The Impact of Cooperative Grouping Exercises on Content Writing of 7 th Grade Life Science Students Action Research Presentation Prepared by Alexandra Sloane
Feb 23, 2016
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.