How Cooperative Learning Works for Special Education and Remedial Studies” by Jenkins, Antil, Wayne, and Vadasy, Exceptional Children, Vol

Home , Remedial education, Special education

From “How Cooperative Learning Works for Special Education and Remedial Studies” by Jenkins, Antil, Wayne, and Vadasy, Exceptional Children, Vol. 69, No. 3, 2003, pp. 279-292. Copyright 2006 by The Council for Exceptional Children. Reprinted with permission.

Exceptional Children

How Cooperative Learning

Works for Special Education

and Remedial Students

JOSEPH R. JENKINS University of Washington

LAURENCE R. ANTIL Western Washington University

SUSAN K. WAYNE University of Washington

PATRICIA F. VADASY Washington Research Institute

ABSTRACT: This study reports new analyses from an earlier study by Antil, Jenkins, Wayne, &

Vadasy (1998) in which 21 general education classroom teachers were interviewed about their use

of cooperative learning. We report teachers’ perceptions of how cooperative learning benefits special education and remedial students, the percentage of these students who consistently participated in

classroom cooperative learning activities, its efficacy for these students, and the kind of modifica-

tions teachers made for students with special needs. Teachers were generally positive about cooperative learning’s efficacy for students with learning problems, while acknowledging that it worked

better for some students than others. Major benefits were improved self-esteem, a safe learning environment, and better classroom success rates and products. The primary modification for special

and remedial education students was selecting suitable partners for them.

ur aim in this research was to that define cooperative learning (Johnson et al., describe what general educa- 1993; Kagan, 1989-90; Sharan, 1980; Slavin,

tion teachers think about co- 1990), they generally agree that students must operative learning as an work together in small groups, make explicit ef- instructional approach for fort to help each other learn, and share in the

special and remedial education students. Johnson, evaluation of learning (e.g., all members of a Johnson, and Holubec (1993) described coopera- group receive the same evaluation). tive learning as “the instructional use of small Use of cooperative learning in elementary

groups so that students work together to maxi- classrooms appears to be widespread. A congres- mize their own and each other’s learning” (p. 6). sionally mandated study of educational opportu- Although researchers differ on the exact features nity covering 3 million third-grade students

Exceptional Children 279 (Puma, Jones, Rock, & Fernandez, 1993) found and know their expectations, they can talk to- that a high percentage of their teachers said they gether and not key each other out. (Antil et al., used cooperative learning in math (79%) and 1998, p. 425) reading and language arts (74%). Another survey The most salient idea related to social of 85 elementary school teachers in two school districts found that 93% indicated they used co- learning was that cooperative learning helps chil- operative learning (Antil et al., 1998). An in- dren learn to cooperate and to value cooperation. depth interview of a subset of those teachers who Teachers also said that cooperative learning led to said they used this approach disclosed that 81% learning specific skills (e.g., listening and re- conducted cooperative learning lessons every day sponding respectfully to peers’ contributions) and in a typical week, with 100% reporting use of the learning to work with nonpreferred classmates. strategy for reading, and 81% for math. Teachers “Sometimes I’ll group kids who are having a hard said they regularly used cooperative learning in time together so that they have to hash out their four subjects. difficulties” (Antil et al., 1998, p. 425). These teachers had adopted cooperative Teachers’ adoption of cooperative learning learning primarily because they believe it facili- comes as good news for special and remedial ad- tates academic learning (79%), engenders active vocates who see it helping a wide range of strug- participation in learning (71%), and affords opportunity for important social learning (71%). gling learners overcome obstacles they might not Representative of academic learning rationales overcome working alone and gaining access to were statements like “cooperative learning in- challenging curricula (Alberg, 1991; Johnson & creases comprehension and knowledge,” “it affects Johnson, 1980; Slavin, 1990; Slavin & Stevens, their general overall speed of learning,” “Kids 1991; Slavin, Stevens, & Madden, 1988; Thou- learn much more from each other than maybe we sand & Villa, 1991; Will, 1986; Wood, Al- would like to believe. They don’t really need a gozzine, & Avett, 1993). In cooperative learning, teacher that much” (Antil et al., 1998, p. 424). peers can clarify the nature of an assignment, in- The primary mechanism through which teachers terpret complex instructions, model performance, saw cooperative learning affecting learning is chil- explain ideas, give feedback and corrections, take dren’s ability to talk to one another in special responsibility for difficult parts of the assignment, ways, or kid-talk. According to this belief, peer- scaffold problem-solving efforts, and provide en- mediated learning occurs because one child hears a well-put explanation from a team member, couragement. sometimes but not always communicated in a Although general education teachers may form that is particular to the way that children be using cooperative learning and special educa- speak. In the words of one teacher: tors advocating its use, the efficacy picture for cooperative learning with special education students They seem to have their own language. They are remains cloudy. Two observational studies of spe- able to express their thoughts and ideas to each cial education students in cooperative learning other in a way that I can’t. I use teacher language, and kids explain in kid language. And as yielded a mix of positive and negative results much as I try to do that, I’m still their teacher. (Beaumont, 1999, O’Connor & Jenkins, 1996). I’m not a kid. (Antil et al., 1998, p. 424) Likewise, experimental studies of special education students’ achievement in cooperative learning Related to the active involvement rationale, report a similar mixture of outcomes, leading to teachers saw cooperative learning resulting in lukewarm research reviews, “The opportunity for broader student participation in lessons, more active learning, or greater task engagement in class- students to study together does not guarantee room lessons as a result of working together. Most gains in academic achievement” (Tateyama- linked deeper task engagement to peer interaction Sniezek, 1990, p. 436); and “…in light of the in- and activity-based assignments. clusive findings in the research literature regarding the efficacy of using cooperative learn- Learning is enhanced. They retain information. ing (CL) with students with learning disabilities It’s a hands-on experience. They’re not sitting lis- (LD), teachers may wish to exercise caution in de- tening to you in a cooperative group. They’re doing something. If they’re all in little groups ciding whether to use CL to improve these stu-

280 Spring 2003 dents’ academic performance” (McMaster & Teachers. In an earlier stage of this study, 85 Fuchs, 2002, p. 116). teachers (all grade-level teachers from six schools) It is hard to reconcile the inconsistent re- completed a survey on their cooperative learning search findings on cooperative learning with the practices. From this group, 21 classroom teachers strong advocacy for it found in the special educa- were selected for interviews. Mean years of teach- tion literature. However, one voice notably missing experience for the 4 male and 17 female ing from the conversation about cooperative teachers was 13, ranging from 1 to 34 years. learning’s efficacy is that of classroom teachers Forty-seven percent held master’s degrees. The who use this approach with special education and mean size of their classes was 27 students, ranging remedial students. Teachers have more opportu- from 22 to 32. nities than perhaps anyone to gauge how students We selected teachers who used cooperative with learning problems respond to cooperative learning, sampling every grade level (1-5) in a learning. Their perspective could add an impor- school, and included only teachers who reported tant dimension to the knowledge base on how co- having special education students in their class- operative learning works for students with rooms. Most of the special education students in disabilities. In this article, we report general edu- these classrooms were classified as having a learn- cation teachers’ thoughts about cooperative learning disability (LD), but some classrooms also in- ing’s use with special and remedial education cluded children with emotional and behavioral students. Elementary classroom teachers spoke disabilities (E/BD), attention deficit/hyperactivity about their perceptions of cooperative learning’s disorder (AD/HD), and more pronounced cogni- benefits for special and remedial education stu- tive disabilities. We do not have precise informa- dents, the percentage of these students who con- tion on the number of students from the various sistently participated in cooperative learning disability classifications because many teachers lessons, the efficacy of cooperative learning for were uncertain about their students’ classification. struggling students, and modifications they made The remedial students were other children from in cooperative learning to accommodate special the teachers’ classrooms whose academic achieve- and remedial education students. Data in this ment levels were at the lowest in their schools. study are based on a set of interview responses These students generally received support from that were given in connection with the Antil et al. Chapter 1 or from district- or state-funded reme- (1998) cooperative learning research. dial programs. I NTERVIEWS

METHOD Interviewers were three researchers, all licensed teachers, who used a semistructured protocol that sought information about (a) teachers’ current SCHOOLS AND TEACHERS use of cooperative learning and their experience Schools. Teachers from two urban (low income) with this instructional strategy, (b) their judg- and two suburban (upper middle income) ele- ments about its benefits and efficacy both overall mentary schools, located in the United States, and with various types of students, (c) participa- participated in the interviews. The urban schools tion of students in cooperative learning activities, were similar in racial composition: approximately and (d) modifications they created for special and 24% were Asian American, 38% African Ameri- remedial education students. A number of ques- can, and 36% Caucasian students, with 42% of tions included probes, their use dependent upon the student body qualifying for free or reduced lunch. The two suburban schools had similar student demographics: approximately 5% Asian Use of cooperative learning in elementary American, 2% African American, and 92% Cau- classrooms appears to be widespread. casian students, with 7% of students eligible for free or reduced lunch.

Exceptional Children 281 the amount and type of information teachers pro- • Problems encountered for special and remedial vided in their responses. After transcribing the in- education students in cooperative learning. terviews, establishing codes, and completing • Modifications of cooperative learning for spe- initial analyses, we conducted a second round of cial and remedial education students. interviews to clarify ambiguities, pursue lines of questioning, and assist us in coding decisions. Three researchers independently coded In analyzing teachers’ comments during the each of the transcripts. Frequent discussions were first interview, we noted that several teachers had held throughout this phase of the investigation to indicated that cooperative learning was more ef- ensure consistent use of the codes, to resolve any fective than alternative instructional approaches. differences in the assignment of codes to the tran- Intrigued by this finding, we created a ranking scripts, and to develop new codes. Adjustments to question on the effectiveness of cooperative learn- our code list in the form of additions, deletions, ing relative to other strategies for teaching strug- and minor reinterpretations of some codes were gling students. In the follow-up interview we sometimes necessary. All such changes were docu- asked 20 of the original 21 teachers the following mented and then, through a recursive process, ap- question: plied to previously reviewed transcripts to ensure consistency throughout the coding process. At the Several teachers have told us that one reason completion of this phase of the investigation, we they use cooperative learning is to help meet the needs of their lower performing students, in- used the Ethnograph software package (Seidel, cluding students with IEPs. Consider the various Kjolseth, & Seymour, 1988) to format the tran- strategies that might be used for this purpose scribed interviews using the code words to facili- (e.g., strategies like mastery learning, direct in- tate examination and interpretation of the struction, teacher-led small group instruction, material during the analysis phase of the investi- individualized instruction, outcomes-based edu- gation. cation, computer-assisted instruction, specialized instructional materials, adjusting the pace of instruction). Now in comparison to those strate- RESULTS gies or any other instructional strategy with which you are familiar, where would you rank Teachers sometimes spoke about special education cooperative learning in its effectiveness in meet- students specifically, and sometimes about special ing the needs of your special education students? and remedial education students in general. Where we could, we retained this distinction. PROCEDURES Otherwise, results are organized according to Interviews were conducted from March to June, • Major benefits that teachers perceived special and both initial and follow-up interviews were and remedial education students derive from tape-recorded. Initial interviews lasted approxi- cooperative learning. mately 45 min, and follow-up interviews gener- • Extent to which these students participated in ally lasted 15 min. cooperative learning. Transcriptions and Coding. The audiotaped • Efficacy of cooperative learning for special and interviews were transcribed in preparation for remedial education students. coding. Teachers’ statements were grouped into • Modifications teachers made to increase stu- several categories that stemmed from the inter- dents’ success in cooperative learning. view questions including We have classified teachers’ responses ac- • Major benefits of cooperative learning for spe- cording to common themes and give the percent- cial and remedial education students. age of teachers whose responses fit a theme. • Participation of special and remedial education Throughout this section, we attempt to preserve students in cooperative learning. teachers’ voices, letting them express their • Efficacy of cooperative learning for special and thoughts about special and remedial education remedial education students. students in cooperative learning.

282 Spring 2003 P ERCEIVED B ENEFITS FOR S PECIAL AND REMEDIAL E DUCATION S TUDENTS The three most frequently cited benefits When asked if and how special and remedial edu- were…self esteem, the security that comes cation students derive benefit from working in from being part of a group, and higher cooperative learning, every respondent offered success rates and/or better products. several ways that cooperative learning helped these students. For example, one fourth-grade teacher said, “They gain a lot more, they finish Along with contributing to special and re- more, they learn more and gain self-esteem” (4- medial education students’ self-esteem and pro- 509; Number before dash is the teacher number; viding a safe learning environment, teachers also the final digits indicate the line of transcript said cooperative learning resulted in higher suc- where quotation begins). However, some benefits cess rates and better products for special and re- were more prominent than others. medial education students. Teachers usually The three most frequently cited benefits, linked creating better products with feelings of each mentioned by more than half of the respon- success, as illustrated by the following responses. dents (52%) were self-esteem, the security that “I think they get a lot more work done. Their comes from being part of a group, and higher self-esteem is built up. They’re building friend- success rates and/or better products. Illustrating ships” (2-415). Another said: the self-esteem theme, a fourth-grade teacher said, Those kids who struggle really feel good about “[The major benefits]: Self-esteem would be themselves when they’ve produced a final prod- number one. Number two would be that they ac- uct…They are able to achieve success through tually learn more. They complete work” (4-535). the help of their peers, and perhaps accomplish Similarly a third-grade teacher responded: things they could not accomplish by themselves. (18-278) The major benefit is self-esteem. The child feels successful because he’s completing a product Thirty-eight percent of the teachers said co- with a team that can give assistance in areas he’s operative learning allowed for greater voice and weak in, and yet he feels satisfied with what the participation by special and remedial education group has done. (13-420) students. One first-grade teacher remarked, “They can be part of a learning group and they Another teacher described how membership in a can contribute. It might not be a lot, but they group and peers’ validation promoted a positive have their voice” (6-404). Another tied participa- self-image in special and remedial education stu- tion to the assignment of roles in cooperative dents: learning groups: I think they feel like they are a valuable member They have success and their voice, and they of the group. It starts building a positive image don’t get lost in here because…we assign roles for them, that their ideas, their thoughts, what …They’re always responsible for something…a they’re doing in that group is important…I time that they are going to have to be the think they start valuing themselves as a learner, a speaker. So I think they have success and they group member. (16-826) are held accountable. With special education Equally prominent in the teachers’ beliefs kids in a cooperative learning group, they learn was that cooperative learning provides struggling that they have an important part. (20-892) students with a more secure, less stressful learning Thirty-three percent of the respondents environment. One teacher expressed this as, stated that cooperative learning resulted in better “They [special education students] like the feeling learning for special and remedial education stu- of success that comes out a lot in cooperative dents. Most teachers who mentioned learning as a learning … there’s less frustration and anxiety” (1- benefit of cooperative learning stated that groups 492). Another said, “They develop a comfort provided students with another way for low level. They’re not on their own, they’re not being achieving students to learn. One third-grade singled out” (6-401). teacher said, “They are free to find a better way to

Exceptional Children 283 learn it if they don’t get it the way I teach ucation students, without qualification. Several it…what they need to learn is met easier in a viewed cooperative learning as an effective in- group” (8-609). A fourth-grade teacher stated structional arrangement, particularly for students that cooperative learning results in more learning with disabilities, for example: for special and remedial education students, then [Cooperative learning works] wonderfully. I went on to say how her special education students don’t think I could do my job if I couldn’t do seek out learning partners, “They [kids in special cooperative groups with those kinds of kids. I education] are the ones that hate having to do mean, as far as mainstreaming is concerned anything on their own. They want to migrate to there’s no better teacher than the kids who are someone else to work with” (4-533). sitting right there beside them. (14-532) Teachers also noted several more ways that cooperative learning helps students with learning I think it [cooperative learning] really helps problems (e.g., observing models, developing them [special education students] out. I really team skills, and obtaining more repetitions) but do. Like I said, it may not all the time help out these themes were not as prominent as others. the child who doesn’t have special needs, who gets things quickly, but the special needs kid I We examined relationships among the three think really benefits from cooperative learning. most frequently named benefits for special and re- (21-516) medial education students. Whereas the link between naming better classroom products and One teacher attributed the decision to place a self-esteem as cooperative learning benefits was child with E/BD in her classroom to her use of significant, ␹2 (1) = 5.84, p < .05; self-esteem as a cooperative learning: benefit was not significantly associated with a safe This year a child with special needs was trans- learning environment, ␹2 (1) = 2.38, ns; nor was a ferred into my classroom particularly because of safe learning environment related to better prod- cooperative groups. And for him, although he ucts, ␹2 (1) = 2.38, ns. In addition, because im- still has a difficult time being ultra successful, proved learning is a major focus of cooperative he’s been much more successful and much more learning researchers, we were particularly inter- happy because of his ability to feel part [of a ested in whether naming “better learning” as a group], that sense of belonging is important to benefit related to other benefit categories. Sepa- children, and to everyone. So, I think that’s been good for him. (15-419) rate Chi-square analyses tested the association between mention of learning as a benefit and We wondered about the relationship be- mention of other benefits. Results showed that tween indices of cooperative learning success, naming learning as a benefit was not significantly specifically whether giving an unqualified en- associated with mentioning another benefit cate- dorsement to cooperative learning for special and gory: improved self-esteem, safer learning envi- remedial education students was related to per- ronment and/or reduced pressure, higher success ceptions that all these students participated con- and/or better products, and more participation sistently in cooperative learning. The two were and/or voice [all ␹2 (1) < 1, ns]. not significantly related, ␹2 (1) < 1, ns. Thus, Participation Rates. Across classrooms, teachers did not see consistent cooperative learn- teachers reported that 78% of their special and re- ing participation by special and remedial educa- medial education students were consistent partici- tion students as a necessary condition for judging pants in cooperative learning. Percentage of cooperative learning as successful for them. This participating special and remedial education stu- disassociation between judging cooperative learn- dents ranged from 50% to 100% across class- ing as an unqualified success and participation rooms. Forty-three percent of the teachers said rates is illustrated in the responses of a third-grade that all of these students consistently participated teacher who said that cooperative learning in cooperative learning groups. worked, “Wonderfully. It’s their refuge…they are Perceived Effectiveness of Cooperative Learn- going to be a lot more successful if they’re in a ing. A majority of teachers (52%) said cooperative group” (19-429). Regarding special and remedial learning worked well for special and remedial ed- education students’ participation, he said:

284 Spring 2003 Three of the five are strong participants even cused…the group doesn’t sometimes let him though they have some problems learning—the have a role. He’s doing his best and is trying. little girl who has social behavior problems is (13-355) not a problem academically. Two of the five, it’s really tough for them. They have to be con- Whereas several teachers said cooperative stantly encouraged to stay with their group, to learning’s effectiveness depended on the traits that take ownership. (19-433) individual students brought to the task, one teacher tied cooperative learning’s effectiveness to Only one teacher said that cooperative her actions: learning had not worked well for her special and remedial education students, pointing out that Some of how it works is not just based on them the children’s behavior problems required her to …is based on how much or how little I’ve cre- “end up being with them, giving them a dynamite ated an environment that works for them. I don’t feel always that I have the hang of it, how amount of attention” (2-395). The rest of the to meet everybody’s needs through cooperative teachers, while generally positive about coopera- learning. I think some of their success with it is tive learning’s effectiveness, noted that coopera- based on them, it’s also based on me. (1-395) tive learning was sometimes effective and sometimes not, or effective with some students The same teacher acknowledged that structuring but not others. Illustrating the latter, one teacher the environment for successful learning was not responded, “For one [special education] student it an easy task for a one student with particularly does work, for another it doesn’t seem to work so challenging behavior: well” (9-482). A fifth-grade teacher tied the suc- He has a very difficult time working in coopera- cess of cooperative learning to students’ motiva- tive groups. He has very disruptive, very erratic tion to learn: behavior. He might have a couple good minutes, For some, it [cooperative learning] is an excuse and the next minute he’s kicking somebody and to not participate, to hide out, but there are they’re screaming. It’s difficult. (1-433) some with special needs who have that desire to Of the 10 teachers who mentioned special learn. They pair themselves up with someone and remedial education students that were less they know will do better. (5-287) successful in cooperative learning, 4 brought up A third-grade teacher attributed the success her students with social or behavior problems, 2 special education students had in cooperative talked about students who had difficulty sustain- learning to their effort and involvement, along ing attention, 1 described a student with low mo- with their peers’ willingness to include them in tivation to learn, another spoke of a student who the group’s work: gave up easily, and 2 mentioned students with moderate and/or severe cognitive disabilities who It depends on the individual. I have one girl who loves it, and she’s a really hard worker and they sometimes held out of cooperative learning. enjoys the cooperation because she knows she While acknowledging that some special and doesn’t have to carry the burden by herself for remedial education students struggled in coopera- those things she’s not capable of. I use cooperative learning, teachers nevertheless remained con- tive learning and pairing with her a lot so that vinced that cooperative learning was appropriate she can feel support. I have another [special edu- for these students. Asked if cooperative learning cation student] who tends to be a little less fo- was effective for her special and remedial education students, one teacher said, “Sometimes. Several teachers have told us that one Sometimes not. They’ll give up if they can’t add [to the discussion]” (12-409). But later she added, reason they use cooperative learning is to “I can’t think of anything that would work better. help meet the needs of their lower per- Working by himself would not help at all, so forming students, including students with working in a group is the best choice.” IEPs. Relative Effectiveness of Cooperative Learning as an Instructional Strategy. When asked to rank

Exceptional Children 285 cooperative learning in relation to other instruc- Nevertheless, a student’s behavior is sometimes tional approaches for meeting special and reme- too much for his group to accommodate. One dial education students’ needs, 16 of 20 teachers teacher resorted to permitting a child with behav- ranked cooperative learning first or second in ef- ior problems to float between groups. Ultimately, fectiveness. Three more ranked it third. a multidisciplinary team changed the child’s Modifications of Cooperative Learning for placement: Special and Remedial Education Students. All but One student has extreme behavioral needs and is two teachers described some adjustments they not able to attend for a long enough period of made to facilitate special and remedial education time. I started out having that person with a students’ performance. Seven mentioned they partner, but the partner got extremely frustrated carefully selected learning partners for struggling quickly. Then I had that person floating because students. Some of these spoke generally about some of the groups didn’t seem to mind if he grouping considerations: “I usually try to put joined them now and then. That seemed to them in a group where they’re going to have a work okay. But what’s mostly happened is we’ve come up with an individual education plan for chance to get some stimulation and really con- that person, and now it’s a different schedule. tribute” (19-572). “For him [a special education (9-484) student], I try not to have groups large enough that he can tune out, so that he’s brought along” Although it was mentioned more often, (15-508). Two said they took into account the group composition was not the only modification reading and writing skills of their special and re- teachers made. Four said they modified the group medial education students, along with the task re- task to facilitate a student’s participation (e.g., re- quirement, “I most definitely assigned a reader ducing the amount of reading or writing for a stu- with a nonreader or a writer with a nonwriter so dent). One stated, “I’d give them an easy job . . . that the nonreader or nonwriter would not feel If I was doing reading, I would give them an easy hindered by their lack of ability in that area” (17- part” (8-669). Similarly, another said, “I make 154) and “We would take into account group sure that the jobs I incorporate into the assign- placement…. If it’s an activity where we need a ment include something that each of them can writer, we make sure we draw a writer” (11-148). do” (4-624). One of the four reported changing Two teachers claimed not to make adjust- the response mode for a particular student, ments for students with disabilities, indicating the “Sometimes I’ll have a child do dictation to an- cooperative learning group’s responsibility for other if it’s a written assignment” (19-572). making adjustments: Two teachers whose classes included students with more pronounced cognitive disabilities No [I don’t make adjustments], I think in a co- excused these students from some cooperative operative learning situation the whole point is to learning activities, giving them reading materials help each other be the best you can be, and if a more in keeping with their abilities. For example, child needs help, group members will step in a sixth-grade girl with severe disabilities worked and assist him. (13-372) with an instructional assistant in a second-grade The other teacher was even more emphatic about basal reader instead of cooperative learning litera- the group’s responsibility for involving struggling ture groups. In other subjects, however, the stu- and inattentive students: dent participated and contributed to her cooperative learning groups. But do the kids make them [modifications]? Yes. In addition to altering group composition, Kids know not to assign him overly large tasks because they know he won’t get done. Do they task assignments, and instructional materials for try to include him? Yes, they do try to include special and remedial education students, several him. Do they give him lots of encouragement? teachers also reported more direct adult involve- Yes, the group has been very sensitive to him. ment in cooperative learning groups or with stu- Are they on his case, if he doesn’t do it? Yes, and dents outside their groups. One second-grade I think that’s probably good. (15-485) teacher said that she often had to join groups that

286 Spring 2003 included difficult-to-manage students, and a fifth- teachers’ stated use of this adjustment and stu- grade teacher told us: dents’ participation in and success of cooperative I’ve had to really work with his groups to accept learning. Those teachers who said they took care him, and if he’s off-task, to help him get back in selecting learning partners for special and re- on, and that kind of thing. So, I think they all medial education students were not more likely to enjoy it, but if they were in his group, they were judge cooperative learning as an unqualified suc- hesitant and I’d have to get in there. (21-487) cess, nor to state that 100% of their special and remedial education students consistently partici- Two teachers assigned an instructional assistant to pated in cooperative learning, both (␹2 (1) = groups that included students with more severe 1.53, ns. disabilities. Speaking of such a student, one teacher said, “Academically and emotionally, he’s like a 2-year-old. If he has an aide that’s sitting DISCUSSION with him, he’ll do okay.” (11-416). Three other teachers described helping All 21 general education teachers in this study be- struggling students outside the group so they were lieved that special and remedial education stu- more successful in their cooperative learning dents derive a broad range of benefits from groups. One remarked: cooperative learning. The three most frequently Sometimes when we are doing writing, I do help named benefits, each mentioned by over half the him a lot, have him read a story to me, and we respondents, were: (a) improved self-esteem, (b) meet together just the two of us first and then I provision of a safe learning environment, and (c) help him elaborate on his story. So I pull a little greater success rates on classroom tasks and/or bit out of him, and we write together before he better products. After these, the next most fre- goes back to his group so he goes back with a quently mentioned benefit was that cooperative good product, so he always has success within learning gave special and remedial education stu- his group. (20-762) dents greater voice and/or participation in class- The other described a similar pull-aside strategy room activities. Several teachers also said for assisting student performance in their groups: cooperative learning resulted in better learning, usually because it gave students an alternative way If some of the students could not read [that pas- to learn. sage], one of the students would either read for This ordering is interesting for two reasons. them, or we as teachers would pull them back …and we would send them back to the group First, the three benefits at the top of the list have after we’d read the passage to them. (18-333) received far less attention from special education researchers than have cooperative learning’s effects Speaking of a student with LD, another teacher on achievement (Jenkins & O’Connor, 2003). told us that if things got tense in the group, he al- Second, “better learning from cooperative learn- lowed this student to report to him rather than to ing” ranked only fifth in prominence. Its rela- the group: tively low mention could be an artifact of He fits in just fine. He does participate. And if teachers’ having named other benefits (e.g., he doesn’t know about it [the topic], it’s odd be- greater success on classroom tasks, better prod- cause he’ll just sit there and listen, and then he’ll ucts, and higher participation) that they consider give it his best shot. Then, if his group does proxies for learning. Having already mentioned come down on him, he’ll come up to me, be- the proxies, teachers may have expected inter- cause sometimes a kid doesn’t want to share [his viewers to automatically infer better learning as a thoughts] with his peers all the time. (16-736) benefit. However, mention of better learning was Because careful selection of learning part- not significantly related to mention of learning ners is an adjustment that distinguishes between proxies; thus, as a group, teachers were not substi- more and less successful cooperative learning for tuting better success rates, products, and class- students with LD (O’Connor & Jenkins, 1996), room participation for better learning. we decided to examine the relationship between Alternatively, teachers may make distinctions be-

Exceptional Children 287 tween peer-assisted classroom performance and any other instructional approach for special and achievement gains that may or may not follow remedial education students. Teachers took a from peer-assisted classroom products, success broad view of efficacy, emphasizing benefits like rates, and participation. Whatever the explana- self-esteem and better classroom products more tion, cooperative learning’s learning benefits were than academic achievement. Although they gave not emphasized as much as other benefits (e.g., favorable evaluations to cooperative learning as an improved self-esteem). instructional approach for special and remedial The benefits that teachers attributed to co- education students, nearly half said that some of operative learning were independent of one an- these students struggled in cooperative learning. other, with one exception. Mention of special and Why were some special and remedial edu- remedial education students’ improved classroom cation students less successful in cooperative success and products was significantly related to learning (according to teachers’ perceptions of mention of improved self-esteem, with the two their participation and performance)? Unfortu- causally linked (i.e., self-esteem resulting from nately we did not think to ask this question dur- better products). All models of cooperative learning tie cognitive, social, and attitudinal learning outcomes The importance of special and remedial to the quantity and quality of cooperative interac- education students’ learning and behav- tions that occur among group members. Partici- ioral characteristics combined with peers’ pation in the groups’ work is considered a necessary, if not a sufficient, condition for learn- response to these characteristics were not ing. Estimated participation rates for special and far from the teachers’ minds. remedial education students ranged from 50% to 100%. At the high end, these participation rates are remarkable, especially considering that 43% ing the interviews, but we can surmise something of respondents said all their special and remedial of teachers’ thinking on this topic. When teachers education students participated consistently in mentioned specific students who were unsuccess- cooperative learning. Several teachers said that ful in cooperative learning, they spoke of traits without cooperative learning, participation rates students brought to the learning task (e.g., behav- would have been lower. Still, most teachers indi- ior and attention problems, inclination to become cated that some special and remedial education discouraged, low motivation to learn). Although students did not consistently participate in coop- these traits do not necessarily undermine success erative learning. in cooperative learning, they definitely increase Just over half of the teachers said coopera- the challenge that groups face in including every- tive learning was very successful with special and one and completing tasks. remedial education students, without any qualifi- The importance of special and remedial ed- cations. Only one said it had not been successful; ucation students’ learning and behavioral charac- the rest indicated it worked well for some stu- teristics combined with peers’ response to these dents but not others. Surprisingly, judgments characteristics was not far from the teachers’ about cooperative learning’s overall efficacy for minds; several reported difficulty in finding suit- special and remedial education students were un- able learning partners to work with students who related to their estimates of students’ participation demonstrated behavior problems. One third in cooperative learning. Teachers apparently kept made a point to say they were careful in placing efficacy and participation rates separate in their special and remedial education students with cer- minds. Rather, they appeared to judge efficacy tain students but not with others, suggesting that against an implicit standard (i.e., the potential of classroom peers’ inclination and ability to provide other approaches to give better results). Every support was a key element in special and remedial teacher ranked cooperative learning as more effec- education students’ success. The idea that special tive than most instructional approaches, and 80% and remedial education students’ success in coop- said it was first or second in efficacy relative to erative learning depends both on the characteris-

288 Spring 2003 tics they bring to cooperative learning and on mentioned grouping considerations, easing the their teachers’ success in placing them with suit- task, or giving additional adult assistance. able partners is consistent with findings from ob- In general, teachers expected a student’s servational research (O’Connor & Jenkins, 1996). teammates to make adjustments, if adjustments Locating capable and agreeable learning partners were needed. Up to a point, this expectation is for special and remedial education students is consistent with principles of cooperative learning, complicated by some students’ perception that where learners assume responsibility for their special education and remedial students are less partners as well as for themselves. O’Connor and desirable work partners (Putnam, Markovchick, Jenkins (1996) found that in successful coopera- Johnson, & Johnson, 1996). After reviewing ob- tive learning groups, members made adjustments servational studies of special education students in for special education students—taking over diffi- cooperative learning, Jenkins and O’Connor cult parts of the task, demanding participation, (2003) concluded, “Finding suitable partners for modeling performance, giving corrections, pro- children with LD was among the stiffest chal- viding encouragement. However, in that study lenges for teachers, and in this endeavor they were fewer than half of the students with LD were suc- not always successful” (p. 423). cessful in cooperative learning; their teammates As for adjusting or modifying cooperative did not or could not make effective accommoda- learning for special and remedial education stu- tions for them. Similarly, Beaumont (1999) re- dents, no single strategy was favored by more ported that only 40% of helping episodes than a third of the respondents. Selecting suitable involving students with disabilities were successful learning partners was mentioned more than other (i.e., enabling the student who requested help to adjustments. We were curious about the relation- proceed with a task). These results suggest that ship between teachers’ use of this strategy and betting on teammates to provide effective instruc- their perceptions of special and remedial educational support for special and remedial education tion students’ success in cooperative learning. A students is anything but a safe wager. Moreover, positive relationship between careful partner se- results of these observational studies run counter lection and students’ success might suggest that to the perception of teachers in this study that careful grouping led to better outcomes (higher their special and remedial education students re- participation rates or judged efficacy). A negative ceived effective and considerate help from team- relationship between careful partner selection and mates. A limitation of this study is lack of perceived participation and success rates might classroom observations. suggest that teachers resorted to more careful Finally, a word about the form of coopera- partner selection in response to problems of par- tive learning that the teachers used. Antil et al. ticipation and efficacy. However, neither interpre- (1998) reported that 76% employed a soft form tation received support; teachers who said they of cooperative learning—one that did not explic- carefully selected partners were neither more nor itly include procedures that researcher-developers less likely to report high participation or to judge recommend for establishing individual account- cooperative learning an unqualified success for ability (e.g., administer tests, compute individual special and remedial education students. students’ improvement scores, and reward group Few teachers said they modified cooperative performance). Instead, the teachers taught stu- learning tasks or assisted students outside the dents to work together, assigned roles, rewarded group to facilitate the performance of special and group performance, and encouraged students to remedial education students in cooperative learn- hold up their end of the groups’ work. Students ing. Even though most teachers mentioned some were individually accountable to their teachers kind of adjustments for special and remedial edu- (e.g., required to submit an individual product in cation students, we were left with the impression addition to their group’s), but their individual that they actually made very few, or at most mini- performance was not documented and fed back mal, adjustments for these students. In most in- to the group. stances, teachers’ initial response to our query Teachers’ omission of explicit procedures to about adjustments was, “No,” then later they induce individual accountability may be impor-

Exceptional Children 289 tant. Research reviews by McMaster & Fuchs • For whom it works (most but not all special (2002) and Slavin (1990) reported that effects of and remedial education students). cooperative learning on achievement were negligi- • The students who struggle in cooperative ble in studies without explicit individual account- learning (those with behavior and attention ability. However, their conclusion derives from problems). aggregating studies in ways that confound individual accountability with other potent instructional variables (e.g., approach to reading IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE instruction). The conclusion is not based on ex- Findings from this study along with those from a periments that systematically vary accountability related study of the same teachers (Antil et al., procedures; such experiments are notably missing 1998) give teachers, teacher educators, program from the cooperative learning literature. administrators, and researcher-developers some That most respondents overlooked individ- things to think about. Here are a few questions ual accountability is troubling but does not mean for practitioners and researchers to consider. Why their applications of cooperative learning were in- the discrepancy between teachers’ perception effective. However, omission of individual ac- about the effectiveness of cooperative learning for countability procedures may suggest that these special education students and the inconsistent teachers had received insufficient instruction on findings of experimental studies? Why the dis- how to establish individual accountability (a clear crepancy between teachers’ high estimates of stu- message for teachers and teacher educators). Or, it dents’ participation in cooperative learning may suggest that teachers, who have one of the activities and the disappointing participation lev- most demanding jobs in society, find researcher- els reported in observational studies? Why the developers’ models of cooperative learning im- omission of explicit individual accountability pro- practical for everyday use (a clear message for cedures in teachers’ descriptions of their coopera- researcher-developers). tive learning approaches and the inclusion of What can we learn from listening to teach- these procedures in researcher-developers’ models? ers talk about their cooperative learning practices? Raising these questions with education pro- There are certainly limits to what can be learned fessionals (practitioners, administrators, teacher from research like this, just as there are limits to educators, and researchers) as well as teachers in what can be learned from experimental and obser- training should stimulate discussion about how vational studies. Still, listening to teachers pro- cooperative learning can benefit special and reme- vides insight into dial education students, and may even produce an opportunity for cooperative learning (among edu- • What they mean by cooperative learning cators) about cooperative learning. Listening to (everything from collaborative seatwork to general education teachers describe their thoughts group work bolstered by role assignments, about the utility of cooperative learning for spe- group and individual products, and group pro- cial education and remedial students reveals that cessing). many teachers have embraced this teaching ap- • How they think it benefits special and reme- proach and the philosophy behind it. Other re- dial education students (boosts self-esteem, search has shown that cooperative learning is a provides a less stressful learning environment, and results in better classroom products). • How well they think it works (better than any- All models of cooperative learning tie thing else). cognitive, social, and attitudinal learning • How they implement it (informally, usually without explicit individual accountability). outcomes to the quantity and quality of • How they make adjustments for students with cooperative interactions that occur among disabilities (mostly through selection of learn- group members. ing partners).

290 Spring 2003 blunt instrument, the efficacy of which depends Seidel, J. V., Kjolseth, R., & Seymour, E. (1988). The as much on how it is implemented as on whether Ethnograph (Version 3.0) [Computer software]. Little- it is implemented. The next step is to assure that ton, CO: Qualis Research Associates. cooperative learning lives up to its promises. Sharan, S. (1980). Cooperative learning in small groups: Recent methods and effects on achievement, attitudes, and ethnic relations. Review of Educational REFERENCES Research, 50, 241-271. Slavin, R. E. (1990). Cooperative learning: Theory, re- Alberg, J. (1991). Models for integration. In J. W. search, and practice. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.* Lloyd, N. N. Singh, & A. C. Repp (Eds.), The Regular Slavin, R. E., & Stevens, R. J. (1991). Cooperative Education Initiative: Alternative perspectives on concepts, learning and mainstreaming. In J. W. Lloyd, N. N. issues, and models (pp. 211-221). Sycamore, IL: Singh, & A. C. Repp (Eds.), The Regular Education Ini- Sycamore.* tiative: Alternative perspectives on concepts, issues, and Antil, L. R., Jenkins, J. R., Wayne, S. K., & Vadasy, P. models (pp. 117-191). Sycamore, IL: Sycamore.* F. (1998). Cooperative learning: Prevalence, conceptu- Slavin, R. E., Stevens, R. J., & Madden, N. A. (1988). alizations, and the relation between research and prac- Accommodating student diversity in reading and writ- tice. American Educational Research Journal, 35, 419-454. ing instruction: A cooperative learning approach. Reme- dial and Special Education, 9, 60-66. Beaumont, C. J. (1999). Dilemmas of peer assistance in a bilingual full inclusion classroom. The Elementary Tateyama-Sniezek, K. M. (1990). Cooperative learning: School Journal, 99, 233-254. Does it improve the academic achievement of students with handicaps? Exceptional Children, 56, 426-437. Jenkins, J. R., & O’Connor, R. E. (2003). Cooperative learning for students with learning disabilities: Evi- Thousand, J. S., & Villa, R. A. (1991). A futuristic dence from experiments, observations, and interviews. view of the REI: Response to Jenkins, Pious, and Jew- In Graham, S., Harris, K., & Swanson. L. (Eds.), ell. Exceptional Children, 57, 556-562. Handbook of Learning Disabilities (pp. 417-430). New Will, M. (1986). Educating students with learning prob- York: Guilford.* lems: A shared responsibility. Washington, DC: Office of Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1980). Integrating Special Education and Rehabilitation Services, U.S. handicapped children into the mainstream. Exceptional Department of Education. Children, 47, 90-98. Wood, K. D., Algozzine, B., & Avett, S. (1993). Pro- Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Holubec, E. J. moting cooperative learning experiences for students (1993). Circles of learning: Cooperation in the classroom with reading, writing, and learning disabilities. Reading (4th ed.). Edina, MN: Interaction. and Writing Quarterly, 9, 369-376. Kagan, S. (1989-1990). The structural approach to cooperative learning. Educational Leadership, 47(4), 12- ABOUT THE AUTHORS 15. JOSEPH R. JENKINS (CEC #28), Professor, McMaster, K. N., & Fuchs, D. (2002). Effects of cooperative learning on the academic achievement of stu- Special Education, College of Education, Univer- dents with learning disabilities: An update of Tateyama sity of Washington, Seattle. LAURENCE R. Sniezek’s review. Learning Disabilities Research and Prac- ANTIL (CEC #414), Assistant Professor, Depart- tice, 17, 107-117. ment of Special Education, Western Washington O’Connor, R. E., & Jenkins, J. R. (1996). Cooperative University, Bellingham. SUSAN K. WAYNE, de- learning as an inclusion strategy: A closer look. Excep- ceased, University of Washington, Seattle. PA- tionality, 6, 29-51. TRICIA F. VADASY, Research Scientist, Puma, M. J., Jones, C. C., Rock, D., & Fernandez, R. Washington Research Institute, Seattle. (1993). Prospects: The congressionally mandated study of educational growth and opportunity. Interim Report. Bethesda, MD: Abt. Correspondence concerning this article may be Putnam, J., Markovchick, K., Johnson, D. W., & John- addressed to Joseph R. Jenkins, College of Educa- son, R. T. (1996). Cooperative learning and peer accep- tion, Box 353600, University of Washington, tance of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Seattle, WA 98195-3600. E-mail may be sent to School Psychology, 136, 741-752. [email protected]

Exceptional Children 291 This research was supported in part by the U.S. (266-5766); or 1-(732)-728-1040; or visit them Department of Education, Office of Special Edu- on the Web at http://www.BooksNow.com/Ex- cation Programs: Grant #67-0367 to the Univer- ceptional Children.htm. Use Visa, M/C, AMEX, sity of Washington, and Grant #H023R20019 to Discover, or send check or money order + $4.95 Washington Research Institute. Statements do not S&H ($2.50 each add’l item) to: Clicksmart, 400 reflect official policy of any agency. Morris Avenue, Long Branch, NJ 07740; 1- We are grateful to Molly Riley, who assisted with (732)-728-1040 or FAX 1-(732)-728-7080. the interviews. Manuscript received November 2001; accepted March 2002.

* To order books referenced in this journal, please call 24 hrs/365 days: 1-(800)-BOOKS-NOW

AGS, pick-up, EC 68-4, p 502

292 Spring 2003