Reference List

Group Composition: Gender, ethnicity, academic performance, and problem solving skills

• Bear JB, Woolley AW (2011). The role of gender in team collaboration and performance. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews 36, 146-53.
• CATME: http://info.catme.org
• Heller P, Hollabaugh M (1992). Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part 2: Designing problems and structuring groups. Am J Phys 60, 637-644.
• Jalajas DS, Sutton RI (1984). Feuds in student groups, coping with whiners, martyrs, saboteurs, bullies, and deadbeats. Organizational Behavior Teaching Review 9, 217-227.
• Jensen JL, Lawson A (2011). Effects of collaborative group composition and inquiry instruction on reasoning gains and achievement in undergraduate biology. LSE 10, 64-73.
• Kozhevnikov M, Evans C, Kosslyn SM (2014). Cognitive style as environmentally sensitive individual differences in cognition: A modern synthesis and applications in education, business, and management. Psychol Sci Publ Int 15, 3-33.
• Lamm AJ, Shoulders C, Roberts TG, Irani TA, Snyder JL, Brendemuhl BJ (2012). The influence of cognitive diversity on group problem solving strategy. Journal of Agricultural Education 53, 18-30.
• Laughlin PR (1978). Ability and group problem solving. Journal of Research and Development in Education 12, 114-20.
• Lawrenz F, Munch TW (1984). The effect of grouping of laboratory students on selected educational outcomes.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 21, 699-708.
• Lou Y, Abrami PC, d’Apollonia S (2001). Small group and individual learning with technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research 71, 449-521.
• McLeod PL, Lobel SA, Cox TH (1996). Ethnic diversity and creativity in small groups. Small Group Research 27, 248-264.
• Mello JA (1993). Improving individual member accountability in small work group settings. Journal of Management Education 17, 253-259.
• Paulus, Bichelmeyer, Malopinsky, Perera, and Rastogi. Power distance and group dynamics of an international project team: A case study. Teaching in Higher Education 10, 43-55, 2005.
• Summers, M. and Volet, S. Students’ attitudes towards culturally mixed groups on international campuses: Impact of participation in diverse and non-diverse groups. Studies in Higher Education 33, 357-370, 2008.
• Takeda S, Homberg F (2014). The effects of gender on group work process and achievement: an analysis through self- and peer-assessment. British Educational Research Journal 40, 373-396.
• Watson SB, Marshall JE (1995). Effects of cooperative incentives and heterogeneous arrangement on achievement and interaction of cooperative learning groups in a college life science course. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 32, 291-99.
• Watson WE, Kumar K, Michaelsen LK (1993). Cultural diversity’s impact on interaction process and performance: Comparing homogeneous and diverse task groups. Academy of Management Journal 36, 590-602.
• Webb NM, Nemer KM, Zuniga S (2002). Short circuits or superconductors? Effects of group composition on high-achieving students’ science assessment performance. Am Educ Res J 39, 943–989.
• Weld K (1999). Perfect problems and homogeneous groups enhance cooperative learning in abstract algebra. Primus 9, 355-64.
• Woolley AW, Chabris CF, Pentland A, Hashmi N, Malone TW (2010). Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups. Science 330, 686-688.

Group Composition: Random vs. Self-Selection

• Brickell JL, Porter DB, Reynolds MF, Cosgrove RD (1994). Assigning students to groups for engineering design projects: A comparison of five methods. J Engr Educ 83, 259-262.
• Chapman KJ, Meuter M, Toy D, Wright L (2006).. Can’t we pick our own groups? The influence of group selection method on group dynamics and outcomes. Journal of Management Education 30, 557-569.
• Feichtner SB, Davis EA (1984). Why some groups fail: A survey of students’ experiences with learning groups. Journal of Management Education 9, 58-73.
• Myers SA (2012). Students’ perceptions of classroom group work as a function of group member selection. Communication Teacher 26, 50-64.

Group Size

• Aggarwal P, O’Brien CL (2008). Social Loafing on Group Projects: Structural antecedents and effect on student satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Education 30, 255-264.
• Apugliese A, Lewis SE (2017). Impact of instructional decisions on the effectiveness of cooperative learning in chemistry through meta-analysis. Chem Ed Res and Practice 18, 271-279.
• Chidambaram L, Tung LL (2005). Is out of sight, out of mind? An empirical study of social loafing in technology-supported groups. Information Systems Research 16, 149-168.
• Heller P, Hollabaugh M (1992). Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part 2: Designing problems and structuring groups. Am J Phys 60, 637-644.
• Ingham A, Levinger G, Graves J, and Peckham V (1974). Ringelman Effect—Studies of group size and group performance. J. Exp. Soc. Psychology 10, 371-384.
• Johnson DW, Johnson RT, Smith K (2007). The state of cooperative learning in postsecondary and professional settings. Educ Psychol Rev 19, 15-29.
• Lou Y, Abrami PC, d’Apollonia S (2001). Small group and individual learning with technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research 71, 449-521.
• Treen E, Atanasova C, Pitt L, Johnson M (2016). Evidence from a large sample on the effects of group size and decision-making time on performance in a marketing simulation game. Journal of Marketing Education, 38, 130-137.

Setting Group Norms

• Bacon, Stewart, and Silver. Lessons from the best and worst student team experiences: How a teacher can make the difference. Journal of Management Education. 23. 5. 467-488. 199.
• Chapman KJ, Van Auken S (2001). Creating positive group experiences: An examination of the role of the instructor on students’ perceptions of group projects. Journal of Marketing Education 23, 117-127.https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10648-006-9038-8
• Johnson DW, Johnson RT, Smith K (2007). The state of cooperative learning in postsecondary and professional settings. Educ Psychol Rev 19, 15-29.
• Lerner, L. D. (1995). Making student groups work. Journal of Management Education, 19(1), 123-125.
• Oakley B, Felder RM. Brent R, Elhajj I. (2004). Turning student groups into effective teams. Journal of Student Centered Learning, 2(1), 9-34.
• University of Texas at Austin College of Natural Sciences Teaching Portal (https://cns.utexas.edu/teaching-portal/group-work)
• Wenzel TJ (2007). Evaluation Tools To Guide Students’ Peer-Assessment and Self-Assessment in Group Activities for the Lab and Classroom. Journal of Chemical Education 84, 182-186.

Group Structures

• Brewer S, Klein JD (2006). Type of positive interdependence and affiliation motive in an asynchronous, collaborative learning environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 54, 331-354.
• Gillies RM (2004). The effects of cooperative learning on junior high students during small group learning. Learning and Instruction, 14, 197-213.
• Gillies RM (2006). Teachers’ and students’ verbal behaviors during cooperative and small-group learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 271-287.
• Gillies RM (2013). Structuring cooperative group work in classrooms. International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 35-49.
• Gully SM, Incalcaterra KA, Joshi A, and Beaubien JM (2002). A meta-analysis of team-efficiency, potency, and performance: Interdependence and level of analysis as moderators of observed relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology 87, 819-832.
• O’Donnell AM (1999). Structuring dyadic interaction through scripted cooperation. In Cognitive Perspectives on Peer Learning. Pp. 179-196.
• Yager, S., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1985). Oral discussion, group-to-individual transfer, and achievement in cooperative learning groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(1), 60-66.

Environment and Technology

• Beichner RJ. The SCALE-UP Project: A Student-Centered Active Learning Environment for Undergraduate Programs.
• Beichner RJ (2014). History and Evolution of Active Learning Spaces. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, no. 173.
• Knaub AV, Foote KT, Henderson C, Dancy M, Beichner RJ (2016). Get a room: the role of classroom space in sustained implementation of studio style instruction. International Journal of STEM Education , 3(8).
• Soneral PA, Wyse SA (2017). A SCALE-UP Mock-Up: Comparison of Student Learning Gains in High- and Low-Tech Active-Learning Environments. LSE 16: ar12.
• Stoltzfus JR, Libarkin J (2016). Does the Room Matter? Active Learning in Traditional and Enhanced Lecture Spaces. LSE 15: ar68.

Individual and Group Accountability

• Gillies RM (2013). Structuring cooperative group work in classrooms. International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 35-49.
• Harkins SG, Jackson JM (1985). The role of evaluation in eliminating social loafing. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 11, 457-465.
• Slavin RE (1996). Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What we know, what we need to know. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 43-69.
• Slavin, R. E. (2014). Cooperative learning and academic achievement: Why does groupwork work? Anales de Psicología/Annals of Psychology, 30(3), 785-791.
• Strong JT, Anderson RE (1990). Free-riding in group projects: Control mechanisms and preliminary data. Journal of Marketing Education, 12, 61-67.

Reward Structure

• Brewer S, Klein JD (2006). Type of positive interdependence and affiliation motive in an asynchronous, collaborative learning environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 54(4), 331-354.
• O‘Donnell A M (1996). Effects of explicit incentives on scripted and unscripted cooperation. Journal of Educational Psychology 88, 74-86.
• Sears DA, Pai H-H (2012). Effects of cooperative versus individual study on learning and motivation after reward-removal. The Journal of Experimental Education, 80(3), 246-262.
• Serrano, J. M., & Pons, R. M. (2007). Cooperative learning: We can also do it without task structure. Intercultural Education, 18(3), 215-230.
• Watson SB, Marshall JE (1995). Effects of cooperative incentives and heterogeneous arrangement on achievement and interaction of cooperative learning groups in a college life science course. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(3), 291-299.

Task Features

• Allchin D (2013). Problem- and case-based learning in science: An introduction to distinctions, values, and outcomes. LSE 12, 364-372.
• Dane-Coe KK, Sarvary, MA, Owens TG (2017) Student performance along axes of scenario novelty and complexity in introductory biology: Lessons from a unique factorial approach to assessment. LSE 16: ar3.
• Kirschner F, Paas F, Kirschner PA (2011).Task Complexity as a Driver for Collaborative Learning Efficiency: The Collective Working-Memory Effect. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25(4), 615-624.
• Schmidt HG, Rotgans JI, Yew EHJ (2011). The process of problem-based learning: What works and why. Medical Education 45, 792–806.
• Shin N, Jonassen DH, McGee S (2002). Predictors of well-structured and ill-structured problem solving in an astronomy simulation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 40(1), 6-33.
• Scager K, Boonstra J, Peeters T, Vulperhorst J, Wiegant F (2016). Collaborative learning in higher education: Evoking positive interdependence. LSE, 15, 1-9.

Formalized Pedagogies

• Allen D, Tanner K (2003) Approaches to Cell Biology Teaching: Learning Content in Context—Problem-Based Learning. LSE, 2, 73-81.
• Bailey CB, Minderhout V, Loertscher J (2012). Learning transferable skills in large lecture halls: Implementing a POGIL approach in Biochemisty. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 40(1), 1-7.
• Bramble, J., & Workman, M. (2007). Data-rich Case Studies Improve Students’ Abilities to Interpret Graphs in a Large Non-majors Course. Teaching Issues and Experiments in Ecology, Vol. 5: Research #1 [online].
• Brown PJ (2010) Process-oriented guided-inquiry learning in an introductory anatomy and physiology course with a diverse student population. Adv Physiol Educ, 34, 150–155.
• Chaplin S (2009). Assessment of the impact of case studies on student learning gains in an introductory biology course. Journal of College Science Teaching 39, 72-79.
• Eberlein T, Kampmeier J, Minderhout V, Moog RS, Platt T, Varma-Nelson P, White HB (2008). Pedagogies of Engagement in Science: A Comparison of PBL, POGIL, AND PLTL. Biochem Mol Bio Ed, 36(4), 262-273.
• Haidet P, Kubitz K, McCormack WT (2015). Analysis of the team-based learning literature: TBL comes of age. J Excell Coll Teac, 25(3-4), 303-333.
• Haidet P, Levine RE, Parmelee DX, Crow S, Kennedy F, Kelly PA, Perkowski L, Michaelsen L, Richards BF (2012). Guidelines for reporting team-based learning activities in the medical and health sciences education literature. Academic Medicine, 87(3), 292-299.
• Hartfield, P. J. (2010). Reinforcing constructivist teaching in advanced level biochemistry through the introduction of case-based learning activities. Journal of Learning Design, 3(3), 20-31.
• Herreid, CF (2007). Start with a story: The Case Study Method of Teaching College Science. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
• Hung W (2011). Theory to reality: a few issues in implementing problem-based learning. Education Tech Research Dev, 59, 529–552.
• Klegeris A, Bahniwal M, Hureen H (2013). Improvement in generic problem-solving abilities of students by use of tutor-less problem-based learning in a large classroom setting. LSE, 12(1), 73-79.
• Kudish P, Shores R, McClung A, Smulyan L, Vallen EA, Siwicki KK (2016). Active learning outside the classroom: Implementation and outcomes of Peer-Led Team-Learning workshops in introductory biology. LSE 15(3), ar. 31.
• Johnson DW, Johnson RT, Smith KA (2014). Cooperative learning: Improving university instruction by basing practice on validated theory. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching 25, 85-118.
• Lundeberg MA, Kang H, Wolter B, delMas R, Armstrong N,  Borsari B,  Boury N, Brickman P, Hannam K,  Heinz C, Thomas Horvath T, Knabb M,  Platt T,  Rice N,  Rogers B, Sharp J,  Ribbens E,  Maier KS,  Deschryver M,  Hagley R, Goulet T, Herreid CF,  (2011). Context matters: Increasing understanding with interactive clicker case studies. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59, 645-671.
• Michaelson LK, Davidson N, Major CH (2014). Team-based learning practices and principles in comparison with cooperative learning and problem-based learning. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 25(3&4), 57-84.
• National Center for Case Based Teaching in Science (NCCTS)
• PBL@UD (Problem-Based Learning at University of Delaware) Website
• POGIL Project Website (https://pogil.org/)
• Peer-Led Team Learning (PLTL) International Society Website (http://pltlis.org/)
• Rybarczyk B J, Baines AT, McVey M, Thompson JT, Wilkins H (2007). A case-based approach increases student learning outcomes and comprehension of cellular respiration concepts. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 35(3), 181-186.
• Team-Based Learning Collaborative Website
• Wilson, SB, Varma-Nelson P (2016). Small Groups, Significant Impact: A Review of Peer-Led Team Learning Research with Implications for STEM Education Researchers and Faculty. J Chem Educ, 93(10), 1686-1702.
• Yadav, A., Lundeberg, M., DeSchryver, M., Dirkin, K., Schiller, N. A., Maier, K., & Herreid, C. F. (2007). Teaching science with case studies: A national survey of faculty perceptions of the benefits and challenges of using cases. Journal of College Science Teaching, 37(1), 34-38.
• Brame C (2016). Active learning. Vanderbilt University Center for Teaching. Cft.Vanderbilt.edu/active-learning/
• Johnson DW, Johnson RT, Smith KA (2014). Cooperative learning: Improving university instruction by basing practice on validated theory. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching 25, 85-118.
• Kagan S (2014). Kagan structures, processing, and excellence in college teaching. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 25:3 &4, 119-138.