Learning together, but doing it right: Making cooperative learning work in higher education

Cooperative learning methods are an established part of the repertoire of teaching methods in university courses. This term covers a wide variety of methods that differ significantly, particularly in terms of their level of structure, the degree of student autonomy and the time they require. Well-known forms include buzz groups, jigsaw and problem-based learning, for example.

As different as cooperative forms of learning appear to be at first glance, what they all share is the idea that students construct knowledge collaboratively and through discussion (Fischer, 2001). Individuals draw on their group members as a learning resource and can enhance their learning success as a result (Kopp, 2021). One of the particular strengths of cooperative learning lies in acquiring complex cognitive skills (Gruber, 2007) like analysing, critical evaluation and problem-solving, for example. Numerous empirical studies provide evidence to show that cooperative learning is particularly effective in promoting the development of skills like this in higher education (Güngor et al., 2026). 

The high learning impact in this particular area can be explained well in terms of learning theory: complex cognitive learning outcomes are achieved by learners reflecting on different viewpoints and developing solutions independently. Interaction with others is particularly significant in this context, as cognitive conflict can arise when people are confronted with ways of thinking and explanatory models that differ from their own. To resolve this conflict, learners have to question their own assumptions, weigh up arguments and, if necessary, integrate new insights into their existing knowledge structures. That way, collaborative discussion can contribute to a deeper understanding of the learning content (Gruber, 2007).

This process is particularly beneficial when the group members meet on an equal footing. In a peer group, it is easier for students to put forward their own positions, ask questions and express differing opinions. If, on the other hand, there are clear differences in the hierarchy (as there are between professors and students, for example), this can limit open exchange. Students could feel inhibited about contributing their own considerations to a sufficient extent, as they may align themselves with the position of the person who is perceived as being superior (see the section on power and status asymmetries).

At the same time, and almost incidentally, in the case of cooperative learning, students practise social skills relating to communication and teamwork – skills that will also be useful and required in their working lives later on.

As great as the potential of cooperative learning is, it is by no means a safe bet. In practice, difficulties frequently arise that can considerably diminish the added value of cooperative learning.

Stumbling blocks to cooperative learning

Free-rider effect and sucker effect

In the case of the free-rider effect, students act as free riders in group work. They leave the work to those for whom it is important to get a good result. This behaviour is problematic because the remaining members of the group have to compensate for the lack of contribution from the free riders (Kerr, 1983). Many students find this unfair and frustrating, particularly if everyone gets the same mark at the end. The free-rider effect regularly occurs in conventional group work (Hall & Buzwell, 2013). In a study by Benning (2024), 33.5% of the students said that they had worked in a team with at least one free rider during an academic year. Closely linked to the free-rider effect is the sucker effect: When students realise that one group member is deliberately not contributing although he or she would be capable of doing so, they reduce their own efforts instead of carrying the weight of an uncooperative member (Kerr, 1983).

Power and status asymmetries

Group interactions often lead to asymmetric power and status relationships, in which informal hierarchies undermine constructive participation of weaker or quieter members. Those students in a group who are stronger academically become linchpins who dominate the interactions (status-differential effect). As a result, the remaining members participate less and the group outcome is primarily shaped by the dominant members. Because of this, the group fails to realise its full learning potential (Salomon & Globerson, 1989).

Openly dominant behaviour on the part of certain individuals can also create friction in groups – when someone does not listen to others, always wants to be right or drafts the final output themselves without including the ideas of the others, for instance. Tensions like these can develop into interpersonal conflict (Behfar et al., 2011).

Cognitive and socio-affective barriers

When it comes to creative and problem-solving tasks, ideas produced by groups are often fewer in number and lower in quality than those produced by the same number of people working individually (Diehl & Stroebe, 1987). It is cognitive barriers like production blocking and cognitive fixation as well as socio-affective barriers like evaluation apprehension which are responsible for this.

Production blocking primarily affects verbal brainstorming. Because only one person can speak at a time, the remaining members of the group have to wait until it is their turn. This comes at the expense of productivity: (1) students forget any spontaneous thoughts they may have had while they were waiting, (2) they lose their own train of thought as a result of being forced to listen, or (3) they consider their original ideas less relevant or original in retrospect and may not even express them at all. According to Diehl and Stroebe (1987), production blocking is the main reason for loss of productivity when it comes to brainstorming in groups.

We speak of evaluation apprehension when students hold back with suggestions for original solutions because they are afraid of being judged negatively, criticised or shown up by other group members (Ez-zaouia & Carrillo, 2024). This self-censorship has been empirically proven: in experiments, participants said that in group sessions they had held back with more ideas than they had when working individually (Diehl & Stroebe, 1987).

In the case of cognitive fixation, groups settle on familiar and easily accessible ideas early on instead of exploring the problem space as a whole. The longer the members work with the same ideas, the harder it is for them to find new and unconventional solutions (Ez-zaouia & Carrillo, 2024).

Research has been confirming for decades that groups fall short of their members’ performance potential. The causes of these process losses are motivation losses on the part of individual members and failure to coordinate the cooperation as well as production blocking and evaluation apprehension when brainstorming (Kerr & Tindale, 2004). These losses can be counteracted in a targeted manner, however.

Tips for creating coooperative learning environments

(1) Group size: It is hard to determine the ideal number of group members – that depends on the complexity and scope of the task. Group sizes of three to six people are frequently mentioned in the literature (Wheelan, 2009; Metz-Göckel, 2013). In principle, the following applies: the smaller the group, the easier it is for the students to coordinate and structure the work.

(2) Role distribution: Lecturers should assign to each group member a specific role involving clear responsibilities so that everyone knows what their tasks are. Clearly defined roles prevent confusion and ensure a fair distribution of the workload.

As with the jigsaw method, roles can be assigned based on subject matter. Here, a task is broken down into subtasks and distributed amongst the members.

Organisational roles like moderators, timekeepers or minute-takers can also be assigned.

(3) Communication: For the different roles to complement each other and for the group to work together successfully, good communication is crucial. Therefore, lecturers should foster open and appreciative exchange between all members. Respectful communication creates trust, strengthens cooperation and facilitates the exchange of different perspectives. Active listening and the clear formulation of ideas and rules for constructive feedback should form part of cooperative learning.

(4) Decisions: The group makes these together, and there are different options here:

• Open discussions ensure that all viewpoints are taken into account.
• Under the consensus principle, the group works out a solution together that everyone can support. Both processes can be time-consuming and labour-intensive.
• What is quicker is the consent principle, according to which a decision counts as long as no one has a significant objection to it (Fach, 2026).
• Furthermore, a show of hands or thumb check are suitable in the case of less important decisions.

(5) Milestones establish interim outcomes and deadlines. They provide a helpful opportunity to evaluate group progress, discuss any obstacles or challenges that arise, and find solutions.

Group work cannot be successful without help. Lecturers have to distribute roles and clarify processes as well as supervise the learning process. This creates the conditions for cooperative learning to realise its full potential.

Birgit Hawelka

+ postsBio ⮌

Dr. Birgit Hawelka is a research associate at the center for University and Academic Teaching at the University of Regensburg. Her research and teaching focuses on the topics of teaching quality and evaluation. She is also curious about all developments and findings in the field of university teaching.

• Birgit Hawelka

  Brief feedback, great added value: Three methods for teaching at university
• Birgit Hawelka

  The devil is in the detail: Cognitive strategies in higher education
• Birgit Hawelka

  Ward rounds, responsibility and vision: Professor Dr. Martina Müller-Schilling talks about sustainable teaching in medicine
• Birgit Hawelka

  Myth or added value? Four teaching-learning effects in a fact check

Regine Bachmaier

+ postsBio ⮌

Dr. Regine Bachmaier is a research associate at the Centre for University and Academic Teaching (ZHW) at the University of Regensburg. She supports teachers in the field of “digital teaching”, among other things, through workshops and individual counseling. In addition, she tries to keep up to date with the latest developments in the field of “digital teaching” and pass them on.

• Regine Bachmaier

  Out onto the grass: Teaching outdoors
• Regine Bachmaier

  Myth or added value? Four teaching-learning effects in a fact check
• Regine Bachmaier

  Science communication: Connection between research and society
• Regine Bachmaier

  Universities between monitoring and justice. 4 scenarios for the future of higher education

Linda Puppe

+ postsBio ⮌

Dr. Linda Puppe is a research assistant at the Centre for University and Academic Teaching (ZHW) at the University of Regensburg. She focuses on the topics of innovation in teaching and motivation. Furthermore, she is interested in digital learning environments.

• Linda Puppe

  Error culture as a driver for learning
• Linda Puppe

  Myth or added value? Four teaching-learning effects in a fact check
• Linda Puppe

  The die is cast: The Rubicon model and its relevance for higher education
• Linda Puppe

  Learning as sustainable development: Why universities need to impart more than just knowledge