Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-x4r87 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T09:35:29.632Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

20 - Collaborative Learning

The Benefits and Costs

from Part IV - General Learning Strategies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 February 2019

By
Timothy J. Nokes-Malach ,
Cristina D. Zepeda ,
J. Elizabeth Richey  and
Soniya Gadgil
Edited by
John Dunlosky  and
Katherine A. Rawson
John Dunlosky
Affiliation:
Kent State University, Ohio
Katherine A. Rawson
Affiliation:
Kent State University, Ohio
Get access

Summary

In this chapter, we examine and review the key factors that support or inhibit productive collaboration. We draw from multiple approaches, including cognitive, social, educational and sociocultural perspectives, to understand the potential benefits and costs of collaborative learning. We then review the results from these approaches in which we separate the benefits from the costs and discuss the cognitive and social mechanisms proposed to account for those outcomes. We then describe four theoretical frameworks that incorporate some of these mechanisms and the implications of the findings for instruction and future research.
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Cognition and Education , pp. 500 - 527
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andersson, J. & Rönnberg, J. (1995). Recall suffers from collaboration: Joint recall effects of friendship and task complexity. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9(3), 199–211.Google Scholar
Arthur, W. Jr., Day, E. A., Bennett, W. Jr., McNelly, T. L., & Jordan, J. A. (1997). Dyadic versus individual training protocols: Loss and reacquisition of a complex skill. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(5), 783–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barber, S. J., Rajaram, S., & Aron, A. (2010). When two is too many: Collaborative encoding impairs memory. Memory and Cognition, 38(3), 255–264.Google Scholar
Barron, B. (2000). Achieving coordination in collaborative problem-solving groups. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(4), 403–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(3), 307–359.Google Scholar
Basden, B. H., Basden, D. R., Bryner, S., & Thomas III, R. L. (1997). A comparison of group and individual remembering: Does collaboration disrupt retrieval strategies? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23(5), 1176–1189.Google Scholar
Basden, D. R., Basden, B. H., & Galloway, B. C. (1977). Inhibition with part-list cuing: Some tests of the item strength hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 3, 100–108.Google Scholar
Bloodgood, J. W. (2002). Quintilian: A classic educator speaks to the writing process. Reading, Research, and Instruction, 42(1), 30–43.Google Scholar
Blumen, H. M. & Stern, Y. (2011). Short-term and long-term collaboration benefits on individual recall in younger and older adults. Memory and Cognition, 39(1), 147–154.Google Scholar
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 32–42.Google Scholar
Buchs, C., Butera, F., Mugny, G., & Darnon, C. (2004). Conflict elaboration and cognitive outcomes. Theory into Practice, 43, 23–30.Google Scholar
Butera, F. & Darnon, C. (2017). Competence assessment, social comparison, and conflict regulation. In Elliot, A. J. & Dweck, C. S. (eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation: Theory and application (pp. 192–213). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Canham, M. S., Wiley, J., & Mayer, R. E. (2012). When diversity in training improves dyadic problem solving. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26, 421–430.Google Scholar
Chi, M. T. H. (2009). Active-constructive-interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(1), 73–105.Google Scholar
Chi, M. T. H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13, 145–182.Google Scholar
Chi, M. T. H., de Leeuw, N., Chiu, M. H., & LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439–477.Google Scholar
Chi, M. T. H. & Wiley, R. (2014). The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 49(4), 219–243Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. & Brennan, S. E. (1991). Grounding in communication. In Resnick, L. B., Levine, J. M., & Teasley, S. D. (eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 127–149). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Cohen, G. L., Garcia, J., Apfel, N., & Master, A. (2006). Reducing the racial achievement gap: A social-psychological intervention. Science, 313, 1307–1310.Google Scholar
Collaros, P. A. & Anderson, L. R. (1969). Effect of perceived expertness upon creativity of members of brainstorming groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53(2), 159–163.Google Scholar
Congleton, A. R. & Rajaram, S. (2011). The influence of learning methods on collaboration: Prior repeated retrieval enhances retrieval organization, abolishes collaborative inhibition, and promotes post-collaborative memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140(4), 535–551.Google Scholar
Crooks, S. M., Klein, J. D., Savenye, W., & Leader, L. (1998). Effects of cooperative and individual learning during learner-controlled computer-based instruction. The Journal of Experimental Education, 66(3), 223–244.Google Scholar
Darnon, C., Buchs, C., Butera, F. (2002). Epistemic and relational conflicts in sharing identical vs. complementary information during cooperative learning. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 61(3), 139–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darnon, C., Muller, D., Schrager, S. M., Pannuzzo, N., & Butera, F. (2006). Mastery and performance goals predict epistemic and relational conflict regulation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(4), 766–776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Dreu, C. K. & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 741–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deutsch, M. (1949). A theory of cooperation and competition. Human relations, 2, 129–152.Google Scholar
Deutsch, M. (1973). The resolution of conflict. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Diehl, M. & Stroebe, W. (1987). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of a riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 497–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dillenbourg, P., Baker, M., Blaye, A., & O’Malley, C. (1996). The evolution of research on collaborative learning. In Spada, E. & Reiman, P. (eds.), Learning in humans and machine: Towards an interdisciplinary learning science (pp. 189–211). Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Doise, W. & Mugny, G. (1984). The social development of the intellect. International Series in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 10. London: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Engle, R. A. & Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20(4), 399–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ericsson, K. A. & Kintsch, W. (1995). Long term working memory. Psychological Review, 102, 211–245.Google Scholar
Finlay, F., Hitch, G. J., & Meudell, P. R. (2000). Mutual inhibition in collaborative recall: Evidence for a retrieval-based account. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(6), 1556–1567.Google Scholar
Gadgil, S. & Nokes‐Malach, T. J. (2012). Overcoming collaborative inhibition through error correction: A classroom experiment. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26(3), 410–420.Google Scholar
Geen, R. G. (1983). Evaluation apprehension and the social facilitation/inhibition of learning. Motivation and Emotion, 7(2), 203–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldbeck, S. L. & El-Moslimany, H. (2013). Developmental approaches to collaborative learning. In Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Chinn, A., Chan, C. K. K., & O’Donnel, A. M. (eds.), The international handbook of collaborative learning (pp. 41–56). New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Greeno, J. G. (1998). The situativity of knowing, learning, and research. American Psychologist, 53, 5–26.Google Scholar
Greeno, J. & The Middle-School Mathematics through Applications Project Group (MMAP). (1997). Theories and practices of thinking and learning to think. American Journal of Education, 106(1), 85–126.Google Scholar
Hadwin, A. F., Järvelä, S., & Miller, M. (2011). Self-regulated, co-regulated, and socially shared regulation of learning. Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance, 30, 65–84.Google Scholar
Hakkarainen, K., Paavola, S., Kangas, K., & Seitama-Hakkarainen, P. (2013). Sociocultural perspectives on collaborative learning: Toward collaborative knowledge creation. In Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Chinn, C., Chan, C. K. K., & O’Donnell, A. M. (eds.), International handbook of collaborative learning (pp. 57–73). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Harkins, S. G. & Petty, R. E. (1982). Effects of task difficulty and task uniqueness on social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(6), 1214–1229.Google Scholar
Harris, C. B., Barnier, A. J., & Sutton, J. (2013). Shared encoding and the costs and benefits of collaborative recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39(1), 183.Google Scholar
Harris, C. B., Paterson, H. M., & Kemp, R. I. (2008). Collaborative recall and collective memory: What happens when we remember together? Memory, 16(3), 213–230.Google Scholar
Harris, A., Yuill, N., & Luckin, R. (2008). The influence of context-specific and dispositional achievement goals on children’s paired collaborative interaction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(3), 355–374.Google Scholar
Harris, C. B., Keil, P. G., Sutton, J., Barnier, A. J., & McIlwain, D. J. F. (2011). We remember, we forget: Collaborative remembering in older couples. Discourse Processes, 48, 267–303.Google Scholar
Hill, G. W. (1982). Group versus individual performance: Are n + 1 heads better than one. Psychological Bulletin, 91(3), 517–539.Google Scholar
Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Chinn, C. A., Chan, C. K. K., & O’Donnell, A. (eds.). (2013). The international handbook of collaborative learning. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jeong, H. (2013). Verbal data analysis for understanding interactions. In Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Chinn, C., Chan, C. K. K., & O’Donnell, A. M. (eds.), International handbook of collaborative learning (pp. 57–73). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.Google Scholar
Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (1994). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning, 4th edn. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An educational psychology success story: Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational Researcher, 39(5), 365–379.Google Scholar
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1998). Active learning: Cooperation in the college classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.Google Scholar
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. (2007). The state of cooperative learning in postsecondary and professional settings. Educational Psychology Review, 19(1), 15–29.Google Scholar
Karau, S. J. & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(4), 681–706.Google Scholar
Kelley, M. R. & Wright, D. B. (2010). Obtaining representative nominal groups. Behavior Research Methods, 42(1), 36–41.Google Scholar
Kerr, N. L. & Tindale, R. S. (2004). Group performance and decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 623–655.Google Scholar
Kim, Y. (2008). The contribution of collaborative and individual tasks to the acquisition of L2 vocabulary. The Modern Language Journal, 92(1), 114–130.Google Scholar
Kirschner, F., Paas, F., & Kirschner, P. A. (2009a). A cognitive load approach to collaborative learning: United brains for complex tasks. Educational Psychology Review, 21(1), 31–42.Google Scholar
Kirschner, F., Paas, F., & Kirschner, P. A. (2009b). Individual and group based learning from complex cognitive tasks: Effects on retention and transfer efficiency. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 306–314.Google Scholar
Kirschner, F., Paas, F., & Kirschner, P. A. (2011). Task complexity as a driver for collaborative learning efficiency: the collective working-memory effect. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25(4), 615–624.Google Scholar
Kolloffel, B., Eysink, T. H., & de Jong, T. (2011). Comparing the effects of representational tools in collaborative and individual inquiry learning. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(2), 223–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kravitz, D. A. & Martin, B. (1986). Ringelmann rediscovered: The original article. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(5), 936–941.Google Scholar
Latané, B., Williams, K., & Harkins, S. (1979). Many hands make light the work: The causes and consequences of social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(6), 822–832.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laughlin, P. R., Carey, H. R., & Kerr, N. L. (2008). Group-to-individual problem-solving transfer. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 11(3), 319–330.Google Scholar
Laughlin, P. R., Hatch, E. C., Silver, J. S., & Boh, L. (2006). Groups perform better than the best individuals on letters-to-numbers problems: Effects of group size. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(4), 644–651.Google Scholar
Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leidner, D. E. & Fuller, M. (1997). Improving student learning of conceptual information: GSS supported collaborative learning vs. individual constructive learning. Decision Support Systems, 20(2), 149–163.Google Scholar
Lewin, K. (1935). A dynamic theory of personality. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Lewin, K. (1948). Resolving social conflict. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
Lorge, I., Fox, D., Davitz, J., & Brenner, M. (1958). A survey of studies contrasting the quality of group performance and individual performance. Psychological Bulletin, 55, 337–372.Google Scholar
Matsui, T., Kakuyama, T., & Onglatco, M. U. (1987). Effects of goals and feedback on performance in groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 407–415.Google Scholar
Meade, M. L., Nokes, T. J., & Morrow, D. G. (2009). Expertise promotes facilitation on a collaborative memory task. Memory, 17(1), 39–48.Google Scholar
Meade., M. L. & Roediger, H. L. (2002). Explorations in the social contagion of memory. Memory and Cognition, 30 (7), 995–1009.Google Scholar
Mevarech, Z. R. (1985). The effects of cooperative mastery learning strategies on mathematics achievement. The Journal of Educational Research, 78(6), 372–377.Google Scholar
Mugny, G., De Paolis, P., & Carugati, F. (1984). Social regulations in cognitive development. ln Doise, W. & Palmonari, A. (eds.), Social interaction in individual development (pp. 127–146). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mullen, B. (1983). Operationalizing the effect of the group on the individual: A self-attention perspective. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19(4), 295–322.Google Scholar
Mullen, B. (1987). Self-attention theory. In Mullen, B. & Goethals, G. R. (eds.), Theories of group behaviour (pp. 125–146). New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Nokes-Malach, T. J., Meade, M. L., & Morrow, D. G. (2012). The effect of expertise on collaborative problem solving. Thinking and Reasoning, 18(1), 32–58.Google Scholar
Nokes-Malach, T. J., Richey, J. E., & Gadgil, S. (2015). When is it better to learn together? Insights from research on collaborative learning. Educational Psychology Review, 27(4), 645–656.Google Scholar
O’Donnell, A. M. (1999). Structuring dyadic interaction through scripted cooperation. In O’Donnell, A. M. & King, A. (eds.), Cognitive perspectives on peer learning (pp. 179–196). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
O’Donnell, A. M. & Hmelo-Silver, H. E. (2013). What is collaborative learning: An overview. In Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Chinn, C. A., Chan, C. K. K., & O’Donnell, A. (eds.), The international handbook of collaborative learning (pp. 1–15). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Okada, T. & Simon, H. A. (1997). Collaborative discovery in a scientific domain. Cognitive Science, 21(2), 109–146.Google Scholar
Pereira-Pasarin, L. & Rajaram, S. (2011). Study repetition and divided attention: Effects of encoding manipulations on collaborative inhibition in group recall. Memory and Cognition, 39, 968–976.Google Scholar
Petty, R. E., Harkins, S. G., Williams, K. D., & Latane, B. (1977). The effects of group size on cognitive effort and evaluation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 3(4), 579–582.Google Scholar
Piaget, J. (1932). The language and thought of the child, 2nd edn. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Piaget, J. (1950). The psychology of intelligence. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Piaget, J. (1975/1985). The equilibration of cognitive structures: The central problem of intellectual development. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Paulus, P. B. & Yang, H. C. (2000). Idea generation in groups: A basis for creativity in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82, 76–87.Google Scholar
Poortvliet, P. M., Janssen, O., Van Yperen, N. W., & Van de Vliert, E. (2007). Achievement goals and interpersonal behavior: How mastery and performance goals shape information exchange. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(10), 1435–1447.Google Scholar
Rajaram, S. & Pereira-Pasarin, L. P. (2010). Collaborative memory: Cognitive research and theory. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(6), 649–663.Google Scholar
Ringelmann, M. (1913). Recherches sur les moteurs animes: Travail de rhomme [Research on animate sources of power: The work of man]. Annales de I’lnstitut National Agronomique, 12, 1–40.Google Scholar
Roediger, H. L. & Butler, A. C. (2011). The critical role of retrieval practice in long-term retention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(1), 20–27.Google Scholar
Roediger, H. L. & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). The power of testing memory: Basic research and implications for educational practice. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 181–210.Google Scholar
Roediger, H. L., Meade, M. L., & Bergman, E. T. (2001). Social contagion of memory. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 8(2), 365–371.Google Scholar
Roschelle, J. (1992). Learning by collaborating: Convergent conceptual change. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(3), 235–276.Google Scholar
Roschelle, J. & Teasley, S. D. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In O’Malley, C. (ed.), Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (pp. 69–197). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Rummel, N. & Spada, H. (2005). Learning to collaborate: An instructional approach to promoting collaborative problem solving in computer-mediated settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14, 201–241.Google Scholar
Sampson, V. & Clark, D. (2009). The impact of collaboration on the outcomes of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 93(3), 448–484.Google Scholar
Sawyer, R. D. (2013). Learning to walk the talk: Designing a teacher leadership EdD program as a laboratory of practice. Planning and Changing, 44(3/4), 208–220.Google Scholar
Schwartz, D. L. (1995). The emergence of abstract representations in dyad problem solving. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4, 321–354.Google Scholar
Schwarz, B. B., Neuman, Y., & Biezuner, S. (2000). Two wrongs may make a right … if they argue together! Cognition and Instruction, 18(4), 461–494.Google Scholar
Sherman, D. K., Hartson, K. A., Binning, K. R., Purdie-Vaughns, V., Garcia, J., Taborsky-Barba, S., … Cohen, G. L. (2013). Deflecting the trajectory and changing the narrative: How self-affirmation affects academic performance and motivation under identity threat. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(4), 591–618.Google Scholar
Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice, 2nd edn. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
Slavin, R., Leavey, M., & Madden, N. (1984). Combining cooperative learning and individualized instruction: Effects on student mathematics achievement, attitudes, and behaviors. Elementary School Journal, 84, 409–422.Google Scholar
Springer, L., Stanne, M. E., & Donovan, S. S. (1999). Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 69(1), 21–51.Google Scholar
Souvignier, E. & Kronenberger, J. (2007). Cooperative learning in third graders’ jigsaw groups for mathematics and science with and without questioning training. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(4), 755–771.Google Scholar
Steiner, I. D. (1966). Models for inferring the relationships between group size and potential group productivity. Behavioral Science, 11, 273–283.Google Scholar
Steiner, I. D. (1972). Group processes and productivity. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Stevens, R. J. & Slavin, R. E. (1995). Effects of a cooperative learning approach in reading and writing on academically handicapped students. The Elementary School Journal, 95(3), 241–262.Google Scholar
Stevens, R. J., Slavin, R. E., & Farnish, A. M. (1991). The effects of cooperative learning and direct instruction in reading comprehension strategies on main idea identification. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(1), 8–16.Google Scholar
Stewart, G. L. (2006). A meta-analytic review of relationships between team design features and team performance. Journal of management, 32(1), 29–55.Google Scholar
Teasley, S. D. (1995). The role of talk in children’s peer collaborations. Developmental Psychology, 31 (2), 207–220.Google Scholar
Teasley, S. D. & Roschelle, J. (1993). Constructing a joint problem space: The computer as a tool for sharing knowledge. In Lajoie, S. P. & Derry, S. J. (eds.), Computers as cognitive tools (pp. 229–258). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Tudge, J. (1989). When collaboration leads to regression: Some negative consequences of socio-cognitive conflict. European Journal of Social Psychology, 19(2), 123–138.Google Scholar
Tudge, J. R. H. & Winterhoff, P. A. (1993). Vygotsky, Piaget, and Bandura: Perspectives on the relations between the social world and cognitive development. Human Development, 36, 61–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanderlinde, R. & van Braak, J. (2010). The gap between educational research and practice: Views of teachers, school leaders, intermediaries and researchers, British Educational Research Journal, 36(2), 299–316.Google Scholar
Voiklis, J. & Corter, J. E. (2012). Conventional wisdom: Negotiating conventions of reference enhances category learning. Cognitive Science, 36(4), 607–634.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Webb, N. M., Troper, J. D., & Fall, R. (1995). Constructive activity and learning in collaborative small groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 406–423.Google Scholar
Weigold, A., Russell, E. J., & Natera, S. N. (2014). Correction of false memory for associated word lists by collaborating groups. The American Journal of Psychology, 127(2), 183–190.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weldon, M.S. & Bellinger, K.D. (1997). Collective memory: Collaborative and individual processes in remembering. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23, 1160–1175.Google Scholar
Wright, D. B. (2007). Calculating nominal group statistics in collaboration studies. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 460–470.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×