Cooperative Learning
n Characteristics of Cooperative Learning
n
Is
Cooperative Learning Effective?
Grouping by Ability
n Within-class Ability Grouping
n Between-class Ability Grouping
n Flexible Grouping Methods
1. Discuss the pros and cons of within-class and between-class ability grouping.
2.
Discuss
the advantages of flexible grouping methods.
3.
Identify
the characteristics of cooperative learning and discuss the
effectiveness of this approach.
Applications: Best Practices
n Elementary School: Using Within-class
Ability Grouping Effectively
n Middle School and High School: To Track or Not to Track
n
Using
Cooperative Learning Effectively
4.
Describe
effective practices for addressing student differences in elementary
and secondary education and for implementing cooperative learning.
Summary Key Concepts Case Studies: Reflect and Evaluate
boh7850x_CL6Mod21.p372-385.indd 372 boh7850x_CL6Mod21.p372-385.indd 372 10/9/08 9:03:43 AM
10/9/08 9:03:43 AM
Within-Class
Ability Grouping.
This method is commonly used in elementary schools for teaching
reading and math.
module twenty-one grouping practices 373
Grouping
Practices
Module 21 :
A primary challenge for teachers is resolving how to deal with differences in their students’ prior knowledge and achievement levels. When students in a group show variation on an attribute, such as achievement or ability, it is called heterogeneity. When little variability occurs among students on an attribute, it is referred to as homogeneity. Historically, the first attempt at reducing heterogeneity among children was the transition from the one-room schoolhouse to grouping by age, now called grades. Grouping by age, an innovation of the nineteenth century, still left a great deal of variability in student ability within each grade (Goodlad & Anderson, 1987).
Starting around 1900 and through most of the twentieth century, ability grouping was a common practice for reducing heterogeneity (Barr, 1995; Mills & Durden, 1992). Ability grouping is a method of creating groups of students who are homogeneous in achievement or ability. Cooperative learning, a more recent approach, is a method of grouping students to work collaboratively, that typically involves mixing students of different achievement levels within each group. Although students within ability groups also may work collaboratively, ability grouping creates a more competitive atmosphere than does cooperative learning. The segregation of students into distinct groups of higher- and lower-achievers often results in higher- and lower-achievers experiencing different teacher expectations and working toward different learning goals, usually with different curricula (Weinstein, 1993).
The
distinction between ability grouping and cooperative learning does
not necessarily mean that one grouping structure is better than the
other. In choosing a grouping structure to address heterogeneity in
student ability, teachers need to consider many factors, both
academic and socioemotional. Let’s examine the different approaches
and discuss some best practices for grouping students.
The aim of ability grouping is to enhance learning for students of all ability levels by allowing teachers to adapt learning goals, activities and materials, and the pace of instruction to meet the specific needs of students within each particular group or class. When ability grouping is implemented correctly, students of all ability levels show achievement gains (Fielder, Lange, & Winebrenner, 1993; Shields, 1995; Slavin & Madden, 1989). Students from minority groups and economically disadvantaged backgrounds also benefit from well-implemented ability grouping (Lynch & Mills, 1990).
Teachers may decide whether to use ability grouping based partly on their beliefs about the approach (Chorzempa & Graham, 2006). Beliefs aside, in order to objectively evaluate the benefits of ability grouping, we should consider two key questions:
1. How effective is ability grouping?
2.
Are the advantages (and disadvantages) of ability grouping the same
for all students?
Within-class Ability Grouping
Within-class ability grouping is the practice of dividing students within a self-contained classroom into groups that are homogeneous in ability. This type of grouping is common practice for reading instruction—and sometimes math instruction—in the elementary grades. For example, a teacher might divide the class into high-, average-, and low-achieving groups for reading, devoting time to each group for read-aloud and comprehension activities while students from other reading groups complete independent seat work. While within-class ability grouping still is commonly used for reading instruction in the early grades, current trends show a movement toward whole-class reading instruction (Baumann, Hoffman, Duffy-Hester, & Moon Ro, 2000; Chorzempa & Graham, 2006).
Research has shown that within-class ability grouping has positive effects on student learning compared to other methods.
boh7850x_CL6Mod21.p372-385.indd 373 boh7850x_CL6Mod21.p372-385.indd 373 10/9/08 9:03:48 AM
10/9/08 9:03:48 AM
374
cluster
six
classroom
management and instruction
n
Within-class
ability grouping generally is more effective than traditional
teacher-led whole-class instruction, heterogeneous grouping, or
individual seat work (Kulik & Kulik, 1992; Lou et al., 1996).
n
It
is also more effective than individualized mastery learning (Lou et
al., 1996). Mastery
learning
is a practice in which teachers present a lesson and test students.
Students who fail to meet a preset mastery criterion (e.g., 80% on
the test) receive additional instruction, while students who exceed
the criterion do enrichment activities.
n Ability grouping for math and science, in particular, is more effective than heterogeneous instruction (Lou et al., 1996). Math and science instruction, more than other disciplines, is hierarchical, meaning that new concepts and skills often build on earlier content. Within-class ability grouping allows teachers to specifically tailor instruction to the current achievement level of students in each group. In mixed-ability classes, in contrast, math instruction may cover some material that lower-ability students have not yet learned and higher-ability students have already mastered.
While ability grouping does not appear to have detrimental effects on students’ self-esteem, it does promote the achievement of some students over that of others (Kulik & Kulik, 2004). Students from higher ability groups and gifted students benefit most from within-class ability grouping (Kulik & Kulik, 1990, 1992). Average students tend to benefit some from ability grouping, while lower-achieving students benefit more from heterogeneous grouping (Lou et al., 1996). Thus, a major criticism of ability grouping is that it widens the gap between high and low achievers (Calfee & Brown, 1979; Hiebert, 1983; Moody, Vaughn, & Schumm, 1997).
The gap between ability groups may widen partly because students in lower and higher groups receive different levels and paces of instruction. Compared to students in higher reading groups, students in lower reading groups spend more time reading orally and being read to by the teacher, spend less time reading silently, and spend more time on rote learning of skills than on comprehension, discussion, and interpretation (Allington, 1983; Chorzempa & Graham, 2006). Teachers also tend to interrupt oral reading to correct errors more often with students in lower reading groups, slowing the pace of instruction (Allington, 1980, 1983). As a consequence, students in different ability groups get different amounts of practice (Biemiller, 1977/1978; Juel, 1988; Nagy & Anderson, 1984). Students in higher groups read about three to four times as many words per day as those in lower groups (Allington, 1984; Biemiller, 1977/1978). Grouping students for reading, coupled with more out-of-school reading practice by good readers than by below-average readers, creates a so-called Matthew effect—above-average readers increase their reading achievement at a faster rate than below-average readers (Stanovich, 1986).
In
addition, within-class ability grouping seriously disadvantages
minority students and students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds.
Students from higher socioeconomic backgrounds usually make up the
highest ability groups, while students from lower-income families or
from minority groups typically are placed in lower ability groups
(Chunn, 1989). Many factors may influence these placement decisions,
including teacher expectations, past performance, and standardized
test scores.
>><<
Mastery:
See page 361.
Between-class Ability Grouping
Between-class ability grouping (also called tracking) is a common practice in high school and sometimes middle school, in which students are placed into homogeneous classes based on their level of achievement. Depending on the district or school, a student’s past grades or test scores in a single subject (e.g., math or language arts) may be used to determine placement in a track, or a combination of scores or grades from several subjects may be used. Students’ ability group placement in elementary school is often another criterion for determining placement in middle school or high school (Moore & Davenport, 1988; Rist, 1970; Rosenbaum, 1980). A student who was in the low reading group in elementary school is likely to be placed in a lower track in middle school or high school. Based on the selected criteria, students are assigned to curriculum tracks (e.g., honors, college prep,
Matthew Effect. Good readers, like the boy shown here, read more often outside of school and increase their reading skills at a faster rate than below-average readers.
boh7850x_CL6Mod21.p372-385.indd 374 boh7850x_CL6Mod21.p372-385.indd 374 10/9/08 9:03:53 AM
10/9/08 9:03:53 AM
module
twenty-one
grouping
practices 375
Schedule
for a high track:
remedial/vocational) in which all their classes—English, math, science, history, and so on—are with students of similar ability. Figure 21.1 shows a sample schedule for a student in a high track and a student in a low track.
One
criticism of tracking is that it reinforces racial and
socioeconomic segregation. As discussed earlier, students from
minority groups and impoverished backgrounds frequently are placed
into lower ability groups in elementary school. Because tracking
decisions in middle school and high school are based partly on past
group placement in elementary school, students who are African
American, Latino, or Native American and students from low-income
environments are disproportionately assigned to lower tracks
(Darling-Hammond, 1995;
Loveless,
1999; Oakes, 1992).
Before
discussing the effects of tracking on students, we should
remember that the effects are caused not by tracking itself but by
the different experiences students have in their respective tracks.
Tracking affects higher- and lower-achieving students differently
partly because of the different approaches teachers use (Gamoran,
1992; Wheelcock, 1992). Students in gifted programs, honors classes,
and advanced placement courses clearly benefit from tracking (Kulik
& Kulik, 2004; Robinson & Clinkenbeard, 1998). Teachers use
different instructional approaches with gifted students than they do
with students who are not gifted, providing enrichment and
accelerated instruction that have been shown to be effective in
teaching gifted students (Brown, 1993; Rogers, 2002). Teachers of
higher-track students (Finley, 1984; Oakes, 1985, 1990b):
n spend more time preparing lessons,
n use more interesting instructional materials,
n give more demanding and longer reading assignments,
n present more complex material, and
n
convey
more enthusiasm in their teaching.
In contrast, students in lower tracks often are offered fewer courses in English, math, and science (Darling-Hammond, 1995; Loveless, 1999). Their classes also are characterized by low-level instruction, rote drills, and a lack of higher-level content (Banks, 2006; Gamoran, 1990; Oakes, 1992). As a result, tracking leads to a clear academic advantage for students in high tracks.
Research indicates that students in middle and lower tracks experience a small disadvantage due to tracking (Kulik & Kulik, 2004). However, looking at the overall effects of tracking—by comparing higher-track and lower-track students—does not give the entire picture. The effects of tracking vary depending on factors such as subject matter and gender.
In some subjects that are hierarchical, such as math, tracking may benefit even students in the lower tracks. Research on approximately 1,052 schools and 24,000 students in middle school indicates that tracking has a positive effect on math achievement for students of all ability levels (Mulkey, Catsambis, Steelman, & Crain, 2005). This finding supports previous research indicating that middle school students in mixed-ability (nontracked) algebra classes did not learn as much as students in tracked algebra classes (Epstein & MacIver, 1992).
Tracking also may affect males and females differently. In middle school, high-achieving males tend to have lower aspirations than high-achieving females when tracked for English and math (Catsambis,
Name:
Darcy Lindquist Homeroom Teacher: Ms. Benoit
English: Honors English Composition Math: Algebra II Science: Biology Foreign Language: Honors Spanish I Elective: American Government
Grouping
Practices
Module 21 :
Level: Freshman Homeroom Number: 214
Schedule
for School Year 2009–2010
Schedule for a low track:
Name:
David Holmes Homeroom Teacher: Mrs. Klein
English: Freshmen Composition Math: Introduction to Algebra Science: Physical Sciences Foreign Language: Spanish I Elective: American Government
Level: Freshman Homeroom Number: 211
Schedule
for School Year 2009–2010
Figure
21.1: Class Schedules for a High-track Student and a Low-track
Student. Students
in higher and lower tracks experience different curricula and teacher
expectations.
Giftedness:
See page 413.
>><<
boh7850x_CL6Mod21.p372-385.indd 375 boh7850x_CL6Mod21.p372-385.indd 375 10/9/08 9:03:56 AM
10/9/08 9:03:56 AM
376
cluster
six
classroom
management and instruction
Mulkey, & Crain, 1999, 2001). In math—a subject considered to be a “male domain”—high-achieving females spend more time on homework, perhaps because they work harder to compete with their male peers. In contrast, males—who place a greater emphasis on social comparisons in male achievement domains—may no longer feel superior to other students when they are placed in higher tracks because they now are grouped with peers of comparable ability (Catsambis et al., 2001; Schwalbe & Staples, 1991). Low-achieving male students placed in low tracks have more positive feelings than do low-achieving females (Catsambis et al., 2001).
Tracking thus may actually have a small positive effect on the self-esteem of students in lower tracks and a small negative effect on the self-esteem of students in higher tracks (Kulik & Kulik, 1992, 2004; Mulkey et al., 2005). Students in higher tracks may experience more negative feelings due to greater competition for grades and comparisons to other high-achieving students (Mulkey et al., 2005). This contradicts a popular belief that students in lower tracks may suffer lower self-esteem due to labeling.
Imagine
that you teach at a school that uses ability grouping. What are the
disadvantages of ability grouping at the grade level you teach? How
might you deal with these when teaching your students?
Flexible Grouping Methods
Flexible grouping methods can be used as alternatives to ability grouping. Like ability grouping, flexible grouping methods reduce the heterogeneity in skill level among students, allowing teachers to tailor instruction to the needs and ability levels of students. Unlike within-class grouping and tracking, however, flexible approaches allow for greater movement of students between ability groups as their achievement changes and thereby avoid the stigmatization of becoming stuck in a low group.
Regrouping is a method in which students receive reading or math instruction in homogeneous groups based on their current skill level but remain in heterogeneous classrooms for all other subjects (Slavin, 1987b). For example, if two second-grade classes have reading at the same time each day, students would go to separate classes, each designed for a specific reading level. Students may be grouped and regrouped continuously as their achievement changes. Regrouping reduces the number of reading or math groups to one whole-class group, alleviating common problems of within-class ability grouping such as the need to manage various groups and assign independent seat work and the stigmatization of students in rigid ability groups (Gutiérrez & Slavin, 1992; Slavin, 1987b). Regrouping has positive effects on achievement when it is implemented for only one or two subjects and when the curriculum and the pace of instruction are modified to meet students’ ability levels (Gutiérrez & Slavin, 1992; Mason & Good, 1993; Slavin, 1987a).
Several nongraded plans organize students flexibly into homogeneous groups across grade or age levels (Gutiérrez & Slavin, 1992). Cross-grade grouping is the simplest form of nongraded plans. Students from different grades are assigned to homogeneous groups based on their reading or math achievement level, and each group works with different curricular materials and different methods (Kulik & Kulik, 1992). Because cross-grade grouping involves many more groups than within-class ability grouping, it allows for group placement and instruction that closely match students’ skill levels (Kulik & Kulik, 2004). For example, in the first and best-known cross-grade grouping plan—the Joplin plan (Floyd, 1954)—fourth through sixth graders were assigned to homogeneous groups that ranged from second- to ninth-grade reading levels (Kulik & Kulik, 2004). Students in cross-grade grouping, particularly lower-achieving students, show small achievement gains over students in mixed-ability instruction (Kulik & Kulik, 2004). Gifted students benefit from cross-grade grouping because it enables them to interact with peers of the same ability level (Kulik, 1992; Rogers, 1993).
On a wider scale, students may be grouped flexibly for multiple subjects, or entire schools may be structured as nongraded, multiage classrooms (Gutiérrez & Slavin, 1992; Slavin 1987a). In multiage classrooms, students of varying ages (e.g., 8, 9, and 10) are grouped within a classroom based on their current achievement, motivation, and interests. This structure reduces heterogeneity among students and fosters a developmentally appropriate curriculum (Gutiérrez & Slavin, 1992; Lloyd, 1999). Consistent with the aims of nongraded plans, this grouping approach benefits student achievement and does not negatively affect socialization or psychosocial adjustment (Gutiérrez & Slavin, 1992; Rogers, 1991). Students in nongraded, multiage classes like school better and have a more developed interpersonal intelligence than do students in graded classes (Anderson & Pavan, 1993; Goodlad & Anderson, 1987; Veenman, 1995).
Note
that multiage
classes are distinct from multigrade
classes. Multigrade
classes,
also called combination classes or split-grade classes, are an
administrative tool for combining grades to address
boh7850x_CL6Mod21.p372-385.indd 376 boh7850x_CL6Mod21.p372-385.indd 376 10/9/08 9:03:57 AM
10/9/08 9:03:57 AM
module
twenty-one
grouping
practices 377
Cooperative
learning as a constructive teaching method: See page 365.
declining enrollments or uneven class sizes (Lloyd, 1999; Veenman, 1997). Students in these classes are exposed to different curricula and therefore maintain separate grade levels. No achievement benefits are to be gained from multigrade classrooms in which students from different grades are taught by the same teacher but separate curricula and grade levels are maintained (Veenman, 1997).
As
a student, would you prefer flexible grouping methods over ability
grouping? What about as a teacher? Why or why not?
Cooperative
learning, a method of grouping students to work collaboratively, has
become an increasingly popular approach in elementary school through
high school education, used by teachers about 7% to 20% of the time
(Johnson & Johnson, 1986). This approach differs from group
work,
in which students work in groups but do not necessarily need to work
cooperatively. Also, in cooperative learning, as opposed to group
work, groups typically are heterogeneous, consisting of low-,
average-, and high-achieving students (Johnson & Johnson, 1986;
Slavin, 1980).
Characteristics of Cooperative Learning
For group work to be considered cooperative learning, it must contain these five elements (Johnson & Johnson, 1999):
1. Positive interdependence.
2. Individual and group accountability. 3. Face-to-face interaction.
4. Interpersonal skills.
5. Group processing.
Positive
interdependence is the most important factor to consider when
structuring a cooperative learning task (Johnson & Johnson, 1998;
Slavin, 1991). Positive
interdependence,
a sense of “sink or swim together,” can be implemented by
(Johnson & Johnson, 1986):
n establishing a group goal specifying that all group members must achieve their learning goals,
n
providing
rewards based on the success of the group (e.g., giving a group
grade, bonus points, or tangible rewards when all group members
achieve their goals),
n distributing limited resources so that cooperation is required,
n assigning each member a specific role in the group project, or
n
dividing
the work so that one member’s assignment is necessary for the next
member to complete his or her assignment.
Individual and group accountability, the second most important element in cooperative learning, refers to a sense of personal responsibility to the group (Johnson & Johnson, 1990). Because students are graded or rewarded as a group (group accountability), individual students are held accountable for completing their share of the work and for helping others work toward achieving the group goals (individual accountability). Accountability can be achieved in a variety of ways, such as randomly selecting one student’s product to represent the group or testing all members on the material they were learning in the group and then averaging the scores (Johnson & Johnson, 1986).
Cooperative learning also requires face-to-face interaction and interpersonal skills. Beyond simply working together, face-to-face interaction requires students to provide each other with effective help and feedback to improve performance, exchange resources effectively, challenge each other’s reasoning, and motivate each other to achieve goals (Johnson & Johnson, 1990). To that end, students need to have interpersonal skills such as trust, communication, decision making, leadership, and conflict resolution. Rather than assume that students possess these skills, teachers should teach and monitor these skills, especially in the elementary grades. They also should include interpersonal skills as objectives of a cooperative learning activity and discuss the collaborative skills needed for students to work successfully in their groups.
Cooperative learning ends not with the completion of the activity but with group processing. In group processing, students identify what was helpful and not helpful and make decisions about what
Grouping
Practices
Module 21 :
>><<
boh7850x_CL6Mod21.p372-385.indd 377 boh7850x_CL6Mod21.p372-385.indd 377 10/9/08 9:03:57 AM
10/9/08 9:03:57 AM
378
cluster
six
classroom
management and instruction
to change before moving on to the next task.
Allowing time for group processing is necessary if cooperative learning is to be effective (Johnson & Johnson, 1990).
Teachers can structure cooperative group activities differently for different purposes (Slavin, 1987b):
1. Johnson methods (named after creators
David
and Roger Johnson): Students work together on a joint activity in
groups having the characteristics just discussed (Johnson &
Johnson, 1975, 1978). For example, a middle school English teacher
who has just finished a lecture on poetic devices and figurative
language may arrange students in cooperative groups and assign each
group a set of poems to compare and contrast, ending with a group
presentation to the class. To be effective, groups should be
heterogeneous and consist of three or four students (Lou et al.,
1996; Marzano, Pickering, & Pollack, 2005). Teachers can
create mixed groups based on criteria such as ability, interests,
gender, or ethnicity.
2.
Jigsaw
method:
Jigsaw was designed to provide an opportunity for interdependence
and cooperation among students from culturally diverse backgrounds
(Aronson, Blaney, Stephan, Sikes, & Snapp, 1978). Each group
member becomes an “expert” on one piece of an assignment and
teaches the other members so the assignment can be completed
collaboratively. Everyone’s contribution is important, and each
member contributes to the attainment of a common goal (Aronson, 2000;
Aronson et al., 1978). For example, fourth-grade students studying
the underground railroad might be assigned different topics for a
cooperative project, such as the lives of slaves, routes that slaves
took to freedom, roles of the abolitionists, and the role of Harriet
Tubman.
3. Skills-focused methods: Students in mixed-ability groups study reading, mathematics, or other academic material and are rewarded based on the achievement of all group members. Examples of several of these methods are shown in Table 21.1.
Have
you participated in group work or cooperative learning? Did you find
either of these beneficial? Why or why not?
Is Cooperative Learning Effective?
Cooperative
learning benefits student achievement more than competitive teaching
methods, which have students compete for high grades or best scores,
and more than individualistic methods, which have students work alone
on tasks (Johnson & Johnson, 1998; Johnson, Maruyama, Johnson,
Nelson, & Skon, 1981). Also, students in cooperative learning
situations (Johnson & Johnson, 1990, 1998; Johnson, Skon, &
Johnson, 1980):
n spend more time on tasks,
n are willing to take on more difficult tasks,
n show persistence on tasks despite difficulties,
n exhibit positive attitudes, and
n demonstrate higher-level reasoning, creative thinking, and long-term retention and transfer of what was learned.
But is cooperative learning beneficial for everyone?
The Lives of
Slaves
Routes that
Slaves
Took to Freedom
Roles of the Abolitionists
Jigsaw
Method.
Each group member is responsible for a piece of the assignment.
The Role of
Harriet Tubman
boh7850x_CL6Mod21.p372-385.indd 378 boh7850x_CL6Mod21.p372-385.indd 378 10/9/08 9:03:58 AM
10/9/08 9:03:58 AM
module
twenty-one
grouping
practices 379
TA B L E 2 1 .1 Skills-based Cooperative Methods Cooperative method Characteristics Student Teams–Achievement Division (STAD) n Four-member teams that are heterogeneous in ability, gender, SES, and ethnicity.
n Group members study together until all members master the material.
n Based on improvement over past quiz scores, each student contributes points to an overall team score.
n Individual high scores and team rankings are recognized in a classroom newsletter.
Teams-Games-Tournament (TGT) n Students earn points for their team by playing in weekly tournaments against members of other teams with similar ability.
n Individual winners and highest-scoring teams are recognized in a newsletter.
Team Assisted Individualization (TAI) n Used for mathematics skills.
n Four- to five-member teams that are heterogeneous in ability.
n Team members complete a series of math units at their own pace, with teammates working in pairs to check each other’s worksheets.
n Test scores and number of tests completed in a week contribute to a team score.
n Certificates are given for improvement over preset team standards of performance.
n Used for reading and writing/language arts.
n Heterogeneous groups are formed by matching pairs of students from one reading level (e.g., above-average) with pairs of students from another reading level (e.g., average).
n
In
cooperative learning groups, students complete indepen dent reading
requirements and work on reading assignments and integrated language
arts/writing assignments.
Sources:
DeVries & Edwards, 1974; Slavin, 1978, 1986; Slavin, Leavey, &
Madden, 1984; Slavin, Madden, & Stevens, 1990; Stevens, Madden,
Slavin, & Farnish, 1987.
Grouping
Practices
Module 21 :
Cooperative Integrated Reading and
Composition model (CIRC)
Cooperative learning tends to benefit low-achieving students most and gifted students least. Low-achieving students from elementary through high school benefit from cooperative learning both academically and socially in subjects such as English, math, science, and social studies (Schachar, 2003). Gifted students, however, do not benefit from cooperative learning activities involving groups of mixed abilities (Feldhusen & Moon, 1992; Fielder et al., 1993). Rather, gifted students who spend at least part of the school day in homogeneous groups show greater achievement than gifted students who are grouped heterogeneously (Kulik & Kulik, 1987).
Gender
and ethnicity also are factors to consider when evaluating the
effectiveness of cooperative learning. Girls and minorities benefit
more from cooperative and hands-on activities in math than do boys
(Peterson & Fennema, 1985). Students who are African American,
Native American, Mexican American, Puerto Rican, Southeast Asian, or
Pacific Islander tend to benefit from cooperative learning
activities (García, 1995; Losey, 1995; Miller, 1995). Cooperative
structures more closely match the family values and practices of
these groups, emphasizing cooperative rewards and group achievements
(García, 1992; Lomawaima, 2003). Cooperative activities also may be
helpful for second-language learners, because these learners have
more opportunity to practice language in this context (Smith,
2006).
boh7850x_CL6Mod21.p372-385.indd 379 boh7850x_CL6Mod21.p372-385.indd 379 10/9/08 9:03:59 AM
10/9/08 9:03:59 AM
380
cluster
six
classroom
management and instruction
Cooperative
learning has many nonacademic benefits as well (Solomon, Watson, &
Battistich, 2001):
n
More
than 80 studies have shown that cooperative learning enhances
self-esteem, especially in students with disabilities (Johnson &
Johnson, 1998; Smith, Johnson, & Johnson, 1982).
n
Cooperative
learning encourages greater achievement motivation and intrinsic
motivation than competitive or individualistic approaches (Johnson &
Johnson, 1985).
n
Because
students in cooperative groups must give and receive personal and
academic support, cooperative learning promotes peer relationships,
enhancing students’ empathy, tolerance for differences, feelings of
acceptance, and friendships (Johnson & Johnson, 1998; Solomon et
al., 2001). It fosters relationships between students with
disabilities and nondisabled students and between students from
different ethnic groups (Aronson, 2000; Johnson & Johnson, 1986;
Salend & Sonnenschein, 1989).
Elementary School: Using Within-class Ability Grouping Effectively
While flexible grouping methods may be more effective than within-class ability grouping for reducing heterogeneity among students and increasing student achievement, within-class grouping remains the norm in many elementary schools. The formation of within-class ability groups requires careful consideration—and frequent reassessment—of each student’s current achievement level. The following guidelines can help ensure that within-class ability grouping is used appropriately and effectively.
Adapt instructional methods and materials to meet the needs of students within each group. Ability grouping fails when students, regardless of ability group, receive the same instruction (Lou et al., 1996). For example, elementary school teachers tend to spend equal amounts of time with all reading groups even though the pace of instruction often differs among the low, middle, and high groups, with higher-achieving readers moving faster through curricula (Allington, 1983; Barr & Dreeben, 1983). This implies that additional instructional time for students in the lower groups is necessary in order to close the achievement gap (Allington, 1984).
Keep group size small. Teachers historically have formed three homogeneous groups when implementing within-class grouping: below average, average, and above average. However, today’s larger class sizes pose a problem for within-class ability grouping because they lead to larger groups. Larger group size has been found to negatively affect achievement, with students in larger groups learning less than students in smaller groups (Hallinan & Sorensen, 1985). The optimal size for within-class ability groups is three or four members (Lou et al., 1996). And recent trends show teachers moving in this direction by forming more groups with fewer members—an average of four groups per classroom (Chorzempa & Graham, 2006).
Change
group placement frequently
(Smith & Robinson, 1980). In within-class ability grouping,
students know that a hierarchy of groups exists, and most students
are aware of their position in the hierarchy even when steps are
taken to disguise the hierarchy (e.g., calling groups “dolphins”
and “sharks”) (Eder, 1983; Filby & Barnett, 1982). In the
early elementary grades, students also are beginning to compare their
abilities to those of others. A fixed hierarchy serves to reinforce
feelings of inferiority for students in the lower groups. By changing
group placement frequently, teachers can counter the negative effects
of students’ comparing their group placement to that of other
students. This may also prevent the sustaining
expectation effect,
which refers to teachers inadvertently sustaining low-achieving
students’ achievement at the current level by keeping them in their
current group placement. Once groups have been formed, teachers tend
to generalize expectations to all members of a group (Amspaugh,
1975). As a result, they sometimes fail to notice a student’s
improvement in a skill and thus fail to change their expectations for
the student. However, recent data suggest that teachers tend to
change students’ reading groups more frequently than in the past,
when students remained stuck in the group in which they originally
were placed (Chorzempa & Graham, 2006; Rowan & Miracle,
1983).
Middle School and High School: To Track or Not to Track
Tracking
in middle school and high school appears to have mixed effects, with
students in higher tracks, advanced placement courses, and gifted
programs experiencing greater academic benefits
,
>><<
Intrinsic
motivation: See page 267 and page 279.
boh7850x_CL6Mod21.p372-385.indd 380 boh7850x_CL6Mod21.p372-385.indd 380 10/9/08 9:04:00 AM
10/9/08 9:04:00 AM
module
twenty-one
grouping
practices 381
than
students in lower tracks. To address the variability of student
abilities in middle schools and high schools, educators have at least
two options:
n detracking or
n
improving
the quality of instruction for students in lower tracks.
While
research evidence suggests that eliminating tracking would decrease
the achievement level of higher-ability students (Argys, Rees, &
Brewer, 1996; Kulik & Kulik, 2004), educator and researcher
Jeannie Oakes and her colleagues propose an approach to teaching
effectively in secondary education without tracking. This approach
would:
n require all students to take a common core of classes,
n eliminate remedial courses, and
n provide advanced courses as options beyond the common core for all students, especially minority students.
In place of remedial courses, Oakes suggests incorporating additional instructional time, before- and after-school tutoring, and homework help centers to help students who are struggling. To accommodate the variability in student abilities and interests, teachers also would need to focus on teaching learning and study strategies, as well as provide honors assignments as options within courses (Oakes, 1990a; Oakes & Wells, 2002).
As one example of this approach, Robert Cooper (1999) reports research on detracking in a racially mixed high school. In place of tracking for ninth-grade English and history, educators created a common core of English and history classes in which students were heterogeneously grouped based on ability and race. The intent was to provide a challenging curriculum for all students. Students who traditionally were placed in lower tracks were required to take a “back-up” English class in place of one elective as an academic support for learning in the core English class. This allowed them more time to learn the material and work on assignments. Consistent with the proposal of Oakes and Wells (2002), this system offered all students a common core, while at the same time providing instructional support to ensure success for all. The majority of students reported that their detracked courses were intellectually stimulating and felt that the courses provided a positive learning environment.
Other
experts argue that tracking can be modified to enhance the
experiences of students in lower tracks. Research by Adam Gamoran
(1993) has identified several criteria for improving the achievement
level of students in lower tracks:
n high expectations for students,
n a rigorous curriculum,
n encouragement of class discussions, and
n
assignment
of innovative and experienced teachers to lower-track courses.
Gamoran
and his colleagues found that, of tracked middle schools and high
schools, those that were effective in providing high-quality
instruction for all
students emphasized intellectually stimulating content, higher-order
thinking, and in-depth discussions of material, even in the lower
tracks. These successes were due partly to teachers’ passion for
their subject and a commitment to ensure equity across classes
(Gamoran & Weinstein, 1998).
Using Cooperative Learning Effectively
In general, cooperative learning is misused when tasks given to groups are not well structured or when it is overused as an instructional method (Marzano et al., 2005). Students will not benefit from a cooperative activity if they are not given specific guidance about the objectives of the lesson and about the expectations for individual contributions and the end-product. Also, cooperative learning becomes overused when students spend most of their instructional time in groups, with little time to independently work on and demonstrate their new knowledge and skills. Research on cooperative learning has yielded several guidelines that teachers can use to help them effectively implement this approach (Johnson & Johnson, 1986).
Preparing students for a cooperative activity. When preparing students for a cooperative task, specify the academic and interpersonal objectives for the lesson so students are aware of the goals of the task. Teachers often fail to inform students of the collaborative skills needed to work successfully
Grouping
Practices
Module 21 :
boh7850x_CL6Mod21.p372-385.indd 381 boh7850x_CL6Mod21.p372-385.indd 381 10/9/08 9:04:01 AM
10/9/08 9:04:01 AM
382
cluster
six
classroom
management and instruction
Interpersonal
Objectives.
Teachers need to state interpersonal objectives to foster cooperative
learning.
boh7850x_CL6Mod21.p372-385.indd 382 boh7850x_CL6Mod21.p372-385.indd 382 10/9/08 9:04:01 AM
10/9/08
9:04:01 AM
For this activity, all group members will need to:
Listen attentively
State
ideas clearly
Take
turns
Give
constructive criticism Clarify what others are saying Clarify your
own understanding
in
their groups. Teachers also need to clearly explain positive
interdependence to students so they understand that they must work
together to achieve success. Teachers can also help groups function
effectively during a cooperative activity by:
n teaching collaborative skills,
n monitoring student behavior, and
n
providing
assistance to groups (e.g., answering questions and clarifying
instructions).
Forming cooperative groups. Forming groups of mixed abilities is not a critical element of cooperative learning (Mills & Durden, 1992). However, cooperative groups should be heterogeneous in general. Heterogeneous grouping can be based on a variety of criteria, such as ability, interests, motivation, or even random assignment (Johnson & Johnson, 1986; Marzano et al., 2005). Also, groups of three or four tend to work best—such groups are small enough to ensure that each student actively participates (Lou et al., 1996). However, when students have little experience with cooperative learning or when the teacher has limited time or materials, groups of two or three should be formed (Johnson & Johnson, 1986).
Teachers need to pay careful attention to the gender composition of groups. Balancing the number of girls and boys in a group provides the best opportunity for equal participation (Webb, 1985). When girls outnumber boys, they tend to defer to the boys for input; when boys outnumber girls, they tend to ignore the girls (Webb, 1984, 1985, 1991).
Integration of students with disabilities into cooperative groups also requires careful consideration. Cooperative learning may not be useful for students with disabilities when they are learning new or challenging concepts (Kirk, Gallagher, Anastasiow, & Coleman, 2006), so it should be used only when it is appropriate for the instructional objectives. When implementing cooperative learning to include students with disabilities, the most common concerns teachers encounter are (Johnson & Johnson, 1986):
module
twenty-one
grouping
practices 383
n
feelings
of fear or anxiety on the part of students with disabilities,
n
nondisabled
students’ concerns over their grades, and
n ways to encourage active participation by the students with disabilities.
You can address these concerns by adapting lessons so that students of all ability levels can participate successfully in the cooperative group. To adapt a lesson, use different criteria for success for each group member, or vary the amount of material each
member is expected to master.
This approach should alleviate the concerns of the nondisabled students as well as the anxieties of the students with disabilities.
Also, to lessen the anxiety of students with disabilities, explain the procedures that the group will follow and give these students specific roles or sources of expertise that the group will need, thereby encouraging their active participation (Johnson & Johnson, 1986).
Providing time for group processing. When students evaluate the functioning of their group and plan for improvements, they are less likely to believe that speed and finishing early are more important than meaningful learning (McCaslin & Good, 1996). At the end of an activity, teachers can give students a survey, such as the one in Figure 21.2, to help students identify what was helpful and not helpful. Teachers then can use this information to make decisions about what to change for the next task or what changes to make in group placements.
In sum, remember that both ability grouping and cooperative learning are vulnerable to inappropriate use (Clark, 1990; Robinson, 1990; Slavin, 1990). Whether a grouping strategy is effective depends on the appropriateness of the content and the instruction (Mills & Durden, 1992).
Imagine that you are being interviewed by a school principal for a teaching position. Based on the grade level you intend to teach, provide a statement of your philosophy about ability grouping and cooperative learning.
Grouping
Practices
Module 21 :
2
2
2 2 2 2 2 2 2
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Each
of the statements below will ask you how the group worked. Next to
each statement is a number. Circle your answer.
Circle number 1 if this almost never happened.
Circle number 2 if this seldom happened.
Circle number 3 if this sometimes happened.
Circle number 4 if this often happened.
Circle
number 5 if this almost always happened.
1.
All group members felt free to talk.
2.
People listened to one another.
3.
Group members were asked to explain their ideas.
4.
Some members tried to boss others.
5.
Group members tried to help others.
6.
Everyone had a say in the decisions that
7.
The members worked well as a group.
8.
Each member had a job to do.
9.
I felt good about being in this group.
3
3
3 3 3 3 3 3 3
4
4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Figure
21.2: Surveying Group Processing. Teachers
can give stu-dents surveys like this one to help cooperative group
members reflect on the functioning of their groups.
boh7850x_CL6Mod21.p372-385.indd 383 boh7850x_CL6Mod21.p372-385.indd 383 10/9/08 9:04:02 AM
10/9/08 9:04:02 AM
384 case studies: reflect and evaluate
Discuss the pros and cons of within-class and between-class ability grouping. In both within- and between-class ability grouping, high achievers and gifted students benefit academically more than students in lower groups, and students from impoverished backgrounds and minority students are disproportionately placed into lower groups. Tracking leads to beneficial nonacademic outcomes such as greater engagement in school, better grades, and positive attitudes toward academic subjects. Within-class ability grouping tends not to affect self-esteem, but tracking yields a small self-esteem benefit for lower-achieving students.
Discuss the advantages of flexible grouping methods.
Cross-grade grouping and nongraded plans tend to have positive effects on achievement, especially for lower-achieving students. Flexible methods are effective because they reduce the heterogeneity of skills among students and allow teachers to tailor instructional materials and paces to meet the needs of students. Flexible plans also result in many positive nonacademic outcomes.
Identify
the characteristics of cooperative learning and discuss the
effectiveness of this approach. To
be truly cooperative, tasks must contain five elements:
(1)
positive interdependence, (2) individual and group accountability,
(3) interpersonal skills, (4) face-to-face
interaction, and (5) group processing. Cooperative learning benefits students academically more than competitive and individualistic approaches. Girls and minorities tend to benefit more from cooperative learning, while gifted students do not benefit. Cooperative learning also enhances self-esteem, motivation, and peer relationships among students from diverse backgrounds and students with and without disabilities.
Describe
effective practices for addressing student differences in elementary
and secondary education and for implementing cooperative learning.
For
within-class ability grouping to be effective, teachers should adapt
instruction to meet the needs of students in each group, use many
small groups, and change group placement frequently. To meet the
needs of middle school and high school students of all ability
levels, schools need to focus on eliminating the remedial focus in
the lower tracks and emphasize high expectations and
higher-level thinking skills for all students. For effective
cooperative learning at any grade level, teachers should specify
objectives for interpersonal skills, emphasize positive
interdependence, form heterogeneous groups, use small groups, and
facilitate group functioning. Teachers also must carefully consider
several factors when integrating students with disabilities into
cooperative groups.
ability grouping between-class ability grouping cooperative learning cross-grade grouping face-to-face interaction group processing group work heterogeneity homogeneity individual and group accountability interpersonal skills Joplin plan Matthew effect multiage classrooms multigrade classes nongraded plans positive interdependence regrouping sustaining expectation effect within-class ability grouping
Early Childhood: “Caterpillar Circle”
These questions refer to the case study on page 316.
1. Within-class ability grouping typically is used in elementary school for reading and math. Is there any reason to form homogeneous groups in preschool? Why or why not?
2. Assume that you are in favor of ability grouping. On what criteria would you group preschool students (ability, prior knowledge, age, etc.), and for what types of lessons?
3. Review the guidelines for effective use of within-class ability grouping in the section “Elementary School: Using Within-Class Ability Grouping Effectively” on page 384. Explain why these guidelines would be easier to implement in a pre-school classroom than in an elementary school classroom.
boh7850x_CL6Mod21.p372-385.indd 384 boh7850x_CL6Mod21.p372-385.indd 384 10/9/08 9:04:03 AM
10/9/08 9:04:03 AM
4. What are the benefits of using cooperative learning, especially in a class as diverse as Sarah’s?
5.
Keeping in mind the developmental level of the children, what specific
things would you need to do to implement the five elements of
cooperative learning discussed in the module? Be sure to give specific
examples of how you would implement each of the five elements, and
address any challenges you would expect with this age group.
Elementary School: “Ecosystems”
These questions refer to the case study on page 318.
1. If you were teaching this third-grade class, would you use within-class ability grouping for teaching reading or math? Why or why not? What factors and/or research evidence influenced your decision?
2. You want to eliminate within-class ability grouping at the elementary school where you teach, and you arrange a meeting with the principal to discuss a new alternative. Provide a convincing argument against within-class ability grouping, and explain the practice of regrouping and its advantages.
3. Leilani wants to arrange students in cooperative learning groups for the ecosystem project rather than keep their current group formation, in which they work together at the tables where they sit. What criteria would you use to form cooperative groups (ability, interests, etc.) and why?
4. Based on the argument that broke out at the end of the ecosystem activity, which element of cooperative learning did
(Leilani) ignore? Give her specific suggestions for improving this component of cooperative learning.
5.
Explain why the reflection process at the end of the ecosystem
project is an important component of cooperative learning. Speculate
on what improvements Leilani might make for future group projects.
Middle School: “Classroom Safety”
These questions refer to the case study on page 320.
1. Imagine that Crosby Middle School uses tracking and that the seventh graders in the case study are in a lower track.
Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of tracking for these students. Why might students’ gender, socioeconomic status, and ethnicity be important factors to consider when evaluating the effectiveness of tracking?
2. The school board is discussing whether to detrack Crosby Middle School. Provide a convincing argument for detracking.
Create an original plan for meeting the needs of both higher achievers and lower achievers within a detracked curriculum. 3. In what ways did Saul implement positive interdependence successfully? How could he improve on this?
4. How can Saul improve the face-to-face interaction and interpersonal skills of the groups? Provide specific examples or suggestions.
5.
Explain why balancing the number of girls and boys is important for
Saul to consider when forming groups for the project.
6.
Whatmodifications might Saul need to make to the group project for a
student with a disability?
High School: “Refusal to Dress”
These questions refer to the case study on page 322.
1. Assume that student Brianna is African American. Based on the research on tracking, explain why it would not be surprising to find students from minority groups in a lower-level English class.
2. Based on the research on tracking, describe the possible effects of tracking on Brianna’s academic achievement and self-esteem. Would your response be different if Brianna were male?
3.
Imagine that you are giving David teaching advice. Describe how you
would use cooperative learning to review grammar in his second-period
class. Be sure to give specific examples of how you would implement
(a) positive interdependence,
(b)
individual and group accountability, (c) face-to-face interaction,
(d) interpersonal skills, and (e) group processing.
4. David is a bit uneasy about using cooperative learning with his second-period English composition class. He’s not sure the students are ready for such an approach and feels more comfortable sticking to his tried-and-true method. Explain to David the benefits of cooperative learning, particularly for students like those in his second-period class.
5. David wants to introduce literature in his second-period English composition class. Explain how he could use the Jigsaw approach.
6. You are at a faculty meeting at Valley High School to discuss detracking. State a convincing case for detracking, and describe a new curriculum that would address the needs of students in higher tracks as well as students in the lower tracks, like Brianna.
case studies: reflect and evaluate 385
boh7850x_CL6Mod21.p372-385.indd 385 boh7850x_CL6Mod21.p372-385.indd 385 10/9/08 9:04:06 AM
10/9/08 9:04:06 AM