Community College Psychology Students’ Cooperative Learning Experiences----A Qualitative Analysis By Year In College

Main Article Content

Christopher Arra


The goal of the study was to assess the effects of year in college on students’ perceptions of the cooperative learning process. Ninety-six college students completed 5 open-ended questions that asked students about their preferences for cooperative learning activities. Forty-nine first-year students and 47 second-year students participated in the study. A qualitative research design was used. Qualitative analyses compared---by year in college---the 5 open-ended questions. The principal investigator qualitatively analyzed the data for themes and subthemes, high frequency responses, and percentage of response. Some tentative qualitative findings were that first- and second-year students preferred the same types of group work and both groups had overlapping ideas on ways to make group work more enjoyable.

Keywords: cooperative learning, college, year in college



Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Arra, C. (2024). Community College Psychology Students’ Cooperative Learning Experiences----A Qualitative Analysis By Year In College. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 24(1).



American Psychological Association (2002). The ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. Available at:

Asghar, A. (2010). Reciprocal peer coaching and its use as a formative assessment strategy for first-year students. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 35, 403-417.

Arra, C., Shuaib, P. & McGarry, R. (2014). An examination of first year community college

students’ cooperative learning experiences and preferences. Journal of Behavioral and Social Sciences, 1, 123-133.

Arra, C., D’Antonio, M., & D’Antonio, Jr., M. (2011). Students’ preferences for cooperative learning instructional approaches: Considerations for college teachers. Journal of Research in Education, 21, 114-126.

Bishnoi, N. (2017). Collaborative Learning: A learning tool advantages and disadvantages. Indian Journal of Health and Well Being, 8, 789-791.

Brandi, K., Schneid, S., Smith, S., Winegarden, B., Mandel, J., & Kelly, C. (2017). Small group activities within academic communities improve the connectedness of students and faculty. Medical Teacher, 39, 813-819.

Cannon, K., Cannon, K., & Breen, M. (2013). Do women not like competitive environments in the classroom? Group competitive exercises imply not so! International Journal of Science in Society, 4, 119-126.

Cheng, R., Shui-fong, L., & Chan, J. (2008). When high achievers and low achievers work in the same group: The roles of heterogeneity and processes in project-based learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 205-221.

Coleman, J. (1961). The adolescent society. New York: The Free Press.

Ding, N., Boosker, R., & Harskamp, E. (2011). Exploring gender and gender pairing in the

knowledge elaboration processes of students using computer-based collaborative

learning. Computers and Education, 56, 325-336.

Du, J., Ge, X., & Xu, J. (2015). Online collaborative learning activities: The perspectives of

african American female students. Computers and Education, 82, 152-161.

Elliott, C. & Reynolds, M. (2014). Participative pedagogies, group work and the international

classroom: An account of students’ and tutors’ experiences. Studies in Higher Education,

, 307-320.

Hansen, Z. Owan, H., & Pan, J. (2015). The impact of group diversity on class performance:

Evidence from college classrooms. Education Economics, 23, 238-258.

Harskamp, E., Ding, N., & Suhre, C. (2008). Group composition and its effect on female and

male problem-solving in science education. Educational Research, 50, 307-318.

Hodgson, P., Chan, K., & Liu, J. (2014). Outcomes of synergetic peer assessment: First-year

Experience. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 39, 168-178.

Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (2009). An educational success story: Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational Researcher, 38, 365-379.

Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1999). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1994). Learning together and alone, cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning. Needham Heights, MA: Prentice-Hall.

Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1975). Learning together and alone, cooperation, competition, and individualization. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Johnson, D., Johnson, R., & Smith, K. (2007). The state of cooperative learning in postsecondary

and professional settings. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 15-29.

Kaenzig, R., Hyatt, E., & Anderson, S. (2007). Gender differences in college of business educational experiences. Journal of Education for Business, 4, 68-77.

Loes, C., An, B., Saichaie, K., & Pascarella, E. (2017). Does collaborative learning influence persistence to the second year in college? Journal of Higher Education, 88, 62-84.

McKinney, P. & Cook, C. (2018). Student conceptions of group work: Visual research into LIS student group work using the draw-and-write technique. Journal of Education for Library & Information Science, 59, 206-227.

Opdecam, E., Everaert, P., Keer, H., & Buysschaert, F. (2014). Preferences for team learning and lecture-based learning among first-year undergraduate accounting students. Research in Higher Education, 55, 400-432.

Prinsen, F., Volman, M., & Terwel, J. Gender-related differences in computer-mediated communication and computer-supported collaborative learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23, 393-409.

Sharan, Y. (2010). Cooperative learning for academic and social gains: Valued pedagogy, problematic practice. European Journal of Education, 45, 300-313.

Shimazoe, J., & Aldrich, H. (2010). Group work can be gratifying: Understanding and overcoming resistance to cooperative learning. College Teaching, 58, 52-57.

Slavin, R. (1994). Built to last. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 61-66.

Turan, Y. (2012). Acceptability ratings of language interventions and reasoning as described by

early childhood special education. Early Childhood Development and Care, 182, 1371-1382.