1

Literature Review

Student motivation and focus can be difficult to maintain in elementary school

classrooms. Yet, it is imperative to success in learning any subject. Thus, teachers are always

looking for ways to increase student motivation, focus, and achievement. In general, cooperative

learning (CL) can and usually does create positive student outcomes in many domains. This

study will explore how using Kagan structures effects engagement and focus during literacy

learning in a 2nd grade classroom. We will determine if the Kagan structures had a positive

influence on motivation. Kagan structures are a part of the larger picture of cooperative learning,

so this literature review will focus on both cooperative learning and Kagan structures

specifically.

Cooperative Learning

Cooperative learning is a method in which small groups are used to promote students

working together to help each other learn, in turn maximizing learning among the class (Slavin,

2015; Shahamat & Mede, 2016). At its essence, cooperative learning uses student differences as

a source of learning. Cooperative learning is based on the following elements: positive

interdependence, individual accountability, face-to-face promotive interaction, appropriate use of

collaborative skills, and group processing (Shahamat & Mede, 2016; Dotson, 2001). These

elements are important for cooperative learning to yield positive results.

Positive interdependence means teammates are required to rely on each other to achieve

the goal that is set (Shahamat & Mede, 2016). Thus, if one member fails to do their part, the

whole group suffers a consequence. Individual accountability requires each student to be held

accountable for their portion of the work or learning. While some group work can be split up

and done individually, cooperative learning requires some group work to be done
 2

collaboratively. This induces face-to-face promotive interaction as group members provide each

other with feedback, encouragement, teaching, and challenging reasoning. For collaborative

skills to be used appropriately, students are encouraged and guided to develop and exercise

communication, decision-making, trust building, leadership, and conflict management skills.

Finally, groups need to process their learning together. Group members set group goals,

regularly asses their strengths and weaknesses as a team and determine changes they will make

to perform more effectively (Shahamat & Mede, 2016).

These elements provide the grounds that make cooperative learning successful in the

classroom. Before continuing, it is important to realize cooperative grouping and learning does

not take the place of “normal” instruction. This method of grouping should supplement the

lessons and curriculum delivered by the teacher (Gerdes, 2001). To succeed when using

cooperative learning techniques in the classroom, it must be used in a well-planned, intentional

way as outlined above, but the teacher must also be committed to the philosophy. In fact, a study

performed in 1990, discovered teacher buy-in is an essential factor for success (Dotson, 2001).

Cooperative learning cannot be thought of as a teaching gimmick, it must be embraced by the

teacher (Dotson, 2001).

Positive Effects of Cooperative Learning

Cooperative learning is an essential tool that can help meet the challenges of the 21st

century, because it encourages interpersonal relationships, democratization, global

interdependency, and entrepreneurship (Gisbert & Seuba, 2017). Gisbert and Seuba (2017) found

students who experienced cooperative learning perceived themselves to be more self-efficient

and have more skills to accomplish success compared to students who did not experience

cooperative learning. Students in these classrooms also tend to exhibit higher academic
 3

achievement, greater persistence to graduate, a deeper understanding of what they learned, better

critical thinking skills and high-level reasoning, lower levels of anxiety and stress, greater time

spent staying on task, greater intrinsic motivation to learn and achieve, more positive and

supportive relationships with peers, greater ability to view situations from an outside perspective,

and more positive attitudes towards subject areas (Shahamat & Mede, 2016). Further, in 67

studies of cooperative learning, 61% found significantly greater achievement in cooperatively

taught groups verses traditionally taught control groups (Dotson, 2001). This increase in

achievement was found across all major subjects, grade levels, school demographics, and

achievement levels (Dotson, 2001).

When traditional teaching methods are used, race relations usually follow a pattern. Self-

segregation based on race was almost non-existent upon entry into school, by 3rd grade there

exists a slight segregation and by 6th students were highly likely to choose friends of the same

race (Brandt, 1989). However, an experiment from 1980 was the first to find there was a

significant increase in racial relations among students who were engaging in cooperative learning

(Brandt, 1989). Several following studies since have also confirmed this notion. Within

classrooms where cooperative learning was used, students were much more likely to choose their

friends based on their teammates, rather than by race. Since, the teams were integrated, these

classrooms were able to essentially eliminate self-segregation among students (Brandt, 1989)

Cooperative learning can be especially important for English as a Second Language

learners and at-risk students. Shahamat and Mede (2016), discovered collaborative learning has

positive influences on both learning and teaching English in 5th grade classrooms. Since CL

naturally reduces the teacher’s talking time and increases the student’s talking time, it increases

the practice students get with language and other subject matter. Thus, students who are learning
 4

to speak and understand English have more opportunities to use what they are learning. CL also

enhances social interaction among peers, which is important to meet the needs of at-risk students

(Dotson, 2001). Dotson (2001) found that all students with special needs in the treatment group

(CL group) were more successful in the class than those in the control group. This all indicates

that cooperative learning is an effective tool to use to create a more inclusive classroom setting

that promotes student achievement.

Kagan Structures

Kagan structures are one of many types of cooperative learning methods. Other

perspectives and methods include the motivational perspective, social cohesion perspective,

cognitive perspectives, Learning Together and Alone method, Constructive Controversy method,

Teams-Games-Tournaments method, Group Investigation, Jigsaw Procedure, Student Teams

Achievement Divisions, Team Accelerated Instruction, and Cooperative Integrated Reading and

Composition (Slavin, 2015; Dotson, 2001). These are included for reference, but for the

purposes of this study, only Kagan’s Cooperative Learning Structures will be discussed in depth.

Dr. Spencer Kagan began developing what is now known as Kagan Structures after doing

years of research on the social motives and social interaction among children. His research

uncovered that the most powerful determinant of the cooperativeness of children is the situations

in which they are placed in (Kagan, 2003). Kagan structures are easy to learn and easy to

implement within any curriculum (Kagan & High, 2002). These structures involve breaking a

class into smaller groups or pairs allowing all students to participate in learning. Kagan

structures were not made to better deliver specific content, they are ways to shape student

interaction across any content (Kagan, 2003).

 5

Kagan structures are carefully planned to implement 4 basic principles of cooperative

learning, similar to the principles discussed earlier (Kagan & High, 2002). These are positive

interdependence, individual accountability, equal participation, and simultaneous interaction.

Positive interdependence is met when students are placed on the same side. Thus, students

cannot succeed alone, they must depend on one another. Individual accountability is met when

all students are required to perform on their own in front of at least one other person. This

means, no one has the option to opt out or not participate in the group work. Kagan structures

are carefully designed so that equitable participation is required in order to succeed. Finally,

simultaneous interaction is met when many of the students are actively participating in the

learning at any given time (Kagan & High, 2002). In the traditional, whole-class question-

answer model only one student, the student who is called on, gets the chance to engage in the

learning process. This means, if you have a class of 20 students only 5% of the class is engaging

in the learning at any given time. However, when Kagan structures are implemented students are

broken into groups of 2-3 students and all are required to participate. This increases the rate to

33-50% of the class participating at any given moment, a drastic increase.

There are over 150 Kagan structures to meet the various needs of different lessons and

students (Kagan & High, 2002). The ones observed in this study were Timed Pair Share,

RallyRobin, and Boss/Secretary. In the Timed Pair Share, students are paired up and one student

is given a specific amount of time to answer the question while the other listens, then they switch

(Kagan & High, 2002). In RallyRobin, students are in pairs and take turns back and forth

answering the question (Kagan, 2003). This structure works best for a question with multiple

answers, such as what were some of the characteristics of a character in the book?

Boss/Secretary, again, requires students to be in pairs. One student is the boss and dictates to the
 6

other, the other student is the secretary and records the answer, then they switch roles (Kagan &

High, 2002).

There is a vast amount of research conducted on the importance of cooperative learning,

but few studies done on Kagan structures and their effects on student motivation, engagement

and achievement. Based on the literature review and the group of children in this study, this

action research study will address how different Kagan structures relate to student engagement

and focus in a 2nd grade classroom. Therefore, the research question for this study is:

1. How does the use of Kagan structures effect student engagement and focus in literacy?
 7

References

Brandt, R. (1989). On cooperative learning: A conversation with Spencer Kagan. Educational

Leadership 47(4), 8-11. Retrieved from:

https://illiad.library.colostate.edu/illiad/illiad.dll?Action=10&Form=75&Value=925021

Dotson, J.M. (2001, Winter). Cooperative learning structures can increase student achievement.

Kagan Online Magazine. Retrieved from www.kaganonline.com

Gerdes, D.M. (2001). Effective grouping strategies for teaching reading in the primary grades.

Retrieved from ERIC Dissertations & Theses.

Gisbert, D.D., Seuba, M.C., & Coll, M.F. (2017). Enhancing expectations of cooperative

learning use through initial teacher training. International Journal of Educational

Psychology 6(3), 278-300. doi: 10.17583/ijep.2017.2504

Kagan, S. (2003, Spring). A brief history of Kagan structures. Kagan Online Magazine.

Retrieved from www.kaganonline.com

Kagan, S. & High, J. (2002). Kagan structures for English language learners. ESL Magazine

5(4), 10-12. Retrieved from:

https://illiad.library.colostate.edu/illiad/illiad.dll?Action=10&Form=75&Value=925019

Shahamat, A. & Mede, E. (2016). Integration of collaborative learning in grade K-5 EFL

classrooms. International Journal of Primary, Elementary, and Early Years Education

44(6), 682-697. doi: 10.1080/03004279.2014.1002516

Slavin, R.E. (2015). Cooperative learning in elementary schools. International Journal of

Primary, Elementary, and Early Years Education 43(1), 5-14. doi:

10.1080/03004279.2015.963370