Cooperative Learning and Literacy Instruction in Middle Level Education

  • Robert J. Stevens
Part of the Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning book series (CULS, volume 8)

The goal of the middle school structure is to create a learning environment that matches the developmental abilities and needs of adolescents. This research attempts to operationalize that goal by integrating reading and English classes in large urban middle schools. In the Student Team Reading and Writing (STRW) program instruction was reconfigured to actively engage students in learning. The program used cooperative learning processes to take advantage of the cognitive, social, and motivational benefits of students working together on academic content. Teachers provided explicit instruction and guided students’ interactions during cooperative learning. After a year-long implementation, the research found students in STRW performing significantly higher on reading comprehension, reading vocabulary, and language expression achievement. The author discusses the implications of this research for providing integrated and engaging instruction in middle school.


Middle School Reading Comprehension Cooperative Learning Middle Level Literacy Instruction 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anderson, R. C., Hiebert, E. H., Scott, J. A., & Wilkinson, I. (1985). Becoming a nation of readers. Washington, DC: National Institute of Education.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, T., & Armbruster, B. (1984). Studying. In P.D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 657–680). New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  3. Beck, I., McKeown, M., McCaslin, E., & Burkes, A. (1979). Instructional dimensions that may affect reading comprehension: Examples from two commercial reading programs (Technical Report No. 1979/20). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh, Learning Research and Development Center.Google Scholar
  4. Biancarosa, G., & Snow, C. E. (2004). Reading nest–A vision for action and research in middle and high school literacy: A report from the Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.Google Scholar
  5. Brett, A., Rothlein, L., & Hurley, M. (1996). Vocabulary acquisition from listening to stories and explanations of target words. Elementary School Journal, 96, 415–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bridge, C., & Hiebert, E. (1985). A comparison of classroom writing practices, teachers’ perceptions of their writing instruction, and textbook recommendations on writing practices. Elementary School Journal, 86, 155–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. DiCintio, M. J., & Stevens, R. J. (1997). Student motivation and cognitive complexity of mathematics instruction in six middle grades classrooms. Research in Middle Level Education Quarterly, 20, 27–42.Google Scholar
  8. Doctorow, M., Wittrock, M., & Marks, C. (1978). Generative processes in reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 109–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Eccles, J. S., & Midgley, C. (1989). Stage-environment fit: Developmentally appropriate classrooms for young adolescents. In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education, Vol. 3: Goals and cognitions (pp. 139–186). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  10. Eldredge, J. L. (1990). Increasing the performance of poor readers in the third grade with a group-assisted strategy. Journal of Educational Research, 84, 69–77.Google Scholar
  11. Epstein, J. L., & Mac Iver, D. J. (1992). Education in the middles grades: National practices and trends. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.Google Scholar
  12. Faulkner, H. J., & Levy, B. A. (1999). Fluent and nonfluent forms of transfer in reading: Words and their message. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 6, 111–116.Google Scholar
  13. Feldlaufer, H., Midgley, C., & Eccles, J. S. (1988). Student, teacher, and observer perceptions of the classroom environment before and after the transition to junior high school. Journal of Early Adolescence, 8, 133–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fitzgerald, J., & Spiegel, D. (1983). Enhancing children’s reading comprehension through instruction in narrative structures. Journal of Reading Behavior, 14, 1–18.Google Scholar
  15. Flowers, L., & Hayes, J. (1980). The dynamics of composing: Making plans and juggling constraints. In L. Gregg & E. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 31–50). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  16. Graham, S., Harris, K., Mason, L. (2005). Improving the writing performance, knowledge, and self-efficacy of struggling young writers: The effects of self-regulated strategy development. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 207–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Graves, D. (1978). Balance the basics: Let them write. New York: Ford Foundation.Google Scholar
  18. Gullickson, A. R. (1985). Student evaluation techniques and their relationship to grade and curriculum. Journal of Educational Research, 79, 96–100.Google Scholar
  19. Guthrie, J., & Davis, M. (2003). Motivating struggling readers in middle school through an engagement model of classroom practice. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 19, 59–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Irvin, J. L. (1990). Reading and the middle school student: Strategies to enhance literacy. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  21. Irvin, J. L., & Connors, N. A. (1989). Reading instruction in middle level schools: Results from a US survey. Journal of Reading, 32, 306–311.Google Scholar
  22. Ivey, G., & Broaddus, K. (2001). Just plain reading: A survey of what makes students want to read in middle school classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 350–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jenkins, J. R., Heliotis, J., Stein, M. L., & Haynes, M. (1987). Improving reading comprehension by using paragraph restatements. Exceptional Children, 54, 54–59.Google Scholar
  24. Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction Books.Google Scholar
  25. Maehr, M. L., & Anderman, E. M. (1993). Reinventing the middle schools for early adolescents: Emphasizing task goals. Elementary School Journal, 93, 593–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Maehr, M. L., & Pintrich, P. R. (Eds.) (1991). Advances in motivation and achievement, Vol. 7. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  27. Medo, M. A., & Ryder, R. J. (1993). The effects of vocabulary instruction on readers’ ability to make causal connections. Reading Research and Instruction, 33, 119–134.Google Scholar
  28. Meece, J. L., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Hoyle, R. H. (1988). Students’ goal orientation and cognitive engagement in classroom activities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 514–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Midgley, C., & Feldlaufer, H. (1987). Students and teachers’ decision-making fit before and after the transition to junior high school. Journal of Early Adolescence, 7, 225–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.Google Scholar
  31. Nichols, J. D. (1994). Cooperative learning and student motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 167–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nolen, S. (1988). Reasons for studying: Motivational orientation and study strategies. Cognition and Instruction, 5, 269–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Oldfather, P. (1995). Commentary: What’s needed to maintain and extend motivation for literacy in the middle grades. Journal of Reading, 38, 420–423.Google Scholar
  34. Osborn, J. (1984). The purposes, uses, and contents of workbooks and guidelines for publishers. In R. Anderson, J. Osborn, & R. Tierney (Eds.), Learning to read in American schools (pp. 45–112). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  35. Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Paris, S., Wasik, B., & Turner, J. (1991). The development of strategic readers. In R. Barr, M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 609–640). New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  37. Parker, J. G., & Asher, S. R. (1987). Peer relations and later personal adjustment: Are low-accepted children at risk? Psychological Bulletin, 102, 357–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (1996). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  39. Pressley, M. (2000). What should comprehension instruction be instruction of? In M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research. (Vol. 3, pp. 546–561). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  40. Rosenshine, B. V., & Stevens, R. J. (1986). Teaching functions. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 376–391). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  41. Seidman, E., Allen, L., Aber, J. L., Mitchell, C., & Feinman, J. (1994). The impact of school transition in early adolescence on the self-system and perceived social context of poor urban youth. Child Development, 65, 507–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Slavin, R. (1983). Cooperative learning. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  43. Slavin, R. (1990). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  44. Steinberg, L. (1993). Adolescence. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  45. Stevens, R. J. (2003). Student team reading and writing: A cooperative learning approach to middle school literacy instruction. Educational Research and Evaluation, 9, 137–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Stevens, R. J., & Pipich, S. B. (2002). Silent or oral reading: Where is time best spent? Pennsylvania Education Leadership, 21, 34–40.Google Scholar
  47. 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, 8–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Strickland, D., Bodino, A., Buchan, K., Jones, K., Nelson, A., Rosen, M. (2001) Teaching writing in a time of reform. Elementary School Journal, 101, 385–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Thurlow, R., & van den Broek, P. (1997). Automaticity and inference generation. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 13, 165–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tomeson, M., & Aarnoutse, C. (1998). Effects of an instructional programme for deriving word meanings. Educational Studies, 24, 115–125.Google Scholar
  51. Webb, N. (1985). Student interaction and learning in small groups. In R. Slavin et al. (Eds.), Learning to cooperate, cooperating to learn (pp. 147–172). New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  52. Weinstein, C. (1982). Training students to use elaboration learning strategies. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 7, 301–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wigfield, A. (2004). Motivation for reading during early adolescent and adolescent years. In D. Stickland, & D. Alvermann (Eds.), Bridging the literacy achievement gap, grades 4–12. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  54. Wittrock, M. C. (1986). Students’ thought processes. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 297–314). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert J. Stevens
    • 1
  1. 1.Pennsylvania State UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations