Grouping at the Kindergarten and Secondary Levels Research Paper

Grouping for teaching and learning purposes or cooperative learning is rapidly evolving as the new instructional approach in classrooms. Education does not simply mean the acquiring of information but using that learning in daily actions and behaviors (Dewey, 1938). Opponents of Collaborative learning argue that it enables students and learners to work in teams and facilitates the crucial exchange interchange of ideas, which will have positive impacts on their future social and professional relationships. This paper aims to conduct a review of the literature and explore whether the approach of grouping students is leaving any children behind with regard to their educational outcomes.

Researchers have established that group or cooperative learning improves the academic grades of students and helps in building high self-esteem, good social skills, and enhanced the comprehensive ability of their content and skills of the curriculum and syllabus (Johnson et al., 1993; Slavin, 1991; Stahl and VanSickle, 1992). The reason for its promotion in kindergarten schools through the elementary levels is the extremely diverse school settings which have resulted due to the high rates of immigration in the United States.

Cooperative learning is additionally gaining importance due to the preference of students working as “cooperative learning academic teams” rather than as “academic loners” in a classroom (Stahl and VanSickle, 1992). Group learning or Collaborative learning, are all approaches which relate to group work in classrooms undertaken through the process of differentiation by the teacher or instructor.

Johnson & Johnson (1992) label group learning as ‘cooperative learning’ while ‘collaborative learning’ is the term given by Barnes et al. (1986). Slavin (1996) labels group learning as ‘student team learning’, and Sharan & Sharan (1992) term it as ‘group investigation’. The primary reason for encouraging collaborative learning environments in school settings is to facilitate dialogic exchange and spontaneity among the students through the active interchange of ideas and viewpoints, which would enable students to reflect upon their ideas and develop critical thinking skills (Duffy & Cunningham, 1996).

According to Slavin (1987), group or cooperative learning plays a crucial role in improving the behavior and academic accomplishments of students, especially children in lower grades and facilitates a liking for school; in them. Johnson et al. (1976) have confirmed that students and learners who work in collaborative group settings have a greater ability to respond pro-socially in philanthropic tasks as compared to students who work individually. Ryan & Wheeler (1977) also affirm these findings and assert that students who have been educated in collaborative environments displayed abilities to make cooperative and helpful choices and decisions in contrast to students who had studied in individualistic school settings.

The implementation of group learning at the elementary levels is believed to increase the level of student mot6ivation which takes place through effective peer support (Glasser, 1986). The low-achieving students can make contributions to their respective groups and experience the emotions of success, which will obviously have a positive impact on their self-esteem and overall development (Featherstone, 1986). Johnson et al. (1984) assert that group learning facilitates positive interdependence among children and masters their interpersonal skills. There is also evidence that group learning improves the relationships among students from diverse cultures and communities as cooperative learning methods “embody the requirements of cooperative, equal status interaction between students of different ethnic backgrounds…” (Slavin, 1980).

However, in order to group students effectively, certain standardized tests are used to label children and place them in specially designed programs, and accordingly retain the underperforming children in a particular grade level. Therefore the Association for Childhood Education International (ACEI / Perrone, 1991) called for the suspension of the use of such tests to grade children according to their potential (Perrone, 1991) as these standardized tests have negative impacts and effects on the learning and motivation levels to learn.

Research by the opponents of grouping students through standardized testing methods, assert that the approach of testing “obstructs students” from becoming self-directed learners (Sheldon and Biddle, 1998). This view has also been endorsed by the National Commission on Testing and Public Policy, the National Council of Teachers of English, and the International Reading Association. As such, expert researchers in the field of education and organizations are of the view that standardized, group-administered tests should not be practiced with young children, especially children below the third grade (Meisels, 2005).

References

ACEI/Perrone, V. (1991). On standardized testing. Olney, MD: Association for Childhood Education International.

Barnes, D., Britton, J., & Torbe, M. (1986). Language, the learner and the school (2nd edition). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton-Cook.

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Macmillan.

Duffy, T. M. & Cunningham, D. J. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In D. J. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 170-198). New York: Macmillan Library Reference.

Featherstone, Helen (editor) (1986). “Cooperative Learning.” Harvard Education Letter: 4-6.

Glasser, William. Control Theory In The Classroom. New York: Harper and Row, 1986.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1992). Implementing cooperative learning. Contemporary Education, 63 (3), 173-180.

Johnson, D. W., R. T. Johnson, and E. J. Holubec. Circles of Learning: Cooperation in the Classroom, 4th edition. Edina, MN: Interaction Book, 1993.

Johnson, D., R. Johnson, J. Johnson, and D. Anderson (1976). “Effects of Cooperative Versus Individualized Instruction on Student Prosocial Behavior, Attitudes Toward Learning and Achievement.” JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 68: 446-452.

Johnson, David W., Roger T. Johnson, Edythe Holubec Johnson, and Patricia Roy (1984). Circles of Learning: Cooperation in the Classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Meisels, S.J. (2005). Testing culture invades the lives of young children. FairTest Examiner. Web.

Sharan, Y. & Sharan S. (1992). Expanding cooperative learning through group investigation. New York: Teachers College Press. [ED 367 509].

Sheldon K. and Biddle, B. (1998). Standards, accountability and school reform: Perils and pitfalls. Teachers’ College Record 100 (1): 164-180.

Slavin, R. E. (1996). Cooperative learning in middle and secondary schools. Clearinghouse, 69 (4), 200-204. [EJ 530 442].

Slavin, Robert E. (1991). “Synthesis of Research on Cooperative Learning.” Educational Leadership 48: 71-82. EJ 421 354.

Stahl, Robert J., and R. L. VanSickle, (1992) eds. Cooperative Learning in the Social Studies Classroom: An Invitation to Social Study. Washington, DC: National Council for the Social Studies.

Ryan, F., & Wheeler R., (1977). “The Effects of Cooperative and Competitive Background Experience of Students on the Play of a Simulation Game.” Journal Of Educational Research 70: 295-299.

Slavin, Robert. (1987)”Cooperative Learning: Can Students Help Students Learn?” INSTRUCTOR: 74-78.

Slavin, Robert, (1980). Cooperative Learning: What Research Says To The Teacher. Baltimore, MD: Center for Social Organization of Schools.