Cooperative Learning

UDL Alignment

Each College STAR module will explain how a particular instructional practice described within the module aligns with one or more of the principles of UDL. For this module, the focus will be on Provide Multiple Means of Representation, Principle I; Provide Multiple Means of Action or Expression, Principle II; and Provide Multiple Means of Engagement, Principle III.

Module Alignment with Provide Multiple Means of Representation

Various tools can be used in cooperative learning techniques, allowing for presentation in a variety of formats. Faculty may rely on information taken from the lecture or readings when assigning a problem or task. Students also could be required to use the Internet or other resources to work on problems. Working in cooperative groups is itself a different representation from the traditional lecture format.

Module Alignment with Provide Multiple Means of Action and Expression

Cooperative learning activities generally require groups or individuals to give oral responses to questions or assignments, but activities can be modified so that students can respond either with a drawing, in writing, or via some other method. These modifications provide alternative modes of expression, appealing to students who have learning differences or who may prefer a different learning style.

Module Alignment with Provide Multiple Means of Engagement

Researchers have found that cooperative learning engages and motivates most students. Through group discussion they learn about concepts and tackle problems together, exchanging ideas on the best approaches to take. They teach each other the material. Students also are assigned and reassigned roles within groups, providing opportunities for them to interact in different ways. In addition, various activities promote alternate ways to engage. Students may work in pairs to address problems, or they may learn material as part of an “expert” group, before returning to share this knowledge with their “home” group. At other times, students solve problems jointly within their assigned groups, but only one of them relays their answer to the entire class.

Instructional Practice

Getting Started

Cooperative learning favors collaboration over competition. Students in small groups work toward common goals, learning to solve problems together. It’s a scenario that’s mutually dependent since each member of the group has a designated role and responsibilities that will affect the group’s success. Members can only achieve their assigned individual goals with the assistance of the group. Research suggests that cooperative methods are more efficient than competitive ones for problem-solving tasks (Qin, Johnson, & Johnson, 1995).

Cooperative learning is not a new concept. It’s been practiced for centuries. In recent decades, its effectiveness in education, including college classrooms, has been well documented. Current methods commonly used with cooperative learning were largely developed beginning in the 1960s for training teachers to use small student groups effectively (Johnson & Johnson, 2009). According to nationally known cooperative learning researchers Johnson and Johnson, it has since become one of the most practiced strategies worldwide for all levels of education, including postsecondary.

Five components must exist in order for cooperative learning to be productive (Johnson & Johnson, 1999, 2009; Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 1998):

• Positive interdependence (group dependence upon one another);
• Individual accountability (responsibility for individual work);
• Promotive interaction (supportive behavior);
• Social skills (leadership and communication);
• Group processing (feedback on group efforts).

The 2011 YouTube video shown below in Figure 1 [transcript] features David W. Johnson, Ph.D., describing the five components necessary for effective cooperative learning. He’s one of the established leaders in this research area, along with his brother, Roger.

Preparing to Use Cooperative Learning

Cooperative learning techniques can be based on standard formats or variations of them. Methods can be matched to the content to be taught. Some of the more commonly used techniques include: Jigsaw, Learning Together, Numbered Heads Together, Reciprocal Teaching, STAD (Student Teams-Achievement Divisions), Talking Chips, and Think-Pair-Share.

According to Johnson and Johnson (1999), the instructor should first identify the desired objectives for the cooperative learning activity. Next, the method of forming groups needs to be determined. Then, the roles for group members need to be assigned. Finally, decisions need to be made about the logistics, including required materials and seating arrangements.

Group Composition

It’s recommended that groups stay small with no more than four to five students. Their composition can follow different paths. Groups formed along heterogeneous lines may combine students so that a range of academic abilities is blended. They also may be blended based on a diversity formula that considers ethnicity, gender, and race. Some researchers, however, prefer homogeneous groups, considering them to be more productive. The Literature Base section addresses these divergent views.

Preparing Student

1. Instructors introduce a planned cooperative learning activity.
   • They describe the task to students, explaining effective social skills and the concepts of positive interdependence and individual accountability.
   • They use icebreaker exercises or training in social skills to prepare students for group work.
2. Instructors assign roles to encourage participation.
   • They help motivate students by designating duties.
   • They encourage students to cooperate by assigning roles.
   • They discourage “piggybacking” on the work of others by clearly defining students’ responsibilities.
3. Instructors monitor student groups to ensure all students are involved in learning.
   • They supervise individual and group performance.
   • They work with students individually and as a group to verify that they’re completing the work accurately and working as a team.
4. Instructors evaluate the effectiveness of groups at the conclusion of the activity.
   • They ask group members to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of their collaboration.
   • They promote an evaluation process that identifies areas needing improvement.

Putting Cooperative Learning into Practice

There are a variety of ways that students can work in groups. Some of the more prevalent techniques under the cooperative learning umbrella described below in Table 1 include: Jigsaw, Learning Together, Numbered Heads Together, Reciprocal Teaching, STAD (Student Teams-Achievement Divisions), Talking Chips, and Think-Pair-Share. In-depth explanations and examples are included later in this module.

At East Carolina University (ECU), Dr. Kristen Cuthrell, an associate professor, uses cooperative learning with her students in the College of Education’s Department of Elementary and Middle Grades Education, not only to help them learn the material but also to teach them the techniques they will be using in their own classrooms someday.

Cooperative Learning Strategies

There are a variety of different cooperative learning techniques and strategies that faculty can implement in their courses.  Some of the most common techniques are lsited in table 1, and discussed in further detail below.

Jigsaw

During a Jigsaw activity, students are assigned a “home” group, which they then leave for a period of time to interact with an “expert” group. Afterward, they bring back the knowledge gleaned from the “expert” group, teaching it to their “home” group. The YouTube video shown below in Figure 2 [transcript] shows how the Jigsaw technique was used to teach students about modern art in 2012 at the Humber College Centre for Teaching and Learning in Ontario, Canada.

Numbered Heads Together

Each student within a small group is assigned a number before a topic or problem is discussed. The students from each group who share that same number then relay their group’s answer to the entire class. Since instructors choose the numbers randomly, students don’t know when they will be asked to answer. Students are held accountable for acquiring knowledge, one of the necessary components for productive cooperative learning. The video below, from Durham College, discusses this strategy in more detail [transcript].

Reciprocal Teaching

In this strategy, small groups of students work through matieral by coaching each other.  Each students takes turns as the teach or coach, and works through matieral.  This strategy is best once material has already been introduced, and is most effective for material that has one objectivly ccorrect answer, rather than questions that have multiple correct answers.  The video below goes into more detail about reciprocal learning [transcript].

To learn more, visit the website of this National Science Foundation-funded project on the college’s Science Education Resource Center.

Student-Teams-Achievement Divisions

Students are placed in teams and assigned a task or learning goal to master, in addition to guidance and resources.Students perform the task, are assessed, receive feedback, and are then assessed a second time.  Pre and post feedback scores are compared, and teams are recognized based on the improvement in their scores. This technique is broken down into seven key elements:

1. Assign heterogeneous groups – It is important that the groups be comprised of students of a variety of achievement levels.  Remeber, the goal is for all group members to achieve mastery.
2. Introduce topic – This can be done in a variety of ways.  The traditional STAD paradigm uses lecture and class discussion to introduce the topic, but other learning strategies can be applied here.
3. Assign taks – Students are given a task to perform and any resources they may need.
4. Assessment – Assess students level of competence after the initial task.  Some students may have already achieved mastery, while others will require additional study. Encourage the group to work through the problem together so that students can learn from each other’s knowledge.
5. Facilitate group discussion – Work with each group to identify key areas of focus for that group.  Each group may have a different area that they need to focus on.  Ensure that the groups are working cooperatively to complete the task.
6. Re-assess and comapre – Once the group has had time to work through the topic together, assess students knowledge of the topic again. Compare their scores on this second assessment to the scores on the first.
7. Recognition – Recognize groups based on the improvement in their scores between the initial and final assessment.  There are a variety of ways to do this.  Some faculty use a news letter or other announcement to recognize the most improved teams. Be creative.

Talking Chips

Talking chips is a technique that is used to ensure active and equal participation among the group members. Group members during a Talking Chips activity throw their poker chips into the center of the table to gain entrance into the conversation. The activity sparks discussion and has the added benefit of preventing some students from monopolizing the discussion since they can’t comment anymore once they’ve depleted their supply of chips. Meanwhile, quieter students must speak up in order to use up their chips. Once all the chips have been used, students redistribute the chips for the next round of discussion.

 Think-Pair-Share

For this technique, students are paired together to discuss class problems or questions before reporting their solutions or answers to the entire class. As the name implies, this technique is broken into three main segments: think, pair, and share. In the first phase, the think phase, teachers ask students high-level questions regarding the topic to drive their thinking about the consept.  Next, in the pair phase, students are partnered, and tasked with sharing their ideas, discussing those ideas, and asking question of eachother related to their understanding of the topic.  Finally, in the share portion, each group is asked to present their thoughs, ideas, and questions related to the topic with the whole class.

In addition, there are a variety of variation to the think-pair-share paradigm that faculty can implement, including adding classroom response systems, making larger teams, or asking students to reflect on the question through writing down or drawing their thoughts. An indepth explaination of some of these variations can be found here.

Cooperative Learning Benefits Students

There are numerous types of techniques used in conjunction with cooperative learning. While they may differ, they share a common thread. Knowledge is shared student-to-student, instead of via direct instruction with the instructor lecturing to the class. Once the material has been mastered within the small group, it’s transferred to a larger group or to the entire class in some manner. Research has shown that students make greater strides academically when cooperative learning is put into practice. They are more motivated to gain knowledge, and the group’s interaction can produce benefits, including heightened self-confidence, independence, and autonomy (Johnson & Johnson, 1999). In addition, cooperative learning results in higher student achievement and productivity, gains in higher-level reasoning and transfer of knowledge. M. M. Cooper (1995) found that the established benefits of cooperative learning also include higher levels of student satisfaction with their learning experience.

Summary

Cooperative Learning has a long history, and a large body of research supports its effectiveness. In recent years, the strategy has experienced a resurgence worldwide, which has incorporated higher education classrooms. Cooperative learning is more than groups working together, it follows a structure that assigns responsibility to individual students and that makes it clear that their actions impact the group’s learning. Instructors need to prepare students in advance before a cooperative learning activity is introduced. Students are assigned roles to ensure accountability, and instructors need to monitor the activity. A vital component is the feedback afterward to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the group.

Outcomes of Cooperative Learning for Students

• higher-student achievement
• increased productivity
• higher-level reasoning
• transfer of knowledge
• heightened self-confidence
• increased independence
• increased autonomy

Five elements must be present for effective cooperative learning to take place: positive interdependence, individual accountability, promotive interaction, social skills, and group processing (Johnson & Johnson, 1999, 2009; Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 1998).

Learn More

Literature base

Researchers and brothers David W. Johnson and Roger T. Johnson helped create the body of research that still serves as the bedrock of support for cooperative learning. At its core, cooperative learning is about bringing students together in small groups, where they work productively together, instead of singly as competitors. The effectiveness of cooperative learning as opposed to the competitive approach is supported by a large body of research. This research suggests that students tend to respond to competitive situations with self-protective behavior, often resulting in lower achievement (Johnson & Johnson, 2009; Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 1998).

The research shows that students learn more when cooperative learning is used. It’s been shown to stimulate higher-order thinking (Johnson & Johnson, 1999, 2009; Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 1998). And other researchers have noted that critical thinking skills improve with its use (Cooper, J., 1995; Cooper, M., 1995; Laverie, 2006). Gains in problem-solving skills also result (Johnson & Johnson, 1999; Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 1998; Laverie, 2006; Qin, Johnson, & Johnson, 1995). In addition, students are reportedly more motivated when the strategy is used (Johnson & Johnson, 1999, 2009; Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 1998; Peterson & Miller, 2004; Rand, 2000; Walker, 1996). Overall, it results in higher academic achievement (Johnson & Johnson, 1999, 2009; Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 1998; Tsay & Brady, 2010). These benefits have been observed in a number of subject areas. For example, college students enrolled in a music appreciation class, who were in the experimental cooperative learning group, were better able to identify the musical style period, genre, and texture of compositions, demonstrating higher-level reasoning and improved knowledge transfer (Smialek & Boburka, 2006).

In order for cooperative learning to be successful, however, instructors first need to train students in the social skills necessary for working within a group (Johnson & Johnson, 1999, 2009; Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 1998). This strategy is steeped in social interdependence theory, which teaches that individual actions affect the goals of each member of the group (Johnson & Johnson, 2009). Cooperative learning relies upon five components for success: positive interdependence (group dependence upon one another), individual accountability (responsibility for individual work), promotive interaction (supportive behavior), social skills (leadership and communication), and group processing (feedback on group efforts). These components were developed by Johnson and Johnson (1999, 2009) and Johnson, Johnson, and Smith (1998).

Johnson and Johnson determined that any potential drawbacks to this strategy could be mitigated by proper instructor preparation and oversight. The instructor must bear the responsibility for preparing students ahead of time and supervising the process. Instructors can alleviate any potential problems when introducing the class to cooperative learning by making sure that groups are a manageable size, and each member has a role to fulfill (Johnson & Johnson, 1999; Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 1998; Laverie, 2006; Oakley, Hanna, Kuzmyn, & Felder, 2007; Shimazoe & Aldrich, 2010; Walker, 1996).

Some studies reported experiencing problems when cooperative learning was used. One study (Hancock, 2004) found there were positive and negative consequences. While graduate students appreciated a supportive environment based on professionalism and trust, there were complaints about some students either dominating the conversation or failing to contribute. As a result, Hancock (2004) suggested taking advance stock of the peer orientation of students since students who prefer working with others are more motivated by cooperative learning than those who prefer working alone. Oakley et al. (2007) also found that students who enjoy teamwork gave higher marks to cooperative learning. The strategy promoted academic success, fostered interactions between students and faculty, and strengthened positive attitudes about college in a study of engineering and computer science students.

Researchers differ on the optimum makeup of cooperative learning groups. Many researchers prefer forming heterogeneous groups, consisting of a range of academic abilities, cultures, or other criteria (Cooper, M., 1995; Johnson & Johnson, 2009; Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 1998; Kocak, 2008). However, some researchers assert that it’s more effective to form homogeneous groups, consisting of students with similar abilities (Shimazoe & Aldrich, 2010). A study by Baer (2003) found that homogeneous groups based on academic ability are more productive. However, if another goal is to improve intergroup relations, Baer suggests grouping students homogeneously according to achievement, and then regrouping them heterogeneously based on gender, race, and ethnicity.

Students aren’t the only ones to benefit from cooperative learning. Instructors may spend less time grading assignments since they may be awarding a single group grade instead of individual ones. The groups also may make it easier to observe student learning (Shimazoe & Aldrich, 2010.) Research shows there are clear advantages to its use.

As a strategy, cooperative learning has gained ground steadily among educators becoming a commonly used instructional method found at all levels of education worldwide, including colleges and universities (Johnson & Johnson, 2009).

References & Resources

Baer, J. (2003). Grouping and achievement in cooperative learning. College Teaching, 51(4), 169-174. doi: 10.1080/87567550309596434
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/87567550309596434
Retrieved from http://users.rider.edu/~baer/Groups&CoopLrn.pdf
Retrieved from JSTOR

CAST (n.d.) About CAST: What is Universal Design for Learning. Retrieved fromhttp://cast.org/udl/index.html

CAST (2009). CAST UDL Online Modules. Retrieved from http://udlonline.cast.org/home

CAST (2011a). Universal Design for Learning guidelines Version 2.0. Retrieved fromhttp://www.udlcenter.org/aboutudl/udlguidelines

CAST (2011b). UDL Guidelines Version 2.0. Principle I. Provide Multiple Means of Representation. Wakefield, MA: Author. Retrieved fromhttp:www.udlcenter.org/aboutudl/udlguidelines/principle1

CAST (2011c). UDL Guidelines Version 2.0. Principle II. Provide Multiple Means of Action and Expression. Wakefield, MA: Author. Retrieved fromhttp://www.udlcenter.org/aboutudl/udlguidelines/principle2

CAST (2011d). UDL Guidelines Version 2.0. Principle III. Provide Multiple Means of Engagement. Wakefield, MA: Author. Retrieved fromhttp://www.udlcenter.org/aboutudl/udlguideliens/principle3

Cooper, J. L. (1995). Cooperative learning and critical thinking. Teaching of Psychology, 22(1), 7-9.
doi: 10.1207/s15328023top2201_2
http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15328023top2201_2
Retrieved from EBSCOhost

Cooper, M. M. (1995). Cooperative learning: An approach for large enrollment courses. Journal of Chemical Education, 72(2), 162-164. doi: 10.1021/ed072p162
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed072p162

EnACT. (n.d.) 14 common elements of UDL in the college classroom. Retrieved fromhttp://ctfd.sfsu.edu/sites/sites7.sfsu.edu.ctfd/files/14-Common-Elements-of-UDL-in-the-College-Classroom.pdf

Evans, C., Williams, J. B., King, L., & Metcalf, D. (2010). Modeling, guided instruction, and application of UDL in a rural special education teacher preparation program. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 29(4), 41-48.
Retrieved from Education Research Complete

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. doi:10.2190/ET.39.2.i
http://dx.doi.org/10.2190/ET.39.2.i

Hancock, D. (2004). Cooperative learning and peer orientation effects on motivation and achievement. Journal of Educational Research, 97(3), 159-166. doi: 10.3200/JOER.97.3.159-168http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOER.97.3.159-168 Retrieved fromhttp://www.hci.sg/admin/uwa/MEd8_8631/Readings/Topics 4-5. Quantitative Research Design, Data Collection, and Data Analysis/Additional Resources/Example Articles/Causalcomparative1.pdf
Retrieved from JSTOR

HumberCTL. [Humber Centre for Teaching and Learning]. (2013, Dec. 13). The Jigsaw Classroom Exercise [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrcuQmxF5oM

Immordino-Yang, M., & Damasio, A. (2007). We feel, therefore we learn: The relevance of affective and social neuroscience to education, Mind, Brain & Education, 1(1), 3-10. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-228X.2007.00004.x
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-228X.2007.00004.x
Retrieved from http://www.learninglandscapes.ca/images/documents/ll-no9-final-lr.pdf#page=115

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Making cooperative learning work. Theory into Practice,38(2), 67-73. doi: 10.1080/00405849909543834
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00405849909543834
Retrieved from http://enlearn.pbworks.com/f/Johnson+%26+Johnson+1999.pdf
Retrieved from JSTOR

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An educational psychology success story: Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational Researcher, 38(5), 365-379. doi: 10.3102/0013189X09339057
http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189X09339057
Retrieved from Sage

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1998). Cooperative learning returns to college: What evidence is there that it works? Change, 30(4), 26-35. doi: 10.1080/00091389809602629
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00091389809602629
Retrieved from JSTOR

Koçak, R. (2008). The effects of cooperative learning on psychological and social traits among undergraduate students. Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, 36(6), 771-782.
Retrieved from EBSCOhost

Laverie, D. A. (2006). In-class active cooperative learning: A way to build knowledge and skills in marketing courses. Marketing Education Review, 16(2), 59-76.
Retrieved from http://www.tltc.ttu.edu/content/asp/video/downloads/In-Class Active Cooperative Learning.pdf
Retrieved from EBSCO host

Lynch, D. J. (2010). Application of online discussion and cooperative learning strategies to online and blended college courses. College Student Journal, 44(3), 777-784.
Retrieved from EBSCOhost

National Center on Universal Design for Learning. (2011). About UDL. Retrieved fromhttp://www.udlcenter.org/aboutudl

Oakley, B. A., Hanna, D. M., Kuzmyn, Z., & Felder, R. M. (2007). Best practices involving teamwork in the classroom: Results from a survey of 6435 engineering student respondents. IEEE Transactions on Education, 50(3), 266-272. doi: 10.1109/TE.2007.901982
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TE.2007.901982
Retrieved fromhttp://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/Papers/OakleyPaper(IEEE).pdf
Retrieved from IEEE Xplore

Peterson, S. E., & Miller, J. A. (2004). Comparing the quality of students’ experiences during cooperative learning and large-group instruction. Journal of Educational Research, 97(3), 123-133. doi: 10.3200/JOER.97.3.123-134
http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOER.97.3.123-134
Retrieved from EBSCOhost
Retrieved from JSTOR

Qin, Z., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1995). Cooperative versus competitive efforts and problem solving. Review of Educational Research, 65(2), 129-143. doi: 10.3102/00346543065002129
http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00346543065002129
Retrieved from Sage
Retrieved from JSTOR

Rand, M. K. (2000). Supporting cooperative learning in early childhood teacher education. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 21(3), 385-396. doi:10.1080/0163638000210309
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0163638000210309
Retrieved from SpringerLink

Rose, D., & Dalton, B. (2009). Learning to read in the digital age. Mind, Brain & Education, 3(2), 74-83. doi:10.1111/j.1751-228X.2009.01057.x
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-228X.2009.01057.x

Rose, D. H., Harbour, W. S., Johnston, C. S., Daley, S. G., & Abarbanell, L. (2006). Universal design for learning in postsecondary education: Reflections on principles and their application.Journal of Postsecondary Education & Disability, 19(2), 135-151.
Retrieved from Education Research Complete.

Rose, D. H. & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum.
Retrieved from http://www.cast.org/teachingeverystudent/ideas/tes

Shimazoe, J., & Aldrich, H. (2010). Group work can be gratifying: Understanding & overcoming resistance to cooperative learning. College Teaching, 58(2), 52-57. doi:10.1080/87567550903418594
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/87567550903418594
Retrieved from http://wikiworld.wmwikis.net/file/view/resistance.pdf
Retrieved from Taylor & Francis Online

Smialek, T., & Boburka, R. R. (2006). The effect of cooperative listening exercises on the critical listening skills of college music-appreciation students. Journal of Research in Music Education,54(1), 57-72. doi: 10.2307/3653455
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3653455
Retrieved from EBSCOhost
Retrieved from Sage

The National Register [David W. Johnson, Ph.D., on Cooperative Learning]. (2011, Oct. 18). On Cooperative Learning… [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_8uzEA0oWo

Tsay, M., & Brady, M. (2010). A case study of cooperative learning and communication pedagogy: Does working in teams make a difference? Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching & Learning,10(2), 78-89.
Retrieved from http://ww2.d155.org/pr/tdirectory/JPellikan/Shared Documents/Psychology/1st Unit-Intro to psych/example of research.pdf
Retrieved from EBSCOhost

UDLCAST. (2011, October 7). Introduction to UDL [Video file]. Retrieved fromhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbGkL06EU90&feature=relmfu

Vreven, D., & McFadden, S. (2007). An empirical assessment of cooperative groups in large, time-compressed, introductory courses. Innovative Higher Education, 32(2), 85-92.
doi:10.1007/s10755-007-9040-1
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10755-007-9040-1
Retrieved from http://medicina.iztacala.unam.mx/medicina/Cooperative groups in large courses.pdf

Walker, A. J. (1996). Cooperative learning in the college classroom. Family Relations, 45(3), 327-335. doi: 10.2307/585505
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/585505
Retrieved from JSTOR

About the Author

Kristen Cuthrell

College of Education
East Carolina University