in education

Direct/Explicit Instruction and Social Constructivist Practices in Inclusive Classrooms

Avery Matthews
University of Regina
Author’s Note
Avery Matthews ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0009-8875-4301
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Avery Matthews at
[email protected]
Abstract
Effective educational practices play an instrumental role in student success. In the context of an
inclusive classroom, it is crucial that educators use evidence-based practices to ensure all
students meet educational outcomes. This literature review paper focuses on two evidence-based
pedagogies, namely direct/explicit instruction (DI/EI) and social constructivist approaches, and
their effects on an inclusive classroom. Special consideration is given to cooperative learning and
concrete implementation guidelines. Lastly, the complimentary effects of combining DI/EI and
social constructivist practices are investigated to advance an argument for using a variety of
evidence-based practices within inclusive classrooms.
Keywords: Inclusive education, direct instruction, explicit instruction, social
constructivism.

1
 in education

Direct/Explicit Instruction and Social Constructivist Practices in Inclusive Classrooms

Many researchers, such as Kurth and Mastergeorge (2010), suggest that students with
developmental disabilities benefit from being in an inclusive classroom rather than a self-
contained special education classroom. In this paper, an inclusive classroom is defined as a
heterogeneous learning environment whereby students with developmental disabilities learn
alongside their neurotypical peers (Rasmitadila & Boeriswati, 2017). Kurth and Mastergeorge
(2010) found that students with developmental disabilities attained significantly higher scores on
measures of math, reading, and writing when in an inclusive classroom compared to a non-
inclusive classroom. Szumski et al. (2017) conducted a meta-analysis to explore how academic
achievement is affected when students with developmental disabilities are taught alongside their
peers without developmental disabilities. These authors concluded that inclusive classrooms do
not have any significant negative effects on the academic achievement of students without
disabilities. Two pedagogies that may foster success in the classroom are direct/explicit
instruction (DI/EI), which aligns with behavioural analytic psychology (Kretlow &
Bartholomew, 2010), and social constructivist practices, which align with cognitive psychology
(Knapp, 2019) and social psychology (Raskin, 2002). In this paper, the effects of these
pedagogies are examined, with respect to the academic and non-academic benefits yielded when
each approach is integrated into an inclusive classroom. A discussion regarding the
complementary effects of using both DI/EI and cooperative learning in an inclusive classroom is
included, along with practical examples of effectively implementing cooperative learning
strategies.
The benefits of an inclusive classroom are not just restricted to academic achievement.
Inclusive classrooms can also benefit students socially, as they foster peer acceptance. Peer
acceptance is a protective factor against adverse outcomes such as behavioural problems and
school avoidance (Garrote et al., 2020). Therefore, peer acceptance can positively contribute to
the socio-emotional development of students. According to a qualitative study by Shogren et al.
(2015), students with developmental disabilities had positive perceptions of their inclusive
classroom, stating they had a greater opportunity to make friends and enjoyed the challenge of
learning the same content as their neurotypical peers. Similarly, a qualitative investigation by
Bunch and Valeo (2004) found that students without disabilities in an inclusive classroom
reported having more friends with developmental disabilities compared to students without
disabilities in a non-inclusive classroom.
Fisher and Meyer (2002) reported that students with developmental disabilities in an
inclusive classroom made significantly greater gains on measures of social competence relative
to their peers in a segregated learning environment. Since students with developmental
disabilities are more likely to experience social isolation and bullying victimization than their
neurotypical counterparts (Farmer et al., 2019), the increase in social competence and peer
acceptance that stems from participation in an inclusive classroom may act as a preventive factor
against adverse outcomes. Educators need to utilize evidence-based practices within their
pedagogies for these social and academic benefits yielded by an inclusive classroom to be
actualized.
Brock et al. (2020) claimed there is a research-practice gap in the field of inclusive
education whereby teachers seldom use evidence-based practices in an inclusive classroom. This
gap, according to Brock et al., may indicate that students with developmental disabilities who are
not in the most optimal learning environment, such as where there is limited use of evidence-
based practices, may not lead to superior academic or socio-emotional developmental outcomes.
These authors also state that the research-practice gap could be lessened if evidence-based

2
 in education

practices

3
 in education

focused on improving academic achievement rather than focusing on social development or

mental health since, in their study, academic achievement was the highest priority for teachers.
While academic achievement is a central goal of an education system, it is also worth
acknowledging that other educational goals may hold equal importance. The development of
educational goals such as social competence and pro-social behaviour (Ten Dam & Volman,
2007), critical thinking (Larsson, 2017), work ethic and physical well-being (Rothstein &
Jacobsen, 2006), emotional intelligence (Low et al., 2004), and overall active citizenship (Jansen
et al., 2006) should be given equal importance as academic goals. Attainment of these
educational goals could improve one’s quality of life and an individual who has sufficiently
developed competencies across these numerous goals can contribute positively to the
environment in which they are embedded.
An inclusive classroom aims to serve the needs of students with a range of different
disabilities, suggesting that teachers may need to implement a diverse set of instructional
approaches in order for their students to be successful. This article seeks to examine the effects
of DI/EI in an inclusive classroom and to explore social constructivist practices, with a specific
focus on cooperative learning in an inclusive classroom. Lastly, the complementary effects of the
combination of DI/EI and cooperative learning are examined, and concrete methods of
incorporating cooperative learning strategies are provided.
Direct/Explicit Instruction
Researchers have conceptualized DI/EI in numerous ways. Generally, DI/EI can be thought of as
a teacher-led learning approach in which the content or problem-solving strategy being taught is
explicitly explained (Gersten et al., 1986). Researchers have also characterized the steps
of DI/EI differently, though similar themes appear. Common components in the steps of DI/EI
include planning learning objectives (Lombardi, 2017), modelling and explicit direction, guided
and independent practice (Gersten et al., 1986; Humphrey & Feez, 2016; Moore, 2007; Tobias &
Duffy, 2009), and assessment (Lombardi, 2017). DI/EI is utilized in the classroom to construct a
foundational knowledge base within students to enhance recall and promote generativity (Phillips
et al., 2016; Slocum & Rolf, 2021). Teaching for generativity implies that learners will be able to
apply knowledge to untrained activities (Slocum & Rolf, 2021). For example, if writing
instruction allows students to spell untaught words, then the instruction is generative. Due to the
structured nature of DI/EI, one key component of DI/EI programs involves the promotion of
mastery learning (Engelmann, 2007). This strategy assumes that students must demonstrate
adequate knowledge of the current subject material before engaging with new material (Kulik et
al., 1990).
The Reading Mastery program (Engelmann et al., 1995) is a noteworthy program that is
based upon DI/EI principles (Schieffer et al., 2002). This program focuses on developing
requisite knowledge of receptive and expressive oral language, acquisition of phonetic
awareness, letter- sound correspondence, and lastly, students are taught the skill of blending,
which enables students to blend the sounds of words together. According to Schieffer et al.
(2002), salient features of the Reading Mastery program include the provision of additional
instruction to students who are struggling, modelling and guided practice, and immediate
feedback and error correction. After the requisite knowledge of receptive and expressive
knowledge is developed, the Reading Mastery program focuses on reading comprehension.
Reading comprehension is augmented through the explicit teaching of various reading
comprehension strategies. For example, one strategy involves teaching literal comprehension, in
which students are given a passage to read and then prompted to answer questions based on the
passage (Schieffer et al., 2002).

4
 in education

When teaching literal comprehension, teachers model behaviours such as underlining and
highlighting important themes in a passage. As students' progression increases, the guidance
provided by the teacher decreases, and more complex passages are introduced (Schieffer et al.,
2002). The results obtained from an experiment by Goss and Brown-Chidsey (2012) support the
notion that Reading Mastery is an effective program for promoting academic success. Similarly,
findings from Stockard and Engelmann (2010) demonstrate that students who were subjected to
Reading Mastery had more growth in nonsense word fluency scores and oral reading fluency
relative to students who received whole language instruction or Open Court (SRA McGraw-Hill,
1996). Open Court is a specific direct instructional program that has been adopted by over 6,000
schools in the USA (Borman et al., 2008; Rosenshine, 2008). However, these results may not be
surprising considering that nonsense word correspondence measures letter-sound correspondence
capabilities (Vanderwood et al., 2008), and one component of Reading Mastery specifically
focuses on letter-sound correspondence. The results from Stockard and Engelmann (2010)
provide one example of a specific program that is based upon the principles of DI/EI. However,
DI/EI is an effective instructional practice for various types of students across a range of subject
materials (Przychodzin et al., 2004; Zepeda et al., 2015).
The Effects of Direct/Explicit Instruction in a Classroom Context
DI/EI has been rigorously researched, and one of the most well-known studies regarding such
pedagogical practices is Project Follow Through, which was undertaken by the United States
Office of Economic Opportunity during the late 1960s and early 1970s, according to Watkins
(1997). The researchers’ aim for Project Follow Through was to analyze the most effective
teaching strategy for underachieving students with a low socioeconomic background, with the
study encompassing over 70,000 students from 170 different districts between kindergarten and
grade three (McMullen & Madelaine, 2014). Although more than 20 different teaching
approaches were included in Project Follow Through, all of the approaches were either grounded
in child- centred construction of knowledge or direct teaching of skills and content (Carnine,
2000). Results from the longitudinal study suggest that DI/EI is more effective than child-centred
approaches based on scores in math, language, and spelling from the Metropolitan Achievement
Test (Carnine, 2000). Interestingly, scores on the Coopersmith Self-Esteem Scale (Kim &
Axelrod, 2005) were also higher for students who participated in the DI/EI condition. Since
research on the Coopersmith Self-Esteem Scale (Coopersmith, 1967) is contradictory (Ahmed et
al., 1985; Johnson et al., 1983), caution should be taken when determining the efficacy of DI/EI
on measures of affect. Results from a meta-analysis by Körük (2017) suggested that a student’s
self-esteem is positively correlated to their academic achievement, and this finding holds true
regardless of the student’s cultural background and grade level. Therefore, the academic benefits
obtained through participation in DI/EI may be attributed, in part, to an increase in self-esteem.
It was also found that students who were taught using DI/EI had higher scores relative to
their peers in traditional educational settings on the Wide Range Achievement Test (Jastak &
Jastak, 1976), which measures reading, math, and spelling (Becker & Gersten, 1982; Meyer,
1984). These results were consistent six years post-intervention, indicating that students retain
the problem-solving skills that were taught using DI/EI (Becker & Gersten, 1982; Meyer, 1984).
One of the most rigorous meta-analyses exploring the effects of DI/EI was conducted by
Stockard et al. (2018). These authors concluded that students exposed to DI/EI programs had
significant academic gains across various domains such as reading, language, math, and spelling.
Approximately one- quarter of the primary studies in the meta-analysis by Stockard et al. (2018)

5
 in education

stated that the sample contained students from high-poverty backgrounds. Therefore, DI/EI has
been shown to be a very strong teaching method for young students who come from low socio-
economic status (SES) backgrounds as a means of developing cognitive and affective
domains. Since Wagner et al. (2006) claim that low SES is particularly detrimental to the
academic achievement of students with disabilities, perhaps the adoption of DI/EI can mitigate
the adverse effects associated with the intersectionality of low SES and prevalence of a
disability.
DI/EI has also been shown to enhance more than just academic achievement in young
students. For example, Fielding et al. (1983) demonstrated that secondary school students who
were taught complex concepts in the field of law using direct instruction performed better on a
multiple-choice test and essay test examining knowledge of the law in comparison to students
who were taught using an inquiry-based approach. Kousar (2010) found similar results in their
study, stating, “The Direct Instructional model was found to be more effective than traditional
instruction in immediate and delayed retention, as well as development of positive attitudes” (p.
102). This statement suggests the participants in the DI/EI condition were more likely to encode
stimuli relative to the traditional instruction control condition. The notion that DI/EI increases
academic achievement can be explained due to the role of feedback and student motivation. As
previously stated, feedback and error correction are inherent components of the DI/EI model.
Corrective feedback has consistently been shown to increase student motivation and confidence,
subjective vitality, and the satisfaction of the psychological need for competence and relatedness
(Kilic et al., 2021; Vergara-Torres et al., 2020) and is generally preferred by students (Gamlem &
Smith, 2013). While DI/EI seems to be effective for a wide range of students, as previously
discussed, it is worth reviewing whether these same positive academic and non-academic effects
can be materialized specifically for students with developmental disabilities in an inclusive
classroom.
Direct/Explicit Instruction and Students with Developmental Disabilities
The American Psychological Association defines a developmental disorder as a cognitive or
physical impairment that leads to limited functioning (American Psychological Association,
n.d.). Although this definition may seem to encompass emotional-behavioural disorders (EBDs),
they are in fact distinct constructs, so the effects of DI/EI on students with EBDs will not be
explored in this paper.
A study by Flores and Ganz (2007) found that the DI/EI program entitled Corrective
Reading Thinking Basics: Comprehension Level A (CRTB) was effective for increasing reading
comprehension as measured by statement inferences and by an ability to use facts and analogies
with elementary school students with a range of developmental disabilities. A similar study by
Head et al. (2018) found comparable results, thus providing further support that teaching
strategies utilizing DI/EI are effective for increasing reading comprehension in students with
developmental disabilities.
In addition to reading comprehension, mathematical knowledge acquisition and overall
cognitive development can be augmented using DI/EI. McKenzie et al. (2004) conducted one of
the most robust studies that supports this notion. These researchers used the DI/EI program
Connecting Math Concepts (Engelmann & Becker, 1995) Level K (CMC-K) to teach
mathematics concepts to students aged three to five. In this cohort of students, five of sixteen had
developmental disabilities. The CMC-K program consisted of 30 lessons taught over six and a
half weeks. The goals of the CMC-K program were to teach basic mathematical skills such as
counting, number recognition, the concept of greater than and less than, and so on. During
the delivery of this

6
 in education

program, the instructor modelled skills, led the class through guided practice and then provided
time for individual practice. The instructors also used error correction and a reinforcement
system to reduce time-off-task behaviours and increase motivation. The authors used a pretest-
posttest design to measure outcomes using both the cognitive domain of the Battelle
Development Inventory (Newborg et al., 1984) (BDI) and a CMC-K curriculum test. According
to Berls and McEwen (1999), the BDI has strong content, construct, concurrent, and predictive
validity, and high interrater reliability. This alignment suggests researchers agree that the BDI is
a consistent measure, it truly measures development, it correlates with other scales of
development, and it can predict future behaviour (Berls & McEwen, 1999). Similarly, McKenzie
et al. (2004) assessed students on the cognitive domain of the BDI which consists of four
subdomains: perceptual discrimination, memory, reasoning and academic skills, and conceptual
development. These authors reported that students with developmental disabilities had large
gains across all subdomains of the cognitive domain of the BDI. What is particularly noteworthy
is that the lowest effect size was 0.38 and the largest was 1.59, whereas McKenzie et al. (2004)
state that an effect size greater than 0.25 is significant in educational research, and an effect size
above 0.5 is quite rare in educational research. The obtained effect sizes provide support that
DI/EI is incredibly effective at enhancing cognitive development in students with developmental
disabilities. Students with developmental disabilities had significantly increased their scores on
the CMC-K curriculum test post-intervention, suggesting that the CMC-K was successful at
developing skills in mathematics. These researchers also found a significant increase in the skills
of typically developing students in mathematics, DI/EI programs such as CMC-K could be an
invaluable component of an inclusive classroom.
It is also worth mentioning that DI/EI can increase skills in mathematics in older students.
For example, Hayter et al. (2007) used a DI/EI strategy with flashcards to teach mathematical
skills to high school students with developmental disabilities for four weeks. From their study,
these authors concluded that the implementation of the DI/EI flashcard system increased
students’ motivation towards learning mathematics, as well as their performance in the
memorization of mathematical facts.
While the previous articles discussed highlight the effectiveness of DI/EI for improving
language and mathematic skills for students with developmental disabilities, it is also noteworthy
how DI/EI impacts science-based courses. One example comes from a study by Knight et al.
(2012), who used a DI/EI intervention to teach science descriptors to elementary school children
with developmental disabilities. The intervention followed a typical DI/EI format: Instructors
began lessons with explicit teaching of science descriptors, followed by modelling correct
answers and leading the students through guided practice. The final stage was a test phase in
which participants showed their knowledge of science descriptors. Knight et al. (2012)
demonstrated that DI/EI is an effective intervention in teaching science descriptors to students
with developmental disabilities, as all students increased their content knowledge post-
intervention.
While research has consistently shown that DI/EI is a successful teaching strategy for
students with developmental disabilities, it is also worth exploring the benefits that constructivist
approaches have when employed in an inclusive classroom.

7
 in education

Constructivist Approaches
Constructivist adherents posit that knowledge is constructed or created by the learner, while the
classroom teacher acts as a facilitator rather than a director, imposing knowledge onto the
students (Fernando & Marikar, 2017; McMullen & Madelaine, 2014). It is important to
acknowledge the distinction between social constructivism and cognitive constructivism. Social
constructivism denotes knowledge that is constructed through the interaction of members within
a group, whereby students construct knowledge through interactions, particularly if guidance is
provided. Social constructivism proponents also believe that learning in the classroom should
mimic real-world scenarios (Schreiber & Valle, 2013). Conversely, personal or cognitive
constructivism emphasizes that knowledge is constructed by the individual learner through their
own experiences and focuses less on group interaction relative to social constructivism (Garrison,
1993; Kumar & Gupta, 2009).
Although there are various approaches to constructivist teaching practices, such as
cognitive apprenticeships and learning communities, one pedagogical practice that is rooted in
social constructivism is cooperative learning. Cooperative learning methods refer to students
working together in groups to achieve a specific educational outcome (Erbil, 2020). Cooperative
learning involves several pertinent factors, including positive interdependence, accountability,
interpersonal and group skills, promotive interaction, and group processing (Laal & Laal, 2012).
Firstly, positive interdependence refers to group interconnectedness, where the success of one
member is reliant on the success of all members within the group (Laal, 2013). Johnson and
Johnson (2008) suggest that groups with positive interdependence are successful because, when
members are cognizant that their contribution affects the entire group, their relative effort is
enhanced. Therefore, groups need to be structured in a way that allows each member to make a
valuable contribution to their group and, in turn, to perceive their contribution as valuable
(Collazos et al., 2003). The second factor, accountability, has two components: group and
individual accountability. Group accountability exists when the group receives an overall score,
and individual accountability is present when the group receives an overall score and a student
also receives an individual score for their contribution to the group (Johnson & Johnson, 2008).
Individual accountability is an important component in the development of knowledge
construction because a lack of individual accountability may create social loafing; that is, the
tendency to apply less effort to a task when in a group setting than when completing a task
individually (Piezon & Donaldson, 2005), consequently hindering mastery of subject material
(Slavin, 2014).
The third factor in Laal and Laal’s (2012) depiction of cooperative learning, group social
skills, includes many different facets such as effective communication and conflict resolution,
which can enhance group productivity and subsequently influence group achievement (Johnson
& Johnson, 2008). In the Tuckman Model of Group Stages (Tuckman, 1965), it is suggested that
all groups go through a stage in which conflicts begin to surface (McKibben, 2017). This
surfacing of conflicts makes it necessary that group members possess conflict resolution skills, or
desired group outcomes may not be satisfied. The fourth factor, promotive interaction, occurs
when students encourage and motivate each other, and provide each other with feedback and
assistance (Johnson & Johnson, 2008). Promotive interaction is beneficial in groups when
members employ helping behaviours, have past experiences with peer groups, are able to provide
support through feedback and modelling, and when students are adequately prepared for the task
and teachers can monitor student interactions (Kristiansen et al., 2019). The final factor in
cooperative learning, group processing, entails a reflection upon the group's interactions with a
focus on what actions

8
 in education

were beneficial and how the group can improve its effectiveness and efficiency (Yager et al.,
1986). Results from many studies (see, for example, Bertucci et al., 2012; Strahm, 2000) have
confirmed that cooperative groups with group processing had greater achievement relative to
cooperative groups without group processing. In reference to Laal and Laal’s (2012) and Tran’s
(2013) work, the factors that contribute to successful cooperative learning seem to have strong
theoretical underpinnings. Therefore, it is worth investigating how cooperative learning
translates into the practical setting of an inclusive classroom.
Social Constructivist Approaches and Cooperative Learning
Cooperative learning can benefit students in many ways, especially in the context of academic
achievement. For example, Zakaria et al. (2013) conducted a quantitative study examining the
effects of cooperative learning practices in comparison to traditional learning practices on
measures of academic achievement in math. The authors determined there was a statistically
significant difference between students in the cooperative learning environment (M = 55.19, SD
= 11.62) and students in the traditional learning environment (M = 47.47, SD = 15.10), providing
some evidence that cooperative learning is a more effective teaching method for enhancing
academic achievement in math. According to Zakaria et al. (2013), these results were obtained
because the provision and reception of knowledge within groups led to a deeper understanding of
content. Similar results were obtained by Aziz and Hossain (2010), who reported that gains in
mathematics achievement were greater when students experienced cooperative learning as
opposed to traditional teaching, which the authors refer to as standard lecture. It is also worth
noting that in these studies, the researchers, Aziz and Hossain (2010) and Zakaria et al. (2013),
used different methods of cooperative learning; the former used Learning Together (Johnson &
Johnson, 1987) and the latter used Jigsaw (Aronson, 1978). The Jigsaw method will be further
elaborated on when discussing cooperative learning in an inclusive classroom. The Jigsaw
method is particularly noteworthy based on results from a study by Gambari and Yusuf (2017),
who suggest that the Jigsaw method may yield the greatest academic benefits relative to
alternative cooperative learning strategies such as team-assisted individualization (Slavin, 1985)
and student teams-achievement division (Slavin, 1994). Therefore, it seems that cooperative
learning is an effective practice for increasing academic achievement regardless of the specific
method, such as Jigsaw, group investigation, or any other cooperative learning method.
Research into cooperative learning strategies has also shown benefits in subjects other
than mathematics. For example, Rojas‐Drummond et al. (2014) examined the effects of
cooperative learning using the Test of Textual Integration (TTI), which is a test that measures
written communication and reading comprehension. Out of the two schools examined in their
study, the students in the experimental school who used cooperative learning scored higher on
the TTI in comparison to students in the control school, suggesting that cooperative learning is
an effective method for developing written communication and reading comprehension skills
(Rojas- Drummond et al., 2014). It is evident that cooperative learning, like DI/EI, can support
literacy development in students with developmental disabilities since, as previously discussed,
students with developmental disabilities may benefit from the less ambiguous and sequential
instruction that DI/EI provides (Shillingsburg et al., 2015). However, like many students in an
inclusive classroom, those with developmental disabilities also benefit from cooperative learning
for a variety of reasons. For example, Rojas-Drummond et al. (2014) surmised that the
experimental group had superior scores on the TTI due to the use of exploratory talk that
occurred within the groups. The desired outcomes for educators in inclusive classrooms may
entail augmenting their

9
 in education

students’ social skills while promoting literacy development. Therefore, research indicates that a
combination of DI/EI and cooperative learning in an inclusive classroom could be effective,
simultaneously improving academic achievement while improving peer relations and reducing
bullying victimization (Van Ryzin & Roseth, 2018).
Similar to the findings obtained by Rojas-Drummond et al. (2014), students in
cooperative learning groups were found to produce higher scores on reading tests that assess
higher-order reading ability compared to students in teacher-led approaches (Law, 2011). The
scores were noticeably different. Students in the cooperative learning group also perceived this
approach as more beneficial than students in the control group. Law (2011) explained that the
cooperative learning strategy was able to produce stronger scores because group discussion
enhanced intrinsic motivation. While both of these studies used cooperative learning strategies,
the study by Rojas- Drummond (2014) used the Learning Together strategy, and the study by
Law (2011) used the Jigsaw strategy. The results from Rojas-Drummond (2014) and Law (2011)
provide additional evidence for cooperative learning strategies being beneficial regardless of the
specific method used, as long as the key factors of cooperative learning (positive
interdependence, accountability, interpersonal and group skills, promotive interaction, and group
processing) are in place.
Given that social interaction is an inherent part of cooperative learning, a key aspect of
cooperative learning includes training students in the social skills of, for example, conflict
management and group decision-making (Gillies & Boyle, 2010; Laal & Laal, 2012). Students
generally appreciate the opportunity to interact with their peers as it can improve relationships
and allow all students to contribute, which may be particularly valuable for students who tend to
feel isolated in the classroom (Baker & Clark, 2010; Igel & Urquhart, 2012). By practicing social
skills, under cooperative learning conditions, important educational goals such as the
development of social skills and active citizenship can be promoted.
Social Constructivist Approaches and Students with Developmental Disabilities
Hart and Whalon (2011) and Ugwuegbulam et al. (2020) suggest that cooperative learning is an
effective teaching method for increasing development in both academic and non-academic
domains for students with developmental disabilities. Ugwuegbulam et al. (2020) found that
students with developmental disabilities who participated in cooperative learning strategies have
statistically significant differences (F ( 2,78) = 127.29, p < .05) on the Woodcock-Johnson III
Mathematics Fluency Achievement Tests Scale (Woodcock et al., 2001) in comparison to
students in the control group, indicating that cooperative learning is an effective method for
enhancing academic achievement in mathematics. It is worth noting that students in the control
group also had developmental disabilities. Similar results were obtained by Dugan et al. (1995),
who explored the effects of cooperative learning on various social studies curricula in an
inclusive classroom using an ABAB single-subject design. Based on their results, Dugan et al.
(1995) suggested that students obtained the highest scores on the social studies test while in the
treatment condition. Students also had a substantially greater level of academic engagement and
higher levels of peer interaction while in the treatment condition. Their study makes a valuable
contribution to the field of inclusive education, as it demonstrates how inclusive classrooms
utilizing cooperative learning strategies can benefit students with and without developmental
disabilities. Since the baseline condition of Dugan et al.’s study included teacher-led approaches,
their results also indicate that cooperative learning may be more beneficial than teacher-led
approaches such as DI/EI when attempting to increase academic achievement. However, some
students with developmental disabilities may have a specific learning style that results in them
learning better under a structured

10
 in education

and repetitive pedagogy where specific and concrete instructions are provided, such as DI/EI
(Kroeger et al., 2007). Perhaps a combination of cooperative learning and DI/EI is needed to
adequately meet the diverse needs of an inclusive classroom.
Results similar to Dugan et al. (1995) were obtained by Grey et al. (2007), who found
that students with developmental disabilities increase their social engagement under cooperative
learning conditions to a greater extent than traditional teaching conditions, while task
engagement was unaffected. The finding that task engagement does not increase for students
with developmental disabilities under cooperative learning conditions is also supported by results
from Murphy et al. (2004). Since a lack of task engagement contributes to academic dysfunction
(Morsink et al., 2021), educators may wish to consider using DI/EI when attempting to increase
academic achievement and cooperative learning when striving to develop social competencies.
Across a good selection of the research, there is a general consensus that teachers of
inclusive classrooms have positive perceptions of cooperative learning (Jenkins et al., 2003;
Saborit et al., 2016; Strogilos et al., 2016; Völlinger & Supanc, 2020). According to Cline
(2020), teachers have a positive perception of implementing cooperative learning in an inclusive
classroom because of the benefits it yields for students with disabilities. In Cline’s (2020) study,
teachers reported that cooperative learning is particularly valuable for students with disabilities
since social engagement is increased and the opportunity to collaborate with high-ability students
can augment the cognitive development of students with disabilities (Cline, 2020).
To this point, an examination of the literature has revealed several ideas. Firstly,
cooperative learning yields academic benefits, across diverse curriculum areas, for students with
disabilities and their neurotypical peers. Additionally, students with disabilities have been shown
to improve their social skills when in cooperative learning conditions. The benefits of
cooperative learning for students with disabilities are also noticed by teachers, who have
reported that cooperative learning enhances cognitive development and social engagement.
Lastly, it is worth investigating the future of cooperative learning for students with
developmental disabilities, which may not include human interaction. A study by Jimenez et al.
(2017) investigated the effects of robot-led collaborative learning on children who display
symptoms of developmental disabilities. The researchers created three distinct groups. In the first
group, a student and the robot learned content together. In group two, a student learned material
on their own. In group three, two students learned together. Each participant in the study (n = 4)
took turns being in each of the three groups. Results of the study suggested that when
participants were in the student-robot group, the highest learning times, which the authors define
as “the rate at which the robot learned the answer and solution method of a problem when taught
by the gray scale child” (Jimenez et al., 2017, p. 3), were produced. High learning time suggests
that students had the highest levels of on-task behaviour when learning cooperatively with the
robot. Further, the student-robot group had the highest teaching rate, meaning the robot was
effectively able to assist students in “learning-by- teaching” (Jimenez et al., 2017, p. 5), whereby
the student learns by teaching the robot. Lastly, students preferred learning with the robot rather
than learning with another student or by themselves (Jimenez et al., 2017). These results suggest
that more research is warranted to adequately assess the impact of robot-led collaborative
learning on students with developmental disabilities.
It is worth mentioning that future research in the fields of inclusive education and
cooperative learning could explore the role of artificial intelligence (AI). While research
exploring the use of AI for students with developmental disabilities is still emerging, several
authors, such

11
 in education

as Marino et al. (2023), have claimed that AI has already begun to disrupt the field of inclusive
education. For example, in a review by Chen et al. (2022), the authors advocate for more
frequent use of AI in inclusive classrooms. They claim that the ability of AI to deliver instant,
personalized feedback and reinforcement and reduce feelings of anxiety proves particularly
beneficial for students with developmental disabilities. Asthana and Gupta (2019) found that AI
was capable of enhancing social and communication skills among students with autism.
Although research examining the effects of cooperative learning and AI is relatively scarce,
some studies allow for an optimistic perspective to be adopted when examining AI in the context
of cooperative learning. For example, Yang et al. (2021) reported that teachers would prefer AI
to suggest classroom pairings when employing cooperative learning strategies. Additionally,
some teachers believe that students should engage in cooperative learning with AI, as this can
promote meaningful socio- emotional interaction (Kim et al., 2022). One teacher in the Kim et al.
study stated: “AI should interact educationally meaningfully with students, encourage them to
overcome their difficulties and achieve the task, and motivate students” (p. 6084). Since teachers
seem to express positive attitudes towards the integration of AI in cooperative learning contexts,
perhaps AI will be incorporated into inclusive classrooms at the same time as instructors utilize
cooperative learning strategies. Before educators fully incorporate the use of AI into their
pedagogy, however, more research should be conducted that explores the academic and non-
academic effects of using AI and a cooperative learning strategy in an inclusive classroom.
While it does appear that cooperative learning alone has the ability to improve academic
achievement (Ugwuegbulam et al., 2020) and social skills (Grey et al., 2007) for students with
developmental disabilities, the combination of both DI/EI and cooperative learning strategies,
such as Jigsaw, may have a positive synergistic effect on educational outcomes. Thus, further
exploration into this combination of approaches in an inclusive classroom is warranted.
Combining Direct Instruction and Social Constructivist Approaches in Inclusive
Classrooms
While DI/EI may be able to increase the academic achievement of students with developmental
disabilities, the schooling experience and social acceptance of students with developmental
disabilities are strengthened under cooperative learning conditions (Klang et al., 2020). Many
researchers believe that certain elements of DI/EI need to be incorporated when educating
students with developmental disabilities; however, educators may wish to consider integrating
both approaches into their practices (Al-Shammari et al., 2019; King-Sears, 1997; Voltz et al.,
2001). Perhaps achievement can be augmented through the combination of these practices. For
example, in a study examining the effect of DI/EI and cooperative learning in comparison to a
DI/EI group and a control group, scores on reading comprehension measurements were highest
in the DI/EI and cooperative learning group (Stevens et al., 1991). The DI/EI and cooperative
learning group likely produced greater scores because cooperative learning allows students to
provide feedback, motivate each other, and facilitate interaction regarding the re-explanation of
concepts (Stevens et al., 1991), which is analogous to learning from the justly knowledgeable
other in the zone of proximal development, a key component of development under the
Vygotskian lens (Doolittle, 1995). Some of the most pertinent components of an inclusive
classroom include the assumption that all students should actively participate, meet the needs of
all students, and have a sense of belonging. According to Mengduo and Xiaoling (2010), these
principles can be actualized through cooperative learning, specifically the Jigsaw method.
Particular significance is being attributed to the Jigsaw method because it often outperforms
other cooperative learning techniques. According

12
 in education

to Adams (2013), the Jigsaw method consists of ten consecutive steps, including dividing
students into groups, appointing a leader for each group, dividing the lesson into segments,
assigning each student to a certain segment, allowing students to familiarize themselves with
their segment, creating an expert group that is comprised of one member from each initial group,
allowing students to return to their initial groups, allowing students from the expert group to
teach their group, observing the process as a teacher, and creating a learning assessment based on
the content (Adams, 2013, pp. 70-71). Gambari and Yusuf (2017) found that the Jigsaw method
improved academic achievement in a physics course to a greater extent than team-assisted
individualization (Slavin, 1985) and student teams-achievement division (Slavin, 1994), two
alternative cooperative learning techniques. In an inclusive classroom, Quirey (2015) determined
that the Jigsaw method increased student participation more than Think-Pair-Share, which is a
cooperative learning strategy that has been previously shown to increase student participation
(Mundelsee & Jurkowski, 2021).
The Jigsaw method can be easily adapted for an inclusive classroom. For example, if a
teacher believes that a student with disabilities is experiencing difficulties learning their assigned
segment, they can assign another neurotypical student to assist them by asking probing questions
or filling in missing information (Aronson, 2002). Additionally, teachers can also take key steps
when establishing groups to ensure social inclusion. Goor and Schwenn (1993) suggest that
teachers use a sociogram method whereby students write down the names of four peers they
would like to work with. Following this, the teacher can create a social score for students based
on the frequency with which their name was written down, which helps determine which
students are socially isolated. Goor and Schwenn (1993) suggested that students with low scores
and high scores should be grouped together, as students with high scores can more easily
influence group members to be compassionate towards one another. In addition, the teacher
should consider which students were selected by the students with developmental disabilities
since working with a desired peer can enhance group cohesiveness and confidence (Goor &
Schween, 1993). One distinguishable benefit of heterogeneous cooperative learning groups is
highlighted when exploring academic achievement. Authors such as Ghanbari and
Abdolrezapour (2020) and Zamani (2016) claim that grouping low-ability learners with average
and high-ability learners is the most impactful grouping structure for low-ability learners on
measures of academic achievement. Zamani (2016) also found that high-ability students in
heterogeneous groups perform equally as well as their high-ability counterparts in homogenous
groups. Therefore, cooperative learning strategies that utilize heterogeneous grouping allow for
greater academic gains for low- ability students while avoiding having a negative impact on
high-ability students.
When students with disabilities work in cooperative learning groups with neurotypical
peers, they receive higher social acceptance and popularity ratings than when they are not in a
cooperative learning setting (Piercy et al., 2002). This finding might be explained by the fact that
when students work in groups, positive interactions occur when each member can make a
meaningful contribution to the group, members have high levels of interpersonal contact, and the
teacher provides support (Piercy et al., 2002). Therefore, when using the Jigsaw method, it is
imperative that essential criteria of effective groups, such as positive interdependence and
promotive interaction, are met. When developing positive interdependence, the teacher can
create different roles, such as leader, editor, or encourager of participation, and assign students to
these roles accordingly (Roger & Johnson, 1994). If the group is assessed on the extent to which
these roles were accurately executed, this process inevitably allows all members to feel as if they
made a valuable contribution to the group. This description of the Jigsaw method and the
adaptations for

13
 in education

utilizing the method in inclusive classrooms provide a concrete basis for teachers to use social
constructivist approaches in their classrooms.
Conclusion
While DI/EI may provide benefits to students with developmental disabilities, in terms of gains
in academic achievement, cooperative learning can be complementary to DI/EI as it can foster
social inclusion and peer acceptance. The benefits yielded by DI/EI and cooperative learning
align with some of the overall goals of education, such as the development of social competence
and the promotion of prosocial behaviour. If teachers are striving to ensure all students achieve
the larger goals of education, then a combination of DI/EI and social constructivist practices
should be seriously considered. Some teachers have a negative perception of inclusive education,
partly due to a lack of intrinsic motivation to teach students with disabilities (Hunter-Johnson et
al., 2014) as well as the belief that students with disabilities will negatively impact the ability of
neurotypical students to learn (Yilmaz & Yeganeh, 2021). Teachers’ negative perceptions
towards students with disabilities can be associated with lower learning outcomes for these
students (Hunter-Johnson et al., 2014). However, if teachers become cognizant of the benefits
derived from a combination of DI/EI and social constructivist practices, then any negative
perceptions towards inclusive education may be altered, subsequently creating a healthy
environment for students with disabilities to attain educational goals.
Furthermore, cooperative learning groups that are heterogeneous in nature are reported
to not impair the learning ability of non-disabled students. The gains in academic achievement
are equivalent in both heterogeneous and homogeneous learning groups (Wyman & Watson,
2020). Therefore, teachers should not be reluctant to use social constructivist learning strategies
such as cooperative learning when educating students with diverse abilities. It is also worth
repeating that students who are mainstreamed in heterogeneous cooperative learning groups tend
to have stronger gains in reading comprehension and language expression relative to their
counterparts in traditional classrooms (Fore III et al., 2006). The notion that cooperative learning
is complementary to DI/EI has been consistently reinforced as researchers conclude that
cooperative learning is at least as effective as DI/EI (Hänze & Berger, 2007) but produces
additional benefits such as increased peer interaction and generalization of recently acquired
skills (Gillies, 2003). If educators are interested in creating a classroom in which all students can
be successful in academic and social domains, they should consider using both DI/EI and social
constructivist approaches. However, further research is warranted to explore the effects of
cooperative learning as well as cooperative learning along with DI/EI within an inclusive
classroom. Within the past decade, there has been a scarcity of research studies specifically
investigating how the combination of DI/EI and cooperative learning affects academic
achievement and other non-academic measures such as social outcomes for students with
developmental disabilities in inclusive classrooms.

14
 in education

References
Adams, F. H. (2013). Using jigsaw technique as an effective way of promoting cooperative
learning among primary six pupils in Fijai. International Journal of Education and
Practice, 1(6), 64-74. https://doi.org/10.18488/journal.61/2013.1.6/61.6.64.74
Ahmed, S. M. S., Valliant, P. M., & Swindle, D. (1985). Psychometric properties of
Coopersmith self-esteem inventory. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 61(3_suppl), 1235-
1241. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1985.61.3f.1235
Al-Shammari, Z., Faulkner, P. E., & Forlin, C. (2019). Theories-based inclusive education
practices. Education Quarterly Reviews, 2(2), 408-414.
http://doi.org/10.31014/aior.1993.02.02.73
American Psychological Association. (n.d.). Psychology. APA Dictionary of Psychology.
https://dictionary.apa.org/developmental-disability
Aronson, E. (1978). The jigsaw classroom. Sage.
Aronson, E. (2002). Building empathy, compassion, and achievement in the jigsaw classroom. In
E. Aronson (Ed.), Improving academic achievement (pp. 209-225). Academic Press.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012064455-1/50013-0
Asthana, P., & Gupta, V. K. (2019). Role of artificial intelligence in dealing with emotional and
behavioural disorders. International Journal of Management, IT & Engineering, 9(5),
398–403.
Aziz, Z., & Hossain, M. A. (2010). A comparison of cooperative learning and conventional
teaching on students’ achievement in secondary mathematics. Procedia-Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 9, 53-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.12.115
Baker, T., & Clark, J. (2010). Cooperative learning–a double‐edged sword: A cooperative
learning model for use with diverse student groups. Intercultural Education, 21(3), 257-
268. https://doi.org/10.1080/14675981003760440
Becker, W. C., & Gersten, R. (1982). A follow-up of Follow Through: The later effects of the
Direct Instruction Model on children in fifth and sixth grades. American Educational
Research Journal, 19(1), 75-92. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312019001075
Berls, A. T., & McEwen, I. R. (1999). Battelle developmental inventory. Physical Therapy,
79(8), 776-783. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/79.8.776
Bertucci, A., Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Conte, S. (2012). Influence of group processing
on achievement and perception of social and academic support in elementary
inexperienced cooperative learning groups. The Journal of Educational Research, 105(5),
329-335. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2011.627396
Borman, G. D., Dowling, N. M., & Schneck, C. (2008). A multisite cluster randomized field trial
of Open Court Reading. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(4), 389-
407. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373708326283
Brock, M. E., Dynia, J. M., Dueker, S. A., & Barczak, M. A. (2020). Teacher-reported priorities
and practices for students with autism: Characterizing the research-to-practice gap. Focus

15
 in education

on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 35(2), 67-78.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1088357619881217
Bunch, G., & Valeo, A. (2004). Student attitudes toward peers with disabilities in inclusive and
special education schools. Disability & Society, 19(1), 61-76.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0968759032000155640
Carnine, D. (2000). Why education experts resist effective practices (and what it would take to
make education more like medicine). Fordham Foundation. Beyond Behavior, 17(3), 30-
36. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED442804
Chen, X., Zou, D., Xie, H., Cheng, G., & Liu, C. (2022). Two decades of artificial intelligence in
education. Educational Technology & Society, 25(1), 28-47.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/48647028
Cline, J. M. (2020). Collaborative learning for students with learning disabilities in inclusive
classrooms: A qualitative narrative inquiry dtudy (Order No. 28263106). [Doctoral
dissertation, Northcentral University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.
Collazos, C. A., Guerrero, L. A., Pino, J. A., & Ochoa, S. F. (2003, September). Collaborative
scenarios to promote positive interdependence among group members. In J. Favela &
D. Decouchant (eds.) Groupware: Design, implementation and use. International
Conference on Collaboration and Technology, 2806 (pp. 356-370). Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-39850-9_30
Coopersmith, S. (1967). The antecedents of self- esteem. San Francisco, CA: Freeman.
Doolittle, P. E. (1995). Understanding cooperative learning through Vygotsky's zone of proximal
development. [Conference Presentation]. Lilly National Conference in Excellence in
College Teaching, Columbia, SC, United States.
Dugan, E., Kamps, D., Leonard, B., Watkins, N., Rheinberger, A., & Stackhaus, J. (1995).
Effects of cooperative learning groups during social studies for students with autism and
fourth‐grade peers. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 28(2), 175-188.
https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1995.28-175
Engelmann, S. (2007). Student-program alignment and teaching to mastery. Journal of Direct
Instruction, 7(1), 45-66. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ788674
Engelmann, S., & Becker, W. (1995). Connecting math concepts level K. Engelmann/Becker
Corporation.
Engelmann, S., Bruner, E., Hanner, S., Osborn, J., Osborn, S., & Zoref, L. (1995).
Reading Mastery. SRA/McGraw-Hill.
Erbil D. G. (2020). A review of flipped classroom and cooperative learning method within the
context of Vygotsky Theory. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1157.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01157
Farmer, T. W., Hamm, J. V., Dawes, M., Barko-Alva, K., & Cross, J. R. (2019). Promoting
inclusive communities in diverse classrooms: Teacher attunement and social dynamics
management. Educational Psychologist, 54(4), 286-305.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2019.1635020.

16
 in education

Fernando, S. Y., & Marikar, F. M. (2017). Constructivist teaching/learning theory and

participatory teaching methods. Journal of Curriculum and Teaching, 6(1), 110-122.
https://doi.org/10.5430/jct.v6n1p110.
Fielding, G. D., Kameenui, E., & Gersten, R. (1983). A comparison of an inquiry and a direct
instruction approach to teaching legal concepts and applications to secondary school
students. The Journal of Educational Research, 76(5), 287-293.
http://www.jstor.com/stable/27539989
Fisher, M., & Meyer, L. H. (2002). Development and social competence after two years for
students enrolled in inclusive and self-contained educational programs. Research and
Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 27(3), 165-174.
https://doi.org/10.2511/rpsd.27.3.165
Flores, M. M., & Ganz, J. B. (2007). Effectiveness of direct instruction for teaching statement
inference, use of facts, and analogies to students with developmental disabilities and
reading delays. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 22(4), 244-251.
https://doi.org/10.1177/10883576070220040601
Fore III, C., Riser, S., & Boon, R. (2006). Implications of cooperative learning and educational
reform for students with mild disabilities. Reading Improvement, 43(1), 3-13.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ765499
Gambari, A. I., & Yusuf, M. O. (2017). Relative effectiveness of computer-supported Jigsaw II,
STAD and TAI cooperative learning strategies on performance, attitude, and retention of
secondary school students in physics. Journal of Peer Learning, 10(1), 76-94.
https://ro.uow.edu.au/ajpl/vol10/iss1/6
Gamlem, S. M., & Smith, K. (2013). Student perceptions of classroom feedback. Assessment in
Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 20(2), 150-169.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2012.749212
Garrison, D. R. (1993). A cognitive constructivist view of distance education: An analysis of
teaching‐learning assumptions. Distance Education, 14(2), 199-211.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0158791930140204
Garrote, A., Felder, F., Krähenmann, H., Schnepel, S., Sermier Dessemontet, R., Moser Opitz, E.
(2020). Social acceptance in inclusive classrooms: The role of teacher attitudes toward
inclusion and classroom management. Frontiers in Education, (5)4, Article 582873.
https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.582873
Gersten, R., Woodward, J., & Darch, C. (1986). Direct instruction: A research-based approach to
curriculum design and teaching. Exceptional Children, 53(1), 17-31.
https://doi.org/10.1177/001440298605300102
Ghanbari, N., and Abdolrezapour, P. (2020). Group composition and learner ability in
cooperative learning: A mixed-methods study. The Electronic Journal for English as a
Second Language, 24(2), 1-18.
Gillies, R. M. (2003). Structuring co-operative learning experiences in primary school. In R. M.
Gillies & A. F. Ashman (Eds.), Co-operative learning: The social and intellectual
outcomes of learning in groups (pp. 36–53). Routledge.

17
 in education

Gillies, R. M., & Boyle, M. (2010). Teachers' reflections on cooperative learning: Issues of
implementation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 933-940.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.10.034
Goor, M. B., & Schwenn, J. O. (1993). Accommodating diversity and disability with cooperative
learning. Intervention in School and Clinic, 29(1), 6-16.
https://doi.org/10.1177/105345129302900103
Goss, C. L., & Brown-Chidsey, R. (2012). Tier 2 reading interventions: Comparison of reading
mastery and foundations double dose. Preventing School Failure: Alternative
Education for Children and Youth, 56(1), 65-74.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2011.565385.
Grey, I. M., Bruton, C., Honan, R., McGuinness, R., & Daly, M. (2007). Co‐operative learning
for children with an Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD) in mainstream and special class
settings: an exploratory study. Educational Psychology in Practice, 23(4), 317-327.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02667360701660936
Hänze, M., & Berger, R. (2007). Cooperative learning, motivational effects, and student
characteristics: An experimental study comparing cooperative learning and direct
instruction in 12th grade physics classes. Learning and Instruction, 17(1), 29–41.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.11.004
Hart, J. E., & Whalon, K. J. (2011). Creating social opportunities for students with autism
spectrum disorder in inclusive settings. Intervention in School and Clinic, 46(5), 273-279.
http://doi.org/10.1177/1053451210395382
Hayter, S., Scott, E., McLaughlin, T. F., & Weber, K. P. (2007). The use of a modified
direct instruction flashcard system with two high school students with developmental
disabilities. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 19(4), 409–
415. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-007-9059-3
Head, C. N., Flores, M. M., & Shippen, M. E. (2018). Effects of direct instruction on reading
comprehension for individuals with autism or developmental disabilities. Education and
Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 53(2), 176-191.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/26495268
Humphrey, S., & Feez, S. (2016). Direct instruction fit for purpose: Applying a metalinguistic
toolkit to enhance creative writing in the early secondary years. The Australian Journal of
Language and Literacy,39(3), 207-219. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03651974
Hunter-Johnson, Y., Newton, N. G., & Cambridge-Johnson, J. (2014). What does teachers'
perception have to do with inclusive education: A Bahamian context. International
Journal of Special Education, 29(1), 143-157. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1034086
Igel, C., & Urquhart, V. (2012). Generation Z, meet cooperative learning: Properly implemented
cooperative learning strategies can increase student engagement and achievement. Middle
School Journal, 43(4), 16-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/00940771.2012.11461816
Jansen, T., Chioncel, N., & Dekkers, H. (2006). Social cohesion and integration: Learning active
citizenship. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 27(2), 189-205.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01425690600556305

18
 in education

Jastak, J. F., & Jastak, S. R. (1976). The wide range achievement test: WRAT; Manual of
instructions. Guidance Associates of Delaware.
Jenkins, J. R., Antil, L. R., Wayne, S. K., & Vadasy, P. F. (2003). How cooperative learning
works for special education and remedial students. Exceptional children, 69(3), 279-292.
https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290306900302
Jimenez, F., Yoshikawa, T., Furuhashi, T., Kanoh, M., & Nakamura, T. (2017, November).
Collaborative learning between robots and children with potential symptoms of a
developmental disability. 2017 IEEE Symposium Series on Computational Intelligence
(SSCI) (pp. 1-5). http://doi.org/10.1109/SSCI.2017.8280917
Johnson, B.W., Redfield, D.L., Miller, R., & Simpson, R.E. (1983). The Coopersmith Self-
Esteem Inventory: A construct validation study. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 43(3), 907-913. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316448304300332
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1987). Learning together and alone: Cooperative,
competitive, and individualistic learning (2nd ed.). Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2008). Social interdependence theory and cooperative
learning: The teacher's role. In R. M. Gillies, A. F. Ashman, & J. Terwel (Eds.), The
teacher’s role in implementing cooperative learning in the classroom (pp. 9-37).
Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-70892-8_1
Kiliç, M. E., Kiliç, M., & Akan, D. (2021). Motivation in the classroom. Participatory
Educational Research, 8(2), 31-56. http://dx.doi.org/10.17275/per.21.28.8.2
Kim, T., & Axelrod, S. (2005). Direct instruction: An educators' guide and a plea for action. The
Behavior Analyst Today, 6(2), 111-120. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0100061
Kim, J., Lee, H., & Cho, Y. H. (2022). Learning design to support student-AI collaboration:
Perspectives of leading teachers for AI in education. Education and Information
Technologies, 27(5), 6069-6104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10831-6
King-Sears, M. E. (1997). Best academic practices for inclusive classrooms. Focus on
Exceptional Children, 29(7). https://doi.org/10.17161/foec.v29i7.6753
Klang, N., Olsson, I., Wilder, J., Lindqvist, G., Fohlin, N., & Nilholm, C. (2020). A cooperative
learning intervention to promote social inclusion in heterogeneous classrooms. Frontiers
in Psychology, 11, Article 586489. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.586489
Knapp, N. F. (2019). The shape activity: Social constructivism in the psychology classroom.
Teaching of Psychology, 46(1), 87-91. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628318816181
Knight, V. F., Smith, B. R., Spooner, F., & Browder, D. (2012). Using explicit instruction to
teach science descriptors to students with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism
and Developmental Disorders, 42(3), 378-389. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-011-1258-
1.
Körük, S. (2017). The effect of self-esteem on student achievement. In E. Karadag (ed.), The
factors effecting student achievement: Meta-Analysis of empirical studies (pp. 247-257).
Springer, Cham https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56083-0_15

19
 in education

Kousar, R (2010). The effect of direct instruction model on intermediate class achievement and
attitudes toward English grammar. Journal of College Teaching and Learning, 7, 99-103.
http://dx.doi.org/10.19030/tlc.v7i2.94
Kretlow, A. G., & Bartholomew, C. C. (2010). Using coaching to improve the fidelity of
evidence-based practices: A review of studies. Teacher Education and Special
Education, 33(4), 279-299. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406410371643
Kristiansen, D. S., Burner, T., & Johnsen, B. H. (2019). Face-to-face promotive interaction
leading to successful cooperative learning: A review study. Cogent Education, 6(1), 1-19.
674067. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1674067
Kroeger, K. A., Schultz, J. R., & Newsom, C. (2007). A comparison of two group-delivered
social skills programs for young children with autism. Journal of Autism and
Developmental Disorders, 37(5), 808-817. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-006-0207-x.
Kulik, C. L. C., Kulik, J. A., & Bangert-Drowns, R. L. (1990). Effectiveness of mastery learning
programs: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 60(2), 265-299.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543060002265
Kumar, R., & Gupta, V. K. (2009). An introduction to cognitive constructivism in education.
Journal of Indian Education, 35(3), 39-45. https://studylib.net/doc/11673619/indian-
education-journal-of-contents
Kurth, J. A., & Mastergeorge, A. M. (2010). Academic and cognitive profiles of students with
autism: implications for classroom practice and placement. International Journal of
Special Education, 25(2), 8-14. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ890580
Laal, M. (2013). Positive interdependence in collaborative learning. Procedia-Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 93, 1433-1437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.058
Laal, M., & Laal, M. (2012). Collaborative learning: what is it? Procedia-Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 31, 491-495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.12.092
Larsson, K. (2017). Understanding and teaching critical thinking—A new approach.
International Journal of Educational Research, 84, 32-42.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2017.05.004
Law, Y. K. (2011). The effects of cooperative learning on enhancing Hong Kong fifth graders'
achievement goals, autonomous motivation and reading proficiency. Journal of Research
in Reading, 34(4), 402-425. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2010.01445.x
Lombardi, P. (2017). Instructional methods, strategies, math and technology to meet the needs of
all learners. PressBooks.
Low, G., Lomax, A., Jackson, M., & Nelson, D. (2004). Emotional intelligence: A new student
development model. National Conference of the American College Personnel Association
[Paper Presentation]. Philadelphia, PA.
Marino, M. T., Vasquez, E., Dieker, L., Basham, J., & Blackorby, J. (2023). The future of
artificial intelligence in special education technology. Journal of Special Education
Technology, 38(3), 404-416. https://doi.org/10.1177/01626434231165977

20
 in education

McKenzie, M. A., Marchand-Martella, N. E., Moore, M. E., & Martella, R. C. (2004). Teaching
basic math skills to preschoolers using "Connecting Math Concepts Level K". Journal of
Direct Instruction, 4(1), 85-94. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ755138
McKibben, L. (2017). Conflict management: importance and implications. British Journal of
Nursing, 26(2), 100-103. https://doi.org/10.12968/bjon.2017.26.2.100
McMullen, F., & Madelaine, A. (2014). Why is there so much resistance to Direct Instruction?
Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 19(2), 137-151.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19404158.2014.962065
Mengduo, Q., & Xiaoling, J. (2010). Jigsaw strategy as a cooperative learning technique:
Focusing on the language learners. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics (Foreign
Language Teaching & Research Press), 33(4), 112-125.
Meyer, L. A. (1984). Long-term academic effects of the direct instruction project follow through.
The Elementary School Journal, 84(4), 380-394. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1001365.
Moore, D. W. (2007). Direct instruction: Targeted strategies for student success. National
Geographic.
Morsink, S., Sonuga-Barke, E., Van der Oord, S., Van Dessel, J., Lemiere, J., & Danckaerts,
M. (2021). Task-related motivation and academic achievement in children and
adolescents with ADHD. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 30(1), 131-141.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-020-01494-8
Mundelsee, L., & Jurkowski, S. (2021). Think and pair before share: Effects of collaboration
on students' in-class participation. Learning and Individual Differences, 88(6), 102015.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2021.102015
Murphy, E., Grey, I. M., & Honan, R. (2004). Implementation of a cooperative learning program
with a child with an autistic spectrum disorder. REACH: Journal of Inclusive Education
in Ireland, 18(1), 39-49.
Newborg, J., Stock, J., Wnek, L., Guidubaldi, J., & Svinicki, J. (1984). Battelle Developmental
Inventory. DLM Teaching Resources.
Phillips, D., Nichols, W. D., Rupley, W. H., Paige, D., & Rasinski, T. V. (2016). Efficacy of
professional development: Extended use of focused coaching on guided reading
instruction for teachers of grades one, two, and three. International Research in Higher
Education, 1(2), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.5430/irhe.v1n2p12
Piercy, M., Wilton, K., & Townsend, M. (2002). Promoting the social acceptance of young
children with moderate-severe intellectual disabilities using cooperative-learning
techniques. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 107(5), 352–
360. https://doi.org/10.1352/0895-8017(2002)107<0352:PTSAOY>2.0.CO;2
Piezon, S. L., & Donaldson, R. L. (2005). Online groups and social loafing: Understanding
student-group interactions. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 8(4), 1-
11.
Przychodzin, A. M., Marchand-Martella, N. E., Martella, R. C., & Azim, D. (2004). Direct
instruction mathematics programs: An overview and research summary. Journal of
Direct Instruction, 4(1), 53-84. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ755135

21
 in education

Quirey, G. (2015). Determining the effects of Jigsaw versus Think-Pair-Share on student

participation in an inclusive classroom. [Unpublished Student Submission]. University of
Mary Washington.
Raskin, J. D. (2002). Constructivism in psychology: Personal construct psychology, radical
constructivism, and social constructionism. American Communication Journal, 5(3), 1-
25.
Rasmitadila, Z., & Boeriswati, E. (2017). Peers’ instructional interactions in inclusive
classrooms: slow learner students and typical students. International Journal of
Multidisciplinary and Current Research, 5(1), 904-911.
Roger, T., & Johnson, D. W. (1994). An overview of cooperative learning. Creativity and
Collaborative Learning, 1-21. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:154496332
Rojas‐Drummond, S., Mazón, N., Littleton, K., & Vélez, M. (2014). Developing reading
comprehension through collaborative learning. Journal of Research in Reading,
37(2), 138-158. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2011.01526.x
Rosenshine, B. (2008). Five meanings of direct instruction. Center on Innovation &
Improvement, Lincoln, 1-10.
https://www.academia.edu/10094456/Five_Meanings_of_Direct_Instruction
Rothstein, R., & Jacobsen, R. (2006). The goals of education. Phi Delta Kappan, 88(4), 264-272.
https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170608800405
Saborit, J. A. P., Fernández-Río, J., Estrada, J. A. C., Méndez-Giménez, A., & Alonso, D. M.
(2016). Teachers' attitude and perception towards cooperative learning implementation:
Influence of continuing training. Teaching and Teacher Education, 59, 438-445.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.07.020
Schieffer, C., Marchand-Martella, N. E., Martella, R. C., Simonsen, F. L., & Waldron-Soler, K.
M. (2002). An analysis of the reading mastery program: Effective components and
research review. Journal of Direct Instruction, 2(2), 87-119. https://eric.ed.gov/?
id=EJ651888
Schreiber, L. M., & Valle, B. E. (2013). Social constructivist teaching strategies in the small
group classroom. Small Group Research, 44(4), 395-411.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496413488422
Shillingsburg, M. A., Bowen, C. N., Peterman, R. K., & Gayman, M. D. (2015). Effectiveness of
the direct instruction language for learning curriculum among children diagnosed with
autism spectrum disorder. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 30(1),
44-56. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088357614532498
Shogren, K. A., Gross, J. M., Forber-Pratt, A. J., Francis, G. L., Satter, A. L., Blue-Banning, M.,
& Hill, C. (2015). The perspectives of students with and without disabilities on inclusive
schools. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 40(4), 243-260.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796915583493
Slavin, R. E. (1985). Team-assisted individualization: Combining cooperative learning and
individualized instruction in mathematics. In R. Slavin, S. Sharan, S. Kagan, R. Hertz-

22
 in education

Lazarowitz, C. Webb, and R. Schmuck (Eds.), Learning to cooperate, cooperating to

learn (pp. 177-209). Springer US.
Slavin, R. E. (1994). Student teams achievement divisions. In S. Sharan (Ed.), Handbook of
cooperative learning methods (pp. 3-20). Greenwood Press/Greenwood Publishing
Group.
Slavin, R. E. (2014). Making cooperative learning powerful. Educational Leadership, 72(2), 22-
26. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1042375
Slocum, T. A., & Rolf, K. R. (2021). Features of direct instruction: Content analysis. Behavior
Analysis in Practice, 14(3), 775-784. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-021-00617-0
SRA/McGraw Hill. (1996). Open court collections for young scholars. McGraw Hill.
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(1), 8-16. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
0663.83.1.8
Stockard, J., & Engelmann, K. (2010). The development of early academic success: The impact
of Direct Instruction's Reading Mastery. Journal of Behavior Assessment and
Intervention in Children, 1(1), 2-24. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0100357.
Stockard, J., Wood, T. W., Coughlin, C., & Rasplica Khoury, C. (2018). The effectiveness of
direct instruction curricula: A meta-analysis of a half century of research. Review of
Educational Research, 88(4), 479-507. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654317751919
Strahm, Muriel F (2000). Co-operative learning: Group processing and students' needs for self-
worth and belonging. [Master’s Thesis, CQ University].
https://doi.org/10.25946/21172201.v1
Strogilos, V., Stefanidis, A., & Tragoulia, E. (2016). Co-teachers’ attitudes towards planning and
instructional activities for students with disabilities. European Journal of Special Needs
Education, 31(3), 344-359. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2016.1141512
Szumski, G., Smogorzewska, J., & Karwowski, M. (2017). Academic achievement of students
without special educational needs in inclusive classrooms: A meta-analysis. Educational
Research Review, 21(4), 33-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.02.004
Ten Dam, G., & Volman, M. (2007). Educating for adulthood or for citizenship: Social
competence as an educational goal. European Journal of Education, 42(2), 281-
298. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-3435.2007.00295.x
Tobias, S., & Duffy, T. M. (Eds.) (2009). Constructivist instruction: Success or failure? Taylor
& Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203878842
Tran, V. D. (2013). Theoretical perspectives underlying the application of cooperative learning
in classrooms. International Journal of Higher Education, 2(4), 101-115.
https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v2n4p101
Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63(6),
384–399. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0022100

23
 in education

Ugwuegbulam, C. N., Nwachukwu, K. E., & Ngozi, D. D. (2020). Effects of cooperative

learning and contingency contracting on attention deficit hyperactivity disorder among
pupils with learning disabilities in mathematics in Owerri, Nigeria. Cross-Cultural
Communication, 16(3), 25-30. http://dx.doi.org/10.3968/11552
Vanderwood, M. L., Linklater, D., & Healy, K. (2008). Predictive accuracy of nonsense
word fluency for English language learners. School Psychology Review, 37(1), 5-17.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2008.12087904
Van Ryzin, M. J., & Roseth, C. J. (2018). Cooperative learning in middle school: A means to
improve peer relations and reduce victimization, bullying, and related outcomes. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 110(8), Article 1192. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000265
Vergara-Torres, A. P., Tristán, J., López-Walle, J. M., González-Gallegos, A., Pappous, A., &
Tomás, I. (2020). Students’ perceptions of teachers’ corrective feedback, basic
psychological needs and subjective vitality: a multilevel approach. Frontiers in
Psychology, 11(14), Article 558954. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.558954
Völlinger, V. A., & Supanc, M. (2020). Student teachers’ attitudes towards cooperative learning
in inclusive education. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 35(3), 727-749.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-019-00435-7.
Voltz, D. L., Brazil, N., & Ford, A. (2001). What matters most in inclusive education: A
practical guide for moving forward. Intervention in School and Clinic, 37(1), 23-30.
https://doi.org/10.1177/105345120103700105
Wagner, M., Newman, L., Cameto, R., and Levine, P. (2006). The academic achievement and
functional performance of youth with disabilities: A report from the National
Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2). (NCSER 2006-3000). SRI International.
Watkins, C. L. (1997). Project Follow Through: A case study of contingencies influencing
instructional practices of the educational establishment. Cambridge Center for
Behavioral Studies. Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies.
https://www.behavior.org/resources/901.pdf
Woodcock, R., McGrew, K., Mather, N., & Schrank, F. (2001). Woodcock–Johnson III (WJ-III).
Riverside.
Wyman, P. J., & Watson, S. B. (2020). Academic achievement with cooperative learning using
homogeneous and heterogeneous groups. School Science and Mathematics, 120(6), 356-
363. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12427
Yager, S., Johnson, R. T., Johnson, D. W., & Snider, B. (1986). The impact of group processing
on achievement in cooperative learning groups. The Journal of Social Psychology,
126(3), 389-397. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1986.9713601
Yang, K.B., Lawrence, L., Echeverria, V., Guo, B., Rummel, N., & Aleven, V. (2021).
Surveying teachers’ preferences and boundaries regarding human-AI control in dynamic
pairing of students for collaborative learning. In T. De Laet, R. Klemke, C. Alario-Hoyos,
I. Hilliger, & A. Ortega-Arranz (Eds.), Technology-enhanced learning for a free, safe,
and sustainable world. EC-TEL 2021. Lecture Notes in Computer Science: Vol 12884.
(pp. 260-274). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86436-1_20

24
 in education

Yilmaz, R. K., & Yeganeh, E. (2021). Who and how do I include? A case study on teachers'
inclusive education practices. International Journal of Progressive Education, 17(2),
406-429. https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2021.332.25
Zakaria, E., Solfitri, T., Daud, Y., & Abidin, Z. Z. (2013). Effect of cooperative learning on
secondary school students’ mathematics achievement. Creative Education, 4(2), 98-100.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ce.2013.42014
Zamani, M. (2016). Cooperative learning: Homogeneous and heterogeneous grouping of Iranian
EFL learners in a writing context. Cogent Education, 3(1), 1149959.
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2016.1149959
Zepeda, C. D., Richey, J. E., Ronevich, P., & Nokes-Malach, T. J. (2015). Direct instruction of
metacognition benefits adolescent science learning, transfer, and motivation: An in vivo
study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(4), 954-970.
https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000022

25