Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness of competitive Student Team Achievement Division (STAD), non-competitive STAD, and traditional learning on chemistry learning and learning perceptions. Sample, design and methods: By adopting the STAD approach, this study examined 144 nursing students at a five-year junior college in northern Taiwan during the first semester (totaling 18 weeks) of the 2008 academic year. Results: The findings reveal that both a heterogeneous group with external pressure (involving competitive STAD) and a friendship group with affective pressure (involving traditional learning) enhance group cohesion and assist students' meaningful learning; the heterogeneous group without extra pressure (involving non-competitive STAD), by contrast, fails because of apathy and lassitude. Moreover, learning effectiveness will obviously predominate until the learning strategy continues for a long period or at least one semester. Conclusions: This study revealed that the learning performance level of the competitive STAD group is significantly different from that of the non-competitive STAD group; and the learning performance level of the traditional group is significantly different from that of the non-competitive STAD group. Both the competitive STAD group and traditional group of medium ability students are significantly different from the non-competitive STAD group. Low-ability students from the competitive STAD group are significantly different from those of the non-competitive STAD, though no significant differences were found in learning perception. However, both a lack of friendship and a lack of ability in using algorithms may affect students' chemistry learning. Furthermore, gender imbalance, educational culture, and group emotions are factors that may influence student learning performance. Further study should focus on the use of grouping, improve responsibility in group discussion, and investigate group interaction patterns to determine the factors that influence learning performance of students working in groups. (Contains 9 tables and 1 figure.)