The Journal of Special Education http://sed.sagepub.com
The Effects of Cooperative Learning on Students with Learning Difficulties in the Lower Elementary School Robyn M. Gillies and Adrian F. Ashman J Spec Educ 2000; 34; 19 DOI: 10.1177/002246690003400102 The online version of this article can be found at: http://sed.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/34/1/19
Published by: Hammill Institute on Disabilities
and http://www.sagepublications.com
Additional services and information for The Journal of Special Education can be found at: Email Alerts: http://sed.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://sed.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Downloaded from http://sed.sagepub.com by Armando Loera on October 31, 2009
19
The Effects of Cooperative Learning on Students with Learning Difficulties in the Lower Elementary School Robyn M. Gillies and Adrian F. Ashman,
Graduate School
of Education,
The
University of Queensland
This study investigated the behaviors, interactions, and learning outcomes of children with learning difficulties who participated in structured and unstructured group activities. Of the 152 Grade 3 children who worked in four-person, gender-balanced groups, 22 children were identified as having learning difficulties requiring up to 3 hours of specialist teacher support for their learning each week. The children worked in their groups for one 6-week social studies unit of work each term for three school terms. The results showed that the children in the structured groups were more involved in group activities and provided more directions and help to other group members than their peers in the unstructured groups. Furthermore, children in the structured groups obtained a significantly higher performance on the comprehension questionnaire than children in the unstructured groups (effect size = +1.43 standard deviations). Reasons for these differences are discussed.
Cooperative learning is now an accepted instructional strategy that promotes learning and achievement across the curriculum (Cohen, 1994). It has been used successfully to promote learning achievement in collaborative writing (Dale, 1995; Zammuner, 1995), problem solving in mathematics (Webb & Farivar, 1994), comprehension in reading (Stevens & Slavin, 1995a), and conceptual understanding in science (Lazarowitz & Karsenty, 1990). In the affective domain, it promotes socialization and positive student interactions (Jordan & Le Metais, 1997; Shachar & Sharan, 1994) and improved attitudes to learning (Fox, 1989; Sharan & Shaulov, 1990). Furthermore, cooperative learning positively affects the social acceptance of children with disabilities by their nondisabled peers (Madden & Slavin, 1983; Slavin, Madden, & Leavey, 1984), and it enhances small group interactions and instruction for students with autism and developmental disabilities (Kamps, Dugan, Leonard, & Daoust, 1994). It appears that, when children work cooperatively, they develop an understanding of the unanimity of purpose of the group and of the need to help and support each other’s learning (Sharan & Shaulov, 1990). Gillies and Ashman (1996) found that, when children worked in cooperative groups, they were consistently more cooperative and helpful, used language that was more inclusive, and gave more explanations to assist understanding. Webb and Farivar (1994) suggested that children who need help can potentially benefit from these interactions, because their peers are often more aware than their teachers
Address:
Robyn Gillies,
Graduate School
of Education,
of what other students do not understand, can focus on the relevant features of the problem, and give explanations in terms that can be easily understood. Certainly, explanations received in response to requests for help have been shown to be positively related to achievement for the individual requesting the help (Webb, 1985). However, for the help to be effective, Webb (1989) argued, it must be relevant to the student’s need, at a level of elaboration that will assist their understanding, and provided at a time when the student has an opportunity to use the explanation to solve the problem. Receiving elaborative help when it was not specifically requested was negatively related to achievement. Giving elaborative help is also believed to encourage helpers to reorganize and clarify the material so that they fill in gaps in their own understanding, develop new perspectives, and construct more elaborate cognitive knowledge (Wittrock, 1990). Hence, giving and receiving elaborative helpparticularly help that is requested-is beneficial to students’ achievement during cooperative group work. Despite the potential benefits of cooperative learning to both the helpers and the helpees, there has been little empirical work on the effect of cooperative group work on children with learning problems. Stevens and Slavin (1995b) investigated the achievements of 72 students with academic disabilities who worked in cooperative groups in mainstream classes and 65 comparison children who worked in pull-out programs in special education classes over a 2-year period.
The University
of Queensland, Brisbane,
Downloaded from http://sed.sagepub.com by Armando Loera on October 31, 2009
Australia 4072
20
T
showed that the children who worked in cooperative groups in mainstream classes obtained a significantly higher achievement in reading, comprehension, and language expression than those who worked in pull-out situations. No information, however, was available on how the children helped each other or on the types of help they provided as they worked together in groups. In fact, only one study known to the authors has specifically investigated the effects of cooperative learning experiences on children’s interactions as they worked in groups with peers with an intellectual disability. Putnam, Rynders, Johnson, and Johnson (1989) examined the effects of collaborative skills training on promoting positive interactions between children with intellectual disabilities and nondisabled peers who worked on group-based science activities over a 3-week period. The results showed that the nondisabled children in the trained group (i.e., trained to cooperate) interacted more with their peers with an intellectual disability by looking at them, talking with them, and working cooperatively together than the children in the untrained group. The study did not, however, examine the types of interactions the children used as they worked cooperatively
They
together. Further elaboration of interactions between students appears to be important because cooperative learning has been proposed as a strategy that promotes inclusion. Furthermore, research with low-achieving children has demonstrated that children with learning problems can benefit from situations in which cooperative learning is introduced. Fuchs, Fuchs, Bentz, Phillips, and Hamlett (1994), for example, found that, when average-achieving children were trained to interact and implement an explanatory procedure for working with lowachieving children in peer tutoring dyads, they provided more explanations in a more interactional style that involved both children working together to coconstruct clearer and more complete explanations. These explanations led to greater accuracy with the problems that the children solved together. However, no individual measure of student learning was reported, so the effect of the improved explanatory style on learning outcomes is unknown. Gillies and Ashman (1997) found that, when children of different abilities (high, medium, and low ability) were trained to work together in heterogeneous ability groups
(high/medium/low), they were consistently more cooperative and provided more helpful explanations than their peers in the untrained group. When the interactions of the children were analysed by ability level, the high-ability children, as expected, provided more explanations to others. However, the medium-and low-ability children were also relatively active in the group and provided more explanations than their same-ability level peers in the untrained groups. Moreover, the children in the trained groups attained higher learning outcomes than their peers in the untrained groups. In essence, both Fuchs et al. (1994) and Gillies and Ashman (1997) have demonstrated that low-achieving children can interact effectively in groups and that these interactions
lead to a greater understanding of the content material. However, despite these findings, no studies have specifically can
investigated the interactions of children with learning difficulties in cooperative groups-particularly interactions that assist learning. The goal of the present study was to investigate how children with learning difficulties interact in cooperative learning groups. In particular, we sought to determine the effects of training in cooperative learning on the behavior and learning outcomes of children with learning difficulties.
Method The
study and the selection of participants was based on the practices that prevail in all Australian education systems. In particular, the identification of children with special needs and the provision of support services are not stipulated under federal or state law, as they are in the United States, and vary across the country, from state to state, and even from school to school. This is a result of a report of a Select Committee of the Australian House of Representatives that was established to investigate the problems of children and adults who experienced trouble with literacy or numeracy (Cadman, 1976). The committee chose to use the term learning difficulties (rather than disabilities) and argued that definitions were irrelevant to the funding of support services-the opposite of the prevailing view in the United States-because they may lead to an undue expansion of categorical services and possibly produce more children deemed to need special assistance (Elkins & Van Kraayenoord, 1998). As a result, the identification of children with a learning difficulty and the decision to provide remedial assistance to them is based on professional judgment, assessed needs, and consultation between school and support staff (Safran, 1989). Experience suggests that broad similarities exist between the United States and Australia in the proportion of students identified and their learning characteristics.
Participants in this study were drawn from 25 Grade 3 class11 schools in Brisbane, Australia. The schools included in this study were identified by the local state education authority as having a similar socioeconomic and demographic profile (i.e., 5% to 10% of children in each school came from different ethnic backgrounds; 10% to 20% came from single-parent families; 10% to 20% of the children were transient and changed school each year; > 70% of parents were skilled workers or paraprofessionals). Of the 152 participants (M = 107.7 months, SD = 5.2 months) who worked in four-person, gender-balanced groups, 22 children (12 boys and 10 girls; structured group, M = 106.2 months, SD 4.7 months; unstructured group, M = 105.4 months, SD = 4.7 months) were identified as having learning difficulties and re-
Participants
rooms across
Downloaded from http://sed.sagepub.com by Armando Loera on October 31, 2009
=
21
quiring
between 1.5 hours and 3 hours of
specialist
support per week. All students had reading age
teacher that
scores
1 year or more below their chronological ages. Reading age scores on the Graded Word Reading Test (Andrews, 1973) were as follows: structured group, M 7 years 5 months, SD 7 months; unstructured group, M = 7 years 7 months, SD = 11 months. A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the reading age scores showed no significant difference between the structured and the unstructured groups, F(1, 20) = 0.02, ns. All children had phonological processing problems (i.e., difficulties in decoding words in reading). Furthermore, all the children had been receiving specialist teacher help for at least a year prior to the commencement of the study. Participants had been allocated to their work groups within each classroom through stratified random assignment based on their performance on the Otis-Lennon School Ability Test (OLSAT, Otis & Lennon, 1993). Each work group consisted of one high-ability student (top quartile of the OtisLennon test), two medium-ability students (Quartiles 2 and 3), and one low-ability student (bottom quartile). All the children with learning difficulties were from the low-ability group (OLSAT stanine scores: structured group, M = 2.8, SD = 0.6; unstructured, M 3.1, SD = 0.3). A one-way ANOVA on the stanine scores showed no significant differences between the structured and unstructured groups, F( 1, 20) = 1.70, ns. Classes were randomly assigned to a structured (trained to cooperate) or unstructured (not trained) condition. Of the 22 children with learning difficulties, 12 children worked in groups in the structured condition and 10 children worked in groups in the unstructured condition. were
=
=
=
Structured Groups The teachers of the children in the structured condition agreed to establish small-group activities in their classrooms and to allow the children to work in these groups as part of their social studies programs for three 1-hour sessions per week. Each social studies work unit lasted 6 weeks, and the teachers agreed to provide group activities for one work unit per term for three terms
(9 months).
assigned to the structured condition parin ticipated two training sessions designed to teach the smallgroup and interpersonal behaviors and skills believed to promote group cooperation. Each 1-hour training session was conducted by the classroom teachers over 2 consecutive days. All training activities were based on an adaptation of the essential elements of cooperative learning identified by Johnson, Johnson, and Holubec (1990). In the first training session, children were introduced to small-group behaviors needed to facilitate participation in the group. These behaviors included breaking each activity into smaller parts, with members accepting responsibility for completing their parts, encouraging group involvement, and sharing resources and information. The teachers discussed these behaviors with the children and then role-played them with The children
the children. This helped the children develop a clear understanding of what each behavior looked like and sounded like (Johnson & Johnson, 1996). For example, encouraging group involvement required the children to identify the nonverbal and verbal behaviors that were part of this overall behavior-behaviors such as eye contact, body position, verbal encouragements, and positive comments about the other person’s work (Egan, 1997; Ivey, 1994). The children discussed these behaviors and others that they believed were important and listed them on a class summary sheet (Webb & Farivar, 1994). In this session, the teachers also provided information on the social studies group activities and the resources available. The second session focused on identifying and practicthe ing interpersonal skills and behaviors needed for successful group cooperation. These skills and behaviors included listening to each other, providing constructive feedback on ideas and issues discussed, sharing tasks fairly, resolving differences democratically and fairly, and trying to understand the other person’s point of view (perspective). Furthermore, the children discussed how they would monitor and evaluate the group’s progress. These behaviors were discussed and practiced (Egan, 1997; Horton & Brown, 1990; Johnson & Johnson, 1996). For example, listening to each other involved looking at the speaker (looks like behavior) and saying &dquo;Yes, I see, ah!&dquo; (sounds like behavior). Resolving differences democratically and fairly involved looking at the speaker (looks like behavior) and saying &dquo;You’re saying ... but I think it should be How can we work it out?&dquo; (sounds like behavThese behaviors were also recorded on a class summary ior). sheet. The children worked in their four-person groups and used the class summary sheet to help them develop a set of group behaviors for working together. ...
Unstructured
Groups
.
to the unstructured condition were introtheir teachers to the social studies activities and the by resources available. Although these children did not participate in the interpersonal and small-group training sessions given to the children in the structured condition, they were given the same time as the children in the structured condition to discuss how they were going to work together in groups. Likewise, these behaviors were recorded on a class summary sheet, and the children used them as a guide to develop a set of group behaviors for working together.
Groups assigned
duced
Group Activities Group activities were developed around unit activities contained in the social studies source books for Grade 3 (Queensland Department of Education, 1987). Using this source book, group activities were designed to focus the children’s attention on the different ways of thinking about a problem, based on Bloom’s (1956) taxonomy of educational objectives. For
Downloaded from http://sed.sagepub.com by Armando Loera on October 31, 2009
22
example, a problem-solving activity on marsupials involved following tasks: What is a marsupial? (recall ); how do marsupials differ from nonmarsupials? (comprehension); collect the pictures of a number of different animals and arrange them into marsupial and nonmarsupial groups (application); compare marsupials with birds. List their similarities and differences (analysis); design a new marsupial using characteristics of marsupials (synthesis); do you think your new marsupial would be harmful or harmless to society? Why? (evaluation). This last activity was considered the most complex because it required the children to consider different information simultaneously and evaluate different potential the
scenarios.
Instruments Otis-Lennon School Ability Test. The OLSAT (Otis 1993) is a group-administered test designed to mea-
& Lennon,
verbal, quantitative, and figural reasoning skills that are closely related to school achievement. At the individual level, sure
the OLSAT is used to estimate a student’s school learning ability or current readiness to deal with academic work at a particular grade level. Students with low scores on the OLSAT usually have low scores on achievement measures, whereas those who excel in the ability measured by this test tend to obtain relatively high scores on different school subjects (Otis & Lennon, 1993). This complex of abilities is assessed through performance on such tasks as detecting similarities and differences, solving analogies and matrixes, classifying, and determining sequence. The OLSAT comprises seven levels (Levels A-G) and two forms that collectively assess the range of abilities from kindergarten through Grade 12. Level D (Grade 3) involves verbal comprehension and reasoning tasks and figural and quantitative reasoning tasks. Verbal comprehension is dependent on the ability to perceive relationships between words and word meanings, to understand subtle differences among similar words and phrases, and to use words to produce meaning. It includes tasks such as identifying antonyms and completing sentences. Verbal reasoning is dependent on students’ abilities to infer relationships among words and to perceive similarities and differences; it includes such tasks as completing letter and word matrices and classifying words. Figural reasoning requires students to infer relationships between geometric figures and patterns and includes tasks such as identifying figures that do not belong in a series and inferring relationships between geometric shapes. Quantitative reasoning requires students to use numbers to infer relationships and predict outcomes according to computational rules. The OLSAT was originally standardized on more than 135,000 children from 1,000 school districts in the United States chosen to represent the national school population in terms of socioeconomic status, urbanicity, region of the country, and ethnicity. A scaled score system was developed for the OLSAT that links together all the levels (A-G) and both
forms of the test, which makes it possible to compare the performance of students taking different levels or forms of the test. (A 1983 standardization of Australian norms by the Australian Council of Educational Research showed that they were highly comparable with U.S. norms across all levels and forms.) Reliability coefficients for alternative forms of the test range from .91 to .94, with an overall reliability coefficient of .94. Raw scores were obtained by counting the number of correct answers, and the total scores were converted into stanine scores. Stanine scores were used to reduce the likelihood of overestimation of small unreliable differences, as may occur in finer scales such as IQ points. &dquo;The nine units of the stanine scale represent equal distances along the baseline of the normal curve. This means that the differences in ability between stanines 7 and 9 is the same as the difference in ability between stanines 1 and 3&dquo; (Otis & Lennon, 1993, p. 27).
Group Observations. A schedule to compile information on student behavior states and verbal interactions during recorded group sessions was adapted from two coding procedures reported by Sharan and Shachar (1988) and Webb (1985). The first part of this observation schedule was designed to compile information on student behavior. Four behavior state categories
were
employed:
cooperative behavior included all behavior that was task-oriented, including listening to other group members discuss the task; noncooperative behavior included all behavior that was designed to exclude others or to
,
demonstrate resistance to the group, such as opposition and criticism; individual task-oriented behavior involved the individual working on the task but not with the
group; and ’
individual nontask behavior included all behavior where the individual was not participating in the group activities and was not working
individually. The student behavior states were coded using momentary time sampling at 10-second intervals for group members over a period of 10 minutes. Each group member was systematically observed, and 15 observations were recorded for each student across each observation period. The second part of the observation schedule identified student interactions that occurred in the group activity. There were seven interaction variables (verbal interactions):
directives (e.g., points finger and says &dquo;Look, this is how it’s done&dquo;), unsolicited explanations (explanations provided when they are not requested), unsolicited terminal responses (usually short
monosyllabic responses),
Downloaded from http://sed.sagepub.com by Armando Loera on October 31, 2009
.
23
..
interruptions (calling
out and
disrupting a
speaker), solicited explanations (requests for detailed help), solicited terminal responses (short monosyllabic responses following requests for help), and nonspecific interactions (all other speech that could not be categorized into any of the previous
categories).
Verbal interactions were tallied and coded according to frequency across the recorded group session. Two observers, blind to the purposes of the study, coded a common 6 hours of videotape. Interobserver reliability ranged from 90% to 95% across student behaviors and from 85% to 89% across the verbal interactions.
Learning Outcomes. Two measures were used to aslearning outcomes. First, a comprehension questionnaire, adapted from a set of generic questions developed by King sess
(1990, 1991, 1994) and based
on Bloom’s (1956) taxonomy assessed whether the children were learning objectives, and making links between the differbuilding understanding ent problem-solving activities they undertook in their groups. Some question stems required the children to integrate content presented to arrive at a conclusion, whereas others required the children to integrate new information into previous understanding and knowledge. For example, the following question stems were used to tap basic details or facts: &dquo;What is ?; List as many ... meat eating dinosaurs as you can.&dquo; Questions designed to assess the children’s comprehension of a problem began with &dquo;What do you think ... happened to cause the dinosaurs to die out?&dquo; A more complex question required the children to retrieve information they had learned and apply it; for example, &dquo;Why do you think Tyrannosaurus rex was a very good hunter?&dquo; Other questions required the children to compare and contrast different issues or aspects of a problem, synthesize information, and select and justify a solution. These questions were the most difficult and began with the following question stems: &dquo;Compare ... with ... ; Select and justify how you would ....&dquo; Each class teacher used the question stems to develop their own set of questions to gauge how the children understood and used the information presented in the group activities. Responses to the comprehension questionnaire were rated from 1 to 6 (1 1 = basic recall of facts; 6 = more complex evaluative response). Children were assigned a rating depending on the highest complex question the children were able to answer correctly. The second learning outcome measure was an individually administered graded word reading test (Andrews, 1973). It was thought that any increase in interactions between students with learning difficulties and their nondisabled peers might lead to an increase in the former students’ vocabulary and have an impact on their word reading skills (see Stevens & Slavin, 1995b). This test consisted of 100 words graded in
of
...
difficulty, which was intended to give an accurate estimate of word reading ability for children in elementary grades. The test was standardized on 435 elementary students, chosen randomly from students in Grades 1 to 6 in 12 Brisbane schools. The words used were based on frequency of usage in early and middle school readers for Australian children. The total number of words read correctly at pre- and posttest was used to determine if there were changes in the number of words the children could read as a result of their group experiences.
Procedure Discussions were held with participating classroom teachers on the preliminary testing and the assignment of students to groups, the procedure for establishing the structured and unstructured groups, and the planned small-group activities for the social studies work units. The school ability test (Otis & Lennon, 1993) and the graded word reading test (Andrews, 1973) were administered by two experienced teacher raters (not the class teachers) who were blind to the purposes of the study. The word reading test was administered both pre- and posttest to the children in the participating classes. Five experienced teachers examined the comprehension questionnaires developed by the teachers (using common sentence stems) and reported that they covered equivalent content and accurately reflected the six levels of Bloom’s taxonomy. This questionnaire was administered twice, once following the completion of an introductory social studies work unit (prior to the commencement of the study) and again following the final work unit. Class teachers determined the answers as part of the regular assessment process; however, all responses were checked by the two teacher raters. Agreement between the class teachers and the two teacher raters (from the pool of five experienced teachers) was 100% on all questionnaires. The teachers of the children in the structured condition participated in a 2-hour workshop designed to introduce them to the small-group interpersonal skills and processes needed for children to work successfully in cooperative groups. The teachers in the unstructured condition did not receive this training, but the first author spent the same amount of time talking to them about small-group activities, the importance of the children cooperating, and the procedures for monitorthe groups’ progress. Children in both conditions worked in their groups 1 hour per day, three times per week. Each teacher was asked to follow the procedures outlined by Webb, Troper, and Fall (1995) for introducing the activity, modeling approaches to working on it, and providing follow-up practice. The teachers also reminded the children of the importance of working together to help each other and only seeking help from the teacher when others in the group were unable to help. The teacher’s role was to be a facilitator to the groups, not to provide direct assistance to them. The teachers moved about the classroom monitoring the activities of the different groups, checking that children had the materials they needed to complete the tasks,
ing
Downloaded from http://sed.sagepub.com by Armando Loera on October 31, 2009
24 ’
generally ensuring
showed that,
to
tween the conditions at Time
that the children had the opportuin work their nity groups without distractions. Teachers were asked to ensure that the children had the opportunity of working in their groups for 45 minutes of each hour of group work. The first videotaping session occurred after the children had worked in their groups for a minimum of 12 sessions. Each group was taped for 10 minutes, and no group was taped twice on the same day. The second videotaping session was conducted during the fifth or sixth week of the final work unit. and
Results Observations
although there was no significant difference be1, F( 1, 20) 0.42, ns, there was =
significant difference between the conditions at Time 2, F(l, 20) = 7.40, p < .05. An examination of Table 1 shows that there was a decrease in individual nontask behavior for children in the structured condition over the two time periods. Means and standard deviations of the incidents representthe verbal interactions for the children in the structured ing and unstructured conditions at Times 1 and 2 are presented in Table 2. The verbal interactions data for the children in the structured and unstructured conditions were also analyzed in four Group X Time ANOVAs with a repeated measure on the last dimension. No significant respective group and time main effects were found for unsolicited explanations, F(l, 20) a
F(1, 20) 0.16, ns; interruptions, F(1, 20) 0.14, ns; F( 1, 20) 4.02, ns; directives, F( 1, 20) 4.30, ns; F( 1, 20) 0.01, ns; and solicited explanations, F( l, 20) 0.25, ns; F(1, 20) 2.09, ns. However, although no significant Group X Time effects were found for unsolicited explanations, F(1, 20) 0.20, ns, and interruptions, F( 1, 20) 0.90, ns, significant Group X Time effects were found for directives, F( 1, 20) 18.70, p < .00, and solicited explanations, F(1, 20) 4.90, =
0.55,
=
ns;
=
=
=
The
and standard deviations of the incidents reprethe behavior states for the children in the structured senting and unstructured conditions at Times 1 and 2 are presented in Table 1. The behavior states data for the children in the structured and unstructured conditions were analyzed in four Group (condition) X Time ANOVAs with a repeated measure on the last dimension. Nonsignificant main effects were found for group and time, respectively, for cooperation, F(1, 20) = means
0.22, ns; F( 1, 20) 0.24, ns; noncooperation, F( 1, 20) 2.69, ns; F(1, 20) 0.53, ns; individual task-oriented, F(1, 20) = 0.01, ns; F(1, 20) 2.87, ns; and individual nontask, F(1, 20) 5.23, ns. However, although non0.50, ns; F( 1, 20) =
=
=
=
=
=
significant Group
Time effects
were
also found for coop-
0.60, ns, noncooperation, F(1, 20) 0.50, and individual task-oriented, F(1, 20) 0.01, ns, a sig-
eration, F(1, 20) ns,
X
=
=
=
nificant interaction effect was found for individual nontask, F(1, 20) = 5.20, p < .05. Follow-up one-way ANOVAs
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
p .05. When the interaction effect for directives was examined with follow-up one-way ANOVAs, no significant difference was found between the conditions at Time 1, F( 1, 20) = 0.22, ns. However, there was a significant difference between the conditions at Time 2, F(1, 20) 21.70, p < .001. An examination of Table 2 suggests that the structured condition leads to an increase in giving directives, whereas the unstructured condition leads to a decrease in giving directives over time. When the interaction effect for solicited explanations was examined, follow-up one-way ANOVAs showed that no significant differences existed between the conditions <
TABLE 1. Behavior States for the Children in the Structured and Unstructured Conditions
Downloaded from http://sed.sagepub.com by Armando Loera on October 31, 2009
=
at
Times 1 and 2
25
at Time
Time 2, F(1, 20) = 1.73, p > .05. An examination of Table 2 shows that, although the children in the structured condition maintained giving solicited explanations across Times 1 and 2, the children in the unstructured condition gave more explanations at Time 2 than they had at Time 1. However, few solicited explanations were given by the children in either condition at Times 1 and 2.
1, F(l, 20)
=
3.82, p
>
.05,
or
at
27.10, p < .001. However, there was no significant interaction effect for groups over time, F(1, 20) = 0.50, ns. The pretest scores (structured, M = 28.83, SD = 7.13; unstructured, M = 29.30, SD =11.37) and posttest scores (structured, M 33.50, SD 8.80; unstructured, M = 33.10, SD = 12.70) in each condition were similar at each point in time. time, F(l, 20)
=
=
Comprehension Questionnaire The pre- and
=
Discussion
posttest comprehension questionnaire rating
analyzed in a Group X Time repeated-measures Significant main effects were found for group, F(l, 20) 8.42, p < .01, and time, F(l, 20) 14.43, p < .01, and a significant interaction effect was found for groups over time, F(l, 20) 9.31, p < .01. Follow-up one-way ANOVAs showed that, although there was no significant difference bescores were
ANOVA. =
=
=
the conditions at Time 1, F(1, 20) 1.46, ns, there was a significant difference between the conditions at Time 2, F(1, 20) = 15.36, p < .001. Examination of the pretest scores showed that, although the children in each condition had obtained similar results (structured, M = 2.25, SD = 0.96; unstructured, M = 1.90, SD = 0.87), the children in the structured condition obtained higher posttest results (structured, M 3.16, SD 0.93; unstructured, M = 2.00, SD = 0.81). The effect size was + 1.43 standard deviations. tween
=
=
=
Graded Word Reading Test A Group X Time
repeated measures ANOVA was used to anthe and alyze preposttest word reading scores of the children in the two conditions. There was no significant main effect for group, F(l, 20) = 0.01, ns, but there was a main effect for
This study investigated the effects of cooperative group work on the behavior, interactions, and learning outcomes of children with learning difficulties. The results showed that, although no significant difference existed in the cooperative behavior displayed by the children with learning difficulties in the structured and unstructured groups, there was a significant difference in the nontask behavior displayed by these children. The children with learning difficulties in the unstructured groups exhibited significantly less group involvement and off-task behavior than their peers in the structured groups at Time 2. This may have been in part because they felt less involved with their groups. Certainly, their class teachers commented on their tacit involvement in their groupsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; activities. For example, &dquo;He wasnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t disruptive, but he just sat there and said little&dquo; and &dquo;She participated but more by just sitting&dquo; were typical of the comments made by their teachers. In essence, the children watched what others did and followed their lead. They were also more likely to be distracted or lose concentration and, hence, to exhibit more off-task behaviors than their peers in the structured groups. Involvement appeared to be crucial to how the children with learning difficulties worked in their groups, and those in
TABLE 2. Verbal Interactions for the Children in the Structured and Unstructured Conditions for Times 1 and 2
Downloaded from http://sed.sagepub.com by Armando Loera on October 31, 2009
26
the structured groups appeared to be actively involved with their peers. Although there were no significant differences in the solicited and unsolicited explanations that the children provided, there were differences between the structured and unstructured groups in the directions they gave. The children in the structured groups gave significantly more directions or help to their peers than the children in the unstructured groups. For example, they would say &dquo;Have you seen this book-it’s got some things [pictures] we can use&dquo;; &dquo;No, this is what we got [meaning an alternative answer to a problem]&dquo;; &dquo;Look! Look at him. He’s got it [meaning the answer].&dquo; It was this willingness to help others, both with resources and directions, that led their teachers to comment on the children’s explicit involvement in their groups. For example, &dquo;He was certainly keen to point out what the group needed to see [meaning to show the group a book needed for the activity]&dquo;; &dquo;He is so keen he stumbles over his words trying to get it out [meaning he has so much to say and he is so excited that he muddles his words]&dquo; were typical of the comments their teachers made. Previous research has shown that the interactions and, in particular, the explanations that children provide to each other influence learning (Webb, 1985, 1992). In this study, it appeared to be the directions or helping behaviors that affected learning outcomes. When the children with learning difficulties provided directions and help, they initiated interactions that often led to further clarifications and exchanges of ideas with other group members, and it is these interactions that contributed to an increase in their direct involvement in the learning process. By interacting with others, these children learned how to co-construct solutions to problems that they would probably never have been able to complete alone (Fuchs et
al., 1994).
Certainly, the learning outcomes attained by the children in the structured condition on the comprehension questionnaire demonstrate that they were making better links between the different problem-solving activities they undertook in their groups and were applying that information to novel situations. The comprehension questionnaire (using generic question stems developed by King, 1990, 1991, 1994) had been designed to evaluate the children’s responses to a hierarchically ordered set of thinking probes based on the content of the work unit. Hence, it provided a specific academic measure of each child’ss progress. Furthermore, it enabled teachers to see how the interactions of the children in the groups translated into better learning outcomes for each child. However, although the learning outcomes of the children in the structured groups on the comprehension questionnaire were educationally significant (i.e., magnitude of the effect size) at the conclusion of the study, their performances on the word reading measure were not. This may have occurred in part because this measure is a standardized test, and the content of such tests is typically difficult to influence because of their limited overlap with the curriculum (Stevens & Slavin, 1995a). In fact, Stevens and Slavin found that such standardized test results were unaffected until cooperative learning had
been consistently implemented in schoolwide programs for 2 years. The results of this study provide optimism and support for the benefits that accrue to children with learning difficulties when they participate in structured cooperative learning in mainstream classes (Stevens & Slavin, 1995a, 1995b). The children with learning difficulties in the structured groups were more involved in their groups’ activities and provided more directions and help to other group members than their peers in the unstructured groups. Through their interactions with others, these children received feedback and support that helped them clarify issues and build understandings. These reciprocal interactions probably served to maintain their involvement and interest in the group tasks, while simultaneously helping them to solve problems and construct new understandings (Webb et al., 1995; Wittrock, 1990). Furthermore, their responses on the comprehension questionnaire demonstrated that they had internalized specific routines for solving problems, especially on the more difficult questions requiring applicative responses. Others have also reported that, when children are trained to work together and use a specific interactional style, the accuracy and comprehensiveness of the problems they complete is higher (Fuchs et al.,1994). Although this study demonstrates that structured cooperative learning positively affects the helping behaviors and learning outcomes of children with learning difficulties, the conclusions that can be drawn are limited because many of the analyses designed to test for differences between the groups were not significant. This may have occurred because of the small number of children with learning difficulties in the study. It may also have occurred because the measures used recorded frequencies of different interactions rather than sequences of interactions and, hence, failed to completely capture the cooperative dialogues in which students engaged. Webb (1985, 1989) found that, when children are trained to work together, they provide explanations and elaborations that increase learning. However, little is known about the multidirectional nature of the interactions in which they engage. In other words, what are the specific reciprocal effects of these multiple dialogues on group members’ ongoing interactions? Although further research is needed to understand the effects of group members’ interactions on others, the results of this study suggest that children with learning difficulties benefit from working in small, structured cooperative groups in their classrooms. This finding should reassure teachers who express interest in cooperative group work but are often unsure of the benefits that may accrue to children with learning difficulties.
REFERENCES Andrews, R. (1973). Graded word reading test. Brisbane, Australia: Teaching &
Testing Resources.
Bloom, B. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Handbook 1: Cognitive domain. London, UK: Longman. Cadman, A. G. (Chairman). (1976). Learning difficulties in children and adults
(Report
of the House of
Downloaded from http://sed.sagepub.com by Armando Loera on October 31, 2009
Representative
Select Committee
on
27
Specific Learning Difficulties). Canberra, Australia: Australian GovPublishing Service. Cohen, E. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64, 1-35. Dale, H. (1995). Collaborative writing interactions in one ninth-grade classroom. Journal of Educational Research, 87, 334-344. Egan, G. (1997). The skilled helper: A systematic approach to effective helpernment
ing (6th ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. Elkins, J., & van Kraayenoord, C. (1998). Learning difficulties in regular classrooms. In A. Ashman & J. Elkins (Eds.), Educating children with special needs (3rd ed., pp. 131-176). Sydney, Australia: Prentice Hall. Fox, C. L. (1989). Peer acceptance of learning disabled children in the regular classroom. Exceptional Children, 56, 50-59. Fuchs, L., Fuchs, D., Bentz, J., Phillips, N., & Hamlett, C. (1994). The nature of student interactions during peer tutoring with and without prior training and experience. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 75-103. Gillies, R., & Ashman, A. (1996). Teaching collaborative skills to primary school children in classroom-based workgroups. Learning and Intruction, 6, 187-200. Gillies, R., & Ashman, A. (1997). The effects of cooperative learning on differential student behavior and achievement. Journal of Classroom Inter-
action, 32, 1-10. Horton, E. G., & Brown, D. (1990). The importance of interpersonal skills in consultee-centered consultations: A review. Journal of Counseling and Development, 68, 423-426. Ivey, A. (1994). Intentional interviewing and counseling (3rd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, F.P. (1996). Joining together: Group theory and group skills (6th ed.). Sydney, Australia: Prentice Hall Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Holubec, E. (1990). Circles of learning: Cooperation in the classroom (3rd ed.). Edina, MN: Interaction Book
Company. Jordan, D., & Le Metais, J. (1997). Social skilling through cooperative learning. Educational Research, 39, 3-21. Kamps, D., Dugan, E., Leonard, B., & Daoust, P. (1994). Enhanced small group instruction using choral responding and student interaction for children with autism and developmental disabilities. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 99, 60-73. King, A. (1990). Enhancing peer interaction and learning in the classroom through reciprocal questioning. American Educational Research Journal, 27, 664-687. King, A. (1991). Improving lecture comprehension: Effects of a metacognitive strategy. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 5, 331-346. King, A. (1994). Guided knowledge construction in the classroom: Effects of teaching children how to question and how to explain. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 338-368. Lazarowitz, R., & Karsenty, G. (1990). Cooperative learning and studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; achievement, process skills, learning environment, and self-esteem in tenth-grade biology classrooms. In S. Sharan (Ed.), Cooperative learning theory and research (pp. 123-149). New York: Praeger.
Madden, N., & Slavin, R. (1983). Cooperative learning and social acceptance of mainstreamed academically handicapped Special Education, 17, 171-182.
students. The Journal
of
Otis, A., & Lennon, R. (1993). Otis-Lennon school ability test (6th ed.). San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Brace. Putnam, J., Rynders, J., Johnson, R., & Johnson, D. (1989). Collaborative skill instruction for promoting positive interactions between mentally handicapped and nonhandicapped children. Exceptional Children, 55, 550-557. Queensland Department of Education. (1987). Social studies source book for year 4. Brisbane, Australia: Government Printing Office. Safran, S. P. (1989). Special education in Australia and the United States: A cross-cultural analysis. The Journal of Special Education, 23, 330341. Shachar, H., & Sharan, S. (1994). Talking, relating, and achieving: Effects of cooperative learning and whole-class instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 12, 313-353. Sharan, S., & Shachar, H. (1988). Language and learning in the cooperative classroom. New York: Springer Verlag. Sharan, S., & Shaulov, A. (1990). Cooperative learning, motivation to learn, and academic achievement. In S. Sharan (Ed.), Cooperative learning theory and research (pp. 173-202). New York: Praeger. Slavin, R., Madden, N., & Leavey, M. (1984). Effects of cooperative learning and individualized instruction on mainstreamed students. Exceptional Children, 50, 434-443. Stevens, R., & Slavin, R. (1995a). The cooperative elementary school. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 321-351. Stevens, R., & Slavin, R. (1995b). Effects of a cooperative learning approach in reading and writing on academically handicapped and nonhandicapped students. The Elementary School Journal, 95, 241-262. Webb, N. (1985). Student interaction and learning in small groups: A research summary. In R. Slavin, S. Sharon, S. Kagan, R. Hertz-Larowitz, C. Webb, & R. Schmuck (Eds.), Learning to cooperate, cooperating to learn (pp. 5-15). New York: Plenum. Webb, N. (1989). Peer interaction and learning in small groups. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 21-39. Webb, N. (1992). Testing a theoretical model of student interaction and learning in small groups. In R. Hertz-Lazarowitz & N. Miller (Eds.), Interaction in cooperative groups (pp. 102-119). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Webb, N., & Farivar, S. (1994). Promoting helping behavior in cooperative small groups in middle school mathematics. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 369-395. Webb, N., Troper, J., & Fall, R. (1995). Constructive activity and learning in collaborative small groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 406-423. Wittrock, M. (1990). Generative processes of comprehension. Educational
Psychologist, 24, 345-376. Zammuner, V. L. (1995). Individual and cooperative computer-writing and revising: Who gets the best results? Learning and Instruction, 5, 101-124.
Downloaded from http://sed.sagepub.com by Armando Loera on October 31, 2009