DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 331 584 PS 019 090

AUTHOR Calderon, MargaritaTITLE Cooperative Learning for Limited English Proficient

Students. Report No. 3.INSTITUTION Center for Research on Effective Schooling for

Disadvantaged Students, Baltimore, MD.SPONS AGENCY Office of Educational Research and Improvement (ED),

Washington, DC.PUB DATE Feb 90CONTRACT R117R90002NOTE 17p.

PUB TYPE Guides - Non-Classroom Use (055)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PC01 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS B.lingual Education Programs; Cognitive Development;

*Cooperative Learning; *Educational Philosophy;Elementary Secondary Education; English (SecondLanguage); Guidelines; *Limited English Speaking;ModelE, Program Effectiveness; Program Evaluation;Program Implementation; Student Role; Teacher Role;*Teaching Methods; Whole Language Approach

IDENTIFIERS *Comprehensive Integrated Reading and Composition;*Debriefing; Research Results

ABSTRACTThis paper describes cooperative learning strategies,

their research base, and the rationale for their use as aninstructional process for low English proficiency students (LEPS).The paper examines seven components of effective implementation ofcooperative learning with language-minority students, and reports onpreliminary work on a 5-year project to examine the effects of theBilingual Comprehensive Integrated Reading and Composition model ofcooperative learning on the reading comprehension, language skills,and writing performance of LEPS. The study is being conducted in theYsleta Independent School District in El Paso, Texas, and in SantaBarbara, California, under the auspices of the Johns Hopkins Centerfor the Study of Education for Disadvantaged Students. Topics of thispaper include: (1) a rationale for cooperative learning for LEPS; (2)benefits of such learning; (3) cooperative learning in relation toprimary language instruction, whole language approaches, English as aSecond Language and Transition to English programs, shelteredinstruction and critical thinking, bilingual settings, anddevelopment of cognitive and metacognitive strategies; (4) whatcooperative learning is not; (5) instructional models; (6) thephilosophy of cooperative learning; and (7) procedures for effectiveimplementation. Fifty references are cited. iRH)

*************************************#********************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made

from the original document.****************************************** ***** ******,-*****************

UI. pgRARTVIINT O EIX/Cr .0*t. Ftsucstrofur Reasvc it arra tmerourment

DUCA TtONAt. RE SOURCES tNFORMATtONCENTER tERICI

Tn,tt docuMent Rai Man rapttrekKed as,ecemxd from thr Darien or oroartatahrn

Au,o,4ittnating ttwm., eNvve, rate Dern t^aor ft, FrrtovitteptetiuCOn Quitrty

Petnts &rem at inunlons stale° tin 'Res emumiter do nnt nrcessatar ,r0tesitt othr.atill RI Poslron or p418.4

IDSTHE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY

COOPERATIVE LEARNING

For Limited English Proficient Students

Margarita Calderon

Report No. 3

February 1990

c f .7* ;" r11) k

CENTER FOR RESEARCH ON EFFECTIVE SCHOOLINGFOR DISADVANTAGED STUDENTS

National Advisory Panel

Beatriz Arias, College of Education, Arizona State University

Mary Prances Berry, Department of History, Univenity of Pamsylvania

Anthony S. Bryk, Department of Education. University of Chicago

Michael Charleston, Educational Policy Studies, Pennsylvania StateUniversity

Constance E. Clayton. Superintendem, Philadelphia Public Schools

Edmund Gordon (Chair), Department of Psychology, Yale University

Ronald D. Henderson, National Education Association

Vinetta Jones. Dean. Education and Urban Affairs, Morgan State University

Arturo Madrid, Dirextor, Tomas Rivera Center

Heman LaFontaine. Superintendent, Hartford Public Schools

Peter Stanley. DireCtor, Education and Culture Program, Ford Foundatior,

William Julius Wilson, Department of Sociology. University of Chicago

Center Liaison

Ronald Pedone, Office of &locations! Research and Improvement

Cooperative Learning for Limited English Proficient Students

Margarita Ca !dem;

Grant No. R117 R90002

Report No. 3

February 1990

Published by the Center for Research on Effective Schooling for Disadvantaged Students,supported as a national research and development center by funds from the Office of EducationalResearch and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education. The opinions expressed in thispublication do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the OER1, and no officialendorsement should be inferred.

This publication originally appeared in the Intercultural Development Research Association(IRDA) Newsletter, and is reprinted with permission from IRDA and the author.

Center for Research on Effective Schooling for Disadvantaged StudentsThe Johns Hopkins University

3505 North Charles StreetBaltimore, Maryland 21218

The Center

The mission of the Center for Research on Effective Schooling for Disadvantaged Students(CDS) is to significantly improve the education of disadvantaged students at each level ofschooling through new knowledge and practices pnxluced by thorough scientific study andevaluation. The Center conducts its research in four program areas: The Early and ElementaryEducation Program, The Middle Grades and High Schools Program, the Language MinorityProgram, and the School, Family, and Community Connections Program.

The Early and Elementary Education Program

This program is working to develop, evaluate, and disseminate instructional programscapable of bringing disadvantaged students to high levels of achievement, particularly in thefundamental areas of reading, writing, and mathematics. The goal is to expand the range ofeffective alternatives which schools may use under Chapter 1 and other compensatory educationfunding and to study issues of direct relevance to federal, state, and local policy on education ofdisadvantaged students.

The Middle Grades and High Schools Program

This program is conducting research syntheses, survey analyses, and field studies in middleand high schools. The three types of projects move from basic research to useful practice.Syntheses compile and analyze existing knowledge about effective education of disadvantagedstudents. Survey analyses identify and describe current programs, practices, and trends in middleand high schools, and allow studies of their effects. Field studies are conducted in collaborationwith school staffs to develop and evaluate effective programs and practices.

The Language Minority Program

This program represents a collaborative effort. The University of California at SantaBarbara is focusing on the education of Mexican-American students in California and Texas;studies of dropout among children of immigrants are being conducted at Johns Hopkins, andevaluations of learning strategies in schools serving Navajo, Cherokee, and Lumbee Indians arebeing conducted by the University of Northern Arizona. The goal of the program is to identify,develop, and evaluate effective programs for disadvantaged Hispanic, American Indian,Southeast Asian, and other language minority children.

The School, Family, and Community Connections Program

This program is focusing on the key connections between schools and families and betweenschools and communities to build better educational programs for disadvantaged childm andyouth. Initial work is seeking to provide a research base concerning the most effective ways forschools to interact with and assist parents of disadvantaged students and interact with thecommunity to produce effective community involvement.

Abstract

This paper describes cooperative learning strategies, their research base, and the rationalefor the use of cooperative learning as an instructional process for low English proficiencystudents. The paper examines seven components of effective implementation of cooperativelearning for use with language minority students, and reports preliminary work on a five-yearproject to examine the effects of the Bilingual Comprehensive Integrated Reading andComposition (CIRC) model of cooperative learning on the reading comprehension, languageskills, and writing performance of limited English proficient students.

Cooperative Learning for Limited English Proficient Students

Substantial evidence is now available that studentsworking together in small cooperative groups canmaster material better than can students workingon their own ( Slavin, 1988). Joyce and Showers(1988) report as pan of their meta-analysis on themost common teaching strategies, that research oncooperative learning is "overwhelmingly posi-tive." Cooperative learning methods are consider-ably more effective than traditional methods inincreasing basic achievement outcome.,, includingperfonnance on standardized tests of mathematics,reading and language arts, social studies, and sci-ence (Slavin, 1983; Slavin, 1988).

Researchers (Johnson and Johnson, 1986 and1988; Slavin, 1988) have also found that coopera-tive learning structures promote higher self-esteem and greater motivation to learn. Self-esteem has been found to be significantly higherfor all students, but particularly for students at riskwhen they participate in cooperative learningclassrooms.

Cooperative learning strategies also teach theskills of the future. Cooperative skills are thecornerstone of our future economy, global peace,and the basic family structures. Cooperative skillswill help our students maintain a stable family,successful career, friendships, and a peacefulemironment.

The social and interpersonal relationship skillsdeveloped through cooperative methods willdevelop the leadership skills of the fiaure, particu-larly in those bright students who have great diffi-culty relating to other students. Educators arenow called upon to prepare students for a verydifferent world. To succeed, students must learnto communicate and work well with others withinthe full range of social situations, especially with-in situations involving fluid social structarres,human diversity, and interdependence.

The age of cooperation is here (Iacocca, 1988;Drucker, 1989), not just in global economics,business, and industry but in education as well.All over the world, teachers and administrators arediscovering an untapped iesource for acceleratingstudents' achievement -- the students themselves.

Why Cooperative Learning for LEP Students?

As with other at-risk students, cooperative learn-ing (CL) has often been proposed for use withlanguage minority children (California StateDepartment of Education, 1986; Cohe.. and DeAvila, 1983; Caldercin and Marsh, 1988; Onn-mins, 1989). Because CL seemed such a promis-ing approach, the federal government funded afive-year project to study CL effects on linguistic,academic, and social skills development of LEPstudents.

This study is being conducted in the Ysleta Inde-pendent School District in El Paso, Texas and inSanta Barbara, California, under the auspices ofthe Johns Hopkins Center for the Study of Educa-tion for Disadvantaged Students. Preliminaryfindings from that study are summarized in thispaper.

Benefits of Cooperative Learning for LEPS

Some of the characteristics of CL that appeal toteachers of LEP students in bilingual, ESL, andmainstreamed classes are the following:

1. CL can be used with students of all ages.

2. CL can be used with students of all levelsof language proficiency (pre-production,early production, speech emergence, oralfluency).

3. Students with diverse backgrounds are notplaced at a disadvantage when it comes tocommunication, trading, writing, and criti-cal think'mg.

4. Students (particularly those identified asLevels 4 and 5) fine-tune their languageskills and develop learning strategies formastering content.

5. Older pm-literate students gain knowledgeof the structure of the English language in asafe and non-threatening way. They alsolearn how ideas are expressed orally and inwritten form.

6. CL can bc easily integrated with contentarea instruction, i.e., science, social studies,math. etc.

7. CL can be used in bilingual instructionalsettings where students learn in two lan-guages.

8. CL can be used in combination with ESLinstructional strategies in elementary andsecondary ESL classes.

9. CL is funda nental for "sheltered content"classes in secondary schools.

10. CL is an effective management tool as wellas an instructional strategy for main-streamed classrooms where bilingual pro-grams are not possible.

11. CL helps LEP students develop a positiveimage of themselves and others, enhancespositive ethnic relations, and curtails disci-pline pioblerns (Calder 6n, 1989).

Cooperative Learning and Primary LanrJageInstruction

Cooperative learning consists of a myriad ofteaching strategies which develop socia., academ-ic, and communication skills. CL strategies suchas paired reading, treasure hunts, team writing,and team products allow students to begin readingand writing their first language almost immediate-ly. Students quickly rralize that they have some-thing to contribute and their ideas arc valued andencouraged by peers and teacher. Finding OutiDescubrimiento gives teachers a tool teachingmath and science in the primary language.

Cooperative Learning for Whole LanguageApproaches

Cooperative learning methods can be used withliterature-based approaches to reading. Coopera-tive Integrated Reading and Composition (CIRC)as modified for LEP student takes a whole lan-guage view of learning and integrates studentexperiences with exciting pieces of literature. TheC1RC process can also he adapted to basal readersand content area textbooks in the primary lan-guage. Teachers who prefer integrated subjectmatter through thematic approaches are findingCIRC to be the integrating management tool.

Cooperative Learning for ESL and Transitioninto English

For LEP students, CL methods offer a NaturalApproach (Krashen, 1981) rich with languageexperiences that integrate speaking, listening,reading, and writing. The activities tap the stu-dents' cultural background and make these experi-ences meaningful, relevant, and interesting to thestudents. When these activities are structured forESL instruction, they can help students developproficiency in English efficiently and effectively.

Simple CL activities such as Roundtable, Num-bered Heads Together, and Concept Cards can bcused to develop concepts and vocabulary in a funand meaningful way. However, communicativecompetence is more likely to occur when studentslearn to do Team Problem Solving, Group Investi-gation, or Cooperative Integrated Reading andCom position.

Moving beyond the simple cooperathe strategies.the Ysleta prt.ject has adapted the CIRC processto the Macmillan Transitional Reading Series(Tinajero and Long, 1989) by merging the basalreader's activities with CIRC strategies and bydeveloping treasure hunts for each of the storiescontained in the basal. Treasure hunts are alsobeing developed for the most widely used chil-dren's literature in Spanish and English at eachgrade level.

Since students first learn the CIRC processthrough their reading in the primary language,they can later concentrate on enjoying the stories.getting creative with their writing in their secondlanguage, and feeling proud of their daily productsand successes.

Cooperative Learning for Sheltered Instructionand Critical Thinking

Sheltered instruction is a tenn used to describeinstructional practices or programs where LEPstudents receive content instruction (algebra. sci-ence, biology, etc.) in English with a teacher whouses specific techniques to teach that content. Thecontent curriculum is never watered down. Rath-er, the teacher uses modified speech. many visu-als, manipulatives, step-by-step procedures, con-stamly checking for understanding throughperformance signs, and a ,variety of cooperativelearning strategies (Calderon, 1989).

-2-

Cooperative Learning for Developing Cogni-tive and Metacognitive Strategies

During CL activities LEP students learn cognitiveand metacognitive strategies critical to their life-long pursuit of knowledge. LEP students learnhow to ask for help, give help, solicit opinions,present rationale, argue, defend, synthesize, listento others, and ask relevant questions. After CLactivities, with the assistance of a well-trainedteacher, LEP students learn how to talk about theirthinking strategies; competitive and individualisticgoal stmctures.

In addition to cooperative skills, students learnhow to compete and bow to work independently.The natural place for competitive and individual-istic efforts is within the umbrella of cooperation.Cooperative learning teachers weave the threestructures together, setting up individual responsi-bility, peer-assisted performance or reciprocalteaching, competition, and cooperation.

What Cooperative Learning Is Not

Because CL is becoming very popular, manyteachers are quick to point out, "Oh, I've beendoing CL for the past ten years," or "I've tried CLand it doesn't work with these kids." Upon obser-vations of their CL lesson, it is easy to distinguishbetween "group activities" and actual CL lessonsthat meet specific criteria. When these criteria arenot incorporated into CL activities, disciplineproblems emerge, students have problems partici-pating or cooperating, others copy the bright ordominant student's wort, or only low-level learn-ing occurs in those structures. Therefore, it isimportant to point out what CL is not in order toavoid problems of effective implementation.

1. Cooperative learning is not "playinggames." Students, teachers, and adminis-trators need to understand the principlesand theories behind CL.

2. CL is not placing students in groups with anassigned task. Social rules, soles, proce-dures. processing strategies, and classroompeatocols are among the things that need tobe taught in order for groups to functioneffectively.

3. CL is not a series of acthities or tech-niques. Rather, it is a way of thinking andinteracting.

4. CL is not just offering teachers a one-shotinservice on CL without curriculum, coach-ing, and support systems for effectiveimplementation.

5. CL is not just a strategy for students. Therole of the teacher requires tedefinition.

The Instructional Models

Cooperative learning has several views and mod-els. The ones most widely known and founded ona research base are the following:

(1) conceptual approaches to be adapted byusers (Johnson and Johnson, 1975-88);

conceptual and teaching strategies (Slavin,1983-89),

content-based formats for math and sciencefor grades 2-4 (Cohen and De Avila, 1983);

activities, strategies, and approaches whichhave been compiled, but for the most part,have not been empirically tested or havenot demonstrated success; and

(5) in bilingual settings, the CL approach trainsteachers how to develop a conceptual base,a repertoire of teaching strategies, and howto use curriculum packages for LEP andnon-LEP students.

CL In Bilingual Settings Approach

The approaches above have much to offer bilingu-al and multilingual ClaSSTOOM settings. However,curriculum and instructional adaptation have beenthe biggest drawbacks for teachers of languageminority students in using these strategies. Twomodels have targeted bilingual classroom settingsas their particular focus. The first is Group Inves-tigation and the second is Cooperative IntegratedReading and Composition.

The Group Investigation methe" (Sharan andHertz-Lazarowitz, 1980) has been used in Israel inbilingual classrooms for many years. This

approach trains teachers to be effective mediatorsof student interaction and higher order thinking.It prepares teachers and administwors to oratecooperative study groups at schools and trainsteachers to be trainers of other teachers.

The Group Investigation model is for teacherswho want to develop higher order cognitive pro-cesses. In several experiments conducted bySharan d Hertz-Lazamwitz (1980) and Hertz-Lazamwitz (in press), students displayed signifi-cantly higher achievement scores, high levelthinking, creative thinking, and social relations.

This model assumes that social interaction andcommunication play a vital role in the students'construction of meaning and knowledge. GroupInvestigation consists of the following stages:

Stage I. Identifying the topic and organizingstudents into research groups.

Stage 2. Planning the learning tag:.

Stage 3. Carrying out the investigation.

Stage 4. Preparing the final report.

Each stage consists of several substeps and proce-dures, ensuring thv students learn to cooperate athigh levels at each stage.

Group Investigation is particularly useful forprograms that use thematic units for their instruc-tion. It is an exciting and challenging way toteach science, social studies, literature, and anyother subject.

The second model for LEP students which is cur .remly being implemented in the Ysleta Indepen-dent School District in El Paso, Texas is calledCooperative Integrated Reading and Composition(CIRC). The principle features of CIRC (Stevens,Madden, Slavin and Famish, 1987) proceed froman analysis of recent research on effective reading,writing, and language instniction. This programhas been successful in accelerating the readingcomprehension, language skills, and writing per-formance of students.

The Bilingual CRC, which is the focus ofresearchers from Johns Hopkins and the Universi-ty of California at Santa Barbara, The Universityof Texas at El Paso, and Haifa University is based

-4-

on principles of first and second language acquisi-tion (Cummins, 1981; Krashen, 1981), literacydevelopment for language minority students(Nan, 1987; Goodman, 1982; Smith, 1982;Trueba, 1987; Moll, 1986; yygotsky, 1978 and inpress; Tinajem and Calderon. 1988), and in staffdevelopment pmgrams for bilingual settings(Hertz-Lazarowitz, 1980; Ca IdeA, 1984, 1986,and 1988).

The Bilingual CIRC program consists of threeprincipal elements: basal-related or literature-related activitics, direct instruction in readingcomprehension, and integrated language arts/reading/writing. In all of these activities, studentswork in hetemgeneous learning teams. All activi-ties follow a rrgular cycle that involves teacherpresentation, team practice, independent practice,peer pre-assessment, additional practice, and testing.

Some of the highlights of CIRC are Farmer atead-ing. Treasure Hunts, Story Retell, and Story-Related Writing. The Writing Process of CIRChas taken the basic principles and best tested prac-tices from several writing processes

CIRC is a language arts/reading/writing manage-ment program that enables bilingual teachers tokcep tack of their English, Spanish, and transition-

readers in an efficient and effective manner.Students are engaged in meaningful and challeng-ing activities at all times, and time on readingincreases as much as 500%. The Bilingual CIRCmanagement system helps teachers integrate thedistrict's assessment procedures and accountabilitymeasures as well as develop other skills in stu-dents. Next year, bilingual teachers will beginexploring the use of CIRC with subject matterreading such as social studies. science, etc.through thematic units and as an integratedapproach with the Group Investigation method.

In order for CL to work in classrooms where thereare language minority students, a school mustadopt the following philosophy, methods, andprocess for teacher training and implementation.

Philosophy

First, CL is a mind set. it is a belief that the socialdevelopment of intelligence is the mechanism thatultimately produces observed beivilts. Teachers

0

and administrators believe in CL and they them-selves practice collegial coaching and collabora-tive planning for instructional improvement.

Second, the spirit of positive interaction and posi-tive self-esteem permeates all learning envimn-ments.

Third, there is a belief that students' cognitive,social, and moral development can be achieved toa greater extent through group work. Central tothe use of CL is Vygotsky's theory that humanbeings are thoroughly social. From the momentof birth, we enter into social relations that shapeand mold us.

Fourth, a finn belief is held that bilingual instruc-tion is not isolating skills for drill and practice normutine, right-answer tasks, but miller gmup activ-ities where students use their multiple abilities toexplore open-ended questions. This is in contrastto the philosophy that teaching skills and subskillsis the essence of linguistic or academic learning.

The essence of a cooperative mind set is to allowchildren to create and communicate meaning andto learn to attain academic and social successthrough collaborative activities .

Procedures For Effective Implementation

I. Preparing Students For Cooperative Work

The first step in starting CL is to prepare studentsfor cooperative work situations. Most studentshave probably not had cooperative schoolingexperiences. Most cooperative tasks have beenwith friends, family members, or in sports. There-fore, it is important to explain that work in theworld will require many tasks to be accomplishedcooperatively with persons who are not personalfriends or may be total strangers. Classroomnorms must be established cooperatively tor learn-ing to work in groups. Students must be assistedin developing responsibility not only for their ownbehavior but for group behavior and the productsof the group.

In order to internalize the classroom norms forworking in groups, students need to have socialrules, mles for interdependence, problems to solveor products to develop and a process for self-monitoring and debriefing of cooperative strat-egies. These norms of interaction need to be

-5-

modeled extensively at the beginning of the year,and modified as students learn to be more =pen-sive to the needs of thc group.

Teaching specific cooperative behaviors and dis-course involves on-going practice. Teachersshould begin with simple cooperative activitiesthat enable students to focus on developing coop-erative skills. As skills impmve, academic tasksshould become more complex and challenging.

Students need to learn social skills such as beingpolite to each other, helping, accepdng, praising,encouraging, listening, asking for others' opinions.being concise, giving reasons for ideas, synthesiz-ing ideas, reaching consensus. etc. Later, they canpractice more complex pmtocols such as listeningbetween the lines, internalizing their own point ofview, knowing when to interrupt and when to letgo.

Simultaneously, students are also practicingbehaviors and discourse such as summarizing,generating questions. clarifying/asking questions,probing, and maldng/asking for predictions fbrreciprocal teaching of content (Palinscar, 1986and 1987: Palinscar and Brown, 1984). Learnersmust concentrate on the material which they havebeen assigned and on themselves as learners.checking to see if the mental activities are result-ing in learning. As a form of expert scaffolding,reciprocal teaching involves continuous trial anderror on the part of the student, coupled with con-tinuous adjustment on the part of the teacher tothe students' current level of competence (Plains-car and Brown, 1984).

In order for students to achieve competence ingroup work, certain principles must be followed:

I . The teacher models the discourse and pro-cesses ovenly, explicitly, and concretely inappropriate contexts of cooperative activi-ties.

2. Strategies for working and learning togeth-er and the range and utility of the strategiesare discussed, and interventions and modifi-cations are attempted by the students.

3. Ineffective strategies and misconceptionsabout group work and individual participa-tion are confronted.

1 1

4. Debriefing activities where thinking isbrought out into an open space where stu-dents and teacher can see it and learn fromit are included in the cooperative learningactivity.

5. The responsibility for learning to work col-laboradvely and debriefing of that processshould be transferred to the students assoon as they can take charge. The transfershould be gradual, working on one coopera-tive skill at a time until it is internalized.

6. Students should receive continuous feed-back on their improvement.

7. Just as teachers need modeling, rationale,practice, feedback, and coaching, so dostudents.

2. The Teacher's Role

When teachers begin to use CL, they may feelvery uneasy because they are "not teaching."Teachers suffer from this anxiety mostly whenthey believe that the teacher is expected to be aknowledge provider and manapr of assessmentand outcomes. It is important to explain to teach-ers that their role has shifted from transmiuers ofknowledge to mediators of thinking. it is alsoimportant for teachers to become involved in find-ing new ways of articulating CL instmction andassessment processes.

CL changes the teacher's role dramatically! Theteacher becomes the conductor by setting updirections for the task, assigning students toteams, delineating social rules and student roles,modeling, teaching and monitoring the norms ofinteraction, and leading the debriefing after eachactivity.

Cohen (1987) has found that if a teacher takestime to observe low achieving or low status stu-dents and praises them while they are making anintellectual or artistic connibution to the teams,they will do better and gain status in the group.This carefully planned monitoring and feedback isthe basis of effective student cloperadon andlearning. The teacher does the bulk of the workprior to the lesson but then observes, learns aboutstudents, studies the process of the lesson, andreflects upon new ways of improving the nextlesson.

3. The Student's Roles

Each student in a team must have a specific mean-ingful role assigned for each task. When roles wenot assigned, it is natural for students to turn tothe most academically capable student to do thetask so that the team can get the right answer.Therefore, it is important to stnicture tasks thatdraw on a wide range of abilities. Students mustbe convinced that there are multiple intelligencesand multiple abilities (Eisner, 1988) and thateveryone has something special to contribute to ateam product Students also need to be convincedthat they all have the responsibility for the learn-ing of others and that in a work environment wemust be mentors.

Individual accountability and group interdepen-dence is built into group activities through specif-ic roles for each team member. The tasks andproducts define the roles for each student in theteam. Roles can be as simple as: time keeper,reporter, encourager. praiser, checker, artist writ-er, or more complex such as monitor, creator/generator of ideas, critic, scribe, clarifier, consen-sus seeker, repiesentative to the coordinatingcommittee, etc. Individual accountability andgroup interdependence are twilt into group activi-ties thiough specific roles for each team member.

One of the main functions of the CL classroom isto help students internalize their roles. They needto have descriptions of their roles, to practiceplaying those roles, and to receive feedback onhow they performed those Ma. A checklist forself-monitoring or viewing their performance onvideo tapes gives students feedback on their per-formance.

4. Debriefing

Debriefing is a specific strategy that must beincorporated into CL instruction. Debriefingenables students to reflect on their learningexperiences, attach personal meanings to them.and deepen their understanding of the processes(Calderon. 1989).

For John Dewey (1933), reflection consisted oftwo stages:

(1) a state of doubt or perplexity. and

0- 2

(2) inquIry and search for meaning to resolvethe state of uncertainty.

Hillkirk, Tome, and Wandress (1989) describereflection as the second step in a learning process:

(a) experience -- the initial learning acti. itywhich involves the learner's behavior.ideas, and feelings;

(b) !ejection -- conscious mental realm to theexperience to examine one's behavior, ideasand feelings; ard

(c) outcomes -- development of new perspec-tives on the learning activity and its mean-ing for the learner.

Debriefing is a means for anchoring knowledgeafter an activity. Debriefing creates "meaning"for the learning activity and helps studentsremember more. During the process of debrief-ing, students develop cooperative and social skillsand develop metazognitive strategies involvingboth knowledge and control of self. Here learnersmonitor their attitudes, attention, and engagementin a task.

Teachers need to set time aside after every lessonor main activity for students to debrief the contentand process of that segment. Teachers must pro-vide students with a structure, a set of procedures,key questions for content and process, or check-lists and other tools. Sometimes it is important tostop at various intervals in a CL activity anddebrief. This is particularly important at thebeginning of the year when students are in need oflearning strategies for accomplishing tasks andteam Wilding.

Debriefing is probably the most comfortable andeffective means of giving students feedback andproviding for individual and team evaluation.

5. Evaluation

Evaluation in CL is a combination of specificfeedback on their performance, debriermg, andtraditional grading so that students are well awareof their strengths an weak/asses in their academic,social, and linguistic dimensions.

Teachers can still give individual tests to mear,restudent progress and learning. However, other

dimensioas are better measured through tescherobservation tools: systematic scoring of desiredinteraction patterns; use of checklists by teacheror by stArdents; student questionnaires, outsideobservers, video or audio recordings, and debrief-ing strategies.

Evaluating CL activities is situational. Subjectmatter, products, and specific teaching strategiescall for modifications in evaluadon procedures.At times, CL activities are used only for purposesof =dent independent practive, for reviewingbefore a test, or for working on a ptoduct that ispart of a larger task. In this instance, the intrinsicmotivation and the process speaks for itself.There is no need for formal evaluation methodssince CL becomes the means find not an end initself.

When the goal is to teach specific cooperativeskills, checklists on wimp behaviors and videoanalysis can be used. Other times, the product canbc the focus of evaluation and letter grades ornumerical scores can be assigned. Very complexbookkeeping systems are also available for indi-vidual and team scores but they entail considera-ble time and paperwork.

Whatever tool or :ritefia for evaluation is select-ed, are critical point is to state this clearly to thestudents prior to the activity. Along with numeri-cal scores and feedback on team performance, it isvitally important to give praise to the students andto reward all students in some way. After theevaluation, give students time to review theresults, to discuss and to reflect on ways toimprove.

6. Effective Implementation In Schools

Simply placing students in groups and encourag-ing them to work together is not enough toproduce learning gains. Teachers must be well-trained in appmpriate teaching strategies andclassroom management techniques for organizingcritical thinking, higher order questioning anddebriefing suategies, as well as materials andcurriculum adaptation.

The literature on innovadon implementation(Sharan and Hertz-Lazamwitz, 1980-1 Fullan,1982; Joyce and Showers, 1987; Calden5n, 1982 -1988; Calder& and Marsh, 1989; Hall and Hord,

-7-

1 3

1987) states that in order for new teaching strat-egies to be fully implememed, teachers mustreceive support from administrators and peers andbe involved in the decisions, adaptations, and thetraining and coaching of other teachers.

If cooperative methods are to be fully implement-ed in a school, support systems for the teachersmust be established and sustained over the schoolyear for several years in order to see the benefitsof cooperative learning.

Five stages of implementation have been identi-fied through a Concerns-Based Adoption Model'sStages of Concern, Levels of Use, and InnovationConfigurations process (Hall and 17.ord. 1987;Sham, Durin, and Hertz-Lazarowitz, 1979; Cal-dengn, 1984; Calder& and Hertz-Lazarowitz, inpress). These stages show the progression ofteachers and students in several categories ofinstruction such as student social skill develop-ment, teaching strategies, monitoring and feed-back, grading and evaluating, and quality of inter-action. Several other categories will be added thissummer as additional data is analyzed and com-pared with findings from another study beingconducted under the auspices of the Arizona StateDepartment of Education (McCarty and Caldedn,1988 and in press).

This is the stage where teachers exhibit executivecontrol of a myriad of CL strategics, Group Invcs-tigation, and the various components of CIRC.Teachers can combine methods, modify, quickly

adapt and restructure different pieces, and impro-vise without fear. Students am still working onfine-tuning their cognitive processes and takingresponsibility for their own learning.

The stage is set for anchoring social, academic,and linguistic skills. This is where teachers arethe true facilitators of knowledge and mediators ofthinking. Through inquiry processes, students canmanage organizing very creative projects and arereaching unbelievable levels of information pro-cessing and transferring that information into real-life application.

7. An Ecology For Professional Growth

Perhaps the most significant contribution of theimplementation of cooperative structures is thatteachers and administrators develop an ecologyfor professional growth and instructional improve-ment. This has been evident in school districtssuch as Ysleta where a major effort has beenmade to develop cooperative schools and coopera-tive programs. The mind set of cooperationbecomes the source for creating positive changeand innovation.

Although change does not come overnight.change becomes a desirable goal when colleagueshave an opportunity to take control of organizingtheir learning. Addressing the needs of languageminority students, and particularly LEP studentsbecomes a cooperative and collegial effort -- thecornerstone for future success.

References

Aaronson, E. (1978). The jigsaw classroom.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications,

CalderO'n, M. and Cummins, J. (1981). Commu-nicative competence in bilingual education:Theory and research Dallas, TX: NationalCenter for the Development of Curriculum.

Calderon, M. (1982). Application of innovativeconfigurations to a trainer of trainers pro-gram. Bilingual lineation Paper Series 6.CA: EDAC, CA State University at LosAngeles.

Calderon, M. (1984). Training bilingual trainers:An ethnographic study of coaching and itsimpact on the transfer of training. Doctoraldissertation, Claremont Graduate School,Claremont, CA.

Caldenin, M. (1986). Multi-district trainer oftrainers imtitute: A trainer of trainers modelfocused on the acquisition of literacy by lim-ited English proficient students. A finalreport to the Secretary of Education, Discre-tionary Grants Division, Washington, D.C.

Calden5n, M. and Marsh, D. (1988). Applyingresearch on effective bilingual instruction ina teacher training program. The Journal ofthe National Association for Biling 'al Edu-cation, 12, No.2, 133-152.

Caldercin, M. (1989). Cooperative learning inbilingual settings. Report to the Center forthe Study of Education for DisadvantagedStudents. CA: University of California atSanta Barbara.

Cohen, E. G. (1987). Designing groupwork:Strategies for the heterogeneou.s classroom.NY: Teachers College press.

Cohen, E. G. and De Avila, E. (1983). Learningto think in math and science: Improvinglocal education for minority children. Afinal report to the Walter S. Johnson Founda-tion. CA: Stanford University.

Cummins, J (1981). The Me of primary lan-guage development in promoting educationalsuccess for language minority students. InCalifornia State Department of Education(Ed.). Schooling and language minoritystudents: A theoretical framework. (pp.3-50). CA: Office of Bilingual Education.

Cummins, J. (1989). Empowering minority Mt-dents. CA: CA Association for BilingualEducation.

Dewey. J. (1933). How we think: A restatementof the relation of reflective thinking to theeducative process. Lexington, MA: D.C.Heath.

Drucker, P. (1989). How schools must change.Psychology Today, 5, pp. 18-20.

Duran, R. (1987). Reading achievement amonglanguage minority students. Fmal report toProject 2. Los Angeles, CA: Center forLanguage Edueadon and Research.

Fullan, M. (1982). The meaning of educationalchange. NY: Teachers College Press.

Gibbs, J. (1987). Tribes. Santa Rosa, CA: Cen-ter Source Publications,

Goodman, K. (1986). What's whole in wholelanguage? Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Hall, G. and Hord, S. (1987). Change in schools:Facilitating the process. NY: State Univer-sity of New York Press.

Hillkirk, K., Tome, J., and Wandress, W. (1989).Integrating reflection into staff developmentprograms. Journal of Staff Development.

Johnson, D. W. and Johnson, F. P. (1975). Join-ing together: Group theory and group skills.NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., and Holubec, E.J. (1988). Cooperation in the Classroom.MN: Interaction Book Company.

-9- /5

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., and Maruyama,G. (1983). Interdependence and interperson-al attraction among heterogeneous individu-als: A theoretical formulation and a meta-analysis of the research. Review ofEducational Research, 522, 5-54.

Johnson, T.:0. M. and Roen, D. H. (1989). Rich-ness in writing, empowering ESL students.NY: Longman.

Joyce. B. and Showers, B. (1982), The coachingof teaching. Educational Leadership, 40, pp.4-10.

Joyce, B., Showers, B., and Rolheiser-Bennett, C.(1987). Staff development and student learn-ing: A synthesis of research on models ofteaching. Educational Leadership, 45, 2,11-23.

Joyce, B. and Showers, B. (1988). Studentachievement through staff development. NY:Longman.

Krashen, S. (1981). Bilingual education andsecond language acquisition theory. In Cali-fornia State Department of Education (Ed.).Schooling and language minority students: Atheoretical framework. (pp. 51-82) CA:Office of Bilingual Education,

Moll, L. C. (1989). Teaching second languagestudents: A Vygotskian perspective. InJohnson, D. M. and Roen, D. H. Richness inwilting, empowering ESL students. (pp.55-70). NY: Longman.

Palinscar, A. S. (1986). Metacognitive strategyinstruction. Exceptional Children, 53. No. 2,118-124.

Palinscar, A. S. (April, 1987). Collaborating forcollaborative learning of text comprehension.Paper presented at the American EducationResearch Association, Washington, D.C.

Palinscar, A. S. and Brown, A. L. (1984). Thereciprocal teaching of comprehension foster-ing and comprehensive monitoring activities.Cognition and Instruction, I , 117-175.

-10-

Sharan, S. and Herta-Lazarowitz, R. (1980). Agroup-investigation method of cooperativelearning in the classroom. In Sham, S. et al.(pp. 1745). Cooperation in Education.Utah: BYU Press.

Sharan, S. (1980). Cooperative learning in smallgroups. Review of Educational Research, 50,241-271.

Sharan, S., Hare, P., Webb, C., and Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (1980). Cooperation inEducation. Utah: BYU press.

Sharan, Y. and Sharan, S. (1974). Trainingteachers for cooperative learning. Educa-tional Leadership, 45, No. 3, 20-215.

Slavin, R. E. (1983), Cooperative learning. NY:Longman.

Slavin, R. E. (1986). Using student team learn-ing. Baltimore, MD: Center for Research onElementary and Middle Schools, JohnsHopkins University.

Slavin, R. E., Sham, S., Hertz-Lazamwitz, R.,Webb, C., and Schmuck, R. (Eds.). (1985).Learning to cooperate, cooperating to learn.NY: Plenum.

Slavin, R. E. and Madden, N. A. (1989). Whatworks for students at risk: A research synthe-sis. Educational Leadership, 46, 5, 4-13.

Slavin, R. E. (1988). Cooperative learning andstudent achievement. In R.E. Slavin (Ed.).School and Classroom Organization. NJ:Erlbaum.

Slavin, R. E., Karweit, N. L., and Madden, N. A.(1989). Effective programs for students atrisk. Needhan Heights. MA: Allyn andBacon.

Slavin, R. E., Calden;n, M., Durin, R., Hertz-Lazamwitz, R. and Tmajero, J. (1989).Preliminary reports from the National Centerfor Research on Effective Schooling for Dis-advantaged Students. Baltimore, MD: JohnsHopkins University.

1 6

Smith, F. (1982). Writing and the writer. Hills-dale, NJ: Eribaum.

Stevens, R. J., Madden, N. A., Slavin, R. E., andFamish, A.M. (1987) Cooperative Integrat-ed Reading and Composition. Baltimom,MD: Carter for Research on Elementary andMiddle Schools, Johns Hopkins Universfty.

Spiegel-Coleman, S. and Caldertm, M. (1984).Effective instruction for languap mirmitystudents From theory to practice. TeacherEducation Journal, 2, No. 3.

Tmajero, J. and CaldeMirr, M. (1988). Languageexperience approach plus. Journal of Educa-tional Issue.s of Language Minority Students,2, 31-45.

Timtlem, J. and Long, S. (1989). Going Places,Stepping Stones, Macmillan TransitionalReading Program. NY: Macmillan Publish-ing Company.

Trueba, H.T. (1987). Success or failure? Learn-ing and the language minority student. NY:Newbury House.

Vygotsky, L S. (1978). Mind in society: Thedevelopment of higher psychological pro-cases. (M. Cole, V. bon-Steiner, S. Scrib-ner, and E. Soubennan, Eds. and Trans.)Cambridge, MA: Harvard University press.

Vygotsky, L S. (In press). Speech and thinking.In L S. Vygotsky. Collected Works, VoL I .

(N. Minick. Trans.) NY: Plenum.