Cooperative Learning: Does It Improve the Academic Achievement of Students with Handicaps?
Tateyama-Sniezek, Karen M., Exceptional Children
Cooperative Learning: Does It Improve the Academic Achievement of Students with Handicaps?
Public Law 94-142 mandates that students with mild handicaps spend at least part of the school day mainstreamed into regular education classrooms. This interface of regular and special education requires the identification of techniques and strategies for instructing students with handicaps within the regular classroom. Recently, cooperative learning has been advocated as a technique that promotes positive relationships between handicapped students and nonhandicapped students and assists as handicapped students' academic achievement. D. W. Johnson and R. T. Johnson (1986b) stated that students achieved more in cooperative learning than in competitive or individualistic learning situations and that "this finding held for all age groups, ability levels, subject ages, and learning tasks" (p. 556). This review was conducted to evaluate cooperative learning as a technique to promote the academic competence of handicapped students.
SELECTION OF STUDIES
A number of studies have examined the effects of cooperative learning on achievement. Reviews by Sharan (1980) and Slavin (1983b) reported that cooperative learning methods are superior to traditional classroom methods. Sharan (1980), however, reported that "these gains are not consistent for all groups or on all measures" (p. 255); Slavin (1983b) concluded that achievement gains result only if the cooperative learning methods include group study and group reward for individual learning. In an evaluation of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning methods on productivity and achievement, D. W. Johnson, Maruyama, Johnson, Nelson, and Skon (1981) concluded that cooperative learning is superior to other goal structures in promoting achievement and productivity: "Educators may wish to considerably increase the use of cooperative learning procedures to promote higher student achievement" (p. 58). McGlynn (1982) and Cotton and Cook (1982), however, criticized the conclusions from D. W. Johnson, Maruyama, Johnson, and Nelson's meta-analyses as misleading in both theoretical and practical terms. Cotton and Cook stated that overall generalizations about the effectiveness of cooperative learning obscure the effects of other variables (e.g., type of task, duration of study, type of rewards, subject characteristics).
How many studies have evaluated the effects of cooperative learning on the achievement of handicapped students, and what were the findings? For this review, journal articles were selected that included (a) special education students in the sample, (b) achievement as a dependent variable, and (c) cooperative learning methods as an independent variable. Studies that included achievement as a dependent variable only to confirm that handicapped students performed lower academically than nonhandicapped students (Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, 1984b) were not included in this review. Further, studies were excluded if they did not identify cooperative learning as an independent variable (Nevin, Johnson, & Johnson, 1982) or if they failed to specify the number of handicapped students included in the sample (Johnson, R. T., Johnson, & Stanne, 1986).
COOPERATIVE LEARNING STUDIES
An extensive review identified 12 studies that met the selection criteria. A number of studies examined the effects of cooperative learning on achievement; however, the great majority did not include special education students in the sample (e.g., Johnson, D. W., Johnson, Johnson, & Anderson, 1976; Johnson, D. W., Johnson, & Scott, 1978; Johnson, D. W., Johnson, Tiffany, & Zaidman, 1983) or a measure of academic achievement as a dependent variable (e.g., Cooper, Johnson, Johnson, & Wilderson, 1980; Martino & Johnson, 1979; Yager, Johnson, Johnson, & Snider, 1985). Of the 12 studies, 9 compared cooperative learning to individual learning; 2 compared cooperative learning to control conditions; and 1 compared cooperative learning, individual learning, and control conditions.
In cooperative learning, a group of students heterogeneous on ability, sex, or ethnicity work together to achieve mutual goals. As described by D. W. Johnson and Johnson (1980), students in cooperative learning groups "can achieve their learning goal if, and only if, the other students with whom they are cooperatively linked achieve their learning goal" (p. 94). Cooperative learning methods share this basic framework, but they may vary on a number of variables. Recognizing that the specific operationalizations of cooperative learning and the alternate conditions to which it is compared may affect the conclusions that are drawn, the review includes a description of the independent variables. In Table 1, descriptions and results of the 12 studies that met the selection criteria are ordered as they are discussed in this review.
Versus Individual Learning
A total of 9 studies compared cooperative learning to individual learning: 7 studies included students with mild handicaps, 1 included students with hearing-impairments, and 1 included students with severe handicaps. In the individual learning condition, each student studied alone, sought assistance from the teacher only, and received rewards based on his or her performance. The instructional units were group paced, not individualized; students did not proceed to their own levels and rates on self-teaching materials.
Mildly Handicapped. Study 1. Smith, Johnson, and Johnson (1982) compared cooperative learning to individual learning with a sample of 55 sixth-grade students; of that total, 7 were identified as having handicaps and 14 were identified as being gifted. In the cooperative condition, there were 7 groups with 4 members in each group. The cooperative learning groups were stratified on ability; all groups had at least 1 student identified as gifted on the basis of "academic potential and performance" (p. 279) and 3 groups had 1 student with handicaps. In both conditions, students were given 4 days to read and to study a conservation and land-use unit on the Boundary Waters Canoe Area in Minnesota. Each cooperative learning group was directed to complete one report and to study as a group to ensure that all members passed a mastery test; the teacher praised and rewarded the group as a whole. Students in the individual learning condition were directed to write a report and study for a test on their own; the teacher praised and rewarded students individually. Achievement and retention were measured with a test based on the information contained in the study materials.
In the analysis of the full sample, students in the cooperative condition achieved and retained significantly more than students in the individualistic condition; in addition, a significant effect for ability was found, with handicapped students in the cooperative condition achieving at approximately the same level as the nonhandicapped students. Smith et al. (1982) concluded that cooperative learning groups that included handicapped, nonhandicapped, and gifted students increased the achievement of all three types of students. When forming cooperative learning groups to include mainstreamed special education students, is it then necessary to stratify based on ability and include a gifted or high-ability student in the group?
Study 2. Similar to the construct of Study 1, Armstrong, Johnson, and Balow (1981) stratified cooperative learning groups on ability. The sample included 10 learning disabled and 30 nonhandicapped students in the fifth and sixth grades; each cooperative learning group was composed of 1 learning disabled male plus at least 1 nonhandicapped male and 1 nonhandicapped female. The measure of academic achievement was performance on reading worksheets; the dependent variables were (a) the percentage of vocabulary development and reading comprehension assignments completed by each student and (b) the percentage correct on each completed assignment. In the cooperative condition, the group completed one set of worksheets; in the individual condition, students were instructed to complete the worksheets on their own. Armstrong et al. (1981) reported that "an equal amount of reinforcement was given to all students in all conditions: (p. 104). The data indicated that the learning disabled students surpassed the normal-progress students in the percentage of vocabulary development (+11.07%) and reading comprehension (+7.67%) assignments completed.
The results of this study, however, cannot be used to support the claim that cooperative learning promotes the achievement of students with handicaps. First, there were no differences between conditions on the percentage correct on the vocabulary development and reading comprehensio assignments. Seconds, the scores of the learning disabled and the nonhandicapped students in the cooperative learning condition were identical on all achievement measures--only one set of materials was completed by the group. Achievement was not based on individual learning but on the performance of the group on a single, collective task.
Study 3. In a comparison of cooperative learning to individual learning, R. T. Johnson, Johnson, Scott, and Ramolae (1985) concluded that "having academically handicapped students learn individualistically may be detrimental to their achievement" (p. 215). In their study, 26 learning disabled and 128 regular education students were assigned to one of three conditions: (a) mixed-sex cooperative, (b) single-sex cooperative, and (c) individualistic. Students in the cooperative learning condition shared one set of materials; students in the individual learning condition were given their own sets of materials and instructed not to talk to each other. Bonus points were awarded if team scores in the cooperative condition or individual scores in the individualistic condition reached a set criterion. The curriculum was a science unit on electricity and electrical energy; the measure of achievement was a 37-item multiple-choice test. In planned comparison, cooperative learning promoted higher achievement than did individual learning for the students with handicaps only.
Study 4. In contrast to the findins of Study 3, Cosden, Pearl, and Bryan (1985) concluded that "caution in the implementation of this type of intervention is required" (p. 113). Cosden et al. (1985) compared the effects of cooperative and individual goal structures on learning disabled (LD) and nonlearning disabled (NLD) students. A toal of 138 students (38 LD and 100 NLD) formed 69 same-sex dyads: 27 male LD-NLD, 20 male NLD-NLD, 11 female LD-NLD, and 11 female NLD-NLD. The study was conducted in two half-hour sessions held 3 days apart. Dyads in the individual condition listened to a story and studied alone for 5 min; students were told that "high enough" scores would earn a price. Dyads in the cooperative condition were instructed to listen to the story and to work together as a team. Unlike other studies included in this review, the cooperative learning groups compete against each other for the reward; students were told that the team with the highest score would earn a prize. Students in both conditions were given suggestions on how to study, and all students were tested separately. The achievement measures were recall, comprehension, and recogniction tests.
The data were analyzed separately for boys and girls and the analysis included three levels of subject type (LD students with NLD partners, NLD students with LD partners, and NLD students with NLd partners). LD girls performed as well as their NLD peers except on the recall measure, where LD girls recalled significantly less than did their NLD partners or students in the NLD-NLD group. For the boys, there were significant condition effects on recall; LD boys and NLD boys with LD partners performed significantly better in the individual study condition. On the recognition measure, NLD boys with LD partnes scored higher in the individual condition and MLD boys with NLD partners scored higher in the cooperative condition; LD boys were unaffected by study condition. Cosden et al. (1985) concluded that cooperative learning as a technique to promote the academic achievement in mainstream classrooms has "both promises and risks" (p. 113).
Studies 5 and 6. In comparing cooperative and individual learning, D. W. Johnson and Johnson (1982), (1984a) found no differences at the .05 level of significance. Respectively, the curricula were a unit on consumer math and a unit (Study 5) on the Boundary Waters Canoe Area of Minnesota (Study 6). In both studies, the cooperative learning groups studied together and completed one set of papers; to measure achievement, students were tested individually at the end of each week of instruction. The study by D. W. Johnson and Johnson (1982) was conducted with 31 eleventh grade students, 6 of whom had handicaps; the study by D. W. Johnson and Johnson (1984) was conducted with 48 fourth-grade students, 12 of whom had handicaps (learning disabled and emotionally disturbed). Finding significance at the .10 level, the authors of both studies reported that students in the cooperative condition "tended to achieve" more than students in the individual learning condition.
STudy 7. The final study in this category compared cooperative learning to "focused instruction" (Madded & Slaven, 1983). Similar to all studies that included individual learning as an independent variable, students in focused instruction practiced alone and received feedback and points based on their own performance. In contrast to the other studies reviewed thus far, students in the cooperative learning and the focused instruction conditions were exposed to the same cycle of teach, pratice, and quiz. The same class-paced mathematics curriculum was used in both conditions. The cooperative condition included the following components of Student-Teams-Achievements Divisions (Slavin (1978): group study, individual quizzes, and team recognition. Points were awarded to teams based on the contribution of each member to the team score; teams that scored above a specified criterion were mentioned in a weekly newsletter. To assess the achievement of the handicapped and nonhandicapped students, two 80-item curriculum-specific tests were administered as a pretest and a posttest.
The results from the achievement measure were analyzed for the full sample and the subsample of special education students. For the full sample (40 handicapped and 143 nonhandicapped students in grades 3, 4, and 6), the greater gains in achievement were made in the cooperative learning condition. For the subsample of students with handicaps, however, there were no differences between the cooperative and the individual learning condition. Madden and Slavin (1983) suggested that the academic gains produced by cooperative learning would have been stronger if compared to "truly traditional instruction" (p. 180); individual learning as described in this study included direct teacher instruction, frequent feedback to students, and reteaching of any sections where students needed additional help.
Hearing Impaired. Study 8. In a study on the effects of cooperative and individual learning on the achievement of 30 third-grade students (20 hearing and 10 hearing impaired), D. W. Johnson and Johnson (1985) reported no significant differences. The curriculum was a math unit on addition and subtraction with money; the achievement measure was performance on curriculum-specific tests administered after 5, 10, and 15 days of instruction. In the cooperative learning condition, students worked together to complete one set of assignments: the groups were stratified for handicap, sex, and ability. Because only one student with a hearing-impairment could function without an interpreter, five interpreters participated in the cooperative condition and one interpreter in the individual condition. In the individual condition, students worked alone; and the teacher praised and rewarded each student based on his or her own performance. On the achievement measure, no significant differences were found between the two conditions. In fact, the mean scores on the achievement measure were higher for hearing and hearing-impaired students in the individual learning condition.
Severely Handicapped. Study 9. R. Johnson, Johnson, DeWeerdt, Lyons, and Zaidman (1983) compared the effects of individual versus cooperative learning on the achievement of 48 seventh-grade students. Of that total, 9 were severely handicapped; the IQ range of 7 students was 55 to 71. One student had "behavior problems" and an IQ of 80, and 1 autistic student "functioned at the level of a 3-year-old" (p. 613).
The curriculum in both conditions was a science unit on digestion. The measures of achievement were two 45-item objective tests; one test was administered after 4 days of instruction, and the second test was administered after 9 days of instruction. Though achievement was one of the dependent measures, the stated purpose of the study was to examine the effects of cooperative and individual learning on the interactions and relationships between severely handicapped and nonhandicapped learners. Finding no significant differences between the conditions on the achievement measure, the authors concluded that the "achievement of nonhandicapped students in the cooperative condition was basically unaffected by working collaboratively with severely handicapped peers" (p. 616-617).
Do students of low academic ability benefit academically from participation in cooperative learning groups stratified on ability? If cooperative learning requires each group member to study together to "master the material . . . giving their ideas and suggestions" (p. 613), the utility of cooperative learning as a strategy to teach mainstreamed severely handicapped learners is questionable.
Cooperative Learning Versus
Two studies compared cooperative learning to a control condition. Teachers in the control condition used their usual methods of instruction: Traditional texts and "whole class lectures supplemented by instruction to homogeneous subgroups . . . a single class instructional pace and . . . few special accommodations to the needs of . . . mainstreamed academically handicapped students" (Slavin, Madden, & Leavey, 1984b, p. 815). Students in the control condition did not receive group or individual rewards.
The two studies (Study 10: Slavin, Leavey, & Madden, 1984; Study 11: Slavin, Madden & Leavey 1984b) in this category used Team Assisted Individualization (TAI) as the cooperative learning method. In TAI, students were assigned to teams; each team member was pretested, and the pretest performance was used to place each student at an appropriate point in an individualized, highly structured mathematics curriculum. Within the teams, students worked in pairs or trials. Other principal components of TAI included: (a) specification of how and when team members monitored and managed the progress of each other; (b) daily teacher review sessions held with small groups of students performing at similar instructional levels; and (c) points awarded to teams based on the progress of each student. The group rewards were certificates awarded on the basis of the average number correct and the average number of units completed by each team member.
Study 10. This study (identified as Study 2 by Slavin, Leavey & Madden, 1984) was conducted for 10 weeks and it compared the effects of TAI to control methods. The study included 375 students in grades 4, 5, and 6; 15 of the students received special education services. The measure of achievement was the Mathematics Computations subtest of the comprehensive Test of Basic Skills (CTBS). In an analysis of the full sample, students in the TAI condition scored significantly higher that did students in the control.
Study 11. Similar results were reported by Slavin, Madden, and Leavy, 1984b. The study, conducted for 24 weeks, included 113 handicapped students and 1,258 normal-progress students in grades 3, 4, and 5. The individual-level analyses of covariance for the full, academically handicapped, and nonhandicapped samples revealed that TAI students learned significantly more than did control students; the achievement measures were the Mathematics Computations and the Concepts and Applications subtests of the CTBS. The authors concluded that the "success of the TAI program in increasing student achievement argues indirectly for the importance of attending to incentives and quality of instruction in the design of individualized instructional strategies" (p. 819).
Cooperative learning Versus Individual
Learning Versus Control Condition.
Study 12. Study 12, by Slaving, Madden, and Leavey (1984a), compared cooperative learning, individual learning, and control conditions. The study, which included 117 special education students, evaluated the effects of Team-Assisted Instruction (TAI), Individualized Instruction (II), and control conditions on mainstreamed handicapped students. For 10 weeks, 117 special education and 387 normal-progress students in grades 3, 4, and 5 were assigned to one of three conditions: TAI, II, or control. The organization of the mathematics curriculum, teacher review sessions, student monitors, and record keeping were identical in the TAI and the II program. Students in the II condition, however, worked individually; they received certificates based on individual rather than team scores.
The control group used traditional texts and group-paced instruction supplemented with small group instruction. The measure of academic achievement was the Mathematics Computation subtest of the Comprehensive TEst of Basic Skills. For the special education students, the researchers reported no significant differences in mathematics achievement between the treatments: TAI versus Control, TAI versus II, II versus Control. In an analysis of the full sample, Slavin, Leavey, and Madden (1984) found significant differences favoring TAI over the control; however, for the full sample, no significant differences were found between TAI versus II and II versus Control. It should be noted that II as operationalized in this study did not prevent interactions among students; Slavin, Madden, and Leavey (1984a) reported that students in the II program "actually interacted frequently while studying" (p. 441).
Several factors made it difficult to draw definitive conclusions about the effects of cooperative learning on the acchievement of students with handicaps: (a) the equivocal results, (b) the specific operationalizations of cooperative learning, and (c) the conditions to which cooperative learning were compared.
Twelve studies assessed the impact of cooperative learning strategies on the academic performance of students with handicaps, and the findings were not conclusive; 6 studies (50%) reported significant effects favoring cooperative learning. It can be argued that techniques identified as effective with nonhandicapped students should be encouraged for use with handicapped populations. However, given the difficulty that special education students have with the curricula in regular education, it is important to evaluate the effects of cooperative learning on their achievement.
The length of the studies varied from 3 days (Cosden et al., 1985) to 24 weeks (Slavin, Madden, & Leavey, 1984b). The curricular areas included in the studies were reading (2), social studies (2), science (2), and math (6). Achiievement was a dependent variable in all of the studies; however, the stated purpose of 4 studies was to demonstrate that the presence of handicapped students in cooperative learning groups did not hinder the achievement of nonhandicapped students (Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, 1982; Johnson, R., et al., 1983; Madden & Slavin, 1983; Smith et al., 1982). A total of 6 studies assessed the differential effects of cooperative learning on the achievement of handicapped and nonhandicapped students; 1 study reported the effects of coopertive learning on handicapped learners only.
of Cooperative Learning
Slavin (1983b) identified two primary components of cooperative learning methods: task structure and incentive structure. The task structure defines how the group members will depend on each other to reach their mutual goal; the incentive structure defines what will be rewarded. Whereas cooperative learning methods share this basic framework, cooperative learning methods varied in their task structure and incentive structure.
Task Structure. The studies included in this review were conducted either by Slavin and associates or by D. W. Johnson and R. T. Johnson and their associates. In all studies, students in the cooperative learning condition were dependent on each other to achieve their goal. In studies by Slavin and associates, students were dependent on each other for practice and feedback only; the teacher provided review sessions or small group instruction to students who failed to reach criterion. However, in studies conducted by D. W. and R. T. Johnson and their associates, students were dependent on each other for practice, feedback, and instruction; as described in the articles, students in the cooperative learning condition were directed to seek assistance primarily from their group members. Within this model, it appears critical to include in each group a high-ability student or a student who has already reached mastery on the learning task.
Incentive Structure. Kagan (1985) stated the "cooperative reward structures are very powerful in directing the efforts of the group" (p. 46). All the studies in this review used rewards in the cooperative learning condition, but the reward structure varied on a number of dimensions: (a) group reward based on individual learning or group product, (b) group reward based on achievement or cooperative study, and (c) group reward based on group contingencies or intergroup competition.
1. Group reward based on individual learning or group product. A number of dependent measures were used; for example, subtests of the CTBS, informal assessments, number of problem completed, and the percentage of assignments correct. However, the difficulty in evaluating the effects of cooperative learning on achievement had less to do with the measure that was used and more with determining if the achievement reported for students in cooperative learning reflected the efforts of the group (e.g., Armstrong et al., 1981) or individual learning (e.g., Slavin, Leavey & Madden, 1984). As noted by Slavin (1983a), "only an individual learning measure that cannot be influenced by group members' help can indicate which incentive or task structure is best" (p. 11).
2. Group reward based on achievement or cooperative study. In 6 of the 12 studies in the review, teams received awards based on the achievement of its members. Teams with the highest score earned a prize (Cosden et al., 1985); teams that reached an established criteria received certificates (Slavin, Leavey, & Madden, 1984; Slavin, Madden, & Leavey, 1984b), had their names placed in a weekly newsletter (Madden & Slavin, 1983), or were awarded bonus points (Johnson, R.T., et al., 1985). In the remaining 6 studies, teams were "praised and rewarded" during group study, but the reward and the incentive structure was not specifically defined (Armstrong et al., 1981; Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, 1982; Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, 1984a; Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, 1984b; Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, 1985; Smith et al., 1982). To promote academic achievement, must team rewards be based on the achievement of its members? For the full sample, the results favored cooperative learning in studies where students were rewarded for achievement (83%); in the 6 studies where praise and reward were not related to performance on an achievement measure, only 1 study favored cooperative learning.
3. Group reward based on group contingencies or intergroup competition. One of the 12 studies included intergroup competition; Cosden et al. (1985) informed students in the cooperative learning condition that the team with the highest score would receive a prize. Cooperative learning teams in the remaining 11 studies did not compete against each other. Cosden et al. concluded that "the benefits claimed for cooperative goal structures may not always be forthcoming but will vary as a function of student and partner characteristics" (p. 113). Perhaps more than student-partner characteristics, the results reported by Cosden et al. were affected by the incentive structure (intergroup competition) used in the study.
Before teachers are encouraged to use cooperative learning methods to promote the academic performance of handicapped students, the variables that contribute to its success or failure must be identified: Is it necessary to stratify cooperative learning groups on ability? Do mixed-sex versus single-sex teams differentially affect the achievement of students with handicaps? Is it enough to identify what will be rewarded or are the effects of cooperative learning on achievement dependent on the type of reward that is used (e.g., grades, praise, certificates, team recognition)? Is individual accountability a required component? Does the duration and the quality of team interaction affect the academic performance of cooperative learning groups? Must teachers attend to the sequence and the organization of curriculum materials and provide correction and feedback when cooperative learning groups include mainstreamed special education students? Are there differential benefits of cooperative learning for handicapped versus nonhandicapped groups?
Only recently has research examined the effects of cooperative learning on the academic achievement with handicapped students; its effects compared to alternate instructional procedures have not been thoroughly investigated. Given the various ways in which cooperative learning, individual learning, and control conditions are defined, the focus should shift from an overall effect to identification of the critical variables that contribute to the effectiveness of cooperative learning methods with hadicapped populations.
4. The conditions to which cooperative learning were compared. To what cooperative learning was compared varied from study to study. Of the 12 studies, 9 compared cooperative learning to individual learning; 2 compared cooperative learning to control conditions; and 1 compared cooperative learning, individual learning, and control conditions. Clearly, the conclusions about the overall effectiveness of cooperative learning is based not only on how cooperative learning is defined but also on the specific operationalizations of the alternate conditions to which it is compared. For example, in Slavin, Leavey, and Madden (1984), individualized instruction included daily, 5-15 min, teacher review sessions to reteach problem areas and to prepare students for upcoming units; in R. T. Johnson (1985), students in the individual learning condition were directed "not to talk to each other nor to interact in any way, seeking help from the teacher when they needed it" (p. 209). Largely because of how the individual learning conditions were defined, the study conclusions differed widely; R. T. Johnson et al. reported greater academic gains for students with handicaps in the cooperative learning condition, whereas Madden and Slavin (1983) found no sifnificant differences between conditions.
Do cooperative learning methods improve the academic achievement of students with handicaps? The conclusion that "learning situations should be structured cooperatively, not competitively or individualistically" to maximize the achievement of handicapped students (Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, 1986b, p. 560) is not substantiated by this review. The only firm conclusion is that the opportunity for students to study together does not guarantee gains in academic achievement.
In a special issue of Exceptional Children (April 1986) titled "In Search of Excellence: Instruction that Works in Special Education Classrooms," D. W. Johnson and Johnson (1986b) stated that cooperative learning "should be used whenever teachers want students to learn more, like school better, like each other better, have higher self-esteem, and learn more effective social skills" (p. 554). It can be argued that the effectiveness of cooperative learning methods on the school achievement of handicapped students is in fact a goal secondary to improving the interactions and relationships between mainstreamed and nonhandicapped students. However, gains in academic achievement are a priority in the education of all mildly handicapped students. Before teachers are encouraged to use cooperative learning as a strategy to promote the academic achievement of students with handicaps, further evaluation is required; the variables that contribute to its "risks and benefits" must be identified.
Armstrong, B., Johnson, D. W., & Balow, B. (1981). Effects of cooperative vs. individualistic learning experiences on interpersonal attraction between learning disabled and normal-progress elementary school students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 6, 102-109.
Cooper, L., Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. & Wilderson, F. (1980). The effects of cooperative competitive and individualistic experiences on interprersonal attraction among heterogeneous peers. Journal of Social Psychology, 111, 243-252.
Cosden, M., Pearl R., & Bryan, T. H. (1985). The effects of cooperative and individual goal structures on learning disabled and nondisabled students. Exceptional Children, 52, 103-114.
Cotton, J. L., & Cook, M. S. (1982). Meta-analyses and the effects of various reward systems: Some different conclusions from Johnson et al. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 178-183.
Johnson, D. W., & R. T. (1980). Integrating handicapped students into the mainstream. Exceptional Children, 47, 90-98.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1982). The effects of cooperative and individualistic instruction on handicapped and nonhandicapped students. Journal of Social Psychology, 118, 257-268.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1984a). Building acceptance of differences between handicapped and nonhandicapped students: The effects of cooperative and individualistic instruction. Journal of Social Psychology, 122, 257-267.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1984b). The effects of intergroup cooperation and intergroup competition on ingroup and outgroup cross-handicap relationships. Journal of Social Psychology, 124, 85-94.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1985). Mainstreaming hearing-impaired students: The effect of effort in communicating on cooperation and interpresonal attraction. Journal of Psychology, 119, 31-44.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1986b). Impact of classroom organization and instructional methods on the effectiveness of mainstreaming. In C.J. Meisel, Mainstreaming handicapped children: Outcomes, controversies, and new directions, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1986b). Mainstreaming and cooperative learning strategies. Exceptional Children, 52, 553-561.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R., Johnson, J. & Anderson, D. (1976). The effects of cooperative vs. individualized instruction on student prosocial behavior, attitudes toward learning, and achievement. JRnl. of Ed. Psy., 68, 446-452.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R., & Scott, L. (1978). The effects of cooperative and individualized instruction on student attitudes and achievement. Journal of Social Psychology, 104, 207-216.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., Tiffany, M., & Zaidman, B. (1983). Are low achievers disliked in a cooperative situation? A test of rival theories in a mixed ethnic situation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 189-200.
Johnson, D. W., Maruyama, G., Johnson R., Nelson, D., & Skon L., (1981). Effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures on achievement: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 89, 47-62.
Johnson, r., Johnson, D. W., DeWeerdt, N., Lyons, V., & Zaidman, B. (1983). Integrating severely adaptively handicapped seventh-grade students into constructive relationships with nonhandicapped peers in science class. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 87, 611-618.
Johnson, R. T., D. W., Scott, L. E., & Ramolae, R. A. (1985). Effects of single-sex and mixed-sex cooperative interaction on science achievement and attitudes and cross-handicap and cross-sex relatonships. Journal of research in Science Teaching, 22, 207-220.
Johnson, R. T., Johnson, D. W., & Stanne, M. B. (1986). Comparison of computer-assisted cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning. Am. Ed. Res. Jrnl., 23 382-392.
Kagan, S. (1985). Cooperative learning: resources for teachers. Riverside: University of California: Printing and repographics.
Madden, N. A., & Slavin, R. E. (1983). Effects of cooperative learning on the social accpetance of mainstreamed academically handicapped students. Journal of Special Education, 17, 171-182.
Martino, L., & Johnson, D. W. (1979). Cooperative and individualistic experiences among disabled and normal children. Journal of Social Psychology, 107, 177-183.
McGlynn, R. P. (1982). A comment on the meta-analysis of goal structures. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 184-185.
Nevin A., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1982). Effects of group and individual contingencies on academic performance and social relations of special needs students. Journal of Social Psychology, 116, 41-59.
Sharan, S. (1980). Cooperative learning in small groups: recent methods and effects on achievement, attitudes, and ethnic relations. Review of Educational research, 50, 241-271.
Slavin, R. E. (1978). Student teams and achievement divisions. Journal of research and Development in Education, 12, 39-49.
Slavin, R. E. (1983a). Cooperative learning. New York: Longman.
Slavin, R. E. (1983b). When does cooperative learning increase student achievement? Psychological Bulletin, 94, 429-445.
Slavin, R. E., Leavey, M. B., & Madden, N. A. (1984). Combining cooperative learning and individualized instruction: Effects on student mathematics and achievement, attitudes, and behaviors. The Elementary School Journal, 84, 409-422.
Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., & Leavey, M. (1984a). Effects of cooperative learning and individualized instruction on mainstreamed students. Exceptional Children, 50, 434-443.
Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., & Leavy, M. (1984b). Effects of team assisted individualization on the mathematics achievement of academically handicapped and nonhandicapped students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 813-819.
Smith, K., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1982). Effects of cooperative and individualistic instruction on the achievement of handicapped, regular, and gifted students. Journal of Social Psychology, 116, 227-283.
Yager, S., Johnson, R. T., Johnson, D. W., & Snider, B. (1985). The effect of cooperative and individualistic learning experiences on positive and negative cross-handicap relationships. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 10, 127-138.
Manuscript received May 1988; revision accepted December 1988.
KAREN M. TATEYAMA-SNIEZEK is Associate Professor of Special Education and Chair, department of Advanced Studies in Education, California State University, Stanislaus, Turlock.…
Questia, a part of Gale, Cengage Learning. www.questia.com
Publication information: Article title: Cooperative Learning: Does It Improve the Academic Achievement of Students with Handicaps?. Contributors: Tateyama-Sniezek, Karen M. - Author. Journal title: Exceptional Children. Volume: 56. Issue: 5 Publication date: February 1990. Page number: 426+. © 1999 Council for Exceptional Children. COPYRIGHT 1990 Gale Group.
This material is protected by copyright and, with the exception of fair use, may not be further copied, distributed or transmitted in any form or by any means.