You are on page 1of 45

Ikatan Mahasiswa Kristen Nigeria Berlakukan

Hukuman Cambuk atas Mahasiswi Berpakaian


Seronok
Rangkuman Dunia Oleh : Redaksi 26 May 2005 -
1:00 am

Baru-baru ini ikatan mahasiswa


Universitas Uyo di negara bagian Akwa
Ibom, Nigeria Timur yang mayoritas penduduknya Kristen
memutuskan untuk memburu para mahasiswi yang berpenampilan
seronok dan mencambuk mereka dengan bekerja sama dengan
keamanan universitas. Keputusan itu mencuat akibat maraknya
penampilan seronok yang signifikan di kampus-kampus Nigeria, dan
mencuatnya pembekuan RUU di parlemen Nigeria terkait etika
umum di dalam kampus.

Ketua ikatan mahasiswa Universitas Uyo, Umana Ra Umana yang


seorang Kristen menjelaskan, bekerja sama dengan institusi
keamanan di universitas, telah disepakati adanya rangkaian
gerakan anti-penampilan seronok para mahasiswi dan praktek-
praktek serta penyimpangan–penyimpangan moral yang bermacam-
macam, dan menjatuhkan hukuman atas mereka dengan dicambuk.
Demikian seperti dilansir IslamOnline, Selasa (24/5).

Terkait dengan masalah penentuan hukuman itu dengan dicambuk,


Umana mengatakan bahwa keputusan yang telah diambil pada
pekan lalu itu “sama sekali tak dilatarbelakangi oleh agama, tapi itu
bertujuan untuk menjaga dasar-dasar moral dan etika publik dan
kebiasaan-kebiasaan sosial di negeri kami, dimana mereka yang
melanggar itu ingin merusaknya dan keluar dari itu.”

“Sanksi cambuk itu merupakan hal paling gampang digelar untuk


menjaga dan menghormati nama baik universitas ilmiah,” imbuh
Umana.

Lebih lanjut Umana menyebut realita kehidupan para mahasiswi itu


“menuju kepada hal paling buruk dan bobrok.” Menurutnya,
“Pemandangan telanjang dan tampilan seronok telah menajadi
mode yang kembali menyeruak pada akhir-akhir ini, para mahasiswi
yang lemah berkreasi dalam hal ini sehingga kita hidup di pelataran
universitas seolah-olah kita berada di sebuah negara telanjang
dengan klaim sebagai kebebasan personal.”

Karena itu, Umana mengingatkan bahwa pihaknya akan terus


memburu setiap pemandangan seronok dan telanjang dan siapapun
yang berada di belakangnya. “Harus dipahami oleh semua bahwa
kebebasan itu ada batasannya yang tak mungkin dilanggar,” ancam
Umana.

Terkait dengan gebrakan yang dilakukan persatuan mahasiwa itu,


Dr. Benjamin Kayode, salah satu dosen dan tokoh Islam di
universitas Uyo mengatakan, keputusan itu merupakan kemajuan
penting dalam sejarah universitas. Pasalnya universitas Uyo
merupakan “universitas yang beraliran liberal dan murni menganut
gaya Barat.”

Menurut Kayode, mayoritas mahasiswa di Universitas Uyo adalah


pemeluk Kristen, karena memang universitas itu berlokasi di negara
bagian yang mayoritas penduduknya Kristen. Sama sekali tak ada
aliran Islam di dalam ikatan mahsiswa itu atau di dalam Universitas
Uyo.

Kayode juga menyiratkan bahwa keputusan pemburuan para wanita


berpenampilan seronok dan hampir telanjang itu mendapatkan
dukungan secara implisit dari pihak manajemen universitas, yang
menyerukan pelarangan pengenaan pakaian semi telanjang dan
seronok di kampus.

Seperti diketahui, fenomena pakaian semi telanjang di kampus-


kampus Nigeria itu menyeruak akhir-akhir ini. Kondisi itu
menyebabkan parlemen Nigeria turun tangan pada awal tahun
2005, yaitu dengan diterbitkannya RUU yang akan mengatur
kembali tata tertib etika dan moral publik bagi para mahasiswa di
dalam kampus. Namun RUU itu dibekukan karena adanya
penentangan dari sejumlah anggota parlemen.

Fenomena penampilan dengan pakaian semi telanjang itu berkurang


di universitas-universitas yang berada di negara bagian utara
Nigeria, yaitu negara bagian yang di sana diberlakukan Syariat
Islam.

Saat ini di Nigeria terdapat 56 universitas negeri, di antaranya ada


yang bernaung di bawah pemerintah federal dan pemerintah negara
bagian. Selain itu ada juga 10 universitas
khusus.(lys/iol/eramuslim)

http://pa.lwv.org/kat/katintro.html
Research Results
Citizenship education is important because civic skills do not develop naturally or in
the course of typical American school experience. This finding is supported by
research conducted by KAT, in cooperation with Sharon Kletzien, Ph.D. at West
Chester University.
Open-ended public policy scenarios were administered as a pre-test to over 400 third
graders and sixth graders, and then as a post-test to students after they had pursued a
KAT project. Rubrics on which students' responses were scaled included their
demonstration of the importance of research before advocating an opinion on an issue,
and their understanding that there are multiple opinions in the community on public
policy issues, among other democratic concepts.
Analysis of the pre-tests indicated no measurable differences in civic capabilities
between 3rd and 6th graders. However, analysis of the post-tests, conducted after the
students had participated in KAT, revealed significant improvements on five key
areas, as well as differences in sophistication attributable to grade level.

Civic understanding and skills must be nurtured. They're not automatic.

Ready for a dynamic, interdisciplinary approach to civics learning?


At the KAT Fair in Pittsburgh, students present their project on municipal
bridges to public.

Students educated in a democracy should be


able to understand a range of public issues and
be skilled enough to take responsible civic
action when warranted. This doesn't happen
automatically.

Recognizing the need for a dynamic, hands-on


approach to civics learning, the League of
Women Voters of Pennsylvania Citizen
Education Fund, in cooperation with Sharon Kletzien, Ph.D. at West Chester
University, developed Kids Around Town ® (KAT). Beginning with only five pilot
sites during the 1993-94 school year, KAT is directed by Ann Rappoport, Ph.D., and
has to date been used by over 6000 students across Pennsylvania as well as other
states. KAT has received numerous awards and acknowledgements and has been
cited in several national journals and publications.
KAT is an inquiry-based approach to teaching and learning that is designed to
motivate youngsters, while integrating into the regular school schedule. Using the
KAT Model, students apply their growing academic skills to research and resolve an
issue that concerns them in their actual communities. In doing so, KAT promotes high
academic achievement, consistent with national standards in language arts and
communications, mathematics, and science, as well as social studies, while fostering
civic efficacy and responsibility. Research results document KAT's success. Like life
itself, KAT is interdisciplinary and interactive.

KAT represents best educational practices, involving learners directly in process and
content. Students:

• select meaningful issues to study;


• involve themselves with real problems and people in their communities;
• connect school-based skills to real life;
• serve and improve aspects of their communities;
• empower themselves as citizens and problem-solvers.
KAT represents best teaching practices, invigorating classrooms by:

• varying the learning media and styles of learning available to a wide range of
students;
• empowering teachers as co-learners, coaches and facilitators of learning;
• building into the KAT project authentic evaluation and assessment.

We thank all our funders for supporting KAT's work


Credentials
Evidence of KAT's sound pedagogy can be found in countless places.
Awards

National Council for the Social Studies Outstanding Program of


Excellence Award in 1996.

Pennsylvania Council for the Social Studies Outstanding Program of


Excellence Award in 1995.

Included as an Exemplary Curriculum in the Association for


Supervision and Curriculum Development's May, 1996 issue of its
nationally renown, professional journal, Educational Leadership.

Comments about KAT

"KAT's genius is that it is a model of citizenship that can be understood


and practiced in a variety of contexts... It is a wonderful program that
needs a wider audience and larger opportunity for impact."
--Dr. Suzanne Morse, Reviewer, affiliated with The Pew Partnership
for Social Change, Alexandria, Virginia.

"I can't begin to tell you the satisfaction I have gained from this project
as I have watched my children grow and develop...I found it
exhilarating. I learned far more than I taught."
--Judith Goetzinger, fifth grade teacher at St. Catherine Laboure
School, Harrisburg, PA; KAT project on landfill capacity and
community composting.

"Usually in school we don't interact with the people. We just read


about them in books. But here, with this project, we met people and
got to know what they were like and what they would want."
--Krista, fifth grade student in Abington School District; KAT project
on new immigrants in the school and community.

"The best activity in the school. Besides meeting people, serving the
community, conducting and analyzing citizen surveys...We learned on
top of that!"
--Mario, eighth grade student in Arlington Middle School, Pittsburgh;
KAT project on voting behavior in the community.
"It's hard to see a connection with the real world if there isn't
one...KAT provides real world experience, and that's why it fits into the
District's priorities..."
-- Jim Cusimano, Pittsburgh School District administrator

"Students are gaining an understanding of their local government and


learning a practical application for effective composition, research
skills and statistics."
-- Erica Miller, community volunteer; KAT is incorporated into Lower
Merion School District's 4th grade social studies curriculum.

KAT "got the school district and the township working together...I
want to do this!"
--Robert Gill, East Pennsboro Township Manager has worked with
KAT students and their teachers on a variety of projects over the past
four years.

http://pa.lwv.org/kat/intro/demaction.html

Kids Around Town: Civic Education through Democratic Action


By Ann L. Rappoport and Sharon B. Kletzien.
Adapted from the version that was published in Social Studies & the Young Learner,
September/October 1997.
Teaching for civic efficacy is a major priority in elementary school education. Yet in
an effort to address controversial issues, teachers may oversimplify them or substitute
rote - if well-intentioned - community service projects that are not well-integrated into
the curriculum. Classrooms across Pennsylvania, however, are engaged in a program
called KIDS AROUND TOWN (KAT) that develops in young citizens a range of
skills and strategies for understanding public policy and participating directly in their
community's decision-making processes.
KAT youngsters select a public policy issue that interests them, and proceed to
conduct research, analyze arguments and data, and attempt to solve problems. KIDS
AROUND TOWN won the 1995 Program of Excellence Award from the
Pennsylvania Council for the Social Studies, and the equivalent award in 1996 from
the National Council for the Social Studies. The program, a local government
education model, was developed through support from the Citizen Education Fund of
the League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania. The League piloted the program in
nine school districts over a two-year period in association with West Chester
University; KAT is currently being implemented at a multitude of sites.
Selecting an Issue
Student choice helps motivate learning. The KAT model incorporates this principle by
encouraging students to select the local issue for research.
When fifth graders from the Leidy School in Philadelphia decided to participate in
KIDS AROUND TOWN their teachers and community volunteers held preliminary
planning sessions to identify a list of feasible alternatives. Problematic issues included
environmental concerns, recreational facilities and housing. Speakers, including a
representative from Philadelphia's Fairmount Park Commission and a neighborhood
builder involved in housing renovation, were invited to discuss these issues with the
children.
Resources would allow students to take on only one issue as a project, and it was
agreed that the majority vote would determine the choice. Despite the preference of
the majority of the adults for focusing attention on the water quality of a local pond in
Fairmount Park, the children favored the issue of abandoned housing and voted
accordingly.
From the start, lessons of resource allocation, persuasion, compromise and civic
priorities were learned and internalized by the students. They interviewed with local
experts about their problem, walked the neighborhood with City Commissioners and
visited specific offices in City Hall.
It is fair to note that several teachers who have implemented KAT began their projects
with some degree of anxiety. Leidy School teachers acknowledged that they knew
nothing about abandoned housing before becoming engaged in this issue, and they
wondered, "How do you teach something you know nothing about?" These teachers
noted later that their involvement in KAT reawakened the lifelong learner in them,
and helped them provide fine role models for their students.
Research and Analysis
Research and analysis underpin the reality of democratic choice, for without
information and inquiry, distinctions cannot be defined and choice is not rational.
Third graders in East Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania spent one year examining issues of
land development and open space. They noticed as more families moved into the area
that their treasured recreational facilities and open space had been disappearing. They
studied arguments and evidence provided by different perspectives on development
represented in their community. They practiced recognizing scare tactics, bias, smooth
marketing and propaganda techniques. They visited sites involved involved in
controversy and interviewed elected officials and private proponents active in the
public policy debates.
The third graders did not emerge from their study with one point of view. Instead,
they spoke clearly about the role of taxes, the level of public services that taxes could
purchase, and the tradeoffs involved in various zoning decisions. When the students
articulated their personal opinions about a given policy choice, they substantiated
their opinions with well-informed arguments.
Seeking Solutions and Taking Action
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing,"
according to British statesman and political philosopher Edmund Burke over 200
years ago. KAT kids link their study to action, building connections that bridge school
and neighborhood.
KAT encourages students to ask about their issues: So what? What difference does
this make? What, if anything, can be done, and how?
Not every KAT study lends itself to unified action or simple solution. The youngsters
in East Stroudsburg, for example, did not arrive at a consensus, but they did develop
an outline of pros and cons based on their research.
One year, third grade students in Hazleton, Pennsylvania restored a local playground
after a study about community property and vandalism. Another year, these classes
focused on issues of school safety. Culminating their research, these students
submitted a set of proposals to their local school board, including modifications to
some rules and requests for funding and permission to make and hang a series of signs
in designated places. The school board granted the students' requests.
In the spring of 1995, students from Spring Hill School in Pittsburgh were found at
the microphone at City Council hearings on a proposed curfew ordinance. They had
studied the experiences of other major cities throughout the country, and reported to
the policy-makers the strengths and weaknesses of those ordinances, what worked and
what didn't.
Assessment
The KAT model offers measures of both process and product. Clear objectives and
performance standards are provided for authentic assessment. Realistic culminating
scenarios are suggested, along with appropriate scoring rubrics. By the time KAT
students complete their projects, they have developed a multifaceted record of growth.
They have collected a "trail" or portfolio that may consist of activity logs, journal
writing, letters, surveys, tabulations, graphs, maps, speeches, word banks, posters,
models and booklets.
Assessments are performed by students through self-evaluation, as well as by
teachers. The KAT model suggests that teachers use an observation checklist for
specific abilities, such as "checks accuracy of information" and "examines different
perspectives."
A sample public policy scenario would describe a fairly typical local dilemma, such
as: "Some people in your town want to build a new fire station. Other people disagree.
How would you decide what your town should do? What would you do to make your
decision known?"
Scoring rubrics outline and allocate points according to important competencies
mastered, such as "recognizing the importance of studying the issue before arriving at
an opinion," or "student weighs advantages and disadvantages of possible solutions."
A student who expresses an opinion about the fire station controversy without first
indicating the need to ask questions and research the facts would receive a score of 1
on a scale of 1 to 4. A score of 4 would go to students who demonstrate clearly that it
would be necessary to study the issue and explore alternatives. The scenarios could
also serve as a pre-test to ascertain a base level of student understanding before the
project even begins.
The KAT program gives students lifelong learning strategies with which they can
effectively, realistically and responsibly deal with civic, moral and social issues. KAT
coaches youngsters in their practice of community behavior and civic initiative. One
teacher commented, "Participating in KAT takes a lot of flexibility . . . but it was the
most rewarding thing I've ever done as an educator in 13 years!"

http://pa.lwv.org/kat/katmodel.html
Introduction to the KAT Model

Woolsair students research: a walking tour of their neighborhood.

About KAT gave you a philosophical framework for


implementing KAT. Here we provide an overview of the
Model your class will use to explore their local public policy issue and take civic
action. The model contains 6 key components.

There is a link to each component of the Model listed on the left bar. If you follow
these links, you will find a brief introduction and then, using two different issues
selected by two different schools, we'll show you how KAT comes alive at each step.

Choose a local issue to explore

• under control of local authorities


• of direct concern and interest to students
• manageable within the time frame

Research the issue

• history
• factual bases
• public opinion
• alternative perspectives
• multiple sources; multiple types of sources

Analyze the research

• distinguish fact from opinion


• recognize arguments
• verify accuracy of facts and arguments
• identify points of view
• evaluate evidence
• look for patterns

Develop an action plan

• restate the problem


• develop possible alternatives
• analyze feasibility of solutions
• choose best solution for the "public good"

Take civic action

• inform the public


• convince local authorities
• participate in planned course of action

Assessment and reflection

• self evaluation
• teacher's observations
• apply knowledge to new situation
Although this presentation shows the components in sequential order, it is likely that
your work will take you back and forth across these components.
Only a Glimpse
Please remember that this "walk through" is only a glimpse of how the model works
in action. The KAT Model is flexible, adapting to different kinds of communities and
issues, different grade levels and student abilities, and to different timetables. The
Model is a tool to accomplish a variety of curriculum standards.
We strongly encourage you to obtain the KAT Teacher's Manual in order to expand
your repertoire with relevant sample lessons, techniques, strategies, activities, and
assessment rubrics and formats.

Finding an issue which will truly engage your students is essential to the success of
the model. Generally, it's best to let students collectively make this decision. The
issue should be under the control of local authorities, of direct concern and interest to
students and manageable within the time frame. Section III in the KAT Manual offers
a full discussion of how classes might focus on or identify local issues.

Component 1:
Choose a Local Issue
How Two KAT Classes Used This Component
Skateboarding
Elementary students in Lower Merion Township, a suburb of Philadelphia, were
disturbed to find out that many of them were breaking a law - a local ordinance -
when they skateboarded in the street or on public sidewalks. They wanted to continue
skateboarding, but they didn't want to be considered criminals. They selected this
issue as their KAT topic, and started their KAT study.

School Safety
Pittsburgh's Woolslair Elementary School opens onto a major road with no barriers
separating the youngsters on the front pavement from the fast-moving traffic and no
signs warning motorists of a school zone or to slow down. This frightened the
students, put them in dangerous situations, and made life very complicated when they
were trying to get into cars and buses at the end of the school day. This problem
therefore became the focus of their KAT research.

Component 2:
Research the Issue
The information gathering stage is where children have the greatest opportunity to
engage in interdisciplinary activities. They need to look at the following aspects of
the issue: history, factual bases, existing public opinion and alternative perspectives.
Sections I-4 , I-6 and IV in the KAT Manual looks at KAT as an interdisciplinary,
research opportunity and shows how to conduct KAT research.
How Two KAT Classes Used This Component
Skateboarding
Understanding that information empowers people, Gladwyne 4th graders armed
themselves with as much information as they could get. They
contacted their Township commissioner, obtained copies of the relevant ordinances,
Township maps and orientation materials. Then they invited the Director of the
Township's Parks and Recreation Department to visit the school for a lengthy
discussion. Questions and answers covered issues of safety, budget, liability,
Township decision-making procedures
and the role of the Department. They studied skateparks developed by other
municipalities. The children found they still needed more information. They
developed a survey to learn about skateboarding habits in Lower Merion, and sent this
survey to 3000 students in the Township schools.
School Safety
Woolslair students turned to knowledgeable citizens in their community and to their
city councilman to get information about this problem. They learned how important it
is to measure and document a situation in order to be able to solve it. Therefore, at
different times during the school
day, the children went outdoors, appropriately equipped and with supervision, to
tabulate the number of motor vehicles zooming past the school and to record speeds.
They observed and tabulated the number of jaywalkers. They also researched the
number and dates of accidents that had occurred. Working with experts in the
community, the children learned more about City Council and the processes for
citizens to make changes.

Component 3:
Analyze the Research
After students have collected information from a variety of sources, they need to be
able to analyze it. The key here is to teach them how to look at the information, not
only for what is there, and HOW that information is presented, but also for what is
NOT there. Analysis involves going beyond manipulating numbers. Among its many
lessons, Section V in the KAT Manual delves into analyzing sources of information,
points of view, emotional appeals, and the importance of asking useful questions,
among other lessons.

How Two KAT Classes Used This Component


Skateboarding
Gladwyne students not only reviewed the surveys, they learned and applied some
fairly sophisticated techniques to graph and present their statistics. They learned about
making inferences from their data, and what sorts of inferences could, and could not
be, considered legitimate. Time permitted them to focus primarily on the use of safety
equipment and the potential demand for a skatepark.
School Safety
Woolslair students also learned and applied new math skills in analyzing their
findings. Charts, graphs and maps took on real meaning, and were not just theoretical
examples on a worksheet. Their analysis also considered the age and grounds of the
school and the nature of the community in which it is situated.
Component 4:
Develop an Action Plan
After students have analyzed the data, they need to decide on possible solutions to the
problem they have studied. They can inform the public, convince local authorities or
participate in another planned course of action. Section VI of the KAT Manual offers
many models for problem solving, and provides tips for reframing the situation,
developing criteria for selecting solutions, and devising an action plan.

How Two KAT Classes Used This Component


Skateboarding
Perhaps Lower Merion could solve the skateboarding problem by arresting the
offending skateboarders or imposing substantial fines on their
families. The students decided that a better solution would be to
create a site dedicated to skates and rollerblading, where children
would be required to wear safety equipment. In subsequent research, they
might follow up more on potential costs and location of a prospective
skatepark. But given the information they had, they planned how to begin
to make their solution a reality.

School Safety
Many possible solutions for Woolslair's problem could be conceived: for
instance, altering traffic patterns and discontinue use of the front
doors. However, Woolslair students worked with their City Councilman,
Jim Ferlo, to devise a less disruptive, but nevertheless effective
alternative.
Component 5:
Take Civic Action
Once students have studied and analyzed an issue, they may want to take action.
They should restate the problem, develop possible alternatives, analyze feasibility of
solutions and choose the best solution for the "public good." Section VII of the KAT
Manual presents a range of activities that classes can take to resolve their policy issue
and to make positive improvements to their communities.

How Two KAT Classes Used This Component


Skateboarding
Gladwyne 4th graders took their results public. They put themselves on the agenda of
the School Board and Township Commission to make formal presentations of their
research and to request of these local decision-makers the building of a skatepark.
School Safety
Woolslair students worked together with their Councilman to have a guardrail
installed along the front perimeter of the school to create a physical barrier between
the children and the traffic.

Component 6:
Assessment and Reflection
Assessment and reflection are a key part to the learning process and should not be
overlooked. The teacher should share observations about the process. Students
should take the time to evaluate their own involvement and change through the
process and how they would apply their acquired knowledge to new situation. Section
VIII of the KAT Manual takes an in-depth look at multiple assessment formats and
rubrics.

How Two KAT Classes Used This Component


Skateboarding
This project created a paper trail - logs, letters, data - that the students and teacher
could refer back to and assess. Every student participated in one of the many public
presentations, and each had to
handle authentic questions posed on the spot by elected or appointed officials.
Videotape recorded some of these interactions for further
reflection. No skatepark has yet been constructed; students can follow up as a group
or as individuals.

http://www.co-operation.org/pages/briefly.html
What is Cooperative Learning?
Cooperative Learning is a relationship in a group of students that
requires positive interdependence (a sense of sink or swim
together), individual accountability (each of us has to contribute and
learn), interpersonal skills (communication, trust, leadership,
decision making, and conflict resolution), face-to-face promotive
interaction, and processing (reflecting on how well the team is
functioning and how to function even better).

What does the Cooperative Learning Center do?


The Cooperative Learning Center is a Reseach and Training Center
focusing on how students should interact with each other as they
learn and the skills needed to interact effectively. We have reviewed
more than 800 studies dating back to the late 1800's and have
contributed more than 80 research studies of our own to clarify the
issue of student to student interaction and learning. Our training
includes instructors from pre-school through college in all subject
areas. The training has concentrated on North America, but interest
is growing around the world.

Background

The Cooperative Learning Center has been a part of the College of


Education at the University of Minnesota for over 20 years. The
funding has come from a variety of sources including the Office of
Special Education, Department of Education, Office of Naval
Research, Department of Defense,and the National Science
Foundation. Over the years the Center has focused on making
classrooms more cooperative places and the teaching ofcooperative
skills (i.e. leadership, communication, decision making, trust
building, and conflict resolution.

Research and Training

The primary efforts of the Center are Research and Training. Over
the twenty plus years we have conducted more than 80 research
studies and a series of extensive reviews of the existing research on
cooperation and learning, more than 800 studies dating back to the
late l800's, (Cooperation and Competition: Theory and Research).
Training for teachers and administrators has been conducted though
out the U.S. and Canada, and also in Germany, Scandinavian
Countries, England, Saudi Arabia, New Zealand, Turkey, Panama,
Singapore, and Hungary.

Training Institutes

The Center sponsors a number of Training Institutes during the


summer in various locations in North America including Colorado,
Washington, Texas, Minnesota, Florida, South Carolina, and
Montreal. Typically each site would offer a Foundations of
Cooperative Learning, an Advanced Cooperative learning, Leading
the Cooperative School, Creative Conflict Resolution, and in a few
sites, a Leadership (Training of Trainers) Training

Staff

The Staff at the Center includes David and Roger Johnson, and part
time staff as the need arises or as grants provide. Adjunct faculty
include Karl Smith (Professor of Engineering) and Edythe Johnson
Holubec (Taylor, Texas). In addition from the thousands of
teachers/administrators who have been trained in Cooperative
Learning have come about five hundred people who have had
Leadership Training and are teaching Cooperative Learning in their
own areas. This network of carefully selected people allows us to
refer people who are seeking help with cooperative learning to
Leaders in their own community or close by

Visitors

There is an on-going stream of people visiting the Center from the


U.S. and outside stopping by for information or spending several
months in study. Most recently we have had visitors from Australia,
Russia, Singapore, New Guinea, Ireland and several parts of the
U.S..

Future Directions
Recent work has concentrated on moving on from cooperative
classrooms to cooperative schools and systems. Leading the
Cooperative School is aimed at school administrators and teacher
leaders and details this next step from a school where "some
teachers use cooperative learning" to becoming a Cooperative
School. Growing attention is being given to the book, Active
Learning: Cooperation in the College classroom which examines the
use of cooperative learning in adult settings. We have been working
with the U.S. Navy and more than a dozen College Campuses. In the
Cooperative Skills area, the Conflict Resolution material (in
particular Teaching Students to be Peacemakers) has become the
focus of preventing and dealing with violence in the schools. We are
equally interested in the Creative Controversy material which
focuses on stirring up more intellectual conflict in classrooms.
The current projects that may prove promising is our interest in
assisting schools in Eastern Europe to promote cooperative learning
as one way to help prepare a next generation for democracy and
the free enterprise system. We are also working closely with Disney
Corporation and Stetson University to design the school and teacher
academy for the Celebration Community at DisneyWorld in Orlando

http://www.co-operation.org/pages/overviewpaper.html
AN OVERVIEW OF COOPERATIVE LEARNING
Roger T. and David W. Johnson
Originally published in:
J. Thousand, A. Villa and A. Nevin (Eds), Creativity and Collaborative
Learning; Brookes Press, Baltimore, 1994.

Without the cooperation of its members society cannot survive, and


the society of man has survived because the cooperativeness of its
members made survival possible.... It was not an advantageous
individual here and there who did so, but the group. In human
societies the individuals who are most likely to survive are those
who are best enabled to do so by their group.

(Ashley Montagu, 1965)

How students perceive each other and interact with one another is a neglected
aspect of instruction. Much training time is devoted to helping teachers arrange
appropriate interactions between students and materials (i.e., textbooks,
curriculum programs) and some time is spent on how teachers should interact
with students, but how students should interact with one another is relatively
ignored. It should not be. How teachers structure student-student interaction
patterns has a lot to say about how well students learn, how they feel about
school and the teacher, how they feel about each other, and how much self-
esteem they have.
There are three basic ways students can interact with each other as they learn.
They can compete to see who is "best," they can work individualistically toward a
goal without paying attention to other students, or they can work cooperatively
with a vested interest in each other's learning as well as their own. Of the three
interaction patterns, competition is presently the most dominant. Research
indicates that a vast majority of students in the United States view school as a
competitive enterprise where one tries to do better than other students. This
competitive expectation is already widespread when students enter school and
grows stronger as they progress through school (Johnson & R. Johnson, 1991).
Cooperation among students-who celebrate each other’s successes, encourage
each other to do homework, and learn to work together regardless of ethnic
backgrounds or whether they are male or female, bright or struggling, disabled or
not, is still rare.

BASIC DEFINITIONS

Even though these three interaction patterns are not equally effective in helping
students learn concepts and skills, it is important that students learn to interact
effectively in each of these ways. Students will face situations in which all three
interaction patterns are operating and they will need to be able to be effective in
each. They also should be able to select the appropriate interaction pattern suited
to the situation. An interpersonal, competitive situation is characterized by
negative goal interdependence where, when one person wins, the others lose; for
example, spelling bees or races against other students to get the correct answers
to a math problem on the blackboard. In individualistic learning situations,
students are independent of one another and are working toward a set criteria
where their success depends on their own performance in relation to an
established criteria. The success or failure of other students does not affect their
score. For example, in spelling, with all students working on their own, any
student who correctly spells 90% or more words passes. In a cooperative learning
situation, interaction is characterized by positive goal interdependence with
individual accountability. Positive goal interdependence requires acceptance by a
group that they "sink or swim together." A cooperative spelling class is one where
students are working together in small groups to help each other learn the words
in order to take the spelling test individually on another day. Each student’s score
on the test is increased by bonus points if the group is successful (i.e., the group
totals meet specified criteria). In a cooperative learning situation, a student needs
to be concerned with how he or she spells and how well the other students in his
or her group spell. This cooperative umbrella can also be extended over the entire
class if bonus points are awarded to each student when the class can spell more
words than a reasonable, but demanding, criteria set by the teacher.

There is a difference between simply having students work in a group and


structuring groups of students to work cooperatively. A group of students sitting at
the same table doing their own work, but free to talk with each other as they
work, is not structured to be a cooperative group, as there is no positive
interdependence. Perhaps it could be called individualistic learning with talking.
For this to be a cooperative learning situation, there needs to be an accepted
common goal on which the group is rewarded for its efforts. If a group of students
has been assigned to do a report, but only one student does all the work and the
others go along for a free ride, it is not a cooperative group. A cooperative group
has a sense of individual accountability that means that all students need to know
the material or spell well for the whole group to be successful. Putting students
into groups does not necessarily gain a cooperative relationship; it has to be
structured and managed by the teacher or professor.

ELEMENTS OF COOPERATIVE LEARNING


It is only under certain conditions that cooperative efforts may be expected to be
more productive than competitive and individualistic efforts. Those conditions are:

1. Clearly perceived positive interdependence


2. Considerable promotive (face-to-face) interaction
3. Clearly perceived individual accountability and personal responsibility to achieve the group’s
goals
4. Frequent use of the relevant interpersonal and small-group skills
5. Frequent and regular group processing of current functioning to improve the group’s future
effectiveness

All healthy cooperative relationships have these five basic elements present. This
is true of peer tutoring, partner learning, peer mediation, adult work groups,
families, and other cooperative relationships. This conceptual "yardstick" should
define any cooperative relationship.
Positive Interdependence
The first requirement for an effectively structured cooperative lesson is that
students believe that they "sink or swim together." Within cooperative learning
situations, students have two responsibilities: 1) learn the assigned material, and
2) ensure that all members of the group learn the assigned material. The
technical term for that dual responsibility is positive interdependence.
Positive interdependence exists when students perceive that they are linked with
group mates in such a way that they cannot succeed unless their group mates do
(and vice versa) and/or that they must coordinate their efforts with the efforts of
their group mates to complete a task. Positive interdependence promotes a
situation in which students: 1) see that their work benefits group mates and their
group mates' work benefits them, and 2) work together in small groups to
maximize the learning of all members by sharing their resources to provide
mutual support and encouragement and to celebrate their joint success. When
positive interdependence is clearly understood, it establishes that:

1. Each group member's efforts are required and indispensable for group success (i.e., there can
be no "free-riders").
2. Each group member has a unique contribution to make to the joint effort because of his or her
resources and/or role and task responsibilities.

There are a number of ways of structuring positive interdependence within a


learning group.
Positive Goal Interdependence Students perceive that they can achieve their
learning goals if’ and only if all the members of their group also attain their goals.
The group is united around a common goal -- a concrete reason for being. To
ensure that students believe they "sink or swim together" and care about how
much each other learns, the teacher has to structure a clear group or mutual goal,
such as "learn the assigned material and make sure that all members of the group
learn the assigned material." The group goal always has to be a part of the lesson.
Positive Reward -- Celebrate Interdependence Each group member receives
the same reward when the group achieves its goals. To supplement goal
interdependence, teachers may wish to add joint rewards (e.g., if all members of
the group score 90% correct or better on the test, each receives 5 bonus points).
Sometimes teachers give students: 1) a group grade for the overall production of
their group, 2) an individual grade resulting from tests, and 3) bonus points if all
members of the group achieve the criterion on tests. Regular celebrations of
group efforts and success enhance the quality of cooperation.
Positive Resource Interdependence Each group member has only a portion of
the resources, information, or materials necessary for the task to be completed;
the members’ resources have to be combined for the group to achieve its goals.
Teachers may wish to highlight the cooperative relationships by giving students
limited resources that must be shared (one copy of the problem or task per group)
or giving each student part of the required resources that the group must then fit
together (the Jigsaw procedure).
Positive Role Interdependence Each member is assigned complementary and
interconnected roles that specify responsibilities that the group needs in order to
complete the joint task. Teachers create role interdependence among students
when they assign them complementary roles such as reader, recorder, checker of
understanding, encourager of participation, and elaborator of knowledge. Such
roles are vital to high-quality learning. The role of checker, for example, focuses
on periodically asking each group mate to explain what is being learned.
Rosenshine and Stevens (1986) reviewed a large body of well-controlled research
on teaching effectiveness at the pre-collegiate level and found "checking for
comprehension" to be one specific teaching behavior that was significantly
associated with higher levels of student learning and achievement. Although the
teacher cannot continually check the understanding of every student, the teacher
can engineer such checking by having students work in cooperative groups and
assigning one member the role of checker.
There are other types of positive interdependence. Positive task interdependence
exists when a division of labor is created so that the actions of one group member
have to be completed if the next member is to complete his or her responsibility.
Positive identity interdependence exists when a mutual identity is established
through a name or motto. Outside threat interdependence exists when groups are
placed in competition with each other. Fantasy interdependence exists when a
task is given that requires group members to imagine that they are in a
hypothetical situation.
We have conducted a series of studies investigating the nature of positive
interdependence and the relative power of the different types of positive
interdependence (Hwong, Caswell, Johnson, & Johnson, 1993; Johnson, Johnson,
Ortiz, & Starme, 1991; Johnson, Johnson, Stanne, & Garibaldi, 1990; Low, Mesch,
Johnson, & Johnson, 1986a, 1986b; Mesch, Johnson, & Johnson, 1988; Mesch, Lew,
Johnson, & Johnson, 1986). Our research indicates that positive interdependence
provides the context within which promotive interaction takes place. Group
membership and interpersonal interaction among students do not produce higher
achievement unless positive interdependence is clearly structured. The
combination of goal and reward interdependence increases achievement over
goal interdependence alone and resource interdependence does not increase
achievement unless goal interdependence is present also.
Face-to-Face Promotive Interaction
In an industrial organization, it's the group effort that counts.
There's really no room for stars in an industrial organization. You
need talented people, but they can't do it alone. They have to have
help.
(John F. Donnelly, President, Donnelly Mirrors)
Positive interdependence results in promotive interaction. Promotive interaction
may be defined as individuals encouraging and facilitating each other's efforts to
achieve, complete tasks, and produce in order to reach the group's goals.
Although positive interdependence in and of itself may have some effect on
outcomes, it is the face-to-face promotive interaction among individuals fostered
by the positive inter-relationships, and psychological adjustment and social
competence. Promotive interaction is characterized by individuals providing each
other with efficient and effective help and assistance; exchanging needed
resources, such as information and materials, and processing information more
efficiently and effectively; providing each other with feedback in order to improve
their subsequent performance; challenging each other's conclusions and
reasoning in order to promote higher quality decision making and greater insight
into the problems being considered; advocating the exertion of effort to achieve
mutual goals; influencing each other’s efforts to achieve the group's goals; acting
in trusting and trustworthy ways; being motivated to strive for mutual benefit;
and maintaining a moderate level of arousal characterized by low anxiety and
stress.

Individual Accountability/Personal Responsibility


What children can do together today, they can do alone tomorrow.
(Let Vygotsky, 1962)
Among the early settlers of Massachusetts there was a saying, "If you do not
work, you do not eat." Everyone had to do their fair share of the work. The third
essential element of cooperative learning is individual accountability, which exists
when the performance of individual students is assessed, the results are given
back to the individual and the group, and the student is held responsible by group
mates for contributing his or her fair share to the group’s success. It is important
that the group-knows who needs more assistance, support, and encouragement in
completing the assignment. It is also important that group members know they
cannot "hitchhike" on the work of others. When it is difficult to identify members'
contributions, when members' contributions are redundant, and when members
are not responsible for the final group outcome, they may be seeking a free ride
(Harkins & Petty, 1982; Ingham, Levinger, Graves, & Peckham, 1974; Kerr &
Bruun, 1981; Latane, Williams, & Harkins, 1979; Moede, 1927; Petty, 1-larkins,
Williams, & Latane, 1977; Williams, 1981; Williams, Harkins, & Latane, 1981). This
is called social loafing.
The purpose of cooperative learning groups is to make each member a stronger
individual in his or her own right. Individual accountability is the key to ensuring
that all group members are, in fact, strengthened by learning cooperatively. After
participating in a cooperative lesson, group members should be better prepared
to complete similar tasks by themselves.
To ensure that each student is individually accountable to do his or her fair share
of the group’s work, teachers need to assess how much effort each member is
contributing to the group’s work, provide feedback to groups and individual
students, help groups avoid redundant efforts by members, and ensure that every
member is responsible for the final outcome. Common ways to structure
individual accountability include:

1. Keeping the size of the group small. The smaller the size of the group, the greater the
individual accountability may be.
2. Giving an individual test to each student.
3. Randomly examining students orally by calling on one student to present his or her group's
work to the teacher (in the presence of the group) or to the entire class.
4. Observing each group and recording the frequency with which each member-contributes to the
group's work.
5. Assigning one student in each group the role of checker. The checker asks other group
members to explain the reasoning and rationale underlying group answers.
6. Having students teach what they learned to someone else. When all students do this, it is
called simultaneous explaining.

There is a pattern to classroom learning. First, students learn knowledge, skills,


strategies, or procedures in a cooperative group. Second, students apply the
knowledge or perform the skill, strategy, or procedure alone to demonstrate their
personal mastery of the material. Students learn it together and then perform it
alone.
Interpersonal and Small-Group Skills
I will pay more for the ability to deal with people than any other ability under the
sun.
(John D. Rockefeller)
The fourth essential element of cooperative learning is the appropriate use of
interpersonal and small-group skills. In order to coordinate efforts to achieve
mutual goals, students must: 1) get to know and trust each other, 2)
communicate accurately and unambiguously, 3) accept and support each other,
and 4) resolve conflict constructively (Johnson, 1990, 1991; Johnson & F. Johnson,
1991). Placing socially unskilled students in a group and telling them to cooperate
does not guarantee that they have the ability to do so effectively. We are not born
instinctively knowing how to interact effectively with others. Interpersonal and
small-group skills do not magically appear when they are needed. Students must
be taught the social skills required for high quality collaboration and be motivated
to use them if cooperative groups are to be productive. The whole field of group
dynamics is based on the premise that social skills are the key to group
productivity (Johnson & F. Johnson, 1991).
The more socially skillful students are and the more attention teachers pay-to
teaching and rewarding the use of social skills, the higher the achievement that
can be expected within cooperative learning groups. In their studies on the long-
term implementation of cooperative learning, Lew and Mesch (Lew et al., 1986a,
1986b; Mesch et al., 1988; Mesch et al., 1986) investigated the impact of a reward
contingency for using social skills as well as positive interdependence and a
contingency for academic achievement on performance within cooperative
learning groups. In the cooperative skills conditions, students were trained weekly
in four social skills and each member of a cooperative group was given two bonus
points toward the quiz grade if all group members were observed by the teacher
to demonstrate three out of four cooperative skills. The results indicated that the
combination of positive interdependence, an academic contingency for high
performance by all group members, and a social skills contingency promoted the
highest achievement.
Group Processing
Take care of each other. Share your energies with the group. No one must feel
alone, cut off, for that is when you do not make it.
(Willi Unsoeld, Renowned Mountain Climber)
The fifth essential component of cooperative learning is group processing.
Effective group work is influenced by whether or not groups reflect on (i.e.,
process) how well they are functioning. A process is an identifiable sequence of
events taking place over time, and process goals refer to the sequence of events
instrumental in achieving outcome goals (Johnson & F. Johnson, 1991). Group
processing may be defined as reflecting on a group session to: 1) describe what
member actions were helpful and unhelpful, and 2) make decisions about what
actions to continue or change. The purpose of group processing is to clarify and
improve the effectiveness of the members in contributing to the collaborative
efforts to achieve the group’s goals.
While the teacher systematically observes the cooperative learning groups, he or
she attains a "window" into what students do and do not understand as they
explain to each other how to complete the assignment. Listening in on the
students' explanations provides valuable information about bow well the students
understand the instructions, the major concepts and strategies being learned, and
the basic elements of cooperative learning.
There are two levels of processing -- small group and whole class. In order to
ensure that small-group processing takes place, teachers allocate some time at
the end of each class session for each cooperative group to process how
effectively members worked together. Groups need to describe what member
actions were helpful and not helpful in completing the group's work and make
decisions about what behaviors to continue or change. Such processing: 1)
enables learning groups to focus on maintaining good working relationships
among members, 2) facilitates the learning of cooperative skills, 3) ensures that
members receive feedback on their participation, 4) ensures that students think
on the metacognitive as well as the cognitive level, and 5) provides the means to
celebrate the success of the group and reinforce the positive behaviors of group
members. Some of the keys to successful small-group processing are allowing
sufficient time for it to take place, providing a structure for processing (e.g., "List
three things your group is doing well today and one thing you could improve."),
emphasizing positive feedback, making the processing specific rather than
general, maintaining student involvement in processing, reminding students to
use their cooperative skills while they process, and communicating clear
expectations as to the purpose of processing.
In addition to small-group processing, the teacher should periodically engage in
whole-class processing. When cooperative learning groups are used, the teacher
observes the groups, analyzes the problems they have working together, and
gives feedback to each group on how well they are working together. The teacher
systematically moves from group to group and observes them at work. A formal
observation sheet may be used to gather specific data on each group. At the end
of the class period the teacher can then conduct a whole-class processing session
by sharing with the class the results of his or her observations. If each group has a
peer observer, the results of their observations may be added together to get
overall class data.
An important aspect of both small-group and whole-class processing is group and
class celebrations. It is feeling successful, appreciated, and respected that builds
commitment to learning, enthusiasm about working in cooperative groups, and a
sense of self-efficacy in terms of subject-matter mastery and working cooperatively
with classmates.

RESEARCH RATIONALE
Working together to get the job done can have profound effects on students and
staff members. A great son & It. Johnson, 1974, 1978, 1983, 1989a; Johnson,
Johnson, & Maruyama, 1983; Johnson, Maruyama, Johnson, Nelson, & Skon, 1981;
Pepitone, 1980; Sharan, 1980; Slavin, 1983). These research studies began in the
late 1890s when Triplett (1898) in the United States and Mayer (1903) in Germany
conducted a series on the factors associated with competitive performance. The
amount of research that has been conducted since then is staggering. During the
past 90 years, more than 600 studies have been conducted by a wide variety of
researchers in different decades with different age subjects, in different subject
areas, and in different environments. We know far more about the efficacy of
cooperative learning than we know about lecturing, age grouping, beginning
reading instruction at age 6, departmentalization, or almost any other facet of
education.
Building on the theorizing of Kurt Lewin (1935) and Morton Deutsch (1949), the
premise may be made that the type of interdependence structured among
students determines how they interact with each other, which in turn largely
determines instructional outcomes. The quality of peer relationships, furthermore,
has widespread and powerful impact on individuals' cognitive and social
development.
Cooperative Efforts and Achievement/Productivity
The highest and best form of efficiency is the spontaneous cooperation of a free
people.
(Woodrow Wilson)
How successful competitive, individualistic, and cooperative efforts are in
promoting productivity and achievement is the first question pragmatists ask
about social interdependence. More than 875 studies have been conducted during
the past 90 years to give an answer (Johnson & R. Johnson, 1989a). When all of
the studies were included in the analysis, the average cooperator performed at
about two thirds a standard deviation above average student learning within a
competitive (effect size = 0.66) or individualistic situation (effect size 0.63). When
only the high-quality studies were included in the analysis, the effect sizes are
0.86 and 0.59 respectively. Cooperative learning, furthermore, resulted in more
higher level reasoning, more frequent generation of new ideas and solutions (i.e.,
process gain), and greater transfer of what is learned within one situation to
another (i.e., group-to-individual transfer) than did competitive or individualistic
learning.
The fad that working together to achieve a common goal produces higher
achievement and greater productivity than does working alone is so well
confirmed by so much research that it stands as one of the strongest principles of
social and organizational psychology. Cooperative learning is indicated whenever
learning goals are highly important, mastery and retention are important, a task is
complex or conceptual, problem solving is desired, divergent thinking or creativity
is desired, quality of performance is expected, and higher-level reasoning
strategies and critical thinking are needed.
Participants in the research have varied widely as to economic class, age, sex,
and cultural background. A variety of tasks and measures of the dependent
variables have been studied. Studies have been conducted by many different
researchers with markedly different orientations working in different environments
and in different decades. This means that the overall body of research on social
interdependence has considerable generalizability, as shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Social interdependence: Weighted findings

Mean Standard deviation na

Achievement

Cooperative vs. competitive 0.66 0.94 128

Cooperative vs. individualistic 0.63 0.81 182

Competitive vs. individualistic 0.30 0.76 39

Interpersonal attraction

Cooperative vs. competitive 0.65 0.47 88

Cooperative vs. individualistic 0.62 0.59 59

Competitive vs. individualistic 0.08 0.70 15

Social support

Cooperative vs. competitive 0.59 0.39 75

Cooperative vs. individualistic 0.71 0.45 70

Competitive vs. individualistic -0.12 0.37 18

Self-esteem

Cooperative vs. competitive 0.60 0.57 55

Cooperative vs. individualistic 0.44 0.40 37

Competitive vs. individualistic -0.19 0.40 18


a
n = number of studies in sample

Interpersonal Relationships and Acceptance of Differences


One of the most important and long-standing goals of American education is to
promote constructive relationships and positive attitudes among heterogeneous
students. Almost every school district has acceptance of differences as one of
their stated goals for students. Legislation exists that proclaims it is unlawful to
segregate any student for educational purposes unless it is absolutely necessary.
Ethnic minorities, students with disabilities, non—English-speaking students, and
even females interested in science and math are examples of areas of students
who need to be integrated with a wide variety of peers. Acceptance of differences
is a central issue for all students.
Cooperative learning experiences, compared with competitive, individualistic, and
"traditional" instruction, promote considerably more liking among students (effect
sizes = 0.65 and 0.62 respectively) (Johnson & R. Johnson, 1989a; Johnson et al.,
1983). This is true regardless of differences in ability level, sex, disability, ethnic
membership, social class differences, or task orientation, Students who
collaborate on their studies develop considerable commitment and caring for each
other no matter what their initial impressions of and attitudes toward each other
were when they started. They also like the teacher more and perceive the teacher
as being more supportive and accepting academically and personally.
It is when students with disabilities are liked, accepted, and chosen as friends that
inclusion becomes a positive influence on the lives of students with and without
disabilities. Thus, any definition of inclusion that does not recognize the
importance of relationships among students with and without disabilities is
incomplete. It is peers without disabilities who provide students with disabilities
entry into the typical life experiences of their age groups, such as going to
dances, taking buses, going to movies, shopping, knowing what is "cool" and what
is not, and dating. Constructive peer relationships are not only an absolute
necessity for maximal achievement and healthy social and cognitive
development, they may be the primary relationship within which development
and socialization take place. Students with disabilities especially need access to
peers who are highly motivated and behave appropriately. Placing students with
disabilities in the corner of a classroom and providing individualistic learning
experiences is not effective inclusion.
Inclusion is not something teachers do for a few students. It is something teachers
do for every student in their class. The instructional procedures needed for the
constructive inclusion of students with disabilities also benefit the shy student
sitting over by the window, the over-aggressive student who seeks acceptance
through negative behaviors, the bright but stereotyped student sitting in the front
row, and the average student in the center of the classroom who needs very little
help and is often neglected. All students need to be accepted and benefit from a
classroom where it is acceptable to be different. We have also found in our
research that when students without disabilities collaborate with their peers with
disabilities on instructional tasks, the result is increased empathy, altruism, and
an ability to view situations from a variety of perspectives. Even the most well-
adjusted and hard-working students benefit from the instructional techniques
associated with inclusion when it is structured effectively.
Accuracy of Perspective Taking
Social perspective taking is the ability to understand how a situation appears to
another person and how that person is reacting cognitively and emotionally to the
situation. The opposite of perspective taking is egocentrism, the embedded ness
in one’s own viewpoint to the extent that one is unaware of other points of view
and of the limitations of one's perspectives. Cooperative learning experiences
tend to promote greater cognitive and affective perspective taking than do
competitive or individualistic learning experiences (Johnson & R. Johnson, 1989a).
Creativity
Cooperative learning promotes creative thinking by increasing the number of
ideas, quality of ideas, feelings of stimulation and enjoyment, and originality of
expression in creative problem solving (Bahn, 1964; Bolen & ‘Thrrance, 1976;
Dunnette, Campbell, & Jaastad, 1963; Ehlk & Johnson, 1977; Peters & ‘Ibrrance,
1972; Thrrance, 1970, 1971, 1973; Triandis, Bass, Ewen, & Mikesell, 1963). It is
not surprising that students are "triggered" by the ideas of others and that
different perspectives cause group members to consider a larger number of
alternatives. The cooperative relationship also provides a context to consider and
appreciate other group members’ ideas instead of ignoring (individualistic) or
trying to come up with a better one (competition).
Self-Esteem
The data in Table 1 indicate that cooperation produced higher levels of self-
esteem than did competitive and individualistic efforts (effect sizes of 0.58 and
0.44 respectively) with regard to self-esteem. Individuals with low self-esteem
tend to (Johnson & R. Johnson, 1989a):

1. Have low productivity due to setting low goals for themselves, lacking confidence in their
ability, and assuming that they will fail no matter how hard they try.
2. Are critical of others as well as themselves by looking for flaws in others and trying to "tear
them down."
3. Withdraw socially due to feeling awkward, self-conscious, and vulnerable to rejection.
4. Are conforming, agreeable, highly persuadable, and highly influenced by criticism.
5. Develop psychological problems such as anxiety, nervousness, insomnia, depression, and
psychosomatic symptoms.

Within competitive situations, self-esteem tends to be based on the contingent


view of one’s competence that, "If I win, then I have worth as a person, but if I
lose, then I have no worth." Winners attribute their success to superior ability and
attribute the failure of others to lack of ability, both of which contribute to self-
aggrandizement. Losers, who are the vast majority, defensively tend to be self-
disparaging, apprehensive about evaluation, and tend to withdraw psychologically
and physically. Within individualistic situations, students are isolated from one
another, receive little direct comparison with or feedback from peers, and
perceive evaluations as inaccurate and unrealistic. A defensive avoidance,
evaluation apprehension, and distrust of peers results. Within cooperative
situations, individuals tend to interact, promote each other’s success, form
multidimensional and realistic impressions of each other’s competencies, and give
accurate feedback. Such interaction tends to promote a basic acceptance of
oneself as a competent person.
Understanding Interdependence
Cooperative learning simultaneously models interdependence and provides
students with the experiences they need to understand the nature of cooperation
(Johnson-& Johnson, 1989a). The future of the world depends on the constructive
and competent management of world interdependence as well as
interdependence in family, work, community, and societal environments. Students
who have had 12-20 years of cooperative learning and who have had
opportunities to work cooperatively with students who vary in ability, ethnicity,
gender, and so forth will be better able to build positively interdependent
relationships than will students who have had 12-20 years of competitive and
individualistic learning.
Figure 1. Outcomes of cooperation
RELATIONSHIPS AMONG OUTCOMES
There are bi-directional relationships, as shown in Figure 1, among achievement,
quality of interpersonal relationships, and psychological health (Johnson &
Johnson, 1989b). Each influences the others. Caring and committed friendships
come from a sense of mutual accomplishment, mutual pride in joint work, and the
bonding that results from joint efforts.
The more students care about each other, the harder they will work to achieve
mutual learning goals. Long-term and persistent efforts to achieve do not come
from the head; they come from the heart (Johnson & Johnson, 1989b). Individuals
seek out opportunities to work with those they care about. As caring increases, so do
feelings of personal responsibility to do one's share of the work, a willingness to
take on difficult tasks, motivation and persistence in working toward goal
achievement, and a willing-ness to endure pain and frustration on behalf of the
group. All these contribute to group productivity.
In addition, the joint success experienced in working together to get the job done
enhances social competencies, self-esteem, and general psychological health. The
more psychologically healthy individuals are, the better able they are to work with
others to achieve mutual goals. Joint efforts require coordination, effective
communication, leadership, and conflict management. States of depression,
anxiety, guilt, shame, and anger decrease the energy available to contribute to a
cooperative effort.
Finally, the more positive interpersonal relationships are, the greater the
psychological health of the individuals involved- Through the internalization of
positive relationships, direct social support, shared intimacy, and expressions
of caring, psychological health and the ability to cope with stress are built.
Destructive relationships and the absence of caring and committed relationships
tend to increase psychological pathology, Moreover, depression, anxiety, guilt,
shame, and anger decrease an individual’s ability to build and maintain caring
and committed relationships. The more psychologically healthy individuals are,
the more they can build and maintain meaningful and caring relationships.
With the amount of research evidence available, it is surprising that classroom
practice is so oriented toward individualistic and competitive learning and
schools are so dominated by a competitive/individualistic structure. It is time for
the discrepancy to be reduced between what research indicates is effective in
teaching and what teachers actually do.

BACK TO THE BASICS


Our research and the research of many others dating back to the late 1800s has
established that having students work together cooperatively is a powerful way
for them to learn and has positive effects on the classroom and school climate
This has been verified by teachers in classrooms from preschool through graduate
school. However, the importance of emphasizing cooperative learning in
classrooms goes beyond just achievement, positive relationships, and
psychological health.
The ability of all students to learn to work cooperatively with others is the
keystone to building and maintaining stable marriages, families, careers, and
friendships. Being able to perform technical skills, such as reading, speaking,
listening, writing, computing, and problem solving, are valuable but of little use if
the person cannot apply those skills in cooperative interaction with other people
in career, family, and community environments. The most logical way to
emphasize the use of students' knowledge and skills within a cooperative
framework, such as they will meet as members of society, is to spend much of the
time learning those skills in cooperative relationships with each other. We need to
get back to the basics, reconcile school practices with current research, and
encourage that a healthy portion of instruction is cooperative.

Cooperative Learning and Inclusion


Mara Sapon-Shevin, Barbara J. Ayres, and
Janet Duncan
As schools move closer to the goal of providing education for all children within
inclusive classrooms and schools, increasing amounts of attention and energy are
being devoted to developing pedagogical approaches that are appropriate in
heterogeneous classrooms. It has become clear that physical inclusion of students
with disabilities in the classroom is not sufficient to ensure they will develop
meaningful relationships with others. Teachers must structure the educational and
social environment so that students develop the skills and attitudes required to
interact across perceived differences and disabilities. Teachers who are working in
inclusive classrooms are eager to develop modes of instruction that do not isolate
and stigmatize learners with different needs: "Everyone write your book reports,
and Michael, come over here and draw a picture" is an approach that not only
separates children unnecessarily, but also denies all children the opportunity to
learn and interact with others in ways that will enhance their academic and social
growth. The realization that complete individualization is not a practical or even
desirable solution to meeting the diverse needs of children within a single
classroom has led many inclusion advocates to promote cooperative learning as
the pedagogy of choice.

One of the principles of cooperative learning is the principle of heterogeneous


grouping. Cooperative learning advocates support the idea that diversity is
something to be worked with, not negotiated around, and that the richness of the
educational experience is improved for all students when they are active
participants in a mutually supportive environment.

Cooperative learning has been used extensively within "regular education"


classrooms and "special education" classrooms, but because "inclusive
classrooms" are a relatively recent phenomenon, there has not been extensive
documentation of the use of cooperative learning strategies within classrooms
that serve a range of students within the same environment. Many of those who
teach about and promote cooperative learning are also products of and still work
within an educational system that segregates and tracks students by ability and
prepares teachers for this dual system; therefore, they may still identify
themselves as "regular education teachers" or "special education teachers."

Putting the principles of cooperative learning together with the principles of


inclusion involves extending the concept of heterogeneous grouping beyond more
common notions of children who read at different levels or are at different math
skill levels to thinking about and planning for students whose disabilities are more
extensive (Sapon-Shevin, 1990, 1991). This chapter addresses the principles of
planning for, implementing, and evaluating cooperative learning within inclusive
classrooms that serve all students within a common framework. Sharing students'
labels does little to help us plan for them educationally; educational programming
is maximized by looking at students' abilities and gifts and by describing their
educational needs in descriptive rather than evaluative ways. However, because
many children are currently labeled (e.g., "severely handicapped," "cognitively
delayed," "physically handicapped") and we do believe that children with labels
should be and can be included in cooperative learning activities, we identify
children’s specific educational and physical limitations and needs so that it is clear
to the reader that we are, in fact, talking about all children.

This chapter begins with the presentation of three beliefs about cooperative
learning. We then explore some principles of cooperative learning that must be
implemented in order to maximize academic and social goals for all students.
Finally, we discuss the application of cooperative learning beliefs and principles.

In keeping with the content and philosophy of this book, this chapter was written cooperatively by the three authors, who combined their
knowledge and energy to produce something better than any one could have accomplished alone.

A special thank you is extended to the teachers who participated in the summer course in language arts held
at Acadia University, Wolfville, Nova Scotia, during July and August 1992.

RELIEFS ABOUT COOPERATIVE LEARNING

In writing this chapter we were guided by three beliefs about the importance of
cooperative learning and inclusion: 1) it benefits all students, 2) it is an integral
part of current school reform efforts, and 3) it promotes collaboration between
educators who have traditionally worked in isolation from others.

Cooperative Learning Is Good for All Students

Cooperative learning makes sense in inclusive classrooms because it builds upon


heterogeneity and formalizes and encourages peer support and connection.
However, cooperative learning is not of value only to children with disabilities.
Cooperative learning is of value for all students including those who have been
identified as "at risk," "bilingual," "gifted," and "normal." All students need to
learn and work in environments where their individual strengths are recognized
and individual needs are addressed. All students need to learn within a
supportive community in order to feel safe enough to take risks.

Some educators have challenged the use of cooperative learning in classrooms


with students who are identified as "gifted," claiming that gifted students become
permanent tutors and are resentful of having to work with students of differing
abilities (Matthews, 1992). Such arguments must be examined critically; we must
ask ourselves what we want students to learn in school. Beyond academic
subjects, don't we want all students to be comfortable with and accepting of
individual differences (their own and others) Don't we want all students to have
sophisticated social skills that will enable them to work with people they perceive
as "different" or even "difficult"? Furthermore, don't we want to model inclusion
and community and demonstrate in the microcosm of the classroom what a
society in which all people are valued would look like?

One student we know who was initially resistant to group work commented "What
I like best about this class is that everyone cooperates and shares" (Ayres,
O'Brien, & Rogers, 1992, p. 26). Surely this is an important lesson for all students
to learn, not just students with disabilities. Another student said, "Sometimes I
can't understand Jingyu -- it's kind of hard to understand him but he can read
pretty good. He, urn, like on math problems", people say, "Why don't you help
Jingyu?", but sometimes he helps us. He is good at his math" (Ayres & Carnicelli,
in preparation). Thoughtfully implemented cooperative learning disrupts typical
hierarchies of who is "smart" and who is not, and allows all students to work
together, each student experiencing the role of teacher and of learner.

If teachers or students are uncomfortable with cooperative learning, it is often


because they have adopted a technique without a firm understanding of the
underlying principles and without sufficient support to implement creative,
multilevel cooperative learning activities. Teachers must be encouraged to be
thoughtful about all aspects of cooperative learning (Sapon-Shevin &
Schniedewind, 1989/1990) and to garner enough support for themselves so that
they are not isolated and overwhelmed by the truly complex task of meeting the
needs of many different children within the same environment.

Cooperative Learning Is Part of Comprehensive School Reform

Teachers are confronted on a regular basis with educational innovations that must
be incorporated into their teaching: whole language, critical thinking, authentic
assessment, and so forth. Some teachers (and administrators) hope they can
ignore these "fads" in education, and, by waiting for them to pass and be replaced
by "the next thing," save themselves the time and energy needed to learn about
and implement new practices. Yet, not only is cooperative learning supported by a
compelling research base, it is also fully compatible with other "best practices"
currently being promoted.

Whole language, which involves having students read literature and write stories,
has been implemented very successfully in cooperative groups, and many of the
practices promoted by whole language experts are inherently cooperative (e.g.,
editing conferences, book sharing, collaborative writing). One teacher, for
example, had

lug each student in the class write an "I like" book; some of the students wrote
long narratives—"l like walking in the rain in my new boots"—whereas others cut
out pictures of things they liked and pasted them in the book. Every child was
able to complete a book, engaging in the literacy activity. Every child was able to
partner with another and share his or her book by "reading" it to an attentive
listener. In contrast to grouping children into homogeneous reading groups by
skill, this activity was structured in heterogeneous cooperative groups so that all
children could succeed at their own level.

Important skills such as critical thinking, creative problem solving, and the
synthesis of knowledge can easily be accomplished through cooperative group
activities in inclusive classrooms. In addition, authentic assessment (anecdotal
reporting, portfolio assessment, and observational recording) is fully compatible
with cooperative learning and inclusion.
Teachers need not envision cooperative learning as "one more thing" they need to
do, but rather as an organizing value and principle for all the instruction in their
classroom. Building a cooperative, inclusive classroom community can be the
framework within which other teaching strategies and practices are woven.

Cooperative Learning Means Teachers Cooperating

In order for cooperative learning to be successful in inclusive classrooms; teachers


who have traditionally worked in isolation will need to find new ways of
collaborating and sharing their expertise. This kind of collaboration can be
challenging because it involves sharing responsibilities and communicating with
others, but it can also be exciting and rewarding. One teacher commented that
planning cooperative learning lessons was stimulating: "For us, it really gets the
creative juices flowing." Another teacher said, "It's fun, there are no two ways
about it, it's fun. How can it not be fun? Plus [the students] get to know each
other’s abilities and they can get excited about each other's growth, even though
it’s not the same as theirs" (Ares et al., 1992, pp. 25, 26).

Not only can students get to know each other's abilities within a cooperative
process, but teachers can as well. A general education teacher and a special
education teacher planning together often find that they have unique skills and
ideas to contribute to the process. The general education teacher may have a
broader perspective on the curriculum and on curriculum integration, whereas the
special education teacher may have special skills in modifying instruction and
developing adaptations that benefit many children. General education teachers
who are used to working with larger groups of children often can contribute
important classroom management and organizational strategies to balance some
of the individualized approaches proposed by the special education teacher.

It is often acknowledged that when students are learning to work in groups they
need support and encouragement to get them over the rough spots. "I don't want
to work with Pam," or "Danny's taking over the whole project" are indications that
time and attention must be devoted to developing appropriate social skills for
negotiating conflict and moving toward consensus. Similarly, teachers learning to
work together may encounter struggles over turf, expertise, ownership, and
responsibility—these also need to be negotiated. Teachers must find ways to
support one another as they learn to be cooperative, inclusive educators at the
same time they support their students in this goal. Learning how to use the
expertise of the speech therapist or physical therapist, for example, or how to
balance a child's individualized education program (IEP) objectives with broader
classroom objectives requires time for teachers to meet, talk, listen, plan, and
develop a trusting working relationship. Implementing cooperative learning in
inclusive classrooms can benefit not only the students, but also provide an
important opportunity for educators to develop their own teaching skills.
Supportive administrators have found creative ways of providing teachers with
adequate planning and preparation time so that inclusion becomes an opportunity
for better teaching rather than an imposed burden.

PRINCIPLES OF INCLUSIVE COOPERATIVE LEARNING

Once teachers have decided that they will begin to implement formal cooperative
group lessons in their classrooms, there are many decisions that must be made.
Teachers must decide how they will incorporate cooperative learning lessons
within their classroom structure, how they will decide the content to be taught
using cooperative learning, how they will form groups, how they will ensure active
participation for all students, and how they will evaluate students' learning. On
the following pages we explore some principles of inclusive cooperative learning
that must be taken into consideration for successful implementation.

Cooperative Learning Means

Establishing a Cooperative Classroom Ethic

For cooperative learning to be maximally effective, it must take place within an


overall context of cooperation and peer support. Attempts to implement
cooperative learning activities when the classroom norms are those of isolation,
competition, or interpersonal indifference are apt to result in contradictory
messages to students and have limited positive impact on the goal of creating a
safe, inclusive community.

Creating a safe, caring community for all students within which cooperative
learning is simply the formalized expression of classroom values and orientations
involves attention to overall community and connections, open communication
about differences and classroom practices, and helping.

Overall Community and Connections Cooperative learning should not be


,
something that is done on Tuesdays and Thursdays from 9 to 10 nor should it be
something we do only when we have children with disabilities included. For
example, in one school, a sign on a wall announced "Cooperative Learning, May
14th." When a visitor inquired about the sign, she was told, "That's the day the
trainable mentally retarded students go into the third grade classroom to work."

A feeling of cooperation, community, and connection should be part of everything


that happens in the classroom. For example, hanging up for display only those
papers graded with "A"s communicates to students that not everyone’s work is
valued. Teachers might instead want to hang up a "proud paper" from every
student or let students decide what they would like to display. Having students
line up for music and gym in a girls’ line and a boys' line communicates that
gender divisions are important ones (and pity the boy who accidentally gets in the
girls' line). There are an infinite number of other ways to line students up that
encourage them to interact with a variety of their classmates across boundaries of
race, gender, and ability. Behavior management strategies that single students
out for praise or punishment (names on the board, statements such as "I like the
way Nicole is sitting") must be challenged with reference to how such practices
affect the way students look at one another and their differences. Classroom
holiday celebrations, posters on the wall, and the racial and ethnic representation
of the books in the classroom library all affect the school community and the
extent to which students feel that they are (or are not) a valued part of the
classroom. Teachers must be encouraged to think about all aspects of their
classroom practice in reference to questions such as the following:

Will this practice contribute to or detract from a sense of classroom community?


Will what I say or do in this situation encourage students to see each other
positively or negatively?

Open Communication About Differences and Classroom Practices Ct-


eating a classroom community in which all students feel comfortable and
supported in their learning requires that teachers deal directly with issues that
affect the classroom. When a child in the classroom is displaying some
challenging behavior, for example, other students are generally aware of this. Not
talking about the situation and exploring various solutions with students may
leave them frightened or disenfranchised, wondering why something so obvious is
not being discussed and what their role in the classroom should be. Teachers
certainly need to be thoughtful about how and when they talk to students about
Mark's biting or the fact that LeAnn is being teased on the playground because
she smells. However, ignoring such issues in the hope that they will "work
themselves out" often results not only in escalation of the problem but a
classroom atmosphere in which students do not feel empowered to talk about
what is happening or to explore their role in generating and implementing
solutions.

In Johnson City, New York (Salisbury, Palombaro, & Hollowood, 1993), students
and teachers employ a collaborative problem-solving process in which they
identify issues, generate possible solutions, screen solutions for feasibility, choose
a solution to implement, and then evaluate it. Teachers have used this system to
address barriers to inclusion at multiple levels: physical (How can Marie be
involved in the puppet show her group has written when she cannot stand up and
hold her puppet at the same time?), social (What might Taylor be trying to
communicate when he pulls hair?), and instructional (What are some ways we can
help Luis, who has a hearing impairment, learn to count?). Including children in
identifying problems and generating and implementing solutions sends the clear
message that we can talk about what is happening in our classroom, and, as a
group, we can figure out ways to do things so that everyone is included.

Similarly, teachers who implement more formal cooperative learning strategies


should also talk to students about why they are doing so, what they hope to
accomplish, and what some of the barriers might be. Students who are involved in
the process of cooperative learning, as opposed to those who are simply doing
what the teacher told them to, are far more likely to take ownership of
cooperative activities and generalize them to other areas of classroom and home
life.

Helping Establishing norms about when, how, and why we help others is critical
to the full implementation of cooperative learning. Because many teachers and
students have received cultural messages that say that "needing help is bad or
shameful" and "offering help to others will embarrass them," it is important to
establish new classroom norms. Two of the most critical values are: 1) Everyone is
good at something and can help others, and 2) Everyone is entitled to and can
benefit from help and support from others. Teachers may want to help students
structure a "Classroom Classifieds" in which students identify their own strengths
and skills and name these as "Help Offered" (can help with multiplication, good at
jumping rope, can teach sign language, know a lot about frogs). Concurrently,
they can identify their needs and learning goals and identify these as "Help
Wanted" (want to learn to make friendship bracelets, need help with spelling,
want to learn how to play ball games at recess). It is important that such activities
be structured so that every child is both a teacher and a learner, as a way of
challenging rigid notions that there are some people who give help and some
people who need help. It is important to create a classroom space for people to
proudly claim what they are good at and safely ask for the help and support they
need without fear or embarrassment, humiliation, or isolation. When fourth grade
teacher Cathleen Corrigan implemented this activity in her inclusive fourth grade
class, she found that many of the students had difficulty identifying something
they were good at. She observed that when students announced that "they
weren’t good at anything," other students jumped in to remind them about their
strengths ("You're really good at the computer," "You're a good artist.").

Cooperative Learning Facilitates Teaching Meaningful Content


Unfortunately, neither deciding to have an inclusive classroom nor implementing
cooperative learning guarantees that the curriculum will be creative or
meaningful. Teachers who feel constrained by or limited to a fixed curriculum or
set of materials often try to "bend" the child to fit the curriculum, and we have
seen cooperative learning used to encourage children to complete unimaginative
worksheets and dittos.

Including a child with a significant disability in an activity and structuring that


activity cooperatively gives us an opportunity (and sometimes forces us) to
examine the curriculum critically and unleash our creative pedagogical and
curricular inventiveness. Not only is memorizing the states and their capitals an
inappropriate curriculum objective for Manuel, but neither is it the best way to
teach map skills and geography to other students. Combining a commitment to
inclusion with an orientation toward cooperative learning can be a catalyst for
thinking carefully about the following questions; What is really important for
students to learn? How can I make learning meaningful and functional for all
students?

One of the often unexpected but welcome benefits of including children with

specific behavioral and educational challenges in the classroom is that teachers


are encouraged to rethink previous beliefs and practices related to the curriculum
and pedagogy. The teacher who decides to use manipulatives for math (instead of
worksheets) because one child quite clearly requires that approach often finds
that many other students also benefit from this hands-on, participatory approach.
Teachers who move away from text-based question-and-answer approaches to
teaching in order to accommodate students who require more active involvement
in the curriculum are generally pleased to find that such an orientation is of
benefit to all students.

Cooperative learning in inclusive classrooms will be more effective when it is


multilevel, multimodal, and integrated across subject areas. Multilevel teaching
involves students working on similar objectives or with the same material, but at
different levels. All students may be using the telephone book, for example, but
some students might be learning to dial 911 in case of an emergency while others
learn to compute and compare long distance charges and optimum calling times.
Or, all students may be working on map skills, but at different levels. Perhaps
Maria is learning about lines of latitude and longitude while Robin is learning the
directions "up" and "down," "left" and "right."

Multimodality teaching involves moving away from pencil and paper tasks to
other forms of active involvement. Writing and performing a puppet show, for
example, might involve writing, reading, building a set, singing, cutting, talking,
dancing, and so forth. An activity like a puppet show or a unit on space can also
be used to integrate curriculum across subject matter. When one class studied the
moon, for example, they incorporated science (facts about the moon and
astronomy), creative writing (poems and stories about the moon), social studies
(cross-cultural beliefs and traditions around the moon), math (computing
distance, density, air pressure), and much more. Broadening the curriculum in
these ways provides many opportunities both to include students who work at
significantly different levels and to design cooperative learning activities in which
students can help and support one another in their learning while still maintaining
a common theme and a sense of community.

Cooperative Learning Depends

on Supportive Heterogeneous Groups


In classrooms where teachers are working to communicate norms of cooperation,
students can work together in a number of different ways. In many cooperative
classrooms, students sit in heterogeneous base groups so that teachers can
structure both informal and formal opportunities for cooperation between
students throughout the day. For example, students can start their day with an
informal group activity at their desk clusters; complete class jobs with a partner
from their group; and engage in formal, structured cooperative learning activities
with group members. In most classrooms, teachers leave cooperative learning
groups together for 1 month or 6 weeks so that students have an opportunity to
get to know and work together with group members, but then also have an
opportunity to learn to work with other classmates throughout the year. The goal
is for students to have worked in cooperative groups with all their classmates by
the end of the year.

One important aspect of creating cooperative learning groups is maximizing the


heterogeneity of the students within the small groups. Students should be placed
in groups that are mixed by academic skills, social skills, personality, race, and
sex. It is often helpful for teachers to work with others who are familiar with their
students when groups are being formed. With all of the different aspects of
student diversity that need to be taken into consideration, forming groups can
seem like an onerous task that will be too difficult for any one person.

Many teachers structure cooperative groups very deliberately. In classrooms


where students are functioning at different levels in regard to academic and social
abilities, it is important that the teacher structures the groups to ensure
heterogeneity, particularly in the beginning of the year or when new students
enter.

Two first grade teachers who team teach in a classroom that includes the full
range of learners work together to plan cooperative learning groups. They begin
the process by identifying one aspect of student diversity and placing one student
with this quality in each group. For example, they start with academic diversity
and place one student in each group who is able to read. Next they look at the
students who are nonreaders and place them into groups. As they place this
second student they always consider how this student and the first student match
up in regard to supporting one another socially. For the third student in each group
they also consider social aspects—they look for a student who can complement
the other two students and help pull the group together. One day their discussion
when forming groups went as follows:

This is a nice combination but Katie and Andrew are both quiet. I
was thinking about

Rachel and Katie because of Rachel's style--she may be more assertive with Katie to

help stimulate her involvement. (Ayres et al., 1992, p. 6)

What about Doug and Brent? I'm thinking of this because of Doug’s
abilities. In many ways Brent is similar but it may build some self-
esteem for Brent in that setting. He can really do things but he
doesn’t think he can do as much as he can. (p. 6)

Maybe Madeline should be with Brad because she is so strong in


everything—and in that group it is going to take a little more work
from two people instead of three Plus, she is comfortable with Brad
and I think she will come up with strategies to involve him -- she is
real bright and she is good at modifying things. This group is going
to have to be able to change and not have to be doing exactly what every other
group is doing, and not get upset about it. (p. 6)

The comments made by these teachers illustrate the level of complexity of


thought that goes into structuring supportive heterogeneous groups. Through
careful planning, students have a greater opportunity to receive the social support
that is important for establishing a sense of belonging and group membership in the
classroom.

In forming groups, some teachers focus on student choice, asking students who
they would like to work with. Although it makes sense for teachers to provide
students with multiple opportunities to choose within the school day, student
choice may not be the best way to form groups. When students choose their own
groups and work only with others they already know, the groups often tend to be
same gender, race, and ability. These more homogeneous groups work against
the broader goals of cooperative learning in which teachers are striving to help
the students learn to value the diversity that exists in the classroom and in
society.

There are ways, however, that teachers can incorporate some aspects of student
choice into group formation. For example, Deborah Quick, a fourth grade teacher,
forms new groups periodically throughout the year and asks each student to
respond (privately) to a number of questions including: "Who are two people you
think you could work well with?", "Who are two people you don't know well and
would like to know?" By asking students these questions, she is allowing them to
participate in group formation, but also emphasizing that although it is important
to work with students they already know, it is also important to learn to accept,
value, and work with others they do not know well yet. Once students have
learned to work with many others, allowing more choice in group formation may
ho appropriate.

Cooperative Learning Requires Structures

that Ensure the Active Participation of All Students

Equally important to establishing supportive heterogeneous groups is ensuring


the active participation of all students within inclusive cooperative learning
lessons. All too often students are placed into groups and given a task to
complete without the provision of structures that will promote the active,
equitable participation of all members. Key components of participation include
the division of labor and materials, flexible interpretation of roles, and
individualized student responsibilities.

Division of Labor and Materials The participation of all group members is more
likely when teachers carefully structure the cooperative group task. Through the
division of labor and materials, the students are given a clear message that each
student has an important contribution to make toward the completion of the
group’s task. In the beginning, or when new groups have formed, it is important
that teachers structure this interdependence among the group members. Planning
for equitable participation becomes especially important in inclusive classrooms
where the participation of some students may be dependent on the structure that
is provided. For example, with a student who is reserved and responds more
slowly than her classmates due to a physical disability, if labor and materials are
not divided it is possible that group members will do the task for her. As was
mentioned previously in this chapter, it is also important for teachers to talk with
students about the goals of working together and the importance of everyone
contributing In one classroom, the teacher talked to individual groups and asked
the students how they were going to make sure that all group members were
given a turn.

Flexible Interpretation of Roles lb promote active, equitable participation


within groups, roles must be interpreted flexibly. Instead of creating static roles for
students, flexible roles allow for the individualization that will ensure that all group
members are able to assume each role at some point in time. For example, in one
classroom, the roles remained the same across time (e.g., writer,
reader/questioner, checker), but the responsibilities of the roles changed
depending on the task and the students who would be given the role on that
particular day (Ayres et al., 1992). Through these flexible roles, a student who is
unable to write the letters of the alphabet could be the writer when the task is
designed so that the writers are gluing something instead of writing words.
Another aspect of individualizing roles occurs when teachers think of creative
ways for students to fulfill the role responsibilities. Teachers might ask
themselves, "What are the different ways that students could encourage group
members for this lesson?" or "flow could Rachel, who doesn’t speak, encourage
others?" When teachers work to broaden their thinking about the equitable
participation of students, they can come up with many different ways for students
to be active contributors (e.g., encourage others by giving a "high five," passing a
card with a positive statement or a smiley face written on it to a group member).

Individualized Student Responsibilities Adaptations can be made within


groups to promote the active, equitable participation of all members. Sometimes
adaptations are necessary to promote the participation of an individual student.
For example, in Mary Rita Carnicelli's classroom, heterogeneous cooperative
learning groups worked together on math story problems. One student, Kris,
whose goals for math included writing numbers from 1 to 50 and using a
calculator to compute problems, was given the role of writer/checker within her
group. The other students in the group determined what mathematical function to
use for the problem, helped Kris write down the problem on the worksheet by
dictating the numbers, solved the problem, and dictated to Kris the numbers to
write down for the answer. Kris was then responsible for checking the group's
response on her calculator. In another classroom, Brad was a first grade student
whose educational objectives include grasping and holding objects and indicating
his preference by choosing between two objects. During a lesson on community
helpers, Brad's group was given the role of a doctor to study so that he would be
able to use a play doctor's kit to learn about medic-al instruments. The addition of
the hands-on materials provided an opportunity to address his educational
objectives of grasping objects and indicating preference (Ayres et a]., 1992).

When students are placed in supportive heterogeneous groups and issues of


active, equitable participation are addressed by teachers, all students can benefit
from the use of cooperative learning in the classroom. Through these
considerations and individualized adaptations, all students are seen as important
group members in the eyes of their peers. Although these components initially
require more thought and time on the part of teachers, they will reap the rewards
as students begin to support and expect the maximum involvement of all group
members.

Cooperative Learning Provides Opportunities for Ongoing Evaluation

One important and often complex aspect of instruction with cooperative learning
is evaluation. How can educators be certain that students are attaining their
educational goals within cooperative groups? How should students be evaluated
and how should that evaluation be communicated? How can an evaluation system
help modify and refine cooperative learning instructional programs? These
questions can guide educators as they work to design appropriate evaluation
methods for cooperative learning activities. Effective evaluation of cooperative
learning in inclusive classrooms must focus on both the content and the process
of the group experience.

The issue of grading in inclusive cooperative classrooms is difficult. Educators who


are concerned about the self-esteem of all learners reject the use of practices that
promote competition between students. Group grades or group rankings work
against encouraging cooperation among students and may make group members
less willing to support a classmate with a disability. Evaluation should not be
structured so that one student’s difficulty becomes a group's liability or the cause
(real or perceived) of group failure. It is imperative to avoid situations in which
students can accurately report that "Tyrone brought our grade down." Teachers
must be careful that the structure of group evaluation accounts for differing
abilities.

In inclusive cooperative classrooms, teacher-made tests of subject matter or


standardized tests with norm-referenced criteria may not be sufficient or
appropriate for assessing achievement. The students who have IEPs may be
working at different levels than their peers, a modification we wish to encourage,
rather than discourage, through excessive standardization. Separating students
into fixed ability groups that are evaluated through a variety of criterion-
referenced tests is not the solution either, particularly as such a process tends to
isolate and stigmatize individuals ("You’re only on the red book.").

Teachers must find ways to assess students who are engaging in significantly
different activities within a common structure and begin to describe and evaluate
what students have learned and how they are working with their peers.
Cooperative learning provides an opportunity for students to complete an activity
with an emphasis on group dynamics and interpersonal skills as well as the
academic goals of the lesson. Cooperative learning also allows for ongoing
evaluation on the part of students and teachers, both during and after group
activities.

If we intend to evaluate students on their group process and product, it is crucial


that cooperative learning lessons are designed to be just that—cooperative. This
can be accomplished through the creation of activities that incorporate many of
the principles presented in this chapter, including teaching meaningful content,
creating supportive heterogeneous groups, and using structures that ensure the
active -participation of all students. Many different types of activities are
appropriate for the evaluation of students who are working in cooperative groups.
Dippong (1992) advocates for evaluation through activities such as group reports,
problem solving, seminars and debates, and simulations and role-plays.

In inclusive cooperative classrooms, teachers may want to assess individual as


well as group effort and, perhaps, grade students on individual goals and/or on
the basis of improvement. Individual goals can be both academically oriented and
social skill related. For example, one of Martin's objectives might be to say
encouraging things to his classmates during the group lesson; Kara's objectives
might relate to her writing skills or organizational leadership.

During cooperative learning activities both teachers and students can assume
responsibility for evaluating the skills and contributions of group members. While
students are engaging in group activities, educators often collect and share
information on how groups are functioning in regard to the academic and social
aspects of the lesson. This information is shared with groups both during and after
the lesson. Direct observation is a valuable tool for teachers who are concerned
about a student's performance in a specific area. For example, do all group
members have a chance to talk, including the child who uses an alternative
communication device? If not, equitable participation can be addressed with this
group at the time they most need the feedback -- when they are working together
to complete a task. In addition, as part of cooperative learning lessons, students
are often asked to discuss bow they worked together to accomplish the task. This
information is shared within small groups and then with the entire class. An
important part of cooperative learning includes the instruction of students in how
to observe, evaluate, and provide feedback to group members in positive ways.
Peer evaluation affords students a chance to appreciate and critique the efforts of
their peers with the group project in mind. Self-evaluation can also be a part of
cooperative learning activities in which students set their own goals and share
them with group members.

There are several strategies that can be used to provide a more comprehensive
examination of progress within cooperative learning activities (see CulIen & Pratt,
1992). The following methods are more qualitative in nature and provide rich
information about students that could not be ascertained as readily through
traditional testing. For example, some teachers use a cumulative record file
review system that outlines teachers’ comments in subject areas, patterns of
strengths as well as areas that need improvement, and affective observations.
This information includes observations of students in cooperative learning groups
and comments about their growth in academic and social skills. Other teachers
collect both individual and group work in portfolios that can be reviewed by
teachers, parents, and students on a periodic basis. The student—teacher
interview is another option. Through interviews the teacher can glean much
information about students' interests, motivation, knowledge, and perspectives on
their contribution to the group. All of these approaches are compatible with
cooperative learning and the use of authentic assessment, which is gaining
attention as an important approach to determining whether students have
acquired skills to select and use important concepts in authentic open-ended
situations (Hibbard, 1992).

Cooperative learning activities provide a unique opportunity to evaluate important


collaborative outcomes, such as interactive communication, active listening,
taking the perspective of others, acceptance and accommodation of individual
differences, and the evaluation of a final product developed through group effort.

APPLYING COOPERATIVE LEARNING BELIEFS AND PRINCIPLES

Knowing where to begin the process of developing cooperative learning lessons


for heterogenous groups may seem daunting. There is not one "right way" to do
it; one simply must jump in—with the help of some colleagues (see Villa &
Thousand, chap. 6, this volume, for collaborative learning strategies for designing
and implementing cooperative group lessons).

Some teachers begin by designing lessons for their whole class and then later
create individualized adaptations for specific students. Others prefer to begin with
one student’s interests and needs and then expand the teaching concept for the
whole group. Regardless of the process, the goal is to meet learning goals for
individual students within a heterogeneous, cooperative learning lesson (Duncan
et al, 1991).

Recently, educators attending a university course in language arts curricula


development designed several cooperative learning units for their classes so that
students with specific disabilities could be equal members of groups and meet
their IEP goals. To guide their planning, the teachers reflected on the five
elements of cooperative learning by Johnson, Johnson, Holubec, and Roy (1984):
1) face-to-face interactions, 2) positive interdependence, 3) individual
accountability, 4) interpersonal and small-group skills, and 5) group processing.
These elements formed the cornerstones of the lessons.

The first step teachers took was to select a grade level and a topic of interest.
Working in small groups of three and four, the teachers generated ideas for the
topic that could be developed into a unit of study. The five most frequently named
concepts were chosen as the focal point for the unit. Once the basic lessons were
sketched out, attention was turned to making adaptations for students with
disabilities. Each student was described in terms of his or her learning style,
interests, talents, and areas in need of support. Teaching strategies for the
student were written in terms that teachers found useful; JEP goals were
articulated in familiar, everyday phrases. The teachers then answered the
following questions: What would be the best student composition of the groups?
How would the student be best supported in a group? How would the student offer
his or her talents to the group? Finally, effective evaluation strategies for the class
were determined. (See Udvari-Solner, chap. 5, this volume, for specific
strategies for adapting curriculum in the context of cooperative groups to
accommodate students with educational and other challenges.)

One lesson developed for second grade students focuses on "dinosaurs." All
aspects of the curriculum (i.e., mathematics, reading, science, social studies) are
included in the unit. Students brainstorm research questions about different
dinosaurs and transfer their information to a poster with illustrations. For a student
with difficulty printing and recording information, coloring the illustrations with
jumbo crayons is an appropriate adaptation.

Another lesson concerns "aspects of flight and flying things" for fifth grade
students. Propulsion is the topic to be explored, with balloons as the primary too]
in the experiment. A series of instructions are given and a lab report is the final
product. For a student with difficulty reading and staying on task, instructions are
provided to his or her group in a pictorial format accompanied by words. To record
the results of the experiment, the student dictates his or her responses to a
partner.

These two examples, as well as those detailed in the Creative Cooperative Group
Lesson Plans following Section 1, this volume, illustrate how students with
disabilities may be meaningfully and effectively included in cooperative learning
lessons. Through the consideration of the beliefs and principles articulated in this
chapter, teachers can structure cooperative learning lessons that ensure active
participation in learning for all students.

CONCLUSION

In this chapter, we suggest that cooperative learning is good for all students and
that it is part of comprehensive school reform efforts. To achieve this reform,
teachers must work together to build networks within their school community.
Teachers must also establish a cooperative classroom ethic that emphasizes
overall community building, open communication about differences and classroom
practices, and reciprocal helping relationships. Meaningful content in cooperative
lessons is critical for the success of all students. For students to succeed within
their groups, careful consideration regarding group heterogeneity must be given
in conjunction with roles that ensure active, equal participation by all students.
Creative assessment practices must be developed to document achievement of
meaningful outcomes for students. All of these considerations require planning
and structure in order for the teaching to be successful.

Some of the early literature on mainstreaming assumed that children with special
education needs could be considered eligible for participation in the general
education classroom when they were able to compete successfully with other
children. This orientation implies that the burden of change is on the child and
that the general education classroom is a fixed, immutable environment in which
some practices, such as competition, are unamenable to change or modification.
A more exciting and far-reaching way of thinking about inclusion and cooperation
is based on the belief that all children belong in the general education classroom.
By creating a community that is cooperative and inclusive, children's acceptance
and success in the general education environment will be greatly enhanced. All
students and all teachers have much to gain by structuring the classroom and
school environment so that it provides generous support for learning, connecting,
and caring.

http://www.michiganepic.org/forum/Meap5.html

Social Studies Model Assessment


Grade 5

PART ONE: THE BASIC FRAMEWORK

Figure 1: Assessment is built on the content standards

THE PURPOSE OF SOCIAL STUDIES


Social studies is defined as the integrated study of the social
sciences to prepare young people to become responsible citizens. As
Figure 1 shows, the social studies curriculum builds four capacities
in young people: disciplinary knowledge, thinking skills,
commitment to democratic values, and citizen participation. Each
capacity contributes uniquely to the development of responsible
citizenship. Social studies draws primarily upon the disciplines of
history, geography, economics, and American government as
provided by Public Act 335 of 1993. The 25 standards listed in the
Social Studies Content Standards of the Michigan Curriculum
Framework establish expectations for what students are expected to
know and be able to do as a result of their social studies education.

The Social Studies Content Standards are grouped into seven


categories called strands. The standards, expressed as attributes we
envision for our graduates, are the intended results of students'
experience with a core curriculum. Students are expected to make
continuous progress toward meeting the standards at each level of
schooling. All of the standards should be pursued at every grade
level of a core curriculum from kindergarten through graduation. As
Figure 2 shows, they spiral through the curriculum. Benchmarks are
established for each standard to designate more specifically what
students are expected to learn by the end of the early elementary
grades, the later elementary grades, middle school, and high school
to indicate their progress toward meeting the standards.

MICHIGAN FRAMEWORK for SOCIAL STUDIES EDUCATION

Responsible Citizenship

Disciplinary Knowledge Thinking Skills Democratic Values


Citizen Participation Civics History Geography Economics

Figure 2: Building towards the goal of responsible


citizenship

MEAP AND THE GRADE 5 TEST AS PART OF A


COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT SYSTEM

An assessment system should consist of statewide assessment,


assessment at the local level, and performance standards that link
assessment to the content standards. The primary purpose of
assessment should be the improvement of teaching and learning,
and no single assessment instrument can provide all the information
needed to accomplish this purpose. An integrated approach to
assessment, in which all social studies content standards and
benchmarks are assessed with the most appropriate assessment
methods available, is needed.

PURPOSE OF STATEWIDE ASSESSMENT


The statewide social studies assessment is designed to provide
information about student social studies achievement, promote

assessment practices that support learning for all students, and


foster teaching that is aligned with the state Social Studies Content
Standards. This assessment information can be used by students,
parents, teachers, school districts, researchers, and state
government to advance the quality of social studies education.

Content Standards Early Elementary


Later Elementary
Middle School
High School

Responsible Citizenship

STANDARDS ASSESSED AT THE STATE LEVEL

Statewide assessment is based on the Content Standards for Social


Studies of the Michigan Curriculum Framework. Some of those
standards are not conducive to state testing and must be assessed
locally. The 22 content standards to be assessed by statewide tests
are presented in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Social studies standards to be assessed


RESPONSE FORMATS
State tests will feature three types of response formats. Each type
will pertain to a prompt or prompts consisting of a passage, map,
chart, graph, drawing, photograph, or a combination of these. All
three types of responses will require students to remember what
they have learned (" activate prior knowledge") and to analyze
information presented by the prompt. The three types of response
formats are:

Selected: Students select a response from a group of possible


choices. These items are a form of enhanced multiple-choice items
and take approximately one minute each to complete. Selected-
response items will be presented in five-item clusters that use a
common prompt.

Constructed: Students generate a reply that they have created


based upon their prior knowledge and information presented in a
prompt at the time of testing. A constructed response should take
students no more than five minutes to complete and could be
expressed in various forms, e. g., a paragraph, table, map, chart, or
graph.

Extended: An extended response should take no more than 15


minutes to complete. Students compose an essay that addresses a
public policy issue. They will be asked to interpret and use data
provided in the prompt. Students must also demonstrate what they
know from history, geography, civics, or economics, and their
understanding of core democratic values of American democracy in
their response.

DISTRIBUTION OF ITEMS BY STRAND AND TYPE OF FORMAT


Figure 4 shows how the items for each test will be distributed by
strand and type of response format. The number of items for each
test has been set. Selected-response items will be worth 1 point,
constructed-response items 2 points, and extended-response items
4 points. On the grade 5 test, 43 of the 61 points possible are
assigned to selected-response items. In other words, about one-third
of the total score is attributed to open-ended items on the statewide
tests.

Figure 4: Distribution of items-Grade 5

CONTEXTS FOR ITEM SELECTION


The Content Standards for Social Studies of the Michigan Curriculum
Framework should be addressed at every grade level and course.
Consequently, all of the 22 standards being assessed statewide will
be incorporated in each test. Items will be designed to reflect the
appropriate grade-level benchmarks for those standards. Standards
and benchmarks, however, are not unique to a particular context of
a social studies curriculum. Consider Standard I. 1 (Time and
Chronology), for example. Students could make progress toward
meeting this standard when studying the history of their local
communities, when studying the early history of the United States,
when studying the recent history of the United States, or when
studying medieval Europe or ancient China, to name only some of
the possibilities. Similarly, for Standard II. 1 (People, Places, and
Cultures) students could make progress toward meeting this
geographic standard by studying any of several regionsÑ locally,
nationally, or globally.

Not all possible eras in history nor regions in geography could be


included on the state social studies tests. Nor could all the possible
contexts from the civics or economics strands be included. To a
large extent, the choice of contexts for the social studies curriculum
is a local decision. The Social Studies Content Standards adopted by
the State Board of Education do not specify the particular subject
matter for a social studies curriculum. Some assumptions about the
content of the social studies curriculum, however, have been made
to guide the design of state assessments. These assumptions are
derived from the benchmarks that support the state Social Studies
Content Standards and from curriculum patterns in Michigan
schools.

With no assumptions about the content of the curriculum, there


would be no basis for determining an appropriate curricular context
for testing. Broad contexts have, therefore, been identified as a
basis for constructing state assessment items. These contexts
should also be considered when designing a local core curriculum
for social studies.

CONTEXT FOR ITEM SELECTION MEAP TEST-GRADE 5

The elementary school benchmarks follow what is sometimes called


the "expanding environments" pattern for building social studies
curriculum. According to this pattern, students begin by studying
themselves, then other individuals. They then progress to studying
families and schools, local communities (e. g., villages, cities, and
townships), broader communities (e. g., metropolitan regions or
counties), the state of Michigan and other states, regions of the
United States, and the United States as a nation. The capstone to
this expanding environments pattern is typically found in sixth and
seventh grades when study extends to global regions and the world
as a whole. Based upon this pattern, the contexts for the fifth grade

MEAP test include what students are expected to study from


kindergarten to the middle of grade five: local communities, the
state of Michigan, regions of the United States, the history of the
United States to 1763, the rights and responsibilities of American
citizens, and basic economic concepts.
Although the context of United States history is limited to the eras
ending in 1763, the geographic, civic, and economic contexts
include the present. The scope of a context should not be narrow or
parochial. Beginning with their own families, for example, students
could go on to study other families, near and far, now and then. The
same global scope could be applied to the study of individuals,
schools, local communities, and regional communities. Students
might begin third grade, for example, studying the county or
metropolitan region in which they live and then move on to one
elsewhere in the state, from another state, or from another country.
Comparably, students who began grade four with the study of
Michigan might continue with a comparison study of another state,
culminating perhaps in the study of the equivalent of an American
state in another country such as a Canadian province or Japanese
prefecture.

Although an assumption of the fifth grade MEAP test is that students


have studied the history of the United States prior to 1763, a local
school district could, of course, choose to go beyond that time in its
elementary social studies curriculum.

Figure 5: Contexts for test items for state assessment of


social studies

On the social studies grade 5 assessment, the test prompts


will focus on history, geography, civics, economics, public
discourse and decision making, and inquiry benchmarks
within the following contexts:

The chart in Figure 5 summarizes the contexts to be used for


preparing state assessment items. A local curriculum that addresses
the benchmarks within these contexts would help prepare students
for state assessment by aligning what is taught with what is tested.

SAMPLE GRADE 5 ITEMS


To help educators anticipate the kinds of items being planned for
state assessments, this document includes a complete released
form of this test for grade 5.

The Social Studies Assessment Model reflects a commitment to


constructed-and extended-response items because these types of
items are necessary to determine the extent to which students are
meeting the Content Standards. The scoring guides that will be used
to score these items follow the released form in Part Three of this
document.

ASSESSMENT REPORTS
The results of the social studies assessments will be reported by the
strands of the Content Standards. The following strands will be
reported:

° Historical Perspective (all standards) ° Geographic Perspective (all


standards)
° Civic Perspective (all standards) ° Economic Perspective (all
standards)
° Inquiry and Decision Making (Standards SOC. V. 1, Information
Processing; SOC. VI. 1, Identifying and Analyzing Issues; and SOC.
VI. 3, Persuasive Writing)

Local districts, with the help of the Michigan Department of


Education and intermediate school districts, will be encouraged to
design reporting instruments for the benchmarks and standards
assessed locally. For example, administrators and teachers may
want to discuss how evidence of their students' group discussion
skills (Standard SOC. VI. 2) might be collected and reported. As they
are developed and used, examples of successful local district
assessments and reporting procedures will be shared with all
districts across the state.

PART TWO: RELEASED TEST FORM


MICHIGAN EDUCATION ASSESSMENT PROGRAM
MEAP

GRADE 5
SOCIAL STUDIES ASSESSMENT MODEL
SPRING 1998

MICHIGAN

STATE

BOARD OF EDUCATION

1849

Day One: Social Studies Assessment


Instructions to the Student
There are three types of questions on this test: selected-response,
constructed-response, and extended-response.
° Selected-response questions will ask you first to read a passage,
map, chart, or table. After studying this prompt, read the questions
and choose the best answer from among four answer choices.

° Constructed-response questions will ask you to explain a


conclusion, provide examples, complete a chart, interpret
information, or give a reason for an answer you have given.

° Extended-response questions require you to write an answer


that is more detailed and requires more thinking. These items ask
you to interpret information from a set of data on an imaginary
policy issue, identify a relationship presented in the Data Section,
take a position for or against the policy, and give reasons supporting
your position.

Use the separate answer sheet to mark your choice for the
selected-response questions. Fill in the circle for your choice on
the answer sheet. Remember to fill in the circle completely and
cleanly, erasing any stray lines or marks. Space is provided in the
test booklet for you to write your answers for constructed-
response and extended-response items.

Read all directions for these items carefully.


If you finish early, you may check your work for Day One only. Do
not go ahead and work on the Day Two section of this test.