D.C.I Know It Works!: Seeing a Cooperative Learning Strategy Succeed in My Secondary Classroom 38 Robert M. Mattingly 8. Approaches to Implementing Cooperative Learning in the Social

ED 361 243

AUTHORTITLE

INSTITUTION

REPORT NOPUB DATENOTEAVAILABLE FROM

PUB TYPE

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

DOCUMENT RESUME

SO 022 884

Stahl, Robert J., Ed.; VanSickle, Ronald L., Ed.Cooperative Learning in the Social Studies Classroom:An Introduction to Social Study. Bulletin No. 87.National Council for the Social Studies, Washington,D.C.

ISBN-0-87986-061-892

71p.

National Council for the Social Studies, 3501 NewarkStreet, N.W., Washington, DC 20016-3167.Guides Classroom Use Teaching Guides (ForTeacher) (052) Reports Descriptive (141)

MF01/PC03 Plus Postage.

*Ability Grouping; Classroom Environment;*Cooperative Learning; Elementary School Teachers;Elementary Secondary Education; Secondary SchoolTeachers; *Social Studies; Teaching Methods

IDENTIFIERS *Jigsaw II

ABSTRACT

This bulletin provides a context for and an overviewof cooperative learning addressing concerns and answering questionsteachers, supervisors, and parents may have about this group approachto teaching and learning in the social studies. The intention was tohelp social studies educators construct a sound conceptual foundationfor cooperative learning while eliminating misconceptions. Ninechapters detail building an adequate introductory conceptualframework for envisioning cooperative learning as a viablealternative approach to teaching in the social studies classroom. Thefirst chapter introduces the concept, philosophy, and practice ofcooperative learning. The second chapter focuses on the classroomenvironment and classroom characteristics with and withoutcooperative learning groups. Chapters 3 and 4 contain reviews of theliterature that address effects of cooperative learning in classroomsettings. Chapter 5, 6, and 7 focus on classroom teachers. In thesethree chapters teachers from first grade through secondary schooldiscuss how cooperative learning has worked in their classrooms. Theyprovide a unique perspective on how one can make the transition fromusing traditional teaching methods to becoming a successful user ofcooperative learning. Practical ideas about how to implementcooperative learning in social studies classrooms are included, aswell as some historical context for group learning. The final chapterfeatures a dialogue of a group of teachers who are training to usecooperative learning. A position statement on ability grouping isincluded. (DK)

**********************************************************************R2productions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made

*from the original document.

***********************************************************************

Cooperative LearningSocial Studies Classroom

An Introduction Sociid Study

01

i

II "1..

. . .

0 -

a '

Cooperative Learningin the

Social Studies Classroom:An Invitation to Social Study

Edited byRobert J. Stahl

Arizona State CJniversityTen we, Arizona

andRonald L. Van Sickle

The University of GeorgiaAthens, Georgia

Bulletin No. 87

ii Cooperative learning

National Council forthe Social Studies

PresidentCharlotte C. Anderson

President-ElectDenny Schillings

Vice PresidentRobert J. Stahl

Executive DirectorFrances Haley

Board of DirectorsJames L. BarthElizabeth CumminsFrances DavisRichard DiemBarbara EasleyCecelia Adams GrossBarbara G. JacksonJames W. LaneTarry L. LindquistMargit McGuireShirley B. Mead-MezzettaRichard G. MouldenGail RileyAngie RinaldoC. Frederick RisingerPatricia King RobesonRick Theisen

House of Delegates Steering Committee ChairThomas McGowan

Ex OfficioFrances Haley

Director of PublicationsSalvatore J. Natoli

Publications CommitteeMichael A. Solliday, ChairJohn A. Rossi, Vice ChairAllan BrandhorstJames E. DavisJesils GarcCynthia Hart-HawkinsPatricia U. HopkinsJohn WeaklandElizabeth Cummins, Board Liaison

Ex OfficioRonald A. Banaszak ,Chair, Social Education

CommitteeSalvatore J. Natoli, Editor, Social EducationHuber \X'alsh, Editor, Social Studies and the Young

l.earnerJack Fraenkel, Editor, Theory and Research

in Social Education

Editorial staff on this publication: Salvatore J. Natoli, Pamela D. I lollar, NI. Angela OlsonCover design: J. Charles Herbert / Publication design: Dan Kaufman

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 92-62210ISBN 0-87986-061-8

Copyright 1992 by National Council for the Social Studies3501 Newark Street, NW \X'ashington, DC 20016-31(,7

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval s stein, or transmitted, in any form or by any mcans,electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, withom the poor written permission of the copyright holder.

Printed in the United Staws of America10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Chapter

Cooperative Learning iii

Table of Contents

PrefaceRobert J. Stahl and Ronald L. VanSickle

Cooperative Learning as Effective Social Study within theSocial Studies Classroom: Introduction and an Invitation

Robert J. Stahl and Ronald L. VanSickle

2. From "Academic Strangers" to Successful Members of aCooperative Learning Group: An Inside-the-Learner Perspective 8

Robert J. Stahl

3. Cooperative Learning, Properly Implemented, Works: Evidence from Research in Classrooms 16

Ronald L. VanSickle

4. Cooperative Learning in the Social Studies: Balancing the Social and the Studies 21Robert E. Slavin

S. Elementary Students Can Learn to Cooperate and Cooperate for Learning 26Robert J. Colomb, GeDrge W. Chilcoat, and Nancy N. Stahl

6. Theory into Practice: A Cooperative LearningSuccess Story in Middle Level Classrooms 32

Eric F. Luce, William McKendry. Dennis Don!, Philip Selim, Michael Smith, and Myra Wolpert

7 . I Know It Works!: Seeing a Cooperative Learning Strategy Succeed in My Secondary Classroom 38Robert M. Mattingly

8. Approaches to Implementing Cooperative Learning in the Social Studies Classroom 44David W. Johnson and Roger 7'. Johnson

9. Complex Instruction in the Untracked Social Studies Classroom 52Elizabeth G. Cohen, Rachel A. Lotan, and Jennifer A. Whitcomb

NCSS Position Statement on Ability Grouping in Social Studies 59Prepared by the Ad Hoc Committee on Ability Grouping

5

F

mro the beginning, our intention was not to providea recipe book with step-by-step procedures that ateacher could follow starting tomorrow. Such proce-dural information is provided in detail elsewhere.

Rather, in this bulletin we provide a context for and anoverview of cooperative learning addressing concernsand answering questions teachers, supervisors, and par-ents may have about this group approach to teachingand learning in the social studies. Our intention was tohelp social studies educators construct a sound concep-tual foundation for cooperative learning while eliminat-ing misconceptions that may exist. The chapters provideabundant details toward building an adequate introduc-tory conceptual framework for envisioning cooperativelearning as a viable alternative approach to teachingwithin the social studies classroom.

In the first chapter, we introduce the concept, philos-ophy, and practice of cooperative learning along with aninvitation to classroom teachers at all levels to take stepstoward using cooperative learning with their students.We also address a number of misconceptions aboutcooperative learning and provide clear statements of fun-damental guidelines of this alternative approach toinstruction in our introductory chapter. We suggest thatcooperative learning addresses the social and studyrequirements of social studies education and providesone vehicle whereby students can improve together.

The classroom environment and characteristics ofclassrooms both with and without cooperative learninggroups are part of the second chapter's focus. Here,Robert Stahl provides a look at life in the classroomfrom the student's perspective. Hc presents two scenar-ios that contrast life with and without appropriate coop-erative learning activities and groups. In addition, hedescribes a model for what each student needs to be asuccessful learner along with how cooperative learninggroups may function to facilitate success for any knowl-edge or ability social studies educators desire for theirstudents.

Chapters 3 and 4 feature reviews of the literature thataddress effects of cooperative learning in classroom set-tings. Ronald Van Sickle presents a reader-friendly versionof the research findings in the form of a hypothetical dia-logue between an advocate of cooperative learning and ateacher seeking information about how effective thisapproach to teaching has been and can be. In chapter 4,Robert Slavin provides a review that focuses on theresearch evidence related to specific cooperative learningapproaches and to specific types of academic achieve-

ment, affective growth, and interpersonal and socialinteraction skills. The two chapters provide contrastingyet complementary versions that both synthesize theresearch and discuss the implications of these findings forsocial studies education. Slavin suggests that cooperativelearning can help provide a balance beiween the socialand the study aspects of social studies education.

Classroom teachers are the focus of chapters 5, 6, and7. Robert Colomb, a 2d grade teacher in Provo, Utah,describes his experiences using cooperative learning withstudents in grades 1 through 6. His insights, along withthose of George Chi lcoat and Nancy Stahl, describe thegrowth of one elementary-level teacher into a highlyeffective facilitator of cooperative learning groups. Fourmiddle school classroom teachers, one assistant princi-pal, and one university faculty member have collaborat-ed to describe the progress of four middle school teach-ers in the:r efforts to ue cooperative learning in theirrespective classrooms. William McKendry, a strong,early proponent of cooperative learning in his school,facilitated the growth of three of his colleagues, DennisDool, Michael Smith, and Myra Wolpert. All four grewand are still growing to become effective users of cooper-ative learning theory and strategies. The efforts of thisfour-member faculty team and the support provided byassistant principal Philip Selim are described here withthe assistance of Eric Luce, a social studies teacher edu-cator who spent many years observing and interactingwith these middle level educators in their school. RobertMattingly describes his success with cooperative learningin chapter 7. As a secondary level social studies teacher,Mattingly provides details on how he began using coop-erative learning and field-tcsted one strategy in his ownclassroom.

Classroom teachers should read all three of thesechapters as should supervisors and administrators at alllevels. They provide a unique perspective on how onecan make the transition from using traditional teachingmethods to becoming a successful user of cooperativelearning in typical school situations. Here, the teachersdisclose their initial concerns, efforts, sources of frustra-tions, and how they became skillful users of the coopera-tive learning theory, philosophy, and strategies. In manyways these three chapters are the most powerful in thisbulletin.

David and Roger Johnson follow these chapterswith a number of practical ideas about how to imple-ment cooperative learning in social studies class-rooms. They begin by providing a brief historical con-

vi Cooperative Learning

text for using groups in educational settings and movequickly into stating useful information on the philoso-phy and strategies of cooperative learning. This chap-ter addresses many teachers' concerns about whethercooperative learning can be a viable alternative strate-gy for them.

The final chapter provides, in dialogue form, anaccount of a group of teachers engaged in the transitionof becoming cooperative learning teachers under theguiance of a staff development team from StanfordUniversity. Eizabeth Cohen, Rachel Lotan, and JenniferWhitcomb describe a number of concerns teachers haveabout using cooperative learning in their classrooms andin learning to use cooperative groups as an alternativeteaching strategy. This chapter illustrates how a staffdevelopment team may work collegially and coopera-tively with in-service teachers, enabling them to becomesuccessful users of cooperative learning.

The purpose of this volume is to reflect upon whatstudents and social studies educators can gain by reject-ing the competitive, rugged-individual illusions andchoosing to develop 'a cooperative perspective on learn-ing. What can we gain by having students work cooper-atively in small groups rather than spending much oftheir time doing their academic work alone? What evi-dence is available that social studies students achievemore by working together cooperatively than by work-

ing alone or by competing for a limited number ofrewards? What instructional alternatives might enablemore of our students to achieve the attitudinal socialstudies goals we set? What might a teacher gain by usingcooperative learning groups as an alternative to conved-tional individualistic and competitive instructionalstrategies?

On behalf of the National Council for the SOcialStudies Committee on Research, we have endeavored tobridge the theory, philosophy, research findings, andessential features associated with cooperative learning toprovide a readable and practical introduction to thisinstructional alternative for social studies classroomteachers, supervisors, and administrators at all levels.This was an ambitious task. Neither of us was trained asa bridge builder. In the end, we believe that we havebeen, in large part, successful.

Robert J. Stahl and Ronald L. VanSickle

The editors extend their appreciation to Nancy N. Stahl,Gifted Education Specialist, Arizona Department ofEducation, Phoenix, and Joanne Curran, Division ofPsychology in Education, Arizona State University,"Fempe, for their assistance in proofreading, offering edi-torial critiques, and checking reference citations for allchapters of this bulletin.

Cooperative Learning as Effective Social Studywithin the Social Studies Classroom:

Introduction and an Invitation

Robert J. Stahl, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizonaand

Ronald L. Van Sickle, The University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia

Nothing is so practical as a good theory.Kurt Lewin

0ne of the strongest illusions that influences manyeducators' and parents' notions of the nature ofschooling elevates and sometimes Onrifies noncoop-erative attitudes and behaviors. "Only the strongest

survive," "It's a dog-eat-dog world," and "Competitionmakes the world go around" are frequently heardexpressions of this illusion about preparing students forthe real, competitive world that exists out there beyondthe school yard and the school years. We tend to forgetthat the real world exists for students every moment theyare outside school and inside their school as well.

A complementary illusion is that of the rugged indi-vidualthe strong, self-sufficient, and independent indi-vidual coping in the real world and achieving greatthings alone against great odds. Charles Lindbergh, JaneAddams, Martin Luther King, Jr., and George Washington,for example, are lauded for their personal accomplish-ments as though they had no colleagues or supportgroups that worked cooperatively to help them achievetheir dreams and hopes. Focusing on what individualshave done as though they were alone in their endeavorsis to overlook and misrepresent how these individualsworked toward their goals. As students find answers toquestions such as "How was it possible for CharlesLindbergh to fly nonstop across the Atlantic?" and"What factors contributed to the success of Jane Addams'sHull House in Chicago?" they discover the network ofcooperative support that contributed to the successesassociated with each individual.

Social studies educators strive to enable their studentsto become educated and competent so that they will besuccessful in the world. Students should study individualand group actions, thoughts, and artifacts in ways thatwill both facilitate their achievement of selected socialstudies knowledge and abilities and enable them to func-tion well inside and outside the social studies classroom.Our task as professional educators is not to establish a

mini real world in the classroom where students are leftto sink or swim on their own as though the purpose ofschool is to provide survival experiences. Rather, weneed to continue to work in our classrooms so thatwhenever and wherever students hit the water, they willhe able to swim well both on their oNA7n and with othersfrom then on.

We will attempt to provide answers to such questionsthroughout the chapters that follow. The answersstrongly indicate that appropriate cooperative learninggroups can result in large numbers of students achievingour expectations for them both inside and beyond thesocial studies classroom.

This chapter builds a conceptual framework forunderstanding cooperative learning as an alternativeinstructional approach. We introduce the cooperativelearning approach to social study by examining a num-ber of assumptions about students as learners and aboutsocial studies educators' commitments to achieving themaximum learning for their students.

AssumptionsWe assume that students enter the social studies class-

room wanting to succeed and not merely to survive.Students want their studies to make sense and to meansomething from their own perspectives. They want toleave school with new knowledge, abilities, and orienta-tions that will enable thcm to function well in the worldas well as within the school and the social studies class-room.

We assume that virtually all students can learn nearlyevery set of knowledge, abilities, and perspectives thatsocial studies educators expect them to learn. We areoptimistic about what students can learn within appro-priate instructional environments. This view of learnerssuggests that we can provide learning environments inschools that will help improve students' learning andthus motivate them about social studies topics, content,and abilities. Furthermore, this view reinforces the beliefthat every student should attain social studies goals and

2 Cooperative Learning

abilities. Finally, this view values each student as an indi-viduai capable of achieving success in the classroomregardless of conditions outside that classroom.

We assume that academic success eventually leadsstudents to engage actively in activities likely to continuethat success. Students who do well in particular areas ofthe social studies tend to be interested in other topicsand data they perceive as related to these areas. Studentswho do well in the prerequisite knowledge and abilitiesare more likely to be successful and interested in com-plex and challenging topics, knowledges, and abilities.Conversely, studtmts who do not have the prerequisitesor prior successes are not likely to become or remaininterested in social studies topics without them. Socialstudies teachers must not assume that topics, activities,and teacher personality will automatically motivate stu-dents who lack the prerequisites to become highlyinvolved, interested, and studious. Therefore, teacherswho are concerned about the levels of their students'interest and achievement need to consider using strate-gies that facilitate student success. These teachers willfind that as they use these strategies appropriately, theirstudents will tend to improve their learning and theirinterest and involvement in social study.

We assume students expect their teachers to do whatis necessary to facilitate successful attainment and main-tenance of the targeted knowledge, abilities, and orienta-tions. They hope that their teachers are committed totaking them from where they are to as high a level asthey are able to achieve. They hope their teachers do notintend to teach only as much as is convenient for theentire class to cover. These expectations and hopes areconsistent with an essential reason for providing socialstudies educationto prepare young people to behumane, civil, rational, participating citizens in a worldthat is increasingly interdependent, pluralistic, andchanging (NCSS 1979).

We assume that social studies educators arc commit-ted to providing students with quality curriculum andinstructional opportunities that facilitate their attain-ment of valued social education goals.

We assume that social studies educators, because theyare professionals, will seek out, seriously consider, and,where appropriate, learn to use alternative curriculumand instructional strategies to help each student achievemaximum success. Consequently, we assume that in sit-uations where students are not learning the academiccontent, are not using appropriate social interaction abil-ities, or are not attaining the positive self-conceptionsteachers expect, teachers will seriously consider aninstructional approach that offers considerable promisefor changing the situation in their classrooms.Cooperative learning is one approach that, from theorythrough actual classroom practice, works in helping stu-dents become successful learners.

We assume that teachers who have students who arc

achieving at acceptable levels and who use many appro-priate social interaction behaviors will continue to searchfor and use instructional strategies that may increase thepositive results of their present strategies. In other words,we assume that social studies educators have a continualdesire to improve their teaching.

Finally, we assume that to be effective in a school set-ting requires a considerable amount of cooperative effortand support from one's colleagues to ensure that appro-priate social study occurs within the social studies class-room.

Social Study in the Social Studies Classroom:

"Getting Better Together"Social studies classroom instruction has always

included individual and group work. Thinking aboutwhat constitutes effective social studies instruction hasgenerally focused on specific subject matter and citizen-ship knowledge, abilities, and perspectives.Consequently, teachers who emphasize the learning ofthese knowledge bases, abilities, and perspectives areteaching social studies. Group activities are often integralparts of classroom instruction. Students participate ingroups within which they are to acquire and practiceabilities associated with effective citizenship. Teachersexpect students to communicate clearly, use social andgroup interaction abilities, and work together to com-plete assigned group tasks.

Effective social studies teaching also involves appro-priate social study.

In this context, the word social reminds us that thewords and language rules we use in the classroom arepart and parcel of culture. Wc think and speak usingterms, symbols, grammar, and meanings that are inte-gral parts of the language that we share within our soci-ety. Although students construct and ultimately mustmake knowledge their own, they do so in one or moresocieties or subg itips that influence, share, and interactusing language in addition, students use, share, negoti-ate, and revise meanings according to the verbal andnonverbal language others use in their social world.

Social also refers to the need to engage in worthwhile,goal-oriented tasks within supportive interpersonal envi-ronments. These social tasks and environments need tobe relatively frequent and endure over extended periodsof time. Within such environments individuals mustbecome active, contributing, and integral parts of thesocial community that benefits from their participation.To he effective within this social environment, studentsmust learn and practice the knowledge, abilities, andattitudes necessary to function effectively within thesocial group and as part of the social community that isformed. Individuals must have a sense of belonging to,participating in, and contributing to one or more groupsas a viable, personally meaningful, social community.

According to this view of the term social, it is not

enough to be in a classroom of students who may onoccasion interact or do things together in small groupsor as a class. Individuals in a class must come to sensethat they constitute a meaningful social community inwhich certain actions and attitudes are acceptable andothers are unacceptable. They must come to value whatthe community and the required social interaction meanand can do for them. If we generate such environmentsin the classroom, students will not see themselves as indi-viduals in a class, but rather as members of a social com-munity that happens to meet in a social studies class-room.

This view of social is consistent with the essence ofeffective citizenship within any community. If individualsare to participate and contribute, they must have a sensethat the community is worthwhile and that their involve-ment will have both personal and social meaning.Individuals must be an integral part of the group ratherthan merely working alongside others in the group. Theymust come to believe that their voices can help to changesociety and that their votes count to change and improvesociety. Individuals must sense a personal power withinthe social group and believe that the group will benefitfrom their contributions. Likewise, students must per-ceive and receive benefits from active participation with-in their community (the classroom).

By study we mean the systematic and focused pursuitof knowledge and the ability to apply that knowledgewhen needed. Students should engage in inquiry, applyappropriate study skills, or use other strategies foracquiring knowledge and abilities; they should not mere-ly complete projects either by themsekes or in groups.Consequently, when students finish their study, we andthey should expect that they arc able to do things theycould not do prior to thi, effort.

If social study is to become a component of socialstudies classrooms, teachers must find ways to enablestudents to form viable social communities that workcooperatively and systematically to acquire new knowl-edge and abilities as a group. Members must see thesegroups as beneficial both for themselves and for thegroup. That is, each individual must be a successfullearner and the achievement of the group as a groupmust be relatively high. Teachers need to structure class-room activities, rewards, and student roles such that stu-dents establish a social community and participate aseffective members of this community at the same timefocusing on achieving the shared learning goals.

Cooperative learning strategies arc a means by whichsocial studies teachers can arrange for, promote, andreward social study in their classroom. As studentsengage in completing appropriate social study activities,they are likely to benefit in a wide variety of waysbeyond academic achievement and become skilled atusing social interaction behaviors.

One way to envision cooperative learning group par-

Cooperative Learning 3

ticipation and benefits is captured in the expression"Getting Better Together."' By working with one anoth-er in appropriate ways, students enhance each other'sknowledge and abilities as well as their own. Essentially,by working together to facilitate each other's learning,students "get better" individually and "get better togeth-er" as a team focused on team success.

These strategies, however, are not likely to be u,,edappropriately unless the teacher has an adequate concep-tual view of cooperation and cooperative learning.

Building a Conceptual Framework about Coopraatingto Learn and Cooperative Learning Grays

The notion that teachers can achieve positive resultsconsistent with social studies education goals throughthe use of cooperative groups is not new to the socialstudies. Social studies teachers have alwz s expected--and continue to expectthat cooperative groups mustbe more than collections of students wha sit together,complete essentially independent tasks, and fit their indi-vidual parts together so that they have single productas proof of their cooperative effort. Stirients are expect-ed to work as groups and not merely i:z groups. They areto work with one another as a team of learners and asfull partners in each other's learning efforts and success.When such group cooperation exiits over a sufficientperiod of time, both the quantit and the quality ofinteraction are high and student a.:hievement for all isOptimal for the time spent.

Slavin (1983) delineated coope .ttive learning as a dis-tinct instructional model with particular criteria that sep-arates it from typical group work and group activities.For Slavin, teachers need to eqablish heterogeneousgroups of four to six members who are mutually respon-sible for each other's success relative to the same knowl-edge and abilities. Group members earn recognition,rewards, and sometimes grades based upon the academicachievement of their respecti v c groups. This does notmean that all cooperative lemning model-builders shareall of these criteria and set the same expectations, goals,and guidelines. Sufficient ove lap and consistency acrossmany of these models, however, maintain the integrity ofeach as an example of cooperative learning.=

Teachers are most likely to use cooperative learningstrategies correctly once they build an adequate concep-tual framework that provides the perspective needed tocarry out the strategies on a moment-by-moment andday-by-day basis (Johnson, Johnson, and Holubec1990). This framework should work to modify presentmisconceptions about cooperating to learn and coopera-tive learning groups and prevent future misconceptionsfrom arising. Below are a number of ideas that shouldbecome permanent fixtures in conceptions of coopera-tive learning.

(1) Not all cooperative groups are instructionallyeffective (Slavin 1990). Leaders in this field continually


caution tzachers, supervisors, and administrators againstbelieving that cooperative learning strategies simplyinvolve students jointly working to complete group pro-jects or worksheets. Students working in groups do notnecessarily constitute cooperative learning groups, andall the positive effects of cooperative learning will notautomatically result. In short, all cooperating groups arenot equal; only those that meet the guidelines and stan-dards for cooperative learning warrant this label. Eaterchapters will introduce the elements necessary to ensurethat cooperating groups become successfid cooperativelearning groups.

(2) Cooperative learning is imf against all competi-tion. Advocates of cooperative learning are not opposedto all competition; rather, they oppose inappropriatecompetition (Johnson and Johnson 199 I I. Indeed, onecooperative learning model, Teams-Games-Tournament,builds in a competitive phase as part of the insti uctionalstrategy. Proponents believe that cooperative groups inand of themselves do not guarantee quality, positiveinteraction, group success, and individual achievement.Cooperation is not envisioned as a miraculous activitythat works merely because one engages in or is expectedto use it. Sports enthusiasts are well aware that somebasketball teams operate as five individuals on the courtwho just happen to wear the same color uniforms.Although these individuals may play alongside oneanother, the extent of their cooperation in this situationis minimal. For cooperative learning groups to be effec-tive, students must come to envision their group as ateam whose members have two mutual goals in mind:the group's success as a group and the highest possibleindividual achievement of every group member. Studentsmust also accept their peers as academic and socialteammates who share equally in the team's ultimate suc-cess or lack thereof.

(3) Oioperathv learning strategies sLombi ma replaceall other teaching strategies in the social studies class-room. Cooperative learning is intended to be an alterna-tive approach to structuring teaching and learning tasks.Consequently, teachers may continue ui use instructionalmodels and activities that effectively help students attainthe many positive goals they set. Students need to learnhow to succeed as individuals in individually importantactivities such as exploring personally interesting topicsor becoming proficient at individual abilities. They alsoneed to engage in competitive situations so that theylearn to handle both the challenges of competition andthe fun involved in pursuit and rivalry (Johnson et al.1984). Using cooperative learning techniques, socialstudies teachers should modify, not replace, their currentteaching styles and methods. Cooperative learninggroups can take on many forms, all of which requirethat students work interdependcntly in small groups tohelp each other acquire and retain the academic content,knowledge, and abilities set for them.

(4) Cooperative loirning approaches are instructionalguides, not curriculum guides. Cooperative learningmodels are strategies for structuring the learning envi-ronment within classrooms. These models cannot substi-tute for, make obsolete, or make up for poor curriculumdecisions (Stahl 1990). They cannot improve curriculumdecisions already made. These models arc tools thatfacilitate student progress toward achieving the cogni-tive, affective, and social outcomes set within the cur-riculum used. These strategies arc what teachers use afterthe curriculum decisions have been made. In otherwords, one does not start with cooperative learning andthen plan the curriculum. Rather, one makes the curricu-lum decisions and selects the cooperative learning strate-gies that are most appropriate for the students involvedand the learning they need to accomplish.

(5) Cooperative learning models are independent ofthe outcwnes selected and the materials used during thegroup tasks (Stahl 1990). Teachers may use many coop-erative learning strategics in connection with textbooks,content-filled handouts, or other printed resourcesnearly any resource aligned with what students arc tolearn. If a teacher uses a strategy only in reference to atextbook, however, the teacher's decisionsand not thestrategyare solely responsible for this textbook depen-dency. If a teacher uses a particular cooperative learningstrateg only to help students memorize and recall basicfacts and low-level skills, this also reflects a decision theteacher has made. Every cooperative learning strategy,when used appropriately, can enable students to movebeyond the text, memorization of basic facts, and learn-ing lower-level skills. Each strategy can serve to help stu-dents become proficient transferers of academic andsocial knowledge and abilities.

(6) Cooperatitv learning techniques or strategies arestructured ways of operating within a classroom. Onekey for ensuring that cooperative learning models workis to envision each model as describing a particular wayto structure the learning, the learning task, and the learn-ers' roles (Kagan 1989, 1989-90). Such structures arecontent-free ways of organizing social interaction aimedtoward enabling all students to be successful. Structuresprovide steps, guidelines, and requirements that, whenmet, will allow students to achieve their maximumpotential in alignment with clera outcomes. Teachersmay use structures such as Jig A w, Coop-Coop, andTeams-Games-Tournament over and over across anextremely wide range of topics, content, grade levels,and outcomes (Kagan 1989, 1989-90). These structuresdiffer according to their cognitive processing, academic,affective, and interpersonal emphasis, length of time forcompletion, required teacher and student roles, useful-ness for selected content, and degree of complexity.

(7) Each cooperative learning strategy should beviewed as a structured way of operating within the class-roomnot as an activity. The distinction between a

1 i

learning structure and an activity is important. Activitieslike those found in many books and articles describewhat a teacher might ask a group to complete within asingle lesson or unit. Students might complete the activi-ty, however, without students or the teacher ensuringthrit they are meeting requirements for appropriate coop-erative learning group work. Merely because (me labelsan activity a cooperative learning activity or strategydoes not make it so. What counts is that the learningtask(s) and environment are structured such that therequiren tents are met. When students complete appro-priate cooperative learning tasks, teachers find that largenumbers of students leave the group tasks and the coursewith high levels of success for the outcomes set for them.

(8) Each group member needs to learn appropriatecooperative learning group behaviors. Students mustacquire, practice, and refine the variety of positive groupbehaviors necessary for them to work as a group so thatthey become skilled users of these abilities and accompa-nying attitudes. We cannot expect students to bring allthe appropriate abilities and attitudes with them to thesegroups or to develop them simply by being told to workas a group. In rnany instances, teachers will need to taketime before they form the groups, during the groupinteractions, and after the groups have finished todescribe particular productive and dysfunctional groupbehaviors and attitudes. These are as much a part of thegroup learning process as the academic content and abil-ities. Proponents of cooperative learning emphasize theneed to help students learn what is necessary to con-tribute to the group's goal-directed efforts.

(9) Appropriate cooperatn,e learning structures andguidelines are neither simple nor easy to implement(Johnson et al. 1984). Even for teachers who have usedgroups in the past, learning concepts and procedures ofcooperative learning strategies and properly implement-ing them in the classroom requires time, effort, andadherence to the criteria provided. Although the conceptof cooperation is simple and appealing, teachers shouldnot assume that achieving high levels of cooperation forlearning will be easy. Cooperative learning as anapproach to teaching generally, and the various coopera-tive strategies in particular, are complex ways of operat-ing in the classroom. They require the typical teacher touse a number of new behaviors that will take time toperfect. Old notions that run contrary to effective coop-erative learning are likely to persist. These notions andaccompanying behaviors represent habits that teachersand supervisors will need to unlearn while learning theways of appropriate cooperative learning. Old habits arehard to breakmuch less forget; teachers wanting to usecooperative learning need to accept at the start that cre-ating effective cooperative learning classrooms will bechallenging work. They will find, however, that the posi-tive results for both students and themselves make theeffort and time spent worthwhile (Johnson et al. 1984).


(10) Cooperative learning will work when only oneteacher in the school or department is using it.Soinetimes teachers have a sense that if they are the onlyone using cooperative learning thcir students will notgain much by its use. Consequently, thcy may try a fewcooperative learning activities waiting for the day everyteacher uses them. Cooperative learning has been effec-tive in achieving many of the valued goals of social stud-ies education. Social studies teachers should consider itsuse on the basis of the classroom evidence. We wouldencourage teachers to become the first cooperative learn-ing teacher in their departments or schools. With thesuccess that is likely to follow, colleagues will join thismovement toward expanding the cooperative learningconcept and accompanying strategics to other studentsand into other classrooms.

In this section we addressed a number of fundamentalconceptions of appropriate cooperative learning alongwith a sample of misconceptions to overcome. Educatorsneed to include these ideas as a part of a large, compre-hensive, conceptual framework for cooperative learning.Social studies educators may read these and other mate-rials on cooperative learning and believe that they arealready engaged in cooperative learning in their schoolor classroom. The section that follows should helpteachers begin a systematic assessment of current groupinstructional practices to determine the extent to whichthey are already practicing cooperative learning.

Am I Engaged in Cooperative Learning?Teachers who use groups and supervisors who pro-

mote group work might perceive that they are alreadyengaged in cooperative learning in the classroom.Numerous criteria and guidelines are available to verifywhether what occurs within these groups meets therequirements for appropriate cooperative learninggroups (e.g., Aronson et al. 1978; Cohen 1986; Johnsonand Johnson 1991; Johnson et al. 1984; Kagan 1989;Slavin 1983, 1990; Stahl 1992). One way to determinewhether cooperative learning is occurring is to observehow closely students follow these structures and require-ments. To the extent that all group members meet theserequirenlents, appropriate cooperative learning activity isoccurring.

Another way to determine whether group activitiesand assignments are consistent with appropriate cooper-ative learning is by collecting systematic, objective dataabout the effects of cooperative learning on the majorityof students compared to expected student outcomes ofcooperative learning. For instance, most studentsinvolved in cooperative group tasks over an extendedperiod should

improve scores on academic testsvoluntarily increase their personal contact with otherstudents in a variety of contextshave strong feelings of group membership


work cooperatively in small group settings towardattaining a common goalhave many of the positive attitudes necessary forworking efl.ectively with othersfeel positively about others in their groupsbe willing to share and interact positively withingroup settingsintegrate their academic learning and social and inter-group relationsimprove relations with individuals from ethnic orracial groups other than their ownbe willing to express and discuss their own ideas inpublicimprove their opinions about and relationships withhandicapped studentssee their peers in a positive lightincrease the number of voluntary friendships basedon human qualitieshave enhanced positive self-concept and self-esteembe positively adjusted psychologicallyhave high levels of intrinsic motivation to learnaccept their peers as knowledgeable agents in learn-ing, i.e., as learning resourceshave proficiency in critical reasoning abilities andstrategiesreduce disruptive behaviors and increase on-taskbehaviorsincrease the amount of time they spend on-taskhave positive attitudes toward teachers, principals,and other school personnelhave positive attitudes toward learning, school, andthe subject matter contentNot all cooperative learning groups, whether lasting

one class period, one week, or one month, will generateall of these results every time. Rather, these are resultsthat are likely to occur when such learning groups func-tion over an extended period of time. If the group struc-ture and activities being used are not making noticeableprogress along many of these lines by the end of the firstsemester, for instance, then teachers should reassess theextent to which they are actually engaging students incooperative learning.

The list is also relevant for teachers not using groupsor using groups only sparingly over the course of aschool year. If teachers and their students are not achiev-ing the results listed above from the strategies, resources,and activities they arc using, they should seriously con-sider cooperative learning group strategies.

An InvitationWe invite social studies educators to study and reflect

upon the information in these chapters. We invite themto acquire a conception of appropriate cooperativelearning and to envision how they might use these strate-gies and guidelines in their classrooms. We invite educa-tors to arrange for face-to-face communication with col-

leagues in their department, district, conference session,or college classroom to review this information anddevelop this vision cooperatively. Taking such stepsshould encourage social studies educators to work col-laboratively and cooperatively to increase the effective-ness of cooperative learning groups in their classrooms.Finally, we invite social studies educators to ensure theirsocial studies classroom activities facilitate successfulsocial study via appropriate cooperative learning struc-tures. When these are done, the evidence suggests thatstudents can and will "get better together."

Notes'The motto "Getting Better Together" orginated with Jim

Weyand, former principal of Bill Reed Junior High School inLoveland, Colorado. A most remarkable educator, Jim invent-ed and used many of the concepts and principles of cooperativelearning with his faculty and staff bNinning in the early 1970sto build and maintain cooperatively one of the most powerful,effective, and collegial instructional staffs one author, RobertStahl, has personally encountered. Jim's genuine concern forstudents and student success evolved into a collegial teamwhose members, by working as a staff development coopera-tive learning team, "got better together" to enable students toachieve remarkable levels of academic, affective, and social

'Introductory descriptions of a number of cooperativelearning models are available in the works referenced at theend of these chapters.

ReferencesAronson, Elliot, Nancy T. Blaney, Cookie Stephan, Jev Sikes,

and Matthew Snapp. The Jigsaw Classroom. Beverly Hills,Calif.: Sage, 1978.

Cohen, Elizabeth. Designing Groupwork: Strategies forHeterogeneous Classrooms. New York: Teachers CollegePress, 1986.

Johnson, David W., and Roger T. Johnson. Learning Togetherand Alone: Cooperative, Competitive, and IndividualisticLearning. 3d ed. Englewood cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall,1991.

Johnson, David W., Roger T. Johnson, and Edythe J. Holubec.Cooperation in the Classroom. 3d ed. Edina, Minn.:Interaction Book Company, 1990.

Johnson, David W., Roger T. Johnson, Edythe J. Holubec, andPatricia Roy. Circles of Learning: Cooperation in theClassroom. Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervisionand Curriculum Development, 1984.

Kagan, Spencer. "The Structural Approach to CooperativeLearning." Educational Leadership 47 (December/January1989-90): 12-15.

. Cooperative Learning Resources for Teachers. San Juan(:apistram), Calif.: Resources for Teachers, 1989.

Lewin, Kurt. Field Theory in Social Science: SelectedTheoretical Papers by Kurt Lewin. Edited by D. Cartwright,169. London: Tavistock, 1952.

National :2ouncil for the Social Studies. "Revision of the NCSSSocial Studies Curriculum Guidelines." Social Education 43(April 1979): 261-66.

Slavin, Robert E. Introduction to Cooperative Learning. NewYork: Longman, 1983.

. Cooperative Learning: Theory, Research, and Practice.

Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1990.When and Why Does Cooperative Learning Increase

Achievement? Theoretical and Empirical Perspectives.Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, Center for Researchon Elementary and Middle Schools, OER1 no. G86-00061986, 1989.

Stahl, Robert J., ed. Cooperative Learning in the Social StudiesClassroom: A Handbook for Teachers. Menlo Park, Calif.:Addison-Wesley, 1992.

Stahl, Robert J. "Essentials of Cooperative Learning: KeyConcepts, Requirements, and Guidelines forImplementation." Presentation ar the annual meeting ofArizona Council for the Social Studies, Mesa, Arizona,October 1990.

Cooperativo learnki 7

Additional SourcesJohnsco, David W., Geoffrey Mariyama, Roger T. Johnson,

Deborah Nelson, and Linda Skon. "The Effects ofCooperative, Competitive and Individualistic GoalStructures on Achievement: A Meta-analysis."Psychological Bulletin 89 (1981): 47-62.

Newmann, Fred M., and Judith A. Thompson. Effects ofCooperative Learning on Achievement in SecondarySchools: A Summary of Research. Madison: NationalCenter on Effective Secondary Schools, University ofWisconsin, 1987.

Schmuck, Robert A., and Patricia A. Schmuck. GroupProcesscs in the Classroom. 6th ed. Dubuque, Iowa:William C. Brown, 1992.

From "Academic Strangers" to Successful Members of a CooperativeLearning Group: An Inside-the-Learner Perspective

Robert J. StahlArizona State University

Tempe, Arizona

Students typically enter K-12 classrooms as individ-uals, independent and primarily alone as learners,although perhaps not alone in the nonacademicaspects of their lives. They expect to complete the

hulk of their academic learning alone and to receiverewards or grades based on their accomplishments.

Although students occasionally work on joint pro-jects, they usually work independently of peers. Studentsmay copy homework, make sure another knows theassignment to be completed, or check their answers withthose of their peers. As these interactions occur, wemight overhear statements such as: "This is the correctanswer to this question," "This is the way I solved thisproblem," and "Here's where I found this answer."Sometimes they decide to divide the work. Each com-pletes a separate part and then they put the parts togeth-er into a final report or project. In other cases they mayspend time helping one another while estimating theextent to which they may he endangering their ownchances for success. If helping others threatens personalsuccess, students typically withdraw to complete thcirwork alone.

Cooperative situations such as these are almostexclusively oriented toward completing a task, which isthe main purpose of assignments and the single-mindedgoal of nearly every student. One student's comment,"Right or wrong, it's done," expresses this view well.Students sense that the purpose of group assignments isto generate an acceptable product regardless of whatthey learn or do not learn in the process. In these situa-tions, teachers find far too few opportunities to providethe individualized attention each student may need.Within traditional groups, students often place littleemphasis on ensuring that they learn or comprehendwhat the group studies. They sense that they arcaccountable for completing their respective parts ratherthan achieving the project's full range of instructionaloutcome objectives.

Many students arc academic loners, if not academicstrangers, in the midst of other students acting essen-tially the same way. Although some may be social

peers to others, few are perceived that way and evenfewer are perceived as academic resources. Indeed, stu-dents depend on nearly everything except other stu-dents as resources for learning. They may have come todevalue the knowledge and support of classmatesbecause of the risk of being wrong themselves. Further-more, without the knowledge, the ability, and practicein how to work and cooperate with others towardensuring the success of all, the chances are great thatthe group's efforts will not attain the group or individ-ual success intended.

The social setting of learning activities and the socialprocesses involved within learning environments playpowerful roles in student academic and social activities.For one thing, the learning activities are social in thatthe very words and language rules used are part andparcel of the culture(s) in which students live. AsBruner (1986) recognized, most learning in most set-tings by nearly every person occurs as a communalactivity, as a sharing of the culture. Students mustmake knowledge their own, but the)' must accomplishthis in a community of those who influence and sharetheir environment. Within classroom settings, studentsshare, negotiate, and revise meanings in light of theresponses of others. These responses occur whether ornot direct interaction takes place among students (orbetween students and the teacher) on academic con-tent, social interaction skills, and affective concerns.Students also make inferences about the range of rela-tionships and interactions they may have with others inthe same classroom. Consequently, many students inferthat although their ci..,:..r.ates may be called upon tohelp them complete projects, they themselves are notsources for helping their peers learn the content andabilities aligned with these projects.

What It is Like to Be an Academic Stranger:A First-Person Scenario

The f.)1lowing scenario illustrates a student's perspec-tive on what it means to be an "academic loner" or an"academic stranger" to one's peers.

1, 5

Student as an hcademk Loner

In my social studies classroom, I learn mostly byworking by myself to complete assignments.Nearly all my efforts to learn the content and abili-ties expected are done alone. I engage in mosttasks independently of what all other students inmy class are doing or achieving. What I do andhow well I do it are essentially unrelated to theaccomplishments of others. The rewards andgrades I receive are my own based solely on what Ihave accomplished. In most instances, my success,or lack of success, has no bearing on the rewardsand grades others receive (Johnson et al. 1984;Johnson, Johnson, and Holubec 199(J).

At times, working as an individual is a positiveexperience with worthwhile academic and person-al benefits. In these situations I have the chance tolearn about things in which I am personally inter-ested. I even. learn new abilities that enable me todo things I have always wanted to do. Most of thetime, however, I have to work toward learningknowledge and abilities that are not consistentwith my interests. Even my teacher likes some top-ics a great deal and has little interest in other topicswe are supposed to study. Having to focus on sub-ject matter content and tasks is not necessarilybad; this focus just usually does not match mypreferences. I would like to study social studies if Icould find topics meaningful and be successful inmy efforts.

The classroom routines are set up for me towork most of the time essentially alone next toothers who are also working alone. Therefore, Irely heavily upon my teacher and the textbook toprovide most of the information I am expected tolearn. My teacher's assignments often stress com-pleting certain projects such as reading the chapter,completing worksheets, or solving problems. WhatI really have to learn in order to he highly success-ful is often not clear until we have a test. In otherwords, I find myself being informed as to what Iam to do rather than what I am to learn. Forinstance, I might be directed to complete a work-sheet on the material in a chaptcr, draw a figure ofa Pilgrim on the class mural before Thanksgiving,or write a short essay on my reaction to wme pastor current event.

When I am done with my assignments, I usuallythink I understand the material even though I laterfind out all or a portion of my ideas and concep-tions are inaccurate and incomplete. If my personalunderstandings make sense to me, then, like allpeople, I continue to treat my versions of the mate-rial and events as being correct until I decide I haveto revise them. I depend entirely upon my teacherto tell me when and where I need help and to sup-

I 6

Cooperative learning 9

ply positive feedback when I succeed or makeprogress.

My classmates who fall behind in their workneed more direct and frequent help to learn whatall of us are expected to learn. Unfortunately, myteacher usually discovers this at a time when theentire class is moving on to new topics or content.When students sense that they are too far behind,that effort and time spent learning will not enablethem to catch up, and that they will not get thehelp they need, they usually stop paying attention,spending rime, and exerting effort to learn what isexpected. As one student said, "If I know I'mgoing to fail no matter how hard I try, why bothertrying?"

Competition: For Me to Win, Someone Else Has to Fail

For me, competition exists when I find myselfstriving to achieve something that is available insuch limited quantities that not everyone can attainit regardless of whatthey do. For instance, in abasketball tournament, only one team can becomechampion; all teams compete against each other toachieve something (first place) that from the starteveryone knows not all the teams can reach. In theclassroom, when the rewards are limited to only afew, no matter how hard I work or how much Ilearn, competition exists although my teacher maynot think it does.

My teacher creates a competitive environmentby limiting the number of rewards, such as Agrades, that will he given out for a particular testor at the end of the course. If my teacher believesthat having too many students receive A grades is asign of low standards, then limiting the rewards wemay earn keeps the number of high grades at anacceptable level. For each student in my class whoearns the highest reward, at least one other studentcannot be allowed to be as successful. This com-petitive situation exists mostly for those studentswho strive to achieve the few high rewards avail-able. Those who choose to compete realize fromthe start that not all of them will be allowed tomake A grades. Many students, however, choosenot to compete.

Even whole-class question-and-answer sessionsare often competitive (Kagan 1989-90). We com-pete for the teachcr's attention and praise as indi-viduals operating independently of all others in theclass. When the teacher selects me and I answercorrectly, all others lose the chance to answer andbe praised. In order for others to be praised, thefirst student selected must answer incorrectly orincompletelythat is, my chances for attentionand praise depend upon the failure of my class-mates. Most of my teachers are not aware that cer-


tain whole-class discussion behaviors generatecompetition. Many of these behaviors discourageour participation and, hence, our achievement.One obvious sign of this effect is that fewer andfewer of my classmates vie to answer questions asthe school year progresses. Unfortunately, tradi-tional classroom learning environments are rarelystructured to enable most of us to become activeand successful participants (e.g., Kagan 1989-90,1990).

Teachers who begin the year opposing thenotion of competition may resort to it out of frus-tration or desperation as many of their studentscontinue to score low on tests, fall behind, andbecome increasingly apathetic. The teacher mayadd friendly competition for limited rewards toentice us to participate and exert the effort neces-sary to succeed on particular tasks. We sometimeseven play our own versions of "Jeopardy!,""Family Feud," or "Twenty Questions," as a meansto have fun and change our classroom routine.Students often leave these contests or games beingperceived as winners or losers in the class. Theexcitement of the contest passes quickly, but oncethe winners are revealed, ei-eryone lives with rhoknowledge they have of the success or failure ofevery student involved.

Consequently, competitive activities sometimesmake us resist involvement, learning, and successin future activities. As the ranking of students' abil-ities becomes public and clear, these competitiveactivities tend to widen the existing differencesamong students' academic knowledge and abilities,which in turn widen negative perceptions of otherson the basis of their gender, race, or ethnicity. Ineffect, by sorting students into "winners" and"losers," competition perpetuates conditions inwhich nearly all students lose in terms of whatthey could have potentially achieved.

In all these activities I continue to see myself asan academic stranger to my classmates and to beperceived by them as a stranger, even a threat, totheir academic growth and success.

Our Work in Groups Rather Than as Groups

Working in groups and completing group assign-ments are often part of my social studies course.These groups are rarely more than collections ofstudents who sit together, complete essentiallyindependent tasks, and fit their individual partstogether so they have a single product as proof oftheir cooperative effort. In these instances, studentsprimarily work in groups rather than as groups. Iwork near other members of my group instead ofwith them as part of a team of learners. In such sit-uations, the frequency, quantity, and quality of our

interactions are low and the achievement for all islower than it should be considering the time spent.Often we do not even participate in face-to-faceinteraction.

When we work in these groups, a number ofroles emerge that reinforce the notion that we areto work in our groups primarily to finish theassignment. The "divvy-uppers" ensure that theassignment is divvied up into parts with each per-son assigned to a part. The "lookouts" positionthemselves to survey the room to let us know whenthe teacher is approaching and when certain limitedresources, such as atlases and dictionaries, are avail-able. The "get-it-doners" are those that make sureat least some of us stay on task to get the assign-ment done. These students may even do the workof others just to get a project finished. The "put-it-togetherers" emerge as we need to assemble the dif-ferent parts, make them fit, and make up the transi-tions, introduction, and ending. They do the polish-ing off work. There may even emerge one or more"bail-outers." These students will work along withthe others at the beginning, but will essentially dropout of the group and go it alone if they sense thatstaying with the group's effort will be bad for theirgrades or rewards. In some emergency cases, thesestudents will do nearly the entire assignment them-selves and put everyone's name on it just to preventadverse consequences.

Rarely do we spend time making sure that allare learning the material as well as they can. I

sometimes learn a lot from my groupmates, andthey may learn something from me. Both of theseare unpredictable by-r-oducts of nearly all groupwork in my class. At the same time we do notseem to learn much about how a group is sup-posed to work. Each group operates according tothe personalities of the people involved rather thanaccording to guidelines about ways we need tothink and act as a group and within a group.

Even here, in the midst of my classmates, theperception persists among us that we are strangersrather than resources for each other's learning.Of course, the above scenario does not hold for every

student in every group in every class. Its purpose is toillustrate a perspective that is not always considered asteachers make decisions al ,iut individual and groupassignments. A large part of this scenario was abstractedfrom the literature on cooperative learning, especially asit has been contrasted with individual and typical groupstrategics.

Cooperative learning advocates reject the notion thatstudents remain "academic strangers" to one anotherand stress the important ways that each student can playa role in the academic success of other students.Cooperative learning groups lead to group success that

can be accomplished only by the personal achievementof each group member.

Student as an Academic ColleagueThis section describes the perspective of students in

social studies classrooms using appropriate cooperativelearning structures and guidelines. A hypothetical stu-dent's perspective is offered as a contrast to the previousscenario of student life in many noncooperative class-room sett ings.

Students as Cooperative Learning Team Members:

No Longer Academic Strangers

In my social studies classroom, we work in groupsand have group tasks to complete. These groups,however, are not like most of the groups I haveworked in before; they are different in a number ofways. Although our teacher places us in groups tolearn social studies content and abilities, I havenoticed that a number of features occur each timewe form groups.

Each group is as heterogeneous as possible,according to gender, ethnicity, race, and knowl-edge and abilit) levels (Kagan 1990; Johnson et al.1984; Slavin 1989, 1990, 1991). This mixtureensures ti,a I come in close contact with andactively interact with everyone in the class, includ-ing students other than those from my own gen-der, race, or ethnic background. With these groupsfunctioning as they do, I have revised a number ofperceptions of these students and what they canachieve as well as what they can contribute to mysuccess.

The teacher and students set clear, specific indi-vidual and group goals (Johnson et al. 1984;Slavin 1990, 1991 ). From the start, each groupand each group member has a clear notion ofexactly what is to be learned and what evidencebeyond the group activities is required to verifythat we have attained and maintained the estab-lished learning goals. Unlike some classes where agroup might be assigned to complete a project orworksheet, my teacher's group assignments requirethat we learn the information and abilities that theassignment represents. I learned early that having agood-looking group report was not sufficient; allof us had to learn what was in the report. None ofus was accustomed to that expectation.

We also found that not only was the groupresponsible for completing the learning task as agroup but each of us Nvas also held individuallyaccountable for the learning (Johnson et al. 1984;Slavin 1989, 1990). Not only was each groupresponsible for learning the assigned informationand abilities, the teacher also tested and assessedeach of us to determine the extent of our personal

Cooperative Lairning 1 1

success. I not only had to complete the work in thegroup, I had to learn to the best of my ability andhelp each of my groupmates to learn as well. Wefound we could no longer hide behind the groupproject without learning all the material and abili-ties ourselves. I get a grade for my personalachievement within and as a result of these groups.

What really helps is that the teacher providesworthwhile group rewards (Slavin 1989, 1990;Johnson, Johnson, and Holubec 1990). When theresults of the group's efforts and achievement arcgood enough, the teacher rewards all members ofthe group on the basis of the group members' indi-vidual achievement. Sometimes the reward is morepoints added to all of our grades. We know, how-ever, that we must meet the teacher's high expecta-tions for all of us to get the best rewards. I alsorealize that the teacher wants all of us to learn thematerial well, so in nearly every case each groupcan earn the highest reward only when its mem-bers collectively achieve at the level expected.

In order to achieve our learning goals, the struc-ture of the group work is such that a division ofrequired individual tasks is necessary. My teacherprovides clear guidelines to ensure that we all haveseparate tasks to complete successfully as an inte-gral part of the final group goal. When necessary,my teacher takes time from classroom activities tohelp each of us with comprehending and refiningour individual tasks. From the start it is not aguessing game for us. Besides, the earlier I knowexactly what I need to do to help the group suc-ceed, the sooner I can get to work and achievewhat is necessary.

A positive interdependence among group mem-bers emerges (Johnson and Johnson 1989). Mygroupmates and I quickly realize that we need thehelp of others. Every one of us eventually acceptsthe responsibility for our own learning andachievement and for the learning and achievementof all group members. This interdependence is nec-essary for us to function as a group. It is vital forus to attain our group goal collectively. The groupguidelines ensure as much as possible that each ofus is dependent upon all other group members forall of us to achieve our group and individual goals.

An extensive amount of face-to-face interactionis necessary for us to work and succeed as a group(Johnson and Johnson 1989). Each time our groupmeets, I try to engage in direct and continuingface-to-face dialogues with my groupmates as weshare and consider our knowledge and abilitiesand check our own learning. We arrange ourchairs and desks so that this face-to-face dialoguecan occur. This interaction works to ensure that allgroup members learn the required information and

i 2 Cooperative Learning

abilities, complete the shared assignment, andachieve the academic goals.

As we work together in these structured ways,we learn civility attitudes and abilities (Casteel1990). We are acquiring, refining, and using per-spectives and behaviors that will enable each of usto be effective members of the social communityand culture of the group. In order to establish andmaintain a civil environment for our group interac-tions and work, we communicate as clearly as pos-sible; resolve disagreements through compromise,persuasion, and negotiation; share knowledge,abilities, and self; and facilitate completion ofgroup subtasks (Johnson and Johnson 1989),Instead of dreading coming to class each day, Ifind that the class is socially attractive, encourag-ing, and powerful.

My teacher helps us to describe, practice, andrefine the many group-processing abilities neces-

sary for our groups to function well. These pro-cessing abilities are also important in other groupsin which 1 participate outside of class. Like eachgroup member, I am expected to assume variousroles. These roles include but are not limited tothose of recorder, encourager, checker, leader, andreader. Eventually I will have to play all theseroles. I am learning how to carry out these roles inaddition to learning my social studies material. Myteacher tells us that these roles and those associat-ed with being civil contribute to the social studypart of social studies.

I sense that when we operate in these groups theway they are supposed to work, every student inthe class, especially in my group, has an equalopportunity for success (Slavin 1989). My teacheruses guidelines so that our cooperative learninggroups establish conditions that allow each studentto be as successful as any other student in thegroup and in the class as a whole.

I have been especially pleased with these groupassignments because the teacher allows sufficienttime for learning what each of us needs. In mostcases, my teacher allows each student and eachgroup enough time to learn the required informa-tion and abilities. When we do not have enoughtime to learn, the academic and other benefits ofour social study using cooperative learning groupsare limited (Johnson, Johnson, and Holubec 1990;see also, for example, Carroll 1989; Dempster1988, 1991; Stahl 1989; in press). Since myteacher began using cooperative learning groups,we get and stay with assignments for extendedperiods of time. As a result, my teacher gives usmore time to complete our group work. The endresult is that more of us learn more than when lesstime was allowed for group work.

Once the groups complete their work, ourteacher takes time to announce publicly thegroups' achievement and the rewards to be distrib-uted to those that attain or surpass the high stan-dards established before the groups began theirwork. This is an exciting time for us, especiallysince the number of groups whose members suc-ceed is so high.

When we are finished with our group work, myteacher often takes the time to help us reflect onour group-processing abilities (Johnson andJohnson 1989). As an individual and as a groupmember, I am asked to stop periodically to reflectupon and assess my own and the group's opera-tions, interactions, and progress. I am then askedto decide how I might improve my interpersonaland group-processing abilities to increase the effec-tiveness of the group as a learning team.As with the first scenario, this description does not

hold for every student in every classroom in every situa-tion. When teachers use cooperative learning groupsappropriately over an extended period of time, a per-spective like that described above can become prevalentamong students. As depicted here, when teachers usecooperative learning, students are not allowed to be"academic loners" and to remain "academic strangers"to one another.

Ultimately, working in cooperative learning groupsproduces many positive results because they enable stu-dents to gain access to and complete many of the inter-nal processing tasks they need to complete to be highlysuccessful. The next section introduces three critical ele-ments for individual learner achievement that appropri-ate cooperative learning groups provide.

What Each Student Needs to Be a Successful Learner:An Inside-the-Learner Perspective

Much of the cooperative learning literature and manytraining sessions focus on teacher and student require-ments to work effectively in groups as learning teams.We would expect that when teachers implement theselected structure and guidelines, the benefits of coopera-tive learning will result. Unless the individual and groupactivities enable students to gain internally what eachneeds to be academically successful, however, the bene-fits will not occur no matter how much effort studentsexert. Social studies educators need an adequate concep-tion of students' needs from an inside-the-learner per-spective to complement their notions of what they needto provide outside the learner in the form of cooperativelearning guidelines and group goals.

The Student as Learner

Students arc dynamic, active information processorswho continually generate, construct, revise, apply, test,and assess their personal understandings of the world,

themselves, and their experiences (Stahl 1989). Studentsultimately decide individually which events, materials,and data they will attend to and how each infobit willbe made meaningful and be related to other infobits.Students invent or construct meaning and make senseof what they encounter by using previously acquiredinformation to act upon and manipulate newly encoun-tered information. The already acquired sets of infor-mation constitute both knowledge and "prior knowl-edge" at a particular moment. The results of theseinventing, sense-making, and meaning-making activi-ties are labeled constructs, conceptions, worldviews,perspectives, and infoschemata.2

Each student also decides, almost always uncon-sciously, how permanently stored information will beused to make sense of and assign meaning to newlyencountered material and data. The student even decideswhether something is a problem or is worthy of furtherattention. All individuals assign personal meaning to theexternal information and events they encounter and per-ceive to exist as well as to all information and concep-tions they generate internally. This meaning and thismeaning alone influences personal judgments. Themeanings, perceptions, conceptions, and results of sense-making decisions may be either stored permanently inthe brain or forgotten, sometimes within seconds.

This view of students reveals that their brains do notoperate as sponges that absorb external informationsuch information cannot be directly transferred intosomeone's brain as if it were a video recorder. Essential-ly, from the moment a student encounters an externalevent or material, a series of high-speed decisions thatassign personal meaning to what is encountered is begun.The result is a version of what the student thinks occurredor thinks the material says from his or her own point ofview. This meaning may be, and oftcn is, different inintent, content, and form from that of the teacher ortextbook. Unless the student reflects upon and reassessesthe meanings initially assigned to the information, thatversion of the event or material will be considered anaccurate and complete representation. Students, liketheir teachers, use their invented versions as a base tomake sense of other materials they encounter within andoutside the classroom. In far too many instances stu-dents construct inadequate versions of what theyencounter in social studies classes as they strive toachieve the selected instructional outcome objectives.

If students are to achieve established social studiesgoals, they must eventually construct sets of organizedand meaningful information aligned with each goal. Thisinformation serves as requisite knowledge to guide deci-sions and actions consistent with the selected goals. Inaddition, students should be able to use this informationwhen needed in the form of academic, social, and affec-tive abilities. Another way of viewing what each studentneeds to be a successful learner is through a model of


learning in school settings that emphasizes what the stu-dent needs rather than what the teacher needs to provideor do.

A Model of School LearningIn educational settings learning may be defined as

acquiring new information or new abilities to use infor-mation such that the information or ability is accessibleto the person twenty-three or more hours beyond theclass period in which the information or ability was firstencountered or used (Stahl 1989; in press).' Learninginvolves a series of internal information-processingevents that each person must complete to transfer thenew information or ability into permanent storage.Essentially, learning involves making one or morechanges both in the existing knowledge housed in per-manent storage and in the ability to use this knowledgeat some future time. Given this definition, the teacherand student alike cannot confirm what has been learneduntil approximately twenty-three or more hours after aclass period has ended.

Therefore, just because students arc active, havingfun, and appear to be learning something new does notmean that what they are thinking about or doing duringthat same class period has been or will he i,arned.Ample evidence from numerous research stuc .es andfrom teachers' classroom experiences verify that studentsfrequently forget much of what they appear to havelearned quite well on a previous day.

In addition, social studies educators should notassume that the processing associated with learningguarantees that what is learned, as determined by thelearner or some external standard, is correct, complete,appropriate, or relevant to a task, an expected ability, ora future need. Even the individual learner cannot guar-antee that certain information, conceptions, or abilitieswill be stored permanently. Nor can the learner guaran-tee that what is stored will be accurate or will beretrieved when needed.

The elements that determine the extent of learningsuccess can be expressed in the following way:

Degree

of ISuccess

relevant Mfabits

possessed and

able to be used

at the moment

relevant

infobits

regui,ed

appropriate internal actual

processing events productive

completed up to time already

that moment spent learning

appropriate internal actual

processing events productive

needed to bo time needed

ornpleted to be spent

learning

As this equation suggests, the three critical elements nec-essary for successful learning are, in abbreviated form,(a) appropriate and sufficient information, (b) appropri-ate and sufficient internal processing events completed


and possible to complete, and (c) sufficient productivetime spent learning (Stahl 1989, in press). The informa-tion one needs depends upon the particular ability to belearned and the level of success one wishes to achieve.For instance, to be competent inquirers students willneed information different from that needed to be skilledat applying a concept to distinguish between examplesand nonexamples. Processing events refer to li,)w thelearner considers, manipulates, and uses inforihation.Processing events include but are not limited to para-phrasing, organizing, interpreting, forming associations,and applying information. The time-spent element refersto the actual number of minutes, hours, days, weeks,and months each student must spend to achieve thedesired level of success.

All three elements are interrelated and interdepen-dent; none is considered the most important in its ownright. For instance, to place high value on having stu-dents process information without having them acquireand process information directly aligned with the goal,or without having students spend sufficient time to com-plete the processing, will not enable them to be as suc-cessful as the teacher desires. Social studies teachers will,therefore, want to provide students opportunities toattain 100 percent of what each student needs of each ofthese three elements for every ability to he learned.

Returning to the formula noted earlier, the degree ofsuccess for every ability can range from 0 to 100 percent,with 100 percent representing the highest level ofachievement that is acceptable at a particular moment.The higher the expected level of achievement, the moreeach of these three elements will be required. The threeelements within the parentheses reflect ratios, not fractions. The bottom section for each is always 100 percentof what is needed for a particular levd of success. Thetop section of each ratio may range fro]. 0 to 100 per-cent. To be 100 percent successful, the top of each vari-able ratio must always be 100 percent. To the extentthat any one or more of these elements is below 100 per-cent of what is needed, the learner will be less successfulthan if all three were completely fulfilled. Desire andeffort cannot replace what is needed in each of thesethree critical elements.

For any ability, an overabundance in one element willnever compensate for less than 100 percent of what thelearner needs in one or both other elements. Forinstance, giving students more time without access to thecritical information they need will not make up for theinformation, no matter how long a period of time theyare allowed. Similarly, having students encounter infor-mation they must learn without the opportunities toprocess the information in appropriate ways will notlead to the learning teachers may expect. The require-ments for the bottom section of each ratio will vary fromone ability to another and will likely vary from one stu-

dent to another. At the beginning of instruction, studentsin a single classroom will likely vary in the extent towhich they approach 100 percent for each of the threevariables (Stahl 1989; in press).'

Implications for Social Studies EducationSocial studies instruction will be effective to the extent

that it provides students access te the appropriate infor-mation, processing, and time they mad in order to besuccessful. Invariably, students will differ in the quantityand quality of what they have and what they need to besuccessful from each of the three critical elements. Inaddition to the academic content and abilities to belearned, learners also need descriptive and supportivefeedback on the extent to which they are actually acquir-ing the infobits and abilities required for the achievementlevel expected. To the extent that such feedback is notprovided or allowed, the instructional environment willalways be less than optimally effective no matter howgood the model, the method, or the teacher appears tobe. Conversely, no teaching model will be optimallyeffective if its implementation limits students' fulfillmentof the three elemental areas required for learning.

Appropriate Cooperative Learning Provides StudentsAccess to What They Need to Be Successful

Cooperative learning models provide students withmany opportunities to gain access to the informationthey need, to complete the processing they need to com-plete, and to spend extended on-task time learning indirect alignment with the social studies goals selected. Bybuilding a community of learners, on-task coJperativegroups serve to (a) increase the relevant informatioo thatwould otherwise be available to a single person, (b) pro-vide and support alternative versions and perspectives ofwhat they are studying, (c) help students completeappropriate internal information processing, (d) increasethe use of self-regulatory abilities to stay focused, (e)monitor students' thinking and actions such that correc-tion and reinforcement will be more immediate, fre-quent, and constructive, and (f) verify students' ideasand abilities within moments after being expressed.When students work as groups to facilitate each other'slearning, each student has engaged time to learn infor-mation and abilities associated with the goals. In addi-tion, the social interaction allows thinking and its resultsto take a somewhat public, therefore observable, form.As students talk, their peers, the teacher, and the stu-dents themselves can attend to these public statements toassess the content, meanings, and applications of theirthinking. The second scenario presented earlier illus-trates how cooperative learning groups tend to providemore students with improved access to what they needto learn effectively.

EpilogueThis chapter stresses learning and achievement within

the social studies classroom from an inside-the-learnerperspective. lt provides a conceptual framework of thestudent as learner to complement the teacher and stu-dent activity framework that the literature on coopera-tive learning emphasizes. One value of this perspective isthat it helps the social studies educator consider whatneeds to occur within and around students during effec-tive instructional strategies such as cooperative learning.

Notes,Infobit (plural, infobits) is a term coined by the author in

1983 to denote any piece or hit of information or data.2Infoschemata !singular, infoschema) is i term used to label

the organized clusters of interrelated information learners con-struct, storeind use as their "prior knowledge." More detailson infoschemata and other aspects of this position are availableelsev here (e.g., Stahl 1989, in press).

'This definition is proposed as a viable one for distinguish-ing among learning, what is learned, and what is forgotten inschool settings (also see Stahl, in press).

'See, for example, Bloom (1976), Carroll (1989), andDempster (1988, 1991) for a similar claim pertaining only tothe time variable.

ReferencesBruner, Jerome. Actual Minds, Possible Worlds. Cambridge,

Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1986.Carroll, John B. "The Carroll Model: A 25-Year Retrospective

and Prospective View." Educational Researcher 18(January/February 1989): 26-31.

Casteel, J. Doyle. Interview with author. University of Florida,Gainesville, July 1990.

Dempster, Frank N. "The Spacing Effect: A Case Study in theFailure to Apply the Results of Psychological Research."American Psychologist 43 (1988). 627-34.

. "Synthesis of Research on Reviews and Tests."Educational Leadership 44, no. 7 (April 1991): 71-76.


Johnson, David W., Roger T. Johnson, and Edythe J. Holubec.Circles of Learning. 3d ed. Edina, Mimi.: Interaction BookCompany, 1990.

Johnson, David W., Roger T. Johnson, Edythe J. Holuhec, andPatricia Roy. Circles of Learning: Cooperation in the Class-room. Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision and(;urriculum Development, 1984.

Kagan, Spencer. "The Structural Approach to CooperativeLearning." Educational Leadership 47 (December/January1989-90): 12-15.

Cooperative Learning Resources for Teachers. San JuanCapistrano, Calif.: Resources for Teachers, 1990.

Slavin, Robert E. When and Why Does Cooperative LearningIncrease Achievement?' Theoretical and Empirical Perspec-tives. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, Center forResearch on Elementary and Middle Schools, OERI no.G86-00061986, 1989.

. Cooperative Learning: Theory, Research, and Practice.Englewood Cliffs, NJ.: Prentice-Hall, 1990.

"Synthesis of Research on Cooperative Learning."Educational Leadership 48 (February 1991): 71-82.

Stahl, Robert J. ".Time Alone Does Not Mastery Make:Extending Carroll's Model of School Learning in Light ofan Information Processing Perspective." Paper presented atthe annual meeting of the American Educational ResearchAssociation, San Francisco, California, April 1989.

"A Context for 'Higher Order Knowledge': AnInformation-Constructivist (IC) Perspective with Implica-tions for Curriculum and Instruction." Part I. Journal ofStructural Learning and Intelligent Systems. In press.

Additional SourcesBloom, Benj nit. S. Human Characteristic,.; and School

Learning. Nzw York: McGraw-Hill, 1976.Slavin, Robert E. Cooperative Learning. 2d ed. New York:

Longman, 1988._. Using Student Team Learning. 3d ed. Baltimore: Center

for Research on Elementary and Middle Schools, JohnsHopkins University, 1986.

Stahl, Robert J., ed. Cooperative Learning in the Social Studies:A Handbook for Teachers. Menlo Park, Calif.: Addison-Wesley, 1992.

Cooperative Learning, Properly Implemented, Works:Evidence from Research in Classrooms

Ronald I.. Van SickleThe University of Georgia

Athens, Georgia

Cooperative 1( arning is a research and developmentsuccess story. Scores of educational research andevaluation projects document the instructionaleffectiveness of cooperative learning with students

in classrooms. These research and evaluation efforts alsohave contributed To the refinement of various coopera-tive learning techniques. Furthermore, inquiry into coop-erative learning has clarified the general conditionsunder which educators can reasonably expect their stu-dents to engage in productive, cooperative work in set-tings outside particular cooperative learning groupstrategies. Consequently, social studies teachers have aconsiderable knowledge base on which to decide (a)whether to use cooperative learning techniques, (b)which techniques to try, and (c) how properly to imple-ment the cooperative learning approach(es) they select.

In the form of a conversation between a teacher and acooperative learning advocate, this chapter reviewsresearch on cooperative learning with the practical con-siderations of a teacher foremost.

TACHER: If I use small-group cooperative learningtechniques to teach my students, can I expect my stu-dents to learn more historical and social scientific knowl-edge than they do with conventional whole-class andindividual seatwork instructional procedures?

ADVOCATE: In general, the answer is yes. Manyresearch projects have been conducted to study theeffects of cooperative learning techniques on academicachievement in middle school and high school class-rooms. The findings of most of those studies support theclaim that cooperation usually produces higher levels ofstudent achievement than competitive and individualisticinstructional activities. The academic effectiveness ofcooperative learning varies, however, with the specifictechniques selected and how well the teacher and stu-dents implement the techniques.

T: If I try cooperative learning, I want to use the besttechnique. In terms of students' academic achievement,which cooperative learning technique is the most effective?

A: Data are available for comparing several coopera-tive learning techniques. Please be cautious. Selecting the

"best" technique requires more criteria than just a com-parison of each technique's overall achievement effects.Nevertheless, having information about the academicachievement results of a particalar technique is valuable.

Slavin (1990) recently explored the effects of the vari-ous cooperative learning techniques on students'achievement by reviewing sixty-eight school-basedexperiments that compared cooperative learning withother methods. He examined existing research on thefollowing techniques: Student Teams-AchievementDivisions, Teams-Games-Tournament, Team-AssistedInstruction, Cooperative Integrated Reading andComposition, Learning Together, Jigsaw, and GroupInvestigation. He also reviewed a handful of studiesfocused on other, lesser-known techniques. Takentogether, the cooperative learning techniques producedsuperior academic achievement in 72 percent of theexperiments; only 12 percent showed superior effects forthe noncooperative comparison instruction.

Slavin's examination also allows a comparison of theeffectiveness of the cooperative learning techniquesreviewed in the sixty-eight experiments. Student Teams-Achievement Divisions demonstrated superior achieve-ment effects in 86 percent of the studies (18 of 21).Teams-Games-Tournament demonstrated superioreffects in 75 percent of the studies (9 of 12). Team-Assisted Instruction and Cooperative Integrated Readingand Composition each showed superior effects in 100percent of the studies (i.e., Team-Assisted Instruction in5 of 5, and Cooperative Integrated Reading and Compo-sition in 7 of 7). Learning Together demonstrated superi-or results in 56 percent of its studies (5 of 9). Jigsawachieved superiority in only 25 percent of thc studies (2of 8). Group Investigation produced superior effects in60 percent of the studies (3 of 5).

T: It looks like the research says Team-AssistedInstruction and Cooperative Integrated Reading andComposition are the best cooperative learning tech-niques followed by Student Teams-AchievementDivisions. Do you agree?

A: The research evidence does not tell us which are

',

the best techniques. Research reports are a source ofinformation we must interpret in light of our educationalgoals and the realities of the environment in which weteach. Some of the techniques were developed to teachspecific types of subject matter. Team-Assisted Instruc-tion was designed to teach mathematics and CooperativeIntegrated Reading and Cornposition was designed forlanguage arts instruction; Student 'I-cams-AchievementDivisions and Teams-Games-Tournament appear towork bcst with objectives focused on knowledge, com-prehension, and application, hut Group Investigationwas designed for higher-cognitive learning. Academicachievement is an important learning outcome, butaffective goals such as interpersonal relationships arealso important.

T: I often feel suspicious of research. New techniques,for example, can show excellent results because students'motivational levels are high due to novelty and the spe-cial attention students receive in an experiment. Werethese experiments conducted in laboratories or inschools under more or less real-life conditions?

A: Slavin reported that he selected the sixty-eightstudies out of a considerably larger set of cooperativelearning research reports. The sixty-eight studies satisfiedthe following conditions. First, they lasted at least twen-ty hours (i.e., four weeks of classes). This reduced thelikelihood of attributing the results to novelty or motiva-tion because of special attention. Second, students in thecooperative learning classes and in the comparison treat-ment classes studied the same material to achieve thesame objectives; none used placebo treatments. Third,the studies provided evidence that students in both thecooperative and comparison classes were strikingly simi-lar at the beginning of the study. This standard was metthrough either random assignment of students to classesor pretests that showed the groups to be similar. Finally,achievement tests assessed the same objectives in bothinstructional treatments. Nearly all the studies were con-ducted in school settings.

T: This research sounds good, but I have anotherquestion. People talk about statistical significance, but Iam more concerned about practical significance. The dif-ference between two groups of students could be statisti-cally significant but the difference could be so small thatit has no practical value. If I am going to try cooperativelearning, I want to be sure I am aiming for an achieve-ment effect that will justify the tinle and energy I mustput into a new teaching approach. What evidence isthere about the sizes of achievement effects?

A: Fortunately, evidence is available about magni-tudes of effect. The concept of effect size will help usthink about this question. In order to compare differentstudies using different tests, students, subject matter, andmaterials, it is helpful to examine how the distribution ofstudent achievement scores in various instructional con-ditions differ. A number of effect size statistics exist, but


one we can use tells us how the score distributions differacco,-ding to standard deviation units (Cohen 1977).

Slavin applied this effect size concept to the achieve-ment results of fifty-one studies that provided enoughdata to compute effect sizes. Overall, the effect size was.21 standard deviation in favor of the cooperative learn-ing techniques. Another way of stating the meaning ofthis statistic is that 58 percent of the students who par-ticipated in a cooperative learning treatment scoredabove the mean of students in the noncooperative treat-ments.

Of course, the effect sizes varied with the technique. Inthe Student Teams-Achievement Divisions studies, 61 per-cent of the experimental students scored above the com-parison students. In the Teams-Games-Tournament stud-ies, 65 percent of the experimental students scored abovethe mean of the comparison students. Following are thepercentages of cooperative learning students who scoredabove the mean of the comparison students for the othercooperative learning techniques: Team-Assisted Instruction/Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition, 58percent above the mean; Learning Together, 50 percent;Jigsaw, 52 percent; and Group Investigation, 55 percent.Much variation in effect sizes exists between studies of thesame technique; for example, Teams-Games-Tournamenteffect sizes varied from a low of 48 percent above thecomparison group mean to 98 percent above.

If no difference existed between cooperative and non-cooperative instruction, we would expect 50 percent ofthe cooperative learning students to be above the meanof the students in the noncooperative classes and viceversa. Flow large an effect must exist to be practical?The answer to that question depends on the recur youexpect for the time and energy you invest in leiwning toimplement a new instructional approach. Given twoclasses of students having similar characteristics andstudying the same subject with the same materials, howwould you feel if a new instructional approach used inone class caused 58 percent of that group to score abovethe mean of the other group? If that sounds good, thenthe new instructional approach would be worthwhile ifthe time and energy required to implement it were rea-sonable. The size of effect you require will influencewhich cooperative learning techniques appeal to you.

T: Student Teams-Achievement Divisions and Teams-Games-Tournamein still look good since more than 60percent of the cooperative learning students scoredabove the mean of the comparison group students.Learning Together and jigsaw show no superior achieve-ment effect or only a tiny positive effect. Why wouldanyone bother with them if traditional teaching tech-niques are just as good?

A: One reason for considering them is that a numberof desirable attitudinal, interpersonal, or behavioral out-comes might accrue that students do not achievethrough more conventional instruction. The lack of a


practical, superior achievement effect, however, is puz-zling. Mattingly and Van Sickle (1991) were particularlycurious about Jigsaw's apparent failure to produce stu-dent achievement superior to noncooperative instruc-don. They examined the Jigsaw experiments and discov-ered that nearly all used a form of Jigsaw that included

"neither rewards to groups nor individual accountabilityof students within groups.

Group rewards and individual accountability aremajor characteristics of Student Teams-AchievementDivisions, Teams-Games-Tournament, Team-AssistedInstruction, and Cooperative Integrated Reading and(;omposition. Slavin (1983) developed a form of Jigsaw,.1igsaw II, that implemented these two conditions. InJigsaw II, each team of snidents receives a group rewarddetermined by slimming points each student earns as aresult of individual achievement test scores. Mattinglyand Van Sickle conducted an experiment using Jigsaw IIand observed a difference in favor of Jigsaw II with aneffect size of .81 standard deviation; 79 percent of theJigsaw 11 students scored above the mean of studentswho received the comparison instruction. Grouprewards and individual accountability strengthened dra-matically Jigsaw's academic effect.

Slavin (1990) reported that two of the LearningTogether studies (Humphreys, Johnson, and Johnson1982; Yager et al. 1985) showed statistically significantpositive results. Roth of those studies, unlike the studiesSlavin reviewed, implemented Learning Together withindividual accountability. Unfortunately, the two posi-tive effect studies did not report data needed to computeeffect sizes.

The absence of group rewards and individualaccountability seems to solve the mystery regarding whyl.earning Together and Jigsaw did not show substantial-ly stronger achievement effects in the studies reported bySlavin. Further analysis of Jigsaw and Learning Togethersupports Slavin's claim that cooperative learning tech-niques need both to provide group rewards and to holdindividual students accountable for individual learning.Students' motivation to work toward academic goals intheir learning teams is likely to be greater when theirrewards are a function of their team performance andwhen their individual contributions to the team's perfor-mance are obvious to their teammates. More research isneeded, but it appears that if Learning Together andJigsaw arc modified to meet these two criteria, then theyare likely to produce the superior academic effects ofStudent Teams-Achievement Divisions, Teams-Games-Tournament, Team-Assisted Instruction, and Cooper-ative Integrated Reading and Composition.

T: I understand how the structure of cooperativelearning groups can be important. The lack of grouprewards and individual accountability also explains whymany small-group activities I have tried have resulted inone or two students doing most of thc work. One of the

reasons less capable students might learn more in acooperative learning class is that the more competentstudents help them to learn the material. Does that meancooperative learning techniques should be used only inheterogeneous ability classes? Are they academicallyvaluable in homogeneous ability classes? In low-abilityclasses?

A: We have little research on the effects of coopera-tive learning techniques in homogeneously grouped,low-ability classes. Allen and Van Sickle (1984) usedStudent Teams-Achievement Divisions and compared alow-ability 9th grade class with a class using whole-classand individual seatwork activities. The mean IQ in eachclass was 75. The STAD students outscored the compar-ison students by 11.7 percent for an effect size of .94standard deviation; 83 percent of the cooperative learn-ing students scored above the mean of the comparisonclass. In light of the more general findings, Allen andVan Sickle's study suggests that the motivational effect ofthe cooperative organization was strong enough toincrease the learning effectiveness of the students in theirstudy even in the absence of more capable students.

T: Do cooperative learning techniques work betterwith some types of students than others?

A: A few studies address the question of interactionbetween cooperative instructional treatments and stu-dent characteristics. According to Slavin (1981), StudentTeams-Achievement Divisions and Teams-Games-Tournament work equally well in rural, suburban, andurban settings. Although both African-American andkiropean-American students tend to perform at higherlevels with cooperative instruction when compared tononcooperative instruction, African-American studentstend to demonstrate a greater difference in favor ofcooperative learning (Lucker et al. 1976; Slavin 1977;Slavin and Oickle 1981). In terms of high, average, andlow achievers, those who benefit most from cooperativelearning vary from study to study (Slavin 1981). Onestudy (Wheeler 1977) reported that students who pre-ferred to cooperate achieved higher scores through coop-erative learning than students who preferred to compete.The reverse was true in competitively structured instruc-tion. Given the few studies addressing student-treatmentinteractions, we must interpret these findings cautiously.

T: What kinds of affective outcomes do cooperativelearning techniques produce?

A: Students in cooperative learning settings tend todevelop more positive relationships with students ofboth similar and dissimilar ethnic backgrounds (Slavin1990). In fact, a major motivation for developingStudent Teams-Achievement Divisions and Teams-Games-Tournament was to improve race relations indesegregated schools. The benefits are generalizable,however, beyond African-American and European-American students in U.S. schools. Jigsaw II, for exam-ple, generated more cross-ethnic friendships among

native Anglo-Canadian students, West Indian immi-grants, and European immigrants (Ziegler 198 I ). In

Israel, Group Investigation and Student Teams-Achieve-ment Divisions encouraged more positive cross-ethnicattitudes between Jewish students of Middle Eastern andEuropean backgrounds (Sharan et al. 1984),

Academically handicapped students frequently arerejected by their nonhandicapped peers in mainstreamedclassrooms. Cooperative learning techniques usually canhelp improve student relationships in this context aswell. Madden and Slavin ( 1983) observed that nonhand-icapped students in Student Teams-AchievementDivisions classes rejected academically handicapped stu-dents less often than in comparison classes. More posi-tively, Team-Assisted Instruction produced more friend-ships as well as fewer rejections in another study (Slavin1984). Other cooperative learning techniques (e.g.,Learning Together) tend to create more positive relation-ships in class, but not out of class according to Ballard etal. (1977) and to a series of studies by Johnson andJohiison and their colleagues (cited in Slavin 1990).Studies by Slavin (1977) and Janke (1978) indicate thatemotionally disturbed students' on-task behavior andpeer interaction are better during and following experi-ence with Student Teams-Achievement Divisions thanwith conventional teaching and learning techniques.

Other studies have been conducted to investigate theeffects of cooperative learning techniques on other affec-tive and behavioral outcomes including students' self-esteem, locus of control, time on task, classroom behav-ior, and enjoyment of class. Some of the research indi-cates that cooperative learning techniques promote posi-tive attitudes and classroom behavior. The researchresults, however, arc mixed, and clear conclusions aredifficult to draw at this time.

T: It is clear that cooperative learning techniques pro-vide opportunities for teachers to improve students' aca-demic achievement and interpersonal relationships.What special henefits are there for social studies teacherswho use cooperative learning techniques appropriately?

A: Given that social studies teachers want both toteach their students to be active, effective citizens and topromote democratic values, properly implemented coop-erative learning techniques have much to offer. eacherswho want to promote democratic citizenship shouldattempt to have a classroom characterized by at least thefollowing five values:

a. Equal opportunityEach student has an equalopportunity to learn.

b. individual welfiirelhe welfare of each individualis maximized.

c. MeritocracyThe system of rewards and penaltiesis responsive to and reflective of the quality of indi-vidual performance and achievement.

d. Personal responsibilityEach individual is heldresponsible for his or her effect on the welfare of


others.e. Social responsibilityKnowledge, skills, and atti-

tudes are taught that promote the welfare of eachindividual, the class as a group, and the larger soci-ety in such a way that they in turn are likely toenhance each individual's welfare (VanSickle 1983),

Group rewards and individual accountability in coop-erative learning promote both personal and socialresponsibility. The positive academic achievement effectsof cooperative learning promote equal opportunity andindividual welfare. The positive interpersonal relation-ships generated in cooperative learning classrooms pro-mote individual welfare and personal responsibility. Theopportunities to demonstrate competence, make contri-butions to team success, and be recognized for thosecontributions support individual welfare, meritocracy,and social responsibility. In these ways, cooperativelearning can support the broad goals of the social studiescurriculum.

Numerous classroom experiments show that cooper-ative learning techniques that provide group goals andrewards and hold students individually accountable fortheir learning are likely to produce higher academicachievement than noncooperative instruction. Researchalso indicates that cooperative learning often producesmore positive student interpersonal attitudes and interac-tions and 'night foster other positive attitudes as well.Also, cooperative learning and its effect are consistentwith the goals and values of teaching social studies (alsosee Stahl, 1992). Altogether, a great deal of evidencesupports using cooperative learning techniques in socialstudies classes.

ReferencesAllen, William I-1.Ind Ronald L. VanSickle. "I.earning Teams

and Low Achievers." Social Mucatiwt 48 (January 1984):60-64.

Ballard, Maurine, Louise Corman, Jay Gottlieb, and Martin J.Kaufman. "Improving the Social Status of MainstreamedRetarded Children." Journal of Educational Psychology 69(October 1977): 605-11.

Cohen, Jacob. Statistical Power Analysis fOr the BehavioralSciences. Rev. ed. New York: Academic Press. 1977.

Humphreys, Barbara, Roger T. Johnson, and David \X'.Johnson. "Effects of Cooperative, Competitive, andIndividualistic 1.earning on Students' Achievement inScience Class." lownal of Research in Science Teaching 19(May 1982): 351-56.

Janke, R. "The Teams-Games-Tournament (TGT) Methodand the Behavioral Adjustment and Academic Achievementof Emotionally Impaired Adolescents." Paper presented atthe annual meeting of the American Educational ResearchAssociation, Toronto, Ontario, April 1978.

Lucker, G. William, David Rosenfield, Jev Sikes, and ElliotAronson. "Performance in the Interdependent Classroom:A Field Study." Anwrican Educational Research Journal 13(Spring 1976): 115-23.

Madden, Nancy A., and Robert E. Slavin. "CooperativeLearning and Social Acceptance of Mainstreamed Academ-ically Handicapped Students." Paper presented at the aMill-


al meeting of the American Psychological Association,Montreal, Quebec, August 1983.

Mattingly, Robert NI., and Ronald L. VanSickle. "CooperativeLearning and Achievement in Social Studies: Jigsaw II."Social Education 55 (October 1991): 392-95.

Sharan, Shlomo, Peter Kussell, Rachel Hertz-Lazarowitz,Y. Bejarano, S. Raviv, and Yael Sharan. Cooperativel.earning in the Classroom: Research in DesegregatedSchools. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,1984.

Slavin, Robert E. "A Student Team Approach to TeachingAdolescents with Special Emotional and BehavioralNeeds." Psychology in the Schools 14 (Fall 1977): 77-84.

"Synthesis of Research on Cooperative Learning."Educational Leadership 38 (May 1981): 655-60.

Cooperative Learning. New York: Longma:., 1983."Team Assisted Individualization: Cooperativ:- Learning

and Individualized Instruction in the Mal.-istreamedClassroom." Remedial and Special Education 5(November/December 1984): 33-42.

Cooperative Learning: Theory, Research, and Practke.Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1990.

Slavin, Robert E., and Eileen Oickle. "Effects of CooperativeLearning Teams on Student Achievement and Race Rela-

tions: Treatment by Race Interactions." Sociology of Educa-tion 54 (July 1981): 174-80.

Stahl, Robert J. "Cooperative Learning: A Social StudiesContext and an Overview." In Cooperative Learning in theSocial Studies: A Handbook for Teachers, edited by RobertJ. Stahl. Menlo Park, Calif.: Addison-Wesley, 1992.

VanSickle, Ronald L. "Practicing What We Teach: PromotingDemocratic Experiences in the Classroom." In DemocraticEducation in Schools and Classrooms, edited by Mary A.Hepburn. Bulletin no. 70. Washington, D.C.: NationalCouncil for thc Social Studies, 1983.

Wheeler, R. "Predisposition toward Cooperation and Compe-tition: Cooperative and Competitive Classroom Effects."Paper presented at the annual meeting of the AmericanPsychological Association, San Francisco, California,August 1977.

Yager, Stuart, David W. Johnson, and Roger T. Johnson."Oral Discussion; Group-to-Individual Transfer, andAchievement in Cooperative Learning Groups." Journal ofEducational Psychology 77 (February 1985): 60-66.

Ziegler, Suzanne. "The Effectiveness of Cooperative LearningTeams for Increasing Cross-Ethnic Friendship: AdditionalEvidence." Human Organization 40 (Fall 1981): 264-68.

9 '

Cooperative Learning in Social Studies:Balancing the Social and the Studies

Robert E. SlavinCenter for Research on Effective Schooling for Disadvantaged Students

The Johns Hopkins UniversityBaltimore, Maryland

Cooperative learning has long been used in socialstudies. John Dewey's Project Method of the 1920s,primarily used in social studies, was certainly notthe first proposal for the use of cooperative learning

in this subject. In recent years teachers have used anastonishing varierv of cooperative learning methods insocial studies classrooms, and use of rhese methods isexpanding rapidly.

Two broad reasons justify using cooperative learning.First, these methods enhance and deepen students' learn-ing of the forma! curriculum. Second, they help to accom-plish affective goals. These include traditional affectivegoals of social studies such as commitment to civic valuesand empathy for other peoples in other cultures and eras.Other affective goals not unique to social studies areincreased positive attitudes toward the subject, increasedself-confidence in learning new content, improved rela-tionships among students (particularly in race relations),friendly attitudes toward mainstreamed students, proso-cial values, kindness and altruism toward others, and theability to work productively with others.

Cooperative learning can indeed accomplish all of theseacademic, social, and affective goals. Simply allowing stu-dents to work together, however, is not enough.Experimental research in schools over the past twentyyears has shown that the way teachers structure and imple-ment cooperative learning methods affects the outcomes,especially achievement outcomes. Improvement in socialstudies must attend both to the social and to the studies.This chapter discusses research on the cooperative learningmethods most often investigated and used in social studieswith an eye toward describing key principles and compo-nents necessary to make cooperative learning approachesmost effective for social and achievement goals.

'This chapter was written under funding from the Office ofEducational Research on Improvement, U.S. Department ofEducation (No. OERI-R-1 r-R90002). Any opinionsexpressed here, however, are those of the author and do notrepresent OERI positions or policies.

Cooperative Learning MethodsDozens of specific cooperative learning methods are

available with names and teachers' manuals or otherhow-to materials; hundreds of informal variations ofthese arc available as well. The small number of strate-gies that have been empirically compared to traditionallytaught control groups and applied in the teaching ofsocial studies are briefly described below.

Student Teams-Achievement DivisionsIn STAD (Slavin 1978, 1986), teachers assign stu-

dents to four-member learning teams that are mixed byperformance level, gender, and ethnicity. The teacherfirst presents a lesson and then students work withintheir teams to make sure that all team members havelearned the lesson. Finally, all students take individualquizzes on the material without helping one another.

The teacher compares students' quiz scores to theirpast averages and awards points based on the degree towhich students can meet or exceed their earlier individ-ual performances. The teacher then adds these points toform team scores. Teams that meet certain preestab-lished criteria may earn certificates or other rewards.The whole cycle of activities, from teacher presentationto team practice to quiz, usually takes three to five classperiods.

STAD has bcen used in a wide variety of subjects, frommathematics to language arts to social studies, and hasbeen used from grade 2 through college. It is most appro-priate for teaching well-defined objectives with single rightanswers, such as specific locational characteristics in geog-raphy and some map skills, knowledge of events in histo-ry, and principles of economics or government.

Teams-Games-TournamentTeams-Games-Tournament (DeVries and Slavin

1978; Slavin 1986) was the first of the Johns Hopkinscooperative learning methods. It uses the same teacherpresentation and teamwork as STAD, but replaces thequizzes with weekly tournaments in which students


compete with members of other teams to contributepoints to their own team scores.

JigsawElliot Aronson and his colleagues (1978) originally

designed Jigsaw. According to Aronson's Jigsawmethod, teachers assign students to six-member teams towork on academic material that the teacher has brokendown into sections. For example, a biography might bedivided into early life, first accomplishments, major set-backs, later life, and influences on history. Each teammember reads an assigned section. Next, members ofdifferent teams who have studied the same sections meetin expert groups to discuss their sections. Then studentsreturn to their original teams and take turns teachingtheir teammates about their respective sections of thematerial. Since the only way students can learn other sec-tions is to listen carefully to their teammates, they aremotivated to support and show interest in one another'swork.

In Slavin's (1986) modification of Jigsaw, Jigsaw II,students work in four- or five-member teams as in TGTand STAD. Instead of each student being assigned aunique section, all students read a common narrative,such as a book chapter, a short s`tory, or a biography.Each student then receives a subtonic related to this nar-rative on which to become an expert. Students with thesame topics meet in expert groups to discuss them, afterwhich they return to their original teams to teach whatthey have learned to their teammates. Students then takeindividual quizzes, which result in team scores based onthe improvement score system of STAD. Teams thatmeet preset standards may earn certificates or other suit-able rewards. Kagan (1989) has described many morevariations of the basic Jigsaw format.

Learning TogetherDavid and Roger Johnson (1987) developed the

Learning Together model of cooperative learning at theUniversity of Minnesota. The methods they have investi-gated involve students working in four- or five-memberheterogeneous groups on assignment sheets. The groupshand in a single sheet and receive praise and rewardsbased on the group product. Their methods emphasizeteam-building activities before students begin workingtogether as well as regular discussions within groups toassess how well they are working together.

Group InvestigationGroup Investigation, refined 11 Shlomo Sharan at the

University of Tel-Aviv (Sharan and Sharan 1976), is ageneral classroom organization plan in which studentswork in small groups using cooperative inquiry, groupdiscussion, and cooperative planning and projects.'Using this method, students form groups of two to sixmembers. After choosing subtopics from a unit being

studied by the entire class, the groups break theirsubtopics further into individual tasks and carry out theactivities necessary to enable the group collectively toprepare group reports. Each group then makes a presen-tation or display to communicate its findings to theentire class. Kagan (1989) has developed a modificationof Group Investigation called Co-op Co-op.

Research on Cooperative LearningCooperative learning methods are among the most

extensively evaluated alternatives to traditional instruc-tion in use in schools today. More than seventy high-quality studies have evaluated various cooperative learn-ing methods over periods of at least four weeks in regu-lar elementary and secondary schools; sixty-seven ofthese studies have measured effect 'm student achieve-ment (Slavin 1990. ) All of these studies compared effectsof cooperative learning to those of trauttionally taughtcontrol groups on measures of the same objectives pur-sued in all classes. Teachers and classes were either ran-domly assigned to cooperative or control conditions, orthey were matched on pretest achievement level andother factors. Only a few of the studies involved socialstu.fies, but studies involving other subjects have clearimplications for teaching social studies. The followingselections review the research in general, and highlightstudies in social studies classrooms.

Academic AchievementOf sixty-seven studies on the achievement effects of

cooperative learning, thirty-nine (58 percent) have foundin the cooperative classes significantly greater achieve-ment than in the control classes. Twenty-seven studies(40 percent) resulted in no differences. In only (me studydid a control group outperform the experimental group.The effects of cooperative learning, however, vary con-siderably according to the method used. Two elementsmus be present if cooperative learning is to be effective:group goals and individual accountability (Slavin 1990).That is, groups must be working to achieve some com-mon preset goal or to earn rewards or recognition, andthe success of the group must depend on the individuallearning of each group member.

In studies of methods employing these two elements,effects on achievement have been consistently positive;thirty-seven out of forty-four such studies (84 percent)found significantly positive achievement effects. In con-trast, only four of twenty-three studies (17 percent) ofmethods lacking group goals and individual accountabil-ity found positive effects on student achievement. Twoof those four were studies of Group Investigation inIsrael (Sharan et al. 1984; Sharan and Shachar 1988). InGroup Investigation, students in each group are respon-sible for one unique part of the group's overall task,ensuring individual accountability. Even though no spe-cific group rewards are used in the Group Investigation

method, the group evaluation appears to serve the samepurpose.

Why are group goals and individual accountability soimportant? To understand this, consider the alternatives.In many forms of cooperative group activities, studentswork together to complete a single worksheet or to solvea single problem together. In such cases, there is littlereason for more able students to take time to explainwhat is going on to the less able groupmates, to answertheir questions, to help them succeed, or to ask theiropinions. When the group task is merely to do or com-plete something, rather than to learn something, the par-ticipation of less able students may he seen as interfer-ence rather than help. It may be easier in these circum-stances for students to give each other answers than toexplain concepts or skills to one another until all stu-dents learn what is being studied.

In contrast, when the group's task is to ensure thatevery group member has learned something well, it is inthe interest of every group member to spend timeexplaining concepts to their groupmates. Research byWebb (1985) on students' behaviors within cooperativegroups has consistently found that the students who gainmost from cooperative work are those who give andreceive elaborated explanations. Webb found that givingand receiving answers without explanations, on theother hand, were negatively related to achievement gain.Clear group goals and individual accountability motivatestudents to offer explanations to each other and to takeeach other's learning seriously, instead of simply givingeach other answers.

Cooperative learning methods generally work equallywell for all types of students. Although occasional stud-ies find particular advantages for high or low achievers,boys or girls, and so on, the great majority find equalbenefits for all types of students. Some teachers are con-cerned that cooperative learning will hold back highachievers. The research provides absolutely no supportfor this claim; high achievers gain from cooperativelearning (relative to high achievers in traditional classes)just as much as do low arid average achievers (Slavin1991).

Research on the achievement effects of cooperativelearning has more often involved grades 3-9 than10-12. Studies at the senior high level, however, areabout as positive as those at earlier grade levels, but aneed exists for more research at that level. Cooperativelearning methods have been equally successful in urban,rural, and suburban schools, and with students of vari-ous ethnic groups (although a few studies have foundparticularly positive effects for African-American stu-dents; see, for example, Slavin and Oickle 1981 ).

The findings of research on cooperative learning insocial studies have been similar to those in other disci-plines. Allen and Van Sickle (1984) found strong positiveeffects of STAD on achievement in 9th grade geography.

3 t)


DeVries, Edwards, and Wells (1974) found similareffects for TGT in grade 10-12 U.S. history classes.Yager, Johnson, Johnson, and Snider (1986) found thatstudents in Learning Together classes learned andretained more from a unit on transportation than didstudents taught individually.

Group Investigation has been particularly effective insocial studies. The most successful of the GroupInvestigation studies was an eighteen-week experimentinvolving Israeli 8th graders studying geography and his-tory (Sharan and Shachar 1988).

Achievement effects of Jigsaw appear to depend onthe form of the program used. Studies of the originalJigsaw model, including an Israeli study involving histo-ry (Rich, Amir, and Slavin 1986), have shown fewachievement effects. Studies of Jigsaw II, which includesthe group goal and individual accountability elements,however, have found positive achievement effects. Theseinclude two studies involving social studies classes. One,by Mattingly and VanSickle (1991), involved an inte-grated unit on Asia taught in a U.S. high school inGermany. The other took place in Toronto and involvedunits on the Inuit people and the history and geographyof Newfoundland (Ziegler 1981).

Intergroup RelationsResearch on cooperative learning methods has found

consistent positive effects of cooperative learning onintergroup relations. In most of the research on inter-group relations, students were asked to list their bestfriends at the beginning of the study and again at theend. The number of friendship choices students madeoutside their own ethnic groups constituted the measureof intergroup relations. Positive effects on intergrouprelations have been found for STAD, TGT, Jigsaw,Learning Together, and Group Investigation (Slavin1985).

Two of these studies, one on STAD and one onJigsaw II, included follow-ups of intergroup friendshipsseveral months after the end of the studies. Both foundthat students who bad been in cooperative learningclasses still named significantly more friends outsidetheir own ethnic groups than did students who had beenin control classes. Two studies of Group Investigation(Sharan et al. 1984; Sharan and Shachar 1988) foundthat students' improved attitudes and behaviors towardclassmates of different ethnic backgrounds includedclassmates who had not shared cooperative group work.

The U.S. studies of cooperative learning and inter-group relations involved African-American, European-American, and (in a few cases) Mexican-American stu-dents. A study of Jigsaw II by Ziegler (1981) took placein Toronto, where the major ethnic groups were Anglo-Canadians and children of rect:nt European immigrants.The Sharan (Sharan et al. 1984; Sharan and Shachar1988) studies of Group Investigation took place in Israel


and involved friendships between Jews of European andMiddle Eastern backgrounds.

MainstreamingResearch on cooperative learning and mainstreaming

has focused on the academically handicapped child. Onestudy used STAD to attempt to integrate students per-forming two years or more below the level of their peersinto the social structure of the classiamm. The use ofSTAD significantly reduced the degree to which the nor-mal-progress students rejected their mainstreamed class-mates, and increased the academic achievement and self-esteem of all students, both the mainstreamed studentsand their normal-progress peers. Other studies haverevealed similar effects (Ballard et al. 1977; Cooper et al.1980). In addition, one study of social studies in a self-contained school for emotionally disturbed adolescentsfound that the use of TGT increased positive interactionsand friendships among students (Slavin 1977). Fivemonths after the study ended, the research indicated thatthese positive interactions continued more often in theformer TGT classes than in the control classes. In astudy in a similar setting, Janke (1978) found that emo-tionally disturbed students were more on task, betterbehaved, and had better attendance in TGT classes thanin control classes.

Self-EsteemSeveral researchers working on cooperative learning

techniques have found that these methods increase stu-dents' self-esteem. Significant improvements in self-esteem have been found for TGT and STAD (Slavin1990), for Jigsaw (Blaney et al. 1977), and for the threemethods combined (Slavin and Karweit 1981).

Other OutcomesResearch has indicated that in addition to effects on

achievement, positive intergroup relations, greater accep-tance of mainstreamed students, and self-esteem, effectsof cooperative learning have been found on a variety ofother important educational outcomes. These includeenjoyment of school, developing peer norms in favor ofdoing well academically, feeling that the individual hascontrol over his or her own fate in school, time on task,and cooperativeness and altruism (see Slavin 1990).TGT (DeVries and Slavin 1978) and STAD (Slavin19-7; Janke .1978) have been found to have positiveeffects on students' time on task. One study found thatstudents having low socioeconomic status and at risk ofbecoming delinquent who worked in cooperative groupsin 6th grade had better attendance records, fewer con-tacts with the police, and more positive behavioral rat-ings by teachers in 7th through llth grades than didcontrol students (Hartley 1976). Another study, imple-menting forms of cooperative learning with studentsbeginning in kindergarten and continuing through the

4th grade, found that students who had participatedwithin well-structured cooperative groups resolved inter-personal conflicts more effectively, expressed more sup-port for democratic values, and scored significantly high-er than control students on measures of supportive,friendly, and prosocial behaviors (Solomon et al. 1990).

Balancing the Social and the Studies in Social StudiesResearch on the use of cooperative learning in social

studies and other subjects shows that these methodshave great potential for teaching a wide variety of socialstudies topics while enhancing an even wider variety ofsocial skills and prosocial attitudes. Putting students intogroups and asking them to work together, however, isnot enough. Positive social outcomes have been foundfor a wide variety of methods, hut achievement gainsappear to depend on the use of group goals and individ-ual accountability. Group success must depend on thelearning or performance of every student, not on a singlegroup product.

Social studies lends itself in particular to cooperativelearning because, for one thing, many explicit socialgoals are key objectives of the social studies. It simplydoes not make sense to teach students about civic, demo-cratic values while they routinely sit in rows listeningpassively to a teacher. Another reason that cooperativelearning is particularly appropriate in social studies isthat social studies objectives are so varied. A teacher canuse STAD or Learning Together to teach informationand skills, Jigsaw to help students learn from writtensources, and Group Investigation for group projects andreports. A creative teacher can devise dozens of varia-tions of these and other cooperative learning techniquesto facilitate learning aligned with a wide range of socialstudies objectives.

Used in a thoughtful and informed way, cooperativelearning can help create a social studies program inwhich students are actively, rather than passively,engageddebating, exploring, questioning, teaching,assessing, experiencing knowledgeto achieve equallythe social and the studies goals of a comprehensive socialstudies curriculum.

Note'See also Thelen (1960), Joyce and Weil (1980), and Sharan

and Sharan (1992) for more information on the GroupInvestigation imdel.

ReferencesAllen, William H., and Ronald L. VanSickle. "Learning Teams

and Low Achievers." Social Education 48 (January 1984):60-64.

Aronson, Elliot, Nancy T. Blaney, Cookie Stephan, Jev Sikes,and Matthew Snapp. The Jigsaw Classroom. Beverly Hills,Calif.: Sage, 1978.

Ballard, Maurine, Louise Corman, Jay Gottlieb, and Martin J.Kauffman. "Improving the Social Status of Mainstreamed

3'

Retarded Children." Journal of Educational Psychology 69(October 1977): 605-11.

Blaney, Nancy T., Cookie Stephan, David Rosenfeld, ElliotAronson, and Jev Sikes. "Interdependence in theClassroom: A Field Study." Journal of EducationalPsychology 69 (April 1977): 121-28.

Cooper, Lucille, David \V. Johnson, Roger T. Johnson, andFrank Wilderson. "Effects of Cooperative, Competitive andIndividualistic Experiences on Interpersonal Attractionamong Heterogeneous Peers." The Journal of SocialPsychology 111 (August 1980): 243-52.

De Vries, David, Keith J. Edwards, and Elizabeth H. Wells.Teams-Games-Tournament in the Social Studies ClassroonnEffects on Academic Achievement, Student Attitudes,Cognitive Bc'.../s, and Classroom Climate. Baltimore: JohnsHopkins University, Center for Social Organization ofSchools, 1974.

De Vries, David L., and Robert E. Slavin. "Teams-Games-Tournament (TGT): Review of Ten Classroom Experi-ments." Journal of Research and Development inEducation 12 (Fall 1978): 28-38.

Hartley, Wynona S. Prevention Outcomes of Small GroupEducation with School Children: An Epidemiologic FollowUp of the Kansas City School Behavior Project. KansasCity, Mo.: University of Kansas Medical Center, 1976.

Janke, R. "The Tea ms-Games-Toarnament (TGT) Methodand the Behavioral Adjustment and Academic Achievementof Emotionally Impaired Adolescents." Paper presented atthe annual meeting of the American Educational ResearchAssociation, Toronto, Ontario, April 1978.

Johnson, David W., and Roger T. Johnson. Learning Togetherand Alone: Cooperath'e, Competitiz,e, and IndividualisticLearning. 2d ed. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1987.

Joyce, Bruce, and Marsha Weil. Modds of Teaching. 2d ec.Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1980.

Kagan, Spencer. Cooperative Learning Resources for Teachers.San Juan Capistrano, Calif.: Resources for Teachers, 1989.

Madden, Nancy A., and Robert E. Slavin. "Effects ofCooperative Learning on the Social Acceptance ofMainstreamed Academically Handicapped Students." TheJournal of Special Education 17 (Summer 1983): 171-82.

Matfingly, Robert M., and Ronald L. VanSickle. "CooperativeLearning and Achievement in Social Studies: Jigsaw IL"Social Education 55 (October 1991): 392-95.

Rich, Y., Y Amir, and Robert E. Slavin. InstructionalStrategies for Improving Children's Cross-Ethnic Relations.Ramat Gan, Israel: Bar Han University, Institute for theAdvancement of Social Integration in the Schook, 1986.

Sharan, Shlomo, and C. Shachar. Langaage and Learning inthe Cooperative Classrown. New York: Springer, 1988.

Sharan, Shlomo, and Yael Sharan. Small-Group Teaching.Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Educational TechnologyPublications, 1976.

Sharan, Yael, and Shlomo Sharan. "What Do We Want toStudy? How Should We Go About Studying It?: UsingGroup Investigation." In Cooperative I.earning: AHandbook JOr Teachers in the Social Studies, edited by


Robert J. Stahl. Menlo Park, Calif.: Addison-Wesley, 1992,Sharan, Shlomo, Peter Kussell, Rachel Hertz-Lazarowitz,

Y. Bejarano, S. Raviv, and Yael Sharan. CooperativeLearning in the Classroom: Research in DesegregatedSchools. Hillside, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1984.

Slavin, Robert E. "A Student Team Approach to TeachingAdolescents with Special Emotional and BehavioralNeeds." Psychology in the Schools 14 (Fall 1977): 77-84.

. "Student Teams and Achievement Divisions." Journalof Research and Development in Education 12 (June 1978):39-49.

. "Effects of Biracial Learning Teams on Cross-RacialFriendships." Journal of Educational Psychology 71 (June1979): 381-87.

"Cooperative Learning: Applying Contact Theory inDesegregated Schools." Journal of Social Issues 41, no. 3(1985): 45-62.

. Using Student Team Learning. 3d ed. Baltimore: Centerfor Social Organization of Schools, Johns HopkinsUniversity, 1986.

_. Cooperative Learning: Theory, Research, and Practice.Englewood Cliffs, N.J. Prentice-Hall, 1990.

. "Are Cooperative Learning and 'Untracking' Harmfulto the Gifted?" Educational Leadership 48 (March 1991):68-71.

Slavin, Robert E., and Nancy Karweit. "Cognitive andAffective Outcomes of an Intensive Student Team LearningExperience." Journal of Experimental Education 50 (Fall1981): 29-35.

Slavin, Robert E., and Eileen Oickle. "Effects of CooperativeLearning Teams on Student Achievement and RaceRelations: Treatment by Race Interactions." Sociology ofEducation 54 (July 1981): 174-80.

Solomon, Daniel, Marilyn Watson, Eric Schaps, VictorBattistich, and J. Solomon. "Cooperative Learning as PArtof a Comprehensive Classroom Program Designed toPromote Prosocial Development." In Current Research onCooperative I.earning, edited by Shlomo Sharan. NewYork: Praeger, 1990.

Thelen, Herbert. Edmation and the Human Quest. New York:Harper and Row, 1960.

Webb, N. "Student Interaction and Learning in Small Groups:A Research Summary." In Learning to Cooperate,Cooperating to Learn, edited by Robert E. Slavin, ShlomoSharan, Rachel Hertz-Lazarowitz, C. Webb, and R.Schmuck. New York: Plenum, 1985.

Yager, Stuart, Roger T. Johnson, David W. Johnson, andB. Snider. "The Impact of Group Processing onAchievement in Cooperative Learning." Journal of SocialPsychology 126, no. 30 (1986): 389-97.

Yager, Stuart, David W. Johnson, and Roger T. Johnson."Oral Discussion, Group-to-Individual Transfer, andAchievement in Cooperative Learning Groups." Journal ofEducational Psychology 77 (February 1985): 60-66.

Ziegler, Suzanne. "The Effectiveness of Cooperative LearningTeams for Increasing Cross-Ethnic Friendship: AdditionalEvidence." Human Organization 40 (Fall 1981): 264-68.

Elementary Students Can Learn to Cooperateand Cooperate for Learning

Robert J. Colomb, Sunset View Elementary School, Provo, Utahwith

George W. Chi lcoat, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utahand

Nancy N. Stahl, Arizona Department of Education, Phoenix, Arizona

Elementary social studies teachers expect their stu-dents to learn to interact with their classmates, getalong with others, and take responsibility for them-selves. This expectation, however, is not always fol-

lowed up with instruction on how to accomplish thesegoals. A classic example is a silent primary or elementaryclassroom. Many teachers in these classrooms sincerelybelieve that silence is golden. But is it? Does silence allowfor proper communication between the teacher and stu-dents or between students? Do periods of silence resultin improved thinking, high achievement, and acceptanceof personal responsibility? We think not.

One problem with such ideas about silence is that wedo not live in a silent society. We live in a society wheremass communication demands that we be interdepen-dent. In fact, no single group can exist without the activeand continuous interaction of its members. If teachersmust prepare students for the world outside the class-room, they must help them to succeed in a world thatcommunicates, that cooperates, and that views responsi-bility in the context of social meanings. If students are todo this beyond the classroom, teachers then have anobligation to make sure students learn how to interact,to cooperate, to succeed, and to be responsible in theclassroom.

Although we expect students to speak, we often for-get that many need to learn bow to speak. They need tolearn such things as how to articulate their thoughts,when to speak, how to control the level of their speech,and what kinds of language are appropriate and inap-propriate in particular situations. Many students learnthese things through trial-and-error experiences, butmany are unsuccessful. These unsuccessful studentseither avoid speaking or often speak in ways that areinappropriate. In the classroom, we need to help stu-dents learn the art and skills of speaking, especially ofacademic, interpersonal, and cooperative speech.

We must not automatically assume, however, thatwhen students are talking and working in groups in the

classroom, they are meeting the teacher's expectations.Students may be speaking with no one listening. Theymay be sharing ideas and information with no one learn-ing. They may be working alongside others in a groupwithout working as a group. These students may beinteracting but nor becoming skilled at interacting. Theymay assume responsibility for getting their portion of aproject completed without learning to be responsibleoutside such projects.

As these possible results suggest, talking and silence inthe classroom are not either-or choices. What is occurringduring the silence and during the talking is important.

Using cooperative learning techniques, elementaryteachers rely heavily upon student speech and studentsilences to help large numbers of students meet theteacher's achievement and affective expectations. Whenused appropriately, cooperative learning theory and strate-gies can be powerful tools for teaching social studies.

The following section emphasizes the perspective andexperiences of Bob Colomb, currently a 2d grade teacherat Sunset View Elementary School. Written in the firstperson, this section creates a personal sense of the natureof cooperative learning from one elementary teacher'sperspective.

The Evolving Cooperative Learning Experiencein One Elementary Classroom

My elementary teaching experience has consisted ofinvolvement in various grade levels from 1st through 6th.For years I had used student groups for all kinds of rea-sons. I never really felt as though I had used groups verywell, but students did seem to enjoy being in them andgroups did change the routine of the class activities. Inother words, I had used groups to do things hut had notpaid much attention to their structure and organization.During this time I also felt that the sense of cohesion andteamwork I always thought would evolve from studentsworking in groups never emerged. Students formedgroups, did their group work, and left their groups as

though the groups had never existed. What I felt wasmissing was a way to organize the students and groups sothey could accomplish what I thought they could.

For yc..rs I tried various kinds of group activities,even using commercially produced materials and thosegiven out by presehters at conferences to enhance thequality of my students' group work and the benefits thatI thought should result. Although these provided agreater variety of group tasks and activities, they still fellshort of what I wanted and what my students needed.

When I first heard about cooperative learning I wasboth excited and wary. The initial information soundedtoo good to be true. Could groups really accomplish allthat I heard and read they could accomplish? Was itreally that easy to transform my class into a cooperativelearning environment? Could something that effective hethat simple to learn to use? My caution was partially anoutgrowth of the attitudes of so many elementary teach-ers that cooperative learning was only a theory thatwouldn't work in their classrooms. Some of my col-leagues suspected that this was another theory from uni-versity professors who hadn't been in real elementary orsecondary classrooms for decades. There were also con-cerns that cooperative learning was a new fad thatwould come and go like so many others in recent years.

I was curious and concerned about how I couldimprove my teaching. I also felt that, as a professional,the least I should do was find out more about coopera-tive learning to determine whether I should use it in myclassroom.

How I Became InvolvedWhen an opportunity arose, I volunteered to travel

from Utah to Southern California to see cooperativelearning in action. I wanted to find out whether therumors about its effectiveness were true.

I visited the ABC School District (not its real name)where Spencer Kagan's cooperative learning methodswere being implemeni:ed. I observed 1st, 3d, 4th, and 6thgrade classes. In every classroom, students were usingtheir peers in various ways to teach themselves. At first Iwas not impressed and was not sold on what I saw. I hadexpected to visit classrooms in which students had hadextensive experience using cooperative learning, werealmost "super learners," and had teachers who weie vet-eran users of these strategies. Instead I found teachers andstudents who were just past the starting line themselves.'These teachers were in the early stages of becoming betterimplementors of cooperative learning teams.

With this perspective, my interpretations of what Iwas watching changed. Coming to understand that thesestudents were just getting started, I became impressedwith what they were learning, how well they stayed ontask in their small groups, and how well they interactedwith one another. If I could get my students to do manyof these things by the end of the year, I would be


pleased. If this is what students could accomplish earlyin their use of cooperative learning, I started to imaginewhat they could do when they really became experi-enced users of these strategies. This visit whetted myappetite enough to investigate and read all I could findabout cooperative learning.

What I Found in the Theory, Research, and Literature

What proof was there that cooperative learning didwhat people claimed it could do? More than 530 class-room studies on cooperative learning have been reported(e.g., Johnson and Johnson 1989; Slavin 1990, 1991).These research studies reveal that structured cooperationwith others consistently produced higher achievementand productivity than when individualistic or competi-tive structures were used. Furthermore, students did bet-ter in many affective areas (such as getting along withboth peers and the teacher), in the quality of their talk-ing with one another, and in the time they spent volun-tarily on task (Johnson and Johnson 1987, 1989). Inshort, these research studies reveal that cooperativelearning done well improved the whole child in nearly allthe areas of concern to elementary teachers.

What also impressed me was that what I found in theprofessional journals and textbooks was not just theoryand research: I found countless studies done in class-rooms like mine where teachers were using cooperativelearning with their own students. I found that coopera-tive learning could work in my classroom if I wanted toput in the time and effort necessary to implement it as itshould be implemented.

The philosophy of cooperative learning promotescooperation and collaboration so that students' energycan be channeled by specific instructional strategies topromote positive academic, affective, and social interac-tion goals. I learned that appropriate cooperative learn-ing apparently would enable my pupils to achieve higheracademic results and productivity.

This was what I was after!The closer I looked at cooperative learning and its basic

elements, the more convinced I became that this could bean effective way to teach social studies. I had to try it inmy own classroom. I felt that at last I had something Icould adapt and use to enhance student learning of acade-mic and social skills. I decided I would put this new phi-losophy of cooperation and interaction to the test.

Early Frustrations Led to

Further Exploration and Additional Strategies

Well into my second year of using cooperative learn-ing I remained frustrated with the lack of whole-groupinclusion activities. Up to that time 1 had applied nearlyall the basic elements of cooperative learning and wasusing them to the best of my ability. Still, something waslacking. A colleague and I decided that we needed morewhole-group inclusion before we formed our students


into small groups. We eventually labeled the elementmissing in the original list of basic elements "diversity ofgrouping procedures." I believe this element is critical ifthe elementary classroom is to evolve into an effectivecooperative learning environment.

This diversity, one of the most important elements ofcooperative learning, is often ignored. Many educatorsbegin cooperative learning in small-group learning situa-tions, forming their classes into small groups beforecooperative skills are practiced by students. In thewhole-class group activities I started using, my studentslearned and improved individual cooperative skills thatenabled them to work together in small groups like well-oiled machines. When students fail to achieve acceptablelevels of cohesion and skill before placing them intosmall groups, a rnajor result of using cooperative groupswill be frustration for the students and teacher alike.When students acquire the skills and get the practicethey need, however, frustration is rare.

To ensure quality team achievement, I first created acooperative atmosphere within my primary level class-room through whole-group inclusion or class-buildingactivities. I find that during the class inclusion activitiesthe cooperative philosophy is modeled for all students.Teacher and students alike are able to see the philosophyand theory behind cooperative learning in actual prac-tice. They also observe the guidelines, expectations, rulesfor behavior, and attitudes demonstrated and reinforced.Various rewards are used to praise appropriate behav-iors and attitudes.

I advise teachers just getting started with cooperativelearning in their classrooms to start here. Based on myexperience, I believe elementary students will achievetheir potential fully only after whole-group inclusion isattained.

After I came to realize how important class-buildingactivities were to maintaining a cooperative atmosphere.I continued to use these activities all year long, using adifferent social goal, content area goal, or academic skillas the focus of each new activity. For instance, I mightuse math, science, literature, or reading tasks in additionto my social studies topics. Many of my colleagues hereat Sunset View agree on the importance of the skills andattitudes that result from these class-building tasks. Bycontinuing cooperative efforts in the class throughoutthe year, my students reach levels of learning neverachieved in my precooperative learning classroom.

Cooperative learning is not a panacea for the prob-lems in education. It is, however, a philosophy and anapproach to teaching in which I fully believe.

Cooperative Learning as a Philosophy

Cooperative learning is first and foremost a philoso-phy. Of course, a philosophy without effective imple-mentation strategies has no powerjust as a set ofstrategies with 110 philosophical context will have little

effect. They are interdependent. The philosophy of coop-erative learning through the theory was appealing to meand led me to investigate and then to use many strate-gies. While using these strategies, I never lost sight of thephilosophy-theory behind them. I have observed manyteachers use these strategies unsuccessfully because theyexpect the strategies to work with any philosophy theychoose. These strategies work to the extent that theirpractice is guided by consistent theory and philosophy. Iencourage all teachers to spend at least as much timestudying and learning to use the philosophy-theory ofcooperative learning as they do learning the strategies.Neither will work well without the other.

How can elementary teachers use this philosophy intheir classrooms? They must learn the theory, structurethe class tasks, get students talking and working togeth-er, play down competition, and increase students' posi-tive interdependence. In other words, elementary teach-ers must use cooperative learning.

Students love to talk. They get excited about movingabout in the classroom. They get excited about findingout what others think. They want to share what theyknow. They are interested ill hearing about and studyingnew things. They tend to get turned off in classroomswhere the activities result in one student after anothersaying the same thing or where the teacher goes aroundthe room or circle and each student says something. Inaddition, many students have learned that when they gettoo excited while talking about what they are studyingor learning, the teacher will insist that they be quiet tocut down the noise level.

I have found that students have not been taught howto be quiet and how to talk within extended interactionsituations. They are directed to be quiet but not taughthow to be quiet.

In my classroom, I hear structured noise or on-tasknoise generated from on-task conversation that allowsother students and me to listen to the learning that isoccurring at that moment. For students to achieve quali-ty structured noise, I teach them how to come face-to-face with one another so that all they need are theirtwelve-inch voices rather than their typical twenty-four-inch voices.

Elementary students need to learn how to be quietand also how to be good listeners when they arc quiet.In other words, they negd to learn that being quietmeans they have a number of jobs to do that do notrequire talkingthat being quiet means far more thanmerely shutting up.

My Classroom Today

Many of my classroom activities start out withwhole-group inclusion activities before we move to spe-cific small-group work and thcn finally to individualwork. When the individual work is completed, the prod-uct is brought back to the small-group level again and

then to the whole group for presentation and interac-tion. I consider this type of cooperative learning anadvanced form. Ideally, for me, a teacher would want totake a class from whole group to team, from small-group team to individual or competitive, then back tothe small group, and finally from the small-group learn-ing teams to the whole group. This shift must be madeslowly at first.

On a typical day, the first thing we do in the morningis form a big circle on the floor so everyone faces eachother. After some initial conversation and sharing, stu-dent groups begin to complete their assigned tasks. Onegroup may work on the calendar for the month, anotherthe science bulletin board, another the social studies pro-ject display, and so forth. Each group knows they areresponsible for one of these classroom routines eachmonth. Their particular routine changes each month.Early in the year we spend time in our whole-class grouplearning what it means to be responsible and learninghow to carry out each routine so that it is acceptable.

Instead of having a room with fancy, commerciallyproduced bulletin board materials or materials that Ispend hours cutting and pasting and my students essen-tially ignored, my room now has relevant and fact-filledboards that get attention from nearly every student on adaily basis. Students now observe what other groups puton their boards. They now seem to learn a lot from whatis posted.

As the months go by, the student groups get better atcompleting these routines and improving the quality oftheir projects.

In that first week we also spend time learning how tointeract and work in groups and how to work as agroup. The various roles students may need to carry outare explained along with examples. We talk about whythese roles are important and what might happen if arole is not carried out. We also share some of our feel-ings about these roles and why those in the class need todo their jobs in the groups. Some time is spent helpingstudents to feel they are important to the success of thegroup they are in. We even talk about the ways studentscan use the groups to learn the material. After the firstfew weeks, my students have a good sense of what theyare to do in their learning groups. We review and contin-ue to work on all these things throughout the year.

Early on, I assign specific roles to specific students ineach group. This assignment ensures that the same stu-dents are not in the same role all the time. Later, stu-dents are allowed to pick the major roles they will play,once again with the restriction that they cannot play thesame role all the time.

Helping students think about guidelines for their atti-tudes and behaviors in these groups takes a lot of time atthe beginning. What is gained in student achievement,on-task behavior, and improved social skills, however,more than makes up for the time spent helping them

3G


become good cooperative group members.Usually by the end of the first month of the year, I

have determined the membership of the base groupswP.ere each student will remain throughout the year.Except in rare situations, this is each student's perma-nent group. Because these are permanent, I am very care-ful in my selection of which students should be togetherfor this length of time. From time to time, however, newbut temporary groups are formed. These groups are usedfor different reasons, one of which is to ensure that stu-dents work with more of their peers of different gender,race, or ethnic backgrounds.

Small groups with the same and different studentmembership are used in math, science, reading, languagearts, and social studies. Students may remain in theirbase groups or be reassigned to new groups for one dayor several weeks. They may be in one, two, or three dif-ferent groups on some days depending on what we arcstudying in the different subject areas. We are not incooperative learning groups all the time.

I also use various group strategies. Using jigsaw, forexample, students placed in teams may choose to study aparticular time period of history but different incidentswithin this period. Two girls and two boys in a grouptogether once decided to study and learn about theVietnam War era. The girls did not want to write orstudy about the war itself, but were interested instead inthe hippie movement. They each took a differentapproach to the hippie movement. The boys investigatedtwo different aspects of the war. One looked at the mili-tary situation; the other at the political. The four stu-dents then met together and brought back all that theyhad learned to the group, put it together as a group, andpresented a fantastic informational project to the class.

In this same class, each group was also responsible forcompleting a large section on a historical time line thatcovered all the walls of the room. This complete projecttook us about two months and encompassed research,presentations, writing, art, science, reading, and cooper-ative skills. As students found specific information, theyplaced it in their section of the time line once their grouphad confirmed its relevance, importance, and accuracy.At the end of the unit, students shared with the classwhat they had learned in their particular section ofinvestigation.

I have found that students need not always completeall of the assignments each day just to have it done. Forinstance, if they are given fifteen questions to answer aspart of their social studies group task, I would muchrather they answered ten correctly for the day's work,and that they all really knew the corro:t answers to thoseten questions, than have partially correct answers for allfifteen. In part, this decision reflects my acceptance ofmy role as facilitating optimal student learning asopposed to having students merely finish assignmentsregardless of what they learn or do not learn.


To ensure that students are working on task and arehelped in their learning efforts, the class has adopted theuse of the raised hand which is the universal sign in coop-erative learning that it is time for everyone to be quiet.This quiet time functions as a time-out during which newdirections can he given, points of uncertainty can be clari-fied, and specific questions can be answered. Studentslearn early that once the hand is raised, everyone is totake time out in their group work and stop in silence. Iam still amazed at how well this signal works and howfast students catch on to the meaning of the raised hand.

Many of the students in their small groups exchangephone numbers to make sure that their groupmates havedone their parts of one or more assignments outside ofclass. After a while, it is not uncommon for them to calleach other at home in the evening and on weekends.They share information and make sure that their group-mates have the assignment when they are not in class forone reason or another. On more than one occasion, twoor three members of a group have called a fourth whohad missed several classes to tell him or her that theywere concerned about the student's absence and aboutthe student generally. They also told the absent group-mate that he or she was part of a team and the teamcouldn't succeed when not all its members were thcrc inclass working together.

When some of these absent students arrive back inclass they often reported that the members of theirgroups had called many times to see how they weredoing. I now find fewer students voluntarily missing classas the year goes by and students arc better informedabout what they missed while they were absent.

One day I received a phone call from a parent inform-ing me that the phone at his house had rung at 6:30 thatmorning. The call, made hy a student in my classroom,was for his child. The parent was concerned that hischild had been awakened too early in the morning andthat the caller was a student in the class. I investigatedthe matter and found out that this particular student'sgroup was working on a major part of their project andneeded everyone in class on that day. The student hadmissed the day before and his group was concerned hewould not be there on that day. So one member of thegroup volunteered to call the absent student that morn-ing to urge completion of the assignment and attendanceat school. The student was in class and was prepared. Ifind it hard to express my reaction to finding out thatthe cohesion and mutual concern fostered in this cooper-ative learning environment would result in 2d gradersactually calling each other at 6:30 in the morning toencourage attendance, to lend personal support, and toinsist upon completion of the homework assignment.What is more remarkable is that these are not over-achievers; they are children of varied socioeconomic andethnic backgrounds who have emerged as sthdents with-in this cooperative learning environment.

Overcoming Concerns: Two Cases

Implementing effective cooperative learning has impli-cations beyond the classroom walls. A number of situa-tions have arisen that generated concern by people otherthan the teachers and their students. These situationswere handled in ways that promoted the preservationand growth of the cooperative learning environment.The two cases below illustrate how particular concernswere successfully managed.

One problem that emerged from the use of coopera-tive learning concerned substitute teachers who cameinto my classroom. These teachers usually expect to havea quiet classroom and maintain total control. In part,they tend to view a quiet classroom as one that meets theabsent teacher's expectations. In addition, they don'twant anyone to have the impression that they have nocontrol over the students. With cooperative learning,you give the power of learning to the students and theyhelp with the teaching. Over time, the cooperative teamsproduce many higher-level thinkers and active learners.

Students become accustomed to interacting to helpeach other learn. Consequently, some of these studentswill have a difficult time making the transition back to theold way of life, B.T. (i.e., before talking was acceptable).To head this problem off, the same substitute teachers areassigned to cooperative learning classrooms. To furtherrelieve this problem, in-service training sessions in thecooperative learning model should be required of all sub-stitute teachers assigned to these classrooms.

Another problem encountered was that of parentswho, for many reasons, did not understand what I wasdoing with their children in my classroom. This problemwas resolved by having a back-to-school night. Parentswere given a two-hour training session on the coopera-tive model and how it was being used in the school. Thesession included discussion of the research findings alongwith activities so the parents could have practical experi-ence with cooperative learning. The parents were alsogiven some guidelines and ideas they could apply in theirown homes. Many parents requested that follow-up par-ent training classes be provided so they could be betterusers of the cooperative models at home. These trainingsessions have been held. Many parents in our district arenow familiar with the cooperative learning philosophyand its basic elements.

Final Points

Appropriate cooperative learning is not easy to startand not easy to achieve. I have trained with SpencerKagan and with Roger and David Johnson. David oncetold me that when he came to visit, Ile would ask mehow my cooperative learning model was going. Hehe would not ask how his cooperative learning modelwas workinj- in my class. Because cooperative learning isa philosophy, theory, and set of practical strategies, ele-mentary teachers must take and use what really works

for them as long as it is consistent with the essential ele-ments of this theory. The most difficult part of puttingcooperative learning into practice is just to begin. Afterstudents begin working for themselves and using theirenergy for educational purposes, being in a cooperativelearning classroom becomes fun. I have more fun andmore success with each new month of the school year.

When I travel, presenting cooperative learning work-shops, I constantly run into teachers who have beenusing parts of cooperative learning for their entirecareers. What they lacked, owever, was a guide todirect them with structured yet flexible methods thatwould help their students achieve the affective, social,and cognitive learning they desired. Cooperative learninggives names to many of the things teachers do or need todo. The strategies provide concrete ways of refiningmany existing things they do and guidance for newgroup structures and tasks. I remind them that they needto develop a philosophy of cooperation and cooperativelearning and to use the how-to guidelines to providestructure and organization to this philosophy.

I also point out that even though their students werein groups doing group projects of one kind or another,they may have been using ideas and guidelines that actu-ally prevented or impaired appropriate cooperativelearning from occurring. They realize that even thoughthey would like to believe it, they may not be usingcooperative learning in their classrooms.

Conclusions and EpilogueBob's experiences are those of one elementary

teacher. Each teacher's experiences will he different inmany ways from those in this Provo, Utah, classroom.We want to point out, however, that there will he manysimilarities. To make cooperative learning work in anyclassroom, teachers will need to read the theory,research, and practical how-to literature on cooperativelearning; accept the research findings that cooperativelearning can generate the numerous positive resultsclaimed; use the guidelines and organizational plans forcooperative groups; and develop a philosophy of cooper-ative learning that will guide decisions and behaviors inthe classroom. In forming a personal conception andphilosophy of cooperative learning aligned with the the-ory and research, teachers will evolve their own person-alized versions of cooperative learning. Consequently,they will apply their own cooperative learning philoso-phies, and not Kagan's (1989; Brandt 1990), Johnsonand Johnson's (e.g., 1987, 1989), or Slavin's (e.g., 1990).

We caution that these individualized philosophiesmust remain aligned with major features of those thathave proven themselves on countless occasions in class-room settings. For instance, a cooperative learning phi-losophy should not allow the teacher to have a half-hour

38


cooperative learning activity three or four times a weekas though cooperative learning was a subject like math,science, or language arts. Cooperative learning is a wayof teaching and learning, not a subject to teach or activi-ty to complete. A cooperative learning philosophyshould not allow just any group work to be accepted asbona fide cooperative learning in practice. Althoughmany teachers do some things consistently with coopera-tive learning, many group activities we have observed inclassrooms are not compatible with appropriate cooper-ative learning theory or practice.

Social studies is the most natural subject to be learnedin a cooperative mode because social studies, whentaught properly, requires active discussion and discovery.The very name, social studies, should be a clue to whatour students need to be doing every day in our class-rooms. This name also should be a clue to teachers forensuring students are doing social study.

Cooperative learning done well will create a mood ofcooperation in your classroom and among your studentsthat will most likely lead to at least four benefits: stu-dents will enjoy social studies more than under conven-tional teaching strategies; their retention of knowledgewill increase; their social and interpersonal skills willimprove; and their relationships with students differentfrom themselves will improve. Finally, social studies edu-cation should provide experiences that encourage stu-dents to want to learn and to achieve their maximumpotential. Cooperative learning is a proven way toaccomplish these goals.

Note'As I reflected upon that first experience in these classrooms

I came tt: realize that to do cooperative learning well requiresstudy, comprehension, acceptance of a number of new ideas,breaking of old notions and habits, effort, and time. The teach-ers I observed during their early stages of using cooperativelearning are to be commended for their work and for theircourage in opening up their classrooms to cooperative learning.

ReferencesBrandt, Ronald. "On Cooperative Learning: A Conversation

with Spencer Kagan." Educational Leadership 47 (january1990): 8-11.

Johnson, David W., and Roger T. Johnson. Learning Togetherand Alone: Cooperative. Competitilv, and IndividualisticLearning. 2d ed. Englewood Cliffs. N.J.: Prentice-Hall,1987,

. Omperation aml Competitimi: Theory and Research.Edina, Minn.: Interaction Book Company, 1989.

Kagan, Spencer. Cooperative Learning Resources for Teachers.San Juan Capistrano, Calif.: Resources for Teachers, 1989.

Slavin, Robert E. Cooperative Learning: Theory. Research, andPractice. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1990.

"Synthesis of Research on Cooperative Learning."Educational Leadership 48(February 1991): 71-82.

Theory into Practice: A Cooperative LearningSuccess Story in Middle Level Classrooms

Eric F. Luce, The University of Southern Mississippi, Gulf Coast, Mississippiin collaboration with

William McKendry, Social Studies TeacherDennis Dool, Social Studies Teacher

Philip Selim, Assistant PrincipalMichael Smith, English Teacher

Myra Wolpert, Mathematics and Reading TeacherBala-Cynwyd Middle School, Lower Merlon (Pennsylvania) School District

Conflicting expectations for schooling are commonamong middle school students, parents, and educa-tors. Middle school parents want their children tobe physically and psychologically safe. They expect

their children to know adults well enough to confide inthem. They want schools to foster constructive friend-ships among students. They want their children to beinvolved in school activities and to have enough positive

experiences in school to want to return to school thenext day ((;arvin 1987).

Middle school students arc malleable and impression-able. Variability in social, emotional, and intellectualdevelopment is common. Their growth and developmentvaries and they navigate the transition between child-hood and adolescence at various times and at variousrates. Teachers and parents can become models and sig-nificant others for them (Lounsbury 1990). Yet, middleschool students also experience the need to feel indepen-dent and self-sufficient. At times, they seem to be quitecapable of finding their own way in life; they may, there-fore, resent more than appreciate unsolicited attentionand advice (Clabaugh 1990).

Middle school educators do not always know how todo all that is expected of them. Caught in the middle,some have been trained in the traditions of elementaryeducation whereas others are more comfortable in sec-ondary schools. Elementary schools are commonlythought to be normative and nurturing places (student-centered) in which the students still feel the influence ofparents. In secondary schools, on the other hand, compli-ant student conduct and deportment may seem lessimportant than successful academic performance.Although schools might not encourage questioning basicauthority, breaches o decorum are more commonlyviewed as obstacles to -.he acquisition of desired subjectmatter than as threats to the social order (Clabaugh 1990).

The Secondary School Recognition Program of theUnited States Department of Education developed a listof fourteen attributes, drawn horn research on effectischools, that it uses as criteria to identify unusually suc-cessful public secondary schools. These attributes include

clear academic goals,high expectations for students,order and discipline,rewards and incentives for students,regular and frequent monitoring of student progress,opportunities for meaningful student responsibilityand participation,teacher efficacy,rewards and incentives for teachers,concentrati(ni on academic learning time,positive school climate,administrative leadership,well-a rticulated curriculum,evaluation for instructional improvement, andcommunity support and involvement.

The Bala-Cvnwyd Middle School, a suburban schooldistrict adjacent to west Philadelphia, is included on thedepartment's list of successful public secondary schools(Wilson and Corcoran 1988).

Philip Selim, Bala-Cynwyd's Assistant Principal,works with a staff of teachers some of whom have beentrained toward elementary education, others toward thesecondary level. Selim's experience building a distinctivemiddle school ethos and tradition with these teachersleads him to observe that

elementary school teachers have a more wholechild focus whereas secondary school teachers tendto view themselves more as content-matter special-ists. The compartmentalized structure of instruc-tion in many secondary schools hides natural linksbetween content areas that are more easily identi-

14

lied at the elementary level and which add rele-vance and meaning to learning.

Phil actively supports the inclusion of cooperative learn-ing approaches across the curriculum believing that thiswill enable teachers and students to notice the naturallinks between content areas and to establish and buildon their knowledge bases.

Research Findings Helped Convince Us to TryOne popular perspective held by teachers and by the

public at large is that effective teaching is the steady,clear transnlission of new information to passively recep-tive students who come to understand this informationas knowledge (Good lad 1984; Cuban 1984). Consistentwith this perspective, many educators view shortcomingsin academic achievement as characteristics of childrenrather than as failures of the education system (Duran1991). Furthermore, according to the research, teacherson all levels consistently tend to take personal credit andresponsibility for student successes and rarely take theblame when students fail to achieve the teachers' expec-tations. Yet we know that students who fail to learnaccording to their potential do so because they are acad-emically behind and lack skills other children, who arebetter prepared, possess (Bloom 1976; Carroll 1989).

The curricular flexibility of middle schools is oneresponse to the diversity that exists among middle schoolstudents. Appropriately flexible curriculum approachesshould provide continuous assessment of an individualstudent's needs. Teachers are responsible for providingappropriate programs of study. The instructional envi-ronments they create must stress interrelationshipsamong various disciplines and facilitate the acquisitionof learning, thinking skills, and problem-solving skills(Kohut 1990).

Using cooperative learning approaches, students canbenefit from the expertise of other students as well asthat of teachers. Scribner and Cole (1981) have shownthat the acquisition and use of reading and writing skillsare greatly enhanced by socialization into cultural activi-ties requiring reading and writing for specific purposes.

When used correctly, cooperative learning activitiesare capable of improving thc academic achievement of allstudents (Kagan 1985; .Johnson, Johnson, and Holubec1987; Slavin 1990) as well as the social integration andself-esteem of students from varied ethnic and racialbackgrounds (Kagan 1986). To be most effective in rais-ing students' academic achievement, these activitiesrequire clear group learning goals and individual studentaccountability. These two requirements are powerful fac-tors that affect both individual and group achievement.Slavin (1989) has proposed additional explanations forthe successes associated with cooperative learning.'

No single model for the conduct of cooperative learn-ing exists. The models that work best require students toachieve academic goals following specified plans that

Cooperative learning 33

ensure individual and group productivity, content learn-Mg, and on-task interaction. The success of groups inattaining their goals depends upon each member's devel-opment of the expertise required to contribute to thegroup. The structures these models provide serve toensure that students work in groups as groups. Leadersin the cooperative learning movement highly recommendthat teachers provide extrinsic rewards recognizingaccomplishment of goals to each member of each suc-cessful student group. Cooperative learning also requiresindividual student accountability through evaluation ofindependent learning performances through end-of-unittesting (Duran 1991).

A Report from the Classroom:The Good News

At Bala-Cynwyd Middle School, social studies teach-ers Bill McKendry and Dennis Dool, along with a teamof teachers from other subject areas, are using coopera-tive learning approaches in their classes. Since 1989,when he participated in in-service activities and work-shops supported by the school district, McKendry hasbeen trying a number of cooperative learning strategies.His success has had a ripple cffect; other teachers arenow giving cooperative learning a try.

McKendry and Dool agree that "some people are tra-ditional teachers; cooperative learning may not be forthem." They agree, however, that using cooperativelearning procedures do not always necessitate a radicaldeparture from successful, established teaching practices.Effective cooperative learning activities neither replace alldirect instruction nor eliminate student accountability.

At Bala-Cynwyd, reading and mathematics teacherMyra Wolpert is convinced that cooperative learning isnot a radical departure for her:

I probably [used cooperative learning) before Iheard the term. It is a matter of personal philoso-phy with me. We live in a high achieving society,but we also fight wars! It is important for childrento learn to get along with each other.McKendry observes that when using cooperative

learning strategies, classes are sometimes noisier, discus-sions are heated, and distractions are common. Positiveexperiences and high levels of student involvement, how-ever, have led him to believe that teachers can achievepositive results with middle school students.

McKendry has observed insecure students becomemore confident. He has seen academic discussion devel-op among students while they are working cooperativelyon individual and team assignments. He has been sur-prised that the initial resistance of loners to cooperativelearning teams typically fades away. It is his convictionthat, in working cooperatively with his students, moreadvanced, upper-level students acquire greater quantitiesof background information instead of rote facts.Students gain depth and breadth of understanding

4 0


through discussing facts in context, rather than simplyunderstanding facts as facts. They come to understandhow facts can help to form and illustrate concepts.

The teachers at Bala-Cynwyd have personally seencooperative learning raise the academic achievement ofsocial studies students at the sine time helping themimprove literacy skills enabling students to increase theirparticipation both in and beyond school. Students learnto develop and refine their own ideas. As they gain expe-rience and security in doing so, they are nr,c as atraid tofail as they were in conventional teaching settings.

McKendry agrees that it is generally true that whenstudents interact in cooperative learning activities, theyspontaneously raise and negotiate task-relevant topics.Students discuss the meaning of questions, the content ofgood answers to questions, and how to find answers toquestions. They discuss grammar and the meaning ofwords, phrases, and sentences. Students discuss theirprogress in completing assignments and the relationshipof social studies content material to their backgroundknowledgeunwittingly, but naturally, employingmetacognitive strategies for organizing and directirgtheir learning while acquiring e,:pertise in content.

McKendry has found that even in cooperative learn-ing environments students need a teacher's guidance. Forexample, a set of rules for noise levels has evolved in hisclasses: hands up means attention, thumbs down meansthat a behavior is unacceptable, and a hand signal form-ing a zero means that silence is called for.

McKendry also employs a bonus point system thatprovides rewards for completion of assignments in atimely manner and for cooperative behavior marked bythe absence of derogatory comments directed at peers.Students can earn bonus points at the end of each socialstudies unit. McKendry has found that this reward sys-tem motivates students in powel ful ways.

Clear group goals and individual student accountabil-ity have positive effects on students' achievement. Withearly guidance, including teacher-provided structure forlessons and assignments and close teacher monitoring ofstudent progress, nearly all students will be successful individing up jobs, in discussing what they have learnedwith one another, in giving one another feedback, and inhearing and seeing what others have to offer the group.Students have to be taught not only the content but alsohow to work in a cooperative group. In far too manyclassrooms, the most successful students have learned towork independently or competitively. Learning to workcooperatively requires guidance, practice, and feedback.

Team-developed composition projects in which stu-dents investigate topics and contribute findings to theirteams in their writing have been popular with students.In these projects, group reports are compiled in whichdata are used to hack up student opinions and conclu-sions. Topics such as "Thc Revolutionary War: Evolu-tionary or Revolutionary?" have served well in stimulat-

ing student cooperative inquiry. Teachers need to selectteam gatekeepers who can coordinate and compile theindividual work of group members as they complete on-task behavior. Cooperative learning forces students toanalyze and verify opinions with evidence, as opposed toreporting facts and generalizations without challenge.Furthermore, cooperative learning and social studies gowell together because both value discussion and personalopinions.

eachers need to convince students about the meritsof working and learning together cooperatively. And stu-dents need to accept that good things can happen to andfor them as a result of this participation. Students articu-late their resistance through questions such as, What's init for me? and What am I going to get out of this?Student resistance to cooperative learning activities andto staying on task are sometimes hard to overcome.Skeptical students will no doubt become convinced,however, that one of the best ways to learn a thing is toteach it and that when students help each other to learn,their abilities to express their own ideas improve.Perhaps the sincerity of these explanations is what con-vinces students to try to work cooperativelyit worksbecause it makes sense to students.

For outside observers, or even for the teacher incharge, it may be unnerving to see middle school stu-dents interact casually and informally as they participateon task in group activities. The sight of students laugh-ing and joking as they speak to one another and thesound of conversational asides might appear to be incon-sequential to learning and might discourage some teach-ers from implementing cooperative learning strategies.Phil Selim has noticed that the social studies classroomseems noisier and student behavior appears more disor-ganized during cooperative learning lessons. Selim isaware, however, that appearances can be deceiving.

When Phil Selim visits Bill McKendry's classes, hefinds student attention focused in sustained ways onsocial studies course objectives to an extent that is sur-prising and worthy of note. He has asked McKendry'sstudents what they are learning and has checked to findout how much they are learning. Invariably, studentsanswer that they are learning and that their answersabout what they are learning vary. Students often tellhim that the work in Mr. McKendry's class is worth-while yet more difficult than in their other classes. Theyhave to work with others, work on their own, beaccountable to other people, divide up work, makedecisions, and resolve conflicts. Students also tell Selimthat they learn more in Mr. McKendry's class than theydo in others.

Selim realizes that such information is not easilyquantifiable. With support and encouragement from theLower Merion School District through in-service train-ing and staff development activities, other teachers atBala-Cynwyd, like McKendry, are beginning to imple-

ment cooperative learning across the curriculum.Cooperative learning is not, however, the dominantmodel for instruction in the district. At present it is notso pervasive that we can say it directly accounts for allour recent high student performances on standardizedtests of academic achievement.

For Selim, strict standardized multiple-choice tests donot assess students' ability to interact with each other,nor do they adequately measure thinking skills such asanalysis and synthesis. In the long run, skills developedthrough cooperative learning, such as the ability to workwith people whose backgrounds and experiences are dif-ferent from one's own and to work with others as partof a team, might be more important in the workplacethan the ability to do well on standardized tests.

Mike Smith, an English teacher and a member of theteam of teachers that works with McKendry, believesthat cooperative learning lends itself well to teachingsocial studies because it makes it possible to look at con-tent in many ways. Smith uses cooperative learningapproaches in his English classes. For him, middle schoolstudents need more than lectures from their teachers. Healso believes that for students to work well in groupscooperatively it is necessary to teach them how to workin groups. Students, he believes, "work best if there is anatural atmosphere that is not restrained," but achievingthis atmosphere takes work.

When asked to work cooperatively with other stu-dents, achieving students do not automatically' sharewhat they' know and what they' have learned. They donot automatically' become teachers and leaders in theirgroups. Over time, the reluctance of brighter or morecapable students to share their work with other, less ablestudents can be overcome. Smith has found that by usingessay assignments that students must complete by partic-ipating in cooperative groups, attitudes sometimeschange. Students become interested in listening to ly'hatother students have to say'. The process also becomesmore interesting to students when they find that to com-plete their work they must both present their findings totheir classmates and defend their personal judgments.

Smith agrees that cooperative learning probably pro-motes the development of higher-level thinking skills. Incooperative groups, students arc less likely to assumethat all their teacher expects of them is to take notesfrom lectures so they can reconstruct information at alater timc to pass a test. When a teacher plans coopera-tive learning activities, students must become moreactive in their learning. They need to make decisionsabout what is important and what is not. Students alsohave "more opportunities to develop and kick ideasaround."

Smith has also found that he must work cooperativelywith students. Wanting to work cooperatively, however,does not automatically translate into cooperative learn-ing. He has had to work to develop a "comfort level"


that takes into account that kids have to be kids. Thatdoes leave room for exercising leadership and directionin his role as teacher. He has had to learn how to dothese through trial, error, and practice: "Just becauseyou know the principles and the research doesn't meanyou can make it work. That takes time!"

Social studies teacher Dennis Dool believes that coop-erative learning activities offer his students more timeand opportunity to process information. He has noticedthat one of the ways his students communicate andprocess information as they work cooperatively isthrough "kidspeak"using their own language. As aresult, active verbal student interactions are improved.When the opportunities emerge, students record kid-speak in written form. Dool accepts and encourages stu-dents to use their language and idiom3 "when it showsunderstanding."

Partly because of McKendry and Smith's enthusiasmfor cooperative learning, Dool has decided to integratecooperative learning activities into his teaching. Dool isconvinced that to teach effectively at the middle schoollevel it is necessary to vary instructional activities. Thevariety of cooperative learning strategies allows him todo so. Dool tries to use at least three activities in teach-ing a lesson. He has found that strategies such as theJigsaw method evoke high interest from his students andinvolve them in classroom activities as teachers andexperts.

Dool has also used cooperative approaches effective-ly to bring closure to a unit and to promote review andpractice. He sometimes uses three-day blocks of classtime for this purpose. On the first day', he will teach amini lesson, emphasizing key concepts, vocabulary,and questions of importance. Then the sharing begins.On the second day, cooperative work groups are orga-nized. The group's tasks are to create quizzes on theunit and to refine and improve their questions by tryingthem on their group members. Thus prepared, on thethird day Dool stages review contests using studentquestions. The winning team members each receivetwo points that he adds to their grades on the subse-quent test.

Dool is still finding his way with cooperative learning.He has attended in-service activities and has gone toworkshops on the subject, but he is convinced thatteaching is an art and that it takes time for artisticexpression to mature. He is convinced by the scientificcase that can be made for cooperative learning. He isfamiliar with research on cooperative learning and withthe leaders in the field. He is willing to try it, but fornow he often finds that he must rely on his own motiva-tion to try something new in order to convince his stu-dents that they have something to gain by cooperatingand learning together with him. He knows that goodthings will not automatically happen simply because hehas planned a cooperative learning lesson.


ChallengesImplementing cooperative learning concepts and

strategies effectively is a challenge for even the best ofteachers. Teachers must replace many traditional prac-tices and assumptions with others that are consistentwith this approach. To be successful it is necessary, hutnot sufficient, to have willing teachers. Knowledge andtraining need to be provided. Teachers also need free-dom to learn new skills and to know that they willreceive support while they risk trying something new.

Becoming comfortable with noise and commotion isone adjustment teachers might nc d to make. It alsotakes time to develop the finesse and expertise to knowthe difference between student conversations that aremerely social and those that relate to the lessons.Knowing how and when to intervene and to refocus stu-dent conversations without getting angry or destroyingstudcnt interest also requires skill and tact that a teachercan probably learn only through trial and error.

Teachers need to learn how to support team-buildingprocesses. It is one thing to assign students to work ingroups. To get them to work together as a team is amuch more complicated matter. This requires not onlyplanning interesting and engaging learning assignnlents,but also making decisions about how to structure groupactivity and motivating groups to act like teams.

For cooperative learning to work, teachers need toinstruct students on how to examine evidence and opin-ions. They need to learn where they can find information,hut they also need to learn how to ask for information.Teachers may need to learn how to mediate disagree-ments and negotiate working arrangements between andwith students as cooperative learning unfolds.

One of the more difficult impediments to using coop-erative learning successfully in middle school classes isabsenteeism. It is hard to motivate groups of students tocooperate and to share learning when they feel thatmembers of their group are not pulling their weight andare dragging the group down. Students who are regular-ly absent make it difficult for members of their group toshare learning tasks and responsibilities. Group memberscannot depend on these students to support the group'swork. Students who are absent infrequently and whotake school seriously are sometimes resentful that theyare, or might be, expected to help slackers catch up.Students do not always think it fair that they have to doanother student's work or that they should be penalizedfor othcrs' shortcomings. Yet once the groups begin tofunction as groups, students really work hard to helpeach other and develop a strong sense of obligation tohelp their groupmates succeed.

Over a period of time, fewer students seem to misscooperative learning classes. We do not know if cooper-ative learning affected 'attendance at Bala-Cynwyd sinceattendance at the school is generally high. We plan toinvestigate the extent to which attendance improves in

classes once cooperative learning groups begin toimprove the way they work.

Students need to believe they will benefit personallyand substantively from working cooperatively. Most stu-dents expect to work individually and competitively inschool. These expectations may cause students to resistcooperative learning. To overcome this resistance, teach-ers not only must he excited by the promise of coopera-tive learning, they also must be actively committed tomaking it work. Teachers might need to learn how tomodify assessment practices so they can recognize indi-vidual and group achievements.

EpilogueCooperative learning has acquired a foothold in our

middle schools. It may not be a prescription for instantmiddle school successit takes serious work and placesserious demands on both teachers and students.Cooperative learning will not likely be a fad in ourschool. Because of the results that we have alreadyobtained, cooperative learning will continue to con-tribute to middle school education generally, and tosocial studies education specifically. Cooperative learn-ing groups free students and teachers alike to notice anddiscover "natural links" that add relevance and meaningto learning.

Note'See chapter 8 of this bulletin.

ReferencesBloom, Benjamin S. Human Characteristics and School

Learning. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1976.Carroll, John B. "The Carroll Model: A 25-Year Retrospective

and Prospective View." Educational Researcher 18(January/Eebruary 1989): 26-31.

Clabaugh, Gary K. "Educators Caught in the Middle."Educational Horizons 68, no. 2 (Winter 1990): 60-61.

Cuban, Larry. How Teachers Taught: Constancy and Changein American Classrooms, 1890-1980. New York:Longman. 1984.

Duran, Richard P. "Cooperative Learning and LanguageMinority Students." Paper presented at the annual meetingof the American Anthropological Association, Chicago,November 1991.

Garvin, James P. "What Do Parents Expect from Middle LevelSchools?" Middle School Journal 19 (November 1987):3-4.

Goodlad, John. A Place Called School: Prospects for theFuture. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1984.

Johnson, Roger T., David W. Johnson, and Edythe J. Holubec.Structuring Cooperative Learning: Lesson Plans forTeachers. Edina, Nlinn.: Interaction Book Company, 1987.

Kagan, Spencer. Co( iperatriv Learning R CP mrces for Teachers.Berkeley: llniversity of California, 198.5.

. "Cooperative I.earning and Sociological Factors inSchooling." In Beyond I.anguage: Social and Culturalbactors in Schooling Language Minority Students. I.osAngeles: California State University Evaluation,Dissemination, and Assessment Center, 1986.

Kohut, Sylvester. "A Quality Middle School: What Makes the

')ifference?" Educational Horizons 68, no. 2 (Winter1990): 107-8.

Lounsbury, John H. "Middle Level Education: Perspectives,Problems, and Prospects." Educational Horizons 68, no. 2(Winter 1990): 64.

Scribner, Sylvia, and Michael Cole. The Psychology ofLiteracy. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press,1981.

Slavin, Robert E. When and Why Does Cooperatit'e Learning


Increase Achievement? Theoretical and EmpiricalPerspectives. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, Centerfor Research on Elementary and Middle Schools, OERI no.G86-00061986,1989.

. Cooperative Learning: Tbemy, Research and Practice.Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1990.

Wilson, Bruce L., and Thomas B. Corcoran. SuccessfulSecondary Schools: Visions of Excellence in AmericanPublic Education. Philadelphia: The Falmer Press, 1988.

I Know It Works!:Seeing a Cooperative Learnin_g Strategy Succeed

in My Secondary Classroom

Robert M. Mattingly, Fulda American High SchoolA Department of Defense Dependents School, Fulda, Germany

Several years ago as my rifle squad moved up a steepslope we witnessed a jeep with a trailer overturn.Without hesitation, we moved to right the wrong.Ten of us organized ourselves to set the vehicles

upright. It went like clockwork. Within minutes, we hadthe vehicles back on the road, ready to roll. Imagine theway we felt! It was like moving rwo huge mountains.

I could never have righted that jeep by myself. Couldyou? Would our results have been the same if one or anumber of us had not contributed? Was our effort actual-ly a cooperative effort, or was it merely some form ofaccidentally successful group work that allowed somemembers of the squad to be noncontributing hangers-on?

I doubt it occurred to any of us at the time that wehad just participated in one of life's great truisms: noneof us is as strong as all of us. Each of us that day readilyrecognized that we were successful collectively for thatparticular job because each member of the squad hadcontributed his best. Although each one of us had partic-ular strength capabilities, only our collective best effortenabled us to share the success none of us could haveexperienced had we exerted the same effort alone.

Is this also true in the classroom? Is it possible thatour students' best efforts working together could enableeach of them to achieve the success few of them couldattain were they to exert the same effort alone? Moreimportantly, are systematic ways available that students,working together, can facilitate both their own learningand achievement and that of every other member of theclass?

Research undertaken in many K-12 classrooms hasrevealed that appropriate cooperative group effort con-sistently produces positive social, personal, and academicresults (e.g., Newmann and Thompson 1987; Slavin1990).

In the Beginning: Before Cooperative LearningAs a new teacher, one of the first teaching strategies I

tried to incorporate into my instructional repertoire wasthe use of cooperative group work. It soon becameapparent that my groups often were not working well

cooperatively. Typically, unsuccessful group projectsended up with one or two members doing most or all ofthe work while the rest did little or nothing. Even groupsthat did complete an assignment or report successfullytended to follow the same pattern. Groups often splin-tered into self-segregated smaller groups.

The majority of group projects my students turned inconsistently lacked the power, depth, and polish theymight have had had all group members contributed theirbest effort. At times I was so discouraged that I consid-ered abandoning group strategies completely. Still, theideas students generated working together, pooling theirtalents, and helping each other learn were powerfullyattractive notionstoo attractive, in fact, to abandon.

I wanted more than high-quality group projects andgroups that operated without my constant supervision. Iwanted more than groups in which all members con-tributed their best effort just to get an assignment fin-ished or report prepared. I also wanted more from indi-vidual group members than concern for getting the taskdone. What I wanted most was for students to use thesegroup tasks as a means by which each would learn moreof the material better than each would likely learn bystudying separately. I wanted to find a way to makegroups in my classroom operate so that students' atten-tion, effort, and time were spent allowing all members tolearn as much as they could. In a real sense, I wantedmorc than cooperation, I warned learninglots of it byall my students. I wanted all of iny students to learn alarge part of the material that their respective group wasresponsible for studying.

Committed to the goals of social studies education, Iknew that part of my responsibility was to enable stu-dents to leave my classroom at the end of the year withfar greater abilities in social participation, interpersonalrelations, and working with others than they had enter-ing it. I was frustrated that my group activities were notproducing the hoped-for positive attitudes and behav-iors. I did not see noticeable advancements in socialbehavior after the weeks and months of group activitiesin my classroom. Once I had assigned the task and the

4 5

groups met, the group members continued to subdividethe subtasks among groap members who went aboutfinishing their subtasks virtually independent of the oth-ers in their group. This occurred even when studentswere sitting next to each other in a group.

Eventually, group members would fit their separateparts together, smooth the transitions, and assemble thefinal report much like individual auto workers mightwhen what they are working on eventually becomes acar. Instead of increasing the positive interactions andconcern within each group, many students worked alone,often avoiding conversations with peers. This is a descrip-tion of one of my relatively successful noncooperativegroups; many groups were not even this successful.Furthermore, most students did not seem to care whetherthey or their group members learned the material.Clearly, my students were not moving toward the goals Ivalued and used group activities to help them attain.

Because all group members typically received thesame grade for their joint project, nothing preventedthem from splitting up the work, however that mightoccur. Although they were responsible to each other forgetting their part of the project done, they were not indi-vidually accountable for what they were contributing orfor what they learned or failed to learn. Under such con-ditions, it was disappointingbut not surprisingthatmy students usually earned about the same scores ontests whether they worked in groups or individuallyprior to the test.

It seems strange to me now how I could have missedthe key to my problem. Finally, I realized that I had notincluded a means of holding ream members personallyaccountable for their contributions to the group's suc-cess. I had made no plans for interdependence amonggroup members for each other's success. The group taskstructures I had been using made no provision forrewarding the groups for meeting clearly stated, presetstandards of academic achievement, or for publicly rec-ognizing and rewarding individual improvement. Alsomissing from my early group activities were clearlydefined task specializations for each group member.

To Change or Not to ChangeApparently, I had four choices: I could discontinue

using groups altogether, use groups as I had been usingthem (primarily to break up the class routine dominatedby my lectures and demonstrations), continue usingthem merely as a device to get tasks done or to getlonger reports assembled, or find and use an effectivemodel to organize and guide group work.

I decided to find an organizational structure for usinggroups that would allow me to manage learning andsocial skill development without my being a pervasivepart of that structure. I hoped for a model by which,once the groups got started, each group would run itself.I wanted a teaching strategy that would help all my stu-

4C


dents retain more information and increase their acade-mic achievement beyond what might happen in a tradi-tional classroom. The strategy, I thought, should alsohelp them refine a systematic approach for solving prob-lems with others. If in the process I could help them tolike school better and gain higher self-esteem, so muchthe better. And while all of this was happening I wantedto be "the teacher who wasn't there." I wanted to placethe responsibility for learning where it belongs, with thestudents. At the same time, I accepted that it was myresponsibility as a teacher to foster conditions in whicheach student could be a highly successful learner. I want-ed to motivate students to excel. These intentions, ofcourse, were easier wished for than achievedbut Iwanted it all.

I did not pursue this quest free of apprehensionsabout what I might have to do once I found such a strat-egy. Part and parcel of my search were a number ofquestions for which I needed answers: How does onebring about such radical changes in a traditional class-room without inviting bedlam? What was my role to bein a new environment where groups would work toachieve these goals? How different would this new rolebe from what I have done in the past? How were thestudents to behave toward me and their peers? Whatrules would govern these new group structures and thenew relationship between my students and myself? Whatwould I have to do to ensure that everyone followed therules? These are only a sample of the questions I askedand sought to answer.

It became obvious that in addition to finding a newmethod of helping students study social studies contentand materials, I would have to help them acquire andrehearse social skills as well. If I was ever to achieve any-thing close to the necessary cooperation, I would have todefine clearly, make students aware of, introduce, moni-tor, assess, and let every student practice every one ofthese social skills. Without these things, especially theclear definitions and practice, my students would notlikely learn to use these abilities in their groups or out-side the classroom.

The SearchWhile attending the University of Georgia, I had the

good fortune to study with a professor, Ronald L.VanSickle, who was also very much interested in theacademic achievement possibilities offered by coopera-tive learning and its related goal structures. He pointedme immediately in the direction of the EducationalResources Information Center. ERIC had a lot to say.The list of individuals involved in cooperative learningresearch was long but some names appeared more oftenthan others. Robert Slavin, Spencer Kagan, DavidJohnson, and Roger Johnson appeared at the time to bethe most actively involved. I began my investigation withthese practitioners.


To be sure, differences existed among weir approach-es to cooperative group work. Slavin emphasized equal-izing opportunity and individualizing accountability.Kagan stressed the need for using flexible cooperativelearning techniques that would allow the teacher toimplement cooperative goal structures any number ofways. Johnson and Johnson stressed the need for stu-dents to acquire and refine group processing and inter-personal skills. All agreed that students must learn andacquire proficiency at appropriate social skills. Studentsneeded to learn and become skilled at the basic abilitiesof interaction and communication without which nocooperative strategy could succeed.

After studying and carefully considering these threeapproaches, I chose to concentrate on the three models(Student Teams-Achievement Divisions, Teams-Games-Tournament, and Jigsaw II) proposed by Slavin (1986).They seemed to have the greatest potential for a sec-ondary social studies classroom. According to a study byNewmann and Thompson (1987), two of the threeSlavin models, STAD and TGT, have produced consis-tently positive academic results. Jigsaw II, however, wasreported to have enjoyed only marginal success.Newmann and Thompson reported that Jigsaw II posi-tively affected academic achievement in only 17 percentof the cases studied. I was intrigued.

My Search Ended: Jigsaw ll SelectedJigsaw II seemed perfect for the secondary social stud-

ies classroom. Why was it not more effective? It had allthe critical elements of STAD and TGT, and, when car-ried out appropriately, it offered the additional advan-tages of intense home team and specialized "expertgroup" interaction, in-depth analyses, and extended on-task discussions.

Jigsaw's relatively poor performance could result onlyfrom one of nvo factors: either the Jigsaw II niodel itselfwas flawed or the way teachers used it in the case studieswas inconsistent with the model. The model, seeminglystraightforward, involved the following elements:

a. whole-class teaching;b. student readings;c. expert group discussions;d. home team reporting;c. individual testing; andf. team recognition.

This strategy met all the criteria universally agreed to benecessary to an effective cooperative task structure. Theresults of studies Newmann and Thompson reported, Isurmised, must have been a consequence of defectiveoperation by those who attempted to use the model.

VanSickle and I reviewed the Newmann andThompson studies as well as a number of other pub-lished and unpublished studies. In all of the studiesexcept one, the Jigsaw treatment was similar toAronson's original .jigsaw (Aronson et al. 1978) and did

not meet Slavin's required group reward and individualaccountability criteria.

The more I looked at Jigsaw II, the more I liked it. I

decided to test Jigsaw II in my classroom. The prospectwas exciting.

Determining and Stating Clear

Criteria for Classroom OperationsBefore introducing this new strategy to my classroom,

I needed to organize my thoughts. I had to articulatesome basic operational guidelines. These were guidelinesI believed every student should understand and follow ifwe were to have any chance of achieving our primarygoal of improving academic achievement. This list wasstraightforward. I decided that each student needed tounderstand

a. the academic and social objectives for the strategyand for the academic content they were to study;

b. how they were to accomplish the expectedacademic and social objectives;

c. the expected group participation behaviors, whatthey were to do or say and how they were tobehave toward others;

d. the nature of positive interdependence and its placewithin a cooperative learning environment;

e. that they would be held individually accountablefor learning materials or skills; and

f. the criteria for success.It also seemed a good idea to develop a list of rules

that all members were to follow. This list would providedos and don'ts that would guide the activities within thegroup and among its members. I began collecting ideasfrom students in all my classes. We finally settkd on thefollowing working rules:

a. Follow directions.b. Stay on task.c. Help the group stay on task.d. Offer all necessary information.e. Check each others' understanding of information.f. Seek information.g. Paraphrase information offered by others.h. State and seek opinions where appropriate.We also agreed on a list of specific social skills stu-

dents were expected to use at all times within theirgroups. These included the following:

a. Practice active listening.b. When you disagree, disagree with what has been

said, not with who is saying it.c. Encourage others to contribute.d. Acknowledge and praise contributions.e. Show appreciation for others' work.f. Express feelings.Obviously, I could not expect my students to use all

working rules and social skills unless I acted in waysconsistent with this model. To fulfill my responsibilities,I had to

4 7

a. select and state a precise set of academic objectivesthat made it clear what students were to learn ineach unit;

b. locate or develop a posttest aligned with theacademic outcome objectives set for each unit;

c. provide a description of the jigsaw II model and ofthe roles and responsibilities of both students andteacher during its operation;

d. determine group membership for each home team;e. administer and grade pretests;1. form the groups and establish time lines for activi-

ties within the unit;g. monitor student progress within the groups;h. administer and grade posttests;i. compare pretest and posttest scores and determine

improvement; andj. provide public recognition for groups and individ-

ual students who meet the criteria.The research literature on jigsaw 11 provided me withdetails of these steps and how to use them. By conscious-ly paying attention to each of these steps I was able tostay on track when I was planning and using jigsaw li.This conscious attention also prevented me from doingthings in the classroom that were inconsistent with themodel.

Using and Testing Jigsaw II in My ClassroomTo test my understanding of the Jigsaw II model, 1

decided to compare its instructional effectivenessagainst a more traditional whole-class lecture method.Two of my 9th grade world regions geography classesat Fulda American High School, a Department ofDefense Dependents Schools high school in Fulda,Germany, would participate in this comparison study. Irandomly assigned one class (of twenty-three students)to Jigsaw II and the other (of twenty-two students) to aconventional, whole-class instruction. Both classes con-tained students from a wide range of academic abilitylevels, including students enrolled in the school's learn-ing disabilities program. Both classes contained similarstudents.

The experiment lasted nine weeks and encompassed acomplete nine-chapter study of Asia (Swanson 1987). Atypical chapter included a narrative description about itstopic (e.g., "The Land and People of Southeast Asia")and a social studies feature (e.g., reading a weatherchart). From the beginning, the two classes proceededthrough the three units (South Asia, East Asia, andSoutheast Asia) at a rate of one chapter per week. Bothclasses used the same text, received the same enablingactivities and materials (e.g., lectures, compass work, ormap-reading drill), and took thc same tests, whichaccompanied the textbook.

In the experimental class, I organized the cooperativegroups according to the Jigsaw II student team learningmodel (Slavin 1986). I assigned tudents to four-member


teams balanced according to past achievement. The stu-dents met several times each week in cooperative groups.They met either in their home teams or their expertgroups depending on what they were studying or dis-cussing.

A typical textbook chapter followed these steps: (1) 1gave students their general assignment and expert topics.They then read the assigned material consistent with theacademic objectives. (2) Students met in their expertgroups, became experts, and prepared to teach theirrespective home team members. (3) Experts returned totheir home teams and taught their teammates. (4)Students took the standardized chapter test individuallyand received two scores. The first score represented stu-dents test scores for grading purposes, and the secondwas their contribution to the team score based onimproved individual performance. (5) 1 compiled andposted team scores based on total improvement points. Ithen publicly recognized strong team performances.

I determined improvement points by using a sy stemknown as Equal Opportunity Scoring (Slavin 1986).EOS awards improvement points based on improvementdifferences between test scores and base scores. I used aten-point maximum. The scores students received ontheir most recent unit test served as their base score. Theten-point limit worked well in this study, allowing suffi-cient latitude for steady improvement by low and aver-age achievers. High achievers were also able to scoremaximum points because a perfect score automaticallyearned ten points. The minimum number of improve-ment points a student could earn was zero. I adjustedbase scores weekly.

Meanwhile, the control class received instruction in amore traditional format: assigned readings, enablingactivities, whole-class discussion, and tests on the samematerials and enabling a_civities. The Jigsaw II classspent less time in lecture and whole-class discussion thanthe comparison class because of the time required towork in cooperative, small groups.

Results of Final Achievement TestsAccording to the posttest scores, the achievement of

students in the jigsaw II class Was higher than the com-parison class at a statistically significant level.' Nearly80 percent of the twenty-three jigsaw II studentsexceeded the average score of the twenty-two compari-son class students. I considered the 5.2 percent differ-ence in scores between the two class mean scores prac-tically significant; it was a big enough difference tomake a difference to me!

This study and its consistency with the larger cooper-ative learning research base illustrated for me that JigsawII, when used as directed, can produce higher levels ofacademic achievement than conventional whole-class,noncooperative instructional procedures in secondarysocial studies classes.

4.E


My Role in the Jigsaw II Classroom: ReflectionsMy role in the cooperative classroom was pleasantly

different from my usual role. As the weeks passed andthe students became more familiar with the new format,and as they became accustomed to their new relation-ships and responsibilities, the teams assumed greateroverall responsibility for what and how much each ofthe members learned. It was beginning to look like amachine that could run itself. This allowed me a degreeof teaching freedom I had not experienced before. Myrole became more a consultant or facilitator than a lec-turer. As the students assumed more responsibility forlearning. I had more time to organize the material theywere studying.

Jigsaw II allowed me long periods of uninterruptedtime to work with individual teams on specific problemswith little or no distraction. We had adopted the "four-before-me" rule, which required intrateam consultationon questions or problems before calling on me.

In the comparison class, work progressed as usual.did hear some grumbling about why they could not dowhat first period was doing. Nevertheless, we carriedon in the traditional mode: whole-class instruction, allindividuals for themselves. The environment of thisclassroom aptly fit the individual sink-or-swimmetaphor proposed by Johnson and Johnson (19(9). Itbecame clear that I was working harder in this class-room, but definitely not as intelligently. While studentsin this class might have been working as hard as stu-dents in the cooperative learning class, they were neitherworking more intelligently nor getting more intelligent.In the Jigsaw II class I was able to see that the labor nec-essary for individual and group learning and successwas equitably and reasonably divided. I was only one ofthe contributors to their success. I came to realize thatfor much of the time I was not necessarily the mostimportant direct contributor to what each studentlearned.

Students within and after This Cooperative VentureThe students using Jigsaw II enjoyed improved

academic achievement. That is not the whole story.While engaging in their new classroom roles, otherequally important improvements occurred. Improve-ments in the quantity and, I helicve, the quality of stu-dents' interactic.ns with one another were evident. Onereason for these improvements appeared to he that allstudents had the chance to belong to three distinctgroups: (a) their preferred group of friends, (b) a JigsawII home team, and (c) a changing expert group.

I overrode their tendency to self-segregate by assigningthem to teacher-manipulated heterogeneous teams. Theseteacher-made team assignments brought together manystudents who may have passed the entire year without

speaking to each other. After seeing the advantages of suchassignments, I plan to continue this practice and encourageother teachers who use this strategy to do the same.

The home team and expert group features of Jigsaw 11allowed all students both to give and to receive directand specific academic help. The Equal OpportunityScoring procedure appeared to increase the perceptionthat every student's contribution was valuable. Conse-quently, the necessary exchange of help and informationamong all students took place within a pleasant and sup-portive climate. Students of different academic back-grounds had, perhaps for the first time, reason for seri-ous school-related dialogue.

Students enrolled in my school's learning disabilitiesprogram seemed to benefit most from the new environ-ment, both academically and socially. We encouragedthem to elaborate on their contributions and they tendedto receive explanations rather than curt, terminalanswers from their teammates. Once thc class caught onto the Jigsaw operations, these students were the mostenjoyable to watch and assist.

Jigsaw II in Other Social Studies ClassesTeachers can use the format described earlier, with

modification, in any social studies class. Table 1 pro-vides a "Worksheet for a Cooperative Unit," based onLourié (1989), that teachers can use for planning andorganizing a unit that follows the Jigsaw 11 strategy.

In addition to this table and the guidelines describedherein, additional detailed information on Jigsaw II andother cooperative learning strategies that work in sec-ondary classrooms can be found in the references listedat the hack of this and other chapters in this bulletin.

I have tried here to relate my experiences with onecooperative group strategy. This initial success hasencouraged me to continue to use and improve uponJigsaw II. In addition, I expect to explore other strategiesin the weeks and months ahead; surely Jigsaw II is notthe only group approach that will work effectively insocial studies classrooms.

This chapter is also more than a report of my effortsand successes with groups in my own classroom. I clear-ly saw that I was not enabling students to attain thegoals we value as social studies educators. It was becauseso many of my students were not achieving the successthat I thought they were capable of attaining that I pur-sued my quest for a more effective way to use groups inmy classroom. Today I am satisfied that lam increasing-ly becoming the effective teacher I want to he.

Although cooperative learning is not the singleanswer to all my concerns, at the present time it offersme a far more powerful tool than those I had been using.It is a tool more secondary social studies teachers can usestarting today.

Table 1

Worksheet for a cooperative learning unit thatmay be used to guide planning in alignment withthe Jigsaw 11 strategy.

Grade Level:Course (Subject):Specific behavioral objectives relative to:1. Academic content:2. Academidprocessing skills:3. Social interaction skills:Organization of class:1. Number of students in each home team group:2. Basis of assignment to groups:3. Description of special room arrangemeat(s):Materials /resources to be used/provided:Format for first class period of the unit:1. Anticipatory set:2. Teacher input:3. Cooperative group work structure:

a. Group interdependence to be determined by:b. Individual accountability to be determined

by:1. Guidelines/rules for participation in groups:(These may be printed on handouts and distrib-uted to each student.)5. Time line of events from day to day through-out the unit:Test questions aligned with objectives to beincluded on unit exam:(May attach copy of final unit exam rather thanlist all items here.)Standard(s) for high achievement by individualsand groups (following grading of final unit test)


Note'Sec Mattingly and VanSickle (1991) for details of this

entire experimental study, especially a discussion of the statisti-cal data generated. The intent of this chapter is to portray ateacher's use of a cooperative learning strategy in the class-room, and not to report extensively on a study and its findings.

ReferencesAronson, Elliot, Nancy T. Blaney, Cookie Stephan, Jcv Sikes,

and Matthew Snapp. The jigsaw Classroom. Beverly Hills,Calif.: Sage, 1978.

Johnson, David W., and Roger T. Johnson. Cooperation andCompetition: Theory and Research. Edina, Minn: Inter-action Book Company, 1989.

Lourie, Nancy E. "How Do We Get There from Her"?Implementing Cooperative Learning in the Classroom.'Social Studies Review 20, no. 3 Spring (1989): 18-25.

Mattingly, Robert M., and Ronald I.. VanSickle. "CooperativeLearning and Achievement in Social Studies: Jigsaw II."Social Education 55 (October 1991 ) 392-95.

Newmann, Fred M., and Judith A. Thompson. Effects ofCooperative Learning on Achievement in SecondarySchools: A Summary of Research. Madison: NationalCenter for Effective Secondary Schools, University ofWisconsin, 1987.

Slavin, Robert E. Using Student Team Learning. 3d ed.Baltimore: Center for Research on Elementary and MiddleSchools, Johns Hopkins University, 1986.

. Cooperative Learning: Theory, Research, and Practice.Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1990.

Steinbrink, John E., and Robert J. Stahl. "Jigsaw III = Jigsaw II+ Cooperative Test Review: Applications to the SocialStudies Classroom." In Cooperative Learning in the SocialStudies: A Handbook for Teachers, edited by Robert J.Stahl. Menlo Park, Calif.: Addison-Wesley, 1992.

Swanson, J. L. World Geography: A Physical and CulturalApproach. River Forest, Laidlaw, 1987.

vanSickle, Robert L. "Jigsaw II: Cooperative Learning with'Expert Group' Specialization." In Cooperative 1.earning inthe Social Studies: A Handbook for Teachers, edited byRobert J. Stahl. Menlo Park, Calif.: Addison-Wesley, 1992.

5o

Approaches to Implementing Cooperative Learningin the Social Studies Classroom

David W. Johnson and Roger T. JohnsonUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolis, Minnesota

7'wo are better than one, because they have a goodreward for toil. For if they fall, one will lift up hisfellow; but woe to him Om is alone when he fallsand has not another to lift him up. And though aman might prevail against one who is ,illnic, twoWill withstand him. A threefold cord is not quicklybroken.

Ecclesiastics 4:9-12

Iooperative learning is an old idea, or as some socialstudies teachers might say, "cooperative learninghas a long history." The Talmud clearly states thatin order to learn you must have a learning partner.

In thc first century, Quintinion argued that studentscould benefit from teaching one another. The Romanphilosopher Seneca advocated cooperative learningthrough such statements as, qui docet discet (when youteach, you learn twice). Johann Amos Comenius, in theseventeenth century, believed that students would benefitfrom both teaching and being taught by other students.In the late 1700s, Joseph Lancaster and Andrew Iie 11made extensive use of cooperative learning groups inEngland, and the idea was brought to the United Stateswhen a 1.ancastrian school was opened in New YorkCity in 1806. Within the Common School Movement inthe United States in the early 1800s there was a strongemphasis on cooperative learning. In thc last threedecades of the nineteenth century, Colonel FrancisParker brought to his advocacy of cooperative learningenthusiasm, idealism, practicality, and an intense devo-tion to freedom, democracy, and individuality in thepublic schools. His fame and success rested on his powerto create a classroom atmosphere that was truly cooper-ative and democratic. Parker's advocacy of cooperationamong students dominated U.S. education through theturn of the century.

Following Parker, John Dewey promoted the use ofcooperative learning groups as part of his famous projectmethod in instruction. In the late 1930s, however,schools began to emphasize interpersonal competition.In the late 1960s, individualistic learning began to be

used extensively. After forty years of exploring competi-tive and individualistic learning, and after numerousresearch studies demonstrating the efficacy of coopera-tive learning, schools in the United States are returningto cooperative learning.

Enabling DefinitionsCooperation means working together to accomplish

shared goals. Within cooperative activities in the socialstudies classroom, individual students seek outcomesthat are beneficial to themselves and beneficial to allother group members. Cooperative learning meansinstructionally using small groups so that students worktogether to maximize their own and each other's learn-ing (Johnson, Johnson, and Holubec 1990). Withincooperative learning groups, students are given tworesponsibilities: to learn the assigned material and tomake sure that all other members of their group do like-wise. In cooperative learning situations, students per-ceive that they can reach their learning goals only if theother students in their learning group also achieve thegoals. Students discuss the social studies material witheach other, help each other to understand it, assist eachother in using the information and abilities appropriate-ly, and encourage each other to work hard.

Cooperative learning groups may be used to teachspecific content (formal cooperative learning groups), toensure active cognitive processing of information duringa lecture (informal cooperative learning groups), and toprovide long-term support and assistance for academicprogress (cooperative base groups) in the classroom(Johnson, Johnson, and Holubec 1990). Any assignmentin any curriculum for a student of any age can be donecooperatively.

Teachers create formal cooperative learning groupsto complete specific tasks and assignments such aslearning material from a textbook, writing reports orthemes, investigating and explaining historical events,and reading and interpreting documents, graphs, books,or news articles. Using this type of cooperative group,the teacher introduces the lesson, assigns students to

groups of two to five members, gives students the mate-rials they need to complete the assignment, and assignsroles to individual students. The teacher then explainsthe task, teaches any concepts or procedures the stu-dents need to know to complete the assignment, and

structures the cooperation among students. Studentswork on the assignment until all group members suc-cessfully understand the material and complete thegroup's task. While the students work together, theteacher moves from group to group systematically mon-itoring their interaction. The teacher intervenes whenstudents do not understand the academic task or whenproblems arise from working together. After the groupscomplete the assignment, the teacher evaluates the acad-emic success of each student and has the groups discusshow well they functioned as a team. In working cooper-atively, students realize they have a stake in each other'ssuccess; they become mutually responsible for eachother's iearning.

Informal cooperative learning groups are temporary,ad hoc groups used as part of lecturing and direct teach-ing to focus student attention on the material, create anexpectation set and mood conducive to learning, ensurethat students cognitively process the content, and pro-vide closure to an instructional session.

Finally, cooperative base groups are long-term groups(lasting an entire semester or year) with a stable mem-bership whose primary responsibility is to give all mem-bers the support, encouragement, and assistance they

need to progress academically.Cooperative learning may be contrasted with com-

petitive and individualistic learning. In the competitiveclassroom, social studies students work against eachother to achieve a goal that only one or a few studentscan attain. Teachers grade students on a curve, whichrequires them to work faster and more accurately thantheir peers. Thus, students seek an outcome that ispersonally beneficial but detrimental to all other stu-dents in the class. In the individualistic classroom, stu-dents work by themselves to accomplish learning goalsunrelated to those of the other students. Individualgoals are assigned, students' efforts are evaluated on afixed set of standards, and students are rewardedaccordingly. Consequently, students seek outcomesthat are personally beneficial while ignoring as irrele-vant the academic achievement of their groupmatesand classmates.

In addition to structuring classroom work coopera-tively, school administrators of social studies supervi-sors may structure teachers into cooperative teams.Three types of cooperative teams might exist within aschool (Johnson and Johnson I 989b). Collegial supportgroups are formed to increase teachers' instructionalexpertise and success. They consist of two to five teach-ers who meet weekly and discuss how to improve coop-erative learning within their classrooms. Teachers are


assigned to task forces to plan and implement solutionsto schoolwide issues and problems such as curriculumadoptions and lunchroom behavior. Faculty meetings,on the other hand, use ad hoc decision-making groupsto involve all staff members in important school deci-sions. The use of cooperative teams at the building level

ensures that a congruent cooperative team-based orga-nizational structure will exist within both classroomsand the school.

Cooperative Learning Is Here to StayWe know a lot about cooperative learning and we

have known it for some time. Since 1898, more than550 experimental and 100 correlational research studies

have been conducted on cooperative, competitive, andindividualistic efforts. We know more about cooperativelearning than we do about lecturing, age grouping,departmentalization, inquiry teaching, critical thinking,starting reading at age six, or the fifty-minute period. Weknow more about cooperative learning than aboutalmost any other aspect of education.

Teachers can use cooperative learning with confi-dence at every grade level, in every subject area, aridwith any task. Research participants have varied as toeconomic class, age, sex, nationality, and cultural back-

ground. A wide variety of research tasks, ways of struc-turing cooperation, and measures of the dependent vari-ables have been used. Many research workers withmarkedly varying orientations working in various set-tings, countries, and decades have conducted theresearch. The research findings on appropriately imple-mented cooperative learning groups is both valid andgeneralizable to a degree rarely found in the educationalliterature.

Cooperation is a generic human endeavor that affectsninny instructional outcomes simultaneously. Over thepast ninety years, research has focused on such diverseoutcomes as achievement, higher-level reasoning, reten-tion, achievement motivation, intrinsic motivation,transfer of learning, interpersonal attraction, social sup-port, friendships, prejudice, valuing differences, socialsupport, self-esteem, social competencies, psychologicalhealth, amd moral reasoning. These numerous outcomesmay be subsumed within three broad categories: effortto achieve, positive interpersonal relationships, and psy-chological health (see figure 1) (Johnson and Johnson1989a).

Cooperative learning is here to stay. Because it isbased on a profound and strategic theory and becausesubstantial research validates its effectiveness, thereprobably will never be a time in the future when cooper-ative learning is not used extensively within educationalprograms. Because of its effects and likely widespreaduse in the future, social studies educators need to under-stand the various approaches to implementing coopera-tive learning.


0o-

Figure 1. Outcomes of Cooperation

C. 111

\\.1. INT E R

EFFORTTO

ACHIEVE

-o

POSITIVERELATIONSHIPS 72

rnZn

I.PSYCHOLOGICALADJUSTMENT,

SOCIALN. COMPETENCEOkfro

0/3 a INI 3N\

Implementing Cooperative learning inthe Social Studies Classroom

We might place approaches to implementing coopera-tive learning within social studies classrooms on a con-tinuum with conceptual applications at one end anddirect applications at the other. Conceptual applicationsare based on an interaction among theory, research, andpractice. Teachers are taught a general conceptual modelof cooperative learning that they use to tailor coopera-tive 1Larning specifically for their circumstances, stu-dents, and needs. In essence, teachers are taught anexpert system of how to implement cooperative learningto create a unique adaptation. Direct applicatiims arepackaged lessons, curricula, and strategies that teachersuse in a prescribed manner. The direct approach may bedivided into three subcategories: strategy, curriculumpackage, and lesson approaches.

We might illustrate the difference between conceptualand direct applications by the following example.Practically everyone knows how to run a v'deocassetterecorder. You tune the television to the appropriatechannel, turn on the VCR, insert the tape, and press"play." When the VCR breaks, however, few of usknow how to repair it. Most of the things we use, we useas technicians. We can follow the instructions, but wereally do not understand how the thing works, we can-not adapt and modify it to our unique circumstances,and we cannot repair it when it breaks. A few of us areengineers in the sense that we have the conceptualknowledge required to modify and adapt the things weuse and to repair them when they break. We may trainteachers to use cooperative learning as technicians (i.e.,following step-by-step instructions) or as engineers (i.e.,

from a conceptual understandMg of cooperative learningand how it needs to be adapted to and implementedwirhin their specific circumstances to gain maximumbenefits from its effects).

These two approaches to implementing cooperativelearning are not contradictorythey supplement andsupport each other. A carefully crafted approach tocooperative learning requires a combination of clearconceptual understanding of the essential components ofcooperative learning, concrete examples of lessons andstrategies, and repeated implementation in classroomsand schools over extended periods of time.

A Conceptual ApproachThe conceptual approach requires social studies

teachers to learn both a conceptual understanding ofcooperative learning (its nature and essential compo-nents) and the skills to use that understanding to planand teach cooperative learning lessons, strategies, andcurriculum units uniquely tailored to their specific stu-dents and circumstances. Conceptual approaches tocooperative learning have been developed by ElizabethCohen (1986) and the authors of this chapter (Johnson1970; Johnson and Johnson, F. P. 1991; Johnson,Johnson, and Holubec 1990). Cohen based her concep-tual principles on expectation-states theory while webase our conceptual principles on the theory of coopera-tion and competition Morton Deutsch built from KurtLewin's field theory. The conceptual approach assumesthat each teacher faces a complex and unique combina-tion of circumstances, students, and needs and, there-fore, cooperative learning needs to he adapted 'andrefined uniquely to fit each teacher's situation.Understanding the essential elements allows teachers tothink creatively about cooperative learning and to pro-duce any number of strategies and lessons.

The goal of the conceptual approach is to developteachers' expertise in cooperative learning so they can

1. take any lesson in any subject area and structure itcooperatively;

7. practice the use of cooperative learning strategiesuntil they are at a routine and integrated level ofuse and implement cooperative learning at least 60percent of the time in their classrooms;

.3. describe precisely what they are doing and whythey are doing it in order to (a) communicate toothers the nature of cooperative learning and (b)teach them how to implement cooperative learningin their classrooms; and

4. apply the principles of cooperation to other set-tings, such as collegial relationships and facultymeetings.

The conceptual approach is used in all technologicalarts and crafts. An engineer designing a bridge, forexample, applies validated theory to the unique prob-lems imposed by the need for a bridge of a certain

length, to carry specific loads, from a bank of oneunique geological character to a bank of another uniquegeological character, in an area with specific winds, tem-peratures, and susceptibility to earthquakes. Teachersengage in the same process by (a) learning a conceptual-ization of essential components of cooperative learningand (b) applying that conceptual model to their uniqueteaching situations, circumstances, students, and instruc-tional needs. The conceptual approach to implementingcooperative learning is based on theory that is validatedby research and made operational through the elementsidentified as essential to cooperative efforts.

Theory Base for Cooperative Learning:

Where Did It All Come From?To understand the theory and research on wopera-

rive learning, it helps to know the sources from whichmost of it came. In the early 1900s, one of the foundersof the Gestalt School of Psychology, Kurt Koffka, pro-posed that groups were dynamic wholes in which theinterdependence among members could vary. One of hiscolleagues, Kurt Lewin, refined Koffka's notions in the1920s and 1930s. Lewin's insights led him ro state thatinterdependence among members was the essence ofgroups. One of Lewin's most brilliant graduate students,Morton Deutsch, took Lewin's thinking several giantsteps forward when, in the late 1940s, he formulated atheory of cooperation and competition.

Despite the clarity of Deutsch's theory, practicalapplications were slow to materialize in the 1950s. Inthe early 1960s, a high school English teacher and oneof the authors of this article, David Johnson, becameone of Deutsch's graduate students at ColumbiaUniversity. His brother Roger, an elementary school-teacher at the time, was spending his summers workingwith Jerome Bruner and a group of scientists atHarvard University developing the inquiry-based ESSscience curriculum. David and Roger spent much oftheir time together discussing Deutsch's theory of coop-eration and its relevance to teaching and to the schoolas an organization. In the late 1960s, after Roger andDavid became colleagues at the University ofMinnesota, their work extending the Koffka/Lewin/Deutsch theories to schools took a major leap forward(see Johnson 1970).

Our work is based on the premise that if students'learning goals are structured cooperatively, then stu-dents will assist, encourage, and support each other'sefforts to achieve. This interaction pattern in turnresults in greater learning, more positive relationshipsamong students, and increased psychological well-being. This theory of cooperation, furthermore, can heapplied on three levels: classroom learning (includingthe in-service training of educators); teacher teams atthe building level; and administrator teams at the dis-trict level.

Cooperative Learning 4 7

Validated by Research in Actual Classroom SettingsHaving a clear, highly practical theory is not enough.

Research must be conducted to validate or nullify the the-ory. Over the past thirty years, for example, we have con-ducted more than eighty-five research studies to identifythe essential components that make cooperation work.Cooperative learning is one of the most empirically vali-dated instructional procedures available to educators.'

What Makes Cooperative Learning Work?Social studies educators need to learn the essential ele-

ments of cooperation for at least two reasons. First, theyneed to tailor cooperative learning to their uniqueinstructional needs, circumstances, curricula, subjectareas, and students. Second, they need to diagnose anyproblems students have in working together and inter-vene to increase the effectiveness of the student learninggroups. Simply placing students in gro:!ps and tellingthem to work together does not in and of itself result incooperative effortsor positive effects on students.Group efforts may go wrong for many reasons. Seatingstudents together can result in competition at close quar-ters or give way to individualistic efforts with talkingadded. Teachers must understand the essential elementsof cooperation if they are to implement cooperativelearning successfully. Teachers need enough training andpractice on the essential elements of cooperation tobecome educational engineers who can take their exist-ing lessons, curricula, and courses and structure themcooperatively.

When teachers have real expertise in using coopera-tive learning, they will structure fiv,- essential elementsinto instructional activities. Well-structured and poorlystructured cooperative learning lessons in the social stud-ies classroom at all levels can be distinguished on thebasis of these elements. These essential elements, further-more, should be carefully structured within all levels ofcooperative efforts. Each learning group is a cooperativeeffort, but so is the class as a whole, the school, theteaching team, and the school district. The five essentialelements are as follows.

I. Positive interdependence The heart of cooperativelearning is positive interdependence. Students mustbelieve that they sink or swim together. Within everycooperative lesson, positive goal interdependence mustbe established through mutual learning goals. Teachersmust structure the group and thc group task so that allstudents learn the assigned material and make sure thattheir groupmates learn the assigned material. Positiveinterdependence can be strengthened in three ways: (a)providing joint rewards (e.g., if all members of a groupscore 90 percent correct or better on the test, eachreceives five bonus points); (h) dividing resources equallyamong all members; and (c) assigning complementaryroles to each member (e.g., reader, checker, encourager,and elaborator).


2. Face-to-face promotWe interaction Once teachersestablish positive interdependence, they must ensure thatstudents interact to help each other accomplish the taskand promote each other's success. Students are expectedto discuss what they are learning, explain to each otherhow to solve the assigned problems or complete theassignment:, and provide each other with assistance,support, and encouragement. Silent students are unin-volved students who are not contributing to their group--mates' or their own learning. Promoting each other'ssuccess results in both higher achievement and in gettingto know each other on both a personal and a profession-al level.

3. Individual accountalfility The purpose of coopera-tive learning groups is to strengthen each member.Students learn together so that they can subsequentlyperform better as individuals. To ensure that each mem-ber is strengthened, teachers hold students individuallyaccountable to do their share of the work. The teacherassesses each student's performance and returns theresults to the group and the individual. It is importantthat the group knows who needs more assistance, sup-port, and encouragement in completing the assignment.It is also important that group members know they can-not hitchhike on the work of others.

4. Social skills Contributing to the success of a coop-erative effort requires interpersonal and small-groupskills. Placing socially unskilled individuals in a groupand telling them to cooperate does not guarantee thatthey will be able to do so effectively. We must teach stu-dents social skills for high-quality collaboration andmotivate them to use those skills. We must teach leader-ship, decision making, trust building, communication,and conflict-management skills just as purposefully andprecisely as academic skills.

5. Group processing Teachers need to ensure thatmembers of each cooperative learning group discusshow well they are achieving their goals and maintainingeffective working relationships. Groups need to describewhich member actions are helpful and which are unhelp-ful, and make decisions about which behaviors to con-tinue or change. Appropriate processing enables learninggroups to focus on group maintenance, facilitates thelearning of social skills, ensures that members receivefeedback on their participation, and reminds students topractice collaborative skills consistently. Five of the keysto successful processing are allowing sufficient time forprocessing to take place, making processing specificrather than vague, maintaining student involvement inprocessing, reminding students to use their social skillswhile they process, and ensuring that the teacher hascommunicated clear expectations about the purpose ofprocessing.

Conceptual understanding and skillful use of cooper-ative learning are two sides of the same teaching exper-tise coin. Theory is the cutting edge of practice. Through

the attainment of conceptual understanding of how toteach, true teaching genius can emerge and be expressed.The complexity and promise of conceptually under-standing cooperative learning make adherence to theguidelines for implementing cooperative learning essen-tial. In short, unless social studies teachers follow theguidelines and criteria, the), should not expect to obtainthe multitude of positive results cooperative learningstrategies can achieve. Once social studies teachersunderstand and learn the essential elements of coopera-tive learning, they can fine-tune and adapt it to their spe-cific circumstances, needs, and students.

Gaining Expertise in Using Cooperative LearningJames Watson, who won a Nobel Prize as the codis-

coverer of the double helix DNA molecule, once statedthat nothing new that is really interesting comes withoutcollaboration. Gaining expertise in using cooperativelearning is in itself a cooperative process that requires ateam effort. Gaining expertise and becoming a skilleduser of cooperative learning are extended, complexprocesses that place both cognitive and emotionalderna.ids on teachers.

In order for social studies teachers to implementcooperative learning at a routine-use level (where theycan automatically structure a lesson cooperatively with-out preplanning or conscious thought), they need to gainexperience in a step-by-step manner. They need progres-sively to refine their competencies by

1. planning and teaching a cooperative lesson;1. assessing the strengths and weaknesses of the lesson;3. reflecting on how to improve their teaching in the

next lesson (thus clarifying the teacher's conceptu-al understanding);

4. planning and teaching a second cooperative lessonwith the modifications suggested by the feedbackreceived about the first; and

5. assessing the strengths and weaknesses of the sec-mid lesson, reflecting on how to improve theirteaching on the next lesson, and teaching the thirdlesson. This process should be repeated continuallyuntil the person retires from teaching.

A support system is needed to encourage and assistteachers in a long-term, multi-year effort to improvecontinually their competence in using cooperative learn-ing. With only a moderately difficult teaching strategy,for example, teachers may require from twenty to thirtyhours of instruction in its theory, fifteen to twentydemonstrations using it with various students and sub-jects, and an additional ten to fifteen coaching sessionsto attain higher-level skills. For a more difficult teachingstrategy like cooperative learning, teachers may need sev-eral years of training and support to ensure that theylearn it well. We prefer to take three years to train ateacher fully in the fundamentals of cooperative learning,the advanced use of cooperative learning, arid the use of

5

academic controversies to encourage social studies stu-dents to challenge each other intellectually.

Harvey Firestone (of Firestone Tires) once said that itis only when we develop others that we permanentlysucceed. To gain expertise in using cooperative learning,teachers must help their colleagues gain expertise. Thekey to successful implementation of cooperative learningis the use of collegial support groups (Johnson andJohnson 1989b). During training sessions, teachers learnabout cooperative learning and the essential elementsthat make it work. Teachers then transfer this knowl-edge to their classrooms and maintain their use of coop-erative learning for years to come. The success of thetraining depends on transfer (i.e., teachers trying cooper-ative learning in their classrooms) and maintenance (i.e.,teachers using cooperative learning over a long period oftime).

Social studies teachers must engage in cooperativelearning for some time before they begin to gain exper-tise. This usually requires support, encouragement, andassistance from colleagues. Transfer and maintenance,therefore, depend largely on teachers organizing them-selves into cooperative teams and collegial supportgroups that focus on helping all members progressivelyimprove their competence in using cooperative learning.

Alternative Approaches to implementingCooperative Learning

At the other end of the continuum are direct approach-

es to cooperative learning that are relatively inexpensiveand take little time to implement. Teachers may betrained to conduct a specific cooperative learning lesson,use a specific cooperative learning curriculum, or use aspecific cooperative learning strategy. These direct appli-cations are basically atheoretical. The goal of the directapproach is to train teachers to use step-by-step, pre-scribed procedures and curriculum materials that teach-ers have used successfully in other classrooms. The train-er informs the trainees about the procedure, demon-strates or models the procedure, and then the traineepractices the procedure.

Such training is based on a number of assumptions,one of which is that all classrooms and students are basi-cally the same and that, therefore, the same strategy, cur-riculum, or lesson will he equally effective in all schools.Another assumption is that teachers need to know onlythe steps involved in using cooperative lean.ing. If weassume teachers repeat the procedures dozens of times,they will become quite skillful technicians. The problemwith such technical competence is that it does not enableteachers to be flexible in their implementation and toadapt cooperative learning to new problems.

Direct approaches have focused on specific lessons,strategies, and curriculums. When teachers are trained inhow to use cooperative learning from the lessonapproach, they are offered a specific lesson structured

5 6


cooperatively (such as an English lesson on punctuation,a mathematics lesson on long division, or a science les-on on what sinks and what floats) and shown a demon-

st..Ation of how the lesson is taught. Teachers are thenexpected to go back to their classrooms and conduct thelesson.

The strategy approach trains teachers to use specificcooperative learnMg strategies, typically demonstratedwith one or more specific lessons. The steps required toimplement the strategy are listed. Once teachers learn thestrategy, it may be used to build a number of coopera-tive lessons and integrate them into existing curriculums.Some of the rnost powerful strategies include the Jigsawmethod developed by Elliot Aronson and his colleagues(1978), the Co-op Co-op strategy refined by SpencerKagan (1988), the Group Project .-nethod developed bySharan and Sharan (1976), and math Groups-of-Fourdeveloped by Marilyn Burns (1981). The number ofavailable strategies increases yearly.

The curricAnn package approach trains teachers touse a curriculum package within which lessons are struc-tured cooperatively. Teachers are given a preset curricu-lum that contains all the materials and procedures neces-sary for implementation in their classrooms. They aretrained in how to use them in their own classroom situa-tions. As with all curriculums, the packages tend to besubject area and grade level specific. Dozens of curricu-lum packages that include instructions for using cooper-ative learning groups with the lessons are being pub-lished. This approach is best represented by the work ofDavid DeVries, Keith Edwards, and Robert Slavin atJohns Hopkins University (Slavin 1986). The packagesthey have developed include Teams-Games-Tournament,Student Teams-Achievement Divisions, learn-AssistedInstruction, and Cooperative integrated Reading andComposition. While these curriculums are a mixture ofcooperative, competitive, and individualistic activities,they are built around or contain numerous cooperativelessons.

Finally, cooperative activities that are related to coop-erative learning may be used in the classroom. Teachersmay use group-building activities (such as "favoritesports and hobbies," "pets I wish I had," and "team jug-gling") and cooperative games. Teachers may also havesupport groups within thc classroom and promote class-wide cooperation through class meetings. Although allthese activities enhance the effectiveness of cooperativelearning activities, they are not considered cooperativelearning because they contain no academic goals.

Differences among the ApproachesAlthough the conceptual and direct approaches to

cooperative learning are not contradictory, differencesexist for the transfer of training from the workshop tothe classroom and the long-term implementation andsurvival of cooperative learning. Conceptual applications


are based upon theory whereas direct applications arebased upon materials and procedures. The conceptualapproach promotes research that tests theory general tomany situations. Direct approaches promote evaluationstudies that are, in essence, case studies demonstratinghow well the curriculum or strategy was implemented ina specific instance, but the results do not generalize toother situations and implementations. Conceptualapproaches are dynamic because they can be changedand modified on the basis of new research and refine-ments of the theory. Direct approaches are static in thatthey remain fixed no matter how the knowledge aboutcooperative learning changes.

The conceptual approach trains social studies teach-ers to be engineers who adapt cooperative learning totheir specific circumstances, students, and needs. Directapproaches train teachers to be technicians who use thecooperative learning curriculum or strategy withoutunderstanding how it works. As engineers, teachers cansolve implementation problems and adapt cooperativelearning to their specific circumstances, students, andneeds. As technicians they cannot. The development ofexpertise in using cooperative learning depends onunderstanding cooperation conceptually. The conceptualapproach promotes personal commitment by teachers tocooperative learning as they adapt it to their situations.The direct approach does not.

When teachers gain expertise in cooperative learningthrough conceptual understanding, they become indepen-dent of outside experts and can generate new lessons andstrategies as the need arises. They can also transfer theiruse of cooperative learning to improve cooperative colle-gial relationships, staff meetings, relationships with par-ents, and committees. They become important figures inthe staff development process as they train their col-leagues to use cooperative learning. Teachers trained inthe direct approaches remain dependent on outsideexperts, cannot generate new lessons or strategies on theirown, cannot transfer cooperation from the classroom tothe school, and cannot train their peers (except in a directway). Finally, the conceptual approach requires continu-ous support and assistance in gaining expertise in cooper-ative learning. Direct approaches do not.

Direct approaches have value within the context oflong-term implementation of a training program empha-sizing conceptual understanding of the essential elementsof well-structured cooperative lessons. Without the con-ceptual context, direct approaches are, in the long run,inadequate at best and counterproductive at worst.Simply presenting a theoretical framework, on the otherhand, is also inadequate. An effective training programrequires a combination of a conceptual understanding ofthe essential elements of cooperative learning, concreteexamples of lessons and strategies, opportunities forpractice with feedback, and implementation over anextended period of time in the teacher's own classroom.

Summary and ConclusionsWe may place approaches to implementing coopera-

tive learning on a continuum with conceptual applica-tions at one end and direct applications at the other. Inconceptual applications, social studies teachers learn ageneral conceptual model of cooperative learning. Thismodel integrates the essential elements of positive inter-dependence, face-to-face interaction, individual account-ability, social skills, and group processing. Teachers areassisted in tailoring cooperative learning specifically totheir personal school and subject circumstances, stu-dents, and needs. Direct applications consist of packagedlessons, curricula, and strategies they can use in a pre-scribed manner. The direct approach can be divided intothree subcategories. Teachers can adopt a strategy that isaimed at using cooperative learning in a specific subjectarea for students of a certain age or grade (also labeledthe strategy approach). Teachers might also adopt a cur-riculum package aimed at a specific subject area andgrade level (i.e., the curriculum package approach), orthey can replicate a lesson they observed another teach(i.e., .:he lesson approach).

As described here, appropriate cooperative learning isa complex instructional procedure that requires concep-tual knowledge as well as the skills of using specificlessons, curricula, and strategies. If cooperative learningis going to be institutionalized within a social studiesdepartment, school or district, teachers must becomeexperts in the conceptual system of understanding howto structure cooperative lessons and how to solve theproblems of adapting cooperative learning to their spe-cific circumstances, students, and needs. Simply present-ing or reading about this theoretical framework and thepractical guidelines is not enough. There are no quicksolutions or shortcuts to becoming an effective coopera-tive learning social studies educator.

Finally, gaining expertise in cooperative learning ulti-mately requires years of effort. Such long-term trainingand implementation programs require a support system.Collegial support groups at the building level and coop-erative learning within the classroom go together. Eachenhances the effectiveness of the other.

Note'For a review of this research, see, for example, Johnson

and Johnson (1989a).

ReferencesAronson, Elliot, Nancy T. Blaney, Cookie Stephan, Jev Sikes,

and Matthew Snarp. The Jigsaw Classroom. Beverly Hills,Calif.: Sage, 1978.

Burns, Marilyn. "Groups of Four: Solving the ManagementProblem." Learning 10 (September 1981): 46-51.

Cohen, Elizaheth. Designing Groupwork: Strategies forHeterogeneos Classrooms. New York: Teachers CollegePress, 1986.

Johnson, David W. Social Psychology of Education. New

York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1970.Johnson, David W., and Frank P. Johnson. Joining Together:

Group Theory and Group Skills. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:Prentice-Hall, 1991.

Johnson, David W., and Roger T. Johnson. Cooperation andCompetition: Theory and Research. Edina, Minn.:Interaction Book Company, 1989a.

. Leading the Cooperative School. Edina, Minn.:Interaction Book Company, 1989h,

Johnson, David W., Roger T. Johnson, and Edythe Holuhec.Circles of Learning: Cooperation in the Classroom.


Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision andCurriculum Development, 1984; Reprint. 3d ed. Edina,Minn.: Interaction Book Company, 1990.

Kagan, Spencer. Cooperative l.earning Resources for Teachers.San Juan Capistrano, Calif.: Resources for Teachers, 1988.

Sharan, Shlomo, and Yael Sharan. Small-Group Teaching.Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Educational TechnologyPublications, 1976.

Slavin, Robert E. Using Student Team Learning, Baltimore:Center for Research on Elementary and Middle Schools,Johns Hopkins University, 1986.

Complex Instruction in the Untracked Social Studies Classroom

Elizabeth G. Cohen, Rachel A. Loran, and Jennifer A. Whitcomb*Stanford University, Palo Alto, California

As the curtain rises, an institutional gray desk, around table, carts loaded down with textbooks,and a sagging sofa take shape. Although it isSeptember, the heat of August still lingers. Jean

rises to open a window. The social studies teachers atValleyview Middle School in West Los Palos, California,have gathered in their department office to share insightsfrom summer workshops and travels and to plan for theupcoming year. They sit casually, some at the table,some on the sofa.

Valleyview is a newly reconfigured middle school. Inrecent years, the school has had a dramatic influx ofSpanish-speaking and Asian students. In the face of thesechanges, most teachers agreed that they could no longercontinue with business as usual. Too many kids wereshut out, got lost, or were dispirited. Indeed, given thewidening gap between worn-out pedagogy and recentchanges in the student body, the teachers boldly tookaction: they decided to untrack Valleyview. Upon mak-ing this decision, the school applied for and received agrant from the state to plan and implement innovativeapproaches to teaching in heterogeneous classrooms.

A state grant sponsored four 7th grade teachers'enrollment in a two-week institute at Stanford Universitydevoted to Complex Instruction. CI, a model of cooper-ative learning for heterogeneous classrooms, focuses onthe development of students' higher-order thinking. Atthe institute, the teachers studied the principles of CI andpracticed it with middle school students. During the fol-lowing school year, the four teachers tried CI in theirclassrooms. Staff developers from Stanford visited theirclasses and provided feedback on implementation.

The Complex Learning ClassroomThese four teachers, convinced that the approach

would work, were eager to get all members of theirdepartment to move in the direction of ComplexInstruction. Imagine that we are in the school whenthese teachers return from their training. Imagine furtherthat we are present at the first department meeting and

*Writing of this article was supported in part by grants fromthe Carnegie Corporation of New York and the StuartFoundations of San Francisco.

these teachers are excited by what they have to share. Asthe action begins, the four Complex Instruction advo-cates are engaging in a dialogue with their skeptical butinterested teacher colleaguestrying to persuade themof the value and practicality of Complex Instruction. Weeavesdrop on their conversation.

Managing the Classroom

SIT (Skeptical but Interested Teacher): I tried cooper-ative learning, and once was enough for mewhat a dis-aster! The kids would not stay in their groups. Manywere not doing their work. I ran from group to groupputting out fires. No learning was taking place.

CIA (Complex Instruction Advocate): Yes, this candefinitely happen when the teacher shifts to small groupsthat are supposed to work on their own. Cooperativelearning requires new behaviors for both the studentsand the teacher. The teacher, as you found out, can't beeverywhere at once. With groupwork, a fundamentalshift in the teacher's role is unavoidable: You need todelegate authority to the students so they will takeresponsibility for their own behavior and learning whilein the groups.

SIT: How does one do that?CIA: In Complex Instruction, an activity card lays out

a different task for each group (e.g., see figures la and1b). Students as a group are responsible for completingtheir task. In addition, each student writes an individualreport after completing the task.

SIT: Sounds pretty straightforward, but that isn'tgoing to control behavior by itself.

CIA: You're right. That only prevents you from hav-irg to run from group to group telling people what todo. We use two other important methods of classroommanagement in CI to control behavior. One is earlytraining of the students in new cooperative norms, orrules for their behavior. Last year, we prepared studentsfor groupwork before we started with the regular curric-ular materials. Students learned how to help each other,how to explain to each other, and how to talk to eachother about their ideas. Thcy understood that no one isdone until everyone is done. We used skill-building activ-ities in small groups to develop the behaviors that stu-dents need for working well in groups. The students

Figure la: Activity Card

Unit: CRUSADESHOW DO HISTORIANS KNOW ABOUT

THE CRUSADES?Activity 1: Crusader Castle, Crac des Chevaliers,Syria, 12th C

Activity Card

Historians often turn to art, architecture, andcraftwork of the period they are studying for cluesabout how people lived and what they wanted toremember.

As a team, look carefully at the photographsof Crac des Chevaliers and discuss the questionsbelow.

I. Why would the Crusaders build a castle?2. What does the architecture of this castle

(e.g., the floor plan and interior/exteriorstructures) tell you about how warfare wasconducted in the medieval times?

3. If you lived inside this castle, how would youdefend it against enemy attacks?

4. If you were an enemy invader, how wouldyou plan your attack of this castle?

5. What were the roles of men and women insidethe castle? What were the roles of children?

Design and build a castle or a fortress to protectyour group from adverse forces. Present your cas-tle to the class.

©Program for Complex Instruction/Stanford UniversitySchool of Education

came to feel that this was the way they ought to behave,and they criticized each other if someone refused to helpor to explain.

Another important way a teacher can delegateauthority to groups is through the use of roles. Everystudent plays a different role and the roles rotate. Forexample, one student is a facilitator whose job it is to seethat all group members understand what to do and getthe help they need. When someone wanders away froma group, for example, it is the facilitator's job to find outwhat is wrong and to get the student to rejoin the group.Another role might be the recorder who keeps notes ofthe group's discussion and checks to see whether individ-ual reports have been completed. In other words, you getthe students to mind each other's business and to domany of the supervising jobs that teachers usually do.

SIT: Oh, I do that. I use roles in groupwork. I usuallyset up activities so that one student is the artist, another


Figure 1b: Activity Card

Unit: CRUSADESHOW DO HISTORIANS KNOW ABOUT

THE CRUSADES?Activity 6: Gesta and Raymond's Eye-WitnessAccounts of the Siege, Attack, and Capture ofJerusalem

Activity Card

An important resource for historians are eye-witness accounts of historical events. Gesta andRaymond both participated in the first crusadeand wrote separate accounts of their experiences.

As a team, read the selections from Gesta andRaymond's accounts of the siege, attack, and cap-ture of Jerusalem. Discuss the questions below.

1. When did the siege take place? How did geo-graphic conditions (e.g., climate and terrain)play a role in the outcome of the siege?

2. Given that Jerusalem is surrounded by awall, what might the "siege machines" havelooked like? Where did they find materialsfor them?

3. If you were a Saracen, how would youdefend your city?

4. The Crusaders were outnumbered 5 to 1.How do you account for their ultimate victo-ry against such odds?

Design a mural which depicts the main events ofthe siege, assault, and capture of Jerusalem. Youmight consult the reproduction of a mural in thispackage. Share your mural with the class.

©Program for Complex Instruction/Stanford UniversitySchool of Education

6 o

is the writer, and a third looks up all the questions in theresource books.

CIA: Those are roles too, but they are not the samekind of roles we use in Complex Instruction. The rolesyou use are a way to divide the labor, whereas the roleswe use are designed to help the group interact and worktogether. We call Cl's roles procedural roles. Dividingthe labor may seem efficient, but it doesn't encouragestudents to interact and talk with each other. Accordingto the research on Complex Instruction, it's the processof talking and working together that produces the learn-ing gains (Cohen 1984).

After you get the hang of these procedural roles, yousee how to make the activity cards, the cooperativenorms, and the roles work for you. You don't have to


solve all the groups' problems yourself. Say, for example,ten minutes after launching groupwork, you find a groupfloundering. In first approaching the group, you mightask them if they have read the activity card and discussedwhat they are supposed to do. If they have not, you couldsuggest that they do so and that you will be back in a fewminutes to hear the results of their discussion. Or, if somestudents have questions, you might ask them to find outwhether anyone in the group has the answer. Only whenno one has the answer can the facilitator call you over toask the question. These norms and roles really keep the"Teacher! Teacher!" cries at a minimum.

Curricular Materials for Group WorkSIT: My groups work- pretty well when I have them

reviewing for a test or working on mapping activities. Ihave trouble, however, when I'm trying to focus on realthinking, on getting the hard-to-understand concepts. Idon't have good activities for groupwork; the ones at theend of the chapters don't work.

CIA: Proponents of CI believe that to get the mostout of groupwork, you must begin by redesigning thecurriculum. When we focus on developing higher-orderthinking and on teaching central concepts, we will usegroupwork and the CI activities designed specifically forgroupwork. Don't panic! We do not use groupwork allthe time. We will still use the textbook and the manyvaluable resources we've accumulated in this departmentover the years. To tell you the truth, what really sold meon participating in the program were the units theyshowed us at Stanford. I was willing to sign up just toget those materials.

SIT: What makes these materials so special?CIA: The unit activities are organized thematically

around a main idea or a central concept. For example, inone unit, students explore a basic question in our disci-pline: How do historians know? Students learn how his-torians examine texts, eyewitness accounts, artifacts,music, and art of a period to make sense of historicalevents. In the unit "Taking Your Proper Station: FeudalLife in Tokugawa, Japan," students learn about socialstratification and social barriers. They examine thesecentral concepts in a variety of contexts: the physical lay-out of a castle town, clothing and external symbols ofrank, legal codes, and central social activities such as pil-grimages to religious sites. Integrated with this socialstudies unit is "Voices in Japanese Poetry," a literatureunit. In it, students' understanding of social stratificationis reinforced through reading poetry written by ladies ofthe court, women who toil in the fields, merchants, andthe social elite. A final example: the unit on the Mayaexamines the importance of time in the Maya cultureand the various ways the Maya organized their societyto worship time. While working through each unit, stu-dents rotate through a number of activities; this givesthem a chance to examine the central concepts in various

contexts. Even if they do not understand the main ideain their first encounter, the light will go on eventually.

SIT: Some of my students couldn't care less about theCrusades, feudal Japan, or the Maya. If something isn'tdirectly relevant or applicable to them, they just do notwant to spend the energy.

CIA: It seems hard to believe, but even feudalism canbe made interesting to adolescents. Using the CI model,students have opportunities to be active, to discuss, tofigure things out by themselvesthey therefore seem tobe mole motivated. Furthermore, in most activities thereis a built-in project that allows them to generalize aboutthe concept and make it relevant to them, here and now.For example, after examining a medieval song about aknight's dilemma between his duty to his king and hislove for a beautiful woman, students write a song abouta current event. I dreaded this activity, but the studentsloved itmusic always wins them over.

SIT: When I did groupwork, I found that a few stu-dents usually did the work and the others just copied theanswers. My students didn't really work together. Theydid what they usually do, except that their tables werepushed together, and they could socialize more easily.

CIA: What you describe happens when the tasks aretoo simple, and the answers too easy to get. When tasksare complex and open-ended and when students dependon one another to solve problems, they will more readilywork together and stay on task. At first, these newresponsibilities and new ways of learning took my stu-dents by surprise. As they realized I meant business, theyenjoyed being taken seriously, thinking for themselves,and learning how to communicate their thoughts, opin-ions, and feelings. Because no single answer would suf-fice, students arrived at different solutions by followinglegitimately different paths. Open-ended, uncertain tasksincrease the need for interaction, which, as you recall,leads to learning.

When I tried to adapt activities that I could use withCI, I found that this open-endedness was the most diffi-cult for me to incorporate. We teachers tend to overspec-ify the tasks, to make instructions too explicit, and toassign problems that have one right answer. We are ter-rified that our students will make mistakes or will not"get it."

Multiple AbilitiesSIT: These activities sound terrific for my high-achiev-

ing kids. But other students just don't know what todothey really have nothing to contribute. Some ofthem even have trouble reading the instructions andnever get anything done.

CIA: You've touched upon one of the main chal-lenges of groupwork. We really need to change the waywe look at the tasks and what some kids can and can'tcontribute. After using CI activities, I recognized that mystudents have strengths and that they can be successful in

ways f never noticed before. I have learned now that ifstudents are not the best readers or the best writers, theycan make important intellectual contributions when atask is a rich, multiple ability task.

CI activities are called multiple ability activitiesbecause many intellectual abilities are necessary for theirsuccessful completion. Traditionally, students have fewopportunities to show how competent they really arc.With multiple ability activities, students are offeredmany ways of demonstrating their intelligence. Recently,even psychologists like Gardner (1983) and Sternberg(1985) have argued that intelligence is multifaceted andnot reducible to a single number such as an IQ.

When students work on CI activities, they can applymany intellectual abilities in addition to the traditionallyrecognized academic abilities of reading, writing, andquick computation. Let us return to the unit I mentionedearlier, "How Do Historians Know about the Crusades?"During this unit, students rotate among three types ofgroup tasks. In the first type, students examine visualrepresentations of historical artifacts: photos and a floorplan of the ruins of a castle built by the Crusaders inSyria. Students use visual-spatial abilities to analyze pic-tures, hypothesize about the architectural strengths andweaknesses of the castle, and to speculate why theCrusaders chose that particular location. Next, studentsdesign and build a three-dimensional model of a castleor a fortress that will protect their group from enemyinvaders. Designing this model requires careful planning,mechanical ingenuity, and ,anslating a two-dimensionalsketch into a three-dimensional modelall intellectualabilities.

In the second type of task, students use musical abili-ties as they listen to medieval ballads, identify the musi-cal instruments, and describe the mood and the messageof the songs. Among the intellectual aNlities students usein these tasks are hearing or creating melodies, hearingand creating rhythmic patterns, understanding musicalexpressions, and understanding how a song's melodyand lyrics play off one another.

The third type of task relies on understanding textualsources such as excerpts from Pope Urban II's speechcalling the masses to join the Crusades and eyewitnessaccounts of the siege of Jerusalem. After thorough analy-sis of the text, students translate th:_..2 verbal messagesinto different media. They create a mural, design an adcampaign for Pope Urban II, or dramatize the siege ofJerusalem from an Arab point of view. Such activitiesrequire a host of intellectual abilities: understandingsophisticated texts, detecting sources of bias in a text,being empathic, relating a single textual passage to thelarger scheme of events, and translating a text's messageinto nonverbal forms.

I am reminded of a particularly poignant example ofthe importance of multSple ability tasks for heteroge-neous classrooms. Doug, a resource student main-


streamed from the special day class, became the star ofhis group because be was the one who best understoodthe schematic diagram of the castle. Doug happens to bea "Dungeons and Dragons" fan. His spatial perceptionability in drawing and in visual reasoning had neverbefore been tapped in class. When his classmates recog-nized Doug's contribution, they relied on him to helpthem interpret the visual materials, to build their castle,and to present their product. It was an unforgettable dayfor Doug, for me, and :ior his classmates.

When preparing to teach a unit, I analyze the activi-ties carefully and create a list of the intellectual abilitiesnecessary to complete tasks. In class, I name these abili-ties and show the students how each one is relevant.Gradually, they learn to recognize and to name the intel-lectual abilities themselves. More importantly, they areable to recognize these abilities in themselves and in theirclassmates. For example, during the second rotation ofthe "African Dilemma Tales" unit, students told mewhich specific intellectual abilities they used to completethe activities.

Treatment of Status Problems

SIT: This is all very interesting, but I still have a prob-lem when I use cooperative learning. I can see how youcould fix the task so that everyone could make a contri-bution, but that doesn't mean that all students tern.Some students are always left out and others take overthe group. Let me tell you about Dusty, a student I hadlast year. An A-student, Dusty was used to being suc-cessful. No matter what group I put her in, she tookover. It had to be her way or no way. She was so frus-trated she had her mother come in and talk to me.Meanwhile, another student, Ernesto, never got to say aword. I tried every way to encourage him, but he justseemed shy.

CIA: You're describing a problem all of us must face;it is called a status problem. The difficulty with Dusty isthat she expects to be the most competent person inevery group, no matter what the task; everyone elseexpects her to he the most competent as well. That com-bination leads her to talk the most and to have the mostinfluence in just about every group in the classroom.Ernesto has the opposite problem. He expects to beincompetent in the group on every new task, and theother students expect so little of him that they don't payany attention even when he trics to join in.

These different expectations for competence comefrom different status characteristics that work in a class-room. For instance, Dusty may have high academic sta-tus. We rarely stop to think about this, but our studentscreate a ranking in each classroom based on how goodthey think everyone is in social studies. Those who arcseen as the best students in social studies will tend todominat, ooperative groups in the classroom; those whoare seen s poor students, perhaps because they don't

6 4eTh


speak English well, are completely left out of small groupdiscussions. Then there are those who have few or nofriends. They have low peer status and are often treatedas if they were incompetent, whereas those who are pop-ular are listened to even when their ideas are poor.

SIT: What about differences between African-American, European-American, and Latino students?

CIA: Race and ethnicity are status characteristics, too.When you have a mixed-race or mixed-ethnic group, youmay see the African-American or Latino student with-draw or be ignored. The most important thing in a class-room, however, is really how smart a student is perceivedto be in schoolwork. If the minority student is a good stu-dent or is very popular, you probably won't see a statusproblem. Mentioning race reminds rne that we alsoshouldn't forget about gender. By the time girls get tomiddle school, they are sometimes treated as low-statusmembers of the group, unless they are strong academicallyor very popular.

SIT: This is an interesting analysis. I have seen thisproblem in my groups too, but I've never been able tofigure out what to do. How do you handle it?

CIA: We can use two strategies to treat this problem.Treatments that come from sociological theory aboutstatus and research have demonstrated their effectivenessin the classroom (Cohen and Lotan, forthcoming). Usingthe multiple ability treatment, a teacher's job is to con-vince students that many different intellectual abilitieswill be necessary for the new group task. Of course itwon't work unless you have real multiple ability taskssimilar to those we talked about earlier. I take timebefore we get into groups to discuss with them howimagining, hypothesizing, dramatizing, reasoning, andvisualizing will be necessary for the tasks they are goingto undertake. Then, I always take time to say: "No onewill be good at all these abilities. Everyone will be goodon at least one." This is the most important part of themultiple ability treatment because it makes all studentsrecognize that they will be good on some of the abilitiesand not so good on others. They realize that the group'ssuccess depends on listening to others and on takingadvantage of what everybody has to offer.

SIT: Don't you feel awkward saying something likethat?

CIA: I did at first, but I came to see that it was true.When you have good multiple ability tasks, kids surpriseyou. My resource student, Doug, astounded us all, andmy A-students came to realize that they arc not necessar-ily the best at everythingthat they can indeed learnfrom others.

SIT: You mentioned two strategies. What is theother?

CIA: The other treatment we use is called assigningcompetence to low-status students. When the studentsare in their groups working on tasks, I go around care-fully watching the groups and taking notes. I pay special

attention to those students who are usually left out oftheir groups. I watch for those moments when theyshow how competent they are on one of the multipleabilities. For example, last year when we were doing theunit on feudal Japan, I discovered that Claudine had agood idea about how to build a castle town, but hergroup wasn't paying much attention to her. I stepped inand said, "I see that Claudine has a good plan for layingOut the castle town. She can visualize exactly how itought to go together. I think she's a good resource forthis group because she has that ability to visualize thingsspatially." That is a powerful treatment because I amassigning competence to her on an ability that is neededfor the group to complete the task. I have done it pub-licly so that the other students know that I expect her tobe competent. I have made it specific so that she willknow exactly what she has done well. I have also madeit relevant to the work of the group. These three thingsmake this treatment work. Research has shown thatteachers who use both the multiple ability and assigningcompetence treatments don't have problems with somestudents dominating the groups and others not partici-pating (Cohen and Loran, forthcoming).

SIT: Won't the students he embarrassed if you singlethem out that way? I know some of my students are soafraid to look like schoolchildren.

CIA: Your power in this case comes from the factthat students tend to believe the evaluations teachersmake of them. You are being completely honestyounever do this unless the student has exhibited an impor-tant intellectual ability. You don't gush about it either.You just state it in a low-key, factual way. Sometimes Itake notes on intellectual contributions low-status stu-dents make, and the next day when I'm orienting theclass for cooperative learning, I share my observationsfrom the day before. I may mention how roles wereplayed, how effectively some groups worked together,and I slip in some assignments of competence to low-sta-tus students. This approach seems to work well.

Breadth versus Depth

SIT: If I do everything you say, I'll never get to theend of the curriculum.

CIA: You raise a perennial dilemma in teaching socialstudiesbreadth versus depth. Doing ComplexInstruction takes more time than reading the textbookand doing seat work, but the higher-order thinking thattakes place justifies the point. At the center of every CIunit is a conceptual theme. For instance, the Reforma-tion unit is organized around the question, How do youchallenge the authority of an institution? It's only by tak-ing the time to rotate through the various group activi-ties that students learn how a combination of factorsreshape people's ideas and lead them to seek reform.One activity focuses on the role art and political car-toons play in forming and reforming public opinion, one

on the role individuals, like Martin Luther, play in cat-alyzing change, and one on the role the printing press, orthe media, plays in spreading ideas. This is a powerfulconcept, one that I can use in later units, one that 8thgrade teachers can tap into when they teach about theAmerican Revolution. What my students learn goes wellbeyond the facts and dates of the Reformation.

After watching my students engage in CI last year, Ibecame convinced that they were involved in manykinds of learning. They came to see major historicalevents as complex situations with multiple causes andconsequences. To complete activities, they also had topractice making nuanced judgment about the influenceof these causes and the extent of the consequencesthat's higher-order thinking in my book. Most impor-tantly for us as social studies teachers, they came to seethat big ideas or concepts in history apply to other situa-tions. When we were studying the Reformation unit,they connected challenges to the authority of the churchwith their own impulses to challenge the authority ofinstitutions like school. Best of all, some actually said,"History can be fun." I wish I had my video on thesekids dramatizing Luther's challenge of the Popeit wasfabulous. I'd rather spend a few extra days on theReformation to give my students that rich experience.

What impressed me last year was that my studentsremembered the Crusades in Juneand we studied it inJanuary! Such recall rarely happens. Given the benefitsof this groundwork, I'm willing to devote the time ittakes to these activities.

Evaluation

SIT: I like what you're saying, and I'd like to hang myhat on this groundwork model. What holds me back isevaluation. What do you do about grades and testingwhen you have groups? What do you do if studentsdon't put forth equal effort?

CIA: I've also struggled with that question. ComplexInstruction helped me reframe issues of evaluation ingroupwork. Evaluation has two faces: motivation andaccountability. When I had students in groups before, Igradcd individuals because I was afraid that if I didn't,no one would work. I used my grade book as a form ofextrinsic motivation. I learned that this practice oftendelivers a double-blow to the low-status studenti.e.,students who look as if they aren't participating may notbe involved because the others in the group do not per-ceive that they have something to contribute and, as aresult, do not let them in, will not listen to them, or donot share materials with them. Students who appear tobe shy or off-task may be shut out by the others. I realizethat unequal participation is more complicated than anindividual deciding to check out of the group. As aresult, I cannot give a student a low grade for participa-tion when that participation may he beyond the stu-dent's control.


SIT: So how do you handle the nuts and bolts of eval-uating groupwork?

CIA: First, I no longer conceive of grades as a sourceof motivation. Instead, I know that because the activitiesare intrinsically interesting, the students will stay ontask. Second, I still have to structure accountability. Ihold the group accountable by the presentations theymake to the class. Because each activity involves a grouppresentation, and because most students don't want tolook bad in front of their peers, they will work quitehard to have a polished product. Last year my studentstook great pride in their presentations and enjoyed thepraise of their peers. In addition, I hold the individualsaccountable in two ways. The curriculum provides individual reports for each activity. These individual reportsare writing assignments that provide students an oppor-tunity to demonstrate what they have learned in theactivity. I also continue to give chapter tests. Studentswho participate in the groupwork will have a deepunderstanding of the content and, therefore, performquite well on these tests. At Stanford they told us that11th graders who used multiple ability tasks in a historyclass did significantly better on written achievement teststhan students who worked only with linguistic sourcescovering the same historical period. That study showedthat multiple ability activities made a critical difference(Bower 1991).1

What's Next?

SIT: This sounds terrific, but I'm feeling over-whelmed. I have so much to learn, and I don't think Ican make up those multiple ability tasks without a lot ofhelp. Suppose I want to learn more about this stuff.What can I do?

CIA: You can take several routes. It all depends onhow much change you are willing to make in your cur-riculum and the way you run your classroom. Forinstance, before we attempted CI, we went for a two-week institute at Stanford in the summer; then, duringthe year, CI staff developers observed us in our class-rooms and sat down with us for three feedback sessions.Each session was based on three classroom visits. At theinstitute we learned about the theory and researchbehind CI and we had practical experience with stu-dents. If you were willing to commit that much time,and if we could find the funds for it, I could help youwith observations and feedback because I will go forspecial training this year and will be a certified CITrainer.

SIT: I'd love to do that, but I'm expecting a baby inJune, so I couldn't commit to something that ambitious.Is there anything else I can do?

CIA: A good way to get started is to read ElizabethCohen's book, Designing Grouptvork: Strategies forHeterogeneous Classrooms (1986). If you find anotherteacher to team with, you can each design a multiple


ability task, try it out, observe each other, and decidehow to improve it for next year. That way, you will cre-ate at least two tasks you can share. Slowly, you canbuild a file of groupwork activities. In her book, Cohentells how to manage the classroom and how to do statustreatments.

ConclusionIn the conversation we overheard, the teachers

focused on three essential components of small-groupinstruction: classroom organization, the nature of thecurriculum, and, most importantly, treatment of statusproblems in heterogeneous small groups.

Organization of the Classroom for GroupworkGroupwork is an effective strategy when the goal of

instruction is thc development of higher-order thinkingand conceptual understanding. In groupwork, teachersgive up their traditional role. Direct supervision of stu-dents' activities in the groups becomes impractical, sothe teacher delegates to students the authority to managetheir groups and to complete their tasks. When teachersare advised to delegate authority to their students, ,:heyoften fear losing control of the classroom. ComplexInstruction, however, uses a system of cooperativenorms and student roles to prevent chaos. The teacherholds both groups and individuals accountable for theirlearning. Groups are held accountable by the presenta-tions they make to the class; individuals are heldaccountable by writing individual reports. Delegation ofauthority by the teacher and the installation of the man-agement system enhances the rate of interaction ingroups. Appropriate interaction furthers learning.

Nature of the CurriculumTo get the most out of groupwork, teachers must

design or adapt learning tasks specifically for that pur-pose. Complex Instruction activities are organized intoconceptually coherent, thematic units. By completing thevarious activities of a unit, students encounter the centralconcept in various contexts, thus gaining a better anddeeper understanding. Cl activities are open-ended andcomplex because more than one legitimate outcome andmore than one way to approach and to complete thetask are available to the learners. Such healthy uncertain-ty enhances student interdependence and increases inter-action. Again, appropriate interaction furthers learning.

Most importantly, CI activities require many intellec-tual abilities for their successful completion. By incorpo-rating musical, dramatic, artistic, kinesthetic, spatial,visual, and linguistic abilities, we expand opportunitiesfor students both to show competence and to gain accessto understanding the tasks. Multidimensional, multiabil-ity tasks broaden the range of opportunities for morestudents to be seen as smart.

Treatment of Status ProblemsGroupwork and the multiple ability curriculum that

supports it set the stage for teachers to address statusproblems in the heterogeneous classroom. UsingComplex Instruction, teachers learn how to recognizeand treat status problems. Unless teachers treat theseproblems, high-status students will continue to dominatethe interaction and to learn more than low-status stu-dents who will be shut out from the group and will learnless. The gap will widenthe rich will get richer, and thepoor will get poorer.

In treating status problems, teachers convince stu-dents that many abilities are necessary and that althougheveryone is good on at least one ability, no one is goodat all of them. Furthermore, teachers assign competenceto low-status students by making their successes publicand relevant to their groupmates. Status treatments nar-row the gap between the rates of interaction of high- andlow-status students by raising the rates of participationof the low-status students. More balanced interactionfurthers more balanced, yet much higher, learning out-comes.

Complex Instruction permits teaching at a high levelin linguistically and academically heterogeneous class-rooms. Although the instructional strategies describedtake time and effort to implement, the potential forbringing about significant intellectual growth in all stu-dents makes the effort worthwhile.

Note'For more information about the curriculum developed for

this study, contact Dr. Albert Bower, Teachers CurriculumInstitute, 281 Carolina Lane, Palo Alto, CA 94306.

ReferencesBower, Albert. "The Effect of Multiple Ability Treatment of

Status and Learning in the Cooperative Social StudiesClassroom." Ph.D. diss., Stanford University, 1991.

Cohen, Elizabeth G. "Talking and Working Together: Status,Interaction, and Learning." In The Social Context ofInstruction: Group Organization and l'rocesses, edited byP. Peterson and L. C. Wilkinson, 171-87. New York:Academic Press, 1984.

Designing Groupwork: Strategies for HeterogeneousClassrooms. New York: Teachers College Press, 1986.

Cohen, Elizabeth G., and Rachel A. Lotan. "Producing Equal-Status Interaction in the Heterogeneous Classroom."Forthcoming.

Cohen, Elizabeth G., Rachel A. Lotan, and Chaub Leechor."Can Classrooms Learn?" Sociology of Education 6209891: 75-94.

Gardner, Howard. Frames of Mind. New York: Basic Books,1983.

Sternberg, Robert J. Beyond 10: A Triarchic Theory ofHuman Intelligence. Cambridge, England: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1985.

NCSSPOSITION

STATEMENT

Ability Grouping in Social Studies

Prepared by the Ad Hoc Committee on Ability Grouping

Approved by NCSS Board of Directors, 1992

Compelled by research evidence and motivated by acommitment to equal opportunity and the foster-ing of democratic ideals, National Council for the

Social Studies opposes ability grouping in social stud-ies. Research on ability grouping generally indicatesthat this common educational practice works againstdemocratic egalitarian norms, leads to maldistribu-tion of racial and ethnic groups in lower tracks, hin-ders the progress of low-ability groups by providingan inferior education, is destructive to student self-esteem, and fails to offer students worthwhile educa-tional benefits to compensate for its negative effects.

A social studies classroom should model democrat-ic values and be characterized by shared responsibili-ty, interdependence, the value of the individual, andequality of educational opportunity. Basic to citizen-ship education is the goal of encouraging students towork with others from different backgrounds and,thus, learn to participate in a democracy. These pur-poses are incongruous with homogeneous grouping.

NCSS urges educators to support heterogeneousgrouping in social studies classr,ioms and to work tofoster appropriate strategies suited to effectiveinstruction in such groups, including the following:

Organize for instruction using cooperative learninggroups involving individual accountability andgroup goals.Foster active engagement in learning to developsocial studies content, concepts, and skills.Use team-teaching approaches to provide the flexi-bility to meet student needs.Apply peer tutoring approaches.Use a wide range of instructional strategies callingupon many different skills and abilities to meet therange of learning strengths in a diverse class.Consider mastery learning approaches.Vary instructional materials and provide alterna-tive ways of learning.Involve students in self-evaluation and metacogni-

tion, that is, thinking about their own thinking.Diagnose problems frequently to identify needs,and use flexible groupings to address specificneeds.Integrate thinking skills into instruction.Use many modes of presentation to develop under-standing for all students.Use learning centers.Vary assessment approaches to allow studentsmany ways to demonstrate what they know andc're able to do.NCSS urges social studies edLcators to work

actively to oppose the common piTctice of abilitygrouping in social studies and to contribute to thegrowing body of literature about effective instruction-al approaches in heterogeneously grouped classes.

Background

Review of the Literature on Ability Grouping

Ability grouping exists to address one of the centralissues of elementary and secondary education:Students differ in their individual rates of learning,knowledge, skills, and developmental stages (Slavin1988).

A review of research literature about ability group-ing points out that most educational research pro-vides evidence against ability grouping (Froman1981). Research has uncovered several problems withability grouping. Braddock and Slavin (1989a) con-cluded that ability grouping works against democrat-ic, egalitarian norms. They found no evidence thatability grouping is instructionally effective. In addi-tion, they found maldistribution of race-ethnic sub-groups in curriculum tracks and ability groups(Braddock and Slavin 1989b). Similarly, Raze (1984,1-9) found that low-ability tracks correlated withsocioeconomic status. Braddock and Slavin agree withGood and Marshall (1984,15-38), who also conclud-ed that ability grouping is a questionable practice.


Trimble and Sinclair (1987) found little evidencethat ability grouping benefited average- and low-abili-ty students. Benedict (1986, 1-45) reviewed researchliterature related to ability grouping and concludedthat ability grouping is a questionable instructionalpractice and hinders thc progress of low-abilitygroups. Once students are placed in low-ability class-es, it is unlikely they will move out of those classes.According to Felmlee and Eder (1 8 3 ), studentsassigned to low-ability groups are more likely tobecome inattentive.

Research evidence does not support the generalbelief that ability grouping enhances students' self-concept. Fagan (1980) questioned ability groupingbecause of the possible negative effects on students'self-concept. Kulik and Kulik (1984) found no signifi-cant effect on self-concept from ability grouping; andFroman (1981) came to the same conclusion. Allan(1991, 64) concluded that the effects of ability group-ing on self-esteem were unclear.

Research on the Spencerport Central SchoolDistrict in New York showed that when studentswere heterogeneously grouped in high school classes,the number of students taking and passing the NewYork State Board of Regents examination increaseddramatically. The district's elementary and middleschools showed similar results in relation to meetingor surpassing the district's mastery levels (Sudlow1989, 13-14). Winitzky (1991) also concluded thatheterogeneous grouping can enhance achievementbecause of the more productive interaction that mightoccur within homogeneous groups.

Tobias (1989) refers to attacks on ability groupingfrom well-known educators, including Jeannie Oakes,Benjamin Bloom, Henry Levin, and the AtlanticWashington editor, James Follows. They challengeability grouping for various reasons, such as theeffects on achievement, the number of dropouts, andthe possible influence on self-esteem. Berghoff andEgawa (1991) believe that this critical questioning ofability grouping should stimulate educators to rethinkschooling and classroom organization.

A few studies demonstrate positive evidence aboutthe effects of ability grouping on gifted students.Kulik and Kulik (1984) ,:oncluded that gifted studentsin homogeneous classrooms benefited from the expe-rience. Kulik and Kulik (1982, 620-621), in an earlierstudy, found that only students in honors classes ben-efited from ability grouping. Benedict (1986) foundthat high-ability groups benefit, but low-ability stu-dents are hindered by interclass ability grouping.Feldhusen (1989), in a review of research about giftedstudents, concluded that gifted students who are inhomogeneous groups are stimulated more and aremore enthusiastic about what they study than those .heterogeneous groups. Allan's (1991, 64) study of

ability grouping led her to conclude that some formsof homogeneous grouping have positive effects ongifted students. In contrast, Goldberg, Passow, andJustman (1966, 163-164) concluded that more homo-geneous classes did not increase academic achieve-ment for any ability level.

Ability Grouping in Social Studies

Although limited research evidence is available onability grouping with respect to other subjects,Slavin's (1990) review of research about abilitygrouping found evidence favoring heterogeneousgroups for social studies classes. The research reviewfound evidence of strong effects favoring heteroge-neous groups in social studies. Other studies found nodifferences or slight effects, but in the same direction.Slavin believes that this does not, however, provideenough evidence to conclude that heterogeneousgrouping in social studies has a positive effect.

Thompson's (1973) research supported heteroge-neous groups in social studies. He questioned the uni-versality of his conclusions supporting heterogeneousgrouping techniques, however, because of the sizablenumber of matched pairs-32 out of 120that per-formed better in homogeneous groups.

Vakos (1969) studied ability grouping in U.S. andworld history classes. The experimental group includ-ed 87 incoming eleventh grade students while the con-trol group was composed of 105 eleventh graders.The same teachers taught both groups. From Vakos'sresearch, Slavin concluded that part-time groupingdoes not appear to make a difference in achievementfor the experimental group in U.S. and world historywhen comparing the entire control group with theentire experimental group. This adds to the argumentthat high-ability and extremely low-ability studentsmay profit when they are grouped by ability (Slavin1990). In addition to research on achievement testscore comparisons, Thornton (1991) points out thatthe daily decisions teachers make about curriculumand instruction result in mental grouping and track-ing that affect swdents self-esteem.

Ability Grouping Regarding Minority and Handicapped Students

The literature review pointed toward another con-cern regarding ability grouping: the effects of group-ing on minority and handicapped students. Whenschools practice ability grouping, a disproportionatelylarge number of minority students usually arc inbelow-average groups, average groups, and general orvocational tracks. Once schools place students inaverage and below-average groups, they tend toremain in these groups in future years and for differ-ent subjects. According to Veves (1989), higher-orderthinking skills such as analyzing, making inferencesand comparisons, and evaluating are not being taught

1 4

to students in average and below average trackedclasses. Sorensen and Hallinan (1986, 536) reportedthat ability grouping "suggestIsl that grouped classesnot only provide fewer opportunities for learning butalso place greatcr emphasis on race differences."

Further, some ability grouping policies could vio-late Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VIprohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, ornational origin in federally funded programs. TheCarnegie Commission Report on Middle Schools rec-ommended abolishing tracking because it discrimi-nates against minorities (Rachlin 1989). "The socialconcerns of our current culture may demand its labili-ty grouping's] abolishment because of segregationpolicies which frequently accompany ability group-ing" (Froman 1981).

Regarding handicapped students, Public Law 94-142 mandates mainstreaming in classrooms by theinclusion of students with diverse handicaps. This lawhas extended the range of students' abilities, therebymaking many classes more heterogeneous. In hisreview of research on social studies for at-risk stu-dents, Curtis (1991, 171) explains:

As might well be anticipated, the findings ofthese studies suggest that cooperative learningtends to promote interactions between handi-capped and nonhandicapped children. Further-more, it appears from several of the studies thatthese interactions are likely to be positive, con-sisting for the most part of nonhandicapped stu-dents helping handicapped students to learn, andto promote friendships outside the classroomat least for the duration of the study. It is possi-ble that cooperative learning leads to increasedself-esteem in handicapped children, but this isdifficult to discern in the studies reviewed here.

"IT]he goals of social education, as described by theNational Council for the Social Studies (1984; 1989)are highly congruent with the behavioral outcomesassociated with cooperative task and reward struc-tures, such as cross-ethnic acceptance and interactionand integration of handicapped students" (inWinitzky 1991, 535),

Summary

Ability grouping has been controversial for manyyears, yet it is used widely in elementary classroomsthroughout the United States. At the secondary level itoccurs when students select different curriculumtracks such as general, academic, and vocational. Italso occurs inadvertently when students select individ-ual courses such as honors courses or band, or partic-ipate on varsity athletic teams. Scheduling courseswith a limited number of sections often results inadditional accidental homogeneous classes that other-wise would be heterogeneous.

E 8


This committee's position is that heterogeneousgrouping in social studies classes is best for all students.Most of the research literature provides evidence againstability grouping and support for heterogeneous classes.Only a few of the research studies show that high abili-ty, gifted students benefit from ability grouping. Abilitygrouping for minority and handicapped studentsrequires special educational and legal concerns.

ReferencesAllan, Susan Demirsky. "Ability Grouping Research

Reviews: What Do They Say about Grouping and theGifted?" Educational Leadership 48 (March 1991):60-65.

Benedict, Marilyn G. An Annotated Bibliography of theLiterature Dealing with Grouping Pupils by Ability inElementary Classes. Abstract. South Bend: IndianaUniversity at South Bend, 1986.

Berghoff, Beth, and Kathryn Egawa. "No More 'Rocks':Grouping to Give Students Control of Their Learning."The Reading Teacher 44 (April 1991): 5.36-541.

Braddock, Jomills Henry, 11, and Robert E. Slavin.Tracking: Trends, Effects, and Alternatives. Baltimore:Johns Hopkins University. Project 1. Center for Researchon Effective Schooling for Disadvantaged Students,1989a.

. Tracking: Trends, Effects, and Alternatives. Baltimore:Johns Hopkins University. Project 2. Center for Researchon Effective Schooling for Disadvantaged Students,1989b.

Curtis, Charles K. "Social Studies for Students At-Risk andwith Disabilities." In Handbook of Research on SocialStudies Teaching and Learning, edited by James P.Shaver, 157-174. New York: Macmillan, 1991.

Fagan, Michael 1. "Self Concept and AcademicAchievement: Their Relationship within and betweenStreamed Classes." Humanist Educator (December1980): 91-96.

Feldhusen, John F. "Synthesis of Research on GiftedYouth." Educational Leadership (March 1989): 6-11.

Felmlee, Diane, and Donna Eder. "Contextual Effects in theClassroom: The Impact of Ability Groups on StudentAttention." Sociology of Education56 (April 1983): 77-87.

Froman, Robin D. "Ability Grouping: Why Do We Persistand Should We?" American Educational Research 22 (April1981): 1-15.

Goldberg, Miriam, A. Harry Passow, and Joseph Justman.The Effects of Ability Grouping. New York: TeachersCollege Press, 1966.

Good, Thomas and Susan Marshall. "Do Students LearnMore in Heterogeneous or Homogeneous Groups?" TheSocial Context of Instruction: Group Orgamzation andGroup Processes. Orlando, Fla.: Academic Press, 1984.

Kulik, Chen-Lin C., and James A. Kulik. "Effects of AbilityGrouping on Elementary School Pupils: A Meta-Analysis." Paper presented at the annual meeting of theAmerican Psychological Association, Toronto, Ontario,Canada, August 27, 1984.

. Highlights from Research on Ability Grouping.Abstract. \Vashington, D.C.: National ScienceFoundation, 1982.

National Council for the Social Studies. "In Search of aScope and Sequence for Social Studies." Report of theTask Force on Scope and Sequence. Social Education 48(April 1984): 249-262.


. "Social Studies for Early Childhood and ElementarySchool Children Preparing for the Twenty-first Century."Task Force on Early Childhood/Elementary SocialStudies. Social Education 53 (January 1989): 14-23.

Rachlin, Jill. "The Label That Sticks." U.S. News andWorld Report 107 (July 1989): 51-52.

Raze, Nasus. Overview of Research on Ability Grouping.Abstract. Redwood City, Calif.: San Mateo CountyOffice of Education, 1984.

Slavin, Robert E. "Synthesis of Research on Grouping inElementary and Secondary Schools." EducationalLeadership 46 (September 1988): 68.

. "Achievement Effects of Ability Grouping inSecondary Schools: A Best-Evidence Synthesis." Reviewof Educational Research 60 (Fall 1990): 471499.

Sorensen, Aage 11.ind Maureen T. Hallinan. "Effects ofAbility Grouping off Growth in Academic Achievement."American Educational Research Journal 23, no. 4(1986): 519-542.

Sudlow, Robert E. Effective Schools Resource Book:Spencerport Schools. Albany, N.Y.: Association forEffective Schools, 1989.

Thompson, Gerald Wayne. "The Effects of AbilityGrouping upon Achievement in Eleventh GradeAmerican History." Dissertation Abstracts International34,110.4 (1973): 1503-A-1504-A.

Thornton, Stephen J. "Teacher as Curricular-InstructionalGatekeeper in Social Studies." In Handbook of Research

on Social Studies Teaching and Learning, edited byJames P. Shaver, 27-248. New York: Macmillan, 1991.

Tobias, Sheila. "Tracked to Fail." Psychology Today 23(September 1989); 54-60.

Trimble, Kimberly D., arid Robert L. Sinclair. "On theWrong Track: Ability Grouping and the Threat toEquity." Equity and Excellence 23 (Spring 1987): 20.

Vakos, Harry Nicholas. "The Effect of Part-Time Groupingon Achievement in Social Studies." DissertationAbstracts International 30, no. 6 (1969): 2271-A.

Veves, Michael. "Beyond Tracking: A Teacher's View."Equity and Choice 6, no. 1 (Fall 1989): 18-22.

Winitzky, Nancy E. "Classroom Organization for SocialStudies." In Handbook of Research on Social StudiesTeaching and Learning, edited by James P. Shaver,530-539. New York: Macmillan, 1991.

Ad Hoc Committee on Ability GroupingJack C. Morgan, Chair, University of Louisville, Louisville,

KentuckySandra Broderick, Jefferson County Public Schools,

Louisville, KentackyJeffrey W. Cornett, University of Central Florida, Orlando,

FloridaI.inda C. Layne, Chicago Public Schools, Matteson, IllinoisMichael Solliday, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale,

Illinois

RE

ST C

OPY

AV

AIL

AB

LE

71

Documents

D.C.I Know It Works!: Seeing a Cooperative Learning Strategy Succeed in My Secondary Classroom 38 Robert M. Mattingly 8. Approaches to Implementing Cooperative Learning in the Social