# data[].attributes.body
HOW WHAT WHY

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Remember the Fibonacci sequence? It's a series of numbers in which each subsequent number is the sum of the previous two: 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, and so on. One of the most fundamental concepts in mathematics, it is the basis for the Golden Ratio in architecture and nature, some financial markets, and is seen in the works of great composers such as Debussy and Bartok and in the novels of Dan Brown, Philip K. Dick, and Matt Reilly, among others.

Some students will be astounded to find so many Fibonacci numbers and their applications in their everyday world after just one introductory lesson from you. They will marvel at what was there all along, wondering why they had not seen them before. Other students, however, will not "tune in" so quickly and will need to study many Nautilus sea shells and pine cones before they see the sequence.

The differences between these two groups of students are many-fold: familiarity with the topic and reference points, neural development, language bias, and personal investment in school. Nevertheless, both groups of students are in your 47-minute, fifth period class, and worthy of developmentally appropriate instruction. What's a middle grades teacher to do?

Effective middle grades teachers know that one group size rarely fits all, so they use flexible grouping based on informed decisions. To guide their decisions about grouping, they can ask themselves the following questions:

Is this the only way to organize students for this learning? Do I always teach this way, and if so, why?

Where in the lesson could I create opportunities for students to work in small groups?

Would this part of the lesson be more effective as an independent or small-group activity?

Why do I have the whole class involved in the same activity at this point in the lesson?

Will I be able to meet the needs of all students with this grouping?

I've been using a lot of [insert type of grouping here-whole class, small group, or independent work] lately. Which type of grouping should I add to the mix?

If it's time for some flexible grouping in our lessons, we can group according to many different factors and structures, including whole class or half class, teams, small groups, partners, triads, quads, one-on-one mentoring with an adult or peer, learning centers, online wiki groups, readiness, interest, and learner profile.

Let's define those last three, in particular.

Readiness refers to how ready students are for more complexity in their lessons. As students develop proficiency, we move them into more challenging tasks, which may mean moving into differently focused or structured groups. Students struggling to read text appropriate for third graders shouldn't be asked to learn content by reading text written for eighth graders; students move on to negative exponents only after they understand exponents and reciprocals.

However, more complexity doesn't mean more workload. We change the nature of the task, not the quantity of the task. We don't give advanced students two labs to do, for instance, if the rest of the class is only doing one. Instead, we ask the advanced group to investigate something more complex than the rest of the class is investigating.

Interest refers to how we can help students learn the material in meaningful ways.

Learner profile refers to any factor that affects a student's learning: family situation, learning preferences, specific talents, cultural background, languages spoken in the home, economic stability or instability, access to technology, repeating or skipping a grade level, reading proficiency, and so on.

Making Sense

As we consider grouping students, two important cognitive science principles come to mind: 1) students learn best when information makes sense and is meaningful, and 2) there are two clear steps to every learning experience: accessing the information and processing the information. While these two principles intersect, when we consider flexible grouping, it's important that we consider them separately.

For example, in the initial "making sense" portion of a lesson, we often present information through lecture, demonstrations, videos, and assigned practice. Some students respond better to lecture than do others; some need to think individually before responding to the larger group; and some need to talk about a topic in order to understand it. Most students can learn through all three strategies but may achieve success sooner via one or more of them. We might form groups to meet these and other learning differences as students first begin to learn content.

To help students process the information into long-term memory, we may have to structure the groups differently-perhaps by interest, such as favorite sport, music group, or author. Students connect with and process the content when we help them see how it manifests in their lives: "I need to learn to read because I need to be able to read video game instruction manuals, posts on my social networking site, World of Warcraft magazines, and the rotating message signs on the front of city buses that I ride to and from school."

Offering different analogies and cultural references based on students' personal lives helps them remember the material and apply it in useful situations.

The research sections of the National Middle School Association website (www.nmsa.org) are full of presentations and citations about homogeneous versus heterogeneous grouping, as are the sites for other professional education organizations. In reviewing these sites and reflecting on current classroom practices, we find the wisest course is to keep classroom groups' membership dynamic, not static. We prefer semi permeable membranes. This means that we rarely maintain the same small group for a whole grading period, let alone a whole year. We're not afraid of temporary homogeneous grouping.

Being Flexible

We are vigilant in our formative assessments, too. If we discover that a student's assignment to one group is not working for him or the group, we give the student or group the tools to make it work or we move the student to another group. Kay Burke's What to Do with the Kid Who... (Free Spirit Publishing) has helpful advice regarding these tools.

We are usually thoughtful about students' group assignments, but sometimes we miss something or a variable doesn't turn up in the student's performance until he's with the group. Revising our decisions in light of the new evidence is better than adhering stubbornly to the original groupings.

If a student believes she has been placed in a group beyond her competence level and asks to be removed, we investigate to determine if we made a mistake in the group assignment or if the student just needs a vote of confidence or an additional tool to tackle the more complex tasks. If, upon investigation, the student's needs are better served by moving her to a slower paced, less-complex-task group, we move her.

Interestingly, she won't balk at the re-assignment nor will she feel like she is a slow learner, going to the "dummy" group. Students crave competence, and when they don't experience it, they shut down, looking for ways to escape. This need to escape is most commonly expressed in middle school with requests to get a drink of water, use the bathroom, or run an errand.

If a teacher has a classroom culture in which a subgroup within the class is considered the "dummy" group, it's time to suspend the curriculum and address the issue. Every person in the classroom, even the 4.0 students, should experience what it's like to be a complete beginner at something at least once a marking period. If students are not able to develop coping strategies for complex, difficult tasks in middle school when stakes are not so high, they won't develop the temperament and neural pathways for handling such demands in high school, college, and the working world where the stakes are much higher. For more on this, see my "Failure Preferred, Actually" column in the February 2009 issue of Middle Ground.

We also want to make sure students do not see differences in learning rate and style as weakness. Instead, students should recognize that all of us learn at different rates and in different ways, despite the fact that most schools are not designed to respond well to those who deviate-higher, lower, laterally-from the exact norm.

Grouping for Goals

Whatever we do, all groups must be doing respectful tasks-tasks that are developmentally appropriate, not busywork. For example, we don't tell students who can't identify historical themes in the Constitution to simply draw pictures of what is meant by each of the first 10 Amendments. Instead, we give them the tools to perceive those historical themes. Some of these tools are more concrete, while others are more abstract, but all of them focus on intended curriculum goals.

Even schools with predominantly one culture-social, national, economic, academic-are still abundantly diverse within those cultures. Some of those students need quiet reflection while others need interaction with others; some need more practice time than others; some can see the math applications in music and some will need specific analogies to make those connections clear. With these students, flexible grouping to maximize instruction is too important to receive only occasional attention. Instead, it's part of our weekly modus operandi.

Just like the Fibonacci sequence, re-grouping for flexible purposes weaves through much of our lives. And just like those numbers, each new learning is the sum of the previous learnings; those pairings and re-pairings matter. Orchestrated by informed, purposeful teachers, these groupings afford opportunities for student learning not to be missed.
Previously published in Middle Ground magazine, April 2010

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Flexible Grouping in the Classroom - AMLE

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Remember the Fibonacci sequence? It's a series of numbers in which each subsequent number is the sum of the previous two: 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, and so on.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Cooperative Learning in Inclusive Classrooms:
Students Who Work Together, Learn Together

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

May/June 2013

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

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

Cooperative learning challenges some people's beliefs about education. Cooperative classrooms represent a shift from traditional lecture-style classrooms to more brain-friendly environments that benefit all learners (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. From traditional to cooperative learning.

From Traditional to Cooperative Learning

From ...

To ...

(Adapted from Kagan & Kagan, 2009)

Critical Aspects of Effective Cooperative Learning

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

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

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

Mixed-ability groupings: Ncube's (2011) research showed that flexible mixed-ability groups have advantages over homogeneously grouped students because the higher achieving students can mentor the students who are struggling with a particular skill or concept. At the same time, the students who are more competent with a particular skill deepen their own learning by applying higher level thinking skills while assisting others to achieve.

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

Cooperative learning within inclusive classrooms requires thoughtful planning and implementation to yield the highest impact for all students (Stevens & Slavin, 1995).
Types of Cooperative Teams
There are four major types of cooperative teams: heterogeneous, random, homogeneous, and student-selected. All four have instructional purposes (see Figure 2). Thus, the type of team used should match the instructional learning goals and needs of the students. Heterogeneous groups are most widely used for cooperative learning because they naturally support peers assisting peers, improve social acceptance of all types of learners, and can assist with classroom management. However, all four can be implemented throughout the school year to support instruction (Kagan & Kagan, 2009).

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

(Adapted from Kagan & Kagan, 2009)

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

Cooperative Structures and Supports

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

Clock Partners (Garmston & Wellman, 2002)
Clock Partners is a cooperative learning grouping method for assigning partners to work together. Teachers distribute the "My Clock Partners" graphic and instruct the students to circulate around the room and ask classmates to sign up for a time on the clock. When the clock graphic is completed, the students have 12 different partners - one for each hour on the clock. When the teacher wants to add some novelty to partner work, he or she calls out, "Find your 3:00 appointment," and the students navigate the classroom until they find their assigned partner. This structure saves instructional time and provides for structured movement within the classroom.

Cooperative Learning Roles (Tate, 2003)
Cooperative learning roles are designed to increase engagement and equalize participation for everybody within cooperative learning teams. Examples of roles include reporter, recorder, timekeeper, leader, and encourager. Each team member executes a specific role to make efficient use of the team's time together. Each role is directly taught to students, and appropriate tasks and sentence stems are modeled to assist with social skill development. Sentence stems are phrases that students learn to aid with clear communication. Examples include "What did you mean by ____?," "That makes me think of ____?," or "So far, we have accomplished ____." Roles are rotated to encourage leadership and teamwork skills.

Numbered Heads Together (Kagan & Kagan, 2009)
Numbered Heads Together maximizes team cooperation and peer tutoring. Teams of four number off, one through four. Each teammate has an assigned number. The teacher poses a higher order thinking question to the class. The teams stand up and work together to answer the question and ensure that all members can adequately explain the team's answer. Once the team is confident that all members can explain their thinking, the team sits down. When all the teams are seated, the teacher randomly calls out a number, and the student assigned to that number explains his or her team's answer. Students can respond using response cards, individual chalkboards, or orally. Numbered Heads Together increases individual and team accountability along with teamwork.

RallyCoach (Kagan & Kagan, 2009)
RallyCoach is a coaching structure for groups of two students and is used for reinforcing skills and providing additional practice with feedback. Pairs of students are given one set of problems and one pencil. Partner One solves the problem while Partner Two watches, listens, checks, coaches, and praises. Then the two switch roles, and Partner One becomes the coach while Partner Two solves the problem. Partners repeat this process until the assignment is complete. This structure gives the teacher an opportunity to observe partners and assist partnerships as needed. RallyCoach pairs are most effective when pairs are academically similar. For example, high achievers are paired with medium achievers and medium achievers are paired with low achievers for a particular assignment. This arrangement within the pairs eliminates one partner from dominating opportunities to coach and the other partner becoming a passive learner.

Talking Chips (Kagan & Kagan, 2009)
Talking Chips ensures that all student voices are heard during cooperative learning discussions. Teams of four are given a discussion topic and several minutes of individual think time. Each teammate receives two talking chips to use during the discussion time. When students participate in the group discussion, they place a talking chip in the center of the table. Once all students have used both of their talking chips, one student summarizes the conversation. The team divides up the talking chips in the center of the table and continues the conversation using the chips until time is called. The use of talking chips encourages all students to communicate their ideas and be active and attentive listeners.

Reciprocal Teaching (Gajria, Jitendra, Sood, & Sacks, 2007)
Reciprocal teaching is a cooperative learning strategy that uses assigned roles to assist with comprehension of text. The reading materials used must be at the instructional level of all students within the group. It is also essential that the roles are adequately explained and modeled for the students. The teaching roles include predictor, clarifier, summarizer, and questioner. The teacher assigns each group an instructional-level passage to read. The students read the first section. Then, the summarizer retells the section in his or her own words, the questioner formulates questions for the group, the clarifier addresses any confusions over comprehension of the text, and the predictor makes predictions about the next selection. Roles are rotated so that each student gets an opportunity to practice each role. The teacher can strategically assign the reader role, so that readers will have an instructionally appropriate section to read. For example, a reader who struggles may read a section of familiar text, consisting of several high-frequency words or a smaller segment of text. The other option is to have students read silently and then discuss the section. Reciprocal teaching promotes independent application of comprehension within a cooperative framework.

In summary, cooperative learning structures that are embedded into classroom procedures enhance active learning for students with disabilities and their nondisabled peers. Such structures are especially helpful for students who require additional practice as well as confirming and corrective feedback throughout the school day. Cooperative learning structures continue to support inclusive practices and complement academic and social skill development. Students who work together, learn together to improve academic achievement and social acceptance of all!

Resources: Cooperative Learning in Inclusive Classrooms

For more information about active engagement and flexible student groups, order the following T/TAC W&M Considerations Packets by visiting: http://education.wm.edu/centers/ttac/resources/considerations/index.php:

Differentiating for Success in Inclusive Classrooms

Techniques for Active Learning

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

For additional resources on cooperative learning, visit www.kaganonline.com

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

Kagan, S. Cooperative Learning: Call number CL14

Kagan, L., Kagan, M., & Kagan, S. Cooperative Learning: Structures of Teambuilding: Call number CL10

Stone, J. Cooperative Learning: Reading Activities. Call number CL16.b

Stone, J. Cooperative Learning: Writing Activities. Call number CL16.c

References
Bucalos, A. L., & Lingo, A. S. (2005). Filling the potholes in the road to inclusion: Successful research-based strategies for intermediate and middle school students with mild disabilities. TEACHING Exceptional Children Plus, 1(4).

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

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

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

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

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

Ncube, S. (2011). Peer-collaboration: An effective teaching strategy for inclusive classrooms. The Journal of International Association of Special Education,12(1), 79-81.

Stevens, R. J., & Slavin, R. E. (1995). Effects of a cooperative learning approach in reading and writing on academically handicapped and nonhandicapped students. Elementary School Journal, 95(3), 241-262.

Tate, M. L. (2003). Worksheets don't grow dendrites: 20 Instructional strategies that enagage the brain. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Lisa M. Emerson, M.Ed., M.Sc. May/June 2013 There are several benefits of cooperative learning structures for students with disabilities. Students with disabilities are more engaged in classroom activities where cooperative learning structures are in place compared to more traditional classroom interventions.