Cooperative Learning – Critical Review of Literature

Literature review

Introduction

Mahatma Gandhi stated, “If we are to teach real peace in this world, and if we are to carry on a real war against war, we shall have to begin with the children” (Crowe & Wertz, 2007, p. 2). The CooperativeLearningCenter at the University of Minnesota stressed the importance of positive conflict in schools. The literature suggests that conflicts should be structured and encouraged between students. By doing this, schools empower students to improve their classroom climate, thus improving the quality of instruction. However, to accomplish this, students need to be trained on the necessary skills required to resolve interpersonal conflicts in a positive manner (Johnson & Johnson, 2002).

Cooperative Learning

Cooperative learning is the use of small groups of students working together to increase their personal learning and that of their group members. Students are placed into small groups. The teacher then gives directions and an assignment. The group works together until all members of the group understand and complete the task (Johnson & Johnson, 2005a). Participants in the groups work together for the benefit of everyone in the group. The slogan is, “we will sink or swim together.” A key outcome of cooperative learning is positive interdependence. The work of Emile Durkheim, the father of sociology best exhibits this concept: we can be no stronger than the weakest member of the group. Positive interdependence is defined by the concept that students will succeed only if the entire group obtains their goals (Deutsch, 1962; Johnson & Johnson, 1989). A key underlying concept is that no single group member has all the answers to every question. Success depends on both individual and group efforts.

Cooperative, competitive and individualistic efforts in the classroom have different effects on the learning of students. Cooperative learning uses small groups of students working together to achieve academic goals. The opposite of this concept is competitive learning. In competitive learning, students work against each other to achieve an academic goal or grade, though only a few students will achieve this goal. In the middle is individualist learning. Students work by themselves and achieve goals unrelated to the other members of the class. The advantage of cooperative learning is that the teacher may use it with any subject and curriculum. There are limits to competitive and individualistic learning (Johnson, Johnson, & Holubec, 1998).

History of Cooperative Learning

The first use of cooperative learning occurred over 3000 years ago in the Talmud. The Talmud has two parts: the Mishnah, which is the written components of Judaism’s Oral law; and the Gemara, a discussion of the Mishnah. The terms Talmud and Gemara are often used interchangeably. The Talmud is the book of authority for Jewish law, stories, ethics, and customs. While studying the Talmud, Rabbis had their students work in pairs and engage in lively debates. The Talmud states that for someone to learn they must have a learning partner (Chevelen, 1998) Around 250 B.C., a reference in the Old Testament refers to cooperative learning. This reference is found in Ecclesiastes. This book, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Koheleth, a word meaning “one who convenes an assembly,” is sometimes referred to as The Preacher. Ecclesiastes consists of reflections on some of the deepest problems of life, as they present themselves to the thoughtful observer. The author describes himself as “son of David, King in Jerusalem.” Ecclesiastes 4:9-11 states, “Two are better than one, because they have a good reward for their labor. For if they fall, the one will lift up his fellow” (Old Testament, unknown, 1979).

Other early philosophers stressed the importance of working cooperatively. Quintillion, in the first century, felt that students could benefit from teaching one another (Krostenko, 2001). Around the same time period, Seneca, a Roman philosopher, believed in the phrase “Qui Docet Discet.” Translated, it means, “When you teach, you learn twice” (Johnson & Johnson, 1994, p. 14). Johann Amos Comenius, born in 1592 in Moravia, now the Czech Republic, was an educator, writer and scientist. Comenius was an early proponent of universal education. He supported this principle in his book Didatica magna in the late 1600s. He felt that students would gain knowledge by teaching and receiving instruction from one another (Gundem, 1992).

Over a century later, in the late 1700s, Dr. Andrew Bell, a Scottish Anglican priest and educator, developed the Madras System of Education. This system became known as mutual instruction in schools in England (Pachori, 1983). A contemporary of Andrew Bell, Joseph Lancaster, an English Quaker and public education innovator, founded a free elementary school in Southwark, England. Lancaster’s ideas were not as original as Dr. Bell’s. Lancaster’s theory, precursory in nature, required students to show proof of learning the material. Students were rewarded for their accomplishment by teaching the information to the next student. Today, we refer to this as peer tutoring. Lancaster wrote Improvements in Education. He came to America in 1803 to promote and lecture his ideas. The height of his success came in the early nineteenth century. Lancaster established The Society for Promoting the Lancasterian System for the Education of the Poor in 1808 (Rayman, 1981).

In the early nineteenth century, the Common School Movement was organised in the United States. Horace Mann originated the term “common school”. Common schools were meant to serve students of all religions and social classes, or at least white children. An elected school board usually controlled these schools. Many of these schools used cooperative learning in their curriculum (Kaestle, 1983). During this same time period, Colonel Frances Parker brought his strong belief in cooperative learning to the public schools. While serving as the superintendent of public schools for Quincy, Massachusetts, over 30,000 visitors per year came to examine the successful use of cooperative learning strategies (Campbell, 1965). The belief in cooperative learning continued to be felt throughout the beginning of the next century. John Dewey, a colleague of Parker, used cooperative learning groups in his famous project in education (Dewey, 1924). Cooperative learning became part of John Dewey’s experimental classroom and was present in most American schools until the 1940s, at which point it fell out of favour for about 30 years.

Johnson and Johnson, in the 1960s, started teaching educators how to use cooperative learning at the University of Minnesota. They found that cooperative learning was a new paradigm of teaching. The old paradigm (Johnson et al., 1998) was based on John Locke’s theory that students are like blank sheets of paper waiting for teachers to write on these sheets (Appendix A). They organised the Cooperative Learning Center to help synthesise the research and information about cooperative learning (Johnson & Johnson, 1974). The center helped to develop models about cooperative learning and its important parts. A program of research was conducted to validate a theory of strategies to be used in classrooms and schools. A central part of the centre was to build a network of colleges and schools that used cooperative learning in the United States and other countries throughout the world (Johnson & Johnson, 1989). Seminars conducted at the center helped teach educators how to use cooperative learning in their classrooms and schools. The development of cooperative learning continued from the 1970s through the 1990s. These were prolific decades and many new cooperative learning techniques were developed to improve student learning (see Appendix B).

Social Interdependence Theory

The theoretical roots of cooperative learning are: a) social interdependence, b) cognitive development, and c) behavioral learning theory (Johnson et al., 1998; see Appendix C).

Human interaction is essential for human survival. The definition of social interdependence in education can be summarised as “students’ efforts to achieve and develop positive relationships, adjust psychologically, and show social competence” (Johnson et al., 1998, p. 318). The classroom strategies implemented by the teacher determine how students interact with each other. The goal is positive interaction, which creates an environment of cooperation, thus resulting in students encouraging fellow classmates’ academic efforts (Johnson & Johnson, 2005a).

In the early 1900s, Kurt Kafa, a founder of Gestalt psychology, found that groups “were dynamic wholes in which the interdependence among members could vary” (Johnson et al., 1998, p. 36). In the 1920s and 1930s, Lewin (1948) added to Kafa’s theory. He found the common goals shared by group members created a dynamic whole that changed the attitudes of other members or subgroups. In addition, Lewin reported that group tension helped motivate the group to achieve their desired outcomes. Morton Deutsch, one of Lewin’s students, developed a theory around competition and cooperation (Deutsch, 1949, 1962). A graduate student of Deutsch, Roger Johnson, in the 1960s, developed the social interdependence theory (Johnson & Johnson, 1974, 1989). Johnson et al., (1998) stated, “Positive interdependence (cooperation) results in promotive interactions as individuals encourage and facilitate each other’s efforts to achieve. Negative interdependence (competition) typically results in oppositional interaction as individuals discourage and obstruct each other’s efforts to achieve” (p. 36). When there is no interaction between the group members, members work individually and no interchange occurs.

Cognitive Developmental Theory

Cognitive developmental theory is based on the work of Jean Piaget and Lev Semenovich Vygotsky. Piaget (1950) found that students working in cooperative groups would participate in discussions. As a natural part of these discussions, conflicts would occur and solutions achieved. Vygotsky (1978) concluded that knowledge was social. His theory is based on students working together to solve, learn and understand problems. The exchange in the group would provide insights and weaknesses, which would correct the group’s understanding. This understanding enabled the group to correct its ideas and grow from each other. Later, Johnson and Johnson (2005a) discovered the importance that academic controversy plays in learning. According to Johnson and Johnson (2005a), conflict helped group members to pause and consider others’ views. When group members were presented with opposing views, it caused a cognitive restructuring. This resulted in improved academic performance of group members (Johnson et al., 1998).

Behavioral Learning Theory

Behavioral learning examines the rewards of group learning. This theory stresses the importance of examining the reinforcers for the group. Johnson et al., (1998) stated,

Skinner focused on group contingencies, Bandura focused on imitation, and Homans as well as Thibaut and Kelley focused on the balance of rewards and costs in social exchange among interdependence and individuals. More recently, (Slavin, 1980) has emphasized the need for extrinsic group rewards to motivate efforts to learn in cooperative learning groups. (p. 39)

Behind the learning theory perspective is the premise that actions followed by extrinsic rewards (group contingencies) are repeated. Thus, cooperative efforts are powered by extrinsic motivation to achieve group rewards.

Why Use Cooperative Learning?

Some educators and parents ask why use cooperative learning? This question is answered by analysing the research. The first cooperative learning research was conducted in 1898. Since that time, over 600 experimental and over 100 correlational studies have been conducted (Johnson et al., 1998). They stated, “The multiple outcomes studied can be classified into three major categories: efforts to achieve, positive relationships, and psychological health. From the research we know that cooperation, compared with competitive and individualistic efforts, typically results in higher student achievement” (pp. 16-17).

First, students experience a greater effort to achieve when engaged in cooperative learning. This increased productivity was observed in high, medium and low-achieving students. Other positive results are increases in motivation, critical thinking and time-on-task. Second, students also experience more affirmative relationships with fellow students, valuing of diversity improves and students truly become cohesive in their groups. Third, students experience improved psychological health. Researchers have noted improvement in psychological adjustment, self-esteem, social competencies, self-identity and coping with stress (Johnson et al., 1998).

What Makes Cooperative Groups Work?

Cooperative learning is not simply having students work in groups. Students will not automatically cooperate with one another, as many teachers can attest. A teacher must structure his or her lessons. These lessons must be prearranged cooperatively, with thought and purpose (Johnson et al., 1998). The five essential components of cooperative learning are: positive interdependence, face-to-face interaction, individual and group accountability, interpersonal and small group skills and group processing. If these elements are integrated, cooperative efforts will occur and students will achieve great success. First, positive interdependence happens in a group when the members are linked to one another. The Cooperative Learning Center reported that positive interdependence emphasises: (a) the importance of each group member, (b) individual group members are vital for the group’s success, and (c) each group member has the potential to make a large contribution because of their individual resources and assigned group task. When a group creates this positive interdependence, the success of the group and the members become the “heart of cooperative learning” (Cooperative Learning, 2005, p. 3).

The second element of cooperative learning is face-to-face interaction. By sharing each other’s resources, students learn to encourage and support one another. Essential cognitive activities that occur during face-to-face interaction help explain how to solve problems, teach one another, check for understanding, and discuss the concepts being learned. Through this process, the students become committed to each other and their educational goals (Cooperative Learning, 2005). Individual and group accountability is the third element of cooperative learning. Each group member is assigned a task and is responsible to the teacher and their fellow group members for the accomplishment of this task. Next, the group must be held accountable for reaching its educational goal. The CooperativeLearningCenter reports, “The purpose of cooperative learning groups is to make each member a stronger individual in his or her right. Students learn together so that they subsequently can gain greater individual competency” (p. 3).

Cooperative Learning Research

A recent meta-analysis by Johnson, Johnson, and Roseth (2006), researched over 4,000 articles concerning cooperative learning. This meta-analysis focused on three elements: effect on achievement, effect on relationships and effect of relationships to achievement. The results confirmed that students using cooperative learning scored higher academically than students exposed to traditional teaching strategies. In addition, cooperative learning promotes positive relationships between students. Students need to have caring friends and a supportive peer group. Teachers using cooperative learning help students establish these relationships (Johnson et al., 2006).

Ryan, Reid, and Epstein (2004) found in research conducted with Emotional Behavior Disorder Students (EBD) that successes were achieved in all subject areas and grade levels when cooperative learning was used. Holliday (2002) found strong positive results using cooperative learning with 503 inner city middle school students in Gary, Indiana. The achievement results showed that cooperative learning strategies worked well with at-risk students. Further, cooperative learning was the preferred method of learning by the students.

Gewertz (2006) reported that the Hidalgo, Texas school district saw a steady increase of students’ scores on the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills between the years 1994-2003. Over 90 percent of the students met educational standards in all core subjects. Most Hidalgo students were poor and from Latino families. The main educational strategy used was cooperative learning. Officials noted that school attendance increased dramatically, as well as the number of students enrolled in advanced placement courses. Cialdella, Herling, and Hoefler (2002) conducted an 8-week study involving cooperative learning and multiple intelligences to increase student performance and motivation. The data showed an increase in grades at the elementary and middle school levels. An increase in positive behavior was noted along with fewer missing assignments. Atsuta (2003) conducted research on motivating English-as-a-Second Language (ESL) at-risk learners in Japanese high schools. One major finding of the study was that cooperative learning was extremely successful with this particular group. The students in cooperative learning classrooms were more successful academically and more responsible. In addition, a more comfortable classroom atmosphere was achieved. Jenkins, Antil, Wayne, and Vadasy (2003) interviewed 21 educators who used cooperative learning on a weekly basis. The teachers’ unanimously responded that cooperative learning has many benefits for at-risk students. Teachers observed improvements in student self-esteem, classroom atmosphere, academic performance and assignment completion.

REFERENCES and Bibliography

Abrahams, D. (1997). Preexperimental designs and their meaning. Retrieved June 15, 2006 from www.socialresearchmethods.net.

Adams, G. & Schvaneveldt, J. (1991). Understanding Research Methods, New York, Longman

Aronson, E. (2001). Nobody left to hate: Teaching compassion after Columbine. New York: Macmillan.

ASCD (2008). Retrieved August 1, 2008 from http://bl106w.blu106.mail.live.com.

Atkinson, B. G. (2006). Praxis 2: Developing and implementing a survey. Unpublished manuscript, Walden University, Minneapolis, MN.

Atsuta, H. (2003). Improving the motivation of unsuccessful learners in the Japanese High School EFL context (Report No. RIEJan2004). Tokyo: Languages and Linguistics. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED476750)

Banks, R. (1997). Bullying in schools. Champaign, IL: University of Colorado. (ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education).

Bennett-Johnson, E. (2004). The root of school violence: Causes and recommendations for a plan of action. College Student Journal, 38(2), 199-202.

Bickmore, K. (2002). Peer mediation training and program implementation in Elementary schools: Research results. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 20(1), 137-160.

Bogdan, R. C., & Bilken, S. K. (1992). Qualitative research for educators: An introduction to theory and methods. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Bruenlin, D., Cimmarusti, R., Bryant-Edwards, T. L., & Hetherington, J. S. (2002). Conflict resolution training as an alternative to suspension for violent behavior. Journal of Educational Research, 95(6), 1-18.

Bruenlin, D., Lieber, C., Simon, L., & Cimmarusti, R. (2002). A personal approach. American School Board Journal, 189(3), 19-22.

Campbell, J. (1965). The children’s crusader: Colonel Francis W. Parker. Doctoral dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York.

Campbell, K. (2003). The efficacy of conflict-mediation training in elementary schools. Educational Forum, 67(2), 148-155.

Casella, R. (2000). The benefits of peer mediation in the context of urban conflict and program status. Urban Education, 35, 324-355.

CDC. (2004). Related behaviors among high school students: United States, 1991-2003. MMWR Weekly, 53(29), 651-655.

Charmaz, C. (2000). Grounded Theory: Objectivist and Constructivist Methods. IN DENZIN, N. & LINCOLN, Y. (Eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research. 2nd ed. London, Sage.

Chevlen, E.M. (1998). First things: Discovering the Talmud: First Things 85 (August/September), 40-44.

Cialdella, K., Herling, C., & Hoefler, A. (2002). Motivating student learning to enhance academic progress (Report No. RIEOCT2003). Illinois, U.S.: Elementary and Early Childhood Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED473816)

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cohen, Richard. (1995). Students resolving conflict: Peer mediation in schools. Glenview, Ill.: GoodYear Books.

Coleman, P.T. & Deutsch, M. (2000). Cooperation, conflict resolution, and school violence: A systems approach. Choices Briefs 5, 1-6).

Cooperative Learning. (2005). Retrieved July 7, 2005 fromwww.co-operation.org.

Cowie, H., Hutson, N., Jennifer, D., & Meyers, C. A. (2008). Taking stock of violence in UK schools: Risk, regulation, and responsibility. Education and Urban Society, 40(4), 494-505.

Cozby, P.C. (2001). Methods in behavioral research (8th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.

Crawford, D. K., & Bodine, R. J. (2001). Conflict resolution education: Preparing youth for the future. Juvenile Justice Journal, 8(1); 1-10.

Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Crowe, P., & Wertz, L. (2007). Quotes on children and childhood: Mankind’s wisdom on children from Zeus to Seuss. Arlington, VA: Richer Resources Publications.

Daunic, A. P., Smith, S. W., Robinson, T. R., Miller, M. D., & Landry, K. L. (2000). Implementing schoolwide conflict resolution and peer mediation programs: Experiences in three middle schools. Intervention in School & Clinic, 36(2), 94-100.

Deutsch, M. (1949). A theory of cooperation and competition. Human Relations, 2, 129-152.

Deutsch, M. (1962). Cooperation and trust: Some theoretical notes. In M. R. Jones (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (pp. 275-319). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

Deutsch, M. (1969). Conflicts: Productive and destructive. Journal of Social Issues, 25(1), 7-41.

Deutsch, M. (1973). The resolution of conflict. New Haven, CT: YaleUniversity Press.

Deutsch, M. (1993). Education for a peaceful world. American Psychologist, 48(5), 510-517.

Deutsch, M. (2000). A framework for thinking about research on conflict resolution training. In M. Deutsch & P. T. Coleman (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (pp. 571-590). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publications.

Deutsch, M. (2002). Social psychology’s contribution to the study of conflict resolution. Negotiation Journal, 18(4), 307-320.

Dewey, J. (1924). The school and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Dinkes, R., Cataldi, E. F., Kena, G., & Baum, K. (2006). Indicators of school crime and safety: 2006 (NCES 2007-003/NCJ 214262). U.S. Departments of Education and Justice. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

D’Oosterlinck, F., & Broekaert, E. (2003). Integrating school-based and therapeutic conflict management models at school. Journal of School Health, 73(6), 222-225.

Dooley, D. (1990). Social research methods. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall

Driscoll, D.L., Appiah-Yeboah, A., Salib, P., & Rupert, D.J. (2007). Merging qualitative and quantitative data in mixed methods research: how to and why not. Ecological and Environmental Anthropology, 3(1), p. 19 – 28.

Dudley, B. S., Johnson, R., T., & Johnson, D. W. (1996). Conflict-resolution training and middle school students’ integrative negotiation behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26(22), 2038-2055.

Easterby-Smith, M., Therope, R & Lowe, A. (2002). Management research: An introduction, London Sage

Educational Development Center, Inc. (1996). Schools and violence. National Network of Violence Prevention Practitioners Fact Sheet, (1)3. Washington, DC: Author.

Elliot, D. S., Hamburg, B. A., & Williams, K. R. (1998). Violence in American school: A new perspective. Cambridge, U.K: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Farrell, A. D., Erwin, E. H., Allison, K. W., Meyer, A., Sullivan, T., Camou, S., et al. (2007). Problematic situations in the lives of urban African American middle school students: A qualitative study. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 17(2), 413-454.

Farrell, A. D., Valois, R., & Meyer, A. (2001). Evaluations of the ripp-6 violence prevention at a rural middle school. American Journal of Health Education 33(3), 167-172.

Fast. J., Fanelli, F., & Salen, L. (2003). How becoming mediators affects aggressive students. Children and Schools, 25(3), 161-171.

Fingerhut, L.A. (1992). Firearm and no firearm homicide among persons 15 through 19 years of age. Advanced Data from Vital and Health Statistics, (39)11, 3048-3053.

Follett, M. P. (1995). Prophet of management. Boston: HarvardBusinessSchool Press.

Garnes, L., & Menlove, R. (2003). School-wide discipline practices: A look at the effectiveness of common-practices. Annual Conference of the American Council on Rural Special Education, Salt Lake City, UT, see ED 476 123.

Garrett Co., Inc. (2000). Teens & safety special report (USA Survey Results, pp. 6-8). New York: Author. Retrieved September 21, 2007, from USA Weekend.com Web site: www.usaweekend.com

Gravetter, F. J., & Wallnau, L. B. (2005). Essentials of statistics for the behavioral sciences (5th ed). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth /Thomson Learning

Gerber, S. (1999). Does peer mediation really work? Professional School Counseling, 2, 169-172.

Gewertz, C. (2006). Upward journey. Education Week, 25(29), 25-34.

Gibbons, B., & Herman, J. (1997). True and quasi-experimental designs. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 5(14), 1-6.

Gordon, D. (2001). Handling conflict. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western Thomson Learning.

Gundem, B. B. (1992). Vivat comenius: A commemorative essay on Johann Amos Comenius, 1592-1670. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 8(1), 43-55

Hamby, J. V. (1999). Developing a comprehensive violence prevention plan: A practical guide. Clemson, SC: National Dropout Prevention Center/Network.

Henry, S. (2000). What is school violence? An integrated definition. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 567(1),16-29.

Holliday, D. C. (2002). Using cooperative learning to improve the academic achievements of inner-city middle school students (Report No. TM033819). New Orleans, LA: American Educational Research Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED464136)

Hollway, W. & Jefferson, T. (2000), Doing qualitative research differently: free association, narrative and the interview method, London: SAGE

Hopp, M. A., Horn, C. L., McGraw, K., & Meyer, J. (2000). Improving students’ ability to problem solve through social skills instruction (Report No. 0289).Chicago: SaintXavierUniversity. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED447907).

Illinois State Board. (2007). Illinois School Report [Data]. Retrieved from www.isbe.net.

Irving, C. (Reporter). (2006, March 13). Teachers: School closings bring more violence [Television broadcast]. Chicago: CBS.

Jick, T. D. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action, Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 602-611.

Jenkins, J. R., Antil, L. R., Wayne, S. K., & Vadasy, P. F. (2003). How cooperative learning works for special education and remedial students, Exceptional Children, 69(3), 279-292.

Johnson, D. W. (1997). Academic controversy. The National Teaching & Learning Forum, 6(6), 1-2.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1974). Instructional goal structure: Cooperative, competitive, or individualistic. Review of Educational Research, 44, 213-240.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Leading the cooperative school. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1994). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualist learning (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. (Original work published 1975).

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1995). Creative controversy: Intellectual challenge in the classroom (3rd ed.). Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1996a). Conflict resolution and peer mediation programs in elementary and secondary schools: A review of research. Review of Educational Research, (66)4, 459-506.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1996b). Teaching all students how to manage conflicts constructively: The peacemaker program. Journal of Negro Education, 65(3), 322-335.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1997). Joining together: Group theory and group skills (6th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson R. T. (2000a). Teaching students to be peacemakers. Retrieved June 5, 2006 from www.co-operation.org.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2000b). Teaching students to be peacemakers: Results of twelve years of research. Retrieved July 8, 2006 from www.co-operation.org.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2001). Teaching students to be peacemakers: A meta-analysis. Seattle, WA: American Educational Research Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 460 178)

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2002a). Teaching students to be peacemakers: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Education, (12)1, 25-39.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2002b). Teaching students to be peacemakers. Retrieved June 5, 2006 from www.co-operation.org.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2004). Implementing the teaching students to be peacemakers program. Theory into Practice, 43(1), 68-79.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson R. T. (2005a). Teaching students to be peacemakers (4th ed.). Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company. (Original work published 1987)

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson R. T. (2005b). Essential components of peace education. Theory into Practice, 44(4), 280-292.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Dudley, B. (1992). Effects of peer mediation training on elementary school students. Mediation Quarterly, (10)1, 89-99.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., Dudley, B., Ward, M., & Magnuson, D. (1995). The impact of peer-mediation training on the management of school and home conflicts. American Educational Research Journal, 32(4), 829-844.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson R. T., Dudley, B., Mitchell, J., & Fredrickson, J. (1997). The impact of conflict resolution training on middle school students. Journal of Social Psychology, 137(1), 11-21.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Holubec, E. J. (1994). The nuts and bolts of cooperative learning. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson R. T., & Holubec, E. J. (1998). Cooperation in the classroom (7th ed.). Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company. (Original work published 1984).

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., Mitchell, J., Cotten, B., Harris, D., & Louison, S. (1996). Effectiveness of conflict managers in an inner-city elementary school. Journal of Educational Research, 89(5), 280-285.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson R. T., & Roseth, C. (2006). Goal structures, academic achievement, and early adolescents’ interpersonal needs: A meta-analysis. The Cooperative Link, 21(1), 2-4.

Johnson, E. A, Thomas, D., & Krochak, D. (1998). Effects of peer mediation training in junior high school on mediators’ conflict resolution attitudes and abilities in high school. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 44(3), 339-41.

Jones, L., Blakeway, M. S., Bleiweis, M., Buckley, G., Prutzman, P., Rivas, M., et al. (2007). Recommend standards for school-based peer mediation programs 2007. Retrieved January 6, 2008 from www.acrnet.org.

Jones, T. S. (2004). Conflict resolution education: The field, the findings, and the future. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 22 (1-2), 233-267.

Jones, T. S., & Kmitta, D. (Eds.) (2000). Does it work? The case for conflict resolution education in our nation’s schools. Washington, DC: Conflict Resolution Education Network.

Kaestle, C. (1983). Pillars of the republic: Common schools and American society 1780-1860. New York: Hill and Wang.

Kass, D., Evans, P., & Shah, R. (2003). Bullying prevention is crime prevention: A report by fight crime: Invest in kids. Washington, D.C.: Afterschool Alliance. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED479261)

Kervin, J. B. (1992), Methods for Business Research, New York, HarperCollins

Keuhl, R. O. (2000). Design of experiments: Statistical principles of research design and analysis (2nd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Duxbury Press.

Krostenko, B. A. (2001). Cicero, Catullus, and the language of social performance. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Kolan, K. (1999). An analysis of the short-term impact of peer mediation on high school disputants in an ethnically diverse suburban school system. Chicago: University of Chicago. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 430 01 68)

Kolen, M. J., Zeng, L., & Hanson, B. A. (1996). Conditional standard errors of measurement for scale scores using IRT. Journal of Educational Measurement, 33, 129-140.

Levine, J. (Reporter). (2007, May 30). 34 Children killed in deadly school year. [Television broadcast]. Chicago: CBS.

Lewin, K. (1948). Resolving social conflicts. New York: Harper

Marshall, M. N. (1996). Sampling for qualitative research. Family Practice, 13(8), 522 – 525.

McCulloch, M., Behrens, T., & Altman, B. (2006). Transitions: There are two sides to every story: The art of compromising.Chicago: All Students Can Learn.

McLean, M., Wolery, M., & Bailey, D. B. (Eds.). (2004). Assessing infants and preschoolers with special needs. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Merriam, S. B. (2002). Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and analysis. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Michael, M. (1992). The peacekeepers. Teaching Tolerance, (3)1, 46-52.

Milbank, D. (2007). SPLC to congress: Focus on preventing school hate crimes. Southern Poverty Law Center, 4(4), 1-2.

Miller, E. (1994). Peer mediation catches on, but some adults don’t. The Harvard Education Letter, 10(3), 8.

Mitchell, J. (1997). The imaginitis learning system conflict resolution unit in an urban school district. American Educational Research Association (ED406508, p. 1-14). Chicago: The CooperativeLearningCenter: University of Minnesota.

Moore, D. S., & McCabe, G. P. (2006). Introduction to the practice of statistics (5th ed.). New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.

Old Testament. (1979). (Original work published unknown) Retrieved July 7, 2006, from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Web site: http:// scriptures.lds.org.

Orpinas, P. (2000). Outcome evaluation of a multi-component violence prevention program for middle schools: The students for peace project. Health Education Research Theory and Practice, 15(1), 45-58.

Pachori, S. S. (1983). Dr. Andrew Bell and Coleridge’s lectures on education. Journal of General Education, 35(1), 26-37.

Peterson R. L, & Skiba, R. (2000). Creating school climates that prevent school violence. Preventing School Failure, 44(3), 122-130.

Piaget, J. (1948). The moral judgment of the child. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

Piaget, J. (1950). The psychology of intelligence. New York: Harper.

Potts, K. L. (2002).The relationship between the quality and number of interpersonal negotiation strategies and coping styles of high school students with and without peer mediation training. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 62(11-A), 36-92.

Prothrow-Stith, D., Spivak, H., & Hausman, A. (1997). The violence prevention project: A public health approach. Science, Technology, and Human Values, (12)3/4, 67-69.

Rayman, R. (1981). Joseph Lancaster’s monitorial system of instruction and American Indian education. History of Education Quarterly, 21(4), 395-409.

Reardon, E. (1992). Peer mediation among high school students: A rest of effectiveness. Social Work Education 14(2), 86-94.

Ryan, J. B., Reid, R., & Epstein, M. H. (2004). Peer-mediated intervention studies on academic-achievement for students with EBD: A review. Remedial and Special Education, 25(6), 330-341.

Roush, G., & Hill, E. (1993). Teaching peaceful conflict resolution. Mediation Quarterly, (11)2, 185-191.

SAMHSA (2006). SAMHSA model programs: Teaching students to be peacemakers. Retrieved July 31, 2006 from www.modelprograms.samhsa.gov.

Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2003). Research methods for business students, Harlow: Financial Times/Prentice Hall

Schargel, F. P., & Smink, J. (2001). Strategies to help solve our school dropout problem.

Larchmont, NY: Eye On Education.

Schellenberg, R. C., Parks-Savage, A., & Rehfuss, M. (2007). Reducing levels of elementary school violence with peer mediation. Professional school counseling, 10(5), 475-481.

Shamir, A., & Lazerovitz, T. (2007). Peer mediation intervention for scaffolding self-regulated learning among children with learning disabilities. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 22(3), p. 255-273.

Schrumpf, F., Crawford, D., & Bodine, R. (1997). Peer mediation: Conflict resolution in schools: Program guide. Champaign, IL: Research Press.

Schulz, E. M, Kolen, M. J, & Nicewander, W.A. (1999). A rational for defending achievement levels using irt-estimated domain scores. Applied Psychological Measurement, 23(4), 347-362.

Skiba, R., & Reece, P. (February 2000). Creating a positive climate: Peer mediation. Safe & Responsive Schools. Retrieved August 5, 2008 from www.indiana.edu.

Slavin, R. (1980). Cooperative learning. Review of Educational Research, 50, 315-342.

Stanley, P. D., & Mangin, M. C. (1999). The teacher’s role in helping children learn to solve conflicts with peers. Journal of Early Education and Family Review, 6(3), 17-22.

Stevahn, L. (2004). Integrating conflict resolution training into the curriculum. Theory Into Practice, 43(1), 50-58.

Stevahn, L., Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (2004). Effects of conflict resolution training integrated into a high school social studies curriculum. The Journal of Social Psychology, 142(3), 305-331.

Stevahn, L., Munger, L, & Kealey, K. (2005). Conflict resolution in a French immersion elementary school. Journal of Educational Research, 99(1), 3-18.

Stewart, D., & Mickunas, A. (1990). Exploring phenomenology: A guide to the field and its literature (2nd ed.) Athens: OhioUniversity Press.

Stader, D. L. (2000). Reducing violence in the high school: The power of peers. Journal of At-Risk Issues, 7(1), 6-11.

Stiles, M., & Tyson, B. (2008). How can you improve communication so high school students feel safe and secure? American School Board Journal, 14(5), 36-37.

Stomfay-Stitz, A., & Wheeler, E. (2007). Cyber bullying and our middle school girls. Childhood Education, 83(5), 308-309.

Stovell, K. (1999). Prevention programs for youth: A guide to outcomes evaluation, successful funding. Manisses, RI: Manisses Communications Group.

Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Tschannen-Moran, M. (2001). The effects of a statewide conflict management initiative in schools. American Secondary Education, 29(3), 2-32.

Theberge, S. K., & Karan, O.C. (2004). Six factors inhibiting the use of peer mediation in a junior high school. Professional School Counseling, 7(4). 283-290.

Taylor, S. J. & Bogdan, R. (1998). Introduction to qualitative research methods: a guidebook and resource, New York; Chichester: Wiley

Tolan, P., & Guerra, N. (1994). What works in reducing adolescent violence: An empirical review of the field. Boulder, CO: Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Sciences, University of Colorado.

Webster, D. (1993). The unconvincing case for school-based conflict resolution programs for adolescents. Health Affairs, 126-141.

Wittrock, M. (1990). Generative process of comprehension. Educational Psychology, 24, 345-376.

Wilson-Brewer, R., Cohen, C., O’Donnell, L., & Goodman, I. (1991). Violence prevention for young adolescents: A survey of the state of the art (Working Papers). Cambridge, MA: Educational DevelopmentCenter. (Eric Document Reproduction Service ED 356 442)

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.