Critical analysis of the existing literature regarding cooperative learning and its relevance to the current study.

Literature Review
Introduction
This chapter will provide a critical analysis of the existing literature regarding cooperative learning and its relevance to the current study. To achieve this, the chapter begins by examining how cooperative learning is rooted in the social constructivist work of Lev Vygotsky (1978). This is followed by a discussion of cooperative learning in practice by exploring the skills aspect of its implementation in light of the research questions for this study. This section will then examine the emergent concept of personalised learning as a policy implementation of cooperative learning that traces its roots to Vygotskian social constructivism. The chapter closes by highlighting on the position of this study within the existing research and the gaps it aims to fill.
Cooperative Learning
Cooperative learning is an instructional strategy that is student-centred and teacher-facilitated in which small teams of learners are held accountable for their learning and that of each member of every group. These students interact with each other in the team, and they practice and acquire every elements of the subject matter so as to complete an activity, solve a problem, or achieve a goal (Li & Lam, 2013, p. 1). In this cooperative learning vehicle, the teacher maintains the overall design of the learning environment, designs activities of learning, and structures the work teams (Panitz, 1999). Kagan (1989) adds to this definition by saying that in this learning vehicle, the teacher designs the structures of social interaction and the learning activities. Johnson et al, (1993) state the strength that in cooperative learning, students maximise both individual and group learning by working together. As such the team’s teamwork and team goals are a critical element of cooperative learning (Slavin, 1996).
Theoretical Framework
The theoretical framework of the concept of cooperative learning lies in learning processes that existed in psychological academic writings from the 1920’s, including the 1924 work Growth of the Mind by Koffka, a member of the Gestalt School of Psychology. Koffka recommended that the teams characterising cooperative learning were a dynamic entity in which the reliance among students changed from that of being on the teacher, to being on their peers. Reliance being characterised as: the relationship between students that promotes them to share their learning methods and its consequences for the subject, if not the school as a whole, consequently developing each student’s participation within the team. However, this early work is limited with regard to this thesis since the researcher found that it focused on the cognitive side of psychology, whereas this study focused on the social aspects and so places greater importance on interaction with others and the historical context in which learning has taken place than Koffka did.
In his work, Koffka (1924 p.1) raises the following question: ‘How much of any observed fact can be explained as a process of development?’Growth of the Mind attempted to answer this question in relation to child psychology. A significant weakness in the answering this question is that Koffka lacks verification of his work, but rather takes an abstract approach to what could disadvantageously be referred to as a hypothetical question. However, an advantage of Koffka’s work is that in addressing, if not answering this question, the roots of cooperative learning can be seen. Koffka believes in ‘the observation of conduct and of experience’ (1924, p.11) in relation to development. The strength in this is that rather than advocating that scientists should conduct studies regarding how a child develops, Koffka considered the mother capable of distinguishing her own opinion from the observed behaviour of her child in order to view their development. This observational method has provided historical support to Lewin’s work, as Koffka encourages the researcher to be an explorative practitioner of his own context. Lewin’s work is relevant to this study as he is arguably the founder of action research which is the methodology adopted by this researcher.
Although the roots of cooperative learning can be seen within the work of Koffka it can be argued that if had not been for the later work of Deutsch (1949, 1962) the expansion of Koffka’s ideas into education would not have occurred. Deutsch propelled Koffka’s theory into educational institutions by proposing that team work can enhance learning instruction by the teacher through creating a positive student-student and student-teacher relationship (Thousand, Villa & Nevin, 2002. P.45-80). This idea is supportive of the social constructivist theory to learning as it maintains that cooperation amongst students is central to mental development and so, learning.
Social Constructivism Theory
Cooperative learning is underpinned by the Social Constructivism theory that was postulated by Lev Semyonovich Vygotsky (1896-1934) (McLeod, 2007; Li and Liam, 2013; Mercer, 2015; Spooner, 2015; Walker, 2015). He was of the view that the rules of the society, culture, language, and interaction are vital components of understanding how human beings learn. He was also of the assumption that knowledge is cultural and so, took a socio-cultural stance in his study with children, an approach described as being both ‘cultural’ and ‘cooperative.’ Vygotsky reported that the development of human beings including their thoughts, reasoning processes, and languages were a product of culture. Social interactions with others, especially teachers and parents, help to develop these abilities. Hence, they represent the common knowledge of a particular culture. Vygotsky researched on the growth of children through their interaction with others and discovered that what is given to children and what happens to them in society, helps them to learn, grow and develop (Li & Lam, 2013).
Another philosophical criticism against Vygotsky was that if knowledge were shared, tools would be needed to access it (Davidson, 1984; Wells, 1999). This criticism fails to acknowledge that people share language, which is an accessible tool and negotiate the meaning of people’s different experiences, in order to construct an agreed interpretation, i.e. knowledge of something. This consideration of social interaction and cooperation appears to be supported by Heidegger (1978), who advocated that attention should be given to the ways in which the meaning of learning in everyday life is revealed.
A particular strength of Vygotsky’s work is that tools, language included, were seen to mediate learning by allowing students to understand the knowledge which they were presented with and to explain it. However, the idea of mediation is problematic and further clarification is needed if its exact meaning is to be understood accurately. In his early writings, Vygotsky perceived mediation as an explicit action such as talking rather than implicit through inner speech as seen from his later writings (Wertsch, 1981). This study will consider mediation both as inner and external speech where the students will be maintaining a diary to capture their inner speech, whilst the semi-structured interviews and field notes will provide the external speech.
Moving away from the set stages of development proposed by Piaget, this researcher understands development to refer to that of skills and knowledge, for if the term development was taken literally, as Davydov (1998) suggests, Vygotsky’s theory would arguably not be a development of Piaget, instead being another version of the cognitive model Piaget proposed. A counter argument also proposed by Walshaw (2007) who viewed the focus on cooperation as no more than a shaper of learning rather than the sum of learning as cognition was. It is unclear how far this cognitive argument can be progressed as when applied to teachers they then become able to implement cooperative learning successfully within the classroom just from having been told about the learning and teaching method (Klein, 1998).
The advantage of the implementing social constructivism is that the classroom does beneficially create a learning environment in which both the students and the teacher are active participants (Allitt, 2015; Spooner, 2015). Implementation of social constructivism within the classroom would not, however, be without its difficulties and a weakness of the idealised way in which it is presented (Chaiklin, 2003). However, the practical implications require careful consideration since positively active students have been found to be twice as likely to be engaged in learning, thereby improving attendance and attainment (Deslauieas, 2015; Spooner, 2015). This finding supports the underpinning driver of this study that cooperative learning can improve student attainment. It is arguable whether the failure to learn or more attendance then become the responsibility of the teacher for not providing students with the necessary skills to fulfil an activity or that of the student for their inability to understand or to apply these skills to the learning at hand. The weakness being that social constructivism does not explain how individuals and communities make sense of information or skills only that this process occurs within a social and historical context (Walshaw, 2007).
Some researchers have challenged social learning theory on the grounds that the process of knowledge acquisition is seen as contingent and untrustworthy. Their argument is that the learning environment exists in flux and is culturally situated; therefore, no one theory can be applied to all situations (Grey, 2013; Parsi and Sanavi, 2013; Mercer, 2015). This argument appears to have been a largely successful challenge to social constructivism in the Western hemisphere, which would support this perspective as it looks for observable, testable and predictable knowledge based on methods free from the researcher’s opinions (McWilliams, 2015). According to the researcher, a negative effect of this belief that social constructivism has not made it into mainstream education in the United Kingdom. Perhaps the most serious disadvantage to acknowledge would be the calling into question of the way schools disseminate one form of information, and present knowledge as either right or wrong. Based on the previous literature, the researcher would argue that presentation of this insufficient knowledge overlooks students’ abilities to negotiate meaning and knowledge based on their own experiences (Ackerman, 1996; Brandom, 2000).
Philosophically, there are many realities at individual level that contribute to several criticisms of Vygotsky. One difficulty of viewing knowledge as being fluid between people and objects is the implication that there is no reality, since reality could never be known beyond our own minds (Sellars, 1997). It is questionable whether Sellars’ argument stands up to scrutiny in regards to whether humans are social beings and communicate their meaning of a phenomenon with each other, or it remains in their mind as suggested by Sellars (1997). The social constructivist epistemology adds weight to this counterargument that Sellars’ argument does not stand up to scrutiny for the epistemology advocates that the validity of a person’s knowledge arises out of the context in which it is constructed, and it is this context that creates the reality for knowledge (Philips, 1978). A consequence for this study being that the context of the knowledge needs to be clear without imposing unnecessary layers of meaning by the researcher (Habermas 1995).
Critics of the social constructivism perspective would argue that this focus on context is detrimental to the theory as it creates a lack of transferability of ideas between different contexts. The counterargument being that cooperative learning literature does not purport to be transferable instead, offering new insights to a sum of existing knowledge and so, should be seen within this paradigm and not one of transferability (Hammersley, 2007).
Additionally, social constructivism has been challenged by Hegal (cited in Derry, 2015) for explaining how an individual gains knowledge, unlike how knowledge came to be in the first place. This challenge does not stand up to scrutiny as there appears to be an omission in Hegal’s argument. Knowledge was previously seen as evolving in an individual’s mind out of their interaction with the environment, an argument which Hegal appears to have overlooked as it is this interaction where knowledge first comes from. In this study, the researcher will interview students and staff participants to understand their perceptions of and experiences with cooperative learning, as these are considered to be the origin of their knowledge on the subject. Consequently, this study does not support the view that Vygotsky is guilty of abstract rationality (Wertsch, 2000; Wells, 1999).

Summary
Social constructivism is conceptualised within the context of this thesis as an analytical theory used to interpret learning and teaching methods, where cooperative learning exists as a model that falls within this analytical framework. In turn, there are various strategies for learning and teaching, such as teamwork, which work with the cooperative learning model and are considered in the current study. An argument exists that there is no need to understand learning as a process based on development, which already has theories of its own (Spooner, 2015 p.3); however, through understanding this learning process rather than just development itself, the actual transformation of information through critical thinking can be explored (Meeks, 2014; Spooner 2015).
Vygotsky: The Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD)
The Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) is arguably the most popular aspect of Vygotsky’s writing and has been largely successful as a concept applied to a wide range of subjects, such as computer communications. He reported that in any given domain, children develop in levels that can be assessed through testing them individually. He also stated that in each domain there is an immediate development potential calling the difference between these domains the zone of proximal development. Additionally, Vygotsky suggested that the level of actual development is determined by independent problem solving while the potential development level is determined by problem-solving under the guidance of an adult or in collaboration with peers who are more capable. The difference between these levels is in the intervention by other persons.
Therefore, those activities or ideas that are too difficult for children to master alone can be learnt with the help of adults, other more-skilled children, or other more knowledgeable individuals. The ZPD captures a child’s mental skills that in a maturing process and that can only be honed with the help of more skilled individuals. According to Vygotsky, the upper limit in the ZPD cannot be achieved without the social interaction with peers and teachers. He also added that if one is assisted by more skilled individuals in the course of learning, the level of his/her support is also changed (Li & Lam, 2013). Additionally, the individual’s peers and teachers adjust their support to suit his/her guidance needs and, as they do this, he/she advances about his/her zone of proximal development.
One of the criticisms of the ZPD has been that the ZPD was a relatively minor and somewhat undeveloped idea within Vygotsky’s theorisation, and yet it has dominated Western understandings of his work (Kellog & Yasnitsky, 2011; Mecacci & Yasnitsky, 2011). This study will be conducted within the Western context and reviews the original ideas developed by Vygotsky as well as later interpretations and developments of the ZPD, to establish what the researcher believes is a representative understanding of how the ZPD was positioned within Vygotsky’s work. The researcher does not purport to offer the correct interpretation, but rather only one possibility of many.
One beneficial effect of the ZPD’s key idea of students discovering information independently from their teachers and learning on their own, is that it results in their gaining an in-depth understanding, and thus potentially increases student attainment (Cubukcu, 2012; Rezaee and Azizi, 2012; Owens and Key, 2014). In contrast, the Sutton Trust Report by Coe et al. (2014) found the benefits of allowing students to discover key facts by themselves were not supported by empirical evidence. The ZPD does have the disadvantage that the exact level of facilitation required for successful learning is contested, with Mayer-Smith (2014) arguing for guided learning as part of cooperative learning techniques, and Kitschier (2006) contending that learning strategies should have minimal facilitation, if any at all. A positive outcome of having facilitation is that in practice it implies the active role of the teacher as a facilitator is crucial to cooperative learning, if students are to understand all of the material they discover (Abrahamson, 2015; Allitt, 2015). The facilitation role relates to this study because the researcher will be scaffolding the cooperative learning structure in lessons before undertaking the research, so that students are able to practice designing parts of lesson activities and gain a basic skill set. Equipped with this skill set, they can then develop their peers through extending their own and others’ ZPD. In summation, the researcher will provide facilitation for the student participants in the preparation stage of this study; after commencing the study, facilitation will be withdrawn by the researcher and the students will cooperatively engage in peer facilitation in the intervention method.
Perhaps the most serious limitation for cooperative learning is that teachers who receive no professional development in how to implement cooperative learning strategies may struggle to make effective use of such learning and teaching strategies within their classrooms (Spooner, 2015). Even where professional development has been provided, Spooner points out that ‘student-centred learning is the most effective approach, but is very difficult to implement in the time allowed for teaching a unit’ (2015. p.92).
Overall, the idea of the ZPD appears to have been successful in describing learning because many, if not all vehicles of learning, whether teacher led or cooperative, appear to be compatible with, if not based on, Vygotsky’s theory of guided learning. The researcher argues that this model of the ZPD does lend itself to the development of knowledge in students, however, some theorists would disagree stating that Vygotsky was referring to the skills and abilities of students to select appropriate tools through which to understand the situation in which this knowledge is situated, rather than the knowledge itself (Drummond et al, 2001; Smidt, 2009).
Learning as a process is considered important since knowledge as an aspect is developed through history and, should traverse through an appropriation in a societal setup. Social context being understood as interacting with others and surroundings whereas the historical context not only refers to a study of the past, but specifically, within the context of this study, to what a student already knows and is able to do. As Vygotsky (1978) noted, ‘Learning awakens a variety of internal development processes that are able to operate only when the child is interacting with people in his environment and in co-operation with peers’ (p.90). In summation this approach lends itself to this study as it means learning takes place through the interaction of an individual with his or her environment and with other people within this environment (Brooks, 2002; Hodson, 2015). Learning as a process is thereby the product of the process of development; therefore, learners should be active in the participation of learning activities. A key concept of the socio-cultural theories is activity that ensures that students interact with peers and other more knowledgeable people. As a result of the interaction, learners develop dialogues that are within the structures of activities and, in turn, learning and development take place. Furthermore, Vygotsky adds that language is an important component in this learning process (Slavin, 1996).
Vygotsky’s theory of learning does stand up to scrutiny because of its pragmatic orientation, outlining how the classroom should be arranged, supporting the implementation and building teacher confidence in cooperative learning. A positive outcome of the practical application of this view of learning, is that social constructivism can change how relationships within a classroom are conducted and how the classroom is physically arranged, for example, by replacing rows of desks with squares of tables where students are able to interact with each other (Parsi and Sanavi, 2015; Mercer, 2015). Additionally, many studies support this focus of cooperative learning as meaning that students are agents within the learning process (Wenger, 2014; Chase and Abrahamson, 2015; McWilliams, 2015). Indeed it might be argued that social constructivism presents the classroom as a space in which problems are shared and solutions negotiated, so that knowledge is co-constructed among the individuals inhabiting the space (Bruner, 1966; Vygotsky, 1978; Applebee, 1996; Chase and Abrahamson, 2015).
Vygotsky’s ZPD has become synonymous with the term ‘scaffolding’, although a careful review of the literature reveals that scaffolding was first introduced by Bruner et al. (1976). According to Bruner et al. (1976, p.90), scaffolding describes a process in which the learner defers ‘those task elements that are at first beyond the capacity of the learner, thus allowing him to put his focus on and complete only those elements that are within his range of competence.’ Scaffolding is relevant to this study as the researcher will be ‘scaffolding’ the designing of cooperative learning activities with students before starting the study, to mitigate any ethical issues of distress or embarrassment that may otherwise arise if student participants were just asked to design such teamwork activities with no support. This method is particularly appropriate for developing the skill of independence amongst students. The strength of the scaffolding approach to learning is that, unlike Piaget and cognitive academics, Vygotsky perceives learning to evolve ecologically, in other words, the student evolves through changes to their understanding, rather than through set stages at certain ages. This idea of ecology lends itself to the reality of a classroom where students of the same age will exhibit different levels of understanding of information and skill development.
Scaffolding has had the positive effect that teachers provide instruction (scaffolding) both within each activity through peers and between structures, as opposed to giving students instructions on cooperative learning and leaving them alone for the lesson to fulfil these instructions (Riddle, 1999; Weimar, 2013). This means that when introducing cooperative learning in practice the activities need to be modest ones where students can attain the learning involved before expanding the structure to more challenging activities. Another advantage is that this method takes into account not only learner’s acquisition of subject knowledge but also of their holistic development, including the development of skills such as negotiating (Riddle, 1999; Weimar 2013).
However, there is an inconsistency in the argument around scaffolding and Vygotsky which is that the idea does not completely lend itself to real life classroom situations. Vygotsky views the student as having agency, and yet does not take into account that this means the student is not passive and may question and choose not to engage with some of the scaffolding that is put in place for them, thus negatively impacting their learning (Bakhtin, 1979), especially as it is through this process of questioning that students develop their adult identities.

The Cooperative Learning Process
The below five principles should be included while constructing a lesson in the cooperative learning model.
1. Positive Interdependence
Every student in a group has an obligation to make a contribution. All members of the group rely on these contributions to achieving their goals and, therefore, every member’s effort is fundamental and, the team cannot succeed without it.
2. Face-to-Face Interaction
Some of the learning and teamwork in cooperative learning must be done individually. However, there a chunk of it that must be done interactively with members of the group so as to provide each other with feedback, challenge their conclusions and reasoning, and most importantly teach, help, support, applaud, and encourage each other in the attainment of their goals.
3. Individual Accountability
All members of the team must be accountable for their share of contribution and must master all the learning content for the sake of the team’s success.
4. Team Processing
The members are responsible for setting goals and must describe what actions of the members are helpful and what are not. This should be done periodically to assess whether they are progressing well as a team and, thus be able to identify changes that will enable them to perform better in future.
5. Appropriate Use of Interpersonal, Social, Collaborative, and Small Team Skills
The members are advised to develop and practice values such as trust-building, decision-making, leadership, conflict management, and communication skills. (Johnson & Johnson, 1998; Johnson, Johnson & Holubec, 1991; Kagan, 1994)
These basic principles systematically structure learning situations and help to ensure cooperative efforts thus enabling the implementation of cooperative learning in a disciplined way for long-term success. These principles do not change; however, the researcher would be misguided to present this as meaning that there is one cooperative learning understanding. Indeed there are variations and modifications of this model. The proponents of this cooperative learning include Roger and David Johnson, Robert Slavin, and Spencer Kagan, who all hold different emphases and approaches to cooperative learning. Johnson and Johnson (1975) propose a specific structure that can be adopted by various curricula, with an emphasis being put on the integration of academic activities with social skills. Consequently positive reliance and individual responsibility are student characteristics vital to the classroom if cooperative learning is to be successfully employed as a learning strategy. In contrast, Kagan advocates for the use of different structures to facilitate team learning, team building and team skills. Slavin, on the other hand, develops a cooperative learning structure that combines both Johnson and Johnson, and Kagan’s methods (Li & Lam, 2013, p. 4). The outcome being a variation of cooperative learning that fuses the act of adapting cooperation within the classroom with subject tests resulting in a rationalistic connection between teacher-led education and the desire for students to work together in a team.
Johnson and Johnson (1975) also argued that motivation is intrinsic and is generated through following shared goals within a team. Intrinsic motivation is tricky to measure. However, Kohn (1999) negotiated this difficulty by noting that ‘what matters is not how motivated someone is, but how someone is motivated’ (p.257). Central to intrinsic motivation is the belief that the students see themselves as worthwhile, raising their self-esteem and enabling them to understand that ‘the most valued rewards are in the satisfaction derived from fulfilling personal standards’ (Bandura 1986, p.231; Friswell, 2015; Hodson, 2015). This motivation lends itself to this study as it implies that social collaboration is more important than cognitive ability in the learning process. This is because the ZPD can utilise cooperative learning techniques, through peers as experts, to develop both team and individual attainment. A negative outcome of this approach is that a separation between the cognitive and social aspects of learning appears, whereas the researcher would argue that they are on a continuum, with learning methods moving between the two depending on the context in which they are applied. Further evidence of the tension between cognitive theory and social learning theory within Johnson and Johnson’s (1975) explanation is seen in students assisting one another in building knowledge and valuing each other’s developed contributions to the team, thereby reinforcing the social over the cognitive learning theory they purport to have followed.
One advantage of Johnson and Johnson’s (1990) model of cooperative learning is that it does promote face-to-face, positive peer interactions; however, it also follows the restrictive understanding of Vygotsky as discussed previously, for it views the teacher as being in control of the learning activity and environment. It is questionable, therefore, whether this model of cooperative learning has, in fact, progressed very far from a teacher-led vision that requires ‘a strict adherence to a fixed curriculum through the teacher lecturing students so that they can attain information, [where] the focus is on the teacher and teaching’(Spooner 2015, p.17). CL would be effective in the context of a school where such pressures often dictate teachers’ learning and teaching processes, more than any other single factor, because cooperative learning offers students a structured process in which they can simultaneously teach and learn (Quigley, 2015). An advantage of this process, of students simultaneously teaching and learning, being that the Education Endowment Foundation (2015) found it could add up to six-months onto a students learning ability. Because the focus of this model is placed on the teacher, who provides students with various activities in order to engage them in cooperative learning, there are limitations in applying it to this study. This is a weakness of the Johnson and Johnson model as it relates to this research, since the students participated in designing the activities through the intervention method, instead of the researcher creating all the activities.
Another potential drawback of applying Johnson and Johnson’s explanation in the current study is that it requires students to be taught the necessary skills to undertake the activity before they actually engage in the learning strategy. In contrast, Kagan (1994) based his explanation of cooperative learning on the development of a range of skills, such as listening and turn-taking. This idea lends itself to the practicalities of a classroom and is supported extensively throughout the literature (Kirschner, Sweller and Clark, 2006; Hatte, 2009; Christodoulou, 2015). Kagan’s approach appears to have been successful largely because it fosters positive independence, individual accountability and equal participation alongside simultaneous interaction among students (Kagan, 2013; Sharan, 2014).
Zhang and Stephens (2013) provided support and updates for both Kagan’s (1994) and Vygotsky’s (1978) work, clarifying the skills students develop while in the ZPD. They also conducted their study in a secondary school context, making it applicable to this research. Zhang and Stephens (2013) proposed listening to students as a way of moving the learning environment from teacher-led to cooperative learning. In so doing, they identified students working in teams as ‘knowledge builders; complex, multifaceted and flexible thinkers; creative and innovative problem solvers; effective collaborators and communicators; and optimistic and committed learners’ (p.48). Zhang and Stephens concluded that students should be allowed to discuss their interpretations of information with peers, and that the information presented and discussed should draw on students’ prior learning, knowledge bases and experiences when applying it to new problems. A weakness of their study in relation to this research is that it was carried out in the field of mathematics, while this study is set in the field of psychology; therefore, consideration of the learning and teaching strategies adopted within both subjects is recommended for a fuller picture of the findings.
In support of a skills-centred approach, Raj and Devi (2014) argued that cooperative learning is linked to student development of problem solving, critical thinking, speaking skills and independent learning. This study will enable students to develop these skills through the intervention method where they have to solve problems through designing the lesson activities and communicating their own understanding and experiences to one another, in order to critically negotiate what the design will look like. A positive outcome of developing such skills is that students can construct knowledge by applying information to real-life situations, as they are doing in this study, the problem being how to implement cooperative learning within a psychology classroom (Kagan, 2009; Cavangh, 2011; Cubucku, 2012; Goodwin, 2013). Furthermore, academics have believed these qualities were enhanced across all cultural backgrounds and promoted equality amongst students (Banks, 2015; Christodoulou, 2015; Harrison, 2015; Michael, 2015). This may be a benefit that is very relevant for Wilbur High as an urban, low-attaining school, as implementing cooperative learning may mitigate the school’s poor performance on standardised tests.
Whichever approach to cooperative learning that is taken there is significant research into the positive impact that it has on a student’s learning experience both socially and mentally. One such study by Peterson & Miller (2004, 123-134) demonstrated that students who were taught using cooperative learning methods accomplished higher test scores contrasted with students taught by teacher-led instruction. Additionally, Nam & Zellner (2011, 680-688) noticed that cooperative learning vehicles, such as teamwork, offer students some assistance with building interpersonal relationships with their classmates. A point that Peterson & Miller (2004, 123-134) further indicated as critically important given ever increasing class sizes in schools, for cooperative learning was incredibly helpful for keeping learning at a premium within this situation. In conclusion it can be deduced that on the whole cooperative learning methodologies can be seen as a beneficial, cohesive and supportive learning strategy for students.

Conceptual Research Model
The Kagan (1994) model provides an overarching theory of cooperative learning, rather than just referring to a specific learning strategy within this process. This makes it favourable for this study. Additionally, the model was preferred over the process model of Johnson and Johnson (1975). Despite similarities, subtle differences distinguish the two process models from one another, thereby providing a greater context for analysis. Perhaps the main distinction between these explanations lies in their emphasis: whereas Johnson and Johnson (1975) focus on the building of social skills, like turn-taking, Kagan (1994) focuses on team skills like negotiation.
Johnson and Johnson (1975) argued that learning arises from both the students’ cognitive abilities and the abilities of their peers. As such they concentrate on the effect of peer support of cooperative learning. Johnson and Johnson’s study have demonstrated a few things about the significance of team participation in learning that cooperative learning is viable within the classroom setting, cooperative learning can be utilised with some trust in every subject and that cooperative learning through changing a student’s outlook can influence a wide range of learning capacities.
Summary
This research uses the model of cooperative learning proposed by Kagan (1990). An important strength of Kagan’s (1990) model is that it provides context-free and repeatable step-by-step methods by which cooperative learning methodologies can be introduced and applied to lessons. This model lends itself to the current study due to its highly structured nature, which will build the confidence of both staff and students. The highly structured nature consists of plans and steps for the researcher, teacher and students to follow, so that the staff and students’ focus remains on the learning process, thus developing gradually while guiding and developing their confidence in the cooperative learning processes. It is also more helpful than other models as the social skills necessary for cooperative learning are embedded within the implementation steps, as opposed to having to be taught separately from the methodology. Kagan’s model also does not lend itself to the formal assessment of groups, with the positive effect that since the students value the methodology itself, the model focuses on the building of intrinsic motivation. This is a fundamental principle underpinning the current research, as this study relies on students’ perceptions of the methodology being positively fostered within and through the learning process itself.
The Concept of Personalised Learning
Personalised learning is seen as a precursor to cooperative learning and has its roots in work of William Heard Kilpatrick, The Project Method in 1918. This concept is not a theory of learning, but a government initiative that was meant to make all public services, including education, flexible and so able to respond to their customers’ needs. Similar to cooperative learning, personalised learning was politically influenced and has its roots in the development of Canada (Diamond, 2008, p. 2). Kilpatrick was of the idea that children should not simply adopt the ideas of their teachers as their own but, should be involved in all steps that include purposing, planning, executing and judging (Kilpatrick, 1918, p. 17). Thus personalised learning is a recent policy development in cooperative learning and, not a theory.
Personalised learning is an emerging concept that is in line with the 21st century’s student-centred approach to learning. There is sufficient literature that suggests that student achievement as a whole has the likelihood to increase if a student can learn at his/her pace following a variety of teaching formats and styles that are availed to him/her. The personalisation of student learning presents learners with a unique learning approach where his/her needs are the main focus as opposed to the traditional, teacher-led, standard-paced curriculum. In an ideal situation, the student is put first, and he/she can ask about the ‘who, how, when, where, and why’ about their learning (Hannover Research, 2012, p. 4).
The purpose of personalised learning is to meet every child at his/her point of need and thereby help him/her to meet his/her potential while at the same time educating the whole child. This form of learning takes place both within and outside of the classroom thus different learning environments are encouraged. There is a strong emphasis on parental involvement and the meaningful relationships between the student, the parent, and the teacher and, there is the adoption of technology that is mostly used to enhance learning opportunities.
This form of learning emphasises a student-led system and one that is done outside the classroom allows students to set their pace and their levels of achievement are bound to increase. It also increases student motivation as a result of the creation of personalised learning plans for the students. The regular assessment in this system allows students to receive regular feedback on their performance and progress. Studies have shown that feedback on the progress towards a certain goal is immensely motivating to students (Hannover Research, 2012).
The shift from a teacher-led, curriculum-based system to the student-centred approach has long been in place in the US, and it has its roots in theories postulated by Lev Vygotsky and Jean Piaget. This is manifested in the works of these authors with the focus mainly on cooperative learning. The personalised learning approach, however, is a recent development that is prominent in the K-12 education community – a program that covers the American kindergarten and the 12 years of basic education that follow (six years in primary school, four years in junior high school, and two years in senior school) (Hannover Research, 2012)
Personalised learning encourages a school to address a range of areas to meet the personal needs of its students. Together, these areas would lead to the development of the individual as a person. For this holistic view of learning to be adopted, students and staff need to be aware of gaps in their knowledge. This, in turn, means that part of personalised learning is the process of reflectivity, a process that Schon (2015) advocated must be undertaken by both the teacher and the learner. Reflectivity is a process that this study encourages students and staff participants through their reflections on cooperative learning experiences, including what went well and what did not go well, during the first interview.
While using the term ‘reflectivity’ indicates who should be determining a student’s strengths, weaknesses and needs, it does not address the question raised by Johnson (2005) as to whether students want or need this kind of flexible learning. Johnson warns that such re-envisioning of schools must be balanced with their wider social purpose if continuity is to be maintained and students’ stress levels minimised, as ‘personalised learning can be seen as a further development…on individual achievement narrowly defined’ (p.14). Through the use of journals, this study can record and then analyse the students’ feelings about such reflective practices, and thus will take Johnson’s (2005) work into consideration.
The prevailing consensus about learning theory among academics at the time of this research was one of ‘learning to be’ (Carneiro et al., 2015), where knowledge and action intertwine with complex learning strategies to encourage students to engage with information and to understand themselves as learners in order to progress. Educational policy in the United Kingdom had begun to reflect the idea that social-emotional and cognitive processes were inseparable (Boekaerts, 2010), rather than a challenge to each other. This context saw cooperative learning gain a place, not as an alternative educational approach, but as one within mainstream educational policy. In the United Kingdom, this took the form of personalised learning, which aimed at ‘reforming the system to ensure that the learner is at the heart of it’ (DEMOS, 2003). A difficulty with personalised learning in relation to education is that personalised learning, although presented here as such, is not actually a theory of learning. In fact, personalised learning was a national government initiative aimed at making all public services, including education, flexible and so able to respond to their customers’ needs (Ledda, 2007). The logistics of this thesis mean that personalised learning is only briefly considered here in relation to education and not in the context of public services holistically, although some critical points that the researcher makes may be transferred across the different services.
As with the original concept of cooperative learning, this political shift to personalised learning was also rooted in developments in Canada. The focus of education in Canada moved from narrow and knowledge-based to that of fostering skills and attitudes alongside knowledge that would enable learners to be successful both personally and professionally throughout their lives (Sliwaka and Yee, 2015). A reason that the United Kingdom has been reluctant to engage with cooperative learning until this point may be due to the demands of teacher training within a neoliberal competitive marketplace, where time and skills are second to examination results.
The Labour Government’s manifesto Britain Forward Not Back (2005),which introduced personalised learning, presents a rhetorical challenge to the theoretical foundations on which it is grounded, by describing personalised learning as a package: ‘…from pre-school to sixth form or apprenticeship and beyond to get the personalised package of learning and support they need’ (p.30). This is problematic, as it implies personalised learning can be wrapped up and handed to staff. The notion of a ‘package’ also suggests that this initiative is being presented to schools in a favourable way like a gift, leading one to ask if educators are being provided with a complete image that is accurate in its detail. Part of this study is to consider how personalised learning as an emergent form of cooperative learning is being experienced within the researcher’s classroom at Wilbur High to improve the learning experiences that this policy delivers on a daily basis. Furthermore, the term ‘package’ implies personalised learning is something to be given to students in one go. This fails to acknowledge that learning is a developmental process students undergo as they progress through school, one that arises from their interactions with teachers and, as this study supports, with their peers.
Hargreaves (2005) referred to the different areas that make up personalised learning as gateways and identified nine such gateways in total: New Technologies, Student Voice, Learning to Learn, Assessment for Learning, Mentoring, Workforce Organisation, Reform, Advice/Guidance and Curriculum. This study is focused on the gateway of Student Voice through its emphasis on cooperative learning and action research. A drawback of having nine gateways is that the entire school’s commitment is required if all of these gateways are to be embraced, and would require financial and training commitments as well. The quality of learning within each gateway could also be questioned. This leads to the question of whether learning, in order to fulfil such a broad range of objectives, might become a set of superficial experiences rather than providing a learner with fewer, but richer opportunities. This study focuses on the latter as it aims, through the continuous application of action research cycles, to not only listen to the students and provide them with the opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge, but also to implement their ideas in practice and to ensure that the cycles of reflection are ongoing.
Although most research refers to personalised learning closer examination of students, Hargreaves’ (2003) later work suggests personalised learning is a process and should be referred to in the present continuous tense as ‘personalising learning’ (2003). This change in rhetoric is appropriate for this research, as it moves away from presenting personalised learning as a ‘package’ that can be given to a student. This way of thinking conceptualises learning as a process, similar to the cooperative learning ideals of students participating in their own learning and wider communities.
In summary, personalised learning has four elements that make it synonymous with this study’s research on cooperative learning: (a) structures that help the teacher better understand the learners and work with them more closely; (b) assessment strategies that help the teacher understand how the learners are doing; (c) teacher-learner collaboration structures that are focused on promoting student learning and (d) structures for shared decision-making and dialogue regarding the learning process with other teachers and learners (Darling-Hammond, 1996; Claxton, 2013).

Recent Policy on Cooperative Learning
This section considers recent educational policies that embrace the core ideas underpinning personalised learning and student participation, both of which are central to cooperative learning.
Despite such overwhelming evidence regarding the positive effects of cooperative learning, some studies (Race and Powell, 2000; Blatchford and Kutnick, 2003; Gilles and Boyle, 2010; Tsay and Brady, 2010) have suggested that cooperative learning is on the decline. A number of potential limitations in implementing cooperative learning theory may explain the decline found by Gilles and Boyle (2010). A helpful approach in supporting the implementation of cooperative learning in classrooms would be to look at the application of cooperative learning strategies across different subjects. This would facilitate the development of a more accurate picture of the strategy and provide reasons for its implementation (or lack thereof) to be explored, and for solutions to be developed. This approach is supported by Taber (2015), Cheung (2015) and Alt (2015), who have found constructionist learning strategies to be highly influential within science lessons in increasing student motivation, enjoyment and career interest. Taber (2015) and Cheung (2015) are particularly relevant to this research, as their studies were carried out in a secondary school context. Any practical application relies on a clear model of cooperative learning to structure the study.

Curriculum 2008
Curriculum 2008, although no longer in force today, was a move by the government in 2008 to ensure that all state secondary schools for 11-19-year-olds delivered similar sets of challenging subjects to their different ability students, to improve their chances in life. The curriculum’s aim was threefold; to develop successful learners who were confident students and responsible citizens. The driving force behind this policy was to create a workforce with the skills and knowledge that the United Kingdom needed to be competitive on the global market, which meant encouraging students to remain in education longer through engagement with their learning, creating a positive motivation to learn.
This educational policy originally inspired the investigation of cooperative learning, particularly through teamwork activities, which led to this research, because Curriculum 2008 had an explicit framework within its policy to develop students’ skills. Within Curriculum 2008, the skills that were stated to be developed in all students were: self-management, teamwork, reflective learning, independent learning, participatory learning and creative thinking (QCA, 2008). According to Henson (1995), ‘Good education reform is designed to help maximise the academic and social development of all students’; this researcher believed Curriculum 2008 could deliver such education reform. Curriculum 2008 described students as the central focus of personalised learning, introducing a set of sub-skills that learners should be encouraged and taught to embrace. These sub-skills refer to learners as ‘creative thinkers, effective participators, independent enquirers, reflective learners, self-managers, and team workers’ (QCA, 2008, p.1).
Unlike previous interpretations of personalised learning, such as Hargreaves’ (2004) interpretation, Curriculum 2008 associated each sub-skill involved in personalised learning with certain criteria. This provided concrete guidance to educators implementing personalised learning by specifying what each sub-skill could look like in practice, and offering teachers insight into how to develop their learning and teaching strategies to increase engagement, enjoyment and academic attainment. However, Curriculum 2008, like other explanations of cooperative learning, fails to explain how teachers can engage students who resist working with peers due to low self-esteem or a lack of tolerance for others who are less able than themselves. Solutions to this problem are complex, including the use of cooperative learning, technology and practical learning. Completing a meta-analysis of existing research on these methods might help to inform future studies in developing solutions for the problem of engaging reluctant students.
An apparent inconsistency within Curriculum 2008 is that the syllabus for each subject specified learning objectives and outcomes. This relies heavily on providing teachers with reference points for knowledge (Ball, 2013), as opposed to encouraging them to develop students’ skills within lessons. In this system, teachers come under pressure from schools to teach specific knowledge to help students pass the examination and are held accountable for ensuring students’ progress from their objectives to the lesson outcomes (Ho and Kane, 2013). In this neoliberal climate of competition, the means to reach the ends – in this case student progress demonstrated through high grades – may tempt schools to revert to teacher-led classroom lectures. An unhelpful outcome of this converging of ideologies is that ‘collaboration with and competition against are mutually exclusive concepts’ (Bloom, 1951, p.141), thereby hindering the implementation of cooperative learning strategies in practice, and potentially making it another of the curriculum’s ‘unrealised aspirations’ (Elliott, 2015, p.1). Moreover at a time when the Declaration of Principles of Tolerance are a priority in schools (UNESCO, 1995) it can be questioned how far cultivating a school climate of competition is compatible with this cooperative learning principle (Goddard, 2015). However, the argument around developing competition within schools in the United Kingdom fails to take into account that the policies did not dictate how teachers should fulfil the knowledge reference points (Apple, 2000; Ball, 2013). In turn, this provides teachers with a degree of freedom or the opportunity to involve students in the process of designing learning activities, which is a gap within policy exploited by this study.
Meanwhile, the United States struggles to implement personalised learning despite recognising the value that this has for students “Yet these types of personalized learning models are still relatively rare, and are unlikely to achieve greater scale in the absence of policy changes to support their growth” (Chuong and Mead, 2014). A positive outcome of Curriculum 2008 in the United Kingdom was the creation of a space for cooperative learning strategies to be embedded into lessons at a classroom level. Skiba and Peterson (2015, p. 1) imply learning objectives need not be seen as opposed to cooperative learning. A resolution for the conflict between these two positions within Curriculum 2008 could be for schools to encourage teachers to move into a position of trusting collegiality, where they are valued and not required to audit everything both in and outside of a lesson, and where students are therefore able to contribute to how activities such as teamwork are run within the lesson (Wood and Cajkler, 2013; Christodoulou, 2015).
Overall, Curriculum 2008 can be seen as an ‘emergent paradigm’ (Glover and Law, 2002:p.84), as it places emphasis on how students learn as opposed to what they learn. Similarly, McGrath (2005) suggested lesson planning should focus on the question ‘How can I best motivate?’ (p.59).This is a stark contrast with the technicist model of education, as it advocates students being active in their learning. This does, however, raise the question of whether the purpose of education is to manage student behaviour, as seen in the formal curriculum of the neoliberal perspective, or if it is to motivate students, as advocated by cooperative learning. Within this argument, the subtle difference between technicist models and those of cooperative learning become clear: the former emphasises teaching with little focus on social development, and the later stresses learning with significant focus on the social development of students.
Personalised Learning Today
Although personalised learning debuted within educational policy in the United Kingdom in 2003, it remains relevant today, showing the continued significance of this study. Indeed, the Coalition Governments’ (2010-2015) academies movement, alongside the reviewed independent schools, provided the ideal freedom in which the ideas of personalised learning could be further developed and given a tangible identity within the whole school context. Independent schools not tied by the set body of knowledge that is the curriculum are at the forefront of being able to pay attention to the knowledge a student already processes, and to build on this information base to progress the student’s learning. Supporting this relevance in Scotland, the Curriculum for Excellence (CfE) briefing of 2010 explained that personalised learning means tailoring learning to a learner’s needs by building on their a priori learning.
Similarly, Getting It Right for Every Child (2010) and the Global Education Leader’s Program (2013) suggest that personalised learning is the way forward concerning closing the persistent class attainment gap that prevails across the United Kingdom. Moreover, the focus on personalised learning remains in America through A Policy Playbook for Personalised Learning: Ideas for State and Local Policymakers (Chuong & Mead, 2014), and in Canada, where personalised learning means “students have access to a greater variety of learning experiences that include and extend beyond traditional education settings and benefit from increased community involvement in their learning” (Alberta Education, 2010, p. 14). This shows the potential for worldwide joint thinking on how to transform a body of knowledge into a curriculum where students work together, and define their learning processes, with the facilitation of a teacher. These institutions show a collective interest in innovation through personalised learning, one that this study could, in a very small way, contribute to by highlighting this gap in learning theory that still exists, and its relevance to education now.
Chapter Summary
More than 30 years ago, social constructivism through the work of Vygotsky established the importance of cooperative learning principles that through working together students were able to accomplish things they could not do alone, thus enabling them to progress not only socially, but also individually. Although not uncontested, the idea of Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development remains influential, and the basis of most, if not all, other learning theories.
Drawing on Curriculum 2008 as a driver for cooperative learning in modern times, the researcher has argued that cooperative learning took on a new name, that of personalised learning. It is within the framework of personalised learning that the ideas of Vygotsky can be seen today. Although variation exists across the interpretations of social constructivism and cooperative learning theory, the central and active position these learning theories give to the student is undeniable. It is a positioning maintained in the methodology of this study, which will be discussed in greater detail in the following chapter.

References

Alberta Education. (2010). Annual Report Update. Edmonton: Government of Alberta.
Bruner, J. S., Wood, D., & Ross, G. (1976). The Role of Tutoring in Problem Solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry Vol.17, No.2 , 89–100.
Chuong, C., & Mead, S. (2014). A Policy Playbook for Personalized Learning: Ideas for State and Local Policymakers. Washington, DC: Bellwether Education Partners.
Diamond, I. (2008). Personalised Learning. Economic and Social Research Council , 2-28.
Drummond, S. R., Fernández, M., Wegerif, R., & Mercer, N. (2001). Re-conceptualizing “Scaffolding” and the Zone of Proximal Development in the Context of Symmetrical Collaborative Learning. Journal of Classroom Interaction Vol.36, No.2 , 40-54.
Hannover Research. (2012). Best Practices in Personalized Learning Environments (Grades 4 – 9). District Administration Practice , 1-43.
Henson, K. T. (1995). Curriculum Development for Education Reform. New York: HarperCollins College Publishers.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1998). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning (5th Ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1975). Learning together and alone; cooperation, competition, and individualization. New Jersey, USA: Prentice-Hall.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Holubec, E. J. (1993). Cooperation in the Classroom (6th ed.). Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Holubec, E. J. (1991). Cooperation in the classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
Kagan, S. (1994). Cooperative Learning, Resources for Teachers. San Juan Capistrano, CA: Kagan Cooperative Learning.
Kagan, S. (1989). The Structural Approach to Cooperative Learning. Educational Leadership , 12-15.
Kellog, D., & Yasnitsky, A. (2011). LS Vygotsky’s “Tool and sign” as a “benign forgery”: Introduction to virtual dialogue. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Kilpatrick, W. H. (1918). The Project Method: The Use of the Purposeful Act in the Educative Process. New York, NY: Teachers college, Columbia University.
Li, M. P., & Lam, B. H. (2013). Cooperative Learning. The Hong Kong Institute of Education , 1-33.
McLeod, S. (2007). Lev Vygotsky. Retrieved November 25, 2015, from http://www.simplypsychology.org/: http://www.simplypsychology.org/vygotsky.html
Mecacci, L., & Yasnitsky, A. (2011). Editorial Changes in the Three Russian Editions of Vygotsky’s Thinking and Speech (1934, 1956, 1982): Towards Authoritative and Ultimate English Translation of the Book. PsyAnima, Dubna Psychological Journal Vol.4, No.4 , 159-187.
Meeks, L. M. (2014). College Students’ Perceptions of and Behavioral Intentions Toward a Popular Media Character with Qualities of Asperger Syndrome. Cleveland: Cleveland State University.
Panitz, T. (1999). Collaborative versus cooperative learning- a comparison of the two concepts which will help us understand the underlying nature of interactive learning. Retrieved November 25, 2015, from http://home.capecod.net/: http://home.capecod.net/~tpanitz/tedsarticles/coopdefinition.htm
QCA. (2008). Annual Report and Accounts 2008-09. London: Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.
Riddle, E. (1999, March 8). Lev Vygotsky’s Social Development Theory. Retrieved November 26, 2015, from http://www.chd.gse.edu/: http://www.chd.gse.edu/immerson/knowledgebase/theorists/
Schon, D. (2015). Learning, Reflection and Change. Retrieved November 26, 2015, from http://infed.org/: https://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/skey/research_prev/reading/reflection_educational_role/et-schon.htm
Slavin, R. E. (1996). Research on Cooperative Learning and Achievement: What We Know, What We Need to Know. Contemporary Educational Psychology Vol.21, No.1 , 43-69.
Smidt, S. (2009). Introducing Vygotsky : a guide for practitioners and students in early years education. London; New York, NY: Routledge.
Spooner, C. (2015). Problem-based learning in pre-clinical medical education: 22 years of outcome research. Journal of Medical Teaching , 1–35.
Weimar, S. (2013). Demo: Collaborative dynamic mathematics in virtual math teams. Presented at the International Conference of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL 2013), Madison, WI. Retrieved November 26, 2015, from http://GerryStahl.net/: http://GerryStahl.net/pub/cscl2013demo.pdf

Last Completed Projects