Dramatically Improving Educational Outcomes
—Easy as PIES

Dr. Spencer Kagan

To cite this article: Kagan, S. Dramatically Improving Educational Outcomes—Easy as PIES. San Clemente, CA: Kagan Publishing. Kagan Online, 2025. www.KaganOnline.com

Implementing PIES as we teach dramatically improves educational outcomes. PIES is an acronym for four principles that when implemented ensure universally accepted positive educational outcomes. PIES helps us distinguish the difference between effective and ineffective instructional strategies. Implementing PIES is the primary goal of Kagan Cooperative Learning. Implementing PIES on an ongoing basis is an extremely important partial solution to the most pressing problems in education, including narrowing achievement gaps, dramatically decreasing discipline problems, improving social skills and social relations, and developing positive race relations.

Kagan Cooperative Learning Structures are the simplest and most effective way to implement PIES on an ongoing basis in any classroom. Empirical evidence demonstrates that when Kagan CL Structures are implemented, the results are dramatic gains in achievement,¹ reductions in achievement gaps,² reduced discipline referrals,³ improvement in social skills and relations,⁴ and more positive race relations.⁵ The goal of this paper is to explain why implementing PIES produces these universally desired educational outcomes — outcomes that are not obtained using traditional instructional strategies.

In the first part of this paper, I provide a simple, common-sense approach to understanding PIES. In the second part of the paper, I show how traditional ways of structuring interaction in classrooms violate the PIES principles, producing undesirable outcomes. In the third part, I explain how any teacher or professor can use Kagan Structures to easily implement PIES on a regular basis, regardless of the grade-level or content they teach.

PART I. Understanding PIES

The rationale for PIES is most easily grasped by asking four simple questions:

1. Would I rather have 1) my students helping, tutoring, and encouraging each other, or 2) happy when a classmate does poorly?
2. Would I rather have 1) all my students performing at their highest level, or 2) some feeling it is ok to hide?
3. Would I rather have 1) all my students equally actively engaged or 2) the high achievers far more actively engaged than the low achievers?
4. Would I rather have 1) a great deal of active engagement of students in my class, or 2) little active engagement?

I am yet to meet an educator who would not prefer mutual support among students, students performing rather than hiding, and equal and frequent active engagement for all students.

We achieve all four of these positive outcomes if we implement PIES. PIES describe ways to structure interaction among students to obtain these four positive outcomes. Let’s examine each of the four PIES principles and how implementing them produces positive outcomes.

Stands for Positive Interdependence

To implement Positive Interdependence, we structure interaction among students:
Is everyone’s contribution necessary to achieve a shared goal?

If students know the contributions of their partners or teammates are necessary to achieve a goal they share, they hope for the success of their partner or teammates. They are motivated to encourage, help, and tutor each other. They are interdependent; they cannot do it alone. There is a positive correlation among their outcomes because the success of one helps others.

When Positive Interdependence is in place, students hope for and support the success of their classmates; they feel themselves to be on the same side. Social relations and race relations are improved. Harmony among students replaces discord.

Stands for Individual Accountability

To implement Individual Accountability, we structure interaction among students:
Is each student’s work witnessed by someone?

If students know someone (teacher, partner, teammates, and/or classmates) will see what they have performed, they are held accountable for their performance. Students want to look good in the eyes of others. If no one will see their performance, they are less motivated, and some will decide they do not have to perform or perform well because no one will know.

When Individual Accountability is in place, students are far more motivated and more likely to perform and perform well.

Stands for Equal Participation

To implement Equal Participation, we structure interaction among students:
Is participation approximately equal?

By assigning each student an equivalent task and/ or an equal amount of time for performance, we avoid a common problem in unstructured group work — the problem of some doing most or all the work while others take a free ride. We also go a long way toward equalizing status among students.

When Equal Participation is in place, students who otherwise would participate little, allowing others to take over, participate more, increasing their learning, their status, and improving race relations.

Stands for Simultaneous Interaction

To implement Simultaneous Interaction, we structure interaction among students:
Are many students overtly interacting at the same moment?

By having many student actively engaged at the same time we very dramatically increase total amount of engagement. Imagine we want each student to share their ideas for a minute and we call on each one in turn, sequentially, one after another. In a class of thirty it would take half an hour to have each student to perform for a minute. In contrast, imagine students are in pairs, individuals sharing simultaneously to their partner. Using the simultaneous approach, it takes only two minutes for students to have the same amount of active engagement! In this example simultaneous interaction saves 28 of the 30 minutes, allowing much more frequent active engagement. By having students interact simultaneously, we have eliminated 29 minutes of passive waiting for each student as they wait their turn—29 minutes of boredom and possible disruptive behavior.

When Simultaneous Interaction is in place, students are dramatically more engaged, less often bored, learn more, and have less time for off-task, disruptive behaviors.

PART II. Traditional Structures Violate PIES, Producing Undesirable Outcomes

The importance of implementing PIES is illustrated by examining traditional instructional strategies. Because the most frequently implemented instructional strategies violate the PIES principles, they produce undesirable outcomes. Here we examine two of the most frequently implemented traditional instructional strategies: Call-On-One, and Individual Worksheet Work.

Call-On-One

I have presented workshops for teachers in over 40 countries. In almost all those countries I have gone into classrooms to observe teaching and learning. Call-On-One is very frequently used in every country I have observed.

The steps of Call-On-One are familiar to every educator:

1. The teacher poses a question for students to answer.
2. Students who wish to answer raise their hands.
3. The teacher calls on a student with a raised hand.
4. The student answers.
5. The teacher responds to the answer, usually with praise or correction.

PIES Analysis of Call-On-One

Positive Interdependence. In Step 2, students wave their hands, hoping to be called upon. They are vying for the opportunity to receive teacher and classmate attention and recognition. As the teacher calls on one student in Step 3, the other students lower their hands, often with a sigh or a motion expressing their disappointment for not being called upon. The students are in competition: The success of one in being called up means the failure of the others. A win for one is a loss for the others, a situation we describe as negative interdependence.

Negative interdependence occurs again in a more serious way following Step 4. If a student who is called upon states the wrong answer, those who had lowered their hands now excitedly raise their hands. Some call “me, me, me,” as they again vie to be called on, to show off that they know the correct answer. The failure of the first student to produce the correct answer is associated with the potential success of the others — another example of negative interdependence. In effect, without intending, the teacher has placed students against each other. Competition, excitement in the failure of a classmate, is “built into” the traditional Call-On-One structure. Do we really want our students to be excited and pleased when a classmate receives the public embarrassment of failing in front of the class?

Individual Accountability. Call-On-One is a perfect example of the negative consequences that result when we fail to hold students individually accountable for their performance. In Step 2, students who wish to be called upon raise their hands. If a student is less confident, has not done the reading, or is struggling with the content, that student simply does not raise their hand. The student knows they will not have to perform. They can hide.

The result of lack of accountability is an increase in achievement gaps. There are two achievement gaps that plague education: the gap in achievement between majority and minority students and the gap in achievement between the high and low achieving students. Call-On-One makes it less likely that the low achieving, shy, and minority students will raise their hands to be called upon. The result: we inadvertently call most on the high achievers. Calling most on the high achievers is prescription for increasing the achievement gaps. The lack of individual accountability reduces the achievement of lower achieving students in two ways: 1. Knowing they will not be held accountable, students know they can avoid doing assigned reading or avoid studying. They know that when the teacher calls on one, they can hide; 2. Knowing they can “get off the hook” or play it safe by simply not raising their hands, students are more likely to daydream or mind-wander during class.

Equal Participation. Lack of equal participation is another prescription for increasing the achievement gaps. If we call only on the students with their hands up, we call most on those who least need the practice and least on those who most need the practice.

Simultaneous Interaction. In Step 4 of Call-On- One, students are called on one at a time. This sequential responding dramatically decreases active engagement and forces unacceptable periods of wait time. As we have seen, by having students interacting at the same time, we dramatically increase the amount of active engagement. Why take thirty minutes to give each student a minute to voice their ideas if we can accomplish the same goal in two minutes by having students simultaneously sharing in pairs? To test for simultaneous interaction, we take an imaginary photo of the class at any one minute and ask, “How many students are actively engaged in that moment?”

Whereas equal participation focuses on equality of participation, simultaneous interaction focuses of amount of participation. We can have equal participation if every student in the class gets only one minute a week to share their ideas. Obviously, equal participation is not enough. We need not only to equalize active participation, but to increase it. Simultaneous Interaction is the royal road to increasing amount of active engagement.

Individual Worksheet Work

Whereas Call-On-One is how most teachers most often elicit oral responses from students, Individual Worksheet Work is how most teachers elicit written responses. After demonstrating a skill or when wanting students to review the content, teachers have students work alone in class or at home on a worksheet to practice the demonstrated skill or review the content. Although Individual Worksheet Work comes out better than Call-On-One when we do a PIES analysis, it still falls far short of what is possible.

The steps of Individual Worksheet Work are familiar to every educator. After demonstrating a skill or presenting content, the teacher:

1. Distributes worksheets to students with problems or questions to practice the skill or review the content.
2. Instructs students to work alone on their worksheet.
3. Collects, corrects, and grades the worksheets.
4. Pass back to students corrected and graded worksheets.

PIES Analysis of Individual Worksheet Work

Positive Interdependence. Students are working alone. Traditionally teachers have said, “Keep your eyes on your own paper.” Sharing with each other the way to solve a problem or the answer to a review question is viewed as cheating. Negative Interdependence occurs in Step 4: Without being instructed to do so, many students compare grades. They are not hoping their classmates have done better than they have; they hope to win in this social comparison process. A classmate doing better than they have is a disappointment. The consequence: students do not hope and try for the success of their peers. Class norms develop against achieving too much because it makes others look bad by comparison. A classmate who always gets the top grade, suffers the consequence of being called a “nerd” or a “teacher’s pet.” Classmates negatively label the very high achievers, putting pressure on the high achievers not to achieve too highly as it makes them look bad by comparison. This is negative interdependence: The success of one is associated with a loss for others. This negative labeling of the highest achievers presents a difficult dilemma for the high achievers: “Do I want to do the best I can, or do I want to be liked?”

Individual Accountability. Individual Worksheet Work does create individual accountability because papers are turned in and the teacher sees and evaluates the performance or lack of performance of each student. It should be noted, however, that the individual accountability is not as strong with Individual Worksheet Work as it is when students are performing in pairs or teams. This is true for two reasons: 1) The teacher can do outcome assessment only. The teacher sees only the completed worksheet. In contrast, if students are performing in front of a partner or teammates, they can receive feedback on their process as well as outcome. 2) The feedback students receive from Individual Worksheet Work is necessarily delayed. The teacher has to collect the worksheets, correct them, grade them, and then return them. This means students receive only delayed feedback on their outcomes. For teachers grading the papers in many classes, the delay can be quite substantial. By the time students receive feedback, many have forgotten having done the problems. They examine the returned paper to check for their grade; they don’t examine the paper to understand the corrections and improve their learning. In contrast, during pair work students are receiving immediate feedback from their partner. Immediate feedback is far more powerful than delayed feedback as it allows for immediate correction and learning, and improved practice. With delayed feedback only, a student can practice wrong on every problem; with immediate feedback, the student gets immediate correction and the opportunity to practice successive problems correctly.

Equal Participation. Theoretically there is Equal Participation with Individual Worksheet Work: Each student receives a worksheet. In practice there is not equal participation, especially if the worksheets are done as homework, because some students fail to attempt or complete the work. Even if the worksheets are done in class, less motivated students may begin mind-wandering. This is not possible if pairs are working together on a worksheet. They hold each other on task: “I will watch as you do the next problem.”

Simultaneous Interaction. If students are all working on their own worksheets at the same time, there is very strong simultaneous engagement. The only caveat is that weaker or less motivated students are more likely to drift into mind-wandering: their pencil is on their worksheet, but their mind is on an anticipated after school activity. So, in fact, not everyone is actively engaged on the academic task at once.

PART III. Kagan Cooperative Learning Structures Implement PIES, Producing Positive Outcomes

Each Kagan Cooperative Learning Structures is carefully designed to implement all four of the PIES principles. In fact, it is the implementation of the PIES principles that distinguishes Kagan Cooperative Learning Structures from other cooperative learning structures. For example, it is popular for teachers to do a structure called Turn-N-Talk. They have students in pairs and pause during a lecture or demonstration and ask students to turn to their partner and talk over what has been demonstrated, or discuss a question posed by the instructor. While Turn-NTalk involves pair work, it does not qualify as a Kagan Cooperative Learning Structure because it violates the PIES principles. Participation may be very unequal and there is no individual accountability: The more motivated or outgoing student may do all the talking. A very unmotivated or shy student may decide to let their partner do all the talking.

True Kagan Cooperative Learning Structures implement all four of the PIES principles. As examples, let’s analyze PairShare and Sage-N-Scribe.

PairShare

PairShare is the simplest of all Kagan Cooperative Learning Structures, but it implements each of the four PIES principles. It can be used to replace Call-On-One. The steps of PairShare:

1. Teacher announces topic and provides think time. Teacher calls for students to share either one, two, or at most three sentences each.
2. One partner shares while other partner listens.
3. Switch Roles: The other partner shares while their partner listens.
4. Students signal when finished.

PIES Analysis of PairShare

Positive Interdependence. Students experience themselves as on the same side, each contributing ideas on a common topic. A good idea of one, becomes a learning opportunity for the other so the successes of one helps the other.

Individual Accountability. Each student’s contribution is witnessed by the other.

Equal Participation. Each student shares the same pre-determined number of ideas in either one, two, or three sentences.

Simultaneous Interaction. Half the class is sharing at any one moment in contrast to calling on students sequentially, one after another.

Sage-N-Scribe

Sage-N-Scribe is one of several Kagan Cooperative Learning Structures that can take the place of Individual Worksheet Work. Sage- N-Scribe can be used to practice and improve responses to problems, review questions, physical skills (free-throw toss), construction skills (building a circuit board), or reviewing the steps of a procedure. The steps of Sage-N-Scribe:

1. The Sage gives the Scribe step-by-step instructions how to perform a task or solve a problem.
2. The Scribe records the Sage’s solution step-by- step in writing, coaching if necessary.
3. The Scribe praises the Sage.
4. Partners switch roles for the next problem or task.

PIES Analysis of Sage-N-Scribe

Positive Interdependence. Students are working together to increase their skills. They are encouraging, coaching, helping. They experience themselves as on the same side with a common goal—mastering the skill.

Individual Accountability. Each in turn must perform, witnessed by the other.

Equal Participation. Students take turns, participating equally in each roll.

Simultaneous Interaction. Pairs are all interacting at the same time. At any moment 50% of the class is engaged as a Sage and 50% of the class is engaged as a Scribe, so at any moment every student is actively engaged simultaneously.

Conclusion

We can replace traditional instructional strategies that have obvious, undesirable outcomes by instead implementing relatively simple Kagan Cooperative Learning Structures that respect the four PIES principles and improve some of the very most import educational outcomes.

Kagan Partnership Team • 800.451.8495 • partnerships@KaganOnline.com