本研究旨在比較合作學習之學生小組成就區分法與傳統教學法對提升國小三年級學生數學學習成就、問題解決能力、數學學習動機、學習滿意度以及數學學習興趣之影響。研究方法是以準實驗研究法為主，並輔以問卷調查以及訪談的方式蒐集資料。研究對象為高雄市某國民小學三年級兩班共61名學生，一班為實驗組實施學生小組成就區分法，另一班為控制組進行傳統教學法。本研究蒐集實驗教學階段前後及期間的相關資料，經分析後獲得主要結果如下：

一、 接受學生小組成就區分法的學生在經過實驗教學後，其數學
學習成就顯著提升；在數學學習成就前後測之進步情形方面，
接受學生小組成就區分法的學生亦優於接受傳統教學法的學
生。
二、 接受學生小組成就區分法的學生在經過實驗教學後，其問題
解決能力顯著提升；在問題解決能力前後測之進步情形方面，
接受學生小組成就區分法的學生顯著優於接受傳統教學法的
學生。

三、 接受學生小組成就區分法的受訪學生在數學問題解決訪談的
表現優於接受傳統教學法的受訪學生，在兩次訪談中皆表現出
較高層次的問題解決解題歷程；接受學生小組成就區分法的受
訪學生比較不需要訪談者講解即能瞭解題意、比較不會提出錯
誤的算法、比較能夠合理解釋自己的算法，並且踴躍嘗試與提
出更多不同的解題想法。
四、 接受學生小組成就區分法的學生在經過實驗教學後，其數學
學習動機顯著提升；在數學學習動機前後測之進步情形方面，
接受學生小組成就區分法的學生亦優於接受傳統教學法的學
生。
五、 接受學生小組成就區分法的學生在經過實驗教學後，其數學
學習興趣顯著提升，在數學學習興趣前後測之進步情形方面，
接受學生小組成就區分法的學生亦優於接受傳統教學法的學
生。

最後，根據上述之研究結果提出建議，供實務教學以及未來進一步研究之參考。

The purpose of this study was to compare Student Teams Achievement Division (STAD) with Traditional Pedagogy for the effects on third-grade students with respect to math achievement, problem solving ability, math learning motivation, learning satisfaction, and interest in math learning.
The quasi-experimental design was utilized for this study. The study data were collected through questionnaire survey and interviews. The subjects of the study were 61 third-grade students from two classes of an elementary school in the Kaohsiung City. One class was chosen as the experimental group in which STAD was employed in the experimental instruction and the other was chosen as the control group in which traditional pedagogy was adopted. Data were collected during the period of experimental instruction and were analyzed afterwards. The main results are presented as follows:


1. The math achievement of students who received STAD method was significantly higher after the experimental instruction than before. As for the improvement at posttest from pretest in math achievement, students in STAD group performed better than students in traditional pedagogy group did, but the difference did not reach the significant level.
2. The problem solving ability of students who received STAD method were significantly higher after the experimental instruction than before. As for the improvement at posttest from pretest in problem solving ability, students in STAD group performed significantly better than students in traditional pedagogy group did, which meant the STAD group made much more improvement than the traditional pedagogy group did after the experimental instruction.
3. After the experimental instruction, students who received STAD method performed better in math problem solving interview than those who received traditional pedagogy did. Students who received STAD method were more capable of understanding the questions without interviewer’s explanations. Compared with the control group, the STAD group gave correct solutions more frequently, and was able to provide more reasonable explanations to their solutions. Besides, the STAD group was willing to try various ways to solve the same problem.
4. After the experimental instruction, students who received STAD method had significantly higher math learning motivation than did before; as for the improvement at posttest from pretest in math learning motivation, students in STAD group also performed better than students in traditional pedagogy group.
5. After the experimental instruction, students who received STAD method had significantly higher math learning interests than did before; as for the improvement at posttest from pretest in math learning interests, students in STAD group also performed better than students in traditional pedagogy group.

Finally, the researcher proposed several suggestions for the ducational application in classroom teaching and future studies.

目　　　 次
頁次
第一章　緒論．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 1
第一節 研究動機．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 1
第二節 研究目的．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 5
第三節　待答問題．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 6
第四節 名詞釋義．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 6
第五節　研究限制．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 9

第二章　文獻探討．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．10
第一節　合作學習之理論與相關研究．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．10
第二節　問題解決能力之內涵與相關研究．．．．．．．．．．．．．23
第三節　學習動機之內涵與相關研究．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．30
第四節 學習滿意度之內涵與相關研究．．．．．．．．．．．．．．35
第五節 學習興趣之內涵與相關研究．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．40

第三章 研究方法．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．43
第一節　研究假設．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．43
第三節 研究架構．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．44
第三節　研究對象．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．46
第四節 教學設計．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．47
第五節 研究工具．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．51
第六節 實施程序．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．56
第七節 資料分析．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．59

第四章 研究結果與討論．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．62
第一節 學生小組成就區分法對國小三年級學生數學學習成就之影響．62
第二節 學生小組成就區分法對國小三年級學生問題解決能力之影響．65
第三節 學生小組成就區分法對國小三年級學生數學學習動機之影響．89
第四節 學生小組成就區分法對國小三年級學生學習滿意度之影響．．92
第五節 學生小組成就區分法對國小三年級學生數學學習興趣之影響．96
第六節 綜合討論．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．99

第五章 結論與建議．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．111
第一節 主要發現．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．111
第二節 結論．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．116
第三節 建議．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．118

頁次
參考書目．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．122
壹、 中文部分．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．122
貳、 英文部分．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．127

附錄．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．136
附錄一 數學問題解決訪談試題之編製．．．．．．．．．．．．．．136
附錄二 數學問題解決訪談試題（Ⅰ）&（Ⅱ）．．．．．．．．．． 140
附錄三 問題解決能力測驗（Ⅰ）&（Ⅱ）．．．．．．．．．．．．．144
附錄四 問題解決能力測驗之項目分析摘要表．．．．．．．．．．．148
附錄五 正式施測量表．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．149
附錄六 課後學習意見半結構式訪談綱要．．．．．．．．．．．．．156
附錄七 課後學習意見訪談結果．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．157
附錄八 團體歷程反省單．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．159
附錄九 合作學習小組評鑑表．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．161
附錄十 訪談逐字稿舉隅．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．163
附錄十一 同意書．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．182

參考書目

壹、 中文部分

王千倖（民86）。合作學習。師友，364，34-38。
王如玉（民88）。地球科學問題解決教學模組對高一學生學習影響之初探。國立台灣師範大學地球科學研究所碩士論文。
王明慧（民85）。國一數學科活潑化教學模式對提昇學習動機與班級學習氣氛之實驗研究。國立高雄師範大學數學系碩士論文。
王萬清（民76）。電腦輔助問題解決課程對兒童問題解決能力及程序思考能力之影響。國立臺灣師範大學輔導研究所碩士論文。
皮連生、邵瑞珍（民78）。教育心裡學。台北：五南圖書公司。
江文慈（民81）。斐哥斯基「近側發展區」之基本概念及其在教學上的應用。現代教育，7(28)，145-156。
李永吟（民77）。教學原理—最新教學理論與策略。台北：遠流出版社。
李建亭（民88）。文化概念教學模式對國小學生數學成就、數學焦慮及數學態度影響之實驗研究。國立新竹師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文。
李雯婷（民87）。國二數學科合作配對教學法與傳統教學法在學習成效之比較研究。國立高雄師範大學數學系碩士班碩士論文。
余民寧、潘雅芳、林偉文（民85）。概念構圖法：合作學習抑個別學習。教育與心理研究，19，93-124。

杜佳真（民84）。交互學習的建構教學課程對國小五年級不同批判思考能力學生速率問題解題歷程暨學習內發動機的影響。國立台灣師範大學教育心裡與輔導研究所碩士論文。
杜紹萍（民88）。合作學習對成人英語學習成就、行為及滿意度之實驗研究。國立中正大學成人及繼續教育研究所碩士論文。
沈中偉（民88）。魏考斯基理論在認知策略上的應用。教學科技與媒體，2, 23-31。
何義清（民76）。國中數學態度極其相關因素之研究。國立政治大學學報，55，117-121。
林佩璇（民81）。台灣省高級職業學校合作學習教學法實驗研究。國立台灣師範大學教育研究所碩士論文。
林佩璇（民82）。合作學習在國小數學科教學上的應用。研習資訊，10（2），50-53。
林進財（民87）。教學理論與方法。台北：五南圖書公司。
林清山譯（民87）。教育心裡學-認知取向(R. E. Mayer原著：Educational Psychology: Cognitive Approach)。台北：遠流出版社。
林義男（民74）。大學生對大學教學的滿意程度—年級、性別與學業成就的比較。台北：昇朝出版社。
林寶山（民86）。教學原理與技巧。台北：五南圖書公司。
周立勳（民83）。國小班級分組合作學習之研究。國立政治大學教育研究所博士論文。
周立勳（民84）。合作學習的發展趨勢及其對改進班級教學的的涵義。發表於民國84年邁向二十一世紀我國中小學課程革新與發展趨勢學術研討會。國立政治大學教育系。
周筱亭（民83）。國民小學教師對數學新課程應有的認識。載於台灣省國民學校教師研習會編印，國民小學數學新課程概說（低年級），18-44。
卓旻怡（民88），雲林縣國中體育課學習滿意度調查研究。國立體育學院體育研究所碩士論文。
吳明清（民80）。教育研究：基本觀念與方法之分析。台北：五南圖書公司。
吳婉如（民81）。台灣地區常青學苑教師教學型態與學員學習滿意度之研究。國立台灣師範大學社會教育研究所碩士論文。
韋金龍、陳玉美（民83）。突破國中常態編班教學困境之途徑：合作學習。教育研究雙月刊，35，59-65。
馬芳婷（民78）。社教機構短期研習班教師教學行為與學生滿意度研究。國立台灣師範大學社會教育研究所碩士論文。
孫志麟（民80）。魏卡斯基的近側發展理論。資優教育季刊，40，9-12。
孫扶志（民85）。認知策略教學對國小數學低成就學童文字解題能力之實驗研究。國立台中師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文。
高石城（民88）。數學新課程對學生數學解題能力與數學態度影響之研究。國立台南師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文。
教育部（民82）。國民小學課程標準。台北：教育部編印。
教育部（民87）。國民教育階段九年一貫課程總綱綱要。台北：教育部編印。
教育部審定（民89）。國民小學數學教學指引第四冊。台南：南一書局。
教育部審定（民89）。國民小學數學教學指引第五冊。台南：南一書局。
陳金盛（民86）。國小數學科學習任務性質與學生情意學習之關係。國立師範大學教育研究所博士論文。
陳英娥（民81）。電腦輔助教學在國中數學科學習成效之研究。國立高雄師範大學數學教育研究所碩士論文。
陳容芯（民89）。成人參與電腦第二專長教育學習滿意度之研究。國立高雄師範大學成人教育研究所碩士論文。
連安青（民84）。我國小學數學實驗課程實施之研究。國立台灣師範大學教育研究所碩士論文。
郭生玉（民86）。心裡與教育研究法。台北：精華書局。
張世忠（民85）。從社會建構學者的觀點看學生的分享對概念學習上的重要性。興大人文社會學報，5，181-192。
張春興（民85）。教育心裡學：三化取向的理論與實踐。台北：東華書局。
張春興（民86）。現代心裡學。台北：東華書局。
張景媛（民83）。國中生數學學習歷程統整模式的驗證及應用：學生建構數學概念的分析及數學文字題教學策略之研究。國立臺灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所博士論文。
程上修（民89）。運用合作學習及創造思考問題解決策略於高一氣象學習之成效分析。國立臺灣師範大學地球科學研究所碩士論文。
程炳林（民80）。國民中小學生激勵的學習策略之相關研究。國立政治大學教育研究所碩士論文。

黃政傑、林佩璇（民85）。合作學習。台北：五南圖書公司。
黃敏晃（民83）。國民小學數學新課程之精神。載於台灣省國民學校教師研習會編印，國民小學數學新課程概說（低年級），1-17。
游惠音（民85）。同儕交互發問合作學習對國小六年級學生社會科學習成就表現、勝任目標取向及班級社會關係之影響。國立臺灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所碩士論文。
楊宏珩（民86）。行動研究-以高中化學教學試行合作學習為例。國立彰化師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。
臧俊雄（民88）。高雄縣高一學生小組合作學習教學法對數學學習態度影響之研究。國立高雄師範大學數學系碩士論文。
劉安彥（民83）。運用動機來促進學生學習。教育資料與研究，1，37-43。
劉兆文（民84）。「問題解決」與其在國小數學教學的啟示。國立編譯館通訊，8（3），35-40。
劉君毅（民84）。錨式情境教學法對國小學童數學學習態度影響之研究。淡江大學教育資料科學學系碩士論文。
劉錫麒（民80）。合作反省思考的數學解題教學模式及其實徵研究。國立台灣師範大學教育研究所博士論文。
蔡文恂（民76）。我最喜歡上的課—國中、國小問卷調查。師友，239，31-33。
蔡明雄（民88）：合作-建構整合教學模式對國小學童學習簡單幾何問題效果之研究。台灣師範大學教育心裡與輔導研究所碩士論文。
蔡敏玲，陳正乾譯（民86）。社會中的心智：高層次心理過程的發展。（L. S. Vygotsky原著：Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes）。台北：心理出版社。
閻育蘇（民84）。怎樣解題(G. Polya 原著：How to solve it)。台北：九章出版社。
簡茂發，陳昭地，林保平，王淑貞（民84）。國小五年級數學科基本成就測驗-馬里蘭州及台灣學生學習成就評量計畫。科學教育月刊，182，29-45。
簡惠燕（民89）。國小學童在科學問題解決過程中創造力與後設認知之相關研究。國立屏東師範學院國民教育研究所。

貳、 英文部分

Adams, D., Carson, H., & Hamm, M. (1990). Cooperative learning and educational media. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational technology Publications.
Ames, C. (1981). Competitive versus cooperative reward structures: the influence of individual and group performance factors on achievement attributions and affect. American Educational Research Journal, 18(3), 273-287.
Ames, C. (1984). Achievement attributions and self-instructions under competitive and individualistic goal structures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(3), 478-487.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Baxter, J. A., Woodward, J. B., & Olson, D. (2001). Effects of reformed-based mathematics instruction on low achievers in five third-grade classrooms. Elementary School Journal, 101(5), 529-548.
Brophy, J. (1987). Synthesis of research on strategies for motivating students to learn. Educational Leadership, 45, 40-48.
Chang, C. Y. (1996). The effect of a problem-solving- based instructional model in initiating change in students’ achievement and alternative frameworks. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 373-388.
Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Boston: Heath.
Fisher, K., & Lipson, J. (1985). Information processing interpretation of errors in college science learning. Instructional science, 14(1), 494.
Fisher, R. (1990). Teaching Children to Think. England: Basil Blackwell.
Friedland, S. (1999). Less violence: Change school culture. The Education Digest, 65(1), 6-9.
Fuson, K. C. (1992). Mathematics education, elementary. In M. C. Alkin(6th Ed.) Erayclopedia of Educational Research. New York: Macmillan.
Garibaldi, A. (1979). Affective contributions of cooperative and group goal structures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 788-794.
Gillies, R. M., & Ashman, A. F.(1998). Behavior and interactions of children in cooperative groups in lower and middle elementary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(4), 746-757.
Gonzalez-Velasco, D. M. (2001). A Calendar problem, revisited. Mathematics Teacher, 94(5), 365-368.
Hanrahan, M. (1998).The effect of learning environment factors on students’ motivation and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 20(6), 737-753.
Hayes, J. R. (1980). The Complete Problem Solver. Philadelphia: Franklin Institute.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1985). The Internal dynamics of cooperative learning groups. In Slavin, R., et al. (Eds.) Learning to cooperate, cooperating to learn, 103-124.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1994). Learning Together and Alone. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Stanne, M. B. (1986). Comparison of computer-assisted cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning. American Educational Research Journal, 23(3), 382-392.
Kahney(1993). Problem Solving. Buckingham: Open University.
Kerwin, M.A. (1981). Student involvement as a dimension of　the student perceived teaching behavior of post secondary educators. Adult Education,31(2), 85-92.
Klein, J. D., Edrchul, J. A., & Pridemore, D. R. (1994). Effects of individual versus cooperative learning and type of reward on performance and continuing motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 24-32.
Klein, J. D., & Pridemore, D. R. (1992). Effects of cooperative learning and need for affiliation on performance, time on task and satisfaction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(4), 39-47.
Klingner, J. K., Vaughn, S., & Schumm, J. S. (1998) Collaborative strategic reading during social studies in heterogeneous fourth-grade classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 99(1), 3-22.
Kloosterman, P., & Cougan, M. C. (1994). Students’ beliefs about learning school mathematics. The Elementary School Journal, 94(4), 375-388.
Krulik, S., & Rudnick, J. A. (1989). Problem Solving: a handbook for senior high school teachers. Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon.
Lam, Y.L., &Wong, A.（1974）. Attendance regularity of adult learners: An examination of content and structural factors. Adult Education, 41(2), 130-142.
Lepper, M. (1985). Microcomputer in education: Motivation and social issues. American Psychologist, 40(1), 1-18.
Lumpe, A. T., & Haney, J. J. (1998). Science teacher beliefs and intentions regarding the use of cooperative learning. School Science and Mathematics, 98(3), 123-135.
Main, R. G.(1993). Integrating motivation into the instructional design process. Educational Technology, 33(12), 37-41.
Marsh, H. W. (1987), "Students' Evaluations of University Teaching: Research Findings, Methodological Issues, and Directions for Future Research," International Journal of Educational Psychology, 11 (3), 253-388.
Martin, C. L.（1988）.Enhancing children’s satisfaction and participation using a predictive regression model of bowling performance norms. The Physical Educator, 45(4), 196-209.
Mayer, R. E. (1992). Thinking, Problem solving, Cognition(2nd ed). New York: Freeman.
Meece, J., Blumenfeld, P., & Hoyle, R. (1988). Student’s goal orientations and cognitive engagement in classroom activities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 514-523.
Meloth, M. S., & Deering P. D. (1994). Task talk and task awareness under different cooperative learning conditions. American Educational Research Journal, 31(1), 138-165.
Mercer, C. D., & Miller, S. P. ( 1992). Teaching students with learning problems in math to acquire, understand, and apply basic math facts. Remedial and Special Education, 13(3), 19-35.
Miller, R. B., Behrens, J. T., Greene, B. A., & Newman, D. (1993). Goals and perceived ability: Impact on student valuing, self- regulation, and persistence. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18, 2-14.
Montague, M. (1992). The effects of cognitive and metacognitive strategy instruction on mathematical problem solving of middle school students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25(4), 230-248.
Nichols, J. D. (1996). Brief research report: The effects of cooperative learning on student achievement and motivation in a high school geometry class. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 467-476.
Nichols, J. D., & Miller, R. B.(1994). Cooperative learning and student motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 167-178.
Nijhot, W., & Kommers, P.(1985). An analysis of cooperation in relation to cognitive controversy. In Slavin, R., et al. (Eds.) Learning to cooperate, cooperating to learn(125-146). New York : Plenum Press
Niss, M. (1996). Goals of Mathematics Teaching. In A. J. Bishop et al. (Eds). International Handbook of Mathematics Education(11-47). Boston : Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2001). Relationship Between Peer Orientation and Achievement in Cooperative Learning-Based Research. Journal of Educational Research, 94(3), 164-170.
Pajares, F., & Graham, L. (1998). Self-Efficacy, motivation constructs, and mathematics performance of entering middle school students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24, 124-135.
Pajares, F., & Miller, M. D. (1994). The role of self-efficacy and self-concept beliefs in mathematical problem-solving: A path analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 193-203.
Pintrich, P. R., & Degroot, E. V.(1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33-40.
Pokay, P., & Blumenfeld, P. (1990). Predicting achievement early and late in the semester: The role of motivation and use of learning strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 41-50.
Randall, V. (1999). Cooperative Learning: Abused and Overused? The Education Digest, 65(1), 29-32.
Roth, W. M., & Roychoudhury, A. (1993). The concept map as a tool for the collaborative construction of knowledge: A microanalysis of high school physics students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30. 503-534.
Rysavy, D. M., & Sales, G. C. (1991). Cooperative learning in computer-based instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(2), 70-79.
Shachar, H., & Sharan, S. (1994). Talking, relating, and achieving: Effects of cooperative learning and whole-class instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 12, 313-353.
Sharan, Y., & Sharan, S. (1987). Training teachers for cooperative learning. Educational Leadership, 45(3), 20-25.
Slavin, R. E. (1984). Team-assisted individualization: Cooperative learning and individualization instruction in the mainstreamed classroom. Remedial and Special Education, 5(6), 33-42.
Slavin, R. E. (1985). Team-assisted individualization: Combining cooperative learning and individualized instruction in mathematics. In Slavin, R., et al.(Eds.) Learning to cooperate, cooperating to learn( 176-210). New York : Plenum Press.
Slavin, R. E. (1987a). Cooperative learning and the cooperative school. Educational Leadership, 45(3), 7-13.
Slavin, R. E. (1987b). Developmental and motivational perspective on cooperative learning: A reconciliation. Children Development, 58, 1161-1167.
Slavin, R. E. (1988). Cooperative learning and student achievement. Educational Leadership, 46(2), 31-33.
Slavin, R. E.(1991). Synthesis of research on cooperative learning. Educational Leadership, 48(5), 71-82.
Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice(2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Slavin, R. E., & Karweit, N. (1985). Cognitive and effective outcomes of an intensive student team learning experience. Journal of Experimental Education, 50, 29-35.
Slavin, R. E., Madden, N., & Leavey, M. (1984). Effects of cooperative learning and individualized instruction on the social acceptance, achievement, and behavior of mainstreamed students. Exceptional Children, 50, 434-443.
Sternberg, R. J. (1994). Thinking and Problem Solving. California: Academic Press, Inc.
Stevens, R. J., & Slavin, R. E. (1995). The cooperative elementary school: effects on students’ achievement, attitudes, and social relations. American Educational Research Journal, 32(2), 321-351.
Thompson, M. (1998). Cooperative Learning versus Traditional Lecture Format: A Preliminary Study. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 426 418)
Webb, N. M. (1982). Peer interaction and learning in cooperative small groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(5), 642-655.
Webb, N. M., & Farivar, S. (1994). Promoting helping behavior in cooperative small groups in middle school mathematics. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 369-395.
Weinstein, C. S. (1988). Preservice teachers’ expectations about the first year of teaching. Teaching & Teacher Education, 4, 31-40.
Williams, S., & Baxter, J. (1996). Dilemmas of discourse-oriented teaching in one middle school mathematics classroom. The Elementary School Journal, 97, 21-38.
Wong, L. Y. (1989). Do academic subject areas matter when making causal attributions? (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 324 340)