Cristin-prosjekt-ID: 2043197
Sist endret: 14. september 2020, 18:14

Cristin-prosjekt-ID: 2043197
Sist endret: 14. september 2020, 18:14

“Student Outcomes of Cooperative Learning Methods in Undergraduate STEM Education: A Scoping Review”


Anja Møgelvang Jacobsen
ved Universitetet i Bergen

prosjekteier / koordinerende forskningsansvarlig enhet

  • Universitetet i Bergen



Pedagogiske fag


Samarbeidslæring • Realfag • Scoping review



  • Doktorgradsprosjekt


Anja Møgelvang Jacobsen


Start: 1. desember 2019 Slutt: 1. desember 2022

Beskrivelse Beskrivelse


“Student Outcomes of Cooperative Learning Methods in Undergraduate STEM Education: A Scoping Review”

Vitenskapelig sammendrag

Preparing students for an uncertain future is a topic of discussion worldwide and the main questions include what skills the students need and how the educational system may help the students develop these skills. Internationally, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has launched The Future of Education and Skills 2030 project (OECD, 2018), and in Norway the White Paper “Working Life Relevance” (Regjeringen, 2019), which is to be presented in 2021, is a clear testimony to the responsibility of higher education to address these questions. In order to meet these changing needs, the Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences at the University of Bergen (UiB) is now redesigning its bachelor programs (Arbeidsgruppen, 2019). This redesign has as a specific aim to strengthen the generic skills taught at the faculty through several learning outcomes such as cooperation.

In order to implement an informed and research-based approach to student cooperation, this scoping review (Peters et. al, 2015) aims to identify the student outcomes of cooperative learning methods as described by Johnson & Johnson (1989) and Millis (2010) in undergraduate STEM education. Cooperative learning in the review may be defined as: “...a highly structuredform of group work that focuses on the problem solving that - when directed by an effective teacher – can lead to deep learning and critical thinking.” (Millis, 2010). 

The review is being undertaken as part of the planning for an implementation of cooperative learning methods in undergraduate STEM education at the University of Bergen.




REVIEW QUESTION: What are the student outcomes of cooperative learning methods in undergraduate STEM education?

The review question is based on the PICO model (Petticrew & Roberts, 2006; Gough et. al., 2017) in which the four components (P=Population, I=Intervention, C=Comparison, O=Outcome) guide the review question. The PICO model applied on the question of this review creates the following components:

Population = Students in undergraduate STEM educatio

Intervention = Exposure to cooperative learning methods

Comparison = Not relevant

Outcome = Academic achievement, generic skills, psycho-social benefits etc.


Time limit: studies from 2010-2020

Language restrictions: English, Danish, Norwegian and Swedish

Databases: ERIC, Proquest Education, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and OpenGrey.

Search strategy, databases: With consideration to both sensitivity and specificity, search strings and descriptors identifying concepts in each of the four main components in the review question (cooperative learning, undergraduate education, STEM courses, outcomes) have been developed. The different concepts in each of the four components are linked by the Boolean operator OR and finally all the concepts in the four components are linked by the Boolean operator AND. Truncation and proximity operators are additional tools used to balance sensitivity and specificity.

Online sources: 


​Search strategy, online sources: Keywords identifying concepts in two of the four components in the review question (cooperative learning and STEM courses)


Titles and abstracts of studies retrieved using the search strategy above will be screened independently by two review authors to identify studies that potentially meet the inclusion criteria outlined in the included table. The full text of these potentially suitable studies will be gathered and independently evaluated by the same two review authors. Possible disagreement between them over the suitability of particular studies will be resolved through discussion with a third reviewer.

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) (Moher, 2009) flow diagram for the scoping review process will be provided and a standardized form will be used to charter data from the included studies for evidence synthesis. Charted information will include author(s), year of publication, study setting, study purpose, subject discipline, intervention type and details, study methodology, outcome(s) and outcome measurements, results and conclusions relating to the review question.


As this review is a scoping review, a quality assessment is not conducted. 


Based on a sample matrix for review, we will provide a narrative synthesis of the findings from the included studies. The synthesis will be structured around the type of intervention, target population characteristics, type of outcome and intervention content.




Anja Møgelvang Jacobsen

  • Tilknyttet:
    ved Universitetet i Bergen

Anne Grete Danielsen

  • Tilknyttet:
    ved Universitetet i Bergen
1 - 2 av 2