Cooperative Learning for Students with Disabilities REVIEW OF LITERATURE Introduction

The review begins with a brief delineation of the nature of cooperative learning. This is followed by an examination of the general effectiveness of this instructional method for LD students. The final section of the review examines studies that have specifically examined the effects of cooperative learning on math achievement. Based on the reviewed research, conclusions are formulated about the efficacy of cooperative learning for LD students.

Cooperative Learning: Definition and Characteristics

Slavin (1988) has defined cooperative learning as:

. . . instructional methods in which students of all levels of performance work together in small groups toward a common goal. The essential feature of cooperative learning is that the success of one student helps other students to be successful (p.6).

Johnson and Johnson (1989) have noted that cooperative learning has two essential characteristics. First, its basic elements are said to positive, interdependence, face-to-face interaction, individual accountability, collaborative skills and group processing. Second, cooperative learning is said to have extreme flexibility in that any curriculum can be broken down int

. . .
ion in resource rooms. Methods in the study involved testing students at the beginning and end of the school year in reading, mathematics and self-esteem. In addition, 48 classroom observations were conducted. Scott (1989) reported that analyses of covariance were performed on 23 dependent measures. Significant differences (p <.05) in favor of the CLT were found on four of the eleven self-esteem scales. Reading and mathematics achievement were equivalent. The study concluded that the CLT model is a viable alternative to the "pull-out" model and a less restrictive placement for LD students. Cooperative learning as it relates to LD students was also examined by Adams (1995) who investigated the effectiveness of a specific cooperative learning method termed "Student Teams Achievement Divisions" or STAD on achievement and self-esteem levels of mildly handicapped and normal progressing learners in an inclusive classroom. Study participants were 108 sixth-grade students in five reading classes in an inner-city public school. Forty-four participants were mildly handicapped learners, slow learners and special education students, and 64 were normal progressing learners. Of the 64 normal progressing learners, 40 were excellen
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
LD Students, Teams CLT, Examination Spanish, Language Spanish, , Johnson Johnson, Characteristics Slavin, cooperative learning, academic achievement, Self-Concept Scale, ld students, learning disabilities, learning ld students, cooperative learning ld, learning ld, Cooperative Learning, self-esteem academic achievement, students learning, self-esteem academic, students learning disabilities, school students, benefits cooperative, effectiveness cooperative learning, brandt 1995,
Approximate Word count = 2403
Approximate Pages = 10 (250 words per page)