Students explain effective and ineffective cooperative learning mainly by instructional conditions: type of task, teacher, and group composition are the most frequently mentioned factors¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · qualitativer2·q2
Currency · newest study 2007 · checked against its sources 2026-10-22 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q2 i? In interview statements, type of task, the teacher, and group composition were the most frequently mentioned aspects of the learning environment explaining effective or ineffective CL instances. → Hijzen 2007
q2 i? Ineffective teams complained that tasks were not real group tasks, that teacher support was lacking or chaotic, and that too much autonomy felt like teacher negligence. → Hijzen 2007
Evidence¶
Hijzen 2007¶
Hijzen, D., Boekaerts, M., & Vedder, P. H. (2007). Exploring the links between students' engagement in cooperative learning, their goal preferences and appraisals of instructional conditions in the classroom. Learning And Instruction, 17(6), 673-687. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.09.020
q2 · i? · qualitative · r2
Content analysis of stimulated-recall interviews in which students explained instances of effective or ineffective CL. The article reports that "Type of task, the teacher, and the group composition were the most frequently mentioned aspects" of the learning environment.
"Type of task, the teacher, and the group composition were the most frequently mentioned aspects of the learning environment causing or supporting factors for explaining effective or ineffective instances of CL."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Goal profiles differ between effective and ineffective CL teams: mastery and social responsibility goals prevail in effective teams, entertainment, certificate and work avoidance goals in ineffective teams — related
- In ineffective CL teams, belongingness goals are negatively related to socially oriented task engagement, and no other goal domain relates significantly to engagement — related
- Effective and ineffective cooperative learning teams differ significantly only in socially oriented engagement, with ineffective teams showing lower socially oriented engagement — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
instructional-conditions-explain-cl-quality |
title |
Students explain effective and ineffective cooperative learning mainly by instructional conditions: type of task, teacher, and group composition are the most frequently mentioned factors |
description |
Students explain effective and ineffective cooperative learning mainly by instructional conditions: type of task, teacher, and group composition are the most frequently mentioned factors |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
weak |
newest_evidence |
2007 |
source_checked |
2026-10-22 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-22 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — hijzen-2007 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.