This study examined the prevalence, conceptualization, and form of cooperative learning used by elementary school teachers. Responding to a survey, 93% of teachers (n = 85) from six elementary schools in two districts indicated they used cooperative learning. In interviews with a subset of those teachers (n = 21), all indicated having daily cooperative lessons in several subjects. The majority of teachers subscribed to cooperative learning to achieve both academic and social learning goals, structured tasks for positive interdependence, and taught students skills for working in small groups. When we applied criteria for cooperative learning derived from the research literature, few teachers were employing recognized forms of this practice, primarily because they did not tie individual accountability to group goals. Implications for communication between researcher-developers and teachers are discussed.

This study reports new analyses from an earlier study by Antil, Jenkins, Wayne, & Vadasy (1998) in which 21 general education classroom teachers were interviewed about their use of cooperative learning. We report teachers' perceptions of how cooperative learning benefits special education and remedial students, the percentage of these students who consistently participated in classroom cooperative learning activities, its efficacy for these students, and the kind of modifications teachers made for students with special needs. Teachers were generally positive about cooperative learning's efficacy for students with learning problems, while acknowledging that it worked better for some students than others. Major benefits were improved self-esteem, a safe learning environment, and better classroom success rates and products. The primary modification for special and remedial education students was selecting suitable partners for them.

One-to-one instruction, while highly desirable for children with the lowest reading skills, is not often available. It could be provided by nonprofessional tutors in the community, however. One aim of this study was to determine whether a one-to-one phonologically based tutoring program that incorporates many features of successful early reading programs and that is delivered by nonprofessional tutors is effective with first-grade students at risk for reading failure. Forty at-risk first graders who did not differ on reading skill prior to the intervention were randomly assigned to one of two groups. The treatment group received 30 minutes of individual instruction from community tutors four days a week for up to 23 weeks. The control group received only the regular reading instruction in their classrooms. The treatment group outperformed the control group on all reading, decoding, spelling and segmenting, and writing measures, with effect sizes averaging .21, .35, .37, and .19, respectively. Differences were significant on only one nonword reading and one spelling measure; however, a second aim was to determine the effects of the tutors' ability to implement the lessons scripted for them. Tutors who implemented the program with a high degree of fidelity achieved significant effect sizes in each early reading skill area assessed. Results support the potential of nonprofessional tutors to supplement early reading instruction, and prevent learning disabilities in at-risk children.

No abstract