The Impact of Cooperative Grouping Exercises on Content Writing of 7th

Grade Life Science Students

Action Research PresentationPrepared by Alexandra Sloane

Elkridge Landing Middle SchoolSchool Description

School› Elkridge Landing Middle School› 662 student capacity

Community Context› Located in Elkridge, MD in eastern Howard

County› Residential with some commercial

concentrations nearby along Washington Blvd (Rte. 1)

› Median household income: $77,000 Academic Achievement

› 2008: Met AYP in all areas.

Elkridge Landing Middle SchoolImportant School Characteristics

 Strong Extracurricular Activities including band, chorus, orchestra, theater, dance and art   

 Active Intramural program     Strong Related Arts Program including family and

consumer sciences, technology education, physical education, Spanish, French, art, health and music

PBIS Gold School ● STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Math)

School     Professional Development Partnership with JHU 

Elkridge Landing Middle SchoolImportant School Characteristics

Educational Partnerships: Giant, Target, Pizza Hut, Safeway, T-Bonze Grille and Pub, Outback Steakhouse, and Wheels Skating Center

Health and Wellness Policy for School Lunches    

Large Media Center including laptops, mobile labs, and desktops    

Strong PTSA    Active School Improvement Plan     Green School Initiative

ElkridgeLandingMiddle SchoolStudent Population (2008-2009)

Ethnicities› African-American: 20.9%› Asian-American: 10.4%› European-American: 60.1%› Latin-American: 5.6%› Native American: 0.5%› Unidentified: 2.5%

 Special Needs› Students with IEP/504: 7.8%› Students who are ELLs: 3.2%

 Students receiving FARMs: 11.0%

Student Participants The students participating in this action

research project are 7th graders at Elkridge Landing Middle School

Students are participating through general education life science class

3 of the 5 classes are inclusion classes Students in all sections will benefit

from integration of positive cooperative learning strategies

Rationale for Study Middle school is a crucial time for the

development of peer interaction skills Success in science class requires

effective, collaborative group work in laboratory and classwork activities

Students who successfully work well in groups will be able to gain a stronger understanding of the content material presented in class and labs

Rationale for Study Prior to the intervention students were

permitted to work with a partner of their choosing during classwork and labs. They were also free to work by themselves.

As a result, the reviewer has noted a rise in off task behaviors (disruptive, socializing, not following directions) during group activities.

Classwork and laboratory grades have not meet expectations.

This Study Students ability to write meaningful

constructed responses about content area does not meet grade level standards.

Positive cooperative grouping experiences may improve the quality of written work produced in classwork and labs.

Needs Assessment Cooperative grouping has been shown to be

effective for many types of students. Effective grouping strategies help students develop social skills as well as gain a stronger understanding of content knowledge.

All classes consist of learners who are below grade level, on level, and a few students who are above level.

Cooperative grouping can benefit all groups of students, especially our high percentage of students with special needs.

School Improvement GoalsThe School Improvement Plan States that All

Students will perform on or above grade level in all content areas. This action research initiative will encourage students to improve their science content knowledge.

This Action Research program will help prepare students for the MSA in science. It will also help raise the AYP scores for all students, particularly those of students receiving special education services.

Hypothesis How will the implementation of cooperative

grouping strategies improve students’ ability to write more meaningful expressions of content knowledge?

I Hypothesize that cooperative learning activities will improve all content classwork activities. However, I expect the greatest impact will be in laboratory reports and classwork

Cooperative group should have the strongest positive impact on students with special needs and lower achieving students

Demographics There are 5 periods

(A,B,C,D,E) Periods B,C, and E

are inclusion classes co-taught with a special educator

Total Number of Students= 104

Yes19

16%

No85

84%

Students receiving special education

services

Demographics

Asian9%

Black/African-American

23%

His-panic10%

White54%

Middle Eastern5%

Race

5747

GenderMale Female

Overall DemographicsFemale 47Male 57Student with Special Needs 19Student without Special Needs 85Students who received an A (1Q) 10Students who received a D/E (1Q) 35

Baseline Data Measurements

Student progress will be assessed through:› Graded Classwork Activities› Graded Laboratory Reports› Constructed Responses on quizzes and

tests

Baseline Data: Overall Averages Classwork: 75.25 Labs: 69.19 Quizzes: 84.61

Baseline Data: Averages of Specific Assignments

Type of Assignment Assignment Name Overall AverageClasswork Observing Activity 70.66667Classwork Inferring Activity 79.84127Lab Measuring Lab 63.68254Lab Classifying Lab 69.87013Lab Duck Lab 74.03175Quiz Safety Quiz 84.60952

Averages by ClassAssignment Name

A B* C* D E*

CW Observing Activity 74.47917 60.91667 70.35088 79.30556 68.07692

CW Inferring Activity 89.16667 77.33333 77.01754 80.13889 77.82051

Lab Measuring Lab 63.54167 56.91667 68.94737 66.94444 62.11538

Lab Classifying Lab 73.86364 71.06061 63.79585 71.71717 69.23077

Lab Duck Lab 67.5 72.33333 75.08772 80.27778 72.82051Quiz Safety Quiz 85.25 83.2 87.36842 87 81.07692

*Inclusion Class (Co-taught with special educator)

Class A: DemographicsFemale 9Male 7Student with Special Needs 0Student without Special Needs 16Students who received an A (1Q) 2Students who received a D/E (1Q) 2

Class A: Baseline DataClasswork

Labs Quizzes

81.82 68.30 85.25

CW Lab QuizFemale 81.02 71.41 90.66Male 77.33 64.30 78.29

CW Lab QuizA 89.17 86.46 96D/E 57.33 46.94 90

OVERALL

Disaggregation by Gender

Disaggregation by Grade Receive on First Quarter Report Card

Class B: DemographicsFemale 8Male 12Student with Special Needs 5Student without Special Needs 15Students who received an A (1Q) 2Students who received a D/E (1Q) 5

Class B: Baseline DataClasswork

Labs Quizzes

69.13 66.77 83.20CW Lab Quiz

Female 77.92 82.46 84Male 63.26 56.30 81.67

CW Lab QuizA 85.83 89.90 90D/E 61.17 36.32 77.6

OVERALL

Disaggregation by Gender

Disaggregation by Grade Receive on First Quarter Report Card

CW Lab QuizSWOSN

74.83 67.33 85.07

SSN 52 65.07 77.60

Disaggregation by Students with Special Needs

Support for InterventionAcademic Support: Research based

interventions

McCracken, P. (2005). Cooperative Learning as a Classroom Management Strategy. Momentum, 36(4), 10-12.

Cooperative learning encourages students to emphasize their best rather than the best. Working together in groups helps provide active engagement and peer support while promoting achievement, critical thinking and creativity. Cooperative learning is crucial for developing positive peer communication skills. This can help improve students’ relationships and reduce conflict. To be effective, students should be placed in heterogeneous groups with equal opportunities to participate and individual accountability to the group. Rules and expectations should be clearly established.

Parr, R. (2007). Improving science instruction through effective group interactions. Science Scope, 31(1), 21-23.

Cooperative grouping can be successful by establishing functional student groups. Students will remain with groups for 6-9 weeks before being placed with a new group of peers. Expectations should be established (everyone participates, considerate behavior, etc.) and they should be revisited regularly. Allowing students the responsibility to assign roles within their group will give them greater “buy into the process.” The teacher should regularly promote the ideas of collaborate, agree, and record. This gives students the opportunity to discuss, work to reach agreement, and produce a product of their work. The teacher should help model these processes. Students should reflect on the process of cooperative grouping

Wood, B. S. (2009). Learning science while constructing learning teams. Journal of College Science Teaching, 38(5), 28-32.

The author advocates incorporating cooperative grouping at all levels (including post secondary). In the author’s classroom, cooperative groups are established immediately upon entering the class for the first time. Groups are randomly assigned by a word on the back of the syllabus which introduces the content students will be learning in the class. For example, students who have words such as, Neuron, Spinal Cord, Brain, Nervous System, would have to find each other and determine that they are in a group together. Once the students have established groups, a cooperative learning activity immediately follows. This helps reinforce the bond among the group that will continue throughout the semester.

InterventionImplementation of Action Research Intervention

Description of Cooperative Learning Lesson Plan

Description of Intervention Students were placed into new seating

arrangements based on their future cooperative partner/group.

We are allowing 2 weeks to account for any changes that must be made.

Students will be introduced to the need for stronger group work.

Intervention I will present a 20 minute lesson on the effectiveness of

working in a group including the steps: Collaborate, Agree, Record

Students will be given the opportunity to establish expectations for group work as well as acceptable consequence for not meeting said expectations

We will model appropriate behaviors during group work Students will be aware of the specific goal of improving

their writing ability through peer work as well increasing their content knowledge understanding

Students will reflect each well about their progress as a group

We will review the group process throughout the intervention

Intervention The intervention will address students

with special needs as well as English Language Learners through working with groups of peers.

Students will participate in a lab activity in groups of 2-3 immediately following the initial lesson

Intervention A variety of grouping strategies will be

used for group activities throughout the 6 week intervention.

Student behavior during activities will be qualitatively assessed and student writing will be assessed regularly quantitatively.

Implementation Students will be given a 20 minute

lesson about the importance of cooperative grouping. During this time they will be given the opportunity to establish expectations for group work.

Each week, the class will take 5 minutes to reflect and debrief on group activities and offer suggestions for what worked well and what could have worked better.

DataPost Intervention Data Collection

Disaggregation of Data-Gender- Special Needs-Grade for First Quarter

Initial Lesson + Activity (Cell Lab)

Period A› Allowed to choose their own groups

Period B› Grouped randomly by content groups (had to find

members based on the part of the cell they belonged to) Period C

› Grouped by table configuration Period D

› Grouped by content groups Period E

› Groups chosen by teacher

Class Averages on Initial Activity

A B C D E0

102030405060708090

Pre AssessmentCell Lab

Data Collection throughout Intervention Data collected will include student writing

from quizzes, labs, and classworkAverages A B C D E

10/13

Cell Lab 82.90 77.06 70.35 73.09 64.15

10/20

Quiz 74.71 69.84 63.05 75.95 72.19

10/30

Egg Lab 73.64 76.75 83.10 82.26 81.0

11/4 Classwork 85.50 81.48 55.26 65.83 47.4311/13

Skeletal CW82.58929 71.42857 73.68421 82.7381 86.53846

11/17

Slides71.875 77 62.63158 82.08333 60

11/19

Bone Lab77.375 57.8 48 82.7381 43.15385

11/23

Skeletal Quiz 83.59375 78.33333 87.2807 78.81944 83.8141

Comparison of Scores (Before Intervention vs. After Intervention)

Classwork Labs QuizzesBefore 75.25 69.19 84.61After 71.59 67.35 76.60

Classwork Labs Quizzes 0

102030405060708090

Before After

Disaggregation by GenderClasswork Labs Quizzes

Before- Female 79.56 77.71 87.66After- Female 77.20 72.95 77.41Before- Male 71.77 62.30 82.14After-Male 67.05 62.82 75.94

Classwork Labs Quizzes 0

20406080

100

Before- Female After- Female Before- Male After-Male

Disaggregation by Students with Special Needs

Classw

ork

Labs

Quizzes

0

40

80Before- SWOSN After- SWOSN Before- SSN After-SSN

Classwork Labs QuizzesBefore- SWOSN 76.29 70.87 86.74After- SWOSN 73.93 68.78 78.22Before- SSN 70.57 61.62 74.95After-SSN 61.03 78.23 69.25

Lab Data

Student with Special Needs Student without IEP or 5040102030405060708090

61.670.9

78.268.8

Lab Average Pre Test Lab Average Post Test

Disaggregation by Grade on First Quarter Report Card

Classwork Labs QuizzesBefore- A 89.67 90.56 90.40After- A 93.57 89.05 89.33Difference +3.9* -1.51 -1.07Before- D/E 65.29 54.90 78.06After-D/E 53.57 55.56 69.01Difference -12.90 +.66* -9.05

Differences

Before- A

After- A 8788899091929394

Classwork

Classwork

Before D/E

After D/E54.454.654.8

5555.255.455.655.8

Labs

Labs

Class A: ComparisonClasswork

Labs Quizzes

81.82 68.30 85.2580.35 74.92 79.10

CW Lab QuizFemale 81.02 71.41 90.66Post 82.14 70.54 72.76Male 77.33 64.30 78.29Post 78.06 75.04 87.27

CW Lab QuizA 89.17 86.46 96post 96.43 79.78 95.21D/E 57.33 46.94 90Post 69.05 56.13 77

OVERALL

Disaggregation by Gender

Disaggregation by Grade Receive on First Quarter Report Card

Period A: Before and After

Classwork

Labs Quizzes 0102030405060708090

Before/ After

Series1 Series2 CW Lab Quiz 0

102030405060708090

100

Before- FAfter- FBefore-MAfter-M

Period A: Before and After

CW Lab Quiz 0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Before AAfter ABefore D/EAfter D/E

Female students’ classwork grades improved

Male students improved in labs and quizzes

Classwork grades improved for A students as well as D or E students

Lab grades improved for D/E students

Class B: ComparisonsClasswork

Labs Quizzes

69.13 66.77 83.2071.43 67.18 74.24

CW Lab QuizFemale 77.92 82.46 84Post- F 86.01 73.83 73.89Male 63.26 56.30 81.67Post-M 64.68 62.94 74.47

CW Lab QuizA 85.83 89.90 90post-A 89.29 96 91.33D/E 61.17 36.32 77.6Post D/E 56.90 53.84 60.18

OVERALL

Disaggregation by GenderDisaggregation by Grade Receive on First Quarter Report Card CW Lab Quiz

SWOSN

74.83 67.33 85.07

Post 78.11 66.74 74.59SSN 52 65.07 77.60Post 60 68.58 73.18

Disaggregation by Students with Special Needs

Period B: Before/After

Classw

ork

Labs

Quizzes

0

102030405060708090

Series1Series2

CW Lab Quiz 0

102030405060708090

100

Female Post- F Male Post-M

Period B: Before/After

CW Lab Quiz 0

102030405060708090

SWOSN Post SSN Post

CW Lab Quiz 0

20

40

60

80

100

120

A post-A D/E Post D/E

Qualitative Observations Student’s responded well to the initial

lesson and follow up exercises Students provided excellent expectations

for themselves and their group members. They also express thoughtful reflections of cooperative grouping.

After the initial lesson, student on-task behavior increased during group activities.

Students were more willing to work with students they didn’t work with before

ConclusionsConclusions about Action Research Project

Limitations of Study

Next Steps

Conclusions Cooperative Learning Strategies did not

have a significant overall impact on written responses on lab reports, classwork, or quizzes

Although grades were not greatly impacted, I believe this intervention did have an impact on some student’s writing ability.

Classroom behavior improved throughout the intervention

Conclusions I saw great improvements after the initial lesson The intervention appeared have the greatest

impact on lab reports Students with special needs benefited the most

from this intervention Other Quantitative Improvement varied by

class. Some classes saw Classwork or Lab improvements.

Male Students and Lower Achieving students also saw some grade improvements on classwork

Limitations of Study The content of the course got

substantially more difficult after the implementation of the intervention

The level of difficulty of assignments increased

There was a high rate of absences during the intervention

Many students did not turn in post test assignments (impacted data)

Next Steps! Further research could focus on improving one

particular aspect of content writing or one specific classroom exercise.

Further research could present a more structured and uniform assignment data collection. My assessments were very different in style and content.

Further research could investigate the impact of more explicit skill training on cooperative learning and content writing

I would explore different methods of cooperative grouping in the science classroom.