•Group+Interaction

Baines, Rubie-Davies, and Blatchford (2009), professors at the University of London and the University of Auckland, conducted a year-long study to test the effects that a Social Pedagogic Research into Group-Work (SPRinG) program would have on the “levels and quality of pupil-pupil group work and higher order talk in everyday classroom settings.” The SPRinG program, which aims to develop trust and respect among students, believes the four key elements that contribute to successful group work are a “relational” approach (fostering trust and a mutual respect among peers), classroom physical arrangements that facilitate group work, tasks and projects that facilitate group work, and an adult facilitator for the student groups. After observing dozens of SPRinG and control groups in multiple elementary schools, the researchers found that the program did increase the students’ levels of active involvement and inferential talk, as well as decreased their levels of off-topic talk and other undesirable group behaviors when compared to the control groups. Because this program did prove successful in their study, the authors believe that students can, and need to be, trained in order to become successful communicators. With the implementation of this, or a similar program, teachers can promote healthy and effective group interactions in the classroom.
 * Baines, E.,** ** Rubie-Davies, C. &Blatchford, P. (2009). //Improving pupil group work interaction and dialogue in primary classrooms: Results from a year-long intervention study ////. // //Cambridge Journal of Education, 39// (1), 95-117.**

Joanne Keyton, Ph.D. and associate professor at the University of Memphis, along with Nancy Dodson, argue that if students are grouped with an objective to problem solve and make decisions, they need to be taught to communicate effectively. The authors hypothesized that the fourth and fifth-grade students who both watched a short video and listened to a lecture about effective group communication would more readily adopt these practices into an activity immediately following the instruction than student groups who received no instruction. Interestingly, the researchers presented the tasks as performance operations, which Yamaguchi (2003) later found to not be the most effective route to securing healthy and effective group interactions. Despite the children operating under a performance condition, however, the students who received some instruction did communicate more effectively than the groups that received no instruction. At the conclusion of the study, the authors drew five conclusions about the group interaction: students like learning about group processes, fourth and fifth-grade students are ready for instruction regarding group processes, group interaction must be deliberately taught, instruction must include modeling, and teachers need to be trained on how to effectively implement cooperative learning activities into the classroom.
 * Keyton, J. & Dodson, N.L. (March 1996). Exploratory study of children’s task groups: Instructional implications. Unpublished paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southern States Communication Association, Memphis, TN.**


 * Yamaguchi, R. (2003). Children's learning groups: A study of emegernt leadership, dominance, and group effectiveness. Unpublished paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.**

Ryoko Yamaguchi, Ph.D., from the University of Michigan, conducted a research study that compared student groups' effectiveness under mastery and performance conditions. Elementary and middle school students were assigned a math task to complete in groups of three. Groups performing under a mastery condition were told the purpose of the activity was to promote learning and improve their math skills. Groups operating under a performance condition were told their math skills were being tested, and that their scores would be reported to their teachers. Yamaguchi found that mastery group students exhibited healthy leadership and positive group behaviors (asking for or providing help, sharing, staying on task, etc.) More negative behaviors (arguing, blaming, social loafing, off-task behavior, etc.), however, were seen in performance groups. Not surprisingly, a qualitative analysis showed that mastery groups were more effective in completing the math task and also enjoyed the cooperative learning task more than the students in the performance groups. Learning environments can affect group interactions. Therefore, Yamaguchi cautions teachers to create and structure learning environments that make improving and learning the goal, rather than focusing on competition and social comparison.