Cooperative learning: why the reluctance?

Abstract

Cooperative learning provides a means for educators to positively influence social and academic outcomes for students receiving special education services to facilitate student motivation and active participation within the classroom. Cooperative learning promotes individual accountability, learning retention, student involvement and positive social interactions. Despite the benefits, cooperative learning is not implemented by a significant number of schools due to traditional paradigms existing within educational systems. The implementation of cooperative learning is dependent upon teacher sell-confidence, practicality of implementation, and training of cooperative learning principles.

Introduction

Students receiving special education services often lack the academic and interpersonal skills to achieve success within school settings. Students deficient in these skills are likely to become unmotivated learners and inactive participants in the classroom (Maheady, 2001). Cooperative learning provides a means for educators to positively influence social and academic outcomes for students with disabilities to facilitate student motivation and active participation within the classroom. Cooperative learning is an instructional strategy which places students in small groups and encourages individuals to work together in solving common problems, completing academic tasks, and learning specific content (Siegel, 2005; Slavin, 1995). Through cooperative learning, positive interdependence is developed through students sharing resources and working towards common goals (Abrami, Poulsen, & Chambers, 2004), which provides students opportunities to experience the dynamics of teambuilding (Dyson & Grineski, 2001; Dyson & Rubin, 2003; Grineski 1996). Students become responsible not only for their own learning, but for the learning of others (Mercer & Mercer, 1998).

Benefits of Cooperative Learning

Cooperative learning promotes individual accountability (Dyson & Grineski, 2001; Dyson & Rubin, 2003; Grineski, 1996; Sonnier-York & Stanford, 2002), higher academic achievement, learning retention, student involvement and positive social interactions (Gillies & Ashman, 1998; McManus & Gettinger, 1996; Quinn, 2002; Slavin, 1995; Smith, 1997). Cooperative learning further promotes mastery, accuracy, and fluency for both students with and without disabilities (Arreaya-Mayer, 1998), allowing students to approach new learning tasks independently from classroom sessions. This cost effective and time efficient method of instruction promotes positive relationships and facilitates interaction between special education and general education students, while increasing self-esteem for all students (Smith, 1997).

Students from all subjects and grade levels, including pre-school (Kohler & Strain, 1999) benefit from cooperative learning. This non-traditional approach to learning not only provides multiple opportunities for practice, but encourages students to work together through positive active engagement (Arreaga-Mayer, 1998; Maheady, 2001; Quinn, 2002; Slavin, 1996). Through active engagement, students are less likely to exhibit off behavior tasks and disruptive behaviors (Walker, Colvin, & Ramsey, 1995).

Special educators can more effectively influence desired behavioral and academic growth through the implementation of cooperative learning strategies. Cooperative learning not only facilitates the development of social and interpersonal skills (Abrami et al., 2004), but enhances the development of reading skills (McMaster, Fuchs, & Fuchs, 2006), mathematics skills (Gardner, Cartledge, Seidl, & Lynn, 2001; Whicker, Nunnery, & Bol, 1997) and spelling skills (Burks, 2004) for students receiving special education services. Arreaga-Mayer (1998) further concludes that peer-mediated methods have been proven beneficial for both students with and without disabilities in social studies and science. Gillies (2002) studied the effectiveness of cooperative learning one year after students were initially trained to effectively work together in cooperative groups. This study concluded that students who received training in cooperative learning were more cooperative, and were more likely to assist and seek assistance from peers in academic instructional tasks in comparison to those students not exposed to cooperative learning.

Jenkins, Antil, & Vadasy (2003) investigated the perceptions of general education teachers towards the effectiveness of cooperative learning on special education students. The majority of participants indicated that cooperative learning improved self-esteem, on-task behavior, academic success and productivity of special education students. Additionally, these teachers stated that cooperative learning provided an effective alternative means to learning through increased opportunities for special education students to contribute and participate within their learning environment. Wolford, Heward, & Alber (2001) studied the effects of training students with learning disabilities to seek assistance from peers in general education classroom settings. This study found a positive correlation between training students to recruit peer assistance and increased academic productivity and pro-social interactions. Ryan, Reid, and Epstein (2004) reviewed 14 studies researching the effectiveness of cooperative learning on students with emotional and behavioral disorders. While the authors concluded that most studies did not accurately reflect the ethnic and gender composition of actual classroom placement of students with emotional behavioral disorders, these studies documented success across multiple academic subject areas and grade levels.

One cooperative learning model that has proven to be an effective form of peer-mediated instruction is the Class Wide Peer Tutoring Program (CWPT) (Burks, 2004; Greenwood, 2001; Greenwood & Delquadri, 1995; Utley et al. 2001). Greenwood and Delquadri describe CWPT as a method of classroom organization whereby tutor-tutee pairs work together within competing teams. Originally developed to assist poor and culturally diverse students, CWPT has expanded over the years to directly serve students with disabilities. CWPT caters towards diversity through the incorporation of components that match wide ranges of learning styles.

Reluctance to Change

Despite the benefits of cooperative learning, a significant number of schools do not implement or support this form of instruction despite the fact that their students could benefit from these practices (Maheady, 2001). These procedures must be formally accepted across both general and special education settings in order to be effective for students receiving special education services (Greenwood & Delquadri, 1995; Kohler & Strain, 1999), as many teachers mistakenly believe that cooperative learning lowers academic standards (Rieck & Wadsworth, 2005). Despite cooperative learning serving as a powerful instructional tool for at-risk learners (Slavin, 1995), students that exhibit deficiencies in academic and social skills are typically denied opportunities to engage in cooperative learning situations. Students who demonstrate inappropriate classroom behavior are likely to be given independent work in isolation of classmates.

According to King-Sears (2001), many schools are reluctant to promote effective empirical-based practices such as cooperative learning due to traditional paradigms existing within education systems. Paradigms are belief systems and values that promote habitual behaviors, which influence motivation levels regarding the willingness among teachers to adopt innovative instructional practices. King-Sears emphasizes that institutionalizing cooperative learning is dependent upon educators understanding the importance of knowing how to implement peermediation in addition to having sufficient support and commitment among individuals from all levels within the system. The minimal allotted time for training, implementation, support, and evaluation devoted by school systems, increases the difficulty of institutionalizing empirically-based practices such as peer-mediation. Teachers become frustrated over the unwillingness of many school systems to commit to innovative practices beyond a short-term time frame. This short sightedness results in many classroom teachers becoming passive towards new learning methods.

Siegel (2005) states that the willingness of teachers to implement cooperative learning is dependent upon teacher experience and knowledge, congruence between teacher philosophy and instructional methods, and teacher ownership of innovation. Vaughn (2001) adds that teachers may believe that cooperative learning is too time consuming, and difficult to implement due to teachers being uncomfortable relinquishing control to students. Furthermore, teachers believe that peer-mediation approaches may weaken classroom management procedures. Abrami et al. (2004) concluded from studying teacher perceptions that the implementation of cooperative learning is dependent upon teacher self-confidence, practicality of implementation, classroom conditions that promote successful implementation, and adequate training in cooperative learning principles. Multiple staff must be trained to effectively implement peer-mediated procedures in numerous settings. Teachers must have the ability to properly train and support students into becoming effective peers for students with disabilities and provide evaluation procedures to assess the effectiveness of peer-mediation for students with disabilities (Greenwood & Delquadri, 1995; Kohler & Strain, 1999).

Phillips & Jenkins (1997) conducted a study that introduced teachers to peer-mediated instructional methods. The researchers concluded that teachers did not respond favorably to peer-mediated procedures, as most teacher surveyed failed to implement peer-tutoring methods in their classrooms. Those educators who were interested in peer-mediated methods omitted or altered many of the procedures. Most teachers from this study failed to use a positive reinforcement system to reward students. Additionally, teachers were reluctant to form groups with students of unequal abilities, which could possibly be attributed to teacher concerns over potential detrimental effects on self-esteem. As a result, teachers were more comfortable in pairing students with equal abilities. According to Phillips and Jenkins (1997) and Vaughn (2001), the altering or omission of essential procedural components will likely alter the effectiveness of cooperative learning instructional strategies. Teachers who fail to effectively implement contingencies of reinforcement and assessment procedures will likely fail to provide the necessary structure to promote positive academic and social interactions.

While research has focused on procedures for correctly implementing cooperative learning procedures, researchers should focus more on studying the means to facilitate ease of utilization (King-Sears, 2001). Educators would more likely utilize cooperative learning practices if implementation is perceived as practical, beneficial, and applicable in multiple settings (Carnine, 1997). Furthermore, researchers should collaborate with teachers in researching ways of making peer-mediation practices more practical within classroom settings. While teachers desire specific guidelines in how to implement effective peer intervention instruction (Vaughn, 2001), research into peer mediation fails to provide suggestions regarding how to link cooperative learning theory with specific instructional objectives (Maheady, 2001). Linking specific peer-teaching methods to specific instructional outcomes will likely ease the application and implementation of cooperative learning within classrooms. Cooperative learning does not match the individualized instructional needs and personality types of all students despite studies citing the effectiveness of this approach for students with disabilities. Sternberg (1997) concludes that while children with external personality types are likely to benefit in cooperative learning environments, students with internal personality types are likely to prefer traditional instructional approaches. Educators should take individual instructional needs and student personality types into consideration prior to the implementation of cooperative learning activities (Genovesse, 2005; McMaster & Fuchs, 2002).

Rather than simply recommending to all teachers to utilize cooperative learning, Siegel (2005) emphasizes the importance of constructing professional development opportunities to facilitate constructivist classroom environments. These opportunities should consist of in-service training that promotes teacher self-reflection of personal knowledge and daily practices, strategies to incorporate cooperative learning into daily practices, and addressing contextual variables that may influence the utilization of cooperative learning. The ultimate goal of cooperative learning is to produce positive results and improvements towards the social, behavioral, and academic well being of students. Cooperative learning, to include peer-mediated programs, must be comprehensive, intensive, practical and effective (Kohler & Strain, 1999). Instruction should be comprehensive to allow generalization across multiple contexts and settings. Furthermore, students must have repeated opportunities to practice skills throughout the day because of the importance of intensive instruction. Intensive instruction includes optimizing learning outcomes through high levels of child engagement over periods of time. These procedures must be accessible to students in order for there to be meaningful results.

Additionally, teachers must provide clear expectations of what is expected of students during cooperative learning activities. Expectations include clarification of rules, and sequence of activities. Furthermore, teachers must consider group selection to allow positive interaction among students (Kohler & Strain, 1999; Sonnier-York & Stanford, 2002; Vaughn, 2001). Coke (2005) concludes that educators can best promote cooperative learning practices by "practicing what we preach". According to Coke, educators can model cooperative learning for students through incorporating this instructional method into teacher professional development. School districts providing educators with opportunities to collaborate with colleagues across grade levels will provide teachers with the resources and knowledge to enhance quality cooperative learning and instructional opportunities for students in the classroom. Educators will likely discover the benefits of cooperative learning for their students as they themselves experience enhanced professional development through cooperative learning.

Conclusion

Why are many educators reluctant to conduct cooperative learning practices in the classroom despite the potential academic and social benefits for students with disabilities? The demands placed upon students receiving special education services to excel academically and socially are increasing as school districts are placing more of these learners in inclusion classroom environments. Increased accountability is not limited to students as high expectations are placed on educators to provide quality instruction to all students. The demands and expectations placed on both students and teachers solidify the significance of implementing empirically-based practices such as cooperative learning in the classroom. Unfortunately, those students who are most at-risk for academic failure are often denied cooperative learning opportunities. Educators are likely to be discouraged from implementing cooperative learning practices in their classrooms due to lack of training, resources and long-term commitment from school districts. Through proper support, more educators will likely have the skills and self-confidence to positively influence social and academic outcomes of students receiving special education services through cooperative learning.

References

Abrami, P. C., Poulsen, C., & Chambers, B. (2004). Teacher motivation to implement an educational innovation: Factors differentiating users and non-users of cooperative learning. Educational Psychology, 24(2), 201-216.

Arreaga-Mayer, C. (1998). Increasing active student responding and improving academic performance through classwide peer tutoring. Intervention in School and Clinic, 34(2), 89-94. Burks, M. (2004). Effects of classwide peer tutoring on the number of words spelled correctly by students with LD. Intervention in School and Clinic, 39(5), 301-384.

Carnine, D. (1997). Bridging the research-to-practice gap. Exceptional Children, 63, 513-521.

Coke, P. K. (2005). Practicing what we preach: An argument for cooperative learning opportunities for elementary and secondary educators. Education, 126(2), 392-398.

Dyson, B. & Grineski, S. (2001). Using cooperative learning structures in physical education. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 72(2), 28-31.

Dyson, B., & Rubin, A. (2003). Implementing cooperative learning in elementary physical education. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 74(1), 48-55.

Gardner, R., Cartledge, G., Seidl, B., & Lynn, M. (2001). Mt. olive after-school program. Remedial & Special Education, 22(1), 22-33.

Genovese, J. E. (2005). Why educational innovations fail: An individual difference perspective. Social Behavior and Personality, 33(6), 569-578.

Gillies, R. M. (2002). The residual effects of cooperative-learning experiences: A two-year follow-up. Journal of Educational Research, 96(1), 15-21.

Gillies, R., & Ashman, A. (1998). Behavior and interactions of children in cooperative groups in lower and middle elementary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 746-757.

Remedial & Special Education, 22(1), 34-48.

Greenwood, C. R., & Delquadri, J. (1995). Classwide peer tutoring and the prevention of school failure. Preventing School Failure, 39(4), 21-25.

Grineski, S. (1996). Cooperative learning in physical education. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Jenkins, J. R., Antil, L. R., & Vadasy, P. F. (2003). How cooperative learning works for special education and remedial students. Exceptional Children, 69(3), 279-292.

King-Sears, M. E. (2001). Institutionalizing peer-mediated instruction and interventions in schools: Beyond "train and hope". Remedial & Special Education, 22(2), 89- 102.

Kohler, F. W., & Strain, P. S. (1999). Maximizing peer-mediated resources in integrated pre-school classrooms. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 19 (2), 92- 102.

Maheady, L. (2001). Peer-mediated instruction and interventions and students with mild disabilities. Remedial & Special Education, 22(1), 4-15.

McMaster, K. N., & Fuchs, D. (2002). Effects of cooperative learning on the academic achievement of students with learning disabilities: An update of Tateyama-Sniezek's review. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 17(2), 107-117.

McMaster, K. L., Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Research on peer-assisted learning strategies: The promise and limitations of peer-mediated instruction. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 22(1), 5-25.

McManus, S., & Gettinger, M. (1996). Teacher and student evaluations of cooperative learning and observed interactive behaviors. The Journal of Educational Research, 90, 13-22.

Mercer, C. D., & Mercer, A. R. (1998). Teaching students with learning problems (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Phillips, N. B., & Jenkins, J. R. (1997). The research-to-practice ball game: Classwide peer tutoring and teacher interest, implementation, and modifications. Remedial & Special Education, 18 (3), 143-156.

Quinn, M. M. (2002). Changing antisocial behavior patterns in young boys: A structured cooperative learning approach. Education and Treatment of Children, 25(4), 380-395.

Rieck, W. A., & Wadsworth, D. E. (2005). Assessment accommodations: Helping students with exceptional learning needs. Intervention in School and Clinic, 41(2), 105-109.

Ryan, J. B., Reid, R., & Epstein, M. H. (2004). Peer-mediated intervention studies on academic achievement for students with EBD. Remedial & Special Education,25(6), 330-341.

Siegel, C. (2005). Implementing a research-based model of cooperative learning. The Journal of Educational Research, 98(6), 339-348.

Slavin, R. E. (1996). Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What we know, what we need to know. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21,43-69.

Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Smith, R. G. (1997). Integrating computer-based instruction and peer tutoring. Intervention in School and Clinic, 33, 56-59.

Sonnier-York, C., & Stanford, P. (2002). Learning to cooperate: A teacher's perspective. Teaching Exceptional Children, 34(6), 40-44.

Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Thinking styles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Utley, C. A., Reddy, S. S., Delquadri, J. C., Greenwood, C. R., Mortweet, S. L., & Bowman, V. (2001). Classwide peer tutoring: An effective teaching procedure for facilitating the acquisition of health education and safety facts with students with developmental disabilities. Education & Treatment of Children, 24(1), 1-27.

Vaughn, S. (2001). Collaborative strategic reading as a means to enhance peer- mediated instruction for reading comprehension and content-area learning. Remedial & Special Education, 22(2), 66-75.

Walker, H. M., Colvin, G., & Ramsey, E. (1995). Antisocial behavior in school: Strategies and best practices. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Whicker, K., Nunnery, J., & Bol, L. (1997). Cooperative learning in the secondary mathematics classroom The Journal of Educational Research, 91,42-48.

Wolford, P. L., Heward, W. L., & Alber, S. R. (2001). Teaching middle school students with learning disabilities to recruit peer assistance during cooperative learning group activities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16(3), 161-173.

Greenwood, C. R. (2001). Classwide peer tutoring learning management system.

Wade Fish, Ph.D. is Assistant Professor of Special Education at the University of Texas at Tyler