Cooperative Learning in Inclusive Classrooms

"Students Who Work Together, Learn Together"

Lisa M. Emerson, M.Ed.

May/June 2013

Students with disabilities participate more actively in classroom activities when cooperative learning strategies are in place compared to traditional classroom methods. Specifically, in inclusive classrooms that use cooperative learning, students express their ideas more freely, receive affirmative and constructive feedback, engage in questioning techniques, receive additional skills practice, and have increased opportunities to respond.

Furthermore, when students think aloud during discussion, teachers are better able to assess student and group needs and intervene if necessary. That is, through active monitoring of student learning, teachers can redirect groups toward learning tasks and provide the option of reteaching through mini-groupings as needed. When the structures necessary for this level of dialogue to occur are established, it accelerates the process of understanding (Bucalos & Lingo, 2005).

According to Stevens and Slavin (1995), students with disabilities are more likely to be at the correct instructional level and achieve positive learning outcomes when explanations and modeling are provided by their peers. These benefits and high-quality learning are realized only when general and special education teachers commit to learning structures that benefit all students.

Cooperative learning challenges some people's beliefs about education, as cooperative classrooms represent a shift from traditional lecture-style classrooms to environments that are more brain-compatible and benefit all learners (see figure below).

From Traditional Learning

To Cooperative Learning

"A good class is a quiet class."

"Learning involves healthy noise."

"This is an independent assignment."

"This is cooperative group work."

"Keep your eyes on your paper."

"Ask your partner for help."

"Sit quietly."

"Get up and see what others have done."

"Talking is cheating."

"Talking is learning."

• Important Aspects of Building Effective Cooperative Learning

Essential aspects of organizing cooperative groups include:

1. Group size

2. Clear learning goals

3. Direct instruction of group procedures

4. Mixed-ability groupings

5. Individual and group accountability.

Size: The recommended group size ranges from two to four students. The smaller the group, the higher the participation levels. Groups of three students are often difficult to manage because they leave one student out of the dialogue at any given time.

Clear learning goals and direct instruction of group procedures: Teachers who achieve the best results from cooperative learning groups directly teach students how to interact before the group directs its own learning process. Assigning roles within groups also keeps students focused on the specific learning goals.

Mixed-ability groupings: Research by Ncube (2011) showed that flexible mixed-ability groupings offer advantages over homogeneously grouped students because higher-achieving students can guide students who lack a particular skill or concept. At the same time, students who are more proficient in a given skill deepen their own learning by applying higher-level thinking skills while helping others succeed.

Accountability: Students need individual and group goals to foster collaboration. The need to feel "we are in this together!" and the ability to rely on their teammates is essential for student learning. Teachers, and ultimately peers, need to provide feedback on progress made toward achieving group and individual goals, and this gradual release of responsibility leads to more engaged and independent learners.

Cooperative learning within inclusive classrooms requires thoughtful planning and implementation to achieve the highest impact for all students (Stevens & Slavin, 1995).

• Types of Cooperative Teams

There are four main types of cooperative teams: heterogeneous, random, homogeneous, and student-selected. All four have instructional purposes (see figure below). Thus, the type of team used should match the instructional learning goals and student needs.

Heterogeneous groups are widely used in cooperative learning because they naturally support peers helping peers, improve social acceptance for all types of learners, and can assist with classroom management. However, all four can be implemented throughout the school year to support instruction (Kagan & Kagan, 2009).

Advantages and Cautions for Different Types of Cooperative Teams

Team Type

Advantages

Cautions

Heterogeneous
(Varying ability, gender, diverse challenges)

Balance
Greater learning opportunities
Easier management

Requires more preparation time from the teacher
Students may be labeled
Limited leadership opportunities

Random Teams
Randomly formed teams

Fairness
Novelty, variety, and fun
Quick and easy

Diversity is not guaranteed
Potential for off-task behaviors
All-"high-performing" or "low-performing" teams may develop

Homogeneous Teams
Teams with a shared characteristic
(Ability, interest, language)

Leadership opportunities
Noticed respect for advanced groups
Differentiated instruction

Lack of equity
Low esteem for lower groups
Negative stereotypes

Student-Selected Teams
Students choose their own teams

Novelty, variety, and fun
Familiarity
Ease of decision-making

Unbalanced
High potential for off-task behaviors

There is also a strong argument for using cooperative learning groups: the potential for developing skills socially to a significant degree. Social isolation has been found to represent a health risk factor as devastating as smoking or high blood pressure (House, Landis, & Umberson, 1988).

Cooperative learning provides students with organizational structures to interact appropriately with their peers and opportunities to practice social skills. This includes social skills that occur naturally in cooperative groups, such as asking for help, taking turns, and disagreeing politely. When integrated into academic practices, teaching and practicing social skills takes less time to implement. Finally, integrating social skills also aids in classroom management, as there are fewer disruptions and improved positive impressions of school and learning (Jensen, 2005).

• Cooperative Learning Strategies to Support Students

The cooperative learning structures mentioned below are models of evidence-based interventions that have shown positive impacts on learning for all students across content areas and grade levels.

1. Clock Partners (Garmston & Wellman, 2002)

This is a cooperative learning grouping method for assigning partners to work together. The teacher hands out a "My Clock Partners" graphic and asks students to walk around the room and ask their classmates to sign up for a time on the clock. When the clock graphic is complete, students have 12 different partners—one for each hour on the clock. When the teacher wants to add some novelty and innovation to partner work, they call out, "Find your 3:00 appointment," and students move around the classroom until they find their assigned partner. This structure saves instructional time and provides organized movement within the classroom.

2. Cooperative Learning Roles (Tate, 2003)

Cooperative learning roles are designed to increase participation and achieve equity for everyone within cooperative learning teams. Examples of roles include reporter, recorder, timekeeper, leader, and encourager. Each team member carries out a specific role to make effective use of the team's time together. Each role is taught directly to students, and appropriate tasks and sentence stems are modeled to assist in social skill development.

Sentence stems are used, which are phrases students learn to assist in clear communication. Examples include: "What do you mean by ____?", "That makes me think of ____?", or "So far we have accomplished ____." Roles are rotated to encourage leadership and teamwork skills.

3. Numbered Heads Together (Kagan & Kagan, 2009)

Numbered Heads Together maximizes group collaboration and peer tutoring. Teams of four are formed and numbered from one to four. Each teammate has an assigned number. The teacher poses a high-level thinking question to the class, and teams stand to work together to answer the question, ensuring that all members can adequately explain the team's answer.

Once the team is confident that all members can explain their thinking, they may sit down. When all teams are seated, the teacher calls a number at random, and the student assigned that number explains their team's answer. Students can respond using response cards, individual whiteboards, or orally. Numbered Heads Together increases individual and group accountability alongside teamwork.

4. Rally Coach (Kagan & Kagan, 2009)

This model is a coaching structure for two-student groups used to reinforce skills and provide additional practice with feedback if needed. Pairs of students are given one set of problems and one pencil. The first partner solves the problem while the second partner observes, listens, checks, coaches, and praises. Then the two switch roles, with the first partner becoming the coach while the second partner solves the problem. Partners repeat this process until the task is complete. This structure gives the teacher an opportunity to observe partners and assist teams as needed. RallyCoach pairs are most effective when the pairs are academically similar. For example, high achievers are paired with medium achievers, and medium achievers are paired with low achievers on a given task. This arrangement within pairs prevents one partner from dominating coaching opportunities and the other partner from becoming a passive learner.

5. Talking Chips (Kagan & Kagan, 2009)

Talking Chips ensures that all students' voices are heard during cooperative learning discussions, where teams of four are given a specific topic for discussion and several minutes of individual reflection. Each team member receives two discussion chips to use during discussion time. When students participate in the group discussion, they place a talking chip in the center of the table (the chips distributed beforehand). Once all students have used both talking chips, one student summarizes the conversation. The team collects the talking chips from the center of the table and continues the conversation using the chips until time is up. Using talking chips encourages all students to communicate their ideas and gives them the ability to be active and attentive listeners.

6. Reciprocal Teaching (Gajria, Jitendra, Sood, & Sacks, 2007)

Reciprocal teaching is a cooperative learning strategy that uses specific roles to aid in text comprehension. The reading materials used must match the instructional level of all students within the group. It is also essential that roles are explained and modeled appropriately for students.

The teaching roles include four personas: the predictor, the clarifier, the questioner, and the summarizer.

The teacher assigns each group a passage matching their instructional level to read. If the students read the first part, the summarizer then retells the section in their own words, the questioner poses questions to the group, the clarifier addresses any confusion regarding comprehension of the text, and the predictor makes predictions about the next selection. Roles are rotated so that each student gets an opportunity to practice each role. The teacher can assign the reader role strategically, so that readers have an instructionally appropriate section to read. For example, a struggling reader might read a portion of familiar text consisting of several high-frequency words or a smaller portion of the text. Another option is to have students read silently and then discuss the section. This type of reciprocal teaching fosters independent application of comprehension within a cooperative framework.

In summary of this article, cooperative learning structures embedded within the classroom routine promote active learning for students with disabilities and their non-disabled peers. These structures are especially beneficial for students who require additional practice as well as affirmative and corrective feedback throughout the school day. Cooperative learning structures continue to support inclusive practices and complement the development of academic and social skills.

Therefore, students who work together, learn together to improve academic achievement and social acceptance for all!

At Ynmo, we work to improve the quality of the educational process inside the classroom by providing curricula, assessments, and digital individualized programs tailored to the needs of each individual student.

Register now and start for free!

Register now for free!

References:
Bucalos, A. L., & Lingo, A. S. (2005). Filling the potholes in the road to inclusion: Successful research-based strategies for intermediate and middle school students with mild disabilities. TEACHING Exceptional Children Plus, 1(4).

Jensen, E. (2005). Teaching with the brain in mind. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Gajria, M., Jitendra, A. K., Sood, S., & Sacks, G. (2007). Improving comprehension of expository text in students with LD: A research synthesis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40(3), 210-225.

Garmston, R., & Wellman, B. (2002). The adaptive school: Developing and facilitating collaborative groups (4th ed.). El Dorado Hills, CA: Four Hats Seminar.

House, J., Landis, K., & Umberson, D. (1988). Social relationships and health. Science, 241, 540-545.

Kagan, S., & Kagan, M. (2009). Kagan cooperative learning. San Clemente, CA: Kagan Publishing.

Ncube, S. (2011). Peer-collaboration: An effective teaching strategy for inclusive classrooms. The Journal of International Association of Special Education, 12(1), 79-81.

Stevens, R. J., & Slavin, R. E. (1995). Effects of a cooperative learning approach in reading and writing on academically handicapped and nonhandicapped students. Elementary School Journal, 95(3), 241-262.

Tate, M. L. (2003). Worksheets don’t grow dendrites: 20 Instructional strategies that enagage the brain. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Originally published in Arabic. This English version was produced with AI-assisted translation; the Arabic original remains the reference.