RESEARCH SECTION
Co-operative learning for students with difficulties
in learning: a description of models and guidelines
for implementation
Ellen Murphy, Ian M. Grey and Rita Honan
As part of a larger study regarding the inclusion of
children with disabilities in mainstream classroom
settings, Ellen Murphy, of the D Clin Psych
programme at NUI Galway, with Ian Grey and
Rita Honan, from Trinity College, Dublin, reviewed
existing literature on co-operative learning in the
classroom. In this article, they identify four models
of co-operative learning and specify the various
components characteristic of each model. They
review recent studies on co-operative learning with
the aim of determining effectiveness. These studies
generally indicate that co-operative learning appears
to be more effective when assessed on measures of
social engagement rather than academic performance.
Finally, Ellen Murphy, Ian Grey and Rita Honan
present their account of the factors that contribute
to the successful implementation of co-operative
learning for students with difficulties in learning.
Key words: co-operative learning, grouping, special
educational needs, inclusion.
Introduction
The inclusion of students with intellectual disabilities into
regular classrooms continues to be a priority among
teachers, administrators, policy makers and families
(Dugan, Kamps Leonard, Watkins, Rheninberger &
Stackhaus, 1995; McMaster & Fuchs, 2002). Within special
education circles, co-operative learning is one of the most
frequently recommended strategies for effecting the
inclusion of students with disabilities in regular education
classrooms (Jenkins & O’Connor, 2003). Co-operative
learning is a peer-mediated, instructional arrangement:
‘in which small groups or teams of students work
together to achieve team success in a manner that
promotes the students’ responsibility for their own
learning as well as the learning of others.’
(Mercer & Mercer, 1998, p. 35)
It can be classified as a multi-element academic and social
intervention which primarily focuses on arranging
antecedent conditions to set the occasion for positive social
interactions and tapping into natural contingencies of
© NASEN 2005
reinforcement on completion of task (Madden & Slavin,
1983). Specifically, the use of co-operative learning
incorporates elements of contingency management and
social skills training while concurrently providing children
with the opportunity to develop and practise their social
skills in a naturalistic setting (Nixon, 1999).
Rationale
There are a multitude of reasons for employing co-operative
learning as an inclusion strategy. A major challenge for
teachers in heterogeneous classrooms is to engage all of
their students in high quality learning activities. By
replacing individual assignments, in which students have to
work on their own, with assignments for small,
heterogeneous groups organised according to co-operative
learning steps, they would provide a more accommodating
learning environment for students who are experiencing
difficulties (Jenkins & O’Connor, 2003). Co-operative
learning is enhanced by the possibilities it offers for
achieving multiple educational goals. With its dual
emphasis on academic and interpersonal skills (Johnson &
Johnson, 1994), it appeals to teachers because it addresses
diverse educational goals within a single approach (Antil,
Jenkins, Wayne & Vadasy, 1998). Contemporary ideas on
the nature of human learning also contribute to co-operative
learning’s appeal. Learning was, for a long time,
conceptualised as transmission of knowledge from expert to
novice. This approach began to yield to a different
paradigm which emphasised the social construction of
knowledge (Vygotsky, 1978). Research into co-operative
learning within Vygotsky’s theory considers that children
are introduced to new patterns of thought and new
understandings by engaging in dialogue with their peers
(Jenkins & O’Connor, 2003).
Overview of co-operative learning procedures
The literature suggests that there are four main approaches
to co-operative learning which include: the conceptual
approach; the structural approach; the student team learning
approach; and the curricular approach (Putman, 1998).
Merely placing students with disabilities into groups with
their peers does not ensure that they will interact in socially
appropriate and instructionally beneficial ways (McMaster
& Fuchs, 2002). However, if the essential components of
co-operative learning are implemented, successful interaction
is more likely. The contents of the models do not differ
British Journal of Special Education • Volume 32 • Number 3 • 2005
157
widely; however, each model emphasises different elements
as being essential (Johnson & Johnson, 1994; Slavin, 1995;
Kagan, 1990).
Conceptual approach
The conceptual approach or learning together model
(Johnson & Johnson, 1994) is a five-element standard
model developed by Johnson and Johnson. It is
conceptually based and is not tied to a specific curriculum
or subject area. As this model is one of the more popular
and basic models of co-operative learning, it is described
in some detail here. The critical components proposed
are: positive interdependence, individual accountability,
face-to-face interaction, co-operative skill training and
group processing (Putman, 1998).
According to Johnson and Johnson (1994), the first step to
structuring positive interdependence is requiring that
students work together to attain a shared goal. This is
known as ‘goal interdependence’. A group goal can be
established in three ways. The goal for all members could
be to produce one product, for example, to complete a
worksheet successfully; to score above the criteria specified
when tested individually; and/or to improve their
performance over their previous average score. The second
step in creating positive interdependence is to supplement
positive goal interdependence with other types of positive
interdependence such as reward interdependence, whereby
members are rewarded as a group for successfully
completing a joint task; role interdependence, whereby
members are assigned complementary and interconnected
roles; resource interdependence, whereby each member has
only a portion of the information, materials or resources
necessary for the task to be completed; and identity
interdependence, in which the group establishes a mutual
identity through a name or group symbol (Putman, 1998;
Nixon, 1999; Johnson & Johnson, 1994). A number of
common ways to structure individual accountability are
also specified, including keeping the size of the group
small, giving random oral examinations to students and
having students teach what they have learnt to someone else
(Johnson & Johnson, 1994).
The third element, face-to-face promotive interaction, exists
when individuals encourage each other in their efforts to
complete the overall group goal. This can be encouraged by
setting tasks which are conducive to this type of interaction
and by monitoring the group and praising instances of
promotive interaction. The fourth element, interpersonal
and small group skills, involves children being taught the
social skills necessary to work effectively in a group
situation. According to Piercy, Wilton and Townsend
(2002), a number of co-operative learning skills should be
taught to group participants. These include: working
together, sharing things, helping each other, talking politely
to each other, checking that others understood and checking
that others agreed. The final and fifth element of the model
is group processing. This occurs when ‘groups reflect on
their collaborative efforts and decide on ways to improve
effectiveness’ (Antil et al., 1998). The process involves
158
the teacher and students reflecting at the end of a group
session to decide which member actions were helpful and
unhelpful and to make decisions about which actions to
continue or change. An evaluation form to be completed by the
group is a useful way of aiding group processing (Nixon, 1999).
Structural approach
The structural approach to co-operative learning was
developed by Kagan (1990). A structure is defined as ‘a
content independent way of organising social interaction in
the classroom’ (Putman, 1998). Kagan’s model contains
four basic principles symbolised by the acronym PIES:
Positive interdependence, Individual accountability, Equal
participation and Simultaneous interaction. Equal participation
directs teachers to give every student an opportunity to
contribute. Simultaneous interaction encourages teachers
actively to involve as many students as possible at any one
moment. One of the structures Kagan advocates is the
‘timed pair share’ structure. In this exercise, the students
work in pairs. Within each pair, student A shares his or her
thoughts with student B for one minute while student B
listens and then the procedure is reversed. This structure
contains all the elements outlined above. According to Kagan
(1998), this is as easy to implement as a simple pair discussion.
However, a simple pair discussion does not necessarily
require children to divide their time equally, for example.
Therefore the results of the ‘timed pair share’ are better.
Student team learning method
The student team learning method was developed by Slavin
(1995) and is incorporated in more than half of all published
studies of co-operative learning. This method involves
creating a number of teams who then compete against each
other. Essentially the method emphasises the use of team
goals and team success. Three concepts are essential to all
student team learning methods: team rewards, individual
accountability and equal opportunities for success. Teams
can earn team rewards if they achieve abo ve a designated
and agreed criterion. Individual accountability requires that
all individuals must contribute to the team for it to be
successful. Equal opportunities for success means that
students contribute to their teams by improving on their
previous performance (Slavin, 1995). Student teams
achievement divisions (STAD), teams-games-tournaments
(TGT) and ‘Jigsaw II’ are the three most common forms of
student team learning methods. STAD is considered to be
the simplest form and consists of a four-step cycle: class
presentation, teamwork, individual assessment and team
recognition (Putman, 1997). TGT has many of the same
dynamics as STAD. However, instead of individual assessment
of students, the assessment is based on team competition
using academic games (Putman, 1997). Finally, Jigsaw II is
a structure generally only appropriate for working with
written or nar rative material. One member from each team
is required to become an expert on a certain topic. The
experts from the different teams meet up to discuss what
they have learnt. They then return to their original team
and teach what they have learnt to their team-mates.
Finally there is a quiz on all of the topics (Slavin, 1995;
Putman, 1997).
British Journal of Special Education • Volume 32 • Number 3 • 2005
© NASEN 2005
Curricular approach
The curricular approach was also developed by Slavin and
c o l l e agues. While the ap p ro a ches to afo re m e n t i o n e d
co-operative learning formats can be adapted to most subject
areas and grade levels, curriculum-specific co-operative
approaches to support instruction in the classroom have
also been developed (Putman, 1998; 1997; Slavin, 1995).
Team-assisted individualisation (TAI) and co-operative
integrated reading and composition (CIRC) are two such
curriculum-based approaches. TAI focuses on mathematics for
grades 2 to 8 (ages seven to 12). Students use self-instructional
materials designed to help whatever individual skill level
they are at. Team-mates check each others’ work using
answer sheets and help one another with any problems. If a
student fails to achieve an 80% success rate, the teacher
intervenes to provide the necessary individual instruction.
CIRC is a programme for teaching reading and writing in
the upper elementary and middle grades. Reading books
that would be used in traditional teaching are used. This
method involves the use of teacher instruction, team
practice, team pre-assessments and quizzes.
The co-operative learning approaches formats as outlined
above are those most widely used and well researched.
Despite their variations, two elements in particular form the
central components of all models. These are positive
interdependence – that is, students working together to
attain a shared goal (Nixon, 1999) – and individual
accountability – that is, ‘the performance of each individual
is assessed and the results given back to the individual and
the group’ (Johnson & Johnson, 1994).
Efficacy and evaluation of co-operative learning
While recent empirical studies describe efficacy and
evaluation procedures in some detail, they generally do not
give information on the type of co-operative learning
intervention used or details regarding the implementation
of the intervention. The reviews evaluating the benefits of
co-operative learning for students with learning difficulties
appear primarily to be reviews of academic benefits. Thus
far, these reviews have produced inconclusive results. More
than ten years ago, Tateyama-Sniezek (1990) conducted a
review of the literature and reported that half of the relevant
studies reported significant effects. More recently, McMaster
and Fuchs (2002) again reported mixed academic achievement
outcomes resulting from co-operative learning interventions.
These two reviews looked in some depth at the results of
certain individual empiricial studies and there is no need to
revisit that material in detail here. As outlined previously,
however, these reviews, which elicited many debates on the
success of co-operative learning, refer only to the academic
benefits of co-operative learning based on a specific evaluation
method – that is, formal academic testing procedures.
Other evaluation methods have provided more promising
results in terms of academic and social functioning. This
article will now focus on the detailed review of the results
of studies that used these altern at ive approaches to
evaluation. Researchers may have begun to recognise that
© NASEN 2005
social validity is as important as the academic validity in
such studies (Koegel, Koegel & Dunlap, 2001). Evaluation
through observation, teacher interview, peer acceptance
measures and interviews with target children are the most
frequent evaluation methods used in recent studies. Studies
evaluating the effects of co-operative learning usually use a
combination of one or more of the above as part of their
evaluation procedure.
Observation method
A common evaluation approach in co-operative learning
studies is the observation method. O’Connor and Jenkins
(1996) assessed the quality of participation of special needs
students in co-operative learning programmes over a two-year
period using an observation evaluation method. They
assessed the types of activities target children engaged in;
the amount and kind of help they received; and the amounts
and kinds of contributions they made to group efforts. The
data were analysed by identifying patterns and themes
within the observers’ notes. According to these authors,
only 40% of students were successfully participating in
co-operative groups. The authors noted, however, that
differences in classroom practice appeared to be related to
whether co-operative learning was successful or not.
Four other studies (Piercy et al., 2002; Nixon, 1999;
Dugan et al., 1995; Kamps, Leonard, Potucek & Harell-Garrison,
1989) have also used observation methodology. These
studies used pre-test and post-test measures of social and
academic engagement to evaluate the effectiveness of
co-operative learning. Social and academic engagement
were defined at the outset of the interventions and these
behaviours were then recorded as being present or absent
during intervals of a set time duration. These four studies
found that the social and academic engagement levels of
children with learning difficulties significantly increased
after the implementation of co-operative learning
interventions across various areas of the curriculum.
Dugan et al. (1995) used pre-test and post-test observation
procedures to evaluate both social and academic
engagement levels within an overall ABAB design. The
participants were two children with autism aged nine and
ten years and 16 typically developing peers. The
intervention lasted 12 weeks in duration. The observation
procedure for measuring academic engagement involved
two researchers observing engagement in two ten-minute
samples during 40-minute class periods. Behaviours were
classified as engagement behaviours, non-engagement
behaviours or other behaviours. The following behaviours
were considered to be active academic engagement
behaviours: writing, task participation, reading aloud,
reading silently, talking about academic material,
answering questions and asking questions. Social
interaction was observed in five-minute samples for the
target child and their corresponding peer a minimum of
once per week during class periods, during baseline
conditions and during co-operative learning sessions.
Initiations, responses and the lengths of interactions were
recorded. Initiations were defined as motor or vocal
British Journal of Special Education • Volume 32 • Number 3 • 2005
159
behaviour clearly directed to a peer that attempted to evoke
a response. Responses were defined as motor or vocal
behaviours given in response to an initiation within three
seconds. These authors found positive increases in both
academic and social engagement. Their findings replicated
the findings of Kamps et al. (1989) who also examined
social and academic participation using a similar
observation pre-test and post-test procedure within an
ABAB design. These participants consisted of one child
with autism aged eight and 15 typically developing children
of a similar age. Significant increases in social and
academic engagement were again found.
Piercy et al. (2002) also used a pre-test and post-test
observation procedure but, in this study, social engagement
alone was measured. The participants were six children
with learning disabilities and 45 typically developing
children and the intervention lasted ten weeks. The
frequency with which the target child engaged in positive
social interaction behaviours both before and after the
implementation of a co-operative learning programme was
recorded. In contrast with Dugan et al.’s (1995) study,
behaviour was not actually observed during class periods.
Behaviour was observed during a one-hour free choice
activity session prior to the co-operative intervention and
again in a one-hour free choice activity session after the
co-operative intervention was implemented. Each child was
observed for ten minutes in total within that one hour. An
alternating observation procedure was used whereby a child
was observed for 30 seconds and this continued until all six
children had been observed. The observer then reverted
back to observing the first child again. An increase in the
frequency of social behaviours was observed. Nixon (1999)
also partly evaluated a multiple component intervention
consisting of a token economy system, social skills training
and a co-operative learning programme for three children
with ADHD in an Irish primary school using an observation
evaluation method. The intervention lasted six to eight
weeks. The author observed two types of behaviour: task
orientation behaviours and social behaviours. Two
observers recorded whether each target child was engaged
in on-task or off-task behaviour and the nature of the social
interaction that the child was involved in: positive, neutral,
negative or no interaction. The observers recorded data
throughout the entire duration of baseline and co-operative
learning sessions. A multiple baseline design was
incorporated within the study. An increase in both social
and task orientation behaviours was found. Results suggest
that this evaluation method has consistently demonstrated
positive results.
Along with using an observation evaluation procedure,
two of these studies (Kamps et al., 1989; Dugan et al.,
1995) also measured academic performance using formal
academic tests. These demonstrated that academic
performance also increased after the co-operative learning
intervention. The ambiguity in results in the area of
formal academic testing could originate in differences in
implementation of the original co-operative learning
programme.
160
Peer acceptance method
Examining peer acceptance of students with learning
difficulties both before and after a co-operative learning
intervention is another evaluation method which has been
frequently used. Along with evaluating the co-operative
learning programme using observation, Nixon (1999)
evaluated her programme using peer acceptance measures.
Analysis of pre-test and post-test interviews revealed that,
while the intervention failed to produce significant changes
in peer perceptions of target children, it did produce
positive changes in peer perceptions of children in general
in the classroom (both typically developing peers and target
children). Nixon argued that it may have been the short
length of her intervention that failed to lead to positive
results. In addition, she suggested that a possible ceiling
effect may have been in place as scores on peer attitude
scale we re high initially prior to implementation of
co-operative learning.
In contrast, Piercy et al. (2002), who only used a ten-week
co-operative learning intervention with six children with
learning difficulties and 45 typically developing peers,
found that typically developing children gave special class
children higher peer acceptance ratings, greater popularity
indices and lower social distance ratings following the
intervention. Putman, Markovchick, Johnson and Johnson
(1996) initially questioned the validity of using peer
acceptance measures in such short studies, stating that the
typical duration of co-operative learning programmes was
only three to ten weeks which was an insufficient time to
capture typically developing children’s true acceptance
levels. Consequently they extended their co-operative
learning programme and found that, following an eight-month
co-operative learning intervention, significant positive
changes occurred in peer ratings for both children with
learning difficulties and typically developing children. It
would appear, therefore, that the evaluation method of peer
ratings of students with learning difficulties has produced
positive results but not always consistently so when the
intervention is short (lasting for weeks as opposed to
months). In addition, measuring peer acceptance over a
short period of time can be questioned. Kleck (1966) found
that people who do not have disabilities are overly friendly
in their initial encounters with people with disabilities,
suggesting that a follow-up intervention is really required to
assess peer acceptance levels accurately.
Evaluation of efficacy using teacher interviews
Qualitative structured and semi-structured interviews have
been the most popular means of enabling teachers to
evaluate co-operative learning programmes in recent years.
These interviews are generally used to derive judgements
about the programmes’ benefits and efficacy. While their
primary evaluation method was observation, O’Connor and
Jenkins (1996) also probed teachers on their rationale for
using co-operative learning, their goals for students and their
perceptions of the effectiveness of co-operative learning
using a semi-structured interview. Analyses of their reports
revealed that differences in classroom practices contributed
to the success levels of co-operative learning interventions.
British Journal of Special Education • Volume 32 • Number 3 • 2005
© NASEN 2005
More specifically, teachers reported that selection of
partners, teacher monitoring and the establishment of a
co-operative ethic was related to successful co-operative
learning.
Perhaps the most comprehensive and recent teacher
evaluation was that conducted by Jenkins, Antil, Wayne and
Vadasy (2003), as their study was based on an analysis of
how 21 teachers perceived co-operative learning to work
with students with special educational needs. These authors
used a semi-structured interview to seek information on
teachers’ current use of co-operative learning; their
judgements about its benefits and efficacy; the participation
of students in co-operative learning activities; and any
modifications teachers created for students with special
educational needs. Teachers were generally positive about
co-operative learning’s efficacy for students with learning
problems, with all 21 teachers ranking co-operative learning
as more effective than other instructional approaches. The
three most frequently cited benefits of co-operative learning
for students with learning difficulties, each mentioned by
more than half of the respondents (52%), were increased
self-esteem; the security that comes from being part of a
group; and higher success rates and/or better products.
While academic benefits were mentioned, they were cited
less frequently than social benefits. Thirty-three percent of
respondents stated that co-operative learning resulted in
better learning for students with special educational needs.
Consumer satisfaction surveys offer an alternative to
qualitative interviews as a means of evaluation but appear
to be less frequently used. Dugan et al. (1995) used such an
approach to evaluate the co-operative programme they
implemented with students with special educational needs.
Their survey consisted of 13 items on a Likert scale which
referred to implementation, activities and results. The teacher
and paraprofessional involved agreed that co-operative
learning groups were easy to implement and manage and
that students benefited both academically and socially.
Evaluation of efficacy using target child reports
Two studies used self-reports from the children with
learning difficulties as part of their evaluation procedure of
co-operative learning (Nixon, 1999; Putman et al., 1996).
Interviews of either a structured or semi-structured format
were administered to the children with learning difficulties
in both cases. In Putman et al.’s (1996) study, 74% of the
students with special educational needs reported that they
liked working in the co-operative groups; 13% were
unsure about co-operative learning; and 13% did not like
working co-operatively. The three target children with
ADHD in Nixon’s study reported that working as part of a
co-operative learning group had been a positive experience
for them.
It can be concluded from this review of the efficacy of
co-operative learning for students with learning difficulties
that the aggregated results from a number of studies are
unambiguous both in terms of social and academic benefits.
A template outlining details of six of the most recent and
© NASEN 2005
comprehensive empirical studies which have been
conducted in this area are presented in Table 1. It has
emerged that the presence of certain factors will lead to a
higher likelihood of successful outcome in co-operative
learning programmes. These factors have been outlined in
the following section.
Factors contributing to the successful implementation of
co-operative learning
Co-operative learning can be implemented in a structured
or an unstructured way (Jenkins & O’Connor, 2003).
Structured co-operative learning occurs when students are
taught specific strategies as to how to interact. Unstructured
co-operative learning occurs when children are guided
but not taught specific interaction strategies. The use of
social skills training is incorporated within a structured
co-operative learning approach. It is proposed that social
skills should be taught to all children using the following
steps: the skill should be identified by naming it and
d e fining it; the importance of the skill should be
explained; the skill should be demonstrated; the children
should be reminded to used the skill during the day’s
activities; feedback should be given to the children on
how they are co-operating; and, at the end of the session,
children should reflect on their use of the skill and set future
goals (Spenciner & Putman, 1998; Johnson, Johnson &
Holubec, 1993). Only one study could be located within the
review which referred specifically to the use of
reinforcement within an intervention. Dugan et al. (1995)
provided reinforcement by using a sticker chart for each
group. When groups demonstrated the appropriate use of
social skills, stars were placed on the group chart under the
specific skill column. Nixon (1999) used a token economy
system in conjunction with a co-operative learning
intervention. The reward system was not therefore part of
the co-operative learning intervention but a separate
intervention in and of itself. Tokens were awarded to
children based on the group’s performance on their
worksheet. These tokens could later be exchanged for
privileges.
According to the six empirical studies outlined in Table 1,
co-operative learning sessions appear to be on average 40
minutes in duration and are generally conducted at least
twice a week. Academic materials similar to those used in
traditional classes are used in conjunction with materials
more specific to co-operative learning. Nixon (1999)
suggests that daily use of group worksheets and group
evaluation sheets are essential to the implementation of
co-operative learning.
Studies of the benefits of co-operative learning for children
with learning difficulties have conclusively suggested that
the manner in which co-operative learning is implemented
will determine whether it is successful or not:
‘Co-operative learning is a blunt instrument that,
depending on its form and implementation, may or
may not help students with learning difficulties.’
(Jenkins & O’Connor, 2003, p. 428)
British Journal of Special Education • Volume 32 • Number 3 • 2005
161
Table 1: Empirical studies on co-oper ative learning
Study
Participant(s)
Design
Evaluation Procedure(s)
Outcome
Kamps et al.
(1989)
One student
with autism
(8 years old)
ABAB design
3-week baseline
4-week intervention
3-week baseline
8-week intervention
3 x 30-minute co-operative learning
sessions per week
1. Weekly quizzes
2. Observation of academic
engagement
3. Observation of social
engagement
4. Teacher satisfaction survey
1. Higher academic test scores
2. Increased academic and social engagement
3. Teachers expressed moderate/high satisfaction
15 peers
Dugan et al.
(1995)
Two students
with autism
(9 and 10 years
old)
16 peers
ABAB design
2-week baseline
3-week intervention
2-week baseline
5-week intervention
4 x 40-minute co-operative
learning classes per condition
1. Weekly academic pre-tests
and post-tests
2. Observation of academic and
social engagement
3. Teacher consumer
satisfaction survey
1. Higher academic test scores
2. Increased academic and social engagement
3. Teachers reported students benefited
academically and socially
O’Connor
& Jenkins
(1996)
22 children
with mild
disabilities and
12 mainstream
children
(8–10 years)
2-year longitudinal study:
3-month co-operative learning
intervention in both years
1. Qualitative participation
in groups
2. Teacher interview on
co-operative learning
1. 40% of students with disabilities
successfully participated in groups
2. Teachers identified partnerships
and group monitoring as effective
Putman et al.
(1996)
417 regular
education
students and
41 students
with SEN
(11–15 years)
Respond measures across 3
co-operative learning groups
and 2 comparison groups over
8-month period
1. Pre and Post Peer
Acceptance Scale
2. Target students completed
a structured interview
1. Increased peer ratings for children in
co-operative learning group
2. 74% of students with learning difficulties
report liking working in co-operative
learning group
Nixon
(1999)
Three children
with ADHD
(10–12 years)
Repeated measures
1. Observation of social and
Observation over 6 to 8-week
academic engagement
co-operative learning programme 2. Peer Acceptance Measures
3. Teacher and target child
interview
1. Increased social and academic engagement
2. No increase in peer acceptance levels of
target child
3. Teachers and children positive about
co-operative learning
Piercy et al.
(2002)
Six children
moderate/severe
intellectual
disabilities
(6–8 years)
and 45 peers
Repeated measures over
10-week period administered
to (i) children in co-operative
learning programme (ii) social
contact group only and
(iii) no contact group
1. Higher peer acceptance r atings for
co-operative learning group only
2. More frequent social interactions postintervention for those in co-oper ative
learning programme
Three Peer Acceptance
Measures Observation of
social interaction of target
children
1. Peer acceptance measures
2. 10-minute observation of
each child during one-hour
free choice activity before
and after intervention
Literature re fe rring specifically to the effectiveness of
co-operative learning for children with learning difficulties
has identified a number of subcomponents that appear to be
essential to successful implementation.
O’Connor and Jenkins (1996), in their study of co-operative
learning, found certain classroom practices were related to
successful co-operative learning experiences for students
with disabilities. Practices common to more effective
groups involved the formation of partnerships, teaching
co-operative behaviours and monitoring group functioning
during co-operative activities. In particular, two practices
seemed to disrupt group functioning and dissolve
interdependence: adult assistance and modifying
assignments. In several cases, O’Connor and Jenkins
observed adults, most noticeably teaching assistants,
joining the co-operative learning groups. When this
occurred, it invariably altered the character of the group’s
participation. Sometimes the adult directed the student’s
work and sometimes the adult assumed the role of group
leader. They found that students with disabilities usually
worked with more sustained effort and made more effective
contributions to groups when their assignments matched
those of their peers. In a later study, Jenkins et al. (2003)
reported that all but two of 21 teachers interviewed described
162
making some adjustments. A list of recommendations for
teachers aimed at facilitating the performance of students
with special educational needs is set out in Table 2.
Selecting suitable work partners was the most common
adjustment mentioned. According to a ‘safe and responsive
schools’ publication, co-operative group composition and
group interaction processes have been found to impact upon
the success or failure of co-operative learning groups.
Teachers should provide the g roups with initial training on
co-operative learning procedures as well as group social
skills. Teachers should continue to provide ongoing
monitoring and re i n fo rcement to the students for
implementing the procedures, although Dugan et al. (1995)
and Nixon (1999) are the only two authors from the six
studies listed in Table 1 who specify the importance of
monitoring and reinforcement.
The elements of co-operative learning which are and are not
implemented also influence outcome. It was revealed by
Antil et al. (1998), in their review of how 21 teachers
conceptualised and implemented co-operative learning, that
many teachers failed to implement even the most basic of
elements such as creating individual accountability and
evaluating group processes. According to these authors,
there are discrepancies between co-operative learning
British Journal of Special Education • Volume 32 • Number 3 • 2005
© NASEN 2005
practices described by teachers and the approaches
advocated by co-operative learning researchers. It is
impossible to conclude whether an intervention is
successful or not when it has not been implemented
correctly in the first place. None of the recent six empirical
studies outlined in Table 1 incorporated teacher training as
to how to implement co-operative learning. According to
Walters (2002), models of co-operative learning that
promote its two key components – independent work and
individual accountability – are consistently found to lead to
gains in achievement. According to Slavin (1995), 37 of 44
studies comparing traditional instruction with co-operative
learning methods which included these two elements found
significantly positive effects. Only four of 23 studies of
co-operative learning methods lacking group goals and
individual accountability found positive effects for student
achievement. According to Dugan et al. (1995), in their
study of children with autism, several characteristics of
co-operative learning groups as an intervention package
may be important to their success including:
•
•
•
•
•
structured tasks, worksheet activities and research projects;
a relatively small class size with adults providing
continuous monitoring of small groups;
heterogeneous groups;
frequent individual quizzes to check students’ learning;
reinforcement of social skills for each group
throughout the programme.
Table 2: Recommendations for implementation of
co-operative learning
Positives
Negatives
Ensure basic elements are included:
(i) interdependence
(ii) individual accountability
(iii) evaluation of group work
Implementation of a co-operative
learning lesson without including
essential elements.
At the outset make out a written plan. Implementation of a co-operative
learning lesson without a written
plan of how to implement each
element in a step-by-step format.
Define in a step-by-step manner
Using a generic co-operative learning
how to implement essential elements plan for all lessons.
in a practical way.
Make out new co-operative learning
plans for each topic/lesson.
Implementation of a lesson without
equipping children with necessary
co-operative learning social skills.
Select suitable work partners for
target children.
Intervention and providing too much
assistance. While monitoring is
important, intervention alters group
participation.
Ensure children are initially taught
co-operative learning social skills.
Trying to change an assignment of
the target student.
Provide ongoing monitoring and
reinforcement for use of social skills.
Ensure the intervention is sufficiently
long – failure to develop maturity
will lead to reduced effectiveness.
Intervention needs to be sufficiently
long. The group must be allowed
to mature.
Teachers should be trained as to how
to implement all the essential
elements of co-operative learning.
© NASEN 2005
According to Johnson and Johnson (1994), there are
conditions under which co-operative learning groups function
effectively and conditions under which groups function
ineffectively. One of the obstacles to effective functioning
which they outline suggests that temporary, ad hoc groups
usually do not develop enough maturity to function with
full effectiveness. It also appears that if a group is to achieve
a deep level of understanding then a number of potential
answers should be considered and a decision should then be
made rather than relying on one dominant response.
Furthermore ‘social loafing’ can occur when one member
works less hard than the rest. Finally ‘free-riding’ occurs
when a group member feels group success depends very
little on them and so they make little effort.
Conclusion
Results on the efficacy of co-operative learning vary greatly
depending on the variables assessed and the type of
evaluation procedure used. Reviews of formal academic
assessments have reported the least positive results. In
contrast, observation studies in which social and academic
behaviours have been defined and then measured
quantitatively have produced the most positive results. This
review would suggest that, to ensure a comprehensive evaluation
of a co-operative learning programme, a multi-component
evaluation procedure should be used. Pre-test and post-test
observation of social and academic behaviours; pre-test and
post-test administration of peer acceptance measures; post-test
teacher interviews or consumer satisfaction surveys; and
post-test interviews with target students should all form part
of a compre h e n s ive eva l u ation of any co-operat ive
learning programme. The manner in which co-operative
learning programmes have been implemented vary
enormously. This variation has lead to difficulties in
d rawing definite conclusions about the effi c a cy of
co-operative learning for students with learning difficulties.
Teacher training is therefore an important prerequisite to the
implementation of a co-operative learning programme. With
such a large difference between the models implemented by
teachers and those proposed by researchers, an important
recommendation is that teachers should rehearse strategies
fi rst based on the advice outlined in Table 2. Th o s e
co-operative learning interventions that have been
researched have generally been short, on average three to
ten weeks in duration. Co-operative learning is often
implemented as part of a multi-component intervention. It
is very difficult to decipher the exact effects of co-operative
learning, when other interventions have been implemented
simultaneously. Future studies should therefore ensure that
co-operative learning is implemented properly: ensuring
that essential elements, such as creating interdependence
and individual accountability, are in place; that the
intervention is implemented for as long a time period as
possible; and that the intervention is implemented as a sole
intervention where possible. Empirical researchers to date
fail sufficiently to describe the exact types of co-operative
learning intervention strategies they implemented or how
they went about implementing them. This is essential if the
effectiveness of the various models and their critical
components is to be usefully compared.
British Journal of Special Education • Volume 32 • Number 3 • 2005
163
References
Antil, L. R., Jenkins, J. R., Wayne, S. K. & Vadasy, P. F.
(1998) ‘Cooperative learning: prevalence,
conceptualisations, and the relation between research
and practice’, American Educational Research Journal,
35 (3), 419–454.
Dugan, E., Kamps, D., Leonard, B., Watkins, N.,
Rheninberger, A. & Stackhaus, J. (1995) ‘Effects of
cooperative learning groups during social studies for
students with autism and fourth-grade peers’, Journal
of Applied Behaviour Analysis, 28 (2), 175–188.
Jenkins, J. R., Antil, L. R., Wayne, S. K. & Vadasy, P. F.
(2003) ‘How cooperative learning works for special
education and remedial students’, Exceptional
Children, 69 (3), 279–292.
Jenkins, J. R. & O’Connor, R. E. (2003) ‘Cooperative
learning for students with learning disabilities:
evidence from experiments, observations, and
interviews’, in S. Graham, K. Harris & L. Swanson
(eds) Handbook of Learning Disabilities. New York:
Guilford.
Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (1994) Learning
Together and Alone: cooperative, competitive and
individualistic learning. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. & Holubec, E. (1993) Circles
of Learning: cooperation in the classroom (fourth
edition). Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
Kagan, S. (1998) ‘New Cooperative Learning, Multiple
Intelligences and Inclusion’, in J. W. Putman (ed.)
Cooperative Learning and Strategies for Inclusion.
London: Brookes.
Kagan, S. (1990) ‘The structural approach to cooperative
learning’, Educational Leadership, 47 (4), 12–15.
Kamps, D. M., Leonard, B., Potucek, J. & Harell-Garrison, L.
(1989) ‘Cooperative learning groups in reading: an
integration strategy for students with autism and
general classroom peers’, Behavioural Disorders, 21
(1), 89–109.
Kleck, R. (1966) ‘Emotional arousal in interactions with
stigmatized persons’, Psychological Reports, 19 (3),
1226–1250.
Koegel, L. K., Koegel, R. L. & Dunlap, G. (2001) Positive
Behavioural Support: including people with difficult
behaviour in the community. Baltimore: Paul H.
Brookes Publishers.
Madden, N. A. & Slavin, R. E. (1983) ‘Mainstreaming
students with mild handicaps: academic and social
outcomes’, Review of Educational Research, 53,
519–569.
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.
164
Mercer, C. D. & Mercer, A. R. (1998) Teaching Students
with Learning Problems (fifth edition). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Nixon, E. (1999) ‘A classroom-based intervention for
children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder:
effects on social and on-task behaviour and self-esteem’.
Thesis submitted for M.Lit degree, University College
Dublin, Dublin.
O’Connor, R. E. & Jenkins, J. R. (1996) ‘Cooperative
learning as an inclusion strategy: a closer look’,
Exceptionality, 6 (1), 29–51.
Piercy, M., Wilton, K. & Townsend, M. (2002) ‘Promoting
the social acceptance of young children with
moderate-severe intellectual disabilities using
cooperative-learning techniques’, American Journal of
Mental Retardation, 107 (5), 352–360.
Putman, J. (1997) Cooperative Learning in Diverse
Classrooms. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Putman, J. (1998) Cooperative Learning and Strategies for
Inclusion. London: Brookes.
Putman, J., Markovchick, K., Johnson, D. W. &
Johnson, R. T. (1996) ‘Cooperative learning and peer
acceptance of students with learning disabilities’, The
Journal of Social Psychology, 136 (6), 741–752.
Slavin, R. E. (1995) Cooperative Learning. Needham
Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Spenciner, L. J. & Putman, J. W. (1998) ‘Supporting
young children’s development through cooperative
activities’, in J. W. Putman (ed.) Cooperative Learning
and Strategies for Inclusion. London: Brookes.
Tateyama-Sniezek, K. M. (1990) ‘Cooperative learning:
does it improve the academic achievement of students
with handicaps?’ Exceptional Children, 56 (5),
426–437.
Walters, E. (2002) ‘An investigation of co-operative
learning in mainstream classrooms for young children.’
Paper presented to the University of Dublin Department
of Psychology Study Day, 19 October 2002.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978) Mind in Society: the development
of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Address for correspondence
Ian Grey
Department of Psychology
Trinity College
Dublin
Email: igrey@tcd.ie
Manuscript submitted: December 2003
Accepted for publication: October 2004
British Journal of Special Education • Volume 32 • Number 3 • 2005
© NASEN 2005