# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The online learning environment presents a unique set of challenges that require clear definition of instructor performance. The following Best Practices and Expectations for Online Teaching are considered best practices. They identify the minimum level of interaction and management needed between students and instructors to maintain a quality online learning environment.

As a course instructor, it is anticipated that you will...

1. Follow the established course start and end dates. When students register for your course, they expect that it will start and end as stated in LionPATH. Schedule adjustments may, however, be needed to meet deadlines for graduating students and others with special circumstances.

2. Follow consistent guidelines for managing your online course. These guidelines identify tasks that should be performed on a daily, weekly, or semester basis. As you will see from the guidelines, the key to effectively managing an online course is to be consistently "present" in your online classroom. Regular contact with your students helps assure them that they are well-supported. As many seasoned online faculty can attest, the online classroom can become even more "personal" than the face-to-face one. Through regular communications with your students, observations of their discussions with one another in discussion forums, reading notes they share publicly with one another, and so on, you will likely be surprised at how you are able to connect with your students and learn about them as individuals in ways you had not envisioned!

3. Monitor assignment submissions and communication with students to remind them of missed and/or upcoming deadlines. You can help ensure a successful learning experience by practicing proactive course management strategies. Good practice suggests posting a message or announcement to your class at least once a week, to tell students what you will be covering in the coming week and to remind them of any due dates. One tool to monitor student activity is the "recent activity" stream in Canvas.

4. Early in the course, establish a regular schedule for when you will be logging in to the course and communicate this to students. Normally this is once per day. Many of the students studying via the World Campus are adult learners who have work and family responsibilities. These students tend to be more active in courses on weekends, so you may also wish to reserve time in your schedule to monitor courses at least once on weekends.

5. Give prior notice to your students and to the administrative unit overseeing your course (e.g., your academic department for resident courses or World Campus Student Services, at pennstateonline@psu.edu, for World Campus courses) in the event that you will be unable to log into the course for several days or more (e.g., during professional travel). Providing this information up front will help to forestall many student inquiries.

You should also consider finding coverage for your online course if you are going to be out of contact with students for more than a couple of days, especially if they are to be working on assignments while you are gone. If you will be away from the course in cases of personal emergency, you are asked to notify students and your learning designer as soon as possible.

6. Provide feedback to student inquiries within one business day. In other words, be accessible! Because online learners must manage their time carefully, timely instructor feedback is especially important to them. Without it, they may not be able to make progress on their course work. If you cannot provide a detailed response within one business day, it is good practice to respond to the student within one business day to let them know when you will provide them a more detailed response. Remember, sometimes the fastest way to provide a response might be the telephone! Real-time communication can be particularly valuable if a student seems upset or anxious. A quick phone call from you can help refocus them in a positive direction.

7. Provide meaningful feedback on student work using clear and concise language. You have ideal "teachable moments" when providing feedback on student work. Simply telling a student "good job" or "needs work" does not give them the information they need to succeed. They need (and want!) more specifics. What was it that made the work good? (So they can do it again!) What needs more work and how can they improve the quality of their work? (Specifically!)

8. Communicate to your students in advance when you will grade and return all assignments and exams. Online students need to self-regulate their time and learning and will need to adapt as needed. If you do not tell them this information, students will likely ask you to provide it. How long it will take to grade assignments and send meaningful feedback to students depends, of course, on the nature of the assignment. However, students may not be able to proceed in your course until they get your feedback on how they are doing. Please strive to get graded assignments, complete with meaningful feedback, to your students as promptly as possible. As a general rule of thumb, it seems reasonable to expect that student will receive their grades, including feedback, within one week of submitting an assignment. If one anticipates that it will take longer than that to return students' work, it is best to inform them in advance when their grades and feedback will be available. Doing so will forestall a lot of questions from students...which often end up coming to the folks in our main office! It also is best to grade assignments in sequence (i.e., assignment 1, then assignment 2, and so on) so students can apply the feedback from one assignment to the subsequent assignment.
Note that the end of the semester poses a particular challenge, when University policy stipulates that "Grades are to be posted 48 hours after the final exam or final assessment of the course." ( Office of the Registrar: Obtaining Grades). Your learning designer can assist you with any questions you might have with how to accomplish these grading goals.

9. Provide a teaching and learning environment that supports academic freedom, as outlined in University Policy HR64. Penn State faculty are entitled to freedom in the online classroom in discussing their subjects. Students must also be free to express their opinions without fear of ridicule, intimidation, or retaliation by any instructor. Consistent with Policy HR64 "Faculty members are expected to present information fairly, and to set forth justly, the divergent opinions of other investigators that arise out of scholarly methodology and professionalism."

10. Make sure you have immediate and predictable access to the same technology that is required for students in your course. Your course syllabus is an excellent place to communicate to your students the technology they must have in place to effectively participate in your online courses. You will want to make sure you are also using a computer system and network that can meet those technology requirements. World Campus courses typically list that information in the course catalog listing for the course. General World Campus technical requirements are posted online as part of the World Campus website.

11. In accordance with University policy, post final course grades to LionPATH within two business days of the course end date and/or receipt of the final assignment/exam. If you think that you will not be able to meet that requirement due to the nature of your course assessments, please discuss this with the administrative unit overseeing your course.

12. Encourage your students to complete your end-of-course survey (typically, the SRTE). Penn State uses an online version of the SRTE. Students access their SRTEs through https://www.srte.psu.edu/. At the end of the semester, the SRTE system generates an email to students to announce the availability of their SRTEs. This message includes instructions on where to complete them and how long they are available. Automated email reminder messages are sent to students who have outstanding forms to complete. (For more information, see "Frequently asked questions about online SRTEs.")

SRTE forms may be changed, but these changes must be discussed with your academic program administrator.

Research has shown that the strongest influence on whether a student completes an end-of-course survey is you, the instructor! Please send your students a note that encourages them to complete the survey (including a link to theSRTE) and assures them that the information that will be used to improve the course is important.

13. Contribute to the continual update and improvement of the course content. When teaching face-to-face, it is expected that an instructor is keeping the content of the course current and is routinely "tweaking" the course based on feedback from students, peers, and administrators. Teaching an online course is no different! Because your course is online, however, as you update your course content, learning activities, and assessments, you'll need to also pay attention to spelling and grammar, as well as copyright, usability, and accessibility best practices to ensure compliance with legal requirements and Penn State policy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Best Practices and Expectations for Online Teaching

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The online learning environment presents a unique set of challenges that require clear definition of instructor performance. The following Best Practices and Expectations for Online Teaching are considered best practices. They identify the minimum level of interaction and management needed between students and instructors to maintain a quality online learning environment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Inclusive Classrooms: A Strategy and Framework | Blackboard Help

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Building an inclusive classroom doesn't mean getting all students in the same space, doing the same things, in the same ways. It means enabling everyone in the classroom to achieve the same goals, even if the method of doing so is different. Inclusive classrooms put the focus on the learning objective instead of the activity to measure it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Do You Create an Unbiased Classroom? | Diversity & Inclusion

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"Unconscious bias occurs from normal cognitive processes within all people," says Laura Hunter, PhD, associate diversity officer for the University of Arizona's Office of Diversity and Inclusive Excellence. Hunter also offers a workshop for UA faculty and instructors called Diversity and Unconscious Bias in the Academy. "It is unconscious and without any malicious intent.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
With No Child Left Behind (NCLB) off the table for at least 32 states in the U.S., accountability measures will be left to states and local school systems. NCLB has been clear about closing achievement gaps between groups of students considered at risk. To ensure that there is an ongoing focus on school improvement, accountability should continue to be rigorous and focused on achievement gaps along with whole school improvement.

Clear accountability systems have to be in place at seven different levels to ensure student success now and in the future. Goals, beliefs, values, visions and actions must be aligned similar to what one may find in a balanced scorecard. If these things are not operating in tandem, then the system may be doomed to fail.

The seven levels of accountability for student success are: 1) state; 2) school system; 3) school; 4) principal; 5) teachers; 6) parents; and 7) students.

Level 1: STATE

All states should have a strong plan in place to measure accountability. Out of the 32 states approved for No Child Left Behind waivers, eight states have a conditional waiver, meaning they have not yet satisfied the Obama administration's requirements for a new principal/teacher evaluation system, incorporation of College and Career Readiness Standards and other stipulations. If these states are granted waivers, it is imperative that they have a plan in place so that all educators, parents, students and other stakeholders understand how schools will be monitored and what criteria will be used to determine school improvement.

Many of the states that have received No Child Left Behind waivers have developed impressive accountability plans.

According to the Kentucky Department of Education, their new accountability model is a more robust - next generation model that holds all schools and school systems accountable for improving student performance and creates four performance classifications that determine consequences and guide interventions and supports. School and system classifications are based on the following measures: 1) Achievement (Content Areas are reading, mathematics, science, social studies and writing.); 2) Gap (percentage of proficient and distinguished) for the Non-Duplicated Gap Group for all five content areas; 3) Growth in reading and mathematics (percentage of students at typical or higher levels of growth); 4) College Readiness as measured by the percentage of students meeting benchmarks in three content areas on EXPLORE at middle school; 5) College/Career-Readiness Rate as measured by ACT benchmarks, college placement tests and career measures and 6) Graduation Rate.

Level 2: SCHOOL SYSTEM

For school systems located in states where NCLB is still active, the accountability standards remain the same: required scores in key subject areas, test participation rates at 95 percent, attendance, graduation rates and adequate performance of special populations such as disadvantaged students and students with disabilities. What will be the accountability of school systems in states with waivers? The measures should certainly be well aligned to the state accountability plan components that we monitor and hold systems accountable for. In many cases, the new accountability measures growth over a period of time. Superintendents, boards of education and school system leaders will need to be visionary, progressive thinkers who are well versed about what is happening around the country and how to keep their school system on the cutting-edge of transformation.

A strong strategic plan that communicates the school system vision, mission, goals, beliefs, values and objectives should be transparent for all to see. The metrics embedded in it should communicate what the system is holding itself accountable for. There has to be a whole school system focus on building a culture of continuous improvement.

Curriculum, instruction, assessment and professional learning are critical success indicators for school systems. All levels of system operation have to link back to improvement of student achievement. High expectations must be in place for school system leaders, principals, teachers, students and their parents.

Level 3: SCHOOL

An important question for a school to ask: "How do we know if our students are successful and what actions will we take if they are not?" Schools with an answer to this question and an accountability plan in place will have the greatest level of success. Generally, the school improvement plan is the accountability plan for the school. It outlines the same components one would find in a school system strategic plan; it is clear about the actions that will take place to address the question posed earlier. There should be an action plan for improving each content area based on current school realities or baseline data from the most recent school assessments; a professional development plan aligned to the action plans; a technology plan; a plan for improving student attendance and parent involvement; and a plan that outlines how data will be utilized, analyzed and interpreted.

Ensuring student success in schools means holding teachers and other staff accountable for quality work directly impacting student achievement. Identification of root causes for lack of student success and aggressive interventions to address areas of weakness must be implemented. Use of research-based practices in all key areas of instruction, leadership and school operation should be evident in schools aiming for high levels of student success. Innovation and creativity are not only encouraged but celebrated.

Level 4: PRINCIPAL

It is often said that principals must be strong instructional leaders. That is only part of what principals should know and be able to do. They also must be change agents, capable of dealing with vast ambiguities; human relations gurus; school culture shapers; savvy budget administrators; and outstanding performance managers. If principals are knowledgeable, courageous and willing to hold everyone accountable for keeping their students at the center of everything they do, success is bound to follow.

An effective principal is needed in every school building of a school system striving for excellence in education. These principals understand the complexity of their position, perform duties and responsibilities at a high level, and are able to multi-task, fitting all of the interconnected pieces of school life together for the good of their students. They are results-driven and accept no excuses from anyone. Success is the only option and mediocrity is simply not acceptable in a school run by a strong leader.

Many states have new leader accountability instruments that will be used to evaluate system and building level leaders. Principals operating at the proficient to exemplary level of these accountability systems will have the most positive impact on student achievement.

Level 5: TEACHERS

Research is clear about the damage an ineffective teacher can do. It can take years of instruction with an effective teacher to turn that damage around. Schools and school systems will need a laser-like focus on building the capacity of teachers through strong induction programs, job-embedded professional learning, support for implementation of the new Common Core Performance Standards with accompanying assessments and teacher evaluation programs linked to student achievement outcomes. Teaching children at a high level of proficiency should be the core work of every teacher.

All teachers should continue to be highly qualified to teach the subjects and grade levels they are assigned. Use of varied instructional strategies, effective assessment techniques, data utilization and integration of technology are a given for teachers who want their students to be successful. Teachers should be held accountable; however, their success begins with holding students accountable for learning what is taught.

Level 6: PARENTS

The outside curriculum of children does matter. This curriculum has to do with how they spend their time away from school, what they value, the support systems they have in place and how parents involve themselves in the school. What is learned in schools can be easily unlearned if not sufficiently enforced at home, in the community, ingrained in character and properly supported.

Parents need the requisite skills to help their children succeed in school. The local school and school systems should provide these skills through parent education workshops, parent involvement meetings, adult education classes and engagement in volunteerism. The Search Institute's 40 Developmental Assets is a good starting point, along with the six types of parent involvement established by Joyce Epstein.

The chances of children being successful increase when their parents are fully vested in the school community; capable of monitoring school work; communicating effectively with teachers; and able to identify resources to help with social, emotional health issues and other impediments to school success.

Level 7: STUDENTS

Students must be taught to be responsible and take ownership for their education. Personalized learning environments are significant when it comes to establishing schools where students can thrive and be successful. Working with teachers who understand the importance of building relationships cannot be overemphasized. We must remain steadfast in our mission to prepare 21st century students in our country to compete in a global economy. Failing to do so will be detrimental to not only the individual child, but to our future as a nation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Seven Levels of Accountability for Student Success

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
With No Child Left Behind (NCLB) off the table for at least 32 states in the U.S., accountability measures will be left to states and local school systems. NCLB has been clear about closing achievement gaps between groups of students considered at risk.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Active Learning Classrooms: Sharing responsibility for learning

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
An Overview Of Cooperative Learning

David W Johnson and Roger T Johnson

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 interact with each 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.

In the mid-1960s, cooperative learning was relatively unknown and largely ignored by educators. Elementary, secondary, and university teaching was dominated by competitive and individualistic learning. Cultural resistance to cooperative learning was based on social Darwinism, with its premise that students must be taught to survive in a "dog-eat-dog" world, and the myth of "rugged individualism" underlying the use of individualistic learning. While competition dominated educational thought, it was being challenged by individualistic learning largely based on B. F. Skinner's work on programmed learning and behavioral modification. Educational practices and thought, however, have changed. Cooperative learning is now an accepted and often the preferred instructional procedure at all levels of education. Cooperative learning is presently used in schools and universities in every part of the world, in every subject area, and with every age student. It is difficult to find a text on instructional methods, a teacher's journal, or instructional materials that do not discuss cooperative learning. Materials on cooperative learning have been translated into dozens of languages. Cooperative learning is now an accepted and highly recommended instructional procedure.

Definition of Cooperative Learning

Students' learning goals may be structured to promote cooperative, competitive, or individualistic efforts. In every classroom, instructional activities are aimed at accomplishing goals and are conducted under a goal structure. A learning goal is a desired future state of demonstrating competence or mastery in the subject area being studied. The goal structure specifies the ways in which students will interact with each other and the teacher during the instructional session. Each goal structure has its place (Johnson & Johnson, 1989, 1999). In the ideal classroom, all students would learn how to work cooperatively with others, compete for fun and enjoyment, and work autonomously on their own. The teacher decides which goal structure to implement within each lesson. The most important goal structure, and the one that should be used the majority of the time in learning situations, is cooperation.

Cooperation is working together to accomplish shared goals. Within cooperative situations, individuals seek outcomes that are beneficial to themselves and beneficial to all other group members. Cooperative learning is the instructional use of small groups so that students work together to maximize their own and each other's learning. It may be contrasted with competitive (students work against each other to achieve an academic goal such as a grade of "A" that only one or a few students can attain) andindividualistic (students work by themselves to accomplish learning goals unrelated to those of the other students) learning. In cooperative and individualistic learning, you evaluate student efforts on a criteria-referenced basis while in competitive learning you grade students on a norm-referenced basis. While there are limitations on when and where you may use competitive and individualistic learning appropriately, you may structure any learning task in any subject area with any curriculum cooperatively.

Theorizing on social interdependence began in the early 1900s, when one of the founders of the Gestalt School of Psychology, Kurt Koffka, proposed that groups were dynamic wholes in which the interdependence among members could vary. One of his colleagues, Kurt Lewin refined Koffka's notions in the 1920s and 1930s while stating that (a) the essence of a group is the interdependence among members (created by common goals) which results in the group being a "dynamic whole" so that a change in the state of any member or subgroup changes the state of any other member or subgroup, and (b) an intrinsic state of tension within group members motivates movement toward the accomplishment of the desired common goals. For interdependence to exist, there must be more than one person or entity involved, and the persons or entities must have impact on each other in that a change in the state of one causes a change in the state of the others. From the work of Lewin's students and colleagues, such as Ovisankian, Lissner, Mahler, and Lewis, it may be concluded that it is the drive for goal accomplishment that motivates cooperative and competitive behavior.

In the late 1940s, one of Lewin's graduate students, Morton Deutsch, extended Lewin's reasoning about social interdependence and formulated a theory of cooperation and competition (Deutsch, 1949, 1962). Deutsch conceptualized three types of social interdependence-positive, negative, and none. Deutsch's basic premise was that the type of interdependence structured in a situation determines how individuals interact with each other which, in turn, largely determines outcomes. Positive interdependence tends to result in promotive interaction, negative interdependence tends to result in oppositional or contrient interaction, and no interdependence results in an absence of interaction. Depending on whether individuals promote or obstruct each other's goal accomplishments, there is substitutability, cathexis, and inducibility. The relationships between the type of social interdependence and the interaction pattern it elicits is assumed to be bidirectional. Each may cause the other. Deutsch's theory has served as a major conceptual structure for this area of inquiry since 1949.

Types Of Cooperative Learning

Formal Cooperative Learning

Formal cooperative learning consists of students working together, for one class period to several weeks, to achieve shared learning goals and complete jointly specific tasks and assignments (Johnson, Johnson, & Holubec, 2008). In formal cooperative learning groups the teachers' role includes (see Figure 4):

1. Making preinstructional decisions. Teachers (a) formulate both academic and social skills objectives, (b) decide on the size of groups, (c) choose a method for assigning students to groups, (d) decide which roles to assign group members, (e) arrange the room, and (f) arrange the materials students need to complete the assignment. In these preinstructional decisions, the social skills objectives specify the interpersonal and small group skills students are to learn. By assigning students roles, role interdependence is established. The way in which materials are distributed can create resource interdependence. The arrangement of the room can create environmental interdependence and provide the teacher with easy access to observe each group, which increases individual accountability and provides data for group processing.

2. Explaining the instructional task and cooperative structure.Teachers (a) explain the academic assignment to students, (b) explain the criteria for success, (c) structure positive interdependence, (d) structure individual accountability, (e) explain the behaviors (i.e., social skills) students are expected to use, and (f) emphasize intergroup cooperation (this eliminates the possibility of competition among students and extends positive goal interdependence to the class as a whole). Teachers may also teach the concepts and strategies required to complete the assignment. By explaining the social skills emphasized in the lesson, teachers operationalize (a) the social skill objectives of the lesson and (b) the interaction patterns (such as oral rehearsal and jointly building conceptual frameworks) teachers wish to create.

3. Monitoring students' learning and intervening to provide assistance in (a) completing the task successfully or (b) using the targeted interpersonal and group skills effectively.While conducting the lesson, teachers monitor each learning group and intervene when needed to improve taskwork and teamwork. Monitoring the learning groups creates individual accountability; whenever a teacher observes a group, members tend to feel accountable to be constructive members. In addition, teachers collect specific data on promotive interaction, the use of targeted social skills, and the engagement in the desired interaction patterns. This data is used to intervene in groups and to guide group processing.

4. Assessing students' learning and helping students process how well their groups functioned. Teachers (a) bring closure to the lesson, (b) assess and evaluate the quality and quantity of student achievement, (c) ensure students carefully discuss how effectively they worked together (i.e., process the effectiveness of their learning groups), (d) have students make a plan for improvement, and (e) have students celebrate the hard work of group members. The assessment of student achievement highlights individual and group accountability (i.e., how well each student performed) and indicates whether the group achieved its goals (i.e., focusing on positive goal interdependence). The group celebration is a form of reward interdependence. The feedback received during group processing is aimed at improving the use of social skills and is a form of individual accountability. Discussing the processes the group used to function, furthermore, emphasizes the continuous improvement of promotive interaction and the patterns of interaction need to maximize student learning and retention.

Informal Cooperative Learning

Informal cooperative learning consists of having students work together to achieve a joint learning goal in temporary, ad-hoc groups that last from a few minutes to one class period (Johnson, Johnson, & Holubec, 2008). During a lecture, demonstration, or film, informal cooperative learning can be used to focus student attention on the material to be learned, set a mood conducive to learning, help set expectations as to what will be covered in a class session, ensure that students cognitively process and rehearse the material being taught, summarize what was learned and precue the next session, and provide closure to an instructional session. The teacher's role for using informal cooperative learning to keep students more actively engaged intellectually entails having focused discussions before and after the lesson (i.e., bookends) and interspersing pair discussions throughout the lesson. Two important aspects of using informal cooperative learning groups are to (a) make the task and the instructions explicit and precise and (b) require the groups to produce a specific product (such as a written answer). The procedure is as follows.

1. Introductory Focused Discussion: Teachers assign students to pairs or triads and explain (a) the task of answering the questions in a four to five minute time period and (b) the positive goal interdependence of reaching consensus. The discussion task is aimed at promoting advance organizing of what the students know about the topic to be presented and establishing expectations about what the lecture will cover. Individual accountability is ensured by the small size of the group. A basic interaction pattern of eliciting oral rehearsal, higher-level reasoning, and consensus building is required.

2. Intermittent Focused Discussions: Teachers divide the lecture into 10 to 15 minute segments. This is about the length of time a motivated adult can concentrate on information being presented. After each segment, students are asked to turn to the person next to them and work cooperatively in answering a question (specific enough so that students can answer it in about three minutes) that requires students to cognitively process the material just presented. The procedure is:

a. Each student formulates his or her answer.

b. Students share their answer with their partner.

c. Students listen carefully to their partner's answer.

d. The pairs create a new answer that is superior to each member's initial formulation by integrating the two answers, building on each other's thoughts, and synthesizing.

The question may require students to:

a. Summarize the material just presented.

b. Give a reaction to the theory, concepts, or information presented.

c. Predict what is going to be presented next; hypothesize.

d. Solve a problem.

e. Relate material to past learning and integrate it into conceptual frameworks.

f. Resolve conceptual conflict created by presentation.

Teachers should ensure that students are seeking to reach an agreement on the answers to the questions (i.e., ensure positive goal interdependence is established), not just share their ideas with each other. Randomly choose two or three students to give 30 second summaries of their discussions. Such individual accountabilityensures that the pairs take the tasks seriously and check each other to ensure that both are prepared to answer. Periodically, the teacher should structure a discussion of how effectively the pairs are working together (i.e., group processing). Group celebrations add reward interdependence to the pairs.

3. Closure Focused Discussion: Teachers give students an ending discussion task lasting four to five minutes. The task requires students to summarize what they have learned from the lecture and integrate it into existing conceptual frameworks. The task may also point students toward what the homework will cover or what will be presented in the next class session. This provides closure to the lecture.

Informal cooperative learning ensures students are actively involved in understanding what is being presented. It also provides time for teachers to move around the class listening to what students are saying. Listening to student discussions can give instructors direction and insight into how well students understand the concepts and material being as well as increase the individual accountability of participating in the discussions.

Cooperative Base Groups

Cooperative base groups are long-term, heterogeneous cooperative learning groups with stable membership (Johnson, Johnson, & Holubec, 2008). Members' primary responsibilities are to (a) ensure all members are making good academic progress (i.e., positive goal interdependence) (b) hold each other accountable for striving to learn (i.e., individual accountability), and (c) provide each other with support, encouragement, and assistance in completing assignments (i.e., promotive interaction). In order to ensure the base groups function effectively, periodically teachers should teach needed social skills and have the groups process how effectively they are functioning. Typically, cooperative base groups are heterogeneous in membership (especially in terms of achievement motivation and task orientation), meet regularly (for example, daily or biweekly), and last for the duration of the class (a semester or year) or preferably for several years. The agenda of the base group can include academic support tasks (such as ensuring all members have completed their homework and understand it or editing each other's essays), personal support tasks (such as getting to know each other and helping each other solve nonacademic problems), routine tasks (such as taking attendance), and assessment tasks (such as checking each other's understanding of the answers to test questions when the test is first taken individually and then retaken in the base group).

The teacher's role in using cooperative base groups is to (a) form heterogeneous groups of four (or three), (b) schedule a time when they will regularly meet (such as beginning and end of each class session or the beginning and end of each week), (c) create specific agendas with concrete tasks that provide a routine for base groups to follow when they meet, (d) ensure the five basic elements of effective cooperative groups are implemented, and (e) have students periodically process the effectiveness of their base groups.

The longer a cooperative group exists, the more caring their relationships will tend to be, the greater the social support they will provide for each other, the more committed they will be to each other's success, and the more influence members will have over each other. Permanent cooperative base groups provide the arena in which caring and committed relationships can be created that provide the social support needed to improve attendance, personalize the educational experience, increase achievement, and improve the quality of school life.

Integrated Use Of All Three Types Of Cooperative Learning

These three types of cooperative learning may be used together (Johnson, Johnson, & Holubec, 2008). A typical class session may begin with a base group meeting, which is followed by a short lecture in which informal cooperative learning is used. The lecture is followed by a formal cooperative learning lesson. Near the end of the class session another short lecture may be delivered with the use of informal cooperative learning. The class ends with a base group meeting.

Basic Elements of Cooperation

Not all groups are cooperative (Johnson & F. Johnson, 2009). Placing people in the same room, seating them together, telling them they are a group, does not mean they will cooperate effectively. To be cooperative, to reach the full potential of the group, five essential elements need to be carefully structured into the situation: positive interdependence, individual and group accountability, promotive interaction, appropriate use of social skills, and group processing (Johnson & Johnson, 1989, 2005). Mastering the basic elements of cooperation allows teachers to:

1. Take existing lessons, curricula, and courses and structure them cooperatively.

2. Tailor cooperative learning lessons to unique instructional needs, circumstances, curricula, subject areas, and students.

3. Diagnose the problems some students may have in working together and intervene to increase the effectiveness of the student learning groups.

The first and most important element is positive interdependence. Teachers must give a clear task and a group goal so students believe they "sink or swim together." Positive interdependenceexists when group members perceive that they are linked with each other in a way that one cannot succeed unless everyone succeeds. If one fails, all fail. Group members realize, therefore, that each person's efforts benefit not only him- or herself, but all other group members as well. Positive interdependence creates a commitment to other people's success as well as one's own and is the heart of cooperative learning. If there is no positive interdependence, there is no cooperation.

The second essential element of cooperative learning is individual and group accountability. The group must be accountable for achieving its goals. Each member must be accountable for contributing his or her share of the work (which ensures that no one "hitch-hikes" on the work of others). The group has to be clear about its goals and be able to measure (a) its progress in achieving them and (b) the individual efforts of each of its members. Individual accountability exists when the performance of each individual student is assessed and the results are given back to the group and the individual in order to ascertain who needs more assistance, support, and encouragement in completing the assignment. The purpose of cooperative learning groups is to make each member a stronger individual in his or her right. Students learn together so that they can subsequently perform higher as individuals.

The third essential component of cooperative learning is promotive interaction, preferably face-to-face. Promotive interactionoccurs when members share resources and help, support, encourage, and praise each other's efforts to learn. Cooperative learning groups are both an academic support system (every student has someone who is committed to helping him or her learn) and a personal support system (every student has someone who is committed to him or her as a person). There are important cognitive activities and interpersonal dynamics that can only occur when students promote each other's learning. This includes orally explaining how to solve problems, discussing the nature of the concepts being learned, teaching one's knowledge to classmates, and connecting present with past learning. It is through promoting each other's learning face-to-face that members become personally committed to each other as well as to their mutual goals.

The fourth essential element of cooperative learning is teaching students the required interpersonal and small group skills. In cooperative learning groups students are required to learn academic subject matter (taskwork) and also to learn the interpersonal and small group skills required to function as part of a group (teamwork). Cooperative learning is inherently more complex than competitive or individualistic learning because students have to engage simultaneously in taskwork and teamwork. Group members must know how to provide effective leadership, decision-making, trust-building, communication, and conflict-management, and be motivated to use the prerequisite skills. Teachers have to teach teamwork skills just as purposefully and precisely as teachers do academic skills. Since cooperation and conflict are inherently related, the procedures and skills for managing conflicts constructively are especially important for the long-term success of learning groups. Procedures and strategies for teaching students social skills may be found in Johnson (2009) and Johnson and F. Johnson (2009).

The fifth essential component of cooperative learning is group processing. Group processing exists when group members discuss how well they are achieving their goals and maintaining effective working relationships. Groups need to describe what member actions are helpful and unhelpful and make decisions about what behaviors to continue or change. Continuous improvement of the process of learning results from the careful analysis of how members are working together.

These five elements are essential to all cooperative systems, no matter what their size. When international agreements are made and when international efforts to achieve mutual goals (such as environmental protection) occur, these five elements must be carefully implemented and maintained.

The Validating Research

Amount And Characteristics Of Research

The study of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic efforts is commonly recognized as one of the oldest fields of research in social psychology. In the late 1800's Triplett in the United States, Turner in England, and Mayer in Germany conducted a series of studies on the factors associated with competitive performance. Since then over 750 studies have been conducted on the relative merits of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic efforts and the conditions under which each is appropriate. This is one of the largest bodies of research within psychology and education.

An extensive literature search was conducted aimed at identifying all the available studies from published and nonpublished sources. Seven-hundred-fifty-four studies contained enough data to compute an effect size (there are many studies from which an effect size could not be computed) (Johnson & Johnson, 1989). The research on social interdependence, furthermore, has an external validity and a generalizability rarely found in the social sciences. The more variations in places, people, and procedures the research can withstand and still yield the same findings, the more externally valid the conclusions. The research has been conducted over twelve decades by many different researchers with markedly different theoretical and practical orientations working in different settings and countries. A wide variety of research tasks, ways of structuring social interdependence, and measures of the dependent variables have been used. Participants in the studies varied from ages three to post-college adults and have come from different economic classes and cultural backgrounds. The studies were conducted with different durations, lasting from one session to 100 sessions or more. Research on social interdependence has been conducted in numerous cultures in North America (with Caucasian, Black-American, Native-American, and Hispanic populations) and countries from North, Central, and South America, Europe, the Middle East, Asia, the Pacific Rim, and Africa. The research on social interdependence includes both theoretical and demonstration studies conducted in educational, business, and social service organizations. The diversity of these studies gives social interdependence theory wide generalizability and considerable external validity.

Promotive, oppositional, and no interaction have differential effects on the outcomes of the situation (see Johnson & Johnson, 1989, 2005). The research has focused on numerous outcomes, which may be subsumed within the broad and interrelated categories of effort to achieve, quality of relationships, and psychological health (Johnson, 2003; Johnson & Johnson, 1989, 2005) (see Table 1 and Figure 2). Figure 1 shows the relationships among the outcomes.

Table 1

Mean Effect Sizes For Impact Of Social Interdependence On Dependent Variables

ConditionsAchievementInterpersonal AttractionSocial SupportSelf-Esteem

Total Studies

Coop vs. Comp0.670.670.620.58

Coop vs. Ind0.640.600.700.44

Comp vs. Ind0.300.08-0.13-0.23

High Quality Studies

Coop vs. Comp0.880.820.830.67

Coop vs. Ind0.610.620.720.45

Comp vs. Ind0.070.27-0.13-0.25

Note: Coop = Cooperation, Comp = Competition, Ind = Individualistic

Reprinted By Permission From: Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. (1989). Cooperation and Competition: Theory and Research.Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company

Effort To Achieve

From Table 1 it may be seen that cooperation promotes considerable greater effort to achieve than do competitive or individualistic efforts. Effort exerted to achieve includes such variables as achievement and productivity, long-term retention, on-task behavior, use of higher-level reasoning strategies, generation of new ideas and solutions, transfer of what is learned within one situation to another, intrinsic motivation, achievement motivation, continuing motivation to learn, and positive attitudes toward learning and school. Overall, cooperation tends to promote higher achievement than competitive or individualistic efforts (effect-sizes = 0.67 and 0.64 respectively). The impact of cooperative learning on achievement means that if schools wish to prepare students to take proficiency tests to meet local and state standards, the use of cooperative learning should dominate instructional practice.

An important aspect of school life is engagement in learning. One indication of engagement in learning is time on task. Cooperators spent considerably more time on task than did competitors (effect size = 0.76) or students working individualistically (effect size = 1.17). In addition, students working cooperatively tended to be more involved in activities and tasks, attach greater importance to success, and engage in more on-task behavior and less apathetic, off-task, disruptive behaviors. Finally, cooperative experiences, compared with competitive and individualistic ones, have been found to promote more positive attitudes toward the task and the experience of working on the task (effect-sizes = 0.57 and 0.42 respectively).

Quality Of Relationships

Quality of relationships includes such variables as interpersonal attraction, liking, cohesion, esprit-de-corps, and social support. The degree of emotional bonding that exists among students has a profound effect on students' behavior. The more positive the relationships among students and between students and faculty, the lower the absenteeism and dropout rates and the greater the commitment to group goals, feelings of personal responsibility to the group, willingness to take on difficult tasks, motivation and persistence in working toward goal achievement, satisfaction and morale, willingness to endure pain and frustration on behalf of the group, willingness to defend the group against external criticism or attack, willingness to listen to and be influenced by colleagues, commitment to each other's professional growth and success, and productivity (Johnson & F. Johnson, 2009).

There are over 175 studies that have investigated the relative impact of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic efforts on quality of relationships and another 106 studies on social support (Johnson, 2003; Johnson & Johnson, 1989, 2005). As Table 2 shows, cooperation generally promotes greater interpersonal attraction among individuals than does competitive or individualistic efforts (effect sizes = 0.67 and 0.60 respectively). Cooperative experiences tend to promote greater social support than does competitive (effect-size = 0.62) or individualistic (effect-size = 0.70) efforts. Stronger effects are found for peer support than for superior (teacher) support. The high-quality studies tend to have even more powerful effects.

It is difficult to overemphasize the importance of these research results. Friends are a developmental advantage (see Johnson, 2003; Johnson & Johnson, 1989, 2005). There is a close association between antisocial behavior and rejection by the normal peer group. Rejected children tend to be deficient in a number of social-cognitive skills, including peer group entry, perception of peer group norms, response to provocation, and interpretation of prosocial interactions. Among children referred to child guidance clinics, 30 to 75 percent (depending on age) are reported by their parents to experience peer difficulties. Moreover, children referred for psychological treatment have fewer friends and less contact with them than nonreferred children, their friendships are significantly less stable over time, and their understanding of the reciprocities and intimacies involved in friendships is less mature. Peer group acceptance and friendships may be built through the extensive use of cooperative learning.

Psychological Health

Asley Montagu (1966) was fond of saying that with few exceptions the solitary animal in any species is an abnormal creature. Similarly, Karen Horney (1937) stated that the neurotic individual is someone who is inappropriately competitive and, therefore, unable to cooperate with others. Montagu and Horney recognized that the essence of psychological health is the ability to develop and maintain cooperative relationships. More specifically, psychological health is the ability (cognitive capacities, motivational orientations, and social skills) to build, maintain, and appropriately modify interdependent relationships with others to succeed in achieving goals (Johnson, 2003; Johnson & Johnson, 1989, 2005). People who are unable to do so often (a) become depressed, anxious, frustrated, and lonely, (b) tend to feel afraid, inadequate, helpless, hopeless, and isolated, and (c) rigidly cling to unproductive and ineffective ways of coping with adversity.

With our students and colleagues, we have conducted a series of studies relating cooperative, competitive, and individualistic efforts and attitudes to various indices of psychological health (see Johnson, 2003; Johnson & Johnson, 1989, 2005). The samples studied included middle-class junior-high students, middle-class high school seniors, high-school age juvenile prisoners, adult prisoners, Olympic ice-hockey players, adult step-couples, and business executives in China. The diversity of the samples studied and the variety of measures of psychological health provide considerable generalizability of the results of the studies. A strong relationship was found between cooperativeness and psychological health, a mixed picture was found with competitiveness and psychological health, and a strong relationship was found between an individualistic orientation and psychological pathology.

Finally, there is evidence that cooperation promotes more frequent use of higher level reasoning strategies than do competitive (effect size = 0.93) or individualistic (effect size = 0.97) efforts. Similarly, cooperation tends to promote more accurate perspective taking than do competitive (effect size = 0.61) or individualistic (effect size = 0.44) efforts. Thus, the more cooperative learning experiences students are involved in, the more mature their cognitive and moral decision making and the more they will tend to take other people's perspectives in account when making decisions.

Conclusions and Summary

Teachers who wish to use cooperative learning should ideally base their classroom practices on theory validated by research. The closer classroom practices are to validated theory, the more likely they will be effective. When more directly practice is connected to theory, furthermore, the more likely practice will be refined, upgraded, and improved over the years. There are, however, few classroom practices that are directly based on validated theory. The close relationship between theory, research, and practice makes cooperative learning somewhat unique. It also creates a set of issues for teachers using cooperative learning.

The first issue is understanding the nature of social interdependence. Social interdependence is created when goals are structured so that the accomplishment of a person's goal is affected by others' actions. The interdependence may be positive (which results in individuals working cooperatively to achieve their mutual goals) or negative (which results in individuals competing to see who will achieve the goal). The absence of interdependence indicates no connection between people's attempts to achieve their goals. In cooperative situations, students' actions substitute for each other, students are inducible, and a positive cathexis is created toward other's actions. In competitive situations, the opposite psychological processes may be found. The fundamental premise of social interdependence theory is that the way in which goals are structured determines how individuals interact, and those interaction patterns create outcomes. Positive goal interdependence tends to result in promotive interaction, negative goal interdependence tends to result in oppositional interaction, and no interdependence tends to result in no interaction.

The second issue is understanding the research validating social interdependence theory. There are hundreds of studies indicating that cooperation, compared to competitive and individualistic efforts, tends to result in greater effort to achieve, more positive relationships, and greater psychological health. The diversity of this research provides considerable generalizabiity to the findings.

The third issue is to understand the five basic elements that make cooperation work. There is nothing magical about putting students in groups. Students can compete with groupmates, students can work individualistically while ignoring groupmates, or students can work cooperatively with groupmates. In order to structure cooperative learning effectively, teachers need to understand how tostructure positive interdependence, individual accountability, promotive interaction, appropriate use of social skills, and group processing into learning situations.

The fourth issue is to understand the flexibility and many faces of cooperative learning. When the five basic elements may be effectively implemented in formal cooperative learning situations (formal cooperative learning may be used to structure most learning situations), informal cooperative learning situations (informal cooperative learning may be used to make didactic lessons cooperative), and cooperative base groups (which are used to personalize a class and the school). Together they provide an integrated system for instructional organization and design (as well as classroom management). When utilizing these three types of cooperative learning, any learning situations in any subject area with any age students and with any curriculum can be structured cooperatively.

References

Deutsch, M. (1949). A theory of cooperation and competition. Human Relations, 2, 129-152.

Deutsch, M. (1962). Cooperation and trust: Some theoretical notes. In M. Jones (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation, (pp. 275-319). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

Horney, K. (1937). The neurotic personality of our time. New York: Norton.

Johnson, D. W. (2003). Social interdependence: The interrelationships among theory, research, and practice. American Psychologist, 58(11), 931-945.

Johnson, D.W. (2009). Reaching out: Interpersonal effectivenessand self- actualization (10th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, F. (2009). Joining together: Group theory and group skills (10th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Johnson D. W., & Johnson, R. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina, MN: interaction Book Company.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1999). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning (5th Ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Montagu, A. (1966). On being human. New York: Hawthorn.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What is Cooperative Learning? - Cooperative Learning Institute

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
David W Johnson and Roger T Johnson 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.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Lev Vygotsky and Social Learning Theories

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Social learning theories help us to understand how people learn in social contexts (learn from each other) and informs us on how we, as teachers, construct active learning communities. Lev Vygotsky (1962), a Russian teacher and psychologist, first stated that we learn through our interactions and communications with others.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Teamwork Theory: Tuckman's Stages of Group Development
Probably the most famous teamwork theory is Bruce Tuckman's "team stages model".
First developed in 1965, Tuckman's model is widely known as a basis for effective team building. Yet how many people really know how to use it?

Below we explain Tuckman's model and offer some fresh insights on how to take it further.

But before reading on why not take the chance to "team-up" with our great range of e-guides . The complete set is now available at half price!

You'll find advice, tips, tools and new models which you won't find anywhere else. You can read about the real benefits of our teams bundle in our article on team building activities. Or why not download your half price offer right now! You're in good company with satisfied customers from over 30 countries around the world. Click the image below to view some of our most popular e-guides:

Tuckman's model is significant because it recognizes the fact that groups do not start off fully-formed and functioning. He suggests that teams grow through clearly defined stages, from their creation as groups of individuals, to cohesive, task-focused teams.

Our e-guide: Build a Better Team, has been specifically designed to help you understand and use a team stages model. It contains a tool for each stage to help you build a high-performing team - as quickly as possible.

Tuckman's Teamwork Theory

Tuckman describes working with a team of social psychologists, on behalf of the U.S. navy. The team studied small group behaviour, from several perspectives. In doing so, Tuckman reviewed 50 articles on group development and noticed that there were two features common to these small groups: the interpersonal or group structure, and the task activity. From this he identified that groups evolved into teams via four common stages.

Firstly an orientation, testing phase which often led to a period characterized by a degree of conflict. This then generally resolved itself, leading to a more socially cohesive phase. Finally, groups settled to a functional phase, during which they focused on role-relatedness. To summarize these four phases, Tuckman coined the oft-quoted terms: "forming", "storming", "norming" and "performing".

Tuckman's teamwork theory is best illustrated on a graph which shows the link between group relationships (the horizontal axis) and task focus (the vertical axis). The optimal or "performing" position is reached when relationships have developed within the group and it has started delivering with a clear focus on the task.

However, Tuckman's ideas clearly indicate that it takes time to reach the "performing" stage, and it's normal for these teams to go through ups and downs as they develop relationships. Particularly in the early period, which is perhaps why Tuckman called it the "storming" phase!

The 4 Phases of Tuckman's Teamwork Theory

Forming:
The initial stage of team development during which individuals have not yet gelled together. Everybody is busy finding their place in the team, sizing each other up, and asking themselves why they are here! Find out more in our articles: Team Building Techniques and Teamwork Tips. The first offers advice on starting a new team while the second will help you take over an existing team (perhaps a far more common situation).

Storming:
People begin to see themselves as part of a team. However at this stage they may challenge each other, and the team leader, about such things as what the team is doing, and how things should be done. As the stage title suggests, conflict and confrontation typify this stage, as differences surface. This may result in some loss of performance or focus on the task, as the diagram illustrates.

Norming:
This is the phase where team members start to come together, developing processes, establishing ground rules, clarifying who does what, and how things will be done. This phase is characterized by a growing sense of "togetherness". Find out more about both the Storming and Norming phases in our article: Team Building Concepts.

Performing:
This is the final stage where increased focus on both the task, and on team relationships, combine to provide synergy. Performance is delivered through people working effectively together. We have written two articles to further develop this stage. Team Building in the Workplace will help you build a performing team. Characteristics of Effective Teamwork will help you and your team sustain that performance.

The value of Tuckman's model is that it helps us understand that teams evolve. It also helps us to consider how they may encounter different problems at different stages of their development.

One limitation of the model may be that it makes team building appear too linear and sequential. Although it's a useful analytical tool, we must remember that some teams may "loop" around in their development.

For example, not all teams evolve smoothly through Tuckman's stages but may yo-yo between norming and storming until they either begin to function, or are disbanded! Regardless of limitations, all well-conceived models can be useful in helping us to understand and better manage our circumstances.

Beyond Tuckman

Read our new book:

Uncommon Leadership: how to build competitive edge by thinking differently
"a tour de force ... all integrated into a fascinating intellectual package"

Professor Dennis J. Garritan, Adjunct Professor, Harvard University

Tuckman's famous phases are part of a teamwork theory based on stages of team development. His theory may have gained popularity partly due to the catchy labels for each of his stages.

However, it also provides a useful and simple way to think about how we humans interact in team situations. Firstly by illustrating that it's normal for teams go through stages as they develop. Secondly, by highlighting the need to manage different aspects of team behaviour at each stage of that development. The beauty and usefulness of Tuckman's model is perhaps in its simplicity.

Team development theories such, as Tuckman's group development stages, recognise that teams develop through different stages, from forming through to performing.

Whilst these theories give a useful understanding of different team requirements at different times, there are a number of questions that aren't particularly well answered by the models. For example:

How should you lead at the different stages of a team's development?

How do you identify when you are progressing through a stage?

How does the team develop in the organisational setting?

How is it affected by other outside influences?

The theory of group stages alone doesn't answer these questions. To do so, and thus to build a more robust teamwork concept, ideas about team leadership and outside factors need to be introduced. We've done just this in our STAR team performance model. You can see how this model applies to group stages in: Stages of Team Development.

This is the first of ten articles in our teamwork series. But for some practical tips on using teamwork theory, look at our great-value guides (below), or at our Team Building Exercises for all team stages.

Team Building Exercises and Team Stages

The exercises in this guide are grouped according to our team stages model. Remember, each team is unique and needs to be led through several developmental stages. These include:
Creating a new team or taking over an existing team

Exercise 1: Being a TEAM together

Exercise 2: True or false

Exercise 3: Who does what in a team?

Exercise 4: Getting the mix right

Exercise 5: Doing something for the first time

Exercise 6: Two years from now

Developing a team

Exercise 7: A clearer vision

Exercise 8: Mad, sad or glad

Exercise 9: Seeing the bigger picture

Exercise 10: Positive feedback

Exercise 11: Conflicting views

Performing and achieving results with a team

Exercise 12: Did you notice?

Exercise 13: Limiting beliefs

Sustaining team performance

Exercise 14: Scarce resources

Exercise 15: Keeping going

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Probably the most famous teamwork theory is Bruce Tuckman's "team stages model". First developed in 1965, Tuckman's model is widely known as a basis for effective team building. Yet how many people really know how to use it? Below we explain Tuckman's model and offer some fresh insights on how to take it further.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Implementing Group Work in the Classroom | Centre for Teaching Excellence

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Group work can be an effective method to motivate students, encourage active learning, and develop key critical-thinking, communication, and decision-making sk

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Call it "active learning," or "classroom participation" -- every teacher wants to know how to motivate students to particpate, and how to nurture more involved students and fewer apathetic ones. With a little extra planning, that is possible.

Below are four common reasons students don't participate and techniques to solve those problems and spice up your lessons.

Maybe it needs to be repetitive because the students don't really "get it," or maybe you're reviewing for a test. In any case, they're tuning out.

Solution #1: Assess their prior knowledge.

This could be as simple as asking students, "What do you know about (topic)?" and writing their responses on the board. You could also try a pre-test or a graphic organizer like a K-W-L chart . The goal is to find out what they already know (or think they know). You create buy-in for the students because they feel smart, and you can tailor your lesson to the information they don't know or don't remember correctly.

Solution #2: Try skills grouping.

Divide the class into groups based on what skills they need to practice - not forever, but for a class period or two, so they can focus on what they really need help with. So have a group that works on multiplying fractions, one on dividing fractions, and one on converting fractions to decimals. Make a group of "already got 100% on the test" kids and give them an extra credit activity or let them preview the next lesson. Then take time to move between the other groups and help them review. You'll have more students engaged in the lesson and they'll get specific, focused practice time.

Solution #3: Let them teach each other.

Especially good when reviewing before a test: divide the class into groups and give each group a topic. Set some guidelines and then let them teach each other. Encourage them to do interesting activities - write tests for each other, design review games, etc. - and evaluate each group on the accuracy of their content, the creativity of their approach, and how well they work together as a team. This is also a great way to discover how to motivate students.

This is really half the problem. The other half - especially with older students - is their fear of "looking stupid" by asking questions.

Solution #1: Allow anonymous questions.

Put out a "question box" where students can submit questions any time. Give each student an index card and ask them to write something about the reading assignment they did for homework. If they don't have a question, instruct them to write a comment on the reading. Collect the cards and use them to lead a class discussion. You'll easily recognize what parts of the reading confused a lot of students and they won't feel embarrassed.

Solution #2: Allow them to work together.

We can't do this all the time; individual students need to be assessed. Ask yourself: is the goal of this activity for them to learn the content, or for them to be assessed? If you want them to learn the content, why not let them work together? When they bring in their homework, do a quick survey for completeness, then put them in pairs and let them review the homework together. Encourage them to make changes if their partner's answer looks right. When they've finished, review as a class. Students may be less embarrassed to share a group's answer than their own and you may be able to complete the review more quickly.

Solution #3: Try a jigsaw approach.

No, we're not talking about puzzles or scary movies. If you're introducing new, difficult content, divide the class into groups and ask each group to master only one portion of it at a time. If, for example, you're teaching the American Revolution, have one group focus on the Continental Congress, one on Washington's Army, one on French support for the war, and so on.

Ask them to do a reading on their topic - to become the class "experts" on that subject. Then split up the class into new groups that include one "expert" on each topic. Ask these new groups to work together to write an essay or complete a worksheet that requires information about all the topics. They will teach each other in the process. Learn more about the Jigsaw Approach.

Problem: There's too much information to present in too short a time.

Sometimes there's no way around it: you simply have to get a lot of information out there in a short amount of time. So you opt for a lecture and just want your students to absorb the content. Instead, they fall asleep or stare out the window. What can you do?

Solution #1: Keep it "bite-sized."

Remember: research shows the average student's attention span is as long as her age. So even high school kids can only handle about 15 minutes. If you have a lot of information to convey, re-arrange your lesson plans so you never lecture for more than 10-15 minutes.

Break up large concepts into smaller sections - give a brief lecture, then do an activity to help it "sink in." Repeat this process over several days. You'll increase participation - and improve comprehension, too.

Solution #2: Keep them busy.

Don't allow students to stare into space while you talk. Give them something to stay connected. Try "fill in the blank" lecture notes. Delete key words and phrases in your lecture notes to create a "fill in the blank" worksheet. Then ask students to fill in the worksheet while you lecture. Another fun variation - lecture bingo .

Solution #3: Look into the future.

Before a lecture, give students a prediction activity. For example, tell them you will be lecturing on Shakespeare and ask them to predict what you will say, or give them a set of true/false statements and ask them to take their best guess.

As you lecture, instruct students to compare their guesses with what you actually say.

When the lecture is over, have a class discussion and evaluate how accurate student predictions were.

Problem: The lesson emphasizes the teacher, not the students.

Solution #1: Keep them busier than you are.

The traditional classroom of yesteryear had the teacher at the front of the room, droning on while students doze. Re-imagine your classroom as a place where students are busier than you are.

Keep the "sit still and let me talk to you" moments as brief as possible; get those kids working! Give them worksheets, activities, discussions, and projects. That doesn't mean you get to sit around -- you will still be busy, moving from student to student or group to group, correcting, evaluating, or providing feedback. But now everyone is busy and involved.

Homogeneous grouping? Heterogeneous grouping? Tracking? Forget the buzz words: having students work in groups is one of the best ways to increase student participation. Don't keep them in the same groups all the time -give them a chance to be the "smart kid" who can help someone one day and the kid who needs help the next.

Take a traditional worksheet or activity and give it to students in groups. Offer a reward to the group who finishes first with the most answers correct and watch them go! Note: it helps to have additional prizes available to keep groups motivated after the first group "wins." Even high school students enjoy these competitions.

Solution #3: Give them a voice and a choice.

Do students ever get a "say" in your classroom? Of course you need to make most decisions, but there must be some things you could leave up to them - whether it's what color chalk you use today or how long they practice a specific activity.

Kids tune out because they feel like their ideas don't matter. Show them their opinions are important and they'll pay better attention and speak up more in class.

There will always be some unreachable student who won't respond, even with these efforts. But if you give these a try, you may be presently surprised at the previously unreachable students who just might join in!

How do you encourage participation in your class? In what ways did you discover how to motivate students? Share in the comments section!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
top 12 ways to increase student participation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Top 12 Ways to Increase Student Participation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Call it "active learning," or "classroom participation" -- every teacher wants to know how to motivate students to particpate, and how to nurture more involved students and fewer apathetic ones. With a little extra planning, that is possible. Below are four common reasons students don't participate and techniques to solve those problems and spice up your lessons.