVA) was conducted with the dependent variables at Time 1 as the
covariates. The MANCOVA was significant, T 2 2.13, F(6, 22) 3.91 p , .05,
permitting an examination of the univariate results. Two univariate results were
significant; question, F(1, 24) 5.66, p , .05, and mediate, F(1, 24) 17.30, p , .001.
An examination of Table 2 shows that the teachers in the cooperative condition asked
more questions and engaged in more mediated-learning behaviours than their peers in
the group-work-only condition.
A MANOVA was conducted at Time 1 to determine if there were significant
differences in the verbal behaviours of the students in the cooperative and group work
conditions. Again, assumptions of normality and homogeneity of variance underpinning
the use of MANOVA were investigated and found to have been met. The MANOVA was
not significant, T 2 0.57, F(6, 26) 1.81, p . .05, so the univariate results not were
examined. (See Table 3 for the means and standard deviations for frequency of students
verbal behaviours in the cooperative and group work conditions at Time 1).

Table 2. Means and standard deviations of the frequency of teacher verbal behaviours in the
cooperative and group work conditions at Times 1 and 2

Cooperative condition Group work condition

(N 13) (N 11)

Time

1 2 1 2

Control
M 37.69 32.23 29.09 36.09
SD 16.74 10.93 12.57 11.98
Question
M 18.61 23.69 23.81 13.72
SD 10.60 11.37 13.02 5.83
Discipline
M 9.23 7.30 11.09 12.90
SD 7.01 5.12 4.32 4.18
Mediate
M 15.69 21.00 10.45 12.54
SD 9.74 6.69 6.75 3.07
Encourage
M 16.76 13.00 11.90 10.45
SD 12.16 11.64 6.30 4.59
Maintenance
M 20.38 18.23 17.36 14.54
SD 10.21 11.64 11.71 8.1
 Copyright The British Psychological Society
Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society

282 Robyn M. Gillies

In order to determine if there were differences in the verbal behaviours of the

students in the cooperative and group work conditions, a MANCOVA was conducted
with the dependent variables at Time 1 as the covariates. The MANCOVA was
significant, T 2 3.42, F(6, 24) 7.41, p , .01, permitting an examination of the
univariate results. Three univariate results were significant; elaborate, F(1, 26) 33.71,
p , .001, short response, F(1, 26) 9.28, p , .01, and engage, F(1, 26) 7.88,
p , .05. An examination of Table 3 shows that the students in the cooperative
condition provided more elaborations, short responses, and engaging comments than
their peers in the group work condition.

Discussion
The present study sought to investigate whether teachers who implement cooperative
learning in their classrooms engage in more facilitative, learning interactions with their
students than teachers who implement group work only. The study also investigated the
verbal behaviours of students in cooperative groups to see if they model their teachers
language behaviour and engage in more positive helping interactions than their peers in
the group-work-only groups. The study was conducted across three school terms and
required teachers to implement cooperative learning in one unit of work (4 to 6 weeks)
each term for three school terms. The percentage of teachers verbal behaviours that
were recorded for the cooperative and group work conditions is summarized in Table 4.
The results show that teachers who implement cooperative learning in their
classrooms ask more questions and engage in more mediated-learning behaviours than

Table 3. Means and standard deviations of the frequency of student verbal behaviours in the
cooperative and group work conditions at Times 1 and 2

Cooperative condition Group work condition

(N 13) (N 13)

Time

1 2 1 2

Elaborate
M 8.23 13.15 4.84 4.07
SD 7.77 5.09 4.43 2.84
Question
M 3.53 9.76 2.84 6.23
SD 3.61 5.29 4.18 4.96
Short response
M 9.23 12.30 6.61 6.15
SD 6.08 5.13 6.11 3.86
Engage
M 0.76 6.61 0.69 4.15
SD 1.53 4.21 1.37 3.57
Directs
M 6.38 10.15 4.23 3.76
SD 5.54 8.91 2.42 2.42
Interrupts
M 3.38 2.07 5.38 4.84
SD 3.01 1.60 3.06 3.21
 Copyright The British Psychological Society
Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society

Teachers verbal interactions 283

Table 4. Percentage of teachers verbal behaviours for the cooperative and group work conditions at
Times 1 and 2

Time 1 Time 2

Cooperative
Interactions condition Group work condition Cooperative condition Group work condition

Control 31.8% 28.1% 27.9% 36.0%

Question 15.7 22.9 20.5 13.7
Discipline 7.8 10.7 6.3 12.9
Mediate 13.3 10.1 18.2 12.5
Encourage 14.1 11.5 11.3 10.4
Maintenance 17.3 16.7 15.8 14.5

teachers who implement group work only. While the questions tended to follow the
predicted format of brief or unelaborated responses that Galton et al. (1999) identified
as typical of the types of questions teachers ask in primary schools, the mediated-
learning behaviours were, in contrast, designed to challenge students understanding
and thinking of the problems they were working on in their groups (Blatchford et al.,
2003). Comments such as the following are typical of the types of mediated-learning
interactions recorded: You seem to be saying: : : (paraphrases the students comments
to elicit clarity); Maybe if you consider looking at this, you may be able to see how
these two are aligned? (prompting); Have you thought about using this information
to: : : (tentative open question focused on a specific issue); John seems to be saying: : :
Perhaps you could consider trying to see if his idea may work (mediating learning
between students). In some respects, these mediated-learning behaviours resemble the
open or speculative or challenging questions that Galton et al. identified as being
important for learning but still comparatively rare in many classrooms. They are ways of
scaffolding dialogues so that children learn to engage with others on the issues at hand
(Mercer et al., 1999; Wegerif et al., 1999). Interestingly, when the teachers used these
mediated-learning behaviours, their tone and manner was soft and friendly and more
personal and intimate as they attended to the students in their small groups.
Although teachers in both conditions used mediated-learning behaviours, and it can
be argued that teachers are trained to do this, it was the teachers in the cooperative
condition who, across the course of the study, used this type of verbal behaviour nearly
50% more frequently than their peers in the group work condition. Interestingly, the
teachers in the cooperative condition made fewer than half of the disciplinary
comments of their group work peers and, although this result was not significant;
discipline, F(1, 24) 4.09, p .06; the trend was apparent. In essence, this study
supports the Hertz-Lazarowitz and Shachar (1990) thesis that when teachers implement
cooperative learning in order to change the way they teach in their classrooms, it affects
the way they interact with their students as they engage in more prosocial and less
negative teaching behaviour.
A similar pattern of interactions was observed among the student groups over the
course of the study with the students in the cooperative groups recording nearly twice
as many elaborations, short responses, and directions than their peers in the group-
work-only groups. Although it has been clearly shown that it is the elaborative responses
that students provide to each other that positively affects learning (Webb, 1992; Webb &
Farivar, 1999), in the context of this study, it was these interactions along with the short
 Copyright The British Psychological Society
Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society

284 Robyn M. Gillies

responses and directions the students provided that demonstrated a willingness to work
together and promote each others understanding of the group task; conditions that are
critical if learning is to occur (Gillies, 2003; Gillies & Ashman, 1998; Slavin, 1995).
Interestingly, the students in the cooperative groups recorded nearly twice as many
total task-related interactions (i.e. all interactions excluding interruptions) as their
peers in the group-work-only groups by the second observation period. If, as Cohen
(1994) and Cohen and colleagues (2002) argue, it is frequency of task-related
interactions that are important for group productivity and follow-up gains in conceptual
development and content referenced tests, then it could be expected that the students
in the cooperative learning groups would also derive greater learning benefits from their
group experiences than the students in the small-groups-only learning groups.
In contrast to the verbal productivity in the cooperative groups, the students in the
group-work groups recorded twice as many interruptions or those types of interactions
that are designed to distract others attention from the task at hand.
It was clear from the pattern of interactions that emerged that the students in the
cooperative groups engaged in more verbal behaviours that are generally regarded as
helpful and supportive of group endeavours than their peers in the group-work groups.
It appeared that these verbal behaviours may have partially emerged from the types of
reciprocal interactions their teachers modelled as they interacted with group members.
Typically, these interactions included asking questions that encouraged the children to
predict, identify, and generate potential solutions to group problems and were designed
to encourage the children to think more deeply and clearly about specific issues.
Palinscar and Brown (1988) and Paliscsar and Herrenkohl (2002) noted that when
teachers use these strategies in very explicit ways to enhance childrens comprehension
of text, children begin to anticipate what they may encounter, integrate the new
information with prior knowledge, and develop new understandings. The teachers
mediated-learning interactions may have triggered similar responses in the children so
they learned through social modelling to provide more explanations and detailed
responses to other childrens requests for help or their perceived need for help.
The frequency of the multidirectional dialogic exchanges that occurred in the
cooperative groups both among the students and with their teachers may also have
emerged from the nature of the group tasks which were generally open and discovery-
based and required the children to exchange information and ideas in order to find a
solution to the problem. In these groups, students demonstrated high levels of
participation as they interacted in an environment that actively encouraged their
contributions and validated their efforts (Shachar & Sharan, 1995). When teachers
establish cooperative small groups in which children are required to cooperate and
promote each other learning, they create a series of intimate, well-structured
subsystems (i.e. groups) in their classrooms, and it is this organizational factor that
affects the way they interact with their students (Hertz-Lazarowitz & Shachar, 1990).
This contrast to small-group work where teachers may establish similar subsystems, but
these often lack the structure and direction of their cooperative counterparts so that
teachers often have to direct more disciplinary comments at students who frequently
spend more time disrupting and interrupting each other. This certainly seemed to be the
case in this study.
However, this study has several limitations. Firstly, there were only two data
collection points and this may have affected opportunities to see changes in time in the
teachers and students verbal behaviours in the cooperative and group-work
conditions. Secondly, the intervention was only implemented in one subject area
 Copyright The British Psychological Society
Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society

Teachers verbal interactions 285

once a term for three terms, and there were no opportunities to see how the differences
that were observed in the students behaviours may have generalized to other subject
areas. Finally, no learning outcome measures were collected because of teachers
reported demands by their various schools for whole school-based, subject assessments.
These are issues that future studies may need to address.

Conclusion
This study demonstrates that when teachers establish cooperative learning in their
classrooms, they engage in more mediated-learning behaviours and direct fewer
disciplinary remarks to their students than teachers who establish small-group work
only. Teachers interacted differently, even though there were no differences in teachers
beliefs about how children learn best or in the training they received in how to establish
cooperative learning and can be strongly attributed to the organizational structure they
established in their classrooms. Moreover, when students work in cooperative
classrooms where teachers use more facilitative learning behaviours, they too engage in
more positive helping behaviours with their peers than do students who work in groups
where cooperative learning is not strongly endorsed. The study provides insights into
teachers verbal behaviours during cooperative, small-group work in secondary
classrooms an issue that has not been widely investigated.

References
Anderson, G. (1990). Fundamentals of educational research. London: Falmer Press.
Australian Teaching Council. (1996). National competency framework for beginning teachers.
National project on the quality of teaching and learning. Canberra: Australian Government
Publishing Service.
Baines, E., Blatchford, P., & Kutnick, P. (2003). Changes in grouping practices over primary and
secondary school. International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 934.
Blatchford, P., Kutnick, P., & Galton, M. (2003). Towards a social pedagogy of classroom group.
International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 153172.
Bloom, B. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: Handbook 1. Cognitive domain.
London: Longman.
Bosworth, K. (1995). Caring for others and being cared for: Students talk caring in schools.
Educational Leadership, 76, 686693.
Chinn, C., ODonnell, A., & Jinks, T. (2000). The structure of discourse in collaborative learning.
Journal of Experimental Education, 69, 7789.
Cohen, E. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of
Educational Research, 64, 135.
Cohen, E., Lotan, R., Abram, P., Scarloss, B., & Schultz, S. (2002). Can groups learn? Teachers
College Record, 104, 10451068.
Damon, W., & Phelps, E. (1989). Critical distinctions among three approaches to peer education.
International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 919.
Deering, P., & Meloth, M. (1993). A descriptive study of naturally occurring discussion in
cooperative learning groups. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 28(2), 713.
de Lemos, M. (1982). ACER Intermediate Test F. Hawthorn, Victoria: Australian Council of
Educational Research.
Desjean-Perrotta, B., & Buehler, D. (2002). Project Texas. Childhood Education, 76, 292297.
 Copyright The British Psychological Society
Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society

286 Robyn M. Gillies

Galton, M., Hargreaves, L., Comber, C., Wall, D., & Pell, T. (1999). Changes in patterns of teacher
interaction in primary classrooms: 197696. British Journal of Educational Research, 25,
2337.
Gillies, R. (2003). The behaviors, interactions, and perceptions of junior high school students
during small-group learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 137147.
Gillies, R., & Ashman, A. (1996). Teaching collaborative skills to primary school children in
classroom-based work groups. Learning and Instruction, 6, 187200.
Gillies, R., & Ashman, A. (1998). Behaviour and interactions of children in cooperative groups in
lower and middle elementary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 746757.
Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (1992). Understanding interactive behaviors: Looking at six mirrors of the
classroom. In R. Hertz-Lazarowitz & N. Miller (Eds.), Interaction in cooperative groups:
The theoretical anatomy of group learning (pp. 71101). New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., & Shachar, H. (1990). Teachers verbal behavior in cooperative and whole-
class instruction. In S. Sharan (Ed.), Cooperative learning: Theory and research (pp. 7794).
New York: Praeger.
Howe, A. (1990). A climate for small group talk. In M. Brubacher, R. Payne, & K. Rickens (Eds.),
Perspectives on small group learning (pp. 101118). Oakville, Ontario: Rubicon.
Hron, A., Hesse, F., Cress, U., & Giovis, C. (2000). Implicit and explicit dialogue structuring in
virtual learning groups. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 5364.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1990). Cooperative learning and achievement. In S. Sharan (Ed.),
Cooperative learning: Theory and research (pp. 173202). New York: Praeger.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2002). Learning together and alone: Overview and meta-analysis.
Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 22, 95105.
King, A. (1999). Discourse patterns for mediating peer learning. In A. ODonnell & A. King (Eds.),
Cognitive perspectives on peer learning (pp. 87115). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kohn, A. (1992). Resistance to cooperative learning: Making sense of its deletion and dilution.
Journal of Education, 174, 3855.
Lou, Y., Abrami, P., Spence, J., Poulsen, C., Chambers, B., & dApollonia, S. (1996). Within-class
grouping: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66, 423458.
Meloth, M., & Deering, P. (1999). The role of the teacher in promoting cognitive processing during
collaborative learning. In A. ODonnell & A. King (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on peer
learning (pp. 235255). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Mercer, N. (1996). The quality of talk in childrens collaborative activity in the classroom.
Learning and Instruction, 6, 359377.
Mercer, N., Wegerif, R., & Dawes, L. (1999). Childrens talk and the development of reasoning in
the classroom. British Educational Research Journal, 25, 95112.
Palincsar, A., & Brown, A. (1988). Teaching and practicing thinking skills to promote
comprehension in the context of group problem solving. Remedial and Special Education, 9,
5359.
Palincsar, A. S., & Herrenkohl, L. (2002). Designing collaborative learning contexts. Theory into
Practice, 41, 2635.
Rojas-Drummond, S., & Mercer, N. (2003). Scaffolding the development of effective collaboration
and learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 99111.
Shachar, H., & Sharan, S. (1994). Talking, relating, and achieving: Effects of cooperative learning
and whole-class instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 12, 313353.
Shachar, H., & Sharan, S. (1995). Cooperative learning and the organisation of secondary schools.
School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 6, 4766.
Shachar, H., & Shmuelevitz, H. (1997). Implementing cooperative learning, teacher collaboration
and teachers sense of efficacy in heterogeneous junior high schools. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 22, 5372.
Sharan, S., Shachar, H., & Levine, T. (1999). The innovative school: Organization and instruction.
Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.
 Copyright The British Psychological Society
Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society

Teachers verbal interactions 287

Slavin, R. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn
and Bacon.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Webb, N. (1985). Student interaction and learning in small groups: A research summary. In
R. Slavin, S. Kagan, R. Hertz-Lazarowitz, C. Webb & R. Schmuck (Eds.), Learning to cooperate,
cooperating to learn (pp. 147172). New York: Plenum.
Webb, N. (1992). Testing a theoretical model of student interaction and learning in small groups.
In R. Hertz-Lazarowitz & N. Miller (Eds.), Interaction in cooperative groups (pp. 102119).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Webb, N., & Farivar, S. (1994). Promoting helping behaviour in cooperative small groups in middle
school mathematics. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 369395.
Webb, N., & Farivar, S. (1999). Developing productive group interaction in middle school
mathematics. In A. ODonnell & A. King (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on peer learning
(pp. 117149). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Wegerif, R., Mercer, N., & Dawes, L. (1999). From social interaction to individual reasoning:
An empirical investigation of a possible socio-cultural model of cognitive development.
Learning and Instruction, 9, 493516.

Received 2 June 2003; revised version received 20 December 2004