maheady1991

Feature Article
Heads Together: A Peer-Mediated Option
for Improving the Academic Achievement of
Heterogeneous Learning Groups
Larry Maheady, Barbara Mallette, Gregory F. Harper, and Katherine Sacca
The present study compared the effects of two teacher
questioning
strategies, Heads Together and Whole
Group,
on elementary
school students' on-task rates and their
performance
on daily social studies quizzes. Twenty 3rd
graders in a racially and ethnically integrated
classroom
were exposed to both treatments
under an
alternating
treatment design. Data indicated that students
always
performed
better under Heads Together conditions.
These
performance
differences
ranged from 2 to 30
percentage
points on daily quizzes and averaged about 16 percentage points over the course of the investigation.
Moreover,
the percentage
of pupils on task was always higher
when
the cooperative
learning intervention was in effect. Consumer satisfaction findings suggest that the students
themselves preferred Heads Together over the more
traditional teaching method. Implications
for
instructional
practice are
discussed.
T
HE 1 9 9 0 S P O S E unique instructional challenges for
all educators. Rapidly c h a n g i n g d e m o g r a p h i c s , e x hortations for m o r e integrated programming, and an exponential increase in the k n o w l e d g e base to b e mastered
have placed teachers in the unenviable position o f
having to d o m o r e with less and ultimately calling it
"better." Meeting such challenges will require legislative,
administrative, and, most importantly, instructional technologies that will allow us to educate students with wideranging abilities in the regular c l a s s r o o m . T h e characteristics o f this instructional t e c h n o l o g y are n o t entirely
clear, n o r are the p r o c e d u r e s , m o d e l s , and/or delivery
systems for carrying out increased integration fully
d e v e l o p e d and validated ( G r e e n w o o d , Maheady, &
Carta, in press). Nonetheless, several m e t h o d s have b e e n
e m p l o y e d recently to a c c o m m o d a t e h e t e r o g e n e o u s
groups o f students, including those with mild disabilities,
in general education settings. S u c h m e t h o d s m a y b e
categorized into at least four general domains: (a) teacherdirected strategies (e.g., direct instruction, mastery learning, precision teaching), (b) peer-mediated
interventions
(e.g., c o o p e r a t i v e learning, reciprocal teaching, p e e r
tutoring), (c) student-managed
m e t h o d s (e.g., learning
strategy curriculum, self-instructional and self-managem e n t systems, Personalized S y s t e m o f Instruction), and
(d) computer-assisted
instruction (e.g., interactive videodisc, a c a d e m i c grading and m o n i t o r i n g systems).
Here, w e will d e s c r i b e a c l a s s r o o m intervention that
c o m b i n e s e l e m e n t s o f teacher-directed and peer-mediated instruction. Heads T o g e t h e r (Kagan, 1 9 8 9 - 9 0 ) is a
teacher questioning strategy designed t o actively engage
all students during adult-led instruction and discussion.
Since early G r e e k times, t e a c h e r q u e s t i o n i n g has b e e n
c o n s i d e r e d very important to student learning. T h e e x act role that q u e s t i o n i n g plays in learning, h o w e v e r ,
remains unclear (Golden, Gersten, & W o o d w a r d , 1990).
It has b e e n suggested, for e x a m p l e , that frequent teacher
questioning (a) activates pupils' b a c k g r o u n d knowledge,
(b) p r o m o t e s interest in lessons, (c) challenges students
intellectually with higher order queries, and (d) improves
student c o m p r e h e n s i o n o f lecture a n d discussion material (see, for e x a m p l e , Anderson, Evertson, & B r o p h y ,
1 9 7 9 ; Gersten, Carnine, & Williams, 1 9 8 1 ; W o o l f o l k ,
1989). If this w e r e true, then the ideal questioning format
w o u l d b e o n e that actively involves all students simultaneously. In that w a y , e v e r y o n e w o u l d have an equal
Downloaded from rse.sagepub.com at University of Manitoba Libraries on February 17, 2015
opportunity to b e involved and r e s p o n d to teacherdirected queries. Unfortunately, this is not possible with
"traditional" c l a s s r o o m instruction. B r o p h y and Everts o n ( 1 9 7 6 ) n o t e d , for e x a m p l e , that the m o s t c o m m o n
teacher questioning strategy involves directing questions
to the entire class and then calling o n volunteers to
respond. Typically, this tactic results in m o r e frequent
responding from high achieving students and less active
i n v o l v e m e n t from their l o w achieving peers. T h e issue
b e c o m e s , therefore, h o w t o turn this situation around,
that is, h o w to increase active participation among lower
performing pupils w h i l e maintaining the i n v o l v e m e n t
o f higher achieving students. Heads T o g e t h e r offers o n e
alternative.
Heads T o g e t h e r (HT) w o r k s in the following way.
First, students are placed into small (four-member),
h e t e r o g e n e o u s learning teams consisting o f o n e high
achieving, t w o average achieving, and o n e l o w achieving pupil(s). Students n u m b e r themselves 1 t o 4 and sit
together during teacher-directed lessons. After the teacher
directs a question to the entire class, pupils are instructed
t o "put their heads together, c o m e up with their best
answer, and make sure that e v e r y o n e o n the team k n o w s
the answer." T h e teacher then asks, " H o w many Number
( 1 , 2 , 3, o r 4 ) k n o w the a n s w e r ? " After o n e rand o m l y s e l e c t e d student responds, the t e a c h e r c a n ask,
"How many other Number
agree with that
a n s w e r ? " or, " C a n any N u m b e r
expand upon
the a n s w e r ? " T e a c h e r s then recognize and/or reward all
students w h o provide o r agree with c o r r e c t answers, as
well as t h o s e w h o offer meaningful e x p a n s i o n s . S i n c e
students are given time to discuss possible answers prior
to responding, it is m o r e likely that e v e r y o n e , including
l o w achievers, will k n o w the c o r r e c t responses. Moreover, since teams c a n n o t predict w h i c h group m e m b e r
will b e called u p o n to respond, t h e y are m o r e likely t o
ensure that e v e r y o n e k n o w s the a n s w e r (for a m o r e
c o m p l e t e discussion, see Kagan, 1 9 8 9 - 9 0 ) .
T o our knowledge, n o experimental studies have b e e n
c o n d u c t e d o n Heads T o g e t h e r . T h e purpose o f this
study was t o e x a m i n e empirically what effects Heads
T o g e t h e r has o n the a c a d e m i c p e r f o r m a n c e o f e l e m e n tary-age students. M o r e specifically, w e c o m p a r e d the
effects o f Heads Together (HT) and a W h o l e G r o u p ( W G )
questioning strategy o n third graders' (a) daily social
studies quiz p e r f o r m a n c e and (b) on-task rates. In addition, w e examined h o w these t w o interventions affected
a teacher's questioning b e h a v i o r and pupils' responses
during class sessions.
Method
Subjects and Setting
T w e n t y students ( 1 0 males and 1 0 females) w h o w e r e
e n r o l l e d in a general third-grade c l a s s r o o m in a racially
and ethnically integrated s c h o o l s y s t e m participated in
this study. T h e student population consisted o f 11 ( 5 5 % )
Caucasian, 6 ( 3 0 % ) Hispanic, and 3 ( 1 5 % ) African American children from low i n c o m e to middle i n c o m e h o m e s .
A p p r o x i m a t e l y 4 0 % o f the target students w e r e receiving supplementary services in e i t h e r the district's remedial o r special e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m s (i.e., s e v e n Chapter
1 and o n e special education). Six students had previously
b e e n retained within grade level.
T h e m e a n c h r o n o l o g i c a l age o f the participants was
1 1 1 . 3 4 m o n t h s (range = 1 0 3 t o 1 2 3 m o s . ) . T h e i r m o s t
recent achievement test, the Stanford Achievement Test,
administered in May 1 9 8 9 , revealed the following grade
equivalent s c o r e s : Total Reading X = 3 . 2 3 (range: 1.7 t o
6.6); Total Listening X = 2A7 (range: 1.0 t o 4 . 6 ) ; and
Total Environment
X = 2 . 7 5 (range: K to 9.0). T w o facets
o f these data are important. First, s i n c e almost o n e third
o f the students had b e e n retained at least o n c e in grade
level, a c h i e v e m e n t results (particularly reading) d o n o t
appear t o b e extraordinarily l o w in c o m p a r i s o n to grade
level e x p e c t a t i o n s . C o m p a r i s o n s t o c h r o n o l o g i c a l age,
h o w e v e r , d o suggest b e l o w average a c h i e v e m e n t levels.
S e c o n d , it is significant t o n o t e t h e e x t r e m e variability
in student performance, particularly o n the Environment
subtest, a m e a s u r e o f students' understanding o f social
studies information. S u c h h e t e r o g e n e i t y offers a unique
instructional challenge for a w h o l e class intervention
such as Heads T o g e t h e r .
T h e c l a s s r o o m t e a c h e r was a white female with 15
years o f t e a c h i n g e x p e r i e n c e . S h e had n o formal training in cooperative learning but in the past had used other
peer-mediated instructional procedures. A student teacher
(a 32-year-old male) also participated during the final
phase o f t h e study. It is important t o n o t e that the classr o o m teacher considered this particular class to b e among
the most disruptive in h e r teaching career. T h e principal
had b e e n called in o n n u m e r o u s o c c a s i o n s t o reprimand
the g r o u p for their disruptive behavior.
Target Behaviors and Materials
T h e present investigation c o l l e c t e d b o t h p r o c e s s and
product data o n teacher and students' performance. Process data w e r e gathered using t h e Q u e s t i o n i n g Event
R e c o r d i n g F o r m , an e x p e r i m e n t e r - d e v e l o p e d , direct
o b s e r v a t i o n system. T h i s s y s t e m r e c o r d e d data o n four
facets o f t e a c h e r q u e s t i o n i n g a n d pupil r e s p o n d i n g b e havior. First, observers r e c o r d e d the n u m b e r o f teacherdirected, content-related q u e s t i o n s that o c c u r r e d during 3 0 - m i n u t e social studies lessons. Content-related
questions w e r e defined as b e i n g any statements and/or
Downloaded from rse.sagepub.com at University of Manitoba Libraries on February 17, 2015
queries directed toward the class that related directly to
the content being discussed. Procedural questions, such
as " W h o n e e d s a pencil, paper, b o o k , e t c . ? " o r " W h a t
d o y o u do i f you k n o w an a n s w e r ? " w e r e n o t recorded.
After e a c h q u e s t i o n was tallied, o b s e r v e r s also n o t e d (a)
t h e n u m b e r o f students w h o raised their h a n d s to respond* (b) the a c c u r a c y o r inaccuracy o f e a c h response,
a n d (c) the teacher's r e s p o n s e t o e a c h student's answer.
T h e teacher's responses w e r e c o d e d with a ( + ) if she
acknowledged, praised, and/or gave points for a c o r r e c t
answer; if the teacher ignored and/or reprimanded a student following a r e s p o n s e , o b s e r v e r s r e c o r d e d a ( - ) .
Finally, if the teacher called u p o n a n o t h e r student t o res p o n d to and/or e x p a n d u p o n a pupil's answer, t h e n
o b s e r v e r s m a r k e d t h e data form w i t h a (c).
After three p r e d e t e r m i n e d questions, o b s e r v e r s c o n ducted visual sweeps o f the classroom and r e c o r d e d the
n u m b e r o f students w h o w e r e o n task at that particular
time. On-task behaviors w e r e defined as b e i n g any instances o f student b e h a v i o r that are appropriate for
assigned activities. Appropriate behaviors include (a) eyes
directed toward the t e a c h e r while s h e is speaking, (b)
students reading and/or writing in response to a teacher
directive, (c) students discussing content-related material,
and (d) students raising hands to r e s p o n d t o questions.
Any pupils w h o w e r e off task (i.e., making noise, exhibiting inappropriate m o t o r m o v e m e n t s , and/or staring
away from the lesson focus) w e r e n o t c o u n t e d .
At the e n d o f e a c h o b s e r v a t i o n session, o b s e r v e r s
c o m p l e t e d procedural
implementation
checklists.
Procedural checklists w e r e d e v e l o p e d to measure the accuracy with which the independent variables (i.e., Heads
Together a n d W h o l e Group) w e r e implemented. W h o l e
G r o u p fidelity checklists listed n i n e steps i n v o l v e d in
carrying out this instructional p r o c e d u r e (e.g., teacher
asks content-related questions, students raise hands to
respond, and t e a c h e r calls o n individual student to
answer questions). Observers c h e c k e d each step as either
present or absent during the t e a c h i n g session. Fidelity
or a c c u r a c y o f i m p l e m e n t a t i o n was then calculated b y
dividing the n u m b e r o f steps present b y t h e n u m b e r
present and absent, and then multiplying b y 1 0 0 . T h e
Heads T o g e t h e r checklist c o n s i s t e d o f 18 procedural
steps that w e r e s c o r e d in an identical m a n n e r .
Dependent Variable
T h e primary d e p e n d e n t variable in this investigation
was the percentage c o r r e c t o n 10-item quizzes administered at t h e e n d o f e a c h social studies lesson. T h e
quizzes w e r e d e v e l o p e d collaboratively b y the first
author and classroom t e a c h e r using a three-step process.
First, the t e a c h e r highlighted critical information from
the existing social studies text, Regions and Social
Needs
in Communities,
that w o u l d b e c o v e r e d during e a c h
class session. T h e e x p e r i m e n t e r then generated sets o f
10 factual k n o w l e d g e questions that assessed students'
understanding o f this c o n t e n t . Q u e s t i o n s typically required fill-in-the-blank and short answer, written res p o n s e s from students. T h e t e a c h e r then r e v i e w e d the
lists o f questions, making additions, deletions, and modi-
fications w h e r e v e r necessary. T o p i c s c o v e r e d o v e r the
course o f the study included (a) geographic and historical
information a b o u t W a s h i n g t o n , D C , (b) p e o p l e and
mountains o f the w o r l d (i.e., t h e Rockies, Alps, and
Himalayas), and (c) p e o p l e , c u s t o m s , a n d g e o g r a p h y o f
Puerto Rico. S i x t e e n quizzes w e r e d e v e l o p e d prior t o
beginning the study, w h i l e the remaining 12 w e r e c o n structed b e f o r e the third e x p e r i m e n t a l phase started.
A 20-item consumer satisfaction survey, Heads Together
Evaluation Inventory, was d e v e l o p e d and administered
orally t o students o n t h e final day o f the study. T h i s
survey assessed students' general feelings a b o u t using
Heads T o g e t h e r , the acceptability o f specific procedural
c o m p o n e n t s , a n d students' satisfaction with a c a d e m i c
and social o u t c o m e s associated w i t h its use. O n e final
item asked pupils to state their preferences for using
either the Heads T o g e t h e r o r W h o l e G r o u p questioning
format for the remainder o f t h e s c h o o l year.
Data Collection and Reliability
O n e graduate assistant and an undergraduate education m a j o r s e r v e d as o b s e r v e r s . B o t h o b s e r v e r s w e r e
trained b y the s e c o n d author. O b s e r v e r s w e r e initially
provided with a six-page training manual that described
p r o p e r etiquette in t h e s c h o o l s and operational definitions o f target b e h a v i o r s . After reading the manual,
o b s e r v e r s participated in t w o 1-hour training sessions.
Here, they practiced c o d i n g videotaped samples o f social
studies instruction in t h e target classroom until interrater
reliability levels e x c e e d e d . 8 0 for three c o n s e c u t i v e trials
o n all categories o f t h e Q u e s t i o n i n g Event R e c o r d i n g
Form. Interrater agreement was s c o r e d i f both observers:
(a) c h e c k e d an equal n u m b e r o f questions asked, (b) concurred o n the accuracy/inaccuracy o f students' responses,
(c) agreed within o n e o n t h e n u m b e r o f pupils w h o
raised their hands, and (d) c o n c u r r e d within t w o o n the
n u m b e r o f students w h o w e r e o n task during visual
s w e e p s . Mean p e r c e n t a g e o f a g r e e m e n t for o c c u r r e n c e
o f question asking w a s . 9 9 (range = . 9 8 to 1.00); . 9 4
(range = . 8 8 to 1.00) for n u m b e r o f students raising
Downloaded from rse.sagepub.com at University of Manitoba Libraries on February 17, 2015
hands; .92 (range = .82 to 1.00) for accuracy/inaccuracy
o f students' responses; and .82 (range = .67 to . 9 6 ) for
the percentage o f pupils o n task.
Interrater reliability c h e c k s w e r e also c o n d u c t e d during 2 5 % o f the experimental sessions b y having b o t h
observers c o d e teacher and pupil behavior independently. Mean percentage o f a g r e e m e n t for e a c h o b s e r v e d
category ranged from .73 (pupils o n task) to 1.00 (numb e r o f questions asked), with an overall interrater agreem e n t level o f . 9 0 across all categories. O b s e r v e r s w e r e
kept blind to the purpose o f the study and w e r e told
only that w e were interested in examining teacher questioning patterns.
Reliability data w e r e also collected o n students' weekly quiz s c o r e s . T h e first author and c l a s s r o o m t e a c h e r
independently s c o r e d 2 5 % o f students' social studies
quizzes across all phases o f the investigation. Reliability
was calculated using the Kappa statistic (Siegel & Castellan, 1988). Mean percentage o f agreement was K = . 9 0 ,
with a range o f . 6 0 to 1.00.
Finally, interrater reliability was calculated o n o b servers' fidelity o f implementation ratings. During 2 5 %
o f the observation sessions, b o t h observers c o m p l e t e d
fidelity checklists independently. Agreement levels w e r e
also derived using the Kappa statistic. Interrater reliability
ranged from . 7 6 to 1.00, with m e a n agreement levels
o f AT = . 9 4 for W h o l e G r o u p a n d AT = . 9 7 for Heads
Together.
Experimental Design and Procedures
An alternating treatment design (Barlow & Hayes,
1 9 7 9 ; T a w n e y & Gast, 1 9 8 4 ) was used to c o m p a r e the
effectiveness o f the Heads T o g e t h e r and W h o l e G r o u p
questioning strategies. T h e basic feature o f this design
is the rapid alteration o f two different interventions with
an individual or group o f learners. Experimental c o n trol is demonstrated w h e n levels o f student performance
vary for e a c h individual treatment ( C o o p e r , 1 9 8 1 ) . According to B a r l o w and Hayes ( 1 9 7 9 ) : " F e w w o u l d question the internal validity o f the alternating treatment
design o r the ability o f the design to rule out rival
hypotheses. In fact, the testing o f t w o treatments in the
same subject within the same time period produces o n e
o f the m o s t elegant controls for threats to internal
validity" (p. 2 0 3 ) .
Baseline.
T h e study began immediately after o b servers reached predetermined reliability levels. During
this initial phase, the teacher was asked to c o n d u c t social
studies lessons using " n o r m a l " instructional routines.
T e a c h i n g sessions lasted approximately 3 0 minutes per
day and w e r e c o n d u c t e d four times per w e e k . Primary
instructional m e t h o d s included lecture and discussion,
use o f maps and charts, and a W h o l e G r o u p questioning format. T h e teacher directed questions to the entire
class, and students w e r e required to raise their hands
to respond. Students used lecture notes and information
written o n the c h a l k b o a r d to a n s w e r questions. T e x t b o o k assignments were given o n relevant material before
and after individual instructional sessions. N o attempt
was m a d e to c o n t r o l t h e n u m b e r o f questions asked o r
the c o n t e n t o f t h o s e q u e s t i o n s during class meetings.
T h e o n l y adaptation to n o r m a l routine was t h e administration o f a 10-item quiz following e a c h social studies
lesson. Quiz questions w e r e read aloud b y the t e a c h e r
and students w r o t e their responses independently.
Quizzes w e r e s c o r e d and r e t u r n e d the following day.
Alternating
Treatments.
During the s e c o n d phase,
students w e r e e x p o s e d to b o t h t h e W h o l e G r o u p ( W G )
and Heads T o g e t h e r (HT) questioning formats within the
same day. T o a c c o m m o d a t e design features, the teacher
held social studies lessons twice a day, 2 days per w e e k .
Intervention order was varied r a n d o m l y b y having the
teacher flip a c o i n o n e a c h treatment day. Sessions w e r e
held in b o t h the m o r n i n g and afternoon and lasted approximately 3 0 minutes. Quizzes w e r e given immediately after e a c h lesson using the same procedures described
under baseline c o n d i t i o n s .
Intervention sessions began, b y having the teacher ann o u n c e w h i c h treatment was in effect (i.e., W h o l e Group
vs. Heads Together). Students w e r e then required to verbalize the treatment c o n d i t i o n in unison. During W h o l e
G r o u p sessions, the t e a c h e r d i r e c t e d k n o w l e d g e - b a s e d
questions t o the entire class. Students w e r e required to
raise their hands to r e s p o n d , a n d the t e a c h e r s e l e c t e d
volunteers at r a n d o m . C o r r e c t answers w e r e a c k n o w l edged and/or praised, w h i l e i n c o r r e c t r e s p o n s e s w e r e
c o r r e c t e d b y either t h e t e a c h e r o r o t h e r students.
During H T c o n d i t i o n s , students sat in small, heterogeneous learning groups. Learning groups w e r e initially
formed using p r o c e d u r e s outlined b y Slavin ( 1 9 8 3 ) .
Students w e r e ranked from highest to lowest in achievement, based upon mean quiz scores during baseline. T h e
highest achieving pupil was then assigned to T e a m 1,
the s e c o n d highest to T e a m 2 , the third highest to T e a m
3, and s o o n until five teams o f four students e a c h w e r e
formed. All five teams had at least o n e high, t w o average,
and o n e l o w achieving student. Students within
each
team w e r e t h e n n u m b e r e d from 1 to 4 . T e a m m e m b e r ship r e m a i n e d the s a m e t h r o u g h o u t the investigation.
T h e t e a c h e r c o n t i n u e d to direct questions to the entire class during social studies lessons. F o l l o w i n g e a c h
question, h o w e v e r , t h e t e a c h e r told all teams to "put
your heads together, c o m e up with the best answer y o u
can, and m a k e sure e v e r y b o d y o n your team k n o w s the
a n s w e r . " T h e teacher waited approximately 2 0 s e c o n d s
for students to discuss questions a m o n g themselves. No
specific strategies w e r e p r o v i d e d for discussing questions, achieving consensus, offering explanations, and/or
ensuring that every group m e m b e r participated. Following Heads T o g e t h e r time, the t e a c h e r said, "All Number
( 1 , 2 , 3, o r 4s) w h o k n o w t h e answer, raise your
h a n d s . " O n e volunteer was then s e l e c t e d r a n d o m l y to
Downloaded from rse.sagepub.com at University of Manitoba Libraries on February 17, 2015
respond. After e a c h student r e s p o n d e d , the teacher
asked, " H o w many other Number
agree with that
a n s w e r ? " I f student answers w e r e c o r r e c t , the teacher
distributed tokens w o r t h 10 points to e a c h team that
either (a) provided the c o r r e c t answer or (b) agreed with
it. I n c o r r e c t responses and/or disagreements with correct answers r e c e i v e d n o points. At the e n d o f e a c h H T
session, students t o o k quizzes independently, following
p r o c e d u r e s identical to W h o l e G r o u p sessions. Student
quizzes w e r e s c o r e d and returned the following day. Individual quiz s c o r e s w e r e also p o s t e d o n a laminated
s c o r e b o a r d in the c l a s s r o o m . T e a m s c o r e s w e r e calculated b y adding individual quiz results and points earned
for answering H T questions during social studies lessons.
Cumulative team totals w e r e derived b y adding points
from b o t h H T sessions e a c h w e e k . R e c o g n i t i o n certificates w e r e then issued to the "Fantastic First," " S u p e r
S e c o n d , " a n d "Terrific T h i r d " teams. Students o n e a c h
recognized team signed their n a m e s o n the certificates.
Certificates w e r e t h e n p o s t e d o n the walls outside the
classroom. Each w e e k , a n e w c o m p e t i t i o n began, thereb y ensuring that e v e r y o n e h a d an o p p o r t u n i t y t o b e o n
a winning team.
Phase 3.
In the final phase, t h e m o r e effective intervention, Heads T o g e t h e r , was i m p l e m e n t e d during
b o t h m o r n i n g and afternoon social studies lessons.
Quizzes w e r e administered i n d e p e n d e n t l y using procedures identical t o previous e x p e r i m e n t a l phases.
sions yielded quiz averages ranging from 8 0 % t o 9 7 . 3 6 %
(X = 8 6 . 5 5 % ) . T h e m e a n p e r c e n t a g e c o r r e c t for all H T
sessions was 8 7 . 0 5 .
T h e s e c o n d d e p e n d e n t m e a s u r e was the p e r c e n t a g e
o f students w h o w e r e o n task during social studies
classes. As s e e n in Figure 2 , o n l y a b o u t half o f the class
was o n task during baseline c o n d i t i o n s . W h e n alternating treatments w e r e i n t r o d u c e d , the m e a n percentage o f students o n task fell to an average o f . 3 9
(range = . 2 7 % t o . 5 3 % ) during W h o l e G r o u p sessions,
while it rose t o a m e a n o f .71 (range = . 5 0 % t o . 8 3 % )
w h e n Heads T o g e t h e r was in effect. In the final phase,
the p e r c e n t a g e o f students o n task d r o p p e d t o slightly
o v e r half the class during b o t h m o r n i n g and afternoon
HT sessions. On-task rates w e r e l o w e s t o n Days 12 and
13, w h e n the student teacher assumed responsibility for
HT implementation.
Observational data w e r e also c o l l e c t e d o n p r o c e s s
variables. T h e s e data are summarized in T a b l e 1. Pro-
Baseline
100^
-
Heads
60 —
During Phase 3, data w e r e plotted separately b y time
o f day. As s e e n in Figure 1, students' m e a n quiz s c o r e s
remained high during b o t h m o r n i n g and afternoon sessions. Quiz averages ranged from 7 7 . 3 3 % t o 9 6 . 8 4 %
(X = 8 7 . 5 5 % ) for m o r n i n g classes, w h i l e afternoon ses-
/ V
/
80 —
-
T h e primary d e p e n d e n t variable was the percentage
c o r r e c t o n daily social studies quizzes. Data for e a c h
phase o f the investigation are presented in Figure 1. During baseline, students' m e a n a c c u r a c y levels o n daily
quizzes ranged from 5 7 . 7 7 % to 8 2 . 1 0 % , with a m e a n
o f 7 0 . 4 6 % . Approximately o n e third o f the class (seven
students) had failing averages ( b e l o w 6 5 % ) , while t w o
pupils e a r n e d m e a n s c o r e s a b o v e 9 0 % (A). During the
s e c o n d phase, class averages w e r e plotted separately
for Heads T o g e t h e r and W h o l e G r o u p c o n d i t i o n s . A
visual analysis o f t h e data reveals that students always
performed better u n d e r H T c o n d i t i o n s . T h e s e perform a n c e differences ranged from 2 to 3 0 percentage, points
and averaged 1 5 . 7 9 % throughout the s e c o n d phase (i.e.,
W h o l e G r o u p X = 6 8 . 5 0 vs. Heads T o g e t h e r X = 8 4 . 2 9 ) .
It is significant that n o student had a failing average under
HT conditions, and six pupils maintained averages a b o v e
9 0 % . In contrast, w h e n the W h o l e G r o u p format was
used, six students had failing averages and o n l y o n e child
maintained an average e x c e e d i n g 9 0 % .
Heads
Together
„
Together
90 —
70—
Results
Alternating
Treatments
n
\
\
•
\n
\ A /
\ A /
Whole
V Group
\/ V/
o—o a.m.
•—• p.m.
'
DAYS
Figure 1. Shows the mean percentage correct on
daily social studies quizzes under Whole Group and
Heads Together conditions.
Baseline
Alternating
Treatments
Heads
Together
Heads
Together
o—o a.m.
•—• p.m.
i—i—i—i—|—i—I—i—i—|
DAYS
15
20
Figure 2. Represents the mean percentage of
students who were on task during Whole Group and
Heads Together interventions.
Downloaded from rse.sagepub.com at University of Manitoba Libraries on February 17, 2015
cedural reliability ratings for i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f the independent variables r e m a i n e d high across all phases o f
this investigation. W h o l e G r o u p treatment was implem e n t e d with 1 0 0 % accuracy across the first t w o experimental phases, while Heads T o g e t h e r fidelity ratings
averaged . 9 5 % (range = . 8 9 % to 1 . 0 0 % ) during the t w o
final intervention c o n d i t i o n s . T h e s e data suggest that
students w e r e indeed presented with t w o distinct treatments and that these treatments w e r e implemented with
a high degree o f a c c u r a c y .
Regarding teacher questioning patterns, an average o f
13 content-related queries w e r e d i r e c t e d to the entire
class during initial baseline conditions. Questioning rates
c h a n g e d s o m e w h a t w h e n alternating treatments w e r e
introduced. T h e t e a c h e r asked a p p r o x i m a t e l y t w i c e as
many questions during W h o l e G r o u p (X = 1 7 . 8 3 ) as opp o s e d to Heads T o g e t h e r ( X = 8 . 8 3 ) c o n d i t i o n s . In the
final phase, just under 10 q u e s t i o n s w e r e asked o n
average during m o r n i n g a n d afternoon HT sessions. In
general, students r e s p o n d e d c o r r e c t l y to m o s t teacherdirected questions. Under W h o l e G r o u p questioning,
students r e s p o n d e d c o r r e c t l y 8 5 % and 6 5 % o f the time
during the first t w o e x p e r i m e n t a l phases, respectively.
Approximately 8 2 % o f the students' responses were correct w h e n Heads T o g e t h e r was used initially. During
Phase 3, h o w e v e r , almost all student responses during
H T w e r e c o r r e c t . Finally, the c l a s s r o o m t e a c h e r remained highly responsive to students' answers under
b o t h e x p e r i m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n s . T a b l e 1 s h o w s the percentage o f c o r r e c t student r e s p o n s e s that w e r e recognized and/or r e w a r d e d b y the c l a s s r o o m teacher. S i n c e
the teacher rarely ignored student responses o r called
o n others to respond, these data are n o t reported.
Social validity data w e r e c o l l e c t e d o n Heads T o g e t h e r
immediately following t h e last treatment session. Student r e s p o n s e s are d e p i c t e d in T a b l e 2 . In general,
students rated Heads T o g e t h e r quite favorably. Approximately t w o thirds o f t h e class thought that Heads
T o g e t h e r s h o u l d definitely b e c o n d u c t e d in s c h o o l , and
that t h e y w o u l d use it i f t h e y w e r e teachers. Sixty-eight
p e r c e n t o f the students felt that Heads T o g e t h e r treated
t h e m very nicely, and all but o n e pupil r e p o r t e d that
Heads T o g e t h e r was n o t harmful at all. F u r t h e r m o r e ,
a b o u t 9 0 % o f the class felt that Heads T o g e t h e r h e l p e d
t h e m t o learn social studies c o n t e n t better.
Regarding specific p r o c e d u r a l c o m p o n e n t s , approximately 8 5 % o f the students liked b e i n g o n a team, a n d
about 9 5 % e n j o y e d earning points, sharing answers with
their t e a m m a t e s , and s e e i n g their points o n the s c o r e board. Interestingly, s o m e students also n o t e d social
benefits a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e use o f Heads T o g e t h e r . F o r
e x a m p l e , almost t w o thirds o f t h e class felt that Heads
Together helped them b e c o m e better friends with others,
while a comparable n u m b e r reported that others thought
they w e r e smarter. Overall, 9 0 % o f the class preferred
Heads T o g e t h e r o v e r a n s w e r i n g their o w n q u e s t i o n s . It
should b e noted, h o w e v e r , that student evaluations w e r e
not uniformly positive. Five pupils n o t e d , for e x a m p l e ,
that Heads T o g e t h e r c o u l d b e " v e r y unfair," while three
others r e p o r t e d not liking the i n t e r v e n t i o n at all.
Discussion
T h e present findings indicate that Heads T o g e t h e r was
clearly m o r e effective than W h o l e G r o u p q u e s t i o n i n g
Table 1. Process Variables Associated with the Implementation of Alternating Treatments
Downloaded from rse.sagepub.com at University of Manitoba Libraries on February 17, 2015
in improving student p e r f o r m a n c e o n daily social
studies quizzes. Students' mean quiz scores during Heads
T o g e t h e r w e r e approximately 1 6 p e r c e n t a g e points
Table 2. Mean Proportion of Students' Responses to
the Heads Together Evaluation Inventory (N = 19)
higher than under traditional teaching conditions. Student
failure o n content-related e x a m s was virtually eliminated
w h e n the teacher used Heads T o g e t h e r . T h e magnitude
and c o n s i s t e n c y o f students' a c a d e m i c gains takes o n
a d d e d i m p o r t a n c e w h e n o n e c o n s i d e r s the substantial
variability that existed in pupil performance at the outset.
Initially, student a c h i e v e m e n t levels o n standardized
measures varied b y as m u c h as 10 years. Y e t , e v e r y o n e
in the class benefited under Heads Together. Classroomb a s e d interventions for the 1 9 9 0 s a n d b e y o n d will enc o u n t e r similar a c a d e m i c diversity in the e l e m e n t a r y
schools. T h e current results suggest that Heads T o g e t h e r
m a y b e o n e instructional o p t i o n for a c c o m m o d a t i n g
such variability.
T h e findings regarding on-task p e r c e n t a g e s w e r e less
impressive. While m o r e students w e r e o n task under H T
than during W h o l e G r o u p questioning, the p e r c e n t a g e
o f attentive pupils r e m a i n e d at an educationally unacceptable level. Just o v e r half o f the class was o n task during r a n d o m observations—clearly n o t e n o u g h to reflect
fully active student i n v o l v e m e n t . O n e possible explanation for such l o w on-task rates may b e that a flaw existed
in o u r observational system. F o r e x a m p l e , to determine
the p e r c e n t a g e o f students o n task, o b s e r v e r s w e r e instructed to c o u n t pupils after marking each category o n
the teacher questioning form. B y this time, students had
already r e s p o n d e d to t e a c h e r q u e s t i o n s and m a n y w e r e
" c e l e b r a t i n g " their t o k e n rewards. As instructed, o b servers r e c o r d e d students w h o talked as b e i n g o f f task.
Had observational s w e e p s b e e n c o n d u c t e d
immediately
after the t e a c h e r a s k e d questions (while students had
their heads together), t h e percentage o f students o n task
m a y have b e e n higher. In a n y event, a m o r e careful
analysis o f pupils' on-task rates is clearly warranted.
It is also important to n o t e the e x t r e m e l y l o w pupil
on-task rates during days w h e n t h e student teacher
taught lessons (i.e., Days 12 and 13). It was evident from
observational data and a n e c d o t a l c o m m e n t s from the
teacher and observers that the student teacher had s o m e
difficulty managing the class. Students b e c a m e quite e x cited during Heads T o g e t h e r , and o c c a s i o n a l l y it was
hard to get t h e m back o n task. This suggests that specific
rules and r e i n f o r c e m e n t p r o c e d u r e s m a y b e n e e d e d t o
c o n t r o l student " e n t h u s i a s m " during H T sessions.
Student responses t o the Heads T o g e t h e r Evaluation
Inventory indicated that, for the m o s t part, students enj o y e d this peer-mediated p r o c e d u r e . In fact, o v e r 9 0 %
o f the class preferred Heads T o g e t h e r o v e r W h o l e Group
questioning. T h e c l a s s r o o m t e a c h e r also n o t e d that
Heads T o g e t h e r was an effective and efficient classroom
intervention, and that she w o u l d use it again. T h e finding that H T was n o t preferred unanimously, h o w e v e r ,
raises s o m e unique ethical c o n c e r n s . F o r e x a m p l e , what
should teachers d o if s o m e students c h o o s e n o t to w o r k
c o o p e r a t i v e l y with their peers? Certainly, t h e y c a n n o t
force children to cooperate; yet, c o n d o n i n g student nonc o m p l i a n c e may inadvertently reinforce their unwillingness t o w o r k with others. Future empirical investigations
Downloaded from rse.sagepub.com at University of Manitoba Libraries on February 17, 2015
must address c o n c e r n s about the use o f an effective
intervention that s o m e students find to b e socially
unacceptable.
Demonstrating that a particular c l a s s r o o m intervention is effective is o n e thing; explaining " w h y " it w o r k s
is another. Heads T o g e t h e r c o n t a i n s n u m e r o u s p r o c e dural c o m p o n e n t s (e.g., structured teaching p r o c e d u r e ,
interdependent reward contingencies, public posting o f
student p e r f o r m a n c e ) that have a l o n g history o f e m pirical support in the behavioral literature. In the present case, it s e e m s reasonable t o assume that student
engagement increased w h e n student teams w e r e asked
to collaborate o n teacher-directed questions. Students
w h o normally w o u l d b e inattentive o r passive during
teacher lectures may have "tuned i n " because their peers
w e r e discussing instructional c o n t e n t . In addition,
because students c o u l d not predict w h o w o u l d b e called
u p o n , they m a y have w o r k e d harder t o ensure that
e v e r y o n e , including l o w achievers, k n e w t h e c o r r e c t
answer. Finally, since t o k e n rewards and team recognition were delivered contingent u p o n peers' collaborative
efforts, such student behaviors m a y have b e e n strengthe n e d over the c o u r s e o f the investigation. Each explanation is tentative at b e s t but remains highly consistent
with theoretical interpretations from o t h e r c o o p e r a t i v e
learning and group c o n t i n g e n c y m e t h o d s (see, for
example, G r e e n w o o d & Hops, 1 9 8 1 ; J o h n s o n , J o h n s o n ,
& Maruyama, 1 9 8 3 ; Kagan, 1 9 8 9 - 9 0 ; Slavin, 1 9 8 3 , 1990).
Clearly, m u c h m o r e study is required o n t h e effects
o f Heads Together. T o begin with, the present investigation must b e replicated with o t h e r student populations,
in different c o n t e n t areas, and certainly for longer
periods o f time. It might also b e useful t o use different
experimental designs (e.g., ABAB and/or multiple baseline). W h i l e the alternating treatment design used h e r e
c o n t r o l s well for threats t o internal validity, s o m e questions remain about the external validity o f this particular
design (cf. B a r l o w & Hayes, 1 9 7 9 ; Hains & Baer, 1 9 8 9 ;
T a w n e y & Gast, 1 9 8 4 ) . B a r l o w a n d Hayes ( 1 9 7 9 ) noted,
for e x a m p l e , that b e c a u s e there are very few applied
situations w h e r e i n t w o or m o r e interventions are alternated o n a daily basis, the generalizability o f treatment
effects remains uncertain. Additional replications with
m o r e "natural" design features, h o w e v e r , should
strengthen the external validity o f the present findings.
A n u m b e r o f o t h e r c o n c e p t u a l and procedural issues remain regarding the use o f Heads Together. Conceptually,
o n e may e x a m i n e the relationship that exists b e t w e e n
answering factual recall questions and the acquisition o f
so-called " h i g h e r o r d e r " cognitive skills. D o e s Heads
Together facilitate or impede higher order conceptualizations o f critical lesson c o n t e n t ? In what ways d o e s it d o
so? Similarly, what effect does the use o f Heads T o g e t h e r
have upon students' long-term retention and application
o f instructional c o n t e n t ? D o students learn and retain
information better because they have discussed it and/or
explained it t o their peers? Will t h e y apply s u c h "shari n g " strategies in o t h e r subject areas as well?
Procedurally, future investigators should d e t e r m i n e
when Heads T o g e t h e r " f i t s " b e s t into lessons. S h o u l d
teacher-directed questions b e interspersed intermittently
throughout lessons, t o maintain e n g a g e m e n t , o r s h o u l d
the p r o c e d u r e b e used primarily at the b e g i n n i n g and
ending o f lectures, to activate prior k n o w l e d g e and synthesize content-related information? Similarly, it w o u l d
b e quite valuable to c o n d u c t direct observations o f pupil
interactions during Heads T o g e t h e r time. In particular,
it w o u l d b e important t o analyze the c o g n i t i v e " l e v e l "
o f c o n t e n t discussions a n d the various roles that e a c h
team m e m b e r plays in p r o m o t i n g group c o n s e n s u s . Additional research might also e x a m i n e what effect specific
procedural adaptations have o n the overall effectiveness
o f Heads T o g e t h e r . F o r e x a m p l e , w e a d d e d t o k e n rewards, w e e k l y team c o m p e t i t i o n , daily quizzes, a n d
public p o s t i n g o f students' p e r f o r m a n c e t o the original
description o f Heads T o g e t h e r . W o u l d the intervention
b e equally effective w i t h o u t s u c h procedural adaptations? A c o m p o n e n t analysis o f this modified peermediated intervention s h o u l d p r o v i d e useful information in this regard.
In sum, the present investigation d o c u m e n t e d the effectiveness o f a relatively simple questioning t e c h n i q u e .
This p r o c e d u r e required o n l y m i n o r changes in h o w the
classroom teacher asked students t o respond t o contentrelated q u e s t i o n s during lessons. T h e present findings
provide an initial data b a s e o n the efficacy o f this
cooperative learning strategy. M u c h m o r e w o r k must still
b e d o n e with Heads T o g e t h e r before w e c a n e x t e n d our
results to o t h e r students, settings, o r c o n t e n t areas. T h e r e
is s o l a c e in k n o w i n g , h o w e v e r , that the c l a s s r o o m s o f
the 1 9 9 0 s will provide us with ample o p p o r t u n i t y t o
evaluate o u r efforts.
^
L a r r y M a h e a d y , PhD, is an associate professor
in
the Department
of Education,
State University of
New York—College
at Fredonia.
For the past 10
years, he has been involved in the
identification
and validation
of classroom-based
instructional
strategies that enhance the academic and social performance
of mainstreamed
learners.
Dr.
Maheady's
current interests include peer-mediated
instruction,
student-managed
instructional
options,
and
developing
support systems to assist teachers in
carrying out these instructional
strategies.
Barbara
M a U e t t e , PhD, is an assistant professor in the
Department
of Education,
State University of New
York—College
at Fredonia.
A former special
education classroom teacher, her current focus is on both
peer-mediated
instruction and the development
of
communicative
competence
among children
with
disabilities.
She is the immediate past president
of
the New York State Council for Exceptional
Children. G r e g o r y F . H a r p e r , PhD, is a professor
in
the Department
of Education,
State University of
New York—College
at Fredonia.
A researcher
in the
Downloaded from rse.sagepub.com at University of Manitoba Libraries on February 17, 2015
area of peer-mediated
instruction,
his
current
research focuses on the use of
peer-mediated
strategies with children with handicaps
to
promote
academic achievement,
and as a means to
facilitate
integration
into mainstream
settings. K a t h e r i n e
S a c c a , EdD, is currently project coordinator
for the
Collaborative
Teacher Preparation
Project, a
5-year, federally funded
grant located at SUNY,
College at Buffalo. This project involves
training
preservice
teachers to accommodate
the needs of atrisk students, difficult-to-teach
students,
and/or
students with handicaps
within general
education
settings. Dr. Sacca also works with numerous
school
districts in New York State by providing
inservice
training and implementation
assistance in cooperative learning and other peer-mediated
instructional
approaches.
Address: Larry Maheady,
Department
of Education, State University of New York, College
at Fredonia,
Fredonia,
NY
14063-
Authors' Note
The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of the admiriistration and faculty o f the Dunkirk Public Schools, Dunkirk, New York. In particular, we wish to thank Ms. Terry
Wolfenden, Superintendent o f Schools, Mr. Louis Maheady,
Principal, and Ms. Bethany Gugino, third-grade teacher. In addition, we wish to recognize the invaluable assistance o f our
observers, Ms. Margaret Dempsey and Ms. Jennifer Kaleta.
References
Anderson, L.M., Evertson, CM., & Brophy, J.E. (1979). An experimental study o f effective teaching in first-grade reading
groups. Elementary School journal,
79, 1 9 3 - 2 2 2 .
Barlow, D.H., & Hayes, S.C. (1979). Alternating treatments
design: One strategy for comparing the effects o f two
treatments in a single subject. Journal of Applied
Behavior
Analysis, 12, 1 9 9 - 2 1 0 .
Brophy, J.E., & Evertson, CM. (1976). Learning from teaching:
A developmental
approach.
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Cooper, J.O. (1981). Measuring behavior (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Gersten, R.M., Carnine, D.W., & Williams, P.B. (1981). Measuring implementation o f a structured educational model in
an urban school district. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 4, 56-65.
Golden, N., Gersten, R., & Woodward, J. (1990). Effectiveness
of guided practice during remedial reading instruction: An
application o f computer-managed instruction. Elementary
School Journal, 90, 2 9 1 - 3 0 4 .
Greenwood, C.R., & Hops, H. (1981). Group contingencies and
peer behavior change. In P.S. Strain (Ed.), The utilization
of peers as behavior change agents (pp. 189-259). New
York: Plenum Press.
Greenwood, C.R., Maheady, L., & Carta, J.J. (in press). Peer
tutoring programs in the regular classroom. In G. Stoner,
M.R. Shinn, & H. Walker (Eds.), Interventions for
achievement and behavior problems.
Washington, DC: National
Association for School Psychologists.
Hains, A.H., & Baer, D.M. (1989). Interaction effects in multielement designs: Inevitable, desirable, and ignorable. Journal
of Applied Behavior Analysis, 22, 5 7 - 6 9 .
Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., & Maruyama, G. (1983). Interdependence and interpersonal attraction among heterogeneous and homogeneous individuals: A theoretical formulation and a meta-analysis of the literature. Review of
Educational
Research, 53, 5 - 5 4 .
Kagan, S. (1989-90). The structural approach to cooperative
learning. Educational
Leadership,
47(4), 1 2 - 1 5 .
Siegel, S., & Castellan, N.J. (1988). Nonparametric
statistics
for the behavioral
sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Slavin, R.E. (1983). Student team learning: An overview and
practical
guide. Washington, DC: National Education
Association.
Slavin, R.E. (1990). Cooperative
learning: Theory,
research,
and practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Tawney, J.W., & Gast, D.L. (1984). Single-subject research in
special education.
Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Thomas, E., & Beattie, S. (1983). Regions and social needs in
communities.
Boston: Ginn & Company.
Woolfolk, A. (1989). Educational psychology (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Moving?
R e m e m b e r to notify y o u r post office o f the n e w address, so that you m a y c o n t i n u e to receive Remedial
and
Special Education and o t h e r periodicals without interruption. T o help us k e e p our r e c o r d s accurate, s e n d us
the address label from your m o s t recent issue plus your n e w address. Allow six w e e k s for an address change.
Downloaded from rse.sagepub.com at University of Manitoba Libraries on February 17, 2015