Kagan's Articles - FREE Kagan Articles

Research & Rationale

Kagan Structures Elevate High School Achievement

To cite this article: Kagan, S. Kagan Structures Elevate High School Achievement. Kagan Online Magazine, Issue #54. San Clemente, CA: Kagan Publishing. www.KaganOnline.com

During break at a workshop I was conducting, I received a remarkable comment from a high school teacher. All the adults in the workshop, including the teacher who made the statement, were fully engaged using Kagan Structures. The gentleman’s comment surprised me: “My students are too old for this.” It was surprising to me how a teacher who was fully engaged in the workshop and who was surrounded by other adults also fully engaged and learning could say his students were too old for Kagan Structures. If the structures were working extremely well for adults, how could he think his high school students were too old to benefit from the structured interaction?

When I have had the opportunity, in response to teachers who think the structures won’t work in their classes, I ask if I can work for a little while with their students. Without exception, when I use Kagan Structures with their students, the students become fully engaged; they report that they enjoy the structures and that they find learning easier through the interaction. It probably helps that I present the structures with confidence, non-verbally communicating that they will be fun and instructive. I encourage teachers who are skeptical to begin with just one very simple structure, like a RallyRobin, and use it a number of times with different content so they and their students become comfortable with the structure. I encourage all teachers to use fun, easy content at first, until students have learned the structure. If we ask them to take turns naming prime numbers the first time students are introduced to RallyRobin, we are likely to get resistance. They don’t want to be embarrassed because they don’t know any prime numbers. If instead we introduce RallyRobin by asking students to take turns naming favorite foods or TV programs, there is no resistance. Once they have learned the structure with fun content, we can successfully transition to using the structure to practice academic content.

Proof that Kagan Structures are powerful for secondary students comes not just from my personal experience. There is a great deal of empirical evidence that Kagan Structures accelerate academic achievement among secondary students. The evidence comes from research published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, teacher-published research studies, the popularity of Kagan secondary workshops and books, the reports of those teachers using Kagan Structures, and from surveys of secondary students. After overviewing this research, we examine why Kagan Structures work so well for high school students.

Evidence Kagan Structures Boost Secondary School Achievement

Controlled Research Studies

The SUNY Research Studies. An independent research group at the State University of New York (SUNY) at Fredonia has conducted a series of studies on Numbered Heads Together, one of the Kagan Structures.1The SUNY team has published five peer-reviewed research studies examining the effects of Numbered Heads Together compared to traditional instruction. The studies were conducted across a range of academic content areas and grade levels, and for students with and without disabilities. All studies revealed dramatically improved academic achievement using Numbered Heads Together compared to traditional instruction. The results for students at the secondary level were just as positive as those at lower grades.

Science. To test the effectiveness of Numbered Heads Together in teaching 9th grade science, researchers used an ABAB design.2That is, students were taught with traditional methods for 5 weeks, then Numbered Heads Together for six weeks, then traditional for three weeks, then Numbered Heads Together for three weeks. The results favor Numbered Heads Together dramatically. Using the traditional method, students averaged 53%; when the teacher switched to Numbered Heads Together, the students averaged 75%. Next the teacher switched back to traditional instruction and scores fell to 59%. Finally the teacher again switched to Numbered Heads Together and scores rose to 72%. See the graph to the right. These differences amount to an overall average increase in quiz scores of 16%—almost two letter grades! Kagan Structures literally upgrade achievement.

The superior performance of students taught using Numbered Heads Together held true for every student in the class except one, and that one student was present for only two weeks of Numbered Heads Together. The high performance among students taught with Numbered Heads together translated into far more students with passing grades with the Kagan Structure (78%) than with traditional instruction (33%). Kagan Structures upgrade achievement!

The teacher stated that when Number Heads Together was used, students were more engaged, more excited to participate, and happy to encourage their peers via team cheers. The students took a satisfaction survey.

Over 80% of the students answered that they…
            • Liked Numbered Heads Together for answering questions
            • Liked Numbered Heads Together for practicing content
            • Were satisfied with their performance during Numbered Heads Together

Over 80% of the students answered that Numbered Heads Together…
            • Helped them learn science
            • Helped them get along better with others
            • Should be used in other classes
            • Should be used for the remainder of the year
            • Was fair to everyone in class

Over 80% of the students thought other students thought they were smarter after using Numbered Heads Together!

Language Arts. The positive gains in language arts, with slightly younger students, were similar to those in science: Two forms of Numbered Heads Together were compared to traditional instruction for 6-8th grade language arts students. The results are presented in the graph. Students instructed using traditional whole group instruction (“Raise your hand to be called upon”) scored an average of 41.9% on their weekly quizzes. Those taught with the two variations of the Kagan Structure Numbered Heads Together scored averages of 61% and 61.9%.3See the graph to the right.

Secondary Action Research

Published action research on Kagan Structures conducted by teachers in high school and college finds student achievement gains across subject areas.

High School Journalism. In 2005, Kagan Structures were instituted in a high school journalism class. Pre- to post-test gains scores were dramatically higher (22% gain) compared to the prior two years (11% and 9%).4

High School Chemistry. “After spending a week in California training with Dr. Spencer Kagan, I must admit I was excited about what I learned, eager to try these new methodologies in my class, but very skeptical that they would actually work with high school chemistry students.” Janina Mele, a 25-year veteran teacher, took the plunge to set up teams and begin using structures every ten to fifteen minutes. The result: She discovered full student engagement. “I will never forget the first Pairs Check they worked on, a drill sheet on chemical formula writing. As I walked around the lab offering help, I stepped back a moment and just looked at my students. All 24 of them were actively engaged in chemistry! I was overwhelmed with excitement.”

When marking period came around, Janina got a shock. Student grades had consistently hovered around 75%, but her classes were averaging well above 80%! “To me this was a significant improvement. These grades, for both years, were based on comprehensive assessments, which included: homework, quizzes, lab reports, unit tests, and research papers. Although the basis for assessment was virtually the same, the method of instruction was different. This led me to one conclusion: cooperative learning really worked!” This higher level of achievement was sustained in successive marking periods.5

High School Algebra. To test the effectiveness of Kagan Structures in her high school algebra classes, Jodi Van Wetering compared the performance of her Algebra 300 and Advanced Algebra classrooms using traditional instruction vs. Kagan Structures.6She found, Notably, there was a consistent improvement in the student achievement across the board. In no case did traditional instruction outperform Kagan Structures.” The graphs speak for themselves:

To test student attitudes, Jodi administered a questionnaire to which students could respond anonymously. Overwhelmingly, students enjoyed using the Kagan Structures, preferred to use them again next year, and felt they had a better understanding of mathematics as a result of the structures.

I enjoy working in a group.

I have a better understanding of mathematics from working in a group.

If I could choose my math class next year,
I would choose one that used Kagan Strategies on a regular basis.

 Student comments were consistent with the improved achievement and liking for the structures:

"I think working in groups is helpful and fun! It shows me that other people may be having the same problem, something I can help them with, or something they can help me with."

"I enjoy cooperative learning because sometimes it is easier to ask the group questions to find answers than it is asking the teacher."

 "I think cooperative learning makes whatever we are learning more understandable."

"I think that working in groups helps the class to become more engaged in what we are learning, by being able to ask questions and work together."

Jodi believes the gains from Kagan Structures are due in part to increased engagement, increased feedback to students and teacher, and the more positive social context in which students are learning:

"Since I have incorporated the Kagan philosophy into my classroom, student achievement has improved in Algebra and Advanced Algebra with Trigonometry. I attribute the achievement gains to cooperative learning strategies that continue to keep students actively engaged. Through the use of structures, teambuilding, and classbuilding, students are motivated and encouraged to participate. Consequently, they have improved their problem-solving skills and communication skills. They have a greater mathematical understanding and new tools for checking for understanding and content mastery. Kagan Structures allow immediate feedback to the student and to the teacher. As a teacher, I have increased my ability to create an environment where relationship skills and social skills are taught, encouraged, and fostered. Students feel that my classroom is a warm, friendly environment. They have gotten to know their classmates and feel comfortable asking questions. They have stated that math is fun again. And as a result of all of this, their mathematical scores have increased. Kagan has changed my life as a teacher, and I am a better educator because of Kagan."

College Math. Additional evidence for the effectiveness of Kagan Structures with older students comes from an action research study conducted at North Dakota State University. To assess the impact of introducing Kagan Structures, one of nine identical college math sections was assigned to use a range of Kagan Structures.7 Section 4 was taught using Inside-Outside Circle, RallyTable, One Stray, RallyRobin, RallyCoach, and Showdown. The remaining eight sections were taught with traditional instruction. Section 4, using Kagan Structures, outperformed all other sections, scoring an average of 79% on exams. The average of the sections taught with traditional methods was 61.3%. See the graph below.

The college students using the Kagan Structures were very enthusiastic about what, for them, was a new way of interacting in class, commenting as follows:

"Being able to talk and explain to another person how to do the problem really helped me to do the problems."

"For the first time, I understand the concept of doing 'story' problems."

"I like the technique that was used. Everything made sense to me."

"This works."

Corporate Culture. Further evidence of the effectiveness of Kagan Structures comes from their use among corporate employees. We use Kagan Structures in many ways in our own company. In our main office in San Clemente, California, we use the Kagan Structures for brainstorming, decision making, teambuilding, staffbuilding, and professional development. Several structures are used at every staff meeting. Most visitors comment on the positive culture at Kagan. Recently a survey was conducted of of over 5,000 companies in our county, and Kagan Publishing & Professional Development was scored #1 among all companies for employee sense of mission. This is attributable in large part to the positive culture and teambuilding created by the use of Kagan Structures as an integral part of how we interact on a daily basis.

UK School Inspection Evaluations

In the United Kingdom, schools are inspected by independent and impartial inspectors from the Office for Standards in Education, OFSTED. The inspectors write a report summarizing their findings. Below are OFSTED reports on the impact of Kagan Structures in two high schools in the UK. The reports document achievement gains among students, acquisition of collaborative skills, and favorable attitudes of high school teachers toward the use of Kagan Structures.

OFSTED REPORT 1: Fallibroome High School. When describing the impact of widespread use of Kagan Structures at Fallibroome High School, OFSTED wrote:

"The school has a total commitment to raising standards through a clear strategy and approach to teaching and learning based on an American strategy for 'co-operative learning'. The driving force for this comes from the headteacher who has shared the vision effectively. All staff are totally convinced in favour of the strategy…. The co-operative learning model is effectively supporting learners not only in groups but as individuals. Individual learning needs are being met appropriately through this agreed approach. This has meant that the school does not have any specific group or category of pupils who could be identified as underachieving…. The co-operative learning model is developing and encouraging many aspects of outstanding teaching and learning, and there was clear evidence that the theory was working in practice. Some outstanding features include the pace of the lessons, the team work and co-operation between pupils, the use of various teaching/learning techniques, and pupil's attitude to work."8

OFSTED REPORT 2: Ripley St. Thomas CE Academy. Ripley Academy is a comprehensive secondary academy. For a number of years, they have emphasized the use of Kagan Structures and have received training from Kagan-UK. Ripley Academy has been listed in The Daily Telegraph as one of the top 30 comprehensive schools in the UK, and one of the very few outside of London. OFSTED inspectors observed 52 lessons and rated the school in 31 areas. Ripley was graded as "Outstanding" in every respect and received 1s (highest mark possible) in each of the 31 areas!

Ripley's Vice Principal Martin Wood attributes much of this incredible accomplishment to Kagan Structures:

"Most importantly, the school was graded as ‘outstanding’ for the quality of teaching and learning.... Naturally, we are very pleased with the feedback and the validation of our approach to teaching and learning. In tandem with pupil outcomes, which recently put us into the top 25 comprehensive schools in the country, we feel confident in moving onto the next phase of the school's development. However, we also know that so much of what we now do is down to the quality of the training that Kagan-UK has provided over the last 3 years and the transformational impact of the Kagan approach."

When surveyed, the Ripley staff was almost unanimous in attributing a positive impact to Kagan methods. See the pie chart below.

Benefits from Using Kagan
98% of Ripley's staff reported benefits from using Kagan.

Evaluation of Kagan Secondary Workshops

Increasingly, secondary instructors are turning to Kagan Structures to enhance engagement and learning. Kagan Professional Development conducts over 1,500 workshops a year in the United States and a third of those workshops are specifically designed for high school teachers. Kagan high school workshops are extremely well-attended and receive rave reviews. Note in the comments below, taken from Kagan workshop evaluations, that secondary instructors find Kagan Structures powerful for the range of academic content.

Workshop Evaluation Comments

"I was worried going in that the ideas would be too ‘elementary’ for this secondary teacher, but I walked away with many useful ideas that I can’t wait to use."
—Cyndi Scherer, 10-11th Grade English Teacher, Hot Springs High School

"Loved seeing the structures applied to mathematics and being able to practice and try the methods ourselves."
—Jeff Hicks, 9-12th Grade Math Teacher, Liberty High School

"We learned some key structures that can be used in our social studies class. It was tremendously helpful and I will use everything I learned."
—David Lamarre, 10th Grade Social Studies Teacher, Bishop Moore Catholic High School

"The content is relevant to all grades and content areas. I will be able to share and support all levels of readers in high school. As well, this workshop gives teachers well thought-out structures to repair and reinforce the importance of thinking beyond the text."
—Julie Lewis, 9-12th Grade Secondary Reading Coach, Lehigh Senior High School

Enthusiasm of Secondary Teachers Using Kagan Structures

Enthusiasm for Kagan Structures among secondary teachers extends well beyond Kagan workshops. Secondary teachers using Kagan Structures report a radical positive transformation in their classrooms:

"I love the increase in student engagement and accountability that the Kagan Structures promote. As a result, first trimester this year was my BEST ever in 17 years of teaching! The students are excelling academically and developing a very crucial 21st century learning skill...working collaboratively."
—Regina Grube, 9th–12th Grade Math Teacher, Lee High School, Wyoming, MI

Some secondary teachers are skeptical about the effectiveness of Kagan Structures for secondary but become convinced once they see the response of their students. Before trying them, Mark Freiert, a secondary science teacher, thought Kagan Structures were "too elementary" for his students. He was willing, though, to give them a try. The result:

"I needed no additional convincing once I began using two to three structures per period with all level of students. Not only did academic performance increase, but any discipline issues and off-task behavior I previously dealt with nearly vanished."

One of the most common comments among secondary teachers adopting Kagan Structures is that they are revitalized. A number of teachers have told me, "I used to be looking forward to retirement, and now I am looking forward to my next day of teaching." Teachers want to see their students fully engaged and learning, rather than waiting for the bell to ring. Students in traditional classrooms come alive when they leave class; students using Kagan Structures come alive in class. This student engagement translates into teacher renewal.

"Since being exposed to the Kagan Structures, I feel like a brand new teacher, refreshed and full of energy. Kagan has revitalized my passion for teaching. It is as if I am reborn again as a teacher. I have tried to implement the various structures daily in all of my classes. Last week, after a 90-minute class period, I had students approaching me asking if we could do those structures again—it was ‘fun.’ I was blown away with the excitement—kids asking to do more math! I had to pinch myself to make sure I was not dreaming."
—Joy Lacey, 9th–12th Grade Math Teacher, Glenbrook North High, Northbrook, IL

Popularity of Kagan Resources for Secondary

Additional evidence for the power of Kagan Structures to enhance secondary instruction comes from the popularity of Kagan books designed for secondary teachers. Among the most popular books published by Kagan Publishing are Cooperative Learning and High School Geometry, Cooperative Learning and Algebra 2, and Cooperative Learning for Language Arts, Books 1 and 2, for Grades 7-12.

Why Does Kagan Elevate Achievement?

That Kagan Structures work well in secondary instruction is not surprising. Kagan Structures are explicitly designed to be content-free—to create more engagement and learning of any content, with students at any grade. Let's take an example: RallyRobin. RallyRobin is one of the simplest of the Kagan Structures. In pairs students simply take turns stating answers to a question posed by the teacher. Whereas kindergarten students may take turns naming colors, high school language arts students might take turns naming and defining literary techniques. Because the structures are content-free, the high school chemistry teacher can have students RallyRobin inert elements. The high school social studies teacher uses the same structure to have students name causes (or consequences) of the Civil War. It does not matter if students are in a lab using RallyRobin to review the steps of a lab procedure; in a lecture using RallyRobin to state possible applications of a finding presented by the professor; or in a classroom setting using RallyRobin to prepare for a test by stating questions they think might be on the weekly test.

Why Not Just Turn and Talk? Kagan Structures like RallyRobin are so simple that any teacher can use them. Their simplicity, however, is deceiving. Each Kagan Structure is very carefully designed to maximize active engagement by all students and make sure they are mutually supportive and accountable for their individual contributions. Many teachers are using something called turn and talk. During a lecture or presentation, they simply have students turn to a partner and talk over whatever question the teacher poses. This way of structuring interaction among students is not a Kagan Structure. It is not designed for equal participation or individual accountability. If a high achiever is next to a low achiever and they are told to turn and talk, it is likely that the high achiever will do most or even all of the talking. The low achiever can mindwander. Gains will be greater for the high achiever than the low achiever. In fact, during turn and talk (like the traditional raise-your-hand-to-be-called-on), some students actually do no talking at all and have their minds on something else. Turn and talk increases the achievement gap, whereas with RallyRobin, Timed Pair Share, or any of the other 200 Kagan Structures, there is equal participation, lowering the achievement gap.

RallyRobin, like all of the 200+ Kagan Structures, is an interaction sequence carefully designed to reach specific learning objectives. Empirical research, as well as the experience of tens of thousands of teachers, demonstrates that Kagan Structures produce equally dramatic achievement gains for high school students as they do for students of lower grades. The question becomes, why do Kagan Structures produce such dramatic gains? Let's overview four reasons:

1. Active Engagement

Active Engagement

The traditional teacher calls on students one at a time to answer teacher questions. Using this approach, giving each student a minute to verbalize her/his ideas, takes almost two minutes because the teacher needs time to pose the question and later to respond to the answer. The result: During an hour of Q & A, each student in a class of thirty has one minute of active engagement.

By contrast, the teacher using one of the Kagan Pair Structures takes only slightly more than two minutes to give each student in the class a minute to verbalize her/his ideas. The result: During Q & A, each student has almost thirty minutes of active engagement per hour.

The amount of active engagement differs dramatically: One minute of active engagement per hour in traditional teaching; almost thirty minutes of active engagement per hour in Kagan Pair Structures.

The most important reason Kagan Structures increase achievement among secondary students is that they increase active engagement. One of the largest and most consistent findings in empirical educational research is that student engagement produces increased learning.9

Students are far more engaged when they can interact with each other. Traditional instruction is based on transmission—information is transmitted from teacher to students. Kagan Structures are based on transaction—information and ideas are generated during the interaction among students. In the traditional classroom, students listen and talk only to the teacher. Using Kagan Structures, they are far more engaged as they listen to and talk with each other. They see fellow students as sources of knowledge and ideas.

I have presented workshops and keynotes in almost 40 countries. In each country, I have gone into classrooms and observed teaching. The most common way teachers world-wide attempt to produce active engagement is by having students raise their hands to answer questions posed by the teacher. The teacher asks a question, those students who want to answer raise their hands, the teacher calls on one, and that student answers. This is the traditional approach. This traditional approach produces extraordinarily little active engagement. If it takes 15 seconds for the teacher to pose a question and another 15 seconds to respond to the student’s answer, and an additional thirty seconds for the student to answer, in one minute, the traditional approach produces thirty seconds of active engagement for one student. Given this approach, in two minutes, the traditional teacher produces thirty seconds of active engagement for two students in the class. In contrast, if the teacher uses a Kagan Pair Structure like Timed Pair Share or RallyRobin, in two minutes, each student in the class shares for almost a full minute. Further, in the traditional format, the two students give just one answer each, whereas with a RallyRobin, in the same amount of time, each student in the class gives a number of answers.

Equality of Engagement

The traditional approach gives the most active engagement to those who least need it and gives the least active engagement to those who most need it. The result: Increased achievement gap.

2. Equality of Engagement

How much active engagement an instructional strategy produces is a different question than how equal the engagement is. In the traditional raise-a-hand-to–be-called-on classroom, a subset of students do most or all the hand raising. Other students hide. Only 25% or fewer students raised their hands to respond to teacher questions during group instruction.10This finding is consistent with extensive process-product research11and previous teacher questioning studies.12It is the high achievers who eagerly raise their hands to be called on and the low achievers who avert the teacher’s eyes, attempting to hide. Because active engagement boosts achievement, the traditional approach inadvertently biases outcomes favoring the high achiever, increasing the achievement gap. In Kagan Structures, every student responds to every question, decreasing the achievement gap.

Authentic Assessment

In traditional classrooms, we call on volunteers; we hear only from the high achievers, resulting in a non-representative sample of our class. With Kagan Structures, we listen in as high, middle, and low achieving students interact. It is a representative sample.

3. Accurate, Formative Assessment

If students are talking only to the instructor, and it is mainly the high achievers who are responding, the instructor is hearing from a non-representative sample of the class. This creates an illusion that the class has a better understanding of the content than it actually does. If, however, Kagan Structures are used, students are talking with each other and the instructor listens in to the students as they interact. In this way, the instructor hears from the high, middle, and low achieving students—not just the high achievers. Kagan Structures allow more accurate, authentic assessment.

Further, by listening in to the students, the instructor discovers those parts of the content that are poorly understood. In this way, the instructor is monitoring and can adjust. Thus Kagan Structures allow a more formative assessment of the class. This contrasts with the traditional approach that emphasizes summative assessment in which the instructor discovers misunderstandings only when marking tests or quizzes—when it is too late to adjust the presentation.

4. Supportive Learning Environment

Student Peer Support

Students in traditional classrooms raise their hands to show off what they know. If they always know the right answer, they are called a “nerd.” What a price to pay for being the best you can be! With Kagan Structures, high achievers are a resource for their teammates and so are appreciated.

When Kagan Structures are used, students are appreciated by their peers for their contributions. Kagan Structures create a student-centered classroom in which students are appreciated by their peers, rewarded for their contributions. In the competitive traditional classroom, peer norms work against achievement. Students give pejorative labels to the high achievers who make them look bad by comparison. High achievers are called nerds or brown-nosers. Some are afraid to be the best they can be for fear of breaking peer norms. With Kagan Structures, students are on the same side, encouraging the success of their peers, tutoring those who need help. Peer norms favor achievement. High achievers can come out, knowing they will be appreciated by their peers for their performance.


As secondary teachers, we have the responsibility of helping students master our academic content. The research data, as well as the experiences of teachers and students, makes it clear that students perform better academically when we use Kagan Structures. Kagan Structures elevate high school academic achievement.

As secondary teachers, we have a second and broader set of responsibilities: To have students leave our classrooms college- and career-ready. We need to prepare students with thinking skills and interpersonal skills necessary for success in the 21st century workplace and world. As our students prepare for college and beyond, they need skills for success in an increasingly interdependent and fast changing environment in which innovation and the ability to work well with others are at a premium. Students cannot acquire those skills in our classrooms if they do not work with others.

In documents that call for us to prepare America’s students for college and careers, the common theme is that the “twenty-first-century classroom and workplace are settings in which people from often widely divergent cultures and who represent diverse experiences and perspectives must learn and work together.”13It is not possible to prepare students with these diversity skills and teamwork skills if we do not have them work together. Central to college and career readiness in a fast changing and unpredictable workplace is a desire to keep learning beyond formal education:

"The new measure of a sufficiently prepared student is one who has the knowledge and skills to keep learning beyond secondary school, first in formal settings and then in the workplace throughout their careers, so that they are capable of adapting to unpredictable changes and new economic conditions and opportunities."14

Kagan Structures foster a love of learning, as well as cognitive flexibility, as students interact together. Through the interaction of ideas, students are pushed to higher-level and flexible thinking—precisely the skills necessary for college and career readiness.

Only through student-student interaction can we develop the social skills and thinking skills that are employability skills in the 21st century. In the workplace, employees don't sit in rows and work alone. Traditional instruction ill prepares students for the complex, interdependent workplace of the 21st century.

In the interdependent workplace of the 21st century, teamwork skills, thinking skills, and communication skills are employability skills.15In Kagan Structures, students brainstorm together, take turns, listen to each other, build off the ideas of others, and acquire exactly those skills. Thus Kagan Structures offer students skills in addition to academic skills—skills that cannot be acquired if students sit in rows and do not interact.

Kagan Structures also foster the thinking skills necessary for participation in the fast changing 21st century workplace. Students today will have many jobs over their lifetimes; their ability to adapt is a survival skill. With the traditional approach, when the teacher asks a question, students think of one answer and then raise their hands to be called upon. With structures like RallyRobin, students think of many answers. Further, in interaction students generate ideas that neither alone would have generated. They listen to various points of view and various ways of conceptualizing and responding to questions. They become more cognitively flexible. Through the Kagan Structures, students are pushed to higher-level thinking, fostering the innovative mindset necessary for success in the fast changing work world they will enter.

In addition to elevating academic achievement, Kagan Structures foster the thinking skills and interpersonal skills—employability and life skills—preparing them for success in college and career.

Further Reading

1Haydon, T., et al. "Effects of Numbered Heads Together on the Daily Quiz Scores and On-Task Behavior of Students with Disabilities." Journal of Behavioral Education, 2010, 19: 222–238.

Maheady, L., Mallette, B., Harper, G., and Sacca, K. "Heads Together: A Peer-Mediated Option for Improving the Academic Achievement of Heterogeneous Learning Groups." Remedial and Special Education, 1991, 12(2): 25–33.

Maheady, L., Michielli-Pendl, J., and Harper, G. "A Collaborative Research Project to Improve the Academic Performance of a Diverse Sixth Grade Science Class." Teacher Education and Special Education, 2002, 25(1): 55–70.

Maheady, L., Harper, G. F., and Mallette, B. "The Effects of Numbered Heads Together with and without an Incentive Package on the Science Test Performance of a Diverse Group of Sixth Graders". Journal of Behavioral Education, 2006, 15, 24–38.

McMillen, C., Mallette, B., Smith, C., Rey, J., Jabot, M., & Maheady, L. (2016). "Effects of Numbered Heads Together on the Science Quiz Performance of 9th Grade Students". Journal of Evidence-Based Practices for Schools, 15(1), 60–83.

2McMillen, C., Mallette, B., Smith, C., Rey, J., Jabot, M., & Maheady, L. (2016). "Effects of Numbered Heads Together on the Science Quiz Performance of 9th Grade Students". Journal of Evidence-Based Practices for Schools, 15(1), 60–83.

3Haydon, T., et al. "Effects of Numbered Heads Together on the Daily Quiz Scores and On-Task Behavior of Students with Disabilities." Journal of Behavioral Education, 2010, 19: 222–238.

4Howard, B. "Cooperative Learning Structures Improve Performance and Attitude of High School Journalism Students". San Clemente, CA: Kagan Publishing. Kagan Online Magazine, Spring 2006. www.KaganOnline.com

5Mele, A., J. "Kagan Cooperative Learning Creates Explosive Results in High School Chemistry". San Clemente, CA: Kagan Publishing. Kagan Online Magazine, Summer 2001. www.KaganOnline.com

6Van Wetering, J. "Kagan Structures and High School Algebra". San Clemente, CA: Kagan Publishing. Kagan Online Magazine, Spring 2009. www.KaganOnline.com

7Murie, Craig. Murie, R., C. "Effects of Communication on Student Learning". San Clemente, CA: Kagan Publishing. Kagan Online Magazine, Summer 2004. www.KaganOnline.com

8Kagan, M. "Fallibroome High School is 'Outstandingly Effective'". San Clemente, CA: Kagan Publishing. Kagan Online Magazine, Fall/Winter 2009. www.KaganOnline.com

9Heward, W. L., & Wood, C. L. "Improving Educational Outcomes in America: Can a Low Tech, Generic Teaching Practice Make a Difference?" April 2015. http://www.winginstitute.org/uploaded Files/News_And_ Events/Summits/2013WingSummitWH.pdf

10Gilbert, G. (2010). "The Six Secrets of a Happy Classroom!" The Independent. www.independent.co.uk/news/ education/schools/the-six-secrets-of-a-happy-classroom-2086855.html.

11 Brophy, J. E., & Good, T. L. "Teacher Behavior and Student Achievement". In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook for Research on Teaching (pp.328–375). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan, 1986.

12Maheady, L., Mallette, B., Harper, G.F., & Sacca, K. "Heads Together: A Peer-mediated Option for Improving the Academic Achievement of Heterogeneous Learning Groups". Remedial and Special Education, 12 (2), 25–33, 1991. Maheady, L., Michielli-Pendl, J., Mallette, B., & Harper, G. F. "A Collaborative Research Project to Improve the Academic Performance of a Diverse Sixth Grade Science Class". Teacher Education and Special Education, 25, 55–70, 2002.

13Common Core State Standards Initiative. "English Language Arts Standards Introduction: Students Who are College and Career Ready in Reading, Writing, Speaking, Listening, & Langauge". http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/ introduction/students-who-are-college-and-career-ready-in-reading-writing-speaking-listening-language/

14Conley, D.T. Getting Ready for College, Careers, and the Common Core. San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass, 2014.

15Conley, D.T. College and Career Ready. Helping All Students Succeed Beyond High School. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2010.