The discussion about cooperative learning is widespread both as theoretical concept in learning science research and as empirical question for classroom organisation. Embedded in an interactional theory of learning mathematics, in this paper cooperative learning is discussed as a theoretical question for a general understanding how children learn in cooperative learning settings. The theory is following the main ideas of symbolic interactionism as implemented in mathematical education by a group of American and German researchers (Cobb/Bauersfeld 1995). The theoretical consideration of this paper based on a teaching experiment concerning the jigsaw cooperation (e.g. Aronson/Patnoe 1997) with young students in a German second grade class (7-8 year olds). On the theoretical level the participation structures of these peer interactions were described by using Goffman’s idea of decomposition the speaker’s and the hearer’s role (Goffman 1981). Within the discussion of cooperative learning it is accepted that adjusted construction of the tasks and pre-structuring the interaction by special cooperation requirements as well as the general classroom culture inspire the participation space for the cooperation (cf. van Boxtel 2004). Nevertheless, the success or failure of the cooperation and the embedded learning conditions for content related learning depends considerable from the individual participation forms and their interplay (Brandt 2007;cf. Dekker/Elshout-Mohr/Wood 2006). The students must regulate several aspects of the ongoing interaction process which includes the framing of the situation as a learning situation. Concerning the special cooperation requirements of jigsaw the students must cope with different graduates of symmetry and asymmetry in the different working phases, namely a more symmetric ‘learning together’ (collaboration) in the expert group and a more asymmetric ‘teaching the others’ (peer tutoring) in the puzzle group. Taking Goffman’s (1981) idea of decomposition the speaker’s and the hearer’s role this appreciation of learning and teaching to pre-set phases of the jigsaw form will be transfer in a more interweaved delineation.

The research is design-based which means the object of investigation is the real-world-practice (e.g. Barab/Squire 2004). Following the ideas of symbolic interactionism the study uses qualitative methods for the analysis on a micro-level. The basic analysis method is a turn-by-turn reconstruction of the interaction process that originates from the ethnomethodological conversation analysis. In addition we reconstruct the participation structure by decomposing the everyday concepts ‘hearer’ and ‘speaker’ into more detailed analytical elements like Goffman (1981) demands for a careful investigation of discourses. For the receptive participation four states of recipients can be distinguished within the accessibility of the statement: interlocutor, listener, overhearer und eavesdropper (Brandt 1998). For the production part we follow Levinson’s (1988) linguistic revision of Goffman’s idea and decompose each utterance in three analytical aspects: a) appearance, b) formulation and c) idea. Each utterance contains all aspects. Four ways of active productive participation can be distinguished by taking into consideration the responsibility for the own contribution (+appearance): author (+formulation, +idea) ghostee (-formulation, +idea), spokesman (+formulation, -idea) and relayer (-formulation, -idea) (c.f. Brandt 2007, Krummheuer 2007). Each interactive process is keeping alive by balancing the “footing” (Goffman 1981) with respect the challenge of the interaction – and the success of group work among students depends on the fact how the differing ideas can be associated with each other in the interactive process and how every student is involved in the negotiation process as recipient.

Our analyses of jigsaw working groups in real classroom situations show that even young students are able to manage their collaboration towards to a content related learning, also the requirements of the jigsaw are still higher than in the pair cooperation interaction (c.f. Dekker et. a.). But not all groups deal successfully with these demands. A closer look to the participation structure of an ‘effective’ expert group highlights the force of the individual participation of an single female student in this group. She established herself as a favour interlocutor, picking up the contributions of the other students as a ghostee or as a spokesman, but without own ideas for the solution of the task. In this way, she was ‘teaching’ the others in the expert group by supporting them to improve their solutions (level raising). On the other hand, in the subsequent puzzle group, she imitates a lecture addressing the others students as listener without chance for own contributions. With the acceptance of these listeners she constitutes a learning environment for her self, referring to the solution of her expert group as a spokesman, but integrating reflections about the solutions process as a creator. These observations on the micro-level of the interaction processes fits to the expert effect of learning in jigsaw groups (c.f. Souvignier/Kronenberg 2007).