Stevens, Robert J.; Slavin, Robert E. (1995). American Educational Research Journal, v32 n2 p321-51. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ511004
Reviewed: September 2016
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
California Achievement Test (CAT): Reading vocabulary |
Cooperative Elementary School model vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Special education students;
|
-1.02 |
-1.38 |
No |
-- | ||
|
California Achievement Test (CAT): Language expression |
Cooperative Elementary School model vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Special education students;
|
-1.19 |
-1.45 |
No |
-- | ||
|
California Achievement Test (CAT): Reading comprehension |
Cooperative Elementary School model vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Special education students;
|
-1.21 |
-1.40 |
No |
-- | ||
|
California Achievement Test (CAT): Reading vocabulary |
Cooperative Elementary School model vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
0.08 |
-0.09 |
No |
-- | ||
|
California Achievement Test (CAT): Reading comprehension |
Cooperative Elementary School model vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
0.08 |
-0.05 |
No |
-- | ||
|
California Achievement Test (CAT): Language mechanics |
Cooperative Elementary School model vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Special education students;
|
-1.16 |
-1.25 |
No |
-- | ||
|
California Achievement Test (CAT): Language expression |
Cooperative Elementary School model vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
0.04 |
-0.04 |
No |
-- | ||
|
California Achievement Test (CAT): Language mechanics |
Cooperative Elementary School model vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
-0.01 |
-0.02 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
California Achievement Test (CAT): Language mechanics |
Cooperative Elementary School model vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Special education students;
|
0.99 |
-1.21 |
Yes |
-- | ||
|
California Achievement Test (CAT): Language expression |
Cooperative Elementary School model vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Special education students;
|
-0.97 |
-1.55 |
Yes |
-- | ||
|
California Achievement Test (CAT): Reading comprehension |
Cooperative Elementary School model vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Special education students;
|
-1.00 |
-1.53 |
Yes |
-- | ||
|
California Achievement Test (CAT): Reading vocabulary |
Cooperative Elementary School model vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Special education students;
|
-0.98 |
-1.48 |
Yes |
-- | ||
|
California Achievement Test (CAT): Language expression |
Cooperative Elementary School model vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Full sample;
|
0.10 |
-0.09 |
Yes |
-- | ||
|
California Achievement Test (CAT): Reading vocabulary |
Cooperative Elementary School model vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Full sample;
|
0.10 |
-0.11 |
Yes |
-- | ||
|
California Achievement Test (CAT): Language mechanics |
Cooperative Elementary School model vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Full sample;
|
0.03 |
-0.02 |
No |
-- | ||
|
California Achievement Test (CAT): Reading comprehension |
Cooperative Elementary School model vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Full sample;
|
-0.07 |
-0.13 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
California Achievement Test (CAT): Mathematics computation |
Cooperative Elementary School model vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Special education students;
|
-0.45 |
-0.71 |
No |
-- | ||
|
California Achievement Test (CAT): Mathematics application |
Cooperative Elementary School model vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Special education students;
|
-0.71 |
-0.83 |
No |
-- | ||
|
California Achievement Test (CAT): Mathematics computation |
Cooperative Elementary School model vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
0.06 |
-0.01 |
No |
-- | ||
|
California Achievement Test (CAT): Mathematics application |
Cooperative Elementary School model vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
-0.02 |
0.03 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
California Achievement Test (CAT): Mathematics computation |
Cooperative Elementary School model vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Special education students;
|
-0.10 |
-0.54 |
Yes |
-- | ||
|
California Achievement Test (CAT): Mathematics application |
Cooperative Elementary School model vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Special education students;
|
-0.28 |
-0.53 |
No |
-- | ||
|
California Achievement Test (CAT): Mathematics computation |
Cooperative Elementary School model vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Full sample;
|
0.15 |
-0.14 |
Yes |
-- | ||
|
California Achievement Test (CAT): Mathematics application |
Cooperative Elementary School model vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Full sample;
|
0.04 |
-0.06 |
No |
-- | ||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
The school district was a suburban school district in Maryland. There were five of the schools in the district that participated in this study resulting in 45 classrooms containing 1012 students. The students represented the 2nd through the 6th grades. The student populations of each school ranged from 4% to 15% minority students (mean = 7.3%), and from 2% to 20% disadvantaged students (mean = 10.2%). The schools were all located in predominately working-class neighborhoods. Approximately 9.3% of the five schools' student populations were identified as learning disabled, ranging from 7% to 12% in each school.
Other than analysis on the special education subsample (40 intervention, and 36 comparison students), the authors do not report sample characteristics by condition, however they do report ranges. Schools ranged between 4%-15% (M = 7.3%) minority, 2%-20% (M = 10.2%) free/reduced price lunch, and 7%-12% learning disabled.
The cooperative elementary school intervention had 6 elements: 1) widespread use of cooperative learning in the classroom, 2) mainstreaming learning disabled students, 3) teacher peer coaching, 4) teacher collaboration in instructional planning, 5) teacher and principal collaboration on school planning and decision making, and 6) teacher and principal encouragement of active involvement of parents. By March of the first year, all of the curricular elements were in place. Teachers were trained on using cooperative learning with particular focus on Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition (CIRC) and Team Assisted Individualization-Mathematics (TAI). Both of these methods use heterogeneous learning teams. Teachers were also trained in Jigsaw II, Teams-Games-Tournaments (TGT), and Student Teams Achievement Division (STAD). Teachers were given a explanation of the processes and rationale behind each program as well as a detailed manual on how to use the program. Training began in August with additional training taking place every 2 months. The first training focused on CIRC. Learning disabled students received all instruction in the regular classroom though during reading and/or math the special education teacher would team teach with the regular classroom teacher using CIRC or TAI. Often the classroom teacher provided the initial instruction and then the special education teacher provided follow-up and extension. Only about 60% of classes had implemented mainstreaming in the first year. Teachers were given opportunities to visit other teachers' classes, and provide support and feedback. Once teachers successfully implemented cooperative learning in their classrooms, they served as peer coaches for teachers who were less experienced in cooperative learning. Principals often offered to teach classes for coaches so that they can observe other classrooms. Teachers were given time for common planning in grade-level meetings. This allowed teachers to collaborate on using strategies, instructional content, and activities to implement the intervention. A building steering committee (made up of the principal, representatives from each grade level, special services, and other faculty members that met twice a month) was also created to develop collaboration between administration and teachers. Schools encouraged parent involvement by keeping parents informed about the intervention and its aims (including school expectations of parental involvement) through PTA meetings, the school newsletter, and teacher-parent conferences; and encouraging parents to monitor students' educational progress.
Comparison schools continued using their standard methods and curriculum. While group work was used in these classes, it was not used as regularly and was not as structured as what was used in the intervention classrooms. The comparison schools also did not integrate the other elements of the intervention but they did have a school improvement team of administrators and faculty that met two times a semester. In reading, they used a basal series with workbooks, worksheets, and teacher-prepared materials as well as two or three novels. Teachers used ability-based reading groups. In language arts, teachers typically used whole-class instruction and a published language arts series as well as teacher-prepared materials and activities. In mathematics, teachers used a districtwide mathematics text and typically used whole-class instruction with follow-up activities.
Teachers in the intervention condition were given training, materials, follow-up, and assistance to use the Johns Hopkins cooperative learning models including TAI, CIRC, TGT, Jigsaw II, and STAD. Teachers were given a explanation of the processes and rationale behind each program as well as a detailed manual on how to use the program. After training, researchers observed teachers in their classrooms and gave teachers feedback on implementation. Teacher coaches also gave peers feedback on their implementation.
Reviewed: June 2012
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition (CIRC).
Reviewed: August 2010
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition (CIRC).
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
California Achievement Test (CAT): Reading Comprehension subtest |
Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition (CIRC) vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grades 2-6;
|
0.15 |
-0.13 |
Yes |
|
|
|
California Achievement Test (CAT): Reading Vocabulary subtest |
Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition (CIRC) vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grades 2-6;
|
0.10 |
-0.11 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
California Achievement Test (CAT): Language Expression |
Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition (CIRC) vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grades 2-6;
|
0.11 |
-0.10 |
Yes |
|
|
|
California Achievement Test (CAT): Language Mechanics |
Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition (CIRC) vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grades 2-6;
|
0.05 |
-0.05 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
The study was conducted in five schools in one suburban school district in Maryland. The student populations of each school ranged from 4% to 15% minority students, and from 2% to 20% students received free or reduced-price lunch.
This study is a quasi-experiment conducted in five schools. Two treatment schools were selected by the investigators to implement the intervention, and three schools, matched on academic achievement, ethnicity, and socioeconomic background, were selected to serve as comparison schools. Classes in grades 2 through 6 in the treatment schools were matched with classes in the comparison schools based on pretest scores on the California Achievement Test (Reading, Language Arts, and Mathematics). The study’s analytic sample included 411 students in 21 treatment classrooms and 462 students in 24 comparison classrooms. The study reported students’ outcomes after two years of program implementation; these findings were used in the intervention ratings and can be found in Appendices A3.1 and A3.2. Additional findings reflecting students’ outcomes after one year of program implementation can be found in Appendices A4.1 and A4.2
Intervention schools implemented the Cooperative Elementary School model, a whole-school reform model that uses cooperative learning strategies across multiple content areas. Teachers used peer coaching and conducted their planning in a cooperative manner. Cooperative Elementary School emphasizes teacher involvement in site-based management and parent involvement in schools. The language arts/reading curriculum within Cooperative Elementary School is Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition®. Daily lessons, which focus on story-related activities, direct instruction in reading comprehension, and integrated reading and language arts activities, incorporate team practice, peer assessment, and team/partner recognition. This program was phased in gradually during the first year of the two-year implementation.
Reading activities consisted of students working in small reading groups using a basal series, workbooks, worksheets, and activities based on teacher-prepared materials. Language arts activities generally involved whole-class instruction using a published language arts series, as well as teacher-developed activities. Comparison schools did not use structured cooperative learning during classroom instruction, although occasional cooperative activities were used by some of the teachers. Comparison schools implemented some of the components of the Cooperative Elementary School model, but they did not implement Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition®.
For both the pretest and the posttest, students took the Vocabulary, Reading Comprehension, Language Expression, and Language Mechanics subtests of the California Achievement Test. Scores were converted to z-scores in order to conduct analyses across the grades included in the study sample (grades 2–6). For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendices A2.1 and A2.2.
Intervention teachers were trained in Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition® prior to implementation. Subsequent trainings were conducted at two-month intervals during the school year. Trainers reviewed with treatment teachers a detailed manual that explains how to implement the program in the classroom. Trainers also provided simulated demonstrations of lessons. In addition, during the school year, members of the research staff observed treatment-group classes, participated in meetings with treatment-group teachers, and observed steering committee meetings in order to facilitate implementation of the program components.
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
Stevens, R. J., & Slavin, R. E. (1992). The Cooperative Elementary School: Effects on students’ achievement, attitudes, and social relations. Baltimore, MD: Center for Research on Effective Schooling for Disadvantaged Students.
Reviewed: August 2009
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Success for All®.
Reviewed: September 2008
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
Reducing Behavior Problems in the Elementary School Classroom Practice Guide