DarleneFinalLiteratureReview

Running head: INCLUSION CLASSROOMS AND COOPERATIVE LEARNING

Cooperative Learning in Inclusion Classrooms for Students with Disabilities

Darlene Miller

Hunter College

1

INCLUSION CLASSROOMS AND COOPERATIVE LEARNING

Cooperative Learning in Inclusion Classrooms

The No Child Left Behind Act of 1997 (NCLB) states that all students with disabilities

are to be held to the same educational standards as students without disabilities (Antley, 2010).

Later in 2004, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) was

endorsed which requires students with disabilities to be evaluated using the same instruments as

students without disabilities (Antley, 2010). In other words, students with disabilities are

expected to learn the same classroom material and be assessed on their knowledge using the

same mechanisms as students who do not have any disabilities. Following the implementations

of these acts, more and more students with handicaps have been placed in general education

classrooms with students who do not have disabilities, or inclusion classrooms (Burstein, Sears,

Wilcoxen, Cabello, & Spagna, 2004).

As the state mandates the inclusion of students with and without disabilities, teachers

must make sure that they are using effective teaching methods to create a learning environment

that is conducive to all students’ academic needs including the students with disabilities.

Cooperative learning is one such method that can be employed in inclusion classrooms in which

students are placed into small groups to learn together and achieve an educational goal and can

be used to help special needs students in inclusion classrooms achieve greater academic

outcomes as well as greater social acceptance (Madden & Slavin, 1983a). Cooperative learning

allows students to have conversations in order to collaborate, discuss, elucidate and solidify the

learning material (Bucalos & Lingo, 2005). With one teaching approach, students can learn to

help each other, socialize, and maintain responsibility for themselves as an individual as well as

a group (Murphy, Grey, & Honan, 2005).

2


The purpose of this paper is to explore academic literature to answer the following

question: How does cooperative learning in inclusion classrooms work best to help increase

academic achievement and social acceptance for students with disabilities Specifically, this

literature review will explore the detailed techniques of cooperative learning in inclusion

classrooms that produce the greatest outcomes based on academic achievement and socialization.

This paper will argue that cooperative learning methods can be greatly beneficial for students

with disabilities when the students are encouraged to collaborate with one another within their

groups.

First, the methods for this review will be explained. Then, the background and the start of

inclusion classrooms as well as cooperative learning will be discussed, along with appropriate

definitions. Next, The heart of the literature review will discuss the ways in which academic

achievement and social acceptance of special needs students can be maximized in cooperative

learning programs for inclusion classrooms. Conclusions will be discussed including educational

implications, gaps in the literature and future directions for research.

Methods

The articles included in this study were found on multiple online databases such as ERIC,

PsychInfo, JSTOR and google scholar. The initial search terms were inclusion, intellectual

disabilities and academic achievement. After exhausting the general research for these terms, the

focus of the research shifted and new terms emerged: cooperative learning and mainstreaming.

Furthermore, the search for literature expanded to include articles that looked at social outcomes.

Outside of online databases, a few searches were done at the Hunter College Library. A

first group of books were read on the topic of inclusion. As the nature of the paper progressed,

more books were later taken out involving cooperating learning. Also, some books were

3


borrowed via InterlibraryLoan, a loan service for Hunter College students who borrow books

from other institutions.

In order for an article to be included in the review, some criteria had to be met. First, all

articles had to be empirical for the literature review section of this paper. Next, the subjects had

to be school-aged students (6-18 years old). The articles discussing inclusion were either about

students with disabilities or without disabilities while the cooperative learning articles all

contained information about students with disabilities with a focus on academic achievement or

social acceptance.

After reading the initial articles about inclusion, it became clear that the outcomes of the

research are inconsistent. Therefore, the research question changed and the focus shifted to an

inclusion teaching method: cooperative learning. All of the articles were read to find emerging

themes.

Background

Over 56 million people in the United States reported having some type of disability in the

U.S. Census of 2010 (Brault, 2012). This number accounts for over 18% of the total population

of the nation (Brault, 2012). According to the United States Department of Education, there are

some criteria to label a child with a disability, including:

Having mental retardation, a hearing impairment, a speech or language

impairment, a visual impairment, a serious emotional disturbance, an orthopedic

impairment, autism, traumatic brain injury, another health impairment, a specific

learning disability, deaf-blindness, or multiple disabilities, and who, by reason

thereof, needs special education and related services. (IDEA, Sec 300.8, 2004)

This criterion is extremely broad and encompasses a large number of specific disabilities.

4


In 1975, the Education For All Handicapped Children Act was created which states that

all handicapped children are expected to be placed in the least restrictive environment (LRE)

(Putnam, 1993). This forced educators to selectively choose which students would be placed in

general education classrooms or special education classrooms. If teachers thought that special

needs students were not learning capably with the general curriculum, they were placed in the

special education classrooms. However, there has not been much research that supports the

effectiveness of pulling special needs students out of the general curriculum and classrooms

(Lipsky & Gartner, 1989). Despite the lack of evidence supporting pull out instruction, schools

still segregated the students with disabilities (Putnam, 1993).

Since the enactment of the NCLB and IDEA, teachers are pushed to mainstream students

with disabilities and place them in classrooms mixed with students who have disabilities and

others who do not, or inclusion classes. Inclusion classrooms are those that include a greater

learner variance (Tomlinson et al., 2003). In these inclusion classrooms, students with disabilities

have special needs and are given Individualized Educational Programs (IEPs) which are specific

educational goals (Gallagher, 2011). The IEPs allow the students with disabilities to stay in the

general education classrooms with students who do not have disabilities.

Initially, many parents, educators and administrators did not agree with inclusion

classrooms and wanted the special needs students in the special education classrooms. Although

there was a concern about the impact on students without special needs in inclusion classrooms,

researchers have shown that low-, average- and high-achieving students can continue to progress

at their achievement level with no disruptions (Dessemontet, Bless, & Morin, 2012). Another

concern was that the special needs students would fall behind academically. Although not all

research has shown that inclusion significantly boosts academic achievement for students with

5


disabilities, overwhelming research shows that it does (Weiner & Capitol Publications, 1985).

One report looked at 50 studies researching the academic achievement of students with mild

disabilities in integrated classrooms versus segregated classrooms and found that the integrated

students outperformed their counterparts in segregated classrooms significantly (Weiner &

Capitol Publications, 1985).

Many studies have shown positive outcomes on the academic achievement for students

with disabilities in inclusion classrooms (Gandhi, 2007; Rea, McLaughlin, & Walther-Thomas,

2002; Salend, 1999) and also students without disabilities (Rouse & Florian, 2006; Salend,

1999). However, there are mixed results as sometimes the outcomes are not significantly positive

for mainstreamed students (Madden & Slavin, 1983b). With the increase of students with

disabilities in inclusion classrooms, it is important that inclusion classrooms are effective and

beneficial for students both with and without handicaps. Classrooms are very complex and many

factors, such as teaching methods, contribute to the academic achievement of students, especially

classrooms with typical students mixed with students who have disabilities. It is important to

know how teaching methods should be manipulated in order to produce the greatest positive

outcomes for all students in inclusion classrooms. Specifically, it is important to understand

which types of classroom instructions facilitate the greatest academic achievement for students

both with and without intellectual disabilities.

Although academic achievement is a main goal for students with disabilities in inclusion

classrooms, another goal is to socially integrate these students into a general population. It is

important for children to develop healthy social skills (D'Allura, 2002). The acceptance of peers

is an essential part of student growth and friendship is deemed very significant to adolescents

(Townsend & Hicks, 1997). Sometimes a stigma can be associated with students who have

6


learning disabilities that might prevent handicapped students from gaining the fundamental peer

acceptance. As noted earlier, students with disabilities sometimes are placed in contained

classrooms without typically functioning students. Because these students are not placed in

inclusion classrooms, they do not have access to the general curriculum or the general

population. This also means that the non-handicapped students do not have a chance to interact

with the students who do have handicaps. This lack of interaction can lead to a stigma against the

special needs students (D'Allura, 2002).

Cooperative learning is one teaching strategy for students that can increase academic

achievement of students with disabilities in inclusion classrooms (Putnam, 1993). Sometimes an

extended goal of cooperative learning is to reduce the social stigma associated with students with

disabilities. Cooperative learning can be defined as “a small group of students with mixed ability

levels working together, with each member having equal statute within the group, to help each

other accomplish a specified learning task” (Copeland & Cosbey, 2008). In other words, students

of varying levels of learning abilities are placed in small groups in order to learn. Cooperative

learning is not very specifically defined and can be different in every class. The goal or learning

task of the groups will be different depending on the education level of the students, the

curriculum and the teacher’s choices based on classroom goals.

Other ways in which cooperative learning can be different from one classroom to another

depends on how the students are held accountable, the type of learning objective, the instruction

given by the educator, the rewards or incentives, the amount of additional help from the educator

and other similar factors. Some of the aforementioned factors can be manipulated in order to

provide optimal conditions for learning and social acceptance of students with disabilities in

inclusion classrooms. Overall, greater cooperation amongst students in cooperative learning

7


groups fosters greater academic achievement and social acceptance of students with disabilities.

Literature Review

This section will now begin to discuss the literature about cooperative learning in

inclusion classrooms. It will go into depth about studies regarding the different strategies within

cooperative learning in inclusion classrooms. This section will discuss how specific techniques

can be used to make cooperative learning effective and is broken down into two major parts:

academic achievement effects and social acceptance effects. The literature review will argue that

cooperative learning works best when students are encouraged to collaborate.

Academic Achievement Effects

When teaching a classroom with diverse academic abilities and levels of achievement, it

can be difficult to accommodate all students. Cooperative learning teaching methods can help

students collaborate while learning and teaching each other at the same time and therefore

accommodating students of differing levels of abilities. (Stevens, Slavin, & Farnish, 1991).

Many studies have shown that students of differing levels of academic achievement have

benefitted academically from cooperative learning (Dugan, Kamps, & Leonard, 1995; Gillies &

Ashman, 2000; Klinger, Vaughn, & Shay Schumm, 1998; Sullivan Palinscar, Magnusson,

Collins, & Cutter, 2001). This section will now begin to discuss the different ways in which

cooperative learning can be most effective in increasing the academic achievement of students

with disabilities.

Cooperative learning training.

Involving directions given to students during a cooperative learning activity, the most

basic question to ask is will students show differences in academic achievement if they are given

training (structured) compared to not given training (unstructutred) Having students work in

8


groups is not enough to ensure that they are getting the greatest education with that particular

learning method and the students need some direction (Gillies & Ashman, 2000). Gillies and

Ashman (2000) studied the difference in outcomes for students in structured versus unstructured

groups. The authors wanted to learn the difference in outcomes for students who were trained in

cooperative learning before engaging in the method. The students who were trained in

cooperative learning were told to encourage each other, provide feedback, ask questions, break

the parts of the assignment down into smaller parts, share tasks and work together (Gillies &

Ashman, 2000). Following the instructions, the students were asked to discuss how they should

implement the previous discussed instructions when they begin the group work and practiced

working together. The unstructured group was not given any training. The students in the

structured groups outperformed their counterparts educationally. Also, the targeted students with

disabilities were much more involved and active in the structured groups.

Another study researched the effects of cooperative learning groups for students when

students were given some training for cooperative learning (Dugan et al., 1995). The teacher

gave a traditional lecture and expected students to take notes and then students broke off into

their groups. Students were expected to (a) share ideas, (b) correct other's work, (c) offer praise,

(d) react calmly, and (e) encourage and help others. Everyone scored significantly greater on

their weekly quizzes compared to the baseline conditions in which they did not receive group

initiatives encouraging the students to collaborate. These findings suggest that students should be

trained or given specific instruction before engaging in a cooperative learning exercise in order

to increase helping behaviors and educational outcomes. This supports the argument that

students should be instructed to work together.

9


Instructions.

Cooperative learning requires students to be separated into groups and achieve some

learning goal. Based on these simple requirements, there are many different ways cooperative

learning can occur. Specifically, the directions given to the students can be very different coming

from one teacher compared to the next and when used in different courses. It is important to look

at the outcomes of the instruction incorporated in order to make cooperative learning work best

for inclusion classrooms.

On the most basic level, students can learn much more in a group learning setting when

given instruction on what to do in the groups (Gillies & Ashman, 2000; Klinger et al., 1998).

Furthermore, students should be given some type of instruction on the specific work they will be

doing in the cooperative learning groups (Klinger et al., 1998). Klinger et al. (1998) studied the

effects of cooperative learning on reading comprehension of students in three inclusive, fourth

grade social studies classes. The intervention group received instruction on reading

comprehension including how to preview, click and clunk, get the gist and wrap up. Following

the instruction, the intervention classes were split up into groups and asked to model the

strategies, learn textbook information and take turns as a group leader. In the control condition,

the students were presented with content, read the textbook material as a class, summarized the

readings and had a discussion without any cooperative learning or group work. Results

demonstrated that the intervention condition yielded significantly greater reading comprehension

scores than the control condition. This study supports the findings of the previous study by

Gillies and Ashman in 2000. Cooperative learning methods work best for students with and

without disabilities when students are given direction and specific instruction.

10


Extra help.

All of the studies mentioned thus far in this literature review have supported cooperative

learning as an effective method in terms of increasing student academic achievement. None of

the studies mentioned before this point have required any extra attention from the teachers in

order to help out students with disabilities. This will not always be the case as sometimes extra

instruction is required of teachers in order to help the students with disabilities thrive (Sullivan

Palinscar et al., 2001). Sullivan Palinscar et al. designed an experiment to study the effects of

guided inquiry science instruction. Under this instruction, students are given complex problems

to answer in groups using multiple resources. The results indicated that all students made

statistically significant learning gains. However, the teachers had to employ advanced teaching

methods in order to help the students with IEPs. This study shows that cooperative learning does

help students both with and without disabilities, but extra work may be required of educators to

help the identified students make significant learning gains.

Accountability.

When students participate in collaborative group work, there are a few different ways that

their academic achievement can be assessed. Students can be graded individually, as a group, or

both individually and as a group. During a cooperative learning assignment, students who are

given a group goal rather than individual goals produce greater academic achievement for all

students, both with and without disabilities (Malmgren, 1998). This pushes students to work

together rather than alone and learning is increased for everyone.

If students are held accountable as an individual contributor and they also receive one

grade for their learning group, they will more likely all work hard to make sure that their

individual grade is most advantageous. Furthermore, they will also help each other and

11


contribute more as a group (Madden & Slavin, 1983a). Madden and Slavin (1983) found that

students produced significantly greater weekly quiz grades when they were held accountable as

both a group and an individual compared to the students who were only given individual

assessments. When students are held individually accountable, the students with disabilities

might not make significant educationally gains if their peers have no incentive to help this

special needs students. This finding is important because it shows that collaborative learning is

not as effective for both students with and without disabilities if students are not given a

collaborative grade. Furthermore, it also suggests that cooperative learning assignments should

be formatted in a way that persuades students to work as a group, as the main argument claims.

Rewards.

Very similar to accountability, rewards can create an incentive for students to collaborate

(Malmgren, 1998). The reward should be something outside of an assessment, such as a

homework pass or bonus points. The criteria for a student to receive a reward must be based on a

group accountability, or it will not encourage students to be collaborative (Malmgren, 1998). As

mentioned earlier, the group needs to fulfill some goal in collaborative learning rather than

individual goals.

This section has reviewed the literature in which cooperative learning increases academic

achievement for students with special needs. Five particular methods were mentioned: training in

cooperative learning, specific instructions, extra help, accountability and rewards. In summary,

students should be trained how to cooperate and work together in cooperative learning exercises,

instructions should be clear, all students should be held accountable as a group, rewards should

be given to proper group work and extra help from teachers can all help to increase academic

achievement for students with disabilities. Overall, the greater the collaboration amongst peers in

12


cooperative learning groups, the greater all students learn and achievement greater academic

attainment, which is parallel with the main argument.

Social Effects

Many studies show that children with disabilities can benefit not only academically but

also socially from inclusion classrooms (D'Allura, 2002; Johnson, Johnson, & DeWeerdt, 1983;

Townsend & Hicks, 1997). Cooperative learning groups foster the growth of social skills for

students with handicaps (D'Allura, 2002). This section will now discuss the ways in which

cooperative learning can be an effective teaching method in building social acceptance for

students with disabilities in inclusion classrooms.

Accountability.

When students are placed in collaborative groups, assessments can be made in a few

different ways, as mentioned earlier. When compared to students who are only responsible for a

personal grade, students who are given both a personal and a group grade achieve better grades.

Holding all students equally responsible will encourage all students in collaborative groups to

interact in order to make sure their group grade is optimal and in turn, socialization is increased

(Piercy, Wilton, & Townsend, 2002). In the study by Piercy et al. (2002), the students with

disabilities were rated higher in social acceptance by their peers without disabilities.

Additionally, the typical students chose to interact with the special needs students during free

time significantly more often (Piercy et al., 2002).

The group accountability has shown to increase team efforts (Piercy et al., 2002). This is

also the case when students are assessed on both a group and an individual level (Madden &

Slavin, 1983a). As mentioned earlier, Madden and Slavin (1983) found that academic

achievement was increased when all students were held responsible for their own grade and also

13


contributed to a collective grade. They also found a positive outcome in terms of socialization.

Special needs learners encountered decreased rejection and increased social acceptance by their

peers (Madden & Slavin, 1983a). This finding is significant because it shows that level of

responsibility the students are given in collaborative learning has a positive impact on both an

academic achievement and social acceptance for handicapped students. Specifically,

accountability should be tailored to encourage student cooperation.

Type of Task.

The type of activity that students are expected to accomplish in cooperative learning

groups has not come up very often in the research. However, one researcher, Mary Anderson,

explored many different types of cooperative learning activities and the social outcomes.

Anderson manipulated many factors including the type of activity, the presence of a group

leader, rewards and instructions. This section will discuss the type of task and the subsequent

sections will discuss group leaders, rewards and instructions.

Anderson (1985) administered 13 different group activities. After comparing the changes

in peer acceptance of students with disabilities before and after the assignments, some statistical

differences were seen. When students were in groups that were given physical materials to work

with, they were more likely to collaborate (Anderson, 1985). For example, one task had the

following instructions:

Each student in your group has been given a different number of coins totaling a

certain amount. Your group is to solve a problem involving buying the maximum

number of candy bars using the money that the five students in each group have.

You will need the correct change for each purchase from the candy machine.

(Anderson, 1985, pp. 83-84)

14


As the collaborative groups had physical items to work with, the students worked together

mutually. However, when a writing task was involved, the students were less enthusiastic, less

collaborative and the peer acceptance of students with disabilities was not increased significantly

(Anderson, 1985). This is important because it shows that formatting a task to ensure that

students collaborate leads to positive peer interaction and, ultimately, greater social acceptance

of special needs students when working in cooperative groups.

Instructions.

In cooperative learning groups, students have to collaborate in order to achieve some

learning goal. As noted earlier, simply assigning students to groups and asking them to perform a

learning task might not be sufficient enough for all students to achieve the greatest academic

outcome (Gillies & Ashman, 2000). Similarly, this can be the same case when the chosen

outcome is to socially integrate students with and without disabilities. The instruction within the

groups can be important, too (Piercy et al., 2002).

Students with disabilities are rated as higher in popularity, are more accepted by their

peers without disabilities and have greater positive interactions while reducing social distance

when they participate in cooperative learning groups as opposed to no group work at all (Piercy

et al., 2002). Furthermore, Piercy et al. (2002) found that cooperative learning groups are even

more effective when students were asked to help each other out, check to make sure everyone’s

answers in the group were the same, work together, share resources and talk politely (Piercy et

al., 2002). Telling students to collaborate might seem trivial, or silly, but explicitly reminding the

students of the goals to collaborate has shown to increase peer interaction with the special needs

students (Piercy et al., 2002).

15


It has also been found that cooperative learning is most effective when the instructions

are simple and clear. Anderson (1985) found that the more complicated and long the instructions

were, the less likely the students were to be enthusiastic and successful in completing the task.

When this occurred, social acceptance of the special needs students was not increased. Although

the reason for this outcome is not clear, it could suggest that convoluted instructions could lead

to tension amongst group members.

This is important because it shows that cooperative learning is most effective in

increasing social acceptance of students with disabilities by giving simple, direct, clear

instructions. Also, explicitly giving all students instruction to work together as a group and help

each other out helps to make cooperative learning a socially effective method, which is in

alignment with the main argument.

Group leader.

Another aspect of cooperative learning that Anderson (1985) explored is the presence of

a group leader. In her study, some of the groups were appointed a group leader as others were

not. In the groups without a leader, sometimes a student came up with a correct answer or

solution to the task but could not articulate it in a way that the other members understood.

Therefore, other students would reject the answer and create turmoil. When a group leader was

present, he would listen to all of the members equally and create a positive learning environment

for everyone. This is important because it shows that collaborative groups are more functional,

positive, collaborative and increase social acceptance of peers with disabilities when there is a

group leader (Anderson, 1985). As group leaders make sure all voices in the group are heard,

they are encouraging collaboration. The main argument agrees that collaboration results in more

positive outcomes for cooperative learning.

16


Rewards.

The studies mentioned thus far did not provide any extrinsic motivation for students

outside of their assessment. A few studies did include some type of reward to motivate students

to do well in their collaborative learning groups. As mentioned earlier, Anderson (1985) did

provide a reward for students who were in a group who successfully and appropriately completed

their group assignment. Those students were given a free homework pass or had the option to

substitute any previous grade for an “A” (Anderson, 1985). This motivated the students to do

well in their groups and contributed to the collaborative effort and the greater acceptance of the

peers with disabilities.

Slightly different from Anderson’s study in 1985, another study also provided a reward

for students (Slavin & et al., 1984). After a cooperative learning assignment was completed, all

students took an individual test on the material. Each group was given an assessment on their

learning based on an average of the individual members test scores. The group with the greatest

group average received a certificate. The certificate motivated the students to learn the group

assignment material in more depth than if they were not given a certificate (Slavin & et al.,

1984). An important part of this study is also beyond the reward. It also shows that each

individual contributes to the group average, which motivated students to help each other.

Therefore, the students collaborated much more and the peer acceptance ratings were increased

(Slavin & et al., 1984).

Rewards are important because they motivate the students to collaborate in order to do

well. This is important because it shows that rewards can make cooperative learning in inclusion

17


classrooms more effective in increase academic achievement and social acceptance of the peers

with special needs.

This section has reviewed the literature about cooperative learning in which students with

disabilities attain greater social acceptance from their typical peers. Five methods were reviewed:

accountability, type of task, instruction, leaders and rewards. The methods used to increase peer

social acceptance are very similar, some the same, for the methods used to increase academic

achievement. In summary, these methods suggest that creating a group accountability, physical

task, instruction to collaborate, appointing group leaders and providing rewards that encourage

collaboration also creates optimal conditions for positive group outcomes. Peer collaboration in

cooperative learning promotes academic achievement and social acceptance of students with

disabilities.

Discussion

Implications for Education

Based on the literature, it is clear that cooperative learning is a successful method to

integrate special needs students into the general classroom (Putnam, 1993). Although it is

successful compared to classrooms that do not use cooperative learning, there are many ways to

make it additionally effective. Teachers must make sure that their instructions are clear and

simple while stressing the need to collaborate, include all students and work together as a team

(Gillies & Ashman, 2000). The group members must be accountable for some part of the group

work; individual assessments will not encourage students to work together. Having a group

leader also helps to make sure that cooperative learning is successful. Group leaders make sure

that all members have a voice and are heard (Anderson, 1985). In terms of type of task, physical

projects are extremely beneficial because they force all members to participate (Anderson, 1985).

18


All of the ways to increase learning and socialization in cooperative learning revolves

around collaboration. The more students collaborate, the more they will learn on an individual

and a group level. Furthermore, greater collaboration yields greater positive peer interactions and

social acceptance of students with disabilities. Cooperative learning helps students with

disabilities to learn more and become socially accepted by their peers (Jacques, Wilton, &

Townsend, 1998). This method is a very successful method for all students in inclusion

classrooms.

Gaps in the Literature

Although there are very many articles in the literature regarding cooperative learning and

inclusion classrooms, there are few areas that have yet to be researched specifically. Overall,

most of the existing literature was conducted on a somewhat large level. Classrooms were

compared to other classrooms, or even larger, schools were compared to schools. However,

students need to be observed and researched on a case study level. The conversations between

students, the types of interactions, that amount of contribution to the learning task and other

similar factors need to be studied. This is important to study because it will show how the

students with disabilities are learning in the groups. Even further, it will show how the students

who do not have special needs are helping the students who do have special needs. What are the

social dynamics of the students in the groups? If some students are not contributing to the group

but are learning, it cannot be seen through a large-scale study that only looks at quantitative

outcomes.

Another gap in the literature exists also because of the large-scale studies; specific

disabilities are not examined in depth. How does a student with Down Syndrome differ from a

student with autism in the cooperative learning groups? Further research should look at

19


individual disabilities, as there are many different types and each disability is unique. The

severity of the disability must also be examined. Perhaps a child with a mild disability can thrive

in cooperative learning groups but another with a severe disability might not.

Future research should explore different ways of placing students into groups. Although

each study explains how the students were placed into groups, no studies look at the effects of

different methods of placement. For the most part, it seems that researchers or educators

randomly assign students to groups but make sure that the students who are special needs are

spread out evenly among the groups. What kind of ratio of students with and without disabilities

can foster the greatest achievement and social acceptance of students with disabilities? Also, it is

important to know if students should change groups for every learning task, every few weeks,

every few months or remain the same through out the school year.

Cooperative learning is one method for teachers to use in the classroom, but most

certainly not the only method. This leads to the question: how often should cooperative learning

be implemented in the classroom? The articles used for this study tended to use cooperative

learning about 1-5 times a week. Is there an appropriate number of times to have students

participate in cooperative learning every week? This is something that should be researched in

the future.

Lastly, the studies that have already been done in cooperative learning seldom are

longitudinal. If cooperative learning helps to increase learning and social acceptance of the

special needs students, how long do those effects last? Also, would be interesting to know if the

more students use cooperative learning, the greater their achievement continues to increase.

Based on the gaps in the literature, future research should explore cooperative learning

with students of differing needs, the longevity of cooperative learning, the types of educational

20


subjects it works best for, the ratio of students with and without disabilities and many other

factors. Also, cooperative learning groups need to be researched qualitatively and on a case study

level. Although there is much existing literature that says a lot about how to make cooperative

learning effective, there are still many gaps and many questions still unanswered.

Conclusions

Students with special needs are being placed in inclusion classrooms more and more, due

to IDEA and NCLB. This means that it is very important to make sure that inclusion classrooms

are effective for students with disabilities. Based on the literature, cooperative learning is an

effective teaching method to make sure that students with disabilities are learning and socially

integrated with their peers. When students with and without disabilities work in partnership,

there are many positive learning and social effects (Anderson, 1985).

21


References

Anderson, M. A. (1985). Cooperative Group Tasks and Their Relationship to Peer Acceptance

and Cooperation. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 18(2).

Antley, T. M. B. (2010). Inclusion Practices for Students with Disabilities in Three Schools

Which Are Meeting Accountability Mandates of No Child Left Behind: A Multiple Site

Case Study. ProQuest LLC. Retrieved from http://proxy.wexler.hunter.cuny.edu/login?

url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?

direct=true&db=eric&AN=ED519512&site=ehost-live

Brault, M. W. (2012). Current Population Reports. U.S. Census Bureau. from

http://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/p70-131.pdf

Bucalos, A. B., & Lingo, A. S. (2005). Filling the Potholes in the Road to Inclusion: Successful

Research-Based Strategies for Intermediate and Middle School Students with Mild

Disabilities. TEACHING Exceptional Children Plus, 1(4).

Burstein, N., Sears, S., Wilcoxen, A., Cabello, B., & Spagna, M. (2004). Moving Toward

Inclusive Practices. Remedial & Special Education, 25(2), 104-116.

Copeland, S. R., & Cosbey, J. (2008). Making Progress in the General Curriculum: Rethinking

Effective Instructional Practices. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe

Disabilities, 33/34(4-1), 214-227.

D'Allura, T. (2002). Enhancing the Social Interaction Skills of Preschoolers with Visual

Impairments. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 96(8), 576.

Dessemontet, R. S., Bless, G., & Morin, D. (2012). Effects of inclusion on the academic

achievement and adaptive behaviour of children with intellectual disabilities. Journal of

Intellectual Disability Research, 56(6), 579-587. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2788.2011.01497.x

22

http://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/p70-131.pdf

http://proxy.wexler.hunter.cuny.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=ED519512&site=ehost-live




Dugan, E., Kamps, D., & Leonard, B. (1995). Effects of cooperative learning groups during

social studies for students with autism and fourth-grade peers. Journal Of Applied

Behavior Analysis, 28(2), 175-188.

Gallagher, P. A. (2011). counseling and human development. Counseling & Human

Development, 44(3), 1-12.

Gandhi, A. G. (2007). Context Matters: Exploring Relations between Inclusion and Reading

Achievement of Students without Disabilities. International Journal of Disability,

Development and Education, 54(1), 91-112.

Gillies, R. M., & Ashman, A. F. (2000). The effects of cooperative learning on students with

learning difficulties in the lower elementary school. The Journal of Special Education,

34(1), 19-27. doi: 10.1177/002246690003400102

IDEA - Building The Legacy of IDEA 2004. (n.d.). IDEA - Building The Legacy of IDEA 2004.

Retrieved from http://idea.ed.gov/explore/view/p/%2Croot%2Cregs%2C300%2CA

%2C300%252E8%2C

Jacques, N., Wilton, K., & Townsend, M. (1998). Cooperative learning and social acceptance of

children with mild intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research,

42(1), 29-36. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2788.1998.00098.x

Johnson, R. T., Johnson, D. W., & DeWeerdt, N. (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.

Klinger, J. K., Vaughn, S., & Shay Schumm, J. (1998). Collaborative strategic reading during

social studies in heterogeneous fourth-grade classrooms. Elementary School Journal,

99(1), 3.

23


Lipsky, D. K., & Gartner, A. (1989). Beyond separate education: Quality education for all.

Baltimore, MD England: Paul H. Brookes Publishing.

Madden, N. A., & Slavin, R. E. (1983a). Effects of cooperative learning on the social acceptance

of mainstreamed academically handicapped students. Journal of Special Education, 17,

171-182. doi: 10.1177/002246698301700208

Madden, N. A., & Slavin, R. E. (1983b). Mainstreaming students with mild handicaps: academic

and social outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 53, 519-569. doi:

10.2307/1170220

Malmgren, K. (1998). Cooperative learning as an academic intervention for students with mild

disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 31(4), 1-6.

Murphy, E., Grey, I. M., & Honan, R. (2005). Co-operative learning for students with difficulties

in learning: a description of models and guidelines for implementation. British Journal of

Special Education, 32(3), 157-164. doi: 10.1111/j.0952-3383.2005.00389.x

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 on Mental Retardation, 107(5), 352-360. doi:

10.1352/0895-8017(2002)107<0352:PTSAOY>2.0.CO;2

Putnam, J. W. (1993). Cooperative learning and strategies for inclusion: Celebrating diversity in

the classroom. Baltimore, MD US: Paul H Brookes Publishing.

Rea, P. J., McLaughlin, V. L., & Walther-Thomas, C. (2002). Outcomes for Students with

Learning Disabilities in Inclusive and Pullout Programs. Exceptional Children, 68(2),

203-222.

24


Rouse, M., & Florian, L. (2006). Inclusion and Achievement: Student Achievement in Secondary

Schools with Higher and Lower Proportions of Pupils Designated as Having Special

Educational Needs. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 10(6), 481-493.

Salend, S. J. (1999). The Impact of Inclusion on Students With and Without Disabilities and

Their Educators. Remedial & Special Education, 20(2), 114.

Slavin, R. E., & et al. (1984). Effects of Cooperative Learning and Individualized Instruction on

Mainstreamed Students. Exceptional Children, 50(5), 434-443.

Stevens, R. J., Slavin, R. E., & Farnish, A. M. (1991). The effects of cooperative learning and

direct instruction in reading comprehension strategies on main idea identification.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(1), 8-16. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.83.1.8

Sullivan Palinscar, A., Magnusson, S. J., Collins, K. M., & Cutter, J. (2001). Making science

accessible to all: Results of a design experiment in inclusive classrooms. Learning

Disability Quarterly, 24(1), 15-32. doi: 10.2307/1511293

Tomlinson, C. A., Brighton, C., Hertberg, H., Callahan, C. M., Moon, T. R., Brimijoin, K., . . .

Reynolds, T. (2003). Differentiating Instruction in Response to Student Readiness,

Interest, and Learning Profile in Academically Diverse Classrooms: A Review of

Literature. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 27(2-3), 119-145.

Townsend, M. A. R., & Hicks, L. (1997). Classroom goal structures, social satisfaction and the

perceived value of academic tasks. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 67(1), 1-

12. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8279.1997.tb01222.x

Weiner, R., & Capitol Publications, I. A. V. A. (1985). P.L. 94-142: Impact on the Schools. First

Edition.

25

DarleneFinalLiteratureReview

Documents

Transcript of DarleneFinalLiteratureReview