1. Synthesis about cooperative learning

2. Selection of commented references

1. Synthesis

Cooperative learning (CL) has been shown to be beneficial for students across a wide racial, ethnic, socioeconomic and disability spectrum, as well as those from differing academic skill levels (Drakeford, 2012). Indeed, CL provides a natural environment in which to enhance interpersonal skills and to improve the academic achievement of the individual team members compared to that of individuals who work alone. It represents an opportunity to grasp curriculum content through active participation as, when working cooperatively, students become more involved in the learning process. As a result of increased motivation, students are more likely to express their ideas, understand the content more thoroughly and experience academic success. However, for CL to be efficient, some principles must be respected. Thus, teachers need to consider the composition of the groups and its size. They also have to understand that they have a crucial role in promoting student interactions. Helping students to interact and work together not only enables students to learn from each other but also to accept responsibility for the tasks they must complete and the decisions they have to make. Indeed, without some relevant external guidance, students do not elaborate on information, do not ask thought-provoking questions, and do not spontaneously draw upon prior knowledge (King, 2002). It is also well recognized that students do not necessarily cooperate during group work and that groups need to be structured so that the five key components that mediate successful cooperation are evident. These include: establishing positive interdependence among group members; facilitating promotive interaction; encouraging individual accountability; explicitly teaching the appropriate social skills; and, encouraging groups to reflect on both the processes involved in managing the task and interacting with their peers. On top of this, many authors stress the importance of giving clear and concise instructions to children and, when possible, provide them with examples of the tasks so that to make sure of all children instruction comprehension. Another fundamental element lies in the quality of the tasks proposed to the students. One key-element is is planning in detail and designed tasks that can benefit from CL. Not all tasks are suitable for cooperation. However, complex tasks, including conceptual understanding, are particularly suitable, provided that they are within the reach of the students and that they rely on adequate resources. Finally, most authors agree that there are certain things that need to be explicitly taught. So for a group to work in a manner that is genuinely cooperative, it is decisive to explicitly teach the skills that go with it. In that respect, some research shows that students that receive instructions on how to collaborate outperform students that were not prepared.

2. Selection


  • Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (2001). Effective Strategies for Cooperative Learning. Cooperation & Collaboration in College Teaching, 10(2), 69-75.


“In general, we find that we can minimize resistance by telling the students right from the start why we are using groups, stressing in our explanation the benefits cooperative learning can give them and offering to direct them to the research that proves it.” (p. 71)

“To get groups off to a good start, have them prepare and sign a list of ground rules they all agree to observe (for example, come to meetings prepared, let another member of the group know if you must miss a meeting or will be late, outline problem solutions individually before the group meeting, etc.).” (p. 72)

“A procedure that has worked well for us is to announce when teams are first formed that you will be dissolving them after a month and forming new teams, unless you get signed notes from all members of a team stating that they want to remain together, in which case they may do so.” (p. 74)



  • Baker, M.J. (2008). Formes et processus de la résolution coopérative de problèmes : des savoirs aux pratiques éducatives. In Y. Rouiller & K. Lehraus (Eds.) Vers des apprentissages en coopération : rencontres et perspectives, p. 107-130. Berne : Peter Lang.


Résumé :  dans cet article, l’auteur mentionne les trois paradigmes de la recherche sur la coopération pour proposer un quatrième modèle. Il lie la situation proposée par l’enseignant aux interactions entre élèves et aux connaissances produites en remettant en cause leur relation linéaire. Les liens ne sont pas unidirectionnels mais pluridirectionnels. Les interactions influent sur la situation proposée de par les négociations mises en place et l’appropriation des outils et du dispositif. Les compétences, connaissances des élèves et leur familiarisation avec le dispositif influent sur les interactions de manière qualitative et quantitative.


Deux modèles analytiques sont proposés pour permettre une meilleure conception des activités coopératives par les enseignants. Le premier porte sur les formes d’activités coopératives et le second sur l’élaboration des connaissances.

« Ce qui est logiquement possible, c’est d’attirer l’attention de l’enseignant sur un ensemble de dimensions de l’activité coopérative […] qui interagissent d’une manière complexe, et qui sont importantes pour la conception des situations d’apprentissage coopératif. Ces dimensions pourraient, ainsi, prendre valeur de règles heuristiques dans la conduite d’une approche coopérative. »



  • Gillies, R. M., & Boyle, M. (2010). Teachers' reflections on cooperative learning: Issues of implementation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 933-940.

“They've really gotten to know each other much better than they did” (p. 935)

“There are certain things that need to be explicitly taught. So if you want a group to work in a manner that is genuinely cooperative, you will need to explicitly teach the skills that go with it.” (p. 936)

“I think they have had a good engaging year. I think they are into their learning. I think they have surprised themselves with what they can come up with in the short time span” (p. 937)



  • Pastor Martínez, M. R. (2011). CLIL and cooperative learning. Encuentro: revista de investigación e innovación en la clase de idiomas.



p.6. “The data collection has been gathered in a Primary school in Year four class, during different sessions, in the science classroom through a CLIL didactic unit. In relation to the type of data collected, this was taken from two main sources. Initially, information was collected through direct observation and informal interviews with children. This was done by talking with the children while working on the tasks, at different stages while developing the activities. This process was addressed to obtain information about their impressions and feelings towards the activities proposed in the sessions. Secondly, further information was collected through different resources and techniques included in a CLIL didactic unit.

The gathering methods used in the research project for the collection of the data, that are included in the didactic unit, were obtained through cooperative learning methodology within CLIL approach. On the one hand, the input collected through cooperative learning was obtained using two of the main representative techniques within this methodology; Jigsaw and TGT (Team-Games-Tournaments). These techniques were performed through different classroom arrangements and grouping as well as the tasks that were taken the form of fact-file, and scrapbooks. Additionally, other methods that were carried out in this CLIL didactic unit are: oral presentations, self, peer, cooperative assessment, as well a teacher assessment tests. In general terms, these cooperative techniques were applied within CLIL context, that is, through a CLIL didactic unit.”

p. 7. “In general terms, it can be stated that the final results of the experiment were quite positive. To begin with, from the analysis done through direct observation and the informal interviews to children, I could proclaim that they loved working in cooperative groups and learn through the foreign language.

In addition to that, the implementation of the cooperative learning techniques were very effective. This can be stated from the analysis of the techniques implemented, thus, we can deduce some positive aspects. To begin with, I could observe the positive development of the students’ English skills developed through the cooperative techniques worked out during the different sessions. What is more, the oral presentation task -which sometimes can be quite hard for some learners- was quite positive and welcome. During the presentations, I was absolutely amazed with how naturally and easily they spoke in front of the class. Although, they were allowed to read the information from the paper gathered, some of the children did not need it, as they told me: “I am not going to read the paper, I am going to say it without reading the paper”. Some of those that were not delighted with the idea of talking in front of the classroom were willing to do it when they were able to do the presentation with their group instead of doing it alone.”

p.8 “In relation to future actions into the planning and implementation of cooperative methods within the CLIL classroom, there are some elements that I would like highlight, as I have realized that they are essential for the activities’ success. On the one hand, I have become aware of the importance of giving clear and concise instructions to children. This may sound obvious, but it is essential. We need to keep it short and simple. Additionally, when possible we should provide them with examples of the tasks. For instance, when working with the scrap book, we provide them with one sample for them to gain a visual of the final result. Besides, we need to make sure of children instruction comprehension, asking them to explain things or give us examples in relation to the task. On the other hand, another key issue to successful teaching in cooperative learning sessions is planning. When everything is planned to the last detail, the session is usually developed quite well in the classroom. Yet I have to admit that cooperative learning and CLIL didactic units’ planning are not exempt of work. It is true that it takes time and effort on the part of the teacher. Finally positive feedback is another key aspects in children’ success.”



  • Chin-Min, H. (2012). The Effectiveness of Cooperative Learning. Journal of Engineering Education,101(1), 119–137.


“Cooperative learning provides a natural environment in which to enhance interpersonal skills” (p. 120)

“Overall, the homework test results indicate that cooperative learning ultimately yields a notable improvement in the academic achievement of the individual team members compared to that of individuals who work alone.” (p. 130)

“The underlying reason for the gradual improvement in the academic performance of individuals within teams can be explained as follows: cooperative efforts are inherently more complex than individual efforts because group members must concentrate on both task-work and teamwork, whereas those working alone need concentrate only on task-work.” (p. 132)

  • Drakeford, W. (2012). The Effects of Cooperative Learning on the Classroom Participation of Students Placed at Risk for Societal Failure. Psychology Research, 2(4), 239-246.


“Cooperative learning has been shown to be beneficial for students across a wide racial, ethnic, socioeconomic and disability spectrum, as well as those from differing academic skill levels.” (p. 240)

“The study underscores a cooperative learning approach’s ability to provide students the opportunity to grasp curriculum content through active participation. It suggests that students who become more involved in the learning process as a result of increased motivation are more likely to express their ideas, understand the content more thoroughly and experience academic success.” (p. 241)

“In recent years, distance learning has made possible several innovative means to include CL in virtual pedagogical settings.” (p. 82)

“Online collaborative communities not only engage students in the class, but they also connect students beyond the classroom.” (p. 83)

“The idea of collaborative learning used in the online environment is a fundamental and pedagogical challenge; the resulting question is: can both function together effectively to transform teaching and learning in online education” (p. 84)



  • Buchs, C. (2016). Comment organiser l’apprentissage des élèves par petits groupes ? Note de synthèse présentée lors de la conférence de Consensus sur la différentiation pédagogique. Paris : CNESCO.


Résumé : dans cette synthèse, C Buchs donne un aperçu de la mise en œuvre de l’interaction entre les élèves pour apprendre. Elle définit aussi la place de l’enseignant dans son organisation permettant de renforcer le rôle actif des élèves dans la construction des savoirs. Elle fait référence à l’approche nord-américaine « cooperative learning » de Johnson (Johnson & Holubec, 2008). Cette approche « apprendre ensemble par la coopération » propose des principes, souples et adaptables aux différents âges, pour structurer les interactions entre élèves de manière coopérative, sans nécessité de recouvrir à du matériel spécifique.

Objectif : stimuler les interactions constructives entre élèves.

Recommandations :

- Préparer les apprenants à coopérer

- Organiser le travail en équipe, organiser l’apprentissage par petits groupes

• Pour un travail des élèves en groupe soit efficace : créer entre eux une interdépendance positive

• Formation des équipes ( 2 à 5 élèves)

• Prévoir temps d’explicitation des objectifs, des stratégies et processus, des attentes en termes de comportements

- Place de l’enseignant est centrale : un observateur durant la durée des travaux afin de repérer difficultés et forces, réguler les apprentissages.

p. 42-43 “Given the importance of establishing cooperative groups that include the five key components outlined above, other issues that teachers need to consider are the composition of the group and its size. In a meta-analysis of 66 studies that examined the effects of within-class grouping (i.e., establishing small groups in classes) on student achievement at the elementary, secondary and post-secondary levels, Lou, Abrami, Spence, Poulsen, Chambers, & d’Apollonia (1996) found that students achieved higher outcomes when they worked in small cooperative groups than when they were not grouped, such as occurs in traditional whole class settings. Students also worked better and achieved more when they worked in groups of 3-4 members than in groups of 5-7 members, possibly because the latter arrangement was closer to whole class teaching where information was transmitted rather than constructed. Interestingly, the effects of group ability composition were different for students of different relative ability with low-ability students learning more in heterogeneous or mixed ability groups while medium-ability students benefited significantly more in homogeneous groups. Composition made no difference to high ability students who worked equally well in heterogeneous or homogeneous groups.”

“There is no doubt that teachers play a key role in establishing cooperative learning experiences in their classrooms. This includes structuring the groups and the tasks so that students understand what they are expected to do and how they are expected to behave. It also includes teachers understanding that they have a role in promoting student interactions during small group discussions. Helping students to interact and work together not only enables students to learn from each other but also to accept responsibility for the tasks they have to complete and the decisions they have to make. Sadly, research indicates that high-level cognitive talk which incorporates task-related talk about facts, concepts, and thinking only appears with low frequency when left to emerge as a by-product of small group learning (Meloth & Deering, 1999). Students do not elaborate on information, do not ask thought-provoking questions, and do not spontaneously draw upon prior knowledge without some relevant external guidance (King, 2002). Chinn, O’Donnell and Jinks (2000) also observed that students rarely engage in high-level discourse or explanatory behaviour or provide reasons for their conclusions unless explicitly taught to do so. However, when students are taught to talk and reason together and apply those skills in their interactions with each other (in this case, science), Mercer, Dawes, Wegerif, and Sams (2004) found that they were able to talk and reason effectively together. Furthermore, these talk-based group activities helped in the development of individuals’ reasoning, problemsolving and learning. In a similar vein, Gillies (2004) found that when teachers were taught how to mediate students’ learning by engaging in dialogic exchanges where they probed and clarified issues, confronted discrepancies in students’ thinking, offered tentative suggestions, and acknowledged and validated students’ responses, the children’s responses to each other mirrored many of the responses they gave their teachers, that is, they were detailed or elaborated. In a study of teachers’ and students’ verbal behaviours in secondary classrooms, Gillies (2006) found that teachers who implement cooperative learning demonstrate more mediated-learning interactions than teachers who implement group-work only. Furthermore, 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 only groups (i.e., ad hoc groups where students had not been taught to cooperate). Gillies argued that many of these verbal behaviours may have, in part, emerged from the types of reciprocal interactions their teachers modelled as they interacted with group members where the students learned to provide more explanations and detailed responses to other students’ requests for help or perceived need for help. The frequency of the multidirectional responses that occurred in the cooperative groups both among the students and with their teachers may also have emerged from the group tasks which were generally open and discovery-based and required students to exchange information and ideas in order to find a solution to the problem. In short, the research (Gillies, 2004, 2006; Mercer et al., 2004) shows that teachers can teach students how to talk and reason together to promote student interactions and learning.” (p. 44)

“When teachers engage in dialogic teaching or teaching talk, students learn to listen more attentively to others, encourage others to participate and share ideas, actively work to co-construct new ideas and knowledge together, and strive to reach consensus over issues while respecting the views and ideas of others.” (p. 48)

“It is well recognized that students do not necessarily cooperate during group work and that groups need to be structured so that the five key components that mediate successful cooperation are evident. These include: establishing positive interdependence among group members; facilitating promotive interaction; encouraging individual accountability; explicitly teaching the appropriate social skills; and, encouraging groups to reflect on both the processes involved in managing the task and interacting with their peers.” (p. 51)

  • Marchisio, A. (2016). Il cooperative learning per imparare a pensare. OPPI informazioni, 120, 58-71.


p. 62 Se la conoscenza è una elaborazione personale, mediata continuamente dal contesto socioculturale, ciò che manca molto spesso alle nostre scuole è la consapevolezza dell’importanza del contesto di apprendimento. D’altra parte, riflettendo sulla nostra esperienza conoscitiva e chiedendoci quali siano stati i momenti in cui davvero abbiamo imparato qualcosa, ci accorgeremo che: quelli più significativi spesso sono stati i momenti in cui abbiamo dovuto discutere, negoziare con altri, motivare un parere. Il confronto con gli altri costringe infatti il soggetto a fornire spiegazioni e motivazioni delle proprie osservazioni ed a rielaborare continuamente la propria costruzione del sapere. A questo proposito ci sembra che le didattiche attive, e in particolare il cooperative learning, tengano conto di tutti i fattori in gioco e realizzino una via praticabile per incrementare il sistema categoriale di ogni ragazzo attivando curiosità e intraprendenza. Spetta al docente fare in modo che la classe diventi gradualmente un gruppo di apprendimento, infatti una classe è, sì un gruppo, ma si tratta di un gruppo istituzionale, che non si è costituito per scelta dei membri e che può sviluppare una storia e una cultura fatta di appartenenze, regole, valori e apprendimenti, che possono non essere funzionali all’apprendimento.

p. 64 Ogni classe è a sé e richiede di ricominciare da capo, non è possibile replicare a priori modelli preconfezionati – anche vincenti – poiché non si terrebbe conto della specificità del gruppo, sempre mutevole e irripetibile. Il docente deve capire in che occasione e per quale lavoro didattico è opportuno usare il CL, deve preparare i propri ragazzi ad un tipo di attività che li impegnerà parecchio, che richiederà fatiche in più e, per questo, l’insegnante deve aver maturato conoscenza e pieno governo di eventuali relazioni problematiche, in maniera da usare al meglio tutte le sinergie esistenti, gestendo i conflitti. Il docente ha quindi un ruolo centrale e delicato, perché si trova a collaborare autorevolmente all’interno del gruppo per coordinarlo e indirizzarlo. Senza la sua figura non esiste possibilità di successo didattico: egli è fondamentale perché incarna la consapevolezza dello scopo e del metodo ed indirizza continuamente il lavoro evitando conflitti e deviazioni rispetto all’obiettivo; la sua relazione affettiva e intellettuale con gli studenti è ciò che è capace di muovere ad un lavoro e a stimolarlo.

  • Reverdy, C. (2016). La coopération entre élèves, des recherches aux pratiques. Dossier de veille de l’IFE, 114.


Résumé : Cette référence est pertinente pour plusieurs raisons : 1. Cette référence présente une synthèse détaillée et explicite qui permet au lecteur d’accéder rapidement à des travaux internationaux de référence concernant l’apprentissage coopératif ; 2. Cette référence relate un historique de l’évolution de la place de la coopération dans l’enseignement ; 3. Cette référence confronte plusieurs résultats de recherche ; 4. Cette référence donne des pistes concrètes permettant aux enseignant.es d’améliorer les pratiques coopératives au service des apprentissages.

p.7 « La tâche à accomplir dans le travail coopératif est un paramètre important à prendre en compte : toutes les tâches ne se prêtent pas au jeu de la coopération, comme les tâches routinières ou celles qui font travailler la mémoire. Par contre les tâches complexes, incluant la compréhension de concepts, sont particulièrement adaptées, pourvu qu’elles soient à la portée des élèves du groupe et que ces derniers disposent de ressources adéquates. Plus la tâche demande un niveau de coopération élevé, plus les compétences développées alors par les élèves sont d’un haut niveau de raisonnement, ce qui a à son tour un effet sur l’apprentissage en cours (Hugon, 2008 ; Gillies, 2014). »

« Lorsque l’enseignant.e s’engage réellement dans un enseignement visant l’apprentissage coopératif de ses élèves, il ou elle influence davantage l’étayage des élèves que dans un travail en groupe « simple », non organisé au préalable, et leur fait moins de remarques de discipline, ce qui améliore la qualité des interactions entre élèves, ainsi que l’entraide (Gillies, 2014) ». p.6 « D’après Blatchford et al. (2003) à propos d’une enquête réalisée dans l’enseignement primaire et secondaire en 2000, les enseignant.e.s focalisent plus souvent leur attention sur l’activité que les élèves ont à réaliser que sur le processus même du travail en groupe, ce qui peut empêcher l’accès à la compréhension de l’activité pour les élèves. Un moyen d’y remédier est d’observer le fonctionnement du groupe lors du travail coopératif et de revenir sur ces observations lors de temps de discussion avec les élèves avant et après le travail coopératif. Cela favorise le regard métacognitif des élèves sur leur propre pratique coopérative, indispensable à une évolution positive du groupe, et ainsi des acquisitions de chaque élève. » p.25

« Lors de l’introduction de moments de travail coopératif, on peut observer la fabrication d’une sorte de « communauté discursive » dans la communauté des apprenants, avec un rôle fort de l’enseignant.e pour la réalisation de ce climat coopératif, notamment par ses interventions orales. Cette communauté discursive, permettant de riches échanges entre les élèves, peut se voir dans l’analyse des marques linguistiques présentes dans les interactions verbales entre élèves : "Dans le groupe, les postures et le partage de la parole demeurent sensiblement identiques si l’action de l’enseignant ne vise pas à modifier l’état spontané. L’analyse porte sur les marques linguistiques de la prise en charge de son discours, de l’inscription de l’autre et du discours de l’autre dans son propre discours. Ces marques linguistiques sont la trace d’une socialisation, d’un “climat” qui évolue. Au-delà d’une communauté d’apprenants, se constitue, sous l’effet de l’action de l’enseignant sensibilisé à cette problématique, une communauté » (p. 27)


  • Connac, S. (2017). La coopération entre élèves. France : Canopé.

Résumé : Sylvain CONNAC apporte dans son ouvrage un éclairage sur deux termes que l’on a tendance à confondre : la collaboration dans laquelle les élèves travaillent individuellement sur un même projet et la coopération dans laquelle les partenaires sont complètement dépendants. Il définit la coopération par les quatre pratiques suivantes : l’entraide et le travail de groupe (formes symétriques) ; l’aide et de tutorat (formes dissymétriques). Les pédagogies coopératives, issues des théories et des pratiques de l’Éducation Nouvelle, ont pour but de faciliter les apprentissages en associant l’apprenant au processus d’apprentissage. Sylvain CONNAC va s’intéresser à la manière d’organiser ces différentes pratiques coopératives. Il évoque leurs intérêts (affirmation de soi, langage, écoute, empathie, questionnement, solidarité, démocratie, responsabilité) mais aussi leurs limites (dérive chronophage, enlisement dans de l’affectif, désordre dans la classe, asymétrie et primarisation). Il aborde les critères à prendre en compte dans la constitution des groupes et parle des conditions favorables aux pratiques coopératives. Enfin, il expose quelques exemples de projets collectifs.

p. 13 « la coopération entre élèves (…) ses objectifs sont triples : optimiser l’engagement des élèves dans les activités qui leur sont proposées (en les autorisant à la fois à partager ce qu’ils savent et à solliciter l’intervention de pairs en cas de blocage), participer à une prise en compte inclusive de la diversité des élèves et enfin développer la promotion de valeurs liées à la solidarité, l’altruisme et la responsabilité. »

p. 30 « Un conflit sociocognitif correspond à un ensemble d’interactions caractérisé par de la coopération active, avec une prise en compte de la réponse (ou du point de vue d’autrui), et une recherche, dans la confrontation cognitive (du « front contre front »), d’un dépassement des différences et contradictions pour parvenir à une réponse commune. »

« Le conflit cognitif qui peut jaillir durant le travail en groupe est essentiel pour la construction de nouvelles connaissances ou le développement de compétences. En effet, les élèves découvrent, assimilent et confrontent de nouvelles informations dans les réponses des autres qui leur seront utiles pour aller plus loin. »

p. 45 « Autoriser des élèves à travailler ensemble, autour d’une consigne fournie par l’enseignant (travail en groupe) ou choisie par les élèves (entraide), ne vise pas la rentabilité, ce qui constituerait une source indéniable de stress chez beaucoup. Il s’agit plutôt d’engager leur mobilisation cognitive, de les inviter à tirer ensemble une même corde, celle de leurs apprentissages. »

p. 47 « En travaillant en groupe, les élèves réactivent des savoirs qu’ils ont peut-être oubliés, ce qui leur permet de mieux les combiner avec d’autres apportés par des camarades et d’accéder ainsi à des niveaux de conscientisation plus élevés. »

  • Tricot, A. (2017). L’innovation pédagogique, Mythes et réalités. Paris : éditions Retz.


Résumé : dans cet ouvrage, Tricot passe au crible neuf mythes ou réalités pédagogiques parmi lesquels l’affirmation suivante : « Les élèves apprennent mieux en groupe ». Il y explique en quoi le travail de groupe est utile aux apprentissages des élèves, mais également sous quelles conditions.

« Globalement, travailler en groupe peut à la fois augmenter l’exigence de la tâche et l’engagement des élèves. Les tâches pour lesquelles le travail de groupe peut fonctionner sont celles pour lesquelles il est nécessaire, celles qui ne peuvent être réalisées seul(e). La nécessité du travail de groupe peut venir de la nature même de la tâche (qui implique plusieurs rôles distincts), de la complexité de la tâche (nombreuses sous-tâches à réaliser et à coordonner) et enfin de la difficulté de la tâche (i.e. très éloignée des connaissances actuelles des élèves). »



  • Caron, G., Fillion, L., Scy, C. et Vasseur, Y. (2018). Oser les pédagogies coopératives au collège et au lycée. Monrouge : ESF-sciences humaines.


Résumé : dans cet ouvrage, les auteurs détaillent la mise en place de la coopération au sein de leurs classes. Ils indiquent les raisons de l’évolution de leur pédagogie, la mise en place d’une classe coopérative, la façon dont ils s’appuient sur l’évaluation pour améliorer l’engagement et l’apprentissage des élèves, comment ils organisent la coopération au sein de leurs classe et la façon dont cela agit sur le climat scolaire.

« Travailler ensemble ne va pas de soi. C’est un apprentissage qui demande du temps et nécessite une organisation. »



  • Volpe, Y., & Buchs, C. (2019). Pédagogie coopérative : pratiques déclarées et facteurs d’appropriation. Revue suisse des sciences de l'éducation, 41(1), 99-120.



Résumé : Cette référence est pertinente pour plusieurs raisons : 1. Cette référence traite plus spécifiquement de l’interdépendance positive, élément délicat à appréhender dans les questions de coopération ; 2. Cette référence met l’accent sur l’impact des interactions entre élèves dans le cadre de l’apprentissage coopératif ; 3. Cette référence présente des résultats qui peuvent être mis au service de la formation des enseignant.es.

« la structuration de l’interdépendance positive et la gestion du temps représentent toujours des points complexes après une initiation. La structuration de l’interdépendance positive étant centrale pour la qualité des interactions, il est important d’acquérir des stratégies permettant de renforcer l’efficacité et le sentiment de compétence des enseignant-e-s quant à cette dimension »

  • Zambrano, J., Kirschner, F., Sweller, J., & Kirschner, P. A. (2019). Effects of group experience and information distribution on collaborative learning. Instructional Science 47, 531–550.


p. 533 They found that a cohort that received instructions on how to collaborate outperformed a cohort that was not prepared, and that the benefts of preparing for collaboration were lost when the group members split up into new groups. Buchs et al. (2015) also prepared learners by providing them with instruction on why and how to collaborate. They found that learning in dyads after 10 minutes of instruction on working together resulted in better learning results compared to learning individually or collaboratively without such instruction. Similarly, Jurkowski and Hänze (2015) used a 100-min session for training students about transactive communication to enhance group communication and knowledge acquisition during collaborative learning. Their results showed that trained groups outperformed and displayed more transactive communication than untrained groups.

Others investigations show that learners with prior group preparation can allocate efective communication patterns to efciently complete a task (Jurkowski and Hänzea 2016), exchange elaborated explanations and constructive activities (Webb et al. 1995), and efectively distribute high task demands amongst themselves and monitor their contributions (Fransen et  al. 2011). Once groups have acquired task and team schemas (i.e., a shared mental model, Van den Bossche et al. 2011), they may better focus their interactions on learning tasks and obtain better learning. Conversely, a group without such prior experience may perform interactions that may be irrelevant to the task. These data suggest that groups may obtain higher test scores and be more efcient when receiving guidance on how to collaborate on relevant tasks (Jurkowski and Hänze 2015; Kirschner and Erkens 2013; Stevens et al. 1991). Among the limitations of the perspective that advocates preparing groups for collaboration is the lack of attention to the factors that may afect the quality of the interactions and whether efects are long-lasting (e.g., on delayed retention tests after 1 week) (Soderstrom and Bjork 2015). Inter-individual processes may result in diferent outcomes depending on the test timing, characteristics of the group members (e.g., learners with prior collaborative experience) and the demands of the task. Cognitive load theory may help to understand how task complexity afects the performance and mental efort of collaborative learning.”

p. 535 “Providing collaborative experiences with high-complexity tasks may help learners acquire shared mental models of joint work (Van den Bossche et al. 2011) that can guide their transactional activities during collaborative learning. This does not mean that collaborative learning is a kind of general knowledge that can be applied to any domain of knowledge indiscriminately. This general knowledge perspective fails to take into account that the characteristics of the multiple types of learning tasks can result in diferent forms of joint work and that there are many ways to learn collaboratively. This premise suggests that it is better to prepare learners to collaborate according to particular characteristics of a task or domain. Task- or domainbased collaborative experience may help learners to generalize those skills that are unique to that learning environment (Bischof et al. 2012).

Prior collaborative experience is a factor that has not yet been explored using cognitive load theory. However, the emerging construct of generalized domain knowledge may imply this experience. While domain-specifc knowledge applies to a narrow range of specifc tasks in the domain, “generalized domain knowledge applies to a wider class of diferent tasks in this domain [and] it remains a part of domain-specifc knowledge” (Kalyuga 2013, p. 1479). Thus, it is plausible to assume that when group members solve together domainspecifc tasks, they also construct relevant shared schemas of collaborative processes that can be transferred to other similar tasks (Gick and Holyoak 1983). This group experience may be a domain group schema (i.e., a generalized domain skill at group level) that is stored in long-term memory to solve similar learning problems (Zambrano et  al. 2019). Furthermore, as is the case for any relevant knowledge structure, group experience may work as an internalized guidance that regulates transactional activities, optimizes collaborative cognitive load, and leads to better learning outcomes (Hagemann and Kluge 2017; Jurkowski and Hänze 2015; Van den Bossche et al. 2011; Zambrano et al. 2018).”



Baticle, Y., & Pavie, C. (2020). Écrire un roman coopératif avec sa classe, Chronique sociale.


Résumé : cette référence est pertinente pour plusieurs raisons : 1. Elle a une dimension internationale en s’inscrivant dans les préconisations de l’Unesco sur les compétences du XXIème siècle ; 2. Elle allie systématiquement enseignement, culture, pédagogie et apprentissages ; 3. Elle apporte des propositions concrètes avec des explications, des tableaux et des schémas qui permettent de réellement s’approprier la coopération pour mettre en œuvre des projets d’écriture sur le roman, le théâtre, la fable, la lettre, la poésie, la musique et l’histoire.

« La coopération entre élèves est-elle une visée ou un moyen ? Autrement dit, faisons-nous coopérer les enfants à l’école pour qu’ils apprennent à être avec d’autres ou pour les conduire à de nouveaux apprentissages par la coopération ? Les réponses ne vont actuellement pas toutes dans le même sens : alors que les anglo-saxons défendent plutôt une éducation à la coopération (pour un monde plus altruiste et des adultes mieux préparés aux relations), les pédagogues français privilégient surtout une coopération au quotidien qui oriente les élèves vers la découverte de connaissances et le développement de capacités. » (Préface de Sylvain Connac, page 7)

« Nous avons besoin de l’intelligence collective pour faire progresser l’humanité. Cette intelligence partagée monte en compétences tous les humains qui la reçoivent. Pour faire naître cette intelligence collective il s’agira d’organiser des pratiques groupales sources d’interactions pour développer cette expérience vicariante. Ainsi le fait d’observer un partenaire jugé de compétence égale en train de réussir une action amènera le sujet à se sentir lui-même capable d’en faire autant. » (p. 22-23)

  • Cecchini, J. A., Fernández-Río, J., Méndez-Giménez, A., González, C., Sánchez-Martínez, B., & Carriedo, A. (2020). High versus low-structured cooperative learning. Effects on prospective teachers’ regulation dominance, motivation, content knowledge and responsibility. European Journal of Teacher Education, 1-16. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02619768.2020.1774548
  • Guzmán, J. F., & Payá, E. (2020). Direct Instruction vs. Cooperative Learning in Physical Education: Effects on Student Learning, Behaviors, and Subjective Experience. Sustainability, 12, 4893.


p. 8: “Similarly, the results showed that the retention of conceptual learning with CL compared to DI was much greater—up to four times. These findings were in agreement with the belief that greater involvement and participation of students in their own learning occurred in CL. Students working in cooperation not only learned from the teacher but also from each other, from the context and by reflecting about themselves. The learning situations provoked by CL allowed students to be more engaged in their tasks and to better implement their senses, and they also generated spaces for individual and group reflection. The authors believe all this contributed to greater learning retention. Finally, the results of the study provided support to indicate CL was an effective methodology to improve students’ conceptual learning and behavior, although the methodology students were accustomed to was DI.”

  • Okoro Uloaku., N., Nwachukwu, K. E., & Ngozi, D. D. (2020). Effects of Cooperative Learning and Contingency Contracting on Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder Among Pupils with Learning Disabilities in Mathematics in Owerri, Nigeria. Cross-Cultural Communication, 16(3), 25-30.


DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3968/11552.

p. 25: “Learning disabilities could lead to low self-esteem, isolation, dejection and behaviour problems. Another issue is the fact that learning disabilities could be extremely frustrating for children because of its unique characteristics. Imagine a child having trouble with a skill all his friends are tackling with ease. This could lead to worrying about embarrassing himself in front of the class. He might equally struggle to express himself.”

p. 25:” Cooperative learning strategy was more effective in improving Mathematics competence skills (x = 96.6) of ADHD pupils with learning disabilities in mathematics than contingency contracting technique. […] Therefore, the findings of the study suggest that teachers should endevour to use appropriate teaching methods, cooperative learning strategy and contingency contracting technique to reinforce positive attitude to teaching-learning situations among ADHD pupils with learning disabilities in mathematics.”



  • Cieutat, P. & Connac, S. (2021). Coopération et évaluation, Pour ne décourager aucun élève. Chronique sociale.


Résumé : Cette référence est pertinente pour plusieurs raisons : 1. Elle a une dimension historique et permet donc au lecteur d’ancrer sa compréhension du réel, en mettant en perspective, dans la durée, la coopération de l’ère Meiji avec Jigoro Kano à Célestin Freinet en passant par Fernand Oury et d’autres ; 2. Elle pose clairement la problématique du lien entre évaluation et coopération qui reste une question vive ; 3. Elle apporte des propositions concrètes avec des explications, des schémas avec des organisations de salles de classes, des tableaux avec des organisations pédagogiques, des programmations, qui s’inscrivent dans un « contexte de recherche collaborative » basé sur une méthodologie rigoureuse et éprouvée de recueils de données.

« Impossible de parler de coopération à l’école sans évoquer Freinet. Né en 1896, il a connu la guerre des tranchées dont il est revenu invalide à 70 %. Ce détail est essentiel, car il est un point de départ de sa pédagogie. Tout d’abord, son engagement éducatif est motivé par une volonté de lutter contre les horreurs de la guerre et les injustices sociales dont sont victimes les familles populaires. Ensuite, sa faiblesse physique a contraint sa capacité à agir dans la classe. Il a donc dû organiser sa pédagogie pour que les élèves soient véritablement engagés dans leur travail et développer leur autonomie. Mais la pédagogie Freinet est aussi un style. Il cherche constamment à promouvoir la créativité des élèves en mobilisant toutes les ressources possibles. » (p. 14)

  • Jakavonytė-Staškuvienė, D., Žemgulienė, A., & Sakadolskis, E. . (2021). Cooperative learning issues in elementary education: a Lithuanian case study. Journal of Education Culture and Society, 12(1), 445–468. https://doi.org/10.15503/jecs2021.1.445.468

Aim. Cooperative learning (CL) is a widely recognised pedagogical practice which involves students working together to achieve common goals that they could not complete individually. Johnson and Johnson are among the main theorists behind the movement. In 1994 they announced five elements essential for the successful incorporation of CL in the classroom: (a) positive interdependence; (b) face-to-face promotive interaction; (c) individual and group accountability; (d) interpersonal and small group social skills; (e) group processing. In this study we seek to understand how primary school teachers implement cooperative learning and include the above-mentioned aspects in their classes.

Methods. The qualitative case study was conducted at a primary school in Vilnius, Lithuania. Two lessons were recorded, transcribed, and analysed to gather evidence concerning variables that mediate cooperative learning. The teachers planned the lessons together, using the principles that are outlined in a professional development method called Japanese lesson study.  The study involved two teachers and 40 (20+20 pupils in two classes) fourth graders. Also, interviews were conducted with the teachers and three pupils from each class.

Results and conclusion. The forms of cooperative learning observed in the classrooms were markedly different, even though the lesson plans were almost identical. In Lesson 1 the teacher paid more attention to interdependence, interaction, and reflection. Consequently, students mentioned cooperation, assistance, and specifics of group work more frequently. In Lesson 2, there was more traditional group work than CL schemes, and less interdependence, interaction, and reflection. The five essential elements were unequally represented in the lessons, highlighting the varied understanding of CL.  ‘In situ’ research revealed which elements of cooperative learning need to be stressed in teacher pre-service and in-service settings. The study also deepened the understanding of which aspects are more difficult to implement, or which have made significant inroads into classroom practice.

Originality.  Situational research involving both CL and Japanese Lesson Study techniques provide valuable insights into the professional development of teachers who aim to improve their classroom practice.


































Upload the synthesis about cooperative learning 


Upload the selection of references about cooperative learning