International Association of Educators   |  ISSN: 1949-4270   |  e-ISSN: 1949-4289

Original article | Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research 2023, Vol. 18(3) 273-296

The Effect of Cooperative Learning Models on Learning Outcomes: A Second-Order Meta-Analysis

Bilge Öztürk

pp. 273 - 296   |  DOI:   |  Manu. Number: MANU-2308-10-0007

Published online: September 30, 2023  |   Number of Views: 164  |  Number of Download: 191


Cooperative learning is a learning model in which students support each other's learning in cooperation with each other. In the cooperative learning model, the education process has many advantages in terms of academic, social, psychological, measurement-evaluation, and economic aspects. In this study, which examines the effect of cooperative learning on students' learning outcomes, 23 first-order meta-analysis studies revealed the effects of cooperative learning model-based teaching on students' learning outcomes between 2010-2021, and 23 effect sizes from these studies were combined with the second-order meta-analysis method. In the study, teaching style, performance types, teaching level, research area, publication quality, publication bias status, report types, and location where the research was conducted were considered moderator variables. As a result of the study, it was determined that the effect of cooperative learning models on student outcomes was moderate. It was also revealed that the levels of cooperative learning outcomes for different domains differ. It has been determined that cooperative learning is also an essential factor in student outcomes. In addition, this study determined that the location of the meta-analysis studies was an important factor in the average effect sizes. Suggestions were made in line with the results of the research.

Keywords: Cooperative learning, student outcomes, second-order meta-analysis

How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Ozturk, B. (2023). The Effect of Cooperative Learning Models on Learning Outcomes: A Second-Order Meta-Analysis . Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 18(3), 273-296. doi: 10.29329/epasr.2023.600.13

Ozturk, B. (2023). The Effect of Cooperative Learning Models on Learning Outcomes: A Second-Order Meta-Analysis . Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 18(3), pp. 273-296.

Chicago 16th edition
Ozturk, Bilge (2023). "The Effect of Cooperative Learning Models on Learning Outcomes: A Second-Order Meta-Analysis ". Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research 18 (3):273-296. doi:10.29329/epasr.2023.600.13.

  1. Acar, B., & Tarhan, L. (2008). Effects of cooperative learning on students’ understanding of metallic bonding. Research and Science Education, 38(4), 401-420. [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  2. Açıkgöz, K.Ü. (2014). Aktif öğrenme (13. Baskı). Kanyılmaz Matbaacılık. [Google Scholar]
  3. Arısoy, B., & Tarım, K. (2013). The effects of cooperative learning on students’ academic achievement, retention and social skill levels. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 28(3), 1-14. [Google Scholar]
  4. Aziz, Z., & Hossain, M.A. (2010). A comparison of cooperative learning and conventional teaching on students’ achievement in secondary mathematics. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9, 53-62. [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  5. Barbosa, R., Jofili, Z., & Watts, M. (2004). Cooperating in constructing knowledge: Case studies from chemistry and citizenship. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 935-949. [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  6. Bayrakçeken, S., Doymuş, K., & Doğan, A. (2013). İşbirlikli öğrenme modeli ve uygulanması. Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık. [Google Scholar]
  7. Bear, T.J. (2013). An action research study on the effect of interactive technology and active learning on student performance [Doctoral dissertation]. Capella University. [Google Scholar]
  8. Borenstein, M., Hedges, L.V., Higgins, J.P., & Rothstein, H.R. (2011). Introduction to meta-analysis. John Wiley & Sons. [Google Scholar]
  9. Borich, G.D. (2017). Effective teaching methods: Research-based practice (8th Ed.). Peerson Education. [Google Scholar]
  10. Bushell, G. (2006). Moderation of peer assessment in group projects. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 31, 91-108. [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  11. Christison, M.A. (1990). Cooperative learning in the EFL classroom. English Teaching Forum, 28(4), 6-9. [Google Scholar]
  12. Colosi, J.C., & Zales, C.R. (1998). Jigsaw cooperative learning improves biology lab course. Bioscience, 48(2), 118-124. [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  13. Cooper, H., & Koenka, A.C. (2012). The overview of reviews: Unique challenges and opportunities when research syntheses are the principal elements of new integrative scholarship. American Psychologist, 67(6), 446-462. [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  14. Çetinkaya, S., & Durmuş, T. (2021). A compilation study on the collaborative learning-teaching approach. Western Anatolia Journal of Educational Sciences, 12(2), 630-649. [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  15. Demirel, Ö. (2015). Öğretim ilke ve yöntemleri: Öğretme sanatı (21. Baskı). Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık. [Google Scholar]
  16. Doymuş, K., & Doğan, A. (2013). İşbirlikli öğrenme yöntemi. S. Büyükalan-Filiz (Ed.), Öğrenme öğretme kuram ve yaklaşımları (2. Baskı) içinde (s. 147-169). Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık. [Google Scholar]
  17. Eilks, I. (2005). Experiences and reflections about teaching atomic structure in a jigsaw classroom in lower secondary school chemistry lessons. Journal of Chemical Education, 82(2), 313-319. [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  18. Ekinci, N. (2011). İşbirliğine dayalı öğrenme. Ö. Demirel (Ed.), Eğitimde yeni yönelimler (5. Baskı) içinde (s. 93-109). Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık. [Google Scholar]
  19. Eshietedoho, C.G. (2010). The effects of cooperative learning methods on minority ninth graders in earth and space science [Doctoral dissertation]. Nova Southeastern University. [Google Scholar]
  20. Falk, A. (2012). Teacher learning from professional development in elementary science: reciprocal relations between formative assessment and pedagogical content knowledge. Science Education, 96(2), 265-290. [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  21. Felder, R.M., & Brent, R. (2007). Cooperative learning. In P.A. Mabrouk (Ed.), Active learning: Models from the analytical sciences (pp. 34-53). American Chemical Society. [Google Scholar]
  22. Gelici, Ö., & Bilgin, İ. (2011). Introducing cooperative techniques and examining students’ opinions. Adıyaman University Journal of Educational Sciences, 1(1), 40-70. [Google Scholar]
  23. Gillies, R.M. (2016). Cooperative learning: Review of research and practice. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 41(3), 39-54. [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  24. Gillies, R., Ashman, A., & Terwei, J. (2010). The teacher’s role in implementing cooperative learning in the classroom. Springer. [Google Scholar]
  25. Gillies, R.M., & Boyle, M. (2010). Teachers’ reflections on cooperative learning: Issues in implementation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 933-940. [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  26. Goulet-Pelletier, J.C., & Cousineau, D. (2018). A review of effect sizes and their confidence intervals, Part I: The Cohen’s d family. The Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 14(4), 242-265. [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  27. Gradel, K., & Edson, A.J. (2010). Cooperative learning: Smart pedagogy and tools for online and hybrid courses. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 39(2), 193-212. [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  28. Hew, K.F., Bai, S., Huang, W., Dawson, P., Du, J., Huang, G., Jia, C., & Thankrit, K. (2021). On the use of flipped classroom across various disciplines: Insights from a second-order meta-analysis. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 37(2), 132-151. [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  29. Higgins, J.P.T., & Green, S. (2011). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. The Cochrane Collaboration. [Google Scholar]
  30. Huang, T.C., Huang, Y.M., & Yu, F.Y. (2011). Cooperative weblog learning in higher education: Its facilitating effects on social interaction, time lag, and cognitive load. Educational Technology & Society, 14(1) 95-106. Retrieved from [Google Scholar]
  31. Jin, Z.C., Zhou, X.H., & He, J. (2014). Statistical methods for dealing with publication bias in meta‐analysis. Statistics in Medicine, 34(2), 343-360. [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  32. Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., & Holubec, J.E. (2016). İşbirlikli öğrenme el kitabı (1. Baskı) (A. Kocabaş, Çev. Ed.). Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık. [Google Scholar]
  33. Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., & Holubec, E.J. (2013). Cooperation in the classroom (9th Ed.). Interaction Book Company. [Google Scholar]
  34. Jolliffe, W. (2010). The implementation of cooperative learning: A case study of cooperative learning in a networked learning community [Doctoral dissertation]. Hull University. [Google Scholar]
  35. Kalem, S., & Fer, S. (2003). The effects of the active learning model on students’ learning, teaching and communication. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 3(2), 433-461. [Google Scholar]
  36. Karacop, A., & Doymus, K. (2012). Effects of jigsaw cooperative learning and animation techniques on students’ understanding of chemical bonding and their conceptions of the particulate nature of matter. Journal of Science Education Technology, 22, 186-203. [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  37. Kayacan, K. (2017). Fen öğretiminde işbirlikli öğrenme. H.G. Hastürk (Ed.), Teoriden pratiğe fen bilimleri öğretimi içinde (s. 61-97). Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık. [Google Scholar]
  38. Koçak, R. (2008). The effects of cooperative learning on psychological and social traits among undergraduate students. Social Behavior and Personality, 36(6), 771-782. [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  39. Kung, J., Chiappelli, F., Cajulis, O.O., Avezova, R., Kossan, G., Chew, L., & Maida, C.A (2010). From systematic reviews to clinical recommendations for evidence-based health care: Validation of revised assessment of multiple systematic reviews (R-AMSTAR) for grading of clinical relevance. The Open Dentistry Journal, 4, 84-91. [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  40. Marfo, P., & Okyere, G.A. (2019). The accuracy of effect-size estimates under normals and contaminated normals in meta-analysis. Heliyon, 5(6), 1-9. [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  41. Oh, I.S. (2020). Beyond meta-analysis: Secondary uses of meta-analytic data. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 7, 125-153. [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  42. Okumuş, S. (2020). The effect of cooperative reading- writing- application method on environmental science learning and writing skills development. International Journal of Progressive Education, 16(1), 168-191. [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  43. Okumuş, S., & Doymuş, K. (2018). The effect of implementing the seven principles for good practice with cooperative learning and models on 6th graders’ academic achievement in science. Journal of Bayburt Education Faculty, 13(25), 203-238. [Google Scholar]
  44. Okumuş, S., & Doymuş, K. (2021). The effect of seven principles and model-supported cooperative learning on the conceptual understanding and eliminating misconceptions of the particulate nature of matter. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 9(4), 53-71. [Google Scholar]
  45. Okumuş, S., Koç, Y., & Doymuş, K. (2019). Determining the effect of cooperative learning and models on the conceptual understanding of the chemical reactions. Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 14(3), 154-177. [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  46. Öztürk, B. (2017). Implementation of cooperative learning assisted with the models and seven principles for good practice in education in the teaching of particulate nature of matter [Doctoral dissertation]. Atatürk University. [Google Scholar]
  47. Öztürk, B., & Doymuş, K. (2018). Impact of cooperative learning methods supported by seven principles for a good education environment and models on academic achievement of students. Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 22(Special issue 2), 1957-1976. [Google Scholar]
  48. Pauli, R., Mohiyeddini, C., Bray, D.E., Michie, F., & Street, B. (2008). Individual differences in negative experiences of group work in collaborative student learning. Educational Psychology, 28, 47-58. [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  49. Peterson, S.E., & Miller, J.A. (2004). Comparing the quality of students' experiences during cooperative learning and large-group instruction. The Journal of Educational Research, 97(3), 123-133. [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  50. Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Sage Publication. [Google Scholar]
  51. Saban, A. (2013). Öğrenme öğretme süreci: Yeni teori ve yaklaşımlar (6. Baskı). Nobel Akademi Yayıncılık. [Google Scholar]
  52. Santos Rego, M.A., & Lorenzo Moledo, M.D.M. (2005). Promoting interculturality in Spain: Assessing the use of the jigsaw classroom method. Intercultural Education, 16(3), 293-301. [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  53. Schmidt, F.L., & Oh, I.S. (2013) Methods for second-order meta-analysis and illustrative applications. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 121(2), 204-218. [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  54. Serrano, J.M., & Pons R.M. (2014). Introduction: Cooperative learning. Anales de Psicologia, 30(3), 781-784. [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  55. Slavin, R.E. (1990). Cooperative learning: Theory, research and practice. Prentice Hall. [Google Scholar]
  56. Slavin, R.E. (1992). When and why does cooperative learning increase achievement? Theoretical and empirical perspectives. In R. Hertz-Lazarowitz & N. Miller (Eds.), Interaction in cooperative groups: The theoretical anatomy of group learning (pp. 271-293). Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  57. So, W.M.W., & Ching, N.Y.F. (2011). Creating a collaborative science learning environment for science inquiry at the primary level. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 20(3), 559-569. [Google Scholar]
  58. Şimşek, U., Şimşek, Ü., & Doymuş, K. (2006). A review on cooperative learning method III: The useful in education environment of cooperative learning method. Journal of Kazım Karabekir Education Faculty, 13, 414-430. [Google Scholar]
  59. Tamim, R.M., Bernard, R.M., Borokhovski, E., Abrami, P.C., & Schmid, R.F. (2011). What forty years of research says about the impact of technology on learning: A second-order meta-analysis and validation study. Review of Educational Research, 81(1), 4-28. [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  60. Thomas, H., & Martina, D. (2022). Application of cooperative learning model in increasing students' motivation, learning participation and creativity. Educativo: Jurnal Pendidikan, 1(1), 314-319. [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  61. Thurston, A., Topping, K.J., Tolmie, A., Christie, D., Karagiannidou, E., & Murray, P. (2010). Cooperative learning in science: Follow-up from primary to high school. International Journal of Science Education, 32(4), 501-522. [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  62. Tok, T.N. (2013). Etkili öğretim için yöntem ve teknikler. A. Doğanay (Ed.), Öğretim ilke ve yöntemleri (8. Baskı) içinde (s. 161-230). Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık. [Google Scholar]
  63. Torrego-Seijo, J.C., Caballero-Garci, P.A., & Lorenzo-Llamas, E.M. (2021). The effects of cooperative learning on trait emotional intelligence and academic achievement of Spanish primary school students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 928-949. [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  64. Turner, H.M., & Bernard, R.M. (2006). Calculating and synthesizing effect sizes. Contemporary Issues in Communication Science and Disorders, 33, 42-55. [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  65. Vickers, A., Goyal, N., Harland, R., & Rees, R. (1998). Do certain countries produce only positive results? A systematic review of controlled trials. Controlled Clinical Trials, 19(2), 159-166. [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  66. Vijayaratnam, P. (2012). Developing higher order thinking skills and team commitment via group problem solving: A bridge to the real world. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 66, 53-63. [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  67. Yıldız, E., Şimşek, Ü., & Ağdaş, H. (2017). Effect of educational games integrated cooperative learning model on students’ motivation toward science learning and social skills. Journal of Ahi Evran University Kırşehir Education Faculty, 18(2), 37-54. [Google Scholar]
  68. Young, J. (2017). Technology-enhanced mathematics instruction: A second-order meta-analysis of 30 years of research. Educational Research Review, 22, 19-33. [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  69. Zentall, S.S., Kuester, D.A., & Craig B.A. (2011). Social behavior in cooperative groups: Students at risk for ADHD and their peers. Journal of Educational Research, 104(1), 28-41. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]