Cooperative Learning in Inclusive Classrooms:

Students Who Work Together, Learn Together

Lisa M. Emerson, M.Ed., M.Sc.

May/June 2013
There are several benefits of cooperative learning structures for students with
disabilities. Students with disabilities are more engaged in classroom activities where
cooperative learning structures are in place compared to more traditional classroom
interventions. Specifically, in inclusive classes that use cooperative learning, students
articulate their thoughts more freely, receive confirming and constructive feedback,
engage in questioning techniques, receive additional practice on skills, and have
increased opportunities to respond. Further, when students are thinking aloud while
discussing, teachers are better able to assess student and group needs and intervene
if needed. That is, by actively monitoring students’ learning, teachers are able to
redirect groups toward learning tasks and provide reteaching during mini-conferences
as appropriate. When structures are in place for this level of dialogue to occur, it
accelerates the comprehension process (Bucalos & Lingo, 2005).

According to Stevens and Slavin (1995), students with disabilities are more likely to be
at instructional level and have positive learning outcomes when explanations and
models are provided by their peers. These benefits and quality learning are realized
only when both the general and special education teachers are committed to the
learning structures that benefit all students.

Cooperative learning challenges some people’s beliefs about education. Cooperative

classrooms represent a shift from traditional lecture-style classrooms to more brain-
friendly environments that benefit all learners (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. From traditional to cooperative learning.

From Traditional to Cooperative Learning

From …
       To …

“A good class is a quiet   “Learning involves healthy

class.” noise.”

“This is an independent   “ This is collaborative

task.” teamwork.”

“Keep your eyes on your   “Ask your partner for help.”

paper.”
 “Sit quietly.”   “Get up and look at what others
did.”

“Talking is cheating.”   “Talking is learning.”

(Adapted from Kagan & Kagan, 2009)

Critical Aspects of Effective Cooperative Learning

The basic considerations for structuring cooperative groups include (a) group size, (b)
clear learning goals, (c) direct instruction of group procedures, (d) mixed-ability
groupings, and (e) individual and group accountability.

Size: Recommended group size varies from two to four students. The smaller the
group, the higher the engagement levels. Groups consisting of three students are
often difficult to manage because they leave one student out of the dialogue at any
given time.

Clear learning goals and direct instruction of group procedures: Teachers who
get the best results from cooperative learning groups directly teach students how to
interact prior to the group leading their own learning. The assignment of roles within
the groups also focuses the students on the specified learning goals. 

Mixed-ability groupings: Ncube’s (2011) research showed that flexible mixed-ability

groups have advantages over homogeneously grouped students because the higher
achieving students can mentor the students who are struggling with a particular skill or
concept. At the same time, the students who are more competent with a particular skill
deepen their own learning by applying higher level thinking skills while assisting others
to achieve.

Accountability: Students need individual as well as group goals to promote

cooperation. The need to feel “We are in this together!” and the ability to rely on their
teammates are essential for student learning. Teachers, and eventually peers, need to
provide feedback on progress toward group and individual goals. This gradual release
of responsibility leads to more engaged and independent learners.

Cooperative learning within inclusive classrooms requires thoughtful planning and

implementation to yield the highest impact for all students (Stevens & Slavin, 1995).

Types of Cooperative Teams

There are four major types of cooperative teams: heterogeneous, random,

homogeneous, and student-selected. All four have instructional purposes (see Figure
2). Thus, the type of team used should match the instructional learning goals and
needs of the students. Heterogeneous groups are most widely used for cooperative
learning because they naturally support peers assisting peers, improve social
acceptance of all types of learners, and can assist with classroom management.
However, all four can be implemented throughout the school year to support
instruction (Kagan & Kagan, 2009).

Figure 2. The advantages of and cautions against different types of cooperative

teams.

The Advantages of and Cautions Against

Different Types of Cooperative Teams

Team Type Advantages Cautions

Heterogeneous
 Balanced  Requires more
Mixed-ability, sex,
race teams  Maximizes teacher
tutoring preparation time
 Easier  Ranks students
management  Limited
leadership
opportunities

Random Teams
 Fairness  Diversity not
Randomly formed
teams  Novelty, ensured
variety, fun  Potential for off-
 Quick and easy task behaviors
 All-"low" or
all-"high" teams
may develop

Student-Selected
 Novelty,  Not balanced
Teams
Students select variety, and fun  Potential for off-
own teams  Familiarity task behavior
 Easy decision high
making

Homogeneous
 Leadership  Lack of equity
Teams
 Teams with a
opportunities  Poor esteem for
shared trait
(ability, interest,  High esteem low groups
language) for top groups  Negative
 Differentiated stereotypes
instruction
(Adapted from Kagan & Kagan, 2009)

Another powerful argument for using cooperative learning groups is the potential for
significant social skill development. Social isolation has been found to be just as
devastating a health risk factor as smoking or high blood pressure (House, Landis, &
Umberson, 1988). Cooperative learning provides students with structures to interact
appropriately with their peers and opportunities to practice social skills. Social skills
naturally occurring in cooperative groups include asking for help, taking turns, and
disagreeing politely. When blended into academic practices, social skill instruction and
practice take less time to implement. Finally, integrating social skills also assists with
classroom management because there are fewer disruptions and improved positive
impressions of school and learning (Jensen, 2005).

Cooperative Structures and Supports

The cooperative learning structures listed below are samples of evidence-based
interventions that have demonstrated positive influences on learning for all students
across content areas and grade levels.

 Clock Partners (Garmston & Wellman, 2002)

Clock Partners is a cooperative learning grouping method for assigning
partners to work together. Teachers distribute the “My Clock Partners”
graphic and instruct the students to circulate around the room and ask
classmates to sign up for a time on the clock. When the clock graphic is
completed, the students have 12 different partners – one for each hour
on the clock. When the teacher wants to add some novelty to partner
work, he or she calls out, “Find your 3:00 appointment,” and the students
navigate the classroom until they find their assigned partner. This
structure saves instructional time and provides for structured movement
within the classroom.

 Cooperative Learning Roles (Tate, 2003)

Cooperative learning roles are designed to increase engagement and
equalize participation for everybody within cooperative learning teams.
 Examples of roles include reporter, recorder, timekeeper, leader, and
encourager. Each team member executes a specific role to make
efficient use of the team’s time together. Each role is directly taught to
students, and appropriate tasks and sentence stems are modeled to
assist with social skill development. Sentence stems are phrases that
students learn to aid with clear communication. Examples include “What
did you mean by ____?,” “That makes me think of ____?,” or “So far, we
have accomplished ____.” Roles are rotated to encourage leadership
and teamwork skills.

 Numbered Heads Together (Kagan & Kagan, 2009)

Numbered Heads Together maximizes team cooperation and peer
tutoring. Teams of four number off, one through four. Each teammate
has an assigned number. The teacher poses a higher order thinking
question to the class. The teams stand up and work together to answer
the question and ensure that all members can adequately explain the
team’s answer. Once the team is confident that all members can explain
their thinking, the team sits down. When all the teams are seated, the
teacher randomly calls out a number, and the student assigned to that
number explains his or her team’s answer. Students can respond using
response cards, individual chalkboards, or orally. Numbered Heads
Together increases individual and team accountability along with
teamwork.

 RallyCoach (Kagan & Kagan, 2009)

RallyCoach is a coaching structure for groups of two students and is
used for reinforcing skills and providing additional practice with feedback.
Pairs of students are given one set of problems and one pencil. Partner
One solves the problem while Partner Two watches, listens, checks,
coaches, and praises. Then the two switch roles, and Partner One
becomes the coach while Partner Two solves the problem. Partners
repeat this process until the assignment is complete. This structure gives
the teacher an opportunity to observe partners and assist partnerships
as needed. RallyCoach pairs are most effective when pairs are
academically similar. For example, high achievers are paired with
 medium achievers and medium achievers are paired with low achievers
for a particular assignment. This arrangement within the pairs eliminates
one partner from dominating opportunities to coach and the other partner
becoming a passive learner.

 Talking Chips (Kagan & Kagan, 2009)

Talking Chips ensures that all student voices are heard during
cooperative learning discussions. Teams of four are given a discussion
topic and several minutes of individual think time. Each teammate
receives two talking chips to use during the discussion time. When
students participate in the group discussion, they place a talking chip in
the center of the table. Once all students have used both of their talking
chips, one student summarizes the conversation. The team divides up
the talking chips in the center of the table and continues the conversation
using the chips until time is called. The use of talking chips encourages
all students to communicate their ideas and be active and attentive
listeners.

 Reciprocal Teaching (Gajria, Jitendra, Sood, & Sacks, 2007)

Reciprocal teaching is a cooperative learning strategy that uses assigned
roles to assist with comprehension of text. The reading materials used
must be at the instructional level of all students within the group. It is also
essential that the roles are adequately explained and modeled for the
students. The teaching roles include predictor, clarifier, summarizer, and
questioner. The teacher assigns each group an instructional-level
passage to read. The students read the first section. Then, the
summarizer retells the section in his or her own words, the questioner
formulates questions for the group, the clarifier addresses any
confusions over comprehension of the text, and the predictor makes
predictions about the next selection. Roles are rotated so that each
student gets an opportunity to practice each role.  The teacher can
strategically assign the reader role, so that readers will have an
instructionally appropriate section to read.  For example, a reader who
struggles may read a section of familiar text, consisting of several high-
frequency words or a smaller segment of text. The other option is to have
 students read silently and then discuss the section. Reciprocal teaching
promotes independent application of comprehension within a cooperative
framework. 
In summary, cooperative learning structures that are embedded into classroom
procedures enhance active learning for students with disabilities and their nondisabled
peers. Such structures are especially helpful for students who require additional
practice as well as confirming and corrective feedback throughout the school day.
Cooperative learning structures continue to support inclusive practices and
complement academic and social skill development. Students who work together,
learn together to improve academic achievement and social acceptance of all!

Resources: Cooperative Learning in Inclusive Classrooms  

 For more information about active engagement and flexible student

groups, order the following T/TAC W&M Considerations Packets by
visiting: http://education.wm.edu/centers/ttac/resources/consideratio
ns/index.php :

o Differentiating for Success in Inclusive Classrooms

o Techniques for Active Learning

 Read:  “Assessment, Flexible Grouping, and Research-Based
Instructional strategies: Powerful Tools for Co-Taught Classes” in the
February/March issue of Link Lines  to meet the various learning needs of
students in inclusive classes using differentiation. 

  For additional resources on cooperative learning,

visit www.kaganonline.com

 Check out the following cooperative learning activities and lesson plans
at the T/TAC Library:

o Kagan, S. Cooperative Learning: Call number CL14

o Kagan, L., Kagan, M., & Kagan, S. Cooperative Learning:

Structures of Teambuilding: Call number CL10

o Stone, J. Cooperative Learning: Reading Activities. Call

number CL16.b
 o Stone, J. Cooperative Learning: Writing Activities. Call
number CL16.c
References
Bucalos, A. L., & Lingo, A. S. (2005). Filling the potholes in the road to inclusion:
Successful research-based strategies for intermediate and middle school students
with mild disabilities. TEACHING Exceptional Children Plus, 1(4).

Jensen, E. (2005). Teaching with the brain in mind. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.      

Gajria, M., Jitendra, A. K., Sood, S., & Sacks, G. (2007). Improving comprehension of
expository text in students with LD: A research synthesis.  Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 40(3), 210-225.

Garmston, R., & Wellman, B. (2002). The adaptive school: Developing and facilitating
collaborative groups  (4th ed.). El Dorado Hills, CA: Four Hats Seminar.

House, J., Landis, K., & Umberson, D. (1988). Social relationships and
health. Science, 241, 540-545.

Kagan, S., & Kagan, M. (2009). Kagan cooperative learning. San Clemente, CA:
Kagan  Publishing.

Ncube, S. (2011). Peer-collaboration: An effective teaching strategy for inclusive

classrooms.  The Journal of International Association of Special Education,12(1), 79-
81.

Stevens, R. J., & Slavin, R. E. (1995). Effects of a cooperative learning approach in

reading and writing on academically handicapped and nonhandicapped
students. Elementary School Journal, 95(3), 241-262.

Tate, M. L. (2003). Worksheets don’t grow dendrites: 20 Instructional strategies that

enagage   the brain. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.