This review of the literature surrounding the issue of Cooperative Learning is organized in three parts. The first section considers the justification for using Cooperative Learning strategies in schools. The second part addresses the value of Cooperative Learning for increasing student motivation. The third section of the literature review enumerates some of the criticisms of the emerging classroom use of Cooperative Learning Strategies.

SUPPORT FOR USE OF COOPERATIVE LEARNING

The emerging use of Cooperative Learning strategies in classrooms in the United States has received significant praise by educational theorists. The replacement or enhancement of traditional education methods with Cooperative Learning strategies which has occurred in recent years has been cited as being"enthusiastically embraced by schools as a way of addressing many of the ills faced in education" (Mills & Durden, 1992, p. 11). Stated simply, students learn more when they talk and work together. The group situation is ideal for the development of thinking skills. Cooperative groups provide students with opportunities to practice discovering answers on their own, without being directly instructed by a teacher or a textbook. Students in collaborative groups have shared academic goals and are accountable for not only their own achievement, but also the performance of the group members (Hauserman 1992, p. 186), unlike traditional instruction, in which students are encouraged to work independently. Cooperative Learning strategies used in the classroom "are often multilevel and multi disciplinary, calling for the 'gifts' of a variety of students" (Sapon-Shevin & Schniedewind, 1993, p. 62). Students in Cooperative Learning atmospheres, in addition to performing higher academically, will "learn to respect others' differences and to interact successfully with people from different racial, ethnic, religious, and socioeconomic groups and whose skills are widely divergent" (Sapon-Shevin & Schniedewind, 1993, p. 62). Students' time on task increases, and the amount of material consumed increases much more rapidly than in the traditional teacher-centered room. (Hargis, 1990, p.89) Teacher-centered instruction is reduced and student-engaged time is increased. Achievement is directly related to engaged time. (Hargis, 1990, p.90) The students get constant immediate feedback. The National Education Association also advocates the use of Cooperative Learning strategies in the classroom. NEA encourages techniques of cooperative learning to get students more involved and to give them more responsibility for what occurs in the classroom.

MOTIVATIONAL ASPECTS OF COOPERATIVE LEARNING

Studies of cooperative learning have shown that it is an approach to learning that has motivational benefits over traditional instruction, which promotes individualism and competition. Cooperative group work serves as a motivational factor in classroom activity. This is true for several reasons, according to Hertz-Lazarowitz, Kirkus, & Mller in their work, "Implications of Current Research on Cooperative Interaction for Classroom Application" (1992). These reasons that Cooperative Grouping strategies are instigators of motivation in the classroom include:

1). Increased attention due to dramatic shifts from standard classroom procedures normally operational during the majority of the school day,

2). Increased intrinsic motivation to learn due to self determination as opposed to extrinsic motivation that may rest on the need to complete a project to get a good grade, and

3). Mastery goals oriented toward learning (as opposed to performance goals oriented toward positive self-presentation or performance evaluation) due to changes in classroom norms and structures (p. 256).

Students who work in cooperative groups demonstrate more positive attitudes and behaviors. These attitudes are positively correlated with a pleasant regard for school and increased intrinsic motivation (Hauserman, 1992, p.186).

CRITICISMS OF COOPERATIVE LEARNING STRATEGIES

A common criticism of Cooperative Learning is that it has no benefit for high-ability or gifted students. In their 1992 article, C.J. Mills and W.G. Durden present this viewpoint and go on to say that in addition to there being no benefits for high-ability students, "students in the lower tracks lose academic ground, self-esteem, and ambition" (p.12). Other criticisms of Cooperative Learning include off-task behavior and tendency toward disagreement among members of Cooperative Groups concerning the roles of each member. Research indicates that students "tend to have poor engagement levels in small group learning activities unless the teacher is actively involved in the session" (Cangelosi, 1993, p.163). Since the teacher cannot be present in all the groups at once, the groups fail to stay on task due to a lack of guidance from the teacher.

Critics of cooperative learning maintain that this grouping widens the gap between high and low ability students. If highly-able students are allowed to move ahead in their learning, the gap between them and the others in the class will widen to the point where heterogeneously grouped cooperative learning situations will no longer be educationally beneficial for any of the students involved. Students who are several grade levels apart in their learning of a subject are rarely able to contribute equally or feel engaged in a group endeavor Mills & Durden 1992, p.12). Cooperative learning, Mills and Durden contend, widens the gap between high and low ability students.

SUMMARY OF THE REVIEW OF LITERATURE

In summary, the traditional model of teaching has been the accepted method for centuries, but it is beginning to lose ground. A philosophical change about how children learn best is beginning to emerge in the schools. As the literature illustrates, educators are beginning to realize the full value of Cooperative Learning techniques, and such strategies are becoming more popular in today's schools. Despite the fact that research exists against the use of Cooperative groups, the research supporting the use of this method is far more substantial. Though these negative aspects or criticisms of Cooperative Learning presented in the literature are valid, I hoped to emphasize the positive aspects of Cooperative Learning when I implemented my intervention I hoped to achieve some of the positive results documented in the literature in my action research. I believe that when students are given a chance to exercise their knowledge through outlets other than those found in traditional models of teaching/learning, they will be motivated to learn. I wanted to take all the current knowledge about Cooperative Learning at face value when I performed my research.

I instituted cooperative learning strategies in the classroom to improve the motivation of a high-ability student who displays off-task behavior, lack of participation, and outward disinterest in schoolwork. I selected a high-ability student for the study who had reached the highest instructional level available for his chronological grade and who appeared bored with traditional education methods. This student was placed in a cooperative group with other students, and the other students in the class were placed in similar groups. The other students in the cooperative groups displayed varying ability and varying alignment with the traditional educational model. It was my goal to produce a renewed interest in learning by the case study student. I hoped to make it possible for this student to achieve continued success in the classroom so he might carry this attitude with him all through school. The student I selected for this study is a fourth grade white male at an inner-city elementary school in a housing project community. He reads in the top reading group and performs on grade level in math and the other subject areas.

I chose this student for this Action Research Project because he displays off-task behavior, lack of participation, and lack of interest in schoolwork, despite his high ability. Like the student Hargis described, this student did not seem to be particularly motivated by grades and competition, and seemed quite satisfied to coast along in school (1990, p.67). From the beginning, when I was able to observe this student in the classroom, I noticed these behaviors. I was especially intrigued by this student's clear disinterest in what the teacher and the rest of the class was doing. I observed this student with his head down on his desk, staring out the window, sleeping, or engaging in some activity other than attending to the lecture or the assigned class work. Based on his high reading-group placement despite his off-task behavior, lack of participation, and apparent disinterest in schoolwork, I thought this student would benefit from this intervention. Before beginning the intervention of placing this student in a cooperative group with other students of heterogeneous abilities, I wanted to gather some baseline data on this students'attitudes about school and work, specific instances of behaviors demonstrating the students' mismatch with the traditional education system, and academic abilities.

After obtaining a signed letter of consent from his parent, I interviewed the student to gain a sense of his attitudes about school and schoolwork. I felt this would give me a true sense of his motivation, because he would be able to vocalize to me exactly how he felt. I walked with the student to the empty cafeteria and we sat facing each other at the first table. The following is a transcription of this interview:

ME: (showing the student the signed consent form) Did your Mom tell you anything about this?
ST:(shrugs his shoulders)
ME:I am doing a project for my class at U.T. and I wondered if you would help me, I want to see how students at lnskip do when they work in groups. I picked you to help me because you’re in the top reading group and you’re a good student. I just want to ask you some questions. Is that okay?
ST:(Nods) Yes.
ME:Just try to answer the way you think. Don’t say what you think I want you to say. Do you like school?
ST:sort of
ME:What do you like most about it?
ST:Gym and math, playing.
ME:Good. Is there anything you don’t like about school?
ST:No.
ME:What are your favorite subjects?
ST:Math and spelling.
ME:Do you get your work finished a lot?
ST:Yes.
ME:How do you feet when you get all your work finished?
ST:Good.
ME:What makes you feel that way.?
ST:(looks confused)
ME:Why do you feel good when you finish your work?
ST:(hesitates) I don’t know.
ME:I know it’s hard to put in words. You just think about it, okay? Would you rather work by yourself or with other students?
ST:others.
ME:Why?
ST:helps you get done faster and make better friends.
ME:Does it help you get your work done faster when you work with someone else?
ST:Yes.
Me:If you could, would you want to change anything about the way the classroom is?
ST:Yes.
ME:What would you change?
ST:I don’t know.
ME:Okay. Did you think of the reason you feel good when you finish all your work?
ST:It helps me get better grades. Getting good grades is important. When I get first honors, I get 30 bucks and my bedtime goes up one hour.

I thanked the student for helping me and we walked back to the classroom together.

After my initial interview of the case study student, I began a systematic observation of him to get a sense of his behavior in the classroom prior to the intervention. I wanted to specifically pay attention to the amount of on- and off-task behavior during lessons. The following is a time line of the speech and actions that occurred during the time that I observed the student being instructed in traditional education methods.

The following activities occurred during my ten-minute observation of the student on the morning of February 23rd. The classroom teacher was conducting a lesson on division while the class was taking notes and participating in discussion

The student's off-task behavior and outward disinterest in the lesson indicates he has the characteristics necessary to receive the intervention. The fact that he knew the answers to the questions the teacher asked about division, paired with his disinterest in the way the material was presented by the teacher indicate that he would benefit from the intervention outlined in this Action Research Project.

Finally, in gathering baseline data on the case study student, I wanted to get a sense for myself of his academic ability. I chose to do this by examining his cumulative records and observing the student interact in reading group. First I examined the student's cumulative records. I analyzed his scores on the Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program tests since this is the major indicator of academic achievement under the traditional curriculum at our school. All of the case study student's scores fall within average to above-average stanine with mathematics application, stanine four, being the lowest.

I observed the case study student in reading group one day. He is in a group with nine other students and reads from the fourth-grade level basal reader. When he came to reading group, the classroom teacher flipped the teaching chart to the vocabulary list for the new story the students were going to read. The student commented, "Aw, we have to do that everytime." The reading lesson lasted about 30 minutes. During the course of the reading group, the students read the story aloud, discussed the story, and were given three worksheets. The case study student volunteered to read several times and appeared to participate in the group overall. I attributed his participation in the reading group and his apparent interest and involvement in the learning to the fact that this learning occurred in a small-group setting. Seeing this student actively involved in a small-group setting provided endorsement to my selection of him as the case study student for this Action Research. After gathering information about the student's motivation academic performance, I taught a traditional lesson to the class to see how the student reacted. I made it a point to stress the importance of students doing their own work, so I could observe the student's motivation to do the work. The lesson consisted of the class reading the pages together and answering the questions I asked about the reading. I distributed worksheets for students to complete independently and wrote vocabulary words from the chapter on the board for the students to do picture definitions. Since I was teaching the entire class, I was not able to focus strictly on the behavior of the case study student. I am able to report that he did not complete either assignment in science that day. This example also supports this student's match with the procedures discussed in the intervention.

On the next day, I began to prepare the students and the classroom for the cooperative learning phase of the project. The students in the class were all placed in cooperative groups. I divided the students into three categories based on their reading group placements. I also considered the students' gender and disposition or classroom behavior. After I had categorized them according to ability, gender, and behavior, I grouped the students heterogeneously. The makeup of each group, listed by members' reading group placement, gender, and behavior was as follows:

In assigning these groups, I tried to pay specific attention to the heterogeneity of the groups. I specifically tried to mix students of different abilities and classroom behaviors, as well as pairing members who may not have worked together before. In the case study student's group, I placed a girl who is quiet and focused on her work to serve as a model to the case study student. I also purposely placed a girl who is quite low in the group so the case study student could help her in her work.

After the groups were assigned, every student in the group was given a role. The leader and encourager read the directions and began the activity and saw that everyone took part in the activity and had a fair turn. The checkers made sure everyone understood the directions, checked the group members' answers after an activity, and kept the volume of voices in the groups at a low level. The recorders kept a record of who was present or absent for certain activities, kept track of group points earned, and wrote down assignments for absent group members. The runners in the cooperative groups were responsible for getting all the materials the groups needed to complete an activity.

I worked with the class to establish a list of rules to use in cooperative groups, after each student was assigned a specific role in the groups. I used this exercise and this list of rules as a means of establishing classroom management up front because, as the research says, cooperative learning tends to cause off-task behavior and tendency toward disagreement among members (Cangelosi, 1993, p. 163). The rules or guidelines the students and I established for use in cooperative groups include using "ten-inch voices," or voice levels that cannot be heard from more than ten inches away. Another rule we established was that all students had to stay with their groups. This was an important rule because many of the students were not placed in groups with and were not able to sit with their friends. Another important rule we made included the use of good social skills. We agreed to listen to others, use good eye contact, use nods and gestures, and take turns to ensure that everyone in the group got a fair chance to participate. After the rules were prepared, the groups were given time to discuss their roles and decide upon a group name.

After the rules and roles were established for the cooperative groups, I began the cooperative learning segment of the Action Research. We had an introductory science lesson on the human body. I gave each group a sheet of butcher paper and allowed the groups to make a life-sized body outline tracing. I moved around and monitored the groups' progress. As I moved about the room, I heard the case study student yelling out that another student in his group was "making him mess up." I reminded the groups of the rules we had established and encouraged the group to try to solve the problem on their own. When the activity was over, I noticed that the group had in fact worked the problem out and the case study student had participated in the activity by helping to cut the body tracing out.

The students in the class worked in cooperative groups every day to complete tasks. Either the classroom teacher or I instructed the class in a whole-group format. The classroom teacher and I used a team-teaching format and I presented some of the subjects in traditional format. We upheld the use of "traditional" teaching styles in the classroom because of the State and County curriculum guidelines and also because of the standardized Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment tests the students would be subject to at the end of the year. We simply tried to augment the traditional curriculum with more means of differentiated instruction, including many hands-on activities that the students had to complete as a group. I made the group members responsible for ensuring that everyone participated and I made earning points contingent upon everyone participating. Students were given a task to complete, either a traditional-format assignment or a hands-on activity, and different groups were required to work on different tasks at different times from other groups, but together as a group. Though the traditional textbook-based method of learning was included in this project, the fact that students were able to work together and were responsible for each others' mastery and understanding of the material, along with the inclusion of supplemental hands-on activities made it unique.

I spent a portion of the time the students were engaged in group work simply observing the students' interactions. I paid special to the case study student and his on- or off-task behavior, and particularly to his attitudes toward work. Because of the upcoming Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment tests, a shift back to the traditional classroom environment had to take place and the cooperative group intervention had to be halted. At this point, I reevaluated this student's motivation and engagement and participation in school work.

   

FINDINGS

After the case study student was placed in a cooperative group to improve his motivation and the display of off-task behavior, lack of participation, and outward disinterest in schoolwork, I began periods of observation to get a sense of the success of the intervention. I engaged in several ten-minute target child observations as well as many short intermittent observations.

I discovered three themes in the student's response to the intervention. First, the student displayed a continued behavior of incompatibility with and lack of motivation by the traditional curriculum. The student did not immediately adopt the idea of working in cooperative groups. Even after having discussed the roles and acceptable behaviors for cooperative groups and agreeing mutually to work in groups, the student still initially refused. On February 27, the student had finished all his classroom work two days in a row. The class did a cooperative group investigative activity in science. The student completed it and did it well. He even asked the classroom teacher to give him extra credit in math. I talked to my classroom teacher about the student's accomplishments. As she began to look through her graded work and the work that she had not yet graded, she could not find any of the work the student claimed to have turned in. The teacher and I called the student up to her desk and asked him if he had turned his work in. The student assured us he had. Though we were a bit skeptical of his claim to have turned in his work (based on his past performance), the teacher and I agreed to look for his work and check to make sure one of us had not taken it home to grade.

On the next day when we came back to school, the work had still not been found. The student maintained his claim to have turned the work in. I had complimented the student early the previous day for having done his work and at that point I had come to believe the Action Research intervention may turn out to be successful. I was beginning to believe that the student had become motivated to work up to his ability level by working on the same task with others in his group. Just as I had begun to detect and improvement in the case study student's motivation to do his work, the progress I had seen him make was proven to be inaccurate. The classroom teacher looked inside the case study student's desk and found all the work from the past two days-the work the student claimed he turned in-shoved in his desk unfinished. The classroom teacher straightened all the work and stapled it for him to work on. She talked to him and told him to remember he was working in a group to help him get his work done. She asked him if he was going to try harder. The student told the teacher he would and wrote her a note of apology for deceiving her.

The second theme I discovered in the case study student's response to the intervention was a refusal to comply with the rules established for group work. Every day for the next week, after the morning instruction, I put a schedule on the overhead projector of what each group was to work on, to ensure that each group was working on the same task The case study student never seemed satisfied with his group's assignment, but he usually agreed to start working on whatever his group was scheduled to do. The student began working on assignments, though he frequently complained about the work and the nature of the assignments.

The following week, I did not place the schedule on the projector, but instead I gave each group the freedom of choosing the task they wanted to work on. The only guideline that all members of the group had to be working on the same task. On March 8,the case study student disagreed with the rest of the group on what to work on first. The students' choices were to work on spelling picture definitions, pick a story starter and take turns adding to a story using at least 20 adjectives and completing an English page on adjectives, or measuring the perimeter of ten things in the room for math. The following is a record of the interactions which took place in the case study student's group on March 8 at 8:15:

(The whole group had their English books out, ready to start on English.)

On this same day, the entire group finished their English. Later I watched the Case Study Student helping the Low, quiet, girl with her math. The entire group finished it as well.

The third theme I detected in the case study student's response to the cooperative group intervention was an outward acceptance of working in cooperative groups. We continued to work on our cooperative science in class. The students added the body systems they learned about to their body cutouts. The groups made rap songs about the heart and presented them to the class. The class engaged in an activity where they "drew blood" on a piece of paper. The class did other activities which allowed them to practice discovering answers on their own, without being directly instructed by a teacher or a textbook, such as measuring and graphing their heart beats and pulse rates, and pretending to interview the heart. I notice the case study student participated in all activities. This student's mastery of the objectives took place. He learned as much, if not more, than he would have had the curriculum been presented in a traditional format, as is demonstrated in his oral quiz over the material.

Throughout the next two weeks, I noticed the case study student leaned over to the desk of the other students in his group working. He helped the Low, quiet, girl with her work and he seemed to get through the traditional part of the assignments afright too. One day I was grading English assignments from the previous day. The case study student had turned in both of the assignments. I graded his papers and both received grades of 100%. I took the papers over to the Student's desk and showed them to him. I told him I was proud of him and to look at what he could do. He put his hands up in the air and cheered. I reinforced his behavior once again with a positive compliment and told the classroom teacher about his work. She went over to the case study student's desk and asked him if it made him feel good to do well on his work. He shook his head yes and smiled. The case study student's motivation to work had continued until March 22, approximately one-and-one-half months since the beginning of the intervention. I found this student's motivation and engagement and participation in school work to have improved.

The intervention to improve the motivation of a high-ability student who displays off-task behavior, lack of participation, and outward disinterest in schoolwork was successful Despite this students reluctance to conform to the rules and schedules, coupled with his refusal to do the traditional work assignments in the beginning, his overall motivation was improved in the end.

Though some traditional education methods were used in the intervention, the introduction of student-centered, hands-on activities provided the student with the needed differentiated form of instruction/learning. This distinguished student-centered learning provided the case study student with increased motivation. He developed a renewed desire to work including on-task behavior, participation in discussion, and focus on school work.

I appraise Cooperative Learning in the classroom, coupled with some traditional methodology, as an excellent environment for learning. Visible changes in the case study student's motivation, as well as his opinion of the intervention clearly indicate the success of the program.

I think the case study student believes the intervention worked as well. Just as I interviewed him in the beginning to gather baseline data, I re-interviewed him to find how his views had changed. A record of the questions asked by me and the case study student's responses appears below:

Q: How do you feel about school since we have been doing our cooperative groups?
A: okay.
Q: Do you like it better?
A: Well, yeah.
Q: What do you like most about school now?
A: Making fun stuff and doing bulletin boards.
Q: Did you like working in the cooperative groups?
A: Yes.
Q: What do you think was the best thing about working in cooperative groups?
A: Being able to help each other.
Q: Yes, it helped you get your work done more, didn’t it?
A: Yes. I finished every day.
Q: Do you think the other students liked working in the cooperative groups? What do you think they liked about it?
A: Yes. I don’t know.
Q: Well, it's hard to speak for the others, isn’t it?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you get your work done more now since we have been working together in groups?
A: Yes.
Q: How does this make you feel?
A: Good.
Q: Would you like to work in cooperative groups again after TCAPS?
A: Yes.
Q: What would you like to do different in the groups this time?
A: Pick your own groups and build a volcano.

The case study student's responses to the questions indicates he feels the intervention was a success.

Another indicator that the student believed the intervention was successful is found in a birthday card he made me on the day before my birthday--a day that I was absent from school. The card is included at the end of this web page and reads as follows: You make me want to learn. This is excellent proof of the interventions success. The entire point of the Action Research was to instill in this young student a renewed love of learning-a break from the boredom of teacher- and textbook-centered learning. The fact that the student was able to perceive the end result of his experience is a clear indicator of its success.

Though success in improving the case study student's motivation was achieved in the end, success in the intervention was not initially achieved. In the first theme in the student's response to the intervention, the student displayed a rejection of working in cooperative groups. This theme exhibits the students lack of motivation and incompatibility with the traditional curriculum. Students who are several grade levels apart in their learning, as Mills and Durden (1992) point out, are rarely able to contribute equally or feel engaged in a group endeavor. As the case study student performs at a very high academic level, this criticism of heterogeneous-based cooperative learning defends the student's lack of desire or motivation to work in cooperative groups.

As the intervention shifted more toward student-centered learning and away from traditional education methods, a second theme in the student’s motivation levels ensued. The student exhibited a manifestation of his lack of motivation-he refused to comply with the established cooperative group rules. This theme supports one of the criticisms of cooperative learning-the fact that students "tend to have poor engagement levels in small group learning activities unless the teacher is actively involved in the session" (Cangelosi 1993, p.163). The case study student did not have the classroom teacher or myself there to tell him to do his work, and he did not have the intrinsic motivation at this interval to do his work on his own, as the work was partially textbook-based. The textbook-based work is what I wanted to prove in my Action Research does not motivate this student. I looked at this incident as a reflection of the lack of motivation of this student stemming from material presented in the traditional curriculum and decided to move ahead with the cooperative learning intervention. The student's reluctance to do the work resulted in his finally doing the work, but with an extra nudge from the teacher. The student's refusal to comply with the established cooperative group rules may have also been a manifestation of Hargis's summary of the traditional classroom in which students are isolated communicatively and physically. The students are isolated from social interaction in such contexts. This student had become used to this method of learning and had trouble relinquishing this role. This was a barrier to the desired intervention and led to a third theme in the Action Research intervention.

The third theme detected in the student's response to cooperative learning methods was a theme of high motivation to work in a group and display of on-task behavior and participation in classroom activities. The student displayed increased intrinsic motivation and his motivation to participate in the hands-on science learning was evident in his positive attitude and desire to do the work. This theme parallels the ideas discussed by Hertz-Lazarowitz, Kirkus, & Miller of increased attention due to dramatic shifts from standard classroom procedures normally operational during the majority of the school day and increased intrinsic motivation to learn due to self-determination (p. 256). Like the students in cooperative groupings described by Hauserman, the case study student began to demonstrate more positive attitudes and behaviors positively correlated with a pleasant regard for school and increased intrinsic motivation (1992, p.186) in the third theme of the intervention.

Though some of the criticisms of cooperative learning, such as off-task behavior and tendency toward disagreement and poor engagement levels did surface during this Action Research, proper planning and establishing of rules was found to counteract the off-task behavior, disagreement among members, and poor disengagement levels.

Another accolade of Cooperative Learning not directly addressed in the research is the antithesis of the criticism that cooperative learning widens the gap between high and low ability students. This claim was made by C.J. Mills and W.G. Durden in their 1992 article. These researchers state that "students in the lower tracks lose academic ground, self-esteem, and ambition" (p.12). In the case study student's group, I found the case study student and the Low-ability girl worked together admirably. This coupling was mutually beneficial, as the case study student was getting his work finished and the low-ability student was getting tutored by the case study student. This example disproves the claim of cooperative learning's critics and strengthens the support for cooperative learning.

In this action research, I found the Cooperative Learning intervention to be successful in increasing the motivation of a high-ability student. Fusion of traditional-based instruction with student-centered learning was an excellent union for increasing on-task behavior, class participation, and interest in school work among a student who had become unmotivated by the traditional education system alone. This program will be continued in this fourth grade class and in my future teaching.

Cangelosi, James S. (1993). Classroom management strategies: Gaining and maintaining students' cooperation. White Plains, NY: Longman.

Davidson, N. & Worsham, T. (1992). Hotsicle - Higher order thinking skills in cooperative learning environments. In Davidson, N. & Worsham, T. (Eds.) Enhancina thinking through cooperative learning. New York: Teachers College Press.

Hargis, C, H. (1990). Grades and grading practices. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Hauserman, C. (1992). Seeking an effective cooperative learning strategy. Contemporarv Education, 63 (3),185-190.

Hertz-Lazarowitz, R (1992). Understanding interactive behaviors: Looking at six mirrors of the classroom. In Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. & Miller, N. (Eds.) Interaction in cooperative groups: The theoretical anatomy of group learning (pp. 71-101). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., Kirkus, V.B., & Niller, N. (1992). Implications of Current Research on Cooperative Interaction for Classroom Application. In Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. & Miller, N. (Eds.), Interaction in cooperative groups: The theoretical anatomy of group learning, (pp.253- 280). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Mills, C. J. & Durden, W. G. (1992). Cooperative learning and ability grouping: An issue of choice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36 (1),11-16.

Sapon-Shevin, M & Schniedewind, N. (1993). Why (even) gifted children need cooperative learning. Educational Leadership, 50 (6),62-63.