The Effects of Collaborative Grouping On Student Engagement in Mi

St.
Catherine University
SOPHIA
Masters of Arts in Education Action Research Education

Papers
8-2018
The Effects of Collaborative Grouping on Student Engagement in

Middle School Students
Jeanine M. Backer
St. Catherine University
Jaymeson L. Miller
Shannon M. Timmer
Follow this and additional works at: https://sophia.stkate.edu/maed
Part of the Education Commons
Recommended Citation
Backer, Jeanine M.; Miller, Jaymeson L.; and Timmer, Shannon M.. (2018). The Effects of Collaborative
Grouping on Student Engagement in Middle School Students. Retrieved from Sophia, the St. Catherine
University repository website: https://sophia.stkate.edu/maed/280
This Action Research Project is brought to you for free and open access by the Education at SOPHIA. It has been
accepted for inclusion in Masters of Arts in Education Action Research Papers by an authorized administrator of
SOPHIA. For more information, please contact [email protected].
Running head: COLLABORATIVE GROUPING AND STUDENT ENGAGEMENT
1
The Effects of Collaborative Grouping on Student Engagement
in Middle School Students
Jeanine M. Backer, Jaymeson L. Miller, Shannon M. Timmer
Submitted on July 16, 2018 in fulfillment of final requirements for the MAED degree
St. Paul, Minnesota
Advisor: Siri Anderson Date ___________________

COLLABORATIVE GROUPING AND STUDENT ENGAGEMENT
2
Abstract
This action research project investigated the impact of collaborative grouping on
students’ engagement in three middle level STEM (science, technology, engineering or
math) classrooms. Research was conducted in two rural and one urban setting. Four data
collection tools were used: A semantic rating scale (student questionnaire), teacher
observations, student interviews, and teacher journaling. Data was categorized into three
domains of student engagement: emotional, cognitive, and behavioral. Teamwork
strategies were overtly taught to students before the study with additional instruction
during the observation process as needed. While quantitative evidence implied a slight
decrease in preference for collaborative learning by student’s self-report, qualitative data
showed positive results across the implementation. Research findings support the finding
that collaborative grouping has a positive impact on student learning and fosters social-
emotional skills beneficial for overall functioning in today’s environment. Our findings
suggest that middle-level classrooms benefit from incorporating collaborative learning
activities when preceded by intentional group formation, instruction on how to participate
effectively as a member of a collaborative team, and supplemented by re-teaching of
group skills or re-grouping, as indicated by evidence of student engagement.
Keywords: collaboration, engagement, strategies, tools, collaborative grouping

3
Introduction
“Alone we can do so little, together we can do so much.”
--Helen Keller
Middle school teachers do well to consider Keller’s observation. In our
experience as middle-level STEM teachers, we were conflicted about the overall
advantages and disadvantages of collaborative group work. As passionate middle school
teachers, we found we shared common concerns with our current students--in particular
around student apathy. We noted a high occurrence of incomplete work, a tendency to
‘give up,’ and a pattern of ‘surviving’ in the classroom versus ‘striving.’ (By “surviving”
we mean that students’ tended to just complete what was absolutely necessary to move
through their school day. By “striving” we mean the student who appears to be
emotionally and cognitively “present”, energized by, and invested in their own learning.)
After much discussion about potential reasons for students’ apathy, the team
decided that perhaps some students appear not to be interested because they do not
understand what they are learning and why they are learning it. The team then looked for
potential classroom teaching strategies that would support increased student engagement
in learning because engagement is vital in education. Fostering a collaborative culture in
the classroom appeared to us as one potential strategy for improving student engagement.
Our team planned to analyze the effects of implementing collaborative grouping
on student engagement in middle school classrooms.
The team researched happened in our three different Minnesota schools: one
urban metropolitan middle school and two rural middle/high school settings in the
southern and southeastern part of the state. The students in the study were in math,
4
science or STEM classes and their ages ranged from 11-14 years old. One district would
be considered large, another medium, and the third small as far as enrollment size.
Our settings varied in racial and ethnic diversity, with a range of 40% (urban) to
10% (rural) students of color. One of the rural schools student population is 30%
Latino/Hispanic. This is also a Title One school, with 44% of the student population
eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. Student outcomes disaggregated by race, first-
language, income, and gender demonstrate typical outcomes for our state.
By involving middle school students in their learning through collaborative
groups, the research team aspired to: provide an outlet for positive social interaction,
assist students working on difficult tasks, increase student engagement, foster lifelong
employment and academic skills.
Review of Literature
This literature review synthesizes studies conducted on best-practices for
collaborative grouping and the impact of collaborative grouping on middle-level student
engagement. The review defines engagement and discusses measurements of engagement
and its impacts in the classroom. Additionally, this analysis will explore collaboration as
a tool for increased engagement, delving into the benefits of collaboration and specific
strategies found to have a positive impact on engagement. Lastly, the literature review
will discuss potential challenges collaboration may bring to the classroom for both
teachers and students, as well as a few gaps in the literature.
Numerous studies identify positive impacts from collaborative learning (Contreras
Leon & Chapeton Castro, 2016; Jansen, 2012; King & Rosenshine, 1993; Mosley,
Ardito, & Scollins, 2016; Roseth, Johnson, & Johnson, 2008; Trespalacios, Chamberlin
5
& Gallagher, 2011; Turner, Christensen, Kackar-Cam, Trucano, & Fulmer, 2014).
Collaboration in an educational setting is used in many ways. It can be used to enhance
critical thinking (Jansen, 2014; Mosley et al., 2016), create positive community feelings
with a number of student with similar needs (Contreras Leon & Chapeton Castro, 2016),
provide ‘grit’ through support of teammates (Brennen, 2017; Jacobs, 2016; Jansen,
2012), and increase academic and social abilities (Jansen, 2012; Roseth et al., 2008; Sears
& Reagin, 2013; Turner et al., 2014; Trespalacios et al., 2011). Offering opportunities
for students to engage themselves in collaborative learning set them up with tools to be
confident and increase their abilities and interests in harder subjects, therefore helping
them become more academically successful.
The Concept of Engagement
The literature gave several reasons why students engagement is important in the
educational setting (Mosley, Ardito, & Scollins, 2016, Roseth, Johnson, & Johnson,
2008, Fredricks, Filsecker, & Lawson, 2016). “Engagement could be described as the
holy grail of education,” (Sinatra, Heddy, & Lombardi, 2015, p. 1); therefore,
meaningful benefits happen when a student is engaged in their learning. However, there
is little agreement on a concrete definition according to Sinatra and her colleagues
(2015), as engagement varies in the theoretical perspective of the researcher.
Some research refers to student engagement as the working time in which
students are fully involved in an academic task or plan related to the learning process
(Finn & Zimmer 2012; Wong, 1998). Henrie, Halverson & Graham (2015) describe,
student engagement appear as focused involvement in learning. Newmann (1992)
defines engagement as “the student’s psychological investment in an effort directed

6
toward learning, understanding, or mastering the knowledge, skills, or crafts that
academic work is intended to promote” (p. 99). The most appealing definition of
engagement at school about this research is a perspective that spans the spectrum, which
has been characterized as a multidimensional construct with behavioral, emotional, and
cognitive dimensions (Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004; Sinatra et al., 2015). This
literature review will use the multidimensional definition as it provides a framework for
research making it possible to observe student work and collect data about actions,
feelings, and willingness to learn.
Impact of Student Engagement
Using only one method of measuring student engagement may result in
inconclusive evidence due to the qualitative nature of the data; therefore, it is essential to
incorporate multiple measures of student engagement from a variety of sources in both
individual and group tasks (Fredricks, et al, 2016). Methods of measuring student
engagement include self-reports from students (Fredricks et al., 2016; Fredricks &
McColskey, 2012), student surveys (Henrie et al., 2015), rating scales (Finn & Zimmer,
2012), and gathering qualitative observations from teachers and other support staff
(Fredricks et al., 2004). Teachers can create these types of measures of student
engagement tailored to the task in which the students are required to participate. The data
from measuring student engagement may reveal the impacts the assigned tasks have on
their level of engagement.
Studies link student engagement to higher achievement in school (Fredricks et al.,
2016) mainly for middle school aged students (Roseth, et al., 2008; Turner, Christensen,
Kackar-Cam, Trucano, & Fulmer, 2014). Students engaged in the classroom develop a
7
sense of belonging, inclusion, and begin to act and feel like a meaningful part of the
classroom (Lemov, 2010; Roseth et al., 2008; Turner et al., 2014). According to
Fredricks and her colleagues (2016), student engagement lowers a student’s risk of
participating in delinquent behaviors, substance abuse and experiencing depression.
Furthermore, according to Finn & Zimmer (2012), the practice of remaining engaged
results in the invaluable life skill of persistence (p. 99). On the other hand, students can
experience quite the opposite when they become disengaged in the classroom. Middle
school is a pivotal time in an adolescent’s life where many changes are occurring (Roseth
et al., 2008; Turner et al., 2014). Disengagement from school is common at this age,
resulting in students pulling away and developing negative attitudes about school and
learning (Turner et al., 2014). Fredricks and her colleagues (2016) note that teacher
identify their most significant challenge as students disengagement.
Roseth et al.’s (2008) meta-analysis suggest middle school as a “fresh start”
where students are given academic engagement opportunities to start building their
knowledge to prepare them for their desired careers in the future eventually. As students
begin to feel a sense of belonging in the classroom, which they may experience as feel
like they are an important asset to the learning happening, they are more likely to
experience success. Turner and her colleagues (2014) suggest that basic human needs
consist of four principles, “autonomy, competence, relatedness/belongingness, and
meaningfulness” (p. 1198). If these are essential parts of human existence, these
principles, in turn, prove to be essential to student participation and engagement in the
classroom (Turner et al., 2014). Education is a social, human event that involves people
8
learning in meaningful ways by interacting with each other. Therefore, teachers should
embrace, teach, encourage, and facilitate students engaging with each other.
Benefits of Collaborative Learning
Traditional classroom practice supports little group work and collaboration, but
lately, more focus is going toward ways of engaging students to maximize learning
(Jansen, 2012, Sears, 2013, Trespalacios, 2011). Findings reveal that collaborative
learning significantly enhances critical thinking in students (Mosley, et al., 2016). Some
middle and high school students perceive certain subjects as hard, and in a sense, fail
before even trying, according to Mosley and his colleagues (2016). Giving students the
option of cooperative learning can offer them tools to improve their confidence and
increase interest in harder subjects. A meta-analysis, encompassing 80 years of research,
confirmed that when students are working productively in cooperative groups, they are
more likely to participate, to develop positive attitudes toward others and content, and to
exert more effort (Roseth et al., 2008). Research also indicates that through group work,
students can improve their genuine engagement in the content (Roseth et al., 2008), ask
better questions (King & Rosenshine, 1993), and offer meaningful explanations.
Collaboration benefits students when working on difficult tasks in particular
because it allows them to make progress as a group (Jansen, 2012). Collaborative
learning gives students the support they need in an instructional environment, having a
positive effect on their ability to learn. One study involving 2,141 eighth graders noted a
significant positive correlation of 0.71 between social engagement and academic
engagement (Finn & Zimmer, 2012).

9
Team characteristics become quite apparent to members when they learn that
everyone on the team is learning, and no one team member knows everything. In fact,
according to Jansen (2014), collaboration can even fill in gaps in learning that might
otherwise not be filled by using critical thinking skills needed to provide explanations to
classmates. Learning from each other has a strength that is very empowering (Jansen,
2012; Mosley et al., 2016; Trespalacios, Chamberlin & Gallagher, 2011).
Collaborative learning promotes changes in the classroom beyond academics by
fostering critical social consciousness among students as individuals. Roseth et al.
(2008) found, after their 30-year longitudinal study, that there is a positive
interrelationship between meeting academic and social goals when teachers choose to use
cooperative structures in learning situations. The new collaborative classroom
encourages personal growth and social awareness among participants (Contreras León &
Chapetón Castro, 2016). Brennen (2017) went as far to say “whether it’s students, a team
or an individual, our best ‘doing’ happens when we are being our best selves” (para. 2).
Social learning is an opportunity to overcome disrespectful, rude, and disruptive
behaviors that are damaging at school as well as in society.
Learning new content is difficult. It is normal to be frustrated when trying or
learning something new or unfamiliar. Collaborative learning teaches mindfulness of
others and ourselves (Jansen, 2012; Turner et al., 2014). Turner and her colleagues
(2014) state, “how classroom participants act together can support students’ value for
learning as well as their beliefs that they can be successful, their willingness to engage,
and how related they feel to others” (p. 1197-1198). This willingness to engage supports
students’ personal growth which is an outcome of teacher-facilitated collaboration and

10
students’ dispositions, especially specific to the mathematics classroom, improve over
time through this facilitated collaboration (Jansen, 2012). Moreover, Jansen (2012)
reported, after studying two different techniques for implementing collaboration in the
mathematics classroom, that students’ viewpoints about the subject of mathematics as a
“fixed” or “growth” intellect changed for the better. When humans are more socially and
emotionally aware, and are more effective in thinking, learning, and communicating, they
are prepared to be their best. Human beings are prone to ‘do’ and when humans help
others be their best, they do their best (Brennen, 2017). Hence, the human social element
of collaborative learning fosters the human element of doing. The ultimate goal is to
strive for cooperation beyond the classroom bringing such principles to life and
communities around the world.
In addition to increasing academic and social abilities in students, collaborative
learning also strengthens student independence when group members feel accountable to
their teammates (Jacobs, 2016). Well-taught collaboration has teamwork framed around
positive interdependence. Jacobs (2016) suggests examples of quality collaboration
independent, focused activities. These activities include a roster of individual tasks and
due dates with students assessing each other’s ability. Students giving feedback to
individual team members while expressing the gratitude of each other’s ideas. As well as,
creating individual presentations on behalf of the team. Consequently, if one of the group
members does poorly, so does the team; therefore they are likely to strive to do well for
themselves for the good of the group (Jacobs, 2016). Sears and Reagin (2013) and
Trespalacios et al. (2011) suggest that traditional students working within collaborative
11
groups might even show increased motivation which leads to positive gains and learning
outcomes.
Notably, there is evidence that girls in STEM classes that utilize collaborative
learning have improved outcomes (Anderson, 2018). Creative problem solving,
emphasis on growth-mindset, facilitation of social interaction and critical thinking that
well-structured collaborative projects entail align with what is known about best-practices
in STEM education, in particular for girls (TPT, 2017).
Moreover, the availability of digital tools that streamline collaborative learning
activities encourages us to recognize that teaching students’ effective collaboration
techniques will benefit their learning now but also their ability to succeed in post-
secondary activities. Trespalacios et al. (2011) note that providing opportunities for
students to collaborate boosts their motivation to learn. Collaborative learning forms an
essential element in the creation of peaceful, just, and equitable societies (Jacobs, 2016).
Applying and developing the collaborative learning skills in the youth of today can only
help our communities become stronger together.
Grouping Strategies
Before students can collaborate, a teacher must first consider how the grouping of
students will occur. McGlynn and Kozlowski (2016) suggest that student grouping
should be a purposeful process for effective collaboration to occur between students (p.
67). One grouping strategy is to create smaller groups of students with some similar
abilities, such as academic level, that will motivate them to work together (LeMier, 2012;
Rubin, 2008). This type of grouping method could boost confidence due to the similar
abilities and small numbers within the group. Another grouping method is considered
12
flexible grouping, where students work in temporary pairs or small or large groups which
can offer a variety of ways to learn the material, depending on what the learning task is.
According to Stronge (2007), flexible grouping supports a wide variety of learning
outcomes dependent on the task goals.
Teachers must be careful not to create ineffective student groups. Results of
ability grouping without differentiated supports have shown to be more harmful than
helpful to the low-ability groups (Hoffer, 1992; Stronge, 2007). Hoffer’s 1992 study
involving 3,116 seventh graders and 2,829 tenth graders found that students placed in
low-ability groups learned significantly less science and mathematics than their high-
ability grouped and non-ability grouped peers (p. 217-218). If teachers are going to
pursue ability grouping, using assessment data to create ability-leveled groups carefully is
recommended (Stronge, 2007). Furthermore, grouping students who are too much alike
may result in a concept called groupthink, where there is no growth due to the constant
agreement because each member of the group already knows what the other knows
(Dweck, 2006). When students who think alike hit a wall, they may not be able to think
outside the box when expanding their knowledge or successfully completing a task.
After creating student groups, teachers can facilitate improved outcomes with
instructional strategies designed to facilitate student work in groups. Such strategies
include promoting discussions amongst each other (rather than the teacher) and use of
conversation around different perceptions (over correct answers) which encourage
students to collaborate autonomously (Jansen, 2012). In addition to the strategies
mentioned above, Rubin (2008), Turner et al. (2014), and McGlynn et al. (2016) suggest
explicitly teaching classroom routines, mutual respect, and use of collaborative working
13
skills with group members. Furthermore, pointedly teaching students how to facilitate,
question, listen, organize, and record group process and progress will improve student
outcomes and experience (Rubin, 2008). Purposely teaching students the skills of how to
collaborate--before expecting them to work together--provides essential structure for
successful group work.
Lastly, once students have been grouped and taught how to work together
effectively, there is another strategy to reinforce as the group begins to work on the task.
The “complementary model for collaboration,” as described by Sears and Reagin (2013,
p. 1156), suggests charging each student with a portion of the whole task. This
complementary method provides students the opportunity to interact and make swift
progress. In a traditional mathematics class solving the Magic Triangle problem, Sears
and Reagin (2013) discovered that their collaborative groups out-performed individuals,
with a mean difference of 1.25 for groups over individuals (p. 1166). The students who
were of average ability level (specifically not accelerated) benefited more from having
the opportunity to collaborate with each other to discuss strategy than they would have
individually (Sears & Reagin, 2013). Through careful implementation of collaboration in
the classroom, students can improve their strategies and skills academically, in addition
to feeling more motivated and empowered.
Challenges of Collaboration
Effective collaboration in an educational setting is not an easy strategy to teach.
There are challenges to developing positive interaction tools that are effective enough to
foster cooperative student work. Social interaction is an integral part of teaching the
learning process at any school. Much of a child’s exposure to language happens at school
14
(Contreras León & Chapetón Castro, 2016, p. 126). In many academic school settings
students demonstrate “disrespectful behaviors or disturbing attitudes and activities such
as disruptive talking, clowning verbal insults, rudeness, and bullying that hinder the
teaching and learning processes” (León et al., 2016, p. 126). There are roadblocks and
obstacles for students to become the best version of themselves. Effective
communication skills and the ability to establish and maintain positive personal
relationships is a primary focus during school. Many schools suffer “socially deprived
settings characterized by violence, low-income, one-parent families, poor housing
conditions, and few opportunities for social promotion” (León et al., 2016, p. 126). It is
critical for teachers, educational institutions, and societies to find methods to teach
students positive ways to interact and support each other which will foster
communication and social intelligence. Collaboration and learning cannot happen
without students having strong relationship skills.
A paradigm shift needs to happen in our American classrooms because
cooperative work between students relies on a teacher’s ability to learn how to prepare
and deliver effective lessons. Day (2017) went so far as to say the American mantra
believes the answer to all of our education problems is “more - everything can be solved
with more” (para. 2). More after-school intervention programs, more testing, more
meetings, more classes before and after school. Day (2015) and Walker (2017) both
conclude that teachers are overworked and overstressed, which leads to frustrations and
burn-outs. This mentality, according to Day (2015) and Walker (2017), transfers to
students, possibly resulting in shutting down or giving up. School days are less
productive for both students and teachers if this happens.

15
State assessments often seem to be the focal point of an educational curriculum.
As Rentner, Kober, Frizzell, and Ferguson (2016) state, many teachers believe too much
time is spent preparing students for state- and district-mandated tests and administering
the tests. Roughly one-third of teachers estimate that they spend more than a month out of
the school year preparing students for state- and district-mandated exams (Rentner et al.,
2016, p. 7). A teacher is forced to teach to a test so districts can sort, group, and intervene
with student learning. Learning becomes longitudinal with little depth when truly it
should be an exploration of a wide flourishing river. According to An & Reigeluth
(2012), the top perceived barrier to a completely collaborative school setting is a school’s
focus on state testing as the current American education system is focused more on
sorting intelligence than teaching learning. Roseth et al. (2008) found that teachers need
the continuous training necessary to provide and foster effective collaboration in the
classroom. Sufficiently trained teachers can cultivate collaboration skills in their
students, as well.
Collaboration in American institutions simply will not happen unless teachers
effectively teach social skills (Contreras León & Chapetón Castro, 2016). Teachers must
also learn how to create successful cooperative lessons which are inspiring and engaging
to students (Walker et al., 2017) and small steps are made in an educational shift away
from standardized testing. These are significant obstacles but do not make the task
impossible.
Conclusion
There does not appear to be an agreed upon amount of time that teachers need to
be able to design effective collaboration activities. The issue of how to shift the focus of
16
education away from testing has also not been thoroughly addressed. A few different
definitions of student engagement arose within our literature review. We decided to use a
definition that has multidimensional constructs including behavioral, emotional, and
cognitive dimensions (Finn & Zimmer, 2012; Sinatra et al., 2015). Using this
multidimensional definition will allow us to collect data concerning students’ actions,
feelings, and willingness to learn.
Educators need to be provided time to create effective collaborative lessons.
America believes the answer to all of our education problems is “more - everything can
be solved with more” (Day, 2015). This notion of ‘more’ creates intense days at school
for teachers and students resulting in exhaustion at times. Just like students, teachers
need to be trained and granted the gift of time to become better at their trade, through
productive time with colleagues and departments. “Providing time for teacher
collaboration and learning is one of the most powerful things schools can do to improve
learning because collaboration that lacks a focus will do nothing to improve schools”
(McNeff, 2017, p. 12). Teachers need time and training to learn how to create an
effective collaborative classroom as well as prepare for this instructional strategy.
To the extent that collaborative learning may not align with the current focus on
measuring student outcomes through repeated and ongoing standardized testing, McNeff
called for a paradigm shift in our educational system--away from so much focus on
mandated testing: “We should start by critically examining the structure of a school day”
(2017, p. 12). According to McNeff, quality instruction needs to be the focus, rather than
quantity. Collaboration is a quality teaching strategy that develops and fosters a higher
level of learning. How can schools expect collaboration of teachers to happen at a high
17
level with the need for them to squeeze it in briefly before school, during prep time,
lunch, or after school? McNeff (2017) discusses:
There is some belief that the school day needs to be lengthened to improve
student achievement and test scores. We seem to think that if we have more time
in front of kids, they will learn more and perform better. What if we reduce the
amount of instructional time and build in teacher collaboration that is focused on
improving instruction? Instead of focusing on quantity of instruction, we focus on
quality of instruction positive movement toward educational change. (p.12).
A significant movement in our American education system might be like moving a
mountain - not impossible but challenging. Perhaps this is why there is minimal mention
of strategies for change in our American education system. Moving a mountain could be
an insurmountable task.
In essence, there are a few areas for refinement in the literature about
collaboration and its effects on student engagement. The definition of student
engagement can be many shades of gray that require critical examination by researchers.
Opportunities for teachers to plan effective collaborative lessons in their intense work
days would require creative and critical strategic planning. Finally, a shift in an
American educational focus away from testing would promote further opportunities for
collaborative work.
Methodology
In order to find out how collaborative student grouping affects engagement in a
middle school classroom, our research team committed to making group tasks a priority
for seven weeks and to using action research to investigate our intervention. Action
18
research is a reflective process of problem solving with a goal of improving what
educators are already practicing in their classrooms (Sagar, 2000). Action research is a
reflective process of problem solving with a goal of improving what educators are
already practicing in their classrooms (Sagar, 2000).
Shannon Timmer conducted the research throughout Astronomy and Physics
units, Jeanine Backer conducted the study throughout Design and Modeling units, and
Jaymeson Miller conducted the study throughout the Measurement, Data Analysis and
General Math Review units.
We decided we would collect and analyze data on a subset of ten students per
class so we could gather more in depth information and generate a manageable amount of
data to analyze. However, to be fair, normalize the experience, and set a positive tone for
the intervention, all of the students in the class would be receiving the interventions and
participate in collaborative learning; however, the only collected data would be from the
students selected to be in the study. We sent home a passive-consent letter (Appendix A)
explaining our research to the parents of all students in each of our classes. We read the
letter with all of our students and instructed them to encourage their parents to read it as
well, and to let us know if they had any concerns, questions, or if they wanted to opt out.
We did not have any parents who opted their child out of the study.
Next, we selected students for our study. Jaymeson and Shannon were able to
randomly select ten students in their classrooms by choosing sticks with students’ names
on them to become study participants. Jeanine chose a class for this particular study that
was already exactly ten students. Therefore, we had a total of thirty students in this case
19
study (Figure 1), which is a process that allowed us to research this particular group’s
development over a period of time.
Figure 1. Students in Study
School/Grade Level Class
Rural 6th Grade Mathematics

Rural 7th Grade STEM
Urban 8th Grade Science
We then placed students into initial flexible learning groups based on personality
similarities. This is considered flexible grouping, where students work in temporary pairs
offering a variety of ways to learn the material, depending on what the learning task is.
According to Stronge (2007), flexible grouping supports a wide variety of learning
outcomes dependent on the task goals.
To find out the similarities between our students, we searched for an engaging
digital tool that would categorize them. We had every student in each class take three
National Geographic personality quizzes (Appendix B) that grouped them by
commonalities and interests: what superpower they should have; what musical instrument
they would be; and, what planet they would most likely call home. Each quiz asks a
series of eight questions that gives them six options to choose from. From there, the quiz
gives them a final result based on how the students answered the questions. We had the
students write their names on a piece of paper and list their final results then return the
paper to us. We grouped students based on how similarly they answered the questions.
For example, if two or three students chose “Flying-Cello-Venus,” then put them in the
same group for the study. Due to having tables that seated three to four students, we also
20
tried to group entire tables based on similar results from the quizzes. Student groups
were flexible and some changed once or twice throughout the course of data collection.
Each time changes were made we based the change on the original quiz results or by
using professional discretion.
We started data collection by having students complete the Pre- Questionnaire, a
semantic differential rating scale (Appendix C), to find out how they felt about
collaborative work prior to implementing the intervention. This questionnaire was
created in Google Forms and administered in week one and at the end of the seven
weeks. Student responded to questions about their current feelings toward group work.
Questions elicited qualitative and quantitative information regarding students’ feelings
toward collaborative tasks in class. The questions measured the three important domains
of engagement: emotional, cognitive, and behavioral.
Behavioral engagement would include seeing such things as sitting by your
teammate, gathering supplies together, helping or assisting a teammate to create
something, and successfully splitting up duties to be completed to make individual
progress toward a team goal. Emotional engagement would include such things as
demonstrating patience while working together, listening to each other’s ideas, making
eye contact when speaking to each other, and using a friendly tone of voice while
collaborating. Cognitive engagement would include such things as hearing teams sharing
creative ideas with each other, explaining their solutions to another on their team, or
critically thinking through a solution together.
Our second source of data came from the observations of students during assigned
group work time. Student engagement (Appendix D) was measured by observation of the
21
ten designated students by recording the degree of on-task behavior. Observations were
conducted by an adult observer in the classroom once every other week during weeks
two, four, and six. Data collection occurred on each student at five-minute intervals for
twenty minutes, for a total of five sets of data for each student on each of the three
observation periods. At each interval of time, the observer would record a number, 1-4,
that described how engaged the student appeared, which would also indicate what kind of
perceived engagement was occurring at that time (emotional, cognitive or behavioral).
During and at the end of each session, the adult observer would record any observations
and inferences made during those twenty minutes. Data from this tool was analyzed
using a method of comparing findings in the first observations to the last, and looking for
positive, negative, or no change patterns according to the calculated mean.
Thirdly, we used a student conferencing procedure to gather students’ perception
of their engagement in the collaborative work (Appendix E). This tool was facilitated as
an individual personal conference with students and their teacher. We conferenced with
the students every other week for a total of three times during our study. Each student
conference provided further qualitative data of student perceptions of their own
engagement during collaborative group work. Conferences were audio recorded and then
transcribed later by the teacher. The questions were designed to gather on-the-spot
qualitative data, which then successfully allowed us to make any necessary and
immediate interventions with the collaborative working groups in order to help them
operate more effectively and improve their engagement. Questions were designed to
collecting data on emotional, behavioral, and cognitive perceptions of engagement.

22
We used grounded theory to simplify the information gathered, determining
which aspects of the dialogue should be emphasized, minimized, or left out of our
analysis altogether. Grounded theory …(definition/citation). We looked for trends or
commonalities deeply rooted in the results and assigned codes to the responses to help
group the comments into our designated domains: emotional, behavioral, and cognitive.
We identified the quotes that best illustrate the themes found. Additionally, this tool
would be cross-referenced with the semantic differential rating scale in order to pinpoint
how their level of engagement changed throughout the research timeline.
Our fourth and final data collection tool was the Teacher Reflection Journal
(Appendix F) which allowed each of us to record observations and inferences of student
engagement during and after collaborative group work. We were able to observe
activities such as movement around the room, reading, writing, speaking, demonstration
of critical thinking, use of computers, and engaging in creativity. This tool helped us
identify some students not appearing to remain engaged during a data collection day.
These observations further allowed us to make immediate interventions when necessary.
The data collection tool has a list of possible steps or strategies used, if any, to re-engage
the learner(s) who were off task or disengaged such as: proximity, private conversation
with individual, student removed from the group, communication with parent. This tool
also helped answer whether the intervention had a positive effect on data through
observational commentary. At the very bottom of the Teacher Reflection Journal, a space
is provided to record written thoughts and impressions of the interventions tried with
student(s) challenged to stay engaged in the lesson for the day. We collected
observational data on the students every other week for a total of three sessions for each
23
student. Again, student observations were noted and categorized into emotional,
behavioral, and cognitive domains. If some students did not appear to remain engaged,
this tool allowed us to record potential steps used, if any, to re-engage the learner(s) who
were off task or disengaged. It allowed us to reflect and record thoughts about the
intervention tried with the particular student to increase or maximize engagement in a
task.
At the end of the study, we had comprehensive data that was collected through
classroom observations, questionnaires, and student conferences. These tools allowed us
to observe the students’ behavioral, emotional, and cognitive engagement through
collaborative group work. The final data collection piece was one last fulfilment of the
student Semantic Differential Rating Scale (Appendix C) by all thirty students as a Post-
Questionnaire tool. The data collected was holistic and allowed us to analyze if
collaborative grouping strategies had an effect on student engagement. Although our
team checked in with each other and asked questions regularly throughout the data
collection process, we waited to meet as a group to discuss our final results and data
collected from the collaborative group study after the completion of data collection.
Analysis of Data
All of our data can be categorized into three important domains of student
engagement: emotional, cognitive, and behavioral. Emotional engagement refers to
students demonstrating several qualities while working with a team such as: patience,
interest, listening skills, kindness, happiness, enthusiasm and other cues that show their
feelings towards collaboration. Cognitive engagement refers to team members sharing
ideas with each other, suggesting changes and improvements, brainstorming together,
24
explaining solutions to team members, critically thinking out loud, and other cues that
show using their heads to work together. Behavioral engagement refers to visible
demonstration of team work such as sitting proximate, selecting supplies together,
helping to create together, sharing of duties, and other cues that show the external
behaviors of collaboration.
Emotional Engagement
In the beginning of our research, students were grouped with others according to
personality similarities using an online questionnaire tool. Then they reported on the
Semantic Differential Rating Scale (Appendix C) that they had better feelings toward
group work than they did in the end (Figure 2). However, despite this decrease in
feelings towards group work, eighteen students remained positive or neutral regarding
their feelings on group work compared to the remaining eleven students who reported
more negative responses towards group work.

25
Figure 2. Perceptions of Group Work
The reason for the largest growth from the pre- to the post-questionnaire was
referring to the emotional domain, suggesting the students thought group work was more
conducive to “their learning styles” and “more fun” (Appendices G & H). One student in
Jaymeson’s class said they appreciated “practicing compromise and trust in others”
(JM4, personal communication, April 5, 2018). During one student conference in
Jeanine’s class, a student claimed, "If you aren't comfortable with your teammate, you
won't be able to talk well. We are good friend so if felt safe to talk" (JB3, personal
communication, April 9, 2018). It was a common theme observed: students’ perceptions
of group work and their ability to engage changed depending on who they were working
with. Another student from Jeanine’s STEM class commented that they sometimes get
silly when they work with their partner because they are good friends but it’s okay
because they still get their work done (JB10, personal communication, March 22, 2018).
The same idea was found in Shannon’s science class by one student, mentioning
26
“Sometimes we get a little chatty” and requesting that Shannon tell them “to focus more,”
but that they would work with that group again because “they make doing the work easy
and fun” (ST5, personal communication, April 4, 2018). Even though there was a
decrease in student’s final emotional perceptions of collaborative engagement, they still
commented positively on the values of working in a group. In Shannon’s science class, a
student admitted her partner made her feel more comfortable, “If I don’t know
something, she doesn’t make me feel like I don't know anything” (ST9, personal
communication, April 4, 2018). Students preferred to work with people they were
comfortable with, allowing them to take team risks.
Although there are clear benefits to being comfortable with the people in a group,
work productivity being one of them, this also came with some conflicts. Individual
personalities, work ethic, academic differences, and other barriers between students
became apparent. As noted by one individual, “I have anxiety when a teacher tells me
who my teammate is. I just hope that it goes well” (JB1, personal communication, April
9th, 2018). Still another comment about how, "It's hard to work together because our
personalities are the same, but we just don't work at the same pace." (ST6, personal
communication, May 2, 2018). The same student was overheard by Shannon during data
collection on the Teacher Journal Tool that they don’t “want to be another black failure.”
This data leads us to believe that students with low self-efficacy may feel like they hold
their team back academically during group collaboration; therefore, they disengage
themselves from the group.
Our team also noticed some marked improvements among some individual
students within the emotional engagement domain. At the beginning of the study, one
27
student claimed, “Some of us are shy… some people don’t like to voice their answers”
(ST3, personal communication, April 4, 2018), but by the end of the study the same
student responded that when their group comes across a challenge, they “talk about it” to
get through it. Another student visibly changed and interacted more when their group
members changed halfway through the study, as observed and described in Jaymeson’s
Observation Teacher Journal (Appendix D) during the first week of the study, March 12,
2018. This same student that sat back and watched the group do the tasks in the
beginning, careful to take it all in but not speak due to shyness, showed growth and
confidence by the end of the study. The group functioned cohesively, as observed
starting on April 23, 2018, and this particular student even lead the discussion and offered
resources and ideas for solving their task. “[The student] came out of their shell, was
comfortable with the group and participated well” (Miller, 2018). Still, another student
made remarkable gains in the ability to connect emotionally with the team. As noted in
Jeanine’s Observation Teacher Journal (Appendix D) from her first data collection on
February 26th, 2018, “this student seems to shut down and stop interacting with the
group” (Backer, 2018). This precipitated teacher reflection with an outcome of an
intervention tool for this particular student. This new Student Group Work Checklist
allowed one-on-one direct instruction for any student and teacher to dialogue about how
to emotionally connect when working in a group (Appendix J). This checklist was used
regularly after the first data collection during group time with one student in Jeanine’s
class. The Student Group Work Checklist became very important for this student.
Requests were made by the student at the beginning of each class to discuss the checklist,
date it, and set it on top of the student’s pile of books for use during class time. It became
28
evident to Jeanine that this student needed this tool as a guide for emotional
appropriateness and consideration during group work time. Jeanine notes that this
student often underlines (with very bold lines), “Be accepting of others’ ideas even if you
don’t agree” (Appendix I). This student reports through the last student interview that it
was learned that "I need to make sure everyone gets time to talk" (JB8, personal
communication, April 9, 2018). Shannon also noted, in her Teacher Reflection Journal,
joining two collaborative groups for academic support to address group members with
low self-efficacy. Therefore, the Teacher Reflection Journal (Appendix F) was powerful
in allowing us to plan necessary emotional interventions with students that seemed
disengaged at the beginning of our study. Emotional group work gains were made
through these interventions.
Cognitive Engagement
Cognitive engagement in a classroom is a students’ ability to put effort into
understanding a topic and persist with learning. We collected data on this domain of
engagement through collaborative small groups. Data from our student survey shows
that perceived cognitive engagement went from 97% of the students reporting that they
perform better with a group in the beginning, down to 83% at the end of the data
collection periods (Figure 3). However, we received much validation through student
conferences that collaboration was a positive experience for students cognitively. One
student admits that "I would have gotten it wrong but my team helped me to understand
the right answer" (JM2, personal communication, March 5, 2018). Yet another student
says group work is valuable because "if I get an answer and the other person doesn’t get
that answer, we will talk about it and we can share answers and they can ask why you got
29
those" (JM8, personal communication, March 8, 2018). We have an overwhelming
response of positive comments about collaborative groups and how they help students
think. A few other students report, "I feel more confident about my answers if other
people have them, too" and "we think together as a group" (ST3, personal
communication, April 4, 2018), "I understand more when I don't have to do it all by
myself" (ST4, personal communication, April 4th, 2018), and “We put all our ideas
together so it’s more detailed” (ST6, personal communication, April 4, 2018). In the
final week of data collection with regard to groups and student cognitive learning,
students still reported positive comments, "If someone on my team doesn't know how to
do it, I'll try to help them figure it out" (JB2, personal communication, April 9, 2018) and
"my partner was able to help me think through it a little simpler" (JB4, personal
communication, April 9, 2018). Additionally, another student commented at the end of a
science laboratory task, “[Teamwork] made my investigation skills better” (ST1, personal
communication, May 2, 2018).

30
Figure 3. Students’ Perception of Group Performance vs. Individual Performance
Despite the decrease in self-reported cognitive engagement on the Semantic
Differential Rating Scale over the course of the study, 24 students at the end still
remained positive or neutral regarding group performance over individual performance,
which is more than the number with the perception that they worked better on their own
(Figure 3 above). Throughout the study, many students in the three settings commented
on appreciating the help from their teammates. Figure 4 below shows the number of
times different responses were made by students that tied to their cognitive engagement.
The most common response from students was the benefit of having others to talk
through different strategies, which was mentioned 26 different times by students during
the conferences over the course of the study.

31
Figure 4. Students’ Perception of Cognitive Benefits to Group Work
Sometimes students struggled to engage cognitively with their group for a variety
of reasons. A student in Jaymeson’s class mentioned being frustrated with students in the
group just waiting for an answer and then copying it down themselves. When asked
about a good way to handle this problem, the student responded by saying, “We decided
to try to keep our answers secret but only talk about the process until the very end and
then compared our answers. We thought this might help to get everyone working on it”
(JM5, personal communication, April 5, 2018). Later, this same student commented that
they were learning to “capitalize on strengths” in their group (JM5, personal
communications, April 5, 2018). Although this was not a strategy all groups tried, it
ended up helping this group overcome the problem that persisted with one of the group
members. Improvements with individual students were observed within the cognitive
engagement domain. One student commented that their group “argued when one person
32
had an answer and another had a different answer, it was hard to compromise” (JM4,
personal communication, March 5, 2018), but at the end of the study, the same student
said the group continuously helped him understand. The student said they were “teaching
the group that there’s many ways of finding the answer” (JM4, personal communication,
May 25, 2018). This same student went from having “neutral” feelings about group work
at the beginning of the research, to deciding they were “likely” to choose group work
over individual work. Another student, during the first week of group work in
Jaymeson’s classroom, claimed that group work was difficult because “[group members]
didn’t always listen to each other, which was challenging” (JM7, personal
communication, March 7, 2018). By the end of the study, the same student chose group
work over individual work because of the ability to “hear everyone’s ideas and change
my thinking” (JM7, personal communication, May 25, 2018). Another student in
Shannon’s class was grouped with three other students of the opposite gender, which
initially made the student in the student visually uncomfortable, as reported in Shannon’s
Teacher Reflection Journal, and this student initially reported a score of ‘3’ out of 5 on
their group performing better than they would individually. However, by the end of the
study, this student reported a score of ‘5’ on the same question and commented “If I
didn’t understand part of it, they would help me with it” (ST8, personal communication,
May 2, 2018), thus, showing growth. Overall, observational and conferencing data
supported academic benefits to collaborative group work for many students. Although
there were a few reported conflicts, students did improve on their already established
ability to collaborate on a cognitive level.

33
Behavioral Engagement
Behavioral engagement is something that can be observed noting student effort,
attention, participation, time on task, and involvement in group learning. Between our
pre- to post-questionnaire collection periods, students’ perceived behavioral engagement
during small group work remained consistent. Appendix J shows common responses on
the questionnaire from students who prefer individual work, which responses mostly fell
under the behavioral domain, suggesting they would rather have the independence so
they do not have to deal with others’ learning styles, speed, or terms. Another interesting
note is that only five of 29 students chose to respond to this open response question. All
five students responded with statements describing not being in control of the situation,
such as “I get to do what I want” and “I can get things done faster.” Therefore, students
who struggled to engage cognitively with their group were frustrated that they did not
have control of their group members’ work ethic or learning speed.
However, despite these behavioral concerns many of the students’ perceptions
remained consistent when considering the idea of group work, particularly based on the
question about whether they would choose group work over individual work (Figure 5).
34
Figure 5. Group Work vs. Individual Work
The total number of students that preferred group over individual work essentially
stayed the same, ranking it higher than the alternative, with 24 students preferring group
work on the pre-questionnaire and 23 preferring it on the post-questionnaire. Few
students were unlikely to choose group work, with only six not preferring group work on
both pre- and post- questionnaires. As some students implied, group work was not ideal
due to behavioral concerns. Figure 5 shows a visual representation of students’
perceptions of their individual ability to focus. They suggest that focus actually
decreased over the seven weeks during the study and the side-by-side pie graphs show
these declines. The student responses for possible reasons for tension within their groups
varied but students thought their tension was due to off-task behavior in the beginning,
but changed to having more concern about the different academic levels at which
students in the group worked (Appendices K & L). While two classrooms switched
35
collaborative groups halfway through the study, one decided to keep their groups the
same. Figure 6 shows that a total of 87% of the students rated their behavior during
group work as focused (four or higher), while only 72% thought their behavior was
focused by the end of the study.
Figure 6. Students’ Perception of their Own Behavior During Group Work

36
Many behavioral struggles were reported and observed during group work. At
times students struggled with social disagreements, interpersonal dynamics, learning
needs, academic abilities and other areas as shown in Figure 7 below. Student comments,
such as “I don’t really work with them much” (ST2, personal communication, April 4,
2018), and “Not everyone always participated” (JM9, personal communication, May 11,
2018) indicated that students struggled to stay behaviorally engaged at times. However,
only seven percent of students reported challenges coming up “often” in the beginning
and 10% of the students reported these challenges at the end of the study. These results
indicate that few students thought the challenges that arose during work time happened
often enough to report.
Figure 7. Students’ Perception of Sources of Tension in Group Work

37
We do note improvements in group behavior from the beginning of our study to
the end through our student interview tool. As data collection began students reported
some frustration such as "fighting over what the answers are." (JM8, personal
communication, March 7, 2018) and "some kids were laughing and off-task" (JM10,
personal communication, March 7, 2018). Teamwork strategies were taught and given as
reminders as we started our data collection and reviewed throughout the process.
Students were beginning to understand how to behave as a team and we found evidence
of this in their comments, "some knew the computer work better so it was good to ask for
help" (JM3, personal communication, March 19, 2018) as well as one team shared that
they "split things up, our team sorted things out, that helped" (JM10, personal
communication, March 19, 2018).
By the end of our data collection period, students were better equipped to work
with teammates noting that collaboration seems to be positive, "If somebody is available
to work with I would choose that. It makes getting work done faster." (JB7, personal
communication, April 9, 2018). Students also learned valuable teamwork behaviors and
shared that during their exit interviews "I need to look at the person speaking" (JB8,
personal communication, April 9, 2018). As noted earlier in this analysis, Appendix I was
created as an intervention tool for one particular student. This tool became very powerful
for this student as it focused primarily on team work behaviors such as: looking at the
person talking, tone of voice when speaking, time on task, and taking turns while
working. The student that used this tool comments about relying heavily on “my checklist
needs to be by me so I can remember how to work with my team” (JB8, personal
communication, April 9, 2018). The behavioral engagement domain was the area we saw
38
the fewest amount of negative changes between our early and late data, which may
suggest that middle school students already had an understanding of behavioral
expectations in collaborative work prior to our action research.
Conclusions
Our research team has identified conclusions with regard to how collaborative
student grouping affects engagement in a middle school classroom. Selecting an
appropriate definition for engagement was crucial for beginning this action research
project, requiring some critical and collaborative discussion as well as research among
our team. The multidimensional definition of engagement we used allowed our team to
easily create data tools. By focusing on emotional, behavioral, and cognitive components
of engagement we were able to record observations with regard to engagement making
human behaviors quantitative. Again, we collected data under three different engagement
domains: emotional, cognitive, and behavioral. Domains set aside in an overall student
opinion, as you can see in Figure 8 below, students’ preference toward working with a
team versus individually stayed consistent during the study with 24 students at neutral,
likely, and very likely during our pre- questionnaire. Upon the post-questionnaire, 23
students expressed a neutral, likely, or very likely opinion with regard to preferring group
work.
39
Figure 8. Likeliness to Choose Group Work over Individual Work
It is possible that the groups changing in two of the classrooms but not in the third
could have had an effect on the results of the study. We have discussed how that
particular classroom may have had a lack of teamwork focus as the group did not change
40
during the study; however, that classroom’s results still remained on the positive side of
collaborative engagement. When considering each of the domains (emotional, cognitive,
behavioral) during our study, we noted that the quantitative data did not show great gains
in students’ ability to engage during group work. However, the qualitative data, such as
student conferences, teacher observations and teacher journals, were powerful and seem
to speak to us in a relevant way.
Much was heard from students with a regard to appreciating the value of
teamwork and the power of collaboration. The student conferences allowed us to make
immediate changes in our instruction and do on-the-spot interventions with individual
students and groups. Our teacher reflection journal was instrumental in discovering
interventions needed with particular students, but more study would be beneficial in
working with groups to make these interventions as productive as possible. Determining
an intervention needed allowed teams to function at a higher level which was a positive
experience for more students.
Action Plan
Based on the findings of our Action Research, we drew several conclusions. First,
students self-reported that they had no increase in enjoyment for collaboration and
teamwork from pre- to post-data collection. When surveyed, the quantitative data
collection fell flat as far as drastic results. However, there were slight differences in
emotional, cognitive, and behavioral quantitative data which showed minimal increases
or decreases in student engagement over the course of our study. Second, when pairing
our qualitative data with our quantitative data, we were able to recognize more powerful
41
findings. Student interviews showed valuable dialogue between teacher and student, and
student to student, regarding student engagement during small group work.
As professional educators, we feel as though student responses may have
provided partially biased research information due to middle school students giving
answers they think their teachers want to hear. However, the majority of students’
comments about their group work were positive and enlightening for us as researchers,
which leads us to believe some bias would not significantly affect the results of the study.
Students realized their work was completed at a higher cognitive level when
collaborating with a teammate and were able to articulate those thoughts during our
study.
Finally, our work as researchers engaging in journaling and student interviews
was a powerful way to be reflective about our professional practice. This practice allowed
teachers to watch behavior and plan interventions to reach learners. Listening to students
and their impressions of activities in the classroom also informs teachers on the
effectiveness of their instruction and practice.
After establishing collaborative groups and analyzing the changes involving
student engagement in our classrooms, we found strategies and practices we will continue
to use and things we want to build on more in the future, such as teaching collaborative
skills, conferencing with students and groups, proximity control, and redirection of
unacceptable behaviors. Because math and science can be difficult subjects at the middle
school level, and evidence shows that girls and students from marginalized backgrounds
are more likely to succeed in classrooms that use collaborative grouping strategies (TPT,
2013) we will continue to encourage our students to engage in conversations through

42
collaborative grouping. We would like to set up group and teamwork expectations in our
classrooms and build upon that as the year goes on.
If the students understand their role during collaborative group work, these
opportunities will prove much more productive learning opportunities throughout the
year. Once this group work is well-established in the classroom, teacher observation can
happen, which allows time for unique interventions to be created for struggling students.
Regularly changing the groups in which students’ work might positively impact levels of
engagement, which would be something we might try in the future. Understanding more
about effective ways to handle behavioral issues that happen within groups would also
guide our group work in the future.
Group work has a positive effect on student engagement and learning. Through
this research, we learned that students feel more confident in their ability to understand
skills learned when they can practice, investigate, and explore with a teammate.
Collaboration is engaging for students, as we learned they enjoy the social, cognitive and
emotional aspects of working together. In addition, students are taught valuable career
skills through collaboration. Direct instruction on collaboration skills were implemented
before our research began. Throughout the research, students became proficient at
communication, patience, sharing, brainstorming, and acceptance of others and their
ideas. All these behaviors are extremely important skills needed as they look toward
college and career readiness. We understand, after our research, that collaboration has an
impact on student engagement and should continue in the classroom to support a higher
level of learning for students.

43
After reviewing our data, our research team considered how different student
demographics, such as gender, race, and special education qualifications, might affect
engagement in collaborative groups. Although our analysis of these sub-groups was
inconclusive due to an insignificant number of students in each category, with further
study, we may have been interested in the opportunity to look for significance in those
factors and the students’ abilities to function and collaborate effectively within their
groups.
More research specific to the middle school age and developmental state might be
necessary for building teamwork strategies in the classroom specifically beneficial for
early teenagers, as they are a unique age group. It would also be helpful to do some more
research on different strategies for choosing groups - based on gender, academic ability,
or nature of activity to instruct our teams. Along those same lines, it would also be
interesting to find out how using commercial collaborative grouping strategies, such as
the Kagan Cooperative Learning[1] [2] [3] Program, affects student engagement. Future
research may help us further understand how to best maximize cognitive, behavioral and
emotional engagement in the middle school classroom.

44
References
An, Y., & Reigeluth, C. (2012). Creating technology-enhanced, learner-centered
classrooms: K-12 teachers' beliefs, perceptions, barriers, and support needs.
Journal Of Digital Learning In Teacher Education, 28(2), 54-62.
Anderson, S. (2018). Personal Communication.
Contreras León, J. J., & Chapetón Castro, C. M. (2016). Cooperative learning with a
focus on the social: A pedagogical proposal for the EFL classroom. How, 23(2),
125-147.
Day, K. (2015, May 12). 11 ways Finland’s education system shows us that “less is
more.” Retrieved from https://fillingmymap.com/2015/04/15/11-ways-finlands-
education-system-shows-us-that-less-is-more/
Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York, NY:
Ballantine Books.
Finn, J.D. & Zimmer, K.S. (2012). Student engagement: What is it?
Why does it matter? s.l.
Christenson, S.L., Reschly, A.L., & Wylie, C. (Eds.), Handbook of research on student
engagement (pp. 97-132). New York, NY: Springer.
Christenson, S.L., Reschly, A.L., & Wylie, C. (Eds.), Handbook of research on
student engagement (pp.763-782). New York, NY: Springer.
Florez, I., & McCaslin, M. (2008). Student perceptions of small-group learning.
Teachers College Record, 110(11), 2438-2451. Retrieved from
http://pearl.stkate.edu/docview/211360713?accountid=26879
Fredricks, J.A., Blumenfeld, P.C., & Paris, A.H. (2004). School engagement: Potential
45
of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1),
59-109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059
Fredricks, J.A., Filsecker, M., & Lawson, M.A. (2016). Student engagement, context,
and adjustment: Addressing definitional, measurement, and methodological
issues. Learning and Instruction, 43, 1-4.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.02.002
Fredricks, J.A., McColskey W. (2012). The measurement of student engagement: A
comparative analysis of various methods and student self-report instruments.
s.l.
Henrie, Halverson, & Graham. (2015). Measuring student engagement in
technology-mediated learning: A review. Computers & Education, 90, 36-53.
Hoffer, T. (1992). Middle school ability grouping and student achievement in science
and mathematics. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14(3), 205-227.
Jacobs, G. M. (2016). Ten strengths of how teachers do cooperative learning. Online
Submission. Retrieved from
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED573761.pdf
Jansen, A. (2012). Developing productive dispositions during small-group work in two
sixth-grade mathematics classrooms: Teachers' facilitation efforts and students'
self-reported benefits. Middle Grades Research Journal, 7(1), 37-56. Retrieved
from http://pearl.stkate.edu/docview/1458788304?accountid=26879
K. Brennen. (2017, May 22). A top 20 teacher shares his weekly letter to
parents/guardians! Entry #16 [Web log comment]. Retrieved from
https://top20training.com/top-20-teacher-shares-weekly-letter-parentsguardians-
46
e]ntry-16
K. Brennen. (2017, March 12). Human being precedes human (BLOG 51) [Web log
comment]. Retrieved from
https://top20training.com/human-precedes-human-blog-51/
LeMier, M. (2012). Implementing differentiated instruction and flexible grouping into
a middle school social studies curriculum (Master’s thesis). Available from
CLIC thesis database. (OCLC No. 813303403)
Lemov, D. (2010). Teach like a champion: 49 Techniques that put students on the path
to college. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
McGlynn, K., & Kozlowski, J. (2016). Empowering students through collaboration.
Science Scope, 40(4), 64-67. Retrieved from
McNeff, M. (2017). What I’ve learned. The Learning Professional, 38(2), 12-14.
Retrieved from http://pearl.stkate.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.pearl.
stkate.edu/docview/1913303825?accountid=26879\
Mosley, P., Ardito, G., & Scollins, L. (2016). Robotic cooperative learning promotes
student STEM interest. American Journal Of Engineering Education, 7(2),
117-128.
Newmann, F.M. (2002). Student engagement and achievement in American secondary
schools. New York: Teachers College Press.
Rentner, D. S., Kober, N., Frizzell, M., Ferguson, M., & Center on Education Policy.
(2016). Listen to us: Teacher views and voices.

47
Roseth, C. J., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2008). Promoting early adolescents'
achievement and peer relationships: The effects of cooperative, competitive,
and individualistic goal structures. Psychological Bulletin, 134(2), 223-246.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.pearl.stkate.edu/10.1037/0033-2909.134.2.223
Rubin, B. (2008). Grouping in detracked classrooms. In M. Pollock (Ed.), Everyday
anti-racism (pp. 93-94). New York: The New Press.
Sagar, R. (2000). Guiding school improvement with action research. Available from
http://www.ascd.org/publications/books/100047/chapters/What-Is-Action-Rese
arch¢.aspx
Sears, D. A., & Reagin, J. M. (2013). Individual versus collaborative problem solving:
Divergent outcomes depending on task complexity. Instructional Science,
41(6), 1153-1172.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.pearl.stkate.edu/10.1007/s11251-013-9271-8
Sinatra, G. M., Heddy, B. C., & Lombardi, D. (2015). The challenges of defining and
measuring student engagement in science. Educational Psychologist, 50(1),
1-13.
Stronge, J.H. (2007). Qualities of effective teachers (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VI: ASCD.
Twin Cities Public Television. (2013). SciGirls seven: How to engage girls in STEM.
St. Paul, MN: Author. Retrieved from: http://www.scigirlsconnect.org/scigirls.
Turner, J. C., Christensen, A., Kackar-Cam, H., Trucano, M., & Fulmer, S. M. (2014).
Enhancing students' engagement: Report of a 3-year intervention with middle
school teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 51(6), 1195.
Retrieved from
48
Trespalacios, J., Chamberlin, B., & Gallagher, R. R. (2011). Collaboration,
engagement & fun: How youth preferences in video gaming can inform 21st
century education. TechTrends, 55(6), 49-54.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.pearl.stkate.edu/10.1007/s11528-011-0541-5
Walker, T. (2017, August 28). Are new educators exposed to a 'burnout contagion' in
school? Retrieved from http://neatoday.org/2017/08/28/teacher-burnout-
contagion/
Wong, H. K., & Wong, R. T. (1998). The first days of school: How to be an effective
teacher. Mountain View, CA: Harry K. Wong Publications, Inc.

49
Appendix A
The Effects of Collaborative Grouping on Student Engagement

Parental Permission Form
January 2, 2018
Dear Parents,
In addition to being your child’s sixth grade math/STEM/Science teacher, I am a St. Catherine University
student pursuing a Masters of Education. As a capstone to my program, I need to complete an Action
Research project. I am going to study the effects of collaborative grouping on student engagement because
I hope to see a positive impact on student learning.
In the coming weeks, I will be strategically grouping students as a regular part of my instruction. All
students will participate as members of the class. In order to understand the outcomes, I plan to analyze the
data obtained from the results of this collaborative grouping to determine if it has an impact on student
engagement. All strategies implemented and assessments given are part of normal educational practice.
The purpose of this letter is to notify you of this research and to allow you the opportunity to exclude your
child’s data (Semantic Differential Rating Scale, Student Observation Data Collection Tool, Student
Conference, and Teacher Reflection Journal) from my study. Data will be collected using four different
methods. First, a Semantic Differential Rating Scale will allow students rate their experience during
collaborative group work. Second, students will be observed by an adult during group work using a Student
Observation Data Collection Tool. Third, transcribed audio recordings of Student Conferences lead by the
teacher will be used to discuss group work experience. Fourth, will be a reflective teacher journal. At the
conclusion of the study, all audio recordings will be destroyed.
If you decide you want your child’s data to be in my study, you do not need to do anything at this
point.
If you decide you do NOT want your child’s data included in my study, please note that on this form below
and return it to me before the end of the school year. Note that your child will still participate in the lesson
but his/her data will not be included in my analysis.
In order to help you make an informed decision, please note the following:
● I am working with a faculty member at St. Kate’s and an advisor to complete this particular
project.
● It is hoped that through your participation, I will learn more about how I can improve student
engagement in collaborative projects. Risks are minimal for involvement in this study.
● I will be writing about the results that I get from this research. However, none of the writing that I
do will include the name of this school, the names of any students, or any references that would
make it possible to identify outcomes connected to a particular student. Other people will not
know if your child is in my study.
● The final report of my study will be electronically available online at the St. Catherine University
library. The goal of sharing my research study is to help other teachers who are also trying to
improve their teaching.
● There is no penalty for not having your child’s data involved in the study, I will simply delete his
or her responses from my data set. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. You
may ask questions now, or if you have any questions later, you can ask me, or my advisor Siri
Anderson ([email protected]), who will be happy to answer them. If you have questions or
concerns regarding the study, and would like to talk to someone other than myself, you may also
50
contact Dr. John Schmitt, Chair of the St. Catherine University Institutional Review Board, at
(651) 690-7739.
You may keep this form for your records.
________________________________________ ________________
Jaymeson Miller/Jeanine Backer/Shannon Timmer Date
OPT OUT: In order to exclude your child’s data from the study, please sign and return any time
before the completion of the school year.
I do NOT want my child’s data to be included in this study.

________________________________________ ________________
Signature of Parent Date
51
Appendix B
National Geographic Personality Quizzes
1. What Superpower Should You Have?
https://kids.nationalgeographic.com/games/quizzes/what-superpower-should-you-
have/
2. What Musical Instrument Are You?
https://kids.nationalgeographic.com/games/quizzes/what-musical-instrument/
3. What Planet Should You Call Home?
https://kids.nationalgeographic.com/games/quizzes/planets-personality/
52
Appendix C
Semantic Differential Rating Scale
1. Overall, my feelings about working with my group are…

Not good. 1 2 3 4 5 Excellent!
2. Our group members associate with each other outside of the assigned task…
Never- we Quite often- we consider
only talk when a ourselves friends with
task is at hand 1 2 3 4 5 each other
3. I would rate my participation during group work as…

Not focused at all 1 2 3 4 5 very focused
4. I would rate the overall participation of our group as…

Not focused at all 1 2 3 4 5 very focused
5. Members of our group work together…

None of the time, Most of the time, we all
we each did our contributed something as we
part separately 1 2 3 4 5 worked in a group
6. During our group work, everyone participates…

Different amounts-
not equally 1 2 3 4 5 The same amount
7. Challenges came up during group work…

○ Rarely ○ Sometimes ○ Often
8. Amount of time lost to group challenges or group conflicts…

1. Small percentage of our work time
2. Half of our work time
3. Most of our work time
4. Varies
9. Sources of tension and off-task behavior in our group… (please check all that
apply)
□ Content or assignment issues - the work just doesn’t interest us or seem worth
our attention, we don't see how it is relevant to our lives or interests
□ Social disagreements -- not related to the academics (e.g. something about
friendships, interests outside of the classroom)
□ Individual disengagement -- for reasons that may or may not be clear one or
more students in the group do not participate appropriately
□ Interpersonal dynamics-- one or more of the group members want to do the
project differently and can't find a way to peacefully come to an agreement
53
□ Academic differences -- one or more of the group members don't interpret the
content in the same manner, and we can't find a way to use those different
understandings to all learn more
□ Prior knowledge -- one or more group members are either struggling to catch up
with the content knowledge or already believe/seem to know everything about the
topic
□ Personality -- some extroverts, some introverts, or cultural differences seem to
get in the way of staying engaged/focused
□ Learning needs -- a student's unique attributes make it hard for him/her to
collaborate (student is learning English, on the autism spectrum, has reading
disability, is blind or hearing impaired etc.)
10. Please describe sources of tension you have experienced with group work.
11. How likely are you to choose group work over individual work?
○ Very unlikely
○ Unlikely
○ Neutral (don’t care either way)
○ Likely
○ Very likely
12. The reasons I prefer individual work over group work are…
13. The reasons I prefer group work over individual work are…
14. Our group performs better together than I would individually.

Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly agree
15. How likely are you to choose the same group to work with again?
Not likely at all! 1 2 3 4 5 Very likely!
54
Appendix D
Student Observation Data Collection Tool

A predetermined sample of 10 individuals in the classroom will be taken. The observer
should record the level of engagement for the same sample of students every other week.
At the indicated time, the observer records the student behavior at that moment using the
key provided.
Key
4 = Meaningful conversations for deeper learning (cognitive engagement)
3 = Engaged/On task/seems interested (emotional engagement)
2 = Quietly occupied with something other than expected task (behavioral engagement)
1 = Out of seat, talking unrelated to task, possibly distracting others (behavioral engagement)
Teacher: Topic: Lesson:
Start Time: End Time: Date:
Observer:
Student 0 5 10 15 20 Observations Teacher
min min min min min Analysis
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
55
Appendix E
Student Conference
Student’s identifier:
Teacher:
Date:
Researcher prompt: Overall, how are things going in your team?
Student response:
Researcher prompt: Describe the task you are working with a team is helping your learning. ?
Student response:
Researcher prompt: Give examples of how working in a team is better than if you work on a task alone.
Student response:
Researcher prompt: Describe some challenges your team is having.
Student response:
56
Researcher prompt: What advice might you give teams to overcome challenges?
Student response:
Researcher prompt: Is the task you’re working on challenging and/or interesting to you? What suggestions do you
have for me in designing this team project for students next year?
Student response:
Researcher prompt: Is there anything I (the teacher) could do to help you/your group work better together?
Student response:
Researcher prompt: If you had it to do over, would you choose to work in this group or work alone? Why?
Student response:
57
Appendix F
Teacher Reflection Journal

Date: Time:
Engagement Collaboration Reflections
(changes from last observation)
observations
inferences
other
Actions taken to scaffold or extend the content to align with student needs:
To what extent did today’s group work or class time afford any/all of the following:
● Increase exposure to new topic appropriate discrete knowledge/vocabulary (e.g. readings, lecture,
video, podcast…)
● Opportunity to apply or process that new learning in novel context
● Ability to clarify understanding through active dialogue
● Movement
● Reading
● Writing
● Speaking
● Creative outlet
● Critical thinking
● Use of computers for
o Information seeking (seeking unknown answers from varied sources)
o Organization (e.g. managing new learning, resources)
o Collaboration (e.g. Google Docs, Skype with expert)
o Presentation (e.g. creating a video, powerpoint, web page)
o Rote demonstration of learning (e.g.online worksheet)
If some students were not appearing to remain engaged today which of the following steps did I use, if any,
to re-engage the learner(s) who were off task or disengaged:
● Proximity (stood nearby without directly engaging)
● Joined group academic support (addressed the content not the behavior)
● Joined group soft-skills support (retaught the skills for appropriate small group collaboration)
● Private conversation with individual -- inquiry (friendly tone, seeking to understand student needs)
● Private conversation with individual -- directive (authoritative tone, seeking to establish
compliance)
● Scaffolded content to make it more/less difficult for student to understand the materials they were
learning (video, podcast, higher or lower level readings, outline etc.)
● Redirected by pointing to written directions - the third point
● Spoken reminder to individual
● Spoken reminder to whole class
● Group processing conversation: teacher-led
● Group processing conversation: student-led
● Encouraged students to speak in first language if not English/provided translation tools
● Student removed from group -- non-punitive (Susan can you run an errand for me?)
● Student removed from group -- punitive (Susan take a time out…)
● Sought assistance of additional resource teacher (para, SPED, ELL etc.)
● Communicated with parent -- student made the call
● Communicated with parent -- teacher call/email
Main lesson from the interventions I tried to use with student(s) challenged to stay engaged today:
58
Appendix G
Semantic Differential Rating Scale Results
Questions *The number of respondents are listed in

the table
1 2 3 4 5 Mean Median Mode
Overall, my feelings about Not good Excellen

t
working with my group
are…
Pre 0 1 6 15 8 4 4 4
Post 1 10 8 7 3 3 3 2
Our group members never Quite

associate with each other often
outside of the assigned
task…
Pre 2 7 9 5 7 3.3 3 3
Post 6 6 7 3 7 3 3 3
I would rate my Not Very

participation during group focused focused
work as…
Pre 0 0 4 17 9 4.2 4 4
Post 0 1 7 15 6 4 4 4
I would rate the overall Not Very

participation of our group focused focused
as…
Pre 0 0 2 17 11 4.3 4 4
Post 1 1 4 17 6 3.8 4 4
Members of our group None of Most of

work together… the time the time
Pre 0 0 7 11 12 4.2 4 5
Post 1 0 4 13 11 3.9 4 4
During our group work, Not Equally

everyone participates… equally
Pre 0 0 11 8 11 4 4 3
Post 2 9 10 7 1 3.1 3 3
59
Challenges came up during often sometim rarely

es
group work…
Pre 2 n/a 15 n/a 13 3.73 Sometimes Sometimes

3 3
Post 3 n/a 15 n/a 11 3.6 Sometimes Sometimes

3 3
Amount of time lost to most varies half small

group challenges or group
conflicts…
Pre 1 7 1 n/a 21 4.1 Small Small

5 5
Post 1 5 6 n/a 17 3.9 Small Small

5 5
How likely are you to Very Unlikely Neutral Likely Very

unlikely likely
choose group work over
individual work?
Pre 1 5 11 5 8 3.5 Neutral Neutral

3 3
Post 4 2 11 7 5 3.3 Neutral Neutral

3 3
Our group performs better Strongly Strongly

together than I would disagree agree
individually.
Pre 0 2 12 8 8 3.7 4 3
Post 2 3 14 3 7 3.3 3 3
How likely are you to Not Very

choose the same group to likely likely
work with again?
Pre 3 3 10 4 10 3.5 3 3
Post 3 7 4 8 7 3.3 4 4
60
Appendix H
Student Reasons for Preferring Group Work over Individual Work

Pre- Questionnaire Post- Questionnaire
Domain
Reason # of Reason # of
Responses Responses
Additional 10 Additional 7 Cognitive

help/ideas/learning help/ideas/learning
Getting work done faster 2 Getting work done 2 Behavioral

faster
Learning style/fun 1 Learning style/fun 5 Emotional
Concentration 2 Cognitive
61
Appendix I
Student Group Work Checklist
Everyone 1 2 3 4 5
gets a turn
to talk
Be 1 2 3 4 5
accepting of
other’s ideas
even if you
don’t agree
Look at the 1 2 3 4 5
person
talking
Use a calm 1 2 3 4 5
gentle tone
of voice
when
speaking
Work on the 1 2 3 4 5
task your are
given
Student or Teacher Notes:

62
Appendix J
Student Reasons for Preferring Individual Work over Group Work

Domain
Reason # of Reason # of
Responses Responses
Independence (learning 4 Independence 4 Behavioral

style, speed, not being told (learning style,
what to do, working on own speed, not being told
terms) what to do, working
on own terms)
Not having to share a 1 Not having to share a 1 Cognitive

grade/Doing more work grade/Doing more
than others work than others
Not having to show their 1 Emotional

work to others
63
Appendix K
Sources of Tension Reported during Group Work

Domain
Type of Tension # of Type of Tension # of
Responses Responses
Off-task behavior (talking, 6 Off task behavior 3 Behavioral

people not working, joking
around, someone yelling)
Working at different speeds 3 Working at different 7 Cognitive

(not getting it, moving speeds
ahead)
Arguing/Disagreeing 2 Arguing/Disagreeing 4 Emotional
Stated there were no sources 13 Stated there were no 7

of tension sources of tension
General comments 2
about tension (ex. “A
lot”)
64
Appendix L
Checklist question:
Sources of tension and off-task behavior in our group… Pre Post
(check all that apply)
Content or assignment issues -- the work just doesn't interest us or 7 5

seem worth our attention, we don't see how it is relevant to our lives
or interests
Social disagreements -- not related to the academics (e.g. something 9 7

about friendships, interests outside of the classroom)
Individual disengagement -- for reasons that may or may not be 8 9

clear one or more students in the group do not participate
appropriately
Interpersonal dynamics-- one or more of the group members want to 6 1

do the project differently and can't find a way to peacefully come to
an agreement
Academic differences -- one or more of the group members don't 7 7

interpret the content in the same manner, and we can't find a way to
use those different understandings to all learn more
Prior knowledge -- one or more group members are either struggling 9 12

to catch up with the content knowledge or already believe/seem to
know everything about the topic
Personality -- some extroverts, some introverts, or cultural 9 8

differences seem to get in the way of staying engaged/focused
Learning needs -- a student's unique attributes make it hard for 3 1

him/her to collaborate (student is learning English, on the autism
spectrum, has reading disability, is blind or hearing impaired etc.)

The Effects of Collaborative Grouping On Student Engagement in Mi

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Effects of Collaborative Grouping On Student Engagement in Mi

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Effects of Collaborative Grouping On Student Engagement in Mi

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

St.

Masters of Arts in Education Action Research Education

The Effects of Collaborative Grouping on Student Engagement in

Follow this and additional works at: https://sophia.stkate.edu/maed

Part of the Education Commons

The Effects of Collaborative Grouping on Student Engagement

in Middle School Students

Jeanine M. Backer, Jaymeson L. Miller, Shannon M. Timmer

St. Catherine University

St. Paul, Minnesota

Advisor: Siri Anderson Date ___________________

This action research project investigated the impact of collaborative grouping on

students’ engagement in three middle level STEM (science, technology, engineering or

domains of student engagement: emotional, cognitive, and behavioral. Teamwork

decrease in preference for collaborative learning by student’s self-report, qualitative data

suggest that middle-level classrooms benefit from incorporating collaborative learning

activities when preceded by intentional group formation, instruction on how to participate

effectively as a member of a collaborative team, and supplemented by re-teaching of

group skills or re-grouping, as indicated by evidence of student engagement.

Keywords: collaboration, engagement, strategies, tools, collaborative grouping

“Alone we can do so little, together we can do so much.”

Middle school teachers do well to consider Keller’s observation. In our

experience as middle-level STEM teachers, we were conflicted about the overall

advantages and disadvantages of collaborative group work. As passionate middle school

around student apathy. We noted a high occurrence of incomplete work, a tendency to

in learning because engagement is vital in education. Fostering a collaborative culture in

Our team planned to analyze the effects of implementing collaborative grouping

on student engagement in middle school classrooms.

By involving middle school students in their learning through collaborative

employment and academic skills.

This literature review synthesizes studies conducted on best-practices for

collaborative grouping and the impact of collaborative grouping on middle-level student

engagement. The review defines engagement and discusses measurements of engagement

teachers and students, as well as a few gaps in the literature.

Numerous studies identify positive impacts from collaborative learning (Contreras

Collaboration in an educational setting is used in many ways. It can be used to enhance

them become more academically successful.

The Concept of Engagement

is little agreement on a concrete definition according to Sinatra and her colleagues

(2015), as engagement varies in the theoretical perspective of the researcher.

Some research refers to student engagement as the working time in which

student engagement appear as focused involvement in learning. Newmann (1992)

defines engagement as “the student’s psychological investment in an effort directed

toward learning, understanding, or mastering the knowledge, skills, or crafts that

has been characterized as a multidimensional construct with behavioral, emotional, and

feelings, and willingness to learn.

Impact of Student Engagement

Using only one method of measuring student engagement may result in

incorporate multiple measures of student engagement from a variety of sources in both

their level of engagement.

Studies link student engagement to higher achievement in school (Fredricks et al.,

participating in delinquent behaviors, substance abuse and experiencing depression.

identify their most significant challenge as students disengagement.

Roseth et al.’s (2008) meta-analysis suggest middle school as a “fresh start”

consist of four principles, “autonomy, competence, relatedness/belongingness, and

principles, in turn, prove to be essential to student participation and engagement in the

Benefits of Collaborative Learning

increase interest in harder subjects. A meta-analysis, encompassing 80 years of research,