Slavin 1987

download Slavin 1987

of 8

Embed Size (px)

Transcript of Slavin 1987

  • 7/27/2019 Slavin 1987


    R O B E R T E . S L A V I N

    Cooperative Learning and theCooperative SchoolThe availability of models that can be used inmath, reading, and writing at every grade levelhas made it possible to plan an elementaryschool around the concept of everyone's workingtogether to improve all aspects of the school.

    T he A ge of Cooperation isproaching. From Alaska to Cafornia to Florida to New Yofrom Australia to Britain to NorwayIsrael, teachers and administrators adiscovering an untapped resourceaccelerating students' achievemethe students themselves. There is nosubstantial evidence that studeworking together in small cooperatigroups ca n master material presentby the teacher better than can studeworking on their own.The idea that people workinggether toward a common goal caccomplish more than people woing by themselves is a well-establishprinciple of social psychology. Whane w is that practical cooperative leaing strategies for classroom use habeen developed, researched, afound to be instructionally effectiveelementary and secondary schooOnce thought of primarily as socmethods directed at social goals, ctain forms of cooperative learning aconsiderably more effective than trational methods in increasing baachievement outcomes, including pformance on standardized testsmathematics, reading, and langua(Slavin 1983a. b; Slavin in press a) .

  • 7/27/2019 Slavin 1987


    "There is nowsubstantial evidencethat studentsworking together insmall cooperativegroups can mastermaterial... betterthan can studentsworking on theirown."

    Recently, a small but growing number of elementary and secondaryschools have begun to apply cooperative principles at the school as well asthe classroom level, involving teachersin cooperative planning, peer coaching, an d te am teaching, with theseactivities directed toward effective implementation of cooperative learningin the classroom. Many of theseschools are working toward institu-tion alization of cooperative principlesas th e focus of school renewal.This article reviews the research oncooperative learning methods andpresents a vision of the next step in theprogression of cooperative learning:the cooperative school.What Is Cooperative LearningandW hy Does It Work?Cooperative learning refers to a se t ofinstructional methods in which students work in small, mixed-abilitylearning gro ups. (See p. 1 1 for a vignette about one day in th e life of a

    hypothetical cooperative school.) T hegroups usually ha ve four membersone highachiever, tw o average achievers, and one lo w achiever. The st udents in each group are responsiblenot only fo r learning the material bein g taught in class, but also for helpingtheir groupmates leam. Often, there issome son of groupgoal. For example,in the Student Team Learn in g methodsdeveloped at Johns Hopkins University(Slavin 1986), studentscan earn attractive certificates if group averages exceed a pre-established criterion ofexcel lence.Fo r example, the simplest form ofStudent Team Learning, called Stu dentTeams-Achievement Division (S TAD) ,consists of a regular cycle of activities.First, the teacher presents a lesson tothe class. Then students , in their four-member mixed-ability team s, work tomaster the material. Students usuallyhave worksheets or other materials;study strategies within the teams depend on the subject matter. In math,

    Students, like te achers, learn by explaining a lesson. When students have to organize their thoughts to communicate ideas to teammates, theyengage in cognitive elaboration that enhances their own understandingE D U C A T I O N A L L E A D E R S H I P

  • 7/27/2019 Slavin 1987


    students might work problems andthen compare answers, discussing andresolving any discrepancies. In spelling, students might drill one anotheron spelling lists. In social studies, students might work together to findinformation in the text relating to keyconcepts. Regardless of the subjectmatter, students are encouraged notjust to give answers but to explainideas or skills to one another.

    A t the end of the team study period,students take brief individual quizzes,on which they cannot help one another. Teachers su m the results of thequizzes to form team scores, using asystem that assigns points based onho w much individual students haveimproved over their ow n past records.Th e changes in classroom organization required by STAD are not revolutionary. To review the process, theteacher presents the initial lesson as intraditional instruction. Students thenwork on worksheets or other practiceactivities; they happen to work inteams, but otherwise the idea of practice following instruction is hardlynew. Finally, students take a brief,individual quiz.

    Yet, even though changes in classroom organization are moderate, theeffects of cooperative learning on students ca n be profound. Because onestudent's success in the traditionalclassroom makes it more difficult fo rothers to succeed (by raising the curveor raising the teacher's expectations),working hard on academic tasks ca ncause a student to be labeled as a"nerd" or a "teacher's pet." For thisreason, students often express normsto one another that discourage academic work. In contrast, when students are working together toward acommon goal, academic work becomes an activity valued by peers. Justas hard work in sports is valued bypeers because a team member's su ccess brings credit to the team an d theschool, so academic work is valued bypeers in cooperative learning classesbecause it helps the team to succeed.In addition to motivating students todo their best, cooperative learningalso motivates students to help oneanother learn. This is important fo rseveral reasons. First, students are of

    ten able to translate the teacher's language into "kid language" for oneanother. Students who fail to graspfully a concept the teacher ha s presented can often profit from discussin g the concept with peers who arewrestling with the same questions.Second, students who explain toone another learn by doing so. Everyteacher knows that w e learn by teaching. When students have to organizetheir thoughts to explain ideas toteammates, they must engage in cognitive elaboration that greatly enhancestheir ow n understanding (see Danser-eau 1985).Third, students ca n provide individual attention an d assistance to oneanother. Because they work one-on-one, students ca n do an excellent jobof finding out whether their peershave the idea or need additional explanation. In a traditional classroom,students who don't understand what isgoing on ca n scrunch down in theirseats an d hope the teacher won't callon them. In a cooperative team, thereis nowhere to hide; there is a helpful,nonthreatening environment in whichto try out ideas and ask fo r assistance.A student who gives an answer in awhole-class lesson risks being laughedat if the answer is wrong; in a cooperative team, the fact that the team has a"we're all in this together" attitudemeans that, when they don't understand, students are likely to receivehelp rather than derision.

    "Students are oftenable to translate theteacher's languageinto 'kid language'for one another."

    Under W h a t ConditionsIs Cooperative LearningEffect ive?Cooperative learning is always fun; italmost always produces gains in socialoutcomes such as race relations; an d itha s never been found to reduce student achievement in comparison totraditional methods. However, a substantial body of research ha s established that two conditions must befulfilled if cooperative learning is toenhance student achievement substantially. First, students must be workingtoward a group goal, such as earningcertificates or some other recognition.Second, success at achieving this goalmust depend on the individual learning of all group members (see Slavin1983a, b; in press a) .

    Simply putting students into mixed-ability groups an d encouraging themto work together are not enough toproduce learning gains: students musthave a reason to take one another'sachievement seriously, to provide oneanother with the elaborated explanations that are critical to the achievement effects of cooperative learning(see Webb 1985). If students careabout the success of the team, it becomes legitimate for them to ask oneanother fo r help an d to provide helpto each other. Without this team goal,students may feel ashamed to askpeers fo r help.

    Yet team goals are no t enough inthemselves to enhance studentachievement. For example, classroomstudies in which students complete acommon worksheet or project haveno t found achievement benefits forsuch methods.. W hen the group task isto complete a single product, it may bemost efficient to le t the smartest orhighest achieving students do most ofthe work. Suggestions or questionsfrom lower-achieving students may beignored or pushed aside, as they mayinterfere with efficient completion ofthe group task. W e ca n al l recall beingin lab groups in science class or inproject groups in social studies inwhich one or tw o group members didal l the work. To enhance the achievement of all students, then, group su ccess must be based not on a single

    N O V E M B E R 1987

  • 7/27/2019 Slavin 1987


    group product , bu t on the sum ofindividual learning perform ances ofall group members.T he group's task in in structionallyeffective forms of cooperative learningis almost alw ay s to prepare groupm em bers to succeed on individualassessments. This focuses th e groupactivity on ex plaining ideas, practicingsk ills, an d as sessin g al l group m em bers to ensure th at all will be successfu l on learning assessments.W he n cooperative learn ing methods provide group goals based on thelea rning of a ll m embers, the effectsonstudent ac hievement are remarkab ly

    consistent. Of 38 studies of at leastfour weeks' durationcomparingcooperative m ethods of th is type to traditional control m ethods, 33 foun d s ignificantly gre ater a chievement fo r th ecooperatively taught classes, and 5found no significant differe nces (Sla-vin in press a). In contrast , only 4 of 20studies that evaluated fo rm s of coopera tive learning lackin g group goalsba sed on group members ' learningfound positive achievement effects ,an d 3 of these are stu die s by Shlom oSharan an dhi s colleagues in Israel thatincorporate d group goals an d individua l accountabilit y in a dif ferent w ay (see Sharan et al. 1980, Sharan et al .1 98 4).Successful studies of cooperativele arning have taken place in urban,rural, and suburban schools in th eU.S ., Canada , I sra el, West G ermany,an d N ig eria, at grade levels from 2 to 12,and in subject s as diverse as m athematics, language arts, writ ing, reading,social studies, and science. Positiveeffects havebeen foundonsuch higher-order objectivesas creative w riting,reading compre hension, and mathproblem solving, as well as on suchbasic sk ills objectives as la nguage m ech anics, math computations, and spelling. In general, ac hievement effectshav e been equivalent fo r high, aver-ag e, and lo w achievers, fo r boys andgi rls, and fo r studentsof various eth nicbackgrounds. A s noted earlier, posi tive eff ects of co op erative learningha ve also been found on suc h outcomes as race relations, ac cep tance ofm ainstreamed academically handi-capped classmate s, and stu den t self-

    "In a cooperativeteam, there isnowhere to hide;thereis a helpful,nonthreateningenvironment inwhich to tryoutideas and askforassistance."esteem an d liking of cl a ss (see S lavin1 9 8 3a) .Comprehensive CooperativeLearning MethodsT he cooperative learning methodsdeveloped in th e1970s Student Teams-Achievement Divisions an d Tea ms- :Gam es-Tournam ents (Slav in 1986) ;Jigsaw Teaching (Aronson et al. 1 978) ;the Johnsons' methods (Johnson andJohnson 1986) ; an d Group In vestigation (S hara n et al., 1984)- all are ge-.ner ic forms of cooperative le arning.They canbe used at m any grade le vel san d in m anysubjects. The broad applicability of these m ethods partly accounts fo r their popula rity. A one - or:tw o-day workshop given to a mixedgroup of elementary and se co ndaryteachers of m any subjects ca n getteachers off to a good start in m ost ofthe methods, which m akes this an ideal fo cu s of staff developm ent.However , because the early coopera ti ve learning methods ar e generallyapplicable across gradele vels and sub je cts , th ey te nd not to be uniquelyad apted to any particular subject orgrade le vel. Al so , the methods developed earlier are mostly cu rriculum-free; they rarely replace traditionaltexts or te aching approaches. A s aresult, these methods are m ost oftenap plied as supplem ent s to tr ad it ionalin struction an d rarely br ing about fu ndamental change in classroompractice.

    Since 1 980, re se arch and develoment on cooperativ e learning coducted at Johns Hopkins U nivershasbegun to focus on comprehensicooperative le arning methods dsigned to replace traditional instrti on entirely i n particular subjects aa t particular grade levels . Tw o m aprograms ofth is type ha ve bee n devoped and successfully researcheTeam A cc elerated In st ruction (T AI)m athematics fo r grades 3-6, and Coperativ e Integrated Reading aC om position (C IR C) in read ing, wing, and languag e arts fo r grades 3The m ain elements of these prograare described below .Team Acc eleratedInstruction (T ATea m A ccelerated Instruction shawith S T A D an d th e oth er StudeTea m Learning methods th e usefour-mem be r mixed-ability learniteam s and certificate s for high -pformingteams. But w here STA D usesingle pace of instruction fo rth eclaT A I combines cooperative learniwith in dividualized in struction. T A Idesigned to teach m athematics to sden's in grades 3-6 (or older studenot toady fo r a ful l algebra course)In TAI, stu dents enter an individuized sequence according to a plam ent test and then proceed a t thow n ra tes . In ge neral, team m embework on different units. Teamm acheck ea ch oth er's work against asw er sh eets andhelp one another wan y problem s. Final un it tests are taen w ithout teammate help and ascored b y student m onitors. Eaw eek, teachers total th e numberunits co m pleted by a ll team m embeand give certificates or other rew arto team s that exceed a criterion scobased on the num ber of fina l tepassed, with ex tra points for perfepapers and com pleted ho mew ork.Because students are responsibfo r check ing each other's work am anaging the flow of m aterials, tteache r ca n spend most cla ss timpresenting lessons to small groupsstudents drawn from th evarious teamwho are working at thesam e pointth e m athematics sequence. For exaple, the teacher might call up a demals group , present a lesson, and thse nd th e student s back to th eir tea

  • 7/27/2019 Slavin 1987


    to work on decimal problems. Thenthe teacher might call the fractionsgroup, an d so on.In TAI, students encourage an d help>ne another to succeed because theywant their teams to succeed. Inclividual accountability is assured becausethe only score that counts is the finaltest score, and students take final testswithout teammate help. Students haveequal opportunities for success because all have been placed accordingto their level of prior knowledge; i t isas easy (or difficult) fo r a low achieverto complete three subtraction units ina week as i t is fo r a higher achievingclassmate to complete three long division units.However, th e individualization thatis part of TA I makes it quite differentfrom STAD In mathematics, most concepts build on earlier ones. If th eearlier concepts were no t mastered,th e later ones will be difficult or impossible to learn a student who canno t subtract or multiply will fail tomaster long division, a student whodoes no t understand fractional con-cepts will fail to understand what adecimal is, an d so on . In TAI. studentswork at their ow n levels, so if they lackprerequisite skills they can build astrong foundation before going on .Also, if students can learn more rapid-Is , they need not wait for the rest ofthe class.Individualized mathematics instruction ha s generally failed to increasestudent mathematics achievement inth e past (see Horak 1981), probablybecause the teacher's time in earliermodels was entirely taken up withchecking work an d managing materials, leaving little time for actuallyteaching students. In TAI, studentshandle the routine checking and management, so the teacher can spendmost class time teaching. This difference, plus th e motivation and helpprovided by students within their cooperative teams, probably accounts forthe strong positive effects of TA I onstudent achievementFive of six studies found substantiall y greater learning of mathematicscomputations in TA I than in controlclasses, while one study found no differences (Slavin, Leavey, and Madden

    A Visit to a Cooperative SchoolIt is Friday morning at "Cooper Elementary School." In Ms. Thompson'sgrade, the students a re getting ready fo r reading. They are sitting in teasmall tables, four or five at each table. As th e period begins, M s. Thomcalls up the "Rockets". Pairs of students from several of th e small groups mto a reading group area, while the remaining students continue workintheir desks. In M s. Thompson's class th e students a t their desks a re wortogether on activities quite different from the usual workbooks. Theytaking turns reading aloud to each other; working together to identify

    characters, settings, problems, a nd problem solutions in stories; practivocabulary a nd spelling,- and summarizing stories to one another. WhenThompson finishes with the Rockets, they return to their groups a nd beworking together on th e same types of activities. Ms. Thompson listens insome o f t he students w ho are reading to each other a nd praises teams thatworking well. Then sh e calls up the "Astros," who leave their teams to goth e reading group.Meanwhile, in M r, Fisher's fifth-grade, it is math period. Again, studentsworking in small teams, bu t in math, each team member is workingdifferent materials depending on his or her performance level. In th e teastudents a re checking one another's work against answer sheets, explainproblems to one another, and answering each other's questions. M r. Fiscalls up th e "Decimals" group fo r a lesson. Students working on decimleave their teams a nd move to the group area fo r their lesson. When th e less

    i s over, the students return to their teams a nd continue working on decimalIn M r. Fisher's class there are five learning disabled students, who adistributed among the various teams. The special education resource teacheM s. Walters, is teaming with Mr. Fisher. While he i s giving lessons, shemoving through the class helping students. At other times, Ms. Walters givmath lessons to groups of students who a re having difficulties in matincluding her five LD students, while Mr. Fisher works with students in theteam areas.

    In M r. Green's fourth-grade class it is writing time. M r. Green starts thperiod with a brief lesson on "an d d isease," the tendency to write lonsentences connected by too many "ands." The n th e students work oncompositions in teams. They cooperatively plan what they will write and thend o a draft. The students read their drafts to their teammates and receivfeedback on what their teammates heard, what they liked, a nd what theywanted to hear more about . After revising their drafts, students hold editingconferences with teammates focusing on th e mechanics of the com position.While th e students are writing, Mr. Green is moving from team to team,listening in on what they are saying to each other a nd conferencing withindividual students to help them. Also in th e class i s M s. Hill, another fourth-grade teacher. Sh e a nd Mr. Green began using writing process methods a t th esame t ime a nd are coaching each other a s they us e them in their classes. At th een d of th e d ay th e tw o teachers will meet to discuss what ha ppened, a nd toplan th e next steps jointly. On other days, a substitute will cover Mr. Green'sclass while he visits M s. Hill's writing class.All over Cooper Elementary School, students are working in cooperativeteams, and teachers are working together cooperatively to help students learn.In th e first grades, students are working in pairs taking turns reading to eachother. In th e sixth grades students are doing team science projects in whicheach team member i s responsible fo r a part of th e team's task. Second-gradersa re working in teams to master capitalization and punctuation rules.

    At the en d of th e day , teachers award certificates to teams that d idoutstanding work that week. Those teams that m et th e highest standards ofexcellence receive "Superteam" certificates. Throughout the school th esounds of applause ca n be heard.After the students have gone home, the school steering committee meets.Chaired by the principal, the committee includes representatives of teachers atseveral grade levels, plus tw o parent representatives. The committee discussesth e progress they a re making toward their goal of becoming a cooperativeschool. Among other things, the committee decides to hold a school fair toshow what the school is doing, to display th e students' terrific cooperativework in writing, science, and math; and to encourage parents to volunteer atth e school and to support their children's success at home.

    Robert E . SlavinN O V K M H E K 1987

  • 7/27/2019 Slavin 1987


    1984; Slavin. Madden, and Leavey1984; Slavin and Karweit 1985). Acrossall six studies, th e T A 1 classes gainedan average of twice as many gradeequivalents on standardized measuresof computation as traditionally taugh tcontrol cla sses (Slavin in press b). Forexample, in one 18-wee k study in Wil-mington, Delaware, the control groupgained .6 grade equivalents in mathem atics computations, while the T A Iclasses gained 1.7 grade equivalents(Slavin and Karweit 1985). These expe rimental-control differences werestill substantial (though smaller) a yearaf ter the students were in T AI .Cooperative Integrated Readingand Composition (CIRC ). The newes tof the StudentTeam Learning methodsis a comprehensive program fo r teachin g reading and writing in th e upperelementary grades. In C I R C , teachersuse basal readers and reading groups,much as in traditional reading programs. However, students are assignedto teams composed of pa irs from twodifferent reading groups. While th eteacher is working with one readinggroup, students in th e other groupsar e working in their pairs on a seriesof cog nitively engaging activities, including reading to one another, makin g predictions about ho w narrativ estories will come out; su m marizingstories to one another; writing responses to stories; and practicingspelling, decoding, and vocabulary.Students also work in teams to mastermain idea an d other comprehensionskills. During language arts periods, astructured program based on a writingprocess model is used. Students planand write drafts , revise an d edit oneanother's work, an d prepare fo r publication of team books. Lessons on writing skills such as description, organiza tion, use of vivid modifiers, and onlanguage mechanics skills are fully integrated into students' creativewriting.In most C I R C activities, students fo llow a sequence of teacher instruction,team practice, team pre-assessm ents ,and a quiz. That is , students do nottake the quiz until their t eammateshave determined they are ready. Certificates are given to teams based onth e average performance of all team

    Cooperative /earning lakes place in reading gr oup s uf)en students practice cocahulan 1 u'ordsor summarize stories to one another. -members on all reading and writingactivities. Two studies of C IR C (Ste-vens et al. in press) found substantialpositiv e effects from this method onstandardized tests of reading comprehe nsion, reading vocabulary , languageexpression, language mechanics, andsp elling, in comparison to controlgro ups. The C IR C classes gained 30 to70 percent of a grade equivalent morethancontrol classes on these measuresin both studies. Significantly greaterachievement on writing samples favorin g th e C I R C students was al so foundin both studies.A New PossibilityThe development and su ccessful evaluation of the comprehensive T A I andC I R C models ha s created an excitingnew possibility. With cooperativelearning programs capable of beingused al l year in the 3 Rs, it is nowpossible to design an elementaryschool program based upon a radicalprinciple: students, teachers, and administrators can work cooperatively t om ake the school a better place fo rworking and learning.There are many visions of what acooperative elementary school mightlook like, but there is one model thatm y colleagues and I have begun towork toward in partnership with someinnovative practitioners. It s majorcomponents are as follows.

    1 Cooperative learning in th e classroom. C learly, a cooperative elementary school would hav e cooperativelearning methods in use in most class-r < x > m s and in more than one subject.Students and teachers should feel thatth e idea that students can help oneanother learn is not just applied on

    occasion, but is a fundamental principl e of classroom organization. Students should see one another as resources for learning, an d there shouldbe a schoolwide norm that every student s learning is everyone's responsibility, that every student's success iseveryone's success.

    2 . integration ofspe cia l educationand remedial serviceswith th e regularprogram. I n the cooperative elementary school, mainstreaming should bean essential element of school andclassroom organization . Special education teachers may te am-teach withregular teachers, integrating their students in teams with nonhandicappedstudents and contributing their expertise in adapting instruction to individua l needs to th e class as a wholeSimilarly, Chapter I or other remedialservices should be provided in th eregular classroom. If we take seriouslyth e idea that al l students are responsible fo r one another, this goes as m uchfo r students with learning problems asfo r anyone else Research on use ofT A I and C I R C to facilitate mainstream-in g and meet the needs of remedialreaders has found positive effects onthe achievement and social acceptanceof these students (see Slavin 1984,Slavin et a l. in press).

    3. Peer coaching. I n th e cooperative elementary school, teachersshould be responsible fo r helping oneanother to use cooperat ive learningmethods successfully and to implement other improvements in instructional practice. Peer coaching (Joyce etal. 19 83) is perfectly adapted to th ephilosophy of th e cooperative schoolteachers learn new methods together

    1 2 E D U C A T I O N S L K A D K R S I I I

  • 7/27/2019 Slavin 1987


    and are given release time to visit oneanother's classes to give assistance andexchangeideas as they begin using thenew programs.4 . Cooperative planning. Cooperative activ ities among teachers shouldnot be restricted to peer co ac hing. Inaddition, teachers should be giventime to plan goals an d strategies together, to prepare common librariesof instructional materials, and to makedecisions about cooperative activitiesinvolving more than one cl ass.5 B uilding-level steer ing committee. I n the cooperative elementarysc hool, teachers and administratorsshould work together to determine

    the direction the sch ool takes. A steering committee composed of the principal, classroom teacher representatives, representatives of other staf f(e.g., special education, Chapter I ,aid es) , and one or more parent representatives meets to discuss the progress the school is making toward it sinstruction al goals and to recommendchanges in school policies and practices to achieve these goals.6 Cooperation with parents andcommunity mem be rs. Thecooperative

    school should invite th e participationof parents and community members.Development of a community sensethat children's success in school iseveryone's responsibility is an important goal of the cooperative school.The Cooperative School TodayTo m y knowledge, there is not ye t aschool that is implementing al l of theprogram elements listed here, but afew enterprising and committedschools are moving in this direction.In Bay Shore (New York) School D istrict, teachers in tw o intermediateschool s are using CIRC in reading,writing, an d languag e arts, an d S T A Din math. In Alexandria, Virginia, M t.Vernon Community School is workingwith the National Education A ssociation's Mastery in Learning project tobuilda cooperative sc hool plan. At Mt.Vernon, a building steeringcommitteeis planning an d helping to implementa gradual phasing in of the TA I mathprogram ard CIRC reading, writing,an d language arts programs. Several

    schools throughout the U.S. that havesuccessfully implemented T A I mathare now planning to add CIRC forreading and writing instruction, andare looking to ward full-scale implementation of a cooperative schoolplan. M o s t schools that have focusedschool renewal efforts on widespreaduse of cooperative learning are at th eelementary level; but several middle,junior high, and high schools havebegun to work in this direction aswell.In a time of limited resources fo reducation, we must learn to make thebest use of wha t we have. Cooperativelearning and the cooperative schoolprovide one means of helping students, teachers, and administratorswork together to make meaningfulimprovements in the learning of al lstudents.D

    ReferencesAronson, E ., N . Blane y, C. Stephan.J Sikes,and M Snapp. The Jigsau' ClassroomBeverly Hills, Calif: Sage . 1978.Dansereau, D. F . "Learning Strategy R esearch." In Thinking and LearningSkills. Relating Instruction to Basic Re

    se arch, Vo l 1, edited by J Segal, S .Chipman, and R . Glaser. Hillsdale. N.J . :Erlbaum, 1985 .Horak, V . M "A Meta-analysis of ResearchFindings on Individualized Instructionin Mathematics. " Journalof Educational Research 7 4 (1981); 249-253Johnson, D. W ., and R . T Johnson. Learning Together and Alone. 2d ed. Engle-wood Cliffs, N.J . : Prentice-Hall, 1986.Joyce, B. R ., R H. Hersh, and M . McKibbinThe Structure of School Improvement.New York: Longman , 1983.Sharan, S, R . Hertz-Lazarowitz,and Z . Ack-erman. "Academic Achievement of Elementary School Children in Small-Group vs. Whole Class Instruction"Journal of Experimental Education 48(1980): 125-129.Sharan, S ., P . Kussell, R . Hertz-Lazarowitz,Y . Bejarano, S Raviv, and Y Sharan.Cooperatii'eLearning in the Classroom:Research in Desegregated Schools H ills-dale, N .J : Erlbaum, 1984 .Slavin, R E Cooperatitv Learning NewYork: Longman, 1983a .Slavin, R . E . "W hen Does CooperativeLearnjng Increase Student Achievement?" Psychological Bulletin 9 4(1983b): 429-445.

    Slavin, R . E Team Assisted Indivldualiza-tion: Cooperative Learning and Individualized Instruction in the MainstreamedClassroom." Remedial and Special Education 5 , 6 (1984): 33-42.Slavin, R . E . Using Student Team Learning.3 d ed Baltimore. M d. : Center fo r R esearch on Elementary and MiddleSchoolsjohns Hopkins University, 1986 .Slavin, R . E . "Cooperative Learning: A Best-Evidence Synthesis." In School andClassroom Organization, edited by R E .Slavin Hillsdale. N. J . : Erlbaum Inpress aSlavin, R E . "Combining CooperativeLearning and Individualized Instruction." A riti. 'metic Teacher. Inpress b.Slavin. R . E. and N . L Karweit. "Effects ofWhole-Class, A bility Grouped, and Individualized Instruction on MathematicsAchievement." American EducationalResearch Journal 22 ( 1985 ): 351-367.Slavin, R E ., M Leavey, and N A . Madden."Combining Cooperative Learning andIndividualized Instruction. Effects onStudent Mathematics A chievement, Attitudes, and Behaviors." ElementarySchoolJournal 84 (1 984 ): 409-422Slavin, R E .. N A M adden, and M . Leavey."E ffects of Team Assisted In dividualization on the Mathematics A chievement oAcademically Handicapped and N o n -handicapped Students."/owma/ ofducational Ps ychology 76 (1 984): 813-819.

    Slavin.R . E . R . J. Stevens, and N . A Madden ."Accommodating Student Diversity inReading and Writing Instruction. A Cooperative Learning Approach." Remediaand Special Education I n press.Stevens, R . J, N A M adden, R E . S lavin, andA M Famish. "Cooperative IntegratedReading and Composition: Two FieldExperiments." Reading Research Quarterly. I n pressWebb, N . "Student Interaction andLearnin g in SmallGroups: A Research Summary." In Learning to Cooperate. Cooperating to Learn, edited by R . E Slavin, S .Sharan, S Kagan. R Hertz-Lazarowitz, C.Webb, and R Schmuck. New York: Plenum, 1985Author's note Thi s article wa s writtenunder funding from the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, US Department of Education (Grant No O ER I - G -86-006). However, the opinions expressedare mine and do not necessarily reflecOE R 1 positions or policy.

    Robert E. Slavin i s Director of the El ementary School Program at th e Center fo rResearch on Elementary and MiddleSchoolsjohns Hopkins University, 3505 NCharles St., Baltimore, M D 21218.N O V E M B E R 1987 13

  • 7/27/2019 Slavin 1987


    Copyright 1987 by the Association for Supervision and CurriculumDevelopment. All rights reserved.