DarleneFinalLiteratureReview

Running head: INCLUSION CLASSROOMS AND COOPERATIVE LEARNING 1
Cooperative Learning in Inclusion Classrooms for Students with Disabilities
Darlene Miller
Hunter College

INCLUSION CLASSROOMS AND COOPERATIVE LEARNING 2
Cooperative Learning in Inclusion Classrooms
The No Child Left Behind Act of 1997 (NCLB) states that all students with disabilities
are to be held to the same educational standards as students without disabilities (Antley, 2010).
Later in 2004, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) was
endorsed which requires students with disabilities to be evaluated using the same instruments as
students without disabilities (Antley, 2010). In other words, students with disabilities are
expected to learn the same classroom material and be assessed on their knowledge using the
same mechanisms as students who do not have any disabilities. Following the implementations
of these acts, more and more students with handicaps have been placed in general education
classrooms with students who do not have disabilities, or inclusion classrooms (Burstein, Sears,
Wilcoxen, Cabello, & Spagna, 2004).
As the state mandates the inclusion of students with and without disabilities, teachers
must make sure that they are using effective teaching methods to create a learning environment
that is conducive to all students’ academic needs including the students with disabilities.
Cooperative learning is one such method that can be employed in inclusion classrooms in which
students are placed into small groups to learn together and achieve an educational goal and can
be used to help special needs students in inclusion classrooms achieve greater academic
outcomes as well as greater social acceptance (Madden & Slavin, 1983a). Cooperative learning
allows students to have conversations in order to collaborate, discuss, elucidate and solidify the
learning material (Bucalos & Lingo, 2005). With one teaching approach, students can learn to
help each other, socialize, and maintain responsibility for themselves as an individual as well as
a group (Murphy, Grey, & Honan, 2005).

The purpose of this paper is to explore academic literature to answer the following
question: How does cooperative learning in inclusion classrooms work best to help increase
academic achievement and social acceptance for students with disabilities Specifically, this
literature review will explore the detailed techniques of cooperative learning in inclusion
classrooms that produce the greatest outcomes based on academic achievement and socialization.
This paper will argue that cooperative learning methods can be greatly beneficial for students
with disabilities when the students are encouraged to collaborate with one another within their
groups.
First, the methods for this review will be explained. Then, the background and the start of
inclusion classrooms as well as cooperative learning will be discussed, along with appropriate
definitions. Next, The heart of the literature review will discuss the ways in which academic
achievement and social acceptance of special needs students can be maximized in cooperative
learning programs for inclusion classrooms. Conclusions will be discussed including educational
implications, gaps in the literature and future directions for research.
Methods
The articles included in this study were found on multiple online databases such as ERIC,
PsychInfo, JSTOR and google scholar. The initial search terms were inclusion, intellectual
disabilities and academic achievement. After exhausting the general research for these terms, the
focus of the research shifted and new terms emerged: cooperative learning and mainstreaming.
Furthermore, the search for literature expanded to include articles that looked at social outcomes.
Outside of online databases, a few searches were done at the Hunter College Library. A
first group of books were read on the topic of inclusion. As the nature of the paper progressed,
more books were later taken out involving cooperating learning. Also, some books were

borrowed via InterlibraryLoan, a loan service for Hunter College students who borrow books
from other institutions.
In order for an article to be included in the review, some criteria had to be met. First, all
articles had to be empirical for the literature review section of this paper. Next, the subjects had
to be school-aged students (6-18 years old). The articles discussing inclusion were either about
students with disabilities or without disabilities while the cooperative learning articles all
contained information about students with disabilities with a focus on academic achievement or
social acceptance.
After reading the initial articles about inclusion, it became clear that the outcomes of the
research are inconsistent. Therefore, the research question changed and the focus shifted to an
inclusion teaching method: cooperative learning. All of the articles were read to find emerging
themes.
Background
Over 56 million people in the United States reported having some type of disability in the
U.S. Census of 2010 (Brault, 2012). This number accounts for over 18% of the total population
of the nation (Brault, 2012). According to the United States Department of Education, there are
some criteria to label a child with a disability, including:
Having mental retardation, a hearing impairment, a speech or language
impairment, a visual impairment, a serious emotional disturbance, an orthopedic
impairment, autism, traumatic brain injury, another health impairment, a specific
learning disability, deaf-blindness, or multiple disabilities, and who, by reason
thereof, needs special education and related services. (IDEA, Sec 300.8, 2004)
This criterion is extremely broad and encompasses a large number of specific disabilities.

In 1975, the Education For All Handicapped Children Act was created which states that
all handicapped children are expected to be placed in the least restrictive environment (LRE)
(Putnam, 1993). This forced educators to selectively choose which students would be placed in
general education classrooms or special education classrooms. If teachers thought that special
needs students were not learning capably with the general curriculum, they were placed in the
special education classrooms. However, there has not been much research that supports the
effectiveness of pulling special needs students out of the general curriculum and classrooms
(Lipsky & Gartner, 1989). Despite the lack of evidence supporting pull out instruction, schools
still segregated the students with disabilities (Putnam, 1993).
Since the enactment of the NCLB and IDEA, teachers are pushed to mainstream students
with disabilities and place them in classrooms mixed with students who have disabilities and
others who do not, or inclusion classes. Inclusion classrooms are those that include a greater
learner variance (Tomlinson et al., 2003). In these inclusion classrooms, students with disabilities
have special needs and are given Individualized Educational Programs (IEPs) which are specific
educational goals (Gallagher, 2011). The IEPs allow the students with disabilities to stay in the
general education classrooms with students who do not have disabilities.
Initially, many parents, educators and administrators did not agree with inclusion
classrooms and wanted the special needs students in the special education classrooms. Although
there was a concern about the impact on students without special needs in inclusion classrooms,
researchers have shown that low-, average- and high-achieving students can continue to progress
at their achievement level with no disruptions (Dessemontet, Bless, & Morin, 2012). Another
concern was that the special needs students would fall behind academically. Although not all
research has shown that inclusion significantly boosts academic achievement for students with

disabilities, overwhelming research shows that it does (Weiner & Capitol Publications, 1985).
One report looked at 50 studies researching the academic achievement of students with mild
disabilities in integrated classrooms versus segregated classrooms and found that the integrated
students outperformed their counterparts in segregated classrooms significantly (Weiner &
Capitol Publications, 1985).
Many studies have shown positive outcomes on the academic achievement for students
with disabilities in inclusion classrooms (Gandhi, 2007; Rea, McLaughlin, & Walther-Thomas,
2002; Salend, 1999) and also students without disabilities (Rouse & Florian, 2006; Salend,
1999). However, there are mixed results as sometimes the outcomes are not significantly positive
for mainstreamed students (Madden & Slavin, 1983b). With the increase of students with
disabilities in inclusion classrooms, it is important that inclusion classrooms are effective and
beneficial for students both with and without handicaps. Classrooms are very complex and many
factors, such as teaching methods, contribute to the academic achievement of students, especially
classrooms with typical students mixed with students who have disabilities. It is important to
know how teaching methods should be manipulated in order to produce the greatest positive
outcomes for all students in inclusion classrooms. Specifically, it is important to understand
which types of classroom instructions facilitate the greatest academic achievement for students
both with and without intellectual disabilities.
Although academic achievement is a main goal for students with disabilities in inclusion
classrooms, another goal is to socially integrate these students into a general population. It is
important for children to develop healthy social skills (D'Allura, 2002). The acceptance of peers
is an essential part of student growth and friendship is deemed very significant to adolescents
(Townsend & Hicks, 1997). Sometimes a stigma can be associated with students who have

learning disabilities that might prevent handicapped students from gaining the fundamental peer
acceptance. As noted earlier, students with disabilities sometimes are placed in contained
classrooms without typically functioning students. Because these students are not placed in
inclusion classrooms, they do not have access to the general curriculum or the general
population. This also means that the non-handicapped students do not have a chance to interact
with the students who do have handicaps. This lack of interaction can lead to a stigma against the
special needs students (D'Allura, 2002).
Cooperative learning is one teaching strategy for students that can increase academic
achievement of students with disabilities in inclusion classrooms (Putnam, 1993). Sometimes an
extended goal of cooperative learning is to reduce the social stigma associated with students with
disabilities. Cooperative learning can be defined as “a small group of students with mixed ability
levels working together, with each member having equal statute within the group, to help each
other accomplish a specified learning task” (Copeland & Cosbey, 2008). In other words, students
of varying levels of learning abilities are placed in small groups in order to learn. Cooperative
learning is not very specifically defined and can be different in every class. The goal or learning
task of the groups will be different depending on the education level of the students, the
curriculum and the teacher’s choices based on classroom goals.
Other ways in which cooperative learning can be different from one classroom to another
depends on how the students are held accountable, the type of learning objective, the instruction
given by the educator, the rewards or incentives, the amount of additional help from the educator
and other similar factors. Some of the aforementioned factors can be manipulated in order to
provide optimal conditions for learning and social acceptance of students with disabilities in
inclusion classrooms. Overall, greater cooperation amongst students in cooperative learning

groups fosters greater academic achievement and social acceptance of students with disabilities.
Literature Review
This section will now begin to discuss the literature about cooperative learning in
inclusion classrooms. It will go into depth about studies regarding the different strategies within
cooperative learning in inclusion classrooms. This section will discuss how specific techniques
can be used to make cooperative learning effective and is broken down into two major parts:
academic achievement effects and social acceptance effects. The literature review will argue that
cooperative learning works best when students are encouraged to collaborate.
Academic Achievement Effects
When teaching a classroom with diverse academic abilities and levels of achievement, it
can be difficult to accommodate all students. Cooperative learning teaching methods can help
students collaborate while learning and teaching each other at the same time and therefore
accommodating students of differing levels of abilities. (Stevens, Slavin, & Farnish, 1991).
Many studies have shown that students of differing levels of academic achievement have
benefitted academically from cooperative learning (Dugan, Kamps, & Leonard, 1995; Gillies &
Ashman, 2000; Klinger, Vaughn, & Shay Schumm, 1998; Sullivan Palinscar, Magnusson,
Collins, & Cutter, 2001). This section will now begin to discuss the different ways in which
cooperative learning can be most effective in increasing the academic achievement of students
with disabilities.
Cooperative learning training.
Involving directions given to students during a cooperative learning activity, the most
basic question to ask is will students show differences in academic achievement if they are given
training (structured) compared to not given training (unstructutred) Having students work in

groups is not enough to ensure that they are getting the greatest education with that particular
learning method and the students need some direction (Gillies & Ashman, 2000). Gillies and
Ashman (2000) studied the difference in outcomes for students in structured versus unstructured
groups. The authors wanted to learn the difference in outcomes for students who were trained in
cooperative learning before engaging in the method. The students who were trained in
cooperative learning were told to encourage each other, provide feedback, ask questions, break
the parts of the assignment down into smaller parts, share tasks and work together (Gillies &
Ashman, 2000). Following the instructions, the students were asked to discuss how they should
implement the previous discussed instructions when they begin the group work and practiced
working together. The unstructured group was not given any training. The students in the
structured groups outperformed their counterparts educationally. Also, the targeted students with
disabilities were much more involved and active in the structured groups.
Another study researched the effects of cooperative learning groups for students when
students were given some training for cooperative learning (Dugan et al., 1995). The teacher
gave a traditional lecture and expected students to take notes and then students broke off into
their groups. Students were expected to (a) share ideas, (b) correct other's work, (c) offer praise,
(d) react calmly, and (e) encourage and help others. Everyone scored significantly greater on
their weekly quizzes compared to the baseline conditions in which they did not receive group
initiatives encouraging the students to collaborate. These findings suggest that students should be
trained or given specific instruction before engaging in a cooperative learning exercise in order
to increase helping behaviors and educational outcomes. This supports the argument that
students should be instructed to work together.

Instructions.
Cooperative learning requires students to be separated into groups and achieve some
learning goal. Based on these simple requirements, there are many different ways cooperative
learning can occur. Specifically, the directions given to the students can be very different coming
from one teacher compared to the next and when used in different courses. It is important to look
at the outcomes of the instruction incorporated in order to make cooperative learning work best
for inclusion classrooms.
On the most basic level, students can learn much more in a group learning setting when
given instruction on what to do in the groups (Gillies & Ashman, 2000; Klinger et al., 1998).
Furthermore, students should be given some type of instruction on the specific work they will be
doing in the cooperative learning groups (Klinger et al., 1998). Klinger et al. (1998) studied the
effects of cooperative learning on reading comprehension of students in three inclusive, fourth
grade social studies classes. The intervention group received instruction on reading
comprehension including how to preview, click and clunk, get the gist and wrap up. Following
the instruction, the intervention classes were split up into groups and asked to model the
strategies, learn textbook information and take turns as a group leader. In the control condition,
the students were presented with content, read the textbook material as a class, summarized the
readings and had a discussion without any cooperative learning or group work. Results
demonstrated that the intervention condition yielded significantly greater reading comprehension
scores than the control condition. This study supports the findings of the previous study by
Gillies and Ashman in 2000. Cooperative learning methods work best for students with and
without disabilities when students are given direction and specific instruction.

Extra help.
All of the studies mentioned thus far in this literature review have supported cooperative
learning as an effective method in terms of increasing student academic achievement. None of
the studies mentioned before this point have required any extra attention from the teachers in
order to help out students with disabilities. This will not always be the case as sometimes extra
instruction is required of teachers in order to help the students with disabilities thrive (Sullivan
Palinscar et al., 2001). Sullivan Palinscar et al. designed an experiment to study the effects of
guided inquiry science instruction. Under this instruction, students are given complex problems
to answer in groups using multiple resources. The results indicated that all students made
statistically significant learning gains. However, the teachers had to employ advanced teaching
methods in order to help the students with IEPs. This study shows that cooperative learning does
help students both with and without disabilities, but extra work may be required of educators to
help the identified students make significant learning gains.
Accountability.
When students participate in collaborative group work, there are a few different ways that
their academic achievement can be assessed. Students can be graded individually, as a group, or
both individually and as a group. During a cooperative learning assignment, students who are
given a group goal rather than individual goals produce greater academic achievement for all
students, both with and without disabilities (Malmgren, 1998). This pushes students to work
together rather than alone and learning is increased for everyone.
If students are held accountable as an individual contributor and they also receive one
grade for their learning group, they will more likely all work hard to make sure that their
individual grade is most advantageous. Furthermore, they will also help each other and

contribute more as a group (Madden & Slavin, 1983a). Madden and Slavin (1983) found that
students produced significantly greater weekly quiz grades when they were held accountable as
both a group and an individual compared to the students who were only given individual
assessments. When students are held individually accountable, the students with disabilities
might not make significant educationally gains if their peers have no incentive to help this
special needs students. This finding is important because it shows that collaborative learning is
not as effective for both students with and without disabilities if students are not given a
collaborative grade. Furthermore, it also suggests that cooperative learning assignments should
be formatted in a way that persuades students to work as a group, as the main argument claims.
Rewards.
Very similar to accountability, rewards can create an incentive for students to collaborate
(Malmgren, 1998). The reward should be something outside of an assessment, such as a
homework pass or bonus points. The criteria for a student to receive a reward must be based on a
group accountability, or it will not encourage students to be collaborative (Malmgren, 1998). As
mentioned earlier, the group needs to fulfill some goal in collaborative learning rather than
individual goals.
This section has reviewed the literature in which cooperative learning increases academic
achievement for students with special needs. Five particular methods were mentioned: training in
cooperative learning, specific instructions, extra help, accountability and rewards. In summary,
students should be trained how to cooperate and work together in cooperative learning exercises,
instructions should be clear, all students should be held accountable as a group, rewards should
be given to proper group work and extra help from teachers can all help to increase academic
achievement for students with disabilities. Overall, the greater the collaboration amongst peers in

cooperative learning groups, the greater all students learn and achievement greater academic
attainment, which is parallel with the main argument.
Social Effects
Many studies show that children with disabilities can benefit not only academically but
also socially from inclusion classrooms (D'Allura, 2002; Johnson, Johnson, & DeWeerdt, 1983;
Townsend & Hicks, 1997). Cooperative learning groups foster the growth of social skills for
students with handicaps (D'Allura, 2002). This section will now discuss the ways in which
cooperative learning can be an effective teaching method in building social acceptance for
students with disabilities in inclusion classrooms.
Accountability.
When students are placed in collaborative groups, assessments can be made in a few
different ways, as mentioned earlier. When compared to students who are only responsible for a
personal grade, students who are given both a personal and a group grade achieve better grades.
Holding all students equally responsible will encourage all students in collaborative groups to
interact in order to make sure their group grade is optimal and in turn, socialization is increased
(Piercy, Wilton, & Townsend, 2002). In the study by Piercy et al. (2002), the students with
disabilities were rated higher in social acceptance by their peers without disabilities.
Additionally, the typical students chose to interact with the special needs students during free
time significantly more often (Piercy et al., 2002).
The group accountability has shown to increase team efforts (Piercy et al., 2002). This is
also the case when students are assessed on both a group and an individual level (Madden &
Slavin, 1983a). As mentioned earlier, Madden and Slavin (1983) found that academic
achievement was increased when all students were held responsible for their own grade and also

contributed to a collective grade. They also found a positive outcome in terms of socialization.
Special needs learners encountered decreased rejection and increased social acceptance by their
peers (Madden & Slavin, 1983a). This finding is significant because it shows that level of
responsibility the students are given in collaborative learning has a positive impact on both an
academic achievement and social acceptance for handicapped students. Specifically,
accountability should be tailored to encourage student cooperation.
Type of Task.
The type of activity that students are expected to accomplish in cooperative learning
groups has not come up very often in the research. However, one researcher, Mary Anderson,
explored many different types of cooperative learning activities and the social outcomes.
Anderson manipulated many factors including the type of activity, the presence of a group
leader, rewards and instructions. This section will discuss the type of task and the subsequent
sections will discuss group leaders, rewards and instructions.
Anderson (1985) administered 13 different group activities. After comparing the changes
in peer acceptance of students with disabilities before and after the assignments, some statistical
differences were seen. When students were in groups that were given physical materials to work
with, they were more likely to collaborate (Anderson, 1985). For example, one task had the
following instructions:
Each student in your group has been given a different number of coins totaling a
certain amount. Your group is to solve a problem involving buying the maximum
number of candy bars using the money that the five students in each group have.
You will need the correct change for each purchase from the candy machine.
(Anderson, 1985, pp. 83-84)

As the collaborative groups had physical items to work with, the students worked together
mutually. However, when a writing task was involved, the students were less enthusiastic, less
collaborative and the peer acceptance of students with disabilities was not increased significantly
(Anderson, 1985). This is important because it shows that formatting a task to ensure that
students collaborate leads to positive peer interaction and, ultimately, greater social acceptance
of special needs students when working in cooperative groups.
Instructions.
In cooperative learning groups, students have to collaborate in order to achieve some
learning goal. As noted earlier, simply assigning students to groups and asking them to perform a
learning task might not be sufficient enough for all students to achieve the greatest academic
outcome (Gillies & Ashman, 2000). Similarly, this can be the same case when the chosen
outcome is to socially integrate students with and without disabilities. The instruction within the
groups can be important, too (Piercy et al., 2002).
Students with disabilities are rated as higher in popularity, are more accepted by their
peers without disabilities and have greater positive interactions while reducing social distance
when they participate in cooperative learning groups as opposed to no group work at all (Piercy
et al., 2002). Furthermore, Piercy et al. (2002) found that cooperative learning groups are even
more effective when students were asked to help each other out, check to make sure everyone’s
answers in the group were the same, work together, share resources and talk politely (Piercy et
al., 2002). Telling students to collaborate might seem trivial, or silly, but explicitly reminding the
students of the goals to collaborate has shown to increase peer interaction with the special needs
students (Piercy et al., 2002).

It has also been found that cooperative learning is most effective when the instructions
are simple and clear. Anderson (1985) found that the more complicated and long the instructions
were, the less likely the students were to be enthusiastic and successful in completing the task.
When this occurred, social acceptance of the special needs students was not increased. Although
the reason for this outcome is not clear, it could suggest that convoluted instructions could lead
to tension amongst group members.
This is important because it shows that cooperative learning is most effective in
increasing social acceptance of students with disabilities by giving simple, direct, clear
instructions. Also, explicitly giving all students instruction to work together as a group and help
each other out helps to make cooperative learning a socially effective method, which is in
alignment with the main argument.
Group leader.
Another aspect of cooperative learning that Anderson (1985) explored is the presence of
a group leader. In her study, some of the groups were appointed a group leader as others were
not. In the groups without a leader, sometimes a student came up with a correct answer or
solution to the task but could not articulate it in a way that the other members understood.
Therefore, other students would reject the answer and create turmoil. When a group leader was
present, he would listen to all of the members equally and create a positive learning environment
for everyone. This is important because it shows that collaborative groups are more functional,
positive, collaborative and increase social acceptance of peers with disabilities when there is a
group leader (Anderson, 1985). As group leaders make sure all voices in the group are heard,
they are encouraging collaboration. The main argument agrees that collaboration results in more
positive outcomes for cooperative learning.

Rewards.
The studies mentioned thus far did not provide any extrinsic motivation for students
outside of their assessment. A few studies did include some type of reward to motivate students
to do well in their collaborative learning groups. As mentioned earlier, Anderson (1985) did
provide a reward for students who were in a group who successfully and appropriately completed
their group assignment. Those students were given a free homework pass or had the option to
substitute any previous grade for an “A” (Anderson, 1985). This motivated the students to do
well in their groups and contributed to the collaborative effort and the greater acceptance of the
peers with disabilities.
Slightly different from Anderson’s study in 1985, another study also provided a reward
for students (Slavin & et al., 1984). After a cooperative learning assignment was completed, all
students took an individual test on the material. Each group was given an assessment on their
learning based on an average of the individual members test scores. The group with the greatest
group average received a certificate. The certificate motivated the students to learn the group
assignment material in more depth than if they were not given a certificate (Slavin & et al.,
1984). An important part of this study is also beyond the reward. It also shows that each
individual contributes to the group average, which motivated students to help each other.
Therefore, the students collaborated much more and the peer acceptance ratings were increased
(Slavin & et al., 1984).
Rewards are important because they motivate the students to collaborate in order to do
well. This is important because it shows that rewards can make cooperative learning in inclusion

classrooms more effective in increase academic achievement and social acceptance of the peers
with special needs.
This section has reviewed the literature about cooperative learning in which students with
disabilities attain greater social acceptance from their typical peers. Five methods were reviewed:
accountability, type of task, instruction, leaders and rewards. The methods used to increase peer
social acceptance are very similar, some the same, for the methods used to increase academic
achievement. In summary, these methods suggest that creating a group accountability, physical
task, instruction to collaborate, appointing group leaders and providing rewards that encourage
collaboration also creates optimal conditions for positive group outcomes. Peer collaboration in
cooperative learning promotes academic achievement and social acceptance of students with
disabilities.
Discussion
Implications for Education
Based on the literature, it is clear that cooperative learning is a successful method to
integrate special needs students into the general classroom (Putnam, 1993). Although it is
successful compared to classrooms that do not use cooperative learning, there are many ways to
make it additionally effective. Teachers must make sure that their instructions are clear and
simple while stressing the need to collaborate, include all students and work together as a team
(Gillies & Ashman, 2000). The group members must be accountable for some part of the group
work; individual assessments will not encourage students to work together. Having a group
leader also helps to make sure that cooperative learning is successful. Group leaders make sure
that all members have a voice and are heard (Anderson, 1985). In terms of type of task, physical
projects are extremely beneficial because they force all members to participate (Anderson, 1985).

All of the ways to increase learning and socialization in cooperative learning revolves
around collaboration. The more students collaborate, the more they will learn on an individual
and a group level. Furthermore, greater collaboration yields greater positive peer interactions and
social acceptance of students with disabilities. Cooperative learning helps students with
disabilities to learn more and become socially accepted by their peers (Jacques, Wilton, &
Townsend, 1998). This method is a very successful method for all students in inclusion
classrooms.
Gaps in the Literature
Although there are very many articles in the literature regarding cooperative learning and
inclusion classrooms, there are few areas that have yet to be researched specifically. Overall,
most of the existing literature was conducted on a somewhat large level. Classrooms were
compared to other classrooms, or even larger, schools were compared to schools. However,
students need to be observed and researched on a case study level. The conversations between
students, the types of interactions, that amount of contribution to the learning task and other
similar factors need to be studied. This is important to study because it will show how the
students with disabilities are learning in the groups. Even further, it will show how the students
who do not have special needs are helping the students who do have special needs. What are the
social dynamics of the students in the groups? If some students are not contributing to the group
but are learning, it cannot be seen through a large-scale study that only looks at quantitative
outcomes.
Another gap in the literature exists also because of the large-scale studies; specific
disabilities are not examined in depth. How does a student with Down Syndrome differ from a
student with autism in the cooperative learning groups? Further research should look at

individual disabilities, as there are many different types and each disability is unique. The
severity of the disability must also be examined. Perhaps a child with a mild disability can thrive
in cooperative learning groups but another with a severe disability might not.
Future research should explore different ways of placing students into groups. Although
each study explains how the students were placed into groups, no studies look at the effects of
different methods of placement. For the most part, it seems that researchers or educators
randomly assign students to groups but make sure that the students who are special needs are
spread out evenly among the groups. What kind of ratio of students with and without disabilities
can foster the greatest achievement and social acceptance of students with disabilities? Also, it is
important to know if students should change groups for every learning task, every few weeks,
every few months or remain the same through out the school year.
Cooperative learning is one method for teachers to use in the classroom, but most
certainly not the only method. This leads to the question: how often should cooperative learning
be implemented in the classroom? The articles used for this study tended to use cooperative
learning about 1-5 times a week. Is there an appropriate number of times to have students
participate in cooperative learning every week? This is something that should be researched in
the future.
Lastly, the studies that have already been done in cooperative learning seldom are
longitudinal. If cooperative learning helps to increase learning and social acceptance of the
special needs students, how long do those effects last? Also, would be interesting to know if the
more students use cooperative learning, the greater their achievement continues to increase.
Based on the gaps in the literature, future research should explore cooperative learning
with students of differing needs, the longevity of cooperative learning, the types of educational

subjects it works best for, the ratio of students with and without disabilities and many other
factors. Also, cooperative learning groups need to be researched qualitatively and on a case study
level. Although there is much existing literature that says a lot about how to make cooperative
learning effective, there are still many gaps and many questions still unanswered.
Conclusions
Students with special needs are being placed in inclusion classrooms more and more, due
to IDEA and NCLB. This means that it is very important to make sure that inclusion classrooms
are effective for students with disabilities. Based on the literature, cooperative learning is an
effective teaching method to make sure that students with disabilities are learning and socially
integrated with their peers. When students with and without disabilities work in partnership,
there are many positive learning and social effects (Anderson, 1985).

References
Anderson, M. A. (1985). Cooperative Group Tasks and Their Relationship to Peer Acceptance
and Cooperation. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 18(2).
Antley, T. M. B. (2010). Inclusion Practices for Students with Disabilities in Three Schools
Which Are Meeting Accountability Mandates of No Child Left Behind: A Multiple Site
Case Study. ProQuest LLC. Retrieved from
http://proxy.wexler.hunter.cuny.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?dir
ect=true&db=eric&AN=ED519512&site=ehost-live
Brault, M. W. (2012). Current Population Reports. U.S. Census Bureau. from
http://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/p70-131.pdf
Bucalos, A. B., & Lingo, A. S. (2005). Filling the Potholes in the Road to Inclusion: Successful
Research-Based Strategies for Intermediate and Middle School Students with Mild
Disabilities. TEACHING Exceptional Children Plus, 1(4).
Burstein, N., Sears, S., Wilcoxen, A., Cabello, B., & Spagna, M. (2004). Moving Toward
Inclusive Practices. Remedial & Special Education, 25(2), 104-116.
Copeland, S. R., & Cosbey, J. (2008). Making Progress in the General Curriculum: Rethinking
Effective Instructional Practices. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe
Disabilities, 33/34(4-1), 214-227.
D'Allura, T. (2002). Enhancing the Social Interaction Skills of Preschoolers with Visual
Impairments. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 96(8), 576.
Dessemontet, R. S., Bless, G., & Morin, D. (2012). Effects of inclusion on the academic
achievement and adaptive behaviour of children with intellectual disabilities. Journal of
Intellectual Disability Research, 56(6), 579-587. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2788.2011.01497.x

Dugan, E., Kamps, D., & Leonard, B. (1995). Effects of cooperative learning groups during
social studies for students with autism and fourth-grade peers. Journal Of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 28(2), 175-188.
Gallagher, P. A. (2011). counseling and human development. Counseling & Human
Development, 44(3), 1-12.
Gandhi, A. G. (2007). Context Matters: Exploring Relations between Inclusion and Reading
Achievement of Students without Disabilities. International Journal of Disability,
Development and Education, 54(1), 91-112.
Gillies, R. M., & Ashman, A. F. (2000). The effects of cooperative learning on students with
learning difficulties in the lower elementary school. The Journal of Special Education,
34(1), 19-27. doi: 10.1177/002246690003400102
IDEA - Building The Legacy of IDEA 2004. (n.d.). IDEA - Building The Legacy of IDEA 2004.
Retrieved from
http://idea.ed.gov/explore/view/p/%2Croot%2Cregs%2C300%2CA%2C300%252E8%2C
Jacques, N., Wilton, K., & Townsend, M. (1998). Cooperative learning and social acceptance of
children with mild intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research,
42(1), 29-36. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2788.1998.00098.x
Johnson, R. T., Johnson, D. W., & DeWeerdt, N. (1983). Integrating severely adaptively
handicapped seventh-grade students into constructive relationships with nonhandicapped
peers in science class. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 87, 611-618.
Klinger, J. K., Vaughn, S., & Shay Schumm, J. (1998). Collaborative strategic reading during
social studies in heterogeneous fourth-grade classrooms. Elementary School Journal,
99(1), 3.

Lipsky, D. K., & Gartner, A. (1989). Beyond separate education: Quality education for all.
Baltimore, MD England: Paul H. Brookes Publishing.
Madden, N. A., & Slavin, R. E. (1983a). Effects of cooperative learning on the social acceptance
of mainstreamed academically handicapped students. Journal of Special Education, 17,
171-182. doi: 10.1177/002246698301700208
Madden, N. A., & Slavin, R. E. (1983b). Mainstreaming students with mild handicaps: academic
and social outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 53, 519-569. doi:
10.2307/1170220
Malmgren, K. (1998). Cooperative learning as an academic intervention for students with mild
disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 31(4), 1-6.
Murphy, E., Grey, I. M., & Honan, R. (2005). Co-operative learning for students with difficulties
in learning: a description of models and guidelines for implementation. British Journal of
Special Education, 32(3), 157-164. doi: 10.1111/j.0952-3383.2005.00389.x
Piercy, M., Wilton, K., & Townsend, M. (2002). Promoting the social acceptance of young
children with moderate-severe intellectual disabilities using cooperative-learning
techniques. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 107(5), 352-360. doi:
10.1352/0895-8017(2002)107<0352:PTSAOY>2.0.CO;2
Putnam, J. W. (1993). Cooperative learning and strategies for inclusion: Celebrating diversity in
the classroom. Baltimore, MD US: Paul H Brookes Publishing.
Rea, P. J., McLaughlin, V. L., & Walther-Thomas, C. (2002). Outcomes for Students with
Learning Disabilities in Inclusive and Pullout Programs. Exceptional Children, 68(2),
203-222.

Rouse, M., & Florian, L. (2006). Inclusion and Achievement: Student Achievement in Secondary
Schools with Higher and Lower Proportions of Pupils Designated as Having Special
Educational Needs. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 10(6), 481-493.
Salend, S. J. (1999). The Impact of Inclusion on Students With and Without Disabilities and
Their Educators. Remedial & Special Education, 20(2), 114.
Slavin, R. E., & et al. (1984). Effects of Cooperative Learning and Individualized Instruction on
Mainstreamed Students. Exceptional Children, 50(5), 434-443.
Stevens, R. J., Slavin, R. E., & Farnish, A. M. (1991). The effects of cooperative learning and
direct instruction in reading comprehension strategies on main idea identification.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(1), 8-16. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.83.1.8
Sullivan Palinscar, A., Magnusson, S. J., Collins, K. M., & Cutter, J. (2001). Making science
accessible to all: Results of a design experiment in inclusive classrooms. Learning
Disability Quarterly, 24(1), 15-32. doi: 10.2307/1511293
Tomlinson, C. A., Brighton, C., Hertberg, H., Callahan, C. M., Moon, T. R., Brimijoin, K., . . .
Reynolds, T. (2003). Differentiating Instruction in Response to Student Readiness,
Interest, and Learning Profile in Academically Diverse Classrooms: A Review of
Literature. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 27(2-3), 119-145.
Townsend, M. A. R., & Hicks, L. (1997). Classroom goal structures, social satisfaction and the
perceived value of academic tasks. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 67(1), 1-
12. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8279.1997.tb01222.x
Weiner, R., & Capitol Publications, I. A. V. A. (1985). P.L. 94-142: Impact on the Schools. First
Edition.

DarleneFinalLiteratureReview

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (15)

Similar to DarleneFinalLiteratureReview

Similar to DarleneFinalLiteratureReview (17)

DarleneFinalLiteratureReview