This article was downloaded by: [University of Sussex Library]

On: 19 January 2015, At: 03:09

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,
UK

The Journal of Social

Psychology
Publication details, including instructions for authors
and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vsoc20

Cooperative Learning and Peer

Acceptance of Students with
Learning Disabilities
a b
Joanne Putnam , Kathryn Markovchick , David W.
c c
Johnson & Roger T. Johnson
a
School of Education , University of Maine at
Presque Isle , USA
b
Readfield School District of Maine , USA
c
Department of Educational Psychology , University
of Minnesota , USA
Published online: 30 Jun 2010.

To cite this article: Joanne Putnam , Kathryn Markovchick , David W. Johnson &
Roger T. Johnson (1996) Cooperative Learning and Peer Acceptance of Students
with Learning Disabilities, The Journal of Social Psychology, 136:6, 741-752, DOI:
10.1080/00224545.1996.9712250

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1996.9712250

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the
information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.
However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,
or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views
expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the
Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with
primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any
 losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,
and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the
Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,
sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is
expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 03:10 19 January 2015
 The Journal of Social Psychology, 1996, 136(6).741-752

Cooperative Learning and Peer Acceptance

of Students With Learning Disabilities
JOANNE PUTNAM
School of Education
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 03:10 19 January 2015

University of Maine
at Presque Isle
KATHRYN MARKOVCHICK
Readfield School District of Maine
DAVID W. JOHNSON
ROGER T. JOHNSON
Department of Educational Psychology
University of Minnesota

ABSTRACT. The effects of cooperative learning on 417 regular-education students’

acceptance of 41 of their special-education classmates were examined in an 8-month
study. The participants were in Grades 5-8 in 21 classes in 2 U.S.schools. The 3 condi-
tions were cooperative learning and competitive learning, taught by the same teachers. and
competitive learning, taught by a random sample of teachers. In October and in May, the
regular-education students rated each classmate’s desirability as a work partner. The stu-
dents’ peer ratings were generally very stable, for both their regular-education classmates
and their specialeducation classmates. Positive changes in peer ratings for both types of
classmates occurred more frequently in the cooperative-learning condition than in the
competitive-learning conditions.

RECENT STATISTICS INDICATE that 68% of the special-education students

in the United States are included in regular-educationclassrooms for at least 40%
of the school day (U.S. Department of Education, 1991). a trend that is expected
to continue (Putnam & Bruininks, 1986; Putnam, Bruininks, & Spiegel, 1992).
Educators hope that including students with learning disabilities in regular-
education classrooms will provide them with opportunities for positive, mean-
ingful interaction with their peers who are not learning disabled, but there is
some question as to whether the interaction that takes place between these two
groups is actually positive.

Address correspondence to David W Johnson, Depurtment of Educational Psychology,

University of Minnesota. 60 Peik Hall, Minneupolis, M N 55455.

74 I
 Considerable risk is involved when students with learning disabilities and
students without learning disabilities share a classroom (Johnson, Johnson, &
Maruyarna, 1983). Possible outcomes include (a) prejudice, stereotyping. dis-
crimination, rejection, hostility, teasing. harassment, and destructive forms of
conflict or (b) personalization, acceptance, support, caring, and friendship,
depending on the structure of the interaction between the two groups. Any
interaction that is related to academic tasks must be carefully structured. Stu-
dents with learning disabilities who are placed in regular-education classrooms
without instructional or curricular modifications tend to be more socially iso-
lated than the other students and to interact more with their special-education
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 03:10 19 January 2015

classmates than with their regular-education classmates (Asher &Taylor, 198 I ;

Bryan, 1974; Gresham, 1982; MacMillan, Jones. & Aloia, 1974; Peterson &
Haralick, 1977).
The most promising method of instruction for encouraging positive inter-
action between regular-education and special-education students is cooperative
learning, as demonstrated by the results of over 60 studies (Johnson & Johnson,
1989; Johnson. Johnson, & Maruyama, 1983). The results of these studies indi-
cate the possible effects of the use of cooperative learning in regular classrooms
that include special-education students; they do not indicate the effects of coop-
erative learning throughout the school year, because most of this research con-
sists of highly controlled. short-term investigations that lasted only 3 to 10
weeks. Kleck (1966) found that people who did not have learning disabilities
were overfriendly in their initial encounters with people who had learning dis-
abilities, because of a societal norm to be kind to such persons, but that this
overfriendliness decreased over the course of further interactions. I n the same
way, it is conceivable that regular-education students in cooperative learning
groups might initially accept but later reject special-education students.
Previous research has failed to address three major questions. First, how
stable are students' perceptions of their classmates'? Do impressions formed in
September persist in May or do they change over the course of the school year'?
Researchers attempting to evaluate the stability of students' impressions should
compare changes in perceptions of classmates who have learning disabilities
with changes i n perceptions of classmates who do not. A second question is
whether teachers' instructional methods influence the stability of students' per-
ceptions of their peers. Although cooperative learning tends to promote posi-
tive changes over a 2- to 10-week period in perceptions of classmates with
learning disabilities, researchers do not know whether this effect persists
throughout the school year. A third question concerns the possibility that the
inclusion of students with learning disabilities in regular-education classrooms
may cause the perceptions of their peers who do not have learning disabilities
to become increasingly negative during the year. Our primary purpose in the
present study was to address these three questions.
Studies on inclusion and cooperative learning have been focused on regular-
 Putnam, Markovchick, Johnson, & Johnson 743

education students’ acceptance of their special-education classmates; there has

been little research on special-education students’ perceptions of inclusion, even
though contact that is viewed positively by regular-education students may be per-
ceived as uncomfortable and threatening by special-educationstudents. In the pre-
sent study, we interviewed the special-educationstudents in the cooperative condi-
tion to determine how they perceived the interaction with their regular-education
classmates.
One of several hypotheses about why students with learning disabilities tend
to be rejected by their peers who do not have learning disabilities is they are per-
ceived as being low in intelligence and are unable to do the academic work that
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 03:10 19 January 2015

is required. Another hypothesis is that special-education students are rejected

because their behavior disrupts others’ learning. Little support exists for either of
these hypotheses, however. In the present study, we explored the relationship
between regular-education students’ acceptance of students with learning dis-
abilities and the IQ and behavioral patterns of special-educationstudents’.

Method

Participants
The participants were 41 special-education students (32 boys and 9 girls)
ranging in age from I 1 to 15 years (M = 13 years) and 417 regular-education
students (197 boys and 220 girls) ranging from 10 to 14 years old ( M = 12
years). The regular-education students came from working- and middle-class
Caucasian families, and the special-education students came from middle-class
families. The special-education students had been categorized as “disabled,”
according to state guidelines (see Table 1). Two thirds of these special-educa-
tion students had been classified as learning disabled because of a disorder in
their ability to use spoken or written language, as evidenced by an imperfect
ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or do mathematical calculations
(P.L. 94-142, Education of the Handicapped Act, 1977). All the learning-dis-
abled students in the present study were performing at least 2 years below grade
level. Both the students who were learning disabled and the other special-edu-
cation students were receiving special-education services in their regular class-
rooms, a resource classroom, or a self-contained special-education classroom.
The students spent at least one period a day in regular-education classes. Eight
of the special-education students were included in fifth-grade classes, 5 were
included in sixth-grade classes, 14 were included in seventh-grade classes, and
14 were included in eighth-grade classes. The average amount of time the spe-
cial-education students spent in the regular-education classrooms per day was
72%, with a range of 10% to 100%.The special-education students’ IQ scores
on the Weschler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised (WISC-R) ranged
from 47 to 109 ( M= 85.8).
 TABLE 1
Classification of Special-EducationStudents

Condition
Classification Cooperative Competitive 1 Competitive 2

Learning disability
Behavioral disorder
Hearing impairment
Visual impairment
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 03:10 19 January 2015
12 13
1 0
2 1
I 2

Mental retardation 0 2
Multiple disabilities 0 0
Total 16 18

Independent Variable
The independent variable was cooperative versus competitive learning. In the
cooperative condition, the teachers used cooperative learning for at least two of the
five weekly 45-min class periods. The teachers assigned the students to groups of
3 or 4, depending on the lesson, and incorporated into the class the five elements
of effective cooperative learning-positive goal interdependence, individual
accountability, face-to-face promotive interaction, appropriate use of social skills,
and group processing (Johnson, Johnson, & Holubec, 1993). In the three noncoop-
erative class periods per week, the teachers used a format that included lecture,
whole class discussion, individual work, and periodic tests, but all grading was
conducted on a criteria-referenced basis. In the cooperative condition, the students
were randomly assigned to learning groups on a stratified basis, so that each coop-
erative-learning group contained no more than 1 special- education student. All the
regular-education students participated in cooperative-learning groups with each
special-education student during the course of the academic year.
The classes in the competitive-learning conditions consisted of lectures and
whole-class discussions, and the students were graded on a norm-referenced
basis. Assignments were always completed individually. The classes in the first
competitive condition were taught by the same teachers who taught the coopera-
tive classes (classes were matched for grade level and subject area, and each class
was randomly assigned to the cooperative or competitive condition). In the sec-
ond competitive condition, nine classes matched for subject area and grade level
were randomly selected from the pool of classes with teachers who did not want
to be trained in cooperative learning.

Procedure

The teachers who participated in the study were from two schools in Maine;
one school included 10 classes of fifth and sixth graders, and the other school
 Putnam. Markovchick. Johnson, & Johnson 745

included I 1 classes of seventh and eighth graders. Eight teachers (2 fifth-grade

teachers, 2 sixth-grade teachers, 2 seventh-grade teachers, and 2 eighth-grade
teachers) volunteered to use cooperative learning in an experimental class that
included students with learning disabilities. The teachers had received 8 hr of
training in cooperative learning before school started and also attended five
monthly seminars (August-December) and a 2-day training program in Novem-
ber. Thus, the teachers received a total of 34 hr of training in cooperative learn-
ing over a 6-month period.
The study lasted for 8 months of the school year. We began the study 1
month after the school year started so that the students would have a chance to
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 03:10 19 January 2015

become acquainted with each other. The teachers used cooperative learning in
two of the five weekly 45-min class sessions, throughout the entire 8-month peri-
od.The pre-measures were administered during the l st week in October, and the
postmeasures were administered during the last week in May.
To control for potential teacher effects, we asked the teachers to teach two
classes, one with cooperative learning and one without. One of two classes that
had been matched for grade level and subject area was randomly assigned to the
cooperative condition, and the other was assigned to the first competitive condi-
tion. The methods that were used to teach the two classes differed only in that (a)
the cooperative condition included two cooperative lessons per week and (b) the
students in the competitive condition were evaluated on a norm-referenced com-
parative system.
The second competitive condition involved nine teachers (3 fifth-grade
teachers, 1 sixth-grade teacher, 3 seventh-grade teachers, and 2 eighth-grade
teachers) who did not volunteer to receive cooperative learning, were unfamiliar
with cooperative learning, and had not used cooperative-learning procedures dur-
ing the past. These teachers agreed not to use cooperative learning at all during
the academic year the study was being conducted.
The classes in the present study were in academic subject areas such as
math, science, social studies, and English. We observed the classes twice a week
and completed an observation form to verify that cooperative learning (a) was
being used appropriately in the cooperative condition and (b) was not being
used in the competitive conditions. The observation form focused on the five
basic elements of cooperative learning, mentioned previously (Johnson et al.,
1993).

Dependent Variables
The study included five dependent variables. Peer acceptance was measured
using a sociometric method (Asher & Taylor, 1981). The students rated each
classmate on a 5-point scale that ranged from no, not at all ( I ) to yes, very much
(5). according to how much they would like to work with that person, in October
and in May. The students were permitted to indicate that they did not know a
 classmate. The teachers were provided with instructions and scripts for adminis-
tering the peer-rating instrument.
Student IQ-verbal, performance, and overall-was measured with the
WISC-R during the 3 years before the present study. We used the Behavior Rat-
ing Profiles (BRP; Brown & Hammill, 1983) to measure student behavior pat-
terns from various perspectives-school, home, peer, teacher, and parent-and
converted the BRP scores to standard scores.
The special-education students in the cooperative condition were adminis-
tered a structured interview consisting of short, open-ended questions about
whether they (a) liked cooperative learning, (b) learned more in cooperative
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 03:10 19 January 2015

lessons or in traditional lessons, and (c) had made new friends who were regular-
education students. The special-education students also answered questions
about whether their behavior in the classroom had improved during the school
year, how their groupmates treated them, and how friendly the regular-education
students were. The teachers in the cooperative condition were administered a
structured interview that assessed their general reactions to cooperative learning
as well as their reactions to the use of cooperative learning in regular-education
classrooms that included special-education students.

Anolyses

We used an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) to evaluate the results, a

repeated measures t test to measure the significance of the differences between
the two social-acceptance ratings for each student, and Pearson product-moment
correlations to measure the relationship between peer ratings and the special-
education students’ IQ levels and standard scores on the scales ofthe BRP. We
conducted a content analysis on the interviews.

Results

After totaling the peer ratings, we conducted an ANOVA to determine

whether classmates’ perceptions changed during the school year. Three findings
for the regular-education students are reported in Table 2. First, there was a sig-
nificantly more positive change in desire to work with a classmate between Octo-
ber and May in the cooperative condition than in either of the two competitive
conditions, F( I , 415) = 217.08, p < .OOl; p s < .01, for planned comparisons. I n
the cooperative condition, 27% of the special education students were perceived
differently in May than they were in October. This change was significant. The
difference between the amount of change that occurred in the two competitive
conditions was not significant.
The second finding was that the peer ratings formed in October by the regular-
education students in the traditional classrooms tended to remain relatively fixed,
as indicated by the limited degree of change in the two competitive conditions.
 Putnam, Markovchick. Johnson, & Johnson 747

TABLE 2
Changes in Peer Ratings of Regular-Education Students,
From October to May

Condition M SD

Cooperative ( n = 122)
October 2.53 0.61
May 2.99 0.63
Competitive I ( n = 129)
October 2.64 0.54
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 03:10 19 January 2015

May 2.84 0.84

Competitive 2 (n = 166)
October 2.80 0.66
May 2.94 0.92

Note. F(l. 415) = 2 1 7 . 0 8 , ~< ,001. LSD: Cooperative vs. competitive I.

p < .01: cooperative vs. competitive 2, p < .Ol: competitive I vs. competi-
tive 2, p < .72.

Only 18% of the students were perceived differently in May than they had been
in October; this difference was not statistically significant.
Third, the regular-education students’ peer ratings tended not to become
more negative over the course of the year. In the cooperative condition, only 1
student was evaluated significantly more negatively in May than in October; in
the competitive control condition, only 2 students were perceived significantly
more negatively; and in the schoolwide competitive comparison condition, 5 stu-
dents (3910) were perceived significantly more negatively in May than in October.
The data for the special-education students are reported in Table 3. Students’
perceptions of special-education classmates became significantly more positive
between October and May in the cooperative condition than in the first and sec-
ond competitive conditions, F( 1 , 39) = 17.72, p < .001;ps < .06 and .01, respec-
tively, for planned comparisons. Thirty-eight percent of the special-education
students were rated significantly more positively in May than in October in the
cooperative condition.
The students’ perceptions of their special-education classmates did not
change for the better in the competitive conditions; not 1 of the special-education
students was rated significantly more positively in May than in October. Stu-
dents’ perceptions of their classmates who had learning disabilities were espe-
cially stable and fixed in the competitive conditions. The students’ impressions
of their special-education classmates during September and early October
seemed to determine how they would perceive these classmates the rest of the
year. The stability of the regular-education students’ first impressions of their
special-educationclassmates was also reflected by the fact that the latter group
 TABLE 3
Changes in Peer Ratings of Special-EducationStudents,
From October to May

Condition M SD

Cooperative ( n = 16)
October 2.14 0.66
May 2.65 0.64
Competitive I ( n = 7)
October 2.24 0.66
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 03:10 19 January 2015

May 2.19 1.02

Competitive 2 (n = 17)
October 2.07 0.48
May 1.98 0.84

Nore. F( I . 39) = 17.72. p < ,001. LSD: Cooperative vs. competitive I . p <
0 6 ; cooperative VS. competitive 2. / J < .01; competitive I vs. competilive
2, p < .so.

of students was not perceived significantly more negatively in May than in Octo-
ber. Only I special-education student was perceived significantly more negative-
ly in May, and that student was in the schoolwide competitive condition.
The regular-education students’ ratings of the special-education students
were correlated with the latter’s intelligence and behavioral patterns but not with
scores for verbal IQ, 420) = .14, p < .53;performance IQ, 420) = .03, p c 37;
or total IQ, r(20) = .24, p < .3 1. The regular-education students’ ratings of their
special-education classmates were significantly correlated with the latter’s scores
on the School subscale of the BRP, r(24) = 39, p < .05; but not with their scores
for the other BRP subscales: Home, r(24) = .29, p < .15; Peer, 424) = .19, p <
.38; Teacher-Combined, r(24) = .18, p < .40; or Parent, r(24) = -.01, p < .97.
The special-education students in the cooperative condition were adminis-
tered a structured interview in May, at the end of the study. Seventy-four percent
of the special-education students liked working in cooperative groups, 13% were
unsure about cooperative learning, and 13% did not like working cooperatively
with classmates. Seventy-two percent of the special-education students believed
they learned better in cooperative situations than in competitive or individualized
situations. Ninety-six percent of the special-education students thought their
classmates treated them well or pretty well, 87% believed the regular-education
students had been more friendly that year than in the past, 74% reported that they
had made new friends who were regular-education students, and 96% believed
their behavior had improved during the school year.
The teachers in the cooperative and competitive-control classes were also
interviewed in May; all of them preferred the cooperative-teaching experience to
 Putnam, Markovchick, Johnson, & Johnson 749

competitive teaching. The teachers reported that cooperative learning improved

their teaching, increased the students’ learning and self-esteem, and improved
relationships between the regular-education and the special-education students.
The teachers also reported that the co-planning and mutual support involved in
implementing cooperative learning improved their relationships with their col-
leagues.

Discussion
At the heart of the inclusion issue is the assumption that regular-education
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 03:10 19 January 2015

students’ perceptions of their special-education classmates will become increas-

ingly positive throughout the year. This assumption implies that (a) regular-
education students’ perceptions of their peers do change and that (b) such per-
ceptions apply to classmates with disabilities as well as to classmates without
disabilities. The results of the present study provide support for both of these
implications. First, in the traditional classes, regular-education students’ percep-
tions of their classmates in Grades 5-8 .tended to be fixed and rigid throughout
the school year. Thus, the longer traditional instructional methods are used, the
more likely it is that special-education students will be perceived in a stereotyp-
ic manner by their regular-education classmates. The rigidity of regular-
education students’perceptions of their peers may present a major barrier to suc-
cessful inclusion. Second, the regular-education students in the traditionally
taught classes tended to perceive their special-education classmates as undesir-
able work partners, and this perception tended to remain unchanged during the
academic year. None of the special-educationstudents were considered to be sig-
nificantly more desirable work partners in May than in October, and 1 special-
education student was perceived to be a significantly less desirable work partner.
Being rejected by one’s peers may be especially difficult in early adolescence,
when attachment to one’s peers and being liked by others are especially impor-
tant (Glatthorn & Spencer, 1986); at this age, feeling well liked is related to self-
esteem and to other important aspects of psychological well-being (Glasser,
1986; Johnson & Johnson, 1989). The regular-education students’ perceptions
tended to be rigid for their special-education classmates as well as for their
regular-education classmates.Thus, in traditionally taught classes’, students’first
impressions of their classmates tend to be lasting.
The instructional method that is used in a classroom may affect the rigidity
of students’impressions about their peers. The finding that regular-education stu-
dents who worked in cooperative-learning groups with special-education stu-
dents tended to perceive them as more desirable work partners in May than they
had in October corroborates the results of short-term studies on cooperative
learning and inclusion (Johnson &Johnson, 1989; Johnson, Johnson, & Maruya-
ma, 1983). Although using cooperative learning did not guarantee that every spe-
cial-education student would be more accepted, it did promote a higher degree of
 acceptance than traditional, more competitive teaching methods did. When
implemented in the context of cooperative learning. inclusion tended to encour-
age positive relationships between regular- and special-education students; thus.
cooperative learning may be a necessary component of inclusion.
The changes in the regular-education students’ perceptions of their special-
education classmates were almost always positive in the cooperative condition,
and only 1 special-education student was perceived more negatively in May than
in October. Thus, the concern that special-education students may be increasingly
rejected by their classmates over the course of the year seems to be ill-founded.
An alternative explanation for the differences in peer ratings is that they may
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 03:10 19 January 2015

be attributable to a regression factor. However, the lack of high ratings on the

pretest (individual ratings ranged from 1.4 to 3.8 o n a 5-point scale) indicates that
a ceiling effect did not exist; thus, a regression toward the mean would not
explain the present findings.
Two common but as yet unsubstantiated hypotheses exist about why regular-
education students in traditionally taught classes tend to like their classmates
who have disabilities less than they like their regular-education classmates (John-
son, Johnson, & Maruyama, 1983). One of these hypotheses is that the students
with learning disabilities are not very intelligent, cannot do the required acade-
mic work. and are therefore rejected by their peers who do not have learning dis-
abilities. A positive correlation between the IQs of the students who had learning
disabilities and the level of acceptance these students received from the regular-
education classroom students would be expected if this hypothesis were to be
supported, but the relationship between IQ and peer acceptance in the present
study was nonsignificant. indicating that intellect was not what determined
whether regular-education students wanted to work with their special-education
classmates. The second hypothesis is that students with disabilities behave in dis-
ruptive ways, hindering the learning of regular students. There is a theoretical
rationale for this hypothesis: Deutsch (1962) posited that a person who obstruct-
ed goal achievement would be disliked. A positive correlation between the dis-
ruptive behavioral patterns of special-education students and their unacceptabil-
ity to regular-education students would indicate support for this hypothesis. The
present results indicate that disruptive behavior in school (but not behavior out-
side school with teachers, peers, and parents) was negatively related to regular-
education students’ desire to work with a special-education student. The more
disruptive a special-education student’s behavior was, the less regular-education
students wanted to work with him or her.
The reactions of special-education students and of teachers of regular-
education students to inclusion have received scant research attention. Many spe-
cial-education students may be anxious about being placed in regular classrooms,
especially when they know they will be working with their regular-education
classmates in cooperative-learning groups and that their academic and behavioral
limitations will thus be exposed. The special-education students in the coopera-
 Putnrm, Markovchick, Johnson. & Johnson 75 I

tive condition enjoyed their cooperative experiences and viewed them as valuable
in helping them learn, gain peer acceptance, make friends with regular-education
classmates, and improve their behavior in the classroom. The results of the
teacher interviews indicated that the teachers believed cooperative learning (a)
improved their teaching and their relationships with their colleagues as well as
relationships between the regular- and special-education students and (b)
increased student learning and self-esteem. Both the special-education students
and the teachers viewed inclusion positively when it occurred in the context of
cooperative learning.
The limitations of the present study were that the teachers (a) were new at
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 03:10 19 January 2015

using cooperative learning, (b) were trained during the year, and (c) used coop-
erative learning only 40% of the instructional time. Although these limitations
weakened the implementation of cooperative learning. the present study did
include important strengths. The present study (a) was a field study on the inclu-
sion of special-education students in regular-education classrooms, in real
schools, with actual students; (b) lasted for 8 months; (c) was well controlled
methodologically, with classes randomly assigned to conditions, teacher effects
controlled for, and verification that conditions were being implemented correct-
ly; (d) focused on middle-school-aged students, including a broad range of grade
levels and student ages, and had a large sample size. Most previous researchers
conducting this type of study have focused on a single grade level and have used
much smaller samples,

REFERENCES
Asher, S., & Taylor, A. (1981). The social outcomes of mainstreaming: Sociometric
assessment and beyond. Exceptional Education Quurrer!,: 1. 1 3-30.
Brown, L.. & Hammill, D. (1983). Behavior Ruring ProJile. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Bryan. T. (1974). Peer popularity of learning disabled children. Journal ofkarning Dis-
abilities, 7,62 1-625.
Deutsch. M. (1962). Cooperation and trust: Some theoretical notes. In M. Jones (Ed.),
Nebraska svmposium on mnrivurion (pp. 275-3 19). Lincoln: University of Nebraska
Press.
Education of the Handicapped Act. P.L. 94-142. (1977, August 23). Federal Register, 42,
163.
Glasser, W. ( 1986). Control rheon: in the clussroom. New York: Harper & Row.
Glatthorn, A., & Spencer, N. ( I 986). Middle schooVjunior high principal’s handbook.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Gresham, F. (1982). Misguided mainstreaming: The case for social skills training with
handicapped children. Exceptional Children, 48. 422433.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1989). Cooperarion und comperirion: Theory und
research. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R., & Holubec, E. (1993). Circles ofleuming. Edina, MN: Inter-
action Book Company.
Johnson. D. W., Johnson. R.,& Maruyama, G. (1983). Interdependenceand interperson-
al attraction among heterogeneous and homogeneous individuals: A theoretical formu-
lation and a meta-analysis of the research. Review of Edi~curionulResearch, 53,5-54.
 752 The Jaumul c$Siiciul P.~.~chology

Kleck, R. ( 1966). Emotional arousal in interaction with stigmatized persons. Psyhologi-

c d Reports, 19. 12-26.
MacMillan, D., Jones. R.. & Aloia, T. (1974). The mentally retarded label: A theoretical
analysis and review of research. Arnericun Journul of Mental Deficiency 79. 24 1-26 I.
Peterson, N., & Haralick. J. (1977). Integration of handicapped and non-handicapped
preschoolers: An analysis of play behavior and social interaction. Educution und Train-
ing of the Mentully Returded, 12, 235-245.
Putnam, J., & Bruininks, R. ( 1986). Future directions in deinstitutiondization and educa-
tion of children and youth with handicaps: A Delphi investigation. Exceptional Chil-
dren, 53.55-62.
Putnam. J.. Bruininks. R., & Spiegel, A. (1992). Future directions in the social inregru-
tion of children und youth with disubilities. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota,
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 03:10 19 January 2015

unpublished manuscript.
U.S. Department of Education (1991). Thirteenth unnrrul report to the Congress on the
implementation of the Education of the Hundictipped Art (1988). Washington, DC:
Government Printing Office.

Received November 14, 1995